Description
Players coordinate their actions to achieve a common win condition or conditions. Players all win or lose the game together.
Discussion
Quite a few games call for cooperative play among players, including team games, one-vs.-many games, role-playing games, and games with secret traitors. These can be viewed as belonging to a hierarchical category of cooperative games. Some might even include solo games in this group. For our purposes, we’ll treat each of these as separate categories and limit ourselves here to “pure” cooperative games in which all players play on one side and win or lose as a group. Since 2008, when Matt Leacock released Pandemic, the genre of cooperative tabletop games has exploded. Earlier games like Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective, Arkham Horror, and Lord of the Rings laid a foundation and enjoy enduring popularity, but Leacock started a wave of innovation in cooperative gaming that continues to reshape modern gaming a decade and more later. Cooperative gaming is accessible because it lowers barriers to entry for a game. Disparities in skill level can often make a competitive game a sour experience both for the expert and the newcomer. Complex competitive games can be intimidating to new players. Being coached by your opponent in such a game introduces some negative play dynamics because of the misaligned incentives of helping your opponent. The power imbalance between the players can also create awkward social dynamics. Cooperative games put
players on the same team and foster comradery while allowing experienced players to help teach both the mechanics and strategy of the game, without facing conflicting incentives. For many new players, cooperative games are not only a gateway into gaming but a mainstay of their ongoing consumption of games. Cooperative games can broadly be placed into two categories: those with artificial intelligence (AI) and those without. Cooperative games with an AI, like Sentinels of the Multiverse and Mice and Mystics, feature an opponent or opponents who behave according to a simple artificial intelligence, encoded by the designer. In Sentinels, the AI is driven by a deck of cards that governs the actions of the enemy villains and the players they will target. Mice has a simple algorithm that players use to control the play of enemy figures. Non-AI games like Hanabi, the revolutionary Antoine Bauza title, and Mysterium present players with a puzzle to solve and limitations on time, resources, and interaction that players must contend with. However, these games have no villain or opposing force that drives the action and actively confronts the players. Another consideration for the designer of cooperative games is keeping the difficulty consistent while scaling with a number of players. If each player has a set number of actions they may perform on their turn (as in Pandemic, for example), four players will have twice as many actions per round as two players. While there are many techniques, a very common design pattern is alternating between a player taking a turn and the game taking a turn—basically alternating “Good thing” (player actions) with “Bad thing” (game actions). This scales naturally as the number of players increases. Another distinction between different kinds of cooperative games is whether each player retains agency over their in-game resources, actions, and choices or they seek consensus for all decisions, even if they nominally represent separate in-game characters. We might call the former game a partnership game and the latter a collaborative one. In general, cooperative games will tend to be played collaboratively unless the rules specifically and sub-stantially impede this collaboration and force players to make independent decisions rather than build consensus. Examples include limits on communications, time, and focus. For some players, collaborative play contributes to the “alpha player problem,” also known as “quarterbacking,” in which some player takes control of the group discussion and decision-making and creates a negative play experience by overriding other players. There are many possible reasons for the
rise of an alpha player problem, many ways that problem can manifest, and a thicket of contributory social dynamics that are beyond the scope of this work. While some players and designers believe that the alpha player problem is a group-composition problem or a problem of unshared assumptions rather than a design problem, some design choices will make a game more vulnerable to alpha player takeovers. In particular, when all players share the same information and the game state is not too complex, alpha player behavior becomes likelier. At the other end of the spectrum are games which cannot be taken over by an alpha player. Magic Maze and others of its type make player communication a game mechanism, such that players can’t freely share information or advise one another on how to play. The Mind takes this to an extreme by forbidding players from having any kind of communication about which cards they hold. These types of communication limitations (UNC-06) may be presented like any other rule, but they do not actually create a bright line of which conduct is and is not permitted. Rather, these games can be played somewhat differently by each group, with the precise contours of allowable communication varying by tacit or overt agreement. This approach is deeply polarizing, and some players will utterly reject these kinds of games or cast doubt on whether they are games at all. That said, these communication restrictions have the potential to create incredible experiences that connect participants to one another on an almost mystical level. Communication limitations are only one approach to preventing players from achieving consensus-based play. Space Cadets, Space Alert, and FUSE introduce a real-time element that forces players to make independent decisions because there is no time for players to collaborate. Other games attempt to strongly connect players to their roles, provide them with hidden information, or make operating their roles especially complicated. Mechs vs. Minions and Spirit Island both make it challenging for players to decipher each other’s powers and possibilities. Sentinels of the Multiverse attempts something similar by providing each player with a unique preconstructed deck. Escape room games from T.I.M.E Stories to the Exit and Unlock series sometimes bar players from sharing information too specifically as well. The variety of challenges and puzzles these games offer, and even the various roles that players can take in the solving effort, all help ensure that every player finds a satisfying way to participate in the game. Another notable trend in cooperative game design is the conversion of one-vs.-many, “overlord”-style games into co-ops with the assistance of an app. Mansions of Madness: Second Edition and Star Wars: Imperial Assault
both introduced apps that allow the games to be played cooperatively. More generally, games are being released with cooperative and solo modes alongside competitive modes of play. Sometimes, as has been the case with Orleans and Oh My Goods!, cooperative modes have been introduced in expansions to competitive games. The ongoing design exploration of cooperative games and their possibilities is one of the most exciting and fruitful trends in tabletop gaming today. Designers are encouraged to experiment with this popular and adaptable game structure.
Sample Games
Arkham Horror (Krank, Launius, Petersen, and Willis, 1987) Exit: The Game (Brand and Brand, 2016) FUSE (Klenko, 2015) Hanabi (Bauza, 2010) Lord of the Rings (Knizia, 2000) Magic Maze (Lapp, 2017) Mansions of Madness (Koneisczka, 2011) Mechs vs. Minions (Cantrell, Ernst, Librande, Saraswat, and Tiras, 2016) Mice and Mystics (Hawthorne, 2012) The Mind (Warsch, 2018) Mysterium (Nevskiy and Sidorenko, 2015) Oh My Goods! (Pfister, 2015) Orleans (Stockhausen, 2014) Pandemic (Leacock, 2008), and the complete line of Pandemic games Sentinels of the Multiverse (Badell, Bender, and Rebottaro, 2011) Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective: The Tames Murders & Other Cases (Edwards, Goldberg, and Grady, 1981) Space Alert (Chvátil, 2008) Space Cadets (Engelstein, Engelstein, and Engelstein, 2012) Spirit Island (Reuss, 2017) Star Wars: Imperial Assault (Kemppainen, Konieczka, and Ying, 2014) T.I.M.E Stories (Chassenet and Rozoy, 2015) Unlock! series (Various, 2017)
描述
玩家协调行动以达成一个或多个共同的胜利条件。所有玩家一起赢得或输掉游戏。
讨论
相当多的游戏要求玩家之间进行合作，包括团队游戏、一对多游戏、角色扮演游戏和带有秘密叛徒的游戏。这些可以被视为属于合作游戏的一个等级类别。有些人甚至可能将单人游戏包括在这个组中。为了我们的目的，我们将把这些视为单独的类别，并在此将自己限制在“纯粹”的合作游戏（Cooperative Games）中，其中所有玩家都在同一边，并作为一个群体赢得或输掉。自2008年Matt Leacock发布《瘟疫危机》（Pandemic）以来，合作桌面游戏的类型急剧增加。早期的游戏如《Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective》、《Arkham Horror》和《Lord of the Rings》奠定了基础，并享有持久的受欢迎程度，但Leacock开启了合作游戏的创新浪潮，十年后的今天仍在重塑现代游戏。合作游戏之所以容易上手，是因为它降低了游戏的进入门槛。技能水平的差异往往使竞争性游戏对专家和新手来说都是一种糟糕的体验。复杂的竞争性游戏可能会让新玩家感到害怕。在这类游戏中由对手指导会引入一些消极的游戏动态，因为帮助对手的动机不一致。玩家之间的权力不平衡也可能造成尴尬的社交动态。合作游戏将
玩家放在同一个团队中，培养友情，同时允许有经验的玩家帮助教授游戏的机制和策略，而不会面临相互冲突的动机。对于许多新玩家来说，合作游戏不仅是进入游戏的门户，而且是他们持续消费游戏的支柱。合作游戏大致可以分为两类：有人工智能（AI）的和没有的。带有人工智能的合作游戏，如《Sentinels of the Multiverse》和《Mice and Mystics》，其特点是对手按照设计师编码的简单人工智能行事。在《Sentinels》中，AI由一副牌驱动，该牌支配反派及其将针对的玩家的行动。《Mice》有一个简单的算法，玩家用来控制敌方人物的游戏。非AI游戏，如Antoine Bauza的革命性作品《Hanabi》和《Mysterium》，向玩家展示了需要解决的难题，以及玩家必须应对的时间、资源和互动的限制。然而，这些游戏没有驱动行动并积极对抗玩家的反派或对立力量。合作游戏设计师的另一个考虑因素是在随着玩家数量扩展时保持难度一致。如果每个玩家在轮到他们时可以执行一组动作（例如在《瘟疫危机》中），那么四名玩家每轮的动作将是两名玩家的两倍。虽然有许多技术，但一种非常常见的设计模式是在玩家回合和游戏回合之间交替——基本上是“好事”（玩家行动）与“坏事”（游戏行动）交替。这随着玩家数量的增加而自然扩展。不同类型合作游戏之间的另一个区别是，每个玩家是否保留对其游戏内资源、行动和选择的代理权，还是他们为所有决定寻求共识，即使他们名义上代表单独的游戏角色。我们可以将前者称为伙伴关系游戏，将后者称为协作游戏。通常，除非规则特别和实质性地阻碍这种协作并迫使玩家做出独立决定而不是建立共识，否则合作游戏倾向于协作进行。例子包括对通信、时间和注意力的限制。对于一些玩家来说，协作游戏会导致“阿尔法玩家问题”（alpha player problem），也称为“四分卫”（quarterbacking），即某个玩家控制了小组讨论和决策，并通过压倒其他玩家创造了消极的游戏体验。
