Jun 02 | 2017

Escalation VS. Clawback

A board game is short, so why not focus on escalating the player’s arsenal, and constantly raising the stakes, as opposed to giving the players something and then taking it away.

One of the mantras I adopted very early on in my design process, is a suggestion that came from a friend of mine during one of the first ever playtests of the game I am working on, Minions of Mordak. The essence of it, is the idea that it’s better to escalate the conflict in a board game rather than to clawback the progress the players have made. Adding to the rising tension makes players feel empowered rather than to make them feel disappointed when they lost something they had earned. A game session is too short, and wouldn’t you rather see new and exciting powers emerge than to earn and re-earn the same power you keep on losing?

This concept can manifest itself into any game, and it’s a very easy option for a designer to lean on clawback as a tool to give to their players. But I’ve been resisting this urge, and the mantra has led me to into a lot of great ideas for my game.

Here are some practical examples of this concept at play:

1. Clawback: I have items in my game, so naturally an easy spell idea was one that broke an opponent’s item. This led to a disappointing moment for the card’s target.
   

   Improvement: The spell no longer destroys an item, but now can take it and place it back on the board, this allows a player to strip an enemy of their defences, and even to strategically place it in a location that will be hard to re-capture, but it doesn’t destroy something that player has grown attached to. If it really mattered to them, they can devote some of their effort in their next turn to go and collect the item again.

2. Clawback: I wanted reaction spells, so I made a spell that could counter an enemy’s spell. I’ve played Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone and other games that use counterspells. I’ve never really liked the feeling I get when I planned a great play which simply gets cancelled. Yet it is nice to have a tool to protect yourself from enemy spells…
   

   Improvement: In the end, I opted for a counterspell that gives you a choice. Either your spell is cancelled, or you lose 6 HP. Now the player can force that spell through if it had value to them, but at a pretty significant cost.

3. Clawback: I wanted to add gravity to Player death, without using Player elimination, so I used to give players permanent injuries upon death.
   

   Improvement: Rather than to penalize a player for dying, “Escalation not Clawback” directed me to provide a big buff to the defeating player. This creates a penalty for death in the form of a reward to my opponents, which I feel is much more fun.

4. Clawback: Magic the Gathering in earlier editions introduced discarding cards as a mechanic to impede your enemies.
   

   I have heard the designer that introduced discarding in Magic later said it was something he regretted doing. I am certain that Hearthstone deliberately avoided methods for making opponents discard, because it is a prime example of a choking clawback mechanic. They opted instead to play with mechanics of self inflicted discarding for a reward, which I feel is much more interesting.

A caveat I may add, is that while I’m suggesting strictly stripping progress away from a player is not a great mechanic to play with, I have seen applications that transfer progress from one to another create interesting situations. In Settlers of Catan, for example, the card: Monopoly allows you to steal from other players, this creates a shift of power, and it is an interesting card, however I’d frown on a card that said “name a resource, all other players lose that resource” for example.

Anyways I’m hoping to keep these articles short and encourage some discussion from my readers! If you have any feedback on the ideas I’ve shared I would love to chat about them in the comments below. That’s all for today, thanks for reading!