undercosted-blog

[undercosted-blog]

Level 3 Design Challenge

Challenge set:

“The theme must relate to World War I. The primary objective of players cannot be territorial control, or capture/destroy.

You cannot use territorial control or capture/destroy as game dynamics. That is, your game is not allowed to contain the concepts of territory or death in any form.”

https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/level-3-formal-elements-of-games/

Submission

Name : Conscription WW1

Game Design:

Type: 

Set Collection and draft

Modeled off Sushi Go.

Sets include:

Car : Vehucle X 2

2VP

Boat: Vehicle X 4

4 VP

Motorbike: Vehicle X 2

1VP

Plane Vehicle X 2

3VP

Commander- Troop X 2

1 VP for each vehicle

Troops - X 6

1/3/5/10/15/20

Agent  X 3

2 X Vehicle score

Weapon of mass destruction X 6

Needs 4 = 20 VP

Hand Weapons X 6

Most gets 10 VP

Weapons Storage X 2

Multiplies Hand Weapons X 2 (can only have 1)

Battle cards X 5

Last stand; WMD+Agent+Vehicle+HW=30 VP

Battle of Jutland; 2 X Boat Vehicles = 15 VP

Battle of Gallipoli; 4 X Troops = 25 VP

Battle of Marne; Agent + Vehicle = (their total) X 3

Battle of Verdun; 4 X Hand Weapons = 20 VP

Countries X 4

Most gets 3VP Least get -3VP

Rules.

Each player is dealt 8 cards.

Tally up scores

Each game has 3 rounds. Each player selects 1 card places it face down. Then simultaneously everyone reveals crd selected and pass the remaining card to their left. This Process is repeated until all cards have been selected. At the end of the round all cards except battles are scored. Then all cards except battles and the committed cards are discarded. The second round proceeds the same except players now pass cards to their right.

Battle Cards

During any selection once you have chosen a battle card you may commit a pick to the battle. Committed cards can’t be scored other ways.

[undercosted-blog]

Level 3: Formal Elements of Games

This blog was interesting. It started with me reviewing the chapter in the blog to creating a template for Critical Game Analysis. I am going to do a few of these to develop my understanding.

For this entry I’m going to Critically analyse Tokaido.

Photo from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/123540/tokaido

Anatomy of Tokaido:

Formal Elements

OPERATIONAL RULES

Players: 

3-5

Scales up. Linear limited space decision making more crowded more meaningful decision.

Free-for-all dynamic; 1v1v1v1.

Objectives (goals):

Victory Points

Set Collection points system. Throughout the game you are collecting sets of cards.

Rules (mechanics)

Three categories of rules:

Setup (things you do once at the beginning of the game):

Set Board out, Shuffle decks and place on board, every player gets 2 random travelers, Each player picks 1 and discards the other, get coin to their coin value, Player token goes to randomly assigned starting position

Progression of play (what happens during the game):

Furthest character from the finish moves their character token forward.

Everyone must stop at the hotels. Every space has an effect, collecting VP’s  mapped on the scoreboard

Resolution (what conditions cause the game to end, and how is an outcome determined based on the game state):

Game is finished when players reach the end of the board.

 Count bonus points for victory

Constituative:

Worker placement and pattern collecting

Resources and resource management:

Coin

Special abilities

Vacant spaces

Information- First person to land on Hotel Looks at the next 6 crds and buys 1.

Game State:

How many spaces to hotel

Ranking of temple points

What order turns- Non-linear

Point Tally

Information: 

Full open. 

All information is available.

 Except when drawing dinner cards.

Sequencing: The turn belongs to the player considered furthest away from finish line, you may have consecutive turns if still last. You move then an event happens. You resolve it and move your score token.

Player Interaction: Centered around the nearest set of spaces and the relevant value based on what the players are collecting. Essentially the interacting is based around shared resources.

Theme (or narrative, backstory, or setting)

“In Tokaido, each player is a traveler crossing the “East sea road”, one of the most magnificent roads of Japan. While traveling, you will meet people, taste fine meals, collect beautiful items, discover great panoramas, and visit temples and wild places but at the end of the day, when everyone has arrived at the end of the road you’ll have to be the most initiated traveler – which means that you’ll have to be the one who discovered the most interesting and varied things.” From http://passportgamestudios.com/game/tokaido/

Photo fromhttp://www.boardgamequest.com/tokaido-board-game-review/

Critical Analysis

Describe the results of the formal elements when put in motion.

