作者：Leiavoia

本文旨在帮助战略类游戏设计者在开发游戏时，在遇到设计概念问题时，能运用更多的战略深度和操纵技能来解决。本文涵盖了一些游戏设计的“黄金法则”，和游戏中可以考虑运用的一些有趣架构，以及一些你可能完全忽略的潜在胜利和结束条件列表。在阅读完这篇文章后，你可能会发现在你设计中存在的一些不足，当然你也会有相应的办法来解决它们。

本文写作受到了另一篇文章 ——《I Have No Words And I Must Design》的启发。这篇文章比本文拥有更广阔的思路，而且对各种类型游戏的设计者有更大的帮助。

战略 VS 战术

在本文的前言，我们应明确指出战略和战术这两者之间的不同。所以让我先来看看关于这两个词在学术上的定义吧（根据多种材料得出）：

战略（Strategy）：是指试图去完成某一特定目标的行动计划，或者是一详尽且系统的行动计划。它的同义词包括“计划”和“计策”。

战术（Tactics）：是指为取得结果、目的或目标而进行的一系列操作，或者指为完成目标而采用的应急手段；一种操作方法。

战略是采取行动的前提，它是由一系列的战术组成。相反，战术表示为支持战略的实行而进行的个体行动或操作。

在设计战略游戏时，我们需要不断地提升游戏在某一方面的功能。战略游戏具有如下特点：

长期目标

所有的游戏都是以赢为目的的，这也是游戏存在的原因。在战略游戏中，为了胜利，需指定长期的目标，比如是为了“俘获王后”或者“巩固自己当前的地位”。比起手动操纵某一游戏单位或变量，这些目标显然更高水平，但这也未代表整个游戏的本质（赢）。

预先计划以备取得胜利

基于上述的描述，国际象棋——典型的战略游戏，似乎更多地被归纳为战术游戏。在国际象棋中，每移动一步都至关重要，每个棋子都有其本身的价值。但是，象棋大多数以战略游戏著称。无论如何顶级的玩家是不会纠结于单个棋子的。他们会以全局思维考虑作战计划，为了取胜而提前想好一些招数。常只有初学者才会拘泥于每一步棋的价值。所以，策略游戏强调的是要有先见之明。

相较于全局战略，特定行动的影响最小

战略游戏中，制胜法宝是策略，不是战术。当一款游戏中可能包括明确下达某个命令，或者移动某个游戏单位时，这款游戏整体上不应该过于重视任何特定的行动。游戏的输赢不能由单个移动的对错来决定。有些游戏尤其容易令玩家感到自己若没有一个“良好的开端”就需要重新开始，这实际上是一种设计失误。

与整体相比，个体单位或者功能的重要性相对较小

战略游戏中，输掉一个游戏单位或者一场战斗对玩家的影响较小。这并不意味着某些关键单位、战斗或者战术无关重要。然而，在一些大型战略游戏中，这些细节不会成为游戏输赢的关键。例如，在国际象棋对抗中，王后是最重要的棋子。但是输掉王后并不表示输掉了整个比赛，或者赢家已经注定了。实际上，丢失一些单位甚至可能是战略中的一部分。

另一方面，战术游戏强调的内容却与此相反。表面上，每移动一步都是由情境所决定，它看重的是那些可以决定游戏输赢的特定走法或者单位。战术游戏极少强调长远目标，而且游戏也会被分割成许多小部分（行动、章节、目录等等）。战略游戏通常允许玩家在玩法上思路不同，因此它不会限制玩家采取全方位的行动。

战略游戏设计的黄金法则

以下是一系列关于战略的事例和简单规则。这些规则能够帮助游戏开发者做出更好的设计，也能帮助玩家从游戏中获得更大的乐趣。当我们自问：“是什么促成了一个良好的战略游戏设计？”时，我们也会问：“要如何做才能使这款游戏充满乐趣呢？”显然，这多少带有一点主观色彩。毕竟，有些人是为了娱乐玩游戏，有些人把游戏当做一项事业，为了获得经验值，有些人是为了某些目标而在玩游戏的，他们为了接受更加艰难的挑战而不断地鞭策自己（在最难关取胜，创下新的记录等等）。不是所有的游戏都适用于所有的玩家，但一般情况下，下面所述内容对战略游戏较有帮助。

显而易见的选择反而不是最佳选择

如果你给出选项A和B，而且A比B好，那么这样的选择就没必要了。这就如同玩家已经知道没必要有这些选项时你却硬要他们作出选择。

从另一方面表明，归根结底这通常是一个平衡问题。一些游戏中存在的明显且不稳定的功能，常常被玩家所利用。就像当选项A总是优于其它选项时，玩家还会想去选择其他项呢？

这问题显示出了另外一种境地，当你身处两种不同的情况，而且每种情况都有具体的可行方案。解决这一问题不会花费太大的脑力，并且不会给游戏增加太多趣味，对游戏本身也不会增加任何的战略价值。好比要你把正方形的钉子打入正方形的洞里，那么在游戏中出现正方形的钉子或者洞口就毫无意义了。玩家希望在不同情境中得到不同的结果。

应让玩家了解游戏的运作方式

游戏都有规则。为了让玩家更好地玩游戏，应让他们了解游戏中的规则。电脑上的战略游戏倾向于让玩家走出规则的束缚。如果游戏中有太多需要玩家掌握的内容，就很容易令他们受挫。虽然学习某些内容并非坏事，但对玩家不必要地隐藏游戏的一些核心运作模式是不明智的做法。我们必须让玩家知道为什么这样玩，比如，一种武器对敌人造成的伤害只有10pts，如果玩家研究过损害公式而且理解这一简单的逻辑，那么游戏就充满了更多的乐趣。如果从未将此公式呈现给玩家，整个游戏过程只会让玩家感到困惑。

为玩家的选择提供明确的反馈结果

对于玩家选择上是正确还是错误的，不该模棱两可。可能有点对又有点错，或者两者各占一半，但是这不能成为玩家困惑的原因。如果给玩家十个选项，在研究过后无法判断它们之间的不同，那么这些选项就浪费了。

给玩家更多选择，更少变量

相对于给玩家大量用处不大的游戏元素，还不如给玩家用处大但量比较少的游戏元素。这可以增加玩家在游戏中的选择数量，增添更多的趣味性，并减少游戏元素的数量。过多的游戏元素难以被玩家记住，也对开发和设计造成一定的困难。

在经典的地牢爬行游戏中，红色钥匙用于开红色的门，蓝色钥匙用于开蓝色的门。这种情境会产生出许多变量（门和钥匙），但却没有什么选择（哪个钥匙就对哪个门）。这样最后只会让玩家觉得单调，而不是产生策略！这种玩法比较适用于冒险类游戏，而不是战略游戏。

不要提前告知游戏结果

如果游戏结果已定，那么还有什么可玩的呢？游戏中的“玩”这一概念表示游戏的结果是不确定的。如果游戏的结果（谁赢谁输）在游戏的任何一个关卡都已透露，那么它就不再是一款游戏。因为游戏的结果已经知道了，所以游戏不再给人带来乐趣，而且对赢家和输家都是不公平的！为什么？因为输的那方无法享受被打败的过程，但是大多数已将胜利收入囊中的赢家也不会对此感受到一丝兴奋。

你可以通过改变取胜的条件来减少或者消除这种“剧透”游戏结局的情况。你需要克服所有困难才能取胜？或者只要赢了一半就已经足够获胜？你也可以通过增加一些消极的反馈机制让游戏变得更加紧凑（查看以下的“循环反馈”）。

提供风险VS回报式的决策

投资者对这个概念是了如指掌的。可能你也在股票和风险较少的债券上做过投资，但你只能得到相对较少的利润。或者，你可以在风险高且可能获得高利润或赔掉大笔钱的项目上投资。

战略性的选择也是运用同样的原理。你可以提供低风险且稳定报酬的A选项，或者高风险且不稳定报酬的选项。让玩家自己选择一个级别的风险，这可能会减少给玩家简单的选项以及简单的答案所带来的问题。（参见“显而易见的选择反而不是最佳选择”）

不可提供玩家无法与之互动的“系统”

一些游戏会竭尽全力去制造出各种错综复杂的、逼真的、模拟器级别的系统，这对游戏本身不是坏事，唯一的问题是开发者不遗余力地投入大量精力设计这种系统，但却只在上面套了一个简单的界面。为什么这样不好呢？因为它会让这些复杂性失效。

如果复杂的系统仅仅抽离成屏幕上的一些简单的标志或数字的话，那么这种复杂性就没有任何意义。玩家将不会知道游戏表层下面究竟有什么，他们也就无从得知系统的复杂性，比如1）不理解开发者在系统中置入的错综复杂的事物，2）不能以任何有意义的方式与系统互动，3）可能压根就没在意。对于玩家来说，一些简单的规则可能更好。

战略范围

战略游戏包含了大量的“战略范围”，或者拥有大量的潜在反馈的选项。这些并非必须因素，但却是你在设计游戏时必须考虑的，其中包括：

进攻 VS 防守

这是游戏中最经典也是最明显的特点。进攻和防守存在于大多数的游戏中，所以在开发游戏时极少需要考虑这方面的因素。但是，必须小心衡量两者在游戏中所占的比例。有些游戏可能单纯侧重进攻方面（《军备竞赛》范本）。你的游戏在进攻和防守上是都侧重，还是偏向于其中一方面呢？防守是可行的选择吗？进攻就不可行了吗？试着去消除这种想法（参考“显而易见的选择反而不是最佳选择”）。

轻 VS 重

轻和重包括了其他一些范畴，它们和诸如大量VS很少，慢VS快，功率VS速率，功率VS移动率等对比情况一样，功能相同但存在形式不同。为了包括这一选项，你可以结合显著的《军备竞赛》方案。人们以往的想法是更大就意味着更好，你也可以破例让“更小”也成为一个竞争选项。考虑到轻和重用处一样但意义不同，在游戏中应让玩家们通过不同的战略来前进，而不是成为按照一定模式前进的对手。运用于这一模式的例子有：使用许多极小的个体或者使用拥有超能力但数量少的个体；也可以使用更强壮但速度更慢的个体，或者用速度快但易逝的个体。

效率 VS 量

一次产出两倍的量与两次产出同一个量的方式相同，无论是哪一种情况，输出结果都是一样的，但是输出的方式如何就不为人所知了。这里的假设是玩家需要一定的“资源”才能玩游戏。在游戏中创造这种范围，不但可以为玩家提供一个战略性选择，还可以让他们在缺乏有利选择时转向撤退选项。比如，如果玩家没有办法增加数量，他们可能会转而通过提高效率来实现。虽然这种办法在短期有效，但它可能不利于未来的战略。效率和量不必是互相排斥的，它们可以同时运用于同一款游戏。可是仍需谨慎区分它们的机制，否则它们可能会混为一体。

多样性 VS 同一性

这也等同于普遍性 VS 特殊性。当玩家在处在多样的（普遍的）地位时，就能更好地适用变化多端的游戏所需的快速反应，为了能完成各种事情，玩家即时改变或者调整策略。可是，处在同一性（特定的）地位的玩家更有可能取胜或者成为更大的威胁（或者是更坚固的防守）。当玩家把所有的希望都投注在同一个地方时，就实现了同一性。这更像是一场风险vs回报的赌博。同种途径和专业的办法会提高玩家进攻或防御的地位，却会使其他领域陷入弱势境地。而且，假如一个高度专业化的玩家在一个弱点上遭遇袭击，那他在举步维艰的时候改变战略就起不了多大作用了，因为他们已经在单个方法上投入太多精力。多面手是不容易打败的，它通常会快速而且均衡地应对大量问题。一些较大的问题尤其容易对多面手玩家构成威胁。强大的攻势和坚固的防御会成为这类玩家难以逾越的障碍。为此设计师应该让这两者具有相同效力。实际上，多样性很好但通常不是致胜法宝，它过多依赖于玩家动态和游戏机制。如果游戏玩法经常缺少多样性，那么你就该做如下思考了：1）为处于多样性地位的一方提供一些奖励，或者2）提高专门化策略所面临的风险。

方法 VS 运气

运气和方法是截然相反的，运气应该作为一种加强游戏趣味的设计元素，而不是让游戏更具策略性。更多运气元素意味着策略性更少。如果你旨在设计一款真正的策略游戏，那么你不应该考虑任何运气元素。显然，如果不能使游戏更加有趣，那么运气等其它随机元素就不该出现在游戏中。也有人认为是运气自成一套策略，例如所谓的“风险管理”或“套头押注”。通常在诸如扑克或者西洋双陆棋这类游戏中，运气是其中的主要因素。可是，这几乎只是单纯地在某一既定的情境中玩手气，而不是做策略性的抉择（游戏邦注：参见“显而易见的选择反而不是最佳选择”）。这里可能存在高风险运气，低风险运气元素的选择，或者采用运气元素与根本不用运气元素之间的选择策略（参见“提供风险VS报酬式的决策”）。但是，让所有玩家单靠运气而不做决策的游戏并没有任何策略可言，例如扔骰子、洗牌、扔硬币等游戏。

注意事项：

要考虑选项的优势与不足

一般而言，选项是不存在明显的优势或劣势的，它可以两者都存在。选项并不一定需要有“正确”的答案，但都要有明确的结果。这里要避免模棱两可的结果。结果可以是混合体，但需要一个明确的定义。

你可以在策略类游戏中清楚地看到进攻和防守两者之间的平衡。往往防守牢固的一方在进攻上存在弱势，它可能侥幸存活却无法前进半步。而在进攻上潜力无限的一方可能会前进很快但却容易攻破。

卡牌游戏《Dominion》就属于这种优劣势并存的典型。在这款游戏中，促使你赢的（胜利点数的卡牌）会阻碍你在游戏上有所前进。因此虽然它们对取胜有帮助，但最好还是不要有这种牌！

循环反馈——奖励或惩罚

循环反馈（游戏邦注：参考《游戏的规则》，2003 Katie Salen， Eric Zimmerman）是可以增强或者削弱玩家当前所处游戏地位的游戏机制，你可以把它作为对赢家或输家的一种奖励或者惩罚。在游戏中运用循环反馈机制可以确保一款游戏不会运行太快或者太慢。循环反馈有两种不同类型：

负面反馈——负面反馈即当游戏通过一些特殊规则来帮助那些暂时失势的玩家，或者惩罚那些过于领先的玩家。这样游戏就能保持一种平衡，就不会有人赢得太多或输得太惨。负面反馈会降低游戏节奏。由于玩家不清楚最后谁才是赢家，所以游戏充满了更大的挑战性。许多桌面游戏有一种社交性的负面循环反馈机制，玩家在此可以进攻即将取胜的玩家，或者拒绝与对方交易，以此来放慢领先者前进的步伐。

正面反馈——正面反馈是指在游戏中奖励赢家或者处罚输家。例如游戏使得输家更容易被占便宜，或者增加明显即将获胜玩家的优势。正面反馈会使游戏形势急剧失控。运用正面反馈机制可以加速游戏进程。《大富翁》就是正面反馈的最佳例子，拥有更多的旅馆和房子会让你赚更多的钱，而这钱又能让你购买更多的旅馆和房子。

可见性

考虑到玩家知识的局限性，其中包括对游戏场地，对其他玩家及其资源，还有对游戏未来发展见解的不足。这可以通过随机目标、游戏过程或者玩家在之后游戏中可能遇到的内容来解决问题。

意外策略

游戏只有一种正确的玩法还是有其他一些可行的方法呢？游戏元素之间的互动也会衍生出战略。一个游戏元素只有一个作用吗？它们能扩展成许多内容吗？游戏中不同的部分如何相互组合呢？

张驰有度，把握节奏

要考虑不让玩家立即耗尽资源的原因。抓住某些东西就会有奖励或者处罚吗？那么它会逐渐升值还是在手中慢慢流失呢？例如：许多游戏有一些货币形式，显然，花费一些金钱可以加快游戏前进的速度，因此这可能是存钱赚取利润的原因——以便不时之需，或者作为实现下一个目标的积分。游戏中可能有些资源是你在特定时间内才能发挥最佳效果（这或许是因为处在游戏的某些阶段或者它是策略的一部分）。这在卡牌游戏中最常见，比如保留一些纸牌是为了能在之后发挥更大破坏力，或者直接打败对手。

惩罚考虑不周的行为

显然，战略游戏应该奖励富有策略性的玩家。你也可以通过限制玩家在游戏中途迅速改变计划的能力，以此惩罚计策不佳的玩家。如果玩家的选择极费时间或资源，那么对于他们而言，改变策略就是一种浪费了。

你可以通过让选项的代价更昂贵，为改变策略设置“周转时间”，或者让玩家之前的选择失效或随着时间发展而衰弱来实现这一点。你可能也会考虑奖励那些没有改变策略的玩家，比如随着时间的发展让他们的单位或地位增值，或者增加他们的利益，降低他们的成本。

游戏方式

包容性玩——包容性的玩法要求所有玩家都呆在同一游戏中直到结束。包容性玩法通常是多人策略游戏的最佳选择。让每个人都可以参与到游戏中，对于单人模式的电脑游戏而言，让其他玩家开心并不是个问题。

淘汰型游戏——单个玩家会逐渐从游戏中退出直到某个赢家或多位赢家诞生。事实上所有的4X类型的电脑游戏都属于这类玩法。

合作型游戏——玩家可以同他人以任何方式合作完成游戏：

*与电脑对抗——玩家们合作对抗AI对手或者某一特定的boss对手。

*小组型游戏——玩家被安排在同一组中，互相配合同其他组对抗，小组游戏也会采用长久或短暂联盟形式。

*时间对抗——玩家们同时间赛跑，他们必须在有效时间内达到胜利的条件，这也通常称作“每个人都能赢”的游戏。

*追求同个目标——玩家们相互合作来完成同一目标或者解决同一谜题，这也称作“每个人都能赢”的游戏。

*竞技类游戏——玩家直接和对方比赛或者被安排在同一组里进行比赛。玩家也能在电脑游戏中和AI比赛。竞技类游戏的合作可以是短暂的或者长期的（采用同盟或者游戏规定的暂时性作形式）。

制胜法宝

记住，这里所陈述的选择都只适用于战略游戏。有一些非战略游戏的胜利条件并不在本文陈述的范围之列。

*消除——就是通过消除、毁灭、转移或者移除对手、障碍、目标或者游戏中的NPC来获胜。消除可能要求玩家移除游戏中任何事物或者特定比例或者是特定数量的事物。

*获取——就是通过获得某些东西或者某一级别的事物来取胜：比如金钱、资源、卡片、代币、对手或者地图上的领地。通过获得某些事物取胜也可以称作通过征服取胜。

*点数——通过高分取胜看起来类似于通过获得某些事物取胜，但它比后者更强大，因为点数是抽象化价值。做任何事情都可以用点数作为奖励。除此以外，我们还可以根据玩家所做的不同事情，奖励不同的点数。这样游戏就是根据玩家的整体技能水平，而非特定技能来评估其获胜条件。这有助于鼓励玩家去掌握所有的游戏元素。点数极具弹性，你甚至可以在必要的时候，通过减法或乘法来改变点数。当游戏处于不平衡状态时，也可以通过调整点数来解决这一问题。

*实质目标——就是通过到达另一地点或几个地点来取胜。这就要求系统中有一个游戏空间，但不是所有的游戏都有游戏空间。玩家也可以通过旅地、探索和发现来获胜。《RoboSport》（由Maxis开发）有个绝妙的游戏模式叫做“baseball”，玩家为了获胜就得地图上的四个角落内移动。

*节制——就是通过不做某事或者有效地做某事来完成。你可能不想丢失手中已拥有的东西，就采用“失衡”、越界、丢失某些资源、花费某些资源或者试图不获得点数等策略。通过节制取胜也就是以效率获胜之法（比如高尔夫球）。

*摆脱——就是通过摆脱某些事物获胜。玩家可能会以一个道具开始，或者是需要自己动手解决的道具（比如卡片游戏），或者是放在地图上，多些花费（比如钱），卖掉或者破坏。通过摆脱取胜产生了一个有趣的观念，就是会给对手一些他们不想要的障碍（这和不给他们想要的东西的性质一样），这样玩家就能取胜。

*特殊的优势——就是通过掌握或者控制地图上的一些地理位置取胜。你可能需要决定“控制”的构成方式。你可以通过完全的优势取胜，可是短时间且玩家数量较少的游戏则将目标设置为占据特定百分比的空间或特定数量的区域。

*关键目标——就是通过移动、毁灭、制造、获得或者转变关键目标来取胜。国际象棋是通过俘获王后取胜，而不是俘获其他的棋子（游戏邦注这个小细节被许多初学者所忽视）。关键目标可以采用单个游戏（所有玩家争夺同一个目标）、单个玩家（每个玩家都有不同目标），或者玩家之间（每个玩家都有一个防御他人的目标，比如“夺旗”游戏）的形式。

*外交——就是通过社交手段来取胜。这包括默认获胜（缺少其他玩家），对手的放弃，或者是声明平局。玩家也能通过投票选出赢家（比如《Master of Orion》），或者定期投票选输家。也可能出现多个赢家，因为他们与一个赢家结盟，所以大家一起获胜（或者因为与输者结为同盟而输掉游戏）。

*时间——战略类游戏极少运用这一元素，但是既然已经列出，我们就进行讨论。此类游戏中，胜利通常为在最短时间内完成游戏的玩家所得。

*组合——就是通过同时完成多重制胜条件而取胜的。这本身不是取胜的条件，但却值得深入探讨。比如实质目标加上摆脱。这就要求玩家摆脱或者远离某事。或者又如点数加上节制，可能就要求玩家在最少的步数（或者用最少的资源或者最少的个体）中赢得最多的点数。

*变量——就是完成多个不同胜利条件中的一者而赢得游戏。这就要求游戏拥有多种制胜方法或者更多种玩法。

结束的方式

谨记：结束条件并不一定等同于胜利条件！——对你来说，考虑哪个事件是引发游戏结束的原因至关重要。这也不是决定赢家本身的关键。比如，一些卡牌游戏在某人出局后就结束了，但是赢家还得通过之后收集的点数才能见分晓。当所有可利用空间都被掌控了，游戏也就结束了，但赢家要通过点数的多少来决定。可是，在一些游戏中，胜利和结束是一样的。国际象棋中，俘获国王意味着游戏结束，也意味着赢家的诞生。

与取胜条件相当的结束方式

*淘汰——通过消除游戏中的所有玩家或者竞争对手来结束游戏，这也可以称为“坚持到最后的人胜出”。

*获取——通过收集到一定比例或者一定数量的道具或资源来结束游戏。

*点数——通过获得一定的点数来结束游戏。这要求在游戏中玩家需积极保留分数，而非游戏结束时再计分。以分值定局的游戏，还可以采用限制游戏结束所需的特定分数（不能超过或低于特定分数）的设计。

*实质目标——在一个或者更多的玩家达到某一实质目标（比如赛跑），或者在所有玩家都达到此目标后，游戏结束。

*摆脱——通过摆脱某些事情来结束游戏。

*特殊的结局——在所有玩家或特定玩家用掉、掌控或者拥有所有空间或者一部分空间后，游戏结束。比如，在玩家控制50%的可用地后，游戏可能会结束，玩家可能获胜；或者当所有玩家控制了100%的可用地后游戏结束（但是无法分出胜负）。

*关键目标——在捕获、消灭或者收集特定目标后，游戏结束。

*外交——由玩家决定游戏什么时候结束。可以是对赢家的直接投票，或者是主动弃权，或者是决定打下平手。

与胜利条件无关的结局

*结合（包括结束）——符合两项或两项以上的结束条件时，游戏结束。比如：当玩家拥有同样数量的纸牌或者放弃他们手中所有纸牌，《Canasta》就宣告结束。如果要求的纸牌还没出现，那么玩家可以不结束此游戏。

*变量（或者是结束）——允许以任何数量的条件结束游戏。以变量定结局的游戏通常也有多个胜利条件。

*耗尽——通过耗尽某一可用资源，比如是一堆纸牌、钱、游戏代币或者是收集物等等来结束游戏。可以通过耗尽所有资源或某一特定资源来结束游戏。

*游戏无法继续进行——当一个或所有玩家无法合理进行游戏时，游戏结束。有些游戏会在一个玩家无法继续游戏，而其他玩家只差“最后一步”时结束。

*时间——当设定时间终结后，游戏结束。时间限制和以时间取胜条件无关，后者更像是赛跑。

*随机性——游戏开始前就随机决定了结束条件。这会促使游戏出现多种玩法风格。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Strategy Game Designer’s Constitution

by Leiavoia

This article aims to help strategy game designers create games with more strategic depth and rigger while being alerted to conceptual design problems. It contains some “golden rules” for design, interesting game mechanics to consider for your games, and a thought-provoking list of potential victory and ending conditions that you may have completely overlooked. After reading this article you should be able to spot potential flaws in your design and have some great ideas to work with.

This article was inspired by another very well thought-out article entitled I Have No Words And I Must Design. If you have not read this article, you should take the time to do so now. It has a broader scope than this one and can be good for designers of all types of games.

There is also a companion “cheat sheet” for this article which puts all the key points onto one page that you can print out and use as a handy reference.

Strategy VS. Tactics

Before we begin, we should clearly point out the difference between strategy and tactics. So let’s first look at the academic definitions (compiled from various sources):

Strategy: A plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal. An elaborate and systematic plan of action. Synonyms include “plan” and “scheme”.

Tactics: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal. An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.

A “strategy” is an overarching plan of action. It is a collective group of tactics. Tactics, in turn, are individual maneuvers or actions that support the strategy.

In designing strategy games then, we need to constantly be promoting certain aspects of game play. Strategy games are characterized by:

Long-range goals (besides simply winning). All games are meant to be won. That is what makes them “games”, per se. For strategy games, long-range objectives should be required in order to win. Things like “capture the queen” or “fortify my current position”. These goals are a level higher than manipulating specific game units or variables, but do not represent the entire game itself (winning).

Forethought to achieve those goals. Based on our description above, the classic strategy game Chess appears to be more of a game of tactics. Each move is critical,Each piece is valued. And yet, it is widely recognized as a game of strategy. Good Chess players are not playing individual pieces however. They are playing an overall position on the board and think several moves ahead in order to gain an advantage. Playing each move at face value is the mark of a novice player.

Therefore, strategy games emphasize forethought.

Minimizing the impact of specific actions when compared to the overall strategy. Strategy should win a strategy game, not tactics. While a game may include giving orders or moving game units specifically, the game as a whole should not emphasize any particular action. Making a good or bad “move” should not automatically determine whether or not you have won or lost the game. Some games in particular make the player feel they must restart if they don’t get a good “starting position”. This could indicate a design flaw (or a player obsession).

Relative unimportance of individual units or functions as they relate to the whole. The impact of losing a game unit or a conflict is lessened in a strategy game.

This is not to say that some key units, battles, or tactics are unimportant. However, in the larger scheme of things these specifics should not win or lose the entire game. For instance, again in Chess, the Queen is a very important piece. But losing the Queen does not mean the game is lost or that that player is doomed.

In fact, loss of this “unit” may even be part of the strategy.

Tactical games, on the other hand, emphasize the opposite. Moves are made at face value as the situation dictates. It focuses more on specific moves or specific units which really can win or lose the game. There are few long range goals and the game may be segmented into shorter sections (“acts”, “chapters”, “missions”, and whatnot). Strategy games are generally played start to finish which allows for more variety in between, thus not restricting the player from a full range of actions.

The Golden Rules of Strategy Game Design

The following is a list of simple rules and examples that help express strategy. These rules help developers make better designs and also help players have more fun. When we ask ourselves “What makes a good strategy design?”, we are also asking “How can I make this game fun to play?” Obviously, this is somewhat subjective.

There are people who play for the fun of playing, those who play for the immersions and experience, and those goal-oriented folks who punish themselves with ever more difficult challenges (winning on the hardest difficulty level, setting new records, and so on). Not all games will relate to all players, but generally speaking the following should apply to strategy games.

Obvious choices should not be choices

If you offer the choice between A and B, and A is always better than B, then the choice should never be presented to the player. This turns into a monotonous tedium for the player since it is understood to be unnecessary.

This manifests itself in different ways but most often it comes down to a balancing issue. Some games have obvious and unbalanced features that players quickly capitalize on. If option A always works best over other competing options, why would the player ever want to choose to do anything else?

Another area this problem displays itself is where you have two different situations and each situation requires a specific and obvious solution. Making the player “solve” the obvious problem doesn’t take any brainpower and does not make the game more fun to play. It adds no strategic value to the game. If square pegs always go in square holes, there is no point in having square pegs or holes in the game. Instead you would want varying degrees of results in varying situations.

Players should understand the game mechanics

Games have rules. Players need to understand those rules in order to play the game. Strategy games on the PC have a tendency to get out of hand with rules. There are so many things to learn that a player can easily feel overwhelmed. While a learning curve is not a bad thing, unnecessarily hiding the core mechanics of the game from the player is usually not wise. The player needs to understand why, for instance, a weapon only does 10pts of the damage against the enemy. If the player understood the simple logic that went into the damage formula, the game might be more enjoyable. If this formula is never presented plainly to the player, the entire experience will be a frustration.

Clear feedback on choices is required

There should be no ambiguity as to whether a player’s choice was a good or bad one. It may be slightly good or slightly bad or both, but it should never be ambiguous or puzzling. If the player is presented with ten options and, after trying all ten, cannot tell the difference, the reason for having so many options is wasted. Which naturally leads us to…<br id=”kw9l53″>

Give the player less variables, more choices

Instead of offering many game elements with few uses, offer the player few elements with many uses. The point of this is to increase the number of choices the player has which increases the fun factor and decreases the number of game elements. Additional elements are harder to remember in game play and harder to design and develop anyway.

In the classic dungeon crawler, red keys open red doors, blue keys open blue doors, and so on. This situation produces many variables (doors and keys), but zero choices (which keys to use on which doors). What this ultimately produces is tedium, not strategy! This game play mechanic may be appropriate for an adventure game, but not for a strategy game.

Don’t Play Known Outcomes

If the outcome of a game is certain, play should stop. The concept of “playing” a game means that the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome of the game (who will win or lose) becomes known at any point in the game, it is no longer a game and simply becomes a process of “mopping up.” The game stops being fun because its outcome is already known. This is bad for both losing players and winning players as well! Why? Losing players don’t enjoy losing, but most winning players don’t enjoy the tedium of mopping up a game that’s already in the bag.

You can eliminate or reduce playing through known outcomes by changing the victory conditions. Do you need to conquer everything, or would 50% be good enough to win? You can also keep the game tighter by adding negative feedback mechanisms (see “Feedback Loops” below).

Offer risk-versus-reward type decisions.

Investors know this concept very well. You can invest in stocks and bonds that are low risk, but also offer low return for your money. Alternatively, you can invest in high-risk securities that may gain or lose oodles of cash. Strategic choices should be the same way. You offer either A) the low risk, stable reward option, or  the high risk, volatile reward option. By making the player choose a level of risk, this may offset the problem of giving players simple choices with simple answers. (See “Obvious choices should not be choices”)

Don’t offer ‘systems’ that the player does not interact with

Some games go to great lengths to create intricate, complicated, realistic, simulator-level systems of rules. While this isn’t necessarily bad in itself, there is a problem with taking a great marvel of design and putting a simple interface on top of it. Why is this bad? It negates all the complexity.

If complicated systems were “abstracted” into the interface by simply posting a few simple symbols or numbers on the screen, the complexity would mean nothing. The player would not understand what was happening under the hood. The complexity of the system would be lost on the player, who 1) does not understand all the intricacies that the developers put into the system, 2) cannot interact with the system to influence it in any meaningful way, and 3) probably doesn’t care anyway.

For the player, a few simple rules would have been better. Can you still build complicated gameplay mechanics without a simplistic interface to hide it? Only if the player can comprehend the rules.

Strategic Scales

Strategy games may include a variety of “strategic scales”, or choices with a range of potential responses. Not all of these are required, but they are something to consider when designing your own game. These include:<br id=”kw9l87″>

Offense VS. Defense

The classic and most obvious. Offense VS. Defense is self explanatory and rarely needs consideration in most games. However, care should be given to weight eachside reasonably equally for games which include both offense and defense. Some games may be purely about offense (an “arms race” scenario). Does your game play well either way or is it weighted towards one side or the other? Is playing defensively a viable option? If defense is not a viable option, consider removing it(see “Obvious choices should not be choices”).<br id=”kw9l90″>

Light VS. Heavy

Light VS. Heavy is a catch-all for several other scales which do much of the same thing but take different forms: Many VS. Few, Slow VS. Fast, Power VS. Speed,Power VS. Mobility and others. By including this option, you do away with an obvious “arms race” scenario. Instead of “bigger” always being better, you give”smaller” a chance to be a competitive choice. Given that light and heavy are equally useful but for different reasons, you give players the opportunity toprogress through the game with divergent strategies instead of letting it become a constant ladder of “1-upping” opponent.Examples of this scale include: using many smaller units or using fewer and more powerful units; using a stronger and slower unit or using a swifter, more fleeting unit.

Efficiency VS. Volume

Producing twice as much volume could (in some situations) be accounted as the same as using the volume twice as well. Either way, output is the same. How it is produced is not. This scale assumes that your game factors in some kind of “resource” to be played for. Creating this scale in the game not only gives players a strategic choice but also gives them a fallback option if one option is not present or favorable to their position. For instance, if the player does not have the means to increase volume, they may increase efficiency instead. While this may help in the short term, it may also leave a strategic weakness to be exploited in the future.Efficiency and volume need not be mutually exclusive. They may be used together in the game. However care should be taken to clearly separate their mechanics, otherwise they may as well be the same thing. Using them simultaneously for the same purpose would nullify their strategic usefulness in the design. You might as well eliminate one.<br id=”kw9l101″>

Diversity VS. Homogeny

Also known as Generalization VS. Specialization. The player taking the more diverse (general) position is better suited for quick responses to changing needs in the game. By being a jack of all trades, the player can change or adapt his own strategy on the fly. However, the homogeneous (specialized) position can more effectively drive a winning strategy home and is more of a threat (or a defense).<br id=”kw9l105″><br id=”kw9l106″> Homogeny is realized when a player “puts all of their eggs in one basket.” It is essentially a risk/reward gamble. A homogeneous or specialized approach heightens the player’s offensive or defensive position, but leaves them weak in other areas. Furthermore, once a highly specialized player comes under attack from a weak point, that player is less effective at changing strategy in mid-stride, having invested too much in one single approach.<br id=”kw9l107″><br id=”kw9l108″> Diversity is not easily overcome. It also responds quickly and evenly to a variety of problems. Especially large problems pose a threat to the diverse player. Strong attacks and heavy defenses may be insurmountable obstacles to the diversified player.<br id=”kw9l109″><br id=”kw9l110″> For this scale to be useful in design, diversity and homogeny need to be equally effective.

In practice, diversity tends to be a decent but not often victorious approach. Much depends on the mechanics of the game and the dynamics of the players involved.

If diversity often comes up lacking in gameplay you may consider either 1) giving a slight bonus for taking a diverse position, or 2) increasing risk for a specialized strategy.<br id=”kw9l111″>

Strategy VS. Luck

Luck and strategy are opposites. Luck should be used as a design element to enhance the fun-factor of a game, not to make it more strategic. More luck means proportionately less strategy. If you aim to make a true strategy game, you should not use any luck element at all. Obviously, random game elements should not be added if they do not make the game more fun. It could also be argued that luck creates it’s own strategy, namely risk management or “hedging bets.” This mostly applies to games like Poker or Backgammon where luck is an integral part of the game. However, this almost always boils down to simply playing the odds of a given situation, not making a strategic choice (again, see “Obvious choices should not be choices”). There may be some strategy in having a choice between a high-risk luck element and a low-risk luck element or the choice between using a luck element and not using it at all (see “Offer risk-versus-reward type decisions”).

However, there is no strategy in subjecting all players to a single luck element in which there is no decision making, e.g. rolling dice, drawing cards, flipping coins, etc..

Considerations

Consider options with both drawbacks and benefits

An option does not always have to be an explicit benefit or drawback. It can be both. There need not always be a “right” answer, but there should always be clear consequences. What you want to avoid are ambiguous results. Results can be mixed, but at the same time should be clearly defined.

For strategy games, you can clearly see this balance between offense and defense. A side that is heavily defended may be weak in attacking. It may survive forever but will make little progress. A side that has great offensive potential can make a lot of progress, but is very vulnerable.

A great example of a feature with both drawbacks and benefits is in the card game Dominion. In this game, the thing which makes you win (victory point cards) hinders your progress during the game itself. So although they are needed to win, they are bad to have!

“Feedback Loops” – Reward and Punishment

Feedback loops (see Rules of Play, 2003 Katie Salen, Eric Zimmerman) are game mechanisms to either increase or decrease a current game position held by a player.

You can think of it as reward or punishment for a winning or losing position. Use feedback loop mechanisms in a game to balance the game from going too fast or slow. Feedback loops come in two flavors:

Negative Feedback – Negative feedback is when a game gives a special rule to help players that are losing or to punish players for getting too far in the lead. It keeps the game more balanced towards neutral where nobody wins or loses by too much. Negative feedback slows down the game pace. This can make the game feel more lively since it may not be clear who will win until the end. Many board games have a social kind of negative feedback loop wherein players may attack or refuse to deal with another player who is clearly in the lead or about to win, slowing the leader’s progress.<br id=”ldoc0″>

Positive Feedback – Positive feedback is when a game rewards winners or punishes losers. Examples are when the game makes it easy for a losing player to get further taken advantage of, or if it gives increased leverage to a player who is already clearly winning. Positive feedback makes the game grow exponentially or even spiral out of control. Use positive feedback mechanisms to quicken the game pace. Basic Monopoly gameplay is an example of a positive feedback; more hotels and houses makes you more money which allows you to buy even more hotels and houses…

Visibility

Consider limiting the scope of the players’ knowledge. This can include knowledge of the playing field (if there is one), knowledge of other players and their resources, and knowledge about the future play of the game itself. This can be accomplished by randomization of goals, game phases, or anything that a player might come to expect at a later point in the game.

Emergent Strategies

Is there only one right way to play the game or are there several viable approaches? Strategies emerge when there are interactions between game components. Do the components of the game only do one thing? Can they be broadened out to do more than one thing? How can different parts of the game interact with each other in combinations?

When To Hold ‘Em And When To Fold ‘Em

Consider adding reasons to not play resources immediately. Is there a penalty or a reward for holding on to something? Will it grow in value or crumble in your hand? For example: many games have some form of currency. Obviously, spending money advances the game, so perhaps there could be a reason to save money such as earning interest on it, saving it for impending doom, or possibly counting it as points towards another goal. A game could also have resources that are best played at a specific time, either because of some game phase or as part of the strategy. This is very common in card games where cards might be saved for later to do more damage, bluff, or throw off an opponent.

Punishment for Thoughtlessness

Obviously, a strategy game ought to reward a player for playing strategically. You can also punish players for not having a good strategy by limiting a player’s ability to quickly change their plan mid-game. If a player’s choices are necessarily expensive in either time or resources, changing strategies would be a waste for that player.

You can accomplish this by making choices more expensive, by requiring changes to have “turnaround time”, or by making the player’s previous choices obsolete or diminished over time. You may also consider giving rewards to players who do not make changes in their strategies by having units or a position gain value over time, by accruing interest, or by reducing costs.

Ways To Play

Inclusive Play – Inclusive play requires that all players remain in the game until it ends. Inclusive play is usually a good choice for strategy games with multiple human players. This is simply to keep everyone involved in the game. With single-player computer games, keeping other players happy isn’t an issue.

Exclusive Play – Individual players drop out of the game (“lose”) individually until only a winner or winners are left remaining. Virtually all 4X-style computer games have exclusive play.

Cooperative Play – Players can cooperate with each other in a variety of ways:

Against the computer – Players cooperate against AI opponents or a specific “boss” opponent.

In a team – Players arranged in teams may compete against other teams but cooperate with each other. Team play can also take the form of permanent or temporary alliances.

Against the clock – Players race the clock to complete a victory condition for all players before time expires. This is usually an “everybody wins” type of game.

With a common goal – Players cooperate to achieve a common goal or solve a common puzzle. This is usually an “everybody wins” type of game as well.

Competitive Play – Players can compete directly with each other or can be arranged in teams. Players can also compete with AI opponents in computer games.

Competitive play can be temporary or permanent (using alliances or game-required temporary cooperative play)

Ways To Win

Keep in mind that the options here pertain only to strategy games. There are plenty of non-strategy game victory conditions outside the scope of this document:

Elimination – Win by eliminating, destroying, moving, or removing opponents, obstacles, targets, or non-playing characters. Elimination can require a player to remove everything or a specific percentage or number of things.

Acquisition – Win by acquiring something or a certain level of something: money, resources, cards, tokens, opponents, or items on map. Victory by acquisition could also be called victory by conquest.

Points – Victory by high score is a lot like victory by acquisition, but so much greater because “points” are an abstract representation of value. Points can be awarded for anything. Additionally, different amounts of points can be awarded to players for different things. Players are then assessed by their overall skill level in the game and not by any specific skill. This encourages mastery of all the game’s elements. Points are so flexible that you can even subtract or multiply points if so needed. Points can also be adjusted if the game is unbalanced.

Physical Goal – Win by getting to a location or several locations. This victory requires a game space to play in; Not all games have a game space. This victory could also be a victory by travel, discovery, or exploration. RoboSport (by Maxis) had a clever game mode called “baseball” where the player had to move units to four corners of a map to win.

Abstinence – Win by not doing something or by doing something efficiently. You might consider not losing something the player already has, going “out of balance”, going out of bounds, losing resources, spending resources, or trying not to receive points. Victory by abstinence can also be victory by efficiency (like golf).

Riddance – Win by getting rid of something. Players may start with an item or items that need to be played out of the hand (like a card game), placed on a map, spent (like money), traded away, or destroyed. Victory by riddance provides the intriguing concept of giving opponents something they don’t want as a hindrance (as opposed to not giving them something they do want) and of “going out” to win.

Spacial Dominance – Win by possessing or controlling an amount of physical area on a map. You will need to decide what constitutes “controlling.” Victory can be attained by total domination, however a shorter and less player-exclusive game can be played by making the goal be a certain percentage of space or number of areas instead.

Key Target – Win by removing, destroying, creating, acquiring, or converting a key target or targets. Chess is won by capturing the King, not by capturing other pieces (this minor detail escapes many beginners). Key targets can be per-game (one target for all players), per-player (each player has a different target), or inter-player (each player has a target to defend against the others, e.g. “capture the flag”).

Diplomacy – Win by social means. This can include winning by default (lack of other players), resignation of opponents, or a declaration of a draw or tie. Players could also vote for a winner (such as in Master of Orion), or periodically vote for a loser (think Survivor). There may also be multiple winners where a person wins by being allied with a winner (or loses by being allied with a loser).

Time – Rarely used in strategy games, but listed here regardless. Victory is given to the player who deals with a scenario in the fastest time.

Combinations – Win by completing multiple simultaneous victory conditions. This is not a victory condition, per se, but interesting to explore. Consider Physical Goal + Riddance. This requires the players to get everything out of something or away from something. Or consider Points + Abstinence, possibly requiring the player to win with the most points in the least moves (or while using the least resources, losing the least number of units, etc).

Variable – Win by completing one of several different victory conditions. This allows multiple paths to victory which allows for a wider style of play.

Ways To End

Important note: Ending conditions are not always victory conditions! – It is important that you specifically consider what events trigger the end of the game. This does not necessarily determine a winner in itself. For instance, some card games are over when someone “goes out,” but the winner may be determined by counting points afterward. Go is over when all the available space is controlled, but the winner is determined by counting points. However, in some games, victory and endings are the same. In Chess, the game ends and is won when a king is captured.

Endings that correspond to victory conditions:

Elimination – End the game by removing all players or competitive forces from the game. This could also be called “last man standing”.

Acquisition – The game ends when a specific number or percentage of items or resources have been collected.

Points – End the game by scoring a number of points. This requires that score be actively kept during play as opposed to scoring after the game’s end. A scoring end condition can be further restricted by only permitting a specific score to end the game with no overage or underage allowed.

Physical Goal – The game ends when one or more players reach a specific physical goal (like a race) or after all players have reached the goal.

Riddance – End the game by getting rid of something.

Spacial Endings – The game ends when all space or a specific portion of space is used up, controlled, or owned, either by players in general or by a specific player. For example, play may end and the game won by a player controlling 50% of the available area; or the game may end (but victory not determined) when 100% of the available area is controlled by all players in general or when no more moves can be played in it.

Key Target – The game ends when a specific target (or targets) is captured, destroyed, or collected.

Diplomacy – Players decide when the game is over. This can be a popular vote for a winner, a resignation, or a decision to draw or tie.
Endings not related to victory conditions:

Combinations (“And” Endings) – The game ends when two or more ending conditions are met. For example: a Canasta hand is over when a player has both the necessary number of plays made and gets rid of all their cards. This player may not end the game if the required plays have not been made.

Variable (“Or” Endings) – Allow any number of multiple conditions to end the game. Variable end conditions usually go with variable victory conditions.

Exhaustion – End the game by exhausting an available resource. This could be a stack of cards, money, game tokens, collectible items, etc.. The game can end with the exhaustion of a specific resource or all resources combined.

Inability to Play – The game can end either when one or all players cannot make a legal play. Some games end after a player cannot play and all other players get”one last turn.”

Time – The game ends when a time limit expires. Time limits are not related to a time victory condition, which is more like a race.

Random – What ends the game is randomly determined before the game starts. This forces more variety in play style.（source:gamasutra）