A Theory of Fun

I've been recently reading a fun little book by Raph Koster,
titled "A Theory of Fun in Game Design". The author defines
fun as the pleasure we get from learning with the game, and
admits there are many othe different kinds of pleasures one
can get from a game. Then he proceeds to cite some theories
about how we learn and what it is needed for. There is also
a checklist of things that a "fun" game design might need.

I think this list is interesting, and I will summarize here
some of the points:

* Preparation: you have some tasks to perform in your game,
which require gathering of resources, getting the correct
values of some parameters, equipping some items or generally
doing something different than the tasks themselves. This
might be split into separate phases -- like visiting towns
and dungeons -- or it may be more fluent, like exploring and
fighting. It is important that the way you prepare impacts
the way you can actually perform the tasks and their difficulty
level or outcome. It should be generally possible to learn to
prepare in more optimal way. Many roguelike games have this
"preparation" -- "exploration" cycle.

* Space: it's important to "be somewhere" and to be able to
"move somewhere". This sense of space should be simple enough
(or similar to our everyday experiences) to not require special
effort in order to place oneself in relation to important game
objects. Roguelikes have a rather traditional and well-defined
world representation, but there is always room for innovation --
but beware, a Descent-based roguelike might be too confusing.

* Core mechanic: relatively simple basic set of rules, simple
enough to understand them, but interacting in a complex enough
way as to create a large number of possibilities that can be then
clarified with additional, more complicated rules -- the content.
I think that the core mechanic is what makes the roguelike games
roguelike.

* Challenges: particular sets of specific rules, fitting within
the core mechanic, but much more specific, providing a problem to
be solved. There should be a wide range of distinct challenges: different
monsters with distinct attacks, vulnerabilities and behaviors, variety
of dangerous situations, traps, curses, vaults, quests.

* Multiple solutions: you can perform the tasks and defeat the challenges
using different abilities, depedning on what you have available at the
moment, what you can think of and what you prefer. This includes allowing
a wide range of strategies, maybe even suggested explicitly by the use
of races and classes, maybe just guaranteed by leaving the challenges
open ended. There should always be more than one way to solve a problem.

* Skill requirement: the game is not a movie, it cannot just let you play
through it without effort -- it should make you learn by requiring certain
skills. This may be a tactical skill, good planning, puzzle solving,
resource management, memorization, analysis, timing, etc. -- anything
goes. It's just important that performing well must be rewarded in some
way, and performing bad -- punished. Preferably with some feedback system
that lets you adjust your behavior as you learn more. Also, performing
tasks requiring little skill should have small (or no) rewards.

This is it, at least the way I understood it. The book is mentions some
names and sources that have more detailed information -- I will need to
look into these. I hope this checklist will help you design the game of
your dreams -- but don't hold onto it too much. It all about art in the
end, after all, and art cannot be analyzed throughfully.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski <http://sheep.art.pl>
If something happens, it must be possible.
-- Scott Cox's First Law Of Physics

On Feb 2, 5:22 pm, Radomir 'The Sheep' Dopieralski <n... DeleteThis @sheep.art.pl>
wrote:
> I've been recently reading a fun little book by Raph Koster,

Fun meaning that you are learning from the book? :>

> titled "A Theory of Fun in Game Design". The author defines
> fun as the pleasure we get from learning with the game, and
> admits there are many othe different kinds of pleasures one
> can get from a game.

The two big ones I took away from his book are "Fun" and "Flow". Fun,
as you say, represents that learning phase. Flow is expressed in
mastery. Flow is performing a complicated action that takes your full
concentration that you've mastered.

In the roguelike world, I think *Bands tend to focus on Flow while
Hacklikes focus on Fun.

> This is it, at least the way I understood it. The book is mentions some
> names and sources that have more detailed information -- I will need to
> look into these. I hope this checklist will help you design the game of
> your dreams -- but don't hold onto it too much. It all about art in the
> end, after all, and art cannot be analyzed throughfully.

There is Art and there is Craft. Craft, as in Craftsmanship, can be
analyzed thoroughly. There is a lot of Craftsmanship to Game Design
that Raph Koster is trying to discern in this book. So I say you
should hold on to it, at least until you can come up with a better
theory. Mind you, I'm a Raph Koster fan-boy, so take my words with
some salt :>
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)