Faculty Lounge: Gil Hova of Formal Ferret Games (formerly Fail Better)

I first started reading some of Gil Hova’s blog work because Gil had left some insightful comments on a post I wrote on prototype problems and gave me great advice on whether or not to include play money in prototypes I send to publishers.  Gil Hova…

Gil Hova: Who is also a game designer.   I've been designing games for over a decade. My games from 2000 to 2004 were pretty horrendous, but I slowly got better; I had a game make the Hippodice Recommended list in 2005, and my first published game, the word game Prolix, came out in 2010. My newest published game, the economic strategy game Battle Merchants, came out in September 2014.

Dr. Wictz: Thank you Gil for finishing the into for me.

Gil Hova: I blame the parasitic worm that is now controlling my brain who also has decided I need to self-publish my own games. I'm releasing them as Formal Ferret Games. My first self-published game, the party game Bad Medicine, will have a Kickstarter that should begin on February 12.

Dr. Wictz: And has that parasitic worm explained to you why you are going to take on all the extra work of self-publishing your own work?

Gil Hova: For years I told myself I'd never do it. But times have changed, and so have I; I feel that my work style is better with me controlling publishing, instead of letting someone else publish my game. Don't get me wrong, having someone else handle publishing has some incredible advantages! I just don't think they suit me anymore.

Dr. Wictz:  Let me redirect your energy to your blog because I really want to focus on your writing, but before we get into too much detail, can give people not familiar with it a quick run down.

Gil Hova: So, the blog. I've had the blog for awhile now. It was originally called Fail Better, after the Beckett line "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." Which I think suits the iterative nature of playtesting. I renamed it a few months ago to line up with what I'm doing now. And if I don't make it as Formal Ferret, then the name will be even more apt!

Dr. Wictz: How did you come up with Formal Ferret Games as the name for your blog?

Gil Hova: I've owned ferrets for 20 years. Yes, I'm one of those people! They're my favorite animals in the world; not as needy as a dog, not as contemptuous as a cat. They love to play, they're affectionate, they're fun to be around. Imagine an animal that has the exuberance, energy, cuteness, and gracelessness of a kitten or a puppy, and keeps it for almost their entire lives!

For a long time, I had an avatar of a ferret wearing a bowtie that I "borrowed" from a now-defunct ferret-focused webstore. But it was pretty pixelated, and I didn't really have rights to it. As a personal avatar, that's not a huge deal, but since most of my online friends knew me as "ferret with a bowtie guy", I figured I'd keep things consistent. And so... Formal Ferret Games.

Fellow NYC game designer and artist extraordinaire Scott Hartman drew the logo for me; he's also doing art for Bad Medicine. I'm really happy with how it came out!

Dr. Wictz: Why did you start blog for Formal Ferret Games?  What led you to talk about board game design in general instead of just focusing on your own work?

Gil Hova: I think one of the things that makes the board game design community so amazing is its transparency. I've been lucky to meet all these amazing designers, these people who have mentored me and inspired me, and they're all so easy to approach! There's a lot I've learned about game design simply by reading and listening.

So blogging is a way I can pay it back, and maybe forward. I hope my rambling about game design helps in some ways.

Dr. Wictz: If you were introducing someone to the Formal Ferret Game blog what would you recommend?

Gil Hova: Probably my post about Transparency and Opacity. This is something I struggled with a lot as a young game designer, and I wish I could have read it back then. I've learned so much since then about how a simple mechanism that gives players meaningful decisions is so much better than a gimmicky mechanism that matches the theme but obscures any real choice.

Dr. Wictz: You took a three year break from blogging, how do you feel the blog is different after the three year break from before the three year break?

Gil Hova: A lot happened to me in that time. I got divorced, I took a step back from game design to try comedy out, and I moved a few times. I had to find myself again, as clichéd as that sounds.

I feel so much better as a person these days; I feel like I've really gotten my mojo back. And I feel like I'm a much better game designer.

