× Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Game Design

More
06 May 2018 16:35 - 06 May 2018 16:45 #272739 by xthexlo
Game Design was created by xthexlo
How about a discussion about the elements and philosophies of game design?
The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD, SuperflyTNT, stoic

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 18:00 #272740 by hotseatgames
Replied by hotseatgames on topic Game Design
I'll start. The exploding die is the best mechanic ever.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, ChristopherMD, SuperflyTNT, Frohike, birdman37, the_jake_1973, stoic, xthexlo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 18:14 #272741 by DukeofChutney
Replied by DukeofChutney on topic Game Design

hotseatgames wrote: I'll start. The exploding die is the best mechanic ever.


It taps into that slot machine part of my brain and spews endorphins everywhere. Presumably it skews the odds in the game though, so a good design would have to account for this.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, xthexlo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 18:35 #272742 by xthexlo
Replied by xthexlo on topic Game Design
I've been thinking about how I approach game design and came up with the following influence diagram. The arrows are influence, not causation (i.e., "A->B" means "my belief about B depends on what I know about A" not "A causes B"). Rectangles are things under the designer's controls; ovals are things out of the designer's control; the double rounded-cornered rectangle is the value node (in this case, to be maximized). The red rectangles are interesting in that no other elements influence them. The diagram still needs work, but I wanted to create it as a basis for more clear communication (on my part) when I discuss or write about games. I'm delighted to entertain your thoughts and opinions.

The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD, stoic

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 19:03 #272744 by hotseatgames
Replied by hotseatgames on topic Game Design
Play duration is at least somewhat under the designer's control, isn't it? You test the game, see how long it takes, and hack away / change it until you get the time down to what you want.
The following user(s) said Thank You: xthexlo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 19:29 #272746 by xthexlo
Replied by xthexlo on topic Game Design

hotseatgames wrote: Play duration is at least somewhat under the designer's control, isn't it? You test the game, see how long it takes, and hack away / change it until you get the time down to what you want.

I think that the designer can influence the play duration by streamlining story and reducing complexity, but once it gets out into the wild there is no telling how long a playgroup will take with out.
The following user(s) said Thank You: hotseatgames

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 19:30 #272747 by Erik Twice
Replied by Erik Twice on topic Game Design
Here's something I've thought about lately: There's a lot of unexplored ground when it comes to victory conditions. That is, it's not necessary for games to have a binary win or lose condition, perhaps you can have different kinds of winners and losers and not just based on the amount of victory points they have.

For example, I've been thinking lately about a game set in Feudal Japan which I imagine to be a kind of multiplayer wargame or civ-like. And like all games in the genre it has that flaw where players gang up on someone and it stops being fun or turns into a slugfest or someone is eliminated. And I thought, well, that generally didn't happen, what happened is that the losing clan submitted as a vassal. Why not add that into a game? Winning as a vassal would not be as much of a big victory as winning normally, but it could be fun and worth pursuing on a strategic level.

It could also lead to the creation of two historical scenarios through natural play: The betrayal of Oda Nobunaga by one of his vassals and the East vs West coalitions that clashed in Sekigahara.

Or it would lead to a snowball where players just gang with the leader.

xthexlo wrote: The diagram still needs work, but I wanted to create it as a basis for more clear communication (on my part) when I discuss or write about games. I'm delighted to entertain your thoughts and opinions.

I would say that if you need a diagram to explain yourself, clear communication is no longer a possibility. I think it's always better to try to use a more coloquial, perhaps less precise language than argue about semantics and how things should be defined for eternity.
The following user(s) said Thank You: xthexlo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 19:48 #272748 by xthexlo
Replied by xthexlo on topic Game Design

Erik Twice wrote: Here's something I've thought about lately: There's a lot of unexplored ground when it comes to victory conditions. That is, it's not necessary for games to have a binary win or lose condition, perhaps you can have different kinds of winners and losers and not just based on the amount of victory points they have.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments on this topic.

Erik Twice wrote: I would say that if you need a diagram to explain yourself, clear communication is no longer a possibility. I think it's always better to try to use a more coloquial, perhaps less precise language than argue about semantics and how things should be defined for eternity.

I disagree with your first sentence and agree with your second. I think well-constructed diagrams are exquisitely clear forms of communication. My intent is to use the diagram as an organizational framework, not an explanatory vehicle.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 20:19 #272751 by hotseatgames
Replied by hotseatgames on topic Game Design
Obscuring at least part of the player's progress is the best way (in my opinion) of preventing a gang up on the leader situation; people can only guesstimate who is winning.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 22:23 - 06 May 2018 22:26 #272757 by Sevej
Replied by Sevej on topic Game Design
Recently, the most interesting question I ask about a game to other people, is what kind of decisions are you making and see if that appeals to me.

For example, a lot of figures on a dungeon map is about resource management, with positioning important, but takes a back seat. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (I love Descent), but not what I'm currently looking for in such a game.

I just had a discussion with a friend about the new Battletech pc game. I commented about how multi-targeting attack is basically calculating on how much shot to kill a wounded mech, not to waste the rest of the attack and spend it on another (most of the time healthy) mech. This is *not* the kind of decision making I want. Especially that if you don't kill the wounded mech it would be soooo suck, not worth the success of pulling it off. On paper it looks good, make sense thematically when you are loaded with multiple weapons, but resulting in a boring/awful decision making.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 23:00 - 07 May 2018 01:55 #272760 by Jackwraith
Replied by Jackwraith on topic Game Design
I think that both concepts (obscuring the leader and creating "partial" victory conditions) are actually done pretty well by Alchemists. Since the essence of the game is solving a group of formulae and the actual answers aren't revealed until the game is ending, you're often not entirely sure who is winning, although there are signs based on player actions and the number of publications that occur. Also, it's possible to score points by signing on to others' theories and publications, which is similar to the vassal status that Erik mentioned.

Both of these conditions are created by the fact that the game has a unique set of formulae which are hidden to ALL players. In other words, it's a game of imperfect information for everyone involved; even those who think they have perfect information (i.e. believe that they've solved one of the formulae.) I'm not sure that that's feasible in most strategic wargames, for example.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 May 2018 23:08 #272763 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic Game Design
^that one has been sitting in my wishlist for ages.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 May 2018 04:53 #272770 by Erik Twice
Replied by Erik Twice on topic Game Design

hotseatgames wrote: Obscuring at least part of the player's progress is the best way (in my opinion) of preventing a gang up on the leader situation; people can only guesstimate who is winning.

I don't think hidden scoring prevents ganging on the leader, it just means that instead of attacking the leader you might gang up on another guy.

It's one of the reasons I dislike Smallworld. The game puts you into this position where you have to attack either player A or player B and who you decide to attack will decide the game. Making it hidden doesn't make that choice go away, it just makes it so you have less information to make that choice.

In general, I think "out of sight, out of mind" is terrible advice in game design.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 May 2018 08:26 #272773 by SuperflyTNT
Replied by SuperflyTNT on topic Game Design

xthexlo wrote:

hotseatgames wrote: Play duration is at least somewhat under the designer's control, isn't it? You test the game, see how long it takes, and hack away / change it until you get the time down to what you want.

I think that the designer can influence the play duration by streamlining story and reducing complexity, but once it gets out into the wild there is no telling how long a playgroup will take with out.


Depends. The mechanics ultimately rule the length; if you want a short game, limit turns with arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) timing mechanisms.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 May 2018 11:22 - 07 May 2018 11:22 #272789 by engelstein
Replied by engelstein on topic Game Design
Philosophies of game design - I touched on my views on this briefly over in the Experience topic, but I"ll reiterate it here.

For me, starting with the player Experience in mind, rather than mechanics, usually works best. That gives me a clear vision for what I want the game play to feel like, and is my guiding light in the inevitable dark and tangled forest I end up in later on.

In terms of game duration - that is very much under designer control, although players can lengthen it dramatically beyond what you thought it would be. I've NEVER played a game of The Expanse that was more than 90-120 minutes, even with new players. But then I hear reports of 3-4 hour games, which just shocks me. And it lessens the experience because the game wasn't designed to handle that.

But I often see prototypes, particularly from new designers, where that really isn't considered early on. Particularly because early in the design process you tend to just play partial games, and don't understand the full duration. Developing a play time budget is really important early in the design, and can drive your decisions.

For example, let's say I'm working on a game that I think should last 60-90 minutes with 4 players. Let's say that for the experience you want you think there should be around 15 rounds. That means that each round will need to last 4-6 minutes. With four players, that's 60-90 seconds per player if it's sequential! That's obviously really unlikely to work, even with simple card play mechanics.

So right off the bat you know that either you need to increase the play time expectations, reduce the number of rounds, or design mechanics that will have four players complete everything all of them need to do in four minutes.

No matter which way you go, at least you're doing it with your eyes open.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD, xthexlo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.481 seconds