Skip to Content
 

How much detail is too much?

12 replies [Last post]
Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009

One of my side-projects is a kingdom-simulation cardgame similar to "A game of thrones" or maybe "Legend of the five rings". But my game is targeted to catch the flavor of the "whole picture" and not just battles. On the other side I dont want to go too much into micromanagement - keeping resource management and kingdom administration to a minimum.

So besides managing a minimum of resources and trying to build up forces (of wich kind ever), the core concepts of the game focus on: Diplomatic, Intrigue, Economic, Religious and Military Struggles. Those struggles represent conflicts going on between rivaling kingdoms. Your main target is to pull the string sucessfully to make your puppets win as many struggles as possible.

Talking about detail - what do you think how much detail is just too much? Especially when fleshing out the different Struggles. There is very much room to expand for example Military. Right now the game is so simple that only Strength values are compared, I am not able to represent Cavalry or Archers. But i guess a player trying to win the game by Military will find it a bit boring not being able to vary his strategy much.

I have good CCG examples at hand concerning what I mean with "too complex": Both Babylon 5 and the Dune CCG are VERY complex games in my eyes. Well, any thoughts?

End of Time Games
End of Time Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2009
THis is interesting because I

THis is interesting because I was asking the same question to myself and on here. I think there's a thread somewhere. The best answer I could come up with so far is create expansions. I am not saying it can't be done. But......

************rule of thumb: you can add rules without adding features but you can not add features without adding rules****************************

At some point the rule book would start getting really big.....or game length starts getting really long. Pluse the more complex the more you isolate you audience. Because haing what you described above sounds like it would start to get hard for many people to keep track of in there minds. I'm not saying it can't be done. I continue to contemplate the same question. I would also play only those games that are big and resemble something you want your game to do.

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
Your rule of thumb describes

Your rule of thumb describes exactly what i mean:

In the past i designed a boardgame wich was expandable. I built it around the lowest common denominator - wich turned it into a really simple, fastpaced and extremly fun game to play. the thing is: I design almost all my games with the expandable scheme in mind. in that case, the game was just too simple to add anymore stuff. it either looked tacked on or imbalanced the whole metagame.

so, after that i learned the lession: include as many rules in your base game as possible to keep the enviroment rich - but include only as few rules as possible to keep the game slim.

but this is the one million dollar question: what exactly is the right amount of rules versus simplicity (or: limiting yourself). I want to go in-depth enough right from the start to make a game wich is both exciting for my players and (more or less) easy to learn. But, there has to be room for expansions too. And lots of it - but squeezing it all into expansions can't be the ultimate answer?

End of Time Games
End of Time Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2009
Fhizban wrote:Your rule of

Fhizban wrote:
Your rule of thumb describes exactly what i mean:

In the past i designed a boardgame wich was expandable. I built it around the lowest common denominator - wich turned it into a really simple, fastpaced and extremly fun game to play. the thing is: I design almost all my games with the expandable scheme in mind. in that case, the game was just too simple to add anymore stuff. it either looked tacked on or imbalanced the whole metagame.

so, after that i learned the lession: include as many rules in your base game as possible to keep the enviroment rich - but include only as few rules as possible to keep the game slim.

but this is the one million dollar question: what exactly is the right amount of rules versus simplicity (or: limiting yourself). I want to go in-depth enough right from the start to make a game wich is both exciting for my players and (more or less) easy to learn. But, there has to be room for expansions too. And lots of it - but squeezing it all into expansions can't be the ultimate answer?


It's not my rule of thumb. I read it in the book "Game Design Workshop". Just to be clear. That is a vary good hand book for game design.

End of Time Games
End of Time Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2009
Fhizban wrote: but this is

Fhizban wrote:

but this is the one million dollar question: what exactly is the right amount of rules versus simplicity (or: limiting yourself). I want to go in-depth enough right from the start to make a game wich is both exciting for my players and (more or less) easy to learn. But, there has to be room for expansions too. And lots of it - but squeezing it all into expansions can't be the ultimate answer?


Well as I say, a certain amount of elegance should be kept in mind. How long is the game. How large the rulebook. how well can players learn the game. I hold a place in my mind that sais there are creative ways to make a game acheave a lot of experience in an elegant package.

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
Well then "the rule of thumb"

Well then "the rule of thumb" - not "yours"....anyways:

I dont want to go too much into the details of my project - its more interesting to keep this thread on the tracks of a theoretically/philosophical discusson. but maybe its helpful to create a picture in your minds if I describe some of the various options im confronted with right now:

As described above my game is about empire simulation and conflicts. there are different pillars the game is built upon: military, economic, diplomacy and so on. speaking about complexity - i have a rough design of what i call "the most complex version" on my hardrive. the problem is - what is too complex? what is way beyond the scope of casual players - what attracts hardcores and so on. again, i can only refer to the Dune CCG - because it is in my eyes the manifest of a very complex collectible card game.

MILITARY
Speaking about the military aspect I currently only have a Power Rating for the units in the game. I could go as far as including also a unit type (like cavalry, archers, etc.) - with some nash equilibrium style stuff thrown in like: swords beat archers, archers beat cavalry and cavalry beat swords. then there coult be an initiative rating, duels between leaders and many more. all complex enough to create a wargame from this design pillar alone.

DIPLOMACY
Besides the standard diplomacy struggle (wich represents political debates between the noble houses, where the one with the higher diplomacy rating gains one victory point) this could be expanded into friendships, alliances, contracts, hostilities and the like. there could be the option to support other characters or to hinder them raising their voice at the court. all in all again complex enough to create a single game from it.

ECONOMY
The same here. Besides a bet like system where the winner gains victory points there could be trade routes, contracts or an embargo.

RELIGIOUS, INTRIGUE and so on.
Dito - the same here. Besides the standard "Conflict Resolution system" there is enough meat to integrate sabotage, assassination and a whole pletoria of other things.

Before this gets too long: Extending each of the five pillars in my game to the maximum would result in a game so complex that each match turns into a five hour session. Who thinks this is the case? Or does complexity not automatically lead to longer sessions, is this amount of complexity necessary to fuel a premier set and a dozen of expansions. Questions, over questions...

Jpwoo
Jpwoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/26/2009
Can you name a game that you

Can you name a game that you think hits the 'sweet spot'? I find it helps to look at examples of what you like already, and see what they did. How many things do these games track? How long are the rules? How many rules are there?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Same situation for my Master of magic remake

In my remake attempt as a board game of master of magic, there is a lot of elements in the game and the variety of these elements makes the game rich and adds replay value. In other words it is essential.

As a quick glance, here is what all the elements I have tought so far to implement in the game:

Terrain types
Cities of difference size for race
Specialities for capital cities
races
Special resources that gives bonus
Special resources that unlock things
Special locations to explore and resolve
Unit types with various abilities
Various technological advancements
Wonders to build in your capitals
Imperial buildings to build in your capitals
Heroes to hire and boost your actions
Government type for your empire
Armies to place on the board
Gold to manage income and maintenance
Mana to manage income and maintenance
Spells to research
Special wizard trait
Magick items that can be built
Upgrades that can be placed in your covement
Development of your wizard skills
Followers in your covenant that could help you.
Monster herds that you can place on the board
Different summon creature types
Espionage and sabotage of other player ( don't know how yet)
Diplomacy: Negotiate issues, titles and powers ( don't know how yet)
Trading: Negotiate pact and ressource exchange ( don't know how yet)
Special events
And of course different victory condition

This is for the base game. I have tought about an expansion that could add gods in the game with new spells and new mechanics.

So now you might has, How I might going to implements each of these features into 1 game. The answer I have so far: make each elements as simple as possible.

For example, a wizard or government trait is 1 card you choose with 1 special ability. That's it. So this is simply by itself but added to all the rest makes it complicated. But I don't think it would be unplayable.

The only problem I has so far is for designing the game. There is so much elements here and there that I am always lost in my thought and I don't what needs to be done. I would probably have to start writting a new rule set and add things gradually to the game as they get tested and completed.

End of Time Games
End of Time Games's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2009
@ larienna, simplifing

@ larienna, simplifing features is a good point and I had the same thing on my mind as I've been following this thread.

Because I have so little game play experience under my belt, I can not make a thorough analysis about any one game. As far as games that have hit the sweet spot, well "A Touch of Evil" is hitting my sweet spots so far but even that hasn't had enough by me. I've just havn't found the time lately to set it up. I so wish I could get a behind the scenes look at the design aspect of a game like this. Even something similar. I would be interested to know how a designer organizes, designs, and playtests a game with so many cards that interlock and the big rulebook. For me it had a pretty big rulebook, but I liked the game enough that I could resurve complaints. I think when it comes to complexity, "cards" could vary well be the lord and savior.

Mitchell Allen
Mitchell Allen's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2008
Sweet Spot of Complexity

Jpwoo wrote:
Can you name a game that you think hits the 'sweet spot'? I find it helps to look at examples of what you like already, and see what they did. How many things do these games track? How long are the rules? How many rules are there?

Although it's not a board game, Side Meier's Alpha Centauri stands out as a game that handles empire management very well. Because it IS a computer game, it's easy to set some of your cities on auto-pilot and focus on your main objectives.

Aside from that, it abstracts many of the elements of empire management that Fhizban seeks to implement.

I use Alpha Centauri as a model whenever I discuss the economics of empire-building games. Complexity, in my opinion, grows exponentially with the number of variables used to describe production.

In every game requiring the acquisition of resources, players must make economic choices. I think that, once the optimal path is discovered, the game will either become predictable or it will evolve as equally strong players seek to undermine the use of the optimal path.

If you accept this premise - and I'm not sure I'm totally on-target, here - then you may attempt to design your game's mechanics around the economic choices, rather than try to create parallel systems of management.

Here's an example: given the production cycle of a military unit, it stands to reason that the more resources you control, the more military units you can produce. Food, Ammo and Space (barracks, etc.) can be the gross resources. Rather than focus on what units can be produced, concentrate on defining how much food, ammo and space are required to support a single military unit. (By the way, you can abstract the military unit itself, calling one unit = to a battalion, so that it makes sense to use large, round numbers of resources.)

Additionally, gross resources are abstractions, too: food=nutrition, clothing and medicine (if you want); ammo=gunpowder,rifles and armor; space=one or more "cells" or areas in a city.

Once you start thinking this way, it is possible that you may find it easier balancing the units. Continuing with the example, diplomacy can be abstracted based on Food, Goodwill and Embassies.

Intrigue can be abstracted by Intelligence gathering capabilities, Goodwill (whcih also allows some counterplay with diplomacy), and spy units in the field.

That's the gist, all excerpted from my enjoyment of Alpha Centauri.

Cheers,

Mitch

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@Mitchell Allen: Thanks for

@Mitchell Allen: Thanks for the insight. I also enjoyed alpha centaury very much. Concerning my game you are not completely on-target with what you said, but as general information your post is valuable.

@Larienna: Thats quite a list. You are working on this game since Ages right?
I think the list for my project will be equally long.

All in all I come to the thought that it is important to keep all the tiny bits that make a game as simple and fast as possible. The next point is that you dont need all special-rules at the same time. So - you can create a game of enormous complexity, but during a single match only a portion of the rules is actually used - depending on how many players there are and how they play (what units they bring into the game etc.).

Right now, the design of my game is built around five fundamental pillars, where each pillar represents a core rule. Then the pillars divide further into subsets of rules wich branch out to cover more of the details (uh chunky wording)...

1. Military Pillar
1.1 Unit Management
1.2 Warfare
1.3 Duels

2. Religious Pillar
2.1 Unit Management
2.2 Preaching
2.3 Curses

3. Economic Pillar
3.1 Unit Management
3.2 Contracts
3.3 Sabotage

Those are just three simpliefied pillars from my game. And it is obvious that a player without military units has no access to the military pillar. Therefore he does not bother with the unit management, warfare or duel rules at all. As you can win a match in the game in 5 different ways - this seems to be a good start basing the whole system around a pool of rather complex rules - with the feat that the players can "opt-in" or tap into the different branches of the rules, depending on their playing style (or for example how they design their decks in a CCG/TCG cardgame). again, chunky wording...

simpson
Offline
Joined: 10/22/2008
"But my game is targeted to

"But my game is targeted to catch the flavor of the "whole picture" and not just battles...So besides managing a minimum of resources and trying to build up forces (of wich kind ever), the core concepts of the game focus on: Diplomatic, Intrigue, Economic, Religious and Military Struggles. "

This makes me wonder what is the theme and the topic of the game.

Also, players have certain expectations of gameplay when it comes to cardgames. The scale of complexity that you want to flavor the card game might very well be too logistically big to put in. The real strength of card games is how small the I/O structure is, allowing players to pick it up on the fly.

simpson

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
simpson wrote:This makes me

simpson wrote:
This makes me wonder what is the theme and the topic of the game.

Its based on the now discontinued D&D campagin world "Birthright" by Wizards of the Coast.

simpson wrote:
The scale of complexity that you want to flavor the card game might very well be too logistically big to put in.

This is one of the reasons why i started the thread. It wont be more complex than Babylon 5 CCG or Dune CCG - and that will be okay (they both where still manageable).

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut