Inventing games
John McLeod
How many of you have invented games of your own? If you have, how did it
go? Have you tried them out with other players? Did they work as you
expected? Did you try to promote them beyond your immediate circle of
gamers?
Although I spend a lot of time finding out about games and playing them,
I notice that I don't have a strong urge to invent games of my own. I
don't know why this is. When I was a child I remember making a couple of
attempts - unduly complicated race games as I remember. Since then I
have occasionally tinkered with other people's games to try to help
improve them, and at work I developed a few business simulation games
for use on management courses. But apart from that I mostly just play
games (and document rules of traditional games).
To judge from the correspondence I get there must by thousands of people
who like inventing card games - you can see some of the results on my
web site and this can only be a tiny fraction of what exists. Also I
have met several prolific board game inventors - people who at any time
have several ideas on the boil.
So what about the members of this group. How many of you develop your
own games - either for your own amusement or to play with friends, or
with the aim of distributing them more widely? When introduced to a
game, do you take the existing rules as fixed and given or do you feel
free to adapt and improve them? I have noticed that inventors tend to
regard game rules as fluid, and sometimes when playing they show more
interest in thinking of adjustments to the game and observing how other
people play it than in becoming good players themselves.
I have never been involved to any extent in war gaming, but from what I
know of these games I would have thought they were ideal subjects for
endless development and adjustment to improve the balance, realism,
playability, or whatever you want from them. I know there are several
war gamers in this group and it surprises me how little discussion there
has been of games you have invented or adapted.
For some people the barrier to inventing games might be the scepticism
of one's fellow gamers, who might be unwilling to try out a new and
untested idea. But for those of you who are solo gamers by preference
this barrier does not exist. Maybe it's just that, like me, you tend to
prefer exploring what you can do within a framework of rules that is
given to you, rather than altering the framework itself.
So that's the topic. Do you invent games? If not, why not, and if so,
why have we heard so little about them in this discussion group? Simple
modesty perhaps?
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.com http://www.pagat.com/
Peter Clinch
> How many of you have invented games of your own? If you have, how did it
> go? Have you tried them out with other players? Did they work as you
> expected? Did you try to promote them beyond your immediate circle of
> gamers?
I invented a few as a child, initially roll and move no-brainers
but increasingly elaborate things with building plans, usually
involving spies and secret agents. I had great fun with them, but
they wouldn't trouble a publisher!
In my teens, discovering more games through RPGs and
fantasy/sf/historical wargames, some pals and I worked on a few.
We had a few interesting concepts but on the whole we just stole
stuff and painted on our own chrome. And being into "realism" at
the time we'd tend to put on too much chrome...
Again, there'd be no danger of publication.
A couple of years ago a friend with little gaming experience
designed a board game for his (media based) degree project. I did
quite a bit of trouble-shooting on it and was in a position to help
him make a lot of improvements (changing roll and move for an
action-point system, for example), but despite knowing far more
about games than him he actually proved vastly better than me at
coming up with raw ideas like what the game would be about and the
broad mechanisms of how it would work. While I can tune a game to
a degree I lack the creative impulses to actually create one of my
own. That carries over into the rest of my life with art: however
competent I am at the craft side of it I can never /create/
something original. I'm a good proof reader, but can't come up
with a subject (even most of my online posting is strictly reactive).
I do note that one of my school friends has gone on to have a
couple of games properly published by JKLM, so well done him!
> with the aim of distributing them more widely? When introduced to a
> game, do you take the existing rules as fixed and given or do you feel
> free to adapt and improve them?
I tend to take things as written unless they're pretty clearly
borken, but I'm getting more risque in fiddling with stuff as I get
older and less impressed by "officialdom".
> I have never been involved to any extent in war gaming, but from what I
> know of these games I would have thought they were ideal subjects for
> endless development and adjustment to improve the balance, realism,
> playability, or whatever you want from them.
Depends a lot on the nature of the game, I'd think. Many designs
are very fine balances based on a lot of play-testing, particularly
grand strategy stuff. Meddle much with the capabilities of units
in the likes of The Russian Campaign and you'll probably break it,
but fiddling with the counter mix to give a "what if" is part of
what wargames can be about.
