Getting Started / Simple vs Complex

What constitutes a short or long time for a game is changing rapidly, as we get more influence from party/family games in hobby games.

I remember going to a meeting of young aspiring designers several years ago. I said I had a filler game, less than an hour. They said, filler games are now 15 minutes.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to get the depth (not variety, depth) some want, in these shorter games. They tend to be bagatelles.

I note that people who say they don't want to play longer games, will IF the game holds their interest. But often they won't try the longer game.

Stick to my motto: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Another form, about Japanese gardening actually, is "Your garden is not complete until there is nothing else that you can remove."

Just a different perspective... There is an audience out there that does prefer a longer 2-3 hour game length. I myself like the depth and amount of planning a game like that takes. I find myself straying away from the 30 minute to 1 hour games these days as they tend to end too quickly. Right when you think you are in the meat of the game and starting to have fun, it ends. And it's either lets play again, or put this thing away... When I come away from playing a 2-3 hour long game, I get more satisfaction from winning and more determination when losing. The game "Risk"by Parker Brothers is a great example of a successful board game that takes way too long to play. But people loved it.

I think the amount of time your game takes is really up to you. Do you want to appeal to short term gamers that just want to party for an hour or so, or those strategy thinkers that want to dive into a game they might have to put away for an hour just to eat and come back to later on? As long as the games rules are straightforward and engaging, I think you'll be ok. But in the end, you can't make everyone happy. Just tailor the game to your target audience.

Not one of the published authors here, so go with them if something comes into conflict.

The early discussion veered off into how long the complex game takes to play, but the question was more which served as a better starting point.

Absent some huge difference in marketability, I'd recommend the simpler game for learning the process. But I mean simpler in a publishing/manufacturing sense. If one requires a bunch of artwork and 3D components and custom dice and an odd-shaped box, then the other one is where you start. It will be easier to get quotes from vendors, and you'll be more likely run into others on BGDF who have gone through exactly what you're going through.

When you have that one game under your belt, success or failure, then you can come back for the more complex project.

I am part of the 'opinionated people'.
Why 'deep & complex OR simple? Why not marry the two for simple & deep, or complex yet simple?

"I love my children equally. But I'm also conscious that I need to focus on one of them to avoid getting none of them out."

I love these two sentences together.

Hi Krone9

I think we actually met at a playtest outside of London when I was still in the UK. You might remember me, as I played Ludus Magnus and broke the combat system to a never-ending draw (but still enjoyed the game).

If you HAVE to focus on one due to time constraints, work on the smaller one first. You'll learn so much from taking a game all the way to completion that you can apply to other projects, and (most of the time) you can test and balance a small game faster.

But my real advice is work on both, until you no longer think one is worth pursuing. By that time, you will probably have another game idea that you think IS worth pursuing. Working on multiple games has a bunch of advantages.

Caveat: If you are self-publishing, I wouldn't go through the publishing process on two games at the same time, but during design and testing I think it's absolutely the way to go.

A short, but non-exhaustive list of the advantages of working on multiple games:

• Learning!

  You'll learn a lot just from going through the design and testing process. So why not learn those lessons faster by working on more than one things. Exposure to how to test games of different mechanics, genres, lengths, etc are all useful game design skills (which is one of the reasons playing other designer's prototypes is such a valuable experience as new designer)

• You get to be able to switch focus if you are getting hung up or stuck on a design issue.

  Let's say you get a bunch of feedback about the player powers in Ludus Magnus, but you can't figure out the design solution right away. You can sit on that feedback and spend a little design time on it each week while focusing on Knossus instead.

• Test more frequently

  If you are stuck doing revisions, or haven't had enough time to make a new prototype from revisions you've already designed, you can still show up to game nights / playtest sessions with your other game. Since this happens pretty frequently (you'll have lag time in making new versions), it means you'll be able to test more consistently. And that also is helping you build your own name in the design community.

• Test more consistently.

  You can test different games with different audiences, and don't need to not get any tests done because the player count, interest, or timing wasn't right to test one of the two. That way, you are never missing out on audience.

• You won't be overly attached.

  If you have more than one game, you won't be as attached to your baby, and you'll be able to make more objective decisions about cutting things out of it (or even scrapping a whole game).