"Not wanton killing, but a judicious slaying. The point is, they know there is an Invisible Man — as well as we know there is an Invisible Man. And that Invisible Man, Kemp, must now establish a Reign of Terror. Yes — no doubt it's startling. But I mean it. A Reign of Terror. He must take some town like your Burdock and terrify and dominate it. He must issue his orders. He can do that in a thousand ways — scraps of paper thrust under doors would suffice. And all who disobey his orders he must kill, and kill all who would defend them." — H. G. Wells
About three years ago, I had an idea to make a game based on H. G. Wells's The Invisible Man. In the novel, a scientist discovers how to make himself invisible, then goes on a mad rampage. (I'm oversimplifying here—the novel is not a mere hackneyed mad-scientist tale. If you haven't read it, you should!) My idea was to have the players cooperate in trying to defeat the Invisible Man, while the Invisible Man attempted to complete his Reign of Terror. I came up with a nifty mechanism whereby the Invisible Man could be a non-player character, moving around a map according to a set of rules, in such a way that the players would not always know exactly where he was.
And there it stalled for some time. The problem is that I don't much care for cooperative games, yet the theme seemed to demand cooperation. What could the players possibly be competing for in the face of such a fearsome common threat? A week or two ago I finally got an inspiration. The Invisible Man had a treasure: his scientific journals detailing the invisibility process. A competitive game would involve the players cooperating to defeat the Invisible Man, but competing to find clues to the place where he has hidden his journals. If the Invisible Man wins, all players lose. If he is defeated, the player with the most clues wins the journals and the game.
The novel is old enough to be in the public domain, so there would be no need to license the title and characters, and no problem including quotes for flavor. I think it would be a fun theme, but I've got a lot of work still to do to build a good game around it.
"This announces the first day of the Terror. Port Burdock is no longer under the Queen, tell your Colonel of Police, and the rest of them; it is under me — the Terror! This is day one of year one of the new epoch, — the Epoch of the Invisible Man."
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
A Question of Balance
"Is it balanced?" is a question that many game players, and all game designers, ask about a game. But it can mean different things to different people.
Most generally, "balanced" means that a game has—at the outset—an even chance of being won by any player at the table. If the game heavily favors the first player (for example), then the game is unbalanced: it's not fair to the other players.
But there are other ways to consider the matter. A common design problem is the runaway leader, where the first player to gain an advantage will almost certainly win. Even if the chances of winning are even at the start of the game, they may quickly become very uneven.
Some players take this notion to extremes, and consider any game unbalanced if the final scores show much separation. Others reject this idea on the grounds that it renders all of the game except the final few moves irrelevant to the outcome.
One of the reasons I built the Rails Across America simulator was to test the balance of the game. I instrumented the simulator to record scores over runs of thousands of games, and to print out relevant statistics. The results were enlightening, and somewhat depressing.
I was looking for evidence of all three kinds of imbalance. After a fair amount of work I was able to tune the rules and map to the point where there was no significant starting imbalance in the four-player game: all players had a roughly equal chance of winning at the start of the game. (This was not quite as simple as looking at the stats for which player won most. A start-player advantage may only apply to intelligent players, and my so-called AI doesn't qualify. So I was also looking for imbalances in the choice of starting location. Turns out it's a bad idea to start at New York, but when I was done tuning, the other five Major Cities on the board were about equal.)
Next I looked at the scoring curves. What was the range of final scores, what was an average score, how sharply pointed was the bell curve? Also I looked at the bell curve for the point spread: what was the difference in final scores between the winner and the biggest loser in each game? Since I want to avoid a runaway leader problem, but don't feel that every game needs to be really close, I was satisfied with curves that showed reasonable but not excessive grouping of final scores. Often a couple of players may be in a tight race for the win, while one or two others lag behind. Sometimes one player dominates, but certainly not always. That's a good distribution, in my opinion.
So what's depressing about all this? It's good, but only for the four-player game. With five, the game is badly imbalanced—at least one player is screwed from the start. The three-player game is worse. And I learned that the biggest factor affecting the balance is the map itself: merely playing with costs, rewards, and setup would not repair the imbalances. To have a good three- or five-player game, I'll need well-tuned three- and five-player maps. That's upsetting. The more restricted the recommended number of players, the fewer copies will sell. To make it less restrictive I have to add more boards, which adds expense.
Probably the best compromise is a two-sided board, with the 4p map on one side and the 5p on the other, and forget about the three-player game. If I'm lucky and work hard at it, I might also be able to make a subsection of one map serve for three players.
The next question is: Is it worth the trouble? But that's an issue for another post.
Most generally, "balanced" means that a game has—at the outset—an even chance of being won by any player at the table. If the game heavily favors the first player (for example), then the game is unbalanced: it's not fair to the other players.
But there are other ways to consider the matter. A common design problem is the runaway leader, where the first player to gain an advantage will almost certainly win. Even if the chances of winning are even at the start of the game, they may quickly become very uneven.
Some players take this notion to extremes, and consider any game unbalanced if the final scores show much separation. Others reject this idea on the grounds that it renders all of the game except the final few moves irrelevant to the outcome.
One of the reasons I built the Rails Across America simulator was to test the balance of the game. I instrumented the simulator to record scores over runs of thousands of games, and to print out relevant statistics. The results were enlightening, and somewhat depressing.
I was looking for evidence of all three kinds of imbalance. After a fair amount of work I was able to tune the rules and map to the point where there was no significant starting imbalance in the four-player game: all players had a roughly equal chance of winning at the start of the game. (This was not quite as simple as looking at the stats for which player won most. A start-player advantage may only apply to intelligent players, and my so-called AI doesn't qualify. So I was also looking for imbalances in the choice of starting location. Turns out it's a bad idea to start at New York, but when I was done tuning, the other five Major Cities on the board were about equal.)
Next I looked at the scoring curves. What was the range of final scores, what was an average score, how sharply pointed was the bell curve? Also I looked at the bell curve for the point spread: what was the difference in final scores between the winner and the biggest loser in each game? Since I want to avoid a runaway leader problem, but don't feel that every game needs to be really close, I was satisfied with curves that showed reasonable but not excessive grouping of final scores. Often a couple of players may be in a tight race for the win, while one or two others lag behind. Sometimes one player dominates, but certainly not always. That's a good distribution, in my opinion.
So what's depressing about all this? It's good, but only for the four-player game. With five, the game is badly imbalanced—at least one player is screwed from the start. The three-player game is worse. And I learned that the biggest factor affecting the balance is the map itself: merely playing with costs, rewards, and setup would not repair the imbalances. To have a good three- or five-player game, I'll need well-tuned three- and five-player maps. That's upsetting. The more restricted the recommended number of players, the fewer copies will sell. To make it less restrictive I have to add more boards, which adds expense.
Probably the best compromise is a two-sided board, with the 4p map on one side and the 5p on the other, and forget about the three-player game. If I'm lucky and work hard at it, I might also be able to make a subsection of one map serve for three players.
The next question is: Is it worth the trouble? But that's an issue for another post.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Adventures in Simulation
Rails Across America seems to be shaping up nicely, but it's clear that it will need a lot of careful tuning. Is there a first player advantage, and if so how can I eliminate it? Is there a clearly dominant strategy? How many rounds does an average game last? How many components (track, money, etc) are required? How should costs and payouts best be balanced? And so on—a myriad questions.
To answer these questions, I decided I needed a simulator, a program that would actually play the game—and play it quickly, so that I could whip through hundreds of games in an evening. With a good simulator, I can test lots of things just by tweaking input parameters: # of players, # of goods colors, # of goods cubes, costs, payouts, starting money, and much more. For more radical experiments I may have to recode the simulator for changed rules or variant strategies, but that's not too hard once the first version is built and running.
Well, I'm a computer programmer. This is the kind of challenge that usually makes me go "oboy!" and code madly for a few hours—then give up in disgust when I realize how difficult it's really going to be. This time, I went "oboy" and coded madly for a few hours, and actually had the bones of a decent simulator at the end of it. So far so good!
"Bones" aren't enough, though. The first version played very stupidly, and that's no good because it skews the results. I don't need it to play at grandmaster level, but it needs to play at least a plausible beginner's-level game. That's the big challenge; the rest is just boiler-plate code. After several days of work, I'm pleased to report that the gadget now plays a passable game: not as good as an experienced live player, but credible. And it is fast: it can play 10,000 games in five minutes or less.
I've given it two forms of output. If I have it play just one game, it prints out every action taken by every player, then summarizes each player's accomplishments at the end. If I have it play multiple games, it collects statistics and just prints those.
Just to set expectations, here's what this gadget is not: It is not a device for playing the game interactively against a computer, or against human opponents without a board. Also it is not a general-purpose boardgame simulator. When I want a simulator for the next game I design, I'll have to start coding from scratch again.
Here's another thing it's not: It is not a substitute for real playtesting. I hope it will tell me a lot about my game, but it won't tell me whether the game is fun, or has rules that irritate or confuse live players, or induces too much AP, or simply takes too long to play. I don't want to waste real people's time making experiments that I can perform on my own. But if the game survives the simulations, I'll start badgering friends to try it out.
Forgive me, but I feel like I have to add this: If you are a game designer and would like a simulator for your own designs, please do not ask me to build one for you. I'll just say no. This project has taken me days, with more yet to go, and I haven't got enough to spare. I'd never get any of my own projects done if I started coding for other folks.
But if it continues to go well, and anybody shows any interest, I might be willing to post the Java source code for download. I doubt it will be useful to anyone, but ya never know.
To answer these questions, I decided I needed a simulator, a program that would actually play the game—and play it quickly, so that I could whip through hundreds of games in an evening. With a good simulator, I can test lots of things just by tweaking input parameters: # of players, # of goods colors, # of goods cubes, costs, payouts, starting money, and much more. For more radical experiments I may have to recode the simulator for changed rules or variant strategies, but that's not too hard once the first version is built and running.
Well, I'm a computer programmer. This is the kind of challenge that usually makes me go "oboy!" and code madly for a few hours—then give up in disgust when I realize how difficult it's really going to be. This time, I went "oboy" and coded madly for a few hours, and actually had the bones of a decent simulator at the end of it. So far so good!
"Bones" aren't enough, though. The first version played very stupidly, and that's no good because it skews the results. I don't need it to play at grandmaster level, but it needs to play at least a plausible beginner's-level game. That's the big challenge; the rest is just boiler-plate code. After several days of work, I'm pleased to report that the gadget now plays a passable game: not as good as an experienced live player, but credible. And it is fast: it can play 10,000 games in five minutes or less.
I've given it two forms of output. If I have it play just one game, it prints out every action taken by every player, then summarizes each player's accomplishments at the end. If I have it play multiple games, it collects statistics and just prints those.
Just to set expectations, here's what this gadget is not: It is not a device for playing the game interactively against a computer, or against human opponents without a board. Also it is not a general-purpose boardgame simulator. When I want a simulator for the next game I design, I'll have to start coding from scratch again.
Here's another thing it's not: It is not a substitute for real playtesting. I hope it will tell me a lot about my game, but it won't tell me whether the game is fun, or has rules that irritate or confuse live players, or induces too much AP, or simply takes too long to play. I don't want to waste real people's time making experiments that I can perform on my own. But if the game survives the simulations, I'll start badgering friends to try it out.
Forgive me, but I feel like I have to add this: If you are a game designer and would like a simulator for your own designs, please do not ask me to build one for you. I'll just say no. This project has taken me days, with more yet to go, and I haven't got enough to spare. I'd never get any of my own projects done if I started coding for other folks.
But if it continues to go well, and anybody shows any interest, I might be willing to post the Java source code for download. I doubt it will be useful to anyone, but ya never know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
