Game Design

Triggered Effects, Part 3

The Story So Far…

Triggered card effects all fit under a general “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” template. They can make a card situationally powerful.  They can give cardsets a mechanical theme.  They can create opportunities for counterplay.

We have identified eight categories of trigger so far–Entrance, Tap/Untap, Exit, Acquisition, Revelation, Damage to the Card, Damage by the Card, Critical Mass.  I also pointed out that any of these effects could use the opponent as the trigger rather than the card holder.

We have addressed five categories of effect so far–Victory Points, Currency, Endurance, Cards, and Additional Cardplay.

I also challenged readers to identify any triggers I missed and to predict what other effects I would list.

 

Another Awesome Reader

Reader Jayson took on my challenge to identify missing triggers, suggesting four AND a modifier.  Jayson’s triggers were

(a)  “Play immediately when this card is drawn…”

(b)  “When you are forced to discard this card…”

(c)  “If X on this card is greater than Y…”

(d)  “When randomizer is X…”

There are all interesting triggers and each certainly has its place in design.  I find (b) particularly interesting and have been mulling that one over quite a bit since reading Jayson’s comment.

Jayson went on to point out that many triggers could be modified in the negative case “If X does not…” which may be seen as a special case of the Critical Mass trigger discussed in the last column but is certainly worth keeping in mind nonetheless.

 

More Effects

Triggered card effects fit under the “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” umbrella.  We have addressed five categories of effect so far.  Today’s blog expands our list to include game component effects and internal effects.

 

Game Component Effects

Obviously, card effects can be used heavily in card games.  But cardplay mechanisms can also be used as part of a larger game.  This opens up a world of card effect opportunities for the intrepid designer to explore.

Glittercats correctly anticipated this area with the comment “A lot of games use card effects to control non-card mechanics. So the card’s effect may be to move tokens on the board, or re-roll dice, or some other interaction with non-card components.”  Let’s take a closer look at the options this gives us.

 

Component Quantity

Card effects in a  board game could direct us to add components, remove components, move components, or swap component locations.  These effects will say things like

“…place a control marker in your weakest area.”

“…remove 2 voters from the most populated area.”

“…you may move all of your workers from the defeated area.”

“…swap the position of two adjacent racers.”

 

 

Component Condition

Card effects in a  board game could direct us to alter the components themselves.  These effects might say things like

“…advance the toxicity marker one level.”

“…you may immediately reroll one of your dice.”

“…refill an empty farm.”

“…flip a die over to its opposite face.”

 

Game State

Similar to component condition, our effects could change the overall state of the game.  We could achieve this by altering the topology of the game board, exhausting areas, refreshing areas, or even changing the odds.  These effects might look like

“…add +1 to all die rolls for the rest of your turn.”

“…add a map tile from the supply.”

“…remove a depleted mine from the board.”

“…open one gate.”

 

Internal Effects

BerzerkerUp to now, we’re focused entirely on outwardly-directed effects.  But what about triggered effects which target the card itself?  This ground has been well-trod by constructed deck games but what about applying these effects to other types of games?  These effects could have our players

“…give this card +1/+1.”

“…remove a timing stone from this card.”

“…untap this card.”

“…remove all enemies from this card.”

These were my other categories in the “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” formula.  Next time, we begin combining triggers with events.  Which which games use which combinations best?  Come by Friday and find out!

What effects did I leave out?  If so, what were they?  What game trigger do you find most interesting?  What made you like it so much?  What game triggers do you dislike?  What keeps it from being more enjoyable?   Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Advertisement

Triggered Effects, Part 2

The Story So Far…

Triggered card effects all fit under a general “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” template. They can make a card situationally powerful.  They can give cardsets a mechanical theme.  They can create opportunities for counterplay.

Part one of this series identified six categories of trigger–Entrance, Tap/Untap, Exit, Acquisition, Revelation, and Damage to the Card.  I also pointed out that any of these effects could use the opponent as the trigger rather than the card holder.

I also challenged readers to identify any triggers I missed.

 

My Awesome Readers

Several astute readers took on my challenge, identified missing triggers, and shared them in the comments section.

ConspiratorJacob Titus Sanders pointed out that while I had discussed damage dealt to a card, I had completely overlooked damage dealt by the card.

studio228 suggested critical mass effects of the form “if you have 6 or more cards in your graveyard…,” or “if you’ve played three or more actions this turn…,” or  “if either player deals 12 damage in a single turn…”

Readers Rob and willbanalog pointed to resolution mechanisms–the “stack” for triggered effects found in M:tG and the immediacy of triggered effects in Marvel Dice Masters.

Regular reader, frequent contributor, and all-around spiffy dude Carl Klutzke remarked that triggered effects could be used to clean up otherwise wordy card effects.  Carl, we’d love to see a few specific examples from you.

Granite OniCarl also noticed that I’d completely omitted start/end of turn effects which is tragic when you consider how frequently such effects appear in the Sentinels of the Multiverse card game.  Reflecting on such effects, I might still leave them off the list however.  So many games which include start/end of turn that phases are commonly reserved for just this purpose whereas what I was hoping to address in this series are effects which are not so evident.  Of course, I did include tap/untap so maybe start/end of turn should be these as well.  there’s certainly something there to think about…

 

Approaching Effects

Triggered card effects fit under the “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” umbrella.  Having taken a revised look at the variety of triggers that exist, we now begin a take on the other half–effects.

 

Victory Points

Many games keep score with victory points of one kind or another.  The simplest and most obvious effects then would say things like

“…gain 3VP.”

“…all opponents lose 2 VP.”

“…all opponents must give you 1 VP.”

 

Currency

If your game has an economic element in which items must be bought or sole, currency is another obvious effect.  Overt currency effects tend to say things like

“…you have 5 extra silvers this turn.”

“…each opponent must give you 1 coin.”

“…all your Shekels count double this turn.”

 

Endurance

Venerable MonkMost Constructed Deck Games (CDGs) are dedicated to survival.  Players of these games generally think highly of any mechanism which extend life.  Because some CDGs use the deck itself as a measure of life while others track life separately and the daddy of them all M:tG does both, these effects may be overt or covert and say things like

“…gain 2 life.”

“…all opponents lose 1 life.”

“…target opponent loses X life and you gain X life.”

“…shuffle your discard pile into your deck.”

 

Cards

warehouseFor many card games, the cards are a currency in and of themselves.  Gaining or losing cards can then be quite important.  Effects of this type might read like

“…draw a card.”

“…all opponents must discard a card.”

“…all opponents must discard the top card of their deck.”

“…draw a card at random from each opponent’s hand and add it to your own.”

 

Additional Cardplay

Sometimes it is not so much how many cards you have but how many cards you can play.  In these games, players would be quite enthusiastic about effects which give the opportunity to play more cards.  Cardplay effects read like

“…+1 Action.”

“…gain 3 green mana.”

These are the first five card effect categories in our look at the “when TRIGGER occurs, do EVENT” formula.  Next time, we go after the rest.  See you Monday!

What effects did I leave out?  If so, what were they?  What game triggers do you find most interesting?  What made you like it so much?  What game triggers do you dislike?  What keeps it from being more enjoyable?   Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Designing Microgames–Duel, Part 7

The Story So Far…

A new microgame is in development.  Duel supports two players, each with a deck of about 20 cards.  Players have a hand of 4 cards and may (1) play a card into an empty space, (2) play a card onto an enemy card, or (3) move a card one space.  After this, the player refills her hand.  The game ends if a player is down to 3 or fewer cards in hand and chooses to end it.  The player controlling the majority of a 3×3 grid wins.

Kevin (APE Games) Brusky has given the prototype a look and wants to proceed together.  APE Games will release the game in two-player packs containing two unique armies.

The first two sets have been created and tested.  The pirates were underpowered and strengthened.  New tests were run. Now it’s time to see how the New And Improved Pirates performed…

 

Too Much of a Good Thing

Iteration is the heart of design.  Constant cycles of playtesting and tweaking sessions between each cycle are the best way to home in on something that is both balanced and fun.  During the last cycle, the Pirates seemed to be underpowered and needed a boost.  This cycle revealed that we’d gone a bit too far.

 

Another Look At The Pirates

Our last column described how we powered up the Pirates.  This cycle, the pirates showed themselves to be a bit too good.  Specifically, the Pirate set went 6-0 against the Sea Monsters and two other decks as well.  We need to turn the dial back a little bit.

Before going too far down this road, I stepped back to reexamined the set’s theme.  Reviewing Part 4 (), reminds us that the main categories of card ability are (1) Teamwork, (2) Individualist, (3) Movement, and (4) Card Manipulation.  The Pirates are meant to be individually manageable but strong in combination–teamwork.  It was for this reason that so many of their cards feature support.  What we have learned along the way is that support can be a major force-multiplier. Its strength needed to be toned down a little bit.

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Dagger

 

Our other major discovery related to the Cannon.  raising its strength by that little +1 and allowing it to be replayed immediately made it wildly overpowered. It had become a threat too big to ignore but also impossible to get rid of.  Adding insult to injury, trying to eliminate a Pirate Cannon actually helped the Pirate race through his deck, leaving you less time to respond.  Our solution was to shelve this ability and strip the card back.

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Cannon

 

Another Look At The Sea Monsters

The Sea Monsters seemed to be about right when played against the first draft of the Pirates.  As the Pirates were refined and other sets created (you’ll see some of those soon, I promise) it became clear that the Sea Monsters had failed to keep up with the overall power level of the game.

I again stepped back to reexamine the theme of the set.  The Sea Monsters were meant to be individually strong with limited combinations.  They were something more of a brute force deck than a support deck.  Perhaps this was the wrong concept.

Remembering that the Pirates push teamwork heavily with their extensive use of support cards and have a dash of movement in Calico Jack’s diagonal movement.  Let’s make the Sea Monsters push individualism and movement more heavily.

In the area of movement, we already have the Tiger Shark but with strength 6, it seldom gets a chance to really roam the board the way it wants to.  We decided to raise its strength to 7 and to have four of them in the deck rather than just two.  In this ways, a beginning player will have many more opportunities to interact with this mechanism.  To rebalance the deck, we reduced the strength of Giant Squid down to 6 and now only have two of them.

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Tiger Shark

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Giant Squid

 

The overall notion behind Hydra was sound but putting it on the defensive limited its play.  We gave it more options.

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Hydra

 

To fully round out the individualist theme, the Jellyfish got a little boost–a first strike ability.

Examples of Modification Set 2 - Jellyfish

The “4?” in parentheses indicates that this stat could go either way and is actively being considered.  Rules like these are frequently included on prototype components to encourage playtesters to keep an eye it and weigh in as we play.

 

 

Another Look At The Rules

All this testing also prompted a few rule changes.  Most notably, we’re testing the idea that in the case of a tie, the attacking card wins and claims the space rather than being eliminated along with the defending card.   This change tends to keep the board more full and give players a bit more to wrestle with but also makes the closing moves of the game richer and more exciting.

Duel Rules 3-2

 

Protospiel!

David E WhitcherNext week is the Protospiel main event in Chelsea, Michigan.  This is the best event for design of all those I attend.  Organizer David E. Whitcher  puts on a solid event, filled with the most helpful folks you’ll ever meet. Come on down–I’ll see you there!

And while you’re prepping your games for the event, be sure to check out our columns on what to expect.  Just follow these links toPart 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

 

What’s your favorite Microgame?  What do you like best about it?  Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Designing Microgames–Duel, Part 4

The Story So Far…

A new microgame is in development.  Duel supports two players, each with a deck of about 20 cards.  Players have a hand of 4 cards and play one, draw one.  The game ends if a player is down to 3 or fewer cards in hand and chooses to end it.  The player controlling the majority of a 3×3 grid wins.

Kevin (APE Games) Brusky has given the prototype a look and wants to proceed together.

Since our meeting, I have added a new action.  Players may now (1) play a card into an empty space, (2) play a card onto an enemy card, or (3) move a card one space.

APE Games plans to release the game in two-player packs containing two unique armies.  The first deck sets selected to create will be Pirates vs. Sea Monsters and Kung Fu Masters vs. Shogunate Warriors.

 

Creating Abilities

Like a chef preparing a meal, I like to have my mise en place together before beginning work.  For a game like this one, that means creating a selection of powers that would enhance gameplay.

The test prototype includes a few already.  The Attack Submarine has “If this ship eliminates an enemy ship, return it to your hand. The Attack Submarine returns to your hand has if it eliminates an enemy ship.  The Aircraft Carrier deals 2 damage to each enemy card alongside it.  The Mine discards immediately after a battle.  The Minesweeper is immune to damage from mines.

What is the core of each of these abilities?

Aircraft CarrierThe Aircraft Carrier’s ability to support allied attacks was originally conceived as a way of abstractly representing aircraft strikes against nearby targets.  At its core, this ability delivers damage without putting the card itself directly into the battle. This mechanism represents ranged combat well–archers, snipers, artillery, spellcasters, or the like.

Attack SubmarineThe Attack Submarine can be used repeatedly to pick off small targets or to finish off a larger target already damaged by other ships.  It can also allow a player to extend her deck if she needs to delay endgame.  This ability is highly responsive to the strength of the card.  In the original game, a submarine can defeat 65% (13 of the 20) of the enemy’s fleet outright.  Players are encouraged to play it aggressively but with risk.  Giving it greater strength would make it dull since it could be played with impunity.  What if it were attached to a low strength card?  In that case, it would be good for delivering coup de grâce but not for direct aggressive action, forcing players to be more cagey.

MineThe Mine’s limitation as a one-shot makes it ideal for cards with high strength.  They can win one crucial battle but are then lost.

 

 

MinesweeperThe Minesweeper’s ability is problematic.  Immunity is an appealing idea but it calls out a specific card in the opponent’s deck.  This would not be a problem if sets were strictly standalone.  But they aren’t.  Any deck should be able to play any other deck in this game.  Naming a specific card is simply too confining.  It’s a shame to lose a good idea though.  What if a card had immunity to attackers of a certain strength–“Immune to strength 3 or less?” or “Immune to strength 7 or greater?”  These are ideas to play with, at least.

 

The Ability Categories

Having examined these abilities in detail, I felt prepared to begin creating new ones.  What followed over the next few days was a great deal of brainstorming, editing, brainstorming again, editing again, and sorting.  What emerged on the other side were these categories of abilities:

 

Category: Teamwork

Abilities in this category enhance one another.  They add strength to a nearby attack.  They add defense to a nearby attack.  They add strength to other cards by being adjacent or by simply being in play.  They can be stacked with allied cards to make a single stronger entity.

 

Category: Individualist

Abilities in this category enhance a card that plays by itself.  They win ties.  They cannot be attacked by multiple enemy cards.  They gain strength when attacked by multiple enemy cards.

 

Category: Movement

Abilities in this category break the normal movement rules.  They can move diagonally.  They can move to any empty space.  They must move into a battle if possible.  They are exceptionally strong but cannot move.

 

Category: Card Manipulation

Abilities in this category address how players interact with their deck and hand.  They give you an increased hand size.  They reduce your opponent’s hand size.  They return to hand on battle victory.  They return to hand if you discard a card from hand in their place.  They reveal face down cards.  They make your opponent reveal her hand.

 

Category: Exotic

Abilities in this category don’t directly fit into the other categories but are interesting nonetheless.  They are immune to certain types of cards.  They are eliminated even when they win a battle.

 

Another Shout Out For Microgames!

Patrick (Crash Games) Nickell wrote on 23 May his Crash Games blog entry Why I love the Microgame.  His post presents the viewpoint of a publisher of microgames quite effectively.  In summary, he puts forward that They are (1) inexpensive to make, (2) inexpensive to ship, (3) have a low barrier to sell to distributors, (4) are gratifying to play and (5) are highly portable.  Those of you interested in the business side of microgame creation will find it an enlightening read.

Next time, we look at the creation of the first decks for this new system.  See you Tuesday!

 

What’s your favorite Microgame?  What do you like best about it?  Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Designing Microgames–Duel, Part 3

The Story So Far…

A new microgame is in development.  Duel supports two players, each with a deck of about 20 cards.  The game ends when a deck runs out.  The player controlling the majority of a 3×3 grid wins.

 

APE Games Introduction

Duel had undergone about a half dozen tests when Kevin Brusky–Mister APE Games–came by our Monday playtest session.  As the publisher of both duck! duck! GO! and Rolling Freight, we have an excellent working relationship. He was there to check on the progress of a game I’m developing for APE and to provide feedback on the other prototypes floating around the design group.

While he was there, I used the opportunity to give him a brief overview of the microgames I was developing.  This one stood out for him.  It could be sold at a low price point, was highly portable, and engaging.

Could it be expanded? Why yes, yes it could.  the current playtest set is entirely symmetrical but that was never its final intention.  The next logical step is to create even more sets, each of which has its own flavor but could be played against any other one.

We began brainstorming matchups that could go into a two pack–Pirates vs. Sea Monsters, Dungeon Crawl Characters vs. Fantasy Trope Monsters, Ninjas vs. Samurai, Aliens vs. Military, Zombies vs. Survivors, Werewolves vs. Vampires, Golden Age Superheroes vs. Supervillains, Kaiju vs. Giant Robots, historical wars like Hannibal vs. Rome or British vs. Zulu or Waterloo.  We also discussed a few others that might be fun to play with even if we didn’t yet know who to match them with–Chibi Anime Characters, Film Noir, 90s Action Movies.

news_rarrrIn the end, we decided to focus on archetypes which would be quickly recognizable and mechanisms which would support these archetypes.  Zombies vs. Survivors has seen plenty of coverage and I want to explore new ground so that pairing was set aside.  APE just released the RARRR!! Kaiju game so Kaiju vs. Giant Robots was also set aside.  The first deck sets selected to create would be Pirates vs. Sea Monsters and Kung Fu Masters vs. Shogunate Warriors.

 

Brainstorm: A New Action

Before diving into these new themed decks, there was a larger issue to tackle.  The game needed an extra dash of…something.  I wasn’t sure what yet.  Each time I’d played the game, a part of my mind was begging for another option, a new action which would give the game a bit more tactical depth.  A couple days of journaling identified a missing action–movement.

Here is the relevant journal excerpt: “As an option on your turn, you may move a [card] one space orthogonally.  With this rule, I can create units that can move further, move diagonally, jump, cannot move at all, etc.”

This change also opened up the endgame.  The new endgame rule became “if you have exhausted your deck and hold 3 (or fewer) cards at the beginning of your turn, you may declare the game over.”

 

A Shout Out For Microgames!

Boardgamegeek user Odd Hackwelder contacted me recently.  He runs the Microgames Facebook Group which I checked out and can say is pretty darned cool.  Those of you interested in Microgame design should direct your browser there and give it a look.

 

Next time, we look at how powers were created for the game and their implementation into the first set of themed decks.  See you Friday!

 

What’s your favorite Microgame?  What do you like best about it?  Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Be Ye Friend Or Be Ye Foe? Part 4

The Story So Far…
Two players are presented with an opportunity.  Each may remain loyal to the other player and betray him. Neither player will interact with the other in any way ever again. There is no out-of-game way to be rewarded and punished.

What could happen?

(1) If both remain loyal, each of them gets the “Cooperation” reward.

(2) If both betray the other, each of them gets the “Betrayal” reward.

(3) If one betrays the other while the other remains loyal, the betrayer gets the “Traitor” reward while the loyal one gets the “Sucker” reward.

This is the prisoner’s dilemma.

In a strict prisoner’s dilemma, the rewards are staggered with the “Traitor” reward best, followed by the “Cooperation” reward, then “Betrayal,” and finally “Sucker” the worst.  In mathematical terms, T > C > B > S.  My instincts as a designer suggest that we should also aim for 2C > T + S > 2B.

Further, We can encourage cooperation or betrayal among our players. Cooperation is more likely when this decision point occurs repeatedly but an uncertain number of times. Betrayal is more likely when this decision point occurs once and without any in-game opportunity for reprisal.

 

Including The Prisoner’s Dilemma In Game Designs

We have invested three columns to getting very familiar with the prisoner’s dilemma.  We looked at the research surrounding it and the mathematical theories applied to it.  Now let’s look at how this dilemma might be applied to our game designs.  Each of these is presented as a single case study.  You will of course need to adjust them to serve your particular needs.

 

Retrofitting  Munchkin

cover_lgOne fun way to get a sense of the prisoner’s dilemma in a game is to slip it into the classic back-stabber Munchkin.

A player has drawn a monster to fight.  The other players may play cards to boost the player and boost the monster.  Let’s have each of these other players simultaneously choose who to support–Hero or Monster.  Players that choose Hero are committed to playing cards for the active player.

(1) If the active player defeats the monster, that player gains one level but must give all monster loot away to the Hero players.

(2) If the monster defeats the active player, that player gets all the normal penalties.  The Monster players divvy up the monster’s loot among themselves.

 

An Area Control Game

There are 20 areas to be scored.  The order in which they are scored is randomized in a deck of cards.  Shuffled among the last 6 cards is an “End of Game” card.  When this card is revealed, the game is instantly over so it is likely that some areas will not score.

Any time two players are tied, they simultaneously select and reveal “Share” or “Steal.”

(1) If both players Share, each receives half (round up) of the victory points + 1 bonus VP.

(2) If both players Steal, each receives 1 victory point.

(3) If one player Shares while the other player Steals, the Stealing player gets all the each victory point and the Sharing player receives none.

 

A Civilization Game

It is the dawn of civilization.  Two hunting/gathering groups meet in neutral territory.  Each player simultaneously selects and reveals “Peace” or “War.”

(1) If both players choose Peace, each may exchange knowledge and/or goods.

(2) If both players choose War, units damage one another with the victor carrying away a fraction of their combined goods.

(3) If one player chooses Peace while the other player chooses War, the warrior annihilates the opposing player’s group and takes any goods the peaceful group was carrying.

kalahari tribes

 

A Political Game

politicianSeveral players are competing for position in a campaign.  Each player must decide with respect to each opponent whether to run an Upbeat campaign or to run a Smear campaign.

(1) If both candidates are Upbeat, each gains 5 votes.

(2) If both candidates Smear, each candidate gains 2 votes.

(3) If one candidate is Upbeat while the other candidate Smears, the smear candidate gains 6 votes while the upbeat candidate gains 1.

 

A Racing Game
Two cars are approaching a bottleneck at speed 4.  Both cannot fit through at the same time.  Each will have to decide whether to “Accelerate” or “Brake.”

Top Race Corner 2(1) If both cars Brake, they squeeze through the bottleneck at speed 3.

(2) If both cars Accelerate, they will crash in the bottleneck at speed 5!

(3) If one car Accelerates while the other car Brakes, the accelerating car pulls ahead to speed 5 while the braking car comes through at speed 2.

 

A Contribution From An Esteemed Reader

Bruno FaiduttiBruno Faidutti mentioned in the comment section of Part 2 of this series that “[his] game Terra is based on the freerider paradox which can be considered a multiplayer generalization of the prisonner’s (sic) dilemma.”  I was only passingly familiar with the freerider paradox and decided to research it further.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers a solid an overview.

Although I haven’t personally played Terra, it is clear how the freerider paradox could be quite an interesting basis for a game.  My first thought was how it might interact with the Peace War Game we discussed in part 2 of this series.  The freerider paradox will definitely get a full treatment from this blog sometime soon.  In the meantime, be sure to read the article at Stanford and try your hand at integrating it into one of your games.

 

Closing Thoughts

The prisoner’s dilemma mechanism can bring interplayer tension into a variety of settings.  It can be used to encourage collaboration.  It can be used to encourage competition.  It is a versatile device in your designer toolbox.

Have you played a game with a Friend and Foe mechanism? What did you think of it? Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Be Ye Friend Or Be Ye Foe? Part 3

The Story So Far…
Two players are presented with an opportunity.  Each may remain loyal to the other player and betray her. Neither player will interact with the other in any way ever again. There be no out-of-game way to be rewarded and punished.

What could happen?

(1) If both remain loyal, each of them gets the “Cooperation” reward.

(2) If both betray the other, each of them gets the “Betrayal” reward.

(3) If one betrays the other while the other remains loyal, the betrayer gets the “Traitor” reward while the loyal one gets the “Sucker” reward.

This is the prisoner’s dilemma.

In a strict prisoner’s dilemma, the rewards are staggered with the “Traitor” reward best, followed by the “Cooperation” reward, then “Betrayal,” and finally “Sucker” the worst.  In mathematical terms, T > C > B > S.

Further, cooperation is much more likely if this decision point occurs repeatedly but obscures the exact number of times it will occur.

 

Correctly Staggering Rewards

In a strict prisoner’s dilemma, the rewards are staggered with the “Traitor” reward best, followed by the “Cooperation” reward, then “Betrayal,” and finally “Sucker” the worst.  In mathematical terms, T > C > B > S.

We discussed the Friend or Foe game show in detail in our last column.  Notice that this game deviated from this structure a bit–the “Betrayal” reward and the “Sucker” reward were identical; going home with no money.  Returning to mathematical terms, T > C > B = S.  If you opt to have two identical outcomes, this is the place to do it–at the bottom.  Notice also that in their scheme, T + S = C + C = total prize money.  Considering the demands of a of a game show–the need for clear rules that are easily parsed by the audience viewing at home–I can certainly see why they made this decision.

Personally, I would go a bit further than the standard T > C > B > S. I would also aim for 2C > T + S > 2B.  This was the reward structure of the peace war game and it suits my general design style.  Let’s go back to our Friend or Foe game show for an illustration.

Two players are going into the final showdown.  They have amassed $1000 in prize money.  Here are the possible outcomes under the standard game rules:

A) If both vote friend, they each get $500.

B) If both vote foe, they each get $0.

C) If one votes friend and the other votes foe, the foe gets $1000 and the friend gets $0.

Now imagine that we make a small tweak to the rules.  If both players choose “Friend,” we’ll throw in an extra 10%.  Now the decisions are:

A) If both choose friend, they each get $550.

B) If both choose foe, they each get $0.

C) If one chooses friend and the other chooses foe, the foe gets $1000 and the friend gets $0.

This is a small change but it has broad implications for the players.  If the players consistently choose friend, they end up collectively further ahead on repeated plays–$550 + $550 = $1100–than any other case–$1000 + $0 = $1000 in case (B) and $0 + $0 = $0 in case (C).  Of course, this game show doesn’t have repeated plays.  This decision is the last one of the game. But these players are conscientious, not amoral.  And that makes it all the more challenging for our players.

To Be Continued…

Our next column addresses ways to put Friend or Foe mechanisms into our own designs. See you Tuesday!

Have you played a game with a Friend and Foe mechanism? What did you think of it? Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Be Ye Friend Or Be Ye Foe? Part 2

The Story So Far…
Two players are presented with an opportunity.  Each may remain loyal to the other player or betray him. Neither player will interact with the other in any way ever again. There is no out-of-game way to be rewarded or punished.

What could happen?

(1) If both remain loyal, each of them gets the “Cooperation” reward.

(2) If both betray the other, each of them gets the “Betrayal” reward.

(3) If one betrays the other while the other remains loyal, the betrayer gets the “Traitor” reward while the loyal one gets the “Sucker” reward.

This is the prisoner’s dilemma.

In a strict prisoner’s dilemma, the rewards are staggered with the “Traitor” reward best, followed by the “Cooperation” reward, then “Betrayal,” and finally “Sucker” the worst.  In mathematical terms, T > C > B > S.

 

The Prisoner’s Dilemma In Mathematics

the Nash equilibrium for this game is for each to betray the other.  The logic is an extension of the amoral player presented in my last post and looks like this:

(1) If you remain loyal, I am better off betraying you.  In this way, I get the “Traitor” reward which is the best of the rewards I can get when you remain loyal.

(2) If you betray me, I am better off betraying you.  In this way, I get the “Betrayal” reward which is the best of the rewards I can get when you betray me.

(3) Therefore, I should betray you.

(4) Since you also know this, you should also betray me.

(5) Therefore we betray each other.

This logic is well-illustrated at by this video from Kahn Academy.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma In The Social Sciences

Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff present a classic arms race as an immediate example of the prisoner’s dilemma in their article at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.  Two nations could Cooperatively prosper if neither invested in weapons and instead devote their resources to more positive objectives.  Instead, the two nations both choose Betrayal and the arms race continues.

       

Dixit and Nalebuff go on to assert “On a superficial level the prisoners’ dilemma appears to run counter to Adam Smith’s idea of the invisible hand. When each person in the game pursues his private interest, he does not promote the collective interest of the group. But often a group’s cooperation is not in the interests of society as a whole…One must understand the mechanism of cooperation before one can either promote or defeat it in the pursuit of larger policy interests…The most common path to cooperation arises from repetitions of the game.”

In game designer terms: We must understand when and why our players cooperate before we can either encourage and discourage in the pursuit of engaging decisions.  A path for us is to have this decision point occur repeatedly throughout our game.

The Mathematical View of Multiple Iterations

Game theory sticks to its amoral guns, even in the face of iterative play.  Its argument looks like this:

(1) We know that I am best off betraying you in a single iteration because you have no opportunity to retaliate.

(2) You know this too.

(3) Therefore, we should betray one another in the final round.

(4) Therefore, I should betray you in the second-to-last round.

(5) Therefore, you should betray me in the second-to-last round.

(6) Iteratively, we betray one another in every round.

This issue is fixable.  Key to this logic is based is the assumption that the players know which iteration will be the last iteration.  When players are denied this knowledge, the starting point assumed in step (3) of the logic above is invalidated.

In game designer terms: Players should be presented with this decision point repeatedly but our game should obscure the number of times it will do so.

 

Peace War Games

Even in a group that doesn’t play the same game repeatedly, there exists a metagame memory of previous behavior which is carried into future games. I would suggest that designers can expect players to therefore gravitate toward Peace War Game behavior.

Peace War Games are iterated versions of the prisoner’s dilemma, extended out to larger numbers of players.  Players are cast as nations, with each turn’s decision being whether to choose “peace” or “war” with each neighbor.  According to Wikipedia, peace makers became richer over time, falling behind only the “Genghis Khan” strategy of constant aggression in which war supplied a steady stream of resources.  The player response to Genghis Khan is an interesting one–the “Provocable Nice Guy.”  This player selects peace always until attacked.  When several Provocable Nice Guys work in consort, they promote one another while reigning Genghis Khan in.

Because they are iterative and because they involve groups of players, peace war games give us the most insight into how players are likely to act when faced with prisoner’s dilemmas in our games.

 

To Be Continued…

Our next column looks at the design of Friend or Foe rewards.  Which types of rewards incentivize what types of behavior? See you Friday!

 

For those of you interested in further reading, Homo Ludditus makes several interesting arguments in its Nobody Understands “Prisoner’s Dilemma” article.  While it contains several points I cannot agree with, it does make some solid ones as well.  Certainly worth the time it will take you to read and digest it.

 

Have you played a game with a Friend and Foe mechanism? What did you think of it? Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Be Ye Friend Or Be Ye Foe? Part 1

Two of the designers in my group recently became entranced by the friend or foe mechanism.  John and Luther have attempted to throw this mechanism into exploration games, war games, and economic games.  In their own words, they have been “throwing it at every wall, hoping it will eventually stick.”

There’s something to be said for that kind of devotion.

With their campaign underway, there have naturally been a number of conversations abound the veritable water cooler.  What are its features?  Its weaknesses?  Where does it succeed?  Where does it fail?  This is of course exactly the kind of thing this blog exists to share.

What is Friend or Foe?

KennedyThe eponymous game show was played in rounds.  Three teams of two players each competed to amass prize money.  The best overall team went into a culminating final showdown.

In the showdown, these two teammates secretly voted “Friend” or “Foe.”

A) If both choose friend, they split the contest money evenly.

B) If both choose foe, they each get nothing.

C) If one chooses friend and the other chooses foe, the foe gets all the money and the friend gets nothing.

 

What if you were an amoral decision-making machine?

If you are amoral, you should always choose foe:

(A) If your partner chooses friend, you get everything.

(B) If your partner chooses foe, you get nothing but succeed in preventing him from taking everything.

 

Most of us are not amoral.  Our actions are how we identify who we are.  This identification is not only how we identify who we are to the outside world.  Our actions are also how we identify who we are to ourselves.  Most of us wish to believe that we are good people and that we do good things.
What if you are absolutely trusting?

If you are absolutely trusting, you should always choose friend:

(A) If your partner chooses friend, you get an equal share.

(B) If partner chooses foe, you get nothing but know that you still did the right thing.

 

Most of us are not absolutely trusting either.  We want to see good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.  We wish to be conscientious as Wikipedia defines it: “the personality trait that is defined as being thorough, careful, or vigilant;…exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement” as opposed to “People who score low on conscientiousness…are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.”

Now a tricky decision has appeared.  If you are to be conscientious, your choice must be based on your assessment of your opponent:

(A) If you believe your partner will choose friend, you should also choose friend and thereby share equally.

(B) If you believe your partner will choose foe, you should also choose foe and thereby deny him from making off with all the cash.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

tuckerThe Friend or Foe showdown is a form of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory concept, which was originally posed by by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950.  Also in 1950, Albert W. Tucker introduced the prison sentence theme.  It breaks down in the following way:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police offer each prisoner a plea bargain in exchange for testifying against the other. Here’s how it goes:

 

A) If both remain silent, each of them will only serve 1 year in prison.

B) If both betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison.

C) If one betrays the other while the other remains silent, remains silent, the betrayer will be set free and the silent one serves 3 years in prison.

 

Notice right off that this situation is framed in terms of punishment rather than reward so the decision space has different implications.

Notice also that this unlike the Friend or Foe game show, this is not a zero-sum game.  2 total years are meted out in case (A).  The total years in case (B) are 4.  The total is 3 years in case (C).  This difference gives the original prisoner’s dilemma a rather more interesting decision space than its game show incarnation.  The Friend or Foe game show, by contrast, was closer to zero sum.  I would suggest that this staggering of the rewards/penalties makes the prisoner’s dilemma more interesting for our players.  We’ll talk more about that in our next installment.

Dilbert18348.strip

Has Anyone Researched This?

Yes they have!  There is a great deal of research into Friend or Foe decisions.  Game theorist mathematicians have studied it from a standpoint of pure logic.  Social scientists have studied it from a standpoint of human behavior.  Both perspectives will give us insight into the kind of behavior we can expect from our players.  See you Tuesday!

Have you played a game with a Friend or Foe mechanism? What did you think of it?  Have you written one? How did your players respond to it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.

Writing Effective Adaptations, Part 3

Adapting other media into tabletop games can be quite rewarding if done well.  Trying to do it well has its pitfalls as well:

Carl Klutzke related this story in the comments section: “Several years ago when I went to the Game Developers Conference, I met some folks from Disney Interactive who were tasked with making computer games from Disney’s IP. They really wanted to do good work, but their management just wanted them to crank out something fast, because they knew the game would get bought whether it was good or not. They were some very frustrated people.”

Gentle reader, it would be nice to reassure you that these poor designers were in an unusual situation. There isn’t. A similar experience arose while I was dealing with a certain IP.  They were eager to see their characters and setting on game shelves but expected no more than a couple of weeks design time.  Rushing the product to market, to cash in and get out, seemed to be their only goal.  Since my desire was to create lasting products, I withdrew.  Carl’s tale of these poor souls implies to me that it was wise to do everything possible can to avoid falling into their situation.

So how does the modern game designer go about creating a quality adaptation?  Here is my process.  It may not work exactly right for you but should demonstrate a framework you can adapt it to fit your process.

 

 

Go To School

Learn all the characters, learn its tone, its pace, its structure.  Immersing oneself in the property is a common game designer technique.

TagonRuns.pngWhen developing a game for Howard Tayler’s Schlock Mercenary, I went back to the comic’s archives.  I read every episode.  At my side sat my trusty design journal, steadily filling with notes on characters, plots, recurrent themes, tone.

Then I read them again.  And again, always looking for details I may have missed.

 

The Game Emerges

You have a large vocabulary of game types and game mechanisms.  You have an encyclopedic knowledge of the source material.  Send your brain to swim through all that knowledge.  Let mechanism and theme, plot and type swirl together in your mind.  Look for the big picture. Allow the details to remain blurry.  From this interplay of ideas, your designer’s eye will see game potentials emerge.

After my second reading of Schlock Mercenary, I saw that stories were usually mission-based.  My game would need to have a mission-based structure.  Players would likely want to play their favorite characters from the comic.  Could this game be fully cooperative?  The mercenary team Tagon’s Toughs was filled with practitioners of enlightened self-interest–How about partially cooperative?

In the end, three different treatments of Schlock Mercenary were written.

 

 

The Proposal

Armed with a good general plan for your treatment of the game, it is time to run this plan past the creators.  You will need them behind it–talking your work up, promoting the game, building anticipation among his or her fans.  Besides, there’s little sense in putting hours into developing a design the IP holder rejects.

My publisher and I discussed the the three different treatments and selected one as having the best potential.  From there, I created a three-page proposal.  This proposal covered the game’s core engagement and showed a component concepts.  Clip art pulled from the Schlock Mercenary website was all we needed to convey the general idea.

 

 

Development

Supported by the creator’s blessing, launch into the development process.  Create, test, edit, test more, create more, test more.

Ideally, you will find test groups that are already familiar with the source material. Alternatively, persuade your test group to become familiar with the source material.  If neither are possible, proceed anyway.  It will be a bit more difficult but so long as you keep service of the source in mind, you will still be on course.

We tested the game twice a week for a year, constantly making adjustments.  We deliberated over its best and worst features.  We deliberated over the best parts of the Schlock story to focus on and which parts to shift into the background.  

After that year of development, we had a game in which every mechanism worked exactly as intended.  We had a game in which every major part of the Schlock Mercenary universe was features.  

Unfortunately, we also had a game which was rote, repetitive, and lacking in drama. We had a bad game.

 

 

Contingency Plans

Part of any successful artist’s process is the ability to learn from mistakes.  Some ideas simply don’t work.  We all have them.  We all find ourselves facing a problem that is completely unsolvable.  Be reassured that you are among good company.  Remember Albert Einstein’s assertion that 99% of his ideas were bad.  Accept that your best solution will sometimes be to back up and attack the problem from a completely different angle.

Howard Tayler and I were scheduled for a progress meeting at Gen Con.  At that meeting, I had the uncomfortable responsibility of sharing with him what I have already shared with you–that the game wasn’t fun.  He didn’t want his name on it and neither did I.

This could have been the end of the story.  It isn’t.  I went on to tell Howard about a skirmish system I’d been developing–the TacDice System–which was testing particularly well.  We discussed making the Schlock Mercenary game more compact, of focusing the game around the dramatic (and frequently ridiculous) fight sequences of his comic.  We played a skirmish using my proto and Howard enjoyed it.  We had a new plan and went to work from there.

When Schlock Mercenary: Capital Offensive released, both critics and fans received it positively.  We had succeeded in serving Mr. Tayler’s property faithfully and in making a good game.

 

And then I approached the great team at Greater Than Games about our interest in creating a similar TacDice game for their excellent Sentinels of the Multiverse property and Sentinel Tactics was born.

 

The road to success is a toll road.  Our failures are the toll.  Accept them and keep always moving forward.

 

 

What do you feel is most important quality for an adaptation? What’s your favorite adaptation? Have you written one? How did you go about it?  Share with your fellow readers in the comments below.  And if you’re enjoying what you’re reading, create an account with WordPress and follow this blog.  You keep reading. I’ll keep writing.