So previously discussing using unknowns as well as making the calculation of the winner (during the game) tricky, there's also a system of obfuscating the score by making it tedious.
Ticket to Ride won a huge game award in Germany (Spiel de Jahres, 2004). It allows for quick play, interesting player interactions...great! As you play trains, you score points for them. You also get bonus points (or penalties for not completing them) at the end of the game. I'm a stickler for keeping track of points during the game. I want to know who's ahead...if I have a chance to cut them off, I'll consider it. (Likewise, I want other players to elevate their game by knowing that information as well.)
We can't know their tickets - they get scored at the very end, when it's too late to interfere. Those are a known unknown. Even knowing what's possible is kind of a help - I keep my 1910 copy around, so that they represent more of an unknown unknown for me...a little more of an equal ground. But this is all a sideshow, for the main topic today.
What happens if people aren't sticklers for keeping track of the score? Some play groups don't bother keeping track - just count it at the end. They seek to avoid bad information...if Alex appears in last, but he's actually in first all due to bad scorekeeping...some say it's an unacceptable risk. In my mind, they then miss out on part of the game.
In this regard, Ticket to Ride (for them) is suited for obfuscated scoring. Everyone knows people have points, and they could add them up if they wanted to. It would slow down the game, so no one does. (If they do, maybe they keep it to themselves.)
Other games hide the data by overloading players with information. In the Thebes game last night, nothing stopped us from figuring out how much the other players had...except for the amount of little chits that each person had. My final game had 57 points in chits, primarily in values 1 through 3...some as much as 5. None of us were counting chits, beyond seeing what colors were still 'rich' in points.
In computer games, it's assumed that the computer will keep track of everyone's score - and if they are known quantities, it's assured. Some of my friends love playing Race for the Galaxy on the computer, as it keeps track of a tempo of the game...should they end it or not? An accurate count of points is key...but they're reluctant to stop a game in real life to manually count points. (Jason, I'm looking at you!)
When designing (and playing) a game, it's important to see how points flow during the game. You can have players generalize 'first place' if you want to avoid the 'hit first place' default strategy...or if you just want randomize acts of intervention-interaction between players.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
When coming in first isn't enough
First place - it's what you strive for when playing a game, right?
Let's talk about a framework for the discussion. You call up some friends, and get together for an evening of hanging out. People might do a variety of things to hang out - go for dinner (out or in), see a movie, watch a DVD, hang out in a bar, see a rock show...maybe hang out and play some poker.
Board games serve a function similar to a "guy's night out for poker". Part of it is just hanging out, a loose competition, or maybe a slight edge putting some money out there...not so much for board games. It provides a social structure, a reason to hang out, and something to build an evening of conversation with.
As such, there's a certain amount of give in trying to win. You might be playing to win at any cost, but you'd probably put the breaks on anything that would destroy the group's hang-out dynamic. But generally it's agreed that you're trying to win at least a little.
Within a game, coming in first can be accomplished different ways in each game. Some add mechanics to make first place a little more dicey - we'll use Cleopatra and the Society of Architects as a model. It's a game put out by Days of Wonder, and each player attempts to be the best builder. Cleopatra loves builders. You have the occasional opportunity to cut some corners and take some corruption.
At the end of the game, she shows favor (you win!) if you're the best builder. Except before that happens, she kills off the most corrupt player. It's interesting because the game offers you risky paths (how much risk do you take to win), but offers a certain punishment to one unlucky person.
Some games offer other mechanics to trick the appearance of first place. Allowing multiple end-game conditions is common, but multiple win conditions is less so. Poker, you always win with a Royal Flush. Nothing beats it. If you read my earlier review of The Princes of Machu Picchu, I skipped over the end of the game. Usually the winner is determined by standard scoring, based on cards picked up during the game. Produce lots of shirts? Get goal cards that reward that. The players can also angle for it to end on a different scoring mechanism - all of a sudden, first place isn't first because it uses a new system to calculate winning.
Let's talk about a framework for the discussion. You call up some friends, and get together for an evening of hanging out. People might do a variety of things to hang out - go for dinner (out or in), see a movie, watch a DVD, hang out in a bar, see a rock show...maybe hang out and play some poker.
Board games serve a function similar to a "guy's night out for poker". Part of it is just hanging out, a loose competition, or maybe a slight edge putting some money out there...not so much for board games. It provides a social structure, a reason to hang out, and something to build an evening of conversation with.
As such, there's a certain amount of give in trying to win. You might be playing to win at any cost, but you'd probably put the breaks on anything that would destroy the group's hang-out dynamic. But generally it's agreed that you're trying to win at least a little.
Within a game, coming in first can be accomplished different ways in each game. Some add mechanics to make first place a little more dicey - we'll use Cleopatra and the Society of Architects as a model. It's a game put out by Days of Wonder, and each player attempts to be the best builder. Cleopatra loves builders. You have the occasional opportunity to cut some corners and take some corruption.
At the end of the game, she shows favor (you win!) if you're the best builder. Except before that happens, she kills off the most corrupt player. It's interesting because the game offers you risky paths (how much risk do you take to win), but offers a certain punishment to one unlucky person.
Some games offer other mechanics to trick the appearance of first place. Allowing multiple end-game conditions is common, but multiple win conditions is less so. Poker, you always win with a Royal Flush. Nothing beats it. If you read my earlier review of The Princes of Machu Picchu, I skipped over the end of the game. Usually the winner is determined by standard scoring, based on cards picked up during the game. Produce lots of shirts? Get goal cards that reward that. The players can also angle for it to end on a different scoring mechanism - all of a sudden, first place isn't first because it uses a new system to calculate winning.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Meta-topic of Game Design (Educational Games)
There are lots of reasons to design games. People want to create things. Others want to make money. Some want to tackle games that have never been done, or re-create a classic. Educational games are made by the bucketful.
My topic for today is educational games. I read a "Games for Educators" newsletter awhile back, which discussed how games can help kids who are behind on their education catch back up. Kids can fall behind for a variety of reasons - difficult homes, poor schools, disabilities, disinterest...there are tons of reasons. My experience at Pokemon was a positive one - parents would come up to me, explaining how Pokemon led to a turn-around in their kid's desire to learn. In this case, Pokemon provided the motivation.
Personal tastes - I don't like the strictly "good for you because we say it is" concept. It seems heavy-handed and unfair. Learn how to count/multiply/divide/memorize things! Learn history through our narrow lens! The first part, if it's incidental to the natural game play, kids will learn it, and not see it as a ham-fisted approach that the teacher/parent is trying to force on them AGAIN. (There's only so many times that I tell my mom I don't want broccoli. She still forces the issue. Is she not listening, or just not caring about my opinion?) Learning history through someone else's direction means that your facts will be whatever they give you...no context of the greater whole.
I want to see educational board games teach teamwork, like in Space Alert or Pandemic. I want to see kids learn planning skills, similar to what you see in Macao and Through the Ages. I want to see social negotiation skills develop, that you find in Settlers of Catan. These are skills that are for the greater good of society that all kids learn these...and early, if possible.
There isn't anything horribly wrong with teaching math skills through games, it's just not efficient. Doing math problems out of their textbook will provide them with basic skills, especially if the kids do homework. My argument is that the teaching games could be teaching them things that they don't get in school...if kids develop leadership skills, it's more a result of accidents than planned activity.
Next time I'll come back with an example of educational board games - in the meantime, check out "Games for Educators" - their newsletter is pretty interesting. (Link on the side.)
Disclaimer: I actually like broccoli. It was peas that took me awhile to adapt to.
My topic for today is educational games. I read a "Games for Educators" newsletter awhile back, which discussed how games can help kids who are behind on their education catch back up. Kids can fall behind for a variety of reasons - difficult homes, poor schools, disabilities, disinterest...there are tons of reasons. My experience at Pokemon was a positive one - parents would come up to me, explaining how Pokemon led to a turn-around in their kid's desire to learn. In this case, Pokemon provided the motivation.
Personal tastes - I don't like the strictly "good for you because we say it is" concept. It seems heavy-handed and unfair. Learn how to count/multiply/divide/memorize things! Learn history through our narrow lens! The first part, if it's incidental to the natural game play, kids will learn it, and not see it as a ham-fisted approach that the teacher/parent is trying to force on them AGAIN. (There's only so many times that I tell my mom I don't want broccoli. She still forces the issue. Is she not listening, or just not caring about my opinion?) Learning history through someone else's direction means that your facts will be whatever they give you...no context of the greater whole.
I want to see educational board games teach teamwork, like in Space Alert or Pandemic. I want to see kids learn planning skills, similar to what you see in Macao and Through the Ages. I want to see social negotiation skills develop, that you find in Settlers of Catan. These are skills that are for the greater good of society that all kids learn these...and early, if possible.
There isn't anything horribly wrong with teaching math skills through games, it's just not efficient. Doing math problems out of their textbook will provide them with basic skills, especially if the kids do homework. My argument is that the teaching games could be teaching them things that they don't get in school...if kids develop leadership skills, it's more a result of accidents than planned activity.
Next time I'll come back with an example of educational board games - in the meantime, check out "Games for Educators" - their newsletter is pretty interesting. (Link on the side.)
Disclaimer: I actually like broccoli. It was peas that took me awhile to adapt to.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Abstracted Scoring
Games often determine a winner by some kind of scoring technique - usually something universal like victory points. Sometimes the VPs are hidden behind a screen, on the board itself, counted in cash, or hidden in plain sight.
How the scoring record is handled, matters a great deal. If it is something concrete that other players can constantly refer to, players can and will base their playing based on who is in the lead.
Scoring can be incomplete, due to unrevealed tricks or just not far enough in the game. As an example of not being far enough - in Agricola, each turn fixes some part of their farm up more. You can kind of keep up on how much they're missing and try and cut them off from the boars you think they need, but you can't accurately gauge their scoring potential. Likewise, some games reward sets of cards in play, and scoring things just on what you see before you doesn't address the unknown cards in your opponent's hidden information.
Abstracting the score tracking methods adds to that complexity.
Option 1 is the best place to be. You understand the scoring complexity, and you're already ahead.
Option 2 is second best position. You're not in first, but you understand how it can change. You can point out how someone else is winning.
Option 3 is great - you're in first, but you're not to the level of understanding how scoring works - someone could pull ahead, and you can't explain to other players when other players overtake you.
Option 4 is the worst - you're not necessarily sure where you are in scoring, but you're not in first.
Abstract scoring gives the Inexperienced Players a double hit - they're less sure how to win, and can't tell how well others are doing. (You can also apply a middle range, called the "Distracted experienced player" - knowing the rules, but distracted by the company of friends, girlfriend/boyfriend, teaching the game, etc.)
This isn't to say, abstract scoring is always bad - if a game allows for a quick advancement into being an experienced player, it evens things out a bit. But a dense, meaty game where it'll take 4-5 hours to play, adding abstract/hidden scoring creates a huge inequity gap between experienced and inexperienced players.
Example:
Through the Ages has a scoring track. It is accurate up until Age 3, where Wars and Goals kick in...new players could play the Advanced Game through Age 2 often, but Age 3 would always kill them against experienced players. Mitigation: a list of possible goals, and a thorough example of wars. (I usually recommend this at the end of Age 1.)
Abstracted scoring can also be a good mechanic for your game if it includes hidden elements. Experienced players might be able to guess what kind of information is hidden, but not the specific qualities of the hidden data. Again, experience will provide an edge, but in this case, they're stuck guessing how well the inexperienced player has caught on. (You can't guess their actions, because they haven't found the 'ideal' experienced playing style.)
Enjoy some games this weekend!
How the scoring record is handled, matters a great deal. If it is something concrete that other players can constantly refer to, players can and will base their playing based on who is in the lead.
Scoring can be incomplete, due to unrevealed tricks or just not far enough in the game. As an example of not being far enough - in Agricola, each turn fixes some part of their farm up more. You can kind of keep up on how much they're missing and try and cut them off from the boars you think they need, but you can't accurately gauge their scoring potential. Likewise, some games reward sets of cards in play, and scoring things just on what you see before you doesn't address the unknown cards in your opponent's hidden information.
Abstracting the score tracking methods adds to that complexity.
Option 1 is the best place to be. You understand the scoring complexity, and you're already ahead.
Option 2 is second best position. You're not in first, but you understand how it can change. You can point out how someone else is winning.
Option 3 is great - you're in first, but you're not to the level of understanding how scoring works - someone could pull ahead, and you can't explain to other players when other players overtake you.
Option 4 is the worst - you're not necessarily sure where you are in scoring, but you're not in first.
Abstract scoring gives the Inexperienced Players a double hit - they're less sure how to win, and can't tell how well others are doing. (You can also apply a middle range, called the "Distracted experienced player" - knowing the rules, but distracted by the company of friends, girlfriend/boyfriend, teaching the game, etc.)
This isn't to say, abstract scoring is always bad - if a game allows for a quick advancement into being an experienced player, it evens things out a bit. But a dense, meaty game where it'll take 4-5 hours to play, adding abstract/hidden scoring creates a huge inequity gap between experienced and inexperienced players.
Example:
Through the Ages has a scoring track. It is accurate up until Age 3, where Wars and Goals kick in...new players could play the Advanced Game through Age 2 often, but Age 3 would always kill them against experienced players. Mitigation: a list of possible goals, and a thorough example of wars. (I usually recommend this at the end of Age 1.)
Abstracted scoring can also be a good mechanic for your game if it includes hidden elements. Experienced players might be able to guess what kind of information is hidden, but not the specific qualities of the hidden data. Again, experience will provide an edge, but in this case, they're stuck guessing how well the inexperienced player has caught on. (You can't guess their actions, because they haven't found the 'ideal' experienced playing style.)
Enjoy some games this weekend!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Playing second place to the win.
Let's play a 5-player game - first person to 10 points wins. In the game, you add 1 point to your score every round, and you nominate one person to take a -1 to their score. The -1 only happens if two or more give the same victim a negative (which is secret). Scores are secret, except each person knows his or her own score, and after the 5th round everyone knows who is in first if they are in first by themselves. It becomes more interesting when you don't assign someone a negative, you get +1/2 point. If two or more people sacrifice a half-point from their own score to the same victim, it's a -2 instead of a -1.
There's some social discussion that takes place. In the beginning, people are tossing around who should get the negative. Over time, people start knowing who is in first - negatives start flowing more accurately to the top players. First place will get hammered the most. If it drops down to a tie with someone, people still know that first place WAS first place, and may not know who else is tied.
This represents classic game playing - gang up on the winner. Some games can abstract the winner a bit, by tucking away bonus points for the end of the game, or by adding layers of gameplay allowing multiple routes to score...it makes it more of a climb-to-the-top race, as opposed to a zero-sum game where a person loses something for another one to gain.
Ganging up on the person in first place, you can slow them down long enough, for whoever was in second to catch them - you're trading one king for another. If you want to win, you have to have some exit strategy that lets you ALSO top the players ahead of you.
Let's say that you're *sure* that you're in second place on the 4th round. You have 6 more rounds of +1 point. If you're only a point or two behind first, you'll catch them early, and people will know that your points are high....first place will take the hits for you!
This kind of thing comes up in board games like Munchkin, where you can have a more direct influence on other players. Other games are similar - Citadels, Settlers of Catan...any game that relishes the table-talk aspect of games. No one usually picks on second place, unless there is revenge or king-making going on.
So second place WANTS first place to go down the most. But only at the right time, when second can move up for the win. If you hit 3rd or 4th, it'd be nice - less competitors nearby. You want them thinking they might be soon in the running - more likely to hit 1st place, instead of revenge for an earlier strike.
Yes, this is my suggestion - 2nd place hates the last place player. You toss negatives at them, and early on you convince others to as well. 1st place starts pulling away, and you have a Public Enemy #1, and you mostly back off.
***
This hypothetical game stems from an actual game of Caylus tonight - if you allow table-talk, one of the more interesting periods of the game is moving the provost. The players can pay game money move the provost to mess up the plans of other players, but it works best if you can align your interests for the turn with others. You can motivate people to contribute into hitting first place, if it's easy enough to describe.
The abstractness of the scoring benefits players with the most experience in the game, followed by strong analytics. For example, when playing Le Havre - I'd fear Guy A with 8 Steel, more than Guy B who has triple A's points in buildings. I could explain it better to new players. 60% of the Settlers of Catan development cards are Soldiers - important when you need to highlight the dangers of people trading the guy with 2 Soldiers in play some rock. As that's another topic, consider this a teaser!
There's some social discussion that takes place. In the beginning, people are tossing around who should get the negative. Over time, people start knowing who is in first - negatives start flowing more accurately to the top players. First place will get hammered the most. If it drops down to a tie with someone, people still know that first place WAS first place, and may not know who else is tied.
This represents classic game playing - gang up on the winner. Some games can abstract the winner a bit, by tucking away bonus points for the end of the game, or by adding layers of gameplay allowing multiple routes to score...it makes it more of a climb-to-the-top race, as opposed to a zero-sum game where a person loses something for another one to gain.
Ganging up on the person in first place, you can slow them down long enough, for whoever was in second to catch them - you're trading one king for another. If you want to win, you have to have some exit strategy that lets you ALSO top the players ahead of you.
Let's say that you're *sure* that you're in second place on the 4th round. You have 6 more rounds of +1 point. If you're only a point or two behind first, you'll catch them early, and people will know that your points are high....first place will take the hits for you!
This kind of thing comes up in board games like Munchkin, where you can have a more direct influence on other players. Other games are similar - Citadels, Settlers of Catan...any game that relishes the table-talk aspect of games. No one usually picks on second place, unless there is revenge or king-making going on.
So second place WANTS first place to go down the most. But only at the right time, when second can move up for the win. If you hit 3rd or 4th, it'd be nice - less competitors nearby. You want them thinking they might be soon in the running - more likely to hit 1st place, instead of revenge for an earlier strike.
Yes, this is my suggestion - 2nd place hates the last place player. You toss negatives at them, and early on you convince others to as well. 1st place starts pulling away, and you have a Public Enemy #1, and you mostly back off.
***
This hypothetical game stems from an actual game of Caylus tonight - if you allow table-talk, one of the more interesting periods of the game is moving the provost. The players can pay game money move the provost to mess up the plans of other players, but it works best if you can align your interests for the turn with others. You can motivate people to contribute into hitting first place, if it's easy enough to describe.
The abstractness of the scoring benefits players with the most experience in the game, followed by strong analytics. For example, when playing Le Havre - I'd fear Guy A with 8 Steel, more than Guy B who has triple A's points in buildings. I could explain it better to new players. 60% of the Settlers of Catan development cards are Soldiers - important when you need to highlight the dangers of people trading the guy with 2 Soldiers in play some rock. As that's another topic, consider this a teaser!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Limited games...really?
I play in several game nights with a bunch of different friends, which leads to some power dynamics in game selection. The more games you play allows you a more discerning taste for what kinds of games you like. I can imagine this is like wine connoisseur's taste buds - this is my brain though!
Everyone can do this, simply by saying "No, I don't want to play Monopoly." The group shifts around, trying to find a game they can all agree on, or end up playing a game that is least hated. This isn't a new thing, and it happens often in gaming circles.
Why does this happen?
It could be a case of direct conflict. Bust out a Risk game, get some blood spilled...action! It's not for everyone - likewise, a non-conflict game might not find love in a group.
It can also be a preference to one's strength. One of my friends is extremely good at (and enjoys) games that give him a sweet spot of choice-calculation. If it's a game that swings a lot based on random effects, he's not going to enjoy it.
Limited knowledge. "There's only so many games I want to bother learning the rules and/or strategy for." It's a reasonable call - not everyone wants to learn the finer points of Through the Ages. (Tonight I played with a couple of friends who enjoyed it in the past. Both said at the end, that they liked the game, but couldn't compete very well because their knowledge of the cards and flow weren't strong enough...and that maybe we needed to play it more...or much less.)
What can you do about it?
Conflict is something that is there or not...it's rare that a game allows you to play both ways well. The best way to handle it is to organize specific groups for a specific kind of game night. Love conflict, come to this night. It only pays off if the group is willing to split up for nights they'll enjoy more. Rare, but it sometimes takes place.
I'll admit to like playing more games that I enjoy. It's also likely that I'll get better at it, as it gets more plays and more attention. If your gaming friends are hyper-competitive, taking time off from your favorite game might give them a fairer shot at beating you. (Can I actually recommend this? Don't play games you like?)
Finally, the last bit has some of my sympathy. Not everyone lives and breathes games. Rules unique to specific games, requires attention and continuous learning...people play games for fun. It's tough on one hand - by insisting that you play games A, B, or C, because you know them...it means that if other people have moved on from those games (hey, we've been playing those three games for the past year!)...maybe it's time that you learned a new game. On the other hand, it's not cool if every game night you show up for, shows off a new game with new rules. (Suck.)
I have a couple of closets full of games, but only a half dozen see play during a 6-month period. (Currently it's Le Havre, Race for the Galaxy, Through the Ages, and Dungeon Lords.) Limited games. Limited time. Limited time for people to learn. Oh, sadness.
Everyone can do this, simply by saying "No, I don't want to play Monopoly." The group shifts around, trying to find a game they can all agree on, or end up playing a game that is least hated. This isn't a new thing, and it happens often in gaming circles.
Why does this happen?
It could be a case of direct conflict. Bust out a Risk game, get some blood spilled...action! It's not for everyone - likewise, a non-conflict game might not find love in a group.
It can also be a preference to one's strength. One of my friends is extremely good at (and enjoys) games that give him a sweet spot of choice-calculation. If it's a game that swings a lot based on random effects, he's not going to enjoy it.
Limited knowledge. "There's only so many games I want to bother learning the rules and/or strategy for." It's a reasonable call - not everyone wants to learn the finer points of Through the Ages. (Tonight I played with a couple of friends who enjoyed it in the past. Both said at the end, that they liked the game, but couldn't compete very well because their knowledge of the cards and flow weren't strong enough...and that maybe we needed to play it more...or much less.)
What can you do about it?
Conflict is something that is there or not...it's rare that a game allows you to play both ways well. The best way to handle it is to organize specific groups for a specific kind of game night. Love conflict, come to this night. It only pays off if the group is willing to split up for nights they'll enjoy more. Rare, but it sometimes takes place.
I'll admit to like playing more games that I enjoy. It's also likely that I'll get better at it, as it gets more plays and more attention. If your gaming friends are hyper-competitive, taking time off from your favorite game might give them a fairer shot at beating you. (Can I actually recommend this? Don't play games you like?)
Finally, the last bit has some of my sympathy. Not everyone lives and breathes games. Rules unique to specific games, requires attention and continuous learning...people play games for fun. It's tough on one hand - by insisting that you play games A, B, or C, because you know them...it means that if other people have moved on from those games (hey, we've been playing those three games for the past year!)...maybe it's time that you learned a new game. On the other hand, it's not cool if every game night you show up for, shows off a new game with new rules. (Suck.)
I have a couple of closets full of games, but only a half dozen see play during a 6-month period. (Currently it's Le Havre, Race for the Galaxy, Through the Ages, and Dungeon Lords.) Limited games. Limited time. Limited time for people to learn. Oh, sadness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
