BoardGameGeek News | BoardGameGeek

  • Design Diary: The Sands of Time, and the Evolution of the Idea of a Game

    by Jeff Warrender

    I've written at length about the design process that led to The Sands of Time, which releases in late March 2018 from Spielworxx, so what I'd like to talk about here is the history of the idea of The Sands of Time. By this, I don't mean how I came up with the idea for The Sands of Time, but rather the process by which I came to realize that discovering a game's central idea is an important part of game design.

    Let me elaborate a bit on this point. The idea of a game is what the game is all about, its focus, its beating heart. We can approach this, Zendo-style, by first identifying what it is not:

    :PSX: It is not merely the game's theme or subject. Sands is a civilization game, but it isn't about civilization-building.

    :PSX: It is not merely the game's combination of mechanisms. Sands features simultaneous action selection, but it's not about this particular mechanism.

    :PSX: It is not merely the game's premise or player representation. In Sands, you enter the role of a ruler of an ancient civ, but that's also not what the game is about.

    :chalice: A decent approximation might be to say that a game's core idea is the element of the game around which all of the player's decisions revolve. Perhaps it will become more clear as we walk through the history of this idea as it pertains to Sands.

    First Era: Sands Is About Differentiation

    I began working on Sands in 2003 when I first heard about Mare Nostrum from Bruno Faiduti's blog. I was fairly new to design and the idea of a "playable civ" sounded like a fun challenge. The game's early life began in sessions hosted by [user=ernestborg9]Ernestborg9[/user].

    In its early stages, Sands was about...well, it was about five hours, actually, so a lot of the design effort was focused on cutting length to realize that civ lite goal. To the extent that there was a central animating idea, I think it was that in Civilization, the different civilizations all ended up feeling monochrome (and admittedly, I played Civ only a couple of times, so this might not be a fair impression). I thought a more sandbox-style game in which you could diversify your strategy to emulate different historical civs would be fun.

    To promote this, the game had four different scoring categories, each loosely based on a historical civ's grandeur: number of territories (Rome), cultural diffusion (Greece), cultural achievement (Greece/Egypt), and wealth (Babylon, or perhaps Israel in Solomon's reign, if you accept the Biblical text at face value). However, the scoring in each category was rank-based, so I was ironically working against my goal of avoiding homogeneous civs; the game's scoring system was telling everyone to try to compete in as many categories as possible! There's a design lesson in there about incentive structures, but we'll save that for another day.

    Second Era: Sands Is About Dichotomies

    One contributing factor to the excessive length was the action system, which was an old school Avalon Hill-esque bullet point list of phases (see the player aid to the above right). Each step prompted every player for a decision, and serial player decisions are a game length killer. It was many years later that, at the suggestion of P. D. Magnus I realized that the actual solution to this problem was to parallelize these decisions. But at this early point in the design and as a nascent designer, the solution seemed to be to make the actions shorter and punchier.

    So I arranged the actions into a 4x2 grid, with each column representing a particular "prefect" that you could call on. (The player mat to the left shows this; also shown is a later iteration of an action selection board.) The catch was that each prefect could focus on only one thing, so your empire prefect could either go out and conquer new lands, or focus internally and reduce unrest, but not both. (In fairness, this wasn't a terrible way of speeding up decisions by reducing choice, since as the turn went on, you'd have fewer and fewer columns available to you.)

    I realized that the action system was forcing players to make binary decisions: build or produce, populate or migrate, war or govern, chronicle or advance. Then I looked at the rest of the game, and there were a lot of other things that came in twos: two unit types, two resources, two types of structures. I had stumbled upon a game that was a study of dichotomies, and I realized that this was an overarching idea that lay behind the game's core mechanisms and that pulled them together in a unifying framework. I wasn't sure what to do about it and didn't necessarily build the design around this premise, but it was at least a realization that the game even had an idea.

    Third Era: Sands Is About History-Making

    Throughout the design process I had been struggling to get the scoring system right: When does scoring happen, and what authorizes you to score? In this era, we nixed the rank-based scoring and replaced it with "chronicle cards". A crucial addition to this idea was the somewhat later introduction of achievement tokens.

    I had split things into three civilization categories — civil, cultural, and political — thereby quietly ending the dichotomies era of the game. This split imposed a nice overarching structure onto the game, with advances, buildings, actions, and chronicles all separated into these three categories. We added achievement tokens in these three categories as a currency that connected to the action selection system. There were cards that said, e.g., "If you win a battle this turn, you get two political tokens", etc. What I realized, though, was that these tokens could represent not just your achievements, but also (abstractly) your reputation — and that could connect to the scoring system; it could be that to score in a category, you had to pay a certain number of achievement tokens in that category.

    This was something quite different from other games. In most games, you're told that thing X is worth Y points, and when scoring happens, you get all of the points you're entitled to. In Sands, chronicles represent boasts about your exploits, but what's important isn't only whether those boasts are true, but also whether people believe them, that is, whether you've established a reputation for the thing you're claiming to have done. Achievement tokens were the conduit for this, and this idea of needing to write your history and establish your reputation took center stage as the core idea of the game.

    As I became aware that it was the game's core idea, I began building systems around it. For example, how do you build a reputation? Well, one way is through cultural exchange; your people carry stories of your deeds to foreign lands. Thus, trade routes entered the game as a way to capture this. Heritage was another, with the things you score for in one scoring round giving you an "achievement kickback" in future turns.

    The culmination of all of this was the realization that Sands is a history-making game, a game about building and telling the story of a civilization as it unfolds. When I teach the game, this is always the first thing I say, and I hope that it comes through for the players as well.

    The Idea of a Game

    The aspects that became the ideas of Sands in the various phases were present in the game from its earliest time. The two-types-of-stuff that led to the dichotomy emphasis were in there all along, and so was the idea of history-making (originally in the form of a random event, the "historian" card, which triggered scoring).

    The evolution of a core idea was in some ways, then, the moving around of a spotlight. My role as the designer was really to discover, over a long period of observation, where the game itself wanted that spotlight to be shined. It wouldn't have worked to have tried to impose a grand idea from the outset because that might have ended up suffocating the game. That's not to say it can't work this way. My good friend Seth Jaffee has talked about how Eminent Domain began as a study in letting the actions that players take directly improve their ability in that action henceforth, and TauCeti Deichmann (also a good friend) has talked in this space about how Sidereal Confluence (a.k.a. "Trade Empires") was his attempt to create a game built around positive-sum interaction.

    But while it can happen that a grand idea is imposed from the beginning or discovered through iteration, I think what's probably more common is for a game to never quite find a central animating idea beyond its basic premise or subject or mechanical foundation. Of course every game has to start somewhere, and "I want to make a game about the westward expansion" or "I want to combine role selection with dice rolling" are perfectly good starting points, just as "I want to write a story about a young person who is given a strange ring by his uncle" is a good starting point for a book. But I think the games that go on to become classics may achieve that extra level of greatness and durability precisely because their designers found a bigger idea in the theme and the mechanisms that they were tinkering with, and that this enabled the game to transcend its theme and its mechanisms to be something bigger.

    As I've worked on other designs, I've seen this same discovery process unfold, so:

    :star: A game "about" the Olympic downhill eventually became a game about risk management, specifically about modulating your exposure to risk as you traverse a course with easier and more difficult patches.

    :star: A game that began with "I wonder what a game with sand timers as playing pieces would be like?" ended up as a game about the temporal choreography between asymmetric roles (specifically in the context of a bustling French restaurant).

    :star: A game "about" the Thirty Years War became a game about conquest when the very act of combat destroys the territories you're fighting over.

    And so on.

    Finding the Game's Idea

    If it's so important that a game have a central idea, how do we find it? The challenge is to be aware that focusing on a central idea is something that you want to happen. I can't prescribe a specific recipe or timetable for it to happen. It's a passive process, which is hard to accept as a designer, but I think two things can help.

