Day 53 - Lens 79: The Lens of Freedom
A feeling of freedom is one of the things that separates games from other forms of entertainment. To make sure your players feel as free as possible, ask yourself these questions:
When do my players have freedom of action? Do they feel free at these times?
Given that this is a board game there are a set of rules. I have worked hard to make those rules as minimal as possible and as unrestrictive as possible. That was hard for me and I was luckily asked some hard questions by a fellow developer. I had turns set up in a very structured way that had... I think 16 possible choices. My friend asked, why can't I do everything each turn. The answer turned out to be that there was not a good gameplay reason. I removed a huge chunk of restriction and the game was much better for it.
When are they constrained? Do they feel constrained at these times?
There are some constraints in the game, from the verbs available to the players to the division of the game into phases and turns... I 'think' those are the minimal limitations needed to give the players meaningful choices and to give the game shape. I think that mostly the players feel either free or overwhelmed with choice, at least during their learning games.
Are there any places I can let them feel more free than they do now?
In a previous update I talked about removing the restriction on placing guards on ally and enemy bases. That may both give players more choices and make the board harder to read... I will need playtesting around it. But the more I think about it the more it seems worth trying.
Are there any places I where they are overwhelmed by too much freedom?
Oh yes! Particularly at the start of the first game. I have tried to deal with that by giving the tutorial section, but it's still a bit of a problem. I think it's ok at this point, but there is a learning curve.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Friday, December 30, 2016
Day 52: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 52 - Lens 89: The Lens of The Character Web
To better flesh out your characters' relationships, make a list of all your characters, and ask yourself these questions:
How, specifically does each character feel about each of the others?
So... there are the players, the fictional players within the context of the games fiction, the tribal leaders they represent and the fictional Teller that is the voice of the rules. All three of those groups exist on distinct layers of the game fiction.
The innermost layer would be the tribal leader characters that the player are portraying. Those characters have no defined relationships with each other, but will develope them whether or not the players are roleplaying their characters or just engaging with the game mechanics. The tribe leaders have an antagonistic relationship with the City and it's leaders. They were all once citizens of the city, or their parents were. They are of course unaware of the Teller who exists on the next layer of fiction.
In the next layer of fiction the Teller owns the game. It was taught to him by the previous Teller and is an allegory for the actual fall of civilization. He is of course dead and the fictional players of the game that the players are embodying have discovered his game and are reading the instructions he has left behind. He has been written to be a little comical but also a mentor figure. He interacts with the players through the 'Last words of the Teller' document which is a tutorial on how to play the game, through the game rules themselves, and through a letter that only the winner of the game reads.
In the topmost layer are the actual players. Their relationships are undefined, though they may be pre-existing if the players know each other. They will certainly be affected by the game play, at least in terms of their actions within the game.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the game mechanics help shape and define those relationships. Players can act against each other by attacking bases of course, but they can also challenge to ally or betray. That is a limited vocabulary, but it forces their relationships to become clearly defined and to tell the story that I want the game to tell.
Are there any connections unaccounted for? How can I use those?
The relationship of the tribe leaders and the teller does not exist, but could. He might for instance have letters that he had gathered from each of the leaders of the actual tribes that fought over the city. Letters given to the First Teller. Now those letters might or might not be real, or things created by previous tellers to underline the lesson they were trying to teach with the game.
Are there too many similar connections? How can they be more different?
There might be more ways for players to interact... lending aid to each other? I had tried that and it mostly just added complexity.
Trading warriors? Leaving warriors of your color on allied bases? That might be interesting, whoever has the most controls the base, ties mean neither recruits or gets points for it? Or it counts as a base for both players... I kind of like it in that it is just an application of the basic rule of picking up and putting down guards. Maybe it's no one gets the points for a tie with an enemy base and both get it if it's an allied base?
Sending recruits to an ally?
I don't know if those constitute different kinds of relationships, but maybe by raising the ways players can interact I can increase the resonance of their connections?
To better flesh out your characters' relationships, make a list of all your characters, and ask yourself these questions:
How, specifically does each character feel about each of the others?
