The Grand Poobah Iterations

The Grand Poobah

 

 

In today's lecture, after discussing our findings from the previous week's reading, we started looking at the game 'The Grand Poobah' with the aim of iteration around the 'space of possibility' and 'pacing' from "Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design - A PopCap Case Study" by 'Marcos Venturelli'.

First Play Through - Original Game:

The game itself was fairly simple. One deck of cards shuffled and face down, one player (from four or five) becomes the Grand Poobah (players choose), that player then turns the top four or five cards face up based on the number of players playing, the grand poobah then distributes those card to whichever player he likes (including theirself). Players then tally the scores from the round (red cards count for scoring points), the grand poobah keeps track of these scores each round, and then finally voting begins to decide who will be the Grand Poobah for the following round (decided by black cards). The first player to reach 70 points wins.

Red Ace - 10 = 1-10 points respectively.

Red J - K = 10 points each

Black Ace - 10 = 2 Votes

Black J - K = 3 Votes

Red Ace - K = 1 Vote

The game was fairly fun to play for a short while, however due to the Negative Feedback Loop in the game, towards the end it became tedious due to the loosing players gaining more points to overtake the winners which repeated itself throughout the game. This caused the game to take a long time and it didn't let the winner pull off in front at any point meaning anybody could win, there was no point at which loosers could prepare to lose and the winner could prepare to win. The drop in the dramatic arc of the game ("Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics" - Marc Leblanc), was so sudden and in some cases unexpected that it didn't give players the desired effect.

Implemented Iterations:

Our iterations for this game were all (but one) theory based as we didn't have time to implement them during lecture.

 

Our actual implemented iteration was for players to receive 3 'hidden energy' cards at the start of the game which the players could choose to use whenever they like. These cards would be used to swap out the card dealt by the grand poobah. An example of the ideal situation to use these cards would be to swap out a Red Ace that was dealt (as these only score one point and only gain one vote), with a Red King from your hidden cards (this instead would cause the player to score 10 points).

 

We never finished playing this version of the game as we realised it didn't work in making the game more enjoyable, but from this iteration we realised that to keep this element even and workable, the hidden card needed to be randomly picked from the deck's royals otherwise a player could end up with all bad hidden cards. To balance this, each player would have 2 hidden cards rather than 3.

 

Iterative Ideas:

 

The ideas I came up with for possible iterations were:

 

• When the grand poobah distributes the cards, they distribute them facedown so that nobody can see what is dealt before tallying the points and casting the votes, this would cause blind voting. An alternative to this would be for the only player to see the delt cards would be the grand poobah.
• Another form of hidden energy, that goes against the powerful negative feedback loop, would be for the selected winner of the voting stage to gain a token for each round voted. These could be used when the player likes to empower the amount of votes they cast in a round (the player can choose to keep these hidden from other players for extra strategy).
• A player states who they are voting for and then roll the dice (hidden from other players views) and only reveal the outcome once each player has decided and rolled. The amount of votes is decided on the dice roll per player totalled.
• Players could play to 100 points, for the first player to reach every 25 points (25, 50, 75), they can choose to knock out a player of their choice. (I also thaught about the idea of countering a 'knock out' if they still currently hold a hidden energy card - this would be used if the knock out idea was too powerful once tested).
• When a player becomes the grand poobah, they gain a seperate token. Once 5 tokens have been collected they can be traded in a set amount of points.
• Players could have a set amount of lives each (10?), for each round the player who is last on the points list will loose a life. Once all the lives are lost, that player is knocked out of the game.

Conclusion:

From these iterations, I would have play tested each one to see if they work - making adjustments as necessary. But from the one iteration they we did implement, we realised how hard it would be to get around the negative feedback loop in this game. This was the main feature in the unaltered version and was an extremely powerful tool, to try to change this or removing it from the game would potentially make the game completely different.

Book/Article Readings - PopCap Games

Week 5 Reading

This weeks reading is "Space of Possibility and Pacing in Casual Game Design - A PopCap Case Study" by 'Marcos Venturelli'. My source for this information was pulled from LearnUCS on Blackboard learn.

The Topic:

Investigation into design principles that relate to casual game development. Concentrating on aspects relevant to Pacing and using PopCap Games (2000) as the study point due to their market relevance and critical acclaim.

Introduction:

Nintendo is one of the main catalysts for the rebirth of expressions such as 'accessibility' and 'family friendly', however these sort of games can now be found in online networks for both Xbox 360, PS3 and PC. However, there is still a black hole in terms of how 'casual games' are designed and the fundamentals of building a casual game.

Games such as Tetris and Pacman are being remade, played and reassessed. Even though these games are much more simple than those which are usually developed this era, we realise that casual game design does in fact use several elements of games past.

Casual Games:

Casual Games "generally involve less complicated controls and overall complexity in terms of gameplay or investment required to get through a game" - (IGDA's Wiki website Casual Games 2009). However, further to this general definition, there are disagreements with concepts of this statement.

These said casual games are not necessarily of lesser complexity in terms of the mechanics or in the production. An example game released by PopCap Games to support this is 'Plants Vs. Zombies' which becomes considerably complex at times. 'Rayman Raving Rabbids' developed by Ubisoft has huge production values.

Marcus states that for the purpose of the work covered in the article, 'Casual Games' would be considered as games that offer the possibility of 'pick up and play', and experiences that can be enjoyed in small bursts but can be interrupted by the player without any form of penalty. The key element would not be the complexity of the system and its mechanics, but how the complexity is presented to the player.

Pacing:

Pacing within a game is a concept related to the overall rhythm of the game, the speed at which the different moving parts of the system are put in motion. By using the MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics), designers create relaxation, tension, repetition through which they control the pace.

Threat - Generated on a level of game mechanics existing as the power struggle leans in favour of the system or the players opponent(s). The actual power of the opposing forces against the player.

Tension - The perceived danger that the player might become the weakest side of the conflict. Graphics and sound/music can increase this tension.

Movement Impetus - The will or desire of a player to move forward through a level, however not limited to level design, it determines how willing the player is to make 'advancement decisions' which represents his/her interest to keep playing the game.

Tempo - The 'intensity' of play. The time between each significant decision made by the player. Higher tempo creates slower decision making and lower tempo creates more frantic decision making.

Space of Possibility:

'A game is designing place of possibility, the creation of structure that can play out in complex and unpredictable ways, a space of possible actions a player explores while playing a game. It is the collection of all possible actions and outcomes inside the designed space of the game, (all artificial outcomes made possible by the system).' 

The space of possibility can be linked directly to the complexity of the game which then in turn is related to tempo. If you limit the space of possibility for potential outcomes before making moves, this creates more 'fun' and 'challenge' in a game (especially timed games) due to not having to over think situations. Doing so could slow down a game's progress to the point where it becomes boring or frustrating especially if a player is forced to make a decision without feeling that they have assessed all the possible outcomes.

From this we can see that a 'pick up and play' type of casual game is one that has little or no tutorial or extra instructions, therefore the learning happens as the game progresses so that the player is not required to invest too much time learning the patterns.

The most commonly used solution to balancing the player tempo is via layering within a game, mechanics used to raise the difficulty of the game for the player as they progress.

Instead of constantly adding new features to a game, an alternative solution is to 'replace' a current feature with another (improved) one. However balancing these (both adding and replacing) features would lead to great design of a game, an example of which is PopCap's 'Plants Vs Zombies' which is highly addictive and successful game. This game's design principles and main focus is to keep constantly high 'Player Impetus' through the whole experience - referred to as 'Upper Arch' of pacing.

By including and balancing Threat, Tension, Movement Impetus and Tempo a game can reach a constant state of 'Flow' which makes the player feel like they can't stop playing. (Dropping Tension and Threat considerably when the mechanics of a game change, helps balance the game accordingly to the changes - allowing the player time to adapt to the changes).

Conclusion:

After going through the article as I posted this blog, I realised just how important it is to balance Threat, Tension, Movement Impetus and Tempo to make great game titles such as Plants Vs Zombies. This is a game I have personally played and found really addictive, so I can say first hand that the game is easy to 'pick up and play' and then hard to put down again.

Now having a deeper understanding of each of the pace mechanics (above), I will now be able to more easily include and iterate games using these concepts in the hopes of creating a game with re-playability.

Book/Article Readings - Chance & Skill

Week 4 Reading

The information and references for this weeks reading was obtained from "Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber (2008) Challenges for Games Designers. Charles River Media" - chapters 5 & 6.

Chance

Chance games include card games, most  RPG's (through the use of variable damage and random encounters), and rock-paper-scissors. Chance games are created to encompass a wider audience as they become winnable by anybody regardless of player skill.

Where chance is not used in games, they become solvable, meaning the entire possibility space is known ahead of time. This causes such games to be exploited and then less compelling. Once the player solves the game, it looses part of what makes it a game in the first place. However not all solvable games are automatically bad, such as chess, it is solvable but the possibility space is large enough to stay entertaining. The smaller the solvability space there is in a game, the less interesting the game becomes. Adding random elements into these games helps keep it fresh due to preventing players from 'mastering' the game.

Competitive games do not suit all audiences, such as a parent and child, as the matching is not equal. This would lead to repeated defeat, boredom or frustration. Adding random elements into this type of game would give less experienced players a chance to win. It also softens the blow of a defeat.

Games with no random elements will often start in the same way and players will make the same strategic choices throughout the game. Adding in a random element to this would make players encounter a wider variety of situations, therefore if used in the right way it can increase the players experience and thus increasing re-playability.

Random elements also create dramatic tension, this helps with games such as RPG's and RTS's which rely on this tension, creating exciting and compelling circumstances.


Mechanics of Chance:

A variety of game mechanics used to implement chance are as follows:

• Dice
• Cards
• Other Game Bits - such as spinners, coin flipping and a dreidel.
• Psuedo-Random Number Generators - although computers are driven by non random instructions, using specific algorithms it becomes close enough to chance (such as random encounters and damage numbers in RPG's).
• Hidden Information - It is non-random information but when concealed from the players, it is random from their perspective.

Randomness is not created equal. 'Measured Randomness' is where the nature of the random elements are known and can be planned for by the players. An example of this is dice rolls - the more dice there are the higher the outcome of a result.

Skill

Strategy is powerful as it makes the players come back to play again, this is due to players wanting to master the game based on varying strategies formed from their understanding of the game's dynamics. Game designers pre-plan and create this into their games wherever possible.

From it's core, a good game is a series of interesting decisions, and good games cause players to use and test their skills but then rewarding them with immediate and obvious feedback.

When players and constantly making decisions, they enter a state of 'flow' (as per psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi). 'Flow' is an optimal play style and one which games designers work hard to achieve.

Types of Decision:

A players skill in a game is determined by the decisions the player makes and the weight of those decisions, to how those decisions affect the outcome of the game.

• Obvious Decision - having a choice but choosing the 'obvious' outcome required to progress or win, as the alternative choice may lead to a negative outcome.
• Meaningless Decision - A choice with no right or wrong answer, having no outcome in the game therefore making the choice irrelevant.
• Blind Choices - A choice made with no previous information provided, equally important but not very interesting. These choices can be turned into other choices by giving the player enough information.
• Tradeoffs - A decision made when a player doesn't have enough resources to accomplish all their goals. This type of choice can lead to important decisions but can become obvious if the choice is not evenly weighted.
• Dilemnas - All choices lead to the players harm. (An example of this choice would be the video we watched in class on 13/11/12).
• Risk Versus Reward (Tradeoff) - A choice from a situation with multiple outcomes with each choice having different levels of risk but greater rewards given to the higher the risk taken.

Mechanics of Skill:

• Tradeoff - Used via auctions and purchases. Where a player must sacrifice something to gain another.
• (Dynamic) / Limited Use Special Abilities - The choice of when to use a specific skill as it may be a one time use.
• Explicit Choices - Choice by giving the player the information for both outcomes.
• Limited Actions - An example of this would be choosing to move a specific play piece over all others given that only one play piece can be moved per turn.
• Trading and Negotiation - Used in games with multiple players, it is used in both competition and co-operation.

Conclusion

This reading has given me examples of existing tools in the field that I will be able to utilise in designing and  creating my games during my course.

Most of the tools listed and examples given are ones which are self explanatory that we as designers would take for granted, but from this reading we understand their full meaning and where we should expect to use them. Some of the tools described, we would expect to see in most if not all of today's games.

Bibliography Task

Online Library Resources

During today's lecture we had moved rooms for our meeting with Sarah Robinson to discuss different ways to access resources online. She had shown us how to use the summon searchtool and also UCS OPAC, (from these I found the summon searchtool to be most useful).

We also covered the importance of bibliographies and how to record them with ease through the use of RefWorks. We were also shown the web plugin called Zotero which is another bibliography recording tool, however, I personally prefer RefWorks due to how it works with the online UCS Library.

 

Task:
 

Our objective or task for this session was to use the databases shown and provided previously to find two full length books, two contributions to books (otherwise known as 'readers' or 'anthologies') and two articles in refereed journals, for a particular topic (within the games design course) and to record them in a bibliography.

(RWUCSuffolk) - RefWorks Info.

My chosen specific area was 'Character Design' for which I found the following reading materials by using the summon searchtool and then recording the findings in RefWorks:

(The following layout of the above is based on the 'Harvard Referencing' system).

1. Reader 1 'Armstrong, H. (2009) Graphic design theory: readings from the field. New York: Princeton Architectural Press'.
2. Reader 2 'Corneliussen, H. G. and Rettberg, W. J. (2008) Digital culture, play and identity: A World of Warcraft reader. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press'.
3. Book 1 'Hartas, L. (2005) The art of game characters. Lewes: Ilex'.
4. Book 2 'Tillman, B. (2011) Creative character design. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Ltd'.]
5. Journal 1 'Gustafson, J. (1990) 'Design a Character', The Reading Teacher 44 (1) 86-87'.
6. Journal 2 'Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G. and Tsoukalas, I. A. (2010) 'Fictional characters in participatory design sessions: Introducing the “design alter egos” technique', Interacting with Computers 22 (3) 165-175'.

Book/Article Readings - Dramatic Tension

Week 3 Reading

This weeks reading was an article of Marc Leblanc, and how he introduces us to mechanics we can use to create dramatic tension in games.

"Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics" - Marc Leblanc.

This article can be found in the book "The Game Design Reader  - Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman - published by MIT Press (2006)" but is not yet available online. For the purpose of this Blog and reading for the week I pulled my information from the article that is posted on Blackboard Learn within LearnUCS.

From the start, LeBlanc shows that there are two types of story in games. The first being a traditional story told through the narrative of the game, much like a traditional book. The other is through the way a game is played and the events of the game itself, such as sports making it into the newspaper or a game of chess - the plans, bluffs, strategies or maybe the reversal of one's fortune. This type of play can lead to a climax, through struggle to a satisfying conclusion, this is how LeBlanc defines 'Dramatic'.

Players seek out drama within games as a type of fun, this is a part of a game's play content, therefore designers aim build drama into their games.

Drama within MDA Framework:

Aesthetic model for Drama - Drama is one of many aesthetic models. The below image represents drama via the use of a graph:

The main point of this graph is to see that dramatic tension can increase and decrease. Dramatic tension is the level of emotional investment in the story's conflict. With the feelings such as concern, apprehension and urgency with which players await the story's outcome.

Game designers have a greater challenge of creating drama even when they have no direct control over narrative, but instead emerges through the events of the game.

Conflict is required for dramatic tension to take place, this can be used through the contest from which a game is built such as challenges of intellect or stamina or competition between multiple players. Tension comes from conflict in two ways, both of which are required:

1. Uncertainty - A sense that the outcome of the game is still unknown. Any player could win or lose.
2. Inevitability - The sense that the contest is moving towards resolution. The outcome is imminent.

Both of the above are independent of each other, they are evoked using different systems and dynamics, which makes it easier for a designer giving finer control over each element separately for tuning and adjusting. When uncertainty and inevitability intersect, this gives rise to the peak of dramatic tension.

Most techniques that imbue dramatic tension use two main approaches, 'force' and 'illusion', (a ticking clock/timer is a common example of these):

• Force is manipulating the state of the contest itself. We make a game close because we limit how much advantage one player can have over another.
• Illusion is manipulating players to make the game seem closer than it actually is.

The feedback system used in conjunction with uncertainty:

1. The Game State - examples would be a save game function or the name of a level with each individual object within it or even the time left on a clock.
2. Scoring Function - numeric value given to players as a measurement to see who is winning and by how much.
3. The Game Mechanical Bias - the rule of a game which gives one player an advantage over another.
4. The Controller - the rule of the game that decides which player receives the mechanical bias with the decision being made from the scoring function.

An example of the above system is the 'Negative Feedback System' which keeps the game close by bringing the score function closer towards zero. The 'Positive Feedback System' would be seen as the opposite, striving to keep the difference in score as large as possible.

The negative feedback system is a powerful tool in creating dramatic tension as it keeps the game uncertain, players won't know the outcome of the game as the scoring difference would be as close to zero as possible, therefore creating dramatic uncertainty. When aiming towards the end of a game, using the positive feedback system is useful for dispelling uncertainty, bringing about the climax and a sense of finality. Using only the negative feedback system can cause games to go stagnate, so positive feedback systems are needed for breaking the equilibrium and moving a game forward. (I picture this as a fog covering land at the start of day, with the sun coming out later - clearing the fog and leading one side to victory).

Pseudo-Feedback is a mechanism used to create game dynamics that make a game appear as though it is being driven by a negative feedback system, however there is no actual cybernetic feedback system at all.

Escalation is a game mechanic used to make the score gain get faster and faster as the game progresses so more points are at stake at the end of the game than there were at the start.

Hidden Energy is another tool used, and example of this could be 'turbo fuel' on a racing game, each player has and equal amount of hidden energy at the start of the game but the timing of using this fuel can change the outcome. This mechanic creates dramatic uncertainty by manipulating the players incomplete understanding of the true score of the game.

Fog of War is a mechanic used to create dramatic uncertainty by limiting the information available to players. As a game progresses, more information becomes available.

Decelerator is used as an obstacle that slows down players later in the game, making it seem that the game is closer than it actually is by changing the scale and pace of the game.

Cashing Out is another mechanic used. An example of this would be if a player wins a round of a particular game, the start of the next round bother players start even, but the first player to get three wins will win the game. This shows that the player who wins the first round will not necessarily win the game, however it does give them a greater chance at winning as they are one win closer than the opposition.

From the above mechanical systems I personally believe Cashing Out is the least used of the five as it appears to be the most complex.

Conclusion:

Again, this article proved to be informative as it provided technical names for the design tools we use when creating drama and dramatic tension within games. It helps us pinpoint each area we need to concentrate on for future projects.

I agree with each of the examples used by LeBlanc, and feel like I know exactly what he means through the use of planting an image inside my head as I read each paragraph.



Book/Article Readings - MDA

Week 2 Reading

This week we were tasked with reading 'MDA a formal approach to games design and games research - by Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek'.

http://cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf


Abstract:

The idea for the MDA framework (Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics) was aimed at bridging the gap between game design & development, game criticism and technical game research.

Like Doug Church's article on FADT, this places a common terminology for use when describing games from a designer's point of view.


Introduction:

Iterations support and help analyse the end result of a game to refine implementation, and then analysing those implementations to refine the result.

Designer -- (Creates) -- Game -- (Consumed) -- Player

Games are created by designers/developers and consumed by the players. They are purchased and used to then eventually be cast away like other consumable goods.

The difference between games and other entertainment products such as books, music, movies and plays is that the 'consumption' is fairly unpredictable. What happens during the gameplay and the outcome of the events are unknown at the time the product is finished.

MDA Framework:  Rules - - - System - - - Fun

Mechanics - 'Components at the level of data representation and algorithms'. 

Dynamics - 'The run time behaviour of the mechanics based on player inputs and each other's outputs over time'.

Aesthetics - 'The desirable emotional responses evoked in the player when interacting with the game system'.


From Point of Designer:  (Mechanics - - - Dynamics - - - Aesthetics)

Designers Perspective - 'Mechanics give rise to dynamic system behaviour which turns to aesthetic experiences'.

From Point of Player:  (Aesthetics - - - Dynamics - - - Mechanics)

Players Perspective - 'Aesthetics set the tone, born from observable dynamics and eventually, operable mechanics'.


Aesthetics:

The following words are examples that can be used in place of the word 'fun' to better describe individual key areas within games:

1. Sensation - Game as sense-pleasure.
2. Fantasy - Game as make believe.
3. Narrative - Game as drama.
4. Challenge - Game as obstacle course.
5. Fellowship - Game as social framework.
6. Discovery - Game as uncharted territory.
7. Expression - Game as self discovery.
8. Submission - Game as pastime.

Using the above words as examples in the following games:

1. Charades - Fellowship, Expression, Challenge.
2. Quake - Challenge, Sensation, Competition, Fantasy.
3. The Sims - Discovery, Fantasy, Expression, Discovery.
4. Final Fantasy - Fantasy, Narrative, Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Submission.

Dynamics - 'Work to create aesthetic experiences within the game such as time pressure and opponent play'.

Mechanics - 'Various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms afforded to the player in game context. Mechanics support overall game play dynamics'.


Conclusion

From my understanding of the reading, I believe using certain words to describe key areas within game, it helps us as designers focus (when iterating) on the correct areas.

I also think that the framework of the MDA  in general is pretty solid in the sense that designers create (produce) a game, players buy (consume) the game then give feedback via forums etc after the launch of a game. (Play testing would give designers the same required information however changes could be implemented before release). This then enables designers to work on key areas for improvement in the future. This helps us understand the importance of iteration.

RTS Game Iterations

Week 3

As per our normal routine for this lecture we started by discussing what we had found out from the reading required over the past week. http://critgamestuds.blogspot.com/2012/11/bookarticle-readings.html.

Once we had finished discussing what we understood from this article, it was time to put theory into practice.


RTS Game (Real Time Strategy):

Our lecturer Rob had created a game for us (in groups) to play with the aim of iterating into a better game. This was by far the hardest game to iterate so far.

From playing the game the first time with no iterations, we found that it was pretty much impossible to kill each other due to the game mechanics (unless a player was not paying attention). So our first change to the game would be a small one to try to fix this issue.


Iteration 1 - We had simply changed the order in which a player takes their turn, making it so that 'Fire' would always be first, followed by 'Move' and then lastly 'Turn & Move'.

This iteration seemed to have fixed the issue where players couldn't kill each other. So we then moved onto changes that would increase elements of fun within the game.


Iteration 2 - This round we had added in weapon drops with a variety of weapons each having unique characteristics, there was a limit to how many of each weapon there was in game and to also how many weapons each player could carry at a given time. An example weapon would be 'shotgun' having a range of 4 squares out but a wider radius of 3 squares wide.

We found that this iteration had increased the fun of the game in the following ways, using the 'MDA' framework:

1. Challenge,
2. Sensation,
3. Competition,

We were about to move onto a third iteration of improving the game's Aesthetics via the board which would also change the Mechanics, but we had run out of time for the lecture.

Conclusion:

From this lecture we had come up with some great ways to improve the game play but we found it difficult coming up with ideas initially while sticking to the game's core mechanics.

Snakes & Ladders Iterations

Week 2

This week's lecture consisted of the group discussing our findings from the week's previous read (which can be found on my previous post: http://critgamestuds.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bookarticle-readings.html), and then moving onto iterations for the classic game of 'Snakes & Ladders'.


Snakes & Ladders:

As per normal, we started by playing the original game from which we would try to identify areas that we could work on and make ammendments (hopefully improvements) increasing fun and replayability.

For our fist iteration we decided to make the snakes 'fightable'. To do this if a player landed on a snake head, they would roll the dice against the opposite player (who would be rolling for the snake), if the snake's roll won then the player would move down the snake as normal plus another 2 squares back. If the player won the roll then they could ignore the snake head. To add a strategy into this we also added in two way movement, meaning that on the player roll they could decide to move either backwards or forwards. An example of this would be if the player rolled a '5', if moving forward they would land on a snake head they could get the chance to stay there (on beating the snake's roll) or they would fall down 2 levels. Or the player could move backwards still putting them behind the opponent but not as far as the snake would have taken them.

Our next iteration was to roll an exact number to finish, making it harder to complete while getting more competative at the end. We also wanted to increase the board size but there was not enogh room on the paper to do this.

From these iterations we decided the game was still too heavily based on chance, so using 'Doug Church's tools', we wanted to give the players more 'Intention'.

Our next iteration was to take out the dice for movement. Instead we obtained a pack of playing cards, using all decks we used cards 1-6 and the 4 Kings. We shuffled this smaller deck and then dealt them out, four per player to begin with. We decided that movement would be based on the numbered cards and Kings would be used to climb ladders or counter falling down snakes. Every time a card was played (one per turn), that player would then pick up another as replacement so that four cards were always in hand. A player always had to move if they could, not allowing players to choose to miss turns. We also decided to keep in the previous iteration of finishing on an exact number.

This iteration worked really well, even though the cards dealt were random, we always had four cards in our hand to choose from for movement.

Our final iteration was to incorporate Doug Church's tool 'Story'. We came up with the idea of players choosing at the start of the game to be either a 'Firefighter' or a 'Snake Whisperer'. If you were a firefighter, you would climb ladders and fall down snakes and if you were a snake whisperer, you would climb snakes and fall down ladders. We also used the idea of King's being able to counter an opponenets king when used for climbing.



Conclusion:

Overall through our few iterations, and through playtesting (including another person from outside our group) we decided the game was now much more fun to play and more competative.

The Royal Game of Ur

The Royal Game of Ur

For this week's lecture we looked into the Royal game of Ur (otherwise known as 'game of 20 spaces' by Irving Finkel - due to there being 20 square tiles on the playing board).

At first we briefly looked at peoples categorisation of games, namely Finkel (referring to Murray), Bell, and David Parlett.

Finkel (2008) refers to Murray (1952 - A History of Board Games Other Than Chess - Contents Page), classifies board games into five groups:

1. Games of alignment and configuration (examples such as Noughts and Crosses and Nine Men's Morris etc.).
2. War Games (such as Chess).
3. Hunt Games (such as Fox & Geese).
4. Mancala Games (such as Mancala).

Bell (1960; revised 1980 - Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations - Contents and Bibliographies) sets games into six categories:

1. Race Games (such as Pachisi).
2. War Games (such as Chess).
3. Games of Position (such as Noughts & Crosses).
4. Mancala Games (such as Mancala).
5. Dice Games (such as Hazard).
6. Domino Games (such as Ma-jong).

Parlett (1999 - The Oxford History of Board Games - Contents Page) places games into four categories:

1. Race Games
2. Space Games
3. Chase Games
4. Displace Games

We discussed the differences and similarities between each persons categories, for example Murray considered the games of Fox & Geese as a 'hunting' game but for Parlett it is a game of 'chase' while for Bell it is a 'war' game. It was at this point that we looked specifically at 'The Royal Game of Ur'.

The Board & Pieces:

The layout of the original board which was first discovered in 2600BC from the ancient city of Ur, was shaped with a larger body area (4 x 3 squares), a smaller body area (2 x 3 squares) and narrow bridge area connecting the 2 previous areas (2 x 1 squares). 7 playing pieces were used for play. The rule-set for this game was on a clay tablet dating back to 177BC - the oldest known set of game rules in the world. Both the game board and tablet are now stored in the British Museum.

The board was later found (early part of the second century BC) that the board layout had changed. The smaller area of six squares had been 'straightened out' and added to the bridge which extended the part of the board where two players were in conflict. This later version of the game was played with five pieces rather than seven, and the five gaming pieces are distinguished from each other and represented different birds (Swallow, 'Storm Bird', Raven, Rooster and Eagle).

There were two types of dice found with the game board, 'throwing sticks' which were four sided, with the upper side representing the roll. The second dice found were tetrahedral (four sided) pyramid-shaped dice (otherwise known as D4). On a four sided dice, the outcome is decided by point which is uppermost, with two pints being marked giving the player two chances out of four in rolled a marked pointed side up roll.

We then played the game ourselves to get a feel of what to do with the intention of making Iterations to the game with what we thought would increase the playability and fun.

Playing the Game:

Our first play through was the unaltered version. I found this game to be easy to learn and fairly quick to play and complete taking roughly 20 minutes. To finish the game we had to roll the exact number needed - this wasn't explained to us from the instructions, so we used this as a base rule. First game I won.

Our first Iteration was to allow 'Crowing' of pieces when pieces from the same player entered the same tile allowing movement in bulk, there was no limit to the amount of pieces on a space so we decided not to have a limit for the 'crowning' of a single piece. This second play through was even faster and easier although it made for more aggressive gameplay due to being able to finish the game with '1 piece'. Second round, I also won.

Our second Iteration was to allow a single roll to either be used for getting a new play piece onto the board OR for moving an existing piece, no longer being able to split the roll between both. The third play through revealed that this extended the duration of the game for people wanting a longer game. I also won the third game!

Conclusion:

'The Royal Game of Ur' is a fairly quick game that has the fun of games such as 'Droughts' and was easily moddable to change certain areas for increasing fun and playability.