Variant: Are there bad mechanics, or just bad games?
Via Toysrus.com
When I attended Strategicon, I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with a number of game designers. At one Q&A session, Kevin Wilson, co-designer of Elder Sign as well as a host of other games, stated that there were no bad mechanics, just bad games to use them in. Immediately, my mind leapt to the “roll and move” staple of so many non-fun games. I mean, if ever there was a bad mechanic then that would be it: no individual determination, outcome totally in the hands of the dice, no choices to make. Bleh.
But Mr. Wilson then gave the following example: Chutes and Ladders, or Snakes and Ladders for non-U.S. types. But, instead of playing it the traditional way, we introduce a new variant. At the beginning of the game, each player is assigned a color secretly. They want that color to be the one to get to the end. When a player rolls the die, they can move any of the pawns. So the game becomes more about deduction and deception than about roll and move. While I still don’t know how much I’d enjoy the game, the dramatic improvement is readily apparent. Suddenly, roll and move isn’t so objectionable.
Still, I’m not so sure we can say that no mechanic is a bad one. I’m thinking specifically about player elimination. In general, if a game has player elimination then I don’t want to play it. It’s absolutely no fun to sit out while everyone else plays a game. Especially if that means being bored for any length of time. And while I enjoy Bang! and Werewolves, it’s usually despite that mechanic, not because of it. In those games I can usually excuse it by saying, “Well, the game moves fast enough.” But the mechanic itself is always a negative.
What about you? Is there a mechanic that you think is always bad? Or is every mechanic a good one and you can enlighten me (as Wilson did with roll-and-move) about player elimination?
Player elimination is my least favorite. Just finished a lunch game of Bang and one guy was eliminated 45 mins before the game ended and just sat there.
Roll-and-move is bad too. I think that term implies that you have only one piece to move.
There is a difference between bad mechanics and very poorly implemented mechanics.
I’d argue that elimination can be a motivator for improved gameplay in some games. The only analog I can think of this early in the morning is in PvP zones in video games. If you “die” and are forced to watch the action until the match is over, you learn to play better (mainly because you are watching the other players on screen). Obviously, this is a bad analogy because most board games take longer than the typical 2 to 3 minute skirmish in online PvP games.
One note about elimination games, I usually add a house rule to allow players to get back into games where elimination is a factor. I got the idea, oddly enough, from Monopoly – where you could just pay to get out of jail, instead of sitting for 3 turns, or trying to roll doubles.
My take is – there are bad games that are bad for many reasons, some of which might be their mechanics, but bad mechanics can be augmented, ignored or altered to “save” a game from being bad.
Obviously it depends on personal tastes and, I think, situation.
If you have multiple pieces to choose from in a roll-and-move mechanic, it makes it more tolerable. The main example off-hand would be Sorry and its variants. Not that that makes me enjoy the game, but it gives you some choice. And great for starting kids off with gaming – which I love.
As for player elimination – speaking from a war gamer’s background – it’s just expected in certain games. So not only do those going into a game with that mechanic know its part of the experience, they’re doing it exactly because of that. Some people don’t like to play war games because, by definition, they involve elimination. Others enjoy that.
Another mechanic that is almost “love it or hate it” is the dexterity mechanic. To me, that has always been fairly silly and gimmicky. However, I’ve read nothing but glowing reviews from Ascending Empires where dexterity is combined with strategy and civ building.
Perhaps the first lesson in Game Design 101 is to blend two or more mechanics together? A game that relies soley, or even just almost entirely, on one mechanic is too narrow to reach much appeal? At least in the hobby field.