Picard's Principles of Variant Design
Feb 10, 2020 21:38:09 GMT
Tolbethessar, Frederick the Great, and 1 more like this
Post by Dr. Hendrei Gromsinger on Feb 10, 2020 21:38:09 GMT
While conversing on Discord, I found out that I have some guiding principles on Dippy variant design, and that I can more or less rank them. So here goes.
They are:
Historicity
Balance
Nuance
Dynamism
Flexibility
Novelty
Triangles
KISS
1. KISS: Or the simplicity principle
Part of Vanilla diplomacy's beauty, in my eyes, is that the rules themselves are very simple. This means most of my brainpower is freed up to focus on scheming with the other players. I like me a variant that helps me maintain the same balance of brainpower, because that's the beauty of it.
Another way to think of this is in contrast to Settlers of Catan. Now, in Catan, the game mechanics take up most of my thinking, and only a little bit of brain focuses on screwing over my neighbors (or trading with them, I guess). I love Catan, I love Dip, but one ought not to try and become the other.
This rule isn't absolute, but it is a very important principle.
2. Triangle play
I've come to join that school of thought which holds that the fundamental building-block of interesting play between powers is the triangle, in which any member can attack or ally with either of the others. While not a rigid law, a variant should aim to have triangles (and maybe some quadrangles) guiding it.
3. Balance
By this, I do not mean perfect symmetry - otherwise, I'd've said "symmetry". What I do mean is that no power should hopelessly outclass the rest, nor should any power be on the verge of extinction. Obviously, Vanilla isn't perfect in this, and a truly perfectly balanced variant would be a snooze, but some measure of balance is important.
An added piece to balance is avoiding adjacent home SCs. This is a very high virtue in my book, because it cripples both powers with adjacent home centers. This is why I prefer Milan to Vanilla.
4. Flexibility
By this, I mean that the players should have an array of valid choices to make for their opening, preferably 3 or 4 distinct routes to take (Germany in Vanilla may focus his attention to the north, to the low countries, towards France proper, or into a Sealion against Britain, with each option having added flavors to it).
In this, I think Vanilla falls short for some powers (pity poor Turkey and Italy), so perfection is obviously unreasonable to expect, but you get my drift.
5. Dynamism
The map should be dynamic: that is, it should have many avenues of motion and few stalemate lines. If the game becomes a predictable slog, I get bored. Stalemate lines are inevitable, but they should be minimized.
Dynamism also goes hand-in-hand with flexibility, as more dynamic terrain favors more varied strategies.
Vanilla does a good job of this too, although it has its stalemate lines (and StP - ugh!).
6. Nuance
The counterpoint to balance is that the powers shouldn't be all the same. There should be a different zing or flavor to each, as there is in vanilla. If I wanted perfect symmetry, I'd play chess.
7. Historicity
I like historical scenarios, and I like 'em fairly accurate. I'm much more interested in, say, 18th-century Italy (I'll get to finishing it someday) than the Galaxy Far Far Away.
8. Novelty
In a counterpoint to KISS, I do like to have something new and exciting, something like 1812 Overture's two-power mechanic (or major harbors, for that matter) that makes the game different. Depending on my mood, I may consider DPs to be this.
These are, mind you, my personal, subjective thoughts. Treat them accordingly.
They are:
Historicity
Balance
Nuance
Dynamism
Flexibility
Novelty
Triangles
KISS
1. KISS: Or the simplicity principle
Part of Vanilla diplomacy's beauty, in my eyes, is that the rules themselves are very simple. This means most of my brainpower is freed up to focus on scheming with the other players. I like me a variant that helps me maintain the same balance of brainpower, because that's the beauty of it.
Another way to think of this is in contrast to Settlers of Catan. Now, in Catan, the game mechanics take up most of my thinking, and only a little bit of brain focuses on screwing over my neighbors (or trading with them, I guess). I love Catan, I love Dip, but one ought not to try and become the other.
This rule isn't absolute, but it is a very important principle.
2. Triangle play
I've come to join that school of thought which holds that the fundamental building-block of interesting play between powers is the triangle, in which any member can attack or ally with either of the others. While not a rigid law, a variant should aim to have triangles (and maybe some quadrangles) guiding it.
3. Balance
By this, I do not mean perfect symmetry - otherwise, I'd've said "symmetry". What I do mean is that no power should hopelessly outclass the rest, nor should any power be on the verge of extinction. Obviously, Vanilla isn't perfect in this, and a truly perfectly balanced variant would be a snooze, but some measure of balance is important.
An added piece to balance is avoiding adjacent home SCs. This is a very high virtue in my book, because it cripples both powers with adjacent home centers. This is why I prefer Milan to Vanilla.
4. Flexibility
By this, I mean that the players should have an array of valid choices to make for their opening, preferably 3 or 4 distinct routes to take (Germany in Vanilla may focus his attention to the north, to the low countries, towards France proper, or into a Sealion against Britain, with each option having added flavors to it).
In this, I think Vanilla falls short for some powers (pity poor Turkey and Italy), so perfection is obviously unreasonable to expect, but you get my drift.
5. Dynamism
The map should be dynamic: that is, it should have many avenues of motion and few stalemate lines. If the game becomes a predictable slog, I get bored. Stalemate lines are inevitable, but they should be minimized.
Dynamism also goes hand-in-hand with flexibility, as more dynamic terrain favors more varied strategies.
Vanilla does a good job of this too, although it has its stalemate lines (and StP - ugh!).
6. Nuance
The counterpoint to balance is that the powers shouldn't be all the same. There should be a different zing or flavor to each, as there is in vanilla. If I wanted perfect symmetry, I'd play chess.
7. Historicity
I like historical scenarios, and I like 'em fairly accurate. I'm much more interested in, say, 18th-century Italy (I'll get to finishing it someday) than the Galaxy Far Far Away.
8. Novelty
In a counterpoint to KISS, I do like to have something new and exciting, something like 1812 Overture's two-power mechanic (or major harbors, for that matter) that makes the game different. Depending on my mood, I may consider DPs to be this.
These are, mind you, my personal, subjective thoughts. Treat them accordingly.