By Phil Harding
PART I
Introduction, or: Design a party game? Me? Really?
One of my first articles on BoardGameGeek was about the early stages of the design process, and the age-old conundrum of what comes first: theme or mechanism? Dominic Crapuchettes of North Star Games replied, and mentioned a third starting point which I hadn’t considered. Some designs begin not with a theme or a mechanism, but with an activity. That is, the designer has a particular social activity in mind, and his or her aim is to facilitate that experience for the players through the game. I didn’t think much more about this at the time as I was not hugely into party games, but I thought it was a great insight and it has rattled around in my head these past two or three years.
Fast forward to mid-2009, and I am facing a serious bout of designer’s block! I have a notepad full of design ideas which keep hitting brick walls, and running into each other. When I decided to take up game design as a proper hobby in 2007, interesting ideas were pretty easy to come by it seemed, but now everything I started turned into a mish-mash of the same few just-okay mechanics. As a self-publisher it is also very easy to let production constraints dictate the design process.
So I decided to blow out the cobwebs and remove all constraints on the type of game I was trying to design, even if this meant forgetting about designing a strategy game. I started thinking about other types of play that I had never really considered using in my designs. Dexterity, trivia, acting… nothing was off limits! One game to come out of this time was my just-released party game, Caption If You Can!, which this article will focus on. (The other was the soon-to-be-released dexterity game, Flicochet) I found designing Caption If You Can! extremely different from anything I had done before. It was challenging and exciting in completely new ways.
Now, I would not describe myself as someone “into” party games. I really like Balderdash and Wits & Wagers; Taboo and Compatibility are also fun, but man, Cranium, Pictionary, Trivial Pursuit and many others of their ilk are “run for the hills” games for me. My favourite games are Race for the Galaxy, Tigris & Euphrates, Stone Age, and Lost Cities, so stepping into party game design was quite a change.
Of course, I do not consider myself an expert on the topic of party games, but I thought I’d share my initial thoughts about this process. I hope you find something interesting or helpful amongst my ramblings!
PART II
Thoughts on Party Game Design
1. A good party game is essentially a fun social experience, packaged.
Many party games originate from traditional parlour games, or some other long-passed-down social activity. Time’s Up! is “Celebrities”, Balderdash is “Dictionary” and Trivial Pursuit is any game show or local pub trivia night. Now when you think of these games, their box cover, boards and cards come to mind, but all of them can be played without the purchased board game version. It seems obvious to me now, but what each of these published titles really does is facilitate a social activity for the players. When I internalized this idea, the first step in designing a party game crystalised for me – find a fun social activity!
2. What sort of social activities work well in party games?
This is, of course, an essential question to get right if your party game is going to work. It is also incredibly subjective. I like the idea of coming up with fake dictionary definitions, but to others this sounds like pulling teeth. I would rather watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again than answer random trivia questions about obscure topics, while others find this an intriguing match of intellect. Still, I have tried to boil party game “fun” down to a few basics:
- The activity encourages participants to express themselves. Now, not everyone likes doing charades, drawing or answering trivia publicly, but a social activity where you don’t get to express anything is not really a social activity! A party game should allow people some degree of input into what is happening in the game. Unlike watching a movie or listening to music, social experiences allow us to contribute to what is happening in a real and creative way – and so party games should strive for this.
In trivia games, this force is the questions. If the players just picked trivia questions out of their own head to ask, there would be no quality control, no verifiable answers, and no range of topics. The level of presence this outside force has varies from game to game of course. Time’s Up! for example, is almost entirely made up from the players’ personal interactions. All that is required is some list of acknowledged famous names.3. A good party game must package the social activity really well.
Yes, anyone can grab a dictionary off the wall, some pencils and paper and effectively play Balderdash. However, in my experience this is never as fun. The game has less spark and less atmosphere. The packaged version does a great job in presenting the social activity to the players in a direct, accessible and fun way.
Everything in a party game which is peripheral to the activity itself – the specifics of the ruleset, the board, the cards – are what I call the “packaging” of a party game. The actual physical packaging – box, graphic design, etc. – is just one part of this. So what makes good “packaging” for a social activity?
- The “packaging” must present the social activity as effectively as possible with a clever rule set. The rule set of a party game is just as important as the rule set of a strategy game. Although the rules are far simpler and more transparent during game play, they can still make or break the game design.
A great example of this is in Time’s Up! Anyone can play charades and it’s kinda fun, anyone can play a Taboo-style game and it’s kinda fun, and of course, anyone can play “guess the celebrity from one word.” (Okay, that’s not a real game on its own.) However, one simple rule turns these three activities into a raucous party game: For each of the three activities, use the same set of celebrity names! Suddenly, you have in-jokes, you have repeated gags and you have real fun! Here is where a game like Cranium fails I feel: A whole bunch of activities are slapped together, with no real connection to each other or the game’s progress. Clever rule sets are what bring the real fun out of social activities: the betting rules in Wits & Wagers, the voting rules in Balderdash, the arguing-for-your-card rule in Apples To Apples – without these I would argue that you lose the structure and boundaries of the game, you lose the spark which makes the activity really fun.
Trivia games provide question cards, word games provide words, and the success or failure of these games largely depends on the strength of these sets. I find the standard Trivial Pursuit questions boring and annoying – but I can understand how a Star Wars nut could have an amazing time with Star Wars Trivial Pursuit! Here the outside force is a set of specifically chosen questions for its target audience, and this is what will make the game shine. (NB: I have never played Star Wars Trivial Pursuit and it may be lame.)
The great lesson of the Euro invasion for me is that when people play board games, they want their decisions to matter. In Monopoly, your movement (and thus your set of choices) is determined randomly, and the success of your properties is determined randomly. This, I feel, is the reason why few people play Monopoly regularly. They may not express it, but somewhere they know that their decisions in the game hardly matter at all! The game does not respect them as an autonomous human decision-maker! The game is closer to watching balls in a lottery drawing than actually playing a real game!
Okay, okay standard Monopoly-rant over – but let me compare the game to The Settlers of Catan, a game which has plenty of luck, but where there are still many meaningful decisions to be made. If I want to build my roads out to a mountain with a production value of just 4, by gosh, I can do it! I know the risks involved, and it may not pay off as much as I’d like, but I know that I have made the decision, and my decision has an effect on the game.
I often hear people say about party games that it is not about winning, and the winner doesn’t matter. There is much truth in this, as the most important thing in a party game is the social experience, not the intellectual competition. However, I still feel that a good party game must make the players feel that their decisions and their creativity will have some effect on the game.
Think of the myriad party games that employ a roll-and-move mechanism. In Pictionary, for example, you can draw really well, guess really well and come dead last because of your die rolls. Now, I’m not suggesting that a party game should be a cut-throat competition, and I appreciate the less-competitive feeling that many party games go for, but I still feel that the player’s input into the game should have a bearing on how the game pans out.
This point really came home for me a couple of years ago when I played a party game called Smart Ass, a trivia game in which players are given increasingly specific information about the answer, as clues are read out. Players need to guess the answer as soon as possible, or risk having someone else jump in and steal the point. But the more clues you allow to be read out, the more people will know the answer. This, I thought, was a refreshing and really quite fun approach to trivia. However, the game is also roll-and-move and has a board which includes random harsh-penalty spaces. After playing, I remember thinking that the game would be better with just the question cards! I felt like the game system valued a random die roll much more than the actual social activity of answering the questions. This, to me, is the designer shooting himself in the foot.
Now, some of you may interpret this all as pent-up Euro-snootery, but in my experience, even very non-competitive players still want to know that their creativity, their brain power, their self-expression has been valued by the game system.
5. The experience of any party game is variable and subjective, based on the group playing it.
After all these points, I come to a fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) truth about party games. Their success is incredibly subjective! Unlike strategy games where the game system sits above the players’ personalities, directing them how to act, party games rely very much on the players’ personalities for them to work well. Try playing Time’s Up! with total introverts. Try playing Balderdash with people who don’t like reading and writing. Try playing Pictionary with people who get public-performance anxiety. Sometimes games do not work because of the mix of minds at the table.
I think party game designers just have to lump this to a large degree. Yes, party games should be extremely acceseible, but at the end of the day no social activity is going to be completely likable to every possible player.
PART III
Caption If You Can! as a Case Study in Party Game Design
Now what I’d like to do is step through the design process of Caption If You Can!, my own self-published party game. I hope this will further develop my above points in terms of my actual design experiences. I hope this is helpful!
1. The search for a fun social experience.
I had been tacitly thinking about doing a party game for the first half of 2009. I was trying to keep my eyes and ears open for a social activity that I thought could be the basis of a game. One day, one of those game cover caption contests popped up on BoardGameGeek. I remembered I had entered one of these and really enjoyed trying to come up with a funny caption for the cover of Power Grid.
Then my mind suddenly rushed back to the 1990s and my avid teenage reading of the music magazine Q. This magazine always had hilarious captions for its photos. For every picture in the entire magazine, there would always be some witty, off-the-wall or completely crazy caption. I’m not sure who came up with these – they must have had someone specially employed – but they were a genius! Over time, this almost became my favourite part of reading the magazine. I’ll never forget bursting out laughing in public when I was reading an article about the band Bush. (Remember them? An early Nirvana clone.) There was a photo of the guitarist, who was bald and looked like a very regular English bloke. The caption read something like, “And here he is, the man with the most un-rock’n’roll name of all time: Nigel Pulsford!” NIGEL PULSFORD! That was his actual name! What a name for a rock star! NIGEL!… PULSFORD!… I laughed for ages.
After this quick trot down memory lane, it occurred to me that writing captions for photos could be the activity I was after. I knew this was a relatively common sort of activity. Plenty of magazines and web sites run caption contests. But could it work in a board game?
2. Figuring out the basic rules.
I started with a really basic playtest. I did a Google search for something like “weird photo” and printed out a few interesting images. I then grabbed my housemates and a couple of friends and had a test round or two. I got everyone to write down a caption on a scrap of paper, then read them out. One player didn’t write a caption, and instead judged their favourite.
This worked okay, but had the obvious problem of the judge pretty much being out of the game while captions were being written. I think the whole reason I even thought to do it this way was because caption contests usually have a single judge, and many recent party games like Apples To Apples have some sort of judge player. But I knew that in a game where the main activity takes a minute or two to complete, there simply can’t be any players sitting out.
In my next playtest I had everyone privately write a caption, but with one player designated “the reader” for each round. This player would read out every caption anonymously to the group (including their own), then every player would vote for her favourite caption, earning the writer one point. This, of course, is very similar to the voting mechanic of Balderdash. At this stage I realised my game was going to be a close relative of Balderdash, only we were writing captions, not definitions. Looking back, it is no surprise the design went in this direction as Balderdash is my favourite party game!
I still had to iron out a couple of wrinkles. The reader could not vote because she knew who wrote which caption. Players should not be allowed to vote for their own caption. Each slip of paper should have a place for the writer to put her name, and the reader to tally up votes as they are cast. The reader needs to read the captions twice, and then after voting reveal the votes publicly. I was originally using a three-minute time limit for writing, but found this stressed most players out more than it helped the game flow. It was also going to add quite a bit to the production cost. In the end I dropped the time limit, but retained it in the rules as a variant for the occasional game in which slow players bog things down.
My main goal with the rules is to reward creativity and make the players’ votes matter. This is why the game includes no die, no board, no other significant elements than the photos and the players’ minds. Within a few more playtests, the ruleset was pretty much finalized, but unlike when designing a strategy game, completing the ruleset is only the beginning.
3. Discovering what makes a photo work for the game.
The next few months saw pretty heavy playtesting with different sorts of groups. I found that when the game clicked it could be absolutely hilarious and a really interactive experience. In other games, though, it fell a little flat. It was pretty clear that a primary reason for this was which photos I used. For a round to really work, the photo had to be… well, I wasn’t sure what. But some photos generated great captions from everyone, and some did nothing.
The first thing I learnt was that the photos themselves could not be obviously “funny.” They could not depict a self-contained gag or communicate a definite idea. If they did, one obvious caption would pop into everyone’s mind – or worse, there was no need for a caption! – and the round would be dull. Over time I got better at grabbing photos off Google that I thought might work well in playtests. I was after photos that were intriguing, strange, weird and thought-provoking – not photos that were obviously “funny.”
At this point I realised that the success of this game’s “packaging” had a huge amount to do with which photos I picked to go in the box. Perhaps even moreso than the question cards in a trivia game, these photos had to drive the game and inspire creativity in the players.
4. The epic search for photos!
Over the next few months I scoured the Earth for photos that could be part of the game. I first turned to my own photos, as well of those of family and friends. I expected there to be lots of great shots to be found here, but it was not to be. Most personal snapshots are for the purpose of documenting people or places – and this rarely results in odd or intriguing shots. Some gems did come out of this process, (including one of my teenaged father – ah, the ultimate embarrassment-revenge!), but far fewer than expected.
The next step was to methodically search copyright-free and copyright-expired image collections online. I didn’t want to get into any sort of copyright squabbles, and I knew I couldn’t afford paying $5+ a pop for pictures from commercial collections. But in the end, most of the photos in the final game came from these sources. It took a lot of hunting, but some really interesting images came out of this process, images from all over the world and from many different time periods.
5. Playtesting continues, and the realization that some people just don’t like being creative in public!
As my photo collection grew, I started to cycle potential images through playtests. During this time I did playtests with wider groups, including strangers. And it was here I realised just how much some people dislike being creative in public! Some players completely shut down when asked to produce even one sentence of writing. Others say they just can’t think of anything at all to write, or that their mind “doesn’t work that way.” Now, I can fully understand how some people feel anxious about such an activity – indeed, in certain situations I clam up a bit, too. But the reality is, I am a pretty expressive person, in speech and writing, so the extent of this came as a surprise!
At first, this was very discouraging because I realised that the game’s audience was limited. But then I remembered that I have had games of Taboo, Balderdash and even Wits & Wagers that have fallen flat because of the personalities in the group. Maybe this was just part of the deal with designing party games – group and personality dynamics really matter. But I wondered if in my game’s case, the barrier to entry was too high. It seemed to ask for quite a lot of creative expression and lateral thinking from the players. I considered just canning the design altogether for this reason.
6. The best playtest game… ever!
I was over for dinner at my parents’ one night, along with my soon-to-be-brother-in-law and his family. Someone suggested we play “Phil’s new game!” I agreed, a little hesitantly, because I didn’t know some of the people in the group, and a couple of them seemed quite shy. I didn’t want to go forcing my weird hobby on future family members.
However, to my surprise, the game went really well, and the quietest, most introverted person at the table won the game! He came up with hilarious captions in many different styles. I realised then that while the game does have some barriers to entry (you must be okay with creative writing in public), it also did allow for more introverted people to play, and what’s more, to really express themselves to a group in a way they usually might not be able to! This playtest gave me enough encouragement to proceed. Sure it wasn’t Apples To Apples, but I decided that this design could engage enough personality-types to make it a worthwhile production.
7. Graphic design and packaging the game.
During playtests I often noted how many players preferred playing with large photos printed on sturdy card as opposed to playing-card sized stock. I think this is because even in this age of digital photography, there is still a fun tactile element to holding a large print of a photograph and examining it closely. I decided that the final version of the game should present the photos on extra-large cards.
I have also always loved the nostaligic look of a Polaroid photo. There’s something about a white border that makes a photo look great, and the white bar at the bottom just asks for a caption to be written on it! So I also decided that all portrait-oriented photos would have bordering similar to a Polaroid.
Getting the graphic design of the game right was also a challenge. My other games have always had an obvious theme: archaeology, colonizing an island, blowing stuff up. These things instantly suggest visual ideas and a graphical style. But what about a game which is made up of heaps of different images, in many different styles? How could I find a visual approach to bring such disparate images together? Well, after a bit of experimentation, I found that minimalism worked best. The box design had to be plain, probably white, and draw attention to all the different images, rather than represent only one of them. But then if I just jumbled images together, it was hard to get a balance of colours and any sort of neatness to the cover! This took a lot of tweaking, and I had to go with photos that had a simple colour scheme, rather than using my favourites.
I also decided to go with a hand-written style of font to communicate that this is a game where the player contributes, where the player writes. This I think worked pretty well, and also gives the cover a light-hearted feel.
My one fear with a clean visual approach is that the cover would look corporate, antiseptic and even like some horrible bank advertisement! In the end, I am not sure I completely avoided this bland corporate look, but I am happy with the friendly inviting feel of the cover. This was easily my biggest challenge in game graphics so far. Not so much in execution – I didn’t have to draw or design anything from scratch – but in terms of concept, this was a tough one.
8. The production constraints of being a small self-publisher.
As with all of my self-published games, my resources are limited, and many of my production decisions are based around which components are available and affordable. I won’t go into full details of the production here (feel free to GeekMail me if you have any questions!), but there are a few points worth mentioning.
First, I knew I was going to start with a small run of 100 copies. Thus, finding a printer who could print 100 sets of cards, as opposed to a large quantity of one card design, was paramount. Most printers will charge you per design, and quantities start high (usually 500 or 1000). With 80 different double-sided cards, I knew I needed a different pricing structure. Thankfully I found a local printer who was happy to print sets of 80 designs in low quantities for a reasonable price.
Second, I knew this game needed a rigid box, and they are really expensive! When designing Cannonball Colony, I found a great little invitations box that is 150x150x35mm. As far as I know, this is the largest mass-produced rigid full-telescoping box you can get in Australia. Anyway, I knew I would have to use this box again. It fit the 80 postcard-sized cards nicely, as well as 200 caption slips. The end-result is a box much smaller than most party games, but I think the compact feel thankfully works okay.
Originally, the game was going to include a score-pad to keep tally of overall votes throughout the game. However, I had barely any space left in the box, and getting a whole separate pad printed up was quite costly. In the end I found some super-cheap acrylic gems that worked well for scoring. They fit in the box no problem and are a nice visual and tactile extra during the game. I ordered a case of golf pencils and was done!
9. A great session with friends.
Once the game was produced, I had a small launch party, then a few games with friends. One of these was at a farewell dinner for a friend who was moving interstate. This was probably my gaming experience of the year, just because of how fun it was to be silly and creative with some of my favourite people. If you are interested, I have posted a session report that will give you some idea of the flow of a game, and how things can get pretty crazy!
10. Selling the game, or: Wow, mums are really into this!
I officially launched Caption If You Can! at the Australian Games Expo in January 2010. It was quite an experience trying to explain and demo a party game, especially when I had become used to just calling out “Who wants to go exploring for ancient treasures?!” from my booth.
I knew that playing the game with passers-by wouldn’t work as you need at least four and preferably six or more players for a round, so I had a bunch of cards on display and chatted to people who showed an interest. I ended up with a super busy lead-up to the Expo and figured with such a basic approach it would be hard to get the game noticed. To my surprise, all the different images drew quite a few people over, and there was decent interest in the game. I also think that something like 80% of my sales over the weekend were to mothers! Now I’m sure part of this was coincidence, but it was nice to hear quite a few people say that they thought the game had great potential for family gaming. This was a nice surprise, and a pleasant change from playing Archaeology: The Card Game with ten-year-old boys all day!
In hindsight, I realised what I could have done to make the booth really work well. I should have been running a weekend-long caption contest with one super-large photo on display. I could then invite everyone over to submit a caption and have a drawing for a free copy at the end of each day. This would allow people to see the game in action, without having to sit down with five or six others and set up a round. Oh, well, maybe next year.
Conclusion
Well, I think that’s it. Designing Caption If You Can! was a fresh and interesting experience for me. It got my designer-brain working in all sort of different ways. I think I have a deeper appreciation for good party games and how they have the ability to facilitate funny, warm and fun social experiences. I hope some of this was helpful to the hobby designers out there and gets a few more people thinking seriously about party game design.
Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment