4 ms·

I sympathize with this view, but I think it glosses over some of the point of boardgames - simulation of a world. Chess has been around for hundreds of years wi

I sympathize with this view, but I think it glosses over some of the point of boardgames - simulation of a world. Chess has been around for hundreds of years with great depth, but it is not a good simulation of a war or a battle. If you want something like that, then that's going to lead you to have a longer rulebook. (Though many games could still do with some mechanism-pruning).

wolrah 2y ago
I would argue that if your game legitimately requires a long and complicated rule book that perhaps a board is not the best medium for the game. My partner loves board games, and one of my takes that drives her nuts is that IMO most board games are better as a computer game where the tedious mechanics are automated. I am certainly an extremist in this way, I believe almost every board or card game ever made is better to play on a computer, but I think we should all be able to agree that a LOT of board games would benefit from automation. Monopoly is a great example, because basically everyone has at least some understanding of the game and basically no one has ever played it entirely correctly in purely analog form. I have literally never seen anyone do the auctions in real life, mortgaging is rare, and other "house rules" like the pot on "Free Parking" are common. All of these things tend to cause the game to drag on forever, ironically the thing most of those same players will complain the most about. If you play any of the computer/console versions the auctions are automatic and easy for everyone to participate. Some support the house rules as options, but they have to be enabled and some versions specifically warn that they will break the game. Computers exist to automate tedious tasks, if your game has tedious mechanics that require a lot of text to explain it'd probably be better as a computer game where those parts can be automated and the player just has to make their choices within that framework. In industrial safety one of the mantras is that if it's easier to do it wrong than right people will definitely do it wrong, so you need to make the right path also the easy path, sometimes changing entire systems or processes to make it that way. I believe the same logic should be applied to gaming. If your game is complicated enough that effectively no one is going to play it correctly as a board game, either simplify it so that's not the case or don't make it a board game. My partner would argue that the physical interaction with the pieces/cards/board/whatever is what matters and computers don't have that, but I believe if I'm judging a game as a game then the gameplay not making me hate it is the most important part.
- erehweb 2y ago
  Lot of sympathy for this view, too. Risk is long, drawn-out and often awful on board, but can be very pleasant on computer. OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand. Would it be good if a complicated diplomatic game with hidden info like Republic of Rome https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513/the-republic-of-rome https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513/the-republic-of-rom... were available on computer, and everyone had their own device making it easy to see their hand / interact? Absolutely! But that's not a realistic option. I would agree with "If your game is complicated enough that effectively no one is going to play it correctly as a board game, either simplify it so that's not the case or don't make it a board game." but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun. Agree that you really want to try to minimize tedious bookkeeping, though. I may well be an outlier, though - I actually read the rules of Monopoly as a kid and we did auctions and mortgaging...
  - wolrah 2y ago
    > OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand. I've long thought the "Jackbox Games" model would be absolutely perfect for board games. The board goes on a TV, a tablet, or for the really dedicated a screen built in to their gaming table and each player's hand/deck/whatever displays on their phone through a browser-based client. If I were a frontend programmer I'd have taken a whack at it. > but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun. My experience fits with something mentioned in the article, a lot of serious gamers are not in fact playing their games correctly but they just don't know it. I said this in another one of my replies but I'll repeat it here, I have rarely played a complicated (read: more than a page of rules to be understood for proper play) game with my partner's board game crew without discovering some way that they were playing it wrong half way through the game. These are people who meet every week at a board game bar to play board games, go to board game conventions, and a few of them even make and sell their own games.
- 2y ago

wolrah 2y ago

I would argue that if your game legitimately requires a long and complicated rule book that perhaps a board is not the best medium for the game. My partner loves board games, and one of my takes that drives her nuts is that IMO most board games are better as a computer game where the tedious mechanics are automated. I am certainly an extremist in this way, I believe almost every board or card game ever made is better to play on a computer, but I think we should all be able to agree that a LOT of board games would benefit from automation. Monopoly is a great example, because basically everyone has at least some understanding of the game and basically no one has ever played it entirely correctly in purely analog form. I have literally never seen anyone do the auctions in real life, mortgaging is rare, and other "house rules" like the pot on "Free Parking" are common. All of these things tend to cause the game to drag on forever, ironically the thing most of those same players will complain the most about. If you play any of the computer/console versions the auctions are automatic and easy for everyone to participate. Some support the house rules as options, but they have to be enabled and some versions specifically warn that they will break the game. Computers exist to automate tedious tasks, if your game has tedious mechanics that require a lot of text to explain it'd probably be better as a computer game where those parts can be automated and the player just has to make their choices within that framework. In industrial safety one of the mantras is that if it's easier to do it wrong than right people will definitely do it wrong, so you need to make the right path also the easy path, sometimes changing entire systems or processes to make it that way. I believe the same logic should be applied to gaming. If your game is complicated enough that effectively no one is going to play it correctly as a board game, either simplify it so that's not the case or don't make it a board game. My partner would argue that the physical interaction with the pieces/cards/board/whatever is what matters and computers don't have that, but I believe if I'm judging a game as a game then the gameplay not making me hate it is the most important part.

erehweb 2y ago
Lot of sympathy for this view, too. Risk is long, drawn-out and often awful on board, but can be very pleasant on computer. OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand. Would it be good if a complicated diplomatic game with hidden info like Republic of Rome https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513/the-republic-of-rome https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513/the-republic-of-rom... were available on computer, and everyone had their own device making it easy to see their hand / interact? Absolutely! But that's not a realistic option. I would agree with "If your game is complicated enough that effectively no one is going to play it correctly as a board game, either simplify it so that's not the case or don't make it a board game." but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun. Agree that you really want to try to minimize tedious bookkeeping, though. I may well be an outlier, though - I actually read the rules of Monopoly as a kid and we did auctions and mortgaging...
- wolrah 2y ago
  > OTOH, creating a computer game is not a trivial task, and I don't see a good way to do it for 6 people Face-to-Face with some hidden information like a card hand. I've long thought the "Jackbox Games" model would be absolutely perfect for board games. The board goes on a TV, a tablet, or for the really dedicated a screen built in to their gaming table and each player's hand/deck/whatever displays on their phone through a browser-based client. If I were a frontend programmer I'd have taken a whack at it. > but think you may be underestimating serious gamers' ability to play complicated games correctly and still have fun. My experience fits with something mentioned in the article, a lot of serious gamers are not in fact playing their games correctly but they just don't know it. I said this in another one of my replies but I'll repeat it here, I have rarely played a complicated (read: more than a page of rules to be understood for proper play) game with my partner's board game crew without discovering some way that they were playing it wrong half way through the game. These are people who meet every week at a board game bar to play board games, go to board game conventions, and a few of them even make and sell their own games.
2y ago