Variety in Games

I've probably played more games of chess in my life than any other game. I don't play it much these days for several reasons, but few of them have anything to do with "variety." To play chess well requires study and intense concentration, and I no longer feel like working that hard when I play. (I've gotten lazy in my old age!) Also I enjoy games that are a bit more social, and that allow for more than two players.

Larienna seems to be using the word "variety" to mean two things: "varied starting setups and random influences within a game", and "novelty which keeps people from getting bored". (Larienna, please correct me if I've misinterpreted you!) But I don't think these two things are closely related.

Certainly there is something to be said for novelty, but I get that from playing different games, not from playing Catan over and over again. I don't feel that Catan offers more novelty than chess; Catan is a much shallower game and the only surprises come from the dice and the shuffled cards and tiles. Interesting variety does not come from randomness; it comes from creative moves made by your opponents. El Grande (to choose a favorite of mine) is a much more interesting game than Catan. It does have randomness but its deep interest arises from the incredibly creative moves that the players can find in the opportunities that the game presents.

I want to design games that have the kind of replay value that both chess and El Grande have: lots of opportunities that offer significant choices and the chance to surprise an opponent with a brilliant move. Some games like that have "variety" in the setup-and-randomness sense; others, like chess and go, do not. I think that kind of variety is just another tool to use in game design. It's not a good or bad thing in itself.

Actually I don’t get this...

No, this is simply a random game.

If you want to make a definition, then you can not treat games differently because of how much you like the game. There are similarities between Poker, Bridge and Settlers. All 3 have a random setup, and after the setup there is a static game where you try to outsmart your opponents. It does not matter if a game of poker takes about 2 minutes, Bridge takes 7 minutes and Settlers around 1 hour.
Actually Settlers are after the random setup, a more random game then both Poker and Bridge.
So random setup can not be your definition on variety!

In this case you set that variety is equal with different setup and randomness in the game. Everything depends on the players.
Now a game of Diplomacy has even less variety then chess or... You have a fix setup and when you get the new units you can only chose from 2 different (in chess there are 4 different upgrades for a pawn).
The classical game Go have an even lower level of variety since you have a fixed setup (none on the game-board (if you don’t have handicap)), and you have only one type of playing pieces. But... each turn you have so many variants to place your stone.
Even so, in Chess, Diplomacy and Go, you have more options per turn then in Settlers. Number of options can not be your definition on variety!

I don’t get this sentence at all... If we disregards from the not random setup, Monopoly would be a game with a variety because the players can not calculate and analyze there moves. I have not seen any book in how to win in Monopoly (or opening dice rolls in Monopoly).
A game where you cut out the road where the playing pieces moves during game of Monopoly, and then you randomly make a new path, you get a random setup that you still can't analyze and calculate. Perfect match!!!

For example, chess only have 1 scenario :

- the pieces are placed at the same location
- the army composition is the same
- the objectives of the game are the same ( capture the king )
- the terrain is always the same (8x8 board)

To create variety in chess, you could for example :

- Make a different army setup
- change the shape of the board ( triangle, hexagon, etc)
- change the goal : capture the king and queen, or move one of your pieces in a specific region of the board.
- new rules: pawn can now move in any direction.

There are hundreds of variants of chess (I don’t remember the homepage right now where you can find a huge collection of them). I have played more then a dozen variants that are interesting.

A game that are build on scenarios can also be a static game but and the replayability can be low after a scenario is done.

- Player decision : For example, the player customize an army has he wishes. Or players agree each other to play on a triangular board instead of square one.

- Game decision : A scenario clearly indicate what are the troops of each player and what is the terrain configuration. It also indicated the objectives of the game for each player.

- Random decision : for example, A scenario goal is determined randomly . Or some event, like weather, influence the rest of the game. The map is generated randomly (ex: settlers of catan).

The target elements that can be affected by variety can be the following(there might be other ones too):

- Game setup : Unit and map setup at the beginning of the game.
- Goals : Objectives are different. Or now takes more or less time.
- Rules : Some rules are removed or added for this game only.

This is the part I can agree with you about. With variety you mean that there are build in variants of the game (by random, by player decision or by scenarios). The variants can be created in different ways (as stated above). That was the actual question.
What I did not like in your argument was that you took a concept, included some games that you liked and dismissed other games on the same grounds.

// Johan