Across the Table: Gaming as a Communal Experience

When I mention that I make games as a hobby, the first question I usually get is, "Like... video games?"  The answer is no.  Not, mind you, because I oppose them in principle.  I am an avid video gamer and I would be very amenable to the idea of working on one.


On the other hand, the answer is no not because I don't have the resources or know-how.  I have moderate flash skills and my own copy of the software.  I could be making (and have made) computer-based games.  There are some real limits on what I could do, but not really any more so than are imposed on me by not using that medium.


The answer is no because I want to sit at a table with someone.  I want to hold the cards or roll the dice or move the pieces.  And even as I write on this ephemeral, ethereal idea that is a blog on the internet, I have to say I like to get away from my computer screen.


People behave differently in person than they do remotely.  This should not be news to most of you.  In person, people are generally more patient, more gracious, more considerate, and more reasonable.  Playing is more of a cooperative endeavor when there is no artificial mediator.  On a computer, players seldom have to work through interpreting a rule; reaching mutual agreement about "fairness" is a non-issue in that setting.  The remotely mediated gaming experience implies naturally less ownership than the cooperatively administered game.


More and more, modern gaming is about getting together, not getting away.  I think this goes beyond merely wanting to have multiple players.  I think the trend is toward hanging-out while playing.

Consider what Xbox Live has done to gaming.  You'd think being able to play against people all over the world would be a matter of satisfying the hardcore, best-in-the-world types.  But when you really think about the Xbox Live experience it can be (and usually is) more about finding partners and teammates, talking (or even video conferencing) with friends, and "hanging out," than it is about ladders and rankings.  The whole notion of achievements is built around the idea that people are interested in other people as people beyond their function in a particular match.

This struck me acutely as I watched a stream of Blizzcon.  Blizzard has been in the business of matchmaking for their games for well over a decade now through a service they call Battlenet.  One of the big reveals (in fact it tool up the bulk of one of their panels on the long awaited StarCraft 2) was a total overhaul to Battle.net.

What caught my attention was when the presenter was talking about the places they looked for ideas and inspiration for how the new Battle.net would work... and things like Facebook and Google Chat were mentioned.  That little tidbit gave me a great deal of pause.  What sort of implications does that have?  It seemed both perfectly natural, and perfectly surreal that the Battle.net changes are not aimed primarily at improving gameplay (such as improved stat tracking and ranking algorithms, though I'm sure they have been working hard in those areas).  The renovation is moving to a trans-gaming community experience.

Conceptually speaking, the game is ceasing to be "the thing as such" and is becoming (or perhaps returning to being) the vehicle for a communal experience.

Sure there are still games that we can play in isolation.  I hope that developers will always make games with "campaigns" and single-player content.  After all, sometimes I game because I do want to get away.  But such times for me are much more the exception than the rule.

Which is why, as a designer, I still like dice.  I still like sitting across the table from a person.  I like the burden of hashing out an agreement on rules.  I'm just old-fashioned like that.  Or progressive.  Take your pick.

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.

Dragons: Sample game

Here is a sample completed game of Dragons. We'll walk through this real briefly to cover scoring and connectivity.

|A|A|Y|A|B|B|

|A|A|A|A|B|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|Y|Y|B|B|Z|

|Y|B|Y|Y|Z|Z|

The first thing to note is that there should be 9 of each symbol. if you get any other outcome, some body made a mistake on one of their turns. Remember, you must play exactly one of each of your symbols per turn.

So, what dragons do we see on the board? Well, "A" is a single dragon 9 links long - the very best possible. "B" is divided between 3 dragons: the first being 6 links (top right), the second is 2 links (bottom right), and the last only 1 link (bottom left). Note that the first and second touch diagonally, but that does not constitute "linkage."

Since we only count the Longest dragon of each symbol, Player One gets 9 points from his "A"s and 6 points from "B"s for a total of 15 points.

To simplify the scoring process, you can mark out any non-scoring (i.e. "not-longest") dragon.

|A|A| |A|B|B|

|A|A|A|A|B|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|Y|Y| | | |

|Y| |Y|Y| | |

So, let's score Player Two. Y: 8 points, Z: 6 points for a total of 14 points. Note: Y and Z dragons do not link. Ever. Player two does NOT have a 14 link dragon. He has an 8 link and a 6 link.

Final score -

Player One: 15

Player Two: 14

I hope that sheds some light on how the game functions. Tie games are possible, and I have considered giving the second player a half-point handicap, but honestly ties don't bother me so bad at the moment. Maybe that will change over time.

Dragons, Go, and the new Tic Tac Toe

As a game designer, I strive in most of my efforts to adhere to this two part philosophy: Simplicity of Play and Depth of Strategy. This two-part maxim serves as a balancing force in my games. The easiest means of increasing Depth is to bloat the game: add more rules, more choices, more math, more... whatever. The easiest means of simplifying play is to make things arbitrary (either by lessing the consequences of choices, or by increasing Chance as a game mechanic).

Now, I try to pay due respect to those games that have lasted for a long time. I think longevity is one of the best benchmarks of how good a game is (regardless of how you define "good"). If people keep playing, you've done your job right.

Having said that, I have to say that I don't like Tic Tac Toe. Sure, it's been around for a very long time, but there is something unsatisfying about it. It certainly appeals to the principle of Simplicity, but it lacks any real Depth. The fact is, there is a means of mastering the game. When two "masters" play eachother, it is impossible for the one who plays first to lose. The fact of the matter is that the game is only satisfying for those who do not fully understand it.

For this reason, Tic Tac Toe is relegated to the realm of "children's games." There is nothing wrong with that, to be sure. But, the ease of play was very appealing to me. All you need to play is a paper, a pencil, and the most basic of fine motor skills. It's "a thing to do" when you're waiting, or bored. It's simple to pick up and the games are short.

So, I decided to craft a game that would maintain the positives of Tic Tac Toe, while attempting to address it's major short fall. Here's what I came up with:

Dragons

Players: 2

Objective: Make the biggest chains (dragons).

Instructions:

Draw a 6x6 grid (count boxes, not lines).

Each player is assigned 2 symbols. (I prefer player 1 to have A and B, player 2 Y and Z)

Players alternate turns. On each turn the player must fill one box with each of their symbols. Play ends when all boxes are filled. Like symbols that directly connect (i.e. NOT diagonally), are considered linked up (forming a dragon). A dragon can be any shape (you do not have to be able to make a circuit out of it. Touching means connection, period.)

Scoring:

Determine the longest dragon for each symbol; all other boxes are ignored for scoring. Players are awarded one point for each link in his/her longest dragons. The player with the most points wins.

So... The wording above is maybe more convoluted than I'd like. Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that everyone seems to get after their first game. All the same, I'm pleased with how it plays. It was inspired in some part by Go, as it uses the same rules of connectivity, and the concept of "liberties" can be valuable in this game as well. In fact, "dragon" is a term for a very long group in Go, hence the name of the game.

Maybe I'll whip up a sample game in another post for illustrative purposes, but I am kind of disappointed that the instructions don't seem to quite stand on their own.