Game Design #102: Game Feel

 In videogames there is something called gamefeel or game juice - the intangible 'feel' when interacting with videogames. It's a mix of control response, visuals, and sound - kinda perceptual feedback. It's the sense of immersion, control, satisfaction in a game.  All pretty intangible. (Worth a google if it sounds interesting)

Note: I feel the following post is rather poorly explained without a good orientation, linking and labelling key points, or conclusion.  For a more coherent attempt on this topic, see here.

I tend to like to pry apart wargame mechanisms. I know what I like, which colours my opinions (and conclusions), but I am interested in X + Y = XY - coming to conclusions like "reaction mechanics increase engagement, but increase complexity (more "if-then") and can actually slow the pace of the game."  I may LIKE reactions (my preferences) but they are not always the best solution if you want to keep things simple and snappy. Generally, I explore things you can check, or debate.

But gaming with my 8 year old has me thinking about intangibles. Preferences. 

My wee lad likes chugging lots of dice. I tend to regard big piles of dice with suspicion - a bit of a chore. Was there a more efficient way to do this? But he says: "lots of dice - w000t - this is gonna be epic!" For him, there's something about the feel of flinging handfuls of dice.

Take dice types. For example, I dislike d20s. They seem so swingy, so tiny, so hard to read. I get WHY they can be used (lots of variables in a single roll, convenient 5% increments, good for say fantasy where stats can vary vastly) but I just don't like the feel of using them. I can acknowledge they may be the best option in many games, but I just don't like the feel of using them.

I like d10s a bit more. Easier to use, nice 10% increments, a nice middle ground. My opinion: More games should use d10s. But I find myself thinking in % in a more clinical math-y way when I use them. 

I like a nice handful of d6s. They're familiar, friendly, cube-y.  There's something when you see snake eyes (1s) or box cars (6s) that evokes a feeling of thrill/dread that a 0 or a 9 on a d10 just... doesn't. Likewise I don't enjoy games where rolling low is good. Especially on d6s. I just have a weird moment when I see the dreaded '1' and then realise "oh - that's good - I succeeded? Riiight."

d4s are just crap. Little pointy pyramids. They aren't dice but bunches of numbers painted on triangles.

These are my feelings about dice. Objectively, there are games/mechanics when using each dice may be best practice - but I'd prefer never to have to use d4s - ever.

I also dislike adding dice together (2d6). In fact any major adding or subtracting kinda pulls me out of the game while I 'math.'  

I'm not a fan of the rather common 2d6: it's worse, as it creates a bell curve of results, which if rolling to beat a target number, kinda goes 3%, 8%, 17%, 27%, 41%, 58%, 72%, 83% etc - rather than a smooth 10%, 20%, 30% etc - where modifiers can push you past a certain break point i.e. the difference between a 2 and a 4 (+2 modifier) is 15%; the same +2 gap on a 6 would make a 31% swing. A +2 bonus has a variable value. That would be fine if the game was designed around a bell curve (like Fudge dice) but sometimes 2d6 are a carry over from when d10 were not invented and it's an unwanted side effect.... (*cough* Battletech Alpha Strike *cough*)  ...at which point I'd say it is objectively bad.

But these are preferences. What I think 'feels right.' 

I'm not just talking about physical interactions and dice. This includes mechanics.  

 

My son tosses dice haphazardly. A dice box is $30+. So I made my own using a $3 wooden picture frame. My daughter: "Why is the blade broken?" My son: "Umm - it's Isilduir's sword, the one they reforged?"  ...I have amended my Will accordingly.

My guilty admission:
Saving throws are usually, objectively, a needless extra roll. Clunky, bad design. 

You know the pattern: #1 attacker roll to hit #2 attacker roll to see if damage; #3 defender roll to save. I'd say objectively this is clumsy design. Why do an extra step? It's like #2 and #3 are kinda duplicating each other. Why roll to do damage, when you then roll again and undo it?

I'd say extra saving throws are generally a sign there's something wrong with step #2 (doing damage) - perhaps there's not enough variables on the dice - you should be using d10s not d6s, for example.

 However I love the feel of a saving throw - it has drama. To pick up the dice and deny your opponent with a '6' and see the anguish on their face is pretty funny. The tense feeling you have when your opponent picks up the dice - DID you kill his hero or is he about to Houdini? I feel kinda gives the player being attacked a sense of agency. (Note: it would be objectively more streamlined if you could allow the opponent to roll the damage dice from #2 and skip #3 - similar effect, without an extra roll). However many players will hate saving throws, and I totally understand - logically, they're probably correct to want them gone!

With saving throws, I have the guilty feel when I read a Lee Childs novel or watch something like The Meg. I feel I'm losing brain cells when I do it - but it's kinda fun.

I hate things that drag me out the the game. If I have to stop to look up a rule, or consult a chart, or (duh duh dah) tick off hitpoints (<- you all knew this was coming) it kinda kills the flow. Chatting with opponents, commiserating over dice rolls - fine. Expected of a social game involving chance. Paging frantically through a rulebook to look up an obscure special rule? I curse the game designer. This actually links with videogame gamefeel - immersion - akin to having to pause and check a menu every few minutes, or having an obtrusive HUD or annoying cringe voice over.  I'd argue this can be objectively bad, if it was avoidable by the game designer.  

Anything that drags me away from the table, my toys, or makes me do maths/writing feels like work.

Hopefully you have an idea of what I am trying to describe. The feel of the game. 

It's not something tangible.

We're largely talking about preferences here (which we can measure) - or perhaps the conjunction of a range of preferences and mechanics that makes a game 'feel' right for you. Sometimes a game has a good feel but the mechanics run contrary to your preferences. Why is that?

There are lots of elements that contribute to the overall feel of a game. It could be anything from the dice you use (buckets), immersive mechanics that 'get' the spirit of the genre (reactive shootouts in a modern firefight, grinding Greek shieldwalls), flowing gameplay, or even a favourite mechanic (like saving throws) that you might say is objectively bad.

Q1: What is a game you enjoy - that you really 'feel' immersed in? That 'hits the spot'?

Now, because I can't resist analyzing... can we quantify why? 

Q2: What elements of the game make it so?

For example, blog readers will know I enjoy ME:SBG. This is a good example as it's nothing impressive. No mechanics stand out. It does nothing innovative. It's a 20-year-old, streamlined 40K-esque game with a more interactive activation, individual minis moving rather than squads, and a resource management system for heroes (might/will/fate) grafted on top.  

I like it because it is simple (I preferred the even leaner LotR:SBG) but has 'just enough' depth - there's decisions but not the relentlessness/lethality of say Infinity. It allows you to play scenes from the books and movies, emphasizing cinematic, heroic deeds which even non-gamer Tolkienites can appreciate. There are few 'gotcha' rules and you can usually guess what a mini is capable of. It has a point system so you can balance your own homebrew scenarios. It handles a wide range of 10-40 minis easily - sitting flexibly in a weird spot between true skirmish (Necromunda) and platoon-ish games (40K). As a bonus, you can use the rules to play ancients, medieval and even pike/musket with little adjustment and you actually use shieldwalls etc. Official GW support is 'barely there' but there is a vast supply of 3D printing to fill every gap; and it's probably good in a way, as we've had 2(?) editions in 20 years which means no perennial arms race.

Is it a good game? Eh. I'd say it is objectively more streamlined and balanced than say 40K, and has more strategy, decision points, balance and less 'gotcha' moments. But it isn't really an amazing game. I could say there are, objectively, better mechanics for most areas - and the methods aren't consistent. However, it has the right 'feel', it's fun and its simple old-school mechanics combine fine to do the job. For me, it's greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe it's nostalgia? 

The game-feel is good, although the individual elements do not necessarily align to my preferences.

----

Sometimes I think we conflate with what we like with what is most logical or best practice. Just because you hate stats doesn't mean a game with one stat and many hundred special rules is objectively simpler/better. Just because you might hate hitpoints doesn't mean there isn't a place for them. I like reactions, but not every game benefits from them (most, arguably, don't). I like new fresh mechanics but I acknowledge most folk prefer familiar ones - they are easier to learn. I think activation is one of the most important aspects of the game. Many people don't care. Some people hate having any morale rules.  What we like isn't always the most efficient/innovative/simple/tactical option etc. And that's OK.

When I dig into games, I tend to view 'best' as the smooth, consistent rules with a good balance of decisions for the player. But best is actually the most fun. So...

What are your favourite games? Why?

This is more about what you like. What has a good game feel? What games are immersive? And what elements do you think makes it that way? Also: Does it have flaws? Is the game good despite itself?