Game Design the Wrong Way

Okay, so you’ve read some of my posts, and for some reason you don’t think all of the ideas are completely due to the influence of crack.  You’re now going to try and apply some of these ideas to a game design.

Good for you!  But how do you do it?

The first thing is to ask yourself what decisions you’re asking the player to make.  Then, for each decision, ask yourself the following questions:

• What does the player have to know in order to make this decision?
• What choices are available?  Why would the player choose any of the choices?  Why wouldn’t he?
• Would his decision change based on what he thinks his opponent will do?  Or, if he knows what his opponent is going to do, does that suggest a single choice for him?
• Is it possible that he won’t be able to execute the mechanics of the choice?
• Will this have any lasting impact on the game besides score?
• Does making this choice have a significant impact on the gameplay?  If so, does it detract from other things that should be more important?  If not, then is it worth having in the game?

If you can answer these questions, I believe you’re on your way to a higher level of game design.

The common model for fighting in RPGs is pretty simple.  Attack, you either hit or miss, and you subtract a number from your opponent if you win.  This is a reasonable abstraction if you’re dealing with having to write down numbers and roll dice to make combat happen.

It’s also completely divorced from reality in every way, and is a lot less interesting than reality.  In reality, fighting is mostly about jockeying for position and trying to create an opening.  Most “attacks” aren’t really intended to hit the target - they’re intended to force the opponent to react, get him off balance, and create an opening for you to take advantage of.  In many ways, actually hitting the opponent is almost anticlimactic - the real action occurred just before.

This also mirrors many, many games.  In hockey, we have 60 minutes of play, during which 5 goals may be scored on an average night.  The rest of the time is spent trying to out-maneuver the opponent so that you’re in a position where you *can* score.  Even in ping-pong, a large part of each rally involves getting control of the ball, and forcing the opponent into an unfavorable position, so that they are forced to give up a bad return and allow you a scoring opportunity.

This is what I mean by state.  Things that impact the overall configuration of the game area but do not, directly contribute to the final determination of who wins.

Look at Tetris - one of the interesting things about Tetris is that every move you make impacts the overall state of the game, and has an impact on future moves.  In most cases, taking any immediate scoring move by filling a line is an inferior move to setting up a single empty column at least four lines deep.  And a mistake that leaves a hole in your structure ends up being painful over time.

Compare that to hit points, where the only impact between one turn and the other is a number that has little impact on what you do.

When designing game mechanics, especially core mechanics, make sure you consider if, and how, players are modifying state.