[#019] Input vs. Output Randomness, a couple of words out of order, and more

Welcome to your weekly dose of board game design!

Welcome to mid-April - Americans, hope your taxes are all done. The Brits do their taxes a bit different, so that's been a learning experience...

Something I learned about game design this week

So I accidentally wrote a couple of words out of order in some notes... and thought there might be something here.

So here's a free idea, only for my readers. Take it and use it - seriously.

Worker collection and set placement - no, that's not a typo.

Not 'worker placement' and 'set collection'.

Maybe 'worker collection' is where the workers come from somewhere, then they make or do something on your player board...

The 'set placement' might be a matter of having your pieces in the right places, not necessarily / only the right amounts.

No idea. I have more ideas than I can handle right now, so this one's out there for anyone to use. If you use it, feel free to buy me a drink if we ever catch up IRL =)

This week's tip

What fundamentals would you like to see me cover in a future section? Reply and let me know.

Today's all about randomness, and specifically, the two flavors of randomness.

This video from 2015 was the first time I remember learning about how randomness can be used. I don't want to repeat a lot of stuff from the video, so to summarize:

Input randomness is when you roll the dice, spin the spinner, or do something random, and then make a strategic decision based on that randomness. It's what you do in games where you reveal some cards at the start of the round.

Output randomness is when you make a strategic decision, and then roll the dice, spin the spinner, or do something random. It's what you do in games where you make your strategic choice, and then see how well it did.

It's just the order of operations at its heart, but this (like so many seemingly small design choices) changes everything.

I think they can both be used well in games, but I do prefer input randomness to output randomness in most cases. That's usually because feeling strategic and clever are some of the most basic emotions to target, and feeling like your strategic / clever move was just undone because you rolled badly is less fun.

Output randomness has worked well in games like D&D for decades, of course, and some games have luck mitigation to help you overcome some of that output randomness.

What I’ve been working on last week

• Playtesting a co-designed game, Mint Tin Monster Mashup, and Marshrutka

• Iterated on about five different games

• Chats with two co-designers

• Client work

• Purchased tickets for Mojo Pitch (anyone else around London in late June?)

• Made sell sheets for five games

What's coming up this week

• Make videos for five games

• Client work

• Get the last translations for Spies out to backers, then to the world

ICYMI

Snorkel has funded!

Go read a blog kept by a cultural consultant.

The New York TImes highlighted what it called 'alignment risk', referencing a 2016 blogpost by OpenAI. What they call 'reinforcement learning' could be regarded as 'incentive design' to designers - how players are incentivized to play is how they'll play, even if it's not the 'fun' way or the 'correct' way.

This concept ties with Mark Rosewater's masterclass (Magic the Gathering: 20 Years, 20 Lessons Learned), and specifically rule #13: 'Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win.' Seriously, if this is the first time you're hearing of this video, watch it now. You don't get to make one of the biggest games in the world - for decades - without learning a ton about game design and how humans interact with those designs.

Thanks for reading!

Got a question about game design you'd like answered? Find an amazing new resource that would help fellow game designers? Reply to this email and share =)

Thanks for reading, and see you next week!