"A point about game design" Topic

"Monday's post attracted a couple of interesting comments, and I've pulled out this one from EJ to reply as a post because I didn't want it to get lost in the mix. It's an interesting point, and worth discussing as it applies to every type of game.

His original comment went like this:

"I've heard it said that "looks pretty" is what sells games, and "plays well" is what creates retention and builds a community. I don't know whether this is the case globally but it matches my experience.

As such, a pretty table with pretty models will draw people in and give them a flavourful first game, which is always worth doing because nobody ever plays a second game unles they enjoyed the first. However, as Thomas Cato says, one needs to examine the abstract game which lurks behind the prettiness. If you play any game for long enough you start to see the maths which lies behind it, and if this maths isn't fun then the game isn't fun – as you have memorably pointed out with Warhammer and mental geometry…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

From what I can see the most popular rules are the ones that are most easily available, you can pick them up from the shelf in a wargames shop.

I am sure that if they are really dire then they would not be used but players will put up with a lot. But simple is always a good point.

You know, EJ makes so much intuitive sense, I almost agreed without thinking. But it has to be more complicated than that.
Why aren't we playing chess? Can't just be the appearance. We could certainly make attractive pieces and a good-looking board in 64 squares.
And why do we play periods with limited tactical options? At a tactical level with rules that reflect history, we should probably be clustered around high Napoleonic and early to mid-war WWII. I like ACW and AWI myself, but you really do come to the end of tactical cleverness pretty quickly.
I agree that appearance brings people to the table, and "replay value" keeps them with the same period and rules. "Simple to learn and hard to master" is a cliché for a reason. But there are other factors in play, and I may not have spotted them all yet.
VVV, I think you can sell anything in a glossy cover--once. Eventually. The measure of a set of commercial wargame rules is that they're still played after ten or twenty years. Now we're talking "Charge!" "The Sword and the Flame" arguably "Column, Line and Square" "Napoleon's Battles" perhaps "Fire and Fury." Not a lot of others. (I think "On to Richmond" could make the list if the copyright holder made an effort.) If we could isolate what they have in common, we might be on to something.

Meantime, Tango, I can't find the original thread. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Err. Disregard "can't find the thread." I found the error in my thinking instead.

Some people don't like to try new rules either.
They learned the set they play and won't play any others even if someone else does the heavy lift/GMing.
Good packaging, promotion and distribution are also key factors. I hear that game x is good but have trouble finding it and don't want to mail order, so I go with game y I find at a local convention.
But if game y doesn't promote repeat game play and I'm not encouraged to attend to the aesthetics, then I'll abandon it and keep searching.

Glad you found it my friend.

Amicalement
Armand