Troy Farmer (10 year old male, student)
7 AM: Wake up
8 AM: Eat breakfast
9 AM - 10:15: Be at school to learn about trees
10:15 - 10:30 : Recess. Plays some wallball.
10:30 - 12:00: Learns about the rain forest
12 PM - 1 PM: Lunch time. Tries to play a board game, but other kids start arguing over a rules interpretation to see who wins. No one wins because the bell rings.
1-2:00: Learn about the rain forest.
2:00 - 2:15 : Recess. Plays a familiar board game like Connect 4 and loses.
2:15 - 3:00 - Learns about logging.
3:00 - Heads home
3:30 - 4:00: Watches cartoons
4:00 - 5:00 - Does homework
5:00 - 6:30 - Shopping trip with family. They buy a board game.
7:00 - Arrive back home to eat dinner.
8:00 - They try to learn to play the board game. Troy's parents intentionally play badly. Troy's clever so he picks up on it. It affects his enjoyment of the game.
9:00 Troy goes to sleep.
Sarah Williams (43-year old female teacher)
7AM Wake up
8 AM Eat Breakfast
8:30 AM - Be at Work and prepare for lessons
9 AM - 10:15: Teach about trees
10:15 - 10:30 : Recess. Grades papers.
10:30 - 12:00: Teaches about the rain forest
12 PM - 1 PM: Lunch time. Tries to supervise kids. Some of them play a board game and get into an argument. She stays out of it. No one wins because the bell rings.
1-2:00: Teach about the rain forest.
2:00 - 2:15 : Recess. She does some more grading. She looks over the rules for the board game the kids were arguing over. She'll be prepared next time.
2:15 - 3:00 -Teaches about logging.
3:00 - Sees the kids off home
3:00 - 4:00: Does some more preparation
4:00 - 5:00 - Staff Meetings
5:00 - Goes home
5:00 - 7:30 - Prepares tomorrow's lessons.
7:30 - 8:00 - Eats dinner
7:00 - 9:00 - Watches TV
Jane Farmer (39-year old office manager and mom)
7-8 AM Eat Breakfast
8-9 AM Go to work
9-11:30 AM - Meetings
11:30 - 12:30 PM - Lunch
12:30 -1 PM - Spreadsheets
1 - 3:30 PM Work
3:30 - 3:45 PM Break. Eats a snack.
3:45 - 5 PM - Meetings
5 PM - Goes home
5:00 - 6:30 - Shopping trip with family. They buy a board game.
7:00 - Arrive back home to eat dinner.
8:00 - They try to learn to play the board game. She doesn't want to hurt Troy, so she plays to lose. Troy's clever so he picks up on it. It affects his enjoyment of the game.
9:00 Troy goes to sleep. She cleans up.
10:00 - Goes to bed.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Feedback Loops
Game Design's a relatively new field. We don't really have a whole lot of vocabulary. Here's a couple important terms before I forget.
Positive Feedback Loop: This speeds up the end of the game. A player that does well is rewarded, which causes them to do even better, which gives them more rewards, which pushes them closer to winning, which will end the game. It isn't necessarily about rewards either. A player punished for doing badly and making them less likely to win is also a positive feedback loop. Speeding up the end of the game is good and exciting, but the rift between the people winning and the people losing isn't so good ALL the time. There's another tool for that.
Negative Feedback Loop: This delays the end of a game. A player that does badly is given some sort of consolation which will cause them to perform better and keep them in the struggle for longer. Or a player that does well has some burden placed upon them.
Use a positive feedback loop when you want an exciting finish or when you want the game to end. Use a negative feedback loop when you want to draw out the action and give the losers a fighting chance. You aren't restricted to using one or the other. Many games use both.
Positive Feedback Loop: This speeds up the end of the game. A player that does well is rewarded, which causes them to do even better, which gives them more rewards, which pushes them closer to winning, which will end the game. It isn't necessarily about rewards either. A player punished for doing badly and making them less likely to win is also a positive feedback loop. Speeding up the end of the game is good and exciting, but the rift between the people winning and the people losing isn't so good ALL the time. There's another tool for that.
Negative Feedback Loop: This delays the end of a game. A player that does badly is given some sort of consolation which will cause them to perform better and keep them in the struggle for longer. Or a player that does well has some burden placed upon them.
Use a positive feedback loop when you want an exciting finish or when you want the game to end. Use a negative feedback loop when you want to draw out the action and give the losers a fighting chance. You aren't restricted to using one or the other. Many games use both.
My Targets
Here we go. Here' s the stuff that'd normally go on the front of the box.
[Insert Game Name Here]
For Ages 7+ (actually targeted at 7-10)
Playing Time: 30 - 45 minutes
[Insert Game Name Here]
For Ages 7+ (actually targeted at 7-10)
Playing Time: 30 - 45 minutes
Elements of Cooperative Board Games
Today, I went out and bought a copy of Pandemic, a recent and fairly well-received board game. Having no one else to play with right now, I read over the rules and attempting to play it with myself taking the roles of each of the players.
I also went to Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us to look over their selection of board games to see what's basically on the shelves these days.
But first things first.
Pandemic is a board game for 2-4 players. The players play the role of CDC agents trying to contain and find the cures for four different diseases ravaging the world. They travel from city to city, trying to contain outbreaks.
The instruction manual can be found here: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/files/pandemic/Pandemic_Rules.pdf
Oh, and the Shadows over Camelot manual can be found here: http://static.shadowsovercamelot.com/lang/english/images/sc_rules_en.pdf
Some trends I've noticed in both. And I'm not going to try to go into player experiences too much. I want to strip away the aesthetics, go past the dynamics, and examine the bare-faced mechanics behind the systems. I'll try to reconstruct the dynamics and aesthetics from there.
Mechanic:The games have a shared victory. All of the players win, or all of the players fail.
Dynamic: The players do not try to hinder each other, and will help players to be in a better position to win.
Aesthetic: The players feel a drive to teamwork.
Mechanic: The game board is made up of different areas. Players have individual avatar tokens, and they can move independently of each other.
Dynamic: The players will split up to address multiple areas at once, or assemble in the same areas to influence what occurs there more strongly.
Aesthetic: The players, while acting as a group, still behave as individuals
Mechanic:For every player turn, an event occurs that causes an area to move closer to a condition that will push the players towards losing.
Dynamic: The game's difficulty scales with the number of players. The players will try to deal with "hot zones".
Aesthetic: The players feel pressure to work stave off defeat, but it is not overwhelming or too easy for their number of players.
Mechanic: Movement is NOT randomly rolled.
Dynamic: Players choose a place from among the locations they may legally move to and have perfect control over their movement.
Aesthetic: The players feel that the game involves more strategy and less chance. They feel less frustrated with not being able to go to places they want to go.
Mechanic: Player turn are limited to a small number of actions.
Dynamic: Player turns end quickly, and it is a given player's turn again relatively soon.
Aesthetic: Players do not feel bored waiting for other people to finish their turns. The action feels fast-paced, and player efforts and "enemy" efforts move such that a struggle is clear.
Mechanic: Players have information that is not visible to other players, in the form of a hand of cards.
Dynamic: Players are unable to act with perfect information. Players try to communicate with each other to gain information.
Aesthetic: The players feel tension and uncertainty with the lack of information, in spite of working with the other players.
Mechanic: Players cannot give cards or other resources to each other except in special cases.
Dynamic: Players try to work together in ways that do not involve giving each other resources whenever and wherever they please. They try to find ways to work as a group without having to directly give items to each other. They may work to fulfill conditions where they can give resources to each other directly.
Aesthetic: The players are reinforced as individuals since they are distinct characters. They feel pressure to seek each other out so they can hand off and receive resources.
Mechanic: Players are usually unable to interact directly with each other.
Dynamic: Players do not work together unless they are trying to accomplish tasks together. They do not travel together by default.
Aesthetic: Players have individual accomplishments they may be proud of instead of only a long series of group accomplishments.
Whew. That was rough. Took me at least a couple hours to compile the list of mechanics and figure out the meaning behind all of this.
I had some concepts for designs, but I may do away with them after examining these MDA structures more closely. They do lead to a VERY strong design structure that has won awards, and these trends repeat in other cooperative board games as well.
I also went to Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us to look over their selection of board games to see what's basically on the shelves these days.
But first things first.
Pandemic is a board game for 2-4 players. The players play the role of CDC agents trying to contain and find the cures for four different diseases ravaging the world. They travel from city to city, trying to contain outbreaks.
