Free Design Friday: Mystic World

Ugh, honestly the name for this prototype bugs me. But it's a prototype, so let's not get hung up on it.

I like the idea of a game that has a double-sided board...but that the pieces stay where they are as the board flips. There’s basically a normal board of 4 quarters, with a clear & stiff acrylic sheet overlay. Lift the plastic overlay with pieces on it, flip the boards over, and put the overlay back down.

Inspiration

This game was inspired by a Tim Powers book “Last Call” - a great story. Instead of being set in Las Vegas, I sent it to a center of weirdness, Albuquerque. Each player controls their character. In the “normal world” side of the board, they are mundane people. In the “mystic world”, they are characters based on Tarot cards.

Story

As you play, your character is drawn into a mystery in Albuquerque. Something is afoot – it could maim your character, maybe even kill it – removing you from the game. Your resources can be spent here or in the mystic world – your win condition in the real world and mystic world are going to be different, giving you options on how you win/play the game.

You might even be on the verge of winning the game in the mystic world, only to have a player or event revert it to the normal world. As the Empress, you were powerful and magnificent preparing to take the orb in the throne room. Shunted back into the real world, you are back to being a drunk in a dead-end alley, facing down a corrupt cop with a gun drawn on you. You spent so many resources making you powerful in the other world, that the neglect might finally catch up with you here.

Design Issues

I really like the double-sided board, alongside the two win conditions. I was considering even having each Major Arcana having its own goal, and each real world character having their own – almost too much design space.

Using the deck of 56 Minor Arcana is likewise a fun tie-in. If I had each one doing a different thing, it would require a custom Tarot deck with extra text, or I would need to reduce the variety of gameplay down so the Minor Arcana become more of a trick-taking or set-making game.

Overall

I really like the give-and-take of playing in two different arenas. If you're behind on one board, you can pivot to trying to win on the other. (I'm imagining that it would be hard to be winning on both boards at the same time.)

It has an additional game design difficulty, as you need to design two separate-but-overlapping board games. Balance one, you might need to go back and balance the other...risking a seasaw effect at the drawing board.

Free Design Friday: Chairman of Mars aka Russian buyback

This is a social game, hitting the theme of a plutocracy occasionally selling off its valuable resources to its richest oligarchs...only to claw them back for free later.

Tagline

"The Mars Federation committee has decided to embrace capitalism! The winner will become the permanent chairman of the board...at least for a little while. May the richest Martian win!"

The game

The players are both an oligarchs and a minister on the committee. Each round, each minister will offer up a government contract for the others to bid on, but only they know the true value. The other oligarchs will get to place one secret bid for that contract, and the highest one wins. (The money goes to the minister.)

At the end of purchasing, the current chairman can veto any one contract that was purchased this turn, with that money being going to the bank and the contract going back in the deck. Any kind of bribe is okay, nothing is enforceable.

As the last act of the year, ministers vote who will be the next chairman. Each contract gives them a vote, current chairman instead gets a number of votes equal to the number of players.

End score is based on your money on hand, and the worth of your hidden contracts.

You also get a small income after each round, as befitting an oligarch.

Overall review

It's a social interactive brawl kind of game, which derives the fun from who you are playing with. The chairman position doesn't get to auction things off, but can take bribes.

It's a little weak, because players are bidding on contracts, without any kind of information. Maybe have 3 stages of value for stocks, with some money amount overlapping. It might be interesting to give each contract a power, or a "set" power, if you were to hold 3+ contracts of a certain type. Players would be on the lookout to offensively or defensively draft contracts.

Free Game Design: AR/QR 4X Space Explore

I have too many game concepts to ever take all the way to the end. Feel free to borrow from my "Free Game Design" series, but I would appreciate a thank you in the credits if you decide to publish it. I'll generally have more material for these games, than what I post here - feel free to reach out to me. If I end up using this myself or some other company picks it up, I'll let folks know.

Space Explore

Space Explore stems from a problem of replayability, the difficulty of expansions, and ...an interest in AR/QR codes. It's a board game that uses both types of codes, allowing for some interesting dynamics. There is no way to play this game without a phone, and the server would need to keep around in order for the game to keep playing. (I would maybe say "this game is good for 10 years", after which, we'd provide a method to migrate over to their own custom servers.)

Honestly, we could probably set up some way to set up a server in AWS with the populated data right now, but there's a reason why we'd set up a server for now. I'll only cover the QR+AR aspect of the game - that's the interesting bit.

