The Reason Behind The Paper Blockchain Game

Richard Garfield is well-known in the tabletop gaming community, most notably as one of the developers of Magic: The Gathering, the most popular trading card game. However, Garfield is dabbling in the world of digital, specifically blockchain-adjacent games, and TechCrunch grabbed the opportunity to quiz the experienced game maker on the benefits and drawbacks of this and other innovative approaches to gaming.

It should be noted right away that, unlike the dubious profit-focused gameplay of your Axie Infinity and the like, Richard Garfield’s new game, technically a “mode” of Blockchain Brawlers, is not focused on speculation but is rather an experiment in the distribution of a complete card-based game outside of traditional publishing methods.

It should also be noted that the game platform is full of the usual NFT and monetization babble, but the main game, a 1v1 bluffing type match, may be played with regular playing cards or numbered pieces of paper. I played a few rounds with him this way, and it’s actually fairly enjoyable and simple (I would like to state for the record that I was in a fair way to win but we had to stop early). A separate release in 2023 is planned for a game unconnected to Richard Garfield’s idea that uses more rarity/stat/token-focused mechanics.

TC: Why is it worthwhile to incorporate blockchains, tokens, and other cryptocurrencies into game design? When consumers are concerned about items like FTX… I understand that they are diametrically opposed, but why is the asset worth the risk?

RG: There are certain advantages to not being tethered to paper, and some advantages to not being digital. The possibility to sell consumers digital yet ownable games have some attraction in the digital environment. In particular, especially compared to other digital arenas where there is so much free-to-play, which has a lot of negative baggage along with any value it brings to the table.

Of course, FTX can crash, which has nothing to do with a tracking mechanism for card ownership or whatever. However, in the perceptions of customers, they can be mixed together. Is that only for consumer education? Is that a branding issue?

All of the above and more. It’s also a popular choice among designers and publishers. I believe there is some natural caution in this space because so much of the design has been in an area that I don’t think is healthy for games, which is attempting to conflate it with speculation — an area with which I have a lot of experience because this was the environment in which Magic: The Gathering began. And it was highly harmful to gaming to have people buy only to see their money rise. Because it interfered with the game as a game.

Advertisement

Many designers and publishers are now embracing this and urging, “Join this game today, make a lot of money.” That is not good for game design, but it is no longer an inherent feature of players’ ownership of digital goods. The bad aspects of free-to-play, for example, are not inherent in the game. It’s only that some things are tough to avoid because of the way the income model operates. And players these days, with digital ownership, it’s natural for them to equate it with the speculating bubble, just as a player who engages in free-to-play is always at risk of thinking it’s pay-to-win or some type of hustle. However, there is some confusion, and there are some causes for that confusion.

I’m curious about what kind of backlash you received at the time over both the commercial strategy and the unanticipated hoarding of valuable cards, taking them out of play. Was there any doubt that this was a viable game and business model? And do you believe a similar reaction is occurring now?

“These days, a lot of designers and publishers are embracing that and saying, ‘Join this game today, make a lot of money. That is not good for game design, but it is no longer an inherent feature of players’ ownership of digital goods.”

Yes, some skepticism existed and it takes a lot of effort to overcome that. And that caused quite a stir within Wizards of the Coast. The problem was that as the prices rose due to speculation, everyone drew comparisons to the comic book market, Cabbage Patch Kids, or whatever people collected and became quite popular, only to crash and burn.

“I wasn’t well-versed in that field when I first started because I didn’t pay much attention to collectors. But I quickly came to believe that this supposition was simply bad for games, with no benefit to the players.”

We have to put in a lot of effort to break that pattern, such as purposefully overprinting to make it unappealing to collect. When we finally accomplished this, some people at the company believed we had sunk the product. And other gamers did so as the value of their collection fell. But the game had only just begun to take off at that point. And, in the end, that was all it was: a game. It became evident that those who were playing the game were doing so because they enjoyed the gameplay rather than because they had made an investment.

Do you believe anything similar will have to happen with digital ownership now? How do you put that model to the test? Because I know many will be dubious, asking, “How do I know I’m not going to have the rug pulled out from under me if I put a couple of hundred dollars in this game?”

You must have complete faith in your publisher. When it comes to tradable object games, the publisher may always screw it up.

Advertisement

People, on the other hand, don’t buy Settlers of Catan and worry about whether the publisher will muck it up by making the game weaker; they have the game, and they can play it. That, to me, is the potential attractiveness of digital ownership: consumers don’t have to rely on the publisher. When they are in command of a continuing environment, they simply have to rely on the publisher to be fair.

How do we get the ownership aspect to the point that individuals can say, “Hey, I paid my $50.” “I have a digital copy of that.” People will put their trust in Steam for a PC game. But if it gets sophisticated with NFT-based instances of cards and other such things…

Well, if you’re going to have your game engine given by someone, you have to trust them. That concludes the story. You have more options here. Whether or not those will evolve is dependent on the community and, you know, whether or not there are people who are enthusiastic enough to pursue it.

I should tell out that with the game I worked on here, I was very solidly in the board game category, in the sense that the game that’s been provided has no distinction between what players own — it’s a perfectly fair game. It was really the only reason I became interested in the idea because the publisher stated they would back me up on that.

[Note: While players can possess multiple “moves” and cosmetics, the gameplay elements, which are essentially the digits 1-8 and some other minor things, are functionally the same for all, even whether they are treated as NFTs or some other owned digital item. In other modes or games, these goods may serve different functions.]

That aspect of the game is always available to players, as they can play it themselves or someone can create a new framework for it. And it’s not difficult to accomplish. In the sense that you buy a box and play, this is fairly similar to a traditional game.

I’m sure my readers will wonder, “Why aren’t I just buying this game on Steam?” Or what is the true improvement over a free-to-play situation in which I pay $50 for 50 cards? And now I have all the cards. What are the true benefits of this method over traditional publishing or a free-to-play model?

To be honest, I believe that many people have exaggerated the benefits and, in reality, what has kept me away from it for so long is that I haven’t seen the benefit of a server-based system in a long time. The main thing that drew me in was how difficult it is to get certain games done in the digital environment due to the free-to-play expectation.

Advertisement

There are a number of games that, in principle, you could just publish on Steam or iOS and have people download and play. But you can’t do that because you can’t charge for it. And if you offer it for free, you must pay for it. And if you add any free-to-play monetization to it, you’ve got commercials or you’ve got to fill a bar, or do cosmetics, or whatever that may not be of interest to designers or players.

The main thing that drew me in was how difficult it is to get certain games done in the digital environment due to the free-to-play expectation.

So the game being developed here, for example, might be developed on Steam or on iOS. But the games I’ve done in the past that fit this criteria have been really difficult to get started because you have to make it free. Then you have to put in advertising or whatever. So I’m drawn to it in the same way that I’m drawn to working with paper publishers: I can say, “Here’s a card game,” and they can print it, put it in a box, and sell it to people. Nobody objects to that as a revenue model.

Tabletop gaming has clearly seen a renaissance. Everyone enjoys it; everyone is playing with paper, cardboard, and wood, and it’s fantastic. But there are also crossover successes, such as Gloomhaven, which has a terrific digital and paper version. I’m curious how you think it’ll play out in the coming years as both analog and digital gaming get more popular and continue to cross-pollinate.

That is a very exciting field. I could go on and on about it. That field has piqued my curiosity. I first considered it in the late 1990s, when I was struck by how much I enjoyed computer games and board games. Then I’d play whatever I wanted, TF [Team Fortress]. I’d play some kind of digital shooter or something, and then I’d play Scrabble.

And I’d wonder, how are these even in the same room? They’re just such distinct experiences, and why aren’t there more games that are similar to the board games I enjoy, but take advantage of all the stuff that must be available digitally?

So to see more and more examples of that, such as Slay the Spire, games that have this sensibility genuinely based in conventional gaming, but take full advantage of what the computer has to offer, rather than forcing you to play Twitch games or anything like that…

It’s an exciting field. I’m really thrilled to see where it goes and happy to help out in any way I can.

Advertisement

For More Blockchain News, Click Here.