So, I’ve decided to rethink the game. I don’t have a new design yet, but I do have some thoughts. I have been thinking about the game more teleologically, asking myself what I want it to do… how I want it to feel… what kind of experience I’m looking to create. These questions have gotten me unsettled and pensive, but I think that it might be good to be so for the time being. Here’s what I’ve been thinking recently:

I want the game to simulate the life of a baron in Orion’s Arm, in all its idiosyncracies. Up until now, I have focused on game balance and a matrix of interactive features, and I have ignored its thematic quality and representational correspondence. But, thematic depth is perhaps even more important than strategic depth in constructible games. When I think back on why I enjoyed (or even got started) playing the CCGs that I did in the past, I realize that the wonder, majesty and reality of the theme was a significant component of my enduring fascination. Most of these games were not just abstract numerical exercises but were simulations of worlds with psychological significance to me. So, I think that I’ve been focused on the the wrong side of it. Over the past weeks, I have been asking myself what life is like for a baron. What are his or her problems? Motivations? Resources? These questions and more have helped me rethink the game design as a bottom up creation, where the question is more about fitting a mechanic into a reality than the other way. Suffice to say, I’m still working on it.

I also want to figure out a non-accumulative model for the design. Whether it is a CCG, a Race or a Dominion, all these games that I have been using as models for my design concepts so far share a central accumulative mechanic. Players start off with little and build up their army, their empire or their kingdom. Then they overcome their opposition and win. Without even realizing it, I have been recreating this model in my own designs. No questions asked. But, the model is well mined and probably the wrong direction if I truly want to do something original. I know that I want to avoid ‘tapping’ mechanics like the plague, and possibly renewable resource mechanics (or which ‘tapping’ is a principle example) as well. All these things seems to contribute to the build, grow and dominate flow. But you don’t need build, grow and dominate to be interesting. In Lords, you take periodic victories. In Court, you try to deplete your opponent. But, overall, the number of cards in your hand or on the table does not change very much. But, I want to create a game which is constructible and expansive, so HoO cannot rely upon the simplicity of Lords or Court. It needs a lot of complexity, but without being accumulative. So, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about just how players might start and end with about the same numbers of cards in play, and how cards might be used for effects without being ‘tapped’. As a whole, I guess it needs to be seen as a series of battles, each independent of each other enough that the principle mechanic isn’t build and kill but complex enough that a number of battles can be lost by a strategy that nevertheless can win the war right at the end.

Finally, I want the game to be political. I don’t want the game to necessarily simulate politics… that would be boring. But, I do want it to induce it. Players should be making deals, acting coy, kabbitzing, taunting, bluffing and able to engage in all sorts of political games (tit for tat, MAD, escalation, gang up on the leader, chicken, etc…) without even knowing that that’s what they’re doing because the game permits it. I think that Euro and hobby games miss out on the fun of politics because they don’t allow for direct confrontation in an effort not to upset people. But, when I think back on my times playing CCGs, epic board games and fun experiences gaming, it is the interplayer intrigue that is the most exciting. It also has the capacity to become quite frustrating as well… and there are definitely games that I do not like to play because they can become too political. But I think it has less to do with politics as marginalization. As long as players don’t feel marginalized, I suspect it doesn’t matter how political the game is. It is one thing when players can stop you from winning and another thing altogether if you can never do anything because other people are picking on you or isolating you. One thing is seen as a challenge and flattering to your skill, the other an issue of favoritism and unfair from the start. So, I want to figure out how the game can be both highly political (with all that fun stuff) and feelings of effectiveness. My sense is that this can be created as long as players continue to have a full range of choices throughout the game, the game plays quickly and there are plenty of ways to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat (perhaps with preconstructed decks).

To put all my thoughts together in one place, I have been thinking about a couple of games for inspiration. On the one hand, Court of the Medici. And on the other, a game called Hack! (Knights of the Dinner Table). But I’ve also been reading through all the CCGs and trying to get my head wrapped around exactly what I want. Something tells me that as long as I keep all these things in mind, my brain will actually pull something together that works. After all, that’s what it’s good for.