Everyone wants to make the next big thing. As I have written before, there are multiple ways to stand out in our crowded market. However, today I want to focus on one aspect: innovation.
The term innovation typically is reserved for new mechanics or sometimes a new expression of mechanics. Tweaks to existing mechanics are generally considered refinement. There are certainly other forms of innovation in games, but mechanical innovation is what gets the most air time in design discussions.
There are a few obvious problems with creating new mechanics. For one, coming up with something original enough to feel new and innovative is hard. Game design is easier when you are plugging existing pieces into a game in a way that solves the questions you are posing to your design. Creating new mechanics involves answering those questions not from a list but from your imagination. To me it feels like creating your own philosophical theory. "How can I create the feeling of the bustle of a busy market place using only cards?" requires me to first envision a solution before I can test it at the table. I find that I am most innovative when existing mechanisms do not adequately answer the questions I have for my design. Which in turn means that in order to create an environment that encourages innovation, I have to ask interesting questions. If your goal is to create "the next popular [trendy mechanic] game," you aren't setting your self up for innovation unless you have identified a question posed by that mechanic that hasn't been solved yet. I frequently end up working with mechanisms I don't really like because I am seeking to solve the question, "How can I design a game with this mechanic in a way that would make ME want to play it?" That is an interesting question, because it means I have to look for solutions outside of already published games.
Another problem with new mechanics is that innovation appears easier if you are willing to design non-standard components. Which is to say, the mechanical innovation of non-standard components becomes more obvious but the component design itself is more difficult, as is playtesting it. There's a reason the mass market game designers are called 'inventors.' These games are easier to market, because of 'table presence' or 'toy factor' but in the hobby industry may still disappear quickly if the gameplay isn't at the same quality as the components. In spite of all that, playing around with foam core or modeling clay is a good creative exercise that could lead to interesting design decisions. On the flip side, working with the constraints of cards, tiles, and cubes can also lead to unique design elements- providing you are asking interesting questions.
The last major problem with new mechanics is that they will be by nature less tested than mechanics that exist in dozens of games. As a result, games with brand new mechanics tend to not be as good as their later cousins. Dominion is a rare exception in its enduring popularity. Most games that use an entirely new mechanic for the first time are not the games that stay popular in that genre. (7 Wonders is much more popular than the earlier Fairy Tale.) Many popular games become popular (outside of production reasons) because of refinement rather than innovation.
Refinement seeks to answer the questions of a game's design by saying, "What is the best way of implementing this existing mechanic?" Existing mechanics have known problems or downsides that refinement seeks to eliminate. Refinement focuses on questions such as reducing turn length, increasing player interaction, streamlining rules, adding complementary mechanisms, etc. One way to approach mechanical design would be to look at games with unique mechanics that had promise but underperformed and see if any of those ideas could be cultivated into a new design.
Innovation creates greater rules overhead by including unfamiliar mechanics. In contrast, refinement as an approach can create easier onboarding by dint of its familiarity. The drawback to refinement, however, is that familiarity. Designing a game that uses a trendy mechanic means having your design compared to every other instance of that mechanic. If your version does not solve known issues with that mechanic, your design will struggle to stand out against the already published competition. Again, this suggests that a focus on refining non-trendy mechanics is a path to designing a stand-out game.
Which is better, innovation or refinement? That largely depends on what questions you are asking in your design. Many minor innovations will get classed as refinements if they do not result in a wholly new mechanic. And most games will contain a mixture of innovation and refinement. (One shortcut that's popular right now is to create a new style of gameplay by combining two existing mechanics.)
Where in your design should you focus on either innovation or refinement? There is a great post about one formula you can use to think about the sections of a game: Aquire, Build, Score. Generally, I prefer to focus any innovation during the build phase (because of the theme possibilities) and avoid innovation during acquisition (because fiddliness) or scoring (because math). For me, the most interesting questions I can ask have to do with player actions and how they intersect with the theme. But that is not the only way to approach design. Plenty of games focus on the uniqueness of acquisition or scoring. Cat Lady is a light pool drafting game that puts greater design emphasis on acquisition, whereas Solar Draft is a light pool drafting game with a greater design emphasis on scoring. Where you choose to create interesting moments is up to you and your design strengths.
The undercurrent in this post is this: what is your design vision? A solid design vision will interrogate your design choices and encourage you to ask interesting questions. Asking these questions is how you implement (and refine) your design vision. If the questions you ask are not interesting, you may need to interrogate your design vision itself. A good idea will lead to interesting questions which will lead to creative solutions which will create a good design. If you are struggling with your design, ask yourself where in the process does your design fall short? Do you need to revise your design vision? Ask better questions about how to implement that vision? Find more creative solutions? I think most designers believe design is about finding those creative solutions but I think good designs come out of interesting questions. Interesting questions can both better shape the design vision and point to more creative solutions. Truly interesting questions can even spur innovation. What questions are you asking?
No comments:
Post a Comment