In addition to any of the standard piece components of a space-based 4X game, there's a double-sided QR code as the "key" universe card, a stack of planet cards with random AR images, and sets of technology cards with different AR images.

QR Code Part 1: The Universe

When a group of players sit down around the table, they pull out the double-sided universe card, the "owner" checks into the game using the QR code, sets up the game, flips the universe card over, and the rest of the players check in.

AR Code Part 1: Technologies

Players will research new technologies, manufacture new components, and create new ships. New technologies/components will result in gaining cards with AR codes on them.

AR Code Parts 2 & 3: Planets & Exploration

As players explore their universe, the phone app will tell them how many planets show up in a system, and have them scan planet AR codes so the game knows what's there. As the player attempts to explore a planet, they will get a short synopsis of what their sensors tell them (sometimes modified by their technologies installed on their main ships), and then they can send a shuttle down. Shuttles will have 4 "slots" for technology AR codes - as the shuttle approaches the planet, the player takes a shot using their app, of the 4 AR cards representing the technology they feel will allow them safe access to the planet and gain access to its resources.

Adding new content: setting up a game

One of the great parts about this game, is you can add new planets to the game without having to sell more board game components in physical stores. We could even have a part in the game app or website, where players could submit new planets - either for just themselves or for consumption by others. When an owner is setting up a game, they can even have sliders for what mix of planets they want - maybe 60% base game, 20% fan-made, 10% owner-made, 10% expansion number 1.

What I really like about this game concept, is that it allows for players to become designers. It allows for a bigger universe, where expert players don't always know what they will see. There's always a mystery on what planets will be out there, what technologies will pay off,

Adding Expansions

I was initially just going to write about Terraforming Mars, and how the expansions gave the game a lot of variety in techniques to play/win the game. Someday I'd like to see a game where players had so many varietal ways of choosing how to play, no single game could ever be the same strategy. But, we should probably discuss the nature of expansions first.

One of the challenges of games is adding expansions - covering board games this time around.

Different types of expansions

• More money: Additional revenue streams for a successful game
• Bigger: Couldn't fit the "full" game into the base game
• Ooops!: Fixes for a game's mechanics

Finding more money from a successful game is not the worst thing. What could take the same designer a year or more for another completely new game (without a guarantee of greatness), an expansion might only be 3 months of design & test time. These expansions usually feel more "tacked on", as if it was an afterthought. The base rules need to change in order for new mechanics to work properly, or it feels like the expansion should be a different game altogether. (For example, Turmoil for Terraforming Mars has voting and a ruling council - not matching any of TM's basic game structure.)

Occasionally you'll see games that need patches to address core gameplay issues. Trading card games run into problems with massive discard, or maybe an engine where an opponent simply doesn't get another turn. A game like Eclipse (1st edition) orange missiles were such a dominant endgame, they included anti-missile tech in later expansions as well as weaker missiles with extra battle-speed components. (It still didn't necessarily "solve" the orange missile problem, just added possible counter-measures.)

Sometimes there are games that are some big in scope, it would bombard the players with too many mechanics or concepts...or increase the cost of the base game to become too big of a risk for a casual buy-in. Everdell is an example of a game that was designed to include expansions - made clear by board expansion arrangements that fit together as a puzzle around the core release.

Downsides of expansions

Might not be found - the publisher might only make 2000 copies. In 5 years time, all of those copies have been purchased, but the publisher doesn't want to get stuck with a remainder...they don't print it again. Base game might see reprints, or had a larger 5000-count print run, leaving a lot of copies without the extra fun. Companies will sometimes follow-up years later with a "big box" version, with all the components and expansions. Feel like re-buying your base game?

Some expansions might rely on other expansions for their gameplay. As the publisher, they're stuck adding more components (just in case they don't have the earlier one), adding extra rulebook parts (and needing to match consistency), or ignoring the other expansions as if they weren't necessary (removing interesting gameplay interaction).

Where does that leave us?

Oh man, some expansions really make the games complete. Race for the Galaxy (card game, first 3 expansions) show how things can come together...but they were forced to add extra components. Terraforming Mars (Colonies (more interaction), Prelude (fixing a slow start), Hellas/Elysium (variety for replay) are solid additions, whereas Venus Next (TR for focusing on Venus slows down the overall endgame) and Turmoil (Voting blocks and events also slow down the game) start branching into inconsistent areas).

That said, I feel like expansions are 50/50. Someone might want to play a game, but only play expansions 1 & 3, and someone else might 1 & 2 - maybe it means that game doesn't come to the table. At the very least, one or more of the players don't get the experience they hope for at game night. Maybe the "big" version of the game is too much for a new player, meaning the expansions don't even come to the table. (And the experienced players feel like they're playing an incomplete version.) I still haven't gotten the airship expansion into a Scythe game yet, years later.

Constraint Driven Game Design

(I'm going over some old material - this was written in September 2014, but hopefully there's still something useful to you. I think at the time I was loosely employed to help with a small Facebook finance app, using gamification to drive usage/data/activity.)

If you search for "Constraint Driven Design", you'll find discussion on engineering. I think about this all of the time when it comes to game design.

In a lot of design work, you're expected to have a brainstorming session, where nothing is voted down. The goal is to come up with as many creative ideas as possible, and that negativity shuts down the creative process. CDD starts off by fencing away that open land.

Maybe it starts off like this:

1. We need to make a game that plays on a tablet, cross-platform.
2. Games need to last no more than 3 minutes.
3. Multiplayer, with very little AI automation
4. We would like a battle game with leaderboards.

If you're going to be a professional, you will need to adapt. It is incredibly rare that a designer has carte blanche to put out whatever they want. Embrace the constraints as a challenge to your creative talents.

Things That Aren't on You
That said, there are things that should NOT be on your radar, unless you are taking on more than just a design role. You shouldn't need to worry about resources. If you are not involved in a triple-A title, you won't be expecting that much in resources. I find it useful to know how big the team is, so we know what to expect..would the team grow if we needed more artists or programmers?

Another thing to lose concern about is cost. There's going to be some way in which the company recoups its expenses, and hopefully makes a profit. It's fair for a product manager to say "This is a freemium game from day 1" or "It will start off at $5 for 3 months, and then become freemium." Is it up to you to make the game for less than $5 a unit? Not likely. Are you expected to personally deliver 100,000 units in sales? No. But your group should deliver a product worth purchasing, and a method where players can pay, if it's supporting in-game transactions.

How to Win at Constraints
Some constraints like "play on a tablet" are straightforward. Skip ahead to the constraints that aren't locked down. Battle game is entirely open...pretty much every game will be a battle or a race in some fashion. Taking things like "games last no more than 3 minutes" SEEMS like it is obvious. What would happen if the results of those mini-games trickled over into bigger games? You could choose to play the bigger game if you had more time, or the smaller games in less time.

...and How to Lose at Constraints
If the constraints are constantly changing, you will lose. It's fine to have constraints in the beginning. Adding constraints later, kills the forward momentum of the design. "Okay, you need to optimize this game for a specific tablet, as a selling point for the tablet". All of a sudden, your zippy first-person shooter fails because the tablet you're designing for can't handle the frame rate.

If you don't establish constraints early, you can fail easily. The lead designer needs to tackle this early on, or as early as possible. Nail the limitations down so that a dozen more don't crop up unexpectedly. You only get one artist, and who has only done 2-D work? Good to know. You have 2 months to go gold? Scales down your expectations a bit. A product manager might be unwilling to give you limitations - but it also means that they could skip communicating necessary constraints.

The Takeaway

• Find constraints
• Identify how constraints are open or closed (determining what you can design)
• Verify the constraints (check with other stakeholders)
• Design the actuals

Good luck!

The Price of not Developing Early, Terraforming Mars Edition

The price of not developing early, is losing.

One of the non-Gloomhaven games I've been enjoying lately is Terraforming Mars. The game ends when all 9 water tiles are out, the heat has reached a certain temperature (about 24 steps), and there's 14 steps of oxygen increase. (Nothing removes or subtracts from those, once they are on the board.) You get victory points based on how much you contribute to developing Mars, some cards that you played, and what awards you bought.

As you play the game, you can get straight-up resources or develop longer-term production of those resources. (Most of these results come from the cards you play, leading to a lot of "what cards did I see this game?") Maybe 1/8 of the cards have some additional VP, but are harder to play due to costs or restrictions

You'll choose a corporation that has a certain flavor to it. You'll generally pay $3 per card that you draw during the game...the money is also used to play the cards. Bigger effect = higher cost or difficult requirements. Everyone is guaranteed to look at their own 4 cards to purchase from each turn...maybe 20 turns to the game?

There's lots of pressure in the early game:

1. Needing an engine
1. Everyone is going to have roughly the same income. Income* generation can take off, where maybe you start making more $15 more a turn than another player, but it will generally be at a cost of other things.
2. You could invest in steel/titanium production, based on cards that you drew. But you might not see a lot of cards that can use that production. (Each steel can be used as $2 for cards with the build icon, while each titanium can be used as $3 for cards with the starburst icon.) 
3. Plant production lets you plant more greenery on Mars, getting you VP & a little extra income.
4. Energy and Heat production gives you a little extra income, but less VP than plants.
2. Paying/competing for awards
3. Spending for better card combinations – you keep more cards, allowing more/better combinations later, but at a money cost early.

Develop Income Production Early

You get 10 cards to buy from at the start. Choosing cards that increase your income generation, steel, or titanium production are going to reduce costs in the long run. An example from Through the Ages – you build a mine that produces 1 mineral on turn 1, that will be 20 minerals over the course of the game. The earlier you build it, the better it will deliver results.

Get Discounts Early

Some cards will give you discounts for specific or general things. Playing them early means you get the discounts earlier. The discounts (or refunds) will go to specific types of cards or actions – income production is usually better, because you spend without being channeled into a direction.

Don't Keep Extra Cards

Some cards are really cool. But if they need a zero degree Celsius or higher to play, it's a late game card. That $3 you spent on it, is $3 less you had for developing your early game. 

Sadly, there's not really a counter to that style in the game. If you are not increasing your production engine at the start, it is a footrace that you start by walking upright. With the other players adhering to the same concepts, it becomes much more about your small decisions from the cards you randomly drew, than a grand strategy. 

Beyond the early game...Terraforming Mars does have a joint-map component. Tile placement of your cities and forests can force your opponents into more difficult/less optimal layouts. But an early game engine is clearly an advantage.

*Income generation actually consists of two things - actual dollars being generated beyond your allowance, and the TMs which create the base allowance. TM's start at 20 and go up as you do things to improve Mars...planting trees, bringing water down, and increasing the temperature. If you couldn't get cards to improve income, pay raw money to do those actions. Not as money efficient, but your other choice is to hold on to your money and do nothing...hoping that the situation changes with the next hand of 4 cards to buy from.

The Gloomhaven Experience Part 1

The dusty halls of design work...I love adventure games. The various games were nice, but were missing something. Runebound, Mage Knight, Magic Realm...a future post perhaps.

I've been doing a lot of 3D modeling & printing, at the expense of pondering games publicly. In May 2017, also started playing pickup games of Gloomhaven as the extra player "player 4" a rotating seat in a regular campaign. Mostly as the Mindthief class.

Discussion came up with a regular game group I was in, and we started playing THAT campaign in June as a Tinkerer. Once second edition copies were showing up, joined group #3 as a Scoundrel, and started a home game (campaign #4) as a Cragheart.

Gloomhaven is a solid 10 for me. The round-to-round mechanics are interesting, monsters have variety without excessive rules, the story is good, and the classes are all very different. It's possible I'll come back to those points, but today's focus is on the experience.

The Start

Starting at level 1 with 30 gold pieces worth of basic gear, the first several scenarios are challenging. You have a brief idea of what your character can do, and realize mid-way through that you could have done better. (A feedback loop, where you want to do better.) And there are items in the store, if you could just afford them.

After several adventures, you level up - giving you access to a new card to mix in. New cards, different scenario challenges...the strategic value of each card can change. By level 5 or 6, you might retire your character to play a new class, revisiting the whole system again with different eyes.

The Player Response

As a player, you want to play again if you felt you were getting close to a better item/level/new class. If you reach any of those plateaus, you want to keep playing to see if that plateau was as good as you hoped. 

I played two scenarios last night - the first one, we completed. My Brute got a couple of perk checkmarks, a touch of money, light experience points. The second adventure found me with a third checkmark, a level, and a custom item from the side scenario. New card for leveling (and the anticipation of "what does next level give?), new perks, and the new item (first look, it was weak...second look, amazing). I would have played a third scenario, just to see how everything tied in. Maybe a fourth, to explore those new abilities in different environments.

The Design

Ideally, your game design has replay value. Getting players to return again and again, requires constant feedback loops. The parts that Gloomhaven really dials in:

1. Anticipation
2. Release (achieving a goal)
3. Irregular challenges/rewards

If there's too long of a gap between anticipation and release, there's a disconnect in the loops - even if the reward is good. If it is a short gap, the release fizzles the excitement. Finally, if the challenges are all the same and/or the rewards are static, players feel the grind.

The designer, Isaac Childres, should be pleased with the delivered experience.