    :sugar: First, it helps to listen to one's playtesters. What are they saying about the game? What are they reacting to most favorably? What are they showing the most excitement about? What about the game keeps them coming back to it over and over? When they say, "Ah, this bit here is very nice!", what is the "this" that they're pointing out? Playtesting is so important to the design process, not merely because it lets the designer see whether a game "works" or not, but because it allows for the input from the playtesters to shape the game. Listen to your playtesters' suggestions, but listen more carefully to their observations. They're watching the game's development unfold along with you, but they see it from a different vantage point.

    :sugar: The second thing is harder: Wait. So many posts in the BGG design forums read like, "I just had a great idea for a game that I'm hoping to Kickstart later this year." No! Give your games room to breathe — not just lots of playtests, but plenty of time, as in calendar time. There's really no rush. Plan on spending extended periods of time in which the game is marinating or sitting on the back burner. The perspective of time is important in articulating and clarifying what about the game is important or distinctive.

    I've been told that in the automotive world, there are accelerated weather tests for paint coatings, but they are an imperfect substitute for the "Florida test", that is, putting the painted part out in Florida and waiting for several years. Game design is like that in many ways: There's no substitute for spending a long time working on a game, and doing so gives one the best chance of hitting upon a compelling central idea for the game.

    Closing Thoughts

    I'm glad to have gotten to work on Sands, and despite its long development, it was time well spent. I'm appreciative of the playtesters and am gratified to see that the time we collectively spent on the game has come to fruition. I hope that our efforts will provide you who play it with enjoyment and perhaps some interesting stories that you can proclaim for years to come!

    Jeff Warrender

    Early stage cover art by my daughters, who are now teenagers; this game has been in development for a long time! Read more »
  • VideoEpisode #6 of The BoardGameGeek Show — Live from the 2018 GAMA Trade Show

    by W. Eric Martin

    Okay, episode #6 of The BoardGameGeek Show is not really live from the 2018 GAMA Trade Show, but we recorded the episode in Reno, Nevada at the conclusion of GTS and we were all alive at the time, so that might count, yes?

    This is the first episode of The BGG Show in which the three of us are on screen at the same time. Following the end of our 2.3 days of livestreaming from GTS 2018, Lincoln rejiggered the cameras to aim two of them at the three of us, we put together a list of topics, then took off, possibly staying on topic along the way. This episode required much less effort to record and edit, but it also required a few plane trips and a long drive to make it happen, so we won't do something like this again until Origins 2018 in June at the earliest.

    Does this format work for you? Is it strange seeing us together? I know that I feel odd; I work almost entirely by myself, then I blitz conventions for a few days with non-stop and tiring human interaction before retreating to my quiet safe space once again.

    Youtube Video

    Show notes:

    02:26 Cursed Court - Andrew Hanson - Atlas Games
    04:37 Lord of the Rings - Reiner Knizia - Fantasy Flight
    05:21 Just One - Ludovic Roudy, Bruno Sautter - Repos Production
    07:15 Shards of Infinity - Gary Arant, Justin Gary - Ultra PRO
    09:19 Pictomania - new edition and price point and new lower-priced games
    10:21 Toys R Us files for liquidation
    13:10 Monumental from Funforge on Kickstarter
    15:15 Online exclusivity discussion
    17:30 Wonderland from Renegade Game Studios, an International Tabletop Day exclusive
    19:17 BGG.CON 2018 tickets and hotel sold out
    20:48 GAMA Trade Show 2018 wrap-up & future convention coverage
    22:15 GameNight! news
    22:50 Wrap-up Read more »
    - Newest Items

  • Enemy Strike File: Black Bow
    Enemy Strike File: Black BowPublisher: HAZARD Studio

    Good friends are hard to come by. They are even harder to avenge after they had been murdered by the Russian Mob. It didn't matter that Silvio and his friend were on the wrong side of the law, too.  They had to pay for taking his friend. As those responsible fell under a hail of arrows, Silvio realized that his skill as an archer could get him paid better than any petty crime ever could. He would serve the underworld as an elit assassin... Arco Negro - The Black Bow!

