Skip to Content
 

Mechanics to avoid

54 replies [Last post]
Kirkatronics
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2016

Just like in all industries there are ideas which fall short of the bar which the creator thought it was pure gold.

What would you say is the worst mechanic you have seen in a board or a card game, and why?

I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
Roll and move Deck

Roll and move

Deck construction before game (or simply a ton of choices before game)

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
I hate to say it...

Squinshee wrote:
Roll and move

Deck construction before game (or simply a ton of choices before game)

I hate to say it, but roll-and-move and deck construction have solidified our industry way before the 2000's.

I'm not a fan of those mechanics, either, but I realize their place in game history. To be honest, I think we're sick of those mechanics because it's been overused, rebranded, reskinned, remodeled, etc. I mean how many CCG's are out there? How many CCG's came out when Magic established its foothold on the CCG industry? Hundreds.

To be honest, I'm constantly looking for ways to repurpose old mechanics that people have taken for granted. I think there might be a way to create a great roll-and-move, but I don't think now is the time for it. In addition, deck construction is a very much a trend in modern CCGs, so it will be a while before people get sick of it, forget it, and revive in the future.

There are, however, mechanics that I'm not a fan of (which is purely opinionated).

-Auction mechanics
-Roll-and-move (yeah, I'm not a fan)
-"Gimmicky" games
-Pure luck or pure skill game (I prefer both in some capacity)
-Trivia or extrinsic games (where the winner is based on what they know coming in, like Trivia Pursuit)
-Mechanics that rely on extraordinary forces (Ouija)

It's not to say I won't use them and I don't hate it when it's in a game I'm playing. I truly believe there's a time and place for these mechanics, I just avoid them as much as possible.

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
Squinshee wrote:Roll and

Squinshee wrote:
Roll and move

Deck construction before game (or simply a ton of choices before game)

Roll and move is profitable though, or has the potential to be.

I hate games that are Fluxx.

I also hate games for adults that require players to do silly crap, like make a noise or wave their hands. I'm a grown man. I maintain my Victorian sense decorum even on a rollercoaster. Running around and screaming is what my neighbors do when the police show up to bust their meth lab. People even ruin wargames this way. When Games Day started, all of the nerds shouted "WAAAAAGH!" and it was so loud and depressing that I regained my virginity and had to go back to the bathroom to pour extra vodka into my soda bottle.

I hate Bunco. I can't even remember what the mechanics are, but they are hellish. It's a game that grandparents pretend to enjoy to make their grandchildren hate life. Why am I so mean? Bunco. It's like Shut the Box. That's not even game. It's what sailors used to play because they were too drunk, stupid, and sick with scurvy to break out Heroquest from the cargo hold. Both games are literally just rolling dice until someone's dice roll more of particular numbers than the other person's dice. Then you shut the box, and the loud bang of it simulates the sound of the gunshot that would have ended your misery.

I hate losing my turn, but I think hating that is the whole point. I hate waiting an hour for my turn and then having so little to do during my turn that it ends after a single die roll.

I hate when the rulebook is thicker than an RPG module and I need eighty plastic baggies to separate the playing tokens. I'm looking at you Android.

I hate when I can't point to a rule that requires someone at a convention to wear deodorant.

I hate the mechanic that forces my character to slide down a chute and get sick just because he ate an apple. It's an apple! They're supposed to be healthy for you.

I hate that the core mechanic of Operation has not been applied to more games. Seriously, it would be an awesome side task for picking locks or defusing bombs.

mindspike
mindspike's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
No social interaction

For some reason I never glommed onto social deduction games like Werewolf, Resistance, etc.

I absolutely loathe Apples to Apples/Cards Against Humanity. Anything that employs a blind judge immediately loses me.

I don't like speed games much, but that's probably because I'm really bad at them. My children constantly beat me at Ratuki and Loonacy.

Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
radioactivemouse

radioactivemouse wrote:
-Trivia or extrinsic games (where the winner is based on what they know coming in, like Trivia Pursuit)

Yes.

mindspike wrote:
I absolutely loathe Apples to Apples/Cards Against Humanity. Anything that employs a blind judge immediately loses me.

Yes.

I'll also add dexterity games. The first time I played Bananagrams was also the last.

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
Not terribly surprising to

Not terribly surprising to see that game designers dislike games that create a level playing field for average people, like Apples to Apples. Pure luck, roll and move, and the arbitrary win account for an awful lot of sales because they sideline the competitive advantage of an intellect. Some of the best selling games maintain an illusion of competition while facilitating a social experience. That's why I so strongly believe in concealing the nature of skill-based mechanics and giving alternative paths to victory that are based in randomness and luck, because I do see "I'm too dumb for this" as a legitimate barrier to entry in many customer's minds.

As much as I love games that allow me to steamroll people with my superior mind, most people don't like products that remind them of their inadequacies, which is why I hate car shopping.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Soulfinger wrote: I need

Soulfinger wrote:

I need eighty plastic baggies to separate the playing tokens.

Would it be better if it is separated in little boxes instead? While it is 15 now, it might grow to, iduno, 300?
If not, hate my game. Hate it! HATE IT!!

The following is war base oriented.

***

I hate the fact that in Risk, 1 army can go round the world tireless changing the colour blue into red. Then the next turn, it goes the way around again.
Players who play Risk like that should get a slapping. All you do is gambling, not strategy.

***

When Health is not the real deal. And weapons are random, NOT! Aka, the useless dice rolls and retarded health tracking.

A game where units only do 3 or 4 damage. All health is 9. Common guys! Think before you decide on the damage value's.

29, 30 or 31 damage, yet the target health is 345. Even worse!!! Why would you put in such numbers?

Target health 400, damage is 2 to 4. Yaaaarrggghh!!!

I really wonder, how they make those mistakes.

***

When players are dead after a few rounds. While the game has yet to go on for hours.

Same goes for long down time. Give other players something to do !@#it!

***

Having a bad start, that would lead to a long game of, KNOWING that you will loose.

[Monopolies money is a good way to lighten a BBQ]

***

Only luck games.
Only puzzle games.
Only knowledge games.
No skill games.

***

It often leads me to go like this:
http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/screaming-face.jpg

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
Soulfinger wrote:Roll and

Soulfinger wrote:
Roll and move is profitable though, or has the potential to be.

I can see where some do not like it or simply see it as a lazy way of doing something “dynamic” rather than something based around a certain strategy.

Soulfinger wrote:
I hate games that are Fluxx.

Join the club.

Soulfinger wrote:
I also hate games for adults that require players to do silly crap, like make a noise or wave their hands. I'm a grown man. I maintain my Victorian sense decorum even on a rollercoaster. Running around and screaming is what my neighbors do when the police show up to bust their meth lab. People even ruin wargames this way. When Games Day started, all of the nerds shouted "WAAAAAGH!" and it was so loud and depressing that I regained my virginity and had to go back to the bathroom to pour extra vodka into my soda bottle.

LOL! It’s one of the many things I do not miss about a particular GW game back in the day.

Soulfinger wrote:
It's what sailors used to play because they were too drunk, stupid, and sick with scurvy to break out Heroquest from the cargo hold. Both games are literally just rolling dice until someone's dice roll more of particular numbers than the other person's dice. Then you shut the box, and the loud bang of it simulates the sound of the gunshot that would have ended your misery.

I have a similar sentiment towards Risk games at times WHEN THEY DON’T FREAKING END!

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
Experimental Designs wrote:I

Experimental Designs wrote:
I have a similar sentiment towards Risk games at times WHEN THEY DON’T FREAKING END!

Oh, see, everyone I play against figured a way around this. They all just team up against me from the very beginning -- and I still wipe the floor with them! Hahahahaha! I miss the old days though, back when practiced innocence and overt manipulation won the day.

-Eberhardt-
-Eberhardt-'s picture
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
Squinshee wrote:Roll and

Squinshee wrote:
Roll and move

Deck construction before game (or simply a ton of choices before game)

What about base move for a game then the ability to modify movement but it requires a roll?

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
-Eberhardt- wrote: What about

-Eberhardt- wrote:

What about base move for a game then the ability to modify movement but it requires a roll?

A similar mechanic WH40k 6th edition introduced which basically made an assault more of a risk factor than a straight up roflstomp. One of the few things GW actually did something that wasn't blatantly retarded.

Other than that I approve such a mechanic in a game if it were used practically.

-Eberhardt-
-Eberhardt-'s picture
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
Thx for getting back to me

Thx for getting back to me and I appreciate the info.

THwapp
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2016
Soulfinger][quote=Squinshee

Soulfinger][quote=Squinshee wrote:

I hate games that are Fluxx.

Can't agree more.

I also am not a fan of roll and move. The exception to that is the board game Titan.

BoardGent
BoardGent's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/04/2016
Too long got bored

Long duration games with player death are the most retarded things of all time. "Hey, Board game night time, boys, let's play Risk, or Monopoly". 30min in, someone is out (or has no reasonable way to affect the board or make any worthwhile decisions) and there's still an hour left. I don't think, since I stopped playing these games with my parents when I was a kid have I finished one.

This really shouldn't be too hard, but if a long game features player death, either give players abilities upon death, or give them ways to fuck over other players still in the game.

Engines in Dominion can have a somewhat similar problem, where some playstyles encourage 2-3 minute turns of cycling and drawing, while another turn can take 5 seconds (or worse, both engine turns). For any people making card/combo games, try as much as possible to make your combos under a minute to execute.

saluk
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
When people say they hate a

When people say they hate a mechanic, what they really mean is they hate the iterations of that mechanic that they are familiar with or that have really rubbed the the wrong way.

I think the reason a lot of people like games that involve extrinsic knowledge is because they feel like they are not starting from zero and learning a whole new thing. When I play a new strategy game, I usually am not starting from zero either, as I have played many of them and a lot of the things I've learned in other games will help me in the new one.

I think it's worth pointing out roll and move as a mechanic that probably has the highest quantity of wholly uninteresting games. It is easy to point to as something many players do not like. You may even divide the world into people who stopped playing board games because they did not know there was more than roll and move, and those who still play and are as done with the mechanic as they are done with tic tac toe.

HOWEVER - there may be mechanics still in use in more strategic games that are of a similar kind, but have been tweaked and maybe aren't bad when combined with other mechanics.

I hesitate to consider "being silly" a mechanic, and also am not sure that I consider games which are predominantly about "being silly" (and I include cards against humanity here) as games. The occupy a similar social function as games, but the competitive aspect is a distant footnote. I see them as more of an activity.

Hmm, mechanics I dislike. It's not really a single mechanic, but I dislike it when games require you to remember a lot about the game state in order to play correctly. A lot of card games where you have many cards on the table that affect the rules in subtle ways can be like this. You can understand the rulebook very well, play the game many times, and STILL wind up in situations where you played wrong and only realize it a few turns later and it's hard to undo the mistake.

mcobb83
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2016
Not to sound like a broken

Not to sound like a broken record here, but player elimination in a game longer than 30 minutes is stupid (IMHO). Firstly, for the guy who gets cut in the early game, hes out and watching TV or something until the game ends. Second, for the guy who plays hard and invests time (hours perhaps) into the game, only to be eliminated later in play...that sucks. Its not as bad as being eliminated early on, and it can be called part of the game, but I still dislike it.

The other thing that bugs me (and this has been mentioned too) is when the games meta environment influences the game itself. For example, playing MtG, if one guy can afford to drop $$ on his cards and the other guy can't, odds are rich guy wins the game. Or Trivial Pursuit. See, something like MtG I don't mind if there is a regulation on cards. For example, buying 6 or 8 boosters and pooling the cards, then having to draft a deck out of it. That works because it eliminates the meta.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
Roll-and-move ought to be

Roll-and-move ought to be loved by the euro-theoretical-input-randomness kind of designers because it really is the purest form of input randomness (not that I find it meaningful to discuss in that way) like drawing tiles at the beginning of your turn. Everyone's concern about roll-and-move really is because of the lack of decisions in most such games. As soon as there are enough decisions, like in Sagaland (Spiel des Jahres 1982, called Enchanted Forest or something like that in English iirc), it works quite well.

Silly no-decisions roll-and-move seems to have been popular about 100 years ago, for children and drunk adults, and then a few of those games plus any number of silly commercial advertising-games have kept doing that since (little games included in magazines or given away for free to market some company), and in Monopoly, but I do not think adult people being serious about playing games have ever thought highly about them.

I do not think it comes down to a specific mechanic being broken as a game being because mechanics were combined the wrong way. Also a sure way to make a very boring game is to think too hard about game design theories and try to apply every thing ever said in a textbook as if it was the law. If you make of list of mechanics that you hate and will never ever use that sounds like a sure way to make suboptimal games. Maybe introducing player elimination to your long game is just the right way to make it fantastic instead of just good? You will never know if you already made up your mind that avoiding player elimination is the most important thing to do and refuse to compromise.

Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Nothing intrinsically wrong with R&M

Backgammon is a great game. I can envisage a roll and move Euro that was elegant and had the right mix of strategy and randomness... But it would resemble so many games that seriously suck, not many people would give it a chance.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
There is no bad mechanics,

There is no bad mechanics, there is simply bad mechanic usage.

For example, I hate auctions, but used at the right place in the right dose, it can be an awesome mechanic.

Same thing for roll and move.

Aspirinsmurf
Offline
Joined: 07/06/2013
I think this list is the

I think this list is the closest I can get to mechanics that I think are objectively bad, not just typically poorly implemented:

  • Player-characteristic dependent ways to decide who goes first in an otherwise serious game, such as having the longest beard or funniest shirt (these are routinely ignored in favor of a fair dice roll).
  • Player elimination in longer multiplayer games.
  • Ambiguous mechanics that require consensus-building without some means of definite arbitration (such as the aforementioned beard).
  • Dexterity mechanics that can degenerate into physical fighting over components (they will).
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Deck-Construction, noooooo!!!

I LOVE "Deck-Construction"!

To be able to think (maybe obsess) over a game BEFORE even playing it; well that to me is pure GENIUS! How well it turns out, is questionable. Often players are too inexperienced in knowing how to best prepare their decks...

And I must admit that with "Tradewars - Homeworld", I injected COMBOS and TAKE-THAT mechanics inspiring myself on CCGs/TCGs like Magic, Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh! Those cards really add "flair" to the game... It makes for memorable moments around the table especially since these cards affect the outcome of combat.

Imagine combat - with the option to screw over your opponent! LOVE COMBOS too!! They make for powerful moves and can sometimes be conquered by using other TAKE-THAT cards too... So it sort of goes both ways!

I can't say that I am OPPOSED to any mechanics... Like for "Roll & Move", it may be OLD - but that doesn't mean you can't refresh the mechanic with say "custom" dice and variability (from say Action Points - APs). So a player can have three (3) APs per turn; one of which can be to "ROLL" a "custom" die that will given them options to "MOVE"! It's possible to make that OLD mechanic FRESH and NEW. You just need to think about...

And to be REAL HONEST: is that not more flexible (APs + Roll & Move + Custom dice) - could it not make for a FUN and INNOVATIVE game???

Just some ideas I've had when people dumped on "Roll & Move" games.

Cheers.

Update: Maybe instead of using three (3) APs for "rolling" - what if you were allowed to only ROLL ONCE. But you could use APs to PAY for improving your odds:

  • 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3: Normal die costs 1 AP.
  • 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3: Enhanced die costs 2 APs.
  • 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3: Balanced die costs 3 APs.

This could make for SMALLER "MOVES" especially when dealing with TILES. Just an example how "Roll & Move" can be made FUN and INTERESTING again!

BHFuturist
BHFuturist's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2008
My thoughts

There are no mechanics to "avoid' as you put it and while we all can point to some uses of mechanics that we don't like. The way the mechanics are used is what we are taking issue with and not the mechanics themselves.

Any mechanic can be used in a game, and that game can be popular or not based on whether people have the type of fun they expected the game to give them. Some mechanics are better suited for some audiences and others for others. But all of them have a place in game design and none of them should be looked down on.

I am quite sure Roll & Move will see more use in games in the future, and that at some point it will even be in a widely successful game again. I have already thought of at least three new ways Roll & Move could be used in board games that will still be fun and engaging.

As designers what we need to take away from topics like this is to use these mechanics only in ways the players will enjoy and try to avoid the ways they have failed in the past.

Just my 2 cents,

@BHFuturist

Willem Verheij
Willem Verheij's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/08/2016
For me an elimination

For me an elimination mechanic tends to be pretty terrible in games, that only works for short games.
Otherwise players might be out of the game an hour or longer before it ends, and that just kills the fun for me. It's about spending time together playing a game after all.

While I tend to like some bit of luck to be involved in a game because its adds a random factor that cannot be planned for and thus only encourages more creative thinking, it should not be too high on luck either to the point that there is no strategy at all. Roughly I'd say that a game can't be more than 50% luck.

Also not a fan of early leads pretty much deciding the game. There need to be ways to catch up. Otherwise you might spend hours on a game of which the winner is already known long before the end. Typically a means to hinder other opponents their progress tends to be a good way to regulate this.

Which brings me to another point: Being unable to affect the progress of rival players. This is needed to have some interaction with each other and to prevent that runaway leader thing. Otherwise you are all just playing a singleplayer game together pretty much.

Hence I hate Monopoly since it pretty much has all these mechanics. It's pretty much the only game I will always refuse to play.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
I won't list the usual

I won't list the usual suspects like player elimination etc.

"Search your deck/discard for a card X" - tends to be unnecessarily time consuming and might lead to AP. Let is stay in MTG where it belongs. This one is best replaced by "draw 3 and pick 1" or something along those lines.

Scoring at the end of each turn (as in Through the ages) as opposed to scoring on trigger (as in twilight struggle), as well as anything in your game which you have to do without a clear trigger and hence tend to forget (something like "at the start of the turn, take 2 coins").

Daggaz
Daggaz's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2016
I definitely agree with the

I definitely agree with the bulk sentiment so far, but to add to this discussion some things not mentioned:

People talk about player elimination, but what I hate even more are longer strategy games like axis-n-allies, where a player KNOWS they are effectively eliminated long before it happens. Then they just give up and quit the game, and you don't have the satisfaction of seeing your strategy through. AA tried to resolve this with victory conditions and victory cities, but it's still too transparent. One solution is to include hidden information in the victory conditions. Another, perhaps better solution, is to ensure the mechanics of the game are just variable enough that having a much larger army isn't enough to ensure victory on its own. Difficult to implement and balance, but im not convinced it cant be done.

I also strongly dislike games where the information is poorly and/or inefficiently tracked. By poorly I mean there are too many inherent opportunities for a player to miss a point, especially if the scoring system is clunky, and doing so has a very strong impact on the game. By inefficiently I mean forcing the player to do tedious counting or even math each and every turn, which also increases the likelihood of mistakes. Eclipse was brilliant at removing many of these sorts of problems.

On a more personal note, I don't like games that are pure randomness. I can see the point that you open the game up if you remove the intellectual barrier, but dammit Scotty, I need my strategic choices to have IMPACT!

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
I like having $, but dislike needing $

I agree with what's been said thus far, particularly about player elimination/neutering if it involves more than a few minutes of sitting out.

Depending on the game, it's possible to "respawn" but it'd probably be easier to keep the original in-game character and penalize it in some way.

It's been mentioned above, but I especially dislike mechanics that effectively reward players who paid more. Expansion packs that go into a common pool, great. Expansion packs owned by a particular player, bad. I still find it offensive even when it has a minor impact and is dressed up as something silly (such as Blood Bowl where the player who owned more cheerleader figures got a small bonus). Actually, that was so annoying that it's about the only mechanic I remember from that game. And none of us even had any cheerleaders.

Another thing I dislike, though it's not a mechanic per-se, is long set-up times. Axis & Allies pretty much needed a lunch break between setting it up and playing it. It's not so bad if there are player decisions to be made while placing original resources, but if it's just resetting to a known state (again, looking at you Axis & Allies) then it's a waste of the group's playing time.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
War games can offer the most problems

But also solutions that might be used in other games.

Reading the last few posts. Raises a question. How do you feel about "the game ends when one of the players gives up, now count the score of remaining forces, XP and stocked money"?

No need for the players to watch television when they are "defeated" or "doomed to loose". The game ends for everyone. Period. And giving up equals 0 VP.

This would lead/force other players, who don't come first. To make a deal with the last player, not to leave the game. Players are free to give money and other things to each other. You can also team up.

A multiplayer requires at least 3 players for this.
2 Player games are often co-op. Where XP is worth, much more VP in the end. So stocking up XP is the best way to win.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
X3M wrote:How do you feel

X3M wrote:
How do you feel about "the game ends when one of the players gives up, now count the score of remaining forces, XP and stocked money"?

No need for the players to watch television when they are "defeated" or "doomed to loose". The game ends for everyone. Period. And giving up equals 0 VP.


Imho, this is a terrible idea which will most probably lead to negative player experience.

Daggaz
Daggaz's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2016
X3M wrote: How do you feel

X3M wrote:
How do you feel about "the game ends when one of the players gives up, now count the score of remaining forces, XP and stocked money"?

No need for the players to watch television when they are "defeated" or "doomed to loose". The game ends for everyone. Period. And giving up equals 0 VP.

That's an interesting idea, but it raises a few problems almost immediately:

1) The cut-off point is arbitrary, so you change the fundamental goal of the game from "who has the best long term, winning strategy" to "who can stay in first place the longest". This is pretty huge. Look at mario-kart, for example, where the winning strategy is to stay in second place until the last possible moment.

2) The cut-off point can be non-arbitrary, in that the player can game the system purposely. Let's say John doesn't like you. Or he doesn't like the game that you like and wants to play something else. He quits purposely, well before he needs to, and to spite you he times it so as to hand the victory to Mary who happened to have the lead at that point. Game over. Rinse and repeat until people don't want to play that game anymore.

Obviously you can alleviate this somewhat if all the players are interested in winning the game, but it still brings up the question: When John, who wants to win, realizes he cannot, when does he quit? He gets to decide who wins at this point. Even with hidden information, he can likely deduce who is more likely to win.

John has WAY too much influence. The mechanism is broken without serious considerations being taken to balance it.

EDIT: Actually, the best strategy would be to both reach first place AND ensure another player quits in the shortest amount of time. You have incentivized not only removing a player, which was the big problem in the first place, but ending the game prematurely. Ouch.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Somehow, I knew, I had to

Somehow, I knew, I had to post it here.
It is one of those problems that can't be solved. Despite "golden" idea's.

Any wargame with 3 teams or more, requires more luck than skill.

Or you have to keep only 2 teams in the game. With each team having 1 or more players.

Don't get me wrong. But the progress in a wargame is often exponential. Thus the imbalace grows more over time as well. Lucky rolls should be able to overcome this for a while.

PS. John always knows how to ruin any game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut