Theory of Fun for Game Design

by Raph Koster

Consider a game in which you gained power to act based on how many people you controlled, but you gained power to heal yourself from attacks based on how many friends you had. Then include a rule that friends tend to fall away as you gain power. This is expressible in mathematical terms. It fits within an abstract formal system. It is also an artistic statement, a choice made by the designer of the ludeme. Now, the tough part — the game’s victory condition must not be about being on top or being at the bottom. Instead, the goal must be something else, perhaps ensuring the overall survival of the tribe. Now, suddenly, we see that being at the top, and having no allies, is a choice. Being lower in the status hierarchy is also a choice, and it may be a more satisfying choice. The game is presenting a pattern and a lesson with a specific desired outcome. We need the right feedback in place as well, of course: we should reward all players for sacrificing themselves for the good of the tribe. Perhaps if they are captured in the course of the game, they may no longer act directly, but still score points based on the actions of the players they used to rule. This would represent their legacy — an important psychological driver that mere power fantasies tend not to tackle. There are many possible lessons to be extracted from such a game, and there’s no right answer to the question of choice of strategy. It is simply representing some aspects of the world as it is. It’s crude, and n...