Photos from Fountaindale

Fountaindale Manor.

After a couple of "So where are the photos?" prods from Nick, I've finally found the time to sit down and write a quick photo-blog about my trip to Fountaindale Manor in Robertson, NSW last year. If you want some more background about the trip, you can find the details of the clinic and the Cave project here.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find my DSLR's charger in time for the trip, so I was only able to get a few quick snaps with my phone during those few times we had free moments to entertain ourselves. Therefore the quality of the pictures aren't so great, so perhaps treat this as a friend's album of happy snaps instead of a nicely processed report.

Petals of matrimonial ceremonies past.

Needless to say, when a building has a history of becoming decommissioned as a hotel a few years after being awarded the Most Luxurious Hotel in the Commonwealth, recommissioned for private use as a country club, repurposed into a pilot's hospice for WWII, then a Franciscan friary, and eventually settled back into a hotel once more, there's going to be a lot of creepy stories floating around. And to be honest, the groundskeepers seemed quite happy to keep some of the peculiarities of the grounds intact - perhaps to maintain that Shining vibe, or perhaps because it was just so ingrained into the building that no amount of paint and lawnmowing would stop you thinking you're about to tread into the middle a pagan burial site.

One of the many garden paths leading nowhere in particular.

The grounds of the manor were huge, and talking to the relatively-newly established owners it was obvious it was no small task to keep the immense gardens under control. Which is cool. However...

An actual stone altar.

What I said about blundering into a potential seance site? No joke.

Note the seating arrangement is a pentagon.

This is a tree that was part of a Treasure Hunt we took part in. We also found an abandoned charm bracelet right here, which at first we assumed was a clue for another team. After confirming with Mike that he hadn't left it there, well... given the overall theme of the event, I was content to leave it for someone else to find (ie. be cursed by).

What manor estate is complete without an abandoned caretaker's hut?

We weren't spared the haunted vibe inside either. Plenty of attic stairways and tucked away rooms and nooks. I don't mind admitting the first night, while most everyone else was settling in to their rooms, I was wandering around trying to find the most likely haunted spots. (Turns out I was way off - it's a small room on the second floor by the bathrooms.)

This chair, however, pretended to sit in the same position every morning. I knew its secret though.

Hauntings aside, take away the creepy ghost meta-story we all seemed quite happy to throw over the top of the experience, the Manor was a gorgeous venue. (And perfect for a Murder Mystery dinner.)

Scenes like this made for stunning morning walks.

And of course, at the end of the day, it's the company you keep that makes the memory last.

Generally the first recipient of my "Good mornings!" each morning that week. (This was taken on the Friday of our departure. I pretended it was disconsolateness - and not relief - in his expression.)

The clinic was an amazing experience. I didn't even touch on the incredible mentors, or working with both the Cave team and members of other teams, or the consistently delicious meals. I'm still in the process of reviewing all of my notes, and weeks later I'm still finding inspiration from the presentations, exercises and individual chats I had throughout that intense week.

Thankyou again to everyone involved, and I wish all the best for the teams and projects as they continue to develop.

-Anthony

Breaking in a new playspace.

Back in April, amidst a rant on why I prefer social interactions in games over mechanical interactions, I briefly brought up the topic of bridging the technological gap that board games can't yet manage:

"When pegged about bringing board games to the modern game player, many designers will work straight to the tablet/PC port. Sometimes it works well (Neuroshima Hex!), but a lot of the time the port misses the point of it's original game, the tangible obligation."

It turns out Disney are going to be the force that breaks into this playspace in a significant way with AppMATes. These "Mobile Application Toys" are figurines that interact with an iPad app that Disney will release. The iPad will essentially become a digital play area that is manipulated by the physical toy.

A video with Disney Mobile's Bart Decrem shows how the toys and app will work.

Admittedly this is focused on toys and singular play. However the technology could certainly be abstracted away from the Christmas-retail focus that we'll undoubtedly see, and into more meaningful social play.

Imagine an Ogre Tactics style strategy game, with physical pieces and cards that manipulate the digital environment. A Civilization or Catan spin-off with digital calculators that respond to the movements of your meeples. Some of these broad ideas could easily be integrated to an established platform, like Disney already have with the iPad.

(Hello significant removal of development overheads!)

It will take pioneers of game design to move into this territory, lest the playspace become inundated with flashy gimmicks with no meaningful context.

Designers who value meta-data and automation to free up player intentions.
And layered user interface that is prohibitive to print, but intuitive to touch.
And juicy, juicy polish that can bring a stationary figurine to life.

I have a dream of these mash-up digital/physical playspaces, and they look fun.

-Anthony

The Habit.

For the last few months I have been using a Habit Chart to start good habits. It looks like this.

This chart is helping to cut down my wasted efforts (time in front of the TV or playing mindless timewasters) and encouraging me to spend time on the things I actually want to do.

What I've done is broken down my life - all the things I want to be better at - into seven responsibilities. Every time I do something to fulfill that responsibility, I fill in a vertical rectangle with the date and squiggles. By the end of the month you have what amounts to a primary-schooler's impression of a bar graph.

This chart gives me the incentive to do the daily grind that it takes to form good, lasting habits.

Going back to a previous braindump about the Success Circle, being successful at something is a habit borne of practice - every day. It doesn't matter how much you accomplish of the task, as long as you regularly, consistently practice at it. Quality in any discipline is 90% perseverance.

It can be incredibly easy to put off practice. I would know, I have an entire misspent youth of experience to back that up. The problem with putting off practice is that the procrastination itself becomes a habit.

When you put it off for one day, another day won't hurt.
And then another day turns in to a couple more.
And a couple more becomes a week.
Then one more week. And before you know it, you've spent a month without a single instance of practice.

It was important for me to include personal responsibilities to the list. Being a good father and a good husband is pivotal to having a stable environment to let me work on other things. And it takes a lot of work to fulfill those responsibilities. This chart keeps me accountable not only to myself, but to others that rely on me to pull my weight.

Now I have a way to look at how I've spent my time, and know which areas I can use some more practice to make a lasting habit of.

-Anthony

Presentation update.

I'm going to be a man with many hats at this Saturday's Show Us Your Bits 2011!

Firstly, I'm giving my playtesting presentation - this time for a full 15 minutes. As a result, I've updated the Prezi for "Playtesting Is Your Friend" with extra bits and easter eggs for opportunistic rants.

Secondly, I'm taking a copy of the mafia card game to showcase and get people to playtest. I'm actually hoping to do a bunch of games that test a couple of ideas I've had about economy to streamline the game even further.

Thirdly, I'm hosting a paperjam!, an hour-long workshop on paper prototyping. I have no idea what attendance is going to be like, but it should be fun. Worst case scenario, I sit there by myself doing some prototyping of my own!

Fourth(ly?), I'll be there as the usual Let's Make Games Inc. money-man and directer of traffic.

So that's going to be a busy Saturday!


-Anthony

Playtesting Is Your Friend.

This is the Prezi for the lightning talk presentation I was going to give at What's Up Pitches?! back in May. Due to scheduling issues at the event the presentation didn't happen, so I've finally found time to blog about it instead.

[edit:] Embedding the Prezi isn't so hot with this Blogger template. The Prezi can be found here.

It starts with the basic premise of my business and current project, and then ambles into the hows and whys of playtesting a game design.

There are plenty of playtesting methods, each with their own pros and cons. Mark Ambinder goes through Valve's playtest methodologies in his presentation available from their publications library*. Although the methods discussed are largely designed for digital games, the approach and information gathered can apply just as easily for table games.

Two methods that I have used extensively - pretty much exclusively - for my current project have been Design Experiments and Player Feedback.

Design Experiment playtests are used to isolate core mechanics and put them through rigorous case testing. It involves identifying a problematic or unbalanced mechanic and creating an environment that the mechanic can be accessed and played repeatedly without interference from the rest of the game.

