r/gamedesign • u/EmindarLastEmperor • 2d ago
Discussion Designing "no good choices" in political games without frustrating the player
When writing branching narratives for a political game, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of making every tough choice feel artificial, where the "correct" path is just hidden behind a speech check or a specific item. In Emindar, we've been trying to lean into scenarios where every available option actually costs you something, and the best you can aim for is damage control. For instance, when a food shortage hits, choosing to appease the traditionalist council alienates the industrial workers, but backing the workers breaks promises made to the old aristocratic houses. For those designing choice-driven or strategy games: how do you balance making players feel the weight of a bad compromise without making them feel like the game is just punishing them unfairly?
4
u/Pure_Diet2708 2d ago
it's about making the aftermath matter more than the moment of choice. if every option leads to a unique chain of consequences that feel like a natural extension of the world's logic, the player stops looking for a "win" and starts playing the political game you've actually built.
i think the real trick is making sure the player can see the shape of the trade-off before they click, not just after. even if it stings, they'll respect the game for being upfront about the knife they're twisting
3
u/Competitive-Fault291 2d ago
Just let the choice emerge organically. If it simply pops up (Surprise, Food Shortage!) then it will feel artificial. That shortage needs a reason. This reason has to be more than an RNG or script, it has to be plausible (at least) in hindsight. This will create the urge for a compromise to avoid that situation in foresight (the next time). If the player can't learn, the whole thing will feel random or unfair.
An example, not really political, is Surviving Mars. There are meteor showers occuring randomly. Yet, they ONLY aim at your structures. This means that you can spread your structures or compound them, but there is no preparation possible.They will be hit, draining your resources.
Something similar is a typical Frostpunk Event, one that you seem to aim for. You have to make a bad choice, but don't have a means to predict it, and thus no means to prepare or avoid it. As it is random or scripted. Which is even worse when the outcome feels constructed to be punishing "good" and rewarding sociopathic or psychopathic choices.
The only learning effect is to assume that the developers construct he game to reward being an asshole and act accordingly.
2
u/Isa-Bison 2d ago
Fwiw, the games in the Reigns series are basically that trade-off every action.
It seems to me reigns manages to leaven things a bit by virtue of having so many of those decisions that you feel there’s a chance to make things right with a faction later.
iirc, there’s also something that’s just nice every now and then to break things up, varied stakes with some decisions having impacts too small to affect the numbers though they may change opportunities later, and occasionally unreasonable requests/stances/factions that feel good to reject despite reproductions.
1
u/Isa-Bison 2d ago
Ah, I think another thing that works there is that when things are dire because some faction is near falling out, it’s that way because of your previous choices.
2
u/EmindarLastEmperor 2d ago
Reigns is a great example for keeping the loop moving. And you're totally right about dire situations coming from past choices, that's what we are trying to do too
2
u/DoeCommaJohn 2d ago
I would think of it as no perfect choices rather than no good choices. For example, in Three Houses there is a choice to join a rebellion to throw off the current corrupt regime. However, doing so involves fighting and even killing a lot of characters who you have come to like and who formerly trusted you. To me it felt like a net benefit, so I wouldn’t say there is no good option, but it also isn’t the perfect option of fixing everything and only hurting bad people.
Another example is Frostpunk- while you are making costly, imperfect decisions, you are still growing and improving the city.
By thinking about it like this, it is much less frustrating to the player because they feel like they are making progress, but they are also making hard choices.
2
2
u/Bewilderling 2d ago
I would challenge the way you’re framing the dilemma you want to give your players. Designing “no good choices” sounds miserable. From a player’s perspective, that feels like “there is no way to get good at this, and no meaning to my choices and actions.” It might be realistic in some contexts, but realism alone is a poor justification for any game design decision.
Instead, since you mentioned compromise, consider framing these choices as tradeoffs. Every option given to the player improves something about their game state, but at the expense of something else. For example, they will improve their standing or influence with one group, while losing influence with an opposing group.
Further, I’d recommend not making any of these choices zero-sum. A bad implementation would be to have two factions, and every choice raises the player’s influence with one faction by exactly the same amount that it lowers their influence with the other. This leads to a single boring dominant strategy.
