GDC 2011

[Update]  I’m back in Seattle and (mostly) recovered.  Thanks to everyone that came to either of my User Research or Game Design talks.  Special thanks to all the readers that introduced themselves; it seems like I am reaching my intended audience of “veteran game designers”.  A narrow demographic, to be sure.  Unfortunately, I spent too much time networking and not enough time attending interesting sessions, but I may cheat and do a wrap-up based on the GDC Vault at some point.

—-

No posts this week.  Between a vacation and delivering two talks I just don’t have time to write anything worthwhile.  If you are going to be in San Francisco, you can catch me here:

  • March 1st at the Game User Research Summit on “Useful Research: Recommendations Designers will Actually Act On”
  • March 3rd at the Game Developer Conference proper on “Design in Detail:  Tuning the Muzzle Velocity of the Plasma Rifle Bolt on Legendary Difficulty across the Halo Franchise”

If you are in the audience and read the blog, please come up afterword and say hello.  I’d love to find out who is reading this thing and get your feedback face-to-face.  I’ll also be posting summaries and responses to the lectures and panels I attend when I get back.

GDC 2010: Design in Detail IV


How do you develop your sense of balance for paper designs? It can be done, you can look at a paper design and have an intuition about how it will work. You are looking for the role, and for a couple key factors that are the results of the role.


The first thing you are looking for is to make sure the paper design is neither too simple, nor too complex. If your paper design is one sentence long, it is probably too simple. People are going to reach the limitations quickly and stop playing. (Remember, balance is longevity)

If it is more than a page long, it is likely too complex. People will never reach their comfort level, they will stop playing because they can’t understand what is happening. Balance is a barely manageable number of choices. (I bet I end up writing a post on this slide at some point.)


This is where roles come in because they provide depth without increasing complexity.

The Sniper Rifle is the best weapon in some situations. The Sniper Rifle has a clear role, times and situations where it is the best. The payoff for using the Sniper Rifle is different depending on what situation you are in. This is good, because game theory tells us that if all the possible strategies have the same payoff, players will pick randomly. As game designers we want to avoid choices that don’t ultimately matter.

Roles are also good because they cause asymmetry, which demand movement. There are incentives to move from one strategy to another depending on the situation.


One of the tropes of the design community… Rock, Paper, Scissors. But it’s a terrible game!!! Every choice has the same payoffs, so you pick randomly. There is no player agency if their choice is meaningless.

It’s a cool shirt, though (www.noisebot.com)

This was easily the most controversial slide in this talk. Several people took issue with the fact that RPS is a bad game because many journalists and designers improperly use it to describe a situation where one unit strictly dominates another, like in a good RTS. But imagine a RTS game where you could only pick one unit, you had to pick it before the game started, and if you picked wrong you couldn’t possibly win, It’d be a bad game!
The reason a RTS game works is because it isn’t RPS:
– You can play mixed strategies (choose more than one kind of unit)
– Strategies have different costs to play (tanks cost more than barbarians)
– You can change strategies mid-game
– Strategies rarely have an all-or-nothing payoff (10 Air units can usually kill 1 Anti-air unit)

So I am not using RPS in the casual sense of “a game with counter-strategies” but as defined in game theory; Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

I also got a lot of people saying, “RPS is the foundation of Street Fighter!” This is true, somewhat, more than the RTS case, anyway. but imagine a turn-based game of SF where the first hit wins the match. Again, a bad game.

The reason SF works is that it is also not really RPS:
-SF is a series of RPS interactions, so things like reputation and anticipation come in.
-It is played very quickly, so low level decision making and muscle memory determine your strategy more than choices, so it isn’t truly random.
-And even with that, most non-expert players tend to “button-mash” which is a great example of “random strategy”

Believe me, I am not trying to insult RTS games or SF (or even Ro Sham Bo Tournament Champions) but to encourage designers to see how roles lead to non-equal payoffs, and therefore avoid random strategies.


“Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock” is even worse game design. (This game is from the show “The Big-Bang Theory”) It looks more interesting, but it isn’t; it is just more complicated. It will still reduce to equal payoffs and random play.


This doesn’t even make sense! (Interesting note: Halo 1 was this close to shipping without a Shotgun, which makes even less sense…)


Avoid strict dominance…Wait, what is strict dominance?


Who picked the Health Potion? The single-use health replenisher you can buy for 30 rupees?
Who picked the Piece of Heart? The totally unique health-extender you can never buy?

Right, everyone picks the Piece of Heart. (If you didn’t, it’s ok, you were probably eight.)


Iterative deletion means you remove all the dominated strategies, then you remove all the strategies that were only good against those strategies. If you cut the Tank, cut the Anti-Tank Mine. Often when you are making cuts in the final stages of production, it seems like a good idea to cut a little bit from a lot of places, but it is uaully better to cut an entire game mechanic and all of the game elements that use it. Otherwise you end up with several systems that feel like they have missing pieces, rather than a single system that is entirely absent.


After GDC I got challenged to come with an example like Rock, Paper, Scissors that is good game design, so I invented Pirates, Ninjas, Sharks. Each has their own strengths. Ninjas are better at night, but Sharks always win in the water, while Pirates come in crews, etc. A good game is one that you can argue about forever.

[Continued]

GDC 2010: Design in Detail III


The first step in Halo 3 was the paper design.


This is one of about 4 slides for Producers.

The Paper Design should happen in Pre-production. You need to do paper designs first so you don’t have 40 artists sitting around while you do it. On the other hand, if you leave it too early, you are going to waste lots of time later. So as producers, you need to find creative ways to give us room in this stage.

Every gameplay object should get a Paper Design. Don’t let Designers hand wave, because we are great at it! If we can’t write it down it means we haven’t figured it out. Lack of design discipline is a huge threat to your project. On the other hand, if you have a designer that has proven his discipline, then trust his paper design. Take off your design hat before you mess up the game!


Nobody has ever seen this outside of Bungie. It’s the original paper design for the Halo 1 Sniper Rifle. It is embarrassingly simple, but it is better to be simple than overly complicated.


Here’s the important things to note:
Some specifics are wrong. That’s because at some point the paper design is abandoned in favor of the existing object in the game.
Some mechanics are unclear. That’s because it is often difficult to capture an entire system inside a single paper design.
Many details are missing. A paper design should only include crucial or unique information, not every trivial detail.
It’s very flawed as a spec, but one thing comes through, the Role of the weapon.


So now let’s look at Halo 3’s paper design. It’s a lot more detailed. But it is still pretty abstract and the role is even more clear. (It ought to be, it was the third iteration!)
It might seem like a waste of time to do a revised paper design since it was essentially the same weapon as the first two games. But it is still important to capture and communicate the vision, because not everyone will have the same understanding of what was important in the previous versions.


“Role: Long-range instant-kill sniper rifle, but reloading makes it difficult to use”
The Role is even more clearly called out. Someone pointed out that Halo has two sniper rifles, which seems to violate the “one weapon per role” rule. Truthfully, they are right, but the missions required enemy snipers using an alien weapon. But, even in that case it is a good idea to give them unique gameplay; that’s why this paper design refers to the fact that the human sniper rifle reloads, instead of overheating.


I felt like this slide failed to capture what is really important about writing a paper design, so I wrote a much more detailed post on the topic.

[Continued]

GDC 2010: Design in Detail II


In order to develop a sense of balance, you need to understand how your brain works. You have an Orbito-Frontal Cortex; It’s called that because it is located behind your eyes, but it’s really your Gut.  When you learn something new, it goes through a process where it builds a model of the world and makes predictions about that model.  If it is right, it releases Dopamine, which cements the model a little bit.

If you are a designer, you need to familiarize yourself with how this process feels, because your ultimate goal should be to get the game inside your head.  You want the model in your gut and the game in the world to be the same.  You should be able to predict how the game will play in a given situation before actually picking up the controller.


Ok, back to Halo 2.  We had to patch, even though we didn’t want to.  Patches are risky and expensive.  Luckily we had network bugs, so we were going to have to patch anyway.  (I’m not sure we would have gotten to patch Halo 2 strictly for balance changes; I’m glad we didn’t find out.)

Choosing what to patch was harder.  You want to tweak everything, but you can’t because then testing gets out of hand.  Games that have the ability to easily change the gameplay often over-patch fopr precisely this reason.

Choosing what NOT to patch was hardest.  We didn’t change the Sniper Rifle because it was right below the line of what we could safely re-balance

Which brings me to my final theme:  Make the hard choices.  Balancing is hard because it requires you to do things you don’t want to.  And it is tricky because there are so many ways to confuse or talk yourself out doing it properly.  But the worst thing you can do is leave the decision up to chance because you can’t make a tough call.


Why are these choices hard?  Again, the answer is your brain.  You also have a Pre-Frontal Cortex.  It’s called that because… Who knows?  We call it your brain.

It is a poor tool, but it’s what we have.  You can’t reason out everything, in fact you can’t reason out very much at all.  There are so many ways that your logical mind has to trick you.  You must confine yourself to reason on the detail scale.  You just can’t hold enough factual information in your brain to make rational decisions about very complex situations.


Radiolab is a great show on New York Public Radio.  They have a podcast, you should subscribe!  In an episode called “Choice” they describe this experiment where psychologists give people a number to memorize, 2 digits to 10 digits.  Then they send them to another room to repeat their number.  On the way, they have someone interrupt them (All good psychological tests are about fooling the subjects) and ask them if they want an Apple or some Cake.

The people with short numbers pick Apples at a high rate; Apples are better for you, fewer calories, watch your waistline.  Those trying to remember longer numbers more often choose Cake.  They are so busy with numbers, they make the decision emotionally.

That’s right, 7-10 numbers are enough to completely fill your rational brain!  My high school calculator had more horsepower than that!

So when you have to think rationally, think about details or you will get hopelessly lost.  And fat.


Ok, here are the four themes of my talk:
– Balance is longevity
– Balance in passes
– Develop your sense of balance
– Make the hard choices

I am going to use these themes to explore the Detail.  Now let’s get to the Sniper Rifle!

[Continue]

GDC 2011 – Design in Detail: The Sequel

Warning: IdeasI’m going to be in San Francisco for GDC where I’ll be giving a talk called Design in Detail: Tuning the Muzzle Velocity of the Plasma Rifle Bolt on Legendary Difficulty Across the Halo Franchise.  It is a follow-up to last year’s talk,which EDGE called “one of the most fascinating sessions of GDC“.  The slides for that talk are publicaly available, but I thought I would lead up to this year’s talk by putting up a director’s cut of the original.  (It will also give everyone something to read while I am on vacation.)

GDC 2010: Design in Detail


Ok, so when I gave this talk at GDC I didn’t have time to finish, even though I was talking very fast.  I did better when I gave it at Blizzard, until my voice ran out and I could barely speak.  So I probably should have cut some ideas out and saved them for this year.

I do see the irony of failing to trim a talk that advices designers to drastically reduce the scope of their game as early as possible.  But to me, the value of GDC has always been that it makes me think about my own problems from a different perspective and inspires new ideas as I listen.  So I wanted to cram as much idea-fodder into the talk as possible, not produce a fluid, polished experience.


I did not make the call on the Pistol, I didn’t even know about that call, it was made directly to the cache file after everything was supposed to be locked down, in fact… but I’m not bitter about it.  I did decide to give the BR some spread, which has been the topic of much debate.  Luckily Reach has been even more controversial, so nobody remembers it anymore.  It’s interesting that every single Halo game has had major controversy over the MP starting weapon, I bet you could write an interesting talk about that.


In 2009 I was at the Art Institute of Chicago visiting my family.  (I grew up in and around Chicago.)  I saw one of the most famous paintings of all time and took a picture of it with my phone.  I actually did have the idea for this talk at exactly that moment, at least vaguely.  Any guesses as to the painting?


It’s “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grhand Zhot” by Zhorzh Soo-rah (I really wanted to pronounce his name right…heh)  This painting inspired my talk (and its very long title)  Still don’t recognize it?  Here it is from a little farther back.


(I showed you the part in the lower right by the monkey)
This painting isn’t famous for how it looks, or what it shows, but how it was made.


Seurat lived in the 1800’s.  He was very interested in how we perceive color.  Scientists were just discovering that what we see as one color is actually a mixture of different colored light.  To demonstrate this fact, he invented Pointillism, the artistic process of using tiny dots of basic colors to produce an image.  The same way your printer does.

There is a really great play called Sunday in the Park with George that I recommend you see if you are interested in learning more.  You can skip the final act, though.

So I started thinking…  What happens if we take Halo 3 and break it into it’s tiny details…


And analyze just one of them.  Take one tiny Decision, and explore it exhaustively.  Specifically, the time between shots for the sniper rifle.  (I had a lot of fun putting together the pictures for this slide deck.  I never tried to pointilize a screenshot before.)


So here is the actual title of my talk.

If you have been to GDC, you know that most of the talks are too broad to be really interesting.  It doesn’t get much more specific than this!  (Of course, I took this narrow topic and used it to explore lots of subjects and theories, but still…)


My opinions may not represent Bungie management.  In fact, I know they don’t.  (If I only knew the irony of that statement at the time!)  My opinions may not represent reality; this is the past as I remember it, but as we will find out, brains are not reliable.  All examples, even negative ones, are from good games.  I tried to pick on games that everyone knows are great, to avoid controversy.

This talk was really hard to write! Really hard. The more specific the topic, the more there is to say.  It ballooned to almost 300 slides, editing took forever (and it turns out I still didn’t edit it down enough!)


First, some context from Halo 2.


Halo 2 wasn’t just popular, it was popular for years and the Sniper Rifle remained balanced the whole time.  It never needed to be changed, limited, banned, it was still fun.

This can give us a practical definition of Balance:  Balance is Longevity.


(X= 3, I told them my talk would appeal to Engineers!)

Balancing an equation is a process.  But game balance is a state that either exists or it doesn’t.


The 4th rule of Jenga makes it clear (say it with me):

4. Your turn ends 10 seconds after you stack your block

It isn’t balanced unless it lasts.  (I bet you didn’t expect to see a Jenga reference!)


There have been other talks about Halo 2’s crunch; I’m not going to re-hash them.  My really quick personal post-mortem:  Don’t set yourself up to try and fix bugs in the Tutorial and balance the Weapons at the same time, It’s not going to work.  At least not without wrecking your personal life.

Production is always worried about a repeat.  (As you can tell during this talk, Production and I have a love-hate thing going.  It is mostly a joke, but Deisgn and Production have very different goals and the game is only going to work if they cooperate.)  They were always asking me when I am going to be done, so I invented the Balancer’s Paradox.

Balancer’s Paradox
– I can’t balance the Sniper Rifle damage until we set the Player’s health
– I can’t balance the player’s health until we know the engagement distance
– I can’t balance the engagement distance until we set the Sniper Rifle damage.

But after using this for awhile, I actually had to invent a solution…  Balance in passes.  The Sniper Rifle always has to be balanced! You could ship at any time!  So you keep it balanced all the time.  But there’s balanced, and then there’s balanced…


At the end of each pass, the game is balanced to a certain level.  Once a game is balanced to that level, do not backtrack.  Basically, what this means is that if you have balanced the strength of a game element, don’t make it weaker in order to limit the roles of that element.  Unless you have to, of course, in whic case it will impact the schedule so you need to let Production know.

Halo 3’s Balance Passes are listed here.  I think they would work for most games.  They match with stages of game development and I’ll go over them in more detail later.


Remember: Balance is Longevity.  And we could tell by playing it that it wasn’t going to last.  We all had the same feeling and we didn’t really doubt it.  But how did we know?  We had developed our sense of balance.


In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell lays out his 10,000 hour rule.  This makes me the world’s only expert in trying to balance the Halo Sniper Rifle.  Sort of a narrow expertise, I admit.

Niels Bohr offers this definition of an expert.  This also makes me the world’s foremost expert in trying to balance the Halo Sniper Rifle (and in Driving too Fast for Conditions.)

But what are time and mistakes? They are just experience.  So why is experience so much more important to being an expert than training, knowledge or talent?  Because of how your brain works.

[Continue]

Reciprocal Difficulty

Push on the wall.  This is not a metaphorical encouragement to seek innovative solutions.  Literally, place your hands against a wall and give it a shove.  Now, assuming that you are not working in a cubicle, you have just experienced what physicists call a normal force.  The wall pushed back against your hands with the exact same force you used on the it.

Purchase Gotham City Mutual's Superman Insurance!

Unless you have superhuman strength... Sorry Superman

One of the prerequisites of a flow experience (as defined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his seminal work Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience) is that the difficulty of the activity roughly match the ability level of the participant.  If it is too easy, they will not become completely absorbed and lose themselves in the activity.  If it is too hard, they will become frustrated and unable to make continual progress.  Balancing between these two extremes is the responsibility of the game designer, but often there is not a single setting that works for every player.

One solution is to allow each player to choose their own difficulty level before starting the game.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of players simply choose the default option in their haste to start playing.  Very few players will admit to needing to play on Easy difficulty, and even good players may be too intimidated to start out on Hard.

Every answer seems insulting

I'm tough like week-old bread

Another solution is to dynamically change the difficulty of the game based on an ongoing evaluation of the player’s skill.  But in practice, this automated system usually destroys the intended pacing of the game.  A well-designed game will have periods of less challenge that lead to a more difficult section, building and relieving tension through the gameplay.  A dynamic difficulty system that is too sensitive will add wild fluctuations on top of these natural curves, obscuring the overall effect and flattening out the tension.  One that is tuned to adjust more slowly will often react to the easier segments by ratcheting up the difficulty at the same time that the designer is increasing it for pacing reasons, resulting in an unintentionally large difficulty spike.  Not to mention that the player’s sense of accomplishment will be undercut if they realize the game is “letting them win” by compensating for their low skill levels or “cheating” by getting harder as they get better.

A better solution is to learn from the wall’s normal force and design mechanics that match the player’s skill with reciprocal difficulty.  (Calling this technique normal difficulty seemed confusing.)  In a game with reciprocal difficulty, the more aggressive the player is, the harder the game gets.  But when the player becomes overwhelmed and stops pushing, the game immediately gets easier.  This allows players of all skill levels to be challenged; a good player will play more aggressively until the game gets hard enough, and a less skillful player will proceed at a slower pace until the game gets easy enough.

Examples of reciprocal difficulty mechanics:

  • Recharging Health – If a player is too aggressive and tries to fight too many enemies, they will die quickly, but as soon as they withdraw from combat their health recharges and they can proceed more carefully.
  • Defensive AI – Enemies that are much more effective when fighting from a defensive position are naturally more difficult when the player is pushing hard against them, but allows a timid player to pick them off slowly without putting pressure on them by chasing them.
  • Optional Objectives – Puzzle games that can be solved simply by any player, but have optional collectibles or rewards for completing a puzzle in fewer moves provide more challenge for better players.
  • High Scores – Any mechanic that encourages players to play for a faster time or to score more points is better able to satisfy a variety of player skill levels.
  • Character Leveling – If a player is having trouble with a difficult section, they can make it easier by earning experience and making their character more powerful.
  • Press Your Luck – The player is allowed to periodicaly save their progress or reduce their difficulty level, like going back to town in Diablo or repairing their aircraft in Crimson Skies, but good players will take this option less frequently.

Definition: Habituation

Habituation

The gradual reduction in sensitivity to a repeated stimulus

I got my teeth professionally cleaned this morning.  (One cavity, apparently I need to floss more.)  Now I cannot stop running my tongue back and forth over the newly polished enamel.  When I woke up today, my teeth were the farthest thing from my mind, unnoticeably insignificant.  But now I am obsessively, subconsciously, exhaustively exploring every crevice and gap.  This is a side-effect of a neural process called habituation.  As a stimulus (like “I have teeth”) is repeated, the electrical and chemical impact of the experience physically decreases to the point where it drops out of conscious thought, and then subconscious awareness, and eventually it is not felt at all.

You can get used to anything

As a human, this is a very good thing.  Imagine trying to have a conversation while consciously aware of the sound of your own heart pumping, the movement of your lungs breathing in and out, every blink interrupting your train of thought, unable to stop noticing the pressure of the chair into your back or ignore the ambient noise of other conversations.  It would be impossible to function.  Habituation allows you tune out the vast majority of unimportant details and focus on what is new and interesting, like how smooth your molars have become.  It’s a miraculously efficient process that allows our embarrassingly under-powered brains to filter enormous amounts of sensory information.

As a player, habituation is what allows us to learn to play a game and subsequently master it.  Our ability to predict future events based on current conditions is inseparably dependent on our habituation to past events.  A chess master learns to ignore the thousands of poor, but still possible, potential moves and consider only the strategically significant ones.  A skilled Halo player moves through a multiplayer map without thinking about it, using all of his attention to scan for his opponents.  When Mario reaches the edge of a ledge, pressing the “A” button always makes him jump.  If chess pieces could move randomly, or a Halo map suddenly had a dead-end instead of a corridor, or the “A” button threw a fireball, the player would be unable to play the game effectively.

Watch out for the Queen!

Alternative ways to make chess more interesting

But as a game designer, habituation is your mortal enemy.  A tireless, inexhaustible foe, mindlessly obviating the best efforts of your craft, which you can only hope to delay, but never defeat.  Fun gameplay is an interactive experience, and habituation inevitably reduces every experience to meaningless static.  To some extent, the purpose of every design trick and tactic is to disrupt habituation, to resensetize players to the fun experience and help them continue to enjoy the game.  We are hacking our own mental hardware, making it less-efficient.

The truly nefarious nature of this enemy lies in how sneaks into the design process itself.  Designers can learn to ignore glaring problems that would annoy or aggravate a new player.  Or they can overlook logical loopholes that will wreck the game balance because they are familiar with how the game is “supposed” to be played.  Or they might wrongly believe an element has been properly tuned because they are no longer sensitive to the effect it has on gameplay.  Understanding and controlling habituation, both their player’s and their own, is a crucial design skill.

User Research Advocacy

Warning: IdeasThroughout my career I have been a strong proponent of User Research and have taken advantage of every opportunity to investigate the desires, expectations and reactions of actual gamers.  Designing from a single perspective leads to a one-dimensional game, which is why honest answers to authentic questions is so valuable.  I don’t see that writing a blog is any different, and since I have been getting a lot of traffic lately (Hi GAFers!) I thought I would do some reader research.

Writing a Paper Design II

Here is the paper design I wrote for for the Halo 3 Sniper Rifle:

Sniper Rifle

Role:  Long-range instant-kill sniper rifle, but reloading makes it hard to use

  • Two zoom levels (2x – 7x)
    • Reloading unzooms
  • Magazine of four quick shots, with slow reload
  • Does headshots, even through shields
    • kills any biped in one shot (even Players)
    • [anim] special death animation for headshots
    • kill shot accelerates units
  • Does massive damage
    • kills a Player in two body shots
    • kills small bipeds in one shot
  • Over-penetrates flesh, glass and soft materials
  • ~0.5s delay before un-zooming to reload after the last shot of a magazine, so you can see the result of your shot

By the third iteration, the Sniper Rifle’s role and gameplay was well-established, so writing the paper design was straightforward.  However, this example shows how a good paper design can be useful, even if an element is already well-understood.

Components of a Paper Design

The Role.  The most important part of a paper design is a concise, clear description of the role the element will fill in the game.  Often this means how the player will use an element, as it is in the Sniper Rifle example.  For an element like enemy character or environmental effect, it may describe how a designer will use it.  For some elements, the role will be very narrow, but common game items may be used in a broad variety of situations.  In any case, the role should be able to summarize the main purpose of an element in one or two sentences, or the element is probably too complex and should be broken into sub-elements.

The role is so crucial it is a good idea to determine the role of every element before moving on to the other parts of the paper design.  Maybe not for everything in the entire game, but at least for the other elements of the same type.  For instance, the role of the Sniper Rifle includes a reference to reloading because there is another weapon, the Beam Rifle, that has the same range and damage traits, but overheats instead of reloading.  Understanding how the roles of different elements overlap or interact makes it easier to organize the rest of the paper design.

Strength Mechanics.  Once a role is firmly established, the paper design should explain how the element will accomplish that purpose.  What features and abilities does an element need?  How do they fit together to accomplish the goal?  What is the player’s responsibility and what is handled automatically by the game?  The strength mechanics answer all these questions with positive statements of what the element is capable of or what it is allowed to do.

This is where writing a paper design takes discipline and careful thought, because it is easy to cheat and take shortcuts.  Anyone can create a set of mechanics that might produce the desired result; a designer must go further and predict where the mechanics will break down, eliminate uncertainty and refine them until they always achieve their intended purpose.  This requires a particular sort of practical insight, and a willingness to test ideals against unyielding reality.  A good designer does not flinch from critical analysis and pessimistic feedback because they know that ultimately the player doesn’t care how good something was “in theory” if it never materializes.

This can be a source of conflict between designers and the rest of the development team.  Either the designer sabotages their obviously awesome suggestions by holding them to arbitrarily high standards, or the designer fails to hold themselves to those high standards and the game mechanics don’t actually work in the end.  It is best to take these suggestions as if they were prefaced by “Assuming you can figure out some way this would actually work, wouldn’t it be cool if…”  Then you can agree that something would be cool, but take responsibility for figuring out the game mechanics yourself.

The Boys Club

Designers are jerks

Limiting Mechanics.  There is a medical platitude that says “Anything strong enough to help is strong enough to hurt.”  Similarly, any element strong enough to fill a role can probably be abused and used to break the game.  The limiting mechanics are usually negative statements about what an element is not capable of or not allowed to do.  It may also list situations in which an element is not even allowed to exist, as when certain weapons are not used in multiplayer, or certain enemy types do not appear in specific environments.

Limiting mechanics keep an element from being used outside of its role; they should not limit the utility of the role itself!  An element literally cannot be too good at doing what it was made for.  This may be the most common and destructive mistake a game designer can make in a paper design!  Don’t anticipate imbalances that haven’t actually happened yet and start hedging too early.  It leads to infuriating decisions like sniper rifles that are too inaccurate to use at long-range, or mages that don’t have enough Mana to use their most powerful spells, or vehicles that move at walking speed.  If a role seems like it needs to be capped, then the role should be redefined or reduced, not crippled by a limiting mechanic.  Or better yet, make all of the other elements stronger and better at their roles so there is no longer an imbalance.

Not Shopped

Giants are cool! Make the little guy bigger!

Critical Assets.  One purpose of the paper design is to assist Production in scheduling and understanding the scope of the project.  If there is an asset or features that is absolutely required for an element to function properly, but is unique to a given element, it is a good idea to call it out explicitly.  This will ensure that it is scheduled, and will also alert everyone to the fact that the element will not function until this particular asset is finished.

Flavor Details.  Sometimes little quirks or clever details have as much impact on the player’s experience as the game mechanics or even the role.  For instance, delaying the unzoom after firing the last shot in a clip seems like a trivial detail, but it is one of the reasons the Halo Sniper Rifle feels so much mores satisfying than those found in some other games.  This is more important for staples that are found in competing games, or for elements that are so unusual they need more explanation, but stretching to include one or two in every paper design leads to more interesting game elements.

Writing a Paper Design

We touched on how paper designs are required for the first balance pass, but what exactly is a paper design, and how are they written?  A solid paper design streamlines the design process, focuses the team’s effort, and results in a tightly integrated game.  A poor one, however, can send the design team into a tailspin as they repeatedly polish something that nobody, not even the rest of the development team, will ever read!

Timing.  The first (and possibly most important) key to a good paper design is to write it during Pre-production.  At the dawn of the video game industry, Pre-production consisted of a ten minute meeting where the head of the company and the one developer working on a project would get together and decide if the stack of player-controlled pixels were a tank, a spaceship or a wide receiver.

Football or Battles of the Revolutionary War?

The Cleaveland Browns vs the Miami Space Invaders

Now, with budgets exceeding tens of millions of dollars and schedules spanning several years, the planning stage needs to be a little longer.  A disciplined designer will have a firm idea of how the game will play and what the elements will be before asking a team of artists and programmers to start working.

However, the goal of Pre-production is not to come up with a perfect plan ready to be implemented.  Game design is an iterative process; progress is made by generating ideas and solutions, prototyping and testing those ideas, and then using the results to generate more ideas.  Since there is no way to test a paper design, any iteration will be based on the designer’s imagination, and be very speculative.  A disciplined designer will exit Pre-production as soon as they have a firm idea, so the artists and programmers will have enough time to iterate.

Poor George...

Time is money. Wasted time is wasted money.

Audience.  The first rule of writing is to know your audience.  In the case of this site, I am writing for experienced game designers interested in imporving their craft.  In the case of a paper design, the audience is the members of the development team that will be implementing a particular game element.

Every designer generates ideas in different ways, brainstorming, writing stories, creating exhaustive lists or graphs, finding inspiration in other games, and if it works, use it!  But most of these methods are not appropriate for communicating those ideas to the rest of the team.  The artist responsible for modeling a weapon does not need to know about the 30 bad ideas you rejected.  The AI programmer doesn’t have time to read your 30 page backstory about how the enemy monster evolved on a planet with no liquid water.  A tool that is useful for generating an idea is rarely useful for communicating it efficiently.

Instead, try to anticipate what an artist or programmer might need to know.  What important features will need to be coded?  How should the player react to a game element?  How is it similar to other elements?  How is it different?  In what environment or situation is it likely to be encountered?  How will it be used in the game?

Length.  A paper design should be between 200-300 words, or about half a page of text.  A complex game element like an enemy character might stretch to three-quarters of a page, but no longer.  Why such an exact limit?  Because that is the amount of text that can be read in an average email client without scrolling.  Remember, the paper design does not need to exhaustively include every detail; it is intended to communicate the essentials of the design to the people working on it.  In order to understand a paper design, they have to actually read it, and most people will not read more than one screen of text.  Even if they do read a longer design, they won’t retain it or be able to express it.

Too long; didn't read

Keeping a paper design extremely short will also prevent it from including information that should be recorded somewhere else.  For example, if the paper design for a weapon is too long because it explains which button is used for reloading, or how the player can upgrade weapons at the weapon shop, it addressing too many topics that ought to be written elsewhere.  A paper design should only include mechanics that are unique to that element, which allows it to be more concise.

Not only that, if your design cannot be expressed succinctly, it will be too complicated for players to understand, as well.  If there are too many unique mechanics for an element, players will be overwhelmed by the complexity.  A well-written paper design should read like a description in a game manual.  A good way to get started is to ask “If I wanted to explain this element to someone as they were playing the game, what would I say?”  In short, a paper design should be about as long as this explanation of how long a paper design should be.

Language.  A paper design should avoid emotional or vivid language in favor of specificity and clarity.  It is easy to conceal fuzzy or flawed ideas beneath beguiling prose.  If a paper design is written to be read analytically, it will be held to a higher standard. 

Using simple language without rich connotations also helps avoid two common communication problems.  First, it leaves programmers less room for interpretation.  A paper design that describes a weapon as “powerful” could be implemented in many ways, but one that says “does enough damage to kill a player in one shot” only allows for one.  Simple language also allows artists more room for interpretation.  A paper design that calls for “a spider with human hands” will probably end up with a pretty silly looking model, but one that describes “a multi-legged creature capable of carrying an infantry weapon” will give the artist more freedom to make something aesthetically interesting.

Now that have a general idea of how to write one, next time we’ll go over what specific information a paper design should contain.