Of course, in three years' time, I will be even better still. The moment I stop improving is the moment I should hang up my rotary trimmer!

Dr. Wictz: You hit on a variety of big topics on your blog (Party game design, Women in Board Gaming, Tips for play testing etc.), what inspires your divers set of topics?

Gil Hova: I blog about the things that strike me in board gaming. They're generally things I don't feel are discussed enough, from competitive imbalance to what I feel keeps women from being more present in the gaming scene.

What helps is that I don't just design games, I play them. Like crazy. I'm a huge fan of games, so they really occupy a central part of my life. So this is stuff I am genuinely passionate about.

Dr. Wictz: How did you first become intrigued about the lack of women in board games?

Gil Hova: Someone once told me that he wanted to keep a 75% ratio of men to women in his game art, because it reflected reality. I wasn't sure he was right, because I felt like I played games with a lot of women. But I didn't know exactly how many. So, I started logging it.

It turns out in 2014, 26% of my opponents were women. So it seems he was pretty close. But interestingly enough, if I played games in private (like someone's house), or if the game I was playing was published, that number rose to 31%.

But if the game I played was in public (like at a game store or a convention), that number dropped to 21%. And if I was playtesting a prototype, it plummeted to 17%!

Of course, these numbers don't prove anything other than whom I get to play with; I'd expect they'd be wildly different for other people. But it feels much better to know them, for some reason.

It also opened my eyes to the subtle things that keep women from our hobby. Not big offensive things, but tiny behaviors that don't do anything in and of themselves, but added up, from a bunch of "invisible ropes" that can wall some women off.

It's a very strange subject, of course, because I'm not a woman. Sometimes I feel unqualified to even bring the subject up; what the hell do I know about any of this anyway? And is my focus on women pulling away from gamers who don't identify with binary gender? And what about race and gaming? None of this is easy to talk about, and I feel so unqualified bringing it up.

But the conversation has to start somewhere. All I know is that I see exclusion a lot more than I used to, and I feel like someone has to bring it up. May as well be me.

Finally, even if only 26% of my overall opponents were women, I feel that sticking to a 75/25 male/female split in your game's art is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're telling women that they don't really belong in your game's worlds. I'd like to keep art in my games closer to 50/50. Representation matters.

Dr. Wictz: I notice your series on women in board game has inspired you to change how you play board games with people; has it also change how you want to design future board games as well?

Gil Hova: In terms of mechanical design? No. I play with too many women who play crunchy games like Arkwright and Aquasphere to believe some inane generalization that "women like lighter games". It really depends on the woman.

I'd rather focus on a game that's fun and interesting to play, where players can easily imagine themselves in the game world, regardless of their gender.

Dr. Wictz: If you were to hold a podcast round table talking to others about women in board games, who would you invite and why?

Gil Hova: A bunch of women. I would want them to talk about their gaming experience. Specifically, I'd want to have everyone who commented on my women in gaming posts. They've already taught me so much.

I think it would be good to include women who are non-white and non-binary. Those are important but rarely-heard perspectives.  My role would be to shut the hell up and listen.

Dr. Wictz: I have a soft spot for market mechanics and I also know you have played a number of Michael R. Keller's games, so I wanted your thoughts on what you see as the future of market mechanics in board games?

Gil Hova: I remember a notable designer speaking at a Protospiel a few years ago, promising us that the age of the cube pusher was over, and people would be sick of playing Euros with weird mechanisms and bland themes. This was a few years before Agricola and Dominion came out, though! So I'd rather not make blanket statements about the future of any kinds of games. I don't have that kind of precognition!

That said, I'm really happy to see market-heavy games staying strong in popularity. They're my favorite kinds of games; they tend to involve snowballing mechanisms and really fascinating game arcs, which I enjoy greatly. And I don't think I'm done designing them yet!

One thing I will say: I think you'll see more games integrate apps into their gameplay. I don't think it's ever going to take board gaming over, but it's going to be a definite genre, like co-ops and deck builders. The only issue with that is playing them in 25 years is going to prove tricky.

Dr. Wictz: Thank you for taking the time to talk with me.  You can read Gil’s writing on the Formal Ferret Games blog and you can also follow Gil Hova on twitter.  (Warning-Gil tends to be more verbose on twitter)

Trade Mechanic Equilibrium in Board Games

Ever reach a point in a trading game when players no longer trade?  That dreadful part of Monopoly where all the properties are traded into monopolies and all there is left to do is to chuck dice until someone wins the game.

Why do trade games freeze?  Trade games freeze because players no longer have any trades that make both parties better off.  When I engage in a trade both the person I trade with and myself are better off from the trade.  But, it is possible that there are a limited number of transactions within a game where that is true.  

If there is a fixed amount of resources in the world, trade makes people better off by sorting the resources to the people who value them the most.  Imagine we are splitting two bags of M&M’s in a room full of board game players.  Initially, we randomly distribute the M&M’s to the players. Then we assign each player a different color they should collect.  If a person who only wants green M&M’s trades 3 brown M&M’s to a person who wants as many M&M’s as possible in exchange for one green M&M, both are better off.  In this world, their trade does not create new M&M’s, their trade only redistributes the M&M’s, but the players are richer as a result.  

As long as no new additional M&M’s are created, and assuming people maintain the same preference for particular types of M&M’s, eventually there will be a point where no one can make a trade that will make someone better off.  If I only want yellow M&M’s and I have, through trade, gotten ahold of all the yellow M&M’s, then there are no more trades that exist that will benefit me.  At some point, every person trading M&M’s will hit this constraint, be it from the lack of having something to trade for what you want or from collecting all of the M&M's you desire.

Economists consider this point when there are no longer any possible trades that make people better off to be an equilibrium.  When equilibriums occur, trading ends.  If trade is a phase in your game, then equilibrium is when players should move onto the next phase of your game, if you do not move on then basically your players are sitting around doing nothing.  

But what if you don’t want to move on?  What if trade is not a phase, but the main mechanic of the game?  What can board game designers do to keep players trading?

Designers options can be broken into two broad categories.  Category one - change the preferences of the players playing the game.  Category two - change the amount of resources available to trade.  

Changing Players Preferences

Players reach an equilibrium because their current set of preferences have been fulfilled.  If I can only earn victory points by collecting sets of five bricks and two wheat then I no longer have any motivation to trade for anything else (unless it helps me get three stones and two wheat).  Furthermore, if I successfully have traded for all the possible sets of 5 brick and 2 wheat, I no longer have any motivation to engage in trade whatsoever.

But what if something happened that changed my preferences?  Say I also have the ability to exchange 3 wheat and 2 stones for victory points.  This changes what sets of resources I want in my hand and pushes me back into the trading market to attempt to acquire the goods I need.

Variability in players trade preferences can also come from varying the payouts of preexisting actions.  Lets say a player always was able to exchange 3 wheat and 2 stones or 5 brick and 2 wheat for victory points, but what changes is how much victory points each sets earns relative to the other.  This change in relative value changes the value of cards in a players hand and potentially stimulates more trade.

How a game shifts players preferences can vary.  Some games may give players exogenously varying goals where the game instructs the players what is the change in the payout for particular actions. This can be done with dice, cards, etc.  Take the game of Compounded.  Each player has the opportunity to trade elements with other players.  The value of having a particular element will change because the compounds available to be created to earn victory points vary throughout gameplay.  New compounds, dictating the value of each element, become randomly available as they are drawn from the deck.

Other games, like Post Position, alter goals with an endogenous mechanics.  An endogenous mechanic is when players actions empower them to manipulate the victory point value of certain actions/positions/holdings through gameplay.  

Players in Post Position engage in trade by making bets for or against a horse.  For one player to bet a horse is going to do well, they have to entice another player to make a trade with them by betting a horse is going to do poorly.  These bets are based on each player’s expectations (aka preferences) on how they think the race is going to play out.  

The expected outcome of the race comes from inputs by the players.  Before each betting round players secretly submit 2 or 3 horses they wish to move up in the race.  The ability of players to endogenously manipulate the position of the horses alters players preferences for which horses they wish to bet for or against and keeps players trading with each other until the end of the game.

Altering Resource Availability

Another, more settle way, to stimulate trade is to alter the availability of resources within the game.  Altering resources has the benefit of changing the value of actions without explicitly changing the price for said action.  The price for upgrading to a city in Settlers of Catan may remain at 3 stones and 2 wheat, but the cost to players of achieving that goal and acquiring the 1 VP that goes with it, will vary due to the availability of stones and wheat for them to trade.

Altering resources can occur both from mechanics that increase the number of resources in the game as well as mechanics that reduce the number of resources within the game.  When the robber removes cards from a players hand, say brick, it increases the cost to that player of constructing roads and alters the value that player places on brick.

You might have noticed that altering resource availability motivates trade in two different ways.  First, it changes the overall cost of acquiring a resource.  When there are more or less places where I can acquire the resource, the cost of earning victory points through collecting different sets also changes.  Second, it changes the preferences of players of what resources they desire.  If I lost all of my wood to the robber and I need to build one more road to guarantee the victory points from having the longest road, then my value for wood will dramatically increase because the resource is now scarce within my hand.  These two effects combined potentially changes what combination of goods in players hands where they do or do not benefit from trade.  This variability provides an opportunity to move from a point in the game where player no longer benefit from trade back to a point where they do benefit from trade.

-Thank you to Kevin Kulp and T.C. Petty III for motivating me to write on this topic with our conversations at Congress of Gamers.

Thoughts on Winning: Goals Besides Winning

“When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning.”

― Reiner Knizia

This is one of my favorite game quotes, it encapsulates what designers need to keep in mind when thinking about what keeps a player engaged with a game long term. When playing a game, attempting to win that game will get a player to the end. Having a goal besides winning will bring the player back to the game again and again.

Players create goals in-game and out of game that affect players attitudes towards a game. They can be categorized in two major ways.

Game Created Goals

These are goals that are created by the game itself. These goals are created by the major mechanic of the game. When planning a game around a mechanic, keep in mind the challenges you are presenting to the player to overcome on the way to winning.


For example, in a dexterity games and sports, the players attempt to increase their skill in playing the game. By honing in on physical skills involved with playing the game, the players can keep a competitive edge over opponents and have a better chance of winning. At the same time the desire to overcome physical limitations and acquire new skills will keep players interested and returning to the game.

Mental challenges to the player is far more predominantly in board games. Puzzle elements in games need to walk a fine line between being challenging, and solvable. In an attempt to win players will learn to solve the puzzle faster. The design challenge is if the puzzle is too complex, no one will solve it, or want to, and if it’s too easy, then experienced players lose interest when the perceived difficulty is removed.

For games that create an engine of some sort, economic or otherwise, the players goal to win the game becomes optimizing the system. Designers challenge the player to find every way possible to make their engine as efficient as possible. Where the reward of efficiency is winning the game. Experienced players find continued challenges with the system through conflict with other players attempting to do the same thing.

Player Created Goals

These are goals that are created by the players, but facilitated through the game. In these games the interactions between players is the major determiner as to who wins the game. Players need to having knowledge of the gaming group to outperform each other within the scope of the game. For example, negotiation games create an extra layer between players to play off each other strengths and weaknesses. Knowing the other players can create better deals over the course of the game to bring victory. Players remember how they treat each other in trading games, creating expectation for future trades that affects play-styles along with altering the conditions they need to end the game on favorable terms.

Games that allow for a heavy ‘take-that’ element rely on players desire to cause grief to their fellow players which allow them to win the game. One note of caution though, these external motivations can find their way into game that tries not to have them. A designer needs to imagine a player coming to the table with the strict goal of making someone miserable. Or to try and exploit a non-game winning loophole just to see if they can get away with it. Because if we don’t want players doing it, we have to make sure they can’t. Because if they can, some one will.

These goals besides winning exist, being aware of them and crafting those experiences create richer experiences for the player.

Thoughts on Winning: The Psychology of Winning

When we talk about winners and losers, there is a general perception of what we are talking about because we experience winning and losing in our lives.  This creates baggage of what it means to win and lose, to be a winner and a loser. Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter at Harvard Business School states that once a person begins winning, they are able to keep and enhance the support needed to keep winning(1). Meanwhile columnists Alina Tugend in the New York Times writes that for the losers, a loss is remembered long after the event, while victories are fleeting(2). Journalist Abbas Abedi argues that powerful psychological effects can take hold in the losers, and a self defeating attitude takes hold that manifests itself in performance(3). Even though board games are designed to create winners and losers, I do not see the baggage described above carried into the hobby.

 If it did, nobody except the most tournament minded would play. One explanation for this could be that the loss around the table is a private affaire. Any loss is only witnessed by a small number of people, so the individual is immune to ridicule. I am not convinced this is the case. Even though a player is not playing in front of a large audience watching their every move; they are playing with a group of peers that know the subject matter as well as they do. If a player makes a mistake, everyone else at the table knows it. I believe that intimacy can sting just as much as a public showcase of defeat.

I argue that what keeps the board game community from becoming frustrated with their mounting losses and walking away from the hobby are two things. First is the form factor of the games themselves. Second is the environment in which games are played.

Form Factor

Usually a board games form factor has a player focusing on a series of subgoals within the game that is more easily obtainable. If the game only has one goal and a narrow set option to focus on to win, then the game needs to account for the timing of when players realize they will not achieve the goal.

In the card game Coup, players control two representatives, if both repersitives are lost the player is eliminated from the game. The entirety of the game is spent attempting to eliminate the other players representatives as fast as possible. It takes about five minutes to play a single game. Being short softens impact of a loss. If the player controlled ten representatives, and the game took a half hour to play; then as your representatives dwindle, you could become eliminated from the game early, yet still have to play to the end. Being stuck in losing a game with only one thing to do allows you to sit around and mope, instead of quickly moving on from a loss by starting again at the same level as everyone else. The singular driving goal, with little chance of a replay would make any drawn out loss a frustrating experience.

The form factor of so called ‘Cube-Pusher’ Euro games uses sub-goals to nullify a losing mentality. These games tend to create three phases of gameplay. A player collects resources, and uses those resources to gain other goods, which are exchange for victory points. This creates a series of goals for the player to work towards. This layering of goals means even if a player ultimately loses the game, they still have something they can look at as an accomplishment.

Environment

The environment of how we play games also turns out to be a key reason a losing mentality does not persist.  The way people play games, by putting it on the table in front of other people cannot be underestimated.

Especially at the end of the game when winners and losers are determined. Professor Alison Ledgerwood conducted research on the conditions needed for people to recover from a loss(4). The conditions she describes are suspiciously like those found around the board game table after a game finishes. People around the table are able to give instant feedback on what just transpired. This community of knowledgeable people provide insights and can teach those who lost what went wrong, and what went right. For an example of this give and take, look no further than TableTops loser couch where players reflect on their failure but also take joy from their little victories. The knowledge gained in these moments is what players need to feel competent about their choices going into the next game. Knowing that you will do better next time brings excitement about the next time, and maybe even a win.

1. https://hbr.org/2012/08/ten-reasons-winners-keep-winni/

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

3. http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/5501/1/Learn-How-You-Can-Beat-The-quotDefeatismquot-Attitude.html

4. http://youtu.be/7XFLTDQ4JMk

Faculty Lounge: Nick Bentley of Nick Bentley Games

Believe it or not, I found Nick Bentley’s blog on boardgamelinks.com.  I was on the prowl looking to find something fun and interesting to read instead of getting some work done on my dissertation.  Impressed with Nick’s passion for abstract game design, I asked him to stop by the faculty lounge to discuss how to thrive as an abstract game designer.

Dr. Wictz: Give me a quick run down about Nick Bentley Games in case folks are not familiar with your blog?

Nick Bentley: Short answer: it's my blog. Slightly longer answer: one day several years ago I decided I needed a release valve for the stew of game-related thoughts bubbling up in my brain, and so I opened the blog on a whim. At first the things I posted were totally tossed off. Now I spend a lot of time writing each essay there. I post two types of things: descriptions of games I've designed, and essays about game design and the game industry.

Dr. Wictz: Why did you start blog for Nick Bentley Games?  What led you to talk about board game design in general instead of just focusing on your own work?

Nick Bentley: Writing helps me think. I couldn't have designed a lot of the stuff I have without writing about game design. Also, it also now serves as a way to make sure my games get noticed. My blog has slowly built up a nice stream of traffic. 

Dr. Wictz: If you were introducing someone to the Nick Bentley Games blog and you could only select one post for them to read which post would you select?

Nick Bentley: Can I do two? Because it depends on who's reading. For a general audience, this one, because it's the only thing I've written which has a chance to change the world for the better. For folks in the game industry, this one. I now work in the game industry and I suspect this essay was a reason I got offered a job. It's also my most-read and most-controversial post. 

Dr. Wictz: How did you come up with the Nick Bentley Games as the name for your blog?  What were the other contenders?  Why use your real name instead of a pen name, like Oak Leaf Games, Black Leaf Games, or Dr. Wictz?

Nick Bentley: Though I've been involved in a lot of carefully planned website projects, Nick Bentley Games isn't one of them. It's the least planned site I've ever worked on, mainly because it started as a release valve, and I felt like I couldn't NOT do it. No planning at all, I just started it one day, and chose the first name that popped into my head. I don't even own a domain for it.

Despite this, it has also been the most useful site I've ever worked on. Which leads me to the following conclusion: passion is more important than every other factor. Passion keeps you working and people can feel passion, or its absence, in everything you do, and will respond or not accordingly. A {poopy} site (structurally, my site is {poopy}) driven by passion is better than a perfectly executed site driven by any other motive.

Dr. Wictz: You have designed board games and video games, what are the positives and negative to working in either medium?

Nick Bentley: Well, I can't code very well, so that makes doing video games hard. I can't participate at the nuts and bolts detail level. I can only do high level stuff. I much prefer table games. Everything is simpler, and playtesting is way more fun. I resent the degree to which we've been enslaved by our screens.

Dr. Wictz: You clearly have a passion for abstract games (Is that an understatement?), what do you see as the future of abstract gaming?  What lessons can you impart onto other abstract game designers?

Nick Bentley: I think abstract games are becoming an anachronism, like pinhole cameras. There will always be eccentrics who work on them, but I doubt they'll be popular, even just popular in the table-game culture, again. I'd love to be wrong of course (and I'm always actively thinking about how to make myself wrong), because I think the best ones are as beautiful in every way a thing can be beautiful.

Too many games are built to be, and will be, forgotten. The focus in the table game culture is on what's new, and the games industry sort of has to promote that atmosphere because you need to have it to sell games. Though and I understand that necessity, it also saddens me because it leads to mindless consumerism, a throwaway culture, and it demeans the games themselves. In addition, it creates an environment where bona fide works of genius slip through the cracks because they aren't commercially viable. My favorite game, bar none, is one of these. It's called Slither. Many people who've lucked into being exposed to it feel the same way about it. But it will likely never be promoted by anyone because it can be played with Go equipment.

I'm hesitant to give advice about how to design, but this method works for me. Specific advice for abstract game designers:

• Try to design from first principles, as though you'll have no time to playtest (to get you thinking about fundamentals).
• But DO playtest: abstract game designers often fail to get enough real feedback from real players, and prefer to remain in the crystalline world of abstraction, rather than dip their toes into muddy realities of human reaction and psychology. I understand why, because I'm one of those for whom the former is a far more attractive place to live than the latter. But you've got to live in both worlds to make great games.  
• Too many abstract game designers are so worried about depth they fail to ensure accessibility. You need both, and it's really really hard to achieve both. I playtest my abstract games with people who don't like abstract games for this reason.

Dr. Wictz: You also have a semi-new curiosity of what it takes to turn a game into a commercial success (gosh darn it, you wrote an entire post on it).  Do you feel you have figured out the formula to broaden the audience for abstract games?  

Nick Bentley: I definitely haven't figured out the formula! I have learned some new things, but I'm hard pressed to put them into words yet. They're still stewing. I think I'll have to forgo answering this question for now.

Dr. Wictz: What can non-abstract game designers learn from abstract game designers?

Nick Bentley: Above all, the value of simplicity and a focus on emergence.

Dr. Wictz: What can abstract game designers learn from non-abstract game designers?

Nick Bentley: Games have to be accessible and fun in addition to being deep. They have to be many things at once! Non-abstract game designers generally know this, but many abstract game designers don't.

Also, physical presentation: the commercial design of abstract games is often unattractive. What would an abstract game published by Days of Wonder be like? The physical design of a game matters.

Dr. Wictz: What is your favorite non-abstract game (I know, this question might be heresy).  

Nick Bentley: I'm not sure I have a favorite. There's a special place in my heart for Finca, but only for two players. There are certain party games I think are really well done, like Time's Up (I also design party games - I have one coming out in January, called Stinker, which will be published by Foxmind Games - so I know how hard it is to design a party game). Also, a half-dozen Knizia games, though you could argue I like them because he's an abstract designer at heart. Battle Line is an example, which feels like Knizia reached up and pulled it directly out of the platonic realm. It feels like it must have existed at the beginning of time, er, something. 

Dr. Wictz: Name a board game designer who does not design abstract games you wish to lock in a room and force to play abstract game with you for hours on end?

Nick Bentley: Knizia, except let's exclude him on the principle that the spirit of his designs are too close to abstract. In that case, Bauza. I don't love all his games (7 wonders = blech!), but he takes risks and his games harbor imaginative leaps. Hanabi is a good example. I'd like to see what kind of design ideas would start popping out of him if he were forced to play a bunch of abstracts.

Dr. Wictz: I know you believe there is not enough good writing on table games on the internet.  (I quote "There’s not much great writing about table games on the internet.")  Where is the best writing taking place?  Do you have hope for the future of tabletop writing?  What types of articles are you hoping to stumble across?  What is overdone?

Nick Bentley: Sometimes Nate Straight on Board Game Geek posts stuff that goes beyond the obvious. The BGG designer diaries sometimes say interesting things, depending on who's writing. But largely, most writing about table games is so shallow I can't recommend any particular thing wholeheartedly.

Overdone: I'm terribly, terribly tired of reviews. I haven't read a review in years that said anything new or interesting about any particular game, or games in general. I'd be beyond ecstatic if nobody ever reviewed a game on the internet again. I don't know how so many people manage to collectively say so little.  

I should note, however, that what I want is probably very different than what the average person would find interesting. I'm so steeped in games, the only things that impress me are things where somebody has gone to the trouble of thinking and writing with great rigor. I'm looking for stuff that would probably come off as too academic for most people. Cameron Browne is spearheading the formation of a semi-academic journal about game design that holds promise for me, for this reason (I will probably write for it as well)

Dr. Wictz: Thank you Nick for taking the time to talk with me in the faculty lounge.  You can read more about Nick’s thoughts on board game design and his designs on his blog, on facebook, and follow him on twitter.