How do you define that a game has depth?

Larienna,

For me, does the board or area look fundamentally different from its starting state. Can you track evolution over time. I'll use my own game and that of another 4X game, Twilight Imperium 3 (TI3), as examples.

In TAU CETI, not only does each player have greater wealth and energy reserves, but they've built Orbitals, resolved Crises, improved their Command Ships, and have increased their crew size to handle myriad issues across the systems.

In TI3, the player has expanded his area of control by seizing other planets, increasing the size of his fleets, and pursuing tech tree advancements.

In short, an hour into TAU CETI or 2-3 hours into TI3, the state of play is visibly different. Additionally, the decisions, as stated earlier, have changed from mere tactical decisions ("What do I do on this immediate turn?) to a much greater strategic line of questioning ("How will this assist me a few turns from now?")

Cheers,
Joe

larienna,

Interesting point...I'm a 40+ year Chess player and while I couldn't describe to you about one of Spassky's opening moves or the Berlin-Zweiger counter attack (this actually doesn't exist), playing the game hundreds of times simply informs decisions you make during subsequent games. In some board games, this is done through the memorization of cards...most notably a game I love and a game I'll never play again.

The game I love is Twilight Struggle. Yes, if you're a newbie, you are going to have your posterior handed to you...it's inevitable. Why? Because the seasoned individual simply knows the deck of cards better than you and he knows not to put all of the Influence in an area which can be stripped away by the playing of a card...you simply don;t know that. It's hidden information in the beginning, later it's good card play.

On the other side of the fence is Through the ages...first, it's fiddly as all get-out, and this is coming from a person who absolutely adores Arkham Horror. But moreover, every card is seen, so those who have played the game more often have an advantage in waiting until the right combination of cards are presented for "purchase" despite whatever clever things you've done tactically-cum-strategically on your tableau.

To your point about strategic versus tactical...in these cases, you can plan strategically because you have information completely foreign to the newbie and unless you're willing to invest the time and energy to get better, you'll remain a newbie.

Cheers,
Joe

What defines "depth"?

Is it the amount of decision making during your turn or during the game as a whole? Does a game with a lot of bookkeeping make the game have less or no depth in it?

Also, at some point, you're going to have to pinpoint at which time a game "without depth" becomes a game "with depth".

Then there's the issue of time. Certainly a game can have a lot of depth if it's longer than 30 mnutes, but what about the players? Is the player a novice or an expert at the game? If the players are highly familiar with a game, they can run through a game faster (say, under 30 minutes)...so does doing that automatically render the game "no depth"?

I know you said "less likely", but what does that even mean? Some people have only played games like Sorry, The Game Of Life, and Candyland...these games can run well over 30 minutes, but (at least in my opinion) they certainly have less depth than, say, chess which can be played in under 30 minutes with the right players.

There's too many factors in determining "depth".

But how do I define "level of depth"? To, me I define level of depth by individual game. A game like Love Letter has more depth than a CandyLand, but has less cards, plays in less time, and has less components. If I were to set generalizations, I'd always find exceptions.

I think there are more things involved than just decisions such as immersion of theme, interaction of players (if there are more than one), and level of complexity involved, however I do teach my students that "fun" derives from "cool decisions".

I guess my whole issue is that the term "depth" has different meanings to different people, so trying to define it may be a bit harder than it initially appears.

I'd stick to more general terms instead of time restrictions and logistic limitations.

I have found over the years that by playing individuals at my level (or below) didn't do anything to enhance my skills), but playing against somewhat slightly higher pushes me to try new strategies. I have found that over the past few months, having played Castles of Burgundy on-line against dozens of players and nearly 100 games, I'm a much better player, because I have to raise my game in order to win.

[I'm going to quote from my blog a few years ago. I was discussing how wargames needed to change to appeal to a broader market]:

Fewer Significant Decisions

The fundamental experiences people want in games have changed, too. People are much more interested in variety than in gameplay depth. They like lots of choices but they don’t like many difficult/significant choices. They tend to rely more on intuition than logic, a reliance that’s often encouraged in the schools and society (“use the Force, Luke”, don’t depend on the computer to aim that torpedo). So a game with lots of choices but few decisions that make a significant difference tends to be preferred to the older kind of game, where there is not only lots of choices but lots of decisions, and decisions within decisions. (I’m sorry if that’s not entirely clear but my spiel about gameplay depth and other kinds of depth in games is something like 10,000 words. This will have to do.)

[And that spiel is still not finished/published]

While I still have a long way to go in designing. I find Lewpuls statement a valid one. I experienced it myself how some players reacted to my game and its depth.

In return, I changed some build up. Making it easier for starting players to learn.

I still offer many choices. But the most important one are obvious. And very deterministic.
Then there is a sub layer of choices for the experienced players.

Perhaps having sublayers of choices is a form of depth definition?

(Lewpuls, I am curious about your next wargame. Somewhere a sneek preview to find?)

I had a discussion recently where I defined depth and complexity as the amount of brain power playing the game requires. Complexity is the amount required to play the game correctly (remembering and understanding all the rules), and depth the amount required to play the game well. It's linked to the concept of heuristic trees, and probably represents how dense the game's tree is.

And while I would agree that a 30 minute game is less likely to have depth, length is definitely not a criteria for depth. There are very shallow long games, and very deep shorter one. I personally look at decision/minute (not only in numbers of decision, but difficulty, and as such, something totally incalculable) as the unit of depth.

I totally agree needless complication does not create depth just frustration! lol

Ive actually been thinking about this question quite a bit (its a great question, thanks larienna)

This jumped out at me, particularly "how they interweave", Almost all games I consider to have depth have mechanics or strategies that overlap and can be combined to create a high variety of choices and variables.

Thank you, Doctor!

I feel depth is where the individual finds it. I tend to play games in a completely different way than most, with my own end goals.

A personal story from 1 week ago: I took my prototype game to the game store for open game night. I got one person to play it. It is a small, fast war game. I noticed he had bought a pack of some kind for a much more complicated war game.
We finished playing my game and he looked at me and said "There is no strategy".
I asked him what he meant.
He said "I can just choose the biggest unit and win".
I replied with "Hmm, that's an interesting take on it, thank you".
He then asked me where the strategy was.
I pointed to the different unit moves and how turns play out. I explained to him that strategically there are many ways to go about it, but to counter him, I explained how the lowest unit was actually the best to use in mass to go for a win, or the third tier units, mathematically.
He didn't get it. But I also realized that to him depth is having a ton of choices and objectives to conquer. He has played war games for many years and never put thought into units and movement and fighting; he mostly paid attention to all the 'fluff' around the fighting to find depth.