Update #2 - 20/03/25

On the design and philosophy of ATOM

Back in January 8th, Tim Cain, probably best known for creating the Fallout series, published a video on his youtube channel asking Do Gamers Known What They Like? It's an interesting video, from a well established developer, and one I recommend (along with Tim's channel) for anyone interested in game development of any kind.

The question itself is an old one. Do people know what they want and like?  You make a thing, whatever it is, and if enough people see it you'll inevitably be met with some that love it and some that hate it. Sometimes for the exact same reason. Not to mention sometimes people will tell you they want something, then actively ask for things that go directly against what they just requested, or be disappointed when you give them what they demanded. To slightly misapropriate an Oscar Wilde quote: "There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what you want, the other is getting it."

There's obviously a lot to this question in and of itself, not to mention a lot more to Mr. Cain's video regarding not just people's opinions but also the quality of their feedback and what developers can and cannot do about it... But for today, I'd like to focus on something very specific:

I'd argue that, a lot of the time at least, once you're asking people, in general, what they they want... You're already kind of missing the point? Because, you're the one making the game. You're the designer and/or developer. You're the one that should know who you're the game for. Who is your target audience? Cause that's going to answer soo many  questions, along with informing which feedback you should and should not take.

Very quick example: Is randomness in game design... good?

Without further context, the only possible answer is... depends. What game? To what purpose? For whom? 

Generally speaking, the more casual the game is, the more welcoming, and even arguably demanding of, randomness it is. A game like Mario Party has a lot of randomness baked in. A lot of factors are beyond the player's control. And for that game, that's good. Mario Party is not something designed to be played in a tournament. It's a game designed to play with your family, perhaps even younger children, in a relaxed social context that's more about the journey, and the fun moments there, than it is about the destination, or the achievement of who wins. 

In that context, randomness is good. Because it keeps Cousin "900h in Mario Party" from completely anihilating Mom who plays the game once every other month. And the unexpected and odd sequences of events that can ensue completely outside of player control can actually just be amusing and a good laugh - because it's almost entirely about those moments along journey. The destination doesn't really as matter much.

The more competitive your game leans, generally speaking, the less you want randomness as a factor. Competitiveness is about pitching players against each other, measuring certain skills, and may the best player win. Yes, the journey is important, but so is the destination. Winning, as an expression of having played better, of having mastered the skills the game demands, better than your opponent/s, is crucial. And for that, factors that fall outside of player control and that can influence the game result, are bad. Almost nothing feels worse in a competition than outplaying your opponent, objectively making better decisions, better plays, but then... a dice roll or a coin flip decides you lose.

Does that mean randomness is ALWAYS good in casual games, or ALWAYS bad in competitive games?

 Well, no. There's room for nuance. Most things are not that black and white. Too much randomness in even the most casual of games and the "game" aspect of it sort of breaks down. Too much randomness and your players basically have no meaningful agency in the game itself. It's all down to luck. Sure the result isn't that important, but if what you're doing as a player is completely irrelevant why are you even playing the game at all?

Likewise some competitive games require SOME random elements to even function. Many card games, like Magic the Gathering, Yugioh or Pokemon rely on a randomized stack of cards that you draw from. Because these game engines, as they're designed, would just break down completely if you could just choose precisely which cards you're going to get when.

I could go on and on, but the point is: you're the designer. You decide who you're game is for, and then make design decisions around that. 

With that in mind, I'd like to briefly touch on what Apotheosis: Tournament of Mages is, and by proxy who it's for, who it isn't for, and how and why it was designed towards those goals.

What Apotheosis: Tournament of Mages is 

I designed AToM around a very clear core: A fiercely competitive, 1-on-1, dueling card game, as simple as possible to get into, where the focus is entirely on the decisions you make as a player, but that was impossible to "solve", because every action, every decision, is contextual to your opponent.

First and foremost, I wanted it to be competitive. Best player, at that time, at that moment, always wins. Which means, as I've made clear above, I wanted as little randomness as possible. Preferably none. As someone with a more competitive mindset who has played several card games over the years, I maintain that very few things leave a worse taste in your mouth, and challenge the competitive integrity of a game, than results being decided by one of the players just... drawing poorly or exceedingly well, for example. This meant moving away from the more traditional card game designs like MTG or Pokemon with their randomized card drawing mechanics. I'd have to designed something else entirely.

And I do believe I was successful in that. If you want a game that is entirely about your decisions as a player, about trying to predict and outplay your opponent... I argue AToM is precisely that.

I also wanted that competitive-orientation to extend beyond the direct gameplay and into the financial model too. I wanted your decisions to be the key factor, not your credit card. This meant moving away from the economically attractive model of randomized booster packs, and into the more traditional board game space of a simple, one time, purchase. So I designed it to be a "stand alone" evergreen game, something you can pull out whenever as a complete, finished product.

This doesn't mean that there is no room in the future for any kind of expansion, or spin offs, or something along those lines. Just that the base game, as it is planned to be distributed, is one time purchase, meant to play with itself, by itself, permanently. Should there be an expansion, I intend to produce it with the exact same philosophy: a package you can buy, as a one time purchase, and then play by itself.

So if you like the idea of a, evergreen game that you buy once then play with your friends today, tomorrow or 50 years from now without it being "outdated" or functionally missing pieces... Again, you've come to the right place.

Finally, I wanted it to be as mechanically simple as possible. Again: the focus is meant to be your decisions as a player, and you interact with your opponent, and not how well you know all the cards or obscure rule interactions. This meant keeping a very lean design, borderline ascetic, something I'm always a fan of. Every element, and everyn mechanic, is only in the game in order to answer a specific necessity, or not at all. This meant the final game has 10 unique cards, 3 unique resources, and 1 special mechanic. And that's about it. But every single element there is necessary, and fits together hollistically to create a game that is more than the sum total of its unique elements. So far in every test I've done, it takes players about 5 minutes, give or take a simple explanation/rules reading and a  single round of play, to understand the game mechanically. After that, you're free to dive purely into strategy. If that sounds good to you, I think you'll like AToM.

What Apotheosis: Tournament of Mages is not 

I'm a firm believer in "a game for everyone is a game for no one". As explained above, everything is good for someone, and bad for someone else. This isn't meant to be exclusionary, by all means everyone is welcome to try it and, if you enjoy it, more to you. This section is less meant as a "STAY AWAY!!" gatekeeping and more as a heads up, that some of the intentional design decisions might not to some people's liking. So, without further ado, full disclaimer:

AToM is not about big numbers.

There is a common trend in game design of "more". "More guns or weapons. More skills. More characters. More maps. More mechanics. More everything. More is better!". Even just inflating numbers: In this fighting game your characters have 1000 health. In this other one? 10000! 1 MIILION HEALTH!" - it's exactly the same numbers with extra zeroes, but BIGGER! You didn't do 120 damage, you did 12000 damage! Even if proportionally, you're doing the exact same thing. 

Numbers sell. 

But more isn't always better. 

This is basically an entire blog post on its own, so keep it short: design space is limited, and just adding more things, doesn't necessarily lead to a better game. Your house isn't necessarily "better" if you fill it to the ceiling with things, even if individually they're good things. There are contexts for "more numbers", and AToM is not it. 

AToM is intentionally kept lean, design wise, to be simple to learn and for the focus to be on strategy, not mechanics.

Additionally, AToM is not about constant change or "revolving door" development.

I know that can be an almost alient concept in the current atmosphere of permanent rapid fire updates, expansions, changes and so on, but AToM is more akin in that regard to "traditional" board games than your more "mainstream" card games or the more prevalent videogame culture where by-weekly balance patches and constant battle passes are the norm.

Apotheosis is closer to something like Chess, a game you might play for 30 years because you enjoy the gameplay itself, and not something you'll check back every month to see what's newest expansion or whatever.

Once again: This does not mean that there is no possible room for something like an expansion in the future, but *IF* (big if) something like that should happen, it'll happen only if and when there is enough demand for it, enough design space found and explored that it makes sense to release additional product, and, finally, when it's good and ready.

So if you play AToM, love the game, and think "I sure wish there was more of this" - maybe! No promises, but it's not impossible. Just don't go in with the expectation of regular expansion packs or whatever.

Closing thoughts 

Honestly I could go on for pages and pages... I have a tendency to write too much as some of you might have noticed already, but I think those are the more essential and core aspects of AToM's design and philosophy. Caveat emptor! This should give you at least a little bit of an idea of whether Apotheosis is a game you might be interested in or not at all! 

Cheers, and I'll see you all on the next update (which aren't nearly as often as I'd like, but time is a very rare resource right now)!