It should be obvious that as designers, when we design efficiency games we are really designing the inefficiency that the players must grapple with. (Likewise, we don't design balance so much as imbalance.) Broadly speaking, we are always designing inefficiency into games, because games are made up of goals and obstacles, and the obstacles always introduce an element of inefficiency. That inefficiency is what makes a game interesting. However, there are more ways in which designing inefficiency can be a positive thing.
The hobby has a large amount of "efficiency games" where the main focus of play is finding the most efficient (or really, the least inefficient) route to the endgame. But I am struck by how few truly inefficient games are in the hobby—games where the main focus is on the least efficient route. For example, if you play Telestrations as efficiently as possible, the game will fall flat. The disconnect in communication is the fun part of the game. I've not played a published version, but when I play the best players come up with concepts for a starting sentence that cannot be easily conveyed and is inherently silly. This ensures that communication will break down across the game, resulting in very funny reveals.
Clearly, party games have an advantage when it comes to introducing inefficient play, because players take those games less seriously. However, I believe that we could develop other genres of board games to capture different aspects of inefficiency. In video games, we see lots of inefficient play: side quests, achievements, extraneous areas of the map, multiple dialogue choices. Players who "100%" a game are not playing with efficiency in mind. Another type of inefficiency in video games is walking simulators. In these games the goal is not to finish but to experience the environment. And let us not discount the sandbox titan that is Minecraft, where play can continue for years after reaching the end credits.
I suspect that inefficient play in video games is most prevalent in and developed out of solo play. Solo play across all games tolerates more inefficiency than multiplayer. Solo RPGs have also been able to stretch the bounds of what a game can be through journaling and other media, like sewing and drawing. Sewing a map in the RPG A Mending is about as inefficient as you can get, but that is the main hook of the game.
Where solo sensibilities in video games seems to have leaked into multiplayer games, the reverse seems to be true for board games. Solo board games seem by and large just as focused on efficiency as multiplayer games. This seems to be true because solo board games use the same central mechanics as multiplayer but modified for solo play. I don't think we can take styles of play associated with efficiency and try to encourage inefficient play. I think we need new genres of play.
Where should you start, then, in designing an inefficient game? I would start with choosing where I want the inefficiency to be. Competitive play (even in cooperation against the game AI) is inherently efficient in our current cultural context. So I would put the focus on aesthetic play, social play, or creative play. While I think narrative can be a tool for inefficiency, narrative play by itself in the context of board games won't move players far enough away from an efficiency mindset. The goal of play will need to be very clearly something other than winning, such as in Telestrations, where the goal is the funny reveal.
I don't have more advice about how to design an inefficient game that isn't a party game, because if I knew how to create a new genre of play whole cloth, I would be pitching that to publishers. I would like to see board games break into unexpected territory. Inefficiency seems like one place to start.
ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.
Hello
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic, i think i have a very debateble example of ineffecient game (or at least game that could be played inefficently in most groups, if they want so) - no other then terraforming mars. On one hand you have a thematic goal, and obvious and efficent strategy and bonuses for following it - terroform mars by raising 3 parametrs. But many game groups find far more enjoyable to lean into "creating more cards and small engines" instead of going into rushing the game strategy of using standart projects (which is more effective, but kind of boring).
Same goes a bit for Dominion and big money strategy - again, its effective and will give you victory against average opponent, but it's much more "lame" then innefficient and fun card engines and combos.
Maybe there is a way for ineffiecient designs other then party games somewhere there - in a card-driven worlds of perfect combos and satisfing chain reactions.
Also there are push your luck games, where it is kind of fun to be inefficient and risky, even when it is a way for almost certain loss.
This reminds me of my experience playing the megagame Den of Wolves at BGGCON last year. If you're not familiar, it's basically Battlestar Galactica. Each table in the room represented a ship in the fleet of human survivors and had a crew of 3-6 players. Different ships had different capabilities to produce/manage certain resources necessary for the fleet's survival.
ReplyDeleteDen of Wolves with a full 40 players is a chaotic, inefficient game. Staying coordinated was key to survival, but seemingly-random "wolf attacks" and a handful of hidden traitors made it challenging. Negotiating with the crews of other ships was a very political process. Everyone wanted to make sure their ships were fueled and their crews were fed and hydrated, and there wasn't always enough to go around. Sometimes there was, but allocating all the resources before the next attack remained challenging.
My friends and I crewed the Lucas, one of the main water-production ships in the fleet. We roleplayed as "apolitical" and "voting for efficiency" - if everyone was hydrated, we were happy. Our ship was also the only one with an "engineering training program," capable of turning regular crew cards into a more-specialized engineer crew card.
We spent the first 2-3 hours of the game coordinating with other ships resource-producing ships in the fleet to negotiate a consistent logistics chain. We wanted to make an efficient system so we could get everyone's needs met quickly each round. This was the most fun I had during the game. Overcoming our fleet's chaos/inefficiency made us feel extremely clever.
The organizers said that we were one of the most cooperative groups they'd ever seen - our little system worked out pretty well! In fact, it might've worked a little too well... even though there were a few curveballs, I got bored in the last hour or two of the game.