More Exciting Items, More Complex Strategy

There's the standard value/event/boost in your game. Let's say it is +3. So you have a sword that gives you +3 to attacks. Maybe ok for one item, but how do you make your items less boring as an overall set? And add strategy to the game as well? Here's some ideas:

The Trade Off

+6 but you have to take 3 damage to use it. It makes you ask questions: "Can I get healed easily?" "Will this damage put me too close to the edge?" and so forth. Adding interest. Would you rather just have the +3 basic sword? Sometimes you would. Sometimes is a good answer. It means you have to evaluate some states of the game to be effective. And make choices.

The Boost

+3 and +1 for each energy you spend. See what I did? It also gives you the same numerical value, but it adds in a question, which is "Is this a good/efficient use of my energy right now?" Therefore, more strategically complex.

The Permanent Boost

+3, but if you are level 3, +6. It transitions into a better item as other things progress. Similar to above, but there is more of a "one time cost" or "long term payment".

The Situational Boost

+3, but +6 in swamps. If swamps are super rare, maybe its +12 in swamps! This is one of my favorite types of changes to make, since it encourages people to change their play patterns if they have an item or power like this. They have to play to it. They have to set it up. There are a ton of ways to implement this, depending on your game. +6 vs Dragons, +5 on cloudy days, and so forth.

The Situational Combo Penalty

This is an inverse boost. +5, but subtract 2 against Goblins. Make it a combo: +3 attack, +3 more against Dragons, -2 against Goblins!

Restricted uses

Once per round, once per turn, once per game. You get the idea. I realized the other day that "once per game" is pretty much the same as "discard to use". So: "Discard for +9 in an attack." Powerful, but you have to decide when is best to use it, which makes your decision making more interesting.

More...

The more complex your game, the more complex these can be. If there are different things to accumulate, like Gold, Experience and Energy, you can make different items boost by paying different costs.

And you can make up many others if you have in mind a general idea of relative worth of different things. How much gold is one point of attack value worth? How many XP equals 3 Gold? This is a generally good idea to figure out anyway because it helps you avoid underpowering and overpowering game elements.

Identifying and Changing Bad Play Patterns

Play patterns refer to the recurring behaviors, strategies, and interactions that players exhibit while playing a game. These patterns emerge as players navigate the game’s mechanics, objectives, and social dynamics.

People often talk of "balancing a game", which is kind of a general code for "making it better". Balancing a game is such a generic idea, and even the actual balancing of game elements against each other doesn't do the whole job of "making a game better." That's where we turn to examining play patterns.

Understanding play patterns helps designers create more engaging experiences. In particular, identifying and changing bad play patterns is important, so I will explain a few of those, and suggest ways to change each one.

Some clues we get about play patterns in a game come from things people say about it:

"You shouldn't play the game that way." means there are some bad play patterns possible. It makes me wonder why they left those in.

“You need to play with the right group” is another thing which essentially means “some play patterns and dynamics in this game are boring and you need to avoid them to enjoy this game”

There is a complex relationship between the varying number of players in a game and the play patterns that emerge. I'll cover that in another post.

 

Types of bad play patterns

Repetitive/boring

It might let you win as often as other patterns, ie, it is balanced against those other winning strategies in terms of length. But it involves boring repetition of going back and forth between two places during the game, or something similar.

What I would try to do to interrupt that is either a) make part of that 2 space loop less valuable, so it is no longer a viable path for winning, or b) introduce uncertainty at either spot, or between the spots, or c) increase the competition between players for one or both spots, so they are naturally interrupting that boring play pattern (I'm thinking of worker placement games here).

Un-intuitive ("I don't get it")

Sometimes there is a mismatch between theme and actions, or how things fit together is hard to follow. In that case, instead of a fun discovering of strategies experience which is a normal engaging part of game play, there are patterns that would be good but no one uses, or the designer or an "expert" player has to constantly remind people what to do. Go back to your underlying structure and ask if the actions are easy to understand, and if they are easy to figure out how to create strategies with. 

If a player goes to the market, and they fight something, or they go to the quarry and they get a sheep, those are obvious mismatches of theme and game elements. But others can be more subtle.

If your game is too complex, or the game state is hard to understand, or the information design is poor, those can contribute to un-intuitive game experiences and play patterns.

Degenerate (the best, or you must)

Sometimes a strategy is more powerful than others, and you must do that to win. Hopefully in this case, you can increase the power of other paths, and balance the winning strategies vs each other.

A variant of this is a case where a certain strategy must be employed or the game is unbalanced. "Oh, if that character is in play, we all have to play this way or lose." People argue endlessly whether this type of situation is "balanced" or not in a game. (See Chaos in the Old World, Khorne for an example) I would say it is balanced, but degenerate, and possibly un-intuitive as well. And definitely limiting and less fun.

Un-dynamic (doesn’t change according to game state)

The game state changes all the time and that is the bedrock of games as a medium. It is what makes a game dynamic. It is what sets games apart from static media. From novels and movies. So play into that strength.

But there might be a play pattern or choice of action where a player doesn't have to interact or understand the state of the game or anything. They just go "I get 3 coins" for their action. That's ok if it occurs after determining it is the best or possible best choice. Otherwise it is probably too powerful. Maybe reduce the payout, or eliminate the choice.

If your game is too boring in general, or players aren't engaged, they might exhibit exhibit similar behavior.

Simplistic (doesn’t use much of the game’s elements or mechanics)

You made a splendid game with lots of fun things... and people just avoid a huge chunk of those to win, or to be engaged. You can chuck those not-used things, it you have the stomach to let them go. Or you can try to make them more essential to the winning strategies.

If these types of play patterns are happening in your game, the underlying structure probably needs a whole lot of work.

Conclusion

Since games are dynamic, there may be play patterns that only occur occasionally, under specific circumstances, or with certain styles of players. That's one reason you need to play your game a lot more than you think. Strive to make all the play patterns engaging and rewarding in your game.

Iterative Design - City of Demons

I met a guy at a convention, and he had developed some games, so I thought I would talk straight-up with him about my current game, so I said, "I like it but I feel like it drags a bit in the middle of the game, and I have played it so many times I am not excited about it." And he replied, "That never happens to me, I have loved every moment of every game I ever made."

I was flabbergasted. Had he made that many games? Was he delusional? How is that even possible? And then I realized that some of my great skills at design are the abilities to be critical, unsatisfied, bored, and impatient. Not everyone has those abilities, apparently.

“The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.” ― Theodore Roosevelt.

Especially when you venture onto unknown territory, or attempt to do things you haven't done before, you are going to probably make something that isn't perfect and needs refinement. The more games you make or try to make, the more this will happen. And sometimes it is your job to work on something, and it isn't your favorite project, but you still need to do a good job.

When making games, and particularly on multiple plays, the feelings you have as a player and designer are vital to understanding what to do.

Custom dice for the City of Demons.

 

So, back to the game I was in the middle of refining, the City of Demons. "It drags in the middle," was how I was feeling. Other things I felt were "It goes on too long and I get a little bored,", "If I die during the game, I feel dispirited," "I sometimes feel helpless near the end of the game, since its not a close game. I wish there was some way to catch up better."

Here's what I did in response to those feelings:

"It drags in the middle." - Previously, I had shortened the game length quite a bit from the original design. I had removed two levels. I didn't think removing more levels was the right thing this time, because it would make it too short. So I added some free resources that players get when they enter the middle sections of the board. So they can level up quicker and more happens on a turn.

"If I die during the game I feel dispirited." - I drastically reduced what happens when you run out of health. This was an iterative process over many plays. I made it so you are "bumped down a notch" instead of  "sent back to the start". The in-game idea of your piece being "killed" changed to being "stunned".

"I sometimes feel helpless near the end of the game, since its not a close game. I wish there was some way to catch up better." - Previously, it used to let one player get super far ahead of the other, so I had massively changed what happens on a turn, to prevent that. No more of that answer was available, so instead, I added the Underground Tunnels, which is a new sub-system that lets a player take multiple rolls on a turn as a desperate and dangerous catch-up option.

"It goes on too long and I get a little bored." - The things I did for the above problems really helped with this, but I wasn't entirely satisfied yet, so I radically simplified the turn structure. Now the "atomic" level of the game, the player turn, was much simpler and cleaner, and the rest of the game felt tighter and shorter.

Me demoing the City of Demons at Pax East 2024.

 

After all that work, I am very happy with how the City of Demons plays, so all the agonizing feelings led me to address the weaker moments of the game and change it for the better. Now the game never drags on and I don't feel dispirited. Instead, I feel excited and interested to see what happens next.

Making Prototypes for The City of Demons

We are making playable copies of the City of Demons to use at local demonstrations of the game, and it has been really fun to use my arts and crafts skills while doing it. 

I put stickers on wooden cubes and poker chips, sharpied the edge of the chips, and put Mod Podge over them all for a sealer.

Temporary box, with the draft of the actual box cover!

Work area, where I cut out tokens, glued them, and colored the edged.

 Close-up of a player disc.

Playing last fall at a library in Connecticut.

Two types of Agency in Games

What does it mean for a person to have agency?

In social science, agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.

Why is agency important?

It empowers players to influence their own path to mastery. By encouraging players to take initiative, you enhance their cognitive ability to take control, increase motivation, and help ensure they  are engaged with the game.

 

There are two ways that applies to games:

The first is imaginative agency, which means the player has the choice to be and imagine who they want to be. Some ways of allowing this are to make synonyms and analogs of items in your game. For example, have a sword and and axe. Thy both give you +1 Attack, yet you can pick which one you prefer. 

Another important thing for promoting imaginative agency in a game is to make sure equal things have equal powers, ie. no degenerative strategies, or unbalanced character classes. Which character class would a player like to play? Ranger, Warrrior or Rogue. They might have different mechanics and powers to differentiate those play styles, but have the same chance of winning. Otherwise, if the warrior is just better, there is a divide between strategy and imagination. You have to pick the warrior to win, but you feel like playing the Ranger. There is a lack of coherence there, and it will turn off both the imaginative player who likes to get immersed in their character, and also the strategic player who likes to experiment with different strategies.

 

That leads me to my next point, strategic agency. Which means you can choose and define your own strategies in a game. This should be obvious, since it relates to meaningful choices, and balanced elements. But if there are one or two strategies that are clearly superior (in the final analysis), the depth and interest of your game is going to be short lived. People might like it while discovering those strategies, and then its over. Having a wider pool of possible paths to victory not only increases the replayability and depth of your game, it helps give people strategic agency. 

 

It makes me think of the meta-game in a Magic the Gathering format. If one or two decks are dominant, then the format gets stale quickly, because you see those decks way more often, and feel forced to take one of those to win. The more types of decks have a winning chance, the more strategic variety and agency there is in a format, which is more interesting for players.

Engaging Game Design

The trick is to make your material so fascinating that you cannot stay away from it, so intriguing that you ignore negative feelings and second thoughts, so rich with interest that the concepts of "good" and "bad" hardly occur to you.

- From 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel, by Jane Smiley, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author

 

While Smiley's words are intended for writers, I found that they offer good insight for game designers as well. Crafting a game is not merely about following design principles; it's a creative pursuit that benefits greatly from engagement with the material.

The Essence of Engagement

At the heart of Smiley's quote lies the concept of engagement—the deep, immersive connection that creators forge with their material. For game designers, this means more than just understanding the mechanics, rules, or components of a game. It's about cultivating a deep interest in the world you're creating, the elements of your game, and the experiences you're crafting for players. When designers are genuinely engaged, their enthusiasm permeates every aspect of the game, from its thematic elements to its game-play dynamics.

Ignoring the Noise

When designing a game, you will often encounter obstacles, doubts, and critiques. Creating a game is involves challenges, both internal and external. However, as Smiley suggests, when you're deeply engaged with your material, these obstacles fade into the background. The engagement with your game propels you forward, allowing you to navigate challenges with creativity, resilience, and determination. By focusing on what truly excites you about the game, you can overcome doubts and second-guessing, and more easily continue the work of developing the game.

Measure your Engagement

Some questions I like to ask when evaluating how engaged I am by a game I am working on are:

• Are there boring or tedious parts? If yes, can I remove, shorten or enliven them? How?
• Do I gloss over any parts?
• Do I get tired of telling any particular rules while playing the game?
• Are there any parts or concepts or themes that I really like that I could expand upon?
• Do I want it be longer or shorter when I play through it?
• Do I want to play again soon?
• Are there exciting discussions after a play? Is there "telling the story of the game" after?
• Are there any "if I only I had done..." statements afterward?
  
• Are players interested in and paying attention to each other's turns, just to see what happens? 

 

Beyond Good and Bad

Smiley's assertion that the concepts of "good" and "bad" hardly occur when deeply engaged with material apply directly to designing a game. While clearly evaluating a game's mechanical merits is essential, being overly preoccupied with rigid definitions about games can stifle creativity and hamper your progress. Instead, focus on creating game experiences that are interesting, meaningful, and that grab your attention. By thus immersing yourself in the creative process, you can ignore limiting notions of what you "should" be doing and other ideas that may hold you back from crafting your game.

Conclusion

Jane Smiley's insight into the creative process serves as a good reminder for game designers: engagement contributes to forward movement and compelling design. By cultivating a deep connection with their material, designers can navigate challenges, keep themselves interested, and continue work on their game. Ultimately, the more time, effort and thought you put into a game, the better it turns out, so finding ways to keep going is essential.

 

Hits & Misses

I've been making games for most of my life, ever since I was a kid. In my twenties I got a job as a professional game designer. After that I created a lot, in a lot of mediums: Web games, Palm Pilot games, card and dice games, conceptual games, board games. 

One thing I've learned is that every game you make can't be your best game. Sometimes due to circumstances, your game is underdeveloped. Sometimes you try a new idea, and it doesn't work out. Sometimes you make a good game, but it falls flat anyway. Sometimes there are hits, and sometimes there are misses. 

This is not to say that your effort has no influence. It's to remind you that there are circumstances and influences in the world in addition to you that affect what happens. Development timelines, funding, marketing, shifting costs and norms, what medium you're working in, who's on your team, publishers and distributors going out of business or being acquired, trouble in your family and personal life: all these can impact your project.

I remember a period of time when I was having incredibly bad insomnia, and was still developing web games. I got through my current one, The Journey to New Earth, and it worked! But afterwards I kept finding very weird bugs and also realized the game needed much more development to play well. So I took the opportunity to revise it.

My games on the Palm Pilot gained dedicated and excited players. Many players of Adventure Solitaire counted it as their favorite game on the Palm OS. And I made a modest living for a while. But then the Palm OS itself got overshadowed by new and exciting cell phone technology -- smart phones. So there went that for me. And yes, I could have ported them to phones, and then other phones, and so on. But learning each phone and OS is a big project, and I decided against it.

I ported one of my web games to Java. It took four months. Did anyone play it? Maybe one guy. So much time, so little result. I ported some Palm Pilot games to Windows. Same thing. They'd been successful on those other platforms, but not on the new ones. So then I chose to make board games, in part to avoid the obsolescence issue for digital games.

Some luck's bad, some luck's good. Majesty wouldn't have been the game it was if it hadn't had several extra years of development due to switching publishers a couple of times, once at least because the then current publisher was going out of business. So that was some good luck that led to a great game.

I think it is helpful to think of your entire pantheon of created games as an iterative, interactive process of design. You can learn something from each one, and that experience contributes in some way to the next one. This view also helps you not get too attached to whether one particular game succeeds or fails. Work as well as you can on your current game, understanding that all the circumstances and events will have effects, and see what happens. And then make your next game!