Approaches to game design

I feel terrible for disagreeing with Knizia, because he's a genius and I'm not, and this is probably part of why. However, I'd have to say that the scoring system, while it matters most, is not what makes a game fun, and it's not a practical thing for most people to develop from. It is far easier to develop a game from a theme or an intended feel, or from a set of mechanics. These things are also, in my mind, what make some games fun and others not. If you take the theme out of a game, you lose enough of the game that theme shouldn't be ignored in initial development. Gameplay mechanics are also what you experience in the hours you spend playing the game. Scoring system is only experienced in the last minutes, when you actually win. If a game is very satisfying to win, those are a fun five minutes. If it has satisfying mechanics, it's a fun three hours. I'd agree that the mechanics more directly connected to winning are more important, but the actual scoring system? I dunno. I don't think that alone can make a good game.

From what I've read I understand that Knizia usually starts with a theme, then comes up with a scoring mechanic that fits that theme and pushes players to make thematic choices during the game.

For example, Euphrat & Tigris was designed theme first. Then (I suppose) Knizia started thinking about what he wanted players to accomplish in the game and what kind of scoring mechanic would nudge players towards doing that. I guess he came up with the idea that players should try and build balanced civilizations and the "most of the least" scoring mechanism was created that way, not the other way around.

When a players is confronted with a difficult decision during the game, he will chose the path that he thinks will most likely get him closer to winning the game. Make sure the scoring system in your game rewards those things that make sense in the thematic environment of your game.

For example, if you have a game with warfare and you want players to attack eachother, make sure that attacking is rewarded. This sounds obvious, but in a lot of multiplayer wargames piling up units and defending is often a better choice (ie. gets you closer to winning, or not-losing the game) than going out and attack another player, because attacking just leads to mutual destruction and isn't properly rewarded.

In a good game, theme and scoring mechanic go hand in hand - one should support the other and vice versa.

"The scoring method defines what the players are trying to accomplish. Anything in the game, especially mechanisms, which doesn't directly relate to aiding or hindering player's ability to accomplish (better) scoring is extraneous (and should usually be removed from the game)."

In my humble opinion, there are many games that have mechanics or attributes that do not directly support a player choices in winning that are vital to the experience of playing a game. Ultimately I think that this is a matter of opinion and personal design method. There is no right answer in this. My opinion is that focusing solely on the players movement towards winning will not always create a fun game. There are other tools at our disposal for creating an enjoyable experience other than goals. If we reject these tools in favor of others we may miss out on a lot of fun.

1.)Examples of mechanics that create joy but do not have a direct impact on scoring or even on victory
I. Pass the Pigs and Warhammer 40k
A. I was sitting at a table in my local geek shop, discussing the nature of games with a bunch of WH40K players. I continually asked them "why is this game fun?" and "why do you play this?". The answers I got continually returned to the models. How fun they are to paint, how they like to customize them. They also mention the universe; how they like to read the fiction about the 40K world. Essentially, all of their answers revolved around the "fluff" or the "Chrome." No one said they liked the mechanics. No one said they thought the armor save mechanic was elegant and well balanced. No one said they liked winning. No one said they enjoyed the tactics of tabletop play. Everyone said they enjoyed the strategy of army building. The actual game-play, the turn-to-turn decisions, the pursuit of victory was totally peripheral to them.

At the same time as we were discussing this, another 40K player (who was simply watching) when challenged to what was his favorite game said "pass the pigs." We played some, he and I, and I asked him why this was his favorite. His answer was, and I quote, "The squishy little pigs. They're cute. They bounce. Oh, and I can play it with my girlfriend." His joy in pass the pigs was totally derived from the tiny rubber pigs bouncing across the table, and the fact he got to connect with his girlfriend around these pudgy porkers.

II. Game of Thrones
A. Capturing an opponent's hero: In the Storm of Swords expansion players are given heroes. These heroes, function as very powerful combat units and allow some unique movements on the board. These heroes can be captured and held hostage. A hero held hostage can be used to influence another player both directly (stealing "power" or resource from them) and indirectly (the threat of loosing a powerful piece can be used to bend a player with a captured hero to your will) but in no way does it get you points. Capturing a hero can influence the game on both a mathematical and emotional level but it doesn't get you one inch closer to winning.

III. Push your luck
A. Generally, push your luck games ask a player to not be efficient, to not take the smartest path, but to throw the bones again... Push your luck preys upon some primal urge to risk. They are not about efficiency; and least not if you want to have fun. Certainly the decision to throw the dice again, or to take another card, is a decision to take a risk for the purpose of getting more points, but there are factors at work outside a desire to win. There is the emotional feed back of waiting for the dice to settle and wondering if you either revel in victory (bragging at your daring) or languish in defeat (suffering the jeers of your fellows).

Thoughts...

I have thought about this on a spiritual sense. Trying to encourage moral or compassionate playing by rewarding the player who gives away, or helps others to win, or something along those lines but then it completely ruins the point of winning. For obvious reasons it doesn't really work.

The game needs to have one goal. If that goal is to give away instead of get it is still the same thing really, just rethemed. For instance hearts is about giving away points not getting them. But like Hearts there should also be a bonus for getting all the points.

The only way I could think of it working was to keep the true victory condition secret. Then at the end the winner finds out they aren't the real winner which would most likely leave a sour taste, and the true winner doesn't get any sense of accomplishment because they didn't really do anything to win.

If you can figure out a way that is not based on the players playing to win then let me know. Whether winning is accomplished by giving away or getting they would still be playing to win.

By that reasoning, conquering a territory that doesn't contain a castle icon doesn't get you closer to winning, nor does placing the high bid for placement on an influence track. But all of these, including capturing an opponent's hero, may improve your strategic and tactical situation. Holding an opponent's hero (to use your example) weakens his army, reduces his options, and may bring you extra power chits. They contribute towards the win, which is simply defined as capturing a certain number of castled territories. This is the stuff that clearclaw was referring to when he spoke of mechanisms to make competition interesting. It's not just thematic chrome.

So the question is: why would you bother trying to capture an opponent's hero? And the answer is, because it gives you an advantage over him that makes it more likely that you will score the win. And that is the point that Knizia is making. If it didn't hurt your opponent or benefit you to do the capturing, there would be no reason to do it except for the role-playing fun.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the role-playing fun is significant for a lot of players. Some players see games as competitive puzzle-solving; others as fun "activities" where scoring and winning has little relevance, like throwing a frisbee for fun as opposed to playing Ultimate. (If you haven't heard of it, Ultimate is a competitive team sport, a sort of soccer played with a frisbee instead of a ball.) If your joy comes mainly from watching the pigs bounce and enjoying your girlfriend's company, or from pretending that you're a pirate captain, or from risking everything on a throw of the dice, that's fine. It only means you're probably not going to enjoy playing Agricola.

As a designer, it's worth keeping in mind what kind of game you want to design, and that includes what kind of gamer you want to attract. Bouncing pigs and the gambler's thrill mean little to me; I like competitive puzzle solving, and so that's the kind of game I want to design. For that kind of game, Knizia is right: the scoring system is the carrot that motivates all player's actions and decisions.

It can work. I've played any number of games where it's difficult to take an action that benefits only yourself. In Puerto Rico, to pick just one example, most of the actions you take allow others to benefit as well; the challenge lies in picking actions that benefit you the most and others the least.

The innovation that InvisibleJon is suggesting is simply to track how much good you've done for other players. You can selfishly make as many points for yourself as you like, but you can't win until and unless you've given some to other players as well. For this to be interesting, I think there'd have to be mechanisms that restrict who you can give points to and how many you can give; otherwise the game would simply be won by the first player who could dump the requisite points while still having more than anyone else after dumping, which sounds dull.

Give the players some agonizing choices to make: If I do this, I can win X points but Y points also get awarded to my closest competitor. If I do that, I don't make many points for myself but I do give a bunch to the trailing player, who's less of a threat. And I can't do both, and the guy to my left is going to get to do whichever I don't choose... and so on.

Could be fun!

(Actually, I think I'd prefer that that action gets you a Charity token. If you have three Charity tokens, you can announce the end of the game. That way, the other players get a chance to use the money they're being gifted. Charity tokens may have a VP value at game-end...)

Another way to incorporate gifting: If each player in the game has Special Powers, make a rule that lets any player use your special power by gifting you {n} victory points. Alternately, they must gift you more than any previous gift you've received. If Pat gifted me 3 VP to use my die re-roll power, you'll have to gift me at least 4 VP to use it. It'd be interesting to see a player make a large initial gift, just to block other players from using a power.

Just some thoughts...

A partial or alternate victory condition... Now there's a good idea. I'd play that game.

Right that is the dynamic I described but not the goal of what you quoted my saying.

True compassionate giving (without thought of reward) wouldn't work for the reason I descibed. If you made it the victory condition then that is the reward and people would be doing it for the purpose of winning not to feel good about letting someone else win or helping them out.

In Puerto Rico which is what I thought of as well you don't give compassionately in any sense of the word. You try to benefit yourself and are forced to give others a slightly less good option which still helps them.

I do thouroughly enjoy that dynamic in most all the games I play. And it may be what Invis was describing but what I mentioned I was looking for I don't think is possible.

I recall it being mentioned somewhere, but don't recall where:

All players have a choice to pick X or Y
If everyone picks Y they all score 1 point
If one or a few people pick X and one or a few pick Y the X's score 2 points and Y's get 0
If everyone picks X then no one scores anything

So if everyone picks Y they all equally benefit. If people are selfish the loyal Y people get nothing while the selfish benefit. However, if they are all selfish no one gets anything.

Seems like it would make for a good communal resource gathering mechanic. If they all do their part they benefit. A few selfish will benefit at the loss of the loyal unselfish members and if everyone is selfish no one gets anything.

Guess this is a little more back on track for Scoring Methods, although not really an approach to game design.

My entry for the February 2006 GDS (In the Woods for Love) has a scoring mechanic that forces the players to give points to the rivals. There's nothing too weird about that, IMHO.

In ITWFL you earn a VP when a girl or boy tokens you control meets a boy or girl from another player. The other player gets a VP as well. The key is to distribute who you give points to throughout the game, so that you stay ahead and score more often than the rest.

I think the most important thing in a game is "waiting for the outcome" phase. I mean, while waiting for the dice roll, while waiting for others to make a move, while the cards are drawn etc.

So, we must think of ways to increase the intensity of that phase.

I love this as a mechanic. I have an odd little semi-coop game in the works, which has revolved around the Prisoner's Dilemma from the beginning, but it's really just a thought experiment at this point. (It's a thought experiment nearing conclusion, but still...) I'll post it here when I have a prototype.