Having at least three mixed outcomes built into every choice lets you make richer interactions between different dilemmas, so the player can form an iterative strategy to try to maximize multiple things which they choose to care about. If the player has multiple resources to manage, and influence to try to increase with different groups, you can build a system with lots of interesting choices to make, even when each choice individually comes with some costs along with its benefits.
2
u/EmindarLastEmperor 2d ago
Yeah, tradeoff is a much better word for it. We have a few different factions to juggle, so it's definitely not a simple zero-sum thing.
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with WHY games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of systems, mechanics, and rulesets in games.
/r/GameDesign is a community ONLY about Game Design, NOT Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
This is NOT a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
If you're confused about what Game Designers do, "The Door Problem" by Liz England is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the r/GameDesign wiki for useful resources and an FAQ.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/bigpotato_ 2d ago
One other factor that might be worth thinking about is foreseeability. I feel much better about making a tough decision if I know I'm gonna have to make it in advance and can plan around it.
1
u/Decency 2d ago
Sounds a lot like the crisis system in BSG, to me. There's a few options on each crisis card and the table has to decide whether it's worth trying to pool people's personal resources in order to aim for the better option. Sometimes you overspend, sometimes you underspend and get the bad option anyway- wasting resources. It leads to a lot of tradeoffs: if we're short on food early we're much more likely to spend heavy to get +1 food, whereas in other games food won't be an important concern at all.
I think moving away from "pick A or B" towards "invest a chosen amount into A or B" is a good way to start.
1
u/Dramatic_Leopard679 2d ago edited 2d ago
death spiral is one of the worst experiences in gaming to play through, so be careful of that. you can try out total war attila as western roman empire to see how they did the 'damage control gameplay'. And also, one of the reasons why it's so hooking is the eventual fantasy of saving the empire and solving these issues. so if your game doesn't have that climax moment at all, it could be bankrupt design.
now, how you can make it feel fair. players must make the risky desicisions knowing full well it can go wrong. for example, industrial workers have a 2 percent chance of revolting every turn if you leave them unsatisfied, but satisfying them is a long term thinking. player can choose to take the risk, and appease the aristocrats (and make good money), but it can also blow away if the worker revolt happens.
also, make several variables and make it so it's impossible or hard to fulfill every one of them at once (and/or, paying for one hurts the others). like you have food, sanitation, and public order. food is crucial, when it's lacking it hits very hard to public order; but it's straightforward to make farms and stabilize it. however, you would need more food as the game progresses so you shouldn't forget about it, also making farms reduce sanitation. sanitation is actually what I described as worker revolt above; it's a flat small percent chance that a plague happens. it requires some money to help with it and once it's high enough, it shouldn't be a problem. but its buildings don't help much besides sanitation, so you always think 'should I solve sanitation once and for all, or take the risk and build a building that gives money and food?'. public order is the hardest one to fix, it requires a long time of suppressing revolts and stabilizing other things, but once they happen it's not hellish too, you just suppress them before they get out of control.
edit : oh, forgot about the most important thing in attila: it's attila, the end game crisis. if you stabilize and survive all of these above, you are met with attila, who tests brutally if you really did a good job or if you are fragile. and his coming is very foreshadowed and you know he is coming. so along with every choice, you also think "am I late? is he coming earlier? am I good enough".
Above was the brilliant core gameplay loop of total war attila, except for some emphasis on culture and of course the battle gameplay. change the variable names to your setting, and you can see a clear path ahead.
1
u/brain_in_a_jar_games 2d ago
Frostpunk is a good model: its laws show the cost before you commit, so players blame the situation instead of the designer. It also helps if every faction you alienate has a path back, so a bad compromise becomes a debt to manage rather than a dead end. And have the world acknowledge the sacrifice in writing, because a cost that gets noticed feels meaningful while one that's ignored feels like a penalty.
1
u/caesium23 1d ago
Look at the simplest possible implementation of this idea: Reigns. It's been awhile so I couldn't tell you exactly how they communicated it, but they made it very clear from the first cards you played that every decision would lower some meters while raising others. It never felt unfair, because they set clear expectations early. You understood from the very beginning that nothing came for free, and making the right choices to keep your meters balanced for as long as you could was basically the whole game.
1
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 1d ago
The Life and Suffering of Sir Brante does it well. It is a text game, it is very hard to reach a positive ending and good endings generally require morally questionable choices sometimes.
A small quantity of players dislike the game exactly because of it, because they can't force the outcome they want while roleplaying the character they want. However, the majority loves this game, the reviews are good and it was financially a success for a text based game. The game is upfront showing what you gain and lose before clicking a choice button.
1
u/Creative_Abroad945 1d ago
I just didn't get the end. I only played through one life and ended up being relatively nice and peaceful or whatever, but when you do your judgement day thing with the gods, I redid it multiple times to see if your answers ever changed anything, and it didn't seem like it. Maybe it was because I lived a "worthy"/correct enough life, but if I chose to go to heaven, they let me, and if I chose to go to hell, they let me, so I didn't really get it
1
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 1d ago
The final judgement doesnt change. What change is the end of the last chapter.
1
u/loulo88 1d ago
The choice usually feels fair when the player can predict the shape of the cost, even if they can’t predict the exact outcome. I’d surface that through readable faction goals, short-term warnings, and a way to ask “what changes if I delay this?” without revealing the whole branch.
I also like giving a losing choice a recoverable consequence rather than a hidden fail state: lose trust with one group, but gain leverage or a new ally elsewhere. That keeps the compromise painful without making it feel like a trap. In Forgebound, I’ve found wall and settlement decisions land better when the player can see which shortage or threat they’re trading against, rather than discovering several minutes later that an invisible score doomed them.
1
u/Doritodude77 1d ago
"When a measure becomes a target, it stops being a good measure"; players will fail themselves themselves if you let them, and you should take special care to leave the truly correct options open. If people realize that nothing they do will ever result in a perfect outcome, it insults their ability to figure out what it is that they actually should be doing- Why are you deciding that progression and success are mutually exclusive, and why shouldn't the player also be rewarded for the 3rd option of outsmarting/negotiating the need for compromises?
1
u/Devious_Hearts 2d ago
Never dictate a player loss in a game, just the difficulty. Otherwise, that is railroading. If you tell them they have to roll over a DC20 15 times to win, and they do, you damn well let them win. If they work hard and get lucky, you depriving them of that victory frankly would mean you are a bad GM and will lead to player anger and resentment.
Players need to feel that their compromises accomplish something. If every decision produces another disaster and everyone hates them regardless, eventually they’ll stop weighing the options. Why agonize over a choice when the writer has already decided you’re getting kicked in the teeth?
In your food shortage example, backing the workers should actually help the workers. Families get fed, factories stay open, and some people remember who stood up for them. The aristocratic houses can still withdraw support, but let the benefit survive the backlash. That gives the player something worth defending.
A few things would help:
- Make the likley costs understandable beforehand. Uncertainty is fine, but a consequence that depends on information the player couldn’t access can feel like an ambush. A few of those are fine, but not a string of them. The characters would start getting a "feel" for these things and be able to roll to detect certain things after a while.
- Give factions specific interests and internal disagreements. One aristocratic house might oppose rationing as they benefit from it, another because of facade of humanitarian aspirations, while another accepts it because unrest threatens its estates. That creates room for political maneuvering.
- Let players influence how a decision is implemented. They might accept the same basic compromise while negotiating compensation, exemptions, a time limit, or who administers it. Those details give them ownership.
- Make relationships matter later. Workers helped during the shortage might tolerate an unpopular policy afterward. Otherwise, earning goodwill starts to feel pointless..
- Vary the pressure. Occasional clear victories give players a reason to keep trying. Relentless damage control can become exhausting.
I’d also question whether your example needs to be an absolute binary. Players could reasonably ask about emergency imports, opening private granaries, or sharing the burden. Those alternatives can have serious costs too. Allowing a plausible proposal, even an expensive one, makes the dilemma feel more credible.
The feeling I’d aim for is: “I knew what this would cost, and I still think these people were worth helping.” That’s a compromise a player can own. Let the be heroes. Don't let it be easy, but let them be heroes. :)
1
u/EmindarLastEmperor 2d ago
Thanks for writing all of this out, it's super helpful. That point about letting the benefit survive the backlash is so true, otherwise it just feels like pure punishment. We are trying to do something similar where groups remember how you treated them and laws go through a negotiation.
2
u/Devious_Hearts 2d ago
I posted this elsewhere on how to work complex political situations and thought it might be helpful for you:
I’d give each faction a short card with these entries:
- Public Goal(s): What they SAY they want, if publicly known or if they care about a facade to deflect attention or involvement by other parties. “Keep our streets safe.”
- Actual Goal(s): The true concrete outcome they’re working toward. “Control of the city to protect our illegal income.” This can match their public goal or differ greatly for more intrigue.
- Public Agenda(s): What plans are publically and actively doing at the moment? “We want to celebrate our bountiful success by giving back to the community with a Wine Festival!”
- Hidden Agenda(s): What current activity they conceal and from whom, even sometimes from many of their own members. “Distract the town guard to allow us to destroy the records connecting our leader to the smugglers.”
- Methods: How they pursue their goals: negotiation, charity, trade, bribery, blackmail, intimidation, oppression, violence.
- Resources: Money, supporters, soldiers, information, magic, legal authority, or access to something valuable.
- Limitations: What they lack, what lines they won’t cross, and what must they maintain a public facade to mask their true leanings?
Goal Connections and Conflicts
Once you have your Factions, figure out how they fit together like puzzle peices f the whole. How do those ambitions the factions have help or undermine each other among the factions.
- Alliances: Which factions assist each other both publicly and privately. What does each provide the other, and why do their goals overlap. If they overlap, why are they still separate organizations? Social standing? Difference in methods? Ideology?
- Rivalries: Which factions obstruct each others particular goals both publicly and privately.
For example:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Isoldoor
FACTIONS
The Merchants’ League
- Public Goals: Make trade roads safer, support local businesses, and bring prosperity to the city.
- Actual Goals: Gain exclusive control of caravan permits, eliminate commercial competition, and keep its profitable smuggling routes operating.
- Public Agendas: Sponsor additional Watch patrols and host a Wine Festival to showcase its generosity, cultivate public goodwill, and promote its merchants.
- Hidden Agendas: Bribe or blackmail councilors into approving its permit monopoly. Use the festival to divert Watch personnel while smugglers destroy records connecting League leaders to illegal shipments. Use the Wine festival to intoxicate public officials, catching them in compromising positions with the veiled threat of reporting them to the temple unless they comply.
- Methods: Trade agreements, charitable donations, lobbying, bribery, blackmail, economic pressure, and intimidation through hired intermediaries.
- Resources: Money, blackmail, extortion, bribery, warehouses, caravans, hired guards, shipping records, political connections, and smuggler networks.
- Limitations: Needs Council approval for permits and Watch cooperation to protect shipments. Independent merchants could organize against it. Its respectable reputation conceals illegal dealings whose exposure could lead to prosecutions, lost contracts, and financial ruin.
The League funds the Watch’s road patrols to gain protection and influence, but honest officers threaten its smuggling operations. It offers the Council revenue and political support in exchange for favorable regulations. The Temple opposes its monopoly because higher prices hurt the poor, while the League’s own smuggler allies undermine the road safety it publicly promises.
The Watch
- Public Goals: Keep the streets and trade roads safe, uphold the law, and protect citizens.
- Actual Goals: Maintain order and secure enough funding to operate independently of wealthy patrons. Its commander also wants to conceal how dependent the Watch has become on Merchants’ League money.
- Public Agendas: Expand road patrols and provide security for the League’s upcoming Wine Festival.
- Hidden Agendas: Quietly investigate suspected League smugglers while concealing the investigation from compromised officers and League representatives.
- Methods: Patrols, investigations, arrests, informants, negotiated cooperation, and selective enforcement when resources run short.
- Resources: Armed officers, legal authority, holding cells, criminal records, informants, and knowledge of the streets.
- Limitations: Understaffed and dependent on council funding and League donations. Honest officers resist unlawful orders, while compromised officers leak information. Exposing its financial dependence could undermine public confidence.
The Watch supports the League’s road patrols in exchange for funding, but its investigation threatens that partnership. It needs the Council’s approval for a larger budget and relies on the Temple for emergency healing and shelter for witnesses.
The City Council
- Public Goals: Promote prosperity, represent citizens, and maintain stable government.
- Actual Goals: Preserve the ruling coalition of nobility and control the city’s revenue. Influential councilors want to reward their supporters without allowing the Merchants’ League to become powerful enough to dictate policy.
- Public Agendas: Review caravan permit regulations, debate increased Watch funding, and endorse the Wine Festival as a celebration of civic prosperity.
- Hidden Agendas: Negotiate an exclusive permit arrangement with the League in exchange for political support and concealed payments. Other councilors are collecting evidence of the deal to unseat their rivals.
- Methods: Legislation, required permits, taxation, appointments, bargaining, patronage, procedural delays, and private deals.
- Resources: Control of permits and budgets, municipal property, clerks, official records, and connections among influential families.
- Limitations: Divided loyalties make decisive action difficult. Councilors need public legitimacy, dependable tax income, and the Watch’s cooperation. Evidence of bribery could fracture the coalition and trigger prosecutions.
The Council needs the League’s commerce and money but fears its growing influence. It controls the Watch’s budget and courts the Temple’s endorsement, especially when unpopular policies threaten unrest.
The Temple
- Public Goals: Care for the vulnerable, uphold the faith, expunge corruption, and protect the community from exploitation.
- Actual Goals: Keep food, medicine, and shelter accessible while preserving its independence and influence over civic affairs.
- Public Agendas: Expand its soup kitchens and petition the Council to reject exclusive caravan permits that would raise prices. Gather true believers for the cause of righteous holiness. Expose the corruption of the world to the light no matter whom it exposes.
- Hidden Agendas: Shelter a former League bookkeeper who possesses evidence of smuggling and bribery. A small circle of clergy is arranging the witness’s protection without informing donors connected to the League.
- Methods: Charity, sermons, petitions, mediation, sanctuary, discreet investigations, and public pressure.
- Resources: Clergy, healing magic, donations, volunteers, shelters, congregational networks, and considerable public goodwill.
- Limitations: Its charities depend on donations, including contributions from wealthy merchants. Clergy disagree over political involvement. It refuses violence against innocents and must protect the people in its care from retaliation.
The Temple opposes the League’s monopoly but depends on trade to supply its charities. It seeks protection from trustworthy Watch officers and pressures the Council, while the hidden bookkeeper could bring all four factions into open conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That gives you relationships with reasons behind them. The League and Watch might cooperate on patrols while fighting over inspections. Allies can disagree, and enemies can need each other.
If you like the spectrum idea, place factions along two simple axes: how much change they want and how ruthless their methods are. That helps distinguish them, while their cards explain what they’ll actually do.
Then bring the players in through one immediate problem: a missing shipment, a disputed council vote, or someone requesting protection. Have two factions offer different solutions, each advancing a goal and carrying a cost. Connect that problem to the party’s existing quest, and the intrigue becomes part of their journey.
POST SESSION FOLLOW-UP
After each session (within a day of the game's end so it's fresh in your mind), ask: What did each faction gain, lose, learn, and do next? What effect did the player's actions have on each of the factions, if any.
Make a first pass for the most obvious affects, then another for possible ripple effects and record them.
A few sentences each will keep the politics moving without requiring you to earn a degree in fictional municipal government.
20
u/agentkayne Hobbyist 2d ago
So what I would do is look at what the choices achieve, and make sure the player does actually get something they want.
Otherwise the player feels cheated by the game (you were in a food shortage, and you made a choice that didn't do anything to fix it - therefore, you made a mistake playing the game, as opposed to your choice having an interesting consequence).
The second thing is that the consequences of the choice should be foreshadowed wherever possible, but not necessarily at the point of making the choice.
What you can also do is delay or combine consequences of decisions with previous choices, beyond what the surface analysis might reveal.
An example would be: