|
[Game Design Essentials returns with an extensive review of some of the most interesting non-electronic games, from traditional cultural games like Chess and Go through pen-and-paper role playing titles like Call of Cthulhu, European games like The Settlers of Catan, and much more -- each with a unique design lesson.]
I have a pet peeve when it comes to the fans, press, and developers of video and computer games. It's pedantic, but I don't care. The issue is this: so often they will refer to "gaming" as something that relates to the focus of their hobby alone. When you talk about gaming in such a manner, you are ignoring a rich tradition of culture, commercial games, and even sports, as if they were somehow of no account.
I'm not talking about cases where the meaning is obvious form context; I'm talking about people calling themselves "gamers". Long before Pong, there was a healthy wargaming community. Professional sports has existed for centuries, and Chess has been played for thousands of years. Using the term "game" as if it related only to computer software is gross chauvinism.
A symptom of this chauvinism is that, often, video game designers' influences come from a very small list. It seems almost like most designers have done little with their lives besides play games, read comics, and watch Hollywood movies.
Whether this is true or not, it is true that there is a super-abundance of pop cultural influence on game design. I consider this to be a grievous error, for it means that "hardcore" gaming has become insular.
I am of the opinion, and I think I could back it up if pressed, that the rising popularity of "casual" gaming is actually a rejection of the insular tropes that fuel most big-budget releases. It is a matter of particular concern to me because, back in 1983, I consider that it may have been just such an insularity helped accelerate the Great Video Game Crash and the death of the arcade scene that had chugged along until then for a decade.
Here is a great secret truth about creativity: it doesn't come from thin air. Like Francesco Redi's flies, it cannot arise spontaneously from nothing. To a degree, originality is a sham: all ideas are built out of other ideas. The more you know, the more you can invent. The key is in what you draw from, and how you draw from it.
The best designers, notably Shigeru Miyamoto himself, purposely cultivate outside influences like gardening, and look hard at what they can adapt to the computer game sphere. If movies and comic books are all that you know, then all you will ever create will look like a movie or a comic book. If all you do is play video games, then your game will look just like all the others. This is inescapable.
Previous Game Design Essentials entries have concentrated on the work of developers such as Atari Games or genres like open world games. Our concern this time is the wide field of non-computer gaming! Board games, card games, role-playing games and puzzles. A list of twenty such games each of which a game designer, looking to extend his interests and influences away from the growing wasteland of video gaming culture, can mine for ideas, to spark his ingenuity, to build from and mutate into something new.
Many of the games listed here have undergone extensive playtesting, to put it mildly, between me and a number of friends. Games are made of the players; the decisions made by the participants make each session of a well-designed game unique.
I feel I would be remiss to present this article to you without mentioning them by name and offering them thanks, both for helping me with my research and for putting up with my, at times, obsessive devotion to the letter of the rules. My playtesters were: Bryan Ricks, Larry Trowell, Amy Quirrel, Trevor Carroll, Ray "Tiny" Ginel, Ryan Downie, Matthew Chew, Dr. Julia Griffin, Jarrod Love, Sammiriah Guttmann, and Kati Berhow.
About These Write-ups
The most challenging thing about writing these has been to provide a synopsis of the rules. I have tried to give readers who have never seen a game a basic understanding of what it's like without spilling too many words on the subject. For some games this has maybe been a fool's errand, but I have done as good a job as I can.
In each write-up, some words are in italics. This is generally saved for when important game terms are introduced. If a word is italicized it'll probably come up again, so pay attention. I have refrained from describing terms that are not required to understand a game; this matters a lot in the piece on Contract Bridge, which has a large body of terminology and theory I do not describe. One of the distracting things about learning Bridge is swimming through the language, so this may help you to grasp the game if you have found it daunting before.
Of course, there are far more than 20 games of interest to computer game designers. These are games that are interesting, for one reason or another, but this list doesn't pretend to be definitive. A different article with 20 other games could be just as useful -- and it's a possibility.
|
One of the mantras of Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: The Gathering, is "restrictions breed creativity." Video games have far fewer restrictions than their real-world counterparts, so it's relatively rare to see simple, creative, and elegant solutions.
One thing I believe Mr. Harris missed in his conclusion of Munchkin was the diversity of genres available to players. All the people I've played Munchkin with have thoroughly enjoyed the prospect of playing pirates, spies, cowboys, etc., and even mixing the genres, like playing Munchkin Cthulhu against Supers. If you look into why people stop playing a game they've enjoyed it's often because they get tired of the mono-themed setting. Most people I know who quit World of Warcraft and other similar MMOs say it's because they're sick and tired of fantasy, yet they can't afford to have multiple MMO accounts active all the time just to switch from one genre to another when the mood hits. If someone could come out with a game where genre diversity is available, they'll have a much better game.
