by chally
I'm not passionate about this topic, but its a kind of interesting question, so I'd like to ruminate a bit without taking a side, if that's alright.When Cary first posed the challenge to name a game with a superfluous element, I thought of Bohnanza's third bean field. It offers a small decision that is tangential to the main game, and is usually an obvious decision, so it's to even a particularly interesting addition. You may still prefer that the game contains it, but it is hard to view it as necessary to Bohnanza.
Likewise, any of the slew of games that come with "basic" and "advanced" versions could quite plainly excise the "advanced" elements (certainly the designers thought so).
But then I went back and looked at Cary's original comment:
garygarison wrote:
My point with the fantasy-flavored player powers isn't the flavoring, it's the powers themselves. Tigris & Euphrates could conceivably work with asymmetric player powers as well, but they aren't necessary for the game to function.
Let's talk about the cult tracks. They could be removed, the necessary benefits they provide be allocated to other mechanisms in the game, and players would be none the wiser. The game would still function.
Let's talk about the cult tracks. They could be removed, the necessary benefits they provide be allocated to other mechanisms in the game, and players would be none the wiser. The game would still function.
It seemed to contain two challenging ideas: (1) what is needed for "the game" to function; (2) what could be implemented differently so as to reduce complexity.
Question (1) is challenging because people may actually disagree about what "the game" is. Some view Age of Steam as a route-building game with a superfluous auction; others view Age of Steam as an auction game where route-building just sets the valuation. To me, asymmetric positions is a defining feature of Terra Mystica. I would probably get rid of the board before getting rid of the asymmetry. But I can also understand why others would disagree.
Question (2) is challenging because it asks players to fundamentally re-think the design of a game. Consider Keyflower. It could have a second currency (say, money) that you bid with, that you use to purchase workers, and that you pay to others for the privilege of using their buildings. It was able to do away with those elements by simply thinking outside the player color box (thus allowing for the reallocation of workers directly). But if Keyflower had been released with a second currency (particularly if that second currency allowed variable worker purchase rates or a variety of building entrance fees), would anyone have been able to discern it was superfluous by imagining the Keyflower that we actually have today?
It's a fascinating issue, to be sure, but not one that is likely to find easy answers.