My personal mentor, Alan Emrich, taught me 2 rules of game design, apparently as mentioned by Jim F. Dunnigan, a famous war-game analyst and war game designer. These are:
1) Use Available Resources (steal)
2) K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid)
It resonates through everything I do as a game designer. Is the game idea "stealing" with good judgement? Is it a "me too" kind of game? Are there too many other games like it? Is it too complicated? Can it be streamlined? Can the game do without this feature?
I don't think that Alan/Jim was saying that all games need to be "simple". I think what they were saying was that a game needs to be in its purest form; erroneous information may be a detriment to the game.
I've noticed an increasing popularity in board and card games over the last 10 years. Podcasts, YouTube, Internet reviews are making this industry boom like it's never had before. Games are more immersive; it's not about real estate or trying to trap some runaway mouse, it's about epic stories involving Cthulhu, tactical games within the Star Wars Universe, cure the world from 4 deadly diseases and resource manage goods in Puerto Rico. Some of these games have been around for a long time and are making a comeback, some are Kickstarted.
But I've also seen a growing trend in complex games. While I'm not opposed to complicated games, I can't help to think that a lot of these games have game mechanics that are just...too complex.
Take Arkham Horror. Personally, I love the game. Once everyone is on the same page, it's a compelling and suspenseful game. The problem is that, in almost every session I play the game, there's at least 2 people that don't know the game. Getting those people to get on board with the game and have a reasonable game experience becomes a challenging quest for people to just "get" the game. Of course this game really benefits from regular play with a regular group, but when you're leading a weekly game club where you have no clue about who's going to show up, the game doesn't see the table as much as I'd like.
Recently, Fantasy Flight Games released its spiritual successor: Eldritch Horror. While it can be argued that this game is just as complicated as Arkham Horror, I can, without a doubt, absolutely say that this game really improved on the Arkham Horror model and took it to the next level. How did they do that?
They streamlined the gameplay.
If you've played both games, you'll know what I'm talking about. While Eldritch Horror expands the Cthulhu story to a planet-wide setting, its game mechanics are so streamlined, it's so much more easier for this game to see the table than Arkham Horror.
But is complicated gameplay bad?
Not really. There are many people that love immersive gameplay. But, as designers, what is more important: that our games see the table more by simplifying the game or that our games cover every nuance of a particular subject?
We really have to look at our audience and what we want to accomplish with our games. In video games, it's simply "hardcore gamers", "regular gamers", and "casual gamers" (to put in simple terms). Hardcore gamers are the ones that thrive on the most immersive experience. They are the ones that have the most game knowledge and aren't afraid to tell you that. Unfortunately, these people make up a very tiny sliver of gamers in general and if you're catering to those people, don't expect a casual gamer to give you the time of day.
Speaking of casual, let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum. The casual gamer is that typical person that probably doesn't have BGG as a bookmark in their internet browser. They love playing games, but are more ADD (as in Attention Deficit Disorder) when it comes to deeper games. Their favorite game is probably along the lines of Cards Against Humanity, where there's no real deep strategy, simplistic turn order, but the game is fun nonetheless.
The Regular Gamer is somewhere in between. I could go into its definition, but I'm really focusing on the extremes.
But what makes the Casual Gamer so...important? Numbers. There are FAR more Casual gamers than there are Hardcore Gamers. I mean FAR more. Sell a $50 complex game and Hardcore gamers will eat it up. You'll have the satisfaction of making a game but your reach will be thin. Sell a very simple, yet fun game targeted at the Casual Gamer at $5 and you have the potential to make millions.
Yeah, but isn't the point of making a game the satisfaction of just making the game?
Sure. But no game designer goes out to make a minimally successful game. There's always the hope that it will catch with the audience and it will make lots of money. Our satisfaction is proportionate to the amount of people that love the game. The more people love it, the more satisfaction you have that you were able to provide that to them. Money may be a bonus, but it's still a factor we'd love to have in our game.
Call it "dumbing down" or "nerfing", the purpose of K.I.S.S. is to keep a game's core values while trying to reach the widest audience. The trick is to make the game easy to understand, but complex enough to cater to the Hardcore. It's the reason why Magic: The Gathering STILL makes money and the reason World of Warcraft is still the 500lb gorilla in the MMO market.
How to get this to happen? Testing. Lots of testing. Ask lots of questions to your testers. Does the game seem complicated? Is there anything that you don't understand? Would you play this again? You may not like the answers at times, but it's still YOUR audience. It's scary to hear people's opinions about your game. As designers, we have to see this as a way to make the game better and not an attack on us personally.
It's easy to think that it's nigh impossible for a new game to have simple, streamlined mechanics with deep gameplay because there's so many games out there, but it is possible. Many people thought card games couldn't evolve about 10 years ago, but along comes deck building and now there's a TON of deck builders. Games like Marvel DiceMasters is revolutionizing how dice games are played.
It's out there. We just need to find it. Happy designing!
Comments
Great Comments!
radioactivemouse,
Well stated! One of the things I bring to the board game community is 20 years of game-play and five years of play-testing and development in the 'hex-and-counter' war game genre, where complexity is the order of the day. While board gamers in the 90s were still living on a diet of Life, Monopoly, and Parchesi (which, by the way are still fun with the right crowd), military wargamers were devouring 50, 75, and 150-page rulebooks. Over the past two decades, however, the card -and-board game industry really moved forward by providing this immersive experience with a level of complexity commensurate with dedicated time requirement.
You mention Arkham Horror, and that proved to be the gateway game for me., while admittedly, of the nearly 150 games I've played of AH, more than 90% have been solo runs, as it's tough to get folks around the table for protracted periods of time. This is why it's essential that when applying the KISS principle you don't necessarily "dumb down" your idea, but instead make it accessible to more players in that 90-min-2 hr time frame. For as many people who have told me they love Twilight Imperium, less than 1 in 10 play it more than once a year. So, Chris Petersen built a great game and it remains well-regarded on BGG, but a game I develop or design is one I want played, not simply admired.
To your point of testing...it cannot be stressed enough. Attend a few play-tests, have it sent out for blind-play-testing, and when you the reports back, make the tweaks, and do it again (and again).
I would offer that one should not regard elegant and complicated on either end of the spectrum, but two sides of the gold coin. I recently backed (and have logged nearly 50 games) of Marco Pranza's Historia, an extremely accessible civ-game that doesn't have the time-intensive needs of Sid Meier's Civilizations or Through the Ages, but has the right level of complexity, elegant hand-management system, and can be played in about 2 hours (the rules state "25 min/player).
Thanks again for posting and I hope this elicits a conversation among the broader community here on BGDF.
Cheers,
Joe
The killer for me was FFG's
The killer for me was FFG's Android, which came with a ridiculously long and convoluted game manual and more pieces than I'd ever want to sort. I own shorter RPG manuals. I felt like it was a choice between learning to play or investing the time into learning HTML. Plus then I'd have to teach the game to all of the other players, which would be fine if I could imagine them coming back to play it again and again. I had an easier time imagining them punching me in the face for inflicting this game on them.
Sadly, I am well beyond my college years, and finding people to play games with can be a challenge. My friends can fit one or two sessions in each month, and these are usually devoted to our long-running AD&D game. Added to that, there is the alcohol factor. It's one thing to run a game that I've been playing since I was five, but it's hard to learn something new when everyone has slurred speech two hours into the game.
As much as I love an 8 hour game of Talisman, the pick up and go, 30 minute style games have been great for me. The ones that I've learned to admire as a designer are some of the Milton Bradley titles from the '70s-'80s, like Thunder Road and Screaming Eagles. Brilliantly simple games played in about 15 minutes. Screaming Eagles, in particular, is one of my top 5 games for elegant yet simple design. Complexity is great, but I have to leave that to the high school kids in our rural town, who have the time to commit, and strangely enough are also playing 2nd ed. AD&D.
Amen, brother!
Soulfinger,
For wargames which require a protracted period of time, we say that you don't 'play the game' as much as you "enlist." There's truth in that statement. As a matter of fact, I'm developing a WWI Zeppelin game for a chap in Australia...it appears well-researched and otherwise brilliant. At the moment, however, the rules have made it so inaccessible, I'm unable to set-up and play the first scenario, which by the designer's admission took his friend in Sydney 13 hours to set-up and play...that's not filling with me confidence.
Anyway, I laughed when I read the bit about punching you in the face...games should be fun, not arduous. To this day, I have a running ooVoo (like Skype) call with my two friends from Philadelphia every Wed. night in which we still play D&D (now 3.5) or Serenity.
Cheers,
Joe
For war games whi
Thanks Joe
Thanks for the kind words. As a community I believe we should band together so that collectively, we ALL revolutionize the game industry. I truly believe there's room for improvement and I know there are still great game ideas that haven't been explored.
AH is a great game. To me, there's way too many moving parts. EH really made it accessible to the masses while keeping the theme and the complexity.
I, myself am a veteran of the video game industry. I've been a tester, a game master, a community events manager, a 3d animator, and I've even been lead game designer for some projects. Even with all of my "knowledge" I don't believe I've scratched the surface as far as true game design. The game theories I've taught to my college students for years are JUST NOW finding deeper meaning in my game designs.
I know I got a lot to learn, but it's an exciting time for me.
Great post! I totally agree
Great post! I totally agree on simplifying games to appeal to the masses. I still remember the day when I first played Settlers of Catan more than a decade ago and how that gateway game introduced me into board gaming. At the time, I never felt like the 90+ minute games were long but nowadays I feel that the game is a bit too long and too random for my taste. Therefore I'm very interested in developing games that are quick to learn (<10 minutes) and quick to play (<60 minutes) and with a good a balance of randomness/strategy. In fact, my inaugural game that's going to launch on Kickstarter in 2 months has these elements. http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/154032/vikings-dragonia
The Professor wrote:As a
No problem. He can bill it as a return to the monster wargames of '70s Golden Age of Wargaming. You couldn't even fit them on a table, and they took dozens of hours to play. 'War in Europe' had more than a dozen maps and thousands of counters. He should go all in for size, price accordingly for a quality or quantity approach, and target all the old SPI/Avalon Hill grognards who quite possibly will never play the game but will buy it for nostalgia's sake. Consider advertising in Knights of the Dinner Table, as their Hackmaster line taps the same market. "An immersive epic of strategic simulation inspired by the Monster Games of the Golden Age of Wargaming. Whether you are a veteran gamer looking to relive the excitement of gaming's golden age or a novice seeking an immersive level of play that few games can deliver, be ready for the challenge of a lifetime." I wouldn't make the investment to self publish something like that, but if he can connect with his market then a KS should do pretty well.
My game is the Renegade Legion line by FASA. I don't think I'll ever get to enjoy the full experience where you combine the majority of the games together into an epic planetary assault, involving fleet actions, and space fighter combat running parallel to grav tank battles on the ground with fighters strafing ground targets while defending orbital assets. It would take ages to play out. Renegade Legion: Interceptor is another game on my list of elegant designs. Similar but superior to Battletech. The damage system is just inspired.
Grognards Unite!
@ radioactivemouse,
You're right...few can make this a profession, but for the rest of us, it's a passionate past-time to which we dedicate an enormous amount of time and talent.
@ soulfinger,
Wow...I remember seeing that term (Grognards) for the first time maybe 15 years ago when I was trolling the nascent internet gaming fora. Fortunately for the Designer, he's lined-up a Publisher...now I have the exciting job of developing the game. You're spot-on that this will appeal to a particular niche group...unfortunately they're about 15-20 years our senior. I'm familiar with FASA, but not Renegade Legion...
Cheers,
Joe
The Professor wrote:Wow...I
Twenty years my senior . . . so, it's heading toward the sort of games I play with my father, like "What's This Thing (On Your Face)?" in which he spends an hour questioning me about my beard, or "That guy!?" which is kind of like twenty questions, where I guess who 'that guy' is, what year he lived, whether he exists, and what he did to agitate my dad. At least it's not bunco.
Older gamers are pretty easy to please though. No polyhedral dice. Loads of reference tables. Everything needs to be historically accurate. The only difference between now and the old Avalon Hill titles is that you should use a larger font. The materials should also ego stoke like they did back in the day, referencing "superior players" winning through "extraordinary use of tactics" and the massive intellect that it takes to play such a game as this. Gary Gygax was always good at that. It was nice when I was in elementary school having these books tell me that I was one of "those persons with unusually active imagination and superior, active intellect."
Renegade Legion: Interceptor may be worth checking out. What I like most is the damage system, a 10x10 grid for armor with damage applied using a template overlay that allows for winnowing sections and piercing through already compromised areas with subsequent attacks. Internal damage goes to what looks like a circuit diagram. You go through, marking off damaged or destroyed systems, so a ship could end up with weapons/shields destroyed, transponders disabled that result in friendly missiles locking on, less thrust, inability to make a right turn, and so on. Centurion, the grav tank game, keeps the armor but simplifies internal damage. Great thing is that new or excellent condition copies go for $20 or less on eBay (if you are patient), and CinC still produces the miniatures at a reasonable price.
Play time vs. complexity
Many commenters here think of complexity and then write something about game length. Sure, there is a correlation between the two of them; there likely will never be a game with one hour of rule explaining and ten minutes of gameplay (or it would be a horrbile design...), but they are not the same. If I should come up with an example, I'd say: StarCraft (the board game) is complex, Advanced Civilization is long. The former has a big rulebook and you have to understand every possible move your opponents are able to make, the latter takes long, long hours because of the long negotiation phase. The other phases are pretty quick by comparison, and all of them are not that complex.
In my experience there is also a thin line between a 'good' complex game and a 'overly' complex game, but this line every player draws for him-/herself.
You had me at...
Soulfinger,
When I read ""What's This Thing (On Your Face)?" in which he spends an hour questioning me about my beard" I laughed so hard at 4:30 in the morning, I thought I was going to wake-up my daughter.
Cheers,
Joe
Dagar wrote:...there likely
See games "Netrunner" and "X-Wing". Some Netrunner games can be over in 10 minutes (granted there has to be very bad luck in the game) and new players have to learn the terms for both Corporation AND Runner before their first turn. X-Wing games aren't that long, but setting up your team with all its pilots (granted you have expansions outside of the base game), add ons, and number crunching take way more time than it does to play it (at least for me).
Some people really like setup. I don't.
Okay, maybe I should clarify:
Okay, maybe I should clarify: I have played neither Netrunner nor X-Wing, but I am pretty sure they both are not designed to have an hour of preparation for 10 minutes of gameplay. It might be the case if one side has much experience and the other is a new player, but it surely should not always be the case. Or should it?
radioactivemouse wrote:See
Weird examples. I recall Netrunner as being a pretty swift setup with rules that could be learned during play if you had one experience player walking everyone through it. It's one that I plan to buy specifically for its fast setup and ease of play.
The setup for X-wing is a piece of cake compared to other games in its category. It's certainly no Warhammer 40K. The local high school physics teacher uses it as a gateway game for kids who've never played anything other than Monopoly. I think in this latter case, you are mistaking a miniatures wargame for a board game. From what I've seen, the force building and number crunching is fast and easy. Plus, as with any other wargame, successful force lists can be reused in later games. I'd spend way more time drafting up a Mordheim warband or a Bloodbowl team, although I could probably put together a Firestorm Armada fleet faster.
Netrunner and X-Wing
Having a weekly game night, I've taught Netrunner to many people. Granted those people weren't "gamers" per se, rather students that are just starting to learn about board/card gaming. Even with my knowledge of the game, I still have to explain everything to them...runner, corporation, servers, types of damage, clicks, etc. It's a lot to explain. Even with skipping erroneous details (i.e. deck building, link, every action you can do in a click, etc.) there's just way too much detail. So yeah, an introductory game can go at least an hour with a game lasting about 10-15 minutes.
As far as X-Wing. Yes, definitely a faster setup than say Warhammer, but I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum where you just plop a board down, take out the cards, place the pieces, and go. As a base game, it's certainly easy to get setup, but when you've got 2 cores, some TIE Advanced, some Y-Wings, and a bunch of X-Wings, it starts to get hard figuring out which pilot you want to use, which strategy you want to apply, setting up the board, and putting those damn miniatures together without dropping one of those teeny translucent posts. Of course reusing set armies is key, but the beauty (and possibly the difficulty) of the game lies in its variety of setups; the game encourages you to vary it up a bit.
Warhammer and games like it have the advantage of games taking longer than its setup. But those games were built to do that. With X-Wing, the asteroids, possible 1-hit kills (TIE Figthers) and mistakes can easily make the game short. Of course you can play the same scenario again, but on comparing setup to just one game, it's lopsided.
These games aren't bad in my opinion. It's just the way it is. Something like a Warhammer: Diskwars streamlines X-Wing and makes it far easier to hit the table.
Yeah, probably my circle's
Yeah, probably my circle's deep rooted familiarity with William Gibson and gaming makes Netrunner a little easier to digest. I often take that sort of thing for granted.
X-Wing though, you really should think of it as a wargame designed to attract more casual gamers. Warhammer games don't necessarily take longer than the setup. You can spend ages agonizing over an army list, setting up terrain, placing your force on the battlefield only to be decimated in the first turn (back in 2nd edition it was possible to lose during deployment), so the issues you are having are baby step into the frustrations endemic to the wargame market.
Hmm, I certainly did not want
Hmm, I certainly did not want to start a heated discussion about some games, though discussion usually is good. To add to the topic at hand, I agree with radioactivemouse, KISS is a design concept that should be the backbone of everything that is made for a non-specialized user.
As for board games, I myself have a mantra concerning every single mechanic: does it add to the fun, immersion and replayability of the game? Could I achieve this by some other, simpler means?
That is also true for programmes I write.
Don't get me wrong, Soulfinger
I think X-Wing has done amazing things for the extremely niche miniatures market. The Attack Wing mechanic is really infecting the market with Star Trek (boo on those paint jobs) and D&D. They merge the casual gamer with the fully immersive miniatures gamer, which isn't easy to do. The things I talk about are certainly small gripes about the game, but something that has to be said.
Still, I love these "heated discussions", though I think it's not more than "warm" talk haha. I don't get a chance to talk about game theory with peers and you guys are certainly awesome people!
I have to share...
So, for those of you who know and have played war games, they tend to be complex entities. I return to my story about the Developer's friend who took nearly 13 hours to set-up and play the first scenario. Suffice it to say, I bit nearly through my tongue. In reality, it should take 15 min to set-up and an hour to play...
Cheers,
Joe