So... there are the players, the fictional players within the context of the games fiction, the tribal leaders they represent and the fictional Teller that is the voice of the rules. All three of those groups exist on distinct layers of the game fiction.
The innermost layer would be the tribal leader characters that the player are portraying. Those characters have no defined relationships with each other, but will develope them whether or not the players are roleplaying their characters or just engaging with the game mechanics. The tribe leaders have an antagonistic relationship with the City and it's leaders. They were all once citizens of the city, or their parents were. They are of course unaware of the Teller who exists on the next layer of fiction.
In the next layer of fiction the Teller owns the game. It was taught to him by the previous Teller and is an allegory for the actual fall of civilization. He is of course dead and the fictional players of the game that the players are embodying have discovered his game and are reading the instructions he has left behind. He has been written to be a little comical but also a mentor figure. He interacts with the players through the 'Last words of the Teller' document which is a tutorial on how to play the game, through the game rules themselves, and through a letter that only the winner of the game reads.
In the topmost layer are the actual players. Their relationships are undefined, though they may be pre-existing if the players know each other. They will certainly be affected by the game play, at least in terms of their actions within the game.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the game mechanics help shape and define those relationships. Players can act against each other by attacking bases of course, but they can also challenge to ally or betray. That is a limited vocabulary, but it forces their relationships to become clearly defined and to tell the story that I want the game to tell.
Are there any connections unaccounted for? How can I use those?
The relationship of the tribe leaders and the teller does not exist, but could. He might for instance have letters that he had gathered from each of the leaders of the actual tribes that fought over the city. Letters given to the First Teller. Now those letters might or might not be real, or things created by previous tellers to underline the lesson they were trying to teach with the game.
Are there too many similar connections? How can they be more different?
There might be more ways for players to interact... lending aid to each other? I had tried that and it mostly just added complexity.
Trading warriors? Leaving warriors of your color on allied bases? That might be interesting, whoever has the most controls the base, ties mean neither recruits or gets points for it? Or it counts as a base for both players... I kind of like it in that it is just an application of the basic rule of picking up and putting down guards. Maybe it's no one gets the points for a tie with an enemy base and both get it if it's an allied base?
Sending recruits to an ally?
I don't know if those constitute different kinds of relationships, but maybe by raising the ways players can interact I can increase the resonance of their connections?
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Day 51: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 51 - Lens 1: The Lens of Emotion
People may forget what you said, but they'll never forget how you made them feel.
-Maya Angelou
To make sure the emotions you create are the right ones, ask yourself these questions:
What emotions would I like my player to experience? Why?
Excitement, tension, anticipation, light anger, disappointment, camaraderie, schadenfreude, guilt and righteousness.
On the shallowest level because I think they fit together to make a fun game experience.
On a deeper level they mimic more serious emotions that fit with the theme of the game. I hope that playing the game and experiencing that emotional arc will make players vulnerable to the games deeper theme and messages and help them to transfer those out of the game... that's a big hope though, so mostly I'm happy if my attempt just results in an enjoyable game.
What emotions are players (including me) having when they play now? Why?
Mostly I am getting what I am looking for. There is some confusion and frustration that I want to minimize. I think that there is probably a little frustration that will occur when players are losing, or feel like they are losing. But it's a competitive game and I don't think that can be completely avoided. I do think that I can do a better job helping players figure out that they can come from behind until very late in the game.
How can I bridge the gap between the emotions players are having and the emotions I'd like them to have?
I think I am very close. There may be some rules changes for the end game that will eliminate some of the frustration. Some additional story around the tribes, and ritual participation from the audience/Teller might up the emotional stakes of the game when played in public...
People may forget what you said, but they'll never forget how you made them feel.
-Maya Angelou
To make sure the emotions you create are the right ones, ask yourself these questions:
What emotions would I like my player to experience? Why?
Excitement, tension, anticipation, light anger, disappointment, camaraderie, schadenfreude, guilt and righteousness.
On the shallowest level because I think they fit together to make a fun game experience.
On a deeper level they mimic more serious emotions that fit with the theme of the game. I hope that playing the game and experiencing that emotional arc will make players vulnerable to the games deeper theme and messages and help them to transfer those out of the game... that's a big hope though, so mostly I'm happy if my attempt just results in an enjoyable game.
What emotions are players (including me) having when they play now? Why?
Mostly I am getting what I am looking for. There is some confusion and frustration that I want to minimize. I think that there is probably a little frustration that will occur when players are losing, or feel like they are losing. But it's a competitive game and I don't think that can be completely avoided. I do think that I can do a better job helping players figure out that they can come from behind until very late in the game.
How can I bridge the gap between the emotions players are having and the emotions I'd like them to have?
I think I am very close. There may be some rules changes for the end game that will eliminate some of the frustration. Some additional story around the tribes, and ritual participation from the audience/Teller might up the emotional stakes of the game when played in public...
Day 50: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 50 - Lens 19: The Lens of the Player
To use this lens, stop thinking about your game, and start thinking about your player. Ask yourself these questions about the people who will play your game:
In general, what do they look like?
If I thought I knew that playtesting has taught me that I was wrong. If my audience are like the people who have enjoyed my game then they are not the serious core strategy gamers that I thought they were. While serious competitive gamers have enjoyed my game those that have made it most enjoyable and seemed to enjoy it the most have been the social ringleaders. They have brought a group of friends and the game has facilitated them having a good time with their followers. That's not what I expected!
What don't they like? Why?
The core gamers I thought were my audience don't love the social challenge mechanics. The casual gamers often brought by the social leader find the learning curve a bit steep but seem to end up enjoying the game.
What do they expect to see in a game?
Core gamers want less randomness, they want their strategy. I'm in kind of a strange place because I am trying to change a lot of elements in the abstract strategy genera. I think of that as exploring a new design space, but it's true that at the same time I am asking a lot of my players, many find the game too strange to latch on to at first blush. That tends to be more true of experienced gamers that new gamers. People with experience have stronger expectations I suspect.
I think that for an indie game where I don't care about profits in an existential way it's probably ok. If I was making a commercial game I would consider just having one or two unique elements rather than almost all of the core gameplay be unique.
If I were in their place, what would I want to see in a game?
I want a strategy game where I can make a tactical decision and see a quick result. I want a social game where I have real choice rather than choices limited by game elements like card based interactions. I want a story that is intriguing and that lets me feel like it reflects my actions and gives me a chance to take a moral stand. I want a game that looks and feels beautiful and solid. I want not to be bored waiting for others to play. I want a game that keeps me engaged and moves to a exciting and satisfying climax.
What will they like or dislike about my game in particular?
Some players think there are too many choices to make early on and have a hard time grasping the rules. The new way of teaching the game seems to have helped with that a bit. Hard core atrategy gamers don't like the unpredictability that the social challenges bring. They also are uncomfortable with the speed with which things can change with simultaneous rounds. The most common complaint is feeling that the outcome is too unpredictable. That may be true, or it may be that it's just hard if you haven't played the game a bunch of times.
I reeeeealy need to have a group of 6 people that can play 10 plus games. Maybe I need to hire playtesters for a day? FOr 6 people for a day that would be something like $500 though... at $10 an hour. Maybe offering $50 flat fee for 10 playthroughs or 8 hours whichever comes first?
To use this lens, stop thinking about your game, and start thinking about your player. Ask yourself these questions about the people who will play your game:
In general, what do they look like?
If I thought I knew that playtesting has taught me that I was wrong. If my audience are like the people who have enjoyed my game then they are not the serious core strategy gamers that I thought they were. While serious competitive gamers have enjoyed my game those that have made it most enjoyable and seemed to enjoy it the most have been the social ringleaders. They have brought a group of friends and the game has facilitated them having a good time with their followers. That's not what I expected!
What don't they like? Why?
The core gamers I thought were my audience don't love the social challenge mechanics. The casual gamers often brought by the social leader find the learning curve a bit steep but seem to end up enjoying the game.
What do they expect to see in a game?
Core gamers want less randomness, they want their strategy. I'm in kind of a strange place because I am trying to change a lot of elements in the abstract strategy genera. I think of that as exploring a new design space, but it's true that at the same time I am asking a lot of my players, many find the game too strange to latch on to at first blush. That tends to be more true of experienced gamers that new gamers. People with experience have stronger expectations I suspect.
I think that for an indie game where I don't care about profits in an existential way it's probably ok. If I was making a commercial game I would consider just having one or two unique elements rather than almost all of the core gameplay be unique.
If I were in their place, what would I want to see in a game?
I want a strategy game where I can make a tactical decision and see a quick result. I want a social game where I have real choice rather than choices limited by game elements like card based interactions. I want a story that is intriguing and that lets me feel like it reflects my actions and gives me a chance to take a moral stand. I want a game that looks and feels beautiful and solid. I want not to be bored waiting for others to play. I want a game that keeps me engaged and moves to a exciting and satisfying climax.
What will they like or dislike about my game in particular?
Some players think there are too many choices to make early on and have a hard time grasping the rules. The new way of teaching the game seems to have helped with that a bit. Hard core atrategy gamers don't like the unpredictability that the social challenges bring. They also are uncomfortable with the speed with which things can change with simultaneous rounds. The most common complaint is feeling that the outcome is too unpredictable. That may be true, or it may be that it's just hard if you haven't played the game a bunch of times.
I reeeeealy need to have a group of 6 people that can play 10 plus games. Maybe I need to hire playtesters for a day? FOr 6 people for a day that would be something like $500 though... at $10 an hour. Maybe offering $50 flat fee for 10 playthroughs or 8 hours whichever comes first?
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Day 49: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 49 - Lens 71: The Lens of Beauty
Beauty is mysterious. Why, for example, do most beautiful things have a touch of sadness about them? Use this lens to contemplate the mysteries of beauty in your game by asking yourself these questions:
What elements make up my game? How can each one be more beautiful?
The physical components: These could be of higher quality. The roads and bases are now painted cardboard. They would be better if they were made out of actual metal. The physical rules documents could be given some professional graphic design. While I want then to look hand drawn that doesn't mean they can't be more carefully designed
The Rules: The rules could have a more concise form, just writing that might help trim off some rough bits where I have added special cases. I have tried to make them simple and elegant, and while I am pretty happy with that creating a non-themed version might help me focus on the kind of elegance I want there.
The story: A good portion of the story is pretty generalized, some of that is god but letting the players identify with a tribe more could make them more compelling and make the choices they are given at the end 'beautiful'.
Some things are not beautiful in themselves, but are beautiful in combination. How can elements of my game be composed in a way that is poetic and beautiful?
I think that the whole that the game's individual parts form is greater than any one of them. It's a cliche of the Art of Game Design, but I think that I have succeeded in creating a fun and interesting experience with my story mechanics and technology... but I do want fun and interesting to become beautiful and I am probably not there yet. So I will keep trying things and testing.
What does beauty mean within the context of my game?
I think that there are two kinds of beauty I am trying to achieve. The first is that the game and the play of the game be beautiful. Mechanics and esthetics working together. The second is the kind of lasting transformative beauty that games like Spec Ops: The Line achieved for the players that were open to it where the meaning of the game revealed it's self in a way that made the player look inward and question their experience of playing the game and perhaps even themselves.
Beauty is mysterious. Why, for example, do most beautiful things have a touch of sadness about them? Use this lens to contemplate the mysteries of beauty in your game by asking yourself these questions:
What elements make up my game? How can each one be more beautiful?
The physical components: These could be of higher quality. The roads and bases are now painted cardboard. They would be better if they were made out of actual metal. The physical rules documents could be given some professional graphic design. While I want then to look hand drawn that doesn't mean they can't be more carefully designed
The Rules: The rules could have a more concise form, just writing that might help trim off some rough bits where I have added special cases. I have tried to make them simple and elegant, and while I am pretty happy with that creating a non-themed version might help me focus on the kind of elegance I want there.
The story: A good portion of the story is pretty generalized, some of that is god but letting the players identify with a tribe more could make them more compelling and make the choices they are given at the end 'beautiful'.
Some things are not beautiful in themselves, but are beautiful in combination. How can elements of my game be composed in a way that is poetic and beautiful?
I think that the whole that the game's individual parts form is greater than any one of them. It's a cliche of the Art of Game Design, but I think that I have succeeded in creating a fun and interesting experience with my story mechanics and technology... but I do want fun and interesting to become beautiful and I am probably not there yet. So I will keep trying things and testing.
What does beauty mean within the context of my game?
I think that there are two kinds of beauty I am trying to achieve. The first is that the game and the play of the game be beautiful. Mechanics and esthetics working together. The second is the kind of lasting transformative beauty that games like Spec Ops: The Line achieved for the players that were open to it where the meaning of the game revealed it's self in a way that made the player look inward and question their experience of playing the game and perhaps even themselves.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Day 48: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 48 - Lens 10: The Lens of Holographic Design
To use this lens, you must simultaneously see your game structure and the player experience. You may shift your focus from one to the other but it is far better to view your game and experience holographically.
What elements of the game make the experience enjoyable?
For most players the social interaction is the most enjoyable part of the game. The act of putting down pieces to form the board and gaining mastery of controlling the space that way seems to be enjoyable, probably partially because it's unique, partially because the physicality of the pieces is pleasing, and perhaps because the mechanic is genuinely fun?
I think that the buildup to the end of the game is enjoyed by players, the end is clearly visible and the stakes escalate...
Sneaking into other player's territory when they aren't paying attention and taking their things. When a player gets to hear 'Hey, when did you take my base?!' they always grin.
What elements of the game may detract from the experience?
The results of the showdown at the end of the game are not clear enough to players... or they are unbalanced. Players have not been reporting as much satisfaction with the outcome of the game as I would like. Taking the last city feels too powerful to them in terms of winning the game. At the same time taking it does not guarantee winning the game. So it doesn't feel powerful enough.
The learning curve is still a problem. The new tutorial helps a lot but players don't see the whole of the game until it's over so the flow of the first game always feels a little unexpected.
How can I change the game elements to improve the experience?
Either I need to change the scoring so that the bases, which are the obvious scoring mechanism are more important bu making them be directly worth points, or I need to make the way they work now more obvious? It 'feels' to my design head like the way the mechanics work now is deep, and that's needed for long term play. But if players don't enjoy their first game and feel like the winner is arbitrary then there won't be repeat play...
Maybe wording in the tutorial can help make the game flow more obvious? An outline of what is to come before the letting players go to play through the mid game?
In the broader sense I want to increase the importance of situational awareness, which increases the chances to sneak through an opponent's defenses and feel clever. The real time timers might do that. I don't think it will ever be more than an alternate play mechanic though since it will make the game so much more stressful that it will deter all but the most hardcore players.
To use this lens, you must simultaneously see your game structure and the player experience. You may shift your focus from one to the other but it is far better to view your game and experience holographically.
What elements of the game make the experience enjoyable?
For most players the social interaction is the most enjoyable part of the game. The act of putting down pieces to form the board and gaining mastery of controlling the space that way seems to be enjoyable, probably partially because it's unique, partially because the physicality of the pieces is pleasing, and perhaps because the mechanic is genuinely fun?
I think that the buildup to the end of the game is enjoyed by players, the end is clearly visible and the stakes escalate...
Sneaking into other player's territory when they aren't paying attention and taking their things. When a player gets to hear 'Hey, when did you take my base?!' they always grin.
What elements of the game may detract from the experience?
The results of the showdown at the end of the game are not clear enough to players... or they are unbalanced. Players have not been reporting as much satisfaction with the outcome of the game as I would like. Taking the last city feels too powerful to them in terms of winning the game. At the same time taking it does not guarantee winning the game. So it doesn't feel powerful enough.
The learning curve is still a problem. The new tutorial helps a lot but players don't see the whole of the game until it's over so the flow of the first game always feels a little unexpected.
How can I change the game elements to improve the experience?
Either I need to change the scoring so that the bases, which are the obvious scoring mechanism are more important bu making them be directly worth points, or I need to make the way they work now more obvious? It 'feels' to my design head like the way the mechanics work now is deep, and that's needed for long term play. But if players don't enjoy their first game and feel like the winner is arbitrary then there won't be repeat play...
Maybe wording in the tutorial can help make the game flow more obvious? An outline of what is to come before the letting players go to play through the mid game?
In the broader sense I want to increase the importance of situational awareness, which increases the chances to sneak through an opponent's defenses and feel clever. The real time timers might do that. I don't think it will ever be more than an alternate play mechanic though since it will make the game so much more stressful that it will deter all but the most hardcore players.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Day 47: FotLC through the 113 lenses from The Art of Game Design
Day 47 - Lens 91: The Lens of Character Transformation
We pay attention to character transformations because we care about what might change us. To ensure your characters are transforming in interesting ways, ask yourself these questions:
How does each of my characters change throughout the fame?
They don't, or not in fundamental ways. Looking at characters in a board game is strange to start with, and in the case of FotLC it is even more unusual: In one sense there are no 'characters', at least not at this point. There are pawns that the players manipulate, but they have no character.
In another sense the players are told that their pawns represent the leaders of a post apocalyptic tribe. The players may invest them with an arbitrary amount of character, and that character may shift over the course of the events of the game. That could be a complex character arc, but would be brought to the game entirely by the player.
In a third sense the players themselves have been told that they are playing people from the post apocalyptic future who are playing a board game. So they have been actively charged with playing these undefined characters.
How am I communicating those changes to the player? Can I communicate them more clearly, or more strongly?
The rules materials help at least the player running the game to shift into character a little and the end game reveal to the winner poses an in character question. That question directly addresses the question of whether the player or the character they represent has changed through playing the game.
Is there enough change?
The change in question is very focused. It's at the heart of the theme of the game. Making it the only important change makes it stand out. I don't know yet if that makes it too simplistic and thus boring, or if it makes it profound.
Are the changes surprising and interesting?
I think so. I don't expect the player to anticipate the question they are asked at the end of the game and I hope they find the choice interesting.
Are the changes believable?
As any change comes with a decision from the player it depends on whether the player finds the choice that they make believable. In one sense the tension created if they don't is just as interesting as the choice itself.
We pay attention to character transformations because we care about what might change us. To ensure your characters are transforming in interesting ways, ask yourself these questions:
How does each of my characters change throughout the fame?
They don't, or not in fundamental ways. Looking at characters in a board game is strange to start with, and in the case of FotLC it is even more unusual: In one sense there are no 'characters', at least not at this point. There are pawns that the players manipulate, but they have no character.
In another sense the players are told that their pawns represent the leaders of a post apocalyptic tribe. The players may invest them with an arbitrary amount of character, and that character may shift over the course of the events of the game. That could be a complex character arc, but would be brought to the game entirely by the player.
In a third sense the players themselves have been told that they are playing people from the post apocalyptic future who are playing a board game. So they have been actively charged with playing these undefined characters.
How am I communicating those changes to the player? Can I communicate them more clearly, or more strongly?
The rules materials help at least the player running the game to shift into character a little and the end game reveal to the winner poses an in character question. That question directly addresses the question of whether the player or the character they represent has changed through playing the game.
Is there enough change?
The change in question is very focused. It's at the heart of the theme of the game. Making it the only important change makes it stand out. I don't know yet if that makes it too simplistic and thus boring, or if it makes it profound.
Are the changes surprising and interesting?
I think so. I don't expect the player to anticipate the question they are asked at the end of the game and I hope they find the choice interesting.
Are the changes believable?
As any change comes with a decision from the player it depends on whether the player finds the choice that they make believable. In one sense the tension created if they don't is just as interesting as the choice itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)