This was not meant to be a multi-part series, but in reading over my original article on threat of activation, I missed a crucial part of it. I discussed the issues with spotting it and the design implications, but I didn’t describe what happens when everyone involved is aware of it while playing.

The Scenario

I previously described “threat of activation” as a time when a player is unable to take a certain action because they know that their opponent will be able to counteract it with little or no effort. But what it it did cost some effort?

A common situation in a game like Magic: The Gathering, is that one player will attack with a creature and the other player will block with a creature. If both are the sames size, they will both die. But, if one player has some ability to make it larger by spending some mana, then only their opponent’s creature will die. If both players have creatures that can get bigger, then it becomes a standoff, where neither player wants to have their creatures die, nor do they want to spend mana.

Breaking it Down

This scenario is incredibly deep and complex, and a lot of games can learn from it. If a player attacks, then the defender is given the choice to block, losing their creature unless they pay some mana. If they don’t block, they will take damage. If they do block, the attacker has a choice: spend mana to let their creature survive, or don’t. If their creature doesn’t block, they can still spend mana to deal a little more damage.

All of these choices are threats of activation. Every choice a player makes is about how they want to limit their opponent. Mana in MtG is fairly easy to come by, and it can feel like a waste to let your creature die just to make your opponent spend mana, but a good player can identify when that small amount of mana could make all the difference. It gives the game huge amounts of complexity with just a single ability. In practice, this usually just leads to both players doing nothing, because they refuse to give their opponents any control over the game.

Stalemates

Another situation I often think about is the 1 life stalemate. Let’s say both players have 1 life left, but nothing in play. However, in each of their hands is a card that says “play at any time to deal 1 damage to your opponent.” The simple answer is to just play it, but as soon as you do, your opponent will respond by playing their own (in MtG there’s something called the stack that makes it so players can respond to other players actions). So now, even though both players have the tools to end the game, neither can do so because of their opponent, who can kill them when they try to. Each player must respect the other’s threat of activation. While this isn’t horrible (so long as the game has some form of progression by other means), it should still be avoided.

Staying Proactive

The easiest way to fix this is to limit the threats in some way. If they can only be used on your turn, then that keeps them from being used as responses. If their costs are high (for suitably powerful effects), then players can feel more comfortable making their opponents put in the effort for it. A more straightforward way of stopping it is to just give players explicit, in-game ways to stop it. A riskier option, both for the designer and the player, is to include some sort of random element so that the results are not entirely predictable and some chances can be taken. Just beware that if you’re designing a game to make these types of complex moments that randomization may scare away your core audience.

There and Back Again

So this was the second look at threat of activation. I hope this can shed a little more light on how it can help make a game more engaging and give players more options. Just beware of the increase in complexity and risk of stalemates.