Games every game designer should play?

You probably have to play Settlers & Puerto Rico. Even if they didn't have interesting elements, I think they're a big foundational base for talking with other people.

I think Risk should be there as the canonical bucket-of-dice, pushing dudes around strategy wargame. Although somewhat similar to Risk in that sense, Diplomacy is probably another good one, for the hidden-orders mechanic. However, I'd say Game of Thrones is a better bet as it incorporates a number of interesting elements: asymmetric abilities (cards & starting situations), hidden/simultaneous orders, and a significant bidding system which has a big effect on your plans before and after bidding comes up.

Twilight Imperium, as a representative of just how many bits you can put in a game when you're Fantasy Flight & completely unafraid of putting an $80US price tag on a game? (it's a good game that I like a lot, but $80? wow.)

I'd consider WizWar as a canonical version of screw-your-buddy dungeon crawl games like Drakon, etc.

Maybe Lunch Money as a representative of brawling card games?

Candyland, because it's awesome?

I would rather make a list of game groups which help you learn a game concept. Just knowing that these types exist can indirectly help you in making a game. Here is my incomplete list :

One of these steve jackson's games : Munchkin, chez geek, ninja burger, illuminati. The idea behind these games is that you win according to what you currently have and your position.

Settlers : This is good for the theme and the social relations. Nerver played Puerto Rico but I am sure it is a game to play.

General War games : Risk, Axis and allies, diplomacy. Even if they are different games, they involve a high level strategy with low complexity game.

Dungeon Crawlers : Hero Quest and many other. This is good to show the middle point between rpg and board games.

CCG with direct player confrontation : Magic, Duel master, Raw deal. This allows you to learn the basic concept of CCG and deck construction.

Money Making : Monopoly, Condomania, etc. This is the classic type where you have holdings that can give you money to make you win the game.

Quiz game : Trivial Pursuit, Kids quiz. Learn the concept behind quiz games.

Tile racing games : Toc, Sorry, Parchesy. This is another type of simple minded game which can have many variations.

Regular card game add-on: Jack-Rummy, Rumoli. These are add-on games which use regular cards. Show how you can use standard card to make another game

Tile games : Rummy, Mah-Jong. The basic ideas of making different set and runs of numbers.

Board with pieces : Chess, Checkers. A game where you see everything and where there is no randomness.

Sure, you cannot know everything, but it is always good to get in touch with each kind of games. There will also be new genre that you will have to get in touch with.

I don't think this is a stupid question, but there will be no single, easy answer. I do think that, if you want to become a good, well-rounded designer, you will need to have played a great variety of games. If the only exposure to games you have is Axis & Allies and Magic: the Gathering, then I doubt you will be able to design a huge variety of games, because, whenever you encounter a problem in your design, your "toolbox" for solving that problem will be fairly small.

That said, here's my list of games you should play one day, or at least study. Try to find out what appeals to people in these games. Try and find out it's pitfalls. The list of comments on the BoardGameGeek can be very useful to find out what it is that people like or dislike about certain games:

- One or more abstract games, be it Go, Chess, Checkers, Othello, Yinsh, Connect-Four, Pente, etc. Also, try to find out why Tic-Tac-Toe is considered a non-game, while Go is heralded as one of the deepest and most elegant abstract games in existence.

- One or more trading card games, or other customizable games. What problems do you encounter when balancing a customizable game? Study different formats, such as drafting, sealed deck, constructed, etc.

- Several German style games. Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, Carcassone, El Grande, Ra, Acquire are prime candidates. Try and find out what a "German" game actually encompasses.

- A role playing game. How does the fact that there isn't really a winning condition alter the game? Is a role playing game even a game, or is it an experience?

- Several traditional dice games. How can a game with just dice be fun?

- Several traditional card games. How can a game with just a standard deck of cards be fun?

- Several traditional board games of the roll-and-move variety. Monopoly, Pachisi, Hotel, etc.

- Several American style "dice fest" games. Axis & Allies, HeroQuest, etc.

- Several party games and/or quiz games, such as Taboo, Party & Co, Cranium, Trivial Pursuit.

- A deduction game, such as Clue or Sleuth.

And then there are many, many others. Play them and study them. Take from them what you like, and improve what you don't like.

warmachine
zombies!!!
when darkness comes
flux
doom the board game
memoir 44
magic the gathering

Hmmm... I've only played three of these (Fluxx, Memoir '44, and Magic), and there's only one (Memoir '44) I would ever voluntarily play again, so perhaps I should stop trying to design games.

Of course, personally I believe that exposure to the largest number of games possible is the best course, and that _which_ games is at best a secondary consideration. If you do want to get to that consideration, I might suggest:

Monopoly
Settlers of Catan
Bridge
Go
Chess
Dungeons & Dragons
Magic: The Gathering
Trivial Pursuit
Cranium
Munchkin
Tactics II

FWIW, I've never played Cranium or Tactics II. I actively dislike Go, Trivial Pursuit, and Munchkin, and have no need to play Monopoly, Chess, D&D, or Magic ever again, though I might (and probably will with the first two). Settlers & Bridge are among my very favorite games.

It might be a good idea for a new game designer to first figure out what kind(s) of game s/he wants to design, even if it's only in very rough categories such as educational, pure abstract, war, children's, party, dexterity, cards only, etc. Then within each one of those categories, there should be examples of several different games, some good and some, well, less good. The importance of having broad spectrum exposure would be to not only get an idea of the types of games out there, but also to be able to note features about each game that the designer especially likes or dislikes.

I'm probably more familiar with pure abstracts than any of the other categories, even though I like (and dislike) some games from all of them. So if a new designer is interested in designing a new pure abstract, I might suggest the following, both as sources of inspiration and analysis for strengths and weaknesses:

Amazons (linear movement, territorial, two-stage turns)
Chase (variable pieces, capture by replacement, rescuing lost pieces)
Emergo (placement, stacking, jumping)
Fanorona (point grid, capture by approach / withdrawal)
Gyges (traversal, piecewise linear movement, shared ownership)
Havannah (connection, piece placement, multiple win conditions)
Quandary (movement depends upon opponent's position)
Tafl (custodial capture, unequal forces)
Wari (sowing, counting, capture by count and position)
Yinsh (alternating ownership, alignment)

Clark

Well, I have to add that the apparent depth and strategic value of a game is in many ways reliant on how much it is played. To be honest, most games hold a level of play that dabblers will never experience. This is most evident, I think, with abstract games, since they have no cultural bias to overcome. Much as I love Arkham Horror, for example, in a thousand years, will it still be played? Not a chance. Almost any abstract can live that long, however, and of course the biggies have already done so.

Since so many players have to play dozens of different games to avoid becoming bored, the quality of game play in general suffers, and so the impact of most games is diminished. I don't think people would argue the point that people are, as a general rule, less inclined to dedicate themselves to a single game in order to master it.

So, in that respect, I think that designers may consider how much of a cultural crutch their game needs. Will people understand it in twenty years, or will it be too dated? It's worth considering that the there is a timeless quality to games as well. What game elements brign this out? What elements hinder it? Remember, the more play your game sees, even long after you've gone to the big discard pile in the sky, the deeper the play will naturally become. And then you'll look like a genius.

These are excellent topics for more discussion. There seems to be a fundamental difference between some of the big game companies and some of the smaller game companies. Both want to make money to stay in business. The big companies have more clout to throw around, and seem to be more interested in licensed properties than they are in new games. Unfortunately, this means their product line is going to be an endless string of TV and movie tie-in pot boilers with a shelf life measured in weeks. The smaller companies, who generally want to make new and different games rather than rehashing old material, are going for long- (or at least longer-) term products. Unfortunately, the new timeless kinds of games are lost to the (American) public, and therefore have little chance of becoming the timeless classics that they otherwise might.

I think some of the abstracts from the last 50 years (perhaps the GIPF series games, Chase, *Star, Twixt, Zendo, etc.) have "the stuff" to eventually become timeless classics. But so do, I think, some themed games, especially if their themes are not directly connected to something in pop culture. Examples might be Euphrat & Tigris, Settlers of Catan and Acquire. With this criteria, examples of games that probably do not have "the stuff" to become timeless classics might be Election USA, 18XX, War of the Ring and Dune.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I'm less coherent today than usual.

Clark