CCG #1- Flavor and Function pitfalls.

Note: This post is about collectible card games.

Look! A blank card! It's up to you to fill in her abilities with something appropriate!

What would you fill the text box with? What would you pick up on? Okay. So I admit, you probably know nothing about the girl in the card box. Where could you even begin? Her name just sounds.. vaguely American and vaguely Japanese.

She's listed as a 'Major Character' so something grand, perhaps? She's also listed as a 'witch'.. which means.. err.. she should summon.. monkeys? It's rather hard to say given just the image and the name to come up with anything concrete.

Is she important? What does she do?

Let me provide some context:


Truly, a sign of greatness. Pause and bask at the greatness of 'Master Spark!' Clearly the card in question should damage other cards.

Great, so a mechanic like: Use this card. Hurt some other card would be quite fitting and it would be precisely in flavor.


This is a good demonstration of the first few pitfalls of designing from a strong context. Were we given no context and free range of what card could do, who knows what we would put on that box. The summon monkeys thing was promising.

Sadly, the context restricts us to fewer abilities to fit flavor. When you come up with a design for something, starting from a strong flavor base can give you ideas, but when your initial idea is 'Cool guy with a sword' there's only so many directions you can go.

Now, onto specifics:

There are a few issues with this combination of image/ability. Mainly because:

1. No context from the card itself. Unless you had the proper context, the picture and the ability doesn't quite synchronize. The happy smiley girl's sole purpose appears to be harming people. With what exactly? The broom?

Solution 1: Replace the image with something more fitting.

Looks painful, doesn't it?

Obviously, you can't just change the image on a whim. Mainly because you probably don't have the resources to requisition tons and tons of artwork for slight changes in abilities or ideas that you have. Which brings us to solution two...

Solution two: Provide context on the card itself.

Little story snippets, quotes and dialogue can help synchronize the disconnect between the ability and the card. It's a good deal cheaper than recommissioning art.

2. Doesn't push or pull the player in any direction. A card that simply deals direct damage is a very simple function. Depending on the game in question, it could be easily replaceable by some other card. It doesn't serve a unique purpose. Unless the card is very powerful or very undercosted, there is no incentive to use this card specifically.

People may criticize variants on the same idea for being 'boring' and 'unoriginal.' But the alternative is worse. You do not ever want to see a long slew of abilities that read: Deal 1 damage. Deal 2 damage. Deal 1-2 damage.

Instead, variants and restrictions allow different factors to push and pull them in directions.

3. It's boring. For a 'Major Character' having a boring ability is really bad. Tons of things simply 'hurt people.' You could easily imagine an archer having the ability to 'hurt someone.' A guy who throws darts could 'hurt someone.' While the flavor and function synchronize, the basic ability simply isn't attractive enough. This is a major flaw. While simple boring functional tools are good to have, it's criminal to put them on something that is considered 'Major.'


While this example is far from perfect, it makes an attempt at reconciling the basic issues of the initial simple design. It brings up the context level of the card to something understandable. It pushes the player to a certain direction (More.. whatever the numbers mean is a good thing.) And it's not quite as boring as the original ability.

Onto the next post, where I talk about where this version gets it all wrong...

A look at motivation - Mass Effect

What do players want? What do players need?

Okay, it's a hugely broad question that is impossible to answer in general.

However, take a look at your favorite game and how they attempt to answer these questions.
For me, the most recent game I have had the opportunity to delve into is Mass Effect, so I'll pick on that game for today.

Let's take one of the main features in this game -- Depth.

Today, let me focus on: Depth in Exploration

Symptom One: Side-Quest on the Empty Shells on Empty Planets of Emptiness

The major premise of Mass Effect is the unrivaled exploration of an entire galaxy worth of planets. An entire galaxy worth of worlds, buildings, alien races combined with a epic sci-fi plot-line that has the galaxy hang in the balance.

That is all well and good. But does Mass Effect actually deliver?

Imagine traveling across the surface of the moon.

It is incredibly vast. Infinitely expansive. And if you look up at the earth, shining away at you, it will be incredibly beautiful.

The moon is also devoid of life, structures, buildings, people. Would visiting 45 moons give you a different experience than visiting one moon?

Have you visited forty-five unique scenarios? or the same scenario 45 times?

Symptom Two: Your reward is this gun! That you already have!

Is there an extrinsic reward for completing a scenario? Is the player rewarded for completing the quest? Is the player rewarded for his action?

...No.

The reward for exploring all of these desolate moons is cash. Of which you have millions.

The reward for exploring all of these desolate places is weapons. Which you already have, or can easily purchase with those millions. Or are simply worse than the ones you already have.

The reward for exploring all of these desolate places is simply the intrinsic experience of exploring. Of which there was none. Because you went to a desolate moon that had one important building which had nothing interesting inside.

Again, are there really distinct scenarios? Or the same one over and over?

Symptom Three: No sight of the end. Or even your surroundings.

If I generated randomly a million moons that were all the same, would you explore them all? How many of them would you explore knowing that no hand was involved in their making. Nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing discovered, nothing found, lost or gained.

What if there was the appearance of having and endless amount of moons. Would that make you more motivated or less motivated to pursue them?

Would you run a million miles with no end in sight?

Even the largest of impossible tasks can be broken down bit by bit, but only when you have vision of the entire process. When you collect 120 shines in Super Mario sunshine, you know how many you have collected. You know how many there is to go.

If you had been on shine 97 without knowing how many shines were truly left, how many would have the strength to continue to simply finish and explore it all?

To sum it all up: What does the player want?

Let's say I give you a quest. The quest is like any other quest. It may be set in a different plane. But you will do the exact same thing as you have for anything else.

Let me give you a reward for undertaking. The reward you get is like the reward from any other quest. It may look slightly different. But it is the same reward you could get from anywhere.

Let me promise you that you will encounter nothing new, nothing novel and that it will have no effect on the main storyline.

It will reveal nothing about the plot. It will not have an interesting question on life. It will not tie into other plot lines or affect the universe in any way, shape or form.

I will also generously give you one hundred credits for completing this quest. However, this doesn't matter as you have 1 million credits on hand.

Would you still take this quest? It adds to nothing. Builds up to nothing. Leads to nothing. Unlocks nothing. With no new experience.

Is there any additional motivation for undertaking this quest than any other? Can this thing even hold your attention so that you come back to it?

You may need to rethink why your player would want to undertake your quest.

Accessibility, Part 2: Setting up and delivering user expectations

Reading back over my posts, I've realized I've completely glossed over a major reason games are played: Expectation.

To explain what I mean, let me put up a hypothetical situation;

If you encounter a boss randomly and it dies to one swing, you feel surprised, but not necessarily happy about it. If you had instead spent the last 20 hours upgrading your character and then it dies to one swing, would you feel happier?

My personal hypothesis is that the latter would be a more satisfying experience. Why? It conforms to what the player expects to happen.

What if instead, that boss randomly killed you in one blow? That would feel particularly bad. But if instead, the boss bellowed and screamed for a minute while "charging" power ridiculously and then killed you in a gigantic blow, how would that feel?

To look at the individual event that make up games is a bit shortsighted. One instead must walk the careful line with setting up player expectations without treating them like complete idiots.

Tradition

Tradition is, perhaps, the most powerful force you can use to set up player expectations. It also tends to be why people don't adopt other gaming systems easily.

For example, take this complaint about the MMO Dofus:

"For the entire time I played, no weapons or armor dropped from any monster. I wish this game wasn't so boring."

While the complaint is a valid one, I would wager that the real brunt of the complaint is simply because Dofus does not adhere to traditional expectations when it comes to items. Imagine if you were accustomed to weapons or armors dropping every once in a while from monsters, and suddenly encountering a game where all you obtained were randomly miscellaneous items, like in Dofus.

It is in fact, impossibly difficult to find items in Dofus. Combine this with random statistics and perfect items in Dofus are rare finds. However, the design of Dofus is that any item in the game, including the rarest items in the game, can be crafted from generic monster drops and rare monster drops. It is not a requirement to have any piece of gear drop. If you want that mushroom hat, all one must do is collect 30 mushrooms, guarenteed if you kill 30 mushrooms!

However, this is unlike normal games. And thus the complaint arises: 'I've spent hours killing mushrooms, and all I have is 100 mushrooms and no mushroom gear!'

Solution: Set up player expectations early. In Dofus, this would be greatly aided by having the player craft his first set of gear, or have some sort of generic craft system. If they had made their crafting system more obvious from the beginning, this sort of complaint would arise fairly rarely.

Understanding the System

The second major way to set up player expectation is hinged around making the player understand the underlying system. As explained before, the human brain is geared towards linear understanding. Exponentials and radical divergences from linear patterns are not easily understood.

For example, if I raise my attack power from 50 to 100, I should expect that my attack power doubles or increases by 100%. If instead, attack power was a logarithmic function, my attack power would only increase about log (2) or 40%. This violates player expectations. Imagine if the player had spent a great deal of time upgrading his gear and doubling his listed attack power, only to find out that the net return is only a fraction of what he gains.

This would be a major punch to the gut of any player attempting to understand the system.

If your system is complex in any way at all, you must set up a general explanation so the player will understand how the system works. The goal is to change player expectation to what your system will produce.

Therefore, in the above case, a simple tool-tip that explains how attack power works whenever the player has his cursor over attack power would go quite a bit towards weighing relative worth of equipment and abilities.

Visual Impact

Visual expectation are probably the most natural system that we can comprehend. In short, the more visually interesting an object is (size, flashiness, colors), the more impact it should have on the game. If you want a a major reason why adventure games are no longer seen in this world, it's because they violate this rule time and time again. The amount of time searching for the one item that will change the world which HAPPENS TO BE 3 PIXELS WIDE. Visual impact: Almost none. Game Impact: The entire missing piece to the puzzle.

Things that look small and unimportant should NOT have a major impact on the current situation. Conversely, things that look large and important should have a major impact on the current situation. Unless the player has been properly trained to look for small specific cues, you cannot expect that the player will understand that 'the tiny cute bunny' is actually a harbinger of death. Likewise, if the screen is filled with impressive nuclear explosions that do absolutely nothing, the effect is impossible to ignore and visually confusing.

You must always work to bring visual impact with actual impact, as this follows what players will expect. In the event that you wish to hide or brag things, you must first alter player expectations accordingly, perhaps by hinting of small things or setting up the scenario before hand.

Why bother?

Violating player expectation always carries some negative impact for the player. Either they will be frustrated at the experience, or they will not have the potential joy or the correct reaction. If the expectation is violated in a negative sense, then the player will feel frustrated. If the expectation is violated in a positive surprising sense, the player will be surprised but not necessarily as happy as he would be if it fulfilled his expectation.

Accessibility: Seeding a growing experience, Part 1

Accessibility is some elusive trait that gets touted these days as one of the major goals of gaming. 'Games must be accessible enough to appeal to a large generation.' I believe that Accessibility, in and of itself, isn't necessarily the most important goal in game design. It depends upon your consumer base and the target you are trying to satisfy.

What I believe the term truly means in the context is used is, how do we design games that a casual audience can grow into?

The goal here is to mainly: Let the player feel free to play how he wants to play, guide the player gently down the avenues without restricting his freedom and rewarding the player's impulse to delve deeper into the game. In this manner, casual audiences can approach the game without needing to look at strategy guides or knowing the deep internals of the game, knowing that the game will attempt to conform itself around *his* needs, rather than demanding that the player conform itself to the game's needs.

1. Avoid dead ends in player progression (Real or Perceived)
(Let the player play however he wants to play!)

The major criminal in this case: Every RPG ever made that demands the player to choose what to level up. When players are first presented with a series of skills to choose from, there is always the moment of paralysis that grips them when they realize that their decision is final.

The exact instance you want to avoid is the player trying to rationalize his own 'mistake' with himself.

Damn. Why did I choose that skill? I've done this all wrong.

But there is another, more insidious version of the dead end trial: Where the incentive or necessity to follow a dead end outweighs the natural curiosity and desire for exploration. This makes itself evident in the form of rewards for repeating a certain action or playing in a certain style. Let's take the simplest example, the natural example where the usage of a skill improves it to its next level. It's a very natural system of game design, intuitively understood and mirrors reality well.

However, it's a dead-end path for players to choose. In real life, we can't switch our specialties in the middle of the road. We are trapped by the decisions of the past. We keep similar skill-sets and add to them as we develop. If the game forces the player to focus on a path, it will create the same similar trap for him where he is advancing down a path he doesn't wish to go down (a dead end, a worthless skill) and yet there is no recourse for him to go back (as advancing another skill would take forever at this stage, and be almost completely useless.)

Our player has now gone through half the game with a sword specialization such that our player is crazy good with a sword. However, now he is stuck on a dead end path. If he chooses not to use a sword and use an axe instead, the axe will be effectively useless (if he's so much better with a sword) or unfun (because he can do so much more with the sword) unless he uses the axe for a similar period of time with the sword.

This would be reasonable, except the player has now advanced to a stage where the game expects the player to have some crazy awesome skills with a weapon. Switching to another weapon just isn't feasible at this point and the player is trapped with his early choice, even though nowhere along the path has he ever said to himself 'I'm just going to use a sword.'

2. Guide players gently but let them be free to do their own thing.
(Do not restrict the player arbitrarily.)

The major criminal in this case is: Boss fights.

Who here has fought that one boss. You know which one I'm talking about. The 'I am invulnerable everywhere except this giant glowing spot on my torso.' Yes. That one. And he has the audacity to cover it up 95% of the battle. The message is, don't even bother hitting me unless you hit right there.

Run around, dodging his blows for minutes on end to hit him once on the glowing weak point and then repeat 20 times.

The obvious flaw here is that whatever tactic the player decides is the best way to engage the boss is suddenly null and void. If a player decides the boss is totally open after an attack and his instincts tell him to attack, he shouldn't be stopped simply because the boss is designed to be invulnerable.

Imagine the scenario here: Giant Robot dude swings at me mercilessly, and I go to hit him, only to find out that although Giant Robot dude has major holes in his defense, he's simply invulnerable to my attacks until he decides to do some completely arbitrary action that exposes his weak point.

The player has identified a game-play path he wants to explore. He should not be directly cut off for arbitrary reasons. In this case, simply making the boss take reduced but significant damage from player attacks would be terrific, as the player can identify openings in the boss to attack and he is also alerted to the weak point that he may strike of his own choosing.

3. Seed subtle interactions to encourage player exploration and experimentation without bludgeoning them over the head with it.
(Reward the player's sense of exploration.)

The thrill of discovering that something works is an incredibly rewarding one in game-play experience that opens up a great deal of depth into the game. As designers, one key tenet of design is to seed your game with intentional but hidden interactions, knowing that the player's independent discovery of these synergies will be greatly rewarding.

A lot of games will take the 'in your face approach' to let the player know of cool features in the game. In a recent example, in BioShock, the player is explicitly told through the radio that shooting a lightning bolt while enemies are standing in water is more effective.

Yet this didn't need to be explicitly told to the player. Seeing as how the entire city of Rapture is underwater, there is probably going to be a part early on in the game where the player accidentally shocks an enemy while he's standing in some form of water. There is no need to bludgeon players with the information. This is accessibility that caters several steps too far and allows no room for players to delve and explore the space for himself.

In another example in the same game, the player acquires a Pyrokinetic power and then is instantly instructed to burn an oil slick to destroy a group of enemies. He is explicitly told via a message from a person to burn an oil slick and watch the interactions between fire and flammable objects.

This goes a couple of steps too far in the information department. Players are simply not that stupid. If the interaction is not strictly necessary for advancing in the game, then they do not need to be bludgeoned over the head with information about interactions that they could have discovered on their own. (A much richer experience)

A much subtler method can be found in the platforming Metroid series, where, upon acquiring a new powerup, the player is immediately thrust into a series of situations where he must use the powerup. After Samus acquires super-missiles, she is instantly locked into a room with a large green door that is seemingly invulnerable to all her other weapons. In this manner, the player makes the association on his own, without having his/her intelligence insulted.

It goes to show in the excellent design of this game, that the room immediately after the green door room, is filled with all sorts of nasty armored monsters the player has encountered before, but become very easy once they have been swatted away with a burst of super missiles, thus letting the player draw his own conclusions about how best to use the missiles.

From CCG to RPG: Brainstorming... Part 1!

Note: This is a random and convoluted article that requires both an understanding of collectible card games, specifically Magic: The Gathering and conventional online RPG's.

One of my most major desires is to experienced a skill system in an RPG that is complex and customizable to me. I am a Johnny/Spike, which means I like to win (Spike) and I like to find interactions and explore dynamics so that I can express my creativity through the system (Johny.)

One thing I've noticed is that Collectible Card Games speak to the imagination of us all. If only there was a way to take gaming card concepts and have a RPG skill system that would capture it...
...so you know what, I'm going to try. I'll take each mechanic I can think of and turn it into a skill that you might find in an online massive multiplayer RPG.

1. CCG - Kindle: "Deal 2 + X damage to target creature or player, where X is the amount of cards named Kindle in the graveyard."

What is a graveyard in an MMORPG? A Graveyard in the CCG represents a list of spells cast and a list of spells that have no effect anymore. Therefore, the easiest way to think about it is that the graveyard is a way of keeping track of spell history. Therefore...

RPG - Kindle: Deals 2 flame damage to a target. You gain 1 bonus damage to every Kindle spell cast until you exit combat. This bonus stacks up to X times.

Fairly straightfoward, I think. Each time you cast Kindle, your Kindle spells are more awesome until you finally kill the thing you were trying to kill. It doesn't capture the interaction of when other players cast Kindle, thus boosting your own Kindle. We could do this by changing the spell slightly.

RPG - Kindle 2: Deals 2 damage to a target. Then, each creature or player within 30 meters is afflicted with 'Scorched' status which increases damage they receive from Kindle by 1. This effect lasts until end of combat.

This isn't quite as elegant as the previous incarnation, but it does capture more of the original interaction.

2. CCG Discard Spell - Target Opponent discards two cards (at random)

What is a card in the MMORPG sense? It is something like a skill or ability. Therefore, the most elegant way I can turn this is...

RPG Discard Spell - The next two skills that the target attempts to start using become disabled for 30 seconds. (Or, two random skills from the target become disabled for 30 seconds.)

While at first glance, this seems a little weird, I think it captures the feeling of discard pretty well. There's some timing interactions to this that could be bad, but on the whole, it captures the feeling of discard in a way that I need for the next interaction..

3. CCG Madness - When this card is discarded, you may play it for madness cost instead.

See where I was going?

RPG Madness - If this skill is disabled, you may still use this skill except that its cost is now its Madness cost instead. You may only use this ability once for each the time the skill is disabled.

Given better templating, I'm sure it would sound nice and even.

4. Flashback - You may play this card from your graveyard for its Flashback cost. If you do, remove it from the game.

Nice. What's worse than having a spell in the graveyard? It not being in the game at all. What's a game in RPG terms? One combat. What does it mean for something to not be in the game? Not being relevant to combat ever, any longer.

RPG Flashback - You may play this skill while it is temporarily disabled or cooling down for its Flashback cost. If you do so, the skill becomes permanently disabled until end of combat.

The Setup: RPG-style.

This article is a spiritual successor to this one.

I talked about the setup in the previous article, which is when a little bit of work allows you to create some very cool interactions in the future without any previous work. Let's start by drawing obvious crossovers from the CCG world into our RPG world.

Just for reference, the card was a card named 'Arcane Blast.'

Arcane Blast deals 1 arcane damage to each opposing ally or player. Draw a card for each damage dealt this way.

1. Keying off Keywords: "Deal ARCANE damage..."

From the card, we can see that we are able to reference the type of damage on the card. This is easily translated in RPG terms and has been done so for many years. The idea of damage 'types'.

For example, instead of having a skill do damage, have it do fire damage. Then we can create things like: Resistance to fire damage or Weakness to fire damage.

So a monster could take more damage from fire or less damage from fire. This is a fairly obvious change.

The second thing that we noticed, was that now we could boost the damage of the skill without mentioning the skill directly. Then, we can create things like: Bonus to all fire damage dealt, or Double all fire damage.

So our fire mage could learn some passive that could increase his damage dealt, or multiply it by a factor of two or something.

Thirdly, we realized we can create things that can trigger off the type of damage. Then, we can create effects like: Chance to set target on fire or Dispelled when hit by fire.

So our fire mage could learn a skill that could set his target on fire if he hits him with fire damage, sort of a burning effect added onto all his fire skills. Or suppose that our fire mage has encountered an evil tree monster, protected by thick layers of bark. Then we could make the protective layers of wood burn away when hit by fire damage, making the tree much weaker.

Each of these interactions would force the player to reconsider what fire damage actually means, whether or not fire damage is an appropriate response to what he is doing, and what other skills/effects can interact with his given mode of damage.

2. Area of Effect: Multiple Targets, "Deal Damage to EACH ally / player..."

In the Card World, we can let a card affect multiple targets. In the RPG world, this becomes the notion of 'Area of Effect.' We can increase the complexity of interaction by specifying what kind of Area of Effect interaction the spell can have.

For example, the most generic effect is Spherical. The damage is spread out among a sphere, like an explosion. This is the most commonly seen area of effect spell and increases complexity by encouraging the player to bunch together groups of monsters. Our fire mage would like to see tight packs of monsters.

An interesting twist on the Spherical Area of Effect is the Point-Blank Spherical Area of Effect. This is the type of Area of Effect spell that is High Risk / High Reward, as it rewards the fire mage for being at the center of all the monsters.

However, the RPG world has a great deal more targeting shapes than the real world. Consider the wide multitude of area of effects:

Piercing (A straight line, like a bullet that goes through people)
Conical (A cone extending outwards from the caster, like a cone of flame)
Chaining (Bouncing from monster to monster, like electricity or chain lightning)
Spherical (Extending radially outward from the initial point, like a fireball)
Spiraling (Imagine a Spiral slowly spinning outwards)
Wave (Everything in front of me, like a tidal wave)
Random X (Randomly hitting X targets. Imagine a chaotic lightning storm)

These interactions force the player to think about what time he attempts the spell, as well as what position him and the monsters are at. They reward the player for being in the right place at the right time, or maneuvering the situation to be just right.

3. Triggered Effect: "Draw a card for each damage dealt."

This type of effect generally doesn't translate well into the RPG world's flavor. The notion of a 'card' does not have an clear analogy in most RPG worlds.

What is important however, is that the spell or ability itself is attempting to reward the player for maximizing a specific behavior, in this case: Damage. Translated as literally as possible, this would be a spell that reads something like follows:

Fiery Explosion
Costs 20 Mana to Use:
'Deals 1 damage to all enemies in a 30 foot radius. You gain 2 mana for every damage you deal.

This spell would be somewhat interesting in a game. It would be a spell that is only usable when there are large hordes of monsters. It scales extremely well to handling a large amount of monsters, as it costs the fire mage essentially nothing to cast. However, if there were very few monsters, the spells effects would be drastically reduced.

However, imagine the damage boosting interactions that was previously mentioned. This spell would also be extremely cheap to use if our fire mage could somehow double his damage. It would also be extremely cheap to use if our fire mage hits something that is weak to fire. If our opponent was somehow able to magically shield himself, preventing the damage, then our fire mage would be unable to regain mana.

Additionally, if our fire mage was careless and missed the spell, it would cost him a lot more mana than if he had only hit a few targets.

All these interactions come from rewarding the player additionally for something he wants to do anyway. The fire mage obviously wants to deal damage. Then, if we add an additional trigger based on what the fire mage already wants to do, it adds a layer of interactivity as the player seeks to maximize the benefit of that trigger.

4. Risk / Reward and Target Limitations: "Deal damage to each opposing allies and player."

Recall that the card restricted you to damaging opposing characters. In most RPG's generally you do not want the player to have the ability to damage allies. Normally, that would be that. If we let players hurt players who are supposed to be their friends, no end of trouble could happen.

However, if you think about it, dealing damage to your own creatures in a card game essentially means hurting yourself, not other friendly people. Thus, the analogy we draw from this is the self-harming spell.

For example, we could have our fire mage cast a Fiery Explosion so deadly, that it also incinerates him as well as the entire room of monsters. This then poses a question to the fire mage: Can he survive his own spell? Will it be effective enough to ensure his survival? Is there something he can do to mitigate or nullify the damage to himself, making the spell one-sided?

Additionally, by letting spells be able to target the caster itself, brings up more interesting interactions. For example, the fire mage might think twice about doubling his fire damage through some ability because this would mean that his Fiery Explosion would ALSO deal double the damage to him!

These ask the player if he would like to trade security for a powerful effect. How close to destruction do you wish to walk? Can you handle a momentary set-back in exchange for a great effect?

5. Putting it all together.

So compare....

Magic Bolt
Cost 20 mana to use
"Deals 1 damage to targeted monster."

...Boring.

Fiery Explosion
Costs 20 mana to use:
"Deals 1 fire damage to the caster and monsters within a 30 foot radius. Gain 2 mana for each damage dealt this way."

This is a spell that can be boosted or reduced by abilities that care about fire damage. But he needs to be careful because it also hurts him. However, if it hurts him more, the spell will cost less, as he will have dealt damage to himself and gained mana back. Addi tonally, the spells gets maximum benefit when the caster is surrounded by enemies because of the type of area of effect it is. This entails more risk as to get maximum benefit, he puts himself in a dangerous location. However, he is rewarded with an essentially free spell, if he puts himself through all the trouble.

Phew. All those things to think about with a single spell made from a single card! Imagine what you could do with all the other examples out there in the world. All those interactions are because the spell thought a little in advance and set up interesting interactions down the line.

Adding Complexity: The Setup

There is a formula for writing in which authors pen in character or plot events that they themselves don't know how to end. They leave loose threads dangling in the hopes that it will be useful there. How many ominous shadows have you counted in your favorite TV-shows, only to have them be explained away simply or never mentioned again? How many dangling plot threads seem to be hanging off, never explained? Now how many of those ominous shadows or mysterious threads came back to grand effect, making the entire affair seem like a brilliantly orchestrated concerto?

This is a simple technique in which I will call 'the setup.' It is a method of opening up the complexity with a tiny bit of extra work at the outset.

Take this card from the World of Warcraft trading card game:

Arcane Blast deals one arcane damage to each opposing ally and player. Draw a card for each damage dealt this way.

The first part of this ability is a generic ability that anyone could think of. Hit someone for one point of damage. Then, you draw a card to replace the card you just used. However, compare that ability to this one:

Lunge deals one damage to an ally or player. Draw a card.

In a vacuum, Arcane Blast and Fire Bolt do the exact same thing. They both do a single point of damage to the opposing player and allow the user to draw a card. However, games are not played in a vacuum.

There are four key differences between the two cards. One is obvious, the other three, far less so.

1) Mutiplicative Effects: Area of Effect

The first obvious difference is that Arcane Blast deals one point of damage to every opposing ally. This makes the spell an Area of Effect spell. However, note that you draw a card for each point of damage you do, thus, not only is it better to hit multiple enemies with the Arcane Blast, it lets you draw a card for each damage dealt, significantly increasing the reward if there is more than one target to hit.

This kind of setup asks the question: Should I wait or should I apply the effect now? Maybe there will be greater payoff later.

2) Additional Clauses: Negation or Boosting

Consider if your opponent has the following effect:

Negation: Prevent all damage that would be dealt from the next source that would deal damage.

Now playing Arcane Blast becomes a little more tricky. In order for you to draw a card with Arcane Blast, you must *deal* damage first. The little "setup" clause enabled a deeper interaction with other effects in the game. Will you play some other card first to absorb the negation? Will you simply wait the shield out before blasting him with Arcane Magics?

Even better, if my opponent attempts to cast Arcane Blast against me, in the hopes of drawing a card, if I can somehow prevent that damage with a shield, I will prevent that player from drawing a card. Arcane Blast as a card also creates more interesting choices for your opponent as well as the player playing Arcane Blast.

This kind of setup asks the question: Is there some sort of interaction can happen *at the moment* to boost or negate my move?

3) Keyworded Damage Types: Arcane

Alternatively, consider if your opponent has the following effect:

Weak to Arcane: Takes double damage from Arcane Sources.

Because the damage type was keyworded, it was able to be referenced by other sources. This is a fairly intuitive concept that is very easy to miss. The ability to reference damage types allows for crazy interactions later on down the line. For example, one could now create this card:

Reckless Arcane: Whenever you deal damage with an arcane source, double that damage and you lose 3 life.

Note that casting Arcane Blast with this card active will most likely kill you. But then, you'd also double the amount of cards you draw and the amount of damage you deal. Trade-offs and choices...

This kind of setup asks the question: What kind of scenario will I be in? What kind of planning and synergy can I add to boost my effects.

In all fairness, this kind of effect could be done with Lunge, it's not hard to imagine a card like:

Weakness to Damage: This card takes twice as much damage from all sources.

But on the other hand, this kind of card is generic and all too often involves too many uncontrolled interactions. Additionally, it also feels kind of bland and overdone on the complexity side. It is also harder to justify from the perspective of flavor as, what exactly is a weakness to damage? If he was weak to damage, wouldn't he just have lower health? Weakness to Arcane fits better and 'feels' more right.

4) Targeting Restrictions: Limiting or Expanding Choices

Arcane Blast is actually *less* interactive in one regard, than Lunge. It has the choice of limiting your targets to Opposing ones. Arcane Blast doesn't actually let you kill off friendly allies.

Although, most of the time this is very desirable, it is interesting to note that by making the card more user-friendly, we have also limited the interactivity of it somewhat. A quick example should illustrate the point well enough:

Let's say I have just cast Arcane Blast upon my opponent's character while he has a character with one hit point. If the opponent has lunge, he has the option of destroying his *own* character with lunge before my Arcane Blast hits him, by responding to my Arcane Blast with his Lunge. He can do that because Lunge allows you to hit anyone, not just opposing allies. Since his character dies before I did damage to it with Arcane Blast, I don't draw a card for damaging him.

A simple setup can inspire a lot more interactions and complexity. Later on, I'll discuss my own musings for transporting this mechanic into other game types and take it out of the context of card games.

Exponential Math and Games.

Note: This post is a spiritual follow-up to an earlier post, which can be found here.

Exponentials are hard to understand.

Most of us understand instinctively how big 100 is compared to 10. If I gave you 10 dollars a week for a year, you'd have a fairly decent grasp of how much money you'd have at the end of the time period. 10 x 52 = 520.

What if I gave you a choice? I could give you 10 dollars a week for a year or instead, I would start by giving you a dollar each week, and I would give you a 10% raise every week for a year, how would you respond? On the one hand, 520 dollars is relatively easy to understand. But starting with one dollar and going 10% bigger every week.. that seems rather small compared to 520 dollars, no? I mean, how big could that dollar get?

Fast forward to 51 weeks from now, and realize that you would get 142 dollars on the 52nd week. In total you'd rake up about... 2000 dollars for the last 4 months alone. Raise your hands if you guessed anywhere near that range.

Some of us have some grasp that exponentials tend to grow out of hand really fast, but the human mind tends to be really bad at grasping exactly how much those exponentials will be. We tend to dramatically overshoot or undershoot our guesses. Part of it is due to the complex and compound math involved but there's some evidence to suggest that it is hard-wired into our systems. Human beings tend to live for the immediate moment and look towards the future in a linear fashion.

So, what does this have to do with games? It has to do with the difficulties in grasping what is truly effective at first glance. It has to do with balance and the interplays between choices in games.

Qualitative Example: Contra

If you have ever played a little gem called Contra, perhaps you've noticed a slight discrepancy in the weapon power-up selection. It has to do with a weapon dearly beloved and known as 'Spread' or 'Shotgun.'

For those of you unfamiliar with the Contra series, imagine you have a tiny little pistol that can shoot one bullet a second.

One bullet a second seems reasonable.

Now, we could improve your gun in several ways. We could make the pistol fire more powerful shots, like say, a flaming shot. Or we could make your pistol fire faster and fire many bullets at a time.

One powerful fireball a second seems reasonable.
Several bullets a second also seems reasonable.

In practice, the machine gun is somewhat more effective than the fireball weapon simply because increasing the Rate of Fire on a gun is far more effective as the shots can hit multiple targets and sometimes a fireball is simply overkill on a small enemy (like a chicken.) The discrepancy isn't very high, however, as the fireball's sheer stopping power and 'fire and forget' mentality makes up for the versatility and ease of use of the machine-gun.

Now, let us examine the 'Spread' or 'Shot' gun. This is meant to be a slightly rarer power-up than the machine gun or fireball power ups. So, maybe we can make it a little more powerful. But not too much.

The 'Spread' gives you the ability to shoot out three balls every half a second. These balls are pitched at an angle to give it a wide arc of attack. The Spread gun can't really attack a single enemy since the balls spread out in an arc, and so it is less powerful than a machine-gun at long range and somewhat more powerful than the flame-thrower at close range. These balls are slightly bigger and stronger than the machine gun shots, but nowhere near as powerful as the flame shot.

This seems like a reasonable power up, in comparison with the machine gun and the flame shot weapon, no? It fires slightly more shots, slightly faster, for slightly more damage and is slightly safer. This seems on far with the ridiculous firing rate of the machine gun or the superb damage of the flame thrower.

However, in practice, any Contra player would tell you that the 'Spread' gun is the weapon of the game. This is in part due to the fact that although the 'Spread' guns *damage* is about equivalent to the flame thrower or the machine gun (In reality, the spread gun is slightly less damaging than either of the two) ; the fact that the spread guns *arc* gives the player far more survivability. It also shoots faster than the flame shot with about the same power as the flame-shot up close if all 3 shots connect.

What gives? Each individual ball of the 'Spread' is far weaker than a single fire shot. The 'Spread' gun fires slower than the machine gun which literally is an unending hailstorm of bullets. The 'Spread' guns marginally safer attack angle doesn't seem to make it *so* much more powerful than the other two. What gives?

It is again, the power of exponential math.

The Spread Gun is faster than your regular gun.
The Spread Gun has slightly more powerful bullets.
The Spread Gun shoots more bullets at once.
The Spread Gun lets the player survive longer by not having to be in the direct path of fire.

The combination of all four gives the final weapon a dramatically increased value in relation to everything else. Imagine each bonus as a numerical value.

The machine gun would increase your rate of fire 5 to 7 times. This would mean that roughly speaking, it is 5 to 7 times better than your old gun.

The flame shot increases your damage 6 or 7 times over. This would mean that roughly speaking, it is 6 or 7 times better than your old gun.

Let us perform a very very rough analysis of the spread gun's benefits, however.

The Spread gun only doubles your rate of fire. (2x) However, it lets you shoot 3 balls at a time (3x, Running Total: 2x * 3x = 6x). It can't hit a single target with all three balls which costs it some points. Usually, you'll only be able to land 2 out of 3 balls on a target. However, the third ball might actually hit something else as a nice bonus. (2/3 x, Running Total: 2x * 3x * 2/3x = 4x) However, these pellets are also stronger than your regular gun's pellets, they are about twice as strong (2x, Running Total: 2x * 3x * 2/3x *2x = 8x). And the 'Spread' gun lets you survive a lot longer against bosses by not putting you in the direct line of fire, maybe even twice as long. (2x? , Running Total: 2x, * 3x, * 2/3x * 2x * 2x? = 16x?)

And so we have a gun that, roughly speaking, is about a hojillion times better than your pellet gun and 3 to 4 times better than the machine gun. The cumulative effect of small incremental bonuses (slightly faster speed, slightly more damaging shots, slightly more shots) gives the final effect a huge boost in the end.

Linear vs. Exponential: MMORPG's

What is more effective in an online MMORPG to be the best player? Raising your attack speed? Raising your chance to hit? Raising your chance to dodge attacks? Raising your chance to block? Raising your raw damage potential? Raising your chance to critically hit?

Let's say I could choose to choose to improve 3 attributes by 100% -or- two attributes by 150% -or- one attribute by 300%.

So I could double 3 things, or 2.5 x two things, or quadruple one thing.

On the surface, this seems fairly intuitive and straightforward.

However, in practice, this is what happens.

If someone swings twice as fast, and hits twice as often and hits twice as hard, he will be doing eight times the damage. He will not be doing (100% + 100% + 100% + 100% = 400%) damage, he will instead be doing 800% damage.

If instead he simply chose to quadruple his damage, he would only be doing 4 times as much damage.

What if we could distribute things farther? What if we could improve 6 attributes by 50%.

So I could swing 1.5 times as fast, hit 1.5 times as often, hit 1.5 times harder, hit 1.5 times critically, dodge 1.5 times as much, take 1.5 as many hits. I would be twelve times as effective as someone else on average.

This is the insane power of exponentials, something that's not quite easily grasped. The difference between offering the player a choice of doing a few more points of damage, and attacking slightly faster, realize the difference between a small linear boost and an exponential percent based boost. If balance is your goal, then you need to carefully consider how different exponential gains will produce dramatic increases in power that need to be accounted for.

So the next time someone offers you to double your damage or double your speed, instead ask for 50% more damage and 50% more speed. This will give you a net increase of 25% over merely doubling one or the other.