Design tools

I'll bite! This appeals to my nearly perverse need to understand Player Need as a foundation element. But by narrowing to "tools for choice" I can take a vacation!

Beyond the concept of probabilities (here risk mechanics) I don't "know" game theory, so i cannot really discuss it. using established theory to determine player choice is probably valid, and I'm sure we all apply bits and pieces of it, and there is probably more than one theory out there, eh?

Good. Again, i like the Maslow Nine Needs list. Every player possesses a different mindset and comes at a game from varied perspective. I take it you want to understand them all? You have your work cut out for you.

Sometimes moving from abstract to concrete helps. How about practical tools for player choice? Hm. Here's a tickler list:

- Dice
- Spinners
- Deploying a held card
- Set of possible reaction rules hard-wired in
= Possible directions a pawn can travel

-- these all appeal to different kinds of players and themes but provide choice tools.

Reminds me of John Hendricks, who founded the Discovery Channel, who used to say, "If it can eat you, the ratings go though the roof."

Your Burnside maxim can be generalized to say "Always err toward excitement." The resulting stimulus from choice could come from an explosion you direct, stealing a game treasure, controlling a dangerous animal, the sudden ability to fly, whatever is appropriate to your theme.

Hi

Actually, I did not really understand this thread. For me the design tool is Word, Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, and paper and pencil. But it looks like you want to know how we think when we design and here is mine "mind design tool".

Fun: The game has to be fun in all aspects (mechanism, theme, game time and so on), otherwise I will not do the game. Several of my games are fantasy, sf, fiction and the dark side, but you often see it from a different angle and with a twist. I won't even start to design a game I don’t want to play.
The fun part also goes for the first prototype. I put a lot of work in the first (and second...) prototype, so the test group knows that I believe in the game and therefore I think that they have a better (and more enjoyable) game experience. Even if the test group ditches the game after the first session, I know it was not because of a crappy prototype.

Interaction: Since the main part of a game is for the players to have fun (you should have equally fun if you win or loose), interaction between the players are a big part of the game. The interaction should be short and meaningful (a pointless battle between 2 players (when we are 6 around the table) that takes 5 minutes is a waist of time). I don’t like solitary games for 4 persons.

Keep it stupid simple (KISS): This is one of the rules that I have both at work and in game design. A game can be complex but each rule should be logical and simple and the combination of the rules should be logical and simple. When a rule are explained, there should be no question marks on how it works or why its there. I always have in mind who is the player (this is one of the things I write down at the beginning of a design to decide who is the main target for the game).
If a rule is complicated in any way, I always add examples (and if they not are complicated I probably will add examples anyway ;) ).

Keep on target (KOT): It is easy to add a lot of rules to a game because it is cool. I always set up the goal for the game first (the theme, how do you win and when does the game end). Then I write down everything I want to have ion the game. After that I remove all parts that that are not in the basic for the game to work. If there are good ideas in the list that was removed, I write them down and put them on for an expansion (or maybe I can find a new theme (and new game) from the cut away parts).

// Johan

This is a tricky question that I don’t think that I can answer.
Nearly all games have combination of mechanism to get a game to work and a mechanism can be perfect as a solution in one game can be a catastrophe in an other game.
The reason why I can not answer the question is in my design process. This has been changed and improved over the years. There are several ideas and input that comes from this forum.

I will try to describing my design process.

Nowadays I nearly always start with a theme. Normally the theme directly gives me the goal of the game.
When I have the basic theme ready I make some limitations (number of players, minimum age of the players, time limit for a game and so on). I also decide the main component/components for the game (boardgame, cards, counters, tales, miniatures and so on).
Now it is time to design the game flow. This will describe the different phases in the game and if the players will have different roles. Still there are no mechanisms involved.
After this it is time for the first test. I present the game for a couple of critical friends that will ask a lot of questions and come with comments. All conversations go via mail. The main reason is that I have to write down the ideas and I usually find the main pitfalls before I even send it. I also have a documentation on the conversation.

Now is the "Keep on Target" handling involved. I remove all parts and ideas that are outside the main goal and the main theme. Several ideas are usually good and I write them down as expansions.

Now it is time for the first design. Paper and pencil is the main tool here. I look at the game flow, add mechanism that can work in the game flow and components that works in the mechanism. I work in circles and always work having everything as simple as possible but still have the right feeling on the game and keep the game within the theme and limitations. For each mechanism or component I ask myself if it is necessary or if it could be done in another way.

I now run the second test and that works in the same way as the first.

Next step is to create a prototype and get it tested. The first game session, the main goal is to get the theme and the game flow right.
The second prototype are normally completely rebuild where a part of the components and the mechanism are changed.

So I use the mechanism in the game to get the theme, feel and look, game flow, limitation and the game goal right. The mechanism is just a way to get the game to work in a way that I like and I don’t prefer a mechanism over an other. That is the reason why I can not answer this question.

// Johan

Ooooh! That reminded me of another variation-- choices which come into play only when you're impacted by another player's action.

This is sort of a cross between

- Set of possible reaction rules hard-wired in
- Possible directions a pawn can travel

Let's say you're within the other player's blast radius. As your life begins to ebb, you might be given the opportunity to do a couple things, such as a) seek medic, b) apply a powerUp. Of course choices have different rewards-- a medic is more permanent, a powerUp will give you a bolt of energy and crash you quickly.