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
No comments:
Post a Comment