![Links: Dealing Death, Designing Responsibly & Dumping Ideas](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/paG39a6G_zpimtfoNiK0ww__thumb/img/0q1MonGQRR32h0mY0fr9qwI8JsA=/fit-in/200x150/filters:strip_icc()/pic2432611.jpg)
That guy's a jerk, though, and he never gets through these messages at a decent pace, leaving them to compost in the inbox under yet more messages. In an effort to shovel out that material before it gets too ripe, here's a bunch of quick hits from slow Eric:
• Designer Tom Jolly catalogs different types of puzzle games on League of Gamemakers, pointing out the following about the relation between the two: "Note that in all the games listed so far, the foundation of the game is racing to find a solution to a single puzzle. This is the most common theme in puzzle-games and obviously the easiest to implement. You can take any solitaire puzzle, give a copy to two players, and say GO! Whoever solves it first wins the game!"
• In another article on that site, designer Seth Jaffee, developer for Tasty Minstrel Games whose most recent release is Eminent Domain: Microcosm, contemplates the designer's responsibility for good and bad play experiences. An excerpt:
As a designer there's a temptation to accept this dynamic in your own game, and to defend your design choice by saying "yeah, that would suck... don't do that." And to some extent maybe that's ok... The question is, what's that extent? Is it the designer's responsibility to ensure bad play doesn't ruin a player's enjoyment of a game?
For my part, I'm fine with a player getting tanked through their play behavior. In my first game of Age of Steam, which was possibly my first train game played, I created two networks on opposite ends of the board, so I couldn't deliver goods for enough income to dig me out of the debt hole. No one else had suggested that I create a single network because they either assumed I knew what I was doing or were happy to see me take myself out of the game. I learned and went on to play the game better in future sessions.
Along the same lines, I'm a fan of most Leo Colovini designs, and he often allows players to walk themselves into a corner. I still need to record a video about Hot Tin Roof, so perhaps I can dig into the topic more at that time.
• On Boing Boing, Ferdinando Buscema explains how and why he created a Memento Mori from decks of playing cards.
• On The Washington Post, Ana Swanson highlights "The mathematically proven winning strategy for 14 of the most popular games", with "popular" meaning well-known among the public at large. Don't expect Terra Mystica advice is all I'm saying.
• On his blog, Stinker designer Nick Bentley details his 100:10:1 method for game design. An excerpt:
Step 2 – Based on some selection criteria (which depend on my design goals and which I discuss below), I pick 10 of the 100 concepts and try to turn them into actual games. Just crude working versions. I work on all in parallel. This usually take six months to a year.
Step 3 – I pick the most promising game of the 10 I've developed and playtest+polish it till I'm sure I can't improve it. Then I make a list of its weaknesses and improve it more. Then I'm done.