Comments on That's a Terrible Idea: Simplicity in Design and Play

Very insightful post. I agree that the best game ...

2009-11-21T00:13:04.853-05:00

Very insightful post. I agree that the best game mechanics act in a natural rather than arbitrary way, and that some complexity can be justified as furthering simulation.

But there's a careful balance that needs to be struck between clarity and simulation. It's not always a good idea to use complex or obscure mechanics, even if they simulate the real world. Here are a couple of examples:

The board game Diplomacy is a classic game about wartime negotiation. It uses extremely simple, clear rules, but it captures the essence of the real-world processes it's trying to model and doesn't feel contrived. It's been more successful than very complicated wargames that try to simulate combat more accurately.

Another example: The Civilization games have always had a mechanism to ensure that fighting a war makes your citizens less happy. The original Civilization used the simple rule that each unit outside of its home city made one citizen of that city unhappy. Later Civilization games replaced this with a complicated "war weariness" formula that was not revealed to players.

In my view, the first rule was better from a gameplay perspective. It was an abstraction, but it captured the essential concept while remaining easy to understand. The war-weariness rule, on the other hand, was obscure and could really only be understood after experimenting with it a lot, which made it harder to play strategically.

In other words, arbitrariness is a bad idea, but abstraction can be a good idea as long as it captures the essence of a real-world process.

The most fun we have while playing games is often ...

2009-11-20T19:52:45.869-05:00

The most fun we have while playing games is often when we’re pushing the boundaries of what we understand about the game’s systems....

Careful, this is just one motivation out of many. This is Bartle's Achiever motivation, or Lazzaro's "Easy Fun". There are other motivations beyond these.

I think the bigger issue is to make sure that you find the right balance for your game. Civilizatiotn, for example, would not benefit from being simplified; the game is as complex as it needs to be in order to have a meaningful experience. As the Einstein quote goes, "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Some games require a bit more complexity.

On the other hand, gameplay genres tend to become highly specialized and overly complex as a result. In the past it has been described as building games for a "priesthood" of the faithful; the problem is that newcomers are shut out of the genre because they do not have the long experience the faithful do.

So, to refine what I said before: you have to balance the expectations of the genre with remaining accessible to newcomers. This usually summed up as "easy to learn, hard to master." I think this is where you are trying to make the distinction: the gameplay should be initially simple, but what you term the "simulation" is where the complexity comes from, as the different rules interact combinatorially.

Chess is an excellent example because not only are...

2009-11-18T22:41:29.530-05:00

Chess is an excellent example because not only are the rules simple and the game deep, but there's also no real need to question the whys and wherefores of chess's operation.

Likewise, we don't need to have a perfect understanding of the operation of every moving part just to drive a car. The machine handles the complexities while we handle the relatively simple task of moving from point A to point B.

A good design is a collection of simple parts that combine into a more complex whole to accomplish a simple goal. I happen to think that refinement rather than reinvention is also key to good design, making the parts run better than they did before.

I think you can use the game of chess as a support...

2009-11-18T17:27:18.839-05:00

I think you can use the game of chess as a supporting example of your argument. The rules are quite simple, yet it is an incredibly deep game that has real world analogies. I believe that it is possible to create a very deep and engaging play experience with a simple set of rules.