Day 85 - Lens 29: The Lens of Secrets
Change who has what information, and you change your game completely. To use this lens, think about who knows what and why.
What is known by the game only?
With new players the contents of the 'Read this if you win' note are secret, but nothing from the main gameplay.
What is known by all players?
The state of paths on the board. The number of citizens remaining in the city. The number of ally tokens that each player has. How many guards each player has placed.
What is known by some or only one player?
The number of guards in your tribe bag. In a challenge, how many guards you have committed and which side of your challenge token is up.
Would changing who knows what information improve my game in some way?
I think that this is a good balance, however knowing those things is dependant on players situational awareness and not all players will know all the knowable things at any given moment. That can make the game seem unfair to less observant players. The skill can be learned and is an important part of the game, but I worry about it ruining the game for new players.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Day 84: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 84: Lens 36: The Lens of Chance
To use this lens, focus on the parts of your game that involve randomness and risk, keeping in mind that those two things are not the same. Ask yourself these questions:
What in my game is truly random? What just feels random?
Nothing. There is no randomness in my game. Everything that feels random is actually the behavior of other players that a player fails to predict.
Does the randomness give the players positive feelings of excitement and challenge, or negative feelings of hopelessness and lack of control?
Both I think. I have tried to make the game forgiving enough that suffering from the actions of another player doesn't ruin the fun of the game, but at the same time give the actions of players weight so that they feel that they can have a meaningful effect on each other. It's a tough balance and I may not have gotten it right yet.
Would changing my probability curves improve my game?
There are no probability curves, but I can adjust things like the rewards and penalties for specific actions in the game. That has a similar effect on the feel of the game as adjusting the probability curves on a game with randomness.
Do players have the opportunity to take interesting risks?
Oh yes. Just because there is no randomness does not mean that there is no risk. But rather than their being the risk that you will randomly fail the risk is that you have misjudged the possible actions of the other players. I think this is much more meaningful, but I recognize that it can also be much more frustrating because you can not blame your failures on chance or luck.
What is the relationship between chance and skill in my game?
There is no chance, so there is a complete dependance on skill in terms of the unexpected effects that you encounter in the game. That said sometimes players take non-rational actions and anticipating those is hard. Failing to do so can feel bad, and that's a problem that I am not sure that there is a complete solution to other than mitigating the consequences to within players tollerence for their own failure.
To use this lens, focus on the parts of your game that involve randomness and risk, keeping in mind that those two things are not the same. Ask yourself these questions:
What in my game is truly random? What just feels random?
Nothing. There is no randomness in my game. Everything that feels random is actually the behavior of other players that a player fails to predict.
Does the randomness give the players positive feelings of excitement and challenge, or negative feelings of hopelessness and lack of control?
Both I think. I have tried to make the game forgiving enough that suffering from the actions of another player doesn't ruin the fun of the game, but at the same time give the actions of players weight so that they feel that they can have a meaningful effect on each other. It's a tough balance and I may not have gotten it right yet.
Would changing my probability curves improve my game?
There are no probability curves, but I can adjust things like the rewards and penalties for specific actions in the game. That has a similar effect on the feel of the game as adjusting the probability curves on a game with randomness.
Do players have the opportunity to take interesting risks?
Oh yes. Just because there is no randomness does not mean that there is no risk. But rather than their being the risk that you will randomly fail the risk is that you have misjudged the possible actions of the other players. I think this is much more meaningful, but I recognize that it can also be much more frustrating because you can not blame your failures on chance or luck.
What is the relationship between chance and skill in my game?
There is no chance, so there is a complete dependance on skill in terms of the unexpected effects that you encounter in the game. That said sometimes players take non-rational actions and anticipating those is hard. Failing to do so can feel bad, and that's a problem that I am not sure that there is a complete solution to other than mitigating the consequences to within players tollerence for their own failure.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Day 83: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 83 - Lens 12: The Lens of Resonance
To use the Lens of Resonance, you must look for hidden power. Ask yourself these questions:
What is it about my game that feels powerful and special?
I think the gamespace that it creates. The real time nature of the game gives it a kind of focus that creates a strong 'magic circle' or sense of a playspace. The social rules of the game enforce the theme of the game and color that playspace. So I want to say that the 'experience of play' is powerful... or perhaps 83 lenses into this excercise my head has worked its way up my posterior...
When I describe my game to people, what ideas get them really excited?
'Post-Apocalyptic Real Time Strategy' does a pretty good job. I think it varies a bit depending on what the players like.
If I had no constraints of any kind, what would this game be like?
There are two answers to this I guess. As a board game it would be of authentic components, I would make it as available as possible to play with as much ceremony and theme as possible, running it at cons and things like 'Wasteland Weekend' with a booth and costumes etc. I would get artwork and writing to support the fiction of the tribes giving them deep history for players that got into it, raising the thematic stakes of the setting of the game.
The second answer is that I would develop the AR game that inspired the game. That game would be very different, but I think that the strategic bones would be the same... though the theme would have to be very different, either Cyberpunk or alternate reality.
I have certain instincts about how this game should be. What is driving those instincts?
The desire to make an elegant game and the desire to make a meaningful game. Also the desire to make the game the best that it can be and to hone my design skills against it.
To use the Lens of Resonance, you must look for hidden power. Ask yourself these questions:
What is it about my game that feels powerful and special?
I think the gamespace that it creates. The real time nature of the game gives it a kind of focus that creates a strong 'magic circle' or sense of a playspace. The social rules of the game enforce the theme of the game and color that playspace. So I want to say that the 'experience of play' is powerful... or perhaps 83 lenses into this excercise my head has worked its way up my posterior...
When I describe my game to people, what ideas get them really excited?
'Post-Apocalyptic Real Time Strategy' does a pretty good job. I think it varies a bit depending on what the players like.
If I had no constraints of any kind, what would this game be like?
There are two answers to this I guess. As a board game it would be of authentic components, I would make it as available as possible to play with as much ceremony and theme as possible, running it at cons and things like 'Wasteland Weekend' with a booth and costumes etc. I would get artwork and writing to support the fiction of the tribes giving them deep history for players that got into it, raising the thematic stakes of the setting of the game.
The second answer is that I would develop the AR game that inspired the game. That game would be very different, but I think that the strategic bones would be the same... though the theme would have to be very different, either Cyberpunk or alternate reality.
I have certain instincts about how this game should be. What is driving those instincts?
The desire to make an elegant game and the desire to make a meaningful game. Also the desire to make the game the best that it can be and to hone my design skills against it.
Day 82: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 82 - Lens 25: The Lens of Judgement
To decide if your game is a good judge of the players, ask yourself these questions:
What does my game judge about the players?
Ruthlessness, honesty, capacity for social manipulation. Tactical planning. Strategic planning. The desire to win vs the desire to be a hero.
How does it communicate this judgement?
By putting the player in a position where they must exhibit the capacities or make the moral decisions.
Do players feel the judgement is fair?
I think that they feel forced into the situations when they are aware of them. It's either 'Ah, I see what you are doing here.' or not knowing how they are being judged.
Do they care about the judgement?
Perhaps not as much as I would like them to. I think that they care about the social judgment of the other players. I think they internally feel the judgment of the game in terms of how well they do. In the end game choice I want to point out the judgment and give them one final clear choice that I 'hope' they care about...
Does the judgement make them want to improve?
I hope so... both in terms of their gameplay, how they interact with others and their moral stance... that's a lot to demand of players, maybe too much. But I think it's the real point of the game.
To decide if your game is a good judge of the players, ask yourself these questions:
What does my game judge about the players?
Ruthlessness, honesty, capacity for social manipulation. Tactical planning. Strategic planning. The desire to win vs the desire to be a hero.
How does it communicate this judgement?
By putting the player in a position where they must exhibit the capacities or make the moral decisions.
Do players feel the judgement is fair?
I think that they feel forced into the situations when they are aware of them. It's either 'Ah, I see what you are doing here.' or not knowing how they are being judged.
Do they care about the judgement?
Perhaps not as much as I would like them to. I think that they care about the social judgment of the other players. I think they internally feel the judgment of the game in terms of how well they do. In the end game choice I want to point out the judgment and give them one final clear choice that I 'hope' they care about...
Does the judgement make them want to improve?
I hope so... both in terms of their gameplay, how they interact with others and their moral stance... that's a lot to demand of players, maybe too much. But I think it's the real point of the game.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Day 81: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 81 - Lens 77: The Lens of the Weirdest Thing
Having weird things in your story can help give meaning to unusual game mechanics, capture the interest of the player, and make your world seem special. Too much weirdness, though, will render your story puzzling and inaccessible. To make sure your story is the good kind of weird, ask yourself these questions:
What is the weirdest thing in my story?
The post-apocalyptic setting is pretty standard at this point. But maybe making the players the savage tribes trying to destroy the last bastion of civilization is weird. Having the narrator be dead and communicating with the players through the notes he left behind is a little strange.
How can I make sure that wierdest thing doesn't confuse of alienate the player?
Establishing the communication between the player and the narrator (The Teller) has been a bit challenging. I tried being clever and labeling the first letter that is the tutorial for the game 'Read this 'iffin I'm dead.' And players were consistently confused and did not read that document first. I think I have to be super clear and just label it 'Read This First'. Things seem to largely go well once that connection is established.
If there are multiple weird things, should I maybe get rid of, or coalesce some of them?
I think story wise, all of the weird is closely tied together with the story. It's all part of the setting in a way that is mutually supporting and makes the game more interesting. How much detail to add has been an ongoing question. I think that I might want to have more setting materials be stretch goals, and maybe have a higher pledge level that includes them and an add on that collects them for other players.
If there is nothing weird in my story, is the story still interesting?
I think it's safe to say there are weird things. As to whether the story is interesting enough... I think it serves it's purpose as a frame for the game and the game rules. I think I can add more color for people who are interested, but that I should be careful to keep it from muddying the game and rules for people who are not.
Having weird things in your story can help give meaning to unusual game mechanics, capture the interest of the player, and make your world seem special. Too much weirdness, though, will render your story puzzling and inaccessible. To make sure your story is the good kind of weird, ask yourself these questions:
What is the weirdest thing in my story?
The post-apocalyptic setting is pretty standard at this point. But maybe making the players the savage tribes trying to destroy the last bastion of civilization is weird. Having the narrator be dead and communicating with the players through the notes he left behind is a little strange.
How can I make sure that wierdest thing doesn't confuse of alienate the player?
Establishing the communication between the player and the narrator (The Teller) has been a bit challenging. I tried being clever and labeling the first letter that is the tutorial for the game 'Read this 'iffin I'm dead.' And players were consistently confused and did not read that document first. I think I have to be super clear and just label it 'Read This First'. Things seem to largely go well once that connection is established.
If there are multiple weird things, should I maybe get rid of, or coalesce some of them?
I think story wise, all of the weird is closely tied together with the story. It's all part of the setting in a way that is mutually supporting and makes the game more interesting. How much detail to add has been an ongoing question. I think that I might want to have more setting materials be stretch goals, and maybe have a higher pledge level that includes them and an add on that collects them for other players.
If there is nothing weird in my story, is the story still interesting?
I think it's safe to say there are weird things. As to whether the story is interesting enough... I think it serves it's purpose as a frame for the game and the game rules. I think I can add more color for people who are interested, but that I should be careful to keep it from muddying the game and rules for people who are not.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Day 80: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 80 - Lens 108: The Lens of the Pitch
To ensure your pitch is as good as it can be, ask yourself these questions:
Why are you pitching this game to the client?
In one case my client will be the Kickstarter supporters, in another it would be a publisher. In both cases I need to get either money or distribution from them. I want people to be able to play my game. To do that I need the money to produce many copies and the awareness of the game that will allow me to sell them to cover the production and distribution cost.
What will you consider "a successful pitch"?
For kickstarter I will consider it successful if I can generate enough backers and funds to do a first printing of the game. If I can do that then in a pitch to a publisher I would want to first get the game published and second get as wide distribution as possible.
What's in it for the people you are pitching to?
For the backers, the game. Possibly art used in the game. T-Shirts are a possibility. For a publisher hopefully a compelling game that they can sell.
What do the people you are pitching to need to know about your game?
It is real time!
It is played after the apocalypse!
It is a six player game where it is always your turn!
It's a very social game with diplomacy mechanics.
It has a strong theme and esthetic.
To ensure your pitch is as good as it can be, ask yourself these questions:
Why are you pitching this game to the client?
In one case my client will be the Kickstarter supporters, in another it would be a publisher. In both cases I need to get either money or distribution from them. I want people to be able to play my game. To do that I need the money to produce many copies and the awareness of the game that will allow me to sell them to cover the production and distribution cost.
What will you consider "a successful pitch"?
For kickstarter I will consider it successful if I can generate enough backers and funds to do a first printing of the game. If I can do that then in a pitch to a publisher I would want to first get the game published and second get as wide distribution as possible.
What's in it for the people you are pitching to?
For the backers, the game. Possibly art used in the game. T-Shirts are a possibility. For a publisher hopefully a compelling game that they can sell.
What do the people you are pitching to need to know about your game?
It is real time!
It is played after the apocalypse!
It is a six player game where it is always your turn!
It's a very social game with diplomacy mechanics.
It has a strong theme and esthetic.
Day 79: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 79 - Lens 98: The Lens of Community
To make sure your game fosters strong community, ask yourself these questions:
What conflict is at the heart of my community?
Strategy sharing is probably a big one. Hopefully like in Chess or M:TG the strategies of players are deep and varied enough that people want to talk about how to deal with them. The competition within a game is very strong, but establishing some way for players to rank themselves would be good. Maybe total VP gained in wins / number of games? Provide a log book as part of the game and encourage sharing ratings on a forum/leaderboard. I could have a google form where you could enter your scores and a page that displayed the rankings...
How does architecture shape my community?
The fact that the game requires six players means a large number of players to copies of the game ratio. I think that the game plays very well in public so having regular tournament play at game shops could do a lot to make the game a social event. Having a listing of places to play on the website to facilitate that kind of play could be important.
Does my game support three levels of experience?
Yes, I think it does that pretty explicitly. The question of whether is continues to be fun for new players to play with mid/upper level players is still open. But the game needs teachers so upper level players should be engaged with that part of the game. Building tools for tournament play would give advanced players another way to be involved.
Are there community events?
I think that there should be. I want to facilitate that. I think that I can start that as I move into the Kickstarter by holding games both on twitch and using Table Top Simulator, as well as at some local gaming venues.
Why do players need each other?
In the game players need each other as allies in order to maximize their victory points. You really want six players to play the game so that is a built in need. The game is not PvE so there are fewer co-op elements or group puzzles/challenges. However one alliance deciding how to address the actions of another requires that kind of cooperation.
To make sure your game fosters strong community, ask yourself these questions:
What conflict is at the heart of my community?
Strategy sharing is probably a big one. Hopefully like in Chess or M:TG the strategies of players are deep and varied enough that people want to talk about how to deal with them. The competition within a game is very strong, but establishing some way for players to rank themselves would be good. Maybe total VP gained in wins / number of games? Provide a log book as part of the game and encourage sharing ratings on a forum/leaderboard. I could have a google form where you could enter your scores and a page that displayed the rankings...
How does architecture shape my community?
The fact that the game requires six players means a large number of players to copies of the game ratio. I think that the game plays very well in public so having regular tournament play at game shops could do a lot to make the game a social event. Having a listing of places to play on the website to facilitate that kind of play could be important.
Does my game support three levels of experience?
Yes, I think it does that pretty explicitly. The question of whether is continues to be fun for new players to play with mid/upper level players is still open. But the game needs teachers so upper level players should be engaged with that part of the game. Building tools for tournament play would give advanced players another way to be involved.
Are there community events?
I think that there should be. I want to facilitate that. I think that I can start that as I move into the Kickstarter by holding games both on twitch and using Table Top Simulator, as well as at some local gaming venues.
Why do players need each other?
In the game players need each other as allies in order to maximize their victory points. You really want six players to play the game so that is a built in need. The game is not PvE so there are fewer co-op elements or group puzzles/challenges. However one alliance deciding how to address the actions of another requires that kind of cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)