A "special" review of my book "Game Design," with a twist (the book is NOT the point)

 

A special book “review” of my book 

Game Design

 

[ Note. This was submitted as a column for “Worlds of Design” on enworld.org. I’ve written more than 200 entries for that column starting in 2017. But this time things went awry, as I tried something with a “twist” halfway through.

 

It is, ostensibly, a review of my book “Game Design” (McFarland, 2012). The editor only read the first part and came back to say that guest authors needed to be paid, so this was not allowed. I asked if he’d read the whole thing. He came back again saying, oh, but the topic here (NOT the book) would be rejected by the readers, or start a flamewar!

 

My impression of enworld.org, dating from long before I started my column, is that the denizens are willing to argue at length about most anything RPG-related; in any case, flamewars are undesirable there, and the article was unusable.

 

I’ve tried not to give too much away. See what you think.]

 

(formerly “Worlds of Design”)]

 

 

 

I’m planning to offer some book reviews in “Worlds of Design”, and as part of some experiments (yeah, there’s a catch) I asked some acquaintances to write book reviews of my 2012 book Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish. There’s something special about this I’ll describe after you read the review that I chose as the best of the lot.

 

The review:

Book Review: Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish by Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher’s Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish is an insightful and methodical guide aimed at aspiring game designers, whether their focus is on video games or tabletop formats. Published in 2012, the book serves as a comprehensive primer on the fundamental principles of game design, offering practical advice, theoretical frameworks, and a no-nonsense approach to the creative process. Pulsipher, a veteran in game design and education, structures his book around not just the act of designing games but also the mindset and discipline necessary to complete them.

A Practical and Structured Approach

One of the book’s strongest aspects is its structured approach to game design. Pulsipher is not interested in merely inspiring readers with grand ideas; he is focused on execution. From the outset, he makes it clear that designing games is a discipline, requiring patience, critical thinking, and iteration. He methodically outlines the process of game design in clear steps: conceptualizing an idea, creating a prototype, playtesting, refining mechanics, and finalizing the game.

He also makes a crucial distinction between designing and producing games. While many books on game design touch on development and marketing, Pulsipher stays rooted in the design process itself, ensuring that readers understand the core aspects of game mechanics, player engagement, and system interactions before delving into production concerns.

Key Themes and Insights

Pulsipher’s pragmatic approach is evident throughout the book, particularly in his discussions on common misconceptions. One of the most valuable insights he provides is the idea that a game is more than just an idea - it is a process that involves repeated testing and refinement. He challenges the common novice assumption that a great idea is enough to make a successful game, emphasizing instead that execution, playtesting, and adjustments based on feedback are what truly shape a game.

Another key theme is the importance of understanding the audience. Chapter 4, You Must Know Your Audience/Target Market, delves into the necessity of designing with a specific group in mind. He advises designers to avoid making games solely for themselves, stressing that a successful game must appeal to its intended players. This player-centric approach is crucial for both commercial success and player enjoyment.

Additionally, Pulsipher provides a detailed breakdown of different game structures. His categorization of different game elements - such as victory conditions, player interaction rules, and economic mechanics - serves as a useful reference for game designers trying to refine their ideas. His perspective on designing levels, particularly in Chapter 7, provides practical advice applicable to both video games and tabletop games, making this book a valuable cross-disciplinary resource.

Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the book’s primary strengths is its accessibility. Pulsipher writes in a straightforward, instructional style, making complex concepts easier to understand. His experience as a teacher is evident in his ability to explain game design principles clearly and concisely. Furthermore, he avoids overly technical discussions, making the book approachable for beginners while still offering valuable insights for more experienced designers.

However, one of the book’s limitations is its relative lack of depth in video game-specific content. While Pulsipher does address video games, his expertise and primary focus lean more towards tabletop game design. Readers looking for an in-depth exploration of digital game mechanics, programming, or game engines may find this book lacking in those areas. Additionally, because it was published in 2012, some discussions on technology and industry trends may feel slightly outdated, though the core principles of game design remain relevant.

Another potential drawback is the book’s tone. Pulsipher is candid and direct, often dismissing romanticized notions about game design. While this no-nonsense approach can be refreshing, some readers may find it discouraging, particularly those looking for inspiration rather than pragmatic guidance.

Final Verdict

Overall, Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish is a valuable resource for anyone serious about learning the fundamentals of game design. Pulsipher’s structured methodology, emphasis on execution, and clear explanations make this book an excellent guide for beginners. While it may not be the most exhaustive resource on video game development, its core principles apply universally to both digital and tabletop game design.

For those looking for a step-by-step approach to designing games with a focus on practicality over inspiration, this book is highly recommended. However, readers seeking advanced discussions on digital game technology or industry trends may need to supplement their reading with more specialized books. Ultimately, Pulsipher succeeds in his goal: to provide a structured, reality-based guide to game design that equips readers with the tools needed to turn ideas into playable, engaging experiences.

 

End of review. If you want some reviews written near the time of publication, search for <Review of "Game Design: How to create video and tabletop games, start to finish" by Lewis Pulsipher> without the angle brackets on Google.

 

As some of you have probably guessed, my “acquaintances” were online Large Language Model (LLM) “AI’s”, specifically ChatGPT and NotebookLM. My actual prompt to the LLM was as follows: “Please write a book review of about 700 words length of the book by Lewis Pulsipher, "Game Design: How to create video and tabletop games, start to finish". As requested, I uploaded the book.

 

Why this book? It is one of few in print (since 2012) that strongly addresses tabletop game design. And crucially, I had the text for the LLMs to read.

 

I had uploaded the text of the book to NotebookLM sometime before. This specialized LLM takes your uploads as its more or less special sole source. Without prompt from me it responded to the upload by creating a 37+ minute conversation between a man and a woman (actual voices) titled “Game Design: From Concept to Prototype.” It sounded much like a typical podcast. I confess I was amazed (and that’s hard to do). I plan to post this on my YouTube channel and website (pulsiphergames.com).

 

I tried this review idea with Claude as well, a lesser-known online LLM, but it got confused and objected to the length of the upload.

 

For me, LLMs are NOT “artificial intelligence,” and the whole trend of everyone claiming that AI is making their services better is marketing. (When there is true artificial intelligence, sometimes called “the singularity,” the human race may not survive the experience. But that’s still some ways in the future.) LLMs are a useful technology tool, just as many tools of the past (such as cell phones).

 

LLMs are not going away, so we might as well take advantage of them. My friend Elmer Tucker, who is a software engineer, supervisor, D&D GM, and wannabe game designer, has used ChatGPT for a variety of related purposes. For example he asked it to create some non-player characters, giving it a few guidelines, and it did a pretty interesting and useful job. Another time he asked it to create detailed material related to a board game he has in mind. I have used it to ask for situations appropriate for a co-operative children’s game I’m designing for my grand-niece and grand-nephews. And so on.

 

Google uses a minor LLM to report search results now, so most of you have used one. Remember that these are not really artificial intelligences, they are mainly drawing from a database they have been “trained” in. And they make mistakes. Some of the review may be actual words from the book, and a lot of the conversation in the podcast is effectively quotes from the book. The NPCs may have been drawn from existing NPCs in the database of ChatGPT. Some material may be in a database without permission of the creator, hence copyright may be a concern.

 

ChatGPT and others are free to use online. Any game designer or GM who wants to offload some work to machines can use them as Elmer and I have. Google <free to use LLM>.

 

A Good Example of Simplifying Wargame Play

 

A Good Example of Simplifying Wargame Play

 

I wrote this in 2022, and put it aside thinking I might add to it, perhaps playing the solo version. I haven’t, and as the game I’m discussing is going to be reprinted (or already has) I unearthed it.

 

Kevin Bertram’s wargame The Shores of Tripoli (2020 Fort Circle Games) is the example. It’s about the war between the young United States and the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, which is part of the origin of the US Marine song.

 

There are two parts to making a game simpler. One is to reduce the number of decisions and choices the player must make. The other is to reduce the number of exceptions to the rules. That’s because there are really two parts to “making a game easier”, 1) to make it easier to play and 2) to make it easier to learn. The first especially involves decisions and the second especially involves exceptions to the rules.

 

Reducing the number of decisions involves two things: getting rid of “unnecessary” or unimportant decisions, and offering fewer plausible choices for each decision.

 

In Tripoli this involves reducing the number of locations on the board, in this case to just 14. Think about that, even simple games like Chess and Checkers have 64 locations, Risk has 42 locations; on the other hand Tic-Tac-Toe has just nine and Backgammon just 24.

 

Another way to simplify is to give the player only a few assets that can be in some different state, such as in a different location. In Tripoli this amounts to not much more than a dozen on either side.

 

Moreover, a player’s pieces often move only as a group, effectively reducing the number of options. For example, armies move together, and corsairs from a city move as a group.

 

But each of the players in Tripoli has 27 cards, although not all of those cards are available to him or her at one time. The typical number is 11 or fewer. Moreover, many of the exceptions to the rules are on the cards, where a player doesn’t need to worry about it until they have that card in their hand. Cards are a fine way to reduce the number of exceptions a player needs to learn before they can play the game.

 

Combine that with simple rules that don’t have a lot of exceptions and you end up with a game that is both easy to learn and easy to play, though not necessarily easy to play well. Easy to play means the mechanics don’t get in the way and it’s easy to know what you can do and what you can’t do.

 

Easy to play well is quite different, insofar as what you need to do could be quite transparent (easy to see/figure out) or deeply buried in the game. If all the decisions you may need to make are immediately obvious the game will be easier to play than if many decisions are not revealed until you’ve made other decisions. In a nutshell that’s a difference between a shallow game and one that has a lot of depth. It’s quite possible to make a deep game that is nonetheless easy to play, although it would be more common that a game that is easy to play will be fairly shallow (the opposite of depth).

 

There’s a solo version as well as two player. The card-driven nature, and the simplicity of the game, makes it easier to make a solo version. The rules can say what to do with just about every card the non-player side may turn up.

 

This kind of simplification might work well with a game for more than two sides.

 

I’m not recommending the game one way or the other, because I haven’t actually played. I’m not into two player games these days (and I do not personally like card-driven games as games, though they can be good for learning history).