Nalpha 2.1, the Learning Curve

This past week I had the privilege to test Nalpha in its current state with two folks who had not yet played it.  One (let's call him Terry) was familiar with DnD as well as MtG.  The other (let's call him Carl) had no experience with RPGs broadly, though he told me he had played MtG years back.

As I have intimated before, I believe Nalpha falls in the gap between traditional pen-and-dice tabletops and TCGs, which was borne out in comments from Terry.  So, it seems that both would have a general sense of game mechanics rather quickly.

What I observed was almost exactly what you'd expect, but I found it fascinating to witness it first hand in such a marked fashion...

Terry picked up the game very quickly.  He understood basic strategy almost right away, and throughout the couse of the campaign he made good choices for himself, as well as being able to counsel Carl well.

Carl, by contrast, had only a faint and distant recollection of TCGs and virtually no RPG experience at all.  His eyes darted from card to card rapidly on his turns, and you could almost feel his struggle to keep tabs on what was going on.  That is not to say that he was learning slowly.  I'd say he was learning at a somewhat typical pace.  It was just more pronounced when compared to someone closer to the target demographic.

All in all, the game went well, and both had a good time (though I dare say Terry had a great time), even though we lost.  I learned a few things about the campaign (it's farther behind in development than the Player Character core of the game) that will make the next edition a little better.

The biggest take away for me was that I think the game does what I want it to for the target audience.  It was more-or-less intuitive once some basic rules were established.   The bulk of game time was spent playing, not explaining.  To me, that marks an elegant system and ups the fun-factor significantly.

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).

The Learning Curve

This week I had the privilege of demo-ing my card game with a friend of mine I only see occassionally.  After the game I thanked him for testing for me and his response was this: "No problem.  I think I make a good tester because I am a slow learner."

I thought his comment was at once endearing (there was no hint of false modesty in his face or voice) and instructive to me.  He had fun playing... not merely because the game ran well but because, by his estimation, he understood the game well by the second or third turn.

I took this to be a good sign for a game that is meant to be light-weight and casual.  What I thought was even better was watching over the course of four games or so, he made consistently better plays.  His skill level increased as his experience increased.

There is, I think, a fairly low ceiling for how good you can get at the game.  It doesn't offer the strategic depth of something like Magic: the Gathering or interpersonal skills like Poker.  But there are choices and in most cases there are poor, fair, and good decisions that can be made.

I think that's the strength of my card game (I can't go into much by way of specifics if I hope to get published), but the gist is that the rules are minimal but comprehensive and the cards are fairly easily understood.  You can know everything there is to know in just a couple minutes.  But there is a "feel" to the game, a heirarchy of decision making that comes with experience.  Anyone who has played two games is unlikely to spend more than a minute on even the most labored turn, because cards are easily and situationally prioritized.

I've been told that my game lacks a "ground-breaking inventive mechanic."  I think that's true, but I'm going to continue to pursue publication for a while anyways because I believe it is worth it.  It's novel.  It's a joy to play.  It's a good product.

Hmm... I meant to spend more time talking about the role of "learning" a game than I actually did.  Perhaps I'll tie-in to this in a separate post later.