I have spent most of this year designing some “easy play” sets of rules. These include:
- Dinosaurs: A game for all ages
- Scurvy Dogs
- Hellfire Heroes: Section Level Skirmishes
- Shattered Hulls: Ancient Galley Warfare
- Channel Clash: Small WW2 Ship Action
- Sand, Sweat and Camels: Gaming WW1 Palestine
- Join or Die: a French-Indian Wars skirmish game.
I have also been writing a book about recreating the battles on the Kokoda Track in miniature that is still being researched.
The first three are almost finished and ready for publication, with the others at various stages.
The family is surprised by how long it’s taking, but I’m not. What surprises me is that many wargamers feel the same way.
Crafting a set of rules for a game is a constant balancing act between two competing ideals: what makes a game fun and what makes a simulation accurate. This tension is a central and unavoidable challenge for any game designer. A designer must always be ready to compromise, deciding which of these principles to favour in order to create the best possible experience for the players.
On one hand, rules that prioritize a good game are designed for engagement and playability. They are often simple, clear, and easy to remember, which allows players to focus on strategy and decision-making rather than on memorizing complex procedures. The goal is to create a well-paced, fair, and fun experience. This might mean abstracting away real-world complexities—for example, replacing the tedious tracking of individual bullets with a simple “supply” token—to keep the action flowing and maintain player interest. In essence, the rules serve the player’s enjoyment.
On the other hand, rules that prioritize simulation accuracy aim to mirror a real-world system as closely as possible. This approach often leads to detailed, nuanced rules that incorporate complex factors like physics, historical logistics, or specific weather patterns. The goal is for the game to produce outcomes that are historically plausible or scientifically sound. A designer might include a rule that gives different bonuses for various types of terrain, even if it adds complexity, because it more accurately reflects the historical or tactical realities of the situation being simulated. In this case, the rules serve the authenticity of the experience. Most professional wargaming simulations favour this approach.
The core of game design lies in finding the sweet spot between these two philosophies. A designer must decide when a realistic rule becomes too tedious to be enjoyable and when an overly simplified rule breaks the illusion of the simulation. For instance, a war game might use a simplified combat resolution chart rather than a complex mathematical formula to ensure the game remains playable, even though the formula might be more accurate.
“Game theory” and “game design theory” are two distinct but related fields. Game theory is a mathematical and economic discipline that studies strategic decision-making in situations of conflict and cooperation. It’s about what a perfectly rational agent would do to maximize their own outcome. Game design theory, on the other hand, is a more practical, interdisciplinary field focused on creating engaging and enjoyable interactive experiences for human players.
While you don’t need to understand game theory to design a great game, understanding some key concepts from both “game theory” and “game design theory” can significantly improve your work.
The designer needs to have an understanding of “game theory” because it helps a designer analyze how a set of rules will guide player choices and determine the resulting outcomes. The primary goal is to create a system where the “best” strategies, known as a Nash equilibrium (more on this later), are balanced and engaging, rather than exploitable or broken
Firstly you need to consider the MDA Framework: Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics. The MDA framework is a cornerstone of modern game design, providing a structured way to analyze and build player experiences. It works in three layers. Mechanics are the fundamental rules and systems of your game—the building blocks. These could be the combat rules in an RPG, the movement system in a platformer, or how resources are collected in a strategy game. Dynamics are the direct result of a player’s interaction with the mechanics; they are the emergent behaviors and moment-to-moment gameplay. For example, a “chase sequence” is a dynamic that arises from the player’s movement mechanics and the enemy AI mechanics. Finally, the Aesthetics are the emotional and psychological experiences a player feels while playing. This is the “fun” part of the game. The MDA framework suggests you should start with your desired aesthetic (e.g., a sense of discovery or fellowship), then design the mechanics that will naturally create the dynamics leading to that feeling.
Secondly an understanding of “Flow Theory” developed by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi certainly helps. Flow Theory describes the state of complete absorption in an activity. In game design, achieving “flow” is a key goal because it represents the perfect balance between challenge and a player’s skill level. If a game is too easy, the player gets bored; if it’s too difficult, they become frustrated. A well-designed game keeps the player in a state of flow by providing clear goals (have both primary and secondary objectives), immediate feedback on their actions (oops I shouldn’t have moved my squad in front of that machinegun), and tasks that are just challenging enough to keep them engaged without overwhelming them (objectives shouldn’t be too easy or too difficult to achieve). Think about how a good tutorial gradually introduces new mechanics, or how a level’s difficulty slowly ramps up, keeping you in that sweet spot of focused concentration.
Thirdly you should consider Player Motivation Theories because understanding why people play games is crucial for designing a compelling experience. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) identifies three core psychological needs that motivate human behavior: Autonomy, the desire to make meaningful choices and have control; Competence, the need to feel capable and effective; and Relatedness, the desire to feel connected to others. You can satisfy these needs in your game through things like character customization (autonomy), a rewarding progression system (competence), and strong multiplayer or social features (relatedness).
Another useful model is Bartle’s Player Types, which categorizes players by what they enjoy most. These need to be built in to the game system to appeal to a broader range of people.
- Firstly Killers This is the most direct mechanic. Killers enjoy duels, arena battles, and open-world PvP where they can directly confront and defeat other players;
- Secondly, Achievers love to achieve and win so objectives are important;
- Thirdly Explorers who desire to understand the game’s inner working. For them designers notes, sources etc., are important.
- Finally, Socializers who enjoy interacting with others. Team and cooperation games and scenarios should be included to appeal to these.
Knowing these types can help you design features that appeal to your target audience.
Finally while not a direct design tool, understanding core concepts from mathematical game theory can be a huge asset, especially for competitive or strategy games. The Nash Equilibrium is a state where no player can improve their outcome by changing their strategy, assuming all other players keep theirs the same. In games, this can lead to a stale “meta” where a single, dominant strategy emerges. Good designers work to avoid this by introducing new elements or balancing existing ones to keep players making interesting choices. The related concept of a Dominant Strategy—a strategy that is always better than any other, no matter what—is almost always detrimental to a game. Your role as a designer is to ensure there are always trade-offs to every choice, forcing players to adapt and think strategically instead of just following a single path.
As you can see a game designer can use game theory to anticipate how players will exploit rules for maximum advantage. It assumes players are rational and will act to maximize their own “payoffs,” whether those are points, victory, or a stronger position. For example, if a rule gives a huge bonus for a specific action, game theory predicts that all players will gravitate toward that action, potentially unbalancing the game.
By thinking about the payoffs for different actions, a designer can adjust the rules to create a more balanced and interesting game. A balanced game, in the context of game theory, is one where a player’s optimal strategy is not overwhelmingly dominant and where multiple viable strategies exist. This leads to more dynamic and unpredictable gameplay. A designer can also use game theory to intentionally encourage or discourage cooperation or competition among players. For example, in cooperation style games a “Prisoner’s Dilemma-style” situation can be created to force players to choose between their own self-interest and the collective good, leading to more powerful and dramatic moments.
Ultimately, the best game designs use simulation to build a believable world and then use the principles of good game design to make that world interactive, engaging, and, above all, fun for the player. This is especially so with the small scale, “rules light”, game systems I am working with.
Hope this gives you some insight into what is going on in the “game design” mind (scary stuff) of Guru!
Thanks again to Google Gemini for the cartoons.
