Hacker News Reader

Comment by thom | Hacker News Reader

I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of 'things' has increased. There are way too many games that require 15 different piles of things, which is not just physically annoying in terms of setting up and playing, but also such a cognitive overhead in the game.

Somehow even quite deep games like Magic: the Gathering or D&D (or indeed chess) manage their complexity more elegantly, by having fewer concepts iterated many times (although in the case of D&D this is managed by the DM who certainly has a terribly complex job).

For example, Mage Knight in some sense tries to create a simplified version of parts of D&D, but it does it with so many moving parts that I freak out at the thought of event getting it out of the box. Whereas I can play actual D&D with one dice and some words.

View on HN

> I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of 'things' has increased.

There are many, many, MANY games exploring the opposite end of the design space. If you want simple, there are designers and publishers working on that.

I mean, there's also Mage Knight, but lots of people love Mage Knight. It's a big hobby! Very few games will appeal to more than a small subset of the fan base.

I don't want to recommend anything as such (I have no idea what you're into!) but games like Azul, Splendour, and Patchwork have been super popular recently, and are very clean, minimalist designs. Or a couple steps up the complexity level, Wingspan.

About 15 years ago I came across "Cheapass Games". They sell you the bare minimum of what you need to play the given game you're buying on the assumption that most people//gamers already have all the dice, play money, and tchotchkes otherwise needed to fill out what's needed to play the game.

Obligatory "I just bought an item, no other affiliation" notation.

https://cheapass.com/

I was shocked when playing Tak at the Zoka coffeeshop behind uVillage in Seattle another customer recognized it and said that the inventor lived around the corner.

I really like the game, mainly as the rules are incredibly simple. Also don’t have to keep track of what cards were played and what’s left in the deck.

Hive is another simple rules game that’s really fun to play.

https://cheapass.com/tak/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hive_(game)

And now they're free to print and play!

So go now, and play "Give me the brain", "Lord of the Fries", "Kill Doctor Lucky", "Spree", and "Unexploded Cow".

On the other hand, skip entirely "Bitin' off Heads", "Devil Bunny", and "The Great Brain Robbery".

"Kill Doctor Lucky" is definitely worth a try. Thematically you might also like "Save Doctor Lucky".

The one I bought and kept is "Witch Trail".

Sticking with RPG as the genre, Pathfinder the card game is much more simplified. Even more simplified would be Roll Player. Even more simplified would be One Deck Dungeon, or Four Against Darkness.

There are so many games out now, the choices are overwhelming.

The focus of the article is primarily around how to simplify existing games and gradually build them back up. Unfortunately many games, like you say, have a very large number of parts, but it's not straightforward to modify gameplay to not require them while still having an interesting and balanced game.

I really wish more board-games had a "low-parts mode" or a "trial" mode where you could experience the gestalt of the game without having to cram all the minutiae. Basically: do what this guy did for his daughter but put it in the rule book.

I collaborated with the designer of the notoriously complex, 23 pound box game Gloomhaven to do exactly this for the upcoming small-box, mass-market oriented Jaws of the Lion. We built a 5 scenario on-ramp tutorial I called Fischer-Price mode.

We included new, simpler, components in the game that are exclusively for this tutorial, have players add mechanics and components and systems one or two at a time. During playtesting we went from about 2+ hours to read and semi-understand the rules enough to play, to playing in about 10-15 minutes.

It can be done, but it can add significant cost (materials, development time) to the game.

Hey this looks cool, glad you mentioned it. Will probably grab it in August when it comes out!

I don't get any royalties, but you should! I got one of the early production copies and I'm two scenarios from finishing the campaign with my wife. It's lots of fun.

So it's fine for 2 players?

Yup! If you're playing with two, I might avoid the Voidwarden. My favorite class, and it's playable with 2 players, but definitely harder with only one ally. All other combinations work very well together at 2 player though

This is kinda how extension packs work.

For example we got Carcassonne recently and it includes an "extension" (Abbots & Farmers). The rules has an additional sheet, so you can play the raw game and pick up the extension later once you've grokked the normal rules.

Settlers of Catan does a similar thing, they have a slightly more basic gameplay in the rules for people starting out.

Carcassonne base game already does it by allowing you to play without farmers.

And 'without farmers' is precisely how I introduce Carcassonne to new people. You have to be pretty good at spatial reasoning to understand farmers and their fields in the game just from someone describing it to you. But most people get it right away (after the first game) when I say, "we'll play one game without farmers, and then look at the finished board so you can see where the fields and their borders are."

Of course, that only works for a game like Carcassonne which plays in 45min or less on the first go and can get down to 20min if you're playing with people who know the (base) game well.

In some ways rule reveals/progression is a defining feature of the "Legacy" style of board games. Generally the focus on such games isn't about rule reveals/progression, because the core idea of Legacy as a style is about board games with permanent changes that last through a story campaign of some sort, but rule reveals/progressions/rule tweaks are key storytelling tools in that style.

Some of the games are notorious for having half-empty rule books that you will eventually fill with stickers for more rules.

One particular well regarded Legacy game for it's slow, careful reveal of rules is Seafall (which is noteworthy for being the first non-licensed Legacy game by the Legacy genre's "father" who built the original Risk Legacy and has contributed to many others like Pandemic Legacy). I've got it on my shelf and have been hoping to find the right group to play it with, so I've mostly tried to avoid spoilers, but the way it was described to me is that it is a full 4X (strategy gaming acronym from videogames for Explore, Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate) that starts with only the rules for Explore and expands out from there. (And it is proper exploration with players encouraged to sharpie their discoveries to the board.)

One game with a version of this mechanic is Fabled Fruit. It's a worker placement/ hand building game. There are 6-10 possible actions you can take each turn: the initial 6 are relatively simple but as the game goes on, old actions get discarded and new ones, often with more complex mechanics, take their place. You're encouraged to keep the game in the new more complex state the next time you play it.

Even the initial state is too complex for young children but it might suit what you're looking for if that's not actually a requirement - I don't think you'd really enjoy playing phase 1 of his Carcassonne adaptation either.

I wonder how much demand there would be for a dedicated board on boardgamegeek for homebrew "rule progressions" like these

My family plays the Harry Potter Battle for Hogwarts game, which is a cooperative deck builder. Part of the enjoyment of it is definitely that there are lot of things happening and a lot to keep track of. Technically a cooperative game like this could be played by one player. But having four players means the others can butt in with "oh and that triggers the horcrux ability" when you forget. The other neat thing about the game is that it's broken into 7 "books", and the rules get more complicated as you progress. It's basically a formalization of the idea that the blogpost here gives, though the starting game is still modestly complicated.

Personally, I find D&D's gotten more and more simplified over the years i've played it. I started with ad&d first edition rules. The DM guide is jam packed full of tables of info for literally every insignificant detail of your world. It's still my favourite edition.

Every edition after streamlined things and took away detail. The biggest changes came when wizards of the coast bought up tsr and the 3rd edition came out. It barely felt like playing the same game. I haven't played the newest editions, but i've read through the player and DM's guide for them, much of the original complexity of ad&d is gone, in its place are systems that seem.complex, but are far more simple to grasp and play using.

Not just the systems, but the general feel and flow of the game seems to be simplified. It was more about being a fantasy adventure simulator before, where as now the purpose seems to be a fantasy hero story game.

Much of the darker grittier aspects of the game were toned down and generally gone through that sanitizing process most niche things go through when they become popular.

I think it's a side effect of the cultural impact. D&D inspired role playing videogames, those inspired MMOs, and MMOs now inspire D&D. Playing 5e feels very much like playing World of Warcraft or something similar.

It's still fun of course -- when I was young we would play D&D with no character sheets and just a few dice -- but I agree some of the spirit is lost. I'm sure there are some custom settings out there with the depth of detail you're looking for.

I usually just designed my own settings and worlds. We tended to play fairly loose with some rules and had a bunch of custom tables and rules and stuff. Honestly, I almost prefer that part of it to the actual playing. An old friend of mine and I years ago actually started working on our own roleplaying system, but we ended up moving away and getting busy with life and stuff so we never really finished it. I think most of it's still sitting in my boxes full of random d&d stuff.

I feel like 5e did a really good job of feeling like it was D&D while streamlining out a lot of the “recreational accounting” that 1e was.

Though I still had to resort to automated character sheets to roll my character because there was shit I just could not figure out how to do from the PHB...

1e was kind of a mess though, remember how Bard was a weird expansion class you could only play after like 20 levels of three other classes instead of “you are a person who has about as much training in music, social engineering, and magic related to those things as anyone else at your level has in whatever they do”?

My 1e/2e groups sure did tinker with the rules to work around shit like that, my GURPS groups mostly went by whatever set of books the campaign was using, and my recent 5e experience after a long time away from RPGs felt like I remember 1/2e being without all the bullshit and confusion that nostalgia elides.

I agree that the trend is for more "things" on the table, but there are still plenty of new games coming out with an eye on simplicity. Give Azul a try -- it's nothing but tiles (20 each of 5 different colors) and a board to help you count. Simple, elegant and deeper than expected

I am a bit of a fan of the games of Carl Chudyk - primarily Glory to Rome, but also Innovation; i haven't really got into Mottainai yet.

His games comprise a deck of cards, and then perhaps a few supporting items like money counters or victory point cards. There are two characteristic things about the cards. Firstly, each card can serve several purposes. In Glory to Rome, it can be a plan for a particular building, raw material for a building, an action somehow related to building (starting a building, adding material, robbing your neighbours), or a member of staff who carries out an action. Secondly, one mode of a card will have some sort of ability on it that modifies the rules, or lets you do different things. In Glory to Rome, if you build the insula (a Roman tower block), you can have three more staff than usual; if you build the scriptorium, you can now complete any building using one card's worth of marble.

The basic idea is fairly simple (but not trivial, because of the multiple uses of a card). But there is enormous emergent complexity. My brain fires on all cylinders while playing it.

This looks like a reasonable explanation of the rules:

https://ultraboardgames.com/glory-to-rome/game-rules.php

As someone who got Innovation for the cheaps off Craigslist I have to highlight the concept that there is enormous complexity to really get the rewards in Carl's games...

It took us 4 tries to REALLY ramp up Innovation to the point where everyone (group of 3) understood how you could combo up and compete against others who fell into certain card combinations. It did get particularly fun at that point even as we would regularly discover new Age 9 and Age 10 cards (with somehow even more absurd mechanics)

It is definitely not a game I would recommend for children though :/

Originally, with Magic: the Gathering the exploration and interpretation of the rules was part of the game itself. At this point, Magic id mostly taught by other people that know the game well and introduce it to new players. I think there is less of a family that has never played and buying a bunch of packs to build decks and play. Magic just isn't setup for that today.

Anecdotally, I tried to find a fun solitaire game to play during lockdown and ended up getting Arkham Horror. After reading a ton of rules and even watching some YouTube videos, I still felt like I never truly understood the game and haven't really played it. I can't image cracking something like Gloomhaven and reading through the rules.

Gloomhaven is actually pretty straightforward. My group played about three games before everything clicked — BUT, those first three games were a ton of fun and still “worked” even though in hindsight we weren’t following all the rules correctly. It does have too many parts, but there’s an app available (gloomhaven helper) which replaces 2/3 of the parts and makes the game very much easier and more fun.

I have thought a lot about this concept of using a smartphone app to replace some physical components of a game, and I'm surprised more games don't do it. On top of being less cumbersome, using your phone would allow for some mechanics that simply aren't feasible (or even possible) with physical parts. The flip side is that you have to "sync" the app state with the state of the physical board, and you need a clever solution that doesn't require doing things twice. (Plus, I'm sure some would argue that having parts of the game be digital would take away from the immersion, though I personally disagree.)

The problem with this is that it's very easy to get stuck with a useless board game if the app doesn't get updated.

If you're selling physical product that needs an app to run, there is no reason for the app not to be Free Software, or distributed in some other friendly way (e.g., Space Alert has a CD-DA disc that plays the scenarios as audio).

I've seen more and more games do that, from XCOM and Space Alert, which mostly use it to provide randomness and a timer to Mansion of Madness, which is mostly facilitating exploration.

Those games work well, but for me, I wouldn't want to play a board game that leans on an app any more than Mansion of Madness; at that point it's a video game, and while I enjoy those, it's not why I play board games!

Anecdotal: The on-ramp to Gloomhaven is quite smooth, compared even to many "simpler" games. It feels like there is an MVP-design of a game initially introduced and then as you play more features and complexity are added.

I highly recommend it, even as a solitaire game. There is a digital version on Steam as well, which approximates the mechanics and gameplay well.

I think I played gloomhaven varying levels of wrong (monotonically decreasing) for the first 15 or so scenarios. The classic "wrong attack modifier deck", "elements only move up 1 when you generate", "Monsters cannot move through each other", "That monster has flying" are a smattering of my misread rules.

Who cares? The game was still fun, now we play more correctly (God knows what I haven't noticed I do wrong yet). I'm a firm believer in playing early, and learning from mistakes / as you go.

The Gloomhaven spin-off Jaws of the Lion also has a much more explicit ramp-up, as well as being a simpler game in general.

Tell me about it, this was my first real boardgame.

In a group with engineers and lawyers, it was bad enough that each session started with "what will we get wrong this time"

yes. mtg has less physical items but they more than make up for it with rules. if you want to have a laugh look up the full official rules.

This is true to an extent (and in basically any pro tournament even the best players in the world can disagree about complex interactions and need a judge). But I've rarely found it matters with beginners - just start with vanilla creatures and simple removal if you're worried, my kids learned the structure of your turn, paying for spells and combat in about 10 minutes. Everything beyond a few keyword abilities is just reading the cards, you don't _really_ need to refer to the rules for the most part. This is in stark contrast to Yu-Gi-Oh, we've found, where you can't just play what's in front of you.

either you have really really smart kids or you maybe are exaggerating a little. I learned mtg as an adult playing with a friend and each and every game we would get into a situation where it wasn’t clear how/when to apply the rules - it wasn’t a big deal and i would usually text a buddy that has been playing since for ever.

to give you and example: it took 2 weeks to figure out that there is a difference between +1/+1 as a result of an instant or sorcery and a +1/+1 counter.

Most of the complexity is to handle a small number of cards that are essentially never used except to prompt rule puzzles. The rules have to be very complex to accommodate when these complex cards redouble their complexity by interacting with each other. Sadly, this doesn't work, because the game rules are complex enough to simulate a Turing machine, and as a result some board states are undecidable!

https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09828

here are the rules: https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-fo...

I disagree about the complexity being associated with only cards that are never used. the "Spells, Abilities, and Effects" is the thing that makes the rule book grow with every release. they keep introducing abilities and it gets more and more complicated

There are tons of simple, compact, good, usually pretty fast-playing tabletop games around, mostly card games but with some exceptions. Love Letter and Arboretum are rightly famous (in board gamer circles). Hive, as a non-card two-player game. Sushi Go has quite a few "things" but you only choose some of them for a given game.

They do tend not to have a strong melding of theme and mechanics, which I think is how/why theme-heavy games can end up being so complex—tighter theme integration implies, if not requires, more mechanics and bits and bobs.

Ah but I loooooooooove Vlada games with deep, crunchy mechanics and many moving parts.

I also love games that are conceptually simple but require mastery like Chess, Go, and their like.

There is a range and the explosion in popularity of boardgaming in this last decade has been a boon as we've seen such a wide array of games and play styles cater to everyone on the spectrum!

Sure, this is entirely personal taste and I will admit somewhat driven by limited time now I have kids. If we're getting the gang together it's annoying to spend ages setting up, whereas sitting down for an MtG draft is so easy and feels like it has infinite variety.

I actually only play games like Mage Knight solo as I don't know anyone else like me who enjoys that sort of game!

> I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of 'things' has increased

I feel you! There's a niche of complex boardgames where they try to "simulate" things, like a colony or a submarine or a spaceship or a party of RPG characters, and I think... this is what computers are good for. This is a videogame. Boardgames ought to have a different design space. If there are lots of things to keep track of, that's a bad sign for a boardgame. Some even try to have a computer do the bookkeeping, which in my opinion is just a band-aid over inadequate design.

All in my opinion, of course. And I do love "lite" dungeon romps and "lite" RPG-like boardgames. But adding complexity I think is both a temptation and a mistake.

I have this feeling sometimes too, but I think there is an important aspect of complex board games, in particular strategy games that is missing from computer games. When you play a board game, you are forced to understand the rules (because you are the one executing them) so you are able to more fully consider their implications on strategy. (Of course, the mechanics must be tasteful in addition to complex in order for this to actually be a benefit.) In a computer game, my experience is that it's much easier to revert to playing by feel and lose that effect, and much harder to design a game where the full mechanics are obvious to the players. As a wargamer this is the main reason I prefer playing board wargames, even though they are not able to simulate in nearly as much detail as computer wargames.

I am a wargamer too! Are you familiar with Arty's "Crossfire"? That's a marvelous wargame (the best WWII game in my opinion) with a very basic set of rules. The complexity comes from scenario design and gameplay itself -- the rules are trivial.

Another fellow wargamer here! I’ll second that Crossfire is fantastic. It totally captures the rhythm and feel of what it’s trying to represent, without getting bogged down in irrelevant detail. It’s also one of the only really innovative sets of wargame rules I’ve ever played, most of which are essentially the same mechanics combined in different ways.

