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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment