Lewis: Pulsiph9R - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

•

. .

.ilr...;.· .... .. . .. ... . ... . .. ...... _.....,.. ~.,.. ' . t"

•

... .

/ - ~·y (

How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish J

Lewis PULSIPH9R

Game Design How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish Lewis Pulsipher

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers

Jefferson, North Carolina, and London

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Pulsipher, Lewis, 1951Game design : how to create video and tabletop games, start to finish/ Lewis Pnlsipher. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7864-695 2-9

Video games-Design. 2. Computer games-Design. I. Title. GV1469.3.P95 2012 794.8'1536-dc23 2012026732 l.

BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAl LAB LE © 2012 Lewis Pulsipher. All 1ights reserved No par-t of this book may be reprod11ced or tmnsmitted in any form or- by any means, e/ech·onic or mechanical, inc/11ding photocopying or recor-di11g, or by any information storage and 1·etrieval system, witho11t permission in writing.from the p11blisher.

For Sue

Acknowledgments I want to thank the students who have been through my game design classes in colleges in North Carolina. I leam from every class. Writing a book is not like designing games. Games tend to be quite interactive, even the puzzle-like games. A book cannot change itself from one place to another in reaction to what the reader does. Nonetheless, a book benefits from a fonn of "playtesting," wherein people read the book and make suggestions for improvement to the author. I'd like to thank the following persons who read and commented on the entire manuscript: Eric Hanuise (Belgium), Sue Pulsipher (North Carolina), Rick Steeves (Nmth Carolina); and those who read and commented on parts of it: Alan Paull (England), Kristan Wheaton (Pennsylvania), Walter Rotenberry (North Carolina). I especially thank my most devoted reader (and biggest c1itic!), Sue Pulsipher. Any errors are of course my responsibility. Some mate1ial in this book has appeared in different fonn in Against the Odds magazine, Gamasutra.com, gamecareerguide.com, gamedev.net, boardgamegeek.com, boardgamedesignersforum.com, and my biogs. Reader comments online have also helped improve the result.

Table ofContents Ack11owledqme11ts Preface List oflnitialisms Inh·oduction 1. The Process of Game Design

2. How Someone Leams to Design Games

3. What Is a Game and What Makes It a Good Game? 4. You Must Know Your Audience or Target Market 5. Making a Playable Prototype 6. How to Work With and Improve the Prototype

z. Designing Levels (Stages, Scenarios) for Video (and Tabletop) Games 8. Some Specific Video Game Issues and Genres 9. Designing Specific Types of Games 10.

Reference Lists and Resources

G/ossaru for Game Designers Index o(Terms

Preface This book is written for people who want to design games (and game levels) but Jack information about what is really involved and how to go about it. I'm not here to encourage you, or entice you to read, I'm here to in form you. I assume you have the motivation to learn how to design games, you just need to know how. And that means you need to do it from start to finish, to complete games rather than merely start them. We have information: the process of game design, the best way to start learning game design, what makes games good, ways to provide a framework for your design efforts, ways to keep records of your work, software to help you learn, software to help you make games. Many aspiring game designers have crippling misconceptions (such as the notion that it's all about a great idea), and I'll try to clear those out of your way. I provide detailed lists of the possible strnctures in games, for example, the kinds of victory conditions you could use, the kinds of interaction that are in games, all the categories of quests, the different origination points of games and of levels in video games, different choices for movement and sequencing; and ultimately what games amount to in simple terms (a lot of games involve exploration, or collection of sets, for example). I discuss the different types of enjoyment an audience might prefer-"fun" is a misleading word-because eve1y game must be aimed at a particular audience. This is not a comprehensive book about game design as a whole, it is a book about learning game design. Experienced designers will find food for thought here, but theyll also see much that's familiar. Many video game books become outdated in a sho1t time because they focus only on what's cmTently popular, and on computer technology. I've done my best to avoid that, because the technology changes rapidly, and because technology is only a means of delivering games to people, not inherently pa1t of games and game design. Too many game designers get wrapped up in "techno-fetishist" habits that interfere with good game design, or expect tl1e technology to magically solve design flaws- which it cannot do. While my assumption is that most readers want to design video games, the book is also suitable for those who want to design tabletop games; most of game design is the same for both fonns (and tl1e two types are converging). Further, all the video game designers I know who teach video game design start v,,jth tabletop games because theyre a quicker and easier way to learn, so the book serves both segments. What I do not do is discuss the business of game design: how to get a job, or how to license or market or publish games. Nor do I describe intellectual property protection or video game production (programming, 30 modeling, etc.). This book is about game design. There are other books that cover these other topics, especially for video games. Nor is the book about the "meaning" of games. When you see someone ask "what does it mean to play?," you've left the area of practical game design and are in game analysis. Games are, for almost everyone, about doing and thinking, not about "meaning.• Furthermore, this book has nothing to do with "game studies.• Rather it is about the activity and process of designing games, which involves a lot of active critical tl1inking. It is about sometlling you DO rather than something you study and memorize.

When I talk about game design with audiences at game conventions, I'm sometimes accused of "crushing the dreams" of listeners because I tell the trnth. I haven't •mitten this book to encourage your dreams, I've written it to help you succeed as a game designer. Reality rarely conforms to our desires, let alone our dreams, but to succeed we have to deal with it. Who am I? I'm a very experienced teacher who has taught video game design, who is also a professionally published game designer. I have designed games and v.Titten magazine articles about games since the late 1970s. More recently I've been a frequent contributor for the most popular websites for those who work in the video game industty, or want to work there (Gamasutra.com and GameCareerGuide.com). I have a professional website and biogs focused on game design. And I'm a person who likes to categorize and organize information. You can look me up in Wikipedia if you like: "Lewis Pulsipher"; "81-itannia (board game)"; "archomental."

List oflnitialisms AI-Artificial Intelligence ARG-Altemate Reality Game CCG-Collectible Card Game CDG-Card Driven Game OM- Dungeon Master FPS- First-Person Shooter GM-Game Master IP-Intellectual Property LARP-Live-Action Role-Playing MDA-Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics MMO-Massively Multiplayer Online MUD-Multiuser Dungeon NPC-Non-Player Character PBM/PBEM- Play by Mail/ Play by E-mail PC- Player Character RPG-Role-Playing Game RTS- Real-Time Strategy TCG- Trading Card Game (Same as CCG) For a glossary with more but shorter entries, covering video game production as well, see Tom Sloper's at http://www.sloperama.com/aduice/ lesson28.htm.

Introduction My favorite game is that of designing games. Designing games can be fun, if you're willing to recognize that it's also work. Sometimes you can make money doing it, sometimes not. Sometimes you can become well-known, sometimes not. (I tell my students I'm likely the "least unfamous" person they know.) But always, you can enjoy the problem-solving aspects and the "what happens nex't" of game design. I taught myself to design games before games became an industry bigger than film. As a teacher I want to help you avoid "the school of hard knocks" that I went through, as much as possible. There is no "Easy Button," no white knight, in game design: it's not about playing games. Not everyone will enjoy it, not everyone will be good at it, but everyone can try it. I've compressed as much as I can into a small book so that you can get what you need, and get going as quickly as possible. Each chapter covers a particular topic. I've not assumed that you have read all the sections that came before. If you do read the book from start to finish, which is certainly practical, you may notice occasional repetition deriving from this format. Chapters 1, 5, and 6 desc1ibe the nuts and bolts of devising a game, creating a prototype, and testing the game until it's "done." Chapters 2 through 4 discuss the vital preliminaries of making a game: how do you learn to design games, what makes a game good, and what is the nature of the game-playing audience. You might find that what you think you know is only a small part of the whole, or that you're just plain wrong! Chapter 7 is about designing levels (adventures, missions), Chapter 8 is about technical aspects of video game design, and Chapter 9 briefly highlights important information about many types of games. The last chapter discusses many resources, including brief reviews of books and lists of information, and the book concludes with a large game design glossa1y.

If you don't recognize some of the te1ms used as you begin to read the book, please consult the glossary at the back of the book. Throughout the book I use the te1ms "students" and "beginners" and "novices" interchangeably. The website for this book (http://pulsiphergames.com/Jeaminggamedesign/) includes many illustrations, diagrams, and photographs that could not be included in the book, as well as audio and spreadsheet files illustrating the process of game creation, and clickable versions of all the links in the book. The following figures and audio files can be found: Figure 7-Games and Interactive Puzzles, Video and Tabletop; Figure 8-Game Idea Records in Info Select; Figure 9-Game Ideas Pyramid; Figure 10-Elements of a Video Game; Figure 11-You're Never Really Done; and Figure 12-Spreadsheet for Prototype Pirate Game. You will find the following examples: user interface changes (using a board game map as illustration); a prototype tabletop game board (War in the Abyss); and a prototype tabletop game board (Ki11gmake1·, Warmaker, Peacemaker).

Audio files for prototypes Kingmaker, Wannaker, Peacemaker and The Abyss/War in the Abyss are also available. I welcome comments at lewt @pulsiphergames.com. You can visit my website and view my biogs:

http://pulsiphergames.com http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/ http://teachgamedesign.blogspot.com http://gamasutra.comjblogs/ LewisPulsipher/774/ My commercial games currently in print:

Britannia, FantasyFlightGames edition is still available in some retail outlets, new edition in process Dragon Rage, Flatlined Games, http://wwwJlatlinedgames.com/ See http://pulsiphergames.com for current information.

The Process ofGame Design What are the steps (processes) involved in designing games? A game designer conceives the framework for a series of interesting challenges in the forn1 of a "game," devises mechanics (rules), creates (or communicates with others to help create) a working prototype, and repetitively and incrementally modifies the design (and prototype) in the light of playtesting, communicating these changes to those who actually make the game, and monitoring their success or failure, until it is a good game for the target audience - or until the deadline is reached and the game must be released! Notice that being a game designer does not necessarily require skill in programming and art. But if you're making a video game, someone involved must have those skills. The number one skill needed by a game designer is the ability to think critically, especially about his own efforts. A skill that is almost as impo1tant for designe rs of large-scale video games that require teams to produce is the ability to convey in \\11ting and orally the designer's vision for the game and details of the game so that the rest of the team can actually produce it. But no one begins to design by creating a large-scale video game. Further, the second skill is best nmtured by a good broad education, not by a single book. Consequently this book focuses on the first skill. Game design combines critical thinking with doing. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are about how to learn to design games, and about thinking. This book starts with a chapter about what you do when you design games, because so many people want to get to the "do" immediately; yet if you try to do without tl1inking about all tlrnt's involved, or tiy to design a commercial game before you practice designing more limited games, your games won't amount to much. This chapter is about the process of game design. The second chapter is about how to learn to design games, what you need to do to have a chance to be successful. The third chapter is about what makes a game good. The fourth chapter discusses a major question about a game, "who is the audience." Then furthe r chapters will talk about how to pursue your designs all the way to the finish. When game designers talk about their experience of design, the story varies in many ways. Consequently I can't tell you what it's like in every game designer's mind, so I'll tell you what it's like in mine. I do not work full-time as a game designer, but there are times when I spend many hours a day on game design. I am also primarily a tabletop game designer, which is different in everyday routine (as I'll explain later) from a video game designer, even though almost all of game design is the same whether you're working with the tabletop or video. Games are funny things. Some almost seem to make themselves up to the point of a working prototype, while others are a struggle. Some take years to "get right," others seem to come together quite quickly, but still take a long time to completion. Virtually no game is easy to design and vimially no game is completed in a short time after it's started-unless there's a deadline to meet. Sometimes it's necessa1y to just plug away, trying to solve the problems of a game that hasn't come together. Sometimes itjust seems to flow. Successful game designers push themselves to do better. If you don't naturally think in terms of how to solve problems of making games,

then you have to consciously tell yourself"! am going to think of a new game" or 'Tm going to find a solution for this problem in this game." You don't wait for inspiration to come to you. For many game designers including myself, their favorite game is the game of designing games. Consequently some of the work ( as other people would call it) that goes into creating a game is not work to the designer, any more than playing a game is work. Yet there is also repetitive dmdgery, things you would rather not do, and times when you're sick of it. In the end designing games is sometimes hard work, and often exasperating, but it can be also be enjoyable and rewarding.

A. Ideas, and How Little They Have to Do with Success "Sh·ictly speaki11g, there's 110 such thing as i11ve11tio11, you k11ow. It's 011/y magnifiJing what already exists. "-Allie Fox, character in the film The Mosquito Coast A standard notion of novice game designers is that they will get an idea, someone will pay them a lot of money for it, and somebody else will make the game. This doesn't happen. People want to make their own games, they have to be paid for making somebody else's games, and most of the people who make games have their own ideas, so the likelihood that somebody will pay you for your idea and make a game is really, really small. You're more likely to get a commission to make a game out of someone else's idea or intellechml property. It's the execution of the ideas, turning ideas into complete games, that counts. For every idea you get there are probably a hundred other people, if not thousands, who have s imilar ideas. The difference between a successful game designer and those other people is that the game designer pursues the idea, completes the game, and successfully markets it. An idea may seem original to you, but in the long mn you'll often find that someone else has already used it in a game. If you try to make a list of truly 01iginal ideas in games it will be shott. And if you spend your time trying to generate 01iginal ideas you'll probably get very little done. "There is nothing new under the sun" applies to games. "Original" in games comes from how you use ideas and how you put things together, not from having an idea that is actually new. See Figure 9-Game Ideas Pyramid, on this book's website (http://pulsiphergames.com/ leaminggamedesign/). Getting Ideas

"Ideas are ve,y .fu11ny things. They 11euer work unless you do."-Danny Blanchflower Although ideas themselves are individually worth very little, it is important for you to get ideas, lots of ideas. If you have enough ideas some of them will him out to be ones that can be made into a game, and some of those games may tum out to be decent games, and a few of those games may tum out to be good games. You are not going to sit and have an idea come to you that will make a really great and wonderful game. You have to work at getting ideas. And if you're very lucky, maybe one of those ideas will him out to be revolutionary, but revolutionmy ideas in games are very, very rare. Let me restate that. A game designer is not some kind of artiste who s its around waiting for

the muse to strike him. Yes, some ideas \\ill just come to you, but you'll get most of your ideas by trying to get ideas. You have to work at it. If you expose yourself to games, and writing about games, and people who play games, then the work is easier. But it's still work. Novelists are often asked "where do you get your ideas?" Their usual response is that they have more ideas than they can possibly write about. That's because they've been working at generating ideas for years. It's the same for game designers. Game ideas are often generated by association with something that isn't obviously about games. This is why game designers benefit from a broad education, from diverse reading, from multiple interests: they have more to associate .,,,jth than the narrowly-defined "gamer" (or "fanboy/fangirl") does. Game ideas come from asking questions. They come from reading of all kinds, history, fiction, science, etc. They come from looking at pich1res and maps. They come from talking with other people, even from using eve1yday things. They come from reading game mies, from playing games, from reading game reviews, from reading postmortems by game designers, from reading books about game design. Yes, there's a lot ofreading there, because when you read you're often exposed to many ideas in a sho1t time, and the association may generate game ideas in your mind. Almost anything can give you ideas. I've even designed successful board games by starting with a particular kind of piece in mind. Finally, ideas come from thinking about the ideas you've already had. Often a designer \,ill have an idea for a game, get sh1ck on some problem for which there's no evident solution, and years later associate that idea with another one generated at another time. These will combine to solve the problem and push the game forward. But the key is that you have to be trying to get ideas, as well as revieMng the ideas you've had. Talking ,s,ith others about your ideas can help bring on more. "Stealing" Ideas

Because so many people have the same idea, several games often use the same idea. Any words you write are immediately protected by copyright law, but game ideas are not protected. Don't wony about people trying to steal your idea. Your idea is almost ce1tainly not worth stealing, and in a relatively small industry, if people do "steal" someone's ideas, the word soon gets around. One way to define "novice designer'' is "someone who worries constantly that someone will steal their ideas." Recording Ideas

It's just as important to write down your ideas. Even if you only have a few ideas, you will sooner or later forget some of the details, if there's much substance to the idea. If you've written everything down, you won't lose anything, and it\\.'temal entities that interact with the system.

Ideas

Collaborators1.....- -- deas (before playtesting)

Modifications to written programming/rules Programming/ Written rules

PrototypesPhysical and Data forms

Modifications

"Final"

·Complete· for

versio

submission game

Playtester input

PlayTesters

Submissions

Publishers

Figure 3 - Process of Game Design. the circles are the processes, whe re things happen the oddly shaped rounded rectangles are the data stores, • the arrows are the flows of data/infomrntion or objects, and the rectangles are the extemal entities, outside the designer himself

The purpose here is not to show time sequences but to show all the things that might occur. Hence during the operation of the system at any given time several of the processes might be occurring. It's not unus ual during the design process to be gene rating ideas, playing the game in your mind's eye, and even con ceiving the game stmcture and framework all at the same time. Often you could be creating and refining the prototype, writing notes, mles, or softv.•are, and playtesting all at the same time. The system we're diagramming is "game design." The publisher and playtesters are outside the system, as they are not actually designing the game (we hope). "Complete" is in q uotes because publishers usually require changes to a game, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately. Researching and solving mass production issues is outside the system, insofar as the manufacturer does this. The diagram is meant to show the process for any game, non -video or video. It is a diagram that assumes a s ingle designer, which is not the case for AAA video games, which are effectively designed by groups of people. A AAA video game creation diagram, which we'll see in Chapter 8, Section A, is dominated by communication and cooperation because so many people are involved. Designers of big video games must cope with both sets of demands represented in two diagrams. Design collaborators are shO\m outside the system, as well, but in some cases two collaborators will work so closely that they v,,j]l collectively be within the process just as a s ingle designer is within the process. The Processes

Each of the seven processes shO\m on the main diagram can be divided into another diagram (n ot considered in this book) with sub-processes, until there is no point in drilling do\m further. For learners, the top level is sufficient. Remember that the seven processes (activities) may be going on at the same time, not in a particular order. These are:

Conceive and refine ideas. The game begin s in the mind. I've discussed above how important it is to have lots of ideas and how you can generate ideas. This is also where you'll research whatever s ituation you are trying to model- if any. For example, if you're designin g a game about fanning, you need to know how fanning works, which is likely to require some research. If you're designing a game about the Battle of Kursk in World War II, you'll need to research the battle and the capabilities and intentions of the Soviets and Gem1an s. If your game is intended to be a simulation , closely reflecting some reality, then this research will be very important to the accuracy of the simulation. Nonetheless, do just enough research to get you going, then work on the game; some people get stuck indefinitely in "research."

Play game in "mind's eye"-Thought experiments. Gradually you'll have some notions about how the game \viii work. You should play the game or parts of the game in your mind an d ask yourself "what is the player going to do and how is this going to be shown in the game." You can play in your mind's eye any time. You can be riding in a car, you can be waiting in a queue, you can be reading your notes made so far. Expe1ienced designers do this

a lot and sort a lot of the game out in their heads before they ever have a prototype to play. Video game designers must rely very heavily on this process because it's relatively difficult and time-consuming to produce a playable prototype of a video game. Conceive gam e, structure, fram ework. At some point you'll have enough infonnation that you'll lay out on paper how the game is actually going to work. Once you do this then you'll want to make a prototype so you can tty to play. Create and refine prototype. Creating the prototype is relatively quick for tabletop games but takes far longer for video games. Some video game designers, if it's practical, will make a paper prototype first to test the concepts that are the essence of the game. Write notes-rules-software. At some point for video games someone will have to write the software. For tabletop games you can get away with relying on what's in the designer's mind for early playing, but sooner or later rules have to be Wlitten. So it's notes at early stages, rules at later stages. Solo playtest. The designer plays the game himself so that he can work out the worst problems before he inflicts it on anyone else. If a team produces the (video) game, they likely all play the solo version to discover problems. Piaytest with others. Most of the play testing ought to be done by people other than the designer(s) and production team. This will include testing for tabletop games where the designer is present and probably teaches the players how to play, and blind testing where the designer is not present or at least has no part in what happens and the players learn the game as though they had just bought it. In Figure 3 these two testing processes are adjacent to each other but separate in order to emphasize how important it is for the designer to play the game himself before other people play. (Technically speaking, there probably ought to be one process, Playtesting.) The designer can find a fix for many problems simply by playing himself. Then the outside playtesters, assuming they're not being paid to playtest, will be happier with the playtesting and more likely to continue to play the game. If the game has big faults when they first play, they're much less likely to play again. You need to work out the really big faults before anyone else plays. (Yes, there are likely to be really big faults.) In tabletop gaming, the process of refining the prototype is often called "development," and someone other than the game designer may be in charge. ;'1\vo heads are better than one," and the developer acts something like a book editor, suggesting or making changes to improve the game. In video games (and many tabletop designs) the designer(s) are also the "developers" in this sense. Caveats

There is no single proper or right way to diagram this system, given the va1iety of ways that designers work, and in fact the original diagram was rather different several years ago although it still contains the same seven processes. This is not a diagram of creativity, it's a diagram of what happens. "Creativity," when it happens, is within the processes. Most of game design is not what we nonnally think of as creativity. Quality is not pait of the system analysis diagram in and of itself. Ideally, eve1y step in the process will be well done, but there is no assurance of it. If a designer leaves out some of

these steps, he's less likely to create a good game. If a designer follows these steps, he may still end up with a lousy game, though it should not be an unplayable game (if it were, the blind testing would never work). FURTHER "READING" "Cooperation and engagement: what board games can tell us": http://www.youtube.com/ watch?u=cdTVcF02EQw Alternative Ways to Look at t/1e Process (MDI/MDA)

Adams and Rollings in Fundamentals ofGame Design list the stages of game design as: • Conception, • Elaboration, • 1\ming (which is iterative and incremental) This describes three successive stages of design, and does not contradict the data flow diagram, but is a simpler way to look at it. In their view, the conception is a plan for a game. Once you begin to elaborate a game you should not make major changes in the plan, or should recognize that you've switched to a different game. TI1at's OK if you have time and if you don't already have a contract to deliver a game with certain parameters (you often will with video games). MDI stands for Mechanics, Dynamics, Impressions. It is a way of thinking about the game as you create and modify it, something to help you think of questions and modifications. The three parts need to be discussed in "reverse" order. What we want to engender in the minds and hea1ts of the players, what we wantthem to feel and think, is one of the firstthings for a designer to think about for a game. What do we want the end result to be in terms of the effect on the players? Tiiat is, what impression do we want to make on the players? Some designers like to w1ite, early in the conception process, a description in general tem1s of what they want the players to feel and experience. Mechanics is the rules or the mechanisms enforced by the programming, the paits of the game that in effect tell players what they can do and what they can't do. Dynamics involves how the programming or rules interact with the players to produce events and challenges in the game. Vl'"hat a designer intends, what he sees in his mind's eye as he plays the game in his head, is often not what happens when the prototype is played. Often two qualities, emergence and serendipity, become important. Emergence, ''the appearance of new properties," often occurs when two or more mechanics interact to produce something unanticipated, something that is more than the smn of the parts. These new properties may be asurp1ise even to the designer(s). Rocket-jumping is apparently something that emerged from the mechanics (rules) of video games, not intended by designers. Many rules/mechanics-dominant games (as opposed to story-dominant) exhibit qualities of emergence. Serendipity is "an unsought, unintended, and/or unexpected discovery and/or leaming expe1ience that happens by accident and sagacity." The word is often used in connection with scientific discoveries that someone "stumbles upon" (e.g. penicillin). In this context, some designers may be particularly adept at creating rules which lead to quite different kinds of gameplay than anticipated.

The designer, then, creates game mechanics to provide challenges for the players, things for the player to do, and has in mind certain thoughts and emotions he wants to engender in the players, but the dynamics of those rules will often lead to quite different situations. The 01iginal version of this idea is MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics), devised by Marc LeB!anc (also originator of "8 kinds of fun"). The word "Aesthetics" doesn't convey adequately to most people, so I've substituted my own preference. However you look at it, the important thing is to recognize the iterative and incremental nature of creating a successful game. Stages of Game Design-Average Time Spent on Each

"Making an Bo% game is ve,y easy. A lot ofgames that are out there are just 80% finished. With more testing the game could be 1110,·e elegant and the last 20% takes a lot of time. That's the diffic11/t pal"t. "-Reiner Knizia

Knizia, who makes more than a million dollars a year as a freelance designer of board, card, and (recently) video games, is refening to the last 20 percent of changes in tl1e game, which takes a lot more than 20 percent of the time. Time taken for each stage:

Video Video Game Tabletop Game 'ljpical Carne Ideal

"Neu/' Style Video Game (Social Network/ Free-to-Play)

30% li0% 25%

10% 10% 40%

20% 30% 10%

10% I 0% 10%

40%

70% (much of chis after initial publication)

Stage Conception and pre-production Creating playable prototype(s) Playtcsting and modifying to gee somechi11g chat "works" (to reach Knizia's "80%" stage) l'laytcsring and modifying to make it good - To polish it

This is, of course, my estimate, and can vary greatly from one game to another.

F. The Stnlctural Parts of a Game, from a Design Point of View A game can be thought of as a system (as in "systems analysis," for the computationally inclined). The objective in tllis section is a list of the fundamental sub-systems that are necessarily a part of any game (excluding sports such as baseball or swimming). This list may help ine:q,erienced designers, because if they think about all nine of these systems as they rough out their game, this will help them conceptualize and anive at a playable idea. We could discuss endlessly what is a game and what is not; let's just recognize that, within your definitions of "game," you can probably find an exception that doesn't have all nine characteristics. That's a function of definition rather than a failure of the analysis, but that must remain a matter of opinion. If one of these systems is completely missing, you might have a toy or puzzle, but not a game. There are many examples "on the edges," such as Katama,-i Damacy, in which the player

rolls a sticky ball through a world, and as things stick to it the ball becomes larger until it can roll up buildings and even islands. To me, Katamari Da11iacy is not a game, and Solitaire (the card "game") is not a game, because there's no conflicting interest, no active opposition guided by intelligence-they are more like a puzzle or toy. But both of these activities fit the Nine Structures framework. This framework will help a designer think about games. There are other approaches that are less useful. Some people, in listing fundamentals of games, discuss "state" in considerable detail. I've avoided "state" and "state-changes" as much as possible, simply because an organization dominated by state is not very useful to an inell.-perienced designer. "State-change,• in particular, seems to lump an awful lot together in one pot. The ultimate goal is to have something that will be useful to inexperienced designers, and to be able to expand each catego1y to exhaustively list alternatives within each structure. Designers should be able to treat the extended list (which is in Chapter 10) as a sort of checklist, to help them make sure they've thought about all the vital aspects of their game early in the process. These subsystems are listed in a logical order, but every one is just as fundamental as every other one. Sometimes the system is assumed, or the choice is to have "none," but still a decision has been made about the category. For example, in tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) there is no acquisition of resources, but it still has an economy of"unlimited pieces"- it could have a way to gain resources, and there are va1iations where you do. Another example: a very abstract game has no theme/history/story, butthe designer chose to take that approach, nonetheless.

Theme-atmosphere/history/story/ emotion/ image. These are listed in order of common usage, not necessarily importance. Story can be absolutely vital to a role-playing game, but is essentially absent from many games. Historical games use history to a greater or lesser extent. Many Euro-style board games have an atmosphere that may or may not have affected the constrnction of tl1e game. And we can still have abstract games (e.g. Tetris) without anything related to theme. Many video game designers want to design "an immersive experience" to elicit one or more emotions from players. And even a single image in one's mind, a scene or "movie clip,• can characterize a game.

2 . Player interaction rules (and nwnber of players). Is it a cooperative game, or a game like Doom (the board game) where one player controls the "badguys" and the others cooperate against him or her, or a competitive game (typical), or is there some other relationship between and amongst the players?

How many separate interests are there in the game? How many sides? Some "games" have only one conscious interest (the player) and so may more properly be called puzzles or toys. Some have several sides (many board games, some on line RTS). Some have just two sides but several interests because there is more than one player per side (Team Fo1·tress, etc.). This subsystem detennines how the players interact v.,ith one another. For example, in a multi-sided game, are negotiations allowed? Cheating? (The rules of the classic board game Diplomacy encourage what most people would call cheating, such as sneaking a piece off tl1e board when no one is looking.) Even physical intimidation? The answer to that is almost always "No," but it is a decision.

3. Objective/victory conditions. In other words, what causes one player to \\,in, or at least causes the game to end, and what is the goal pursued by the players? The game ending

can be arbitrary ("play five rounds" or "play ten levels" or "play to x points"), yet there will usually be a way to detennine the winner at that point. Tabletop role-playing games have no end, and usually don't have v.inners, but do have objectives: most commonly to acquire experience points and powerup items/skills/perks.

4. "Data storage" (information management). Something has to record the current state of the game. This is often a board/ m ap, even if it is "inside" a video game. In tic-tactoe, it's the nine-box layout. In card games, the layout of the cards on the table, and the cards themselves, store data. Pieces can store data, in particular the traditional cardboard pieces of wargames that contain movement, attack, and defense values. A detailed map stores LOTS of data. A computer can store vast amounts of data, of course, though early computers were very limited in data storage, which in tum limited the games. 5. Sequencing. In what order do things happen? "Simultaneously" or "in real time" is often the answer in video games, while turn-by-tum is typical for the tabletop. 6. Movement/ placement. The most typical "piece" in a computer game is an "avatar," a figure/character representing the player. Tabletop players generally manipulate something, most often pieces on a board or cards in their hand or on the table. Chess and checkers have movement rules, the Asiatic game go has placement rules. Movement/placement one at a time is the norm in traditional games, where in wargames a player can typically move all his pieces in one go. Even paper-rock-scissors has movement (as well as sequencing) rules. 7. Information availability. What information about the game is available to all players? In video games much infonnation is tracked by the computer, not available to the player(s). In traditional board games all information is available, but in card games infom1ation is largely hidden. Five-card draw poker has a lower level of information availability than Texas hold 'em, because in the latter you see some of the cards "held" by the other players.

8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. What happens when an action of a player leads to a conflict? Conflict in video games often involves shooting (and aiming) or melee. Yet this can be as simple as in tic-tac-toe (conflict is not allowed, you can't place your mark where the other player already has one), or it can be simple as in chess (when a conflict occurs, the moving player always wins). In checkers you jump a man in a conflict. In go you smTotmd stones to capture them. You might prefer to say that tic-tac-toe has no conflict rules, that movement rules govern where markers can be placed; but a choice has still been made, that there will be no conflict. It is quite possible to have a game \,ithout conflict, s uch as a race game or many card games (Solitaire) and many family games.

9. "Economy" (resource acquisition/conversion). How are new pieces/capabilities acquired? Is there any way to conve1t one thing to another? Some games have no way to do either, but that is still a decision made about the game. On the other hand, economic/ resource management video games usually involve construction of buildings that enable creation of fmther assets, in an increasingly complex process that may also include technology. In video games there are very often ways to obtain new capabilities, whether it involves mining resources and building factories, or just picking up medkits and weapons that sit in convenient spots. Even games that don't appear to have an Economy have some eleme nts, for example, in chess you can promote ("queen") a pawn, and in checkers you can make a king.

Are we sure there are just these nine? No, but the list has been stable for more than five years, though details have been revised. There is also a list of essential questions (below) that designers ought to think about, but which can generally be ignored when creating the framework of a game. Very useful for learners is to take simple games and change one of the structural choices. This is especially easy with traditional games that "eve1yone knows" such as tic-tac-toe, chess, Monopoly, Risk. For example, the well-known hidden-movement chess vmiant k1i egspiel presents a case of changing from perfect infom1ation to ve1y limited information for the players (sub-system 7). The Monopoly variant where someone on Free Parking collects miscellaneous fees that would normally go to the bank is an example of changing the economy of the game slightly (sub-system 9). Increase the tic-tac-toe board to four by four, and let a player win with four in a row or four in a square, and you have a much better game: you've changed the data storage and the victory conditions (sub-systems 4 and 3). Now for examples. Traditional games are almost always tum-based in sequence, with one piece moving. Think chess (including oriental versions), checkers, go, Monopoly, Parcheesi. Certain genres of video games are almost always real-time movement, such as most shooters (Worms Armageddon is an exception). How do video games fit the nine sub-systems? Most "shooter" video games follow this same pattern: Theme-Atmosphere/histo1y/story/emotion/image. Usually, the story is an excuse to get to the action, though there are shooters v.,jth deeper stories that actually affect gameplay. Many games intended to "elicit an emotion" are at least partly shooters, many others are role-playing games.

Player interaction rules (and number of players). Generally shooters are oneperson games, though we're getting more cooperative/buddy versions as video game machines become more capable. Many have a multi-player (but two-sided) version as well. There are rarely player interaction rules other tl1an common comtesy. Some players try to install their own rules, such as the disdain of "camping" even when "camping" is allowed by the mechanics of the game. 2.

3. Objective/victory conditions. The objective is usually to kill as much as possible before you're killed, but there can be overall game victOI)' conditions. Sometimes there is a story goal that ovenides pure killing. 4. "Data storage" (information management). The computer/console provides the storage and management; how the software addresses the details is usually hidden from anyone not on the production team. 5. Sequencing. Almost always, shooters are simultaneous real-time movement. 6. Movement/placement. Almost always, the player has an avatar that moves in ways that are analogous to the real world. The differences from one game to another can manifest in whether the character can jump, swim, fly, etc. 7. Information availability. Most video games involve much hidden information-

one of the great virtues of electronic games as compared to non-electronic. In a shooter, you rarely have infonnation that your avatar cannot reasonably see or hear, though there may be scanners or other devices that detect through walls and around comers. (Exception: many games show you, after you're killed, where your killer was when he attacked you.) 8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. Shooting. And perhaps melee. 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). In most shooters you can find food, weapons, and medical kits just sitting around for the taking. In some, when you score enough you gain additional '1ives," or can purchase better weapons. You may be able to despoil the bodies or the installations of your vanquished enemies, as well. Now let's dissect a non-shooter video game: Pac-Man Theme-Atmosphere/histo1y·/story/emotion/image. The game is often credited as the first to have a character (sort of) and there is a very simple story, though once again the story is mostly an excuse for action.

Player interaction rules (and number of players). One player vs. the computer.

3. Objective/victory conditions. Make it through all the levels. The subsidiary objective is to score points by eating dots, as it is very, very difficult to go through all the levels. 4. "Data storage" (infonnation m anagement). The game uses a square grid, more or less, as a "board." 5. Sequencing. Simultaneous real-time. 6. Movement/placement. The player has one "piece" which can move constantly. The opposition has up to four ghosts, though not always all of them at once. 7. Information availability. VirtuaJly aJI information is available! 8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. Pac-Man eats dots, ghosts eat Pac-Man, Pac-Man can eat ghosts for a limited time after consuming special dots. 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). Score points to gain lives. The video game Civilization Nis not much different from most board wargames: Theme-Atmosphere/history/story/emotion/image. Rise from barbarism to the moon. Conquer the world or persuade it to acknowledge your nation's supe1iority.

2. Player interaction rules (and number of players). Multiple separate interests and sides. Negotiation is possible.

3. Objective/victory conditions. As with some board games, there are multiple ways to win, such as flying to the moon/stars or conquest. 4. "Data storage" (infonnation management). Civilization N uses a square grid (hexes in Civilization V), which a player can actually make visible, to regulate movement. The computer keeps track of many details, which of course is why Civilization the computer game includes far more detail than any board game. 5. Sequencing. Tum-based. 6. Movement/placement. One side moves all of its pieces in a tum, many pieces can

be in one area at a time (or only one per area in Civilization V), move into an enemyoccupied area to attack it. 7. Information availability. Thanks to the computer, much of the infom1ation is hidden, though Civilization provides various aids and warnings to give you some idea of your standing in the world. 8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. When pieces move into an enemy-occupied area, a fight occurs. Unlike most board games, the combat method involves one unit at a time on each side even though many may be in the area. (Civilization Vhas adopted more board game-like methods.) 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). Much of Civilization revolves around acquisition of resources that enable technological research and constmction of a great variety of pieces. What about a non-conflict game, say Tetris. t. 111eme-Atmosphere/ history/story/emotion/ image. None.

Player interaction mies (and number of players). One player vs. the computer, which probably administers things purely at random-it is definitely not a conflicting interest. 2.

3. Objective/victory conditions. The objective is to score points by making rows of blocks; but the game has no ending other than ultimate failure of the player's efforts. 4. "Data storage" (information management). 111e square-grid "board" and the computer. 5. Sequencing. Simultaneous real-time. 6. Movement/placement. The computer generates pieces, you can rotate them and drop them quickly. 7. Information availability. You can see what's on the board, and the type of piece that will fall next. 8. Conflict resolution/ interaction of game entities. 111is is as close as we come to the mies for where blocks fall and when they disappear. 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). The pieces keep coming. Let's tTy a sports video game, say Madden Football (or just about any other football simulation). 1.

Theme-Atmosphere/history/story/emotion/image. Simulates real-world football.

2. Player Interaction mies (and number of players). The player vs. the computer, or

vs. another player. 3. Objective/victory conditions. The same conditions as real football; even in games involving a campaign (entire season), the objective is to win a championship,just as in the real world. 4. "Data storage" (information management). The computer, the virtual football field. 5. Sequencing. Simultaneous with periods of thinking in between, just as in the real

thing. 6. Movement/placement. Eleven "pieces" on a side, nmning, passing, causing collisions. 7. Information availability. Largely available, but similar to the real world.

8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. Complex mies for collisions including blocking and tackling, rules for possession and movement (and loss of) the ball. 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). Trades, drafts, and other ways of acquiring new "pieces"; injuries. Finally, let's tty a game that may not fit, because it uses the human body only-Rock, Paper, Scissors: 1.

111eme-Atmosphere/histoiy/stoiy/emotion/image. None.

Player interaction mies (and number of players). One player versus another.

3. Objective/victoiy conditions. The circular superiorities mle detem1ines a winner. 4. "Data storage" (information management). If there is any, it's the human brain, and only insofar as, if you play best two out of three, something must keep track of the score. 5. Sequencing. Simultaneous. 6. Movement/placement. No pieces other than your hands. 7. Information availability. Only what you can glean from your reading of your opponent. 8. Conflict resolution/interaction of game entities. Here we have paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper. 9. "Economy" (resource acquisition). No new resources, but anyone with a hand can play. Chapter 10 includes a detailed list of many of the choices available to game designers in each of the nine categories, that is, what can you choose to do?

G. Some Essential Questions You Should Ask Yourself About Your Design The following are questions, or "decision points," for a designer to consider after he or she has established a framework. What's the difference between the stmctural elements and these questions? A designer MUST cl1oose something within each of the structural elements, or there is no game yet (not consciously choosing is itself a default choice). On the other hand, he or she can ignore any of the following questions, but other elements in the game will create some answer to each as the game is developed. Yet many of these questions are as important, in the long run, as those fundamental structures. As a designer, I'd prefer to answer the questions initially rather than stumble into an answer, but others may have a different point of view. Many of these questions are primarily of interest in non-race games with more than two sides. Races aren't unusual in video games (Mario Kart is the most well-known recent race

game), yet they are a very specialized version of multi-s ided games because in most races there is little you can (legally) do to hinder the opposition. Many board games and most card games are "multi"-sided (more than two sides). A trend in video gaming is toward multi-sided games, a way to have several people participate and compete directly, rather than indirectly \~a high scores or times, with one another. Overtime, then, some of these questions will become very important for many ~deo game makers. Here in summary are the questions, along with a brief discussion of each. "Distinct" Questions (Yes/No, or Just a Few Poss ible Answers)

Is it a traditiona l produc t, or free-to-play? Although technically this is a business question, not a design question, it makes so much difference to how you design a game that it's include here. For traditional game marketing, you have to make a game ente1taining enough to persuade people to buy it. For the digital free-to-play market, the game need only be interesting enough for someone to try, then the problem is how to get them to spend money while continuing to play. This large question is discussed further in Chapter 8.

2 . What is the genre of the game? This is related to theme/story, and is very important in \~deo games, less so in tabletop. Genres might be "sweep of history" game, "shooter," roleplaying game, real-time strategy game, resource management game, etc. But a designer may not think about genre to begin with, and may end up with a game that defies standard genrecategorization.

3. Is it competitive, collaborative, or coopera tive? Most of the time the game will be competitive, but occasionally, all (or almost all) of the players will cooperate with each other. "Co-op," to a ~deo gamer, means two or more players cooperating against the computer, say in a "shooter" game. On the tabletop s ide we have Pandemic and Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings game, where all players work against the game, along with Shadows Over Camelot and Battlestar Ga/actica, where tl1ere might be a traitor amongst the players. In a collaborative game, players may suggest specific plays to one another and the game amounts to one side of several players against the game (Pandemic). In the (rare) tmly cooperative game the players are independent agents who must cooperate in order to win, but only one actually wins. Games with a traitor begin to resemble this fonn. 4 . Is It Symme tric or Asymme tric? • Symmetric-Similar sta1ting positions/forces (typical of abstract games) • Asymmetric-different starting positions or forces, and sometimes different objectives, typical of historical simulations AAA list electronic games are often symmetric, except that there may be asymmetry coming from different starting characters. Sta1'Craft (as many other RTS games) is asymmetric because the three races are functionally different. 5. Is it Zero-sum (ZS) or non-zero-sum? In the former, any gain by one player comes from a loss by another.

Diplomacy is an epitome of zero-sum; Risk has some aspects of it, as do many wargames with strong economies (e.g. Axis & Allies). Role-playing games (electronic or otherwise) are rarely zero-sum, though there is the element of "I kill monster, I get monster's stuff." RTS games are zero-sum in the limited sense that there is usually a finite amount of resources

available, and if one player gets a resource, the others cannot get that resource. Another way to pose this: is your opponent's loss your gain, or your gain your opponent's loss? If the game is two player ZS, the answer will always be "yes." If it is multi-player zeros um, someone will gain when someone else loses. ZS vs. non- ZS can be posed a different way, not quite the same thing: how easy or hard is it to hinder an opponent while at the same time helping yourself? If it's easy, you're closer to ZS; if it's hard, you're farther from ZS. (An important aspect of most "Euro" board games is that they are far from ZS.) Games in which you score points regularly thrnugh the course of the game tend to make zerosum unlikely, and encourage situations where it's hard to hinder an opponent while at the same time helping yourself. (How many games let you take points away from another person that have already been scored?) Of course, there are exceptions, this is a tendency only.

6. How m an y (human) "sides" (generally, 1 , 2 , or many) and (human) players? This question is related to the "Player Interaction Rules" sub-system, and one could argue against including it here. This one concentrates on the number of players and sides, however. Football has 22 players, but only two s ides. When video game people say "mnlti-player,"they often mean this in the sense of many people playing, but no more than one or two sides or "every person for himself." "Multi-player" in the tabletop world usually means "more than two sides, one player per side."

A\'is & Allies or Wai· of the Rings can be played with four or five people, but is a two-sided situation (regardless of attempts to use strange victo1y conditions to make it appear otherwise, there are only two primacy interests). Video games, until recently, have almost always had one human side, and the computer as a second side. Tme "solitaire" games have one side and a non-active obstacle that is more like a puzzle than another side. Where there is only one side, as in the card "game" Solitaire, what you really have is a puzzle. Still, someone must design these ''puzzles." 7. Is this an "em ergent"/rules-dominant game or a "role-assumption"/storydominant game? Board and card games, especially the "traditional" games, tend to have no narrative, no sto1y. There is a set of rules, and play "emerges" from those rules. "Rulesdominant" might be a better term. Many video games, such as Tetris, also have this characteristic. Another way to look at this is that in these games the player does not assume a role, he does not usually think of himself as a person experiencing some aspect of an imagined life. Even in Monopoly, theoretically a game about real estate trading, players don't think of themselves as entrepreneurs.

But many video games, especially the newer ones, incorporate an avatar, and a story of some s01t happens to that avatar. The player tl1inks of himself as the avatar. These might be called "role-assumption" or "sto1y-dominant" games. Which is yours? The epitome of the story-dominant game would be made in an environment like 77ie Mat,·ix or the Star T,-ek holodeck. Some designers believe that the designer should, as much as possible, "hide" himself within the game, so that players are less likely to think of it as a game and more like reality. Opposed to this is tl1e rules-emergent point of view, where the players know they are playing a game with rules, and want the designer to do his best to make mies

that result in an ente1taining game. Spectrum Questions ( a Wide Range ofPossibilities Along a Spectrum, "Analog-Style" Questions)

How "big'' (and how long) will the gam e be? You can design little games, short games, "monster" games, games that take 10 minutes to play, games that take 40 hours to play. What will it be? The audience has a lot to do with the answer to this question.

How complex is the game? Complexity can come from the niles or from the play, or both. The rules of chess are fairly simple, but the play is complex. Generally speaking, the larger number of plausible choices a player has, the more complex the play, but that is not always true. "Euro-style" board games try to keep the number of plausible decisions small at any given time, in order to avoid "analysis paralysis." In many video games, anyone who dallies when making a decision is wiped out, so the number of plausible decisions must be fairly small. 2.

3. \~at is the level of action or "granularity"? This refers to what kind of "force" or "agent" the player controls. If it involves violence, is action conducted on a tactical (individuals, skirmishes), grand tactical (battles), strategic (warfare including economics), or grand strategic level (series of wars)? A shooter is always tactical, an RTS is generally strategic, Civilization is grand strategic. If the game does not involve violence, it still has a level of action, which is most likely individual. Mario games are always at that level, for example. Another way to look at this is, how many "pieces" does the player control/keep track of, from one up to hundreds. At higher levels of granularity, economics of some kind (production of units) is likely to be important. Abstract games may be difficult to gauge, though in the end they tend to involve one piece at a time, as in Teb·is, or a few as in Bejeweled. Checkers and chess are tactical games, as the number of pieces is quite small and only one can move at a time. RPGs are necessarily tactical.

4. ~at is the role of chance, how much does chance play a part in the game? This can range anywhere from essentially none (chess, checkers-the only chance is who plays first) to complete chance (Candy/and, Chutes and Ladders; the card game "war"; or just rolling dice against each other) 5. How strongly will the decisions and actions of the players influence the outcome of the game? Traditionally, video games have involved failure. In arcade games you ran out of lives and were done. In home video games we usually have infinite lives, so failure does not end the game, you just go back to a save point or respawn and continue. There is no way to lose, though a game can be so difficult that it isn't worth your time. The question here is, do you want to design a game so difficult that people will give up, hence a player's decisions and actions make a big difference? Or do you want to make it so easy that any normal person can succeed, which means a player's decisions and actions are practically inconsequential? This manifests a different way in games with more than one side. Some Euro board games, and almost all traditional Ame1ican family games, are designed so that even if a player is making mistakes, the gameplay can allow them to recover and win. In other words, we want the non-adult or inexperienced players to still have a chance to win. Many wargames are

not so designed, and a person who isn't concentrating and isn't making good decisions will rarely, if ever, win. I call this characteristic the "gyp factor." If a game lets a less skillful player win often, the skillful player is "gypped" (you can see what school of thought I come from ... ). Here's the lead sentence: ''The Gyp Factor (GyF) of a game is the degree to which it permits or prevents the expert (near-perfect) player from winning consistently against less than expert but at least average players. If the GyF is vecy low, the ex-pert will beat the good player virtually every time-chess is an example. If the factor is vecy high, the expert wins no more often than the good player- in other words the expert is gypped because his additional ability cannot be exerted in the game." See http://www.p11lsipher.net/gypJacto1'./1tm.

6. Which kind of skill does a player need to use, improvisation, or planning? Video games, when there is time-stress, tend to require improvisation. You can also suppose that the more information is available, the more planning is emphasized (think chess), and vice versa. As a consequence of limited information, many video games require a lot of improvisation. If you don't have enough information it's really hard to plan ahead. Some tabletop games such as Wa,- of the Ring, and "card driven wargames," place the premium on adaptability, because you don't fully control what your side does. The roll of the special dice, or the draw of the cards, makes a big difference. Other games (chess, obviously, and traditional hex wargames) place a premium on planning. Euro games tend to focus o n adaptability, which often makes for less analysis than older wargames. Related to this is the question, what is the level of Fluidity or Chaos in the game. How much does the situation change from one "play" (turn) to the next? How much can a single action by one player change the situation? A high "take that" factor (one action changes things drastically) often indicates a highly fluid game, and a fluid game usually requires adaptability more than planning from the players.

7. \Vhich kind of skill does a player need, quick reactions (typical in shooters, for example), or careful deliberation? Probably the majority of video games require quick reactions, while the vast majority of tabletop games require deliberation. 8. Is the game "mechanical" or "psychological"? That is, is the game largely determined by positions and pieces, or by psychological effects? This is a very difficult question: Which one is Diplomacy? While the mechanical aspects are important and occasionally vital, mostly it is a psychological game determined by negotiation (as most people play it). Tetris is highly mechanical, while poker is highly psychological. "Romantic" players tend to make any game psychological, while "classical" players tend to concentrate on the mechanics. Further, experienced video game players tend to tum all the single-player games they play into mechanical exercises, finding the vecy best set of circumstances to give them the greatest advantage. Other Questions

What is the outstanding mechanism involved? It's possible tlmt nothing will stand out, but many games are essentially an exploration of one mechanism-e.g., checkers, tictac-toe, Tetris, Pac-Man.

2. ,1/hat are the dynamics of being ahead or behind in the game (multi-sided gam es only)? "Leader-bashing" might be defined as tl1e tendency of players to gang up on,

and drag down, the leader. If this is too easy, the game becomes an attempt to avoid looking like the leader. If it is too hard, the game becomes multi-player solitaire. Some games address this question by making it unclear who the leader is. In a three-player game in particular, the "petty diplomacy problem" (as R. Wayne Schmittberger calls it in New Rules for Classic Games) is related to this: when one player realizes he cannot win, how easily can he determine, by his actions, which of the others wins? (This ability to detennine who wins is called "kingmaking.") If it is easy to do this, then the game probably isn't much fun to play, in the long run, for many types of players. This could be generalized in a different way, as "how easy is it to hinder another player, and how much can you help yourself AND hinder the leader at the same time?"

3. What phases does the gam e naturally fall into? Some people believe that a good game naturally falls into three phases, the opening or beginning, the middle game, and the end game. Chess is often looked at in this light. (This is something like the "natural" three-act fonn of plays and films.) While not all games need to have these phases, the question might be, What phases does the game naturally fall into? For example, my board game Britannia has four phases: the Roman dominance, the Anglo-Saxon dominance, the Viking invasions, and finally the endgame with three (or four) kings in competition. Many real-time strategy games fall into phases, one being base-building, another being securing adequate resources, the final one being destruction ofbase(s). If the game feels the same at all times, it will be less interesting than when it changes through two or more phases.

4. ls the gan1e "serious" or ''just for laughs''? Chess is serious, party games are just for laughs. Games for the Wii tend to be less serious than Xbox 360 games. Both types can be combined within one game in different amounts. 5. Is the game "ruthless" or "nice" (a competition or an entertainment)? Some games are "ente1tainments," games where winning is e ither not the main thing, or is something that everyone can do (\~a cooperative/collaborative gaming). TI1ey're "nice." Some games are competitions, where winning is very important, and "nice" is not part of the equation-so ''ruthless" for short. This question is different from "serious or for laughs," but ce1tainly related to that. H. What's Important in Designing Games, in "One Page" 11iis is my attempt to say in "one page" what's important in game design. You should: 1.

Know your audience! vVhat do they like? No game can satisfy all tastes.

Know your objectives! What are you hying to achieve?

3. Understand that design is "10% inspiration and 90% perspiration," especially if you also develop the non-video game. 4. Know that writing usable rules (or doing the programming) is the hardest part. 5. Always write everything down (and back it up). 6. Accept that playtesting is "sovereign." No matter what you think about how the game will work, only efficient playtesting will actually show how it works. Without a playable prototype, you have nothing! (TI1at's only a slight exaggeration.)

7. Know that ideas are cheap (easy); a playable game is much harder to create .

8. Know that players must be able to influence the outcome of the game by their choices amongst non-obvious alternatives-otherwise it's not a game (though it might be a story or a toy or a puzzle). 9. Be willing to change the game again and again.

Accept that hardly any idea is original ... but ideas can be used in n ew ways. And there's almost always a new way to treat any subject (many, many ways to do real estate-Monopoly is only one).

10.

Understand that games are supposed to be fun. But "fun" means different things to different people.

11.

12.

Never design games for yourself, design for others.

13. Keep in mind the nine fundamental structures of games:

• Theme-Atmosphere/History/Story/Emotion/Image. Player Interaction rules (and number of players). Objective/victory conditions. "Data storage." (lnfo1111ation Management) Sequencing. Movement/Placement. • Infonnation availability. Conflict resolution/ interaction of game entities. "Economy" (resource acquisition/conversion). TI1e road to the complete game: 1.

Ideas,

2 . Playable ideas,

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Prototypes, Play solo, Playtest, Fully written rules, Keep experimenting. "Blind" test.

"A designer knows he has achieved pe,fection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. "- Antoine de Saint-Exupe1y

I. 'What's Important in Designing V ideo Gam es Specifically, in "One Page" This is a similar "one page" list that concentrates on design aspects specific to video games. Really "good" games are played over and over again. "Decent" video games a re played once. Designers should produce good games, not just decent games. So what's important in the game?

Graphics are seconda1y . Vi1tually no one plays a game for a long time, or many times, because it looks pretty.

3. Story is almost always secondary. Games are interactive challenges; stories are largely passive entertainments, though some video games make them more interactive than in the past. Few people play a game many times because they like the story. Stories, especially simple ones as in video games, wear out. 4. Challenges, and what the player can do to overcome them, are primary. Always ask yourself, what can the player(s) DO? Games are about doing. 5. Always remember your audience. You can't make a game that appeals to everyone, so decide who your targets are. 6. Game design is work, not playing games or "being creative." 7. Don't be afraid of starting over. The majority of games are never finished because they don't deserve to be finished. 8. Get the job done. The last 20% takes as much as 80% of the time. Too many games are issued before that 20% is done. TI1e first playable prototype is a poor game. Yet until you have a playable prototype, you haven't done anything.

9. Playtesting (not bug testing) is sovereign. This is what lets you iterate and incrementally change the design, so that the initial prototype (a poor game) becomes at least a decent game, and we'll hope, a good game. 10. Every game you make can be a really good game, regardless of its size. "AAA" list

games are no more "w01thy" than casual games.

If you make a game that includes all the currently-popular elements, you'll likely end up with a soul-less mess.

11.

12. You won't be famous, at least not anytime soon.

J. Maxims of Gam e Design In the age of"instantgratification," of convenience, of the sound bite and video clip, we often look for shortcuts to understanding. "Maxims" are one fonn, each one a brief "expression of a general truth or principle." A characteristic of a good maxim is that it can lead to wideranging discussion, perhaps because of its combination of brevity and trenchant illumination of some "general truth." As part of teaching young adult beginners about game design, I've pursued a list of maxims about game design, even as I know that such brief expressions leave out a great deal that's important. Internet searching for "maxims of game design" doesn't yield much. "Principles of game design" is much more fruitful, but what you find involves a lot of explanation rather than the punchy directness of the classic "maxim." The most notable set of maxims I know of comes in the "400 Project." (http:// wwwji11itearts.com/Pages/4oopage.ht111/) This was an effort organized by Noah Falstein and Hal Barwood to collect design maxims from the game design community. The 400 Project evidently has not been updated since March 18, 2006, stopping at 112 ent1ies. The list is at http://www.thei11spiracy.co111/Cw·1·e11t%20Rules%20Master%20List.htm The list includes a b1ief "imperative statement" and an explanation in 250 words or less. Some of the entries are more or less repetitions of others, some are ve1y specific to video games while others apply to all types of games, but this list is good food for thought, espe-

cially if you want to design standard video games-as-interactive-puzzles. Many of the entries are ve1y specific and often related to the mechanics of designing the game, while others are much more gen eral and often related to why games are good. For example, "Make the First Player Action Painfully Obvious" is quite specific, though nonetheless good advice for any video game, while "Keep the Interface Consistent" is generally good for any kind of game, and "Make Even Serious Games Fun" is imperative (if we substitute "interesting" or "enjoyable" for "fun"). I've tried to devise a much smaller, general set of maxims that require little or no explanation, at least not by the end of a game design class! At any rate, I'm going to end this chapter with my current list of use-in-class maxims, and leave further discussion to the readers. I've divided them into several groups without trying to label each group ... t. Think! 2.

In most situations, focus on gameplay, not sto1y.

3. There is no Easy Button. 4. As with most other endeavors, in game design you probably won't be good atit to start with. 5. Keep it simple. Avoid the "curse of more." 6. Don't forget replayability, which usually comes from uncertainty. 7. What is the player going to DO? 8. In a good game there should be both ways to help yourself and to hinder the "enemy" (and sometimes but not always, both at once). 9. Ideas are a dime a dozen. 10.

It's not the idea, it's the execution.

11.

It's necessary to WORK to get ideas.

12.

Ideas alone are virtually worthless.

13. If you want your game made, you need to WORK at it. 14. Game design is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

15. Write it down! 16. Don't hide behind the computer! 17. Games are not movies. They're interactive.

18. Ifthe player isn't doing something, it's not really a game. 19. If no one can play your game design, you don't have a game yet. 20.

Playtesting is the hemt of game creation.

21.

The prototype will change a lot, don't spend time making it "pretty" or fancy.

22.

Leam to play your game solo, even if it's for five players.

23. Plan-execute-monitor-control-replan. 24. Listen most to playtesters who lost the game. 25. Get input from people who don't feel a need to keep you happy.

26. Playtesting is giving people the opportunity to say your game stinks! 27. Games can always be improved, but there comes a point when it isn't worth the

time it takes (Diminishing Marginal Returns).

28. When in doubt, leave it out. 29. Don't Panic! • Good games take time to mature, regardless of your rush. (Like concrete "chying.") • You need the patience of Job. • Game designers don't get to play (finished) games much. • All games are art-and the players don't care. And here's one more that has a description: "A game is always a compromise." You can never achieve as much as your wilder imagination hopes for. So look at the good you've done, don't look at what you failed to do. Games are often models of reality, and reality is too complicated to comprehend in a game (though the Star Trek "holodeck" will come close, should we ever get there). Game design requires idealism, the ability to pick out what's impo1tant and depict that, rather than t1y to depict all of a situation. This especially applies to "realistic" video games; tabletop game designers usually recognize that given the tools available they can only compromise on "realism."

K. Examples of Early Notes for Some Games The following is the initial note I wrote for a board game I developed. Further notes grew out of this before I settled many questions and made an initial prototype. As I write, this game has changed quite a bit through playtesting, and is quite playable, but seems to lack a "spark" that can bring it above mediocre. Yet I had no way of knowing what would happen when I started out.

x10/19/2009 Master of Magic?

Game where principal activity is trading cards. High thaumaturge.

What kind of trade-that you know what you're getting, or only partially know? Are sets of cards the ultimate objective? Draw one, make one trade? Some cards are revealed, some secret so you only have some info (for example, color but not symbol)? So you can trade for the face up or for one in someone's hand. Maybe cards help you progress on a board? A track of colors with symbols? You need to get either a color or symbol of the ne>.'t area? But then would anyone trade with you? No. But that might be the default move .... Or get two of a kind and progress to that color or that symbol? Maybe three of a kind,ortwo if you have both the color and the symbol? And it must be within a certain distance, or they'll be going ve1y fast. 4 colors, 4 symbols, 16 combinations. Deck of 48 or 64. Miss out 4 of the

"e>.1:ra powerful" cards to make deck of 60? Board of 32 spaces? When you play cards they go into discard to be reused. Your turn you must place one card face up, or play a set to move yourself onwards. So some may have none face up. And some may run out of cards. Hold five? Draw two? Symbols 4 elements, it's a kind of thaumaturgical game, progressing to level of mastery. Earth Air Fire Water Colors are brown toward red, white/silver/blue, red/orange, navy blue (corresponding to elements more or less). So does the white air give more value in certain situations? Could be quite a quick game. How do you "pull someone back"? It's a race, essentially.

Making cards. Ones with labels are "opposites" (fire and water), as are ones without labels (ea1th and air) For trading hidden cards: say "I've got a (color)" or "I've got a (symbol)." Someone willing to trade one of his hidden says the same thing. Or "I'll trade this (face up) card for your (color) card." I can use numbers I thru 4. But for what? Can there be some kind of combat? You need to bracket the numbers on an opposing card? Want spiral board, spiraling toward the center. Done. TI1is just out of nowhere from a voice note that I have yet to make a game where principal activity is trading cards. That's the end of those notes. As a second example, the following is an initial card list for a Ninja game that consists almost entirely of cards. The numbers at the bottom are an effort to gauge how many rounds can be played with cards that don't begin in players' hands.

110 Target Number 20 15 25 20 20 10

Ninja Survival Cards 110 cards

4 5 6

2 2 2 2

Missions - Separate draw deck Objects - dealt at start, separate =magic items/powerups/buffs hnedkits Action cards (such as strengthen) Minions and protectors?- Separate Card does double duty? Ninja characters - Separate deck Sneak capability Disguise capability Mclee capability Missile capability (first strike/free shot) (Number of wounds) C limbing?

"Middle" 7

Draw Deck:

5 3

# of plays if draw every time 22.5 15 11.25 9 7.5 6.428571

# missions per player

6.666667 5 4 3.333333 2.857143

See also Figure 12-Spreadsheet for Prototype Pirate Game on the book's website (http:// pulsiphergames.com/leaminggamedesign/). Following are the steps in making a game using cards. Get a worthwhile idea (e.g. the Ninja game above using more or less traditional fom1 of a card game) (Process 1 of the diagram)

2. Research subject. (Ninjas and related on the Web. This game doesn't demand much detail, which is just as well, because there's almost no histo1ical info1mation, and some doubt that Ninjas even existed.) (Pait of Process 1 and 2.) 3. Conceive details. (Process 2 and 3) 4. Make a card list. Create catego1ies of cards. TI1is helps you see what you can do given available numbers of cards in the categories. (In this game's case, I have categories as shown in the accompanying spreadsheet.) 5. Settle structure, etc., of the game. (Process 3) • Nine structures come into play here (Process 3) • Figming out details of the cards (I made a note in a note-taking program for

each category of cards, and started listing individual cards.) • More details of rules (Process 5) 6. Make prototype. (Process 4) (I use Avery label fo1m in WordPe1fect, and put the cards in Yu-Gi-Oh/Magic: 111e Gathering sleeves.) 7. Play solo. (Process 6) 8. Revise the prototype. Create full set of rules somewhere in here (Process 5); before that nmning on extensive notes. 9. Other people playtest (JYf). Revise. 10.

Revise, JYf, etc. (Processes 4, 5, 6, 7) This is the part that takes most of the time.

This particular game is one that I'm sure I'll go back to sooner or later, but at present I have not completed the prototype. Rather than include initial notes for a video game here, I have included the b1ief concept documents for a couple games at the end of Chapter 5.

Practice If you're not willing to do the following, then I'll predict that you'll never be more than a dilettante, a dabbler, as a game designer. Begin and maintain an "idea store" where you record all your game ideas. Ideally this will be computerized in a word processor or notetaking program. If you use a papernotebook, be sure to make copies of it one way or another, because you don't want to lose a great deal of sometimes-iri-eplaceable work. Back it up, back it up, back it up! If you're not willing to record your ideas on a regular basis, then how will you be able to do the much harde r work required to complete a game? Likely you won't.

How S omeone Learns to Design Games "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do."-Goethe To learn to design games, you have to complete games: a plan is not enough. This chapter is about how to learn to design games, what you need to do to have a chance to be successful. The third chapter talks about what makes a game good. The fourth chapter talks about the most important question about a game, which is "who is the audience." These chapters are about thinking, the principal component of game design. Chapters thereafter discuss more of the nuts and bolts of game design.

A. The Immediate Objective of an Aspiring Game Designer No one buys game ideas. Beginning game designers often have unrealistic el\'])eCtations about game design. Some think that all they need to do is come up with a great idea and someone else will do the work of creating the game and the idea person will make a lot of money. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have an idea, probably a dozen or even hundreds of other people have had that same idea. What sounds like a great idea to you, will sound trivial or w01thless to many othe r people. It is the expression of ideas in actual games, games that can be played, that matters. Furthermore, being an expert game player has almost nothing to do with being a game designer. You start from scratch even if you're the best game player on the planet. What game designers do is complete games they've designed. There are thousands of people who have gone beyond the idea stage to making a prototype (an early version of the game) to actually playing it, but have not completed the game. Yet when you have reached the stage of a playable prototype you have only done a small fraction of the work. Game design involves seemingly endless iterative and incremental testing and modification until the fairly poor game represented by the original prototype becomes a decent or perhaps even a great game. You cannot really call yourself a "game designer" until you have completed a game. Until you have a playable prototype you only have a plan. And as has been said many times, a plan rarely survives its first encounter with the ene my. Game designers are thinkers and analysts and problem solvers, but most of all they are DOers. What you need to do in order to prove to yourself and to others that you are a game designer is to create and complete games. This is much easier to do initially with tabletop games because no programming is involved. This is why aspiring designers practice with tabletop games, as no programming (or art) skills are needed to finish the game. But if you're going to be a video game designer, ultimately you'll have to learn a relatively simple fonn of programming so that you can create prototypes and then test them. You can make small video games on your 0\\~1 that are fun to play, but you'll have to learn skills that aren't part of game design. If you can get other people to help you, so much the better. But you have to finish the game.

You don't want to try to make a big-time video game because, even with a group of your friends or fellow students,you'll never finish it, and an unfinished game means little to game studios and publishers. AAA video games-the kind on the shelves in Best Buy or Gamestop - typically require hundreds of man-years of highly skilled professional effort. You and your friends are not going to do it. However, when you're learning to design games, you're pretty unlikely to design a video game that could be marketed commercially even if you had unlimited production help. Game design takes practice, just as any other creative endeavor s uch as painting or writing or composing, and when you start out you're unlikely to be good at it even if you're a great game player. Game design is 10 percent inspiration 90 percent perspiration. Game design is largely a matter of critical thinking, of posing restrictions and constraints, of finding ways to overcome those restrictions and constraints, of solving problems with a game that's "broke n" until the game is no longer broken. It may not be a particularly good game but it will be a game that works. Even the best designers make games that work but are not good games, and a typical designer makes more games that work but aren't good, than games that are good. Most of the "work but not good" games are n ever published. Game designers who work on big video games must also be outstanding communicators and cooperators. Video games are created by teams, whereas tabletop games are largely created by one individual. What many people do to prepare for the video game industry is create levels for existing commercial games, and perhaps even mods for existing commercial games. You can also make relatively simple two-dimensional games using s imple game en gin es like Game maker. Until you h ave a game that has been played by other people, you are not a game designer. You can talk all you like, you can make plans all you like, you can read all the books you like, yet until people actually play on e of your games, you've gone nowhere. If you complete games that play well then you can be successful as a game designer. If you don 't complete games, or if they don't have good gameplay, then you're unlikely to succeed. FURTHER READING Ira Glass's widely quoted advice to beginners in any creative endeavor: http:/ /np,J,-eshail'. tumb/,-.comjpost/4931415362/11obody-tells-this-to-people-w ho -al'e-begi11ne,-s-l.

B. Differences and Similarities of Video Games and Tabletop Gam es Games are games, but what is practical varies. When you design a game, the fundamental objectives and techniques do not differ, whether you design a board game, card game, role playing game, or any of the many genres of video games. In fact, the fundamental ideas in games are quite malleable, they can often be applied to several different kinds of games. We see this in the number of times that a video game is based on a board or card game, or a tabletop game is based on a video game. Doom, Sett/e,-s ofCatan, World of Warcraft, Ca,-cassonne, Civilization, Star-Craft, Ticket to Ride, and many other games have both video and tabletop versions, whichever came first. There a re also cases where a board game begat a card game or vice versa. Some games more or less require treatment in one format or another because there are differences in what is possible.

But many do not. The major difference between video and tabletop design may once have been technical, but is not anymore. For decades, most video games were for one player, while most tabletop games have at least two players. This is gradually changing. There are a few fundamental technical differences between video and tabletop games, and there are many differences of degree caused by markets and by modem gamer inclination, and there are ce1tainly differences in what is easy to do and what is hard to do. The most obvious technical difference: you can't play a video game without a usually-expensive electronic device such as a game console or computer. Though even this is changing as mobile computing on less-ell.-pensive platforms becomes common. The scope, too, is often different. Think of tabletop games as something like comic books, and AAA video games as something like movies. Both can be ente1taining, both can tell a story. TI1e comic book is much simpler, yet requires more imaginative effort from the reader than a movie, which is much more explicit. Comics are also much cheaper to produce. But "bit" mo\~es are seen by many more people than any comic book. Similarly, comics are produced by publishers without outside financing. A few people can create a comic book. To make a big video game you need lots of people, and you need to get financing before you start- just as for a big movie. Fantasy Flight Games, one of the larger hobby board game publishers, several years ago had an annual revenue around eight million dollars (it is now larger). This is less than the budget of almost any AAA video game of the time. Only Mattel and Hasbro, the latter absorbing traditional publishers such as Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, and Avalon Hill, can match the size of video game giants. Here is a list of practical differences. 1.

It takes far more time to produce a video game.

Even small \~deo games cost much more to produce. As these points involve considerable explanation, they are discussed in detail at several points later in the chapter rather than as part of this list. 2.

3. No one has to read the rules of a video game. The most striking difference, from a player's perspective, is becoming more important as we get further into the visual age. The computer program enforces the rules, so no one has to read the rules. Admittedly, if the game is fairly complex, and especially if there is more than one player, it's an advantage to read the manual/rules, but many people don't bother and can still play. The way to begin to achieve this advantage with tabletop games is to provide a video in the box that explains how the game works, and shows a sample of play. In other words, you do your best to give the players a chance to learn how to play from someone else, rather than from the rules. Flash tuto1ials are also useful, though not as detailed. Some game reviewers now use videos to discuss games, but a game designer cannot depend on reviewers to teach people how to play his game. 4. "Fog of War"/hidden information about pieces and terrain. This is much easier to do in video games, where the computer keeps track of and hides this information. In a typical strategy video game such as Supreme Commander or Command & Conquer, you ell.'j)lore unknown lands, and only see opposing forces when they're near your own. Otherwise, the

world is in darkness. In shooters you often don't know what ene mies are nearby until they show themselves or sta1t shooting. This is a case where computers contribute a realistic feel to games. In tabletop games this is harder to achieve. Stratego and "block games" such as Hammer of the Scots use wooden blocks with information visible on one side to the owner, and a uniform side visible to the opponent(s). Some games, including most tabletop role-playing games, use a referee or "GM/DM" to provide the same function as the computer. (In fact, you can conceive of the computer as a substitute for a human referee.) Card games usually involve hidden information, whether cards are in hand or face down on the table. Cardboard counters can also be used face down, and some may be decoys. Old-timers may recall Convoy/Task Force, a game using plastic ship pieces with strength numbers hidden on the bottom, so that every cmiser looked the same (though different from destroyers) yet had a different strength. Another method is a divider (such as used in Battleship) or three concealed boards, one for each player, one for the referee, as in the chess vmiant ktiegspiel. 5. Mathematical calculations. Many people nowadays don't want to and sometimes cannot add and subtract in their heads, let alone do a more complex calculation. Computers take care of all of this, tabletop games do not. Tabletop games that require any kind of calculation are becoming rare. 6. Record-keeping. Designers of tabletop games must simplify so that record-keeping is easy to do. We don't want to make anyone write anything do,,11 any more, with few exceptions. With video games the computer can track all kinds of infonuation v.ith no effort from the player (e.g. think of the avatar's inventory in shooters and RPGs). 7. Computer opponent(s) and Autonomous units (Al). Typical video games can provide an opponent through the computer programming. Sometimes this is called Al or artificial intelligence, though pmists would argue that this is not "intelligence." Computers can also provide for units that move and act on their own through computer programming. 111is is very difficult to do with tabletop games, although there are cooperative games such as Pandemic that use decks of cards to provide instructions for the opposition. Dice tables may also be used. Autonomous units are vittually unheard of in tabletop games unless there is a neutral referee to provide the intelligence. 8. Real-time and simultaneous games. Some tabletop games, s uch as Diplomacy, use simultaneously adjudicated movement, but are still tum-based. In a real-time game action is both simultaneous and continuous rather than tum-based. Real-time tabletop games are quite rare, usually amounting to simple card games involving dexterity and quickness of movement. Thanks to computer programming, both of these types of games are quite common in the video game world. Real-time games provide for constant interaction with the environment if not with other players. Tabletop role-playing games can episodically provide the same kind of constant interaction, and large segments of video gaming derive from tabletop Dungeons & Dragons. 9. Saved games. Most video games let you save and continue play later. Most ofthose let you save so that, if you fail, you can go back to your save point. No such facility exists in tabletop games, though the advent of the digital camera let's us freely keep a record of what a board looks like at a given time. Tabletop games that have electronic versions may also allow saves. 10.

Complexity by virtue of many elements and rules. Although most video games have a

simple essence (for example, explore and conquer for most strategy games), thanks to the ability of the computer to keep records and act quickly a video game can have many more elements and mechanisms than most tabletop games. And MM Os such as World of Warcraft are far more complex than a tabletop game can be. Insofar asa video game might resemble a puzzle, the designer(s) might want to increase complexity to make the puzzle harder to solve. This is much less common in tabletop games. Role fulfillment vs. rules-dominance. Video games can provide the detail in the graphic visual reinforcement to help a player feel as though they are "really there." This means it is easier to create video games that are forms of wish fulfillment for the players as they feel like they're doing something they couldn't possibly do in real life.

11.

This can be done in tabletop games, prima1ily role-playing games, but relies heavily on the player's imagination and the skill of the game master. Board and card games in general are dominated by rules, not by wish fulfillment. Another way to look at this is that video games can provide much more support for a story than tabletop games, other than RPGs, can provide. On the other hand, video games rely on programming and computing power, necessa1ily restricting what a player can do. In tabletop RPGs with a good referee, the players can choose to "do" almost anything, and the game/referee can accommodate their desires. 12. Tabletop games are less likely to suffer from production errors ("buggy software"). Video games are sometimes nearly unplayable when issued because of buggy software. This is less common in tabletop games. On the other hand, it's often possible to download a free patch that will fix the problems in the video game. While rule tweaks for tabletop games can be posted on line, a more significant overhaul ("expansion") usually costs additional money. 13. No additional components are needed for tabletop games. To play a tabletop game you don't need a computer, console, or handheld video game machine or smartphone. See also Figure 7-Games and Interactive Puzzles, Video and Tabletop on this book's website

(http://p11/siphergames.com//eami11gga111edesig11/). C. Why Aspiring Designers S hould Start w ith Tabletop Games Wl1en there's n o computer, there's nowhere for the designer to hide. Young people feel that they should be able to become experts at something \\1thout going through any preliminary steps, such as practicing. This is a manifestation of "the age of instant gratification." But it doesn't work in the real world. (Remember, no matter how much you've played games, that has almost nothing to do \\1th designing games.) Leaming game design with tabletop games is much more effective for beginners than hying to produce video games. A list of the reasons below includes a discussion of each in tum. This is followed by a description of what happens when beginners try to learn by using electronic games. 1. It's much more practical for beginners to make tabletop prototypes-Specialized skills such as programming and digital artistry are not needed. If you're familiar with how movies are made in the 21st centu.ry, think of the s toryboards and "pre-viz" electronic versions of the movie that are made before actual filming. These are all prototypes, in effect. But it is much easier, cheaper, quicker, to make storyboards or even the computer pre-viz, than to shoot

the actual movie. The same is true for tabletop games, they are much easier, cheaper, and quicker to make than video game software. Many video game designers recommend making simple tabletop prototypes to test ideas for electronic games, just as storyboards test ideas for films. Less time is required for preliminary design of the tabletop game. By their nature, tabletop games are simpler than most video games, if only because there is no computer to handle complexity. Moreover, you can play a paper prototype when you haven't figured out all the details, while an electronic game requires more detail before a playable prototype can be programmed. With a tabletop game, if the designer is present he can make a ruling anytime a question arises that isn't covered in the rules-the rules may not even be written, yet. This cannot be done with electronic games, the program must be fully functional, which means the "rules" must be complete and detailed. A usable playable prototype of a tabletop game can be made in an hour or two. A playable electronic prototype, even a simple one, will take an aspiring game designer many dozens of hours for painfully simple video games, and will take a lifetime (for one person) if it's intended to be a AAA game. Much of game design is iterative and incremental; this is much easier for beginners to understand when they can quickly make and modifiJ playable prototypes. The playable prototype is what really counts; virtually every prototype is a poor game to begin with. I tell students, "playtesting is Sovereign." The problem with any electronic production of a game is that it takes SO long, compared to making a tabletop prototype, that beginners fail to do the most important parts of design: repeated testing, and modification in light of that testing. They get a working prototype, play it a few times, and think they're done, instead of understanding that they're just getting sta1ted. Unfo1tunately, the emphasis in the video game industry, and in \~deo game design books, is on planning a video game, in order to obtain funding to produce the prototype. This obscures the primacy of testing once you have that prototype. NO prototype is a good game when it is first played. 2.

The refinement process mainly consists of playtesting for modifications, not for bug finding. It's important to "lose" any feature of a game that doesn't contribute to good gameplay. A tabletop game designer can simply wave his hand and change a rule of a game, or remove a feature, whereas the video game designer faces a lengthy period of software modificationand tends to be reluctant to make changes. The "natural" way to design a game, the way it was done before computers, used to be pursued in the video game industry, and may still be done for small games. A playable prototype is produced as soon as possible. It is played, revised, played, revised, played, revised, seemingly foreuer, until a stable "good game" has been produced. Sid Meier did this v.ith his famous game Civilization. He programmed, he and (mostly) Bruce Shelley played, they decided what needed to be changed, Sid programmed, they played, and so on. (TI1is was 1990, the end of the era when it was still practical for one person to program a commercial video game.) More recently, Sid Meier said on the website Slashdot, My whole approach to making games revolves around first creating a solid prototype and tl1en playing and improving the game over the course of tl1e 2-3

year development cycle ... until we think it's ready for prime time. My experience in this area helps me to know what to do and where to start. I definitely spend a lot of time playing the game before I let anyone else look at it. Beginners tend to miss the point that design almost never turns out the way you intended, when you actually play the game. If they only work with video games they have played, they easily think their ideas would "make the game much better" because they have no way to t11• them out. The expe1ience of game designers is that changes rarely work out exactly as you expect, and often quite drastically different, when you test them in practice. On the other hand, it's easy for beginners, when practicing, to "redesign" traditional games like chess and Monopoly, perhaps one feature at a time. Because the games are quite s imple, it's easier to predict the actual result of the changes. Most important, they can achially play the changed versions immediately and see what happens. Tabletop games let sh1dents sta1t out with small steps rather than attempt a big project that may fail for many reasons other than poor design. 3. Tabletop games force sh1dents to concentrate on gameplay, not looks/slickness/coolness that have no staying power. Many novice designers equate good looks with a good game. If they're making electronic games, the)1 11 spend a lot of time trying to make them look good, tl)~ng to reach AAA quality even though that's impossible in any reasonable amount of time. With tabletop games students quickly see thatthere's little reason to worry about slick looks until the game is ach1ally "done." Paper game designs are, by their nahire, utilitarian, though published paper games can be full of eye-candy and slick parts. Beginners nowadays often have only played "traditional" tabletop games such as Monopoly and Game of Life that are, in fact, somewhere between mediocre and dowmight bad game designs. (They succeed largely because so many people already know how to play them, and virtually no thinking is required, making them "safe" gifts.) Discussion of traditional games opens their eyes to what good design really is, and helps them think critically about gameplay. (See Section G below.) 4. Much less time is wasted on poor ideas-and most ideas are poor ideas. Beginners tend to think their first idea will be "the best game ever." And if that doesn't pan out, the nei,.t one will be "great." Experienced designers know that they should have many, many designs "in the works" at any time. And they know that to get a few really good ideas you need to generate a great many ideas altogether. Furthern10re, there's no reason to ei,.-pect beginners to come up with excellent game designs when they're starting out, any more than \\'liters or artists or composers start out with excellent ideas or results. Science fiction novelist (and former Byte magazine computer pundit) Jerry Pournelle says you must be willing to throw away your first million words (10-11 novels) if you want to become a successful novelist. Why would game design be any different? Why waste huge amounts of time producing an electronic game that is a fundamentally bad design? When beginners design tabletop games and very soon thereafter play their prototypes, they quickly discover that their "great ideas" are not very good, in practice. This helps them learn to critique their ideas at an early stage, and discard the ob,~ously bad ones before spending a lot of time on them. In a sense, it teaches them humility, something that every designer must learn.

These are especially important lessons for the "Millennial" generation in the "age of instant gratification." Some people think they're in "The Matrix," where a quick pill is all they need to be an expert. Starting out with electronic games obscures the nature of these delusions. 5. The greater simplicity of tabletop games forces concentration on good gameplay. Beginners tend to identify "games" with AAA video games, rather than with much simpler casual games or games of 25 years ago (e.g., Tetris, Space Invaders). AAA games are often terrifically complex "under the hood." TI1is is the kind of game most beginners want to produce, though as a practical matter most of them actually won't work for companies producing AAA games, and while they're learning they can't make such complex games requiring hundreds of man-years of professional effort. All this complexity obscures the actual game design in the games. That obscuring complexity rarely exists in tabletop games; fmthennore, beginners aren't likely to design complex tabletop games because they cannot expect the computer to take care of the details. Gameplay is a much more obvious element of tabletop games than it is of video games. The result: the student is forced to concentrate on the most important part of the game, gameplay. For example, beginners designing video games tend to concentrate on story rather than gameplay, usually a big mistake. When there's no computer, they're less likely to do this, because they don't have a computer to "describe and depict the world" for them. 6. Beginners cannot ''hide behind the computer" (the "easy button"). Beginners tend to design an overly-complex video game and assume "the computer will take care of" problems that are, in fact, game design problems. Instead of figuring out how a game is going to work, they imagine what they want the game to do. What they want the game to do is simply a more detailed idea, and we've already discussed what ideas are worth. This is ''hiding behind the computer." Unfortunately this is easy to do, because only at the end of a very long design and modification cycle will it become obvious that the computer cannot solve the problem, that it's a design problem. People make computer games complex ... because they can, because they think the computer will mask the complexity. But an overly complex design cannot be saved by putting it on a computer. If the design is flawed, turning it into software won't fr< it. Designers, especially novices, should live by the maxim of Antoine de Saint-Exupery, French engineer, author, and airmail pioneer: "A designer knows he has achieved pe1fection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." It's much easier to learn to do this effectively with tabletop games. With tabletop games, there's clearly no "easy button"; when there's no computer, there's nowhere to hide. When you design something that results in a crappy video game prototype, you might blame it on the programming, or the art, or the sound, or something else. When you make a crappy tabletop game, you're out there on your own, it's your fault, so you are forced to figure out what you need to do to get better. Designing tabletop games is actually more challenging, for most people. And more educational for beginners. Finally, designing tabletop games takes away all the excuses that wannabe game designers often put forth: "I don't know how to program," 'Tm not an artist," "It's much too big a project for one person." If you don't design games NOW, you're not going to design them

later. Having described these six reasons, now let's consider an important question. 7. What happens when you start to learn with electronic games? If you begin with video games, in the end, you rarely actually learn game design, you learn game production, which is quite another thing, and you learn it in an exceptionally half-baked way. If you use a simple game engine, even something as brilliant as Gamemaker, this not only severely limits what games can be made, most of the effort goes into making the prototype work, not into the design a nd testing/iteration phases. When you create electronic games for learning purposes, you'll wind up spending almost all of your time on game production elements that are not game design. FURTHER READING "How to Be a Game Designer Right Now." http://www.gamecareerguide.com/featuresl755/spo11soredJeature_ how_ to_ be_ a_ .php For more about iteration see this article: http:// www.gamecareerg1.1ide.com/feat1.1res/577/ iterative_design.php Game Developer Conference presentation/workshop, "Paper Simulations of Digital Games" http:/ /209.128.81 .248/uiew/14012-MjU1 Y/Paper_Sim1.1/atio11s_ of_Digita/_ Games_flash_ ppt_ prese11tatio11

D. \1/hy No One Can Make AAA Video Games b y Himself Some things take too long and cost too much. The kind of boxed video game that you see in Gamestop, Best Buy, or other chain stores is a product of far more than a hundred man-years of work by well-paid, experienced professionals. There are independent video games that are created by small groups of people, and many casual video games s uch as Bejeweled are produced by small groups of people working for many months rather than years. But no matter how good you are at programming or art or anything else that has to do with a video game, it is practically impossible for you to produce a AAA video game in your lifetime. The budget for a AAA video game nms into the tens of millions of dollars. Much of this is salaiies for the people who produced the game, funds for offices and facilities, funds for marketing. MMOs cost even more. The point here is that you as an individual have no hope of creating a AAA game both from the point of view of time available and money available. For example, Bioshock, released in 2007-a long time ago by computer standards- took three years to produce. The number of full-time developers at the peak of production was 93 in-house developers, 30 contractors, and 8 on-site publisher testers. There were 758,903 lines of native C++ code. A fast typist typing eight hours a clay would take years just to type that much code, let alone to write it. That doesn't count the 187,114 lines of scripting code. And that's only the code. For modem AAA games more artists work on the game than programmers, three times as many for Bioshock, and for a much longer time in total. The biggest problem that novice video game creators face is to recognize what's possible and what's not. It's very common for beginners to try to produce a game that is simply way beyond the time and money that they have available even if they're really good at what they do. Remember where we sta1ted: you have to complete games. It's far better to set your sights

lower and have a completed game than to set your sights higher and never finish. So the point of this section is to do a quarter (or even a tenth) of what your mind tells you is possible, not what your heart wants you to do: your heart will want you to do far too much. This cannot be emphasized enough. You have to do things that you can complete, that you can show someone, that can actually be played.

FURTHER READING "Seven Sins of a Startup." http://www.gamedev.11et/page/resources/_/refere11ce/105/169/296/the-7-deadly-sins-of-startup-compa11ies-r26o3 "So You're Going to Make a Game for the Very First Time," Gamasutra E1q,e1t Blog, http:// gamasutra.com/blogs/LewisPulsipher/20110516/7453/So_ Youre_ Going_ To_ Make_ A_ Game_ For_ 111e_ Very_ First_ Time.php. Be sure to read the reader comments.

E. Derivative/ Subsidiary Forms of Video Game a Beginner Can Make Make levels or mods of existing games. It's easy to imagine a wonderful video game, but very hard to create one that people can actually play. If you want to get noticed as a video game designer you will probably have to make some video games to demonstrate your skill as a designer. The alternative route here, and one that I recommend if you enjoy games that have '1evels,• is to create levels for video games. Some games come with excellent level or world editors, for example Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights, Civilization, Little Big Planet, and Spore. You can find entire books about level design that use the Unreal engine for their examples. Chapter 7 of this book is devoted to designing levels. Many of the people now working at video game studios started out as modders, people who modified existing video games successfully. Modding is much more complex than level creation because it involves reprogramming some of the guts of the game. Most mods require a team of people working for years. Game levels can be produced by one person in a much shorter time. For people just learning to make games, level creation is much more attainable than modding.

FURTHER READING There are many websites devoted to level design and modding (such as http://www.worldofleueldesign.com/).

F. How One Person Can Make a Complete Video Game from Scratch, Rather Than Modify an Existing One Gamemaker is amazing. A game can be simple, it can use two-dimensional graphics, and it can still be a really interesting game to play. Often the presence of constraints results in a better game design than if there were no constraints. Your constraints as a beginning designer include the difficulty of actually producing the game. So embrace the limitations and try to devise a really interesting design that you can nonetheless make with a simple video game engine.

After you think you know enough about game design to design a video game-which means

after you've designed some tabletop games that work well-then you can learn a small video game "engine." A game engine is software that simplifies the programming required to create a video game. Many AAA video games are created using major 3D game engines, in particular the Unreal III engine and now-defunct Gamebryo. It's possible to download a version of Unreal III to use, but it is very complex. Even a simpler 3D engine like Unity, which is also free to download, requires considerable programming knowledge and experience. There are much simpler game engines which use drag-and-drop methods to enable users to create simple two-dimensional games. Many of the classic games of the past such as PacM an or Space Invaders can be reproduced by novices in a few hours with these tools-after they've learned how to use the engine. (If you're making a game to distribute then you need to have new graphics created to avoid copyright violations, otherwise you can borrow graphics for personal "fair use.") You may think "oh but those are old games," yet they were good game designs that are just as good now as they were 25 or 30 years ago. For many years the most prominent of these simple engines has been Gamemaker. Gamemaker Lite is freely downloadable and Gamemaker Pro is quite inexpensive. A book co-authored by the creator of Gamemaker, The Gamemaker's Apprentice, makes it very easy to learn the system. A second book, The Game Maker's Companion, will take you further. For more complex games there is a Pro version that is still very inexpensive. The engine is very well s upported online by a large community. It also includes a programming language, although you can make some ve1y interesting games just using the drag-and-drop interfaces. Even if you have no interest in computer programming, if you're interested in video game design I strongly recommend that you learn Gamemaker. It will help you understand what your colleagues are doing as they make the video game that you imagine. More practically, it's difficult for a novice to get other people to make the video game you want, so you may have to make it yourself. FURTHER READING For up-to-date info1111ation see Wikipedia entries such as http://en.wikiped

ia.org/wiki/Game_ engine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ of_game_ engines.

G. Traditional Games Are Not a Good Guide to What We Can Do with Tabletop Games Habit drives traditional games. While people learn with tabletop games, don't get the idea that these are the traditional family and strategy games that have been known for many decades. Beginners are rarely familiar with non-traditional "hobby" board games such as Eurogames and wargames. The traditional ones offer many "false lessons," that is, what has worked in traditional games is often not good game design. Put another way, game design students often adopt characteristics of traditionally popular games in their designs. Part of the reason for discussing traditional games is to point out that they are not necessarily designs wmth emulating. So here is a brief analysis of what is wrong with (and right with) some of these games. Sometimes this will include the following questions as a framework, after a general discussion of the game. When yon design your own games, you'll want to ask these questions about it.

What are the challenges the player(s) face?

What actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges?

3. What can players do to affect each other? 4. Is the game replayable many times without becoming "just the same" over and over? 5. Is the game fair (balanced)? 6. Is there an appropriate mixture for the audience and game type? 7. What is the "essence" of the game? There are two types of "traditional" games, the public domain ones that have come down to us over centuries such as chess and parchesi, and those that are commercially-produced games that have become habits with the buying and playing public. The former tend to be for two players only, while the latter are often for two or more players. Keep in mind that recently-designed games are not necessarily better designs than "old" games. Ignore "the cult of the new." But the really old traditional games often benefited greatly from the lack of competition when they were first devised/published. Most "traditional" games are now played because "everyone knows how to play." They are bought because "everyone is familiar with it." They are not traditional because they are particularly good game designs, in many cases. They have attained a place in contemporary culture, becoming "a habit." When you ask board game fanatics how well such games would fare if published today, the response is often something between "a dog" and "just anotl1er game." One general comment about the "roll dice and move accordingly" mechanic used in many commercial traditional games. This mechanic gives a player little to no control over what happens. It is almost universally despised by experienced board gamers. Video gamers can look at it this way: "if you were playing a video game, and your avatar suddenly slowed down for a while, and then sped up for a while, and periodically changed maximum speed at random, wouldn't that annoy the heck out of you? And what if other players' avatars were moving at different speeds than yours? You'd hate it. So why would you want to do that in a boardgame?" Yes, it's easy randomization, but there are better ways to randomize, and in any case don't we usually want to make games of skill, not games of chance? Let's dispose of a class of traditional games here: Bingo, Candy/and, and Chutes and Ladders are all entirely random games. This is OK for little kids, who don't recognize the randomness, and who aren't up to "strategizing" to beat older players. It's OK for people who don't want to think while playing. It's OK for gambling, too. But it's worthless to people who like games involving skill, who want to take actions to overcome meaningful challenges. Another point wo1th discussing is player elimination. Insofar as multi-sided traditional games tend to be family games, the possibility that players can be eliminated is undesirable. The argument runs, when a player is eliminated, he's no longer part of the fun. The counterargument is, why stay in the game when you don't have a chance to win? My response is that in family games the purpose is not to 'A~n but to enjoy socializing with yom family, and there is more interaction if you're still in the game even if there seems to be little chance that you can win. Some games, such as Careers (one of the best traditional games, recently back in print), do not include player elimination, but some do, including our first subject.

Monopoly As this is the game people often think of first, we'll discuss it first. Monopoly is a "family

game" with a leaning toward adults. It is a mediocre game at best, quite despised by many board game exl)ertS. The "roll and move" mechanic is the first point of complaint, but there are others. (Keep in mind that most people don't actually play by the mies. For example, if someone lands on a property but does not want to buy it, the property is supposed to be auctioned off.) There is a dominant strategy- buy everything you land on, if you possibly can, early in the game. This leads to the strong possibility of stalemate, as players may choose not to trade properties to make the sets that allow house building. Consequently, there is a strong possibility that the game can go on for many hours with many players. In any case, it is a long game- students often say they've never actually finished a game. Further, the game works poorly with fewer than four players. Unfortunately, we don 't have space for a full critique of the game. Let's examine the questions: What are the challenges the player(s) face? The player must get sets of properties, construct buildings to raise the rent, and avoid big payouts.

W11at actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges? Not much. Movement is random, and decisions are fairly simple. Trading is a major action, as is management of funds (how much to spend on buildings, how much to hold against the possibility of paying large rents).

3. What can players do to affect each other? Trade properties. Building houses and hotels, apart from being more or Jess an automatic choice when possible, cannot be targeted at any one player, affecting all equally. 4. Is the game replayable many times without becoming "just the same" over and over? Replayability is low. The game quickly becomes repetitive. Few people ach1ally play Monopoly a lot in a short stretch (say a year), but they may play a lot over a very Jong period, when they will forget how repetitive it achtally is. 5. Is the game fair? It's symmetric, and the advantage of moving first doesn't seem to make much difference in the long mn. There are no "take that" cards to drastically change the game, though a bad roll or two can be deadly. 6. Is there an appropriate mixture for the audience and game? It's a family game, and there can be big changes in fortune depending on the dice rolls, but it seems appropriate to a "game for all ages." 7. What is the "essence" of the game? Theoretically it's a real estate trading and development game, but trading is so uncommon that the emphasis is on the chance of movement. There are many va1iations of Monopoly, in fact most people don't play according to the mles. An interesting variation from Boardgamegeek (the major website for board game fans) is, every unowned property landed on is auctioned. The "lander" does not get an opporhmity to buy before the auction. As with most traditional games, Monopoly has a very poor score on Boardgamegeek.

FURTHER READING http://boardgamegeek.com/ game/1406. Tic-Tac-Toe (Nougl,ts and Crosses)

Here is a traditional simple game popular with kids. It is so simple that it has been "solved" by many, and it's easy to v.Tite a one-page set of instructions to follow that will result in a draw every time, or a win when it's available. The problem is that there's a dominant strategy, which amounts to "occupy the central square whenever you can." A major advantage of the game is that there is no chance involved, other than the big difference-maker of who plays first. The major value of the game is to teach kids that they can play a game and not understand its strategy, but as they get older they can learn to be a perfect player within its contell.1:. A much more interesting variation on this game is a four by four grid. You win with four in a row or four in a square. The seven questions would be overkill here.

FURTHER READING http://boardgamegeek.com/game/11901. Pachisi/Par ch isi/Parcheesi (and Backganuuon)

This is a race game dominated by chance (roll-and-move again). It does have the virtue that more than two can play. There is some strategy in the use of blockade, either to stop oppone nts or to clean up behind the blockade by "hitting" stopped opponent pieces. The frustration factor can be high when you're the one who's blockaded.

Backgammon is a two-player Western game resembling Pachesi, but with a little more strategy especially de1iving from the doubling cube. The seven questions would again be overkill.

FURTHER READING http:/ jboardgamegeek.com/game/2136 Chess

Next we'll tum to the ultimate Western traditional strategy game, chess. Chess mies a re fairly complex for a traditional game, though it's really quite simple to learn and play. The play is very complex and highly strategic, of course. Theoretically the game may represent Indian (subcontinent) warfare, but practically speaking it is abstract. Also unlike most traditional commercial games, there is no chance element other than who moves first. As with tic-tac-toe, a perfectly played game will always have the same result (this has been proved mathematically), but because no one has specifically "solved" chess, we don't know which result it would be, white win, draw, or black win. In practice, as played by experts white has a significant advantage, and draws are common (55 percent of top-class human games, 36 percent of top computer-program games). One of the unusual aspects of the game is that a big advantage accmes to those who know "the analysis" of certain situations, such as the openings. Chess has a vast literature, and the solution(s) to certain situations are known, but only to those who learn the literature. In effect, otl1er people have done the thinking for you. Yes, this is a possibility in any game

without chance or hidden information, but other games have not been intensely studied for centuries. Fonner world champion Bobby Fischer advocated a variation of chess that would remove the "prior analysis" advantage, at least for a while (even though Fischer was one of the best at remembering prior analyses when pla)~ng). He suggested scrambling the order of pieces in the back row, imposing that orde r on both players. So from one side of the board you might have bishop, queen, knight, rook, rook, etc. For most people, there are too many possibilities to calculate once the game gets going. This can lead to what is called "analysis paralysis": people cannot decide what to do and take a long time. Even when played by experts, chess can be a very long game, hence the artificial limitation of two hours for 40 moves imposed via chess clocks. Finally, many people would say there are too many draws. In a game designed today, the designer would tly to find a way to avoid draws; though given the advantage of moving first, perhaps it's just as well that draws are possible. Despite all of the above, chess is obviously an excellent game. But would it stand out among other games if published today? In an era that values short games, simplicity, and "that was easy," perhaps not. Let's consider the questions: t. What are the challenges the player(s) face? Deploy pieces in a superior arrange-

ment in order to take more of an opponent's strength than one gives, and finally to capture the king. 2. What actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges? With pe1fect infonnation, it's all about looking ahead, anticipating your opponent, finding ways to make your opponent feel that he is defeated even if, in reality, he is not. Everything revolves around the moves of the pieces.

3. What can players do to affect each other? Player interaction is very high in a twoplayer, eliminate-enemy-pieces game. 4. Is the game replayable many times without becoming "just the same" over and over? Histoty shows that it is, despite its fundamental simplicity. 5. Is the game fair? Symmetlic, but significant advantage to first mover. 6. Is there an appropriate mixture for the a udience and game type? Yes. 7. What is the "essence" of the game? Movement and position.

FURTHER READING http://boardgamegeek.com/game/171 Battleship

This is a traditional game popularized by Milton Bradley's boxed plastic version. It is largely a guessing game, though some would call it a "deduction" game. As with any game, you can "play the player," predicting what your opponent will do. For example, a colleague of mine noticed that his sons would not place their ships in the outer squares. Consequently, instead of 100 squares to shoot at, he has 64. Chance should tend to award him the game most times. Beyond simplicity, there isn't much to recommend this game.

FURTHER READING

http://boardgamegeek.com/ga111e/2425 Scrabble

An excellent word game. What are the challenges the player(s) face? Make words from random letters, and find places on the board where those words can be placed and score well

2. What actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges? Very much a thinking game, and helps vocabulary development.

3. What can players do to affect each other? It may be possible to block occasionally, but in general, not much. 4. Is the game replayable many times ·without becoming "just the same" over and over? Given the complexity and variety oflanguage, yes. 5. Is the game fair? There may be a very slight advantage to playing first. 6. Is there an appropriate mixture for the audience and game type? Evidently. 7. What is the "essence" of the game? Creation of words preferably using uncommon letters. FURTHER READING

http://boardgamegeek.com/ga111e/32o Check ers ( Draughts)

This is a simpler-than-chess strategy game. The game is sufficiently simple that it has been "solved" by computer using brute-force (trial and error) methods. As with most of the public domain traditional games, this one is only for two players. FURTHER READING

http:/jboa1·dgamegeek.com/game/2083 Risk (Pre- 20 08 Version)

Game design students who have played hardly any commercial tabletop games, have usually played Monopoly and have often played Risk. Risk is very simple to leam and to play, with so little real strategy that there is rarely "analysis paralysis." Although the theme is world conquest, it has absh·acted the world so heavily that few players will feel like there's a real war going on. However, Risk is a weak strategy game, and a "dicefest." There's a heavy dose of luck in combat and in the cards. It is a long game with player elimination, a poor combination in today's terms. The tum-in-cards-for-armies mechanic is necessary to end the game in a few hon.r s, but is fairly random. The "Mission cards" victory condition introduced many years ago mitigates some problems, but unfortunately the missions aren't tailored to the number of players in the game, and they are hardly ever used. As with Monopoly, most experienced hobby board gamers dislike b·aditional Risk. In 2008 a revised version of Risk was published that eliminates some of the problems

through use of multiple limited-objective missions. What are the challenges the player(s) face? Management of resources to end up with more annies than the opposition; there's a little strategy involved in acqui1ing armies; and choosing the 1ight time to ti)' to wipe out an opponent and obtain his territory cards.

2. What actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges? Choosing where to attack, with how many annies. Choosing where to defend with more than one army.

3. What can players do to affect each other? When it is not a player's turn, he is usually inactive except when attacked. However, eve1y move affects at least two players. 4. Is the game replayable many times without becoming "just the same" over and over? Strategies are limited, but there's a fair bit of variety. 5. Is the game fair? Symmetric, but there may be a slight advantage to moving first. 6. Is there an appropriate mixture for the audience and game type? Well, lots of people fondly remember playing it as kids, so there must be something to it. 7. What is the "essence" of the game? Some would say "intern1inable dice rolling." Choosing where and when to attack is probably the essence. FURTHER READING

http://board9ame9eek.com/9a111e/ 181. Go

The Chinese/Japanese game of go, the analog of chess in East Asia, is an outstanding abstract strategy game. It is played on a 19 by 19 line giid, with black and white stones places on the intersections of the lines rather than in the squares. The rules are very simple. The strategy of controlling areas is vecy deep, even compared with a game like chess. From a game desigii perspective, the game is so unusual that there may not be many lessons to learn. FURTHER READING

http:/ fboardgamegeek.com/game/188 Hobby games are much less well-known than these traditional games, but they're often much better desigi1s. Some of them, along with traditional games, are discussed in the following mticle and books FURTHER READING "Game Design Essentials: 20 Real-World Games" http://www.9amas11trn.com/uiew/fea-

ture/5986/9ame_ design_ essentials_20_ .php. Books: Hobby Games: The 100 Best, and Family Games: The 100 Best, both edited by James Lowder.

H. Formal Education The game industly is still a "meritocracy." The game industry does not require fonnal education , though this is likely to change as time passes. Employers are interested in what you can do, not what degree you have. Many colleges have only recently begun to teach game-specific classes or offer degrees, and few

teach game design as a specialty. Many call their curriculums "game design" but mainly teach game production, even in nominal "game design" classes. Most game design teachers have no practical experience, that is, they've never completed a game. So choose very carefully. Be sure to read the articles listed below. A broad college education certainly benefits would-be game designers. Those with a programming degree may be taken more seriously than others, because video game designers work so closely with programmers. FURTHER READING "Induslly Hopefuls: Prepare Intelligently." http://www.gamecar-eerguide.co111/featuresl757/ i11dustry_ hopefuls_ prepare_ .php. "Identifying a Good Game School." http:// www.gamecareerguide.com/Jeatures/838/identi.fiJi11g_ a_good_game_ .php. I. Math A game designer ought to have all-around skills, both on the qualitative (verbal) and quantitative (math) sides. If a video game designer, he ought to know programming but need not be a programmer, understand mt even ifhe isn't an mtist. Contrary to the belief of some, games are not all math, nor is game design primarily a mathematical exercise. (When it approaches a mathematical exercise, the design is probably a puzzle, not a game.) Nonetheless, a designer should tmderstand basic probability. Here are three "math challenges" I present to my beginning game design students. My experience is that some of them get the first (a simple calculation in their heads), but few understand the probability challenge. This is a problem: a game designer should understand these things, and ifhe or she doesn't, some work is needed. First I say, "What are the odds for particular sums occurring when you roll two normal dice and acid the result?" This is elementary probability, but so many people don't have a clue to the answer that the American edition of Settlers ofCatan, includes a table exl)laining tl1e odds (rolling two dice detennines what resources are available). This is an example of the "nonnal" or "bell" or "Gaussian" curve. What percentage of the time do you roll a "7'' with two normal dice? How often do you roll a "12," or an "11"? Such probabilities are going to come into play in games where randomizers (dice) are used. Ifyou don't know tl1e possibilities by hemt, you can lay out all tl1e possible rolls and come up with the following table. You can figure this out by listing all the 36 possible combinations of results of two dice rolls. The following table is a summary:

Dice Odds, Rolling Two Dice Dice Result

Chance in 36 Rolls

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

1 2 3

4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1

36 2.78% 5.56% 8.33% ll.119fo 13.89% 16.67% 13.89%

One twelfth

One sixth

11.11%

8.33% 5.56% 2.78%

One twelfth

So, for example, for "11" you can roll a 5 and a 6, or a 6 and a 5, hence two possibilities. For the second challenge I say, "You all know you're not allowed to miss more than 15% of classes." (This varies from school to school, and there may not be any limit at all, but it serves for illustration.) "We have two classes a week, and there are 16 weeks. What is 15% of classes. DO IT IN YOUR HEAD." Many people can get this on paper. Most people don't know the shortcuts to use in calculating in their head, so they try to do the multiplication in their head as though they were doing it on paper. The answer: 2 times 16 is 32. 10 percent of 32 is 3.2 and 5 percent is half that, 1.6. So acid those together for 15 percent or 4.8 classes. It's the sho1tcut, and the willingness to try doing it in one's head, that is important. The majority of people fail. Third challenge: "You're in Las Vegas, and someone presents you with a gambling proposition. You choose one of the two ways to roll dice to see if you win a prize, and he'll take the other. Here are the two possibilities: 1.

Roll one six-sided die. If you get a 4, 5, or 6, you win.

2. Roll two six-sided dice. If you get a 5 or 6 on eitheror both dice, you win. Which is the better choice for you?" The majo1ity of students will p ick # 1, which is the worse choice. # 1 is 50 percent. What are the chances for #2?

Since there's one chance in 3 of getting a s or 6, there is one chance in 9 (1/3 times 1/3) of getting it with both dice, but that doesn't tell us the chance of getting it with one or both. So what do we do? The trick is to calculate the chance that ne ither die will be a 5 or 6 both times, which is 2/3 times 2/3, which equals 4/9. So the chance of getting at least one 5 or 6 is 5/9 ( 1/9 for both, so it must be 4/9 for one 5 or 6 out of the two). Again, the emphasis has to be on the trick, lookin g at the problem "in reverse." Sure, there's a fommla to calculate the actual percentages, but we only n eed the simple math proficiency of multiplication , and a basic understanding of probability. Practice

If you're 'A1lling to practice 'A1th tabletop games, here's a quick way to start: modify an existing, but not entirely satisfactory, game. For example, Monopoly is a very long game: what can you do to fix that? Tic-tac-toe is always a clrawwhen played perfectly. Can you expand the game to make it more competitive? Checkers is a\,fully bland. Is there a way to make it more exciting without making it significantly more complicated? After you figure out rule changes, PLAYTHEGAMETOTESTYOURRESULTS. Now take a game you know (chess, Monopoly, and Risk if nothing else), list its Nine Subsystems, and then change just one to (try to) improve the game. If it's a tabletop game that you own, you can try out the change, which is absolutely the best practice you can get. It will help you understand that what you think will work out, may be quite different in practice. In either case, play more than once. Too many oddities can occur in a single play to make results conclusive, from a design er's point of view.

3 What Is a Game and What Makes It a Good Game? While we can benefit from thinking about what a game is, we really need to know what makes a game "Good." In this chapter we're taking time to think about what makes games interesting and enjoyable. There is no "right answer" to some of these questions, but if you think seriously about possible answers, this will help you make better games.

A. \\'hat Is a "Game?" One well-knO\m book about games (Rules of Play) takes 80 pages to define what a game is. Rather than take a lot of space we'll make a few points and then leave it to you to decide what a game is. Yes, it's important to understand the characteristics of games as opposed to puzzles or toys, but if you call something a game and you want to design it then that's probably good enough. A reasonable definition of"toy" is that a toy is something you can play with that has no rules or goals. You decide what you want to do with it and there are all kinds of things that you can do. If you make paper boats you can use those toys for target practice, you can use them as pieces in a game if you make up rules and goals for a game, you can choose to make them paper hats instead, or you can do something you haven't thought of yet.

A "puzzle" usually has a goal, some state that you want to reach. A puzzle can be solved. Once you've solved it there's not much point in doing it again. Some puzzles, like a jigsaw puzzle, may be so big and complex that you ca.n 't remember the solution. Some puzzles, like many traditional one player video games, have so much variety that you might play again. Where the traditional video game has no chance factors, such as the a rcade version of PacMan, then you can ultimately solve it just as arcade Pac-Man has been solved. (Someone has perceived the patterns and played all the way through 255 levels to the end, eating every ghost and never dying, at which point the game crashed.) Moreover, puzzles do not involve conscious intelligent opposition. There is (as yet) no intelligence or consciousness in a computer, although it can do some complex calculations. We call the card activity Solitaire a game, but in fact it is a puzzle, by this definition. So we see how some things that we call games are more properly characte1ized as puzzles. A game involves interaction, generally interaction amongst the human players of the game. There is no single solution to a game, though infallibly optimal lines of play can be discovered in the very simplest such as tic-tac-toe. A game involves both mies and goals although the goal does not need to be winning-there is no victory condition in many tabletop roleplaying games. But there must be intelligent opposition for something to be a game rather than a puzzle. Tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) is such a simple game that it has been solved, but when played by people, the opponent can make mistakes that lead to a win instead of a draw. Some people characterize games as a se1ies of interesting challenges. Those inte resting challenges can be posed by the designer of a video game working through the compute r, or they can be posed by the designer so that the game allows the players to provide the strength

of the challenges. Many video game people like to use a definition involving challenges because that allows for the computer to provide challenges, even though by my definition a video game that doesn't involve more than one person (or reasonable person-substitute ,~a computer) is generally a puzzle, because computers cannot yet pro,~de intelligent opposition. But this will change, sooner or later. FURTHER READING

Fundamentals ofGame Design 2nd edition by Ernest Adams. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen, Eric Zimmern1an. B. The Characteristics of Good Games "It depends" on players' preferences (see Section D below). But we can generalize. Many game designers would say that the three most important factors in games are gameplay, gameplay, and gameplay. But we can go further (an "ideal" game would have all of these): "Player-centric design." "What is the player going to do?" Games exist to benefit the players.

Games designed "to be art" or "to please the designer" are rarely successful as games. 2. Interesting challenges. One well-known definition of "game" involves presenting interesting non-trivial challenges to the player. TI1e challenges are the obstacles to be overcome. 3. Choice. Players should be able to significantly affect the outcome of the game. They should be able to take actions to defeat or overcome challenges. They must be allowed to succeed or fail. Why play if what you do makes no difference? Players want to be able to influence or even control what happens, if they do the right things. 4. Interaction with other players (or other entities such as the computer). Games are about doing as well as thinking. 5. Activity. Movies and books are mostly passive, games should be active. 6. Replayability. Which means variety. This is not needed for tl1e typical interactive-puzzle video game, though still desirable. Many games provide different playable characters and character classes in order to improve replayability. What "replayability" does NOT mean is doing the same thing over and over again, as often happens in MM Os and "social network" games, in order to "earn" dubious rewards. "Grinding" is not replayability, it's punishment, it's too much like work. 7. Memorability. This tends to improve when more than one person is playing the game, of course. When you kill time, you don't need to remember what you did. Wl1en you play a good game, some of the occuITences should be memorable, the kind of thing you talk with your friends about later. If it's a really good game, you may talk about it years later. 8. Play balance. The game should be "fair." As people learn to play a game more expe1tly, they want to be rewarded for what they're doing. Rewards and incentives should be commensurate with skill and effo1t expended. Video games are often divided into episodic levels, with some kind of reward as a player completes each level. "Player improves 'self" is a common theme in games. (And yet, "fairness" is much less important in East Asia, where "showing off" is more important than it is in the West. "It depends.") As with all games, player perception may be different from reality. This is something that can come out in playtesting.

9. Multiple ways to win. If a game has a dominant strategy, that is, one that everyone must follow in order to win, then it starts to resemble a puzzle that has been solved. Why play it again? Control scheme/user interface (how it's presented). Even for tabletop games, you can have an otherwise excellent game that is hard to manipulate, that doesn't clearly present what happens. Are people going to play it much?

10.

For tabletop games: the clarity and completeness of the rules. For video games: the smoothness and "non-bugginess" of the programming. Story/narrative is not necessarily important. Games are not an ideal way to deliver story. If you want to be a storyteller, you're probably better ofh,~th novels, plays, or movies. Keep in mind, sto1ies are traditionally passive, games are active. Famously, one video game designer compared story in games to story in porn movies, just an excuse to get to the action. But there are exceptions.

11.

12. Graphics are there "for atmosphere," not for the mechanics of play. As far as how the game plays, graphics are largely irrelevant, though graphics may be impo1tant to the game interface (to ease of use). But in the 21st century, many people won't play a game unless it looks at least "decent." See Figure 10-Elements of a Video Game on this book's website (http://pu/siphergames. com/leaminggamedesign/) 13. Commercial viability. Some games are good but cannot sell for a variety of reasons. If it is easy for people to make the game using home components, will people buy the game, or just get a copy of the rules? For example, a commercial game using the same components as checkers or chess isn't likely to be published. Yet some games are sold that use components available at home, e.g. Liar's Dice (the game played by Davey Jones, Will, and his father, in Pirates of the Caribbean II, commercial version credited to Richard Borg). In the end, if the game is not entertaining, challenging, or instructive in some way, why would anyone bother with it? C. What Makes a Game "Epic" or Even "Great?"

While a game designer cannot deliberately set out to design a "great" game, a designer can set out to create an "epic" game, though this effort is just as subject to failure as any other game design. We're interested here in game designs that most players would call "epic," not in an individual play of a game that might be regarded as epic. I've played and refereed epic adventures of First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but I wouldn't call Dungeons & Dragons an epic game. "Define: epic" at Google gives this first definition: "very imposing or impressive; surpassing the ordinary (especially in size or scale); 'an epic voyage'; 'of heroic proportions'; 'heroic sculpture.'" Another definition: ''heroic; majestic; impressively great." In common among these definitions is feeling, rather than logic. Games can "feel" epicThey emotionally involve the player. But once again, Dungeons & Dragons emotionally in-

valves the player yet is not an epic game, though there can be epic adventures. There's more than just emotional involvement required to make a game epic. Any and all definitions of anything, of any length, can be picked apart. As we're interested in characteristics that define an "epic game," o ur list must be fairly detailed, hence open to even more nit-picking. In the course of the discussion we'll see some of the things designers can try to do to create an epic game. Characteristics that can be divided into three categories: (1) scope, (2) player commitment, (3) tension and memorability. We'll briefly describe the characteristics, then talk about them in more detail with some examples. Epic games won't necessarily have every characteristic. That's the flaw of any detailed definition. Scope

Geographically and chronologically broad setting without feeling abstract. "Sweep of history" games that involve many centuries and countries or the world, such as Britannia, History of the World, and 7 Ages, are generally regarded as epic. So, too, is Civilization, both the original board game that preceded the computer games and the computer games. Yet other games with big scopes are not epic, for example Vinci and Risk, because they feel so abstract that the "real world" no longer feels present. Real-time strategy computer games are generally too short to feel epic. A short game v.~th the same subject as a long epic might not feel epic: for example, I've designed a 90 minute version of Britannia (admittedly leaving out the Roman conquest) that is unlikely to feel epic to most players.

Represents a titanic struggle important to very large numbers of people and possibly many generations. Age of Empires, the Total War series, and Civilization meet this crite1ion. Some Napoleonic games might qualify here, perhaps even some American Civil War games, ce1tainly a vast World War II game like Axis & Allies. War of the Ring, Master of Orion, Sins of a Solar Empire, and Twilight Imperium qualify, even though the struggle is not "real"; it can be fictional, as long as players suspend their disbelief and adopt the fiction. In all cases these are great "slugfests." 2.

3. Non-mundane theme. You're not likely to regard a game about selling real estate as epic (Monopoly). Nor a game about building a house. Nor a game about eating fish. Many people expect "epic story elements" from an epic game, such as becoming king or saving the world. Many video games and action movies involve saving the world, to the point that anything less seems mundane to some. 4. Story "arc" reflecting great changes. A great story isn't necessary to an epic game, and certainly many games with great stories are not epic. Yet in some epic games, the game "sto1y ," what it represents, reflects major changes over time. It is a saga with beginning, middle, and end, so that the situation at the end of the game is very different from the beginning, almost like it's a different world. Player Commitment 1. Depth of gameplay including high replayability. This is clearly open to differing opinions about depth of gameplay. The video games we've been citing have deeper gameplay than most other video games. This is another case where Vinci and Risk fail my definition, as there is little depth to their gameplay. But you could a rgue the same thing about History of the World.

2. Sheer length or complexity (or both). Civilization is one of the most widely acknowledged epic games. Can you have a two hour Ciuilization game and retain the epic feel? Many would say "no." Can you drastically simplify what the players do without losing the epic feel? Ha rd to say. It seems that length, rather than complexity, is part of the mystique of the epic game.

An epic game need not be both very long and very complex. I cite Britmmia-like games here, as B1·ita1111ia is lengthy but not complex. But an epic game will very likely be at least one or the otl1er, very long or very complex. 3. Oddly enough, often tl1is means no role assumption is involved! In role-assumption games, you can conceive yourself as taking on the specific role of an inruvidual person. For example, you might be a squad leader, or a castle builder. It's too much like something you might do in the real world, and we rarely think of the real world as epic! In many epic games you cannot name a specific individual that you play, at best you might take on the roles of a series of inruviduals (kings, presidents, generals). Perhaps a game (as opposed to a Dungeons & Dragons adventure) feels more epic for the very reason that you cannot identify with one (mortal) person. In the many video games where you have an avatar, what you're doing is so personal and immediate that the "epic feel" often isn't the re. In many epic games you don't even play just one nation, but several. You have an "omnipresent" (though not omnipotent or omniscient) point of view. Tension and Memorability

In the following list of characteristics related to tension and memorability, we might keep in mind a trait of many popular video games, "immersiveness." Yet a game can be immersive without being epic.... Immersion: "state of being deeply engaged o r involved; absorption." 1. The gameplay reflects major changes overtime, end of game gameplayfeels very different from the beginning. Another way to put this, is by the time you get to the end of the game, it seems very different from the game you were playing in the beginning. In computer Ciuilization or a typical RTS, you usually begin with a very s mall force, work through exploration and expansion, optimize your exploitation of resources, and finally engage in a huge war. "Sweep" board games tend to feel this way. In Britannia, for example, in the beginning most players are trying to survive the Roman conquest with a healthy nation, yet give the Roman some trouble. At the end, all are concentrating on who will be king of England, and often trying to kill opposing candidates. These require different kinds of strategies. In History of the World, players begin in a relatively small area, but by the end are acting all over the world.

Further, what was an important and useful move early in the game might be a weak, poor move by the end. That is, there may be an increase in "power" and scope of the things the player can do. Unce1tainty about who's winning. If you certainly know who's winning at a particular time, a multi-sided game becomes s ubject to all kinds of defects such as kingmaking and sandbagging. This tends to annoy players and reduce tension, and may be another downfall of Risk and Vinci. 2.

If it's a two-player game and one player is obviously winning, the other will probably resign/ surrender- end of game, no epic provided. A long, drawn-out struggle in chess might be called "epic," but the game itself is not.

Point games can be a problem. The plastic Hasbro version of History of the World added secret scoring bonuses in an attempt to obscure who is in the lead. In B1·itannia the nations and colors score at different rates, at different times, so it's never quite clear even to experts who is in the lead, by how much, until the game ends. 3. Asymmetry. In asymmetric games, each player has a different starting position/situation. The opposite is symmetric, a common characteristic of "Euro" style games and multi-sided video games, where each player starts with an identical position. Abstract games tend to be symmetric, and tend not to feel epic. Most epic games are historical or pseudo-historical, and history is rarely symmetric. So we may only be seeing a symptom, not a cause, in this characteristic. 4. The game engenders "gaming stories" that you remember fondly and retell with pleasure (or chagrin!) Some games result in memorable sessions, some do not. They are more than games, they are "experiences." This goes back to the idea of "immersion," of buying into the game. It leaves out most "Euro" board games, which tend to be somehow inconsequential: games, not memorable experiences. This is certainly a characteristic of "great" games, and is sometimes a characteristic of"epic" games. Great Games

Now what makes a game "great"? Not good, not a flash-in-the-pan, rather an all-time g1·eat game. A game is great if you can (and want to) play it again and again with great enjoyment over many years, if you can almost endlessly discuss the intricacies of good play, if you can create many variants that are also fine games. Obviously, a game is not "great" to everyone. Chess is a great game, but many gamers can't stand to play it (though a great many have tried). Longevity is important. A new game may be "great," but we simply cannot tell until years have passed, no matter how much we like it when it comes out. Perhaps not every great game is great by cunent "design standards," but it may still be a great game in tenns of how it has affected people and the enjoyment it has given to people. "New" certainly doesn't mean "good" and "old" certainly doesn't mean "bad." In other words, ignore the "cult of the new" so prevalent in today's gaming tastes. Popularity is not a criterion. There are many popular tunes, movies, games, books, that disappear from our notice in a year or two or three. Great games should continue to be loved year after year after year, just as great novels, movies, music are enjoyed perennially. If a game is one of hundreds that people might want to play, can it be a great game? No, it should stand out from the crowd. If you play a game just to kill time, then the fact that you're playing it certainly doesn't make it a great game, no matter how many times you play. It's not "oh, yeah, we can play that" it's 'Td love to playthat"-again, and again, and again. If you can spend your valuable time playing this game or thinking about this game, when you have other valuable things to do, then it may be a great game. Iflots of people don't play it hundreds of hours each, over many years, can it be a great game? Yes, video games become "outdated" in a way that tabletop games rarely do, but that doesn't prevent many people in the 21st century from playing 20th century classics like Pac-Man,

Missile Command, Mega Man, and so on. One person, speaking of the video game Left 4 Dead, highlighted the memorability of great games: "the hours we spent were well-invested because we came away with incredible watercooler moments: the perfect Smoker pull off a precarious ledge, pouncing on the last survivor inches from the safe room, heroic sacrifices to save incapacitated teammates and lastsecond 'Get to the chopper' leaps into rescue helicopters."

If it's a game that can reasonably be played solitaire even though it is designed for more than one player, then a great game will be played very often solo, by a great many people. Can we summarize the above? Perhaps you could say, if a game is played by a great many people, who love to play it, who play it for hundreds of hours (by each person) altogether over the years, who can still enjoy it many years after it was first published, then perhaps it is a great game. Is Monopoly a well-designed game? Definitely not. Is it a great game? Here you can argue that it is played by default, because it's traditional, rather than because people tmly want to play it. Nonetheless a case can be made that it is a great game even though it's a weak design. FURTHER READING

Hobby Games: 11ie 100 Best and Family Games: The Lowder.

100

Best, both edited by James

D. Why People Play Garnes Some authors have made lists of the kinds of enjoyment people can have while playing games. Such lists are useful to remind us of the details of enjoyable gaming. The most well-known is from Marc LeBlanc (8kindsoffun.com) Sensation-Game as sense-pleasure Fantasy-Game as make-believe Narrative-Grune as unfolding story Challenge-Game as obstacle course Fellowship-Game as social framework Discovery-Game as uncharted territory Expression- Game as soap box Submission-Game as mindless pastime At Origins Game Fair 2008, Ian Schreiber (co-author of Challenges for Game Designers) gave his version of kinds of fun (enjoyment): • Exploration Social experience Collection (collecting things) Physical sensation Puzzle solving • Advancement • Competition Ask a group of gamers to list ways that people enjoy games, and many ofthe above will come up in one form or another.

Raph Koster (Theory of Fun for Game Design) has brought to gamers' attention research by Mihaly Csikszentmikalyi into "optimal experience." The Chicago-based Czech researcher applies his ideas to life as a whole, in a series of book, but we can apply them to games. Csikszentmikalyi is interested in "the positive aspects of human ex"perience-joy, creativity, the process of total involvement with life I callflow" (Flow: 11ie Psychology ofOptimal Experience [1990), p. xi). For game purposes it amounts to this: people have an optimal experience when they are challenged, but not challenged too much. In other words, if something is too easy, it becomes boring; if it's too hard, it becomes frnstrating and causes anxiety. The ideal game experience, then, is to challenge the player at whatever level of ability he has reached, that is, keep increasing the challenge as the player becomes a better player. This keeps players "in the Flow" (see Figure 4-Flow in Games). Video games can be particularly good at managing the level of challenge, either through adaptive programming, or via the difficulty setting, or through increasingly difficult levels in games that use levels. In tabletop games, the level of challenge tends to change because your opponents become better players just as you do, or you find better players to play against. In a tabletop role-playing game such as Dungeons & Dragons, the referee ("Dungeon Master") manages the challenge. Novice characters don't meet fire giants but often encounter ores, while very powerful characters may occasionally go up against an ancient and terrible dragon, but ores aren't worth bothering with. This is artificial, but it makes the game more enjoyable.

High

Anxiety Challenge

Boredom Low

Low

Skills

High

After Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow (1990), p. 74 Figure 4-Flow in Games. Something Can Be Erijoyable or Challenging to Some, Yet Certainly Not ErJioyable or Chai• /enging to Others

While the above schemes and categories are all useful ways to think about games, game enjoyment often involves a range of factors, with some people at one end of the spectrum, others at the other end, and the majority somewhere toward the middle. Many of these spectra overlap, or are different views of what may be a more fundamental factor. Here's a list of factors additional to what has been listed above: Role-Fulfillment vs. Em ergence (Story Domina nt vs. Rules Do mina nt)

Many people have suggested that video games are "dream fulfillment." "What is the player's dream that I want to help them experience or fulfill?" says the game designer. Yet in many games the dream, if it is there at all, is quite obscure. What is the dream fulfillment in playing chess or checkers-or any other abstract game, such as Tetris? Is there anything personal (other than a desire for immortality?) in controlling a nation for a thousand years, as in Histo,y of the World, Age ofEmpires, or Civilization? Many video games put the player in the position of an individual, a position the individual is unlikely to experience in the real world (or which they wouldn't wantto ex-pe1ience because it's much too dangerous). Living out fantasy is an obvious part of shooters and action games, for example. This kind of game can also be called "story-dominant": if there's a dream to be fulfilled, it likely involves a story, and the game is an e>.l)ression of that story, however simple it may be (just as dreams can be simple or complex). The other end of this spectrum is the "rules-dominant" game, which includes many traditional games such as chess and go. Gameplay emerges out of the mies, not from following a story (and hence this is sometimes called "emergent" gaming). The game has a set of mies and goals, and the course of the game emerges from these in a great variety of ways, depending on the players. Boardgames and card games tend to be ofthe mles-dominanttype, while many of the popular video game genres, and role-playing games of all types, tend toward the story-dominant type. We might further say that the mies-dominant games are often for more than two sides, whereas the role-dominant ones tend to have just two sides, the player(s) and the computer (or referee, in the case of classic tabletop role-playing games). Video games, especially the AAA va1iety, are much more exercises in role-assumption than are tabletop games. That is, the player is enabled to do something he'd like to imagine he could do, but he can feel that he's "really" doing it in modem AAA games. The feeling of verisimilitude must be there. On the other hand, "casual" video games tend to be more like board games and card games, "mies-dominant" rather than "story-dominant." Sid Meier recently described what amounts to an "emergent" view of games. It's important that the player has the fun in the game," he said, noting that there is a temptation for the designer to steer the gameplay too much. "It's definitely our philosophy to keep the game designer in the background and let the story emerge from players' decisions (http://www.shack11ews.com/featuredarticle.x?id~78o). The next factor involves other aspects of these two contrasting approaches. Story/Narrative 11s. What Happ ens Next/Emerging Circum s tances

Some game players like to follow along a story, while others hate to be '1ed around by the nose." Yet they're talking about the same experience. This is usually eiq>ressed in the contrast of"linear" games with "sandbox" games. It is much easier to produce a powerful story through linearity (as in a book or movie), so the strongest (in tem1s of story, at any rate) of the story-dominant games are linear. On the other hand, "sandbox" games let the player follow his own path (like playing in a sandbox rather than follo\\ing a linear trail). 111e sandbox games \\ill have greater replay value, other things being equal, than the linear games, because in the latter there is only one, or a few, stories. Of course, if the linear game is very long, will people miss a lack of replayability? Sandbox video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed are a return to the older video game style, where specific n anative (linearity) is less impo1tant or non-existent. The role-assumption game isn't n ecessarily strongly linear/story-dominant. 111e role-play ancestor of many video games, Dungeons & Dragons, can be played either way. The referee can conceive a story and set up an adventure so th at players are forced to follow through the story (linear method). Or he can set up an approp1iately challenging situation, not trying to predict how the players will approach it and not trying to lead them from a particular point to another, and see what happens (sandbox method). In this case the players make their own story. And each group confronted with the same adventure will contrive a different story. It's easier to do the sandbox in a tabletop RPG than in a \ideo game, because a good human referee is more capable than a computer of adjusting the game as it is played. Of course, there is story in the emergent style, and there is strategy and tactics in the sto1y style. What seems to be certain is that many players lean strongly to one side or the other, and don't like games of the other type most of the time. Long-Te r,n Planning vs. Reaction/Adaptation to Cl1anging Circunistances

Some people like to plan well ahead, to cons ider the options and choose a "best course" for each. Others like to react to circumstances as they occur, to adapt or improvise. Chess and checkers encourage long-term planning. Monopoly, thanks to the random move mechanic and more than two players, is more adaptive. More than two players introduces additional uncertainty to any game; uncertainty is at the heart of the adaptive style. Poker involves some improvisation in each hand, but in the long run, the best players may be able to plan their bluffs (and non-bluffs) so as to take advantage of the characteristics and personalities of the other players. In general, pe1fect infomrntion games encourage planning, while as uncertainty increases, adaptation and finally improvisation becomes more impo1tant than planning. For a variety of reasons, impro\isation is probably th e more common preference among video gamers.

This will be discussed at greater length in the nell.t chapter. Socializing vs. Competition Part)' gamers are the epitome of the socializers. Many "Euro-style" board gamers and "casual" video gamers are of this type, to the point that they refuse to attack someone even when playin g in a competitive game . They play games to enjoy being with and interacting with other people of similar interest, and have little interest in "dominating" or beating someone.

We don't need to discuss the competitive gamer: we all know people whose main gaming objective is to win, to outdo everyone else. The availability of a social expe1~ence is impo1tant. Tabletop board games and card games are generally social e;q>eriences, you enjoy playing a game with other people; video games are becoming more social (e.g. MMOs, Wii-style games), but are still predominantly solitary, a player alone with his own thoughts and dreams. What we often call "social games," which are actually social network games, are in fact ve1ysolitary, not social. Further, playing on line lacks much of the sociability of playing in the same room. Many important cues and aspects of face-to-face camaraderie are lost. All or some of speaking-and-hearing, facial expressions, body language, and sense of smell are not present in online games. Tabletop RPGs are often very social, as the games are usually cooperative rather than competitive. Entertainment vs. Challenge

Traditional thinking about games sees them as competitions or challenges, where players play against one another. Dungeons & Dragons changed that, as players played against "the badguys," with the "DM" as neutral referee-it is a cooperative game, though there is still an unending series of challenges. Some video games have gone farther by leaving competition entirely out of it, and reducing challenges. Games have become entertainments, not competitions. (Of course, many family games have been played as ente1tainments even though they were ostensibly competitions.) Many people pay their 60 bucks (or 20 bucks, or 5 bucks) and want to be entertained, not challenged. Yet there are still competitive players and highly competitive games. The game Spor-e was "too easy" for hardcore players, yet challenging enough for the much larger market of more casual players. Evidently it is an entertainment rather than a challenging, competitive game. In a sense, any game can be played as an entertainme nt or as a competition/challenge; but the design will make some much more suitable as one type than as the other. Insofar as people often "don't want to think" when playing games, many video games substitute physical challenges (such as jumping in platfonners, or shooting quickly and accurately in many games) for mental challenges. The physical challenges can easily be modified (by time available to complete them) to entertain or to challenge, as the player wishes, via the difficulty level. Playing against people online tends to be challenging. Playing against people in person tends to be e ntertainment, perhaps because you are more likely to know the other people involved. Socializing and ente1tainment tend to be more important to female players, challenge and competition tend to be more important to males. Fantasy/Relaxation vs. Urge to Exc,il ( "Gaming Mastery")

A variation of the above is to play a game as fantasy fulfillment, or to play the game to fulfill the urge to excel, to demonstrate "gaming mastery." The latter helps the player feel important, capable, powerful, hence its great attraction to teenagers. A game can often provide both, if only through different difficulty levels.

Unfortunately, the urge to "gaming maste1y" taken to extremes results in players willing to cheat, or to behave in unsocial ways that tend to ruin eve1yone else's enjoyment ("giiefers" and others). The explosion of Internet-based gaming communities, and the chance to get

"bragging rights" in such communities, have increased the urge to (perceived) mastery. Most people just don't see the point of excelling in a video game: what does it matter, in the great scheme oflife? A player's point of view about this can change over time, likely moving more toward fantasy and away from maste1y as the player becomes older and encounters more real-world challenges and responsibilities. Mastering a game simply becomes less important. The Journey vs. the Destination

This is partly a generational difference in reaction to games. Older generations want to enjoy the entire game they are pla}~ng, even when their main objective is to win. Young people seem to be more interested in the destination, ''beating the game," solving the puzzle, than in the journey. Obviously, it's necessary that a game have a sufficient level of challenge that the "destination" player feels he's accomplished something. This can also be seen as "what happens next" vs. "what is the end." Some people play games (and read novels, and watch movies) to find out what happens nex't; some are only interested in the final result. They might skip ahead in a novel and just read the e nd, or skip ahead in a game (often with "cheats") and just play the end. I once listened to a young man who had already \\1-itten two books about generational differences say that his generation (Gen Y or Millennials) were quite happy to get a cheat code, go to the last stage ofa game, "win" the game, and be satisfied. "I beatthe game, didn't I?" I (a Baby Boomer) was astounded. "Why play if you're going to cheat?" He smiled as he said, "we're just gathering the fruits of our research." I shook my head. To this day I cannot understand this emotionally, but I understand intellectually that many gamers feel this way, that the destination is all that matters. And a game designer must be aware of it. The following is another description of this phenomenon, related to the arcade game Gauntlet: "The fact that there's no ending (100 levels repeat randomly], however, points out a very important difference between Atari's view on video games and the current perception. Atari saw Gauntlet as a process, a game that was played for its own sake and not to reach completion. The adventurers continue forever until their life drains out, their quest ultimately hopeless. ... in games of Gmmtlet I've had with other people in the past few years ... their interest tends to survive only until the point where they learn there is no ending. Times have certainly changed" ["Game Design Essentials: 20 Atari Games," by John Hanis, http://www.gamasutm.com/view/featur-e/3679/ game_ design_ essen tia/s_ 20_ atar-i_ .php?page=20]. If you're designing a game whose p1imary target audience is female (e.g., many social network and casual video games), keep in mind that in games women tend to be more interested in the journey, males more interested in the destination. We might speculate also that MMOs with level caps- which is typical, because it's very hard to design a game without a level cap-suit the "destination" folks, because there JS a destination, that maximum level. Similarly, RPGs such as Final Fantasy are attractive to "destination" people because there is an end to the story. In older RPGs, both the original

tabletop ones and some of the older video games, the game is open-ended, there is no particular destination. It's instructive that the latest version of tabletop Dungeons & Dragons (4th Edition, June 2008) has a definite end: characters retire, one way or another, when they reach 30th level, and that level is practicaJly reachable, as opposed to a tightly run First Edition game where no human character ever got to a maximum level (and certainly not 30th!). Classical vs. Roma ntic and Other Styles of Playing to Win

Many people do not play to win, but those who do often have distinct playing styles that are more suited to one kind of game than another. This is a large topic that is discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Section G. We'll end this discussion of why people play with one more observation. Escapis,n?

Dream-fulfiJlment is close to "escapism." Like it or not, many games have a strong escapist element, and it seems strongest where dream-fulfillment is strongest. It is especially important to non-adults. Consider, say, a favorite adolescent male pastime, shooter games: • The player can be the "star," "da man," which is generally unlike the player's real life. • The player can ex-perience thriJls (even death) without risk of being hurt. • There's always a way to succeed- trial and error can work, because it doesn't matter if you get killed. • Competition is not only permissible but encouraged. • There's a stntcture to everything, most of the uncertainty of real life is not there. • Young people control what happens, and attitudes can be confrontational, edgy. For a frustrated teenage male who's been told too often what he can and cannot do, this can be a kind of nirvana. Game designers must be aware of the escapist elements of gaming, even if the)1re designing a serious game that has few or none of these particular characteristics. E. The Ele ments of a Game It is usually worth your time as a designer to think about lots of ways to categorize games and

game playing. Aki Jarvinen's doctoral dissertation, "Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design," available on the Web in English (PDF downloadable via http://acta.uta.fi/eng/ish/teos.php?id=11o46), painstakingly identifies and describes the elements of games, what games are composed of. Not all games include all nine of his elements. For example, a video game may not include a ruleset as such, but it has mechanics enforced by software, which are the equivalent of rules. Jarvinen implies that a tabletop game does not have an interface, though this is "~·ong. A tabletop game has an inte1face, a way for players to manipulate it, and a poor one can ruin the game just as much as a poor interface can ruin a video game. The dissertation includes a diagram to show general relationships amongst the three categories of the elements. Although these don't necessarily translate into direct action for the designer, Jarvinen's idea is that the designer tries to detenn ine all of these elements as he creates a game design.

There are two systemic elements, the game components and the game environment (such as a board-we're not talking about the environment in the room where the game is played). There are five compound elements, ndeset, game mechanics, theme, inte1face, and information. And there are two behavioral elements, players and contexts. Jarvinen further suggests that thinking of ownership of these elements can be illuminating: there are elements of self, elements of other (player), and elements of the system. Many of these elements, most notably the players, are not fully controlled by the game designer.

F. What Games Actually Amount To This is an attempt to categorize what players actually DO in games, in s implest terms. This is divided into two pa1ts, first the "system" activities having to do with the mechanics of the game, then the "psychological" activities having to do with what the mind of the player is doing in relation to other players. Remember that one of the best guides to game design is the question, "what is the player going to do?." This is a list of the fundamental things that players do, both mechanically ("systems"), an d psychologically when there is more than one player. Moreover, this is restricted to competitive games, rather than branch out into puzzles and other entertainments that are not games at all, by some definitions. Wii Fit, Wii Music, Teti-is, Katamari Daniacy, and other single-playenideo "games" that are actually interactive puzzles or toys may not quite fit in, though in most cases they will. The list includes the general activity, then some of the common vmiations. There are many ways to organize this list, to choose subsidiary and not-subsidiary categories. It is certainly not definitive. Systems

This is what the player does in relation to the systems of the game, not in relation to other players. Where the mechanical systems of the game are concerned, "achieve a pa1ticular state" is the generalized version of what the player is doing. Victo1y points are a generalized way of doing several different things at once. Sometimes the "state" is very simple, as in rock-paper-scissors where you want to make a pattern, sucl1 as paper to the opponent's rock. It's better to be more specific than that, though. t. Get to a particular place or state of affairs (or avoid/leave it).

Get there fastest (a race) [player interaction may be missing]. Get any of your pieces to some place (A\'.is & Allies, capture enemy capital). Get a special piece somewhere more times than opponent (football, hockey, many other team sports, and all the board and video games derived from them). • Get to end of the story (console RPGs). • Avoid or get out of a particular place. • Connect two or more points (Hex, 1iuixt, Attika, networking games, railroad games). This could also apply to patterns (see number 4, below).

Collect something (many card games, many \~deo games) (sometimes economic). • Find something (exploration) (Easter egg hunt). • Take something that drops in your lap (draw a card, treasure dropped by defeated monsters). • Take something from someone else (Monopoly, some card games especially trick-taking). • Build something rather than get it elsewhere (the moon rocket or wonders in computer Civilization). Don't collect something (Old Maid, Hea,-ts, etc.). • Get rid of everything (say, a hand of cards). • Building/constmction games are a complex fonn of collection that some people might list as a separate category. • Concentrate on improving your economy rather than on construction as with some economic games; "increase your ability to produce something."

3. Wipe someone or something out (Risk, shooters, checkers/draughts, bowling!). • Wipe out one thing (the king in chess). • Identify who or what you need to wipe out (Mafia and any of its variants, such as Werewolf, Bang!/Dodge City). • Avoid being wiped out, including defending some place by preventing an opponent from getting there (Atari War/o,-ds, Tower Defense games). 4. Create patterns in something (getting to a place could be seen as part of this!). • Patterns in piece location (this includes rock-paper-scissors, Teh·is, many puzzle-games). • Patterns only in your pieces (tic-tac-toe), or in yours plus opponent's (rockpaper-scissors). • Patterns in relation to the "board" (Scrabble, dominoes, Carcassonne and other tile-laying games). Patterns of cards (related to sets e.g., Canasta). Patterns in drawings (Pictionary) and other representations such as maps. Patterns/positions which are often emphasized in wargames. 5. Recognize patterns in something. • Recognize a drawing or other representation (drawing) of something (Pictio11a,-y, Cluzzle). 6. Change something from one thing to another (could be seen as a subset of collection). • Frequently required in economic and constmction games. 7. Improve your capabilities (M1111chki11, most RPGs). • This is often subsidiary, a way to achieve something else. Common in RPGs, vehicle simulations, construction/management simulations, collectible card games. Yet in some games, such as RPGs, this is THE activity, not a means to

another end. 8. Survive to keep going. Especially common in arcade games (which are generally unwinnable). 9. Design something (e.g., a warship in a 4X game such as Master of Orion). • Produce new instances of predefined objects (crafting, or "building something" or "creating a film"). • Design objects or processes (e.g., City ofHeroes "Mission Architect," making choices when generating an RPG character). 10. Calculate probabilities (Can't Stop, Cloud 9, craps, and other "press your luck"

games). Some would say this is a natural and obvious concomitant of many other activities, but in these days of widespread innumeracy, it makes sense to list it separately. Assessing risk, an intennediate step in most games, often includes probability calculation, but also includes factors that cannot be calculated, such as the intentions of the opposition. Psychological

Now we have the human/psychological side of what the player does, the interaction with other players. In many ways this is no different than what a general does in wmfare. This does not include the fundamental processes necessary to play the game (such as, "understand the mies"), instead we're looking for what the player is doing after he understands the game and game systems, to play the game. 1.

Forecasting the intentions of others ("reading" the other player[sl).

Persuading other players to do something you want them to do (usually involves negotiation).

3. Disguising one's own intentions (could be a subsidiary of persuasion, of negotiating) (bluffing) poker, Balderdash, Stratego. 4. Establish personal relationships with other players. This can also be seen as a subsidiary of negotiating, but you often want to do this even if there is no overt negotiation. 5. Discover/deduce infom1ation (not quite "collection"). This could just as well be under "system," but often involves some understanding of and communication with other players, so it's placed here. 6. Understand short- and long-tenn relationships and processes not strictly involved with how to play the game. This is a catch-all category for the kinds of things gameplayers learn through long experience. If you can get people who very rarely play games to play, you'll find that they sometimes don't see things the way the game players do because they lack this eiq>erience. With that, we're getting into the general understanding of "playing a game," so we'll stop there.

G. The Kinds of Interac tion That Occur in Games

In a solo game you're actually interacting with the designer. In a tabletop or "newer" video game, you're interacting with other people through situations devised by the designer. Interacting wit/1 the Designer (Often Called PuE, Player us. Environment)

Playing puzzles • Talking with NPCs • Collecting information • Avoiding obstacles and hazards (which may behave sentiently [ with intelligence] or not) Stealth Con them (bluffing) Blast/smash them Clever other methods (e.g., drive cattle in front of you) Dodge/avoid (Cutscenes-but no interactivity) Interacting with Other People (Part of the Game, Not Something the Game Lead s To)

Negotiation (persuade or dissuade) Direct Conflict (PvP, player vs. player) "Beating them to the punch" (in races, collection of objects, as well as in attacking) Kill-crush-destroy opposing entities Physical contests Cooperation (typical of group RPGs) • Trading • Bidding against or auctioning • Drafting (selecting the best from a set of useful items, getting something before someone else does) • Anticipation of what someone else will do (could be tied to "beating them to the punch") • "Bragging rights" • Telling bad jokes, charades, drawing pictures, and many other kinds of party game activities • Acting/pretending (lying) (bluffing) • Being annoying • Indirect interaction (you cause forces other than yours to do something to hann another player's) (e.g., via "Event cards") • Really indirect conflict- You cause forces other than yours to do something to harm other forces that might be helpful to an opponent In a sense, a great part of interaction with other people could be characterized as "make the

right choice before the other person does."

6. f D,

Indirect Conflict: Your directly controlled forces vs. oppon/s indirect forces.

Indirect Conllict Yourindirectvs.

Indirect Forces

i= ~ s

Forces or assels

Anticipatory Conflict: You take something in order to prevent opponent from taking it.

Direct Conflict

sometimes controlr.ed temporarity by players.

D, D, D, D,

~rect Conflict Your indirect vs. opponent's direct

Forces Figure 5-Conflict, Direct and Indirect Action. Finally, there's interaction in relation to "yomi," reading the minds of the other players or anticipating what they are going to do. "He's ahead, and I think he's trying to do s uch-andsuch, so I'll do this to thwart him even though it isn't the very best thing I could do for myself." Figure 5-Conflict, Direct and Indirect Action summarizes kinds of conflict interaction.

H. The Types of Challenges in Games

This is closely related to what games amount to. Physical Challenges

Dexterity (platfonners, many other video games, Twister, caroms) Hand-eye coordination (many, many video games, a few tabletop games (Hungry Hungry Hippos) Gross muscle coordination (sports) • Something tangible created (drawing, sculpture) Menta l Challenges

• Arranging patterns Recognizing patterns Persuading other players Puzzle-solving (logical challenges) Creating something intangible (such as a design) (may also be physical)

Forecasting Persuading Disguising Calculating probabilities and payoffs I. Checklist/Reminder List for Gameplay Ch aracteristics 1.

What are the challenges the player(s) face?

What actions can player(s) take to overcome those challenges?

3. What can players to do affect each other (if game for more than one player)? 4. Is the game replayable many times v.-ithout becoming "just the same" over and over? 5. Is the game fair? 6. Is there an approp1iate mixture for the audience and game type (consider "take that")? 7. What is the "essence" ofthe game? Numbers 1, 2 and 3: Remember, the essence of gameplay is interesting non-trivial (1) challenges and (2) actions the players can take to meet those challenges. In non-electronic games, which usually involve more than one person, another very desirable element is (3) player interaction, specifically, how can a player affect the other players? A good game is rarely "multiplayer solitaire," or a race where players have no influence on the fortunes of other players. This amounts to: always ask yourself, "What can the player do to influence the outcome of a game?" 4. Replayability. How replayable is the game? If it plays the same way over and over again, players v,,jll rapidly lose interest in it. 5. Fairness (balance). Games should be fair. At some point, if a player feels he was gypped by the rules, he's not going to like the game. He or she should feel that he gets what he earned. 6. "Appropriateness." The mixture of strategies and occurrences in a game must be appropriate to the audience. Party games should not require any heavy thinking! And games that are intended to be strategic exercises should not depend heavily on randomness. For example, in some games there are plays that pretty drastically change circumstances to your benefit or (more often) to others' detriment. TI1ese are called "take that" moves. (This often involves playing a card.) If you have a game with lots of "take that" occasions, people may enjoy it as a fun "beer and pretzels" thing, but they won't enjoy it as a strategic challenge. Conversely, if you are designing a strategic game, you probably should leave out the "take that" stuff. In other words, go one way or the other, a "take that" game or one that is not. Where do you draw the line? Experience and playtesting with a variety of people will tell. 7. Finally, ask yourself, what is the essence of this game? What would characterize it in the minds of players or observers? Is this essence Good, is it desirable? Practice

This is the most detailed "Practice" section in the book, because in the following chapters we need to make a game and play it in order to go further in the design process. So we need to

think a lot more about games. Take your time. A game isn't built in a day. Essence of games. Make a list of games you really like. List the three outstanding reasons why you like the games, each one in turn. Do some of the reasons occur again and again?

Now do the same for games that you really don't like. This time, list three things you do like along with three that you don't like. Do some of these "bad" games nonetheless have some "good" characteristics? This will often be the case; a really good game succeeds not only by having good characteristics, but by avoiding bad ones. At some point yon may want to list three things you'd really like in a game you're working on. 2. What is the player going to do? Yon might find that the things you like about games are often related to what the player does. Try making brieflists again of what the player(s) do in games you really like, and what they do in games you dislike. Then make a list of what you want players to do in a game you're working on.

3. What's going to happen? Another way to look at a game is, "what happens"? A way to approach this in game design is to make a list of events you'd like to have occur in your game. Some of these events may occur many times, some only once, some may not occur in every play of the game. You can make such lists forever if you go into enough detail. Try to end up with a list of 10 to 20 events at roughly the same level of detail ("granularity"). (Those familiar with Systems Analysis will recognize that the Event List is an important pa1t of analysis.) 4. Is it good? Now use the seven characteristics from the last section of this chapter to examine your favorite games. How do they fare? Does this help you see how they could be improved? At some point you'll want to begin designing a game. Let's suppose you're going to try a tabletop game first, for the reasons discussed earlier in the book. You'll probably want to work on games that, theoretically at least, could be published, and there are other constraints to keep in mind. Now Figure Our a Game

Design a "hobby game." Hobby games are generally more cerebral than family games such as Monopoly, such that children who cannot temporarily behave like adults aren't likely to like them. They are usually board or card games, but not always. They include some strategy, though they need not be entirely strategic. 1. Don't do d1inking games. The game itself is unimpo1tant, an excuse, the point is to d1ink. Almost anything, then, can serve as a d1inkinggame. There is no challenge or learning in designing such a game. (Yet there are exceptions: I once talked to someone who had designed a drinking game that sold 300,000 copies over nine years.)

2 . No trivia games. In trivia games the subject is much more important than the gameplay. The point is to know the answers to the t1ivia. Once again, there is little game design practice or learning in designing a ttivia game.

3. Not party/family games. They are usually so simple as to be simplistic; a party game is more a clever idea than a body of work. Yes, if you have clever ideas and can market the resulting game, you can make money. But trying to do so to practice game design is not effective. 4. Why not games for kids? Candy/and works great for little kids, but older people recognize

it's purely random. There is little skill or learning in designing a purely random game! Even when games for kids include some skill, they are largely random, so that little kids can manage to compete with bigger kids. While there is a skill involved here, it isn't quite the same kind of skill involved with designing games for adults. In other words, design games that challenge adults.

4 You Must Know Your Audience/Target Market One of the most important questions you must answer about each game is "who is the a udience-and what do they like?" A big obstacle for a beginning game designer is the common assumption that everyone likes the same kinds of games, and plays the same way that the aspiring designer does. If he loves shooters, he thinks everyone loves shooters. Ifhe likes strategic games, he assumes everyone likes them. If he loves puzzles, he supposes everyone does. If he is a hardcore gamer he thinks everybody's hardcore. He may say he understands the diversity, but emotionally he may not. We discussed in Chapter 3 the very broad question of why people play games. In this chapter we're approaching things from the game designer's point of view.

A. ,1/hat Are Game Designers Trying to Achieve? There are so many possibilities, but no game can achieve all of them. The two most important questions for a game designer are, "who is the a udience" and "what is the player going to do?" The nature of your audience will go far toward detem1ining what kinds of things the player will want to do. When you design a game you may not consciously ask yourself these questions, but you are nonetheless providing answers. And it's quite possible that your initial answers to these questions will change as you develop your game. When you ask yourself about your audie nce, in great pa1t you're asking what you want the game to do for the player. There's not just one kind of "game," there are many possibilities. There's not just one kind of gamer, there are children, teens, adults, males, females, sports fans, hunters (some of the best-selling video games ever are hunting games), intellectuals, artists, romantics, teachers, escapists, people at parties, people at work: this list could go on and on, and those different groups can have radically different reasons for playing a game. Let's consider some of the great variety of things game designers are trying to achieve. Here's a list, many of them related to some of the others: These three are related to ways of convincing the player of the "pseudo reality" of the experience: Realism Ve1isimilitude Suspension of disbelief These are the general kind of feelings you want to engender in the player: Immersion Catharsis Flow • Aesthetic These are related to particular emotions you want the player to feel:

"Ex'Periences" Surprise Reward These are related to a message of some kind delivered to the player: Education Story-telling Historical representation • "Art" Experienced designers rarely do only one, but many concentrate on one or a few types. For example, many of my own designs are representations of histol)•-not simulations, because simulation is usually impossible, and the attempt is usually tedious. They are strongly themed. Perhaps not surp1isingly, I have a Ph.D. in military histo1y. Many of Reiner Knizia's games are abstract, with mathematical relationships sometimes involved, with an "atmosphere" (often mistakenly called "theme") tacked on, that is, something that doesn't make a difference to how the game is played. His Ph.D. is in a fonn of Mathematics. (Most designers don't have Ph.D.s, but the degree indicates a strong interest in a topic.) One of the biggest mistakes you can make, as a professional designer, is to assume that achieving one of the objectives in this list is the only way to make games, or the only "suitable" way to make games, or the only way w01th bothering with. That's similar to the mistake of designing a game just like you would like to play. It is too limiting, it reduces your flexibility. When you start out, go with what you know and like, but recognize how c1ippling that can be in the long nm. Now for the descriptions of these tem1s: These three are related to ways of com~ncing the player of the "pseudo reality" of the experience: • Realism • Ve1isimilitude • Suspension of Disbelief Many designers feel that, whatever else they do, they must convince the player(s) that what's happening in the game could be real (even if it's a science fiction or fantasy game), that in some alternate world it would really be happening. Consequently, they sttive very hard to be realistic, or to create an attnosphere of verisimilitude, or to achieve a suspension of disbelief in the players. Obviously, this is much more often an issue in video games, not in board games or card games. Photo-realistic technology doesn't exist in tabletop games. Yet in some tabletop games, especially role-playing games, the designer still wants to elicit a suspension of disbelief; and some wargame designers have sttiven for a kind of "realism" for decades. Realism

"A statue of a bear in a city park is not better if it's so lifelike that it starts eating people."-Emest Adams as quoted by Ian Schreiber

In board wargames for decades there has been a dichotomy between "realistic" "simulations" (from the viewpoint of the overall commander) and "good games" (also posed as "realism vs. playability"). It's a rare wargame that can provide both, especially without the help of computer technology. More often, the "realistic" wargame tries to force players to do exactly what happened in history, even though history is so full of chance that what did happen is seldom what was most likely to happen. Miniatures ("toy soldiers") players often research minute details of their annies and tly to write highly realistic mies sets. Yet the result, because it's a game, rarely bears much resemblance to the real thing. Shooters are a stronghold of the desire to make things feel real, yet the way characters behave in most shooters, nmning (and jumping) around rather than hiding, willing to get killed if they can kill two enemy, is absolutely unrealistic! Games like Rainbow Six are more realistic ("true to life"), but much less exciting (though more suspenseful) than nm-around shooters. The extreme of this is what has been called the "techno-fetishist" view, that a game is good simply because the player(s) can be convinced that it's life-like or "real." Oddly, it doesn't have to act!mlly be realistic. You look out of your character's eyes, you hear what they hear with surround sound, and so fo1th; but what you're doing is ridiculous, because you're not afraid ofdying. Moreover, death is not only not permanent, it has no sting at all. Such games cannot possibly be realistic, no matter how much blood and gore and beautiful water-effects are involved. That's probably good, because people don't actually want reality, they want a feeling of power within a limited situation that resembles reality. In the end they want not realism but verisimilih1de (see below). Mega Man 9 shows how even a minor fear of death changes a game immensely. See http:// www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i11de.1:.php?story=21324 "How Mega Man 9 resembles.... Real life?" No matter how punishing we make the video game, there will be no fear like the fear of dying; and how many would want to play such "fearful" games, anyway, we play games as entertainment surely. Consequently, games that give players a real stake in "staying alive" will continue to be rare. This does not prevent designers from trying to be "realistic," or from thinking that the techno-fetishist way is the "only" way to make a game. Verisi,nilitude "1.

11,e quality of appearing to be tn,e or real...

2. Something that has the appearance ofbeing trneo1· real."-The American Heritage@ Dictionary of the English Language, Fomth Edition "All that gives verisimilitude to a narrative."-Sir Walter Scott Perhaps all the blood and gore found in many video games is an attempt to provide verisimilitude. The appearance or feel of being tme or real is what counts, going back to the idea that a designer is trying to elicit some kind of reaction from or impression on the player. Here's an example. The physics of ballistics (travel of projectiles through the air) is vet)' complex. Digital computers were originally devised in part to calculate ballistics tables, and before that, analog computers (something like slide m ies) were used. An entirely "realistic"

game involving shooting would incorporate this physics into the programming. But the cost in slowing the game down for calculation would be ridiculous. So video game designers use approximations that are good enough to have the appearance of realism. According to Fundamentals ofGame Design, at one time the military asked creators of a video game how they had incorporated realistic ballistic physics into the game. It turned out it was just a ve1y good guess. Fans of combat flight sims vary in the level of verisimilitude they desire. In some games the airplanes fly very much like the real world models, and consequently aren't easy to fly. In others, "arcade" flight is used, and the players can easily do all kinds of things with planes that the most skilled pilot could not in the real world. A designer needs to know what will be good enough to give the desired level of verisimilitude. Willing Susvension of Disbelief

"A willingness to suspend one's critical/acuities and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake ofenjoyment"-Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) A willing suspension of disbelief used to be necessary for eve1y novel, but especially for science fiction or fantasy. We know that the story didn't actually happen, and perhaps could not possibly happen, but we are willing to ignore our disbelief in favor of a good story. "Used to be" because modem standards of what is "just too unbelievable" have changed. Thanks to television and decades of increasingly-silly action movies, we'll accept all kinds of ridiculous occurrences and plot holes in movies as long as the action and the characters (in that order) are good. Many games don't even try for a suspension of disbelief, they just assume that if you play the game, you're willing to suspend. We all know Monopoly or Risk or Mario Kart have nothing to do with reality, yet we play anyway. Nonetheless, in some kinds of games (techno-fetishist effo1ts come to mind) the designer wants to avoid anything that reminds the player that he's in a game, that stops his suspension of disbelief. Some kinds of in-game advertisements might do this, for example, because they remind us of the real world instead of the rather-different game world. Long delays such as long load times for the next level can do this. These are the general kinds of feelings you want to engender in the player Immersion Catharsis Flow • Aesthetic lnunersion

Immersive: "generating a three-dimensional image which appears to sw·round the user."-Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English (second definition) "Immersion" is a word often used by video gamers. There are many definitions, but it generally means, as used by gamedevs/authors of game design books, "the feeling tl1at you're

really there." Techno-fetishists believe that they must make photo-realistic environments to encourage a feeling of immersion in their players. That's why the definition above is quoted, to highlight the relationship with technology. The immersive ideal for them is 77ie M atri-.: or the Star Trek Holodeck. Some players define immersion more broadly as "what I like in video games," then are offended to find most gamers don't like it. So "immersive" more or less becomes a substitute for"good." Designer Brenda Brathwaite says "What's very immersive to 17-35 year old male players is constant decision making and good feedback." But the great majority of gamers are not 17-35 year old males. You don't need technology for immersion, as many tabletop Dungeons & Dragons players know. You can feel that you're really there even at a table covered with papers, a board of squares, and cardboard counters. It's just easier to create that feeling of immersion with technology, because you need less participation (imagination) from the players. Catharsis

"11ie purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, esp. through certain kinds of art, as tragedy o r music."-Dictionary.com, unabridged (v 1.1)

Catharsis is "getting in the zone," when everything seems to become distant as you effortlessly succeed in the game: the kind of feeling you get when you double your highest Teh·is score in one sitting. We often talk about this in relation to sporting events, when a shooter in basketball "gets in the zone" and just can't seem to miss, or when a quarterback "gets in the zone" and completes 15 passes in a row. Often catharsis is seen as a very good thing: "A release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spi1·it" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition). The Flow

'The Flow" is optimal experience, something that is not too easy but not too challenging -"the positive aspects of human experience-joy, creativity, the process of total involvement with life I call flow" (Flow: 111e Psychology ofOptimal Experience (1990), p. :d). You can see how this relates to immersion and to catharsis. But you can be in 'The Flow" in a tabletop game just as well as in a video game. This was described in Chapter 3. Aesthetic 1.

pertaining to a sense of the beautiful o r to the science of aesthetics.

having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauttJ.

3. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellecttmlity.- Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

This is using "aesthetic" in the sense of the MDA framework of Mechanics, Dynamics,

Aesthetics described in Chapter 1. In that sense, it's an umbrella term for what you want the player to see, feel, hear, experience. The following are related to particular, specific emotions a designer wants the player to feel: "Ex'Periences" Surprise Reward "Experiences"

"Experiences" are most familiar to hardcore video players (and de1i ve largely from tabletop Dungeons & Dragons) . An excellent expression of this goal is in "Making Experiences" by Rick Ellis, PC Gamer Feb. 2009, p. 84: "... what we create are experiences, not 'games.' Chess and Crazy Eights are games, but these types of games won't scare the hell out of you, make you jump in your seat, or make you feel responsible when your sidekick dies." "... we get to play with your emotions, get you attached to your characters, provide the unexpected, and influence your hea1t rate. When we do our jobs well, you forget that you are playing a game, and the events in it feel very real and matter to you." "... are all about: immersion, escapism, and creating emotional believability." In other words, the designer is tiying to engender specific emotions in the players. This desire is often associated with high-technology and a drive for "realism," though tabletop Dungeons & Dragons shows us that you don't need video games to create "expe1i ences." Surprise

Surprise is simple. Designers such as S. Miyamoto (Donkey Kong, Zelda, many Wii games) and R. Knizia (literally hundreds of board and card games) say "we're ente1tainers." Miyamoto says he t:Jies to surprise players, that is, give them something unexpected or new, something they haven't experienced before. Rewarcl

Reward is also simple. TI1e designer wants the player to more or less continuously feel rewarded by what happens in the game, so that the player will continue to play. It's expressed in mechanisms as simple as the victory point sco1ing in every tum that is a feature of many Euro-style board games, or the loot dropped by defeated monsters in an RPG. These are related to a message of some kind delivered to the player Education Sto1y-telling Historical representation "Art" All of these involve a "message" delivered to the player. The message can enable the player to learn something practical (education), something entertaining (a story), something that helps them learn but is less immediately practical (historical), or something yet harder to define (art).

Education

"Serious games" is the ten n now used for simulators, train ing, and classroom games. ("Educational" has poor connotations in the US and UK, especially in connection v.~th games.) These are games that people can learn from. The "story" is the message people are supposed to learn. Story-Telling

Games are not as good for story-telling as movies and novels, but can convey a story in an interactive way not generally available in those media. Movies and novels are a more practical way to convey a story, as a storyteller tells a story, but not as an "experience," not like "you are there." Historical Representa tion

These games show what history is like v.~thout trying to model how it worked. That is, they tell the story of histo11• in many ways, but do not try to simulate it. As such, the representation can be a simple model that provides interesting challenges; it also can reflect the "chaos of histo1y" rather than wrongly pretend that whatever happened in history was inevitable. At some point historical representation becomes educational. My historical game Britannia was not designed to educate, and has some big handicaps for educational purposes as it is neither quite s imple nor sho1t (4-5 hours). But I know people who have successfully used it to teach history in schools. "Art"

Trees have been killed in the service of the discussion of art in games. Let's just say, people make games that are intended to deliver a message, or entertain in a un ique way, and these might be tenned art, though in fact all games are art. Art-games, in themselves, are not usually commercial games, but there can be exceptions. Many are playable only once, as there's not much there after you "receive the message." For example, the simple video game Passage is "about life." The game 7'1'ain relies on a twist at the end, and is about inhumanity. Eine gegen Eine ("one against one)" is a board game with no rulebook: you learn the game as you open the box and play. But those "messages" can only be delivered to a particular person once, the first time they play. Having said all this, keep the follov.~ng in mind. It's important to think about what you're trying to do, but don't get "hung up on it." In the end, iflots of people in your target market play the prototype and like it, you're doing someth ing right. It is too easy get tied up with intermediate objectives and forget the goal, which is to complete games that people want to play.

B . Some Game Playing Styles That Designers Must Take Into Account Games usually suit particular styles of play. Sometimes the nature of the traditional video game, a kind of interactive puzzle or interactive movie for one person, obscures all the different things games can be. Since some aspects of these poin ts of view depend heavily on having several human or human-like opponents, many of the examples will be from tabletop games. Even when we limit our vision to competitive gameplay, there are many different styles of game play. You should be aware of some of

the major ones. The first, of course, is that some people, especially many video gamers, prefer interactive puzzle "games" that have no human/psychological component, while other people strongly prefer games involving two or more people in opposition. In fact, "multiplayer" in the tabletop game hobby doesn't mean "more than one player," it means "more than two, and more than tv.•o sides." A two-player game provides some human/psychological interaction, but it's the more-than-two-sided games where the human element, not the puzzle-like challenges set by the video game designer, becomes paramount. This is discussed further later in this chapter. Classical a11d Romantic

Another difference has been called the "Classical" vs. the "Romantic,"following philosophers who have discussed this difference in a variety of conte>.-ts (e.g., Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian). A more modem term for the Classical player is "mini-max," someone who tries to maximize his minimum gain (or minimize maximum loss) in eve1ysituation-the "pe1fect player" of mathematical game theo1y. In game theory tenns this player seeks the "strategy that would guarantee the highest minimal expected outcome regardless of the strategy of the opponent" (Wikipedia). The Classical player tries to know each game inside-out. He wants to learn the best counter to every move his opponent(s) might make. He takes nothing for granted, paying attention to little details which probably won't matter but which in ce1tain cases could be important. The Classical player does not avoid taking chances, but he carefully calculates the consequences of his risks. He dislikes unnecessmy risks. He prefers a slow but steady certain win to a quick but only probable win. He tries not to be overcautious, however, for fear of becoming predictable. A maxim among football fans is that the best teams "fo by making fewer mistakes, letting the other team beat itself. So it is with the Classical gamer, who concentrates on eliminating errors rather than on discove1ing brilliant coups. TI1e idea of managing risk doesn't lend itself to single-player video games that have just one solution. There is no risk to calculate when one inva1iable strategy is perfect and faultless. Consequently, in these games that involve no chance element (everything is set by the designer), game theory probability calculations for the "perfect strategy" don't come into play. Instead there is what is called a "saddle point" or dominant strategy, a perfect way to play that will v.fo eve1y time. If you make tlie right moves in, say, arcade Pac-Man, you will go all the way through all 255 levels every time without a single death, because there is no random element. (See Inside Pac-Man, http://www.gamast1tra.com/uiew/feature/3938/ the_pacman_ dossier.php.) On tlie other hand, if the single-player game includes randomness that changes with each play, the player must manage risk. In general, single-player games are going to tend toward the Classical unless the "opposition" approaches a human in complexity. The Romantic looks for the decisive blow which will cripple his enemy, psychologically if not physically on the playing arena. He wishes to convince his opponent(s) of the inevitability of their defeat; in some cases a player with a still tenable position will resign the game to his Romantic opponent when he has been beaten psychologically. The Romantic is willing to take a dangerous risk in order to disrupt enemy plans and throw the game into a line of play his opponent is unfamiliar with. He looks for opportunities for a big gain, rather than to

maximize his minimum gain. A flamboyant, but only probable, win is his goal. He may make mistakes, but he hopes to seize vict01y rather than wait for the enemy to make mistakes. The Romantic is more likely to try to "get into the head" of his opponent, to divine which strategy the opponent will use and play his own strategy that best counteracts it. In the standard single player interactive puzzle video game, there is no human opponent to "psyche out" or to fool. Yet some of the more sophisticated modern games are designed to provide a "computer opponent" that behaves in some ways like a human, and clever players figure out ways to take advantage of the programming to "fool" the opponent. When playing a multi-sided game such as Civilization or Warcraft III against several computer opponents you can find ways to "make the opposition look foolish": in fact, this may be easier than when playing against good human opponents. A political victory in Civilization, in effect persuading the computer players to give up, can be seen as a Romantic goal. Further, realtime games tend toward the Romantic simply because there isn't time for the Classical player to make careful calculations. Under great time-stress some people will still try to play Classically, it \1~11 simply be harder for them to do so effectively. In the single-player video game \~th no chance element, the Romantic very likely has no opportunity to "take the path less trodden" in order to fool the computer. Here's a simple comparison of these two types of players. The Classical player, in tic-tac-toe, ,~II always play to the center square when playing second if his opponent doesn't take itand \fill always take the center if he moves first. The Romantic may try to fool his opponent into playing badly by making a less-than-optimal play, in order to try for a ,~n rather than accept the othen-1se-inevitable draw. To further generalize, playing against the computer in an unhurried environment tends to encourage the Classical, playing against people tends to encourage the Romantic. However, when the stress of limited time is introduced, it becomes difficult or impossible to play Classically as you have insufficient time to calculate risks or find a dominant strategy, if one is available. Many good players depend on intuition rather than study and logic to make good moves, yet the moves can be either Classical or Romantic. A Romantic player can also be a very cerebral or intellectual player who happens to prefer the Romantic style. Nonetheless, the Classical player tends to use logic while the Romantic tends to use intuition. Some people would refer to Classical players v.1th derision as "mathematical" players. It is true that Classical players are concerned ,~th odds and expected losses and saddle points (though this alone doesn't identify or qualify a person as a Classical player). Nonetheless, Classical players do quite well in non-mathematical games. Games sometimes tend to favor one playing style over the other. Chess is clearly a Classical game. Single-player video games are often Classical. Poker tends to favor Romantic play, because so much depends on bluffing. Most shooters (the frenetic kind) are Romantic, while stealth shooters tend to be Classical, as far as you can categorize single-player games. A game like two player Sb·eet Figliter can be played either way. It seems that the very best players, though, play Street Fighter Romantically, somehow reading their opponent's intentions and beating them to the punch, the ultimate in playing the opponent rather than playing the game. Diplomacy, though \~thout any overt chance factor, is a good game for both Classical and

Romantic players. The negotiations and alliance structures give both types plenty to work with. The Classical player tends to be better at tactics and strategy; he prefers long alliances to continuous free-for-all, for there are too many risks and incalculable factors inherent in a fluid situation. The Romantic tends to prefer the fluid state, and his big weapon is the backstab. It's hard to say whetheran extreme fom10f Classical play, in a typical one-player video game, would involve rare res01t to reloading a saved game, or would involve frequent saves and attempts at all kinds of different tactics to find out which one is best. I tend to be a Classical player, and I prefer the former, but I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming I'm typical! While "Minimaxers" are usually Classical players, some gamers apply minimax methods to characters or unit mixes, to more or less tactical concerns, but play the overall game Romantically. "Yomi" is David Sirlin's term for reading the opponent's mind; the best Romantic players probably have "Yomi," but this is not necessarily so, and it's possible that a Classical player may be able to read opposing intentions but still relies on attaining the minimum maximum gain. Nonetheless, you'd expect most Classical players to be mimimaxers, and most Romantic players to rely on Yomi. Reaction to Chaos and Randomness

But this is only one way of looking at game playing styles. Another is to look at a playet's reaction to fluidity and randomness. These three points of view are: the "Planner," the "Adapter" (who tends to represent the middle ground) and • the "Improviser" The Planner likes to plan ahead-well ahead. He loves it when things he did long ago in a game come together to give him a big success. He is likely, though not certainly, going to prefer a game where much if not all of the infom1ation is always available, e.g. chess. He's likely to prefer tum-based rather than real-time games. When it's time for him to make a play, to execute a strategy, he doesn 't want to find that the game has changed drastically owing to a recent move by someon e else, or because of the nat11re of the game itself. The Planner will often be a Classical player as well, though this is not necessa1y. The "Improviser" does not like to plan ahead. He wants to react to circumstances at the time he makes his play, and he doesn't mind at all if circumstances change drastically between one play and the next, or in a short time (in a real-time game). Games with limited information availability aren't going to bother him, while games with perfect information aren't likely to be attractive. Such players tend to be Romantic, obviously. The "Adapter" likes to impose order on chaos, he wants to be able to see allead a short while in real-time (or a couple hims) and then adapt to changes, that is, arrange to "take control" of what's going on. As you can see, this falls somewhere between the other two. Once again, some games favor one of the three styles or another. Team video games, if the team achially tries to plan and work together, can be for Adapters. Real-time strategy games may attract Adapters, who can plan ahead some, having gained some infom1ation about

what's going on. 1\vo multi-sided board games that fit the "Adapter" mindset are Vinci and RoboRally. Vinci is a game with perfect information, and with little overt chance, yet you can't plan far ahead because the rise and fall of empires and random selection of new empire capabilities results in great changes on the Europe-like board in a few turns. RoboRally requires players to program movements of their Robot in a violent race through several checkpoints in a bizarrely-dangerous factory. Each player is dealt nine movement cards, and within a time limit must lay five face down to be executed in order one after the other. You can plan a route, but you won't always get the cards you need. Chaos sometimes results from player mistakes, yours and mistakes of others. Civilization (the 01iginal board game or the video game) tends to be a game for the Planner. Card games tend to be for the Improvisers, though some can favor the Adapter. Poker is a game for Improvisers, except that there can be long-term bluffing plans that are characteristic of a Planner. Diplomacy could attract Planners, Adapters, or Improvisers, depending on how it's played. In Tetris, if you're just reacting to each shape as it appears, you're playing as an Improvisor; if you're trying to calculate which shapes will go where, so that you'll know where to put one when it shows up, you're playing more as an Adaptor. Because of the time stress and uncertainty about what will appear soon, it's virtually impossible to play Tet,·is as a Planner. Because arcade Pac-Man is ultimately predictable, a Planner may have been the first to notice the patterns and find ways to take advantage of them. Insofar as video games tend to conceal a lot of inforn1ation, they're not fruitful ground for a Planner, rather encouraging Improvisation. Platforn1ers reward short-range planning of the kind common amongst Adaptors. Some RTS games (the ones that are short on time-stress and long on strategy) are good for Adaptors. Sm,~val Honor games \\~th limited ammunition available are good for Adaptors. But something like Left4f)ead, with practically unlimited ammo and a Director that increases the challenge as necessa1y, fits an Improviser point of view. Depending on circumstances, a Planner or Adaptor should be a good leader in a team deathmatch or capture the tlag using maps that are well-known. Race games can favor any type depending on how much information is known to players when the race begins. If you're a game designer, you must think about what kind of player your game is going to attract. This directly impacts the choices you make. You cannot attract players of all styles, so what style player do you want to attract? If you make a game intending to attract several types, will you succeed, or will you attract no one? In the end, only playtesting can tell you for sure, but you can make many decisions before playtesting begins. Role ofChance

People might tend to assume that these playing styles are closely related to the role of chance in the game. But it's not a matter of "how many dice rolls." Some chance can be managed. Tabletop or video Dungeons & Dragons, on the face of it, is full of dice rolls or equivalent, but a player can do his best to minimize the number of times he must rely on dice to save his bacon, or he can "go ,~th the tlow" and rely on the dice. If there are few dice rolls or equivalent, and some are very important while many are not,

then chance is very hard to manage. If none of them are particularly important, you can manage the risk better. Randomness is largely unmanageable chance. The Planne r doesn't like randomness, while the Improvisor won't mind at all. Adapters like some fluidity as a result of what other players do, but don't much like randomness. Classical players tend to hate randomness, while Romantics may welcome it. In general, games that provide difficulty by requiring quick reactions tend to favor the Improvisor style and make Planning difficult. You don't have time to plan a lot in Halo or Combat Arms; you can in the "stealth" shooters such as many Red Storm games like Rainbow Six. Real-time games tend to be better for Improvisors, tum-based games for Planners. Games with most infonnation hidden from the players make Improvising much easier than Planning, hence the AAA video games that usually use "fog of war" (hidden infonnation, even the map is hidden to begin with) tend to be games for Jmprovisors more than Planners. In other words, "traditional" one-player video games tend to favor the Improvisor rather than the Planner. But this will gradually change over time: as the market for video games continues to expand, many new players dislike being time-challenged, they want to relax while they play their games, they want to play a little bit (one tum) at a time. The trend is already obvious in casual and "social network" games. These are only three spectra of competitive game-playing styles. Remember that there are a great many people who do not play competitively. For example, I know someone whose main pleasure in playing games is in helping someone else win! FURTHER READING David Sirlin's book, Playing to Win: Becoming the Champion (http://www.luh1.com/co11te11t/ 205476) (http://www.sirli11.11et/ptw/).

C. Differences Betw een Hardcore and Casual Video Gam ers One of the most important differences amongst video game players is a difference between the hardcore and casual gamer. Here is a list of characteristics that might help define the two types. You need to decide whether your game is for the hardcore, for the casual, or possibly for both if you can pull it off. Hardcore gamers are likely to play almost every day. Casual gamers may play now and again or may play frequently, this varies a lot. In any case the hardcore will spend a lot more time per week playing, than the casual. Hardcore gamers play in "long sessions" (several hours). Usually the game takes a long time to finish, and they may play it only once, because they've figured out all the puzzles, or because now they know the story. Casual gamers play in "short sessions" (think "Bejeweled"). Often, tl1e game is over quickly, but they play the game many times over the course of weeks or months. But virtually all social network games are casual, yet have no end. Casual games are often of the "you don't have to concentrate hard on the game" type. Hardcore games are usually "you have to concentrate or you'll get dead." (Tum -based strategy games can go either way, often can be played either way. Think Civilization IV.) Hardcore gamers probably don't have a "favorite game" over a long period (years)-because tl1ey "finish" games and are done with tl1em. Casual gamers may have a favorite game over

a long period, but the "cult of the new" is strong today, so they may move on to new games frequently. Hardcore gamers are usually competitive (or pseudo-competitive, when comparing scores for single-player games). They see the game as an adversary and want to "beat it." Casual players tend not to be competitive. "Achievements" are of interest to hardcore gamers, rarely to casual players. Hardcore gamers are often more concerned with "the destination" than v.ith "the journey," though this can extend to casual gamers as well. Casual gamers tend to want to play something that they can enjoy while playing, rather than enjoy only when they've finished ("beat the game"). If a game is "too much like work," they'll stop playing it. Hardcore gamers are rarely playing "to relax." Casual gamers often play a short session "to relax," then go back to the real world. I don't know which of these video gamer types is more likely to play tabletop games. TI1e popular board and card games of today tend to be "casual" more than "hardcore" experiences. (This is hobby games such as Settlers ofCatan, Dominion, Carcassonne, and so forth, not traditional tabletop games.) FURTHER READING

Gamasutra series on what some kinds of non-hardcore gamers want:

http://www.gamas11tra.com/uiew/feature/3639/what_gamers_ wantJami/y_ gamers.php http://www.gamas11tra.com/uiew/feat11re/372o/what_ gamers_ want_ siluer_ gamers.plip littp://www.gamasutra.com/uiew/feah1re/3826/what_ gamers_ want_ missing_gamers.php D. Video Games and Table top Games Are Becoming More Alike - "Convergence" There's no fundamental natural difference between video games and tabletop games. In chapter 2 I discussed practical differences and similarities in video and tabletop games. Here I want to point out to you a difference in the way these two kinds of games have been design ed, and how they're slowly converging to a middle ground. In most tabletop games, the designer is devising ways for the players to challenge each other in an interesting fashion. In most traditional (one-player) video games, the designer is de\ising ways to challenge the player through the computer/console. There are challenges in both cases, but the nature of the challenges is quite different, because even a powerful desktop computer, let alone a sma1tphone, cannot yet begin to provide the complexity and intelligence of a human. There are two major components in what we typically call games, the system component and the "human" (psychological) component. In an interactive game, the more players, the more the human side of the game matters, and the less the system pmt matters. Traditional one-player video games have no human component, only a system component. They are interactive puzzles, what some people call a "challenge game." Once you figure out

the system, meet the challenges, that's all there is, and you probably stop playing the game. You cannot "win" or lose an interactive puzzle any more than you win or lose a traditional puzzle: you only complete it ("beat the game"). One of these "challenge games" is a game as much (or as little) as mountain climbing or white-water canoeing is a game. It is a very different way oflooking at things from the traditional tabletop game. Let me illustrate the difference. In the 2006 film "Casino Royale," James Bond plays poker with, among others, the villain of the film. Bond "reads" his opponent, realizing that when he bluffs he makes a certain gesture. Unfortunately, Bond tells this to an ally, who betrays his confidence, resulting in a cmshing loss for Bond when the "enemy" appears to be bluffing, but isn't. Poker is an epitome of the classic "multi-sided" (more than two separate interests) board or card game: you win by successfully playing the other players, not the game system. The game system is important, because you are unlikely to win if you haven't mastered it, yet lots of people understand the mies of poker very well but aren't good poker players. In my four-player game Britannia, the system is more involved than poker but less than in chess. Players score points at different rates and times. To completely master the system, you need to be able to look at the board at a given time, look at the scores, and recognize who's ahead and who's behind, where points should be scored and where they shouldn't. Players who do attain this mastery of the system will often ,,fo games against those who don't, because they have a better idea of what to do, and what to persuade others to do. But when players who have mastered the system play together, the game becomes a matter of playing the players, of predicting what they're going to do, of persuading them to do what will benefit them but also benefit you. The system is important, but so is the "human" or psychological side. Someone who masters both the system and the psychology is a ve1y formidable player. In chess the system is very complex in play, impossible for humans to maste r completely. Modem chess-playing programs are coming close, sometimes defeating the greatest chess masters. Even though the game is only two-sided, thus lacking the mesh of con nections of a three- or more sided game, the human/psychological component sometimes comes into play. Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen is well known as a "highly imaginative player, more willing to try unorthodox ideas and to take risks than most of his peers." "His book of 50 Selected Games (1968) is renowned for its pithy annotations which delve into chess psychology and use of rare openings.. ." (Wikipedia, "Bent Larsen," May 2009). He looks for the Romantic play that would confuse his opponent, some unusual and not-previously-analyzed line of play. Yet because system is more important than psychology in chess, when he came up against the greatest masters of the system such as Fischer and Kasparov, he failed. In most tabletop games, figuring out the system is straightforward, though in the morestrategic games, some people can never figure it out. And others quit before they figure it out. Many contemporary Euro-style games cater to the latter players, by ensuring that, after one play, most players have (or at least think they have) figured out the system fairly well. In MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) circles the system side is often referred to as "PvE" (player vs. environment), and the human side as "PvP" (player vs. player). MMO player vs. "environment," which is to say, player(s) vs. computer, certainly is an "interactive puzzle," challenges posed by the designers of the game. The PvP part ofan MMO, orof many

other "multi-player" video games, generally involves only two sides at a time, one player or group trying to kill an other player or group. Consequently, PvP in an MMO doesn't reflect the interaction and complexity of s ituations where there are three or more separate competing sides. "Playing the players" really comes to the fore when there are at least three sides, three separate competing interests, and something more at stake tlian killing one another. As there are more players v.ill have a different market than a cut-throat competitive game. Player Motivation: What will diive the player to actually play the game to the end? For example, the player could be driven by a desire to compete, solve puzzles, or explore. Player Mode: This describes what tl1e player typically sees and does (related to user interface), so it, too, addresses "what does the player do?" Backstory: What's the setup? What happens before the game begins? Notice that story is often quite unimportant. The potential funding group isn't temfically interested in your story unless that story is very important to the game. They want to know a little about the story because story helps marketing. Target Rating: Indicate what the expected ESRB rating for your game will be, and why. USP (Unique Selling Proposition or Point): What makes your game unique? Why will

your audience choose to play your game over your competitors' titles? Your USP is something that makes your title stand out from the others. Why should your game be developed? Why is it special?

Competitive Analysis: Choose about three game titles currently on the market that could be competition for yours, and describe how yours will overcome the competition. This must all be addressed in a couple of pages; if it's too long, the potential supporter may not read it. There are examples below.

D. Typical Problems When People First Try to Write Video Game Concepts and Design Documents Remember first that the idea is to think up the details of a video game, then describe it briefly or in detail. Too many people try to make it up as they go along. This doesn't work. Claiming that you'll have the best story, or best graphics, or best sound, or the best campaign, or the most fun, is meaningless unless you represent a company \\1th a track record of doing just that. Everyone thinks tl1eir game will have the best < >, but the moneymen have no particular reason to believe this, and have heard it many, many times. So concentrate on what your game \>\111 actually be about, what it will actually look like, what the player will actually do, and hope those details convince the money-people that you have something worth pursuing. Keep in mind that a video game must sell lots of copies just to break even. Try to consider a broader appeal rather than a very narrow appeal. Unless you have a detailed picture in your mind of your game, your description is likely to be vague and cliche-ridden. So to return to the original point, you need to have a game you've thought out in mind. You can't do a good job "by the seat of your pants."

FURTHER READING Virtually every video game design book discusses this kind of docume nt, sometimes at great length \\1th examples.

E. Examples of Video Game Documents Below are three brief game concept documents that I wrote as examples for stude nts. The third is suitable for a simple 20 game engine such as Gamemaker. Some video game design books also include sample concept documents, for example in Adams' Fundamentals of Game Design. The first concept de1ives from one of my published board games. It is often possible for a concept to be modified for use in several different formats, such as board game, single-player video game, card game, or multi-sided video game. Dragons' Rage Higlt Conc,,pt

Title: Dragons' Rage. Tag Line: 'The Dragons are Coming!" Premise: Dragons are coming to attack the city. You are the defenders. When played by two, one player is the attacker, and attackers may include giants, wolves, and other creatures. Genre: One or two player tum-based tactical wargame.

Target Market: Tactical wargame players age

and up, both board gamers and video

gamers.

Platform: Casual 2D PC game (possibly Wii as well). May work well on mobile platforms. "What Is the Player Going to Do/ Player Mode: As the defender of the city, the player will see a map of his forces and the location of the attacking dragons. He will use the mouse to indicate where his forces move. When all have moved, he will click a button to activate attacks. When he has a wizard, he'll be able to choose a spell (and target) for the wizard to use. In the two-player version, the second player controls the attacking forces, which may include giants, trolls, ores, and other creatures of terror and of the night. His mode (via hot-seat or network) will be similar to the mode of the defender.

Backstory: We really do not need a story beyond "creatures are attacking the city." There are many possible variations, such as, someone now in the city despoiled the dragons of their eggs, someone recently awoke these sleeping dragons, the city is prosperous so the rapacious giants, trolls, and ores have decided to attack, etc. Target Rating: E10+. A simple game of military action playable by everyone, 10+ because it is a wargame. Player Motivation: TI1ere's always something heroic in "defending civilization against the barbarians." In this case the barbarians are inhuman, and magic is involved in a fantasy setting. The game may remind players of the heroic defense of Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings movies, and may have a connection to the forthcoming Hobbit movies in the "person" of the dragon Smaug and the destruction of the City on the Lake. Unique Selling Proposition: Aside from the great title, there is no game depicting this specific kind of attack. It will be a short but highly replayable game. Competitive Analysis: There is no video game depicting this specific kind of attack. The only board game is the 25 years-out-of-print Dragon Rage by the same designer (now reissued in n ew edition , 2011). Another Dragon Rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wikijDragon_ Rage) is a PS2 game from late 2001. The player is a dragon trying to save the dragon race, hence bears no resemblance to Dragons' Rage. As my use of the title "Dragon Rage" (for the board game originally published in 1982 that Dragons' Rage derives from) predates this use, I see no problem with use of Dragons' Rage as a title.

Goals: A casual game for those interested in warfare, it should be relatively short, but replayable many times. It can be played by two people as well as by one. (End of Dragon Rage concept. That is about 500 words.) The next is for a massively multiplayer online game, unusual in that players represent nations rather than individuals. Conquest High Concept

Title : Conquest. Tag Line: "the World is ripe for the picking." (Alternative: "The Rise and Fall of Nations.") Premise: The War Gods demand that your nation expands. You command its forces. The objective of the game is conquest. Expand your n ation enough to score a \\fo. Then try a different nation (or see if your nation can v.~n another time).

Genre: This is a massively mu]tiplayer online game of an unusual sub-genre, strategic rather than tactical, tum-based from the player's viewpoint rather than real-time though adjudication will be simultaneous. Target Market: The game will attract lovers of strategy games (including board games) as opposed to games that require great speed of reaction or games where the player controls large numbers of individual units (RTS) or individual adventurers (World ofWarcraft, other typical MMOG). The target market is much s maller than the market for World ofWm·craft, but there's little or no competition in MMOG for this market. The target market is not age specific, though one would expect the game to appeal more to adults than to younger kids who are accustomed to first person shooters and action games. The game can be played at a sedate pace, because it's hn'll based, and does not require or invite the kind of "WoW addiction" so detrimental to many lives. It is a mature application of the power of computing to games. Platform: The servers v.erience" level of the character(s) (can they fly? how many times can they be hit?) • A particular b it ofloot • Connected vs. standalone (are there predecessors/successors?) WHAT TO CONSIDER

• The objective (narrative constraints) 1.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Exploring Getting to a particular place Acquiring a paiticular thing Killing certain things Delivering something somewhere Rescuing someon e Escorting someone

• Time constraints • The map Stmctures Natural obstacles/terrain "Livin g" opposition Unintelligent Animal 3 . Intelligent 1.

Distances • Special attack or defense capability Critical locations (chokepoints) Channelization (by obstacles, by natural features, by opposition) Diplomatic constraints Opposition cooperation with each other • Available information • Scenario endin g

D. What Is the Situation, What Are the Characters, What Is the Plot or Context? In gen eral a level designer has two paths to follow. In one the designer sets upa situation and lets the players work out how to deal with it. At the other extreme the designer has a specific plot/story in mind and wants (to make) the players follow it. The overall scheme of the progression of the levels may detennine what you're doing in the specific level. Some \~deo games are very story driven (linear), some are not (sandbox).

Sometimes a game is mainly intended to be played on line, person against person or group against group. In that case levels included in the game constitute a campaign that gives a single player something to do and also introduces him or her to all the tactical and strategic possibilities of the game. You can't really proceed until you know what you're going to do. You can make a decision and if that turns out to be v.Tong then you can change what you're doing. Once again the nature of the game as a whole may help detem1ine this for you.

E. What Kinds of Obstacles Might Be in a Level? • Enemies Monsters ("unnatural") Animals ("natural") 3. People 1.

a. Ordinary (townspeople) b. Special/superior/like the players, supranormal c. Aliens (SF) 4 . Plants a. as barriers b. as dangers • Traps (Traps involve a trigger, and then a result. May be magical, mechanical, technological. How easy is it to detect? How can it be disarmed?) Trap-doors Lures/ambushes 3. TI1ings that hmm you directly ("kill") 1.

a. Lasers b. Spikes c. "Guillotine" d. Monofilaments e. Rising water f. Rolling/falling boulders 4. Things that leave you stranded ("restrain") a. Pits 5. TI1ings that fool you a. Illusions b. Hidden/concealed/secret 6. T!iggers a. Pressure plate (mechanical) b. Magical triggers c. Trip wires

d. "Sensors" (movement) (heat) (CO2) e. Levers • Puzzles One-way door 2. Physical puzzles that can be solved

a. Put something in the 1ight place (jigsaw) b. "Get yourself out of the room" (MacGyver-style puzzles) c. Sliding things d. Combination locks e. Twist something some way 3. Time sensitive (certain time allowed to accomplish, or can only be done at a certain time of day or year) 4. Word puzzles a. Audible (LOTR Mo1ia) b. Riddle c. Puns 5. Narrative puzzles 6. Rescue something/prevent it from being hanned (often time limit) 7. Morality puzzles "Te1Tain"-Tactical 1.

That which cannot be overcome (v.-ithout special items) a. Walls and other blockages that cannot be overcome b. Places with no oxygen ( outer space) c. Places of no gravity

2. That which can be overcome/bypassed a. Fissure/chasm that you have to get across ("gaps") b. Cliffs to be overpassed c. Water d. Quicksand e. Caves f. Hills g. Darkness h.Fog i. Rain j. Lightning k. Dangerous plants (thorns, man-eaters) "Terrain"-Strategic (logistics and ability to move) Deserts 2. Cities

3. Deep dark forest/jungle 4. Distance 5. Oceans, lakes, rivers F. Kinds of Quests

Quests provide direction and meaning for the players of the game within the context of the game. The quests we're talking about here are activities undertaken by a player to achieve a goal against some opposition. We are not trying to list all the possibilities for romantic/literary narrative quests such as the Quest for the Golden Fleece. While the game as a whole may be about such a romantic/narrative quest, the individual levels will be much more mundane. In general, many quests involve causing a change in someone else's circumstances-from moving them from one place to another, to killing them, to saving them, to delivering their baby! Many others involve causing a change to some object or place, for example burning down a building, or retrieving an item.

• Kill 1.

monsters

2. boss

3. non-monster creatures

Destroy (or build/repai1) a machine a building or even a city 3. a natural location

Discover 1.

Eiqilore and make a map Acquire certain information

Race (get somewhere by a ce1tain time) Manufacture/craft/hybridize Fetch something (includes rescuing someone) • Delivery ("FedEx") 1.

Escort someone

• Bodyguard/guard a place/thing • Improve yourself 1.

Leveling up Improve your skill in some area

Complete a story Relationship/team building quest FURTHER READING At least one book has been written specifically about quests: Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives by Jeff Howard.

G. "Bosses" Video game players expect that a level will reach a climax in a battle with a "boss." This is not necessary, but it does tend to happen. The boss is usually some kind of monster. "The Law of Bosses" states that a boss is the only example of that kind of monster in the world. In other words, it should be unique in some way, not just a higher powered version of a typical monster. Here are a few guidelines for boss battles. While the boss should not be merely a powered up version of an ordinary monster or previous boss, it should not be so different that nothing the player has learned helps him in the encounter. If the boss is invincible except for one thing then the encounter is a puzzle not a battle. There should be more than one way to beat a boss. Because bosses are unique, battles with them should not be repetitious.

If there is a key to a boss's vulnerability it should make sense. Once again, if it's a 11011 sequitur (does not follow from anything else) then it is a puzzle (and a poor one). Bosses should not heal themselves, and once dead they should stay dead except in very interesting circumstances. The rules/mechanics of the game should not change during a boss battle. The most general mle here is "be fair." Bosses should be tough without pulling a fast one on the players.

H . Some Level Design Do's and Don'ts First, recognize that levels cannot always be intense affairs. Highs feel much higher when there are some lows for comparison. In the case of levels these low points would be times at which there is no immediate evident danger. If you try to make your level 100 percent constant action and danger you may end up boring the player! (This advice applies to games as a whole, too.) Mazes are likely to feel, and be, boring and stupid. Use them sparingly. Time pressure is often a way to make something more difficult. But the extreme "you must figure this out in 60 seconds or you die" should generally be avoided. Darkness, fog, and other limits on movement and sight should be used sparingly. People playing games that use action levels want to do something, not grope around. Avoid operative links between things that are widely separated. For example, a lever in a room should not open something half a mile away. Typically such a lever will be quite near the device it governs. Don't set up a situation where a player will be unable to progress because he didn't pick up some item, or learn some bit of infonnation, several hours ago. Don't use up all of your new/unusual features in the first few levels. Spread them out across the lot. Try not to ovemse a particular game feature in any level.

If a level is wildly atypical, make it optional, not mandatory. Presumably, the players like the "typical" level, and might not like something very different. Do not set the player up to fail. Players want to enjoy the game. The game is not there to let you enjoy gloating over the failure of the players! In particular, don't put hazards into a level that can only be discovered by dying! A bad tutorial can min the player's experience before he gets going. If the player will experi-

ence the levels in a particular order (a linear game),you can use earlier ones to help build up suspen se in later ones. Let the player have some control, don't make the mission into a movie. Once again, players want to do something. Don't use fancy movement requirements (e.g. character must stand exactly "here"). That's almost as bad as mazes. Reasons for Existence

Why is this happening? What are the players motivations? Don't "make" them do it, give them a reason to do it. • Have logical outcomes. • Traps should have a reason for existing. Randomly placed traps feel random. In video games the "reasonable" mle is sometimes ignored, with useful items just lying around to be picked up. TI1is is one of those video game conventions, everyone accepts it without thinking about it. Course of Euents

• Give information out a little at a time, not all at once. • Avoid Deus Ex Machina ("God out of the machine," something that happen s out of the blue to save the players). • Avoid death-by-exploration. There should be a reasonable way for players to avoid deatl1, they shouldn't have to die to know there's a danger. • Don't guide/walk-with/direct the player • Let players do things, don't show them things (as in a cutscene, e.g.)-let them be an active participant. Telling them is even worse than showing them. • When players gain a new skill or tool, don't require its use in deadly circumstances; let them learn to use it in not-particularly-threatening situations. Impressions (the "Aesthetic" Part ofMDA)

Let the player feel like a hero (or a bad-ass). Don't treat him like a slave or minion. Don't have some NPC (non-player character) save the day, that's the player's job. • Offer something rather than withhold something. Provide opportunities. • Don't let the player feel like a delivery boy. • Trnst the player, don't railroad him. Give him a chance to see what's coming, and don't force him from one thing to another. • When you give a player freedom to choose, don't penalize him by closing off all possibilities for the choice not taken right now. Don't take (apparent) control away from the players. • Don't give players a choice if it doesn't matter in the end. Let players feel like they earned their rewards. Player patrols are boring. Once yon begin to make the player(s) fearful, it must be continually reinforced, or it will dissipate. • If players don't spen d enough time with NPCs, they won't care what happens to the NPC no matter what yon tcy to do to motivate them.

And most ofall, avoid "grinding," doing the same (fairly easy) thing over and over to achieve some benefit.

I. Document Editing Advice Here's brief advice about how to be sure your level (mission) design documents are up to professional standard, if someone else is doing the programming and art. (Much of this advice applies to game design documents as well.) The Process

• Don't expect everything to come to you at once. Leave room for additions (in maps, in the course of events). ''To be detennined" is OK in early drafts. • As with games in general, don't worry about prettiness. The environment artists will provide that. • Give missions names, not numbers. Give events names as well. When numbering locations on the map, leave extra numbers between each so that you can add more later. • Forget what you may think is a cool idea if it requires special code or art-it's unlikely to be wmth it the time and expense. • Consider all the possible exceptions. Players rarely do what you expect them to do. • When you put a number on the map, state what's there, not what you hope will happen there. Assume the worst case scenario. And provide for it. • Players are there to do things, not to look at pretty environments. • Provide reference images (photos, drawings if you're an artist) to show the artists what your level ought to look like. But don't be disappointed if they think of something cooler looking-it's their job. Due Diligence

Proofread your document. Be sure the spelling and grammar are standard. • Include infonnation about the origin of the document: date, copyright, confidentiality. Use indents, bullets, and so forth to help differentiate one part from another. Write in active, not passive, voice. Be clear when assigning quests-highlight in some way. Remember that the document may be printed, and format accordingly. • Avoid pronouns, use titles/names for characters, NPCs, monsters Make Yo urself Clear

• Provide an overview. Where does the level fit in the game, where do the players come from and where are they going? • Include a list of major features, NPCs, items, and events, perhaps even an "executive summary." • Be specific. • When you refer to something that occmTed earlier in your plan, provide a context, not merely a reference ("if the player has killed the guards at # 19" rather than "if#19

achieved") FURTHER READ ING

Brenda Brathwaite's blog contains lots of excellent level creation advice, the best I have seen online, e.g. http://bbr-athwaite.wordpress.com/?s=leuel+docs http://bbr-athwaite.wo1·dpress.com/2009/04/26/1pg-leuel-design-or-musings-on-5 -andexpe11sive-graph-paper/ http://bbrathwaite.w01·dpress.com/2010/09/05/tabletop-1pgs-a11d-level-editors/

J. Brief Examples of Level Design Documents Level design documents as a whole are too long to include in this book. Here are some brief examples of some parts of such documents. Fantasy Game Level Overview

This is a "situation" level rather than a "story" level. The players confront an obstacle and must overcome it. This is a straightforward combat situation, the players must slaughter the monsters in order to make the "world" safe. This is the lair of an unusual insect-like monster, the "phraint" (part of Dungeons & Dragons's large pantheon of monsters). Phraints roam the plains. They resemble man-size praying mantises. They throw frisbee-like boomerang weapons with razor-sharp edges (often of obsidian). They can travel by prodigious leaps.

Player's Focus : But in this case, the player party is attacking the lair of the phraints, having eliminated many of the monsters in combat on the plains. The lair is dug into the underground. There are two main entrances and one small (one-person at a time) side door. There are guards "up top" and guards at the main entrances. The side door is locked to those outside. The lair includes an area for the "queen," an area for the handlers and attendants of the queen, an area where the young are raised, and areas where the adult phraints live.

Level Objective: Slaughter phraints. All of them. Characters: This is designed for a party of 6-9 characters of experie nce level 6-7. Nature of Opposition/ Obstacles: Phraints Architecture Style: "Holes dug in the dirt" Environment: Plains and the n underground passages and chambers Mood: Grim detennination

Em otion: The usual combat emotions Pacing: Rather than one continuous battle, this will involve episodes. TI1e monste rs will take time to cooperate/communicate/concentrate forces. Lighting: Underground, not much natural light available End of level ove1view example.

Campaign Level Design Document

This document describes a se1ies of levels for a generic fantasy role-playing game that emphasizes combat more than "role-playing" and story, an "American" RPG rather than a Japanese one. (It assumes a game something like early Dungeons & Dragons.) It is one that allows for a party of characters rather than a single individual, whether there is one player or more controlling them. Neverwinte1· N ights might do, or many other games of this type going back to Baldur's Gate. A "campaign" in this context is a series of interconnected levels that lead players to some kind of conclusion (as much as an FRGP ever concludes). Overview

The party of characters seeks adventure in a frontier area dominated by the legendary "Skystone Castle," a long-abandoned fortress built on a huge rock said to have come down from the sky. They arrive by ship in the port town ofTonilda. If successful they will ultimately become some of the principal heroes of Good in the area, working with the High Cleric to explore Skystone, eradicate the mysterious Phraints, and defeat the no1thern invasion. When players choose Good avatars, this is the campaign they will be presented with. If they choose other avatars, then they'll be unlikely to support the Bishop and High Cleric. These episodes culminate in fights with unusually strong enemy groups, but there is not always a "boss" monster much stronger than the rest. This is typical of Dungeons & Dragons. Parts 1-6 CNewcomers in Tonilda" to "E,q>lore the Crest of Skystone") will be played in order. "Newcomers in Tonilda." First level (novice) characters sta1t here. This stage enables players to become familiar with Tonilda and environs. The Baron, who ruled Tonilda, has recently disappeared. Fighting has broken out amongst religious factions in the town. The characters find themselves drawn into good deeds on the city streets, culminating in a fight with undead (skeletons and zombies) who seem to now dominate the Baron's castle. TI1e undead may be the Baron's own forn1er soldiers. The party is observed (perhaps aided) by representatives of the leader of the Good faction in Tonilda, who invite them to the temple.

This stage will reflect the excitement of new adventurers, and the mystery of the collapse of the government of the city. 2. "Meet the Bishop." 2nd level characters. The characters meet Bishop Spandu Nabisco, head of local Good worshippers, and become some of his main supporters-because he intends to bring order back to the city. The characters engage in a number of missions which help them rise in level. They become acquainted with the local sympathetic higher-level wizard by helping him defend his tower (which is outside the town walls). The mood of this stage will be recognition of the long-tennjob to be done, and subordination to the good of the community as a whole! 3. "Assault the Evil Temple." 3rd-4th level characters. After various skirmishes and realignments in the city, and with the Baron widely regarded as deceased [in a second campaign players try to find out what happened to him], the Bishop decides to attack and destroy the Temple in tl1e "Evil Qua1ter" of town. Our Heroes are the main instrument of the attack. This is a military stage, an attack on a defended building occupied by enemy p1iests, soldiers,

and undead, including one non-standard monster, the grave guardian (animated armor floating above graves). 4. "Consult with the High Cleric." 4th-5th level characters. Following the successful defeat and clean-up of opposition in Tonilda, which the Bishop now rules, the players travel north to visit the High Cleric Jon Coristo. "JC" and his minions are based in a castle midway between Tonilda and Skystone. The characters, along with JC's three loyal followers (two dwarf fighters and a magic-user), become his stalwart instruments in the struggle to bring peace to the plains north ofTonilda. Exploration and infonnation-gathering inform this stage. 5. "Explore Skystone Castle's Environs." 5th level characters. JC sends the goodguys north to explore (and clean up) the area around Skystone Castle. The Castle has been occupied for generations by a variety of nasty types, there are no fanning or herding settlements north of JC's stronghold. This stage has exploration, mapping and slaughter of nasty creatures. 6. "Explore the Crest of Skystone." 6th level characters. Now the party, having reported to JC, sets out for the top of the Skystone, where the outenvorks of the ancient fortress can still be seen. (Most of a fortress in a world of magic and fireballs is below ground, of course.) They explore, clean up the area, and find one or more ways downward. They e>.-plore the parts of the "dungeon" that were originally part of the fortress. They repo1t back to JC rather than go further down, into areas delved after the fortress fell. This stage involves e>.-ploration and mapping, and slaughter of nasty creatures. Players may learn more about the history of Skystone Castle, which will probably play no part in the current campaign but may have some impo1tance in future campaigns. The following (7-10, "The Invaders" through "Delve the Depths"), can be played in any order, though this is the "most desirable" order. For these adventures the characters need to be about 6th- 8th level. 7. 'The Invaders." Tonilda's anarchy has attracted attention. From the far north, forces of Evil are gathering to attack Tonilda, but first they must go past Skystone and the High Cleric's Hold. The party devotes considerable time to patrols and intelligence-gathering expeditions around Skystone and to parts further north, resulting in several encounters, at one point including over a hundred enemy "soldiers" (kobolds, ores, gnolls) with ogre leaders. Ex-ploration, intelligence-gathering, and "bloodying the nose of the enemy" are the purpose at this stage. 8. "The Unknm-m Monsters." When patrolling near the mountain range from which the invaders issue, the party encounters a lair/burrow of strange monsters, all quite large, some cat-like, one slug-like, that seem to spit lightning or other dangerous breath-like weapons from their mouths. They are quite formidable in melee as well. More of these monsters are encountered, accompanied by typical enemy soldiers (ores, gnolls), sometimes covered by kobolds 1iding giant dragonflies. This stage exploits fear, both fear of the unknown and fear of such strange and fonnidable beasts. 9. "Encounters \\~th Phraints and Scouts." Fireball/lightningbolt capability, and flying capa-

bility, very desirable. As the players scout the grasslands to the north and east for signs of enemy activity, they encounter, more than once, the mysterious phraints. These human-sized, insect-like creatures roam the grasslands in groups of up to a half dozen. They use crystal throwing-discs, often thrown as they jump high into the air to get a better perspective. They are expert at hiding within the tall grass. Fortunately, they do not use magic items. The players also encounter the northern enemy scouts, kobolds a11ned ·with poison-dart crossbows and riding giant dragonflies. These creahires render travel in the plains very dangerous, so that most travel is at night; if the party has the right equipment (fireballs, flying capability) they can defeat the scouts and travel during the day. 10. "Delve the Depths of Skystone." Characters eiq,lore deep within the Skystone. There are

no clues here about the phraints, the "lightning monsters," or the invasion, just a variety of opposition typical of "old-time dungeons." 11. "Attacking the Phraint Lair." Having encountered phraints several times in their travels about the plains surrounding Tonilda, the party now are asked by the High Cleric to attack the phraint lair that has been discovered by others. This is an underground burrow inhabited by wan-iors, workers, and the Queen. It is a long slog, with the characters required to pull back more than once to rest and recuperate because there are so many phraints. At one point, powerful extra-planar monsters mysteriously appear and attack the party. Who are these guys? They are actually min ions of the northern invaders, who have been secretly working with the phraints, and who have responded to a magical call for help.

12. 'The Assault on the High Cleric's Hold." The party helps defend JC's stronghold against a force including many of the lightning-monsters. 111e enemy attempt to quickly build ramps to the top of the walls, and use lightning to blast gates. This is more an assault than a siege.

13. "Defeating the Invasion."This is a pitched battle involving the forces of the High Cleric and the Bishop, with the player characters being leaders amongst the "army" of a few hundred. They fight an in vading force of typical evil soldiers with leaders. In the ideal world, the battle will end with the High Cleric frying the evil leader with a Flame Strike, while the player characters defeat the sub-leaders, often in single combat. The mood here is of "the final battle" variety, the "last confrontation." All of the local forces of the defense are here, and MUST win or risk being ove1nm. At this point, the northern invaders defeated, the main phraint threat eradicated, the party has "won the day" for all that is Good and right. But there are fmther campaigns to be played: where do the strange catlike and sluglike monsters come from (a moon, as it turns out, transported in spacefaring magical ships!)? Are there more phraints further afield? Who were the extraplanar monsters? When do they attack the enemy in their nortl1ern strongholds in the Lands of Chaos far to the north? A goodguy's work is never done ... FURTHER READING Some detailed level design documents can be found on Jennifer Canada's web site: http://

wwwJen11ijern.11et/documents.html. Pra ctice

W1ite a desc1iption of a level, whetl1er for an existing game or for one you're designing. Ask

other people to read it and talk about what they think of it.

8 Some Specific Video Game Issues and Genres A. Life l s Different for a Full-Time Video Game Designer Compared with a Freelance Game Designer Just as there are some practical differences between video game design and tabletop game design (see Chapter 1), there are differences in the full-time profession of video game designer and the freelance or part-time video or tabletop game designer. Many video game designers work full time for a studio that produces video games to be published by another company, the publisher. They work on salary (no overtime compensation) and frequently work more than 40 hours a week. On average they are paid about the same as artists, and a lot less than programmers working at the same company. In contrast, most "indie" (independent) ,~deo and most tabletop game designers are freelancers who design games part-time. The full-time game designer is rarely paid royalties. He does his "work for hire" because he is a full-time employee of the studio; the sh1dio earns royalties, and the game designer might receive a bonus if the game does ve1y well. Indie video game designers often work for little or no pay, in the hope that a self-published game will "make it big" on Xbox Live, Playstation Network, or a mobile platfonn such as iPad, iPhone, or Android smartphones. They earn part of sales. Because the tabletop game industry is much smaller in revenues, with the game budgets in the tens of thousands of dollars instead of in the tens of millions, few people can make a living designing tabletop games. There are few tabletop game publishers who can afford to have game designers on staff (e.g., Hasbro). Consequently, tabletop game publishing is more like book publishing, where the game designer is an independent person who is paid royalties by the publisher. The most successful video game designers are very well paid, into six figures, while a few ve1y successful tabletop game designers are millionaires. While the full-time video game designer is paid even if the game sells poorly, it's not unusual for video game sh1dios to go out of business. This can be tme even if the game they just finished sells well, if the sh1dio has not been able to line up the next game. The above is about game designers, but it's much more common for someone with relatively little e>.-perience to be a level designer rather than a video game designer. If a level designer does a poor job, more experienced people may help sort it out, and the game as a whole won't fail even if one level is weak. Sh1dios are reluctant to entrust budgets of tens of millions of dollars to inexperienced people. Consequently a video game designer is usually a person who has already worked in the video game industry for years, whether as a level designer, a producer, or a programmer, or even as an artist though a transition from artist to game designer is rare. Fmthennore, when someone becomes a full-time game designer he or she is usually a subordinate to a lead designer, and works on a small part of the game. There are many casual game companies and independent game studios that may be willing to risk use of an inexperienced game designer, but these companies are much less stable than the larger sh1dios. And the "indies" often are not paid until and unless one of their games becomes a success.

In a great many cases, the full-time game designer does not work on the game he wants to work on, he works on the game that the studio decides the studio needs to work on. In contrast, the freelance game designer can design whatever game he wants. But if he can't license that game to a publisher or if it does not sell well then he makes little or no money. The big video games are usually designed by groups of people, with multiple designers and with many contributions from the other people in the production team. In contrast, board and card games are usually designed by one person, perhaps with input from a second "developer," and with suggestions from some playtesters. The designer of a tabletop game will in most cases have from 80 percent to 99 percent influence on the content of the published game. I estimate that the lead designer of a MA list video game is closer to 25 percent influence. When a tabletop designer says "that's MY game" he (usually) really means it. When someone says ofa big-time video game "that's my game," he (usually) ought to say "that's our game." When a video game person says "I have six shipped titles," that usually means they made small contributions to six published games. Of course, for much smaller video games we can still have a situation where one person has great influence over the outcome.

;:~: .: Throwoul

11-- .- ~181--~I

e 1--r-.--+tl

Game Coocept

Documen;s

Production Team (programmers, artists, audio, etc.)

Versions olthe Game

Investors/ Publishers ~ - - -

Community

Buyers

Figure 6-What Video Game Designers Do at Big S tudios. Because large groups are usually involved in producing big video games, a designer's job involves much more cooperation and communication than ifhe is designing a tabletop game. A tabletop game designer makes his prototype; a video game designer, unless he's a skilled programmer making a small game, must rely on other people to make a prototype. He has to desc1ibe what's in his head to the programmers and a1tists and sound people so that they can produce the software. Initially this description is in the form of a video game design document, although much of it involves face-to-face discussion. When the video game designer understands programming well he'll probably communicate better with the programmers. For the big-company picture, see Figure 6-What Video Game Designers Do at Big Studios.

B. What You Must Know About V ideo Grun e Genres Each genre poses a different set of challenges. Some books devote dozens or hundreds of pages to video game genres. We would be remiss not to mention them at all, but briefly because this information is so widely available. A few genres have their own sections later in the book. Video game genres are differentiated by the types of challenges, not the settings. So we can have shooters and RTS games that are both in fantasy settings. Although the video game industry is not very old, players have come to expect games to fit particular genres, so one of the major ways to detennine the audience of your game is to decide which genre it will be. Type: Shooters

Essence: Shoot things and blow things up while running around (or, in stealth shooters, while sneaking around). Examples: Doom, Quake, Halo, Call ofDuty, Rainbow Six. Who Plays? Appeals mostly to males, especially teens and twenty-somethings. Salient Characteristics: A genre with a principal activity of shooting at enemies and blowing stuff up. May be first person (you see what the eyes of your avatar see, so you don't see yourself) or third person (you see your avatar as well as his or her surroundings). Character customization through personal characteristics, appearance (third person only), skills, and character class or profession. A great variety of useful weapons that may either be found or purchased. Often unlimited "lives" through respawning. A variety of team games such as "capture the flag." Most shooters offer on line play. Type: Real-time strategy (RTS)

Essence: collect resources, build buildings to make units, overwhelm enemies, all done really fast. Examples: War-Craft II, Star-Cm.ft, Total Annihilation, Command & Conquer series Who Plays? Because quick (and violent) play is required to be successful-Star-Cm.ft players talk about "200 actions per minute"-RTS tends to appeal to young males. Salient Characteristics: A genre involving command of a large force, requiring collection of resources and construction of factories and units, that is played in real-time (as opposed to tum-based). Good strategy or tactics can sometimes overcome fast manipulation of forces. Players often start with a single unit that can build struchires to mine or create resources that can be used to build additional structures. Players tend to establish a base and then attack other players' bases. A typical game is either a fantasy or fuh1ristic/science fiction, but can also be historically based. Attacks tend to come in distinct waves as a group rushes at the enemy base. Players will often have hundreds of units at one time. Many games emphasize micromanagement of economy and tactics in battles. Technological development is often important, or some other kind of research. Type: Tum-based strategy

Essence : collect resources, build buildings to make units, ovenvhelm enemies.

Examples: Civilization series, Age of Wonde,-s series, He,-oes ofMight and Magic series Who Plays? People interested in strategy but not interested in Tum-based games give you time to think.

200

actions per minute.

Salient Characteristics: TI1e description for RTS applies here, the difference is in the speed ( and stress level). Type: Adventme and action-adventure Essence: Solve variety of puzzles to reach an eventual goal. Examples: Zo1·k, Kings Quest, G,-im Fandango, Myst. Who Plays? Appeals less to the action-crowd, but attracts all kinds of gamers. Salient Characteristics: Puzzles. Mystery. Myst succeeded partly because it looked so good. In early days these games involved wandering about without much stoty. Now they are usually vety story oriented. Action advenhtre games add activity to the puzzle solving, sometimes something like a platformer. Type: 4X game (explore, expand, eiq>loit, e>.1:erminate) Essence: In a science-fiction setting, explore, expand, exploit, extenninate. Examples: Mastel" of o,-ion II, Sins ofa So/a,- Empi,-e. Who Plays? Strategy gamers. Some of these games are real-time, some are tum-based. Salient Characteristics: A player usually begins on a single planet in a futu1istic setting. Faster than light spaceship technology allows him to explore the galaxy, establish and build up colonies, exploit the resources of his planets, conduct technological research, and finally build up a fleet with which to defeat other expanding powers, conquering or destroying their colonies. Type: Vehicle simulations Essence: Drive it or fly it like the real thing. Examples: Microsoft Flight Simula to,-, Gran Tiu-ismo. Who Plays? A specialized form of wish fulfillment for people who would like to drive fast cars or aircraft. Salient Cha racteristics: Within the genre games vaty in how well they simulate the vehicle. Sometimes the race or the mission (fighter/bomber simulations) is more important than how you control the craft, sometimes the conh·ol and reactions of the vehicle are very realistic. Type: Platformers Essence: Run, jump, climb. Examples: Donkey Kong, Tomb Raider. Who Plays? One of the early video game genres, these games require coordination but are not as intense as shooters, having a puzzle aspect to successful completion of a level. Salient Ch a rac teristics: TI1e ptincipal activity is running, leaping, climbing, and jumping, often from one platform (like a ledge, but sometimes in the middle of the air) to another.

Sometimes the platforms move. Sometimes shooting or otherwise defeating enemies is involved.

Type: Sports simulations Essence: You are the coach-or even the individual player. Examples: Madden series, various 2K series. Who Plays? Sports fans. Salient Characteristics: A game that simulates some sport, usually a team sport such as football or basketball. Many of the games go beyond the playing of individual games to offer season modes, general manager modes where you trade players and draft players, to career modes where you become a player who starts as a novice, and try to become a star. Type: Role-pla}~ng game. These are discussed in detail in Section F, Chapter 9. Type: Simulations Essence: It seems so real! Examples: TI1e Sims, Rollercoaster T!Jcoon. Who Plays? People interested in building and manipulating. Salient Characteristics: These games are more or less intended to model the subject, whether it's an individual or family (the Sims), an economic situation, a theme park, a colony, or something else. Type: Fighting games Essence: Mano-a-mano, one player fighting against another. Examples: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat. Who Plays? Young people, people happy with the requirement for quick thinking and reactions. Salient Characteristics: A selection of fighters have many different characteristics, some of them quite magical, and signature moves. Among top class players the ability to "read" your opponent, to anticipate what he or she will try to do, is the difference between winning and losing. Type: Stm~val horror Essence: Run away! But occasionally blast your way through. Examples: Resident Evil se1ies, Left 4 Dead, Silent Hill se1ies. Who Plays? Insofar as these sometimes resemble shooters, young males, but the opportunities for stealth and cleverness attract other people who otherwise like horror stories. Salient Characteristics: The player's avatar must survive in a horrific setting, for example a zombie apocalypse or a haunted mansion. This sometimes involves getting together a group, sometimes it's purely indi\~dual. It's noteworthy that this genre is characterized as much by the theme as by particular kinds of challenges. C. Stories, Narratives, and "Sandboxes" One of the bigger mistakes beginning game designers can make is to focus on story rather

than gameplay. While there are games where story is paramount, for example the Japanesestyle console RPGs such as the Final Fantasy series, these are exceptions. Moreover, it's quite difficult for beginners to design story driven games that they can actually make and try out. Story in a game often has little to do with gameplay. John Cannack (Doom, Quake) is quoted as saying "Story in a game is like a story in a pom movie. It's e>.-pected to be there, but it's not that important." Another version of the same sentiment: story in a game is like story in a porn movie, it's an excuse to get to the action. The heart of a novel is characterization, though there's more to it than that (plot, dramatic tension, etc.). The heart of a game is gameplay, though there's more to it than that (interface, appearance, sometimes story, etc.) The heart of an interactive puzzle (such as many oneplayer video games) is challenge, though there's more to it than that. T1ying to use a game primarily to tell a story is like trying to use a spreadsheet program as a word processor. You can do it, but it's awkward. Story can be impo1tant when the game is an interactive puzzle, because story can provide clues to the solution. Fmthennore, while the means to the solution may be quite repetitive (as in "shoot things and blow stuff up"), the sto1y points toward the ultimate goal, providing a conte>.1: for the activity. Even if there's a sameness to the activity (as in many Final Fantasy games), there's progression through the story. Nonetheless, let's reiterate that concentrating on story, instead of gameplay/challenge, is usually a mistake. Most gamers want to play a game, want to DO something, rather than to be told a sto1y. They want to make their own story, not follow someone else's story. Yet story is becoming more impo1tant, as video games become more "immersive," more about "fulfilling a dream." The dream usually involves some kind of story. There are many books, including some game design books, that discuss at great length the topics of story-telling and how to constmct narrative. To keep this book small, we cannot do it here, because it's a minor part of most games, especially the kind that leamers can design and play. Practically speaking, there's another reason for game designers to devote little energy to story. When story is important in a MA game, studios often hire professional story-writers rather than rely on the game designers to write the story. If story is the most important thing to you, you may be better off preparing to become a game story writer, not a game designer. FURTHER READING "Games, Storytelling, and Breaking the String" http://www.electronicbookreview.com/ th,·ead/firstperson/storyish

D. World-Building On the other hand, the setting of a game can be important, especially role-playing games of both types and many kinds of video games. The setting is the "atmosphere" ifnotthe "theme" of the game. The setting has a lotto do with how well the game sells, though it doesn't always have much to do with how it plays. So "world-building," putting together that setting, has become quite impo1tant in some kinds

of games. Once again, there are entire books about creating worlds; to keep this book areasonable size, we'll only offer this brief advice: You can't make a fully-realistic world, it's just too much work; so make one that "feels" real, that enables the player to suspend his disbelief, and get on with making the game. With respect to the nature of the world and its mysteries, remember that if players treat the game as an interactive puzzle, similar to most single-player video games, then they'll be fmstrated if there are mysteries they cannot solve, because solving eve1ything is how you end the experience of a puzzle. If they treat the game that uses this world setting as a single stmy, then they'll also want all the loose ends tied up but ·will understand that the designer may leave things unexplained "for the sequel." If they treat the game as a world to roam in, then closed doors will be fine, because every real world has closed doors, no one can live long enough to try them all even if there is a way through. E. The Interface We b1iefly discussed the inteiface in Chapter 6, but it's so important there is more to say. As more games are played on po1table platfonns, inte1face becomes more impo1tant. Nor will an inteiface designed for a big monitor a.n d handheld controller or keyboard work well on the small screen and fom1 factor of a phone. All games have an inteiface, whether it's pressing a button or moving a joystick, or manipulating cards and pieces. A poor inte1face can ruin a game; if you've played many video games you've surely been frustrated when the game made it hard for you to tell it what you wanted to do, a failure of the interface. We'd all like to just think what we want the game to do, and have it act accordingly, but that remains an aim for the Matrix/Star Trek holodeck future. For a AAA game there might be a designer or two who only work on the game interface. People who are learning to design games cannot devote all their time to inteiface but it is still an important topic. Jakob Nielsen is the long-time gum of usability for commercial websites. (His partner is Don Nonnan, who wrote The Design of Eue,-yday Things, a classic book whicll is recommended reading.) Much of what Nielsen writes about making easy-to-use websites also applies very closely to designing good games. Every few weeks he publishes a new article. Anyone who wants to be a good game designer should read his material. You can begin with http:// www.11seit.com/ale1·tbox/design-diue,-sity-p,.ocess.html Nielsen identifies ten general principles-Rules of thumb-for Web user inte1face design. We'll summa1ize these in relation to game interface. "Visibility of system status." Users should be able to look at the game and know what's going on (as far as they ought to know, of course-information about the opposition may be hidden). When they do something they should be able to see the result, usually immediately.

2. "Match between system and the real world." The game should use words, phrases, and concepts easily understood by the user. We know that you shouldn't ask fiveyear-olds to do complex math or understand "big words." But every target audience

has its characte1istics that the game needs to accommodate. Furthermore, information should be presented in a logical order. 3. "User control and freedom." Give users a way to bail out when they make a mistake in using an interface- not a game mistake but a game manipulation mistake. Allow undo and redo in video games. 4. "Consistency and standards." Follow platform conventions. People expect things to work a ce1tain way, and if you do it another way that may inte1fere with their enjoyment of the game. This is one place where doing it the standard way is almost always a good thing. 5. "Error prevention." Design games so that users are unlikely to make mistakes. Good en-or messages are important but design that avoids mistakes is better. 6. "Recognition rather than recall." Don't make the user memmize things or keep track of things, let the game do it. Instructions should be easy to find if they're not visible. 7. "Flexibility and efficiency of use. " Allow expert users to install shortcuts, such as remapping keys and joysticks on a controller. Don't expect the new user to use obscure commands. 8. "Aesthetic and minimalist design." Don't provide in-elevant information. Don't require two actions where one action will do. 9. "Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors." When a user does something wrong, describe exactly what the problem is and suggest a solution "Help and documentation. "The ideal game does not require the user to learn any rules, but this is rarely practical. Help and documentation (such as rules for tabletop games) should be easy to search.

10.

See http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/ heuristic_ list.html. Ernest Adams provides a list of user interface/usability no-no's, summarized below. The term "camera" in games refers to the angle and direction of the view shown on the screen. Camera problems include poor or nonexistent camera controls, games that seize control of the camera at inconvenient times, and camera angles where the player cannot play (often because he can't see what's going on). Controls that cannot be configured or can only be configured badly are another problem, as are configurations that cannot be saved. Every game should have a pause feature and a way to save at any time. "Save points" are a manifestation of a time when game consoles were insufficiently powerful to save at anytime. There's no reason to limit saves now. You should also be able to have multiple saved games so that your only save isn't just before you die helplessly. Unintem1ptible cut scenes or cinematics are one of the biggest No-Nos in video games, just as is music that you can't tum off.

F. Too Much Like Work (About World of Warcraft): "Finally, gaming had hit its ultimate low- a

game so tedious you'd actually pay someone else to play it for you. "-Gameinfom1er, Nov. 2010 "I don't want to be challenged by my entertainment, here's my 60 bucks, entertain me or go away. Hard core gamers want to be challenged and em erge as bad ass gamers, but that isn 't fan for m e." (This quote is highly e:1.l)urgated.)-God of War creator David Jaffe Ideally, games should be enjoyable. In the video game world we now have games that are "a grind," "tedious," or "too much like work," but people play them anyway for their own reasons, often so that they can brag about ''beating the game" or "capping out" in experience levels. These games are usually defective because there is no challenge and no interest introduced by human opposition. While you someday may be involved in design of an MMO or social network game that suffers from being "too much like work" yet succeeds forother reasons, this is not a desirable goal! There are also games that may be too challenging to some players, especially people who have physical limitations and people who want to see a story without being challenged by it. Sometimes games may contain sequences that simply don't interest a player-for example, some players despise fonnal puzzles, while others hate "twitch" episodes requi1ing frenetic movement. Hard core game players are accustomed to being challenged. Viewers of movies, which a re passive e:1.l)eriences, are rarely challenged. Readers of novels, which are not interactive, nonetheless must work at it to read and visualize, so it isn't surp1ising to me that more of the young people I'm familiar with (college students) play video games than read novels. What can video game designers do to accommodate those who don't want to be challenged by their games, who may only be interested in the story they're being told, who won't play games that are "too much like work"? Reduce the focus on challenge, don't pose a game as success or failure. We've gone quite a way in this direction already. In the 01iginal arcade games when you lost all of your lives, you were done and your money was gone. Now, on home game devices we now have unlimited respawning and saved games. We see evidence of "easification" all over the video game map. Some games now help you aim your gun , some automatically heal you when you save, and so fo1th. Social network games like Farmville are very, ve1y easy to play. There is essentially no challenge at all. The worst failure you have in Farmville is failing to harvest crops before they wither. Different levels of difficulty are now the rule in video games, and this is occasionally taken fmther. A few games have a mode in which the game plays for the player, an "autopilot" so that a player doesn't have to ny to overcome challenges if he or she doesn't want to. TI1e player can choose when to use autopilot; those who want a challenge can ignore autopilot and play on harder difficulty levels. Sooner or later games will have the "undo" (Ctrl-Z) feature common in office applications, so that when a player makes a big mistake he can just undo a few actions and try again. "Bad-ass gamers" s neer at autopilot and undo, but they're there to allow people to do less

"work" while playing the game. Games should be enjoyable, not a grind.

G. Products vs. Services, Retail vs. Free This book is not about the business side of game design, about intellectual property protection, licensing, and marketing. Nonetheless, there's a fundamental change in how the video game industlyworks that needs to be desc1ibed because it has such a strong effect on design. The traditional way to market commercial games is to create a game that sounds and looks like it will be good to play (via screenshots and demos), so that people can be persuaded to spend money to buy that game. (It also helps if it turns out to be good to play, over and over again, after the consumer buys it, as that improves word of mouth sales.) The game is a product. It is usually sold in retail stores, but now games are also sold online, sometimes via digital downloads rather than traditionally printed and manufactured games. The newer way to market commercial games is called "free to play" (F2P) or freemium. These games are set up online, using exclusive sites, aggregator sites, and social network sites sucl1 as Facebook, where people can play them at no cost. The task of the publisher is to create a game sufficiently interesting to convince players to tly it out, and sufficiently engaging that they'll come back to play, and then to find ways to extract funds from about two percent of the players who will pay real money for functional or cosmetic advantages. An inte1im or intennediate version of marketing is the game that must be bought, yet then requires a subsc1iption to play, such as most of the original MMOs such as Everquest. But over time, most people balk at the idea of paying a subscription to play, hence many former subscription games are becoming "free to play." There is a fundamental divide here. In the traditional case the focus is on entertaining games, or at least games that are ente1taining initially. In the free to play (and also the subscription) cases the focus is on "sticky" games that people will come back to repeatedly, followed by ways to persuade people to spend money. The difference is that the subsc.riptions are paid up front, while in free-to-play games the money is usually spent on "vi1tual goods" that can be used in the game for various purposes. Some virtual goods are merely cosmetic, for example clothing for an avatar, and do not make a difference to gameplay. Some a re functional, that is they help you succeed in the game. Th.is could be a magic sword or a speedup in constructing a building, for example. In the ell.1:reme this free to play mentality leads to design of games that are "addictive" rather than ente1taining. Think of how many people pay monthly to play Wo,-/d of Warcraft, yet say it's "a grind" or "like work." In some sense all games take advantage of psychological characteristics of players, but the psychological characteristics that must be addressed in order to extract funds from players of a free to play game are widely regarded as less admirable, sometimes downright venal or egotistical, compared to the psychological characteristics that are involved in whether a game is purely entertaining. In other words, game designers become designers of revenue generation, rather than designers of entertainment. You can make an argument that the best way to generate revenue is to make an entertaining game. However, a successful free to play game might persuade one to three percent of the people who try it, to actiially spend money in it. This tends to skew the design away from ente1tainment toward two common people characteristics of the 21st centiny, instant gratification and convenience. Players who want instant gratification

are more willing to pay real money to progress in the game than players who have learned that sometimes putting off a benefit until later is better in the long run. Hence games may be made deliberately frustrating, so that people will spend money to relieve the frustration. This is quite different from design of traditional "product" games, where the designer works hard to avoid unnecessarily frustrating the players. Frustration is a necessary consequence of opposition to your will, which is present in most games. What happens in free-to-play games is that frustration is a deliberate design decision separate from the opposition, rather than part of the opposition the game provides. One panelist at a conference suggested that social network game design is all about creating "pain points" so that people will get fed up and pay to bypass the "pain points." For example, a player may have limited "energy" required to do most any task. When the energy runs out, the only way to replenish it immediately is to spend real money. Otherwise, the player must spend a (frustrating) long wait. Further, many people have become accustomed to spending money for convenience as opposed to necessity, and in some cases what used to be merely convenient is now widely regarded as necessary. My standard example here is people who won't make up a lunch at home and take it to work or school; rather they'll go out and buy fast food which is both much more expensive and much less healthy, as well as more time-consuming. That's regarded as more convenient. That's the same kind of attitude that the revenue generation techniques take advantage of. So we have games that are now services rather than products. Free to play games are less risky for the developer than traditional games, because you can put one online when it's "30% done" and let initial users playtest it. If it proves to be popular, you put lots of effort into improving the game. If it turns out to be a dud, you stop development. The more popular the game, the more effort you put into improving the service. Fortunately for those learning to design games, designing online games of any kind will be more difficult and time-consuming than an inexperienced person should attempt.

H. Is Creativity Important in Video Gam e Design? "All children are 01-tists. 11ie problem is how to 1·emain an artist once he grows up."-Pablo Picasso ~n,e key question isn't 'Whatfosters creativihJ?' But it is why in God's name isn't everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good question might be not why do people create? But why do people not create 01· innovate? We have got to abandon that sense ofamazement in theface ofcreativihJ, as if it were a mimcle ifanybody created anything. "-Abraham Maslow "Before you think outside the box, check inside the box.first."-Mark Rosewater Some people have a talent for designing games, some don't. Inborn talent may make the difference between a decent game and a really good one, though this can be debated. Nonetheless, it is a craft that can be learned, not something that only a few lucky individuals can do. The necessary creativity is in most of us, we just need to bring it out (or b1fog it back, in

Picasso and Maslow's terms). But it's execution that counts in game design, not creativity. Adams and Rollings in Game Design Fu11dame11tals estimate "innovation by the game designer cont:Jibutes no more than 5 percent to the fun of the game." It's very important, but it's not the major part of the job. Including stage (level) design they increase the influence of imagination to 14 percent. I prefer a modified form of Thomas Edison's dictum, amounting to "success is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration." The "se>.')'" part of game design is the conception and elaboration of an idea that may htrn into an enjoyable game. But "sexy" in game design is like "sexy in a marriage, it can only make a difference at the beginning, sooner or later there has to be a lot more there. Just as the people in a marriage must meld together in their minds, work together to succeed, be productive together, the game designer must take his designs all the way to the finish, working hard to succeed, being productive, finishing the job. Many so-called game designers want the equivalent of a "convenient girlfriendjboyf1iend" relationship, the most fun parts v.'ithout the work that makes it last. They want the sexy part without the deeper, more productive part. You can try to do this, but you'll end up with a lot of half done (and usually half-baked) ''games" that never have a chance of being published, unless you self-publish them. Creativity is important, but not nearly as important as overall execution and a willingness to stick with it until the end, when you're bloody well sick of the game but it still needs that final polishing.

9 Designing Specific Types ofGames A. Multi-Sided Games Humans, not computers. Most video games, and most video game players, rarely encounter video games where there are more than two sides. (And for most video games, when there are two sides, one side is usually "the computer" rather than a human). "Multiplayer" in video games means two or more players, but rarely more than two sides. "Multiplayer" in tabletop games means more than tv.•o players and more than two separate sides. As a beginning game designer, when you design games to be played by several sides, you'll run into unique problems. The following doesn't apply to games with two sides (separate interests), because in that case there's no doubt about which opponent you attack. In games with more than two sides one of the big questions for a player is, who do I try to hinder, who do I try to help? How do I know who my target should be (assuming I'm interested in winning the game)? There are ell.'tremes to this. At one ell.'treme no one wants to be the person clearly "in front," and on the other extreme the game is essentially multi-sided solitaire. Keep in mind that we're not talking about a race. The simplest form of game is the race. Virtually any activity can be turned into a race (who can do it most quickly), and races can accommodate almost any number of players. Yet in a typical race there is not much you can do to hinder the opponents-it is often a case of multi-sided solitaire. This section describes some of the pitfalls (some people call them flaws, some do not) that can arise in multi-sided conflict games. There are various relationships here, and this is not going to cover "everything" because that would take too much space, nor for that matter has anyone s01ted out all of these relationships. These problems may not a1ise in games whe re one side is a person and the other sides are computer-controlled, because computers cannot play games as well, as cleverly, and as subtly, as people can. Several problems named by board gamers can occur when there are three or more sides in a game. When there is an extreme either way (e.g., it's too easy to turtle, or too hard) then the quality of the game is diminished. Many of these are much more likely to occur when the victory condition amounts to "wipe out the opposition," so we'll talk about alternative victory conditions. Here are the well-known "problems": t. Tmtling occurs when a player sits back and builds up strength while otl1ers expend theirs. This can often be seen in multi-player online RTS games. When there are more than two sides, a player can hang back, building up bases and technology, while he lets other players slaughter one another's forces. Then he comes out and cleans up the remainder.

A general solution is to use a different victory condition. E.g., capture of certain locations as the means of victory forces players to come out of their shells. Giving points or other advantages for destroying the opposition also encourages aggression rather than turtling.

Another solution is to provide economic incentives to be aggressive. This often involves captming economically valuable areas, so that a successful aggressive player can build up

forces faster than the turtle.

If there is a short enough time limit on the game, then there won't be time for a turtle to passively gain a significant advantage. "Camping" in shooters is a fonn of turtling. 2 . Leader bashing tends to happen in games without much hidden information, that is, it

must be clear who the leader is. Then the other players gang up on the leader. ("Of course," many would say, why wouldn't one try to weaken the leader?) If it isn't clear who the leader is, this is less likely to occur. If it is hard for some players, at least, to affect the leader in any given situation, then there will be less leader bashing, as those players will distract the ones who can affect the leader. Many "geographical" games, such as historical wargames, have a built-in limitation thanks to position: for example, in a game of European watfare, the Turkish player can rarely attack the English player. On the other hand, there must be some way to "pull back" the leader, or the game can become boring as the leader gets further ahead with no way to stop him. 3. Sandbagging is often a consequence of"excessive" leader bashing. A player will try to get himself in second or third place, rather than first, so that when the first place player is bashed, the sandbagger can swoop in for the win. Timing, ob\~ously, is quite important here. The solution to sandbagging is to reduce leader bashing to a reasonable level. 4. Kingn1aking is a consequence of what R. Wayne Schmittberger calls the "petty diplomacy problem" in his book New Rules for Classic Games. Where there are three interests, and one recognizes that they/he cannot win the game, that loser may be able to determine which of the other two wins. Even if the game is being played by more than three, it will often come down to three major interests. More generally, if a losing player can with considerable success detennine who wins, you have kingmaking in play. One way to avoid this is to structure the game so that a player cannot be sure he is going to lose until it's too late for him to become a kingmaker. Of course, some players believe kingmaking is the "wrong way to play," that every player should ti)' to win no matter what. But designers cannot rely on players to be self-governing in this way. Another way to avoid kingmaking is to make it too hard for a player to use all his capability against another to prevent that other from winning. As a simple example, in a race it's usually hard for a losing player to have much effect on the leading players. These are "flaws" only when taken to an extreme. Every strategy game will allow a little bit of each of these as tactics/strategies intended to win the game, but too much of any of them becomes an impediment to ente1taining play. If designers keep these flaws in mind as they conceive and flesh out their multi-sided games they can usually avoid the extremes. If they ti)' to tack on multi-sides later, they're likely to be faced with big changes. Now here are some alternatives to a victory condition of "kill everyone else." These help mitigate some of the problems we've been discussing. These are: 1. Economies. Players receive more assets as the game progresses, in accordance with some rules relating to locations or resources, not merely to a table of additional appearances ("order of battle"). If a player plays well, he \.\~ll eam more new assets than if he plays badly.

In a zero-sum game, each player's gain is another player's loss. The classic game Diplomacy is the best example of this. There are 34 "supply center" locations on the board. A player gets one unit (arn1y or fleet) per center. If a player takes another's center, the first is going to increase his forces, while the second will lose forces, at the next building period. 2. Points. Players earn points for certain events or achievements. This could be capture of certain locations, destruction of enemy assets, holding certain places at given times, and so forth. In a wargame, a player could be v.iped out, yet if he's done enough beforehand he can still have the most points to win the game. In general, where points are concerned the game does not continue until all but one player is wiped out. Either there will be a time limit or a point limit.

For example, in my '1ight wargame" Britannia, players receive points for holding areas, occupying areas during a ce1iain pe1iod, for dominating regions (king of England), for forcing nations to submit, and occasionally for killing enemy units. A nation may be wiped out in the course of the game, but each player controls several, and the points that defunct nation earned still count. Points are based on historical performance, and are accumulated at different paces, so the cmTent score is not a good gauge of who is actually winning the game. 3. Missions. This is a forn1 of points because the mission involves completion of particular goals. A player may win when he has completed a set of missions, and the missions may be hidden from other players, so no one really knows who is "ahead." In 2008 a new edition of the classic (but flawed) game Risk was issued that uses missions to counteract many of the multi-sided game flaws discussed above.

FURTHER READING My much longer description of problems in three player games is the first chapter of the book Tabletop: Analog Game Design, ETC Press, electronic copies free to download: http:// www.feedbooks.com/userbook/22317/tabletop-analog-game-desig11

B. Social Network Gam es These games are played through social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, and perhaps even Twitter. They are very simple, are playable in short time bites, and are designed to b1ing players back day after day. Virtually always they are free to play, \\1th a variety of ways to monetize the play. They are primarily ways to pass the time-time-killers if you will. In what they do for the player, they are a more-active and sometimes more ex-pensive version of card Solitaire. Social network games are very popular. At one time there were more people playing Fm·mville than were registered on Twitter. World of Warcraft has more than 11 million players but Farmville has had many times that number. A great many of the players are women, and a great many are beyond their 35th birthdays. The games are played as part of the daily routine of going to Facebook or another social media network to cl1eck on friends. These "games" tend to bevel)' s imple puzzles with no opposition. They often give advantage to players who can recruit their friends to play and help them out, thus intrnducing more players to the game. They can be very much "grind" games, where you do the same thing over and over again for gradual advantages. But with social network games, over and over again is one day to the next in sho1i sessions, not repeatedly in the same session.

Social network games are usually vety simple puzzles where the solution is obvious, but where you n eed to do it just about evety day with con siderable repetition in order to succeed long-tenn. A lot of game playing is habit, and what your friends are playing. Solitaire (cards or video) has very little to recommend it, yet some people play incessantly, and the same can be said about many social network games. There is a great divide amongst video game designers about the morality of these games. They seem to be designed to take advantage of human weakness, becoming more a matter of habit than enjoyment. Often people play to keep what they have rather than to gain something, thus the daily return to make sure that things are okay. Ultimately, many of them seem to be trickery to persuade people to keep playing a game, rather than offering them something that they can enjoy. It is managing ways to make money, n ot designing ente1tainment. There's great potential for games played over social networks to approach the camarade1ie and socialization of tabletop games. Unfortunately, this is not being explored: they a re presently anything but social, rather they are solitary, and you don't play with friends, you use friends distantly as a means to an end.

C. MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online Games) Examples: Wol'ld of Warcraft, Everquest, EVE Online, Star Wars the Old Republic. The key to MM Os is persistence. You play a character in some fiction al or histo1ical setting, and you continue to play that character possibly for months or even years . In some games, what the players do affects the setting ( the players h ave what is called "agency"); in others tl1e setting is the same for every player as they go through the game. Most games can be played solo but the more dangerous challenges require large groups of players to succeed. Some MM Os have a monthly fee, others can be played for free. MM Os are vety ex-pensive to produce because there is so much content to create as well as a need for a big Inte rnet infrastructure. Characters are often highly customizable, right down to hair color and clotlling. MMOs appeal to a broad spectrum but it's probably teens and young adults without family respon sibilities who have the time to play as much as many people like to play. Unfortunately, many MMOs are identified/dominated by "the grind." The player's character tends to do the same thing, or something vety much the same as they have been doing, again and again and again in order to obtain more capabilities through ex-perience points, skills, and loot. Beginning designers are most unlikely to be involved with MM Os because they are so expensive to make .

D. Casualj"Short Experience"/Mobile Games Examples: Bejeweled, Teh·is, Angry Birds, Plants Versus Zombies. Casual games are short, s imple video games, often puzzle-like. They are often played on phones or other mobile devices, as well as on personal computers. Casual video games tend to be played by a somewhat older demographic than other video games, and mucll more by females than males. Casual game players are rarely interested in "beating the game," and are often not concerned about winning. They play games to relax,

not to prove that they are "bad ass gamers." Most social network games are extreme examples of casual games. Casual games need to provide a satisfying short eiqierience, which often means the game must be short; if not there must be obvious stopping points were you can save the game. Objectives must be especially clear, so that the player knows what to do without ha\~ng to think about it. Casual games usually use two-dimensional graphics rather than three-dimensional because the player is not concerned about photo-realism. Casual video games are a good place for designers to start their commercial efforts, after they've learned the ropes.

E. "Serious" Games (Education and Training) Examples: Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, Flight Simulator, Math Blaster, training simulations of all kinds. Brian Winn's definition is "games with a purpose beyond entertainment." A common definition is "games for learning or training," because this is the most common purpose, but there are many other kinds of serious games, such as advergames (adve1tising). The word "educational" has achieved remarkably poor connotations in the USA and UK, so video game people in particular use the term "serious" instead. And with use of that term they have included training software and any other kind of game that has a non-entertainment purpose. The most impo1tant goal is that the "message," that which is supposed to be learned, gets across to the player. Some serious games are simulations, such as pilot training software. In many cases the level of realism required for a simulation is not necessary. A very important, and frequently ignored, design characteristic of serious games is that they must be enjoyable to play. If they're not then people are being forced to play, and that's never likely to work well. Seiious games are different from most other games insofar as the sto1y is the most important thing. In this case the "story" is the message the player is supposed to receive, the infonnation or skill they are supposed to learn. Another impo1tant aspect is that there are two ways to go about educational games. One is the puzzle, where when the player has solved the puzzle they have had the opportunity to learn the 1ight steps to do something. Unfo1tunately, this is much more suitable to training than to education. Training often involves learning something by rote, as in a puzzle. Education involves understanding. The second method is to design a game where, through repeated plays, a player can gradually see what behaviors and activities biing success and what do not. The things that bring success in the game should be things that bring success in the problem/solution that the serious game is trying to teach. For example, a game design game should emphasize repeated playtesting and modification. I have several times attempted to design a game about designing games, and have always rejected the puzzle method because game design is about understanding. I finally adapted a successful card game designed for ente1tainment as a "game design game." Also keep in mind that a video game may not be the best way to teach. For example, many K12 classes do not have easy access to personal computers. And some games will have more impact when six students are sitting around a table interacting with each other rather than if

they individually manipulate computers.

F. RPGs (Role-Playing Games) Examples: Dungeons & D,-agons (D&D), many Final Fantasy, Neue,-wintel" Nights, Traue/e,-, Eide,- Sc,.olls se1ies, Wo,-/d of Wal'craft (Wo W). Commercial RPGs originated with tabletop Dungeons & Dragons. Many characteristics of video game types, not just RPGs, derive from Dungeons & Dragons. Players take on the role of a character in a game-story, for example of a ranger or hobbit in something like The Lo,-d ofthe Rings, or as a detective in something like 11ie Maltese Falcon. As they play they accumulate loot and increase their capabilities through levels (earned by experience points) or skills. Computer RPGs made in Japan for game consoles especially appeal to female gamers. American-style RPGs (computer and tabletop) are heavily male-dominated. Players tend to be young people with lots of leisure time available, as RPGs take lots of playing time. Long tabletop campaigns often involve the same group of friends, of whatever age, as RPGs can be very social events. (I met my wife through Dungeons & Dragons many years ago, for example, and the other three participants ultimately manied one another, or one of the others' best friends.) MMORPGs such as Wol'ld of Wal'craft can become very "addictive," people spending six or more hours a day playing the game. Usually several characters join together in a group to "adventure." These characters may be different players, or one player may control all the characters. Adventures often involve exploration, whether of a dungeon or of some other location. The computer, or a human referee, controls the opposition. Characters usually earn experience points (xp) for s uccessful actions, and can e}qlend those xp to increase capabilities or characteristics. They can gain skills, gain spell-casting ability, improve their ability to take damage (hit points), improve their attacks, and so forth. Adventures sometimes are story-driven, sometimes present a situation that lets the players try to do as they v.,jsh. Is a video game an RPG because a character is rising in levels? No. It depends on the principal activity. Bioshock is a shooter, even though the avatar gains levels. War·craft Ill is an RTS, even though the heroes of each playe r go up in levels. The "real" RPGs focus on a single character and his or her efforts to rise in levels and gain skills; frequently there is no ending or "winning condition." The tabletop RPG market is highly saturated v.ith both professional and free (usually in PDF fonn) material. Consequently, many RPG rules sets, adventures, and rules supplements are purchased and read but never played, and some are free. There tends to be much more narrative in these books (especially adventures) than in the 1970s, to attract those buyers who aren't likely to actually play. RPGs are much more story-d1iven than typical games. Beginning designers who want to emphasize story should think about designing tabletop RPGs.

G. CCG/fCG (Collectibleffradeable Card Games) Examples: Magic: The Gathe1·ing, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, and Legend of the Fiue Rings. While most collectible card games are played on the tabletop, there are computerized

versions as well (the cards you buy are virtual). "flying to design a collectible/trading card game is probably a waste of time. A publisher needs a couple million dollars to launch such a game, spent in promotion, in free decks of cards to get people sta1ted, and in organized play (tournaments). A video version is less ex-pensive because digital giveaways cost virtually nothing, but most of the video versions simulate successful tabletop games. The games are also complex and the design side never ends, because the main purpose is to continuously change the game in order to persuade people to buy new cards. Players purchase randomly arranged sets of cards in order to make decks that they use to play against one another, usually in a two player game. A game session itself is relatively sho1t; much of the interest in the game comes from the meta-game of building specialized decks of cards to take advantage of the special powers of cards. Cards are typically sold in anonymous packs, that is, you buy a set of cards and don't know which cards you are getting. Cards are usually one of four types, common, uncommon, rare, and very rare. A market will often develop offe1ing the hard-to-find cards for sometimes exorbitant prices. Players almost always put their cards in plastic sleeves in order to avoid wear and preserve their resale value. Many of the cards break the rules temporarily by virtue of some special power. Roughly speaking, the less common the card the more powerful it can be. But it's sometimes combinations of cards that become devastating. The manufacturers continue to create new cards that gradually render some of the old cards useless. Sometimes old cards are retired (no longer usable in tournaments) because they have proven to be too powe1ful. Occasionally the rules for the entire game may be changed. Designers say that if a deck of the same type dominates in tournaments from one year to the next, then they have failed. In general a CCG should be a quite simple game. The game should have vanilla, run-of-themill cards as the basis of play, rather than be dominated by the rule breaking cards. This kind of game is very popular with high school and college aged males. "Organized play," that is, local toumaments with prizes, and winners advancing to regional and international and ultimately worldwide tournaments, is a common characteristic of support of CCGs. There are other kinds of collectible games such as collectible chips or collectible chess-like pieces, and some collectible card games don't actually have cards that you can hold in your hand because they are done purely in on line video. It is possible to design non-collectible commercial boxed card games that stand on their own yet use some of the principles of CCGs (sometimes called Living Card Games). These games are more practical for beginning designers, as they are both limited in scope and not subject to the very high marketing costs of CCGs.

Reference Lists and Resources Because this is a collection of reference lists and resources, it is not designed to be read from start to finish; the individual sections are not directly related to one another. Many sections are a starter list, intended to help you get goin g again when you meet the game design equivalent of"writer's block."

A. List of Possibilities in Each of the Nine Structural Sub-Systems of Games If this book were longer it might include an attempt to list all game mechanics. As it is, it includes a list of many of the common choices used in games in each of our nine structural subsystems discussed in Chapter 1. Much of this can be related back to what games amount to (Chapter 3, section F). 1. Theme-Atmosphere/Histo1y/Story/Emotion/ lmage. Everything in the world, eve1y thing you can think of, are your choices here. At any paiticular time some settings will be more popular than others. Fantasy themes are "down" as this book goes to press, while modem warfare is quite popular in video games. The market for tabletop RPGs of all kinds is depressed now, but seven or eight years ago it was hot.

There are lots of opportunities to "think outside the box" in this subsystem. Video game genres tend to en courage use of the same old themes and stories; an unusual theme or story can lead to an unusual game, and while unusual games are risky, the ones that succeed can succeed very well. 2.

Player Interaction rules Solitaire, one player a. opposition nm by set mechanics enforced by programming Cooperative/collaborative game a. opposition run by set mechanics/programming b. with a "traitor" possible (Shadows over Camelot, Battlestar Ga/actica) Competitive a. two sides, one player per side b. more than two sides c. more than two players but only two sides d. two sides with more than one player per side, only on e player win s e. two sides with players controlling forces on both s ides, best player on winning side wins the overall game Negotiation a. n ot allowed b. allowed only in public (other players can h ear/read it)

c. allowed privately d. allowed but time limited e. no binding deals f. binding deals (cannot "backstab") g. governed by card play! • Trading a. cards or equivalent capabilities b. roles or other opportunities to act distinctively from other players • Outside-the-game consideration s (mon etary bribes, for example) Outright cheating (Diplomacy e ncourages this in the m ies, for example to remove an opposing army when no one is looking) 3. Objective/victo1y Conditions Gain a physical position/reach a location a. Get troops off the board at certain location b. Take certain city (Axis & Allies, old AH board games such as Stalingrad) c. Capture territory (go) (Carcassonne and other tile games) d. Achieve an abstract pattern (tic-tac-toe, Tetris, sequence) • Destroy something a. Check/take (king in chess, a planet in a space wargame) b. Capture entire force (checkers/draughts) (old Risk) c. Capture certain number of units (Battle C,y) Accumulate somethin g (Card games tend to be about collecting objects [tricks] or achieving positions [on the table]. Auction/bidding games tend to be about accumulating objects, as are many social network games.) a. Money (Monopoly) b. "Answers," parts of a puzzle c. Objects, such as sets of cards Run out of something a. Cards b. Dominoes c. Your own pieces (Blokus) Deduce something a. Clue/Cluedo b. Battleship, more or less Collect something (related to achieving a physical position and to sets) Hidden or variable for each player (Careers) • Miscellaneous (achieve something other than position?)

a. Rock-paper-scissors (but even that is "achieve a pattern") SCORL"IC POINTS

Sco1ing victory points is a fonn of some other victory condition(s), a way of tallying/accounting for the true objective. To complete a mission (as with the old mission cards in Risk) is a fonn of victory points- where there's only one point to score. Many arcade games use points accumulation. Variations of victory points as objectives: • Accumulate points as you play (many video games, History of the World, many Euro-style games such as Settlers ofCatan) Score at end of set time/rounds Multiple point methods vs. single point method Reach a given number of points rather than play a set time/# of Rounds Choose your own objectives amongst three or more options (Careers) Generation Y/Millennials want instant feedback, so accumulating points throughout the game has become common. Monopoly is a fonn of destroying something (the opponents' funds), actually, though accumulation of money generally amounts to same thing 4. "Data Storage" (Information Management) GA.MF.BOARDS

In video games there is usually a board in the sense of a grid that regulates movement, but it is rarely visible. Civilization (computer version) lets you show the grid or hide it, but it still governs movement. Many video games use very small areas, possibly down to the individual pixel level, as the spaces on the board, with "units" covering many "spaces" instead of one, e.g. in arcade Pac-Man .

Hexagons: "traditional" Avalon Hill style wargames, Civilization V Offset Bricks, a Subset of Hexagon: Usually the bricks are square, rather than elongated as they are in a building. Bricks look different but function identically to hexagons. Squares: Very traditional, chess, Dungeons & Dmgons dungeons, Sh·atego, Civilization (computer game) through version IV. Square boards distort diagonal movement (1.41 times the distance of an orthogonal move). In some games, diagonal movement is counted as "one and a half' moves, or is not allowed at all. Hexagons have less distortion, though there is still some. Perhaps that's why Civilization Vhas switched from squares to hexagons.

Areas: Britannia-like games, Diplomacy, Risk, Europa Universa/is. Looks like a pattern of counties, states, or countries on a map. Connectivity: Squares or circles connected by lines, overlaying an actual map. May represent roads and cities. Masters of Orion II, We the People, Currents of Space, Rome: Total War·. Gives the designer the most control over where the player(s) can go. "Path": Adopted name for games where you follow a path, as in Monopoly or Game ofLife or Candy/and. The individual areas are usually rectangles.

Concentric Circles: Usually divided into sections. Rarely used.

Spiral: Divided into sections. Rarely used. Geomorphic Boards: "tiles," usually square but sometimes hexagonal, are laid down to create a board that is different each time; the tiles themselves may have squares, hexes, connectivity, or even areas. Enables a different board with each play. Is there an "ideal" board size? No. But many tabletop game boards have relatively few locations. Chess and checkers, 64; Risk, 42; Britannia 37 (plus five seas); Diplomacy 73 (34 supply centers). The Axis & Allies board keeps getting bigger in newer editions. Go has 361 locations. Civilization (computer version) has thousands. Ratios important in map games: Ratio of movement speed to "size" of the map (number of separate locations as well as "distance" across the board). Time/ turns needed to get across the board. If the typical movement speed lets a unit get across the board in two moves, then in that sense it's a small board. TI1e Stratego board is fairly small in absolute tem1s (92 squares), but quite large in comparison with the speed of most units (one square per move). Ratio of eliminations to introduction of new pieces. Ratio of movement speed to number of pieces (both present number and future number) Location of important places in relation to board as a whole. (For example, if two players start at opposite corners, and the only impo1tant place [say the victory objective] is in the center, the other two corners probably won't be used.) CAM£ PIECF.S

Video games don't have tangible pieces, but the look of a piece, especially a player's avatar, is ve1y important. And players want to be able to customize the look of their avatars. For tabletop versions: 3D pieces such as figures are best when you want to move them around (as in chess), but flat(ter) pieces are OK if you just place them and leave them there (as in Tigris and Euphrat and many other tile-laying games, or as in go). 3D pieces are more prone to being knocked and jostled around than flat pieces. If the game has a lot of pieces then flat pieces are more practical (and more fit in the box). Some people want their 3D pieces to look like real objects, hence the figures that look like soldiers and horsemen, or tanks and battleships (Axis & Allies). Some seem to be as content with wooden or plastic blocks or cylinders, or glass beads, or stylized wooden pieces. Colored plastic chips don't quite count as 3D, though they are not cardboard counters. At least one of my games, Law & Chaos, originated as an attempt to design a game using glass beads (which many gamers like, but which are not practical in large numbers because they drive up the shipping weight of a game). Peter Morrison, designer and publisher of Viktory Tl, ran a piece color survey on BoardgameGeek. TI1e order of preference was: Blue, Green, Red, Yellow, Black, Purple, Orange, Gray, White, Brown. Keep in mind that color-blind people (5 percent of the population) cannot differen-

tiate red and green, or less commonly blue and yellow, and sometimes other color combinations can be difficult. OlUER lNJ-"ORM.ATION STORAGE

Layouts. Sheets of paper with numbered locations so that players can keep track of information by placing a piece on the appropriate number. The video game equivalent is the various infonnation in a "Heads Up Display" or as revealed by menus. Cards. Cards can have mies on them, as well as other game infonnation. Some cards have two uses, and the player must decide which to choose, sac1ificing the other. Cards are a common way to provide variety in board games. Paper (and pencil): • Scoresheets Play money The computer stores lots of data, of course. The trick is to make that data easily accessible to the player. You may have encountered a video game where finding something in your invento1y is a big pain. How people retrieve infomrntion is just as important as how it's stored. 5. Sequencing • Take turns a. Same order each round b. Same order but new first player each round. (For example, representing each player as a number, the order would be 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 and repeat.) c. Players control several nations, player order is by nation, not by player d. Divided into "phases," each phase completed by every player before next phase starts e. Random order each round f. "Seize" or bid for order of play g. Order dete!1l1ined by points accumulated so far h. Initiative -By dice roll/random -In accordance with the nature of the action being executed Simultaneous turn-based (most common in video games) Play anytime (not same as simultaneous. Simultaneous is more organized/orderly) Intem1ption (allows someone to interrupt the nol1llal [usually tum-based] sequence) • Real-time 6. Movement/Placement Move single piece whenever you wish (shooters, etc.) Move/place one piece

a. Most traditional board games such as go b. Some card games including CCG • Move (place) all pieces (most wargames) Move whichever pieces are able to move. Some card games, play all the cards you can play (Canasta, Bang!) • Action points system ( each action costs points from a limited pool) • Action cards/ card driven Chits (form of card d1iven), dice-d1iven (Lord of the Rings) Pay to play • Event Cards 7. Information Availability • All infonnation available (typical of traditional board games such as chess, checkers, tic-tac-toe) • Virtually no infonnation about opposition available (kriegspiel chess). We are close to this in many card games, e.g. five card draw poker, and in many older video strategy games • "Fog of War" (about locations or assets). Very common in video games because the computer can secretly keep track of where things are. Dice rolls are a form of uncertainty • Simultaneous/real-time movement creates uncertainty • An opponent creates uncertainty, and more than one opponent can lead to great uncertainty. 8. Conflict Resolution/Interaction of Game Entities None (or-not allowed to cause conflict) (tic-tac-toe) Bidding/auction a. Silent b. By rounds Displacement elimination (take a piece by moving into its location) a. Chess b. Checkers (jumping is a fom1 of displacement) Surround or oilier pattern (can see checkers jump as a fonn of iliis) a.Go b. Carcassonne (sco1ing rather than conflict) • Adjacent conflict (wargames) often v,~th dice or cards, sometimes wiili "combat tables" • Action at a distance (artillery, ship combats) • T1ick-taking ("highest" wins, many va1iations) • "Odds"-The strength of tile piece makes a difference (strengtl1 makes no difference in chess, pawn can take queen) • Capture vs. eliminate

a. Captured unit may be recovered/reused in some games, eliminated can be rebuilt in many b. Captured can even be used by the captor (card games) c. In some games, when it's gone, it's gone "Bump" other piece to another location (as opposed to back into a pool) a. Backgammon/pachesi b. Some family games c. Some card games • Resource comparison (another fonn of "highest," but not confined to one card/ piece) (Tigris and Euphrates) • Often shoot from a distance at a target (shooters, RTS) 9. Economy/Resource Acquisition/Conversion (There Can Be Combinations of These Methods) None (or unlimited pool of pieces) a. Tic-tac-toe b.Go Pool of pieces/cards (possibly including those that have been eliminated) to choose from : a. Dominoes b. Block games (wargames) c. Many card games d. CCG-player can customize his pool (he puts his deck together) Resource economy. Something affords the player resomces (territory, buildings, "resource centers ")- may be something they can take from others (many games a re resource management exercises, in the end) a. "Increase Points" in Britannia-like games b. Resource points in Axis & Allies c. Risk: ownership of regions provides extra annies d. Monopoly: passing Go; also getting money from players as rent e. Diplomacy: supply centers f. Die Macher: funds Prerequisites to using resources a. Buildings (as in Warcraft II and many RTS video games) b. "Industrial centers" c. Cities or supply centers (certain fixed locations) • Special resomces/actions a. Collect and tum in set of cards (Risk) or other items ("wood and gold")

b. Special cards ("Event Cards") e.g., "Take card from opponent's hand" card c. Promote a pawn (chess) d. "King" a piece (checkers) e. "Lands" in Magic: The Gathe,·ing must be "tapped" when using spells Supply lines (unit must have unblocked access to a resource location) a. Mostly in wargames, and often not in those b. Trade routes Pay maintenance to continue to have the piece (ratl1er rare) Limitations on number of pieces a. You can't promote a piece unless it is "dead" (chess) b. Cannot have more pieces tllan the piece mix provided in tile game (quite common)

B. Som e Books About Gam e Design No book, ce1tainly not one tllis sho1t, can answer all questions about game design. There are dozens of books about game design and related topics. Most of them are exclusively about video game design, a few just about the tabletop, and the book you're reading is unique because we use tabletop games to help us learn to design video games. Books about video game design often don't say much about tl1e game design process, being more about analyzing games or about larger issues of the nature of "play" rather than about designing games. This short list includes books that I think are particularly worthwhile. While not all of them are still in plint, you can often buy used books tl1rough the big on line booksellers. Fundamentals ofGame Design (2nd edition). Ernest Adams. New Riders 2009. Paperback, 700 pages (plus online additions). Wlitten as a textbook, with all that implies. Attempts to be exhaustive/comprehensive. I have used a previous edition as a textbook in classes. Unfortunately, the book is so long that college students tend not to read it. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Eric Zimmennan and Katie Salen. MIT Press, 2003. Pasteboard, 688 pages. While tlus book is very ofte n recommended, it is too academic for many readers. The first 80 pages are about defining what a game is, and at the end of it, I'm not sure if you've learned much that helps you actually design games. The Gamemaker's Apprentice: Game Development for Beginners. Jacob Habgood, Mark Ovennars, Phil Wilson. Apress, 2006. Full color paperback, 336 pages. The game design advice is excellent, though the primary purpose is to help you learn how to use Gamemaker, a simple free engine for making 20 games. Using this book, people with no plior game production s kills can create clones of classic 2D games like Space Invaders, Galaga, and PacMan. Overmars is the creator of Gamemaker. Habgood and others have also wlitten 771e Game Maker's Compa11io11 (Apress 2010). Chal/engesJo,-Game Designers. Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber. Charles River Media,

2008. Paperback 352 pages. The exercises in this book do not require programming or art skills, hence are ideal for beginning game designers.

Theory of Fun for Game Design, by Raph Koster. Paraglyph Press, 2004. "Does for games what Understanding Comics did for sequential art" (Cory Doctorow). In a book that is visual as well as textual Koster builds on the theory of "flow" discussed in Chapter 2 of this book. Game Design: Principles, practice, and techniques-The ultimate guide for the aspiring game designer. Jim Thompson, Barnaby Berbank-Green, Nie Cusworth. Wiley, 2007. Full color paperback, 192 pages including brief index and glossa1y . This is a very good book, particularly for teens, though it isn't a book about game design, it is about game production, how video games are made. It is written primarily by a teacher, and makes strong use of color and illustrations. Each topic is covered in just two facing pages, usually. In this book there is almost no recognition-in common with most other books about video games-That you can plan everything about a game down to a '1'," b ut you won't really know whether you've got something good until you have played a prototype.

Break Into the Game Industry: How to Get a Job Making Video Games by Ernest Adams. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media; 2003. Paperback, 352 pages. I used this as a textbook in my Intro to Gaming Class, and was very pleased with the quality of advice. Read it if you're interested in making video games as a career. A new book on the same topic by Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber should be worth looking at. Chris Crawford 011 Game Design by Chris Crav.ford. New Riders, 2003. I listened to Crawford speak at a convention about thi1ty years ago, and listened to him again in 2004 at a teachers' conference. He is a man of strong opinions and unusual ideas, one of the early computer game creators. New Rules for Classic Games by R. Wayne Schmittberger. Wiley, 1992. 245 page trade paperback, does just what it says, showing how you can easily alter traditional games. The Game hwento1·'s Guidebook: How to Invent and Sell Board Games, Card Games, RolePlaying Games, & Everything in Between! Brian Tinsman. Morgan James, 2008. Paperback, 263 pages. While tl1is is aimed at tabletop games, much of the advice applies to indie video games as well. It is a book about how to market your design, not about game design itself, so it addresses topics not addressed in the book you're reading. Paid to Play: The Business ofGame Design by Keith A. Meyers. Self-published through iUniverse, Inc. 2008. 89 pages 9" by 6" (yes, a very small book). About $20. Also, there is another book of the same name, except different s ubtitle, about video games. Don't get confused. As the subtitle indicates, this book is not about how to design a game but about the process that game design is a part of, where you start with ideas and end up with a published game, whether licensed to a publisher or self published.

The autlior has worked in tlie game industry for more than 20 years, sometimes for publishers, sometimes for retailers, now for himself as a designer. I first encountered him through a newsletter he used to publish for game inventors. That word "inventors" is important because he talks p1~marily about the toy and game industry (where designers are often called inventors) ratlier than about tlie hobby game industry. In particular the games tliat he talks about are very simple, and that may be why he feels he

can wait until the game is essentially set before he writes the mies. Unde,-stancling Comics: 111e lnvisibleA,-t, by Scott McLoud. Harper Paperbacks, 1994. This fascinating book explains so much about how people understand visuals, and how stories are told through visuals, that it is often recommended to anyone who wants to create video games. The book itself tells its stoty visually as a comic book, not through typical text.

C. Classic Games an Aspiring Game Designer Should Know Much of good game design is built on what has gone before. If you want to be a game designer you ought to be familiar with some of the seminal games of the tabletop and video game industties. There are lots oflists of such games; here's mine. Video games and tabletop games are separated, but a game designer of either type really ought to know most of them. "Know the game" doesn't mean you need to play it, although there are many people who would say yes you do. Some people have the notion that you cannot know a game unless you have played. Yet I've seen many cases where somebody played a game once and still has no clue what it's really about. I learn more about games from watching people play, reading the mies/manual, talking with people who play the game a lot, and reading comments at online sites such as Gamasutra and BoardGameGeek/Videogamegeek. However you do it, you should understand the essentials of the game and why it's important to the development of games. As such, the list doesn't necessarily include the first game to have ce1tain characteristics,

because that game may not have succeeded in the marketplace, whereas a successor is much more well-knov.'11. For example, The Sims is much more well-known than its predecessor Little Compute,- People. And Dungeons & Dragons is far better kno\\'11 than the few roleplaying games that preceded it. Moreover, not all of these games are excellent games, but they have had a strong effect on gaming, for example Monopoly. The alphabetical order entties include approximate year of origin and sometimes the platfonn and games of the same type that had great impact on gaming. Video Games

Video games have become such a big industty over the years, bigger than the film industty, that we could list dozens of important games. The "right" number for this list is an arbitraty selection. Many of these are games that made a new genre stand out. Where games are listed in parentheses they are possible substitutes similar to the first one but usually more recent. Civilization series. (1991, DOS) The epitome of tum-based strategy games. The player begins with a single settler and plays into the modem age and beyond. Wins can be through militaty conquest, culttire, technology. Only in recent versions, however, could you play against other people instead of against computer-controlled settlers. Colossal Cave/Aclventure/Zork. (1976, PDP 11 and many others) These were the original text-based adventure games, where you had to guess at the right syntax to get something done and where logic took a back seat.

Dance, Dance Revolution. (1998, arcade and many others). Founder of the dance genre. Donkey Kong and Ma,-io series (Sonic series, P1·ince ofPersia, Tomb Raider series). (1981,

arcade and Nintendo platforms) The little Italian plumber was one of the first recognizable characters in games. Donkey Kong founded the platfonner genre. Doom (Wolfenstein, Quake, Team Fortress, Halo). (1993, DOS). Wildly popular shooter that looked 3-D but was still two-dimensional. Fallout (III) series. (1997, Windows). Role-playing games that are not fantasy but post apocalyptic. Farmville. (2009, Facebook). The player manages a fam1. The social network game that really launched the platform, though not the first (and it is itself reported to be a clone of Farm Town). Probably the most-played video game ever. Final Fantasy VII (and se1ies). (1997, PlayStation). The most famous story- and characterdriven games. Grand Theft Auto series. (1997, many platforms). A game famous both for being a "sandbox" or open world game where players were not required to follow a linear story, and a game that is regarded in many qua1ters as morally reprehensible because the players can nm people over and kill police. Guitar Hero (Rock Band). (2005, many platfo1ms). A relatively new genre that was massively popular for a while, and is an example of a game that lets players act out their dreams, in this case of being a rock star. Half-Life (Half-Life 2). (1998, Windows and many others). This game went so far beyond the normal boundaiies of shooters, survival honor, and adventure that it has become legendary. Katamari Damacy. (2004, PlayStation 2). This is actually a toy rather than a puzzle or game. Some people play it as a contest, demonstrating how unusual video "games" can be. The player controls a sticky ball that he rolls, which gradually accumulates things as it gets larger. This may not sound like much, but people love to play. King's Quest (Escape from Monkey Island, Grim Fandango). (1984, DOS). Graphic adventure games. For most people these are much more engaging, and more complex, than textbased adventures, because the clues can be more complex and can be visual. Madden Football series. (1988, Apple II and now most platforms). The quintessential modem sports video game, named after the Super Bowl winning football coach and color commentator. Master of Orion II (Sins of a Solar Empire). (1996, DOS and Windows). A premier example of a 4X game (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and exterminate). Colonization, war, and technology in outer space. Microsoft Flight Simulator seiies. (1982, DOS). The 01iginal vehicle simulation. Myst series. (1993). An example of a game whose strong appeal was its graphics. An adventure game that appealed so stmngly to women that for several years it was the best selling video game ever. NetHack/Rogue. (1980, DOS). Free dungeon crawl games done entirely with ASCII graphics (using symbols that are part of the standard alphabet plus character sets built into the computer). Despite having no tme graphics it's a very engaging game that people love even today, another example of how enjoyable video games need not use fancy graphics.

Pac-Man. (1980, Arcade). Perhaps the first game with a recognizable (though not humanlike) "character." Also the first game (assisted by Ms. Pac-Man) that appealed strongly to females. More than a decade after its appearance in arcades this game was finally "beaten" as someone played through all 255 levels, eating all the ghosts, not losing a single life. Pong. (1972, Arcade). Two paddles, and a ball going back and forth. Unlike most early video games it could (in some versions) be one person against another rather than only one person against the computer. This was the game that started the video arcade craze in the early 1980s. Its simplicity did not prevent people from playing it for hours. A game designer should always remember: complexity is not necessarily good. Populous (Black and White). (1989, DOS, Atari ST, and Amiga). Original "god" game. Each player is a god trying to gain followers and take followers away from the opponents in a variety of ways, many of them violent. Resident Evil series. (1996, Sony platforms). These are outstanding examples of the survival hon-or genre, and perhaps its notoriety is aided by a series of successful movies. (Most movies based on video games are pretty bad.) Space Invaders. (1978, Arcade, 1980, Atari 2600). In some sense the original shooter. This game, along with Pong, introduced many people to electronic gaming. Street Fighter series (Morta/ Kombat). Most Jong lasting of the mano-a-mano fighting games. Super Smash Brothers. (1998, Nintendo platforms). A not-so-se1~ous brawling game that incorporates characters from many other games, one of its hallmarks. Tetris (Bejeweled, Peggie). (1986, many platforms). An interactive puzzle that can be a real catharsis, played for decades in many different versions all over the world. As differently shaped blocks fall down the screen the player must move and rotate them to end up in the most advantageous position. Thief: The Dark Project (Thief II, Rainbow Six). (1998, Windows). This staited a genre of games something like shooters except that you succeed through stealth rather than by acting like Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Commando. Total Annihilation (Command & Conquer, WarCraft If). (1997, Windows). One of the great early RTS (real-time strategy) games, though not the first. World of Wm·craft (Everquest, Ultima Online). (2004, Windows and Mac). This MMO is listed rather than an early one because of its massive financial success. In most respects it's just another role-playing game, but one played by millions on line. Zelda series. (1993, Nintendo platforms). This Nintendo flagship game is an early example of a video game with role-playing elements. Tabletop Garnes

Blokus. A completely abstract game that has nonetheless become very popular with families, and one that uses no dice or other random elements. Bridge (Traditional). Very popular trick taking and bidding game. Requires four players in two partnerships.

Carcassonne. The most popular tile laying game. (Dominoes, also a tile laying game, isn't listed because Carcassonne is so much better known amongst hobby gamers.) Represents

towns and roads and farmers' fields. Chess. (Medieval or older) This very old game is so widespread that if you don't know how to play you should learn. Cosmic Encounter. A game dominated by special powers unique to each player. Vaguely represents an interstellar war. Craps. (Traditional) This very simple gambling dice game is listed because you should understand the probabilities involved. And that you should always bet against the shooter.

Diplomacy. (1959) The quintessential game of negotiation and backstabbing for seven players. One of the more intense tabletop games, sometimes leading to broken friendships. Somewhat abstractly represents World War I. Dungeons & Dragons. (1974) This fantasy game is the founder of the tabletop role-playing game genre. A large proportion of video game methods and conventions derive from Dungeons & Dragons. There are four quite different editions of Dungeons & Dragons, and familiarity with other tabletop role-playing games serves just as well. Go. (Ancient) An East Asian game of great depth, probably older than chess. 111e strategy of smTotmding the opposition is also quite unlike most Western games.

Magic: The Gathering. The 01iginal and still most popular collectible card game (CCG). Game shop owners will tell you that they bought their houses with the profits from selling Magic. Monopoly. TI1is is actually a weakly designed game, but because many people play with their families they have fond thoughts about playing Monopoly. They didn't actually e njoy the game much, they enjoyed the company. Pandemic. A recently published cooperative game. Players are attempting to stamp out epidemics before the world is overwhelmed. Poker. (Traditional) The premier bluffing game. Has seen a recent renaissance in the fonn of Texas hold 'em.

Puerto Rico. This very cerebral game has been called a symbolic classic of modern board games. Risk. (1959) A ve1y popular conquest game dominated by dice and often played by families. Scrabble. A cerebral crossword board game dating from around World War II. Settlers ofCatan. Simple game oftrading and settlement that has become one of the gateway board games and spawned a raft of variations. Tactics Il/Stalingrad/Ajrika KorpsjWaterloo/Gettysburg. (1959- 65) These are the early Avalon Hill wargames that showed people you could make a game that appeared to reflect history fairly well, as well as a game that was actually strategic and not a lot of dice rolling (though dice are still used to reflect the uncertainty of combat).

FURTHER READING Hobby Games: 111e Lowder.

100

Best and Family Games: 111e 100 Best, both edited by James

D. Software for Video Game Production

This is divided into two sections: software that might be used by people just beginning to make video games, and then a list of software used by professionals. The ideal would be that you would imagine what your game is like and it would s uddenly be there on the screen, but that's not going to happen. A video game is software, and software requires computer programming. Beginners cannot, practically, create games for consoles because specialized kits are required, and the console makers don't sell them to "just anybody." So beginners almost always start with PC games. An exception is Microsoft's XNA, a fonn of the C# Express programming language, which allows creation of games that run on the XBox 360 as well as the PC. Much of the software listed in this section is free to download, because professional software can be very expensive.

Gan1e1naker. Gamemaker (Lite version free from yoyogames.com, Pro version $40 activation) enables drag-and-drop programming of relatively simple 2D arcade-style games. It includes a scripting language for advanced use, and you can see the scripts it makes as you use the drag-and-drop interface to make a game. It excels at 2D action games such as those that were hits in the Sos, e.g., Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Asteroids, Galaga, or an elaborate Super-Breakout are relatively easy to mimic, and you can even get something like Zelda on a limited basis. It is not appropriate for extensive RPGs, board games, modern-style shooters, or RTS. Suppo1t for mouse and joystick are included. I strongly recommend the book Gamemaker's Apprentice as a way to learn the program. Just about anyone who likes video games can learn about game production with this program and the book, seeing how programming, art, sound, and design work together. The Pro version is needed for more complex games, but the Lite version is fine for most purposes.

CorelDraw, Adobe Illustrator. Professional drawing programs. These are vector graphic packages that are more powerful for drawing than bit-map software such as Photoshop. They are used to draw in two dimensions, though as with any drawing a skilled artist can draw something that looks three dimensional. Inkscape. This free program does the same kinds of things as Core!Draw/ Illustrator http:// inkscape.org/ Photoshop. The professional bit-map software. Used for creating textures and 2D sprite graphics such as those used in Gamemaker. Gimp. This free program is an equivalent of PhotoShop for creating or editing bit-mapped images. A vector graphics program such as Core!DRAW or Adobe Illustrator, or the free downloadable program Inkscape, is better for most purposes than a bitmap/raster program such as Photoshop. Vector graphics are defined by fornmlas which make changing the size very easy to do and also make for small files because the program only stores the formulas. Bitmap programs keep track of the location of every dot. This makes for very large files in some cases, and can also make it difficult to change size.

Blender. This is free 3-D modeling software. It is difficult to learn; fortunately, you're not likely to be doing much 3-D work as a beginning game designer. 3D modeling is used for 3D

video games and movies.

Torque. This is a game engine has often been used for small commercial games. It has lost favor as Unity gains popularity.

Unity. This slick 3-D game engine is the number one choice for people making small commercial games.

Google Sketchup. Sketchup easily lets you make simple 3-D diagrams. It is often used by level designers to mock up indoor levels. http://sketchup.google.com/down/oad/gsu.html Level Creation Practice: get a version of Unreal Tournament Ill that includes the level editor software. The deluxe version also includes 20 hours of tutorial videos for the editor. If you like fantasy, try Neverwinter Nights I's editor. Both of these games can be purchased, new, for $10 at time of this writing. There are many other powerful scenario editors in games such as Civilization, Spore, Little Big Planet, and Sins ofa Solar Empire, and as time passes new games with good editors will be released. Software commonly used by video game studio professionals (keep in mind that this can change from one year to the nex1):

3d Modeling: 3ds Max, Maya; Z-Brnsh, Blender. Some of these have free trial downloads. 3D modeling is particularly difficult to learn on your own. Programming: C+ + is the most commonly used language, distantly followed by C#. Java is often used for cell phone games. Microsoft Visual Studio is the commonly used programming package.

Game Engines: Unreal Ill engine; Gameb1yo is no longer supported. For independent developers, Unity.

Levels: Google Sketchup, Unreal III editor (if Unreal Engine is being used to make the game).

Bit-Map Graphics: Photoshop, Gimp. Databases/Lists: Excel. (There are ex'J)ensive specialized databases associated with tracking versions of software, as well.) FURTHER READING "Game engines" in Wikipedia.

E. Software for Tabletop/ Paper Game Production We can divide the software you might use into four catego1ies: database, word processing, card making, and graphic components including maps.

Database. You need databases for two reasons, firs t to keep track of your ideas and notes, and second to keep track of tables that might be included in the game. I use a venerable but expensive program called Info Select, a text database program that makes it very easy to find specific infonnation. Microsoft One-Note is a more well-known example. But you can use word processing files if you really want to. A spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel or the spreadsheet contained in the Open Office suite will serve. Whatever it is, it must be searchable. Word Processing. Any good word processor v.>ill serve. Microsoft Word (part of Office) is

adequate; I prefer WordPerlect, which seems to work better with business card fonnats that I use to make game cards. Open Office is a free (downloadable) program that works a lot like Microsoft Office. Potential publishers will want to see things in Word fonnat or as PDFs. Even if you want to self publish your game you probably don't need a desktop publishing program. This depends partly on your skills with the computer. Open Office: http://download.openofjice.org/

Card Making. Some use WordPerlect and the Avery business card label form for simple cards, though it can be frustrating when graphics are involved. There are several free downloadable programs designed to let you make fancy cards such as those found in collectible card games. Nandeck is powerful but difficult to learn. Magic Set Editor, designed for Magic: The Gathering, is also popular and perhaps easier to use. http://www.11a11d.it/11a11deck/ http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/download

Maps and Other Graphic Components . CorelDRAW is especially good for maps because it can easily tile the printing on non nal sheets of paper so that you can tape a large board together. But CorelDRAW is awkward for shading areas, so when you want to make a board look particularly good you'll probably export to Photoshop for the shading and then import back into CorelDRAW. At least one publisher uses ProFantasy Campaign Cartographer software to make his published maps. This is inexpensive software designed for people to make maps of their fantasy RPG campaigns. http://www.profa11tasy.com/ Another program of this type, v.,jth a free version available, is Hexographer, http://www.hexographer.com, and there are others. Microsoft Visio is designed to create diagrams. Unless you have access to it through MSDNAcademic Alliance then this expensive program is probably not w01th the cost. Microsoft PowerPoint or the OpenOffice equivalent can do credibly well but is not nearly as powerful or easy to manipulate as Visio.

F. S ources of Pieces for Tabletop/ Paper Games You may be able to cannibalize old games, and some people check thrift shops and yard/ garage/boot sales just to purchase old games in order to use the pieces. Rolco Games may be the only American company that actually produces smaJI plastic pieces for games for sale to individuals. http://www.rolcogames.com/. In the UK try Plastics for Games : http://www.p4g.co.11k/11s/11s_ i11dex. asp. Wooden pieces tend to come from Europe. Try http://www.meep/epeop/e.com/prod11cts.php?cat=44 or do a search for sources. Wood tends to cost more than plastic. See also http://www.spielmaterial.de/e11glish5/ EAi Education and other school supply companies market many plastic and even wooden items that can be used for game pieces, as well as all kinds of dice including blank ones. These can often be purchased in bulk. I buy plastic blocks and stackable pieces by the thousand, for example. Many of these are listed as "manipulatives" or under "math." http:// www.eaied11cario11.com/ You can buy blank cardboard counters, often used in wargames, from some game publishers. EAi sells one inch plastic squares in two thicknesses and four colors. You can also

use counter templates from graphics programs or even spreadsheets to print counters onto paper, then glue the paper to cardboard to be cut out. Your local tabletop game shop, if you have one, may sell some useful items, certainly dice.

G. Online Resources (Websites, Files, Forums) Gamasutra. Despite the unfortunate cutesy name, this is the primacy site for video game industry professionals. You can learn a lot about the video game industty just by reading the news articles. It also hosts many biogs, among them my "expert blog." http://gamasutra. com/ GameCareerGuide. This is the primacy site for people who want to get into the game industty. The archives go back many years, just as for Gamasutra. http://www.gamecareerguide. com/ GameDevNet. An alternative to Gamasutra. Pretty strongly programmer-oriented. http:// www.gamedeu.net/ Boardgamegeek, a general online community for board games, has a game design forum with many interesting discussions going back years. There is a lot of unhelpful chit-chat as well. Recently they have sta1ted http://uideogamegeek.com/, doing tl1e same for video games, and http://rpggeek.com/, for RPGs. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/ Dozens ofblogs discuss game design. Start with the following, or just do a Google search: Gamasutra "expert" biogs. http://gamasutra.com/b/ogs/expert/ PulsipherBoardgameDesign. http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/ Teaching Game Design (Ian Schreiber). http://teachi11gdesig11.b/ogspot.com/ The Boardgame Designers Fomm is an online discussion group that can be useful for many purposes. http://bgdfcom/ Gamedesign-1 Yahoo Group. Founded in 2000 for video game design, nearly 10,000 messages. http://games.gro11ps.yahoo.com/gro11p/gamedesig11-l/ Yahoo Groups Board Game Design often involves questions by novice designers. There is a Jot about self-publishing. The archives are all there, so read all those old discussions and messages. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/ BoardGa111eDesig11/ USENET rec.game.design is often overmn with SPAM. http://groups.google.com/ gro11p/rec.games.desig11/topics?pli=1 The !GOA has a usefttl Web site, though not focused on game design. They also offer an example game curriculum (list of categories and subjects). Look at the game design section: http://wiki.igda.org/index.php/Game_Educah·o11_SIG/Curricu/11m.

Glossary f or Ga m e Designers 111is glossaiy is •mitten specifically for game designers, which means it has many entries that apply to game design but not game marketing or video game production. Furthermore, it covers both video games and tabletop games. "Computer games" and "video games" are used interchangeably to refer to PC, console, and handheld gaming.)

AAA list games-These are \,jdeo games that are adve1tised frequently and sold in a great variety of non-game stores s uch as Best Buy and Walmart. 111eir budgets are generally $20 million or more (much more for MMO's). The most successful ones sell many millions of copies. The most successful pay-to-play MMO peaked at over 11 milJion subscribers. Abstract-Bearing no relation to/connection v.,jth the real world. Checkers, go, and chess are abstract. (Chess is supposed to have reflected actual warfare at some distant date, but that reflection has been lost over time.) Although Monopoly really has nothing to do with the real world, it is intended to represent real estate dealings and is not regarded as an abstract game. Accessibility-An accessible game is easy to learn to play, though not necessarily easy to master. Chess is an accessible game that is hard to master. Video games are often accessible, as players don't even need to read mles to play. Adapter (a player type) -The adapter is in between the planner and improviser. He or she likes things to change a fair bit from time to time or moment to moment, but still wants to be able to plan ahead a few turns or a few minutes as the case may be. Adventure Game-Originally text only, these video games emphasize puzzle solving to achieve some story goal. Examples: Zork, Myst, Grim Fandango, Monkey Island. Agent-In game usage, an agent is a middleman between game creators and game publishers who helps arrange a deal and takes a percentage of the revenue. Similar to an agent for book authors, except that most successful authors use agents, while most freelance game designers do not. Al (Artificial Intelligence)-A video game can be mined by weak "artificial intelJigence" because the computer opponent(s) will present no challenge and no resemblance to human players. A solitaire tabletop game provides a computer opponent of sorts, but it cannot be sophisticated enough to properly be called an Al. Analog-Something that has a continuously changing range of values or measurements, as opposed to digital where there are discrete values thatjump from one to another. A slide rule, a device used by engineers before electronic calculators existed, is an analog computer. This is also used at times to mean "non-electronic" games, as opposed to "digital" (electronic) games.

Analysis Paralysis-A player presented with too many decisions, or too many plausible choices for a decision, may effectively "freeze up" and do nothing for quite a while. In a tumbased game analysis paralysis slows down the game for everyone, and can be quite unpleasant for the "paralyzed" person. Many games, consequently, are designed to avoid this situation of too many decisions or too many plausible choices. Anticipatory Conflic t -This kind of conflict is even less direct tlian indirect conflict. It

occurs when one player makes a choice, commonly a selection of something, in order to prevent another player from making that choice- deliberately anticipating the other player's intentions.

ARGs (Alternate Reality Games)-Games that intrude into the real world in some significant way, for example one of the early commercial ARGs emailed players and even placed phone calls to them in the real world as pa1"t of the game. Art-Games are "art" in the broad sense, but the players don't care. People who are not hardcore video gamers, a nd often not video gamers at all, often think of video games as "works of the hands" (which Dr. John Sharp calls mechanical arts) rather than "works of the mind" (which Sharp calls liberal arts). The latter gets a lot more respect as "art" from the general populace. Anyone who understands games realizes that they are works of the mind, but most non-gamers don't understand games, tending to lump them in with "kids' stuff." A few games may be "high a1t." In that sense, "Alt is about changing the world; entertainment is about leisure" (Ian Bogost). Some players may care about that.

Asymmetric- In games, starting positions that are not identical. Historical war simulations are asymmetric. Atmosphere-A story or history that a game ostensibly represents, so that the game may provide a feel for the story, but it actually has no effect on how the game plays or how it's constructed. This is as opposed to a theme which does have an effect on how the game plays and how it's constructed. The game Monopoly is so far removed from the real world that now that we would say it has an atmosphere rather than a theme. Auction or Bidding Game-A game in which a principal mechanism sees players bidding agains t one another to achieve some end. Bidding could be for purchasing goods, it could be for securing a pa1ticular order of play, or it could be for some other purpose.

Avatar- Something, usually some form of an electronic character but possibly just a token, that represents the player of the game within the game. Avatars are very common in video games but can also be seen in board games, for example the tokens in Monopoly. A game becomes more personal and probably more involving when you can see yourself, especially if"you" can be killed. Balance- See "play balance." Bell Curve- Also called a normal or Gaussian curve. This curve represents a probability distribution where some events (near the top of the curve) are much more likely than others (near the e nds). Rolling two dice repeatedly and summing the result gives a bell curve. Game designers must understand simple probabilities such as this. Beta (Beta-Test)- The tenn often used to refer to the game that is still in play testing stage. Sometimes we also talk about alpha testing which comes before the beta-testing. In that case, beta testing usually involves people who are not active in creating the game.

Blind-testing-A form of playtesting where the designer is not involved, so that the players are playing a game j ust as though they had bought it and taken it out of the box. For tabletop games this is the ultimate test of the clarity and completeness of the rules. Books- There are dozens of books about game design. Most of them are about video game design, written by people who have been involved in video game production, and actually say little about the process of game design, devoting much space to analysis of games and

to marketing of video games. There are also a few academically derived books about games, where you can see such things as So pages devoted to defining what "game" means. Borrowing-Vi1tually every game designer bo1Tows ideas from other games by other game designers. Sometimes they don't borrow but appear to because they've had the same ideas that many other people have had. Virtually all games are built upon what has come before, so don't worry if you find yourself bo1TOwing an idea from here, and an idea from there.

Camping-In video game shooters, staying in one well-concealed, easily-defended place in order to shoot lots of competitors without being vulnerable. This is often regarded as "unsporting" if not unmanly, yet if players can succeed by doing this, some of them will. The more general ex'J)ression of this is "turtling." Cards-As a tool in the game designer' s toolbox, cards provide potentially colorful but nonnally hidden infonnation. Games using a standard 52 card playing card deck are typically games of hidden information, as opposed to traditional board games which are typically games of perfect information. Event cards in board games can provide a great deal of variety and replayability. Video games can incorporate the equivalent of event cards, but rarely do. Card-driven Game (CDG)-A two-player wargame in which play is dominated by cards representing historical events, and enabling a player to do certain things. Without the right card(s) a player may not be able to attack at all. Each player has a hand, and the deck may be shared, or there may be a separate deck for each player. (This structure varies occasionally, of course, e.g. more than two players.) Casual Game-Video games that provide a short, episodic ex'J)erience, and which people play to relax rather than to "beat the game" or prove that they're bad-ass gamers, are usually called casual games. Versions of solitaire played with playing cards are casual games. Casual video games are much less expensive to make, and usually less expensive to buy, than AAA games. CCGs (Collectible Card Games)-Players purchase randomly selected sets of cards and sometimes trade cards in order to constrnct decks that they use to play against one another, usually in a two player game. Many of the cards break the standard mies of the game temporarily by virtue of some special power. The manufacturers continue to create new cards that gradually render some of the old cards useless or pointless. Sometimes older cards are banned because they have proven to be too powerful. A game session itself is relatively short; much of the interest in the game comes from the meta-game of building specialized decks of cards to take advantage of the special powers of specific cards. Challenges-Many games are a series of challenges, which may be physical or mental. Single player video games are challenges devised by the designer and posed by the computer. Typical tabletop games are devised by the designer to enable players to challenge one another. In every case there must be some action a player can take to meet the challenge. Some people would go so far as to define a game as a se1ies of challenges and actions. Chaos-The more chaotic the game is, the more it changes from tum to tum or from minute to minute, whether this change is caused by other players or by non-player factors including sheer randomness. The more chaotic the game is, the more it suits the improviser player type; the less chaotic, the more it suits the planner type. Character Class-In role-playing games, the profession of a character that helps define

what he or she can and cannot do. Chrome-Additional mies, often accompanied by pieces or cards, that add to the atmosphere of a game or help implement the theme. At the same time "chrome" makes the game more complex. Leader pieces and leader rules in a wargame can be a fom1 of chrome. Insofar as the computer keeps track of details, it's more practical to add chrome to video games than to tabletop games.

Cinematic-A movie inserted into a video game to help advance the nan-ative. Now largely displaced by cut scenes. Clarity-An impmtant characteristic of any game, but especially of game rules, is that they must be clear to the player. If players don't understand what to do or don't know why they do it then they're less likely to play the game con-ectly and they're less likely to enjoy it. While video games have no wTitten mies, the mechanics of the rules are enforced in the software, and if these are not clear then the game will be less enjoyable. Classical (Player S tyle )- 111is player nies to know each game inside-out. He wants to learn the best counter to every move his opponent(s) might make. He takes nothing for granted, paying attention to little details which probably won't matter but which in certain cases could be important. The Classical player does not avoid taking chances, but he carefully calculates the consequences of his risks. He dislikes unnecessary risks. He prefers a slow but steady certain win to a quick but only probable win. The Classical gamer concentrates on eliminating en-ors rather than on discovering brilliant coups. Collectible Games- While collectible card games are common, there are other kinds of collectible games using collectible chips or collectible chess-like pieces, or some other item. Some collectible card games don't actually have cards that you can hold in your hand because they are done purely in online video. (Another meaning of "collectible" refers to the interests of people who like to collect games about certain subjects. 111e game is not regarded as collectible unless all the components, even the cardboard left over after cardboard pieces are punched out, are still with the game.)

Commercial Viability-Many novices design a game which is practically unmarketable, that is, is not commercially viable because very few people will buy it regardless of how good the game is to play. This is frequently because the game uses components that are easily found at home. E.g., it's really hard to sell a game that uses only a standard deck of cards, or a game that uses a standard chess set. The rules are going to become available to people on line in some way, so if the components are easily available at home most people aren't going to buy the game, they'll just use what they have at home. Yet there are a few commercial games that de1ive closely from traditional card games but change components slightly (Sequence, Wizard). Complexity-While some designers of video games may argue that complexity connibutes to a feeling of authenticity or immersion, many other designers would say that complexity is undesirable. This is certainly true in most tabletop games. Frequently a novice game designer \\~II make things unnecessarily complex. A major objective of most game designers is to remove complexity that is not necessary to the quality of the game. But someone who is designing an interactive puzzle, as are many video games, may believe that complexity connibutes to the challenges of the puzzle. Of course, a game with poor programming, or poorly written rules, may be perceived as more complex tl1an it ought to be.

Contest-Any activity that can be timed, that one person can do faster than another, can be tumed into a contest, but contests are not necessarily games and often are not. People who type like crazy for 10 minutes and whoever typed the most words "wins" are engaged in a contest. It is a competition, but not a game-there is no aspect of game design to this contest. A race is usually much like a contest except that all participants are on the same field of

play at the same time and may at least slightly affect one another. Also, there may be some aspects of game design to a race, which is a reason why NASCAR, Fonnula 1, etc. keep tweaking the rules. Convergence-This word has many applications, but in the realm of games it refers to the way that video games are coming more to resemble tabletop games and tabletop games are coming more to resemble video games. For example, some video games are now designed for multiple sides where people play against other people, whereas some board games have become much like multiplayer solitaire, more like puzzles than games. Cooperative Gam es-The primary purpose in a cooperative game is for all of the players to collectively beat the game. Occasionally there is a traitor and the traitor is against the other players. These games are much easier to do with the computer than on the tabletop thanks to the power of the compute r to provide opposition, but the advantage of the tabletop version is that all the players are sitting around the table, making cooperation simple. Technically, in a "collaborative" game, players may suggest specific plays to one another and the game amounts to one side of several players against the game (Pandemic). In the (rare) tmly cooperative game the players are independent agents who must cooperate in order to win, but only one actually wins. Games with a traitor begin to resemble this form. Copyright-Law that protects a pa1ticular expression in words or pich1res. Others cannot legally copy that expression, but they can use the ideas expressed, because game ideas cannot be copyiighted. Artwork, photographs, and other visual means of expression can be copyrighted. The law has changed so that now a person has copy1ight in whatever they create as soon as they create it. Creativity-Creativity is an important but small component of game design. Most of the work involved in the game is fairly straightforward thinking and problem-solving. This is not to say that it's easy, but it does not involve a great deal of creativity. Novice game designers often have a confused idea that game design is all about creativity, which is very far from the tmth. Cut Scen e - A video created using the game program rather than a separate video editor, and inserted into the game to advance the story. As computers and game software have become more powerful cut-scenes have replaced more expensive cinematics. Deadline-The date by which something needs to be done (see milestone). Development (1)- ln the world at large, development in relation to computers means computer programming. In the video game indust1y development refers to all of the tasks that the game creators accomplish. The term game creator rather than game developer is better as it makes absolutely clear that programming is not the principal activity in video game creation. Development (2)- ln the tabletop game world a developer is someone assigned by the prospective publisher of a game to fmther modify and refine a gam e after it is received from

the designer. The developer may function like an editorofa book, or he may in effect be a codesigner of the game.

Depth-This generally applies to games where thinking is a major activity if not the major activity of the players. A game with little depth is easy to play well, whereas a game with a lot of depth requires a lot of experience and study to play well. Chess has a lot of depth. Monopoly and most other traditional family games have veiy little depth. Design Document-If the video game has passed beyond the pitch and game concept/ treatment stages to actual pre-production, then the designer(s) will write fairly long documents describing all the details of the game, so that artists, programmers, sound people, and others can actually make the game. Ideally these people read the game design document, but in practice they often don't and simply ask the designer. Ideally the document is revised to reflect changes in the game, but often this doesn't happen. Game studios are mo,~ng away from very long game design documents because they delay the game production as a whole. Dicefest-A game dominated by dice rolling-lots of dice. Examples: Risk, Axis & Allies, Yahtzee, some role-playing games. Oddly enough, there's not a similar term for games with many chance elements that are not dice, for example cards. Digital-Something that has discrete values that jump directly from one to the next as opposed to analog where values are a continuously changing range of possibilities. Dice are, technically, digital. But we must concede that most people equate "digital" with "electronic," just as they equate "computer" with electronic even though analog computers (such as slide rules and artillery ballistics calculators) preceded electronic computers.

Direct Conflict-This occurs when one player does something with the forces he controls for most or all of the game that immediately affects forces that another player controls for most or all of the game. Dominant Strategy- A general course of action that, if followed, consistently gives you as good a chance to win a game as possible. A solution to a puzzle is the dominant strategy. Good games (as opposed to puzzles) should not have dominant strategies. A dominant strategy in five player Monopoly is to buy every property you land on, and never agree to a trade that gives someone a monopoly unless you get a better monopoly. Downtime-Time when a player is not actually participating in the game, as in between one tum and the next. This is uncommon in ,~deo games where simultaneous play is the nonn. In modem games a lot of downtime is generally regarded as a flaw. Drafting game-A game where a principal mechanism is choosing a role or other function or item before someone else chooses it- like drafting college players for professional sports teams in the US, or for fantasy sports leagues. Education- It is not necessary to have a degree of any kind to work in the game industry. Probably this will no longer be true by 2025 . What tl1e game industry wants is educated people, but not educated in the sense of ha,~ng degrees, rather educated in the sense that they want to learn and are always willing to learn more. These people will look up a word when they don't know it, they'll find out how to do something when they don't know how, which may involve teaching themselves how to do it.111eywon't whine "I haven't been trained to do that." The game industry has no place for slackers or people who expect to have their hands

held.

ESRB Ratings-Video games are rated by the Entertainment Softv.•are Rating Board, an industry self-regulation body. Ratings include, EC (Early Childhood), E (Everyone), Eto+ (Everyone to and older), T (Teen), M (Mature), and AO (Adults Only). Designers need to recognize which category they're aiming for. http://www.esrb.org/ Euro Game-There are so many different definitions of "Euro game" that any attempt to characterize the entire category is likely to lead to sometimes strident disagreement. A very broad category of board and card games first made popular in Europe that de-emphasize winning and tend to avoid direct conflict in favor of indirect and anticipatory conflict. Some Euro games have been characterized as multiplayer solitaire because there is so little interaction between the players. Another well-known definition is simply "family games on steroids." Experience-Especially in the video game industry, game design improves with the experience of the designer. In the tabletop game industry it's possible for someone to design just one game but come up with a classic, such as Blok us or Pictionary. In general though, e:-.-pe1ience helps make game designers better designers. Family Game-A game that is sufficiently accessible and transparent, usually lacking depth, that groups of adults and younger children can play together. There are usually mechanisms of some sort that make it possible for Junior to "fo occasionally, or for mom and dad to let Junior win without appearing to do so. Many of the traditional games people know, such as Monopoly, S01-ry, the Game ofLife, and so on, are family games. Filler gam e-A fairly shmt and easy-to-play game, though not necessa1ily one that lacks depth, that can accommodate a range of numbers of players so that it can be played while waiting for other players to show up, or after some players have left the gaming session. Fluidity- fatent to which the game circumstances change over time. In a highly fluid tumbased game, at each tum the player will be faced with a significantly different situation. This makes it difficult to plan ahead, putting a premium on improvisation. See chaos.

Fog of War-In real wa1fare leaders rarely know exactly where the enemy is, how many there are, or what their capabilities or intentions are. This is the "fog of war." In traditional board games most of this information is obvious to the opponent. In card games most of this infomiation is hidden from the players. In typical computer games the computer hides most of this information from the players. Game-A play activity with both rules and goals and some semblance of intelligent opposition. Many things that we call games are more properly called puzzles, for example the card game Solitaire and the video game Tetris. Game Design-A combination of problem-solving and creativity used to create the framework, structure, and mechanics of games. In video games, game design also involves a great deal of communication with the people who actually make the software. Making and marketing the game is not part of game design, though very important to the success of a commercial game. Game design has little to do with visual arts and nothing to do with computer programming. Game Development-See "development." Gam e play-Gameplay is the hemt of any game. What happens? What does tl1e player DO?

Is it interesting or enjoyable (or both)?

Game Production-The entire process of creating/making a game, from beginning to distribution. Most of this process involves programming and art. Sometimes confused with game design, which is technically a subset of game production. Game Concept/freatment-A description of the game or game concept, one to several pages long, designed to interest those with funding (often publishers) so that they will support the game. There may be a shorter concept document and a longer treatment document that generally are used after a successful "pitch." Ga1ny or Garney-A play or strategy in the game that seems to take advantage of the rules without follov.~ng the spirit of the game or the theme of the game. In some circles this is perfectly acceptable, in other circles this is frowned upon. See "rnles lawyer." Gaussian Curve-See bell curve. Genre-The s ubcategory of games with fairly well-defined methods and appeal to players. In tabletop games this usually refers to the general structure, for example card game, board game, role-playing game. In \~deo games this usually refers to the types of challenges in the game. First-person shooters are a genre, as are real-time strategy games and platformers. Graphics-The ~sual aspects of a game, particularly art. Graphics are important to selling a game, but the best games are enjoyable even if the graphics are very simple. For most players graphics are ve1y much subordinate to gameplay. Successful tabletop game prototypes rarely have high quality graphics. Video gamers may be more graphically oriented than tabletop gamers. See also "prettiness." Hardcore Gamers-People for whom playing a game is an end in itself, who are egoinvolved in their game acti~ties, and who (sometimes) feel they are better than other people in some way because they're gamers. They us ually spend a great many hours playing ~deo games. To some extent we could use the word "fanatics" as a substitute. Hobby Gam es-Board and card games designed for game enthusiasts who like to play games designed for adults, not for kids. (Adult in the sense of mature and responsible, not in the sense of pornographic.) Some hobby games are wargames, but most are not. Hotseat-A ~deo game technique in which players take turns sitting at one computer, m aking their moves. Now that local area ne tworks are very common, this is rarely used. Ideas-Every game involves ideas, but specific ideas are not as important as how those ideas are put together. A new idea is very rare, in games or in anything else. An idea that is new to you is probably one that dozens ifnot hundreds of people have thought of before. It may have been used in games many times before, you just don't know those people and those games. In other words "ideas are a dime a dozen," and nobody pays for game ideas, they pay for the execution of ideas in games. Novice game designers often have the notion that they can come up with a great idea and someone else will make the game for them and they'll make tons of money from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Occasionally someone will pay for a toy idea, but usually they want to see a working version of it.)

IGDA (International Game Developers' Association)- P1incipal organization for ~deo game creators ("developers"). Immersion- Feeling like you're really into the game, as though you're really "there" in the atmosphere or theme of the game. Often, hardcore ~deo gamers and many role-playing

gamers feel that immersion is very desirable, while players of abstract games may not eiqiect any such thing (though they can become very absorbed in a game).

Improviser (player type)-An improviser likes a game where circumstances change quite noticeably if not drastically between the times he can act, so that he has to improvise what he does as he goes along. There is little opportunity for planning ahead in such a game. This is the opposite of the planner player type. Example: in some respects poker is a game for improvisers, though in other respects there is a long tenn view and long-term plans a re possible. Incremental- Something that changes slightly each time as it is done many times. In programming, incrementing a variable often involves adding one to it each time it is used. In game design you incrementally modify your game in order to make it better in light of playtesting results. Indie (Independent gam e developer)-Video games and game developers not funded by a mainstream game publisher, or not funded at all. Indirect Conflict- This occurs when one player's directly controlled forces affect another player's indirectly controlled forces or capabilities, or vice versa. One or both players may only temporarily have indirect control of the indirect forces. For example, one player of a civilized nation causes barbarian invaders to attack another civilized nation controlled by another player. The barbarians are the indirectly controlled force. A common example is use of an Event Card that causes some harm to another player's forces (famine, confusion, and so fortl1). Intellectual Property (IP)- ldentifiable characters or stories that can be owned by an individual, company, or institution, and hence cannot be used by otl1ers without paying for a license. Some intellectual property, for example Lord of the Rings, Star Wai·s, or Mickey Mouse, is ve1y valuable. Ownership is generally characterized by copyright or trademark, much more rarely by patents. Iterative-Something that is repeated over and over, probably with s mall changes. Game creation and especially play testing is iterative.

Kingmaking- If a player believes he no longer has a chance to win, but is then able to decide which otllerplayer wins (by virtue of how he plays), this is said to be king-making. Applies only in games with more than two players.

I.ARP (Live Action Role-Playing)-Players actually dress up in a LARP and possibly use props like padded swords or Nerf guns. While some regard this as juvenile, the players a re usually adults. Non-violent LARPs may be something like a myste1y dinner or weekend improvisational theater. LARPs are games, not historical re-enactments. Leader Bashing-Ganging up on the leader in a game to try to prevent him from \,~nning. This is a natural way to play, but if the design makes it too easy, the game suffers severely, as players tly to lurk in second or third place in order to jump into first at the end of the game after others bash the leader. Level Design- Many video games have multiple levels-stages, missions, or episodes of play. These are often designed by subordinate game designers called level designers. This has nothing to do witl1visual art although some level designers may provide concept art. It is much more common in video games that the level designer writes scripts, small programs, to

help individualize the level, than that he creates graphics. Levels-This tenn is used in many ways dating back to original tabletop Dungeons & Dragons, where level could refer to the experience level of the character or to the level of a dungeon, which roughly translated to the difficulty level for adventurers in that pait of the dungeon (difficulty level matches to experience level). In video games, level usually means a stage or episode or mission that a player completes on the way to completing the entire game. Any game using character levels will often be perceived as a role-playing game, though some are not actually RPGs. Marketing-A game can be excellent to play but not sell very well if there is a marketing failure. Or the game just may be difficult to market, as most abstract games are. Timing has a lot to do with this. A game that could sell very well two years from now, or two years ago, might be a failure today. In the video game industry there is very little respect between game creators and the marketers. The creators feel that the marketers don't understand the game and are only interested in "flash and trash," in a soulless feature list. Often the senior producer of a video game project spends a lot of time fending off unreasonable requests from Marketing to change the game. MDA (Mech a nics, Dynamics, Aesthetics)- A common way oflooking at game design. The mechanics (mies of the game) interact with the player(s) in dynamic ways, making some impression on the player (feelings, thoughts). Some games originate with mechanics, some with aesthetics (what you want the player to feel), some with dynamics (what you want the player to be doing). Mech anism or Mechanic-Game mies (or game programming for video games) generally describe methods by which the game moves forward, and these methods are the mechanics of the game. For example, rolling two dice and moving your token the sum of the roll around the board is a game mechanic (Monopoly). Moving one piece on an 8 I 8 square board according to the movement capability of the piece is a mechanic in chess. In video games mechanics result in challenges that players take actions (such as moving a joystick or pressing a button) to overcome. Metagame-The game above or beyond the game, the game that takes place between games. Much of the interest of collectible card games is the metagame as players try to collect the right set of cards to make a deck that is very difficult to beat. Sometimes metagame considerations influence how someone plays, for example they don't want to offend their spouse who is also playing, or they know that such and such opponent is a frequent liar in games and use that information to make decisions within the game. Milestone - The contractual date at which certain elements of a game should have reached a defined state. If a video game studio misses the milestone, at best they will not get paid, at worst the game will be canceled. Miniatures Gam e-A form of gaming using a tabletop and dozens of small metal or plastic painted figures and vehicles representing units of troops. The minis are generally required to be in groups to form coherent units. (Skim1ish games may use miniatures, as well, but figures represent individuals, not units.)

Minimax Strategy-Playing to minimize your maximum loss (or maximize your minimum

gain ). This is the mathematical game theory ideal of how one should play a game. You assume that the opposition is a pe1fect playeror players and act accordingly, which may involve using chance to decide exactly which particular strategy should be used because there is no certain best strategy. Hence "Yomi," reading the intentions of the other players, is not part of minimax.

MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online) Games-The key to MM Os is pers istence and numbers. You play a character in some fictional or hist01ical setting along with thousands of other players, and you continue to play that character for months or even years. In some games, what the players do affects the setting; in others the setting is the same for every player as they go through the game . Most games can be played solo but the more dangerous challenges require large groups of players to succeed. Some MM O's have a monthly fee, others can be played for free. MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons)- This is perhaps the original form of online game, text adventures played through a server. In other respects they resemble smaJI MMOs. Non-digital Games-Another term for tabletop or non-electronic games. Strictly speaking, many tabletop games are digital rather than an alog insofar as they involve st1ictly discrete numbers rather than continuously changin g ranges. Non-electronic Games-A less mellifluous term for tabletop games or "non -digital games." Technically, non-electronic is broader than tabletop but for practical purposes they amount to the same thing. See "analog," "digital.• Normal Curve-See bell curve. Novice/NewbiefNoobfNoobie-Someone with little or no e>.-perience in the game being played, or possibly in game playing in general. NPC (Non Player Character)-This tenn applies specifically to characters in role-playing games that are controlled by the referee or game master. It can also represent all the forces that the game designer controls and the players do not. Organized-As in organizing your game design efforts. If you're only designing one game you might get away with being disorganized . If you want to be a professional, you'll be working on many games at the same time except when there's one video game actually in production that consumes most of your time. You will have to organize your ideas, your thoughts, your testing, or you'll lose a lot of important data and information. Organized Play-Tournaments and other contests nm by or supported by the publisher of a game in order to encourage play. This is just about necessmy to the success of collectible card games. Party Game-A game well-suited to use at parties, where people like to play games that help elicit laughter, that are easy to learn to play, and that don't require concentration. The game usually accommodates a wide range of numbers of players. Apples to Apples is an example. Patent-A strong forn1 of protection of specific kinds of intellectual prope1ty that costs thousands of dollars. A patent is supposed to apply to a pa1ticular expression of an idea in some kind of device/invention, but the US patent office has become very erratic in its application of the law. Successful commercial games are almost never patented, and most game patents are faintly ridiculous to expe1ienced gamers. A sure hallmark of a novice game

designer is that he or she gets a patent for their game (which has often not been playtested thoroughly). Software tools made dming the production of a video game are sometimes patented.

PBM/ PBEM (Play by M ail/ Play b y E-m a il)-Some tabletop games can be played by ordinary mail or email, with the assistance of various aids such as Cyberboardand Vassal for mapping or dice rolling. Play-by-mail chess and Diplomacy, for example, have existed for decades. This is not the same as a game having an electronic, on line version. Perfect Information-In games of perfect infonnation the only data hidden from an opponent is a player's intentions. Chess, go, checkers, and many other traditional board games are perfect information games. Perfectionism -The intention that everything should be perfect when one finishes a job or project. Often a perfectionist ends up taking a ve1y long time in order to make sure everything is perfect. Game designers cannot be pe1fectionists, for a game is never "done." At some point you recognize that additional improvements will not be wo1th the time required, or you reach a deadline that you cannot get around. Petty Diplomacy Problem -As named and described by R. Wayne Schmittberger, this is a situation, usually in the three player game, where a player who feels he cannot win can decide which other player wins through his actions. See kingmaking. Pharming-In MMOs, playing the game repetitively (for example, wait for a monster to spawn, kill it, wait for it to spawn again, kill it) so that you can build up levels or loot, then sell the account to someone else for actual money. As a designer you should ask yourself, if it's possible to easily do this, isn't there something wrong with the game? Planner (Player Type) -A planner likes a game where circumstances don't change much between his opportunities to play, so that he can plan well ahead. He also likes games with perfect information or nearly so because that helps him be able to plan ahead. Chess is a game for planners. Platform-The specific systems (and operating systems) that a video game can run on. For example, many games nm on Xbox 360 and PS3 only. Platformer-Video game genre in which a principal activity is nmning, leaping, and jumping, often from one platform (like a ledge, but sometimes in the middle of the air) to another. Sometimes the platforms move. Play Balance-A balanced game is one that is "fair." Each player should have an equal chance of winning even in asymmetric games, that is, games with unequal sta1ting positions. When the "game" is for one player, as in many single player video games, a balanced game is one where the reward is commensurate with the skill and effort exerted by the player. It's instructive to note that chess is not a well-balanced game, because whoever plays first has a much better chance to win, even though the positions are otherwise symmetric. If a game is not transparent, many one-time players may suppose it is poorly balanced even though more experienced players recognize that balance is excellent.

Player Interaction-When the action of one player immediately affects at least one other player's situation then there is player interaction. Good games usually, but not always, have a high degree of player interaction. Some people would say that player interaction is the whole point of games.

Playtesters-People who play an unfinished game in order to find ways to improve it. It is not necessary for the playtesters to be eiq>erienced players, or to even care about improving the game, as long as the designer can observe what needs to be improved. Nonetheless, a playtester who understands games and how games are designed can be very valuable to a designer. Playtest/ Playtesting-Playing a prototype of a game to try to find ways to improve it. Sometimes play testing in video games is used to work out the bugs in the game; proper play testing is intended to improve the design of the game, not just to make sure that it works exactly as it was designed to work. Pitch -A brief, usually oral, desc1iption or presentation of a game or game concept designed to elicit support from people who have funding ( usually publishers), to persuade them to support or publish the game. An "elevator pitch" is the two sentence version of this, the kind of thing you could say to someone during an elevator 1ide or just in passing. A successful pitch is often followed by a longer written game concept/treatment. Power-up- In video games, some item or other element that can be picked up that confers a usually temporary increase in capability of a player character. Prettiness- Many people like pretty-looking games, but prettiness has virtually nothing to do with player interaction or good gameplay. Many novice designers spend a lot of time making their prototype pretty. This not only wastes time, it can discourage the designer from changing the game because he or she has put so much work into making it pretty. In video games, successful studios add the prettiness to the game after they've put in sufficiently good gameplay. Publishers of tabletop games will supply their ov.'11 prettiness, and do not expect it from the designer. Probability- The likelihood that something will happen; this can often be calculated, for example that seven will be the sum of the roll of two dice on average one time out of six (6/36). Someone who cannot calculate probabilities is often at a disadvantage in games and ce1tainly in game design. Prototype- An unfinished version of a game suitable to be playtested and modified. Publishers-Companies that manufach1re and distribute games. 111ese operate much like book publishers, except that sometimes the creators of the game are full-time employees of the larger publishers such as EA, Activision, and Hasbro. Puzzle-There are many definitions for this, hinging on rules, solutions, and opposition. A puzzle is an activity, sometimes incon-ectly called a game, where there is a goal and no semblance of intelligent opposition. While some puzzles have rules, they are more like guidelines or conventions; if you don't follow them, so what? Of course, an electronic form of a puzzle can enforce its mies. (Think the card game Solitaire in its many forms.) Formal puzzles have a unique solution, and once you've solved the puzzle there is little point in playing fmther. Many single player video games are interactive puzzles, some with a single solution where there's no random factor, some (which include randomization to avoid complete predictability) with "optimal ways to do things"- dominant strategies and tactics. Games, in contrast, cannot have "solutions" or a dominant strategy because of the unpredictable and infinitely-varying influence oftl1e opponent(s).

Quest- A mission offered or assigned to a character or group in a game, especially role-

playing games. Completing the request usually yields some reward. Race-The more general meaning of the word race would be working to achieve something before anyone else can. We'll confine the term "race" to a n attempt to arrive at a location before others who are attempting the same thing at the same time in the same place, with some small opportunity to hinder opponents. For example a horse race, a Formula One or NASCAR race, a sprint race in Olympic track and field. (The high jump or polevault are contests, not races.) Random -Occurrences in a game over which none of the players have any control, generally governed by luck/chance such as a card draw or roll of dice. Real-time- Continuous play without turns, so that there is never a pause in the action. This is typical of video games.

Real-Tim e Strategy Gam e (RTS)-A genre involving command of a large force, involving collection of resources and constmction of factories and units, that is played in real-time (as opposed to tum-based). Replayability-Tabletop games are ordinarily designed so that they can be played many times, over and over, and still be enjoyable. There are exceptions on the tabletop, and often video games are designed to be played just once or a few times (hence you "beat the game"). For the players, obviously, a highly replayable game is a good thing. Resource Management-Collection and allocation of various goods in order to create other goods or factories or some other commodity. Some games are primarily resource management games. Many economic games include resource management, of course. Roman tic ( Player Style)-The romantic looks for the decisive blow which will cripple his enemy, psychologically if not physically, on the playing arena. He wishes to convince his opponent(s) of the inevitability of their defeat; in some cases a player with a still tenable position will resign the game to his romantic opponent when he has been beaten psychologically. The romantic is willing to take a dangerous risk in order to disrupt enemy plans and throw the game into a line of play his opponent is unfamiliar with. He looks for oppo1tunities for a big gain, rather than to maximize his minimum gain. A flamboyant, but only probable, win is his goal. The romantic is more likely to try to "get into the head" of his opponent (Yomi), to divine which strategy the opponent will use and play his own strategy that best counteracts it. RPGs (Role-Playing Games)-Players take on a role, usually of some person in the milieu of the game. This is a matter of imagination, not of physical action as in LARPs. In some RPGs a person pretends that he is the character and plays as ifhe were in that situation, doing whatever heor she might want to do. In others the player is expected to bean actor and do what the character would do in a particular situation. Rules-All games have rules. In video games mies are expressed through the mechanics of the game as enforced by the software. In tabletop games there are actually w1itten rules that the players must understand. One reason why video games have become so popular is that no one has to read the rules. Rules Lawyer- A player who wants the rules of the game to be absolutely enforced, but who is often thought to be looking for unearned advantages through manipulation of the rules. Occasionally you may encounter a person who goes one beyond this, usually based on the very odd and essentially impractical notion that if mies don't say you cannot do some-

thing, you can do it. Sandbagging-Pretending to be less capable or in a worse position than you really are. This is particularly useful in games with more than two players, so that you are less likely to be subject to leader bashing or kingmaking. An important difference between sandbagging and turtling is that the sandbagger may be "lying low," while the turtle may not care whether other people can tell that he's turtling. Further, the sandbagger is participating normally in the game, while the turtle is trying to stay out of the way and avoid harm.

Sandbox- This video game term describes a game where players are free to do more or less as they please rather than follow a linear story. This is a recent development in video games as computers have become more powerful and more able to handle more details and options. Science-Game designers use a form of the scientific method. As they playtest and modify their games, they analyze what is not working well, hypothesize what might fix the problem, and then experiment through fu1ther play to see if their hypothesis is correct. TI1eir "control" in this case is how the game worked without the changes. Video game programmers who have been through computer science education sometimes think of themselves as scientists or engineers.

Self Published-A game published by the designer, usually resulting in financial loss. Some well-known tabletop game publishing companies began as self-publishing entities. Self-publishing is easier for video games thanks to electronic disti~bution through Xbox Live, Steam, and similar avenues. At worst you can set up your own website and distribute your video game through it. Service Mark-This is a legal protection of some written or oral phrase that helps identify a company that provides a service rather than a product. Trademarks protect titles and identifiers of products, se1vice marks protect taglines and catchphrases of services. Shooter- A video game genre with a principal activity of shooting at enemies and blowing stuff up. May be first person (you see what the eyes of your avatar see, so you don't see yourseIO or third person (you see your avatar as well as his or her surroundings). Simplicity-Arguably, games ought to be simple, as the typical objective of a game as opposed to a puzzle is to have the players play the other players. Adding complexity to the system is often unnecessary. Even video games that appear to be quite complex can be reduced to a simple essence: the obvious case is a shooter, which amounts to "shoot things and blow things up." "Simplistic" ("characterized by extI·eme simplicity; naive") is something quite different from simple/simplicity. Simulation (also, "Sim")-A game or training exercise or software that is intended to represent significant aspects of some reality- it "simulates" a part of reality, especially certain behaviors. Vehicle "sims" are intended to allow the player to drive a vehicle just as he would the real thing, with the vehicles (ideally) behaving as they would in real life. The computer game 771e Sims simulates human behavior. Skinnish Games-Tactical games, usually for two players, that usually use small numbers of miniatures, e.g. Heroscape. The miniatures generally can act individually rather than in required units. Social (Network) Games-This relatively new catego1y of games is played on social networks such as Facebook and MySpace. TI1ey are at the extreme of casual games. Most

amount to very simple puzzles. They are very, very easy to play successfully but designed to force players to come back day after day to maintain what they've acquired. They are usually free to play but have options enabling the creators to make money.

Solo (Solitaire)-Playing a game by yourself, playing all the sides. Most tabletop game designers play their prototypes solo before they ever ask someone else to play. This enables them to catch the biggest problems and fix them so that other people can enjoy the game more. Video games are generally played solo by their creators once a prototype is available. Solitaire Game-A solitaire gam e is one designed to be played by just one person. Often it is actually an interactive puzzle rather than a game. Spawn-Initial appearance of something, usually a monster, in video games, When a character-avatar is killed it usually re-spawns (reappears) somewhere. Monsters may continuously spawn at a "spawning point." Story-Driven Game-A game intended to be played p1imarily to "see" the st01y. Final Fantasy games are an example, as are some kinds of role-playing games. Styles of Play-There are many, many different styles of play in game land. Many people do not even play to win a game, having many other motivations. But some styles of competitive play can be identified and are included in this glossary. Studio-A group of people who have come together, usually formally in a company, to create video games, is usually called a studio. Some studios are also publishers, but most pass the finished game to a publisher to actually distribute and sell. In that respect studios are much like authors of books. Strategic-Strategy involves long-range plans and things that occur to affect the war, well before a battle takes place. "Supposed to Be"-As in "tl1e way it's supposed to be played." Never assume people will play a game the way you want it to be played; assume they will play it the way the mies/ software allow them to play. E.g., ifyou don't want people to "camp" in a shooter video game then you have to figure out how to make that, if not impossible, then impractical. As long as camping allows a player to be s uccessful some players are going to do it. Symmetric-In games, starting positions for all players that are identical. This is unlikely to happen in a simulation. Tabletop Games-My preferred term for what are sometimes called non-electronic or non-digital games: games that are not video games. Tactical- Tactics involve what you do while a battle is taking place and just before, as opposed to strategy which applies to the war as a whole. Teamwork-Tabletop games can be created v,,jthout a lot of teamwork; video games almost always require teamwork, especially the AAA list games that involve more than 100 people working on the game at a time. Tabletop game design focuses on the game; video game design often focuses on having the team work together toward a common goal.

Techno-fetishism-A defect of some game designs that focuses so much on technology that the gameplay is sometimes forgotten. Often this is done in the name of "immersion" (see next ent1y). Technological lmmersion-111e ideal of teclmological immersion is the Star Trek

holodeck, where yon could be playing a game and feel exactly as though yon were really tl1ere. Video game makers often try to use technology to achieve this end. It is possible to have immersion without technology, for example in a tabletop role-playing game. It just requires more imagination from the players.

Theme-A story or history that a game is attempting to represent. The theme should actually mold what happens in the game and how it happens, as opposed to an "atmosphere" which provides the appearance of something but has no substantial effect on how the game plays. Tile-laying Game-Tiles are fairly large, usually square or hexagonal, cardboard game pieces that are laid on the table in a connected manner according to a set of ntles. More ell.-pensive materials may be used, as in the original tile laying games, Mahjongg and Domi110s. Carcassom1e is the preeminent modem example. Toy-Something that you play with that has no rules or goals, you just do whatever yon want with it, making it up as you go along.

Traditional G ames-Traditional games are games that have been around for decades that most people know of even if they haven't played. Chess and go are two of the oldest; more recently we've had commercial traditional games like Monopoly, Clt1e, Game of Life, and So1-ry.

Train/ Railroad Game-A game in which either trains are preeminent, or where laying out a network of railroads is preeminent. Trademark-A form of intellectual property protection that applies to titles and names of companies. The simple form merely involves adding the letters TM in superscript after the title or name, which costs nothing. The stronger form of protection, registered trademark, is represented by the letter R in a circle: ®· Trademark registration costs several hundred dollars. Transparency- In a game where there are better and worse ways to play, a transparent game will reveal the "secret" of good play to a player by the end of the first game played. The player will think he knows what to do to win the game. It may tum out it's a little more complicated than he thinks, but often times it is in fact pretty clear what to do even though it may be hard to do it well. A game that is not transparent, such as chess, requires many plays before the player even realizes some of the possible strategies available. Trial and Error - Video games are made so that a person using trial and error, which amounts to guessing what to do nell.1, can succeed because they can keep going back to their save point until they g11ess right. In tabletop games if you use trial and error you'll probably lose the game; you can't lose a video game if you're the only player. Much of the difference comes from the fact that many single player video games are a form of interactive puzzle. Puzzles that have solutions are perhaps more amenable to use of trial and error than games where there are intelligent opponents. Trick-taking-In cards, a game such as bridge in which players take turns playing one card each, usually with one suit designated trump (any trump card defeats any non-trump card) Usually players must play the same suit as the first card of the "trick," if they can. The highest card takes tl1e "nick." Turn-based-Dividing the action into player turns that usually follow one on another. Typical of board and card games. Rarely seen in MA list video games.

Turtling-In a game with more than two players, it may be to a player's advantage to "stand aside" and not participate in conflict, waiting for the others to exhaust themselves so that the Turtle can then move in and win the game. Some games make turtling easy, while others effectively prevent this by design. "Camping" is the shooter fonn of turtling. Unpredic table - Some random factors in a game may be unpredictable while others can be predicted through the use of probability. For example, although dice are often used in combat in tabletop games, it is possible to predict outcomes in some ways and so have some control over what happens next. Other occurrences may be caused by factors that the players cannot use to calculate probability, or there may be so many different possibilities that a probability calculation is of little use.

User Interface-The means by which the player interacts v.ith the game. Typically we speak of user interfaces in connection v.ith video games, but tabletop games have a user interface as well, which can include dice, tables, player layouts, boards, cards, and so fortl1. The best game in the world can be mined by a poor user interface. If it's hard for the players to take actions in the game, or to figure out what's happening, then they're likely to be fiustrated. Virtual Reality-Use of technology to create a realistic semblance of something, with the Star Trek holodeck serving as the ultimate goal. A typical virtual-reality application allows you to "walk" through a building or natural setting as seen on a screen or screens that may even surround you. We are still a long way from the holodeck. Volatility-The extent in a game to which your ammgements (and plans) are not subject to change caused by circumstances or by other players. The more volatile the game, the greater influence circumstances and players can have on your sih1ation. Wargame- A game representing a war, usually a two-sided battle or a larger war which might have more than two sides. Direct conflict is almost always present in wargames. ''Yomi"-David Sirlin coined this term whicll means "reading" in Japanese, to represent the way that some game players can seemingly read the minds and intentions of theiropponents and act accordingly even before the opponent acts. Obviously, someone who can do this successfully ought to be a great game player.

Zero-sum- A situation where one player can only gain by taking away from another, so that one player's gain is another player's loss. The sum of the whole does not change. Games that are purely zero-sum approach triviality, so we have to look at major aspects, usually involving unit acquisition and loss. Even then, most games are not zero-sum, though in a two player game it really doesn't make a difference because whatever you can do to improve your sih1ation nah1rally harms the other player's sih1ation. The classic zero-sum game is Diplomacy, where there are 34 supply centers and each unit must have a supply center to exist. The only way to gain more units is to take supply centers, and consequently units, away from someone else. Even here, though, a unit may be temporarily destroyed as a result of tactical operations.

Index ofTerms MA list games abstract games "achievements" Adams, Ernest adaptation (playing style)

Adobe Illustrator (software) adventure

Aduenture (video game) adventure game (genre) aesthetic

Ajrika Ko1ps Age ofColo11izatio11 (prototype board game) Age of Empi1'es (video game) Age of Wonders (video game series) agency agile/rapid development (of software) AI (attificial intelligence) analysis paralysis Android (operating system)

A11g1·y Bi,-ds (video game) anticipatory conflict or interaction

Apples to Apples (board game) arithmetic art/artist

Assassin's Creed (video game series) asymmetric/asymmetry atmosphere

Attika (board game) auction audience autonomous units Avalon Hill (publisher) avatar

A,-is & Allies (board game) Baby Boomer

Bad Ass gamers Balderdash (game)

ballistics Bang! (card game)

Barwood, Hal BattleJo,· Middle-earth (video game)

Battle of Kursk (history) Battleship (board game) Battlestar Galactica (board game)

"beating the game" Bejeweled (\~deo game)

bell curve Best Buy bidding (mechanic) Bingo (game) Bioshock (~deo game)

Bitmap/raster graphics Black and White (~deo game)

Blender (software) Bleszinski, Cliff Blizzard (studio/publisher) ''block games" Blokus (board game)

bluffing/disguising Board gamedesignersfomm.com Board gamegeek.com Bond,James Borg, Richard boss(es) Brathwaite, Brenda Bmak Into the Game Indushy (book) Britannia (board game)

budget bug testing business Byte magazine

C# programming language C++ programming language Call of DuhJ (video game series)

camera Campaign Cartographer, ProFantasy (software) camping Canada, Jennifer canasta (card game) Candy/and Can't Stop (dice game) Carcassonne (board game)

card driven games (CDG) Careers (board game)

Cannack, John Casino Royale (movie)

casual game(s) catharsis challenge games challenge(s) ChallengesJo,- Game Designers (book)

chance (also luck, randomness) change chaos character(s) cheating/cheat/cheats checkers (draughts) chess China: 11ieMiddleKingdom (board game) Chris Crawford on Game Design (book)

chrome Churchill, Sir Winston Chutes & Ladders (board game) City ofHeroes (video game) Civilization ( computer and tabletop games)

Classical (player style) Cloud 9 (game)

Clue/Cluedo (board game) Cluzzle (game) collaborative games collectible card games (CCGs)/living card games

Colossal Caue (video game) Combat Al'ms (video game) combine functions comic book(s)

Command & Conquer (video game) Commando (movie) communicate/communicating complete games components computer opponent conception conflict resolution

Colljucius (board game) Conquest (video game concept) constraints convergence

Convoy/Task Force (board game) cooperation/cooperate cooperative games Core!Draw (software) Cosmic Enco1m ter (board game) Crawford, Chris

Cl'azy Eights (card game) creativity/inspiration/imagination critical thinking Csikszentmikalyi, Mihaly

D&D Dance, Dance Revolution (video game) data flow diagram data storage Dave & Adam's Card World Daviau, Rob

"death by exploration" De Bono, Edward deduce depth "derivativeness" design design document The Design ofEveryday Things (book) Deus Ex (video game) "deus ex machina" (god out of the machine) developer (of tabletop games) development (of tabletop games) dice vs cards/dicefests differences between video and tabletop design difficulty level digital downloads (DLC) Diminishing Marginal Rehtrns, Law of Diplomacy (board game) disbelief, suspension of Doctorow, Cory document editing Dodge City (game) dominant strategy Dominion (card game) Donkey Kong (video game series) "don't panic" Doom (video game) Doom the Board game downtime drafting (mechanic) Dragon Rage (board game) Dragons' Rage (video game concept) draws (ties) dream fulfillment dtinking games Du Bois, W.E.B. Dungeons & Dragons (role-playing game)

EAi Education "Easy Button" economics (in game) economy (sub-system) education 80/20rule elaboration Ellis, Rick emergence/emergent engine games environment epic Epic Games (studio) escapism ESRB ratings essence of a game essential questions about a game Eurasia (prototype board game)

Euro-style board game Eve Online (video game)

event list Eve,·quest ( video game)

Excel (software) experience points (xp) "experiences"

Facebook fairness/fair Fallout (video game series) Falstein, Noah family games Family Games: The 100 Best (book)

fanboy/ fangirl Fantasy Flight Games (publisher) Farmville (video game)

feature creep feedback

Fidelio ( opera)

fighting games (video game genre) Final Fantasy (video game series)

Firaxis (studio) Fischer, Bobby flash tutorials (for board games) Flight Simulator, Microsoft (video game series)

The Flow Flow: 111e Psychology ofOptimal Experience (book)

fluidity "fog of war" Four Elements (prototype game) 400 project

4X game (genre) framework free to play/freemium freemium frustration Fundamentals ofGame Design (book)

funding Fury of the Northmen (video game concept)

Gamasutra.com game boards game concept/treatment document game design document(s) Game Design Principles (book)

game designer(s) Game Developer magazine The Game Inventor's Guidebook (book)

"game of designing games" Game ofLife (board game)

game pieces game production documents game story writer game system Gamebryo

Gamecareerguide.com Gameiriformer magazine Gamemaker Gamemaker's Apprentice (book) Gamemaker's Companion (book) games that work but are not good games Games Without frontiers (doctoral dissertation) Games Workshop (publisher) Gamestop (retailer) gaming mastery Gauntlet (video game) Gaussian curve Gear·s ofWar· (video game series) Eine Gegen Eine (board game) GenX GenY genres GettlJsburg Gimp (software) go (game) goals God of War(video game series) Google Images Google Sketchup (software) Gran Turismo (video game se1ies) grand strategic grand tactical Grand Theft Auto (video game se1ies) granula1ity graphics Gray, Mike griefers Grim Fandango (\~deo game) grinding/the grind (in gameplay) Guitar Hero (video game) gyp factor

Habgood, Jacob habits, break old ones Half Life (video game series) Halo (video game series) Hammer of the Scots (board game)

Hannon ix (publisher) Hasbro (publisher) heads up display Hearts (card game) Hemes ofMight& Magic(video game series) Hex (board game)

Hexographer (software) hidden information "hide behind the computer" historical games History ofthe World (board game)

hobby (board game[s]) Hobby Games: 111e 100 Best (book)

holodeck (Star Trek) "horns of a dilemma" Hu1191·y, Hungry Hippos (board game)

hunting games idealism ideas IGDA (International Game Developers Association) immersion/immersive/immersiveness improviser/improvisation (player type) incremental Info Select infonnation availability Inkscape (software) inspiration intellectual property/ IP intelligent opposition interaction intuition

Ion Storm (studio) iPad iPhone Italia (board game)

iteration/iterative Jaffe, David Jaivinen, Aki "journey vs. destination" Kasparov, GaIT}' Katamari Damacy (video game)

"keep it simple" kingmaking King's Quest (video game)

Knizia, Reiner Koster, Raph Larsen, Bent Law & Chaos (prototype game)

leader-bashing Left4Dead ( video game) Legend of the Five Rings (card game)

level design document level designer levels/stages/scenarios/adventures Liar's Dice (dice game)

licensee "lie fallow" linear games Little Computer People (video game)

"living mies" longevity (of games) lookup tables Lord of the Rings (board game)

Lord of the Rings (movies) Lord of the Rings (RTS game) Lord of the Rings Trilogy Risk (board game)

Lowder, James

luck Madden Football (video game series) Mafia (game)

Magic Set Editor (software) Magic: 11ie Gathering (card game) The Maltese Falcon (movie) Mario (video game series) Mario Kart (video game)

Maslow, Abraham Master ofOrion (video game seiies)

math Math Blaster (video game) The Matrix (movie) Mavis Beacon Teaches TiJping (video game)

maxim(s) mazes

McLoud, Scott MDA-Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics MDI-Mechanics, Dynamics, Impressions mechanical mechanic(s) or mechanism(s) meetup.com Mega Man (video game series)

Meier, Sid memorability metagame Meyers, Keith Millennials/Gen Y Milton Bradley (publisher) "Mind's Eye" Ming Dynasty (board game)

miniature(s) Missile Command (video game)

missions (form of victory points) Miyamoto, S. MMO ("massively multiplayer on line")

mobile games mods

Monopoly (board game) mood Morrison, Peter

Mor-ta/ Kombat (video game) movie(s) multiplayer "multiplayer solitaire" multi-sided multiple ways to win Mimchkin (card game) MySpace

Myst (video game) Nandeck (software) nan-ative(s) Natsumme, Christopher negotiation NetHack (video game) Neverwinter Nights (video game) New Rules fo r Classic Games (book) Nielsen, Jakob Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian nine stmctural subsystems of games Ninja (prototype game) Nintendo (publisher) Nintendo DS (handheld) nonnal curve Nom1an,Don novel/novelist NPC-Non Player Character(s) obstacles Old Maid ( card game) One-Note, Microsoft "order of battle" origins of games

origins oflevels "organized play" Overmars, Mark Pac-Man/Ms. Pac-Man (video games) pacheesi/parchesi (board game) pacifism Paid to Play (book) "pain points" Pandemic (board game) party games Passage (video game) PC Gamer magazine

Peggie (video game) perfect information persistence perspiration/work "petty diplomacy problem" photo-realism Photoshop (software) Picasso, Pablo Pictionary (board game) picture w01th a thousand words Pirates (video game) pitch document Plan-Execute-Monitor-Control-Replan cycle Plan escape: Torment (video game) planner/planning (player type) Plants vs. Zombies (video game) Plastics for Games platform (ways to play video games) platformer (genre) plausible choices play balance player elimination players and play playing the players

Playi11g to Wi11 (book) Playstation Network playtest/playtesting playtesters Pokemon (card game)

poker Polge, Steve Pong (video game)

popularity Populous (video game)

positive scoring mechanisms post-mortem Poumelle, Jerry premise (high concept) prettiness pre-viz (movie)

Pri11ce ofPersia (video game series) principles probability problem-solving process producer products vs. se1vices programming/programmers (computer) prototype(s) publisher(s)

Puerto Rico (board game) puzzle(s) PvE (player vs. environment) PvP (player vs. player) QA employees Quake (video game series)

Quality Assurance quest(s) race/racing game(s)

Railmad 1'ycoo11 (video game)

Rainbow Six (video game series)

randomness real-time real-time strategy (RTS) (genre) realism record keeping Red Stonn (studio) replayability/replayable research Resident Euil (video game series)

resource management (genre) retail vs. free reward Rise and Fall ofAssyria (prototype board game) Risk (board game)

risk (not the game) Risk Godstorm (board game) Robo-Rally (board game) Rock Band (video game series)

rock-paper-scissors (game) Rogue (video game)

RolcoGames role-assumption/fulfillment roll and move mechanic Rollercoaster TiJcoon (video game se1ies)

Rollings, Dave Romance of the Three Kingdoms (book)

Romantic (player style) Rosewater, Mark RPGs/role-playing games rules rules-dominant Rules ofPlay (book)

Russell, Bertrand saddle point Saint-Exupery, Antoine

Salen, Katie sandbagging sandbox games Sanderson, Brandon save points saved games Schmittberger, R. Wayne Schreiber, Ian Schwarzenegger, Arnold scope Scmbble (board game) sequence of play rules sequencing serendipity serious game(s) Sesame Street (TV) Settlers ofCatan (board game and video game) Settlers llI (video game) 7 Ages (board game)

Shadows Over Camelot (board game) Shelley, Bruce shooter (genre) Silent Hill (video game series) The Sims (video game) simulations simultaneous Sins ofa Solar Empire ( video game) Sirlin, David "Six Hats" method Skystone Castle overview slashdot social network game(s) Solitaim (game) solo (solitaire) play solution/solved something in it Sonic (video game series)

Space Invaders (video game) Spector, Warren Spore (video game) spotts simulations (video game genre) stages/pacing Stalingrad Star'frek Star Wars (movie) Star Wars the Old Republic (video game) Starcmft(video game) Starcmft: The Board game "state change" sticky (game) story dominant story/storiesjbackstory strategic Stratego (board game) Street Fighter ( video game series) structure/structural studio (game developer) subscription (to play game) Super Smash Brothers (video game series) Supreme Commander (video game) surprise smvival honor (genre) suspension of disbelief sweep of history (genre) symmetric/symmetrical system and psychological aspects of games system(s)/systems analysis Tabletop Analog Game Design (book) tactical Tactics II tag line "taking it to the max" target market

Taylor, Chris team (game development) Team Forb·ess (video game) techno-fetishist technological limitations tension terrain Teti·is (video game) theme Theory ofFun for Game Design (book) Thief(video game series) Thompson, Jim tic-tac-toe (noughts and crosses) Ticket to Ride (board game) titles Tomb Raider (video game series) "too much like work" Torque (game engine) Total Annihilation (video game) Total War (video game series) tower defense (genre) toy(s) TQM (Total Quality Management)/ 1-10-100 rule trading (mechanic) traditional game(s) Train (board game) training traitor Traveler (paper role-playing game) ttial and error (guess and check) ttivia games tuning tum-based tum-based strategy (genre) turtling tutorial Twilight Imperium (board game)

Twister (game) Twitter

Twixt (board game) Ultima Online (video game) Understanding Comics (book) unique selling proposition (USP) Unity game engine

Unreal engine Unreal Tournament (video game se1ies) user inte rface (UI)

Valley of the Four Winds (board game) Valve (studio/publisher) vector graphics vehicle s imulations (video game genre) verisimilitude victory condition(s)/objectives victory points video tutorials (for board games) Videogamegeek.com

Viktory II (board game) Vinci (board game) virtual goods vision (for a game) visual orientation

War (card game) War of the Ring (board game) Warcraft (video game se1ies) wargame(s)

Warlords (video game) Waterloo We the People (board game) Werewolf (game) what can the player do to influence the outcome what is a game what is the player going to DO? what makes a game good?

Wheel ofTime (book series) Wii

Wii Fit (video ente1tainment) Wii Music (video entertainment) Wilson, Phil Winn, Brian wish fulfillment

Woifenstein (video game) word of mouth sales world-building

Wo1'ld of Warcraft (board game and video game) Wom1s Armageddon (video game) XBox Live XBox360 XNA programming language Yomi Yu-Gi-Oh (card game)

Zelda ( video game se1ies) zero-sum games Zimmennan, Elie

Zork (video game)

Lewis: Pulsiph9R - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

References