First published in my blog.
I have been thinking about the things that make game play of board games go forward. Drives them on and makes the game feels satisfying. There are few things I want my designs to have and one of them is flow. I want to make the game play flow forward with each player connecting with the game. Down time and not caring are things that are very off-putting in games for me. I want my time to be well spent in games. Because of this I came up with four things that in my mind drive a game forward. They are:
* Growth
* Observation
* Presence
* Resources
Growth:
Growth is a good example when looking at tableau builders or tile placement games. By growth I mean that at the start of the game there are only a very limited option pool for each player and the options grow each turn. For example (Age of) Steam is a very good example of growth. In (Age of) Steam each player is allowed to buy new track hexes on a vacant map each turn. At the start of the game players are trying to find deliveries that are very close. The track organically grows to find new cities on the map and the delivery options increase. I find this aspect of the game very interesting.
Carcassonne is another good example of growth. Each turn you have one tile that you place in the board. As the game progresses the choices you have increase and the tile you just drew can have multiple viable options to further your cause.
As a tableau builder Deus is an fine example. In Deus there are six card colors that playes can play to their table. When you play the card you gain the action depicted on the card. The growth example however comes from the fact that when you place another cards of a same color you gain all the actions previously played. This can produce wonderful combos and point scoring options for the player in the end game where as at the start of the game there was a single action.
I will argue that Castles of Burgundy is a poor example of growth. While CoB is a great Feld game the feel of growth is pretty bad. The goal of the game is to place different types of hexes on your board. You need to match the land type and number on the dice to place a hex. There is growth in the sense that your option increase over time when the board opens up but after a point the options start becoming more limited as there growth is not an option anymore. Why I said it is a bad example is for the fact that there are very few elements that do more that score you points. There are many hexes that have the same effect in the start as in the end and that reason CoB is a bad example of growth in a game you build your board.
Observation:
Observations are usually key elements in cooperation and deduction games. By observation I mean that each player increases their knowledge of the game state turn after turn for a final reveal or something similar. For example Resistance is a perfect example of observation. There are two opposing forces in Resistance, the resistance and the spies. At the start of the game each spy know about each other while the resistance is trying to figure it out during the five missions the game takes. The interesting aspects of the games are about deduction from the sparse information gathered from game play. It is a tense experience when played with the right group.
Mysterium is a game I’m anxious to play. The description I have read and listened to various podcasts makes me thing that the main drive of the game is about observation. There are ghost detectives that try to decipher the clues of the ghost. The clues are cards similar to Dixit. Very visual and can be interpreted in various ways. The ghost cannot speak, only observe, during the game so it becomes a game about subtle hints and table talk among the detectives.
Another type of observation driven game play can be found in childrens dexterity games like Animal Upon Animal. In AUA in players turn you throw a dice which makes you put a animal on top of a pile. The observation part here is that you need to balance the animal on the most stable (for you) place to go forward.
I think memory elements in games are poor forward movement devices.For example a simple card game called Relikt where each player has a colored tent in from of them. The point of the game is to collect diamonds from the table by playing colored cards in a line in front of them. When a certain number of cards is played the diamonds are given to the player with highest sum of a particular color. The diamonds are either straight up points or negative points by themselves but points when paired. The diamonds are placed face-down in your play area so if you want to hinder your opponents scoring opportunities you must remember what they have. The other odd thing here is that the colored tents can change owners. So the game play becomes more convoluted when you first try to make out what diamonds each player has and then what color they are. For me the point of the game dilutes away with mechanisms like this and the connection to the game is lost.
Presence:
Presence is a close cousin of observation and in a pinch they could be in the same cup. Presence for me is about staying in the game all the time. You don’t only observe what others do but interact with them and actively change things. Simultaneous action selection and trick-taking games are good examples of presence.
Just thing about Race for the Galaxy. Each turn players choose an action card which let them do a special action. The cards that other player played lets you do the action depicted on them. Once you know how to play the game you don’t just observe other players but try to outsmart them. This card selection process keeps all the players in the game and the game flows forward.
Similarly, think Tichu. Players are formed in pairs that without talking interact with each other and try to outwit the opponent pair. The game goes forward with each trick and players are participitating all the time.
Third example of presence I can give is in my favourite dice game, Wurfel Bohnanza. The presence here is that during the active players turn other players can use the dice thrown and not already saved. There are many games with this mechanism and main point here is that the action taken by the active player can be beneficial for other players too.
The opposite of presence is downtime. Downtime in games is something never makes games go forward. If your playing with your phone and not looking at the board your not making the game go forward. The latest game that had me thinking other things while playing was Black Fleet. The game state changed quite much during each player turn and you had very little control over what you have at the beginning of your next turn. It was not a pleasant game to wait.
Resources:
This was the hardest thing to name. The thing I’m trying to achieve with resources is resource conversion actions and other actions that make things better. Maybe the following examples help me explain it. Best examples are in action selection/worker placement games.
Ora et Labora is a perfect example for two reasons. First resource accumulation, each turn there is more than previous turn. The point is that the amount is not static, while you can take one resource away other resources grow steadily until picked. Depending on the turn you can have quite a lot and can storage some or just a few that you take away because another player needed it. Of course Agricola, Le Havre and Caverna do the same thing (and plethora of other games).
The second thing Ora does quite well is the resource conversion. It is never less or even, it is always more. There is a great example in a blog post by Luke Laurie in the League of Gamemakers site.
Let's have two resources basic X and advanced Y. There are two ways games make these resources link. First XX => Y and second X => YY. This is really crude way to put it but should elaborate my point. Which version do you think makes the game go forward (faster)?
That's definately the second option. The resource conversion design I nowadays do always lets always players gain more than they put it. If you ask yourself a critical question, what does it matter if a player has more resources? The big picture is that the player might gain one action more during the game if you give him that resource. That makes the game go forward in my mind. Sure if your designing a harsh enviroment then less might be more.
Another game that is good example of making resources readily available thus driving the game forward. I'm of course talking about Imperial Settlers. Once you build a resource building you get the resources. Without that ability the game would be a drag and the five turn game should go on for extra turns to have the same effects.
Last Will also has a good thing going on with actions. There nobody loses actions but players in best positions get the ability to pick the gain action cards. The best part is that the actions are then immediately available.
Lose a turn. That single sentence is something I really dislike in games. That sentence never make the game go forward. It is really simple to turn that thing around and make it that gain an action. Why make someone angry that I don’t get. Examples of this can be found in the games of 80s but fortunately not some much anymore.
-----
To conclude this post the four things that make games go forward in my mind.
Growth – the options players have grow each turn
Observation – players make judgment on what others do by watching them play
Presence – simultaneous active participitation of each player
Resources – gain more than you give
I have been thinking about the things that make game play of board games go forward. Drives them on and makes the game feels satisfying. There are few things I want my designs to have and one of them is flow. I want to make the game play flow forward with each player connecting with the game. Down time and not caring are things that are very off-putting in games for me. I want my time to be well spent in games. Because of this I came up with four things that in my mind drive a game forward. They are:
* Growth
* Observation
* Presence
* Resources
Growth:
Growth is a good example when looking at tableau builders or tile placement games. By growth I mean that at the start of the game there are only a very limited option pool for each player and the options grow each turn. For example (Age of) Steam is a very good example of growth. In (Age of) Steam each player is allowed to buy new track hexes on a vacant map each turn. At the start of the game players are trying to find deliveries that are very close. The track organically grows to find new cities on the map and the delivery options increase. I find this aspect of the game very interesting.
Carcassonne is another good example of growth. Each turn you have one tile that you place in the board. As the game progresses the choices you have increase and the tile you just drew can have multiple viable options to further your cause.
As a tableau builder Deus is an fine example. In Deus there are six card colors that playes can play to their table. When you play the card you gain the action depicted on the card. The growth example however comes from the fact that when you place another cards of a same color you gain all the actions previously played. This can produce wonderful combos and point scoring options for the player in the end game where as at the start of the game there was a single action.
I will argue that Castles of Burgundy is a poor example of growth. While CoB is a great Feld game the feel of growth is pretty bad. The goal of the game is to place different types of hexes on your board. You need to match the land type and number on the dice to place a hex. There is growth in the sense that your option increase over time when the board opens up but after a point the options start becoming more limited as there growth is not an option anymore. Why I said it is a bad example is for the fact that there are very few elements that do more that score you points. There are many hexes that have the same effect in the start as in the end and that reason CoB is a bad example of growth in a game you build your board.
Observation:
Observations are usually key elements in cooperation and deduction games. By observation I mean that each player increases their knowledge of the game state turn after turn for a final reveal or something similar. For example Resistance is a perfect example of observation. There are two opposing forces in Resistance, the resistance and the spies. At the start of the game each spy know about each other while the resistance is trying to figure it out during the five missions the game takes. The interesting aspects of the games are about deduction from the sparse information gathered from game play. It is a tense experience when played with the right group.
Mysterium is a game I’m anxious to play. The description I have read and listened to various podcasts makes me thing that the main drive of the game is about observation. There are ghost detectives that try to decipher the clues of the ghost. The clues are cards similar to Dixit. Very visual and can be interpreted in various ways. The ghost cannot speak, only observe, during the game so it becomes a game about subtle hints and table talk among the detectives.
Another type of observation driven game play can be found in childrens dexterity games like Animal Upon Animal. In AUA in players turn you throw a dice which makes you put a animal on top of a pile. The observation part here is that you need to balance the animal on the most stable (for you) place to go forward.
I think memory elements in games are poor forward movement devices.For example a simple card game called Relikt where each player has a colored tent in from of them. The point of the game is to collect diamonds from the table by playing colored cards in a line in front of them. When a certain number of cards is played the diamonds are given to the player with highest sum of a particular color. The diamonds are either straight up points or negative points by themselves but points when paired. The diamonds are placed face-down in your play area so if you want to hinder your opponents scoring opportunities you must remember what they have. The other odd thing here is that the colored tents can change owners. So the game play becomes more convoluted when you first try to make out what diamonds each player has and then what color they are. For me the point of the game dilutes away with mechanisms like this and the connection to the game is lost.
Presence:
Presence is a close cousin of observation and in a pinch they could be in the same cup. Presence for me is about staying in the game all the time. You don’t only observe what others do but interact with them and actively change things. Simultaneous action selection and trick-taking games are good examples of presence.
Just thing about Race for the Galaxy. Each turn players choose an action card which let them do a special action. The cards that other player played lets you do the action depicted on them. Once you know how to play the game you don’t just observe other players but try to outsmart them. This card selection process keeps all the players in the game and the game flows forward.
Similarly, think Tichu. Players are formed in pairs that without talking interact with each other and try to outwit the opponent pair. The game goes forward with each trick and players are participitating all the time.
Third example of presence I can give is in my favourite dice game, Wurfel Bohnanza. The presence here is that during the active players turn other players can use the dice thrown and not already saved. There are many games with this mechanism and main point here is that the action taken by the active player can be beneficial for other players too.
The opposite of presence is downtime. Downtime in games is something never makes games go forward. If your playing with your phone and not looking at the board your not making the game go forward. The latest game that had me thinking other things while playing was Black Fleet. The game state changed quite much during each player turn and you had very little control over what you have at the beginning of your next turn. It was not a pleasant game to wait.
Resources:
This was the hardest thing to name. The thing I’m trying to achieve with resources is resource conversion actions and other actions that make things better. Maybe the following examples help me explain it. Best examples are in action selection/worker placement games.
Ora et Labora is a perfect example for two reasons. First resource accumulation, each turn there is more than previous turn. The point is that the amount is not static, while you can take one resource away other resources grow steadily until picked. Depending on the turn you can have quite a lot and can storage some or just a few that you take away because another player needed it. Of course Agricola, Le Havre and Caverna do the same thing (and plethora of other games).
The second thing Ora does quite well is the resource conversion. It is never less or even, it is always more. There is a great example in a blog post by Luke Laurie in the League of Gamemakers site.
Let's have two resources basic X and advanced Y. There are two ways games make these resources link. First XX => Y and second X => YY. This is really crude way to put it but should elaborate my point. Which version do you think makes the game go forward (faster)?
That's definately the second option. The resource conversion design I nowadays do always lets always players gain more than they put it. If you ask yourself a critical question, what does it matter if a player has more resources? The big picture is that the player might gain one action more during the game if you give him that resource. That makes the game go forward in my mind. Sure if your designing a harsh enviroment then less might be more.
Another game that is good example of making resources readily available thus driving the game forward. I'm of course talking about Imperial Settlers. Once you build a resource building you get the resources. Without that ability the game would be a drag and the five turn game should go on for extra turns to have the same effects.
Last Will also has a good thing going on with actions. There nobody loses actions but players in best positions get the ability to pick the gain action cards. The best part is that the actions are then immediately available.
Lose a turn. That single sentence is something I really dislike in games. That sentence never make the game go forward. It is really simple to turn that thing around and make it that gain an action. Why make someone angry that I don’t get. Examples of this can be found in the games of 80s but fortunately not some much anymore.
-----
To conclude this post the four things that make games go forward in my mind.
Growth – the options players have grow each turn
Observation – players make judgment on what others do by watching them play
Presence – simultaneous active participitation of each player
Resources – gain more than you give