Friday, January 10, 2014

Board Games done in the course Foundations of Game Design Autumn 2013

The students of the masters’ course at the Insitute of Digital Games presented their first games yesterday, boardgames that they have produced, play-tested and refined during the autumn of 2013. As their teacher I am extremely gratified. They have all taken the iterative process to heart, and been open to change their designs of their game mechanics after series of play testing. The result is four board games that have balanced and fun game mechanics. They have worked hard, and done so well. Here are a few images from the presentation session.

The Watchers team - Jean-Luc, Noel, and Luke - created a role playing game streamlined for ease of use, story-telling, and player freedom.

The Castille Team made a two-player game with assymetrical game play, where the players use different rules to win.

Balancing a game with assymetrical game play is hard. The castille team used Joris' Dorsmans machinations framework to calculate game balances in junction to their play testing proccess. This way, they could simulate 500 play-throughs in minutes. The machinations diagram they made took approximately 5 hours to produce, and they found that the time investment was well worth it. They estimate that it would take them 3 hours to make the diagram now that they are familiar with the system.

Setting up for the demonstration of the Massacre board game

In the demonstration the Massacre team divided the audience into two groups that each got three (huge) cards to use to control our game characters. This presentation technique was fantastic for immediately understanding the game play of their game. Through series of play testings the group has been able to transport the fast-paced FPS game play to a board game.

Cards of hugeness for demonstration.

Our avatar, Ida.

The Massacre Team (there was a power-cut, so we went outside in the light for the group photo)

The Embargo team made a boardgame where up to six pirates compete to capture islands. The game play mechanics encourages diplomacy, and someones advantage can quickly turn to a disadvantage, allowing for dramatic play.

We are considering Embargo

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Mini Game Jam at FDG13

L1130177.jpgThis year at the FDG Conference we had a mini game jam, where we made board game prototypes with the theme "The Academic Game".


I was having breakfast with my friend Magy, who is heading up a game research group at Northeastern, at GDC this spring. Magy was describing an interesting situation at her department. It was about getting more office space.

- So did you deploy a suit? I asked.
- Yeah, actually I did!

As we continued catching up, we realised we were both thinking in terms of game mechanics regarding the everyday life at our respective universities. So we started to model The Academic Game. We also thought it could be a fun theme to have for the hands-on part of the Global Game Jam Workshop I was helping to organise for the Foundations for Digital Games Conference (FDG).

It turned out we only had a half-day for the GGJ Workshop, but the chairs of the FDG Conference (Georgios, Mark and Julian) thought our proposal had merit and cleared us for a few hours in the schedule. We got a half-day, but the only available room had space for max 15 people.

Magy came to visit me on Malta, just before FDG. We spent some time preparing the mini-jam. Since there was so little time for the actual jam- only a few hours - we thought we could give the groups a flying start by giving some tokens of inspiration to use.

preparing prototytiping kits

In the beginning of the FDG conference we sent out an invite:

Mini-Game Jam!
Story of our lives: how do we use resources, like our time and funds to create the best possible research? While we at the same time deal with office politics - perhaps we are waging an office space war!
Lets get together and model The Academic Game in a mini game jam/game design workshop at FDG!

We have put together a starting kit of props (such as “Dean”, “Study-Unit”, “Post-Doc”, “office space”, “staff in University Council”, “Journal Article”, “Conference chairing” etc), in order to give us a flying start!

Ideally we will, in the end of the session, have two or three Games of the Academy that we can play with our friends, family, and industry partners! Perhaps they will understand us better after having played with us!

There is a limited number of spots for this session - we can be max 15 people, so make sure to send an email to mirjam.eladhari[at] to secure your spot! We have the Friday-morning session for this.

Mirjam P Eladhari and Magy Seif El-Nasr 

The mini game jam

The Mini Jam happened on Friday the 17th of May in Chania, on Crete, at 10.20 to 13.00.

The setting for the prototyping session was to 
  • create a board- or card game, and 
  • the theme was “The Academic Game”. 
We had sets of prototyping materials prepared and sets of "academic" tokens that we'd made. The tokens were just for inspiration, participants were by no means required to use them.
We started with a brainstorming session, then the participants formed two groups according to which of the ideas they'd rather develop. During the brainstorming session the participants were examining the premade tokens in parallel to whatever they were doing, and when it was prototyping time they were mostly abandoned and the groups made their own tokens.

Jose, Joris and Henrik Henrik, Lilia, Guiseppe, Ken and David Guiseppe, Ken, David and Gillian

Two prototypes where made, one which was playable already by lunchtime!

At some point Alessandro wandered into the room of one of the groups and started to take notes on quantities of usages of certain words. Interestingly he found that some words were used very frequently such as "student", "dean", "publications", "prestige" and "cooperation", while other words, that he expected, were not uttered at all, such as "time" and different words that would be associated to quality of life.


In retrospect
What was most remarkable to me in the mini-jam was that the participants managed to create playable paper prototypes in just two hours.  I speculate that it could be because the knowledge domain was so well known to the participants that they were able to quickly model the mechanics. On the other hand, the majority of the participants are experienced in game design, and here they were given a theme relevant to their every-day lives.

I found it interesting to see how other scholars were thinking about the mechanics of the Academic Game, and what sorts of tokens they would want to make. The actual modelling work is enlightening too. For example, of one were to only model what actions are most efficient for career advancement it turns out that quality of teaching has no impact (bad teaching is not acceptable, but system wise outstanding teaching gives no other reward than the satisfaction of a job well done). Another interesting aspect was what type of winning criteria people formulated. This permeated many of my discussions with others who know about the jam afterwards. People have so different views - but often very clear - on why they play the game in the first place; whether it is to level up as individuals within the ranking system of their organisation, to maximise the quantity of research output for example, or to find ways to make research with as big impact as possible, or quietly create high quality work. Another dichotomy is whether people strive for individual success or success for their students or their department. In all cases, the discussions have been interesting and enlightening.

Magy and I have gotten from only thinking about our own game prototype to see how the aspect of the actual modelling of the Academic Game can be useful for others besides ourselves. There are so many differences between countries, cultures, academic subjects and roles - and if modelled as a game the rules of a particular organisation become very clear. Modelling games is an excellent way to, together, create a deeper understanding of how a system works and what affordances one's own role in it holds. It can also be enlightening at a personal level, to ponder on what long term goals may be worthy of pursuit. Not to mention getting a deeper understanding for the actions of one's' colleagues. For new faculty it can be educational to play an existing academic came with their new colleagues, or for a PhD student to understand academia in the first place.

At any rate, we all had a really good time at the mini-jam, and I have understood that the groups keep in touch, thinking to further develop their prototypes.

Here are some more photos from the mini jam: Photo set at Flickr The Academic Game Jam at FDG13

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Half way through GDIII and Richard Evans giving invited talk today

We are half-way through the Game Design III course in the Masters of Digital Games at Malta University. In this course we look at AI and computational intelligence approaches useful for game design. We also look tools for, and ways to conceptualize, game design, doing some hands-on work in workshops trying out tools and methods.

Last Seminar was about Interactive Narrative, so we looked at stuff like Tale Spin and STRIPS. For the theoretical grounding we turned to Ryans’ Avatars of Story. In the workshop we tried the story modeling tool that Ulrike Springer told me about at ICIDS. It turned out to be a very concrete way to demonstrate how STRIPS type planning can be used used when conceptualizing stories for games.

Story Modelling with STRIPS the paper prototyping way

We also looked at some of the big applications that have emerged on the game scene the past decade, and I again noted that Richard Evans has been pioneering all over the place when it comes to systems that can result in emergent narrative. Then, the day after the seminar I got an email that the latest thing him and Emily Short has been working on, Versu, was released! It is a true interactive series of interactive narratives inspired by the storyworld of Jane Austen, and can be read/played on the IPad. In today’s seminar Richard will skype in and tell us all about it.

Today’s seminars theme is Characters and agents, so we will talk about what characterization and true character can mean for games. For that we are picking up an old article Steve Meretzky wrote for Gamasutra in 2003 - in that he manages to lightheartedly cram in many of my favorite theorists almost seamlessly. System wise we are reading papers about BDI, OCC, Brooks subsumption architecture. Classic stuff and how the roots of some approaches made games like F.E.A.R, the Sims, and Black&White possible. Then, in the workshop, we will have a stab at making some conversational agents. If we get time we will try a card game, Game Seeds, that can help generate character based games as a result of the game play. Or we leave that for next week’s seminar, which has the theme of procedural generation.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Disk management is Datorhantering in a Swedish OS

Not to self and others that might save time>
in Swedish, "Disk management" is "Datorhantering" in a windowsbased OS.
This is good to know when a hard drive doesn't show up in explorer, and one needs to format the whole thing.


Monday, November 26, 2012

Teaching Game Design at the Masters of Digital Games at the University of Malta.

This fall I have been teaching a study unit on Game Design at our Masters in Digital Game at the University of Malta. This is the first year we teach the course, and we are starting with a small group of students. We can be flexible and find individual solutions in case our structure isn't optimal this first time around. Except me teaching at the masters' there is Rilla Khaled who teaches game design with me, there is Gordon Calleja and Costatino Oliva who teaches game analysis, and there is Georgios Yannakakis who, together with two teachers from ICT, teaches computing science for game development. We also have a fourth strand in the masters, which is commercialization and project management. This is taught by industry professionals, this year by the CTO of TRC.

I have been teaching game design and related subject since 2004, but somehow it always feels like it is the first time. During the summer of 2012 I planned this introductory course in game design, but as soon as got hold of the students' contact details I sent out a survey to them to get an idea about previous experience in both the playing of games and of developing them.

This is the short description of the course:
"The course address the role of the game designer, the structure of games, how to work with formal elements as well as dramatic, and ways to approach system dynamics. Students work in groups and conceptualize and prototype smaller games."

Play-testing Mafia Boss


I had several concerns while I was planning the course. How to balance theory and practice? Were to begin - which topics need we start with, and which can wait? How do we make sure the group dynamics work out? And what about creating a safe environment for experimentation despite that their work is graded?
I'll go through my main concerns, listing them, and describe how I aimed to solve them. Then, I'll tell you how it went!

- What to teach them - where do I start, and in what order should I place the content?
I decided to use a course book as a basic skeleton for the course. I had, unconsciously, already decided to use Tracy Fullerton's book Game Design Workshop, but just in case I would like to change my mind I browsed through the rest of my design library. I stuck with Fullerton's book because it is the one that put most weight on prototyping and play-testing, and does so in a very concrete way. This agrees with how I like to work in design. As recommended reading I added chapters from other books for certain topics, such as Bates' chapters on what project documents are useful in game productions.
Also on the list of recommended reading is Brathwaite's “Challenges for Game Designers”.
It has an excellent and condensed introduction chapter defining important terms and approaches. The remainder of the book contains design challenges/exercises for different types of games and game contexts.
Another one is Koster's "A Theory of Fun". This book has had a large impact on the vocabulary used in the area of game design. Koster just gave a speech at GFC Online (October 2012) taking the perspective of "ten years after" - that is, ten years after the publication of the book. The slides for the talk are here:
Yet another great book on game design is Schell's The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. If I had not used Fullerton's Game Design Workshop as the main course book I would have used this one.

Joseph, Stelios, Alan, Vincent, Michael

-  How to achieve a balance between theory and practice? Students need the practice to appreciate the theory, and they need the theory when working practically. (This is something Jesse Schell have been blogging about too)
I had seven seminars and seven workshops to work with. Part of the first one would go to overview and introduction, and the end would be the final seminar. I considered what they absolutely HAVE to know about the design, and what they MUST learn to do and think about when designing. I plucked those topics, and then added workshops where they would apply the knowledge in the topics. This meant that I was not using the order in Fullerton's book, but I could still use the full chapters for different seminars.
Given the large amount of time that it would take for the students to complete the assignments they needed to do in order to practice game design I aimed to only add the absolutely necessary texts as reading assignments. Besides the selected chapters in Fullerton's book I only added two texts as mandatory reading: one about Hunicke and LeBlanc's MDA model and the other about Dorman's Machination framework.
In the first seminar the students got to choose from the course literature about which texts to champion. This text, they would in one of the seminars present to their co-students and prepare a discussion about.
There is  a list of the topics we had at the seminars, and a list of workshops and assignments in the end of this post.

Stelios presenting a section of the course literature

- How do I make sure that they early get practical experience of designing different types of games? (There is a risk of individuals getting so immersed in one idea or problem that they do not want to focus on anything else.)
It turned out that this particular group of students all were graduated computing scientists and many of them had partaken in game development projects. I decided that even though they would be able to create digital prototypes from start, I would encourage them to stay with pen and paper. This way they would be able to quickly try several different designs, and they wouldn't get distracted by coding problems. During the first three weeks they prototyped three different games. Then, they got to choose one of them to develop further. This game was play-tested and iterated for three more weeks.  I hoped that this would help them to have their focus on the core design as well as on the experience their certain design might result in for the player.

- How do I cater for good group dynamics in the student groups? (Or at least be prepared to sort out things if it becomes terrible.)
I planned for having two occasions for group division. In the first seminar I divided them into two groups using coin flips, thus making a random group division. Then, after having made their first three game designs they would be able to change groups for the second half of the course. This would make sure that if two persons who for some reason cannot work out their differences would be able to change groups. In the one of the game design exercises a beginning task was to fill in a Meyers-Briggs Personality test - I added it in as part of the exercise so that they might use personality properties of some kind of system as part of the design of a game that contains characters. I hoped for a secondary effect where they would be aware of each other's strengths as individuals when working in groups. In my experience shortcomings of others are easier to accept and overcome when one have concrete knowledge (or some kind of belief or interpretation) of others strengths.

- On Malta, student's work is graded. How would I make sure to create an environment where student feel that they can be creative, where they take risks, and where they are not mentally frozen by performance anxiety?
I divided the assignments I gave into those that would be graded and not graded. All the design exercises except the final deliveries were to stay without grade. At the same time, the final deliveries would report on and be a result on what they had been producing during the course. But then, they would have been able to pick one of three designs they liked best, and had been able to iterate that design several times.

Alan play-testing with Joseph as tester

How it went

I have the impression that the course went well. The students had a 100% attendance. They delivered 100% of their assignments, and not a single one of them was late. For me this is the very first time that has happened. The group of students was very small, and they all had responsibilities in the seminars, so that could have been a reason. But still: Highscore! They also volunteered for extra work, and went the extra mile of doing the extra exercises.  When the students had handed in their final assignments (an individual short-paper, a production report, a game design document and a game prototype) I was quite impressed by their work. They had managed to create games, describe how they did it, showing that they had understanding for the process. I had played the games with a colleague the day before the seminar, so I could get them some feedback on that too. Next year I'll schedule more time for playing the students' games though, in order to get time to explore all features. For their individual short papers I had asked them to define an important design problem and give suggestions for how to explore the same.  Here, they all had picked very interesting and relevant topics, which we spent most of the last seminar discussing these.

Ending discussion
I had created an online survey for the students to fill in, but some topics I wanted to ask them about face to face. In the last seminar we spent half an hour discussing the course. What had worked and what had not worked?

 It seems that the balance between theory and practice had worked well - the students had recognised that they were, in the workshop, practising the same skills and topics they had been discussing in the seminar the same day.

The workload seems to have been fairly well adjusted. I was worried that I had given them too much (see list of assignment and bear in mind that they had 3 other courses running in parallel). But they had appreciated the incremental nature of the workload, that they got week-sized chunks of work, and then one week to assemble the work into their final deliveries. They also said that they liked to have this 4 hour marathon (2 hours seminar, 2 hours workshop) rather than dividing their day. I had been worried about that too.

They were generally happy with the clarity of instruction, but would have wanted to learn more about table top RPGs before getting the task of designing one. Next year that could be a part of assignments.
They had really appreciated the guest lecturer from TRC, Jade Pecorella, who talked about how game design is communicated and documented in the projects where she works as a designer.

Jade Pecorella

They had also liked the way they were each championing parts of the course materials, so that (no offence they hastened to say) not only the professor talks all the time, and that it is easier to learn when one has to explain to someone else.
It was difficult to squeeze out something negative of them, but that's what the anonymous survey is for. I told them to think about it as a play-test. If I don't know what's wrong, I can't fix it.  
The next course I will teach will be focussed on AI based game design and prototyping/sketching tools and methods. I really look forward to it. I need to make sure that even if this group are all computing scientists I need to design a course that is meaningful and useful for non-computing scientists too. By the way, there is a quite common understanding that computing scientists or 'coder types' would be less creative than others. This is wrong. Not that we would be MORE creative. Just that we are just as creative as the rest of the population. At least, this is my belief after having witnessed the process of game creation in this group that consists only of computing scientists. (Also - take a poet. Teach her how to program. Will she be less creative when she has more knowledge?)

Our students rock. It's an honour to get to be their teacher.

Vincent, Alan and MichaelStelios and Joseph


List of topics

The list below is presented in the order they appear in the course.
Brainstorming and Conceptualization methods                  
The role of the game designer                       
The structure of games         
Prototyping methods             
Formal Elements                     
MDA - a formal Approach to Game Design and Research (paper)             
Working with Dramatic Elements                 
Play testing    
System Dynamics
Functionality, Completeness and Balance
Simulating Mechanics to Study Emergence (paper on Machinations)     
Revisiting Brainstorming and Conceptualization (creativity in the long run discussion)
Game Design Document (Communicating Game Design)


List of mandatory Assignments

Presenting chapters from the course book and papers to the seminar (in seminar and assignment) (graded)
Brainstorming Exercises (in workshop)      (not-graded)
Writing my first treatment (assignment)    (not-graded)
Making my first paper prototype (in workshop & assignment) (not graded)                   
Modifying a Battleship Prototype (in workshop) (not graded)                 
Making a Table top role-playing game prototype (in workshop and assignment) (not graded)
The first play-testing and writing a play test-script (assignment) (not graded)              
Play-testing using the other group as testers (in workshop) (not graded)                       
Writing the game design document (in workshop and as assignment)   (graded)
Writing your production report (assignment) (graded)   
Finalizing your prototype for delivery (assignment) (graded)                  
Writing your short-paper (assignment) (graded)               
The text seminar - presenting and questioning a colleague's text. (At the end of the course) (not-graded)

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

ICIDS Photo Diary Tuesday

 Tuesday morning: Michael, David and Federico initialize the conference.

David, Federico and
Michael Young introducing the conference

I was first out giving an invited talk, and I could start before schedule given that everyone was in place - that was great, I didn't have to feel pressed for time and talk quickly in order to get to say everything I want to say.
Me giving invited talk:
The Grails of Interactive Story Telling at ICIDS'12

I started my talk by telling about a letter I got this summer from a Masters' student in Canada. He had read the thesis on Story Construction I wrote in 2001/2002 and wondered about my thoughts on how the field have advanced during the past decade. Since I got that letter I've been thinking a lot about this, and realized that there have been huge strides made. Even though it often feels like trampling in the mud, and that the area just creates tool after tool that no author wants to touch, and that we just keep doggedly chasing after grails that we don't even know if they exist... We have found pretty cool goblets on the way, and that constant chase is what can keep us going. I named a few of the grails many of us keep looking for, then, I gave a recount on my journey, and what I found on the way. I told about the play-testing about the Pataphysic institute, of how players
- simultaneously use mental models of how a mind works and that of MMORPG role taking in battle,
- how they co-create boss monsters with the system, and how intense it can become when they play, and an autonomous entity in the game bleeds in meaning from the real world, but how that is re-interpreted in dialog when players cooperate to neutralise the negative feelings that these boss monsters represent,
- how players attribute intentionality to the autonomous entities despite that they even authored them themselves. Still, they read in and interpret their behaviour as if was something that would have its own will.
Then I went on to note that we have indeed achieved to come closer to some of the grails we thought about ten years ago. For example, we know now thanks to the Sims series, that it indeed is possible to have a sandbox world as a basis for performing actions that in turn can be a sequence of event that, when retold, actually becomes an engaging narrative. The blog stories of Alice and Kev is an example of that. Another dream, an authoring environment that can take the rules implied in language and use them in a functional way is manifest in Inform 7 and its constant development. And "the book that writes itself", generative planned stories, we are coming along in that area too. Of that, Richard Evans' and Emily Shorts Versu is a prime example. Richard talked about this the day after. It felt really nifty that we had worked together on our talks the day before, because then I could just talk about this, our past grails and where we seem to be now, grail-wise, because then, on the last day of the conference, Noah gave a talk on the future of digital interactive narrative. Along the conference I noted that one of the grails that shine most brightly is that of the automated game master. That is, something more than the state of the art/general idea of an automated story manager. An automated game master would also use the game mechanics afforded in a game world together with judgements about how to use plot-points, story-beats, levels of dramatic tension and what-not. Of course, the idea of automating, or having support for the human game master of a table top or live action game is not new, it was just, as topics go, quite a shiny one.

ICIDS was a single track conference, which I was thankful for. I get so frustrated of this condition that you have gone somewhere to be, and to see, and to participate, but then anyway ending up feeling that one misses crucially interesting talks all the time, because one has to choose. (GDC solves this by having the GDC Vault where the talks are recorded, that's the only reason I don't go nuts there).
Below are some pictures of how the day in this blissfully single track continued. The conference program is available here:
Suspending Virtual
Disbelief: A Perspective on Narrative Coherence Veli-Matti
Four Quantitative
Metrics Describing Narrative Conflict Stephen G. Ware, R. Michael Young, Brent
Harrison, and David L. Roberts
The Expressive Space of
IDS-as-Art  Noam
Lunch is served
Digital Interactive
Narrative Tools for Facilitating Communication with Children during Counseling:
A Case for Audiology Sarune Baceviciute, Katharina Rene Rtzou Albk, Aleksandar
Arsovski, and Luis Emilio Bruni
audience day
Coffee Tables &
Cryo Chambers: A Comparison of User Experience and Diegetic Time between
Traditional and Virtual Environment-Based Roleplaying Game Scenarios Bjoern F.
Temte and Henrik Schoenau-Fog

Genres, Structures and
Strategies in Interactive Digital Narratives Analyzing a Body of Works Created
in ASAPS Hartmut Koenitz and Kun-Ju Chen

In the evening, we had a delightful time. I took a picture of myself and Hartmut, and tried to take it the same way as last time I saw him, which was seven years ago when we were both at Georgia Tech. We were about fifteen-twenty people, and we did dinner the way that seem to be the local custom: to go from different bars and have a pinto at each one. Many interesting conversations, I was for example very intrigued to hear about Uli Spierling's work of using the STRIP planning language as the base for a prototype that let authors experiment with interactive Storytelling.
Hartmut and me 2012
Hartmut and me 2005

ICIDS Diary, Monday

 I run into Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Richard Evans at the hotel, and it turns out that all three of us still need to work some more on our talks. We have a working session in the lobby, before joining the others for dinner.
  Noah and Richard
I have this idea to try to use less walls of text and more illustrations than I normally do. But I'm afraid that I'll forget what to say unless I have the text available, so I have decided to try using index cards.
  Preparing my talk
For dinner David Oyarzun, the general chair, takes us into San Sebastian, and we have a brief stare at the cathedral. We find a place in a former bull-fighting that can accommodate all of us. I think we are around 15 to 20 persons. On the bar a selection of pintos are served from which we can select. In the Baskian parts of Spain tapas are called pintos, and are a bit more elaborate (or that's what people tell me, I wouldn't know).
  Noah and Michael Young before getting pintos
We don't stay too late, and back at the hotel Noah is kind enough to listen me practicing the talk I am to give the next day and giving me some good advice. I had overdone the picture part, that's for sure. We also came up with a title! "The Grails of Interactive Storytelling". Luckily there is still time for revision.

ICIDS: The Fifth International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling