(Never mind the infrequency with which I update this thing)
Just submitted Birch Crown and D.I.E. Interceptor for a local Playtest day. A little while back I had a private playtest night at my place, where I demo'd (poorly) Birch Crown, D.I.E. Interceptor, and Cowl & Mask. My friends were encouraging, and even seemed to like the changes/options for the latest build of Cowl & Mask. For D.I.E. Interceptor (which I also entered into the BGG 2p PnP Design Contest, and got incredibly useful feedback on), the winner liked it and the loser didn't, but even the one playtest I got in that night unlocked some useful trimming of the fat I can do to streamline it and open it up. Everyone seemed kind of new-rules'd out by the time we ran Birch Crown, and I assumed they'd all have nice but lukewarm things to say since it was late once we wrapped and there were a lot of glazed eyes, but surprisingly Birch Crown was the one they said felt most like a real game, so what do I know.
Major takeaways from that night - I need two things for every playtest going forward.
1) Full Turn/Phase Order with examples and illustrations
2) Reference Cards
The Turn/Phase Order is where most of the questions arose. And while printing the rules is helpful, while they're proto rules, or new players, there's no way for them to play the game without my help; clear reference cards can stand in for me, in terms of providing the quick answers to the basic questions.
But that's actually not what I wanted to write about today!
I've been meaning for some time to put down my thoughts on Experience Design.
I'm sure other people have written about this concept, calling it something else, or have written about Experience Design, but meant other concepts, but for me, Experience Design, within the context of gaming, keeps popping into my head as a synthesis of a lot of my reading (especially the Kobold Book of Game Design, which I'm still working through and loving) and my own experience with design.
In short: Experience Design is a synthesized approach between the old (possibly false) dichotomy of Mechanics First vs Theme First. From what I've read and found on my own, both of those approaches are often superficial descriptions of the real spark of game design; when you have an idea for a game, you envision yourself playing it. I think a lot of designers then think, "Well in that visualizaion, the theme jumped out at me", or "I couldn't see a theme yet, but the mechanic was obvious".
But speaking personally, mechanics pop into my head all the time. I don't even jot all of them down. But the ones that take hold of my brain and don't let go? Those're the ones where I don't just picture a mechanic in isolation, devoid of context; I picture a moment in time where I'm using that mechanic, in the service of a goal, the fulfillment of a desire. A mechanic (let's say: Action Tokens that you spend by giving to the other player, in order to do things on your turn) pops into my head, and it probably gets dutifully written down. But it doesn't *stay* in my head unless it populates my imagination with a scenario of why it would be a blast to do this (Two players are stingy with their Action Tokens, maintaining a distrustful equilibrium, until as the game progresses riskier turns become more attractive, until someone kicks off a push-your-luck arms race) and I can get a sense of what gaming moments I want to create the circumstances for.
That's why I think Experience Design is what's really behind both the Theme First and the Mechanics First approach. Because what ignites the desire to move forward with design and development is the half-formed glimmer of the game that could be. I also think this is useful as a touchstone when you get lost; Been through eighteen iterations? Cycled through a bunch of possible mechanics? All of your playtesters making different cases for what the theme should be changed to? Take a moment and imagine you're playing the idealized finished game. What does an amazing turn look like? Whatt's the feel of the setting, what does it evoke? What makes this hypothetical table lose their minds with wonder (or any other strong emotion that you set out to make them feel?)
I believe that Experience Design can be a tool to guide a designer along the path of their process, and a way of making the product a fully realized dream, greater than the otherwise haphazard sum of its parts. I look forward to putting this theory to the test.
I've been meaning for some time to put down my thoughts on Experience Design.
I'm sure other people have written about this concept, calling it something else, or have written about Experience Design, but meant other concepts, but for me, Experience Design, within the context of gaming, keeps popping into my head as a synthesis of a lot of my reading (especially the Kobold Book of Game Design, which I'm still working through and loving) and my own experience with design.
In short: Experience Design is a synthesized approach between the old (possibly false) dichotomy of Mechanics First vs Theme First. From what I've read and found on my own, both of those approaches are often superficial descriptions of the real spark of game design; when you have an idea for a game, you envision yourself playing it. I think a lot of designers then think, "Well in that visualizaion, the theme jumped out at me", or "I couldn't see a theme yet, but the mechanic was obvious".
But speaking personally, mechanics pop into my head all the time. I don't even jot all of them down. But the ones that take hold of my brain and don't let go? Those're the ones where I don't just picture a mechanic in isolation, devoid of context; I picture a moment in time where I'm using that mechanic, in the service of a goal, the fulfillment of a desire. A mechanic (let's say: Action Tokens that you spend by giving to the other player, in order to do things on your turn) pops into my head, and it probably gets dutifully written down. But it doesn't *stay* in my head unless it populates my imagination with a scenario of why it would be a blast to do this (Two players are stingy with their Action Tokens, maintaining a distrustful equilibrium, until as the game progresses riskier turns become more attractive, until someone kicks off a push-your-luck arms race) and I can get a sense of what gaming moments I want to create the circumstances for.
That's why I think Experience Design is what's really behind both the Theme First and the Mechanics First approach. Because what ignites the desire to move forward with design and development is the half-formed glimmer of the game that could be. I also think this is useful as a touchstone when you get lost; Been through eighteen iterations? Cycled through a bunch of possible mechanics? All of your playtesters making different cases for what the theme should be changed to? Take a moment and imagine you're playing the idealized finished game. What does an amazing turn look like? Whatt's the feel of the setting, what does it evoke? What makes this hypothetical table lose their minds with wonder (or any other strong emotion that you set out to make them feel?)
I believe that Experience Design can be a tool to guide a designer along the path of their process, and a way of making the product a fully realized dream, greater than the otherwise haphazard sum of its parts. I look forward to putting this theory to the test.
Comments
Post a Comment