I have workshopped this idea on Facebook, so I know exactly how controversial it is. I believe all game actions can be distilled down to seven categories, which are largely component and mechanic agnostic. That said, this may be the most mechanic-heavy post I ever write.
What are actions?
Actions are player-driven changes to a play-state that occur once a game has begun and before a game ends. Thus, I am not considering set-up or final scoring when thinking about action categories. Actions are governed by rules. Anything that occurs outside of the rules is not an action. Actions are usually organized into turns, rounds, and/or phases. Turns are not synonymous with actions. Examples of actions are move up to 2 spaces, attack, collect resources, etc. Actions may be a blending of multiple action categories. Actions can be organized by a number of different methods. Most commonly, actions are organized by mechanisms or components that are used. My action categories are abstracted beyond mechanisms and components. Action categories look at the goals of a (successful) action. What is this action trying to accomplish?
Actions are player-driven changes to a play-state that occur once a game has begun and before a game ends. Thus, I am not considering set-up or final scoring when thinking about action categories. Actions are governed by rules. Anything that occurs outside of the rules is not an action. Actions are usually organized into turns, rounds, and/or phases. Turns are not synonymous with actions. Examples of actions are move up to 2 spaces, attack, collect resources, etc. Actions may be a blending of multiple action categories. Actions can be organized by a number of different methods. Most commonly, actions are organized by mechanisms or components that are used. My action categories are abstracted beyond mechanisms and components. Action categories look at the goals of a (successful) action. What is this action trying to accomplish?
Action Categories
1. Acquisition- Actions that result in games elements being claimed exclusively by a single player are ‘acquisition’ actions. Acquired elements may be either secret information, private information, or public information. Example: drawing cards face-up or face-down.
2. Deployment- Actions that move game elements from a hidden or inactive status to a visible, active status are ‘deployment’ actions. Deployed elements maybe played onto a personal play-space or a shared play-space. Example: playing cards into a tableau.
3. Spatial Adjustment- Actions that change the physical location of already deployed game elements are ‘spatial adjustment’ actions. Physical location includes height, such as in a stack. Adjusted pieces may ‘belong’ to the player taking the action, another player, or be a part of the shared play-state. Example: moving tokens around a track.
4. Value Adjustment- Actions that change the assigned value of a game element are ‘value adjustment’ actions. Value adjustments are most often numeric. Value adjustments can occur to a player's elements, their opponent's elements, or shared elements. Adjustments to a player's elements tend to increase value while adjustments to opponents elements tend to decrease value. Commonly used to mitigate luck. Example: attack damage.
4a. Value Generation (Geller corollary)- Actions that set the value of game elements that were previously null are ‘value generation’ actions. Value generation is most commonly luck based, with the frequent use of dice. This is largely a sub-set of value adjustment. Example: dealing cards randomly to auction board spaces that have set values.
5. Social Leveraging- Actions that change the perceived value of game elements are ‘social leveraging’ actions. Changes in perceived value do not change the absolute value of the game element. This category is the subjective version of Value Adjustment. Social leveraging nearly always includes discussing the play-state with other players, with the goal of getting other players to act the way you want them to. In order to fall into the 'Social Leveraging' action category, the actions must be a part of the game as described in the rules. Examples: negotiating, bluffing/lying, alliances.
6. Resource Generation- Actions that create game elements as a part of game play are ‘resource generation’ actions. Resource generation actions are most common in party games. Examples: drawing, acting/miming, giving clues, story-telling.
7. Null Actions (Hanson corollary)- Actions that leave the play-space unchanged are ‘null actions’. The most common example is the option to pass on a player’s turn.
What about failure?
Not all actions succeed. Actions do not have to succeed to qualify for their category. Attempting an ‘acquisition’ action and failing still qualifies the action as an acquisition action. In fact, many mechanisms are built around the high potential for failure. Auction and dexterity games have high levels of acquisition failure for highly desired pieces and lower levels of failure for less desired pieces. All social leveraging actions have a high expected failure rate, as those actions rely on the subjective ability to persuade other players. Spatial adjustment has a middling failure rate. Players can be out-maneuvered and blocked from moving into a space, but will stop having fun if this happens too often. Deployment has a low failure rate, because not being able to activate pieces is not fun and slows game tempo. Value adjustment and value generation also have low failures due to frustration factors. Instead, players are usually offered mitigation and retaliation options rather than the ability to cancel a player’s turn. Resource generation, by its nature, has zero failure rate. Provided all players are participating, no matter what quality of element they create, elements created will be used in play. Whether or not those elements are effective generally falls into other categories. Null actions that occur frequently would be considered a failure by the designer, because not acting is not fun. The actions themselves, by definition, always succeed.
Using Action Categories
As stated, action categories look at the goals of an action. I use action categories as a diagnostic tool. When a design needs a mechanism, or needs a replacement mechanism, I look at what the goal of the mechanism should be then examine the various mechanisms that best reach that goal while fitting the constraints of the overall game. I imagine most designers think this way to a point, but I will literally think, "This way of acquiring cards doesn't work. What is another acquisition action I can put here instead?" The reason why the categories don't necessarily feel balanced against each other (spatial adjustment may seem like a subset of deployment to some, for example) and why many actual game actions are blends of the categories (dice combat includes value generation via dice and value adjustment to a player's damage track) is because these are tools of thinking about actions that help me determine a path forward in design. Other designers use other categories. Isaac Shalev lists game subsystems as resource acquisition, information, conversion, conflict initiation, conflict resolution, scoring, end-game triggers, and markets. We can see there is a certain amount of crossover between our lists, but clearly we have different goals when using our respective diagnostic tools. Where my list is more concerned with how components shift throughout gameplay, his is more concerned with the underlying information those components represent.
I'm not sure how useful action categories are for other designers. But if you do want to use them, here are some things to remember. Mechanisms can fall into a number of categories or more than one category at once depending on how they are implemented. (Components also fall into various categories depending on how they are used.) Worker placement involves a player deploying a worker to acquire a resource. Dice worker placement involves value generation before placing and frequently value adjustment to mitigate luck. Some worker placement games have rule that you can move a worker that has already been placed, a form of spatial adjustment. So there isn't much point to listing every mechanism that can apply to each category, so much as simply understanding what goals the categories describe. If I am designing a hand management game, I need a mechanism for players to acquire cards. By understanding that the goal is acquisition, I can evaluate mechanisms- existing and those I invent- by how well they meet the goal of acquisition of cards in a game that is more about managing the cards after I have them. So, simply drawing cards may not give enough choice, but pick-and-pass drafting may pull too much focus from primary goal of hand management. In which case, I would continue to evaluate other acquisition actions until I found one that works in the context of the game.
Most often, I use the first four categories when designing. The remainder came out of a brainstorming session that existed partially on Facebook (thanks to Eric Geller and Cody Hanson for their suggestions). Whatever system you use, find a way to think critically about your design at a granular level and you will become a better designer.
I'm not sure how useful action categories are for other designers. But if you do want to use them, here are some things to remember. Mechanisms can fall into a number of categories or more than one category at once depending on how they are implemented. (Components also fall into various categories depending on how they are used.) Worker placement involves a player deploying a worker to acquire a resource. Dice worker placement involves value generation before placing and frequently value adjustment to mitigate luck. Some worker placement games have rule that you can move a worker that has already been placed, a form of spatial adjustment. So there isn't much point to listing every mechanism that can apply to each category, so much as simply understanding what goals the categories describe. If I am designing a hand management game, I need a mechanism for players to acquire cards. By understanding that the goal is acquisition, I can evaluate mechanisms- existing and those I invent- by how well they meet the goal of acquisition of cards in a game that is more about managing the cards after I have them. So, simply drawing cards may not give enough choice, but pick-and-pass drafting may pull too much focus from primary goal of hand management. In which case, I would continue to evaluate other acquisition actions until I found one that works in the context of the game.
Most often, I use the first four categories when designing. The remainder came out of a brainstorming session that existed partially on Facebook (thanks to Eric Geller and Cody Hanson for their suggestions). Whatever system you use, find a way to think critically about your design at a granular level and you will become a better designer.
No comments:
Post a Comment