How NOT to design a MODERN board game

[@CactusJackter]

I now want to make a game that uses nothing other than all of these mechanisms together to see what happens :D

[@AdaminWales]

Well, Milton Bradley made an enormous success of that for a century! :)

[@berndisterndi-gugutschatscha]

Just play DnD then

[@Somethingsomethingyoutube]

​@AdaminWales before they were absorbed by hasbros and drowned of all unique creativity in favour of consistant earnings.

[@privacyvalued4134]

Aside from no one buying your game, just make it a deck of cards consisting of boring activities like "You watch grass grow" and one "You Win" card. There's a die to roll to skip that many cards in the deck. No one holds any cards in their hands. It's just a card flipping game where everyone sees the You Win card appear in the discard pile and wonder how much longer the game is going to drag on.

[@TheGateShallStand]

Congratulations, Battletech

[@TurtleMarcus]

I find it interesting that ancient boardgames like Pachisi (Ludo) and Moksha Patam (Snakes and Ladders) had a philosophical aspect to them. With the danger of oversimplifying, they intended to show that man is ruled by Fate, you cannot change your Fate, but you can try to make the best of it. In our age, this idea has fallen out of favour, and modern man now believes that he is the master of his own destiny within the constraints of his circumstance - something that is reflected in what boardgame mechanism we prefer today.

[@loke6664]

To be fair are there also plenty of purely skill based ancient boardgames like Chess and Hnefatafl. The Romans had both kinds of games. Hnefatafl was actually used to teach warriors basic strategy besides being a fun game to kill some time. I heard the same thing said about Chess but I am less certain that is actually true.

[@jmurray1110]

Snakes abd ladders isn’t about fate it’s about vices and virtues tge reasons the snakes are so plentiful and extreme compared to the ladders is because it’s a lot easier to fall from grace than to reach enlightenment

[@jupiterlily13]

I was thinking that too. If we see games like this as one of many tools for educating children about our world then frustration teaches us that progress isn't always linked with merit, it teaches us about the randomness of statistics, honestly if I think about it I could list these for ages. And as soon as he said that bit about how a game should be leading to a conclusion, I had a giggle, because if you're a parent trying to get 5 minutes peace, you want them sat popping that frustration bubble for hours if possible lol.

[@Quincy_Morris]

If by ‘philosophical’ you mean wrong

[@loke6664]

@@Quincy_Morris Nah, more like it gives kids the lesson: "Life sucks". And yeah, life might not always be super easy today but back when those games were made, it was a lot harder. But to be honest, that is just a hypothesis. We don't really know what the persons who invented them really thought. Another hypothesis is just that they wanted an easy enough game to produce that could keep the kids distracted for a few hours back when no one had a telly. Those games were indeed likely to have been designed for kids, games for adults tended to both be a bit more complex but still taking shorter time for a round. I think any parent can tell you that having the kids distracted for a couple of hours now and then are priceless and humanity are not really that different today even if we have fancier toys.

[@andrewsenseigames]

Excellent advice. I have twins. One loves the luck of dice rolls and card flips. The other cannot stand losing because of something completely out of their control (and not necessarily the opponent’s doing). It makes for very good play testing feedback. 😅

[@AdaminWales]

You’re lucky to have your own little playtesting group right there!

[@ALifeOfWine]

This makes me wonder if growing up one of the twins got a string of board game luck, creating a positive reinforcement loop for luck based games, while simultaneously creating a negative reinforcement loop for the other twin.

[@SPQRKlio]

Games for children serve the purpose: learning turn-taking, good sportsmanship, numbers, cause and effect, social skills, fine motor skills, all manner of things. Not to mention imagination-my friends and I would play Life all night long on sleepovers, even after outgrowing the basic game structure, telling stories about our tiny peg families while (for better or worse) subconsciously learning about how a bit of luck will change a life’s path. We learned the fundamentals of game playing and learned to enjoy them! Upward and onward from there 🙂

[@AdaminWales]

I LOVE games for children :) I made a whole video about them: How to design a board game for CHILDREN *Top 10 Mechanisms* kzbin.info/www/bejne/gn-TkniLZsZsnKs Advances have been made in designing for children, just as they have for adult designs. Like you, I loved playing Game of Life as a kid. I’d have no worries about my child playing it today if they wanted to. There are MANY better children’s games out there though. Perhaps none have done this theme as well as Game of Life though, and it is an appealing theme to kids/families for sure.

[@SPQRKlio]

I’ll be sure to watch the video-I must have missed that one!

[@revimfadli4666]

The lack of agency and/or randomness mitigation in games , as well as lack of compensation for when randomness favors certain players, can make one appreciate the agency and silver linings in life better

[@calebbarnhouse496]

Randomness is good, when you have some control over the randomness, there is a reason mtg is releasing a box of cards for 270 bucks, card games are inherently random, but you make decisions that impact if your happy with your deck to make curves with payoffs and tutors and resources to use all of them, randomness just needs to not be the only deciding factor, unless that randomness is a tie breaker, (in which case rock paper scissors works way better because of mind games) or that randomness is something you actively chose to engange in because a highrole was your only chance to win, and on average it's not going to win you the game

[@revimfadli4666]

@@calebbarnhouse496 that's why I love random setup and self-balancing mechanics on midgame random stuff (closed drafting, auction, century/smallworld market, last diminisher, I Cut You Choose)

[@bort6459]

I think a lot of people miss when talking bad mechanics that seem to never die is the gambling aspect. Most skill destroying mechanics that make games bad can scratch the same dopamine itch as gambling. It can be perplexing to warch from the outside, but many people genuinely enjoy the rush of winning a game by illusion of control while still being able to dismiss defeat as bad luck.

[@metawarp7446]

So... If it's fun, why is it bad? I think having a modest amount of luck/gambling can be very good (like you said: something to blame, excitement, new players have a reason to play with better players, easy way to provide variety) (edit: also luck provides more comeback possibilities)

[@UIMcocodog]

​@@metawarp7446 "i had fun when i won by chance" dosnt really give any insight into how fun the entire game is. plenty people will sit through a bad experience just for the chance to win something.....

[@benjaminmiddaugh2729]

@@metawarp7446 Some people dislike losing based on a mechanic that feels outside of their control. That is, if they can't trace their loss to either their own mistakes or opponent(s) outplaying them they dislike the game/mechanics in question. Of course, this is a matter of preference, based on what aspects of games one finds valuable. Not every type of game is for everyone.

[@pixality7902]

​@benjaminmiddaugh2729 it's not just for the audience. Its the place or occasion. I may not like tournaments or serious sessions with more luck based games but they tend to be better and more fun to play with friends. Skill games tend to be far more one sided. I like games that throw wrenches in that give anyone a chance to win. Not entirely devoid of skill but games that require more adjustment on the fly, lending to people making more mistakes or occasionally being unusually unlucky.

[@---zh8qn]

i know a lot of people who genuinly enjoy uno (or similar) to the fullest and barely play anything else. They take it as a "good" thing they do not have to make decisions and can just play along. They don't understand i find this boring the same way i don't undertstand how they find it enganging.

[@revimfadli4666]

Catan is also a good example of a more modern game where there are many turns in which you can do nothing but roll dice for everyone else

[@Darkprosper]

Catan's biggest flaw, in my opinion, is runaway leaders. It's a game where, after a few turns, you can point at whoever is likely to win, and worse yet, whoever has no chance to win. It's actually a game that might have benefited from player elimination...

[@revimfadli4666]

@@Darkprosper Yeah but at least trade embargoes and robber targeting can give a perception of catchup opportunity. Not my favorite kind of catchup, but still... It's often said that "perception of X is more important than actual X" in game design (although eventually the real X becomes the perceived X once the game is famous enough)

[@AshlingScott]

Catan is 30 years old. I'm sorry you had to find out like this...

[@revimfadli4666]

@@AshlingScott yeah but not monopoly old

[@Michael-dj6pd]

​@@Darkprosper hmm I often take the lead in Catan early only to lose because the other players ally against me

[@BazztheBazz]

Considering that Battletech is almost exclusively "roll 2d6 and consult one of a billion tables," and it's currently the most popular it's been since the 1980s, I've gotta strongly disagree with the notion that tables are some outdated relic that nobody wants to use.

[@altulbluo404]

Good point, there is solid amaunt of popular games that uses tables for stuff (especially for automatic enemy actions), and there is board games cousin tabletop wargaming(games like batletech, bolt or most of warhamer brand) wich are bild around consulting tables

[@dtrainacomin]

I would argue this is very much the subject matter itself, and successful licensed product increasing the awareness, rather than "amazing game design". Consider the amount of chit and counter games that use tables for resolution that aren't getting attention from these same folks... there's no wild Crimson Skies resurgence. More than anything it feels like "mechs + 3d printer go brrrt + screw games workshop" all aligning with public awareness caused by video games or just walls of new plastic mechs in many hobby shops, and the old guard were there to shepherd new dudes over. Though with only a handful of charts that are mostly embedded into the record sheets, it's far from the worst example of charts in an old school hex and counter wargame.

[@moocowp4970]

I haven't played the game, but almost all games are more popular now than they have ever been, so it makes sense that games would have lots of players playing nowadays, even if they use bad game design.

[@Seth9809]

Except hex and chit games are unpopular

[@saluk7419]

This sounds like exactly what he's talking about. There are communities that still play older style games - but it's not likely die-hard battletech players, or players who don't already love battletech for that matter - are on the hunt for a new lifestyle game using 2d6 table lookups. That said, while I think it is USUALLY going to be a mistep to use outdated styles, sometimes innovation can still come from refreshing something from the past.

[@AJHaydenTV]

You can use event decks as a manually triggered thing. For instance, a player can choose to pay some amount of resources to draw the top card of the event deck. It's an optional decision to take a risk at that point, which makes it more fun. It can essentially function as a hail mary.

[@corvididaecorax2991]

Potentially also from the other end as a risk factor for being too greedy. You can do X safely, or you can do more than X with a chance of doom.

[@revimfadli4666]

Or make its contents come entirely* from player choice, like Through the Ages does *well players do randomly draw the options they can place, but they're fully aware of which cards they put in, and they always have options

[@jtspgs1986]

For those who like to skip the excessively long intro, actual video starts at 4:05 your welcome.

[@RockstarRacc00n]

Yeah, almost lost interest before that. Weird how many presenters spend so much time saying obvious or unrelated things, when they could just be getting to their points.

[@AlixL96]

I honestly thought you must be exaggerating or skipping something, but no. That's genuinely how long it takes to get to the video.

[@kaksspl]

@@RockstarRacc00n It's as if we can't read titles. STOP TREATING US LIKE IDIOTS!

[@jtspgs1986]

@@AlixL96 yup...i sat through it so you didn't have to. I'm surprised i lived LOL

[@FrancoisTremblay]

You don't use SponsorBlock yet?

[@petersmythe6462]

I think one very important aspect of mechanical design, especially in games with player elimination, is progressive destabilization. Your game should begin with lots of catch up mechanics and positive sum interactions so losing players can remain in the game with some hope of winning, and end with lots of snowball mechanics and zero or negative sum interactions to finish off losing players quickly and humanely and pick a winner in fairly rapid succession so that the game can be over

[@pairot01]

Clank is a good example of a great player elimimation mechanic. There's a bag with lits of cubes, players add cubes of their colour as the game progresses, and every so often there's an event to take X cubes from the bag. If your cubes come out, you take that much damge, eventually you may die. When you are dead, on your turn this event triggers and you take out more cubes every time. On the 4th time that happens (on a dead player's turn) everyone still playing dies too.

[@stevieinselby]

Or just don't have player elimination 🤷🏻‍♂

[@corvididaecorax2991]

​@@stevieinselby I'm currently considering a mechanism for a game I'm working on where player elimination is technically possible, but has a heavy disincentive. That being the eliminated player's character curses yours and that player gets to spend the rest of the game making your life hell as the curse takes effect. In game of course.

[@revimfadli4666]

@@stevieinselby or shorten the game/round like Love Letter

[@jeffh8803]

Exactly, and monopoly, which gets slammed in this video, is actually pretty good at this if you follow the rules and are free with trading properties amongst the players

[@TheTolenMar]

A friend of mine loves the DC superheroes Deck Building game. So much so that he would constantly pester me to try it (me being a big fan of deckbuilders ordinarily). For three games, during the other players turns, I would be forced to discard more and more cards, so that when my turn came around, the only option I would have...is to draw cards and end my turn. He still doesnt understand why I dont like that game, and wont play it.

[@kotzpenner]

Ah yes my favourite kind of card games to hate, the ones where the optimal way to play is to force your opponent out of options (and enjoyment). Only one player is supposed to have fun! Looking at you, Yugioh!

[@LoganT101]

DC Deck Builder is a favourite of mine when you are playing a cooperative Crisis expansion. It’s surprisingly very fun and addictive when you are all working together to take down super villains and the theming works better as a cooperative in my opinion.

[@trustytrest]

I love deckbuilders where the first guy that moves gets to stunlock the other player with no hope of recovery. It's basically a coin toss with an extended cutscene afterwards. Oh wait, I actually hate deckbuilders. I wonder why that is...

[@kotzpenner]

@@trustytrest deckbuilders are fun when the opponent is an AI

[@istariknight1]

If it's the deck builder I'm thinking of, it's a coop DC game against the mastermind. It's great. Sad thing is, there are some builds in the game with toxic "hurt your allies to get ahead" mechanics and it sounds like your friend might be into that style. It's a small totally avoidable part of the game

[@MrAnihillator]

Let's be honest, the lack of player agency in those really old (as in 3000 year old) games, was probably so that you could win against the prince and keep your head... most of the times.

[@jakel2837]

The idea of a monarch getting violent over losing a game is overblown. Sure, there were plenty of them who were crazy, but most would've taken a loss with grace.

[@itap8880]

@@jakel2837 I don't think you can really know either way. So much has been lost to time and yet more remains than one person could learn about.

[@peccantis]

More like, those games were viewed in a different philosophical frame. Lack of player agency in certain games represented the whims of gods or fate.

[@trustytrest]

@@jakel2837 I imagine it's more the underage princes that cause problems than the adult monarchs. Just imagine the most spoiled brat you've ever known with legal immunity and a free license to punish anybody he feels like... Not that all princes were like that, but it was definitely a roll of the dice whether one was that kind of brat.

[@bertholdb9037]

It is also important that games were often not "games", but gambling. The game doesn't have to be that engaging if the stakes are.

[@J41012]

It's a shame that you show Dominion when discussing 'take that' mechanisms while Dominion is one of the few games that does attacks right. I consider 'take that' mechanisms as ways to hit one player hard, often the player in the lead. For example, stealing a keeper in Fluxx, or a card from someone's hand. None of the attacks in Dominion target a specific player, they all hit all other players equally (though the net effect might differ depending on their deck).

[@AdaminWales]

I intended to show it as an example of doing it right - while talking about not setting players back too much, and not undoing their whole strategy etc. Clumsy editing on my part :)

[@davidripplinger8904]

​@@AdaminWales I understood it in the way you intended.

[@revimfadli4666]

Attacking certain players feels weak compared to attacking everyone else at the table anyway. If there are targeted effects, I'd rather have them be positive mutualisms since they can lead to interesting decisions and alliances, as well as working as a secret comeback mechanic, compared to targeted take-that which often devolves to "bash the leader" without any decision space

[@satibel]

​@@revimfadli4666 the thing is it can work in games that are complex enough like MTG commander, because it becomes a mechanic of "who is the leader" and hiding your lead by making bad plays so you don't get targeted. and it is a self balancing mechanic, if a player gets a big lead, it can turn into a 2-3 vs 1 and make the game less snowbally. a good example imo is mario kart. leaders get defensive items, and people in the back get catch up items, most of which can slow down the ones in front. and depending on the track leading the whole game can be risky, because of the blue shell that brings the first place to a stop.

[@maxpower2480]

@@satibel Mario Kart's blue shell is a poor catch-up mechanic! If you're in a position too get it, it rarely helps you get ahead. It's a kingmaker mechanic. The same can be true for Commander (EDH - never forget! ^^) Often the player who is perceived as being in the lead early get's knocked back so hard, that they rarely end up winning. You're right about complexity though: Skilled commander players are good at resource management and playing to the political aspects of the game to avoid such a fate.

[@jeice13]

Battleship is not as bad as you suggest. Sure the FIRST turn is a blind guess but after that you should have some kind of strategy or prediction of your opponents habits

[@Pyropankake455]

It is literally all blind guessing because there's no tactical advantage/difference in placement of ships at all.

[@jeice13]

@@Pyropankake455 wrong but most of the strategy is in your search patterns not ship placement. Unless youre simpleminded but you CAN play any game without a strategy if you dont bother thinking

[@Ghorda9]

@@jeice13 just because there are optimal search patterns doesn't mean it's any better, there's still too much rng

[@jeice13]

@@Ghorda9 literally contains zero rng. I dont know what else to say, you could not be more wrong

[@Ghorda9]

@@jeice13 how is there no rng? the whole game is just educated guesses with the first being completely blind

[@slowitty8918]

I feel like Jail in Monopoly is kind of a bad example when it comes to negative, skip-turn mechanisms, because you can always pay $50 to leave, and the recontextualization of it in the late game where you want to stay in.

[@AdaminWales]

The core of my objection to it is that it puts one player in the position of “not playing the game”. Whether that’s for a positive reason, or negative reason, it’s not usually a great design choice to have one player sitting out.

[@tombrandis2866]

I've always played the (house?) rule that you can't collect rent whilst in jail

[@kespeth2]

​@@tombrandis2866itisw more realistic today anyway.

[@stevieinselby]

Monopoly has so many flaws ... one of them is that the optimal strategy is often counter-intuitive, and Jail epitomises this. Most players want to get out of jail as quickly as possible, because jail has so many bad connotations and it feels like you aren't taking part ... but in many cases, players are better off staying in jail as long as they can, especially in the later stages of the game, at least they are if people play by the official rules which many don't (eg, I had always played that you couldn't collect rent when in jail, and it was only much more recently that I found out that isn't a rule, which turns it on its head). While the optimal strategy shouldn't be so blindingly obvious that no-one would do anything else, equally it shouldn't be so counter-intuitive that you have to really geek out on KZbin to find it.

[@Andystuff800]

@@stevieinselby Monopoly was designed as a Georgist teaching tool demonstrating why landlords are bad. With that in mind, all its flaws make sense. Still sucks to play tho.

[@tsjbb]

I love the idea of the video but after 10 minutes you've almost exclusively mentioned games designed and marketed specifically for kids. Game of Life was one of my daughters favourite games until very recently, we have very happy memories of a giant Snakes and Ladders game they had at a local park, a couple of years ago we had to ask friends to go to Mcdonalds because she loved the Top Trumps cards they had in their happy meals so much! I used to love Battleship as a kid and played it against my Nanna on trains all the time, you said yourself you used to love Wrasslin' although I haven't heard of it before. You're talking about children's games and their mechanisms as if they're adult hobbyist style board games but they are totally different things with different purposes and audiences. Very young children don't care at all about things like player agency or randomness, if anything these things are perfect for bridging huge skill gaps that exist when a 6 year-old plays with their Dad.

[@AdaminWales]

I played all these games and enjoyed them as a kid, but we rarely finished a game (not that we cared!!) But even as a kid, I had favourites - and they tended to be games which were “better designed”. Scotland Yard was the pinnacle. There are a vast number of excellent kids games these days which provide an outstanding experience for children far surpassing the games we played as youths. In this video I am talking about mechanisms which I see presented to me in prototype games designed for adults, on a regular basis. Inexperienced designers take inspiration from the games they know - and too often it’s the stuff discussed in the video. The intent of the video is to persuade new designers to play modern games and avoid some of these features which are either “unfun” or likely to put off publishers.

[@Ghorda9]

the problem is that kids don't know of a better game, they only know what they're brought up with, once they get a taste of actually good games they never would want to turn back.

[@Ciurk]

@@Ghorda9yeah my dad is a big gamer so we hardly played monopoly or life once we got a taste of better stuff like catan

[@e3Gewinnt]

@@AdaminWales If one likes the type of decisions in Top Trumps is one thing. But there sure are decisions. And they are not that uninteresting. You need to card count in order to have full information. You need to remember the stats of all cards, or at least which stats resemble a strong or weak stat. Of course knowing which numbers are the nuts and which are at least tied nuts. If you did the memory work you're ready for the decisions. Aside from the nuts approximating the winning percentages of your stats, based on your opponents remaining cards in stack, can be anything but easy at times. One "issue" with Top Trumps is how good it is at teaching the memory tests, since you only have a chance for a swingless game if you know all the cards, otherwise it's likely that both sides will see the full stacks multiple times. So your memory will have the advantage of multiple well timed repetitions.

[@mrosskne]

​@@Ghorda9 old > new

[@kirkwagner461]

One reason player elimination works in King of Tokyo is that it plays very quickly. If you get knocked out you don't have long to wait before it's time for a new round. Same with Bang!: The Dice Game. If you get shot out, it won't be long before someone wins, and then its time for a new round.

[@AlixL96]

Honestly I love mechanics that disrupt strategy like the Community Chest in monopoly. Honestly that's the only part of monopoly i like. I like knowing that no matter how far ahead someone is, no one is immune to bad luck.

[@zonx87]

"You don't spend your weekends besting your mates at Pong." Clearly you've never been to my house on Sunday.

[@blakenelson4158]

I don't think he was talking beer pong.

[@zonx87]

@@blakenelson4158 Neither was I.

[@blakenelson4158]

@@zonx87 O I see carry on then

[@timedebtor]

Sometimes bad game design is best used for having friendly conversations, when you need an idle distraction to keep socializing active

[@RaveKev]

100% agree! I play a lot of games to have a good time with friends - some people would not touch the chosen games for those days.

[@kudosbudo]

That opening monologue sounds like a challenge to put this stuff in a game

[@pablojosegorigoitiacastro568]

I have had good results implementing "Random Events", in educational games or Game Experience for training purposes. There is an important caveat: When I implement "Random Events," they are meant for the players to negotiate and build agreements since such challenges require the majority of the players' collaboration to solve. In a way, I use this mechanism as a "United we stand, divided we fall" resource.

[@aaronbeedle941]

I worked on a roll and move as a developer a year or two back, and it opened my eyes to how completely valid, and potentially very enjoyable roll and move can be in a modern game. It was called Damnation: The Gothic Game. I was happy with how it turned out, the 'bumbling' nature of roll to move could be very tense since you can be stood behind someone with an axe in your hand ready to strike, having setup your cards and position so any roll from 1 to 5 grants the kill, then you roll a 6 and decie to steam off after another character. I think it works really well.

[@AdaminWales]

I agree - when it’s done well, it can be really tense and exciting :)

[@jonasmiekkamies]

Shadows of Brimstone uses the roll to move in pretty meaningful way too.

[@MasterHigure]

When it comes to "exact rolls", I'd like to nominate the Finnish game "Afrikan tähti" ("Star of Africa") from 1951 as a surprisingly modern take (every single Norwegian who reads this is going to go "Wait, that game is Finnish?", just like I did a few years back). You run around in Africa using a single die throw each turn, and each big city has one secret tile you can reveal when you land there. Usually it's a gem that gives you money, but some are blank, some have bandits that take all your cash, and exactly one triggers the end of the game. These cities are also fast travel hubs. So landing on them is good even when there are no tiles on them. When there are tiles on them, you can stop when you reach it, but when there isn't you have to throw exact distance. Which means that for the most important part of game progression the game is lenient on your throws, but when you want to use just the fast travel network for convenience you have to decide whether you want to try for several turns to get into the closest city, or just book it to your goal the hard way. It's a good balance IMO.

[@sirguy6678]

Great video! I see many of these “game designer sins” as part of gaming evolution- game play has “evolved” From simple basics like “roll and move” to modern player agency - have you considered doing a video when “game design goes too far”? Some modern games are more complicated than doing your taxes- require hours of rule reading- and sometimes require more rules references than an encyclopedia- love your work! Very inspirational!

[@AdaminWales]

It does almost seem like game design CAN’T go too far… however complex a game gets, there seems to be a market for it and players pushing for even more! 😂 The important thing is that a complex game is appropriate for that specific market - if the theme is wrong, or the mechanisms don’t mesh well (or add too much randomness) super-complex games will always flop. I don’t play enough of these games to make a video about them! I’m impressed by the skill and dedication of these designers (and players) but it’s not anything I aspire to get involved in.

[@paultapping9510]

War for South Africa enters the chat!

[@skellious]

I LOVE complex rules personally but I get not everyone does.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Adam, your video is mostly about the luck factor being undesirable, comparing to strategy, etc. However, I think you should consider why so many games where the luck factor exists, are successful and prefered by some gamers. 1 - luck is a LEVELLING factor. Consider a game where strategy is the main factor. You can´t play with kids. If kids get angry with bad luck, they get even angrier when they feel incapable of winning. A parent must thus play BADLY to allow the kid to win and keep playing. A luck factor game LEVELS out the cognitive differences between an adult and a kid. Or even between kids of different ages. When we are kids, 2-3 years difference is a BIG difference in cognitive abilities. Luck based games may reduce that difference or even eliminate them 2 - even between adults, cognitive differences for certain types of games will mean some players will simply give up on that game. A first time Catan player (and Catan HAS some luck involved) may give up the game if he plays against some experienced player that knows all the tricks and best strategies. No beginner will keep playing against someone very good at chess. Luck based games may allow a beginner the change to win as much as an experienced player. Even in the world of tabletop boardgame afficcionados, someone might give up on a game they keep losing. Even if they do well in other games dependent on strategy, constantly doing bad in a game may be a turn off for some players, irritating or even a do harm to self esteem. Some degree of luck involved may give players a better chance. 3 - luck PLAYS a factor in real life. You may have the best coach in the world, the best players, but there are some days you simply can´t score a goal, pure bad luck, while the other team, suffering the entire match, scores by a luck a goal at 89 minutes. It's exactly what makes football so unique compared to other sports, how it can SUDDENLY change and create unlikely upsets, many times based on luck.

[@AdaminWales]

Some very useful thoughts here, thanks. I do think you’ve overstated how much I emphasised strategy over luck though. I am a huge fan of games with luck in them. I have many videos declaring my love of very simple dice games, card games, and a massive deep-dive into the roll and move genre. But luck should be handled carefully to prevent it becoming overwhelming. There is always a balance to be struck. I think for very young players, a totally luck-dependent game is acceptable. But even at a young age, some degree of decision making is always going to make a game more engaging. The depth of those decisions will scale with age and complexity. And some players (the majority) will never want a super-deep, complex, deterministic experience. But as a craft, designers ought to be trying to introduce agency into their games to keep the players involved, even when the gameplay is simple, accessible, and features a hefty dose of chance. Practically every designer in 2024 is already doing this so I’m hardly saying something controversial. Even the simplest games coming out of wonderful children’s publishers like HABA, Blue Orange, and Ravensburger are full of interesting choices for the players. That’s just what publishers are looking for in 2024. The majority of purchasers in the gaming industry are parents buying for their kids. Their decisions are based on nostalgia, familiarity, and availability. So inevitably, the traditional classics remain the highest sellers. But these titles don’t always offer up the most engaging gameplay. A game designer in 2024 would be ill-advised to try to replicate the experiences offered by these games, when modern games tend to offer so much more.

[@81Earthangel]

28:55 restrictive player counts. most so called 2-6 player games aren’t anyway. For example we only play Battlestar Galactica with 5 players. It is a so much better experience than any other player count. And that is true for many many games.

[@emanuelealessandri9794]

100%. It is a great game, but only works with 5 players

[@laurencefraser]

There's a lot that theoretically go to 6 but in practice really don't, a fair number that are supposedly 2-4 but if you're not playing with 3 you're just making everything worse, and similar at any player count. Games that are good with both 2 players and 5 players are Very rare. It's noticeable that many games need extra rules that change how the entire thing plays in order to function at two players (and one player even more so unless it can introduce an 'AI' player (not just a neutral dummy player like Risk)... which some have!) Not to say there aren't some that are genuinly good with 1 to 6 or 7 players, but they're solidly in the minority.

[@AdamTheFanatic]

Or on the other side of the spectrum, you have games like King of Tokyo which is listed as 2-6, but really works much better as a 4-6 player game- I absolutely refuse to play it at 2 players; and this is speaking as someone that normally prefers smaller player counts! Similarly, One Night Ultimate Werewolf says 3-10, but I'd say that it really doesn't get good until you have at least 5 players, and can comfortably play up to 12.

[@Mr_Yod]

Yes: a LOT of games from nice to great have a limited player count (4 at most, with some that stretch to 5), above that number there are quite few good games and all the others are trash or party games.

[@pepagacy]

I played a game of Caverna at a convention and can attest to this. That game is advertised as 1-7, and the game was set up for 7 players. We barely got half way done in the 4 hour time slot as turns took forever. Now, I do admit that a couple of the people were new to the game, but that game still has issues even for experienced players at that count. I would never play beyond 4 people.

[@mindermastgamelab7517]

"if you allow your players to make a decision, it should be an informed decision" - this was definitely one of the big flaws with my first game. Hopefully not with any of the subsequent ones...

[@verdmooring2695]

That was a very good point. Something I dislike in a game is where I am hit with some random penalty or just making blind choices. I need to work on this is the game I am designing. Sounds like you have taken this to heart as well.

[@lodepublishing]

A lack of a catch-up mechanism can be extremely detrimental to a game, because there is a risk of that player becoming "destructive" or "seemingly non-compliant" (not helping another player to win the game). I see this in online games of Settlers of Catan, another pre-2000 game...

[@theriveroffaith852]

Excellent! I'm currently working on a board game and had some questions. This was very helpful in answering them!

[@aFrozenSun2022]

Thank you for interesting video, keep it up! However: 8 (tables) are common for wargames (and they are selling pretty good now, it's a golden age in wargaming). 9 (player count) - is doubtful. Yes, you can make a game for 1 to 8 players, but quantity of components for 8 players is basicly doubled as of 4 players (and production costs), and will it scale well for 8 players? I think it's better to make strongly tested 2-4 player game, than loosely 1-8 player. 10 (components) - as far as I know, 1) designer do not make a final decision about components, and 2) publishers will think twice if there "must be very unique" components in a designed game.

[@AdaminWales]

Thanks for commenting - I’m glad you found the video interesting. I don’t play wargames, but I rarely see tables in the games I play these days. I saw them used much more when I used to play miniatures games. I’m sure wargames make effective use of them. And from the little I know of wargames, I understand simulation and historical accuracy are really important factors - so tables probably allow for a lot of complex interwoven situations and scenarios. Player count - I said in the video that the default now is probably 2-5 (with solo mode and 6 player being desirable). I would agree that 1-8 is very unlikely to be satisfying at all counts. Components absolutely should be a consideration for designers. They are central to the identity of the final product. The publisher has the ultimate say on how they realise the designer’s vision, but the publisher is limited by the components used by the designer in their initial prototype. For example, my game Pikoko required a card holder for each player. The game Potion Explosion is built around a marble dispenser (which the designer will have devised). Some publishers love unique components - they’re a hook in certain markets. Other publishers will want simple components which they can get for a low price.

[@jotaf98]

There was a recent video interview with Cole Wehrle where he defended results tables as the simplest way to cram a lot of historical/tactical detail into a battle resolution, as opposed to bespoke rules that have to be considered simultaneously (looking up different cards, adding modifiers, etc). And to a degree that is true. But then the question is whether that detail is necessary - for a wargame, yes, for a more casual game, no. But some complex minis games could definitely be simplified (turns take less time) with an old school table instead of adding up lots of modifiers.

[@Mr_Yod]

Nice, you more o less said what I wanted to say (except for wargames: I'm not familiar with those). =) I completely agree with most of the video, except for 9 and 10. For 9 - Player Count, like I said in another answer: a LOT of games from nice to great have a limited player count (4 at most, with some that stretch to 5), above that number there are quite few good games and all the others are trash or party games. For 10 - Components: I'm not so sure, actually many games in their most recent iteration either went from wooden pieces to plastic ones (that are more detailed and, it seems, people like them more) like Catan or expanded the number of plastic miniatures present (mostly dungeon crawlers); while I don't know any game that did the opposite (go from plastic to wood or reduce miniatures). Cardboard constructions are a must where there are complex and big scenery components, but that's more of a space and weight issue (and cost, too) rather than environment. There are still many modern games with carboards/wooden only components, tho. And in both points I'm talking about modern (or modern-ish) games only.

[@refreshdaemon]

Aren't a lot of contemporary cooperative games basically just "event deck: the game"? Everything from Pandemic to Spirit Island is just a bunch of random (or semi-random) negative things happening that the players then have to deal with while traversing to their goal.

[@AdaminWales]

Haha. That’s a hot take. I like it. That’s exactly what a lot of coop games feel like to me too! (Maybe that’s why I’m not a huge fan)…. I might use that description if I make a future video about coops if I may?

[@refreshdaemon]

@@AdaminWales You certainly may. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to describe it that way, although I would be chuffed to receive a hat tip for the description later.

[@SPQRKlio]

I often enjoy Event Deck: The Game. 😁 But the art and storytelling have to be top notch-and I admit, at some point it could become more like reading a graphic novel than gaming.

[@jotaf98]

I guess the more well-built effects are "Here's something that you have to deal with this turn / in X turns or you suffer a negative effect" (input randomness) instead of "You suffer an unavoidable negative effect instantly" (output randomness). For example, Leviathan Wilds does this well and you can always escape a bad event. But it is true that, in trying to make those event decks thick, many co-ops do have questionable and unfun event cards... ;)

[@paultapping9510]

that's probably a bit reductionist, but not entirely unfair. Those games and Arkham Horror LCG sprang immediately sprang to mind when he was discussing random events. I think the distinction to be made is Random Consequences (lose 10 money, go back a space etc.) vs. Random Events (spawn x enemies, add 3 virus tokens to the board)

[@CornedBee]

Top Trumps is not completely random. In theory, card memorizing will give you an enormous advantage. If you memorize the card order during the first deck traversal, you know when the opponent's strong cards come up - and you also know their particular weak stats (a well-designed Top Trumps has cards with weak points). This gives you an enormous advantage.

[@pflasterstrips7254]

some of those "bad mechanics" are suppose to be educational, teach young kids to not get frustrated and be patient.

[@cinnashowdown7397]

I've never played tank battle, but as you describe it it sounds like an interesting game. Sounds like a game about reading your opponent/bluffing, which i wouldn't say is the same as making an uninformed decision. Which resonnate with you saying that the game can be fixed.

[@AdaminWales]

Yeah, it sounds more interesting than it is to actually play. There’s no real bluffing, and you can’t read your opponent - you just know they have a selection of possible moves… and take a guess. It’s not TOTALLY uninformed. But you might have ~20 possible moves at any given time and ~10 of them will result in your tank being destroyed. You really can’t tell which move is the hazardous one, so even though the traps were placed by your opponent, it essentially feels like random chance. That said, the mix of different elements and types of confrontations, along with nice components, does make for an enjoyable game - if you accept it for what it is. I’d love to see Restoration Games take a look at bringing Tank Battle back like they did for Thunder Road.

[@MatthewCampbell765]

I haven't finished the video, but I'll make a small defense of something like event decks: You're correct that random chance shouldn't determine the outcome of a game by itself, but I'd argue a bit of unpredictability can serve a strategy game. For example, they can make the game simply less static, or they can offer a hail-mary to a player that's losing (or conversely, make a nearly-winning player's victory less assured). And sometimes your game doesn't need to be *perfectly* fair. I would say that the balance is vaguely that random chance should call for player reaction and flexibility. IE: • If a player loses due to a single die roll or card, it should be because they made poor decisions that made a single die roll or card the deciding factor. • If a player has an event that gets in the way of their current strategy, they should feel like a plan B is/was possible or that they still have a chance to maneuver around the problem. A good strategist has a plan B and is able to adjust their strategy to unexpected and changing conditions. • It should require skill to press an advantage given to you by random chance. You don't get to choose the hand you're dealt, but you do get to choose how to play it.

[@AdaminWales]

I don’t disagree with any of that :) Most “bad” mechanisms can be effective if used thoughtfully.

[@brody10123]

Fire Tower makes the best use of player elimination by having the first player eliminated become the Spirit of the Wood, which operates with its own mechanics.

[@petersmythe6462]

Chess has some excellent examples of things not to design. 1. Limited comeback mechanics. The losing player has very few asymmetric advantages and it's easy to be in a completely losing position 10 moves into a 60 move game. 2. Limited finish off mechanics. Yes, checkmate is a finish off mechanic. The issue is that it isn't a strong enough finish off mechanic to be reliable at high skill levels. A skilled player can defend down a piece even though the game is clearly over. Tricky tactical checkmates in the middlegame are cool but they don't happen much under skilled play. 3. Rote memorization is encouraged. Openings and endgames can be played without strategy until someone deviates from a memorized optimal line. Only the middlegame is truly pure strategy. 4. Lack of randomness means the actually plausible game tree expands rather slowly, especially since the most forcing line is usually also a pretty good line. It does make the game strategic but it also incentivizes overanalyzing positions and almost necessitates the use of a timer, which comes with its own set of issues. To be fair, this isn't so much bad design as an unavoidable issue with hardline determinism and pure strategy, but is a timer really better than a deck or dice? I don't know. 5. Stalemate is the wrong kind of comeback mechanic. It's much easier to accidentally stalemate your opponent when winning than intentionally stalemate yourself when losing, and in either case it revolves around degenerate gameplay in completely lost endgame positions where the game should be over, and probably has been for half an hour, but then the winning side blunders the game to a draw while the losing side has no agency. 6. The strength of the king means that for top level competitive play, draws are a bit too common. Chess isn't that drawish for non-masters, but you can still feel the effects of the king being a bit too hard to checkmate at lower levels. 7. En Passant and castling are kind of strange rules that really don't operate by the same logic as the rest of the game, adding substantial complexity for a questionable improvement in gameplay.

[@pairot01]

Not to be that guy, but all these are skill issues. As long as you play someone about your own strength, these are all mitigated. You blunder in the opening and are objectively worse now? Keep playing, your opponentis probaboy going to blunder right back. The other issue here is that we've had 1300 years to find the best strategies for the game, which is not going to be the case with any game designed today. The special moves (en pessant, double move for pawns on rank 2, castling, promotion) were later additions to improve the game. Yes, it improved the game. Especially the double move for pawns, it's usually a crucial equalizong respurce for black in most openings. Perfect information games with no variance are not a thing anymore, so I don't really see what prompts your comment anyway.

[@zinfuldreams1709]

@@pairot01 you are being that guy yes

[@aleksaa24]

​@@pairot01just relying on your opponent to make a mistake isnt exactly a comeback mechanic

[@greatday19]

I find chess to be a game that is quite distinct from most other games as, fundamentally, it's a game about stamina is what I've come to realize... What I mean is that it's a game about who can make the least amount of mistakes (at least, for most people most of the time). Do you know your opening or do you mess it up, weakening your position? Did you see the incoming fork? Do you move your queen to a position targeted by a bishop accidentally? Sure, it's a little more nuanced, especially at high level play. For example, choosing a "weaker" opening that your opponent is less familiar with might give you more of an advantage than going for a "stronger" opening. There's also positional gameplay which targets the overall balance on the board. And if you're playing a more skilled opponent, they'll be able to carry out more subtle attacks, and/or attacks that span more moves than what you're able to "see". However, moves that weaken your position can still be conceptualized as mistakes. So, effectively, I'd still argue that chess is a game where you try to minimize your mistakes and spot and capitalize on your opponents mistakes. And, as pariot01 points out, if you're playing with someone at a similar skill level, you'll be making roughly the same amount of mistakes. If you accidentally blunder early on, just do your best to hold on - chances are your opponent will blunder at some point and it would allow you to equalize the playing field (unless you blunder such that your opponent gains a significant advantage, like losing your queen early on). However, I also agree that this isn't a catchup mechanic either... Hence why I feel like chess (and maybe similar games like Go) is in a category of its own...

[@pairot01]

@@aleksaa24 chess doesn't have "mechanics". Stop looking at it with modern game design in mind, chess is 1300 years old.

[@ThomasReesbeck]

Well done, Adam. One of your best videos to date.

[@AdaminWales]

Much appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it :)

[@KMReviews]

Thunder road vendetta is a great example of player elimination working

[@privacyvalued4134]

Another bad game mechanic: Games with a limited number of times that it can be played before players run out of the specialized paper it comes with. In terms of app-linked games, those are the games that really should have apps associated with them. That way players can "write" on a digitized version of the paper and not waste the 25 sheets that the game comes with. Also, the sheets should really be coated with a material that can handle something like a dry-erase marker that easily wipes off so they can be reused over and over again. Or the sheets are where chips/markers are placed to indicate what would have been written.

[@twentysides]

The game mechanism doesn't require limited sheets and a pencil any more than it requires laminated sheets and a wet erase marker. That's entirely part of product design and does not impact the game rules. And of course you're welcome to laminate the last sheets or even the first ones if you never want to throw any in the recycling bin.

[@revimfadli4666]

photocopy or printable files for the sheets would be nice

[@Andystuff800]

Games that require an app have an inherent expiry date. When (not if) the app stops working, the game is unplayable. When you get to the last sheet of paper, you can just make copies of it.

[@Mr_Yod]

@@Andystuff800 IKR: how much in the future the app'll be updated to avoid the "this app seems to be made for a previous version, so it's not guaranteed it'll work properly" message?

[@calebbarnhouse496]

A good game that got around that was sonar, its a grid based submarine game that you write your course and try to figure out where your opponent is, using plastic covers for both over sheets of paper, works great and doesn't need much, only real shame I'd say is they didn't include an eraser that is made to look like a submarine

[@stillbuyvhs]

@10:20 As Battleship progresses, you learn more about your opponent's layout, making later choices more significant.

[@AdaminWales]

That’s true. But you sort of shift from a random choice to an obvious choice. At no point is there a very interesting decision to be made.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

@@AdaminWales You're just wrong about Battleship, but the strategies are too subtle for the target audience of kids, and adults rarely return to consider the game. With the right strategy, you can bring the average number of moves needed to win down from the mid 60s to the low 40s. Like chess optimal play is too hard for humans to do reliably and is something for computers, but humans can do a lot better than the naive approach.

[@mathmaniac3033]

@@SkorjOlafsen Right, but the point here is that you're still making "obvious" choices. Algorithmically dissecting a game is fun, don't get me wrong, but then the enjoyment is placed more on the mathematical side of the game than the game itself. If I were looking at a shelf of 2 player games, would my first thought be to pull out Battleship when I own Watergate, Onitama, Air Land and Sea, or Kelp? Not particularly. I think the point about "informed decisions" is the main selling point here. When playing Battleship with a more rigorous attitude, you will make a few informed decisions. However, will those differ very much from game to game? Is there an obvious path that you should take at any point? Of the games I mentioned, Kelp probably is the worst offender for informed decisions vs obvious decisions after the Octopus is revealed, but there's still some element of informed choice when it comes to the dice drawn for the Shark, the abilities that can be bought, and the cards added to the Octopus's deck.

[@SkorjOlafsen]

@@mathmaniac3033 I don't get your point. Battleship is a hidden information, high-randomness, high skill ceiling strategy game. Mechanically, none of that seems to be a problem. None of those elements are inherently bad in a game. I think the lack of appeal to adults is subtle: it's a hidden information game, but you're not trying to guess and counter your opponent's strategy. It's the overlap between Eurogame-style "we each execute our strategy in isolation, and we'll see who gets there first" and the randomness /imperfect information elements that I think doesn't sit well. You have a very abstract problem to solve, and very little feedback about how well your strategy is working, no sense of "ah ha, _this_ _time_ I'm nailing it" that you can get from Eurogames or chess. But my original point was: Battleship is a game with a very complex, non-obvious strategy that requires much thought to play well. The game's flaw(s) lie elsewhere.

[@Attaxalotl]

Screaming Eagles, a fighter jet game released in 1987, is actually pretty good about this! It has roll-to-move, but you choose the direction. The best attacks are the long-range missiles, but you only have two of those per plane, and your enemy has two flares. Your guns can't be countered, but have the lowest range and a limited firing arc. There is a look-up table for damage, but it's _really_ well integrated.

[@AdaminWales]

Sounds great! I really enjoy a lot of these older games even when they have a few rough edges (Tank Battle for example is a lot of fun!)

[@fe6767]

A good video but I would disagree with point #9. I would say that before 1995 games which played 2-6 or 3-6 were relatively common but between 1995 and somewhere around 2005 or 2010 the common range was 2-5 or 3-5. But from then until about 5 years ago games that played 5 became rare with player ranges narrowing to 2-4 or 3-4. So if there are 5 of us looking for a game we are looking at pre-2010 games, and for 6 players an even more limited range of games. You are right that In the last 5 years, we have seen many more games that play 1-4 (and possibly 1-5), either by having a special solo mode or by having so little player interaction that that game can play solo with no significant changes to the rules. Party games are of course an exception to the usual limitation on numbers.

[@AdaminWales]

Yeah, this one is very fluid and has changed a lot over the years. In general right now though, the publishers I’m speaking to want wide player counts.

[@fe6767]

@@AdaminWales I'll look out for it among the 2023 and 2024 releases I come across.

[@nekoimouto4639]

I disagree, random events CAN make a game much more exciting, and a great story. the issue stems not from them being random, but from them deciding for you. Random events should offer choices the player can make. instead of "tough luck, you take 5 damage", a lot of modern games offer the *choice* of taking the damage for something valuable, such as a trinket or currency.

[@verdmooring2695]

I would somewhat agree with your take. Random events can add an uncertainty which when visited upon the leading player can invoke joy in the other players. I am trying to work random events into the game I am working on so that the event is coming but players have up to a few turns to prepare for its arrival, if they can and if it is aimed at them. Hopefully that made sense.

[@peves-]

Thanks for the positive words on the roll and move concept. I have it in my game but I was thinking of taking it out because I was considering the idea of roll and move being way to overdone but I feel that it is needed at the same time. So hearing you say roll and move is good if it's used well was a relief.

[@AdaminWales]

Great! As long as it is utilised cleverly, I would say stick with it :) Here is my video overview of some clever Roll and Move systems: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJfPp2WkeM6eqNU

[@nitorishogiplayer3465]

I remember hating games that have a square that say "wait here until someone rolls a 7" or "wait here until someone of a higher rank passes you". Basically will be sitting there doing nothing for a long time.

[@cassandracastro2759]

21:43 Yup, in the BG cafe I go Citadels was a relatively played game a few years ago, but I refused to play without houseruling the assasin. Every time I played it "as is" someone would not be able to play because they would get killed every turn. Sometimes it was me, other times it was other players, but in the end whoever got the short stick didn't get to play and more than once someone just stood up and went to play somewhere else. It still baffles me the popularity of such a modern game with a rule that, by default, keeps out one player per round from playing the game.

[@AdaminWales]

Yes, this game has never worked for me either.

[@levelwithme8535]

I'm glad you added the last segment. It's important to know why these mechanisms are less common, not to just follow the trends.

[@danielevensen5539]

Incredible quality video. Well done! I'm going to use some of these ideas for some videos I'm planning on making about tabletop sport simulations.

[@AdaminWales]

Awesome - great topic for a deep dive! :)

[@saluk7419]

Thanks for not including player elimination! Not only does it work in same games, it also works in some contexts. If you have a party/gathering/conference where only *some* attendees are playing the game, eliminated players can go do something else and aren't actually stuck watching the rest of the game.

[@stevel875]

In some of these contexts, the opposite of player elimination can be harmful. Many modern games offer no mechanism to deal with players who need to "eliminate" themselves from gameplay due to outside circumstances, and when one player leaves, all other players have to stop mid-game too because the game mechanisms require all players to remain engaged for the entire duration of the game. It would be good if more designers ensured a game could continue with fewer players than it started with...

[@MarsJenkar]

And even for games that don't end quickly, it allows the eliminated player to get up and do something else without disturbing the game for the rest of the players. I'd argue that player elimination can indeed be a blessing in disguise for both the eliminated player and the others. I think it's an element that can be used badly, but it's preferable in many cases to the player being held at the game against their will.

[@revimfadli4666]

though when the game's more fun to watch then to play, something's probably wrong Werewolf can be an example of this

[@christiankalk4668]

I've always been that weirdo who, after getting eliminated, hangs around to watch the rest of the game with great interest. Never understood people who just get up and leave. I just have to know how it ends!

[@suryadnb]

"If someone doesn't get to play, there's a problem with your design" I would agree with you, but I've seen games of the highly regarded Pandemic where the game was over before player 4 got to their first turn.

[@TheAurgelmir]

One of my all time favorite catch-up mechanics is in the game Samurai & Katana - on the surface it looks like a Risk clone, but it's quite different. One way it's different is that you tally score through the game, and the players with the highest and lowest score gets a bonus. The Highest score is Shogun, and I don't recall what he gets. The lowest score though becomes Emperor, and the emperor dictates who goes in what order in each phase of a turn. There's several phases, and it's usually beneficial to go late since you can react to what other players are doing. It also leads to a lot of backstabbing and dealing as players try to convince the Emperor to help them.

[@AdaminWales]

That sounds great 😊 It reminds me of the Sheriff role in Dice Town, where whichever player currently has the Sheriff’s badge chooses who wins in any tied situation (whether they’re involved in the tie or not) … and they’re allowed to accept bribes!

[@RJV-s3l]

I love the video. Especially the part where “players that don’t get to play”. I wish more designers understood this. Especially in card games. “Floodgates” (effects that prevent your opponent or both players from engaging with a fundamental mechanic of the game) are always unfun. Except when you choose to use them on yourself, and they have a positive trade-off that you may use to gain advantage. At least that’s what I’ve found out while testing my prototypes.

[@dudono1744]

If someone uses a floodgate on themselves, their opponent are likely in for a wild ride.

[@petoperceptum]

I like how you bring up the value of certain childrens games. There is learning value, either general skills like memory or facts, or game-based skills like combos and planning is definately a thing. I think the big thing about hidden information vs memory games, is that in hidden information games working out what you cant see is a skill element that you can ignore, whereas in memory games you have to engage with it.

[@AdaminWales]

Great distinction - I’m researching memory games at the moment for one of my own designs (and also a possible future video). But this is something I’ll give more thought because I think you’re right - you don’t HAVE to remember stuff to play a trick taking game, or Tigris & Euphrates. It’s an additional layer.

[@marcosfprodrigues]

Loved the video, it nicely summarizes a lot of what I've always found annoying in older board games. I do disagree with a few points though: - Event decks can indeed be too random, but I think the problem is not in the deck itself, but in the amount of player agency. Pandemic is a great example of a game with event decks that don't restrict player agency: you *know* something bad is going to happen, you just don't know *how* bad. This doesn't prevent you from coordinating and planning ahead, its main purpose is to actually throw a wrench in your plans and force you to roll with the punches. It incentivizes creativity and flexibility. - Swapping places/hands also doesn't seem like a bad mechanic in itself, for me what is really annoying is losing too much progress at once. In a non-linear game it's a perfectly good strategy that still allows everyone to keep being engaged. - For me, the issue with memory as a mechanic is that it imposes a physical limitation that's external to the game. Board games are excellent equalizers, as long as you understand the rules most people have the same chances to play. I understand that some people actually enjoy that (for example, counting cards), but I do think it should be used *very* carefully. - I absolutely love King of Tokyo, it's one of my favorite games to play, but I strongly disagree that player elimination is a valid mechanic. It's "skip a turn" but worse. The worst part of any game is suddenly being completely disengaged from what everyone else is doing (which can happen in a few other ways as well, for example in the case you mention when it's basically impossible to catch up),. It's like you're sober at a party where everyone is high. My suggestion is taking a book from the Bomberman series (not a board game, I know): whenever a player dies, instead of just being kicked out of the game, they can still participate using an asymmetric set of rules. Depending on the version they can cause trouble for the players still in the game (perfect for a chance to enact revenge) or even come back to life.

[@thedspenguin]

bold of you to assume I want my players to have a good time. I want them to suffer (!), like I do, designing the games in a way that they'll get published. =D but then again, that's why I watch these videos... so I don't suffer as much. thanks, Adam! =)

[@AdaminWales]

With most of my prototype games, the players absolutely do suffer…. Haha. Hopefully with my published games, less so :)

[@dustinwashburn1283]

I would argue that event cards can be useful, if used right. Fate Decks in Villainous give a bit of push and pull in a game where players are largely playing their own games. Co-op and solo games like Spirit Island and Final girl often require them as either enemy behavior or random things happening, or even both. And in many competitive games, they can be used as a means of keeping a game fresh each playthrough and can keep players on their toes. But as I said, it needs to be utilized properly. Having cards that can either make a huge swing or push the current leader further ahead by leaps can make a game unenjoyable. But Events can have the opportunity to keep the person in the lead from leaning heavily into a single strategy, and thus keeping them from running away with the game.

[@AdaminWales]

I think that’s a fair comment. I’ve had commenters arguing that event decks can be good (especially in coop games), reference tables can be good (especially in wargames) and restricted player counts can be good (to reduce costs). I’m yet to see anyone putting forward a defence of “miss a turn” or “swap places”! 😂

[@dustinwashburn1283]

@@AdaminWales Miss a turn can be viable for competitive card games, like Magic, but very restricted. I've only seen it in a couple of instances, and the costs to play those cards basically makes it a reward for pulling it off. Otherwise, the only game I think it works with is Uno, where everything is quick, and the objective is just to play the cards in your hand out. It might be possible in other quick games, but that is the only way I can think of to make it work. Not much of a defense, but there you go. 😄

[@davidripplinger8904]

There's another benefit to restricted player count. For some co-op games, having more than 4 players might sound like a good idea, but then the group decision making becomes too noisy and drawn out. I recently played pandemic with a couple of back seaters (totaling 6 people), and it wasn't nearly as fun as with 4 or less.

[@dustinwashburn1283]

@@davidripplinger8904 Very true. Disney Villainous, for example, showcases a player count of up to 6. In practice, about 3-4 is usually the sweet spot for the game. Otherwise, there can be a lot of downtime, especially for newer players figuring out how they're going to play their turns.

[@tommarsdon5644]

​@@AdaminWalesI think swapping places also has quite a bit of potential in cooperative games, due to its potential synergy with other strategies. Like switching places after doing some high risk, high reward play, putting all the risk onto a player that's much more suited to dealing with the risk.

[@LanceOmikron]

In terms of roll & move, one feature I've always coveted is being able to move UP TO as many spaces as you roll. So if you roll a 6 on a given turn but would prefer to only move 5 (or less!), it's no problem. This feature incidentally makes the "exact rolls" problem completely impossible in whichever game it's included. Now obviously this would theoretically mean that players could choose to never miss beneficial spaces and always stop short of landing on hazardous spaces, but I think it opens up tons of possibilities for decision making with proper design. Maybe there could be a game where progressing forward is important enough that you might think twice about moving only two spaces to pick up a benefit when you *could* have moved six, or you might be so desperate to gain ground that you use your full movement for that turn, despite the fact that it lands you in a hazard. Honestly I'd be surprised if this game I'm describing doesn't already exist in some form.

[@AdaminWales]

It certainly adds some more decisions for some players. The issue is that it’s actually less fair than simply rolling and moving to the spot you rolled! The reason I say that is: if you roll and must move as far as you rolled, every player is given zero decisions (one option only). If you allowed people to move ‘up to’ the number they rolled, some players will roll 1 (one option only). Other players will roll 6 (six options available). The difference between choosing from 6 options and having no choice at all, is huge. So there would need to be a ton of mitigation built into the system to give other rewards to low rollers to compensate for their lack of choices. I cover a lot of different variants on roll and move in this video: How to Design a ROLL & MOVE Board Game kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJfPp2WkeM6eqNU

[@austinsmith7731]

The plastic segment unlocked a memory for me of the Steve Irwin Croc Hunter board game. It had a wind up toy croc that would move around the board and if your piece got knocked over by it, you had to restart

[@AdaminWales]

The design philosophy in these games was “this will look fun in a TV advert” rather than “this will be fun to play”.

[@---zh8qn]

An easy way to fix event decks is to add a timer to them. Basically making the event itself random, but players know 2-3 turns before it is executed what is going to happen and strategize around that

[@AdaminWales]

Yeah, I think that’s a very neat solution. I love the way events are handled in Robinson Crusoe for example.

[@---zh8qn]

@@AdaminWales The way i described can also be handled poorly tho. Aeons End, a game i enjoy a lot has some of these events. The problem there is, turn order is randomized, making it possible for the boss (its a coop game against different bosses) to take up to 4 consecuitive turns. But most events trigger after 2-3 turns, so often we die to a event we could have prevented if even one of us would have had a turn before its execution... It more or less my main/only real issue with the game, because it just feels unfair.

[@LionKimbro]

Player elimination -- "We Didn't Playtest This At All." Since the game is just ... 5 minutes long, the player elimination is not a problem.

[@TheIlike2playminecra]

Initially, I'd typed out a much larger response to this video, detailing specific points and, some might say objections to the statements made in it. Turns out, I typed far more than KZbin allows, so here's the gist of it, though I'm not opposed to sharing my longer views some other way. - It seems, near the end, the perspective of the video abruptly shifts from "what will make your game FUN" to "what will get your game PUBLISHED" which, to me, are two vastly different things, and much of the statements in the video I objected to made much more sense in the scope of "getting a game published". I'd reccommend being more upfront about which angle you're coming from, because your statement at 1:00 left a direct impression on me that these were all objectively unfun mechanics - The video IS well-made, and was still both enjoyable to watch and informative, and I will be checking out your channel to view more of your content moving forward. The in-depth look at various mechanics, including several real-life examples being mentioned that I haven't heard of before, is highly appealing to me, and may very end up leading me to my next favourite tabletop game! - But... have you heard of the game Intercept? It hails from the late 70's, and boasts itself as an electronic board game... it's strikingly similar to Battleship, moreso the tank game you mentioned after it, but I can honestly say I've found it to be one of my favourite older games, even going so far as to call it a hidden gem. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, if you have the chance to play it physically.

[@zoey-oey-oeyd4020]

Worth noting that random chance and player agency are not mutually exclusive. My favorite example is Yahtzee, where not only does the player get to make a strategic decision before the second and third rolls about how many dice to reroll, but they also get to make an informed decision AFTER they've finished rolling about which section of the score sheet to fill in. It manages to be a very strategic, mathematical game while also including the sheer joy of shouting "YAHTZEE!" that can only come from a game of chance. Similarly, while getting a good or bad hand in poker is entirely luck-dependent, the actual substance of the game is in the betting. Ticket to Ride relies heavily on the luck of the draw, but the player is not entirely at the mercy of the deck, and in Gin Rummy, if you're stuck waiting to draw the single card you need, chances are you've done something wrong. I think games that include random chance can be great, but the key is to allow players to strategize around it.

[@verdmooring2695]

Very informative. I have been struggling with the concept of event cards in a game I have been working on for several years off and on. I am close to a workable design but was struggling with the mechanism of events. Your insights helped me to be able to revisit this and not have it slam one player over the others. Thank you.

[@Siennarchist]

Camel up isn't roll-and-move. Roll and move is specifically about the player rolling and then moving their own piece, representing their position. Camel up is more similar to something like the birdfeeder in wingspan, a neutral form of randomness that players make decisions around, rather than being dictated to, and the mechanic is (in theory) even for all players.

[@AdaminWales]

It’s an interesting distinction to make - that roll and move must relate to your own playing pieces. There’s no authority on this stuff, of course. But BGG lists Camel Up as Roll and Move, and the Engelstein/Shalev definition from Building Blocks of Tabletop Design doesn’t separate games where you roll to move your own piece from games where you roll to move neutral pieces. Not authorities, but probably the closest we’ve got. I made a deep dive video about the many variants of Roll and Move a while ago: How to Design a ROLL & MOVE Board Game kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJfPp2WkeM6eqNU

[@TokyoXtreme]

I wasn't sure I would even be interested in this stuff before I clicked, but now I'm hooked. I didn't know that "exact roll" had such a common distaste, so it looks like I've found my people.

[@thedeck-buildingdemon8293]

Honestly, I’d disagree with number 9. Some of the best games I’ve ever played support at max 4 players (Clank! with no adventuring party expansion, Great Western Trail, Clank and Pandemic Legacy, Deal With The Devil takes exactly 4 players and it’s one of my personal favourites). I feel like games that have highly variable counts sacrifice the perfect balance that medium-heavy games require.

[@AdaminWales]

As a consumer, I would agree with you. One of my favourite games is Witness, which requires exactly 4 players. But that’s not what this video is about (Witness was critically acclaimed but appears to have been a commercial flop). The primary focus of this channel, and this video, is to offer advice to board game designers who are seeking to make commercially successful games. And from pitching to hundreds of publishers over the last few years, I can confidently state that broader player ranges are a distinct advantage when seeking publication. In 2024, a designer pitching a game for 2-4 (or worse 3-4) players is almost certain to be asked to stretch that player count. Not by every publisher, but by many. And my advice to designers is not to make a lack-lustre 2 player mode, or a weak 5 player mode. It’s to make a game which plays WELL at as many different player counts as possible. It’s not easy to achieve. But it’s a competitive market, and every advantage is worth pursuing.

[@supermaximglitchy1]

So to make a successful boardgame is to simply keep it simple and engaging

[@markwilson455]

Love seeing the defense of roll & move! It's bad in plenty of games, but excellent in the ones you mention and others I've enjoyed too. It's about execution, not about the mechanism itself being bad. I'm currently working on a rule set for a roll & move capture-the-flag game that I think retains a lot of player agency (can combine dice for various movement options, plus supplemental card abilities to modify movement), but I'm trying to find an elegant way to avoid the "exact roll" issue you mention here with a few objectives. Good food for thought, though, as are many of your videos. Cheers!

[@Soumein]

We've been playing Sequence as if it's Uno. The card you can play must match the suit or symbol of the last card. This changes the game from being able to hang onto the Wild Jack to win, and changing the suit if someone is close to a sequence. If you can't make a play, you just draw a card, falling behind on pieces, but giving you more cards to play with, especially at the end when the deck is depleted (3 player game, of course). It's a lot more fun than the house rule of "Can't win on a Jack." While it may make the game feel more fair, all it really does is make nobody play jacks, until someone else does, resulting in decking out, and a stalemate.

[@SymbolCymbals2356]

Whenever I play Trouble I always found the needing to roll a specific number to win led to vary tense end games with other players also trying or not far behind, I definitely agree with the start being clunky though

[@Frustratedartist2]

That Simpsons monopoly is beautiful! As a *video* game design beginner, this was very helpful. It reminded me of a relatively recent game, Triangle Strategy, a turn based strategy RPG. For the magician characters, using magic costs you a "turn point" resource, which gets filled one unit per turn. Usually, the useful magic attacks cost 2 points or more. Therefore, after using magic, you have 2 turns with these characters where you can do nothing. If you want to use the most powerful magics, you have do to nothing for 4 turns. It feels like a punishment for using magic, not like a price. This mechanic of "pay with turns" is very common in Square Enix games for the last couple of years, and I hate it. It's suppose to be a risk-reward thing, but if the price of doing something cool is doing nothing, the player in fact chooses between weak choices and boredom in the next turn. That's not a good choice in a game.

[@MtgJedi]

This video was fascinating. Brilliant synopsis

[@nightmarepenguin2370]

I've loved game design my whole life, and I've had a few top trumps decks. I remember going on a school trip when I was probably around 12-13, and I brought a Star Wars deck with me. We had one night where there was an hour break before bed, so me and 2 friends played a game. I remember saying "x has a deception value of 119, the highest value in the game, while y has a deception of 92, the third highest value in the game. The only other viable option is power because z has 98, and all other cards are pretty balanced, so if you're on the play, you only have two choices, deception/power with guaranteed odds, or fully roll the dice," and once everyone knew who won xyz, the game became the other two not picking said options, while the winner just played their unbeatable cards. Remember, I was only 12 and had the whole game labbed out from a few rounds of play, and I've carried this memory with me ever since. Not everything needs to be balanced, but your systems shouldn't result in a game that defeats its own point. (Also ludo narrative! Force power was one of the worst stats in the game, even with a force user card!)

[@seregsarn]

If you want a game that feels like a modernized version of Tank Battle, look for a copy of "Final Act" by (the now sadly defunct) tyto games. It has similar mechanics but leans a lot more into the "guess what your opponent will do and plan accordingly" side of things. Tank movement is limited by facing and terrain and shot placement is limited by the position of your tanks, so you have a lot of information at all times about what the other guy might do, but you usually need to put your own tanks at risk to get a clear shot at him. The closer combat gets, the more options you have for interdicting your opponent, but you can only do so by also restricting your own movements. So it becomes a very tight game of trying to anticipate your foe while sneaking into position to flank them or hemming them in so you can charge past them to the objective, etc.

[@ChibiNyan]

While I agree with most of what you said, there is a catch : those advice are usually only good for "I play on sunday with my family, just to spend time together" type of players (granted, it's most of them, but far from being all). However, a decent chunk of them are different. It's the ones that would call themselves more "serious" , while some would prefer the term "hardcore". And for those players, who are still a nice chunk, some tips are different. Like catch-up mechanisms. A decent amount of players dislike pure catch-up mechanisms because it indirectly punishes good play. Your problem with runaway leaders is not necessarily a problem is the other players can, directly or indirectly, "team up" to slow the leader. Like both players are using their resources to protect themselves or to attack the leader. This feels better for those kind of players. Reference tables. Reference tables is not a problem at all, because you end up learning them anyway after a handful of games. Done correctly, it can bring a nice layer of strategy.

[@al2642]

Thanks for your videos. They are great, informative, well referenced, inspiring. Never give up!

[@LanguageMaus]

As for roll & move, I think it's really well done in MLEM Space Agency. There's a clear path and some luck involved, but you get lots of choices as well (which dice to use nd how far to move, abandonding the ship or not, which astronaut to send etc.).

[@AdaminWales]

I’m always up for a Knizia dice game! :)

[@stefanb7000]

In the variant of "Mensch ärger dich nicht!", that i know, it is a common houserule to predefine, what you have to do in any situation, where you could have a choice. For example if you could throw a opponents piece or move with your other piece, it is not only the obvious strong decision to throw your opponent, you have to do it. And if you roll a 6, you always have to move one piece out of your house instead of moving the one that stand right before the finish line. It is the most dull and mind numbing experience to have. You have literally no decision in the entire game, you just ROLL and MOVE.

[@TBDF12]

I love reference tables. They feel fun and it makes it possible to do really interesting things

[@rogeriopenna9014]

And yet, I think the best sellers are all mostly games that involve random choice, and are for kids, not for adults.

[@AdaminWales]

That is definitely true. The best sellers tend to be bought by adults for their children, and purchasing decisions are made based primarily on nostalgia, familiarity, and what’s easily available. But the picture is rapidly changing with massive sellers like Catan, Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, Wingspan, Codenames representing the new wave of modern designs.

[@Т1000-м1и]

Yep board game design docs is what I need

[@jonathandiegelman4714]

Runaway leader mechanisms (i.e. positive feedback loops) can be really fun if done correctly. That’s the core mechanism of engine building games. I think what works for those games is that almost everything that you do positively contributes to your engine, giving everyone that feeling of being the runaway leader. The other trick is these games don’t overstay their welcome. The frustrating part the runaway leader problem in Monopoly and Risk is that the winner is generally known within the first half hour, but the game then drags on for multiple hours after that. Once the winner of a game is apparent, the game should end as soon as possible.

[@jacquespoulemer3577]

Hi Adam, This was fun. I started playing games in the 50s with my family, especially in those eternal summers. Scrabble, Spades, Chess and a few others. Now, retired to Mexico from the US. We play bilingual games with Scrabble or Boogle. Actually the game I enjoy the most is taking a long word and seeing how many other words one can make out of it. Having studied philosophy and languages I am fascinated how things work. All the Best Jim

10:58 it seems like the anti-tank gun is not an anti-tank gun but rather tank itself is anti-anti-tank gun. 30:24 true, however it only gives an illusion of eco-friendly game, cards and other cardboard elements are almost always enhanced with a thick layer of polymer to make them last longer, look more glossy and be more resistant to moisture ( great video, thank you! )

[@jpe1]

I have no idea why KZbin recommended this video (as a retired person I mostly play bridge these days, I know little about the latest tabletop games) but it was interesting to watch, very well scripted and produced, and I agree with many of your points. I will add my own perspective because I think you might not understand the appeal of certain games or game mechanics that you mentioned. Broadly speaking, games can be placed on a dimension where “pure luck” is at one end (I usually cite the card game “war” as an example, but Snakes and Ladders can stand in here for war) and “pure strategy” is at the other, represented by games like chess and go. There is another dimension of open vs hidden information, where chess is an example of fully open information (the entire board is seen by all players at all times) and the card games like Hearts is an example of fully concealed information (no one knows anything about other players hands in Hearts, there is no bidding or melding to tip players off before play begins). There are, of course, many other dimensions, but I think you will agree that luck vs skill, and open vs closed, are important dimensions for describing most games. Battleship exists in a fairly unique place, where there is zero luck and where the game starts with all information fully concealed, and I think the fact that the game is so different from anything else is probably why most people don’t understand the point of how to play the game, and thus they don’t ever try to explore and learn the game fully. Battleship is all about predicting what your opponent did in his setup _this round_ based on what they did in _prior_ rounds, while keeping one’s own setup and possible search strategy as unpredictable as possible throughout the rounds of play. Sitting down to play Battleship someone with whom I’ve never played Battleship before, I will pick one of 5 setup strategies, and use one of 5 search strategies, based on what I intuit their likely setup and search strategies will be. After 5 to 10 rounds I usually get a very good feel for what a novice player is doing and I usually start winning very consistently, at which point many people tire of the game (for understandable reasons). I have had few opportunities to play Battleship against someone who truly understands that the game is about “getting inside the other player’s head” so I don’t really know if I’m good at the game or not, but the times I’ve played others who also understand the game were deeply satisfying, with ad-hoc meta-games nesting inside meta-games, where the apparently casual banter between us was part of the game as we each analyzed the other for clues as to what strategies might be employed _this particular_ round. Battleship is, at its core, a game about predicting the actions of one’s opponent in the current game based on their prior actions (both in the game, and out) and influencing their actions in future games by one’s actions in the current game (and actions outside the game as well). Having said all that, I think I do agree with you, if I take your game design advice in the manner in which it is intended, that is, as advice on how to design a game that a modern games publisher will want to make. I agree that there is probably no interest from established publishers in games that use mechanisms that the vast majority of people don’t understand, and those that do understand, aren’t interested in playing.

[@JJSquirtle]

i feel like Mouse Trap checks every box on this list of "Please god don't do this" Mechanics. I'll NEVER forget having to watch everyone else play while I repeatedly triggered the trap and never got a single cheese

[@inkibusss]

I played Monopoly: Game of Thrones edition with a friend once. I repeatedly told them I didn't really like Monopoly, and I wouldn't be casual about it if we did. I proceeded to implement a strategy I had learned online where I created a housing monopoly by rushing one of the smaller easier to obtain groups. When it got down to a one on one, the opposing player pulled a chance card where they just got to keep my entire group of properties for free. That was it. The chance card ended the game that I was winning by a significant margin, out of nowhere, and was not present in standard monopoly so I could have never strategized around it. I will *never* play another game of Monopoly, and this is something that I will no longer budge on for the rest of my life.

[@siyano]

I think its really hard to have a good balance, because outside of game that are pure strategy (like chess or go) I feel like that some game doesnt offer any chance to someone that doesnt know the game well enough compare to someone that knows, like back then even with 3-4 plays game for me and 2 other players it was near impossible to win against someone with 50 plays of Russian Railroad. Where is the fun if you have no chance to win unless you played the game 25+ times really? there is a reason I dont play chess, its not fun since its just purely raw strategy

[@AdaminWales]

I definitely never meant to suggest that there should be no chance!! I love games of chance. The important thing is that the player gets to make choices (and that the choices mean something). At the end of the video I talk about “roll & move” games, and how I wish there were more of them! Most really good games balance chance against strategic choices :)

[@nienke7713]

With random events it can also be made better if it's something you can mitigate, e.g. something that is drawn at the start of a round but only resolved at the end, and which one may protect against during the round, thus creating randomness but still giving players agency in choosing whether to focus on mitigation or taking the consequences and focusing on something else

[@danwylie-sears1134]

Whenever I hear something that seems obvious, I look for exceptions or nuances. "Now, if your game has sustained periods where one or more players are essentially unable to take part, you probably want to revisit the mechanisms which are driving this" My first thought is that such periods should be opt-in, with a big enough payoff that it's a plausible option, and with an effect on other players that's interesting to watch while the player who chose it can't do anything. In light of that, an example practically writes itself. In a one-winner turn-based card game where players normally draw a card and then do stuff, and then the turn order continues unchanged, here's the card: _Look at each other player's hand, and return it to them. Then pick a whole number, N, greater than or equal to 2. Draw a number of cards equal to N cards for each other player. (If you can't draw enough cards, you are eliminated: shuffle any cards you drew back into the draw pile, and take no further action.) Then place that many cards in a pile face down in front of you. You cannot draw or play until that pile is exhausted. On their turn, after drawing but before beginning the main phase of their turn, each other player takes the top card of that pile and places it either on the top or the bottom of the draw pile._ You get to guess what other players will choose to do. You get to provide them with hints at information about each other's hands, that they don't have but you do. You get to see how they react to that information. And if no one wins in N turns, you get to rejoin active game play with a big advantage because you went through a big chunk of the draw pile and chose the best cards to keep.

[@eldricliew6223]

The event deck mechanics still occur in 4x games, and probably are the main story mechanism in games like paradox games like crusader kings. Player choices can bias the deck, but it's very hard to come up with a meaningful balance of choices.

[@AdaminWales]

I enjoyed the way Robinson Crusoe did this - if a tiger appeared you could fight it (and take damage) or scare it away (it will come back nastier later). Or you could eat berries for immediate sustenance, but they’ll come back later as food poisoning. So the player choices biased the deck as you mentioned. Clever mechanism :)

[@wtfox8206]

With all this in mind, how do trading card games succeed? Is it because the level of chance is expectable with your start of turn draw? Is it in the deck building process?

[@AdaminWales]

I think most CCGs offer up loads of interesting choices, both during the game and before the game starts. They have randomness for sure, and that adds some tension, but it’s well balanced with meaningful decisions. That’s the recipe for a fun game. Not to mention the addictive quality of blind purchases.

[@wtfox8206]

@@AdaminWales Yeah, the booster pack experience is so much more important to the game than a lot of people realize. It's why those boxed card games often get solved and lose flare. And as controversial as it may be, there is merit in having cards of varying value. It adds an interesting deck building choice around finding "budget" alternatives to expensive cards.

[@ツルのために]

Randomness is minimised in deckbuilding, and games are played as best of 3 or best of 5 to reduce the punishment of a loss due to randomness.

[@recurvestickerdragon]

The video actually begins at 4:04

[@heidtb6746]

Time not found?

[@ptorq]

Probably my favorite board game is Rail Baron, which has got a quite large lookup table for both determining where a player must go next and how much the trip is worth. There is a mechanism for eliminating players (if they can't pay their rail fees and they've got no properties left to auction), but by the time someone's eliminated someone else generally will be very close to having enough money to win (this doesn't necessarily mean that they DO win, though, there's a condition they have to meet first, and it can be interrupted by the other players).

[@TheJuicyTangerine]

There is a range of mechanisms that could be considered "take that". Take that, aggressive mechanics, and otherwise player interaction are important game mechanics. But what I can't stand are "nope" mechanics that just allow you to say no to whatever (unstable unicorns as an example). There are so many better ways to address this. Counterspells in Magic the Gathering is a example of a "nope" that is at least interactive and able to be signaled. In exploding kittens, the one who has the most nopes is generally the one who wins.

[@bobjones574]

So, one mechanics that I feel need to be reviewed before including: Unified draw decks. Notable with how robo rally realized the problem on its reprint. Statistics work out that if you have a reasonable variety for ~4 players in a central deck, players can get stuck with blobs of identical cards. Regardless of good/bad, it is usually boring. Giving each player a private deck reduces this risk. Mystic War, part of my personal game design origin story, is a perfect example. All players are drawing from a unified deck of very random cards.

[@satibel]

valefisk and magic the noah: _furiously writes checklist of mechanics to add_

[@yurisei6732]

All of these can be good, but it's all about knowing where to use it. Cluedo is the perfect example - roll and move is a great base formula, but in Cluedo, the core gameplay loop is just being interrupted by the need to spend a random number of turns moving to the room that you want to check, not being able to engage in the gameplay until you've rolled enough spaces. And if you're going to make a game with little to no player agency, make it something small and cheap where good value is gained from just a couple of sessions.