And now the test of tests. How does the objectivity of my system of aesthetic measurement hold up when applied to one of the most hotly debated games of all time.
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (Basic and 4th Edition)
For D&D we're going to take a slightly different tack and compare two iterations of the same game to see how the design ethos and target audiences have changed over the 3+ decades of its existence. Please note that while I, personally, find the Basic game to be preferable, the scores for the 4th edition game do not reflect my personal like or dislike of one or the other, but the different aesthetics involved and how they might affect my decision as well as that of those who favor 4E over Basic.
THEME VS. MECHANICS
This is a hard characteristic to properly analyze for both editions, as one could argue that the very system of D&D, with its levels, hit dice and other core principles, has become the defacto thematic mechanic for D&D style games. So while it would be correct to say that the rules themselves are generic enough to be applied to any setting, it is an arguable point that D&D is just not D&D without them and, after 30+ years, D&D fantasy is as specific a style of fantasy roleplaying as sword & sorcery or science fantasy.
That being said, there is a definite split in the community on what, exactly, the core mechanics are. So far, Levels, Hit Dice and Hit Points remain, although they have changed considerably over the years, but race as class, level caps, wizard abilities and other core concepts that have existed for multiple editions have been done away with in 4E. The question is this: where is the line that any edition must cross to go from being D&D to a game that is D&D in name only?
Taking this into consideration, and considering the age of the edition, Basic D&D pretty much encapsulated the D&D experience for a large number of people for a very long period of time. It scores Theme +2, only losing out on a +3 because the rules were never intended to reflect any particular theme, they just ended up doing so with age.
While 4E does contain many of the ‘sacred cows’ of previous editions, it does manage to slaughter quite a few more and change up the style of gameplay enough that it has caused a great deal of discord amongst D&D players. Mechanically, it is clearly a different approach to the old game, but it does what intends to do so well, that it has created a whole new style with a devoted fanbase. So I’d say Mechanics +2 for 4E. It’s still D&D in more than name, but it is very different from what has been traditionally known, thematically, as D&D fantasy.
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
Basic is very simple in execution. The rules are sparse and cover general situations with a great deal of Dungeonmaster advice on how to improvise when the rule are undefined. This idea of ‘anything that is not forbidden is permitted’ carries a complexity all its own, however, as it takes a lot of experience to run the game based on some notes and a good talent for improvisation. Indeed, most DM's learned to run the game from playing it under a more experienced DM, the knowledge of how to run the game being passed down rather than being learned from the books.
It can be complex for players who are not used to having such an open environment, as well, and many will resort to simple applications of the rules for their first few games (and die horribly in traps they did not look for or to monsters they misjudged) before they truly understand the dynamics of a completely open world and how to interact with it within the ‘theatre of the mind.’ For this reason, I’d score Basic as Simple +2.
4E is different in that there are a lot more rules and the balance between those rules is so important, that it rewards the proper application of those rules first and foremost. Add to this the important meta-game activity of character building and the focus on the combat minigame, and a lot more system mastery is required than before. This complexity tends to grow exponentially as new books with new powers are released, increasing the number of interconnecting parts that must be balanced against each other and in the game.
On the one hand, this makes the game much simpler for the DM and players, as all they need to do is look up the right rule and they know what to do from game one. In addition, the firmly defined conditions of 4E keep the rules consistent from one encounter to another. Unfortunately, the sheer number of powers, conditions and other necessary rules can slow down the game incredibly and make even the simplest battles complex, multiple hour affairs. By comparison, the average Basic combat takes roughly 15 minutes. For these reasons, I’d say 4E scores a +1 Complexity.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
While player decisions are the heart of most RPGs, there is a great deal of difference in how those decisions are judged. Basic is a strange creature in that the rules apply randomness in a number of situations, but the DM is free to simply say ‘You are an X, and task Y is pretty average for an X, so you automatically succeed.’ This varies from DM to DM, however, so we must weight our consideration on the bits where dice do become involved.
In this case Basic is far more random than 4E. Everything about a character except equipment and class is determined randomly (and even those latter two are influenced by other random results). Characters with a single hit point and poor stats were as common as an Adonis with maximum durability and, in a world where a single random encounter could kill them all in a single round, both were as equally likely to die as become powerful heroes. That was considered a feature, not a bug and defined the D&D style of play for decades, but it also scores Basic as Random +2.
4E is geared around ‘flat math’ in order to provide a more consistent experience for all characters, regardless of class, level or tier of play. As such, the randomness, while still there, is heavily mitigated by a balanced character building system, compensatory powers and special rules, like Healing Surges, which can mitigate the vagaries of fate. 4E, for this reason is Determinant +1.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
RPGs are all about player interaction, both cooperative and competitive. There are solo RPGs, or RPG like games, but D&D is not one of them in any edition and requires at least a single DM and player to work as intended. And although 4E could arguably be played as a solo boardgame, that is not what it is designed for. Both score Interaction +3.
SANDBOXING VS. LINEARITY
I’ve already mentioned how Basic and 4E differ on this in the definition of this characteristic in Part 3 of this series. I have also pointed out that these two terms are loaded with preconceived vitriol and need to be changed to something a little less antagonistic (just for now we're going to use Linearity to take some of the edge off), so to sum it up in another way: Basic is about exploration and forming a story out of a basic set of notes, random encounters and the resulting actions and reactions of the players to the environment. 4E is about heroes doing heroic things using the story as a context in which to set their actions. I imagine there will be quite a few quibbles on my definition here, but let's press on with that as our basis.
Both are nominally sandboxes, but Basic is designed specifically for that random exploration style of play with a number of system tools to facilitate it. It is capable of telling other, more linear types of stories (indeed, one could argue that dungeons, in essence, are linear narrative devices) and some really bad adventures are straight up railroads. Sandbox +1.
4E is also, nominally about sandboxing, and you could use it to run a Basic style of game. The rules, however, are designed and focused on combat encounters and because of all the possible power permutations, creature abilities and environmental rules, these take some time to complete. As such, there is less spontaneity and a tendency for 4E DMs, especially those new to RPGs, to build more linear stories and fill them with set pieces with limited branching. I’d give 4E Linearity +1 for this reason.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
I also talked about this previously in Part 3. Basic has only enough rules to hang your hat on and get on with the game. You can create a character in 5 minutes and go, and once in the game, the character is more dependent on your decisions as a player than any abilities they may themselves possess. They are, for the first few levels at least, pawns of the gods, but they do tend to gain new abilities which become more important as they gain in power. Basic scores Player Skill +2.
4E is largely about the build and mix of character powers from the get-go and building a 4E character can take quite a bit more time than a Basic character. In addition, the improper use of powers can doom not only your character, but the rest of his party as well, especially if he doesn’t balance well with the other character types. As such character building is a meta-game of great import in 4E and determines their destiny from adventure 1. 4E is definitely Character Skill +2.
SUMMARY
So looking at the two editions, we get the following aesthetic qualities for each:
BASIC D&D
THEME +2
SIMPLICITY +2
RANDOM +2
PLAYER INTERACTION +3
SANDBOX +1
PLAYER SKILL +1
D&D4E
MECHANICS +2
COMPLEXITY +1
DETERMINANT +1
PLAYER INTERACTION +3
LINEARITY +1
CHARACTER SKILL +2
Based
upon the many complaints and defenses I've heard from the community for
the two editions, I think this is a fairly objective take on the two
games. It certainly shows the evolution from one edition to the other
very clearly, with a four point swing showing particular areas where the
new take on D&D completely turns old notions of the game on their
head.
Again,
there are factors, like the shifting target that is the mood of the
average gamer (we all tend to get bored with the same style of play
after a time) as well as the presence of gamers who will play any
edition just so long as they can play a game, that can modify the
aesthetic appreciation of one game over the other over time. However,
those considerations are too subjective and ephemeral to use in a system
that is trying to find an objective way to define what makes a game
aesthetically different from other games on a basic design level.
So
I think the system works. It just needs refinement. I really need to
find less combative descriptions for one, and then boil them down into
single word descriptions for the sake of consistency. It's less useful,
in my mind to have one box with Them and another with Mechanics when a
-3 to +3 scale for Thematics (or something that sounds a little less
goofy) would do just as well. But that's a post for another day...
EDIT: Is it just me, or has Blogger editing gotten ridiculously random and impossible to consistently control? I mean, look at the above three paragraphs. They are exactly the same as the ones above, by the editor's standards. WTH?!
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Game Design Aesthetics Part 5...
Before I continue with my game rating, I've been thinking about the oppositions and how they might be condensed into 6 single concepts, instead of opposed pairs, in the interest of simplifying the system while still retaining the basic concepts.
For example, instead of Sandboxing Vs. Railroading, which are loaded with positive and negative connotations in the gaming industry, I would use a more neutral term like 'Linearity' and instead of 'Player Skill vs. Character Skill' I might use something like 'Agency' or 'Character Detail.' I could then rate them -3 to +3.
Something I'm mulling over, and I'm open to suggestions, but until I've sussed it, I'm going to stick with the basics for our next game...
WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLE (8th Edition)
This is a table top war-game that uses miniature armies and modeled terrain to play out massive fantasy battles involving hordes of troops, magical forces and monstrous creatures. It is one of the top selling miniature war-games in the world with a three decade history and 7 previous editions.
THEME VS. MECHANICS
While WFB has a very well laid out and evocative theme, the mechanics are not necessarily tied to it and have in fact changed over the years. Magic, for instance, has gone from a point based system, to a card system to three separate dice mechanics.
In addition, the basic system for WFB is derivative of any number of earlier miniature war-games and has, itself, been co-opted to create a science fantasy war-game (Warhammer 40k) and a historical game (Warhammer Ancient Battles) as well as a slew of smaller scale miniature games (Necromunda, Mordheim, Warbands, etc.)
The mechanics are only supplemental to the theme, although it can be said that, after years of association with that particular game, the two have become slightly synonymous, and the mechanical changes do occasionally follow a thematic change (as when the magic system went from individual spells to a Color Coded system) so I’d rate it +2 Mechanics.
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
Table top war-games are not, by their nature, inclined to simplicity. Most are focused on the simulation of a particular style of warfare with specific elements and WFB is no exception. The recent movement towards exception based design, however, has made them less archaic and easier to grasp for the new player. WFB in particular has been streamlined and simplified to a point where it is an arguably different game from its early predecessors. Complexity +1.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
Wargames, as a rule, tend to favor a good mix of strategy and randomness, and, again WFB follows suit. Indeed, the game has three distinct parts: army building, the strategic application of force and assessing the probability that any particular application of force will succeed (determined by rolling dice and comparing troops).
While there are occasionally games where the dice just don’t go your way, a good WFB general will typically be able to mitigate small misfortunes with good planning and manage to win consistently against lesser players. The rules support a large number of tournaments for this very reason.
WFB rates Determinant +1.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
Like Chess, it is highly difficult to play a satisfactory game of WFB by yourself. You can easily test various army builds by running both sides in a battle, but ultimately, the game is for 2 or more players. Interaction +3.
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
Table-top war-games excel in providing a lot of flexibility in game types, terrain setups, and the ability to tell emergent stories with multi-player campaigns. WFB has a number of supplements designed to help you create your own corner of the world and seek conquer it by pitting your overall strategic vision against multiple opponents, exploiting resources, building kingdoms and negotiating, intimidating or otherwise interacting with the other players outside of the main battle game. You can even mix other games in, playing small skirmish games with Mordheim or running a small Role-playing adventure with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay when players send spies and adventurers out into the world for whatever purpose.
Ultimately, however, all the campaign particulars revolve around one specific thing: winning battles and being the ruler of all, so WFB scores Sandbox +2.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of player skill involved in the proper application of force in WFB. On the other hand, much of that revolves around building a good force, and it is the individual skills of the soldiers and creatures you pick that will determine how weighted the rolls are for or against you in any particular situation. But on the other other hand (growing a third hand being a distinct possibility in the Warhammer World), it is knowing your army’s strength and weaknesses, as well as that of your opponent, that allows you to meet their weakness with your strengths, and even a force of poor troops can be used to good effect by a skilled player.
So, assuming balanced army lists, WFB should score a perfect balance of 0. The varying quality of army book releases, however, tends to throw that off-kilter a bit, as newer army books tend to be overpowered when put up against older ones (this is known as ‘codex creep’ in the hobby), especially when they are designed to counter a specific older list. So I’m going to rate this Character Skill +1.
SUMMARY
Warhammer sums up in the following manner:
MECHANICS 2
COMPLEXITY 1
DETERMINANT 1
INTERACTION 3
SANDBOX 2
CHARACTER SKILL 1
At this point, I'm more confident that we're on the right track in our game analysis, but he real test comes in the next entry, when we look at not one, but two editions of D&D. Considering the fact that no subject can detonate the nuclear flame of forum rage like D&D editions, I'm sure this will put my system of aesthetic analysis through a right proper crucible...
For example, instead of Sandboxing Vs. Railroading, which are loaded with positive and negative connotations in the gaming industry, I would use a more neutral term like 'Linearity' and instead of 'Player Skill vs. Character Skill' I might use something like 'Agency' or 'Character Detail.' I could then rate them -3 to +3.
Something I'm mulling over, and I'm open to suggestions, but until I've sussed it, I'm going to stick with the basics for our next game...
WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLE (8th Edition)
This is a table top war-game that uses miniature armies and modeled terrain to play out massive fantasy battles involving hordes of troops, magical forces and monstrous creatures. It is one of the top selling miniature war-games in the world with a three decade history and 7 previous editions.
THEME VS. MECHANICS
While WFB has a very well laid out and evocative theme, the mechanics are not necessarily tied to it and have in fact changed over the years. Magic, for instance, has gone from a point based system, to a card system to three separate dice mechanics.
In addition, the basic system for WFB is derivative of any number of earlier miniature war-games and has, itself, been co-opted to create a science fantasy war-game (Warhammer 40k) and a historical game (Warhammer Ancient Battles) as well as a slew of smaller scale miniature games (Necromunda, Mordheim, Warbands, etc.)
The mechanics are only supplemental to the theme, although it can be said that, after years of association with that particular game, the two have become slightly synonymous, and the mechanical changes do occasionally follow a thematic change (as when the magic system went from individual spells to a Color Coded system) so I’d rate it +2 Mechanics.
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
Table top war-games are not, by their nature, inclined to simplicity. Most are focused on the simulation of a particular style of warfare with specific elements and WFB is no exception. The recent movement towards exception based design, however, has made them less archaic and easier to grasp for the new player. WFB in particular has been streamlined and simplified to a point where it is an arguably different game from its early predecessors. Complexity +1.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
Wargames, as a rule, tend to favor a good mix of strategy and randomness, and, again WFB follows suit. Indeed, the game has three distinct parts: army building, the strategic application of force and assessing the probability that any particular application of force will succeed (determined by rolling dice and comparing troops).
While there are occasionally games where the dice just don’t go your way, a good WFB general will typically be able to mitigate small misfortunes with good planning and manage to win consistently against lesser players. The rules support a large number of tournaments for this very reason.
WFB rates Determinant +1.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
Like Chess, it is highly difficult to play a satisfactory game of WFB by yourself. You can easily test various army builds by running both sides in a battle, but ultimately, the game is for 2 or more players. Interaction +3.
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
Table-top war-games excel in providing a lot of flexibility in game types, terrain setups, and the ability to tell emergent stories with multi-player campaigns. WFB has a number of supplements designed to help you create your own corner of the world and seek conquer it by pitting your overall strategic vision against multiple opponents, exploiting resources, building kingdoms and negotiating, intimidating or otherwise interacting with the other players outside of the main battle game. You can even mix other games in, playing small skirmish games with Mordheim or running a small Role-playing adventure with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay when players send spies and adventurers out into the world for whatever purpose.
Ultimately, however, all the campaign particulars revolve around one specific thing: winning battles and being the ruler of all, so WFB scores Sandbox +2.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of player skill involved in the proper application of force in WFB. On the other hand, much of that revolves around building a good force, and it is the individual skills of the soldiers and creatures you pick that will determine how weighted the rolls are for or against you in any particular situation. But on the other other hand (growing a third hand being a distinct possibility in the Warhammer World), it is knowing your army’s strength and weaknesses, as well as that of your opponent, that allows you to meet their weakness with your strengths, and even a force of poor troops can be used to good effect by a skilled player.
So, assuming balanced army lists, WFB should score a perfect balance of 0. The varying quality of army book releases, however, tends to throw that off-kilter a bit, as newer army books tend to be overpowered when put up against older ones (this is known as ‘codex creep’ in the hobby), especially when they are designed to counter a specific older list. So I’m going to rate this Character Skill +1.
SUMMARY
Warhammer sums up in the following manner:
MECHANICS 2
COMPLEXITY 1
DETERMINANT 1
INTERACTION 3
SANDBOX 2
CHARACTER SKILL 1
At this point, I'm more confident that we're on the right track in our game analysis, but he real test comes in the next entry, when we look at not one, but two editions of D&D. Considering the fact that no subject can detonate the nuclear flame of forum rage like D&D editions, I'm sure this will put my system of aesthetic analysis through a right proper crucible...
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Game Design Aesthetics Part 4...
With the 6 aesthetic factors defined, I will now apply them to the analysis of three games which I own and have played a great deal. All of these games fall into a variety of categories and each one is a well known in said category, so much so that they could be used as yardsticks against which you might hold other, similar games.
A final note before I get started here: one thing that I did not include in my system and the ratings of the following games is the presence and quality of art in game design. This is intentional. I will fully admit that some art evokes feelings in me that make a game more or less enjoyable. I love old school fantasy art, like that found in the classic D&D game and actually dislike the anime inspired, superhero style art featured in 4E. While both are competent artists, I love Erol Otus and can’t stand Wayne Reynolds, and that does, in fact, figure into my like or dislike of them.
The reason I leave it out, however, is because I feel the game should be considered on its merits as a game, not as a graphic art delivery system. Game Art is so subjective, so intermingled with the history and experience of the individual (I’m a child of the seventies with a strong appreciation for the weird fantasy vibe of the time, while my younger peers are much more enamored of anime); it really says nothing about good game design. I try to imagine a game as it would be without any art at all, just words and simple block playing pieces, and judge from there. That is how I feel game design aesthetics should be judged. A good game, that presses all the right buttons for me, should win out regardless of the art.
Let's start with an easy one...
NUCLEAR WAR
This is a card game of the 'Beer & Pretzels' variety, in which the players are nuclear powers trying to propagandize and then annihilate enemy populations through a variety of nuclear, biological and weird science weapons. http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm
THEME VS. MECHANICS
The theme of cold-war era warfare is deeply interwoven into the mechanics of the game. The basic conceit of nuclear warfare through the matching of delivery systems to warheads of various sizes is fully complemented by the use of propaganda, secret weapons, spies and saboteur to capture the true paranoid spirit of a world on the brink of destruction.
At the same time it is also an object lesson in the futility of such a mindset, as the rule of Final Retaliation allows a player who is taken out of the game to instantly deploy everything he has left to target and potentially exterminate any other player, who might also gain final retaliation and destroy another player, etc. in a chain reaction that often leaves no winner.
The mechanics are highly original and made for this sort of game and while they could be pressed into service as the base system for a similarly apocalyptic game, they are very focused on a style of nihilistic destruction that educates as it entertains. As such, I’d rate it Theme +3.
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
The main game mechanic, that of matching delivery systems to warheads and deploying those cards into a three round funnel, is simple and effective. Once a card is placed in the funnel, it slowly works its way up until, three rounds later, it is revealed. This places great weight and emphasis on planning ahead.
