Thematic Actions

Mechanisms are units of play that have widely varying sizes. A mechanism may be a piece of an action or may be a way of describing the entire flow of a game. For instance, 'engine building' is descriptive of how a game is structured; you can't determine if an unfamiliar game is an engine builder by looking at only one action. For this reason, I often talk about actions instead of mechanisms. Actions are more uniform in length and usually involve the player doing a single thing. When working on theming a game, thematic actions are an easier place to start than thematic mechanisms. Many mechanisms—deck building, drafting, etc.—are difficult to tie into a theme. You can match the experiences/emotions of the theme with those mechanisms to create a more unified experience, but in this post I'm going to be looking at types actions so that we can better understand how theme presents at a gameplay level. I have identified five types of actions in board games: mechanical, associated, metaphoric, simulative, and literal. 

Mechanical actions are the unthemed actions of a game. Almost every game will have some of these. Examples include drawing a card or scoring a victory point. In a themed game, these actions are necessary to the function of play but should recede to the background as much as possible. 

Associated actions reinforce the logic of the theme but do not relate mechanically or experientially to the theme. In other words, associated actions are labeled thematically and that's where the theme ends. Let's imagine a game with actions themed around kicking a ball into a goal. An action that moves a cube to indicate whether or not you have kicked yet would be an associated action. The action is associated with the theme (kicking) but only very tangentially. Just like mechanical actions, some associated actions may be necessary for the function of play. 

The next three action types fall under the umbrella of evocative actions. They evoke the theme of the game. Thematic experiences rely largely on evocative actions. However, you have options in how you choose to evoke your theme. 

Metaphoric actions evoke similar experiences, emotions, or idioms as the theme. This category of action (and this whole system as a result) was inspired by Geoff Engelstein discussing how he views theme as presenting as a metaphor in gameplay. In our ball kicking game, rolling a die and succeeding in scoring a goal on a high number would be a metaphoric action. The experience of a successful role mimics the experience of a successful kick, but does not simulate physical kicking. Metaphoric actions may act as emotional simulations. They can also use idioms, such as our correlation of high rolls with success. 

Simulative actions simulate physical aspects of the theme. There are many types of simulations, but for our purposes simulative actions mimic real world physical events. The action does not (or not just) mirror the emotions of the theme, but the physical action imagined by the theme. Flicking a disc onto a circle simulates kicking a ball in a way that rolling a die does not (unless you are rolling the die toward a goal). There are going to be cases where you could argue either way over what is simulative and what is metaphoric (or even how I define the difference), and that's fine. These categories are to help expand our understanding of what theme is and how is presents in gameplay. 

Literal actions are an actual performance of the theme by the players. Literal actions are one step beyond simulative. A literal action would be kicking a ball. In MonsDRAWsity, players are police sketch artists thematically. In the game they literally produce sketches based on descriptions provided by a 'witness.' If the theme of a game were to be 'playing a game' then all mechanical actions would be literal actions. 

Most games have a mixture of action types. I think the most important distinction is understanding the difference between associated actions and the evocative action umbrella. A game that is mostly made up of associated actions will feel themeless to players. A well-knitted theme should have a healthy dose of evocative actions. Evocative actions can do a lot of the heavy-lifting of world building from the inside out. 

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

Knitted vs. Layered Themes

In the last two posts, I have mentioned that an art style is not enough to qualify as a game's theme. There must be at least one connection point to the mechanics. In this post, I want to look at the spectrum of connectivity between theme and mechanics. 

The term "pasted on theme" is largely derogatory, although it's used frequently for otherwise well respected games. I would like to propose two terms to replace it, knitted and layered. Layered themes are developed separately from mechanics then 'layered' on top of them. Layered is the direct replacement of pasted on, but hopefully lacks the derogatory tone. A layered theme has connection points to the mechanics, but they often feel inorganic. The emotional experiences of the theme and the mechanics may feel like two separate experiences. This can be seen with games that completely develop mechanics before finding a theme, but could also found in games with a completed theme that has mechanics layered on top of it, such as IP games often found in the mass market. Or the designer could simply develop both in parallel without much concern for how they intersect. 

