Skip to Content
 

Initial design process

7 replies [Last post]
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 00:24
phonyamerican
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2009

I am wondering how others begin to work on games that have many variables?
Do you break the game into individual mechanics and playtest each one, and then try to combine them together?

I guess my question is,
If you have several interdependent mechanics you are trying to combine, and you think they fit together, but you are not sure exactly HOW they fit together, what do you do?

Do you start with the big picture, or with small "pieces" (mechanics) that you slowly stack up to see what comes of it?

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 01:15
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some of my own process

I start with a BIG "picture": like "I want to design a Trading Card Game (TCG)."

Then I figure out in large guidelines what to make the "theme" about by choosing a name: like "I want the game to be called 'Monster Keep' (MK)..."

Next I proceed to figure out what this "game" is going to be about. More specialization of the "theme": I want it to be about battling each other to become the "Ruler of the Keep" (ergo: "Monster KEEP").

So therefore I will need all kinds of "Factions". Then I flesh out the various types of "Factions" or Clans in the game. In MK there are nine (9) Factions. Because I wanted to use a RPS-9 (Rock-Paper-Scissors Mechanic).

Since it's a TCG, I decided to create ten (10) units per Faction. Now each Faction has some kind of "characters" and they should mesh well with the game's "theme". I also decided that since I want the game to be flexible with "Deck Construction" (another Mechanic), I would create units in "Blocks". I spent my time working out the number of Blocks and card counts to figure out the SIZE of each player's Deck. In MK, each player has a 12 Micro Deck made up of 4 Blocks.

... And so forth (add more elements, build on theme and game style). Build until you have something you could define as sufficiently PLAYABLE. And what I mean is that you can design a working prototype.

"Test Early" and "Test Often" ... Why because you want to BREAK the game quickly and fix the problems... But also you want to SEE how player's may ABUSE your game and play in a "not prescribed" manner. This will get you deeper with you design and you'll know how solid your design is or is not.

Good luck ... and Happy Game Designing!

Note: I just wanted to ADD ... sometimes when you are building in this fashion, the END-RESULT is "not playable"! It happens. You try something and it doesn't work. Or you try something and it has potential but still is not there yet. It's an evolving game idea... And as you ADD stuff to it, it becomes more and more "concrete".

But before that "concrete" doesn't mean FUN or GOOD. It can be BORING and MEDIOCRE. So no expected success from this Top-Down approach. It's very much a process with risk (in that you land up with something "monstrous" LOL).

Then it'll be a process to fine-tune things and figure out what you NEED and what has to go. As they call it "streamlining" the game idea into a playable game. Is that game FUN? Is that game GOOD? Usually the second question could be more like: "Is there a MARKET for this game???" That can bump up your morale even if you feel the game may be not as FUN as "expected"!

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 06:35
#2
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My way is rather unique

First of all, I do this as a hobby. And I work on 1 game at a time. 99% of my board game time goes to this game.

I have a core mechanic that I love so very much (and my game is the only game using this trick). That I decided to design a game around it.

I added little pieces of mechanics/rules, that each where play tested as well.

The big picture would be a war game that resembled a RTS. From the first to the last mechanic/rule, it has been a well balanced war game. (Except for that one battle with my cousin, 8 years ago)

I kept track of all my changes. So when 2 mechanics would or could conflict. I could work on both again.

Also, I like to fine tune mechanics into more realism. Every time when I do that. I need to check every other mechanic.

Example:
Right now, I am working on my vision mechanic regarding obstacles. Once that is done. I need to re-check my other mechanics/rules that could conflict. To make sure everything still works as intended. I also like to make sure the balance is good. Since players are allowed to see if designing of units can be abused, I double check the balance rules.
This is done for every new idea that I try out on my vision mechanic.
It keeps me occupied :)

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 17:49
#3
phonyamerican
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2009
Thanks for the input.My game

Thanks for the input.
My game simulates some real-life economic models, but in order to get them simplified into game elements, well...its proving to be a challenge.
Like in Catan, a settlement is Brick+Wood+Grain+Wool, is a dumbed-down version of building a real-world building a settlement, well figuring out how to best simulate those is trickier than I thought.
Maybe, like you suggested, focus on one core mechanic, and get that right, and then tweak additional elements as they get added in.

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 17:51
#4
phonyamerican
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2009
questccg wrote:Note: I just

questccg wrote:
Note: I just wanted to ADD ... sometimes when you are building in this fashion, the END-RESULT is "not playable"! It happens. You try something and it doesn't work. Or you try something and it has potential but still is not there yet. It's an evolving game idea... And as you ADD stuff to it, it becomes more and more "concrete".

But before that "concrete" doesn't mean FUN or GOOD. It can be BORING and MEDIOCRE. So no expected success from this Top-Down approach. It's very much a process with risk (in that you land up with something "monstrous" LOL).

Then it'll be a process to fine-tune things and figure out what you NEED and what has to go. As they call it "streamlining" the game idea into a playable game. Is that game FUN? Is that game GOOD? Usually the second question could be more like: "Is there a MARKET for this game???" That can bump up your morale even if you feel the game may be not as FUN as "expected"!

This was helpful, thanks.

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 17:55
#5
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Here are some pondering questions

Maybe this helps.
Simply start by getting a clear view for yourself.

Can you put the economic models in a list?
What are their shared effects in general?
How do they differentiate from each other?
Why would a model be chosen?

Translate these results to a game model.

The list of economic models in the game.
Phase?: Their common effects in the game.
Rules?: Their differences in the game.
Strategy guide?: Why and/or when would one model be chosen above another one?

Just a wild gamble here in what can be used. tbh I have no wisdom on economics.

Top
Sat, 01/26/2019 - 22:45
#6
john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
Look at games that are in a

Look at games that are in a similar vein and see how they did it. This is how I get ideas sparked for me

Top
Sun, 01/27/2019 - 05:37
#7
Tim Edwards
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
It depends on the mechanisms

It depends on the mechanisms and the relationships between them, but my advise would be to test everything together as far as possible. The experience is likely to be more than the sum of its parts and, as you intimated, you might not know exactly how the different elements really work together.

That said, if you feel that's going to be an issue for playtesting, you MIGHT find yourself later wanting to simplify the whole idea.

If you're like me, that won't be a wise, intelligent, deliberate decision - it will be a realisation that emerges after huge amounts of wasted(?) time and energy: The moment you suddenly realise "THAT'S the game! All the rest was just stuff getting in the way."

It's actually a satisfying moment, but I can't help but feel that it's a realisation which experienced designers would have strated with from day one!

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut