More on Learning and Gaming

I think there is something intrinsically human in our need to learn.  This, of course, transcends academics and/or the assimilation of data.  But learning is one of the most gratifying experiences within the scope of humanity.  Learning can manifest in many ways, based on the objective.

One form of learning is mimicry.  This is a performance-oriented mode of learning.  On one end of the spectrum would be learning a fixed dance step.  On the other, perhaps would be conjugating Latin verbs.  One improves simply by doing what an authority does.

This is one of the least satisfying modes of learning, but it is efficient when performance (to an established standard) is necessary.  In many gaming arenas, this may be called "Cookie-cutter builds/decks".  For many, designing a deck or customizing a character is a large portion of the fun.  But when initially learning the game (how it works, what its rules are, what is a good play or a bad play, etc.), mimicry can get a novice up and running quickly, providing a necessary entre into the game.

Once beyond mimicry, many learners move into proverbial thinking.  This mode of learning is similar to mimicry, but allows for much more freedom and opens early opportunities to experiment and explore.  Proverbial thinking is when the learner does not mimic the authority in execution, but rather makes his own decisions based on values laid out by the authority.  Some examples of value-proverbs might be: "Cash is king," "Speed kills," or "Always stand on 17 or higher."   Such proverbs provide a framework, but allow for ownership within those bounds.

Most casual players will stop at proverbial thinking.  What happens within this mode is that players become more adept at adhering to the proverbs.  Their performance will increase as long as their adopted proverbs accurately describe the reality of game mechanics.

The final mode of learning I am going to highlight is innovation.  In this mode, the learner has moved himself (and perhaps his peers) to the position of authority.  Typically, proverbs once learned are now challenged and tested for viability.  Experimentation becomes a hallmark of the learning experience.  The learner will often attempt to model (mathematically or otherwise) the phenomenon so as to thoroughly understand it.  Innovation operates more in the theoretical and hypothetical than the other two modes.

Innovative gamers are the gurus that are sought for the cookie-cutters and proverbs.  It is their play that gets studied by novices and amateurs.  Interestingly, relaxation through play seems to be reduced as does "fun" in play.  The "fun-factor" for innovators is the meta-game; the game of doing the game differently and/or better than it has been done before.

I find that proverbial players seem to be the happiest consistently, but it is impossible to be a different kind of learner than you are.  For myself, I know that I am not satisfied with anything less than something distinctively my own, (even if it handicaps me for a time).

Serious Gaming: Part 2

(Continuing from the previous post.)


But for all the positives that serious gaming may have, there are some notable dangers.  The one that I think needs to be highlighted is this: Taking it too Seriously.


This is the same thing that happens when screamed profanity barrels past the teeth of angry parents at tee-ball.  But usually, "taking it too seriously" isn't nearly that obvious.


More often, in my experience, it is a gradual process in which your energy expended increases while your enjoyment decreases.  It's an awful situation to be in, because the primary (and by which I mean physiological, psychological, and sociological) benefits of gaming are eroded, and - as stated previously - the game becomes work.


And you know what they say: All work and no play makes Jack a worn-out, burned out, neurotic overeater who is no fun to be around and gets very little done.  Or something like that.


So... how do you fix it?  Well, the first strategy is obvious: Take a break!  Invest some time in some other activity... maybe there's a hobby you've long neglected, or maybe it's just time to play something different.  Read a book.


Another thing you can try is to play differently.  Some games have alternative rules; this might be a good time to explore them.  Other games have built in variety, such as choices of race or class or alignment.  

You could also impose artificial limits on yourself. For instance, I once built a MtG deck that only had 1 kind of red card; the rest was green.  Sure it was gimmicky.  It was not made for tournament play.  It was just a curiosity deck that wasn't an absolute failure.  Or take a much more impressive example from a Pacifist in WoW.  At present he has almost taken a second character to max level without killing anything.

The point is, especially in cooperative gaming where people depend on you, gaming can feel like a responsibility and amass pressure and stress of its own.  So, it's important to keep asking yourself, "Are we having fun yet?" If not, or if you're finding the question hard to answer, perhaps it's time for a change.  I cannot say this emphatically enough, "It's a game."

Perspective, folks... always keep perspective.

Questions for Testers: Designer Debriefing

In my previous post, I suggested a design philosophy that I try to incorporate in my games: Simplicity of Play and Depth of Strategy.


It should be noted that this is not the template for making "a good game."  Lots of "good games" don't adhere to this philosophy at all.  For instance, D&D does NOT aim for simplicity.  You need several books, tons of peripherals (maps, multiple types of dice, miniatures, informational sheets, etc) and one expert (the DM) to basically mediate the entire experience.  Is it a good game?  Absolutely.  In fact, not only is it testing well in longevity, but it has served as the template and inspiration of multiple genres.  I don't think it is a far stretch to say that D&D did for gaming what The Lord of the Rings did for fictional literature.


But, I digress.  The point is, the above philosophy is somewhat narrow and personal.  If you're interested in making good games, you don't have to adhere to that standard.  So, I thought I'd share some more "universal" tools for evaluating a game-in-process.


I think the best metric for the health of a game design is enjoyment.  The only way to gauge enjoyment is to ask people who have played the game.  The challenge here is that "enjoyment" is an effect, not a component of the game.  So to really dig out what is working (or not working) in a game, it is good to see what elements are contributing or detracting from the enjoyment of the game.  I find that a quick debrief with testers after the game can be vital to tuning a game from okay to good to "when can we play again?"


Caveat: No game appeals to everyone.  Some people you may test with might not like the game because it's just not their kind of game.  Figuring out what kinds of gamers will like your game is crucial in making good design choices.

Alright, so here is a list of some of the types of questions I ask of my testers to determine what is making the fun and what is killing the fun:

How was your overall experience? This may not always get the most honest answers if your testers are friends.  They may try to be nice, and that's not always helpful.  Still though, this is a good warm-up question, and once people are used to offering critique will in the long-run become more helpful.

Was anything in the game unclear? This is a technical question, and it's important that you listen to it as such.  However, this is also a way of targeting frustration (which I consider the prime enemy of enjoyment in gaming).

What felt particularly good?  What didn't feel quite right? These are not necessarily technical questions.  But, over all, these are the most important ones because it really helps separate what works from what doesn't.  Sometimes they are mathematical ("I think the barbarian is just hitting too hard"), sometimes they are aesthetic ("I really like the new counters.  Much easier to read.").  Sometimes, they will be maddeningly unhelpful ("I dunno... I just didn't like it that much").  

How was the pacing?  This question may need to be asked in different ways, but what you are secretly asking is "did I ever let you get bored?"  In most cases, it is difficult to make a game too fast, but very easy to make a game too slow.  Also, it is worth noting that in most games, pace increases as player familiarity increases.  This may not be a helpful question in your first session, but it should always be on your mind.

Who do you think would like this game?  More than anything, if someone is able to answer this question you've probably done something right: your game has a flavor.  If the crowd they describe is different than the target you had in mind, you've hit a crossroads.  Either you need to change course to hit your target, or you need to redefine your target.  Whichever you choose, you'll probably be doing some revision before the next session.

Let me leave you with a few closing thoughts about this process:

• Don't make "knee-jerk" changes.  Sometimes players are unlucky or just don't grasp a concept immediately.  Look for patterns of problems rather than isolated cases.  Make small corrections rather than big ones until you hit the balance you're aiming for.
• The more specific the responses you receive, the better.  It's okay to ask testers to go a little deeper in their responses, but be gentle and considerate and don't make them feel bad if they can't come up with more.
• Finally, never forget that testers are doing you a favor. In all things be gracious to them.