Too Many Game Components???

To answer both your questions, I think the only criteria is if the number of components are "justified". This is very ambiguous... but think if you're getting enough "bang for your buck" in terms of components. If a similar type of games gives a similar experience with less components, it is more likely to get published.
Games with tons of components can be great - if the experience justifies them. Likewise, there is an "elegance" to a game with extremely simple gameplay, but only a few components (like card games, for example).

So I guess I didn't answer any questions at all :)

small paper track with a single marker and four spaces
6-sided die with 2 blanked faces
2 2-sided markers (binary!)
a small Twister like spinner with only 4 spots
human memory

What type of components exists (or can you think of ) that will handle 4 different states? (states such as a 4sided die, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4)

I am looking for a low cost solution...

I'm having a similar problem with Snow Day. I need to be able to display several different pieces of information for each character/unit. I think I may try a Mageknight type device with concentric cardboard circles connected via a brass fastener ... I am also probably going to use a trifold paper miniature that will also be attached to the concentric base via the same brass fastener. I don't think I will have more than 3 pieces of information per unit to track so this might actually work for me. I know what I'm presenting is probably too specific to a miniatures game but It might get your creatives juices flowing.

-Darke

In general, you want to keep the number of components as low as possible. Less components usually means a cheaper manufacturing cost, which means it will be easier to sell the game. Also, having a low number of different components means the game will be less fiddly.

I agree with the statement that longer, more involved games can get away with having a lot of components than a quick and light game. Setup time and sorting out all the bits also play a role.

As the designer of the game you have to think about whether you want the number of components to have an impact on the game or not. For example, the villages in Settlers are a hard limit. You cannot build more villages than you have. However, the amount of components is not always a hard limit. For example, you can still build palaces in "Taj Mahal" or pyramids in "Amun-Re" even when the supply of them has run out. In that case, players use coins or matchsticks or whatever, to keep track of "extra" palaces/pyramids.

If you impose a hard limit on the number of components, then it means you have to test that limit a lot. Give special attention to how the limit behaves with different numbers of players. Perhaps you want to tweak the limit based on the number of players (example: Puerto Rico). Setting a hard limit on the number of components can be a great way of introducing interaction into the game.

If you don't want the number of components to matter in the game, you should make sure that players never run out of that item. This might be something that you can prove in theory or something you simply have to try out in practice.

Example: a game lasts nine rounds, and players may only build one palace each turn. However, there are 5 special cards in the game that allow a player to build an extra palace in a turn. These cards do not get reshuffled or re-used. This means that 14 palaces per player will always be enough, even in a worst-case scenario of one player building a palace every turn and playing all 5 special cards (how unlikely that may be).

Sometimes it is so unlikely that a player will reach the theoretical maximum that you can go with a lower limit. Use your common sense here. You should set the maximum so that it is unlikely that the supply runs out. In this case you should state in the rules what happens if the supply runs out (eg. use a die or stones or a piece of paper to keep track of these extra components).

I'm not very fond of keeping track of things on paper, except perhaps for calculating scores at the end of the game. Keeping track of things on paper is fiddly and makes it harder for players to see in one glance how everybody is doing. And yes, it also lowers the perceived value of the game.

- René Wiersma

I think it's generally good to have only the components you absolutely need for the game. Remember, every $1 you add to your component costs will translate to $4-5 you need to add at retail to avoid losing money on it. I also think that forcing yourself to cut down on components can tighten your game -- i.e. cause you to put all of your efforts into what makes the game great.

Try asking your playtesters. Give them a bunch of options or just have a brainstorming session with them. I got a lot of product improvement ideas for Succession and Space Station Assault from our playtest groups, both for game play and for component design/type/number.

If you think the game plays well now, then dive into playtesting. It seems to me that most people err on the side of playtesting too late. Complex games are very hard to debug on your own -- put it out there! :)

I don't think Settlers has too many components, and from a complexity standpoint you're probably on the right track. Where I'd worry it may come back to get you is in product cost, since presumably you'll be doing a much smaller print run than Settlers and yet will still need to come in at under $40 per unit.

Good luck!

Best,
Chad

I remember games that had scoring used to say "keep track of X on some scrap paper", and now it seems every game has tokens or a scoring track that do the same thing.

Does this fall into "perceived value"?

We came up on this exact question when publishing Succession. The game was fairly expensive to produce, with one main board and five player boards (plus a deck of cards and chips), and we struggled with the question of whether to include pencils and a pad for writing down votes.

We wanted to leave them out, both because of the expense (since anything you add to your COGS gets multiplied by 4x or 5x by the time it turns into MSRP) and because the rest of the components were really nice and we felt the pad and pencils might even detract.

In the end we felt that it was too important for the game to be playable out of the box.

OTOH, Space Station Assault needs dice or coins to mark damage done to ships. In that case we wanted to keep the price point at $14.95 and felt that our audience would have plenty of dice on hand and prefer that we ask them to provide their own rather than pack a bunch of extra ones in.

So basically I think it depends on the game. But for board games in general I think you need a VERY good reason before you make them unplayable out of the box.

Best,
Chad