I’ve repeatedly heard from industry professionals that a majority of board games will only ever get played 1 time. How does knowing this impact your design process? 🎲✂️
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Designing for a phenomenal first play experience is far more important than building in oodles of replayability. You can't ignore replayability entirely, but it can safely be one of the last things you tackle in the design process.
I generally agree. Only a small segment of people will persevere passed a lackluster first play. And consider how many people at the table need to be convinced to persevere. So, unless you nail that first experience, all the replayability is moot.
I’ll add my .02 to that. I’m a solo gamer and rules are often challenging f/ me to learn. Thankfully games like Fire in the Lake, Pax Pamir, and Root have so much going for them that I was willing to give them more than one go.
That’s the hope. The product draws you in after the purchase. To continue what I was saying with Harmonies, the product inside the box resold me. After unboxing it, I knew we would play it. Then we did, last night. And I’m sure we’ll play it again.
I try to design for the first play session and aim to have easy rules that are easy to teach with input randomness that makes every game truly different, not just random/chaotic. It's also a good thing if all components are not shown each session so that you don't feel like it has all been consumed.
Emphasize what you want players to experience on their first play. You can have depth, balance, and reward the deeper dive, but if the first play doesn't land, they won't come back.
It doesn’t: I am designing for people who will take time to learn the game in depth, not for tourists.
However, I do try to make the game mechanically accessible: easy to play, difficult to master…
There is a loud majority that collect games (100ths) but must folks will have a smaller game collection and play those games multiple times… if they are good. Case in point… we have a big game collection, but we have still have played Scythe more than I can count with my fingers. 🤪
I apply a bit of a job interview or first date mentality to it. You try to show the best side and make a good first impression. But you don’t let it get you down b/c more often than not, it’s a matter of personality/fit than some objective notion of quality.
I don't know if it impacts my design process, but it definitely has an effect on my desire to ensure that rulebooks are as clear and as concise as possible -- you're basically shooting yourself in the foot if it makes learning how to play the game for the first time more difficult than necessary.
I make sure the first play is as great as it can be and assume its the only time it will get played. I consider the setup experience as part of that first play and I think about how quickly I can get the player into the game.
It has taken away from how replayable I make a game a Little.
Personally, I think that's a deceptive metric. Perhaps technically correct, but not as straightforward as all that. Sure, maybe 75% of people who play Game X play it once and move on. But what about the 20% who play it 5 times? Or the 4% who play it 25 times? Or the 1% who play it 100 times?
I'm not looking to make a game that everybody plays 100 times. That game doesn't and won't exist. If 10,000 people play a game of mine once and only once, fine, great. But I'm more interested in the 10 people who play it again and again because it resonates with them.
It's similar to a stat in videogames that says that most players only play around 10% of the content.
You can try to be above average in that, but it's a bit of a misleading goal. You can't evaluate success or quality by that metric. Players don't have all the time in the world and that's ok!
I've had people argue, "this is only a problem in first plays, it won't happen once people grow how the game works." But if it's a problem in the first play, people may not ever play again.
A big one - less focus on a randomized setup with many possible permutations. A more static controlled setup lets you test and iterate faster and limit weird edge cases that can hamper the experience. Variety can be added later, either in dev, or expansions.
In my better moments I can think that way. I have a big problem with consumerism, and it frustrates me that so many people are so careless in the way they buy things.
I think you have a few cohorts that fall into this. 1. Dedicated play group with a rich game supplier (or 2) who pushes to play their latest acquisition. 2. Gamers without a dedicated group who buy a new game to play with friends or family occassionally, but usually bring out everyone's favorite.
Yeah my intuition is similar, but I wonder if this industry wisdom is purely anecdotal or if there is actual research behind it. I’d love to know more.
Comments
I am not as worried about making games that can only be played once, whether it's consumed in play or whether it's a story.
That second play, to me, is the finish line. Not the sale.
I didn’t need to play Harmonies, for example, to feel satisfied with the product.
I will not read most of the books I own.
However, I do try to make the game mechanically accessible: easy to play, difficult to master…
It has taken away from how replayable I make a game a Little.
That's what *I* think.
You can try to be above average in that, but it's a bit of a misleading goal. You can't evaluate success or quality by that metric. Players don't have all the time in the world and that's ok!