Brainstorming, Continued: Multiple Axes of Decision

The brainstorming phase of game creation is an exciting time.  You get to throw dozens, perhaps hundreds of ideas against the wall and see which ones stick.  (The cleanup afterwards isn't fun, but that's why they invented industrial-strength vacuums.)

A loose design goal I had for this game was to make it playable with just the rulebook, a story book, and the cards.  The main reason for this goal was to cut down on the barrier between player and game.  With print-and-play games, any addition of components just makes it that much harder for players to jump in and try the game.  "Sorry, not only do you need to print and cut 200 cards, but you have to acquire 30 Eurocubes in assorted colors, and at least 10 dice of two different colors."  That's a hassle.  It's daunting to a lot of would-be PnPers.  So I try to lower the barrier to entry to my PnP games as much as possible.

But, for the good of the game, I going to add at least one new dimension.  Resources.

In previous brainstorming sessions, it was determined that the player would have a hand of cards, a deck of cards, and a discard pile as resources from which they could attempt to overcome various challenges.  The problem with this is that it's binary.  You either have the card(s) that you need or you do not.  That's not an interesting game.  ESPECIALLY when I'd like to give the player the chance to dig for the card(s) he or she needs.

What would make the game more interesting was to force the player to balance short- and long-term benefits.  Sure, you can defeat that squad of mercenaries now, but will that leave you helpless in the robot boss fight later?  Can you absorb the damage from the turret in order to save up for the final hacking challenge?  This tension creates much more interesting game decisions.  So how do I add this tension to the game?

The answer is to give the cards a cost in Resources.  Yes, you can fire that Grenade Launcher now, but will that leave you enough cash to use your weapons later in the game?  Sure, you can trade some intell to get a tool you need, but then what will you use to break into the data fortress?  Those are the kinds of decisions I want the players to be making!

Currently, I think the game only needs two types of Resources:  Cash and Data.  Using physical Items will typically have a cost in Cash, while performing certain actions such as hacking or convincing might require Data.  Some cards might require both, and the occasional card may cost neither.  The important thing is that the player will now have multiple axes of decision.  It will not just be a case of having the right cards, but using those cards effectively to maintain a pool of Resources.

The downside to this is that the player will need a way to track his or her Resources, whether it be pen and paper, a smart phone app, an Excel sheet, poker chips, or whatever they have on hand.  It increases the game's footprint (more space require on the table in order to play) and ratchets up the barrier to entry, if only slightly.  Still, I think this will be an important step in making the kind of dynamic and interesting solitaire game system that this needs to be.

I am also considering a third layer, in addition to cards and Resources:  Actions.  During an encounter, the player would be able to perform X number of Actions, and then the encounter would "act."  This may mean doing something detrimental to the player, such as forcing him or her to discard cards or lose Resources, or it could just advance some sort of timer--a countdown to something really bad happening.  This has the added benefit of balancing out the ability to discard a card and draw a card.  If the player can only take, say, three actions before the encounter acts, it's potentially a lot more costly to need five actions just to find the cards necessary to guarantee success.  More importantly, this would give encounters a more dynamic feel, with a "back-and-forth" dynamic happening between the player and the game's AI.   

This would mean that encounters would be more difficult to create and balance.  That's more work on the part of the designer, and I'm not certain yet if the game needs this sort of dynamic.  But it does make for more interesting outcomes to the encounters beyond simply pass/fail.  And it would give the player another axis of decision, and another knob for the designer to tweak while trying to balance the game and increase the tension and fun.  I'll keep it on the back burner for now, but I like the idea.

Brainstorming, Continued: Building a Skeleton

With this contest, I'd really like to show my design methods as much as possible.  Not only do I think that it might--MIGHT, mind you--be interesting and instructive to others, but it will be a good resource for myself.  I can analyze what I do and why I do it, which will hopefully lead to improvements in my own methodology.

As demonstrated in the previous post, my preferred method is to brainstorm a variety of ideas, then use deductive logic to eliminate the weaker ideas.  We now have a very basic shape or outline of the game.  It's time now to build a skeleton.  We'll put some meat on the bones later, but for now we just want a good sturdy structure on which to build.

The game requires the construction of three major components: the rules, the stories, and the customizable decks.  The game cannot function without all three components, so we must always keep these three aspects in mind as we put our skeleton together.

Before the player begins a game, he or she must construct a deck.  (I'm assuming they have gone through the process of building or purchasing the components and are familiar with the rules.)  Of what does deckbuilding consist?

Well, first they must select a Persona.  I find the idea of four separate and distinct Personas to be very balanced and pleasing.  This means that there should be at least four different thematic strategies for approaching the game.  Let's explore those briefly.

• Human - Humans are (relatively) physically weak, with shaky limbs and poor eyesight.  This means that they struggle in combat unless they have the correct tools for the job.  However, they are very good at ACQUIRING the correct tools for the job.  Human cards should focus on digging through the deck, manipulating cards in hand, sifting through the discard pile, and maybe even pulling cards back from exile.  Humans are innovators, using creativity and planning to overcome the obstacles they encounter.  They are also very adept at social challenges, particularly since they almost always deal with fellow humans, or with creatures that have human-like emotions and motivations.
• Robot - Robots are quick, calculating, and equipped with many different tools to get them through their tasks.  They particularly excel at hacking and electronic warfare.  They are also very good with guns, favoring long-range attacks over melee combat (where their fragile joints are a liability).  They suffer socially, however, being handicapped by their historical status as slaves and servants, by their difficulty in understanding human emotions and motivations, and by their general appearance and demeanor.  Robot cards should focus on different tools and settings to uplink with or disassemble anything that gives them trouble.
• Cyborg - Cyborgs are tough, powerful, with vast stores of knowledge they can access.  They are often equipped for hacking, but it is more dangerous for them then for robots--electronic countermeasures can sometimes fry a cyborg's brain.  Their enhanced speed and strength make them excellent at hand-to-hand combat.  They can struggle socially in some circles--not all sentient beings approve of man/machine hybrids.  Cyborg cards should focus on brute strength, bashing straight through trouble with little regard to consequences; also cards that can mitigate potential consequences, to represent the cyborg's toughness.
• Uplift - Uplifts are intelligent, yet retain their animal senses and instincts.  It would be thematically useful to decide on a particular species for this Persona, such as dogs, cats, chimps, or pigs, but I don't want to commit to anything just yet.  Uplifts are smaller than humans (or robots or cyborgs), making it easier for them to utilize the environment to their advantage.  Uplift cards should focus on stealth play--hiding in small spaces, avoiding detection, using maintenance tunnels and air ducts to reach objectives, etc.  Uplifts struggle with hacking, as the interfaces are always designed for human use.  They can struggle in combat against prepared opponents, but stealthy attacks often allow them to subdue threats without a fight.

That seems good.  Four different strategies--deck manipulation, finesse, brute force, and stealth.  Hopefully they will combine well to create a wide variety of deck types.

Now, once the decks are crafted and the game has begun, most of the decision-making will take place during encounters.  So we really need to get those RIGHT.  What do encounters look like?  What sort of information is presented to the player?  What tools will they have at their disposal to overcome the encounters?  

The current plan is to have semi-linear stories that introduce random encounters.  Let's brainstorm some RE ideas to make sure that we can include encounters that play to each Persona's strengths and weaknesses.

• Locked Door
• Machine Gun Turret
• Malfunctioning Bridge Extension
• Robot Sentry
• Sniper on the Ridge
• Guard Post
• Angry Mob
• Crafty Salesman
• Indifferent Pilot
• Bounty Hunters
• Data Storage Unit

Well, the good news is, I can come up with plenty of ideas for problems that the player must overcome.  The BETTER news is that the problems tend to break down into one or more categories:

• Combat - The player must fight someone or something.  They may not need to kill or destroy their opponent, however; sometimes they can merely subdue it.  Since I'm very much a life-affirming person, I like the idea of providing cards that accommodate a no-kill strategy.  Stun guns and tranq darts all the way!
• Hacking - Sometimes the player must interact with computer terminals.  Maybe they have to hack some bots, turrets, or security cameras.  Maybe they have to dig up some information from a data storage unit.  Maybe they have to scramble the coordinates before some missiles are launched.  There are a lot of interesting ways this could be incorporated into the story.
• Social - Occasionally the player will have to deal with people, not all of whom will want to deal with them.  Maybe they need a component or weapon that they can only get from a black market dealer.  Maybe they need to calm an angry mob before someone gets hurt.  Maybe they must bribe a pilot to take them somewhere discretely.  Whatever it is, some Personas will have an easier time than others.
• Environmental - The door is locked!  The bulkhead is leaking!  The bridge won't extend!  The forest is freaking ON FIRE!  There are a lot of ways to force the player to overcome obstacles presented by the environment, some of which will require some fast-thinking, some of which will require brute force.  

It's looking more and more like some of the encounters within the stories will or should be pre-scripted.  They will be the same every time.  I'm okay with that.  It's a good way to provide narrative structure.  There can still, of course, be plenty of random encounters, as well.

It's interesting that there are four Personas, and four encounter categories.  This makes me wonder if perhaps the different Personas are adept at different categories.  Let's see if we can rank each Persona and how good it is at dealing with the different types of encounters.

That seems to work, mostly.  Some of those numbers are a little difficult to justify, though.  For example, why is the Cyborg Persona the weakest at overcoming Environmental obstacles?  Busting through locked doors or climbing up cliffs shouldn't be difficult for a cyborg.  I do think that it's appropriate for Humans to not be great at hacking--after all, the average untrained human would have a hard time interfacing with and manipulating unfamiliar computer systems.

Still, this does give us a rough guide of what we can expect.  Perhaps, for balancing purposes, the important thing should be that each Persona's total should be 10.  So the Cyborg might actually be Combat 3, Hacking 3, Social 2, Environment 2.  The Uplift might be Combat 1, Hacking 1, Social 4, Environment 4.  Et cetera.  But this does illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Personas.  That will come in handy when we start brainstorming the actual cards.

This was a very useful session!  I think the next step will be to outline a rough story, including some encounters, and then working on cards for each Persona.  Then we can stress test the system and start hammering out the rules.

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

Horns of Thunder In Progress

I've been getting some nudges from my... fans?  I'm going to go with fans--over at Board Game Geek who are eager to play the sequel to my award-winning solitaire gamebook, Wings of Lightning.

The sequel, Horns of Thunder, is in the works as a couple of weeks ago.  The rules are basically finished save for some minor editing, and I am perhaps halfway through Chapter One.  The game's outline currently puts it at 9 or 10 chapters, and should include some interesting narrative surprises for fans of the first game while remaining playable and fun for those new to the trilogy.  I'm trying to write it so that those completely unfamiliar with Skoros, Molina, and the events of Wings of Lightning will still be able to jump into the world of Myesta without feeling lost.

Progress is currently rather slow.  I'm juggling two intense college courses with 25+ hours at work every week, including trying to earn a pretty sweet promotion.  Subsequently, it has been difficult to find time for creative writing.  (You'll notice this is my first blog post in months.)

Still, the semester ends in about two weeks.  After that, I will be working full-time, but will not have to bring my work home with me.  So I should have plenty of free time to work on my creative endeavors.

With Horns of Thunder, I have added examples of the combat system and cleaned up the combat rules to make things easier for those new to the game.  It is, after all, a unique combat system, very different from those found in other gamebooks and RPGs.  Combat requires a standard deck of poker cards.  The player uses the face cards to make his or her attacks, generate combos, and slay his or her enemies.  The number cards are drawn one at a time to determine whether the surviving enemies hit the player and what abilities they activate, although the player can attempt to block attacks with maneuver cards built up during his or her turn.  Those who played Wings of Lightning will find the combat very familiar.

The narrative structure of the game is getting some pretty major tweaks.  Rather than being completely linear, each chapter will be broken into a series of Scenes and Battles.  Some Scenes (and possibly some Battles) will give the player an option of how he or she would like to proceed through the story.  As long as the player survives combat, he or she will always be able to progress to the next chapter, but certain choices will make the journey easier or more difficult.

I am quite excited for Horns of Thunder and hope fans of Wings of Lightning will enjoy it.  The current (tentative) release date is 1 July.

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.

Wings of Lightning Update, and My Next Project

If you frequent the boardgamegeek.com design forums, this is probably old news, but my gamebook, Wings of Lightning, did quite well in the 2012 Solitaire Print and Play Contest.  Out of the 48 completed entries, Wings of Lightning placed 8th overall.  Not too shabby.

In addition, it won first prize in the Best Paragraph Game and Best Large Game categories, and second place in the Best Sci Fi/Fantasy Game category.  Pretty good for my first completed gamebook.

The prize isn't spectacular--just a pile of "GeekGold" that can be used on the boardgamegeek website to purchase certain perks, like new microbadges to place under my avatar.  Still, it's a nice confidence-boost in my writing and design abilities.

Subsequently, I'm working on another gamebook, Traitors' Path.  This one is heavily influenced by space opera like Star Trek and David Weber's Honor Harrington series.  I think it will be a much better game than WoL in terms of balance and replayability.  It's much lighter on combat, which I think actually makes it faster-paced than WoL; the combat systems in both games is fun and unique from other gamebooks, but it can get repetitive.

Traitors' Path is about Seventh Fleet patrolling the edge of human expansion for fear of the return of an alien threat.  It turns out that the real threat to humanity, however, is itself, as the Interplanetary Socialist Initiative brutally and illegally takes power.  The ISI takes control of the military and seizes most human-occupied systems within a matter of days.

As a young commander in Seventh Fleet, you vow your loyalty to Admiral Vonn and swear to help her and Seventh Fleet free humanity from the tyrannical Izzies.  Check it out!  The first three missions are playable right now.  When the gamebook is complete, it will probably be the longest work I have ever completed.

And if you're interested in gamebooks, please check out this year's Windhammer contest.  There are some really intriguing entries, and I'm a little disappointed that I didn't find time to complete a submission of my own.  Next year, I suppose.  Anyway, the winner and two other "merit award" entries will get the chance to be published as an app by Tin Man Games, so be sure to vote!