Simplicity/Complexity

I have no idea why some games work and others don't. The traditional line of argument goes that the more complex games make it on theme and 'simulation' value. I don't necessarily buy it. That is certainly a real feature that sets 'ameritrash' away from 'euro games.' (I use the quotes because many of the definitive Ameritrash games (Lets start with Titan) are actually European, and several of Knizia's Euro games are published by Fantasy Flight, who are usually credited as an Ameritrash company. It has very little to do with the country of origin of the game, but more to do with a few design choices.) The amounts of theme, chance, and player-to-player interaction really make the difference. My taste in games tends toward the very ends of the simplicity-complexity spectrum. I like long complex wargames and abstract strategy. I'm not too into the Euro area in between them. I don't dislike Euros, mind, but it's not my preference. I think it's the fact that these moderate-complexity games tend to either be light wargames without enough strategy to keep my going or they tend to be multiplayer solitaire games without any significant player-to-player interaction. I'm a player-to-player interaction junkie. I love it. I don't see the point of the routine-optimization formulaic games. I have no objection to games where you do a lot of internal optimization, I just like to be able to sabotage and be sabotaged. I play games with smart enough people that everyone will play more-or-less optimum strategy (no card-counters, but a very mathematically minded group) and so a game with a semi-solvable strategy becomes a game of largely luck. You need player-to-player interaction to spice this up. If a game is 100% optimization, we'll optimize it and get out a game of chance. If it's 90% optimization, 10% interaction, it'll all come down to that 10%. A bidding game where each player has the ability to sabotage one other player's bid once per game will likely come down to who used that one anti-player move most effectively.

I'll admit to actually finding complexity attractive in a game. I enjoy learning a game almost as much as playing it, and as such, I find complexity a virtue in-and-of-itself.

I think you need to make a major distinction between Complexity, Depth and Detail.

As JB stated above, you want all the parts of your design to pull their weight: Theme, Rules, Mechanics, Scoring, Victory ect. If the ratio of 'complexity' to fun (or whatever you are aiming for in your design) is too high then don't add. If adding something in, significantly increases the gaming experience then add that baby!

There is definately a breaking point and it is unique to every design. Just keep in mind that Detail and Depth are not the same as Complexity.