Best of Both Worlds - mau€¦ · Best of Both Worlds || Master Thesis || MAH || Jonas Rören || [email protected] 4 Introduction: explaining concept and goal My aim with

Best of Both Worlds

A Platform for Hybrids of Computer Games and Board Games

Master Thesis in Interaction Design

Jonas Rören

Malmö University / Malmö Högskola

Spring 2007

Supervisor: Per-Anders Hillgren Examinator: Jonas Löwgren

Best of Both Worlds || Master Thesis || MAH || Jonas Rören || [email protected]

1

Abstract This report describes my work with developing a game for a gaming platform that enables hybrids between board games and computer games. My ambition has been to develop a game that takes advantage of the novel possibilities that this platform permits. Among those are to operate with a combination of the computer game traits of complexity in the games and ease of playing; as well as the board game / card game traits of combining social dynamics around a game session with ability to keep information hidden from other players. This is accomplished by a combination of mobile phones and a computer connected to the Internet. The screen of the computer will serve as board and the phones will display cards and other private information to the players, as well as functioning as the players’ means for interaction with the game. The game developed, Wind Bugs, takes advantage of the complexity of game states that a computer easily can handle. Effort has been put into finding mechanics with a level of complexity while still implementing them in way that makes them both playable and enjoyable. Rather than focusing on immersion, which has become common in the design of computer games, hopes are that games for this platform, including the game developed in this project, will give room to social dynamics among the players. Though operating with the use of mobile phones, the platform will not support “mobile gaming”; the proposed setting is a group of players surrounding a big screen. Keywords: Games, board games, computer-augmented games, game mechanics, game rules, game dynamics, game platforms, abstract games, themed games, mobile phones, Extransit, Mobile Interaction Suite, Windmaker, Wind Bugs.


2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people:

• Åsa Harvard, Jörn Messeter and Erik Königsson for making it possible for me to do this master project at Malmö University

• Per-Anders Hillgren – process supervisor

• Mikael Jakobsson – game supervisor

• Jonas Löwgren

• Tomas and Pelle at Extransit for technical support, guidance, play-testing and

faith in the project

• Ola Rören and Esko Vuonokari for play-testing

• Björn Sjödén for views on both the report and the game

• My fellow students for their ideas and opinions during seminars

• Kirsti for everything


3

Table of Contents Abstract _____________________________________________________________1 Acknowledgements ____________________________________________________2 Table of Contents _____________________________________________________3 Introduction: explaining concept and goal __________________________________4 Theoretic framework: games, aesthetics, cognition, interaction _________________6

What is a game? __________________________________________________6 What is a board game?_____________________________________________6 What is a computer game?__________________________________________8 Combining strengths: best of both worlds? _____________________________8 Themed board games vs. abstract board games ________________________10 Tangible vs. virtual, aesthetics of mind and simulation ___________________13 Fixed vs. modifiable rules __________________________________________15 Private vs. public information _______________________________________16 Rules, mechanics_________________________________________________18 Emergent vs. progressive __________________________________________23 The social dimension – human dynamics ______________________________23 Mechanics, representations and dynamics – a three level model ___________26 Fun and games __________________________________________________29

Methods and process _________________________________________________31 Debunking immersion _____________________________________________31 A platform or a game? ____________________________________________32 A prototype game: making Windmaker 1.0 and 2.0 _____________________33 A German approach: game mechanics________________________________35 Mechanics for Windmaker 1.0, 2.0 and their successors __________________36 Windmaker 3.0 __________________________________________________43 The concept of mechanics – revisions needed? _________________________44 Getting down on the floor__________________________________________44 A second paper prototype__________________________________________57 Implementing Wind Bugs – going digital again _________________________59 Test sessions during development ___________________________________61 Initial test results of digital Wind Bugs - mechanics _____________________62 Initial test results of digital Wind Bugs – representations _________________64 A “proper” test session: participation, observation, analysis _______________65

Results – my achievements_____________________________________________69 Discussion of results and process ________________________________________72

Is there a future for hybrid game forms?______________________________73 Finding allies and markets _________________________________________74

References__________________________________________________________76 Bibliography_____________________________________________________76 Web sites_______________________________________________________80

Appendices _________________________________________________________81 Appendix 1: Game Mechanics listed on BoardGameGeek _________________81


4

Introduction: explaining concept and goal My aim with this project is to develop a new form of gaming, a hybrid of computer games and board games that represents “the best of both worlds”. On the technical side this will be solved by a combination of mobile phones and a computer connected the Internet. This will be made possible by technology and know-how supplied by the Swedish company Extransit. My technical solution for the gaming concept is that every player in a game has a mobile phone equipped with software for the game. The phones are connected to a single computer (via a server). The computer screen will analogous with a game board. As all players view the same screen (board), this implementation is not similar to the various online board games that are quite popular today. As the players can be presented private information (unavailable to the others) on the mobile phones, possibilities for implementation of board-type or card-type games emerge. My hope is, though, that the platform will bring forth a new generation of computer-board games that literally will represent the best of both worlds.

Figure 1: Basic platform concept. Players share a “board” in form of a computer screen. Private information is presented on mobile phones. Players can share a physical space and still operate with information that is hidden from other players. Mobile units communicate with the computer running the board through a server. By “augmenting” (a term that I not really like in this context) a board game with computers, possibilities for new forms of gaming emerge. The game can handle game states with a complexity that would be difficult or uninteresting for players to


5

manage without support. Yet difficult to handle, the complex game states might give room to interesting gameplay. Many computer games features rules and game states that are complex compared to board games – yet still they are often easy to get started with. Thus, I will strive towards developing a game that shares these computer game traits: easy access to complex game states. An aspect of board gaming that I do not want to “design away” is the social context that occurs around a board gaming session. Similar situations might occur in the playing of multiplayer video games. But, when information is not to be shared among the players (as is common in card games and modern board games), the solution is generally to play over a network. This type of gaming (networked) can of course be described as social – but compared to the playing of board games it is limited or at least different. My aim will be to develop a platform that can support a “genuine board game setting” while playing a complex computer driven game.


6

Theoretic framework: games, aesthetics, cognition, interaction

What is a game? Jesper Juul has made an attempt at describing, comparing and evaluating the various definitions of a game that has been proposed in various principles.1 His definition (I suppose) aims at being the definitive one, putting an end to arguments over definitions. It tries to grasp all features of a game and avoid features that do not belong to games. It is a solid definition, but as many of the previous, it is a rather heavy one:

A game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are negotiable.2

A simpler and more catchy (and easier to recall) version of this definition has been proposed by Craig Lindley. Lindley decidedly rules out criteria (from Juul’s definition) that relate to the player rather than to the game itself:

[A] goal-directed and competitive activity conducted within a framework of agreed rules.3

What is a board game? A board game is, essentially, a game that is played on a board. Folk board games include Chess, Backgammon, Mancala and Go. Commercial board games include modern-day classics as Monopoly, Scrabble and Risk; loads of new titles are released every year. Folk board games are supposedly created by players in an iterative process of playing and adapting the rules (analogous to folk music) over long periods of time. This evolutionary process sorts out game features that are irrelevant or simply destroy the gameplay. The harmonious character of the rules and mechanics of most folk games is supposedly in debt of this process. Commercial board games are created by game designers.4 With only slight knowledge of the game titles mentioned above; it is rather obvious that there are some general differences between these folk and commercial games. The most obvious difference is perhaps that many commercial board games have a fictional dimension, often referred to as a theme, while a folk game tend to represent nothing but itself. Games without themes are usually called abstract games.5 In a 1 Juul (2005): 29-36 2 Juul (2005): 36 3 Lindley (2005), Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 80 have a similar definition. 4 Juul (2005): 81. A similar way of describing this relation is to distinguish between evolved and

invented games (Parlett 1999: 5) 5 Thompson (2000), In Parlett’s view, though, folk games has initially featured themes, but these

have been sorted out by the evolution of gaming for being irrelevant to the games per se (1999: 6).


7

wider sense, especially when incorporating computer games, it is unsatisfying to use only two categories - abstract and themed. Instead this scale could be viewed as a continuum – ranging from strictly abstract (backgammon) to extremely representative (flight simulators).6 Juul has made an attempt at finding discrete categories in the continuum between abstract and representational. Slightly more representational than the pure abstract games are iconic games. In this category fall card games played with a standard deck. These games clearly have a representational element (court cards) but this has no relevance in the actual gameplay. The next levels hold games that represent a fictional “world”. Depending on to what extent these worlds are “believable” and logically coherent Juul labels them incoherent world games and coherent world games. The game of chess is in Juul’s view an incoherent world game as it depicts a battle between two forces, but none of the mechanics of the game can be derived as a result of this fictive reality (the battle), the player must at all times consult the rules of the game rather than the representation.7 The fictive dimension of games will be investigated further down in the report.8 A commonly recognized quality of board games is that positions are discrete. In chess, for example, there are a definitive number of squares (64), and every piece will occupy one of these squares (if it is not taken). It is of no relevance to the game if a piece is placed in the exact middle of a square – or close to border of another square. This is contrasted to games of skill (Soccer, Pick-up sticks/Mikado) – where the positions are nearly endless.9 Most computer games must be regarded as games of skill in this sense, from the player’s view the game positions are experienced as continuous (in reality, of course, everything is discrete and exact in a computer). Computer game theorist Juul’s notion of game states, the exact position of everything in a game at any given moment, is actually more suitable to board games than to computer games: though all positions in a computer game session is at any time represented exactly (discrete) by the computer – the players’ experience will by necessity be more fuzzy (“crawling close to the gate, gun in hand” rather than the exact coordinates). Accordingly, a board game player is deliberately manipulating the game state while, in a sense, the game state is only an effect of the players’ interaction with a skill-based computer game.10 Nowadays, board games like Pictionary and Cranium include activities of a fuzzy character (drawing, molding, acting etc.). Game states during these activities are fuzzy as well. Even more so, actually, than in a skill-based computer game, as these activities are not represented exactly by any system. The only discrete game states in these games are the players’ actual advancements on the game board, which in reality is a rather limited part of the gaming experience. Yet, still it is this element that makes these games recognizable as board games. These games might be treated as board games with skill-based elements. My bet is that this category of games is here to stay.

6 Adams (2003) 7 Juul (2005): 130-133 8 See the chapters "Themed board games vs. abstract board games" and "Mechanics,

representations and dynamics – a three level model". 9 Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 2 10 Juul (2005): 59-65


8

What is a computer game? Basically, computer games are games that are played on a computer. Unlike earlier forms of games, computer games have been studied from an aesthetic viewpoint by a rather large group of researchers. This fact has puzzled some of them.11 In Espen Aarseth’s view, the interest in computer game aesthetics derives from the large amount of “artistic” content in these games that are recognizable to researchers in fields like the history of literature or film. Words, sounds and images in games can be analyzed with methods that are available and ready to use. This fact, though, might be a trap. Instead of analyzing the real meanings and aesthetics of games, the researchers might end up studying easy recognizable elements that happen to fit their available theories. Aarseth continues to conclude that the reason that (computer) games interest practitioners in the humanities is that they are simulations of virtual environments. Accordingly, games like Monopoly (“simulating” real estate business) and Risk (“simulating” war) would be of interest for these researchers rather than computer-supported versions of folk games like backgammon or abstract computer games like Tetris.12 As shown in the previous chapter, most commercial board games contain some form of theme or representation. There is, as follows, no clear line between board and computer games in this regard. In fact, Aarseth’s point specifies why there is interest for computer games in the humanities, rather than saying what computer games are or what they should be. The computer game genre is wide and some popular computer games can in reality hardly be categorized as games (Sim City is a popular example of a computer game with no clear goal - a toy rather than a game). Lindley has proposed a model where every computer game can be placed in a continuum between three “temporal semiotic systems”: simulation, game and narrative.13 Board games can certainly be categorized with this model as well. Board games, though, might not have alienated themselves from being “pure” games to the same extent as some computer games. It is obvious, though, that a variety of board games of the commercial era have taken some brave steps towards being simulations. Narrative elements might be found in board games as well, especially in the form of “back stories” (short stories explaining the background of the conflict that is “simulated” in the game).

Combining strengths: best of both worlds? Some previous attempts at combining computer games with board games have been made. These attempts have to a great extent had the goal of making board games better with computer technology, making them more like computer games.14 My goal could, in a way, rather be described as making computer games more like board games. I will briefly go through what could be gained from both perspectives.

11 Juul (2001) 12 Aarseth (2003): 1-2 13 Lindley (2005) 14 Mandryk, Maranan & Inkpen (2002); Magerkurth, Memisoglu, Engelke & Streitz (2004), Eriksson,

Peitz & Björk (2005), Lundgren (2002) and Lundgren (2003)


9

In the beginning of this project I had the idea that a platform like this could enable games relying less on immersion and more on player to player interaction than computer games normally do. While I still regard this point as interesting I am aware that the degree of experienced immersion in for example “party-type” video games is low compared to the prototypical computer games. A game feature that is difficult to implement in video game consoles is private information – meaning that each player has some information that the others lack. This feature is inherent in most card games (none of the others know your cards, and you don’t know theirs) and in many commercial board games. Private information is of course easy to implement in computer games that are played over a network, but these games separate the players and do not give much room to social interaction among the players. If the point of departure is board games, it might not be obvious what is to be gained by “augmenting” board games in the way that is done with this platform – why not just play a traditional board game? Games on a platform like this will be able to have some unique qualities (compared to traditional board games):

• Relieving the players from tedious calculations and mechanical actions while at the same time delivering complex games.15

• Game states may be hidden while players are yet able to manipulate them.16

• Possibility for more advanced game boards, e.g. changing, turning etc.17 • Making a game with complex mechanics easy to start playing for beginners. • Illegal moves can be truly illegal (impossible).18 • Possibility to implement concealed handicap systems without interrupting

the gameplay.19 • Flexible possibilities for pausing and resuming specific game sessions.20 • Setup of game states can be random and still guarantee an enjoyable

experience.21 • Players can exchange private information with each other without the

others noticing. • Negotiation about game rules must be made before play begins (with

settings). When playing, rules are fixed. • Possibility for private “subgames” on the personal displays.

Note that these qualities are essentially mentioned because technical circumstances make them possible, they do not necessarily add value to a game. As noted earlier, what is “won” here is generally more complexity in the game and less (unwanted) complexity for the players. Interestingly, Salen and Zimmerman note that a board game named Stay Alive has some properties of a digital game. The game relies on a mechanical system which functions “semi-autonomously” from the players. This means that some of the

15 Eriksson, Peitz & Björk (2005): 5-6, Magerkurth, Memisoglu, Engelke & Streitz (2004): 5 16 Eriksson, Peitz & Björk (2005): 5, The game state is the exact position of all components of a game

at any time during play, Juul (2005): 60 17 Magerkurth, Memisoglu, Engelke & Streitz (2004): 5 18 This means that a game is not dependent on that the players stick to the constraints of a game

(they simply have to). 19 Eriksson, Peitz & Björk (2005): 5 20 Magerkurth, Memisoglu, Engelke & Streitz (2004): 5 21 Eriksson, Peitz & Björk (2005): 5


10

game’s exact rules do not have to learned by the players – the game itself handles their execution (players interact indirectly with the game).22 I find this observation by Salen and Zimmerman valuable, but I think using Stay Alive is a very special case for an example. A game using some form of physical mechanism will by its nature shift parts of the handling of game states from the players to the mechanism itself. More interesting, in my view, is the fact that “digital traits” can be found in a wide variety of modern board games which works without any technical devices. To various extents, player moves in modern board games might be supplemented by what I prefer to call game moves. A game move is a move that is not made by any player but by the game itself as a reaction to the players’ moves or positions. This is very obvious in the popular board game Robo Rally – where lots of “automated” actions (game moves) are executed by the players as a response to their positions. Similar – but more limited – mechanisms can be found in the Swedish game Drakborgen (published in English as Dungeon Quest). I am quite sure the list could be made longer. I find it rather obvious that “computer logics” has sneaked into the board game flora and fauna as a forerunner of the games being computerized. Analogous examples exist in interactive literature (“Fighting Fantasy” books) and constrained poetry (text controlled by rules and algorithms) as favored by literary movements like the Oulipo. Not only do I view these games with digital traits as consequences of designers being affected by how computers work – I believe that some features of these games has made both players and designers speculate about ways to augment them with computers.

Themed board games vs. abstract board games An obvious division among board games is as previously mentioned between games with a fictional “theme” and games that represent nothing but themselves. There is not consensus on the importance or meaning of themes in games. Themes are dominating in the commercial era but is nearly absent in the “folk era”, but counterexamples exist. Chess is a folk game with at least a skeleton of a theme. Othello is a commercial game without the scent of a theme. Computer games are known for having well-developed themes, and are both loved and studied for this reason. Counterexamples like Tetris exist, though. In board gaming circles, a “split” is generally recognized between two schools of commercial board games. These schools, though named after their places of origin, are above all identified by their relation to themes. In the American school, game mechanics is generally developed as a consequence of the theme chosen. Some of these games can be viewed as attempts at simulations of the fictional situations they represent. In the German school, the point of departure is game mechanics. Focus is at interesting gameplay through game mechanics that often are tested and calculated with mathematics. Themes are often applicated at a late stage in the process of game development, at some times – it seems – even by the publisher’s market department rather than by the actual game designer.23

22 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 90 23 Faidutti (2005), another definition of “Euro-games” is found in Pulsipher (2006).


11

Accordingly, German games can be viewed as abstract games with a loosely attached theme. They are sometimes criticized for this reason.24 On the other hand, most board games can in sense be treated as abstract games. To excel in a board game, it is probably necessary to ignore the fictional theme it represents. This phenomenon has been dubbed “the rules of irrelevance” – anything that won’t help winning in a game is ignored.25 This rule certainly applies to Jörg Bewersdorff’s take on games. He treats abstract and themed games alike as mathematical systems, which he, rather entertainingly, describes in detail to help his readers become better players in their favored games. Bewersdorff, though, does not deny the importance of themes for the experience of playing a game. He just leaves it outside his discussion, which is centered around mastering the mechanics and dynamics of various games.26 On the other hand, I find it surprising that Gobet et al., in their own words dealing with the psychology of board games, do not mention themes, representation, simulation or fiction even once in their 270+ pages book “Moves in Mind”. Without openly declaring it, they have looked at a limited section of board games, all of them being two-player perfect information games. The majority of these (mostly folk) games are perfectly abstract, but at least two of the games analyzed in the book have a limited fictional dimension, chess (battle) and fox and geese (fox hunting geese...).27 Many board game players and designers, though, insist that themes matter. One view is that if fictional representations in a game were replaced with arbitrary representations, the game might actually be more difficult to play. Viewed as a simulation, the representations of a game can give cues to the players about their functions in the game. Accordingly, all the rules and mechanics might not have to be learned in detail from the start.28 Game designer frank Lantz explains how themes and mechanics can interplay:

Theme can provide the entry point into a complex structure whose rewards are deeply buried: first it’s all about the sword—the calculations are only there to conjure up the sword. Eventually the game becomes about the calculations and the sword fades away. Then there is the fact that representation can be used as a shortcut to embody a complicated structure that might otherwise be too much for the player to assimilate. If the red squares are “lava,” then the player won’t forget they are out of bounds. Why do the pieces in Tetris move from the top of the screen to the bottom? They’re bricks! Theme can add arbitrary limitations to the structure, and arbitrary limitations are often a good thing.29

Some game scholars have discussed this importance as well:

The rhetorical layer has the theme rules. This layer is optional in any type of game, but often highly necessary, especially regarding non-abstract games. As the layers of rules increase, from core up, so increases the degree that the actions within the game are

24 Faidutti (2005), Aleknevicus (2001), Aleknevicus (2004), German games (sometimes called

Eurogames) are also admired for their well-composed mechanics. The view that games are essentially a form of simulation, held by Frasca (2001, 2003) among others, fits better to the American than to the German board game category.

25 Goffman (1972): 19, Juul (2005): 63 26 Bewersdorff (2005) 27 Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004), to their defense, the authors (for some reason) mainly deal

with how experts play board games, following “the rules of irrelevance” experts treat themes as irrelevant.

28 Hardin (2001) 29 Lantz (2004): 294-295


12

open to informal interpretations, i.e. such interpretations that are not directly referred to or governed by the rules. Implementing a theme, and soforth [sic] the rhetorical layer, to a particular game means taking advantage of methods (narrative, simulation, representation) that produce meaning on top of the formal structure of the game.30

Actually, research has proven that tasks are often not solved as “abstract” problems; Jiajie Zhang has proven that representations do matter. Using the classic logical problem The Tower of Hanoi (TOH), Zhang found that the representations used for illustrating the problem affects the attempts at solving the problem. When changing the material for TOH to (1) donuts (similar to the standard TOH disks on pegs), (2) oranges, and (3) cups of coffee, it was found that the oranges version were more difficult than the standard setup, while the coffee setup was easier. It appears as if representations are not only used for understanding a problem, they might be used for solving the problem as well. Changing representations might actually change the task31 Zhang has also shown how the game Tic-tac-toe can be changed into a game of choosing numbers and having them add up to 15. While the games are the same in abstract terms (a computer program might use the same algorithm for playing both) they are both experienced differently and played differently by players.32 Actually, games based on a high degree of simulation might become close to unplayable if translated to an abstract representation. Countering (or rather supplementing) the rule of irrelevance, Juul has proposed a rule of relevance. In every game there are some features that are of relevance even for the skilled player. If these aspects are ignored it might be impossible to master the game. Part of becoming skilled can actually be learning to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features of a game. In chess, for example, the exact look of the individual pieces is irrelevant to playing, but the players must be able to distinguish knights from bishops or pawns.33 Another question regards the affectionate qualities of themes in board games. While the literature on computer games is flooded with analysis of “the representational layer” of the games, investigations of board games tend to shun this aspect. This is odd; board games with themes are apparently experienced as both interesting and stimulating by perfectly sane people. Board game enthusiast Greg Aleknevicus settles his “attack” on German games by concluding that even if the themes are loosely “pasted” on the underlying mechanics, this will always be better than having no theme at all, because “I prefer games with themes”.34 Formally, a game stays the same if the representation layer is removed or replaced by another theme. This, on the other hand, does not mean that it is experienced as the same by players.35

30 Järvinen (2003): 78 31 Zhang (1990) 32 Zhang (1997), shorter version in Juul (2005): 51-53 33 Juul (2005): 63-64 34 Aleknevicus (2004) 35 See Juul (2005): 199-200


13

Tangible vs. virtual, aesthetics of mind and simulation Games with discrete game states are tied to rules rather than to material devices. Implementing board games in new media is thus often a rather straightforward task.36 On augmenting board games with computers, though, it has been some focus on preserving the tangible aspects of board gaming. For example, though dice are easily implemented on a computer, efforts have been made at keeping the “natural” physical dice and having instruments to read them. The aspects of rolling, touching and moving around (manually) is viewed as central to the board gaming experience. The designers have strived not to have the players caught up in “technology centered interaction styles”. The computer is supposed to keep track of game states and provide information and visualizations. As much as possible of what is connected to the players’ interaction with the game, though, is viewed as preferably handled by “tangible user interfaces”.37 Besides being supposedly affective by their nature, and supportive of social interaction, tangible user interfaces have some qualities that are innate in their physical nature. In these interfaces, there is no separation between input and output devices. Dice, for example, is both used for input (rolling) and output (viewing). In other words, representation and control are integrated.38 I agree that an approach enabling tangible interfaces is tempting and has many possibilities. On the other hand, people are playing computer games and online board games and seem quite happy with that. A mostly virtual/digital path must be possible. I previously stated some improvements that could be gained with a computer driven board game platform. Among these were possibilities for far more advanced game mechanics while keeping gameplay smooth and easy for the players. Normally, computer games are easier to get started with than most board games. In my view this is not due to the computer games being less complicated (I actually believe that the opposite is true). Instead, I think the rather limited form of input that can be given through a graphical user interface, and the games’ ignorance of irrelevant actions can be credited for this fact. While this is certainly not impossible to implement through a “tangible user interface” system, my view is that the less tailor-made the input and output devices – the more flexible the system. In a virtual system, game rules as well as themes can possibly be changed or even entirely replaced. So while “virtualizing” the board game experience might be negative from a tangible point of view, it might at the same time be positive from other perspectives. Besides the tangible aspects of board games having an aesthetic value, it has been noted that people take advantage of their physical surroundings to handle logical problems. Scrabble players, for instance, are known to shuffle their respective letters physically to get a grip of the various combinations (words) that can be created. The physical environments, thus, are adapted relieving cognitive capacity for “the real deal”.39 Similar phenomena, though, has been observed in the playing of digital and even action-based games (Tetris).40 Returning to Scrabble, this game has been implemented rather effectively on computers. These implementations allow for the epistemic actions (good for thinking

36 Juul (2005): 49-53 37 Magerkurth, Memisoglu, Engelke & Streitz (2004): 1-4, Magerkurth, Engelke & Memisoglu (2004),

Mandryk, Maranan & Inkpen (2002): 1 38 Ullmer & Ishii (2000): 915, Magerkurth, Engelke & Memisoglu (2004): 3-4 39 Maglio, Matlock, Raphaely, Chernicky, & Kirsh (1999) 40 Kirsh & Maglio (1992), Kirsh & Maglio (1994)


14

rather than scoring) often exploited by players of the original board game version. The “loss of cognitive relief” for the players when implementing board games on computers might in many cases be a matter of how this adaptation is done. While physical objects can be used in many ways – relating to their physical properties rather than to how they were intended to be used, virtual “objects” generally have a more limited set of properties and are to greater extent bound to their intended ways of use. This must be kept in mind when designing virtual products. On the other hand, examples of “emergent gameplay” where players play games in ways that were neither intended nor imagined by the game designers also exist in computer games. Basically a positive phenomenon (players are allowed to be active and creative), emergent gameplay can sometimes be destructive to a game.41 That said, when having a gaming system that handles discrete game states and rules, it will indeed be possible to add “tangible” input/output units for specific or generic games – if desired. Having concluded that there is a tangible level of board gaming that one can possibly do without, as well as an immersive level of computer gaming that is not necessary, I might be at risk of just listing aspects of gaming that it is possible to do without. Board games of the modern era are very varied in nature and, in my view, do not seem to be dependent on any core affective qualities. Apart from these kinds of board game experiences (social, tangible) an important aspect might be what Marcel Danesi calls the aesthetics of mind. Danesi, dealing with logical puzzles, sees general similarities with puzzle solving and humor. Similar processes are at hand, the logics of jokes as well as puzzles are often to direct the attention of the target (audience, puzzle-solver) in the wrong direction. Realizing where to look and how to solve a puzzle brings forth a release of tension often experienced as a “kick”. Every puzzle, in Danesi’s view, has an “aesthetic index” which is inversely proportional to the complexity of the solution and the “obviousness” of its pattern. In other words, a “beautiful” puzzle has a simple solution which is difficult to see.42 Moreover, Danesi views puzzles as “miniature blueprints” of how functionality and memories are organized as patterns in the brain.43 These kinds of experiences certainly relate to gaming as well as to puzzles. The playing of board games has actually been described as “play consists of each player posing such a puzzle to the other”.44 There are, though, some general differences. Puzzles are generally designed to have a single solution. Most multiplayer games, including board games, rely on emergent mechanics where the players do the best to outsmart one another. They do not, of course, intentionally leave a witty solution to their opponents. If they do, this is a mistake.45 Accordingly; if a puzzle is analogous to a joke, a board game session might be viewed as analogous to a political debate. The participants strive to keep their act coherent and not to give away any easy points to their opponents, while at the same time watching their opponents’ argumentation to capitalize on their slips and mistakes. In other words, players

41 Juul (2005): 76 42 Danesi (2002): 226-227, this view is probably “poetic” rather than strictly neurological. 43 Danesi (2002): 233 44 Thompson (2000) 45 Juul (2005): 106


15

(including politicians) are doing their best for having the joke to be on their opponents rather than on themselves. Experiences of the aesthetics of mind, though, might not be universal to games. Players and scholars interested in the “mind-type” experiences of gaming seem to focus not only on abstract or semi-abstract games, but on two-player games as well. Having more than two players seem to blur the mind-against-mind challenge that these groups look for in games.46 Of course, some players might have an illusion of control while their actions in many cases do not matter. Another type of player seems to be able to accept that the complexity of the game makes it hard to operate with a long-term strategy. The fact that a prosperous player might be attacked by all the others can also be regarded as an interesting game feature rather than as a design fault. While these players can certainly be affected by the social or tangible aesthetics of the game, I have a feeling that there is another force operating here as well. It can be some form of system-chaos fascination: the players are aware that the game states are discrete and that everything is handled “perfectly” by the game rules. These players might view a game as a form of simulation – a fictional world – in which the emergent developments are followed with great interest. A game might perhaps be described as having several aesthetic indexes. As well as having for example a social index, a tangible index and a mind index, a game could have a simulation index (or a complexity index). Simulation should not be understood as fiction in this case, the degree of simulation is depending on the number and range of the variables that enables it, more so than on the fictional or narrative qualities of the presentation. Simulation and fiction are, though, certainly connected.

Fixed vs. modifiable rules One quality of traditional board games, in contrast to computer games, is that the rules are in the end agreed upon by the players. Carsten Magerkurth et al. have suggested leaving parts of the rule execution, at least in simple computerized board games, to the players themselves.47 Though I am not completely sure to what extent the authors envision this, I see problems coming here. My idea, as specified, is to allow complex game states, not keeping the games simple. Argument and agreement on rules is a feature in all gaming, but as Juul states, the predominant way to handle rule arguments is before the game begins. There is, preferably, agreement on how a game is to be played when the playing begins.48 If the settings of a computer game can handle rule variations in a flexible way, the problem of rule negotiation is basically solved. From my point of view, fixed and un-negotiable rules during play are the goal – this is partly what enables players to cope with complexity in games.

46 Thompson (2000), Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 2, Bewersdorff (2005) stands out,

though, as he pays attention to strategies and tactics in all kinds of (non-skill) games. 47 Magerkurth, Engelke & Memisoglu (2004): 4 48 Juul (2005): 64-67


16

Private vs. public information Surprisingly, Gobet et al. fail to see any general differences between card games and the abstract board games that are the focus of their research:

Card games do not seem to add a characteristic not already present in board or lottery games, and so far relatively few card games (mostly bridge) have entered the literature of cognitive psychology.49

Well, an obvious characteristic of most card games is that the players can only see their own cards, while in folk board games everything relevant to the game is basically visible to everyone at every time. In the modern board game era, cards and other features that enable similar effects have been introduced. In game theory (used mainly in economics) games where information is not public to everyone is called games of imperfect information, while games where everything is public is games of perfect information. As everything is available in a game of perfect information game the game theorists consider these games (problems) easy and uninteresting.50 On the contrary, “mind type” scholars and players of board games often reject or ignore games of imperfect information, probably for being too difficult to analyze. As the knowledge of the game state is incomplete, there is not a rational best move at every time.51 Bewersdorff, though, view games of perfect information as the truly strategic games and games of perfect information as “combinatorial”.52 In a card game, casual players might find safety in the fact that chance is involved in the dealing of the cards; failure can always be blamed on bad cards. Players can also feel that the game states are so uncertain that they have no grounds for making an informed decision (this can be experienced as either good or bad). As mentioned in the introduction, private (imperfect) information is an aspect of gaming that has been hard to implement without loosing the social dimension of game sessions. In reality, games could perhaps be understood as games of imperfect information to various degrees. Many card games, as well as modern board games like Clue/Cluedo, are really about gathering information with the goal of attaining perfect information. Towards the end of a game of cards, a skilled player may at times have perfect knowledge of her opponents’ cards. The trait of imperfect information, together with the trait of social dynamics, might actually be “borrowed” from card games into board games. Dominoes and Mahjong, though, share the trait of imperfect information. Rather than being board games, though, these games (gaming devices) can actually be viewed as pre-paper card games. As David Parlett has noted, more than just being games of imperfect information, card games can actually be viewed as being games about imperfect information. Besides that, Parlett argues against the assumption that games of imperfect information are less demanding than games of perfect information. Actually, while the most intellectually demanding games are often considered being two player

49 Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 2 50 Davis (1997): 8-9 51 Thompson (2000), Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004) 52 Bewersdorff (2004): ix-xii, this is obviously in dept of Bewersdorff’s analytical “outside view” on

games. As everything is known in a game, making a decision is only a matter of choosing the best move (the right combination). A third element of gaming in Bewersdorff’s categorization is chance. Games can certainly combine the three “causes of uncertainty”: chance, the number combinations and moves, and imperfect information.


17

board games like Chess and Go, some games of perfect information involve no decisions at all (Snakes and ladders is one example).53 The perfect/imperfect division of games is in a way a bit mathematical and abstract – it does not always relate to actual games and game sessions very well. When used by Juul, I find it a bit limited a categorization. Juul finds most computer games to be games of imperfect information, as things (information) are hidden from the player’s view.54 This is basically correct, but it does show that this division might not be that useful when looking at computer games. To separate public from private information in any game might be a more rewarding strategy (than to identify perfect and imperfect information games). As Salen and Zimmerman notes, Celia Pearce presents a better categorization of how information is treated in games. Sadly, she blurs the categorization by stating that information known to all players includes the rules of a game.55 The rules of a game are in a way a factor not really related to how information is treated in a game. Players may know or not know the rules of any game. Salen and Zimmerman modify this error in Pearce’s model. Thus information in games might be distributed between:

• Information known to all players • Information known only to one player • Information known to the game only • Randomly generated information56

It is quite easy, though, to think of more categories (variations of the above):

• Information known to some but not all players • Randomly generated information from a set known to all players • Randomly generated information from a set known by the game only

The list could certainly be made longer. Also, when games are run by computers, information known by the game really becomes a bit more complicated matter. While the cards that remain in the deck when cards are dealt to the players in a card game are in a sense “known to the game”, this information is not really acted upon or treated in any way. Besides that, in a computerized card game with a computer program as opponent, there must be a separation between what the game knows and what the virtual player knows. The virtual player, accordingly, must be treated as any player. Also, in a virtual world game, virtual AI driven characters does not necessarily share information with the game. They are, in a sense, unique entities. As an example, in Pac-Man the game will always know the position of the player (or the game would collapse). The ghosts (Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde), though, have their own unique algorithms for the tracking the player. Virtual characters could of course be treated as players, but their goals and scope are often much more limited than that of actual game players. I have included virtual characters in this discussion because this is one feature which games for my platform could include to separate themselves from traditional board games. Having independent “emergent information units” in a board game might enable new forms of gameplay. 53 Parlett (1991): 18-20 54 Juul (2005): 59-60 55 Pearce (1997): 422-423 56 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 204-210


18

Connected to private information is the randomness in game setup as is seen in card games as well as in many modern board games. By shuffling and dealing random cards, tiles or other game entities – every game session can in a way be seen as a completely new game. This is contradicted in most classical board games, where the setup is fixed.57

Rules, mechanics Though the concept of game mechanics is used by designers, players and reviewers of (mostly) board games, it does not seem to be widely used by scholars. As noted earlier, a considerable number of scholars studying games deal with the representational aspects of (computer) games rather than the interactive “game-play” aspects. “The ludological scholars”, including Juul and Salen & Zimmerman, seem to focus on rules rather than mechanics. This might be due to that fact that they, though often using board games as examples of their theories, focus on computer games. 58 As a matter of fact, game mechanics might not be a very useful concept when dealing with the plethora of “entertainment forms” that go under the name of computer games. As Juul and Lindley, among others, note, the concept of computer games goes beyond what previously has been categorized as games.59 The few board game scholars around (generally focused on the cognition or the history of games) might occasionally use the term, but has not – to my knowledge – delivered any attempts at a definite definition of the concept. Gobet et al. talks about game purpose, move characteristics and piece characteristics, which might be valuable for dealing with folk classics like Chess or Go, but clearly not suitable when applicated to Monopoly (the properties and the positions of the pieces are not really that interesting in this game).60 Interestingly, about the only “direct” definition of game mechanics I have found is in a short article on computer-augmented (board) games by Sus Lundgren and Staffan Björk:

A game mechanic is simply any part of the rule system of a game that covers one, and only one, possible kind of interaction that takes place during the game, be it general or specific. A game may consist of several mechanics, and a mechanic may be a part of many games. The mechanic trading, for example, simply states that during the game, players have the possibility to trade with each others. What they may trade, and how, and when, is stated in the specific rules for each game using this mechanic. Other examples of game mechanics include bidding, negotiation, story-telling, roll and move, and role-playing.61

57 Parlett (1991): 15-18 58 Juul (2005), Salen & Zimmerman (2004), both books has “rules” in its title and do not use the

concept of game mechanics. Designers of computer game occasionally use the concept (without giving much of a definition), see i.e. Ryan (1999), Adams (2001), Johnson (2001) and Lopez (2006).

59 Juul (2005), Lindley (2005) 60 Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 238-239. Game historian David Parlett comes with no in-

depth explanation of the concept, but delivers a beautiful synonym, ludeme (1991: 61-64, 1999:9) apparently coined by game researcher Alain Borveau (Depaulis 2004)

61 Lundgren & Björk (2003): 4 (my italics, for readability). In Lundgren’s MSc Thesis (2002) the concept of mechanics is explained as well.


19

For examples of actual game mechanics, Lundgren & Björk refer to the Board Game “fan site” BoardGameGeek. The site features a list of 41 distinctive mechanics that are found in board games (see appendix 1). The list can, arguably, be disputed. It is hardly complete and it is doubtful if it actually could be. BoardGameGeek is a user-edited site. The “mechanics” may cover a wide variety of functionality that operates on different levels as related to rules and actual gameplay. Mechanics like rock-paper-scissors, set collection, tile placement, trading and trick-taking probably sounds reasonable to most gamers, while mechanics like line drawing, singing and crayon rail system are perhaps a bit odd and at least highly specialized. Yet others, like memory and pattern recognition, are more like useful skills than actual mechanics as defined by rules. Finally, for my purposes, some of the featured mechanics refer to the physical devices used when playing rather than the immaterial mechanical functions they control (e.g. rather than dice rolling, randomizer would be preferable). The classification of mechanics of the games featured in the BoardGameGeek database62 is neither very rigorously implemented – many games, especially abstract classics, are labeled as “not applicable”. Anyway, my impression is that the mechanics listed on the site, and their descriptions, are valuable for both understanding and developing games. Lundgren has made an attempt at grouping some of these mechanics into four main families: Human-human interaction mechanics, Influential mechanics, Condition mechanics and Gathering mechanics. 63 Basically, I find Lundgren’s families of game mechanics valuable and rather unique. I would, though, like to make some changes. The family of influential mechanics is especially problematic. Lundgren states these are mechanics that “influence the board, the gameplay or other players” – which, I would say, could be said about any mechanic that really matters in a game. Besides that, I would like to change the order of listing the families, going from “hard” (rule driven) to “soft” (player driven). Conditional mechanics states the basics of a game, goals, sub-goals64, the properties of the components and how the turns are executed. Game state manipulation mechanics (action mechanics?) are the ways players interact with a game. These are of necessity influenced (governed) by the conditional mechanics. Lundgren’s influential mechanics can be found here, including its subgroup – moves. The “gathering” family is found here as well. Some autonomous sub-families might be identified. These might be: moves, resource acquisition (“gathering”), board-directed actions and player-directed actions. I would definitely place “Rock-paper-scissors” in this category rather than in the human-human category (which Lundgren does). Rock-paper-scissors can be viewed as a form of “combat resolution”. Other forms are “taking out by moving in” (Chess) “dice rolling” (Risk), battle cards and “stronger beats weaker” (Stratego). Combat resolution might in fact be viewed as a separate category (or sub-category) of the game state manipulation family. Arguably, the sub-division of this family is not an easy task.

62 Apparently over 27.000 games are included in April 2007. Slightly different editions of the same

games probably included in this number, yet still – it’s a lot of games. 63 Lundgren (2002): 71-72 64 The “goal mechanics” listed has actually more of a sub-goal character (you don’t win by collecting a

set of properties in Monopoly but it might help you to reach the final goal – to be the soul survivor.


20

Social dynamics mechanics comprises events and actions that emerge between the players, outside the discrete game states handled by the game. These are at least as important as the other families, and it is important that this dimension isn’t lost when games are transferred to a digital medium (as it is with online board games). As mentioned above, I would take Rock-paper-scissors out of this category. Any “psychological warfare” connected to that form of combat, on the other hand, clearly belongs in this category. Trading and voting (in the mechanical sense) does not belong here, but attempts at persuasion or threats preceding those activities do. The dynamics of this category is likely not to be “hard-coded” into the rules of the game, but rather to emerge during play. I do not feel that this is “the definite” game mechanics definition, but clearly it is a useful construct. A quite interesting fact is that some of these are strongly governed by rules, others emerge as players interact within the rule system; while a third category emerges with the players’ interaction outside the rule system (e.g. “negotiation” or “temporary partnerships” can occur in the playing of many gaming without these features being supported by the rules). Raph Koster, as it appears, chooses a slightly different way for naming these phenomena. Mechanics, in his view, are the rule bound “ludemes”65 (type 1 and 2), while the human-human type ludemes simply are called “dynamics”. 66 This is understandable, but clearly a designer stance rather than player ditto. From a player point of view it is not really that important, or obvious, what roots the ludemes have. A powerful trait of the concept of mechanics is that it is widely used by players. Lundgren and Björk list a number of additional mechanics they have found in computer-augmented games:

1. Computerized clues (The computer controls the distribution of clues) 2. Espionage

(Players can get information about another player’s resources, but the computer regulates the level of accuracy of the information)

3. Pervasive gaming (The game is played continuously even if intertwined with daily activities such as working or sleeping)

4. Superimposed game world (The game is superimposed on a physical environment which is still inhabited by non-players) 5. Secret partnerships

(Players are divided in teams without knowing with whom) 6. Body-mapped avatar (A virtual character mimics the players’ actions) 7. Player-undecidable conditions

(The computer keeps track of conditions which are very hard, or impossible, for players to decide the state of, and the computer uses this information to steer gameplay)

8. Encouraged face-to-face information exchange (The game makes it impossible for players geographically separated to share information through the game medium in order encourage [sic] players to physically meet)

9. Implicit player input (Players affect the course of the game by sending input to biosensors attached to them, meaning that a critical element of the game is body control)

65 I use the term ludeme in this discussion as it is neutral regarding to the opposing stances. 66 Koster (2005): slide 12


21

10. Additional mechanics

(Examples of additional mechanics are Anonymous Trading, Active Board, Complex Commodities Prizes, Complex Phenomena, Active Dice, Active Surfaces, Active Tiles and Secret Bidding) 67

While the focus of my project is a form of computer-augmented gaming as well, some of these mechanics can be ruled out as irrelevant for my purpose. These are pervasive gaming, superimposed game world, encouraged face-to-face information exchange and implicit player input. These are all associated with very specific technology and imply a gaming experience quite far from a traditional board game session. The remaining mechanics, anyway, are good examples of new possibilities that emerge when games are enhanced with computers. Computerized clues, espionage and secret partnerships are actually the kind of mechanics I had in mind when I started this project. The mechanic that Lundgren and Björk call “Player-undecidable conditions” is a special case. This implies, as I see it, balancing the system (the game) as a somewhat closed system. This is contradictive of board games where players, to a certain extent, have complete overview of the game states. Even if some game states are hidden (other players’ resources, remaining cards in deck etc.) the players actually know what they do not know. Board game players are used to having a complete understanding of game rules, this might actually be a general trait of board games. I have not seen anyone complaining about this fact, actually there has been some discussion in the computer game business that goes in the opposite direction. Strategic computer games are sometimes viewed as suffering from “the black box syndrome”; the players lack access to the internal workings of the game system. This might make the games more difficult to both learn and master as well as depriving the player of the “mechanistic pleasure” that lies in the appreciation of the rules and mechanics of a game.68 That said; methods for balancing gameplay and ensuring pleasurable experiences (by hidden mechanisms) are interesting – and rather obvious – possibilities to consider when augmenting board games with computers. I my view, some of the most interesting mechanics in Lundgren and Björk’s report are hidden under the label “additional”. These are (as previously stated) Anonymous Trading, Active Board, Complex Commodities Prizes, Complex Phenomena, Active Dice, Active Surfaces, Active Tiles and Secret Bidding. Lundgren state some of these mechanics as “entirely new”, while others are “computer-augmented” (improved). I would rather say that it is a continuum – most of these mechanics are to some extent possible to realize without the use of a computer.69 Lundgren and Björk conclude that the idea of a game as “an entity put together by a number of smaller components” (mechanics, ludemes) is very valuable. They find it somewhat problematic that the unique mechanic components (ludemes) can not completely be identified and separated from the rest of the game (the ludic system), including the other game mechanics involved. Anyhow, for discussing, analyzing and making changes to a game – they find the concept of game mechanics a useful tool.70 In a later work in cooperation with Jussi Holopainen, though, they conclude that the concept is (among other faults) too loosely and self-contradicting defined in the available literature. Instead, they propose the use of another concept, game

67 Lundgren & Björk (2003): 7-8, a rather similar list were given in Lundgren (2002: 73-82) 68 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 88-89, 179-180; Larsen (1999) 69 Lundgren (2002): 73-82 70 Lundgren & Björk (2003): 9


22

design patterns.71 This approach is borrowed from an article by Bernd Kreimeier, who suggests the use of the “design pattern” method in game design. Design patterns can be described as (conventions for describing) “recurring decisions within a given context”. Patterns are widely used in fields as architecture and object-oriented programming – but in the game design field the notion of patterns is not well known.72 Björk, Lundgren and Holopainen largely follow the path laid out by Kreimeier (they even borrow his examples). At one important point, though, they depart from Kreimeier. In their view, Kreimeier has not adjusted the concept of patterns to the domain of game design. In other fields, design patterns are often used as a problem solving tool. That comes, of course, with the fact that design is viewed as a solution to a problem (a bridge is a solution to the problem of getting people over the water, etc.). Games are a completely different matter as, many times, problems are actually what is desired (by the designer).73 In the model, recurring design patterns are described with a template by specifying their unique characteristics: name, description, consequences, using the pattern and relations.74 Obviously, this is a more elaborate form of description than the loosely defined “mechanics model”. Besides that, the authors stress that a pattern is not just present or not present in a game; it can be present in a game to a certain degree.75 In a subsequent work, Björk and Holopainen present a list of over 200 game design patterns that they have identified by looking at a large number of computer games. The description of the individual patterns is rather detailed, consuming about a page each. The authors group these patterns into a number of distinct categories:

1. Patterns for game elements 2. Patterns for resource and resource management 3. Pattern for information, communication, and presentation 4. Action and events patterns 5. Patterns for narrative structures, predictability, and immersion patterns 6. Patterns for social interaction 7. Patterns for goals 8. Patterns for goal structures 9. Patterns for game sessions 10. Patterns for game mastery and balancing 11. Patterns for meta games, replayability, and learning curves

Obviously, these are a wider variety of phenomena than the board game mechanics listed earlier. This, of course, is an effect of the plethora of sensations and activities that appear in computer games. Besides that, the scope for what can be considered a game design pattern is wide: apparently every design decision except the strictly aesthetic is included. On the other hand, patterns associated with traditional board games are apparently dropped, in cases where these patterns have not “survived” the evolutionary quantum leap into computer games.76

71 Björk, Lundgren & Holopainen (2003): 3-4 72 Kreimeier (2002) 73 Björk, Lundgren & Holopainen (2003): 4, See also Björk & Holopainen (2004): 33-34 74 Björk, Lundgren & Holopainen (2003): 5-7, Kreimeier (2002) used the characteristics name,

problem, solution and consequences in his model. 75 Björk, Lundgren & Holopainen (2003): 8 76 Björk & Holopainen (2004)


23

Emergent vs. progressive A general division in games described by Juul is between open-ended strategic games, games of emergence, and linear games, games of progression. Typical for games of emergence are simple rules yet complex gameplay (this often seems to be a general correlation; complex gameplay emerges from simple rules). Chess and Go are prototypical games of this category. Games of progression are common among computer games, where games often consist of a series of obstacles that the player must overcome. According to Juul, games of progression are relative newcomers in the flora of games, in his view the text based adventure games of the seventies are the first examples of this type of games.77 I doubt the validity of this, as any puzzle game could be considered a game of progression.78 It seems to me as if the high level of fictional content in computer games can work as a frame for a series of puzzles, enabling complex games of progression. Imagine a series of puzzles: a crossword, Rubik’s Cube and a Sudoku. These solved after one another would hardly be experienced as a game without some kind of frame tying them together. In a way, this is what a progressive computer game like Myst or Max Payne does, by means of fiction. Board games are inherently games of emergence, and in my view this is the way to go when developing new board games. Emergent games generally have a higher degree of re-playability. Mixed forms, though, is also possible.79

The social dimension – human dynamics Surprisingly, the academic literature on board games (which is scarce) does not really deal with human dynamics related to the playing of games. This in part must be in debt of the history of board gaming, where two player “mind games” have been the rule. Gobet et al. for example, ignores, or are perhaps even largely unaware of the fact that multiplayer board games exist – and are the rule in the modern era.80 Parlett traces “four-handed” chess variations back to 11th century India – but is exclusively negative of the concept, dismissing these variations for being “gambling games” rather than games of intellectual conflict. In his view, four players playing in teams of two would be ok – as that would make the game a fair battle of minds. When everyone is battling everyone, partnerships will occur – and the best player might be taken out by an alliance of weaker players. Parlett finds situations like this so problematic that he doubts “the essence of the game”.81 The fact that mister Singh and his friends might actually have had a good time playing Chaturaji (Indian four-handed chess) does not even seem to occur to Parlett. Most players having enjoyed Risk would probably agree on the opinion that the making and breaking of agreements is a main ingredient in the fun of the game. Enthusiasts of modern games generally appreciate these kinds of dynamics:

77 Juul (2005): 72-82 78 See Crawford (1982): 10 79 See Juul (2005): 82-83 80 Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 2 81 Parlett (1999) 325-330, Thompson (2000) is another writer which goes against multiplayer games,

but he does not declare having an objective view either.


24

Perhaps the ultimate games in terms of player interaction are "alliance games". These are games that virtually require the players to form teams and factions in order to do well. [...] In fact, one could argue that the rules themselves are somewhat beside the point other than to enforce a framework in which the players struggle amongst themselves. Interaction is the game. The clever move is not that Italy managed to capture Marseilles but that Bob was able to conspire with Al so effectively without Carla being aware of it.82

Apart from alliances, of course, a lot is going on around a board with players. Unfortunately it has not been widely studied. Ervin Goffman, in 1972, concluded that when a game is played, besides a game with players – what is going on is also a gaming encounter with participants. The participants in the gaming encounter might be onlookers as well as players. What happens among the players in the game is what affects the game states – but what happens around the actual game (in the gaming encounter) might be of equal or at times even more importance to the overall experience. Participants in a gaming encounter, actually, can interact both within the game (as a player in the game) and outside the game (as a participant in the gaming encounter).83 It seems as if when these kinds of social dynamics related to gaming have been studied, this have been done with children in developmental psychology or with people from distant corners of the earth in social anthropology.84 One family of games seems to be studied more than any other as a social experience – the Mancala games of Africa. Interestingly, the playing of these games is an unusual setting for a two-player “mind game”. Although the game is cognitively demanding (“long” rather than “deep” according to Parlett), it is played at great speed with onlookers giving advice to an extent where it might often be hard to judge who is actually playing the game and who is not.85 Otherwise, the social dynamics of board gaming seem to accumulate with the number of players – the more the merrier (and the harder to play strategically). If board games (evidently) have a history of two-player games, card games are a different matter. Parlett, though negative towards multiplayer variations of Chess, has a positive view on multiplayer card games:

Yet another attraction of card games is that they are playable by any reasonable number. For centuries they have proved a uniquely sociable activity against the alternatives of two-player games requiring exclusive concentration, such as Chess, Draughts, and Backgammon, or dice, which appeal almost exclusively to male gamblers and cannot, with the best will in the world, be described as ‘sociable’.86

Card games may in many ways be viewed as a precursor of the modern board games – more so, in some ways, than the traditional board games might. A card game session has some of the sociable-competitive ingredients that are seen in modern board games. Cards are actually – I dare say – an ingredient in a majority of the board games of the modern era, many of them supposedly even incorporating mechanics borrowed from card games.

82 Aleknevicus (2003) 83 Goffman (1972): 33-38 84 See for example Juul (2001) and Juul (2005): 9-12, 85 Parlett (1999): 217-218 86 Parlett (1991): 24-25


25

The social dynamics of (multiplayer) board game playing, in my view, is largely in debt of the gaming setting itself. A social situation will emerge even if this is not supported or controlled by the rules or mechanics of the game. There is no mention of alliances in the rules of Risk, neither are there any mechanics in the game that actually support alliances. But pacts are formed and broken in close to every game session. Other games, like Diplomacy, are designed for supporting dynamics of this kind. But even in these games “uncontrolled” events of social character – in-game or ex-game – will occur.


26

Mechanics, representations and dynamics – a three level model Having looked at the area of games from the perspectives of mechanics, representations (themes) and social dynamics – I have come to realize that these can be viewed as separate (though interconnected) layers involved in the playing of any game. By necessity, the players interact with the mechanics layer through the medium of the representations layer. This has led me to view the representations layer as being “in between” the layers of mechanics and dynamics. Like the wires and circuits of a transistor radio being hidden by the case and the interface, I view the layer of mechanics as being located “under” the layer of representations. The layer of dynamics, being emergent in nature (and out of direct control for game designers), is located on top:

Dynamics

Representations

Mechanics

Figure 2: The three-level model of the layers of mechanics, representations and dynamics. It might be argued that an abstract game lacks the representations layer. I would rather say that, though lacking a “theme”, even abstract games depend on representations to be playable at all. The looks of the board and pieces (in the case of a board game) are the representations that the players use to interact with the game. Even if these do not represent anything but the game itself (the game has no theme) – “self-representation” is still a form of representation. The board and pieces of an abstract game like Othello need to have some certain properties for the game to playable. Besides that, the game is benefited (will more likely be played) if the paraphernalia has properties that “affords” playing it. As David Parlett has noted, Backgammon is essentially playable on a Mancala board – and vice versa.87 On the other hand, I think it would be hard to get enthusiasts of any of the games to do so. This could be due to conservatism – Backgammon players seem to reject boards that are not of the correct size and do not have the fabric. Besides players wanting to play in a setting they know I think that even newcomers to these games would find them harder to get a grip of if “unorthodox” paraphernalia were used. If backgammon was played on a Mancala board – the game states might not be as clearly presented to the players as with a standard Backgammon board. A Chess board is an illustrative example, the black and white checkered pattern of the board does not represent any part of a fictional theme – neither does have any meaning whatsoever as related to the game states. The pattern is important, though, for several reasons. To some extent, the pattern relieves the players’ cognitive strain by making distances easier to count and diagonals easier to follow. For strategies involving the use of the bishops – as well as how to fight or hide your opponent’s

87 Parlett (1999)


27

bishops, the checkered pattern is to great help. The two bishops that a player has is for the duration of the game bound to squares of the same color as the one where they begun. The players don’t have to remember to execute this rule – it comes as an effect of how the bishops move – but the fact can be used tactically. Finally, the board would of course not be recognizable as a “chess board”.88 The position of the representation layer between the layers of mechanics is unaffected of the design strategies used. Whether a game is designed form a German or an American perspective (mechanics first or theme first), the representations layer is what players initially meet when playing a game – indicating how to interact with game. The fact that a certain game designer does not put interest in the representations layer does not mean that his games would lack this aspect. Rather, it would imply that he left the activities in this layer out of his own control. In my view the representations layer is always present and always important in the playing of games. Looking at a static setup of Chess, I think it is obvious even to people without any knowledge of Chess (finding such people is probably hard) that the black and white piece depict two forces that is supposed to fight each other. Further, it is probably obvious from looking at the pieces that the King and Queen are more important or powerful than any other pieces; and that the pawns are weaker than any other pieces. The representations being “on top” of the mechanics in my model does not mean that the representations have complete control over the mechanics. The mechanics of a game can be changed while the representations are kept the same – the changes in mechanics, though, will be experienced through the medium of representations. This fact is especially valid in relation to computer games, where the rules and mechanics are executed by a computer. In an analog game, players need to have a more direct and complete understanding of the mechanics – but this understanding is also managed through a filter of representations. In a sense, it would be impossible to explain anything without the use of any representations. Attempts at systems for formal description of games have been made. Besides being largely unplayable by human beings, being descriptions of games rather than games per se, these attempts, naturally, are not compatible with each other. In fact, a formal description will always be a form of representation – a raw “unrepresented” game is, I dare say, impossible.89 It is of course always possible that a player engages in the representational aspects of a game to an extent that goes beyond using it as a mere interaction guide. A game might support “role-playing” or viewing the game as a simulation, but in the end it will be the players who decide in which degree they are willing to engage in these aspects.90 The top layer – dynamics – is, as I have declared, out of the direct control of the game designer. This does not mean that the game designer can have no effect whatsoever on what will happen in this layer during gaming sessions. The social

88 Actually, in Chinese and Japanese Chess (Shiang qi, Shogi), boards are not checkered as in

“International Chess” (Indian, European). The consequences of this on the cognitive demand on players have not been studied systematically. See Gobet, de Voogt & Retschitzki (2004): 243-244.

89 For examples of attempts at systems for formal descriptions of games – and discussions thereof – see Bura (2006) and Zagal et al. (2005).

90 See parlett (1999): 6 and Juul (2005): 130-131.


28

dynamics of a gaming session will emerge as an effect of a group of players playing the game based on its mechanics and representations. Certain games (mechanics + representations) can probably be said to afford certain dynamics rather than literary deciding them. Besides form the game itself, the dynamics of a gaming session supposedly emerge from numerous factors. Among those could be the number and composition of players, the (possible) random setup as well as events not directly related to the gaming session. The dynamics of a gaming session can be divided into two major categories, in-game dynamics directly related to the playing of the game and ex-game social dynamics that focus on the players rather than on the game. A clear-cut distinction between these categories will be hard to draw. For instance, in a game of Poker (which is an extreme case), all the ex-game actions of a player may be treated as indicators of the cards she is holding – and the player may use this fact to dupe her opponents as well. In my view, the dynamics of a gaming session is everything that does not directly affect the game states. Thus the negotiations concerning a trade in a trading game are (in-game) dynamics, but the trade itself is an execution of a mechanic. Social events like teasing, player rituals and passing popcorn are more of ex-game dynamics (it might, though, be meaningful to speak of a continuous scale ranging from in-game to ex-game dynamics). At the utmost tip of in-game dynamics, Lindley puts what he calls gameplay gestalts or interaction patterns. As opposed to the game design patterns used by designers – the interaction patterns are used by players. A game can be played using different strategies (patterns) – as opposed to puzzles which generally have but a single solution. In a complex game, no pattern is the winning pattern. To play successfully, patterns must be modified to meet the actions (based on patterns) of the opponents. An interaction pattern, in this case, is a small gameplay unit rather than the strategies for an entire game session. Chess is an example of a game where these types of units are used consciously by experienced players. Certain combinations of Chess moves, especially during openings ad endgames, have been identified and named by players. In most games, though, players are not aware of the interaction patterns to this extent.91 As well as game mechanics are known to migrate from game to game in the design process – interaction patterns used in one game might supposedly be tried in another game. An interaction pattern that is used successfully in one game might probably be used effectively in another if they share mechanics that relates to this pattern. Thus, in games that share mechanics similar interaction patterns (in-game dynamics) will often occur. This is actually rather evident when a reasonably experiences card player is introduced to a “new” card game. Card games are generally closer related (ludemically) than board games, as they share the same playing paraphernalia (cards). As the new card game probably shares some mechanics with other card games that the player is familiar with, the player has some basis for choosing strategies for the game. This knowledge might be a lure also, exactly the same strategies can not always be used effectively even between two games that are very similar (e.g. closely related).

91 Lindley (2002)


29

Fun and games I have previously touched upon some affective qualities of games. Games might pose challenges in various ways (skill, cognition). Challenges might seem to be an inherent property of games in general. Why challenges can be experienced as fun is explained by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in his theory of flow. Flow is described as a mental state that occurs when a person experiences a perfect balance between her abilities and the challenges she meets. When flow occurs, a person is caught up in deep concentration (trance) with the task at hand. This, of course, applies to both leisure and work, but Csíkszentmihályi apparently regards playing games as a prototype example of a flow experience. To attain flow, tasks must be experienced as difficult – yet being possible to solve. When a person’s experience and skill increase, so must the difficulties of the challenges.92 The flow theory is widely cited in the literature on games and gamers. Juul, though, has challenged the concept. He gives examples of games which to a great extent are without any real challenges – but still are experienced as fun to play.93 Salen and Zimmerman state that players can get caught up in the mere “beauty” of the mechanics of a game. Winning and solving challenges might not always be the dominating motivation for playing games.94 Actually, these arguments should probably be targeted toward how the concept of flow has been used in the community of gaming scholars, rather than toward the concept itself. To my knowledge, Csíkszentmihályi has never stated that no mental sensations other than flow can be activated when people play games. Besides games not being solely based on challenges and flow, the excitement of challenges can possibly be due to other sensations than flow. In her research on the emotional aspects of gaming, Nicole Lazzaro has tried to identify the sources of fascination in games that make people want to play them. When it comes to challenges, her informants apparently play for a sense of mental stimulation (could be flow) as well as a feeling of accomplishment. To solve a problem or win a game seems to give a “pleasure of winning” apart from the “pleasure of solving”. Besides the pleasure of winning a single game, Lazzaro notes that players put pride in being good at certain games or at having some general skills that is applicable in several games (reaction speed, logical reasoning etc.).95 In previous chapters I have gone through various aspect related to games and gaming. Not only do these aspects describe the properties that make a game, they can also be viewed as possible reasons for wanting to play games. If Danesi’s aesthetics of mind are closely related to the concept of flow, as previously hinted, other “aesthetics” could be imagined. Among those the aesthetics of simulation, mechanic complexity, tangibility and sociability could perhaps be found. If the sensations evoked by these “aesthetics” would be something else than experiences of flow is unclear, as flow is often used synonymously with “feeling good”. Instead of debating if an experience is flow or not, it might be more useful to conclude that

92 Csíkszentmihályi (1996): 96-103, a good explanation of flow as related to games is found in Salen

& Zimmerman (2004): 336-339 93 Juul (2005): 112-120 94 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 340 95 Lazzaro (2004a), a shorter version is presented in Lazzaro (2004b). Apart from sensations related

to challenges, Lazzaro deals with sensations connected to immersion and the social dimensions of gaming.


30

other sensations than those connected to challenges are active in the playing of games.


31

Methods and process I have been working with a process that has involved many steps. I have gone through the theories that I have viewed as relevant to my subject. Game concepts, game mechanics and game rules has been developed with various methods that will be described in detailed in the following chapters. The actual design work has, in short, gone through steps of naive inspiration, play-testing, methodological analysis of game mechanics relevant to the core mechanics, structured experimental work, and further play-testing in both paper and digital implementations of the game.

Debunking immersion When I started this work, much of my attention was focused on challenging the ideal of immersion that seemed to be both a dominating design strategy in the game design industry as well as a favored perspective in the academic study of games. A common game designer’s statement is that when immersion is broken, the gaming experience is broken.96 Immersion is supposed to occur when an experience is overwhelming to the extent that it “blocks out” all other stimuli. This can be due to massive sensory stimuli in, e.g., a VR system or due to the aesthetic qualities of the experience.97 Since Janet Murray popularized the term in the late nineties, the meaning of the concept seems to have drifted somewhat from being absorbed into an experience to being absorbed by an experience (playing a video game, for example). This has led a number of theorists to identifying different forms of immersion. The “classical” immersion is, in these views, viewed as narrative or fictional immersion. Another form of immersion is connected with gameplay and interaction.98 Classifications of this kind, though, can be considered a symptom of (rather than a cure to) the problem that everything that “feels good” about a game is in a way treated as a form of immersion. Opposition to this view exists, though. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman view “the ideal of immersion” as the result of a misconception of how games really work – the immersive fallacy. No actual research has actually been made in order to find out whether games that rely heavily on immersion are experienced as more interesting than less immersive games. They also view the expectations on the level of immersion that games are supposed to be able to create as both exaggerated and faulty. Salen and Zimmerman state that gamers operate with a double consciousness. They are at the same time located inside and outside the reality of the game world, and this is an important part of a gaming experience.99 Some theorists view the process of “reaching out” of an experience as a more interesting phenomenon than that of being immersed “inside” the experience. This process of associating an experience with one’s own life or with other experiences has been labeled engagement, and with a more provocative twist: outmersion. These labels, though, unlike their predecessor, have not entered the general lingua of the gaming community.100

96 For examples, see Adams (2004b), Adams (2004a), Dansky (2007): 5-6, Rollings & Adams (2003):

12, Sánchez-Crespo Dalmau (1999): 4 and Wilson (2006) 97 Murray (1997): 98-99 98 Adams (2004b), Ermi & Mäyrä (2005), Frasca (2006) 99 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 450-455, Juul agrees with this view (2005): 190. 100 Douglas & Hargadon (2000), Frasca (2004), Frasca (2006)


32

As demonstrated in the above passages, there is not consensus regarding the ideal of immersion. As it turns out, there actually exists an opposition against the ideal consisted of renowned researchers of games and gaming. In the game design field, though, immersion seems to be an ideal state that players are assumed to seek in games. I have no problem with games that rely heavily on immersion, neither do I find it strange or repulsive that designers and players alike find satisfaction in this phenomenon. On the other hand, I find quotes like “immersion is arguably the ultimate goal of videogames”101 disturbing, limiting and to some extent ridiculous. My conclusions in this matter are that games can certainly do without immersion. What keeps a game together is rather subordination to rules than to fiction/simulation – player’s must accept the rules of the game to keep the game going, but can generally play along with the fictive reality to a level of their own choice.102 Immersion (pure or fictional) must be considered a new sensation in the world of games. Games have existed for thousands of years without much of a fictional universe to get immersed in. A child can play around with chess pieces, but the experienced chess player ignores the aesthetics of the game to focus on winning strategies.103 Since loads of nonimmersive or “low-immersive” games exist – and “always” have – my goal is not to prove that games can be made without this phenomenon. Rather, I feel confident that it is possible to do without it and that expectations on players’ immersion in computer games often are exaggerated.

A platform or a game? Since the beginning, a general problem with my project has been the uncertainty of what I am really developing: a gaming platform or a game implemented on a gaming platform? In a sense, obviously, my aim is to do both. When running demos or play-testing, a lot of focus and interest has been put on the actual prototype games. This, of course, is good for me, but at the same time it has left me somewhat unsatisfied. My general idea is that in the end, the game will stand as an example on what kind of games that can be played on the platform. Making the platform, on the other hand, though technically quite sophisticated, is a rather straightforward interaction design task. The basic concept has been much the same since I first presented it to Extransit. It would as well be an “easy” task to implement a number of analog board games on the platform. But this would probably not be very satisfying. It seems clear, to me, that my aim with this project must go beyond the development of a platform. My aim, I figure, must be to develop a new gaming platform that enables new forms of interaction and gaming; and examine what kinds of games that can take advantage of this platform; and develop at least one complete game as a prototype example of what can be achieved with the platform.

101 Dansky (2007): 5-6 102 Salen & Zimmerman (2004): 94-98 103 See “The rules of irrelevance”: Goffman (1972): 19, Juul (2005): 63


33

A prototype game: making Windmaker 1.0 and 2.0 Early on in my project, I started working on a prototype game system. As I believe it is important that this game really can take advantage of the possibilities of the platform, I started out experimenting with game mechanics rather than theme. Without giving this much thought, my ideas circulated around various combinations of “race games” – games based on the goal of reaching a target before one’s opponents.104 As a computer program has the possibility of relieving the user from tedious calculations, I was in a way looking for game mechanics that could be experienced as annoying or even boring if implemented as a traditional analog board game. An idea that hit my mind was – “what if every move affected everything, all the time”? The mechanics that I envisioned could certainly be annoying and even difficult to handle in a game that is not supported by a computer program. To handle the gaming concept, I felt the need of having some kind of theme attached to the mechanics. As simultaneous movement would not be easily explained or modeled if pieces were portrayed as some kind of engines or creatures (moving by their own power) I got the idea that the “engine” pushing everything on the board must be wind, blowing the pieces from side to side. I figured a need for some kind of “blocks” that would enable halting some of the drifting pieces – thus changing their relative positions. Having made these thoughts, the implementation of Windmaker using Flash was rather straightforward. Blocks were represented as “fences”, blocking pieces but letting the wind through. The theme was far from a complete one, though, as no explanation as to how the players were able to control the wind was given. Besides that, Windmaker was actually not really a game at this stage. It lacked both a goal and some acceptable means of interaction. Rather than a game, I have suggested that this version of Windmaker might be categorized as an experimental game mechanics environment (this initial version can be viewed as Windmaker 1.0).

104 A classic example of a race game is backgammon. The other “archetypical” board game forms are

war games (i.e. Chess) and alignment games (i.e. Tic-tac-toe) (Gobet, Retschitzki & de Voogt (2004): 3-4). Modern-day commercial board games might use combinations of these forms as well as other forms.


34

Figure 3: The first version of Windmaker, a playable version of this “game” can be found at http://www.jonasinteractive.com/wind After demonstrating Windmaker to a number of people, I became confident that I was on the right way. There seemed to be something appealing with simply directing the wind and watch the pieces move around and bump into each other. The next step, to implement interaction and goals in this environment, was more difficult than I had anticipated. I sketched a game system where the players navigated using “wind cards” to chase spots that appeared at random places on the board. After play-testing a paper mock-up version of the game with these rules it was clear to me that the mechanics were inherently problematic. As all actions moved all pieces (that are not protected by wind from other pieces) the relative positions of the pieces stays largely the same. This could possibly be changed by more blocks and other features on the board. Another, probably even more serious, problem is that every move by a player can be contradicted by the opponents. Even though my idea was to limit a player’s possible moves by “movement cards” (used as a limited resource) this problem can not be entirely eliminated. The paper mock-up version (Windmaker 2.0), of course, lacked the look-and-feel of the Flash version that (though very primitive) seemed to appeal to several reviewers.


35

Figure 4: First paper mock-up of Windmaker I was still confident that this problem could be fought in some way, while still retaining the valuable parts of Windmaker’s aesthetics. Evidently, wind movements were not enough. I got the idea that the pieces must be allowed to move by their own power (controlled, of course, by the players) in addition to being subject to the wind. A combination of “move mechanics” was apparently a viable solution. To some extent, wind direction and strength must be predictable. At this stage, it was nearly impossible to work with any strategy beyond the next move. I actually had a slight fear that a problem like this might pop up, but the problem seemed bigger than anticipated. This problem, lack of clarity, was described already in 1975 by game designer Robert Abbott. The depth of a game does not solely depend on the size of its decision tree – if there is no way to look down that tree (because of lacking clarity) the game loses its depth. I would not say that a game necessarily must be deep, multi-player games rarely are in this sense, but it is certainly desired that players can operate with some sort of plan. 105

A German approach: game mechanics The anticlimax that followed the initial success made me go for a more structured route. From the start I was probably a bit lucky, I followed my intuition and that worked rather fine. When I continued working, though, problems emerged. A structured or semi-formal game design approach is to experiment with game mechanics. As a first step I tried to find out what game mechanics really are and if any distinguished mechanics could be identified. I found the scope (of game design patterns) a bit too wide for my purposes. The method is, as mentioned, clearly modeled on computer games. But, as part of my 105 Abbott (1975), the concept of clarity has become standard in the lingo of gaming; see Thompson

(2000) and Parlett (1991): 9.


36

goal being to merge board games with computer games, I decided that the book could probably be consulted to find interesting game design patterns. I did not, though, intend to write as elaborate descriptions (as Björk and Holopainen) of the various mechanics/ludemes/patterns involved in my game development. My focus, for this project, is not to create a universal semi-formal catalogue of game mechanics as a tool for game design in general. Rather, I need more exact descriptions of the mechanics as they will work in the game I am developing.

Mechanics for Windmaker 1.0, 2.0 and their successors To find out what mechanics are at work in the current version of Windmaker, and which other mechanics that could possibly be implemented in that game (as well as which can be left out) I decided to make a “catalogue” of relevant mechanics describing how they operate and in which way they are related to my work with Windmaker. Conditional: Turn based game This is not listed as a mechanic at BoardGameGeek. This, of course, comes from the fact that most board games are turn based. An alternative operational logic, simultaneous action, is listed on the site. In a computer game context, though, it might be a good idea to specify this. Björk and Holopainen list “turn-taking” and “turn based game” as game design patterns.106 1. The basics Conditional: Participants The game can be played by 2-X players, X being decidedly lower than the number of squares on the board minus the number of obstacles (each object occupies one square). For playability, the number of players shall possibly be restricted to 6 (testing needed). 1.1 Conditional: board properties The board is composed of 16 x 20 squares (panorama view). Squares were chosen rather than hexagons because it is more comprehensible for players with four directions of the wind rather than six. The board has no special properties except those squares “inhabited” by the players’ pieces or a number of other obstacles. The edges of the board are considered out-of-bounds and are solid. 1.2 Conditional: player pieces Each player has one piece without any properties except being subject to wind. The pieces/players are distinguished by color. Movable: True Wind-blocking: True 1.3 Conditional: fences (obstacles) On the board are a number of fences. A fence is a metaphor for an object that blocks solid object but lets wind blow through. Movable: False Wind-blocking: False

106 Björk & Holopainen (2004): 347-348, pattern collection on enclosed CD


37

1.4 Manipulative: Wind control In their respective turns, players decide which way the wind is going. This is done by selecting direction and power. Movable objects are moved in the directions specified by the wind, until hitting another object (including the border). If the object that is hit is movable by itself, the remaining “moving power” is transferred to it (by the logics of curling-stones). 2. The first playable test-implementation (Windmaker 2.0) For the first test I implemented a goal and a simple method for interaction. 2.1 Conditional: Goal: Score The first player to collect 5 points is the winner 2.2 Conditional: Sub-goal: Racing: Reach a spot The players compete to reach a random spot on the board. The player who reaches the spot earns one point. If the game is still running (the player didn’t win) a new random spot appears. 2.3 Conditional: Deck of Wind-cards The deck consists of 32 cards; with the powers 1 through 8 in the four wind directions (N, E, S and W). Consequently, each card is unique. At the start of a game the deck is shuffled, the cards are put in the “draw pile”. 2.4 Conditional: Wind-card distribution At every point when all players are without cards, each is given five cards from the draw pile (when the deck is empty the “discard pile” is shuffled). 2.5 Manipulative: Wind-card playing (move) At their respective turns, the players play one of the cards from their hands. These cards specify the direction and power of the wind. The objects on the board are moved according to this. 3. List of other possible mechanics As mentioned, the play-testing with these rules where not very successful. After having gone through the area of board games in a more structured way, it is clear to me that some of my design choices were made from a rather narrow-minded scope. Having treated the concept of mechanics/ludemes/patterns in a structured manner makes it easier to come up with alternatives. Instead of having to rely on inspiration, tradition, common sense, genius and what not it seems to me that it is possible to take a more systematic and less biased route. 3.1 Conditional: board properties The choice of the 16 x 20 dimension of the board was probably due to this looking proportional on a computer screen. Alternatives must be considered, but I think the board is workable for testing other mechanics.


38

3.1.1 Conditional: Board properties: Alternative board patterns Hexagons should be considered as it can make the board more interesting. It is slightly problematic, though, as it will not be as easy for players to handle six wind directions. Hexagons are mainly used in modern “simulation style” wargames.107 Octagons would be interesting as they, seemingly, would enable wind in eight direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, and NW) – which would be comprehensible for players. But, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to draw a grid of octagons. On the other hand, it is of course possible to have the wind blowing (and the pieces moving) diagonally on a board with a square grid. The problem with this solution is that the diagonal moves would be un-proportionally fast compared to the orthogonal moves. 3.1.2 Conditional: Board properties: Cylinder board “Cylinder boards” are known from the Chess variant Cylinder Chess. A board of this type is considered contiguous; a piece can move out of the board to the left and “reappear” from the right side of the board.108 In Chess it is not possible to let the board be contiguous in the “up-down” direction – this would result in the game starting with an illegal mate-mate situation.109 In Windmaker, though, there is no such general limitation. A variation of this feature is the “tunnel short-cut” as seen in Clue and Pac-Man among other games. A tunnel might possibly make a more exciting mechanic than a completely contiguous board. 3.1.3 Conditional: Board properties: Fall-off board Instead of having the edges of the board being solid, they can be off-game pits. Going over the edge might result in game over. For Windmaker, though, this mechanism is supposedly deeply problematic. It would probably be quite difficult to stay on the board. Pits could of course be combined with solid edges, but I basically don’t find this type of board mechanics very appropriate for Windmaker. 3.2 Conditional: Changed properties for the players’ pieces In the first version, the pieces did not have any special properties except being “wind-blocking” and “movable”. This might have been part of the problem, as the relative positions of the pieces didn’t change much except when blocking occurred. If the pieces could move “by their own power” this could be changed. Pieces could move according to a number of rules. 3.2.1 Conditional: Changed properties for the players’ pieces: Moves: Single rule All player pieces are moved (at the players’ respective turns) according to a simple rule. This could be one, two or any number of squares in any direction. 3.2.2 Conditional: Changed properties for the players’ pieces: Moves: Variable rules The pieces of the board might move according to “individual” rules. Since this can be hard to remember for players, it is a good idea to use a representation that supports these moves. Another idea is to use Chess pieces, which features an established and well known set of variable properties. Some or all of the pieces in a Chess set could be used. The pawns are a special case as they normally move and capture in one direction only, they might not be the most suitable chess pieces for Windmaker. The

107 The term “wargame” has several meanings, ranging from strictly abstract games of capture to

realistic simulations (see Parlett 1999: 357-358). 108 Parlett (1999): 316-317 109 Of course someone has invented a Chess variant with a “toroidal” board (formed like a torus). But

this game uses a 14x8 board and a setup that differs from traditional Chess. The Chess Variant Pages.org: Chess in a Toroidal Board


39

rest, queens (moving orthogonally + diagonally), kings (orthogonally + diagonally, one square), rooks (orthogonally), bishops (diagonally) and knights (“hippogonally”110) might easily be implemented in Windmaker. 3.2.3 Conditional: Changed properties for the players’ pieces: Properties other than moves This could be mechanics concerning capture, combat (rule-regulated capture) or something else. 3.2.4 Conditional: Number of pieces per player The initial choice of one piece per player was not based on any considerations; rather it was an “intuitive” decision. Actually, one player – one piece (or avatar) seems to be a standard solution in computer games rather than in board games. A few folk board games with this pattern exist (notably Snakes and ladders) but these are clearly in minority. In modern times, a lot of “roll the die and move your piece” type games have emerged (Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit are examples of this). Yet still, many modern wargames feature almost ridiculous amounts of pieces. What I am trying to say here is not that one piece per player is a bad decision; it might actually work just fine. But, of course other possibilities should be considered. 3.2.4.1 Conditional: Number of pieces per player: 2 or more with identical properties Like Checkers, Backgammon and others. 3.2.4.2 Conditional: Number of pieces per player: 2 or more with different properties Could follow the Chess pattern, see 3.2.2. 3.2.4.3 Conditional: Number of pieces per player: Common pieces This rather strange pattern is seen in games of the Mancala family. The pieces does not represent the players in any way, the players compete to gather as many of the pieces as they can. 3.3.1 Conditional: Possible variant obstacles It is possible to imagine board objects with other properties: “cages” (movable but not wind-blocking), “walls” (not movable but wind-blocking) as well as “boxes”, obstacles acting with the same logics as the players’ pieces (movable and wind-blocking). These labels might not be the best ones. They are used to describe the mechanics of the objects, rather than being thought of as a representation. 3.3.1.1 Conditional: Possible variant obstacles: Cages A cage is distinguished by letting wind through and being possible to push around Thus, the wind can not push these objects, but other objects can do so. Movable: True Wind-blocking: False 3.3.1.2 Conditional: Possible variant obstacles: Walls A wall is steady rooted in the ground, unaffected by wind and blocking the way of the wind. Movable: False Wind-blocking: True

110 The term hippogonally (literary “in the direction of a horse”), describing the chess knights’ 2+1

jumps were coined by Parlett (1999): 231.


