Designing games with a single mechanic
In the last couple of weeks, due to a request from a publisher, I’ve been sharply focused on creating games based around a single simple mechanic. When I look back at many of the games I’ve designed over the last 6 years, at least half of them would tick this box – so it’s a brief I’m very comfortable with. But I’ve found myself thinking about the process more deeply than I previously had. When the goal is a one-mechanic game, how does your approach change? In this article I explore the process of designing single mechanic games.
Why focus on a single mechanic?
A game with one single, simple mechanic is likely to be more approachable for players. If you only have one thing to learn, the teach is going to be easier and you can get playing more quickly. When the rules are simple, players are more likely to buy their own copies of the game and share it with others – as they’ll be confident they can teach it… So simple games often spread much quicker than more complicated ones.
There is nowhere to hide in a single mechanic game – anything clunky will stand out a mile. So designers are therefore driven to make these simple games as elegant and intuitive as possible. I believe that the holy grail of game design is having a game with very simple rules but with interesting emergent gameplay. Many designers (most?) are striving to achieve this goal. Single mechanic games are a good place to start.
The Mind: Play cards in sequential order without communicating.
Choosing the right mechanic
I often check the Board Game Geek list of game mechanics when I’m thinking about new games. I find the list a good source of inspiration. Which mechanics on the list have been done to death and which are seen in fewer games? I want my game to be original, which is always harder when focusing on a single mechanic. Many new games take familiar mechanics but combine them in new ways. With everything stripped back – your single mechanic has to do a lot of heavy lifting. There must be room for innovation. Of course, part of the reason there are so many set collection games, for example, is that there are lots of ways to approach set collection. You don’t necessarily have to find an obscure mechanic, but you do have to find a new way of tackling it.
Qwixx: Mark off numbers in ascending order without going back.
I’m also looking for mechanics that I can get excited about. It makes no difference that there aren’t that many games that use Crayon Rail Systems if I’m totally uninterested in exploring this sort of system further. I should also avoid any mechanic that requires more components than I’m happy with. For example, a Cube Tower might be a fun mechanic to work with, but the necessity of the constructed tower could take the game out of the price bracket I’m intending to design for.
Can every mechanic work on its own?
Well, I think it depends how we are defining mechanics. There are mechanics that are listed on the BGG list which aren’t really a mechanic, in my opinion. For example, Hexagon Grid is more of a component than a mechanic. There are also mechanics that are only used in a small part of the game – like Sudden Death Ending. Of course, you can use these categories as inspiration for a mechanic you can hang a whole game around.
There are also several smaller mechanics that we might use to supplement the mechanic in a single-mechanic game. I know you’re probably shouting at the screen now. I know! If it’s got more than one mechanic, it’s not a single mechanic game. BUT… If your turn starts by rolling a die, does ‘dice rolling’ really count as a mechanic? I might also have to move my score counter along a track on my turn, does that also count as a mechanic? Let’s be sensible. A mechanic has to be a part of the game that I’m giving some actual thought to.
Two ways to experiment with mechanics
1. List the assumptions.
When you’ve found a mechanic you’re interested in exploring, list all of your assumptions about that mechanic. Let’s take Network Building as an example.
- Your network connects different key places
- Your network connects to itself (it is not just a collection of separate routes)
- Your network extends across a board, a tableau or sheet of paper
- Your network will grow as you go through the game
- Your network will interact with other players networks
- Your network will help you achieve the goals of the game
- Your network has a cost to you – in time, money or some other resource
Now look at each of these assumptions in order and think about what game you could create if that assumption were not true. What does a network building game look like, if you are not connecting to different key places? What would it look like if there is no cost to network building and you can build as much as you want, whenever you want?
Challenging assumptions gives us new perspectives on familiar mechanics.
My Gold Mine: Push your luck to collect as much gold as possible without alerting the dragon
2. Make up your own mechanics.
Use a random word generator (or just open the dictionary at a random page) and ask yourself the question, “If this word was listed as a mechanic on BGG, what would the description of the mechanic be?”
Take 2 minutes to do it now. How would the ‘Mountain’ mechanic work? What about the ‘Nudge’ mechanic? See what you come up with. Try and describe your mechanic in a few sentences. It doesn’t matter if you end up creating a sub-set of an existing mechanic. It’s about creating simple ideas from different stimuli.
I’ve about the idea of creating your own mechanics more fully in a previous blog, so do have a look.
No Thanks: Take cards or pay to pass. Try to score as little as possible.
Watch out for…
- Adding complexity rather than depth. Ideally, your mechanic should be strong enough to stand on its own. We’re looking for emergent strategy which arises through clever use of the core mechanic. Give yourself a word limit for the rules. If you can’t write the rules within the limit, then perhaps the game is becoming too complicated. That doesn’t mean you can just write lots of complex instructions on individual cards, by the way, that still counts as rules.
- Repetitive gameplay. A simple game still needs to be interesting. Nobody wants a ‘rinse and repeat’ experience. Monotony is the enemy of the game designer (feel free to challenge this assumption!) Check that players have meaningful decisions and think about how you can add tension without deviating from the core mechanic. Consider the arc of your game. In what ways does the last round feel different from the first?
- Underestimating the group dynamic over repeated plays. Some of the most simple games can feel different every time because the game embraces the fact that the group dynamic affects the gameplay. Love Letter, designed by Seiji Kanai, is a good example. In Love Letter there are just 16 cards. On your turn you draw one card and play one card. The card you choose to play interacts with those that other players are playing. You’ll play many times in a row and each time the game will be different. In repeated plays the historical outcomes of previous games affect interactions in the current game. In fact it’s most often in very simple games where we see this happening – because you have less to keep track of in a simple game, so you can remember specific card plays, and because you’ll be able to play again more quickly. When designing simple games, we want to lean into this layer of player interaction.
Love Letter: Play cards to aim to deliver a letter to the princess or to remove all your rivals.
Expanding on the single mechanic
Of course, you might come out of this whole exercise with a terrific mechanic… and an idea of how to put it into a bigger game. Great. But by first trying to create a stand-alone game from your mechanic, you’re putting that mechanic through its paces. You want the core mechanic in a game to shine, delight and excite and this is a good way to get there.
The post Designing games with a single mechanic appeared first on The Dark Imp.