Day 113 - Lens 81: The Lens of Indirect Control
Every Designer has a vision of what they would like the players to do to have an ideal play experience. To help ensure the players will do these things of their own free will, ask yourself these questions:
Ideally, what would I like players to do?
Explore, come into conflict, ally and betray, claim victory or not and then think about what they have done.
Can constraints get players to do it?
I think that they of course help. The rules of the game are designed to shape that play pattern. You must place pieces to move onto. You must place bases to recruit from, you can challenge players when you are next to them. The high player number gives many chances to ally.
Can goals get players to do it?
The goals you have for points mean you need the territory and resources that other players have. In the end the rule that gives you an explicit choice about winning causes the players to reflect on the game in a way that I want. I was unsure if that would work but so far I have gotten positive feedback.
Can interface get players to do it?
I think that the layout of the game encourages the kind of play that I want. Presenting the player with the pieces they can place encourages exploration. Showing the position and progress of other players encourages securing your territory and defending it, or attacking your opponents weakly held territory. Showing the alliance tokens openly encourages players that have not allied to do so.
Can visual design get players to do it?
The game's thematic presentation as a game played in an apocalyptic wasteland helps put players in the ruthless aggressive mindset that I am looking for while distancing them from the real world so that they don't take the actions of other players as seriously as they might if they were playing as themselves... that is only true to the degree that players take on roles.
Can game characters get players to do it?
Well the Teller is literally telling them to behave that way so hopefully that works! Beyond that I hope that my plans to have back story created for the tribes (clans?) will help the players to identify with them and both increase investment and make the actions of other players seem less personal. Those two goals are in conflict and I am not sure to what degree it is possible to pursue both.
Can music get players to do it?
Perhaps. Many board games have provided soundtracks and I have thought of having a stretch goal of creating music for each of the tribes, the game and the climax... that is a huge cost though since I can't do it myself. I may recommend playlists for the game and I could try playtesting it with them and see if it enhanced the game.
Is there some other method I can use to coerce players towards ideal behavior without impinging on their feeling of freedom?
I think that in my case I use the story premise of the game, that it is a reenactment of a event that happened. To justify the rule based goals of the game and give players one more reason to act out the scenario that I have designed to be the most fun.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Day 112 FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 112 - Lens 72: The Lens of Projection
One key indicator that someone is enjoying an experience is that they have projected their imaginations into it. To examine whether your game is well suited to induce projection for your players, ask yourself these questions:
What is there in my game that players can relate to? What else can I add?
Currently the tribe leaders that the players portray in the game are blank slates. I want to have back-story for them available to the players as a kickstarter stretch goal. But for the moment they are non-persons and thus canvas' for projection rather than something identifiable.
The character of the Teller is pretty relatable and charismatic.
What is there in my game that will capture the players' imagination? What else can I add?
I think that the theme is very engaging. The physical presentation of the game shows the theme and invites imagination in a way I like. Giving the players things that they can investigate in the packaging and rules to dig deeper into the world will appeal to a subset of players.
Are there places in the game the players have always wanted to visit?
I think that the idea of the 'Wasteland' of Mad Max or Blood of Heroes has a place in the psyche of most modern game players and appeals to a good chunk of my potential audience as a place they would like to imagine being in.
Are there other characters in the game that the players would be interested to meet (or spy on)?
I think that the teller would be interesting to meet. I want to make the tribe leaders into identifiable characters... but I need to not be the one to do that actual work, so it has to wait until I can pay more diverse developers to do it for me.
Do the players get to do things that they would like to do in real live, but can't?
I think that living out the fantasy of being a conqueror in the Wasteland and bringing order to that chaos, perhaps starting to build a better world is powerful as we often feel like we are sitting on the edge of a catastrophic future that could lead to the world that the game is played in.
Is there any activity in the game that once a player starts doing, it is hard to stop?
Hopefully most of the gameplay fits into this category from the building out your territory to the challenges with other players.
One key indicator that someone is enjoying an experience is that they have projected their imaginations into it. To examine whether your game is well suited to induce projection for your players, ask yourself these questions:
What is there in my game that players can relate to? What else can I add?
Currently the tribe leaders that the players portray in the game are blank slates. I want to have back-story for them available to the players as a kickstarter stretch goal. But for the moment they are non-persons and thus canvas' for projection rather than something identifiable.
The character of the Teller is pretty relatable and charismatic.
What is there in my game that will capture the players' imagination? What else can I add?
I think that the theme is very engaging. The physical presentation of the game shows the theme and invites imagination in a way I like. Giving the players things that they can investigate in the packaging and rules to dig deeper into the world will appeal to a subset of players.
Are there places in the game the players have always wanted to visit?
I think that the idea of the 'Wasteland' of Mad Max or Blood of Heroes has a place in the psyche of most modern game players and appeals to a good chunk of my potential audience as a place they would like to imagine being in.
Are there other characters in the game that the players would be interested to meet (or spy on)?
I think that the teller would be interesting to meet. I want to make the tribe leaders into identifiable characters... but I need to not be the one to do that actual work, so it has to wait until I can pay more diverse developers to do it for me.
Do the players get to do things that they would like to do in real live, but can't?
I think that living out the fantasy of being a conqueror in the Wasteland and bringing order to that chaos, perhaps starting to build a better world is powerful as we often feel like we are sitting on the edge of a catastrophic future that could lead to the world that the game is played in.
Is there any activity in the game that once a player starts doing, it is hard to stop?
Hopefully most of the gameplay fits into this category from the building out your territory to the challenges with other players.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Day 111 FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 111 - Lens 69: The Lens of Interest Curve
What captivates the human mind often seems different for every person - but in fact it is remarkably similar for everyone. To see how a player's interest in your experience changes over time, ask yourself these questions:
If I draw an interest curve of my experience, how is it shaped?
First off interest curves are subjective, so mine does not equate to my players. Second I have worked on the structure of the game a lot to shift the interest curve to its present shape. My curve as the designer is also not the same as a new player or even an advanced player, it is much more focused on the reactions of the other players and how engaged I need to be to maximize their enjoyment of the game.
The curve I intend of the players starts with a spike then a extended high plateau as they go through the tutorial section, then a tough as they fill out the board to the first conflict or challenge, then a spike for each challenge, then a large spike as they take the city, then a trough as the winner reads the victory note, then a spike if they pass it.
Does it have a hook?
Yes, the hook is the real time description and the esthetic of the game. This seems to be a pretty strong hook and gets most playtesters involved in the game.
Is there gradually rising interest punctuated by periods of rest?
Yes, the game rounds are short but the time from when you finish moving and others are finished is rest, as is the time when others are having a challenge. Of course players are also interested in observing and assessing in that time so it can also be seen as a period of interest. There is not as much rest time in this game as in almost any other game. Even a real time game like Loopin Louie has more rest as it has player elimination so the time you are waiting for the next game is rest.
Is there a grand finale, more interesting than everything else?
Well, that's the idea. I keep reworking the battle for the city to make it shine as the most interesting thing in the game. I am hopeful that the idea of making it be a challenge will help punch up the interest in that fight. Having it be just a straight fight is fast but feels kind of like a let down after all the effort to get there.
What changes would give a better interest curve?
I think the stronger finally is important, it needs to involve allies and the challenge mechanic. I have taught the players all of these mechanics and the finally does not use all of them. I also think there is a rough spot between the end of the tutorial and the first conflict where players are unsure what to do. Perhaps I could suggest that they explain what they have done on their turn for a few rounds until everyone is completely comfortable with what is going on.
Is there a fractal structure to my interest curve, should there be?
I think that there is, and that perhaps that is something that is intrinsic in any real time game. If the game is discrete then there is at least a minimal level of resolution to the interest curve, but with a real time game you can just keep zooming in.
I also think that in any game it would be interesting to zoom out and look at the curve over multiple plays. How does it change from the first to the second to the fifth to the hundredth game?
Do my intuitions about the interest curve match the observed interest of the players?
They have not always matched, but I have adjusted the game so many times that I think the observed interest is close to my intent.
If I ask players to draw an interest curve, what does it look like?
I don't know! But I will ask players to do it for my next playtest!
What captivates the human mind often seems different for every person - but in fact it is remarkably similar for everyone. To see how a player's interest in your experience changes over time, ask yourself these questions:
If I draw an interest curve of my experience, how is it shaped?
First off interest curves are subjective, so mine does not equate to my players. Second I have worked on the structure of the game a lot to shift the interest curve to its present shape. My curve as the designer is also not the same as a new player or even an advanced player, it is much more focused on the reactions of the other players and how engaged I need to be to maximize their enjoyment of the game.
The curve I intend of the players starts with a spike then a extended high plateau as they go through the tutorial section, then a tough as they fill out the board to the first conflict or challenge, then a spike for each challenge, then a large spike as they take the city, then a trough as the winner reads the victory note, then a spike if they pass it.
Does it have a hook?
Yes, the hook is the real time description and the esthetic of the game. This seems to be a pretty strong hook and gets most playtesters involved in the game.
Is there gradually rising interest punctuated by periods of rest?
Yes, the game rounds are short but the time from when you finish moving and others are finished is rest, as is the time when others are having a challenge. Of course players are also interested in observing and assessing in that time so it can also be seen as a period of interest. There is not as much rest time in this game as in almost any other game. Even a real time game like Loopin Louie has more rest as it has player elimination so the time you are waiting for the next game is rest.
Is there a grand finale, more interesting than everything else?
Well, that's the idea. I keep reworking the battle for the city to make it shine as the most interesting thing in the game. I am hopeful that the idea of making it be a challenge will help punch up the interest in that fight. Having it be just a straight fight is fast but feels kind of like a let down after all the effort to get there.
What changes would give a better interest curve?
I think the stronger finally is important, it needs to involve allies and the challenge mechanic. I have taught the players all of these mechanics and the finally does not use all of them. I also think there is a rough spot between the end of the tutorial and the first conflict where players are unsure what to do. Perhaps I could suggest that they explain what they have done on their turn for a few rounds until everyone is completely comfortable with what is going on.
Is there a fractal structure to my interest curve, should there be?
I think that there is, and that perhaps that is something that is intrinsic in any real time game. If the game is discrete then there is at least a minimal level of resolution to the interest curve, but with a real time game you can just keep zooming in.
I also think that in any game it would be interesting to zoom out and look at the curve over multiple plays. How does it change from the first to the second to the fifth to the hundredth game?
Do my intuitions about the interest curve match the observed interest of the players?
They have not always matched, but I have adjusted the game so many times that I think the observed interest is close to my intent.
If I ask players to draw an interest curve, what does it look like?
I don't know! But I will ask players to do it for my next playtest!
Friday, March 31, 2017
Day 110 FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 110 - Lens 65: The Lens of Primality
Some actions and interfaces are so intuitive that animals were doing them millions of years ago. To capture the power of primality, als yourself these questions:
What parts of my game are so primal an animal could play? Why?
While I think the rules are simple and many of the impulses behind the game actions are primal, the specific actions required to play the game are pretty specific and technical. The basic actions of taking territory, fighting enemies, seeking allies... those concepts are primal, but the game is an abstract representation of them.
What parts of my game could be more primal?
Maybe the end game? I keep coming back to that in these final lenses, probably because it's the part of the game that I am least sure of and I keep hoping to find clarity through one of theis views. Realistically though I think that the tone of the game in terms of being visceral is about right.
Some actions and interfaces are so intuitive that animals were doing them millions of years ago. To capture the power of primality, als yourself these questions:
What parts of my game are so primal an animal could play? Why?
While I think the rules are simple and many of the impulses behind the game actions are primal, the specific actions required to play the game are pretty specific and technical. The basic actions of taking territory, fighting enemies, seeking allies... those concepts are primal, but the game is an abstract representation of them.
What parts of my game could be more primal?
Maybe the end game? I keep coming back to that in these final lenses, probably because it's the part of the game that I am least sure of and I keep hoping to find clarity through one of theis views. Realistically though I think that the tone of the game in terms of being visceral is about right.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Day 109 FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 109 - Lens 62: The Lens of Transparency
The ideal interface becomes invisible to the player letting the player's imagination be completely immersed in the game world. To ensure invisibility, ask yourself these questions:
Does the interface let the players do what they want?
Well, within the constraints of the rules the physical interface of the game works well to allow the players to pursue gameplay. I think that it's interesting to consider that in a board game the 'virtual interface is the player's perception and the world is their model of the game in their brain. So in a six player game there are six copies of the game that must be kept in sync by the physical interface of the board sitting between them!
Do new players find the interface intuitive?
The introductory section of the game shows the players all the ways that they can manipulate the game and what all of the abstractions are. While I have had players find some of the subtleties of the game complex, the basic interface that they arise from is usually easily grasped.
Can players learn to use it without thinking?
Yes, by the end of the first game most if not all players are taking all of the possible actions quickly and correctly to further their in game goals.
Can players continue to use the interface during stressful situations?
Yes, and. Yes, players can make all of the required moves under pressure, but the most stressful aspect of the game, the challenges, are broken out into a non-timed format both drawing dramatic tension from them and allowing the player more space to deal with the more complex interactions.
Does something confuse players about the interface? On which of the six interface arrows is it happening?
I think the most confusing aspect of the interface is that it exists for all six players and they must find their own interface among the aggregate interface that is the board. Also they must decode both the state of the overall game and what the state of each player is from the overall interface space. This is complication on the physical output to player arrow.
Do players feel a sense of immersion when using the interface?
I think that the thematic nature of the physical interface draws players into the game compensating for the abstract format. Also the simple interface (rules and pieces) of the game and the real-time play put the players into a state of focus that is different than what they are used to for a game.
The ideal interface becomes invisible to the player letting the player's imagination be completely immersed in the game world. To ensure invisibility, ask yourself these questions:
Does the interface let the players do what they want?
Well, within the constraints of the rules the physical interface of the game works well to allow the players to pursue gameplay. I think that it's interesting to consider that in a board game the 'virtual interface is the player's perception and the world is their model of the game in their brain. So in a six player game there are six copies of the game that must be kept in sync by the physical interface of the board sitting between them!
Do new players find the interface intuitive?
The introductory section of the game shows the players all the ways that they can manipulate the game and what all of the abstractions are. While I have had players find some of the subtleties of the game complex, the basic interface that they arise from is usually easily grasped.
Can players learn to use it without thinking?
Yes, by the end of the first game most if not all players are taking all of the possible actions quickly and correctly to further their in game goals.
Can players continue to use the interface during stressful situations?
Yes, and. Yes, players can make all of the required moves under pressure, but the most stressful aspect of the game, the challenges, are broken out into a non-timed format both drawing dramatic tension from them and allowing the player more space to deal with the more complex interactions.
Does something confuse players about the interface? On which of the six interface arrows is it happening?
I think the most confusing aspect of the interface is that it exists for all six players and they must find their own interface among the aggregate interface that is the board. Also they must decode both the state of the overall game and what the state of each player is from the overall interface space. This is complication on the physical output to player arrow.
Do players feel a sense of immersion when using the interface?
I think that the thematic nature of the physical interface draws players into the game compensating for the abstract format. Also the simple interface (rules and pieces) of the game and the real-time play put the players into a state of focus that is different than what they are used to for a game.
Monday, March 27, 2017
GDC Playtesting
I had a chance to playtest FotLC recently at GDC in San Francisco with a group of Conference Associates. I got great feedback and everyone seemed to have a great time!
Monday, March 20, 2017
Day 108 FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 108 - Lens 59: The Lens of Control
This lens has uses beyond just examining your interface, since meaningful control is essential for immersive interactivity. To use this lens, ask yourself these questions:
When players use the interface, does it do what they expected? If not, why not?
The 'interface' is a little complicated, in that the players have a reasonably large number of pieces that they can manipulate. Each piece does a small number of things, and the rules are reasonably clear, but there are still a good number of parts laid out in front of the player at the beginning of the game. I think that while the parts are abstract that their function is inline with their appearance even it it's not self evident from just looking at them. That is to say that paths look like paths and bases look like bases. Your 'pawn' or main piece is larger than your 'warriors' which are less important, and they are larger than the citizens which are least important.
Intuitive interfaces give a feeling of control. Is my interface easy to master, or hard to master?
I think that the interface is easy to master, or at least players have mastered it by the end of the first game. I have yet to see a group of players play more than two games due to the limits of my playtesting opportunities... also to see a couple of new players play with a majority of experienced players.
Do my players feel they have a strong influence over the outcome of the game? If not, how can I change that?
I don't think that players feel this enough. Because of the player driven nature of the game it ironically can feel like things are out of the control of any individual player. I 'think' that in experienced gameplay that players will behave more predictably and that experienced players will feel like they can predict that behavior more reliably and thus feel like they have more control... but that has yet to be proven and I am nervous about it.
Feeling powerful = feeling in control. Do my players feel powerful? Can I make them feel more powerful somehow?
When players take decisive actions they feel in control, ironically these kinds of actions often weaken them in the long term, but that is often not obvious to new players and can leave them later feeling powerless. Even though there is a certain satisfaction for the other players in seeing the mighty fall I don't think that this is a good thing... but again that kind of behavior is a new player thing and may not occur in experienced play.
This lens has uses beyond just examining your interface, since meaningful control is essential for immersive interactivity. To use this lens, ask yourself these questions:
When players use the interface, does it do what they expected? If not, why not?
The 'interface' is a little complicated, in that the players have a reasonably large number of pieces that they can manipulate. Each piece does a small number of things, and the rules are reasonably clear, but there are still a good number of parts laid out in front of the player at the beginning of the game. I think that while the parts are abstract that their function is inline with their appearance even it it's not self evident from just looking at them. That is to say that paths look like paths and bases look like bases. Your 'pawn' or main piece is larger than your 'warriors' which are less important, and they are larger than the citizens which are least important.
Intuitive interfaces give a feeling of control. Is my interface easy to master, or hard to master?
I think that the interface is easy to master, or at least players have mastered it by the end of the first game. I have yet to see a group of players play more than two games due to the limits of my playtesting opportunities... also to see a couple of new players play with a majority of experienced players.
Do my players feel they have a strong influence over the outcome of the game? If not, how can I change that?
I don't think that players feel this enough. Because of the player driven nature of the game it ironically can feel like things are out of the control of any individual player. I 'think' that in experienced gameplay that players will behave more predictably and that experienced players will feel like they can predict that behavior more reliably and thus feel like they have more control... but that has yet to be proven and I am nervous about it.
Feeling powerful = feeling in control. Do my players feel powerful? Can I make them feel more powerful somehow?
When players take decisive actions they feel in control, ironically these kinds of actions often weaken them in the long term, but that is often not obvious to new players and can leave them later feeling powerless. Even though there is a certain satisfaction for the other players in seeing the mighty fall I don't think that this is a good thing... but again that kind of behavior is a new player thing and may not occur in experienced play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)