PBEM v92 n02 (15Aug92)

======================================================================
The Game Administrators' Corner                          Mel Nicholson
======================================================================

Drafting a game

Last issue I mentioned I'd write about dealing with playtesters.
Well, I guess I lied, because this article has almost nothing to do
with playtesters.  This article is about taking existing games and
rewriting them.  The example I'll use is "Splat", which is one of the
first games I ever wrote.  I was six years old at the time, and the
game (and the later versions of it) was pretty popular in the six year
old circle (for whom chess was a bit too much to take for the most
part --- too many rules, and chutes and ladders was too boring --- no
action or control).  This isn't an email game, but the principles of
game drafting I'll eventually get to towards the end apply to all
games.  Of course, anyone familiar with my anecdoting knows that the
prelude will be longer than the conclusion...

Here are all the rules to Splat:  Each player gets all of the
numbers from one through nine.  That's his team.  The team must be
arranged into a 3x3 grid The two players' grids are lined up face to
face, and each side's columns' front number fights the opposing number.
To resolve a fight, add the roll of a die for each player to the
number fighting for that side.  The higher total of number plus die
roll Splats the lower.  Ties meant both numbers got Splatted.  The
number would make battle passes where each column replaced losses
until one side or the other had been wiped out in each column.  The
survivors would then regroup for another pass until one side or the
other was unable to field a team (placing at least one person in each
column).

The really cool part of the game was the pieces.  We folded pieces of
paper into little triangular blocks with the numbers scrawled on the
front.  Whenever a piece was beaten, the victor got to "Splat" to
vanquished --- literally and usually violently.  After the "fallout"
from less coordinated "splats" were put back into place, and the dead
cleared off, the battle would rage on, usually generating enough noise
to have the teacher show up, take the pieces and dice away, and
"bench" us for recess.  That was okay, because we would then play
Splat on "the bench" at recess.  (Pieces were easily remade, and there
were always more dice, especially when the teacher left confiscated
ones in easily retrievable locations)

The Splat fervor lasted about two weeks.  Then Splat-playing died out
and Red Rover regained it rightful place as the Big Game.  (Red Rover
is a game where boys tackle each other very hard to prevent them from
running from one side of the field to the other, sort of like Gridiron
without a ball).

While every once in a while a game of Splat would get played, the
mania was gone.  Then came the first variant: Super Splat.

Super Splat started just like Splat, except that one empty row was
left between the two 3x3's.  On each players' turn, one piece was moved
one space (no diagonals), staying within the imaginary 3x7 grid (the
borders were not enforced until after the Great Runaway Chicken
strategy was tried).  When one piece tried to move onto another piece,
a regular Splat battle ensued, and the survivor (if any) was placed in
the defender's square.  The winner was the first person to kill seven
of the opponents.  (You still needed three pieces to "stay alive",
just like the old game)

Super Splat survived a few years, though never with the sort of
popularity that Splat had enjoyed as the "invented right here king of
all games which will be around for ever", but it did entirely replace
Splat, and eventually became known just as Splat.

(Super) Splat stayed about the same until it finally was "outgrown"
Then one day in the seventh grade we learned to fold pyramids (among
other solid shapes) out of paper.  As soon a I saw them, inspiration
hit.  3D Splat!

Each player got 9 (surprise, surprise) pieces, and had the same board
as Super Splat.  The pieces were pyramids.  On the pyramids, the
player got to use all the numbers from 1-9 (four times) with the
restriction that no number could appear twice on the same piece.  The
rules were like Super Splat except for four changes: 1) On each turn
you could move each piece instead of just one.  2) Instead of moving a
piece could rotate 90 degrees.  3) The attack strength of the piece
depended on the side of the piece facing the battle.  4) No dice were
used --- the higher number won.

In practice, the Splatting of the pieces was no longer done after the
first few games of 3D Splat, and the pyramids were replaced with
squares, due to the time involved in making the pyramids.  The name 3D
Splat stuck in spite of all the 3D and Splatting being removed.

Okay, that's all the nostalgia you have to sit through: now I'll start
with the real article.  Game ideas, even dumb ones, can be revised by
making simple changes to the structure of the rules.  Only the main
vision of how the game works need remain (or not).

In the case of Splat, the main idea was this: two sides blast each
other to bits in a series of one-on-one confrontations.  It is
interesting for me (and I hope you) to look back on the game series
and look how odd some of the artifacts in the final version appear,
yet how natural for those who had grown up with the earlier versions
of the game they are.  Take the victory conditions for example: why
would the player lose upon having two pieces left?  While it turned
out that this prevented long boring stalemates with pieces chasing
each other around the board, it didn't come about that way.  I could
have removed that artifact from the game, but it would have caused the
game to be unplayable.  The moral: not all good game design decisions
are made on purpose.

More importantly, revision is a Good Thing(tm).  I seriously doubt if
anyone on the net would be interested in playing Splat (the original),
except as a game to play with/between six year old children that can
help them with some number skills while not being too frustrating to
learn or too obviously a Learning Game.  3D Splat, on the other hand,
would probably still be an interesting game for most of us at least
for a few plays, with enough strategy to surprise the most hard core
chess fan.  (For those who only like games with lots of violence, use
the pyramids and SPLAT them)

Before you go off to revise every game which has ever been made, there
is a caution or three.  First, remember that simple is good.  Most of
the revision between versions of Splat involved REPLACING rules, not
adding them.  The tendency towards adding and adding complexity is a
terminal one, which usually produces hideous monsters which are
totally unplayable.  In fact, some of the moves involved REMOVING
rules (like the part about no longer rolling dice).  Splat, Super
Splat, and 3D splat are all of about the same complexity, at least
from a rule-learning point of view.  I don't need to repeat to this
group the numerous examples in the commercial industry where creeping
featurism has ruined an otherwise good game.

Another thing to remember is to not lose sight of how the game works.
It's okay to reshape the vision of the game, but if you lose the
vision entirely, the game is going to suffer.  For example, let's say
I increased the number of dice in any version of Splat to five per
player.  The game would suck.  The outcome would be random and
frustrating.  You might as well just roll the dice and forget about
the pieces.  (Which might also be a good game for four year olds, but
that's another story.)  The problem is the even in the original Splat,
the important part was the the number of the pieces had a major effect
on the outcome of the battles.  That was what Splat is all about.

Finally, and this is the hardest part: it is okay to reverse a design
decision after it is made.  Just because you used to use one method
for doing something in your game, and you have since changed it into a
new, improved method, does *not* mean that you can't resurrect the
part of the old version you discarded.  This is especially useful when
multiple changes interact.  Change A might be an improvement to the
base game, and change B might improve the game with change A added in.
But perhaps B without A would be better yet?  In more detailed games
with lots of design decisions, it helps consider how these decisions
interact.  Things which may not have made sense or worked right with
one format may later turn out to be just right after the game has
changed.

To summarize, don't be afraid to make changes to games.  Just remember
that you should try to stay true to a vision of the game, avoid
unuseful complexity, and to not be afraid to reverse decisions or
reconsider them in light of other changes.  I hope this helps.

Next Issue: I'll talk about playtesters (unless I change my mind again).