Design Tip: Simple versus Clean


What’s the difference between a simple game and a clean game?  A simple game has reduced decisions and strategy and a clean game can be any game that is streamlined where everything fits and makes sense and has no extraneous rules or pieces.

This concept took Sen and I awhile to understand actually.  We could easily recognize when one of our games was messy and convoluted, but would often think that the solution would be that we should make it simpler.  In the end we would end up with a very basic – but still messy game!

Let’s look at the difference of each by using some examples from one of our games in progress: Akrotiri.

In Akrotiri, part of the game has players moving their boats from island to island picking up resources and then shipping them back to Akrotiri to sell them.  Seems easy enough, but we were continually challenged with how to determine the prices of how much Akrotiri would buy these resources from players.

The Simple way to do it would be to set a fixed price and say that every resource is sold for 1 gold.  That’s just too simple and offers no strategy and cannot be affected by a player’s choice at all.

Our initial idea was to use a stock market to track each resource’s value.  Every time a resource is added to the board then the stock market goes up by one.  If a resource is sold to Akrotiri then the market goes down by one for that resource.  Seems like it makes sense, but it wasn’t clean.  Why not?  Because players would often forget to change the market when either adding a resource or selling to Akrotiri.  It was messy and caused players to say things like, “oh I sold that resource last turn but forgot to lower the price – so it should be 2 steps lower.”  Not a good gaming experience.

We toyed around with some other ideas before coming back to this stock market idea.  This time we placed all the resources on the market itself.  If a resource is added to the board then it is taken directly from the stock market.  When it is sold back to Akrotiri then it is placed back on the stock market tracker and the player gets the amount that it is placed onto.  Now that’s a lot cleaner.  Now players can’t forget to affect the market.

So when designing your games try to be objective and determine if it’s simple or clean, and unless you’re making a game for children, lean towards clean!

-Jay Cormier

First off, thanks to Sean of the G.A.C. (Game Artisans of Canada – a group of designers that Jay and I belong to) for his assistance with coming up with the current stock market mechanism. Secondly, there’s nothing more rewarding than coming up with creative solutions to a problem that doesn’t increase the analysis paralysis or downtime – and that’s the difference, for me anyway, between a simple game and a clean game. Though, personally, I prefer referring to them as “simplistic” vs. “elegant”. Semantics, I know. To me, “elegant” means also linking multiple mechanics in the same game to affect the outcome as a whole.

To me, a simplistic game can be made by reducing the rules and components until you’re left with the most basic elements of the game. There is very little interaction on the board or between players. Think of a classic “roll and move” game like ‘Snakes & Ladders’ – you roll, you move, the board tells you if there’s a penalty or a bonus based on the square you land on. Two players never interact. First one to the end wins.

An elegant game, to the contrary, may have some very simple mechanics (and, in fact, works better if it is made up of primarily simple mechanics) but the complexity is built into how those mechanics interact. How the board, the pieces, and the players interact with each other all form a meld of complexity. The art, here, is making it as seamless as possible – hence elegant. It should, at the best of times, come off smoothly without much down time or referring to charts or manuals. It should be minimal in execution, but maximal in effect. Think of something as simple as the event die in ‘Settlers of Catan’ 2-player card game – roll a die and something happens. The elegant part of this was that both players were affected by this die roll on either player’s turn, but not necessarily in the same way, depending on the buildings they had, the resources they stockpiled, their contingency of warriors, etc. It was a simple roll with simple rules to effect each result (compare who has the most red points in knights – that player gets a benefit) and both players took part in the event phase, even on the other player’s turn which keeps things interesting. And the result of the roll can be more or less beneficial depending on how well a player planned in his or her previous turn. Almost zero downtime for a ton more effect in the game. Definitely a worthwhile trade-off if you were to do a cost/benefit analysis.

Both the ‘Snakes and Ladders’ and ‘Settlers of Catan Card Game’ example use a single die as the mechanism. The difference is in the ramifications of the die roll. One is simplistic, the other is far more elegant.

-Sen-Foong Lim

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Design Tip: Simple versus Clean

  1. Great post! I’m an amateur game designer, and struggling for elegant design in my games is one of the most challenging–but most rewarding!–parts of the hobby. Also, regarding the Belfort art in the post after this: spectacular! (although the hammer thing is silly)

    Like

  2. A few more comments about clean/elegant design:

    CHITS:

    Jay and I like to try to eliminate the use of chits or tracking of stats in anyway that could possibly be messed up easily. Some of the really “epic” games like ‘Arkham Horror’ for example seeminly have a bazillion chits – to us, that’s a detractor. Why? Well, a) we hate sorting through them, b) they can get misplaced or knocked around the board so easily and c) they’re extra components to design/print/create a cutting die for. For us, often times we can find more interesting ways to do the same things the chits do without needing little cardboard squares. Just like some gamers dislike dice and call games that rely on them “dicefests”, we use the term “chitfest” in an almost derogatory fashion. Personally, I just find too many chits messy, which is the opposite of clean, right? If you’re moving a creature card with 4 chits on it representing the damage it has taken, you then have to move all the chits around with said creature card

    Even chit-heavy games that I love, such as “Space Alert”, could likely use less in the way of chits. I guess I’m okay with a few chits in a game, but when the entire game revolves around these little lightweight cardboard bits that could be brushed away with the ill-timed swipe of a frilly shirt cuff (for those times when Jay dresses up in his Pirate gear), I have to question: could this have been designed in another way?

    TRACKS:

    One game element that Jay and I have been using a lot lately are tracks – they allow us to apply a global condition to players based on their location on said track. For example, in “Belfort” we apply the taxation to each player by their position on the score track. In “Hog the Remote” we apply a handicap based on relative position of each time on the score track such that the team with the lower score stands a better chance of staying in the game and even staging a comeback. Tracks provide a simple, graphical representation that all players can easily refer to.

    PLAYER AIDS:

    We like to have good solid player aids for any game that requires one – they help with playtesting immensely and are invaluable when it comes to making things as clean as possible. It helps a player plan his turn a bit ahead of time and can result in smoother play as well.

    Like

  3. love to see i’m not the only one who struggles with mechanics! I’m just a hobbiest, but I’ve made a resource game based off a market and found that it was too fiddly to work smoothly. I’ve went back to it a few times, but have not yet found a way to make the game play smooth with the market mechanic. I may have to revisit it 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s