Books: Pleasures of Small Motions

The Pleasures of Small Motions
Pleasures of Small Motions: Mastering the Mental Game of Pocket Billiards, by Bob Fancher Ph.D.

Bob Fancher is an avid pool player and a columnist on all things billiards for the Washington Post. He is also a trained philosophy and psychotherapist. In this short book he brings his expertise in psychology to the problem of playing pool. He debunks a lot of popular sports psychology and uses his knowledge of cognitive psychology to explain how the mind works when engaged in playing pool.

The book is called “Pleasures of Small Motions” after its central theme: the joy of pool comes in the mastery of small and precise movements to control the play of the balls. This, he argues, has to be the foundation of good pool. You may be motivated to play by other extrinsic factors such as competition or camaraderie, but if you don’t take pleasure in the intrinsic joy of controlling the movement of the balls on the table, then you will never master the game.

Fancher’s book is directed at players, not designers, but there is a lot for us to learn from this book. This is perhaps the only example I know of a psychologist looking in depth into a specific game and analysing how it is played. A lot of what he writes can be taken to other games, especially computer games which, like pool, often involve the mastery of “small motions”.

Fancher keeps returning to this theme, discussing not only the pleasure of mastery but the psychological processes by which it is achieved. He distinguishes “conscious” and “unconscious” control and explains why a good pool player shouldn’t think about the shot. Consciousness is slow and clumsy. It is good at making plans and setting goals, but it needs to hand those plans over to the unconscious brain to execute, and to listen to the unconscious brain for hunches. These he demystifies as merely the trained pattern-recognition of the non-lingual parts of the brain.

In a field that is increasingly focused on status, achievements and other extrinsic motivators to play, it is easy for us to lose sight of the pleasures of small motions in our designs. Mastering the nuances of careful play is one of the fundamental pleasures of any game. This involves both consciously identifying goals and making plans, and unconsciously following hunches and going with the “flow” (a phenomenon Fancher identifies as ‘dead stroke’).

This is especially the case for educational games, which tend to use gameplay to chocolate-coat an unpalatable learning task. The present ‘gamification’ fad focuses on competition and other status mechanics to achieve this. Fancher acknowledges the value of competition to bring out the best in our play, but he reminds us that if your only pleasure is in being the best, you will be disappointed and discouraged most of the time. The pleasure must ultimately lie in the game itself.

Published in: on August 18, 2014 at 2:32 am  Leave a Comment  

101 Things I Learned in Game Design?

I recently received a copy of 101 Things I Learned in Film School as a gift from one of my students, having already expressed my enthusiasm for 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. I really like these little books; they condense a lot of wisdom into a number of key insights. Clearly they lack depth, but they enforce a degree of brevity which requires the author to focus on important ideas.

I’ve been thinking about writing a game design textbook of my own of late. It would be somewhat longer than one of these 101 Things books, but the exercise of trying to write in this format seems to me to be a good way to distill my ideas and work out what I actually have to say. So I’m compiling my own list of 101 things, below.
(more…)

Published in: on June 14, 2014 at 6:28 am  Leave a Comment  

Saving the Date

http://paperdino.com/games/save-the-date/

Me: So, I did it.

Felicia: What?

Me: I quit the game, like you said.

Felicia: Are you sure? Then why am I still here?

Me: I’m writing my own ending.

Felicia: Oh? How does it turn out?

Me: I’m not sure, I haven’t thought that far ahead.

Felicia: Well what do you want to happen?
(more…)

Published in: on June 21, 2013 at 3:42 am  Leave a Comment  

Narrative-driven Design

In designing my zombie-survival card game, The Road, recently I’ve taken an approach to design that I haven’t really seen discussed before. I’m calling it “narrative-driven” design. The idea is that you choose a particular set of narratives that you want to see emerge from your game and then you design systems to enable and encourage (but not enforce) those narratives.
(more…)

Published in: on April 8, 2013 at 7:11 am  Leave a Comment  

Design: Visual aesthetics

Owen Doyle has agreed to do graphic design for the game. I am looking for an art style that is realistic, sombre and gritty. I am thinking of something similar to graphic novels The Walking Dead and Y: The Last Man.

I also want the setting to be distinctly Australian. I love the recent Wyrmwood short film by Sydney filmmakers Kiah & Tristan Roache-Turner. This clip captures some of the feeling I want to get in my game:

Published in: on December 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm  Leave a Comment  

Design: Fighting Zombies

In this post I look at the design of combat against zombies. I’ll leave the issue of fighting other players to a later post.

The zombie battle should contribute towards several parts of the target experience:

  1. To force the players to coordinate against a common threat.
  2. To increase dissent between players over how to respond to the threat.
  3. To give a short-term a dramatic arc to the game as the tides of battle rise and fall.

There are two important perspectives to look upon zombie battles: as a team and as self-interested individuals.

Team perspective

From the team perspective, the most important task is to eliminate the zombies with as little damage to the team as possible. This is a strategic tradeoff between attacking, to do damage, and defending, to avoid taking damage. Consider a simplified example, in four players face three zombies. We’ll assume every player is armed with a 1 damage melee weapon and defending avoids all damage. We’ll also ignore the ‘call’ action for the time being. All three zombies start with zombies have 3 health.

The obvious strategy is for everyone to attack until there is only one zombie left. Then some players should defend:

  1. All attack for 4 damage. 3 zombies attack with 80% chance damage. 1 zombie dies.
  2. All attack for 4 damage. 2 zombies attack with 80% chance damage. 1 zombie dies.
  3. 1 attack for 1 damage. 1 zombie attacks with 20% chance damage. 1 zombie dies

The expected damage is 3 * 0.8 + 2 * 0.8 + 1 * 0.2 = 4.2 health points. A better plan is:

  1. 3 attack for 3 damage. 3 zombies attack with 60% chance damage. 1 zombie dies.
  2. 3 attack for 3 damage. 2 zombies attack with 60% chance damage. 1 zombie dies.
  3. 3 attack for 3 damage. 1 zombie attacks with 60% chance damage. 1 zombie dies

With an expected damage of 6 * 0.6 = 3.6 health points.

The key idea is to defer attacks that do not reduce the number of zombies. Attacking when there are fewer zombies means less chance of getting hurt. It is only worth having everyone attack if there are 4 or more zombies.

This strategy is made more complex with the addition of ranged combat. Ranged attacks can kill an opponent before it has the chance to retaliate. They have a cost however, either they use ammunition (guns) or the player drops their weapon (knives). Consider the above scenarion again, but with the option of throwing the weapon as a ranged attack. The best strategy becomes:

  1. 3 attack for 3 damage. 3 zombies attack with 60% chance damage. 1 zombie dies.
  2. 2 attack for 2 damage. 2 zombies attack with 40% chance damage.
  3. 4 ranged attack for 4 damage. 2 zombies die.

The expected damage is only 2.6 health points.

This is not as strategically complex as I’d like. It seems it is always best to defer ranged attacks to the end, even if the players have other weapons as back up. I’m still looking for a mechanic which creates more diverse strategies without adding too much extra complexity. Then again, I don’t want strategy to be the main focus of the experience. The game is fundamentally about the inter-player politics. I don’t want it to turn into a heavy number-crunching strategy game.

Individual perspective

Zombie combat is deliberately designed as a free-rider problem. As we saw above, it is often useful for some players to attack while others defend, but attacking is more dangerous than defending. Every player has an incentive to see the fight finished, but would prefer to be the one who gets the “free ride” while everyone else takes the risk. Because moves are simultaneous, there is no way to force other players to act. The game effectively becomes one of Chicken:

Player 2
Player 1 Attack Defend
Attack 3,3 2,4
Defend 4,2 1,1

Outcomes are listed as preferences for Player 1 then Player 2, with 4 being the most strongly preferred outcome and 1 being the least. Mathematically it is a fairly simple game with three Nash equilibria (2 pure, 1 mixed). But psychologically it is more interesting, especially when played repeatedly. There is the real possibility of a stalemate in which the players refuse to attack and stare each other down.

This simple game is made more interesting by a couple of factors. The first is cheap talk. Players are allowed to make whatever threats or promises they like during the battle, but none of them are binding. Promises are unreliable, especially since no trading is allowed until combat is over, at which time they may not be kept. Threats are also risky. Carrying out a threat can be costly to the player making it. For example, attacking a player if they don’t comply is costly to the parties overall health and thus everyone’s survival chances. Furthermore, announcing your intention to attack is giving the other player forewarning and the opportunity to defend or attack you in return.

The second factor is unequal conditions. When players have different levels of health the outcomes of the battle matter differently. A player with only 2 health will fear an attack more than a player with 5 health. Different attack strengths also affect the game. When one player has a better weapon than the others, the party might look upon them to attack more often. This makes sense in terms of overall cooperation and it reduces the total expected health cost of the fight, but health is not transferrable and the attacking player may begin to resent taking all the risk. There is, of course, the option of swapping weapons, but players are usually reluctant to give away a powerful weapon in case it is used against them in the future.

Published in: on December 17, 2012 at 3:36 pm  Leave a Comment  

Design: The Zombie deck

The distribution of cards in the Zombie deck is designed to add dramatic tension to the game. It contains three kinds of cards: 10 “Safe”, 10 “Zombie” and 5 “Draw 2″. The weights were chosen so that the average number of zombies per card draw is 2/3. This can be seen by considering the equation

z = 2/5 * 1 + 1/5 * 2 * z

‘z’ is the expected number of zombies draw as a result of drawing a single card. There is a 2/5 chance of it being a Zombie card, resulting in 1 zombie, and a 1/5 card of it chance of it being a Draw 2, which will return in 2*z zombies. Solving for z gives 2/3.

