Skip to Content
 

How much is TOO much?

8 replies [Last post]
Sun, 04/24/2016 - 13:35
ErnstFourie
ErnstFourie's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014

I think the subject speaks for itself, but what I mean is:

When getting the initial idea for a boardgame is always a lot of fun, then you start fleshing out the idea. How are you going to get this game element work with the other rules, or how to get the mechanics to interact.

Then as the game starts growing, the elements to a game grows as well. What if instead of doing x, you can do y if you've already accomplished z. What I mean to say is, the game grows into expansions. Or it always seems to do so for me.

My question is, how do you, or even only do you, trim and streamline your games. Cutting of unnecessary fat?

Is this something you do yourself? Or is this only something you attempt after plates results?

I think insight into different people's design processes will be interesting at least.

?

Top
Sun, 04/24/2016 - 16:17
#1
polyobsessive
polyobsessive's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2015
My anecdote

I'm still pretty inexperienced and most of the games I have been working on so far have been on the simpler side, so there hasn't been very much adding, but...

I think sometimes you just have to slice chunks of a game away and see what happens. You can always unslice those parts later if it doesn't work out.

My biggest experience of cutting parts of a game came earlier this year, with Boogie Knights, which is the game I am currently working on that is closest to "finished". Over rounds of playtesting, feedback was kinda indicating that something was missing, and I was searching for the missing ingredient, using the suggestions from playtesters as input. I steadily added tweaks, trying to increase the number of decisions for players and generally make the game more interesting, until I had something that I thought addressed all the issues.

I got it into a playtest.

It sucked. Royally.

The truth hit me like a train at that point. The game needed to be light and quick, but I was adding complexity to the game at every revision. It was time to apply the machete.

I figured out a simple mechanism that allowed me to slice a huge pile of cruft from the game, reducing the number of different cards to fewer than even the initial iteration of the game, and meaning that I had fewer rules to explain than ever.

This felt really liberating and when I tried the changes out, the game was so much better. It still needs a heap of work, but suddenly it feels like the game is close to what it wants to be and we're on the way to the point when I can start pitching it.

Top
Sun, 04/24/2016 - 20:05
#2
Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
I'm notorious with my own

I'm notorious with my own designs for adding more and more complexity and details into the game until it becomes an overloaded simulator instead of a simple "beer and pretzels" game that can be knocked out in under two hours.

What I've done with previous projects and home-brews is put all the ideas and gimmicks I like into it then meticulously slim it down. Toss out what won't work and keep what will then find something else to trim off through a methodical process of elimination. Then if enough has been slimmed down to my satisfaction or to that of my play testers (those sane enough to do such a thing at my behest!) the end result is the basic game rules with optional advanced rules for those who want to spend an entire afternoon playing a game.

It helps too to have a list of things that you have to have in the game. The things in the game that are non-negotiable like a certain dice system or the scale of the game itself.

I'm humble enough to admit not all my ideas are all that great (believe I made some doozies) and more than willing to take the advice of others who are on the outside looking in. Hence why I come here for advice...

I hope that helps.

Top
Mon, 04/25/2016 - 12:33
#3
ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
My experience

If you're a board gamer out to make the perfect game for yourself, it's easier to fall into the trap of "too much". This is because you're always playing other games and seeing cool ideas come into play that you want to include in your own creation.

I think that the best approach is to always assume that there's too much in your game - pare it down until you "find the fun", then you can add things on that enhance the fun. If you're adding more and more to a game, but you can't figure out what's fun about it, then I would argue that you're doing it wrong.

Top
Mon, 04/25/2016 - 12:50
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Sometimes ... it's plain old LUCK!

When I was FIRST developing "Tradewars - Homeworld" (TWHW) I was very much focused on traditional deck-building. And so I had five (5) piles and was trying to figure out how each pile could work with the other. And I knew I wanted to bring a "Magic"-flavor for combat stats.

During an early playtest, I still was unsure about the whole trading cards for TWHW. I was thinking buying should be "2x" the cost. So if the card is worth "3", to buy it you would need to pay "6"...

And luck had it that my playtesters said: "Why do any multiplying math?! Just make it 1x for trading." We playtested that way and the game's length in terms of time was reduced!

This is just an example that sometimes YOU don't have all the answers. Sometimes the people PLAYTESTING have good ideas - you can sometimes incorporate!

Cheers.

Top
Mon, 04/25/2016 - 13:57
#5
northgun
northgun's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/21/2014
To start with, most games

To start with, most games that I design are complex and are targeted at the 3 hours + arena.

When I get an idea I like to get it all down on paper and work through the "complete" idea before doing any trimming (unless I don't like a part). Then I work it into a paper play test and test it out. Generally some things get trimmed or added at this point.

Afterwards I start researching approximate production costs. Once I have a really good picture of that, I move on to researching/modifying the components to lower the costs without sacrificing in the quality arena (as much as possible) or removing options in the game (still working with the complete idea). Once I have made all my cost saving changes, I see if it hits my production cost goal. Then, finally, I look at removing pieces of the game if I need to make more cost savings.

Then I return to play testing and make the components/pieces closer to what they would be if I produced them (basically everything is in the correct layout). From this point forward I only make changes based on the results of the play testing.

When its time to look into publishing, I make my final edits and cost estimates . Do a few more playtests with the new edits, then look into actual quotes for production.

Top
Tue, 04/26/2016 - 06:14
#6
adversitygames
adversitygames's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2014
One approach you could try is

One approach you could try is look at the features used during playtests
If something hardly gets used it might be worth cutting

If an option is used by everyone, all the time, then streamline - make it mandatory rather than an option, make it an integrated part of the game round for all players

If a feature seems to be hard work to implement (like, it takes a lot of moving pieces or cards around) and doesn't really reward the player for it then try to streamline it and either make the moving of pieces meaningful, or reduce the amount which needs to be done

Beside that, think about the features of the game individually. Think about whether the complexity is worth it, or whether a simpler mechanism with perhaps less detail would do the job just as well.
(for example: having a deck of cards with random numbers and conditional effects as your RNG might make the game a little more interesting than just a dice roll - but it's also a lot more work to use)

Also consider what the game would be like if you cut a feature entirely (maybe with some small adaptations if the game hangs on it). If the game survives and is still fun without a feature, but still meets the requirements of the central idea of the game, then you could cut it and move it aside for eg an expansion pack.

Top
Tue, 04/26/2016 - 06:29
#7
kevnburg
kevnburg's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2014
When I'm designing games, I

When I'm designing games, I tend to start off at an incredibly basic level and then develop "modules" or "alternate play formats" that increase the complexity. Sometimes the base game isn't very fun but the modules are. This tells me
1) I need to fundamentally change the base game
2) and/or I need to better integrate these modules into the base game

Other times the base game is very quick and fun, and players don't really want to try the modules or alternate formats because they slow the game down. In this case, I often need to find more dedicated players to test them out. If I find that even the most dedicated players never wants to play with these modules, then I accept that they don't really add anything to the game and they're nixxed.

Top
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 03:37
#8
radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
the answer?

The easy answer is "testing".but I think there's more to it than that.

My mentor always told me to Keep It Simple, Stupid (K.I.S.S.). While I knew it conceptually, I didn't really see it until I found myself needing to do it.

The point is, while testing is great, you need to keep the mindset that simpler is better. It will help you weed out the unnecessary elements in your game and create a tighter system.

I've seen many people design games and keep things in because it was absolutely necessary. While I agree with this, I agree to a point. Only testing will refine this. Ask your testers very specific questions and watch them as they play. You'll learn a lot just watching people play. Sometimes it takes months of testing just to see something you might have to take out.

It's an ebb and flow. You'll want to introduce some things that you want to add to the game, but keep it streamlined. Keeping it simple doesn't mean the game has to be basic, it just means that you need to refine the mechanics to something that flows better or feels more thematic.

But you can't get there by just thinking it through in your head. Your game has to learn how to fly.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut