Category: Game Musings

As anybody who has invested regularly in the stock market can tell you, this market is anything but rational. At least not in the short term. It is subject to some severe swings, and behaviors that can only be described as psychotic. How can a company like McDonalds be worth 25% less in a short period? I don’t recall seeing a few thousand stores suddenly disappearing into the void. How can a company like Tesla be valued higher than GM when it is miniscule in comparison? How can 3D printer stocks see a rise of over 1,000% , just to come crashing back down in value within 6 months. This doesn’t sound like rational behavior to me. The rational market theory states, more or less, that the fair market value of a commodity will be determined by supply and demand. I’ll believe this if I ever see it!

Experiments were performed by Dan Airely to explore how initial market values are arrived at, and the results are quite surprising. You can check out chapter 2 of his book “Predictably Irrational” for more detail on this topic. It turns out that the initial price of an item is often completely arbitrary. Once we see this price (We don’t even have to agree with it.) we latch on to it and it affects our perceived value of this item and anything associated with it. The item’s true value, or the cost to create this item, could be considerably different from what we’re willing to pay for it. The initial value of any item is strongly associated with the item and influences all future decisions we make regarding it.

We also have another strange quirk when we are establishing a value.If we are paid to acquire an item, this is considered work and we tend to ascribe a lower value to the object. If we have to pay for an item, we will value it more highly. The Item doesn’t change, but our perceived value of it could vary quite a bit. In one board game where we have to pick-up and deliver items, and another game where we have to purchase items and speculate, we likely view the two markets in completely different ways, even if both of these markets were fluctuating in the same manner. The value is skewed by the fact that we are doing a chore or accomplishing a mission, rather than speculating and taking a risk.

How do we establish this arbitrary value? A random card flip or dice roll would do the job, but it may not be very satisfying. Players might, perhaps, make up a value, but this could quickly get out of hand. (The game “QE” does this). The answer must lie somewhere in between. Players can be given rough guidelines, initial recommendations based on the game state, and enough freedom to set a price they think the other players are willing to pay. The player setting the price should, of course, have some way to exploit this newly priced item. The other players should also have some way to access the item besides dealing with the player initiating the value. This might keep things in balance. Let’s create a hypothetical example.

A pick-up and deliver game, set in the desert, where players are free to buy and sell goods by travelling to the various cities. The market will be driven by transactions, where every offer to sell would reduce the value of a commodity and every offer to buy would increase the value. Random actions will also affect the market, but the general market always trends upward in the long run. Players set initial prices by travelling to different cities and establishing trading centers for certain goods. A player can choose from a range of initial starting prices, with the more remote locations allowing players to set higher values. The player initiating the trading center could become the agent for that city and other players can trade through the agent for a fee. Players can also travel to the city to deal directly. As more cities trade in the same commodity, the prices could tend to decline. This might make for an interesting game where values are somewhat arbitrary, and players have to try and determine what the other players are willing to pay.

In the above example, players will probably lend credence to the arbitrary starting values, even though they know the values are artificial. The fluctuating market will hopefully result in some wild market swings, especially with the random events occurring regularly to shake things up. The player interaction and trading should also add some variability to the game as players might demand high prices based on potential market values. The key component of this game would be the initial values set by the players opening up the trade centers. This could make for an interesting market economy.

The bottom line is that a predictable market economy and values that are obvious will probably make for a boring game. Add a few random events, arbitrary values that can’t be clearly predicted, and a dash of irrational player behavior and you might just have some real fun. I am not an expert, nor am I a successful in publishing games. (Yet!) I am just trying to figure things out and hope you enjoy my occasional rant. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree, or even if you just want to say hi.

Roger Meloche

I am Currently reading the book “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariele. As described in chapter one, people’s decisions can be irrationally swayed by relative comparisons. For example, if you were given a choice between a brown or grey jacket of equivalent value (assuming you have no color preference) you are equally likely to pick either one. If a third jacket were introduced which is similar, but slightly inferior to one of the original two, your choice will be strongly influenced by this. If, for example, you introduce a second grey jacket which has a minor flaw or is the same, but without a belt, the great majority of us would pick the original grey jacket. This is because the grey jacket would seem like a better deal, simply because you have a basis of comparison, and the brown jacket will seem like a lesser value, because we have nothing relative to compare it against. This irrational bias in our decision making is exploited regularly by merchandisers and just about anybody else who wants us to buy their product or service.

This behavior shouldn’t be ignored when designing a game. You can, perhaps, reward players who explore alternative strategies by increasing the utility or value of unique and less obvious cards or other components in your game. This might enhance the replay value of a game and may even lead toward more varied strategies emerging in your game. You might instead decide to guide players in a certain direction  by using similar components and graphical cues to lead plyers to a more interesting and fun path of action. No matter how you plan to use it, it is a behavior that probably should be considered in your design.

I am not an expert, nor am I a successful in publishing games. (Yet!) I am just trying to figure things out and hope you enjoy my occasional rant. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree, or even if you just want to say hi.

Roger Meloche