Reflections from TTN and BGGcon

Last week, I went to Tabletop Network and BGGcon. The entire week was very positive and I feel I emerged a better designer.

The overall impression I came away with was how important player psychology is to rules/mechanism design. Sometimes the only compelling reason to change a rule is because players will be happier with it, even if it has no impact or negative impact on the overall system. I have seen this idea before, but last week really drove home how prevalent it was. Which also adds a new layer to focus on when playtesting.

I was further surprised by how many "playtests" were conducted that consisted of rules explanations and component discussion only. When you have access to designers who can see mostly how the game would play from the explanation or who you want to critique the aesthetics/UI, it makes sense to spend more time on feedback than actual gameplay. It also helps to be bad at absorbing rules, because you (I) can stand in for less experience gamers.

Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of discussion about how to improve theme integration and UI. Everyone seems to come at the problem from a different angle depending on their background and academic inclination, but only one panel danced close to visual design theory. The panel was about tempo, so I won't complain that the focus was too narrow, since I'm just happy someone was talking about rhythm at all. I think game design should be like liberal arts: the more different areas/perspectives you learn about, the stronger a designer you will be. Hopefully, design theory one day becomes a more common perspective.

I'm not sure what to do about new designers (myself included) who have good themes/concepts for a game and then pick the easiest to design (read: well trod) mechanisms as the vehicle for the game. Obviously, many new designers don't know how uninspired their gameplay is, because they haven't done the research. I'm always torn between telling them to toss the mechanism or giving them feedback to make the existing game as strong as possible in the view that this game design will likely just be a stepping stone to better future designs. I have discovered that while I might get artistically indignant ("Your game needs cool art!"), I will never be the type of playtester who leaves a new designer in tears.

On the flip side, having had a couple of my games get unsympathetically dismantled before, I would rather have my games taken apart by a designer than have them say "It's fine." My most useful playtests this week were with designers who have worked in the same genre and had strong opinions about what my game could be.

Maybe it was Gil Hova's panel about integrating theme, but a common refrain last week was a designer asking for help retheming their game. Obviously, publishers do this often and thus have some skill in it. But I did see a space for designers who are really good at theme to help other designers who haven't attracted publishers yet. Improv theatre and scene design may give me a leg up in this arena.

That's it for TTN and BGG! 

Board Game Design and the Theatre Arts Perspective

It occurs to me that this whole blog is shaping up to be "how the arts can influence board game design for the better." We started with general visual art theory then moved to comparing board game design styles to architecture and engineering. Today, we're going to compare board games to theatre. I'm going to skip over RPGs, although that crossover between board games and theatre is clear.

Board games, of course, are a category of 'play' where scenarios are bounded by rules and play is performed with pieces. Theatre is elaborately produced 'plays', i.e. imaginary scenarios bounded by sets and props and costumes and lights. The primary difference between the two is that in theatre, the play is performed for the entertainment of the audience; in board games, the game is played for the entertainment of the players.

Theatre is arguably the most interactive of the fine arts. After all, the art is partially being made while it is being viewed and has a certain malleability designed into it based on audience reaction. This is why shows have previews, so that typical audience reaction can be incorporated into the show. As far as I know, musicians don't really do this, even though they too can feed off audience reaction. And recently, theatre has been pushing further into the interactive realm with immersive experiences like Sleep No More.

Board games have always been fully interactive. Players have full access to the intended game experience or can even change the game if there is a rule they particularly don't like. Most entertainment experiences are consumed passively, but board games require active participation. In many ways, board games exist where theatre has only begun to tread. That said, there is a lot board game designers could learn from theatre.

In Principles of Design #9: Rhythm, I introduced the idea of 'acting beats'. Beats are small units of action with a single goal. Each actor has their own set of beats all of which combine to make up a scene. Scenes combine to make an act. Similarly, board games have actions which make up turns which make up rounds (or sometimes phases). Players should have clearly defined goals for why they would take an action, although those goals could be in conflict with each other. Conflict creates drama! Games designers should take on the role of a director, planning how these beats and scenes can flow together to drive player engagement thru the entire game. Directors are in charge of pacing, meaning knowing when to turn up the intensity and when to give the audience a moment to breathe. Players, even more than passive audience members, need to have a balance between being bored and overwhelmed. Pacing should convey the mood of the game while allowing players moments to digest new information. 

Pacing largely concerns the time element of gameplay; I'd like to spend a moment on visuals. Sightlines, in theatre, are imaginary lines that tell a designer, director, or actor where backstage stops and onstage starts for any member of the audience. This is done by delineating the most extreme angles of the seating compared to the stage space. If you want to know if something looks good, you will probably stand in the center of the audience to view it. But if you want to know how bad it could look to a paying customer, you go to the edges. As I mentioned when talking about Context in Principles of Design #7, games designers need to look at their components from every angle. So many boards are designed from a single point perspective that makes no sense when viewed upside down. Jamey Stegmaier recently delved more into this topic in a video about accessibility. Remember, every player's eyes will be viewing your game from a different angle.

The next concept from theatre that I want to emphasize is that of the overall experience. Not every theatre focuses on immersion, but all of them put effort into creating an experience that starts from the time you walk into the lobby and ends when you leave the building. Preshow and postshow music, actor headshots, programs, ushers, everything is intentionally provided to add and not distract from the experience. That doesn't mean it's always a success, but 'pulling focus' is one of the cardinal sins of theatre. Every element exists to help the audience appropriately participate in the play (yes, turning off your cell phones is a part of the experience). Many of these elements have become ritualized to the point that, while they may not be immersive, they enable theatergoers to enter into the mind space required to suspend disbelief. Everyone knows that turning down the lights means get quiet and pay attention to what's coming next. 

Board games have similar rituals. Clearing a table. Opening the box. Unpacking and setting up the components. Asking players their color preferences. Referencing the rules for starting conditions that no one can ever remember. Picking a start player. These are a part of the gameplay experience. If not fun, these rituals should at least not detract from the gameplay. A tabletop board game should fit on a table, be intuitive to unpack and repack. Rules should be clear and have a quick setup reference. 

Lastly, good design in theatre, like any design field, fully integrates all elements into a single design vision. Every component, every graphic, every word in a game should be integrated into the whole. We mock television shows for missing coffee cups on set, but think our designs get a pass. They do not. 

As I have previously mentioned on this blog, I work in theatre. The thing that keeps drawing me back to theatre is the collaboration between artists. That is also what draws me to board game design. 

Architecture versus Engineering

In the first post of the Principles of Design series, I state that engineering isn't architecture. I'd like to unpack that in this post. 

The heart of my argument is that if you only pay attention to the mathematical/mechanical elements of game design you are missing most of what makes design design. I'd like to back that up by directing your attention to the non-stop discussion in the game design sphere about how good mechanics aren't enough to get a game to sell, that you need something else. What you don't see in those spaces is a clear, concise idea of what that something else is. In one case, it's table presence/curb appeal. In another, theme or narrative. Perhaps it's innovation or player experience. I think it's all of those things and that they all fall under having a better idea of Design from a formalist perspective. Hence my series. 

Now, I am not saying that you have to have studied design theory to be a good designer. Like with any skill, some people will have a greater innate understanding or taste without any formal training. You don't need to know music theory to be a musician. You don't have to have studied story structure to be a novelist. But an untrained musician still works within the bounds of music theory, by and large, and an untrained novelist who is any good usually has an innate sense of pacing and structure even if they don't have the vocabulary for it. 

So there are plenty of great board game designs and designers. But there are also plenty of easily avoidable goofs that have little to do with pure mechanics. Mechanics are also said to be 'designed' but more and more I think of them as 'engineered'. I don't mean that to sound negative, either. Engineering is the 'How to' and is beautiful and complex in its own way. Design is the 'Why'. Now that our hobby has a lexicon for the mechanical understructure, I believe it is time to develop an aesthetic lexicon to go with it. 

Oftentimes, we see art as a thing people either can or cannot do, whereas engineering is the result of training. But art skills can absolutely be improved with training. Most of art is being able to see the important parts of what you are trying to execute. The rest, of course is the execution. We become better designers when we can see without effort or extensive product testing which options will better support the whole design. 

Developing your aesthetic sense can help with theming, table presence, visual information transmission, pacing, sell sheets, pitching, and more. Knowing what information or elements to include and what to leave out is the core of design. This could mean more beautiful, atmospheric games, but also games that are funnier, scarier, more exciting, more fun. 

You may believe that it is the work of a developer or a publisher to steer a game to a certain artistic expression. But having a clear design vision will make your game stronger, even if it gets redesigned down the road by a publisher. Developing a better sense of design doesn't require you to be an artist or a great writer. A good designer can make a 'clip-art on white cardstock' game that clearly articulates the design vision in an appealing way. And of course, if you're planning on Kickstarting your game, then having a good design foundation is a must. 

Students of theatre are strongly encouraged to cross-train in areas outside of their focus, in order to better understand the process of making theatre, but also because artistic training of any sort will make you a better artist. So even if you are a mechanics only designer who relies on someone else for theme, graphics, layout, art, sell sheets, prototypes, etc., you still need to have an understanding of design. Even from a mechanics only standpoint, the principles of design still apply. All elements of a design should be fully integrated. Every element should add to the experience and reinforce the design vision. Your mechanics should be designed to produce a desired experience. Perfect mechanics in a vacuum is not a game. And if mechanics, too, are experiential, then they are also subject to emotional content, pacing, and mood. 

Every element of board games should be designed. All it takes is a little aesthetic sense and a vision. And a few guiding design principles, of course.