98 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
98 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
# Multi-Faceted Plan Puzzle
|
|
|
|
## Mechanic Definition
|
|
|
|
The player receives requirements for a solution incrementally—some explicit, some implicit—through failed attempts, character dialogue, and world state observation. The puzzle is "solved" not by executing a single action, but by assembling a complete mental model of what's needed.
|
|
|
|
## Information Architecture
|
|
|
|
**Conveyance Method**: Partial disclosure
|
|
- Initial contact: Player learns *something* is needed, but not what
|
|
- Failed attempts: Reveal what is missing through character reactions or internal monologue
|
|
- Synthesis: Player combines scattered clues to form complete requirements
|
|
|
|
**Player Action Pattern**:
|
|
1. Attempt solution → fails → learn gap
|
|
2. Address gap → attempt again → learn next gap
|
|
3. Repeat until complete mental model assembled
|
|
4. Execute complete plan
|
|
|
|
**Core Mechanic**: The puzzle exists in the player's notebook/information management, not in the UI. No checklist is provided.
|
|
|
|
## Design Rationale
|
|
|
|
- Rewards deep world engagement—talking to NPCs, exploring thoroughly
|
|
- Creates "designer collaboration" feeling—the player feels they built the solution
|
|
- Avoids "fetch quest" feel by requiring synthesis, not collection
|
|
- Failure is informative, not punitive
|
|
|
|
## Why It's Effective
|
|
|
|
The satisfaction comes from the synthesis moment—realizing "I need all three of these" after discovering each requirement in different contexts. This is distinct from "collect 3 items" because the player *must* infer the collection list themselves.
|
|
|
|
## Mechanic Variations
|
|
|
|
| Variation | Information Conveyance | Solution Discovery |
|
|
|-----------|----------------------|-------------------|
|
|
| Dialogue-driven | NPCs mention missing components indirectly | Player must connect separate conversations |
|
|
| Environmental | World state changes after partial completion | Player notices what's now accessible |
|
|
| Trial-and-error | Failed attempts explicitly state what's missing | Player iterates through gaps |
|
|
| Deduction | Partial info requires logical inference | Player pieces together from clues |
|
|
|
|
## Generic Example Structure
|
|
|
|
**Initial State**: Player faces obstacle. Attempting to overcome fails with feedback.
|
|
|
|
**Information Flow**:
|
|
- Character A mentions needing "something from the east"
|
|
- Character B mentions "I haven't seen [item] since [location]"
|
|
- Examining [location] reveals [item] is present but requires [action]
|
|
- Completing [action] provides [item]
|
|
- Returning to obstacle with [item] reveals *another* requirement
|
|
|
|
**Player synthesizes**: The complete solution is never stated; player builds it from fragments.
|
|
|
|
## Game Examples
|
|
|
|
### Monkey Island II: Voodoo Doll Construction (Largo)
|
|
|
|
**Requirement Discovery**:
|
|
1. Talk to Voodoo Lady → Learn 4 categories needed: Thread, Head, Body, Dead
|
|
2. **No single source explains all four sub-requirements**; player must explore each category
|
|
|
|
**Incremental Solution Assembly**:
|
|
- **Thread**: Access Largo's room (requires innkeeper distraction via escaped alligator) → laundry ticket → trade at laundromat for pearly-white bra
|
|
- **Head**: Same room access → pick up toupee with lice
|
|
- **Body**: Bar scene shows Largo spitting on wall → collect paper from cartographer → absorb spit
|
|
- **Dead**: Cemetery exploration → find ancestor tombstone → dig grave with shovel (torn from signpost)
|
|
|
|
**Synthesis**: Player must track 4 categorical requirements, each solved by distinct sub-puzzles. No explicit checklist; discovery through failed assumptions ("I can't get his clothes directly" → "Maybe laundry works?").
|
|
|
|
### King's Quest VI: [Pending walkthrough re-analysis]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Related Types
|
|
|
|
- **Pattern Learning/Knowledge Transfer**: Both involve multi-step processes, but KT is about *same system in different domain* whereas MFP is about *different requirements for single goal*
|
|
- **Meta-puzzle Construction (below)**: Distinct from pure Multi-Faceted Plan by requiring sequential interdependence rather than parallel requirement gathering
|
|
|
|
## Meta-puzzle Construction Variation
|
|
|
|
A subtype of Multi-Faceted Plan where component puzzles must be COMPLETED in sequence, each enabling the next. Unlike standard MFP's parallel track gathering:
|
|
|
|
| Standard MFP | Meta-puzzle Construction |
|
|
|--------------|-------------------------|
|
|
| Four ingredients can be found in any order | Each step unlocks next puzzle state |
|
|
| Synthesis = all requirements assembled | Synthesis = correct sequence discovered |
|
|
| Example: Voodoo doll (all 4 gathered independently) | Example: Dinky Island water filtration |
|
|
|
|
**Dinky Island Water Filtration (MI2)**:
|
|
1. Find bottle → break on rock to get crowbar
|
|
2. Open barrel with crowbar → obtain cracker
|
|
3. Feed cracker to parrot → receive still activation clue
|
|
4. Use broken bottle as still intake → produce distilled water
|
|
5. Use water + box of cracker mix → more crackers for remaining directions
|
|
|
|
Each component *depends* on previous step's output; parallel gathering impossible.
|