Goal Categories

In the last post, I mentioned the project management triangle, i.e. good, fast, cheap; pick two. This post continues that musing. 

If we pair off the three sides of the triangle, we get good/fast, good/cheap, and fast/cheap. This is one way to look at possible goals in games. However, if we massage these categories and squint a little we can perhaps extend our understanding of goals in board games. 

If I were to assign the title 'efficiency' to one category, it would be fast/cheap. To me, that speaks to real world efficiency systems, even though good/fast could also be viewed as a type of efficiency. We are familiar with efficiency goals in board games. Some concepts within efficiency-goals are speed, least cost, puzzle solutions, putting items in order, performing actions in order, and developing heuristics. We certainly see the concepts of cheap and fast within efficiency, but also other more emergent concepts. 

Efficiency is so baked into our concept of board games that it is hard to get away from. The timing element becomes necessary because games must have an end and a winner declared at the end. Winners that are determined either by scoring or by first to complete an objective encourage efficient play. There is something delicious about inefficiency but it is difficult to capture in board games as we currently understand them. 

I am giving good/fast the label of achievement. Achievement is often about being the first and/or the best. This echoes C. Thi Nguyen's concept of achievement play which places the focus on winning over enjoyment of the process of play. Concepts found within achievement-goals are recording high scores, domination of other players, themes of status and power, but also voting and negotiation as a form of social leveraging. Combat games often blend efficiency puzzles with domination goals. 

Like efficiency, achievement is deeply ingrained in board game design. We declare winners; we keep score. In the contemporary hobby, we log plays and attend tournaments. Steam achievements keep players returning to video games that they have already 'completed' in order to be able to display their mastery by completing objectives that few other players have completed. 

There isn't anything wrong with efficiency play or achievement play. However, by focusing too closely on these driving goals, we fail to develop other enriching kinds of play. 

I approach good/cheap a little differently than the other traits. Firstly, my understanding of cheap in the triangle is not 'poor quality' but rather solutions that didn't require tons of money. What really makes good/cheap stand out is the absence of 'fast.' This goal category is about slowly developing quality solutions. Therefore, I label this concept growth. An acorn growing into a tree is a good metaphor for this category. I also view this category as the least economically motivated, because efficiency is not present in any form. Concepts found in growth-goals include personal development, discovery, cooperation, and creativity. 

Two subsets of board games leap out as having growth-goals, and they couldn't be more different. Party games are often played for the joy of creative discovery and any scoring mechanisms are ignored. Achievement-goals are not fully left behind, because correct guesses can allow players to 'win' a round. Likewise, efficiency may still be present in party games with timed elements. However, party games are unique in the hobby in that playing for a set time and declaring a winner are routinely ignored. 

The other type of game that focuses on growth-goals is the narrative-driven sandbox game (and other narrative-driven adventure/campaign games). These games are long and full of discovery. Players play a sandbox board game primarily to experience it. The focus on winning has more to do with avoiding loss of progress. Because if you lose, you won't be able to experience the next bit of the game, at least not without some tedious administrative actions. I'm not sure this is the best model for growth-goals because the amount of content required to create this kind of experience doesn't lend itself to shorter, smaller games.

I don't propose that efficiency, achievement, and growth are the only types of goals that can or do exist in board games. I'm merely using the project management triangle to point out the area that I feel is most ripe for experiment, which I have labeled growth. I think the easiest way to implement growth-goals in board game design will be to continue to blur the lines between TTRPGs and board games. RPGs have been exploring this space since their inception. Video games also have some lessons to teach but they may be less directly portable into board games. 

Periodically, people will say that we have exited the innovation phase of board game design and have entered a refinement only phase. This is pure silliness. Board games look nothing like what they did a century ago. In another century, they will look nothing like they do today. And we get to participate in that evolution, by finding underdeveloped areas to explore in our designs. 

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