Brain Dump

(Big fat disclaimer: I am not a graphic artist/designer. All I can tell you is what I know about associative psychology, at which I am no expert. That said, I do think most of my analysis is pretty good. If it turns out that you are a graphic artist/designer and you want to correct me, please do so!)

First thing first: I need you to look at the originally printed character sheet for Breaking the Ice.

(Quick aside: Special thanks to Emily Care Boss for graciously providing me with the PDF of that sheet. If you have not yet read and played her excellent game Breaking the Ice then I have a piece of advice. If you are into roleplaying theory and design techniques, then this game should be high on your reading list. If you are into playing roleplaying games and having a blast, then this game should be high on your playing list.)

Moving on you will notice that this single sheet is split into three major parts. On the left side you have space for one character, on the right side you have space for another character, and in the middle you have a space for recording things that apply to both characters. You may also note that there are helpful mechanical notes at the bottom of the sheet. The specific notes that Emily has here address every important mechanical aspect of the system such that, having read the rules once, I can read the notes on the character sheet and remember everything there is to remember about playing the game. Such notes are recommended for anyone who has a system simple enough to distill like this. But those notes, while cool, are not what I am going to be talking about today.

So, you can see that this single character sheet is designed to be used for an entire two player game of Breaking the Ice. Not one sheet per player, one sheet per game. Since players (generally) want to be able to see the sheet for reference, both players are going to try to find a way to sit (or stand, or whatever they are doing) so that they can both look at the relevant parts of the sheet. It turns out that the most natural seating arrangement for this character sheet is sitting side by side with the sheet on the table in front of the players.

In Western cultures (probably in others too, but I do not know for sure) this is an arrangement of cooperation. You sit beside someone in this manner when you are working on a math problem together, or when you are facing some other challenge. This calls up associations of “the two of us facing a challenging task”. Note that this is not “the two of us facing an opponent”, that would require a person across from you. So the character sheet here gets people into the mindset of “the two of us are going to face this challenge of telling a cool story, and we’re going to beat that challenge”.

Also notice that the left and right sides of the sheet are going to be at least partially filled with text, but the center is a big blank space. People tend to want to fill central blank space. This goes double when that space is intended to be filled. There is a subtle pressure to get some Compatibilities on the sheet because that blank space is just so unaesthetic.

Another interesting thing to consider is that the blanks space in the middle is “shared” while the space on the sides is “personal”. That is, you have a responsibility to write stuff on your side, and your partner has a responsibility to write on their own side, but both of you have a responsibility to write in the middle. This shared responsibility encourages you to work together to make sure that something actually gets written in the middle.

Now, contrast the character sheet up there with the ones Emily has available on the Breaking the Ice site. I have them duplicated for your convenience: in black and white and in color. Now, while this is a more attractive sheet visually (note the shading, and the color, and the general feeling of the blank sheet feeling somehow “complete” but with space to add things. Also notice how taking the mechanical reminders off the sheet adds symetry to the whole composition.

Two major things I see here. First note that the orientation is no longer side-to-side, but top-to-bottom. We have a much stronger sense of vertical hierarchy than horizontal hierarchy. Just take a look at the descriptions I just used: “side-to-side” does not indicate which side is primary, but “top-to-bottom” does. Of course I could have said “left-to-right” orientation, but we do not tend to talk that way, and I find myself unable to think of vertical equivilent for “side-to-side”. So there is a subtle (and possibly so subtle as to not matter in play, but I do notice it in theory) shift in importance. One of the characters (and thus associated players) is “above” the other. I just do not like it as much.

The other thing to notice is the way Compatibilities are listed. It is in a compact little diamond. Still between the two characters, but it is no longer a gulf begging to be filled. Instead it feels almost a bit cramped to write stuff in there. The space around the label “Compatibilities” almost feels necessary, as if you do not want to fill it in. There is also a (very) minor complaint that since the lines are above and below the label, but the lines are small at the top, so that it is not clear where you should write your first (and subsequent) Compatibilities within that space.

Another game to look at as doing something similar (though not as subtly) is Ben Lehman’s Polaris (another game you should be reading and playing). The rules of the game themselves call for a specific seating arrangement, which is sort of reflected in the character sheet. The Polaris character shet is not nearly as powerful as the one for Breaking the Ice, but in all fairness to Ben, it has a much more difficult task.

In Breaking the Ice two people who should be in a cooperative mindset need to share data. The solution is simple, let them sit beside one another and do so. In Polaris two people who are in a competative mindset need to share data. In fact, they need to share almost all of the data on that sheet. They both need to know the ability scores, and since they share the use of Blessings, Offices, Abilities, and Fates they need to share those too.

The problem which arises is that, unless one of the players is really good at reading things upsdide down, you have to duplicate the data in order to make it fully shared. But duplicating data means writing twice as much: whenever one player records something, the other must as well, and every so often you will need to check to make sure that no one has screwed up and misrecorded something. And if someone did do that, well, how the heck do you figure out who made the mistake and fix it?

Ben’s solution to the problem at least does not bring up those problems. Instead he simply makes some data easier to access for one player and other data easier to access for the other player. This puts them both at the same level of advantage and disadvantage when it comes to having a grasp of the overall state of play. Unfortunately, while it puts everyone on a level playing field, it fails to provide all the needed data to all the players who need it in an effecient manner.

Another thing worth noting is that while the text calls for two players to play the “Moons” and to be relatively neutral, the design of the character sheet seems to indicate that the Moons are closer to the Heart side than the Mistaken side. While I have never seen this impact play (it turns out that it is more fun, and the game runs best in my experience, when the Moons abuse the Heart whenever possible), it is a consideration when designing character sheets.

Character sheet aside, what Ben did with physical positioning in Polaris is brilliant. While his character sheet may not be fully encouraging of that positioning, the rules a clear about it.

First, you sit across from your primary source of adversity. This naturally gets you in a competative state of mind. That guy across from you is the one you have to “beat”. Then it sets, equidistant between you and your opponent, a pair of neutral arbitrators. The rules themselves call for these arrangement of physical space, and they really help get people into the right mindset.

(One quick aside about Polaris, and this could be an etire essay at a later date: The shifting of roles from Heart/Mistaken to one of the Moons and back again is genius. The Moons, in addition to being “neutral” are also not opposed to one another. Since your fellow Moon is also your Heart/Mistaken, and play proceeds around the table, you go from cooperating with your opposite to competing with them and back. The tension this develops is excellent. The big thing I see it doing is that it helps develop a “no hard feelings” mentality. Since you work together and oppose one another, it is easier to see that opposing one another is just another way of working together.)

Now, I get somewhat critical of both games here, but it should not be read as it may seem: both of these games are doing way, way more with character sheets than any other game I have seen. Any complaints I have are because these things are just a beginning when they could be so much more, but think about it: at least these games have beginnings at these issues while no other game I have seen (yet) have done so.

Thomas

Tags: Applied

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 9th, 2006 at 07:24 and is filed under musings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.