阿尔法玩家问题的兴起有很多可能的原因，该问题的表现形式也很多，以及一系列超出本作品范围的促成社会动态。虽然一些玩家和设计师认为阿尔法玩家问题是群体构成问题或未共享假设的问题，而不是设计问题，但一些设计选择会使游戏即使更容易受到阿尔法玩家接管。特别是，当所有玩家共享相同的信息且游戏状态不太复杂时，阿尔法玩家行为变得更有可能。处于另一端的是阿尔法玩家无法接管的游戏。《Magic Maze》及同类游戏将玩家交流作为一种游戏机制，使得玩家无法自由分享信息或建议彼此如何玩。《The Mind》将其推向了极致，禁止玩家对他们持有的卡牌进行任何形式的交流。这些类型的通信限制（UNC-06）可能像任何其他规则一样呈现，但它们实际上并没有划定哪些行为是被允许和不被允许的界限。相反，这些游戏可能由每个小组以稍微不同的方式进行，允许交流的确切轮廓因默契或公开协议而异。这种方法极具两极分化，一些玩家会完全拒绝这类游戏，或者怀疑它们是否根本就是游戏。也就是，这些通信限制有可能创造令人难以置信的体验，将参与者在一个近乎神秘的层面上相互联系起来。通信限制只是防止玩家实现基于共识的游戏的一种方法。《Space Cadets》、《Space Alert》和《FUSE》引入了实时元素，迫使玩家做出独立决定，因为没有时间让玩家协作。其他游戏试图将玩家与其角色紧密联系起来，为他们提供隐藏信息，或使其角色的操作变得特别复杂。《Mechs vs. Minions》和《Spirit Island》都使得玩家破译彼此的力量和可能性变得具有挑战性。《Sentinels of the Multiverse》通过为每位玩家提供独特的预构建牌组来尝试类似的事情。从《T.I.M.E Stories》到《Exit》和《Unlock》系列的逃脱房间游戏有时也会禁止玩家过于具体地分享信息。这些游戏提供的各种挑战和谜题，甚至玩家在解决努力中可以扮演的各种角色，都有助于确保每位玩家找到参与游戏的令人满意的方式。合作游戏设计的另一个显着趋势是在应用程序的帮助下将一对多、“领主”风格的游戏转化为合作游戏。《Mansions of Madness: Second Edition》和《Star Wars: Imperial Assault》
都引入了允许游戏合作进行的应用程序。更普遍的是，游戏在发布时除了竞争模式外，还带有合作和单人模式。有时，就像《Orleans》和《Oh My Goods!》的情况一样，合作模式已在竞争性游戏的扩展中引入。对合作游戏及其可能性的持续设计探索是当今桌面游戏中最令人兴奋和富有成果的趋势之一。鼓励设计师尝试这种流行且适应性强的游戏结构。
游戏范例
Arkham Horror (Krank, Launius, Petersen, and Willis, 1987) - 《魔镇惊魂》 Exit: The Game (Brand and Brand, 2016) - 《大搜查/Exit》系列 FUSE (Klenko, 2015) - 《FUSE》 Hanabi (Bauza, 2010) - 《花火》 Lord of the Rings (Knizia, 2000) - 《指环王》 Magic Maze (Lapp, 2017) - 《魔西米亚/Magic Maze》 Mansions of Madness (Koneisczka, 2011) - 《疯狂诡宅》 Mechs vs. Minions (Cantrell, Ernst, Librande, Saraswat, and Tiras, 2016) - 《机甲与小兵》 Mice and Mystics (Hawthorne, 2012) - 《小老鼠与神秘客》 The Mind (Warsch, 2018) - 《心灵同步》 Mysterium (Nevskiy and Sidorenko, 2015) - 《诡秘庄园》 Oh My Goods! (Pfister, 2015) - 《我的好货》 Orleans (Stockhausen, 2014) - 《奥尔良》 Pandemic (Leacock, 2008), and the complete line of Pandemic games - 《瘟疫危机》系列 Sentinels of the Multiverse (Badell, Bender, and Rebottaro, 2011) - 《Sentinels of the Multiverse》 Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective: The Tames Murders & Other Cases (Edwards, Goldberg, and Grady, 1981) - 《福尔摩斯探案：咨询侦探》 Space Alert (Chvátil, 2008) - 《Space Alert》 Space Cadets (Engelstein, Engelstein, and Engelstein, 2012) - 《太空学员》 Spirit Island (Reuss, 2017) - 《灵迹岛/Spirit Island》 Star Wars: Imperial Assault (Kemppainen, Konieczka, and Ying, 2014) - 《星球大战：帝国突击》 T.I.M.E Stories (Chassenet and Rozoy, 2015) - 《时空故事》 Unlock! series (Various, 2017) - 《大搜查/Unlock!》系列