> So that's the topic. Do you invent games? If not, why not, and if so,
> why have we heard so little about them in this discussion group? Simple
> modesty perhaps?
I dont invent games because I know I'm not any good at it :-( One
of the things about a large collection is you've got lots of
examples from the best folk in the world at designing them, and
comparing yourself to Reiner Knizia you tend to come up a long way
short!
I can certainly see the attraction in fiddling with stuff, but my
main preference in games is the simple to play, hard to play well
type charcaterised by elegant simplicity and I'm reminded of Robert
Fripp's aphorism "the hardest thing to discharge honourably is
simplicity, so keep it complicated!", and fiddling doesn't get me
the beautiful simplicity I want. I've just unwrapped Kris Burm's
"Tzaar", and it's yet another of his designs that is just so
effortlessly elegant that I'm just left wondering where that sort
of inspiration comes from.
Hey ho, at least I get to play them...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096.
Patrick
> How many of you have invented games of your own? If you have, how did it
> go? Have you tried them out with other players? Did they work as you
> expected? Did you try to promote them beyond your immediate circle of
> gamers?
remember was a strategy-level wargame. I drew maps onto large poster
boards and divided them into irregular areas (long, thin areas along
rivers; small areas in mountainous regions; etc.). My big innovation
was to use six-sided dice as "armies." That way I'd have a natural,
elegant step-reduction system (as an army suffered losses, the die
would be turned to a lower number). At the time, though, I didn't
know where to buy a lot of small dice, so I think I wrote numbers on
the sides of wooden Risk armies and used those instead. A friend and
I played the game once or twice. He liked it, but I never did
anything more with it.
Other attempts at designing games failed miserably. After a few bad
designs, I stopped trying. I could never come close to getting a game
to be what I imagined or wished it could be. If I have to play a game
with shortcomings, I'd rather it be someone else's design so I can
blame him instead of myself.
> So what about the members of this group. How many of you develop your
> own games - either for your own amusement or to play with friends, or
> with the aim of distributing them more widely? When introduced to a
> game, do you take the existing rules as fixed and given or do you feel
> free to adapt and improve them? I have noticed that inventors tend to
> regard game rules as fluid, and sometimes when playing they show more
> interest in thinking of adjustments to the game and observing how other
> people play it than in becoming good players themselves.
them as fluid at all; I consider them gospel and don't dare mess with
them. But OTOH, if I perceive a flaw or shortcoming in a game, it can
annoy me to the point where it's intolerable. If I can see a way to
correct the flaw or improve the game, I'll rewrite the rules. I've
tinkered with many games, and sometimes I've even liked my results.
Unfortunately, I have trouble appreciating anything that's not tried-
and-true. If the game in question has been published and marketed,
the printed rules are out there and have become standard. If it's an
old game, or even an ancient game, the rules may be practically set in
stone. So, here I am with my unknown "house rule," and the rest of
the world is playing by the published or traditional rules. Even if I
believe my rule is better, I'm likely to discard it under those
conditions. I'm happier playing a game the way everybody else plays
it--the way it's "supposed" to be played.
Standards generally appeal to me, while variants usually feel
uncomfortable. I suppose that's partly because I look to games as a
sort of refuge--a place I can retreat to when "real life" becomes too
stressful or tiresome. And one thing I look for in a refuge is
stability. I like a favorite game to feel like a Rock of Gibraltar in
my life. I don't want it to change.
> I have never been involved to any extent in war gaming, but from what I
> know of these games I would have thought they were ideal subjects for
> endless development and adjustment to improve the balance, realism,
> playability, or whatever you want from them. I know there are several
> war gamers in this group and it surprises me how little discussion there
> has been of games you have invented or adapted.
forty wargaming years questing after the perfect game--the one that
suits me best. I'll buy and try one (or sometimes two or three at a
time), hoping it turns out to be so satisfying that I'll never need or
want to buy another. The games are pretty complicated, so it takes a
while to learn one. For me, the process of buying and trying wargames
has ended up being a hobby in itself.
Invariably I'd find shortcomings in every new game. And I'm too much
a perfectionist to tolerate that. If I'm going to commit myself to
something so complex and demanding, it has to be the be-all and end-
all of wargaming. Not something second rate.
At one point, I set out to create a generic, multi-period wargame on
man-to-man-level combat. I started out with the Avalon Hill game
"Gunslinger" and used its "brawling" rules to simulate hand-to-hand
fighting in other periods of history. Then I bought every man-to-man-
level game and set of miniatures rules I could find. My intent was to
try all those games, cull the best from each, and synthesize it all
into a game of my own. But so many detailed questions came up that I
finally concluded I'd never be able to invent anything that would
satisfy me. And even if I came close, I'd end up just playing the
game solitaire. It was an empty feeling realizing that no one else
would ever even know about the game I had created. All the wind went
out of my sails, and I abandoned the project.
Lately, I'm back to just buying published games and trying them,
leaving them just as they are. I find I don't care that much about
realism anymore. If it's a good, simple, fast-paced game with enough
"chrome" to stir my imagination and engage me in the theme, that's
enough for me.
> For some people the barrier to inventing games might be the scepticism
> of one's fellow gamers, who might be unwilling to try out a new and
> untested idea. But for those of you who are solo gamers by preference
> this barrier does not exist. Maybe it's just that, like me, you tend to
> prefer exploring what you can do within a framework of rules that is
> given to you, rather than altering the framework itself.
good variant for an existing one. I think others are probably a lot
better at that than I am.
And if there's a game that has remained popular for a very long time,
I figure there must be a good reason for that; it must be an excellent
game in its own right, just as it is, without any "tweaking" from me.
I'm not very good at strategy or tactics either, though. So, for any
reasonably challenging game, there's little chance of my ever
mastering it. Hence, I tend to flit from one game to another, and I
end up as more a dabbler than a real game player.
Often I'll fall in love with the *idea* of a game, or with the
components and aesthetics and history of a game, and I'll spend a lot
of time thinking and talking and reading and writing about it. But I
neither alter its rules nor make any serious attempt to master its
play.
--Patrick
David Parlett
>
>On Sep 10, 11:21 am, John McLeod <j...@pagat.com> wrote:
>> OK - I think this is a new topic.
>
>Yes--and a very good one. Thanks!
Let me say first that I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts about games
and am saving them all for general reference and mulling over, as I do a
lot of games-navel-gazing myself, even though I don't contribute much. I
look forward to reading more.
>
>> How many of you have invented games of your own? If you have, how did it
>> go? Have you tried them out with other players? Did they work as you
>> expected? Did you try to promote them beyond your immediate circle of
>> gamers?
I always try my inventions out with other players - that's the only way
to spot flaws. However, I (and I dare say everyone else) usually start
by playing the parts of several different players myself before
inflicting them on real people.
>> So what about the members of this group. How many of you develop your
>> own games - either for your own amusement or to play with friends, or
>> with the aim of distributing them more widely? When introduced to a
>> game, do you take the existing rules as fixed and given or do you feel
>> free to adapt and improve them? I have noticed that inventors tend to
>> regard game rules as fluid, and sometimes when playing they show more
>> interest in thinking of adjustments to the game and observing how other
>> people play it than in becoming good players themselves.
That's me! I'm not really a good player of anything. I'm more interested
in the mechanics of a game than in the person-to-person competitive
element. This probably explains why I prefer abstract to thematic or
representational games.
>
>I have mixed feelings about game rules. On one hand, I don't think of
>them as fluid at all; I consider them gospel and don't dare mess with
>them.
I don't consider any games rules as gospel, and to me the phrase
"official rules" is like a red rag to a bull. For more on this topic,
see
http://www.davpar.com/gamester/rulesOK.html
> But OTOH, if I perceive a flaw or shortcoming in a game, it can
>annoy me to the point where it's intolerable. If I can see a way to
>correct the flaw or improve the game, I'll rewrite the rules. I've
>tinkered with many games, and sometimes I've even liked my results.
That's one good reason for changing the rules, but another one is simply
that you suddenly see how the thing could be played another way and you
want to experiment with it to see if it works.
Years ago, in my Oxford History of Card Games, I devised what I regard
as the only two universal rules of games-playing:
1. Everyone around the same table should be playing to the same rules,
and
2. They should all agree on what those rules are.
Obviously, this only works for domestic play and not tournaments, which
explains why I'm not much of a tournament player.
In my teens, every time I discovered a new game or family of games I
would immediately start to devise my own version or member of it. When
my father acquired a billiards table I soon invented a (not very clever)
variety of billiards. When we got a dartboard I started inventing darts
games. Like most game inventors, as soon as I discovered Monopoly I made
my own local version of it. It may be relevant to note that as soon as I
started learning Latin at school, and discovered the novelty of an
inflected as opposed to an analytic language, I invented an inflected
language. So did my brother at a similar age, so there must be something
in the genes. The fact that our father was a motor mechanic may account
for our interest in mechanisms. (My brother is a musicologist and
composer - in other words, a sound mechanic.)
I suggest that a common motivator of inventing a game, or producing a
new artwork or piece of music, is that you become aware of a gap in the
repertoire, and seek to fill it.
--
David Parlett
Pelle Nilsson
Very much like others already said, as soon as I was old enough to
play games I started trying to invent my own. I vaguely remember some
roll-and-move Star Wars themed destroy-the-deathstar-game, some
Risk-variants, a big bunch of RPGs... I don't remember actually
playing any of those games, or that they even reached a playable
state. I also started trying to make my own computer games, mostly
simple text adventures as soon as I had learned a bit of BASIC. Later
I found wargames but never really considered making my own, possibly
because I had no idea it could be possible to construct the components
required. But I did immediately start trying to design my own
scenarios for wargames. Mostly though I have spent time trying to
make my own computer games, with limited success.
Finally a few years ago I started thinking of making my own board
wargame, but I needed a few years of buying games, studying rules,
playing, buying old game magazines (and subscribing to magweb.com)...
It all resulted in the very small and simple Trenches of Valor
(Victory Point Games). Guess with all that research I could have aimed
for something more complex but thought it was a good idea to really
keep it simple, considering it was my first serious attempt at
inventing a game. Still there was complex details in the rules that
had to be removed during playtesting.
--
/Pelle
Sukunai
It depends on how far I can be given on the 'invent' semantics :)
I have been involved in beta testing some computer wargames. Not so
much inventing, as opposed to bending them till the break.
No in role game design, that I have some experience with. I have often
found I was nooooooot quite happy with a design in all ways. Always
something didn't click. So I have taken a few stabs at the process of
making the design myself.
It usually ends with me finding someone had already thought the idea
out first :)
The trick with game design, is to not look like you stole the idea,
and to actually do something genuinely new. Easier said than done.
Peter Clinch
> The trick with game design, is to not look like you stole the
> idea, and to actually do something genuinely new. Easier said
> than done.
In Bruno Faidutti's "Citadels" he freely acknowledges he stole the
game's main mechanism from another game (Verrata IIRC). But most
acknowledge that Citadels does it much better: development of
existing ideas is very useful too, and some truly great games bring
together existing elements but do it in better and/or novel ways.
Patrick
> Sukunai wrote:
> > The trick with game design, is to not look like you stole the
> > idea, and to actually do something genuinely new. Easier said
> > than done.
>
> In Bruno Faidutti's "Citadels" he freely acknowledges he stole the
> game's main mechanism from another game (Verrata IIRC). But most
> acknowledge that Citadels does it much better: development of
> existing ideas is very useful too, and some truly great games bring
> together existing elements but do it in better and/or novel ways.
>
> Pete.
reinvent the wheel--and there's nothing new under the sun either. But
speaking in cliches like those does betray a lack of originality.
So, there's no getting away from imitation; everything around us is
more or less like something else. Every game we play or invent is at
least a little like some other game.
And still, the personal touch has the power to enliven something--to
make it fresh and new and worthwhile.
Maybe the concept of synergy (the whole being greater than the sum of
its parts) ties in with it. A creative individual can gather "parts"
from all over, but the special way he puts them together is his
expression of originality. And it sometimes results in a product
that's better than anything that came before.
It's especially surprising, I think, when someone (like our friend
David Parlett) creates something new out of something so old (e.g., a
standard deck of cards) that no one would have guessed anything new or
fun or interesting could ever come out of it.
If I were more mathematically or mechanically creative, I'd like to
invent a brand-new-and-wonderful game that uses nothing but a standard
set of double-six dominoes. Most every domino game I know of is a
variation on a theme, or a domino version of a card game. I think
it'd be cool if someone devised a whole new--and fun and natural-
seeming--way to play dominoes. Something that would make people say,
"Of course! Why wasn't this game being played all along?"
Wargame design is a unique challenge: players will reject it if it's
perceived as unrealistic, but they'll also reject it if it's perceived
as dull. So, just as a history book will only become popular if it's
entertaining, a wargame has to strike the right balance between
realism and fun/playability. IMO, a wargame designer would be well
advised to take a cue from historical-fiction writers rather than
military historians. The "Sharpe's Rifles" series of novels would
make a better basis for a Napoleonic wargame than would Clausewitz's
"On War."
--Patrick
David Parlett
>everything around us is
>more or less like something else.
That's a wonderful line! I think I'll print it out decoratively and
stick it on my wall. It makes a nice companion piece for one I already
have, attributed (dubiously) to Goethe, namely:
"Everything has been thought of before. The trick is to think of it
again."
--
David Parlett
Sukunai
Totally new method of simulation, and it's hit or miss if it is any
good.
or
Beat to death the same old approach, simply because the designer
hasn't actually done it themselves, and magically they consider that
enough reason to do it.
If a wargame has gone out of print, sure, it might be ok to re release
the same ole same ole. After all, the newcomer might want a copy of
what was originally called 'a great wargame'. Just imagine how
expensive old copies of Chess games would be, if there was no one
making new product all because 'well it's been done before'.
But, it's when there is no shortage of a type of wargame on the
market, and a designer does it aaaaall over again, and for what?
simply because THEY have not done it before, in their slightly tweaked
version. That's actually annoying in some cases.
Up Front is a remarkably good wargame design, yet it sits out of
print, and for no good reason. But the company in control of it is not
able to fund a re print.
Then you consider how many friggin versions there are of real time
strategy games based on Overlord or the Battle of the Bulge and it's
frankly nauseating. Especially when they are all so similar as to not
be worth distinguishing the difference.
My current frustration is mainly with the total refusal of wargame
makers, to make wargames made to run on machines that are currently
the rage with the young. If this hobby doesn't very soon start making
new hobbyists in a meaningful fashion, then there will be little point
pondering what wargaming will be in the future technologically
speaking, as it won't survive the loss of the generation that gave
rise to the hobby. It won't need to wait till we actually die, it will
only need to wait till we are too old to indulge it.
In my father's last years, he had a simply superb HO collection mostly
in brass locomotives worth a small fortune. We finally coaxed him to
sell it off under his own knowledge of what it was worth, rather than
have it sold off my family after his death as we wouldn't have a clue
what it was worth. So he sold off the 75% that wasn't special to him.
He just wasn't running it, he had moved a few years back, lost the
layout, and no longer was able to paint. It was essentially an ex
hobby that he owned considerable assets to.
I've made it plain to my family, a lot of my hobby 'stuff' is worth a
small fortune to the right people. Some day I will simply need to
accept I am not going to be playing around with it 'at all'.
No new young people WILL mean the hobby WILL die and it will NOT be
just idiotic rambling without justification. Who knows, the process
might have already begun for all we really know. It's a looooong way
from the days of the 70s era board game wargaming.
David Kidd
First: I had no idea David Parlett was lurking around these parts.
David, I think your Penguin Book of Card Games helped turn me into the
gaming fiend I am today. My wife would like a word with you.
Second, and more on topic: I once made a real-time, card/board hybrid
game in the survival horror (read: zombie) genre. It was designed to
be played solo, though you could play it with (theoretically) as many
people as you'd like. You could literally have hired out a gymnasium
and played with 100s of people co-operatively. Unfortunately, I think
the mechanics were just too complex for something that was essentially
so simple -- thematically and strategically -- and I just couldn't
make it as fun as it needed to be. That was my first and last real
foray. I moved into book publishing instead.
John McLeod
>I think it'd be cool if someone devised a whole new--and fun and
>natural- seeming--way to play dominoes.
How about these:
http://www.pagat.com/invented/broadway.html
http://rinkworks.com/pips/rules/skyscraper.shtml
Patrick
--Patrick
On Sep 15, 7:47 am, John McLeod <j...@pagat.com> wrote:
> >I think it'd be cool if someone devised a whole new--and fun and
> >natural- seeming--way to play dominoes.
>
> John McLeod For information on card games visit
Patrick
apparently have is worship of game designers. People who invent
successful games are revered celebrities to me, and I go around
feeling unworthy of even brushing shoulders with them. They're like
Picasso or Mozart: whatever they produce is golden, and we common
folk dare not touch it.
This morning (over at BoardGameGeek.com), I was reading a thread about
a possible change to Mark H. Walker's "Lock 'n Load" game series.
Mark himself said he was thinking of changing a certain rule, and
others started debating the pluses and minuses of that (which I
considered a little presumptuous).
I wanted to stand back in silent awe and await the designer's official
proclamation. But since everybody was talking, I ventured a little
suggestion. And much to my surprise, Mark thought it sounded good and
said he was going to playtest a few games that way. I may have
inadvertently contributed a little something to the next rules
revision (though actually I suspect that what I proposed is what Mark
had in mind all along anyway; it just needed a little clarification).
It seems I tend to view games as little worlds--microcosms of the
universe; and so I behave toward creators of games in ways I might
behave toward the Creator. But game creators (and maybe the Creator
too) often remind me that I've got that same creative spark in me--
everybody does.
This thread about inventing games ties in with that, I think. It's a
good reminder that we're all potential creators and inventors, capable
of not only appreciating what others have done, but also coming up
with games or variants of our own.
--Patrick
Sukunai
there ARE also great game designers where the guy is nothing special
too.
But great games are rare. Schlock is common.
My all time favourite Squad Leader was great, but, I think ASL is just
a game to be honest and not necessarily great. In fact I think ASL
long ago jumped the friggin shark. The game has long ago lost the
'something' that made the very first game the great game it is known
to be. Being able to design a dauntingly accurate design is not
enough. And all because of the word 'game'.
Given a choice of ASL or possibly buying into Mark's game, I might
even counsel a person to consider LnL instead.
I had the great pleasure to be part of Wild Bill Wilder's Mega
Campaign Screaming Eagles (for Steel Panthers) design team (even if
all I was doing was playing it to death to make sure everything
worked). The great pleasure is mainly because Bill is a very nice
gentleman.
But I don't do the worship thing. I give respect only to those that
earned it. But I never worship. I've had my chance to see a lot of
wargames over the years, and in most cases the game's design is
nothing special, the hard work is all in the research. And I will be
blunt, any idiot could make Chess. There's nothing specifically 'hard'
about it at the design level. The game's fame is mainly due to it's
longevity on the shelf (and I don't care if that is not a majority
opinion or not :) ).
Most of the wargames I have seen over the years, are 90% sweat and
toil getting the numbers correct and 10% making a playable game. The
counter after all usually represents some historical military
formation. And wargamers will skin you alive if your numbers look
flaky. A good example of a lot of research and a simple design is The
Longest Day, a rather sizable board game, 10 thousand or more counters
mainly unique, and a rules design that is essentially simple. The work
was all about researching those 10 thousand individual military units.
I could have made the rules design just as easily as the actual
creator.
I've taken a stab at RPG design. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are
mainly famous for getting their first. Not to knock their creation,
but I remember their original creation, it was a lot less
sophisticated than is the norm of today.
But as they say, imitation is the ultimate flattery. And they have
been copied endlessly since. Still, it could have been me, it could
have been you. It just wasn't and nothing more than that.
I also could have designed Monopoly. It's hardly rocket science.
It's popular to 'frame' Charlie Kibler. The thing is, he's an artist,
and he's an artist that has been chosen for numerous famous wargames.
It's not that I couldn't do the same maps though. But he was picked
early in wargaming, and he has the spotlight. His Advanced Third Reich
map actually does make a nice framable wall hanging. But it's not
beyond my skills set. The thing is, I am an unknown. That's the
problem with being unknown too.
I suppose a lot of people could casually fluff me off as just being an
arrogant braggart. I couldn't care less though, my life will go on :)
The thing that usually decides whether a game gets made, or not, is
mainly whether the individual gets off their ass and makes it, or not.
Nothing ever happened for the person that never started.