Conflicting Objectives,

Optimisation Problems,

& TriangularityA little design trick that I find really useful.

- Thomas Slade

I Never See Designers

Talk About This:

“At the heart of every good game is an elegant core mechanic.”

- Then they walk away without telling you HOW to make an elegant

core mechanic.

- Tell you all this stuff you can’t apply because you still don’t know

how to get a core mechanic.

<- Me in 1st year.

So How Do We Get ‘Elegant

Core Mechanics’?

When designing a brand new game, I struggle to envision a system:

- That is fun.

- That is challenging.

- That produced depth from simplicity.

This is basically the central question of game studies. What makes a

game fun?

To many designers, it comes naturally. To me, it doesn’t.

Conflicting Objectives

Something I’ve found to be pretty useful.

Game concept doesn’t seem fun? Try adding conflicting objectives.

Two (or more) rules that oppose each other:

- Player must do X, but also do Y.

- X and Y make each other difficult.

- Player must juggle the two.

Pac-Man

A: Collect dots.

B: Avoid ghosts.

But collecting dots means moving

around, RISKS running into ghosts.

And suddenly, we have super-deep

gameplay.

Imagine subtracting A.

Imagine subtracting B.

Amnesia

A: Stay in the light

for sanity.

B: Stay in the dark

to hide..

This creates some really intense

gameplay.

Age of Empires

A: Build soldiers.

B: Build economy.

Neglecting an army gives you an

economy boost, but what if you get

rushed?

It’s a RISK.

Why Is This Fun? Why Is

This Useful?

Useful because just two simple mechanics can create so much depth.

Fun … because linear problems are easy to solve. But optimisation

problems are not. (maybe?)

Optimisation Problems?

I don’t mean the math thing, whatever that is.

I mean this:

Maybe You Prefer ‘Triangularity’

Turns out Jesse Schell knows what I’m talking about.

“One of the most exciting and interesting choices for a

player to make is whether to play it safe … or take a big risk

…

I find that 8/10 times someone comes to me asking for help

with a game prototype that ‘just isn’t fun’ the game is

missing this …”

Schell talks more about a system with one high-risk and one low-risk

option, with high and low rewards.

Schell calls it Triangularity.

And He Gives an e.g. of His Own

Mario Kart:

Kart or Bike? Karts faster, but bikes faster

wheelie. Wheelie’s are risky because you

can’t turn.

Grab Powerup? Risk crashing.

Rev Early? Too early and you’ll stall.

Heavy or Light? Light handles better, but

easier to ram.

These things are everywhere.

ApplicationGDS Gamejam:

A: You need to wait for the ground to change colour to move

forwards.

B: Waiting too long causes the ground to collapse.

Professional Project:

A: You need to keep moving up to escape the

rising water.

B: Occasionally you might see useful

powerups, and have to move down to get

them.

Lack ThereofGodus

Basically lacks a decent core gameplay, in my opinion.

No balancing issues, no complexity, just a simple lack of engaging

gameplay.

Core gameplay of Godus:

- Move terrain to make land for houses.

- Move terrain to uncover resources to advance your people.

- A few peripherals, but nothing really feels fun.

Possible FixesWe already have some core goals. We just need conflicting goals.

A: The player moves terrain to make room for houses.

B: Moving terrain can disturb graves, which releases ghosts. Ghosts

can lower faith (a resource) etc.

A: The player can destroy trees to make room.

B: Destroying trees reduces land fertility.

A: The player must unearth treasure.

B: This can attract raiders.

These are all pretty easy to think of.

Hope you find this useful!

Exercises:

1: Paper prototype some core game mechanics. Try using

triangularity.

Or…

2. Paper-prototype Godus, and try and implement fixes.

- Godus has a layered terrain system. Use card suits, or dice?

- Flatten land to get houses and villagers.

- Uncover resources to advance (or just get points maybe).

Or…

3. Discuss where else you see this in games.