The instruction manual can be found here: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/files/pandemic/Pandemic_Rules.pdf
Oh, and the Shadows over Camelot manual can be found here: http://static.shadowsovercamelot.com/lang/english/images/sc_rules_en.pdf
Some trends I've noticed in both. And I'm not going to try to go into player experiences too much. I want to strip away the aesthetics, go past the dynamics, and examine the bare-faced mechanics behind the systems. I'll try to reconstruct the dynamics and aesthetics from there.
Mechanic:The games have a shared victory. All of the players win, or all of the players fail.
Dynamic: The players do not try to hinder each other, and will help players to be in a better position to win.
Aesthetic: The players feel a drive to teamwork.
Mechanic: The game board is made up of different areas. Players have individual avatar tokens, and they can move independently of each other.
Dynamic: The players will split up to address multiple areas at once, or assemble in the same areas to influence what occurs there more strongly.
Aesthetic: The players, while acting as a group, still behave as individuals
Mechanic:For every player turn, an event occurs that causes an area to move closer to a condition that will push the players towards losing.
Dynamic: The game's difficulty scales with the number of players. The players will try to deal with "hot zones".
Aesthetic: The players feel pressure to work stave off defeat, but it is not overwhelming or too easy for their number of players.
Mechanic: Movement is NOT randomly rolled.
Dynamic: Players choose a place from among the locations they may legally move to and have perfect control over their movement.
Aesthetic: The players feel that the game involves more strategy and less chance. They feel less frustrated with not being able to go to places they want to go.
Mechanic: Player turn are limited to a small number of actions.
Dynamic: Player turns end quickly, and it is a given player's turn again relatively soon.
Aesthetic: Players do not feel bored waiting for other people to finish their turns. The action feels fast-paced, and player efforts and "enemy" efforts move such that a struggle is clear.
Mechanic: Players have information that is not visible to other players, in the form of a hand of cards.
Dynamic: Players are unable to act with perfect information. Players try to communicate with each other to gain information.
Aesthetic: The players feel tension and uncertainty with the lack of information, in spite of working with the other players.
Mechanic: Players cannot give cards or other resources to each other except in special cases.
Dynamic: Players try to work together in ways that do not involve giving each other resources whenever and wherever they please. They try to find ways to work as a group without having to directly give items to each other. They may work to fulfill conditions where they can give resources to each other directly.
Aesthetic: The players are reinforced as individuals since they are distinct characters. They feel pressure to seek each other out so they can hand off and receive resources.
Mechanic: Players are usually unable to interact directly with each other.
Dynamic: Players do not work together unless they are trying to accomplish tasks together. They do not travel together by default.
Aesthetic: Players have individual accomplishments they may be proud of instead of only a long series of group accomplishments.
Whew. That was rough. Took me at least a couple hours to compile the list of mechanics and figure out the meaning behind all of this.
I had some concepts for designs, but I may do away with them after examining these MDA structures more closely. They do lead to a VERY strong design structure that has won awards, and these trends repeat in other cooperative board games as well.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Survey
I've created a very simple super short survey to help me out with gathering information. I'd be pretty happy if I got a large number of responses, so please fill it out
Click here to get started!
Thanks!
Click here to get started!
Thanks!
Revised Problem Statement
Although some board games for adults involve teams, many of the board games for children between the ages of 7 and 10 are focused entirely on competition with no attention given to cooperation.
The purpose of this study was to develop a set of rules for a board game for children between the ages of 7 and 10 in which cooperation is a core theme of play.
Oh, and another game I found in my closet.
The Game of Life. 2-6 players, ages 9+. This game actually originated in 1860 by Milton Bradley himself. Though it got an update on its 100th anniversary. Since then, it got an update in the 80s, early 90s, the year two thousand (the year two thou saaaaaaaaand), and in 2005.
Many of these updates dealt with inflation.
2000 edition, college put you 40,000 in debt but gave you some benefits. 2005 edition puts you 100,000 in debt, and doesn't give any more benefits to compensate, for example.
The purpose of this study was to develop a set of rules for a board game for children between the ages of 7 and 10 in which cooperation is a core theme of play.
Oh, and another game I found in my closet.
The Game of Life. 2-6 players, ages 9+. This game actually originated in 1860 by Milton Bradley himself. Though it got an update on its 100th anniversary. Since then, it got an update in the 80s, early 90s, the year two thousand (the year two thou saaaaaaaaand), and in 2005.
Many of these updates dealt with inflation.
2000 edition, college put you 40,000 in debt but gave you some benefits. 2005 edition puts you 100,000 in debt, and doesn't give any more benefits to compensate, for example.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Comparative Analysis
Not a total analysis, but a quick rundown of games that kids play that I'm aware of, and their associated ages. Maybe listing it will help me get my thoughts organized.
Uno is a card game rated for ages 7+. Judging by its extreme popularity (over one million purchases on Xbox Live Arcade, for example), it certainly appeals to people much older than 7 as well. It claims to support 2-10 players
Clue is a board game for ages 8+, and it was my favorite board game growing up. The players must use logic and process of elimination. It supports 2-6 or 3-6 players. It didn't really have any strategy in it, but there was a large revision to the game last year that I may decide to look into.
Monopoly supports 2-8 players, and rated for kids 8+. It's an iconic game, but I don't think it's very good.
Candy Land says it's good for 2-4 players from the ages of 1 to 100. Cute. This game has zero skill involved. It's all luck to see who can traverse the 134 squares first. No decision making.
Snakes and ladders (2+ layers, ages 3+) is similar but requires the ability to count.
Uno is a card game rated for ages 7+. Judging by its extreme popularity (over one million purchases on Xbox Live Arcade, for example), it certainly appeals to people much older than 7 as well. It claims to support 2-10 players
Clue is a board game for ages 8+, and it was my favorite board game growing up. The players must use logic and process of elimination. It supports 2-6 or 3-6 players. It didn't really have any strategy in it, but there was a large revision to the game last year that I may decide to look into.
Monopoly supports 2-8 players, and rated for kids 8+. It's an iconic game, but I don't think it's very good.
Candy Land says it's good for 2-4 players from the ages of 1 to 100. Cute. This game has zero skill involved. It's all luck to see who can traverse the 134 squares first. No decision making.
Snakes and ladders (2+ layers, ages 3+) is similar but requires the ability to count.
Considering a change
Not a huge change, but it is something I'm thinking about. After doing some more research, I'm just not sure kids 7-10 might not be sophisticated enough to really grasp a game in that way. A number of childrens' games are based entirely on luck, with no decision making, and these games don't derive fun from strategy and the like, but from trying to count out steps, that sort of thing.
I need to go down to Toys R Us and look at the board games or something, figure out the target ages, what sorts of mechanics exist there, and decide if what I'm aiming for is too complicated.
Or I could acknowledge my initial target audience and "design down" to them, and use simpler mechanics.
Something that comes to mind is a "Race" style game where the players try to work together to beat the rules, personified as some kind of token, and they play cards together to try to defeat it.
It's not as sophisticated as I was hoping to create, but it might be better for the scope of this project.
I'll have to do some research, but I'll either have to aim for an older age group, or I'll have to design down to that age group.
I need to go down to Toys R Us and look at the board games or something, figure out the target ages, what sorts of mechanics exist there, and decide if what I'm aiming for is too complicated.
Or I could acknowledge my initial target audience and "design down" to them, and use simpler mechanics.
Something that comes to mind is a "Race" style game where the players try to work together to beat the rules, personified as some kind of token, and they play cards together to try to defeat it.
It's not as sophisticated as I was hoping to create, but it might be better for the scope of this project.
I'll have to do some research, but I'll either have to aim for an older age group, or I'll have to design down to that age group.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Potential Prototyping Tools
http://www.thegamecrafter.com/
This site is supposed to be good. I heard they print their cards with wax instead of ink, and cutting the cards is sometimes imprecise, but it looks like a good resource. It'd be good for just about any part, it seems. The pricing looks alright so far, but I don't know how it'll end up. Still, it seems like a very good potential for prototyping. Game printing on demand sounds wonderful. They don't have many games for sale, but looking at the forums, it appears that the oldest post I can find is just five days ago. Looks like a totlaly new site.
There's a review of it over here: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/awesome-the-game-crafter-lets-you-build-and-sell-your-own-custom-board-games/
http://www.craftparts.com/
This site sells a ton of little wooden pieces. It'd be useful for tokens for games and the like. Useful if I want to do stuff with paper and just buy pieces
http://www.boardgamedesign.com
This site's just kind of weird and I can't believe it was made in 2003. It belongs in a museum. Still, they'll sell things like dice, pawns, spinners, and the like.
This site is supposed to be good. I heard they print their cards with wax instead of ink, and cutting the cards is sometimes imprecise, but it looks like a good resource. It'd be good for just about any part, it seems. The pricing looks alright so far, but I don't know how it'll end up. Still, it seems like a very good potential for prototyping. Game printing on demand sounds wonderful. They don't have many games for sale, but looking at the forums, it appears that the oldest post I can find is just five days ago. Looks like a totlaly new site.
There's a review of it over here: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/16/awesome-the-game-crafter-lets-you-build-and-sell-your-own-custom-board-games/
http://www.craftparts.com/
This site sells a ton of little wooden pieces. It'd be useful for tokens for games and the like. Useful if I want to do stuff with paper and just buy pieces
http://www.boardgamedesign.com
This site's just kind of weird and I can't believe it was made in 2003. It belongs in a museum. Still, they'll sell things like dice, pawns, spinners, and the like.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Useful Blog Sources
While looking stuff over, I've found a pair of very useful blogs for game design in general.
http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/
Brenda Brathwaite is a teacher at the Savannah College of Art and Design, and she focuses particularly on game design.
http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/
Game Design Concepts is a blog run by Ian Schreiber, and is a blog used for a virtual classroom for game design. I've signed up for it, and do the assignments, though DAI505 is still my top priority.
Books I'm using so far include the following:
A Theory of Fun, by Raph Koster
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell
Challenges for Game Designers by Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber
Rules of Play by Eric Zimmerman
And the Rules of Play reader.
I've found a large number of other articles and sources too.
http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/
Brenda Brathwaite is a teacher at the Savannah College of Art and Design, and she focuses particularly on game design.
http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/
Game Design Concepts is a blog run by Ian Schreiber, and is a blog used for a virtual classroom for game design. I've signed up for it, and do the assignments, though DAI505 is still my top priority.
Books I'm using so far include the following:
A Theory of Fun, by Raph Koster
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell
Challenges for Game Designers by Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber
Rules of Play by Eric Zimmerman
And the Rules of Play reader.
I've found a large number of other articles and sources too.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Timeline
Here's my project timeline. I've set it up to look like a game board, though that's pretty obvious just from looking at it.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Hasbro Update
Looks like they finally replied. It was just telling me to contact their corporate office instead of customer support, along with an address and telephone number. No e-mail address, unfortunately. Still, it's better than nothing. I'd given up hope. It's not over yet, though.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Shadows Over Camelot
Yesterday, I had the chance to play one of the games I considered as possible influences for my own cooperative board game concept, Shadows Over Camelot. In this game, the players take on the roles of the Knights of the Round Table, and together, they try to defeat the board itself. By default, there is a chance that one player may secretly be a traitor (though this is not guaranteed) trying to make sure everyone else loses, but that option was not exercised because we were still trying to learn how the game is played.
Each player's turn consists of two parts. In the first part, titled Progression of Evil, the players must choose one of three bad things to happen. They can draw from a black deck of cards, which causes a random bad event to happen. They can choose to sacrifice one of their points of life. If they run out of these, they are eliminated from the game, though there is a way to save them. The last is to place one siege engine on the board. I'll address the siege engines later.
In the second part of a player's turn, and this is a very simple explanation of the mechanics, the players can take on a quest, perform an action related to a quest, try to restore their life points, or destroy a siege engine. If a quest is successfully completed, the players can restore their health and place white swords on the Round Table in Camelot, and sometimes other effects occur.. Black cards that are drawn create complications for quests, whether the players are there or not. If a quest is ignored for too long, the quest may be lost, anyone on the quest loses a life point, and black swords are placed upon the Round Table in addition to other possible effects. When there are at least sixteen swords on the Round Table, the game ends.
There are three loss conditions in the game and a single win condition. If all of the knights lose all of their life points, the forces of evil win. If the game ends with 6 or more black swords on the table, the forces of evil win. If twelve siege engines are placed on the board, the forces of evil win. If the game ends and none of these three events occur, then the forces of good win.
As a cooperative game, several elements stand out. The presence of a traitor aside, victory and defeat are both shared. Players are not in competition with each other for victory, a vital, if obvious, observation. Another is that the game still has conflict, as it well should. A game without conflict or some sort of challenge to overcome would be boring, and player actions would have no meaning. In most board games, the conflict comes from other players, but here the conflict comes from the game itself. Unless there is a traitor, or someone falsely suspects someone else of being a traitor, players acting rationally will not try to oppose or otherwise hinder each other. The players must cooperate to beat the game, and here lies the challenge and meaning of the game.
Effective play of Shadows over Camelot requires the players to not simply work together, but to work together effectively. If beating the game were only as simple as choosing to cooperate, any choice after stating an intention to work together would be meaningless. As stated above, the conflict comes from the board itself. More specifically, the conflict comes from dealing with the consequences of the "Progression of Evil" phase. Every action taken there threatens the players with the approach of a loss condition. Choosing to place a siege engine on the board brings the game closer to having a fatal number of siege engines, and it takes serious player effort to remove one. Choosing to draw a black card will most often cause one of the several quests on the table to slip closer to a loss condition, which would put black swords on the Round Table. Two specific quests even cause more siege engines to be placed on the board. Lastly, a player may choose to sacrifice a point of life.
In many games, choosing to sacrifice a point of life would be questionable, even unthinkable. After all, if you lose all your life points, you are eliminated from the game. However, a number of factors make this the most reasonable course of action. With the exception of a single specific black card, you choose to enter situations when you may lose a point of life. It is unlikely that you would take damage from a completely unexpected source, so there is little reason to build up a buffer of life points. The alternatives are also worse in most cases. A black card or a siege engine hurts everyone, not just the player.
This brings us to a theme of the game that did not become apparent to me when reading the manual, and only became apparent during actual play, as is common in game systems design, and helps me to illustrate a set of three important terms in the discipline of game rules systems design. A mechanic is a rule within the game. The ability to choose to sacrifice a point of life is a mechanic. This creates a dynamic, a player behavior that tends to manifest in a reaction when players interact with the mechanic. In this case, the dynamic would be a player looking at the three options, evaluating them in the context of the current playing field, and making the decision to sacrifice that point of life, believing that to be the option that will stall defeat. This gives rise to an aesthetic, a player emotional response to the game. In this case, the dynamic of choosing to sacrifice of the self for the betterment of the whole gives rise to an understanding that this is a game where defeat is likely, and personal sacrifices must be made if there is to be any hope of victory, creating a feeling of tension and willingness to work with the group. The mechanics of the game as a whole interact with the players, who adopt certain dynamics in reaction as they try to discover a way to win, and these behaviors and perceived expectations create emotional responses in the players.
Playing Shadows Over Camelot contributed significantly to my ongoing research into cooperative gaming. A number of dynamics were discovered that simply reading the mechanics of the game without putting them into play could not have revealed. A single shared goal is vital to the success of players. While they can be given different abilities that might help them reach that goal, victory must be done as a group. A player's avatar might die, eliminating the player from the game, but as far as the game is concerned, the player will still win if the rest of the group wins, and in some cases, a player might even elect to lose their last life point and be removed from the board if it will make a difference between winning and losing. A number of cards, both negative and positive, present the players with the option to take a penalty or reward completely for themselves, or to distribute it among the group, and prioritizing this is an important part of gameplay. Another important element seen here is that for every player, one "bad thing" happens. This creates a threat that scales itself in proportion to the number of players in the game. Though I have not experimented with different numbers of players, in theory, this would allow for the same level of challenge in the game whether you have three players or seven.
I hope to next examine the Lord of the Rings board game, which is also focused on cooperation, though this has no possible "traitor". Arkham Horror is another game I hope to take a look at, but because it has similarities to Shadows Over Camelot, I feel it would be better to look at a game with similar themes that approaches it in a very different way.
Lastly, I've sent e-mails to Hasbro, Days of Wonder and Steve Jackson Games, but neither company has provided a response to me. I'll attempt to contact them by phone soon, and send e-mails to Mayfair Games and Fantasy Flight Games as well.
Each player's turn consists of two parts. In the first part, titled Progression of Evil, the players must choose one of three bad things to happen. They can draw from a black deck of cards, which causes a random bad event to happen. They can choose to sacrifice one of their points of life. If they run out of these, they are eliminated from the game, though there is a way to save them. The last is to place one siege engine on the board. I'll address the siege engines later.
In the second part of a player's turn, and this is a very simple explanation of the mechanics, the players can take on a quest, perform an action related to a quest, try to restore their life points, or destroy a siege engine. If a quest is successfully completed, the players can restore their health and place white swords on the Round Table in Camelot, and sometimes other effects occur.. Black cards that are drawn create complications for quests, whether the players are there or not. If a quest is ignored for too long, the quest may be lost, anyone on the quest loses a life point, and black swords are placed upon the Round Table in addition to other possible effects. When there are at least sixteen swords on the Round Table, the game ends.
There are three loss conditions in the game and a single win condition. If all of the knights lose all of their life points, the forces of evil win. If the game ends with 6 or more black swords on the table, the forces of evil win. If twelve siege engines are placed on the board, the forces of evil win. If the game ends and none of these three events occur, then the forces of good win.
As a cooperative game, several elements stand out. The presence of a traitor aside, victory and defeat are both shared. Players are not in competition with each other for victory, a vital, if obvious, observation. Another is that the game still has conflict, as it well should. A game without conflict or some sort of challenge to overcome would be boring, and player actions would have no meaning. In most board games, the conflict comes from other players, but here the conflict comes from the game itself. Unless there is a traitor, or someone falsely suspects someone else of being a traitor, players acting rationally will not try to oppose or otherwise hinder each other. The players must cooperate to beat the game, and here lies the challenge and meaning of the game.
Effective play of Shadows over Camelot requires the players to not simply work together, but to work together effectively. If beating the game were only as simple as choosing to cooperate, any choice after stating an intention to work together would be meaningless. As stated above, the conflict comes from the board itself. More specifically, the conflict comes from dealing with the consequences of the "Progression of Evil" phase. Every action taken there threatens the players with the approach of a loss condition. Choosing to place a siege engine on the board brings the game closer to having a fatal number of siege engines, and it takes serious player effort to remove one. Choosing to draw a black card will most often cause one of the several quests on the table to slip closer to a loss condition, which would put black swords on the Round Table. Two specific quests even cause more siege engines to be placed on the board. Lastly, a player may choose to sacrifice a point of life.
In many games, choosing to sacrifice a point of life would be questionable, even unthinkable. After all, if you lose all your life points, you are eliminated from the game. However, a number of factors make this the most reasonable course of action. With the exception of a single specific black card, you choose to enter situations when you may lose a point of life. It is unlikely that you would take damage from a completely unexpected source, so there is little reason to build up a buffer of life points. The alternatives are also worse in most cases. A black card or a siege engine hurts everyone, not just the player.
This brings us to a theme of the game that did not become apparent to me when reading the manual, and only became apparent during actual play, as is common in game systems design, and helps me to illustrate a set of three important terms in the discipline of game rules systems design. A mechanic is a rule within the game. The ability to choose to sacrifice a point of life is a mechanic. This creates a dynamic, a player behavior that tends to manifest in a reaction when players interact with the mechanic. In this case, the dynamic would be a player looking at the three options, evaluating them in the context of the current playing field, and making the decision to sacrifice that point of life, believing that to be the option that will stall defeat. This gives rise to an aesthetic, a player emotional response to the game. In this case, the dynamic of choosing to sacrifice of the self for the betterment of the whole gives rise to an understanding that this is a game where defeat is likely, and personal sacrifices must be made if there is to be any hope of victory, creating a feeling of tension and willingness to work with the group. The mechanics of the game as a whole interact with the players, who adopt certain dynamics in reaction as they try to discover a way to win, and these behaviors and perceived expectations create emotional responses in the players.
Playing Shadows Over Camelot contributed significantly to my ongoing research into cooperative gaming. A number of dynamics were discovered that simply reading the mechanics of the game without putting them into play could not have revealed. A single shared goal is vital to the success of players. While they can be given different abilities that might help them reach that goal, victory must be done as a group. A player's avatar might die, eliminating the player from the game, but as far as the game is concerned, the player will still win if the rest of the group wins, and in some cases, a player might even elect to lose their last life point and be removed from the board if it will make a difference between winning and losing. A number of cards, both negative and positive, present the players with the option to take a penalty or reward completely for themselves, or to distribute it among the group, and prioritizing this is an important part of gameplay. Another important element seen here is that for every player, one "bad thing" happens. This creates a threat that scales itself in proportion to the number of players in the game. Though I have not experimented with different numbers of players, in theory, this would allow for the same level of challenge in the game whether you have three players or seven.
I hope to next examine the Lord of the Rings board game, which is also focused on cooperation, though this has no possible "traitor". Arkham Horror is another game I hope to take a look at, but because it has similarities to Shadows Over Camelot, I feel it would be better to look at a game with similar themes that approaches it in a very different way.
Lastly, I've sent e-mails to Hasbro, Days of Wonder and Steve Jackson Games, but neither company has provided a response to me. I'll attempt to contact them by phone soon, and send e-mails to Mayfair Games and Fantasy Flight Games as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)