I ran into a number of my gaming colleagues at Gen Con (designers, publishers, industry pundits, etc.) with whom I had become acquainted when SDRGames put out Bootleggers– see Other Publish Credits page. I also attended another Stackpole seminar where he stressed the importance of character development – a common thread through his 21 Days to a Novel and Secrets Podcast.
It got me thinking that game design and writing share a common thread.
Gaming has two acknowledged major schools of design – European and American. I don’t want to start a debate or go into a dissertation on the details of both, but suffice it to say that the major differences are in their views of conflict and luck. European eschews direct conflict and mechanics involving a lot of luck. Their focus is primarily on strategy and indirect conflict. The American school of design, by contrast, prefers direct conflict and has greater amounts of luck. A hybrid, which is what we intended to create with Bootleggers, has elements of both. To drive the point home, think of Risk: I am attacking your country and rolling dice to win. I “attack” another country in a Euro game by outbidding them for cheaper resources thus making it more expense for them to improve their armies– that’s indirect and no luck.
Its that indirect conflict that I find similar to the Stackpole character development process. In Euro game design, there is usually some objective that is required to win, e.g. the most victory points, the most money, longest road, etc. Each player develops a strategy and plays that strategy to achieve the objective. It is in the process of playing that strategy that the player’s actions will disrupt other players’ attempts to achieve the objective. The disruption, or “player interaction” in a game is really important in the design – the preference being greater interaction. No interaction between players and the game earns the negative “multi-player solitaire” reputation.
So what does this have to do with writing?
Consider each character a unique player in the game and, unlike a vast majority of the games, each has a very unique goal they wish to achieve. It is in the attempt to achieve these goals they will be faced with obstacles that they must overcome. Just like game design, it is best if these obstacles are put in place by the other players. The more one character’s actions to reach their goal disrupt the other character’s ability to achieve their goal, the more engaging the story should be. The conflict arises between the characters going about achieving their goals. Sometime this conflict is direct – Sally is going to stab Drake because he has been cheating on her in an attempt to find happiness, or more of the indirect kind – Sally has locked the house and gone looking for her cheating husband Drake. Drake returns to find the house locked and is forced to spend the night in a cheap flea infested hotel where he is forced to confront his definition of happiness.
Some random musings there for the folks that have an interest in board game design and writing. Probably a bigger group than the intersection of NASCAR fans who are also opera season ticket holders… but that is another story.
Very interesting. I like the comparisons. Eurogame conflict would work better in a story I agree, because they can produce a chain reaction of events. Thanks for the read!