Post by abbysdad on Nov 9, 2010 22:57:23 GMT -5
"That's not fair!" is a statement I hear at least once a week. Normally from a very cute 6 year old girl who is devastated that I won't let her drive yet. But it's also the main critique we worry about as game designers. Unfair games and "broken" rules draw huge complaints from players. Email inboxes fill up. Nasty forum posts will ensure. Pandemonium. Cats and dogs living together. The whole works.
Most people think that a good game is when everything is perfectly fair so that all players have equal chances of winning. But I can't really think of a fun and perfectly fair game like that. Even in Chess, some one has to go first. Isn't that a pretty big advantage?
Here's something else strange. People do like unfair games. Castelvania for the NES is a great example of a really fun, but completely unfair, and wickedly difficult, console game. But it's fun! And people loved it. Even though Castelvania, unlike Contra and other early NES games, didn't have any easter eggs or cheats. I've been told it does have an unlockable difficult mode though, which is almost unholy in its challenge. For some people, the challenge of an unfair game like Castlevania far exceeds the simple pleasures of relatively fair games like Solitaire or Checkers. Even trumping the relaxing emotional journey of that weird chill game Flower.
But how do you decide what is fair? And what is unfair in a fun way? And what is just plain old unfair?
Well, playtesters help a lot! Getting their feedback on how something performs as compared to how we thought it would perform is always interesting. Similarly, when someone comes up with an insanely good combination using new models and old models we have to see if it needs to be blocked or just left as is. The opinions of the other game designers on the Crew really helps too. The recurrent argument about Hidden Deployment on the Darkson forums swings back and forth this way. We're still convinced the current rule is OK. But that might change.
Seeing what other game designers are doing is a great help too. Whether it's board games, console games or other miniature games. The popular concept of balance and fairness is kind of a shifting cultural animal in table top games. I think DC from Privateer Press said it best (I'm paraphrasing here): "A weak model ruins the model. But too strong of a model ruins the game." That's a really good point no matter what medium a game you designed will be played in.
The presentation of an idea can help make any unfairness feel right. Or at least OK. Relying on history for games like AE-WW2 helps too. You're playing an Italian tank detachment? Good luck! Maybe the Stregga will help you out. But at some point, a quantitative evaluation of how unfair/fair something is will be needed. And then tools like probability and statistics and game theory can come in handy.
So can simple charts.
Something I do when we're looking to create a new unit type is to pick two attributes in the stat line that "represent" the model. Like Strength and Armor or Drive and Wounds. I plot both of the attributes on orthogonal number lines, and put the unit we're looking at on the origin where the two lines cross. Then I plot where other unit types end up in comparison to the unit we're looking at for the same attributes. Sometimes I consider the other abilities a unit has as a biased weight on the attributes of interest.
If the unit comes out OK (i.e., all the close combat bruisers are in the same grouping on the chart) then it's probably OK to send on to the play testers. I use this kind of analysis in my job as an engineer too. [Note: Jesse Schell, author of the incredible book "The Art of Game Design," also uses it to balance characters in his designs. Pick it up! Read it. It's a great book if you're interested in seeing how a world class expert goes about the design process. This book has become one of my favorite references when I'm stuck on things.]
So let us know how we've done so far. Post on the forums. Give us a critique. I am not an expert on game design by any means. I still have a lot to learn. And everytime you guys play our games you give us valuable feedback.
Cheers,
Chris
Most people think that a good game is when everything is perfectly fair so that all players have equal chances of winning. But I can't really think of a fun and perfectly fair game like that. Even in Chess, some one has to go first. Isn't that a pretty big advantage?
Here's something else strange. People do like unfair games. Castelvania for the NES is a great example of a really fun, but completely unfair, and wickedly difficult, console game. But it's fun! And people loved it. Even though Castelvania, unlike Contra and other early NES games, didn't have any easter eggs or cheats. I've been told it does have an unlockable difficult mode though, which is almost unholy in its challenge. For some people, the challenge of an unfair game like Castlevania far exceeds the simple pleasures of relatively fair games like Solitaire or Checkers. Even trumping the relaxing emotional journey of that weird chill game Flower.
But how do you decide what is fair? And what is unfair in a fun way? And what is just plain old unfair?
Well, playtesters help a lot! Getting their feedback on how something performs as compared to how we thought it would perform is always interesting. Similarly, when someone comes up with an insanely good combination using new models and old models we have to see if it needs to be blocked or just left as is. The opinions of the other game designers on the Crew really helps too. The recurrent argument about Hidden Deployment on the Darkson forums swings back and forth this way. We're still convinced the current rule is OK. But that might change.
Seeing what other game designers are doing is a great help too. Whether it's board games, console games or other miniature games. The popular concept of balance and fairness is kind of a shifting cultural animal in table top games. I think DC from Privateer Press said it best (I'm paraphrasing here): "A weak model ruins the model. But too strong of a model ruins the game." That's a really good point no matter what medium a game you designed will be played in.
The presentation of an idea can help make any unfairness feel right. Or at least OK. Relying on history for games like AE-WW2 helps too. You're playing an Italian tank detachment? Good luck! Maybe the Stregga will help you out. But at some point, a quantitative evaluation of how unfair/fair something is will be needed. And then tools like probability and statistics and game theory can come in handy.
So can simple charts.
Something I do when we're looking to create a new unit type is to pick two attributes in the stat line that "represent" the model. Like Strength and Armor or Drive and Wounds. I plot both of the attributes on orthogonal number lines, and put the unit we're looking at on the origin where the two lines cross. Then I plot where other unit types end up in comparison to the unit we're looking at for the same attributes. Sometimes I consider the other abilities a unit has as a biased weight on the attributes of interest.
If the unit comes out OK (i.e., all the close combat bruisers are in the same grouping on the chart) then it's probably OK to send on to the play testers. I use this kind of analysis in my job as an engineer too. [Note: Jesse Schell, author of the incredible book "The Art of Game Design," also uses it to balance characters in his designs. Pick it up! Read it. It's a great book if you're interested in seeing how a world class expert goes about the design process. This book has become one of my favorite references when I'm stuck on things.]
So let us know how we've done so far. Post on the forums. Give us a critique. I am not an expert on game design by any means. I still have a lot to learn. And everytime you guys play our games you give us valuable feedback.
Cheers,
Chris
