Most games give the opportunity for players to adjust their own gameplay experience in moments of downtime between high-action gameplay. While some games simply limit this to options such as difficulty settings, accessibility options, and general quality of life settings, others offer the player the opportunity to tailor the gameplay experience through access to different gameplay elements. These come in the form of downtime decisions and are contrasted by uptime decisions.
What are Downtime and Uptime Decision-Making?
Downtime decisions are choices players make before or between sessions of the primary gameplay loop in a game. Commonly, this takes the form of character selection, equipment options, ability choices, etc. These decisions change what options are possible during the primary mode of play and will naturally create a variety of different playstyles in doing so. Generally speaking, downtime decision-making creates a "system mastery" component to games. Being able to read a card in Magic: The Gathering and then making an informed decision on its strength is an excellent example of system mastery. However, without some sort of time pressure or limited access to information like in a draft format, players can simply research optimal downtime decision-making. In card games, this leads to "netdecking," which is using a well-performing decklist found online instead of innovating strategies for oneself.
Conversely, any decision that a player makes during the primary gameplay mode is a uptime decision. Uptime decision-making instead tests player ability to create plans on the fly. Sometimes, it's just choosing the correct option in response to a given challenge, such as choosing the correct anti-air against an opponent's jump-in in Street Fighter. Typically, more difficult challenges have either a shorter window in which you can respond, have more potential decisions that can be made, or have fewer correct decisions. One has to create the right balance of giving players enough options while not making any given option overshadow the others. Too few interesting options to choose from at a given time can make for boring uptime decision-making, and options that are too powerful can result in complacent gaming syndrome.
In most games, there are ways that downtime and uptime decision making blend together. For example, crafting and honing an ability rotation in FFXIV utilizes downtime decisions, while maintaining and altering that honed rotation in response to enemy behavior is full of uptime decisions. However, as time has passed, many games have de-emphasized downtime decision-making components in favor of uptime decision-making components. The previously mentioned FFXIV, for instance, has reduced the importance of gearing over time and eliminated cross-class skills entirely.
Case Study: Diablo 2 vs Diablo 3
Diablo 2, the progenitor of the modern ARPG genre, is a game that heavily revolves around crafting specific character builds. From the Hammerdin to the Corpse Explosion Necromancer, there's a multitude of unique playstyles that come around from class, ability, statistic, and gear choices. Typically, you play Diablo 2 with a build in mind that you gradually progress towards, as experimentation is not only risky, but semi-permanent. The ability to respecialize your character is severely limited and wasn't even added until Patch 1.13 in 2010. In addition, the need to invest multiple points into skills to get the most out of them further discourages experimentation mid-playthrough. Finally, the limitations of respecialization as well the game's somewhat poor balance results in a myriad of poor options, where a player's choice can outright hurt them and create a poor gameplay experience without restarting the game in its entirety. This is further aggravated by the game's poor communication to the player, as a first-time player will likely not know just how much a given stat affects character performance as the game progresses.
Diablo 3, on the other hand, discards many of the downtime decision elements of Diablo 2. As characters level up, stats increase and abilities unlock on their own. A player cannot invest in stats that do not benefit their character and consequently "ruin" the character, and players can change what abilities and ability customizations they have at any time. While downtime decision-making still exists in the form of gearing and choosing ability loadouts, the tighter balance which comes from a streamlined stat system as well as the more complex enemy behavior results in an experience that further tests uptime decision-making. Many of these decisions were controversial, leading to many fans of Diablo 2 decrying Diablo 3 for "dumbing down" the game (among other design choices). Ultimately, however, I believe Diablo 3 preserved the interesting downtime decisions of Diablo 2 (ability selection) while reducing the amount of knowledge checks present in the system. There is one element which I will admit Diablo 3 lacks, and that is the entirely free and constantly available means of swapping ability loadouts results in players being less attached to their build. However, I believe the freedom to experiment with ability loadouts in Diablo 3 ultimately outweighs this drawback.
Case Study: Pathfinder 1st Edition vs Pathfinder 2nd Edition
Similar to Diablo 2, Pathfinder 1e has a heavy emphasis on crafting a highly customized character build. Between the many classes, archetypes, prestige classes, feats, traits, and more, there's a nearly infinite number of possible character combinations to create. In fact, it's predecessor Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was derisively called "tabletop Diablo" by some for leaning so greatly into the character building aspect. In addition, Pathfinder 1e has issues with giving enough viable uptime choices to players, particular those who don't have access to spells. How martial classes are balanced, the move/standard/swift action economy, and monster balance all strongly encourage martial characters who rely on the same 2-3 action routines each round. As such, the downtime decision-making heavily outweighs the uptime decision-making for martials. This issue is even worse in D&D 3e, which had hundreds and hundreds of prestige classes, worse overall balance, and the dreaded Ivory Tower design. Ivory Tower design, as coined by D&D 3e designer Monte Cook, describes how 3e included many intentionally weak "trap options" to punish players with poor system mastery, and some of this design seeps into Pathfinder 1e.
While Pathfinder 2e has by no means decreased the amount of downtime decisions players make when crafting their character (and has debatably increased the amount), it has shifted significantly more in favor of uptime decision-making compared to 1e. This is a result of multiple design decisions that were all intended to make the game more interesting to play. First, the action economy is entirely reworked, moving from the move/standard/swift action economy to an action point system similar to Divinity: Original Sin. This paired with the multiple attack penalty encourages characters to perform a wider variety of actions during their turn. Second, balance was completely overhauled by tightening the overall gameplay math and maintaining a strict balance philosophy. This helps keep players from optimizing the fun out of the game by preventing them from focusing all-in on attack accuracy as well as ensuring that even a little investment goes a long way. Third, creature design shifted to a model more similar to D&D 4e, with monsters designed to fulfill specific battlefield roles and create more dynamic encounters. Finally, the designers made a deliberate choice to reward teamwork and tactics, granting players huge bonuses for flanking, performing combat maneuvers, and overall functioning as a cohesive group. This not only makes for interesting decisions for individuals, but also builds camaraderie with the playgroup.
Is Downtime Decision-Making Bad?
Not at all. Downtime decisions allow players to create unique experiences for themselves and others. In addition, levels of downtime decision-making and uptime decision-making are not inherently inversely proportional. It's perfectly possible for games to have high levels of both, such as with Pathfinder 2e. One just has to be careful that downtime decisions don't utterly invalidate uptime decision-making and instead enhance it. You can also improve the downtime decision-making experience by adding little optimization puzzles to players so that they don't just memorize but innovate as time goes on. One way to do this is by giving players a random selection of abilities to choose from when creating their build, such as in Hades. This also has the benefit of letting players discover new playstyles that they didn't know they would enjoy by keeping them from using the same build in each run.
Ultimately, however, I think high levels of uptime decision-making creates more interesting experiences, so use whatever level of downtime decision-making suits your game the most, so long as it does not take away from the uptime decisions.
Next time, I'll be taking a look at OSR RPGs and some of the issues the OSR scene currently faces.
Comments