作者：Dan Fabulich

规则1：每个选择都有个必然结果

如果我做出的决定没有任何影响力，我还有必要做出这个决定吗？

这个规则无可非议，但是实际上却难以遵循。我们总是很容易写出一些没有意义的选择，或者只是让玩家漫无目的地从一个地方前进到另一个地方。如果你意识到自己正在制作这种选择，请义无反顾地抛弃它们，努力朝前看去寻找更加适合的决策吧！

我们也很容易将这个规则扯太远，即要求每一个选择细分至拥有完全不同的故事内容。也许这听起来很酷，但不幸的是，这种游戏设计也许永远也无法完工。

幸运的是，作为多选择游戏设计者，你可以选择性地分解游戏故事。例如，有时候玩家的决策不足以马上分解故事，但是却能够对游戏主角的属性或者游戏世界中的其它变量造成影响。

而一些选择也许不足以影响游戏，但是却能够深刻地影响玩家的思维。举个例子来说，在《Choice of the Dragon》中选择性别的行为并不会影响游戏故事，但是却能够完全改变玩家对于游戏的想法，特别是当他们需要在游戏中寻找另一半的时候。

making choice(from good.is)

规则2：给玩家提供作出选择的理由

尽管你已经向玩家保证他们的选择会获得相应的结果，但却未告知他们是何种结果，这时他们也将难以做出有意义的选择。

《Choose Your Own Adventure》（以下简称CYOA）这本书便打破了这一规则。以下是《CYOA 2:Journey Under the Sea》（2005版）中描述到的重要选择：

通过电缆你与Maray（海上的考察船）最大限度地联系在一起。当你到达海底一个靠近峡谷的暗礁时停了下来，猜想这里是否就是传说所述的沉没于大西洋的亚特兰蒂斯大陆。

你拥有一套能够克服水压影响的实验潜水服，你可以离开Seeker（个人潜水艇）而到海底进行探索。这套新的潜水服包含带有各种新功能微处理器以及带有激光通信器的内嵌个人数字处理器（PDA）。这时候你可以切断电缆，而Seeker可以依靠自力推进。你仿佛置身于另一个世界中。但是你需要记住，这也是一个充满危险的世界，一个完全未知的世界。

如果你决定只是探索Seeker停止的那个层面的暗礁，那么请翻到第6页。

如果你决定与Mary切断联系而搭乘Seeker到海底的峡谷进行探索，就请翻到第4页。

我应该做出何种选择呢？不管怎么看，两方面都值得考虑，因为它们并不具有明确的优缺点。而因为未能够获得足够的信息，我只能随意地做出选择。

多选择游戏应该让玩家始终关注游戏进程，而这种随意的决定只会让他们做出可能违背自己意愿的选择。

规则3：确保所有选择都是平等的

如果一个选择比起其它选择来得重要，玩家便会觉得自己的任何决定都失去了力量感。就像是《Dilbert》（游戏邦注：Scott Adams的漫画跟书籍系列，由作者自身办公室经验跟读者来信为本的讽刺职场现实的作品）的主人公Dilbert创造了只有一个按键的电脑，并由这个按键主导着一切。

如果你创造出了一个不错的选择，那么就要尽量完善其它选择以匹配这个选择。相同地，如果你发现某个选择较为糟糕，那就努力去弥补它或者删除它。

如果你违反了这一规则，千万不要试图通过隐瞒信息来“纠正”问题。隐藏结果只会让错误变得更加严重，阻碍玩家做出适当的选择。

我们应该想办法确保每个选择都具有吸引力，即使是“错误”的选择也应该是有趣的。例如在《Choice of the Dragon》中，你的龙可能面临死亡或者比死亡更可怕的下场，但是我们应尽可能确保它们能够很酷地死去。

我们希望玩家的反应是：“哇！这简直太棒了！”而不是“哎哟！这真是太糟糕了！”

注释：“退出”选项便是造成糟糕选择的一重要因素，即玩家可以选择不继续进行游戏探索。如果你的游戏采用的是大冒险题材，就应该让玩家大胆地选择进行冒险（而不应该给予他们选择退出的机会）。如果你设置了退出选择，你可能会因此践踏了玩家的其它选择（这违反了规则1所说的每个选择都有必然的后果）或者导致游戏只能以无聊的结局收尾。“退出”真的是个很无趣的选择。

规则4：了解玩家类型

多选择游戏也就是角色扮演游戏。如果你知道如何成为一名出色的角色扮演游戏专家，你便有望成为一名优秀的游戏设计者。

成为优秀游戏专家的一大技巧便是知晓不同玩家玩游戏的出发点；不同玩家喜欢不同类型的游戏。传统上，角色扮演游戏中有3种不同类型的玩家：

好胜型玩家

好胜型玩家总是希望“赢得”游戏；当他们的角色获得胜利后他们便赢得了游戏。他们希望能够面临困难但却能够攻克的挑战。这类型的玩家总是喜欢“强大的幻想类”故事情节，并希望扮演英雄角色去完成一系列大事件。

剧情型玩家

剧情型玩家总是喜欢阐述故事，不管他们的角色是否成功；他们更多地追求情感反馈。这种类型的玩家喜欢场面宏大的悲剧型角色扮演游戏，但是这却是好胜型玩家所排斥的，因为他们认为这种游戏不能让他们取得成功，所以是“不公平的”。

仿真型玩家

仿真型玩家总是努力地保持规则的内部相容性；他们希望游戏看起来是合理的。在多选择游戏中，这类型玩家更喜欢那些对其角色有意义的选择，即使这些选择不一定能够帮助他们“赢得”游戏或者让游戏故事更加流畅。仿真型玩家特别不喜欢“不切实际”的结果，对于他们来说，“那根本不可能发生”便是最致命的评价。

这些类型并不是独立存在的，很多玩家便同时属于其中2个或3个类型。我认为在多选择游戏中还有一个显著区别于电脑角色扮演游戏的类型：

探索型玩家

“如果我按压这个按钮会怎样？”探索型玩家总是喜欢刨根究底。它们喜欢摸索一切事物的结果，不论好与坏，并会出于单纯的好奇心而做出选择。

当几千名陌生人同时玩一款优秀的多选择游戏时，你很难按照了解朋友的方式去“了解你的玩家”。不管怎样，你都需要知晓自己到底需要满足何种类型的玩家。

因为这是多选择游戏，所以我们有可能同时满足所有玩家的需要。

规则5：打破规则

知道何时打破这些规则与遵守规则同样重要。

虚假的选择。没有真正结果的决定也可以很有趣，只要玩家不会意识到这个真相。（当然了，玩家有可能在后来玩游戏时发现了这个秘密，所以要尽量避免使用这个技巧。）

无根据的选择和探索精神。在《CYOA》中尽管做出每一个选择并未拥有明确的原因，但是看起来却非常有趣。有些人会依次尝试每一种选择，只是为了探究不同结果。如果你希望玩家探究你的所有选择，你就要让这些选择有趣并且充满吸引力。

说做就做！从理论上阐述游戏确实很让人着迷，就像玩游戏和编写游戏一样有趣，但是往往这些理论却会阻碍你的创造性。如果你深陷于如何创造出让所有人满意的选择，探索每一个合适的故事分支，或者尽所能地满足不同类型的玩家，那么你应该考虑抛弃这些条条框框了。放手去做吧，如果你发现遗漏了某些内容，后来再补上也不迟！（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

5 Rules for Writing Interesting Choices in Multiple-Choice Games

Dan Fabulich

Rule 1: Every option should have real consequences

If my decision has no effect on anything, why am I even making a decision?

This rule is pretty uncontroversial, but in practice it’s hard to follow consistently. It’s easy to write a collection of choices where nothing really happens; the player moves from place to place pointlessly. If you catch yourself doing this, consider just deleting those false decisions and skipping ahead to the good part!

It’s also possible to take this rule too far, requiring that every option needs to branch into a completely different story. That would be pretty cool, but unfortunately it’s impossible to write a game like that; you’ll never finish.

Fortunately, as a multiple-choice game designer, you have alternatives to branching the story completely. For example, sometimes player decisions don’t branch the story right away, but they have an effect on the main character’s attributes (the “stats” on the stat screen) or on other variables in the world.

Some options may have no effect on the game, but have a big effect on the player’s imagination. For example, choosing a gender in Choice of the Dragon doesn’t really change the story at all, but it can completely change the way you think about the game, especially when it comes time to find a mate!

Rule 2: The player needs some basis to make a decision

Even if you’ve guaranteed that every option has consequences, if players have no idea what the consequences of their decisions will be, it becomes impossible to make a meaningful choice.

The classic “Choose Your Own Adventure” books broke this rule all the time. As an example, here’s the very first choice from CYOA #2, Journey Under the Sea (the 2005 edition):

The cable attaching you to the Maray [research vessel, above water] is extended to its limit. You have come to rest on a ledge near the canyon in the ocean floor that ancient myth says leads to the lost city of Atlantis.

You have an experimental diving suit designed to protect you from the intense pressure of the deep. You should be able to leave the Seeker [personal submarine] and explore the sea bottom. The new suit contains a number of the latest microprocessors enabling a variety of useful functions. It even has a built-in PDA with laser communicator. You can cut loose from the cable; the Seeker is self-propelled. You are now in another world. Remember, this is a dangerous world, an unknown world.

As agreed, you signal the Maray, “All systems GO. It’s awesome down here.”

If you decide to explore the ledge where the Seeker has come to rest, turn to page 6.

If you decide to cut loose from the Maray and dive with the Seeker into the canyon in the ocean floor, turn to page 4.

How am I supposed to decide whether to explore the ledge or explore the canyon? Both of these options are exploratory; neither of them has any clear advantages or disadvantages. Without more information, I’m forced to decide at random.

The goal of a multiple-choice game should be to make the player care about what happens; random decisions force players to disengage from their options and select an option unemotionally.

Rule 3: No option should be obviously better or worse than all the others

If one of the options is significantly better than the others, the player selecting that option loses a sense of agency—the feeling of making a decision. It’s like that Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert creates a computer with just one big button: “We push the button for you before it leaves the factory.”

If you’ve got one really great option, try to improve the others to match it. Similarly, if one option is much worse than the others, fix it or remove it.

When you break this rule, resist the temptation to “fix” it by giving the player less information. Hiding the consequences just turns one mistake into another, by removing the player’s basis for making the decision.

Instead, make an effort to ensure that every option is appealing in some way; even “wrong” choices should be fun. For example, in Choice of the Dragon, it’s possible for your dragon to die, sometimes rather gruesomely, but we tried to ensure that your death would always be pretty cool.

Make the player say, “Wow, that was neat!” and not, “Oops. That was lame.”

EDIT: One particularly common way to make an option worse than all the others is to have an “opt-out” option, where you can choose not to participate in the story. If you’re telling a story about a big adventure, don’t put in an option to stay at home and not go out on the adventure. Either you’ll have to override the player’s choice, (which breaks Rule 1 by removing the consequences of the decision) or you’ll have to give the story a boring ending. “Opt-out” options are inherently uninteresting.

Rule 4: Know your players

Multiple-choice games are role-playing games. If you can learn what it means to be a good RPG gamemaster, you’re well on your way to becoming a good game designer.

A great deal has been written about how to be a good gamemaster, including an enormous body of role-playing game theory, much of which is highly relevant to multiple-choice game design.

One of the most important tips for good gamemasters is that not all of us play games for the same reason; different players can prefer vastly different games. Traditionally, three types of players stand out in role-playing games:

Gamist

Gamist players want to “win” the game; they win when their character is successful. They want victory to be difficult but attainable. Gamists usually prefer “power fantasy” stories, where they can take the role of heroes accomplishing great deeds.

Dramatist/Narrativist

Dramatists want to tell a great story, even if their characters are unsuccessful; they play for emotional impact. A dramatist would enjoy role-playing an epic tragedy, whereas a gamist would find a tragedy “unfair” because there is no way to win.

Simulationist

A simulationist strives to ensure internal consistency within the rules; they want the game to be plausible. In multiple-choice games, simulationists prefer options that make sense for their characters, even if those choices don’t help them “win” and don’t make the story better. Simulationists especially dislike “unrealistic” consequences; for a simulationist, “that’s not what would really happen” is a damning critique.
These types don’t have to be distinct; most players will have more than one of these goals. Multiple-choice games have another category which I think is distinct to computer RPGs:

Explorationist

“What will happen if I push this button?” The explorationist wants to discover what’s possible. They may become obsessed with finding every ending—good or bad—and trying options simply out of curiosity.

Since a good multiple-choice game will be played online by thousands of strangers, it’s hard to “know your players” the way you know your friends. However, you should still decide which type(s) of players you’re trying to satisfy. Are you writing a story? Building a world? Crafting a game?

Due to the nature of the multiple-choice game format, it’s not impossible to satisfy many of these goals at once!

Which will you choose?

The action that helps me win.

The action that creates the deepest story.

The action that my character would most likely choose in real life.
A mysterious action with unknown consequences.

Rule 5: Break these rules

Knowing when to break the rules is almost as important as knowing when to follow them.

Fake choices. A decision with no real consequences can be almost as fun, as long as you don’t let the player realize that their decision had no effect. (Of course, players are certain to discover the secret on future replays, so try to avoid using this technique too often.)

Unfounded choices and the spirit of exploration. The old CYOA books were fun to explore, despite not always having clear reasons to choose one option over another. Some people tried every option anyway, just to see what would happen. If you want your players to explore all of their options, make them all equally appealing and let the players try them all. (But beware: exploring a large tree of choices can be a chore, as you try all the options nested within option 1, then all the options nested within option 2, and so on. It feels a little like mowing the lawn.)

Just do it! Theorizing about games can be a fascinating exercise—almost as fun as playing and writing them—but theory can also clog up your creativity. If you’re tying yourself in knots trying to make all of your options equally satisfying, to explore every possible branch of your story, or to satisfy every category of player, then just forget about it. If you miss something, you can fix it later! （source:choiceofgames）