Special features, like adding abilities, worth it?

This is a very interesting topic that causes all sorts of flashpoints.

The rule seems to be that adding complexity for the sake of coolness is a bad idea. Except when it isn't. Was that any help? :-)

Ultimately, it depends what you want from the game. All games produce unique situations - otherwise they'd be pretty dull. But there's a difference between a game in which the uniqueness is generated as a result of, say, the order in which buildings are chosen in Puerto Rico, and fighting off hordes of things in Doom or Descent. Both of these add elements of complexity to a game, but in general they will be appreciated by different types of gamers.

My favourite current examples are the changes Alan Moon made to Ticket to Ride to make the Europe version*. These all add complexity to the game, but they don't create extreme unique situations that may only occur once during all your plays. Instead, they change the way you approach the game, making certain tactical choices better or worse than they were in the original without changing the underlying game system.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that adding complexity to a design is generally fine, unless it requires you to add a whole bunch of "special cases" to the ruleset that are only going to arise in rare circumstances. Far better to have additions that force strategies to take account of them because they are likely, but not certain, to arise.

(*actually, I still wonder if the Europe changes were actually a part of the original design and were stripped out as "unnecessary complexity"... A bit like the way the Seafarers stuff was stripped out of Settlers to make the basic game.)

Perfect, and exactly what I would have stressed as a response. This is vital. Your ruleset should be streamlined and all-encompassing. Certain game types (such as multiple-session wargames and RPGs, among others) can break this rule and have page after page of special-case scenarios, but these are special genres where this type of rules-micromanagement is generally adored by and expected by the players.

If you want to add flavour complexity to a boardgame (as opposed to strategic complexity, which comes from the interaction of game elements and can be complex even when the game elements are simple - chess, anyone? - then I would suggest using tables, cards, or some other out-of-the-rulebook element to communicate it to the player. This way, special features can be covered easily in the rulebook. Like this, for example: "To activate a special ability, play it's card face-up in front of you and follow the instructions on the card. You may only activate one special ability per turn." ...something like that.

1. You get to communicate everything you need.
2. The specific conditions created by the special abilities only come up if and when it gets played.
3. There is a handy instant rule reference which describes the new conditions created (the card itself, instead of flipping through the rulebook looking for details.)
4. It has (if you've designed the game carefully) zero impact on the "basic" ruleset.

There is obviously a bit more to making this work properly, and to making it feel like the "special abilities" deck is not just tacked onto the game but is integral to the gameplay. That's your job as the designer.

Players will eventually WANT to know what is on all of the cards in order to play the game well, but they don't NEED to know it in order to play the game in the first place. Sure, maybe the tiger-stance-rushing-claw attack does 3 extra damage points and causes the attacked player to miss his next attack, but that doesn't need to be in the rulebook. Put it on the cards, streamline the ruleset, simplify and complexify all at the same time.

~Josh

"complexify"?

I agree with the comments about creating a core set of mechanics that flow easily and are the guts of the game, and keeping the information regarding special abilities etc, where they are relevant.

OL's comments about having special ability info referred to on cards is spot on.

I have been working on all this kinda stuff for the main game I am working on. There are not really any explanations or details about any of the 'Abilities' in my ruleset, only the mechanics and 'how to play the game' (though the rules are *achem* still rather long...). All the informatin about the Abilities, where and when they are used, and what they do, is held elsewhere - currently on reference charts, maybe later on cards...

But, that doens't mean that Abilities are 'tacked on' in any way. In fact the growth and development of the various abilities players can gain is crucial to the game play and the strategies and tactics these Abilities lend themselves to should be what keeps players playing, and how players should develop their gameplay.

Also, there is always a lot of give and take, for you cannot really develop your Special Abilities etc, until you really understand how the game plays, or at least you (or at least I have...) have to keep 'refreshing' the Abilities to reflect changes to other parts of the game. But keeping th ecore mechanics 'simple' or unchanging, means you can play a lot more with how Abilities can affect the game.

And yes, then the other thing is balancing, and how to make sure Abilities are not abused when combined etc, thats a tricky one...

Managing special abilities in a video game is easier because there is a computer behind the game that make all the computation and it does not forget anything.

If you make special abilities that influence battle, there might be a situation where you forget some abilities. For example, your unit was more resistant against archers, but you forgot that +2 bonus on your def. vs archer. So a problem with special abilitities is that if you have to make many verifications for each battle to apply all the special abilities, it will slow down the game and increase the errors.

But there are some kind of specialities that you are less likely to forget. For example, you will not really forget that your gargoyles can fly. Or that your lizard men can swim. In my war game, I somewhat new that all the fighter could intercept ennemy aircraft. In that case, the special abilities are more convenient.

If it is something that it can use, like instead of attacking ... do the special ability, you can still forget your ability but it won't create any rule errors. You just simply never took advantage of your special ability. Again, this kind of ability is more conventient (ex: does my priest fight or use the ability "heal" on an adjacent unit )