This equation is not quite accurate. It assumes cards are drawn with replacement, which is not the case. Cards drawn are not replaced until the deck is empty, so the probabilities are biased depending on recent history. If you have encountered a greater than average number of zombies recently, the expected number will be lower. If you have encountered fewer, the deck will be full of undrawn zombies and the probability of drawing them will be higher. Thus the deck creates a simple self-balancing long-term experience which would not be the case, for example, if dice were used instead. This gives the designer more control over the experience.

The Draw 2 cards are added to give an additional sense of drama to the draw. When you see 3 face-down cards at a location it is easy to estimate that there are probably 2 Zombies. When the cards are revealed as a Zombie and two Draw 2 cards, the tension increases. As additional cards are drawn one by one there can be a sense rising tension or relief. It might turn out to be no threat at all. Or it might turn into a much larger fight than first expected.

Calculating the theoretical probabilities of different numbers of zombies is rather difficult, so I wrote a simulator to generate ten thousand draws from the same deck and collate the number of zombies that appear. I repeated this for draws of up to eight cards (the most cards that might be drawn for a location). The results are graphed below.

Probability of different numbers of zombies

The mean value remains at 2/3 per card, as expected, but as more cards are drawn the peak broadens. This makes large draws more unpredictable. They could be very large or surprisingly small. This is an interesting issue for the final battle: sometimes it is overwhelmingly huge, sometimes it is surprisingly easy. This works in my favour. The Road is not a game that you should expect to win. A sense of capricious fate is one of the design goals of the game. This deck design allows us to string the players along with occasional surprises and then throw an ending at them which may make them question the value of all their preparations.

Published in: on December 9, 2012 at 1:16 pm  Leave a Comment  

Design: Health vs Food

The main design element of the game is the health vs food vs strength tradeoff. Let us first consider food and health.

Every player starts with 5 or 6 health points, 2 or 3 pieces of food.

Health and food are closely related. Each day a player must consume a piece of food or starve and lose a health point. More food is gained by scavenging which usually means fighting zombies. Getting in a fight means running the risk of lose health, so there is a risk-reward tradeoff. Fight and there is a chance you will lose health, perhaps a large amount if things go unexpectedly badly. Or else run away and face the certainty of eventual starvation.

There is also an interesting tension between health and food. The starvation mechanic seems to set a 1:1 equivalence between the two, but food and health are not equal. Food is transferrable, health is not. A player with 2 health and 3 food has more power than a player with 5 health. They have more options for trade and negotiation in the party. However they are also in more danger. Low health is risky and invites attacks.

Health and food are both tuned to be on a steady decline. There are only two opportunities in the game to regain lost health (the Hospital and the First Aid Kit). The are rare and often do not appear at all. If they do appear the players have to decide when to use them. Too early and they may be used on a player who does not need them. Too late and players may die before they have the chance.

The rates of health and food loss are deliberated tuned so that four players are likely to hit zero after about 9 days, depending on the distribution of cards. The road deck is tuned to take somewhere between 8 and 12 days to reach the airfield. Three players can survive longer – they have less fighting power but they consume less food. The gain in food usually outweigh the loss in strength, assuming no-one is hurt in the process. Of course, most parties will not consider this option until the food supplies are already too low for it to matter.

Then there is the cannibalism option. The party can exchange total health (and strength) for temporary food by letting one of their number die in combat (or deliberately killing them). This is the only way that health can be transferred, and it is deliberately drastic. Players who starve to death cannot be eaten. While this may be unrealistic, it forces the party to make a deliberate decision to kill their teammate, rather than just letting them die by “natural forces”.

Published in: on December 6, 2012 at 11:18 pm  Leave a Comment  

Stories from The Road

I’m designing a zombie-survival card game with the working title The Road. It’s a semi-cooperative game. Your chances of surviving alone are small but the zombies are not the only threat on the road. Food is short and your fellow travellers are eyeing you dangerously.

The thing I like best about the game is the stories it generates. I’m playtesting at the moment and recording the stories on a new blog Stories from The Road. Check out that site for updates about the game.

I’m also looking for an illustrator to work on designs for the cards. I’m looking for a gritty, semi-realistic comic-book style like The Walking Dead or Y: The Last Man comics. If anyone is interested, let me know.

Published in: on December 5, 2012 at 7:45 am  Leave a Comment  

The Block of Granite – A Parable

[A little parable I wrote today. Nothing to do with games but I thought I'd share it anyway.]

The Block of Granite – A Parable

Once there was a huge outcropping of granite in the middle of our village. The elders called it Wisdom. They would sit on it and meditate, or rest under its shade from the summer’s sun. It was large, solid and dependable.

However the town grew and the boulder, for all it’s solidity, was impractical. (more…)

Published in: on November 6, 2012 at 12:19 am  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.