The Victorian Era game Obsession really gets me in the space of reading about the gentry guests and what rooms to build on my summer estate. Like Ark Nova, a game I keep returning to.
Great video. 3 stand out to me: 1. Wingspan. I love birds so if a bird that I really like shows up, I'm more likely to play it. Also, if there are bird abilities that I find especially fun, I often go for them even if it might not be the most optimal play. The Philippine Eagle in particular comes to mind. Also, there have been games where I tried to completely fill my board with birds, even though other actions could have gotten more points. 2. Parks. Any national park I have visited is more likely to be one I go for. Also, with Nightfall I tend to use the camping action to draw more end of game scoring cards because I enjoy the challenge of trying to fill them as efficiently as possible. 3. Magic. Back when I was younger, my friends and I often played with decks that weren't the best but that had themes and combinations that we found entertaining and were fun to play, even if they weren't very good.
Breath of the Wild is my favourite video game, I think specifically because of intrinsic motivation. Sure, there is the main goal (go to the castle and defeat the calamity ganon) and individual quests can temporarily add wayfare points to your map, but the vast majority of the gameplay is seeking places out visually, either by scanning the horizon (often from some vantage point, like the top of a tower or a mountain) or by studying the topography of your map (as your map doesn't fill out anything else until you have actually physically visited a spot), choosing a destination, and then getting distracted along the way by something else. I highly recommend playing more of the game, I have never had more fun getting lost in a game than in that specific game, because there's just so many things to discover, so many things to experience. Highly anticipate the sequel coming out this year.
Yes - I agree with your thoughts. I often find myself making decisions in a game - that will be a fun thing to do (or is a risky challenge) - regardless of whether it gives me big points. I feel like this also makes the game more fun for everyone.
Wow. This is the CRUX of what I've been aching to understand about certain board games. Clicking on this video I don't think I understood what the title meant - but it turns out it's exactly the information I've been looking for! In all honesty, I've been horribly depressed the past few days, terribly daunted about trying to sell a game in an industry that is completely new to me. But your videos are so cheerful and uplifting --- and lol, you even referenced Dog Park, which (to my best understanding) is thematically the closest game out there to my game -- which reminded me that Intrinsic Motivations are the REASON I invented my game. They're why certain games really catch on with me. This was the spiritual boost I needed. :)
Jamey, I feel similar to you in that sometimes cute things and challenging things motivate me. I think I'm sometimes intrinsically motivated by a strategy I've not yet tried in a game as well. Partially because it gives more variety to my play but it also kind of goes back to trying something challenging or event trying something new that I've not yet tried.
For me I've been wondering why Tapestry is my favorite game in my collection, and perhaps you've nailed it with intrinsic motivation. It has so many different areas I can choose to work on in a particular game just for the enjoyment, and it's a lot of fun working with a particular civ and choosing further asymmetric abilities with tapestry cards along the way, which I'll often choose just for the fun or because I haven't tried them before to see how they play out, plus the other options of city mat and exploration. I also enjoy Ark Nova, perhaps also for this kind of reason. Thanks for the video 😎👍
Thanks for sharing, Saul. That was the foundation of Tapestry's design: I wanted a civ game where you truly had the ability to build your own unique civilization instead of being limited by real-world history.
I'm a longtime writer and editor who's gotten into board game design in the past few years, working on a game that's not about about writing, but about managing a career as a novelist and all the cost-benefit analysis that entails. Long story short, I have an in-game award called The Most Famous Author that can *help* you win the game but is not essential. And I can't begin to count the number of test plays where people have either decided they didn't care about winning, they just wanted to be the Most Famous Author, or else realized they couldn't win the game but were determined to be holding the award when the game ended. It's been really fun and funny watching how people modify and adapt their play style ad strategy because of this other *thing* that is not a victory condition.
I think this idea of Intrinsic motivations is a key element to what makes playing games fun beyond winning. I enjoy Ark Nova, Great Western Trail, Dune Imperium and Through the Ages regardless of whether I win or not largely because of these intrinsic motivations.
Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic, I see lots of interest in pursuing synergy and some linear strategies that allow you and reward you for deep diving into a tribe or continent or just simply a strategic subset of the game.
As a designer I'm looking at flavor text, card names/titles and artwork very differently now after watching this video. I'll be keeping this in mind during development for sure!
This is what gets me coming back to wingspan! I have 157 plays right now. At first, I was playing to win. Now I look at different interesting combination or strategies revolving around one particular bird ability that seems like it can rack a lot of points. I played a game once where I didn’t do the eggs action one the whole game and won. My mother in law once played a game where she put one bird in the forest and the rest were in the bottom row and was tucking cards like crazy!
Tapestry and Unfair come to mind as games that intrinsically motivate me. While both are points based there are a lot of options to pursue fun, but not necessarily optimal paths. In Tapestry for me it's often filling the city map (Ark Nova does this too with its zoo map) or trying to focus on my civ ability. In Unfair it might be pursuing a hard blueprint or just building the coolest sounding attraction. While both games reward these activities with points, it isnt always the "best" option, but often one I find fun to go after.
Great topic. I am definitely susceptible to intrinsic goal seeking. I've always referred to as "my desire for shiny things." Designers can take advantage of that by including different kinds of "shiny things" throughout their games. I think that intrinsic motivation can play a big role in engine and tableau building games, which Jamie highlighted. Another mechanism which takes advantage of this would "Push your luck".
The best example of intrinsic motivation that I can think of comes from Balderdash. Everyone in my playgroup just tries to come up with the most ridiculous, hilarious definitions they can, knowing it will cause them to lose the game.
I like Raiders of Scythia more than I should because I like the horses and eagles. I like that there is fermented horse milk, kumis and the artwork is more appealing than I expected.
Thank you for this. It's incredibly interesting and I didn't even realized I was doing that until I heard it explained. I find I only really get that urge to explore after my 2nd or 3rd playthrough and that's what keeps me coming back to a game once I've gotten the hang of it when it's not a campaign setting. Compelling choices that aren't always just "points/winning" and hit that more reptilian part of our brain, imo, are better for replayability. Once I've mastered a game and there's nothing new to discover, I get bored. But if there's new ways to play even if not the most efficient, I find I enjoy that. It's def something to keep in mind for designing so people keep talking about your game and having those "Man, I really want to try X thing next game!" moments. Like you said, that's what I used to love the most about Magic. Building crazy decks just to see how it worked. (Red blue bounce back with goblin rush was a fun one I always failed with lol)
Narrative games really have this effect on me. Sleeping Gods, Tainted Grail and Kings Dilemma come to mind right away where I follow the story I want, not necessarily the"best" point action. Tapestry is another one. Sometimes, I just want to go to space.
I like when narrative games do it well. For example, sometimes a narrative game will present a few options, and I may really want to do option A for my own reasons, but my character's chance of success may be so much higher for option B that I end up choosing B instead of failing A.
Great points! I love games like Vindication, Terraforming Mars, Ark Nova, Planet Unknown, etc as there is a sense of having gone on a journey and accomplished something…whether I win or not. I generally focus on victory conditions but given equal choices I will steer in directions to explore new avenues or do something cool. Thanks for your Sunday videos as I always look forward to them!
_Fantasy Realms_ has three or four cards that are hard to pull off but score a lot if they do. _Marvel Remix_ and _Star Trek Missions_ both removed these very "challenging" cards, but e.g. the Villain cards in the Marvel version usually have negative effects you need to build the rest of the hand around.
what I like about Ark Nova is that the intrinsic motivations outweigh the extrinsic motivational elements, which normally can get frustrating. If I have the elephant card on my hand I reaaaally wanna play it eventhough I know it will sit there for a long time until I'm able to cause I simply love elephants that much! I think this is what makes Ark Nova special in terms of extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation
I'm not an intrinsic player at all. Call me crazy, but I like to try and win games. This reminds me of a scene from TNG. Riker: Worf, it's just a game, a friendly little competition. You work up a sweat, you have a few laughs, and you make new friends. Worf: If winning is not important, then, Commander - why keep score?
Great video - thanks Jamey. I think my personal experience is that it differs in game to game. I *like* to be intrinsically motivated in Ark Nova but the potential scarcity of cards doesn't guarantee that's how I'll approach it (e.g. having another bear card in play to be able to then play the panda can be a challenge), but if the opportunity presents itself I'll take it. In Everdell I'll always play the Farm as I just like that card with the Husband/Wife pair too. But if a University card is available, I'll do everything I can to play it - one of my favourites. My daughter is very intrinsically motivated in that one - she'll always build Ever Trees, Castles, Palaces, Kings and Queens at any opportunity. Winning is secondary for her - she just loves those cards! Thanks again
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Andy! I can definitely see how the potential for intrinsic motivations may change from session to session, even within the same game.
Wonderful thoughts. I think games that allow one to personalize play style as well as play in general fall into this category. Recently playing cartographers reminded me highly of this, since both my partner and I are almost more interested in how the game board looks and the story it tells than the points. Cartographers allows one to design their own shapes and maps. We now only play with colored pencils. Rolling Realms is also like this in choosing which combo boards to play. Games such as Star Realms, Viticulture, Wingspan, Ark Nova, etc. that allow different strategies to victory are more inclusive since motivations and styles of play are different (intrinsic motivation) ;)
Sorry for the unrelated comment, but this video reminded me of Kings League, a new football league created by Gerard Pique. Kings League is 7 on 7 and in each game, the managers receive a secret card with special "powers" like "free penalty" or "goal counts double for two minutes". Teams can also bring surprise guest players. The team managers are famous UA-camrs and former pros like Iker Casillas and Kun Aguero (who is gonna play as well!). I figured you might be interested, being a ⚽ fan and this intends to gameify football even more.
One important intrinsic motivation factor for me is the how well the mechanics and theme fit together. When they clash, that creates intrinsic (as in, not directly related to winning) negative motivation. For example, in Paths of Glory, the player must choose between having a historical event happening and moving his armies. In reality, there is no such correlation. If you had to choose between different events, and they were variations of what "might have happened", separately from choosing which armies to move, that would not have generated such a clash. I believe some CDG's use mechanics akin to that.
I often go fun over winning in wingspan :) I prefer a fun weird engine over a win! It is really nice to be able to do whatever you want in game. And I think the stonemaier games are well build for that
I think Magic and the CCGs that followed it are a unique example, just because deck construction independent of gameplay is such an opportunity for self-expression. In games where deckbuilding is a mechanism, like Dominion, players are constrained in what they can do and must work procedurally. It makes me wonder about board games where players have a lot of freedom and options to choose for their starting loadout, to give players that broader canvas to work with. I'm reminded of pen-and-paper RPG systems where you would have a set number of points to spend on perks, but could take on flaws for additional points. I think it's also worth mentioning Magic's Commander format (and Elder Dragon Highlander, and 100-card Highlander before it), a player-created rules variant that addressed the problem that if you build a deck that is designed to do something interesting, if your opponent's deck is only concerned with winning, the game often ends before you get to do that interesting thing.
That's a great point about deck construction as a form of self-expression. I'd extend that to any game where you're building something: a tableau of birds in Wingspan, a capital city in Tapestry, etc.
Canvas has intrinsic motivation built in. So often you choose card combinations because of the painting you make, even if it’s not going to help you win. And even if you lose, you can always look with satisfaction at the images that you and everybody else made.
For me, Res Arcana comes to mind. I saw many strategies (especially in BGA) that involve discarding cards for resources and barely playing cards for their benefits. I find it lacking, as it is more interesting to search for a great combo in your deck, even though it is less likely to win in certain set-ups. Besides that, I also love to pursue the "Check for victory" Places of Power, because they are just fun to pull off 😋
Great points! I think things like these are what takes a game from good to great! What is comes down to is to let players express themselves through your board game.That makes the game resonate with the player and increases the immersion :) I always enjoy watch these with my Monday morning coffee :) Take care
For me, Dominion definitely scratches my “intrinsic” itch. I love to try different cards that are not always the optimal choice for that buy at that moment or optimal for winning that game. For that reason, my wife wins the majority of our games, but in the end, I have enjoyed trying a specific card or strategy because the challenge of it appealed to me. Of course, when it works and gives me a surprising victory, that makes it all the more sweet
This is very interesting to think about! And I do love it a lot too if games include things that are just fun, heartwarming, risky, and so on that I just want to try it. I would even say offering many different paths in games already triggers my intrinsic motivation. For example in Maracaibo I really wanted to try out combinations of the strategic foci and was motivate to try to find ways to win whatever I am going for.
This reminds me a lot of how I like to build characters in tabletop RPGs like D&D; I'll come up with an idea, like a character who only wields daggers, or some other generally sub-optimal combat style, and find ways to optimize and build around that. It might never be as powerful as the character that picks the obviously stronger weapon, but it's better than it should be because I put in the effort to make it work and create that vision, and made the game more of a puzzle / challenge to work within the framework I set for myself.
One thing you mention here that's a good reminder for me is that you have the agency in those games to pursue the skills and weapons for such offbeat characters. Great comment!
Interesting distinction... Another topic that would be interesting to adress is the "losing is fun" effect of some game where, whether or not you win the game, you still had a good time by the simple fact of playing it and living this experience. For example, Nemo's War or Too Many Bones have this effect on me.
I'd say I'm definitely very extrinsically motivated myself, to the point I often will pursue suboptimal strategies if they make me happy otherwise, like collecting certain types of creatures/cards/factions/etc. Or gravitating towards cards with amazing artwork in TCGs and such. I play a few unit-collecting mobile games (gacha), and I definitely find more joy chasing and collecting the characters belonging to specific factions or civilizations, over preferring the more "meta" units. I have a similar motivation when it comes to storytelling and lore, so if a particular faction, race, nation, or whatever in a game draws my attention, I'll be more inclined to find out more about them, meet more characters, read the flavor text on items/cards related to them, and so on. Since you mentioned MtG, I'm sure you are familiar with the article on Timmy/Spike/Johnny, and I'd say there's a pretty big overlap between Johnny type players and extrinsic motivations, because knowingly pursuing a path the game design doesn't deem optimal intrinsically poses a challenge to solve. For example, in a lot of Elden Ring-style RPGs, if there's spears, I'll use spears, I love them, and feel they are underrepresented in many games. I don't care if the boring swords are the strongest and spears are trash, I decide on a fantasy (in my case, I wanted a spear-wielding holy magic warrior) and try to make it work. I also think self-created narratives like that can be a very powerful extrinsic motivator, the one board game that comes to mind is Call to Adventure, where players are dealt a Beginnings, turning point, and ending cards, and the rest of the game becomes fleshing out that character's story by winning event cards. The game isn't purely narrative-driven however, there's a lot of strategizing and thinking, and there's better and worse plays, but players will tend to pursue the story cards that fit the character they set out to build over the mathematically superior yet unfitting ones. Lastly, one thing I love about Breath of the Wild in regards to freedom of exploration is that, to paraphrase the designers "we designed every interesting area in such a way that from it you can see at least 2-3 other interesting spots". Way too many open world games feel like a lazy bland map where they haphazardly dropped set pieces, while forgetting to consider the relation and discoverability between them. In a way, what Zelda does is similar to what Charterstone did, where each building card opened access to multiple others, so a player interested in a certain "industrial path" so to speak, is rewarded with more relevant options in that direction, as opposed to other games that may just have one big random deck of buildings from the get go.
Thanks for sharing some of your intrinsic motivations! I think you make a great point about how well each viewpoint in Breath of the Wild is designed to pique your curiosity.
Interesting! This sounded to me more as an example of a Timmy player - going for specific goals rather than crafting a combo. But otherwise I completely agree.
I am an extrinsic motivator for sure, but I like fun divergent strategies and “goals” in games. My favorite game, scythe, does this very well. The Star system is for me, both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Based on my character/mat combo, I can decide which Star to go for. I can “pivot” whenever I want and still feel good about my if I complete certain stars. Stars are the main motivator of the game, but I still love placing each of my stars ⭐️ 7 wonders / isle of cats (most drafting games) is another good example that is both in my opinion. My opening hand might present me a strategy that I hope to optimally achieve by the end of the game and I feel good when I complete them. End game quests always make me feel good like competing all my quests in ticket to ride as well.
Thanks for the thought provoking topic! These elements (IMO) are what make a good game a great game. I guess I’m an intrinsic motivation player and wannabe designer! 😅 A somewhat counterintuitive approach to this idea of offering opportunities for intrinsic motivation to players is to reduce the thematic guides to provide space for the player to create their own story or experience in play. Less prescriptive in terms of story. For example, less= “this character does X because Y” and more = “this is a character” The player finds the motivations and creates the scenario.
Hi Jamey. Thanks for making yet another thought-provoking video! I feel like there is a real challenge for designers in providing lots of opportunities for players to follow their intrinsic motivations, while also making sure their game doesn’t end up lacking focus. I imagine you are grappling with that as you design your “open world game.” On that topic, I have heard you mention this “open world game” many times across multiple videos, and I am wondering - at what point in a game’s development would you typically share details with the public? Is it only after playtesting has concluded and you feel happy with the final product? I feel like many people who subscribe to your channel would be interested in the development steps (and even the missteps) that happen throughout the process, but I also understand why you would keep this secretive as a larger publisher.
Thanks for your curiosity, Keith! Because so much changes during the design process (and even into production), I wait to share details until the product is in production or production is complete. At that point, I'm an open book--I've posted extensive design diaries for almost all of our products, and over the last year I've also created some related "Tales from Production" videos too.
I've noticed my daughter is a sucker for the bonus card mechanic - in Wingspan, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Between Two Castles - she'll usually go after that strategy if it's available. I've noticed in some games that have multiple strategies, I will often be drawn to one over and over again, because it's more fun. In Origins: First Builders, it's city building, in Tawantinsuyu, it's weavings, in Teotihuacan, it's the temple tracks. In new games, with multiple strategies, I want to try everything, often to the detriment of focusing enough to win.
Excellent video. I believe what separates a good game from a great game, is that the great game provides a number of ways to achieve intrinsic motivations. If we look at gaming over the past 50 years, I will provide two examples to illustrate this. Dungeons and Dragons and Magic the Gathering. In D&D people are motivated to level their unique character up, or achieve certain abilities. In MTG people are motivated to build their own unique deck that works, or to collect certain sets. In modern board games, people can be similarly motivated. You can build a really cool engine (Terraforming Mars) you can solve cooperatively difficult puzzles (Pandemic), you can build or collect your own unique “thing”. I could go on and on. But bottom line, it’s the secret sauce that makes a game transcend to greatness. Players, win or lose, enjoy a sense of accomplishment that they did this cool thing.
That's an interesting theory, though I think there are also some examples of very popular games where you can pretty much only do the thing the game tells you to do. I'd actually put Pandemic in that category. There are different ways to solve the puzzle, but the game only gives you one puzzle to solve (otherwise you lose, at least extrinsically).
There are design elements in Pandemic that turned it from a dry dusty puzzle to one that provided motivation elements, win or lose. First it has the role selection. You can trailer your group and can have satisfaction in coming up with a unique working team. Second the action point system allows players to tailor their moves, and even have unique actions for that role. And third they made it increase in difficulty where b simply adding one or two pandemic cards, you vastly increased the puzzles difficulty. It is simply brilliant from a design perspective. And with Pandemic legacy it provided intrinsic motivations on steroids. You added in, in essence a “leveling up” system where you could add unique attributes to your roles. Plus the narrative connection elements between games. These are elements that started in D&D and other RPGs. I think modern board games can learn a lot if they break down the reasons MTG and D&D were such successful system(s). Gloom haven is essentially a D&D game where you do not need a dungeon master. Arkham LCG is basically collecting and building character decks to solve a puzzle.
I think children do that a lot. They want a specific card/beat specific villain and "we" adults think that they need just grow up to become equal opponents to us. However, maybe we adults should think about our motivation when playing games and "the problem" is on our side. (I am personally quite competetive in board games :))
I find when I play games I'll make choices that are interesting or novel to me, even if it isn't optimal. That gpes for trying different cards like in Terraforming Mars or a different approach to see what would happen like again in TM what will happen if go heavy on heat and energy instead of worrying about steel and titanium. Trying different approaches or using different elements of a game is satisfying to me. I sort of want to play Arkham Horror TCG with random characters and skills just to see what would happen. Not that I don't want to win, but my wife tends to be more focused on optimal ways.
If you haven't yet, I'd recommend playing a Cube format in Magic if you know anyone who has one. I think that is Magic's best way to find the intrinsic motivation you are talking about because you draft cards and build decks but what is different is what people include in their cubes i.e. they may be themed or have card restrictions. Moreover, many cards that can be included in cubes may not see play in constructed format magic so they can shine specifically in cube format.
Great topic. All but totally abstract (tic tac toe or dominos come to mind) games come with the possibility of intrinsic motivation. Without that element, you might as well play a spreadsheet!
