In my experience as both a player and designer of board games, much of the fun and satisfaction we find when playing comes from the pleasure of achieving goals we set for ourselves. The payouts from these moments in games can produce a heady mix of seretonin, self-satisfaction, snugness and the sense that all is harmonious and right in the world. Obviously, not achieving in-game goals can also produce opposite effects. A well-designed game will give you the possibility of experiencing both and the chance to aim for more of the good stuff and less of the frustration and self-loathing!
In previous posts I have discussed the issue of balancing freedom and constraint in board games so that they reward and punish players in appropriate measure, allowing degrees of autonomy without allowing literally anything. What players can and cannot do in games is very important. In this post however, I'm discussing the related issue of WHEN opportunities can be unlocked through the span of a game, I call this the 'opportunity arc'. As with most things in board game design, getting this right is a question of locating sweet spots between players being able to do everything from the outset of a game and growing their capabilities or expanding their influence too fast, and having too few opportunities for growth. Both of these extremes are undesireable in most strategic, euro-style, character driven or narrative style games. Even sandbox games such as the excellent Western Legends, which is pretty open from the start and where new opportunities don't exactly grow on trees, involves unlocking new options for players as the game progresses. To varying degrees then, 'opportunity arcs' are pretty important in many many board games.
Let's dive right in..
If you're a designer it's likely you spend a good deal of time thinking hard about how to get the OA just right for your games. Here are a few things I learned about this whist designing Undergrowth: A Tunnel Crawling Quest.
Play testing probably provides the most reliable indications that the OA needs tweaking. You may notice some way into the game that:
a) players don't seem to be performing certain actions much, or at all
b) players seem to be doing rather too much of particular things
Both these scenarios can make an othwerwise good design really unsatisfying to play. I have sat through many play tests, both as an observer and as a participant, thinking "hmmm, I designed this excellent opportunity feature and no one seems to be using it". Of course, sometimes this means the feature itself is poor and players don't want/need it. On occasions with Undergrowth however, I knew the feature itself was worthwhile but it was evident that its timing wasn't quite right and I needed to slow certain things down or speed certain things up.
An example...
A useful example of this was the speed at which players built their personal card tableaus. Early on in the testing there was no limit to how many cards players could play into their tableaus on their turn.
Example of a typical card tableau in Undergrowth
This frequently resulted in players having completed their 12 card tableaus before the midway point of the game, giving them maximum capabilities and a range of advantages too early on. This had the effect of draining strategy, effort and aspiration out of the game, since players had less to aim for in the second half of the game. So, I tweaked the card playing rule so that players were limited to playing one card into their tableaus per turn. This certainly stopped players racing ahead with their tableaus, but over successive tests it was also obvioius that the tweak was too heavy-handed as now, by the latter rounds of the game players' tableaus were often half full or less. So, back to the drawing board and eventually I landed on the appropriate rule tweak. Players could only play one card on their turn until they reached a certain points on the Renown track (shown on the lefthand side of the board), after which they could play two and then three.
Undergrowth playing board with Renown track top left.
This gave players the chance to expand their tableaus increasingly as the game progressed, but they had to work for it. To some extent then, the pace of this particular 'opportunity arc is controlled by individual players as they perform actions which give them Renown.
Tip
Giving players some control over an opportunity OA is a good idea because it differentiates between good and poor strategy and incentivises players to play better.
Often oppoprtunities continue to open up throughout a game in an upwards trajectory so that by the end of the game players have many more options than they had at the the start. However, it can be effective to consider reining opportunities in a bit towards the end of a game. This can be done quite effectively by ensuring that as the options and opportunities unlock for players, so do certain challenges. This occurs naturally in games with higher degrees of player interaction because as I am taking advantage of new opportunities, so are my opponents and they're likely to be wanting to do some of the same things as me, maybe before me, or instead of me. In more solitaire-style multiplayer games it's worth thinking about how the game itself can impose increasing challenges on all players as it draws to its conclusion. Having a well-balanced cost structure for your cards is one way of achiving this, making sure that more powerful cards are costed appropriately compared to less powerful ones so that they can't nbe purchased and played before players have built up a bit of wealth. Another approach is to ensure that whilst players may be unlocking new opportunities, they also have other things to worry about.
One way this happens in Undergrowth is the constant threat from the Weasels who patrol the tunnels.
These pesky rascals patrol at the start of each round and if you're on the tunnel level as them, you have to fight them off. Their strength shown on the cards is increased by the addition of dice later on in the game, so if you aren't paying attention to your own energy and skill levels, you're likely to take a beating! As opportunities arise, other challenges also increase to keep players on their toes.
There are other mechanisms work against the OAs getting out of hand later in the game, but this is probably the most fun example.
The Clobberer is a particularly roguish chap. Watch out for the club!
Play testing advice...
For me, this sort of problem solving is the meat and drink of board game design and whilst it can be frustrating while you're not finding sweet spots, it's always really satisfying when you do. To ensure I pick up on issues with the OAs in my game designs, I make a point of asking play testers about their experiences. On my feedback form I ask the following questions:
Were you able to set yourself goals in the game and work towards them?
Were there any things you wanted to achieve but just couldn't, or ran out of time?
Where you did achieve goals in the game, did they come too easliy or too quickly?
There are other examples I could share of working on the OA in Undergrowth, but the real question is, what are the OAs in your current design and are they in the sweet zone? Good luck finding out and making them work.
As usual, please comment or ask questions about this topic. I'm always keen to engage with readers and fellow designers. If you'd like to learn more about Undergrowth please look us up on social media.
Thanks for reading.
Comments