Run It Back: Replayability and Longevity in Tabletop Games
One oft-discussed feature of modern tabletop games is their replayability. Reviewers mention it frequently, and rightfully so, since big box games cost nontrivial amounts. Some common factors that contribute to a game’s replayability are randomized setups, asymmetric player abilities, large card decks, and multiple strategic paths to victory. It’s sometimes hard to distinguish between replayability and quality — if you like something a lot, you’re likely to play it often — but I think there’s something to the idea that we can design games to have a long lifespan on players’ shelves.
There are competing schools of thought about whether designers should be making games they want to play, or whether they should design for the market; I fall into the first category because the puzzle of catering to others’ interests isn’t nearly as satisfying as creating something I want to get to the table again and again.
I’ve listed some specific elements of games below that keep me coming back to them; perhaps they will clarify your own gaming taste or inspire you to incorporate one into your own designs.
Perfect End-Game Timing
This is a strong pull for me. Games that end just before I can do everything I want to do have an addictive quality to them, because they make players determined to have a game where everything comes together. There are all sorts of ways to end a game — I’m sure I’ll write more about that in the future — but the ones that create the most tension are usually player-driven (i.e., the game ends when a player achieves something specific) because the end is always variable. Scythe is a good example of this. Players spend the game earning stars, and the game ends immediately when a player earns six; however, players can plan so that they earn stars quickly at the end of the game, sometimes even earning two or three in a turn. This goals-as-game-timer mechanism often leaves the players who did not trigger the end of the game wishing they had played more efficiently to make the big end-of-game move themselves.
High Scores
This motivates some more than others, but in games where scores can be objectively compared across games (i.e., they have a fixed number of turns), I love a good high score to chase. These games keep me trying new strategies and taking risks because I’m unlikely to do better than I have before by playing it safe. High scores combine particularly well with the next category.
High Skill Ceiling
Games with high skill ceilings are hard to master. They're the kinds of games you think you’re good at until you play someone who’s better than you, and realize you have a lot to learn. The classic high skill ceiling games of Chess and Go require memorization; while I could certainly see myself going down one of those rabbit holes eventually, I haven’t yet. I’m thinking of euro games like Ark Nova or Great Western Trail, though there are games with high skill ceilings in all genres. In those games, players learn something new about how they could improve at the game every single time they play. These games tend to be more punishing of mistakes but don’t have to be. Personally, I think this is an area where I have a lot to learn as a designer.
Scaling Difficulty
This is mainly geared towards cooperative games. A good scaling difficulty system will keep me engaged with a game for a long time, because the strategies I used at a lower difficulty level likely won’t work at the higher ones. My favorite example of scaling difficulty is Spirit Island, which has several different levers to pull which not only make the game harder, but also make it feel significantly different strategically. Again, not an area I have much experience with in my own designs, but something I’m eager to explore.
Thanks as always for reading. Now that I’ve got a computer capable of handling it, I’m planning on starting to prototype digitally soon. If you’d be interested in play testing my games in the future, I’d be greatly appreciative. More information to come soon.
Happy gaming,
Matt