What do you need ’em for?

Game books are nice to write, read, and collect, but their purpose is to facilitate the playing of games. It isn’t unusual that books do not fulfil their purpose. People buy cookbooks without ever preparing any of the recipes, or travel guides to places they don’t intend to visit. It isn’t a failure of the reader to read a game rulebook and never play the game.

Is there a gaming equivalent of a closet drama? A game designed, intentionally, not to be played?

But there is a satisfaction in finding use in the things you have and in creating things that people really use. How can we create miniature game rules that we can play, and maybe get people to play with us? What qualities do those games need to have?

One way to look at this is as a marketing funnel, only one that continues on past the point of purchase. Another would be like a Drake equation for estimating the number of viable games.

It’s possible that people will a game lacking any or indeed many of these qualities. But I believe that games possessing them are more likely to be played.

Baseline

What’s the bottom level, the price of admission? The bare minimum that a game needs to have a chance of being played?

Completeness

The game rules should contain everything that it needs. A competitive game might stumble if it lacks rules for creating balanced armies. A scenario-focused game with only a limited number of scenarios and no guidelines for creating your own will be limited.

Seldom does one create an incomplete game intentionally. The cause might be implicit assumptions (“We always just decided the initiative amongst ourselves”), ambition (“That was going to go in the supplement”), or pure oversight (“Sent the wrong file to the printers”).

Homebrewing and house-ruling are great and complete games allow for it more than games with “blank space”. It’s easier to ignore a section that is present than to write up one that is missing.

Appeal

Games with no appeal will not be played. Games with limited appeal will be harder to play. Unless they allow for solo play, a game will need to be of interest to at least two players who can find each other. The more appealing the game is, in theme and in action, the more likely it will be played. If it looks like nice and stands out on the table, that can certainly help.

Miniatures

A miniatures game must have miniatures the the players can use. If there are none to be had, the game can’t be played. The most convenient of all are ones that the interested players already have. Re-purposing miniatures for a new game is certainly convenient. Proxying is also good.

Games with unusual themes, scales, quantities or basing schemes will find this more difficult. Selling miniatures for your game is one way to ensure they’re available. Or designing rules with particular lines in mind. Games meant to be 3D-printed might have a cheaper buy-in, but a more limited market (only those with access to printers). You might also think of miniatures that players can make themselves. This could be easier or harder, depending on the techniques and the audience.

Fitness Factors

So, let’s say you have a game with a nice set of rules, an appealing theme, and miniatures that people can get their hands on. There are a lot of those, and not all of them are played. Why not?

Ease of Learning

It might be the most commonly heard reason for not wanting to try a new game: “I don’t want to learn another set of rules”. A game that’s harder to learn asks more of players, and will find fewer players ready to try it.

One also must consider how similar the rules are to existing games. Unless designing for a broad, popular theme that might attract new-comers to the hobby, most miniatures games will not be someone’s first game. Players will take pre-conceptions from other games to your rule-set. A game that strays to far could be harder to understand. The designer of Rogue Planet has spoken about this, I believe.

Ease of Use

Longer games are less likely to be played. Games requiring more models are less likely to be played. Games that require more intense book-keeping (written orders, health tracking, experience points, etc…) are less likely to be played.

Well laid-out books and player aids will help a game get played.

Investment

Games requiring an initial investment in models and learing can invoke the sunk-cost fallacy. After all the trouble taken, it would feel a shame to not play the game. This is more likely to work in favor of established games, that people already know.

Niche

Games need to find their niche, their audience. Games that are too similar to existing ones may have the fantasy heartbreaker problem. New games will have trouble peeling players away from an established game if they are too similar. What makes your rule set competitive within its niche? Why would people looking for the type of experience it offers choose it over others?

Other materials

Games that require custom or non-standard dice are less likely to be played. Games that require a lot of dice other than six-sided dice are less likely to be played. Games with app integration

What have we learned?

Not much, perhaps, but it was fun to think about. I’ve been enjoying reading Delta Vector this year, so maybe head there for some more thoughts about gaming rules.