Let's Study Games - Redemption Mechanics

[Klick]

Hey guys! I have thoughts on this, but I've got to go for the time being. I'll post them when I'm around later. It's been great getting to know our tribe so far : )

[Klick]

I'm gonna try to answer both questions from my own perspective

What is the purpose of Redemption Mechanics? What do they add to the game? Does this answer change if you are a player, a moderator, or a spectator?

I think the core purpose of most twists and mechanics should be to make the game more enjoyable to play in some way. Thought should be put towards that when implementing a returnee process.
More specifically, I agree with Haschel's end summary of what was discussed here, that Redemption mechanics should be implemented with a player-centered purpose in mind and with some sort of clear goal, not just because it might be lols. In and of themselves the only thing returnees add to the quality of a game is the chance for someone to win the game post-elimination. Mods can add further qualities to the mechanic through the details of it.

Should the players know that Redemption is a possibility at the start of the game? Is it unfair if they do not, or is the possibility of Redemption something that should be in the back of the players' minds no matter what?

First of all, I'm not necessarily against returnee twists being hidden from the players. But there should be a decent reason for that as well. Most mods who add hidden returnees do so largely as a way of 'surprising' the players, which is a large source of this problem where existing players just want the dead to stay dead. Because when you

There are two hidden returnee twists that I think have done this well (there may be more but they're not coming to mind right this second). Equestria had an excellent returnee twist IMO - there was a clear idea behind the return (friendship!), and existing players were able to influence who returned. I especially liked that the votes were anonymous, so each player felt that they could

individually

influence who came back. I know I felt encouraged to give Pinkie Pie a second shot because I played a part in her return, even though I voted her out the first time. And with the theme of the game being 'friendship', it helped avoid the possibility of voting someone back in with the intention of sending them right back out.

I also think Mass Effect way back in the day was close to having a really good returnee twist. I think that twist would work really well today with a bit of simple refining for the modern era. (For the uninitiated: an optional challenge was held in which the players guessed how each player left was ranked in popularity a few rounds before; the winner got to choose which eliminated player returned to the game.) What I like here is that the returnee is chosen by someone who is in a good enough social position to win the challenge, meaning the returnee presumably enters the game with a powerful ally, giving them more of a shot of integrating into the game's social web.


I'm going to expand this question to the following: If it's established that Redemption should only be implemented in a certain way, then how exactly

should

Redemption be implemented in a game?

I propose that

a successful returnee twist needs to be both fun and fair, for both the returnee and the existing players.

How does one make the mechanic fun and fair for both of those sets? I can only speak from the perspective of someone who has had a returnee enter their game, but here is what I have observed:

- Don't have the returnee out of the game for too long, or for a big chunk of the merge. LSGs are games that test a skill, and it feels bad when everyone has been playing one game and then someone else has been playing a different game entirely, with a different difficulty level and skill set required. There needs to be enough time for the returnee to play the game that everyone else is playing.

- Consider having a prerequisite to return that involves expressing skill at the LSG being played. Equestria did this well, with the returnee being voted on and allowed to discuss with living tribes - and it led to Pinkie Pie persuading people to bring her back in, and then integrating back into the social structure of the game at large. (Seriously, Equestria is a returnee twist done very well and mods should take notes.)

- uh... I had a third point but it's gone. Have a penguin instead (\(^¬^)/)

I think it is entirely possible to implement a fair and fun Redemption mechanic. That just needs to be the goal when making the twist, and it needs to be thought through.

[Klick]

So my understanding of your argument is that:

- the community has a significant portion of people that would outright refuse to vote for a returnee, for the sole reason of them having been eliminated from the game previously
- this attitude is the problem with having returnees in LSGs, as opposed to the implementation of the returnee mechanic, because no matter how a player returns, there will still be some players who refuse to vote for returning players to win
- if returnees were to be implemented (and you seem to like them as twists themselves), then there needs to be a change in the community's attitude towards them, instead of a change in their implementation

Does this sum up your argument against returning players in LSGs, Malkon?

[Klick]

I agree with Vash basically

One thing that I'd add: usually, players are voted out due to some fault in their gameplay. And the experience of being voted out tends to call attention to the faults of that player (they're being voted for a reason!). So if someone returns to the game after being voted out previously, the experience of them getting voted out and having their mistakes highlighted doesn't just... go away. It's something they have to play around, a 'mark' on the game they've played that isn't on the games of other players. And it means that, even disregarding whatever biases juries may have against returnees just as a concept, returnees are at a disadvantage because it has already been shown that their game wasn't bulletproof, and usually exactly WHY their game wasn't bulletproof.

That's really tough to argue your way out of in an FTC, especially the way they're laid out in LSGs. If site culture really is the underlying issue with returnees on MS, then I'm wondering if the solution lies in our collective approach to the endgame. We have a lot of focus on who played 'perfectly', who can sell that they made all the right choices, when frankly that's not an accurate way of viewing any game of Survivor. There are VERY few perfect games, and it's possible we'd be better off if we ditched the obsession with them. Obviously finalists are incentivized to sell their game in the best possible light, but maybe juries should be a bit more skeptical about that. It might help with the returnee problem, amongst other potential benefits.

Bit of a tangent (and also sort of two separate ideas) but it came to mind and I'm curious what others think

[Klick]

Is it just a sense of emphasis that overly punishes "mistakes"?

Basically this yeah. If our community cared less about punishing clear mistakes made by finalists, then we might be more willing to hear out returnees. I think it's pretty easy to focus on what's obvious about a finalist's game though - it makes it easier to make a decision. And often those obvious things can sort of be a juror's 'first impression' of a finalist's game that's difficult to shake off subconsciously.

[Klick]

Based on D3f's list, there are only two games (KSS and Equestria) where there was a redemption mechanic that early. Unless you're talking about the eventual returnees themselves being from the first few rounds?