Designing a game isn’t that hard. Designing a game that functions takes a little bit of work. It’s a little surprising to find out that most designers stop there. A lot of designers fall into the trap of designing a game with interconnected systems without considering whether or not people will enjoy playing it. I’m going to go over one of my design philosophies that helps players engage with the game.

What are you doing?

At your game’s heart is a feeling you want to invoke. When you first came up with the idea for your game, you probably knew what that feeling would be. Euros want to make the players feel productive, social deduction games want players to feel paranoid, solos/co-op games wants players to feel pressure, and so on. So think about what your game wants players to feel, beyond just “happy” or “victorious.” Even players who are losing should feel it.

So next, think about what sort of actions in the game create that feeling. If you want your game to generate suspense, then dice rolling and randomization does that. Think also about what players would (ideally) do to create this feeling: lying in a game meant to build distrust, or targeting weak players in a game meant to invoke oppression. Be aware of what things are needed to create the atmosphere and tone that your game needs.

What are they doing?

So here’s where we get to the center of the strategy: What are your players doing, and how can you make them do what you want? As I talked about earlier, you have to make the best decision the most fun decision. In order to make players feel the way you want the game to make them feel, they have to make decisions that end up doing the actions you thought up in the last section.

Think about what you want players to do, then make sure that it gets them closer to winning the game. If you want players to lie, then think about what they would be rewarded with if they did. If you want players to steal from each other, think about whether or not that choice benefits them in the long run, if at all. Don’t just assume that players will interact with every system in place out of curiosity or obligation: give them a reason to.

Why are they doing it?

Don’t be fooled, it’s not as simple as “give the player something when they do what you want them to.” You have to make sure that what you give them doesn’t just loop back into the same system. If the only benefit to lying is to benefit off of a player’s trust, but the only reason a player would be distrustful is because lying is an option, then the system has no real purpose. Every reward you give a player should eventually lead to winning the game. If the benefit is drawing cards or making money it doesn’t matter unless it leads to victory. For example: building a factory rewards you with permanent resource generation, which rewards you with more buildings, which only wins you the game if the point of the game is to make buildings.

This may lead to you changing the reward, but it might also be worth considering changing the victory condition. In a hidden role game, if the way to win the game is to determine which player is the traitor, then every decision has to someway lead to information about their identity. If all that can be done is look at that player’s hand or lock them out of rooms, then none of it matters if one of that is tied to their identity. However, if the traitor has their own win condition, and the others must stop them, then its possible to make minor decisions more impactful.

Decisions, Decisions

Remember to think about what you are trying to do with your game even when it comes to the smallest decision. Think about whether or not your players will actually do something, not just about what would happen if they did. Thanks for reading, and feel free to leave a comment. I’d be happy to hear what you have to say about this technique.