Divergence and Reiterative Design

As designers (or any creative type, really), I think we've all found ourselves too caught up in our work. We get going on something and we just don't want to let go. We like the idea so we keep working on it. Sometimes this ends up working out, sometimes it's better to broaden the perspective and branch out.

This is the difference between reiterative design and divergence.

Say you're working on your latest game - its comes together, it works, but you keep wanting to make it better. Refining it. You add, subtract, change, modify different elements but the game, as a whole, is relatively the same. This is reiterative design.

Now take the theme and the overall design goals from above, but now you make a completely different game type. Maybe your first game was a tile-placement area control game and your new divergent game is a deckbuilding card game.

You've come up with two games with the same theme and goals, but is presented in two completely different ways.

When I think back to one of the first designs Matt and I worked on together... Man, that thing had so many divergences but was ultimately put on the back burner. For the sake of a laugh, here is one of the images that was shared between us to explain some of the game components.

The working title was Cave Monster, and it was an adventure/exploration game (ala Munchkin Quest, yikes) based around the cave systems underneath Kentucky. You can probably imagine where the original idea was heading - you're stuck in a cave, find items to help you survive, get out before the monster eats your face! Yeah, riveting, I know. Who wouldn't want to play that?

Well, we didn't. That's why we scrapped it.

The game started in that format and over the course of a month or so, it turned into many different games. We liked the idea of working with the cave systems, but we didn't like the type of game we were making - so we diverged.

It went from an exploration game, to a hybrid-set collection type game, where you are presented with a Monster and you need to figure out how to defeat him. There was some dice involved, rolling, still needed to navigate through caves (we were never really clear on how that worked), but it was sort of a Elder Sign Lite mashed up with Munchkin Quest now .... yikes. We spent some time working on this cause we liked it a bit better, and we wanted to see if we could reiterate enough to turn it into its own game - we couldn't. Again, we diverged.

The last divergent prototype we worked on before giving up was very different, though, still monsters and caves. But now it was a card game and puzzles were involved. Here is the super vague overview and visual we were working with:

With a starting hand of items, players work their way through the cave rooms in hopes to find better item cards and collect puzzle pieces. Two puzzles are present on the board and completing either one of them will allow players to take a chance at fighting the boss monster. Players do not show which puzzle cards they have in their hand and they may make trades with players to try and collect the right puzzle pieces.

This divergent prototype was probably the most original of the three, but we just never finished up with it. The idea for Double Up hit us and we began working on that. Sometimes you just roll with what's working for you at the time and Cave Monster was not working for us. Maybe we'll get back to it, maybe we won't, but it's a good example of divergence in game design.

This is an example of divergent design that ends up on the back burner, I'm sure you have your own examples of this. Next time, I'll be showing an example of a game that went through many divergences and is currently being developed further.

Recommended Reading

As part of my Master's Program, I am currently taking part in a class that is designing an educational video game. There is some recommended reading for that class which deals with video games mostly. But I think the reading crossesover well to the realm of board game design. So, the following is the professor's recommended reading list that he shared with the class at the start of the semester.

Dr. G’s Recommended Readings

Books

• Raph Koster, A Theory of Fun for Game Design. This book inspired much of my work for the last several years. I decided against making it a required book for the course, knowing how much attention production tends to eat. However, I’m happy to lead a discussion group with anyone that wants to dive into this during the semester!

Articles

• Eric Klopfer, Scot Osterweil, and Katie Salen. Moving Learning Games Forward: Obstacles, Opportunities, & Openness.
• Raph Koster, Narrative is not a game mechanic. Designers and philosophers disagree about what a “game” and a “story” is, but Koster’s practical perspective helps one focus on the systemic nature of interactive entertainment.
• Raph Koster, How I Analyze a Game. If you’re reflecting on how to write a good analysis, look no further than this recent essay.
• Keith Burgun, What Makes a Game? This is a controversial essay. A lot of people disagree with his taxonomy and nomenclature, but I believe it still has value. It is easiest to read if you see his use of “puzzle” and “game” as somewhat arbitrary variable names. His manifesto, Game Design Theory: A New Philosophy for Understanding Games, is worth a look if you are interested in more details; a copy is in the library.
• Anything by Daniel Cook at The Lost Garden, although I would not start with Multiplayer Logistics even if it is still the most recent one. Loops and Arcs and Building Tight Systems of Cause and Effect are both quite good.
• Keith Burgun, Instant Ambiguity Sauce is a challenging essay on the meaninglessness variety of “fun” that is easy to add to a game.

Dr. G’s Extra Recommendations

These recommendations are at the periphery of what we’re doing this semester. However, if you’re looking for something deep to chew on, look no further. I find them deeply connected to the essential questions of our inquiry.

Books

• Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Inevitable Illusions. This book is about the cognitive illusions under which all of us live. A cognitive illusion is like an optical illusion: you still fall for it even if you know it’s a trick.
• George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. The authors describe how everything in thought and language is a metaphor. At the end, they tear down both objectivism and subjectivism. Who would want more from a book by a philosopher and a linguist?

Metaphors and Perception

This post is a little different than usual. It's actually a repost from one of my other projects - The Bone Wars Project. You've probably seen me tweeting about it off and on. It's a educational video game I'm working on for a class. We're partnered with the Indianapolis Children's Museum, and the game is about Marsh and Cope and their bitter feud to be the best paleontologists that they can be. This post is a reflection on the first sprint of our project. We have a paper prototype of the game, and a core set system in digital format - you can follow or check out the project at bonewarsproject.blogspot.com if you're inclined. Once the digital version more user-friendly, we'll be releasing different iterations of that as we go. As far as the paper version of the game - I'll actually have it with me at Who Yer Con and Indiana Comic Con if anyone is interested.

Anyway, this is more of a rhetorical reflection about the way we think about things and how metaphors shape perception. Hopefully you find some value in it. 

---------------

Lately I’ve been caught up on what it means to be creating a “serious” game.

I know what it means. I’m sure most of the class knows what it means. Does anyone outside of our world know what it means though? If we walk up to someone in the architecture department and ask them what a serious game was, could they answer? Would the random passerby in the halls of Letterman know what it is? The term is ambiguous and perhaps disingenuous.

Wouldn’t any game development team that cares about their product consider their game serious? If you tell someone “I’m working on a serious game.” Would they cock their head and look at you funny until you explained it was actually an educational game.

What would happen if you told someone “I’m working on a serious game” and they asked “what’s it about?” We’d respond with “dinosaur fossils” and I suspect they’d ask “what’s serious about it?” We’re not dealing with violence, sexual assault, genocide, or another topic that could be considered serious to many people – we’re creating an educational historic game.

I think the idea of serious games only works within academia or with people who study and understand the term. Over the past few weeks while exploring the social media outlets for our project, I’ve come to learn that “serious games” is not something that is inherently understandable. A search for serious games on twitter will bring you to people talking about Call of Duty or their latest raid in World of Warcraft. By our understanding of a serious game, these are not serious games.

From an internal stand point, none of this is a problem – we know what we’re talking about. For our external communications, it’s a hurdle I need to jump over. Regardless of the external challenges, the idea of the language we use internally I’ve found quite fascinating. How does the language we commonly understand affect our performed identity and our team identity?

Does the idea that we’re working on a serious game cause of us work more efficiently? Are we striving to make something as perfect as we possibly can because it is a serious game? Would we be more concerned with other areas of production if we used “educational game” more often? I, for one, may have put less thought into certain aspects of the project because this is a “serious” game.

For instance, the historical accuracy of the game may mean less to me than the learning functions of our actions. I realized in our last meeting that the dinosaur fossils being in the historically accurate dig site was not a major concern of mine. I’ve been more concerned about the processes in which player’s achieve the fossils and the history of Marsh and Cope.

To be clear, there is more going on here than just “because we call it a serious game, I think this way about it.” My personal preferences and things that I find interesting come into play here as well. I’m merely pontificating on how our work ethic could be different if we used a different lexicon.

What if we were working on a big budget “Triple A” title for EA? Would the side of me that enjoys Gears of War or Borderlands come out, causing me to be more interested in high quality graphics and explosions? Maybe.

I firmly believe that the language we use shapes the way we think about everything. From our game development team to our personal lives, the way we conduct ourselves, the language we surround ourselves with, will all play a role in shaping who we are as people. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By explains that we understand ideas based on the type of language that we use. I’m curious as to how we could change the meaning of our game, based on how we refer to the different things we’re doing to create it.

What if our programmers didn’t wrestle with code? What if they danced with code instead? Does that put them in a different stand of mind? Would they approach their work different? Perhaps with more finesse and grace?

What if our artists weren’t starving? Perhaps they are nourished or satiated artists. They aren’t struggling with creativity, but embracing their talents and what they know rather than fighting with it.

Our collective identity is formed by the language and symbols we use with each other. We come to an understanding and agreement on how we will interact with each other and our projects, and as time passes, our group identity forms out of the shared language and symbols we’ve grown accustom to.

Gaming Group Evolution

Ever since I started gaming, many moons ago, I’ve usually been the one to organize game nights and get people interested in playing games. Whether it was LAN parties, board game nights, or just hanging out and playing casual party games – I found it was usually at my house, after I (and usually one of my cohorts) were like “okay, we’re bored, let’s do this!” Being stagnant isn’t something I’m good at. I like to be doing things, whether it’s with other people hanging out or on my own reading, designing, researching – whatever it may be. 

This got me thinking about my current game groups and how they came to be. How did I get people who weren’t interested in board games to be interested? 

This isn’t to say I’m the almighty instigator of fun times (though, it’s a nice title), but a mere reflection on how my current gaming groups have formed. 

Over the years I’ve moved a few times, had to meet new people, new friends and organize new groups. I feel that over that time I’ve become pretty good at organizing solid game nights for people of all experience levels. I can generally get a feel for the type of games non-gamers would be interested in, and then proceed to figure out how to get them into other stuff – this is a pivotal moment when introducing games to new people. Gaming is a social experience, knowing who you're playing with will help you choose the games they will be interested in.

It’s not as hard as it used to be to find people to game with. Most comic book shops have a board game night these days and luckily there is usually a board game store not too far away, oh and the little thing called the Internet. Both times I've moved away from my regular group the people I befriended were more along the line of casual gamers or “I haven’t played games aside from monopoly/sorry/clue/etc.” Sure, the more advanced gamers are around as well so it’s easy to get them on board - especially when we all moved here from different places and are looking for people to connect with. 

I’ve identified four types of groups that I participate(d) in. Each one came about a bit differently and each is heading in different directions as far as interests, types of games, and the atmosphere that we play in. 

Casual Group

In Syracuse and now here and Muncie, the casual group was probably the easiest to form. These are the people who know about and want to play party games, more or less. Cards Against Humanity, Resistance, Werewolf, Avalon are all staples when we meet – and that’s ok. These aren’t the ideal games I’d like to be playing on a regular basis and the casual group doesn’t meet on a regular basis – so it ends up working out. The nice thing about the casual play is that it gives you the opportunity to talk to people about other games, perhaps get a feel for what they might be interested in. I got this group together by reserving a room in my department’s building and bringing games. Simple as that. I sent the word out that I did this and would be there with a bunch of stuff, and more people than I expected showed up. Now I don’t do this as often because our schedules are a bit crazier, but whenever it happens we have a good turnout. I’ve gotten some people from this group to show up to some other groups too, which broadens the sphere of people to play with. Some people love board games, they just don’t know it yet. 

The thing with a casual group is that we want everyone to be included – that’s why the social games are great. They can handle a bunch of players, everyone is interacting with each other, and it doesn’t take long to explain how to play. It’s really easy for people to get distracted with people playing two or three different games, so having games that everyone can get in on is important. I like to start out with games that aren’t quite CAH or Werewolf, and end with those because they are normally the favorite and the group is willing to play them the longest. If I can get people to play some other, more gamey games before the big social game, it generally lets me gauge who would be interested in attending heavier groups.. 

Group Attendance: 6-10

Games I Bring: Tsuro, Loot, Bang, Resistance/Avalon, Martian Dice, Cards Against Humanity, ESCAPE.

“I’m interested in board games but new to it” Group

This isn’t so much a group as it is a monthly meeting and who knows who will show up! The local library here has a board game day and you get all types of people. The hardcore gamers, the casuals, the “new to board gamers.” We usually meet at the once a month meeting at the library, or perhaps at someones house if there is an earlier request to play. Generally, I’ve invited people from the casual group to these sessions as well as some of my more advanced gamer friends – other people to help teach games and have an equal amount of enthusiasm that I do. I try to keep these groups smaller so the attention can be put on teaching the game, and playing games that allow for some nice player interaction but not a lot of stabbing each other in the back. At this point, it’s more of a fun evening hanging out with friends. Light strategy, good fun, a few beers – this kinda thing usually gets the hooks in :P

Group Attendance: 3-5

Games I Bring: Smash Up, Dominion, King of Tokyo, Ticket to Ride, Catan, Carcassonne, Ra.

Medium/Hardcore Group

This group has melded together for me and it really only happens when I return to Pennsylvania to visit. Before I moved, this was the weekly game group which was always at the same time and day every week. It started off with just the four hardcore gamers, and slowly more and more of our friends started getting interested. There was no time to work them through the ranks of casual games and the whole gambit – if you showed up to this group, you were getting thrown into the mix. Sure, maybe we’d play a game of Catan to wet your whistle, but you better be ready for some hardcore Euros or strategic games real quick. 

This started as a small group of four friends and by the time I left, there was usually anywhere from 5 to 9 of us at this group. We would have multiple games being played at once, pizzas being ordered, and just your average night of hardcore playing. This is the group that I could always count on. I knew it would always be there and the range of games that we would play was huge. It would be anything from something not so heavy as King of Tokyo to Through The Ages – it didn’t matter. We were lovers of games and we would play whatever is in front of us. 

General Attendance: 4-9

Games I Bring: Battlestar Galatica, Dominion, Libertalia, Thunderstone, Lords of Waterdeep, PROTOTYPES!

Dungeons and Dragons

My D&D groups came about quite randomly, actually. I’ve played other RPG’s at home, but this is the only campaign I’m currently involved in at the moment and I actually didn’t instigate it. Last semester, one of my fellow graduate students (who is admittedly not much of a gamer) approached a few of the “known” gamer students about starting the group. Altogether, he approached 5 other people and all 5 had played before. You see, the program we’re in is called Digital Storytelling – my peer who wanted to start the campaign is an aspiring filmmaker, D&D is about characters and stories – the connection isn’t loose. The storytelling aspect of D&D intrigued him and he wanted to learn about this world. We’ve been played weekly ever since (with the exception of us going back to our home for holidays and what not), and our group has expanded up to 9 or so players – most of the new people have never played D&D before. I think it’s fascinating how a group of students in a program with a focus on narrative came together to experience an oral story being told. Our program is very focused on digital narratives (obviously), but we all recognize the importance of being able to convey a compelling story to one another through words. It really is a great campaign with some great friends who are interested and invested. We aren’t the strictest roleplayers or anything like that, but the story is compelling, the characters are diverse, and it allows for us to connect outside of the classroom. Our weekly campaign has likely forged a friendship that will last well beyond graduate school, which usually happens anyway, but this bond I believe will be more than “we were in the same cohort.”

I’m not saying any one of these groups is better than the other. It’s a mere reflection of the stages of group formation that I have been a part of or helped put together. Some people like being the casual gamer while others move through the different groups until they find their niche. Given the opportunity, I love showing people new games. Thinking about how to do that in the best way possible so they aren’t overwhelmed or intimidated is important to bring new people into the table top fold. 

If we’re throwing people into a mix they may not be ready for – it’s a sure fire way to scare them away from the hobby. Like anything else, plant the seed and let it grow on its own.

-Charlie

Around The Internets!

Last weekend Matt and I spent some time brainstorming and coming with the "what's next" for sizzlemoth. We're putting some finishing touches on the rulebook with the help of Doug from Meltdown Games (Thanks, Boss!) and than it's setting up some pitches and submitting to publishers around the con season.

In the mean time, we've narrowed down the field to a couple concepts we like and are going to start hashing them out. Once we've locked in on something and have exited the exploratory phase, we'll give some more details.

Anyway, it's time for some AROUND THE NETZ! Or, in other words, things I've been following/reading/looking at online.

The Bone Wars Project
BWP is a project I'm working on here at Ball State. It's an educational video game based around the Bone Wars of Marsh and Cope, arguably the fathers of paleontology. I'm running the external communication and social media for the project, coordinating play tests, and all that jazz. The first version of the game is also a table top prototype, so I've been able to use my skills there. Once we hand it over to the programmers to digitize it though, I'll be escorting myself away from it. Programming is not for me! Either way, we have some really talented people working on the project. The programmers are quick and very good, the artists are amazing, and we have a talented musician working on the sounds of the game. It should shape up nicely! The goal is to have a fully functional game done by the end of the semester.

Daniel Solis
I asked a question about assigning values in games on Twitter earlier today and had some quick discussions about the different methods. Daniel linked me to a blog he wrote about linear, triangular, and square numbers in game. It was a nice read and really easy to follow, which is great for those non-math types (me).

Gameritis
Again, I just came across the blog today and I like it. The discussion that roped me in was the one on digital board games (linked). Give it a chance, the guy's got something to say and you should hear it.

Reviews
I write reviews for Today in Board Games. It's a great gig. I like it. Here are a couple of my more recent reviews, as well as a good one on oddball Aeronauts from Andrew at iSlaytheDragon.
Dubious Alliance
Airlock
oddball Aeronauts

Kickstarters
I love Kickstarter. A lot. I kinda want to start looking at more indiegogo stuff too, but it just slips my mind to check and see what's going on over there. Here's some of the stuff I've backed/am following on Kickstarter that I think is worth checking out.

Mobtown - 31 days to go, $6,853 of $10,000
I'm actually a reviewer for Mobtown (coming this weekend!) and have had the chance to play Mobtown. I like. A lot. I'll save the rest for the upcoming review.

Tiny Epic Kingdom  - ~40 hours to go, FUNDED
Michael Coe and Scott Almes blew it out of the water with this one. It's at $224,000!!! There are two stretch goals left, which I have a feeling we're going to hit. The game looks great and Gamelyn really knows how to put together a Kickstarter campaign.

Make Your Thing - 19 days to go, $19,410 of $120,000
Make Your Thing is a convention that is trying to get funded. It seems like a really great premise. I think that this could have a pretty good impact on the attendees and become a pretty cool event. Hopefully funding picks up for them over the next couple week, it's looking rough though :(

That's all I got for today. Til next time.

-Charlie

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