Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Interviews by an Optimist # 49 - Richard Garfield

Expand Messages
  • Tom Vasel
    Interviews by an Optimist # 49 - Richard Garfield Richard says this about himself... I was born in Philadelphia in 1963. My father s work in architecture took
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 19, 2005
      Interviews by an Optimist # 49 - Richard Garfield

      Richard says this about himself...
      "I was born in Philadelphia in 1963. My father's work in architecture
      took us all over the world by the time we settled in Oregon when I was
      12. I liked games and puzzles a lot through my early youth, but
      calling them a passion at that time would have been an overstatement.
      That changed when I discovered Dungeons and Dragons; a game which
      radically stretched the bounds of what the game could be, and which
      thrust the players into the role of game designer.

      My reaction was a bit different than many of my peers; rather than
      falling in love with Dungeons and Dragons I fell in love with games in
      general. I began to seek out and play all sorts of new games,
      traditional games, wargames, popular games, niche games, role playing
      games, and on and on. When I found a game that I didn't immediately
      like, I would play it until I learned to appreciate what it did for
      its players. I studied games strategy books, and game history books. I
      designed my own games and fantasized about being a game designer.

      By the time I was in college I had come to the conclusion that game
      design was not the place to stake out a career. After all, each day in
      the newspaper there were movie reviews and bestseller lists, but
      hardly anything about games. If games weren't even big enough to get a
      bestseller list or review in the paper once a year, it must be pretty
      small potatoes. This doesn't mean that I lost interest in games, if
      anything my interest increased because it seemed like a fascinating
      undiscovered country to me. While I liked many different academic
      areas, combinatorial mathematics spoke to me strongest - possibly
      because of
      its value in analyzing game mechanics. I planned my future, studying
      and teaching math, with a hobby of game research and design.

      During my first teaching job at Whitman College, my first published
      game, Magic, took off. Magic's success gave me the opportunity to
      pursue game design full time, which I took - despite the fact that it
      meant giving up academics, which I was fond of as well.

      For the next ten years I worked as the lead game designer for Wizards
      of the Coast, the company that published Magic. Under them I further
      developed the brand new area of games centered on tradable components,
      I designed several more traditional games, I worked on several to date
      unpublished computer projects, and I helped develop an R&D department
      that used almost scientific methodology to design and develop games,
      rather than simple intuition.

      Currently I am an independent game designer living in Seattle, though
      I still consult with Wizards of the Coast and even work on Magic from
      time to time. Most of my professional time is working on numerous
      computer game projects, though I still design board games, and derive
      special pleasure from doing so. This is probably the pleasure of not
      having to deal with a million people to get a prototype made and
      tested.

      Tom: I've read that you actually designed Robo Rally first but
      couldn't get Wizards to publish it, until you had given them Magic.
      Is this true?

      Richard: Yes, it is true. RoboRally was designed pretty much to
      completion in 1985 or so. I was not interested in the business of
      getting it published - I would love to have gotten it published but
      felt that it was going to involve LOTS of unpleasant work and may not
      have been successful. One of the many fans of the game within my
      circle of players, Mike Davis, offered to get it published for me, and
      I agreed to give him half of the game if he took care of all the
      business end of things.

      Many years later, the game had been rejected by many companies,
      usually on the grounds that it didn't fit into any of their game
      lines. It had been accepted by a few, only to later be let go (FASA
      was one such company - they wanted to make RoboRally into a Shadowrun
      game, something I was not too excited about). Mike decided that if he
      tried a start up company rather than one that was established, there
      may be less baggage from existing lines. He found Wizards of the
      Coast, which was far from an ideal company, being as it was committed
      to role playing games, had no money, and was very soon involved in a
      lawsuit. However, Wizards did show interest in RoboRally and agreed to
      publish it when there was more cash, and asked if I could provide
      something cheaper to produce?

      While Wizards was far from ideal for RoboRally, but it proved to be
      quite good for Magic, because it did have one thing in particular
      going for it which was Peter Adkison, the President of Wizards. He
      recognized the potential of Magic, recognized the tenuous position of
      Wizards, and decided to publish Magic in a second company, Garfield
      Games, which later merged with Wizards of the Coast.

      Two years later RoboRally was published.

      Tom: Roborally is finally being reprinted by Wizards of the Coast
      this year. Are there going to be any changes to this edition?

      Richard: There are minor changes to the new RoboRally. When the
      project first began, I was asked about changes I would like to see and
      those I wouldn't want to see. I kept my distance on the German version
      of RoboRally and, as a result, I believe the game was over simplified
      - something I didn't want to see happen again.

      There was some simplification I did want however. For example, the
      concept of "virtual robot" didn't contribute enough to the game to be
      worth the confusion. Another example of simplification centered on
      race construction. Designing racecourses took a lot more skill than I
      realized - beginners would tend to make long and painful races. For
      this reason we constructed a detailed set of official races. Of
      course, players can still construct their own if they want to.

      An addition that I think is being introduced is a timer, which adds a
      bit of pressure to the play. There was some controversy over whether
      to do that because, while a timer speeds the game significantly and
      adds to the frenetic flavor of the game, it can simply move too fast
      for some groups. For this reason I introduced a rule so that the
      timing is somewhat customized to your play group - you don't actually
      begin the timer until there is only one player left programming. That
      way, a single player can't slow the game too much, and yet the overall
      pace of the game is not too much faster than the group wants.

      Tom: Does the new Robo Rally contain anything from any of the
      expansions? And will it be compatible with the older sets of Robo
      Rally, including the Amigo version?

      Richard: I believe the past and present RoboRallys will be compatible.
      That was not a goal in particular, but I believe it is the case
      nonetheless. I have not seen the final draft of the game, but my guess
      would be that this version would contain no board elements that did
      not appear in the original set, and it may contain some option cards,
      which appeared in
      expansions, but it may not. So mostly I would expect a game like the
      original one.

      Tom: You're certainly most well known for your trading card game
      work, but you've also done several board games. One of these is What
      Were You Thinking?, a party game, and Filthy Rich, a game unlike any
      other. Can you tell us about how you came up with the ideas of both
      of these games?

      Richard: It is should not be a surprise to find that most of my
      personal design time has been devoted to standard fixed deck card
      games and board games. After all, there was no such thing as a trading
      card game until the 90's, and I had been designing and studying games
      all through the 80's. Only a modest number of these have been
      published, but I am constantly tinkering on old designs and being
      inspired to try new ones.

      Many times my ideas come from something in real life that I realize,
      at its core, is a game. Filthy Rich was one such game - while in Hong
      Kong I was looking down the long alleys, and I was amazed by the
      density of the signs. As I walked down the alleys, big signs would
      obscure the ones behind them, and those would obscure the ones further
      down, and so forth. I immediately began to think of the "game" of
      hanging signs in an alley, signs at the front of the alley are
      desirable, since they cover all the other signs and are never covered
      themselves. Signs at the back of the alley are desirable, because if
      uncovered you can see them the entire length of the alley, while the
      ones at the front disappear as soon as you pass them. From this fun
      real life/game observation I began to tinker with the idea of making
      the "alley" a binder with plastic card holders, and the making the
      signs cards that were inserted in the sheets. In this way, signs could
      cover one another or be at the front or the back of the alley - and it
      modeled my observations in Hong Kong pretty well.

      With "What Where You Thinking?" I was working on a party game for
      Wizards when at a dinner some people began arguing over something,
      like "What is the longest river in the world?" They resolved it,
      ridiculously, through a vote. That set me thinking - what if that were
      the way trivia questions were resolved? Pretty soon I had come up with
      a prototype, called "Hive-mind". The fiction I made for it was that
      the queen bee had been told that there was not enough food for the
      winter, and so she had to determine which bees were to be booted from
      the hive. To do this she administered a test, but naturally what was
      valued on the test was not being correct, but thinking alike.

      The resulting game seemed to have all the properties you could want
      for a party game. It was quick and wild, and everyone thought they
      could do well - after all you only have to think like everyone else,
      right? Also the questions made for endless discussions, about what
      people really thought versus what they chose to answer. There was even
      excellent
      ego-protection; if I were out of the majority, I could claim I was
      just trying to think down to their level, or I could feign surprise
      that they all got it wrong - I never have to admit I didn't know
      something.

      Tom: When it came to designing trading card games, why do you think
      Magic was and is so much more popular than others, such as Battletech?

      Richard: There are a lot of reasons why Magic was the most popular,
      and not just the obvious one - it was first. However, being first
      can't be ignored with trading card games because they require a
      network in ways that board games just don't. With a trading card game
      there is an entire network of players needed to get started; and if
      your audience is
      already invested in one, the next is really hard to get going.

      Another reason is development time. Hardly any trading card game has
      had the luxury of two years of development. It makes a huge difference
      to the quality of the product. And that isn't just initial development
      time; Magic's success has allowed it the luxury of starting a
      professional tournament which makes a pool of very talented technical
      developers available. It has also allowed us to schedule and design
      our expansions a long time in advance, allowing us to perpetuate this
      quality of development rather than constantly being rushed to get
      cards out.

      Speaking of the tournaments, there is nothing like serious play to
      make a good game last a long time. Basketball is legitimized by the
      NBA; and while many people play basketball casually, it would be
      nowhere without the backbone provided by the players and fans who take
      it seriously. The Magic Pro Tour allows players to advance as far as
      they like in the game of Magic, and to take it as seriously as they
      like.

      The original motif of Magic helps from a game perspective a lot. It is
      impossible to optimize a game without conflicting with the license in
      some way on a licensed property. So Star Wars, Battle Tech, Star Trek,
      or any of the other oodles of licensed products that have been made
      into trading card games are automatically sub-optimal, they have made
      some sacrifice for the license in game play. Magic had no burdens in
      this way, and for that matter, Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh had none either -
      the flavor was really designed to drive the game.

      Anyway - those are a few of the reasons that Magic has outlasted many
      other trading card games, including all other ones of my own design.

      Tom: What do you think of the fact that you are known as the designer
      of Magic, but very few know about your board gaming accomplishments?

      Richard: I have far more fame than I ever intended to have, and so I
      don't really think about it much. I designed games as a hobby before,
      not a profession - and I went into Mathematics research. Both those
      two life choices demonstrate that I wasn't in particular seeking out
      fame. And even today I still design games with no intent to publish
      for my
      friends and family and my own curiosity.

      Besides, I haven't had any real reason to correlate recognition with
      accomplishments that interest me. Game designers I admire languish
      unrecognized, and ones I find unexceptional get acclaim. I don't
      believe this is simply because the recognition is "unfairly"
      distributed, but also no doubt because what much of what I value in
      game design are not factors that are widely appreciated. Perhaps one
      day they will be, but
      maybe not - if I were an enthusiast of a particular style of
      literature, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to one day be widely
      appreciated, nor would I think that its failure to do so meant that my
      enthusiasm was misspent.

      My drive these days is much more focused on computer games as well.
      Computer games have interested me more and more as networking has
      become a staple - opening the door to multiplayer games in ways that
      haven't been available before. Also, while there are many games these
      days in the boardgame space that interest me, there are very few in
      the space of computer games, which is obviously a reflection of how
      the computer is being used rather than what you can do with a
      computer. Most player versus player computer games are more simulation
      than game, and are far too skill and/or time intensive.

      Tom: What are your favorite board games you haven't designed?

      Richard: That is a really difficult question, any time I say a game 3
      more will come to mind that deserve to be mentioned. Also, board game
      could be interpreted a lot of ways.

      For traditional games, I would choose poker. If I were forced to have
      a board, I would choose go.

      For designed games I would choose Dungeons and Dragons, in my mind
      nothing comes close to D&D for innovation in gaming in the last 30
      years.

      For designed games with a board I would have to choose Titan or Cosmic
      Encounter. The first if time is not an issue, the second otherwise.
      Cosmic had many innovative features, which have inspired me in my game
      design. Titan is the only game I ever quit playing because it was
      eating up too much of my time.

      For games in recent history I might go with Carcassonne. I play a
      variant of my own design, but the base system is flexible, accessible,
      and fun.

      Tom: What would be your response to those who are irritated about the
      "collectibility" aspect of Magic the Gathering?

      Richard: At some level I certainly understand the reaction. I created
      the genre, and yet there is no game I typically less like to look at
      than a "collectable" game. That is not because I don't like the form
      of game; in fact I like it an enormous amount. It is because of the
      effort required to learn whether they are worth playing.

      Many folk I have known can and do sidestep the issue with Magic by
      treating it as a board game. They purchase as much as they want, then
      they draft it with their friends, or draw off a common deck, or
      construct several decks, which they give to people who want to play.
      When the play session is done, they take back their cards, thus they
      convert
      a game, which is meant to be a distributive system into a more
      traditional centralized system.

      On the other hand, criticizing magic for it's collectable nature is
      like criticizing Poker for being "played for money", or Starcraft for
      being "a computer game". Customizing your deck in Magic is intrinsic
      to its design and a large part of its appeal. It is nice that some
      players can work around it as mentioned above, but while it may not be
      everyone's cup of tea, there is an enormous amount being offered by
      distributive game systems.

      Whenever I return to a game I know very well, like bridge or poker,
      and play it for the umpteen millionth time, I get a whole new sort of
      pleasure that I don't get when playing a different board game every
      week. That is the pleasure of a game system that is deep, that I know
      well, and which becomes better and better the more you know it. The
      vast majority of the board games I play don't stand up to that sort of
      replay; and even when they do, it is hard to find the players that
      will explore that really satisfying level with you. Yet at the same
      time I am driven to new games because I love exploring new systems.

      For me the distributive game system like Magic is another way to
      approach this. I can become good at Magic and know it well, and yet
      every time I return to it, it is a different game in a very real
      sense. When I return to poker after a hiatus, I have the pleasure of
      re-familiarizing myself with old skills. When I return to Magic, I
      have the pleasure of re-familiarizing myself with old skills, and
      using them to explore a new land.

      I don't expect players who strictly play the new game of the week to
      appreciate this benefit. But any player who likes new games, yet gets
      such pleasure returning to an old favorite that they inevitably wonder
      why they don't play it more - that player should understand at a deep
      level the benefit offered by a game system like Magic.

      Tom: How much input do you have into the current expansions of Magic?

      Richard: I work on an expansion about once a year. I go into Wizards
      on a weekly basis, and give feedback on the sets they are working on.
      The next set I did an extensive amount of work on is the one coming
      out in September, and I don't even know its name, since it wasn't
      chosen when I was working on it. It was codenamed Control though from
      the
      Control-Alt-Delete series.

      It is a lot of fun working on the sets. There is no end of really
      different environments that can be created, and there is a huge and
      dedicated audience that will appreciate it.

      Tom: How did it make you feel when certain cards were first banned
      from tournament play?

      Richard: I was certainly used to it by that time, people had been
      banning cards - or providing their own modifications since before the
      game even came out. And, in fact, that was my intent. I wanted there
      to exist cards that people really loved - and that goes hand in hand
      with cards that people really hate. I did not want a tepid game in
      which everything was merely okay. Chaos Orb screams for house rules.
      If >I< were running a
      tournament I would have banned Schahrazad. The cards were meant to be
      interpreted to meet the needs of each playgroup.

      As Magic became positioned more as a serious game, we had to take more
      responsibility for balancing the game and making sure the cards were
      interpretable in only one way. Before that balance would be imposed by
      individual player groups, and multiple interpretations of a card
      weren't a disaster.

      Even today though, I am not disappointed with bannings, provided they
      don't get out of hand. The game system is so rich and interconnected
      that I can say with certainty, if cards aren't ever being banned then
      the development team is not taking any chances, and so the game will
      be less innovative and exciting for the player.

      Tom: Are you currently designing any games now?

      Richard: I am working on a number of computer game projects, in each
      to some degree I am trying to bring something of the long and rich
      history of paper games. I have been involved with many of these
      projects in the past but none have come to fruition yet, which I blame
      on the combination of the general expense of computer games coupled
      with the fact I am trying to do things that haven't been done in the
      field before. This has caused me to both look for more adventurous
      partners, and also to be less radical in my designs. At this point the
      most likely game to appear is an online game for Microsoft, over a
      year from now, but it is still too early to give any details on it.

      As far as paper games go, I am always designing games for myself and
      occasionally am moved to shop a design around. Currently I have 4
      games in the hands of European publishers, which they have expressed
      interest in, but haven't committed to, one game in the hands of
      Winning Moves, which is all but committed to, and two games in the
      queue at Wizards of the Coast, which are committed to.

      At this point the only game I feel comfortable commenting on is a game
      Wizards is publishing next year for Avalon Hill. It is fairly standard
      European formula for a game, players are bidding for regions, and
      score based upon the combination of regions they control at the end.
      These games often involve far too much calculation and memory for me,
      however, so I have tried to introduce more luck into the system, and
      to use that to make the game move faster and be less work to play. If
      done correctly, I believe games with a lot of luck can still satisfy
      players looking for a skill testing game; just look at Poker. Another
      non-standard feature I have brought to the genre are some metagame
      modifiers, that is, some rules changes to each game to make it a bit
      different each time. In my experience this technique can make a game
      fresh for a long time. In a nod to the genre, which is so often set in
      a city - preferably a European city from before the 19th century - or
      better yet a city on the spice route, I have set this game in a future
      city. I am not sure what the final name will be - something like
      Futureville or Rockettown.

      Tom: What are your thoughts on the collectible miniatures games that
      were obviously inspired by Magic?

      Richard: I enjoy seeing the theme of Magic propagate, both to
      collectable games and non-collectables. The miniatures in particular I
      admire more from afar, because, while the addition of sculpted
      miniatures is an obvious plus to some, to me it takes away from a lot
      of the utility of a card. The extra text space, the natural
      randomization, the compactness, the hidden information - these are all
      things that bring me personally back to cards each time.

      Tom: Of all the collectible card games that are in competition with
      Magic, which do you think has (had) the best design?

      Richard: I don't want to laud or criticize specific trading card games
      since I am employed by Hasbro specifically for trading card games -
      and also any criticism will seem self serving. I don't feel that way
      about other game forms since I am not nearly as well known outside the
      TCG, and I have no specific agreements with anyone regarding them.
      That said, I would be happy to tell you some features I like and
      dislike in trading card games, and readers can interpret them as they
      will.

      It is vital that trading card games not be long. A large part of the
      appeal of the games is that when you replay them with small changes to
      your components that they play very differently. If my time is
      exhausted after one game then I can't really appreciate that.

      Gratuitous complexity is a rampant problem with trading card games.
      When I look at a card, I don't want to see a lot of attributes that
      matter only one game in 1000, or conditional effects that are minor
      and seldom come up. This is one way to produce the number of cards you
      need for a trading card game, but not a good one in my opinion.

      I like it when single cards can make a large difference. This makes it
      so I really feel it is worth my time constructing the deck. In a
      related vein, I vastly prefer games that have some simple heuristics
      for making decks, the heuristics won't be optimal, but they get me
      started. There are some games, where I have absolutely no idea how to
      build a deck with
      a particular strategy in mind.

      One final note, as with most games I want to see enough luck that the
      worse deck, or worse player can sometimes win. This drives me to play
      again even if the players don't change their deck.

      Tom: I feel that deck-building is more than half the game when
      playing a TCG. Is that the way you intended it?

      Richard: Certainly the effect of building a good deck versus playing
      well will vary from TCG to TCG. I designed Magic not with a particular
      balance in this regard in mind, but with flexibility in mind. I know
      playgroups that favor sealed deck, or draft, or limited leagues, or
      even common deck play; and in all these formats deck construction is
      less important than in standard or extended Magic. In common deck
      play, where all players draw from a common deck, deck construction it
      is nonexistent - at least as a competitive component of the game. When
      I choose a format to play, I do so partially on how much time I want
      to invest in the deck construction portion; sometimes that leads me
      to one format, and sometimes another.

      Certainly, however, there is no better way to get people involved with
      the rich play experience of designing a deck than to make it extremely
      relevant to the play, so in that regard I was certainly trying to make
      deck construction critical. And in fact it is a marked flaw of some
      TCGs that I have played that I have no interest in designing the decks
      after
      a game or two; these may be fine games, but they don't need to be
      trading card games.

      Tom: How much playtesting do you do with your games, both board and
      trading card?

      Richard: If left to my own devices, I will playtest a board game
      indefinitely. A publisher's pressure is typically needed for me to
      finish playtesting. Occasionally I will come up with a design that
      really just falls into place with very little playtesting needed. My
      typical design pattern, however, is to work on a game for a few weeks,
      playtesting often, then
      to put it away for a few months. After it has sat, I can return to it
      and with a less biased eye tell what can go and what really the heart
      of the game is. This pattern can be repeated indefinitely without the
      pressure of a publisher.

      A trading card game, however, is a different story - these always
      involve endless playtest even with publisher pressure. I would
      estimate that getting a trading card game to a comparable spot a board
      game would be at, development-wise, takes about 100 times the amount
      of playtest. It is vastly harder to balance a game where people can
      choose their own components, and make the card mix as rich as the
      rules system will allow.

      Tom: Do you think a game with the popularity of Magic is even
      possible these days?

      Richard: One of the most beautiful things about a good game is that it
      gets better and better the more you play it. My tenth game of go is
      better than my first, and my hundredth is better than my tenth. I
      believe this is why historically places will have only a few regional
      games - normal players have to be really bored with the old game
      before the new one has any appeal; and if that game is good, it may
      never happen.

      So new games of huge popularity are always going to be rare. This
      formula is very different in games with exhaustible content, as most
      computer games have been, since being bored of the game is built into
      the design. New player versus player game designs fight a battle
      against old games that isn't nearly as biased in favor of the new as
      the
      competition is in movies or books.

      That said, of course I believe games of the popularity of Magic are
      possible. Pokemon and Yugioh both outsold Magic, and though they may
      prove not to have the enduring appeal of Magic, Magic will have to
      sell a very long time to catch up. And outside trading card games I
      would be the last to predict there is nothing new left to discover
      that could change all the rules. In computer games in particular I
      strongly believe that is the case, but innovation is very slow in such
      expensive, hit driven fields.

      Tom: Richard, thanks for taking the time to complete this interview!
      Do you have any final thoughts for our readers?

      Richard: I am happy to help, thanks for the interest. I have nothing
      further to add at this time.

      Tom Vasel
      "Real men play board games"
      June, 2005
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.