Different warheads, deployment vehicles and defensive systems add small sub-systems or rules exceptions to the game, making it a bit more complex than the simple turn sequence suggests, however, and this difficulty scales as cards from add-on sets (Nuclear Escalation, Nuclear Proliferation and WMD) are added to the main game.
Despite this, the game never becomes unmanageable as the rules are often written on the cards and the quick turnover of the game ensures that the nuances are quickly picked up. I’d rate it Simplicity +1.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
Nuclear War has a strong random factor, but the randomization is mostly card based. As such, once the card frequencies are quickly sussed out, card management skills can mitigate that factor somewhat, as can negotiation and intimidation (see below).
This becomes more difficult as games are combined, and the Final Retaliation rule can throw a large, unpredictable wrench into a player’s end-game strategy, but the game never devolves into a simple game of ‘who can draw the best cards.’ It is predictable enough that a skilled player will win more often than not and there are even Nuclear War tournaments to see who is the best (as well as the luckiest) cold war general.
Still, I’d rate Nuclear War as Random +1.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
The only way to win is to steal, incinerate or otherwise eliminate enemy population centers. On top of this, there is a strong component of negotiation, bluffing and intimidation that grows as the number of players grows and is even mechanically supported: a player may lay up to two of their cards face up on the table, like a 100 Megaton Warhead (the largest in the game) and a Stealth Bomber to carry it, as a ‘Deterrent Force’ to try and intimidate others into doing what they want.
Nuclear War is definitely Interaction +3.
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
There is only one way to win Nuclear War: depopulate the other player’s countries. There are two basic strategies for doing this: propaganda and destruction.
There are however a lot of strategic wrinkles to achieving the endgame goal of being the only survivor. From card management to proper pre-planning in the funnel, to the personal ability to read other players and intimidate, bluff and negotiate with them, there are a number of interesting strategies to deploy.
I’d rate Nuclear War as Railroading +1.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
A player’s strategy is determined by the proper deployment of the available cards in their hand, there is little ability to ‘customize’ or ‘min-max’ your country’s efforts outside of choosing one particular country with a single particular special power and absolutely no ability to manipulate the card decks. Nuclear War is Player Skill +3.
SUMMARY
So in the end we have determined that Nuclear War is:
THEME 3
SIMPLICITY 1
RANDOM 1
INTERACTION 3
RAILROADING 1
PLAYER SKILL 3
I could see that information fitting easily on the side of a box, right next to the Age and Number of Players info and it seems fairly clear exactly what you're getting when you buy the game. Even if it is slightly off by a point here and there, for subjective reasons, it still gives you a close approximation of how the game might play. But then, I am biased, so tell me what you think...
A final note before I get started here: one thing that I did not include in my system and the ratings of the following games is the presence and quality of art in game design. This is intentional. I will fully admit that some art evokes feelings in me that make a game more or less enjoyable. I love old school fantasy art, like that found in the classic D&D game and actually dislike the anime inspired, superhero style art featured in 4E. While both are competent artists, I love Erol Otus and can’t stand Wayne Reynolds, and that does, in fact, figure into my like or dislike of them.
The reason I leave it out, however, is because I feel the game should be considered on its merits as a game, not as a graphic art delivery system. Game Art is so subjective, so intermingled with the history and experience of the individual (I’m a child of the seventies with a strong appreciation for the weird fantasy vibe of the time, while my younger peers are much more enamored of anime); it really says nothing about good game design. I try to imagine a game as it would be without any art at all, just words and simple block playing pieces, and judge from there. That is how I feel game design aesthetics should be judged. A good game, that presses all the right buttons for me, should win out regardless of the art.
Let's start with an easy one...
NUCLEAR WAR
This is a card game of the 'Beer & Pretzels' variety, in which the players are nuclear powers trying to propagandize and then annihilate enemy populations through a variety of nuclear, biological and weird science weapons. http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm
THEME VS. MECHANICS
The theme of cold-war era warfare is deeply interwoven into the mechanics of the game. The basic conceit of nuclear warfare through the matching of delivery systems to warheads of various sizes is fully complemented by the use of propaganda, secret weapons, spies and saboteur to capture the true paranoid spirit of a world on the brink of destruction.
At the same time it is also an object lesson in the futility of such a mindset, as the rule of Final Retaliation allows a player who is taken out of the game to instantly deploy everything he has left to target and potentially exterminate any other player, who might also gain final retaliation and destroy another player, etc. in a chain reaction that often leaves no winner.
The mechanics are highly original and made for this sort of game and while they could be pressed into service as the base system for a similarly apocalyptic game, they are very focused on a style of nihilistic destruction that educates as it entertains. As such, I’d rate it Theme +3.
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
The main game mechanic, that of matching delivery systems to warheads and deploying those cards into a three round funnel, is simple and effective. Once a card is placed in the funnel, it slowly works its way up until, three rounds later, it is revealed. This places great weight and emphasis on planning ahead.
Different warheads, deployment vehicles and defensive systems add small sub-systems or rules exceptions to the game, making it a bit more complex than the simple turn sequence suggests, however, and this difficulty scales as cards from add-on sets (Nuclear Escalation, Nuclear Proliferation and WMD) are added to the main game.
Despite this, the game never becomes unmanageable as the rules are often written on the cards and the quick turnover of the game ensures that the nuances are quickly picked up. I’d rate it Simplicity +1.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
Nuclear War has a strong random factor, but the randomization is mostly card based. As such, once the card frequencies are quickly sussed out, card management skills can mitigate that factor somewhat, as can negotiation and intimidation (see below).
This becomes more difficult as games are combined, and the Final Retaliation rule can throw a large, unpredictable wrench into a player’s end-game strategy, but the game never devolves into a simple game of ‘who can draw the best cards.’ It is predictable enough that a skilled player will win more often than not and there are even Nuclear War tournaments to see who is the best (as well as the luckiest) cold war general.
Still, I’d rate Nuclear War as Random +1.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
The only way to win is to steal, incinerate or otherwise eliminate enemy population centers. On top of this, there is a strong component of negotiation, bluffing and intimidation that grows as the number of players grows and is even mechanically supported: a player may lay up to two of their cards face up on the table, like a 100 Megaton Warhead (the largest in the game) and a Stealth Bomber to carry it, as a ‘Deterrent Force’ to try and intimidate others into doing what they want.
Nuclear War is definitely Interaction +3.
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
There is only one way to win Nuclear War: depopulate the other player’s countries. There are two basic strategies for doing this: propaganda and destruction.
There are however a lot of strategic wrinkles to achieving the endgame goal of being the only survivor. From card management to proper pre-planning in the funnel, to the personal ability to read other players and intimidate, bluff and negotiate with them, there are a number of interesting strategies to deploy.
I’d rate Nuclear War as Railroading +1.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
A player’s strategy is determined by the proper deployment of the available cards in their hand, there is little ability to ‘customize’ or ‘min-max’ your country’s efforts outside of choosing one particular country with a single particular special power and absolutely no ability to manipulate the card decks. Nuclear War is Player Skill +3.
SUMMARY
So in the end we have determined that Nuclear War is:
THEME 3
SIMPLICITY 1
RANDOM 1
INTERACTION 3
RAILROADING 1
PLAYER SKILL 3
I could see that information fitting easily on the side of a box, right next to the Age and Number of Players info and it seems fairly clear exactly what you're getting when you buy the game. Even if it is slightly off by a point here and there, for subjective reasons, it still gives you a close approximation of how the game might play. But then, I am biased, so tell me what you think...
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Game Design Aesthetics Part 3...
In previous posts we described the overlying theme vs. mechanics aesthetic, and then we looked at two specific mechanical elements and described them from an aesthetic perspective as well. For the final three elements in our dissection of Game Design Aesthetics, we will look at the role of human interaction in games, what might be described as the Aesthetics of Player Agency.
Again, I'm about to make some very subjective statements about specific games here, but, again, they are being made to illustrate the more substantial, theoretical arguments put forth in this series.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
Though fourth on this list, this is, perhaps, the most important criteria of all: how much do the players interact with each other during the game and how does that interaction affect game-play. After all, gaming is largely a social activity and it is rare to find solo games that are as satisfying to play as the equivalent competitive game.
Diplomacy is a war-game the fully embraces player interaction as the main mechanic. All the pieces are the same and their deployment and maneuver is important, but it is the making and breaking of alliances with other players that makes or breaks the game. Indeed, the only way to actually make any headway is through interaction with others. There is no other option, as there are no dice to determine the results of conflict, only a cooperative system of attack and support that demands negotiating with others and, eventually, betraying them.
Runebound, on the other hand is almost a solo game that happens to tangentially involve other people. You go about your turn, encountering spaces and gaining in power, but nothing the other players do can affect your path to glory. You live or die by your dice and a few simple decisions. The other players don't even get to roll the dice for the monsters you fight, as they would in Talisman (a more player interactive game that Runebound seems to take its cues from), as everything in your turn is determined by your dice rolls. Other players basically sit around and wait for their turn to come along and the only true interaction comes when someone wins and everyone helps clear the game away.
It should be noted that not all games with heavy player interaction are necessarily competitive in nature, and there is a subset of 'cooperative' games.' Not merely games where teams are formed to cooperate against other teams, but where all the players team up against the game itself. These, by their nature, require a high degree of player interaction as cooperation is paramount to the success of the group as a whole. Arkham Horror, The Lord of the Rings and Shadows Over Camelot (although that particular game includes a traitor mechanic that introduces a small amount of competitive play back in) are the looking glass equivalents of a game like Runebound, in that they are, in fact, solo games, but with multiple players all working towards the same goal.
I enjoy games like Diplomacy, but the pure player interaction has a couple of downsides: constant scheming and intense negotiations can be tiring (although immensely satisfying); and it tends to fall apart if the other players choose to freeze you out due to fear of your gamesmanship, which makes the game pointless to play. I find games with no player interaction highly unsatisfying, however, and see little point in solo gaming, as it is the competitive nature of gaming that I enjoy the most.
So, I tend to enjoy games with a high level of interaction, but enough wiggle room that it can be fun and possible (if challenging) to take the solo path towards victory (which is essential when you play with people who tend to team up on you due to your reputation, regardless of the truth of the matter of how it affects their own personal chances of winning).
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
While all games are interactive in the sense that you play them, there is a wide variation in that interactivity. Games in which you are entirely free to go anywhere and do anything and in which your actions ripple throughout the environment, are known as ‘sandbox’ games. A game which leads you along with options that have very little effect on the ultimate endgame, is known in gaming terms as a railroad.
D&D as it was originally presented and designed is a sandbox game. The characters have a great deal of choice and self-determination. Their actions will determine how their world evolves and the game is very much an exercise in ‘co-writing.’ Table-Top RPGs are, by nature, sandboxes, although many modern RPGs are more linearly inclined.
The current edition of D&D is more about set piece battles, where the players have many options during combat, but the next set piece is already waiting for them regardless of the level of their victory. They have little control over the outcome of the story, and the only way their actions truly affect it is through surviving to move on to the next set-piece. Computer games by their nature (especially computer RPGS) are largely linear affairs.
A variation on the Railroad is the ‘false choice.’ In this type of game, the player is given multiple options to select from, but there is clearly one good option and multiple substandard or even stupid ones. In this way, the player is funneled towards the correct ending. You will find this in many of the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure books’ of the early eighties.
I prefer games that are open to a wide variety of strategies and decision points. This is especially true of RPGs where an imposed storyline tends to restrict the ability to surprise both the players and the referee, which is an important component of the aesthetic appreciation of the game for me. There are times, however, especially when playing with younger children, when a game that has a limited, but strong, set of choices (known in many circles as ‘beer and pretzels’ games) can be very fun and relaxing.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
Some games rely on the player to create strategies that lead to victory, and these choices are ultimately the final arbiter of how successful they are. In other games, the player is represented by an avatar to represent them in the game, and this avatar will have various strengths and weaknesses that limit the strategy set to a few strong choices and many lesser or even non-viable ones, essentially Railroading.
Again, we can look at the various iterations of D&D to see this in action. The original game had a sparse collection of mechanical tools to describe the player character, including 6 attributes that had very little effect on gameplay itself, and Level, Hit Points and Armor Class, which summed up everything you needed to know about the character for combat. Outside of equipment and gold, there was nothing else to define the character.
Gameplay in that first edition was still extremely varied and exciting, however, as it was the player’s decisions about how the character acted that determined their fate, in much the same manner as the Greek gods who often used mere mortals as pawns in games of their own. It didn’t matter if your character had the intelligence of a chimp or the Wisdom of Solomon, if the player played them stupidly, they would die ignominiously, and if they played them cunningly, they would live and achieve glory.
Success outside of combat (and often within) was gauged by the player’s questioning the environment, and trying to puzzle out the Dungeonmaster’s intent. A player had to say ‘I’m moving the picture on the wall’ to find out if there was a secret safe behind it, not rely on the character’s skills (especially as they had none to begin with). If you ran into a monster or group of monsters, you had to decide whether it could be negotiated with, fought or should be avoided, and there was no balancing mechanism that said any of these would necessarily work. If you were 1st level and ran into a dragon, you had to have the sense to run away. Understanding and mastering the environment is more important than mastering the rules.
Modern D&D characters, however, have a plethora of build options and these are carefully constructed to maximize their effectiveness in various areas of gameplay so that they can overcome any obstacle that falls within their area of level and expertise when used properly. These areas often overlap with other characters so that the ideal group, with a proper character mix will always have at least an even chance (assuming the Dungeonmaster uses the same rules to design encounters) of defeating whatever is set before them. A party in 4E will almost never encounter a monster or challenge that they have no possibility of overcoming if the rules are being applied in the manner in which they are designed. Mastering the rules means you master the environment.
Most of the actions that relied on player description in the old game are now reduced to rolls and every choice made in character creation will determine the success and failure of that roll. A player wanting to find the secret safe behind the picture on the wall, for instance, uses their thief character’s skill at finding such things and, as long as they roll well, they will find it. Especially if they have an ideal attribute, skill and power mix. Character building, in effect, is a game within a game, and follows similar strategy games, like Magic the Gathering, in which the actual game is only half of the full experience.
Most Massively Multi-player Online RPGs are very much in the vein of modern D&D (and, in fact, have heavily influenced it) and your character build is more important than the skill of the player, themselves. A player simply selects their mode of action and the character build determines the results of that action. Gaining levels and equipment improves that ability and a player with a level 60 character with a good selection of items can wipe the floor with lower tier characters fairly easily, regardless of play experience. Again, the build is an important meta-game that is part and parcel of the MMORPG experience, with few exceptions.
I tend to dislike games with little player skill, especially MMORPGs, as I find them extremely boring. Having a small defined set of actions that I point and click to activate, and which only reward me when being used in a specific narrow range of activity is not aesthetically pleasing to me. I also avoid those computer games, like real-time strategy games and first person shooters, that rely heavily on 'twitch' skills that tend to favor those younger than me, who have faster reflexes and tend to have a good deal more time than I to focus on a particular game's skill set. The fact that these types of game tend to dominate the computer/console market is probably why I tend to favor table-top games over computer games.
On the other hand, the deck-building aspects of games like Magic the Gathering do appeal to me. I imagine that in this case, it is the context of an RPG vs. a straight strategy game that ultimately determines my aesthetic taste for Player vs. Character skill, and so out of all the oppositions, I could see this one varying the most from player to player, as 14 million WoW players will attest.
NEXT: PUTTING SYSTEMS TO THE TEST
Again, I'm about to make some very subjective statements about specific games here, but, again, they are being made to illustrate the more substantial, theoretical arguments put forth in this series.
PLAYER INTERACTION VS. PLAYER ISOLATION
Though fourth on this list, this is, perhaps, the most important criteria of all: how much do the players interact with each other during the game and how does that interaction affect game-play. After all, gaming is largely a social activity and it is rare to find solo games that are as satisfying to play as the equivalent competitive game.
Diplomacy is a war-game the fully embraces player interaction as the main mechanic. All the pieces are the same and their deployment and maneuver is important, but it is the making and breaking of alliances with other players that makes or breaks the game. Indeed, the only way to actually make any headway is through interaction with others. There is no other option, as there are no dice to determine the results of conflict, only a cooperative system of attack and support that demands negotiating with others and, eventually, betraying them.
Runebound, on the other hand is almost a solo game that happens to tangentially involve other people. You go about your turn, encountering spaces and gaining in power, but nothing the other players do can affect your path to glory. You live or die by your dice and a few simple decisions. The other players don't even get to roll the dice for the monsters you fight, as they would in Talisman (a more player interactive game that Runebound seems to take its cues from), as everything in your turn is determined by your dice rolls. Other players basically sit around and wait for their turn to come along and the only true interaction comes when someone wins and everyone helps clear the game away.
It should be noted that not all games with heavy player interaction are necessarily competitive in nature, and there is a subset of 'cooperative' games.' Not merely games where teams are formed to cooperate against other teams, but where all the players team up against the game itself. These, by their nature, require a high degree of player interaction as cooperation is paramount to the success of the group as a whole. Arkham Horror, The Lord of the Rings and Shadows Over Camelot (although that particular game includes a traitor mechanic that introduces a small amount of competitive play back in) are the looking glass equivalents of a game like Runebound, in that they are, in fact, solo games, but with multiple players all working towards the same goal.
I enjoy games like Diplomacy, but the pure player interaction has a couple of downsides: constant scheming and intense negotiations can be tiring (although immensely satisfying); and it tends to fall apart if the other players choose to freeze you out due to fear of your gamesmanship, which makes the game pointless to play. I find games with no player interaction highly unsatisfying, however, and see little point in solo gaming, as it is the competitive nature of gaming that I enjoy the most.
So, I tend to enjoy games with a high level of interaction, but enough wiggle room that it can be fun and possible (if challenging) to take the solo path towards victory (which is essential when you play with people who tend to team up on you due to your reputation, regardless of the truth of the matter of how it affects their own personal chances of winning).
SANDBOXING VS. RAILROADING
While all games are interactive in the sense that you play them, there is a wide variation in that interactivity. Games in which you are entirely free to go anywhere and do anything and in which your actions ripple throughout the environment, are known as ‘sandbox’ games. A game which leads you along with options that have very little effect on the ultimate endgame, is known in gaming terms as a railroad.
D&D as it was originally presented and designed is a sandbox game. The characters have a great deal of choice and self-determination. Their actions will determine how their world evolves and the game is very much an exercise in ‘co-writing.’ Table-Top RPGs are, by nature, sandboxes, although many modern RPGs are more linearly inclined.
The current edition of D&D is more about set piece battles, where the players have many options during combat, but the next set piece is already waiting for them regardless of the level of their victory. They have little control over the outcome of the story, and the only way their actions truly affect it is through surviving to move on to the next set-piece. Computer games by their nature (especially computer RPGS) are largely linear affairs.
A variation on the Railroad is the ‘false choice.’ In this type of game, the player is given multiple options to select from, but there is clearly one good option and multiple substandard or even stupid ones. In this way, the player is funneled towards the correct ending. You will find this in many of the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure books’ of the early eighties.
I prefer games that are open to a wide variety of strategies and decision points. This is especially true of RPGs where an imposed storyline tends to restrict the ability to surprise both the players and the referee, which is an important component of the aesthetic appreciation of the game for me. There are times, however, especially when playing with younger children, when a game that has a limited, but strong, set of choices (known in many circles as ‘beer and pretzels’ games) can be very fun and relaxing.
PLAYER SKILL VS. CHARACTER SKILL
Some games rely on the player to create strategies that lead to victory, and these choices are ultimately the final arbiter of how successful they are. In other games, the player is represented by an avatar to represent them in the game, and this avatar will have various strengths and weaknesses that limit the strategy set to a few strong choices and many lesser or even non-viable ones, essentially Railroading.
Again, we can look at the various iterations of D&D to see this in action. The original game had a sparse collection of mechanical tools to describe the player character, including 6 attributes that had very little effect on gameplay itself, and Level, Hit Points and Armor Class, which summed up everything you needed to know about the character for combat. Outside of equipment and gold, there was nothing else to define the character.
Gameplay in that first edition was still extremely varied and exciting, however, as it was the player’s decisions about how the character acted that determined their fate, in much the same manner as the Greek gods who often used mere mortals as pawns in games of their own. It didn’t matter if your character had the intelligence of a chimp or the Wisdom of Solomon, if the player played them stupidly, they would die ignominiously, and if they played them cunningly, they would live and achieve glory.
Success outside of combat (and often within) was gauged by the player’s questioning the environment, and trying to puzzle out the Dungeonmaster’s intent. A player had to say ‘I’m moving the picture on the wall’ to find out if there was a secret safe behind it, not rely on the character’s skills (especially as they had none to begin with). If you ran into a monster or group of monsters, you had to decide whether it could be negotiated with, fought or should be avoided, and there was no balancing mechanism that said any of these would necessarily work. If you were 1st level and ran into a dragon, you had to have the sense to run away. Understanding and mastering the environment is more important than mastering the rules.
Modern D&D characters, however, have a plethora of build options and these are carefully constructed to maximize their effectiveness in various areas of gameplay so that they can overcome any obstacle that falls within their area of level and expertise when used properly. These areas often overlap with other characters so that the ideal group, with a proper character mix will always have at least an even chance (assuming the Dungeonmaster uses the same rules to design encounters) of defeating whatever is set before them. A party in 4E will almost never encounter a monster or challenge that they have no possibility of overcoming if the rules are being applied in the manner in which they are designed. Mastering the rules means you master the environment.
Most of the actions that relied on player description in the old game are now reduced to rolls and every choice made in character creation will determine the success and failure of that roll. A player wanting to find the secret safe behind the picture on the wall, for instance, uses their thief character’s skill at finding such things and, as long as they roll well, they will find it. Especially if they have an ideal attribute, skill and power mix. Character building, in effect, is a game within a game, and follows similar strategy games, like Magic the Gathering, in which the actual game is only half of the full experience.
Most Massively Multi-player Online RPGs are very much in the vein of modern D&D (and, in fact, have heavily influenced it) and your character build is more important than the skill of the player, themselves. A player simply selects their mode of action and the character build determines the results of that action. Gaining levels and equipment improves that ability and a player with a level 60 character with a good selection of items can wipe the floor with lower tier characters fairly easily, regardless of play experience. Again, the build is an important meta-game that is part and parcel of the MMORPG experience, with few exceptions.
I tend to dislike games with little player skill, especially MMORPGs, as I find them extremely boring. Having a small defined set of actions that I point and click to activate, and which only reward me when being used in a specific narrow range of activity is not aesthetically pleasing to me. I also avoid those computer games, like real-time strategy games and first person shooters, that rely heavily on 'twitch' skills that tend to favor those younger than me, who have faster reflexes and tend to have a good deal more time than I to focus on a particular game's skill set. The fact that these types of game tend to dominate the computer/console market is probably why I tend to favor table-top games over computer games.
On the other hand, the deck-building aspects of games like Magic the Gathering do appeal to me. I imagine that in this case, it is the context of an RPG vs. a straight strategy game that ultimately determines my aesthetic taste for Player vs. Character skill, and so out of all the oppositions, I could see this one varying the most from player to player, as 14 million WoW players will attest.
NEXT: PUTTING SYSTEMS TO THE TEST
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Game Design Aesthetics Part 2...
Last post we looked at thematic vs.
mechanical design. Today, we look at two specifically mechanistic elements of
game design aesthetics..
SIMPLICITY VS. COMPLEXITY
Some games are incredibly simple and
take less than ten minutes to explain, while others are built to add as much
detail and simulation as possible into their structure. The relative simplicity
or complexity does not always reflect actual depth, however.
Go is as simple as a game can get, but Go masters spend decades perfecting their play. Chess is not as simple as Go but it has similar depth right out of the box with a simple board and five types of unit that provide only the most abstract representations of a medieval battlefield. These two games are the ideal of simple games: easy to learn, difficult to master.
The average Avalon Hill war-game,
however, while extremely good at simulating the minute effects of a ton of very
specific battlefield situations, is extremely complex and most table-top
wargames (especially those of a historical nature) tend towards extreme detail
that demands some dedication from its players in order to learn and master its
intricacies. This is no guarantee of depth, however, as wargames, no matter how
detailed, live or die by the scenarios designed for them and scenario building
is one of the main challenges of good war-game design. But on their own, they are difficult to learn and difficult to master.
Complexity should not be taken as a
'negative' in any sense of the word. Some complex games, like Twilight
Imperium, have a steep learning curve, but once the rules are learned and used,
they 'click' and require only the occasional reference to the rulebook. In
return, this complexity offers a level of detail, simulation and story-telling
that makes them extremely fulfilling experiences (almost like a cooperative saga
written out in a few hours of play), even if you only pull them out once or
twice a year.
Alternately, Nuclear War or other
'beer & pretzels' type games are simpler but within that simplicity is a
highly thematic and quick playing experience that can be equally entertaining
in the right setting and not nearly as taxing as an 8 player (and thus 8 hour)
game of Twilight Imperium.
I have played, enjoyed and own games
from one end of this scale to the other and find that the mood at the table is
more relevant to the aesthetic appeal of a game in this instance than any hard
and fast preference. I do, however, know those who scoff at 'silly simple
games' and others who wouldn't touch any game with a rulebook of more than a
few pages in length, so it is still a measure that should be considered when
creating a game for a specific audience, say children, casual gamers or
dedicated simulationists.
RANDOM VS. DETERMINANT
There are games in which your
strategy is fairly limited, sometimes to the point where your only real
strategy is to be ‘lucky.’ At the other end of the scale are games in which
chance has no part in gameplay and all results are determined by the moves and
reactions of the players.
‘Sorry!’ ‘Candyland,’ 'Chaos
Marauders' and many of the commercial board games from the 70’s and 80’s were totally
random. There was no real strategy that could help you win consistently. The
roll of the dice or the draw of a card was the only true determinant of victory
and defeat.
Chess and Go on the other hand, are totally devoid of chance, and victory or defeat is entirely in the hands of the player. Every move has a pre-determined result and the only way to stymie a winning strategy is for the opponent to counter it with a strategy of their own.
Most games tend to favor a middle of the road approach. Wargames, for example, tend to favor a strategic level of movement but combine unit value with random number generation to determine the results of attacks, while many Eurogames tend towards card management skills as well as concrete strategies.
I tend to favor games with a good
deal of determinism spiced with a smattering of randomness, where concrete
strategy has to be balanced with a degree of risk management and victory can be
grabbed from the jaws of defeat by a well-timed random event. This is more
reflective of the way the real world works, increasing the unpredictability,
and in my view, the excitement, of the endgame.
But, again, there is a highly subjective element to what some might find fun or relaxing and in what environment, and no one game will scratch all itches. Sometimes you want to really get into a game, but other times, good, dumb, random fun is where it's at...
PART 3: PLAYER AGENCY AESTHETICS...
But, again, there is a highly subjective element to what some might find fun or relaxing and in what environment, and no one game will scratch all itches. Sometimes you want to really get into a game, but other times, good, dumb, random fun is where it's at...
PART 3: PLAYER AGENCY AESTHETICS...
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Game Design Aesthetics: Theme Vs. Mechanics...
This is the first in a series
of posts looking at the game design process through the lens of aesthetic
appreciation. Now, while I am trying to establish a firm method for
understanding why it is the we like games and in particular, what is it about
certain games that make them more or less interesting to the individual, it is
framed as an analysis of why I like games in particular. So take any
opinion in these posts as exactly that. No need to rip me a new one over why
I'm wrong and D&D 4E is the greatest game EVAR. I understand that some
people feel that way, I just don't and that is the whole point of this series:
to help us understand why.
With that said, in Game Design, there are as many different styles of play as there are people, but the proper application of the following oppositions seem to be as near universal as you can get with Game Design Aesthetics. When considering these six areas of aesthetic approach and applying a rating of 1-3 left or right, where the ends of the scale represent the full embodiment of a single aspect and 0 represents a game that is equally representative of both aspects, I believe that it becomes easier to identify the correct audience for a game and market appropriately.
More importantly, by using these criteria to better understand your personal tastes in gaming, you become a smarter consumer and should have a better idea of what types of games are worth your time and money. Let's start with the first thing that draws the consumer's attention before anything else...
THEME VS. MECHANICS
Some games are about the mechanics of the game and it is the skill at handling those mechanics that determines the ‘fun’ level of the game. Others have thick themes that create enjoyment out of the accurate depiction of that theme in every mechanical aspect of the game.
Monopoly is a game that has remained unchanged for a century. No matter what theme is overlaid on top of it, from college football to Star Wars, the play remains the same and is totally disconnected from the theme. It doesn't matter if you land on Boardwalk or the Death Star, it's still the most valuable property on the board and passing 'Go' still nets you $200 (or whatever the Galactic Imperial version of a dollar is).
The Doctor Who RPG, however, has mechanics built around the genre tropes of that property and it is perfectly suited for gaming Doctor Who, a television property in which brains and know-how always triumph over violence and weaponry. The initiative system favors talkers first, runners second, doers third and fighters dead last, which totally reflects the ethos and realities of Doctor who, but is a poor fit for combat oriented games, even the Doctor Who spin-off series Torchwood.
I for one find games that have unique, thematically related mechanics to be much more aesthetically pleasing than generic systems with themes shoehorned into them. I found the overuse of the D20 system for everything from sword & sorcery, to superheroes to superspies, to be a depressing development of the last decade and actively resisted adapting Doctor Who to it when attempting to acquire the license back in 2004. What do you think?
PART 2: MECHANICAL AESTHETICS...
With that said, in Game Design, there are as many different styles of play as there are people, but the proper application of the following oppositions seem to be as near universal as you can get with Game Design Aesthetics. When considering these six areas of aesthetic approach and applying a rating of 1-3 left or right, where the ends of the scale represent the full embodiment of a single aspect and 0 represents a game that is equally representative of both aspects, I believe that it becomes easier to identify the correct audience for a game and market appropriately.
More importantly, by using these criteria to better understand your personal tastes in gaming, you become a smarter consumer and should have a better idea of what types of games are worth your time and money. Let's start with the first thing that draws the consumer's attention before anything else...
THEME VS. MECHANICS
Some games are about the mechanics of the game and it is the skill at handling those mechanics that determines the ‘fun’ level of the game. Others have thick themes that create enjoyment out of the accurate depiction of that theme in every mechanical aspect of the game.
Monopoly is a game that has remained unchanged for a century. No matter what theme is overlaid on top of it, from college football to Star Wars, the play remains the same and is totally disconnected from the theme. It doesn't matter if you land on Boardwalk or the Death Star, it's still the most valuable property on the board and passing 'Go' still nets you $200 (or whatever the Galactic Imperial version of a dollar is).
The Doctor Who RPG, however, has mechanics built around the genre tropes of that property and it is perfectly suited for gaming Doctor Who, a television property in which brains and know-how always triumph over violence and weaponry. The initiative system favors talkers first, runners second, doers third and fighters dead last, which totally reflects the ethos and realities of Doctor who, but is a poor fit for combat oriented games, even the Doctor Who spin-off series Torchwood.
I for one find games that have unique, thematically related mechanics to be much more aesthetically pleasing than generic systems with themes shoehorned into them. I found the overuse of the D20 system for everything from sword & sorcery, to superheroes to superspies, to be a depressing development of the last decade and actively resisted adapting Doctor Who to it when attempting to acquire the license back in 2004. What do you think?
PART 2: MECHANICAL AESTHETICS...
Bloggin is Haaaaaaard...
I'll freely admit that I am really bad about this whole blog posting thing, but what can I say, life is busier and more chaotic than a bag of cats. C'est la vie.
I see the point of a blog as, if nothing else, a 'cloud' diary' for organizing thoughts and keeping track of ideas. I just don't like to waste time pasting half-formed thoughts or ideas, hence long periods of radio silence as I work on things.
Well, 8 months of activity have actually presented a number of interesting things to post about, a lot of it academic (but not snooze-worthy academic, I'm not that kind of guy) and some of it Jabberwocky Productions (now Media) related, but more on the business later. Let's start with an analysis on Game Design Aesthetics...
I see the point of a blog as, if nothing else, a 'cloud' diary' for organizing thoughts and keeping track of ideas. I just don't like to waste time pasting half-formed thoughts or ideas, hence long periods of radio silence as I work on things.
Well, 8 months of activity have actually presented a number of interesting things to post about, a lot of it academic (but not snooze-worthy academic, I'm not that kind of guy) and some of it Jabberwocky Productions (now Media) related, but more on the business later. Let's start with an analysis on Game Design Aesthetics...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)