Skip to Content
 

Flexible Game design: How and why

9 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I have been placing some thoughts about flexible games. By flexible, I mean games that could easily be modified or expanded. I'll take 2 different examples for this post which comes out of my closet which are different enought to attept finding similarities between both.

Arkham Horror: Many adventure game has the flexibility property. Runebound could probably fit in there too. The fact that there are so many expansions, so many variant and home made expansion proves this flexibility. Objectives could be changed, new concepts can be added, new ways of playing the game could be used. It's almost like if the game came with a sandbox of components and you could play it in anyway you want.

Rune Age: A different kind of game, but Rune Age is quite flexible due to the many possible scenarios. Being a deck building game, new cards could be added to the game quite easily. It might not be as flexible as arkham since it is less story driven, but still, offer a lot of options for a game of this kind.

Another game that comes to my mind is "Kingdom Builder" where each game is pretty unique. In that case, it is much more a euro game with various game play. There is not a high amount of unique events, items, or locations to encounter like the 2 previous games.


Why use flexible design

Now I have been wondering when should it be the best option to use flexible design and does it give that many advantages. Of course expandability is the main reason for flexibility. I imagine that is the case of many LCG. But even if expandable, the gameplay could remain the same like it's the case of many CCG, LCG. Flexible games seems to introduce new gameplay methods.

Like in rune age, you have cooperative, competitive scenarios. Sometimes you need to attack players, sometimes you need to gather power. So each scenario is a kind of new game. It's a bit like my fairy land game idea where different adventures could be played with the same components. Where each adventure is a new game. So you could end up playing a mystery investigation, a racing or a tower defense game with the same components.

Now I was wondering if it could be used in any kind of game. I was thinking that for example, could a flexible design could be used in a Master of Magic like board game. It could be interesting, but I think why it could work is due to the amount of possible variety such theme could offer. Adventure games has almost an infinity of story situation that could happen making it very expandable. A fantasy 4x game could also have a huge amount of events and locations that could be encountered or explore. The objectives of the game could also be changed from a game to another depending on the world you are in (Take control of the council, control X nodes, eliminate a player, etc).

Maybe such design could be compared to many MMORPG video game where they start with a small world and expand while the game is beign played instead of doing everything from start. If the same method could be applied to board games, then the core of the game could maybe be accomplished faster making it possible to get a playable game sooner. It could be easier to develop this ways, but the only thing you need to make sure is not shoot yourself in the foot to hinder any further expansions later.


How to use flexible design

Which brings me to the how to design flexible games. Many flexible games seems to use similar components and mechanics, let's check them out:

Cards, tokens or movable components: Rune age and Arkham horror has a huge amount of cards. That has the effect of making them easily replacable or movable on the board. So maybe a key is to keep everything on those flexible components, or try to avoid fixed components like a map. Or course you could have a modular map, but even then it restrict the possible gameplay changes than if locations were on cards.

Core Rules: Most of these games seem to have a basic set of core rules which is very thin a bit like many CCG rule book which are pretty thin, but where the game expand with the text on the cards.

Text abilities: Which introduce to a huge amount of text abilities. It also means that the area of effect of the game must be large enough to allow an high amount of text ability. It should be possible to extend the area of effect by adding new components or concepts to the game. Else you could run out of possibilities too soon.

Resources: I think that all these games has a specific set of resources defined in the basic rules that will stay there for the whole life of the game. Resource management could indeed be an important part of the core mechanics. But even rune age added a new "power" resource for a specific sscenario. So it could be possible to add new resources later.

The only things I fear is that planning ahead for the future might be more complex to design than planning a whole game now. Unless there are some tricks to make sure your game is expandable even if you have no clue how it is going to end up. Else having an area of effect to small could lead to a dead end with no possible expansion.


So here are a few questions:

Do you think flexible games could be used in much more areas or only to expandable games?

Do you have any methods for making games more flexible?

Do you see other common points between flexible games?

Are flexible game easier to design? Especially for epic game which could seem overwhelming to finish?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I love these kind of

I love these kind of threads.

1. Expandable games are the most flexible. Since they have often the basis for expands in several area's. But many well known games can have modifications. For examples; Monopoly, Chess, Risk. These 3 have had many modifications. Thus they seem very flexible. When a game is a lot of fun, people will find a way to change the game.

2. For my game, I thought of a set of rules that act as "natural" laws in the little universe that you play in. Then designs can be added "infinitely". This has given me the feeling my game can have many expansions if ever needed. And modifications are actually expansions as well.
I also have the pleasurable thought that I still could add new rules as well. With the expands. I don't have indirect weaponry yet. But the basis is there to add them.

3. nop.

4. I think that if you have a good idea from the start that is flexible. Then it will be easy.
But having a game that is not flexible, it first needs some modifications?

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
A big thing about

A big thing about expandable/flexible game is that you must make your core game good enough to be able to succeed. Then you must make it actually succeed. If your core game fails, there is no point in even thinking about expansions.

