Generative Game Design, Part 2: Attributes
The basic elements from which all mechanics are built
A framework for designing games inspired by Leonard Bernstein’s Harvard lecture series The Unanswered Question and transformational grammar. Bernstein is a conductor, composer, and much more, whose most famous work is songwriting for West Side Story.
Part 1: Game (Surface Structure)
Part 2: Attributes
Part 3: Mechanics
Part 4: Prose (Deep Structure)
Part 5: Applications
1. Game (Surface Structure) — the sensory form in which the game is experienced
2. Prose (Deep Structure) — the underlying structure that configures player behavior
3. Mechanics (Underlying strings) — the smallest units that have meaning
4. Attributes (Chosen elements) — a discrete unit that distinguishes one interaction from another
Attributes
To understand how we can configure player behavior, we need to understand how a game’s design is constructed and on what it is built. In generative game design, all mechanics are generated from basic elements called attributes. Like notes for music or like wa- and u- for English, learning these attributes allows us to distinguish one mechanic from another — just as we distinguish one major scale from another, one word from another. The attributes have been narrowed down to the following five:
In and of themselves, these attributes carry no meaning. Open a pack of a 52-card playing deck, and we’ll find cases of quantitative attributes in the ranks from 2–10 and identity attributes in the face cards, suits, and colors. However, without the context of a game, none of them mean anything. As designers, we leverage these attributes to create a huge variety of games. For a demonstration, we’ll look at two existing ones: Blackjack and Go Fish.
We can sum up the major differences in Blackjack vs. Go Fish using attributes rather than stepping through each of their mechanics. Blackjack focuses on quantitative attributes, while Go Fish focuses on identity attributes. We can confirm this by swapping all the ranks in the deck (Ace, 2, 3, Jack, etc.) to be uniquely identifying animals, like Ace for tigers, 2 for sheep, 3 for horses, etc.
As you might imagine, playing Blackjack with this version of the deck will be rather difficult (what’s tiger + sheep?). However, Go Fish will work just fine. This is because Go Fish uses the numbered ranks not as quantitative numbers but as identities to form pairs. Once we know which attributes we are working with, it makes our design decisions at the higher layers more flexible. In this case, whether we can make changes to the visuals of the deck (surface structure) without impacting the underlying mechanics.
Understanding which attributes we are working with is a powerful tool for designing with intention. Splits in Blackjack are a great example of this. They do not rely on making pairs with the actual ranks of the cards but the numerical value of them. For instance, hands that have a 10 and a Queen can be split because both 10s and Queens have a value of 10. It reinforces the quantitative attributes of Blackjack and does not distract the player with unnecessary cognitive load. By using attributes, we can work through these nuances and focus in on which ones facilitate the desired behavior.
As a final note, attributes have their individual affordances, strengths, and weaknesses. For example, identity attributes have a tougher time expressing gradients compared to quantitative attributes. We can observe this in stats for RPGS, which often use numbers in addition to qualities like Strength or Intelligence to determine how strong or intelligent a character is. It is viable to create tiers of Strength with identities: feeble > frail > weak > strong > powerful. But such a system is less flexible since creating new tiers requires new identities.
What’s more, this system requires players to learn all the tiers and remember what’s stronger than what. It’s an inherent weakness that identities are arbitrarily decided by designers and rely heavily on their form to try to intuitively express their purpose. Who’s to say that feeble is not stronger than frail? However, relying on forms is also their strength. It’s much easier to create player resonance when their character is “Powerful” rather than having a Strength of 5.
Attributes are universal in their usage across games. How they are used within their contexts matters, just like how notes in music sound different depending on which chord they are part of. Once we start to recognize these attributes, we can begin to see patterns. In the following parts, we will explore these patterns, starting with mechanics, and learn how we can use them to create meaningful gameplay.
This continues in Part 3: Mechanics. You can find me on Twitter @stephentrinha.
