After my presentation on Eurogames, one conference attendee told me that he was still confused. "What, exactly, makes a Eurogame different from any other game?"
I cited a number of different qualities, all of which taken together would lead to calling a game a Eurogame. This didn't satisfy him; he was looking for something concrete insofar as classification.
As he walked away, I immediately realized that Eurogames are not a class of games - such as race games and capture games - but a period of games, or an art movement.
There exists in the world today a game design movement called Eurogame design. Its roots run back to the 1960s, it began flourishing in the 1980s, and it spread worldwide in the 1990s.
A particular game might be from one branch of the Eurogame period. A particular game might straddle several design movements: Eurogame, war game, trivia game, and so on, taking elements of each to create a specific game meant to target those who enjoy one or more of these movements. We call games that seem to incorporate about 50% of their design each from two different movements "hybrid games", but many games fall in between movements, more or less.
You can see the working of game design periods/movements throughout the twentieth century and into this one. Morality games followed one after another in earlier centuries. After Monopoly, we saw not only clones of Monopoly games with different themes but different economic games with similar goals and mechanics. Hundreds of trivia games followed Trivial Pursuit. And, on a smaller scale, dozens of worker placement games have followed Caylus. Video games follow the same pattern.
Crassly speaking, we may look at later games as simple attempts to capitalize and monetize on the success of the previous game. This may be true in the vast majority of cases. On the other hand, like books, paintings, and movies, we can expect that at least some of the followup games see something interesting about the original game and incorporate the new mechanics, like new technology, in an attempt to explore a newly discovered territory opened by the original.
(We can see art movements within games themes, as well as mechanics. There was a sizable market for multiple morality games. Likewise, there is room in the hobby games market for multiple games about Renaissance Italy or WWII. I expect, though I have not looked, that games about certain themes come in waves, just as do games with certain mechanics.)
Considering the movements or periods of game mechanics, games are similar to any designed object: cups or chairs or cars. They seem different because we use and interact with games for a longer period and for different reasons. But how we look at these other objects in design terms should guide how we look at games.
Showing posts with label theme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theme. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, March 17, 2008
Are You a Player or a Pawn?
Detheming
There are two ways to play a game. You can play to enjoy or you can play to win. Both can be fun.
Most people play to enjoy. That's when you "experience" the game. You learn new skills, you get caught up in the theme, you play your positions using cards or armies. Your moves are themed, too: you "auction a painting", or you "build routes".
Even if the game appears to be abstract you can get caught up in its "theme". For example, Yinsh is entirely abstract but the major rule is to jump your ring over disks, flipping them afterwards. That's thematic: you "jump" and "flip". You may jump and flip a long line just because it's cool.
When you play to win, theme and objects entirely disappear. All "cards", "armies", piece names, move names, map conceptions, and flavor gets tossed out the window. Instead, there are only resources that must be maximized. You have X time or X moves left. You have Y tokens to move. Every rule is the same: what can you move, and when. Every move must maximize your points. Every token must be working as hard as it can.
All games, when they are played to win, are race games. I wrote about Playing to Win before.
What's the Difference?
Winning a game you played to enjoy is fun, because it's fun to win. If you lose, the game was fun too. Winning a game you played to win is fun, because it's fun to succeed, be proven the best. If you lose, you will work hard at winning the next game.
Is one of these approaches right and one wrong?
From one perspective, playing to enjoy is holistic and healthy, while playing to win is inhuman and anti-social. From another perspective, playing to enjoy is irresponsible and soft, while playing to win is focused and success-oriented.
What do you teach your kids about games? What do you teach them about life? If not the same thing, why are they different?
What About Your Life?
Look at the moves you made today and yesterday and last week in your life. Are you just whiling away resources in your life that could be working harder? Do you make every minute count? Are you driving to win? Is that inhuman and anti-social or focused and success-oriented?
Or, do you enjoy the experience, kick back, not take life too seriously? Is that soft and irresponsible or holistic and healthy?
Yehuda
There are two ways to play a game. You can play to enjoy or you can play to win. Both can be fun.
Most people play to enjoy. That's when you "experience" the game. You learn new skills, you get caught up in the theme, you play your positions using cards or armies. Your moves are themed, too: you "auction a painting", or you "build routes".
Even if the game appears to be abstract you can get caught up in its "theme". For example, Yinsh is entirely abstract but the major rule is to jump your ring over disks, flipping them afterwards. That's thematic: you "jump" and "flip". You may jump and flip a long line just because it's cool.
When you play to win, theme and objects entirely disappear. All "cards", "armies", piece names, move names, map conceptions, and flavor gets tossed out the window. Instead, there are only resources that must be maximized. You have X time or X moves left. You have Y tokens to move. Every rule is the same: what can you move, and when. Every move must maximize your points. Every token must be working as hard as it can.
All games, when they are played to win, are race games. I wrote about Playing to Win before.
What's the Difference?
Winning a game you played to enjoy is fun, because it's fun to win. If you lose, the game was fun too. Winning a game you played to win is fun, because it's fun to succeed, be proven the best. If you lose, you will work hard at winning the next game.
Is one of these approaches right and one wrong?
From one perspective, playing to enjoy is holistic and healthy, while playing to win is inhuman and anti-social. From another perspective, playing to enjoy is irresponsible and soft, while playing to win is focused and success-oriented.
What do you teach your kids about games? What do you teach them about life? If not the same thing, why are they different?
What About Your Life?
Look at the moves you made today and yesterday and last week in your life. Are you just whiling away resources in your life that could be working harder? Do you make every minute count? Are you driving to win? Is that inhuman and anti-social or focused and success-oriented?
Or, do you enjoy the experience, kick back, not take life too seriously? Is that soft and irresponsible or holistic and healthy?
Yehuda
Monday, March 03, 2008
Game Mechanics Don't Really Exist
When considering the classification of games (the subject of an upcoming post), it is immediately obvious that many classification categories inherently fail due to lack of rigidness.
For example, it is difficult to try to classify games into "luck" and "skill" based games. Regardless of where you draw any line, there will always be, either in actuality or in theory, games that straddle the line between a certain level of luck or skill. Furthermore, whatever circles you draw around a group of games are merely arbitrary classifications. Unless intending to plot games on a continuum, this yardstick of classification is inherently unhelpful. It may be useful to compare the luck versus skill ratio between two games, but not to classify all games using this ratio.
Another classification tool that Eurogamers tend to use is the "game mechanic". By game mechanic, I don't mean game components, such as dice, cards, or "running". These are good and solid components within games and very useful for classification.
What I mean by game mechanics is the idea that a game fits a certain pattern of strategic thinking. Instances of game mechanics include such terms as "area control", "auction", "set collection", and so on. You can see 43 game mechanics listed on BoardGameGeek here.
Unfortunately, few of these mechanics truly exist; the ones that do specify the game's components, such as "hex and counter" or "singing". The fact that these categories don't exist is why so many people experience frustration when trying to use these terms to categorize games.
Let's go straight into an example:
El Grande is known as the king of "area control" games; and what could be simpler? Through a series of nine rounds, you play cards (using an auction) in order to place cubes onto various regions on the board. After every three rounds, the person with the most cubes in an area scores the points for the area, second most scores a lesser amount, and so on.
This sounds well and good, except for the fact that the only reason that the game is thought of as "area control" is due to the game's theme. In fact, all conceptions about the mechanics of a game are entirely due to the wording of the game's theme.
Let's rewrite El Grande's theme: In El Grande, there are 27 cars available every three rounds at nine used car lots. The game involves a Chinese auction where players place tickets into boxes as they bid on the cars they want to acquire. After three rounds, the player with the highest bid on each set of three cars gets the best car. Whoops. Now we no longer have an "area control" game, we have an "auction" game.
How about: In El Grande, your object is to collect the most artifacts in various regions in Spain. Each time you place a cube into a region, collect an artifact from that region. If you lose a cube, you lose an artifact. At the end of three rounds, the player who has collected the most artifacts in each region gains the points of that region. Now we have a "set collection" game.
More than half of the listed BGG mechanics can similarly be derived using the exact same game components and play of El Grande. The rest can be derived using the same game play with slightly different physical components.
El Grande is no fluke. Two years ago I did the same thing in an article for the game No Thanks. You can do the same for any other game. Chess. It's an auction game, a pick up and deliver game, a route planning game, a pattern recognition game, and a tile placement game. It all depends on how you word the theme.
Yehuda
For example, it is difficult to try to classify games into "luck" and "skill" based games. Regardless of where you draw any line, there will always be, either in actuality or in theory, games that straddle the line between a certain level of luck or skill. Furthermore, whatever circles you draw around a group of games are merely arbitrary classifications. Unless intending to plot games on a continuum, this yardstick of classification is inherently unhelpful. It may be useful to compare the luck versus skill ratio between two games, but not to classify all games using this ratio.
Another classification tool that Eurogamers tend to use is the "game mechanic". By game mechanic, I don't mean game components, such as dice, cards, or "running". These are good and solid components within games and very useful for classification.
What I mean by game mechanics is the idea that a game fits a certain pattern of strategic thinking. Instances of game mechanics include such terms as "area control", "auction", "set collection", and so on. You can see 43 game mechanics listed on BoardGameGeek here.
Unfortunately, few of these mechanics truly exist; the ones that do specify the game's components, such as "hex and counter" or "singing". The fact that these categories don't exist is why so many people experience frustration when trying to use these terms to categorize games.
Let's go straight into an example:
El Grande is known as the king of "area control" games; and what could be simpler? Through a series of nine rounds, you play cards (using an auction) in order to place cubes onto various regions on the board. After every three rounds, the person with the most cubes in an area scores the points for the area, second most scores a lesser amount, and so on.
This sounds well and good, except for the fact that the only reason that the game is thought of as "area control" is due to the game's theme. In fact, all conceptions about the mechanics of a game are entirely due to the wording of the game's theme.
Let's rewrite El Grande's theme: In El Grande, there are 27 cars available every three rounds at nine used car lots. The game involves a Chinese auction where players place tickets into boxes as they bid on the cars they want to acquire. After three rounds, the player with the highest bid on each set of three cars gets the best car. Whoops. Now we no longer have an "area control" game, we have an "auction" game.
How about: In El Grande, your object is to collect the most artifacts in various regions in Spain. Each time you place a cube into a region, collect an artifact from that region. If you lose a cube, you lose an artifact. At the end of three rounds, the player who has collected the most artifacts in each region gains the points of that region. Now we have a "set collection" game.
More than half of the listed BGG mechanics can similarly be derived using the exact same game components and play of El Grande. The rest can be derived using the same game play with slightly different physical components.
El Grande is no fluke. Two years ago I did the same thing in an article for the game No Thanks. You can do the same for any other game. Chess. It's an auction game, a pick up and deliver game, a route planning game, a pattern recognition game, and a tile placement game. It all depends on how you word the theme.
Yehuda
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Games for Halloween
Bring a game to celebrate a night of murder and mayhem. Games appropriate for Halloween come in all the major themes to suit your taste. Here's a guide to some good ones, sorted by spooky style:
Braiiiiiinsssss ... For some reason the animated dead skeletons and corpses of dead humans have always been a main feature of our horror stories. Something to do with people coming to collect money from you even when you thought you were finally safe, I guess.
Last Night on Earth The Zombie Game was designed by Jason Hill, is for 2-6 players, and plays in 1.5 hours. It's got dice rolling, heroes, weapons, blood, gore, and all the features you would expect from a video game. And one or two of the players gets to play the zombies.
Other zombie games:
Mall of Horror - zombies in the mall.
Dawn Under - a zombie game for kids, believe it or not.
Zombies!!! 2nd Edition - A hundred zombies, and half of them are women zombies (zombettes?).
Zombie Plague - Two-player, one plays the zombies.
Vampires
Another undead, vampires have considerably finer manners than their zombie cousins. They won't come in unless they're invited, they don't spend all their time preening in front of mirrors, and they throw pretty good parties.
Fury of Dracula was designed by Stephen Hand and Kevin Wilson, is for 2-5 players, and plays in 2 hours. One player plays the Prince of Darkness, the others the vampire hunters intent on killing the vampire before he, uh, gets six victory points.
Other vampire games:
Vampire: The Eternal Struggle - considered one of the best CCGs other than Magic.
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer - rumored to be pretty good. Buffy has a CCG, too.
Dracula Board Game - 2 player game of hunt an chase.
Vampire: Prince of the City - everyone plays a vampire in this game, vying for control of the city.
Munchkin Bites - A send up of roleplayers and vampires in general.
Werewolves
Werewolves are cursed humans who grow a little hair and a little wild on nights of the full moon, and without drinking, too. Since you have to be bitten by a werewolf to become a werewolf, one wonders where the first werewolf came from.
Werewolf is a public domain party game also known as Mafia. One person moderates the group, one or two play the werewolves, one plays a seer, and the rest play villagers. Each night the werewolves strike, and each day the villagers lynch someone by voting, until only werewolves or villagers remain.
It plays with around 6 or 8 players up to 20 or more, and takes about an hour or two to play. The above picture is one of numerous published versions supplying cards and alternative characters for added enjoyment.
Witches
"She turned me into a newt!"
Women throughout the ages have been condemned for being ugly, single, or simply healthy. Sound fair to me.
Wicked Witches Way is by Serge Laget and Bruno Cathala, is for 2-6 players, and plays in 30 minutes. A game of speed and pattern recognition, where you have to quickly scan the pattern on nine dice and recreate them. With several twists.
Other witch, wizard, and warlock games:
Techno Witches - witches on vacuum cleaners.
Magic: The Gathering - Kind of fits here, I guess. The famous CCG, play a witch or wizard battling for control in Dominia. Anyway, there are lots of vampires, zombies, and ghosts in Magic. Play black.
Ghosts
Back to undead, ghosts are insubstantial, and consequentially I never understood why they cause so much terror. They can't touch you. And since they can possess your body, you have a great excuse when it comes to making mischief.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is by Bruce Glassco, is for 3-6 players and plays in 1.5 hours. All the players explore a haunted house until one player triggers a trap, becomes possessed, and tries to kill all the other players before they can escape.
Other ghost games:
Ghosts! - a hidden forces game (like Stratego).
Spooks - a lightly themed card game.
Ghost Chase in Canterville Castle - a kid's induction game (like Scotland Yard).
Frankenstein
When the zombies don't get around to animating themselves, it is up to the overworked, underpaid mad scientists to do the job for them. And what thanks do they get?
It's Alive was designed, by a startling coincidence, by yours truly. It's for 2-5 players and plays in 30 minutes. Players collect, sell, and auction body parts to make their monster.
Cthulhu
HP Lovecraft wrote an entire mythos based on the "elder gods" occasional visit to Earth (usually the fictional town of Arkham, MA), and this thread was picked up by a later science-fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.
Arkham Horror was designed by Kevin Wilson and Richard Launius, is for 1-8 players, and plays in 3 hours. It is very highly regarded on Board Game Geek, playing a little like an RPG combat scene, complete with character upgrades and intense combat. The game also has several expansions.
Other Cthulhu games:
Call of Cthulhu CCG - another well regarded CCG after Magic.
Munchkin Cthulhu - for lighter fare, this is one in a series of funny games about roleplayers.
Other Aliens and Monsters (Mummies, Demons, Devils, Bats, Spiders, and Creepy Crawlies)
The list of single creepy creatures and foul fearsomes can continue as long as there are movies to watch on Sunday afternoon. Suffice to say, you don't want any of these sneaking up on you.
Doom: the Boardgame is one of a new breed of board games based on video games, unlike say, Civilization, which is a video game based on a board game. The Doom board game is by Kevin Wilson, is for 2-4 players, and plays in 3 hours or so. Expect a lot of weapons and gore, and don't expect a cakewalk. One player plays the aliens.
Other monster or alien games:
Monsters Menace America - you play the monsters attacking the military, and you try to get the military to pick on the other monsters.
Aliens - based on the movie of the same name.
Cosmic Encounter - more aliens than you can shake a stick at, and some are cute, too.
HorrorClix - an easygoing miniature game of horror.
Hive - a two-player abstract game of swarming bugs trying to encircle your opponent's queen bee.
Criminals (thieves, murderers, and cannibals)
And just so you always remember, even if all of those monsters and aliens aren't real, there are lots of other all-too-real madmen out to get you and eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Clue Master Detective was an updating of the original Clue with more possibilities. Said to be somewhat more challenging than the original.
Other killer games:
Mystery of the Abbey - some claim that this is a superior version of Clue.
Mystery Rummy - themed rummy games with special cards and stories.
Mr. Jack - you play Jack the Ripper trying to evade pursuit. Some very interesting mechanics in this game look quite fun.
Finally, for the discriminating way to end a good Halloween party, you should always watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
Yehuda
P.S. Boo.
Board and Card Games
Zombies
Braiiiiiinsssss ... For some reason the animated dead skeletons and corpses of dead humans have always been a main feature of our horror stories. Something to do with people coming to collect money from you even when you thought you were finally safe, I guess.
Last Night on Earth The Zombie Game was designed by Jason Hill, is for 2-6 players, and plays in 1.5 hours. It's got dice rolling, heroes, weapons, blood, gore, and all the features you would expect from a video game. And one or two of the players gets to play the zombies.
Other zombie games:
Mall of Horror - zombies in the mall.
Dawn Under - a zombie game for kids, believe it or not.
Zombies!!! 2nd Edition - A hundred zombies, and half of them are women zombies (zombettes?).
Zombie Plague - Two-player, one plays the zombies.
Vampires
Another undead, vampires have considerably finer manners than their zombie cousins. They won't come in unless they're invited, they don't spend all their time preening in front of mirrors, and they throw pretty good parties.
Fury of Dracula was designed by Stephen Hand and Kevin Wilson, is for 2-5 players, and plays in 2 hours. One player plays the Prince of Darkness, the others the vampire hunters intent on killing the vampire before he, uh, gets six victory points.
Other vampire games:
Vampire: The Eternal Struggle - considered one of the best CCGs other than Magic.
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer - rumored to be pretty good. Buffy has a CCG, too.
Dracula Board Game - 2 player game of hunt an chase.
Vampire: Prince of the City - everyone plays a vampire in this game, vying for control of the city.
Munchkin Bites - A send up of roleplayers and vampires in general.
Werewolves
Werewolves are cursed humans who grow a little hair and a little wild on nights of the full moon, and without drinking, too. Since you have to be bitten by a werewolf to become a werewolf, one wonders where the first werewolf came from.
Werewolf is a public domain party game also known as Mafia. One person moderates the group, one or two play the werewolves, one plays a seer, and the rest play villagers. Each night the werewolves strike, and each day the villagers lynch someone by voting, until only werewolves or villagers remain.
It plays with around 6 or 8 players up to 20 or more, and takes about an hour or two to play. The above picture is one of numerous published versions supplying cards and alternative characters for added enjoyment.
Witches
"She turned me into a newt!"
Women throughout the ages have been condemned for being ugly, single, or simply healthy. Sound fair to me.
Wicked Witches Way is by Serge Laget and Bruno Cathala, is for 2-6 players, and plays in 30 minutes. A game of speed and pattern recognition, where you have to quickly scan the pattern on nine dice and recreate them. With several twists.
Other witch, wizard, and warlock games:
Techno Witches - witches on vacuum cleaners.
Magic: The Gathering - Kind of fits here, I guess. The famous CCG, play a witch or wizard battling for control in Dominia. Anyway, there are lots of vampires, zombies, and ghosts in Magic. Play black.
Ghosts
Back to undead, ghosts are insubstantial, and consequentially I never understood why they cause so much terror. They can't touch you. And since they can possess your body, you have a great excuse when it comes to making mischief.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is by Bruce Glassco, is for 3-6 players and plays in 1.5 hours. All the players explore a haunted house until one player triggers a trap, becomes possessed, and tries to kill all the other players before they can escape.
Other ghost games:
Ghosts! - a hidden forces game (like Stratego).
Spooks - a lightly themed card game.
Ghost Chase in Canterville Castle - a kid's induction game (like Scotland Yard).
Frankenstein
When the zombies don't get around to animating themselves, it is up to the overworked, underpaid mad scientists to do the job for them. And what thanks do they get?
It's Alive was designed, by a startling coincidence, by yours truly. It's for 2-5 players and plays in 30 minutes. Players collect, sell, and auction body parts to make their monster.
Cthulhu
HP Lovecraft wrote an entire mythos based on the "elder gods" occasional visit to Earth (usually the fictional town of Arkham, MA), and this thread was picked up by a later science-fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.
Arkham Horror was designed by Kevin Wilson and Richard Launius, is for 1-8 players, and plays in 3 hours. It is very highly regarded on Board Game Geek, playing a little like an RPG combat scene, complete with character upgrades and intense combat. The game also has several expansions.
Other Cthulhu games:
Call of Cthulhu CCG - another well regarded CCG after Magic.
Munchkin Cthulhu - for lighter fare, this is one in a series of funny games about roleplayers.
Other Aliens and Monsters (Mummies, Demons, Devils, Bats, Spiders, and Creepy Crawlies)
The list of single creepy creatures and foul fearsomes can continue as long as there are movies to watch on Sunday afternoon. Suffice to say, you don't want any of these sneaking up on you.
Doom: the Boardgame is one of a new breed of board games based on video games, unlike say, Civilization, which is a video game based on a board game. The Doom board game is by Kevin Wilson, is for 2-4 players, and plays in 3 hours or so. Expect a lot of weapons and gore, and don't expect a cakewalk. One player plays the aliens.
Other monster or alien games:
Monsters Menace America - you play the monsters attacking the military, and you try to get the military to pick on the other monsters.
Aliens - based on the movie of the same name.
Cosmic Encounter - more aliens than you can shake a stick at, and some are cute, too.
HorrorClix - an easygoing miniature game of horror.
Hive - a two-player abstract game of swarming bugs trying to encircle your opponent's queen bee.
Criminals (thieves, murderers, and cannibals)
And just so you always remember, even if all of those monsters and aliens aren't real, there are lots of other all-too-real madmen out to get you and eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Clue Master Detective was an updating of the original Clue with more possibilities. Said to be somewhat more challenging than the original.
Other killer games:
Mystery of the Abbey - some claim that this is a superior version of Clue.
Mystery Rummy - themed rummy games with special cards and stories.
Mr. Jack - you play Jack the Ripper trying to evade pursuit. Some very interesting mechanics in this game look quite fun.
Video Games
Think FPS and you can't go wrong.RPGs
A number of RPGs have tackled horror themes, some quite well. For a good list of these games, try here. Here is a list of free horror RPGs.Murder Mystery Party
Another great game for a Halloween party is the Murder Mystery. This is an elaborate game that requires a team to carry out, and a bigger group of guests to play, but it's well worth it for large groups. There are sites, kits, and books to help you with this.Finally, for the discriminating way to end a good Halloween party, you should always watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
Yehuda
P.S. Boo.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
PR 6
I was wondering why I was getting so many more offers for advertising for my blog when my Technorati score was dropping. It turns out I moved up a page rank in Google.
Odd thing about my previous post. Yes, I started writing it in December, and with a misspelled title. But I only posted it today, in February, yet the URL still marks it as from December. And complete with the misspelling.
I wasn't going to post more today, but I couldn't resist a backlog of interesting stuff:
Games
Mike Doyle talks Euro games and themes.
Socratic Design talks the future of RPGs (hint: more like board games).
And speaking of learning from board games, Steve Meretzky at Game Daily tells the video game industry to learn from board games, too.
Sababa Toys is merging with Front Porch Classics (source).
"Sababa" is an Arabic slang term used by Israeli youth, and corresponds to "no problem" or "great".
Israel/Jewish
Which brings me to the fact that The Jerusalem Post has a Christian edition. I did not know that.
Lastly, a highly amusing post by the great Joel on Software, who applies the principles of talmudic study, including Rashi and Tosefot, to decipher a post by Steve Gillmor.
Yehuda
Odd thing about my previous post. Yes, I started writing it in December, and with a misspelled title. But I only posted it today, in February, yet the URL still marks it as from December. And complete with the misspelling.
I wasn't going to post more today, but I couldn't resist a backlog of interesting stuff:
Games
Mike Doyle talks Euro games and themes.
Socratic Design talks the future of RPGs (hint: more like board games).
And speaking of learning from board games, Steve Meretzky at Game Daily tells the video game industry to learn from board games, too.
Sababa Toys is merging with Front Porch Classics (source).
"Sababa" is an Arabic slang term used by Israeli youth, and corresponds to "no problem" or "great".
Israel/Jewish
Which brings me to the fact that The Jerusalem Post has a Christian edition. I did not know that.
Lastly, a highly amusing post by the great Joel on Software, who applies the principles of talmudic study, including Rashi and Tosefot, to decipher a post by Steve Gillmor.
Yehuda
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Session Report, in which we play many two-player games
The latest Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club session report is up here. Games played: Puerto Rico, For Sale x 6, Colossal Arena, Lord of the Rings: the Confrontation x 3, Hive x 7, Caylus, Secret Sevens, Zendo, Go x 2, The Menorah Game x 3, Children of Fire RPG.
Two-player games, because we couldn't all agree on which multi-player games to play.
Bruno Faidutti talks up theme in games.
Chris Brooks notes the surprise of a local newspaper that games are, like, designed! By people!
Yehuda
Two-player games, because we couldn't all agree on which multi-player games to play.
Bruno Faidutti talks up theme in games.
Chris Brooks notes the surprise of a local newspaper that games are, like, designed! By people!
Yehuda
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Six Peach Games
In which we endeavor to create games that convey the sense of eating peaches:Peach Game, the first
Components: One peach per player, pencil and paper, a timer.
Play: Each player eats a peach and then has three minutes to write a poem on peachness. Poems are mixed up and read. Players vote for their favorite poem, and the player who wrote the poem with the highest score wins.
Peach Game, the second
Components: Pencil and paper, a timer
Play: Each player has three minutes to write a poem on peachness. Poems are mixed up and read. Players vote for their favorite poem, and the player who wrote the poem with the highest score wins.
Peach Game, the third
Components: A board of one hundred spaces, each of which contains poems snippets about peaches. Player pieces. Paper to cover visited spaces. Paper and pencils. A die.
Play: Players roll the die and move that many spaces, skipping over covered spaces. When landing on a space, the player copies the snippet onto paper and covers the space. The game ends when no spaces remain in the same column or row. The players vote for their favorite poem, and the player who wrote the poem with the highest score wins.
Peach Game, the fourth
Components: Board, cards, player pieces, die.
Play: Roll dice, move piece, pick cards. Read the card and perform what the card says. Example cards include: describe peaches, compare peaches to other fruit, what color does peach inspire in you, what car is most like a peach, etc...
Peach Game, the fifth
Components: Board, pieces, growth cards, peach component cards.
Play: Players take turn auctioning off peach component cards. The components include the soil type, rain fall, shade, nutrients, and so on. Players may trade these using blind bidding for peach component cards, such as blush, flavor, ripeness, and so on. The player with the highest scoring peach at the end of the game wins. Each of the cards is beautifully decorated with peach or peach blossoms and poetic descriptions of peaches.
Peach Game, the sixth
Components: DNA cards and combination charts.
Play: Each player is dealt a hand. On your turn, pick a card and try to meld DNA combinations, scoring according to the chart; higher points for higher peachiness. If you empty your hand, the other players have one more round to finish. Follow any special directions written on the cards when you draw them.
If you complete the entire DNA of a peach, you instantly win.
BONUS: Peach Game, the seventh
A scientist who was smoking grass while reading Snow Crash discovered the exact set of mathematical sequences that, when performed, trigger the same effects in the brain as eating a peach.
A game has been designed with rules that take you through these exact steps. Be careful not to swap steps 438 and 439, however, or your brain will trigger a rotten garlic taste.
Yehuda
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Undefining Games
I haven't yet insulted Raph enough with my review of A Theory of Games, so I would like to address his recent speech at Project Horseshoe called Influences. Raph was kind enough to provide a transcript of the speech.
A Summary
Raph begins by noting that he is only one of many who are trying to break down the structure of the game experience into atoms of grammar. In doing so, he came to the conclusion that "just about all games were about math", and specifically NP-hard or NP-complete problems and/or probabilities.
He describes a simulation he created about flapping wings in order to fly a bird. It was enjoyable and soothing. "But it wasn’t what I would really call a game. You know, it was a toy, an amusement." So he created a goal for the game, as well as a scoring mechanism, and as a result, "it ceased being fun because the math came in big time."
This isn't what he wants. "I’ve been dreaming about making games that make you feel what’s it’s like to be a wolf living in the winter scrounging scraps from a nearby mining town. A game about the sensation of a kaleidoscope. A game that exudes 'treeness.' ... I think that these aren’t things that reduce down to math."
But every time a scoring mechanism is added to a game, it reduces to math again.
How can we create experiences beyond math in games?
My Take
I think the answer is staring us in the face: every time a scoring mechanism is added to a game, it reduces to math.
On the Gone Gaming blog, I wrote a few articles that examine how to eliminate the concept of winning and losing from games (here and here). In my latest, admittedly hastily written article, I take my first shot at why we define games as game, anyway (here).
Look at what we have from Raph's post:
Raph writes at one point: It wasn’t what I would really call a game. You know, it was a toy, an amusement.
Wolfe in a comment writes (about what, doesn't matter): This is not a game, it is a toy with which a higher understanding of things can be made accessible. A Game is by the definition of its word not this machine. A game is if I remember correctly a system which determine some winner between two or more competing actors. Of all the emotions you can sense only a tiny amount will be stimulated by competition.
Matt in a comment writes: It sounds to me that you want a game without logic, or at least not about logic: a game of expression and feeling. There arises a conflict. The very act of constructing a game imbues it with logic. If it has rules, then it has a defined logic.
And so on.
Why does game have to have such a strict definition. Scratch that. A better question: who cares if game has this definition? What is the difference between creating a video game and creating a video activity? Why do "game designers" have to be limited? Why do gamers have to be limited?
If we are using the interactive video medium to create, create! You don't have to get stuck on "scores" and "points". Of course everything will reduce to math if you have to achieve X point with Y resources. That's math. But not all games are about that. Certainly not all activities are about that.
More than Mechanics
It also doesn't surprise me that so many game designers or game enthusiasts reduce games to mechanics. After all, game mechanics are what makes a game from a designer's point of view. Not from a player's point of view.
Not every player is going to reduce his or her experience through repetitions of game play to the underlying mechanics, unless points are all that matters. That's simply not the case.
Earlier this week I posted to a perfect example of a game where the mechanics are totally irrelevant (here). The mechanics are important in keeping the game moving, but not in the lesson that the game teaches. The game teaches an experience, lessons about fear and anger, love and responsibility. Sure, there are dumb games that try to do this, but background mechanics with a beautiful theme doesn't automatically make a dumb game. I could very well see someone playing this game and concretizing the lessons of the game simply by virtue of having seen the pieces move from here to there and focusing on the theme.
Want to make a game about the smell of peaches? Include heady text, colors, and picture about peaches in fall. Walk through the experience. Winning the game is irrelevant.
It's an activity. It's a game. Does that make one more boring than the other? One less in need of design than the other? One less replayable than the other?
Challenges
And by the way: I still greatly disagree that opponents, self-mastery, and luck have anything to do with learning patterns. In the latter case, I know very well that my odds of winning by rolling one die versus your die are 50/50. It's still fun to play. It has nothing to do with not having absorbed the lesson. It's not simply about math.
Yehuda
A Summary
Raph begins by noting that he is only one of many who are trying to break down the structure of the game experience into atoms of grammar. In doing so, he came to the conclusion that "just about all games were about math", and specifically NP-hard or NP-complete problems and/or probabilities.
He describes a simulation he created about flapping wings in order to fly a bird. It was enjoyable and soothing. "But it wasn’t what I would really call a game. You know, it was a toy, an amusement." So he created a goal for the game, as well as a scoring mechanism, and as a result, "it ceased being fun because the math came in big time."
This isn't what he wants. "I’ve been dreaming about making games that make you feel what’s it’s like to be a wolf living in the winter scrounging scraps from a nearby mining town. A game about the sensation of a kaleidoscope. A game that exudes 'treeness.' ... I think that these aren’t things that reduce down to math."
But every time a scoring mechanism is added to a game, it reduces to math again.
How can we create experiences beyond math in games?
My Take
I think the answer is staring us in the face: every time a scoring mechanism is added to a game, it reduces to math.
On the Gone Gaming blog, I wrote a few articles that examine how to eliminate the concept of winning and losing from games (here and here). In my latest, admittedly hastily written article, I take my first shot at why we define games as game, anyway (here).
Look at what we have from Raph's post:
Raph writes at one point: It wasn’t what I would really call a game. You know, it was a toy, an amusement.
Wolfe in a comment writes (about what, doesn't matter): This is not a game, it is a toy with which a higher understanding of things can be made accessible. A Game is by the definition of its word not this machine. A game is if I remember correctly a system which determine some winner between two or more competing actors. Of all the emotions you can sense only a tiny amount will be stimulated by competition.
Matt in a comment writes: It sounds to me that you want a game without logic, or at least not about logic: a game of expression and feeling. There arises a conflict. The very act of constructing a game imbues it with logic. If it has rules, then it has a defined logic.
And so on.
Why does game have to have such a strict definition. Scratch that. A better question: who cares if game has this definition? What is the difference between creating a video game and creating a video activity? Why do "game designers" have to be limited? Why do gamers have to be limited?
If we are using the interactive video medium to create, create! You don't have to get stuck on "scores" and "points". Of course everything will reduce to math if you have to achieve X point with Y resources. That's math. But not all games are about that. Certainly not all activities are about that.
More than Mechanics
It also doesn't surprise me that so many game designers or game enthusiasts reduce games to mechanics. After all, game mechanics are what makes a game from a designer's point of view. Not from a player's point of view.
Not every player is going to reduce his or her experience through repetitions of game play to the underlying mechanics, unless points are all that matters. That's simply not the case.
Earlier this week I posted to a perfect example of a game where the mechanics are totally irrelevant (here). The mechanics are important in keeping the game moving, but not in the lesson that the game teaches. The game teaches an experience, lessons about fear and anger, love and responsibility. Sure, there are dumb games that try to do this, but background mechanics with a beautiful theme doesn't automatically make a dumb game. I could very well see someone playing this game and concretizing the lessons of the game simply by virtue of having seen the pieces move from here to there and focusing on the theme.
Want to make a game about the smell of peaches? Include heady text, colors, and picture about peaches in fall. Walk through the experience. Winning the game is irrelevant.
It's an activity. It's a game. Does that make one more boring than the other? One less in need of design than the other? One less replayable than the other?
Challenges
And by the way: I still greatly disagree that opponents, self-mastery, and luck have anything to do with learning patterns. In the latter case, I know very well that my odds of winning by rolling one die versus your die are 50/50. It's still fun to play. It has nothing to do with not having absorbed the lesson. It's not simply about math.
Yehuda
Monday, November 13, 2006
Board Game Teaches Suicide Bombing?
No, I'm not talking about the War on Terror board game, which is meant to be a parody/political statement.
Here is an article from The Independent:
Not all Islamic games teach violence, of course. Muslim Toys sells the "Junior Quran Challenge Game", "Mecca to Medina", and "Race to the Kabah", the latter of which teaches the 99 names of Allah.
Another game that can shift your life, hopefully not towards suicide bombing, is Shift.
Shift seems like any other run-of-the-mill board game as far as mechanics go. Here's why I mention it, quoting the designer:
If the lessons learned from the game really are valuable, and the game is at least not annoying, surely that counts as a game, as a challenge, and as a valuable use of your time.
You could win three hundred million by playing Baccarat. If you live in Korea. And pay an eight million entrance fee. That's in Korean Won, by the way, not U.S. dollars.
The Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield has released a card game, The Sheffield Trump Cards. The object is to apply beat-down to your opponent using local sites, bands, and sports teams. Power, toughness, and health are renamed wow factor, uniqueness, and investment opportunity. I don't know. The site where you can buy them is currently down.
Lastly, Yael, one of my favorite Israeli bloggers, has rounded up bloggers from across the Middle East in a new cooperative blog, Good Neighbors. I wish it success.
Yehuda
Here is an article from The Independent:
It seems to be a simple board game that purports to be the Islamic equivalent of Monopoly. But one card in the game - sold as a family activity - invites players to "kill Western infidels".This game is mentioned again here. But the name of the game isn't mentioned. Any ideas?
Not all Islamic games teach violence, of course. Muslim Toys sells the "Junior Quran Challenge Game", "Mecca to Medina", and "Race to the Kabah", the latter of which teaches the 99 names of Allah.
Another game that can shift your life, hopefully not towards suicide bombing, is Shift.
Shift seems like any other run-of-the-mill board game as far as mechanics go. Here's why I mention it, quoting the designer:
I've been asked many times what the motivation was behind my idea. At 25, I met Dorothy J. Divack who is a major proponent of the lessons in A Course in Miracles ... It was exactly what I needed to hear and the way I needed to hear it. I was finally open to listening and what I heard resonated with my soul.Now, I don't know if the game's mechanics are any good. But shouldn't games be more than just about their mechanics? Can we really say that games are simply rules? Or math? Or challenges? "I was trying to create something that conveyed these lofty principles in a really fun and cool way ..."
The Course said that I was responsible for what I created. More importantly, the Course said that we are all perfect, whole and complete. Until then, I was pretty sure that I was just victim of the world and that I was unlovable or not good enough depending on the situation ...
It was the application of the lesson to everyday life that really made the concepts stick for me. I learned to witness my thoughts, to see what I was thinking in the moment, and saw my experiences as a direct result of my belief about what I was ... I started to see all of my experiences as gifts that held some lesson for me ...
I wanted to distill all of these universal principles into something that people who weren't lighting incense in Boulder or Berkeley could experience. Knowing that I was at choice and that I could choose my reality was the single most important thing I had learned in my life and I wanted to empower other people with that same knowledge. I wanted people who were in their twenties, who lived in Iowa, or who might not be exposed to that message to hear it, and I knew they would need the form to be hip and different than most New Age products. It took about six months for the concept to show up as a board game. And it took another three years or so to get the game dynamics right. I was trying to create something that conveyed these lofty principles in a really fun and cool way and getting down to simple was actually quite difficult.
...
If the lessons learned from the game really are valuable, and the game is at least not annoying, surely that counts as a game, as a challenge, and as a valuable use of your time.
You could win three hundred million by playing Baccarat. If you live in Korea. And pay an eight million entrance fee. That's in Korean Won, by the way, not U.S. dollars.
The Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield has released a card game, The Sheffield Trump Cards. The object is to apply beat-down to your opponent using local sites, bands, and sports teams. Power, toughness, and health are renamed wow factor, uniqueness, and investment opportunity. I don't know. The site where you can buy them is currently down.
Lastly, Yael, one of my favorite Israeli bloggers, has rounded up bloggers from across the Middle East in a new cooperative blog, Good Neighbors. I wish it success.
Yehuda
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Theme May Be Integral to a Game
A while ago, Mr. Ekted wrote that all themes are veneer. That, even for heavily themed war games, if you stripped off the designs and names, and played the game simply as hexes, tokens, and dice, you would not be able to tell what the theme was. You may be able to say that it is a war game, but not which war.
First of all, I expect that at least some themes can be discerned from the wording of the mechanics, the piece abilities, and the map structure. But I wouldn't swear to it.
In any case, Ekted is making too much of the division between theme and mechanics. You can't strip off the theme to a game and still have the same game, really.
The very way that you describe a mechanic gives it a thematic flavor. Taking a card from a pile might be "drafting", "collecting", "selecting", "purchasing", "accepting", or a host of other thematic names that gives a clue as to what the theme is.
Also, it is a Euro-gamer's perspective that NASCAR Monopoly is the same game as Atlantic City Monopoly, with a simple theme switch. But that is not necessarily true. The pictures, the flavor, the act of moving a car rather than a shoe around a board, have a lot to do with the feel of the game. The mechanics cannot simply be separated out from this experience.
The most you can say is that an individual mechanic cannot be limited to, or ascribed to, a specific theme. Listing the mechanics of a game are simply not enough to describe the game. The mechanics of Atlantic City Monopoly are not Atlantic City Monopoly or even Monopoly; they are only parts of the game.
Or at least, one could argue that.
The point is that taking out the thematic overlays and then claiming that the game's theme is no longer detectable is not really saying much, since the game itself has changed.
Yehuda
First of all, I expect that at least some themes can be discerned from the wording of the mechanics, the piece abilities, and the map structure. But I wouldn't swear to it.
In any case, Ekted is making too much of the division between theme and mechanics. You can't strip off the theme to a game and still have the same game, really.
The very way that you describe a mechanic gives it a thematic flavor. Taking a card from a pile might be "drafting", "collecting", "selecting", "purchasing", "accepting", or a host of other thematic names that gives a clue as to what the theme is.
Also, it is a Euro-gamer's perspective that NASCAR Monopoly is the same game as Atlantic City Monopoly, with a simple theme switch. But that is not necessarily true. The pictures, the flavor, the act of moving a car rather than a shoe around a board, have a lot to do with the feel of the game. The mechanics cannot simply be separated out from this experience.
The most you can say is that an individual mechanic cannot be limited to, or ascribed to, a specific theme. Listing the mechanics of a game are simply not enough to describe the game. The mechanics of Atlantic City Monopoly are not Atlantic City Monopoly or even Monopoly; they are only parts of the game.
Or at least, one could argue that.
The point is that taking out the thematic overlays and then claiming that the game's theme is no longer detectable is not really saying much, since the game itself has changed.
Yehuda
Monday, August 21, 2006
No Thanks: A study in Mechanics
Classifying mechanics has a lot to do with the way the mechanic is described. In other words, classifying mechanics is subject to a thematic bias.The rules of No Thanks are blindingly simple. The game is for 3 to 5 players. The game consists of a deck of 33 cards numbers 3 to 35, and a sufficient number of tokens. Each player begins with 11 tokens.
The cards are shuffled and 9 cards are removed the deck. On a player's turn, if no card is currently flipped up, flip up a card. The player then either takes the card and all tokens on the card, or places one of his tokens on the card. If he takes the card, he goes again. If he places a token on the card, play passes to the next player.
At the end of the game, your score is the face value of your cards minus the number of tokens that you have. However, if you have any cards in sequence (e.g. 9-10, or 20-21-22-23) you count only the lowest valued card of each sequence (e.g. 9 or 20). Lowest score wins.
What mechanics does No Thanks use?
This is a matter for interpretation.
Action Points: Each player is given 11 action points to start with. During your turn, you can use one of your action points to avoid taking the current card. Or, you can take the card and gain additional action points from the tokens on the card.
Area Control: The game consists of 33 areas, 24 of which come into play each game. Each area you control is negative points. However, if you control contiguous areas, only the least negative area counts against your score.
Auction: Each time a card is up for sale, you raise the ante of how much you are willing to pay not to take the card. The first person to decline to up their bid takes the card, as well as all other players' bids. All other players lose their bids.
Betting: You pay money into the pot every time you don't want to take the current offering. If a low card comes up, or a card that fits into your sequence comes up, you can win the card and the pool.
Card Drafting: You are trying to form the best hand at the least cost. The best hand is an arrangement of sequences, where the lowest card of each sequence is less than anyone else's, combined with your remaining tokens.
Commodity Speculation: You are trying to buy cards of approximately equal values. A single card is worth its value. Sets of cards are worth only the lowest value among them. Buying these commodities comes with cash incentives. Each game has up to ten commodities, depending on which cards were removed before starting.
Delivery: Each player pays money to not deliver a load. If you don't pay the fee, you must deliver the load for however much payoff is allocated for that load.
Hand Management: You are trying to manage cards as you collect them, hoping to buy necessary cards with limited resources.
Pattern Building: You are trying to complete card patterns, the least number of, and the least valued, patterns.
Route Building: You are trying to create a travel itinerary on a budget. The cheapest itinerary, with the least number of jumps, while saving the most amount of money.
Set Collection: Collect sets of sequences cards at the least cost.
Stock Holding: Buy losing stocks. The least losing portfolios at the end wins.
Trading: Each player contribute tokens that they are willing to trade to whomever agrees to take the card. In return, they agree to take other cards in the future, once they agree to its price.
Unit Deployment: Battle opportunities arise, and you can fend them off or fight them, gaining all spent resources in the process.
Variable Phase Order: Each player gets a turn, but can take additional turns if they agree to take the face up card immediately after it is revealed.
Variable Player Powers: There isn't, but there should be.
Voting: Each player casts votes on issues with political penalties. A player can accept the issue, and gain all political influence spent by other players as a result.
No Thanks uses all of these mechanics? No. But there is a lot of overlap between what we think of as mechanics and the thematic description behind them. If I had to pick the most intuitive mechanics to assign to the game, I would probably choose auctions and set-collection. But it really depends on the theme.
Yehuda
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Pasted on Theme to an Extreme
Today's Absurd Notion comic (#123) demonstrates the hazards of buying a game for its theme.
Yehuda
Yehuda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)