This is incredibly useful for troubleshooting, tweaking and testing new ideas. The key is making sure you can easily emulate and remove the rest of the game so that the information you gather is relevant for a full-length game session.

This is slightly easier for digital games; god-modes, location warps and event spreadsheets can ease the pain of having to work/play through an entire level to test a boss mechanic.
It is severely different for a table game. It is important to make sure the results you've acquired are just as applicable to a 2 hour game session as the 2 minute playtest. This requires a fundamental understanding of your entire game system and the motivations driving your players.

An example is the Allegiance system for my current project.
I had toyed with the idea of drawing an Allegiance card at the start of the game to determine which team you ultimately belonged to. Originally this worked out well, but due to the development of other mechanics I ended up ditching the system.
This worked in the short-term, as it provided players with open opportunities. They could react on the fly to what was happening around them.
However after a few more rounds, players started to complain that they had less direction and motivation. Although I originally thought this was just the counter-balance from the freedom to pick your own allies, after more discussion it came out that this openness devalued the worth of the end-game.

Essentially, no one cared who won the game.

I wasn't convinced that the Allegiance system could be inserted back in to the game without breaking other systems, but I really wanted to test it. So after a couple of full rounds, we sat down with some testers, removed the rest of the game and played with just the Allegiance cards. Each player still had their turn as normal, but we narrated our actions to imitate the gameplay.
This allowed a massive turnover of multiple playthroughs, and we found that even though we did not have a full 2-hour investment in the end result, there was still some level of emotional feedback when the social mechanics of the Allegiance cards were played out.

End result: playtest successful, and Allegiance was reinstated smoothly into the game.

Player Feedback is the second method I mentioned heavily in my presentation. The premise is simple - ask your testers what they thought. The reality isn't nearly so easy.

Your playtesters will have just experienced your game - for the first time, third time or hundredth - with their own set of intentions, reactions and narrative. What one player might have considered a courageous and bold move, another would snarl was deceitful and petty.
So who is right?

It is important to understand three things when you ask your playtester a question:
1) Your game's system(s),
2) The intent of your design, and
3) The intent of your players.

The last is the one that gets forgotten about. You absolutely must know what kind of player your tester is.
Are they competitive or co-operative? A sore winner or a sore loser? Do they grief? Are they tactical, strategic or reactive?
If you don't have a rudimentary understanding of your tester's game psychology going in, the only information you will be able to garner from their feedback is a basic emotional recount of their experience. Which is fine for the player, but that is not information that you can use to effectively test against the logic of your rules system.

The example I used in my presentation is when I changed from asking "Did you feel powerful?" to "When did you feel powerful?" during a testing session.
After a few sessions asking the first question, I had pages of the same feedback. Anyone who won the session felt powerful, everyone else didn't.
As soon as I started asking the second question instead, "When did you feel powerful?", I instantly received better feedback. The players who won would often have a similar end-game related answer, but everyone else was now giving me a wide range of experiences.
With a larger and more informative dataset, I now know what it is about my game that will make someone feel like a powerful mafia crime-lord, and not just someone who lost at a card game.

That's the gist of the presentation. I probably could have talked for a good half hour on the subject, so fitting it all into a lightning talk was pretty tough.
It came out as fairly concise, although I was pushing the three minute limit. Perhaps it was a stroke of luck that I didn't end up giving it!

-Anthony


* This is an amazing repository of information for game designers and AI programmers. Eat it up kids!

Real Social Games...

... are board games.

They aren't compartmentalised timewasters on Facebook. A social game is when you get to socialise while you play. It happens in online play. It happens in MMOs.

But it mostly happens around a table.

There is a lot of uncovered ground with interaction and socialisation in gameplay. There is an element to a truly social game that a digital game can never supply - the obligation of a tangible mechanic. It's too easy to blow off a digital game. You can just disconnect if you hit a losing streak. Change your spec if you want to PVP instead of raid.

If you're sat around a table with four other people, you have to be committed to that gameplay cause. Pushing your pieces around the board, holding your cards and rolling your dice. No one else will step in if you walk from the table. You're there, face-to-face, with your rivals and teammates to the end of the game. (Unless you're a bad sport!)

The delicious side effect to this is that the best part of the game happens off the table. All of the trashtalk, the negotiations, the fits of rage and fist bumps, these are all experiences of a social mechanic. And nothing within the game should get in the way of it! A game can certainly aid in the off-the-table mechanics, but most of it is already inherent in the partaking of the social game.

So, what's missing? Why aren't board games prioritised as high as digital games? Or what is preventing players from finding meaningful experiences outside of digital games?

Board games are missing a significant technology leap.
When pegged about bringing board games to the modern game player, many designers will work straight to the tablet/PC port. Sometimes it works well (Neuroshima Hex!), but a lot of the time the port misses the point of it's original game, the tangible obligation.

I think the digital port is important, but it is not the only way to bring new technology to social games. Why don't we have board games with combat calculators built in? Statistic trackers? Digital counters and scoreboards?
It could be a difficult line to breach. You don't want to remove the aspects from the game that give it physicality - players still need to roll a real dice, push a real piece, else there would be no more physical obligation to play the game. But there's plenty of meta-data that could be automated.

The Microsoft Surface is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's not a dedicated solution. Monopoly's Electronic Banking Edition is also bang on the buck, but this technology integration is sold only as a fad, not an innovation. There could be so much more to it!

The experience of a completed game is a narrative. A completed game around a table is a story shared personally with everyone present. Technology and game mechanics should be used to turn that experience into a memorable story with as little friction as possible.

Choose the platform, technology and mechanics.
Let the players play and be social.

It would be a waste to miss the opportunities to give game players a chance to create more meaningful stories with each other, just because we didn't figure out the best platforms for our games.

-Anthony


fear not, ranger

The many languages of English.

I had a pretty heated discussion with a client the other day. It was an extremely frustrating experience, and one that almost cost me a good business relationship. At no point could either of us answer the other's questions, and when he dropped the "You're not listening to what I'm saying" bomb, I was floored - I had been thinking the exact same thing!

We both left the conversation angry, depleted and nowhere even close to having an understanding about the other side's argument.

It took a while of reflection to figure out what had happened. Even though were we both speaking English fluently, we were speaking different languages! The client was a project manager and wanted to talk in terms of milestones and scope, whereas I was wearing my bookkeeper hat and wanted to talk in terms of source documents and invoices.

Since neither of us were willing to bridge that disciplinary gap, it created a barrier between our communication. We were talking about the exact same thing, but without a common language we just ended up butting heads without finding a solution to the problem at hand.

It is vitally important to know who you are talking to, and know how to communicate with that person. I was only recently introduced to the concept of code-switching, but until the other day I didn't have a practical application for it - I'd only previously seen it refer to either multi-lingual conversationists or bridging the gap of talking and texting between kids. But it is more than that. To be a successful communicator, you need to know that what you say makes sense to the person listening. Communication isn't about talking, it's about making sense to the person listening.

Many of us work in cross-disciplinary workplaces, even multiple workplaces. This is a minefield of social cliques and dialects! How often do you actively change your communication to suit the people you are around on a daily basis?

I'm learning to communicate with the programmers at RocketHands. I know now that I can't just take off about 'shareholder drawings' and 'targeted demographic marketing' without giving examples.
I talk with my band mates differently than I do with my bookkeepers. I certainly don't knuckle-bump my co-workers and give a "'Sup!" to my office manager.
And now I know that there isn't a single client language. They all work in different industries, come from different circumstances. They don't all know about bank reconciliations, the same as some audiences don't care about pentatonics and many gamers don't give a flip about monomyth narratives.

I did call that client back. I put on my project developer hat and talked in a language similar enough that I could start to breach some bookkeeping concepts. As a result we now have a dialogue and process that isn't usual for bookkeeping, but one that can develop into a solid understanding of both businesses.


-Anthony
we need to synergise our backwards overflow