This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Board game design/mechanic question: Why "hide" non-secret information?

edited January 2012 in Board Games
This has been a question about board game design/mechanic that has been bugging me. From a game design perspective, why do some games make the player hide information from other players that is not unknown?

For example, in Catan, each player's resource hand is hidden. In Tigris and Euphrates, each player's color cubes are hidden. In many games, such as Peurto Rico and Small World, each player's victory points are hidden. The problem is that this information is not unknown to the other players. The exact amount of resources, victory points, etc that each players have is known with 100% certainty. The purpose of "hiding" this information seems to rely on the other players forgeting. However, in order to play such games optimally, it is advantageous to keep track of this "hidden" information. Thus, it seems to add an additional layer of skill to these games in the form of memorization which does not seem to be relevant to the context of these games.

Furthermore, you have games such as Dominant Species, Carcassone, Caylus, Ticket to Ride, etc in which the victory points are actually tracked on the board for all players to see. I do not see any explanation from a design perspective for why these games track such information and why the previously mentioned games decide to hide it from the players.

Is there a reason for this game mechanic in certain games or is it an arbitrary decision? Does this mechanic make it a better game or is it an unnecessary and irrelevant layer of "depth" to these games?
«1

Comments

  • This has to do with Perfect/Imperfect and Complete/Incomplete information regarding games. It stems from a component in Game Theory where not knowing certain states of the game introduces an element of probability into decision making. If you know everything about the state of the game perfectly, such as Chess, you can define a set of rules or moves for any given situation.

    However, let's say that you cannot see your opponents pieces. Now you have to guess the most likely positions of their pawns, rooks, bishops, etc. It becomes significantly more challenging to play optimally. Board games hide certain information in order to exploit this mechanic to make the game more "fun" or hide an obviously optimal play mechanic.
  • Not quite, Andrew.

    All of iruul's examples are hidden information that is not hidden upon discovery. You have a right to know every resource card a player draws and every cube they acquire. There is literally no change in the fundamentals of the game in these cases by hiding this already extant information.

    All this mechanic does is add an additional execution skill component to the game: one of memory. One must now keep track of known but not re-discoverable information, and players who are inattentive are punished.

    If I'm playing El Grande to win, you can bet I know exactly how many caballeros every single player has in that castille. Sure, the castille is opaque, and I can't count them intra-game, but every action that places caballeros in there is public: it's just a matter of remembering.

    It's largely a lame mechanic, and better games avoid it.
  • This has to do with Perfect/Imperfect and Complete/Incomplete information regarding games. It stems from a component in Game Theory where not knowing certain states of the game introduces an element of probability into decision making. If you know everything about the state of the game perfectly, such as Chess, you can define a set of rules or moves for any given situation.
    The topic is referring to information that is actually in the perfect complete information category, but that is obfuscated.

    I could be wrong on this, but I believe that in the base set of Dominion you actually "know" exactly what the current victory point score of every player. There's not really any way for them to "hide" their current score from you. So if you are following along (or writing it down) you know whether or not taking any particular game-ending action wins or loses the game for you.

    But in practice, most casual players care fuck-all about it. So one of the "skills" of the game is just keeping a running score of the other players victory cards (and really, every card in their deck). Where any particular card is in the draw pile, however, is not a known (supposing a sufficiently large deck, though you should technically always know what the last card in your draw pile is going to be if you've been paying attention).
  • The human brain can only do so many things at once, unless you are some sort of freakish genius. Yes, if you use a piece of paper you can count someone's points in T&E or know exactly what cards someone has in Settlers, or memorize someone's score in Dominion. But unless you are a genius you won't be able to remember. Keeping it secret increases the cognitive effort required to achieve optimal play.
  • edited January 2012
    When implementing this mechanic winds up creating a skill test that is the equivalent of "can your write this down in your brain," it often winds up being lame, I agree.

    However, I can see situations where this can lead to interesting play. If you're in a game that involves diplomacy or social skills, your ability to remember where someone is points-wise creates a new element of pressure in any deal-making. It adds a certain degree of uncertainty that can create interesting play.

    I've been toying around with an idea for a storytelling RPG that makes heavy use of information obfuscation - the point is to reflect the nature of the oral tradition of storytelling. At one point, the information is revealed, but you have to remember every single thing that happens with that information in order to be able to use it.

    Granted, I don't think something like that would make for a good German-style board game, because it's a futzy mechanic. It's good for establishing tension and atmosphere.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • People love to be proven right. While these mechanics wind up feeling lame in a tournament scene where there are high stakes, they make for great games with casual and casual/competitive groups.

    Most players won't try to memorize the exact score of every other player in these settings (because of the risk of aneurysm), but they will carefully observe who is doing what, and form educated opinions on how everyone at the table is doing. On their turn, each player will have to act while factoring in these hunches and educated guesses. When they wind up making a great move because of it, it gives them that rewarding feeling of being validated.

    I also wonder if having the information permanently open would do anything to slow down these games? I'd be talking out my ass if I said I knew for sure way or the other, but this is absolutely something a game designer will factor in when tweaking these types of rules. Providing too much information and causing analysis paralysis can ruin a game. Would be interesting to think deeper about the different games you mentioned and how they operate on both sides of this issue.
  • On that note, is it considered cheating when you take an actual piece of paper and start writing down what each player has?
  • On that note, is it considered cheating when you take an actual piece of paper and start writing down what each player has?
    Unless it is in the rule book, nothing is considered cheating, that just would be meta...
  • edited January 2012
    I disagree. If the rules do not permit it expressly, then you can't do it. If you allow keeping track of the information on a piece of paper, then you might as well just make the information open.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited January 2012
    On that note, is it considered cheating when you take an actual piece of paper and start writing down what each player has?
    Yes.

    Cheating is when you break the rules of a game. The rules of a board game are in the rule book. Every proper board game rulebook contains a list of equipment for the game. You may not bring or apply any equipment not listed there to help you in the game.

    You can't bring a dictionary to a game of Scrabble. You can't bring a metal bat onto a major league baseball field. You can't bring a pen and paper to a game of T&E.

    You may also not use equipment in a shady way. So if there is a score sheet, it is only used for keeping score, and not taking notes. Baseball bats are for hitting the ball, not the opposing players. Just because it is permitted equipment, you can still only use it as prescribed.

    Granted, with online play, some of these rules can't be enforced. That's why I still prefer in-person board games, despite it being old fashioned and non-digital.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Is a game played 'correctly' by following the rules that come with the game, the rules the players agree upon, or is it the creators intent that determines how it should be played? What if players disagree on a certain rule (perhaps without them knowing), are they playing different games at the same time? What if the rules are asynchronous by design? What if there's a rule that's written ambiguously?
  • RymRym
    edited January 2012

    You may also not use equipment in a shady way. So if there is a score sheet, it is only used for keeping score, and not taking notes. Baseball bats are for hitting the ball, not the opposing players. Just because it is permitted equipment, you can still only use it as prescribed.
    This I disagree with to a degree.

    In T&E, I arrange my score cubes behind my screen to indicate what colors other players have many/few points in. The rules don't specify in any way how I must arrange my cubes, so I do so as I see fit. It's as much cheating as it is to play Monopoly with the dog upside-down.

    Obviously, rolling a d20 to act randomly in a game without d20s is cheating. But what about shuffling the cards randomly behind my back in Citadels?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • In T&E, I arrange my score cubes behind my screen to indicate what colors other players have many/few points in.
    Clever girl.
    Is a game played 'correctly' by following the rules that come with the game, the rules the players agree upon, or is it the creators intent that determines how it should be played? What if players disagree on a certain rule (perhaps without them knowing), are they playing different games at the same time? What if the rules are asynchronous by design? What if there's a rule that's written ambiguously?
    1. The correct way to play is to use the rules that came with the game, plus any official errata to those rules.

    2. If the players disagree on a certain rule, then they're effectively playing different games. This has caught members of the crew in different games - "Wait, that's not how I understood that rule. I would've played totally differently had I known that!"

    3. Asynchronous by design is a design choice. That's how the game is supposed to be played.

    4. If a rule is ambiguous, the game is asterisked. You should berate the game manufacturer. But in that case, the players should come to consensus about how the rule is interpreted.

  • The rules of the game are determined by the game's creator. House rules are bullshit.
  • The rules of the game are determined by the game's creator. House rules are bullshit.
    What happened to "remixes are great, creativity is king"?
  • The rules of the game are determined by the game's creator. House rules are bullshit.
    What happened to "remixes are great, creativity is king"?
    Burrrrrrrn.

    The difference is in the strength of the contest of skill. The vast majority of house rules make a game a worse contest, not better.

  • The rules of the game are determined by the game's creator. House rules are bullshit.
    My friends recently have played Thunderstone with different rule variants that were to supposedly to fix the problems that many people complained about so they can continue to play something they purchased and not be wasted money.

    Is that bullshit?
  • edited January 2012
    I think this is another example of "oops I didn't mean to speak in absolutes." I can attest to the fact that most house rules I've ever seen have been crap. As Ro pointed out, there are certain (ableit rare) situations where a house rule CAN be good. Hell, with Quarriors, house ruling improved the game so much that the designer basically said "throw out your old rules" and printed the popular house rules up as an official variant in the latest expansion.

    With remixes and creativity being applied to things such as music and movies, I feel as though we enjoy the end results there in a different vein than their originals. For games, when they are remixed, we expect to enjoy them in the exact same way as any other game. We demand a refined competition. Yet when Joe Schmoe decides he wants to play game designer, he usually winds up putting money on free parking.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • edited January 2012
    Depending on the game, there are ways to track information without using outside equipment. Rym gave a great example, but there's also just keeping count other ways. Card counters invented quite a few methods for this with blackjack. I guess you could say all of these are fair, but outside equipment is not... but depending on the game we might get the exact same results. I can see how some of this could even make certain games more fun... differing group to group, game to game obviously.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • Granted, with online play, some of these rules can't be enforced. That's why I still prefer in-person board games, despite it being old fashioned and non-digital.
    Actually with that isotropic.dominion, I ran into a user that was running a chat mod that literally told you everyone's score when you gave it some commands. Seemed like a dick thing to me, and he actually used it at the end to tell him whether or not taking a particular move was sufficient to win. Lame and annoying.
  • Granted, with online play, some of these rules can't be enforced. That's why I still prefer in-person board games, despite it being old fashioned and non-digital.
    Actually with that isotropic.dominion, I ran into a user that was running a chat mod that literally told you everyone's score when you gave it some commands. Seemed like a dick thing to me, and he actually used it at the end to tell him whether or not taking a particular move was sufficient to win. Lame and annoying.
    That's built into isotropic.dominion. It's not some bot he was privately using. You can choose right there in the interface whether or not you want to play in games that have the bot enabled or disabled.
  • I disagree. If the rules do not permit it expressly, then you can't do it.
    Cheating is when you break the rules of a game. The rules of a board game are in the rule book.
    What about board game designers who intentionally leave the rule book vague in order to encourage alternate thinking and variation? This happens more in academically / artistically motivated design than commercially, but exists, none the less.

    One of the more notable examples is Brenda Brathwaite's Train. Then again, this kind of work challenges traditional definitions of "game", in many other ways.
  • Somebody enjoys that sort of artistic expression. That person is not me. Keep it away from my games!
  • If you're playing a game seriously to win, then you absolutely can not have any ambiguous rules at all. Otherwise, Calvinball.
  • The human brain can only do so many things at once, unless you are some sort of freakish genius. Yes, if you use a piece of paper you can count someone's points in T&E or know exactly what cards someone has in Settlers, or memorize someone's score in Dominion. But unless you are a genius you won't be able to remember. Keeping it secret increases the cognitive effort required to achieve optimal play.
    I agree with this. My question is, does this make something a better game by design?

    If in Caylus, the score was hidden and everyone's resources were hidden, would it be a better game? If your craft goods in Peurto Rico were hidden from players like in Catan would that make it better?

    Isn't this requirement of memorization in such games, where memorization is not relevant to the skills being tested, the equivalent to unnecessary "fiddly bits" in video games?
  • I disagree. If the rules do not permit it expressly, then you can't do it.
    Cheating is when you break the rules of a game. The rules of a board game are in the rule book.
    What about board game designers who intentionally leave the rule book vague in order to encourage alternate thinking and variation? This happens more in academically / artistically motivated design than commercially, but exists, none the less.

    One of the more notable examples is Brenda Brathwaite's Train. Then again, this kind of work challenges traditional definitions of "game", in many other ways.
    That depends on the game. Things like that have their time and place. A rule that is purposefully vague should be identified as such, but otherwise, that's valid.

    If I'm playing a hard-core German board game, I don't want ambiguous rules. If I'm playing an improvisational storytelling-focused RPG, ambiguity can be great!

  • The rules of the game are determined by the game's creator. House rules are bullshit.
    What happened to "remixes are great, creativity is king"?
    Remixes are a derivative work and are no longer the original.

  • If you're playing a game seriously to win, then you absolutely can not have any ambiguous rules at all. Otherwise, Calvinball.
    But if you are playing a game seriously how can you have different tools available. Example, someone with a good memory versus people not allowed to bring a pen and paper. A well made game would have a system that doesn't leave anything except understanding of the game to the players.

    @Matt what did they change in Quorriors, I did some searching for FAQs but nothing glaring jumped out at me.
  • Remixes are a derivative work and are no longer the original.
    That wasn't the point either of us were arguing in the slightest.
  • @Matt what did they change in Quorriors, I did some searching for FAQs but nothing glaring jumped out at me.
    You can buy two dice per turn instead of one. You do not get to cull any die when you score a monster. Furthermore, if you want to get its victory points, you must cull the monster die itself at the moment of scoring.

Sign In or Register to comment.