Richard HutnikUnited States
My most recent game added to BGG is "The Quitting Game". I am writing this blog entry to explain why I created it, why it was the was it was (basic rules) and other details into a focus in a shift in the types of games I am working on.
If you check my list of games created, you will see a number of games using regular game equipment. A bulk of them would fit into the abstract strategy category, or at least games where you strategize with the environment to try to win. There isn't much of a need to know your opponent, just optimize one's play to the environment.
Well, starting with Simultaneous Captain's Mistress, and going onto Massive Multiplayer Captain's Mistress, I have developed an interest into developing games that get players to interact more with others. This also goes with work on my traitor Jenga variant, and several poker variants I did. I also have had a focus in working on games involving group dynamics and psyches of players, and have players game that. As for why, there are a number of reasons:
* What I have found is games I have done prior have a limited appeal. People prefer games where you interact with people more.
* I am interested in games as social experiments. I have an interest in learning how people work, and games that involve more social interaction allow this.
* Games involving human interaction off the board get into the minds of people, and enable a broader range of gameplay and experience. They aren't the type to solve, but challenge players to improve skills and do better in these skills.
* I would like to have more games that solve human problems, and offer dynamics for players to come up with improving play at them leading to improved interaction in life.
* I want to work with a range of forms and areas. This is a new area for me, and I want to develop some games in that area. I want to explore what is meant by winning and losing. In The Quitting Game, it is said there is no reason to quit at the basic game. But, if you look at optimal outcome for everyone, the ideal solution is for everyone to quit. The game is initially set up the way it is (before the variant rules are added to make it more of a traditional game) because it poses questions whose answers work beyond the game into life. The game functions as an educational experience.
* Games where you play an opponent, rather than just an area, give you a new arena to compete in every time you play someone new. Trying to have games that map to an opponent, with an environment being a way to measure this, provides for a deeper game experience, than simply just an environment alone. Of course, optimally the idea is to have some environment to restrict players and leave clues, but the idea for this shift is to try to limit than and focus more on who people are, and have that as a challenge to meet. I am of the belief that games like Poker end up providing a range of depth not found in other game genres. Even Werewolf can do this also. Heck, Diplomacy would fit into this also, because what players bring to the game, greatly impact how the game plays. These games, in my opinion, break game theory to some extent.
* For viability professionally, I am looking to come up with material that can be used in workshops and seminars. I want to demonstrate the ability to create games in this area. In short, I am trying to target other areas.
Well, I am just writing this here now, to go into details onto the why of The Quitting Game, and also a shift in what I am working on.
Again, thank you for your time. Feel free to post your thoughts on the types of games I talk about here, and your likes and dislikes of them I discussed.