Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

O
oliverkinne
October 03, 2023
369 0
O
oliverkinne
October 02, 2023
442 0

Forests of Pangaia Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
September 29, 2023
405 0

Bagh Chal Review

Board Game Reviews
AL
Andi Lennon
September 28, 2023
635 0
T
thegiantbrain
September 27, 2023
374 0
O
oliverkinne
September 26, 2023
464 0
O
oliverkinne
September 25, 2023
666 0

Castle Panic Review

Board Game Reviews
S
Sagrilarus
September 22, 2023
628 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 13, 2023
2077 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 06, 2023
1285 0
T
thegiantbrain
June 29, 2023
1207 0

Cult of the Old - Citadels

Podcasts & Videos
G
GrantLyon
June 26, 2023
1715 0
T
thegiantbrain
June 22, 2023
1115 0

Cult of the Old - Brass

Podcasts & Videos
GS
Gary Sax
June 21, 2023
6434 0
Hot
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

Characteristics of game boards

More
17 Nov 2014 08:08 #269030 by lewpuls
by lewpuls    
November 17, 2014    



...

Sigh.  I screwed up a short time ago and posted a video I'd already posted here, I apologize.  This is the one I meant to do.

Slide text:

Game Design: Discussing “The Board”
Dr. Lewis Pulsipher
Pulsiphergames.com
“Game Design” channel on YouTube


Describing, not Defining
Because as soon as someone says “definition”, someone else will nitpick it
Given the loosey-goosey nature of English, absolutely clear definitions are nearly impossible
So, I’m just going to talk about game boards, not “define”


Why Boards?
A board is a natural way to depict maneuver and geospatial relationships
Which are virtually required for wargames
Cards don’t naturally do this
Yes, you can use a “board” as a status indicator without any reference to spatial relationships
As in some Eurogames
We’re interested in boards as fields for maneuver that depict geospatial relationships

Is there a formula for designing a board?
I’ve seen novice designers ask for a formula, as though everything in game design can be reduced to rote, to always-correct solutions
In short: NO!
Game design is about critical thinking, the opposite of rote learning
But we can see common characteristics in many “classic” game boards
And common ways to make boards

Square Grid
Chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe, Stratego, many others (even the video game Civilization (I through IV, V went to hexes)
Easy to see, easy to make a prototype, easy for players to understand
But movement diagonally is very distorted (1.41 times as far, per square)
Adjacency is a problem: is it four squares adjacent, or eight?
But if you’re depicting walls or a city
 road grid, squares are very useful


Areas (like a map)
Looks most natural of all boards
Diplomacy, Risk, Axis & Allies, Britannia, a great many games that cover a large geographical area
Often used when more than one piece can be in a location (though Diplomacy allows only one per area)
Provides room for “individuality”, avoiding the geometric precision of squares and hexes

Hexagons (“hexes”)
Hex means six Adjacency is clear – six adjacent vice 8
The typical wargame grid
Do hexes put people off?
Not uniform
Looked at one way, there are two ways forward
Look at it 90 degrees from that, there are three ways forward
Less distance distortion than squares (but contrary to popular belief, there IS distortion)
Not good for straight lines (such as walls or city roads)
(Illustration is a hand-drawn prototype board for my game Dragon Rage (1982, 2011)


Connectivity
The illustration (a space empires game prototype) is for outer space, but most are for land areas
Allows easy representation of routes, paths, bridges,  chokepoints, impassable terrain

All grids are ways of showing connectivity
Here’s a connectivity diagram of the FFG Britannia map
The relationships between areas are exactly the same
But notice lines crossing in a few places


Other Grids
Circular (IMM prototype board)
Spiral (Four Elements prototype board)
And many variations
Not always Maneuver . . . Some games only provide for placement, not maneuver, such as Ingenious, my prototype Law & Chaos (Mayfair someday)
These are hex boards, but it’s not always hexes for placement – tic-tac-toe for example
Go, of course, is placement-only, and uses the intersections of a square grid

What do they have in Common?
Number of areas in many classic games doesn’t differ wildly from chess’s 64
When it does, it’s often a hex board
Diplomacy 70-some (IIRC), Risk 42, Britannia 37 +6 seas
This also depends on number of pieces
Tends to be fairly high in games with lots of hexes, such as wargames
Piece count: Diplomacy 34, Risk “a lot”, Britannia about 55


Number of Connections?
If we want to analyze boards further, we’d count number of connections to each area (which I actually did with that space wargame)
Hex board, this is always 6.  Square board, always either 4 or 8, depending on whether diagonals are counted
Examples of Pacific Convoy and DS – number of connections does matter
And we’d relate number of areas and number of connections to typical number of pieces
But you can overthink anything in games.  Try actually playing on a board and you’ll find out a lot, if you pay attention


Think of a board as a connectivity diagram for maneuver (or placement), and go from there to choose the grid that works best for your game.

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

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.712 seconds