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.