Needful Things

I have said this in other posts:

A game allows us to explore various behaviours, both acceptable and unacceptable. The game environment allows us to discover the consiquences of these actions within the game environment. As we all have these tendancies (to a greater or lesser degree) we can safely contain them in the game environment.

We can see how others react to these be3haviours, giving us a view of how this person would likely act in real life (outside of the game).

Try this experiment:
When you next play a game with people who don't know each other, see how they act compared to how they do when the play with people they know quite well. There will be a big difference, in their reactions to their opponents and the amount of time spent looking at their opponents reactions in turn.

Any discussion about need I'm going to now post in this thread. So I'm going to be pulling quotes from other threads, but I'll link to the original thread.

Ok, first off, Lor:

http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3011&postda...

That is really funny. When I read that, I just cracked up laughing.

My thoughts on need are very different than the rest of the community here. I never think of "flirting" or "belittling your opponent" as a need. Same as "destroying things". To me, those are all desires of the human condition.

Here is my list of human needs:
- Security
- Adventure
- Freedom
- Exchange
- Power
- Expansion
- Acceptance
- Community
- Expression

and for a great definition and some examples of them go to: http://www.itstime.com/jun97.htm

Note, this website can be inspiring. Enter with care.

http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3011&postda...

This I agree with. Nobody really NEEDS to win a game (at least card and board games, and any other game for entertainment). The purpose of a game is to have fun (to entertain), and really, it's nothing more. I don't believe that every human has an urge to go out and kill people and the only way they are able to do it in a socially acceptable manner is through a game (of say Axis and Allies). I just don't agree with that.

I do want to say that some games cater to people's needs. But people don't play games to have those needs satisfied in a socially acceptable manner. They play games to enjoy themselves and because it's fun. It's fun to backstab your opponent (in the game of Munchkin). There's no human need to stab your friend in the back though.

Getting ever deeper here, there is the fact that games educate us. The game of Settlers teaches us how to manage our resources. This is not satisfying a need though. There is no need to organize our life. Some people do it, others don't. Some will say Settlers fullfills the 'power' need. Players want to win the game, but in order to do so they need to overpower their opponents and build a bigger empire. This is a red herring. The actual goal is to win the game, and building a bigger empire is a consequence (in fact, a requirement in most cases) to winning the game. There is no need being fufilled here, just the desire of winning. The purpose the game is to have fun, not fufill a need. And in so doing, we are in fact educating ourselves about different aspects of life (resource management)

So, going back to this quote:

We see that in Settlers, players WANT to win. And in order to do so, they NEED to build an empire.

I agree with this. This is the underlying reason we play games: to have fun. I think as designer we should never ever lose sight of this. Even when we delve into theory (like we're doing now), some people are losing sight of this. Fun and enjoyment is the goal of a game.

Rob

and the Need stuff start comming in.

I'm with Stainer here; I think this "need" stuff is all wet. What you guys are saying amounts a claim that games enable us to pretend to take actions that at some psychological level we "need" to take to be [happy, fulfilled, whatever]. To me, this invests WAY too much importance to the theme of games, and it completely disregards the popularity of abstract games, which simulate nothing, and German games, for which thematic richness is not always a primary indicator of the games' fun factor.

Look at Settlers; the theming is decent, but it's not great. After one or two players, you forget altogether that you're "trading", "building", "producing", etc, you're just performing a mechanical set of actions. Many games are like that: the theme is a useful device to facilitate learning the game's mechanics, and in many cases, it even inspired the game's mechanics. But the fact that the game can be enjoyed even after the game starts feeling abstract indicates that it isn't the individual simulated actions that appeal, but the overall experience of the game, and probably of social interaction the game group.

I am more than willing to stand corrected, but what theory of human nature are you guys drawing from in appealing to these "needs" that we all apparently have and are for some reason only able to fill through gaming?

I agree that what I find enjoyable in gaming is indeed the opportunity to make choices and see where they lead (and how they interact with the choices of others), but again, this isn't really related to some deep-seated desire to actually do the things the game's theme simulates. It's more correctly understood as academic curiosity than as an opportunity to "act out" in a safe and structured environment.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's just nonsense. In what way does game playing confer a survival advantage such that it would have been selected by the environment? What evidence is there of a "game-preferring gene?", and given how rare it seems to be, how has it survived?

-Jeff

Who said anything about pretending??? ;-)

That Barbara Taylor site Rob mentions above-- http://www.itstime.com/jun97.htm -- is yet another rich lode; thank you Rob! It's even got a game character matrix laid out which I bet dozens of designers have stolen from. She even links to Maslow's hierarchy. Great Psych 101 stuff. And I say, even if your head hurts a little, it's damned important to get a feel for these drivers.

I don't pretend to be expert, but I am sensitive to player need from my other career in filmmaking and storytelling, and these needs don't involve the superficial aspects of a game. They don't involve the rewards and punishments you mete out-- that's the designer's control shtick, informed by your game intention and theme. They don't involve cool handpainted or shiny components-- that's mostly window dressing-- a big sell point, but not the real compelling sell point. Anyone attending a college course in advertising media knows darn well I speak the white light.

All I'm saying is, because there is way too much derivative, imitation, emulation, and hollow echo in the design domain these days, get back to the bonafide sources, the human needs, to achieve originality - nay, HONESTY in design.

Diss it all you like, but there is no better foundation for a game than knowing what it fulfills for the player on all levels. And if YOU don't know-- who does? Work it out. It really pays off in game depth.

I think concrete examples will help illustrate how this helps, and I have a prototype I want put through the grinder soon, and i hope you'll all stomp it.

Well, I suspect that the window dressing sells more games than the gameplay itself in a lot of cases, but that's neither here or there.

I'm no longer sure I actually understand your point of view. I thought you were talking about escapism -- how games enable us to simulate actions that we "need" to take, thereby effectively filling those needs for us. But now you're saying that this isn't what you were talking about.

But what else is there? In a board game, there's social interaction, and there's tactile interaction with the game pieces themselves, and there's the mental activity of making decisions. But these are common to all games, with the only difference between games being the relative amount to which they emphasize one over another (eg, a party game emphasizes social interaction, a strategy game emphasizes mental activity, etc).

In other words, I think that the very activity of gaming already fulfills what you're calling "needs", so I don't see how you design a game that, through the very act of playing, fulfills those needs above and beyond what gaming does in and of itself.

Are you talking about the simulation of actions that are "needful", or something else?

-Jeff

First, I want to thank you for giving me a hard time. lol

Jeff writes-

Yes, I have to qualify that-- that was sloppy. Appearances can be VERY important. If you look at a new Warhammer piece, you may want it because it sports tools (weapons) older Warhammer pieces do not. In fact, if you want to play a current WH tournamant, the gamemaster won't even allow older pieces! Sheesh!

So the window dressing-- especially for players who have already drunk the kool-aid and spent two grand on WH Marine and Ork sets, is critical. (I am still wrapping my head around this side of the business, it's phenomenal.)

I've been saying the same thing from day one, and imperfectly because it's a tough one and I'm not a psychologist.

The need to escape into a game is surely deep-seated and drives several billion-dollar recreational industries, but it's WAY too general for a discussion of unique design, it's practically a given, it doesn't distinguish one game from another. It goes along with the player's quest for "fun."

Dete's Dragon example however, perhaps to represent a need to express inner demons on a game board, is fraught with potential imagery, theme, art design, and potential rules for play-- shoots out like drgaon's breath! So once you devise an appeal to an unusual need, build on it and apply familiar game tools.

I didn't say this was EASY!!! But it helps avoid sameness.

And my focus on appealing to player need is *not* the only one I apply, I am just as concerned as anybody here about the mechanic and the look and feel. I am very obsessive. In fact, "need" is usually not even the FIRST exercise in my design effort. There's a lot of "push-pull" in forming a game design. Sometimes you jump ahead, build a sand castle in the air, then quickly devise a foundation to hold it up and continue from there. (Computer programmers have a trick where they implement a "Dummy"-- a placeholder variable, even when the code to address it hasn't been written.) That's what makes the process FUN. You're free to begin the weave anywhere you like.

My own abstract strategy item started simply by drawing circles with a green plastic template, just playing and noodling with a pattern design. Absolute truth. But befor eit got too embellished, I did some backtracking to understand *why* I liked it the result, *how* the rules of play could logically fit the artwork with an agreeable "story" or theme I believed in.

And then went forward and refined it "on a mission" to satisfy certain player needs: in this case to Build, Create a Record of my effort that isn't completely wiped out at game's end, and of course Dominate the playing field for a win. I think it's a richer entertainment for the foundation.

Well, those aren't needs, they're game mechanics we rely on as designers and players. I don't go shopping strictly for differences in game mechanic, do you? Yes, I can see using mechanic to sort out the difference between Twister and Goblet, or Trivial Pursuit and... eh.. Cranium. But what am I really looking for, besides the general requirement for "fun" and "escapism"? What hints do i get from the game box that tell me THIS is ONE that will satisfy me... tell me what YOU look for when you go game shopping so I can understand your point of view better.

It IS a perspective, just as Dete says, or a "mindset"-- it helps me justify how I move forward with design. It's not just a "subtext" for the game reviewers to slop over. I have to know what's pushing the design of my board, pieces, rules. Have you ever had a game design torpedo ahead because you suddenly realized what it was "about" and how certain rules seemed wrong and certain moves were just right and certain artwork didn't belong? You tighten it up everything from theme to box cover. Ultimately, whatever appeal it brings to you, will ALSO push the player to the same degree and it usually appeals to unspoken needs.

Watch shoppers in game stores, how a smile creeps onto their faces when they've just disocovered the right game. They're not smiling over the beautiiful game mechanics, believe me. They're forking out cold hard cash because you just gave them the permission, the venue and the tools to kick ass, get weallthy, show off, take over everything or otherwise behave outrageously.

This is true, but it also is a simplistic view of evolution.

Behaviour is a result of genetics. If the dopamine receptors in your brain, didn't work (or worked differently) then you would have very different behaviour. This is therefore behaviour influenced by genetics.

If we are going to understand the emotions assosiated with playing games and why we feel the need to play games then we should look at the resons that we have those in the first place.

There would be not be just one gene that could be singled out as a game playing gene. It is 1) a complex behaviour and would most likely have many resons to evolve. 2) It is not an explicite behaviour and is most likely arising as a synergy of various behaviours (pleasure/reward, learning, dominance, practice, to name a few).

Not realy. I am aproaching this from the point of view that game playing is a result of evolution, not the point of view that "we play games" and evolution is just an explaination.

An animal that plays and learns in a safe environment has a vastly greater survival chance than one that doesn't. If this trate occured in one of our ansestors (and it probably is not a homonid ancestor), this would have given a considerable advantage to this behaviour and then evolution would have worked on it to enhance and encourage it.

It is very concevable that the origen of our drive to play games stems from this "Nest" situation and the "Need" to learn before we can exist in the wide world. It could be that our intelegence has evolved to take advantage of this game playing so that not only have we evolved to play games but the fact that we play games has had an impact on other traits of humans.