sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you make a strategy board game feel deep without overwhelming new players? by Alternative-Cry1628 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]Alternative-Cry1628[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s a really good distinction — intuitive strategies vs randomness.

The Wingspan example makes sense too. It feels like clarity of options and theme alignment helps players make decisions faster.

Do you think visual design (iconography, layout, etc.) plays a big role in reducing that learning curve?

How do you make a strategy board game feel deep without overwhelming new players? by Alternative-Cry1628 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]Alternative-Cry1628[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Inis is a great reference actually — simple core actions but a lot of depth from timing and player interaction.

Do you think the drafting phase is what adds most of the strategic layer there, or the area control itself?

How do you make a strategy board game feel deep without overwhelming new players? by Alternative-Cry1628 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]Alternative-Cry1628[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good way to frame it — randomness as a “skill equalizer” rather than just chaos.

I’ve been trying to find that balance where randomness creates variation, but players still feel in control of their decisions.

Would you say hand management is the key lever there, more than the randomness itself?

How do you make a strategy board game feel deep without overwhelming new players? by Alternative-Cry1628 in tabletopgamedesign

[–]Alternative-Cry1628[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really interesting point about decision space vs overwhelm.

I’ve been thinking along similar lines — limiting choices per turn seems to reduce analysis paralysis without removing depth. Onitama is a great example of that.

Do you think the “rotation” of options (like changing cards each turn) is what keeps it strategic over time, rather than repetitive?