15 Ways to Increase a Game's Replayability
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- In today’s video I talk about replayability in games, including these core opinions:
1. The first play of any game is by far the most important, in my opinion, as there are so many games that will only ever be played once. For that first game, replayability doesn't matter at all. In other words, replayability isn’t an asset unless players have a great first-game experience.
2. I think replayability is important as a design consideration, particularly in that players can't just do the exact same thing every game. I try to avoid replayability elements that require laborious setup--it's okay for some things to remain static from game to game, like the achievements in Tapestry (especially when there are a number of other variable elements). It's in those static elements that players can develop a long-term strategy that can vary from game to game.
Ambassador picks: Aeon's End, 7 Wonders Duel, Ark Nova, Brass Birmingham, Cartographers, Dominion, Everdell, Five Tribes, Scythe, Wingspan, Nemesis, Patchwork, Quacks, Rolling Realms, Dune Imperium, Spirit Island, Terraforming Mars, Twilight Imperium
• Variable Map: Clans of Caledonia (also Expeditions)
• Global Setup: The Quacks of Quedlinberg (also Libertalia: Winds of Galecrest)
• Player Asymmetry: Terra Mystica (also Tapestry, Roll Player, Root)
• Player-Controlled Variability: Planet Unknown (also Viticulture, 7 Wonders, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Lords of Waterdeep)
• Uncontrolled-but-Shared Variability: The Guild of Merchant Explorers (also Rolling Realms, Tiny Towns)
• Huge Card Variety: Ark Nova (also Wingspan, Terraforming Mars, Everdell)
• Card/Tile Randomness: Skull King (also Between Two Cities/Castles, Patchwork)
• Paths to Victory: Outer Rim (also Scythe)
• Variable Shared Goals: Cartographers (also Cascadia, Isle of Skye)
• Deckbuilding: Clank (also Shards of Infinity, Dune Imperium, Orleans)
• Order of Operations and Engine Building: Tzolk’in (also Pendulum)
• Sheer Variety of Options: A Feast for Odin (also Charterstone)
• Combos: Fantasy Realms (also Red Rising)
• Limited Control and Skill Progression: Crokinole (also Smitten, Flipships, any sport)
• Dice: Sushi Roll (also Euphoria, My Little Scythe, and Space Base)
Video about asymmetry: • Asymmetry in Games (Su...
Video about replayability in Expeditions: • Expeditions: Replayabi...
00:00 - Introduction
04:40 - Ambassador Picks
05:00 - Replayability Methods
Become a champion of this channel: stonemaier-games.myshopify.co...
podcast link: stonemaiergames.com/about/pod...
Intro animation by Jeff Payne vimeo.com/jaaronpayne and video proofing by Cody Simonsen - Hry
Wonderland's War is also a good example of Global Setup. You pick a card before the game starts that assigns the abilities to the chips you're gaining and using throughout the entire game.
Yes, but Quacks of Quedlinburg, Automobiles and Cubitos did that before it.
It speaks to how easy it would be to, much like the did in Quacks, expand the game by simply adding new abilities on those cards.
I watched a teach the other day that was 50 minutes. It was over before it started for me. No one wants to sit through a long teach before even getting to the playthrough. So a teach that's quick and simple will add to replayability.
Really enjoyed this topic! I love it when games achieve replayability without making setup too daunting.
I'm not sure if you would bundle this under another category, but I think multi-use cards provide for a lot of replayabiltiy. Especially if combined with one or more of the other categories mentioned in the video. Great video, thanks!
That's a great point! I like multi-use cards for this purpose (and versatility in general).
Great video. This is a cool topic. Replayability is something I find important for games and is a category I include in my video reviews. It was great to hear your input on various ways games can add variability. Surprised you didn't really go into maps being created as you go when it comes to variable maps. Clank Catacombs and Betrayal House on the Hill are great examples of those.
That's a good point about map creation!
Great list with a lot of great insights
For my replayability, I include LOTS of cards. That's the best way to assure no two games would be the same
3:04 Lacrimosa suffers from this problem a little bit. I like this game a super bunch, but the river of cards have two different types divided into the five rounds, and you take some out of each substack based on player count, you randomly choose a card to set up some restricted spaces on the Requiem track, there's two different types of city tiles, you select two composers from a set of four and lay out the tiles by movement number, etc.
The result is a considerable variety in the initial board state, but it's a lot of setup for a comparatively small amount of change. But at the same time you kind of need all of it because it's only a mid weight game and the players all have identical boards and decks.
That sounds quite complicated. :)
A great example for the use of dice is Castles of Burgundy (combinded with the abilities on the tiles).
My own opinion is that the core GOAL of replayability is that the player has to make different decisions and strategies between one game and the next.
A bad example is that I've actually stopped playing the game Splendor after I realized there is a verifiable "best strategy" where you can get the requisite victory points in half the time as any other option. (i'll explain if asked).
the good example is that most (well designed) card trick taking games fall into this category of "you can win with what you have, if you figure out how to play your cards."
Another great video! Our first game (which we are balancing) has re-playability as a core feature. It's a 1v1 fantasy arena fighter. Player's draft their hero every game and with the combination of Species+ Primary + Secondary magic classes result in over . Player's then have variance in how they build their deck. What we've found so far, is that competitive players love/hate the variance. They love how fresh each game feels, but they also feel as if they can't predict what is coming. Between that and the rock, paper, scissor style aiming & dodging, the game is landing somewhere near MTG in terms of frustration to reward. Your channel has been a great resource as we develop.
Thanks for sharing! Good luck striking that balance. :)
Another great topic.
Still have skull king on my shelf of shame really have to table it sometime.
I think the aspect you talked about where the first play has to be really successful is something that party games do really well. I just played so Clover for the first time the other day and not only was it super easy to explain the rules but the first game was also really fun and led to some interesting discussions. Once we play that first game and Bre wanted to play again immediately and so we play 3 rounds.
I agree! For that style of game in particular, I think they work best if you can put it on the table and start playing within 1-2 minutes.
I played Outer Rim for the first time recently and my wife and I went down completely different paths with her narrowly snatching victory from me. It really makes you want to play more and do different things!
One thing I think worth mentioning is expansions. Although it’s something else entirely they can really breathe new life and variety into a game.
10:30 StarCraft is to this day my favorite strategy board game, and the variable player powers is a big part of that.
I'm also looking forward very much to Hegemony, which is highly asymmetric not only in powers, but also in the actions players take and their methods for scoring points.
Replayability is important, and I especially enjoy the replayability through variability of game components (cards, tiles, maps/boards, goals/objectives, powers/abilities, ...).
I prefer well-made variability and replayability over overly ensuring the first game is enjoyable and overly streamlining the getting-the-game-to-the-table (extra quick setup, short play time, reduced complexity).
Totally agree about the first play experience - it is the most important play of your game, and will determine if it is played again.
I'm working on a game where everything is printed on the board for ease of setup and/or new players, but advanced players can add tiles to the board to change its layout and include more advanced rules. This way you get the best of both worlds - Aquatica does this with the Goal tokens.
That's a great way to do it!
Thinking back to my own most replayed games, the most replayed are often the 1st of their type that I encountered. So while they probably wouldn't rank among my favourites now, catan and dominion both got replayed a lot back when I 1st encountered them! That's not something that designers can really control though - one thing that might be controllable is convenience - i.e. I've played a lot of liars dice, in part because it's so easy to get to the table... in fact you don't even need a table - I took it on a road trip with some friends and we could play from our seats while driving (except for the driver of course :) ). In the same way, an engaging light game gets a lot more replay than a similarly engaging heavy game... i.e. sushi go gets a lot more replay than fury of dracula, just because it's so quick & easy to get to the table/introduce to new people.
That's an interesting point about unique games (to you) end up lasting the longest.
I actually found Star Wars: Outer Rim to have very low replayability. The first time, I was so geeked up by all the possibilities and equipment and jobs and hunting down various characters and really all of it! The second time, I was like "wow! They got so much jam packed into here!" The third time is where it started to turn... seeing the same jobs over again, kinda seeing that a lot of the items don't feel unique, same bounty targets.
A couple plays past that (even with the expansion) and I knew it was time to trade the game away. I got a good 5 or so really enjoyable games, so that is somewhat replayable.... but there are so many great games that I can play even 100 times and still want to come back.
That's an interesting point, Adam, and I think it's a good reminder that having lots of moving/variable parts doesn't necessarily mean the game will feel different or give you different compelling choices each time you play.
Thanks for posting this video, there's lots of food for thought here. I think your point about first plays is an important one, and that it is a good lens through which to think about replayability. It makes sense to look at what makes the arc of the play experience enjoyable in order to find ways to vary it that support that kind of fun. Does it make sense to give players a new strategic puzzle to solve, such as with the different scoring goals in Cascadia, or the different game functions in Quacks of Quedlinberg? Or does it make more sense that the overall strategy remains the same but the players are incentivized to vary their tactics along the way, such as with the cards in Hallertau, or by providing map variability? If the fun is about having different things you can try to accomplish, how can you encourage and reward that so players really want to explore the game space?
In particular, I appreciate when designers provide "First Game" setups, particularly when the variability comes from player choice that influences their strategy. If the game features something like "At the start of the game, draw six cards. Choose two that will give you end-game scoring goals, two to determine your starting resources, and discard the other two" I really want the designer to provide set starting configurations that are good for players just learning the game. In games with player asymmetry, I want the designer to let me know which factions are good for new players, to steer me away from ones that might lead to a bad play experience because I didn't have a good grasp of what that faction wants to do and how to go about it. It's all too easy for a new player to hamstring themselves and wind up feeling like they were never really in the game.
That's a good reminder about the value and utility of first game setups. Thanks!
I love the list! The big category i'd say is missing would be strong social components.
There's a lot of different ways to encourage this- allowing for interpretation like pictionary or Mysterium/Dixit style games; encouraging bluffing or social deduction like many low stakes games of poker or variations of werewolf; encouraging politicing and alliance forming like in Risk or Diplomacy.
I think it's telling that a lot of the more general audience "classics" tend to have this built in. If youre not going to own many games, you want the ones that you do have to be evegreen titles and leveraging the natural unpredictability of other humans is a really rules-economical way to build that in without adding too much complexity.
That's a great point--enabling the human element can add quite a bit of replayability to a game.
Too many people associate variability with replayability. Chess is arguably the most replayed and thus replayable game ever created, but it is exactly the same game with no randomness whatsoever.
To me what makes a game replayable is whether the player's choices matter and the game is challenging and fun. If a game depends on the variability methods you mention to be replayable then the game itself is lacking. That is not to say variability is bad, but a truly replayable game is one where player's choices and control dictate the outcome. So players make different choices to create different outcomes.
Knizia approach :) I support it.
Narrative choice when it is done well keeps me thinking about a game after it is over and makes me very eager to replay a game to achieve different results. In particular, Roll Player Adventures does a wonderful job in posing non-cliche choices that have unexpected and interesting consequences that run through the whole game including the exciting finale. I played all 12 scenarios, 4x in a row and really enjoyed leaning into different narrative choices to see the consequences unfold. Am still looking forward to playing it again!
I love Roll Player Adventures--I have several videos about it. I'm glad you found it fun to play multiple times. Are you excited about the expansion?
@@jameystegmaier CertainlyI Bring on Gulpax's Secret.
So essentially you are saying first impressions and variability are key. I would also add a couple of things: having several difficulties (particularly for solo and cooperative games); catch up mechanics for longer games (no-one will play a game for 2+ hrs if there is always a runaway winner); and tentatively i would also say a strong theme can make a game more replayable. I say tentatively because not all replayable games need a strong theme (splendor, lost cities) but an example for me would be Firefly. It is essentially a pick up and deliver game with a bit of a deck/tableau builder thrown in, but it captures the essence of the show so well I am always happy to play it even though there are plenty of other games that are equally as good or better and dont take up so much table space or set up. Personally, i don't think long setups are a deterrent for replayability as typically it'll be for a game with a longer duration so you're not going to play it again on the same night but then I'll get everything set up before my gaming group arrives.
Finally, i would say immersion is key. It might be that you have a fantastic game mechanically but if it is so complex that you have to keep consulting the rulebook it breaks that immersion. The rules should either be simple enough to remember or intuitive in nature (e.g. robinson crusoe is a reasknaly heavy game but spells out the order of events by placing all the phases and available actions in sequence on the board).
I like all of these, but really like having multiple/variable end game goals and variable end game triggers - an example of this is Suburbia where public and private end game tokens are drawn at the start of the game, as well as an end game trigger tile that gets shuffled into the stack of C Tiles. In this way every game has different end game goals that players are trying to achieve,, and makes the demand/urgency to obtain certain tiles really important, but you also don't know when that end game tile will be drawn and how long you have to get the best tiles you need to increase your population.
I also agree that the first play of any game is critical, and I try to make sure I'm across the majority of the rules before I teach a game to family and friends, so that I can get these games to the table on a regular basis.
Suburbia is a great example! The unique endgame trigger is clever.
no one hits a home run 100% of the time in Soccer 28:50
That's true. Only some of the time.
Easy set up, simple rules (minimal nit picky rules, good rulebook for learning (first experience) and for review (experience 1 year later), fun
Wingspan has Random Shared Goals. As does Rolling Realms -- each card is a set of goals.
I would like to ask about a point you made in the beginning about the first play being important. I am designing a game that I believe is innovative, introducing a never before seen mechanic. The second game of each of my play tests has went great; half hour, lots of smiles, and strategizing. I think it speaks well to the replayability. The first game is an hour long, admittedly less fun, and it is only about half to three quarters of the way through before the light bulb moment of "oh, I get it," comes to the player.
Have you done a video on "the teach," or teaching a new mechanic? Obviously, a good rule book with pictures and examples are necessary in any game, but do you have any advice on breaking a player in to a never before seen mechanic?
Thanks for sharing this, Tjay, and I'm glad the second session is going so well (and I admire your honesty and humility and that the first game isn't working as well as it could). I have a video about great tutorials in games; it may give you some ideas. Without knowing the mechanism, I think a general approach is to give players a way to use the mechanism early in the game in a simplified, low-stakes way that doesn't take much thought--once they try it, they should be more comfortable using it the next time in a more intentional way.
Is there even a Stonemaier Game, that doesn't have an awesome replayability mechanic? 😁
Fun aside, thank you very much for the video and the examples. They have been highly insightful.
I'm a bit biased, but I would say that all of our games are designed to be very replayable. :)
Holy crap, Expeditions is a huge box. 😅
15:30 exactly!
I love having to deal with what I've been dealt. Having everyone set from early on on what meta build they want and being able to do so is an instant turn off for me.
Do you know any other tactical games like this?
I currently can't think of any examples other than those I mentioned--sorry!
@@jameystegmaier add me to the newslist when you're ready to release such a title :p
@@Rafaelinux Rolling Realms is our title that does this. :)
According to my lichess profile, I have played 15,000 games of chess in the past 3 years! This makes it by far my most replayed game. Chess has almost none of the features on your list of 15. I think it probably has only these two: player-controlled variability and sheer variety of options. Of course, many people find chess incredibly dull, and many people don't have partners to play with of balanced skill level, which is crucial (though this problem is now solved for those willing to play online against strangers - you can get a balanced match up in seconds if you play the popular time formats). I think there are a few board games that capture the essential replayabililty features of chess - Tigris & Euphrates comes to mind (and overall Knizia is probably the master of this approach to game design). Although I do enjoy T&E, my favorite board games tend to align with multiple points on your list (Scythe, Terraforming Mars, Paladins of the West Kingdom, Trajan, Concordia). But there is something mysteriously special about chess.
It's the 'buttlerfly effect' that lets small changes turn in to very different game states after a few turns.
I see what you mean. Compared to any other game, chess has an insane amount of strategy and tactics guides, and that's one of the things that has kept it going for so long
I think for a game to aim for something similar, the designer itself to come up with a strategy guide for his own game
Chess has strategic depth that creates the replayability. Most modern games design for variability (more components) to provide replayability. The strategic depth is pretty shallow for these games. Sometimes the designer will try to create depth by burdening the game with many systems. But, this is replayability through obfuscation. It's fun if you want to play a puzzle, but these types of games all feel about the same.
That's an impressive number of games of chess!
Would you ever make a rolling realm for another roll and write? Haha that would be amusing.
I think it's fairly unlikely, but you never know! :)
I read somewhere that we don't know the name of the inventor of the lazy Susan, but we have a good bet as to his wife's name...