Another old set with some great ideas is Loose Files and the American Scramble, for the American Revolution. Originally a magazine article (from the 80s I think?), you can find the pdf floating around online. Three pages of rules, and super tightly focused on what makes the AWI unique. 100% worth a look if you have any interest in the period.

I think you’re right about computer games when it comes to hardcore number-crunching simulation. Computers being better able to portray fog of war is also a huge advantage. But I think tabletop games can do certain things better, especially when it comes to things like command friction. On the tabletop, when an order fails to go through or an unlucky break sees your units dissolve in a rout, you can easily understand what happened and it just becomes part of the story of the game. But in a computer game not having precise control can be very frustrating, like you’re at the mercy of opaque mechanics and the RNG.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll definitely look for the PDF, because a recommendation from a fellow Crossfire fan carries a lot of weight for me ;)

Hah! Us grognards gotta stick together. Loose Files is definitely a little rough around the edges and shows it’s age: for ex. it mentions that officers can send orders, but what that means is left as an exercise for the reader. But with some common sense adaptations it plays really well.

I have heard excellent things about Crossfire but alas have not had the chance to play it -- hopefully one of these days!

Something that I think goes somewhat in the opposite direction is the Piecepack[0], which tries to maximize the number of games you can play with the minimum components.

"Piecepack is to board games what a Standard Deck of Playing Cards is to card games"

Since it is a common denominator, it enforces some economy in games that are designed for it or adapted to it. I recall a Catan adaptation that had several simplifications in the spirit of the OP.

[0] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2860/piecepack

Loony Pyramids (aka icehouse pyramids) are another attempt at this sort of thing. They're just nestable, stackable pyramids in three shapes and several colors, but people have invented or adapted a hundred or so games for them.

They pair well with piecepack or playing cards.

Gloomhaven is pretty much only playable with a set of organizers in the box, (which lifts the lid by an inch), and frankly it could have been done as an episodic. Fifteen map sections, a dozen monsters, 8 character boxes and half of the obstacles probably covers your first 30 hours playing. With everything in the box day 1, The setup and teardown time is huge, and I estimate it saves us over 20 minutes just having the organizers. But not having a box full of unused stuff also would fix that issue.

Loss of momentum will kill your odds of getting a scenario running.

Munchkin went too far the other way. Do I need deck 3 or 4 next? I can't remember. But at least they sell a big empty box to organize all your sets into. Much easier to stack with the other games.

If you avoid that problem, you then also have to resist 'refreshing' your game look and feel. Otherwise I end up with a base game and expansions that don't match in style, and I am not happy. For instance, I bought a Settlers of Catan addon that barely made it out of the box because it didn't match :/ My friend bought one before the change and we always played with his copy instead.

I call this the computer-human scale of board games. That is, how much of playing this game is doing the work that could be done by a computer, vs. how much is doing human reasoning and actually playing.

As an example, Carcassonne is I'd say 95% human. The computer parts are the physical placing of tiles in aligned fashion and counting score, but those take almost no time and effort, compared to actually playing the game. Mage Knight (or god forbid Relic) score very low on that scale - the computer activities start dominating and there is too little game left.

My cutoff point is basically "this would be more fun to play if implemented as a program". Conversely however, if implemented as a program, such games become very good fun. Even just simulating the pieces in a way that frees you from physical constraints (i.e. Tabletop Simulator implementation with almost no scripting) can make a game like that enjoyable to play.

There are plenty of simple games out there. I'd recommend a trip to a local game store. My friends Chris and Will run It's Your More on Telegraph Ave 51st street in Oakland. I can promise they can find you a board game with a degree of complexity you would like, since available run gamut from extreme simplicity to extreme complexity.

That said, I think complaints about complexity sometimes miss the way elaborate steps can be a sort of calming ritual rather than a part of the game as intellectual strategy and one's preferences there are personal. I personally love the game of Go, a game that probably achieves maximal complexity among face-to-face strategy game but I have seek out other players of this since none of my friends are interested.

Learning all the complexity at once is very, very painful. It is my least favorite thing about playing board games. However, once you play a board game often enough it can become a bit boring without more surface complexity unless you really find pleasure in playing it like it is a full time job. (This is why I don't ever think it is worth it to become great at chess... too much effort for too little reward.)

I think expansions are the sweet spot. Produce a base game, then add complexity with expansions.

M:TG is an interesting example, because these days everything spawns so many tokens or adds so many counters that it's not just the cardboard.

If you want real elegance, look at the core of the old Star Wars Customizable Card Game. Each player has the same number of cards in their deck, and the cards are used to track resources, life totals, and provide randomness to combat in a unified way.

Atop that core, Decipher took an attitude of "which parts of Star Wars should we emulate? How about... ALL OF IT!", so the full rules are pretty gnarly. But it's also one of the last major card games that were developed before M:TG became so entrenched that its conventions shaped how we think of CCGs.

Despite the game being out of print, a dedicated committee of players manage the game: running tournaments, releasing new cards, and keeping the dream alive.

https://www.starwarsccg.org/

I think it is kind of "to each of their own" :)

I.e. sometimes I am really in the mood of having 40+ little colored cuber in neat stack on my table ... other times I just want to sit around the table and insists that I am not the Mordred/Hitler/Werewolf ... the other guy is :-)

I.m.o. Mage Knight doesn't really attempt a D&D ... more of a simplifies Heroes of Might and Magic ... but then he goes and invents Galaxy Trucker and Code Words :D

I remember meeting Vlaada Chvatil when he was designing the boardgame port of Factorio and some of his friends were kinda dunking on him along the lines of "Nice game, but don't you think it would be better as a strategy on a PC" :-D

Usually use Shut Up and Sit Down as my recommendation engine, because while they can really appreciate a good mechanic, they seem to be most of the time in the theme over complexity camp :-)

I think I've enjoyed card based games more over time for this reason. Lots of variety in game pieces look great on sites like kickstarter, but end up being boring. The modern games from the 90's a d 00's seem to have hit a sweetspot in terms of fun rules and complexity.

I think the complexity is part of the fun, but yeah, I can see how it goes overboard sometimes.

Agricola is a good example. It's basically a resource management game from hell. You've really got to be in the right headspace with the right participants to get into it.

Agricola is also a good example of simplification, as the "family" game is built in (although it's still in the medium-high range even with those rules). Actually I've always thought the base rules are too much, the family game would have been an excellent shipping game and the occupations and minor improvements could have been relegated to an expansion.

Agricola actually got this "right"--did kinda what the article talks about--by introducing a 2-player version that, while still kinda parts-heavy, is much simpler and friendlier. You can explain and understand the rules in about 5 minutes, it's fun, simple without being easy, and very replayable.

If you want a really fun, complex, and good two player game that gets even better when multiplayer, try Star Realms (or Hero Realms for fantasy).

The rules are fairly simple but there are a whole lot of variations and the game is very dynamic.

On the other hand, I'm told that there are actual, physical people out there who like World in Flames (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1499/world-flames) or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1563/rise-and-decline-th...).

I agree, but I also don't think its fair to compare to 2 of the most successful games of all time and expect others to meet their bar. Also, different strokes for different folks and all that.

Mage knight has also one of the most thick books I have ever dealt with.

To me the problems are the "micro rules", those that apply to very specific circumstances and are very hard to remember.

These kind of games get also obliterated by those with a short ruleset but same type of depth.

I'm thinking of Azhul, 7 wonders duel, century. Those 3 are very deep, but the rules are barely a few pages comoared to the 40 pages of mage knight.

Granted that i do like mage knight, committing to it is problematic to say the least. And I have a board game table to keep it out!

If you're looking for simple but deep games, highly recommend most things made by Oink games, especially "Startups".

What broke me was Arkham Horror. Because of the very long setup time, we played less than half a game and decided never to touch it again.

“Traders of Genoa” is one of the few games where the bits are relevant to game play. So often the bits are just window dressing to distract from otherwise uninteresting game concepts.

Have you tried Dixit? It is beautifully made game with very simple rules that lead to a very complex game play. Dixit is the only game that I know in which I think a computer would not be able to beat humans unless it is able to pass the Turing test.

There are tons of games in this "give a careful clue" category, if this is something you enjoy—I really like Codenames, Spyfall, and Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. The great thing is the learning curve for all of these games is virtually non-existent and they play fairly quickly, but it takes several playthroughs to get really good at them, and they are highly dependent on who you play with, so there is plenty of replay value.

Mysterium is another missing from your list. It's easily described as "Dixit but Clue".

I think kickstarter has something to do with this phenomenon. Something with lots of bits and pieces (especially molded miniatures) has more obvious “value” and wow factor in a kickstarter pitch than something simple but elegant.

Clearly there is market for these kinds of games, but I agree. At some point, it just makes sense to make a video game and just let a computer handle the display and fiddly bits. Plenty of games have crossed way past that that line.

D&D with digital assist is actually really good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com