Games I would recommend you review for future articles: Revolution, Poker, Illuminati, GURPS (with an emphasis on it's level-less RPG system and genre-crossing game mechanics)
As to the list of games, I thought it was almost completely reasonable. I did have a couple of questions, however. While I was delighted to see Paranoia listed in the (initial?) 20 games, I was surprised that classic D&D didn't make the list as an instructive archetype for roleplaying games. And where was Risk? Otherwise, a good, nicely representative list of non-computer games that designers really ought to try.
I'd also like to nominate the game Pit as a suggestion for any subsequent list. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_(game)) Pit is a good example of a "trading game" where the object is to collect a full set of cards representing specific goods by verbally offering to trade a specific number of cards to some other player (who can't see which goods he's getting). Each type of good has a value, which is awarded to the player when a full set is collected. This makes Pit a fast-paced, noisy game more about tactics (figuring out which goods to try to collect) and responding to the actions of other players than responding to random dice rolls.
Settlers of Cataan is actually, arguably, a boardgame knock-off of M*U*L*E. So where's M*U*L*E?
Missing Dungeons & Dragons. Not that it's such a great game now, but it introduces the key elements of RPGs.
Missing Traveller, the contemporary counterpart to D&D, which introduced many alternate directions in RPG mechanics (most important being skill-based characters, rather than level-based).
Missing Squad Leader, and a host of other wargames.
Well, anyway... Good article.
But I too would call out looking at the 60s-80s era wargames from folks like Avalon Hill and SPI. Even Mayfair started life as a publisher of such titles.
They are especially relevant in that the whole table top RPG scene grew from guys who 'homebrewed' their own characters for squad level wargames, that so much early PC gaming was built around being able to play wargames games solo (SSI and Avalon Hill again), and one could argue many of the wonderful titles from folks like Rio Grande as developments of Avalon Hills own 'social' strategy titles -- the already mentioned Diplomacy and AHs own series of train and sport games. The whole fantasy sports genre comes from stratomatic and other (largely baseball) games of this time which used actual player stats to determine outcomes.
Great article, great list of games and interesting observations. Would love another round from you, Mr. Harris.
Anyway, not to take away at all. Still a great read! Feel like I need to play these games to learn anything properly, though.
I am constantly telling students that they should get out and play more non-digital games. I think there are a lot of good mechanics to be discovered by playing with games from older traditions. Game designers working on a strategy game with an economics system would be smart to play games like Catan and others, for example.
Again, great article.
There were many omissions, not just Diplomacy. I don't write "best 20" articles, my intent is to offer ideas and show how other people have designed games, hopefully providing you with ideas and inspirations. I am thinking about a second set of non-computer games and Diplomacy would definitely be one of the front-runners for that list. Other possible games for a sequel list: Axis & Allies, Risk, Stratego, President/Great Dalmuti, Guillotine, Once Upon A Time, My Life With Master, Agricola, Die Macher (if my SAN hits zero), Race for the Galaxy, Elfenland, Aquire, Munchkin Quest, Squad Leader, Starship Battles, Warhammer 40K, Warhammer Quest, Magic: The Gathering, and many others.
Rick Loomis: I tried to speak from personal experience more than the reputation of each game in this article, and the culture of our gaming group is such that Nuclear War has mostly been fairly boring.
Charles Stuard: Yeah, it was a bit long. Unfortunately the format is such that it has to be 20.
And now, a word for everyone:
I AM GOING TO BE AT DRAGON*CON IN EARLY SEPTEMBER. I am a frequent fixture in the board game room (which is beyond awesome). I will be wearing a brown "Game Face" T-Shirt with an arrow pointing up at least one of the days of the con. If anyone wants to meet me and possibly play a game or two, say to play Puerto Rico or Agricola, or discuss this article or video or traditional games (rumor has it I know a lot about roguelikes), you have but to ask.
D&D would have been an included RPG, but technically I included it in my 20 RPGs article a year or two ago as a "Game Zero." It would be retreading old territory. Traveler would probably make it into a sequel list.
Bart Stewart: Pit I'm actually not familiar with.
Diversity of people does and will continue to spawn diversity of games and thankfully game development is so much more accessible to people from all over the globe compared to say film making that I think there will never be a shortage of diversity of games.
It will be interesting to see as this industry matures over the next 10 years as John Carmack's generation of game developers and studio heads and other veterans begin to use their positions and their networking to fill the upper echelons of the industry with their children. Nepotism and cronyism is standard fair across all industries and businesses. Hate to single out Hollywood again but it's a great example... and it's not just actors, they're only the most visible. The implication here is that diversity suffers and I suppose the stereotype is that you wind up with a generation of people who are even further removed from the real world than their parents ever were.
Again, thankfully game design and development is so much more accessible to unconnected outsiders than other studies or professions. I'm sure it's a completely unfounded concern but it seemed an interesting thought for a few minutes :)
For instance, I completely agree that anyone who can replicate the feel of playing Paranoia will be onto a winner.
Similarly, any game that can produce the strategic depth of Diplomacy will be going a lot further than anything I've seen on computers yet, single or Multiplayer. Part of the problem with this, I think, is that most games give you a better chance of winning through mere battle tactics. The simplicity of Diplomacy's combat make it clear to most players that they can't win with tactics alone.
Another point from board games is how complex and varied seemingly simple games can be. A one piece change to a Go board is likely to affect the entire situation. In Diplomacy moving simultaneous produces immense complexity for players, even when each only has five units on average.
@Bob Dillan
I agree that there is a lot more to video games, but it's rare that there isn't a tabletop (or sport) analogue of most games, and there are similar concerns with the core mechanics to consider. So, for instance, an RTS might look very pretty and provide beautiful smooth pathfinding for units to any pixel selected, but when it comes down to it, for the game to work, it's basically got to produce the tabletop gameplay of "what happens when I move this unit to roughly this position".
Bob Dillan claims that board games and video games aren't analogous, but I like Jonathan Lawn, I think that's missing the point -- game designers could in many cases improve games by looking to board games and implementing a coherent (and comprehensible) set of rules. I'm sure this is largely why Blizzard didn't add cover to Starcraft II -- the game is already far too complex for a human to play perfectly (precisely because simply controlling the thing with a mouse and keyboard in real time is a feat). By keeping it "flat," the logic of the game can be understood, just as with chess.
Board games, in their relative simplicity (and lack of hidden code) and lengthy history, also clarify the advantages and disadvantages of luck, open vs. concealed information, and complexity vs. simplicity in game design.
Correct on both points, although concerning diversity, well, it is important not to discount anyone, either minority or majority, as being irrelevant. Great ideas can come from anyone.'
Bob Dillan: "While other games outside of the gaming industry share some universals they are fundamentally different media, we go to videogames to experience our fantasies and as an escape."
I do not. Since you're attempting to speak to the universal and there is a person who is an exception, I reject your statement. And I have reason to believe that I am not idiosyncratic in this regard. Using video games as fantasy wish-fulfillment is a dead end eventually; for them to not die out, they must progress into becoming more game-like.
And I don't agree that there is a lot more to video games than board games. I think I should know what I'm talking about here, having played hundreds video games and feeling a deepening distaste for the excesses of the field, but I would understand if you didn't just take my word for it.
John Gordon:
Don't keep your mouth shut, tell us how you felt differently! Maybe your arguments will convince me! Already on one or two points, in the time since writing this, I've thought enough about a couple of these games to wish I could have changed something.
You cannot reduce even other board games to dots and boxes. What does a failure to reduce Freespace 2 to that prove?
Among the board games mentioned I tend to think Monopoly and Parcheesi are among the most interesting games mentioned, because they have some of the most universal appeal (especially if you include Parcheesi spinoffs like Aggrevation and Sorry) . Games that are only played by hardcore hobbyists only appeal to a niche group by definition.
Also I found the two tabletop RPGs mentioned to be poorly executed even if they did have original concepts. One of my biggest beefs against Call of Cthulu is that it can take longer to make out a character than to actually play one before he dies (not fun). Overall if I wanted to play a horror RPG I'd go with either D&D's Ravenloft setting or GURPS Horror. Ravenloft is better if you want a more action-adventure type game, while GURPS is better for the more psychological detective type horror game. In GURPS if you badly fail a horror check then you can get new mental disadvantages that you have to roleplay, which I think is better than just generically going insane like in Call of Cthulu.
In Paranoia I've found that my enjoyment depends entirely on the group of players that I'm playing with, and the GM only serves to hinder my enjoyment. I think the game can be improved by removing the GM and streamlining the experience into a board game or something similar. My view is that the GM is really only an asset when you have a cooperative game which is what most other RPGs are.
You're using circular reasoning. Why are they only played by hardcore hobbyists? Is this due to the game, the audience, or the perceptions of the mainstream?