Layered themes will often have some baked-in thematic elements (such as resource tokens) and some lore fluff, but will usually not have mechanisms that match the experience of the theme. Action names will be a mixture of thematic actions and mechanical actions. Often the layout of the board will lack any connection to the theme. The experience of play will rely heavily on the mechanics, sometimes feeling out of step with the theme. A layered theme is still a theme, but players may describe the game as "not thematic." Layered themes are not inherently bad, but should be designed and presented intentionally so as not to give players the impression that they will have a type of thematic experience that is not actually present in the game. Love Letter is an example of a layered theme. 

A knitted theme has many connection points between theme and mechanics. Knitted themes are more likely to have been developed simultaneously alongside the mechanics of a game.  A knitted theme will be difficult to retheme without changing at least a few mechanics. Knitted themes present a more unified experience. However, knitted themes may not be immersive/transportive. Mechanic-thematic integration revolves around how well/often the mechanics and theme are connected, not around the type of experience that provides. A transportive game may be immersive because of the narrative but have layered mechanics or a 'loosely' knitted theme where only some of the mechanics are knitted but some are not. Indeed, many Ameritrash-style games could be categorized as loosely knit, with the bulk of the theme coming from illustration, narrative, or the player's prior knowledge of the IP. 

Whether or not a game has a tightly knitted theme may be somewhat subjective. The mechanics need to be largely motivated by the theme and provide a similar emotional experience as the theme. These terms aren't meant to judge how accurately the mechanics simulate the theme, merely the interconnectedness of theme and mechanics. Any immersion or simulation or aligned emotional experience may be the result of a tightly knitted theme but knitted themes lend themselves to many different sorts of play experiences, including euro games. Examples of knitted themes include Guillotine and Everdell. 

Theme in board games is expressed in many different ways and to different degrees. Hopefully adding terms like knitted and layered can help designers think about how they express theme in their own designs. 

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

Defining 'Themeless'

In the last post, I gave my definition of theme: a subject in a setting with an uncertain outcome. In this post, I want to dive deeper and look at what it means for a game to be themeless. 

Let's start with the easy element: the uncertain outcome. In order for theme to be present in a game, it must be tied to the game-state in some way, and games generally do not have scripted endings. Game illustrations can have a subject and a setting, but if they are totally divorced from the momentum of play then the illustrations function only as an aesthetic style. We see this in classic games that have IPs slapped on them in order to appeal to collectors. However, very few mechanics need to reflect the theme in order for theme to feel present. The more connection that theme has with mechanics, the more thematic a game will feel. Theme exists on a spectrum that requires at least one point of connectivity in order to exist. Azul exists on the lower end of this spectrum, but still has several points of connectivity between mechanics and theme: tiles can break, tiles are being placed in a decorative pattern, the best tile-layer is determined at the end of the game. What if the theme is not tied to the win condition? I'm using uncertain outcome to mean that the 'story' of the game does not progress in an identical way from game to game. Games often will start with the same state from play to play but rarely end with the same state. If a meeple took a different pattern of actions one game to the next, its character arc and its world changed. Since the pattern of play is not predetermined before starting a game, I maintain that a theme requires an uncertain outcome, which arises from connectivity to a game's mechanics. 

So, theme must connect to the dynamic nature of gameplay. But can theme exist without a setting? It is both difficult and rare for a subject to exist without a setting. It's arguably impossible on a philosophical level. However, setting is usually viewed as "what we can know about the game world" outside of the central characters and actions. From this angle, I believe that it is possible to have such barely-there settings as to be nonexistent. For example, Werewolf is arguably a subject without a setting. What we know about the world from playing the basic rules of Werewolf: there is a day/night cycle, werewolves exist, villagers exist. Maybe a seer (or similar role) also exists. I would argue that isn't enough context to count as a setting. Where does that leave my definition of theme? I would merely add the additional comment that sometimes, rarely the setting is unspecified. Since setting is largely provided by/fleshed out by illustration, unspecified settings will be most common in games that have a subject connected to the mechanics but no/little illustration or otherwise specified information about setting. Like I said, that's rather rare in hobby games, although classic games like chess could also fit in this category. 

Can theme exist without a subject? I would argue that if a setting connects to mechanics then a subject naturally arises around the actions and goals of the mechanics. So, a purely mechanical game will have no subject, but a game with a specified setting almost certainly has a subject. However, there may be subjects that fall outside of what is broadly considered to be theme. The main one is players acting as themselves. If a game has no setting, no NPCs, and the players act as themselves, I would argue the game has no theme. Many party games, quiz games, and judging games fall into this category. For example, in Dixit the only named role is a storyteller. The game has no specified setting. There is one connection point to the role of storyteller: the sentence you must make up on your turn. But because players are literally fulfilling the role as themselves, the connection point seems too tenuous to be able to confidently call it a theme. "Players are storytellers and then they vote" is, at best, half a theme. So, acting as yourself dilutes the subject because of the overlap with reality. Similarly, if the game actions mimic the real world actions of playing the game too closely, then theme becomes impossible to distinguish from the act of playing the game. For example, a game about two people sitting down to play chess that does not have some sort of thematic framing device is functionally a game of chess. While these games may have a theme, they present as functionally, experientially having no theme. 

So, what is a themeless game? Turns out there are several kinds.

1. Games with no setting or subject of any kind. (These are typically combinatorial abstracts or classic games.)

2. Games with a subject and/or setting that have zero connection to the mechanics. (Like the above games, but with art inserted.) 

3. Games where the subject and setting are so similar to the real world action of playing the game as to be indistinguishable as a theme. Most often seen when players play as themselves. 

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

Theme is a Term of Art

The way we use the word theme in the board game hobby is a term of art, meaning it has a specific definition to our field that does not exist outside of board games. The more hobby board games develop the more terms of art we will have. Terms of art are the reason we need board game literature, because we need a standardizing record of what these terms mean. And also because it is incredibly hard to google terms of art. This post will explore in more depth the current definition of theme as a term of art in hobby board games (as I see it). 

In Why We Say Theme, I looked at the standard dictionary definitions of theme and drew a line to how the hobby definition developed from theme-as-topic. In that post, I referenced back to my definition. However, astute readers of this blog will note I used my definition for thematic hook and not my definition for theme. That is because the formula "Noun + Verb + Win condition" is catchier, and I am all about terms and definitions that are easy to remember. Here is my actual, original definition for theme: theme encompasses the setting, story, and tone/mood of a game. Note that I never said "theme IS" in my original definition, because I wasn't entirely sure at the time of writing that post where that boundary lay. However, you can see that there is considerable overlap between the thematic hook definition and the theme definition. Both are attempts to describe the story elements required in order to be a theme. 

I had been meaning to revisit my definition of theme ever since I wrote Why We Say Theme. However, my thoughts didn't crystalize on this subject until I saw Isaac's post about vision. Borrowing his usage of the terms subject and setting, I am finally able to restate my original definition of theme as something both more accurate and hopefully easy to remember. 

To review Isaac's definitions: setting is the historical, geographical, political, and related contexts that the work exists within. Subject is the topic of the work. In thematic hook terms, subject is the noun and verb. Broadly speaking, subject includes narrative and characters, but narrative or characters are not required in subjects or themes. Games depicting real world systems may not have any characters (perhaps only a single machine and various procedures). While I would say that all games contain a story in some form, many game themes do not contain traditional narrative plot elements. I have reconsidered my use of the word setting, and I would now include tone, mood, and atmosphere in setting.

There is also another element that makes board game themes/subjects unique from other forms of art: uncertain outcomes. If a theme does not in any way interact with how the game progresses, such as a superhero-themed Bicycle deck of cards, then the game does not have a theme but an art style. That's why I spend so much time bringing up character goals and win conditions—the uncertainty of the outcome of a game is what makes the experience of themed games so unique as an art form. The stories found within the subject change from play to play, even in narrative-based games. That's how you can tell the difference between a narrative game and an interactive novel. Interactive novels generally have static endings. Board games aren't static and I feel it's important to reflect that in a good definition of theme.

When we combine all of these elements, we end up with a definition of theme that feels more definitive:

Theme in board games is a subject in a setting, with an uncertain outcome.

I have to admit, I prefer a definition that is narrower and elevates more narrative-style themes— for example, "characters in a place, doing things to accomplish a goal." But the above definition is broader because it needs to be in order to be both accurate and useful as a conceptual framework. Frameworks are important as practitioners build the theory of a craft, something that is currently happening in board games. 

Also, I just like defining things. 

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

Guest Post: A Game's Vision

This post is a repost of a repost of Isaac Shalev's twitter thread that was inspired by my blog, thus completing the circle. I'm grateful Isaac let me post it here so that I didn't have to plagiarize it excessively paraphrase it with proper attribution. 

"Theme" in boardgames and game reviews

Recently our community has been more critical of what games are about: the topics, stories, historical settings, and roles that players inhabit.

This is good.

I would like to add some vocabulary to this conversation.

In my 20s I hung out at a place called the Dive Bar. The bar's decor was deep-sea diving. The bar's ambience was dive bar, complete with bar nuts and cheap lagers. The way we use the word theme colloquially could express either of these ideas. In casual conversation, theme is used really broadly, and that's ok. In games, Sarah Shipp's definition that "Theme encompasses the setting, story, and tone/mood of a game" is very useful.

https://shippboardgames.blogspot.com/.../defining-theme.html

But as our conversations about games turns to cultural critique, we need better and more specific words to make clearer arguments and express what we mean better. In literature and other art-critical fields, we use the terms 'Setting', 'Subject', and 'Theme'. Let's go over them briefly

Setting is the historical, geographical, political, and related contexts that the work exists within. In The Old Man and the Sea, the setting is a fishing village near Havana in 1940s, with most of the action set in a boat in the adjacent sea.

Subject is the topic of the work. The subject of the The Old Man and the Sea is one man's fateful fishing trip and epic battle with the sea.

Theme is 'the messages and ideas explored in a work. Theme is what the work has to say about the subject. What point is the work arguing for? Theme starts from, but typically transcends the subject.

tOMatS's subject is fishing, but its themes are the nobility of the human struggle against the odds and the ideal of grace under pressure. It would be misguided to say that tOMatS reveals how Hemingway feels about fishing.

In games, when we say 'theme' we mean 'setting' and 'subject', and we're discussing how well the setting and subject are married to the game in terms of gameplay, components, experience, and simulation. When we want to discuss the game's theme in the sense of the ideas it puts forth, we don't have a word, and too often, we mistakenly turn this into a discussion of the designer's intent.

I propose that we use the word 'Vision' to mean in games what 'Theme' means in literary analysis. The Vision of Catan is of colonizers exploiting a welcoming land that is empty of history and is eager for subjugation. The vision of Wingspan is the harmony and beauty of a well-managed ecosystem. The vision of Pandemic is the horror, the heroism and the desperation of addressing a global crisis.

This would allow us to also discuss whether we experience the game's vision in the gameplay itself. Pandemic inoculates its players from and personal experience of risk or tragedy, so we don't experience the game's vision much at all. It's not important to Pandemic to make us feel this way, and indeed, players largely don't weigh the moral consequences of treating Miami vs Lima. They also don't fear entering a city ravaged by multiple plagues, or experience impacts of societal strain or collapse.

Dead of Winter, [on the other hand], makes players experiencing its vision really important. Players routinely experience the deaths of their own characters, and are exposed to the tragedy of a ravaged world.

When a game doesn't care much about its vision, we can critique it through the lens of culture, but we should see it as a cultural artifact, not an intentional argument for a particular idea or value. Many colonialist games fall into this category.

When a game is designed around a vision, is expressive, we ought to take it seriously, and consider what it has to say not only about games, but about humanity, culture, and values.

End/ Recap: Vision is a word we can use to describe what a game means, what ideas it is exploring, what arguments it makes. It will help our critical conversation to talk about to what a game's vision is, and to what extent it is trying to express it.

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

Guest Post: Knowing When a Design is Done

This week Joe Slack visits the blog to talk about knowing when a design is done and tips for self-publishing. Thanks, Joe! 

5 Ways to know when a design is done (and how to prep for self-publishing your game)

There’s a joke in the board game design world that says “No game is ever finished, they just get published.” That is to say that it’s difficult to know when a design is done, whether you are pitching this to publishers or self-publishing your game. Yet, they still end up on store shelves. Most will play really well, but sometimes issues are discovered after a game is published.

So, we’re going to look at 5 ways to tell that your design is done, or at least that you’ve taken it as far as you can yourself. This was from a previous post I wrote on Boardgamedesigncourse.com that has been adapted and expanded upon here.

#5 The feedback you’re receiving would make the game different but not better

When you playtest your game with other designers and players, you’ll often receive a lot of feedback. Quite often it will be necessary criticism that you need to hear in order to identify problems with your game and make it the best it can be.

Often, other designers will give you feedback that would change the game more into the game that they would have designed or would have liked to play, so you have to watch for this.

But when players only have suggestions on how to make small changes that would make the game slightly different, but not necessarily better, take note of this. If this is the only feedback you’re consistently receiving, no major problems are being identified, and you’re not getting any suggestions for improving your game, this is a great sign.

#4 Players want to immediately play your game again

“Can we play again?” 

This is like music to a game designer’s ears. 

While this won’t happen with every game, particularly longer games that you wouldn’t normally play multiple times in a row, with a shorter game, this is something you want to hear from your players. If one player has just tasted defeat, they may want a re-match. If it’s a co-op game and the players narrowly lost, they may want a chance at redemption. 

If your game is a bit on the longer side, what you might hear instead is players discussing strategy and what they would do the next time they play. They’ve found some depth to your game and have indicated they are interested in playing again in the future.

If you’re hearing any of these types of comments consistently, you can be confident that your game is getting close to the stage where you’ll be ready to pitch it to publishers.

#3 Publishers playing your game give you their card and ask you your plans

If you have the opportunity to play your game with one or more publishers, do it! They are a wealth of information and can often give you great feedback about the gameplay, rules, and how to look at your game as not just a game, but also as a product.

If you’re really fortunate and a publisher takes a liking to your game, they may want to pursue it further. If it complements their catalogue and they can see it being a potential addition to their line-up, they might give you their card and ask you what you plan to do with your game.

You may even end up getting your game signed as a result (just don’t expect this to happen on the spot!).

#2 Players ask when your game is coming out and how they can find out about this

If players finish playing your game and immediately ask when it will be available, this is a great sign. It’s even better if they say this while playing your game.

They’ve indicated they enjoyed your game and are interested in picking it up when it becomes available.

If your players are consistently asking when your game is coming out, it means there is some demand for it, which is always a great thing!

#1 People want to buy your game right now!

It’s an amazing feeling when someone is ready to pull out their credit card and buy your game right there on the spot. 

If players are asking to buy your game right now, they are putting their money where their mouth is. They’re not just saying they like your game, they are ready to put down their hard-earned cash to get a copy so that they can share this with their friends and family.

If this is happening consistently, there is definitely a demand for your game and there is something special about it. You’re now ready to pitch that game to a publisher (and you can even mention/share a list of people who want to buy it right now)!

Summarizing how to tell your game is ready

Please notice how frequently I have used the word “consistently” throughout this article. You might even say I used this word very consistently. 😊

There is a good reason.

One positive playtest does not indicate demand for your game. I’ve had plenty of one-off playtests where all the players absolutely loved the game, had no criticisms and would have been happy to buy it right then if it was available. However, quite often the next playtest brings me back to Earth. The players didn’t like the pacing, they felt something in the mechanics didn’t match the theme well, etc. 

This is natural and it happens all the time. That’s why you want to be hearing the above consistently. I can’t give you how an exact number of times in a row this should be happening, but you’ll have a good idea when you keep getting these positive reinforcements with different groups over and over.

You also want to be sure that players are saying these things without any prompting. If you are asking players if they want to play again, they may say “yes”, however, this may be out of courtesy. If they are asking to play again or buy your game themselves, you can be sure this is the real McCoy (who I recently learned through Steampunk Rally most likely refers to Black inventor Elijah McCoy – how cool is that?!?!). 

You can also continually ask yourself, “Can this game be improved or made more fun?” When you no longer feel you can add anything to make your game better, you may have done everything you can with your game.

Preparing to self-publish

Putting the final touches on your game before you launch a crowdfunding campaign (using Kickstarter, Gamefound, or another platform) requires some additional work. If you’re planning on pitching your game to publishers instead, you’ll want to read this article to understand how to do this successfully.

Before the campaign, you’ll want to prepare several other things in advance. These include the following steps:

• Put together a project plan and start promoting your game
• Find an artist and commission some art for your game
• Set up your landing page and email service provider
• Set up a Facebook group for your game (optional)
• Get manufacturing quotes
• Record your Kickstarter video or hire this out
• Contact reviewers and influencers
• Start putting together your Kickstarter page and launch your promo page
• Research and determine your fulfilment partners
• Finalize pledge levels, pricing, and stretch goals
• Get feedback on your Kickstarter page and make improvements
• Run ads leading up to your campaign (optional)

I give a more detailed breakdown of all of these items in my article entitled 12 things to plan for before you even think of launching a Kickstarter board game campaign.

All the while, you’ll want to build up as large (and excited) an audience as you can to increase your chances of funding quickly and to make your campaign as successful as it can be.

Preparing a campaign and building a sizable audience takes time and effort. So, make sure to give yourself plenty of time, at least 6-12 months to build your following. You’ll do this through identifying your audience, discovering where they hang out and becoming part of these communities, demoing your game, sharing art and other aspects of your game, getting input from potential backers, and creating some raving fans for your game.

You should also have a well-tested rulebook for your game that has been blind playtested (by players learning from the rules without any assistance from you) so that you can share this on your Kickstarter page with those who like to review the rules to determine if this game is for them.

What other indicators have told you that your game is ready?

Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.

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

Why We Say Theme

Previously, I have defined theme as "noun plus verb plus win condition" with an optional question mark at the end. I still stand by that definition. Today I want to briefly discuss why we use the word theme at all. 

Many times, when people hear the word theme they think of high school English class and writing essays about what a work of literature means. In this case, theme means the idea that pervades a work. That use of theme is still important to games, notably game criticism. However, it is the less common usage of the word across the English language. 

Board game themes use the more common definition of theme, a subject or topic. We see this usage in theme parks and themed parties. If you were invited to a costume party, you might ask, "What's the theme?" This definition and general usage meshes well with how themes were most commonly presented in board games until relatively recently: as window dressing. By this definition theme is a costume a game wears depending on what the publisher thinks will sell. We are now somewhat saddled with the term even as board games move on to more integrated themes. 

I'm not bothered by the evolution of our expectations for what theme should be. Art changes as our expectations change, but the terms don't always change with it. (For example, deus ex machina typically refers to a plot device in storytelling, whereas originally it referred to actual machines that made representations of the gods show up in Roman theatre.) Designers now distinguish between setting and theme. Setting is the window dressing, the background art. Theme is what is actually happening, the emergent narrative. We might also list a game's thematic genre, such as horror or western. This is different from setting in that setting is more specific to a particular game and thematic genre is a more broad generalization of a topic that usually includes other media such as movies. Thematic genre is also different from mechanic genre because a game can be both a worker placement game and a horror game at the same time. 

The way we use the term theme does, however, run afoul of any attempt at criticism. For one thing, we can't use theme in reference to ideas or meaning in the game. I usually default to 'subtext' or just 'meaning', but neither term is really a great substitute. On the whole though, games critics seem to be coping without being able to use a word that makes you sound like a literature teacher. Where I do think we start to see problems is with designers/gamers who still see theme as window dressing. Because if theme is only window dressing, what right does a game critic have to criticize it? From this perspective, window dressing does not have meaning; it is just an art style. (I suppose the idea that all art has inherent meaning does not enter into the equation because we are talking about art and not Art.) Fundamentally, the argument over whether you even should discuss a game's subtext is an argument over the definition of theme as it relates to board games. Is theme merely window dressing that can be changed out for any other style of window dressing? Or is theme important both to the narrative of gameplay and the value systems presented by the narrative? Does theme have meaning to game design and the game designer? 

In all likelihood, your design style is affected by which definition you use. For me, theme is an entire topic of study, an undiscovered country, that will elevate board game design in the decades to come to an indisputable genre of art, with its own museums and college 101 classes and high school interscholastic tournament competitions. Window dressing, even with excellent mechanics, doesn't have the emotional resonance necessary to move us into that future. Besides which, integrated theme sells. And the more it sells, the less patience gamers have for poorly integrated theme. 

Theme is important. How we use the term affects how we understand game design and game criticism. If you want to read more posts about designing  theme click here for a curated list. 

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