Theming Game Structures

Different mechanical game structures lend themselves to different types of stories. There is a reason that most dungeon crawlers look and feel similar. Understanding how high level structure impacts storytelling can help you design themes that feel organic to the game. In this post I outline six categories, but those categories can be combined in different ways to produce distinct, interesting games. I divide these categories less on how mechanically distinct they are from one another and more on how they feel and what types of themes fit well with them (especially when looking at the first two). Any themes and mechanisms listed are just common ones to get you started and should not limit you from exploring other ideas that might fit with the experience of play. 

1. Solving a Puzzle

This category could potentially be divided into two categories: puzzles with a set of single answers and efficiency puzzles that could have multiple right answers. I've lumped them together because I find that figuring out the best answer feels similar across multiple genres (when you control for the emotional experience of the theme). Single solution puzzle structure encompasses logic puzzles, deduction, code-breaking, and other terms that are basically synonyms. Efficiency puzzle structures includes bingo-style mechanisms and time/resource management. These two substructures can be frequently found in the same game. Puzzle-solving structures lend themselves to mystery stories, detective stories, and horror stories, but also stories about hackers, cryptographers, and code-breakers. Efficiency puzzles are frequently structured around expanding power and options, diminishing choices, or sometimes both. Try to match your theme to the dynamics present in the puzzle. Stories about players trying to survive/outlast what the game throws at them could lean into either substructure or both. Themes that don't benefit from a feeling of 'running out of time' will fail to tap into the full potential of puzzle-solving structures. 

2. Cycles

On the surface, cyclical structures can look a lot like efficiency puzzles, but I think they lend themselves to very different stories. Cyclical structures contain repeating events that lead into one another. Cyclical structures rely heavily on timing, but in a vastly different way from puzzle-solving structures. Cycles demand that you tactically take advantage of certain game states at just the right moment, but may not lead to the 'running out of time' feeling of puzzle-solving structures. Because events will recur again and again, cyclical games feel less hurried and pressured. However, they still require an emphasis on efficiency to play well. Traits of cyclical structures include intermittent scoring, multiple phases, set collection, and engine building. Cycles may be player dependent like the seasons in Everdell or they may be global like the ages in 7 Wonders. Keep in mind that a game could be an efficiency puzzle and cyclical. I wouldn't describe a game with two distinctly different halves as cyclical, although either or both halves could be cyclical. Cyclical structure lends itself to themes such as natural systems (like life cycles or weather), industrial systems, generational storytelling, and cooking. Any theme that lends itself to templates or formulas (especially if a character might do it multiple times in a row) works well in a cyclical game. I have a prototype about writing songs that includes set collection and intermittent scoring where timing concerns and limited resources give the experience of trying to creatively write on a deadline. Cyclical structures may be my favorite to design in. 

3. Race to Finish

'First past the post' can refer to victory conditions or to other goals within a game (or cycle/phase). This structure focuses on rewarding the player (or NPC) who meets a requirement first. Alternatively, race to finish structures can be used to qualify players for scoring, a form of endgame player elimination. Race to finish structures can be a layer added to other structures to increase the tension of gameplay. On its own, this structure often utilizes more randomness than other structures (except open conflict). Race to finish mechanics include dice-rolling, betting, ladder climbing, headwinds/tailwinds, and pawn movement mechanics. Themes that mesh well include competitions or contests, which of course includes actual races. If a theme emphasizes speed, race to finish is a good go-to structure. Cooperative games may have a race to finish oriented around a race against time or against the game AI. For a much more detailed examination of this structure, read this post from Games Precipice about late game structures. I should note that race to finish is either about the whole of the game or a goal within the game, whereas 'go the fastest' in the linked post is about the endgame state. One hallmark of race to finish games is that the momentum of the game is strongly focused on the objective/win condition.

4. Race to Fill

Race to fill structure is a race to expand or exploit. This structure pairs well with other structures that emphasize efficiency. Race to fill differs from race to finish in that the player who gets somewhere first may not be the winner but rather the player who does the most (similar to 'go the farthest' in the above linked post). This structure includes mechanisms such as area control, area majority, tile laying, city building, and set collection. Race to fill games create tension through scarcity of resources/space. Pick-up and deliver games can combine race to fill with race to finish and/or cyclical structure. Race to fill is often cyclical, but the addition of race to fill adds tension to cyclical games. Common themes in this structure include city planning, forest planting, territory conquest, exploration, and order fulfillment (such as a short order cook). 

5. Open Conflict 

Open conflict structures center on players giving and receiving damage from other players and/or the game. These are pretty much always fighting games although damage could be to anything, not just health. The defining aspect of open conflict is that objectives and sides are known by all players; damage is not done in secret. Open conflict games often have player elimination, alliances, and leveling up mechanics. Most 'take that' mechanics are forms of open conflict. Common themes are war, survival, and adventuring (or 'murder hobos' if you will). Open conflict can be cyclical, especially when using leveling up mechanisms. The danger of having open conflict as only one aspect of the game is that it will often feel like a separate mini game that interrupts the flow of the overall game. 

6. Covert Conflict

Covert conflict structures involve secrets: secret objectives or roles or teams or some combination of the above. Covert conflict also has player elimination, but often via vote instead of damage. In addition to player elimination and voting, common mechanisms include negotiation, bluffing, trading/deal-making, deduction, hidden movement, and traitors. Covert conflict games often fall in the party game adjacent category (social deduction, etc), but there have been larger games with an emphasis on covert conflict. Larger/heavier games are likely to combine covert conflict with other structures, especially open conflict. Bang! is an example of blended open and covert conflict. Themes commonly paired with covert conflict are spies and diplomats. Covert conflict usually contains a high social factor in gameplay, as a result the well-integrated themes of such games usually center on who the characters are and their interactions both mechanically and thematically. 

7. Special Hybrids: Pivot Points

Sometimes games have two distinct halves or phases, such as Bosk. These halves may have different structures, but the game controls when they occur. Other times, games have player-controlled pivots. Pivot points allow a game arc to have a distinct rising-action-pivot-falling-action arc. There are two very common pivot point structures: Grab the Treasure and Run and Reaping What You Sow. In 'grab the treasure and run,' the rising action is acquiring as many point scoring items as possible (usually an efficiency puzzle). After the pivot, players must move as quickly as possible to the zone that will allow them to score their loot (race to finish). These games usually center push your luck mechanics. In 'reaping what you sow,' the rising action is building up resources or an engine and the falling action is cashing in on your hard work. Deck builders and other engine building mechanics employ this type of pivot. Classic examples of these substructures are Clank! and Dominion. Done well, pivot points can make the story of a game come alive because their structure closely resembles narrative structure. Even when not well-integrated with theme, pivot points add excitement to gameplay.

Mechanisms suggest themes by their rhythm and structure and ability to create tension/excitement. Mechanisms also tend to gravitate to certain game structures. Themes might feel pasted-on if they aren't a good match for the game structure. There is a reason player elimination feels wrong in a multi-player solitaire style game. Analyze the games you have designed. What structures did you use? What structure are you drawn to most? I avoid open conflict, as a rule. I tend to design in the same structures as the games I enjoy playing. Because I enjoy designing cyclical games (which I think is the coziest structure), I tend to brainstorm game ideas around themes that employ templates, like cooking. When starting a new design, you could brainstorm by combining two structures then looking at what themes and mechanisms would work well together within those structures. 

ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.