Reflections Across the Board

Heavens of Olympus featured in the Deseret News

2011-03-31T23:33:00.001-07:00

I was recently interviewed by Carma at the Deseret News about Heavens of Olympus. Here's the link:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700123283/Good-heavens-Gamers-dream-comes-true.html

Heavens of Olympus Images

2011-03-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

I offered a demo of Heavens of Olympus tonight at Game Night Games where I work. Here are a few images that I uploaded to Board Game Geek:

Design History of The Heavens of Olympus

2011-03-01T11:24:00.001-08:00

I wrote an article over the weekend detailing the design history of Heavens of Olympus. The article was posted yesterday on BGG's News section. Here's the link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/790/figuring-it-out-designing-the-heavens-of-olympus

Official Video Tutorial for "Trollhalla"

2011-02-21T21:48:00.001-08:00

This is an official video tutorial for the game "Trollhalla" - published by Z-Man Games (www.zmangames.com).

I was asked by the designer - Alf Seegert - to do this video and it has been approved by both him and the publisher. Alf, the artist - Ryan Laukat, and I are all members of the "Board Game Designers Guild of Utah". You can find us at www.bgdg.info. Here is the video:

Due to Youtube's 15 minute cap on video time and because of my desire to keep this tutorial as all one video instead of a several part series, I had to keep the pace of the video high. I hope you enjoy it.

A Review of "Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals"

2010-08-02T09:38:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to this book's entry at Amazon if you want to buy it.

There are a small number of books that consistently get brought up whenever game design is being discussed - partly because there are so few books at present that directly deal with game design as a topic - and "Rules of Play" is one of these books. A friend of mine had a copy and, in skimming through it, I took notice of the guest essay and game design contributions from the likes of Reiner Knizia, Richard Garfield, and James Ernest. The chapter summaries, the variety of topics that were covered, and the overall organization of the book all looked very promising. I then went on Amazon and read lots of reviews. There were a few short negative reviews that really didn't say much while most of the reviews praised the book in various ways. The only consistent caveat I encountered from review to review was that the book was more "theoretical" than what you might expect (i.e. if you're looking for a "how to" manual, look else where). So, my wife got me a copy as a gift and I began eagerly reading.

I will confess that the book was not what I expected, but this was due to some significant problems that I didn't really see adequately addressed in any of the reviews I read on Amazon. I haven't gone back to check if any new reviews have been added since that time so it's possible that that's no longer the case. However, some of the problems I wouldn't have expected to be in a book like this. So, if you are interested in game design, particularly board game design, then I hope my review might be of some use to you in helping you decided if the book is for you or not.

Virtues

This book has enough virtues that I do recommend it. My initial impression of the organization of the book proved to be accurate. Each topic is addressed in a very logical, sequential manner and every chapter has suggested readings at the end with excellent chapter summaries provided. Overall, you can tell that the authors really did their research in putting the book together as their sources come from a variety of places and cover a significant number of topics. Also, the last chapter of the book was particularly strong in that they tied in a lot of their previous material into the last few game examples. So, if you're on the fence, I would suggest getting this book.

Problems

The Subject Matter and the "Subtitle"

To help illustrate my first line of criticism, let's consider a hypothetical scenario. Suppose for a moment that you saw there was a class being offered called "Basketball: Dribbling and Shooting Fundamentals" and that it just so happened that you were interested in improving your basketball skills. Before registering for the class, you decided to read some reviews on it and they told you that the class was more "theoretical" than what you might think. Undeterred, you registered for the class and you showed up on the first day ready to learn. The teacher began to lecture and you found yourself being told about all kinds of things like friction coefficients, air resistance equations, vectors, the chemical composition of the material in a basketball, and the varieties of wood types used on most basketball floors along with the types of varnishes used to provide the protective coating. You also learned about the anatomy of the eye, the human hand, different muscle groups, nerve endings, and how the brain processes information.

Now, is all of that information interesting? Potentially (depending on your disposition). Is it more theoretical in nature? Yes. Is this a problem? Well, this is where one confronts the implications of the title of the class. Claiming that you will be covering "Dribbling and Shooting Fundamentals" creates an expectation that the class will be about, well, "Dribbling and Shooting Fundamentals". Is all of that information I mentioned connected to the dribbling and shooting of a basketball? Absolutely. The laws and principles of physics, chemistry and anatomy are present in every situation where people are dribbling and shooting. So, in one sense, the class description is technically accurate depending on how you define "fundamentals". However, in another sense, our theoretical class was really about physics, chemistry, and anatomy that just so happened to be involved in basketball situations and, in fact, wasn't actually about dribbling and shooting at all. What's more, does a study of those topics help a person in any sort of practical way with respect to their dribbling and shooting? Not really. Why not? Because the information is too theoretically removed from the activity to be of any immediate practical use. Unless the course instructor accompanies all of that theory with some strong examples that help make some tangible connections as to how the concepts being discussed can actually help a person in relation to the acts of dribbling and shooting a basketball, he runs the risk of the class's title actually misleading his potential audience.

How does this relate to "Rules of Play"? Well, the subtitle of the book is "Game Design Fundamentals". A more accurate subtitle would have been "Theoretical, Metaphysical, and Ontological Considerations about Games". Note that my proposed subtitle spells out that the book will discuss "games" - not "game design". This is important because the two subjects are not necessarily synonymous topics and this distinction, though a subtle one, is real. For example, one of the concepts discussed in the book is how meaningful play cannot happen without recognizable input and output (i.e. you're able to tell when the game has given or received information). This concept can be helpful in evaluating why a game may feel arbitrary but, at the same time, knowing this concept does not mean that you know the "design fundamentals" of how to bring about such recognizable in-out streams in a game. As another example, the concept of "emergent play" (meaning that a satisfying game often has a large space of possibilities for how the inputs and outputs can affect it) is discussed and it's a useful concept and term to help evaluate why a game may not have "it" so to speak. However, knowing this concept doesn't automatically mean that you know the "game design fundamentals" of how to actually bring about meaningful play in the context of a game design.

The authors were trying to create in "Rules of Play" a quasi universal text about games in general and that's fine. But, to truly discuss "game design fundamentals", the authors would have had to have been willing to step down one abstraction notch a lot more times than they did during the course of the book to discuss some specifics for different genres of games as each genre will have its own set of fundamentals (i.e. creating effective input-output information streams will have its own set of fundamentals for video game design as compared to board game design). They wouldn't have had to go into every single specific instance of how to apply the principles they discussed in order to establish practical tie-ins for the concepts in the book (i.e. there was no need to create a "how to" manual) but what they did was not enough to me to justify using the subtitle of "Game Design Fundamentals" (even though it is technically an accurate title). Instead, they often settled for making very general statements that honestly didn't say very much or they opted for broad rhetorical questions on the order of "How can this help you with your game design?"

I personally find it ironic that so many Amazon reviewers felt the need to point out how the book might not be what you would expect but, at the same time, were willing to give the authors a pass on this point without pointing out the culpability of using a subtitle that helps create those misplaced expectations in the first place for potential readers.

Fragmentation

Do you remember those essays and game design examples from game designers that I talked about? They were, for the most part, pretty good and represented a prime opportunity to make practical connections with the theories being discussed. However, the essays felt very disconnected from the chapters surrounding them. What I mean by this is that the game designers who wrote the essays and game design examples never mentioned or even alluded to how any material being discussed in the surrounding chapters helped them or even influenced them in the process of trying to make or improve their games - and this is in spite of the fact that some of these essays and game designs were specifically made to be included in "Rules of Play". This is probably because there was no such conceptual influence (though that's only speculation on my part). The result is a feeling that these inclusions "just so happened" to be in the same book as the other material. The lone "exception" (if you can call it that) was the game design example of "Sneak" but this was just because parts of the game were printed in the margins of the following chapters (thus using the book as a tool to actually play the game). However, mere proximity does not on its own produce true conceptual integration.

In fact, in spite of how well the book was organized, it felt much more like a series of parts where one jumped from one fragmented literature review section to the next rather than a truely cohesive whole. The authors tried to account for this by framing the organization of the book under different "schemas" but even within chapters that were within the same "schema" a very fragmented feel was present. One exception to this was the very last chapter because of the extent of referencing that took place to previous concepts addressed in the book.

The Use of Game Examples

In the "Case Study" examples and general game examples in the chapters, the authors (to their credit) did take principles they had previously discussed and then applied them to specific games. However, with these one sees the authors only truly using a few games as more detailed examples early on and they kept coming back to those same few games over and over and over again even over several chapters and even when other games they referenced off hand would have better illustrated their points. When they finally come to the chapter on "narrative" in games they actually do use a sufficiently diverse number of examples to illustrate their points effectively (but, in that chapter, I think they actually used a few too many examples). The examples in the final chapter were pretty well utilized but, for the first two thirds of the book, expect to read references to Breakout, Centipede, a German dice game called "Thunderstorm", and Chutes and Ladders A LOT. If you happen to be an aspiring board game designer, you should know that, though the authors mention games like "The Settlers of Catan", for the first two thirds of the book such references are mainly in passing and feel more like a series of name-dropping references rather than any sort of substantive use of a variety of games to help make the points clear.

The Writing

To help you get a feel for the types of writing problems I encountered, suppose for a moment that you were reading a book on "dogs" and the following was a paragraph from that book:

"In this chapter, we will discuss dogs and fleas. Though dogs have many things and there are many things that dogs do not have, some dogs do in fact have fleas. Dr. X in his book 'The Secret Life of Dogs' stated the following about dogs and fleas: 'There are many dogs that are very clean and, thus, do not have fleas. But, as is sometimes the case, some dogs do in fact have fleas.' What Dr. X is pointing out to us, among other things, is that many of us who may have dogs or who may know people who have dogs may not know that some of them actually have fleas. In summary, we have looked at Dr. X's book on dogs and fleas and at some of the implications of that for dogs that some of us may know or may have known."

What do you think? Pretty ridiculous isn't it? It's so unnecessarily repetitive and long winded compared to what it needs to be. It's the sort of writing you would expect in a school paper where a student is trying to "stretch" out his or her material to fulfill some sort of word requirement for the assignment. Well, dear reader, the same problems in my little caricature of an example permeate "Rules of Play". It was so common to see the authors explain a concept and then provide a bulky block quote from the source where they got the concept (with the block quote not providing anything significantly different from the explanation the authors gave immediately prior to the quote). Then the discussion after the quote would, again, repeat the same notion. Even without the block quotes feeding in to the repetition, there were often concepts or notions that were repeated in the form of introductory sentences to paragraphs that would have felt very out of place in those paragraphs even without being repetitive in nature.

Even if you removed the repetition from the equation completely, there was still a disproportionate amount of innocuous filler sentences and even filler paragraphs that often took the form of telling-you-what-is-about-to-be-discussed instead of just going ahead and discussing the points. To be completely fair, there are some key definitions the authors contributed that were important in framing their discussions. However, this repetition/bloated-writing problem I'm talking about was so pervasive that my credulity is strained by the fact that no review I encountered on Amazon bothered to point this out. The only explanation I can come up with is that very few of the reviewers actually bothered to read the entire book through. It's more likely that they read through the outlines and chapter summaries and then maybe read a few sections and then based their reviews on those. What I'm here to tell you is that, at the risk of hyperbole, this 600+ page book could possibly have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 pages and not lost any of its critical or aesthetic content. To make matters worse, there were a number of instances (I think somewhere between 10 and 15 if I remember correctly) where sentences were simply missing words, where words were misspelled, or where words were added by mistake.

I'm left with a few theories as to why these writing problems ended up in the book. One is that the authors didn't quite know what to do with much of the material that they found in their research other than quoting it and then repeating it in different ways. This would also account for the out-of-place beginning sentences to paragraphs as the authors simply didn't know how to bridge the gap from one concept to the next other than just repeating themselves. Another possibility is that the authors or the editors didn't put much time into editorial oversight. Thus, early versions that should have been looked upon merely as rough drafts were actually green-lighted for inclusion in the final version (this would account for the misspelled words and grammar errors and somewhat for the repetition). Another possibility is that, regardless of their researching and organizational capabilities, the authors may just simply be lousy writers.

Conclusion

I really had high hopes for this book and I have to admit that I'm more than a little disappointed. The type of review I've just given you was the last thing I thought I would find myself writing based on my initial research. On the surface, the organization and the topics outlined along with the included essays and guest contributors all create the appearance of a much more promising read than what I think you'll find as you actually work your way through the book. My suggestion would be to read the guest essay contributions and game designs and then, with respect to the chapters themselves, for the most part just read through the chapter summaries. There is some good material here - enough to make the book worth having - and the authors do contribute some key definitions, but much of the material is actually not discussed very well or, at least, not as well as I thought it could have been.

Some Quick Thoughts

2010-02-23T21:18:00.000-08:00

This is just a quick post about some thoughts of mine. Enjoy.

The shorter the game is, the more you can forgive.

Is there some sort of wonky rule in the game? Is the game not that balanced? Is it more of a luck fest than a game? Well, if the game's only 10 minutes long, then so what? Who cares? I mean it's only 10 minutes. If the game is an hour long, then it's a different story. (Sure I'm saying this partly tongue in cheek but, seriously, if the game is very short then it's much easier to overlook things that would be unforgivable in a longer game.) The next thought follows naturally.

The longer the game is, the more it needs to offer.

If you're playing a light game that could be classified as a filler, that's totally okay - but not if the game is a 2 hour long game. If people are going to see their time investment as being worth it, the game had better deliver if it's going to go longer.

As the number of internal bookkeeping processes in a game's design increases, so does the likelihood that the game should be a video game instead of a board game.

If there are lots of calculations or procedures where things are happening in the game that don't involve player choice, or perhaps the game has modifiers stacked on top of modifiers, then it's probably best that the game be made into a computer game so the computer can handle those bookkeeping tasks without burdening the players with them.

Looking for ways to reduce the number of components often results in simplified rules - which tends to result in better games.

Usually, more components equals more procedures and more rules. Otherwise, why would the components be necessary? Either that, or the systems for tracking information in the game are very inefficient and need to be streamlined. Either way, consistently trying to lessen the component density is a good habit to have. At the same time, this next thought should also be considered.

With respect to utility and clarity, the type of components used in a prototype matters.

If there is a marker that is going to be passed around from player to player and/or is one that needs to be easily seen from across the table, then using a small, thin, flat disc, is a bad idea. You would need something that's larger so it's easier to see and/or pick up. It's easy to think that this sort of thing doesn't matter but, if players get frustrated with simple, tactile aspects of the prototype, then that frustration will carry over into their underlying, general impression of the game. I'm not saying that a prototype has to be a Kinkos masterpiece to be playable. There are times when I've marked up a board with a Sharpie and then used that same board for more playtesting - but the board was still clear and it was easy to see what was going on.

Be willing to "cut your favorite scene".

Through the iterative process, game designs evolve and that evolution starts to take on directions as aspects of the game start to gel and other aspects do not. If there was some mechanic that was your whole inspiration for starting the design in the first place, but the design has now evolved such that that original mechanic is the very thing that's wrong with the game now, then be willing to throw that mechanic out. It's a better goal to make a good game than to just to make a game with some particular mechanic in it.

Make a prototype of your game idea before taking your idea to far.

Sometimes an idea comes to us and, in our minds, it seems like the best thing ever thought of. If one takes an idea and then adds other ideas to it, and then more ideas, and then more ideas without having actually put together a physical prototype first, then a person may find that their original idea had basic flaws in it and all the time they spent on coming up with subsequent ideas to go with the original were just interesting musings on an unworkable premise. Get the idea into a physical prototype of some kind (even if it's just post-it notes) before taking the idea too far.

Iterate A LOT before printing off a nice new board or a new rule book.

I mean, sure, if money is no object and you don't care about costs, then knock yourself out. I, however, have learned the hard way that thinking the game is done before it really is can get expensive really fast if you're not careful. At the same time...

Start writing a rule book as soon as possible.

Just like how making a physical prototype will clarify benefits and problems with an idea quicker than just thinking about it will, the act of trying to write a rule book will do the same thing. Thinking about how a rule should be worded, what terms are involved in the explanation, and which examples are important in illustrating to a new player how the game works will accelerate the design process by bringing to the surface potential flaws or areas of ambiguity in your game that need to be clarified. Granted, it will take a bit of playing around with the initial prototype and game structure before beginning a rule book is warranted. However, if a designer allows himself to go too far into the design process without requiring a rough-draft rule book of some kind from himself, then he stands to potentially waste a lot of time that could have been saved had he applied himself towards actually putting the current version of the game's rules down in some sort of readable medium. If how the rule should be worded is not clear to you, then perhaps the rule its self needs some examination.

I'm not saying go full throttle with a final version rule book early on. I am saying that at least beginning one - even just a designer having a rough draft as a Word document on his computer that he can go to and work on from time to time as he works through the iterations of his design - will help clarify fundamental thinking about a particular design in critical ways.

I personally find that trying to put my thoughts into words helps me clarify my thinking about board game design. That's partly why I put together these blog posts. : )

Update: I've had to shut down comments on this particular post because, for whatever reason, it was attracting lots of spam comments.

Themes and Implicit Promises in Game Design

2010-02-22T19:19:00.001-08:00

Note: I originally started this article about 8 months ago before lots of major life events took place. So, it's a little late getting posted.

I was reading some posts on a blog about video game design entitled "Theory and Principles of Game Design" by Adrian Lopez. Specifically, there was a short article he wrote about a "design flaw" in a basketball video game called "In Your Face" where he criticizes the "coin flip" animation at the beginning of the game because it's "cosmetic" - meaning the human player "always gets initial control". He said that this breaks the game's "implicit promise" to the player because what happens does not "agree with the player's expectation that a coin flip should produce random outcomes". (There are links to the articles at the end of this post if you want to go read more about some of his thoughts along these lines.)

These articles got me thinking. Specifically, with respect to the decision to play a game, when someone actively decides to sit down and invest time in learning a game that is supposedly about theme "X", but plays nothing at all like what one would expect a game about theme "X" to play like, then a virtual "promise" has been broken between the theme of the game and the player.

Usually, the more "rich" a designer wants a theme to be, the less abstract the game will be. This is because theme is often more fully developed with nuances in the game that reflect the narrative. The more nuances, the more reflective of the narrative the game play will be. However, the more nuances there are, the more "rules" there will have to be in the game in order to create a sufficiently diverse palette of game mechanics to reflect the theme to a degree that can be classified as "rich". If you want games very heavy in theme, one way to find them is to go buy one of the big-box games from Fantasy Flight. However, you'll also typically be buying a game with a much thicker rule book and with lots more exceptions to the general rules of the game for specific circumstances.

Take wargames as a genre as a further continuation of this idea that the more a theme is reinforced, the more rules are needed to support that reinforcement. With many wargames, the objective of the design is not necessary to create balanced game play. It's to recreate as much as possible a historical skirmish, battle, or war. To do that as accurately as possible, you'll see rules about landscape (with different rules governing different types of landscapes), morale considerations (with rules to govern them), different types of weapons (each with different rules governing how they work), etc.

Having said all of this, for Eurogame designers, this idea of thematic reinforcement can present somewhat of a problem as Eurogames are noted for their simplicity of rules and relatively streamlined mechanics. So, how does one design a Euro-style game without creating a "promise" that will be broken once a player sits down to play the game?

I would argue that the better a designer gets at designing games, the more and more that designer thinks about ways to portray the elements and objects within his game as things that act on as much of an intuitive level as possible for the people playing the game. When people have to make huge "leaps" in logic in order to accept that something happening in the game is as the theme is describing it, then the flow of game emersion is disrupted and the fulfillment of the game experience is lessened. The same thing happens in movies when one watches an actor having to deliver very poorly written dialogue. When dialogue is identifiably bad, it will come off as phony. The cascading consequences of that are that the viewer is then immediately reminded that that is an actor on the screen, that the walls and objects in the scene are merely props, that the clothes are just costumes, and so forth. It pulls the viewer away from the story being told and reminds the viewer that it's all just an illusion. The same effect can happen with board games.

I think that one huge mistake a person can make in trying to design a Euro game is to think that it's okay to just put together mechanics and then try to figure out a theme in the aftermath. I think that a commitment to consistency within a theme will tend to drive the mechanics towards more interesting interactions than would an approach that is purely mechanic based. Thus, if someone has a cool idea for a mechanic but not a theme, my first suggestion is to commit to a theme before going much further with the mechanical development. Otherwise, you could end up with a game that, though interesting, unfortunately breaks its promise to new players once they actually start playing it.

Here are the articles I was talking about:

http://gamedesigntheory.blogspot.com/2007/09/design-flaw-in-your-face.html

http://gamedesigntheory.blogspot.com/2007/09/game-design-questions.html

http://gamedesigntheory.blogspot.com/2008/01/cause-and-effect.html

Introducing my Son

2009-10-25T19:36:00.000-07:00

The past few months have been some of the busiest of my life. Here's a quick run-down:

-After organizing the Bridge Troll Release event, there was the Gathering of Strangers board game convention here in Salt Lake that I participated in. I helped run the Game Night Games booth at the event.

-At the end of July, my wife and I closed on our house.

-August and September were essentially go-to-work/work-on-moving/eat/work-on-projects-for-the-house/sleep/repeat.

-At the end of September, our son was born. His name is Neal.

Since that time, my wife and I have had our hands full getting settled into our new routines and roles as parents.

BGDG Intro Video

2009-07-18T22:38:00.000-07:00

I just finished shooting and editing an intro video to the Board Game Designers Guild of Utah. Here it is:

Recap of "Bridge Troll" Release Event

2009-07-05T16:32:00.001-07:00

In the interest of celebrating the publication of Alf's game "Bridge Troll", we planned a release event for the game at Game Night Games. The Deseret News ran an article on June 30th discussing the event and interviewing Alf, Ryan, and myself. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705313729/Bridge-Troll-games-new-perspective.html

The event was a great success. I've posted a recap of the festivities along with pictures in a thread over on Board Game Geek. Here is the link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/421024

Television Appearances

2009-04-27T23:19:00.001-07:00

I've been on television a few times in connection with my role as manager of Game Night Games. What follows are two clips from appearances on KJZZ and KUTV here in Utah.

This first clip was back in October as part of KJZZ's "This Morning" show. Tracy Harris (one of our employees at Game Night Games) was there with her two kids who were playing Gulo Gulo as part of the presentation. The anchor mistakenly refers to them as "my family" at the beginning of the piece but, other than that, the interview went very well. Tracy continues to go on the show once a month to do short presentations featuring different games. Here is the clip:

This next clip is from an interview that I did recently in connection with KUTV's "Unplug and Play" week. Instead of being at the studio, this was done at the store.

GAMA 2009

2009-04-18T07:52:00.000-07:00

Well, this year's GAMA experience was very different from the last. Last year I went for the full show. This year, I flew in to Vegas early in the morning on Wednesday and then flew back to Salt Lake later on Wednesday evening. It was quite the whirlwind trip. While there, I met up with Phil who was there on behalf of "Gameology".

We attended a quick workshop on game design by Andrew Looney of Looney Labs (i.e. the company that makes "Fluxx"). While going to the workshop, I met Seth Jaffee with Tasty Minstrel Games. Those who spend time on the BGDF will know Seth as he is a very active member of that forum and his company is publishing Alex Rockwell's game "Homesteaders". After talking about game design for a while, it was off to the booths.

There were some notable differences for GAMA this year versus last year in that it seemed as if this year's convention as a whole was smaller with respect to both attendees and exhibitors. There were some notible absences with respect to exhibitors. However, it was a good convention and I got a chance to meet with the guys at FRED Distribution, Mayfair, Flying Frog Productions, Twilight Creations, TableStar Games, Playroom, etc.

Even though my trip was brief, I got the chance to play a few demo rounds of the new game coming out from Steve Jackson Games called "Revolution" and I got the chance to pose for a quick picture with Mr. Munchkin himself:

All in all, I had a great time.

*One quick note is that, in the dining area last year, there was a bird that had gotten into the building and it was entertaining to watch that bird fly around while having lunch. This year, again, a bird had gotten into the building. I guess some things never change.

The "Music" of Game Design: Part 3

2009-03-26T09:22:00.001-07:00

Okay, first let me apologize for how long it's been since my last post on this subject. I've been quite busy with other things and simply haven't made enough time to actually finish this series. That having been said, let me go back to an idea I put forth in the first of these three posts as a review:

"...a person can go through a lengthy trial and error process and eventually arrive at something decent. Or, if they understand basic principles of theory behind the work they are engaged in, can save themselves a lot of time and compose/design much better works a lot faster than if they were ignorant of those principles."

That premise captures why I am comparing game design to music as I find the same types of dynamics in the creative processes of both fields. In music, one sketches out a theme and then creates a textured structure to help support that theme with many interworking lines and parts. The various concepts of music theory help a person do this a lot faster than if they were relying purely on trial and error. In game design, a person can do the same thing and save themselves a lot of unnecessary trial and error in the design process. There will of course still be trial and error - just not unnecessary trial and error. (ex. I don't have to waste a lot of time trying to figure out why my musical composition isn't working if I'm already aware of how voice-crossing and parallel fifths tend to create problems and how parallel thirds tend to work much more smoothly.)

So, the "Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model" was, in essence, a game analysis pattern that I arrived at after studying a number of specific games - looking for their common traits (just like how a person begins to understand how similar construction patterns occur in many types of musical pieces). Now, I want to look at a different model, the "Tri-Stage Resource Transition Model":

For a larger view of this image, click here and then zoom in.

The three main phases are Phase 1 or "Dormant", Phase 2 or "Ready" and Phase 3 or "Active".

The idea behind this model is that your choices don't involve how to convert one or more Level 1 resources into some sort of other types of Level 2 resources which are then converted again into Level 3 resources. Instead, your choices depend on what phase needs a resource transitioned into it from a previous phase more than any other phase at that particular point in the game. Here is an example:

In the card game "Loot", your cards are your resources. However, you aren't trading in different types of cards together in various combinations to receive secondary types of resources like in Settlers. Instead, you are making a choice on your turn of whether or not you want to move a card from the "Dormant" Phase 1 (which would be the draw pile) into the "Ready" Phase 2 (which would be your hand) or whether you would prefer to spend your turn moving a card from the "Ready" Phase 2 (your hand) into the "Active" Phase 3 (by playing it on the table).

The choice of moving a resource from Phase 1 to Phase 2 I have labeled as option "A" and the choice of moving a resource from Phase 2 to Phase 3 I have labeled as option "B". The greyed out boxes represent resources that were already in that phase before a player's turn.

Now, before going further, I want to point out that most traditional card games actually don't fit into this "resource transition" model I'm describing here. This is because, in most traditional card games, you are doing both Option A (drawing) and Option B (playing) equally - all within the same turn and usually in that order (not always - but usually). There is no choice involved in whether or not you want to take Option A over Option B. Instead, they are simply compulsory "steps" in your turn.

Whereas the tension is a Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model game tends to come from the choices of having to figure out "apples and oranges" types of situations in the conversion processes of which resources should be exchanged for which others, the tension in a Tri-Phase Resource Transition Model game tends to come from the fact that you can only do so much on your turn and you have to figure out which transition or transitions are more necessary at that point in the game.

Before going on, an important component in this Tri-Phase transition model is that Option B involves two or more options for "where" or "how" you could make a resource "active". For example, in Loot, if you want to transition a card from "Ready" to "Active", you then have to determine whether or not you want to make active a "ship" card (by playing it in front of you) or a "pirate" card (where you play it on another player's ship).

Let's look at another example:

In Tikal, you can perform both Option A and Option B in the same turn. However, unlike traditional card games, these options aren't required steps on your turn. You could spend your whole turn on Option A by transitioning a bunch of guys from their "dormant" phase into a "ready" phase on one or more of the camp sites if you wanted to. At the same time, you could also spent your whole turn transitioning guys from their "ready" phase at the various camp sites into an "active" phase by moving them to various areas up from grabs on the board. However, how much or to what extent you want to invest in Option A and Option B on your turn is up to you.

So, in essence, this type of model is not about trying to deal with "apples and oranges" types of situations. Instead, it boils down to the dilemma of how often or at which points in the game you deem it more necessary to get resources ready to go into action versus activating resources on the board to try and secure an advantage. To borrow a cliche, with this model you are essentially trying to decide whether to "fish or cut bait".

My "Heavens of Olympus" game utilizes this model. In the game, you are either moving planets from their "dormant" phase into a "ready" phase by paying to have them made (i.e. forged) for your turn, or you are moving them from their "ready" phase onto the board to receive payment. The trick is that doing the same thing as another player carries an added cost if you both choose to do it on the same turn. There are other aspects to the game, but it fits strongly into this model I'm describing.

Conclusion:

In these three articles about "music" and game design, I've touched briefly on some generalities or "models" of design that I've noticed in various games. Though there are more than just these two main models I've discussed, I point these two out because they have distinct differences from one another while the games that utilize them share some interesting commonalities. I highly suspect that the game examples I used were not designed while necessarily thinking about these models I'm describing. Instead, my suspicion is that the designers were simply trying to design good games and hit on some game play dynamics that worked. The thing is, by studying these models, if one is aware of the generalities that have proven true in already successful game designs, one can then begin to pick up on potential weak areas in one's own designs more quickly and one can articulate exactly what the problems are more clearly.

Just like how studying the common trends in various Mozart compositions can help a person learn about fundamental principles of good music composition, studying the common trends in various Knizia or Kramer designs can help a person learn about good game design.

"The Heavens of Olympus" mentioned in Rio Grande Newsletter

2009-02-10T19:58:00.001-08:00

Hi all. I just wanted to post a link here to the latest newsletter from Rio Grande Games as it mentions my game "The Heavens of Olympus". There isn't any information other than mentioning it as an upcoming game but I thought it was worth including a link to the article here:

http://www.riograndegames.com/news.html?id=14

and here is a link to a PDF of the same article:

http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/FileUpload/news102.pdf

A quick post about Feedback Loops

2009-01-09T11:10:00.001-08:00

Since I mentioned feedback loops in my last post, before moving on to Part 3, I thought it would be appropriate to include a link to a YouTube video by Scott Nicholson where he includes a discussion of feedback loops by a gentleman named Joris Dormans. In this video, Mr. Dormans uses Power Grid as an example of what he's talking about:

The "Music" of Game Design Part 2

2009-01-09T10:10:00.000-08:00

(The diagrams I posted in my last entry were too small to be seen well. So I'm going to offer some clarification/review in this post by using close-ups of the main diagram.)

The essence of the Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model is that you take resources, convert them to intermediate resources, and then convert those intermediate resources into resources that actually feed into the winning condition. So, here I have a diagram of the "Alpha Node" or point of choice where the players choose how they want to go about using their Level 1 resources to acquire Level 2 resources:

After the Alpha Node point of choice, the players then have to decide how they want to convert their Level 2 Resources into Level 3 resources, thus creating a second point of choice or Beta Node:

Now, from the decisions in the Beta Node regarding how to use one's Level 2 resources, come one of three possible types of Level 3 resources:

The VP resources feed into the winning condition:

The "dynamic" Level 3 resources actively feed back into the system:

The feedback loops are of one of three possible types and one of two possible sub-types:

External Game Generated types include situations where the game actively influences what a player can do based on that player's Level 3 resources.

External Player Generated types are where one's Level 3 resources in some way interact with or prevent what other players can directly do to you at the choice points.

Internal Player Generated types are where you simply help yourself in some way that doesn't involve a decision by other players or a "conditional decision" by the game.

Some examples will help illustrate my points:

-A perfect example of an external game generated feedback loop would be the changing of turn order in Power Grid. It is a direct influence from the game exerted on the players based on the amount of Level 3 resources they have.

-An example of an external player generated influence would be situations where you obtained cards or some other sorts of protections or mitigations from the direct attacks of other players.

-An example of an internal player generated influence would by like the "Hacienda" in Puerto Rico. It gives the player a chance to make a choice that can influence one of the interactions in the game - but the player doesn't have to do so.

The two sub-types are either Conditional or Random. With the Hacienda, it is an internal player generated influence but it's subject to randomness. With turn order in Power Grid, it is a game generated influence that is strictly conditional based on a set of criteria.

So, the Alpha and Beta Nodes are not only decision points where player choice is introduced into the system, but they are also points of entry for influences:

So, now that the context of the model has been established, two more assertions I have about what makes for "good" game design will make sense:

-Postive feed back loops for players should be counter-balanced in some way by some other aspect lest a run-away leader problem emerge.

-In situations where External Player Generated influences result in direct loss of resources by one player, having more than two players presents a situation where the game can suffer from triangulation problems (I've written previous posts on this concept).

Edit: One more thing to include with this model before moving on is that Internal Player Generated Feedback influences don't always simply influence the choice nodes. Sometimes the manifestation of this type of feedback influence...

...is the fact that a Level 3 resource doubles as a Level 1 Resource:

Examples of this include how Settlements in Settlers of Catan, Buildings in Puerto Rico, and Buildings in Caylus are the results of Beta Node choices regarding Level 2 resources but they also serve as Level 1 resources in helping create Level 2 resources.

*In part 3, I'll discuss a second model of design called the "Tri-Stage Resource Transition Model". It's a model that is decidedly different from the Tri-Level Exchange model in its form.

The "Music" of Game Design: Part 1

2009-01-08T11:33:00.000-08:00

Board game design and music composition are actually more similar than one might at first think. Both are artistic endeavors. The results of both are judged by others as being "good" or "fun" or as being "bad" or "unpleasant". There are many different types of board games just as there are many different types of music compositions. I assert that, just like how music has fundamental principles behind what tends to make for "good" music and what doesn't, game design also has fundamental principles behind what makes for a "fun" game and what doesn't.

I minored in music while in college and, in my spare time, I'm a drumline instructor for a local high school. In my studies, I've spent some time developing an understanding of many basic principles of music theory not only for personal improvement but also because I occasionally compose percussion features for the ensemble I help instruct (which involves writing parts for mallet percussion as well as drumline "battery" parts). These principles manifest themselves as generalizations that tend to be true of music that people find to be "good" or pleasant. By knowing about these principles, I save myself lots of time. I can identify why certain passages won't work with the rest of the piece before I get very far into composing them.

Contrast this process with someone who is isn't aware of these principles and who is working purely from a trial and error basis. They try some notes and find out that they aren't working very well. They don't know why but they know they don't sound good. So, they try some more notes and they, again, don't work. They keep going and keep going and keep going. Perhaps many months later, they have something approaching a basic skeleton of a piece that could work but still has many problems with it. For me personally, I can sketch out basic arrangements fairly quickly as I am already aware of basic chord structures, inversions, typical chord progressions within a key, pivot chords, cadences, four-part voice writing "rules", generalities for what makes for good arrangements, etc. Though there are others who are definitely more talented than me in this area, I have a huge leg up on those who are approaching it from a trial and error basis.

The same idea can be applied to game design and its challenges. In both endeavors, a person can go through a lengthy trial and error process and eventually arrive at something decent. Or, if they understand basic principles of theory behind the work they are engaged in, can save themselves a lot of time and compose/design much better works a lot faster than if they were ignorant of those principles.

In one of my game designs recently, I found that the game was "okay" but that it simply lacked that extra dimension that I wanted for it. The trick was, I didn't know what that extra dimension was. I found myself trying to articulate a vague notion that I couldn't, at first, quite verbalize. The same thing can apply to music. If a person doesn't like a piece, if they have the vocabulary, terminology and jargon to call upon, they can express themselves much more precisely than by simply voicing vague notions. So, I set upon the task of verbalizing my notions with respect to my prototype.

What I arrived at was a series of "discoveries" or "conclusions" about specific models of game design that I assert can help one in the process of identifying not only problems in a game design but also what may be lacking or not present yet that could help a game reach the next level. As I arrived at these conclusions, I found that they felt very much like many of the typical principles of composition that I encountered while studying music.

As I said before, there are many types of music and, accordingly, there are many types of game designs. Just as music has its concertos, arias, symphonies, four-part choral arrangements, and percussion features, game design features many types of models that we often describe from the standpoint of one of the game's mechanics (i.e. economic, pick-up-and-deliver, negotiation, etc.). I assert here that one particular model I have been able to identify in many successful games is what I have termed the "Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model". Here is a graphic of it:

For a larger version of this image, click here and then zoom in to see the details.

Though this model is an attempt to capture all of the elements in a game of this type, not all games that employ this model incorporate every element.

Basic Elements
At its core, the "Tri-Level Resource Excange Model" is exactly what its name implies. It is a model where the players use "Level 1" resources to acquire "Level 2" or "intermediate" resources which are then used to acquire "Level 3" resources. The winning condition in games that implement this model are usually based on the acquisition of certain types of Level 3 resources.

It is the presence and use of "intermediate" or "Level 2" resources that creates the intrigue within the system. Having intermediate resources results in there being two interaction "nodes" or points of choice where the players have to make plans and account for "interference" as well. Let's look at the first node:

The essence of this first node is using "Primary" or "Level 1" Resources to acquire usable secondary or "Level 2" resources either through direct production or through exchange. Something that is critical to understand about this model before going on is that certain resources can act on multiple levels but the model still holds true.

The key to the definition of secondary or level 2 resources is that they are merely acquired means to an end. Secondary resources do not pay directly into the winning condition, they simply facility the process of acquiring the resources that do.

Tertiary or level 3 resources are typically of three types:

They are either:

-Static VP's (these types of resources simply serve as points and don't serve any other purpose)
-Dynamic VP's (these types of resources serve as points but also feed back into the system and dynamically impact the processes that are in motion)
-Dynamic Non-VP's (these types of resources purely feed back into the system and affect the process that are in motion but don't serve as any sort of points in and of themselves)

Perhaps a couple of examples would be useful:

Examples

Puerto Rico
In the game "Puerto Rico", you use primary resources such as buildings, plantations, and workers to acquire secondary resources or "goods". These goods do not count directly towards the winning condition of the game (i.e. having the most points) but they do act as a means towards acquiring shipping points (a Level 3 Resource which contributes to the winning condition) or towards acquiring money which is then used for purchasing buildings (a Level 3 recource which also contributes to the winning condition).

Notice, however, that buildings act as a level 1 resource and as a level 3 resource. They are a means to acquiring the intermediate resources that lead to more acquisition of the resources that will win the game and they are also part of the resources that will win the game. In this respect, they act on multiple levels. However, shipping points are purely level 3 resources. They do not contribute to the acquisition of more money, more goods, or more buildings. They are simply static VP's.

Buildings, on the other hand, are dynamic VP's. They not only contribute to the winning condition by representing points but they also dynamically feed back into the processes of the game.

In Puerto Rico, there are no truely Dynamic Non-VP's. However, despite the fact that Puerto Rico doesn't utilize one of the three possible types of Level 3 resources, it is still a "Tri-Level Resource Exchange" game.

The Settlers of Catan
In the game "The Settlers of Catan", we again see the multi-level nature of certain resources. Settlements, Cities, and Roads are all level 1 resources which facilitate the acquisition of level 2 resources (the wood, brick, ore, wheat, and wool cards). These level 2 resources are then used to acquire Level 3 resources which are of one of three types:

-Static VP's The occasional development cards that grant 1 Victory Point serve no other purpose than to simply represent a point for the player.

-Dynamic VP's The creation of more settlements and cities results in more points for the player. However, cities and settlements dynamically affect the number and types of secondary resources the player can acquire. Thus, they dynamically feed back into the system in addition to their serving as points.

-Dynamic Non-VP's The developement cards that allow for acquiring more resources or for moving the robber dynamically feed back into the system but don't serve as a direct source of points.

Some Observations and Assertions:

Part of the enjoyment of music is the creation of tension and then the release of that tension through resolution. In other words, you establish a tonal center, stray from that tonal center, and then return to it in a pleasant way. With respect to games, a friend of mine named Peter aptly phrased part of the "pay-off" that players get from playing a game in that a game grants them the chance to formulate a "plan" and then attempt to execute or carry out that "plan".

In Tri-Level Resource Exchange games, the plan players get to formulate comes from their attempts to acquire various types of intermediate level resources and to then creatively convert those secondary resources into Level 3 resources in the best way possible. If I look at my previous prototype from the standpoint of comparing it with the "Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model", I realize very quickly that there wasn't a second or Beta decision node. Players made choices about acquiring different types of secondary resources but those secondary resources were then simply converted into points at the end without the opportunity for the players to make choices about what to do with the resources they acquired. It was just a straight up acquisition game. Thus, it lacked that second level or second node of choice I've termed the "Beta Node" in my model.

Also, with respect to forming a "plan", there must be a sufficient diversity of second level resources to pursue in the game such that there is a "palette" of choices the players can use to create a unique plan. If there are too few types of secondary resources, then the players don't get the opportunity to exercise some individuality or creativity in the process. If there are too many, the players can pursue parallel courses and never get in each other's way.

The Power of "5"

A pattern I've noticed among several games that implement this model (as well as among other games that don't use this tri-level exchange model) is the number "5" with respect to the types of resources that players can go after in the game. It seems to serve as a natural number in that having 5 types of secodary resources allows for sufficient creativity and diversity in pursing a plan while not providing so many options such that the players don't get in each other's way. Here are some examples from well known games - including some that don't use the Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model:

-Puerto Rico uses 5 types of goods (corn, indigo, sugar, tobacco, coffee)

-Caylus uses 5 types of goods (food, wood, stone, cloth, gold)

-Settlers of Catan uses 5 types of goods (wood, brick, ore, wheat, wool)

-RA uses 5 types of tiles for in-game scoring (God, Pharaoh, River, Civilization, Gold)

-The Princes of Florence uses 5 factors that contribute to points scored via works (Buildings, Landscapes, Freedoms, Jesters, and other Work Cards)

-Power Grid uses 5 types of sources for powering the power plants (coal, oil, garbage, nuclear and "wind" - for the free power plants)

-Lost Cities uses 5 colors that players attempt to score points on.

-China uses 5 types of colored cards for playing (red, orange, yellow, green, and purple)

-Niagara uses 5 types of colored gems (purple, white, brown, blue, and pink)

-Transamerica uses 5 different colored cities you are trying to connect each round

Now, I'm not saying that a designer has to incorporate 5 different types of secondary resources into his game for it to work. I'm merely observing that this number comes up a lot and that it's worth paying attention to as it works for a number of games that have proven successful in their appeal.

Some games use 4:

-Saint Petersburg uses 4 types of cards (workers, buildings, aristocrats, and upgrades)

-Tigris and Euphrates uses 4 types of tiles (red, black, green, and blue)

-Loot uses 4 pirate colors (orange, blue purple, green)

-Carcassonne allows for 4 ways to score using meeples (thief, knight, farmer, monk)

-Blokus uses 4 colors (red, yellow, green, blue)

...while others use 6:

-Ingenious uses 6 colors (red, blue, yellow, green, orange, and purple)

-Ticket to Ride uses 6 colors (red, orange, yellow, blue, green, and pink)

...but 5 seems to be the most common number I encounter in these games. Thus, if I'm trying to create a game that uses mutliple types of resources, I'm probably going to start out with five as a safe starting point and then alter it based on feed back and playtesting.

*Part 2 to follow. In it, I will complete my discussion of the Tri-Level Resource Exchange Model by going into the "Feedback Loops" one finds in games of this kind. I will also introduce and discuss another model of game design called the "Tri-Stage Resource Transition Model" - which is slightly different in its construction.

Solo Play-testing: The Importance and the Myopia

2008-12-09T07:58:00.001-08:00

Have you ever been asked by a friend to help them move? If so, have you ever had the experience where, once you showed up to help, you realized that that person hadn't put in the time and effort beforehand to properly plan out how to utilize the time you had personally given up to be there? If so, then you might have experienced the frustration of finding yourself mostly standing around waiting on the person who was coordinating the move. If this is something you have experienced, then you are probably aware of the natural tendency to dwell upon the other things you could have been doing had you not committed to help your friend out. If this goes on long enough, it can even create feelings of resentment depending on what sacrifices you made in order to be there and help your friend move.

What does this have to do with game design? Well, designing a game is a lot like moving. It involves task management, time management, and coordiation - all of which are organizational skills. Even the most creative, artistic person will never get their game design off the ground without some kind of organization to the process - especially when the process involves utilizing the willing time commitments of other people.

The long, tedious process of trial-and-error that is playtesting can try the patience of even the most committed designer - sometimes resulting in a designer having to leave a project for a while so as to reapproach it with a fresh perspective later on. However, the gracious people in our lives who are willing to help us play-test our games are, in most cases, nowhere near as committed as we are to the process. How can they be? It's not their game design. They are simply helping us with our project. If one sits down with playtesters to playtest a game, it's usually with the understanding on everybody's part that the game could go on for a specific amount of time (perhaps a half hour to an hour for example). Thus, some time will have necessarily been set aside by all involved in order for a playtesting session to occur. If a designer has not done any solo playtesting of the design before asking for the help of others, then I assert that he is being disrespectful of the other playtesters' time as basic problems (such as turn-order sequence problems, basic ambiguities in rules, etc.) are problems that can often be discovered in simple solo playtesting sessions first before ever needing to bring other people into the process.

People will often feel more committed to a project if they have confidence in how the project is being managed and will often feel a greater sense of satisfaction with respect to their contributions if they see that their efforts are being utilized effectively. If your playtesters feel like their time and contributions were meaningful and well utilized, it's more likely that they will sit down to a future playtesting session. Solo playtesting in advance makes that more likely as one is more likely to "catch" many of the basic problems that would have come up in the playtesting session and, thus, can allow for playtesting sessions to become more effective and informative. Thus, solo playtesting is important and (I would argue) necessary in the process of designing a game.

However, there are also problems that solo playtesting can't solve. In fact, if one is doing too much solo playtesting without bringing other people into the process, a form of "myopia" can develope in the design process which, if allowed to persist for too long, can result in a lot of wasted time on the part of the designer and a lot of problems that group playtesting would have corrected. Let's look at three of these problems.

Over-Complexity/Fiddliness
Often, a designer will spend so much time thinking about his game design that certain mechanics or rules seem more simple to him than they would to other people who haven't been spending hours and hours deliberating on how the game should be structured. I've experienced this before where a rule I felt was fairly simple was actually very counterintuitive or was simply more fiddly than I was giving it credit. Having the perspective of others to alert one to these aspects of a game's design is important.

Over-Simplicity/Blandness
Because solo playtesting requires one to think through and keep in mind what all of the players involved would have to consider with respect to their decisions, it can create the illusion that the choices facing the players in the game are actually more involved and deep than they really are. If a person settles down into the role of one of the players instead of trying to play as all of the players, one might find out very quickly that the choices facing any one player are actually not that interesting or, even worse, are overly simplistic.

Self-fulfilling Prophecies
When solo playtesting, I've found that it's pretty easy to make decisions within the game based on assumptions of value in certain paths, items, rewards, etc. within the game's design. Thus, solo playtesting sessions can create a self-fullfilling prophecy where the designer's assumptions about the values of different resources, objectives, or paths lead to decisions that reflect those assumptions and the game works in the solo playtests as a result. However, if other players sit down to play and don't have those same assumptions of value in mind, the game might actually not work at all. Having the perspective of others helps eliminate this tendency in the testing process.

So, solo playtesting is, from my perspective, both necessary and insufficient. It's necessary to engage in so that we don't waste other people's time or try their patience but it's also not sufficient as certain problems can only be solved via group playtesting sessions.

Lighting

2008-09-19T13:06:00.001-07:00

I'll try to improve the lighting situation for filming with my next video.

In the Game - Episode 1: Ticket To Ride

2008-09-18T23:08:00.001-07:00

I just completed the first episode and for this episode I decided to teach the classic gateway game "Ticket To Ride". The video is in three parts. Here they are:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

My new "In The Game" series

2008-09-18T23:08:00.000-07:00

I've decided to try making some instructional board game videos with the intent of creating a series called "In The Game". The reason why I'm calling the series "In The Game" is because I will approach these videos from the standpoint of the viewer having already bought the game and looking to these videos as a resource to teach them how to play the game first-hand while they are sitting at the table with their friends ready to learn how to play.

"Heavens of Olympus" on BoardGameGeek

2008-08-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

I submitted a description of my game to BGG and it's been approved. Here's the link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/37680

Publication Announcement

2008-07-27T14:43:00.001-07:00

Yesterday at the "Gathering of Strangers" game convention, I had the chance to pitch one of my game designs to Jay Tummelson of Rio Grande Games and he accepted it for publication. There is no immediate time table for its release as the art work and other pre-publication work still needs to be done on it. Nevertheless, it is indeed an honor and I want to publicly thank Jay for his generosity. The name of the game is "The Heavens of Olympus" and I have submitted a short description of it to Board Game Geek. Once it's approved by the admins, I'll post a link to it here.

"A Gathering of Strangers" 2008

2008-07-27T14:41:00.000-07:00

This year the annual Salt Lake City Boardgaming convention "A Gathering of Strangers" was a two-day event.

Like last year, it was in the Saltaire Room at the Student Union Building at the University of Utah. Ryan was at his usual spot at the front registration desk:

The attendance for was fairly strong for both days:

There were all kinds of games being played. The Math Trade and general trading tables will filled with games. The game library was manned by members of the Board Game Designers Guild of Utah. Game Night Games helped sponsor the event again. Here was the booth we had set up at the convention:

There were also demos put on by several people. John and Kristi Colaizzi (a.k.a the local "Men in Black" for Steve Jackson Games) did some demos of "Munchkin" and Phil Kilcrease did demos of the hot new game "Agricola":

We also had Jay Tummelson from Rio Grande Games attending. He was demoing one of the new games that will be coming out soon from Rio Grande called "Dominion".

Overall, the convention was a lot of fun for everyone.

Game Design "Chindogu"

2008-06-13T11:30:00.000-07:00

I recently revisited a game design of mine because there were aspects of it that struck both myself and other people as being somewhat "gamey". What I mean by this is, often, in game design, designers get "too creative" for their own good and engage in game design "chindogu". If you've never heard of this term before, it's a description of an invention that, at face value, looks like a great solution to a problem. However, once a person actually attempts to use that solution, it causes so many other sorts of problems that there's actually no utility in it whatsoever. (For more information on "chindogu", check out the wikipedia article on it here.)

Often, in game design, by simplifying one aspect of a game, it eliminates the need for excessive components, wonky rules, and other sorts of weird mechanics that are all designed to compensate for the troublesome area in question. Once the simpler solution is found, the previous solutions with all their complex "creativity" look very silly in comparison.

So, in honor of all the game designers out there who, just like myself, have engaged in game design "chindogu", here is a youtube video just for you:

Report from GAMA 2008

2008-05-15T08:35:00.001-07:00

Due to some technical difficulties, this report is being posted a bit later than I had planned on (GAMA took place several weeks ago). Nevertheless, here it is.

GAMA stands for Game Manufacturers Association. Every year, GAMA holds a convention in Las Vegas where various game retailers, publishers, manufacturers and distributors can get together, meet each other, and exchange ideas. You can visit their website at: http://www.gama.org/

There were plenty of booths set up for the various game manufacturers and publishers:

A wide variety of companies was represented including CCG companies like Upper Deck:

Major board game companies like Fantasy Flight were there showing many of their new soon-to-be-released games:

The Steve Jackson Games booth was a lot of fun as well:

I was able to take a look at a life size "Orc-Be-Gone" while visiting the Steve Jackson booth:

Inbetween all of the workshops and meetings, we had the chance to eat in the dining hall where we also listened to presentations from new up and coming companies describing their new products:

Overall, the convention was a great experience and a good chance to meet many of the people you work with in this industry face-to-face. I had the opportunity to try some new games that people have self-published as well as play some of the games that are about to be released.

One thing that was pretty sad to me though was the fact that there were several people there at the convention who had taken the time and money to publish a game, bring it to the convention, set up a booth, and attempt to pitch it to people who are savy with respect to the industry and the game that they had designed was simply another Monopoly, roll-and-move, clone:

However, the convention was a great time and I learned quite a bit. I had the chance to meet with the guys from Mayfair, FRED Distribution, Fantasy Flight, Steve Jackson Games, Flying Frog Productions, Out of the Box, Educational Insights, Zev from Z-Man Games, Upper Deck, Wizards of the Coast, WizKids, as well as many other game publishers, manufacturers, and distributors.

Matt Leacock Discusses His Game "Pandemic"

2008-05-15T08:05:00.001-07:00

Thanks to my friend Alf Seegart for pointing this video out to me.

In this clip, Matt Leacock discusses the overall process of designing his game. There's also lots of good information in this clip for game designing in general as he hits on some really excellent points to consider with respect to "fun" in a game, the prototyping process, issues with replayability, accessibility of a game, etc. Enjoy.

The Importance of Theme in European Game Design

2008-04-28T17:26:00.000-07:00

I have recently had some major epiphanies as a game designer - specifically with respect to the importance of theme. In fact, one might say that these epiphanies of mine represent critical conceptual breakthroughs in my personal journey towards becoming a better game designer (I'm afraid that many more will occur over the years as I continue to learn how much I don't know). To communicate my new found understandings to the fullest extent possible, let me first back up and paint a big picture by beginning with two basic premises:

1. There are many people out there designing games.

I attend a monthly meeting with a group of local people who get together and playtest each other's game prototypes as well as discuss various issues in the realm of game design. On a larger scale, on the Board Game Designers Forum website and on the game design forum on Board Game Geek, there are many many people having conversations about game design. There are also many more people out there unfamiliar with these venues who are also trying to design games on their own (either with a serious intent on making quality games or simply out of curiosity). My point here is that there are LOTS of people out there trying to design games.

2. Very few people out there are designing really "good" games.

With this second premise, I automatically introduce the question of "What really represents 'good'?" In my game evaluation criteria I mentioned six specific areas of evaluation that an evaluator can rank on a scale of 1 to 7. These six areas are:

-Clarity
-Flow
-Balance
-Length
-Integration
-Fun

Many game designs are simply in the early stages of their development and, thus, have not "matured" yet into good games. They are still in the "the - game - stinks - but - has - the - potential - to - be - good - after - lots - of - refining" stage (for more actual specifics - sans humor - on my scale of the various stages of game design click here). However, even with refining, many game designs still don't truly progress into the "6" or "7" ranges with respect to the categories outlined previously. They simply remain average or mediocre games. True, the first challenge is to get a game out of the lower ranges (i.e. to try and get the game to a point where it's not fundamentally broken or completely a chore to play) but many game designers don't progress their designs to a truly great level (myself included). Why is this?

A quote from Adam Smith applies here. Before writing "Wealth of Nations", Mr. Smith wrote a book entitled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". In that book, he makes the following statement that is applicable to our current discussion:

"In all the liberal and ingenious arts, in painting, in poetry, in music, in eloquence, in philosophy, the great artist feels always the real imperfection of his own best works, and is more sensible than any man how much they fall short of that ideal perfection of which he has formed some conception, which he imitates as well he can, but which he despairs of ever equalling. It is the inferior artist only, who is ever perfectly satisfied with his own performances. He has little conception of this ideal perfection, about which he has little employed his thoughts; and it is chiefly to the works of other artists, of, perhaps, a still lower order, that he deigns to compare his own works."

It takes a lot of work to make something truly great. And, lots of work equals lots of time. Also, to get something to a truly great level, one must be willing to listen to harsh criticism - not with the intent to be defensive - but with the intent to learn. We also must be able to have a correct set of standards in our minds so as to be able to properly apply our own set of criticisms to our game designs - lest they languish in the realm of mediocrity.

My recent epiphanies concern the development of theme in European game design and how many of us are "lazy" in our theme development. We allow ourselves to be satisfied with sub-par themes. This relates to the "Integration" category in my game design criteria but it deals with issues greater than just integration within the game's inter-relating parts. First, let's explore why theme is so important and then we'll look at why many of us justify our own "theme laziness".

From the standpoint of potential publishers, manufacturers, and game players, they need a reason to play your game. They need a solid answer from within themselves to the question "Why should I take a look at this person's game?" For many game designers, their internal rationale concerning the answer to that question goes something like this:

"I designed this game - isn't that reason enough? I've nurtured this little game design since it was just a baby and I know in my heart just how awesome it is."

Unfortunately, other than in the case of automatic "yes men" such as immediate family and friends (who will usually just offer you encouragement on your game design instead of actual useful, critical feedback) others out there who are making decisions with respect to which games to look at and which ones not to (as well as which games to invest in financially and which ones not to) will not find such rationale as providing a sufficient enough reason to spend their time listening to you pitch your game - much less sitting down to play your game.

Game designers must master the critical art of empathy - the ability to look at their game design from a removed perspective and not merely from the "eye glasses" of their own experiences and biases. So, what kind of "reasons" for trying a game or are worth appealing to in other people?

In a previous article I wrote on the theory of what makes for "fun" in a gaming experience, I detailed some of the many specific reasons why someone may derive enjoyment out of a game. I listed 17 different motivations or purposes that people apply in their rationale for why they are participating in a game or what they are trying to get out of a game. Also, in another previous article, I detailed a variety of mechanics that can be used in the process of designing a game.

It must be kept in mind that game mechanics are a means to an end. They are used as vehicles to help convey a fun experience to an audience. Unfortunately, we as game designers are often misguided in our perception of mechanics because many of us have inferred the wrong things from games we have seen that have been published out there in the realm of European games. These incorrect inferences we make can cause us to begin the process of designing games with the completely wrong approach. What type of inferences am I talking about? Well, let me present a quick scenario and then I'll discuss how it relates to our topic.

Imagine working at a lower level job where there are a lot of rules and restrictions in place. In that setting, you find that occasionally you work alongside the owner's son. You notice that the owner's son doesn't always follow these small rules and restrictions that your manager strongly emphasized to you when you began the job. You also notice that the manager doesn't criticize the owner's son for breaking these smaller rules. In your mind you make the inference "if it's okay for him to do it then it's okay for me to do it and the manager must not have been too serious about those rules in the first place". Then, you start letting yourself lapse in your adherence to these rules and, almost immediately, your manager says "Hey, do you want to get fired? You had better shape up!" Shocked, you wait until your shift is over and you approach your manager. In a very honest and genuinely curious fashion you ask your manager why he reproved you. He responds "because you were breaking the rules". You then reply "but so was the boss's son". Your manager then drops his head, rubs his eyes, puts his hand on your shoulder, looks you in the eye and, almost as if explaining a concept to a very young child, explains "but he's the boss's son".

The point of this story is that we as game designers look at many of the games that have been published out there and infer the wrong kinds of things from them (much like how the main character in my story didn't understand that different rules apply based on who you are in a given scenario). Unless your name is Knizia, Kramer, or Seyfarth, mechanical game descriptions alone will not be enough in most cases to sufficiently inspire potential publishers to look at your game. Without the benefit of name recognition, you have to reach out to their imagination and give them a "reason" for looking at your game and that can most easily be achieved by developing an interesting theme.

The ironic thing is that theme is often an afterthought in the minds of those who are trying to design European games. It's looked at as a required necessity - but not a priority - and, if the game must have a theme, it's slapped on. This type of theme-being-an-afterhtought type of thinking is justified by inferences designers make based on other games that have been published by major publishers that employ themes which are, quite honestly, pretty lousy.

Here's an example of what I mean. Take the 2006 Spiel des Jahres winner: "Thurn and Taxis". It was designed by Andreas Seyfarth - the famous designer of the top rated game "Puerto Rico". What's the theme of Thurn and Taxis?

.....building.....postal......routes.....

Now, I want you to imagine yourself - someone who is not on a first name basis with a publisher - trying to pitch your game to a publisher by saying, "Hi. You don't know me but I've designed a game I was hoping you would look at. It's about...... delivering the mail......"

Doesn't sound very interesting does it?

If you were to only be allowed to describe your game's theme and you weren't permitted at all to describe the mechanics, would your game sound interesting to play? Would you want to play it? Honestly? Further, would a complete stranger want to play your game based on the theme alone? If not, then good luck trying to get a publisher to look at your game.

Many game designers who are trying to design European style games are studious with respect to their mechanics but lazy with their themes. They think their mechanics are what will sell their game, that the theme isn't that important, and then they justify their rationale by citing plenty of examples from the field of published games where the themes are uninteresting or where there is no connection at all between the theme and the mechanics of the game. I'm here to tell you that, from my perspective, if you're not the boss's son, you have to play by the rules. And, if you're not Andreas Seyfarth, you're probably not going to sell your game based on it being about delivering the mail.

This my friends is the water in which we swim. The theme of one's game is really its best selling point unless one is a well recognized designer. We must invest more time in developing a theme that is interesting and that naturally invites others to want to play our game. Unfortunately, most of us don't invest enough time or creative energy in this process. I would also contend that, even if most designers consider theme to be important, they don't have the acumen to truly see what makes for an interesting theme and what doesn't. For example, does your game have a generic "business" theme? If so, can you see why that immediately saddles your game with baggage? A theme needs to reach out and capture the imagination of your potential audience. Does "business" really do that? In very few cases it does but not for many people.

A theme needs to engage the imaginations of the players - but don't take my thesis too far in the other direction either. A game's theme doesn't have to be an in-your-face epic of explosions, space aliens, massive planetary wars or galactic conflicts to be effective. It may simply be an amusing little story about ants in a colony - but it must appeal positively to a person's imagination in some way such that they will want to play your game.

I would also contend that, unless our intention is to design a purely abstract game, we must select a theme as early on in the process of designing a game as possible so that the theme can serve as a guiding light to help us determine which mechanics should be in the game and which ones should not.

Further, if someone says, "Hey, that sounds like an interesting game. I'll try it." and then sits down and is introduced to a series of mechanics that really don't reflect the theme at all, you're going to disappoint and perhaps even annoy the people who decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. If your theme is a "stretch" - meaning something like "yeah that bidding mechanic 'could' represent ants gathering food - but it's really abstract" then your game's ability to inspire people's imagination will immediately lose its momentum.

For many people to really appreciate a theme, they need to feel a sense of what their "role" is in the game and it needs to "make sense" to them. If a person is asking themselves "Why would I do this if I were in that position? If my goal is to build walls in a certain way, why is the fictional person in the 'story" of the game awarding points in the manner that they are?" There needs to be a sense of empathy that can easily be evoked from the players. If there is a "king" that awards "points", can the players easily see how, if they were the "king" in the game, that the way the king is awarding points is by using a system of judgment that, if the players were in the same situation, would seem reasonable to them as well? Just pulling an example out of thin air, does it make sense to the players that the king is awarding points because of how many different horses a player has ridden in a given week? I know that may seem silly but it's not too far removed from the logic many designers of European games settle for when determining their theme.

So, is there a lack of connection between the mechanics and the story your game is trying to tell? If your theme appeals to a potential publisher's imagination in a positive way, they may listen to you pitch your game. But then, afterwards, if they don't feel a connection between the theme and the mechanics as you pitch your game, if they can't visualize the "story" of the game, they will probably not try your game. (For a good discussion on theme summarizing a game, check out Jonathan Degann's article over at the Journal of Board Game Design.)

Even if a game is a "good" game with an interesting story, getting noticed is yet another step (if a game is designed in the forest and no publisher is around to see it, did it really get designed)? The fact of the matter is, many game designs out there are simply not original enough to break out of the baggage that naturally results from our pre-existing gaming environment. In other words, someone designing, say, a role-playing game with a fantasy theme is not designing their game within a cultural vacuum. This world we live in is a world where Dungeons & Dragons already exists. Were it not so, a fantasy based role-playing game would maybe have more traction in getting noticed. As it is, natural comparisons will be made between any fantasy based RPG and D&D. Unless the new game offers something that has here-to-for not been seen, it's unlikely that the game will "win" the natural comparison that will be made by many out there in the audience of potential game buyers as well as potential game publishers and manufacturers between the game design in question and an already existing industry standard. (The irony in this process is that it's likely the ideas for many of the games being designed by aspiring designers were conceived of and nurtured within a realm of experience with the industry standard games the resulting game designs will be ultimately compared with.)

One final thing to consider with respect to theme and European game design is how Eurogames tend towards a certain standard of "simplicity" in the rules. Usually, to evoke a theme more and more, there is an assumption that there needs to be more and more rules to help flush out that theme. Another one of my epiphanies is that this is not necessarily the case. Are the mechanics in the game "Hey, That's My Fish!" thematic? Yes they are. Are they simple? Yes they are. The point is that the mechanics in "Hey, That's My Fish!" don't ask the player to make a huge leap in logic so as to accept a real stretch in associating the mechanics with the game's story. A game doesn't have to have tons of rules to be thematic. It just needs to be "true" to its story and its story needs to be something others will consider worth taking the time to experience.

Board Game Design at San Diego State University

2008-03-06T14:32:00.000-08:00

San Diego State University's college of education has a course on "Exploratory Learning through Simulation and Games". As part of this course, there are several listings of materials for board game designing as a project for the class (including evaluation critieria that is somewhat similiar to my own that I posted previously on this blog). Here is a link to the course:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC670/

On the bottom left hand side of the course's page will be a link to various projects - one of which is entitled "Board Game". Click on the "evaluation rubric" link in the middle and it will pull up the criteria. (The reason why I'm having to provide directions here is because the interface on the webpage doesn't provide me with unique addresses to each of these items. It's a different format so all I can provide here is a link to the main page.)

There is also a link I found that is part of this course which details the process of game designing. It is done with the intent that the game be some sort of educational game so keep that in mind as it details the process. Here is the link:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC670/boardgame/BoardGameDesign1.html

-Enjoy.

Bluffing and Game Theory

2008-03-04T08:29:00.000-08:00

This is an amusing little video on game theory and bluffing. Enjoy:

Game Design: Video of Reiner Knizia discussing game design

2008-02-27T11:34:00.001-08:00

What follows here is a Spanish video where Dr. Reiner Knizia discusses some of his ideas on game design. The title and subtitles are all written in Spanish as are the names of the games on the boxes pictured but he is speaking English throughout (with Spanish subtitles at the bottom of the screen).

The introduction and some of the artistic work in this video at the very beginning tends to drag a bit but after getting past that, there are some good ideas presented by the good doctor. Enjoy:

Review: Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit

2008-02-03T17:23:00.000-08:00

This review is a version of one that I posted on BGG previously.

Okay, let's get two things out of the way first:

1. I am a Eurogamer. I came into this game not having played any Ameritrash "classics" that I enjoyed. In fact, I hadn't played any Ameritrash games that I really enjoyed - period.

2. I hated Episode I the movie. I found the acting wooden, the dialogue trite, the plot lacking a true emotional tie in (and I'm not even going to start into the whole Jar-Jar issue). Don't get me wrong, I am a Star Wars fan. I've read a lot of Star Wars fiction and I'm a loyal fan of the original trilogy. Perhaps it was because of these things that I found Episode I to be the most disappointing movie I've ever seen - simply because of the anticipation that I, along with many other Star Wars fans, felt leading up to its release.

So, with a general distaste of Ameritrash in my mouth and wearing my Episode I hater cap, I approached "The Queen's Gambit" simply out of curiosity due to the praise I've read about the game. I asked myself, "can a game based on such a lousy movie be any good?" So, what's the answer?

Well, I'm here to tell each and every one of you out there from a certified Eurosnoot that "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit" is one of the best games I've played in a long time. The game just oozes with theme. Sure there are lots of dice (which are normally a problem for eurogamers) but, with this game, I just didn't care that there was so much dice rolling. The movement of the different characters on the various boards immersed me in the theme of battling Darth Maul, fighting the battle droids on the plains of Naboo, trying to deceive the other player with my two queens, trying to storm the palace and fight my way to the Viceroy, trying to plow through the fleet of ships as Anakin to blow up the Federation control ship, and so forth. I hated the movie, and I expected this game to disappoint me like the movie did, but it wasn't to be. This game is good, really good.

So, why is it so good? It's the details. I'm not about to go into a lengthy discourse on the rules but perhaps a few examples will suffice:

-There are two decks of cards: one for the Theed-Palace area and one for the battlefield / space-battle-above-the-planet area. A player has to play four cards in a round and these four cards are planned out and set in place in terms of which cards and in what sequence before the action begins (so there's some second-guessing and anticipation involved). At the end of each turn, both players draw from each deck (two cards per deck). The result is, if you hammer one area, you will mostly have cards for the other area in your hand - thus providing a natural compulsion to focus on a balanced approach in the game.

-There is an "energy shield" on the plains battle that prevents federation droids from shooting at Gungans from a distance. Droids can walk through the shield (just like in the movie) and can work towards taking out the shield generators so that the rest of the forces can work more effectively. (By the way, "just like in the movie" is a phrase you will hear a lot as you continue reading.)

-The battle between Qui-Gon Ginn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Maul is set up so that Qui-Gon will take the blunt of the hits at the beginning - thus making it more likely that, if one of the two Jedi die, it will be him - again, just like in the movie. In fact the initial placement of the characters is set up just like in the movie with Qui-Gon having to battle Darth Maul and Obi-Wan stuck having to watch at first.

-Getting Anikan through the federation fleet to blow up the main ship will take some luck. Again, just like in the movie.

-You can ascend the palace through the stairs or on the outside using grapling guns - again, just like in the movie.

-The Gungans will not tend to do well on the battle field as there are three units of gungans per hex while there are four units of droids per hex - thus giving the federation a distinct advantage in combat - again serving as a thematic reflection of the movie.

-In some cases with some characters, you can roll defense dice when attacked. With the Jedi, the possibility of hitting back out of turn when attacked is presented - just like in the movies how Jedi can deflect laser blasts back at their opponents. Also, the destroyer droids (the scorpion looking droids with shields) have defense dice that make them harder to kill. Further, the general luck of hucking a lot of dice fits the idea of a laser gun battle. Sometimes you hit lucky shots. Sometimes you don't.

Components

Now, let's look at one staple of Ameritrash-ism in particular: namely that of bits. I haven't really cared that much about bits in the past. As a Eurogamer, I'm fine with my LWC's (little wooden cubes). However, the bits in this game add a lot to the experience. Trying to imagine this game with abstracted components like cubes just wouldn't work. After a lot of Gungans and droids have bitten the dust, it's pretty cool to watch these bits be set off to the side as a visual body count of the action that's taken place. The way the board is constructed with the three-dimensional aspect to the palace really heightens the thematic feel of the game. It's not just a gimic. It's functional to place the boards as they are because of the ability of the palace guards to use their grapling guns to ascend the outside of the palace to a higher floor.

Balance

A complaint that is often layed at the door of the Ameritrash genre is one of balance - namely that the games are often not balanced. This game is not necessarily balanced - but it doesn't matter (at least, it didn't matter to me). There are swings in the momentum of the game due to "bonus cards" that a player earns the right to play when they accomplish something significant. I was getting hosed pretty badly until I finally defeated Darth Maul which not only gave me bonus cards but also allowed me to unleash Obi-Wan on the droid forces. These "swings" in momentum really captured a thematic element that created a rich experience for me. They are also not the kinds of momentum swings that can rob a game of its enjoyment. With 1960 for example, the swings are so drastic from turn to turn that they undermined my enjoyment of the game. With Queen's Gambit, the swings are just as drastic but much farther apart from each other and much fewer in number such that strategy and tactics retain much of their significance.

Time

This game's length clocks in at about two hours and that's about right for what it offers. Both players are involved the entire time. (I'll admit I haven't played this game as a 4-player game but I imagine that it's a stretch to do so. This strikes me as a two player game.)

Audience / Who will like this game?

This is not a game that will work very well for most newbie gamers or those who feel threatened by rules (though it's not a tremendously complex game). If you are looking for a game that is rich in theme then this game is it.

Conclusion

I've personally found, at last, an Ameritrash game that I not only think is good, I actually find the game design to be pretty remarkable in that all of the little details of theme were incorporated so well into the overall flow of the game. I personally feel pretty priviliged to own a copy of this out-of-print classic. If you know someone who owns a copy and would be willing to teach you, it's worth it to take the time to learn this game. It's a keeper.

Review: Ricochet Robots

2008-02-03T15:49:00.000-08:00

This is a version of a review I did on BGG some time ago.

Rules

Ricochet Robots is comprised of a board (assembled out of four sections), several robots all of a different color (ex. a red robot, a blue robot, a black robot, etc.), a “starting chip” for each different colored robot, and several destination chips (which are one-sided and which contain a symbol with a specific color). On the board are a number of destinations (each of which corresponds to a destination chip) and a number of walls. The robots are placed on the board randomly and all of the destination chips are turned over with the non-symbol side up.

One destination chip is then turned over (symbol side up) and placed in the middle. The color of the symbol is the robot you are trying to get to that destination (ex. red circle = get the red robot to that destination). The trick to moving these robots is that they can only move in a straight line and cannot stop until they hit either a wall or another robot. So, you can’t just stop the robot in the middle of the board without that robot hitting something to stop its motion. Each time you move a robot in a specific direction it counts as one move. Once the destination chip is turned over, each player begins calculating (in one’s head) possible routes to get the robot to its destination. Once someone has a route, they announce a bid. Their bid is the number of moves they can get the robot in question to its destination. Once the first person makes their bid, a one-minute countdown begins (there is a one-minute hourglass supplied with the game). Within that minute, anyone else can bid lower so long as they can actually follow through with their bid and get the robot to its destination in that number of moves. Once the timer is up, whoever bid the lowest number of moves demonstrates the path of the robot. If it is correct, they take the destination chip and move any “starting chips” to the new location of the robots after completing the destination.

The game continues until each of the destination chips have been completed. Whoever has the most destination chips at the end wins.

The board is divided into four sections and each section has two sides. Thus, you can create a number of different combinations of boards to play on (which keeps the game fresh over time). There is a black robot but no black destinations. There is also one destination chip that is multi-colored – meaning you simply have to get any of the robots to that destination regardless of the color of the robot.

Thoughts

Because the board can change every time you play the game, and because the starting positions of the robots are random, the game stays fresh over time. There are also no restrictions on the number of players who can play. You could, theoretically, have 20 people all standing around the table playing the game. You could also, theoretically, play solo where you give yourself a limited time to find the shortest route possible for a given chip.

Ricochet Robots is not a test of strategy. Rather, for each player, the game is essentially a test in spatial thinking. Most people I’ve seen who encounter the game need to see a few examples first of how the robots can move and successfully arrive at a destination to properly understand how the game works. I have also seen people improve over time as they become more acclimated to the type of thinking this game requires.

The game can also vary in its length. It just depends on the players and how quickly they can think through the routes of the robots.

The one major drawback to this game is that there can be a significant skill mismatch among the players (ex. one or two players excelling at the game while the rest just don’t see the routes quickly enough or simply don’t see them at all). There are certain rules that can be implemented to “fix” such scenarios. For example, you could say that, as long as a player who has less chips than the lowest bidding player sees a route with a number of moves equal to the lowest bid, that player can take the chip. However, such “fixes” are often not very fun for the more skilled players in the group.

Trying to see the routes and having a significantly shorter route than what you had at first thought possible occur to you can be really entertaining. However, because of the spatial thinking requirement, this game might not appeal to everyone. I personally really enjoy it.

I have seen people get better at this game over time. However, it's possible that, for some people, the game may move too quickly for them to pick up on it effectively in the early stages. In other words, they may need lots of time to study scenarios at first in order for them to start picking up speed and to start seeing better solutions on the board. However, if such a person were to play consistently with better players, then they would probably not have that time because the better players would probably see the solutions quicker, start the timer earlier, and be ready for the next scenario before the struggling player had a chance to properly digest the scenario that just finished - just something to be aware of.

Review: Marvel Heroes

2008-01-31T12:59:00.000-08:00

This is a version of a review I posted on BGG some time ago.

Introduction

I was looking forward to this game and was intrigued by what I had heard about it (that each player controlled their own group of superheroes and a supervillan as well that can attack the other players' teams). The game seemed to have been well received here at BGG so my hopes were high. I also collected comic books for a while when I was younger so there was some nostalgia for me coming into this game. I really wanted it to be good. Nevertheless, I found myself disappointed overall with this game.

Brief Overview of Game Play

Each player controls one of four possible groups of Superheroes (composed of four superheroes each):

The Avengers
The X-Men
The Marvel Knights
The Fantastic Four

The game takes place on a quasi-New York inner city map. The map is divided up into six districts and there are four subsections within each district. The flow of the game is divided up into a series of 5 rounds with 5 rotations of turns within each round. At the beginning of each round, there are a number of “Headlines” that come out for each district. Essentially these "headlines" represent combat scenarios in which you may encounter bad guys and have to fight them. These headlines are of several types (Mystery, Crime, Danger). There is also a certain skill listed underneath the main description (such as science, mystic, protection, etc.). The skills listed correspond to specific character skills that can be found on the character cards for the various superheroes that can be used in the game. There are also "plot points" that are used by each player to get their superheroes ready for action before each round begins.

On a player’s turn within a round, they can do things like move their superhero, give medical attention to a superhero, or begin "troubleshooting" a headline (which is really where most of the action is). Each headline has a certain "trouble" rating – which is essentially the number of dice you roll to determine, in broad terms, how many bad guys or extra problems there might be as part of fighting the headline. A superhero may move to an area and may fight the headline alone or they may have a "support" hero along with them. Each headline grants a number of victory points to the person who successfully defeats any villans involved in that headline.

Combat

Combat consists of a series of dice rolls that have to be processed through a series of modifiers present on the villan’s card, any modifying cards for the villan, and the superhero’s modifiers on the superhero’s card as well as any modifiers on the "supporting" hero’s card. There is some simultaneous decision revelation prior to combat but it is essentially a choice of which set of dice modifiers your character – be it villan or hero – will use in combat. And, here we come to the source of my disappointment. In essence, the game pretty much mostly just dice rolling in which the rolls have to be tediously processed through the various modifiers. When looked at from a larger view, all of the mechanics in the game - including the card drawing - strike me as simply serving as window dressing for the dice rolling.

The main aspect of the game that had intrigued me was the concept of controlling a supervillan as well as a set of superheroes. Herein, again, I was disappointed as the supervillan you control is not able to actively engage the superheroes. What I mean by this is that you cannot, for example, on your turn declare that Dr. Doom will now attack the Fantastic Four. Instead, you control Dr. Doom only after the Fantastic Four decide to go after a headline. In other words, you have to wait for the other player to initiate any combat and then, again, combat is simply a series of dice rolls being processed through a series of modifiers. There are other familiar "sub-villans" that can be played in the form of cards that can be drawn by the players during the course of the game (e.g. Venom, the Juggernaut, and Dr. Octopus among others). However, these cards are, again, simply a set of dice modifiers and, in that respect, I found combat to be an unfulfilling experience.

In general, the strategy of the game seems to pretty much be the same as it is with any dice-driven game: hedge your bets with the dice rolling by trying to stack modifiers (of whatever form) in your favor. Granted, there are various ways that this can be accomplished and there are also some resource management skills involved with how and when you use your plot points but, again, a game that is this dice driven does not tend to be my style of game. There have been dice driven games I have played in the past that I have liked but this was not one of them. I won the game of Marvel Heroes I played (all of us who played were new) but I didn’t attribute my win to any great acumen or strategic cunning. I just hedged my bets as best I could and hoped for the best.

Components

With respect to the components, it’s been stated before that the map is lacking in its appearance. However, I don’t really dock any points from the game for that as the art work of the map seems to be presented with the intention of making it look "comicbooky" and, in that respect, the map works. I also liked the miniatures and the art design on the various character cards as well as art design for the rulebook. I also liked the plot points being small chips with speech windows in them (you know, the circles above the characters’ heads in a comic book where their dialogue is written). I also liked the quirky-ness of the "trouble" counter being a very "comicbooky" exclamation point. However, all of the components simply served to reinforce my disappointment that, behind the chrome, the game is pretty much just a "dicefest".

Game Length

In terms of time, the game I played took a little over 2 hours which was mostly due to the fact that we were all new to the game. I can see how, with players who have an understanding of the rules, it could move a lot faster. So, my perception is that the time factor can be alleviated by having experienced players. Each player is provided with a game summary that is serviceable in design. However, I can also see how a self-created player aide that simply integrates the various sections on the summary into one cohesive round outline would result in a more understandable aide for a new player.

Overall Impressions

I personally found that the choices being presented by the game were simply steps to set up the culminating modifier system for dice rolling in combat rather than being diverging paths leading toward several different methods of scoring or accumulating points. Because of this, I didn't find the choices very interesting to make. For example, with respect to which team member to send into an area, that choice revolved primarily around the possible sets of how many dice can be rolled for "attack", "defense", and "outwit". Again, that wasn't necessarily a very interesting choice for me. Now, if there were different kinds or sets of dice with different actions available depending on the character I'm using, then now we're talking. But if it's not which type, but rather, just how many of the same type of dice can be used depending on the character, that just isn't a choice I find very interesting to make.

I'm not saying that a game has to be really complex to be enjoyable. I'm also not saying that Marvel Heroes is a bad game or that all games have to have a "many paths to victory" element to them to be fun. What I am saying is that the choices in Marvel Heroes were not interesting enough to me to make the game fun enough to try again for me. I can see how the game would appeal to other people who derive more of a sense of satisfaction from wading through processes of arriving at the number of dice in a roll (along with any re-roll possibilities) but that person isn't me in this case.

Who will like this game

I suspect that the main group of people who will like Marvel Heroes are the same people who tend to like games where dice are the predominant driving force of action. This game will more than likely not appeal to casual gamers simply because of the amount of rules that go into processing the various modifiers for the dice rolls.

Board Game Companies With Game Submission Pages

2008-01-29T10:48:00.000-08:00

I recently decided to look around and find any game companies that are actually, currently accepting game submissions. The following is a list along with links to the submission pages:

Cambridge Games:

http://www.cambridgegames.com/

Here is the link to their submission letter:

http://www.cambridgegames.com/uploads/CGF_Submission_Letter.pdf

Sunriver Games:

http://www.sunrivergames.com/about/designer-submissions/

Z-Man Games:

http://www.zmangames.com/

Steve Jackson Games:

http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/authors/card-board.html

Twilight Creations:

http://www.twilightcreationsinc.com/gamesubmissions.pdf

Out of the Box:

http://www.otb-games.com/contact.html#submissions

University Games:

http://www.universitygames.com/contactus.asp

North Star Games:

http://www.northstargames.com/contact/submissions.page

There is the German board game desgin competition known as Hippodice. Here is their webpage:

http://www.hippodice.de/inhalt.php?pg=601&lang=en

There is a convention for board game designers in Michigan known as Protospiel. Here is their website:

http://www.protospiel.org/

Other options include companies like GameWright. But, it's through their regular "Contact Us" page/template that you can submit your request. They will respond with the procedures for submission but it may take a while for them to get back with you after you submit your request for info. Here's the link to their contact page:

http://www.gamewright.com/gamewright/index.php?section=talktous&page=index

Other companies go back and forth on accepting ideas or ceasing for the time being. For more information, one can visit the Board Game Designers Forum:

http://www.bgdf.com

Review of 1960: The Making of the President

2008-01-27T09:52:00.000-08:00

I recently played "1960: The Making of the President" a few times and I was hoping it would be a fabulous game. However, I found some serious flaws with it. Granted, the production quality is top notch and I like the thematic titles and tid-bits of info on the cards. However, the general luck of the draw in the game (or, to put it more accurately, the sequence in which certain cards are drawn and by which player they are drawn) can be too significant (i.e. they can take away much of the significance of player choice because of the power of certain events and/or the sequence in which they happen).

What's funny about the dynamics of play in this game is that the number of interactive influences inherent in the cards and in the structure of play create the illusion of one's choices being more weighty and meaningful than they really are. Instead of being a game where each player makes small strides that all add up to a larger conclusion (as the game appears to play at first), this is actually a game where each turn can potentially represent huge swings in what would be the final score if the game ended on that turn. This is a reflection of the average power inherent in the design of the events on the cards and the (admittedly thematic) distribution of points for control of different areas on the board. There are simply too many events that can have a large impact given the fact that there are unequal distributions of points for cubes played (different states have drastically different values). Though this is thematic, this also results in a game where the luck of the draw can actually trump planning.

This criticism of vast swings in play is also due in part to the fact that the area control aspect of the game in the states is mostly a zero sum game (with an exception being in the case that the "unfaithful electors" card is in play). Therefore, each electoral point I'm able to completely take away from my opponent will get added to my side. Thus, each swing must be thought of as being double what you lost because not only did you lose it but your opponent gained it. For example, if by playing a card, I can swing New York away from my opponent and over to my side, that's a 90 point shift (-45 for him, +45 for me) in a game where there are a total of 537 electoral votes in play.

Another example: I played a game once where I went through on one turn and cleared out a lot of my opponents cubes off of states that would swing my way if they had no cubes on them at all. That resulted in a 140 point swing (-70 for him, +70 for me). Then the next turn, he got an endorsement in that area which swung the whole thing back in his direction - a 140 point swing the other direction. In a game where there are, again, 537 electoral votes at stake, that's some massive swinging of points happening in just the space of two turns. Such vast swings would be objects of criticism in a game like, say, Power Grid. It would be like on one turn I have 12 houses and my opponent had 6 and then the next turn my opponent took 4 away from my side while adding those 4 to his side leaving him with 10 while I have 8 and so forth.

These massive swings of influence maybe would have been tolerable or even enjoyable for me if the game had some scoring in the middle to reward early plays. However, since all the scoring happens at the end (which is, admittedly, thematic), and because the swings of influence can be so dynamic and significant from turn to turn, the early part of the game doesn't really feel important. The winner of the game can potentially be determined on the last play just as easily for both sides depending on the last few cards drawn by either player. Though this is thematic, it's not what I would prefer in a game like this. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a person can play poorly and win this game. What I am saying is that, because the swings of influence are so dynamic and drastic from turn to turn, much of the tension that this game is touted as having simply isn't there. Assuming both players play capably, this game is more like watching a pendulum swing back and forth where you hope that it just happens to be on your side at the end of the turn when the game ends. In this respect, the game feels more like a long, drawn out coin flip than a strategic exercise.

If the possibilities for influence inherent in each individual card were lessened by several degrees, if the distribution of points on the board were more balanced, or if there were possibilities for mid-game scoring, then the game would be more strategic and less luck driven (however, balance in point distribution on the board and mid-game scoring would both run counter to the theme). Nevertheless, despite my criticisms, I am not that surprised that very few people who have rated this game are picking up on these problems. As a player gets involved in the moment to moment decision making of 1960 and in the thematic appeal of the game, it can be easy to get caught up in the process of trying to decide which card to play without taking a step back to look at the general patterns of massive swings that are happening on the board. The type of board analysis I'm talking about can be obscured by the fact that the amount of surface area control on the board is not at all equal to the amount of electoral votes for each player.

These criticisms wouldn't be a problem at all if the game played in only about 20 to 30 minutes but this is an hour-and-a-half to two-hour long game. I really wanted to like this game (and I do like the theme) but there is no real emotional pay-off for me in a victory won in this type of game because it's hard to feel like one has "earned" a victory. It's more like one "received" the victory (which is thematic given that the game is about an election). However, this is a great game if a person wants to experience what an election feels like or if a person wants an experience that is historically immersive. The theme is solid.

In spite of my criticisms of the game play in 1960, most of the reviews on BGG for this game are glowing and the only really negative review focuses more on humor than it does on offering enlightening criticism. This has been a source of frustration for me. Surely I'm not the only one who sees things as I do?

Well, I encountered the following review because someone else included a link to it in their comments on 1960 at BGG. This review comes from the perspective of comparing 1960 with Twilight Struggle (a perspective I simply don't have yet as I have not yet played Twilight Struggle). The criticisms offered on the game in this review are quite well thought out so I'm posting a link to it here:

http://p4wn3d.blogspot.com/2008/01/1960-milking-of-precedent.html

Dilbert and the Marketing Department

2008-01-26T12:15:00.000-08:00

I'm sure most if not all of us are familiar with the Dilbert comic strip. What follows is a clip from the short lived Dilbert cartoon series. In this clip, Dilbert changes jobs to a rival company called "Nirvana Company". Everything works at this new job (there aren't any of the usual problems found in most companies) until something very unfortunate happens.

What does this have to do with board game design? Well, I think you'll get the picture.

Note: After the 4:54 mark, this clip loses its relevance as to why I posted it here. However, this was how the clip was submitted on YouTube so I'm making the most of it.

Dogbert: "You're now well known in your industry."

Issues Between Designers and Publishers

2008-01-26T10:53:00.000-08:00

Bruno Faidutti has written an excellent article on the subject of the Designer - Publisher relationship. Specifically, he discusses contractual issues by comparing contracts in the game publishing world with that of the book publishing world. It's quite interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.faidutti.com/index.php?Module=divers

A Quick Look at Player Interaction

2008-01-18T11:29:00.001-08:00

Player interaction is a point of departure for many in terms of what they want in a game. Many American style games, particularly war themed games, feature direct player interaction through mechanics such as direct resource attrition via combat. Instead of which item should I bid on or which item should I purchase, the game is more about which other player should I attack on my turn. Such games feature goals that rely on conquest, destruction, or weakening of another player as a means of achieving victory.

Eurogames, on the other hand, have often been saddled with the label of “multi-player solitaire” by the detractors of the genre. Though there is player interaction in Eurogames, it is not of the same type as what can be found more commonly in American style games. Many European style games feature indirect player interaction through mechanics such as limited markets and auctions. These mechanics create situations where many players are going for similar goals and have to compete in terms of the price they are willing to pay to achieve certain goals or the opportunity cost they must forgo to acquire certain resources before another player does. This results in mechanics where all of the players are focusing on some goal or goals that represent common aims toward which the different players are competing that do not lie in the path of direct conquest of another opponent. Instead of directly attacking another player, Eurogames tend to be more about who can achieve a mutually sought after objective better, quicker, or more cheaply than another player.

These tendencies beg the question of why more direct player interaction tends to be shunned as a trend in game design by European style game companies but embraced by American style game companies?

To the reader, if you will go back a few articles on this blog and look at my discussion about problems with triangulation in games that feature resource attrition due to direct player interaction, many of my points there relate directly to the current topic. The more direct the player interactions are in a game’s design, the more intrinsic potential exists within that design for mechanical broken-ness and runaway-leader problems. These tend to be natural consequences as games that feature direct player interaction often produce as the winner the player who was least “picked on” by the other players. Thus, American style games such as Risk, Twilight Imperium, and Nexus Ops, when more than two players are playing, tend to be more about who can talk whom into attacking other players. It’s more about the metagame of trying to persuade others to use their resources in certain ways rather than who can make the most mechanically strategic decisions on the board. Often, the winner is the player who most fully persuaded the other players to leave him or her alone so that they could gather up enough resources unmolested. These games tend to offer much of their emotional pay-off through successfully negotiating with other players in the situations that the game creates. In other words, the board merely presents a context in which players can implement negotiating and persuading skills. It’s more likely in an American style game than a European style game for a player to be a superior mechanical planner and yet still get beaten by an inferior mechanical planner who happens to be a much better persuader or negotiator.

When persuasion is the name of the game, the mechanics of the game don’t have to be held to standards of whether or not they are intrinsically balanced, whether or not there is a runaway leader problem, or whether or not it’s a concern that a player can be eliminated from the game. However, when mechanical strategy is what the game is seeking to feature, then the game’s design usually needs to be held to these standards. Eurogames tend to be more about mechanical strategy while American games tend to be more about persuasion and interpersonal strategy. One style rewards a manager, the other rewards a salesman.

It is important to note that games featuring more direct player interaction are not devoid of mechanical planning. Far from it. However they also suffer from the potential for players to arbitrarily take other players out of contention simply because they want to. If I’m playing a game of Neuroshima Hex and I just decide arbitrarily that I want to focus on hurting another player come what may then I can realistically take that player out of contention if it’s a three or four player game. I may not win but the possibility for ensuring that someone else doesn’t win is much more likely. With games that feature indirect player interaction, such arbitrary decisions don’t have the ability to be carried out to the same extent. If I choose to play poorly by overpaying for items or for taking an item that would have helped another player much more regardless of whether it helps me or not, then such decisions are much more likely to hurt me and mostly me much more than the other player. If I choose to play poorly in an American style game by attacking one player over another, it can much more easily lead to kingmaking situations. This possibility can undermine the enjoyment of the game for people who are more interested in mechanical planning because they can just arbitrarily be taken out of the game – their planning notwithstanding – simply because another player wanted to ensure that they didn’t win.

It is for many of these reasons I believe that European style games have moved away from direct player interaction. Eurogames often feature indirect player interactions because the games are seeking to feature mechanical planning as the emotional pay-off for playing. The design tendencies are meant to produce games where the problems that come with triangulation in direct player conflict scenarios are eliminated by establishing goals that are common to all players but that are not achieved through directly attacking other players.

There are many people who find the almost obligatory salesman tactics required to win certain American style games as being annoying and distracting to having a fun experience. They want to mechanically plan without having to be bothered with persuading (and in some cases pleading) with another player to do a particular thing on that player’s turn. At the same time, a person who gets a “charge” out of the persuasive challenges of an American style game or who really gets “fired up” when they can really “stick it” to another player, would find the choices presented by Eurogames as potentially being “dry” or “boring”.

Eurogames usually provide opportunities for the players to be mechanically clever without having to be bothered with the salesmen tactics that can pervade the table discussions during an American style game while American style games tend to almost require implementation of salesman tactics by the players due to the confrontational nature in many of the basic designs in those kinds of games. Although I can personally be an effective persuader, I don’t necessarily want much of that in my gaming experience. I want to tactically and mechanically plan without the potential for being arbitrarily attacked by another player simply because they “felt like it”. Thus, Eurogames tend to be much more congruent with the values I have regarding what I personally look for in a game – but that’s just me.

On the other hand, direct player interaction is not a problem at all when there are only two players or only two sides. In many games, particularly historical wargames, few to none of the issues raised in this article have any footing. Attacking and conquering the other player or other side is the whole goal of the game.

However, once a third player or side is introduced into the mix, the potential for cross-cutting and all of the accompanying baggage of triangulation in direct conflict scenarios immediately becomes a problem. What’s ironic is that many mechanics in European style games that feature indirect player interaction often require at least three players in order for the mechanics to work properly. (For a discussion about that topic, look back a few articles - I discussed how certain mechanics simply aren’t viable with only two players.)

From a game design standpoint, it is my opinion that a designer needs to be aware of these issues so that he or she can design the kind of game they are intending to design.

Game Design and Economics

2007-12-19T23:23:00.000-08:00

I begin this article with an experience I had with one particular product I had to sell as part of a previous job. (The product I'm referring to and my previous job are in no way associated with the realm of board games but I choose to start with them because the principles I learned there apply to the subject at hand.) The decision to buy the product in question was made by other people higher up in the company after being given some sales pitches by the manufacturer. However, the eventual task of selling this product was handed to me.

Now, usually in retail of any kind, the MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price) is around double what a retailer pays for the product from either a wholesaler or directly from the manufacturer. In this case, we were purchasing the product directly from the manufacturer and, because of the cost involved for the manufacturer to produce the product, their eventual asking price from us as a retailer was around $500 per product. This cascaded into a retail price of around $800 to $1000. The product was put on display at our retail location and I was given the assignment to sell it.

For the most part, the product was proclaimed a very good idea by every customer that I introduced to it and it might have actually sold well if our asking price was around $300. However, because there was a strong mismatch between our asking price and what most consumers would reasonably pay for a product of that type, it simply didn't sell.

Game Design and Economics

What does that have to do with game design? Well, I submitted a game design this past year to a respected publisher who was willing to take a look at it and see if there was something there. They ultimately decided not to publish the game and one of the points made to me as part of their feedback was that the publisher saw my game as being a game that would be suited for a particular price point but that the number and type of components in my game made the publication of the game cost prohibitive for the level of play that it offered. Thus, publishing the game would be an unwise idea. Now, I was aware before I submitted the game of how it's important in general to keep the total number of components down in any game design - thus making the game a more likely candidate for publication. However, I had not actually asked myself "What is the specific price that this game would/should command in the marketplace?"

The Price of Games

Right now, a game like, say, "Caylus" sells for about $50.00 while a light card game such as "No Thanks" sells for about $10.00. This makes sense because Caylus is a very component heavy game while "No Thanks" is not. However, the level of play offered by a game like Caylus allows a manufacturer and a retailer to have an asking price that allows them to make profit off of selling the game (many people are willing to pay a larger price for a game that offers the type and amount of decisions that Caylus offers). If someone has designed a game that plays with about the same amount of weight as "No Thanks" but the component structure is on the same level as "Caylus", then the game is probably dead in the water up front - regardless of whether or not the game is fun. People will look at the game, perhaps play it, maybe even say it was fun, but there's no realistic economic viability in producing it because people simply won't pay that high of a price for it.

Thus, in general, how heavy a game is with respect to weight of decisions and how component intensive a game is are two aspects of design that need to line up for the publication of a game to be a reasonble business decision. There are obvious exceptions (Crokinole, for example, is a very simple game that requires lots of work to produce a board and pieces). Nevertheless, in general, if the game is going to be expensive, it needs to offer a level of play that will allow a consumer to justify the expense.

Evaulation

All of this brings me to my main point: judging one's own game design purely on the basis of whether or not it is fun to play is simply not a complete evaluation. It's easy to let one's self indulge in partial evaluation (after all, it's the publisher that will be dealing with the dollars and cents...right?....). As a game designer, one has to look at one's game as a "product" and take into account the economic viability of the game as a "product". The product I was assigned to sell at my previous job was a good idea in terms of what it offered but a terrible idea in terms of the economics involved. Games are the same way.

With this perspective now in place of "designing a game" = "designing a product", what are some things a designer can do to keep a game's component structure appropriate for the level of play offered by the game?

Simplification and Consolidation

I've found that, usually, simplification of processes within a game tends to equal consolidation of components as well. This is because most components are simply physical objects used to keep track of something going on in a game. Again, using "Caylus" as an example, there are lots of wooden pieces and components in the game. However, there are also a lot of things to keep track of (who built which building, how many sections of the castle were built by any one player, where the Provost is, whose workers have been placed and whose have not, turn order, etc.). A game with that many things to keep track of results in lots of components while a game with fewer things to keep track of results in fewer components. Thus, to make a game an economically viable product, simplification of rules and processes within the game is usually a very good idea as that simplification will tend to equal a consolidation of the components required to play the game. It's important to ask one's self with each and every component in the game "Is this absolutely necessary to have?" If the answer is "Yes because of rule X", then the next question should be "Is rule X really necessary?"

Most of these points deal with games that are being designed with a Eurogame audience in mind as gaming publishers that take the opposite approach (i.e. Fantasy Flight with their $80, bit/component intensive games) don't accept outside game submissions. Their designs come from in-house designers and their audience is looking for a component-rich gaming experience with "epic" game design (i.e. lots of rules to facilitate a very highly thematic game), not a simplified, Eurogame design.

Some Math

So, how much is your game worth? What would be a price that others would be willing to pay to have a copy of your game? Doing some mathmatical generalization, whatever that price is, divide it in half because that's most likely what a retailer will be paying for it from their wholesaler. Then, divide that number in half again because that's probably what the wholesaler will be paying for it from the manufacturer. Now consider that that's where the publisher's cost needs to be per unit to make a profit off selling it to a wholesaler. Let's spell this out using a game like "Carcassonne":

-Carcassonne sells for about $25.00 retail.

-Dividing that in half for the price from the wholesaler to the retailer can be estimated as being around $12.50

-Dividing that in half again for the price from the manufacturer to the wholesaler can be estimated at around $6.25

Now consider that a publisher like Rio Grande will have to produce copies of Carcassonne for less than $6.25 per copy to make money off of it.

Print Runs

The next issue one encounters in this process is the issue of print runs. Printing companies will charge less per unit if there are more total units in the print run. Printing enough copies to make the cost of the game worth it leads to the issue of now having to sell that many more copies of the game to make a profit. So, if you play it safe and do a small print run of 500 copies of a game (assuming a printing company will do a print run that small) then your per unit costs will be prohibitive. If you make your per unit costs more acceptable by doing a 2000 copy print run, now you are under pressure to sell a lot more games to turn a profit. Now consider just for a moment that making a game at even $4.00 per copy and printing 500 copies of that game equals a $2000 investment. It's no wonder that game publishers have to take into account the components involved in a prototype they are looking at. Every piece of the game is going to cost money to make.

The Focus of Design

Many of us who try our hand at designing games can get caught up in the smaller particulars of design and, in the process, lose sight of whether or not our game is an economically viable idea. I've presented a few thoughts on the matter here simply to help remind all of us, myself included, that we can't ignore the economics involved when we are creating a game. We owe it to the publishers to give them as slick of a prototype as we can so that they have all the more reason to say to themselves "Alright, let's invest our hard earned money in this guy's game because we believe we can make money off of it."

A Quick Look at Audiences and the Acclaim of Puerto Rico

2007-12-17T09:02:00.000-08:00

At present, Puerto Rico is the highest rated game on Board Game Geek and is so by a wide margin. Why? What is it about the game that causes it to be rated so highly? What elements of appeal are involved in the game so as to evoke such a positive response out of so many gamers? This article offers a quick look at these issues.

Audiences

First of all, let’s look at audiences within the gaming community. Audiences tend to be aggregates of people who have some similar dispositions with regard to their gaming tastes. If these audiences grow to a certain critical mass, they tend to be identified and classified with a label. These labels are imperfect mental groupings at best but, despite the imperfections inherent within the type of generalizations that come from using labels, they can immediately conjure up lots of information in the mind of a person when they are used. Calling someone a “Eurogamer” for example carries lots of implications – some of which may be accurate and some of which may not. Nevertheless, the term can be a useful term despite it’s imperfection.

With all of that said, my main argument in this article is that the primary reason why Puerto Rico appeals to so many people is because it has a mixture of elements in it that appeal to audiences who normally don’t have all that much in common with respect to their tastes in gaming. Let’s see why this is.

The “Eurogamer” Audience

The term “Eurogamer” generally applies to a person who tends to like the following elements in a game:

-Fairly simple/streamlined rules set

-Minimal amounts of luck involved

-Interesting mechanics and systems – regardless of how strongly or poorly they reinforce the theme of the game

-Balance in the game play (i.e. prevention of a run-away leader problem and so forth)

The Amerigaming / “Ameritrash” Audience

The label of an “Ameritrasher” is one that still carries some ambiguity. However, there are a few characteristics that can be identified as generally applying to someone who chooses to identify themselves with the Ameritrash label:

-Theme and thematic immersion is the primary goal of a game

-Balance, luck, mechanics, systems, and relative simplicity of rules are all subservient to the goal of having a strongly thematic experience. Exceptions to rules or specialized rule-breaking abilities are seen as being positive or negative within the framework of the question “do they reinforce the theme?”

-Usually, the more direct player interaction in a game, the better.

The “CCG” Audience

One of the main points of appeal of CCG’s (Collectible Card Games) is that a gamer gets to be a quasi game designer as they acquire various cards, build their deck and, through deck building, are afforded the opportunity to use their creativity to determine how the game plays. They are like a painter having access to a wide palette of colors to paint the rules and privileges that they want to try using in a particular game.

Aspects of Appeal

Puerto Rico has the following aspects that allow it to reach out and appeal to a wide variety of gamers:

-The variety of buildings available and the different possibilities for interaction between buildings affords a player the opportunity to create what their gaming experience will be like within the game – much like how CCG gamers create their gaming experience through deck building.

-Unlike CCG’s, and unlike many “Ameritrash” games, the amount of luck in Puerto Rico is minimal at best. This aspect of minimal luck appeals to many Eurogamers.

-The elements of managing a workforce and the different amounts of exceptions to rules provided by the buildings in the game allow an Amerigamer to find some areas of thematic appeal.

-Often times, when you have lots of exceptions to rules in a game, the game can become convoluted if one player’s modifiers have to be reconciled with another player’s modifiers due to direct player interaction. For example “If I attack you with character A using Modifier X but you respond with character B using Modifier Y but I counter with an additional Modifier Z and you realize that if you counter with Modifier…etc.” When games become convoluted, they bog down and the fun of the game can be lost in the math or in the keeping track of some sort of clunky set of protocol. Puerto Rico offers lots of exceptions to rules and benefits through the buildings available for purchase but those privileges and exceptions apply to the owner and only on their turn and don’t have to be reconciled with other player’s buildings because there’s no “combat” per se in the game. Thus, there’s no messy sets of detailed orders of operations that have to be processed.

-On the other hand, even though there is no combat in the game, there are opportunities to really “stick it” to other players. Taking the Captain and requiring someone to ship a crop that they desperately needed to trade is one example. This aspect has potential appeal to Amerigamers because Amerigamers tend to prefer the ability to directly impact other players through one’s own choices in a game.

I’m sure there are other aspects of appeal that cause Puerto Rico to come off positively to a wide variety of crowds but what I’ve listed here are a few of the main points. The number of different privileges the buildings afford their owners allow a person to really play with a wide variety of possible combinations in their approach to the game and the luck of the plantation draws offers just enough variety to keep Puerto Rico fresh over time.

Triangulation Issues in Resource Attrition Games

2007-12-11T07:54:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've posted but it's good to be back at it. Recently, after a hard day's work at the fiendly local game store where I'm employed, a couple of friends of mine agreed to stay afterwards and play a game with me. One of them had just bought the game "La Citta" and was anxious to try it out:

It's currently ranked number 72 on BoardGameGeek and it's pulling a rating of about 7.5 out of 10 in its rankings. That seems like a pretty safe bet to make if you're going to purchase a game before playing it. Well, he opened up the game, read through the rules, and off we were.

After about 20 minutes into the hour long game, we came up against a fundamental aspect of the game's design that illustrated a glaring problem. Even though La Citta isn't a player elimination game, the mechanics result in quasi player elimination (you're not out of the game, but after a certain critical point, you no longer have any realistic shot at winning). This problem only became worse as the game progressed.

It's a simple matter of there being an inherent problem with any game (note: any game) where the possibility exists for more than two players to play the game and where the game implements a resource attrition mechanic that is dependent on direct player interaction as the main source of points. This is because of basic triangulation attrition issues that can take either one of two possible forms:

1. Player A and Player B beat each other up while Player C waits, remains strong, and then, once both of the other players are sufficiently weak, comes in and cleans up.

or

2. Player A gets an advantage over Player C. Then Player B joins in and beats up on Player C because Player C can't fight back now and it's more advantagous to pile on Player C than to attack Player A as Player A is a more formidable direct opponent, thus putting Player C out of contention at a certain point and making the rest of the game tedium for that player.

In games with only two players, resource attrition due to direct player interaction is perfectly fine. War games are all about resource attrition (the resources being troops). It's when you introduce a third player into the mix that it becomes a problem.

In La Citta, the second of those two dynamics I just discussed is at work. If player C finds his citizens being sucked out of one of his cities early by player A, player C becomes an easy target for player B as well. This is because limited citizens limits the number of colors that the city can develope and, thus, limits that city's abilities to suck citizens out of other cities. Because of these mechanics, there is no real incentive for player B to not take advantage of the situtation. Thus, the game can very quickly devolve into an exercise in pillaging the guy who got picked on early simply because there's no real incentive not to do it.

What this creates is a situation in which player C can never recover because, once you're down, there's not really a viable way to get back up in this game (assuming the maraudering players have taken steps to account for growth of their cities via markets, public baths, and having enough food to feed the new citizenry). This is because once a city has been robbed of citizens enough times early on in the game, it becomes nothing more than a source of easy citizens/VP's for the other players who will already have larger cities with multiple colors developed. Those larger cities will tend to suck away citizens from the smaller city consistently before that smaller city is ever able to reach a critical mass of functional competitiveness.

It's a classic case of the "rich get richer" while the "poor get poorer". This results in a broken game where the basic reward system inherent in the game design motivates me as a player to help contribute to a situation where another player is having to suffer through the game even though he knows after some early events that he has no shot at winning. Either that or it creates a situation where I'm the one suffering through tedium. These criticisms wouldn't necessarily apply as strongly in a 4 or 5 player game as there are enough other players to possibly "cannibalize" each other and keep one person from developing a massive city.

The problem might not be so critical if citizens were simply lost out of a city. (i.e. a player is having a net loss of -1 citizen when losing one). However, because a citizen switches places from the losing city to the winning city, it's a net swing of 2 (-1 for player A, +1 for player B). The game implements a food/feeding-your-people mechanic that should make it harder to accomodate a larger number of citizens but, if the player is savy, he or she can account for that somewhat easily and still keep their city sufficiently large to suck points out of the small city managably. Granted, you could "house rule" the game into playability by changing some of the basic aspects of the game play but that's not the state one wants a game to be in when one purchases a game.

None of us at the table could believe that a game that's been around for so long and was published by a respectable company like Rio Grande was so fundamentally flawed. Granted, the one who had purchased the game had read some feedback on BoardGameGeek about it and he indicated before we started the game that, in the past, it was noted that the game had a runaway leader problem that was supposedly fixed. Well, it wasn't fixed. It can't be fixed when the basic system of the game is the inherent problem. If points were awarded independent of resources switching hands, then you've got a game that might work - but this game's system simply isn't sound.

This issue of triangulation in relation to resource attrition is the same thing that makes Risk a game that is, in my opinion, a fundamentally broken game. It suffers from the first possible scenario I listed above: that of one player waiting while two other players slug it out and weaken each other - thus allowing the third player to more easily come in and clean up.

What defies my understanding is how La Citta has achieved such a high rating on BGG. As I glanced through the comments made by various people who had rated it, there were some comments acknowledging problems with the game even though the ones making those comments had rated it a 10.

Ultimately, La Citta was an exercise in tedium for one of the players and offered an unrewarding victory to one of the other players. I'm personally glad I didn't ever consider buying this game and that I was allowed to try it because of another player's copy. Unfortunately, that other player is now looking for a way to get rid of it (like Ebay or at BGG's marketplace).

General: Priorities

2007-10-12T09:09:00.000-07:00

I'm posting here today to let everyone know that I've been dating a wonderful person and I am now engaged. As a result, I simply haven't had time to devote to this blog. Rest assured, more content will follow - it's just not my top priority right now. :)

In fact, one thing I've discovered is that, when you meet the right person, other things take a truly secondary place in terms of one's personal priorities. I still love gaming, but its role in my life is now much further down on my priority list.

Game Instruction: Where to Begin

2007-07-19T09:19:00.000-07:00

Introduction

From personal experience, I’ve discovered that many gamers are lousy game teachers. I’ve already written previous articles on general principles of effective game teaching but this article is a specific look at what I perceive to be a big stumbling block to many game instructors – namely: where to begin.

This may seem like a simple subject. However, where a person begins their explanation of a game can have a profound impact on the receptiveness of their learners to the teaching process. Too often, gamers just start in by describing the first rule that comes to mind or the rule/mechanic that is their favorite rule or aspect about the game. The problem with such an approach in the beginning is that many rules need to be described within some sort of perceived context. In other words, a groundwork of understanding has to be established first before certain rules or mechanics will make any sense.

My Personal Approach

To ensure that I always establish that context in the beginning, I’ve personally adopted a somewhat consistent formula that I tend to use when I approach a teaching session. Using this formula helps me remember the essentials of establishing a foundation of perception for the game first and it helps me describe rules and mechanics at their proper time and in a proper context. Here is the general formula I follow:

The name of the game is (game name).

The theme of the game is that each player is (provide player role description) trying to (describe winning conditions in general terms) by (provide general description of methods).

(Identify the nature of the game. Ex. Cooperative, teams, etc.)

(Describe the flow of game: rounds, phases, turns, etc.).

On a player’s turn they will (describe what happens on a turn).

(Continue to describe details of the game, always beginning with the big picture first and then narrowing that big picture down to what happens on players’ turns - defining what a term means before using it and describing what different components and areas are called before referring to them by their proper game names.)

The game ends when (fill in conditions here).

Any questions? (Have brief Q & A session before beginning).

An Example:

So, let’s look at an example of this formula in action using the game “Saint Petersburg”:

The name of the game is Saint Petersburg.

The theme of the game is that each player is an investor spending money to try and gain the most prestige. Prestige is obtained by scoring points in various ways.

The game is competitive – meaning that each player is out for themselves.

The game takes place over the course of a number of rounds. Each round is divided into four phases:

-The Worker Phase
-The Buildings Phase
-The Aristocrat Phase
-and The Upgrade Phase

You will notice that there are four decks of cards – each corresponding to one of the four phases. These four phases proceed in order from left to right beginning with the Worker phase and concluding with the Upgrade phase.

….(continue description)…

On your turn, you may chose one of the following three options:

1. Buy a card off of the board
2. Take a card off of the board and put it into your “hand”
3. Pass

…(continue description – explaining what each of the three available options on a turn mean and how they work)…

…After you have taken your turn, the next player to your left takes their turn and play continues in clockwise order…

...(describe how a phase ends)…

…(certain exceptions to basic game structure often need to be covered) For example…

…if you have previously bought the “Observatory”, and if the game is currently in the Buildings phase, you have a fourth option available to you on your turn. If you choose, you may turn your purchased Observatory over so that it is face down and then select the top card from one of the four decks (continue with description of Observatory)…

Without continuing on, this example should help clarify what I mean by starting the explanation with laying a groundwork of understanding. This is important to grasp because, if a gamer has played a particular game a lot, it can become all too common for the gamer to have lost any perception of what it means to not know the terms and names of the game. For example, if the explainer begins teaching the game by discussing aristocrat endgame points first (perhaps because it is that aspect of the game that most engages the interest of the gamer who is doing the explaining), then here is an example of what is said versus what is understood/thought by the learner.

What is said:

“Okay, let’s begin teaching. With this game, you want to make sure you get a larger diversity of aristocrats because you will score more points at the end of the game if you do...”

What the learner is already thinking:

“What are aristocrats? How do I ‘get’ them? What does he mean by ‘diversity’? Is he referring to just the total number I ‘get’ or does he refer to unique types? Are there other ways to score points?”

Forecasting

The previous example of questions that can arise in the mind of the learner brings up the topic of a good habit to have when explaining games. One might refer to it as "forecasting". Here's what I mean:

When explaining a game, there will always be questions that come up in the learner’s mind and there are times when explanation and clarification of those questions will have to be delayed until enough information has been presented such that the answers would make sense. However, teaching in an ineffective manner raises too many questions too quickly such that the learner is distracted by all of those questions and, thus, isn’t as open to new information. By "forecasting", the explainer helps the learner positively anticipate future information by providing a "forecast" of explanations to come. In other words, you actively help the learner know where you are going with your explanation. Here is an example of forecasting in explaining the game "Ticket to Ride":

"On each turn, you will have three specific options available to you - from which you will choose one on your turn. Your options are:

1. Taking cards

2. Playing cards

3. Taking tickets

Now let's look at what each option means. You can take cards by..."

By forecasting, the learner knows that you will be addressing a topic that they may have a question about - thus allowing them to focus on your current explanation. Without forecasting, the learner may be distracted by trying to make sure that they remember to ask you about that one thing they had a question about.

The opposite of forecasting is simply mentioning each item as it occurs to you. Such an approach can come off as scattered to the learner which makes it more likely that the learner will be distracted by questions that they will need to ask later as they will not feel confident that you are going to cover all of the topics about which they have questions.

The "Story" of the Game

Taking a larger, big picture approach that couches new terms and concepts within some sort of context helps the learner make sense of the new information a lot faster and much more effectively. Essentially, you help establish the "story" of the game from the beginning. Unfortunately, establishing that all-important context at the beginning of the game is something that many gamers neglect when explaining a game. That’s why I have come to use the general formula that I do. It requires me to understand the game’s context well enough to present it in an organized fashion. For example, how would you describe the “role” the players are playing in “Ticket To Ride”? I usually describe it like this:

“The name of the game is Ticket to Ride. The theme of the game is that each player owns a railroad company. Your goal is to establish your railroad company as the most successful by scoring points. You do this by….”

Later on, I might describe “tickets” in this manner:

“Think of tickets as contracts that you have made on behalf of your company. By taking a ticket, you have promised someone - be it customers, investors, whomever - that you will connect those two cities with your routes before the game ends. If you have successfully fulfilled your promise at the end of the game by connecting the two cities indicated on a ticket, you will gain the points on that ticket. If you fail to connect the two cities on a ticket, you didn’t uphold your promise and, thus, you lose points.”

This is simply one way of describing what’s going on in the game. The point with this example is that it is an attempt at helping the learner think of the game in terms of some kind of story being told through the game. It provides a context for understanding the mechanics in such a manner that the player’s imagination is more fully engaged in the process. Granted, there are exceptions to these points. If you are explaining a purely abstract game, then there is no story to tell. Nevertheless, appealing to metaphors from time to time during the course of the explanation may help certain mechanics make more sense or at least can make the workings of the rules easier to remember.

The Beginning

If a person begins their explanation of a game by laying the important, initial, contextual groundwork in a logical manner - making sure to use forecasting such that the learner can focus on current explanations with the assurance that as yet uncovered topics will be covered in due course - the learning process can "get off on the right foot" so to speak and the natural flow of the explanation will be greatly enhanced. Where and how a person starts with their explanation can make a big difference.

Game Design: Theme and Mechanics

2007-07-17T18:47:00.000-07:00

Designing a board game is a lot of work. It involves lots of trial and error, starting over, and tweaking. After a while, the process takes on a life of its own as playtests move from just experimenting with initial ideas to exploring further aspects of development such as trying to break specific aspects of the game or trying to see how well the game scales and what needs to be adjusted to facilitate scaling. This process is exciting, challenging, frustrating and educational. Yet each process, each long, laborious undertaking begins somewhere. It occurs to me that there are essentially two main, obvious starting points:

1. A mechanic (or set of mechanics)
2. A theme or story

It is about the interworkings of these two aspects of a game that this article seeks to explore.

The Initial Design Process

Some designers start out with a specific story they want to tell in a game. This story manifests its self in what we refer to as "theme". When beginning with theme, it is in trying to tell the story of the game that the mechanics make their way into the experimentation that is the game design process and it is upon the criteria of how well they tell the story that the mechanics are evaluated. Do they evoke the "feel" of the theme or not? Do they reinforce the role the player is playing or do they strike the player as disconnected from that role?

Other designers begin with a specific mechanic or system and then they try to match a theme with that mechanic. From this perspective, it is the theme that is being evaluated rather than the mechanic in the early stages of development. Does the theme help establish some emotional attachment to the decisions involved in the mechanics or does it feel disconnected? If the theme feels disconnected, then what other type of theme would serve as a stronger cohesive force to provide the mechanics with some emotional tie-in?

Granted there are exceptions to these ideas. Specifically, the pure abstract games (i.e. the games that are all mechanics and don't try to have a theme at all) stand outside of these descriptions. However, for the most part, in the beginning stages of development, one element or the other (theme or mechanics) is dominant over the other in the design process.

Becoming a Game

After a while, the game begins to gain an identity all its own. However, before arriving at this point, there is usually at least one critical threshold that is crossed in the designing process wherein the previously more dominant motive finally gives way to the less dominant motive for the sake of improving the game. In other words, when a mechanic finally gets discarded or significantly altered in the interest of serving the theme - or - where the theme finally has to be slightly altered in the interest of having a tighter relationship with the mechanics, the game has crossed into a more interactive, dynamic stage of development. It is at this point where the prototype is ceasing to be mechanics in need of a theme or a theme in need of mechanics. Instead, it is finally growing into a game.

Flexibility

After crossing this crucial threshold, it is my position that the designer needs to begin adopting a more flexible stance in terms of evaluating what needs to remain the same and what needs to change about the game. In other words, if a specific mechanic was what inspired the game design process in the first place but, now, the game has grown to the point where that original mechanic is precisely what needs to be discarded, the designer needs to be flexible enough to let go of that original driving force, that impetus at the genesis, and let the game grow. To appeal to metaphor, the game needs to discard its cocoon as wings are now part of the picture and cocoons don't help the game out anymore.

This flexibility underlies a larger part of designing that was expressed eloquently by a friend of mine named Alf Seegert who is a fellow member of the Board Game Designers Guild. He described it in this manner (paraphrasing)...

"Paint in the beginning. Then begin to sculpt."

The beginning stages of designing can be guided and motivated by trying to find mechanics for our theme or a theme for our mechanics. In this process, we may try out a lot of ideas. In other words, we are painting.

However, after a while, we begin to see what is working and what isn't and, instead of adding more things into the picture, we may begin to simplify things in the interest of making the game better. At this point, we shift from "painting" to "sculpting".

In this respect, the following two quotes from Michelangelo help provide some perspective:

"In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it."

"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

There can come a point where any new thematic or mechanical addition made to a game will actually make it worse instead of better. Knowing when to add and when to simplify can make the difference between an "ok" game and a great game.

Game Design: Triangulation and Scaling in Game Systems

2007-07-05T19:56:00.000-07:00

Let us start with this premise: designing a game is essentially designing a system of distribution. Any game, no matter how complex or how simple, is essentially a distribution system. Whether it is distributing points, means to obtaining points (i.e. resources), or positioning of various strengths, each game is, at its core, a system and the basic nature of any system will highly impact the extent to which that system can accomodate a larger vs. a smaller number of players (i.e. how well it can scale).

One thing many a gamer will notice as they explore a variety of games is that some games have a broad range of scaling and some games do not. Usually, I find that if a game can play two players it tends to max out at 4 and, if a game requires a minimum of three players, it can scale to five. Granted there are plenty of games that scale larger. One of my personal favorites - Caylus - scales from 2 to 5 players. Puerto Rico, though the 2 player varient isn't included in the rules at present when you buy the game, can scale from 2 to 5 players. Ticket to Ride and Carcassonne both scale from 2 to 5 players. Fearsome Floors can scale from 2 to 7. Citadels can scale from 2 to 7. That's some serious scaling. But, for the most part, games fall in either the 2 to 4 players category or the 3 to 5 players category of scaling.

What dynamics come into play (pardon the pun) in a game's system such that allowing the possibility of a two player game tends to restrict the game's upper range of player scalability and vice versa? This article is an attempt at finding at least a few answers.

Natural Limits

First of all, let's look at the classic game "The Settlers of Catan".

As anyone who is familiar with the game has noted, the game only plays 2 to 4 players as is. To allow a fifth and sixth player into the game, you have to change the basic nature of the board (it has to be larger). Add to this the need for two additional sets of settlement, city, and road pieces and you've got yourself a viable, purchasable product that can be sold seperately from the base game:

Looking at things from a publisher's standpoint, it makes sense to do things this way. Getting people to try Settlers requires a certain non-prohibitive price point. Attempting to include all of the components that allow the game to scale from 2 to 6 players in the base game as a standard product would create a more prohibitive price point such that many people out there who bought the base game might not have done so if it was an additional $20. However, by including the expansion seperately, Mayfair creates a product that is affordable to someone who isn't necessarily sure if the game is for them.

In terms of scaling, there is a natural limit to how the base game can play out with 2, 3, or 4 players. Moving beyond that natural limit requires changes to the board for the game to remain playable. The board simply becomes too small for a 5th or a 6th player unless the board is expanded. Also, extra rules involving when players can build have to be implemented for the system to not break down under the weight of a 5th or 6th player.

This example of Settlers illustrates an important point: most game systems have natural limits with respect to their player capacities and most systems need to be altered in some way for them to expand upwards or downwards from their natural limits with respect to the number of players they can accomodate. It's possible that many games put out on the market that are 2 to 4 player games could be made into 2 to 6 player games but the alterations to the game's basic system are such that offering a base game with that level of scalability is simply not financially a smart move. The publishers would have to put a higher price on the game because of the extra components needed to allow the game to scale.

Crowding

In terms of a game's upper range with respect to scaling, some game systems simply become too "crowded" if you add too many players - thus the player range remains restricted. Let's take Saint Petersburg for example:

In this game, there are four distinct phases: workers, buildings, aristocrats, and upgrades. There are also 8 slots for cards on the board. With Saint Petersburg's game system as it stands, it comfortably plays anywhere from 2 to 4 players. However, if you were to try to include a 5th player, the problem of starting first in a phase each round comes into play. With only 4 phases and 5 players, one player does not get to start first in a phase which could be considered unfair. Also, with a 5th player, the board would have to be made larger to allow more slots for cards. Further, the number of cards in each deck would have to change as the depletion of any one deck is a trigger for the end of the game. Thus, the game system as it stands has a natural limit of 4 players and, to go beyond that, would require some significant changes to the game's basic system.

Triangulation and Non-Triangulation Mechanics

Now let's look at the other side of scaling. Some game systems have a natural limit on the lower end - meaning the game breaks down unless there is at least a minimum number of players. If a game has to have at least 3 players for it to be realistically playable, then it's probably due to a "triangulation" mechanic forming a key part of the game's basic system. Graphically, here is the difference between a triangulation relationship and a duelistic one:

Duelistic:

Triangulated:

What becomes immediately apparent is that adding one additional player greatly increases the interactive complexity of the system. Such interactive complexity is necessary for certain game systems to function. Let's look at two specific examples of this:

Auctions
Many Eurogames implement some kind of auction. Most games that incorporate an auction as a fundamental part of that game's system will have, as a requirement, at least 3 players. There are exceptions (Power Grid is the first to come to mind) but, for the most part, auctions are only realistically interesting if there are three people involved.

Large Payout due to Attrition
Certain games offer a large payout if a player does not succomb to attrition. Examples of this include such games as Diamant/Incan Gold and Cloud 9. You will also notice with these games that a minimum of 3 players is the case. Again, the reasons for this are obvious. If there are only two players, the opportunities for big payoffs are too easy to come by and the competitive tension of the game is tremendously crippled.

"Locked" Systems
Some game systems require a specific number of sets of resources in play in order for the game to work. I'm specifically thinking of Blokus in this respect. To anyone who's played the game, it makes sense that four sets of pieces must be in play for the game to have the tension that it does. Otherwise, if there were fewer players, then either each player would have to have extra pieces that they wouldn't use in a game where there are a larger number of players, or the board would have to be reduced in size (which explains why the game Travel Blokus was published). So, those four sets of pieces remain in play but the rules about who controls which set at which time allow the game to scale from 2 to 4 players.

Most common examples of "locked" systems in games are of the two player variety: Chess, Yinsh, Go, Lost Cities, etc.

Large Group Games or "Party" Games
Some game systems depend on a much larger number of minimum players to work. Werewolves, for example, really needs at least 8 players to have the proper amount of tension it needs. Most party games in general usually need a larger number of players to really work. Otherwise, with only two or three players in a typical party game, the socially interactive element is not robust enough to carry the time and, thus, more pressure is put on the game's intellectual intrigue to provide fulfillment. This can be a problem as most party games are built around the concept of achieving fun via amusement rather than through intellectual intrigue.

Further, many party games that are built on a duelistic system incorporate the idea of competing teams - which implies a minimum of at least 4 players to make the game viable. Other games rely on a triangulation system to work. Apples to Apples is a prime example of this (imagine playing it with only two players).

Impact on Game Design
Regardless of what kind of game system a designer has in place, it's important for the designer to recognize which aspects of his or her prototype need to adjust in the scaling process and which aspects need to remain the same. It's easier to identify those aspects if the designer is aware of the inner dynamics at play within a game system so as to preserve the tension of the game as each new player is added to the equation.

Jay Tummelson and "A Gathering of Strangers" - the Utah Game Convention

2007-07-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

Our annual gaming convention in Salt Lake City, called "A Gathering of Strangers", was a tremendous success in its second year of existence. The Convention this year was sponsored by:

ICon - the Idaho Gaming Convention

Game Night Games

Out of the Box

and Rio Grande Games

This time around, we were specifically glad to have Mr. Jay Tummelson - owner of Rio Grande Games - visit us and spend some time demoing some of the new releases coming out from Rio Grande. The night before the event, Mr. Tummelson came to Game Night Games and spent some time with our local gamers. He demo-ed several upcoming new releases and brought some prototypes of potential games that might be coming soon. Here is Jay (far left side) with some of our regulars at Game Night playtesting one of his prototypes:

The Convention started the next morning and lasted until 10:00 that night. Here is Ryan McLelland, the main organizer of the event, at the check in table:

The convention was held at the Student Union Building on the campus of the University of Utah.

Greg, the manager of Game Night Games, helped at the games check-out booth early on. Here he is (far right) teaching Zooloretto:

One of the more popular games played at the convention was the new Ca$h 'n Gun$ game:

A wide variety of games saw the table during the day including: Axis and Allies, Arkham Horror, If Wishes Were Fishes, Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit, Notre Dame, Cosmic Encounter, The Princes of Florence, Puerto Rico, Zooloretto, Shadows Over Camelot, Wings of War, Can't Stop, Crokinole, Fairy Tale, and Through the Ages among others. For a complete listing, check out this list at BGG:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/22691/page/1

Also seeing the table were several prototypes from members of a local club of game designers called The Board Game Designers Guild which also helped sponsor the event and of which I am a member. Greg, pictured previously, is the primary organizer and founder of the club. Here is Steve (far right hand side), also a member of the club, playing one of his prototypes with some friends:

Here is myself (far left) also playing one of my prototypes with some friends:

Jay Tummelson, in addition to providing demos of upcoming games, was also willing to spend time with members of our game design club in providing feedback on many of our prototypes - which was greatly appreciated. Here is Jay with another member of our guild, Alf Seegart, discussing one of Alf's prototypes:

During the convention, Game Night Games had a table set up with games for sale. As usual, our selection was quite diverse including everything from simpler titles such as "Zooloretto" and "Bohnanza", to dexterity games such as "Pitch Car" and "Tumblin' Dice", to larger scale games such as "Roads and Boats" and "Antiquity". Behind the table is Tim - owner of Game Night Games:

During the convention there were several events of note. One of which was our charity drive to donate games that will be sent to the troops overseas. Phil Kilcrease, another member of the Board Game Designers Guild, was the organizer of the charity event.

We also had a raffle give-away for various games including titles such as "Incan Gold", "Taj Mahal", and "Canal Mania".

All in all the convention was a great success, not only because of all the wonderful people who came, but also specifically due to the presence of Jay Tummelson. He spent much of his time demo-ing games, answering questions, and just making sure that people were having a good time. Here is a picture of Jay and myself:

If anyone is interested in visiting our convention next year, feel free to check out the convention website for updates:

http://www.utahgamecon.org/

Review: China

2007-06-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

Overview of Rules and Game Play

China is a quasi-territorial control game involving component placement through card usage. With regards to scoring, there are in-game and end-game scoring mechanisms. Here's how it plays:

The board is a map of China divided into 9 regions. Each of these regions if of one of five colors. So, two regions are yellow, two are green, two are red, two are orange, and the largest territory is purple. Any two regions of the same color do not border each other on the map. There is also a "great wall" of China scoring track which is fun as it reinforces the theme quite well. The board is also double sided with a different setup on each side.

Each player starts off with three cards in their hand. Each card is of a single color corresponding to one of the five region colors and each card has listed on it the names of the territory or territories it can be used for. When a player plays a card, it allows that player to place either a "house" or an "emissary" in a region. A player may place up to two pieces on their turn (their cards permitting) but they may only do so in a single region. The rule books provides an easy way to remember this with the 3-2-1 idea:

Three cards may be used to place up to two pieces in one region.

When placing pieces, if you have two cards of the same color, they may both be played as a "wild" - allowing you to place a piece in any region you wish. Thus, a player may use all three cards in their hand on their turn.

At the beginning of the game, after everyone has their cards, the top four cards from the draw deck are layed out. After placing their pieces each player replenishes their hand back up to three at the end of their turn by selecting cards from either the four that are layed out, blindly off the top of the draw pile, or both. After replenishing their hand, any empty spots left by cards taken from the four that were layed out are filled again off the top of the draw pile. The card replenishment is important because going through the draw deck twice triggers the end of the game.

In placing pieces on the board, one of the interesting rules is that no player may place two pieces in a region that doesn't have any pieces in it already. What this creates is a situation where some of the players are hesitent to place a piece in a new region because all of the other players would then have a chance to place multiple pieces in that same region on their turns.

Houses

There are a specific number of spots in each region for a house and there are roads connecting these spots. You may place a house on any spot in a region that you wish (if you have played the appopriate card or cards to allow you to do so). Once any region fills up, the scoring works in descending order like so:

The first place player (the player with the majority of houses) gets a number of victory points equal to the total number of houses in the region regardless of who placed them. The second place player gets a number of victory points equal to the total number of houses in that region placed by the first place player. The third place player gets a number of vp's equal to the number of houses placed by the second place player and so forth. Ex:

Player one plays 4 houses in the purple region

Player two plays 3 houses in the purple region

Player three plays 1 house in the purple region

Player one would get 4+3+1=8

Player two would get 4 points

Player three would get 3 points

What this creates is the interesting dynamic of trying to get others to help you out. 8 and 4 is a fair amount of distance between a first and second place player with only one extra house placed by the first place player. However, if a smaller provice broke down like this:

Player one plays 4 houses in the red region

Player two plays 1 house in the red region

Player one gets 4+1=5 points

Player two gets 4 points

In this example, player one did all the work and player two, with only one piece, got only 1 point less than player one.

Roads

As I mentioned, there are roads that connect the housing spots. If a player connects four of their houses in a row or more along a road (regardless of whether those houses are all in the same region or not) that player gets a number of victory points at the end of the game equal to the total number of consecutive houses on the road.

Emissaries

Emissaries can be placed on a region in a black circular symbol in the middle of each region. The total number of emissaries that can be played in a region (regardless of who plays them) is always less than or equal to the total number of houses in the majority in that region. For example, if a region has two houses from player one in it and one house from player two, then that region can only hold two emissaries in it because two is the number of houses in the majority in that region at that time. Emissaries can by played by anyone. They do not have to be played by the majority player.

Between each region is a small black spot with a number on it. There is a black game piece that represents the emperor and, at the end of the game, the emperor piece starts out on the spot labeled "1" and continues through until he gets to spot "15" - at each spot "checking the relationship" between each region. In a given relationship, there is only scoring if one person has a majority of emissaries in both regions of the relationship and that player gets a total number of points equal to the total number of emissaries in those two regions regardless of who played them. So, if you choose to place an emissary in a region, you had better win the majority in that region or you're just handing more points to the eventual majority winner in the end game scoring.

Fortifications

A player may, on their turn, choose to play a fortification (represented by a small black square) in a housing spot for their first piece (remembering that they have to play a card or cards to do so) and then a house on top of that fortification as their second piece. Each player may only do this once in the game. The fortification piece doubles any scoring in which the house on which it is built is involved - meaning, region scoring with houses and any road scoring.

Thoughts

So, now that we've covered the rules, what about the game? Is it fun? How deep is it? Who would like it? etc. Well, I personally like the game. In spite of the lengthy dissertation I just made on the rules, it's not really a very deep game. In fact, even though I may play China occassionally with my gamer friends, I believe the game really shines as an "introduction" or "cross-over" game (what I mean by "cross-over" game is a game that has enough options to keep a genuine gamer interested but has enough of the right elements to appeal to a non-gamer.) Here's why:

-The board and the game components are colorful and visually appealing.I know this may not sound like a big deal but non-gamers tend to need something more in a game's appearance to have a good time as they are probably not as interested in mechanics.

-The turns are short and the game moves quickly. New players don't have to wait for a long time for it to be their turn to play again. Also, because the placement of pieces by the other players can affect multiple scoring opportunities, other players' turns are more interesting to watch.

-Even though there are multiple scoring options, what you do on your turn is pretty simple - play cards and place one of two types of pieces in a single region. This element helps reduce "turn fear" on the part of newbies/non-gamers (you know, the idea of a person hating it when its their turn because they have no idea what to do).

Conclusion

If you are looking for a game to add to your collection that would appeal to your non-gamer friends yet is still fun to play on its own merits, then China just might work for you. I personally enjoy playing it.

Review: Colosseum vs. The Princes of Florence

2007-06-27T22:33:00.000-07:00

Vs.

Overview
I'm writing this review of "Colosseum" as a comparison between it and "The Princes of Florence" (hereafter abbreviated "Princes") primarily because the game play in Colosseum almost demands the comparison. Usually people use the term "stark" in conjunction with a reference to differences as in the phrase "stark contrast". With Colosseum, I would say that there are "stark similarities" between it and "Princes". However, I find in comparing the two games, that "Princes" is a hands down winner on pretty much every level except for the beauty of the artwork (and even then I have some issues with how Colosseum is laid out). Perhaps the easiest way to summarize the comparison is to say that Colosseum is like "Princes" but with baggage. So, let's look at why this is.

Similar Mechanics
Both games last for a set number of rounds (Colosseum: 5, "Princes": 7)

Both games have competitive auctioning as well as purchasing possibilities from a limited market.

Both games have a number of point scoring goals you work towards that are each unique in the things required to score the maximum points possible (Colosseum has attractions/programs - each requiring a unique tile set of different performers to achieve maximum points while "Princes" has Works with a unique requirement set for landscapes and buildings) - this is the strongest similarity between the two games.

You can play an attraction in Colosseum or a work in "Princes" without having all of the required items but you score less points for it.

If you have the best attraction / work of everyone in a round, you get three points for it (in Colosseum, those points count towards latter attractions and represent a recurring form of point scoring. With Princes, the three points are added immediately and are not recurring.)

You can acquire items that can, for one time only, increase the total value of your attraction or your work (for Colosseum it's Medals while, for Princes, it's Bonus Cards).

You have to make choices as to which actions are the most important to you as you only have a small number of opportunities to purchase things.

Because of these similarities, it comes as no surprise that the same designer, namely Wolfgang Kramer, was a co-designer for both games. Granted there are differences. Specifically, there is the Emperor as well as various Senators in Colosseum that may or may not attend your attractions depending on luck (you roll dice). With "Princes", the luck in the game is mitigated by drawing 5 cards and then picking the one out that you want.

The Auctioning System
The auctioning system is more complicated and less satisfying in Colosseum than it is in "Princes" for several reasons. First, you are not bidding on a single item or tile. Instead, you are bidding on sets of tiles (three tiles per set). This might seem like an improvement over "Princes" as much of the tension in the game "RA" comes from having to decide how worth it it is to you to bid on something with a mixed set of variables. However, the fact that tiles can replenish after a bid is taken makes the auctioning less interesting and more random. Further, the tiles only replenish and other players cannot bid again after they have won a bid until the initial bidding player finally takes a bid. Also, the auctioning can continue in Colosseum such that a person could win two or more auctions in a given round.

The auctioning system in "Princes" is less complicated and more tense because people are fighting over more similar things and, once they have won a bid, they are out of the bidding. This means that the decision to raise a bid and potentially take it carries a lot more weight in "Princes". In Colosseum, it's too easy (even with 5 players) for everyone to be going after different things (which dramatically reduces the tension involved in the auction).

Attractions vs. Works
With Colosseum, you can only play one attraction per turn. You may, however, play that same attraction over and over again over several turns if you choose to - which lessens the tension of playing it. With Princes, your actions are limited as well but you can play multiple works in a given turn. However, once you've played your work, you can't play it again unless someone recruits it from you and you then recruit it back. Thus, you have to decide if you want to play your work early and take less points for it or play it later and get more points for it - a decision with decidely more tension involved than what Colosseum offers.

Player Interactivity
The one main criticism of "Princes" is that the player interactivity is low. Colosseum does have more player interactivity. You can make trades and exchanges with other players involving tiles and money. There is also some indirect interactivity in that how the players move the senators and the emperor on their turn can impact the other players' abilities to score more points on their respective turns. However, the movement of the senators is not that interesting of a decision making process.

The main source of interaction in Princes is the auction and the limited market (not having enough of everything for every player to acquire one). So, what other players do on their turns with respect to purchasing items in "Princes" is more interesting than what other players are doing on their turns in Colosseum. Because everyone's tiles are out in the open in Colosseum, you can reasonably deduce what attractions they are most likely gunning for. With "Princes", by having less variables, there is actually more intrigue because you honestly can't always figure out exactly what the other players will be buying next. There are simply more possibilities that might be reasonable for them as the smaller number of variables at play have a wider range of possible solutions. Also, the works that other players have in their hands is secret and each player's money supply can be kept secret - both of which are aspects that add more intrigue to the game when compared to the open resources of Colosseum.

Components
Ok, the artwork on Colosseum is typical Days of Wonder: very colorful and attractive. However, the functionality could have been slightly improved. The auctioning mechanism of how turn order flows and who can bid and who can't is quite clunky in my opinion. Some additional components could have easily helped make this mechanic a lot smoother by helping the players to keep track of things. Also, there are various tiles that award bonuses if you have the most of them but not all of the tiles are eligible for this bonus. Just like how RA incorporates the use of a symbol to remind the players of which tiles stay and which tiles are discarded at the end of a round, it's my position that Days of Wonder could have included symbols on the tiles to indicate which ones are eligible for a majority bonus and which ones aren't. This small addition won't make much of a difference to experienced players but it would help out a lot in trying to teach new people how to play the game.

Conclusion
The bottom line here is that, in my opinion, if you are looking for the kinds of decisions and intrigue offered by Colosseum, then "The Princes of Florence" offers many of the same kinds of decisions but does so to a greater, more fulfilling degree and in a more streamlined, less complicated fashion. Colosseum has more pieces involved in it's structure, but "The Princes of Florence" has stronger depth. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is that, sometimes in life, "less is more".

General Gaming: Why Some People Play Board Games (and Why Some Don't)

2007-06-25T21:41:00.000-07:00

There are a number of valid forms of entertainment and recreation out there. However, with respect to board games, the question about why some people play them and why some people don't comes down to a fairly straightforward distinction:

-Some people like to think for recreation
-Some people want to do anything but think for recreation

Board games (well, the good ones at least) are a way of engaging one's imagination in a creative way - but you have to meet the hobby half way. Most board games require some level of mental engagement and it is precisely that requirement that turns some people on and some people off. Sure, there are varying weights of board games - some very light and some very heavy - but usually they require some mental energy.

Also, there is the realism factor that must be considered: meaning that some people are unwilling to use their imagination or at least don't really derive satisfaction from doing so to the extent that a board game really requires. Here's what I mean:

Let's say a person reads a book like, oh, Harry Potter. Now, the enjoyment of that book depends on the reader's ability to pretend that, for a while, there are some characters named Harry, Ron, etc. and that these characters are wizards - which means that you have to pretend that wizards exist as well - and so on and so forth for the story to be any good to you.

Some people are so unable or unwilling to use their imagination that they get stuck right up front: "Well, since there are no such things as wizards, this is just a 'stupid' story." The same person would read a book like Lord of the Rings and, rather than focusing on the emotions of the characters or on the conflicts of the plot, they stay hung up at the beginning on basic premises such as "elves do not exist so, therefore, this is a 'stupid' story." It may sound ridiculous but it's the truth. A person's ability to imagine and envision things that are not immediately within their personal realm of experience is directly proportional to their ability to appreciate and enjoy genres of literature such as science fiction, fantasy, and the like.

You could tell a story of two lovers who are not able to be together and yet want to be (a very typical romance story) and do so twice in exactly the same manner but with one difference between the two tellings: in one story the lovers are elves and in the other they are ordinary people. The person who gets stuck on things like "elves do not exist" will hear both stories and would most likely say that the one with the elves in it is ridiculous and the other is not even though the plot would be exactly the same. Why the difference? Because there are no elves in the second story. This is what I'm getting at. Some people can't use their imagination in a way that they find satisfying outside of anything other than within the scope of their immediate, personal experience.

So it is with board games - some people enjoy using their imagination to envision themselves and the other players as master builders competing for the honor of best builder in the land and some people will just see pieces on a board much like a person would look at an assortment of knick knacks on the top of their dresser - lacking in any sort of significance.

Granted, a person can go overboard with their imagination such that they aren't keeping their feet on the ground. However, good lighthearted fun via recreational thinking is one of the main sources of appeal for the hobby board game player.

Review: Die Macher

2007-06-25T14:04:00.001-07:00

What follows is a review I posted on BoardGameGeek some time ago. Enjoy.

Die Macher - BoardGameGeek game I.D. #1. I'll admit that I had eagerly been anticipating the reprinting of this game simply to see if this longstanding member of the top ten and pioneering entry on BGG was really as good as its ratings indicate. I have played the game a number of times since acquiring a copy of the new Valley Games reprint. Here are my conclusions.

Overall Impression
Various adjectives that communicate a lot of information very quickly can be ascribed to games . I've heard the term "elegant" applied to games with as few rules as possible yet books and books can be written about their strategy. The game "Go" would fall into this classification. One might say that "clunky" could be applied to a game that has lots and lots and lots of rules such that the game really resists being played in a variety of ways and can only be approached in a few reasonable ways. The term "chaotic" might be applied to a game with lots of dice rolling, blind draws, random cards, and unexpected turns of events created out of some unknown element(s) in the game.

Though Die Macher is not an "elegant" game in the sense of the word I previously described, it is not "clunky" in spite of the many rules in the game and, even though there are lots of random elements in the game, I wouldn't necessarily classify it as truly "chaotic". Perhaps the best term to describe the game is "majestic" in that the game's rules all serve to reinforce the theme and the chaos of the game makes sense within the political theme presented. Each round is composed of a series of mini-games that all come together to create a truly majestic whole. Bottom line, this game lives up to its mystique.

The "Time" Factor
About 4 hours at least is required on a first time run through with new players. When you play the game for the first time, don't be fooled by the length of the first round. The time goes by extremely quickly after getting through that first round as the rules become reinforced by their repitition in each subsequent round. The first round took about 1 1/2 hours to get through. Round 2 took about 45 minutes. Round 3 took about 30 minutes, etc. etc. Not only does the time intensity decrease but the absorbtion of the rules allows for the intrigue of the decisions offered by the rules to increase. In spite of the initial awkwardness that comes from a first time play of the game, everyone I've introduced Die Macher to has responded positively to it and has stated that they would like to play it again - the time intensity notwithstanding. In fact, as one begins to grasp the rules and begins to see the mixing of the game's "gears" the time moves quickly such that, after you are finished, you might ask yourself "was it really four hours I just spent?"

I would however strongly suggest that, if you want to make Die Macher run smoothly, you will have to invest some prep time in making player aides or downloading some off of BoardGameGeek simply to help the players keep track of where they are in the round and to help people have a vision of all of the elements going on in the game. Simply copying the summaries provided by the rule book is, in my opinion, insufficient.

Components
The components are "okay" at best. I had some problems with the boards bowing up on me on my second run through of the game and the cards also tend to suffer from a bowing problem (i.e. the material the cards are made of is pretty stiff and tends to stay bent after shuffling). However, the tiles and cubes are okay. I had to make some clarifications out of the rule book on the second time through the game with further new players as some of the graphic designs in this edition are really lacking. The theme of the game is that each player represents a political party and, in keeping with that theme, each party has a certain number of "issues" that they take a stand on (determined by cards that you are dealt initially and that you acquire during the course of the game). In designing graphics for these various "issue" cards there are two issues ("Nuclear Power Development" and "Economic Redevelopment") that are both symbolized with a picture of a building and a crane. The crane, in fact, is the same picture. It's just been copyed and pasted and the buildings themselves look very similar. The game its self takes up a lot of table space and, with that in mind, looking at an issue card from across a larger table magnifies the problem of two issues having extremely similar graphics. After the first playing of the game, which was with a pretty "game savy" group of people I might add, I had to take a permanent marker and make distinctions on all of the cards of one of the issues (I chose "Nuclear Power Development") simply because the players were consistently confusing the two issues for each other.

Game Play
Without going into a tremendous amount of detail about the rules, here is a list of the elements that go into the game:
-You take stances on certain political issues.
-You can change your stances on political issues but only one at a time per round.
-There are seven rounds (six of which involvs a series of decisions and the seventh is purely a scoring round). Each round represents an election that is held within a particular state in Germany.
-Elections are won by the player with the most number of "votes". Votes are acquired by paying to hold party meetings within the state, having a platform that matches up with the public dispositions within that state, and by how popular your party is in that state (the people in the state may disagree with you on issues but they may like you and vice versa).
-Elections also offer a certain number of "seats" based on your total number of votes. In other words, it's not a "winner take all" type of election. Even if you don't win, you still can get a certain number of seats in a state. However, winning the election allows you to obtain certain benefits in the form of end game victory points and leverage in affecting the opinions of the nation as a whole.
-There are opinion polls that are auctioned that can impact your popularity in a state or your party membership overall.
-Players can purchase a media presence or multiple media presences in a state to help them stay immune from bad opinion polls and to help that player persuade the people in that state to change their viewpoints about certain issues.
-Players may accept monetary contributions to their party from outside sources and run the risk of losing party members in the process or they may reject contributions and gain party members as a result.
-You have a personal group of henchmen who are referred to as the "Shadow Cabinet". There are essentially your own personal secret service and they can be dispatched to a state to get things going in your favor (for a price of course).
-There are auctions for opinion polls, blind bids for the right to choose who the starting player is in a round, territory control issues with media markers (there can only be so many markers in a state), competition over majority of votes in a state, competition over affecting the national opinion through winning elections, opportunities for your henchmen in certain states to make deals and create coalitions between parties in a state, in essence - there is a lot to the game.

Victory points are a culmination of the seats you win in the elections, bonus points in the form of national media presences you may receive for winning elections outright in some of the states, your total party membership, and how much your party platform squares up with the viewpoint of the nation overall at the end of the game.

Conclusion
This game is a heavy game that takes up lots of table space and takes a long time to play but the investment is worth the reward and the time you spend won't feel as long as it really was once you're done. I strongly advise making player aides to help the game move more smoothly (I created several necessary score sheets that were larger and easier to understand than the disposable sheets that come with the game and laminated them so the players could use dry erase markers instead of pencils). I recommend that you have a calculator on hand for the final point tabulation to speed it up.

The theme of the game works really well and has appeal in that many of the elements in the theme can be applied to a variety of political systems - not just the German one. In other words, you don't have to have lived in or be from Germany to appreciate the theme.

Bottom line, this is a game that will tend to have great appeal for gamers but will more than likely not appeal to casual gamers and will probably not work at all for non-gamer (i.e. primarily party gamer) types of people. I personally have enjoyed playing the game and I look forward to playing it again.

Game Design: Categorical Aspects of Games

2007-06-25T13:12:00.000-07:00

What follows is a listing of various categories of different mechanical and organizational aspects of games. Rather than being an article, it's more of just an informational listing.

Information Type/Level of Luck:

-Perfect Information
-Limited (Some public, some private, some hidden from everyone)
-Private (Know your resources but no one else’s)
-None (No one knows what is coming next – “Sorry”, “War”, etc.)

Participation:

-Non-elimination
-Partial elimination (possible but not required– “Shadows Over Camelot”)
-Elimination (one person left – “Risk”)

Opponents:

-Everyone for themselves
-Teams/Partners
-Changing Teams
Random (“Kings”)
Chosen (“Teams of Enemies”)
-Co-operative (against the game)
-Variable co-op (possible that someone is helping the game)

Scoring:

-Most points
-Most amount of pieces played
-Most amount of pieces acquired
-Balance (least = your score – “Tigris and Euphrates”)
-Larger amounts of small scoring moves
-Smaller amounts of large scoring moves
-Exponential scoring (“St. Pete’s”)
-Mixture of in-game and end-game scoring
-Most consecutive pieces (“Ticket to Ride”, “Settlers”)
-Bonuses for certain accomplishments in the game (“Princes”, “Puerto Rico”)
-Bonuses for certain accomplishments in a given round (“Princes”)
-Limits (“Ingenious” – no more scoring for a color after 18 points)
-Thresholds (“Lost Cities” - must score over 20 to score positively)
-Prisoner’s Dilemma (blind, dual choice conditional scoring)

Mechanics:

Card Playing:
-Sets, Runs, Suits,
-Trumps
-One time action modifiers (Offense and Defense)
-Long term action modifiers (Offense and Defense)
-Short term action modifiers
-Trick taking
-Cards act as resources (“San Juan”)
-Cards act as monetary measurements (“San Juan”)

Piece Placing
-Moving (“DVONN”)
-Non-moving (“Blokus”)
-2D
-3D
-Adjacent
-Non-adjacent connected
-Non-adjacent, non-connected

Game Boards
-Collective board (“Risk”, “Blokus”)
-Individual game boards (“Princes”, “Puerto Rico”)
-Combination of individual and collective game boards

Dice-Rolling
-Various amounts of dice (“Risk”)
-Multiple options for using dice results (“That’s Life”, "Can't Stop")
-Bonuses for certain combos (ex. doubles)
-Actions occuring via dice ("War of the Ring")

Direct Attacking
-Known outcome (“Chess”)
-Unknown outcome but fixed (“Stratego”)
-Unknown outcome but random (dice rolling - “Risk”)
-Capturing through replacement (“Chess”)
-Capturing through surrounding (“Go”)
-Capturing through jumping ("Checkers" "Zertz")
-Attacking via proximity (“Wings of War”)

Auctioning
-Closed system ("RA")
-Blind Bid ("Die Macher")
-Sequential
-Non-sequential

Resource Acquisition
-Single payoff (“Princes of Florence”)
-Continuous payoff (“St. Pete’s”)
-Resource upgrading (“St. Pete’s”)
-Trading ("Settlers of Catan")

Role-Playing
-Various attributes, strengths,
and powers for different characters

Role-Taking and/or Variable Phase Order
(“Puerto Rico”, “San Juan”, “Citadels”)

Territory Control
-Only player ("Risk")
-Majority player

Tile Placement
(“Carcassone”, "Tigris and Euphrates")

Collective Influence (on a single area or item)
(“Pirhana Pedro”)

Indirect Influence on another player
(“Robo Rally”)

Plan Setting / Prediction
(“Wings of War”, "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit")

Continuums
-Thresholds that trigger events
(“Industrial Waste”)

Deduction
(“Sleuth”, “Clue”, “Mystery of the Abbey”)

Negative/Positive Turn Requirement
(help opposition, then yourself - “Shadows Over Camelot”)

Additional actions for crossing a threshold
(“Ingenious”)

Simultaneous Choice
(“Diamant”, "Cash n' Guns")

Motor Skill / Dexterity
(“Polarity”)

Supply and Demand
(“Power Grid”)

There are numerous mechanics that can be used in games. I find that trying to list them and see what they are can help build a vocabulary of useful solutions to gaming problems in the design phase. However, it's also useful to know what's out there so you can have some perspective on your own designs (i.e. are they truly unique or not).

Game Design: Game Evaluation Criteria

2007-06-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

I recently created a tool that can be used to help make feedback more efficient and effective following a playtest session for a game. Here is a link to a PDF of that tool:

When giving a score from 1 to 7 on the points listed, it is not enough to just give a number. The idea is that the playtester will give the game a score and then briefly explain why they felt the game should be given that score.

After every playtester has had their say using this tool, then a more organic discussion can ensue. Having gone through the points on this tool before starting that discussion helps make that discussion more effective as all of the important talking points can be brought up first. Thus, the conversation will have a more focused direction.

Review: Caylus vs. Puerto Rico

2007-06-25T12:35:00.000-07:00

After all of the hype and the anticipation for the first printing of Caylus, we now find ourselves on the other side of the second major printing for the game, it's on BSW now, and it currently resides at the number 4 spot in the overall BGG rankings.

This review is not designed to be a thorough explanation of all of the game mechanics. Instead, it is intended purely to provide a comparison between it and the current #1 game on BGG: Puerto Rico.

In addressing this comparison, I do so mainly from the standpoint of "balance" in the game play/design for both games. I love Puerto Rico (and this is by no means and anti-Puerto Rico review), but I find Caylus to be a more balanced game and I do so for the following reasons:

The Effects of Seating Order

In Puerto Rico, the determined seating order remains a static influence on the game's strategy throughout the course of the game. Though this is true for any game where turn order remains consistent throughout, with Puerto Rico the choices of the players to your immediate right and immediate left have a profound impact on your capacity to compete. The person to your immediate right, if they decide to produce the same cash crop as you, can severely hurt you throughout the course of the game. The seating order then becomes an advantage in their favor that does not change (i.e. there are no situations where you would find yourself able to sit "to the right" of that player later on in the game). With Caylus, because seating order is something that can be directly competed for, the potential for a static advantage built in to the game's mechanic is removed.

Alliances

With Puerto Rico, as often happens, there can be some consistent pseudo "alliances" that occur during the course of the game (i.e. you find yourself as a builder competing against an unspoken "alliance" of two shippers). The overall "alliances" created in such scenarios are not necessarily going to change as the role choices of shippers will tend to help each other. With Caylus, because what is important to you as a resource on one turn may not be important to you on the next and because of the continuing movement of the Baliff, player A may find himself working with player B on one turn to move the Provost such that both secure crucial resources and, on the very next round, that same player A may be working with player C to completely hose player B. Though Puerto Rico can present opportunities where you are hurting one player one turn and hurting another player the next, it isn't as dynamic as it can be in Caylus. This, in my opinion, offers more flavor and variety in the game play.

Randomness

Barring seemingly random moves made by newbie players, there are four random aspects in Puerto Rico:

1. Seating order at the beginning
2. Who the Governor is on the first turn
3. The plantations that come up in the plantation draws
4. Potential plantations acquired through use of blind draws via an active Hacienda

The randomness of the plantation draws can result in some pretty drastic consequences for certain players (i.e. being denied a cash crop plantation for a signficant length of time). Also, because plantation draws continue to factor into the game for a significant length of time (potentially determining which crops specific players go for in their production), there is the potential for randomness to present a greater obstacle for one player as opposed to another for a longer period of time. This also holds true if the randomness of the blind draws made by an active Hacienda owner turn out to not be very helpful at all.

Again, barring random newbie moves, there are only two random aspects of Caylus:

1. Seating order in the first round
2. The order of the pink buildings at the beginning.

After that, it's purely what the players choose. There are no other elements that serve to continually introduce randomness into the game after the initial setup.

Kingmaking potential

Because of the role taking mechanic of Puerto Rico, one wrong role choice taken by a newer player can completely "give" the game to another player due to a sequential advantage (i.e. Crafting at the wrong time). In Caylus, though newbies can make mistakes that help other players, the potential for such drastic, inadvertant kingmaking isn't there to the same degree. Also, because the turn order sequence can change, a newbie isn't necessarily going to help the person who happens to be sitting at the table to their right or left consistently throughout the game. Don't get me wrong, there are opportunities for kingmaking in Caylus but they aren't as drastic or consistently available like they are in Puerto Rico.

Other Minor Observations:

Both games offer lots of options. With Caylus, you have a progressively larger number of buildings to choose from regarding where you can place your workers. With Puerto Rico, you can obtain more and more buildings for your city, thus giving you more options/priviliges within the different role phases of the game.

Both games also include a "multiple paths to victory" element. In Puerto Rico, there is shipping and building. With Caylus, there is working on the road or on the castle. With Puerto Rico, you usually have to pick one area (i.e. shipping or building) and focus on it above the other. With Caylus, you can either focus exclusively on the castle, exclusively on the road, or you can do reasonably well in both aspects of the game via favors.

One area in which Puerto Rico has a slight advantage over Caylus is in the overall length of the game as Puerto Rico, from my experience, tends to be shorter. However, the flip side is that, if you are playing a face-to-face game, Puerto Rico can take a longer time to set up.

Caylus seems to present a better atmosphere for learning when compared to Puerto Rico as the sequential role taking choices can have much more drastic consequences when compared to the turn by turn individual placing of workers that takes place in Caylus. In other words, it's much more likely that a mixture of experienced and newbie players in Caylus will not result in the more experienced players getting frustrated with the choices of the newbies as can happen with the choices made in the role selections of Puerto Rico.

Finally, I've found that, because of the shifting alliances aspect of Caylus, it's actually possible for a player to rally back from an early "mistake" whereas, with Puerto Rico, one early mistake seems to carry much more drastic consequences.

Conclusion:

The points I've made here in this review are mainly intended to illustrate how, in my opinion, Caylus is a more balanced game than Puerto Rico. However, both Puerto Rico and Caylus are great games and both are fun to play.

General Gaming: Gamers and Non-Gamers

2007-06-25T02:19:00.000-07:00

From my perspective, there are four general categories people tend to fall into:

1. "Gamers"

2. "Uninitiated gamers" These are the people who have an appetite for strategy and who gravitate to gamer's games right off the bat when introduced to them. They are simply gamers who have not yet encountered euro-games. (I was an "uninitiated gamer" who tried to make the best I could out of the games I knew about until I encountered euros and realized what I was missing.) You can introduce games like Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates, and The Princes of Florence to people in this category with no problems.

3. "Potential gamers" These are the people who, given enough of the right kinds of early positive experiences with gaming can warm up to the heavier sorts of games over time to greater or lesser extents. In many cases, it's probably important that these people not be hit over the head with early gamer's games lest they potentially become resistent to the idea of learning future games. It's also probably true that each person in this category (as opposed to "uninitiated gamers") has a personal "weight limit" in that there is a certain level of complexity that they are unwilling to go beyond with their game choices. If a game exceeds that weight limit then they consider it too complex and pass on it.

4. "Non-gamers" These are people who, for the rest of their lives, will probably be averse to heavy strategy games - regardless of what games they are exposed to and in what order. There's nothing "wrong" per se with non-gamers. It's just useless to try to get them to like heavier games because what non-gamers look for in a game is typically social interaction without the "bother" of heavy strategy.

Something that most gamers experience is the frustration of trying to play the games that they enjoy with their non-gamer friends and, unfortunately, a bad experience is what they get. After enough of these types of bad experiences, it can be easy to just "give up" on playing games at all with certain friends.

Concerning this subject, I've tried adopting the philosophy that it is better to accept what is than to try and make something what I want it to be even when it's not. In other words, I don't try to turn non-gamers into gamers. I will, however, give someone the benefit of the doubt if they express a genuine interest in learning a gamer's game (if someone I consider to be a non-gamer really wants to learn Puerto Rico then I'll teach it to them).

I also believe that some people simply haven't realized that they might actually like some of the harder games. They just need to build up to them with enough positive experiences beforehand. Throwing a non-gamer directly into a gamer's game without positive prior gaming experiences will leave them in a position where they will be less inclined to like the game and more inclined to resist the game. However, helping someone "work up" to the heavier games requires knowledge of enough different titles that will appeal to gamer and non-gamer alike such that you have a variety to choose from along the way. Otherwise, if there are only one or two games you're aware of that you know you and your non-gamer friend can enjoy, then those games might not be enough to provide the variety and quantity of positive experiences necessary for a non-gamer to be open to learning heavier games. At that point, not only will upward progression towards harder games stop, you will also probably get stuck playing those same few games over and over again such that you and your friend(s) will get sick of them and eventually won't want to play them anymore.

I also believe that "needing" someone else to like something or trying to "get" them to like it potentially sets one up for disappointment because such a mentality does not leave one emotionally free enough to accept an unsuccessful gaming attempt as okay. I'm willing to try giving a non-gamer the opportunity of liking a gamer's game but I'm also willing to be okay with whatever results. In other words, if my non-gamer friend is hating the game I'm trying to show them, then I'm not above proposing that we just quit and do something else (perhaps even having a mutual laugh in the process about just how lousy the idea of playing that particular game was in that situation).

I believe, for a person to have enough emotional freedom to be okay with such an unsuccessful outcome, they need to have two things:

1. Knowlege that, if they were they one who brought up the idea of playing the game in the first place, they gave the non-gamer enough positive gaming experiences beforehand such that that person's dislike of the game was due more to that person's personality rather than because of a lack of experience.

2. A reliable venue for playing gamer's games (like a local game store, or BSW) that is not dependent on the non-gamer friend or friends in question. Without such a venue, if one wants to play heavier games, then one is going to have to "get" one's non-gamer friends to play them. This can lead to one of those afore mentioned "bad experiences" because, even if the gamer succeeds in coercing his or her friends into a game they don't want to play, it's still a game they don't want to play - thus creating some potential resentment and/or more resistence to the idea of playing that same game or same type of game in the future.

Game Design: Two Very Helpful Podcasts

2007-06-25T02:08:00.001-07:00

It's extremely helpful for aspiring designers to be able to hear from someone who is a respected and accomplished designer about the process of designing games. In this respect, there is no one better than Reiner Knizia. The following is a link to a podcast that was done by Dirk and Aldie (the co-creators of BoardGameGeek). In spite of the fact that Dirk is trying too hard to be funny in this podcast, Dr. Knizia offers a lot of interesting tid bits about designing games. Here's the link:

http://www.bggfiles.com/boardgamespeak/BGS-2005-03-12.mp3

On the other side of the issue, it's important for aspiring designers to know how publishers select games and how the publishing business works. In this respect, there's no one better to hear from than Jay Tummelson - owner of Rio Grande Games. The following is an hour long interview with Jay that was posted by Boardgame Babylon and it's just chock-full of relevant content. Here's the link:

http://cache.libsyn.com/boardgamebabylon/bgb_v36.mp3

Update: It appears that these links are no longer active.

Game Design: Effective Playtesting Feedback

2007-06-25T01:56:00.001-07:00

I've been struck over and over again with the reality that many people simply don't know how to properly give effective feedback. So, let's dive into the principles of giving effective feedback during the playtesting process.

Purpose

The purpose of playtesting and giving feedback is to answer certain fundamental questions about a game so that future improvements can occur. These questions include:
"How clear, consistent, and streamlined are the rules?"
"How interesting is the theme and how applicable is it to the rules?"
"How balanced are the mechanics (i.e. how fair is the game for each player)?"
"How clear and streamlined are the layout and procedures of the game?"
"How satisfying or unsatisfying is the overall length of the game?"
"How interesting are the decisions the game requires the players to make?"
"How fun is the game to play?"
"How can the game be improved?"

Attitude

Be kind but honest.
-You are not doing anyone a favor by telling them their game is better than it really is -but honest feedback doesn't have to be conveyed disrespectfully.
-Designers should welcome honest, intelligent, and respectful criticism as it will provide opportunities for discovering new ways to improve their game.
-Give compliments to designers on good aspects of their game.

Extent

Keep feedback appropriate to the game's phase of design
-For example, don't be overly critical of the quality of components used in a game that is still in an early phase of design. The game will not have had much of a chance to take a solid shape yet. However, if a game is in a late stage of design, the components can and should be given more scrutiny.

Give other playtesters time to provide feedback
-Don't monopolize the discussion. Different minds have different perspectives and hearing a wider variety of perspectives tends to result in better overall feedback. Keep in mind that someone else might bring up something that you were going to bring up and might do so in a better or more insightful way than you would have done. Trust that the other playtesters have equally important feedback to offer, allow them the time to offer it, and refrain from interrupting others while they are giving their feedback.

Focus

Address the roots first, then the branches (if necessary)
-Prioritize feedback by discussion the most important issues first. Remember that a "Saturation Point" can occur where too much feedback "saturates" the group and/or the designer - resulting in fatigue with the process. Thus, it's important to discuss the more important issues before that point sets in.
-Actively look beneath the surface for more fundamental problems and direct attention there (don't un-inquisitively fixate on the surface symptoms of a potentially greater problem).

Example of prioritizing feedback:
Discussing how the game has a potential runaway leader problem before getting into a discussion about how the wording on one of the cards needs to be changed a bit.

Example of actively looking beneath the surface and not fixating on surface symptoms:
"Hmm. I find Rule X to be a bit cumbersome. But, rather than tinker with Rule X, let's ask ourselves why Rule X is there in the first place...Well, it seems to me that it's an attempt at fixing a balance problem. So, rather than focus on Rule X, let's look at the places where a balance problem might be originating from in the game and see if we can't correct those first." In the discussion that follows, Rule X may eventually become completely unnecessary if other areas of the game are corrected. Thus, a lengthy discussion about tinkering with Rule X may appear productive but, by looking beneath the surface a bit, one may find that Rule X is merely a symptom of a deeper problem in the game that should be addressed first.

Skills and Methods

Making Claims
-Making a claim about a game is not stating an opinion. It is making a statement and portraying that statement as a fact.
-Claims are made with the intent of proving some important fact about the game to the group and/or to the designer. Claims are usually followed by a debate with people taking a "side" on the issue. Ex "I claim that this rule is unfair".
-Claims are naturally confrontational and, as such, should not be made about arbitrary issues or about smaller aspects when a greater issue is involved. (Ex. "This scoring track is unclear" is a claim about a significant issue while "you should use a diamond instead of a circle on your scoring track" is a claim about an arbitrary issue and/or a smaller aspect of a greater issue.)
-Don't make a claim unless you are willing and able to support it with evidence (don't be rash and don't jump to conclusions). Ex "The wording on that card is unclear and my evidence is that I can justly construe a meaning from those words that the designer did not intend."

Making Observations / Proposing Hypothesis
-Making an observation or proposing a hypothesis is making a statement about the game but from an admitted standpoint of uncertainty. Ex. "I think this rule might be unfair."
-Observations are made - not with the intent to prove anything - but for the purpose of instigating a discussion about an issue.
-Usually, people make the mistake of making claims when they really should be making observations.

Posing Questions
-Posing questions is a covert way of offering suggestions that is non-threatening and allows for a variety of responses. It also helps people remain open to newly presented ideas whereas making claims requires a more immediate response of acceptance or rejection (again, it requires people to take a "side" on the issue). Ex. "I'm wondering how the game might incorporate more player interaction and what that would do for the game's intrigue?" - is a more effective means of instigating change and keeping people open to considering potential changes than trying to introduce the same idea with a claim like "The game needs more player interaction".

Making Suggestions
-Suggestions are usually made in the discussions that follow from claims, observations, or questions that are posed.
-Suggestions should be phrased as "possibilities" rather than as imperatives. This is because phrasing something as if it were a command makes people naturally defensive while phrasing something as a possibility takes away that unwelcome pressure of having to accept or reject it immediately. It also prevents the designer from feeling like you are trying to "take over" the design of their game. Ex. "One possibility you might consider is using a coloring scheme to make your cards clearer."
-It should be remembered that, often, there are several viable ways of accomplishing a task and, because of this, suggestions should not be phrased like claims. Bad example: "You need to use a coloring scheme."
-Remember that, often, playtesters will be making suggestions but will inadvertently phrase them imperatively as claims. Be patient with people if they do this because it's a common error.

Asking Questions
-Asking questions involves actively asking the designer about the intent or the methodology behind some particular aspect of their game. Obviously this would not be a possibility if the situation were a blind playtest but, in non-blind playtesting situations where the designer is present, it's a very good idea for the following reasons:

1. Asking questions prevents the "Saturation Point" from occuring as quickly for the designer (an active, two-way dialogue is more interesting and involving than a passive, one-way monologue where someone is going on and on with their feedback).

2. Asking questions makes it much more likely that the designer will actually listen to your criticism because they will be listening to someone who has actively sought out and comprehended their position on the issue first. Otherwise, a designer might dismiss good feedback by telling themselves "this person just doesn't get it".

3. Asking questions can save time. Ex. "This information track is unclear. What solutions have you tried in the past to make this more clear?....Hmmm. Ok, well, you might try this as one possibility..." - versus - "This information track is unclear. Perhaps you could try (blah blah blah blah)....Oh, you've tried that already."

Expressing Opinions
-Opinions are not claims nor are they observations. They are statements concerning personal preference and, as such, are completely arbitrary. Ex. "I personally don't like how you've named these options".
-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be qualified so that they aren't portrayed like claims. Ex "For me personally, I don't find your theme very interesting" instead of "Your theme isn't very interesting".
-Keep in mind that some people will not like your game regardless of how good it may actually be. This could be due to a number of reasons:

*Different preferences for theme

*Different preferences for the level of strategy involved / Different levels of comprehension (if you present a heavy strategy game to a person who prefers light party games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)

*Different preferences for the amount of luck involved in a game (if you present a very luck driven card game to a person who strongly prefers perfect information games, then you're probably going to get a bad reaction)

*Many other factors

-Because of the wide variety of preferences and personalities there are in the world, it is best to playtest your game with a diversity of people to see how different types of people respond to it.

-Because opinions are arbitrary, they should be taken with a "grain of salt". But, if you recognize patterns in the opinions you get from people - especially people who tend to fit the gaming demographic your game is intended for - then you might consider giving those opinions a little more weight in planning out future designs or versions of your game.

Game Instruction: How to Make a Learning Game a Positive Experience

2007-06-25T01:49:00.000-07:00

I work at a FLGS and, as a result, I find myself teaching lots of games. I've already posted on how to teach games effectively. Now let's look at the things a person should do if they are learning a game.

1. Show up on time

If the learning game is a prescheduled event, please be on time. A "learning game" will already take a longer than average amount of time anyway. There's no need to make it any longer than it has to be.

2. Make sure you have enough time to finish the game before you begin

Don't sit down to a table to learn a game without figuring out if you have enough time to finish it. Having to a leave any game (what's more - a "learning game") in the middle pretty much wrecks the experience for everyone else.

3. Please turn off your cell phone..or at least don't answer it.

For some reason, some people just don't understand the idea that their phone conversation puts the entire game on hold as it halts the game explanation for everybody. If you're in the initial stages of a game explanation and you receive a very important call that:
-Can't be ignored and
-Will take some time ..
..then do the noble thing and withdraw from the game so you aren't holding it up for everyone else.

4. Be willing to fail

My motto with learning games is this:"The purpose of a learning game is to learn the rules, not to win."If I happen to win then that's great. However, it's important to just try things out and not to worry so much about trying to play a perfect game the first time. Otherwise, what happens is a person takes way too much time on each turn and it makes the already long learning game even longer.

5. Choose your game instructor carefully

A bad teaching experience can taint one's experience with a game - thus causing a game one might otherwise enjoy to leave a negative first impression. There are some people that I honestly would not want to learn a game from as I know their inability to explain things clearly will result in a frustrating experience for me. There are times when I may still press forward because I want to learn a particular game and I'm willing to deal with a sub-par explaination - but I try to avoid it when I can.

6. When possible, be selective about who will be learning the game with you

If I'm debating about whether to sit down and learn a game, often it is the group of people involved that can make the decision for me. I try to make sure I avoid learning a game with "rules lawyers", "chronic APers", people who "have to win at all costs", or people for whom the game would not be appropriate (ex. if I want to learn a heavy game and I see that the table is made up of people who are primarily party gamers who don't usually like "thinking games", then I'm probably not going to join so I don't have to put up with their inevitable attempts at getting attention, making jokes, and trying to "lighten" the situation up once they realize that the game requires more thought than they anticipated).

This point is not about being mean. It's about knowing your limits and being realistic about other people. If a person is known for being a "rules lawyer" then they are probably going to do that during the game. Am I willing to deal with that or am I not? If I join a game where a rules lawyer is learning as well, I do so with the understanding and acceptance that there will be some accompanying baggage. If I'm not willing to deal with that, then I shouldn't sit down at the table and then proceed to get upset at the other person when they start doing what they are inevitably going to do. In other words, don't try to "force" the learning game into being a better experience. Rather, accept the situation for what it is and make an informed decision about whether or not to join.

7. Be respectful of the instructor

If someone is going to go to the trouble of explaining a game to me, the least I can do is make sure I'm not overburdening them in the process with excessive distractions. I occasionally like to joke around when learning a game but I try to be mindful of the situation and of whether or not it is reaching the point of annoying the instructor. Too much distraction can make an instructor really feel like they are "working" to explain a game - and that's just rude to do that to them.

8. Ask questions (but be willing to wait for the answers)

If you have a question, it's okay to ask it but remember that some questions, to be properly answered (or for the answer to make sense), you will have to wait until several further aspects of a game are explained first before you get your answer. Remember that patience is a strong virtue when learning a game.

9. If you find that you are not liking the game, try to maintain a positive attitude

This is the one I struggle with the most. If I'm not liking a game, it's usually obvious to everyone around me. However, the proper thing to do is to maintain a positive attitude because, after all, someone else was willing to spend their time to teach you a game. You don't have to lie and say you love the game but having a bad attitude makes it much less likely that the person who taught you the game will be willing to teach you other games in the future - which leads into my last point.

10. Be sure to thank the instructor for taking the time to teach you the game

Even if you hated the game, always be sure to express some gratitude to the person who was willing to teach you the game. Teaching games can be hard work. We should be grateful learners.

Game Instruction: The Ten Essential Characteristics of a Quality Game Instructor

2007-06-24T21:03:00.000-07:00

I used to have a job where I was essentially teaching other people how to teach - which was a great experience. I have noticed that the problems I found in people's teaching methods while I had that job are all too commonplace in the arena of boardgamers who try to teach a new game to someone. It's pretty amazing at first that someone who knows the rules of a game in, out, backwards, and forwards can so astoundingly botch the explanation of those same rules. However, awareness of the principles in this list can help a person see a little more clearly why so many people are so bad at explaining rules. Also, even if someone is a skilled explainer, their attributes/characteristics can be problematic if they are lacking in some particular areas. So, what follows are the Ten Essential Characteristics of a Quality Game Instructor.

1. A quality game instructor is familiar with a wide variety of games (different types, different levels of depth, different group sizes, etc.)

This is important because it's not all about teaching the game well. In many cases, it's about selecting the right game to teach in the first place. If one is familiar with a wide enough variety of games then one can recommend or select a game that will work for the particular situation at hand. No matter how good of a teacher you are, if you have the wrong game for the wrong crowd, you probably won't have a great experience.

2. A quality game instructor is familiar with the rules of the particular game he or she is trying to teach.

3. A quality game instructor takes an “active learning” approach to teaching.

What this means is that the instructor explains things while encouraging people to participate in the process. Instead of reading half the rule book out loud or spending a large amount of time explaining the rules verbally before beginning the game, a quality instructor tries to get the players into the game quickly so the rules are explained within some kind of context. Without context, too much information flow leads to an early saturation level at which point the learner will simply shut down and any further explanation only has the illusion of effectiveness. A classic example of someone making this kind of mistake is the person who tries to explain what every single building does in Puerto Rico before any of the players have even selected a role or started the game.

4. A quality game instructor is aware of the responses of his or her learners and can recognize body language. (Ex. spaced out look = not understanding what’s going on).

5. A quality game instructor is flexible - particularly in two main areas:
a. The instructor can vary the speed or depth of the explanation to fit the needs of the learners
b. The instructor knows how to explain concepts, rules, and mechanics in several different ways (not just one way)

6. A quality game instructor clarifies the meanings of specific game terms and other jargon before using those terms as part of explaining the rules.

This is the principle I see violated perhaps more than any other on this list. It's probably the most easy failing to suffer from for a person who knows a game really well because they have used the game's terms for so long that they have simply forgotten that new players don't automatically know what those terms mean.

7. A quality game instructor clarifies potential misconceptions while explaining rules (ex. “this rule means that you can do A, B, or C but you can’t do X, Y, or Z”).

8. A quality game instructor is patient in that he or she is willing to explain a rule again, willing to re-explain a rule a different way, and willing to answer questions as the game progresses.

This is a big one. I've seen people who know the rules of a game really well become quickly irritated just because someone asked a simple clarification question. Another context in which this principle is violated is when a gamer who is experienced with the game at hand is playing with new learners but where someone else is the designated instructor. Too often, the experienced gamer will impatiently chime in and try to answer questions from the new player instead of letting the designated instructor do their job. What results when this happens is that the new player becomes hesitant to ask any more questions because it results in getting scattered answers from several people all at the same time.

9. A quality game instructor let’s the players play the game (i.e. doesn’t get in the way by offering too much unsolicited or unwarranted advice).

This is perhaps the second most violated principle on this list because gamers tend to have this really bad habit of insisting on trying to discuss lots of strategy with someone who is simply trying to learn the rules of the game. This hearkens back to principle 3 of this list in that trying to discuss lots of strategy without a firm context in the learner's mind yet results in a saturation point where all of the extra talk becomes just that - extra talk.

10. A quality game instructor has an attitude conducive to a learning atmosphere - meaning they:
-like to teach
-consistently reinforce the idea of “this is just a learning game” to take the pressure off of newer gamers when teaching a new game
-genuinely enjoy gaming

Game Design: The Nine Phases of Game Design

2007-06-24T20:53:00.001-07:00

What follows is a general description of the various phases a game goes through from beginning to end in the design process. By outlining these phases, my hope is to provide a some common jargon game designers can use. For example, if one is asked about where one's game is in the development process then, rather than refer to numerous little details in trying to communicate the concept, a designer can simply say "my game is in phase 3" right now.

Phase 1:
-Brainstorming
-Beginnings of either theme, basic mechanics, or both

Phase 2:
-Beginning designs: many ideas considered and written down for further testing
-Small prototyping (very simple pieces, perhaps a basic printed board)
-Beginnings of some minor play-testing for various ideas

Phase 3:
-Medium prototyping (some generic pieces, more refined board layout)
-Play-testing begins to reveal loopholes and potential breaking points of the game system
-Lots of experimentation - typically major adjustments to the game take place in this phase (such as a change in theme or a major change in mechanics)
-Many ideas will be tested and many will be discarded
-If the basic game idea is not working, it will generally be in this phase that the project is abandoned.

Phase 4:
-Game beginning to take shape: Theme and Basic Mechanics are somewhat in place
-Many loopholes and breaking points have been discovered and compensated for but many more have yet to be discovered
-Beginnings of a working, organized rulebook (instead of just personal notes)

Phase 5:
-Game mechanics and theme are nearing completion
-Major loopholes and breaking points have been discovered and compensated for but minor ones may still exist
-Play-testing begins to take on specific purposes (such as trying out extreme strategies simply for the sake of testing potential loopholes or breaking points)
-More formalized prototyping (beginning to acquire more theme appropriate game components)
-Continued work on rulebook

Phase 6:
-Game mechanics and theme are now complete
-Play-testing of the rulebook - how its worded, terminology used - now becomes a focus (i.e. can someone take your rulebook and your prototype and understand how to play the game without you being there to teach or answer questions)
-Perhaps employment of an artist for a final prototype

Phase 7:
-Final prototype with play-tested rulebook completed
-Contacting of publishers begins

Phase 8:
-Prototype(s) sent to publisher(s) for consideration
-Final adjustments from publisher

Phase 9:
-Game formally published

Game Design: The Theory of Fun in Gaming

2007-06-24T20:38:00.000-07:00

Fun is a relative concept, not an absolute, static thing. What constitutes “fun” for one person may constitute “tedium” for another and vice versa. From the perspective of board game design, a designer’s goal is usually to create a game that can be considered “fun” by at least a sizeable audience of people such that their game will be published and enjoyed by others. Thus, it’s important for the designer to figure out just what “kind” or which “kinds” of fun his or her game is trying to implement or offer.

It’s also important for playtesters to know what kind of “fun” they typically prefer to have and which kinds don’t really work for them. This way, they can provide feedback that is appropriately qualified from their relative perspective (ex. “this game wasn’t fun for me because of…” instead of stating in an absolute manner “this game wasn’t fun.”)

What follows is a list of different forms of “fun” that various board and card games can offer along with examples of games that offer that particular form of fun:

1. Socialization: having an opportunity to spend time with others doing something that doesn’t get in the way or distract from the conversations taking place but yet provides some sort of “glue” for the social setting
Examples:
Any game that has very few rules, very little strategy, and minimal competition
Puzzles as a genre
Lots of card games fit in this category

2. Amusement / Humor: having silly themes, doing silly things, or experiencing silly circumstances
Examples:
Curses
Apples to Apples
Killer Bunnies
Mad Gab
Munchkin

3. Organization: taking a set number of things from a chaotic state and putting them into an organized state
Puzzles
Rubik’s Cube

4. Spatial Thinking: envisioning different shapes in varying arrangements or envisioning different objects moving
Blokus
Ubongo
The Princes of Florence
Arkadia
Robo Rally
Fearsome Floors
Wings of War
Ricochet Robots
Ingenious

5. Pattern Recognition: opportunity to recognize or envision meaningful patterns in various sets of symbols, words, letters, or objects
Set
Scrabble
Boggle
Tri-Bond
Zendo

6. Efficiency / Racing: trying to accomplish a goal in the most efficient manner possible or before anyone else does
TransAmerica
Fearsome Floors
Ricochet Robots
Power Grid
Pitch Car

7. Deduction: trying to do mental algebra and infer unknown information from known information
Sleuth
Mystery of the Abbey

8. Inference: trying to infer other people’s motives or their standings in a given setting by reading their body language, facial expressions, and general demeanor
Werewolves
Poker
Shadows Over Camelot

9. Role-Playing: exploring some sort of interesting thematic setting or making decisions from the standpoint of an interesting thematic character
Historical Wargames as a genre
Arkham Horror
Fury of Dracula
Doom
The “How to Host a Murder” games

10. Conflict: opportunity to directly compete/match wits with at least one other individual or to directly impact another individual’s position through one’s own choices:
Yinsh
Chess
Go
Wargames as a genre

11. Acquisition / Conquering: opportunity to acquire resources, items, or territory from another player or to obtain the same from a limited market
Saint Petersburg
RA
Puerto Rico
The Princes of Florence
El Grande
Wargames as a genre
China

12. Creativity / Cleverness: opportunity to be clever and/or creative in the decisions and plans you make
Tikal
The deck building/construction aspect of CCG’s.

13. Self-Testing: opportunity to test personal knowledge or physical dexterity
Trivial Pursuit
Jenga
Polarity

14. Communication: opportunity to utilize conversation skills, word skills, drawing skills, or general communication skills
Taboo
Catch Phrase
What’s It To Ya
Pictionary
Time’s Up

15. Opportunity Cost: having to weigh the relative worth of two or more options that at least appear to be equally good but either of which could turn out to be quite different in their significance
Puerto Rico
Caylus
Loot
Coloretto
No Thanks
Die Macher

16. Risk Taking / Anticipation of the Unknown: hoping for some desired result, be it positive or negative, either for yourself or for someone else
Can’t Stop
Incan Gold
Cloud 9
Blackjack
Any game where the decisions of the other players have the potential to impact
your position in the game
Any game that involves some random element such as cards or dice

17. Variety: aspects of the game being different each time
Carcassonne
Settlers of Catan
Hey! That’s My Fish
Card Games as a genre

Summary:

1. Socialization
2. Amusement / Humor
3. Organization
4. Spatial Thinking
5. Pattern Recognition
6. Efficiency / Racing
7. Deduction
8. Inference
9. Role-Playing
10. Conflict
11. Acquisition / Conquering
12. Creativity / Cleverness
13. Self-Testing
14. Communication
15. Opportunity Cost
16. Risk Taking / Anticipation of the Unknown
17. Variety

Welcome to Reflections Across the Board

2007-06-24T20:33:00.000-07:00

This blog features my views on various board gaming topics including reviews, board game design information, instruction issues, opinions, comparisons, and so forth.

Here are a few highlighted articles that may be of interest:

Publication Annoucement

The Importance of Theme in European Game Design

Game Instruction: The Ten Essential Characteristics of a Quality Game Instructor

Game Design: Game Evaluation Criteria

Game Design: Two Very Helpful Podcasts

Game Design: Triangulation and Scaling in Game Systems

Board Game Companies With Game Submission Pages

Thanks for visiting.
-Mike