Humans are social creatures. Relationships of all types, good and bad, are essential to the human experience. One of the chapters in Backwards and Forwards caught my attention by the lack of representation in board games: “Customs, styles, politics, laws, tastes, and almost everything else change from age to age, period to period. But something we know intimately changes little: relationships among family members.” (David Ball, Backwards and Forwards, p. 85)
Family relationships are rarely present in board games. Family connections can be found in quite a few games, but the dynamics of relationships are not explored. Frequently, families are used as a twist on resource management, like in Agricola. Historical games may use women as a form of currency. Most often though, family connections are merely flavor text. Gloom is merely a set of odd characters having a bad time.
Friendships are also largely absent from board games. Instead, players are likely to be asked to join factions or create a political or strategic alliance. These relationships are transactional, lacking the narrative implication of an emotional connection.
Players are usually asked to see their characters in terms of what occupational role they fill, which is usually connected to the mechanics of play. Even social deduction games follow this axiom; any relationship leveraging occurs in meta-play. Games are seen primarily as systems still, which prioritizes systemic-style content like military and political organization.
Relationships are perhaps seen as the purview of TTRPGs, which have time to develop nuanced characters and narratives. What would relationships add to board games?
Relationships are something all humans understand. Including relationships adds a level of context that short cuts the route to emotional engagement. Compare the dramatic difference between two rival leaders going to war and two brothers raising armies to fight for control of a kingdom. Simple relational details can propel a theme from overdone to compelling.
Relationships give verisimilitude. Regardless of how fantastic your world-setting is, relationships will make the world feel lived-in. Players may not understand the hierarchy of different classes of character, but will instantly understand the dynamic between older and younger brothers.
Relationships can be leveraged for interesting mechanics. Board game design has not seen a lot of this. I think friendship mechanics would look different from alliances. Perhaps instead of a restriction on when and how alliances take place, friendships could be with any other player but require another sort of strategic compromise, like trading the actions available to each friend on a given turn. Betrayal in a friendship context has the possibility to add drama over breaking an alliance.
Relationships do not have to be positive. Revenge and betrayal are much stronger when 'it's personal.'
Ask yourself, who are the characters in my game world? How are they related to each other? How do they feel about those relationships? How can I leverage those relationships for more compelling social dynamics between my players?
Phew, I made it through the whole post without once mentioning Fog of Love. I should probably play that at some point.
Family relationships are rarely present in board games. Family connections can be found in quite a few games, but the dynamics of relationships are not explored. Frequently, families are used as a twist on resource management, like in Agricola. Historical games may use women as a form of currency. Most often though, family connections are merely flavor text. Gloom is merely a set of odd characters having a bad time.
Friendships are also largely absent from board games. Instead, players are likely to be asked to join factions or create a political or strategic alliance. These relationships are transactional, lacking the narrative implication of an emotional connection.
Players are usually asked to see their characters in terms of what occupational role they fill, which is usually connected to the mechanics of play. Even social deduction games follow this axiom; any relationship leveraging occurs in meta-play. Games are seen primarily as systems still, which prioritizes systemic-style content like military and political organization.
Relationships are perhaps seen as the purview of TTRPGs, which have time to develop nuanced characters and narratives. What would relationships add to board games?
Relationships are something all humans understand. Including relationships adds a level of context that short cuts the route to emotional engagement. Compare the dramatic difference between two rival leaders going to war and two brothers raising armies to fight for control of a kingdom. Simple relational details can propel a theme from overdone to compelling.
Relationships give verisimilitude. Regardless of how fantastic your world-setting is, relationships will make the world feel lived-in. Players may not understand the hierarchy of different classes of character, but will instantly understand the dynamic between older and younger brothers.
Relationships can be leveraged for interesting mechanics. Board game design has not seen a lot of this. I think friendship mechanics would look different from alliances. Perhaps instead of a restriction on when and how alliances take place, friendships could be with any other player but require another sort of strategic compromise, like trading the actions available to each friend on a given turn. Betrayal in a friendship context has the possibility to add drama over breaking an alliance.
Relationships do not have to be positive. Revenge and betrayal are much stronger when 'it's personal.'
Ask yourself, who are the characters in my game world? How are they related to each other? How do they feel about those relationships? How can I leverage those relationships for more compelling social dynamics between my players?
Phew, I made it through the whole post without once mentioning Fog of Love. I should probably play that at some point.
No comments:
Post a Comment