Interesting topic! I'm normally not an intrinsic player, i play to the game to win. But last night, playing Wingspan, i had a hawk in my opening hand and the bonus card for predatory abilities (which was like only 13% or something of cards, compared to my other bonus which was around 31%), and i love raptor birds, so i took that, and focused the whole game on trawling deck and tray for raptors and getting them into play. I ended up getting 4 into play, got 8 points on the bonus, but they only tucked 3 cards between the 4 of them and i had my worst score ever in wingspan!
@@jameystegmaier oh for sure. i gotta say playing on BGA< i dont like how it keeps a running score total, kinda ruins it when you know someone is too far in front
I've always made up my own goals or quests, from in Video Games like Morrowind (Skyrim is the more modern version) to RTS games or even Final Fantasy. 7. The Board Game that I've done this the most is called Cashflow 101 with the 202 expansion - - allows me to set a personal goal of partnering with each person, ot sell a deal to each person. Looking at recent Board Games that fit that we have or expect to get Soon(TM): It's not that I always do, yet have or can see me in each of these + Moonrakers + Mythwind + Dead Reckoning + Villagers - Streets too + 7 Wonders + Backyard Chickens + Marvel United (and all other Co-op's, like Atlantis Rising & Star Wars Pandemic) + Raccoon Tycoon + Vindication + Earth + Casting Shadows + The Fox Experiment + Maple Valley + Creature Comforts + Veiled Fate Ironically I love Space Base yet how I play depends on who is playing. With just my kids I am 100% focused on winning because I never have against them. Others less so and I have won a lot. Here is another way to look at this topic for me. We have 5 gamers in out family (me + wife + 3 children) ... that means we only look at 5+ player games with rare exceptions. I skipped the first Marvel United Campaign because it was only 4 players, adding the option of 5 up to 7 players lead us to go all in, and right now it's our most played game system. Having that 5+ desired eliminates a lot of games, yet it's placing a value of being able to play together above other values. (Note: has to be really special if it's less than 5+ players as an option)
When playing a multiplayer (3+ count) competitive game with high player interaction, I think it would be a good idea to avoid choices that aren't focused towards the primary/winning objective. If you do not care about winning or losing, that's fine but be sure your choices are not giving a player an unfair advantage over others as a result. It could be difficult in a game with a lot of interaction to gauge how your actions could ultimately affect the game state, so it might be considerate to limit intrinsically motivated decision-making. If a player is not sure which way would be the best way to get to the main objective, then yes- perhaps they try to utilize an unorthodox method as long as they think it could be the best path. Or, sure, pick the cute card if they're not sure whether picking the other card is any better or worse. My point is, people should be mindful to not just play with blinders on- there are other people playing the game as well. For example, in games where players can pick up cards that the previous player just discarded, how would you handle a situation where a player continues to feed cards to the next player who needs them? I feel it would be okay if the player was unskilled and simply didn't know what they were doing, but not if the player was aware that they were going to make another player win the game just for the sake of experimentation. For an unskilled player in such games, you probably should point out to them before or after a game to be mindful of what they discard. Keep in mind, that though it's fun to shape your own experience within a game that it can shape others' experiences with the game as well. Games with low or no player interaction would not be a problem. Two-player games could pose a problem if the other player feels like you're not even trying. You picking a cute bird or trying for the You Win! card would not likely have impacted other players' experiences, AND you DID think those choices still gave you an opportunity to win. So, those are great examples of being intrinsically motivated, in a way that does not negatively impact other players' experiences. I just wanted to make that distinction and was hoping you'd have pointed that out, too.
Maybe I missed it, but did you consciously design around any aspects of intrinsic motivation in the games that you created (particularly Euphoria, Viticulture, Scythe or Tapestry)? I really get a kick out of trying to win Viticulture without completing any wine orders. Making an aesthetically satisfying city in Tapestry is also fun!
Definitely! I think I mentioned the Scythe glory track (i.e., letting players choose the categories that are important to them) and how in Tapestry you can build any civilization you want, even if it breaks significantly from actual history. I'm not sure I thought about it much in the Viticulture design, but in Euphoria I tried to give players a pretty broad range of options (plus colorfully named market tiles) so they could pursue what feels good to them.
This is an interesting lesson in good design. I think intrinsic motivation is simply better than extrinsic alone; when Victory Points are just an arbitrary measure it never feels as good as if there is an organic game end or just scoring that is consistent with the narrative. It does seem that Euro games have a bad reputation at this point of being a bit arbitrary and like the theme is pasted on. A game like Ark Nova stands out in part because of its synchronising of multiple systems but also just because people feel like they are really playing as a zoo tycoon. Wouldn't the Space Base example be extrinsic though? You were in a losing position so seeing an alternate win condition becomes your best shot; I don't know the game that well but it doesn't seem like there's much of thematic basis for winning the game in that way when otherwise behind. I'm generally very sceptical about alternate win conditions as they create this dynamic where someone can feel cheated if the alt win occurs. To me it's better to make something that is highly rewarding but hard to achieve yet falls short of something arbitrary like 'I win the game and you lose despite having 100 more points'. I just think there's a certain contract in a game that you know how to win at the start, breaching this just feels off to me, especially on a first play.
I don't like the "tag" system in Ark Nova because I often feel like it arbitrarily prevents me from achieving the intrinsic goal I have. Because the card draw is random it's not uncommon to just not be able to play a certain card because the requirement is not available at all to you. I think you should be able to pay a high cost if something is unavailable. Like in Wingspan, spending two food to act as one specific food you need. Ark Nova does allow this sort of thing with the X tokens that allow you to increase the level of your action card for one turn. But I do think the big cards in Ark Nova are the most interesting part of the game. The sort of, "maybe next game I'll get to play that Bengal Tiger!"
The Victorian Era game Obsession really gets me in the space of reading about the gentry guests and what rooms to build on my summer estate. Like Ark Nova, a game I keep returning to.
Great video. 3 stand out to me:
1. Wingspan. I love birds so if a bird that I really like shows up, I'm more likely to play it. Also, if there are bird abilities that I find especially fun, I often go for them even if it might not be the most optimal play. The Philippine Eagle in particular comes to mind. Also, there have been games where I tried to completely fill my board with birds, even though other actions could have gotten more points.
2. Parks. Any national park I have visited is more likely to be one I go for. Also, with Nightfall I tend to use the camping action to draw more end of game scoring cards because I enjoy the challenge of trying to fill them as efficiently as possible.
3. Magic. Back when I was younger, my friends and I often played with decks that weren't the best but that had themes and combinations that we found entertaining and were fun to play, even if they weren't very good.
Great picks! I can relate to all three. :)
Breath of the Wild is my favourite video game, I think specifically because of intrinsic motivation. Sure, there is the main goal (go to the castle and defeat the calamity ganon) and individual quests can temporarily add wayfare points to your map, but the vast majority of the gameplay is seeking places out visually, either by scanning the horizon (often from some vantage point, like the top of a tower or a mountain) or by studying the topography of your map (as your map doesn't fill out anything else until you have actually physically visited a spot), choosing a destination, and then getting distracted along the way by something else. I highly recommend playing more of the game, I have never had more fun getting lost in a game than in that specific game, because there's just so many things to discover, so many things to experience. Highly anticipate the sequel coming out this year.
Ganon! That's the name I was trying to think of. :)
Yes - I agree with your thoughts. I often find myself making decisions in a game - that will be a fun thing to do (or is a risky challenge) - regardless of whether it gives me big points. I feel like this also makes the game more fun for everyone.
Wow. This is the CRUX of what I've been aching to understand about certain board games. Clicking on this video I don't think I understood what the title meant - but it turns out it's exactly the information I've been looking for! In all honesty, I've been horribly depressed the past few days, terribly daunted about trying to sell a game in an industry that is completely new to me. But your videos are so cheerful and uplifting --- and lol, you even referenced Dog Park, which (to my best understanding) is thematically the closest game out there to my game -- which reminded me that Intrinsic Motivations are the REASON I invented my game. They're why certain games really catch on with me. This was the spiritual boost I needed. :)
Thanks for sharing this, Kiff, and I'm sorry you've had a rough couple of days.
Jamey, I feel similar to you in that sometimes cute things and challenging things motivate me. I think I'm sometimes intrinsically motivated by a strategy I've not yet tried in a game as well. Partially because it gives more variety to my play but it also kind of goes back to trying something challenging or event trying something new that I've not yet tried.
I can definitely relate to all of that!
For me I've been wondering why Tapestry is my favorite game in my collection, and perhaps you've nailed it with intrinsic motivation. It has so many different areas I can choose to work on in a particular game just for the enjoyment, and it's a lot of fun working with a particular civ and choosing further asymmetric abilities with tapestry cards along the way, which I'll often choose just for the fun or because I haven't tried them before to see how they play out, plus the other options of city mat and exploration. I also enjoy Ark Nova, perhaps also for this kind of reason. Thanks for the video 😎👍
Thanks for sharing, Saul. That was the foundation of Tapestry's design: I wanted a civ game where you truly had the ability to build your own unique civilization instead of being limited by real-world history.
I'm a longtime writer and editor who's gotten into board game design in the past few years, working on a game that's not about about writing, but about managing a career as a novelist and all the cost-benefit analysis that entails. Long story short, I have an in-game award called The Most Famous Author that can *help* you win the game but is not essential. And I can't begin to count the number of test plays where people have either decided they didn't care about winning, they just wanted to be the Most Famous Author, or else realized they couldn't win the game but were determined to be holding the award when the game ended. It's been really fun and funny watching how people modify and adapt their play style ad strategy because of this other *thing* that is not a victory condition.
Thank you for sharing that excellent example, Edmund. I like how the name of that award inherently makes it appealing to players.
I think this idea of Intrinsic motivations is a key element to what makes playing games fun beyond winning. I enjoy Ark Nova, Great Western Trail, Dune Imperium and Through the Ages regardless of whether I win or not largely because of these intrinsic motivations.
Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic, I see lots of interest in pursuing synergy and some linear strategies that allow you and reward you for deep diving into a tribe or continent or just simply a strategic subset of the game.
As a designer I'm looking at flavor text, card names/titles and artwork very differently now after watching this video. I'll be keeping this in mind during development for sure!
That's a good reminder for me too, especially powerful/evocative card names.
This is what gets me coming back to wingspan! I have 157 plays right now. At first, I was playing to win. Now I look at different interesting combination or strategies revolving around one particular bird ability that seems like it can rack a lot of points.
I played a game once where I didn’t do the eggs action one the whole game and won.
My mother in law once played a game where she put one bird in the forest and the rest were in the bottom row and was tucking cards like crazy!
I completely agree - Wingspan is great for that! 🙃
Tapestry and Unfair come to mind as games that intrinsically motivate me. While both are points based there are a lot of options to pursue fun, but not necessarily optimal paths. In Tapestry for me it's often filling the city map (Ark Nova does this too with its zoo map) or trying to focus on my civ ability. In Unfair it might be pursuing a hard blueprint or just building the coolest sounding attraction. While both games reward these activities with points, it isnt always the "best" option, but often one I find fun to go after.
I'm glad you enjoy that aspect of Tapestry! :)
Great topic. I am definitely susceptible to intrinsic goal seeking. I've always referred to as "my desire for shiny things." Designers can take advantage of that by including different kinds of "shiny things" throughout their games. I think that intrinsic motivation can play a big role in engine and tableau building games, which Jamie highlighted. Another mechanism which takes advantage of this would "Push your luck".
Shiny things--I like it! Push your luck is another great example. That could have been #20. :)
The best example of intrinsic motivation that I can think of comes from Balderdash. Everyone in my playgroup just tries to come up with the most ridiculous, hilarious definitions they can, knowing it will cause them to lose the game.
I like Raiders of Scythia more than I should because I like the horses and eagles. I like that there is fermented horse milk, kumis and the artwork is more appealing than I expected.
Thank you for this. It's incredibly interesting and I didn't even realized I was doing that until I heard it explained. I find I only really get that urge to explore after my 2nd or 3rd playthrough and that's what keeps me coming back to a game once I've gotten the hang of it when it's not a campaign setting. Compelling choices that aren't always just "points/winning" and hit that more reptilian part of our brain, imo, are better for replayability. Once I've mastered a game and there's nothing new to discover, I get bored. But if there's new ways to play even if not the most efficient, I find I enjoy that. It's def something to keep in mind for designing so people keep talking about your game and having those "Man, I really want to try X thing next game!" moments. Like you said, that's what I used to love the most about Magic. Building crazy decks just to see how it worked. (Red blue bounce back with goblin rush was a fun one I always failed with lol)
Narrative games really have this effect on me. Sleeping Gods, Tainted Grail and Kings Dilemma come to mind right away where I follow the story I want, not necessarily the"best" point action. Tapestry is another one. Sometimes, I just want to go to space.
I like when narrative games do it well. For example, sometimes a narrative game will present a few options, and I may really want to do option A for my own reasons, but my character's chance of success may be so much higher for option B that I end up choosing B instead of failing A.
Great points! I love games like Vindication, Terraforming Mars, Ark Nova, Planet Unknown, etc as there is a sense of having gone on a journey and accomplished something…whether I win or not. I generally focus on victory conditions but given equal choices I will steer in directions to explore new avenues or do something cool. Thanks for your Sunday videos as I always look forward to them!
Thanks Gaurav! I feel similarly about those games.
_Fantasy Realms_ has three or four cards that are hard to pull off but score a lot if they do. _Marvel Remix_ and _Star Trek Missions_ both removed these very "challenging" cards, but e.g. the Villain cards in the Marvel version usually have negative effects you need to build the rest of the hand around.
This is totally me and the most extreme example in my case is Canvas. I never play for the points, just to make pretty paintings.
what I like about Ark Nova is that the intrinsic motivations outweigh the extrinsic motivational elements, which normally can get frustrating. If I have the elephant card on my hand I reaaaally wanna play it eventhough I know it will sit there for a long time until I'm able to cause I simply love elephants that much! I think this is what makes Ark Nova special in terms of extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation
In Calll to adventure I sometimes pursue my own story regardes not playing optimally to gain points.
I'm not an intrinsic player at all. Call me crazy, but I like to try and win games. This reminds me of a scene from TNG.
Riker: Worf, it's just a game, a friendly little competition. You work up a sweat, you have a few laughs, and you make new friends.
Worf: If winning is not important, then, Commander - why keep score?
My son loves the you win card in space base!!! He pulled it off once and missed by 1 turn another time
That's impressive!
Great video - thanks Jamey. I think my personal experience is that it differs in game to game. I *like* to be intrinsically motivated in Ark Nova but the potential scarcity of cards doesn't guarantee that's how I'll approach it (e.g. having another bear card in play to be able to then play the panda can be a challenge), but if the opportunity presents itself I'll take it. In Everdell I'll always play the Farm as I just like that card with the Husband/Wife pair too. But if a University card is available, I'll do everything I can to play it - one of my favourites. My daughter is very intrinsically motivated in that one - she'll always build Ever Trees, Castles, Palaces, Kings and Queens at any opportunity. Winning is secondary for her - she just loves those cards! Thanks again
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Andy! I can definitely see how the potential for intrinsic motivations may change from session to session, even within the same game.
Wonderful thoughts. I think games that allow one to personalize play style as well as play in general fall into this category. Recently playing cartographers reminded me highly of this, since both my partner and I are almost more interested in how the game board looks and the story it tells than the points. Cartographers allows one to design their own shapes and maps. We now only play with colored pencils. Rolling Realms is also like this in choosing which combo boards to play. Games such as Star Realms, Viticulture, Wingspan, Ark Nova, etc. that allow different strategies to victory are more inclusive since motivations and styles of play are different (intrinsic motivation) ;)
That's a great point about personalization options (and even difficulty scaling, in a way).
Sorry for the unrelated comment, but this video reminded me of Kings League, a new football league created by Gerard Pique.
Kings League is 7 on 7 and in each game, the managers receive a secret card with special "powers" like "free penalty" or "goal counts double for two minutes". Teams can also bring surprise guest players. The team managers are famous UA-camrs and former pros like Iker Casillas and Kun Aguero (who is gonna play as well!). I figured you might be interested, being a ⚽ fan and this intends to gameify football even more.
That sounds like a lot of fun!
One important intrinsic motivation factor for me is the how well the mechanics and theme fit together. When they clash, that creates intrinsic (as in, not directly related to winning) negative motivation. For example, in Paths of Glory, the player must choose between having a historical event happening and moving his armies. In reality, there is no such correlation. If you had to choose between different events, and they were variations of what "might have happened", separately from choosing which armies to move, that would not have generated such a clash. I believe some CDG's use mechanics akin to that.
That makes sense to me! What's a CDG?
I often go fun over winning in wingspan :) I prefer a fun weird engine over a win! It is really nice to be able to do whatever you want in game. And I think the stonemaier games are well build for that
I think Magic and the CCGs that followed it are a unique example, just because deck construction independent of gameplay is such an opportunity for self-expression. In games where deckbuilding is a mechanism, like Dominion, players are constrained in what they can do and must work procedurally. It makes me wonder about board games where players have a lot of freedom and options to choose for their starting loadout, to give players that broader canvas to work with. I'm reminded of pen-and-paper RPG systems where you would have a set number of points to spend on perks, but could take on flaws for additional points.
I think it's also worth mentioning Magic's Commander format (and Elder Dragon Highlander, and 100-card Highlander before it), a player-created rules variant that addressed the problem that if you build a deck that is designed to do something interesting, if your opponent's deck is only concerned with winning, the game often ends before you get to do that interesting thing.
That's a great point about deck construction as a form of self-expression. I'd extend that to any game where you're building something: a tableau of birds in Wingspan, a capital city in Tapestry, etc.
Canvas has intrinsic motivation built in. So often you choose card combinations because of the painting you make, even if it’s not going to help you win. And even if you lose, you can always look with satisfaction at the images that you and everybody else made.
That's a great example!
Trisdecaphobia (spelling?) Is my favorite chase end game in magic. If you have 13 cards in your hand you win!
I love it!
For me, Res Arcana comes to mind.
I saw many strategies (especially in BGA) that involve discarding cards for resources and barely playing cards for their benefits. I find it lacking, as it is more interesting to search for a great combo in your deck, even though it is less likely to win in certain set-ups.
Besides that, I also love to pursue the "Check for victory" Places of Power, because they are just fun to pull off 😋
Great points! I think things like these are what takes a game from good to great!
What is comes down to is to let players express themselves through your board game.That makes the game resonate with the player and increases the immersion :)
I always enjoy watch these with my Monday morning coffee :) Take care
Thanks Kenny! I like that: "let players express themselves"
In PARKS I find myself making “suboptimal” decisions because I’m intrinsically motivated to visit specific parks 😂
I do the same thing! :)
For me, Dominion definitely scratches my “intrinsic” itch. I love to try different cards that are not always the optimal choice for that buy at that moment or optimal for winning that game. For that reason, my wife wins the majority of our games, but in the end, I have enjoyed trying a specific card or strategy because the challenge of it appealed to me. Of course, when it works and gives me a surprising victory, that makes it all the more sweet
I like Dominion as an example! I think it's fun when a card only works well if you build the deck around it.
This is very interesting to think about! And I do love it a lot too if games include things that are just fun, heartwarming, risky, and so on that I just want to try it. I would even say offering many different paths in games already triggers my intrinsic motivation. For example in Maracaibo I really wanted to try out combinations of the strategic foci and was motivate to try to find ways to win whatever I am going for.
I can definitely see how this applies to Maracaibo!
This reminds me a lot of how I like to build characters in tabletop RPGs like D&D; I'll come up with an idea, like a character who only wields daggers, or some other generally sub-optimal combat style, and find ways to optimize and build around that. It might never be as powerful as the character that picks the obviously stronger weapon, but it's better than it should be because I put in the effort to make it work and create that vision, and made the game more of a puzzle / challenge to work within the framework I set for myself.
One thing you mention here that's a good reminder for me is that you have the agency in those games to pursue the skills and weapons for such offbeat characters. Great comment!
Interesting distinction... Another topic that would be interesting to adress is the "losing is fun" effect of some game where, whether or not you win the game, you still had a good time by the simple fact of playing it and living this experience. For example, Nemo's War or Too Many Bones have this effect on me.
I like that as a topic! I generally have fun with any game with multiple progression paths and where I've built something.
I'd say I'm definitely very extrinsically motivated myself, to the point I often will pursue suboptimal strategies if they make me happy otherwise, like collecting certain types of creatures/cards/factions/etc. Or gravitating towards cards with amazing artwork in TCGs and such. I play a few unit-collecting mobile games (gacha), and I definitely find more joy chasing and collecting the characters belonging to specific factions or civilizations, over preferring the more "meta" units. I have a similar motivation when it comes to storytelling and lore, so if a particular faction, race, nation, or whatever in a game draws my attention, I'll be more inclined to find out more about them, meet more characters, read the flavor text on items/cards related to them, and so on.
Since you mentioned MtG, I'm sure you are familiar with the article on Timmy/Spike/Johnny, and I'd say there's a pretty big overlap between Johnny type players and extrinsic motivations, because knowingly pursuing a path the game design doesn't deem optimal intrinsically poses a challenge to solve. For example, in a lot of Elden Ring-style RPGs, if there's spears, I'll use spears, I love them, and feel they are underrepresented in many games. I don't care if the boring swords are the strongest and spears are trash, I decide on a fantasy (in my case, I wanted a spear-wielding holy magic warrior) and try to make it work. I also think self-created narratives like that can be a very powerful extrinsic motivator, the one board game that comes to mind is Call to Adventure, where players are dealt a Beginnings, turning point, and ending cards, and the rest of the game becomes fleshing out that character's story by winning event cards. The game isn't purely narrative-driven however, there's a lot of strategizing and thinking, and there's better and worse plays, but players will tend to pursue the story cards that fit the character they set out to build over the mathematically superior yet unfitting ones.
Lastly, one thing I love about Breath of the Wild in regards to freedom of exploration is that, to paraphrase the designers "we designed every interesting area in such a way that from it you can see at least 2-3 other interesting spots". Way too many open world games feel like a lazy bland map where they haphazardly dropped set pieces, while forgetting to consider the relation and discoverability between them. In a way, what Zelda does is similar to what Charterstone did, where each building card opened access to multiple others, so a player interested in a certain "industrial path" so to speak, is rewarded with more relevant options in that direction, as opposed to other games that may just have one big random deck of buildings from the get go.
Thanks for sharing some of your intrinsic motivations! I think you make a great point about how well each viewpoint in Breath of the Wild is designed to pique your curiosity.
Interesting! This sounded to me more as an example of a Timmy player - going for specific goals rather than crafting a combo. But otherwise I completely agree.
I am an extrinsic motivator for sure, but I like fun divergent strategies and “goals” in games. My favorite game, scythe, does this very well. The Star system is for me, both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Based on my character/mat combo, I can decide which Star to go for. I can “pivot” whenever I want and still feel good about my if I complete certain stars. Stars are the main motivator of the game, but I still love placing each of my stars ⭐️
7 wonders / isle of cats (most drafting games) is another good example that is both in my opinion. My opening hand might present me a strategy that I hope to optimally achieve by the end of the game and I feel good when I complete them.
End game quests always make me feel good like competing all my quests in ticket to ride as well.
I'm glad we achieved that goal for you in Scythe. :)
Thanks for the thought provoking topic! These elements (IMO) are what make a good game a great game. I guess I’m an intrinsic motivation player and wannabe designer! 😅 A somewhat counterintuitive approach to this idea of offering opportunities for intrinsic motivation to players is to reduce the thematic guides to provide space for the player to create their own story or experience in play. Less prescriptive in terms of story.
For example, less= “this character does X because Y” and more = “this is a character” The player finds the motivations and creates the scenario.
That's a good point about the written/predetermined narrative elements in games!
Hi Jamey. Thanks for making yet another thought-provoking video! I feel like there is a real challenge for designers in providing lots of opportunities for players to follow their intrinsic motivations, while also making sure their game doesn’t end up lacking focus. I imagine you are grappling with that as you design your “open world game.”
On that topic, I have heard you mention this “open world game” many times across multiple videos, and I am wondering - at what point in a game’s development would you typically share details with the public? Is it only after playtesting has concluded and you feel happy with the final product?
I feel like many people who subscribe to your channel would be interested in the development steps (and even the missteps) that happen throughout the process, but I also understand why you would keep this secretive as a larger publisher.
Thanks for your curiosity, Keith! Because so much changes during the design process (and even into production), I wait to share details until the product is in production or production is complete. At that point, I'm an open book--I've posted extensive design diaries for almost all of our products, and over the last year I've also created some related "Tales from Production" videos too.
I've noticed my daughter is a sucker for the bonus card mechanic - in Wingspan, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Between Two Castles - she'll usually go after that strategy if it's available. I've noticed in some games that have multiple strategies, I will often be drawn to one over and over again, because it's more fun. In Origins: First Builders, it's city building, in Tawantinsuyu, it's weavings, in Teotihuacan, it's the temple tracks. In new games, with multiple strategies, I want to try everything, often to the detriment of focusing enough to win.
That's interesting about the allure of bonus cards!
Excellent video. I believe what separates a good game from a great game, is that the great game provides a number of ways to achieve intrinsic motivations.
If we look at gaming over the past 50 years, I will provide two examples to illustrate this. Dungeons and Dragons and Magic the Gathering. In D&D people are motivated to level their unique character up, or achieve certain abilities. In MTG people are motivated to build their own unique deck that works, or to collect certain sets.
In modern board games, people can be similarly motivated. You can build a really cool engine (Terraforming Mars) you can solve cooperatively difficult puzzles (Pandemic), you can build or collect your own unique “thing”.
I could go on and on. But bottom line, it’s the secret sauce that makes a game transcend to greatness. Players, win or lose, enjoy a sense of accomplishment that they did this cool thing.
That's an interesting theory, though I think there are also some examples of very popular games where you can pretty much only do the thing the game tells you to do. I'd actually put Pandemic in that category. There are different ways to solve the puzzle, but the game only gives you one puzzle to solve (otherwise you lose, at least extrinsically).
There are design elements in Pandemic that turned it from a dry dusty puzzle to one that provided motivation elements, win or lose. First it has the role selection. You can trailer your group and can have satisfaction in coming up with a unique working team. Second the action point system allows players to tailor their moves, and even have unique actions for that role. And third they made it increase in difficulty where b simply adding one or two pandemic cards, you vastly increased the puzzles difficulty. It is simply brilliant from a design perspective.
And with Pandemic legacy it provided intrinsic motivations on steroids. You added in, in essence a “leveling up” system where you could add unique attributes to your roles. Plus the narrative connection elements between games. These are elements that started in D&D and other RPGs.
I think modern board games can learn a lot if they break down the reasons MTG and D&D were such successful system(s). Gloom haven is essentially a D&D game where you do not need a dungeon master. Arkham LCG is basically collecting and building character decks to solve a puzzle.
I think children do that a lot. They want a specific card/beat specific villain and "we" adults think that they need just grow up to become equal opponents to us. However, maybe we adults should think about our motivation when playing games and "the problem" is on our side. (I am personally quite competetive in board games :))
That's a great point about kids (and the kid in all of us).
I find when I play games I'll make choices that are interesting or novel to me, even if it isn't optimal. That gpes for trying different cards like in Terraforming Mars or a different approach to see what would happen like again in TM what will happen if go heavy on heat and energy instead of worrying about steel and titanium. Trying different approaches or using different elements of a game is satisfying to me. I sort of want to play Arkham Horror TCG with random characters and skills just to see what would happen. Not that I don't want to win, but my wife tends to be more focused on optimal ways.
That sounds very similar to what I find interesting in games--I go out of my way to not repeat the same strategy.
@@jameystegmaier I think you mean "not repeat" :)
@@jtt8886 Yes! :)
If you haven't yet, I'd recommend playing a Cube format in Magic if you know anyone who has one. I think that is Magic's best way to find the intrinsic motivation you are talking about because you draft cards and build decks but what is different is what people include in their cubes i.e. they may be themed or have card restrictions. Moreover, many cards that can be included in cubes may not see play in constructed format magic so they can shine specifically in cube format.
I definitely need to try the Cube format sometime. Thanks for the recommendation!
Great topic. All but totally abstract (tic tac toe or dominos come to mind) games come with the possibility of intrinsic motivation. Without that element, you might as well play a spreadsheet!
Dog Lover…we have a Bailey so someone usually goes for the Bailey card.
Interesting topic! I'm normally not an intrinsic player, i play to the game to win. But last night, playing Wingspan, i had a hawk in my opening hand and the bonus card for predatory abilities (which was like only 13% or something of cards, compared to my other bonus which was around 31%), and i love raptor birds, so i took that, and focused the whole game on trawling deck and tray for raptors and getting them into play. I ended up getting 4 into play, got 8 points on the bonus, but they only tucked 3 cards between the 4 of them and i had my worst score ever in wingspan!
Hopefully you still had fun? :)
@@jameystegmaier oh for sure. i gotta say playing on BGA< i dont like how it keeps a running score total, kinda ruins it when you know someone is too far in front
I've always made up my own goals or quests, from in Video Games like Morrowind (Skyrim is the more modern version) to RTS games or even Final Fantasy. 7.
The Board Game that I've done this the most is called Cashflow 101 with the 202 expansion - - allows me to set a personal goal of partnering with each person, ot sell a deal to each person.
Looking at recent Board Games that fit that we have or expect to get Soon(TM): It's not that I always do, yet have or can see me in each of these
+ Moonrakers
+ Mythwind
+ Dead Reckoning
+ Villagers - Streets too
+ 7 Wonders
+ Backyard Chickens
+ Marvel United (and all other Co-op's, like Atlantis Rising & Star Wars Pandemic)
+ Raccoon Tycoon
+ Vindication
+ Earth
+ Casting Shadows
+ The Fox Experiment
+ Maple Valley
+ Creature Comforts
+ Veiled Fate
Ironically I love Space Base yet how I play depends on who is playing. With just my kids I am 100% focused on winning because I never have against them. Others less so and I have won a lot.
Here is another way to look at this topic for me. We have 5 gamers in out family (me + wife + 3 children) ... that means we only look at 5+ player games with rare exceptions.
I skipped the first Marvel United Campaign because it was only 4 players, adding the option of 5 up to 7 players lead us to go all in, and right now it's our most played game system.
Having that 5+ desired eliminates a lot of games, yet it's placing a value of being able to play together above other values. (Note: has to be really special if it's less than 5+ players as an option)
I like that you've created your own quests for those games. :)
When playing a multiplayer (3+ count) competitive game with high player interaction, I think it would be a good idea to avoid choices that aren't focused towards the primary/winning objective. If you do not care about winning or losing, that's fine but be sure your choices are not giving a player an unfair advantage over others as a result.
It could be difficult in a game with a lot of interaction to gauge how your actions could ultimately affect the game state, so it might be considerate to limit intrinsically motivated decision-making. If a player is not sure which way would be the best way to get to the main objective, then yes- perhaps they try to utilize an unorthodox method as long as they think it could be the best path. Or, sure, pick the cute card if they're not sure whether picking the other card is any better or worse.
My point is, people should be mindful to not just play with blinders on- there are other people playing the game as well.
For example, in games where players can pick up cards that the previous player just discarded, how would you handle a situation where a player continues to feed cards to the next player who needs them?
I feel it would be okay if the player was unskilled and simply didn't know what they were doing, but not if the player was aware that they were going to make another player win the game just for the sake of experimentation.
For an unskilled player in such games, you probably should point out to them before or after a game to be mindful of what they discard.
Keep in mind, that though it's fun to shape your own experience within a game that it can shape others' experiences with the game as well.
Games with low or no player interaction would not be a problem.
Two-player games could pose a problem if the other player feels like you're not even trying.
You picking a cute bird or trying for the You Win! card would not likely have impacted other players' experiences, AND you DID think those choices still gave you an opportunity to win. So, those are great examples of being intrinsically motivated, in a way that does not negatively impact other players' experiences.
I just wanted to make that distinction and was hoping you'd have pointed that out, too.
That's a fair point about high-interaction games and games with the potential for spite or kingmaking.
Shooting the moon in hearts is a great example for me. I’ll lose the game but it won’t matter because I’ve struck fear into the hearts of my friends 😈
I love doing that too!
Maybe I missed it, but did you consciously design around any aspects of intrinsic motivation in the games that you created (particularly Euphoria, Viticulture, Scythe or Tapestry)?
I really get a kick out of trying to win Viticulture without completing any wine orders. Making an aesthetically satisfying city in Tapestry is also fun!
Definitely! I think I mentioned the Scythe glory track (i.e., letting players choose the categories that are important to them) and how in Tapestry you can build any civilization you want, even if it breaks significantly from actual history. I'm not sure I thought about it much in the Viticulture design, but in Euphoria I tried to give players a pretty broad range of options (plus colorfully named market tiles) so they could pursue what feels good to them.
I would have mentioned Wingspan and Everdell as well - these are games I really like to try things in, even if I don't win. 😁
"My Open World Game" 😲🤔
This is an interesting lesson in good design. I think intrinsic motivation is simply better than extrinsic alone; when Victory Points are just an arbitrary measure it never feels as good as if there is an organic game end or just scoring that is consistent with the narrative.
It does seem that Euro games have a bad reputation at this point of being a bit arbitrary and like the theme is pasted on. A game like Ark Nova stands out in part because of its synchronising of multiple systems but also just because people feel like they are really playing as a zoo tycoon.
Wouldn't the Space Base example be extrinsic though? You were in a losing position so seeing an alternate win condition becomes your best shot; I don't know the game that well but it doesn't seem like there's much of thematic basis for winning the game in that way when otherwise behind.
I'm generally very sceptical about alternate win conditions as they create this dynamic where someone can feel cheated if the alt win occurs. To me it's better to make something that is highly rewarding but hard to achieve yet falls short of something arbitrary like 'I win the game and you lose despite having 100 more points'.
I just think there's a certain contract in a game that you know how to win at the start, breaching this just feels off to me, especially on a first play.
For Space Base, my decision wasn't about winning or losing; rather, it was the intrigue and challenge of such an offbeat card.
Ark Nova the best game of 2022. Sad there's no Facebook community like all Stone Maier games ;)
I don't like the "tag" system in Ark Nova because I often feel like it arbitrarily prevents me from achieving the intrinsic goal I have. Because the card draw is random it's not uncommon to just not be able to play a certain card because the requirement is not available at all to you. I think you should be able to pay a high cost if something is unavailable. Like in Wingspan, spending two food to act as one specific food you need. Ark Nova does allow this sort of thing with the X tokens that allow you to increase the level of your action card for one turn. But I do think the big cards in Ark Nova are the most interesting part of the game. The sort of, "maybe next game I'll get to play that Bengal Tiger!"
That's wonderful! I'm glad to hear Wingspan has given you the freedom to try extreme strategies like that.