|
Anttoni Huhtala
Finland
Helsinki
10 PRINT "Hello!"
Hello!
-
Hi!
Im putting a lecture about typical mistakes in boardgame design up into my blog.
The lecture was held last summer at ropecon by stefu and me. I will try to translate and upload the rest of the lecture as fast as i can. Hopefully during the next week ill have it all uploaded.
here's the link:
http://meepleland.blogspot.com/2005/11/typical-mistakes-in-b...
Please use the forums at boardgamegeek to talk about issues in the lecture.
-
Mario T. Lanza
United States
New Cumberland
Pennsylvania
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
Ah... a person after my own heart.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/77401
I'll be reading your full analysis soon!
-
Anttoni Huhtala
Finland
Helsinki
10 PRINT "Hello!"
Hello!
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
Ill just copy my responce form the rec.games.board to get some talk about the subject.. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> I like Reiner's take on this, that game design is an art rather than a
> science and you can't have a set "method" to design or develop games;
> similarly, what might not work in one design, where it might be seen as a
> mistake, could work in another.
I like the idea of game design being a art-form, but the truth is that there is a subtile form of science in it. One of the point's on the lecture i made with stefu is that every game has mistakes and problems, but they all have something that compensates for them.
For example, a game that has a lot of luck should be short, and a game that is long should use chaos ( chaos is other players actions that efect your gameplay) rather than luck for a randomising element. A long game with lots of luck is just not fun, you could just as well throw the dice once to determine who won.. but a shorter game can be played enough times, so that the luck element is not that important, and the player who knows how to play the rest of the game will win more often. (for eg. Flaschenteufel http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/619, you might get a set of lowsy cards, but if you know how to play them, you might be able to avoid the bottle..)
We wanted to make a sort of checklist, that you could compare your game with, like
"ok, so the game has a game arc problem, what does it do to compensate for it or what can i do about it as the designer or as a variant-developer?"
> Unless you mean stuff like "pointless components, overly-cumbersome rules
> and a graphic designer who wants shooting" sort of mistakes.
2/3 right, well sort of 3/3. Those are some of the things that we discuss in the lectures, i just havent had the time to go there yet... But these are (in some sense) quite minor things copared to what else there is..
Ansi
--------
-
Anttoni Huhtala
Finland
Helsinki
10 PRINT "Hello!"
Hello!
-
I have translated and uploaded the next part of the lecture, called interaction
http://meepleland.blogspot.com/2005/11/interaction.html
Now we have uploaded these topics of the lecture:
Gaming time
* Length
* Undetermined playtime
* The games arc
* downtime
* Analysis paralysis
* upkeap / book-keeping
Interaction
* Multiplayer solitaire
- Interaction through the gamemechanics
- Direct interaction
- Interaction outside the game
* Player elimination
* King making
* Runaway leader
I'll try to find all the spelling errors i've made...
-
Michael_geek games_Gersten
United States
ojai
California
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
(bump)
Will this article be finished?
-
Anttoni Huhtala
Finland
Helsinki
10 PRINT "Hello!"
Hello!
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
umm.. ill try to finish the article.. just after my examweek..
a
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
keybounce wrote: (bump)
Will this article be finished?
Did anyone find the article useful? It seems like a recipe for making every game a similar shapeless blob. Nearly every flaw listed could be considered a feature in the right game.
-
Zuperfliegen
United States
Round Rock
Texas
Ride the Snake
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
rshipley wrote: keybounce wrote: (bump)
Will this article be finished? Did anyone find the article useful? It seems like a recipe for making every game a similar shapeless blob. Nearly every flaw listed could be considered a feature in the right game.
I would like to see some counter examples to all the points he mentions as flaws.
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
MWChapel wrote: I would like to see some counter examples to all the points he mentions as flaws.
It really boils down to which games are appropriate to different tastes and different situations. Instead of flaws in boardgame design in general, I guess most could be flaws in a particular boardgame's design. It depends on what you want the game to do.
Declaring that any game with downtime has a problem is silly. Likewise for the comments on playtime and player interaction. The comments on luck (or randomness) in games in a post above shows a real lack of understanding (pretty common).
Something like this (but fleshed out a bit more) could be a good resource for a novice designer if refocused some: If your game has more downtime than you want, try a,b,c. If you feel there isn't enough player interaction, try x,y,z.
-
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
-
rshipley wrote:
It really boils down to which games are appropriate to different tastes and different situations. Instead of flaws in boardgame design in general, I guess most could be flaws in a particular boardgame's design. It depends on what you want the game to do.
Declaring that any game with downtime has a problem is silly. Likewise for the comments on playtime and player interaction. The comments on luck (or randomness) in games in a post above shows a real lack of understanding (pretty common).
....
Very well said, and this certainly supports R.K. in his statement that game design is art rather than science. I have always felt that this is quite obvious, but am not shocked that others would see it otherwise.
-
Zuperfliegen
United States
Round Rock
Texas
Ride the Snake
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
rshipley wrote: MWChapel wrote: I would like to see some counter examples to all the points he mentions as flaws. It really boils down to which games are appropriate to different tastes and different situations. Instead of flaws in boardgame design in general, I guess most could be flaws in a particular boardgame's design. It depends on what you want the game to do.
I'm not disagreeing. I would actually like some real opinions on some counter examples of the flaws mentioned.
Something like " In Game A, Interaction through the game mechanics works because...."
-
Rich Hussein Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
By some definitions, gaming is my religion
-
OK, I'll try:
GAMING TIME
Length: Lots of long games work fine and wouldn't work if shortened: Diplomacy, Civilization, Empires in Arms. A big part of the game is the immersion achieved by the game length. It isn't something a game needs to be "saved" from.
Undetermined Playtime: The variable ending in Napoleonic Wars encourages people to play to win on every turn. In Attika, a possible connectivity ending player increases interaction and provides another factor when considering placement.
The Game Arc: Games with different play in various phases of the game are fine, but it isn't needed for all games. Racing games such as RoboRally and Formula De work fine with the same play throughout.
Downtime: When we're playing Empires in Arms for 5 hours on Mondays, time for a bathroom break while other players are fighting a battle is appreciated. If you can't stand only being able to watch and plan your actions for a bit while someone else is taking a move, don't play these kind of games.
Analysis paralysis: You have to pick your opponents well for some games. Deciding that every game with a big decision tree need to be fixed throws too many games right out the window. A big decision tree makes these kind of games interesting. Example: every wargame.
Upkeep / Book-keeping: If a game can simplify this sort of thing in support of the main mechanisms, that's great. But sometimes, this is the heart of the game and needs to be somewhat complex. Pax Britannica is about running an economy. Abstracting this out would make it a different game.
INTERACTION
Multiplayer Solitaire: This is not a problem, it is a design decision. Some people don't like confrontation and making moves that hurt other players. The Empire Builder series is a great example of a popular game with little player interaction. It provides a way to play a constructive game and compete to get to a goal before the other players without having to play against them.
Player Elimination: Again, just a design decision. It may be a problem in some situations, but it is a good way to avoid Kingmaking, if that bothers you. Some people would rather be eliminated than keep playing a game they have no chance of winning. Diplomacy without elimination would be a much different (and inferior) game.
Kingmaking: That's what you get for not having player elimination! Nearly every multi-player game with any interaction has this potential. It is more an issue of play-style than design. And personally, I don't see much of a problem with it.
Runaway Leader: A clever mechanism to make things a little harder for the leader can be OK in a game. What's worse is a game where no matter how much better you play, the other players still have a good chance to win at the end. What was the first part of the game for (competitively)? Is Chess broken because I play badly and lose key pieces early? No, I'd just concede and play something else. Same thing with other games, if someone has obviously won, concede and move on.
All of the above could be flaws when in the wrong game, but saying that they are all things that should be avoided in every game limits the parameters of game design too much. If you try to make a game for everyone you will probably please no one.
-
Ken K
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
Quote:
Did anyone find the article useful? It seems like a recipe for making every game a similar shapeless blob. Nearly every flaw listed could be considered a feature in the right game.
I found the lecture interesting and useful... but it's clearly a 101 class in boardgames.
Beginners should stick to these rules while more experienced designers can get creative and break them. Picasso said that he had to learn to paint a bull that looked like a bull before he could paint one that didn't.
-
Simon K
Netherlands
Zaanstad
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
Also i think it is an utterly flawed statement simple saying that longer games suffer from luck. It again depends on your expectations but also on how much "effect" this luck is being given. If being lucky or unlucky can make or break your game without the game giving you the option to secure a plan b than obviously this is bad design. But that doesnt mean "luck" is a problem. The longer the game the more luck evens out, so i think longer games are in fact better suited to utilize a (well implanted)"luck" mechanism. The importance here is that the mechanism should be implanted in such a way that it can be USED by the players without the mechanism being able to singlehandedly make or break the game (its effect).
im a bit of n00b so consider this a humble opinion. be gentle 
-
Patrick van Gompel
Netherlands
Borkel en Schaft
-
ansi wrote: Ill just copy my responce form the rec.games.board to get some talk about the subject.. Newsgroups: rec.games.board Richard Dewsbery wrote: > I like Reiner's take on this, that game design is an art rather than a > science and you can't have a set "method" to design or develop games; > similarly, what might not work in one design, where it might be seen as a > mistake, could work in another. I like the idea of game design being a art-form, but the truth is that there is a subtile form of science in it. One of the point's on the lecture i made with stefu is that every game has mistakes and problems, but they all have something that compensates for them. Ansi --------
I think articles about design mistakes are never ment to actually design a game. They are usefull though for a designer to check whether his game will be liked by most of the people. But that is just up to the designer's goal: does he want to make money, does he want his game to be played by as many people as possible or does he want to give expression to his creativity. If he wants to express his creativity a checklist of common mistakes wouldn't be very useful to him because it would tie him down. In that case of 'free' designing you could describe such a person as an artist. But I don't think there are that many designers working purely this way, because money, time and ego are rather important in this world.
In my humble opinion you will never get a splendid design by just following certain 'rules', because you simply can't be really creative by using your brains to think about how to make a good design. It's not that you sit down, read through a checklist and think how to make a game. Creativity just comes to you by inspiration and depending on where you get it from, it often comes as a whole and seemingly complete design. It's the designer's challenge to get the idea into reality and only through his expression it will be translated and will therefore have the characteristics of the designer. Whether the final design is true to the original inspirational idea is up to the designer and his ability.
So I think that a document about 'mistakes' in designs are in general ment for people who want to see good games being released and for publishers that want to make money and maybe for some designers that are not really into creativity.
-
Heinrich Glumpler
Germany
Koeln
Unspecified
-
Hi,
I would like to comment about the downtime part:
Downtime
If a player has time to go to the bathroom without affecting the game,
there is a downtime problem in the game.
-Downtime causes boredom..
-If a turn has too much to do, and the other players can not affect
the game (trivial pursuit, Runebound)
You can reduce (or even eliminate) the downtime issue by giving the waiting player something to think about - even if there is no chance to influence the game while waiting.
In "Techno Witches" every player is constantly pondering his next move by trying to visualize the flight path that he constructed and trying to decide wether to start his flight (as soon as it's his turn) or still add another tile.
Do not misunderstand - Techno Witches is a fast filler - but I would like to make clear that it might suffice to give a player something meaningful to think about while waiting for his turn.
This method will sure not work in games where the situation is constantly changing - but if there is an important part of the game under control of the player - or the game is quite static - there is no downtime even if somebody has to wait for his turn without being able to influence it.
Regards
Heinrich
-
Morgan Dontanville
United States
Brooklyn
New York
Plate of Shrimp.
Here we are folks, the dream we all dream of.
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
MWChapel wrote:
I would like to see some counter examples to all the points he mentions as flaws.
ansi wrote:
Gaming time
* Length
* Undetermined playtime
* The games arc
* downtime
* Analysis paralysis
* upkeap / book-keeping
Interaction
* Multiplayer solitaire
- Interaction through the gamemechanics
- Direct interaction
- Interaction outside the game
* Player elimination
* King making
* Runaway leader
With the exception of Player elimination all of these seem to describe your new favorite Through the Ages...
-
Mike Miller
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
-
Re: "Typical mistakes in boardgame design" lecture at meeple
nosferrari wrote: Hi,
I would like to comment about the downtime part:
Downtime
If a player has time to go to the bathroom without affecting the game,
there is a downtime problem in the game.
-Downtime causes boredom..
-If a turn has too much to do, and the other players can not affect
the game (trivial pursuit, Runebound)
You can reduce (or even eliminate) the downtime issue by giving the waiting player something to think about - even if there is no chance to influence the game while waiting.
If there is no downtime at all, than some players will struggle with analysis paralysis, which in turn creates downtime, intentional or not.
-
Darren Foulk
United States
Venice
California
-
I would say presenting these as potentially helpful guidelines rather than as rules would be more useful (and far more accurate, since despite your thinking there's some sort of science to game design, games are for enjoyment and are therefore completely subjective).
Your use of the word problem, among others, implies one way is wrong and another is right, whereas it's nothing of the sort. If your point is to set critical standards for what's a good game, then your objective is futile and indeed damaging (if your opinions were to gain sway and thus impact what others produce and what others are willing to play because people feel they should conform to some arbitrary standard of "good game design", then you will have reduced enjoyment in the world). If your aim is to improve the business behind gaming by providing guidelines for game company execs, then negative examples such as Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit (huge sellers!) refute your very point.
I actually agree with much of what you say, but just feel there's no point to inventing "rules" for game design (or any form of art/entertainment). Rules for screenplay writing have negatively impacted the films coming out of Hollywood, not because those rules aren't useful as guidelines for struggling filmmakers, but because business execs desperate for order in an industry based on subjectivity too often stifle creativity at the expense of these guidelines confused for rules.
-
United States
New York
When the world hands you a Jeffrey, furry walls will make it fine.
-
2 big things in games:
* The "kitchen sink" approach, or how many elements and/or ideas and/or pieces do you stuff into a game. Colosseum, for instance, is a good game but it has too many interconnected elements for my taste. I will still play it, though. There are others that are worse. Generally they use the flash and glitz to distract from the actual game play. An elegant design works better, like in Taj Mahal, and leads to my next point.
* Making the rules overly complicated. I prefer a rulebook of 4-16 pages, with 25-50% of that taken up by examples. A game that is difficult to learn can be difficult to teach. As I run most of my games at decent sized cons, there are newbs who have never played most of the games we have on the schedule, so the moderators need to be able to pick up a game quickly. Otherwise, for games like Colosseum and Louis XIV we wind up with 1 or 2 people able to teach the game -- this locks in their time and leaves us overly dependent on a few select individuals (what happens in an emergency or if they happen to be less than reliable?). This teaching process also eats into valuable time that could be spent playing the game. In short, I want designers to keep it simple.
-
|
|
