google
yahoo
bing

Learning the rules

If all you do with games is play them, you may be forgiven for thinking that the way you learn a game is inherent to the game; that is just follows from the way the game is. As a game designer, however, you should realize that the learning experience is something you also can - and should - design. The learning curve of a game has a huge impact on how new players perceive that game.

Although, I suspect you can readily imagine what a learning curve looks like, I’ll draw one for you, because there is something I’d like to point out before we get to the good stuff.

A steep learning curve.

Question: is this learning curve steep or shallow?

What the above graph shows, is that the more effort you put into learning the rules, the better your understanding of the rules will be. What you are aiming for as a player, is total understanding of the rules. As you can see in the graph, it takes quite a bit of effort to understand the rules completely. So, this is what we call a steep learning curve. The next graph shows a shallow learning curve.

A shallow learning curve.

In this picture, understanding comes after a lot less effort, so this is what we call a shallow learning curve. The strange thing is, if you look at the pictures, the second graph is the steep one and the first graph is the shallow one. I could solve this by swapping the axes, but that seems counter-intuitive. What we usually call a steep learning curve is actually a shallow one when you draw it and vice versa. Weird, isn’t it? Anyway, back to the original topic.

In general, a shallow learning curve is better than a steep one, especially with casual games. Of course, there are players who are looking for a challenge, but it’s usually a good decision to make playing the game the challenge and not learning the game. So, it would be valuable if we could turn a steep learning curve into a shallow one.

Providing a tutorial

Try as you might, you can’t design a game that has no rules, and if there are rules, the player will have to learn them. One strategy is to just get it over with. In other words, you’ll tell the player: “These are the rules. Learn them. When you’re done, you can start playing.” This is the path board games take. You have to read through the manual and memorize all the rules as best you can before you can even begin. The fact that you then have to explain what you learned to all the other players, doesn’t make this process more enjoyable.

What often happens in these cases, is that you read a third of the manual, skim the next third and skip the last part entirely. You throw the manual aside and say something like “we’ll just see how it goes”. But before you board game designers start complaining about this, let me tell you how players of computer games treat the manual. “Manual? There was a manual?” Now, that’s a problem.

So, what’s a computer game designer to do? Well, just put the manual into the game and call it a tutorial. This has become the most prominent solution to the problem of learning the game rules. (It’s also the least elegant, but that’s a topic for another time.) A tutorial is basically an attempt to speed up the learning process.

A learning curve that's been made shallow through the use of a tutorial.

Note that time isn’t on the x-axis, effort is. The tutorial will introduce the rules to the player (or the player to the rules) quickly, but that doesn’t necessarilly mean that learning the rules doesn’t require a lot of effort on the player’s part. Remember this when you’re designing a tutorial: your goal is to make it easier to learn the game, not (necessarilly) faster.

Using common knowledge

There are games for which you don’t have to learn the rules in order to be able to play them: games to which you already know the rules. This seems a bit too obvious to mention, but you can use this principal to your advantage.

Most people you put behind a computer can start playing Solitaire right away (well, after they stop talking into the mouse, that is). That’s not because the rules are completely obvious, but because they already know the rules. Not all of us want to create Yet Another Solitaire, so what good is this information if you’re not adapting a real world game to the virtual world and you’re not cloning another computer game? A lot, actually.

Even if you’re not copying the entire ruleset from another game, you might still have elements in common with well-known games. For example, in most games of solitaire, you can build groups by putting a card on another card that is one higher in rank, i.e. you can put a six on a seven, a ten on a jack and a queen on a king. So, if you’re designing a new game of solitaire, you can use that same rule and it will be easy for players to understand. Of course, the ranks of the cards is also an example of something that is pretty standard. Just about everybody know that a king is higher in rank than a queen, so you’d be wise to adher to that rule in your design.

Just about every game genre has some well-known rules. Most players of first-person shooters know that shooting a barrel will result in an explosion, while shooting a crate will not (unless you use the rocket launcher, of course). That rule is quite arbitrary, but players know it and, as a designer, you should make use of that. The result is that the learning curve doesn’t just get shallower, it actually start higher up. The player will have an understanding about the rules of your game even before she starts playing.

A learning curve that starts high up the understanding-axis, because the game uses common knowledge.

