Hello, I recently published a two-part article on this topic.
I hope it is an interesting read for you.
Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (Part 1)
Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (Part 2)
Enjoy the reading :)
Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics
Tue, 05/21/2024 - 04:09
Thu, 05/23/2024 - 09:27
#1
Your article, and possibly
Your article, and possibly your book, is very interesting. It partially explains why my design have not been progressing. I am probably very good at making rules, but when I play my game, I don't get the right dynamics, therefore I get back to square 1. If there could be a process to do it backwards, that would be very interesting to know.
I guess, by separating in 3 distinct steps it adds more structure to the design process and could make it less chaotic. Allowing to know what you need to work on, rather than trying random modifications and hoping to get good results.
One thing that I have been using is toy play. It basically allows you to play a game as a toy. If done right, you are basically only considering the dynamic aspect of the game. It's easy to fall in the trap of defining a set of rules and following it. But that is not the objective. I had a tiny blog on BGG that had to toy play experimentation, I can link it if you are interested.
Your method, with toy play, would be a way to probably design stating with the dynamics or the aesthetics rather than the mechanics. That could allow designing games that are wildly different that what is currently available. Other wise, most people seems to de designing from mechanics, creating tiny variations to what already exists. So the progress is slower.
It also explains why I make variant, and why people object to it. The mechanics might make more sense, but the resulting dynamics and aesthetics could be horrible.
Unpredictable dynamics based only on mechanics can also make it hard to evaluate if you are willing to play or buy a board game simply based on the rule book or a video explanation. Even a reviewer could be biased to his point of view. This is why it makes it difficult, and ratings does not mean much.
One thing I might have discovered, but will require further research, is that turn based strategy video game could have a thinner barrier between the mechanics and the dynamics. One of the main reason is that there is little limitations of time and space in computer strategy games due to the fact that computer can store a lot of data, and resolve a lot of mechanics.
Board games try to use more convoluted mechanics to abstract various game concepts, while video games seems to use more simple and know mechanics. For example, a strategy video game could be summarized as a series of data you can put in an excel sheet and a series of mechanics, that are mostly math formulas. So there is no need to do what I call "mechanics research" in order to implement an idea, you just use know basic mechanics and you work directly on your idea.
It creates more simple, but number crunching mechanics. But becomes more predictable dynamics and could speed up the development process.
Again, it's just a theory.
I guess if we what to learn more about how to design from Aesthetics to Mechanics, we need to get your book?
Fri, 05/24/2024 - 09:25
#3
Here is the link to the
Here is the link to the blog:
Design Exploration of a Master of Magic adventure
It's the only example of Toy play that I documented. The goal is to play a fictional game only using dynamics and aesthetics I guess. It feels like a solo RPG.
Most people seems to start from mechanics, even from a system (ex: war games, 18xx, etc) it probably makes the design easier, but less innovative.
Personally, I would start designing from Dynamics. The Aesthetics should be something to keep in the back of the mind, while not directly fulfilling it's purpose. It should be more like a guide to get back on track when getting lost.
Since it's hard to make an inventory of Mechanics due to the large amount of variability, I am wondering if there could be an inventory of Dynamics and attach possible mechanics that could satisfy that Dynamic. Again, it might be impossible to create a list of all possible mechanics and dynamics.
I assume, for a game like Master of Magic, the Aesthetics would be:
Have a feeling of power, control and superiority through magic.
Good to know for your books, that makes something to add to my wishlist.
Sun, 05/26/2024 - 14:56
#5
This should be a GOOD start...
...I think it's easier to do an inventory of mechanics rather than an inventory of dynamics...
Here's a more comprehensive list of mechanics on BGG:
Anyhow I don't think all mechanics have ALL of the games using their mechanics just some of which to show examples of where the mechanics have been used...
But you get the idea!
Regards.
Mon, 05/27/2024 - 01:05
#6
As a follow-up...
TBH I'm not much into DEFINING "How"(?) games are to be made. I see it not as a quantifiable methodology but as a creative exercise which varies from one idea to the next. Sorry it's why I dropped out of Developing Software. As Patterns arose, I become less engaged in a process which is FUN and CREATIVE allowing to express myself with the code that I developed. I've worked 15+ Years as a Software Developer and I find that things like "re-factoring" and "poor coding practices the first time" to be scientific reasons why I abhor coding nowadays.
I'll be honest, my code wasn't always perfect... But as a personal challenge, my goal was to write it RIGHT the first time around. That process of CREATION and SOLIDITY were key hallmarks that I would adhere to.
With the arrival of more SCIENTIFIC approaches to coding... I just got turned off by the community which was more about code sh!t now and let someone else re-factor your code later (FIX LATER).
So let me be the first to say, that I don't LIKE telling people HOW they should approach DESIGNING games. Leave it be: let it be a creative process that is controlled by rigorous playtesting, analysis and FUN creativity much like writing a book. Albeit these days you can ask ChatGPT 4o almost anything and she has an answer. Ask her to write 12 blurbs of less than 256 characters and voila she does it perfectly in 1:100th the time it would take a writer on Fiverr to do the same and not be even as remotely plugged into the genre you are aiming to write for.
That's just my own personal opinion. It's also why I ENJOY designing... It hasn't been hacked by the SCIENTIFIC community who is these days shredding apart the creative process of making ART given AI and things like ChatGPT 4o...
I don't want robots to make games. Let's leave some room for SOME creativity!
Respectfully.
Mon, 05/27/2024 - 09:42
#8
I have to agree with Ork, It
I have to agree with Ork, It happened to many times to get blocked in the design of my game ideas. For example, Just recently, for my steam punk coop Eldrith horror game. I designed the rules, they looked pretty solid, I play tested roughly the game, The experience was Meh! Ork, if you are interested, I have a playtest log that I posted here:
http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/uploads/Mainsite/GameIdea/GameIdea-Eldrit...
So, I would almost need to start over again, search for mechanics and other solution and hope to deliver the right experience.
If there is a game design structure, it makes sure that I am putting the effort at the right place instead of looping around indefinitely. I hate trial and error (like in web development).
Sure, there is more than one way to get things done. But it's better to start with a methodology, then see what works or does not work, and finally make modifications to better fit your working style. Same thing could be said from Agile methodologies, you try to adapt the principles to your workflow rather than following strict rules.
Right now, my design process is pure chaos. There is also more ideas that gets added to the design bin than ideas that makes it through (which is also frustrating), So having some structure to work with is really welcomed.
What is tricky with board games, is that making games more simple or smaller does not make it easier to design. For example, my stock market game, the rules fit on a page, but I am using computer simulations to balance the game. Worked on it for years, and it's still not done.
So I cannot try to complete more games ideas by just making them smaller.
This is why Board game design was very frustrating for me, because nothings get done. This is why I wanted to switch to computer strategy game, by hoping that removing the restriction of time and space, would make the design process easier.
Thanks for the mechanics list, even if they are categories, it's relatively exhaustive. Never thought of going to BGG for this.
Mon, 05/27/2024 - 17:03
#9
Don't work in a vacuum
...It happened to many times to get blocked in the design of my game ideas. For example, Just recently, for my steam punk coop Eldrith horror game. I designed the rules, they looked pretty solid, I play tested roughly the game, The experience was Meh!...
That's because you deal with Game IDEAS... They all sound FANTASTIC UNTIL you make an ACTUAL GAME (Prototype) and playtest it. That happens to all my games too. You are not alone in this aspect of designing games. It happens to everyone.
That is why I tell people: "Share your ideas and tell us where you are stuck with your Design...!" That's what BGDF.com is FOR! To get more eyes on the design that you are stuck with...! Like I said, I use BGDF.com to get my ideas out and to reflect upon what it is that I am working on and need to find a solution for.
You need to leverage the RIGHT tools... And BGDF.com is one of those tool!
I don't design in a vacuum ... I know I've said that OFTEN ... But I don't think you understood. What it means is that I don't DESIGN ALONE. I share my ideas, my playtesting (good or bad), what I am facing as a challenge or obstacle, etc. I make all very public and that helps me move forwards with the various designs that I am working on.
You on the other hand... Seem to design in a vacuum: ALONE!
Get more people involved. With TradeWorlds there were four (4) of us moving the design forwards and solidifying the game AFTER I had made the game pretty darn solid to start with.
Get out of vacuum mode and SHARE some of your playtesting issues. You seem to be posting on BGG ... And my only caution with that is that on BGG there are a lot of TROLLS and jerks. They don't take people's struggles seriously as most of them don't really care about their competing members.
If you prefer BGG (which for whatever reason that is IDK...) well then post there ... But I'd post on BGDF.com because this is a SITE for GAME DESIGNERS! Not people who like games and are often jerks to designers telling them that all their game ideas either suck or have been done already.
I had ONE (1) POST on BGG which derailed and I said: "F- this... No more BGG!"
And it wasn't even about Game Design, it was about ART. I said that I pay $100 CAD per piece of art. And a BUNCH of people jumped down my throat and told me ART can be worth $1000 USD per piece... Look at Magic, look at Pokemon, etc. They said that my POV was wrong and that the art was worth much more than that.
It was a very TOXIC thread and I dropped visiting BGG ... Because of it. And so that's the end for BGG for me. Even more recently, some of our TradeWorlds Backers posted Ratings of 1/10 with terrible comments. TOXIC AGAIN! I asked the BGG admins if these posts can be removed. They said no: "Freedom of speech and if they did that... It would cause more problems because ppl will be saying that they are censoring comments and that their 1st Ammendment Rights are being violated."
Anyhow that's pure BS because on the Forums they do censorship to ensure that people AREN'T being JERKS! Imagine that... They implemented a feature to ensure that convos are NOT TOXIC. Goes to show you the reality on BGG...
Neither here nor there... I don't visit BGG often.
Sincerely.
Mon, 05/27/2024 - 17:56
#10
Don't write the RULES first...
First create a PROTOTYPE of what you want YOUR game to be. Take the Game Idea and make it a REALITY. Rules can be a few notes about how the game is to be played (but don't need to be FINAL). Just so that YOU remember how exactly you play your PROTOTYPE. That's what you NEED as RULES.
They don't even need to be the COMPLETE GAME... Only certain parts and the rest can be implemented at a LATER time. You can test certain features/aspects of your game too.
Play and see how you feel about the game. Most Game Ideas will make SHITTY games... Or incomplete rules mean that you need to figure out certain areas of the game after the initial prototype.
Where I BELIEVE (I could be wrong) is that you are getting blocked between thinking your IDEAS are AMAZING and WILL MICRACULOUSLY WORK TOGETHER the first time around (which is most cases is FALSE) and that you are focusing on the ENTIRE game rather certain aspects of it. Break it down in chunks and playtest different aspects separately. That's another tip.
I'll give you an example:
Archon: Circlet of the Heavens was STUCK because I was using a SQUARE Board like Chess and the Original Game. But then I got inspiration and got to thinking: "What if I used a HEX BOARD instead?!
What did I do??? I immediately made all the pieces and units and printing out BLANK HEXES which are on their way from "The Game Crafter". Why? Why not print it out myself? Because I don't want to waste time FIDDLING with specific tiles, I want to test out the game and BLANK HEX TILES with UV Coating so I can erase and edit the tiles until I come with something PLAYABLE.
Sure I've got a bunch of IDEAS waiting for the game... But first thing is first: "I need to playtest the HEX BOARD!" And so I wait 1-Month for TGC to make and ship me the UV Coated Blank Hex Tiles so that I can see if they change the game sufficiently enough.
Right now I'm still working with an IDEA. When I get the prototype, I can PLAYTEST it and use a Dry-Eraser Pen/Marker to work on dynamically tuning the Hex Tiles... That's why I made them on TGC: to be able to fail faster and fix the game quicker rather than having to re-print HEX TILES each time I need to edit a tile...
It's all about HOW(?) you approach the design and TRANSFORM the IDEA into something PHYSICAL and REAL. Then you will see how GOOD your IDEAS were...!
Cheers @larienna.
Mon, 05/27/2024 - 18:22
#11
How do YOU want to PLAY this game???
...For example, Just recently, for my steam punk coop Eldrith horror game. I designed the rules, they looked pretty solid, I play tested roughly the game, The experience was Meh!...
In 2-Seconds I read your FIRST conclusion:
Sure, it does not feel like an investigation game, it's more like a game where you move around to put out fires.
Is that what you WANT your game to be? Sounds like NOT REALLY. How do you want the game to PLAY??? I'm not saying tighten it down to RULES... Just in GENERAL.
If you can't PICTURE HOW(?) to PLAY it... You cannot expect to DESIGN it...
Let's just start with figuring out how the game is supposed to be played. Don't think about OTHER games... Think about how YOU would want to PLAY this game...
That's a START!
Note #1: I have a BUNCH of IDEAS. But I don't want to share anything because you will say something like: "That's not HOW I envision the game" or "It's not the way I want the game to play.", etc.
I've learnt that helping nowadays doesn't mean throwing out a bunch of ideas and none of them STICK.
So I figured I'd help you with a SMALL aspect of the game asking HOW YOU would see your game being played. Again don't think about OTHER games. Think about how YOU would want this Eldritch Investigative Game be PLAYED!
Note #2: Also don't mix styles of play. Decide if the game is SOLO, COOPERATIVE or COMPETITIVE. Don't try to do everything because some of these can be incompatible when it comes to certain design elements.
If I was you I would choose "COOPERATIVE" and forget the other styles of play.
But it's YOUR game and therefore YOU decide. Once you clearly explain HOW(?) you would want to play the game... Maybe then I can share with you SOME of my ideas providing that they coincide with your own vision of the game.
Tue, 05/28/2024 - 01:18
#12
I play test with real players
I play test with real players when I have a solid playable game only. The game is solo and coop. Most coop games can be played solo, unless there is hidden information.
As for the investigation game, I think the pull out the fire mechanism would work well for a smaller scale game, like defend the city type of game. So it's less about investigation, but more about doing things to prevent a disaster.
Of course, from a "Dynamics" point of view, I would like the characters/players to have the feeling they are traveling the world to investigate mysterious events, connecting dots, eliminating discovered threats, etc. A James Bond movie theme could also fit the same mechanism
The problem, is that mechanics for that kind a game requires either a game master, an app with an AI, etc. Is really difficult to make something mystery/investigation based with just board game components. I tried in the past for other games.
Arkham Noir has a kind of puzzle game that simulate investigation by connecting cards. It could be a solution, find clue cards and try to connect them. Still, it can end up feeling like running around and collecting cards.
You see that is the problem with board game, I can never get the optimal experience without a digital implementation. The experience is always limited, like I said, it's like pretending an elephant trunk is actually an whole elephant.
This is why focusing on mechanics first, and approaching the game design from an abstract point of view and pasting theme over it seems like the only solution. Approaching the game from an experience leads most the time to a dead end with no mechanics to make the implementation. And if you do succeed, you will reach a point, where it's so simplified that it loses it's charm.
Tue, 05/28/2024 - 16:55
#13
3 / 4 Decks to an Event/Encounter
I play test with real players when I have a solid playable game only.
That is understandable. All I was suggesting is that you share some information on BGDF.com and see where that LEADS...!
The game is solo and coop. Most coop games can be played solo, unless there is hidden information.
Actually I have mechanics that can make the game NOT work in solo but work fine in coop. That's why I was asking what is important to you???
As for the investigation game, I think the put out the fire mechanism would work well for a smaller scale game, like defend the city type of game. So it's less about investigation, but more about doing things to prevent a disaster.
That makes sense too! For the investigation, I would have three (3) cards per Event (such that an Event is comprised of three separate cards). This would be a little like D&D... You have a Psyche card, an Investigation card and a Encounter card. Those three (3) cards form the nature of the Event (instead of a simple one card does it all...)
The Psyche card is the COST of failing the Event. So instead of losing morale, you lose Psyche and it could range from 1 to 3 Psyche per Event. When a player's Psyche becomes too low, he/she must visit the "Sanitarium" on the board and skip two (2) turns to restore their Psyche. During that time they cannot contribute to the game (coop).
Next we have the Investigation cards is what you NEED as tools (think equipment) to pass this trial. Let's say an Investigation card says ROPE and DUCT TAPE. The Duct Tape can be bought at the Hardware store and the Rope can be obtained during the game as an Item (as an example. a Reward/Loot).
Lastly we have the Encounter card. This is the nature of the Beast who will be coming from the Netherworld into the realm of the living. Could be a Vampire, Werewolf, Demon, Hell Hound, Spirit, Skeleton, Ghoul, Necromancer, etc. You can think up of all of the demonic and/or undead monsters that can invade the realm of the living.
You can opt to BATTLE the Enemy instead of Investigating but this will result in the loss of Psyche and in physical wounds and if your character (he/she) has too little health, he/she can visit the Hospital and again skip two (2) turns to fully heal themselves.
Battles can be easy (1 person can win) to hard (the entire team can win) and the goal here is to offer an alternative to Investigation which could be impossible if say nobody had a ROPE. If you defeat the visitor, you can draw a loot card and get that as a reward. Alternatively if someone in the party HAD a ROPE, no battle is needed, expend both the ROPE and DUCT TAPE and claim you reward...
The problem, is that mechanics for that kind a game requires either a game master, an app with an AI, etc. Is really difficult to make something mystery/investigation based with just board game components. I tried in the past for other games.
From what I can see it is possible given 4 decks: Psyche, Investigation, Encounter and Loot Decks. But it kind of makes the game NOT POSSIBLE for solo play... Because it's a coop game, players need to cooperate and provide Items and Equipment to help in the Events.
Arkham Noir has a kind of puzzle game that simulate investigation by connecting cards. It could be a solution, find clue cards and try to connect them. Still, it can end up feeling like running around and collecting cards.
I've never heard of Arkham Noir... I just thought that a 4 Deck System could make the game more about REWARDS (Loot) and having various items at your disposal to stop and Enemies from "invading" the known real world.
And yes there could be a DRIVING FORCE... The goal of the Nether Creatures is to move and make it to the Middle of the Board which is the "Church". If the Undead and/or Demonic forces reach the "Church", all the players LOSE the game... Another possibility.
Depending on the nature of an Enemies, you may want to be more or less aggressive in the hunt of these creatures...
Also I think what I am proposing is HARD as a 1 or 2-Player Game. I would say 3 to 4-Players is better. And therefore I am concluding that solo play is not possible (with what I am suggesting).
You see that is the problem with board game, I can never get the optimal experience without a digital implementation. The experience is always limited, like I said, it's like pretending an elephant trunk is actually an whole elephant.
Yes I understand. And how EASY or DIFFICULT it is (meaning you MUST Battle because your party did not have the item in question...), it can affect the outcome of the game.
This is why focusing on mechanics first, and approaching the game design from an abstract point of view and pasting theme over it seems like the only solution. Approaching the game from an experience leads most the time to a dead end with no mechanics to make the implementation. And if you do succeed, you will reach a point, where it's so simplified that it loses it's charm.
I've explained a Card Drafting (mechanic) which could be used to make the Events and/or Encounter cards more varied and the difficulty is left to chance as per the cards drawn and how difficult the Creature is (Level), what are the Items required to contain it, and the amount of Psyche lost if players cannot contain it.
One last point I had, is that each Event has a TIME. 1D6 determines according to the Encounter Card indicates how many turns before the Evil Visitor travels through the Gate into the real world.
Again just ideas. It's hard to SHARE ... But I think the RANDOMNESS of the three (3) (or four) Decks make for HIGH VARIABILITY and the chance to make the game appealing and highly replayable.
Just some ideas that I had. Cheers @larienna.
Tue, 05/28/2024 - 17:28
#14
Furthermore...
Let's briefly describe the nature of PLAY.
1. Players go around the board and try to STOP Enemies from coming to the known real world.
2. Investigations require items to STOP Enemies also. But in a non-combative form. Locations to be visited for items and/or equipment vary and can be assisted by the other players.
Like for example the DUCT TAPE. Yes it CAN be bought at the "Hardware Store" but it means someone need to GO TO THAT LOCATION. A player NEARBY may be CLOSER and can accomplish that TASK in less turns/moves.
3. IF you cannot STOP the Enemy from crossing the Gate, you lose Psyche and you will need to physically BATTLE the Enemy...
So YES you do go around the BOARD and YES you do collect ITEMS and/or Equipment but the goal is to PROTECT the "Church" at the middle of the Board from being destroyed and allow the Evil Forces to win the game...
Sounds like a lot of FUN to me! Haha!
Wed, 05/29/2024 - 10:38
#15
Sorry if I talks too much
Sorry if I talks too much about my game.
The combat and encounter resolution so far is very simple and elegant.
Combat: Each monster have a condition to fulfill, if you fail the condition, you get a consequence.
Encounter: You roll 2 dices, one for the Accomplishment, and one for the casualties. Each roll is compared to 2 character attributes, you must roll under at least 1 attribute to get a partial success, 2 attribute to get a full success. Accomplishment determines if you resolve the encounter, casualties determine consequences you receive. They are both independent results.
Optionally, players can take risk to get an extra reward by increasing die roll values.
My only criticism of this system, is that combat and encounters are parallel resolution system. Still, having a portion deterministic and random is important.
You seem to have lot of interest in my game, do you mind if I send you the rule book, it's better than describing it here. If you see something in the rules let me know. I'll see if I could make a cleaned up version that only has the necessary stuff.
We could talk about it online, or in person.
I like your idea of combining 2 cards together, maybe the 2nd card is a trophy when the encounter is resolved. This trophy can be used to resolve other encounters, a bit like an investigation trail. The trophies would be the trail.
Look for "Arkham Noir: King in yellow". There is a print and play version of the game. It's very puzzle-ish, but very intense strategically. The investigation aspect is summarized by a chain of cards that you must build up (you connect icons together). The game is tough.
There is no standard method that explains how to design a game starting from the aesthetics to get to the mechanics (at least I don't know it). This is because basically each game is very different from the other and the design process of two different games rarely follows the same path.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that when you start designing a game, the desired aesthetic is immediately defined, that is, what the experience you want the player to live will be. This will be the objective to be achieved by the designer and must be the central element of the entire design process. Every design decision will need to be made with this in mind.
For example, you shouldn't start by saying "I want to make a game that uses deck building mechanic", but it should be more like "Is the deck building mechanic suitable for achieving the aesthetic I want?". If the answer is "No" then you have to find another mechanic, and if the answer is "it could be, but I don't know for sure", then the only thing to do is make a prototype and do some playtesting. In fact, the only way to ensure that the game produces the desired aesthetic is to try it.
I had a tiny blog on BGG that had to toy play experimentation, I can link it if you are interested.
yes, thanks, give me the link.
I guess if we what to learn more about how to design from Aesthetics to Mechanics, we need to get your book?
Since you ask me about the book, I'll explain how things are.
I have written 3 volumes on board game design in Italian language (the third will be released soon). Given the good feedback I had in Italy I decided to have them translated into English and at the moment only the first one is ready. The next volumes will be translated soon. The three books are connected and overall explain how to design a board game in all its parts.
In any case, I think I will publish some more articles based on these books.