This is so true, the most memorable game experience I had, was when learning tools and rules is easy and then discovering all the possibilities you have with them.
This opens your eyes and fires the curiosity.
Then the game just needs to provide the environment and good enough challenge for players to test out this.
This was refreshing to read. I'm working with my son to design a family game (he's 6), and I've got a zillion ways I can think up to make the game more "impressive," but what I'm realizing is that I really have to be deliberate about what we add (or change) each iteration, or it risks becoming a monster of disjointed ideas and no longer, as you put it, elegant. Especially considering my audience. I think this is why I enjoy engine builders, because the end-game can be complex, but the intro is usually 1 or 2 choices, and you get a feel for each mechanic before beefing it up.
This exploration of elegance in design resonates, particularly how our frameworks shape our understanding and actions. It reminds me of the concept discussed in "Epistemic Traps," where flawed mental models lead to misguided strategies—an idea that could deepen the discussion here. You can check it out [here](https://theuncomfortableidea.substack.com/p/wrong-feels-rational-when-your-map).
Your points about less components is why I think that Jungo is a more elegant version of Scout.
I think that it's also important to note that "less rules" can also mean "less weird/unique rules". Using an establish mechanism like deck building can be a huge lift in making things intuitive for established gamers. It would be an interesting conversation to discuss whether this counts as "elegant" or not though. For example, when I first played the video game Destiny, the controls just felt instinctive - every action corresponded to the obvious button in my head. The physics engine also felt exactly tuned so that characters and objects accelerated at the perfect speed. But this was built on my experience playing Halo, Borderlands, etc. Not necessarily that Destiny was truly a low-complexity game. Is that elegance?
Previously understood rules are another powerful tool for elegance if you are speaking to the right audience. Poker scoring, for example, is actually quite complex but most people already know it so most of the time you can get it "for free" from a complexity standpoint. I released Ascension Tactics 10 years after I launched Ascension, which combines deckbuilding with a tactical miniatures game experience. That game was only possible because the world had 10 years of experience with Ascension and deckbuilding games in general.
This is so true, the most memorable game experience I had, was when learning tools and rules is easy and then discovering all the possibilities you have with them.
This opens your eyes and fires the curiosity.
Then the game just needs to provide the environment and good enough challenge for players to test out this.
This was refreshing to read. I'm working with my son to design a family game (he's 6), and I've got a zillion ways I can think up to make the game more "impressive," but what I'm realizing is that I really have to be deliberate about what we add (or change) each iteration, or it risks becoming a monster of disjointed ideas and no longer, as you put it, elegant. Especially considering my audience. I think this is why I enjoy engine builders, because the end-game can be complex, but the intro is usually 1 or 2 choices, and you get a feel for each mechanic before beefing it up.
This exploration of elegance in design resonates, particularly how our frameworks shape our understanding and actions. It reminds me of the concept discussed in "Epistemic Traps," where flawed mental models lead to misguided strategies—an idea that could deepen the discussion here. You can check it out [here](https://theuncomfortableidea.substack.com/p/wrong-feels-rational-when-your-map).
Your points about less components is why I think that Jungo is a more elegant version of Scout.
I think that it's also important to note that "less rules" can also mean "less weird/unique rules". Using an establish mechanism like deck building can be a huge lift in making things intuitive for established gamers. It would be an interesting conversation to discuss whether this counts as "elegant" or not though. For example, when I first played the video game Destiny, the controls just felt instinctive - every action corresponded to the obvious button in my head. The physics engine also felt exactly tuned so that characters and objects accelerated at the perfect speed. But this was built on my experience playing Halo, Borderlands, etc. Not necessarily that Destiny was truly a low-complexity game. Is that elegance?
Previously understood rules are another powerful tool for elegance if you are speaking to the right audience. Poker scoring, for example, is actually quite complex but most people already know it so most of the time you can get it "for free" from a complexity standpoint. I released Ascension Tactics 10 years after I launched Ascension, which combines deckbuilding with a tactical miniatures game experience. That game was only possible because the world had 10 years of experience with Ascension and deckbuilding games in general.