You can create a similar effect by presenting your game in such a way that the player intuitively knows what to do. When you start Pac-Man, you see five characters and only one of them is standing still, so the chances are, that’s your avatar. The fact that your in a maze, suggests that you can move down through corridors, because that’s how our mazes usually work. And moving through walls is probably not an option. The happy sound you hear when you pass over a pill, means that eating pills is a good thing. And since ghosts are scary, you’d better run the other way. Now you know why Pac Man doesn’t come with a tutorial. :-)

Dragging out the learning curve

Even with the above strategies, some games are still really hard to learn. If you face such a challenge with the game you are designing, then I suggest you take the following approach.

A learning curve that shows what happens when you drag out the learning process.

Does that seem better than the previous curves? Maybe not, because now it takes a very long time before the player knows all the rules. But think about what the player’s goal is. She doesn’t want to know the rules as quickly as possible, she wants to play the game as quickly as possible. (Yes, I know that I said before that your goal as a player is to have a total understanding of the game rules. So, I lied, okay? Deal with it. And yes, I’m telling the truth now. Really.) With some games, especially complex ones, it’s very well possible to start playing and enjoying the game before you understand all the rules. Most pinball tables have a set of table rules. Following these rules allows you to complete certain tasks and score more points. But, even if you don’t know the table rules yet, you can still have a lot of fun just knocking the ball around. The rest of the rules will be pointed out to you over time on the matrix board.

Sometimes you can design a game to skip an entire section of the ruleset if the player doesn’t need it. If you are designing a role-playing game where the player can decide not to be a magic user, then you don’t have to explain to her how to cast spells. Also, there are games you can enjoy and finish without completely understanding all the rules. I played many games of Civilization before I knew all the rules (hey, I was seven years old, okay!), but I did play the game for hours on end.

Remember the goal

I’ll repeat this, because I think it’s important: the player doesn’t want to learn the rules as quickly as possible, she wants to play the game as quickly as possible. As long as you design your games with that in mind, you’ll be okay.

7 Votes | Average: 5 out of 57 Votes | Average: 5 out of 57 Votes | Average: 5 out of 57 Votes | Average: 5 out of 57 Votes | Average: 5 out of 5 (7 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
January 18th, 2006 @ 09:25 PM • Filed under Gameplay, Learning curve

13 Comments

Game Producer said,

Comment • January 20, 2006 @ 11:32

Hi there. Very interesting blog you’ve got here. Gotta visit here now and then.

ChrisBateman said,

Comment • January 24, 2006 @ 11:17

Hi William! Don’t know why I haven’t found your blog before - it’s right up my street! This article caught my attention, as it’s a pet topic of mine. In fact, this article reads very much like part of the interface chapter in our book! :)

I found it interesting that you used ‘effort’ and ‘understanding’ as axes, although this does make perfect sense. I have always used ‘time’ for learning curves… ‘effort’ is perhaps more honest as to what is involved.

Of course, what we’re focussing on here is the understanding of the game - but in a best case your game is fun to play even if you don’t know what’s going on. I feel this should be something to aim for in Casual games: a game that even just messing around with it when you don’t know what’s going on can be fun. This is tricky with the focus on time-limitations which seems prevalent in this field.

I completely agree that the player wants to be playing the game as fast as possible, and therefore one can stagger the learning. But surely this is a bigger issue outside the sphere of Casual gaming, where game mechanics can get more complex… shouldn’t Casual games aim for mechanics so simple they can be taught in seconds? (That’s a rhetorical question, I hope…)

Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts!

William Willing said,

Comment • January 24, 2006 @ 13:36

Welcome to my blog, both of you. :-)

The choice for ‘effort’ on the x-axis was quite deliberate. Just spending time in a game, doesn’t mean your understanding of that game will grow. Also, I wanted to emphasize that, as a designer, you should realize that the player is going through some trouble to be entertained by your game. In a way, the player trusts you’re going to provide her with a fun experience in return for her effort. It’s your job not to betray that trust.

Putting ‘understanding’ on the y-axis is a bit more vague, since I don’t really specify what it is you are supposed to understand. There is more to understanding a game than just learning the rules. Strategy is an obvious example.

As you point out - and I tried to explain towards the end of the article - sometimes (often?) it’s not even necessary to understand all of the rules before you can enjoy the game. I think that’s something casual games in particular should use to their advantage. I agree that the mechanics of a casual game should be so simple that you can pick them up in seconds, but that doesn’t mean the same goes for the rules. Easy to learn, hard to master; that’s what you should look for as a designer of casual games.

I’ll write more articles on this topic for sure, because I think it’s too often overlooked when designing games.

Only a Game said,

Trackback • January 25, 2006 @ 13:41

Play First, Learn Later

William Wilding’s Casual Game Design blog has a wonderful piece on learning curves that I strongly recommend taking a look at. This is a pet topic of mine - it’s a non-trivial issue in game design that doesn’t recieve enough

Patrick said,

Comment • January 28, 2006 @ 21:09

Rag Doll Kung Fu is a good example of a shallow learning curve, but the bottleneck is in the interface, the next article you do on this topic should relate to interface design in terms of learning curve.

The beauty of social challenge is that you’re dealing with an imported rule-set of, for lack of a better phrase, the human condition, so the in-game tutorial can consist of a sort of exposition regarding the scenario, and the rest is play.

Another interesting thing about adopting a social view of challenge is that it frees you up to deconstruct the formal systems underlying classic games. For instance, card games have the queen lower ranked than the king because of a long-time patriarchal bias in western civilization, why not subvert that cultural bias as a designer, and make that subversion part of your social rule-set? I’m not suggesting you design a feminist card-game, but you could have a mini-game played with cards in a larger social game, say played between a man and a woman, and have that point ring as a metaphore for whats going on in the larger game. Damn, I can’t feel my fingers.

William Willing said,

Comment • January 30, 2006 @ 14:52

…the next article you do on this topic should relate to interface design in terms of learning curve.

I’d be happy to oblige. :-D

I’m also intrigued by your suggestion to challenge the formal systems of classic games. As you point out, it might not be the wisest thing to do if that classic game is your game, but it’d be nice if you could use it as a subtle hint. That would work best in a game that has an ‘agenda’, of course.

By the way, I really enjoyed your recent article in The Escapist. One of the things about Façade I thought was really smart, was the fact that it had such a clear criterium for ending the game: when someone leaves, it’s over. Yet, I never thought about what it is that makes you stay. Now, if only I can find a theatre company that plays ‘No Exit’…

Casual Game Design » Game design at Casuality Europe said,

Pingback • February 15, 2006 @ 12:30

[…] Keep the gameplay simple. Players don’t have time to learn the game, so make good use of common knowledge. It should either be immediately obvious to the player how she should play the game or you have to use existing game schemes like pinball, pool or solitaire. […]

GameProducer.net said,

Trackback • September 4, 2006 @ 6:45

Ask Producer: How Difficult Levels?

Making game progressively more and more challenging is a good approach - the same that you can use for player to learn the rules . There’s excellent article that points out Ten ways not to make a casual game and gives lots of excellent insight on how …

eddies said,

Comment • September 23, 2007 @ 22:57

well i guess we always try to learn from a game i guess games are being made to test people skills mental level ,observing power and other thing related to human mind well game is like a challange if are good enough to win it then you are a winner well its my personal thought that game increases your observation makes you more sharper gives you the tendancy to think in different ways make you different from others

kind regards eddies
www.naturalgames.com

Porter said,

Comment • October 11, 2009 @ 22:31

Very nice article, I completely agree. Very nice pictures, descriptions and breakdowns, definitely helped your explanations. I personally prefer to keep things simple and throw all the rules at the player (in games that they’ll figure it out on their own due to simplicity), however I sometimes take the gradual approach. I feel the gradual approach is best for any game that has some depth to it, introduce a new mechanic every level, or few levels, such as what I did in Dominus Void. Very nice article, definitely well thought out.

larry r said,

Comment • December 16, 2009 @ 5:32

There’s a program called 3d gamestudio that I believe is the easiest program so far to create decent video games with no programming. I found a tutorial on the web at Juniorgamemaker that can have you creating a video game in about an hour. The good thing is that all the software are free or give a free trial so you don’t have to spend any money on software if it’s something your not interested in.

Ali Anani said,

Comment • December 24, 2009 @ 17:02

This is a great reading. The article has a shallow learning curve. More importantly it gets more useful with time. Conversely; the time-value curve (I coined this term because I do not know if it exists) is steep. This article is like an alcoholic beverage; it gets more value as it ages.

Alireza Yarmohamadi said,

Comment • April 8, 2010 @ 16:19

Very nice article.

I think Civilization is a simple for a steep learning curve.
And Counter Strike is a good simple for a FPS same as pac-man.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment