Character Bio: Aiyana

Archetype: warrior, willing, hero, defender.


Characteristics: brave, adventurous, compassionate, happy, enthusiastic, honest, righteous.

Motivation: wants to defend her world, and keep its people safe from harm.

Bio: Aiyana is a seasoned warrior, and has won many battles against the forces of evil and darkness. When she was just a child, her village was raided. Aiyana managed to hide, but she was the only survivor, save for a little baby bunny that had got trapped amongst the wreckage. Aiyana gathered what supplies she could and left the village, determined to one day become a fearsome warrior, and defend the world from the evil forces that seek to destroy it. Little Hugglebunny has stayed by her side ever since.

Fears: being defeated by the forces of evil/darkness, and failing to protect the people of her world.

Iterating The Royal Game of Ur

Iterating the Royal Game of Ur

By Giselle Czajka

In this essay, I will be analysing the ancient board game, The Royal Game of Ur, and iterating it to see if the gameplay can be improved.

The Royal Game of Ur (also known as The Game of Twenty Squares) is an ancient board game that was discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley. He discovered the gaming boards while carrying out excavations in the ancient city of Ur, in Mesopotamia, in the 1920s. These boards were sealed in the royal tombs of the First Dynasty of Ur (Murray, 1952). The boards date from around 3000bc, making them likely to be some of the oldest game boards in existence (Masters, 1997).

The board consists of a set of six squares (in a 2x3 grid) and a set of twelve squares (in a 4x3 grid), joined by a bridge of two squares. The game requires two players, each of whom are given 7 playing pieces. The game uses tetrahedral dice, or sometimes, four-sided throwing sticks (Finkel, 2008). Other variations of the game board were discovered in tombs of the ‘Empire’ age, about 1580bc (Bell, 1979). These new boards had removed the 2x3 grid at the end of the board, and had instead extended the bridge with a 6x1 grid (so the bridge was eight squares long in total). It is thought that the game is ultimately a race to get all of the player’s pieces to the end of the board, with the bridge area most likely being used to ‘battle’, so players can try to eliminate each other’s pieces. The newer board has a longer section for battles, making the game less predictable. After playing The Royal Game of Ur on both boards, I decided to use the newer board, as it seemed to be more successful at keeping the player interested throughout the game.

Original Game Board:

Newer Game Board:

No official rules have been found for The Royal Game of Ur, but a variety of rules have been interpreted from the available information. For this study, I am going to use a basic set of rules interpreted by Finkel:

• Each player has seven pieces.
• Use four tetrahedral dice, with two marked corners and two unmarked corners. Marked corners equal one point and unmarked corners equal no points. So with four tetrahedral dice the minimum roll can be zero and the maximum can be four. Each turn, players move the number of points rolled.
• The pieces do not start on the board. Pieces start lined up along the edge of the board, next to the player’s start space. When one player moves their piece onto the board it starts at START SPACE A, and the other player starts at START SPACE B. As play continues the pieces move towards the left until they reach the edge of the board, at which point they move into the middle lane, and proceed along it to the end (ADD ARROWS ON DIAGRAM).
• Players can remove the opponent’s pieces from the board by landing their own piece on a square that the opponent’s piece is on. This ‘captured’ piece is removed from the board and must traverse the board again from the beginning.
• The Rosette squares (denoted by stars in the above diagrams), are safe squares and any piece on this square cannot be captured. Landing on the Rosette also allows the player to roll the four dice again, giving them an extra turn.

I made several iterations to the game, but the following iterations were the ones that I felt had the best impact on gameplay.

The first aspect of the game I wanted to focus on was the amount on skill and chance involved. The game seemed to be tilted slightly more in favour of luck than skill, with the dice rolls being the main focus of the game. Luck and skill elements are both important, and enrich games in different ways. Luck is a valuable game component, because it makes the game more appealing to a wider audience, and players of every skill level can feel like they have a chance to win (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008). Having luck elements in a game also gives a game more replay value, because the game cannot be fully mastered. Skill also plays a part in making a good game, because skill elements give players more control, making them feel more involved in the game. If a game relies purely on chance, then the player will feel like they are just there to move the pieces, and will feel distanced from the game. For my first iteration I attempted to add an extra skill element to the game. I did this by adding the option to ‘double up’ pieces, meaning that a player can put up to two of their pieces on the same square. If two pieces are on the same square then the opponent cannot capture these pieces. This gives the player more control over how they play: they can either choose to play cautiously and double up their pieces to make them safe, or take a risk to try and capture the opponent’s pieces. I found that this iteration worked well, as the middle lane is fairly long, and the pieces have quite a distance to travel before they can get to the end of the board. This way the player doesn’t feel pressured to always move a piece once it gets to the middle lane, in an attempt to keep it ahead of the opponent’s pieces and not get captured.

For my second iteration, I wanted to add something to give the losing player a chance to catch up, so that they do not become disinterested in the game. This is called a negative feedback system (LeBlanc, 2006). If one player has at least double the pieces in play of the other player, the player with the most pieces in play gets to take two turns every turn. For example, if player A has six pieces in play, and player B has two pieces in play, then player A gets to roll the four tetrahedral dice, take their turn, and then roll the dice again, for a second turn. ‘In play’ refers to both the pieces on the board, and the pieces yet to be played (pieces that have already reached the end of the board and left play do not count). For example, in the diagram below, all of the pieces that are not in the red box are counted as in play. The player with the purple pieces is ahead, as they have four pieces that have reached the end of the board, while the player with the black pieces only has one piece that has reached the end of the board. So, for the counters in play, the numbers are six black to three purple. This means that the player using the black counters gets to have double turns.

 With this iteration I found that if both players had few pieces, i.e. Player A had two pieces and player B had one piece, then this would give player A too much of an advantage, even when he is not very far behind player B. I then tweaked the iteration, so that the double turn only applies when one player has at least double the pieces of the other player, AND one player has at least three pieces more than the other player. This improved the iteration a lot, only giving the double turn to players that are very far behind. 

I noticed that players could often get stuck in a run of bad luck, with both players rolling zeros, and the gameplay would be unable to progress during that time. To counter this, I added another iteration, one in which a player could re-roll if they rolled a zero, giving them a chance to roll a better number. I decided that this should be limited to only one extra roll per turn for this mechanic, because if a player could always reroll, then the zero roll would be pointless.

For the final iteration I wanted to make a change that adds a positive feedback system to the game. A positive feedback system helps to bring games to a conclusion, so the gameplay does not become stagnant (LeBlanc, 2006). I added a mechanic where, if a piece is captured, instead of going back to the start, it goes into a ‘held hostage’ pile. Once a piece is in this pile, a roll of 2 needs to be made before the piece can return into play. So for example, if a piece is being held hostage, and the player who owns the piece rolls a 2, they can either use that roll on a piece that is not held hostage, or use the 2 to ‘free’ the hostage. If the piece is freed then it goes back to the line of pieces that are yet to be played. There is no limit to how many pieces can be held hostage. The hostage pile acts as a positive feedback system, because a player gets most of the opponent’s pieces into the hostage pile, then they will have no competition as they move their pieces to the end of the board. This also adds more risk and reward to the game, as leaving a piece open to be captured now can have higher consequences.

I think that all of the iterations mentioned above have improved the game in various ways, while still keeping the game true to its original form. I feel that my iterations have modernised the game, using knowledge from research that has been made into gaming since its discovery.

Bibliography

·         Bell, R. C. (1979) Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Revised edition. pp. 23-25. 

·         Braithwaite, B. & Schreiber, I. (2008) Challenges For Games Designers Charles River Media pp. 69-99 (chapters 5 & 6).

·         Finkel, I. L. (2008) Finkel, ed. pp. 16-32.

·         LeBlanc, M (2006) “Tools for Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics” In Salen, K., The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. MIT Press, pp. 439-459.

·         Masters, J. The Online Guide to Traditional Games, [online] Available at: < http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Royal-Game-Ur.htm > [Accessed 8^th December 2011].

·         Murray, H. J. R. (1952) A History of Board Games Other Than Chess. pp. 19-23. 

La Decima Vittima - It's the 21st Century and they have a license to kill

Cast
Marcello Mastroianni – Marcello Polletti
Ursula Andress – Caroline Meredith
Elsa Martinelli – Olga
Salvo Randone – Professor
Massimo Serato – Lawyer
Milo Quesada – Rudi
Luce Bonifassy – Lidia
George Wang – Chinese attacker
Evi Rigano – Victim
Walter Williams – Martin
Richard Armstrong – Cole
Antonio Ciani


La Decima Vittima (The Tenth Victim) is a sci-fi thriller, set in the 21st century. The film was produced in 1965, and is based on a short story written by Robert Sheckley in 1953. The film revolves around The Big Hunt, a global competition in which people compete to be the first to claim 10 victories. Surviving through 10 rounds leads to fame and fortune, but it is not an easy competition . In this world, assassination is legal, and each competitor must kill 5 victims, and escape from 5 hunters. The film is centered around Caroline Meredith (Ursula Andress), a competitor looking for her tenth victory, and Marcello Poletti (Marcello Mastroianni), her final target. A romance ensues between them, as Marcello tries to deduce whether Caroline is his hunter.

Richard Bartle: Players Who Suit MUDs

In this article, Bartle says that there are four main things that players usually enjoy in MUDs:

Achievement within the game content: players that focus on this aspect of MUDs like to set themselves goals to achieve, or objects to collect.

Exploration of the game: players that focus on this aspect of MUDs like to gain as much knowledge as possible about their environment. This can include finding their way around the game world, or looking for bugs and exploits within the coding of the game itself.

Socialising with others: players that focus on this aspect of MUDs like to make use of the features that allow them to converse with other players, or engage in roleplay with other players.

Imposition upon others: players that focus on this aspect of MUDs like to engage in combat with other players. Bartle says that players "use the tools provided by the game to to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players." From my experience of online games today, I find that, although this does still occur, these types of players tend to stick mainly to battlegrounds or arenas, which are isolated areas geared specifically towards PvP (Player versus Player) gameplay.

In most cases, griefing (purposely irritating and harassing other players) usually occurs mostly as a result of opportunity. For example, in MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online games) like World of Warcraft, when a new expansion is released, the maximum level that a character can reach is often increased. This leads to a rush of players into the new zones of the game, because they all want to reach the new maximum level. Griefing tends to happen pretty certainly here, as the players that like to grief will be in this area anyway, as they will also be levelling their own characters, and there are a large number of players for them to harass. These types of players don't often go to a zone to specifically harass players, they just harass players in the zones that they happen to be in anyway. If they are looking specifically for combat then they will go to the previously mentioned battlegrounds and arenas.

Most people will tend towards one of these four main areas in a game, but in games nowadays, there is less of an option to stick to only one of the areas. In most current MMOs, a player will usually need to reach maximum level before they can try to focus on one area to follow. For example, in World of Warcraft, to get to maximum level players will need to:

• Achieve: players will need to complete quests, collect equipment and collect money to progress
• Explore: players will need to travel to new zones as their level increases, and will become familiar with each new zone
• Socialise: players will need to interact with other players, to form groups for dungeons, where they can fight computer controlled enemies. They will need to work together with other players as a team to defeat the enemies and gain better equipment.
• Impose: There is not always a need to engage in player versus player combat willingly, but a player needs to be able to defend themselves against players that will try to harass them. Battlegrounds are also a good way to level a character, if they prefer that to always questing.

Player Interactions

In this article, Bartle also makes observations about how the different groups interact with one another:

Achievers

Versus other achievers: other achievers are seen as competition, but it is normally in a friendly manner, as opposed to in a fierce and vicious manner. They respect other successful achievers.

Versus explorers: achievers tend to look down on explorers, thinking of them as people that aren't good enough at the game to be a true player.

Versus socialisers: to achievers, socialisers are simply a way of gaining extra knowledge or information, they are seen as a waste of space, and are just tolerated.

Versus Killers: achievers don't like killers, as they will often interrupt the achiever's attempts to progress.

Explorers

Versus achievers: explorers see achievers as junior explorers, that have not yet realised that pursuing meaningless goals is a waste of time.

Versus other explorers: explorers respect other successful explorers, but look down on unsuccessful ones.

Versus socialisers: explorers see socialisers as unimportant, and are only useful to brag to.

Versus Killers: explorers find killers tiresome.

Socialisers

Versus achievers: socialisers like achievers, as they give the socialisers something to talk about.

Versus explorers: socialisers look down on explorers.

Versus other socialisers: socialisers love communicating with other socialisers.

Versus Killers: socialisers hate killers, because killers tend to hassle them more than they hassle the other groups.

Killers

Versus achievers: killers regard achievers as their natural prey. They are the most interesting to pursue, as they are skilled enough to possibly be able to escape.

Versus explorers: killers tend to ignore explorers, as they don't care about being attacked, and the killers get no emotional reward from killing them.

Versus socialisers: killers love to harass socialisers, as they are often weaker than the other groups, and will also get more distressed about being attacked.

Versus other Killers: killers tend to avoid other killers, except in pre-organised matches, so as not to risk being defeated.

British Museum Trip

Unfortunately I couldn't make it to The British Museum, but the tutors were informed of this before the trip took place.

I had been to The Natural History Museum several times in the months before coming to university, and would like to see The British Museum eventually as well.

Liar's Dice

Liar's Dice is a dice game, where players bid on the total dice rolls of all the players at the table. The game has no limit on how many people can play, and each player starts with five 6-sided dice. The players roll their own dice, keeping them concealed from the other players. The players then take turns in bidding on how many of a certain number have been rolled.

For example, a player can bid that overall, eight 5's have been rolled on the table. The next player can then increase the bid, i.e. bidding at least nine of any dice number, or challenge the player who made the current bid. If there are at least eight 5's on the table, then the person who called the challenge loses a dice. If there are not at least eight 5's on the table, then the person that bid eight 5's loses a dice. The game ends when only one player has any dice left.

Note: 1's are wild and cannot be bid on, but they are included in any bid. For example, if a player bids on how many 3's there are, the 1's are included in this.

Iterations to the game:

As a group, we decided to iterate the game, and add a mechanic to allow players that are falling behind to regain some of their dice.

Iteration: Anyone can bluff (instead of just the person whose turn it is calling the bluff). If the person calling the bluff is correct then they regain 1 dice. However if the person who called the bluff is wrong, then they lose 2 dice. If you lose dice through having a bluff called on you, but are not calling a bluff yourself, you can only lose one dice at a time.

There can be a maximum of 5 dice in play for each player at any one time, and if you lose all of your dice you are out of the game (you cannot call bluffs with no dice).

This worked pretty well, as people with one dice left have a chance to get back on even ground with the other players. It is not without risk though, because if a player carelessly challenges people just to get dice back, then they can lose even more dice than they normally would (i.e. lose two instead of one).

Marc LeBlanc: Tools For Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics

Dramatic tension is made up of two factors:

• Uncertainty: The sense that there is no predetermined outcome, no player is guaranteed to win.
• Inevitability: The sense that the game will eventually end, that there will eventually be a resolution.

Dramatic tension requires both of these factors to be effective, Neither factor will be sufficient on it's own.

Negative Feedback Systems:

This type of feedback system is used to decrease the gap between the player(s) that are winning, and the player(s) that are falling behind. For example, in the racing game Mario Kart, if a player is not currently in first place, then they have a chance to obtain the Blue Spiny Shell. This shell attacks the player that is currently in first place, closing the gap between them and the player that is currently in last place. This helps to create uncertainty, because if there is no distinct lead, then the outcome seems undecided.

Positive Feedback Systems:

This type of feedback system is used to add more inevitability to a game. For example, in trading card games, such as the World of Warcraft Trading Game, the longer a game lasts, the more 'resources' the players will acquire. More powerful cards take more resources to play, so as the game keeps going, more and more powerful cards will be played more frequently. This can be useful to bring a game to a close, to ensure that the game does not take so long that the players lose interest in competing.

Pseudo Feedback:

This is where it seems like a feedback system is being used when, in fact, no feedback system is being used at all. Examples of pseudo feedback:

Escalation:

This is where the score changes progressively faster over the course of the game. For example, in the game show Jeopardy, when half of the game's time has elapsed, only one third of the available prize money has been awarded. This is because the value of each question increases as the game progresses. This makes the player feel that the game has progressed further than it really has.

Hidden Energy:

This is where all players have a boost or power of some kind that they can use. For example, in some racing games, players may each have a turbo boost that they can use once during the race to give them a speed boost. If a player chooses to use the boost at the beginning of the race it can seem like they are ahead. However, once the other players have used their own boosts, the the playing field is level again. Hidden energy can obscure the true state of the game from the player.

Fog of War:

In strategy games, like Warcraft III, a mechanic called Fog of War is used. This mechanic prevents players from seeing areas of the map that their units cannot see. As the player's base grows, they begin to see more and more of the map. This is a way to create dramatic uncertainty, because players start with very little information, and the outcome of the game is uncertain (Players cannot see how well the other players are doing). As the game progresses, the player's information increases, and the outcome of the game seems more certain.

Decelerator:

This is an obstacle that appears in the later stages of a game, which changes the game's scale and pace, to make the game seem closer than it is. Take the show Gladiators for example. In the the final course of the game, The Eliminator, one of the obstacles is a cargo net. It takes a long time to climb the net, so the player that was falling behind would usually catch up while the leader is on the cargo net. Measured in time, the leader is still quite far ahead, but because they seem close to each other in regards to distance, it makes it seems like the contestants are nearly neck and neck with each other.

Cashing Out:

This is a game mechanic where the score is reset to zero. For example, in the game Bomberman, the player gains a trophy for winning each round. The first player to win three trophies is the winner of the game. At the start of each new round, the power-ups are reset, so in each new round the player is given a fresh start. Winning a previous round does not give the player any advantage. This adds to uncertainty, as there is no clear winner until that third trophy has been won.

Game Dynamics That Produce Dramatic Tension:

• Force: Creating dramatic tension by manipulating the game state itself.
• Illusion: Manipulating the player's perception, without actually changing the game state, so that the game seems closer than it is.