Nalpha 2.1, the Learning Curve

This past week I had the privilege to test Nalpha in its current state with two folks who had not yet played it.  One (let's call him Terry) was familiar with DnD as well as MtG.  The other (let's call him Carl) had no experience with RPGs broadly, though he told me he had played MtG years back.

As I have intimated before, I believe Nalpha falls in the gap between traditional pen-and-dice tabletops and TCGs, which was borne out in comments from Terry.  So, it seems that both would have a general sense of game mechanics rather quickly.

What I observed was almost exactly what you'd expect, but I found it fascinating to witness it first hand in such a marked fashion...

Nalpha 2.1, and the State of the Game

This shouldn't be a long post, but I thought I should let you know how the gimmick vs. playability debate went.

Generally speaking, Playability won out in the end.  To be fair, the physical hook I mentioned earlier has returned to the game, but it has been toned back a bit.  The long and short of it is this: less upkeep, but similar flavor.

The gaming surfaces are completely gone, which addresses the portability issues I wrestled with previously.  The game feels great to play, but it still keeps some of the kinesthetic and visual appeal I had aimed for initially.

As I say, in the end, the victory went to playability.  The game just wasn't that fun when it was all about tedious card-handling.  But I was happy to have preserved the spirit of the gimmick, and ultimately I think that made it a likeable hook, rather than a burden to endure.

Nalpha: Emergence of a Subgenre

So, Nalpha is clipping along nicely.  I'm on the cusp of rolling out the next edition of beta.  Not nearly the huge core changes in this edition that we experienced in the last, but it's still pretty comprehensive.  Or to put it differently, I'm not quite to the point of fretting over the balance of each individual card yet, but those days are not so distant.

I was a bit dumbfounded to discover that, not counting the special "Character" cards, I had tasked myself with the creation of no less than 84 cards for the "Starter" version of the game.  Now, mind you, that is 84 discrete cards - no duplicates at all.

Which brings me to the topic I will be exploring: What do you do with a game that does not fit quite into an existing genre?

Nalpha 2.0: First Look

A buddy and I gave the reworked Nalpha a shot and let me tell you: it was better.  Much better.

Now, the game was far from "all that I could have hoped for."  It still certainly has a way to go.  Moreover, what we did was a simple duel.  Dueling is an okay activity in the game, but I think it will never compare to any gamestyle with more than one member per team.

One one level, the metagame is about selecting the appropriate cards, but I think the larger metagame is about assembling a team.

On the whole, variation in gameplay is not as high as I would like.  Down the road I may increase the number of cards a player can use at once but, as I say, that is down the road.  For now, I'm simply pleased that the game is working at the most basic level.

Nalpha: Why it sucked.

So, my wife gracious tested "Nalpha" with me this weekend.

It was awful.  Simply dreadful.  It's not that the idea that it has grown from was bad, but the implementation was.  Gameplay was marked with tedium, and on any given turn (which should be the high point of "fun-having"), it felt as though the game played itself, rather than you played it.

My wife is honest with her words, but much more so with her posture, facial expression, and overall fidgetiness.  I was convinced that the game was bad.  And that is why I am so grateful to have had her try it out with me.

So where do we go from here?  Well, here's the process I went through:

Nalpha: Gimmick versus Optimization

I have been working on a few games concurrently, and one of them is a genre-mash-up somewhere between a TCG and a tabletop RPG.  For the sake of discretion, let's give this project a codename: Nalpha.

So, I've been working on this project for a couple weeks, and there was a bit of a gimmicky hook to the play action; the cards were used in a physical way as a game element that cards usually aren't.  Yes, I know I'm being guarded with my description, but bear with me.  I wouldn't probably be talking openly about this game at all, if not for the developmental crossroads I find myself at.

More on Learning and Gaming

I think there is something intrinsically human in our need to learn.  This, of course, transcends academics and/or the assimilation of data.  But learning is one of the most gratifying experiences within the scope of humanity.  Learning can manifest in many ways, based on the objective.

One form of learning is mimicry.  This is a performance-oriented mode of learning.  On one end of the spectrum would be learning a fixed dance step.  On the other, perhaps would be conjugating Latin verbs.  One improves simply by doing what an authority does.

The Learning Curve

This week I had the privilege of demo-ing my card game with a friend of mine I only see occassionally.  After the game I thanked him for testing for me and his response was this: "No problem.  I think I make a good tester because I am a slow learner."

I thought his comment was at once endearing (there was no hint of false modesty in his face or voice) and instructive to me.  He had fun playing... not merely because the game ran well but because, by his estimation, he understood the game well by the second or third turn.

Just a brief update...

I got my first rejection letter!  I know, I know.  You're all very proud of me.  Well, I'm proud of myself as well.

Truth is, I didn't expect my first submission would be a success, and the critique offered was justified.  To be transparent, I identified the objections raised before I ever thought about sending my game off for publication.

But, the gentleman who I corresponded with could not have been more courteous and encouraging.  My supervisor at my actual job described the letter as "The nicest kick in the nuts" he'd ever read.  I'm heading to the next company with my game, so we'll see.

Theming Part Two

The card game I wrote about in my previous post on theming is coming along.  At this point it is an actual game... not just a mocked-up idea of a game.  I have a design for some poker-sized cards (though some real ART would be nice).

Which means, of course, I'm already knee deep in my next game idea.  I know, I know.  But I can't help it.

Anyways, most recreational projects I take on start by setting a novel goal for myself.  So, I decided I'd try to make a game that would score well on Garfield's Cosmic Poker scale.  To do so I thought I'd try my hand at a new genre: Designers games (a.k.a. Eurogames).  Now, I make no guarantees that I will actually accomplish said goal, but it at least got the ideas flowing.

Themes and Flavor

I am currently developing a casual-style card game, and I have to say that it is shaping up nicely.  The mechanics are simple, the learning curve is shallow, but there is a discernable level of strategic play.  Play testing has been pretty good so far.


But I was hung up on a different level: Theming.  It's interesting to me that the core of the game (let's say the "game engine") can be nicely tuned and working great, but without a proper theme it can still feel lacking.

Serious Gaming: Part 2

(Continuing from the previous post.)


But for all the positives that serious gaming may have, there are some notable dangers.  The one that I think needs to be highlighted is this: Taking it too Seriously.


This is the same thing that happens when screamed profanity barrels past the teeth of angry parents at tee-ball.  But usually, "taking it too seriously" isn't nearly that obvious.


More often, in my experience, it is a gradual process in which your energy expended increases while your enjoyment decreases.  It's an awful situation to be in, because the primary (and by which I mean physiological, psychological, and sociological) benefits of gaming are eroded, and - as stated previously - the game becomes work.


And you know what they say: All work and no play makes Jack a worn-out, burned out, neurotic overeater who is no fun to be around and gets very little done.  Or something like that.

Serious Gaming: Part 1

I think the value of casual gaming is fairly self-evident.  People want a bit of a distraction, something with little pressure, little stress, and little effort.  It may be a way of fighting boredom (games like Solitaire, for example), or it may be a venue to be social (party or family style games like Cranium or Warioware).  And without any real research into it, my suspicion is that the vast majority of people who play games at all play almost exclusively at the casual level.  

But there is a segment of gamers who are much more invested - personally as well as fiscally - in the games they play.  They tend to gravitate to a different type of game.  Strategy or mechanical skill seem to be the prime factors of interest, because they serve as a means of bettering one's ability to play.  And for the serious gamer, that is the what keeps the player playing.

Across the Table: Gaming as a Communal Experience

When I mention that I make games as a hobby, the first question I usually get is, "Like... video games?"  The answer is no.  Not, mind you, because I oppose them in principle.  I am an avid video gamer and I would be very amenable to the idea of working on one.


On the other hand, the answer is no not because I don't have the resources or know-how.  I have moderate flash skills and my own copy of the software.  I could be making (and have made) computer-based games.  There are some real limits on what I could do, but not really any more so than are imposed on me by not using that medium.


The answer is no because I want to sit at a table with someone.  I want to hold the cards or roll the dice or move the pieces.  And even as I write on this ephemeral, ethereal idea that is a blog on the internet, I have to say I like to get away from my computer screen.

Questions for Testers: Designer Debriefing

In my previous post, I suggested a design philosophy that I try to incorporate in my games: Simplicity of Play and Depth of Strategy.


It should be noted that this is not the template for making "a good game."  Lots of "good games" don't adhere to this philosophy at all.  For instance, D&D does NOT aim for simplicity.  You need several books, tons of peripherals (maps, multiple types of dice, miniatures, informational sheets, etc) and one expert (the DM) to basically mediate the entire experience.  Is it a good game?  Absolutely.  In fact, not only is it testing well in longevity, but it has served as the template and inspiration of multiple genres.  I don't think it is a far stretch to say that D&D did for gaming what The Lord of the Rings did for fictional literature.


But, I digress.  The point is, the above philosophy is somewhat narrow and personal.  If you're interested in making good games, you don't have to adhere to that standard.  So, I thought I'd share some more "universal" tools for evaluating a game-in-process.


I think the best metric for the health of a game design is enjoyment.  The only way to gauge enjoyment is to ask people who have played the game.  The challenge here is that "enjoyment" is an effect, not a component of the game.  So to really dig out what is working (or not working) in a game, it is good to see what elements are contributing or detracting from the enjoyment of the game.  I find that a quick debrief with testers after the game can be vital to tuning a game from okay to good to "when can we play again?"

Dragons: Sample game

Here is a sample completed game of Dragons. We'll walk through this real briefly to cover scoring and connectivity.

|A|A|Y|A|B|B|

|A|A|A|A|B|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|Y|Y|B|B|Z|

|Y|B|Y|Y|Z|Z|

The first thing to note is that there should be 9 of each symbol. if you get any other outcome, some body made a mistake on one of their turns. Remember, you must play exactly one of each of your symbols per turn.

So, what dragons do we see on the board? Well, "A" is a single dragon 9 links long - the very best possible. "B" is divided between 3 dragons: the first being 6 links (top right), the second is 2 links (bottom right), and the last only 1 link (bottom left). Note that the first and second touch diagonally, but that does not constitute "linkage."

Since we only count the Longest dragon of each symbol, Player One gets 9 points from his "A"s and 6 points from "B"s for a total of 15 points.

To simplify the scoring process, you can mark out any non-scoring (i.e. "not-longest") dragon.

|A|A| |A|B|B|

|A|A|A|A|B|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|A|Z|Z|Z|B|

|Y|Y|Y| | | |

|Y| |Y|Y| | |

So, let's score Player Two. Y: 8 points, Z: 6 points for a total of 14 points. Note: Y and Z dragons do not link. Ever. Player two does NOT have a 14 link dragon. He has an 8 link and a 6 link.

Final score -

Player One: 15

Player Two: 14

I hope that sheds some light on how the game functions. Tie games are possible, and I have considered giving the second player a half-point handicap, but honestly ties don't bother me so bad at the moment. Maybe that will change over time.

Dragons, Go, and the new Tic Tac Toe

As a game designer, I strive in most of my efforts to adhere to this two part philosophy: Simplicity of Play and Depth of Strategy. This two-part maxim serves as a balancing force in my games. The easiest means of increasing Depth is to bloat the game: add more rules, more choices, more math, more... whatever. The easiest means of simplifying play is to make things arbitrary (either by lessing the consequences of choices, or by increasing Chance as a game mechanic).

Now, I try to pay due respect to those games that have lasted for a long time. I think longevity is one of the best benchmarks of how good a game is (regardless of how you define "good"). If people keep playing, you've done your job right.

Having said that, I have to say that I don't like Tic Tac Toe. Sure, it's been around for a very long time, but there is something unsatisfying about it. It certainly appeals to the principle of Simplicity, but it lacks any real Depth. The fact is, there is a means of mastering the game. When two "masters" play eachother, it is impossible for the one who plays first to lose. The fact of the matter is that the game is only satisfying for those who do not fully understand it.

A Word of Welcome

If you're here, I don't know why. But I do thank you for stopping by.

I have never blogged before, but I'm the kind of guy that has thoughts he wishes he wrote down. I'm not egotistical enough to think that I'm writing for you because I don't even know that you will ever see this.

But since you did, let me tell you what you can expect out of this blog.

I will talk about gaming. Lots of different kinds of gaming. I love to play games, I love to make games. Caveat: I am not a professional game maker. I cannot help you get a job or market your product. It is a hobby of mine and that is all.

I will talk about fiction. Things I'm reading. Things I'm writing. I may even post segments of stories. Consider them copyrighted. Also, consider them open to critique.

I will talk about math and science. Chances are it will intersect with some of the other topics. see below

I will talk about God. I am a very spiritual (and to some extent religious) person. Having a consistent and comprehensive philosophy-of-everything is something I am always working at (sort of like Einstein's unified theory... except the Einstein parts). God is an integral part of my understanding of the universe. You may not concede to my statements about God, or even assent to his existence. That's fine. But if the notion of God (or the fact that I claim to know Him) offends you, I'm sorry. It's here. You've been warned.

I will talk about music and the arts and other transcendental or expressive things.

If you're still reading this, then I suspect you'll go on to read something else. If you stopped reading ealier, I'd appologize for boring you, but you wouldn't read it anyways.