Play preferences

Hi Ben,

Overall, I tend to prefer simple designs that offer complex play. Especially now that I'm married and have young kids, I like games that take less than 10 minutes to set up but still make you think hard when you play.

When I design, I strive for that as much as possible. I usually fail miserably on the initial design pass. I like to blame that on my background in computer games, where we usually create complex simulations first and add "gameplay" second (which is a very crappy way to make good games, I might add!).

My redesign process usually involves a lot of asking, "What systems can I cut or combine?" Now that I have a few completed tabletop designs under my belt, it's getting easier to start simple and layer on complexity if necessary.

Games I'm playing
Settlers of Cataan card game (moderate rules/moderate play)
Hera and Zeus (moderate/moderate)
Knights (simple/moderate)
Lost Cities (simple/moderate)
Settlers of Cataan boardgame and expansions (variable/variable)

Games I'm designing
Dead Aim co-op 'kill the zombies' card game (simple/moderate)
Big Rig pick-up-and-deliver (moderate/moderate)
Alien Abduction alien-themed set-matching (moderate/moderate)
Bloc War occupy-the-power-points tile laying game (simple/moderate)
Wuxia Master collect-your-deck-then-duel-other-players martial arts board/card game (moderate/moderate)

K.

I like to play games with simple rules, and clear strategic goals and a playing time of under 90 minutes. This is also what I try to aim for in my own designs.

When I just started designing games I thought that "luck or randomness = bad", which is a mantra a lot of hardcore gamers believe in. I now don't believe in it anymore, though. Actually, luck can often be a really good thing, because it adds excitement to a game. For example, the original design of my game "Gheos" had very little luck in it, but gradually I've been adding "lucky" elements to make the game more exciting.

I don't like complex, tactical games where you have to do a lot of calculation, and where it's easy to make a mistake if you somehow miss some little detail. Magic is one of those games. I used to play it a lot, but now I find it too demanding.

It's true that simple, clean designs aren't always easy to design. "Web of Power" is one of the cleanest designs ever, but I bet that it took Michael Schacht a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get the design into that state.

When I design a game I tend to start with a few basic elements, and then I keep on adding stuff until there are enough elements to actually make an interesting game. Then I start streamlining and pull out the stuff that doesn't really contribute much to the game, until I have the bare basics left.

It's funny you should mention paper, rock, scissors. My first attempt at game design was a trick-taking game that used paper, rock, and scissors as the three suits, but also had number ranks. The game worked OK, but I think it was still too simplistic, and I lost interest in further developing it and moved on to other projects. It was definitely lacking in the replay value.

After reading your comments, maybe I should revisit this design and see if I can improve upon it.

Thanks,
Mark

I know what you mean Stynx. I am more into the heavily detailed wargames, and don't care how long they take - as long as I have willing opponents to play against, which is usually the drawback.

For me, as time is always limited, and because it takes a bit of organising to get people together for a game, I am always keen on playing a hefty game, to make the effort worthwhile.

At the moment I am able to get a game every week/week and a half, and so I would much rather be able to play a 3-4 hour 'big' game, rather than a quick session of settlers, or an abstarct game.

If I could play every day, then lots of short games would be cool, but if I am going to organise a session, it should be a good hearty one.

So I would say don't cut your 'all nghter' down if it doesn't have to. If it is full of extraneous mechanics, then do so by all means. If there is a lot of downtime and it is a lnog game, then cut down the downtime. Otherwise I say let it breathe. If you want a long detailed in depth game, then make it. I think the main thing is to have what tiype of game you want to make in mind from the outset. If you want to make a big game, then do it. Don't pike out because it seems to long - if it becomes unweildy or boring, then change the mechanics, but don't lose your vision.

As for me, I am into the secnod draft rules for my 'big game' which has already seen a lot of extraneous things cut out (which may re-enter in an expansion/optinal rules...) for both gameplay and speed issues, but I still want to make it a 'big game' that feels meaty.

At the same time I am working on a quick easy game which can fill in the gaps for when my big game is not suitable, and provides a good counterpoint for my other game.

In general I think gamers are opting for quick (30mins-1 1/2 hour) games that are smooth, easy to set up and easy to teach. People's time is limited. I always tend to feel a bit cheated or left wanting with short qucik games, unless they are really rewarding. If I am going to spend my precious time playing a game I want it to be memorable!

Simple and complex game are both good and bad. It all depends on the target audience and where you intend to play. Long games that takes 3 to 5 hours to play can also be fun, but if your game last more than 5 hours then consider make it a multi-session game or make simplifications.

By the way, I don't consider Mah-Jong to be a simple game. In fact, I think it is the oldest complex game. There is now 22 set of different rules with many dozens of waitings and hands to remember.

It's really about how much blood sweat and tears you want to invest: in play or design.

I mostly love simple games. Squad Leader was just too much for me to learn.

If a game plays well and rules are learned under 10-15 minutes, i think it's a winner. It's even better if rules can be learned on the go, as the 1st play session is taking place.

On the design side, complex is like a trap: you keep adding on and on and on until it becomes an incredible mess and exceptions fall from the sky.

I focus on keeping things simple.

I'm still learning, i'm working on my 1st real Design. Version 1.0 had 40 pages of rules and was broken from the start. Version 2.0 has already 14 pages, it has been simplified from 1.0, but it will be even more simplified.

Simplicity is pure beauty. Meshed with an enticing theme, you get to fly with the rules, as they flesh out the game world. There, you are more free to play and interact with people.

I still love the mental training of a good complex game but in design, i aim for elegant mechanics: they seem to "sing" to me, calling me in like mermaids.

Respect your "feel", if it's something you dearly love, and it brings beauty and excitment to the table, it's a keeper!

cheers!

Ben

Hi!

IMHO, there's fans for complex games and fans for simple games.
But as a rule, please makes the rules as simple as possible.
I realize how had it is to write a good (and short and compact and easy to learn) rulebook. It takes alot of time preparing the complete rulebook, and sometimes by writing it, I realize something in the gameplay should be changed.

Then, one of the important factor is that most gamers usually judge a game by their first play. So if in their fist play they feel there's something inside, they will play again. If not, they will not play again. That's what I see in my gaming group. Some games I think is good but when we played it, somehow (maybe the way I teach them, or the first impression of that game) everyone don't want to play that game again soon.
So, fist impression is important, and with a complex rules it is hader to teach my gaming groups (usually they start to yawn when I teach them the rules anxiously), and the game easily can lost it's fist impression.
If the game is complex, make it as simple as possible, or make a beginner game and advance game or something.
(in some games, I can explain the rules as the game goes by. This is good too).

That's my 2 cents.