    Enemy Strike Files are character packs detailing a villainous threat for your SUPERS! Revised Edition games. The Enemies are extensively detailed so that they can be seamlessly integrated into your games; from a one-shot to an ongoing campaign. From New Millennium Games - Published by HAZARD Stds.

    Price: $0.99 Read more »
  • Perfect Saathi
    Perfect SaathiPublisher: Michael Brown

    The search for a missing child and her imaginary friend leads to a startling discovery that may mean the extinction of life on a newly-settled planet.

    Perfect Saathi is a one-page, no-frills adventure for Cepheus Engine and other tabletop RPG science fiction games using a 2D6 mechanic (including The Original 2D6 Science Fiction Game) starring characters of varied career backgrounds.

    Price: $0.75 Read more »

    Gnome Stew

  • Gnomecast #36 – GMing Difficult Decisions
    Gnomecast #36 – GMing Difficult Decisions

    It’s an easy decision to listen to this podcast, but not all decisions are that easy! Join Ang, Phil, and Senda on this episode of the Gnomecast as they discuss Senda’s Gnome Stew article “Difficult Decisions in Your Game.”

  • Why Polyhedral Dice On A Deck Of Cards Will Never Work… Or Will They?
    You can grab the prototype PDF here

    A few months back, I was reading a post over on Tenkar’s Tavern about one of Tenkar’s most/least favorite topics and I discovered a link to a kickstarter I had missed from back in 2015 (funded, but still unfulfilled from what I gather). It was for “Deck Dice” – a standard deck of playing cards that also act as a full set of polyhedral dice. I had two initial thoughts on this:

    • That’s super cool!
    • Too bad it will never work

    So why did I think this concept would never work? Well, it boils down to the math. In order to properly simulate a polyhedral die, you need to have a randomizer with an even multiple of the number of sides of the die. So to simulate a d4 properly, for example, you need a deck with a number of cards that’s a multiple of 4. In order to do this for an entire set of polyhedral dice, you need to have a number of cards that’s a multiple of the Least Common Multiple of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 20. If you can’t remember how to find that off the top of your head and don’t want to look it up, you have to find the product of the largest group of like factors across all the dice, which ends up being 2x2x2x3x5=120. So the only way to perfectly simulate an entire set of polyhedral dice with a deck of cards is to have 120 cards.

    There are some ways around this, but each has its own issues or quirks:

    • You can just get sort of close: put the numbers 1-20 on the deck twice, and then include 14 random numbers from 1-20 to fill out the other cards for example, but that’s not going to give you a very good distribution and you have to choose the distribution you’re going to create. Do you favor odds? Evens? High numbers? Low numbers? High and low numbers? Middle numbers? No matter what you choose here, you’re making a problem for someone.
    • You can leave some die values off of some cards: 54 isn’t a perfect multiple of 8, for example, but 48 is. So, you could put the numbers 1-8 on the deck 6 times and then have 6 cards with no d8 value. What do you do if you need a d8 and the card you draw doesn’t have a d8 value on it? You keep flipping. Not so bad with that d8. 11% of cards wouldn’t have a d8. But for a d20, 26% of cards will be missing values.
    • You can use multiple draws to build results, just like we do with d100s: 54 is divisible by 2 and 3, so all dice except the d10 and d20 can be built perfectly this way. Flip 2 cards, and you’ll always have a perfect d4 or d6 roll. 3 flips will give you a perfect d8 or d12. D10s and 20s still don’t work though. And who wants to flip 2-3 cards for every die roll?
    • You can add some extra cards: a few extra cards will create different sets of factors to work with. but few of them work very well until you add 6 extra cards. That brings the deck up to 60 cards, which perfectly models all dice except the d8. But it also means that the deck of cards is now no longer a standard set of cards, which means you’ve lost whatever functionality you were hoping to achieve by having your dice on a standard deck of cards in the first place.
    • You could use two decks of cards: This nets you 108 cards instead of 54, which means the 4, 6, and 12 all work perfectly, but personally I would never go this route. Why? Because if you have to go up to two decks to get a good distribution, that means you’re NOT getting a good distribution from a single deck. And it doesn’t matter where or how clearly you point out that you need to use all 108 cards to get the right distribution, someone somewhere is going to miss or ignore that, use only one of the two decks and then complain because the distribution isn’t right.
    • You can mix and match parts of several of these methods: You could for example leave some die values off some cards, for 4s, 6s, 8s, 10s, and 12s, and then for 20s you flip till you get a d10 value, then flip again and add 10 if the second flip is red. There are plenty of ways to do this, some better than others.

    The kickstarter that Tenkar had referenced combined two methods. First, they added 6 extra cards to a deck and they used two decks. That gave them 120 total cards, allowing them to perfectly simulate all types of polyhedral dice. Which is excellent. But it made the decks completely useless as an actual deck of cards, so what was the whole point of the product? And then you still have the “using only one of two decks” issue, although in this case, as long as each individual deck of 60 has a complete distribution of 4s, 6s, 10s, 12s, and 20s, at least only the d8 suffers for it, and not that badly.

    Click for larger image

    But, after kicking it about a little, I think I have a better solution: make all the cards symmetrical, so it’s impossible to tell when it’s right side up and then put different rolls on the left and right side of the card, thus which side of the card is up when you draw it will give you different results. 108 cards means that only 4 or 8 blanks need to be left in for any given die, and since each card has two rolls on it, that’s 2 or 4 cards. Here’s what a sample card might look like:

    So what’s all that extra junk at the top and bottom? Well, I had some leftover space, So I added a bunch of other fun stuff. There’s a generic fantasy class (Healer, Rogue,Warrior, Wizard) , a generic fantasy race attribute (Adaptable, Clever, Magical, Nimble, Savage, Sturdy), a general level (High, Mid, and Low), a reaction (30% Friendly, 40% Neutral, and 30% Hostile), a gender (M,F, ~2%Non-binary), a little rainbow symbol(~15%), and a random dungeon room.

    So, there you have it. There’s my attempt at how I would make a set of Polyhedral dice cards, and as a bonus, it only took me about a month and a half – and everyone can download a free printable PDF below! On the other hand, the art is absolute crap, there are no faces on the face cards, and there’s no back, so you get what you pay for.

    Of course, I could always scrounge up a few hundred bucks for some pro layout assistance and art, fund it with my own kickstarter and put it up in a print on demand venue. Anyone have opinions and feedback while I mull that one over? Don’t be shy.

    Click on this image to download the PDF Prototype

    P.S. If you find the concept of dice on a deck of cards interesting, here are a couple other ones that are available. If you know of any others, put a link in the comments.

    Read more »

    RPGWatch Newsfeed

  • BattleTech - Combat Strategy Video
    A recent Battletech stream focused on combat strategy. loading... Cknoor, Jordan, and Connor go through some of the essentials of BattleTech combat. Warning: There is a lot of talking about basics in this video! Learn more and Pre-Order: store.steampowered.... Read more »
  • Ni No Kuni 2 - Review @ RPS
    Rock Paper Shotgun reviewed the J-RPG Ni No Kuni 2: Wot I Think: Ni no Kuni II: Revenant Kingdom Most RPGs cast you as an intrepid interloper, the Only One Who Can Help a series of desperate quest-givers beset by increasingly elaborate problems... Read more »

    RPGWatch Newsfeed

  • BattleTech - Combat Strategy Video
    A recent Battletech stream focused on combat strategy. loading... Cknoor, Jordan, and Connor go through some of the essentials of BattleTech combat. Warning: There is a lot of talking about basics in this video! Learn more and Pre-Order: store.steampowered.... Read more »
  • Ni No Kuni 2 - Review @ RPS
    Rock Paper Shotgun reviewed the J-RPG Ni No Kuni 2: Wot I Think: Ni no Kuni II: Revenant Kingdom Most RPGs cast you as an intrepid interloper, the Only One Who Can Help a series of desperate quest-givers beset by increasingly elaborate problems... Read more »