[Humour] The Game Designer's Glossary

Level of complexity: moderate = Hard

Level of complexity: hard = Too complicated to play even the basic game.
[Stephen Melisi]

I think this was written with old AH wargames in mind and I can certainly sympathise in that context.

It is certainly true that too many games seem to have a license tacked on. I know it divides opinions widely, but Knizia's cooperative Lord of the Rings game is one that I really admire for capturing its theme properly, whereas the LOTR theme in "The Search" is nonsensical and unwelcome.

I can only imagine the contributor was thinking about the American wargames industry in the 1980s (when this was written), as German game designers were fighting *for* their names on boxes.

This one is fairly accurate in some games-- three is a difficult number. The other variant of this I've seen is games that say 2-4 when clearly they mean 3-4; the two player version being completely hopeless as the rules were clearly designed to be multiplayer. This is an issue I've been thinking about recently, as I'm working on a 2-player game; the change in a game's dynamics when it becomes zero-sum are immense.

Best wishes,

Richard.

Your list is full of good points which I agree with. Lost Cities, as you say, successfully introduces its assymetry during the game, but two player (or, I suppose, assymetrical multiplayer games too) are much more demanding in their need for playtesting if they start players off with different positions. My 2-player game is a German-style implimentation of the American Civil War, from a strategic level. It's quite tricky to keep the sides sufficiently varied as to be interesting, whilst not railroading players into a particular strategy or making one side inherently more powerful than the other. For example, almost all the mechanics play *against* the Confederacy (blockades, manpower shortages etc. are far more likely for them) but their victory condition is, accurately, less ambitious: they win if they haven't lost by the end of the game. Managing to find the balance to let players' skill decide who wins, is difficult, though. I think it will be a long time before it reaches a balanced state.

Richard.

One thing about this is that in many games it is not necessarily clear who *is* the leader in reality. With hidden scoring or hidden assets, a player can be attacked in this way beyond his actual advantage. So, even though it's probably true that we tend not to complain unless we're being hit, it is a design issue, I guess. My biggest gripe of this kind is with Vinci, where the last few turns are dictated wholly by the open scores: if a leader can be overtaken he'll be stomped to the stage where the 2nd or 3rd player will slip through; if he's too far for 3rd or 4th to catch, they may all just attack 2nd to improve their own position (depending on personal philosophy- I look for position whereas some friends consider all places but 1st to be equally poor).

Going back to the topic of balance in design, I remember thinking, when I first started playing German games, that auction games looked very complicated to design competently. It wasn't long before I realised they're one of the easiest and most self-balancing systems, which I guess is why we see them so much.

I know in our group we definitely do get group think over the misvaluation of items: "Right, so this is worth three to Gordon, but only two the rest of us, except James, for whom it isn't worth a thing".

Thanks for the link!

Richard.

-- Matthew

Hm, I'm quite fond of them, but I see what you mean.

Richard.

Frankly I love auction games, and once I get past this hurdle I'm sure I'll design a variety of them.

-- Matthew

Fair enough-- sounds like a very organised and dedicated approach. I just tend to muddle through designs, flicking from one to another as enthusiasm takes me, so I suppose I conflated keeping them out of designs with disliking them. Anyway, please don't think I was meaning to sound sceptical of your stand, I hadn't quite grasped what you meant.

Regarding money, I am always amused when people playing Media Mogul say "I think it would be interested if we started with one extra money", as we must have been through every possible permuatation of both starting money and costs, trying to find one that worked in balancing the power of the pieces, keeping things tight, and still allowing for a variety of opening strategies with that initial cash. I can't remember the number of times the prices went up, and then the starting cash went up, and then a few weeks later we'd drop them down again because of a change in another part of the game... . Anyway, I definitely agree with you about money and the difficulties of balancing costs.

One idea I've been playing with: how to do a game where players choose the price they'd like to buy/sell at? (And then provide penalties for being caught being too cheap). It would seem that something themed on Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company would work, but I never quite got things to click.

Richard.

I've not played that, but I can imagine it is hard to work.

I have heard a lot about an old game called Supremacy that tried to do a market model but broken when people decided (quite reasonably) to hoarde all of one good an then sell when the price had gone high.

Best wishes,

Richard.

Very funny list of definitions! Thanks for posting!

One of the first games I created (with the help of my wife) involves such a mechanic. Players see the estimated value of an item they want to try to buy (to fill a collection), but not the appraisal of the item (which indicates its actual value). The seller may let it go for WAY more than it's worth, but the penalty comes in when the player buying the piece of junk looks at the appraisal and realizes he got hosed. The seller's penalty is in the loss of reputation with other players (and he may have a difficult time selling anything for much of a profit). Selling for too much profit too early costs in long term sales in the game.