Game components for small/micro games that allow a lot of depth

This might sound strange. But I like to use lego for a mini game. (Yes... its a wargame)

Dice can be serve many purposes besides generating random numbers. They can be used in combination with tables to create various effects. A d20 can represent 20 different effects, and the table describing these effects can be written on one side of a single card!

Let's say you're using cards as tiles that represent a map. A die displaying the number 14 on one zone could be a force field protecting all adjacent zones. Turn it to the number 6 and it's a troll with 20HP and all the effects listed on your "Savage Troll" card.

Maybe the game has 3 dice per player. The yellow one records how much gold they have, the red one your commander's HP (or army morale like Dungeon Command - if it goes to 0 you lose), and the green one is their chosen magical ability (as described above, by using a table). You could even have 5 dice per player and it still would all fit in a little baggie.

You see where I'm going with this... a die can take the place of a lot of tokens and other components to do any number of things.

The Game Crafter also sells 3/4 inch "shards", which are circles, squares, or hexes made out of card stock instead of chipboard. So basically they're like tiny cards. I'm considering using these since they are stackable, like cards, as opposed to chipboard tokens, which aren't as easy to stack or manage in larger quantities.

Also, you can get or make your own stickers for dice, so you can have your dice show or represent things other than just numbers.

On the subject of what are "useful" components on a "lite" or small scale design. I think this is more an issue of design philosophy and less about a component choice. While there may be some components that are more versatile then others, that is a matter of design choice and ultimately only limited by creativity. As a designer you choose whether to have a red 6 sided die track hit points when you could choose to use a player card with with 6 heart icons and a wooden cube or paper clip to show the current value on the card or just use pen & paper. The issue of this choice comes after the need to track hit points.

The idea of adding depth to a game I think is separate from the issue of what components provide the most versatile options for the ways they are used. (just a thought)

Take your assumption about square tokens only having two values like a coin. There are four edges per side... so with numbers or symbols on the edges there are 8 select-able values. and while it can get very busy and harder to keep track of there are also 8 pointed corners that can bring it up to 16. This brings into the mix the concept of "ease of use", so in the end just because something can be done does not make it the right choice (see below "*" comment).

This is the same thing with cards, there are edges and orientations that are not commonly used. also, how components are combined can add depth that they don't have alone. How components are arranged, stacked, touch, and their alignment to each other add many possibilities. but what is the purpose of any component in the game?

I think that while searching for great versatile components is a great idea. It might be a smoother design process to have a mechanic or gameplay idea/method in mind first and then search for ways to do that "thing" with less physical items. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Because of this I would say you should design for the depth and the gameplay that you are looking for and then once it is playable find creative ways to reduce that to the smallest form you can.

So being able to ask the question "how do I do X with less components or smaller components?" might be what brings you to the place where you can design a new component or set of components for the job at hand.

What I am trying to say is. The way you think about things makes all the difference when it comes to design. You are taking on a very tough design limitation or self-imposed constraint. That being; to limit the size and amount of the game components from the start, before you even have a game in mind.

* I submit to you that you do not need components of any sort to make a game and still have endless depth. It is just really hard :)

Back on the true subject of your post. Here is a short list of some versatile component/mechanics ideas that I like and are small or useful in consolidating things to one place.

1. The Rondel (player action selection limitation)
2. The Player Aid or Player Board (single point to track everything the player would otherwise have to remember, needs tokens/beads/cubes).
3. Small bag (for hiding/randomizing components. Also could be used to store and transport the whole game if all components fit.

This is all meant as a helpful ramble to maybe get you to think about the issue another way and not intended to offend you or anyone else in anyway :)

-Eamon

That makes more sense to me, and I was not saying that you are doing things the "wrong" way. Yours is a valid approach to game design for sure. If anything I was trying to encourage thinking in reverse order of the way you had been, as a way to shake loose new ideas that might lead you to new answers for your original restrictions.

The other half of what I was trying to say is that truly any component can have many uses, even things that you might at first think have only one.

It is hard for me with the way I think to use your approach but now that I have thought about it more. I think what you are looking for is what I use to come up with new ideas. For me is is a blank piece of graph paper. it is my version of a playground of new ideas.

So what you are looking for is a "box" of small multipurpose components to use as a brainstorming playground.

Moving forward with that understanding try adding the following items to your box.

1. Blank wooden cubes HERE

The cubes will serve as prototype dice that are cheep and easy to throw away without feeling bad. Just use a sharpie or other marker to make them "custom". Keep in mind that they will not roll 100% statistically accurate but most dice in games have this sort of flaw. [EDIT: I wrote this before going back over your posts and seeing that you had already thought about them... so treat this like a vote yes as a great prototyping tool]

2. A deck of multi colored 3x5 cards HERE

I find that cutting these in half is a quick dirty way of getting small decks of cards that are different colors. Also lined note cards provide space for notes on game rules recorded on the fly during prototyping and play testing.

3. Hex pencils HERE

These can be rolled like dice if you "carve" or paint the values on the sides. Together with a any scrap of paper (and rules) you have a roll playing game. (just a thought)

4. Pocket change (coins) HERE

There are a number of games that use normal money coins as components and they have any number of uses in games... from flipping to having two sides (or a change in status) and being different values/sizes.

I will try to think of more components but with cards and dice you cover about 50%-70% of the games in the world. I am sure that you have already searched google for hours about this subject but you might also find these sites interesting:

The Rise of the Microgame
Games with few components

-Eamon