Hello Gnomes and gnome adjacent affiliates, and gnome fans, and gnome readers. And the person or group I missed–hello to you too. My name is Chris Sniezak and I say Play Better Games, Damn It!!! It is a philosophy I live by as I am always trying to improve the experience of play that I’m getting out all gaming activities. You can always play a game, play it well, and have fun with it. That’s fine. For you. Not for me. It’s not enough to play a game and have fun with it. I need to take it one step further. I need to know why it was fun. What was fun about it for me. Why someone else had a good time with it. Where that magical “fun” came from. Then I need to see if I can replicate it, reproduce the experience, or bring it to a different gaming medium. That’s what Play Better Games, Damn It means. You’re never satisfied, you’re always getting better, you’re always playing better games.
Why bother?
First reason. When you know what kind of games you like to play, and you know why you like to play them, you can save yourself time and energy finding the game experiences you enjoy. That way you’re having more quality gaming experiences.
Second reason. When you understand what is making a game tick then you can better help other people find the kinds of games they like. There are so many kinds of games out there that this knowledge allows you to have a better chance of growing the hobby by providing newer gamers with positive experiences.
But what about trying new things?
You should try new things when you can and with the understanding that it’s new and you’re really there to see if this game fits into your definition of fun, fun is subjective by the way, or it doesn’t. We’re human beings. We change. Our tastes and preferences change. For me I was really into medium Euro games a few years ago. I still enjoy a medium Euro but I’d rather play an amerithrash/ameritrash Co-Op these days. If you’re not sure what those mean here’s some links to more information:
I also really dig RPGs. They’re my bread and butter game. To even be more specific I enjoy games that push pulp style play more than others. I also like magic and monsters in my play because it takes it one step away from reality and that’s fun for me. Throw in mechanics that support narrative play style and stick a modern setting on top of that and I’m pretty much in for that game.
So what kinds of games does that translate into? The Dresden Files RPG, Night’s Black Agents, and a bunch of superhero games–Worlds in Peril, With Great Power (The newest edition), Venture City Stories–are all games that jazz me and fit into my categories. That’s right I said jazz me. I also dig fantasy games too, like D&D–especially the most recent edition–and Dungeon World. Right after that it’s the horror stuff like Call of Cthulhu and Night’s Black Agents, which fits in horror too. Of course, these last two games also fit into that modern, or at least close to modern, fantasy feel. Plus, when I play Call of Cthulhu, or other games in the 1920’s to 40’s settings, I can play some jazz. I used to be a gigging jazz musician after all. Trumpet player if you’re curious. If you weren’t I’m sorry? I think? Moving on.
How to Identify What is Fun
There is a methodology to this.  One which I will now share with you. That’s right. Time to divulge some of the secret sauce formula. That’s why you’re here anyway, isn’t it?
First: Collect Data
The first thing I did was play a bunch of different games so I could have a bunch of data. Now if you’re the kind of person who only plays one game, like D&D or Pathfinder, then you’re still fine. This just means you need to think about all the different kinds of media you enjoy: books, TV Shows, movies, YouTube channels, Twitch Streams, video games, whatever.
Second: Prioritize Enjoyment
Once you’ve got your pool of data you can now think about which of those things you enjoyed the most. Start listing them till you have ten items on your list.
Third: Look for Commonalities
There will probably be some kinds of crossover on your list. It could be genre, playstyle, mechanics, elements of those stories or games, tone, character archetypes, whatever your brain tells you are the commonalities.
Fourth: Question Yourself
Now that you have some commonalities ask yourself why those things make a game enjoyable for you? What makes them tick for you? Is there something deeper than “I like those things”? Do you identify with them? Is there some element of escapism that lets you be what you want to be rather than what you are? Is there some element of realism that lets you explore parts of yourself you’re not willing to outside of a game? Are they just the best ways to let you blow off steam or give you a release from the everyday?
Fifth: Assess the Games
While there are bad games out there, most games are just not right for the people playing them and are perfectly well constructed games on their own. Now that you have some introspective information about yourself you can make an informed decision about whether the game is for you or not. If it’s not for you then you can move on and look for a game that is for you. If the game is for you then you can move on to figuring out how to make that game even better for you, and the people you’re playing with.
Time to get Started
That’s the beginning folks. The intro to how to Play Better Games, Damn It. I hope in the future my articles will show you more ways to do so and if you’re so inclined drop your ten-item lists in the comments below and get a little introspective on yourself in front of the Stew community. You’ll only be helping yourself and everyone else. Keyboard Drop. I’m out.
I’d never heard the term ameri-trash when used with board games before.Huh.
I’ve been bouncing between one, three, and five lately, but I haven’t ever sat down and made a list of it all.
I’ve been in a few (or am running) 5e games lately, and the tones even within the same game system is very different. One of my DMs runs super old-school with a focus on adventurer’s league style play, but in the other games we’re using 5e as base rules while focusing more on storytelling.
I appreciate the hardcore straight to the rules game for what it is, but my preference is the broader story based versions. The downside of those is that we all try to “get away with” things or circumvent more of the story as planned because we know the Game Master will be open to the ideas.
So Yahtzee is Ameritrash? 8o)
I play games mostly for the face-to-face interaction over the table. I rarely care whether the game is agrarian empire building, diplomatic push-and-shove or everyone stop Armageddon/Zombie Apocalypse; just as long as it has people collected together to play.
So my game experience is mostly colored by how well those other people can play nice together – which doesn’t preclude chops-busting, barracking and sarcasm between players, just how far they take things. Vocally aggressive winner/sore loser types need not apply.
I’ll play almost anything with a board, not much of anything that involves huge card decks and knowing all the cards’ potential. RPGs are picked by setting rather than rules, though I prefer going with what I know than some new system for the sake of it if I’m running.
But I’d pay real money for any modern board game whose designers knew how to write blasted rulebooks properly.
RANT ALERT.
So many potentially good board games today are ruined by having disordered rulebooks written in a style learned from the RPG industry, where thematic over case ordering is preferred and wording is deliberately vague. This is the antithesis of what is required with a board game.
Hence the profusion of games that can only be properly learned by watching YouTube videos of the designers playing the game. FFG are particular offenders here for me.
GDW, SPI, Avalon Hill and Task Force knew how to write rulebooks properly, books you weren’t required to have down by heart before you played a game. These rulebooks weren’t pretty, and offered no work for the graphic artist to speak of, but were internally consistent and hyperlinked for speedy resolution of this or that rare special case.
The writers understood that the point of the game is the gameplay, not the rulebook itself, and so didn’t try and gussy rulebooks up with fine art and sidebars with drop shadows. After all, why waste money making a rulebook look pretty when the aim is to spend as little time inside the thing as possible?
I’ve rewritten a few of my newer games rulebooks to the AH formula (usually after a disastrous attempt to play the game using the supplied rulebook) and they actually became much shorter as well as easier to navigate in-game.
Yes my translations have what looks like idiotically specific lines in them (real example from Mansions of Madness: One-ended ladders cannot be climbed), but the paragraphs trying to clarify the original confused wording are now unnecessary, and usually so are the worked examples of play.
Okay, rant over. Sorry.
I apologize if this comes across as overly critical, but I find this article difficult to read through. The voice makes the text difficult to follow (and comes across mostly as trying too hard to be clever) and, unlike regular Stew posts, seems to be stating the obvious rather than getting me to think.
Having said that, I fully applaud the push to get people out of their comfort zones to try new things. It amazes me how often I run into gamers who learn one system and then absolutely resist traveling anywhere outside of that limited comfort zone.
To MysticMoon. I don’t mind a little criticism. After all, I was a writing major in college. Funny thing is I wasn’t actually trying to be clever. That’s just me.
To the obvious point. I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago but it amazes me how many people I’ve run into that don’t understand what they enjoy about gaming, or don’t see a way to figure it out. So I tried to provide a way for people to discover that.
Thanks for reading and the critique.
To Roxysteve. That boardgame rulebook thing is a real problem and with the explosion of board games the last few years I feel shoddy rules presentation has gotten worse. Fortunately, a number of companies are going to YouTube and other kinds of video to give us examples and rules explanations which I approve of.
Ugh. I really hope this attitude isn’t representative of what the new Stew will be offering.
Are we not supposed to engage in discourse? I thought chatting was what this was all about? Sorry if I offended you. Not my intention. I hope you have a nice day.
I get it. You think I was saying since I was a writing major in college that was me puffing myself up. That wasn’t the purpose of that. It was to make the critique joke because when you sit in your writing circle you get your work slammed by everyone in the circle. That does come off looking rather arrogant. Sorry about that. The writing circle critique thing is true. You get murdered in that, but I will try and be better in the future about the cleverness of my writing.
Ah, good to know. I apologize for thinking the worst.
There is nothing wrong with using YouTube to help explain how a game should be played, but if that is the only way people can begin understanding your game then you had better consider a rewrite.
Board games are fundamentally different things than RPGs. Board games need structure to a degree considered counter-productive in an RPG framework. Edge cases absolutely MUST be covered by rules else every time you play you’ll need to write a house rule to cover the situation and argue it with the players.
So: The rules need to be persnickety to the point they start to sound a-retentive. And there will therefore be scads of them.
So: they need organizing properly. No-one needs to have to read all the rules concerning one-ended ladders and bridges to play a Mansions of Madness scenario in which neither feature.
So: You use the old case structure, in which the major rules are stated in lead numbered paragraphs and special cases (and special cases of special cases) are read by “drilling down” *as you need to*.
This is how games like Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles or Azhanti High Lightning get to be playable. No-one is supposed to read the entire rulebook and learn it. You read the lead paragraphs and maybe a few special cases (Okay, I know how a tank moves, so how does it move through a river – drill down from Movement-Tanks-Special Terrain-Rivers and Bob is your mother’s brother).
It breaks my heart when I see the two square feet of bedsheet passing for a rulebook in many games that still manages to be functionally useless when you need it most because of muddy writing and needless graphic art “cleverness”. Save that for the board and playing pieces.
Once, I was with a group wanting to play the Conan board game. We spent fifteen minutes trying to find out how to do the basic things like move and fight and then said “screw it” and played Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards: Duel at Mount Skullzfyre instead.
Epic fail on the part of the game’s designers.
Like Roxysteve, I play games to be with people. There are some types of games I PREFER to play (I like thinking games, be they word games, strategy games, or what-have-you), but I don’t always have the proper people around to play those games. In those instances I play the games that they prefer, and still have fun because I get to spend the evening amongst friends.
I will play anything at least once, and love it when I find a game I didn’t think I’d like but really enjoy.
Playing a variety of games also helps a GM with creativity… I played Exploding Kittens the other day for the first time and can’t wait to use the basic concept of the game for “dramatic encounters” in a session.
@Kingslayer. So what does the basic concept of Exploding Kittens do that would translate to dramatic encounters in RPGs? I’m pretty curious considering I’ve never played the game.
Exploding kittens is a deck of cards, where on your turn you have to draw the top card. If you draw the explosion, you lose. Fortunately, you have cards in your hand to peek ahead, alter the order of the cards before you draw, etc.
It does a good job of building tension with a very simple rule set. It’s a bit like bringing the Jenga tower in to Dread… it’s a simple mechanic that has a visceral impact, hovering over the game.
In Exploding Kittens, there’s a lot of back and forth… Aha, I’ll set the bomb so Karen will draw it. Oh, no, Karen moved it down two cards, which is when I’ll draw it. I sure hope I can move it before I draw…It might work very well for a back-stabbing political alliances type of session, with coup and assassination preparations, and the appropriate countermeasures.
Oh. So if you’re having a dramatic encounter you could set the stakes of the situation and then play back and forth until someone in the encounter Draws the explosion card thus losing the stakes they’ve set for the encounter. Just drop some interaction or fiction with every card draw and you have your dramatic encounter in the RPG.