I'm frequently struck by the similarities between how board game designers talk about general design approaches and my college acting classes. Frequently, I hear designers talk about the overlap of concepts with film studies classes. For the record, film studies is probably a more efficient class to aid in game design, but I only took acting, so that's what I'm looking at.
[I'm using the term 'scene work', because that covers both acting and directing concepts. Board game designers are like the directors of a game experience (more like a screen writer, but go with me) and players are the actors (conveniently also called players). I'm focusing on basic acting terms for this post.]
Scene work in acting is the breaking down of a scene into all of the motivations, emotions, actions, and so on, for each character in a scene. The result of scene work should be to find the emotional drama in a scene. For our purposes, scene work is when designers break apart their prototypes and reexamine every element. And our goal should be to increase the emotional engagement in our games.
The most important element in every scene is the goal. A goal could also be called an objective, intention, purpose, want, action, or victory. Each actor must have a goal in the scene. Goals must be pursued and must be difficult to achieve. There can be overall goals, such as win the game, and short term goals, such as get resources.
In order to have drama, goals must have obstacles. Obstacles must stand in the way of goals. This creates conflict, which is drama. Games must have obstacles that stand in the way of winning (or just letting the players do whatever they want). The biggest obstacle in acting is 'the other' -the other person in the scene- which translates to board games as the other players.
The methods used to achieve a goal are called tactics. Tactics in acting are used to evoke emotional responses from 'the other'. Tactics often alternate between threats and inducements. Taking actions that resonate emotionally will help raise the dramatic stakes of a game. Tying mechanical tactics in games to emotional responses will strengthen the players' connection to the actions and their ability to remember them.
I have defined beats several times in previous posts. Beats are units where actors employ a single tactic, usually a single emotion. Actors are taught to act out one emotion at a time but to be able to shift rapidly from one to the next. In game design, each type of action has a unique emotional content, outside of the thrill of a well-executed strategy. Chopping lumber has a different emotional content from repairing a mech. Emotional content, for our purposes, does not have to make a player feel particularly happy or sad but rather should draw a player into deeper engagement with the theme. The problem with point salad style games is that the action choices are so all over the map that it is difficult for players to engage with the emotional content of the various actions.
Actors use expectations to make their characters more interesting and invested in the scene. Expectations create energy which is realized as enthusiasm. Interesting characters should expect victory in their pursuit of goals. Players should also expect to be able to win. Additionally, strong thematic ties can increase engagement when a mechanism works the way a player expects it would. In Ex Libris, library books in your tableau must be alphabetized because you are building a library, so of course they should be.
The process of acting hinges on making choices. Actors choose which goals and tactics to pursue in a scene. If you have ever seen different interpretations of Hamlet, you understand how the same script can yield very different choices depending on the actor. Choices provide the inner (or emotional) and outer (or physical) action in a scene. Good choices are made with enthusiasm, are both physical and psychological, and involve other characters. Bad choices are safe, easy, emotionless, unprovocative, and don't involve others. Actors are often encouraged to make strong choices, especially early in the rehearsal process, rather than focus on making 'right' choices. Sometimes choices are 'strong but wrong!' Making bold choices is important in game design as well. Designers should be enthusiastic about exploring unfamiliar territory, even if the results are not stellar at first. Games should make players feel comfortable exploring bold strategies, rather than playing it safe. Bold choices are a sign of enthusiasm, and we want enthusiastic players, after all. Furthermore, designers should weigh the emotional content or cost of different choices. (I know I just said this about tactics, but it bears repeating.) Even from a purely mechanical standpoint, there are different emotions at play in player who pursues multiple strategies at once and a player who doubles down on one strategy.
The more I looked at this topic, the more I realized how much overlap there is between game design and basic acting theory. The biggest difference is that the same concepts that are used mechanically in game design are emotion-driven in acting. Given that humans are emotional creatures, perhaps game design could benefit from a little scene work.
For this post I relied heavily on Robert Cohen's Acting One, available here.
[I'm using the term 'scene work', because that covers both acting and directing concepts. Board game designers are like the directors of a game experience (more like a screen writer, but go with me) and players are the actors (conveniently also called players). I'm focusing on basic acting terms for this post.]
Scene work in acting is the breaking down of a scene into all of the motivations, emotions, actions, and so on, for each character in a scene. The result of scene work should be to find the emotional drama in a scene. For our purposes, scene work is when designers break apart their prototypes and reexamine every element. And our goal should be to increase the emotional engagement in our games.
The most important element in every scene is the goal. A goal could also be called an objective, intention, purpose, want, action, or victory. Each actor must have a goal in the scene. Goals must be pursued and must be difficult to achieve. There can be overall goals, such as win the game, and short term goals, such as get resources.
In order to have drama, goals must have obstacles. Obstacles must stand in the way of goals. This creates conflict, which is drama. Games must have obstacles that stand in the way of winning (or just letting the players do whatever they want). The biggest obstacle in acting is 'the other' -the other person in the scene- which translates to board games as the other players.
The methods used to achieve a goal are called tactics. Tactics in acting are used to evoke emotional responses from 'the other'. Tactics often alternate between threats and inducements. Taking actions that resonate emotionally will help raise the dramatic stakes of a game. Tying mechanical tactics in games to emotional responses will strengthen the players' connection to the actions and their ability to remember them.
I have defined beats several times in previous posts. Beats are units where actors employ a single tactic, usually a single emotion. Actors are taught to act out one emotion at a time but to be able to shift rapidly from one to the next. In game design, each type of action has a unique emotional content, outside of the thrill of a well-executed strategy. Chopping lumber has a different emotional content from repairing a mech. Emotional content, for our purposes, does not have to make a player feel particularly happy or sad but rather should draw a player into deeper engagement with the theme. The problem with point salad style games is that the action choices are so all over the map that it is difficult for players to engage with the emotional content of the various actions.
Actors use expectations to make their characters more interesting and invested in the scene. Expectations create energy which is realized as enthusiasm. Interesting characters should expect victory in their pursuit of goals. Players should also expect to be able to win. Additionally, strong thematic ties can increase engagement when a mechanism works the way a player expects it would. In Ex Libris, library books in your tableau must be alphabetized because you are building a library, so of course they should be.
The process of acting hinges on making choices. Actors choose which goals and tactics to pursue in a scene. If you have ever seen different interpretations of Hamlet, you understand how the same script can yield very different choices depending on the actor. Choices provide the inner (or emotional) and outer (or physical) action in a scene. Good choices are made with enthusiasm, are both physical and psychological, and involve other characters. Bad choices are safe, easy, emotionless, unprovocative, and don't involve others. Actors are often encouraged to make strong choices, especially early in the rehearsal process, rather than focus on making 'right' choices. Sometimes choices are 'strong but wrong!' Making bold choices is important in game design as well. Designers should be enthusiastic about exploring unfamiliar territory, even if the results are not stellar at first. Games should make players feel comfortable exploring bold strategies, rather than playing it safe. Bold choices are a sign of enthusiasm, and we want enthusiastic players, after all. Furthermore, designers should weigh the emotional content or cost of different choices. (I know I just said this about tactics, but it bears repeating.) Even from a purely mechanical standpoint, there are different emotions at play in player who pursues multiple strategies at once and a player who doubles down on one strategy.
The more I looked at this topic, the more I realized how much overlap there is between game design and basic acting theory. The biggest difference is that the same concepts that are used mechanically in game design are emotion-driven in acting. Given that humans are emotional creatures, perhaps game design could benefit from a little scene work.
For this post I relied heavily on Robert Cohen's Acting One, available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment