Devlog #6

On Tuesday, we divided into groups to play two different card games; one set of groups played a game called The Crew, while the other set played a game called Exploding Kittens. My group played Exploding Kittens. While at first the rules seemed a bit confusing, it was easily understandable once playing through a round or two. This didn't diminish my experience or my notes for universal card games, as most card games seem to operate this way; the rules aren't completely understandable until you play a few rounds of the game. "Clear rules require a mix of creative and technical writing, explaining the game’s backstory as well as its mechanics, in terms that novices can understand, and that experts cannot misread" (P. 1, Ernest).  For the most part, games, no matter what type, should have easy to understand rules. However, I would like to point out that not every novice will be able to understand the rules (and to add, not every expert will be able to not misread them). It is not possible for every single new and veteran player of a game to understand the rules of said game, no matter how simple the rules can be written out. The game may not even be understood fully until the player plays the game for themselves. Experts can still struggle a bit if it's been a while since playing the game.

For example, on Thursday, we switched the card games we were playing. Even after watching a video on how to play The Crew, watching another group play multiple rounds, and reading the instructions, I still did not get the basic mechanics of the game until I played it for myself. This is mostly a matter of learning style, but I am still a good example of a novice player not understanding the rules despite listening to them, watching someone play, and reading them myself. There was no guarantee that I would understand the game immediately. With this in mind, it gave me this conclusion; no matter how hard you try, there will be one person that will not understand the game outright, even when trying to explain to them in simple terms and in different ways. I am definitely not saying that this means a game has failed. In fact, if 3 out of four players can understand a game just based on the simple rules you wrote (which occurred in my group), I would call that game a success. It's just a matter of appealing to the audience, which can go both ways; do you play more to the players that understand, or do you change your game or the rules for the player that didn't get it immediately? It's all up to the game designers and what they value most.

This sort of process is very common in conceptualizing and prototyping a game. Ernest points out that most rulebooks have 10 sections, though they are optional. They are: Preamble, Summary, Component List, Setup, Sequence of Play, End of Game, Clarifications, Examples, Strategy, and Variants. "Rulebooks can have many formats, and different types of games require emphasis on different elements sections... nearly all of these sections are optional" (p. 5, Ernest). Most games have the Summary, Component List, Setup, Sequence of Play, End of Game, and Clarifications. These six are needed in able to have an effective game that any player can try. For example, Exploding Kittens has these six, and nothing more. There is no story, as it is a silly game with funny looking cats on the cards for a fun family night. The Crew, however, provides a Preamble as well, and some examples on different hands within the book. There's a story as to why players are playing in this setting.

For next Tuesday, we are required to come up with some sort of idea around the theme of traveling for a card game. The textbook provides many ways to brainstorm for such ideas, such as "idea speed-dating" (writing down ideas within a minute or two then discussing with your group, "How might we..." questions, and noun-verb-adjective brainstorming. They can either be used on their own, or use multiple methods to get a game. The "idea speed-dating" and noun-verb-adjective brainstorming can be used to get ideas out there, and the "How might we..." questions can help expand ideas and eventually make it into a prototype game. For example, my group can pitch our ideas before Tuesday, then on Tuesday we look at these ideas and use the "how might we..." method to make an idea for a prototype game. It can help dismiss ideas and help keep some ideas until a final idea is presented. "The 'how might we...' method is a great way to use a question as the engine for your brainstorm, helping everyone focus on the same thing but come up with many possible solutions as they can" (Ch. 9, Sharp, Macklin).