Chance & Choice (GDJ 4)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

Today's post looks at the two main elements of games: luck and strategy, or (enjoying alliteration) chance and choice. 

All games use some mixture of chance and choice to resolve the uncertain outcome inherent in them.

All games have what experts call 'uncertain outcome'- you don't know who will win when the game begins.  If you do- if the outcome is a 100% foregone conclusion- why play?

Players resolve a game's uncertain outcome by some combination of chance and choice. 
- Chance is something outside a player's control.  Common examples include rolling die, drawing a card from a shuffled deck, or even the actions of other players in the contest.  You do not know, and cannot predict, how a specific event will go during the contest until it occurs.
- Choice is something the player controls.  Common examples are choosing which piece to move in chess, deciding which card to play in Magic, or where to place a tile in Carcassonne.  To be a true choice, it must be meaningful.  This means two things:
1) it must make a difference in the game's outcome (choosing what color to be at game's start has no bearing on who wins)
2) it must be one of several viable options positioning the player win the game.  If one choice is always, and clearly, the best way to go, the player has no real choice- they take that path or lose.

Chance and choice are not an 'either/or'- a game can have much chance and much choice, all chance and no choice, or all choice and very little chance.*  Some examples; these are games with:
-much choice and little chance: Chess, Barony
-much chance and little choice: Chutes & Ladders, Sorry!
-lots of both: Magic, Isle of Skye

Note that high chance/low choice games are often (but not always) children's games.

I used to think minimizing chance was the goal of a game designer; I've since come to see the value of chance elements.  As noted in Characteristic of Games, chance increases the player pool (because it gives less experienced players a shot to win otherwise gained only by mastery), increases variety (you don't know what will happen), and increases suspense.  Of course, it's a balance; if there's too much chance and too little choice, what's the point of the game, and how can the winner claim achievement?  If there's too much choice and too little chance, will you find players willing to invest the time necessary to master the game?  This is a key area for the game designer- find the right balance.

Personally, I want to make a game heavy on both chance and choice.  Meaningful choices are so important, but I want chance, too.  Why? 
- Because life is like that.  You can make all the smart choices you like; you're still subject to the same 'chance' elements we all are, and learning how to react to life's surprises is a necessary skill to grow.  I want to capture that in a game, and the way to do it is through chance elements.  Star Wars Miniatures is a good example of this- you maximize your probability of a successful attack through smart character placement, but executing the attack requires rolling a d20.  The rules are such that any attack always has a 5% chance of success (that ewok will occasionally hurt Darth Vader), and 5% chance of failure (Vader won't always hit).  And related to this,
- Chance injects suspense and fun.  I recall many gaming sessions where it came down to a high-probability strike going awry; though exasperating, it's also exhilarating.  Games with little chance often lack the same waves of emotion.
- Chance elements help keep the game relevant for all players until the end.  Even if you're behind early on, some 'good luck' can keep you in the mix.

How about you- do you like chance or choice?

*all games have some chance, as I've defined it.  Player B's actions, from player A's perspective, are an element of chance, as they cannot be predicted.

World Cup Blues

That thud you heard was the German national team crashing out of the World Cup.  Winners in 2014 and favorites to repeat, "die Mannschaft" couldn't even escape their group, falling to a 1-0-2 record after a shock 2-0 loss to South Korea.  Even their lone victory (2-1 over Sweden) was by the skin of their teeth, and arguably a gift, as the last goal came late in overage time.  In their opener (a 1-0 loss to Mexico), they looked lethargic and apathetic.  Oi.

I started following the German team marginally in 2008 (during the Euro Cup), but in earnest in 2010 (World Cup).  I was smitten by their team-first, pass-happy style.  I love watching those crisp, accurate passes in quick succession (early in the Sweden game, they had passed 122 times . . . to Sweden's 6).  Though they consistently dominate possession, the Germans failed to find the net in two of their three games this time around.  Oh well.  It's a good reminder that the best team on paper means nothing; it must be earned.

Here is a link to the Bundesliga (German national soccer league) World Cup commentary.  The starting 11 for each game is shown below.  The lineup variation attests both to Germany's depth and their coach's exasperation in getting it all to 'click.'  Some amazing players (like 2014 heroes Andre Schurrle and Mario Gotze) were even left off the squad due to the level of competition.  But it was all for naught.  Though their 2018 experience was brief, and performance poor, I still enjoy watching them- especially Mats Hummels, my favorite defender.  Ultimately, the real shame (for me) is that this team isn't getting any younger, and with this world stage offered only every four years, it may be the last time many of them play to this audience.  But still, maybe next time, Deutschland.  Maybe next time.

Characteristics of Games (Elias et al)

Characteristics of Games is a college textbook by Richard Garfield (of Magic: the Gathering and King of Tokyo fame) and others.  Their goal is to look critically at and talk intelligently about games, investigating their 'guts' and giving the reader a vocabulary to articulate common characteristics.  It is "a framework for game analysis from the point of view of a game designer," looking at both systemic (rules-based) and agential (player-based) concepts.  Below is a summary, using their framework.

Summary

Basics include length of playtime, number of players, and units of gameplay length (from smallest unit of play [like a round] to a campaign [multiple games]).  Also important are heuristics- "rules of thumb that help [people] play a game," gaining mastery over time.  "For players to have fun, they need to have heuristics.  Human beings need to know if they are winning or losing, and they need to know what they want to do next."  But beware- if a player can determine heuristics perfectly, it means the game will be 'solved' ("always do X when Y occurs," etc.).  So maintaining some element of uncertainty in outcome is important (indeed, "uncertainty in outcome is at the heart of games").

Multiplayer Games have unique characteristics that can effectively change the way a game is played, to include:
- player elimination (allow early player exits or give everyone a chance to win until the end?)
- interactivity ("it's good for players to influence each other, because it makes the game more interesting.")
- politics (the ability of one or more players to 'gang up' and target another to affect the outcome; in some cases, you can think of this as a voting game, where players 'elect' the winner through their targeting choices)
- kingmaking (a person who cannot win deciding who will)
- teamwork (unique or balanced roles?  Either way, players must contribute)

Infrastructure are those basic systemic elements.  They include:
- Rules ("instructions telling players what actions they can take," with associated outcomes)
- Standards ("commonly accepted patterns many players are already familiar with")
- Outcomes (unique winner or ranking systems, etc.- what is the goal?)
- Ending Conditions (either by meeting a victory condition or being ahead when the end condition occurs)
- Positional Asymmetry (one player starting first, or has different courses of action available, etc.)
- Sensory Feedback (like visual, tactile, and audio information)

Games as Systems looks at how games break down into simpler elements.  Discussed:
- Abstract Subgames ("Games are often disguised versions of other games, or have other simpler games within them.")
- Snowball and Catch-Up (will a person in the lead tend to increase their lead or be challenged until the end?)
- Complexity Tree Growth and Game Arc (a game is a series of meaningful choices, so how many choices does a player have at the beginning/middle/end of a game?)
- Game Balance and Strategic Collapse (if one option in the complexity tree is better, people will always use it and the game will have no real strategy)

Indeterminacy plays a role in all games, to some degree.
- Randomness is "uncertainty in outcome," which is differently defined than "random elements" like dice rolls.  Randomness gets a bad rap by some, but games that lack luck "means that the only way to win is by devoting a great deal of effort to the game" to become an expert.  It has to be properly balanced; if it's too extreme, "players feel their choices don't matter" and it's harder to learn a game's heuristics.  But it can be good and grant increased competition, variety in gameplay (among other things, "luck causes odd situations to come up during the course of a game"), and psychological interest.
- Luck and Skill ("Luck decreases, not skill, but the returns to skill").  These two are orthogonal, meaning games can have large (or small) amounts of both.
- Hidden Information ("things about the game state not known to all players")

Player Effort is important to consider.  Things like:
- Costs (what does it take in money/time/space/effort/etc. to play, and is that worth it to participants)
- Rewards (includes things like joy from winning, satisfaction from playing well, enjoyment of challenge, escapism, social interaction, etc.)
- Downtime (how much do players have, and when, during the game?)
- Busywork ("rote activities that the player must perform, which are not part of what they would consider the fun of the game.")
- Reward/Effort Ratio (get it right or players won't play)

Superstructure includes things "outside" the game, like:
- Metagame (the "game outside the game," like learning to build a good Magic deck or studying what local players typically do)
- Conceit/Motif (the extended metaphor of the game- the theme, in a sense.  This includes story and narrative).  A game can be purely abstract all the way up to a full simulation.  Each point on the range has different pros and cons- full simulations are rarely fast (or easy), but simplified models may dissatisfy some)
- Spectation (how enjoyable a game is to watch)
- Customization (like house rules, handicaps, or building a Magic deck)
- Play lifetime (is the game content exhaustible?)

Review
This is a good book that brings up a lot of points to ponder on games, both for potential designers and serious fans of the hobby.  It helped me quantify and articulate why I like certain games (or elements of them)- very valuable as I continue on my quest to design one myself.  It's not always written well, and some definitions caught me off-guard (I questioned the authors' use of certain terms), but it's a valuable contribution to the field.

Rating: A

Barony

Today's review is of the 2015 release, Barony.  For 2-4 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
Your goal is to dominate the land and be crowned king.  You'll start by placing 3 cities and 3 knights on the board (a modular hex grid of varying terrain).

One game at start; image from here

On your turn, you'll take only one of the following six actions (simplified for brevity):
- move 2 knights; if you end up dominating an opponent, you could destroy their knight or village (and may be able to take a terrain tile).  Movement can be restricted based on terrain and opponent presence.
- place 2 knights from your reserve in one of your cities (3 if the city borders a lake)
- place 1 knight from your reserve on a border hex and permanently discard another knight from your reserve (so it can't be used the rest of the game
- turn any eligible knights into villages or strongholds, obtaining one terrain tile for each
- turn an eligible village into a city (and gain 10 points on the victory board)
- cash in 15 points of terrain tiles to advance to the next level on the victory board

game in progress; image from here

Once a player has advanced to the last rank on the victory board, the game ends once all have played an equal number of turns.

Review
I like this game.  It's simple to learn, but has depth.  The modular board creates high replayability, and the choice of actions provides meaningful decisions each turn.  You're limited in quantity of cities and strongholds (and knights), so they must be played carefully.  There's no luck, which some will enjoy.  The only ding (and reviewer Tom Vasel nailed this) is the combat system.  If you move two knights into an opponent's space,where they have only one village or knight, that unit is defeated and removed.  Since knights can't move more than one hex per turn, that means an opponent can get the jump on you without any way of reacting (if you're far from your knights, or a city where you could place knights).  You can see it coming but be powerless.  That's a minor annoyance, but good planning minimizes that risk.  Overall, I recommend this one.

Rating: A-

Races & Brawls (GDJ 3)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

I've lost some momentum in game design and thinking through its major components; let's make up some ground.  Today's post looks at the two main types of games.  I start with the hypothesis:

All games can be considered races or brawls.*

A race is about being first in a group to complete a challenge.  That challenge could be amassing a certain number of points, traveling a specified distance, building a civilization, etc.  In each case, a group of people are engaged in the same activity, using shared or separate resources to complete their goals.  Think "speed."

A brawl, on the other hand, is about eliminating competition- being the last man standing.  Think "strength."

These definitions are simplistic, but you see the difference in focus.  Incidentally, most so-called "eurogames" are races, where efficiency is rewarded, and many "American games" are brawls, focused on hurting your opponent.**
Some examples:

Brawl	Race
Bang! The Dice Game	Clank!
Chess	Ethnos
Magic: The Gathering	Isle of Skye
Risk	Pandemic
Star Wars Miniatures	Ticket to Ride

Of course, games can have both- Isle of Skye is a race (most points wins) with brawl elements (you can affect your opponents in negative ways), and Magic the Gathering is a brawl (get your opponent to zero life) with race elements (before he does it to you)- but generally speaking, games fall into one or the other category.

Thinking of games at this level helps the game designer.  What do I want to make?  A race or a brawl?  Both are fun, and both have challenges.  Races need a well-defined end state ("first to 10 points," "most points after five rounds," etc.), and the game play changes considerably based on that.  Most people are in races until the end, and even if they know they can't win, will want to do as well as possible.  In multiplayer brawls, on the other hand, some (or many) players are knocked out early and may have to wait a long time until the game ends.  There can be more political factors in brawls, like ganging up on the leader, which changes how people play the game ("I'll lay low early on so nobody targets me").  There are pros and cons in either type of game, but the designer must be cognizant of them.


*I'm indebted to Richard Garfield and others for these concepts and terms, as presented in his excellent Characteristics of Games (review forthcoming).

**There are interesting cultural insights here.

Entanglion

Today's review is of the new (2017?) release, Entanglion.  A cooperative game for 2 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
A game designed for educational purposes by a team at IBM, Entanglion is "the world's first open source quantum board game."  The goal is to travel the galaxy with your colleague, collecting components to assemble a quantum computer.  To do so, you must journey to different worlds and overcome layers of defense to get what you need.  Journeying requires being in lock-step with your partner (determined by card draws and dice rolls), as you both emulate qubits.  If you collectively gather all eight components of the computer before you're detected too frequently, you win!

game board; image from here

Review
From the designer, "Entanglion was designed at IBM Research to expose players to several fundamental concepts in quantum computing, including qubits, superposition, entanglement, measurement, and error. Entanglion also exposes players to the different kinds of hardware and software components involved in building a real quantum computer."  In that, it is successful.  It's fun for an educational game, and shows how valuable games can be in education.  I wouldn't play it frequently, but recommend it for those who enjoy games and are interested in quantum computing.

Rating: B

Perudo

Today's review is of the old-world release,* Perudo (a variant of Liar's Dice).  For 2-6 players, it takes 15-30 minutes.

Overview
Each player starts with 5 dice in a cup, and rolls them by overturning the cup on a table.  Each then looks at their dice, keeping them secret.  Play proceeds clockwise, with each player guessing how many total (among all players) of a given number of dice there are.  You must increment in number of dice or number on the dice; ones are wild and count for anything.  If a player questions the previous player's claim, they shout "Perudo!" and the dice are revealed.  If the claim is correct, the player who questioned it loses a die; if the claim is wrong, the player making that claim loses one.  Example round in a 4-player game:

Player 1: "there are three 5s"
Player 2: "there are four 5s"
Player 3: "there are five 2s"
Player 4: "there are five 5s"
Player 1: "there are seven 5s"
Player 2: "Perudo!"
[all player's reveal their dice; there are collectively five 5s and three 1s, making for eight 5s total.  That's more than seven, so Player 2 was wrong; they lose one dice and the next round begins]

Play continues until all players are out of dice.

game contents; image from here

Review
The game is simple, fast, and enjoyable.  It's a bluffing/hidden knowledge game that gets increasingly difficult for players as they lose die (because they know less of the overall state- if one player still has all 5 dice and each other is down to 1, the player with 5 clearly knows more overall about the game state and is better postured to guess correctly or call bluffs). There is a mild degree of strategy (you quickly learn to bid high enough to give the next player a hard choice), but of course features a heavy luck component (which is no bad thing).

Rating: A-

*rumored to have been shown to Pizarro in 1532

Pandemic: Iberia

Today's review is of the 2016 release, Pandemic: Iberia.  For 2-5 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
The goal and mechanics of Pandemic: Iberia are virtually identical to Pandemic.  It's a cooperative game, where your team needs to cure four diseases before they dominate.  Each player gets four actions on their turn (from a list of heal, cure, move, trade, build), each player has a unique role granting a special ability, etc.  The differences:
- Iberia is set in 1848, on the Iberian peninsula
- Iberia has different roles, producing different abilities/mechanics

game components; image from here

Review
If you like Pandemic, you'll like this.  The designers did a good job introducing twists to a familiar baseline.  I've played this only once, and Pandemic dozens of times, and I couldn't tell you which I prefer- they're both enjoyable experiences.  Iberia has a more historical flavor (Pandemic is set in the present), which may give it an edge in some circles, but both are great.

Rating: A

Pandemic

Today's review is of the 2008 release, Pandemic.  For 2-4 players, this cooperative game takes 45 minutes.

Overview
Four viruses have broken out across the world.  You and your team are charged to stop the spread, find cures, and save the world.  Are you up for it?

In Pandemic, each player has a role (like medic, scientist, researcher) granting special abilities, and a hand of cards, each with a city/color on it (or special card).  Random cities (chosen from a separate deck) are given differing numbers of disease cubes to start the game.  The goal is to cure 4 viruses (blue, red, yellow, black), regionally located.  Each player starts the game at a research station in Atlanta.  On your turn, you perform four actions total from the following list (you can do the same action more than once, just keep the total to four):
- move to another city (following game rules)
- build a research station (by being in city [x] and discarding the matching city card)
- remove one disease cube from your current city
- give/take a card from a player in your current city (by being in city [x] and transferring the matching city card)
- cure a disease of color [x] (by discarding 5 cards of [x] color at a city with a research station)
Your special ability helps you with the above- the medic, for example, removes all disease cubes from a city rather than only one.

game components; image from here

At the end of your turn, draw two cards, which are either city or epidemic cards; if the latter, one new city is infected with three disease cubes.  After drawing, two more cities are revealed, which are given one new disease cube each.  If at any point, a city receiving disease cubes already had three, and outbreak is triggered, adding one cube to each adjacent city.

There are multiple ways to lose (hit [x] outbreaks, run out of disease cubes, run out of cards to draw) and only one way to win (cure all 4 diseases).  Will you prevail?

Review
This is a great game- there's a reason it's the third-most reviewed game on boardgamegeek and has spawned multiple variants.  It's challenging (you're going to lose sometimes- no getting around that), full of meaningful choices, and suspenseful.  The different special abilities give each game a new twist.  All in all, highly recommended.

Rating: A

Elements of Style Simplified (Strunk & Campbell)

Last month, I read and reviewed The Elements of Style- a simplified look at essential writing principles by William Strunk.  Virginia Campbell edited Strunk's work, produced a summary of a summary, and called it The Elements of Style: Simplified & Illustrated for Busy People.  The title says it all; no need to elaborate (remember: 'omit needless words'). 

Both this and the original are valuable; I have a mild preference for the earlier work- it's meatier- but this is a good option, too.

Rating: A