Did you know The New York Times makes games? Our first guest is Sam Von Ehren, a game designer at The New York Times. We speak with him about why The New York Times makes games, how his game fits in with the rest of The Times' news coverage, common misconceptions about what a New York Times game looks like, and who he's trying to reach.

Jamin Warren: Sam, so my first question for you is: when you’re at a dinner party and people ask you what you do, what do you say?

Sam Von Ehren: I just go right into, "I make games for the New York Times." Everyone seems to think right off the bat that that means I make crossword puzzles. So that’s always the first struggle. Then, depending on how old the dinner party guests are, they will really hang onto that idea. They'll ask me if I’m Will Shortz. They'll start asking, "So you’re the guy I’m swearing at when I’m trying to fill this out?"

I say, "No, I don't do any of that. I'm actually very bad at crossword puzzles." And they think I'm Will Shortz. They want to know, "Do you know him? Have you ever met him?" And I say, "Yeah, I've met him like twice."

Jamin Warren: Hi, I'm Jamin Warren, and this is the 256 Podcast. 256 is a marketing agency that prepares brands for the future of play and interactivity. We spend a lot of time talking to clients and partners about games, so we thought, "What if we brought more of those conversations to more people?"

To give you a little bit of background on the name: 256 is the agency side of a magazine I created almost ten years ago called Kill Screen. In 8-bit games like Pac-Man and others, level 256 has a bug that floods the screen with numbers and letters so that you can't play past it. I was so inspired by that, and also the movie The King of Kong, that I called our magazine Kill Screen. Get it? All right, now on to our guest.

Even if you're not in the gaming space, this podcast is for you. We bring in guests for quick, insightful conversations on how and why games are more relevant than ever in culture, but also in marketing. Hopefully, you'll walk away with a better understanding of why play matters.

Our first guest is Sam Von Ehren, a game designer at the New York Times. Yes, you heard right: the New York Times makes games. While many media companies are struggling, the Times is profitable, and its digital-only subscriptions are growing, in part due to its expanded crossword section, for which Sam designs games. If you visit NYTimes.com/Crosswords, you'll find games that we discuss, such as Spelling Bee, a word game that challenges you to make as many words as possible with just seven letters.

We speak with Sam about why the New York Times makes games, how his game fits into the rest of the Times' news coverage, common misconceptions about what a New York Times game looks like, who he's trying to reach, their audience, and much, much more.

Jamin Warren: Are you ever tempted just to say that you're Will Shortz? Because I don't know what Will Shortz looks like, so I wouldn't be able to tell.

Sam Von Ehren: That's true. I think I'm good being my own man. That is what I would say, having met Will Shortz. Usually, the way I like to introduce it is that the New York Times put out the Mini Crossword like four years ago, and that was really popular. They said, "Hey, we should make more games. We could probably get more people to come onto our website and play stuff. But we have no idea how to make games, so we should probably hire someone who knows how to do that." And that's who I am.

Jamin Warren: Probably a good idea just to hire a game designer.

Sam Von Ehren: Probably a good idea, you know.

Jamin Warren: What do you think people have the hardest time understanding about your job? Because I think people are familiar with crosswords and the New York Times crossword puzzle. But you say, "Oh no, crosswords are a kind of game, but I make other types of games." Is there a disconnect for folks? What do you find yourself explaining the most?

Sam Von Ehren: I really don't go into some of the process stuff that we involve. Honestly, for a lot of people that are even asking, the New York Times even making games is kind of a novel idea and a really out-there concept. So I don't even get into how we prototype, how we test, what makes a good game, what makes a puzzle, or the different ways that we can talk about it. It's really just: "The New York Times even makes games?" Then people are like, "Wow, that's really smart of the New York Times to get into the gaming space." That's usually as far as the conversation gets.

Jamin Warren: It's interesting that when you meet people and tell them you work at the New York Times, they think "news games," right? So they think games, but it's like, "Oh, you have to be working on something news-related." But if you told people that you worked at the food section, they wouldn't say, "Oh, so you're going to be on the 2020 trail following what the candidates eat?" We're accustomed to food or design being part of the New York Times, but it seems like with games, the only conception is either crosswords or you have to be doing something quote-unquote "important."

Sam Von Ehren: Right, exactly. Everyone assumes that I must be really good at crosswords too. And that's why the Will Shortz thing comes up. Even the concept of what making a game is... making a crossword puzzle is not really the same thing. It's a little bit more like level design in that sense. But everyone kind of conflates all that stuff, especially going to those less knowledgeable about the game space.

Jamin Warren: At the New York Times, why is the New York Times a good platform for games? Why is it a good place to find new games, and what kind of value do you think you add as a designer to the overall New York Times brand?

Sam Von Ehren: I do think the New York Times is a content company first and foremost. I think game designers—and I'm definitely guilty of this—really focus a lot on systems. I've been playing Drop7 again, and I love Drop7 so much, but it's this really contained skill system. It's not really like a TV show; it's not something you come back to every day as part of your ritual, as part of your life.

I think what games at the New York Times is really good for is bringing more play into people's lives in a way that can be ritualized and comforting. I think that's what's really nice about it in comparison to other game platforms and other game sub-industries. We're bringing play into the lives of people who kind of don't value play as much. It's a little bit more respectful, a little bit more elegant. It's really about that content stream.

I've been saying a lot lately that time scale is the big advantage the New York Times has. You're going to play these games for a good portion of your life. This is something that you're going to live with and really make a part of you. The only other things I think that really work on that kind of time scale are games that are speed-run, I guess, and competitive games. I think it feels nice for there to be this mature, ritualized experience. It's like brushing your teeth; you're just going to play the game. The crossword puzzle already exists in a lot of lives that way; we're trying to emulate that.

Jamin Warren: Do you think context is important? When I go to NYTimes.com on any given day, just given all of the insanity and craziness in the world, that's not a place I would say I find a lot of peace. Whereas with games, starting with the crossword, I think there is something meditative about games where they don't exist in this world. Do you think the context of being at the New York Times is an advantage for you in that you're giving an experience to people that is not found in other parts of the paper?

Sam Von Ehren: Absolutely. We position our whole team, crosswords and everything, as the little summer cottage away from hell, basically—especially right now.

And yeah, 100% the context matters. I think the interesting effect is that there's a lot less need for us to create an alternate world or something like that. "Diversion" is like a put-down, but we are kind of diversions from all this other craziness going on. Because we live in such sharp contrast to all that, I think we do bring a lot more joy, which is a very satisfying and kind of life-affirming feeling to be able to bring to people.

One interesting thing in terms of context is that the players are playing themselves. There are no roles they're playing. In a traditional video game, you sort of control a character. But here, you really play as yourself, and then you can play with other people. A lot of people like to share the crossword and solve it with someone else. We put out the Spelling Bee last year, and people have emailed us saying, "I play this every night. I call my wife who's on the other side of the country," or "I call my grandfather." That kind of joy and that kind of togetherness... these are all baked into that context and living within that context.

Jamin Warren: I wanted to switch gears a little bit and ask about the audience. Is there a person in mind that you're designing for? Do you find that there's a certain type of person who plays New York Times games? Just anything that you can share about who's on the other end, who ultimately is experiencing the things that you create.

Sam Von Ehren: We get a lot of—it's not too much of a surprise—but we get a lot of "word people." I mean, there's that context rising up again. People who are just interested in language and words play a lot of our games. We're trying to push out from that and get into broader audiences. That's a lot of what the new games are supposed to be about.

One thing we've gotten a lot of feedback on is kids, actually. We're not really targeting them, but a lot of the games that we've experimented with have been really popular with kids. And I think some of the things really vary game to game. That's why we've been doing a lot of testing on NewYorkTimes.com: to try to see if we can attract these other audiences outside of just white guys who like crosswords. We really don't want that to be our only audience. We want to try to capture everyone, of all ages, genders, whatever.

Jamin Warren: As wide as the audience of the Times.

Sam Von Ehren: Yeah, exactly. And we're trying to do a little bit more research to see if there is a little bit more targeting that we can do than that, but we really just want everyone to have a good time and play some games.

Jamin Warren: Is there a New York Times game style? It's interesting, in the news section, there's a style guide. There are conventions about how the New York Times differentiates itself from, say, the Wall Street Journal or whoever it might be. Those are well-known conventions; those change over time. But there's an idea that there's a certain quintessential New York Times essence on the news side. I'm curious, do you have something that's like that—a through-line for all of the games on the game side that you could point to?

Sam Von Ehren: Nothing really formalized, I think. My own personal guide... I don't know if you've seen the Bryant Gumbel special about the crossword, where they interview Will Shortz. He says this thing about how when you solve a puzzle, you've achieved perfection, and everything comes together. I think that is the New York Times style guide for game design right there.

Solving the puzzle is about everything falling into place and being perfect. The world is sane and nice, and you did it. It's really that action of completion. There are all these things kind of baked into it. I should formalize it probably. But I think that kind of puzzle, where you can get that kind of action, is really the thing that we're going for with all this.

Jamin Warren: That's really interesting. It sounds like you're starting from an emotional standpoint. The goal is just a sense of accomplishment or feeling. It sounds like with the crossword, that's kind of baked into the crossword model. You're working from that and figuring out what other things can give that sheer sense of completion.

Sam Von Ehren: Yeah, it's definitely an achievement thing. I think that works with how the New York Times at large works. Reading the New York Times is kind of a point of pride for a lot of people, especially solving the crossword. But being a "good citizen" requires you to read the New York Times, I think, is a sense that I get from the readers of the New York Times. They take a lot of pride in it. We want our games to kind of feel the same way in that sense.

Jamin Warren: Great. Well, Sam, thank you so much.

Sam Von Ehren: Thank you. This was a lot of fun.

Jamin Warren: And thank you for listening to the 256 Podcast, where we talk about the future of play and interactivity. This podcast is produced by Tricia Tonco with help from Anthony Martinez and music by Lucine. If you like this show, tell your friends and colleagues, and please leave us a rating on iTunes or wherever you listen.

I'd also love to hear from you. You can find me, Jamin Warren, on Twitter at @JaminWar. You can also find 256—that's also spelled out—on Twitter and at 256podcast.co where you can sign up for our newsletter. Thanks so much, and take care.