basically Good or Bad ?

Recently thought about this for a whole 5 min after playing JPL's latest map (although this is by no means an attack on the map, just that it was the catalyst for some brainfarting).

Should a map designer force a player to play the map, or part of the map, a certain way or in a certain style (eg stealthy rather than run and gun) or should the player always be free to play any which way he wants ?

For example, in JPL's map, there were lots of enforcers placed quite well, but the nailgun was introduced late. In effect this forced me to play the map differently to what I would normally do in a map full of enforcers. I either had to get up close with the SSG or bunch them together and use the GL.

Another example would be to not have the GL/RL introduced till after a section with zombies.

I think one way to cater to both ways would be via secrets. In this scenario, for example, a NG/SNG could have been a secret and therefore if you found it you could play normally, otherwise as the mapper intended.

It would also add replayability in that you can play the same map in different styles.

That's all I got, this could be the worst topic ever but I wanted to post in something other than the Film thread. 

I dont actually have a decision yet on whether I think it's a good or bad ploy. Maybe when I activate my brain again tomrrow or so, I'll come up with a choice. 

Forcing a player to play the unusual way is a good thing, but has to be used carefully. When implementing such things you should always do good beta testing, because it easily can get annoying. And be prepared that some players will complain about it. I didn't have problems with late introduction of the NG in JPL's map. In fact it was fun for me. I can imagine maps played with the SG or GL only.
Sometimes players can just refuse to play the certain way imagined by mapper. This will cause frustration and complains. In my latest map I also wanted the player to use the GL most of the time. I have reduced the amount of nails and shells. During first beta testing many players complained about ammo shortage even if they had 30 rockets left and didn't have to fight shamblers with grenades. I had to add more conventional ammo again. 

You could start the player off in a room with all the weapons. The player can then choose one or more of the weapons before being teleported to the level proper, and depending on the choice, you could change the size of the ammo caches for certain weapons (with annoying to set up triggers and funcs). This would allow them to choose a weapon to play with from the start, which may or may not be introduced in the level during normal play.

I think the simple rule of Quake is to use the ammo/health available to get through the level. Players who moan because they are forced to use explosives to take down a shambler, or have to knock down zombies and come back for them later are cry babies :)

I don't have a problem with a mapper who forces me to take down a whole level of bad guys with just the shotgun, but don't force me to use the axe (for a long time, or for strong monsters) if I have to kill the monsters. That's all. 

Playing differently can be good, as long as the designer doesn't force the player to play specifically. e.g. force the player to develop new strategies against enforcers sometimes, but don't force him to use only one or two strategies.

But then again, forcing him to play differently is kind of forcing him to play specifically, albeit not on as large of a scale. 

...that first idea is excellent. One wouldn't even need to teleport them if it was a base map. Ooooooh, you've got me thinking! 

For example, in JPL's map, there were lots of enforcers placed quite well, but the nailgun was introduced late. In effect this forced me to play the map differently to what I would normally do in a map full of enforcers. I either had to get up close with the SSG or bunch them together and use the GL.

I've found that I never have that problem. Then again, I've kinda trained myself into using the SSG most of the time, and so I have no problems taking out anything weaker than a Fiend with it.

Both hdn and event provided an interesting twiston the normal order of progreesion. It was nice for a change, but I'd prefer not to see it become the norm... 

I'm rather open in terms of gameplay. I just think that a player need to be "directed" in a certain way in order to find the exit of the level. I played some levels where I spent half an hour just looking for the next door to open, because it was not very well indicated... And concerning weapon/ammo placement, I agree there are certain "rules" to respect... Nevertheless, the only point is that you would be able to kill all the monster you face with te weapon you have.. it should be enough.. though... 

I think it's useful to force players to learn new tactics, but you should avoid making an entire level too shallow by building it all to require the same tactic. You should also not build most of your encounters to require ANY one tactic.

Think of these "forced tactics" situations to be exceptions, and the rule is gameplay scenarios that allow more player choice. 

...Than's idea could be expanded by having three stations in a level when one had to choose which weapon (from a choice of two) to pick up next.

It feels like two thirds of the way through the level and you have a choice..."Do I pick up the RL or the LG." Obviously the ensueing combat scenarios need to be doable with either.

With three stations, eight permutations and possibly one good reason to replay the level. 

I will soon release a map in which you have to fight 1/2 of the way with the shotgun. I'm expecting some bitching. 

the player options is almost always very annoying. With more options, the more complex, interesting and above all, replayable gameplay will be. 

that hasnt been thought through really.

What about giving the player some indication that the upcoming section may involve something "out of the ordinary" or a change in regular tactics.

I have absolutely no idea how to do this without making it annoying like in some recent games where they tell you via cutscene or sat com or radio that you will need to do the next bit stealthily. Well, no fucking shit sherlock, I've been collecting sniper ammo for the last 10 min and am armed with only a knife and sniper rifle.

But something like that would be ideal when done correctly.

I like metl's post in that there should always be more than one tactic available but do you think all tactics should be indicated to the player via some method or let them work it out themselves after dying a few times ?

I should be writing the new season of Lost, providing more and more questions whilst pretending to give some answers. 

I think a better way to say what I was trying to say before is, it's a good idea to sometimes force players to NOT use a specific tactic. In other words, out of 5 possible ways to play the game, we're desiging an encounter so that one of them really won't work. If you rely on that one tactic all the time, this "forces" you to learn a new one.

This is actually a way to keep the game fresh, becuase if you can use your preferred tactic every time on every encounter, you will get bored and it will be the game's fault. If you are forced to switch it up, you will enjoy it more. I think it is up to the level designer to encourage fun and discourage boring, because the game mechanics will usually encourage low-risk tactics. The punishment for high-risk tactics is losing, but the punishment for low-risk tactics is just boredom. Players will quit out of boredom before they quit out of being challenged.