This book uses examples from both tabletop games-also called analog games, board games, physical games, and so on-and digital games-those played on a computer, console, tablet, or phone.

Having systemic rules with few exceptions that are easy to learn, where both predictable and emergent behaviors are possibleĮnabling the system to be used within multiple contexts or to have new parts added within it The following are some examples of elegance:Ĭreating a diverse space for players to explore based on only a few rules (Again, Go is the archetypal example of this.) It goes beyond but is related to the quality of consistency discussed above. By designing game systems carefully, with only the needed parts and sufficient loops between them, you will be able to extend the systems internally or extend their use externally far more easily than if you rely on more static content or fractured, separated systems in the game.Įlegant: As discussed in earlier chapters, elegance is often a hallmark of systems. For example, you may decide that you want to add a whole new class of buildings for players to construct if you have a general “building construction” system in the game, this is much easier to do than if you have to hand-craft another one. Designing in terms of loops rather than arcs also makes it easier to take a system and add it to a new game or put it in a new context, where it acts as a part in a new larger system. While in a loop the parts affect each other cyclically, as veteran game designer Daniel Cook said, “An arc is a broken loop that you exit immediately” (Cook 2012). You want to create parts and loops that can be used in multiple ways, not a single-use arc that makes for a complicated rather than complex set of relationships. Rather than depend on custom-created content “set pieces” (e.g., expensive hand-created levels), as much as possible you should create game systems such that content can be reused in new ways or created procedurally. You should at least be able to know that you have accounted for any edge cases that might hurt a player’s experience or provide them with a gap in the system to exploit to their advantage.Įxtensible: Building games systemically typically makes them highly extensible. However, neither should your systems produce wildly different results for similar inputs, much less become brittle and break down due to unforeseen circumstances. Being predictable should not be taken as meaning that game systems should be obviously or boringly mechanistic. While making games predictable helps players build mental models of the games, it can also be somewhat at odds with designing systems for emergence. Predictable: Game systems should have predictable outputs for given inputs. (This is similar to the discussion in Chapter 3, “Foundations of Games and Game Design,” on elegance.) This is why both design documentation (for you) and presenting the game in such a way that players can build a mental model of it are so important.Ĭonsistent: Achterman points out the importance of having “rules and content function the same in all areas of your game.” It can be tempting to add an exception or a special case to fix a problem, but doing so tends to decrease the resilience of the system (which sets up the game for later problems) and makes it more difficult to learn. Of course, your players have to be able to comprehend it, too. In his view, five qualities are the hallmarks of effective game systems:Ĭomprehensible: As a designer, you have to understand your game as a system and the systems within it. Qualities of Game SystemsĪchterman (2011) has provided helpful guidelines for building game systems. As a way to approach designing games as systems, we can look at the properties of effective systems in games and how they affect the process of game design.

Game system designer