10 Things Every Game Needs: A Rosewater Classic

[@DaRedGoldfish]

I've barely played paper Magic in the last 10-15 years but I've been reading Mark's articles every week for longer than that for his thoughts and insights on design, development, and creativity. Surprised he hasn't bundled a bunch of his best articles together and published a book TBH.

[@blackboardgaming5348]

I agree with you about your thoughts on #4. I'm not all about the win. I get my satisfaction from doing well in that particular game.

[@renewebbauthor]

I agree; I think this is one reason why I really love cooperative games.

[@markusbiewer2756]

I love Mark's articles and I also love your videos, Jamey! Please keep up the good work!

[@jameystegmaier]

Thanks Markus!

[@jacksonward4363]

I’ve read that article and love hearing all your in game examples. It’s good to put a word to the experience when playing. Thanks again for another great video.

[@lucasghedin1800]

Thank you as always for the great content, Jamie. I've also been following MaRo's many design blogs and they're full of great learnings, glad to see they're being taken into account even by professional designers such as yourself.

[@jameystegmaier]

Thanks Lucas! I've learned so much from reading Mark's articles.

[@KennyZetterberg]

I really appreaciated this list! thx

[@jaredbeiswenger3766]

Thanks! Very thoughtful.

[@dranawor]

I agree with your point about interaction. When playing multiplayer games, sometimes I’m there just to enjoy a shared experience and not necessarily have an impact on my opponents gamestate. Lots of great games with zero interaction!

[@ryanbanwart5547]

Thanks for sharing this list! I agree with your changes to the list in what makes a game. I also agree that a huge part to keeping a game fun for continued play is a catch up feature or a way for even a new player to a game to have a chance to win or at least do well. Maybe that isn't always a mechanic but it could be an element of randomness or asymmetry. Something so that an experienced player can not just master the game and guarantee a win. Using Tapestry as an example...I am very good at the game but the various civilizations keep me on my toes and even challenge me to try a new strategic path so that I don't always win but I always have fun. And the fun is why we play!

[@StevenStJohn-kj9eb]

I agree with you about #4 (catch-up feature). Games like Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig are satisfying even when you have a castle going badly and know you are unlikely to win. It's just fun to make the castle. It's also fun to try and make the castle that is going well as good as possible, even if it won't change your score. But the other thing about #4 is that games can also work by hiding from you how bad you are doing! I was so intrigued the first time I played Concordia, because at set up you all put your VP markers on space 0... and they never move until the game is over! I'm sure it's possible to play so badly that you know you aren't winning, but most of the time even if you lose by 30 points, you're not sure until the tabulation. Personally I really love it when games hide a significant portion of the scoring until after the end - it doesn't have to be 100% hidden, like Concordia, but maybe just 10% hidden on the basis of some secret objectives or whatever.

[@nathanreid5815]

I'm usually not so agreeable, but when it comes to Jamey's insights, I'm a 'yes man.' I enjoy the flavour of this one and when you revisited your crowdfunding book as well, giving your fresh take on someone else's insights or updated on your own insights.

[@jameystegmaier]

Thanks, Nathan and Danica!

[@tomlikeabomb6706]

I think maybe ‘catch up mechanism’ should be replaced by just having any way to deal with a lame duck situation. Whether that’s giving them a way to catch up, ending the game faster when they fall behind, obscuring some of the points until the game is over, or some other incentive to keep playing.

[@tomlikeabomb6706]

Can always just concede as well and start a new game

[@leC0rbusier]

This happens a lot in magic the gathering actually. @@tomlikeabomb6706

[@Larknok1]

Hi Jamie, great video! Here's an optional #11 I'd add: player uniqueness & identity. Although not every game *needs* this, one of the ways players enjoy games is by expressing themselves. Just by going down / pursuing a unique strategy, players feel valuable even if that strategy is not the best vis-a-vis the goal. Games that offer players ways to express themselves by creating unique playstyles (typically by combining perks in a unique way they choose) add that extra bit of enjoyment. It's also arguably why balance is important: when a game is balanced, there's more 'valid' options, so choosing A instead of B becomes a way to express yourself instead of a calculated decision.

[@Larknok1]

Here's another (#12): meaningful or principled. This is hard to do in games, but one of the things people like about narrative art (books and movies) is that there is a message -- a principle the story unravels and explains through the magic of storytelling. Arguably, stories help people 'test-run' life's challenges by embodying themselves as the protagonist. Games don't have protagonists, but they do have the magic of direct agency! And by crafting the gameplay a certain way, it's possible for a game to explore meaningful ideas and have a set of principles. Now it's essential that meaning doesn't get in the way of fun, but great games should be able to seamlessly do both!

[@Larknok1]

At a deeper level I'd add that people like games for six joys of the heart: * Fun * Purpose * Planning * Adapting * Expressing * Connecting Mark's list had some version catered to all of these but purpose and expressing, but I think magic does those two really well. People build their decks in unique ways to express themselves, and the color wheel is quasi-philosophical so that it's purposeful / meaningful-- and not just basic fun.

[@jameystegmaier]

I love this series of comments, especially the six joys of the heart. Thanks for sharing!

[@unclesamb]

This is a great list, and I appreciate your revisions and clarifications for it. Great food for thought. Idea for another Sunday video: Tips on hosting a successful game night. This has been on my mind because I've been hosting a game night that is growing, and I'm intimidated by what will happen when we have too many people for one game. Right now I definitely "run" the game night, do the teach, etc, and to have a second table and game would either involve someone else stepping up to run that table or would involve me doing two teaches. I would love tips and ideas on the best way to run a game night like this that is less stressful for the host and still lots of fun for all the players.

[@jameystegmaier]

You're in luck--I have such a video ready for you! It's here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIPNeKqup6yAiNk

[@unclesamb]

@@jameystegmaier thank you! I've watched that one previously (a while ago) and my memory was that it was mainly focused on setting expectations for guests versus tips for the actual hosting, but I will check back on it!

[@robertcrist6059]

5:30 The last Stonemaier game I'll mention on this list...proceeds to mention more and the final one comes at 13:11 haha

[@jameystegmaier]

I must have misspoke--perhaps I meant to say the "first" on the list.

[@robertcrist6059]

@@jameystegmaier No it's all good my guy. I know you don't want to just talk about your stuff and even if you did that would be okay. In the split moments of thinking and idea can come and what do you know best but your stuff and that is okay. They weren't actual picks/highlighted suggestions, just mentions.

[@foyoGames]

Ahhh....the ❤ of Games 😊.

[@philamylon1479]

I think you're looking at the Magic "component hook" through a 30-year lens and what became an oversaturated CCG market. Being able to permanently trade components of my game to other players in exchange for components of their game was a revolutionary, genre-creating hook, and is still a massive part of the appeal of MTG. My ideal way to play that game is still some kind of limited league that allows trading between matches/meetings.

[@jameystegmaier]

Possibly--I don't disagree about your conclusion, though my lens is of someone who started playing Magic around 1994, when the CCG market was very new.

[@philamylon1479]

@@jameystegmaier Hmm...that's my lens too. I guess I'm trying to balance how I felt at the time (totally blown away) with how I feel today (jaded by the concept of CCGs), and trying to judge MTG through my 1994 eyes. I admit that it's not a hook for me today, really.

[@KarelTiteca]

My top “flavour” game (where not winning doesn’t really spoil the fun) right now is Obsession. It is so incredibly thematic, and it’s just so much fun to play. I don’t win very often, but I enjoy every single play!

[@jameystegmaier]

I agree--Obsession has incredible flavor throughout every aspect of the game.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

The cat believes you are violating the rule about feeding 🐱

[@Epistemophilos]

Great video. I wonder, though, how many games and prototypes that cat has mauled beyond recovery.

[@jameystegmaier]

None, fortunately! Biddy and Walter are good boys--they aren't allowed on tables. :)

[@pamiu1597]

1. excludes sandbox games, I get why MaRo would not think about them much, but a replacement might be "incentives" or "points of interest'" 10. matters more these days because people are inundated with things to do rather than truly bored and in need of a time-killer

[@blackboardgaming5348]

I think that instead of surprise, it's more about the reveal. A perfect example is when you reveal the face-down pirates in Libertalia.

[@jameystegmaier]

I like that a lot!

[@zachras9643]

Components! It can be a part of a few of these. Though it isn’t necessary, I would argue that’s what people pay for ultimately. Nobody drops $100 on the Crew no matter how fun it is because the components are simple but an all in Burn Cycle for $100 would be a steal even if you play it less or like it less than the Crew. To be fair, the components can make or break a game for most people.

[@jameystegmaier]

That's true, almost every game needs components. :)

[@nirszi]

Is the mechanism of "player with fewest points starts next round first" a mini catch-up mechanism?

[@jameystegmaier]

I think so!

[@kcsnipes]

He did a podcast on it I can’t find his KZbin vid I thought he did a talk on it but so I’m here 🫡

[@mikeprice2915]

Did you get the colossal tiles for Ludwig? We've been playing with those, and the experience is unparalleled! Now, of course, we're got a fairly big table -- and it might be a bit of a challenge to play with more than two players. :)

[@jameystegmaier]

I just got the "standard" collectors edition, but I hope to play with those jumbo tiles someday. :)

[@lilevil_bricks9419]

Ive been creating a board game, i was wandering if you have an art app that you use or recommend to design the game items, such as cards, game boards, and text within the game.

[@jameystegmaier]

I use InDesign. I'd also recommend checking out these videos and articles: stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter/how-to-design-a-tabletop-game/

[@tombosco6238]

I am unsure I agree with no.7 (Strategy) because I feel that there are at least a few party games I've played that I feel players don't necessarily improve from game to game. However, these party games that don't focus on strategy, instead focus more on having fun.

[@BassWakil]

Hyperborea is a great game that had lots of combat but you only got points from combat if you beat different opponents each time. Once you beat a person, you didn’t really get any points from beating them again. Really smart game.

[@jameystegmaier]

Absolutely! Hyperborea and Adrenaline do a great job of that.

[@nathanreid5815]

Glad Biddy and Walter have new pictures on their litter boxes so Walter will stop pooping in Biddy's box and read the sign and go in his own. Just joking.

[@tonycork2pa469]

I would add "Balance" to the mix - very important, especially when a game has asymmetrical roles or actions. I agree "Fun" is very subjective - e.g. I enjoy many of the Abstract games in my collection, but they are not for many gamers. I have mixed feelings on the "catch up mechanism" - is it fair when a lagging player earns more reward later in a game compared to when an opponent completed the same task earlier for less? I like the catch-up when it is inherent in the game - e.g. Yinsh, three rings/lines of 5 needed to win, where everyone finds it harder to earn the 3rd ring before an opponent earns their 1st.

[@jameystegmaier]

I like the addition of some form of balance to a game. That's one of the core reasons we playtest: fun, function, balance, and intuitiveness/clarity.

[@francisd8650]

I'm not sure I agree with Surprise... would you say that Chess has an element of surprise? In other words, do you think merely not knowing what your opponent is going to do would be considered surprise if all their options are open information?

[@jameystegmaier]

That's player-driven surprise instead of game-driven surprise, but absolutely, I've been surprised by opponents many times in games like chess.

[@piratedoggames1332]

I don't like a catch-up feature in a game. If you're losing because you made poor decisions, and then suddenly you're caught up with the other players, there are no consequences for making poor decisions. If it's case of a game where things are decided on dice rolls, and one player keeps getting bad dice rolls, then that's just the way it is; it could happen to any of the players. Players won't get better at a game if they know there's a catch-up feature to help them.

[@tombosco6238]

This doesn't define a game, but I feel a game works best if it can be revisited, explored again, and/or played with a different strategy even. I feel some of my favorite games from my collection allow me to do something new (if I wish) from game to game or encourage me to try something else the next time I play....whether that be a day, week, month later, though it can sometimes be immediately after playing you want to play again. 😀

[@thenintendobros9918]

You should look into getting Trains, it's a deck builder by AEG and is amazing. My wife and i love it so much we're making a game inspired by it

[@tombosco6238]

@@thenintendobros9918 Thanks for the recommendation!

[@maximilianomartinmassera9609]

i wish i can submit a solo game for you, i know you only publish few games per year, but the SOLO gaming guild is a thing nowadays, KS todays must include solo gaming if they want to suceed unless is a heavy interaction game.

[@jameystegmaier]

Indeed, we highly value solo modes and the 10% of gamers who primarily play solo, hence our ongoing partnership with Automa Factory. All of our games can be played solo. But we do not publish solo-only games, as we seek to also include other players in our games (the other 90% of gamers).

[@Gakraemer86]

Just going to throw this out there again.... SM should totally redo Ethnos. :D

[@jameystegmaier]

I appreciate your interest in that, but another company has the rights to Ethnos (and will hopefully make a new version in the future).

[@Gakraemer86]

@@jameystegmaier Not as well as SM would have! Thanks for letting me know.

[@lilevil_bricks9419]

Whats the kittys name?

[@jameystegmaier]

I have two cats, Biddy (less fluffy) and Walter (very fluffy).

[@SecretlyMikeYoung]

I find that a lot of roll and writes have very limited player interaction

[@nirszi]

And that's the proof it's not needed :)

[@TheLimestoneCowboy]

change my mind: all cooperative games are puzzles, not games

[@jameystegmaier]

I define a game as something you can win or lose. If there's no win or loss condition, I consider it an activity. As for puzzles, it really depends on the type of puzzle. If we're talking jigsaw puzzles, you can approach it as a game (if you don't complete it, you lose), but you can also approach it as an activity (just something to do).

[@Drudenfusz]

The first point about goals would make most roleplaying games to be not really games, especially if they are played in a sandbox style. There are some video games that also would no longer be games if that need for a goal has always to be fulfilled. I have not read that article from Rosewater, but does he really mean with interaction that it has to be with another player? I mean interaction could just as well mean changing the condition on the board. If it were just about interactions of people, then all video games that are not multiplayer are suddenly no longer games, classics like Pac-Man or Donkey Kong could not be called games. That seems silly, so I have to assume that you misunderstood Rosewater there. Interacting with the map is still interaction.

[@jameystegmaier]

That's a great point about interaction and how it relates to video games (though Mark's article is about tabletop games). I think Mark is focusing on player-to-player interaction. Rather than assuming a misunderstanding though (you know what they say about assuming, right?), just put in a tiny bit of effort read the article. I'll make it easier by quoting that section for you: "There needs to be some aspect of the game that encourages the players to react to one another. What does your game do to make the players interact? Players have to want something. The game has to make acquiring that thing challenging. The next step is making sure that everyone is playing the same game. The simplest way to do this is to give all players the same goal, making each of them an obstacle of the others. However you do this, though, it is crucial that your game interconnects the actions of the players. Why is this so important? There are several reasons. First, a big component of game playing is the social interaction. Computers and hand-held devices have made it easier and easier to play games solo. The reason that traditional gaming is still popular is that it has one huge advantage: face-to-face interaction. Humans are by nature social creatures. Gaming plays into the desire allowing people to interact. As interacting is one of the key goals, it's important that your game reinforce this interaction. Second, there's a great conservation of resources if you use other players as the needed obstacles. Magic, for example, does a great job of challenging a player because they are matching their wits against another person like themselves. Self-selection also means that players will tend to play against players who share their vision of how the game should be increasing the chances that all parties have a good gaming experience. One of the things that R&D is constantly conscious of is making sure to keep the interaction in the game. This is one of the reasons, for instance, that we are very cautious with what we call combos-that is, groups of cards that combine to create a giant effect that usually wins the game. If the combo is powerful and fast enough, there's no reason for you to even concern yourself with what the other players are doing. Magic's two greatest tools to creating interactivity are both card types: creatures and instants. Creatures force interaction because they require you to bring the action to the opponent. Attacking allows blocking. Instants create interaction because they allow you to act during a time that normally is focused on your opponent. Another big part of Magic's interaction is the inclusion of cards that answer problems. Richard understood that a key to making trading card games work is to make sure that every threat had an answer, which allowed decks to change over time as the metagame shifted. Magic is a game about change, and a key part of making this happen was giving the players the tools to combat whatever was currently the dominant strategy."

[@Drudenfusz]

@@jameystegmaier Thanks for taking the time to reply and quote the article. Looks like you are right, and I apologise for my assumption, guess that really made me what they say about assuming things. Funny thing is, that I would say that Magic has quite a few strategies that completely negate meaningful social interaction, like control decks that never let the play get into the match, or direct damage decks that burn the life so fast down before the the opponent could put anything even remotely threating on the board. And of course it gets worse with win condition from cards that let one win without having to interact with the opponent'S deck or life at all. So, I would say that not only is Rosewater wrong about that there has to be social interaction, but not even Magic is always doing that. If it would be interaction in general, something to toy around with, something to try, fail, and retry, and such things. Then interaction would feel like a valid point, since that would then include video games, where one can interact with virtual environment and thus as something to play with. Guess in my assumption I gave Rosewater too much credit.And again, I apologise for doubting you.

[@jeffk6673]

Every game needs players... so all you new designers out there, start making great things for us to play 😊