The Five Levels of Theme in Board Games

As I brainstorm new game ideas, I tend to think about real world concepts and how I might simulate them on a tabletop. One of the most consequential decisions for a designer is how to balance simulation and abstraction with these types of games. I’ve created this framework, which I’m calling the “levels of theme” in board games, for myself and others to use when considering what direction to go with a prototype. While I’ll be focusing on games which simulate real phenomena (i.e. not fantasy, sci-fi, etc.), I suspect designers of games in those genres may also find this useful.

Extreme Simulation

This category is reserved for games whose main, perhaps even sole purpose is to recreate something. This means that the fidelity to reality is generally prioritized over quality of player decisions. The fun of these games is unique from most hobby games because it derives from the player’s understanding that they are inhabiting another body or role as authentically as possible. Therefore, the player’s familiarity with the phenomenon being simulated is crucial. These games tend to be complex but certainly don’t need to be. My most extensive experience with extreme simulation is with the sports simulation series Strat-O-Matic, where players take on the role of a manager/coach of a pro sports team and play out one game using real players’ statistics and tendencies. The mechanics of the game series are simple and limited to that which a coach can control.

Simulation

This is where I’d classify most wargames. Players are still “playing a game” in the sense that they are making decisions beyond those of a literal commander (or any other real role). However, the main purpose of these games is to create a sandbox where players can experiment. The intrigue of the system derives from its basis in reality, but is adjusted such that the player need not be limited to the exact role they are inhabiting. This was the hardest group to define. I think I want more non-wargames in this category, but they don’t really exist: the simulations aren’t precise enough to satisfy an expert, and the gameplay is compromised by its deep anchor to the real.

Balanced

Balanced games, theoretically, are the best of both worlds: they mix the interesting decisions and player interactions of abstract games and the realism of simulations. Players recognize that they are primarily playing a game and not taking on an external role/identity, but they can see how the theme “makes sense” in the context of the game. I would classify Insurgent: Algeria in this category. To simulate more elements of the Algerian War, I likely would have had to make the game significantly more complex. A more popular example would be Obsession.

Abstraction

In my opinion, this is where most hobby board games lie on the spectrum. They tend to prioritize player decisions over thematic fidelity. People in the hobby often call this type of thematic integration “set dressing”. Because so many games exist in this sphere, players have been trained to look over the thematic inconsistencies within the gameplay and enjoy the game's mechanisms. Players flock to a game like Wingspan not because they feel as though they are flesh-and-blood ornithologists, but because of the game’s optimization puzzle, relaxed mood, and bright aesthetic. These games rely on mechanical intrigue and depth at the cost of occasional ludonarrative dissonance.

Extreme Abstraction

I thought instinctually of abstract games like Chess and Go for this category, but I would likely categorize them as Abstraction in this setup. The purpose of these games is to focus entirely on mechanisms; any thematic coherence is incidental. Both Chess and Go are loosely war-themed, with goals of capturing opponents’ pieces and gaining territory. One game I’ve played a lot of that fits the bill is Ganz Schön Clever, where players draft colored dice and score points based on specific color-based scoring restrictions. Most hobby games use themes because, admittedly, that description of Clever does the game a disservice. It’s much easier to say “You are a farmer/commander/businessperson/etc.” than “You are filling in boxes with numbers and dashes”. They can also be harder to learn since they have no link to real processes. However, these games are not at all restricted by reality, making the mechanical possibilities endless.

---

I had fun thinking about this framework, and think it’s actually pretty useful at the beginning stages of a project. I think it’d be interesting to make games at the extreme ends of this spectrum because they have very different freedoms and limitations than are usually present in games (i.e. nothing has to make thematic sense, the goal isn’t to make the players have fun, no winner, etc.). Interested to hear your thoughts on the system overall, and how you’d classify specific games or edge cases.

Happy gaming,

Matt