"One of my biggest beefs against Call of Cthulu is that it can take longer to make out a character than to actually play one before he dies (not fun)."
In fact, we've had a Call of Cthulhu session for several months now in which there's only been two player causalities. It's true that I haven't brought out the real player-killer scenarios like Shadows of Yog-Sothoth of Masks of Nyarlathotep, but on the other hand, I find that many published scenarios go out of their way to ensure that the players get a fair shake. It's certainly not as bad as early D&D, for instance. Ravenloft has the same disadvantage of most modern D&D products: it's excessively insular and arbitrary. I can verify that mental disadvantages are certainly present in Call of Cthulhu from 5.2E on, and probably from earlier versions still.
Paranoia, it is true, depends a lot on the players and whether they can enter into the proper spirit. The GM is still important with it, however, since there are still a lot of things in its game world that can hurt the players besides other players, and besides, without the GM who will handle the assigning and delivery of secret information, which is so useful in giving players excuses to shoot each other?
I don't really have any experience with Paranoia, but I'm sure if you hooked a game board up to it (ala "Betrayal at the House on the Hill"), and just had some arbitrary conditions for handing out "Chance" cards, it could work ok.
As far as player death from outside forces, I've found in my experience with D&D that it almost feels like most encounters are designed to be extremely hard. I'd almost wager that the designers can "count on" GM's to make some kinder decisions to give the parties a better then average chance at survival. I think removing the human pity element, everything could be balanced into something far more player friendly.
Well, that's my opinion anyway. I haven't actually designed a board game since grade school.
Nonetheless, there's a great deal in common even between interactive-puzzle video games and tabletop games. And the video game industry as a whole is discovering that games involving more than one person are more interesting than single-player "games." The problem, in the past, was that technology didn't allow for more than a single player in many instances.
"Games" as we know them have been part of our behaviour since before civilised society existed. They exist in the animal kingdom. They area psychological concept universal to almost all life on earth.
@Lewis Pulsipher: The challenge of a "puzzle" comes from playing against oneself, yes, but there is still a defined rule set created in opposition to a goal. If you look at players as simply another piece of the game, you'll see that there's no difference between playing with others and playing solo, and no difference between a japanese puzzle box and World of Warcraft.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23094/planet-steam
In the case of the people that I am currently playing with, we ended not being really competitive, currently one player started to act randomly around (being funny on his own, he is like a stand-up comedian of RPG), and the rest of the group got split in two, the more serious part trying to actually accomplish the mission, and the less serious group doing other stuff (ie: hunting commies)
What makes it fun, is how suddenly good friends can turn into enemies, in the last turn we played, a player decided to get rid of a "treasonous" top-secret weapon (that we got by accident), by shooting it (thus risking a explosion), we decided that the explosion was too dangerous, and "sent" him (by kicking him sparta-style inside the hole that the weapon is) to stop it. Needless to stay that in the next turn this dude will be handed a new clone.
I REALLY liked that article, it is like when I went with some friends from Gameloft to a bar that exists in the city where I lived, that has a collection of board games, we spent the afternoon drinking beer, playing several game, and discussing how we could incorporate them in our game design...
Sometimes board games kick the ass of electronic games easily, it is sad that they are so underrated those days...
When people ask what kind of games I design when I say that I am game designer, I say: "Any kind of game, even non-electronic games, those are games too!"
"Games that are only played by hardcore hobbyists only appeal to a niche group by definition."
If they're being played only by hardcore hobbyists, then of course they only appeal to a niche group. If they didn't only appeal to them, they wouldn't only be played by hardcore hobbyists. It might seem a bit pedantic for me to note this (it probably is a bit, honestly), but I wouldn't have mentioned if I didn't think it was important, on some level.
One should not consider the games I mention to be only the province of the devoted. They are more popular than you might suspect. Settlers of Catan has become almost mainstream; I know of at least one large chain bookstore that carries it now.
- the game perfectly illustrates the notion of "emerging gameplay".
- the complexity is not only caused by the amount of possible moves, but also because different types of reasoning are involved, some of them being quite counter-intuitive.
- go mechanics are so "pure" that beginners tend to project their own background in it, I mean .. a biologist may interpret the mechanics as a "biological" phenomenon, whereas a graphic designer may see what happens in the game as "artistic". When the players improve in technique, their original vision - although still useful - is somewhat challenged, and this lead to personal change.
ps: if you are non-beginner, perhaps my 'go stuff' may interest you: http://www.gludion.com/go/
fired yours GMs