40

3.3.1.3 Conditional: Possible variant obstacles: Boxes A box is a solid object, affected by the wind. It can be pushed by other objects and can by itself push any movable object. Movable: True Wind-blocking: True 3.3.1.4 Conditional: Obstacles with intentions Obstacles can be moving around by their own power in addition to the wind. This could bring forth a more dynamic and complicated board. These moves should, I presume, be controlled by some rules that the players can deduce in order to predict the board patterns in rounds to come. 3.4 Conditional: Goals Many goals other than simple racing (reach a spot) are possible. Sub-goals might emerge as a consequence of the games being played. In Chess, of course, the overall goal is to capture the king. Players might set up sub-goals to reach that goal, but no sub-goal is in reality inherent in the game. Prejudices about sub-goals (capture pieces, control the center of the board) might actually be what a skilled player uses to trap his inferiors. Other games have clear sub-goals, but other sub-goals may emerge in those games as well. 3.4.1 Conditional: Goals: Capture This means making Windmaker into some kind of wargame. Capture (combat) mechanisms can be as sophisticated as suited. 3.4.2 Conditional: Goals: Capture/mate king (Chess) Using chess pieces (as described above) does not necessarily imply playing chess – but it is actually a possible solution for Windmaker. “Wind Chess” might actually be an interesting game. A possible rule set is that after the first capture in a game, every move that is not a capture or a check allows the player to control the wind (in some way). This would definitely be an unusual chess variant. It is quite difficult to see how this solution would work in reality; it must be tested in order to find a workable solution. 3.4.3 Conditional: Goals: Bumping For Windmaker, it might be more suitable to “bump” ones opponents rather than to capture them. The negative side of awarding bumping is that it can actually be skill involved in being bumped at the right moment (the “bumpee” might deserve a reward as much as the “bumper”), and the real award (or punishment) should be the positions gained. 3.4.4 Conditional: Goals: Pattern building This kind of goal is common in abstract board games; Tic-tac-toe is a well known example. This goal would imply that the players have several pieces each, but it could also be possible to build patterns with obstacles or the opponents’ pieces. A computer supported system enables some mechanics in this context that would be difficult or impractical to implement in an analog board game: patterns can stay connected as “formations”, which might be an interesting mechanism enabling emergent gameplay.


41

3.4.5 Conditional: Goals: Piece collection (Mancala style) It is possible to have a rather large number of pieces of the same color and kind on the board – they do not belong to anyone of the players. I see problems with this goal, though. It might be a rather uninteresting battle of getting the piece into one’s own base. Controlled by the wind, all pieces move in the same direction. The board might, of course, be made more dynamic than a traditional mancala board. Bases can move around by themselves, avoiding the problem of having a home base in a corner (all winds must point in that direction). 3.4.6 Conditional: Goals: Word generation (Wind Scrabble) A friend of mine suggested combining Windmaker with Scrabble. At first, I turned down the idea for being “wacky” and not in line with my purposes. I have come to reevaluate this a bit, though. I have, without much thought, clearly been prejudicial about this game being a racing game. I have not come up with a solution working very well, so ideas in various directions should be considered. “Wind Scrabble” could actually be an interesting game. Some mechanics must be implemented for this to work. Illegal words must be allowed on the board (as the wind won’t care). Of course, making a word game does not imply making a version of Scrabble, other concepts are possible. Anyhow, the rules or design of Scrabble is not protected (lots of plagiaries exist), but the name and logo is. 3.4.6 Conditional: Goals: Set collection Set collection is seen in many card games (Poker, Rummy), but it is also featured in a number of modern board games (Monopoly is but one example). This mechanic is especially interesting when the collected sets conflict with one another. At one point the player might have to choose between going for a straight and keeping a two-of-a-kind to see what that could bring forth. This is generally controlled by limiting the allowed set units on a hand (Poker) or by making the units cost (Monopoly), adding an extra dimension of resource management. I definitely feel that including this goal could be the way to go. Set collection could also make rather intelligent use of the private information aspect that I want to exploit with the platform. The players having to guess each others goals might cause interesting gameplay (in line with many card games and as opposed to Monopoly where the property sets are played openly). Set collection, of course, is a very general mechanic that must be specified properly to be implemented. 3.4.7 Conditional: Goals: Survival Just to remain on the board longer than anyone else might be a goal in itself. It is not very problematic. Players can play defensive or offensive. It might be necessary to make survival harder and harder, as defensive players may otherwise go on forever. This could be done by increasing the power of the wind, by removing obstacles or by shrinking the board. 3.4.8 Conditional: Goals: Deduction Certainly Windmaker could be made into a detective game. Instead of collecting sets the players could collect clues and strive to deduce the truth. It might be a conflict between understanding the unusual way of moving around and the rather demanding activity of collecting clues. When the “wind concept” is established and all the other “wind games” are successfully released, I may consider launching “Windmaker Private Eye” to meet public demand.


42

3.4.9 Conditional: Goals: Complex coals Some games can have more complex goals than the basic ones listed above. This might be due to the level of representation/ simulation. An abstract scoring system might also be a complex goal system: taking a trick in a Whist game is possibly a score in a single game, and might as well add to the score in a complete game session. Taking any possible trick (to acquire scores) is foolish, though, as it might ruin ones changes of getting maximum score. 3.5 Manipulative: Moves The lack of relevant means for interaction has possibly been an even bigger problem than the equally underdeveloped goals. One problem has been that it is generally problematic when all pieces move the same distance all the time (when not blocked or colliding), especially when they are aiming for the same spot. Another problem, as I see it, was that no interesting way of deciding moves was implemented. Wind cards were just dealt and players had to use what they had been given. Finally, it was not easy to see how representations could be introduced into Windmaker. Why can the players control the wind and why are they limited to the wind cards? Some of the mechanics below were listed as conditional as well (it all fits together). It might be a general taxonomy problem at work here. 3.5.1 Manipulative: Moving: Pieces can move by their own power This might make the game more interesting. At the same time, the game might lose part of the “mechanistic beauty” that lies in the aesthetics of the “wind mechanics”. It must also be considered when the pieces shall be moved (by themselves) and when the wind shall be “summoned” (and move the pieces). 3.5.2 Manipulative: Moving: Wind controlled by switches on the board If players shall be able to both move their own pieces and control the wind, these shall preferably be controlled in different ways. One solution is to place “switches” that control the wind on some of the squares on the board. One type of switch could move the wind and another type could activate the wind. This leads into the field of representation. If the wind “moves” around the board without necessarily being activated, what representation can support this mechanic? One solution is to have a cloud that eerily moves around the board, bursting out wind when activated. It is, though, rather hard to think of a reason for the cloud to be controlled by switch without giving way to the domains of science fiction or fantasy. The name Windmaker in a way implies such a setting. More logical than a cloud (but not necessarily more sensible) is to use a giant fan (as wind does not really come from clouds). The fan could be attached to a mechanical cart moving around the board. These representations would not necessarily lead to any differences in mechanics. The game could of course be totally abstract as well. I would, in this case, not be eager to go for a completely abstract game, as I feel that the mechanics need the support they can get from representations. 3.5.3 Manipulative: Moving: Moving other things than the players’ pieces During a seminar, Jonas Löwgren came up with the idea that instead of moving the pieces or the wind – the players could be able to move around some of the other obstacles on the board. The wind should probably rotate according to some predictable algorithm for this mechanic to be interesting. Obstacles could be moved to block the wind, to “free the way” for the wind or to block the way for moving objects (objects could be pieces as well as other object subject to the power of the wind). I find this mechanic really interesting. It might have tendencies in the


43

direction of a “puzzle mechanic” but could certainly be integrated in a truly interactive board game. Löwgren suggested Wind Blocker as a possible alternative name for the game (if using this mechanic), but actually players would probably be unblocking as much as blocking the wind. As with any manipulation mechanics, how this mechanic will be used by the players depends on the goal and the other mechanics of the game. 3.5.4 Manipulative: Moving: Placing rather than moving Rather surprisingly, move logics in games like Chess or Checkers do not seem to dominate board games of the “folk” category. Most games in this category do not include any actual “moving” of the pieces – instead they are simply placed or “distributed”. Examples of this are found in Go, Tic-tac-toe as well as in modern abstracts as Othello. In themed board games, though, the “placing pattern” is uncommon. Placing is of course seen in many strategic war games like Risk, but then often combined with moving (pieces can be placed and then moved). In a “multi-piece” Windmaker, placing could be considered.

Windmaker 3.0 After going through mechanics relevant or at least applicable for Windmaker, I decided to go for a game of set collection. Set collection can be used to avoid situations where all players go for the same targets at all times, as players decide to collect sets based on the resources they have on hand. It can also force players to decide which set to collect at the cost of other sets. Another interesting effect of this mechanic is that the players can only guess which sets their opponents are collecting. The players were supposed to gather some type of “cards” that were spread over the board. The cards should feature a number of icons in different categories. The point with this should be that it will be hard to judge where the other players are aiming. It would also be conflicting interests as to which icon should be collected. Players might be limited to how many cards can be held on “hand” (mobile phone). Other mechanics/features considered were:

• New cards can “blow in with the wind” when the board gets emptied • Players could have to go somewhere to “sell” the suits collected for some

resource (money). • Players will have own power of movement. • More than one piece per player (perhaps mirroring each other’s moves) • Trading and/or stealing (player-player interactive and very interesting)

After having met some problems with having the wind being directly controlled by the players, I wanted to try out an idea where the wind was activated at some fixed positions on the board. Representations were not really considered, following an essentially German logic, I intended to paste these on at later stage – as a separate layer. I had a few bad feelings, though. I was a bit afraid of ending up with a difficult game that would be hard to get into. I might have to turn some ideas down even if they are interesting. I also had the feeling that the game was a bit dull, actually. When thinking of the layer of representation, it seemed close to impossible to paste on any form of “believable” theme to mechanics. Ending up with a completely abstract


44

game, I have come to conclude, would not be in vein with the modern board game tradition – and thus, in part, a failure.

The concept of mechanics – revisions needed? At this stage, I met with my “game supervisor” Mikael Jakobsson. He was skeptical towards using game mechanics as a tool for game design, and insisted that I would not be able to develop a game by such an analytical approach. I, stubbornly, defended my approach as I was (and still am) sure that it had both deepened and widened my view on games. Before I analyzed my game with the eyes of a “game engineer” (looking at mechanics), I definitely had a smaller repertoire of “game design patters” to use as the building stones for designing a game. In my view, this did not make me more “free” neither less “rule-bound” – rather it made me more prejudicial about which design routes to take. Anyhow, Jakobsson is probably right about the fact that mechanics is not the best tool for running an entire game design process. As I see it, though, it is a useful concept that can widen the “pattern repertoire” of the game designer. Actually, I do not see that game designers using this concept would make the same games over and over (sometimes it seem as if they do this anyway). If you intend to go “out of the box” it is a good idea to know the size of the box. It might, though, be a good idea to operate with this concept “in the back of the mind”. Rather than using it as an at all times active design tool, it could be consulted when needed. Any game designer or player probably has some kind of “internal library” of known patterns. Inventions will probably always come from ideas that go beyond this internal library – but that is not really a valid argument against improving the internal library (adding more patterns). That said, having defended my views, I essentially went home and did what Mikael Jakobsson had suggested – I started working more directly with the game and its mechanics rather than doing so through a medium theories.

Getting down on the floor Having realized that my literal use of the concept of game mechanics had become something of a blind alley, I went for a more experimental approach. I spread out large pieces of paper on the floor and started to write down various concepts related to the game, its possibilities and problems. I think that the format (big sheets of paper on the floor rather than pages in a sketchbook) were in itself valuable. A rendition of my notes on these sheets follows here, this was my first sheet:


45

1. GOALS111 The racing problem

1. If everyone is chasing the same spot, chasing the spot and stopping one’s opponents might be conflicting actions. It also makes a rather uninteresting race.

2. If a player knows where his/her opponent is aiming, to stop the opponent is just a matter of power or resource management.

3. Set collection could be a solution as it is hard to deduce what an opponent is collecting. Another interesting aspect is that a player might chase several spots. If the most desired spot proves impossible to get to, the player might aim for a secondary spot.

What I did here was to put on paper the failure of the first version, as well as some of my thoughts on the “set collection” version. Having (briefly) looked at “the racing problem”, I went on to look at “the set collection problem”:

2. GOALS The set collection problem 1. Representations. Finding a representation that combine wind with set

collection. The proposed game (Windmaker 3.0) was merely iconic 2. Resource management (why not collect everything?) 3. Exchange. Sets are changed into what? Where is this done? 4. Token refill. How do the tokens reenter the board? 5. How does this go together with wind?

Not an analysis of set collection in general, this was more of an overview of the problems related to the proposed “set collection version” of Windmaker (3.0). As it turns out, the questions related to this version are more numerous than the solutions it was designed to provide. In reality, it was very far from an implementable game. How set collection and “set exchange” should be handled had not been described or even thought through in any detailed way. Movement of the wind, as well as the independent movement of the pieces, was still a feature in need of further development. A relevant representation layer seemed almost impossible to paste on, what (in a simulation sense) was really happening on the board? To make sure I had not left relevant goals out, I decided to make a sheet of applicable goals as well:

111 The numbering of sheets was not used in this design phase. I did not work as sequentially strict as

in this presentation. The sheets were largely written in the order presented here, but I occasionally went back and added some notes to a previous sheet. Some of the sheets have been excluded for being irrelevant – their purpose being mainly to sum up conclusions already made (these conclusions are included elsewhere in the report).


46

3. GOALS General list • Racing – reach a spot • Capture – wargame • Capture special piece / mate special piece (king) • Bumping • Pattern building • Piece collection (Wind Mancala) • Word generation (Wind Scrabble) • Set Collection • Survival • Deduction • Complex Goals

Basically, this list was used for reference. More rewarding were sheets where I sketched possibilities for representations in the game. I had elaborated with the idea of some form of “micro world” for some time. Partly I had the computer game Micro Machines in mind – where toy vehicles race at domestic venues like dinner tables or kitchen sinks. This would arguably make a rather “weak” idea – “someone” has setup a racing track complete with fans (for the wind) where the players are supposed to race. As I was not sure whether I would actually manage to find a representation that could support an interesting game mechanical system (and vice versa), I wrote down both a few “thematic representational concepts”, as well as some iconic representations:

4. REPRESENTATIONS • Support • Imagination • Affection Theme / fiction: • Bugs / wind bugs (centipedes etc.) • Suburb • Trains Iconic: • Chess pieces – support for understanding and remembering rules

– Rook, knight, bishop, king (queen is too effective, pawn is too limited) – “Transformation system” – switches piece type

• Playing cards • Windmaker 3.0 - set collection (collecting icons)

Obviously, the ideas on this sheet are very few. This is probably connected to the fact that I rather quickly decided to exploit the “bugs” concept further. The players could play the part of (lady) bugs in a windy setting. Why I did stick to this idea is unclear, but the bugs seemed practical for many reasons. They are small and have a head, which might actually be used to explain why they are subject to wind as well


47

as indicate in which direction they are going (the heads point forward). Besides that, ladybugs seem positive and funny. One of the first groups of problems I tried to approach was the ones related to the wind:

5. WIND

1. How can the wind be controlled? (mechanic) 2. Why can the wind be controlled? (representation, fiction) 3. Can wind be controlled, really?

1:

• “Wind cards” • Switches • Program (serial, transparent)

2:

• Sorcery? (Wind shaman...) • Micro-world – fan (moveable, on-off) • Abstract or iconic • High-tech site • “Futuristic sport”

3:

• If not, run by a transparent program – rotating, on-off As evident here, I had problems with the actual interaction regarding the control of the wind as well as problems with finding a set of representational logics that could be integrated in the game. The name Windmaker had kind of indicated someone with (magical) control of the wind. When I speculated about who this being could be I began to think about some sort of a sorcerer or a shaman with supernatural powers. At the same time, being a defenseless subject to wind could indicate a rather weak being. This led me into thinking in the “micro-world” direction. The board could portray a miniature scene on a table with an electric fan circling around it. Another idea was to explain the setting as “entertainment technology of the future” – someone has set up an arena with huge fans and made up some sort of rules for players to compete. This, as I already have indicted, would be a weak representation as what it really does is to set up a representation that works as a frame for an abstract game. In a way, it could be analogous to controlling a pair of avatars that played chess. The representations would be around the game – not in the game. I did not come up with any new ideas regarding the wind mechanics at this stage, listed here are simply the interaction types I had come up with this far in the process. My next step was to look closer at the problem of player moves in the game:


48

6. MOVES (player moves)

• A gameplay problem • A representation problem

– One or more pieces per player? – Individual moves in addition to wind? – Moving obstacles to block/unblock the wind? – Variable piece properties? – Pieces activate wind with switches on board? – “Fan” “hunting” the pieces?

– Safe area in the middle – Moving clockwise

This sheet also featured a sketch of a (primitive) “switch interface” for the solution with switches on the board:

Direction Power On / Off

Figure 5: Switches This was not a very serious attempt at designing an interesting solution based on switches. I did not follow this path, but surely the switch variant could (and still can, of course) have been turned in to a game that played well. More interesting, though, is the concept of an electric fan that “hunts” the pieces. I had speculated about a fan that went around the board controlled by switches – or perhaps one stationary fan in each direction. The solutions with a switch-controlled fan seemed rather clumsy, though. Should there be switches for changing the directions, power as well as turning on and off the fans? I had not come up with any ideas about the amount or placement of the switches. Generally, the concept of switches seemed problematic. That is why I immediately became enthusiastic when I came up the idea that the fan could “patrol” the board and blow the wind when one or more pieces entered the edges of the board. Since air-condition-fans are not known to walk around looking for bugs, I started thinking of a representation that included a living being. It might be hard to see, but the sketch below depicts the head of a person from above (a young boy for some reason) which blows air from his mouth towards a game board (the area titled “SAFE” is the area in which the pieces would not provoke the boy to blow the wind):


49

Figure 6: The fan that turned into a boy This solution solved many problems that had been in the game for a long time. I really felt that I had a game coming here. The boy would patrol the board at the end of each round – if no pieces (bugs) provoked him, he would stay calm. From one point of view, though, the solutions using either fan or boy seemed very impractical. By necessity, an object circling outside the borders of the board would steal away an essential part of the screen.


50

Picture 7: The boy that stole the screen. If an object should be able to rotate around the board, it will automatically steal a big portion of the screen. To fight this problem, I started thinking about a solution where “The Windmaker” (this label can be used as an abstract name for this function or mechanic, whatever representation is used) could patrol on the screen rather than around the screen. This is not unproblematic. Moving a fan onto the board might give the impression that the areas that end up behind the blades of the fan (or the mouth of the boy) are not affected by the wind. If representations should be used in a game they can of course not go straight against the mechanics. Another unwanted feature (as I view it) is that The Windmaker can conceal important positions of the board. This led me into thinking of a “see-through Windmaker”, and what could be a better representation for an object that is slightly transparent and controls the wind than – a cloud! In natural science, even on a common sense level, clouds do of course not control the wind. In mythology and fairytales, though, clouds are often portrayed as alive and as well as the source of the wind. Following this “fairytale logic” I guess I, rather unknowingly, thought of this cloud as some sort of living being, a “spirit cloud” or a jinni. Looking back at my notes, I found out that I had speculated about a using a cloud for representing the wind at an earlier stage (see the chapter of game mechanics). At that time I concluded that a fan would be a more effective representation, I never considered the feature of transparency that enables me to move to cloud into the board itself.


51

Picture 8: The boy is replaced by a cloud If the cloud should move after the players (this is of course a game move as discussed earlier), I figured that the order that the players execute their actions must be randomized for every turn. The player moving last (just before the cloud) will probably have an advantage. Since this player will have knowledge of the previous moves, he will be at better odds when calculating the direction and power of the wind. Randomized order is actually a feature that could be rather annoying to use in a traditional board game – but it may be right to include it in this computerized game. I also speculated a bit on the representational aspect of the randomized order – why do the turns shuffle? I settled that philosophical question when I remembered that moving in turns in general does not fit well into any represented domain – it is, of course, rather a feature of board gaming than of reality. An alternative to the randomized order mechanic is “simultaneous movement”, as seen in a few modern board games as Diplomacy and Robo Rally. In these games, the players decide their moves simultaneously, without knowledge of each others moves. While not entirely unproblematic, I decided to go for the randomized order sequence. As a consequence, I realized the need for some kind of simple visualization that would support this mechanic:


52

Picture 9: The random order visualization. Each player (in this example they are four) has a representation which is placed in random order in the row. A representation for the cloud (the game) is last. The small arrow shows whose turn it is at every moment. This visualization can also be used to clarify some of the lingua concerning the execution of the game. A game is divided into rounds. Each round consisted of turns, one for each player (in random order in this case) and one for the cloud. Following this turn in the development – which really was the kind of twist I had been looking for – I made a sheet about the cloud representation as well:

7. THE CLOUD REPRESENTATION

• Does not occupy space outside the board + • Enables “fog” • See and not-see are board-game-ish (discrete) mechanisms, see badly is

not • Pieces are visible until 9 (wind power, cloud power), obstacles disappear

earlier? • Going into the cloudy area provokes the cloud into blowing the wind. • Each turn makes the cloud’s power raise by 1 • Wind after each player or once per round? • Cloud moves clockwise – every turn? • Are tokens moved? • And still – what is the goal here?

The notes made on this sheet were important; lots of clouds were cleared (excuse the pun) by going through these features. As said earlier the feature that spun the idea of a cloud was that it would not have to occupy space outside the board. Clouds can be transparent, at least in cartoons. At the same time, a natural side-effect of this idea was to think in terms of levels of transparency. I labeled this phenomenon “fog”. Could the cloud be made denser as its power increases? Or could power and opacity be independent measures? I found the concept of fog a bit problematic, though. Following board game logics, it would be reasonable to include game states where an object is either visible or invisible. Being difficult to see, though, would not be a feature that natural for board games. If the fog feature should be used, it might be suitable to implement with a limited number of discrete states, rather than with a continuous decrease in sight. With four states, it could be done like this:


53

• Clear – no cloud • Cloud – good sight (but beware of wind) • Fog – decreased sight (obstacles disappear) • Smog – No sight (obstacles and pieces disappear)

Besides the fog feature, what I really accomplished was to sketch a working description for the mechanism of the cloud that would be possible to play-test. The rules of the cloud at this point can be described like this (use Picture 9 as a reference):

• The cloud starts the game with a power of 2. • At its turn, the cloud checks position 1 (the current position of the cloud) for

player pieces • If one or more pieces are found, the cloud blows the wind (which affects the

complete board) and the round is over for the cloud. • If no pieces are in the position, the cloud goes (clockwise) on to the next

position and checks for pieces there. This follows the same procedure as in position 1.

• If no pieces are found in any of the positions, no wind is blown. The wind power aggregates by 1.

I also speculated on the possibility of moving the cloud after each player’s turn, possibly increasing fairness of the game. On the other hand, it could certainly become a mess. I decided to stick to the solution where the cloud moved at the end of every round.

Picture 10: The board with positional markers for the positions of the cloud (“1” is where it happens to be at the start of its turn). On the representational side, I continued with the ladybugs scenario – bugs in some sort of landscape that is circled by a living cloud. I had, as previously noted, speculated on rules for the movement of the players. I decided to go for a rather simple rule. The players’ pieces would move orthogonally, like a rook in Chess – in


54

any distance as long as not blocked by a border, an obstacle or a piece. When bumping into another piece, the same rules should apply as when pushed by the wind, the bumping piece should transmit its power/speed to the bumped piece. I could see a few problems coming as a consequence of this, so I dedicated a sheet exclusively to bumping:

8. A BUMPING PROBLEM • If a player bumps another player – what stops the second player from

bumping back? (Variable order or not?) • Does the bumpee have to stopped (is being bumped bad) • Directions:

- Turn – OR – move or - Turn 90º AND move (no u-turns allowed)

• It seems better to be bumped than to bump • Bumping: credit an extra move (in another direction)

What I tried to address here was problems connected to the fact that a bumped player can use her next move to bump back again. With a randomized order, she can not be sure that she gets the chance to do so (the bumper might be gone at bumpee’s next turn), but this does not eliminate the problem. On the other hand, I was not sure that the bumped player had to be stopped from bumping back. If bumping back is an available action rather than a dominant one, it would not really pose a problem. If it would be found to be a problem (at play-testing) I speculated on some solutions. As the pieces would have a front which indicates in which direction it is moving, this could possibly be used to limit its freedom of movement. A bumped piece could be made to always point in the direction in which it has been bumped – and the possibility of pointing back again could be limited. This could be accomplished by having the players choose between moving and turning; or by limiting the degree in which a piece could be turned. The first solution (choosing a move or a turn) threatens to slow the game down. The second solution might be more reasonable. A third solution would be to award the bumper an extra move. This could have the effect that when the bumped player is about to move, the bumper has gone somewhere else. A possible problem with this could be allowed to make series of moves if able to find pieces to bump (if this actually would be a problem rather than an interesting feature is unclear). But after all, these solutions addressed a problem which it was unclear if it actually existed. I decided to wait with trying out these mechanics until after having tested without them. As I noted on the sheet 7, the game still lacked a goal. This cued me to continue with another sheet. The idea was to try out a number of goal concepts, but as it turned out I for some reason stuck to describing a number of goal concepts concerning bugs eating flowers:


55

9. COMPETITION • Picking flowers

• Missions: - Take out yellow first - Take out left side first (not that good, too complicated)

• Imperfect information • Where did it go? • Matching flowers on hand? –With flowers on board? • Avoid black box syndrome

• Ending: Empty board or 100 rounds? • I have “succeeded” in making a board game with “complex mechanics”.

But why not play this game on – let’s say – a PlayStation console? The imperfect information aspect must be developed.

• This game seems clearly positional. The idea here, which I have pursued, is to fill the board with tokens of six different types. I decided the tokens should be flowers – which is kind of reasonable though not very exiting. A flower is rooted to the ground and thus not subject to the wind. For some reason the bugs in this game like to eat flowers. One should remember that my game has never been intended as a simulation of any system existing in reality (like an ecosystem); rather it can be viewed as a fabrication of an imaginary system. First I speculated about the players operating with (secret) missions that they try to fulfill. This is used to great effect in some versions of Risk. I turned it down because it seemed a bit demanding for the players to handle secret goals with some complexity. Understanding the ways of the cloud and of the wind might actually be hard enough. It would also be a very small ingredient of imperfect information if this should be limited to a mission. If private information were not included in the game, I would not really take advantage of the possibilities that the platform using mobile phones permits. I turned my attention towards the “set collection” type of mechanics that I had previously been operating with. I turned down the idea of having the flowers have more than one property; it would probably look messy and be difficult for the players to manage. In card games, every card has two properties relevant to the game: suit and value. Mechanisms in game using only one property are by necessity simpler. I decided to go for a simple mechanism that would be easy to understand. Players would, to start with, have 5 flower cards on hand. The colors of these are generated by random, as is the flowers on the board. At the end of a turn, the bugs eat the flowers they are positioned on (if any). If the flower eaten match any of the flower cards on hand the player scores one point, the flower card is discarded. This goes on until the player has an empty hand, then he is given five new flower cards. This really seemed like a concept that would work.


56

I had come to be aware, though, that in my game, the positions on the board is really important. In this aspect it is closer to traditional board games than to most board games of the modern era. As Parlett has noted, focus in modern games has shifted from the board to the players.112 Yet still, using cards or any material that is not on the board at all is not found in traditional games (when a piece is taken off the board it is out of game – or rather – when a piece is out of the game it is taken off the board). This might be viewed as a minor conflict that I have gotten myself into. I have followed the path of complex mechanics, which has had the game focus on board positions and perhaps turned my focus away from the dynamics of the players. Anyway, I decided to go for the game mechanics as listed above. I went on to try to identify what I perceived as possible problems in this game:

11. PROBLEMS WITH “THE FLOWER GAME”

• It will be hard to end - How get to the border where the remaining flowers are? - Actually, with some strategy it should work. - Game can end after a certain number of rounds - What if a player gets stuck with a flower that is hard or impossible to get?

-tough luck! • What if a flower gets surrounded by fences?

- This is actually problematic - If the game can detect this, flowers can wither (but how to detect this)

I identified some possible problems here. There must be definitive ways for ending a game; it would of course be a failure if players just gave up because the game does not come to a closure. The fencing problem – fences surrounding a flower – is a problem only if all flowers are supposed to be eaten. Fences surrounding a player are another matter. I decided there was no way I was going to get any further without setting up a new prototype for testing, so I wrote a sheet with instructions for this as well:

12. FLOWER GAME SETUP 1. Random position of players (inside safe square) 2. Random position of fences 3. Random flowers positioned on remaining squares • Cages? • Cages -> fences = new problems? Withering + locked-up players

The board setup would apparently be very easy. I had some thoughts about cages – which are one of the additional board obstacles I have speculated about implementing. I had an idea that a cage – a “pushable fence” – could turn into a fence itself when colliding with one, making a larger fence. This could really mess up the board, as players could even lock up each other. I decided to let any of the additional obstacles out of the game; the game design problems with fences could be challenging enough.

112 Parlett (1999): 329-330


57

A second paper prototype Having detailed both rules and setup rather rigorously it should have been an easy task to start testing the game. From one point of view it was. There were no actual difficulties in setting up or start testing, but it was extremely tedious work to do so. Apart from cutting out the flowers – which should only be necessary to do once – I of course had to place them on the board. My intention was that it should be an equal amount of all the colors, in reality I lost track of them. This fact was not very important for testing, but reminded me of why I am not developing a physical board game.

Picture 11: Don’t sneeze. The board from the first paper mock-up was covered with paper rectangles symbolizing flowers. The pieces were tossed onto the board to achieve random positions (I remembered to do this before laying out the flowers). To handle the play-testing, I created simple representations for the mechanism that handled order as well as for the mobile phones. At this stage I got the idea that there would be six pieces on the board regardless of how many people were playing it (the game is supposed to be played by two to six players). The randomized order was handled by picking duplicates of the pieces that I held concealed in my hand. The first one I picked got the first place in row, and so on.


58

Figure 12: Play-testing paraphernalia. To the left is the” random order handler”, the current order of the pieces indicates the order of execution. The big colored pieces of paper represent the mobile phones (the yellow controls the yellow piece and so on). The smaller pieces of paper are the cards representing the flowers the players are supposed to hunt. The square at the top of the board represents the position of the cloud. Scribbled on the order handler are algorithms for the random setup of the board. The mock-up testing turned out to work very well. Many of the problems I had feared did not seem relevant. It will for example not likely be a border where the pieces never manage to get. I played the game with the role of four players, having two dummy pieces doing nothing but being bumped by the others or blown away by the wind. It would not have been easy to get other people to test the game, as slow playing and complicated as it was in this paper version. For me, though, the mechanics worked remarkably well. I found it possible, as well as interesting, to find out where one’s piece could end up at the end of the round depending on the decisions the opponents make. A multiplayer game will never be like Chess, though. It is not possible to analyze a multiplayer game several steps into the future; the decision tree simply gets too wide. But this fact, to my experience, does not leave the player totally clueless. It was, of course, a bit hard to get a picture of how the game would work in a digital version. My initial version Windmaker seemed to contain some qualities that were connected with the game as it had been implemented as an interactive digital game system. The paper versions lacked this “direct interaction” dimension. One feature that did not work in the way I had thought were the activation and power accumulation of the cloud. As I have described, I had made the cloud’s power start at 2 and increase by one every time it was not used. As it turned out, though, the wind was actually activated in one of the directions every round. The likeliness for this to happen will probably be higher with more players and lower with fewer


59

players. I realized I had to change this. The solution were to have the power start at 3 and adding 1 for each piece that is detected by the cloud, making the power range from 4 to 9. I found this to work really well. Because of the game playing slow in this paper version it was difficult to test mechanics for winning and ending the game. I decided to implement the rules from this paper version as an extension of the original Flash game. I saw a need to make the board a bit smaller. Instead of 20x16 squares I decided to go for a square board of 16x16 squares.

Implementing Wind Bugs – going digital again My original name for the game, Windmaker, had for some time seemed improper regarding both theme and mechanics. Instead, I decided that Wind Bugs should be the name of the game. It does not give associations to the same extent as Windmaker did, it is just something about wind and bugs. Objects of the game can possibly change without changing the name. Implementing my new rules into the digital game was not very difficult. It would, on the other hand, be absurd to call it easy, as even the first version of the game (Windmaker) were on the absolute edge of what I have been able to do with programming on a computer. I started with correcting a known bug in the game (pieces were lost by the game in some situations), which I discovered was caused by a typo rather than by a logical error. Analyzing this problem kind of got me back into the code again as well, several months had passed since I first wrote it. The activity of describing the rules of a game is in reality close to programming. The random setup of the board was for example specified as:

• Place 6 player pieces on a random square of the 8x8 center pieces of the board

• Place 10 fences on any empty space on the board (chosen randomly) • Put 39 cards (board-flowers) each of 6 colors in a pile • Shuffle the pile • Place these cards on the empty spaces on the board • Put 6 cards (hand-flowers) each of 6 colors in a pile • Shuffle the pile • Deal these cards to the players

The above procedure is really what I tell the program to do. Sticking to board game logics perhaps makes programming less abstract. I made the program handle a draw pile and a discard pile for the flower cards. These are treated like in many card games. When the draw pile is emptied, the discard pile is shuffled and the cards moved over to the draw pile. A computerized game could of course ignore these logics and deal a random card out of the six possible at every time. When programming a board game, though, I would avoid such a decision, as it is not in line with how board games work. Besides that, it would mean that a “black box mechanism” would be implemented in the game, which I think should be avoided if it does not provide any special value. Having defined the rules of the game as exactly as I had, programming the game in reality meant implementing one rule after another. I was aware that my initial code


60

was far from perfect. Especially regarding the move algorithms, code was duplicated, which meant changes had to be done in several places. In spite of that, implementing the rules went with very few problems. After three days, including testing, I was finished.

Figure 13: Wind Bugs. This game has just begun. Player 4 (green) is moving first. From “collect:” downward to the right is the mobile phone interface. “Collect” specifies the flowers that the player will score points for, beneath is the interaction buttons (a player aims by using the arrows and +/-, a move is finally executed with “execute”). The cloud is here stationed in the “southern” region. This game, as well as the original version of Windmaker, can be found at: http://www.jonasinteractive.com/wind When implementing means for interaction with the game, though, it is of course not enough to follow the rules of the game. I needed the players to be able to turn into the direction they want to go as well as deciding the power with which they will move in that direction. The power of a move does indicate how far a player wants to move in a direction, rather than how far he will move in that direction. If an obstacle or another player blocks the way, the movement is halted. In the case of bumping into another piece (player or non-player) the remaining power is transmitted to that piece. Another feature is that I made it possible for the players to see how many cards their opponents are holding in their hands. This was to get a board game feel into the game, as it works against the logics of a black box that handles the game without giving out information about how this is done. I though about ways to illustrate the


61

draw and discard piles, which would have been a natural feature in any traditional board or card game, but I decided to leave it out for not flooding the players with information. This was a quite hard decision for me, and I might have to change this later. The feature will probably need some form of representation that makes it look reasonable rather than disturbing.

Figure 14: Desired and actual movement. Player 1 (red) aims for a spot (northward x1, y15 with a green flower) which she (knowingly or not) will not be able of reach. Instead, the piece will bump into the non-player piece above (x1, y8). The bumped piece will inherit the power from the red piece and start moving until this piece in turn hits another non-player piece (x1, y10) which starts moving with the remaining power – but finally will be blocked by a fence (x1, y12). Note the roll-over function which indicates which flower a bug is currently standing on (flowers are not eaten until the end of the round): The blue bug is standing on a blue flower, the yellow stands on a red. Red and green are at empty squares.

Test sessions during development I tested Wind bugs regularly both during the development and after. At early stages I operated with partly analog systems, as the complete game where not implemented. For example, I used the paper card deck for the cards of the players before this function was implemented. At some stages I run a digital and an analog mechanism in tandem to see if they operated equally. What I tested was of course


62

both my success at implementing my ideal system (the game with my described rules) as well as the ideal system itself. My first rounds of actual player-tests with the digital version of Wind Bugs were composed of a number of simple tests where test-persons tried the game without my presence. Feedback was given through e-mail or telephone as spontaneous reactions to the game (no questionnaires or surveys were used). Rather than actually playing the game, my test-persons “played around” with it. These test-persons had, to some extent, seen the game at previous development stages.

Initial test results of digital Wind Bugs - mechanics I have found the mechanics to work fine, with few of the problems that I had feared. The bump-back problem is not really an issue, it is often a better strategy to do something else than to take revenge on the bumper. Actually, by the emergent effects of the game mechanics, when going for a “re-bump” a player will always land on an empty square with no flower to pick up (that is before the wind, but anyway). Of all the automated setups I have done in this digital version, only once did a flower get “fenced in” (surrounded by fences). This should not pose that much of a problem, though, as emptying the board is a nearly impossible goal anyway. If a player gets fenced in, it is of course a different matter. A fenced in player would be unable to do anything in the game. But, since players cannot start at borders or in corners, this is an even less likely situation than a flower being fenced in. What just about cannot happen, though, is bound to happen. Some kind of algorithm that ensures a playable setup should preferably be implemented. But, even if all the squares next to a player’s square were set to be empty by force, the player could still be fenced in by a frame of eight fences (there are ten in total in the current version of the game). Making a guaranteed playable setup is a difficult task; a solution in the spirit of board games could be to let the players call for a new setup if the current one is not possible to play. During the test sessions, a problem I had not thought about occurred, of course. Non-player (dummy) pieces can get trapped behind a fence in a position where it will activate the wind in every round for the remainder of the game (see figure 14). As all pieces start at the safe area in the center of the board, this will never occur in the beginning of a game. A game might though, lock up in this kind of situation quite early on. I did not find that this kind of situations (I have experienced it many times) were killing the entire game experience though. Rather than as a bug, it might be viewed as a sort of feature. For the remainder of the game, the players have to live with wind in the direction that the trapped piece indicates. Happening early in a game, though, it will make a rather large number of flowers close to impossible to capture. There can be some strategies for designing away this problem without removing the fences from the game entirely. One solution is to remove the fences from the board after a certain number of rounds. This feature will “set the captives free” and open up the game again. Another is to remove non-player pieces that have been unable to move for a certain number of rounds, this will open up the game in the same way as the previous solution, but the fences will remain in the game. A third solution is to force the cloud to move one step after a certain number of rounds at the same place. This solution will also work against players operating with a strategy of going into the cloud at every round – a gameplay problem that was also


63

observed. This strategy, though, can not be used to gain points in the long run; rather, it is a destructive strategy that can prevent one’s opponents from gaining any points. Forcing the cloud to turn is actually an easy prevention against this strategy (as well as against the trapping of non-player pieces). If implemented, rules of this kind must be accompanied by representations that help the players to predict their effect.

Figure 15: Lock-up. Both non-player pieces are trapped here. The one to the lower right is in the area that activates the wind (blowing from right to left) – and will do so for the rest of the game. The only way the players can affect the wind is to enter the cloud to add to its power. I found out that the ideas I had had about how to end the game would have to be modified. There is for example no way that the board will be completely emptied, there will always be at least a small number of flowers in desolate places which the players just won’t be able to reach. Playing for 100 rounds, as I had thought would be reasonable, will create a ridiculously long game where nothing really happens for the last 50 rounds. I think the idea of stopping after a number of rounds is a good one, though. In a four-player game, between 30 and 50 rounds might be reasonable, but probably never below 30. With more players, fewer rounds are needed, and fewer players will need more rounds. This comes from the fact that the non-player pieces, though eating, do not intentionally hunt them. I think that the game could end after one of a number of conditions was fulfilled. These could have default values depending on the number of players, but the players should preferably be able to set them into values of their preference. A possible setup could be:


64

Four-player Wind Bugs, game ends when: • 50 rounds have passed

or

• 1 (any) type/color of flower is extinct from the board

Cloud is forced to move after:

• 5 rounds in the same direction

Fences are removed after:

• 30 rounds In this example, two solutions against the trapped piece phenomena are featured. Depending on the exact settings, one of the two will often be the one having a real effect on the game. A setup/settings menu of this kind is also very effective for testing purposes.

Initial test results of digital Wind Bugs – representations While I feel rather confident that the mechanics of the current version are balanced and harmonious, I have encountered some problems on the level of representations. Everyone can identify the bugs and the cloud, and also seem to get some grip of the wind. The flowers have been interpreted as stars by one player, which surely is due to the lousy graphics. I have to a great extent been dealing with the mechanics and have not put that much work in all parts of the graphics. The problems with representation, though, are not so much connected with understanding or imagining the setting – as with understanding the underlying mechanics. The biggest problem is connected to the mechanics of the cloud. As the game runs now, everything moves too fast. It is not possible to get an impression of the cloud “patrolling” the edges of the board. I have tried to slow things down with a loop in the script, but this has not turned out very well. It must probably be accomplished by a combination of programming and animation, which actually has been my intention from the start. When the cloud finds one or more pieces (I actually label them “intruders” in the source code) this needs a proper representation as well. I think it will help if the cloud is made into a living being – like the jinni/spirit I envisioned from the start. This could actually be made both informative and fun. The cloud could bawl something like -“Two intruders in my field – how dare you”. The accumulation of the power of the cloud needs a proper representation as well, which seems a rather difficult task. As far as I can see, it will be hard to implement this as an incorporated feature of the situation that the game simulates. I find it hard to express the power of wind without referring to the mechanics themselves – but doing so might actually be acceptable in some cases. As specified earlier, I do not aim for “the immersion effect” in this game. The most important task in this case is to inform the players of how the mechanics work, but this is of course preferably done in an elegant way.


65

Another problem with the cloud is that it is not immediately obvious in which direction it will blow the wind. If a rotating fan were used, its position and direction would clearly indicate in which way the wind will blow. This could possibly be solved by “humanizing” the cloud. If the cloud were looking in a direction this would probably be enough (it would then be made to always look at the opposing edge). The living cloud could the literary “blow” the wind much as in a cartoon. Finally, a problem with understanding the ways of the wind has been in the digital versions of the game since the first version. The algorithm for moving the pieces is not accurate. When pieces bump into other objects, they actually know this beforehand – and slow down before hitting the object. This does not prevent them from transmit power to the bumped pieces, which can give very illogical effects. What I have here is a problem with the animation not supporting the mechanic very well. This must clearly be corrected, but has not been prioritized as it will not change the mechanics or game states in any way. All the changes needed here are pointing in the same direction. Representations are needed to support understanding of the mechanics. The mechanics of this game are by purpose complex and thus definitely need support. My hope is that the mechanics and the representations will finally be harmonizing in way that makes the game rather easy to get into. Complexity in a system does not have to mean that running the system is difficult – as is evident in many computer games.

A “proper” test session: participation, observation, analysis After the initial tests of this version of the game I got hold of a test-person with whom I managed to test the game on location. This test-person, a male student in his twenties, had not been subjected to the game at any stage of development. While not being a hard core gamer, I found out he was an occasional player of Chess, Backgammon and various card games. I decided to partake in the playing of the game myself – rather than having several test-persons competing against each other. This kind of observation, where the observer/researcher takes part of the event observed is (naturally) known as participant observation. Mostly, this kind of observation is used when doing observations in natural settings – rather than in an “experimental” setting. No “natural” groups of people playing Wind Bugs exist, though. Neither was the envisioned technology using mobile phones in place at the stage of testing. Testing the social dynamics of a group playing Wind Bugs would be hard, or at least would not test the dynamics of the version of the game that I am aiming to develop. My test, thus, were more focused on gameplay, strategies and to what extent the test-person would be able to get hold of the rules of the game. Being a participating observer is generally viewed as having both advantages and disadvantages (most methods have). On one side, being a participant might hinder the researcher in being a good observer. While being a part of a group, an observer might get “blind” to the particular traits of this group. Another problem is that the group studied might be altered by the presence of the participating observer. I have not, though, put interest in “the group” – rather I have been aiming to test a game. On the other side, being a participant might take focus from the (more important) role of being an observer. This will always be a problem in cases like this. I think,


66

though, that my focus is (rightly) narrow in this sense. I have not focused on the motives (other than to win the game) of the test-person. Finally, it should be remembered that observations is not the tool to use to generate representative data. If that was the primary goal, a survey would probably be better. Observations, on the other hand, focus on the peculiarities of the event observed. These observations, though, can at many times generate some generalizations about the subject being observed.113 A primary reason for participating in the test session, though, was to get a first-hand experience of the playing of game against an opponent. My method for analyzing the data might be described as being “impressionistic”. My primary goal has been to get a general feel of the gaming session. This kind of method does not have high status in the fields of behavior science (and perhaps not in any sciences), but it should again be remembered that I am not studying a group of players as much as a game session. Partly, my method of analysis might perhaps also be described as “thematic” – with mechanics, strategies and to some extent dynamics being the themes analyzed. My methods for doing this analysis, though, is largely impressionistic in itself (I have not made transcript or made any detailed analysis of exact events). This is largely due to time constraint and to the relative importance of other aspects of the project. When a stable version of the game is present, it would be interesting to run tests with focus on the interactions among the players – this could also be done in the context of gaming in general. As I made efforts to explain the representations of the game, the scope of the test is (intentionally) not to test these aspects. In some cases though, problems with the understanding of the representations were note albeit the explanations.114 Before playing the game with my test-person, I explained the rules of the game as thoroughly as one would have done if explaining a “normal” board or card game to a newcomer. This introduction, apparently, was enough for the test-person to get enough hold of the game mechanics to be able to play the game with success. During the test-session, screen movements and voices were recorded using the screen capture program SnagIt from ThechSmith. I had decided hat the test should be in a four-player mode despite the fact that we were only two people playing. This was due to the fact that I thought that this would lead to more interesting gaming situations. I had played the game by myself taking the role of four players opposing each other several times, and had great hopes that this would work. After a few rounds of playing, though, it became clear to me that the test-person was playing his bugs (red and blue) as a team! This was a rather clever strategy that proved to be successful. Though doing some initial miscalculations, one of his bugs soon had more points than mine. I complimented him on this strategy, but told him to try to act as being to separate players. He then did so, but in a rather clever way that I had not thought about. His blue bug started to act almost as an assistant to his red bug – ensuring that the red bug kept the lead. For the duration of the game, we had a really good time and both of us did put interest in the moves of the other as well as in the mechanisms of the wind. As an effect of the mechanics the game, what I think could be called strategic 113 Deacon, Pickering, Golding & Murdock (1999): 248-268 114 For an overview of methods of analysis (of interviews), See Karpatschof (1984): 21-25 and Kruuse

(1996): 137-142


67

fundamentals emerges. What I mean by this is that there exist some simple strategic cues that most players (in part unknowingly) formulate for themselves in order to play the game effectively. This, I think (I have not made any surveys on this) occurs in many card games but is less evident in games of high strategic depth. Some “fundamentals” of Wind Bugs are:

• The player that moves first in a round knows the least about that round. • Going directly against the cloud is the only way to have control of the

direction of the wind. • Knowing the direction does not mean knowing the power. • If the direction of wind is set (by previous players or by dummies), the safest

strategy is to move to the opposite border – higher wind speed will not change the position (going towards a fence may have the same effect).

• If a dummy is trapped, the direction of the wind is set for the rest of the

game.

• The player who moves last in a round has perfect information about that round. This player can aim for a square where she can be sure to end up (if calculating right). She also has a greater possibility to spoil the plans of an opponent by bumping or changing direction or power of the wind.

Playing using “fundamentals” creates, as it appears to me, a more relaxed gameplay. As noted, it would be impossible to formulate this kind of interaction rules for a deeply strategic game like Chess. Every move really matters in these games and playing after some rule or pattern would soon prove useless. In a card game, though, it is possible to play with simple rule fundamentals as “discard the lowest card that is not in a set”. The actual strategic decisions might only be taken at a few important intersections of a game session. Similar phenomena seem to be at large in Wind Bugs. In some occasions it is possible to stick to simple rules when deciding a game – it might not even be meaningful not to do so. In other cases, though, players start speculating about what the positions will be for the next round or if the plans of one’s opponents can be interrupted. Also, when playing a game with a component of private information, you might start speculate about the information that your opponents hold as well as about what the opponents know about your own information. The exact effects of the bumping of other pieces were proven rather hard to calculate; I even miscalculated it once myself. This could be made easier with some kind of preview of where the bugs are going to end up – but I believe it might be interesting to have the calculation of bumps being a valuable skill in the game. Further tests could possibly show how to handle this. Whether to show the effects of bumps (using previews) or not could also be subject to choice in the settings of the game. At some points I asked the test-person to tell me what would happen after the next time one of us would push the “Execute” button – and what the positions would be after that event. Mostly he was correct.


68

We also exercised “think aloud” for parts of the session, which showed that we were both trying to think in several steps as the gaming session evolved. The test session featured “the dummy bug trap” described earlier, where a non-player bug is trapped behind a fence – activating the wind in the same direction for the remainder of the game. This did not “kill” the game, though. Rather (as I also have experienced during my solo test sessions), it gave players some added sense of security. For the rest of the game, we knew wind would blow from the south with a power of at least four. As I see it by now, the trap is an interesting feature that I would not like to remove altogether – but the feature would be even more interesting if the trap would be released at some point. In the previous chapters I have presented two solutions to this phenomenon. The extended play-testing made me think of another one. Bugs (including dummies) opposing a fence could “eat” a part of it, making it more fragile. If a fence has “hit points” of, let’s say, 10, these would be reduced by one every time a bug is standing next to it and facing it. The non-player bugs will have to be turned in the direction of the wind for this to have the desired effect on the trap – but that would be easily arranged. Besides releasing traps, this feature could possibly “open-up” the center of the board as well. We experienced a rather big number of fences in the center as somewhat negative to gameplay – the board was partly divided into several sub-areas with little contact with each other. Bumping was rare in this test session. This should possibly make the setup settings somewhat simpler than what was suggested in a previous chapter, the only variables to consider being the total rounds of the game and the hit points of the fences (but surely, the desire for other settings will probably arise). Forced moves of the cloud, though, will in addition to tackling the “dummy trap problem”, deprive stubborn or destructive players of the possibility to control the game by going in the same direction for an entire game session.


69

Results – my achievements What I at this stage have accomplished is a computer driven board game with both complex and original game mechanics. I am really confident that I have made a board game that takes advantage of being run on a computer. My work has come to focus on the mechanics of games in general and on this game in particular, rather than on the dynamics of actual gameplay. This topic is featured in the following chapter. The mobile phone functionality is not yet fully implemented in the game – but the work to accomplish this has begun. Extransit’s view on this task is that it will be surprisingly easy. This comes, of course, from the fact that the game is in reality not played on mobile phones – it is rather played with mobile phones. What really needs to be implemented on the mobile phones is the simple interface for navigating on the board, as well as the secret information about the cards that the player is hunting.

Figure 16: Mobile phone interface. This interface is implemented for mobile phones and set to communicate with the board through a server. To continue beyond having a working demonstration example, there will be some further work. The server must be able to separate between sessions as more than one game can run at every time. There are also security issues, malicious elements might attempt at hacking themselves into an ongoing session. Besides having managed to design and develop the product, it has become clear to me that mechanics and representations are two types of phenomena that are connected to each other. Representations and themes have functionality beyond being mere decorations. The more complex the mechanics, the more need for a supporting representation for players to understand the mechanics and master the game. As a designer, I feel confident that the project has widened my repertoire of mechanics and design strategies. My theoretical perspective in this project has gone beyond referring to other sources. I have tried to deal with theories on games with a critical eye. On top of that I have also made a model of the functional levels in games – based on the theory that every game has three main operative levels, mechanics, representations and dynamics:


70

Dynamics

Representations

Mechanics

Figure 17: The three-level model of the layers of mechanics, representations and dynamics. I feel confident that this simple model will be able to help me (and possibly others) to both analyze and design games. A solution to a gameplay problem might perhaps easier be found if the problem can be located to any of these layers. To separate the functionality into these parts has surely helped me when developing Wind Bugs. As I see it, the model might especially be a valuable tool when discussing a game with colleges and clients. As stated earlier, much of my concentration has been on the layer of mechanics rather than on the other two layers. Apart from mechanics being a very important phenomena for games, this probably has several reasons. The level of representation is largely ignored in the literature on board gaming. This is contrary to the research in computer games in the humanities, where the focus on the fictional aspects of games is dominating. The belief in the importance of fiction in computer games is often exaggerated, stressing themes like interactive fiction and immersion. While this tendency is not seen in the research on board games, it has neither been replaced by a more balanced or reasonable view in this field. Board games have been studied mainly as social phenomena, cognitive exercises and to some extent – as “mechanical” systems. The layer of representation is largely lacking in the literature. It has been easy for me to see, tough, that representations have an important role in the comprehension of a game. This is documented in cognitive science as well. The representations of a game will effect the players’ interaction with it. Representations are not coded down to formal data and processed mathematically for finding the best solution – problems are actually solved in represented form (normally). Two problems whose formal structures are the same will generally be solved differently if their representations are different. Another aspect of the representation layer of board games is the affective dimension. As far as I can see, this dimension has not been studied to any noticeable extent. An interesting question is to what degree people do get involved in the fictional simulations represented in board games. Even if the level of involvement is small – no one looks for immersion in board games – if it exists at all it might have some importance. Certain segments of board game players reject abstract games, what they do seek (and find) in “themed” games is unclear – but it must be something. I have suggested that an aesthetics of simulation might be in operation – a fascination of the complexity as well as simplicity of the simulation being modeled in the game. Other groups of players might invest a higher degree of emotional or imaginary attachment to a game. These aspects are interesting and might go beyond the areas


71

of board gaming in particular and gaming in general. The level of involvement, naturally, is never entirely “in” the game. The game designer will never have complete control of to which degree this will occur – this will in the end be decided by the players. The level of dynamics is where the action takes place during gaming sessions. This level will both hold in-game interactions (manipulations of game states) and ex-game interactions. Especially the ex-game or “meta-game” types of dynamics have been studied to some extent. In most cases though, observers have studied “natives” or children rather than adults of their own ethnic group playing games. Also, the focus on games often seems to be indirect – the researchers are in reality looking for other subjects like social status or learning potentials. In any case, this aspect is rather underdeveloped in this report. There probably exists literature on this subject that could have been relevant for my project. Also, I have not by myself made any general observation of board game sessions. The tests of my demo games have largely been limited to checking whether the mechanics were sound and balanced as well as if the game was playable and experienced as fun. As stated earlier, mostly due to time constraints, I have not “stepped back” looking at gaming sessions to see what is really going on among the players. I have touched upon topics like strategies, interaction patterns and “strategic fundamentals”. In cognitive science these kinds of phenomena has been studied, mainly in Chess, but also, as I have mentioned, in other board games like Scrabble. To some extent findings in this area can be generalized to as to how people solve problems.


72

Discussion of results and process When I launched this project, I probably wanted to grasp a bit too many subjects. Looking back, what I aimed for where:

• A general theory on game mechanics • A general theory on game dynamics • Observations of traditional board game sessions • Developing a platform for the next generation of board gaming • Developing one or more games for this platform • Observations of game sessions on this platform

When developing a new game, especially with the demand of having the mechanics being both complex and novel, I came to focus on the area of game mechanics. In retrospect, I have though about the possibility to put less effort into developing a game. Instead focus could have been on observations and to develop a gaming platform onto which existing games could be implemented. These observations and attempts at implementations or adaptations of games could lead to a neat design guide for games that supported good gaming sessions on the platform. The actual game design could have been limited to taking a few existing games and implementing them on the platform, accentuating the stages of gameplay that were observed as being fascinating and let the computer handle parts of the more tedious operations. New gameplay concepts could possibly emerge along the way as the games were tweaked for the platform. On the other hand, my focus on game development has probably helped me to keep a connection between the theories (mine and others) and the domain of games. The strength of theories is of course related to their connection to reality. I regret, though, that I did not implement a simple board game on the platform at an early stage, just to see how it would run. As the project evolved, I have in part been forced to guess how an implementation of a game would behave on the platform. This concerns both how smoothly the technology will work (connections, response time etc.) and how people will experience the setting of playing games on this platform in general. Yet still, I would not be happy to do without the theoretical dimension on game mechanics, which I for some time have wanted to cover in a work like this. Having more time, and perhaps better focus, I could have followed a path of phases: theory, observation, design and observation again. The first observations would be of existing board games and perhaps some multiplayer computer games, the second observation would deal with the results of the design phase. As by now, the observations made is more of usability tests than observation of the dynamics of actual gaming sessions. This comes from the fact that what I have tested have been versions of a game under development. I have been forced to look for problems with the mechanics and the representations rather than being able to lean back and watch what is going on between the players. This kind of work is something that I still would find very interesting to do.


73

Is there a future for hybrid game forms? An important question related to this project is if hybrid board/computer games will find success outside academic circles. On a theoretical level, I would say that it is no doubt that the concept of hybrid game forms appeals to many people. I think, though, that it will be important to find an implementation that runs smoothly and is appealing in itself – lacking irritating features that make players wish they were playing a regular board game (or not playing at all). To accomplish this, there will be a need for good games suitable to the platform, good interaction design and last but not least technology that can run the hybrid games without problems. Another path for this project could have been to develop a platform with suitable functionality first – and then to design games for this platform. It is not, though, that obvious which types of functionality that will be desired in the platform before having games running on it. As by now, I have a game with interesting and novel gameplay that makes use of the possibilities of the platform. It will be interesting to see how smooth it will actually run using Extransit’s technology. Obviously, the platform would be “safer” by using PDAs with direct links to the computer running the application. Such a solution, though, would be much harder to distribute since that kind of equipment is not in everyone’s possession. Migrating from one platform to another; or from the smaller screen of a mobile phone to the slightly bigger one of a PDA, would not be a very complicated matter. The opposite situation, though, might be a bit more complicated a problem. My strategy has been to design a game for a flexible platform where other games easily could be implemented. From what I have seen of other “hybrid projects” focus has been on optimal tangible experiences. The result of this has been games which are difficult to mass-produce and distribute. The “recycling” qualities of the game devices would be another problem. Many of the projects have developed very special gadgets devoted to single games. I would rather go for the flexible hybrid platform first – and possibly add tangible input and output devices later. Despite my actions in making a flexible platform with minimum demand on users buying special hardware, it will be a far from easy task to find commercially reasonable forms of distribution for distributing games, as is discussed in the next chapter. To create a setting similar to that of a typical board game session, I have from early on in the project speculated on the possibilities of playing with a board made up of a big computer screen lying on a table. If this screen was big enough, and the visibility was good (despite players not actually “facing” the screen) this would be an obvious solution for playing the game. It would certainly be effective for demonstrations. I have though, decided not to design neither platform nor game especially for any technical devices other than what I view as necessary for the platform to run (phones, Internet-connected computer, screen). To run a game designed for standard screen on a lying screen will probably be less problematic than the opposite, but I have tried to avoid references to circumstances unique to any of these screen orientations in the actual game design (using “north” rather than “up” etc.).


74

Finding allies and markets This project is, of course, depending on a technological framework that can support the types of games that are desired. Not knowing much about mobile phone software, I initially contacted the Stockholm-based company Extransit, who specializes in software solutions for mobile devices. The people at Extransit were at first uncertain whether this really was a good idea, yet still they were actually willing to support me with some equipment and scripting. When I contacted them a couple of days later I realized they were “hooked” on the idea and since then they have been an active collaborator in the project. They have strong belief in the concept and we look forward to finding markets for this platform together. A general question has been the commercial possibilities for board game/computer game hybrids in general and Wind Bugs in particular. With a good implementation, I think that there is no question that these kinds of hybrids will be attractive to players. The problem might rather be to find a model for the distribution of these games – and have people to pay for them. In the case of traditional board games, I have the impression that the market departments want to include some kind of gadget (special dice, fanciful pieces, clay etc.) in the box to make it feel more reasonable to pay a relatively large amount of money for the game. In the computer game business, sound and graphics is to great extent what is supposed to sell a game. On the other hand, these strategies for marketing games are generally directed towards rather short-seasoned sales. Graphics that look amazing one year might be experienced as dull a few years later. Board game classics, that have had solid sales since their introduction, seldom has any paraphernalia beyond what is reasonable related to the mechanics. It may seem, also, as if games that have commercial success over time have some rather unique qualities in their mechanics which make them stimulating to play. What I am trying to conclude with here is that it might be easier to market a game that is experienced as “awesome” by the first encounter. Many “classics”, though, tend to lack this quality of attraction. If the hybrid games were experienced as fun – there certainly would be players playing them. To find a model for distribution as well as for selling/subscribing is certainly a challenge. The technical circumstances will also be important. The players will have to download the software to their mobile phones, start a gaming session on an Internet-connected computer and connect their phone applications to this session. If this procedure is experienced as cumbersome and/or risky, the whole concept is threatened. When it comes to Wind Bugs, this game is probably “a gamer’s game”. It might not attract people looking for a “pastime”, neither “immersion type” computer game players nor “mind type” two-player board game players. As a matter of fact, though, both “German” and “American” type board games have rather large followings – and many of them are commercially successful (some of them enormously so). In the area of computer games, there has also emerged an “independent” fringe (analogous to independent music) of gamers and designers looking for games with interesting mechanics or themes rather than massive stimulation.115 If Wind Bugs, or other games using the same platform, should be targeted against the consumer market, there will also be logistical problems as how to charge people

115 See http://www.manifestogames.com/. Note that it is not my intention to look down on “box office”

games – I occasionally play this kind of games myself.


75

for playing it. Shall players pay for the software for the mobile phones – while the online application would be freely available (but useless without a mobile phone without the necessary software)? Or should it be the other way around, users can freely download the software for the phones – but must subscribe in order to login to the web application? Another idea is to develop games that can be featured in places like pubs or amusement arcades. The problems of distribution and marketing are challenges that I have talked through with Extransit on several occasions without, yet, finding any final solutions. To introduce the concept, it might be wise to stick to a game that is simpler and more in line with what the target group is accustomed to. Wind Bugs was designed to take advantage of some of the possibilities that emerge with implementation of the platform. This has led to a game which people seem to find interesting. To get a grip of the game, though, might be a little bit demanding. Getting into the game, though not really complicated, is not as immediate an experience as many action-based computer games. Extransit reports getting exalted reactions while demonstrating a simple Soccer game. The game is based upon the classic Rock-Paper-Scissors principle (intransitive relations), but the setting with two players fighting each other using a mobile phone each seem to be a major part of the appeal. The role of the representational aspect of Soccer should neither be neglected. The Soccer game, though, does not use a common screen for a board; it is not and never was intended to be a board game. Finding a simple game that could be used to demonstrate the concept might be a middle way, before introducing the new generation of hybrid board games (of which Wind Bugs is an example). Besides introducing really simple games, a reliable path is to base the games on well-known classics. Scrabble is a game that would fit well into this platform, as well as would many card games. Besides going for the open consumer market, of which I have little experience, developing games for clients is another possible path. To run applications of this kind on conferences, other events or in educational settings are rather obvious possibilities. I plan to showcase the concept for organizations that I hope can be interested in a concept like this. My contacts within fields like education and internal communication might possibly be interested in the concept. I am aware that it can take a long time before an idea like this “breaks through”, but that makes the importance of communicating the idea even bigger. In September 2007, I will hold a demonstration of the platform for the Danish network “praktisk anvendelse af hybride læringsrum” (finding areas of use for hybrid “learning rooms”). I have already been spreading the word to some of my contacts in Norway. One of these has, as an effect of this (I believe), actually asked me for some kind of a digital board game. An upcoming art project to which I will contribute will possibly include some kind of implementation of this technology/platform. Extransit has some venues for exposure as well. While certainly not being actual “break-throughs”, these projects are possibly small steps in the right direction.


76

References

Bibliography Aarseth E (2003): Playing Research: Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis, Paper presented at MelbourneDAC 2003, http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Aarseth.pdf Abbott R (1975): “Under the Strategy Tree”, Games & Puzzles, No. 36, http://www.logicmazes.com/games/tree.html Adams E (2001): Replayability Part 2: Game Mechanics, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010703/adams_pfv.htm Adams E (2003): The Construction of Ludic Space, Digra, http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.52280.pdf Adams E (2004a): Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! V, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040611/adams_pfv.htm Adams E (2004b): Postmodernism and the Three Types of Immersion, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040709/adams_pfv.htm Aleknevicus G (2001): Simulation vs. Mechanics in Gaming, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Simulation&Mechanics.shtml Aleknevicus G (2003): Player Interaction, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/PlayerInteraction.shtml Aleknevicus G (2004): German Games are Fraudulent, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Fraudulent.shtml Bewersdorff J (2005): Luck, Logic & White Lies: The Mathematics of Games (translated by D Kramer), A K Peters Björk S & Holopainen J (2004): Patterns in Game Design, Charles River Media Björk S, Lundgren S & Holopainen J (2003): “Game Design Patterns”, In Copier M & Raessens J (Eds.): Level Up - Proceedings of Digital Games Research Conference, Utrecht, http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~lundsus/bjork_et_al_game_design_patterns.pdf Bura S (2006): A Game Grammar, http://users.skynet.be/bura/diagrams/ Crawford C (1982): The Art of Computer Game Design (Electronic Version), Erasmatazz, http://www.erasmatazz.com/free/AoCGD.pdf Csíkszentmihályi M (1996): Flow: Den optimala upplevelsens psykologi (Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Swedish translation by Grip G), Natur och kultur Danesi M (2002): The Puzzle Instinct: The Meaning of Puzzles in Human Life, Indiana University Press (e-book) Dansky R (2007): ”Introduction to Game Narrative”, In Bateman C (ed.): Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames, pp. 1-24, Charles River Media Davis M D (1997): Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction, Dover Publications


77

Deacon D, Pickering M, Golding P & Murdock G (1999): Researching Communications, Arnold Publishers Depaulis T (2004): Ludemes (Discussion group post), http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/msg/0a05631d64e34dea?hl=en& Douglas Y & Hargadon A (2000): “The Pleasure Principle: Immersion, Engagement, Flow”, In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 153–160, ACM Press, http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~jdouglas/immersion.pdf Eriksson D, Peitz J & Björk S. (2005): Enhancing Board Games with Electronics, http://intranet.tii.se/components/results/files/eriksson.pdf Ermi L & Mäyrä F (2005): Fundamental Components of the Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion, Digra, http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06276.41516.pdf Faidutti B (2005): Themes & Mechanics 1.0, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/ThemesMechanics1.shtml Frasca G (2001): Simulation 101: Simulation versus Representation, http://www.ludology.org/articles/sim1/simulation101.html Frasca G (2003): Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology, http://ludology.org/articles/VGT_final.pdf Frasca G (2004): “Videogames of the Oppressed: Critical Thinking, Education, Tolerance and Other Trivial Issues”, In Harrington P & Wardrip-Fruin N (eds.): First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, pp. 85-94, MIT Press Frasca, G (2006): Immersion, Outmersion & Critical Thinking, Dream, http://www.dream.sdu.dk/uploads/files/Gonzalo%20Frasca.pdf Gobet F, de Voogt A & Retschitzki J (2004): Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games, Psychology Press Goffman E (1972): Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Penguin University Books Hardin A (2001): Is it Really about Theme vs. Mechanics?, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/ThemeVsMechanics.shtml Järvinen A (2003): Making and Breaking Games: A Typology of Rules, Digra, http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05163.56503 Johnson B (2001): Great Expectations: Building a Player Vocabulary, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/resource_guide/20010716/johnson_pfv.htm Juul J (2001): The Repeatedly Lost Art of Studying Games, Game Studies, http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-review/ Juul J (2005): Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and fictional Worlds, The MIT Press Karpatschof L (1984) “Den faenomenorienterede casemetode” (Phenomena oriented case method), Tidskrift for Nordisk Förening for Pedagogisk Forskning, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 14-25


78

Kirsh D & Maglio P (1992): Some Epistemic Benefits of Action: Tetris a Case Study, http://adrenaline.ucsd.edu/kirsh/articles/SomeEpistemicBenefits/some.pdf Kirsh D & Maglio P (1994): “On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 18, pp. 513-549 Koster R (2005): A Grammar of Gameplay: Game Atoms, Can Games be Diagrammed? Slides for Game Designers Conference (GDC), http://theoryoffun.com/grammar/gdc2005.htm Kreimeier B (2002): The Case for Game Design Patterns, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020313/kreimeier_pfv.htm Kruuse E (1996): Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i psykologi og beslægtede fag (Qualitative research methods in psychology and related disciplines), Dansk Psykologisk Forlag Lantz F (2004): “Ironclad: A game for 2 players”, In Salen K & Zimmerman E (eds.): Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, pp. 286-297, The MIT Press Larsen T W (1999): Designing Games for Novice Gamers, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990514/nongamers_01.htm Lazzaro, Nicole (2004a): Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion in Player Experiences, Paper presented at the Game Developers Conference 2004 Lazzaro, Nicole (2004b): Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion without Story, (abstract of Lazzaro 2004a), http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf Lindley C (2002): “The Gameplay Gestalt, Narrative, and Interactive Storytelling”, In Mäyrä F (ed.): Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, pp. 203-215, Tampere University Press Lindley C (2005): The Semiotics of Time Structure in Ludic Space as a Foundation for Analysis and Design, Game Studies, http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/ Lopez M (2006): Gameplay Design Fundamentals: Gameplay Progression, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061128/lopez_01.shtml Lundgren S (2002): Joining Bits and Pieces - How to make Entirely New Board Games using Embedded Computer Technology, MSc Thesis, IT University of Göteborg, http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~lundsus/lundgren_joining_bits_and_pieces.pdf Lundgren S (2003): How to Join Bits & Pieces, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/BitsAndPieces.shtml Lundgren S & Björk S (2003): Game Mechanics: Describing Computer-Augmented Games in Terms of Interaction, http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~lundsus/lundgren_bjork_game_mechanics.pdf Magerkurth C, Engelke T & Memisoglu M (2004): Augmenting the Virtual Domain with Physical and Social Elements, http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/ambiente/paper/2004/magerkurth.carsten.domains.pdf Magerkurth C, Memisoglu M, Engelke T & Streitz N (2004): Towards the Next Generation of Tabletop Gaming Experiences, http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/ambiente/paper/2004/gi_tabletop_final.pdf


79

Maglio P, Matlock T, Raphaely D, Chernicky B, & Kirsh D (1999): Interactive Skill in Scrabble, http://adrenaline.ucsd.edu/kirsh/articles/cogsci-final2/cogsci-final2.html Mandryk R L, Maranan D S & Inkpen K M (2002): False Prophets: Exploring Hybrid Board/Video Games, http://www.reganmandryk.com/pubs/mandryk_chi2002.pdf Murray J H (1997): Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, The MIT Press Parlett D (1991): A History of Card Games, Oxford University Press Parlett D (1999): The Oxford History of Board Games, Oxford University Press Pearce C (1997): The Interactive Book: A Guide to the Interactive Revolution, Macmillan Technical Publishing Pulsipher L (2006): The Essence of Euro-style Games, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Essence.shtml Rollings A & Adams E (2003): On Game Design, New Riders Ryan T (1999): The Anatomy of a Design Document, Part 2: Documentation Guidelines for the Functional and Technical Specifications, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19991217/ryan_pfv.htm Salen K & Zimmerman E (2004): Rules of play: Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press Sánchez-Crespo Dalmau D (1999): Learn Faster to Play Better: How to Shorten the Learning Cycle, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19991108/dalmau_01.htm Thompson M J (2000): Defining the Abstract, The Games Journal, http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/DefiningtheAbstract.shtml Ullmer B & Ishii H (2000): Emerging Frameworks for Tangible User Interfaces, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3&4, pp. 915-931, http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part3/ullmer.pdf Wilson G (2006): Off with Their HUDs: Rethinking the Heads-Up Display in Console Game Design, Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060203/wilson_pfv.htm Zagal J P, Mateas M, Fernández-Vara C, Hochhalter B & Lichti N (2005): Towards an Ontological Language for Game Analysis, Digra, http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06276.09313.pdf Zhang J (1990): The interaction of internal and external information in a problem solving task (Technical Report 9005), University of California, Department of Cognitive Science, http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/research/publications/TR9005.pdf Zhang J (1997): “The nature of external representations in problem solving”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 179-217


80

Web sites BoardGameGeek, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/ The Chess Variant Pages, http://www.chessvariants.org Manifesto Games, http://www.manifestogames.com/


81

Appendices

Appendix 1: Game Mechanics listed on BoardGameGeek 1. Acting (Players must represent another/perform theatrically) 2. Action Point Allowance System (Players get a set number of points each turn to devote to various actions, at their discretion) 3. Area Enclosure (Fence off or surround) 4. Area Movement (Chiefly for war games, movement traverses irregular areas rather than a grid) 5. Area-Impulse

(Each impulse, players activate map areas and move units in those areas to accomplish movement and combat. Used in Avalon Hill titles such as Storm over Arnhem, Thunder at Cassino, Turning Point: Stalingrad and Breakout: Normandy)

6. Auction/Bidding (Evaluation and bidding for elements) 7. Betting/Wagering (Players risk money to gain more money, based on the outcome of the game or sub-game) 8. Campaign/Battle Card Driven (War games featuring card-driven battles and/or general game events) 9. Card Drafting (Players make selections from a number of open card choices) 10. Chit-Pull System (In war games, drawing chits which give extraordinary abilities) 11. Co-operative Play (All of the players, or all but one, play as a team and win or lose together) 12. Commodity Speculation (Players acquire commodities or other speculative elements in the hope that the value will rise) 13. Crayon Rail System (Players draw (usually railroad) tracks between cities) 14. Dice Rolling (...) 15. Hand Management

(Players are given a collection of cards with which to accomplish a set of goals with the caveat being that players should be very frugal with the cards)

16. Hex-and-Counter (Played by moving cardboard counters over a map superimposed with a hexagonal grid as in many wargames)

17. Line Drawing (Players produce a likeness by making lines on a surface) 18. Memory (Memorizing hidden game states is useful in playing well) 19. Modular Board

(The playing surface of this game is composed of changeable elements which are vary with each playing (different setup), or mutate during play)

20. Paper-and-Pencil (Plays mostly using pencil and paper. Does not include games like Bridge where it only includes scorekeeping or Boggle where where [sic] it is merely used to record information)

21. Partnerships (Each player cooperates with at least one other, winning or losing as a team) 22. Pattern Building (...) 23. Pattern Recognition (...) 24. Pick-up and Deliver

(Players need to physically move resources around the board to fill demands or game requirements)

25. Point to Point Movement (...)


82

26. Rock-Paper-Scissors (Based on the simple children's game of the same name, players attempt to out wit opponents by correctly guessing and countering others' moves. Also, Rock-Paper-Scissors requires that some moves are 'better' than others)

27. Role Playing (...) 28. Roll and Move (...) 29. Secret Unit Deployment (Player's on-board resources are not implicitly known by all players, all the time) 30. Set Collection (Players seek to acquire particular sets of elements and usually more of one type is better) 31. Simulation (...) 32. Simultaneous Action Selection

(Each player picks his action for the turn secretly, and then all moves are resolved simultaneously)

33. Singing (...) 34. Stock Holding

(Players acquire interest through purchasing stock, which usually means one player does\'t have exclusive control/benefit over an element)

35. Storytelling (...) 36. Tile Placement (This game features non-moving tiles arranged on a playing surface) 37. Trading (Players exchange resources to better suit their individual needs) 38. Trick-taking

(A genre of card games which has players serially putting cards up with the winner (by whatever means) getting some sort of reward/penalty for his troubles)

39. Variable Phase Order (Order of the phases changes from turn to turn; not all phases may be present every turn) 40. Variable Player Powers (More than 2 players; each has different abilities) 41. Voting (Players make game decisions together by voting)

Documents

Best of Both Worlds - mau€¦ · Best of Both Worlds || Master Thesis || MAH || Jonas Rören || [email protected] 4 Introduction: explaining concept and goal My aim with