If life were a board-game, would people play it? Would it get published? Let’s take a look!

What type of game is life

Let’s first look into what kind of game life is.

Player interaction

Life is best described as a semi-cooperative game, in that there is ample room for both fruitful cooperation, but there can be quite a bit of in-play adversity as well. In-play adversity can be very intense, even leading to sudden player elimination.

Each player gets a pawn more-or-less like this
Major mechanics

Worker placement is probably the most important “major” mechanic. It’s got a slight twist compared to other games in that you only get to have a single worker, and you get to allocate time for that worker to accomplish actions. In the later game it is possible to obtain multiple workers, but you still need to allocate time from your original worker for them to take actions. An interesting part of this is figuring out whether this trade is worth it or not.

The other major mechanic is resource gathering and allocation. There are a great deal of resources in the game, with accompanying advantages and disadvantages; food is a requirement, but diamonds really are just a nice-to-have There is a rich in-game economy which lets you get from one resource to another. What I do dislike is that there is this one resource “money” which can be traded for almost all of the other ones.

Minor mechanics

Next to worker placement, there are numerous minor mechanics. At different points in the game there will be pick-up-and-delivery, bluffing, social deduction, area control and many others.

It’s quite interesting that you can chose which of these mechanics you are most interested in and use those more frequently.

The good

So what are some of the good features of the game?

Depth of play

Life offers incredible depth of play, with huge amounts of possibilities open to players and a nearly infinite strategies possible. This is better than any other game I’ve ever seen and is probably it’s most important selling point.

One downside of this depth is that it brings the difficulty of making a choice between all the different options. The result is that players tend to copy what the other players nearby are doing, which sometimes makes for a bit boring (local) game play. “Mary, John, Alice and Bob think it’s a good idea to have a kid, so I should probably get one too.”

Player interaction

The player interaction is truly superb. You can form alliances or make enemies, stand together or try to eliminate another player altogether. The mechanics for this are subtle and well thought-through. This is done by giving bonuses to players who work together (greater productivity, increased defense, etc.) but also by having feedback loops which mean that going without interacting with other players can be quite costly in “mental resources”: Getting too high on the “loneliness track” can be a real killer!

Much of the depth of the game is driven by this player interaction.

There is some really beautiful artwork in life!
The artwork

A lot of attention was put into the board and the looks of the player representations. And while not all of it is exceptional, there most certainly are parts which are better than any other game I’ve ever laid eyes one!

The neutral

Some elements aren’t good or bad but neutral or good and bad in equal dosages.

Length of play

A game of life can differ significantly for different players, some playing for decades while others don’t even get minutes.

For most players however life is much longer than any other game one would generally play. This is good as it makes it possible to explore the fast depths that the game has to offer.

The fact that play length is very random does detract significantly from the game.

The bad

Like any board-game there are pieces that could’ve done with a bit more testing before they were put in the final version.

Too damned easy…
Player elimination

As already mentioned the game incorporates player elimination. In fact, player elimination is very simple in general, though there are also strong in-game consequences for doing this, making it a risky strategy to pursue.

That however does not help any players that actually get eliminated…

The rule book

There is none.

Instead there is a sort of awkward tutorial phase in which new abilities and options slowly become available. This takes a long time and is not particularly interesting.

The one redeeming quality is that it blends perfectly into the actual game play so that you’re never quite sure whether you’re still in tutorial mode or playing already.

Still, having the rules written out would’ve been a really big boon!

Unclear winning conditions

As there are no written rules, the winning conditions are unclear.

This can make for interesting game play as it allows players to choose their own goal, but in general it is found to be quite irritating; I would call this one of the major design flaws of the game.

Unbalanced starting positions

Starting positions for players are random, but these have a tremendous impact on the game. They determine early access to resources, which have huge cumulative effects throughout the game; when you start in the “Europe” region you can expect to have more starting resources than players at the very end of the game if they start in “Africa”. Could do with some proper balancing!


Large parts of the game tend to be quite repetitive and boring.

This is in part because of the unclear winning conditions, which makes it difficult to make a choice of which option is better than the others. The result is that many players start to hedge and go for resources that are very “general” in nature (i.e. “coins” and “social status”) so that if they somehow figure out what their winning conditions are, they can change their resources relatively easy.

Runaway leaders

Even though there are no clear winning conditions, having more resources is obviously useful.

When resources are relatively scarce, getting enough resources to pay the many different “taxes” (e.g. “food” which gets consumed every turn, the requirement for “shelter”, etc.) can be quite demanding. Moving towards getting a bit more resources can be very challenging.

However when you do get to a decent surplus of resources, it is incredibly easy to increase these further, to ridiculous amounts even (I’ve heard stories of players who literally had a million times more resources than other players!).

This is further exacerbated by the unbalanced starting positions, making a random element that is determined before starting the most important part of whether you can get to a surplus at all.

The interesting

So what are some of the more interesting bits of the game, what makes it stand out from all the other board-games that are out there?

You know what this game needs? Another player!
Player generation

One truly unique mechanic is that it is possible for players to generate new players! This is something I’ve never seen implemented in anything else.

Generating a new player costs quite something in resources (also because this includes resources required for the tutorial), but for most players this is attainable.

It’s also interesting that not one but two players are required to generate a new player. The result of this is an increase in overall cooperation in the game and further deepens the player interaction.

The artwork interacts with the game

The artwork can have a direct impact on the game!

The first way this is done is through pieces of the board that can enhance (or detract from) your mental resources (e.g. “sunset” can increase your “mood”).

Even more amazing is that the artwork of the player representations have an impact on how they influence other players: Players that have been rendered more beautifully generally interact more easily with other players!

This is one example of an unbalanced starting resources; the artwork for different players differs significantly and while it can be changed, this is difficult. For game play it is a negative, but the idea is very elegant and interesting!

Play only once

Life can be played once and that’s it. There are some discussions on different forums that it’s possible to start anew, but how that would be done and whether it actually works is murky and highly debated.

This means that it is not possible to implement what you learned in one game to the next. Due to potential game length however it is possible to pick up a lot of the game whilst playing it. And one could argue that playing a second game with knowledge of the first would give an incredible advantage compared to other players.

There are some other games that aren’t fun to play more than once, but they still can be. For life however this is strictly not possible.

The final verdict

Though the game has some serious balance problems, this can be forgiven because of the incredible depth that the game offers and some very interesting new mechanics.

If the imbalances get improved I would rate it higher, but as it stands, it gets 3 stars out of 5.

Bastiaan_smallHi, I’m Bastiaan. The goal of this blog is to learn about game design. That’s hopefully for you as the reader, but just as much for me as the writer.

Help me to learn? Leave a comment or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog or like it on Facebook, to get updates when I write them.

And perhaps you know of others interested in learning? Share this post using the buttons below:

Board game design, Components



To boldly go where no board-game has gone before!
To boldly go where no board-game has gone before!
“One card in your hand is worth ten in the deck!” (Free after a well-known saying).

In board-games the location of where components are makes a very big impact on the game. The same token can be invaluable when it’s in your pile, a source of worry when the opponent has it, a consideration when on the board and near meaningless in the general stock.

In this post I want to delve into the spatial element of board-games.

The state of the game

You walk up to a game in progress and you look at the board: Ah, Mary has ten cards in hand and a lot of resources in front of her, while Mike is holding on to a single card and has a minute pile of cubes. It’s pretty obvious that Mary is doing better!

You got this information just by taking a look of what is where.

The location of all the different playing pieces shows the state of the game. It is a snapshot of all the information that is relevant right now.

Location, location, location

As in real-estate, location is king!
As in real-estate, location is king!
Board-game components generally have a location. This cube is on the “grain” field. That card is in my hand.

In general the location of a piece is important: Having your Catan village on the intersection between a 6, 5 and 10 is very different from having it between the desert, a 2 and an 11.

Location also carries a lot of information regarding playing pieces. A yellow cube on the grain field represents grain that can be harvested by any player, while a yellow cube in front of me is my grain, which nobody can touch!

In some cases the location can even change the what the game piece represents (what it is a metaphor for; see this post for more on metaphors in board-game design). In San Juan face up cards on the table are built buildings, while face down cards on top of (certain) buildings represent goods stored in that building.

Move. Your. Sheep!

It's awesome to move to (a new) space!
It’s awesome to move to (a new) space!
Where the location of playing pieces represents the state of the game, movement is the actual playing of it.

During our turn we make changes to the game by moving stuff around: I move this worker from my house to the field and I get two grain cubes, which I move from the general stock to my playing area. Or: I put this wood piece back in the general pile and move this building tile to an empty space of the board and put a marker of my color on top of it.

We’ll sink deep in thought trying to come up with the –literally- best move. The change in the position of the board pieces that will give us the largest advantage.

What’s your orientation?

Strictly speaking all board-game pieces are 3-dimensional. Meaning that they have an orientation.

This orientation can also be used to convey information. A face-up card has a different meaning than a face-down card. In Carcasonne laying down a meeple means something different than one standing up.


I fall for the one...
I fall for the one…
Board-games use random effect. The two most common methods of generating randomness are by rolling dice (where we care about the orientation) and by shuffling a deck of cards (where we care about the location (in the deck)).

In both cases vigorous motion is responsible for creating the randomness.

Hidden in plain sight

In general the location and orientation of something is common knowledge: It’s easy to see where something is and what way it is facing.

Many games however make use of hidden information.

This can either be done by putting something in a hidden location (behind a screen or in a bag) or by orienting it in such a way as to hide the important part of the component (e.g. by putting a card face down, or holding it in your hand)

Stuff that is not space-bound

So is there nothing but location, orientation and movement? Not exactly.

One very important part of board-games is what goes on in players’ minds and between players. We try to think of the best move and we work on outsmarting our opponents. Or we want to manipulate someone into doing our bidding.

In some games the mental / social is the most important part of the game. Social deduction games care very little for location and orientation (though keeping your role-card face down is important!)

Closing thoughts

May the northern light lead the way to board-game insights!
May the northern light lead the way to board-game insights!
Location, orientation and movement are what make most board-games. Can you use these in different ways?

Are there locations for playing pieces that are not generally used? Underneath the board? In between other playing pieces?

Can you use the same component differently in different locations? Cubes in hand versus on the board? Cards that are building components, currency, and part of the board in different spaces?

Can you do something with the orientation? Standing and lying meeples? Cards that stand up?

Is there an interesting way to randomize? Pour out a hand full of cubes over the board? Roll a cylinder down a track?

How can you hide information? Hide resources underneath other ones?

Good luck with your designing!

Feedback please!

I’m very open to your ideas and thoughts, let me know in the comments or on Twitter if you agree or where you think I need to re-orient myself?!

Bastiaan_smallHi, I’m Bastiaan. The goal of this blog is to learn about game design. That’s hopefully for you as the reader, but just as much for me as the writer.

Help me to learn? Leave a comment or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog or like it on Facebook, to get updates when I write them.

And perhaps you know of others interested in learning? Share this post using the buttons below:

Board game design



Life is like a metaphor for a box of chocolates
Life is like a metaphor for a box of chocolates
This tile represents a house. That wooden cube stands for a real piece of construction wood. The deck of cards is the set of magic spells that you could cast. A turn is meant to convey a year. Placing a worker gives the idea of doing a certain amount labor.

Board-games exist by the grace of representations or metaphors. Anything in a game is a stand-in for something else (it probably wouldn’t be a lot of fun if you actually had to harvest a field if you placed your worker on a grain tile).

In this post I want to explore what this means from a design perspective..

Theme: The first metaphor

This park has a theme!
This park has a theme!
Puerto Rico would play exactly the same if you removed all references to production, shipping and taking the role of a certain person. What you’re actually doing is moving components from one location on the table to another. At the end of the game you count a certain kind of component and declare the player with the most as the winner. It is only in your mind are you growing coffee and loading it into a ship.

So why not be satisfied with moving bits of cardboard and wood around, why do we tack on this bit about building plantations in a Latin American country?

To answer that, let’s take a look at games without a theme first.

Games without theme

There are games that don’t have a theme, so called “abstracts”.

4 in a row is a nice example of this: As far as I know the discs you slide down the holder don’t represent anything. Victory doesn’t imply that some evil was defeated or that you built the best civilization. No: Get four meaningless discs in a meaningless row of and you win!

The freedom of the abstract

Chess is almost without theme
Chess is almost without theme
Abstracts are the “cleanest” of games: There is no meaning to convey and thus there are no restrictions on what pieces you can introduce or what you can design with those pieces.

This can certainly be an advantage: Full freedom in theory would allow for the most interesting games to be built.

In practice however I feel that this is generally not the case. A theme helps to limit the design space significantly (see this post on design spaces) and through that makes it simpler to make design choices. Limiting the design space makes it easier to explore what is left and thus come up with great choices within those limits.

Advantages of metaphors

Most modern games are not abstracts. Above I already give a reason why a theme can help in designing a game. There are however other reasons to include a theme (and other metaphors) in your board-game.

Theme and metaphors to make sense of the game

A song with a theme makes much more sense too!
A song with a theme makes much more sense too!
Metaphors help players to make sense of what is going on this game.

Compare: “So I need to hand in two of my yellow cubes for each blue cylinder at the end of round 4?”

To: “Ah, at the end of round 4 there is a harvest and I need to feed my family so they don’t go hungry!”

With metaphors we can much more easily make sense out of rules. Of course you need to feed your family. Of course it makes sense to pay wood and stone to build a building.

And rules that make sense are much easier to remember.

When there is no rule

We try to write rule-books that cover all possibilities. Unfortunately we are few and our players (hopefully!) are many. This means that there will be situations that are not covered by the rules.

If your game is thematic then it is in general much easier to figure out what to do when something crops up that is not covered in the rule-book: Do what would also make sense in real life.

Telling a story

Once upon a time there was a beautiful board-game....
Once upon a time there was a beautiful board-game….
Board-games convey a story: “Four civilizations came to this island trying to achieve economic dominance over the others. In the end the white civilization prevailed!” (Yes, that’s Catan).

People like stories, they like to be able to feel what is happening. To see the rise and fall of great nations, to enjoy a poor farmer’s family build out their farm to become an economic powerhouse. This creates a sense of meaning and empathy.

Without a theme it is very hard to generate a story: “This bunch of discs fell through a grid until one color victoriously got four discs in a row. And they lived happily ever after!” It just doesn’t have much of a ring to it…

A thoroughly ingrained theme makes a game feel more like a story. It helps to suspend disbelief and to keep players in the make-belief world that they together are creating. It helps players to “get into” the game.

See this post for more on board-games and story-telling.

A theme is conveyed through metaphors

As mentioned, the theme says “what the game is about”: This is a game about space combat, that is a game about intrigue in the roman era, here we’re dueling zombies in a hospital.

Board games make use of components. This red cube of wood represents a space ship in the first game, an influence point in the second and a wound in the third. The component is exactly the same but the way we use it and see it is completely different.

The meaning we give to that one component is a metaphor.

Likewise, any actions we take are metaphorical. We move that red cube from one space to another and we’ve flown our spaceship, influenced a senator or healed a wound.

The story gets told by having our metaphor-actions work on our metaphor-components.

The perfect metaphor

I feel I should make a game about plumbing now...
I feel I should make a game about plumbing now…
A real house requires wood, bricks, roof-tiles, plumbing, wiring. It’s built by a plethora of experts, of which each would be hard-pressed to do another’s work.

In games however it just requires a wood and a stone (or whatever the game proscribes).

Metaphors in games need not be perfect. In fact, they absolutely should not be perfect! Board-games work because we make abstraction, mostly simplifications. Real life is messy and chaotic, while in a board-game things work exactly according to the rules.

There is a lot of freedom to be found in this: Chose the metaphors you want to use, at the level of abstraction you want. Do you want to build plumbing, buildings or cities? Each is possible, each can work for the right game.

The winning metaphor

Many modern games do very well with their metaphors, except for at one point: Determining the winner.

Victory points are left, right and center in modern board-games. And though they work well, it’s sometimes very hard to see what they are a metaphor for.

In Puerto Rico you get points for delivering goods and building buildings. Why do these things specifically make you the “best” (from an in-game perspective)? Why not the number of colonists (having the “largest empire”) or money (being “richest”)?

One reason is that in real life there is no “communal end”. People move on or die, but the world (the story!) goes on without them. A game however does need an end and creating one that “makes sense” is hard.

In real life nobody truly wins or loses either. Sure, some people have an easy life and others a harsh one. But in the end we all die, without there being a podium or a gold cup handed out.

There are however games that make perfect sense regarding their ending and the winner. Racing games stop when someone gets to the end (and is declared the winner). Chess ends when the king is certain to be captured.

So come up with a plausible ending end winner!

That doesn’t make sense!

It doesn't matter if you look silly, as long as you're consistent!
It doesn’t matter if you look silly, as long as you’re consistent!
There are of course downsides to theme and metaphors. Mostly, they have to be consistent.

Let’s say you have a building themed game. You’ve been testing and it works really well to remove a worker every time you build a building. From a real-world perspective that is really hard to explain though; buildings don’t eat humans.

In this case you either have to accept that your theme and mechanics clash, change the mechanic or change the theme (perhaps in a distant future buildings are grown from humans?!).

This also shows that even though consistency can be a difficult, there are options when you run into this restriction.

Closing thoughts

Abstract games don’t require any “fluff” that makes thematic sense but doesn’t really add much to the game. Because of this it’s easier to get a deep game with simple rules (Go being a prime example).

However, without a theme and metaphors you’re missing out on story building and making sense of the “why” of certain rules. Do your metaphors help to create a story and to make sense of the rules?

The flip side of this is that for a thematic game it becomes more difficult to add a rule that the game needs but that doesn’t make sense within the theme. How much of a limitation should this be?

When designing your game, what kind of metaphors do you use? Could you use different ones? Or could you use a different component with the same metaphor? This becomes especially relevant when you are using a theme that has been used again and again (another zombie game anyone?). Dice as space-ships? Cards as health? Tokens as building plans? With some imagination I’m sure you can come up with some interesting ideas!

Next steps

For any game you have to make a choice as on what metaphors you do and don’t include. This relates to the level of abstraction you use in your game. It would be interesting to look further into these levels of abstraction and what they mean for game design.

Feedback please!

I’m very open to your ideas and thoughts, let me know in the comments or on Twitter if you agree or where you think I completely missed the point?!

Bastiaan_smallHi, I’m Bastiaan. The goal of this blog is to learn about game design. That’s hopefully for you as the reader, but just as much for me as the writer.

Help me to learn? Leave a comment or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog or like it on Facebook, to get updates when I write them.

And perhaps you know of others interested in learning? Share this post using the buttons below:

Board game design, Learning



You're never to old to learn!
You’re never to old to learn!
”Experience is the quality that lets you recognize a mistake when you make it again…”

In this post I wrote about feedback loops in board-games. I left out one very important feedback loop though: The one that happens in the head of the player.

When we play a game we get better. We try a strategy and see it work or fail. We find that this card is strong and that one is weak. We learn.

Now you might be going: ”Well, duh!”. But bear with me, because this has some interesting consequences for board-game design.

The joys of learning

Humans are learning machines. You can see this when you observe kids: Infinitely curious, happy to try anything. Which makes sense: Imagine a kid that wasn’t interested in learning to walk; they wouldn’t be particularly effective in later life… And so the desire to learn is hard-coded into our being.

As adults we’ve left the exploration phase behind. We know it’s a bad idea to grab a burning stove, how our hands work, that bees are to be avoided and that ice-cream is delicious.

That doesn’t mean we stop learning though. Or that the craving for new things to learn goes away. It just means that we have do a bit more work to get to something that gets our neurons firing.

Which is where board-games (and really any form of entertainment) comes in: A system all set up with juicy and intricate rules that we can figure out!

Three levels of learning

Learning the rules might not be the most fun part, but they are there for a reason...
Learning the rules might not be the most fun part, but they are there for a reason…
Board-games offer three levels of learning:

  • The rules
  • The system
  • Winning

Let’s take a look at each in turn.

Learning the rules

The first part of learning a game is learning the rules. These are what is written in the rulebook or what is explained by someone who has played before.

For most people this is not a particularly enjoyable experience. This is because it mostly comes down to memory; can you remember the rules well enough to get to the next level? Because of this player-aids (and simple-to-remember rules!) are a big boon to games.

For some people (myself included) learning the rules is enjoyable as well. I think this is because simply by learning the rules you already get some insights into the system behind them, which is the next level of learning.

Learning the system

Learn to game the system and get rich quick!
Learn to game the system and get rich quick!
The second part of learning a game is understanding the system. This is how the rules and components interact to create something bigger than the sum of the parts.

In poker the rules say which hand beats which and that you can bet chips based on whether you think you will win the round. Just from reading that however you most likely wouldn’t realize that it’s possible to bluff.

The system is all the interactions that are possible. It’s the difference in Dominion between playing a Smithy and a Village, and then seeing what could happen if you play them both.

For many people there is real joy to be found in this phase of learning the game. That’s because true insight is created. By playing, you figure something out that you hadn’t known before. Eureka!

Learning to win

It's not whether you win but how you play. But it's about winning!
It’s not whether you win but how you play. But it’s about winning!
The final part of the journey is to learn to win. This means understanding the system well enough to know which option is better than another, to find new and more intricate combinations to get even more bang for your scarce resources (see this post for scarcity in board-games).

It is here that you are trying new tactics and strategies, optimizing a single turn or getting the best out of your entire play.

Better: To win, mastering the system isn’t enough; you also need to outsmart your opponent(s), taking the experience of learning to an even higher level!

This is what we mean when we say that a game takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master: Rules that are simple to memorize, but a system that is interesting to delve into and a game that keeps on bringing up new learning experiences.

Learning and replayability

Someone must not have been paying attention....
Someone must not have been paying attention….
One of the holy grails in board-game design is “replayability”, the possibility to play a game multiple times without it getting boring.

A very good bad example of this is tic-tac-toe. No one in their right mind would play this, right? Well, not true: Kids actually really enjoy this game. For them it is not obvious that you can always play to get a draw. They haven’t learned yet that this is the case. And so they’ll happily keep at it, throwing their full intellectual capacity at it. Until they get it. At which point they’ll be like you and me, not touching it ever again.

The lesson is that as long as there is something to be learned in a game, it’ll stay interesting. I think I’ve played 50+ games of Agricola in my life, but I’ll gladly play another round, because there really is more to be explored.

The way then to increase replayability is by allowing a lot of things to be learned within the game. There are two ways of doing this:

  • Adding depth
  • Adding ambiguity
Learning in the deep end

“Depth” is one of the other holy grails of board-game design (mostly because it gives replayability!) and it would take an entire blog post (and more!) to go into it (many others have done so, a bit of Googling should get you far).

Just scratching the surface, I would say that depth is “interesting complexity”. One way of incorporating this in your game is having multiple viable tactics and strategies. Each of these can be tried out and players can learn how well they work, which are the best and which combine well.

If it takes 3 tries to really work out a strategy then adding one more strategy just increased the replayability by 3 games…

Ambiguous learning

There is always more to learn
There is always more to learn
Once you know something, there is nothing left to learn. It’s gotten boring and thus not worth any further effort. Tic-tac-toe as explained above is a good example of this.

But what if you sortof know what’s going on, but not entirely? This is extremely tantalizing for the human brain: “I’ve figured it out so far, now I want to know the last bits as well!” As long as there is ambiguity, the brain will continue to work on it.

One way of introducing ambiguity is by creating situational dependence. This means that your strategy depends strongly on tactics and the state of the rest of the game.

Imagine you have a good strategy, which needs a combination of resources. In some games you can get these reasonably well, but in others they are scarce. You need to learn more (namely, how to ensure that you get those resources)!

But what if there is no sure-fire way of getting them? Then your strategy will mostly win, but not always. And you’ll continue to wonder what you can do better.

This ambiguity can be the result of randomness. As long as you don’t draw too poor cards or you’re not rolling only ones, your strategy does well. Figuring this out is more difficult than a strategy that does not involve any randomness. At some point however the player is going to catch on and accept that the strategy just can’t be improved, that in the end it’s lady Fortune that decides whether it succeeds or not. And they’ll stop playing the game (or latch on to a new strategy to try).

This is especially the case since randomness tends to be rather “heavy handed”. Sure, sometimes you’ll be exactly 1 resource short, but in many cased you’ll really have way too little (or you’re drowning in the good stuff). When the influence of randomness is so un-subtle, it’s easy to see that it’s the culprit.

A more interesting way of creating ambiguity is through player interaction. This is the way the typical “Euro” game works: ”I could execute my strategy perfectly, if it weren’t for the others players getting in my way!”

If you’re short wood this game, then next game you’ll pounce on it more aggressively. With as a result that another player has a chance to take the stone that you also need. Your priority shifts again next game, but once more you’re missing something. Is this because the strategy is flawed, or does it mean that you just have to be even better at foreseeing what your opponent will do?

Maybe one more game to see if it works this time?

Learning, hard choices and ambiguity

What's the optimal choice?
What’s the optimal choice?
In this post I looked at what makes for interesting choices in board-games. I concluded that an interesting choice has to be hard to make – it should not be obvious which of the options gives the best result.

The learning process in a board-game then is working through the hard choices and – through experience – finding out which option does give the best results.

This allows us to rephrase the part about ambiguity from above in different terms. If there truly is an optimal choice then we need to learn this once and then we (our brain) is done. If however the choice is only optimal part of the time (because of randomness or the actions of other players) then we’re not done learning (and enjoying!) yet.

A tip when playing

Winning is a big part of the enjoyment of playing a game. I hope though that the above has shown that learning the game is just as big a part of the pleasure.

Therefore: Optimize your learning pleasure – don’t look up tips and tricks online. Figure it out for yourself. Even if that means taking a beating.

Closing thoughts

Board-games give an opportunity to learn, something that isn’t present a lot otherwise in adult life. It is one of the joys of playing and as such should be in the forefront of a designer’s mind.

To allow players to continue to learn within the game, there should be a lot of game space to explore. This can be in broad strokes, in the form of different strategies to try out, but also at a micro level, when trying to get the best out of a chosen strategy.

Ambiguity in outcomes means that the brain hasn’t learned all it can, resulting in a drive to learn and thus to play more.

Next steps

I already mentioned that “depth” would take an entire blog post to delve into (see what I did there?), so I probably will take the plunge at some point (see what I did there? I’m on a role!).

Ambiguity in board-games is also something I feel that can be explored further. Above are some good opening thoughts, but this can definitely be expanded upon.

Feedback please!

I’m very open to your ideas and thoughts, let me know in the comments or on Twitter if you agree or where you think I completely missed the point?!

Bastiaan_smallHi, I’m Bastiaan. The goal of this blog is to learn about game design. That’s hopefully for you as the reader, but just as much for me as the writer.

Help me to learn? Leave a comment or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog or like it on Facebook, to get updates when I write them.

And perhaps you know of others interested in learning? Share this post using the buttons below:

Board game design



The oldest incentive in the world?
The oldest incentive in the world?
When designing a board-game, you want players to have a certain experience: The thrill of besting a dragon as a group of adventurers is very different from going head to head to see who can build the largest civilization.

The way we create that experience is through the interaction of the rules and the game components; with the former telling you what you can do with the latter.

To experience the vision of the creator there are certain things that a player should do. Let’s say you want them to build a thriving civilization, then you can put in the rules that every turn they have to build a building and attack another player. But putting it in so explicitly feels forced and doesn’t add to making interesting choices (see this post for more on interesting choices in board-games) or being in control.

A better way is to create incentives for your players to do what you want them to do.

What is an incentive?

In its simplest form an incentive is a punishment or reward for doing (or not doing) something.

In real life we are incentivized to work: You earn a money with which you can do interesting stuff (reward) and you get bad reviews or even fired if you don’t do your job well (punishment).

Likewise, a kid can be rewarded for cleaning up their room with an ice-cream, or be punished by being grounded for leaving the mess untouched.

Incentives in board-games

But what will it buy me?
But what will it buy me?
In board-games players also get rewards and punishments for doing (or not doing) certain actions. This usually comes in the form getting or losing resources (see more on resources in board-games in this post).

For example in Catan you are rewarded for building a village as it gives you a victory point (as well as future resources). Likewise in Agricola not feeding your family is punished by costing you three victory points. This guides the players to take the actions that the designer had in mind, without forcing them: Probably villages will get built and the family will get fed, but maybe they won’t.

Taking our example from above, instead of saying that you have to build a building, we create incentives to construct: Buildings earn victory points, or generate resources. And instead of forcing a player to attack, there can be a penalty for not attacking. This way players continue to have choices, but they are guided towards what the developer wants them to do.

Levels of incentives

At what level are you guiding your players?
At what level are you guiding your players?
Incentives can happen at different “levels”.

At a highest level there is winning / losing the game: If there is anything that would immediately win the game then you would have a very strong reason to go for this. Alternatively, anything that would result in an instant loss is to be avoided at all cost. These are however very extreme and thus are generally not used. Instead incentives are structured in such a way that they get you closer to winning, instead of winning outright.

At the second level there is anything that is a “prerequisite” for winning. For many games you want to collect as many victory points as possible and thus anything that gives victory points will draw the attention of players. Likewise, anything that costs victory points is generally avoided.

There are of course games that don’t work with victory points but there will be something that you require to win. For example in racing games anything that gets you closer to the finish will have a strong incentive

Finally there is anything that gets you closer to the things that get you closer to winning. These are general resources (e.g. wood and sheep in Catan, a profession in Agricola). This is the stuff which “in itself” is not useful, except that it enables you to get the things that do matter. Compare this to money in the real world: There is very little it’s good for on its own; only because it can be traded for other stuff do we start to covet it.

In one way or another, incentives in board-games work by getting you closer to winning the game (reward) or bringing you further from it (punishment).

Costs and returns vs. punishments and rewards

Many games allow you to build / buy things.

There is generally a cost associated with this: In Catan a village costs you four resources.

The higher the cost of buying / building, the less incentive there is to hire builders; in this way a high cost works as a “punishment”, making it less likely that a player will go for it.

Of course you buy / build to get something. That village gives you a victory point, as well as future resources. These are the rewards for adding a game piece. If the reward is low, then there is little incentive to go for it, while if it’s high, players will be fighting for it.

There are thus two ways to adjust incentives: Change the cost or change the reward.

Incentives and interesting choices

You can only spend your resources once. Choose wisely!
You can only spend your resources once. Choose wisely!
In this post I wrote about creating interesting choices in board-games, which I believe have to be hard choices. One way of doing this is by finding a right balance between cost and returns of anything you can buy / build.

Looking at this from the punishment / reward perspective: If punishment (cost) and reward (returns) are balanced, then there are incentives both to build / buy and to not do that, making it hard (interesting!) to decide whether to build or not.

Guiding your players

Incentives are used to guide your players. This has two uses:

  • Play the game the designer envisioned
  • Know what is useful to do
Playing the designer’s game

As a designer you (should) have a vision for your game: “In this game you’ll be in charge of a mighty civilization trying to build yourself up whilst bringing others down”.

This means that the game should allow for building up (constructing buildings) and bringing low (attacking other civilizations). You create your first prototype and play. Only to find out that everybody is only ever attacking and never building up…

In this case you can use incentives to “guide” your players to do what you would like them to do: Attack, but also to build. To do this you can give bonuses for building, make buildings cheaper or make attacking less lucrative.

An essential part of guiding your players to play the game you envision is that you have to have have that vision of what it should all be about.

Do what’s useful

Guide your players away from the rocks and towards the harbour
Guide your players away from the rocks and towards the harbour
Incentives can be used to guide players to do what’s useful in the game.

Especially in a complex game with many options that you’ve never played, it can be very difficult to see what a good (or even reasonable) option is to take.

Here you can create incentives to guide the way: “For every village that I build I get 2 victory points at the end of this round, so how about I try to build as many villages as possible?“

This works best if the bonus / incentive is temporary (say until the end of the turn) as that makes it clear that that specific option is even better “right now”.

A good example of this is Terra Mystica, where ever turn there are bonus points to be earned for taking certain actions. None of these actions are bad by themselves, but with the added bonus, they become good enough that it is usually a good idea to go for them.

This makes it such that inexperienced players have something to guide them: Go for the easy points that are right in front of my nose, without ever thinking about a game-encompassing strategy (for some general board-game strategies, see this post)! Experienced players on the other hand can choose to forego the “easy” points and instead focus on executing their thought-out strategy.

The point-salad conundrum

How many points was a prawn again?
How many points was a prawn again?
Some board-games have many different ways of getting a few points – so called “point salads”.

On the one hand this is a great use of incentives: Everything gives some points, so there are very obvious incentives to do multiple things. Once you chose one of them, it can be a the start of an interesting strategy for the rest of the game.

On the other hand, it can also mean that players are incentivized to do everything. Meaning that there is actually no incentive for any one particular choice.

I also personally dislike point-salads, as I feel they take away some of the “immersion” in a game: I like my games to have a feeling of “achievement” outside of “winning because you have the most points”; points are a decent way to measure “progress”, but if you get points for everything then it’s unclear what your “progress” was towards. See this post on tips on immersion through story-telling for board-games.

Closing thoughts

As a designer you should have a vision of what experience you want the players of your game to have. For that vision to come true, they will need to play in certain ways. Incentives can be used to create guidance towards what you want them to do.

You want your players to do something? Give them stuff – resources or victory points. Don’t want them to do something? Withhold or take away what they need.

Incentives are much less heavy-handed than directly embedding something in the rules. This means that players have more control over what they do and it also results in more options to choose from. Of course some of those choices might be sub-optimal, but it might be interesting to explore what happens if you take it anyway; it’s an option not to feed your family in Agricola but it’s probably not a good one!

Next steps

In this post I mentioned the experience that players have when playing. Incentives are a way of getting to that experience, but you still need to think about what that experience should be. This is probably a good subject for another post.

Feedback please!

I’m very open to your ideas and thoughts, so I hope you’re incentivized to let me know in the comments or on Twitter whether you agree or if you think I completely missed the point?!

Bastiaan_smallHi, I’m Bastiaan. The goal of this blog is to learn about game design. That’s hopefully for you as the reader, but just as much for me as the writer.

Help me to learn? Leave a comment or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog or like it on Facebook, to get updates when I write them.

And perhaps you know of others interested in learning? Share this post using the buttons below: