It’s honestly shocking that I did more than two Mechanic Mondays in a row. What’s even more shocking is that I’m going to get back on the horse after taking just one week off. That’s a good skill to have, btw: I used to dream of perfect records, unbroken streaks, only doing things if I was a natural winner at them. Time and a vast curriculum of failure have taught me how many things you can only accomplish after you fall off the wagon and claw your way back on again.
Not that taking a week off for Thanksgiving is - you know what? That’s a whole other topic for another time.
Today I want to draw on one of my favourite design inspirations - subverting assumptions. As with so many things, I first came across this concept by following Daniel Solis. He has an ongoing hashtag conversation about the assumptions we have about games, and how much rich material there is from subverting just one of those. Some examples: All cards in a deck must have their cardback on top; You can only move your own pieces; All players must follow the same rules. Those examples are extremely commonplace, and their opposites are very rare, so it follows that there’s more design space to be explored in that direction. Again, turning just one assumption on its head can be the basis of an entirely original (standard disclaimer about originality) new game.
One assumption subversion that I want to focus on particularly today? Trade Anything.
It is difficult to talk about games without talking about balance, and balance is largely achieved by imposing limitations and restrictions on player freedom. Most games are zero sum, and the more you allow a player to do, the less there is for other players to do. This is why designers have to create rules to constrain player agency. It’s not a bad thing, especially considering how large loometh the spectre of “~*Balance*~” in mature game design. But one brick I feel like taking out of the wall is Trading.
Games that include Trading almost always limit what you can trade. In Catan, you can freely offer your wood cards for sheep cards, but you can’t swap buildings or roads or victory points. You can wheel and deal in a stock market game but you can’t generally trade board position with another player. You can’t trade seats at the table surrounding the game.
Or fucking can you?
Trade Anything
This mechanic supposes that there are no restrictions to what can be traded. In Fantasy Fantasy GM GM, players have draft picks, with which to acquire players, which are used to create teams that can win victory points. But just as real life General Managers can trade players for everything from other players to draft picks to “future considerations” to literal bags of hockey pucks, in FFGMGM, there are no restrictions on what players may trade. GMs in the game can, and should, make trade offers using whatever resources they have, and packages on either side do not have to be balanced in anyway, beyond being desirable to both parties.
I think that opening Trade up exposes a number of issues that aren’t necessarily problems. Kingmaking is something that really gets under some people’s skin, but when you know it’s a possibility, then part of the game becomes being someone that people would want to make King. In fantasy hockey, a commissioner or your fellow players can veto a trade, but in the NHL, there’s no veto. You just have to convince people to do something, and if you successfully do, then no one can stop you. Others might say that Runaway leaders can develop; Cool, again, if you know that going in, it’s not the game’s job to be more fair, it’s the responsibility of the player to watch out for a runaway leader, and/or try to become one themself.
Certainly, implementing Trade Anything in a design can result in some flipped tables, some angry players, lost customers, and withering complaints. In a word; a failed game. But I firmly believe that there’s just as much to be learned from failure as there is from success, so: go forth and fail boldly. Give it a shot. It’s just a game after all.
Not that taking a week off for Thanksgiving is - you know what? That’s a whole other topic for another time.
Today I want to draw on one of my favourite design inspirations - subverting assumptions. As with so many things, I first came across this concept by following Daniel Solis. He has an ongoing hashtag conversation about the assumptions we have about games, and how much rich material there is from subverting just one of those. Some examples: All cards in a deck must have their cardback on top; You can only move your own pieces; All players must follow the same rules. Those examples are extremely commonplace, and their opposites are very rare, so it follows that there’s more design space to be explored in that direction. Again, turning just one assumption on its head can be the basis of an entirely original (standard disclaimer about originality) new game.
One assumption subversion that I want to focus on particularly today? Trade Anything.
It is difficult to talk about games without talking about balance, and balance is largely achieved by imposing limitations and restrictions on player freedom. Most games are zero sum, and the more you allow a player to do, the less there is for other players to do. This is why designers have to create rules to constrain player agency. It’s not a bad thing, especially considering how large loometh the spectre of “~*Balance*~” in mature game design. But one brick I feel like taking out of the wall is Trading.
Games that include Trading almost always limit what you can trade. In Catan, you can freely offer your wood cards for sheep cards, but you can’t swap buildings or roads or victory points. You can wheel and deal in a stock market game but you can’t generally trade board position with another player. You can’t trade seats at the table surrounding the game.
Or fucking can you?
Trade Anything
This mechanic supposes that there are no restrictions to what can be traded. In Fantasy Fantasy GM GM, players have draft picks, with which to acquire players, which are used to create teams that can win victory points. But just as real life General Managers can trade players for everything from other players to draft picks to “future considerations” to literal bags of hockey pucks, in FFGMGM, there are no restrictions on what players may trade. GMs in the game can, and should, make trade offers using whatever resources they have, and packages on either side do not have to be balanced in anyway, beyond being desirable to both parties.
I think that opening Trade up exposes a number of issues that aren’t necessarily problems. Kingmaking is something that really gets under some people’s skin, but when you know it’s a possibility, then part of the game becomes being someone that people would want to make King. In fantasy hockey, a commissioner or your fellow players can veto a trade, but in the NHL, there’s no veto. You just have to convince people to do something, and if you successfully do, then no one can stop you. Others might say that Runaway leaders can develop; Cool, again, if you know that going in, it’s not the game’s job to be more fair, it’s the responsibility of the player to watch out for a runaway leader, and/or try to become one themself.
Certainly, implementing Trade Anything in a design can result in some flipped tables, some angry players, lost customers, and withering complaints. In a word; a failed game. But I firmly believe that there’s just as much to be learned from failure as there is from success, so: go forth and fail boldly. Give it a shot. It’s just a game after all.
Comments
Post a Comment