10 Things Every Game Needs: A Rosewater Classic 

Thanks Markus!

I agree; I think this is one reason why I really love cooperative games.

Can always just concede as well and start a new game

This happens a lot in magic the gathering actually. @@tomlikeabomb6706

Here's another (#12): meaningful or principled. This is hard to do in games, but one of the things people like about narrative art (books and movies) is that there is a message -- a principle the story unravels and explains through the magic of storytelling. Arguably, stories help people 'test-run' life's challenges by embodying themselves as the protagonist. Games don't have protagonists, but they do have the magic of direct agency! And by crafting the gameplay a certain way, it's possible for a game to explore meaningful ideas and have a set of principles. Now it's essential that meaning doesn't get in the way of fun, but great games should be able to seamlessly do both!

At a deeper level I'd add that people like games for six joys of the heart: * Fun * Purpose * Planning * Adapting * Expressing * Connecting Mark's list had some version catered to all of these but purpose and expressing, but I think magic does those two really well. People build their decks in unique ways to express themselves, and the color wheel is quasi-philosophical so that it's purposeful / meaningful-- and not just basic fun.

I love this series of comments, especially the six joys of the heart. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Lucas! I've learned so much from reading Mark's articles.

Thanks, Nathan and Danica!

Possibly--I don't disagree about your conclusion, though my lens is of someone who started playing Magic around 1994, when the CCG market was very new.

@@jameystegmaier Hmm...that's my lens too. I guess I'm trying to balance how I felt at the time (totally blown away) with how I feel today (jaded by the concept of CCGs), and trying to judge MTG through my 1994 eyes. I admit that it's not a hook for me today, really.

I agree--Obsession has incredible flavor throughout every aspect of the game.

None, fortunately! Biddy and Walter are good boys--they aren't allowed on tables. :)

You're in luck--I have such a video ready for you! It's here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6RjGwxrGMRw.html

@@jameystegmaier thank you! I've watched that one previously (a while ago) and my memory was that it was mainly focused on setting expectations for guests versus tips for the actual hosting, but I will check back on it!

That's true, almost every game needs components. :)

I like that a lot!

I must have misspoke--perhaps I meant to say the "first" on the list.

@@jameystegmaier No it's all good my guy. I know you don't want to just talk about your stuff and even if you did that would be okay. In the split moments of thinking and idea can come and what do you know best but your stuff and that is okay. They weren't actual picks/highlighted suggestions, just mentions.

Absolutely! Hyperborea and Adrenaline do a great job of that.

I use InDesign. I'd also recommend checking out these videos and articles: stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter/how-to-design-a-tabletop-game/

I just got the "standard" collectors edition, but I hope to play with those jumbo tiles someday. :)

I like the addition of some form of balance to a game. That's one of the core reasons we playtest: fun, function, balance, and intuitiveness/clarity.

You should look into getting Trains, it's a deck builder by AEG and is amazing. My wife and i love it so much we're making a game inspired by it

@@thenintendobros9918 Thanks for the recommendation!

I appreciate your interest in that, but another company has the rights to Ethnos (and will hopefully make a new version in the future).

@@jameystegmaier Not as well as SM would have! Thanks for letting me know.

I think so!

That's player-driven surprise instead of game-driven surprise, but absolutely, I've been surprised by opponents many times in games like chess.

Indeed, we highly value solo modes and the 10% of gamers who primarily play solo, hence our ongoing partnership with Automa Factory. All of our games can be played solo. But we do not publish solo-only games, as we seek to also include other players in our games (the other 90% of gamers).

I define a game as something you can win or lose. If there's no win or loss condition, I consider it an activity. As for puzzles, it really depends on the type of puzzle. If we're talking jigsaw puzzles, you can approach it as a game (if you don't complete it, you lose), but you can also approach it as an activity (just something to do).

And that's the proof it's not needed :)

I have two cats, Biddy (less fluffy) and Walter (very fluffy).

That's a great point about interaction and how it relates to video games (though Mark's article is about tabletop games). I think Mark is focusing on player-to-player interaction. Rather than assuming a misunderstanding though (you know what they say about assuming, right?), just put in a tiny bit of effort read the article. I'll make it easier by quoting that section for you: "There needs to be some aspect of the game that encourages the players to react to one another. What does your game do to make the players interact? Players have to want something. The game has to make acquiring that thing challenging. The next step is making sure that everyone is playing the same game. The simplest way to do this is to give all players the same goal, making each of them an obstacle of the others. However you do this, though, it is crucial that your game interconnects the actions of the players. Why is this so important? There are several reasons. First, a big component of game playing is the social interaction. Computers and hand-held devices have made it easier and easier to play games solo. The reason that traditional gaming is still popular is that it has one huge advantage: face-to-face interaction. Humans are by nature social creatures. Gaming plays into the desire allowing people to interact. As interacting is one of the key goals, it's important that your game reinforce this interaction. Second, there's a great conservation of resources if you use other players as the needed obstacles. Magic, for example, does a great job of challenging a player because they are matching their wits against another person like themselves. Self-selection also means that players will tend to play against players who share their vision of how the game should be increasing the chances that all parties have a good gaming experience. One of the things that R&D is constantly conscious of is making sure to keep the interaction in the game. This is one of the reasons, for instance, that we are very cautious with what we call combos-that is, groups of cards that combine to create a giant effect that usually wins the game. If the combo is powerful and fast enough, there's no reason for you to even concern yourself with what the other players are doing. Magic's two greatest tools to creating interactivity are both card types: creatures and instants. Creatures force interaction because they require you to bring the action to the opponent. Attacking allows blocking. Instants create interaction because they allow you to act during a time that normally is focused on your opponent. Another big part of Magic's interaction is the inclusion of cards that answer problems. Richard understood that a key to making trading card games work is to make sure that every threat had an answer, which allowed decks to change over time as the metagame shifted. Magic is a game about change, and a key part of making this happen was giving the players the tools to combat whatever was currently the dominant strategy."

@@jameystegmaier Thanks for taking the time to reply and quote the article. Looks like you are right, and I apologise for my assumption, guess that really made me what they say about assuming things. Funny thing is, that I would say that Magic has quite a few strategies that completely negate meaningful social interaction, like control decks that never let the play get into the match, or direct damage decks that burn the life so fast down before the the opponent could put anything even remotely threating on the board. And of course it gets worse with win condition from cards that let one win without having to interact with the opponent'S deck or life at all. So, I would say that not only is Rosewater wrong about that there has to be social interaction, but not even Magic is always doing that. If it would be interaction in general, something to toy around with, something to try, fail, and retry, and such things. Then interaction would feel like a valid point, since that would then include video games, where one can interact with virtual environment and thus as something to play with. Guess in my assumption I gave Rosewater too much credit.And again, I apologise for doubting you.