I enjoy both playing and designing games. As a school teacher I have used and designed games for use in my classroom to help my students meet their learning goals. Outside of the classroom I have also designed and modified games for my gaming friends. Again and again I have likened a good game to a car, where the mechanics are the engine. Normally, I dislike analogy, but make a rare exception here. In this post I discuss aspects of game design including number of players, fun factor and meta-gaming, goals, and mechanics.
Mentzer’s Red Box included a single-player game. Several of the following B-series modules could be run by oneself. That is, the person playing was both the referee and player. This may fly in the face of some gamers, but why? Clearly role-playing games have social aspects, but, when created properly, some rpgs can be just as much fun alone as in group play.
Is the game designed for multiple players, but is also fun when you’re not playing with others? In my opinion, this is something that can increase the fun factor no matter what genre or goal. Most role-playing games have a high meta-game factor for the referees, but not for players. How to increase this for players is a question a good designer asks themselves.
What makes such a game fun? Each person may have different concepts of fun, but if we’ve gathered around a common game, there must also be something each person can get out of it to derive pleasure. Fun is critical, but it is also vague and only part of the picture. I agree with Ian Schreiber that a game designer should pay close attention to, not only how much fun players are having, but what they spend their time doing during game play. Do the players spend large amounts of time in melee combat when the goal of your game is political maneuvering? Good games are designed to reward players based on the game’s goal.
What is the game’s goal? This should be an important consideration when designing a game. Akin to learning objectives for teachers, this is the framework or praxis that undergirds everything. The mechanics, art, layout, pace, etc, all feed into a concept which attempts to accomplish a goal or goals. All aspects of the game don’t have to drive towards a goal, but most should.
What mechanic is used a lot? Is it used consistently? Can gamers understand it easily? Does it match the goal/setting? Do the mechanics increase or decrease fun? Is working out a good combination of rolls a fun and challenging part of the game, or does it get overly complicated and bog down the fun? The answer to these questions varies from gamer to gamer. They are questions to consider, however, when designing a game for your friends. Will they want to understand the mechanics?
Dice probability quickly gets complicated. What referees and players are asked to do with the outcomes and the use of charts further complicates the math behind the mechanics. However, just because the mathematics behind the rolling is complicated doesn’t mean understanding how to play the game is complicated, too. I’ve had fourth grade students learn to play a variety of card games successfully that have extremely complicated probabilities behind them.
When designing games it behooves the designer to understand, to some extent, probability. In this way, s/he can create a game engine that does what s/he wants it to. I’m not talking about balancing of powers, but balancing of probabilities when it’s needed. The goal of the game, in many cases, dictates what the mechanics should be. For example, are you designing a near future game, with a focus on politics? A good game design might be to increase the probability of death by firearm combat and increase the chances of both succeeding and needing to apply political means. Understanding a little about probability also enables gamers to create effective house rules.
Bell curves offer a quick way to understand probability. Image the x-axis as the number of different possible outcomes and the y-axis as the probability of those outcomes occurring. The frequency of the rolls is important when selecting dice and combinations. For example, if rolling for stats, you should probably increase the number of dice rolled to “flatten” your bell curve. If you have a low number of dice for stat rolling, there is a greater probability of rolling extreme stats. On the flip side, if you’re doing a specific roll often, you may want to reduce the number of die. You will adhere to the bell curve over time, while still allowing players a higher probability of extreme rolls (which are fun in combat, but not so much during character generation). As the number of dice in the pool is increased, the standard deviation also tends to increases and the mean result lowers. In other words, as you increase the dice pool you are more likely to roll closer to the average.
As you increase the number of faces on your die, you obviously increase the number of possible results, but you also increase the range of results. A low number of die with a high number of faces provides an extremely wide bell curve. Assuming you add the die results, as you increase the number of die in the pool, the bell curve gets wider and flattens out on top. As you increase the number of faces on the die, only the bell curve base widens.
Die Roll CombinationsLow die/high face: With this roll, extremes are likely. When there are large number of possible outcomes that are nearly equally likely to happen, this is a good selection. Charts and tables benefit from this type of die roll.
Low die/low face: This combination gives a small range of likely outcomes. This works well for damages. It provides a tightly controlled variation of outcomes. When there are a small number of possible outcomes that are nearly equal, this is a good selection.
High die/high face: This works well for conflicting roll. When you need an extremely large number of possible outcomes, this is a good selection.
High die/low face: Large range, average or close to average likely. This works well for character stats. When there are a large number of possible outcomes, but most results are grouped around the mean, this is a good selection.
These are a few characteristics of role-playing games that I consider when playing, running, and designing games. They are far from clear or complete. I hope to continue these thoughts in future posts.
Resources