Replayability (GDJ 6)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

It's been almost six years (!) since my last game design journal post. But my dream of making a game some day remains, and 'never stop starting'. Today's post looks at replayability, with a simple thesis:

A good game has high replayability.

Okay . . . so what is replayability? A starting point: a replayable tabletop game is "a game that is enjoyable even after many plays." What makes a game enjoyable? As I explore here and here, that is based on some mixture of meaningful choices, chance, and challenge. Through that lens, I would define a replayable tabletop game as "a game that consistently presents players of all skill and familiarity levels with an engaging and enjoyable challenge." 

Why does replayability matter? It is perhaps easiest to describe this through looking at the antithesis. A non-replayable game is one easily solved—where there is one obvious path/strategy to victory, and once a player gains enough familiarity with the game, must choose that path/strategy if they care about winning. In short, a non-replayable game does not present a challenge after many plays, leaving players bored and looking for other options.

All games can be solved to some degree (veterans of a game will have an idea of which strategies are more effective), but in good games, the decision tree doesn't narrow much: there is enough 1) balance, 2) variation, and/or 3) skill required in execution that even veterans will have meaningful choices to make and view it as a challenge. I think it comes down to those three factors, which I explore more below.

Balance. By this I mean that the game is fundamentally sound and well-designed; there is no superior strategy built in (knowingly or unwittingly) by the designers that would narrow the decision tree from the outset. If a given strategy is more likely to succeed, it must be harder to implement. A silly example of a perfectly-balanced game: rock-paper-scissors. 

Variation. Many games use variation to boost replayability. Here are a few ways designers do this:

- modular boards (changing game board itself)

- unique player abilities (by being assigned a character, for example)

- different win conditions or objectives, randomly chosen before each game

- different ways to earn points

- common chance elements (shuffling decks, rolling dice)

- introducing expansions to add elements (and, in cases of Collectible Card Games, rotating older expansions out of legality, forcing players to use new cards)

Skill in execution. Think chess. There is no variation in setup or chance elements in that game—just pure skill. And it has remained a popular tabletop game for centuries. Just because you know how the pieces move doesn't mean you can play well . . . every board state requires a tremendous degree of analysis. You could argue that this is a subset of the variation category . . . but I think it merits separate contemplation, as the variation is caused solely by the movements each participant chooses.

Are there any other categories to consider for replayability?

If you love games, think about which ones have proven replayable for you and why. Or which ones have been 'solved' and left untouched as a result.

Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design (Engelstein & Shalev)

In any mature industry, there is a shared language: terminology, categories, and other things that have developed over the years to give participants a way to explain their designs, ideas, and thoughts. The tabletop game industry, though, lacks this language. There are informal terms in pockets, but nothing universal. 

In Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design, authors Geoffrey Engelstein and Isaac Shalev aim to provide both "a stepping-stone to building a common vocabulary [and body of knowledge] among game designers" and "a compendium of game mechanisms, grouped together thematically, that map the territory of modern gaming." This is not a 'how to' on game design; rather, they've "chosen to look at the building blocks of games themselves: the mechanisms [or mechanics]." So think of this "not [as] a recipe book but rather a catalog of ingredients and how they can enrich a dish." 

Across 13 major sections, they look at 203 different mechanisms, attributes, or facets of game design. (In a given section, the different mechanisms might be variations of each other.) Each mechanism has a description, discussion (including the possibilities and potential pitfalls), and sample games. This list, as the authors state, is not comprehensive: they recognize that they cannot hit on every single thing out there, but try to focus on some basic elements to help both beginner and designer alike. In addition, it can be hard to cleanly delineate between some mechanisms—some things could fall into multiple categories—so they do their best and mention related or alternative groupings.

The sections:

- Game Structure

- Turn Order and Structure

- Actions

- Resolution

- Game End and Victory

- Uncertainty

- Economics

- Auctions

- Worker Placement

- Movement

- Area Control

- Set Collection

- Card Mechanisms

They reference a whopping 838 sample games total, giving readers plenty of ideas for games to try or examine to learn more about a given mechanic. 

-------------

I got this book to help my goal of designing a board game one day. I intended to use it as a reference only, but was unexpectedly engrossed and ended up reading it straight through. (Well, I read each section introduction and mechanism description, and read or skimmed the mechanism discussions as suited my fancy.) 

This is a wonderful book; I really enjoyed it. It covered mechanics I knew, ones/variations I didn't, and gave me plenty of ideas for both mechanics to think about and games to try. I will say, though, that my enjoyment is due in part to having played and reviewed a lot of games. Of the 838 games the authors mention, I've played ~80 of them (and, to date, I've reviewed 188 games on this blog). So if you are already familiar with tabletop games, I think this is a fantastic resource. If you are brand new, you will likely be overwhelmed.

Rating: A

Balance & Duration (GDJ 5)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

It's been over two years since my last game design journal post. But don't mistake the gap for inactivity . . . games are often on the mind (maybe too often), and my children are starting to get ideas of their own. Today's post is inspired by my kids and looks at balance and duration.

To be successful, games must have appropriately-balanced elements and be of appropriate duration.

Appropriately-balanced elements comes down to meaningful choice- a key element in engaging games. If a game enables choice at the beginning- and I think of collectible games in particular, like Magic or Star Wars Miniatures- those choices must be balanced such that they are meaningful. The powerful cards and miniatures must cost more or have a notable weakness; otherwise, all players will always choose certain elements and neglect the others, leading to boring and predictable outcomes.  Let's look at an example.

My children recently designed "Lego Miniatures," a close derivative of Star Wars Miniatures (if you know that game, you'll instantly understand ours). We used Lego minifigures of Star Wars, Marvel, and other licensed characters and had them fight an epic battle on a Star Wars Miniatures game board. My son designed stat cards for each character and asked me to do the same. I did so while unaware of his choices.  Here are some examples:

My son's characters (top row) had tremendously more Hit Points (HP) than mine, meaning his could take many more hits before dying. My characters had slightly higher defense, making them harder to hit, but it wasn't enough to create balance- his characters were clearly superior. If this were a published game, nobody would want to play with my figures.  In addition, he included no 'cost' on his minifigures- instead, he wanted us to play with an equal number of characters- so you couldn't address the balance through costing more powerful figures accordingly. Whenever a game involves such choices, balanced options- each with their own pros and cons- are key.

Games must also be of appropriate duration (read: keep it short).  There was a time in my life when a 8-hour game was possible- even desirable- but those days are long gone. There is a niche market for such contests, but by and large, most games are much shorter. We have limited attention spans, busy schedules, and many demands.  Lego Miniatures failed on that front as well.

The above photo shows the game in progress, largely towards the start (though some characters have already been eliminated). Since my son didn't cost his characters (Star Wars Miniatures games feature squads of an agreed-upon cost, like 150 points), they're not just overpowered- they're way too numerous for this to be a fast conflict. In fact, it lasted the better part of a week.  We'd play for a time each evening until I couldn't take it anymore.  Each round could last an hour as each character activated, moved, and attacked. The large number of characters plus high Hit Points was a disastrous combination for anyone preferring brevity. Long before the end of the game, I just didn't care anymore- though the cross-license character interactions were bizarre enough to hold some interest.

My kids did not mind this game's length- in fact, they excitedly demanded to play again immediately when the first was over- but any reasonable human with a job and/or even mild responsibilities would find this unbearable.  Not all good games need be played in one hour, but not many successful games take eighteen.

Balance and duration are two important elements in game design; do the former well (this is often identified only through extensive play-testing) and be transparent about the latter (which is why most games list expected duration on the front of the box).

The White Box Essays (Jeremy Holcomb)

The White Box Essays is a 200-page book included in The White Box, a box full of generic components to enable users to design their own game.  The Essays (25 of them) cover a wide swath of ground, including game mechanics, writing rules, the bits you use, how to playtest, and how to promote your game before (and after) publishing.

I didn't expect much from this, but was pleasantly surprised.  It's not my favorite book on gaming, but it had more good tips (and realism) than I expected.  For example, one chapter walks through an actual game contract the author had signed, explaining each component of it and why it's necessary (or optional).  Another chapter looks at how much you actually get per board game sold (spoiler: next to nothing) due to publishing, distribution, and marketing costs.  Another discusses the pros and cons of crowdfunding your game (like on kickstarter).  The value was more in publishing-related matters (over half the book) than in game design (just a few chapters at the start).  The author is what I would consider a mildly successful game designer (his greatest hit is The Duke), which I appreciated- this wasn't some megastar writing a "you can make millions too" book.  Overall, if you're going to design a game and want to get it published, I'd read this.

Rating: B

Game Design (Greg Austic)

Game Design is a 30-page book geared towards teens.  Author Greg Austic defines games, discusses their value, and talks about elementary principles of game design.

Austic defines games by their elements, arguing that they all have rules, outcomes, and conditions for winning (or at least two of these three).  For the designer, he suggests playing lots of games and thinking critically about them (why are they fun- or not?), learning to love criticism and embrace failure as necessary steps, and keeping a journal to record impromptu ideas.

When ready to design your game, he suggests finding inspiration by:
- searching the Internet for ten examples of things you think look cool
- making a list of ten stories that invoke strong emotions in you (any emotion)
- writing down ten of your favorite games
When complete, choose one item from each group and contemplate making a game by combining them in some way.  Mix and match until you find one that's suitable, then refine your idea through prototypes and testing.

Game Design isn't a great book. It's far too short to meaningfully explore game design- even for teens- and the author is clearly not as experienced as others in this field.  But his suggestion for inspiration- especially making a list of stories- I found helpful.  That aside, you can skip this one.

Rating: C

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.

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

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.

What is a Game? (GDJ 2)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

Last month, I made the first post in my "Game Design Journal" (GDJ) series, there looking at why we play games.  Foolishly, I forgot to define the term.  Key to common understanding is commonly held definitions.  To that end . . .

What is a game?

What seems a simple question quickly becomes fascinatingly (and maddeningly) difficult.  Quick survey:

-------------------
Webster's says an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" or "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other."

Dictionary.com offers "a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators."

In Game Design Workshop, Tracy Fullerton argues that "a game is a closed, formal system that engages players in structured conflict and resolves its uncertainty in an unequal outcome."  In the same book, Chris Crawford says "games are rule-based systems in which the goal is for one player to win."  He contrasts that to puzzles, where the "goal is to find a solution."

Richard Garfield, creator of King of Tokyo and Magic: the Gathering, refuses to even define the term, and claims that "there are no precise definitions of complex concepts like 'games'," because no definition can include all possibilities.
-------------------

I understand Garfield's point; I can think of games whose characteristics preclude them from the above definitions.  So where do we stand?

I think I can combine the definitions to produce something sufficient for our purposes; to me,

A game is a competitive activity whereby participants engage a closed, formal system to overcome a challenge using skill and/or luck.

Let's unpack some of the terms:

• competitive: players compete either against each other or the game itself [as in cooperative or solitaire games]
• closed: the game is separate from the real world, enabling players to do things in the game that may be discouraged or forbidden in real life
• formal: the game has a set of rules that give structure to the closed system and define the possibilities and limitations, defining/bounding/restricting means to overcome the challenge presented
• overcome a challenge: the game presents a goal of some sort (most points, first to finish, etc.), and (this is key) and has uncertain outcome (at the start)- you don't know who will win before the game starts
• skill and/or luck: all games feature some mix of these elements; GDJ 3 will explore this

My definition is likely imperfect and incomplete, but it's a start.  It's also a handy exercise to help us appreciate just how difficult defining even basic terms can be.

What do you think?

Why do we play? (GDJ 1)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

Welcome to a new series of posts, which I dub "Game Design Journal" (GDJ) entries.

One of my 2018 resolutions is to design a board game; to that end, I've been keeping a journal in which I jot ideas as they come to me on this topic.  In addition to game mechanics, themes, and the like, I'm thinking through the overall theory of games; hence today's post.  Expect these to be largely stream-of-consciousness, which is not my preferred style but appropriate for brainstorming.

Let's start at the beginning.  Why do we play games?

We've been playing games since antiquity, as Tristan Donovan discusses in his recent work.  What about games appeals to us?  Why do we play?  Initial obvious answers include "for fun" or "to kill time," but what is it about games that makes them fun or worthy of killing time?  My first thoughts are that we play:
- to escape: games are an 'alternate world' into which we voluntarily step, granting us an escape from the rigors and difficulties of reality
- to achieve: games give us a sense of accomplishment when we overcome the challenges laid down by the rules
- to compete: a type of achievement, competition gives us the opportunity to sharpen our skills
- to interact: games grant us 'safe' environments to interact with others
- to connect: we meet others with similar interests
- to explore: we may play to explore a map or probe possibilities presented to us by the game mechanics
- to learn: games can be a great vehicle for teaching basic- or advanced- concepts, granting  experiential learning difficult to emulate in lecture
- to be free: freed from 'real world' consequences, we are often encouraged to do things in games that would be silly, discouraged or illegal in real life, making games an environment to truly be free
- to practice: similar to learning, games enable practice of concepts necessary for real-world success.  One example is wargames, practiced for centuries to understand and develop strategy and tactics without loss of life
- to pretend: we step outside our 'day jobs' to take on different roles
- to control: games are closed, finite environments offering a degree of control unparalleled in real life

David Mullich has some interesting thoughts here.

Thinking through why we play helps me understand what I want in a game.  It also made me realize why I don't care about losing; I play to interact with others and explore the possibilities (which is why collectible games are so appealing to me).  Winning is nice but ultimately not my aim.  What about you- why do you play?

Game Design Workshop (Tracy Fullerton)

In Game Design Workshop, Tracy Fullerton wants to "help you become a game designer."  She does so by making you "game literate," which means "understanding how games systems work, analyzing how they make meaning, and using your understanding to create your own game systems."  She explains:

- her playcentric approach to game development (keeping player experience always in view)
- the structure of games, both formal and dramatic elements
- the theory of games as systems, with interacting objects, properties, behaviors, and relationships
- designing games (conceptualizing, prototyping, playtesting)
- testing games for functionality, completeness, balance, fun, and accessibility
- working as a game designer, including understanding the game industry and selling your ideas

Each chapter is filled with useful information and peppered with "designer perspective" asides, where insiders across the industry explain their background and approach to the subject.

Below I summarize the structural elements of games, both formal and dramatic.  Quotes and paraphrases are from the text.

Formal Elements
These "are those elements that form the structure of a game."  They include:

- players: those who voluntarily participate in a temporary world, with specific constraints, to achieve an outcome.  The designer must consider number of, role(s) of, and nature of interaction between players (competitive, cooperative, one vs. many, etc.).

- objective: "what players are trying to accomplish within the rules of the game."  They should be challenging but achievable.  They can be one or many, and be the same for all players or unique.  Obejctives are important because they set the tone and shape dramatic elements.  Some generic objectives: capture, chase, race, alignment (arrangement of components), rescue/escape, forbidden act (example: Operation), construction, exploration, solution, outwit.

- procedures: "the methods of play and the actions that players can take to achieve the game obejctives."  Covers "who does what, where, when, and how."

- rules: "define game objects and define allowable actions by the players."  This includes restricting actions and determining effects/consequences.  Define them in such a way to give players meaningful choices and some degree of control of the gameplay.

- resources: objects with "both utility and scarcity" in the game system.  Managing resources is a key element of gameplay.  Resources can include lives, units, health, currency, actions, power-ups, inventory, and time.

- conflict: this "emerges from the players trying to accomplish the goals of the game within its rules and boundaries."  These are often deliberately inefficient, and "do not allow players to accomplish their goals directly."  Done well, this creates challenge and enjoyment by forcing players to use particular skill(s) "to gain an ultimate sense of achievement."  Three common sources of conflict: obstacles, opponents, and dilemmas.

- boundaries: "what separates the game from everything that is not the game."  It could be physical dimensions or rules that dictate the permissible and forbidden (example: you can't introduce your own money into Monopoly).  But boundaries also separate the game from daily life, meaning you're free to do things in the game that would be socially unacceptable (or worse) outside of the experience.

- outcome: this "must be uncertain to hold the attention of the players."  It's always related to the "player interaction patterns" (competitive, cooperative, etc.) and affected "by the nature of the game objective."

Dramatic Elements
These are "those elements that engage the players emotionally with the game experience and invest them in its outcome."  They include:

- challenge: players want "tasks that are satisfying to complete, that require just the right amount of work to create a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment."  Challenges require skill, have clear goals/feedback, give players influence over uncertain outcomes, and can be so engaging that we lose ourselves in the experience.

- play: this is "freedom or movement within a more rigid structure."  It's where the players have freedom to act within rules, creating "the opportunity for emergent experience and personal expression."  Play is subjective, and people play for different reasons (to compete, explore, achieve, tell stories, build, etc.).

- premise: this "establishes the action of the game within a setting or metaphor."  It's an element of drama used to emotionally engage players.  It's an element of story, and sets time, place, characters, objective, conflict, etc.

- character: "the agents through whose actions a drama is told."  Consider protagonists and antagonists, and (when designing) ask "what do they want, need, hope, and fear?"

- story: like outcomes, stories have uncertain endings.  They should be resolved- in this context, by the player.  Part of story is world building- creating "compelling environments that cannot be fully explored or exhausted within a single work" (think Lord of the Rings).  Stories should follow a dramatic arc, maintaining tension with escalating conflict until story climax/resolution.

Review
This is a good resource.  In particular, her discussion on game structure- formal and dramatic elements- is excellent, which is why I summarize it above.  Though geared towards video games, most chapters are fully relevant to those interested in board game design, and this is a good starting place.  It gave me the vocabulary and understanding necessary to intelligently approach my own goal (designing a board game in 2018).

Rating: A

The Kobold Guide to Board Game Design (Various)

In The Kobold Guide to Board Game Design, various industry insiders (including Richard Garfield, Steve Jackson, and others) present a series of essays on various game topics, grouped into four sections: concepting, design, development, and presentation.  A wide range of topics is presented, including things like how to get your game published.  Below are some thoughts I found valuable and worthy of presentation.

What is a game?
"A game is an interactive mathematical system, made concrete, used to tell a story."  In this definition,
interactive mathematical system = rules
made concrete = components
story = theme

Reasons for playing games
Broadly speaking, we play games for socialization, the challenge, and as a hobby.  Additionally, we want to be part of a story- participating in what happens, even if we aren't victorious.

Characteristics of games
Games should be or have:

• fun
• Part of this is having (and understanding) options without knowing for certain the correct solution.
• a compelling theme
• You should want to play.
• immersive
• Players are participating in a story and should feel as such.
• well-paced
• Using the story analogy, a game should have three acts and be paced appropriately:
• The first act draws the battle lines.
• The second is the meat of the game.
• don't kick a player out before the game is over, and don't overly reward the leader.  If players have certainty of defeat, the fun is diminished.
• The third is the push for victory.
• include 'inherent deceleration'- make it harder to win as the finish line approaches.
• intuitive
• Metaphor (theme) and mechanics (rules) should be present and harmonious.
• After all, a game without mechanics is a story or thought experiment.  A game without a metaphor is a math problem or puzzle
• interactive
• Players should be have some degree of influence in others' activity (but not too much)
• simple
• Which includes being easy to learn and quick to set up (called "immediacy of play").
• strategy
• Making meaningful decisions, potentially given limited information
• You want to have interesting decisions.  Ones that are easy to make, but not with obvious solutions.  (You can do this using randomizers like dice rolls.)
• luck
• Something beyond anyone's control, giving everyone a chance regardless of good (or bad) decisions.  This also mimicks the unpredictable reality of life, granting an element of the unknown that is both mystifying, maddening, and satisfying.
• replayable
• Even if you're quite skilled (which allows you to know the correct choice in a given situation), provide many paths to/strategies for victory.

Writing good rules
Rules are extremely important- and layout of the rule book is, too.  Michelle Nephew recommends the following layout:
Overview, Components, Setup, Gameplay, Card types (if applicable), Endgame or winning condition, Examples/hints/optional rules & variants, Glossary, Credits

General tips on designing and publishing
If you want to design a game, play lots of them.  The experience will hone your own design abilities and help guide your approach.

If you want to publish a game, you must be prepared for every aspect.  Make the prototype professional (without going overboard- it will get changed as part of the development process).  You should playtest MANY times in different audiences.  The rules need to be solid.  You should know your game, know your audience, know what publishers to approach, understand the publishing process, and more.  You should understand that it is not just your game- you will require a team of diverse perspectives to bring out its full potential.


Review
This book is a mixed bag.  There's a lot of good information in it, and I particularly enjoyed the discussion on strategy vs. luck.  On the downside, some of information presented is obvious.  The writing varies and is generally sub-par.  The book could be condensed to an essay (like I summarize above) without loss of content.  It's a quick read, so it's not bad . . . but I suspect (or hope?) there are better out there.

Rating: B-