ichthyoid

It seems every news item these days has a clickbait title leading to an article with unverifiable (or just outright fake) propaganda meant to pull in as many views as possible. In fact, from what I've seen, this has become such a de facto way of online journalism that over the past couple years, I've basically turned off most news sources and only listen in occasionally to keep up with what's going on outside my immediate surroundings.

Every once in a while, however, a clickbait title gets me, and I can't help but click on it. And on an extremely rare occasion, these clickbait titles actually have articles which are worth the time. This past week, I (fortunately?) stumbled upon one of these articles, and learned something new!

And I was so fascinated by the subject of the article that I thought to share it on this blog. Which then inspired me to make another on-going series based on what I'm learning weekly.

What I Learned this Week

The title of this article is, “When Steve Jobs Died At 56, His Brain Was Only 27”. Since Steve Jobs was one of my heroes in life, it was difficult not to pass on this article. Now, of course, this was a completely clickbait title, since, as far as the article goes (and as far as I know), no one has actually ever measured Steve Jobs' brain after he passed in 2011.

However, the article did contain some fascinating scientific information about brain deterioration, and how meditative practices could reverse the effects of aging in the brain.

In particular, it cited multiple studies which confirmed that meditation could de-age the brain as much as 25 years (hence, how Steve Jobs could 'magically' de-age his own brain).

Steve Jobs and Meditation

The particular meditation techniques studied is a specific procedure called Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, or MBSR. This kind of meditation is a group program which emphasizes practices which are chosen by the individual based on principles, rather than a specific method. In general, the principles center around being mindful of the present by stepping out of “on the clock” based circumstances or situations. Also, in particular, MBSR is done as a group, and so there is a social component involved as well.

In his biography of Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson devotes a chapter to Jobs' early life, where the founder of Apple spent a significant portion studying and practicing the principles of meditation. These practices were based on a book called “Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind”, which MBSR has some connection with. And hence (again), the claim which Jobs could have de-aged his brain to 25.

The Results

Specifically, practicing MBSR has shown to do a few things (as taken from the original clickbait article):

First, it thickened many parts of the brain, increasing focus, self-confidence, ability to regulate emotion, learning, memory, and even more subjective things like empathy and compassion. Secondly, the research also found that the amygdala, which regulates the “fight or flight” response in us (which usually induces more stress when used more) was decreased.

And this was all done after only 8 weeks of meditating for 30 minutes each day.

Can Anyone Get in on This?

While not all of us can take group practice classes of MBSR, I think most of us do want to take time to get out of modernity and de-age our brains to their optimum. And (hopefully) most of us can take 30 minutes out of each day in order to do so.

To that end, I found this article, which lists principles, techniques, and practicals for anyone that wants to do this. Basically what I've found is that, using techniques such as breathing, we can regulate our attention to observe ourselves and our surroundings. By slowing down and noticing (and then relaxing) different parts of our body and thoughts, we can release tension both physically and emotionally, thus reducing stress.

So that's what I learned this week! Personally, I'm pretty excited to practice this each day to participate in reducing stress from my life and (in the interim) de-aging my brain the way one of my heroes did!

Header Image courtesy of Pixabay.

In an effort to write a little more on this blog, and taking a small break from making and iterating on my board game, Of Duchies and Polities (which, if you're interested in it, you can take a look right here), I want to begin a series in one of my geeky past-times: looking at art and media in terms of story and storytelling.

This is going to be another series in addition to my normal blogs. In it, I want to look at works of art and media through the lens of story-crafting and world-building, and how they came to be some of my favorite things.

In this first one, with the release of all of Studio Ghibli's catalogue of films on Netflix, I'm going to take a look at a childhood favorite movie of mine. It's an anime created by one of my favorite filmmakers, Hayao Miyazaki, called Castle in the Sky.

Plot Summary

Before I begin, it'll be good to give a rundown of the basic plot and premise of the film. If you haven't seen it before, I'll try to be as spoiler-free as possible, but its summary on Netflix already gives most of the story away, so there's not much need to give any kind of warning.

The plot of Castle in the Sky is pretty basic. A mysterious girl named Sheeta and a boy named Pazu look for a lost city that is said to be in the skies. While they search, they are tracked by pirates and government agents who want to use the floating city for their own ends.

Additionally, the characters are decently cut and dry as well. Sheeta, while having a mysterious past, is a typically kind and generous child who is simply caught in the middle of everything. Pazu is a pretty one-note chivalrous boy who's life as a loner in a mining town has made him tough, but hasn't taken away his dream of finding Laputa, the fabled castle in the sky. The villainous government agents are just that: evil and desire to take over the world.

It's really only the pirates who have slightly more depth in their character, as they can't be exactly labelled good or bad. But even then, their character development serves more often to move the plot forward rather than giving pause for viewers to think about them as analogs to the real world.

It's in the Details

So why do I love Castle in the Sky so much? Because, despite the straight-forwardness of the film's plot and characters, Hayao Miyazaki displays a stunning ingenuity and mastery of world-crafting without modern film-making's trappings of sequels and high budget CGI.

Let's take a look at a microscopic moment in characterization. In film, there's an idea of “show, don't tell”. Castle in the Sky does this in spades, even with characterization. Even though Pazu is a pretty straight-forward character, little time is spared explaining it. Instead, Miyazaki shows us, within the first few minutes of the audience meeting him.

Here's the scene: Sheeta has fallen from an airship in the sky, and her crystal necklace saves her by slowing her fall (though she passes out before this happens). Pazu, seeing Sheeta falling from the sky, goes immediately to catch her. When his boss (a miner) shouts for him to help out, Pazu is immediate in responding. But right before he goes to help his boss, he takes a couple seconds to take his own vest off and cover Sheeta to keep warm, then hurries down into the mine shaft.

The moment is a “blink and you'll miss it”, but in that one, brief glimpse, the viewer immediately knows: Pazu is a gentleman, and doesn't let his awe take away from his manners. This characterization carries through the rest of the movie, and helps the audience be informed of why he makes the choices he does, even though we don't get any detailed backstory for him for the rest of the film.

A Masterclass in World-building

This kind of painstaking detail in showing rather than explaining to us what or who to expect is what puts almost all of Hayao Miyazaki's films into the “art” category. And in Castle in the Sky, he masterfully does it in the film's setting and world-building.

The tense atmosphere of the opening action sequence, where sky pirates attack an airship, thus causing Sheeta's fall from it, is filled to the brim with a beautiful and nostalgic steampunk aesthetic. Then the film gets into an opening montage where, upon the backdrop of Joe Hisaishi's swelling orchestra, the exposition for the mythology of Castle in the Sky is shown. Few words are used, but the Victorian-inspired, cross-hatched moving pictures do more than enough to let the viewers know how the world of the film came to be how it is (there's an excellent Youtube video about it here).

Again, the concept of “few words” being used. Here, the it is used to promote the visual style of the film and add a mystical aura in the story-telling. Almost everything we learn about the world of Castle in the Sky is done this way. Because it's visual, we must interpret what is going on. However, interpretations can often be more explanatory, since there are many possibilities rather than simple answers. Thus, showing rather than telling tends to expand a fictional world, filling our imagination with more detail than if textual or verbal explanations were given.

Laputa

The best example of this in the film is the actual city which floats in the sky, Laputa. Throughout the movie, before we get to the city, the audience's imagination is piqued over and over through hints and small glimpses of the city. From the opening montage where multiple flying islands are shown to Pazu's father's trip and picture taken of Laputa, we're left salivating for the revealing of what's to come.

But Miyazaki doesn't just give us visual glimpses. Through the world around the characters, we're given hints and backstories of why this particular city in the sky is important to our characters. From the reveal of Sheeta's ancestry to the destruction levied against the military by the broken automaton fallen from Laputa, it's clear to the audience just how essential finding this city in the sky is to the characters, and thus, to us the audience.

But then, when we actually get to Laputa, the craft of world-building is dialed to eleven. It's initially a slow reveal, as the glider Pazu and Sheeta are stuck in gently flits around before settling on a grassy cliff. Then, the curtains of cloud and sky slowly roll back as sweeping green plains and ancient, ruins fill the screen. Then, we're taken to a more birds eye view, as Laputa's majestic white towers and gardens are revealed. I could go on and on about just this one scene, but to be brief, each scene feels as if one is taking photographs within the world, and there can almost never be enough to satiate our want to explore this massive ancient world. And thus, we the audience are invited into the beautiful castle in the sky.

Thematic Connections

Miyazaki is known for being quite on-the-nose with his themes, and the themes he writes about are almost always the same. Of them, it seems the theme of Nature vs. Man is the most prominent. And this theme runs its complete gamut in Castle in the Sky.

Laputa, the castle in the sky itself, is a visual representation of this theme. As the protagonists (and then antagonists) explore the ancient, abandoned metropolis, the parts which are blooming and full of life are overgrown and covered by trees, grass, roots, and animals. Clearly, the idyllic life being displayed is one-ness with nature. Even the robots here, though mostly non-functional, have “settled into” the surrounding nature in Laputa.

On the flip-side, where there is industry and “perfection” of technology, there is a façade of almost no nature at all. As seen in the previous picture, the core sphere of Laputa is outwardly meant to have little or no influence from the blooming green above. This is made clear when Muska, the central villain and spy, discovers that the source of power inside Laputa has, to his dismay, been filled with overgrown weeds and roots. On this “man” side of the theme, we're told that the work of people and technology ultimately brings about death and destruction, visually exemplified by the ending battle as well as the throne room where the final confrontation happens. This throne room looks more like a “tomb of pharaohs”, rather than the beautiful idyllic life in external Laputa.

The theme of Nature vs. Man is even replete through the smallest details of the film's direction. For example, in the beginning, Sheeta falls out of the sky from an airship, and is saved by her necklace, later revealed to be pure natural crystal. On the other hand, there was no grace to the fall of the automaton the sky, and none from the robots at the end. These parallels again symbolize how man's perversion and industrialization of nature will always lead to ruin, and yet man itself is saved by the very nature which it desires control over.

And thus, the rising remnants of Laputa at the end credits is signified, as if letting the audience know that nature is watching over the work of man, even as we don't always make the best decisions with what we have.

I'm not really going to critique the theme in this film. Rather, I wanted to show how this single theme weaves and leavens the setting and story. And in doing so, the it feels more wholistic and real. This, I believe, is shows what a master Miyazaki is in world-building. And it is this kind of world-building which brings me back to Castle in the Sky again and again.

There is so much about Castle in the Sky that I could probably continue for multiple posts just for this one film. In fact, leading up to this post, while watching on Netflix, I wrote down over 10 pages of notes, trying to cram everything in. So I'll probably re-visit this in the future. Until then, have a great week!

Header Image taken from here. Images in post taken from Netflix.

This is an index of all the relevant information, posts, and links for Of Duchies and Polities. Some of these links will lead to posts which only Coil subscribers can access.

Development Blogs

1. Introducing of Duchies and Polities
2. Inspiration and Development
3. More Development and Playtesting
4. Balance and Cutting out the Fat
5. The Art of War
6. Functional Design and Instruction
7. Release the (beta) Kraken!

War Stories:

Coming soon!

How to Play:

1. Instruction and Manual

Beta Releases:

1. Version 0.3.0
2. Version 0.2.0
3. Version 0.1.0

Happy Lunar New Year! For this week's post, I want to talk about functional design in Of Duchies and Polities, how it has evolved over time, and its impact on playtesting. Since this is going to be the last of these Dev Diaries before I release the Beta (yup!), I also wanted to talk about the design of the instructions/manual, and how it will all fit into the grand scheme of things.

Map Design

Yup, another look at map design. Of course, since the map is so ubiquitous to the experience playing Of Duchies and Polities, it's difficult to avoid taking another look at it!

In the second development diary, I showed off this map as a picture that was printable to an 11:17 proportion:

The original map, as seen in Pixelmator

This first iteration was made so that I could get to playtest the game as quickly as possible. But as soon as I started playing with friends and family, a couple of obvious oversights revealed themselves.

First, there was no key, so I had to explain which regions represented what as World Events cards were drawn, and explain which coastal territories were connected to allow troops passage by sea.

Second, at exactly 11x17 inches, the map was TOO SMALL. As can be seen from some of my previous posts and pictures, being so small, the game pieces and assets could barely fit onto it. This congestion wasn't a large inconvenience at first, but as more and more game pieces moved onto the board, it became very cumbersome, and at times claustrophobic.

And so, I decided to make a second iteration:

The second map, appropriately titled "big"

This second iteration is much bigger, proportionally 6:7, but printable as a 24x28 inch board. And of course, the key, sea routes, and game title are now a part of the whole board.

Yet, despite the map's larger real estate, the Isle of Man has always seemed too small. And given its centrality between nearly every region, this may be something that I will continue to look at in the future. For now though, and for the beta test, the map functions quite well.

Asset Design

Again, as seen in previous posts, the assets used so far were a mix of different game pieces from Risk, a previous iteration of the game, as well as new cards and pieces made for Of Duchies and Polities.

Assets from its previous iteration: How to Build an Empire

Repurposing old assets from a previous iteration was easy. But it meant that a lot of the old designs came with it. Namely, the assets had an octagonal shape like a “gem”. I like this design, but the size meant that each item needed to be explained somewhere in the instruction manual (which we'll get to later), since the full names of some of the assets can't fit in the little shapes.

As we played, a friend suggested that, while the full names wouldn't fit, some description of the asset would still be good. For example, Diplomat agents have a dice base roll of 1-4, Orators (upgraded from Diplomats) had a base roll of 1-7, and Philosophers (upgraded from Orators) had a base roll of 1-10. These base rolls determine how strong they are in converting popular opinion to your side. But that information wasn't made obvious on the pieces themselves. And so, in the current iteration, these pieces have their primary function written under their represented letter:

Old Look (Left) vs. Current Look (Right)

These changes are still being made. For example, the City assets haven't been changed yet, even though those are the ones that probably require it the most. It's a strange balance, really, to know what information to put versus what to keep in the manual.

This leads us to the use of Risk game pieces. In our playtests, in order to represent the population of each of the various counties and duchies in the game, we've been using the small little army tokens that Risk comes with. This has actually been pretty great and fun overall. But, leading into the upcoming Beta, I have to now factor in that not everyone will have access to these pieces. And so, I racked my brain trying to somehow come up with ideas on how to represent population on the map.

At first, I thought it would be easy to just use multiple dice (which is used A LOT in the game already). This gets rid of two things: the need for a ton of different population tokens and the easy of use of simply turning a die to increase or decrease population. It turns out, though, that many actually enjoy the tactile feeling of placing new population onto the map. So that idea went out the window.

The next (short-lived) idea was printing out citizen tokens which were made similarly to the other Agent, Army, and City assets. This proved to be a MUCH worse idea, since now, not only was the map more congested, but it was also more difficult to distinguish between all the different pieces on the map.

Of course, many good ideas come from looking at how other games have done things well. And so the final idea came while thinking about and playing another game, called Keyforge. In this game, players attempt to forge keys through interacting with and collecting 'amber' during a match. One of its ways to keep tabs on damage to creatures is the use of damage tokens, which look like this:

Damage tokens from the card game, Keyforge

This gave rise to the idea of using different, but small population tokens which represented different population. The shape of population tokens, however, came from (once again) How to Build an Empire. In that game, I used origami stars to represent Capital Cities. For Of Duchies and Polities, I've repurposed them into representing population.

Sam, defending the old tokens from How to Build an Empire

The idea is to use origami stars, which have different numbers on them, representing population. So just as Risk had pieces represent different army sizes, and Keyforge had numbers representing damage, these origami stars, which look completely different than any other asset, will also have numbers representing the various populations.

Ah, the Instruction Manual

All that being said, right now, most of the current work is going into making sure the instructions for Of Duchies and Polities is understandable and easy to follow. This is an easy task to get wrong, as seen in this Extra Credits video on proper tutorials. In summary, as the creator, it's easy to miss certain things that are necessary to teach in tutorials or manuals because they have become second nature while playing.

To that end, I'm striving to make the instructions as easy to follow as possible. As I showed in a previous post, the very basics of how to play fit, including an entire round with each turn's phases, fit on a single page so far.

The current "How to Play" page

This is a good start, of course, but the entire game is much more complicated than just the steps to take in a round. There are assets to be purchased, movement mechanics that need to be spelled out, and war procedures that require explanation. These details are all currently written down in a nearly 8-page document. A document that, while clearly outlined and labelled, isn't the easiest to follow when people are trying to learn the game without the creator beside them.

Of course, this will be an ongoing process, especially during the beta. I fully expect that feedback (especially from my family and friends) on where there are points of confusion when I ask them to teach me and others how to play the game.

And I believe this is an advantage of having the game released in the way it's been planned so far. As said before, I'm planning to release Of Duchies and Polities for free, with the instructions for play on this Coil blog. If there are any changes or additions that must be made to the game, they will be easily updatable for everyone to read and be notified of. In this way, the game will have the flexibility of “patching” just like video games do today, while still retaining the simplicity and tangibility of board and card games. Even if, in the future, I decide to put Of Duchies and Polities on its own website, it will retain this multi-domain quality.

And that's it for this week! Next time, it will be the first beta release for Of Duchies and Polities!

This one might get a little controversial, but hear me out.

I was just reading this article on Blockonomi which talks about the evolution of MakerDao's Dai, and its political implications. It's a pretty good article, and I definitely recommend reading through it, but the basic gist is that, because of Dai's governance and voting protocols, if it gains enough popularity, it's inevitable that there will be pseudo-political factions that begin to take up and represent different issues or desires which people want to be implemented on the blockchain.

MakerDao's blockchain protocol isn't the only one which has voting features. Crypto projects like EOS and Tezos, both of which are gaining more support, also have voting features in them. It's a fascinating trend in decentralized technology, allowing more and more public input from those invested in the projects, not just a company behind it.

But a pure democratic approach to coding isn't always the best. And this is where I argue (perhaps un-popularly) that any blockchain or cryptocurrency developer should take a hard look at the United States' political system, and the lessons that can be learned from it.

What's So Special about the US Political System?

Now, when I refer to the US political system, I'm not talking about what's popularly presented by mainstream media today. It seems there isn't much but ridicule and insults, partisan warmongering, and just plain hypocrisy on display coming from the legislators and heads of state these days. But rather than trying to assert whether one side is right over the other, instead, I'm talking about the concepts behind the US political system, why they are the way they are, and how it can inform the way voting systems could work in large-scale blockchain projects.

The US political system (at least at its founding) was based on the idea that a big, centralized government will always work to oppress its citizens. In this way, the US Constitution was set up with a Bill of Rights governing what the federal government could NOT do to its own citizens. In fact, the federal government is split into three different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), each meant to be pitted against the others so that the governmental body of the United States would have to compete for the approval and delegated authority of its citizenry.

More importantly, at its root, the United States was not designed as a pure democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. In its legislative branch, members of Congress are divided into two houses (Representatives and Senators). Representatives are based on the number of citizens in a State, while there are always only two Senators per State. These houses are both responsible for legislation, but because their demographics are so radically different, it takes many layers of work and cooperation among competing parties in order to actually get something passed.

Furthermore, the President of the United States (and thus the majority of the executive branch) is voted in through an electoral college, rather than a popular vote. This electoral college is made up of representatives equaling the combined number of Senators and Representatives, plus 3 more from the nation's capital district, Washington, D.C. The executive branch is capable of vetoing the laws legislated by Congress, which then requires a 2/3rds supermajority of both the House and Senate in order to pass.

This separation of powers and republican democracy is meant to divide the government so that any law that is proposed would need to pass through several layers of competing parties AND branches to become a permanent part of national law.

Why is this Better than a Pure Democracy?

Some might ask why such a cumbersome system exists. To answer that, one must remember what I said earlier in this post. While the United States' founding fathers recognized a need for a federal government to protect what they had won, they were far more fearful of the encroachment of government upon its citizenry. In this way, they desired that the federal government would not just have a small majority of public support in order to enact what they wanted, but would be a proper representation of the people

A great example of this (whether you like him or not) is the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Famous in the mainstream media for having lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote, Trump's election is actually proof that the United States political system works.

The competing candidate (Hillary Clinton) won the popular vote by about 3 million people. This may seem like quite a bit. However, if we look at maps representing how each district in the US voted, there is a clear majority favoring Donald Trump. So how did Clinton win the popular vote? If you look closely at the above map, she won primarily where there were large urban centers. So while the rest of the country preferred the Republican candidate, the concentration of population in large cities gave Clinton an upper hand in terms of pure numbers.

But no one, having seen the diversity of demographics in the United States, would conclude that major urban centers should decide the way of life for suburban and rural areas. In fact, the state of California is a prime example of this, as it has three massive urban centers which have time and again voted against the rights of the farmers and other rural folk who require basic things like water and power. Since different people of different walks of life have different needs and desires, it's important to understand that just because you have a majority of people who like you doesn't mean you should be able to decide what to do to those that don't. In Ben Franklin's wonderful words:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

A pure democracy has historically resulted in the mob of the majority destroying the rights of the minority. The United States' political system was (theoretically) designed to uphold the rights of all citizens, so that they could have a voice even when they are a minority.

How does this relate to Blockchain?

I believe what I wrote above is extremely relevant to blockchain development, especially the ones that aim to be decentralized applications that evolve through voting. As argued above, pure democratic voting, while sounding nice, doesn't always result in benefits for everyone. Additionally, just because an idea is more popular doesn't always mean it's objectively the best or greatest idea.

Most blockchain applications these days are running or advertised as a form of currency. Currency, or money, can be easily argued as one of the most fluid mediums which a person can use to amplify their desires or needs. In its original design, Bitcoin was meant to be a peer-to-peer network that could conduct global transactions trustlessly. It was made to combat the corrupt banking and financial institutions' practices which resulted in the global recession of 2007-2008. It was, in essence, meant to be a currency made “of the people, by the people, for the people.” DeFi, and I believe all decentralized applications, have this in mind. It has the chance to become one of the greatest technologies ever invented that could bring more freedom and liberty to the world where traditional governments and businesses have historically failed.

Of course, I am not saying that all the intricacies of the United States' political system should be adopted. Different systems require different rules and regulations. But it would be prudent to take a hard look at any blockchain's voting mechanism, and see whether its design is truly decentralized. As seen above, just because a vote is directly represented doesn't always mean that it truly represents what's necessary and what is best. How that decentralization then is executed will probably have to be iterated and experimented on as we go forward.

If the above premises are correct, then perhaps these are some principles we could learn from the US Political System:

1. Pure/direct majorities don't necessarily represent an entire population.
2. Mechanisms which are popular are not always the best for everyone.
3. Accurate representation is more effective than general majorities in understanding a population's desires.
4. Slow and steady iteration is better than quick and revolutionary change.
5. Competition and dissension are valued components in effective voting systems.

6. A separation of powers can breed competition where the best ideas come out ahead.

7. Checks and balances can keep a system from becoming too centralized.

Some of the ideas above do have some overlap, but I think overall, these principles can used to help create good governance systems that are truly decentralized.

Header Image courtesy of Pixabay.

Happy New Year! 2020 is here, and I'm eager to continue to develop Of Duchies and Polities to completion, and share it with everyone here on Coil! In today's post, I want to write about the trials and changes made as I play-tested the game with friends and family. A lot of it was expected, and some very unexpected, but all in an effort to make the game more playable and enjoyable.

Before I do that, though, I should review and give a more detailed walkthrough of how the game flows in general, so the rest of it makes a bit more sense.

Game Flow and Play

As I wrote in my previous posts, Of Duchies and Polities is a political game that has influences from Risk and Monopoly. It's made for 2-4 players, and the goal of the game is to have control of 20 out of the 26 territories (called counties in this game). Control of a county isn't having an army on the territory, however. Rather, control means that a large majority (80%) of the population in that county supports your rule over them.

Population support is represented on the map by tiny little population tokens. I'm currently using Risk game pieces as tokens, with the different colors representing the population's support. For example, tokens that don't support any player are represented by black and gray Risk pieces, while the other colors (red, blue, green, and yellow) represent support for different players.

One of our current games.

When the game starts, every duchy (or polity) on the map is populated with neutral population tokens—all except the ones under player control, of course, which are populated with tokens that support those players (called player-owned population tokens in the game). These player-controlled regions are randomly determined at the start of the game.

Population tokens are converted through the use of Agent tokens that can be bought from a player's controlled territories. These include Diplomat (everyone starts with one), which can be upgraded to an Orator, which can then be upgraded to a Philosopher. Each of these tokens can move around the map, converting other population tokens to your side. Diplomats have generally a low chance of conversion, while the upgraded Agents have increasingly higher chances to convert.

Players can also purchase favors in each territory they have a Diplomat in. These favors are calculated per county, and give players a better chance of converting tokens in those counties as well.

This card is used to keep track of player territory and favor.

Additionally, there are Armies to raise, Cities to build, World Events that happen, Bribes to buy, and (of course) taxes to collect! All of these things add into the game, but the main point is still to influence and win over the people's hearts.

Balance and Fun

To that end, most of what I'm doing nowadays is play-testing to make sure the game is both enjoyable and balanced. Even from the beginning, I knew I had to balance out certain things.

For example, as I said before, increasing the size of “Wales” and “France” to include more counties was necessary even before play-testing began. This was because, just like Risk, getting large regions affords some bonuses. In Of Duchies and Polities, these bonuses are sometimes (intentionally) quite powerful, depending on what kind of strategy one decides to go for. If the size of Wales was too small, then it would be far too easy for a single player to immediately get the bonus, and thus disadvantage the other players.

Of course, the one thing I did most often was change the cost of different items. For example, in the beginning, Diplomat agents cost 7 Gold, its upgrades were more expensive, and Favor cost was static. But as my playgroups tested the game, it became apparent that it was always more cost-effective to get more Diplomats than upgrade them. And so I had to decrease the cost of Orators, and then rework the cost of Favors. This incentivized different play-styles. Those who wanted to “go wide” and get lots of Diplomats would still have that option, while others could upgrade or buy more favors without feeling like they are falling behind.

The current cost structure

Another thing I had to do was rebalance World Events. Just like how Monopoly has Chance cards, Of Duchies and Polities has Events that happen at the end of each round. With World Events and Weather Effects, I had to re-balance what their effects were. Some of them were fun, others more punishing.

For example, there were times where several rebellions occurred in consecutive turns. These rebellions ended up not just rebalancing the game (as was the intention), but costing all players the game so that everyone lost! That was an interesting, though unintended, consequence, and most people felt it was not fun.

And that's one of the things I've learned most through balancing and re-balancing. When I design things, I often try to come at it from a more logical or emotion-less standpoint. But in play-testing, I've found that, even if something is perfectly “balanced”, if it doesn't feel fun, then people won't think it's fair, and thus don't want to play it, no matter how “logical” the design is.

Cutting Out the Fat

In the beginning, World Events were divided into Weather Effects and other happenings. But as I tested with different groups, it became quite clear to me that having two decks to draw from was too cumbersome, especially when some of the effects were along the same lines.

The remnant of the "weather effects" slot on the board.

I believe cutting out things is part of game design. However, there are often sacred cows or pet mechanics that any designer wants that almost always end up not working out.

Currently, that mechanic is trade. Originally, players could enhance their income through building trade routes with adjacent counties. But as games progressed, it became clear that, for the majority of players, counting income was not fun. Especially when there are upkeep costs for armies and agents, counting how much you collect and how much you owe can be a burden on some. In a game mostly about politicking and scheming, accounting is often not a priority that one wants to keep track of. At least not a fun one.

I'm still tossing that idea around for now. The current iteration of trade is through Contracts, but I haven't made enough progress in play-testing to see if they're worth it. But if they work, they may make the game even more crazy than it can be.

And that's it for this post! Next time, I want to dive into the player interaction, scheming, and politicking for this game, and how the game is designed around it. In essence, it will be (more or less) about the art of war.