Running the Net for Fun and Profit

Now, I'm not going to claim that Android: Netrunner is the best tabletop game ever made.  (It might be.)  I'm not even going to explain why I think you, dear reader, should play it.  (You should.)  I just wanted to express my thoughts on the game, and what I think it does and does not do successfully.

But first, some background information.


What is Android: Netrunner?

Android: Netrunner is a Living Card Game from Fantasy Flight Games.  Like FFG's other Living Card Games, A:N has a core set of cards that new players can purchase to dive into the game, as well as regularly-released packs of new cards that can be added to a player's cardboard arsenal.  (Side note: "cardboard arsenal" is my new favorite phrase.)  These data packs are non-randomized.  If you buy the "Second Thoughts" data pack, you will get exactly the same cards as everyone else who bought that data pack.

This means there are no rare cards to chase, no money sink as you hit the secondary market for that killer $50 card.  If there's a card you want, you just buy the data pack that has it.  This leads to a much more wallet-friendly expandable card game than, say, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Magic: The Gathering.  Is it still a money sink?  Sure.  You'll probably spend $200+ to get all the available cards.  A:N is not designed to be a casual game, although you can just buy the core set for $25 and have a perfectly enjoyable game.  It's a hobby game, designed to keep your interest after dozens, hundreds, even thousands of plays.

The game is based on Richard Garfield's original Netrunner card game.  Doctor Garfield is the genius behind Magic: The Gathering and the collectible card game genre in general.  After creating M:TG, Richard sat down and made another card game that became a cult hit.  Drawing on the evolving cyberpunk genre, he created an asymmetric two-player game, wherein one player takes the role of the Corp, fighting to advance its agendas while keeping hackers out of its servers, while the other player was the Runner, a digital cowboy looking to expose the Corp's plans.  The Corp would lay traps and build defenses to dissuade the Runner from attacking, while the Runner would assemble a rig to slip past the defenses and steal agenda cards.



Netrunner imploded quickly, however, as so many other CCGs at the time.  While the gameplay was solid, many people felt that the cards were imbalanced towards particular playstyles that were non-interactive.  Players would sit back and assemble combinations of cards that would win the game outright.



Fantasy Flight Games has now resurrected the game, placing it in their Android universe.  While they kept the major mechanics and dynamics of the game, they've added in extra layers of theme.  Instead of just Runner and Corp, there are three Runner factions (Shapers, Criminals, and Anarchs) and four Corp factions (Haas-Bioroid, Weyland Industries, Jinteki, and NBN), each with its own flavor, strengths, weaknesses, and ideologies.  They've also tweaked many things to maintain a balanced and dynamic game.  No more sitting back and assembling the perfect set of cards--if you're not actively trying to disrupt your opponent's plans, then you're almost certain to lose.


How does one play?

I won't go into major detail about the game's mechanics.  FFG has created an exceptionally good tutorial video that you may watch at your leisure.  A quick rundown of the basics, though, may be useful:

--Each player selects an Identity card associated with a particular faction, and builds a deck for that ID.  Cards from other factions may be used, but each ID has a limited amount of Influence (usually 15) it can use on out-of-faction cards.  Once that limit is reached, it's in-faction or neutral cards, only.  Each ID also lists a minimum deck size (usually 45).  Players can build larger decks, of course.  There is a maximum of 3 copies of any one card.  Additionally, the Corp player must include a minimum amount of agenda points.  Agenda points are found on agenda cards, most of which are worth 1, 2, or 3 points.  The first player to 7 points wins.



--The Corp player goes first and has 3 actions or "clicks" to use each turn.  The Corp starts with 5 credits.  Clicks can be used to install cards, gain 1 credit, draw 1 card, play an Operation (a single-use card that leaves play after resolving), or advancing a card.  Advancing a card costs 1 credit and allows the Corp to place an advancement counter on that card.  Agenda cards have an advancement cost and cannot be scored until they have been advanced enough times.  Some defense cards (called ICE) and ambush cards (fake agendas that hurt the Runner) can also be advanced.

A game from the Corp's perspective.  Note all the face-down cards, including two cards with advancement counters on them.  What could they be?

Nearly all of the Corp's cards are played face-down, so the Runner does not know what they are until he or she accesses them.  The Corp can even discard cards into his or her discard pile face-down.  The Corp must draw a card at the beginning of each turn, and if he or she ever runs out of cards, he or she loses.

--The Runner goes second and has 4 actions or "clicks" to use each turn.  The Runner also starts with 5 credits.  Clicks can be used to install cards, gain 1 credit, draw 1 card, play an Event (a single-use card that leaves play after resolving), or make a run.  When the Runner makes a run, he or she chooses a "server" to attack.  He or she can run on the Corp's hand (HQ), deck (R&D), discard pile (Archives), or on any remote servers into which the Corp has installed cards.

When the Runner successfully attacks HQ, he or she randomly looks at 1 card.  When the Runner successfully attacks R&D, he or she looks at the top card of the deck.  When the Runner successfully attacks Archives or a remote server, he or she looks at all cards in that server.  If the Runner looks at an agenda card, he or she automatically steals it and gets that much closer to victory.

The Runner does not get to draw a card at the beginning of each turn.  If the Runner is ever required to discard a card from hand and cannot, he or she loses.


So what's the big deal?

There are several things that I really enjoy about Android: Netrunner.

1) Asymmetric Gameplay

The Corp and the Runner play extremely differently.  They don't even get to use any of the same cards!

Corp, being the good guys, get the blue card back.  The evil Runners, always trying to hack into places they don't belong and steal stuff that isn't theirs, get the red card back.

The Corp tries to build up defenses in front of his or her servers, laying down ICE cards that injure the Runner or stop them from running.  The Corp is trying to tax the Runner and make it too expensive to get in.  He or she must also bluff about what cards are where.  "Is that an agenda I just put into this remote server, or is it a trap?  Can you afford to get past my ICE to find out?"  Because all of the Corp's cards are played face-down, he or she can keep the Runner guessing.  It's all about draining the Runner's resources in order to open windows of opportunity for advancing and scoring agendas.

The Runner tries to attack the Corp and steal agendas.  His or her goal is to force the Corp to spread its defenses thin, or to keep the Corp too poor to defend itself and advance agendas.  He or she is always looking for weak points, and searching for information about what cards are where.  "Oh, I saw a piece of ICE when I ran R&D last turn, and now you've installed a face-down piece of ICE.  I'll bet it's the one I saw last turn, and I have just the card for it."  "Ah, you spent a turn gathering credits.  You must be gearing up to score an agenda.  I'd better run your HQ and try to grab it out of your hand before you can score it."

The asymmetry of the game is a barrier for new players, because they essentially have to learn two different games.  But in terms of replayability?  Come on, you're basically buying two different games!  And they're both enjoyable!

2) Game Balance

Despite the differences between the two sides, the game is quite well balanced.

For example, the Corp must pay to install and "rez" (turn face-up) defensive ICE cards, but must only pay those costs once.  The Runner must install ice breakers that neutralize the bad effects of ICE, but must pay to break each piece of ICE he or she encounters every time he or she makes a run.  So the Corp might rez a piece of ICE for 4 credits, while the Runner can pass through that piece of ICE for only 2 credits.  However, if the Runner must get through that ICE two, three, five, ten times?  Those costs add up.



On the other hand, the Corp must pay money and spend clicks (actions) to advance agendas.  The Runner immediately steals any agenda cards he or she accesses for free.  Most agendas require 3 or more advancements before they can be scored, and the Corp only has 3 clicks to spend per turn.  Since agendas must be installed in remote servers before they can be advanced, that means that nearly every agenda must sit in a remote server, potentially vulnerable, before the Corp can advance and score it.  This gives the Runner a chance to break in and steal it, or perform an action that will drain the Corp of the credits necessary to advance the agenda.

This leads to a dynamic back-and-forth battle.  The Runner makes runs to try to steal agendas and force the Corp to install and rez ICE, draining the Corp of the clicks and credits necessary to score agendas and win.  The Corp sets up defenses that drain the Runner economically.  Even if the Runner can get in once, can he or she get in a second time?  And was the first run worth the money?  It's an economic duel, a game of deception and cost-mitigation.

3) Expandable Card Game

I.  LOVE.  Building decks.  It's my favorite thing about Magic: The Gathering; I just loved assembling a deck, trying to balance early game essentials with late game goodies.  That's why I loved M:tG's draft format so much--every time I played, I would get to build a new deck from scratch!  (Of course, that's also why I stopped playing Magic.  Drafting gets expensive pretty quickly, purchasing brand new cards every time you play.)

Android: Netrunner allows me to scratch that deck-building itch.  I can sit down, boot up the cardgamedb.com deckbuilder, and decide, "Do I want to build a Corp or a Runner deck right now?  And on what should it focus?"  I can throw in everything but the kitchen sink and gradually cut and sculpt until I have a tight deck with the proper amount of out-of-faction Influence, or I can carefully construct a base of key cards and build it up with support cards until I have something fun and functional.

4) Every Card In the Deck Is Useful

A lot of card games borrow the idea from Magic of having resource cards of some kind that generate money/mana/power/whatever that allow you to use your other, more interesting cards.  This means that you have to shuffle a good amount of boring cards into your deck and hope to draw them at a steady rate in order to play your best spells/creatures/structures/whatever.  Now, there are good reasons for doing this.  There's usually a limit to the number of resource cards you can place each turn, so the game slowly ramps up, allowing players with weaker starting hands to have a fighting chance against players that start out with their best, most-powerful-yet-uber-expensive cards in hand.

In Magic (and many other games), you also need to match the type of resource you're using with the type of card you're playing.  Blue cards need blue resources, silver cards require silver resources, etc.  This is a way to force players into specialization.  If you pack too many different types of cards and resources into your deck, you risk drawing mismatched cards and being unable to play.

Hi!  I essentially do nothing, but you need at least 20 of me in your 60 card deck.  Aren't I pretty, though?

In Android: Netrunner, this is not the case.  Each card requires two resources: clicks (actions) and credits (money).  Each player only has a limited number of clicks per turn, but he or she can use those clicks to generate more credits, thus ensuring that he or she can always play the cards he or she wants--it's just a matter of time, of acquiring the necessary credits.  Thus, the game ramps up more naturally.  The Corp always goes first and tries to set up preliminary defenses while acquiring more money, while the Runner tries to force the Corp to spend money rezzing ICE while acquiring more money, while the Corp tries to drain the Runner's money by making them run through ICE, while the Runner attacks on multiple fronts and forces the Corp to spread ICE thinly....  It's a wonderful back-and-forth contest, and it doesn't require either play to put boring cards in their decks.

A:N doesn't use its resource system to encourage deck specialization, either.  Instead, it has an Influence system.  Each card costs a particular amount of Influence if used outside its own designated faction.  Weaker or more specialized cards may cost less Influence, while stronger or more versatile cards eat up more Influence.  Players must carefully choose how to spend their Influence as they build their decks, but once they start playing, it doesn't matter if they draw in-faction or out-of-faction cards--they just need to worry about their money situation.

5) Multiple Routes to Victory

Why so serious?

Sure, most decks focus on getting to 7 points and winning.  But that's not the only way to win!  The Corp can flatline the Runner by dealing damage to him or her.  Whenever the Runner takes damage, he or she must discard a card from his or her hand.  If he or she must discard a card and cannot, he or she loses.  Thus, the Corp can load up on damage-deal cards and try to strike when the Runner is low on cards for the win.

As for the Runner, he or she wins if the Corp cannot draw a card at the beginning of his or her turn.  There are not (currently) very many cards that allow the Runner to mill cards from the Corp's deck into his or her discard pile, but they do exist, and let me tell you, it's a very fun (if very risky) strategy.  Plus, if the Runner can just prolong the game enough, the Corp will naturally draw out.  Remember, the Runner doesn't have to draw cards every turn, and the Corp does.  If the Corp doesn't act, or if the Runner disrupts the Corp's actions enough, eventually the Corp will just run out of cards.

6)  The Community is Awesome

I'm sure this is the case with just about any hobby game, but I love the A:N online community.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are working together to promote the game and discuss strategies and tips.  There are dozens of Excel spreadsheets available online that break down the best ICE or ice breakers and their overall efficiency.  There are more than half a dozen podcasts about the game and its tournament scene.  There are people who spend unfathomable amounts of time analyzing, discussing, writing about, and playing this game.

Are you really going to say no to that face?

The game earns that devotion.  It's very, very good, and I love being a part of the community around it.

Again, I'm not trying to convert you to the game.  I just wanted to explain why it has occupied much of my time and mental energy over the last 8 months or so.

*cough.

Brainstorming for the 2013 Solitaire Print and Play Contest

This year's solitaire game design contest has begun, which means I have a few short weeks to prepare and submit a game.  I was originally planning on submitting Horns of Thunder, the sequel to my well-received solitaire story game Wings of Lightning.  However, I've had a lot of thoughts banging around in my head about how to integrate story and game mechanics, and wanted to put it all on paper.  This post is a massive brainstorm, and will subsequently be long and somewhat incoherent.  However, it may be useful for some people to see a designer's mind at work.  Or this will just be really boring--I've no idea.

• I'm really intrigued by the idea of using a customizable deck of cards to work through a gamebook.  So there might be two to four pre-crafted decks for players who just want to dive in, or the player could build his or her own deck.
• To keep the decks roughly thematically appropriate, I'd probably borrow the idea of Influence from Android: Netrunner.  The players would have a particular Identity or Persona that have a particular set of cards associated with them that they can include at no cost.  However, all cards would be marked with an Influence cost, and each Persona could only include out-of-character cards up to their Influence limit.
• For example, the Human character could only include a limited number of cards from the Cyborg deck.  
• One of the reasons this idea appeals to me is that I can release expansions--new stories to overcome, new Personas, new cards for the different Personas, etc., all within the same rules system.  Heck, I'd be more than willing to open the system up to all users, so that they can generate their own stories, Personas, and cards!  
• The catch is that I have to get the system right.  Once it's released, it will be much more difficult to go back and fix any problems inherent in the rules set.
• So let's think about the AI.  What sort of challenges will the player have to overcome, and how will the game react to the player's decisions?
• I like to approach these sort of problems from a thematic perspective.  So I'll start with a case study.  
• Say the player is traversing some rocky terrain and stumbles across a goblin campsite.  The goblins haven't noticed her, yet, but she's not confident that she can skirt around them.  She has to go through them.
• What are her options?
• She could fight them, risking her life and probably taking some wounds
• She could frighten them, causing them to scatter.
• She could set up a distraction, and hope they abandon the camp to investigate long enough for her to sneak past.
• She could reveal herself and talk to them, hoping to persuade them to let her pass.
• Could I just keyword the encounters?  So with the example above, the player must discard an appropriate number of Fight, or Frighten, or Distract, or Talk cards to progress?
• That's stupid; that's basically just asking whether the player has the right key or not, which does not make for compelling gameplay.  I want the player to have to make difficult decisions.
• What if the encounters didn't spell out how to overcome them?  It could be up to the player to decide how to use the cards at his or her disposal.  So a card might say, "Distract +3."  The player would use it, hoping that a distraction would work on the encounter.  He or she would then look at the current paragraph number, add three, and consult that paragraph.  So, if he or she was at Paragraph 24, he or she would proceed to Paragraph 27.  If it said "Distraction Successful," the card worked.
• That doesn't work, either.  First of all, that would require a massive amount of work on my part just to create a small story.  I'd have to account for half a dozen or more permutations for each encounter.  That's a lot more writing for a small gain.  Plus, he player would have little to no basis for his or her decision.  What if the player decided to Frighten the goblins, but it failed?  How would the player no it was going to fail?  What hints could the system give that one option was better than another?  What sort of consequences would there be for failure?
• No, that's way too much work for me and not enough fun decision-making for the player.  I'll have to find another solution.
• On top of which, I'm not sure I want the story to consist of numbered sections.  Would it be possible to have a slightly more linear story, with random encounters scattered throughout?  How would that look?
• So the player is going along, reading the story, and he or she hits a Random Encounter.  He or she then rolls on a chart based on his or her location, and perhaps some other factors adjust the die roll.  The chart then tells the player what sort of encounter he or she must face.  He or she deals with it, suffers some consequences, gains some bonuses, and proceeds with the story.  
• That could theoretically work.  In fact, I like the idea that the story would have a general overall shape, but with little crests and valleys and twists that are with each play through.  I could even have some branching paths that would only be accessible based on particular random encounters happening at particular points in the story.  That could be fun.
• Okay, so I've got a basic story structure.  But how do random encounters actually work?  What information is given to the player when they hit a random encounter?  And will I be able to have encounters that are not purely combat-based, so that players can work through the story in a number of different ways that don't involve the murderation of dozens of animals and sentient beings?
• Let's say that the player rolls an encounter.  That encounter might have several different stats indicating how one MIGHT overcome it, and the player can use his or her cards to match or beat one of those stats.  
• So the goblin encampment would have Fight 15, Frighten 20, Distract 9, and Talk 12.  The player would have to muster up enough Fight, Frighten, Distract, or Talk cards to overcome one of those options.  Otherwise, the encounter gives a certain consequence.
• That's still a bit too much like needing the right set of keys to get through the door.  I don't like the fact that the player knows EXACTLY what he or she needs to beat the encounter.
• Is there some way to "hide" the exact numbers that the player will need to overcome?  That way I could merely hint at what the player needs, but he or she would be uncertain about whether his or her Lighting Strike and Dual Wield Daggers (Fight 9 and Fight 6, respectively) would be enough to get through the goblins.
• I know!  I could randomize the stats.  So instead of "Fight 15, Frighten 20," etc., the player would see "Fight 2d6 + 6, Frighten d12 + 4, Distract d6 + 1, Talk 2d6 - 2."  The player would assemble his or her response to the encounter, THEN roll to see if he or she defeats it.  That adds a nice push-your-luck element that I think could really work.
• The best part is, sometimes the player will KNOW that the dice cannot possible roll high enough to defeat his or her response, but sometimes the player will be forced to gamble on a low number in order to conserve resources.
• Plus, I could have the story branch out in different ways, depending on how the player overcame the random encounter.
• Yes, I like this a lot!  It's potentially very compelling, and can reward players for progressing through the game in multiple ways.  Replayability is always good for a solitaire game, especially one with a customizable component like the player's deck.
• Now to think about theme....
• This system could obviously translate very well to a fantasy theme.  The player could be a mage, a soldier, a noble, or a merchant, with different strengths and weaknesses against different kinds of encounters.
• The problem with fantasy is not only that it's been done a lot, but it's been done WELL a lot.  That's a lot of pressure to compete!
• I'm not sure I'm interested in a modern thriller or spy story, but it could work.  Something to keep in mind.
• Sci fi would be fun, though.  I love a good sci fi story.  And this system could let the player play in the universe in fun ways.  A human, a cyborg, an uplifted animal, and a robot would all interact with the encounters in different ways.  The robot might be prone to hacking and electronic warfare, while the cyborg uses brute strength and enhanced speed to bring down his or her enemies.  The human is relatively weak and fragile, but overcomes many different types of obstacles through creativity and ingenuity.  The uplift has certain social obstacles and advantages, as an animal living in a world designed for humans, but is a master of stealth and surprise.
• Yes, I like this a lot!  I think I'll go with it.
• Now, let's consider what a deck actually looks like.
• I like the idea of smaller decks.  The players shouldn't need a 60-card monstrosity to get through a story.  Let's say a 30-card minimum deck.  Probably a maximum of 3 copies of any given card.  That makes printing easier--my card sheets are 3x3, so I can put three copies of three unique cards per sheet.
• I also like the idea of giving the player actions to take outside of what is explicitly written on the cards.  So while the Human player might have a card that he or she can discard to draw three additional cards, or to search his or her deck for a particular card, all Personas will have the option to, say, discard a card to draw a card.
• I don't think I want the player to have to deal with his or her own stats, not even Health or Oxygen or anything like that.  Everything he or she needs should be in the deck or in the encounter tables.  It's just simpler that way.  So what sort of punishment can the AI dish out?
• Perhaps running out of cards in the deck means death?  No, that would reward players for playing huge, bulky, cumbersome, extremely random decks.  I think I'll allow the player to shuffle his or her discard pile into a new deck when the deck runs out.
• Hand size, then, could be the player's Life.  Take damage, discard a card.  Run out of cards in hand, and you're dead.
• The problem with that idea is that a player could get into a death spiral.  He or she doesn't have enough cards to overcome a particular encounter, so he or she takes damage, so he or she has fewer cards to deal with the next encounter....  So that doesn't quite work, either.
• What about removing cards from the game permanently?  Take damage, exile the top card of your deck.  That card is gone forever; I don't care if it's a really strong card, you don't get to use it this game.  Hm... maybe.  I don't like the fact that it won't always FEEL like damage.  "Oh, I don't really care about that card, so that encounter wasn't very punishing at all."
• Maybe a mixture of those ideas?  Some encounters force you to discard cards from your hand if you fail, which limits your options.  Some of them force you to exile cards from your deck, which CAN limit your options.  And some of them could put a cap on your hand limit, so you don't necessarily have to discard cards, but now you can only ever hold 4 cards in your hand instead of 5.  So when you draw cards, you'll occasionally be forced to discard cards.
• I also think it's important to keep the player from just digging through the deck for the exact cards he or she needs for every encounter.  So there should be a penalty for having to shuffle your discard pile to create a new deck.  Perhaps, if you run out of cards in your deck, you shuffle your discard pile into a new deck, then exile the top two cards?  So each time you have to reshuffle, you have fewer and fewer cards left in your deck.  Yes, that should work.  It's not too punishing initially, but if the player abuses that strategy, he or she will find him or herself without many options.
• Okay, I'm really liking this idea.  Time to go brainstorm some cards, and to sketch out an outline for the first story!

Designing Tabletop Games for Solitaire Play

I recently wrote a long post on the boardgamegeek forums that I would like to share and expound upon.  You can see the original post in context here.

Solitaire game design has unique problems that multiplayer game design does not have to deal with. The player is not competing against an intelligent and determined opponent, so you have to give the player a challenge in other ways. Looking at other solitaire games will give you an idea of how other designers have tackled this problem.

Multiplayer games have the benefit of incorporating social interaction into the game.  The human element creates uncertainty, tension, and fun.  Players can compete against each other to prove their mettle, as in Android: Netrunner or Settlers of Catan.  They can work together to overcome algorithmic obstacles, as in Pandemic or Space Alert.  Some multiplayer games are ALL ABOUT the social interaction, such as Apples to Apples or The Resistance.  Solitaire games cannot stand on this leg, so other elements must be put into place to keep the game engaging, and to allow the player to feel as if he or she is mastering the system.

Dice Dice Baby

Most solitaire games will have some sort of randomized gameplay element, whether that be dice, a shuffled deck of cards, random chit pulls, etc. This forces the player to stay on his or her toes and prepare for the worst possible outcome. It also forces the player to occasionally take risks. "If I don't roll a four or better right now, I am SCREWED." This helps add tension to what would otherwise be a solvable puzzle--and if the player wanted that, he or she could just play Sudoku.

This is one of the reasons that Zed Deck is a successful solitaire game.  In Zed Deck, the player shuffles a specialized deck of cards.  Each turn, the player draws the next card in the deck, then deals with the event on the card, usually by drawing two or more cards and referencing particular pieces of data on those cards.  Then all those cards are discarded, and the player starts the next turn.  The player only experiences perhaps a third of the available events each game, and always in a different order.  This keeps the game fresh and interesting even after dozens of plays.

Limited Resources

Another good trick is to give the player plenty of actions which he or she CAN perform, but only enough time or action points to perform SOME of them. In Space Hulk: Death Angel - The Card Game, for example, each squad can only perform a single action per turn. Sure, you may WANT to shoot and kill some filthy xenos, then shift the formation to get the best fighters in range of the worst threats, then activate the control panel for a positive effect, then add support tokens to the marine in the most danger... but that's too bad. You only get one action, so use it wisely.

Todd Sanders' games tend to do this very well, especially his Lassadar games.  Check 'em out!  They're free to print and play, and are consistently eye-pleasing and fun.

Flexible Game State

One of the keys to making the above idea work is shifting priorities. Giving the player 10 different actions that he or she can perform is all well and good, but if it is ALWAYS correct to kill zombies, that's what the player will do, and gameplay will become stale. Players will want to make the optimal move, so the optimal move cannot always be obvious, or your game will be boring.

Dan Verssen's games tend to do this well, I think. In Thunderbolt Apache Leader, for example, the player might have a juicy target to take out just over the ridge. The player then thinks, "Okay, I want to destroy that thing. Do I spend a couple of turns flying around the ridge and approaching the target from the north? Do I risk flying through the ridge at low altitude? Or do I go into high altitude and fly over the ridge, but expose myself to fire from that AAA over there?" Each of those options is better or worse depending on the game state. The player has to weigh variables such as how much fuel remains, how much damage the plane has already taken, and how much stress the pilot is already under. At different game states, the optimal approach will be different. Heck, sometimes the correct move will be to just ignore the target and move on!

See the Victory Point Games lineup for more inexpensive examples of this principle in action.

AI See You!

Another problem to tackle is the game's artificial intelligence. Are you going to use an algorithm to have the game mimic human behavior, so that the player feels like he or she is playing against an intelligent opponent? There are ways to do this, but it often means a lot of work for the designer, a lot of work for the player, or both.

For example, Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm is an expansion to the base game that introduced a way to play the game solo. The player essentially rolls a die to see what the AI opponent does. However, the creation of this AI required thousands of computations to create a balanced and reasonably "intelligent" and difficult opponent for the player. That's a lot of work for the designer!

Other games force the player to perform a large number of tasks--drawing cards, moving tokens and cubes, rolling dice, calculating damage, et cetera--in order to perform all of the enemy AI's tasks. That's a lot of work for the player. Some gamers are willing to do this, but it is tiresome, and will dissuade a lot of potential players from really diving in to your game.

Other games don't try to emulate a player, though. In my own Enki-Des: The Soul Gates, the player has to battle six different monsters in turn. Each monster has one or more unique abilities, but each monster is also stupid. Every monster performs the exact same action each turn--attack! This makes it very easy for the player to keep track of what is happening--all he or she must do is decrease his or her Life. This SOUNDS bad, but the game still gives the player plenty of options each turn, as he or she balances short-term goals (killing the monster) with mid- and long-term goals (boosting stats, healing, preparing to fight the next monster, winning the game). Sometimes, the player will deliberately choose to take damage, because killing the monster or blocking the attack is not as important to him or her as some of the other actions he or she can take. Which ties back to the idea of shifting priorities.

Jessey Wright's  stellar print-and-play dexterity game Nimbles the Spell Thief demonstrates a great use of AI.  In the game, the player must flick Nimbles through a series of hallways and corridors in order to grab a precious Spell Tome and escape.  Nimbles must avoid being seen by or colliding with the various guards as she makes her way through.  The guards are controlled by simple rules--they move along preset pathways, and if they can "see" Nimbles (which in game terms means that you ended your turn too far outside the shadowy areas) then bad things happen.  If too many bad things happen, Nimbles is captured.  Even though the player is performing the actions of the guards, and the guards' actions are extremely limited, the player still feels as if the guards are active antagonists.

System Mastery

A key aspect to a successful solitaire game is system mastery--that is, the player's ability to improve his or her performance through practice and learning.  This encourages the player to play the game multiple times and gives the player a feeling of accomplishment.

Let's look at a bad example first.  Say there's a game called Roll High.  In Roll High, the player rolls a die.  If the player rolls a high number (4+ on a d6, for example), he or she wins.  If he or she rolls low, it's a game loss.  Not a very compelling game, is it?  No matter how many times the player plays the game, no matter how much the player studies, he or she will not be able to improve his or her performance.  (Well, aside from practicing specific dice-rolling methods that are typically considered cheating.)

One of the reasons my game Derelicts of Sin: Heresy fails as a solitaire game is that there is little reason to play more than a couple of times.  Once the player has experienced all of the different branching paths (and there are only a few of those), the gameplay is very straightforward--conserve oxygen as much as possible, and try to place the location tiles in such a way that the engine room and the bridge are close to each other.  There is no system to master, no skill at which the player can improve.

Utopia Engine, on the other hand, is a fine solitaire game.  The mechanics are interesting and unique, and it takes practice to figure out their intricacies.  The game is also difficult enough that a player may not QUITE win on his or her first few attempts, but will have gotten so CLOSE to victory that he or she is compelled to try again.  And once the player masters the system enough to win consistently, he or she can then try to improve on his or her own high score.

In Soviet Russia, Decisions Make YOU!

The most important thing to remember is that solitaire players want to make difficult choices. They are not looking for a hand-out or an easy win. They want to weigh the different options against each other and decide what is most important. It is an exercise of the mind, so be sure to give the player difficult decisions with a wide possibility of outcomes. 

DO NOT make a player's actions dependent on randomness. I know that I said that solitaire games should include randomness, but that's not what I mean. What I mean is: The player should always have a choice about how to proceed. Monopoly's dice-rolling movement mechanic is terrible, because it takes the action decision away from the player. "What do I get to do this turn? Oh, I rolled 4. That means the only thing I can do is move 4 spaces along this track." BORING. 

What you want to do is give the player things to do, but mask the precise OUTCOME of those decisions. The player can move, shoot, hide, heal, or loot, but he or she does not know IN THAT MOMENT that he or she is about to draw an Overrun card that will buff all the enemies, so he or she may not realize that moving or hiding are better options than shooting or healing. That uncertainty provides tension in the player's decision making, which makes the game interesting.

I hope this was helpful for you!  Now go forth and make awesome games.  :D

Boardgame Revolution

Every time I hear the name of the local game store I discovered recently, I get a flashback to high school, when a friend of mine made up a little ditty about the popular videogame Dance Dance Revolution.



"Dance. Dance. Re-vo-LU-shun!"


"Board. Game. Re-vo-LU-shun!"


There are several reasons I've come to like Boardgame Revolution over some of the game stores closer to my apartment:


1. Atmosphere


Boardgame Revolution is CLEAN.  It's quite the novelty compared to the poorly-lit stores that smell vaguely of sweat, cigarettes, and loneliness which I have had to suffer for the last few years.

The bathroom is one of the better public restrooms I have been in, quite the step up from another store that... well, let's just say that I'm always worried that I would get both herpes AND pregnant from that "restroom."

I have yet to enter BR without being greeted by a store employee and asked if I need help finding anything.

The staff seems quite knowledgable about the selection of games, which I appreciate in a game store staff.

The gamers with whom I have associated there did not smell bad, nor were they... overly enthusiastic about winning.


In general, it's just very pleasant there, with a nice, relaxed atmosphere inviting everyone to have fun.

2. Variety

Boardgame Revolution has been striving hard to get a tournament scene going for multiple enjoyable games: BattleCON, Call of Cthulhu, Game of Thrones, and even the recently-released Android: Netrunner.  I can stop by every Saturday afternoon (which is a GREAT time for me) and play a bunch of the games that I love.

Yesterday, not only did I get in several games of BattleCON, one of my all-time favorite games, but I was introduced to Sentinels of the Multiverse.  It was a delightful cooperative game where the players take on the roles of themed superheroes trying to stop a super villain controlled by the game's AI.  I'll probably write up a review soon.

3. Focus

Boardgame Revolution sells boardgames.  That's it.  It doesn't sell boardgames AND comics, or boardgames AND videogames, or boardgames AND miniatures AND painting/hobby supplies.  It's just boardgames.

I really like that.  It's just... so pure.  Now, I understand why other game stores can't be as focus; there isn't actually a ton of money to be had as a brick-and-mortar game vendor these days.  The boardgame INDUSTRY may be doing well, but a lot of that money is going to online distributors.  So supplementing a store's income with other products makes plenty of sense.

Boardgame Revolution doesn't have to do that.  They get away with this by renting boardgames.  It's genius!  You pay a portion of the game's price tag and can take home the rental copy.  You can try out the game with your friends, see if you like it, see if they like it, and if everyone's down, you can buy the game at a discount.  I mean, it's usually discounted anyway, because BR is awesome like that, but it will be further discounted by the rental price.  Why aren't more stores doing this?




BASICALLY, I really like this store and hope to be able to play there on at least a semi-weekly basis.  If you're in the area, I'd recommend checking it out.  It's at 411 E 1400 S in Orem, UT.  They're theoretically open from noon to 7pm M-F and 10am-7pm Saturday, but they hold regular card tournaments on Wednesdays starting at 7pm, so who knows how late they tend to actually stay open?  I myself was there until about 7:20pm yesterday.