Archive for Game Design

The Rules as Law

July 27, 2013 Game Mechanics, Rules, Theory No comments

Games and sports have many things in common, in particular rules. A game requires rules to maintain order and construct boundaries. The enjoyment of games and sports often comes from the sense of achievement in succeeding in the scenario, given the restrictions of the rules. There is significant differences between the ways in which rules are enforced depending on the game or contest. In video games mostly the computer program or AI (Artificial Intelligence) provides the rule enforcement, for physical board and card games the rules are general socially enforced (with the exception of tournament play), and for sports umpires or referees enforce the rules.

In Taking Umpiring  Seriously: How Philosophy Can Help Umpires Make the Right Calls J.S Russell discusses the role of an umpire and their impact on the game, specifically looking at Major League Baseball. Russell leads off the theory of performance utterance (J.L Austin), in which he explains in the case of baseball that the action that occurs is not in fact an action until it is called so. For example a pitcher pitches his ball, until the home plate umpire makes a call it is neither a strike nor ball.

The more important point this article brings to light is the concept of the umpires use of the “Spirit of the game”. To illustrate his point Russell  refers to the 1983 Pine Tar incident in a baseball game between Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees. The George Brett (Kansas City Royals) had applied pine tar to his bat. Prior to the knowledge of this Brett had hit a game-changing home run. Pine tar is a sticky residue that hitters apply to the handle of their bat in order to increase grip. According the the rules at the time the residue could only be applied to no more than the bottom 18 inches of the bat. In Brett’s case he had applied pine tar to more than that. The Yankee’s team manger (Billy Martin) challenged the awarded home run. In which they applied the rule and the run was disallowed. Then on another challenge, after extensive discussion the ruling was reversed (with the Home Run allowed). Umpire Brinkman stating that it was not in the spirit of the game to disallow the run. The application of pine tar to the hitting surface of the bat would create a disadvantage more so than any extra advantage. This point in baseball history has been much remembered.

Pine Tar Incident Bat

 

This incident, quite rightly, lead to same changes in the rules for the following Major League season. Referee discretion is now written into many codes of sports to allow umpires and referees to maintain integrity of the sports over which they preside. Russell also notes that for the sport to survive integrity must upheld by its rule enforcers.

 

References

Ruseell, J.S. (2004) ’Taking Umpiring  Seriously: How Philosophy Can Help Umpires Make the Right Calls’ Popular Culture and Philosophy. Accessed 14/07/2013. http://www.georgereisch.com/popularcultureandphilosophy/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Taking_Umpire_Seriously.pdf

Rewards. Means I get a trophy right?

July 20, 2013 Game Design, Game Mechanics, Theory No comments

Rewards are a natural part of games and gamification. They appear to create the motivation to engage in a given behaviour. This is true pf many things. Most (if not all) games systems have a reward involved from board games, to digital games, and even other things that have been “gamified”.

Rewards can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic rewards in games are where the player engages in the action for the simple enjoyment or pleasure of the task. Extrinsic rewards are those that would grant a reward that does not have application to the immediate task, eg grinding away in World of Warcraft (WoW) for that one amazing sword you must have. Both types of rewards have their values.

In Extra Credits Season 6 Episode Intrinsic or Extrinsic they discuss the ideas of both motivations. The narrator notes that all games should be made wholly with intrinsic rewards, were playing the game would be its own reward. While this is a great idea I find that this would not really appeal to me. Whilst I am not the first person to shoot my hand up to grind out a day for an awesome shield or some other similar reward, I see and feel the appeal. The narrator does come to note that building wholly intrinsically motivating games is unlikely.

Val Teixeira (2013) hits the nail on the head, different people are have different motivations. Some people are motivated by extrinsic rewards, while others are a motivated by the intrinsic nature of games. Which brings to mind the Bartle player types, perhaps the style of player influences motivation? What is more interesting perhaps is to what extent each gamer is motivated to engage with the game where only extrinsic rewards are presented.

Back to gamification, one of the most common methods of this is the application of badges, trophys or other such rewards to non-game processes. These are always extrinsic rewards. So, why for so many people do they stay engaged when clearly there is no intrinsic motivator? An answer I’d like to know. Recently Steam released a new method of extrinsic rewards, cards. It motivates gamers to play certain games in order to attain digital cards. Cards are not, by default, available for all games. It will be interesting to see the development of Steam cards over time. Not just of the community but the patterns of play. Will frequent gamers abandon the games they have put hours into, just to start playing new games that offer them opportunities to get the cards?

 

Further Reading

Games and motivation

Reward Systems

Bartle Player Types

 

Resources

Penny Arcade (2013) ‘Episode 01 – Intrinsic or Extrinsic’ Extra Credits, Season 6. Accessed 18/07/2013.

Val Teixeira (2013) ‘Rewarding players’ Boardgamegeek.com. Accessed 18/07/2013. http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/21342/rewarding-players

Valve (2013) http://store.steampowered.com/news/10946/

One card win. Discussing rarity, power and balance in CCGs

June 29, 2013 Collection, Game Design, Game Mechanics, Theory No comments

In Rarity and Power: Balance in Collectible Object Games Ethan Ham brings to the forefront the eternal struggle game designers have for Collectible Card Games (CCGs), Balance, specifically rarity and power. Ham uses three examples in particular Magic: The Gathering (MTG) developed by Wizards of the Coast, Sanctum and Trading Card Baseball developed by Digital Addiction. Ham notes similar issues in card rarity and power in both Sanctum and MTG. Cards that presented significant impacts on the game. Where is felt like players with large collections that had played longer had significant advantages over casual players. In some part this still exists in MTG today, especially in formats such as legacy and modern. In both cases early in the piece Wizards of the Coast and Digital Addiction announced the decision to no longer print the cards. This meant secondary markets (such as eBay) saw prices for the cards sky rocket.

Seeing this practice in action in a later set Digital Addiction saw fit to flip the rarity and power balance model. Rather than making rare cards that were high power cards, they produced cards that had major impact at a common value, while the rare cards had effect but were far more specialized or situation-specific. I can see the value in such an approach but whilst the two approaches co-habitat-ed would have in itself presented an unbalance.

After beta-testing Sanctum, as a reward for those who helped test Digital Addiction distributed a limited edition Elven Piper. To avoid issue with power, and impact on play they made the card harmless. However, the limited edition nature of the card also saw it sell for high prices on secondary markets.

Learning from lessons with the Sanctum game, Digital Addiction embarked on a second CCG, Trading Card Baseball. In Trading Card Baseball, play statistics from each game serve to feed the cards in ones deck. These statistics also feed ‘heat’ ratings. giving all players an understanding of a teams strength. This heat rating also served as the mechanism to determine match-ups for competing teams.

I note that MTG is still thriving, while Digital Addiction have ceased production of the Sanctum series. I wonder if this is due to the execution of the games? MTG is a physical card game, while Sanctum was online. Offering a different proposition for new players.

Additional to this Wizards of the Coast have also since instituted a banned list. This list outlines a number of cards in print that cannot be played in certain formats, to stop over-powered cards, instant games wins, and “unbeatable” card combos. This banned list is regularly updated to control the meta-game.

 

References

Ham, E (2012) ‘Rarity and Power: Balance in Collectible Object Games’, International Journal of Computer Game Research. Volume 10, Issue 1.

Wizards of the Coast (2013) ‘Banned / Restricted Lists for DCI-Sanctioned Magic: The Gathering Tournaments’. Accessed 29/06/2013. https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned