Board game design

Some time back I wrote an article about scarcity in board games. The premise was that board games revolve around resources (in many different variants) and that scarcity of (some of) those resources creates interesting choices.

What is scarce becomes valuable
In this post I want to go into an example of this, based on Voluntarios (volunteers in Spanish), the game I’m working on. Specifically I want to go into a somewhat novel form of scarcity: The scarcity of space.

A first scarcity of space

In Voluntarios you’re at the head of a group of volunteers (workers) and you have those volunteers do work (in a slight twist on worker-placement, the details of which I won’t bother you with) on reconstructing a village after an earthquake.

There are two types of workers: Experts and Normal workers. Most of the work that needs to be done is “normal” work, but there is also some work that can only be done by Experts. Experts can do the work of Normal workers, but it costs the player a Karma (= victory) point when doing so (because when you’re an expert, you don’t want to do simple menial work, now do you?!). And of course Normal workers can’t do Expert work.

The number of spaces where Expert work needs to be done will ebb and flow through the game, but on average there are slightly fewer spaces than the number of Expert workers available. This means that there is an incentive to “get rid” of Expert workers as soon as an Expert space becomes available. This then creates an interesting decision, where a player needs to decide between placing an Expert or doing something else that might be more useful to do, but with the risk (or even certainty) of losing a point when the Expert is forced to do Normal work.

Expert spaces are created through buildings that can be worked on by all players, but where the player controlling the building will get the benefits when it’s finished. However, making such spaces available generally does not mean that a player can take advantage of them (by placing an Expert) immediately. Thus, there is a choice between making Expert spaces available (which will go toward finishing a building a player controls) and waiting for someone else to do it so that an Expert worker can be placed.

A second scarcity of space

A prototype construction project – with space for 1 Expert (green) and 2 Normal workers (blue)
One of the advantages that finished buildings can have is that they give the controlling player an additional worker. This means that the number of workers increases throughout the game. The total number of spaces for workers however goes down as much as it goes up, meaning that there can be moments where there are more workers than spaces to place them.

Of course, letting things go to waste is well, a waste. Therefore there is a mechanic that players lose points when they have unused workers left at the end of a round.

The result is that players need to think very carefully on whether they want to control buildings that give additional workers; they may be beneficial, but when space runs out they are very much a burden. This then creates interesting strategical choices on whether to invest in more workers or to go for other types of buildings.

And it’s not a stand-alone choice, it very much depends on what the other players are doing as well; if everybody else is investing in other buildings, then having a few more workers of your own means you’ll still be able to place them without too much trouble.

The good, the bad and the unexpected

One of the two types of space scarcity works like a charm. The other has some… Side effects.

Can you guess which one is which?

Well no worry, I’m going to tell you!

(No) space: The final frontier!

When there is not enough space for all workers the result is that all possible worker spaces get filled and thus that all associated actions are taken. A number of those actions benefit not just the player taking them, but other players as well (think of role selection, but through placing a worker instead of taking a card). For any given action there are only two options: I take the action or someone else takes the action.

This is actually quite a bit less interesting than what happens for most games: I take the action, someone else takes the action or the action doesn’t happen.

When all actions are taken there is still jostling for getting the actions that you really want, but there is no tension about which actions exactly will have happened when the round has ended.

Worse, when there are limited spaces at some point players are “forced” to place workers in spaces they aren’t really interested in or even worse, would actively prefer not to take. Technically they have the choice of not placing a worker, but if the downside is high (which it was in my game) then it’s not really a choice at all. And thus this mechanic took away player agency and resulted in a lot of frustration

Bad choice of space scarcity! And thus “too little space for all workers” will be taken care of in the next iteration.

Without space everybody can hear you scream!

What do you mean that space can be scarce?!
The other option for making space scarce, jostling for positions for Expert workers, however works well. It indeed creates a sense of urgency about “having to get rid of” your Expert workers.

So why does this work but scarcity of space for all workers doesn’t?

The fundamental difference I feel is that Expert-space-scarcity doesn’t take away options. An Expert worker can be used for any space, though at a penalty. You’d like to avoid that penalty, and so you’ll work towards that, but you don’t have to. This gives the player control.

For the full-space-scarcity on the other hand at some point it becomes clear how many spaces there and thus for how many workers you’re going to have to take a penalty. There are some actions you can take to increase spaces during a turn, but they help everybody (almost) equally and thus do not really give a sense of control.

Salvage space?

So full-space-scarcity is a bad idea.

But…

I like the idea, as it is novel and actually goes against the idea of so many games that “more workers is better”. So might there be a way to salvage the mechanic?

What if this scarcity generally doesn’t happen, but only shows up every once and awhile? Like in 1/5th of all the rounds?

Would that be enough to force players to take it into account when choosing how many workers to go for? Or will it happen “at random” and frustrate players just as much as when it happens regularly? Perhaps if players are veterans they would learn to plan for this, but for rookies it could still be a big downer? Would it be bad enough that the rookies never turn into veterans?

I haven’t fully given up on the idea, so who knows how and where this might show up?

Closing thoughts

Scarcity is one of the fundamental building blocks of board games – something has to be scarce for there to be any competition.

In this post I gave two very concrete examples of scarcity, one that worked and another that didn’t. The fact that I used the somewhat unusual scarcity-of-space hopefully doesn’t detract from the lessons that can be taken from this.

The most important of these I feel is that when working with scarcity, allow your players to work with it, instead of simply having it forced upon them. In this sense there is a similarity to randomness: Forcing players to live with (the outcomes of) randomness is tedious, but once you give them some control after the randomness has happened, the game becomes a whole lot more interesting.

I hope that after reading this you’ll take a look at where the scarcities are in your own game and how your players get to handle these.

Further reading

For more on Voluntarios, read this post which uses Voluntarios as an example for strategy in board games, or this post in which I realized Voluntarios had too few interesting decisions.

And here is the original post on scarcity.

About the author

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.

Insights are scarce so help me to learn? Leave a comment (below) or connect with me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog (see the sidebar) 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:

Facebooktwitterreddit
Board game design, Components

Introduction

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.

Randomization

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:

Facebooktwitterreddit