[#005] Rule design vs. incentive design, balancing a game, and more

Welcome to your weekly dose of board game design!

We're well into the swing of the new year, the gym is fuller than usual, and I hope most of the coldest weather is behind us here in England. I got three games to the table with some amazing players and a publisher friend in the real world, and I'm thrilled to mention that all three went well.

Something I learned about game design this week

It's always interesting playtesting other people's games, and at least one publisher I've met was more curious in the design process rather than the specific design. Why did you make those choices? What sort of experience did you want players to have?

It was one recent playtest that helps to solidify two frameworks of thought. I'll call them rule design and incentive design.

• Rule design is more focused on what players are and are not allowed to do as they play. There's some focus on avoiding loopholes and ensuring the rule cover all the potential edge cases, but it usually comes back to saying what players can and can't do while they play.

• Incentive design is more focused on what players should or should not do as they play. There's more focus on balancing (such as 'getting the balance right') and perhaps helping the player discover how those incentives play off of each other.

Different games benefit from the different design choices, but I thought it interesting to realize which framework you predominantly use... almost as a personality test for you, the designer. If you've played and enjoyed a lot of games where long-term strategizing is rewarded, those mechanics and concepts are more likely to be fresher on your mind when deciding how to reward players for what they do during the game.

Personally, I've playtested some games where rule design was the obvious driving factor - 'you can't do that' or 'you're not allowed to do that'... and my response was usually 'but I can... and I want to.... so why is the game restricting me?' This happening more than a few times in a game can get frustrating pretty quickly.

Example time

Let's use bowling as a great example. I see rules as excellent guardrails - ways to prevent you from doing too bad, or breaking the game in some way. Guardrails in bowling usually mean you'll score something so long as the ball makes it to the other end.

I see incentives as the practice and care of spinning the ball to get to the perfect place where ball meets pins. Getting that spin just right means you raise the chances of a strike higher.

So which framework have you found yourself using more frequently?

Question from a reader - balancing a game

Doug B. asks:

I am working on a worker placement design and was wondering how to know if I have the right ratio of workers to open spaces on the board? For my particular design, it's about 3:5 regardless of player count, which feels right to me and my playtesters. I looked at 4p games of Dune Imperium and Lords of Waterdeep, and both seemed to have about that same ratio, which was encouraging. Do you think I'm on the right track? Do you have any specific guidance?

Got a question? Hit reply to share - I might answer it in a future newsletter like this.

Balancing a game like this is one part art, one part math, and feels like one part wizardry. On paper, it sounds like a tall order: find the balance between 'loose' and 'tight'. This answer comes back to a few essential questions that need answers based on your choices as the designer:

• Once pieces are placed, can they be moved or removed? If so, what do these actions cost?

• What level of 'loose' or 'tight' fits the gameplay / theme / mechanics?

• How does this scale for the number of players?

The first question has lots of moving parts here, and that's intentional: "Once pieces are placed, can they be moved or removed? If so, what do these actions cost?"

• Some worker placement games require the pieces to stay in place until the end of the round - place piece, collect resource, reset, and go again. Agricola and Stone Age are examples.

• Some games allow you to move your pieces to an empty space on the board by paying the cost listed on that space. See Castles of Burgundy and Keyflower.

• Some games make your 'workers' a permanent part of the board. See Power Grid and Isle of Cats.

The cost of this action might be a resource cost or just an opportunity cost (what else can you do with that resource or space?).

The second question, What level of 'loose' or 'tight' fits the gameplay / theme / mechanics?, is naturally going to be more specific to your game. Hobby players (especially of heavy games) are fine with a 'tighter' game that requires them to plan ahead, but that sort of gameplay can be harder for other players to wrap their heads around.

I'm a huge fan of creating interesting decisions on every turn, for every player, regardless of their choices... and 'tight' games can force players down paths they'd rather not take simply because it's their only option.

I'd also argue it's easier to tighten up 'loose' games (usually through incentives, but also rules) than it is to loosen up 'tight' games. (With tight games, the lack of choices is often a defining element of the game - sometimes it's a result of clever play by your opponent, sometimes it's because you didn't grab an opportunity the game thinks you should have taken, etc.)

The last question, How does this scale for the number of players?, is usually answered by having more spaces available for players pieces. The maximum possible number of pieces and spaces is knowable, so starting with a formula that's worked for other games and tweaking from there is a great way to go.

This isn't the only way to scale, of course - more players could mean each player gets fewer of the resources that go on the board, something happens when the board fills up (this is something that will happen more frequently at higher player counts), or moving your pieces becomes a more dynamic part of gameplay.

It's quite interesting to see how games develop through a lens of 'what changes when you add more players?' For some games the answer is 'basically nothing'. In my game Spies (from No Box Games), you're only concerned with the players on your left and right at any player count. With Rift Valley Reserve (coming later this year from Board Game Hub, and playable on Board Game Arena now) the player count dramatically changes the experience. At 2 players, it's a pretty tactical game, and at 5 players it can get pretty chaotic. There are always opportunities to score, but the sheets get passed around after every turn, meaning each opponent has to decide whether they want to mess you up or go for some points themselves.

What I’ve been working on last week

• Edited some rulebooks for clients

• Playtested Smite a few times

• Got a new game into TTS

• Got a verbal commitment from a publisher about a game I pitched them

• Researching publishers attending for Nuremberg

• Some amazing real-world playtesting of Defuse, How Does Your Garden Grow?, and an untitled dice drafting game (think Yahtzee meets Sagrada).

What's coming up this week

• Reaching out to publishers to setup appointments for Nuremberg.

• Work on a couple of mass-market game concepts

• Playing with a couple of gateway concepts (current codenames: Shell and Dragon)

ICYMI

The amazing Bez has started her ELL contest up - the deadline isn't until July 31st, 2023, so you have plenty of time. More details at stuffbybez.com/contest/.

The Game Crafter's single card contest ends in hours! Get your game in ASAP:

Time for your thoughts

I'd like to start a new section of this newsletter, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on today's question. Next week I'll share some of your replies to it =)

Today's question: What's an underused theme or mechanic you'd like to see in modern board games?

Hit reply to share your thoughts.

Random picture of the week

One of the cooler games I saw at Essen: Happy Puzzle's Star Words. Each puzzle piece has a word, connect pieces to make sentences. The jigsaw puzzle piece is the same, ensuring all the words are correctly seen from one point of view.

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!