It's cold outside and things are happening

After a little over a year we've finally put Double Up to bed. It started off as a project on a whim in the Summer of 2012. Now after four cons, countless play test sessions, invaluable feedback from friends and gamers, two graphic artists, and countless hours racking our brains trying to make this a fun experience - we're done. 

Sure, there is always tweaking and small changes that can be made here and there. As creatives, we're never done working on something unless we actually stop ourselves. That's where we're at with Double Up and we think it's in the right place and at the right time. 

Now that everything is done, we're sending the files off to Andrew at Print Play Productions to get copies of it made for the upcoming Con season. We're hoping to set up some pitches of the game, as well as getting the game into the hands of some media types. 

As a "teaser" of sorts, below is the back of the box, designed by Danny Devine. Danny also handled the backers and faces of the cards and the rules. He was great to work with and I would recommend him to anyone needing graphic design work. 

So what's in the pipeline?

This coming weekend I'll be heading to Columbus to hang out with Matt. We'll be taking the time to talk about the different ideas that we have and which we are going to pursue. Some rapid prototyping will go down, I'm sure, and we'll go from there. We should have a project or two that we'll be happy with and we'll take it from there. While I'm in Columbus, we'll hopefully make a trip to Kingmakers and check out the digs there and play some games.

After that, there is a Who's Yer Con in Febuary which I'll be attending. Hopefully with some prototypes!

Than back in Columbus in March to hang with Doug from Meltdown Games. It'll be good to see him considering I haven't since I left the east coast. And he's a pretty alright guy.

Well, that's that.

Hope you got the GenCon housing you wanted! Twitter was blowing up as it does every year around this time.

-Charlie

Digital Board Games, Experience, and Togetherness.

The first digital board game I played was Ascension.

Matter of fact, I played the digital version before the actual game. I played it against random people, I got my friends to download it, I played the computer - I just played it all the damn time. Now a days, I don't put as much time into, but it's still a thing on my phone.

I've come to realize that there are very few digital board games that I would actually consider playing - all of which happen to be deck builders. Playing any other sort of designer or "euro" game just doesn't appeal to me. I feel that I'm losing that sense of togetherness, communication, and just being with other people. Having a board game night is an experience that simply cannot be replaced, even if it's just to get a fix when your friends are busy.

It also feels to me like I'm just playing the computer, some random AI. Not another person. If I wanted to do that, I'd go play a console game or an RPG or something. For me to enjoy a board game, I need to be with the people I'm playing with. This notion extends out to my video game habits as well. On a regular basis you'll find me playing multiplayer games. Sure, I get the occasional single player narrative experience in and I love it - but nightly gaming? League of Legends, Borderlands 2, Payday - games that allow me to get on Skype, hang out with my friends back home, and play games.

Maybe it comes from my personal philosophy and what I expect out of games.

I play to experience.

Some play because they want to strategize, some play for competition, others play for fun. Next time you have a board game night, ask everyone why they are there - and don't accept "I like playing games" as an answer. Dig deeper, find out what brought you all together beyond the obvious.

For me, it's about the experience. The game, the people, the atmosphere. All of that wrapped into one package is what brings me to game night week after week. The game itself (mechanics, engagement) is only one piece of the puzzle, and it is, of course, an important piece - but that piece works in conjunction with everything else going on.

Think about it - every group has that one (or a couple) games that just doesn't click.

For example - there's a group that I wouldn't even dream of taking Libertalia too. I've tried it, but the way we play and experience that game just doesn't fit into the social space we share. But one of my other groups - Libertalia is a staple and played on a weekly basis because it fits the experience.

Not every game we design is going to fit into every situation, but it is important to keep that in mind as we move forward. We design for ourselves and for others. Sometimes your designs will resonate with the people you least expected, sometimes they'll hit home with exactly who you expected. Keeping the overall experience in the back of your mind can help you design a better game.

Think about the stories that the players will tell before, during, and after playing your game - how will your game affect that story? Will that narrative be driven by your clever mechanics? Your smooth integration of the theme? The come from behind victory due to a well executed plan?

When it comes to digital board games, which is what got me on this topic in the first place, I feel a loss of experience. Most of the time, I'm just playing. I then go close the app and go about my daily life only to come back to the game hours later, usually have forgotten what I did my previous move and if it even really mattered. I than make another arbitrary move because I'm just not that into it. I've lost the experience of togetherness and the social interaction with being other people.

Digital board games just aren't the same.

Is there a place for them? Sure.

Do people like them? Yeah, they wouldn't be making them if they weren't being purchased.

Are they for everyone? No, and that's okay.

-Charlie

Narrative Experience, Mechanics, and Theme

Everyone approaches game design differently. Hell, everyone approaches it so differently that we don't even have one solid definition of what makes a game. Ian Schreiber points this out in his online class (it was a MOOC before MOOC was a buzz word), there is a range of definitions for what makes a game or what a game should be. I think it's clear that the way a person defines a game is going to influence the way they approach designing one.

I never really considered my definition of a game, I just kinda knew it when I seen it. After much thought though, I've decided that a game is an experience with an objective. It's a broad definition, but that's the way I like things - loose and interpretable. That definition can extend to pretty much anything in life and I'm okay with that. I call games an experience because that's what they are to me, and experience has a narrative - whether it's the one you create or the one built into the game.

A lot of the reading I've done has ignored or completely written off narrative as part of game design - Take Costik, for example. I just can't get on board with the idea that story isn't part of a "game." No matter what we do, players are going to create a narrative for what we've given them to play. To not think about it when it comes to our games is a mistake. On the other hand, Raph Koster contends that narrative is not a mechanic. I find this to be a bit of a better argument than games aren't stories, but also has some holes in it. Koster argues that narrative is feedback, a way of showing a player that they have done something right (keep in mind, he's talking about video games). I would suggest that if narrative is being used to teach something in a game or used to make something work in a game, it situates itself as a mechanic.

The narratives we choose for our board games is generally found in the chosen theme. There isn't an explicit story or anything like that, but the theme mattered. Why did it matter? That answer is different for everyone.

When I design a game the theme has two uses: add to player experience and help make sense of what players are doing.

My way my design thinking happens generally goes something like this:

"Hey, that's a pretty cool real life thing, I wonder what it would look like in game form." Then I usually mill over different mechanics that could relate to said thing and than I let the thoughts percolate. After awhile, some mechanics I really like stick with me and than I apply them to some other game that I'm working on, THEN days, weeks or months later I come back to the original thing that got my brain cogs moving and start the process again. On the other hand, Matt is the sort of designer who thinks about mechanics first and theme later. Neither process of design thinking is wrong, just different.

I believe that some games are meant to be heavily themed and some do just fine with no theme at all, but those are all conscience design decisions that designers make. I'm about to go all grad school here, but even games without a theme have a narrative to be told which is created by the individuals playing the game. Jerome Bruner has some interesting work on the narrative construction of reality, which (in very brief) says that the stories we tell to one another create the experience of reality.

Take Boggle for example, virtually themeless and no narrative inherent to the game. The narrative develops between the individuals who are playing, and that narrative is limited only to the mind's of the players. Whether it's a narrative of competition, friendly gameplay or learning it surfaces outside of the game, but is present because of the game. The player's have constructed the experience with the assistance of the game they are playing, since it is an experience that they would only have with that particular game. Perhaps a similar or like experience could manifest through other games or activities, but each experience is unique.

Looking at a game that has a distinct theme, such as Firefly: The Game, the experience is driven by that theme. Sure, the narrative could be any sci-fi space outlaws, but the fact that it is Firefly drives the way people think about the game. The mechanics make sense because of the theme, players may catch on quicker or even just enjoy the game more due to the connection they have with Whedon's work. When a theme assists in understanding, as I think it does in Firefly, the experience is likely to be more enjoyable.

Anyone can pick up and learn Firefly, but those of us who have seen the show probably catch on quicker. What and how we're trying to accomplish in Firefly is put into a metaphor that we understand. If Firefly was actually "Space Robot Outlaw Showdown" it may not be as inherent or as clearly understood, and the experience that players have would certainly be different.

I'm sure there is some readings out there contrary to the whole "narrative isn't a mechanic" thing. It's not a science, there isn't just one way to handle themes or narratives in game. It's completely up to the player and for that person to decide what they enjoy, how they enjoy, and the type of experience that they are looking for. As designers, it's up to us to decide what sort of experience we want our games to be.

-Charlie

Kickin' it around Kickstarter

We're pretty big fans of Kickstarter around here. There is some great projects (table top and otherwise) that show up there and supporting independent, creative people is awesome. People have projects that they want to share and crowdsourcing gives those without a huge bank roll that opportunity. 

Like anything though, crowdsourcing has it's ups and downs. Failed projects, no follow through from the creators, not getting what you expected - it's part of the risk. There's no guarantee when you back a project, but that trust we have in one another, more often than not, shines through. Crowdsourcing wouldn't be as popular as it is if it didn't work most of the time. 

Either way, the following is a list of some projects that I'm currently following - things I encourage you to check out. Not all of them are table top games, but maybe you'll find the projects as interesting as I do. 

Table Top Games

Tiny Epic Kingdom: Michael over at Gamelyn games has a great eye for fun, interesting games that keep players engaged. Fantasy Frontier was one of my faves from GenCon, Dungeon Hero is a blast, and I expect no less from Tiny Epic Kingdom. The game is already funded, but I encourage you to check out his mini-4X. If it helps, Father Geek gave it a rave review. 

Four Tribes: Two players is what got me interested in Four Tribes. They seem to be working on a larger variant, but I'm not overly concerned with that. Finding games that are specifically designed for 2 players seems to be a challenge sometimes, so when I see one on Kickstarter - I'm going to pay attention. The KS page has rules and Print and Play files available and it's also funded, so the game is happening. 

Kingmakers: Board game parlor in Columbus, OH! Matt lives in Columbus and I'm about a 2 hour drive. So when I head that way to work on games with him, it'll be cool to go check the place out. If you're not from the Columbus area, this may not be too interesting for ya - but hey, maybe a Board Game Parlor will open up in your area!

Movies

The Carousel: I'm pretty much obsessed with the Twilight Zone, so when I saw this documentary about the Rod Sterling carousel in Binghamton, NY I was in. It's not directly related to TZ and that's fine, I think Sterling is a fascinating guy so it's just one of those things that grabbed my attention. Contingent learning is good!

Tour de Comic Shops: I probably don't have to say why I'm interested in this one. It's not looking too good though on the funding front, we'll see though.

Halcyon Story: I did my undergrad in upstate New York and have traveled to the area for kicks (there isn't a whole lot to do in up that way). It's sort of a local landmark up there. The ground and building is beautiful and it was completely by chance that I found this documentary on Kickstarter, but I'm glad I did.

Survivor: KEVIN SORBO!

Books

Year of the Creature: The guy drew a creature a day every day for a year. I think the art is really well done and the creatures in the book are pretty sweet. 

The Untold Story of Pandora: I kinda wish this was a documentary, but a book works just as well. I've since moved from Pandora to Spotify but I'm a sucker for this sort of narrative. 

Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics

Thinking critically about games is more than just "is this enjoyable to play?" When we look at a game and reflect on it, we should be thinking about more than "did we have fun playing this?" Yes, that matters but to be better designers, players, and critics we should have an understanding of all the aspects of the game. For some people, this is probably something we all know but didn't know we knew. Say that five times fast.

I was recently introduced to the MDA model of game design and research. This is a model put together by academics from MIT and Northwestern University. It gives us a way of thinking about the technical aspect of games and how those aspects interact with each other in order to create an experience. Now, MDA stands for Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics. I was mildly thrown off by the definition of aesthetics used in this model. My background in communication and rhetoric uses aesthetics in terms of visual literacy, but in this model it means something closer to "feeling" or "experience." Other then that, mechanics and dynamics probably mean exactly what you think or at least close to it.

If you're interested in reading the MDA, it's a five page document that's fairly accessible. I've provided a link so you can check it out, download it or share it.

I share the MDA because it got me thinking about Dominion. It's not exactly my favorite game, matter of fact, I'm so tired of it I wouldn't mind never playing it again. But the MDA provided me with a new way of thinking about the game. Sure, it's a bunch of stuff that I tacitly understood already but it gave me a framework and approach to thinking about Dominion more critically, other than "man, I'm sick of this game."

For the sake of clarity, I'm not denying the power/importance of Dominion and what it means to the board game world. My personal preferences have shifted and changed over time, likely due to the amount of plays I have of the game. Imagine eating the same exact sandwich three times a day for five years, you'd probably be tired of that too.

Being able to think about games more critically, I think, will help with designing games. No brainer, right? I had to put together an MDA analysis for Dominion the other day. After doing so, it gave me a new perspective on everything that is going on in the game. Instead of just seeing a game that I've grown quite tired of, I was able to take a step back and look at it as a game system and see where that game system lead.

Here is the MDA breakdown I put together for Dominion - keep in mind, there is no right or wrong. I've probably missed things and it's purely from my experience playing the game. Others in the class had completely different breakdowns. This is no way an extensive or exhaustive list.

Mechanics
Shuffling
Action
Buying
Dealing
Victory Points
Attacks
Blocks (ex- moats)

Dynamics
Timing
Keeping track of your purchases
Keeping track of others purchases
Strategic decisions
Luck of the draw

Aesthetics
Investment
Challenge
Frustration
Control
Tension
Unknowing

One of the points that stood out to me when I reviewed this list was investment. I made the list on the fly, writing down whatever came to mind. When it came to reflect on the notion of investment, I wasn't quite sure what I was going for. On the surface, investment seems pretty straight forward - you invest in cards to use - but that's not what I meant. After some thought I come to the conclusion that I was talking about personal investment in your deck, not the act of purchasing.

Each time I play Dominion, I become invested (committed could be another word) in the deck that I am trying to build. I prefer to participate in randomized games when I have to play because I feel the game is too easy to strategize with some of the more popular purchase fields, and if everyone knows the strategy - it comes down to luck of the draw. More or less, every game I play is completely different than the one before or the one last week. Playing this way allows me to become invested in my hand in a completely different manner. I'll have to assess each option I have, consider a plan, and then begin to execute that plan. The level of commitment can be pretty intense if I'm noticing that I'm falling behind - usually by this point, it's too late for a complete overhaul in strategy. I'm invested in the strategy and deck I have built and must follow through with that until the end, even if I have set myself down a clear path of crap. Most times, pulling the "Oh! I'll buy a market now to try and correct this failure of a deck" is too little too late.

In a way, it's a bit like when you're pot committed in poker. There isn't a whole lot you can do except see it through until the end - for better or for worse.

The investment you feel can be a good and bad thing. For a newer player, it makes their deck feel like their own. They built it and if they win, it's quite the feeling of accomplishment, while quite the contrary if they lose. For veteran player's, I think the gusto is a bit more tame. You'll know when you're falling behind and you'll probably know that you're going to lose about midway through the game if your plan isn't working, which could lead to a sense of hopelessness or carelessness before the game is done. The randomness of your shuffled deck may help a bit, but with skilled players - it's likely not to be enough.

In the end, I believe for newer to moderate players the feeling of investment and accomplishment that comes from creating a successful deck is huge. Coupled with all the other aspects of the game, I think it's a great introductory game to get new players thinking strategically without throwing them into Terra Mystica or something like that.

Looking at Dominion through the lens of MDA helped bring me to a different understanding of the game. It's more clear, objective, and less spiteful. While playing Dominion over the past week, I've rekindled my interest in the game, but for purely academic reasons. I no longer dread pulling out the box and offering to play a game or two, so I can think more critically about what is happening in the game. We all think critically about our's and other's games and that's a good thing, but it never hurts to think critically in different ways - ways we may not be familiar or comfortable with.

You never know where that will lead you.

-Charlie

pontification and catching up

I don't have any formal training in game design. I'm just a guy who grew up playing and loving games, who then decided to start making table top games while learning through trail and error. All the training I've had has been through my own research, failures and mistakes. But now I'm taking a class on formal game design and there is a definite learning curve.

You see, my academic background is in rhetoric and communication. I started making board games not just because I'm passionate about them, but because I could. I don't know how to program or animate and my graphic design skills don't go beyond what you've seen posted on various sizzlemoth outlets. Would I design a video game if I could? Yeah, probably. Video games are just as meaningful to me as table top games are. If you asked me which I prefer, I don't think I'd be able to give you an answer. When it comes down to it though, I don't have the skills to program or animate a video game.

Last semester I took my first real crack at making a digital game. Emphasis on digital, not a full fledged video game. Just to give some context - I'm in a PhD track Master's program at Ball State University, but my program has a production component where the students are tasked with actually creating something other than academic writing. This is a bit different than other PhD track programs which are usually more writing and research based. It's also the reason I chose this program, I wanted the practical hands-on experience.

So the very first project I decided to tackle was creating an Alternate Reality Game. If you're not familiar, it's a digital (usually web or app based) game that uses real world space as the game world. There's tons of these out there and I'm sure you've seen them around. I've played a couple, I think there fun and I thought I could put one together for this project - so I did and it's right here. It's not completely finished just yet, that's the first prototype of it. We're doing some cleaning up on the design, adding features, fixing the narrative - but that right there is the bare bones of my first attempt at a digital game. It came out okay and the test groups I had play it seemed to like it just fine. It's designed for younger students who tour the museum, so it was a bit easier for my fellow graduate students who helped me out but that's besides the point.

Fast forward to this semester - I have two more production oriented classes before I'm switch to all out thesis mode. One class seems like it is going to turn into a class on screenwriting, which I am totally stoked for. I've never written a script, but I've been writing stories my entire life so I'm looking forward to what that has to offer. The other class is a bit of a special case. It's actually an undergrad immersive learning project, that I was able to convince my adviser and the professor of the class to let me in on. We had to add some extra coursework and what not to make it 600 level, but we worked it out and I couldn't be more excited.

We're making an actual video game. The class is working with the Children's Museum of Indianapolis to create a game to supplement one of their exhibits. We're in the very early stages of this and still doing a lot of introductory stuff. This is where I'm getting engulfed with formal game design techniques, theories, and vocabulary. Sure, there has been topics that I've read and researched on my own in terms of game design, but then there is a certain way of thinking about things that I just haven't done. I've always looked at games critically and rhetorically but now working with a team of programmers, I feel that it will lead to another perspective. I'm not exactly sure what that perspective will be just yet, but I can already see the differences in the way they think about games, mechanics, and dynamics.

What's most interesting is playing board games with these folks. The professor, whom I actually met at a local board game day when I first moved to Indiana, is an avid board gamer. We have a game library in our studio that he encourages us to use and play games with each other. I think it's a great tool to get people thinking about mechanics and communication, since playing games with people is totally different then playing a video game. Given time to reflect on the processes and experience of playing a board game, it can be a very educational activity.

Over the next 16 or so weeks, I'll probably have a lot of reflection on this class and I intend on sharing it here. I'm still putting my thoughts and notes together from this past week of classes, but my brain is already turning. I've been in a bit of a creative slump (probably due to the lambasting of work due towards the end of last semester), but I feel like that is about to end and it's likely due to the constant design thinking I've been doing this past week. In other words, this class may just be what brings me out of my slump.

Anyway, that's enough about me, though, I'm positive you'll see my reflections on the class and other thoughts posted here..

SIZZLEMOTH STUFF!

As you've probably seen from our sporadic tweets and updates, we're on the last leg of the final prototype of Double Up. Danny Devine has finished up the backers, box art, and is putting the finishing touches on the rule book then it's off! We've been concentrating on that mostly. We've conceptualized a few options for what we're going to work on next, but have yet to sit down and see what jumps out at us. I imagine that process will begin within the coming weeks.

I think that about sums everything up for now. I want to thank everyone for sticking with us during the down time. The table top community is a magnificent and a community we're proud and honored to be a part of. I honestly believe 2014 is going to be even more awesome than the last.

Here's to good games and great people.

-Charlie

A little bit of house keeping

It sure has been awhile. 

Things have been quiet on the home front for a few months now and I do apologize for that. The rush of graduate school and tying up some loose ends with our projects was a bit overwhelming, and some things got pushed aside. However, I'm trying to make good on that now! 

I want to try and get back into the habit of keeping up with everything sizzlemoth related on the social media side of things. The behind-the-scene stuff is still moving along.. The final prototype for Double Up is just about finished! So that's exciting.

We've also been throwing around ideas for our next game(s) and what we want to work on. Basically, things are getting back into gear with the moth. Now that I know what to expect from grad school and what my time commitment is going to be like, it'll be easier to manage my time and make sure everything is being taken care of. 

As you can see, first order of business was a bit of a redesign on the blog. I like the way this looks a bit better, and I find blogger to be more user friendly. 

There will be a proper update very soon from us, but I just wanted to post this to show some signs of life. We'll be back at it very soon! Thanks for sticking around!

-Charlie