Tokaido is central decision making process comes down to how you value each square. The random element is what people choose around you. This shifts your priorities. Players watch what others are choosing with engagement and tension. The different characters add an individual experience and game plan. This allows, I think, for some space for tactics. Tokaido has a zen flow.

How do the different elements interact?

Its limited resource collection and space movement makes this quite unique. Coupled with the Zen flavored set collection and theme creates a very particular feel. Creates good dynamics and a peacefully competitive environment,

What is the play of the game like?

Pay premium for favored space or speculate on getting multiple favored.

Secretly hoping opponent what pick a space

Setting up cards nicely

Is it effective

Tokaido is a beautifully crafted game. From its spirituality to its unique game play. Aesthetically gorgeous. Strategic depth may not create Organised Play but that’s not what you play it for.

Try to understand why the designer chose those elements and not others.

I love to know where these ideas came from. Given that he is a established designer or big games; (7wonders) I tend to think he came up with it mechanically first, like from the idea with a linear one-way train line. Maybe collecting passengers. The theme is well tied in though, it could actually been top down. Hard one to tell.

Why this particular player structure, and why that set of resources? What would have happened if the designer had chosen differently?

‘The last players turn’ creates a unique decisions based on what I think other players may pick vs my priorities vs where does that put me in the turn structure. This feels like the fundamental mechanic of the game. Feels like decisions were made to make the game around indirect conflict. Players never lose points. Reward cards create tempo. Art work sets theme perfectly.

What challenges do the players face?

Trying to finish sets

Have enough resource (coin) for dinner at the hotel

Get rewards cards (finishing set the fastest and Having the most of)

Getting the most points

Player sacrifices turns for premium position

What actions can players take to overcome those challenges?

Worker placement

Use of special ability

How do players affect each other?

Taking away options  and making unfavorable decision for the opponent

Table talk

Is the game perceived by the players as fair? 

So far. Seems well balanced at 7-8 plays.

Is the game re-playable?

Moderately. Low levels of agency. Many different characters.

Photo fromhttp://www.boardgamequest.com/tokaido-board-game-review/

Are there multiple paths to victory, varied start positions, or optional rules that cause the experience to be different each time?

Special abilities on character make a player lean to one particular set but that might contrast to close position become available. Player sacrifices turns for premium position

What is the game’s intended audience? Is the game appropriate for that audience?

Family. Fits well. Suits multiple player types or ‘psycho-graphics’

What is the “core” of the game — the one thing you do over and over that represents the main “fun” part?

Worker placement

Very beautiful game in body and soul. A great example as to why games are Art.

[undercosted-blog]

Article Review:

Formal Abstract Design Tools, by Doug Church

The article talks about the importance of having formal language and stricter sense of vocabulary. It speaks of the industry needing to develop professionally. Then begins to explain where to find the newfound words.

Through analyzing Multiple games over multiple genres, he breaks down the experience contrasting and comparing. Looking at feedback loops.

I’m going to compare these words with games of Arkham Horror The card game

Key Words

“INTENTION: Making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.”

Arkham Horror LCG: I’m in the hallway and all the doors around me closed; What action do I take; move, draw a card, play a card, get a resource.

Photo from https://houseofthegeeks.com/arkham-horror-card-game-review/

“PERCEIVABLE CONSEQUENCE: A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player”

Arkham Horror LCG: Attack of opportunity; any action I do that is not fight or evade the creature will automatically deal damage.

“STORY: The narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven, that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game”

Arkham horror LCG narrative: Using the thief character Skids O'toole I kept disengaging the monsters and getting rewards for it. Then jump out of rooms leaving a bomb behind. I was one turn away from slaying the ghoul priest. When I got a chance encounter with a intellect check and had burned all my resources getting the ghoul priest on his deathbed. I failed and went insane.

I believe the author would be quite happy where game design theory is. A the very least at what we are making now. For me Jesse Schell book of lenses provides a vocabulary within itself. This is a foundation stone of the early pioneers, grapples with Industry pressures of the time.

Words of wisdom:

“What is a modern computer game made of? It fuses a technical base with a vision for the player's experience. All of the disciplines involved (design, art, audio, levels, code, and so on) work together to achieve this synthesis”.

[undercosted-blog]

Home Play reading Challenges for game designers- Chapter 2 Atoms

This chapter looks at dissecting board games in a elegant and simple matter. I’m really impressed with the way the author presents this. They break the game into the following pieces:

 Game State and Game View

This is the relevant information that explains what is happening in the game. The last game I played was Uno with my kids. An example of game state is; last card played and how many cards each player has. Game View is the information each player has access to. Uno has some hidden information; opponent's hand. Chess on the other hand is open information, it has a transparent game view.

Player, Avatars and game bits.

These are the pieces that represent valued parameters in the game. The most significant being the player itself. My first thought was; what was my avatar in Uno? Initially I thought maybe my  last card played, then I thought my hand. The author explained that in games such as this I am represented by… Myself. Duhhh!

Mechanics

Described as ‘how something works’. Mechanics are for me, the most exciting and satisfying process in game design. They are the rules and ultimately the means in which the game plays and interacts with the players. I am beginning to understand they are not the end but the means in which the end is created. The end being the ‘experience’. Still vaguely abstract to me but am beginning to get some clarity

Dynamics

This is the play that emerges within the framework of the mechanics. This to me  is the magic of the game. It to me is the organic experience that is seeded with mechanics but nurtured with by the players. Broadly this is seen as things like ‘race to the end’ and ‘area control’ but on a deeper look it's the depth of strategies and range of ludological or narrative arcs that can develop.

Goals

This for me crosses over with mechanics. Games without goals are essentially play. Goals define some very important parameters in games

Theme

Another one that I quite enjoy. Abstract games are not really my thing. Themes create a more rich experience. I also am aware of the benefits of being tied closely to themes. Mark Rosewater refers to piggy backing. This is using thematic resonance to allow players to understand certain mechanics. His best example is the mechanic flying in Magic the Gathering. Creatures with flying can’t be blocked by creatures without flying (or reach). This mechanic is almost instantaneously understood as it intuitively and thematically makes sense. This jacking into a player intuition is piggybacking.

  Words of Wisdom

 Pg 28 “Mechanics of the rules that act upon the players, avatars and game bits, game state and game views, and describe all of the ways to change the game state.”

 Pg: 29 Common class of mechanics:

Setup

Victory Condition

Progression of play

Player action

Definition of game view

 Pg 30 “dynamics ore part of the play experience, but not all are explicitly defined or enforced by the mechanics”

[undercosted-blog]

More info.

[undercosted-blog]

I feel like he did this before... Maybe it was Magic specific before. Either way this will be gold. May do a Blog about it....

One of the most common questions I get is “How do I become a game designer?” In today’s podcast, I answer that question.

[undercosted-blog]

Must Read

Dustin Oakley is a game designer and longtime member of The Game Crafter community. One of his current projects is called the Rulebook Cookbook and it’s a collection of game design articles on The Indie Game Report. The goal for this series is to help designers write better rules for their games.

In this article, Dustin explains take us beyond the introductory material we have covered (Thematic Introductions and Game Overview) and into the bits and pieces of the game, namely Components and Setup.

Click here to read the full article

[undercosted-blog]

Level 2

Level 2 Game Design Course

The beginning of this week initially looks at what game design is. I think one of the most enticing part of this hobby/job is; is its diversity. I particularly liked the holistic look at game designer like for example; A party host. A game designer needs to host, teach and connect with people. This makes a lot of sense. I am starting to realize the community side to game design.

Game Design Methods

This part of the content showed how game design methods have evolved. The waterfall method was a linear one way method that you would see when building a house. I plan, I build and I polish. This obviously had flaws in game design

Iterative Process.

This is a cyclic Process that allows changes to be made continuously throughout the design and development period. Board game design can use this method quite efficiently due to its medium, video games can be more problematic.

It is strongly believed that more iteration equal better game. Therefore the concept of Rapid Prototyping is considered important. The sooner you test and play the given mechanic the more effective time spent in the right direction.

 This has shown me the importance of not overdoing it on prototypes. It is heartbreaking to put lots of time into graphic design or even art to realise you need to re-template all your cards or scrp an entire mechanic.

 WORDS OF WISDOM

the more times you iterate, the better your final game will be.

 Great designers do not design great games. They usually design really bad games, and then they iterate on them until the games become great.

[undercosted-blog]

Top article

Players have bugged me for years to write down what color all of the effects of Magic are in. Well, I finally did it. A must read for amateur Magic designers or anyone that loves the color pie.

[undercosted-blog]

Richard Bliss is a social media strategist, crowdfunding expert, brand visionary, and the host of the Funding The Dream Podcast. In this session, Richard shared his thoughts on the future of crowdfunding.

This was a recording of a live session from Crafter Con 2015 in Madison, Wisconsin. If you’d like to learn more about the upcoming Crafter Con 2017 event, please visit http://www.craftercon.com.

[undercosted-blog]

Designer tips from the stars of tabletop game review

[undercosted-blog]

Level 1 Home Work

I read the article  I Have No Words and I Must Design, by Greg Costikyan (a couple times). Its a great foundation in game design language and concepts. Here is my synopsis.

Costikyan’s exploration into game design and games allows a strong foundation into developing the craft. Language is a powerful tool and by defining the core concepts of game design we are empowered to have more control of the experiences we are trying to create, and build credibility externally to the craft.

Difference between games and puzzles

The idea that games have an internal rise of ‘struggles’ obstacles towards goals

Key difference between games and puzzles are interaction.

Puzzle is static

Decision making is another core quality of games

INTERACTION

This interestingly looks at discerning puzzles with games with interaction. This is difficult because what do we consider interaction? The example that was brought to my mind was graphic adventures like escape from monkey Island, which is essentially a series of graphic and text puzzles (I think, let me know if you disagree). So where is the interaction… I assume it's the progressive story line. The example Costikyan uses is Zork which he concludes has strong puzzle elements. It has me thinking about that line between game and puzzle, for example is solitaire a game or a puzzle. Hmmm I am thinking that ‘interaction’ here is changing state. Take a Jigsaw puzzle. In one way we could say that it is interactive; I influence its appearance and its patterns tell me the correct sequencing. Solitaire has similar puzzle states, however, its solution is dynamic. This is what Costikyan is referring to when saying a game is Interactive vs.a Puzzle being static. The language I would use here is dynamic vs. static game states. That said I think my interpretation of interactive here is a stretch, I think interactive implies dynamic game states.

GOALS

The next quality of a game Costikyan talks about is goals. This for me highlights the difference between a toy and a game. Puzzles have goals, so I’m going to stick with the idea that the difference between puzzles and games is static vs. dynamic game state. Goals change playing with a toy to playing a game. For example throwing a football around is playing but as soon as we bring in win conditions the entire dynamic changes. Games can have fixed win conditions or player chosen. I wonder what Costikyan would have said about Minecraft if it had have been around. Minecraft is surely more toy than game, however, certainly has game strong game elements. The success of games like this (Costikyan uses SimCity) highlights the strength of creative play and player chosen goals, and I believe as game designers these elements can be undervalued as we focus on systems design. I also tend to think goals and in particular player chosen goals add depth of game-play.

STRUGGLE

Key ingredient to all satisfying endeavors. I believe the word struggle should be replaced by challenge. Struggle has negative connotations. Costikyan said we like it when work is easy and don’t like to struggle in this context. I would argue from my experience jobs that are too easy can be very painful. You could not pay me enough to to be traffic controller or security guard. Both these jobs can pay well but repetitive un-challenging nature would make them very boring. Give me a job that challenges and has diversity of decisions and actions and i’ll happily get paid less (within reason). Struggle implies failure and immobility, qualities that can kill a game. Regardless of the language I wholeheartedly agree without challenges games lose their appeal. I watched my football team thump another team yesterday. When I realized this would be the outcome (very early in the game) I was disappointed. Conversely I played Pandemic last night and finally had back to back wins in normal mode, it was great. Furthermore the best game we played yet was the one where we were convinced there was no way we would win. This probably taps into the mastery side of games which allows us to feel a sense of accomplishment and convince ourselves we are superior

STRUCTURE

This is what Costikyan refers to as the rules and systems that guide behavior towards an agreed goal. Structure determines the boundaries of the game and aim to bring about particular experiences. For me I see structure as the rules. This determines the parameters in which player dynamics can arise. I have recently seen an example of the way that structures and dynamics interact. On a BGG forum I came a across a player explaining and questioning the quality of a game he recently purchased. Game was a dungeon crawler and he explained that he had a technique where he could essentially finish the missions without being touched by an enemy. The game designer, politely at first, explained the the parts of the structure they may have interpreted wrong. It turned out that the players were playing well within the rules. The game designer then went on to tell them that it was their fault for playing in a un-fun way. It is worth mentioning that on other forums later he admitted that he got too emotional (being his first published game) and has learnt from his mistakes. This reminds me of Mark Rosewaters advice of not fighting human nature. Game designers must accept that players will do whatever it takes to win, even if that is not fun. Structures essentially uphold the integrity of the game and just like physical structures will be tested to its limits if played enough. Players will look to exploit every rule they can in order to reach their goal.

ENDOGENOUS MEANING

I take endogenous to mean the inherent values and meanings that game system creates. The easiest example he uses is monopoly moneys value inside the game with outside the game. Interesting concept but I feel ultimately this is a incidental thing? Although certainly these values and meanings evolve as mechanisms and balance are tweaked.

INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT

An unclear tangent that concludes that games are interactive entertainment. I would argue that not all interactive entertainment is games but I really don't see the point of this section.

LEBLANCS TAXONOMY

Sensation

This talk about the importance of graphic design and how the game affects the senses. I have found that prototypes need to have some graphical aesthetic otherwise it creates barriers. Graphics can also allow for piggy backing; the idea that you can use resonance and thematic assumptions to help give information to the players

Overall Leblancs taxonomy looks at why we play games. The depth is quite impressive and it should remind us of beauty of game craft. The idea that designers create deep, challenging, immersive and unique experiences should at least bring game design on par with other forms of art. Unfortunately games and game design struggles to even be considered art at all.

[undercosted-blog]

Rob Daviau, designer of Pandemic Legacy, discusses how to run playtests like an absolute pro on the Board Game Design Lab Podcast. 

Rob started designing games for Hasbro before moving into the designer game space, and he has a TON of insight on how to playtest your way to an amazing game.

Click here to listen to the podcast

[undercosted-blog]

Interesting

Are you familiar with game designer Brenda Romero (formerly Brathwaite)? She has a lot of interesting ideas about game design as an art to evoke feelings even other than just entertainment through her "Mechanic is the Message" series. What are your thoughts on using games that aren't trying to be popular entertainment, but instead trying to send a message or explore other themes?

I think that’s a great role games can play. I heartily encourage game designers to make those kind of games. Magic though is a popular entertainment game. Something of our size can’t afford not to be.

[undercosted-blog]

Even the greats make mistakes, I admire their openness in communication and there is no doubt the ban is correct.

The biggest issue I have with the banning of felidar is that it is either dishonest or inconsistent with things Wizards has said before. It has been said by Wizards repeatedly that one tournament, or one weekend, or one week is not a good measure of a format, that you have to give it time to adjust. So either the emergency ban was based on level of complaints and not data or you ignored your own rules about letting a format adjust. Either way, this is what hurts my confidence in magic

We made a decision. There was a large outcry from the audience. We then got some strong data pointing out that things weren’t likely going to get better. You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks?

Look, we made a mistake and as a result got ourself into a spot were there was no good answer, so we picked what we thought was the better answer of the choices we had.

I understand that mistakes like this shake the players’ faith in us. I don’t want you all interpreting me explaining why it happened for me dismissing the concern.

We messed up. We’re owning up to it and we’re trying to take steps to learn and ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes. I promise you behind the scenes we’re taking serious action to change how we do things. (More info on this to come soon.)

Please just remember, due to our reaction time, these changes will take a while to get to all of you.

In short, we screwed up, we’re sorry. We’re working hard to regain your trust.

[undercosted-blog]

Hey Mark thanks for being so open. I am a aspiring game designer and you have had a huge influence on my education into game design. I haven't found any designer as open and giving to a community as you. Can't wait for the pre-release tonight! No question this time just a virtual high five.

Virtual high five.

Thanks for the kind words. Have fun tonight.

[undercosted-blog]

Session Overview:

What motivated a company known more for an online game with millions of players around the world… to make a tabletop experience? Last Fall, Riot Games (known for the video game, ‘League of Legends’) launched the cooperative board game 'Mechs vs. Minions’. Rather than license out their IP to an established partner, Riot spent years developing the game entirely in-house with a team that leaned more on their moxie than any tabletop experience. Join Product Owner Chris Cantrell as he chats candidly about the development of 'Mechs vs. Minions’, what internal and external hurdles they discovered along the way, and the terror and pressures that come with a skeleton crew “kickstarting” a game within a company where nobody expected it.

Click here to watch the presentation