Everything starts from an interesting article "Games with Judges" by Marlena Abraham, one of our adventure partners in Ludus. Through this article, Marlena discussed whether a game is not a "game" anymore if the winner of a game is decided subjectively. Under the article, I replied I don’t think the decision method of the winner in a game would always affect that much. I think a "game" is an "interactive experience that players pursue one or more goals under certain rules". And the idea of "win" comes from achieving SOME goal(s) of the interactive experience. However, there are some goals that might not lead players to the "win state". Hence, how to win a game might not be the whole game. Players could also get other interesting experience by pursuing other goals.

Moreover, "reaching the win state" does not mean to cause an end in some games. That is, there are some games do not use "satisfying certain winning conditions" as the ending condition. For example, in traditional "tag", players run around while "it" chases after them. We can say that "it" WOULD lose the game, and other players WOULD win the game, they are in win state currently. However, "tag" does not end when someone accomplishes some winning condition, reaching win state. Instead, traditional "tag" ends when "it" gives up chasing anyone. In this case, whether there is someone standing inside the win state will not interrupt the interactive experience of a game since ending conditions do not depend on the goals leading to win state. Therefore, again, "win" may only represent part of the game. A game will not lose its whole "game" spirit only because the varied ways to get win. That is, "how to get win" is not sufficient enough to determine whether that activity is a "game" or not. If the "win" relates less to the end of a game, the way how to choose the winner is less important in a game.

What's WIN for?

Then, what does "win" matter? I think it matters because the desire of "win" is one of the most effective ways to trigger players to be devoted in playing games. The competitions between players’ desires of win make the game more intense and push players to concentrate more. Especially when a game ends when some player reaches the win state, the conflicts between players’ desires become more obvious, and conflicts will reach the maximum when someone is close to the "win".

Some games would intentionally emphasize the maximum of coompetitions to enhance the intense atmosphere and to bring the interest curve to a higher level. For instance, calling "check" in chess and shouting out "Uno" in Uno. In Uno, the only goal is to play out all your cards in your hand. The game ends while one player has no more cards in his/her hand, and that person is the winner. It is a game whose win state extremely relates to the ending conditions. Players try their best to face the challenge of each turn and to play their cards with some kind of strategy in order to beat others and get the win state first. That has already made Uno into a highly competitive game. Moreover, the mechanism of yelling "Uno" to claim the win state stimulates the extreme intensity in the game. Other players will grab their last opportunities to hinder the player who claims to be so close to the "win state". It pushes the interest curve to a new peak and forces all the players to raise their heads from their cards and pay more attention on what other players are doing.

In conclusion, the importance of the role "win state" plays in a game is positively correlated to the relationship between the "win state" itself and "the end of the game". Even though the desires of win can drive players to be deeply devoted in the game, the idea of "win" would never completely represent a whole game.

Recently, we just accomplished our adventure in Realm of Randomness in Jesse Schell’s Game Designing kingdom, Ludus. Before this crazy adventure, I thought randomness is such a good friend for game designer. Right? It helps us to make the game more dynamic (different outputs for the same input action), to simulate the reality more, or even to encourage the players to do something aggressive more. Players also feel happy when they encounter some obvious random event, for example, to draw a card as their new collection, or to spin the wheel and then multiply the output damage.

I never notice that this friend will be such a complicated factor until I have to design a game start with some pure random-purpose item: dice.

What could randomness GO WRONG in a game?

According to Oxford Dictionaries, “randomness” means “something made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision”. That is, the essence of “randomness” contains an idea of “out of control”. It could make your game more interesting and let your guests have dynamic experience. However, at the same time, it might ruin your game since those random factors are unpredictable in nature. I comprehend that players love and accept those pure random events because those events are not the core mechanism of the game. Those events are just some bonus or extra rewards for their input. Yet, once that randomness rules the whole game, players would start feeling uncomfortable. People love the feeling of controlling something, especially for game players, they want the absolute power to control their avatars, flow path, etc. Accidental randomness events work since we just take back their controlling power for a very short period of time. However, if there are too many random elements inside, players won’t feel they have the power of control at the most of time. Then, they will start to pull themselves back from that game, stop accepting the game experience game designer provide, and try to question the whole mechanism. At the end, players will totally disconnect with the whole virtual world and stop play the game.

In summary, the randomness is aimed to “get rid of the rules” in nature. It makes the game both more dynamic and out of control at the same time. “Dynamic” would make the game more engaging; however, “out of control” could also frustrate your players. Therefore, the crucial part of utilizing the randomness factor in game is to control the effective range of out of control. Here are three different ways to constrain this naughty boy:

1. Separate the randomness from core gameplay.

   For example, extra crucial attack would happen during the battle, or random treasure would be provided after each battle.

2. Provide another opportunity for players to adjust the result or shorten the effective time period.

   For instance, in card battle games, player still would be able to decide which card to play even after randomly drawing a card from the deck.

3. Gradually enhance the ability of control.

   Like some classic tabletop RPGs, the possibility of successful attack would increase after character’s level-up.

(I found out Noel’s “Luck In Games” is a great article that categorizes three different kinds of randomness well and provide some tips and examples for game designers to deal with each type of randomness.)

Back to the adventure...

Through the adventure, I came up with my game “Witchcraft”. It is a 4-player game and requires 1 d20 dice, 4 d6 dices, and a deck of poker (52 poker cards). Players need to draw a card and roll the dices in each round. They should play card(s) from their hands to respond the rolled dices. Though the randomness control the initial state in each round, players can still adjust the result by their right decisions. Also, in order to balance the game, I provide a way, called “Counter Attack”, for players they can gain some rewards by rolling a dice. Instead of simply rolling a dice, player should stack the d20 dice on one d6 dice, and player should hit the stack by throwing another d6 dice. I do not just provide random rewards for players, but also give some physical feedback for them to concentrate on. Last, I give those really bad-luck players a last chance to win the game, that is, “Last Cast”. They should roll a dice to determine if their score can be multiplied. However, some of the multiplier is ZERO, that is, those bad-luck players may lose everything if they are really unfortunate enough. It provides more dramatic moment in the end of the game.

In summary, though I use a lot of randomness factors in my game, after several design iteration, players feel they can control the final result by implementing their strategy. They like the game’s theming, the struggling between playing black or red cards, the physical feedback in “Counter Attack”, and the dramatic result in the end of the game.

One more thing...

Few weeks ago, my friend, Jack, and I had an interesting discussion about the usage of dice in games. The question is: In a tabletop RPG, the success of your each attack would depend on the result of rolling dice(s). If the result passes certain threshold, then this attack succeeds. The threshold would reduce as your character’s level increases. Then, what kind of dice is better for this kind of design? One d30 dice? Or five d6 dices (the result would be the sum of them)? (In this case, let’s say the initial threshold is 16 for d30 dice, and 18 for 5 d6 dices. That is, the initial success attack probabilities are both 50 %.)

In Jack’s opinion, the d30 dice would form a uniform distribution; hence, “one d30 dice” would have better “stability”, the success probability of attack would increase the same amount after each level-up, and it is better in game design. However, I prefer “five d6 dices” design. Even though the normal distribution of the “five d6 dice” design is not as “stable” as uniform distribution, I feel the “five d6 dices” design could provide a better user experience for players. In "five d6 dices" design, players will get more feedback/rewards for their first few level-up, and the feedback/rewards would gradually reduce after each level-up. This dramatic increment design of the probability of passing the attacking threshold would encourage players to focus more on leveling up their characters during the early stage. It could be beating more monsters around the early stage or taking simple quests. During this period, it's the best time to introduce basic mechanism and settings to players, and it also provides a great opportunity for players to try out their playing characters. After they achieve certain level, they would feel the level-up feedback/rewards would not attract them that much anymore. They would not take care about the attack threshold that much since then. Therefore, since they have some basic experience in exploring the game through the early stage, instead of repeating beating monsters only for level-ups, it's the time to offer more complicated things and different goals for players to achieve. In conclusion, I believe designers can provide a more encouraging and more indirect controlled way/flows for players through the “five d6 dices” design. Players would easily follow this path and be guided by the design. They would also have a better experience in immersing in the virtual world.

So, which one do you like? "One d30 dice" design? or "five d6 dices" design?

The Global Game Jam (GGJ) is an international game jam event that tens of thousands of game developers around the world would gather together and develop games in just 48 hours. The last weekend, Jan. 24 – 26, Pittsburgh 2014 GGJ took place at ETC and it was my very first game jam experience.

How to make a game in JUST 48 hours?

The essence of game jam is to compress the whole game development cycle, which normally takes 1 to 2 years, into a very short time period, usually ranging between 24 to 48 hours. So, the first question for all game jam newbies would be: "How can we make a game in just TWO days!!???” Based on my first game jam experience, my answer would be: “Scope.” The essence of game jam is not to make an AAA game, with complicated background set-up, fancy visual effects, or delicate 3D models and textures in 48 hours. The key is to come up a simple game design idea and implement it successfully. Game jam events try to pull game developers back to very question about making a game: “What is fun?” Although there are different ways to describe what “fun” is, they are all about how to provide an engaging gaming experience for audiences. The most engaging thing in a successful game, whether it’s an AAA game or not, is not the variety of assets or the complexity or the balance of your game system. It’s all about the unique gaming experience from your game.

In summary, what we are going to do in a game jam is not to develop an epic AAA game; instead, we are going to find a single interesting idea, stick to it, and then construct a fun experience to sale this idea. So, how to make a game in 48 hours? “Just for fun!” Doesn’t it sound possible!?

What did you do in Pittsburgh 2014 GGJ?

We made a game, of course!

My friends and I first decided to form a team when we signed up for the 2014 GGJ event. In the first section of 2014 GGJ, Friday night, we did the brainstorming for this year’s specific theme individually for 30 minutes. Then we gathered together to pitch our own brainstorming result to each other and mixed feasible ideas up and picked up the most favorite one.

The reason why we separately do the brainstorming at the very begging is based on what we’ve learned from last semester’s Building Virtual Worlds (BVW, one of ETC’s fundamental courses. It emphasizes teamwork and rapid prototyping by utilizing novel technologies). During BVW, we find out the most efficient way to do brainstorming is not have a group meeting right after revealing each topic. Instead, if all the team members could take rest to think about the topic and do brainstorming by themselves at first, the first brainstorming team meeting will become smoother and be able to come out with much better solution. This solution may not come from one single person’s idea in most cases. It is usually a mixture of several ideas or even from a pup-up idea during the group meeting. It shows that the efficiency of the first group meeting after individual brainstorming depends on how familiar with this defined topic your teammates are. The reason sounds trivial but it’s so hard to push everyone to think deeply about a certain topic.

After our first group brainstorming we came out with three different ideas for this year’s topic: “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”

1. Play with Shadow & Angle:

   The shadow would be a solid platform that can be taken as a bridge for your minion. Also, you can rotate objects or environment to form different shape of shadow.

2. Play with Projection:

   Moving objects would transform into your projections if they are closed enough to you. You can switch your conscious between your projections and yourself to control different unities.

3. Play with Imagination:

   You can assert any object on the stage is something else if they have similar shapes. Then the object or the combination of objects would become whatever you claimed to make your imagination right. For example, I can claim the hill over there is a giant elephant, and then the hill would turn into a giant elephant and become alive.

Considering the scope and uniqueness, we finally choose the idea of “Play with Projection” as our main gameplay. In the next 40 hours, we implemented this idea into our first game jam product: Watashitachi.

What is Watashitachi?

The word Watashitachi comes from the romaji of Japanese term “私たち”, which means “we” or “us”. We want to interpret this year’s topic in a direct, literal way (or might be quite special in some way): All the things we can see are part of our self. Since our original idea sounds like the Kagebunshin from Japanese anime NARUTO, we decided to focus on Ninja and Japanese culture as our theme design.

As the basic idea of “Play with Projection”, our main Ninja character would transform any animal in his view field, indicated as a yellow halo, into his “Kage”, “shadow” in Japanese. “Kage” would have Ninja’s appearance and physical properties, for example, weight, and would hold its own view field, which could be taken as an extension of Ninja’s view field, until “Kage” turns back its original creature. Also, the range of Ninja’s own view field would depend on the number of captured animals in his own view field. Most of the time, “Kage” would just stand there and be affected by gravity and other external forces. It could move only when Ninja projects his conscious onto it, and at the same time, the original Ninja would stop moving at present position. “Kage” would transform back to its origin if it is out of Ninja’s and all view fields of the other “Kage”. The transforming-back animal would continue its movement before.

The goal of the game is to use those “Kage” to support the origin Ninja to go through each stage. Although the level design in Watashitachi could be improved more, my teammates and I are all proud of what we’ve done in this crazy 48 hours. We tried our best to transmit our gameplay idea via this 48-hour project, and we think we practice the very essence of game jam: “Just Have Fun!”