Making Games

If you’re going to take the time to play a game then there should probably be an imperative to actually get stuck in. I’m calling this ‘The Action Imperative’ because just like in life, I think there should be a bias in favour of action (courtesy of Michael Watkins’ ‘The First 90 Days’).

Of course, there are always reasons not to take action and doing anything should never be a substitute for doing something. I’m not a fan of meddling with things just for the hell of it or taking action because you can’t think of anything better to do but on the other hand, often changing things reveals new opportunities.

How this translates to games is in playtesting (thanks again to my friends who introduced this to me). If, when you’re playing the game, you can sit on your hands and take no positive action, then you should not stand a good chance of winning. A great game should take adventure, fun and a little bit of challenge.

If you’re finding that your game favours inactivity, you can solve it in one of two ways:

• Design the game so that not taking action puts you on course to lose. You should make progress through the game and the stakes should gradually get higher so players can’t afford to get left behind.

• Don’t let players not take action. For important decisions there should be no ‘pass’ and the benefits of taking action should be sufficiently positive and immediate to get your players engaged.

Maybe there’s a third way I haven’t thought of?