Thread by @Sahoni_Stuff, There are a few lessons about game design and communication to be [...]

There are a few lessons about game design and communication to be found here.

But the one that I always like to take is "players like feeling like their actions have value and impact." Which, simple, but is still important to think about.

People like to feel like what they are doing has value. And while value and impact can be measured in many different ways, both narrative and mechanical, it should feel both consistent and readable to players most of the time.

When a tool consistently does not work in a situation that feels like the /most important/ like a boss battle, players are discouraged from trying or experimenting with those things in other circumstances.

This often goes double for something like a status effect which is often an investment to better circumstances on a later time such as throwing off the tempo of a monster, damage over time, or an increased vulnerability.

It's a powerful tool which needs a control valve, but constancy is often part of value for a player, as is, again, communication.

So what are some solutions?

Readability won't solve a lack of consistency, but will prevent unneeded frustration from players trying strategies that won't work.

Good ui or visual design will help here. Both maybe having a reminder screen or an impact animation.

Something you could do is offer abilities where the status effect is additive. Making the option still feel attractive even if the status doesn't go off, because there is a mitigation of risk, a lack of feeling like the thing doesn't have impact still!

Etrian Odyssey as a series offers two different sets of status effects, both of which can be used to mitigate or deny certain enemy behaviors, forcing players to plan around the things they don't want to deal with.

Status effects are super impactful in this series (maybe too impactful) And both monster and your party can trade bind and ailments, often making boss battles a measure of when as much as what as you try to target certain targets or parts of enemies.

Despite some skeezy art choices it's a good example where your status effects are built in and considered in every part of the game.

It might not be the best solution for /your/ game but it's an example of that consistency and conditioning a player to explore all their tools.

A third solution:
Build and design encounters that communicate certain strategies. Readable weaknesses. You know in most game that plant based monsters usually don't do well again fire spells. It's just extending that thought to be a bit broader.

Maybe monsters weak to charm have big eyes?
Maybe monsters weak to sleep look sleepy?
Go wild!

Of course the best solution is always going to be to work it in to your games bones. The more a player gets to use, or is encouraged to play with a tool, the more likely they are to think of it.

If you find players aren't using a tool, it's often that the tool feels underwhelming. Is it underscaled for the threats you face? Is it too powerful so it almost never connects? Is your tool balanced and fair? Or at least fun? https://twitter.com/ChthonicQueex/status/1353290539488190464

https://twitter.com/ChthonicQueex/status/1353290539488190464

Additional thoughts now that I am awake:
-What role is your statuses even playing in your systems?
-Are combat encounters built in a way where status effects feel efficient?
-Does it /feel/ fun? What sort of fun? For who?

Last bit as it came to me as I work on layout for my own game:

You can always tune a boss to have statuses have /more limited/ effectiveness compared to normal encounters instead of a binary yes/no. This might take a bit more tuning but can still make your investment feel good

Latest Threads Unrolled: