This is a GREAT topic. For me Variability has always felt so overrated. What makes me play again again and again is how fun it is, it doesn’t have to feel different every time if it’s awesome! Great video!
Thanks! I've played Qwirkle more than a hundred times, and I feel like I've experienced everything possible in the design, but I still enjoy it, so I know what you mean. -WEM
i definitely get your point, but for me a lot of the fun is also exploring the variability a given system provides, like for example quacks of quedlinburg, i LOOOOVE how you can mix and match so many different ways each ingredient works
I can understand that, but there's definitely a limit to how many games you can do that with. The promise of variety sometimes drives a purchase, then...you just don't get it to the table that often to enmesh yourself in it. -WEM
I enjoy your very sober, cut through the group think takes on the hobby. Except for your "Sweep everything back into the box" video. That I can't forgive :)
There is only one specific situation where I often feel the sting of a lack of variability -- Party Games with cards, especially if they have a pop-culture aspect or they have a "choose a winner from a set" mechanism. I've definitely had a number of party games go over REALLY well, but on the third or fourth play, we've seen it all and the novelty of the cards has worn off. Apples to Apples, Anomia, Green Team Wins, Taboo, Neanderthal Poetry. Even Just One-but only because we played it so, so much. If the game was a hit, we'd run into the replay of cards where groupthink might set in. But given the often reasonable price point of party games, one great night with a game can be enough!
I've had the same situation with party games, and I think the key to avoiding it is not playing those games repeatedly with the same group. Different players will inject different choices, so you'll have to adapt as well. -WEM
I tried to write an blog about this and, well, you hit all my talking points! Thank you for making less work for me! It’s honestly so great to hear I’m not the only one with this take. I don’t hate variability but it hits a point of diminishing returns and I think sometimes it can actually reduce the replay ability of games. For example if you have this really deep game but it comes with 8 variable player power roles, you might only play the game 8 times and think you’ve seen it all, vs a same game without the player powers where might never think that because you’re just enjoying the game. With Queen games and Carcassonne I’d honestly say it isn’t necessarily variability and instead gets into Customizability. They don’t even come with a randomization setup or suggested setups (which is nuts!). Instead it’s really on you to explore how you want to play, which makes it sort of a meta sandbox.
Variable player powers make me want to dig in with one power and play it repeatedly to get a good feel for it - then I think about doing that again for each power and feel exhausted. -WEM
Sometimes when you leave your house you take a different way to work to see what there is to see compared to your normal route. Yet, day to day we appreciate a normal route for efficiency and/or predictability. There can be comfort in the familiar, yet we need new stimulation in measured amounts. A game with modules gives us options. Do we want what we know and enjoy, or are we up for an adventure into new experiences? CHOICE is GOOD.
I think it's important to make the distinction between variety and variability. Variety is the addition or exchange of all the possible game states, variability is the reduction of the likelihood of encountering any single particular game state. I could go on for hours about the various ways these two things can express themselves and make a game better or worse, but I'll limit myself to two simple and obvious examples. Terra Mystica would be a profoundly different game if some of the mechanisms used decks of cards or tiles drawn from a bag. The Castles of Burgundy would also be a completely different game if it used a Puerto Rico-style building board and building costs instead of randomly drawn tiles and randomly rolled dice to pay for said tiles. Notice however that some of the tiles in CoB(ships, mines, castles) aren't randomly drawn and that was probably a conscious decision by Stefan Feld to limit variability. They also included duchy boards that have four copies so you can all play the same duchy, and ones that only have one copy so you'd all be playing different duchy boards. Notice as well how a modular map was never added to Terra Mystica, and many of the highly experienced, more competitive Terra Mystica players say that the modular map in Gaia Project undesirably makes the game feel "less tight" compared to Terra Mystica. So to answer the question in the title: Unequivocally yes, but it entirely hinges on the design goal of the game.
I think something that appeals to me a lot is the possibility of having a lot of new and different and fun experiences, so, having the possibility open that this game is going to give me something I never saw before, but without having to learn a whole bunch of new rules each time. This is a big part of the appeal of *Innovation* for me; after a very large number of plays, I'm still looking out for that moment when I realise I can do something interesting with a card that I usually skim past because it's a "weak card".
