Minecraft Forums

Game design theory 1- Chance
Game Design Theory 2-Linearity
Game Design Theory 3- Leveling and Grinding

To start, I recommend reading this article by Carnalizer

The crux of the issue is the complexity in the game. Simplicity is valueable. It makes the game easy to understand and learn. However, simplicity at the surface of a game does not have to mean simplicity in the meat of the game.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a simple game. Very simple set of rules-players each have a symbol, you take turns placing your symbol in a 3x3 grid, adn if you get 3 of your symbol in a row, you win. Easy to grasp. However, these rules do not lead to much depth. It does not take long to figure out the full implications of the game, and never lose. This measn that the games end in ties before long.

Chess is also a simple game. A fairly simple set of rules. Each side has several peices. They are placed on an 8x8 grid in a certain configuration, each one has a simple movement pattern. The goal is to capture the other person's king, and add in a few other basic rules, like pawns turning into other peices when you reach the end, and you have the ruleset down. Easy to learn, hard to master. Those simple rules lead to over 10^120 possible games. That is a freakishly huge number. 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. People are capable of devoting their entire life to studying the game, mastering its nuances, and developing strategies and counter-strategies.

Redstone is another good example of this. The rules of redstone are fairly simple. Some blocks provide power, others transmit it, powering a block with a torch powers it off, etc. This provides enough emergent properties that people can make any type of logic gate they desire, hook those up to perform whatever computations you want, and the possibilities explode to include everything possible with a turing machine, including minecraft itself. Of course, practical limitations makes reaching the full potential impossible, but the emergent complexity is there.

The part that is really desireable is the end complexity. Cranking open the limit on interestingly different outcomes. It does not matter if you have 2 million possible units. If the battle comes down to "compare their strenths, if yours is higher, you win", there is no complexity in the outcomes. All you accomplish is making it so you have 2 million units to learn.

The simplicity in the rules is so it is easy to learn and understand. Adding in a new feature is something the player must learn, and a player can only handle so much at once. with chess, you are given a fairly small st of peices to learn, and people can handle that. If you gave them a box of 100 different peices they could pick from, each with its own abilities, they would just be overwhelmed.

There are 3 layers of complexity involved. Rules, content, and emergent.
The rule layer is where you want it to be the most simple. It is what defines the game, and people need to be able to have a firm grasp on it. Not understanding the base rules means you aren't really playing hte game, so much as fumbling around blindly. The rules are what you need to explain to someone when they learn to play.

The content complexity can be greater, if done right. Content is what you use with the rules, and can be player-customizable. Take pokemon. The rules are simple; you get six pokemon, each has an element, various elements are stronger against others, they learn a set of moves, then they do battle. The nyou have 150ish original pokemon, depending on how you want to count them, and I-don't-even-know-how-many potential moves they can execute.

The emergent complexity is where you want the complexity to be. This is the completity you explore and master once you ahve learned the system, and is where the bulk of the learning curve should lie. Advanced tactics and strategies should be involved in manipulating this part of the game. This is where you learn how to counter a person opening with the queen's pawn, or how to utilize the attack speed of your character to its fullest effect. Its not nessecary to understand this level of the game to play it and have fun, but it is nessecary to master the game.

The reason you need the final complexity should be obvious. That is the meat of the system. The simplicity of the earlier stages is nessecary, because you need a firm grasp on them before you can start properly playing and ejoying the game. If you aren't enjoying the game, you are unlikely to continue playing to reach the meat of the game. Different people have different tolerances for initial complexity. That is why some people play dwarf fortress. They were able to overcome the initial hurdle, and now enjoy the rich emergent complexity the system offers. Other people can't get over that initial hurdle, and hence don't get into the meat of the game, don't enjoy it, and its a failure as far as they are concerned.

So, the real issue is accessability. A simple game is accessable (hence the "easy to learn" part of the saying). You can greatly increase the complexity of the game if you can incrementally introduce content. To play chess, you don't need to know about castleing or some of the more obscure rules. You learn without htem, then are introduced to those concepts later when you have a firm grasp on what is going on, and can handle the additional complexity. This is why games tend to give you new abilities gradually. When you are first learning, only having to worry about a small set of moves and abilities makes it easier to learn. When you get more advanced, you can incorporate the added complexity easily.

Lets look at portal(either 1 or 2). The basic mechanic is simple. You ahve 2 portals, going through one leads you to the other, presering momenteum. You are introduced to this gradually. First by sowing you the portal and using it to move form place to place, then by giving you control over half of it, then showign you the implications of preserved momenteum, then giving you full control. The content is the same way. It introduces buttons and boxes first, and that is all you have ot learn. It gradualyl introduces more content, like the energ balls, moving platforms, and in the second game, arieal faith plates, lasers, gels, etc. They don't trhough it all at you in one blob, they guid you through learning it all. Then the eral meat of hte game comes when you are exploring hte emergent complexity. The puzzle no longer exists to demonstrate a new feature, but to challenge your mastery of the system. You have to utilize the emergent complexity to get through. Some take it even further than the game requires, mastering the system to complete challenges, to find alternate solutions that make most people's jaw drop.

Pokemon start outs by introducing a few simple game elements. Here are yoru 3 basic starting pokemon. Here is a pifgy, here is a rattatta, go. It gradually adds in new elements as you have learned the old ones. This keeps you moving along the learning curve, which is good.

So, to properply keep the rules simple, the content manageable, and the emergent complexity high, you have to consider the impact various mechanics will have on all of these.

Take D&D. your main defence is AC(armour class). when you are attacked, people have to roll and try to exceed that number to hit you. This means that any enemy has a % chance to miss, thereby reducing your damage takesn by a percentage, overall. This happens regardless of how hard or how often they are swinging at you.

They have a second mechanic wheras certain things have DR(damage reduction). This is a linear reduction in damage. You will take some amount of fewer damage per hit, say 5. a 10 poitn hit becomes a 5 point hit. a 3 point hit does nothing. a 100 point hit is still a 95 point hit. This means that the value of the protection is dependant on how hard the enemy is hitting. The fewer hits it takes to drop you, the less thance this bonus has to accrue.

This adds a minor amount of complexity to the rules, but greatly enriches the interplay between various fighting styles, making monsters easier to kill with certain weapons (since certain thigns can penetrate it. So a werewolf would have DR that makes it hard to hurt, but if you use a silver weapon you do a much greater amount of damage).

They also have rules for graplling. These are rather complex. They give penalties and bonuses to many things, gives you a precise list of actions you can take during it, requires many roles to determines what happens, and generally requires a flow-chart to decipher. What does this mechanic give you for gameplay complexity? not much. Things that are good at grapling are really good at surpressing things that aren't, utilizing your other options is generally just as hard as actually escaping, and it becomes a real pain to use. It is one of the elements of the game that player's tend to despise, and actively avoid trying to use them. All rule complexity, practically no content complexity, and very little emergent complexity.

Game Design Theory 5 -fun