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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Importance of Theme in European Game Design
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.
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.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Board Game Design at San Diego State University
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Game Design: Video of Reiner Knizia discussing game design
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:
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:
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Review: Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