Heck, yeah, that's the beauty of Innovation! The base game is streamlined, but you have a box of 105 tools that get added to the game piece by piece, giving you the opportunity to examine each in turn. The complexity builds over time, and the variance feels introduced more naturally. -WEM
Humans have changed. Most of us get bored easily and/or what to challenge themselves more and more. I never want to play Chess nor Checkers ever again. They bore me to tears. We didn't have the options of games that they have now. I'm loving it! Call it Cult of the New if you want, I like to learn. I'm always reading history books and watching documentaries. I also have collectors syndrome. Always have, I just change what I'm collecting. Right now it's board games. Hopefully it's the last thing I do this with, otherwise I need to start collecting homes. :)
Ha, in time perhaps you'll find yourself cycling collections out of the house. I've done that with trading cards, comics, and CDs. I thought I'd always have mountains of those things, and now they're mostly gone...partly because they're a pain in the butt to move repeatedly! -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I hate moving. Probably why I still have everything. :) I have thought about purging some movies because my house is full of movies, music, and books. One person in a 3 bedroom house and no room for my games!
I have not liked games that come with a tutorial style basic ruleset and then tell you to add more stuff after your first play … I am thinking of Taverns of Tiefenthal, Kitchen Rush and even Magic Maze. Having played a first game and getting used to something and then adding more complexity sounds like a good idea at first … but I’d rather play a game where the designer has committed to one core game rule set. Another experience I’ve had: I often buy expansions for games that I really love! If I love a design I am happy to be able to purchase “more” - rarely do I choose to play the few expansions I own 😅
Regarding the expansions, me too! I almost always have someone new in the game, so I'll teach the base game...then next time I'll have someone new again. I now ignore most expansions because I know I won't get to them enough for them to become second nature. -WEM
(Sorry for my english) I totally agree. I never felt the need of a an extension until an editor propose it to me. All I want is players how knows a game as well as me, for a good and fun challenge.
That makes sense. Often an expansion feels like someone you meet once at a party, then never see again. Interesting, perhaps, but you don't get to know them to any meaningful degree. -WEM
This made me think of a time i went hiking for a week long stint, with a group of friends on the Pacific Crest Trail, and even with all the natural beauty/variety of the wild, it seemed I spent more time staring at one of the others in front of me, or at the ground, just trying to huff it up a mountain side so that we could get to our next camp site. Maybe sometimes we like games for exercise(of the brain), with occasional breathtaking views(glorius combos) and other times we just like a good stroll in the park. Something to be said about how much time you have to enjoy something without being rushed I suppose...
Thanks for the insightful comment! For the most recent trip that my wife and I took, we made no agenda other than walking the town and sitting in cafés hanging out with one another. If something came up, cool, but otherwise we were just trying to be part of the atmosphere. -WEM
I love the variability of for example Dominion, Root & Spirit Island, depending on the setup you need a very different approach/strategy every game. Games can also go too far, especially as they become a hassle with setup while not providing a meaningfully different experience. In deck building games a rotating market technically provides more variability (e.g. Clank!), but all this variability applies to tactical choices. A static market provides more strategic variability, as you truly have to adapt your strategy (e.g. Dominion). I like both these games, but if I would have to pick one to play a few hundred times it would be an easy choice (while for a single play I prefer Clank!)
Nice comparison between Dominion and Clank! However, if you had to play Dominion with the same set-up a few hundred times, would you still choose it over Clank!? I think the variable set-up is the key of Dominion's appeal. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek thanks for the reply Eric! You are of course correct, Dominion with the same setup would turn stale rather quickly. The game is all about the strategy, but is tactically not really interesting. The appeal is indeed the varying strategic puzzle each game. I think this is why expansions are so helpful for its longevity (although there are definitely enough expansions now... :)). For Clank! the tactical variety is dominant, so adding more cards to the deck only has a minor influence on the game (making expansions in my eyes less worthwhile, although the new maps are nice (which again provide a new strategic puzzle!)). Games with more player interaction provide both a lot of strategic and tactical variability, as you have to adapt both to the play of your opponents. I think for these games the variability from the components is less essential for the longevity of the game (as you mention, just have a look at Chess/Go!). Variability from components in these games may even 'hinder' player interaction, as you have to adapt your strategy both to the game itself and your opponents (dividing your attention, and needing more games to be strategically competent).
Variability matters way more in coop games, when the player interaction isn’t the driving dynamic of the game. Eldritch Horror is way better with say 25 cards per location to explore than the default 8, for example. Final Girl strikes the perfect amount of variability for me. You have about 3-4 setups, villain powers, and villain finales plus like 4-6 more item cards than you’ll play with in a single game and that makes the core individual boxes plenty variable as a standalone experience. Allowing you to mix and match locations and villains really breaks open the possibilities while not making the individual boxes overwhelming in their options.
I agree that if it is a game with cards, that makes a game variable. But if there is no cards in a game and it is a conflict-kind-of-game, i like different factions that Will comeback in expansions and and to variety, like schyte or root. But i usually like to play with just the base game unless the expansion fixes something or improves. But the there Are other games like unmatched or imperium (ledgens classic and horizon) where i really like to have many factions to choose from. But i feel like it is a different kind of games Than the ones you talked about. I like expansions if it gives you more cards or factions, not just an expansion for the saké of it. Like parks, terraforming mars,
I've played Imperium only once so far, and I feel embarrassed by how much is in the box compared to how much I'll dig into it. Even after playing a few factions a handful of times each, I'll barely have touched what's included...which makes me wish for a smaller box with less material so that I can approach it in smaller bites. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek i don’t have a large collection and therefore play the games over and over. So i think in maybe 3 - 8years i will have played it maybe 100 and more tims and have a good picture of imperium. And the i can start over agan : ). In that perspective i enjoy the variability that comes with a lot of factions
Also there are many games, especially some strategy games and wargames where each time you play exactly the same things happen. Not all games have variability.
Except you respond to those things differently, yes? The games don't play out the same way due to your choices - at least I think they would as otherwise you'd never make it through a second play without wondering why you were wasting your time. -WEM
A lot of the marketing relating to variability of the game seems silly. "This will feel fresh the 100th time" for a game that realistically most buyers will play maybe a dozen times at most. Don't get me wrong, I love a random kingdom card row in Dominion (which is a game I have played hundreds of times) but a 2-3 hour orgy of dice, miniatures, and cards is not Dominion. These games want to be able to be the only game an enthusiast will need on a desert island but they really don't have to be, and it's not necessarily better for the design efforts to go toward that goal. I would rather see a game with little variability but a lot of deep and well-developed player interaction, than a procedurally generated set of elements players have to puzzle in their heads through instead of interacting with each other. I realized I just described the Dominion kingdom row, but that game is also 15-30 minutes. Anyway, developed and curated experience over variability any day. 💚
Yeah, Dominion needs the variable set-up because I think you'd grow tired of playing with the same set of cards over and over again. I like changing only one kingdom card and seeing how that lone change plays out. -WEM
Myself I’m a firm denier of (game) variability increasing replayability. I find a game that is variable such as this lacking much replayability. Why? Because of the qualities that make chess replayable: The ability to design a strategy, play a game, and be excited to refine that strategy in another play of the game. When the game is variable that denies that tight refining of a strategy because the next play may not be one where that strategy works or can even be done. I cannot replay that strategy after refining it. The game is unreplayable.
I've learned that I generally dislike procedurally generated video games. I think I usually prefer a curated experience. You can still have different experiences in curated environments. I can explore Dark Souls plenty by choosing to use different builds. My shorthand is that these are usually an infinite quantity of bland experiences when we have an overwhelming quantity of low cost quality curated ones. This is not true for everyone and there are plenty of procedural games people love. Those bland modular boards seems along those lines. As some others have said, I'm happy to have a module if I want a different spin on things like in Heat. But, please provide a recommended way to play and not 5 modules with no guidance.
"An infinite quantity of bland experiences" sounds like a good description of most AI experiences as they take all the specifics of an event, then overlap them and extract, giving you a middle ground that's okay for all, but great for none. I can imagine procedurally generated video games feeling the same. -WEM
Good analogy. I also have never really taken to procedurally generated video games. If a game is *too* different from one play to the next then it takes forever to feel a sense of mastery. This doesn't really appeal to what I like about games, which is getting better at them. I prefer the advanced module approach to the variable base.
Absolutely! Playing a game once or only a few times is often a surface level experience, with you concentrating on what you're doing. With experience, you can see the larger picture and how you can affect opponents or counter them - and they can do the same to you, so you need to then play with that knowledge in mind. -WEM
You're conflating variability with randomness. Proper variability is like when Sentinels of the Multiverse provides villains with different levels of difficulty so when I sit down with my players we can talk about how difficult we want the villain to be. Having different orders of cards in hand is just randomness.
I don't think of randomness and variability as always being mutually exclusive to one another. I think if you're a Bridge fan, or a Poker fan, or a fan of any other of the hundreds of great card games out there you know that randomness can oftentimes present new and interesting challenges completely on its own. The randomness of the hand, the responses of the people around you, and then in turn your responses to them create different games every time without requiring any new extrinsic mechanisms/content other than said dealing of the cards.
@@JetsDuck - I guess this comes down to whether you're looking at variability explicitly as it's defined or as it pertains to board games. Since the topic is board games, I'm leaning towards that. When board gamers talk about variability, they're usually talking about things, like mentioned in the video, as various factions or variable player powers. Those aren't elements of pure randomness. A deck of cards shuffled works for the literal, textbook definition of variability. But no one is marketing that Uno is "a different game every time you play" because the deck comes out in a different order. And I would argue there is a world of difference between the order that cards in a deck are shuffled and a game like Summoner Wars, which not only has decks of randomly shuffled cards but factions with special abilities and play styles unique to them. So that's why I take issue with the OP conflating variability with randomness.
I still find most card games highly variable in the experience they provide, and that's what is important to me. I want to experience that variability and feel like I've mastered it - or at least understand how to work with it - rather than jumping to a new faction and feeling like I'm starting over again. -WEM
This is a GREAT topic. For me Variability has always felt so overrated. What makes me play again again and again is how fun it is, it doesn’t have to feel different every time if it’s awesome! Great video!
Thanks! I've played Qwirkle more than a hundred times, and I feel like I've experienced everything possible in the design, but I still enjoy it, so I know what you mean. -WEM
i definitely get your point, but for me a lot of the fun is also exploring the variability a given system provides, like for example quacks of quedlinburg, i LOOOOVE how you can mix and match so many different ways each ingredient works
I can understand that, but there's definitely a limit to how many games you can do that with. The promise of variety sometimes drives a purchase, then...you just don't get it to the table that often to enmesh yourself in it. -WEM
I enjoy your very sober, cut through the group think takes on the hobby. Except for your "Sweep everything back into the box" video. That I can't forgive :)
We all have our flaws... -WEM
Amazing breakdown. Will have to come back and listen when I have more time. I love this convo.
There is only one specific situation where I often feel the sting of a lack of variability -- Party Games with cards, especially if they have a pop-culture aspect or they have a "choose a winner from a set" mechanism. I've definitely had a number of party games go over REALLY well, but on the third or fourth play, we've seen it all and the novelty of the cards has worn off. Apples to Apples, Anomia, Green Team Wins, Taboo, Neanderthal Poetry. Even Just One-but only because we played it so, so much. If the game was a hit, we'd run into the replay of cards where groupthink might set in. But given the often reasonable price point of party games, one great night with a game can be enough!
I've had the same situation with party games, and I think the key to avoiding it is not playing those games repeatedly with the same group. Different players will inject different choices, so you'll have to adapt as well. -WEM
I tried to write an blog about this and, well, you hit all my talking points! Thank you for making less work for me! It’s honestly so great to hear I’m not the only one with this take.
I don’t hate variability but it hits a point of diminishing returns and I think sometimes it can actually reduce the replay ability of games.
For example if you have this really deep game but it comes with 8 variable player power roles, you might only play the game 8 times and think you’ve seen it all, vs a same game without the player powers where might never think that because you’re just enjoying the game.
With Queen games and Carcassonne I’d honestly say it isn’t necessarily variability and instead gets into Customizability. They don’t even come with a randomization setup or suggested setups (which is nuts!). Instead it’s really on you to explore how you want to play, which makes it sort of a meta sandbox.
Variable player powers make me want to dig in with one power and play it repeatedly to get a good feel for it - then I think about doing that again for each power and feel exhausted. -WEM
Sometimes when you leave your house you take a different way to work to see what there is to see compared to your normal route. Yet, day to day we appreciate a normal route for efficiency and/or predictability. There can be comfort in the familiar, yet we need new stimulation in measured amounts. A game with modules gives us options. Do we want what we know and enjoy, or are we up for an adventure into new experiences? CHOICE is GOOD.
Thanks for the insight! -WEM
I think it's important to make the distinction between variety and variability. Variety is the addition or exchange of all the possible game states, variability is the reduction of the likelihood of encountering any single particular game state. I could go on for hours about the various ways these two things can express themselves and make a game better or worse, but I'll limit myself to two simple and obvious examples.
Terra Mystica would be a profoundly different game if some of the mechanisms used decks of cards or tiles drawn from a bag. The Castles of Burgundy would also be a completely different game if it used a Puerto Rico-style building board and building costs instead of randomly drawn tiles and randomly rolled dice to pay for said tiles. Notice however that some of the tiles in CoB(ships, mines, castles) aren't randomly drawn and that was probably a conscious decision by Stefan Feld to limit variability. They also included duchy boards that have four copies so you can all play the same duchy, and ones that only have one copy so you'd all be playing different duchy boards. Notice as well how a modular map was never added to Terra Mystica, and many of the highly experienced, more competitive Terra Mystica players say that the modular map in Gaia Project undesirably makes the game feel "less tight" compared to Terra Mystica.
So to answer the question in the title: Unequivocally yes, but it entirely hinges on the design goal of the game.
I think something that appeals to me a lot is the possibility of having a lot of new and different and fun experiences, so, having the possibility open that this game is going to give me something I never saw before, but without having to learn a whole bunch of new rules each time. This is a big part of the appeal of *Innovation* for me; after a very large number of plays, I'm still looking out for that moment when I realise I can do something interesting with a card that I usually skim past because it's a "weak card".
Heck, yeah, that's the beauty of Innovation! The base game is streamlined, but you have a box of 105 tools that get added to the game piece by piece, giving you the opportunity to examine each in turn. The complexity builds over time, and the variance feels introduced more naturally. -WEM
Humans have changed. Most of us get bored easily and/or what to challenge themselves more and more. I never want to play Chess nor Checkers ever again. They bore me to tears. We didn't have the options of games that they have now. I'm loving it! Call it Cult of the New if you want, I like to learn. I'm always reading history books and watching documentaries. I also have collectors syndrome. Always have, I just change what I'm collecting. Right now it's board games. Hopefully it's the last thing I do this with, otherwise I need to start collecting homes. :)
Ha, in time perhaps you'll find yourself cycling collections out of the house. I've done that with trading cards, comics, and CDs. I thought I'd always have mountains of those things, and now they're mostly gone...partly because they're a pain in the butt to move repeatedly! -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I hate moving. Probably why I still have everything. :) I have thought about purging some movies because my house is full of movies, music, and books. One person in a 3 bedroom house and no room for my games!
I have not liked games that come with a tutorial style basic ruleset and then tell you to add more stuff after your first play … I am thinking of Taverns of Tiefenthal, Kitchen Rush and even Magic Maze. Having played a first game and getting used to something and then adding more complexity sounds like a good idea at first … but I’d rather play a game where the designer has committed to one core game rule set.
Another experience I’ve had: I often buy expansions for games that I really love! If I love a design I am happy to be able to purchase “more” - rarely do I choose to play the few expansions I own 😅
Regarding the expansions, me too! I almost always have someone new in the game, so I'll teach the base game...then next time I'll have someone new again. I now ignore most expansions because I know I won't get to them enough for them to become second nature. -WEM
(Sorry for my english) I totally agree. I never felt the need of a an extension until an editor propose it to me. All I want is players how knows a game as well as me, for a good and fun challenge.
That makes sense. Often an expansion feels like someone you meet once at a party, then never see again. Interesting, perhaps, but you don't get to know them to any meaningful degree. -WEM
This made me think of a time i went hiking for a week long stint, with a group of friends on the Pacific Crest Trail, and even with all the natural beauty/variety of the wild, it seemed I spent more time staring at one of the others in front of me, or at the ground, just trying to huff it up a mountain side so that we could get to our next camp site.
Maybe sometimes we like games for exercise(of the brain), with occasional breathtaking views(glorius combos) and other times we just like a good stroll in the park.
Something to be said about how much time you have to enjoy something without being rushed I suppose...
Thanks for the insightful comment! For the most recent trip that my wife and I took, we made no agenda other than walking the town and sitting in cafés hanging out with one another. If something came up, cool, but otherwise we were just trying to be part of the atmosphere. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek it's a good feeling!
I love the variability of for example Dominion, Root & Spirit Island, depending on the setup you need a very different approach/strategy every game. Games can also go too far, especially as they become a hassle with setup while not providing a meaningfully different experience.
In deck building games a rotating market technically provides more variability (e.g. Clank!), but all this variability applies to tactical choices. A static market provides more strategic variability, as you truly have to adapt your strategy (e.g. Dominion).
I like both these games, but if I would have to pick one to play a few hundred times it would be an easy choice (while for a single play I prefer Clank!)
Nice comparison between Dominion and Clank! However, if you had to play Dominion with the same set-up a few hundred times, would you still choose it over Clank!? I think the variable set-up is the key of Dominion's appeal. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek thanks for the reply Eric! You are of course correct, Dominion with the same setup would turn stale rather quickly. The game is all about the strategy, but is tactically not really interesting. The appeal is indeed the varying strategic puzzle each game. I think this is why expansions are so helpful for its longevity (although there are definitely enough expansions now... :)).
For Clank! the tactical variety is dominant, so adding more cards to the deck only has a minor influence on the game (making expansions in my eyes less worthwhile, although the new maps are nice (which again provide a new strategic puzzle!)).
Games with more player interaction provide both a lot of strategic and tactical variability, as you have to adapt both to the play of your opponents. I think for these games the variability from the components is less essential for the longevity of the game (as you mention, just have a look at Chess/Go!). Variability from components in these games may even 'hinder' player interaction, as you have to adapt your strategy both to the game itself and your opponents (dividing your attention, and needing more games to be strategically competent).
Variability matters way more in coop games, when the player interaction isn’t the driving dynamic of the game.
Eldritch Horror is way better with say 25 cards per location to explore than the default 8, for example.
Final Girl strikes the perfect amount of variability for me. You have about 3-4 setups, villain powers, and villain finales plus like 4-6 more item cards than you’ll play with in a single game and that makes the core individual boxes plenty variable as a standalone experience. Allowing you to mix and match locations and villains really breaks open the possibilities while not making the individual boxes overwhelming in their options.
I keep thinking that I should try Final Girl as it sounds intriguing, but I'm usually not a fan of solitaire games. Maybe someday... -WEM
I agree that if it is a game with cards, that makes a game variable. But if there is no cards in a game and it is a conflict-kind-of-game, i like different factions that Will comeback in expansions and and to variety, like schyte or root. But i usually like to play with just the base game unless the expansion fixes something or improves. But the there Are other games like unmatched or imperium (ledgens classic and horizon) where i really like to have many factions to choose from. But i feel like it is a different kind of games Than the ones you talked about. I like expansions if it gives you more cards or factions, not just an expansion for the saké of it. Like parks, terraforming mars,
I've played Imperium only once so far, and I feel embarrassed by how much is in the box compared to how much I'll dig into it. Even after playing a few factions a handful of times each, I'll barely have touched what's included...which makes me wish for a smaller box with less material so that I can approach it in smaller bites. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek i don’t have a large collection and therefore play the games over and over. So i think in maybe 3 - 8years i will have played it maybe 100 and more tims and have a good picture of imperium. And the i can start over agan : ). In that perspective i enjoy the variability that comes with a lot of factions
Also there are many games, especially some strategy games and wargames where each time you play exactly the same things happen. Not all games have variability.
Except you respond to those things differently, yes? The games don't play out the same way due to your choices - at least I think they would as otherwise you'd never make it through a second play without wondering why you were wasting your time. -WEM
A lot of the marketing relating to variability of the game seems silly. "This will feel fresh the 100th time" for a game that realistically most buyers will play maybe a dozen times at most. Don't get me wrong, I love a random kingdom card row in Dominion (which is a game I have played hundreds of times) but a 2-3 hour orgy of dice, miniatures, and cards is not Dominion. These games want to be able to be the only game an enthusiast will need on a desert island but they really don't have to be, and it's not necessarily better for the design efforts to go toward that goal. I would rather see a game with little variability but a lot of deep and well-developed player interaction, than a procedurally generated set of elements players have to puzzle in their heads through instead of interacting with each other. I realized I just described the Dominion kingdom row, but that game is also 15-30 minutes. Anyway, developed and curated experience over variability any day. 💚
Yeah, Dominion needs the variable set-up because I think you'd grow tired of playing with the same set of cards over and over again. I like changing only one kingdom card and seeing how that lone change plays out. -WEM
Myself I’m a firm denier of (game) variability increasing replayability. I find a game that is variable such as this lacking much replayability. Why? Because of the qualities that make chess replayable: The ability to design a strategy, play a game, and be excited to refine that strategy in another play of the game. When the game is variable that denies that tight refining of a strategy because the next play may not be one where that strategy works or can even be done. I cannot replay that strategy after refining it. The game is unreplayable.
Thanks for the comment! I can appreciate this point of view. -WEM
I've learned that I generally dislike procedurally generated video games. I think I usually prefer a curated experience. You can still have different experiences in curated environments. I can explore Dark Souls plenty by choosing to use different builds.
My shorthand is that these are usually an infinite quantity of bland experiences when we have an overwhelming quantity of low cost quality curated ones.
This is not true for everyone and there are plenty of procedural games people love.
Those bland modular boards seems along those lines.
As some others have said, I'm happy to have a module if I want a different spin on things like in Heat. But, please provide a recommended way to play and not 5 modules with no guidance.
"An infinite quantity of bland experiences" sounds like a good description of most AI experiences as they take all the specifics of an event, then overlap them and extract, giving you a middle ground that's okay for all, but great for none. I can imagine procedurally generated video games feeling the same. -WEM
Good analogy. I also have never really taken to procedurally generated video games. If a game is *too* different from one play to the next then it takes forever to feel a sense of mastery. This doesn't really appeal to what I like about games, which is getting better at them. I prefer the advanced module approach to the variable base.
I believe depth can generate variability.
Absolutely! Playing a game once or only a few times is often a surface level experience, with you concentrating on what you're doing. With experience, you can see the larger picture and how you can affect opponents or counter them - and they can do the same to you, so you need to then play with that knowledge in mind. -WEM
You're conflating variability with randomness. Proper variability is like when Sentinels of the Multiverse provides villains with different levels of difficulty so when I sit down with my players we can talk about how difficult we want the villain to be. Having different orders of cards in hand is just randomness.
I don't think of randomness and variability as always being mutually exclusive to one another. I think if you're a Bridge fan, or a Poker fan, or a fan of any other of the hundreds of great card games out there you know that randomness can oftentimes present new and interesting challenges completely on its own. The randomness of the hand, the responses of the people around you, and then in turn your responses to them create different games every time without requiring any new extrinsic mechanisms/content other than said dealing of the cards.
@@JetsDuck - I guess this comes down to whether you're looking at variability explicitly as it's defined or as it pertains to board games. Since the topic is board games, I'm leaning towards that. When board gamers talk about variability, they're usually talking about things, like mentioned in the video, as various factions or variable player powers. Those aren't elements of pure randomness. A deck of cards shuffled works for the literal, textbook definition of variability. But no one is marketing that Uno is "a different game every time you play" because the deck comes out in a different order. And I would argue there is a world of difference between the order that cards in a deck are shuffled and a game like Summoner Wars, which not only has decks of randomly shuffled cards but factions with special abilities and play styles unique to them.
So that's why I take issue with the OP conflating variability with randomness.
I still find most card games highly variable in the experience they provide, and that's what is important to me. I want to experience that variability and feel like I've mastered it - or at least understand how to work with it - rather than jumping to a new faction and feeling like I'm starting over again. -WEM
It's kind of funny to talk about 'you will never play the same game twice' when Pandemic legacy is just 12 games and that is it.
It's still not the same game any of those times. -WEM