What are the elements of a party game. What makes it tick.

This might be a point about which I'd be concerned. I've also thought that at some point it would be fun to try to cook up a party game, but the question I always come back to is, "yeah, but could I get people to actually want to play it?" Party games should be the absolute easiest to rope people into playing, because they promise minimal effort and maximal fun. But they're also probably challenging to design because the "fun factor" is so much more important than in a strategy game. If you suspect getting playtesters would be a "nightmare", it probably doesn't bode well for the viability of the idea.

On the other hand, you're assuming people wouldn't want to test the game, but you might be wrong; why not just ask some friends whether it sounds like something they'd be interested in? You might be surprised...

Good luck!

-Jeff

The suggestions/characterizations provided here thus far on party games have been excellent in my opinion. I've found all of these elements/ideas to be true in one sense or another.

My interest and game development energy goes into party games, so I figure I'll throw my two cents in here. And interestingly enough, our second game - which will be completed next week - is in fact a variation of charades. It's called Stumblebum. We're doing an initial small run of 500 games, of which about 150 have already been sold direct to end users. And if everything goes right, I'll have sold about 300 if not more by the time the 500 is actually ready for delivery next week. As an aside, I also happened to meet Dominic Crapuchettes of Cluzzle at last year's Toy Fair in NY. In fact we swapped games - one of my Coopetition for one of his Cluzzle.

I'm interested in party games for several reasons, one of which as Dominic suggested, is that I believe party games to be more lucrative. Lucrative because they perhaps have more mass appeal, or maybe lucrative because some party games may not involve elaborate design or manufacturing considerations that cost more money. I'm sure the term "mass appeal" conjures up negative ideas for some, but for me it's about simple economics and seeing a lot of people have fun.

Party games are appealing for many of the reasons already described. Another, and perhaps someone mentioned this and I simply missed it, is familiarity. Stumblebum works on a certain level because people already know how to play. Familiarity is the corrollary to EASY as described by IngredientX.

Social Interaction and the nature of the interaction is what also sets party games apart. Party games are often "Active" in a physical or vocal sense. They might not involve a lot of strategic thought at times, but they sure can create a rucous. Also important is the Psychological commitment needed to play the game. How much effort does it take to learn? How long does it take to play? How much intellectual, strategic, or other kinds of "deep" thought are needed to play? And can I walk away in the middle of the game if need be without feeling as though I've abandoned something important?

We've published two games now. (The second, this charades game I mentioned, technically won't be finished until next week I guess.) Coopetition and Stumblebum are both party games. Yet each has its own characteristics that were interesting to watch during testing. For instance, Coopetition includes among other things, some trivia. This added an "intellectual" element to the game that on a certain level made it less appealing to some that either weren't or didn't consider themselves "smart." For some, trivia can be intimidating even if you know a lot of stuff. Coopetition also takes on average just under an hour to play. For a party game this is fairly standard, although the game could last longer - even much longer - depending on the number of people, etc. After a certain point, the longer the game lasts, the less appealing it becomes. The game fortunately takes only about five minutes to understand and begin playing (this is because I intentionally incorporated lots of familiar elements), yet there's a certain level of psychological and time commitment needed from the average party goer. Parties are about being social and active. Party Games must thus also fit this schema. This also means you need the option of doing something different. You either need some variety in the game, or you need to be able to finish the game in a reasonable amount of time so you can go do something else.

The new charades game, Stumblebum, in contrast takes about 2 minutes to learn, and 20 to 30 minutes to play. It's been a crowd pleaser throughout testing and has worked well on a variety of different leverls - easy to understand, quick play time, lower price point, etc.

I obviously know nothing about the charades game "Mime Hunter" originally mentioned by mikeb that started this thread, but I have a couple thoughts that may or may not be on the mark:

1) the name "Mime Hunter" itself suggests to me that the players might be trying to figure something out, as if there might be a strategic element to the game. This could potentially work. I like to think I successfully introduced an element of strategy into the game Coopetition, but generally speaking "strategy" and "party game" aren't usually closely associated with one another for a variety of reasons. If you're keeping score, "strategy" increases psychological commitment, which if elevated too high can kill your party game.

2) your simple use of the term "rule set" to describe the directions suggests either that the rules themselves are too elaborate, or you're simply using terminology you've developed while creating other types of non-party games. Either way, you might find when you've completed your "party game" that you don't in fact have a party game. This may be semantics, but most party game players would never use a term like "rule set". You either have "rules", or "directions", but not "rule sets." (I happen to be 3/4 Swedish. We don't each casseroles, we eat "hot dish")

Chip

Fun addictive and simple rules.
Also Good artwork.
That is the basic equation of a best selling party game.

Not that this inherently makes it "good" artwork, but the Cranium artwork is actually created by a fairly prominent artist by the name of Gary Baseman. You can see his work at www.garybaseman.com.

Chip

Yes, truly that's a matter of opinion (but there's a whole lot of "professional" art I consider terrible - after all, Carrot Top is a "professional" comedian!), but the real thrust of my post was that I don't know of any party game where art is of the slightest concern, and Cranium's the only one I can think of that even has artwork at all. I'm wondering if geezer is thinking of a very different group of games than I am as party games, or maybe I'm missing a whole big section of the party game world. I'm thinking of Pictionary, Taboo, Outburst, Apples To Apples, and all their friends. Artwork doesn't seem to be any consideration in those at all!

I think the keys to a party game are: grotesquely simple rules, goals that do not require real skill to achieve (I think Trivial Pursuit is not much of a party game - it's mostly a quiet, reserved endeavor and there's too much real competitiveness and difficulty to it), forcing players to interact in embarrassing/silly ways, an emphasis on creativity is good but not required, and a de-emphasis on scoring. I know whenever one team gets near the end in Cranium or Pictionary, I feel disappointed knowing it's going to end, as opposed to "yay I'm winning" or "boo, I'm losing".

I only read the most recents posts, but I'd add that a lack of "downtime" is a key factor if I'm going to be interested in the party game at all. Which is why I don't like playing Taboo -- anyone who's not on the guessing team and not the buzzer has nothing to do until their turn comes around. Same thing with Pictionary and Cranium whenever there isn't an "All Play" event. I call all of these party games, but I think they could be more active. Almost every trivia game I've played has had downtime but none of them really need it, in my opinion. Come to think of it, it's very common for a party game to make you wait for someone else's turn. Yet most of them don't need turns at all. Every card in Cranium could be an "all play", for example. The team that wins 10 cards first wins the game. Simple. No dice or rolling, unless you want to determine the color of question randomly. Or say the first team that wins 2 cards of each color wins. That way that have to spread out their topics. There are lots of things topic-card-type games could do to make the gameplay simpler and more interactive, I think.

Apples to Apples is a great counter-example -- almost no down time, except for the 3 seconds it takes for the judge to decide which apple he likes. You can finish a game in under 20 minutes and usually will have enough steam to want to play again right away.