Play patterns refer to the recurring behaviors, strategies, and interactions that players exhibit while playing a game. These patterns emerge as players navigate the game’s mechanics, objectives, and social dynamics.
People often talk of "balancing a game", which is kind of a general code for "making it better". Balancing a game is such a generic idea, and even the actual balancing of game elements against each other doesn't do the whole job of "making a game better." That's where we turn to examining play patterns.
Understanding play patterns helps designers create more engaging experiences. In particular, identifying and changing bad play patterns is important, so I will explain a few of those, and suggest ways to change each one.
Some clues we get about play patterns in a game come from things people say about it:
"You shouldn't play the game that way." means there are some bad play patterns possible. It makes me wonder why they left those in.
“You need to play with the right group” is another thing which essentially means “some play patterns and dynamics in this game are boring and you need to avoid them to enjoy this game”
There is a complex relationship between the varying number of players in a game and the play patterns that emerge. I'll cover that in another post.
Types of bad play patterns
Repetitive/boring
It might let you win as often as other patterns, ie, it is balanced against those other winning strategies in terms of length. But it involves boring repetition of going back and forth between two places during the game, or something similar.
What I would try to do to interrupt that is either a) make part of that 2 space loop less valuable, so it is no longer a viable path for winning, or b) introduce uncertainty at either spot, or between the spots, or c) increase the competition between players for one or both spots, so they are naturally interrupting that boring play pattern (I'm thinking of worker placement games here).
Un-intuitive ("I don't get it")
Sometimes there is a mismatch between theme and actions, or how things fit together is hard to follow. In that case, instead of a fun discovering of strategies experience which is a normal engaging part of game play, there are patterns that would be good but no one uses, or the designer or an "expert" player has to constantly remind people what to do. Go back to your underlying structure and ask if the actions are easy to understand, and if they are easy to figure out how to create strategies with.
If a player goes to the market, and they fight something, or they go to the quarry and they get a sheep, those are obvious mismatches of theme and game elements. But others can be more subtle.
If your game is too complex, or the game state is hard to understand, or the information design is poor, those can contribute to un-intuitive game experiences and play patterns.
Degenerate (the best, or you must)
Sometimes a strategy is more powerful than others, and you must do that to win. Hopefully in this case, you can increase the power of other paths, and balance the winning strategies vs each other.
A variant of this is a case where a certain strategy must be employed or the game is unbalanced. "Oh, if that character is in play, we all have to play this way or lose." People argue endlessly whether this type of situation is "balanced" or not in a game. (See Chaos in the Old World, Khorne for an example) I would say it is balanced, but degenerate, and possibly un-intuitive as well. And definitely limiting and less fun.
Un-dynamic (doesn’t change according to game state)
The game state changes all the time and that is the bedrock of games as a medium. It is what makes a game dynamic. It is what sets games apart from static media. From novels and movies. So play into that strength.
But there might be a play pattern or choice of action where a player doesn't have to interact or understand the state of the game or anything. They just go "I get 3 coins" for their action. That's ok if it occurs after determining it is the best or possible best choice. Otherwise it is probably too powerful. Maybe reduce the payout, or eliminate the choice.
If your game is too boring in general, or players aren't engaged, they might exhibit exhibit similar behavior.
Simplistic (doesn’t use much of the game’s elements or mechanics)
You made a splendid game with lots of fun things... and people just avoid a huge chunk of those to win, or to be engaged. You can chuck those not-used things, it you have the stomach to let them go. Or you can try to make them more essential to the winning strategies.
If these types of play patterns are happening in your game, the underlying structure probably needs a whole lot of work.
Conclusion
Since games are dynamic, there may be play patterns that only occur
occasionally, under specific circumstances, or with certain styles of
players. That's one reason you need to play your game a lot more than
you think. Strive to make all the play patterns engaging and rewarding
in your game.