Central Thematic Metaphors

In the (next to) last post, I mentioned visual metaphors within component design. Strong metaphors in game design can bring a theme to life. Metaphors do not need to be visually expressed, but metaphors with a visual component add richness and verisimilitude to the gameplay experience. 

I focus my early design process around a central thematic metaphor. Each design has only one central metaphor, but that metaphor develops and becomes more complex as the game develops. A central thematic metaphor is the non-negotiable part of a game design for me. I can change every last mechanism, but as long as they express the same core idea and feeling then I am still making the same game I set out to make. A central thematic metaphor is similar but distinct from the concept of designing for the intended experience. You can do both at once, however. 'Intended experience' is what we want our players to feel while playing. A central metaphor is a more cognitive expression of an idea that ties strongly to an object or activity. For example, my set collection, opera writing game (working title: Operetta) intends for players to feel the frustration and pressure of trying to get a song just right, with the focus on the emotions matching the theme. The central metaphor is gathering ideas to build a draft of a libretto. The metaphor focuses on the actions and components of gameplay and the intended experience focuses on emotions. I am more likely to change my intended experience than my central metaphor as the game develops, because, for me, the metaphor is where the game lives. 

Central thematic metaphors are mechanically expressed. A strong metaphor permeates the design process and filters into the mechanics, even if the original metaphoric concept was more 'curb appeal'-based. In the example above, the verbs 'gather' and 'build' guide the types of mechanics I need in my game: card/resource collection and some sort of crafting/deployment. Negotiation or other high-interaction mechanisms would pull the experience away from what should be an individual endeavor—having and synthesizing ideas. Central metaphors are useful when determining how pieces move, rhythm of play, amount of player interaction, and complexity and difficulty of gameplay. 

I contend it is easier to make a metaphor central to gameplay than an emotion. Action verbs and concrete objects (like a manuscript) are easier to generate ideas around. The emotion of an intended experience acts more as a guidepost as the game develops. I can check the latest version of my game against how I intend it to feel using playtester feedback. However, it is possible for me to make the game more in line with the intended experience while also making it less thematic. The central thematic metaphor helps keep the theme present as the game develops. If the game really needed changes that took it away from the theme, I would look at changing the theme in order to maintain a strong metaphor. I don't do this in my own designs, however. If I can't get mechanics to work with the metaphor I have, I generally shelve the design. 

My interest in thematic metaphors is largely why my games' themes so far have followed my interests and hobbies. It's easier to ground your theme in a metaphor if you are pretty familiar with the theme already. Otherwise, research is your best friend. Research themes you might want to make a game about. Look for an aspect of the theme that suggests some element of gameplay. From there, distill out a central thematic metaphor and intended player experience. That's essentially a design vision, and if you write it down you have a design vision statement. 

I know that's not how many, if not most, designers approach starting a design. But if you want to design a thematic game, I suggest giving central thematic metaphors a chance. 

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