Tag: case study

The Case Study: How We Got Here

Posted on Posted in The case studyTagged Leave a comment

To fully understand where we are, I think it’s worth talking about how Over the Next Dune has evolved so far. My hope is that this will explain how certain decisions were made, show why they were made, and make discussion about the game more productive since everyone will know where we’ve been.

In its original form the game was quite a bit different. First and foremost, there was no grid–players moved using rulers, as in a miniatures wargame. After a number of playthroughs, I found that this had several problems. The players and the searchers often overlapped, and keeping the various pieces in the right place on the board (with no grid, there was no way to be sure things were back when they belonged after they were jostled) was very difficult. In addition, it was hard to get the angles right–when a searcher had to turn 45 degrees it was more likely to end up turning 40 or 50. The problem was small, but it did sometimes impact the game.

Relying on measurements also made evaluating the effects of rule changes difficult. For example, when I was trying to figure out exactly how close the searchers could be to the players at the start of the game, I found that very small errors could make a big difference–8 inches might seem appropriate, but only because during the test I had accidentally set the searcher up at 8 1/8 inches away, and that extra 1/8 of an inch had saved a player three turns in. Between measuring imprecision and the problem of slightly incorrect angles, I found that I couldn’t reliably say whether a change had made the game easier or harder. It was impossible to discount the possibility that the in-game effects I was seeing were simply the result of a missed measurement at a key moment.

Perhaps most damning, the freeform board wasn’t making decisions more interesting. The players were doing all same the things they do in the current version of Over the Next Dune–dodging or tricking searchers, rescuing each other from trouble, racing for the finish line–but they were doing it more slowly because measuring and moving was so laborious. One of the rules for OtND is that its decisions have to be interesting; as a corollary, players should be focused on making those decisions rather than on physically managing the game. I put OtND on a grid starting with the 22nd playtest game, and haven’t looked back.

The second major change between the game’s original form and its current incarnation is that OtND was originally about infiltrating a trench in World War I–and that trench was guarded. Players tried to get into an irregularly shaped trench on the other side of the board while avoiding guards who patrolled the trench. To win, players had to either get everyone into the trench or eliminate the guards by sneaking up behind them.

Having guards as part of the game actually did add something to it. About midway through the game, players had to start thinking about how they were going to approach the trench. They then had to maneuver to enter the trench at just the right spot while also avoiding the searchers (which, in this version of the game, were searchlights). Furthermore, players pressured by the turn limit and approaching searchers at times had to jump into the trench at risky points, which could be exciting. Overall, the guards added a distinctive endgame.

Unfortunately, managing the guards caused the game to take a great deal longer. There was a whole separate deck of cards that moved the guards; between working with the deck and just pushing the guards around, the time to play a game almost doubled. (Currently, I find that players who know the game can play OtND in about 25 minutes; with the guards, the game took 40 or more). Again, interesting decisions were being obscured by downtime.

What was worse, however, was that while the endgame was distinctive it wasn’t always interesting. Once a player understood how the guards moved (e.g., they’re 75% likely to stand still and 25% likely to move; if the guard moves he will end up at this spot facing in this direction) it was easy to tell where the right place to enter the trench was. Moreover, if a player entered the trench at a risky point his or her fate was generally just down to the card flip; there was a 75% chance that the player got away with it and a 25% chance that the player got caught, and there wasn’t much the player could do about it. (Building on the previous discussion of counterplay, there wasn’t any play here–the player did something and then there was a 25% chance that the opponent hit the “no” button.)

I spent a long time trying to make the guards work. Ultimately, however, I found that I couldn’t get them and everything else right at the same time. As a result, I removed the guards from the game entirely. I’m hoping to add them back in in the future, when the core gameplay is locked in.

The irregular, curving trench created its own problems. At the most prosaic level, searchers tended to get stuck in the bends; this was pretty silly and also spawned lots of corner-case rules for getting them back out. On the whole it made for fewer interesting decisions (players don’t need to work hard to avoid a stuck searcher) and added delays between those decisions. However, the greater sin was that the curved trench encouraged players onto specific paths. Since getting into the trench was part of winning, players almost always went for the places where the trench bent outward (i.e., closer to their starting line). This game element was very definitely violating the “multiple ways to win” rule. I got rid of the curling trench, and so far it hasn’t been missed.

Initial setup was also a lot different when the game was just getting started. Originally the searchers (there were fewer at the time) were arranged around the edge of the board, and moved inward. This was easy to set up, which was good; one got on to making decisions quickly. However, it was also pretty predictable. Since the searchers were pressing toward the center, it was usually best for players to shift sideways at first and then inward as the searchers passed each other and started back out toward the edges. Over the course of many games this emerged as the dominant strategy.

Dominant strategies are inimical to having lots of ways to win, so I went back to the drawing board. First I tried adding more searchers to cover the areas where players were inclined to go; this proved only to change the best path rather than getting rid of best paths entirely. Next I fiddled with the starting orientations of the searchers so that it was more dangerous to move down the sides. However, the unpredictable movements of the searchers (which were necessary to making them interesting in play) meant that they were bad for reliably discouraging a single strategy.

In the end I decided that this was one place where adding more complexity was necessary, which led to the current randomized setup for searchers. I’ve been pleased with the results; in tests since, no best path across the map has emerged. Unfortunately, setup is now quite a bit longer. I’m not sure yet whether the setup time can be cut back down, or whether it just has to be accepted as an investment in a good game experience.

Terrain has also changed a lot. Originally, it was concepted as barbed wire–a single line that players had to sacrifice some movement to cut through. In that form, however, terrain created “congo lines” where one player cut and everyone else followed that player’s path. That might have been realistic, but it wasn’t very interesting.

The current form of terrain is intended to solve that problem. It simulates rough patches of ground that slow the players down but that the searchers–who don’t have to be sneaky and who can therefore use jeeps/trucks/motorcycles/etc.–can just pass over. There’s nothing any one player can do about it, so there’s no need to follow in someone else’s path; each player can individually decide what route is best. I think the new terrain is working as a mechanism for promoting interesting decisions and for creating multiple ways to win, and also as a way of putting weight on the no-communication rule.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that there are some whole game mechanics that have been cut out. Originally actions would create “noise” that would attract the guards; when the guards went noise went with them. Specialized equipment was in the original plans, but I have yet to find a way to implement it that is not just adding complexity for little gain. At one point players could intentionally attract the attention of searchers, causing the searchers to turn toward them. There have been lots of experiments that didn’t pan out, though each was informative.

I have my complete notes from each playtest game. If there’s interest I’ll post them, but this hits the highlights of the past and I’d like to move forward. On Wednesday I’ll put up detailed notes on a new solo playtest game.

The Case Study: Rule-Based Analysis

Posted on Posted in Game design theory, The case studyTagged , Leave a comment

A fundamental principle of law is that cases are decided based on experience garnered from previous cases. That experience is codified into rules, which are referenced whenever similar cases arise. So, for example, if a person accused of a crime says the police used unfair tactics during the interrogation the judge will decide whether the tactics were unfair by checking the rules from past cases. If the accused says “the police lied to me about having my mother in another interrogation room and I only confessed because I thought my mother might have to spend the night in jail, the police shouldn’t be able to trick me like that,” the judge will look to see whether there are rules about police lying to a suspect during interrogation. If there’s a rule that says that that is OK, the confession was valid and can be used against the suspect; if there is a rule saying the police are not allowed to act that way, the confession will be thrown out.

Making decisions based on rules has a few key advantages that are particularly relevant here. First, it means that likes are treated alike. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it; securities regulations must be followed no matter how big or small the company is; you are protected against certain forms of discrimination no matter where you are. Dealing with each case separately invites mistakes, honest and otherwise. When there’s one carefully thought-out rule for every decision maker to follow, results are more likely to be the result of principled analysis.

(It’s worth noting that in this context “principled” doesn’t necessarily mean “good” in some cosmic sense. Rather, it means something more like “fair.” People who have principles live according to rules that they follow consistently, and principled decisions are made according to even-handedly applied rules.)

Second, rule-based analysis avoids reinventing the wheel. If the Supreme Court has thoroughly considered whether the police should be allowed to trick suspects into confessing, after reading many briefs submitted by interested parties and hearing top-notch attorneys argue for both sides, it probably is not necessary to figure the answer out all over again. After all, if the process is done just as well it will lead to the same result! Better to save that time.

Hence, rule-based decision making is more likely to lead to principled results, is less prone to error, and is more efficient. Those are all traits I want in my game design, just like I want them to be a part of the law. It’s for that reason that I’m importing the technique into my design, and am basing this blog on legal analysis.

When I started work on Over the Next Dune I already had the notion that the law had something to teach me as a designer. Thus, just as a judge would use rules to decide a case, I chose four rules to drive the game’s design:

1. The decisions must be interesting. This rule is derived from . . . well, basically every game I’ve ever enjoyed. I was introduced both to chess and to Chutes and Ladders when I was young. I still play chess, but I haven’t played Chutes and Ladders in years. The former retains its appeal in part because each turn is a fascinating and rewarding puzzle. The latter doesn’t have anything to offer beyond the momentary thrill of seeing what happens next, and I can get much more of that thrill from a good book. I want Over the Next Dune to be more like chess than like Chutes and Ladders.

2. The players must work together. I learned this rule from modern cooperative games, most notably Pandemic and games that have followed it, and by comparing those games to the Star Trek Customizable Card Game. Much of the fun in cooperative games is in working as team. The excitement of finding the best move is amplified by the satisfaction of watching as all those best moves, yours and everyone else’s, snowball to achieve what no one player could. Even if the team loses, the dissatisfaction is mitigated by the fact that the loss is the team’s, and not one player’s alone. Over the Next Dune will be a better game if taps into those dynamics.

By contrast, the Star Trek CCG (at least in its first edition, which is what I played) was often criticized for being “multiplayer solitaire.” Players would start the game by putting up barriers to the opponent’s progress, in the form of “dilemmas” that needed to be resolved before points could be scored (e.g., before restoring an errant moon’s orbit you might have to retrieve a crew member who has run off with a love interest). After that initial process the players usually did not have anything to do with each other; they assembled their crews, faced dilemmas, and scored points entirely independently.

Setting aside the question of whether the Star Trek CCG really was multiplayer solitaire, the criticism points to an important lesson: when multiple players are involved in a game, they expect to be interacting with each other on an ongoing basis. Over the Next Dune needs to meet that expectation, or else it will face the same critiques the Star Trek CCG did.

3. While the players must work together, they cannot do so by talking about their moves. I’ll be honest in saying that this was a badly built rule. It’s too specific; it’s as if the rule about stealing was not “stealing is illegal” but rather “John Doe stealing from Jane Doe is illegal.” The more specific rule might be accurate, but it’s not helpful if Jane steals from John, or if Betsy steals from Jane. A rule should be generally applicable so that it’s useful in the future.

Fortunately, Over the Next Dune is still in development, so we can revisit this a bit. I was trying to solve two problems with this rule. The first was that in many cooperative games, the most experienced player will try to take over everyone else’s turns so that they make the moves that player thinks best. In the end only the most experienced player actually plays while the rest are puppeted about. It’s not fun, and I wanted a rule that would avoid the problem. So perhaps one rule (3a) should have been “it must not be possible for one player to dictate other players’ actions.”

Second, I wanted to capture the theme of people sneaking about under cover of darkness. The soldiers wouldn’t be able to stop and chat for all to hear, and I wanted the players to have to work with isolation and uncertainty just like the soldiers would. Rule 3b probably should have been something like “the rules for player communication must reinforce the theme of the game.” Going forward, let’s put rules 3a and 3b into place.

4. The game must admit of multiple solutions. In other words, there have to be many ways to win; it can’t be that there’s one thing the players always do. This rule came from my time playing fighting games (Street Fighter and the like) in arcades. I enjoyed the games where many characters were competitively viable, such that there was a range of things to try and lots of different opponents to face. When there was a strategically best option (e.g., in King of Fighters 2003 you should really play Duo Lon; in Third Strike you should almost certainly pick Yun) the game could get stale. I don’t want Over the Next Dune to get stale, so it should present lots of different challenges to players and they should be able to meet those challenges in many different ways.

Although development is ongoing, I’d like to stop for a moment and take stock. I have my own opinions about how the game is doing with regard to these rules, but they’re subject to change and I’m always looking for feedback. If you feel that the game is doing a particularly good job of living up to some of these requirements, or that it is falling short somehow, let me know!

The Case Study: Print & Play File

Posted on Posted in For new readers, The case studyTagged , Leave a comment

Here are the materials needed to play Over the Next Dune. This is everything you’ll need, from the map to the playing pieces on the map to the cards that move the pieces. Assembly instructions are in the game rules.

As with the rules, I would appreciate feedback–not on the gameplay at this point, but on the print-and-play file. Were there places where it didn’t match up well with the instructions? How could I change it so that the game would be easier to assemble?

Over the Next Dune – Print & Play – 1-24-14

The Case Study: Rules

Posted on Posted in For new readers, The case studyTagged , Leave a comment

Here they are: the rules for Over the Next Dune, the game I’ve been working on and our case study. Up to this point, every time I’ve taught this game I’ve done so by actually being in the room, physically demonstrating it. The players have always found it easy and intuitive. Writing the rules so that they are as easy to understand as those in-person demos has been quite the challenge. This is my current effort; I think it’s the best so far, but I know it’s far from perfect and would welcome feedback.

In particular:

1. What parts of the rules are unclear?
2. Right now the rules are largely plain text. Where would diagrams be useful?
3. What structural changes to the rules could I make to help players understand them? Should I move sections around, combine sections or split them up, or otherwise change the overall flow of the document?

What I’m looking for in this specific post is feedback about the presentation of the rules, rather than feedback about the rules themselves. Don’t worry, there will be plenty of time to go over the rules with a fine-toothed comb! I just want to make sure that the rules are comprehensible so that everyone is on the same page.

You’ll see that the rules start with instructions on assembling your own print-and-play copy of the game. Those files will go up on Friday, with their own feedback request. I’ll warn you in advance that they’re meant to be kind to your printer ink, so they’re not very flashy. However, they definitely get the job done.

Let me know what you think in the comments!

Over the Next Dune – Rules – 1-22-14