[Crazy Idea][Game Design] Sports 20XX

So... I'm not sure where the idea came from (if it was you, please tell me) but I decided the other day to invent a game system for simulating Sports as a tactical board game... but not like individual sports so much as ALL sports such that you could conceivably mix and match rules and mechanics and improve on them... this was meant to play on the ironic hipster geeky feigned ignorance of "sportsballs" without getting in the way of actual geeky sports fans who like to play board games.

I pinged +David Dougall and +Marc Reside and shared a Google Doc with the title "Sports 20XX" amd proceeded to brainstorm mechanics and start modeling how I see sports as a board game.

Eight pages of rambling discussion, charts, tables, diagrams and research later I think I could probably sit down and play "Sports 20XX: Ice Hockey" well enough to start figuring out the actual practical game-play... and I made this nifty Ice Rink Map along the way...

I am now, however, at the part of the process where I remember that I am not really a board game designer yet (I don't count Impulse Poker and never finished designing any of the other games I've mind-sploded about in the past) so I have a few questions for people who make and/or play games.

Does this already exist and I'm wasting my time?
Would a turn-based strategy board game based on various sports be a thing you would want to try?
How long would you want a game of Turn-Based Ice Hockey to take?
How do I get from "mind-splosion" to "designed game"?
Do you want to help me in any concrete way for no-money?

True Geeks

Someone brought up the question of "What is a true geek?" and I was having trouble, not just with answering, but with the validity of the question.

I have some cognitive dissonance on the subject. I think that geekdom should have zero barrier to entry but I also have an internal classification system that I continue to use to determine if people qualify as "geek".

So... how do I conflate the belief that there is no such thing as a “fake geek” and that there is such a thing as “non-geek”? I don't know... but I think I can explain why I am trying to.

The popular opinion seems to be that we shouldn't have to “prove” we are a geek but, by saying this, we are implying that everyone* should be considered a geek, that we shouldn't treat anyone as an outsider. The problem with this line of thought is that there are outsiders and we want to protect ourselves from them. Outsiders** mock us for our passions, consider our hobbies less valuable than their hobbies and make uncomfortable jokes at our expense. We want to protect ourselves from these abuses but, by trying to protect ourselves, we are too often doing the same thing to our own "kind".

What I think many are implying when they accuse people of being “Fake Geeks”, “Poseurs” or “Hipster Geeks” is not that they are aspiring to geekdom but that they are parodying (or adopting the trappings of) geekdom without actually being “geeks”. This means that they aren’t “safe” to share our love of trains or LARP with because, while they might like chiptunes and mario t-shirts, they don't have that spark that would let them identify with our passion. They might like the Spiderman movies but then turn around and make fun of us for reading comics. It’s a resistance to cultural appropriation not a resistance to growth.

Rather than just deciding it’s wrong to judge geekiness maybe we should attack the root of the problem. Namely that we assess geekiness using criteria that are biased towards false stereotypes. Or, more specifically, that we use these poor criteria as grounds to exclude people preemptively. We go on the offensive, by questioning their motives or quizzing their “geek chops”, causing them to feel unwelcome for reasons beyond their control. If we are on the receiving end of this judgement what we really care about is our exclusion. The question isn't really whether we need to prove we are a geek or not so much as whether we are being treated as an insider or an outsider from the outset. That said, I don’t think it’s wrong to want to feel safe but we need to find a way to go about it that doesn't generate so many false positives.

So, having convinced myself I’m allowed to ask, I’m back to the question, "What is a true geek?" Stripped down to it’s core I think it is someone passionate not about a specific thing but in a specific way. A geek is someone who has that spark. So, maybe, the way to “test” for geekiness is to share our geekiness and see if it scares a person off. If it doesn't then they are a true geek.


Footnotes:
* When I say “everyone” I don’t just mean “everyone who self-identifies as a geek” because we can’t really know, at the outset of an interaction, if a person wants to be identified as a geek. To say anyone could choose to be a geek we must treat everyone as a geek.
** Please note that geeks are humans and therefore quite capable of being selfish, stupid, arrogant, and/or judgemental and/or seeking validation, attention and/or recognition etc. This common wisdom that geeks are somehow exempt from being dicks seems likely to be used more often as an excuse than as positive reinforcement. Being a geek may or may not be a choice but not being a “dick” certainly is. Even if we self-identify as geek we can still be the unsafe outsiders that are making other geeks feel unwelcome.

[Rambling] [Play Report] Daddy's Made Up Castle Crashers Inspired Role-Playing Game for Kids

So... my Boy is nuts for Castle Crashers. He was into Scott Pilgrim vs The World: The Video Game so I let him try the demo for it and, since he liked it, I bought the full version. I don't know how YOU spend family time but in our household... four player brawler games are high on the list.

Castle Crashers is a fantasy arcade brawler (Available on PS3 PSN Store, XBOX LIVE arcade and Steam [with Big Picture support])... the basic premise is: You are knights who save the princesses by murdering wave after wave of minions, sub-bosses, bosses and a final big-boss while collecting treasure and new equipment along the way... so... basically Old School Dungeons & Dragons. Apologies to pacifists and feminists... my plan is to ensure that "over the top violence" and "institutional chauvinism" are categorized as "bad things that should only happen in games", OK?

Little side note here... children's television these days seems expressly suited to teaching children the basics of questing... seriously, Dora, Team Umizoomi, Bo On The Go, etc. all seem to be conspiring to teach the importance of maps, keys, adventure hooks, looting, prerequisite quests and objects, magic sentient doors and spot checks... I'm convinced that a generation of Role-Players have now grown up to be childrens television creators... but I digress.

Like I said, the kids love them some killing faceless minions so we play a lot of co-op castle crashers and every time a character levels up I get to look at something like this:

I don't own this.

and my tabletop brain says, "Say, that there is basically a character sheet..." As such, the other day I fiddled around in inkscape and came up with this:

Found the clip-art somewhere online so I don't own this either.

and printed off a copy that I looked at while feeling proud of myself. Around that time I also filled up a Google Drive Document with some basic key points, fleshing out the bare-bones of my Castle Crashers Inspired Role-Playing Game for Kids.

Daddy's Made Up Castle Crashers Inspired Role-Playing Game for Kids

Yesterday evening I had the kids to myself while my wife did something or other and after exhausting other avenues of interest and finding them in the mood for board gaming (you can see my Google+ Post on the Subject for more information) I decided it was time to try my little game out... do an Dogfood Playtest or whatever.

Setup
After printing off a second copy of the prototype character sheet. I gave it to the kids along with the bag-o-crayons and instructed them to color in their Knight (in the game the colour of the knight is indicative of the scope of it's powers so this was implied) and went to find my bag-o-six-sided-dice, glass counters and bag-o-miniatures-and-maps (encounter maps from the D&D Miniatures Starter Set, figures from various sources)... and a pen and scrap paper. I also cleared off the small table we were going to use.

Character Generation
First I had the kids pick names. The boy (age 3.5) decided to call himself "Thomas" and the girl (age 5.25) chose to call herself "Unicorn"... there was some discussion and negotiation at this point because, while the girl was committed to her choice it became clear that using the name "Unicorn" was confusing. We settled on "Ser Thomas, The Poison Knight" and "Princess April, The Unicorn Knight" by the end of character generation and back-story composition.

I gave each player four six-sided-dice and told them to assign them to each skill category (strength, toughness, quickness and power/magic). Ser Thomas chose one per stat while Princess April chose two strength and two magic.

On having assigned dice to the "Power/Magic" stat the kids got to pick what their skills were. Ser Thomas chose "Poison"... we never worked out what that meant in practical terms because it never came up... while Princess April, having assigned two dice got to choose two powers. Negotiations on her powers took some time and at one point I said "those are too powerful, would you like them to be unreliable or infrequent" and she chose unreliable. The killing and zombification were all her though.

1 Die Power - Make Them Fall Down.
On a Roll of 4 or Better, Target of Choice is Dead.

2 Die Power - Make Everyone Fall Down.
Roll 2 Dice. Kill That Number of Targets.
If either Dice rolls One, Roll A Die, That Number of Targets Come Back As Zombies, Stunned for One Round.

I also have them pick out miniatures from my collection. Princess April chose Green Lantern and Ser Thomas chose a Female Human Warrior.

The Quest for the Beefy Sandwiches!
In Castle Crashers there is a consumable item that looks like a sandwich... when it's used it temporarily boosts your strength and defence while preventing you from using your powers or reviving allies... it also makes your character scream and bulk up like a roid-addled he-man and so my the boy is nuts for the things. We call them beefy sandwiches because they make your character "beefy"... get it?

So, when I asked the two knights what they would like to do Ser Thomas suggested that they go get some Beefy Sandwiches and Princess April agreed. They started in their home castle and the Queen tasked them with their Quest for the Beefy Sandwiches. I told them that they didn't know how where to find the Beefy Sandwich Shop. I asked them what they do when they don't know which way to go and my daughter suggested that we might use a map (thanks Dora). She decided that she would draw a map... I told her that she couldn't make a map because she didn't know which way to go... she drew a picture of a map and presented it to me as evidence that she had a map... I suggested they visit the Castle Map Shop.

The shopkeeper told them that he did have a map they could use, but it would cost them 10 coins to buy. Princess April tried to hand the shopkeeper some imaginary coins... I told her that she didn't have any coins... she drew ten circles on a scrap of paper and presented it as evidence that she had ten coins... I told her that wasn't how it worked... I asked if they could think of any way they might earn some coins. Princess April suggested that they could find jobs to earn money (thanks Team Umizoomi).

I asked what types of work they thought they might be able to do and Princess April suggested that they might build some things, like wagons, and sell them. Ser Thomas suggested they find and kill bad guys and take their money. Princess April agreed this was a good plan and that if they didn't get enough money that way they could always invest what they earned in supplies that could be used to make wagons that they could sell.

The shopkeeper overheard their discussion and mentioned that, in fact, a band of thieves had recently made off with a number of his maps. These thieves were holed up in the Thieves Forest and that if the knights would retrieve them for him, he would be happy to give them the map they needed as a reward. The knights agreed.

They made their way to the Thieves Forest and I told them that a path lead into the dark of the forest. I asked them what they would like to do. Princess April suggested that they light a lantern. I advised her that they did not have a lantern and asked if she might have an idea where she might get one. She suggested that her mother, the Queen, might have one. So they headed back to the Castle and borrowed a lantern (which I drew on Princess April's character sheet) and then returned to head down the darkened forest path.

I had intended for them to be waylaid by thieves but since then now had a lantern I told them that they say some movements off to the side of the path. They rushed over and surprised a thief hiding in the bushes. I asked what they wanted to do. Turns out...

First Combat Encounter In The Thieves Forest
I had a "forest map" that I folded down to one narrow strip and places their miniatures and another random miniature (doesn't matter but I think it was a wizard... he had a brown cloak so it was thief-like at least).

Princess April used her "Make Them Fall Down" power and successfully dispatched the thief (1/0/1/0 - 5HP). Ser Thomas decided he should loot the corpse.

The party was ambushed by three more thieves who were hiding in the shadows. Ser Thomas did find a single coin in his looting though. He also asked if he could search the head (having searched "the body") and check for food... I told him he could stop searching since he'd found everything there was to find.

I decided that after using a Power it would take a few rounds for the Power Dice to recharge so the next couple rounds were normal combat. Ser Thomas (1/1/1/1 - 5HP) having a dice in his toughness would roll opposed for defence (Enemy Roll - Player Roll)... so Princess April (2/0/0/2 -5HP) hit harder but also took some damage... also, you had to roll your speed die to move and since Princess April had none she only got to ever take one step.

Near the end Princess April used her "Make Everyone Fall Down" power with 1 HP left and ended up with more Zombies than there had been enemy thieves left, but the extra round of stun (which I decided would make sense during their "transition") gave them plenty of time to finish them off completely.

Ser Thomas insisted that they search the bodies and ended up finding 3 more coins (so I drew 4 little circles on his character sheet).

At this point mom came home.

Leveling Up!
I suggested they go back to the castle and rest up so, session over I reviewed all the things they had done and told them that they had leveled up, earning two additional dice to add to their character sheets. Ser Thomas put both of his into Strength while Princess April put one into Toughness and the other into Speed.

All told, I think everyone had fun. I hope I can convince them to play again soon. I was going to attach an image of their character sheets here but it would seem my daughter took her's to school to show her friends... so I'll have to post them later... maybe stage a nice shot with miniatures and dice and stuff.

[Rambling] Facilitating Children's Games

As a thought experiment with practical applications I have recently been thinking about the ways one organizes an activity for pre-literate humans. I have two who live with me and while they are both moving past that stage at an eternally surprising rate it will be awhile before they can read and understand even the most basic instruction manual. The particular aspect I've been wondering about today is how one might explain the rules of a board game (or role-playing game) to a child, or, more practically speaking, write down these rules in a way that an adult facilitating the game can easily absorb and then convey to the child.

I think there are a few questions that one needs to cover:

What's the point? How do we play? How do we know when the game is over and who wins?

Young kids are generally pretty impressionable. If you tell them "let's do this fun thing" and they don't have any real context for why they shouldn't do it... they will default to doing it. Adults aren't really so easily swayed... so the first thing you need to provide to the literate facilitator is reason to bother facilitating your game.

I've found that, when teaching my kids a new game, it is best to tell them what to do "now" but for adults it is important to provide a broader view. I've read the rules for a number of children's board games and come away with no clear understanding of how they work out in a practical sense. After muddling through the game using the rules as laid out and a few "wait, what do we do now?" moments, it makes sense... but it would be nice if my kids didn't have to see Daddy confused and appearing to make up new rules as things go along.

Take for example "Disney's Sleeping Beauty Pretty Pretty Princess".

If I were to write the rules for a parent I could start with: "This game challenges children's number recognition and counting skills while rewarding them with a chance to wear plastic jewelry. Players race to be the first to collect all of their colour of jewelry. The first player to have a complete set of jewelry while holding the crown and not holding the Maleficent token wins. Players take turns spinning the spinner to determine how many spaces to move their token around the board and performing the action indicated by the space they land on." followed by a chart of what action each space indicates. That tells me everything I need to know about how to play the game but it doesn't tell me how to teach a kid to play the game.

I could then write the rules from the perspective of the facilitator: "Have each player select a token and place it on their respective start square", "Explain that players will take turns moving their piece and collecting jewelry and that the first player to collect all their jewelry will win if they have the crown and do not have Maleficent.", "Choose a player to go first and an order of play", "On each turn ensure the current player spins the spinner, moves their token that number of spaces in a clockwise fashion and takes the appropriate action."

Admittedly, telling people what to do in this way is probably going to end up causing some new problems and a simple list of rules that can be referred to would still be valuable to resolve "disputes"... but just getting an adult to "read the rules out loud" isn't much use to a 3-5 year old... any more than it is when I try to do it with adults learning a new game.

It Doesn't Need to be Simple if it is Straightforward

Which brings me to the puzzle my brain hasn't solved completely yet.

If I, as an adult, can understand a game and prompt the players to take actions and make decisions... do they even need to understand their actions? Eventually they should understand why they are doing these things but it is far easier to come to understand by doing or reacting than it is to learn a list of rules.

For example in a Dungeons & Dragons style role-playing game there are an awful lot of things for a player to think about and for a child who can barely recognize all the letters on the page and sound out the easy words the complexities of building a character the traditional way isn't even a vague possibility... but if the game is designed from the beginning to be facilitated, a character can be built by the facilitator by asking the player what kind of character they want to pretend to be and then asking question like "would you like your character to be stronger than normal people?" or by asking the player to rank their features by priority. Perhaps, in place of xp, you give them poker chips that they can use to buy physical dice of a certain colour to represent their skill advancement. If you have combat, perhaps you take turns in the order players are sitting around the table to avoid the confusion of initiative. When a player wants to act, the facilitator should know what they have to roll. Ideally a character sheet would have only pictures and big clear numbers to make it easier for both players and facilitator to see and understand. Use monopoly money to track wealth and track possessions and equipment with doodles on index cards.

Anyway... just some stuff I've been thinking about.