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
I think there's something to

I think there's something to be said for this flexibility as a theory, but it all boils down to having "hooks" or "systems" in your game that interact with each other. The more systems, the more you can plug into them. Games like Chess and GO are near impossible to add to because they've fundamentally been boiled down to their core, yet their replayability is kind of eternal.

So that brings me to the point of simplification, which seems to be diametrically opposing to the idea of having many systems that ensure expandability. I really believe that creating a good game is an exercise in both reduction and elaboration - figuring out one or two core mechanics that work so well together that they open up massive swathes of explorable territory to explore.

In this day and age, the classics like Chess and GO are but a legacy of the past. Not that that means anything particularly - it only means noone makes them like that anymore, but they're still being played ad nauseum (you can tell I don't like the so-called classics much). The appetite these days seem to tend towards the thematic, rich, more elaborate experiences, as they're what keeps the industry afloat (LCGs, CCGs, the big box sets, etc, with a million expansions - those are the successes that float the rest of the industry, financially and visibility wise.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that while hookableness and expandability is good to have, the systems MUST be well considered and flow naturally from one to another effortlessly, or else you end up in a giant pile of confusing, unintuitive bog that noone can understand. Now that may be a matter of taste and preference, for me myself never really understood the popularity of Chaos in the Old World, but hey, it's my opinion :P

So, a flexible game - or one with many systems - are easy to design. But difficult to design WELL. Again, too many systems create chaos and confusion, and making things difficult to understand and follow is often not the best marketing strategy :) IMHO anyway. Unless you're already famous :P

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Flexibility is a key aspect

Flexibility is a key aspect of a couple of my games in the works. I am not certain, though, if the appeal is more to the designer mindset than to the gamer mindset.

One of the games is from the simple component challenge here called Cube Dudes. Since the core of the game calls for an investment in a quantity of generic components (attachable cubes) the prospect of flexibility and additional games based on the cubes increases the perceived value for the initial game.

The game has no board and relies on cards in to define the rules and available actions. The flexibility also means it could be released with a couple of game length and complexity variants while maintaining a reasonable number of cards and associated costs. Because expansions would be sub-fifty cards, the cost of an expansion should be a small fraction (say $40-50 for base game and $8 for an expansion.)

So, the mechanic is that much lower cost expansions increase both the perceived value of the game and the expansions.

The other game, I haven't posted about, but it has a modular board system. In the initial stage of the game you use an action to select which board (and side of the board) comes into play which means the game stays constrained to a specific size (four boards in play per game.)

Here the mechanic is selection and control of scale. As the boards are themed and have mechanic variations there are both strategic and flavor reasons for selection and in reased options. It is a different value proposition as the expansions increase the metagame and allow for personalization (current design would have unique colored custom dice with each new board.)

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
Let me paraphrase what I

Let me paraphrase what I meant earlier:

Take Magic: The Gathering. Sure, Richard Garfield, one of the greatest game designers, considered it might have stand-alone expansions once a year or so. But he made a system and mechanics that work very well and create a robust game that was great by itself. And when the demand came, he found out how to make expansions. If you have a great game, you will find a way to make expansions - even chess has variants.

However, until you have a hit in your hands don't waste your time bothering with planning for expansions. Instead concentrate your energy into creating the best game you can. If people love it and buy it you'll find a way to make expansions. If you fail, and most games fail, nobody will care for expansions.

schattentanz
schattentanz's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2014
Harrrr ... Flexibility - one

Harrrr ... Flexibility - one of my favourites in gaming :)

What do you need?
Well, first of all, you will need some core rules that are solid, yet flexible enough to allow expansions.
Take Magic:The Gathering as an example. The rules are a Framework explaining when you can play permanents as well as instants and which cards are permanents or isntants.
Each of these cards has got special effects, costs and maybe synergies, too.
The flexibility with this system is unmatched: Magic is a success since over 20 years and counting.

If you want to make your game flexible, you will have to ask yourself, what level of flexibility you want to achieve.
Do you - as the designer - want to remain the one who keeps adding stuff? Or do you want players to be able to add their own stuff?
In case of the sooner, you "only" need to be aware of what you have to explain in the latter: Not only, how your game works, but also how your rules work as well.

Take Wizard Kings for an example:
In the rules they explain everything you need to know to play a game with the pieces provided.
PLUS they explain how to create your own pieces.

The cool part of Wizard Kings is, you can jump right into the game with the pieces provided without having to figure out, how to create your own gaming pieces.

This is, what I think makes a great expandable game:
Provide the players with preconfigured pieces, but give them the option to create their own pieces according to the rules as well!

Now for your questions:
"Do you think flexible games could be used in much more areas or only to expandable games?"
Yes, of course. Basically you can make every game or rather every kind of game flexible. The key to doing so is "component design": Take a look at Settlers of Catan. The "board" is highly flexible and due to this flexibility no two games are the same. (Similar, but not the same).

"Do you have any methods for making games more flexible?"
As mentioned before: This is all about designing a solid framework in which you can desigh the game's elements. The rules are one part about playing the game and the other about creating your own stuff.

"Do you see other common points between flexible games?"
Hmmm ... 'Modularity' might be another keyword here, too:
Just remember, how you can create your own armies in Wizard Kings. This kind of modularity is common to flexible games, when it is explained, how the rules work.

"Are flexible game easier to design? Especially for epic game which could seem overwhelming to finish?"
Yes. Definetly. The reason is simple: Not only do you write a rulebook explaining how to play the game - you do write rules about how to create stuff for the game as well.
All you have to do afterwards is creating stuff according to the rules - your rules.

Kind regards,
Kai

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
That's a great point,

That's a great point, schattentanz. If you intend to be flexible, the core has to be solid. But really the core should be solid in any game; so, in a good way designing for flexibility forces the point.

I also see that advatange for an epic game; you have a context where you can design smaller and keep your additions in check as you add depth. Which overall encourages agile design that can make the bigger design effort more manageble and less likelytobe painted into a corner. It also means you must avoid fixing design issues with exceptions and rule patches, also a good design principle.

To Samarkand's thought, I believe the original poist is about designing to flexibility from square one. In that case it is central to the game design and the game does not exist without it. Designing exapnsions before finishing a game, maybe not so good. But if you aren't designing towards flexibility then you may fail to make decisions like modular boards which as in Settler's make the game a more durable core design.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:4. I think that if you

Quote:
4. I think that if you have a good idea from the start that is flexible. Then it will be easy.
But having a game that is not flexible, it first needs some modifications?

I am trying to tame a large beast by cutting the game in smaller parts and developping parts by parts.

It's for a master of magic board game that I try to use a more flexible approach to make it easier to devellop. I realised that many elements in the game like: Cities, special locations, encounter events, spells, could have as much variety as an adventure game. Also new mechanics like espionage, events, guilds, mirror world could be added later for additional gameplay, but are not necessary for basic game play.

Another ting I realised is that expandable board games gives you the choice to add or change rules of the game. You are not forced to use all expansion material. Arkham Horror use the same philosophy where each add on is modular and can be added on demand.

Quote:
A big thing about expandable/flexible game is that you must make your core game good enough to be able to succeed. Then you must make it actually succeed. If your core game fails, there is no point in even thinking about expansions.

That is another interesting aspect. If the core game attract a lot of interest, then there is a motivation to put more time to make the project evolve while having a playable game. But if I design everything in 1 shot, it demands too much work and it could be a waste of time if the game fails.

I love self contained games, but maybe for more ambitious projects, it could be more interesting to devellop the game in parts and get feedback while develloping.

Quote:
Games like Chess and GO are near impossible to add to because they've fundamentally been boiled down to their core, yet their replayability is kind of eternal.

I am thinking to use a toy play approach for this kind of design. I would create components with values and information without having much clue about the mechanics behind them. Then start playing with it and see what rules I can come up with. Maybe certain values will be unused for now and used later in an expansion module. It's a bit like a sandbox game or a piece pack where I create pieces and then rules are made out of them.

For Example: A city could give special resources have a value with it. The value could mean anything: Quantity, difficulty to harvest. It could be used as a value: it's worth X, or be used for randomness: need to roll over or under X. Or not be used at all, but it will be there for further expansion or user variant. So you need to leave door opens to allow various reinterpretation of the components.

Quote:
The appetite these days seem to tend towards the thematic, rich, more elaborate experiences, as they're what keeps the industry afloat (LCGs, CCGs, the big box sets, etc, with a million expansions - those are the successes that float the rest of the industry, financially and visibility wise.

Even if most expandable game tend to be designed to make a lot of money. My objective is really to make the design of the game more easily by splitting it in multiple parts and leaving doors open.

Quote:
So, a flexible game - or one with many systems - are easy to design. But difficult to design WELL.

True.

I know that certain people hate expansion and will never buy a game like AH that is designed to be expanded.

Quote:
However, until you have a hit in your hands don't waste your time bothering with planning for expansions. Instead concentrate your energy into creating the best game you can. If people love it and buy it you'll find a way to make expansions. If you fail, and most games fail, nobody will care for expansions.

Again, most of time time, I try to make a self contained game. I find game with expansion just a way to rack up more money. But here I want to have a different approach. I want something more of an open game a bit like an MMORPG has the flexibility to add new worlds, class, skills, monsters, etc.

Comments to be continued later ...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:The cool part of Wizard

Quote:
The cool part of Wizard Kings is, you can jump right into the game with the pieces provided without having to figure out, how to create your own gaming pieces. This is, what I think makes a great expandable game.

I intend to do this in my "Designable Card Game" because I want others to publish cards for my game while keeping the balance of the game. But for the game idea above, I want people to design stuff but they will not be official material. The amount of flexibily could be much larger than in a CCG.

Quote:
To Samarkand's thought, I believe the original poist is about designing to flexibility from square one.

I am going to try design components as toy. I am thinking about making my city cards as core rules, see if it works, and progressively add stuff as needed. We will see how it ends up.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut