Grand Themes vs Small Themes

If you take a look at themes in games, you can easily spot patterns that influence what themes you are likely to see with particular game design patterns. Large area control games lend themselves to warfare or direct conflict style games. Games with resource management or worker placement often have economic stories attached to them. In addition, the theme's time frame and scale usually match the game design.

Some games break this mold and pair grand themes with small gameplay. Very few games take a small theme or a very localized theme and attach to it a very complex game.

Grand Themes + Small Game

There are quite a few games that utilize epic themes for very short or simple games. They abstract much of the gameplay and just allow the grand narrative to take focus. Here's a quick list:

• Cold War: CIA vs KGB (also Star Wars: Empire vs Rebellion)
• 7 Wonders (also 7 Wonders: Duel)
• Splendor
• Machi Koro
• Pandemic: The Cure
• Age of War

Tiny Themes + Epic Game

Sometimes, other games which are complex or lengthy, do not need to have a grand theme. These are much more rare, but they work because they delve deep into details of the subject matter and find all the little nuances of the conflict or problem that make for an epic game. Here's another, VERY SHORT, list:

• Rococo
• Scotland Yard or Letters from Whitechapel

After scouring BoardGameGeek for other games that take a long time (120+ min), it's easy to tell that most games have a base level of abstraction that make certain themes require certain game sizes. It's much easier to abstract down (reduce complexity to simplicity) than to draw out complexity from more basic actions.

Hopefully this knowledge arms you with more decision-making power when searching for your next game. Decide early on what "level" of game your favorite theme requires or choose a theme and pick those games that help deliver the most interesting game play, no matter their size.

Good luck!

Where theme comes from

If you read enough on BoardGameGeek, from the blogs to the forums to the videos, you'll eventually come across a discussion of theme. Why does theme matter? Where does it come from?

Humans are narrative beings. We experience time linearly and inherent in our biology is an understanding of history; what happened before. Some of those stories may educate us, some may cause emotion, and some may strike fear or anger. What drives us most are the stories in which some challenge is overcome or some great task is completed. The nature of that challenge sets the stage for the type of story.

If the challenge is an individual or group against an external force or being, you have the makings for a cooperative or heroic quest. When two or more individuals experience the same events from opposing viewpoints or agendas, two opposing stories occur. Now we have the foundation for the conflict necessary in a game.

Games tell the story of conflict. They must. If there is no conflict, there is no tension, and you ultimately have a bad game.

Theme is the story of that conflict. It holds the mechanisms of the game together. If a game's story or theme does not match the game mechanisms, that can still make for an interesting game, as long as the tension and energy of the conflict is maintained.

Abstract games, on the other hand, don't care where the story comes from or what the nature of the player's agency is all about. All that matters for abstract games is the structure of the conflict. The units in the game simply mark what could be, as in a hypothetical situation.

Because of this, I strongly feel that games with more pasted on themes or themes which really don't match mechanisms are nothing more than abstract games. For me, this isn't fun. I dislike abstract games because I don't connect with a character to play or my objective. This may stem from my roleplaying roots, but without story, I feel lost as an individual.

So if you're playing a game and don't feel engaged, ask yourself, is it the theme? Or is it the theme's connection to the game rules? Discovering this will help you identify in the future what games to seek out and which to pass over.

What is a review worth?

There's a bit of a new effect happening with Kickstarter campaigns. Given the nature of how Kickstarter works, backers of upcoming games either look at Kickstarter as simply a pre-order system or view themselves as investors in a game, indeed even taking a role as a monetary producer of the game.

Along with that, backers start to feel a bit of ownership and involvement with the game. This is great from a marketing perspective and helps designers make connections with gamers. However, once a game gets released, backers and early adopters are now taking on the mantle of defenders of a game against negative reviews. Nowhere is this more present than with the recently release board game Scythe.

Scythe and the Dangerous Landscape of Reviewing

If you take a look at the current crop of reviews of Scythe on BoardGameGeek, you'll find either glowing reviews or others picking on it for some very specific design choices. Those criticisms are garnering vociferous feedback from many people who feel a relationship with the game, whether because they are backers or early purchasers who love the concept, gameplay, and art.

This is a dangerous trend. I don't say this lightly, but this is a trend that is occurring more and more in popular culture as individuals align themselves with the products they love. Whether it's a review of a movie, book, TV show, or game, consumers take the criticism as a criticism of their emotional choices. This invites argument and extreme disagreement. With consumers like this, scrutinizing reviews for their product does nothing but end with hurt feelings.

The real value of a review is not for the person who already owns the product. The purpose of a review is to allow consumers to make informed decisions. The purpose is not to tear down a cultural icon or lay judgement on others enjoyment. The purpose of a review is to see beyond the hype or marketing around what a product MIGHT be and to reveal what the product ACTUALLY IS.

That role of reviewers means that they MUST be transparent about their evaluation process and state up front any biases they might have. If you're reading a game review, how many times has the reviewer played? How many players have they played with? What external information may have affected the review? And even after all that, it's just a person's opinion.

Stop and take that for what it's worth. The value of reviews in the era of the unshielded mass of Internet published reviews makes them much more meaningless. The informed, objective critic is lumped in with a flood of ratings and comments from the masses.

So the next time you read a negative review of a game you love, don't take it personally. If the reviewer has made some factual errors, feel free to point those out, but don't begrudge them their opinion. Let others decide for themselves if the reviewer is worth listening to.