Here I have collated the case study work I performed on Griftlands, using formal analysis, Calleja’s Player Involvement Model, and Costikyan’s uncertainty categories.
| Hand size | 5 (starting size; cards can increase hand size in the following turn) |
| Deck size | 10 (starting size; can grow or shrink as players add or remove cards) |
| Deck update method | New cards are awarded through successful encounters, as is the ability to upgrade valuable cards once or remove unwanted cards from your deck; cards gain ‘experience’ through being played, and can be upgraded this way once |
| Basic card interaction | Use action points to play cards, with the aim of reducing your opponent’s Resolve to 0 while keeping your Resolve above 0. Resolve is stored in the ‘core argument’, representing your narrative intention in the encounter.Cards can cause two different types of damage (Hostility / Diplomacy), each of which can be multiplied by playing additional ‘arguments’, which each have their own resolveManipulation cards can add ‘composure’ (defence) to your core and additional ‘arguments’ |
| Special card interactions | Arguably too many to list, but here are some:Draw: Add a card from your draw pile to your hand.Replenish: When drawn, this card draws another card immediately.Improvise: Generate a set of random cards for the player to choose 1 of to add to their hand.Discard: Discarding a card adds it to your discard pile and allows it to be shuffled and redrawn once your deck runs out of cards.Expend: When played this card is removed from your deck until the end of battle.Destroy: When played this card is permanently removed from your deck.Incept: Create an argument/effect on your opponent’s field.Evoke: Play this card automatically once the condition is met from your hand (or deck if drawn mid turn). |
| Turn cycles/round | N/A |
| Rounds/encounter | Typically 5-15 turn cycles / encounter |
| End of turn actions | Unused cards are discarded; player draws 5 new cards |
| End of round actions | Not an end of round action, but when you run out of cards to draw, your deck gets refreshed with your discard pile |
| Round win condition | N/A |
| Round loss condition | N/A |
| Encounter win condition | Reduce opponent’s Resolve to 0 |
| Encounter loss condition | Concede, or have your Resolve reduced to 0 |
| Information | Generally perfect (opponents telegraph the arguments they are targeting, as well as the damage their arguments will do – this is called ‘intent’); some opponent actions can obscure their intents |
| Average encounter length | 5 minutes |
| Player/partner narrative relationship | Confrontational |
| Narrative objective | Either avoiding a threatened physical confrontation or convincing your opponent to do something they don’t want to do – eject someone from a bar, sell something for a bargain price, or aid the player in an upcoming confrontation |
| Narrative super-objective | Campaign-dependent (there are 3 campaigns, each with a different protagonist); ‘revenge yourself on your enslaver’ is the initial campaign character’s super-objective |
| Dialogue triggers | Procedural barks after every 1-2 cards; dialogue ‘scene’ after victory, concession or loss |
Player Involvement Model
- Spatial – encounters are presented in the third person, with an animated player character ‘in conversation’ with your opponent; observing your own character reacting increases narrative involvement, but perhaps lessens the sense of incorporation. A slight sense of exploration is achieved at the game-wide level, which increases narrative involvement.
- Kinaesthetic – controls are compelling and accessible, with fewer than 3 clicks on average required to affect most actions; feedback is stylish, immediate and involving.
- Ludic – most elements are directed towards ludic involvement. Actions have a clear impact on the game state, with numerical consequences previewed before action is taken. Progress towards the ludic/narrative goal, represented by the integer state of player and opponent resolve, is clear, if quite ‘gamey.’
- Shared – negotiation encounters are locked to quest-specific NPCs, so the sense of social interaction with agents in the world feels limited; negotiations are competitive-only affairs.
- Narrative – narrative progression bookends each encounter, with choice-less dialogue ‘scenes’ playing out depending on a victory or a loss; though player and opponent are expressively designed and animated, the integer representation of ‘resolve’ as the only indicator of in-encounter narrative progression leaves little room for narrative nuance within negotiations. Characters recur, and have ‘relationship statuses’ towards the player.
- Affective – despite the explicitly emotive naming conventions of cards (describing various conversational ‘moves’), encounters mostly involve the player at the affective levels of tension and suspense (will I win or lose?).
Uncertainties
- Performative uncertainty – fairly low; misclicking is possible but unlikely, actions do what they are expected to do 99% of the time.
- Player uncertainty – medium; new cards with unique mechanics constantly introduced, opponents have access to unique, often unpredictable ‘arguments’ and abilities; resource-based gameplay makes indecision more likely. Failure is a significant barrier event, rendering the player unable to negotiate until they have refilled their ‘resolve’.
- Solver’s uncertainty – low in-encounter (numbers go up, numbers go down); high when considering deck-building possibilities (winning, buying and removing cards, no upper deck limit).
- Randomness – highly dependent on deck size, but the length of matches means previously played cards are reshuffled into a new deck, increasing randomness exponentially over time.
- Analytic complexity – relatively high; players need to balance tactical considerations like action management, offense, defense, optional floating resources (‘influence’) and turn-sensitive opponent actions (abilities that increase in power over time, or trigger after X turns); the number of game-available cards and opponent abilities is almost ungrokkably high, such that a wiki or guide is handy for optimal deck-building.
- Hidden information – low; players usually have perfect information about an opponent’s ‘intent’ for the next turn.
- Narrative anticipation – often lost mid-encounter; dialogue is only meaningfully progressed post-encounter, in predetermined dialogue ‘scenes’; in-encounter procedural barks quickly become repetitive.