Any alternative mode which lowers the teach-in threshold are in my view very helpful. Getting players new to a game up to speed quickly is very helpful, in particular since I am playing sometimes with casual gamers. Often this can be achieved by ignoring/switching off certain aspects of a game to simplify this. If this can reduce the teach-in time from 45min to 15min then that is worth it ! Even if we then only play such a mode once and then follow this up with the full on mode. At the end, this is not too dissimilar with a game with expansions where gameplay with new players normally takes place without the expansions. So complex games could benefit by coming with built-in mini expansions. It would be helpful if any game with a weight of 3.5+ on BGG has a simplified mode with a weight of around 2.0-2.5 for beginners and more casual gamers. For some games, a cooperative mode can be very helpful to lower the required teach-in time. Best example for me is "City of the Great Machine", to which I normally introduce new players via the coop mode (takes less than 10min to teach and off we go) and the follow this up via the competitive mode (which works very well in this game given that it is one vs many: conscious that this is only applicable to some games).
I think I appreciate the psychological aspect of KNOWING that a game has multiple modes (especially if said modes do not appear to be "tacked on"), but I'm not sure I have ever made use of any different mode in a game other than the one that most appeals to me and/or my group.
I enjoy teaching Pendulum with the untimed version for 1 round then proceeding to the timed version for the rest of the game. The agree that this method of teaching has worked really well.
Oathbreaker just got recognized as an official magic format (60 card commander 20 life i think) & u start the game with a signature spell (your commander's colors that stays in command zone which can be recast with commander tax
I think this is a very good question for a designer & publisher to ask themselves. I have one competitive game (in design) where I was testing out a cooperative mode but it was not working with a key mechanic so I am not including that 2nd mode. Instead, by focusing on the 1 mode, I reduced AP and game length, improving the best mode instead of 2 modes with issues, a longer rulebook, and more beta time to test multiple modes. It is a good question. Good video!
"Instead, by focusing on the 1 mode, I reduced AP and game length, improving the best mode instead of 2 modes with issues, a longer rulebook, and more beta time to test multiple modes." I fully endorse focus! :)
Great chat and I appreciate all the thoughts on this! Especially your thoughts on the games you have published and your thoughts directly on pros and cons on Viticulture World and Rise of Fenris The modules of rise of fenris paired with a campaign was genius because you don’t have to play the campaign or you can mix and match your modules in the game after the campaign
This reminds me of when video games include lots of different modes (online multiplayer, local multiplayer, arcade mode, arena mode, etc) and normally one mode is the one that is any good. The rest are tacked on BUT it is perceived value to the customer. That being said, if your company is known for high-quality, high polish products, you may want to avoid anything with a "tacked on" feeling. My favorite type of "mode" is one that allows me to play a game with a wider range of people. An excellent example of this is Cascadia's different variants - solo mode, family variant, scenarios. It's extra stuff that maybe delayed the release of the game by a month but adds value to the customer.
I like games that have a coop and competitive mode, because it’s easier to teach my friends the game in the coop version. Then we can switch to the competitive mode if we want! ☺️💕
Thanks for sharing! That's intriguing to me, as I love both types of games, but if I'm going to play a coop game, I'd prefer to choose a game that's designed solely as a coop game from the ground up.
You didn't quite mention this, but one of the great things about the multiple modes in Near and Far is campaign length. The character mode plays in four games, but a full campaign is 10-11. I really like that there was something in between a one-off game and the full campaign. And, with eight characters there is a lot more replayability in that mode (which I am more likely to replay than the full campaign)
Great points! Thanks for sharing the data and other perspectives. When it comes to pitching to publishers, would you suggest briefly mentioning alternate modes if they are just as well received as the main mode, or should that be saved for a later discussion with a publisher? I've been testing different modes for a simple word game prototype and see parallels with the video. As you mentioned, I'm keeping to an initial definitive mode (simultaneous team vs team) but seeing positive playtests with a turn-based mode and co-op mode. I've made sure to keep the components the same, and the rules similar so players are not learning a whole new game. Going to my first protospiel soon. Hope to get some critical feedback on the modes.
Tindaya is a fantastic multi-mode game. The base game is co-op, players (villagers) vs. conquistadors. It has basic co-op to help teach the game, then more complex co-op, then competitive (which still requires you to be semi-cooperative due to the need to satisfy the gods and keep the conquistadors in check), and then it has the option in competitive mode to have someone turn traitor and play as the conquistadors. My husband is the only other person I have played it with (it also has a great solo mode), and he struggles with the complexity too much to make competitive mode viable at this point. But I want to try it!!!
I think this has a lot to do with how many different games you split your time between! I intentionally pace myself between purchases so that I can play games multiple times rather than having only a taste of many games. Local game nights and demos at conventions are sufficient for breadth for me. With that said most of the games I purchase do not have multiple modes but I do like seeing extra modules or expansions even if I know that they might not be of consistent quality or I might not get to all of them… it’s just icing on the cake. That said I would really like to see more games have both a competitive mode and a cooperative mode. If it’s a game I really like it would be nice to be able to play co-op with my wife and competitive with family or at game nights. We played most of our early games of Wingspan (this was before the official co-op mode) and Scythe (using Morten’s semi-official variant) this way. Viticulture World was a total game changer for us because even though I love Tuscany she really did not, but absolutely loved Viticulture World. Long and short game modes are interesting, even if it means the experience changes a bit (honestly I -want- the experience to change if it’s a different mode), maybe the short game is tighter and the longer game is more epic. I can’t say I’ve played around with it much but I will admit to shortening the game Corrosion (at least in 2p) because there are too many ways to delay the game timer. A Feast for Odin and Dune Imperium both have multiple length modes so I’ll have to give those a try. I also see some of the modules of Fenris as potentially shortening Scythe too though I can’t describe how without spoilers!
We always play Marvel Legendary as semi-coop: There can only be one winner, whether that's one of the players, or whether it's the game/villain/mastermind.
Regarding short vs long game modes, one that has recently been on my mind is The Bloody Inn where the long game is only 2 - 3 rounds longer (the short game has around 12 rounds typically). So the game length is only slightly extended, but for me the long game just results in a better, more fun engine where you really start to crank out points and that to me is the biggest joy in the game. The short mode works but it is much tighter points wise because that engine doesn't get a chance to get rolling as much
We really enjoy the West Kingdom Trilogy! Garphil Game later released the expansion Tomesaga with a co-op mode. We loved the change up. We still like completive mode. The other day we played Outer Rim and certain jobs were co-op. That is really cool!
So I come from a background of running competitive Super smash Brothers Melee tournament, which is a platform fighter, I'm making a card game highly influenced by the feeling and culture from an event like EVO. In competitive play, the stage and your opponents character choice plays a huge role in what character you select and your game plan for defeating your opponent. i.e.some characters are lighter so you want to pick them on large stages where they won't die as quickly. Because those are such important decisions, there are rules that determine who gets to ban stages, who gets to pick the stage and who gets to choose their character first based off of who won and lost the last round. This process becomes like a mini chess match prior to even playing the actual game to try to set yourself up to have the best stage and character combination to where you'll hopefully have an advantage over your opponent due to a certain strategy or familiarity you have with either of the variables. In my card game's core mode this plays out very similarly with the entire game being played out over a best of five round format. Obviously, many of you that have played Super smash Brothers have never followed this set of rules and probably don't even know about them because you just play what the community calls friendlies. In this mode people pick whatever character they like and a stage is selected randomly to play on. All of the same fun of the game without the layers of pre-planning and depth of strategy. Over time you may develop strategies that you like because you've played your favorite character on a particular stage so often but it comes around organically instead of preemptively. There are also secondary tournaments at the same events where you play two versus two which brings its own new layers of depth and strategy. There are people who will never play tournament rules, there are people who will never play unrestricted friendlies, and there are people that hate playing with a person on their team, but every single one of those people LOVE playing the game in the fashion that they like. I think that's the biggest benefit for multiple modes. Like you mentioned multiple times, there were modes that you had never played of some of your favorite games because you just preferred how the version you played worked or felt. I'm willing to bet that the adverse is true for those exact same games for many other people where they would never play your version. And I think that an opportunity for more people to enjoy your game is lost if a team hard recommends you play it in a certain fashion or doesn't investigate designing other modes. The recommendation might just be your taste and biases protruding through when there actually is a wonderful and viable alternative mode just waiting to be nurtured. Sorry this was so long-winded, I just felt maybe I could bring a different perspective since I'm coming from the competitive esports realm and I am now designing physical card/board games with that influence. Truly love all your thought-provoking content!
Apologies if it was mentioned and I missed it, but Dune Imperium has two great modes. My play group strongly prefers epic mode despite it making the game a bit longer, but standard is also perfectly fine. Also Feast for Odin’s default mode is the longer 7-round version which I think is preferred by most players. I haven’t played the shorter mode though I can see its merits.
I would argue that the epic mode in Dune Imperium is more of a variant. The game is the same but spices up thing a little bit. It's doesn't make many changes. We also always play it epic.
I like when games have a simplified mode for shorter or more simplistic games. Isle of Cats is a great example for this. Sometimes you just wanna get cats and tile lay in a shorter dumbed down version. I also like how Isle of Cats makes it clear that it isn't the standard version, much like your opinion.
Regarding game length, I think a lot of people consider the extended version of Obsession to be the definitive version. I’ve been playing quite a bit on BGA and I haven’t yet decided which version I prefer as they offer slightly different feels
if im buying a game, multiple modes is a plus. whether or not a particular mode is better or not, i like having the option to play it differently. most of the time it lengthens the life of the game ive bought. some people wouldnt/shouldnt play competitive and others wouldnt/shouldnt play coop. personalities are different. being able to get the same game you really like to the table with different people is a plus, obviously if all the modes in the box were developed correctly. just like games, people will have favorite modes to play regardless of how good it is.
There are also two other varieties: 1) Basic/common player powers versus asymmetric player powers, like in _Harbour_ (where one side of the player boards have the basic version and the other side the different ones) and _Terraforming Mars_ (basic corporation versus distinct corporations) though these can be combined. 2) Simple vs. advanced player powers, e.g. _Revive_ and _Terra Nova (2022)_ (and I assume the same is in Terra Mystica, it has been a long time since I played it). These, too, can be combined so that experienced players choose the more complex side.
The "Best" Version of a game is group dependent. The most versatile system we have is Marvel United. Base plays 4 players where it's pure Co-Op You can play 5 players if you do 1 vs Many If you do 1 vs Many + Teams, you can have 7 players Just Teams can play up to 6 players We mostly play at 5 players ... and even when we have less players, the 1 vs Many is what my children want to play because they like the challenge.
I see that. My counterpoint would be that a game doesn't need to be a Swiss-Army knife--that's why we have have different games for different purposes.
@@jameystegmaier agreed that not "ALL" games "need" to be a swiss-army knife ... yet restricting games & systems to a single purpose is also potentially limiting too much. It reminds me of an old English teacher on him saying how lone we needed to write a essay. He wanted it be the like a mini skirt ... long enough to cover the subject, and short enough to keep him interested. Sometimes that means single purpose ... sometimes that means multiple options for the players. Forcing either is a mistake on a game to game basis.
One game I thought of that get better the longer they are is Xia. It has a "mode", I guess you could call it, to play a shorter game. You just have to set the Fame Points you're playing to. But, it's possible, you don't get that full experience of buying that level 3 ship and/or completing some of the interesting Mission and Title cards. And a game that came to mind that has multiple modes is Star Realms. I just recently picked up Star Realm Frontiers which has several modes of play in the rule book. There is 1v1, coop, teams, and 1v all.
Hey Jamey. What would you think of a game that was completely designed from the ground up for one mode of play, but after the design is finalized they create another mode (e.g. A family mode) with the components that are already in the base game without affecting the original design?
I prefer for the designer and publisher of games to focus on the one best mode of play for a game. I don’t see games with multiple modes as a red flag, but I usually only play the main mode of play for games that have multiple modes, unless the different modes of the game are meant to be played under different circumstances. For some games with different modes you just select which mode to play based on preference, but some games have different modes that are best played in different conditions such as modes that determine the length or complexity of the game. For example, I usually always play the main mode of the Isle of Cats, but I have played the family mode once. The time I played the family mode was because I was playing the game with some younger kids, who have shorter attention spans and prefer less complex games. They enjoyed the family mode, but if there had been no family mode, they likely wouldn’t have enjoyed the main mode. I think it is best when games have one main mode of play, but there are definitely times when having a different mode can come in handy if you’re playing with certain people or only have a certain amount of time for the game.
I did a cursory look and didn't see the Paradox of Choice mentioned. In summary, as the number of options to a single decision increase, the satisfaction with the option chosen decreases. This happens in more than just board games, but I see this a lot in this hobby. So when asking people they will usually say that, yes, they want more options, or that more is always better (let people choose). But it doesn't seem to bear that out in reality when tracking how people actually act and feel. For myself I see it apply to picking a game out of all my games to play, to choosing to include an expansion and which one(s), and then in potentially choosing a mode to play. The more games I have, the more expansions I have, or the more modes there are, the harder it is to choose and the less likely we are to play as often or feel as good about those choices. That doesn't even take into account that for expansions, or alternative modes of play, there is an overhead not only of choice, but of rules and time and energy to understand it and get it to the table. The opportunity cost being not using that time and energy for the game/mode you already truly enjoy (Maximizers vs Satisficers). I'm not immune to any of this. I love expansions. I buy them. I rarely use them. We don't play the base game of most games enough, or in close enough sessions, to be able to add in more rules and content. Or we already enjoy the game enough that we don't need more. Although I get the appeal that "maybe it'll be even better with changes" (I mean I buy them!), but that's almost always a losing proposition of chasing something instead of being content with what you have (Hedonic Treadmill). I think the best expansions are the ones that are 'more of the same' because they generally can be added and left in and require no extra rules overhead. Set and forget. The ones where you have to sort through options, or what to put in or take out, and that add more rules or change rules just become too much. I end up playing those games less after getting the expansions. One example I have is Port Royal. I wanted the base game plus the first expansion (just to add cards that always can stay in the deck). But it was way more expensive to get those than the new big box. The big box has the base game, the expansion (which also allows co-op play), a family version with different and fewer cards, and a story mode. I like the (base) game itself, but I never choose it. You'd think it wouldn't matter, just play the base game and ignore all the other stuff. But it's overwhelming. It makes me dislike the game. (The paradox of choice also bears this out - people will choose a worse option instead of having to choose between two good ones and feel bad.) One game where I'm more ok with different modes is Ticket to Ride. It might be the only game where I've used a different mode and where we regularly use an expansion. The team mode in Asia is fun. But I think it's because each box is mostly separate and it's a rules-simple game. We also play the game enough that we don't forget things between plays - both because it's simple and quick and everyone always enjoys it. I'll also throw in that, generally speaking, hybrid options are the worst of both worlds. As you say, the designer should pick what they feel is the best, strongest option and go all in on that. I would bet that if we look at the most loved games, the evergreen games, that they are singular and decisive in what they do. So put me in the camp that more is not better.
We think similarly about this, Kevin! I have a few videos about expansions in which I discuss the "more stuff" concept as my preference too (at least, if it's just more stuff, I'm much more likely to get it and use it).
I prefer a game that has a single mode that has been been the sole focus of the designers. Designing a good game seems hard enough as it is without trying to make it work as both a competitive and cooperative game, or slightly tangentially, designing a game that is somehow launching on Kickstarter with multiple expansions. Make one really good, focused game and if it is successful, go from there and make expansions, which may or may not include alternate modes of play. I really like Viticulture World and the idea of cooperative expansions for competitive games in general. But that expansion clearly took a significant amount of time to develop, it's the same game yet an entirely different game. If a cooperative mode had somehow been included in the original release of Viticulture, I can't imagine it would have been nearly as good. A new expansion for Lost Ruins of Arnak was just announced yesterday and it includes a solo/cooperative campaign with components that can also be used in the regular competitive mode. This seems like a good way of using an expansion to introduce a new mode while also making something that adds to the existing mode.
I fall strong on the side of games having a single or primary mode and even stronger on the topic of multiple lengths. It isn’t that it can’t be done well, it just muddies the water when choosing games. I don’t get to play a ton of games so like Jamey I may only get to play them once or twice. If it is a game I like I would rather have multiple plays of the best of the game to delve deeper into it. As for length, I want the designer to choose the length the game needs to be and not have me have to choose when I may have never played it or only played it once. Also I don’t need or want to make every game fit for me. I am sure I would enjoy the ones that don’t be it they are too long but I don’t want to spend my limited time gaming on a game that is arbitrarily shortened or excessively long. There are so many games out there I will just choose one at the intended length or difficulty.
I wonder if these should be considered different modes: a couple of days ago I played Creature Comforts, which is played during 8 months (rounds) but can be played during 6. The former leaves you with a bigger sense of accomplishment, having made more comforts and comboing them, while the latter left me wishing I had had more time to do so. However, in that occasion I knew I didn’t have time to play the whole 8 months and, although not fully satisfied with the 6 months of the shorter version, I was still glad I managed to play the game. Even if these are not considered to be different modes, they illustrate others that are, like choosing to play an easier or simplified mode if you are playing with your family instead of playing with your gamer friends. But I do agree that all modes should be well designed and tested, and that does indeed mean that the designer(s) have to spend a lot more time working on the game.
Just to add a comment about rule books, I’d like to mention the ones for Stop! Thief, which has a competitive and a cooperative mode, and Petrichor: Collector’s Edition, which has all the expansions in one box. Both have a single rule book where the rules are explained just once, but the differences are clearly indicated in colored boxes, which makes it easy to read and look up rules whichever the mode is that you are playing.
I love Obsession, but in the standard version, I can’t get enough satisfaction from building and running my engine. That’s why I greatly prefer the Extended Play version. It’s longer, but it feels so much better.
I have a feeling that people who like more sandbox games would like longer versions of games than the shortest distillation of the core game. I haven't played Obsession but I would play city building video games that have a campaign and would hold off moving to the next mission after hitting the goals because I wanted to start with the city I built a bit longer to expand it into my full vision.
I have played 30 games of Isle of Cats: 3 solo, 2 advanced, 25 family. I wouldn't have bought the game if it didn't support family mode. The family mode is ideal to play with kids, my son has been playing it since he was 5. Now that he's 7, he wins all the time. But he's not ready for the advanced mode and likely won't be for a few years yet. And the game time goes from 30 to 90 min between modes. There is a huge difference between family and advanced mode, it's not just a little simplified. For the mixing cards issues, I usually just put the cards in different zip bags and identify them, problem solved. But with the KS big box, the card tray is well identified so no need for zip bags anymore.
Friday is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I appreciate when games tell me which mode (or difficulty level) is the "real game". I like when difficult game ease you into the game, but it's important to know what the actual design intent was!
What are your thoughts on Ark Nova and the venom cards? Our group plays with the “nice” version of the venom cards, rather than the “take that”. I appreciated that they had two modes for those cards.
I think one value of multiple modes is that even when each group might only ever use one mode, they get to choose what that mode is - for some groups the absolute best way to play the game will be a competitive mode, while for other groups it's a coop one Edit: The modes in Imperial Assault mostly differ by player count, but you could consider them different modes because the 2-player head-to-head game is quite different to the 1-vs-many game with 3 or more players. It has different cards and different rules. There's also an app-driven coop mode.
That's true! I think I just struggle (as a designer) to believe that a designer could have created just as good of a competitive mode as a cooperative mode in the same game (opposed to designing two separate games from the ground up, one solely focused on being an awesome cooperative game and another as an awesome competitive mode). It's like if I designed a boat that's also a car: Sure, technically it can drive on land and sail on water, but sacrifices have been made for the dual ability--a car designed solely for land will always be better, just as a boat designed solely for water will always be better. That said, this particular concern is primarily about competitive/cooperative combos. For some other types of modes, I totally agree that they can cater to different types of groups and increase how often a game gets to the table.
@@jameystegmaier I can understand that. I think it depends on how much the additional mode changes the game in meaningful ways and there's probably a lot of cases where an additional mode could (should?) have been a different game. One game I would like an additional mode for is Outer Rim - my wife and I both enjoy the Star Wars IP and like games in that setting, and playing bounty hunters running about the galaxy has a lot of appeal, but we're not fans of competitive games and scoring 'fame' points just isn't that interesting. This probably fits into that category of games that could have extra modes included in an expansion.
@@JohnLudlow Totally, I agree. I think expansions are great for that, as it shows a full commitment to a specific mode (like the Shadow of Salvation cooperative expansion for Shards of Infinity).
There’s probably better ways to tell you this, but I have a video suggestion. I would like to know how digital adaptations have changed, play testing. Did it make them better or worse? Is there some risk to adapting so much that we stop playing the physical additions? Should we worry about that?
Hey Jamey. I gotta say I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to play other modes if you like one the most. Surely you can compare that to playing two different games. If that were the case, why would you not always play your favorite game? Why would you even have multiple games in your collection? Sometimes you just want variety, or you're in a different mood at different times. The important thing is that you enjoy them, no? The same applies to dedicating "game learning" time.
"If that were the case, why would you not always play your favorite game?" Exactly! I'd rather play a game that excels at matching the category I'm in the mood for, not a game where one of its many modes does its best (while probably softened by the various other modes) at matching the category I'm in the mood for. However, just to be clear, I'm not trying to take away from anyone's enjoyment or preferences. This is my own personal preference. What are a few games you love for which you play multiple modes included in the core box of those games?
@@jameystegmaier For sure! I've never felt anything but the utmost respect from you to your viewers. I'm just trying to understand. Why would you think two modes means one is lesser, while that is not the same for two different games? Is it because modes are not as different from one another as two games can be? Then at what point do you not consider them "modes"? For instance, I don't think you consider the peace/war modes in Rise of Fenris as modes, and thus you don't feel conflicted about those?
@@Kensai_ For a campaign game, I do like split paths that feel distinctly different). A mode of play is a completely different way of playing the same game, not a small tweak or module.
A little late to the conversation, but I have friends who don’t enjoy competitive/certain interactions within games. In this way, having different modes would open the game to people who don’t enjoy take that mechanics, or real time events, or direct interactions.
I see that, though if you're playing with those friends, couldn't you just choose another game that doesn't feature conflict/combat? That said, there are a few games I can think of in that category, but they're typically games that aren't designed for much conflict except for a few specific cards, and I like when they provide the option of removing those cards.
What are your thoughts about Ankh: Gods of Egypt in which It starts as a competitive game and ends up having forced cooperation between the two players with lower devotion?
I would say that fits into the category I laud in this video of games in which the modes are organically integrated into the gameplay itself instead of a choice presented to players before they begin the game (like Betrayal Legacy).
I don't mind that games provides more than one game variant, but more often than not, I feel like it split my time between those multiple variants. I might try them to figure out which one I prefer, but in the end, I'll probably stick to the one I like the most. It will very rare that I'll enjoy all those variants equally. Even for Viticulture, I already felt that playing with the normal board or the Tuscanny board already change how the game feels and feel like 2 separated ways to play the game. That's part of the reason why I did not get Viticulture World. I already like playing those other 2 competitives version of the game so I see little to no point to get a third way to play a game I already like. I'm glad it exists for people that wants a coop version of the game tho. The best example of a game I like that has multiple game variants would be Valeria Card Kingdoms. Most of its variant comes in expansion, which I'm totally fine with. I got in during a KS where the expansion presented was offering a coop campaign mode. Even tho I like it, I largely prefer the competitive default mode.
Games that are better with the longer (full) versions are definitely engine builders and combo games. Shortened versions can cut your engine off too soon. I find that Creature Comforts' short version does end sooner than I would like because of combos that you will want to work towards, but the short version can be good for younger kids with short attention spans.
Definitely! I think the key there is: If you're going to make an engine-building game, the "correct" length for the game is one where players get to use their engine. So why not just feature that as the only way to play (and let players house rule the length as they wish)?
I think you are missing one perspective -- rather than trying to give an individual multiple ways to play a game I think of modes as a different way to capture more types of players. Bullet I never play competitively because I either play solo or with my partner cooperatively. I hear great things about competitive but that's just not the type of game I'd play at any regular basis. They did a great job at providing something valuable to me and to people who only play competitively. If they didn't do that they would have lost an audience. Same with Summit - co-op and teams but not competitive for me. My sister and her husband like the competitive mode though. To that perspective the game should be reviewed on each mode standalone for players interested in just that mode and not be given extra credit for two subpar modes where the designers should have just did one well. I 100% agree that tacked on Kickstarter goals that are new game modes are going to be mostly really bad.
For me, I love having multiple modes. But this is because I play exclusively co-op, and I enjoy having more co-op games. There are SIGNIFICANTLY more competitive games, and I would miss out on some of those interesting mechanisms without expansions or alternate modes-co-op Viticulture World (my #4 game), co-op campaign Shards of Infinity (my #15), co-op Terraforming Mars AE (my #33), co-op Stop Thief (my 63) and many more. The cooperative is for me the only way to play. I am willing to pay more to have some competitive content I will never use just to simply have access to the game. But I know co-op is a smaller genre, so really competitive is needed for the publishers to earn more on that particular design. Also, while I sometimes agree that solo is a player count, often when the game is played in different ways or with separate rule books, etc I actually consider it a different mode personally
Thanks Cory! So would you rather have more cooperative games (built from the ground up as cooperative) or more competitive games with coop modes added later in the design process?
@@jameystegmaier Well Jamey, absolutely I would love them to be built from the ground up. I think that would be optimal. But I think just realistically it won’t happen as often as I think it should. Co-op is simply not as big. For the time being certainly, I am happy with games being adapted. To me, I see cooperative adaptations as no different than games I like being adapted for solo, giving me an opportunity to play when otherwise I wouldn’t. Many games are not designed as their “best” with solo, but it’s a choice to include the opportunity to play that way (eg Automa decks, etc). Often it even requires some extra content and rules, just like co-op does. Using you as an example - I like your mechanisms, I like the idea of your games, watch all of your Sunday sitdowns, love the company, am a champion, etc, but I simply don’t play competitive. Thus far, you personally haven’t designed co-op (except Smitten, which I have played a lot). I wouldn’t scoff at all if you created co-op versions of all of your games, and you had a “co-op factory”. It’s obviously more expensive for the player buying co-op if they are buying something with a lot of competitive components, but I actually don’t think it’s too much different than someone buying a large game with a ton of components for 5 players even if they know they will only play solo. I think numbers show the sales of competitive vs co-op. I think it’s also shown through competitive games being supported much longer with expansions. So, frankly I understand why companies would include competitive modes almost always - the market is just bigger.
@@CoryLovec14 Thanks for your answer! I'm actually designing a big cooperative open-world game, so you'll get at least one big game from us designed from the ground up to be cooperative. :)
I thought you were going to focus on games that change modes during the game, like Betrayal. I thought that would be an interesting topic since it is so rare. I think there are others but the only one I could think of is the old Nuclear War card game. It changes several times throughout the game from Peace to War and back again.
So far I can't say any co-op mode of a competitive game has "grabbed me". I hoped the co-op mode in Rise of Fenris would - it's nice, great to try, but the standard mode of play in Scythe is what I want to play. Same with Viticulture. I have yet to try the co-op mode in Wingspan: Oceania, but I'm not really compelled to. (The duet mode of Wingspan: Asia, though is a hit with us.) I very much disliked the co-op mode from Terraforming Mars: Ares Expedition, which definitely felt "tacked on" (unless I'm just horrible at it). I also really wanted to like the co-op modes for the West Kingdom games available in the Tomesaga expansion, but I can't say I enjoyed the Pandemic-style "put out fires" mechanisms of the Architects and Paladins co-ops. The co-op mode for Viscounts, on the other hand, introduced some really interesting game play strategies. I'd say of all the co-op variants for competitive games that I've played, that's the one I'm most likely to choose to play.
I struggle to see why a new mode introduced in an expansion is ok but a new mode introduced in the base game would be tacked on... To me, if it adds variety to the game, either way is fine. Leave the choice to the players. Most of the time, they will play without the added modules when they start, and add modules in future games. Glenmore II Chronicles did exactly that, where each chronicle is a module. A campaign/legacy game is the same except it forces players to add modules as the campaign progresses, giving a sense of progression/storyline which is nice, plus it kinds of make you want to play the game again, that's the ideal way to add modules I would say.
I can help with that struggle! When I'm designing a game, I'm trying to design the best version of that game. One version, one game. With an expansion, it's a completely separate design space, with the motivation to design the best expansion, which may involve a different mode.
The only time I appreciate multiple modes is when there's a 'single session' mode and a 'campaign' mode. That way I'm not tied down to always having to play a campaign and can get the game to the table as a one-shot a whole lot but if I find a group we can play multiple games together as then we can enjoy that extra juice :D
I think that referring to solitaire being just a change in the number of players is fundamentally incorrect. Multiple player competitive games are fundamentally PvP, while solitaire is PvE (to use computer game terminology). These are very different in audience and feel. That said, cooperative games are fundamentally solitaire with multiple players. Nearly any coop game that doesn't rely on limited communication can be played just as well by a single player taking all the roles. Though of course that does not give the same feeling of a collective experience.
I agree, Doug, and perhaps I oversimplified it here simply because it isn't the conversation I was intending to have. In our games, the Automa solo modes are described exactly as that--modes--because they contain systems that are entirely unique to playing against the Automa. This entire video, though, isn't about player scaling (that's a different topic). It's about when a multiplayer game offers completely different ways to play. Sorry that wasn't more clear in the video!
Any alternative mode which lowers the teach-in threshold are in my view very helpful. Getting players new to a game up to speed quickly is very helpful, in particular since I am playing sometimes with casual gamers. Often this can be achieved by ignoring/switching off certain aspects of a game to simplify this. If this can reduce the teach-in time from 45min to 15min then that is worth it ! Even if we then only play such a mode once and then follow this up with the full on mode. At the end, this is not too dissimilar with a game with expansions where gameplay with new players normally takes place without the expansions. So complex games could benefit by coming with built-in mini expansions.
It would be helpful if any game with a weight of 3.5+ on BGG has a simplified mode with a weight of around 2.0-2.5 for beginners and more casual gamers.
For some games, a cooperative mode can be very helpful to lower the required teach-in time. Best example for me is "City of the Great Machine", to which I normally introduce new players via the coop mode (takes less than 10min to teach and off we go) and the follow this up via the competitive mode (which works very well in this game given that it is one vs many: conscious that this is only applicable to some games).
You make a great point about onboarding people into the game. I like tutorials for this too (see Sleeping Gods and Mechs vs Minions).
I think I appreciate the psychological aspect of KNOWING that a game has multiple modes (especially if said modes do not appear to be "tacked on"), but I'm not sure I have ever made use of any different mode in a game other than the one that most appeals to me and/or my group.
I enjoy teaching Pendulum with the untimed version for 1 round then proceeding to the timed version for the rest of the game. The agree that this method of teaching has worked really well.
Thank you for teaching Pendulum! :)
Oathbreaker just got recognized as an official magic format (60 card commander 20 life i think) & u start the game with a signature spell (your commander's colors that stays in command zone which can be recast with commander tax
I think this is a very good question for a designer & publisher to ask themselves.
I have one competitive game (in design) where I was testing out a cooperative mode but it was not working with a key mechanic so I am not including that 2nd mode. Instead, by focusing on the 1 mode, I reduced AP and game length, improving the best mode instead of 2 modes with issues, a longer rulebook, and more beta time to test multiple modes. It is a good question. Good video!
"Instead, by focusing on the 1 mode, I reduced AP and game length, improving the best mode instead of 2 modes with issues, a longer rulebook, and more beta time to test multiple modes."
I fully endorse focus! :)
Great chat and I appreciate all the thoughts on this! Especially your thoughts on the games you have published and your thoughts directly on pros and cons on Viticulture World and Rise of Fenris
The modules of rise of fenris paired with a campaign was genius because you don’t have to play the campaign or you can mix and match your modules in the game after the campaign
Thanks Brennan! Yeah, I was hoping people who knew Scythe really well could pick their modules of choice after experiencing them in the campaign.
This reminds me of when video games include lots of different modes (online multiplayer, local multiplayer, arcade mode, arena mode, etc) and normally one mode is the one that is any good. The rest are tacked on BUT it is perceived value to the customer.
That being said, if your company is known for high-quality, high polish products, you may want to avoid anything with a "tacked on" feeling.
My favorite type of "mode" is one that allows me to play a game with a wider range of people. An excellent example of this is Cascadia's different variants - solo mode, family variant, scenarios. It's extra stuff that maybe delayed the release of the game by a month but adds value to the customer.
I like games that have a coop and competitive mode, because it’s easier to teach my friends the game in the coop version. Then we can switch to the competitive mode if we want! ☺️💕
Thanks for sharing! That's intriguing to me, as I love both types of games, but if I'm going to play a coop game, I'd prefer to choose a game that's designed solely as a coop game from the ground up.
You didn't quite mention this, but one of the great things about the multiple modes in Near and Far is campaign length. The character mode plays in four games, but a full campaign is 10-11. I really like that there was something in between a one-off game and the full campaign. And, with eight characters there is a lot more replayability in that mode (which I am more likely to replay than the full campaign)
That's good to know! I didn't realize that.
Great points! Thanks for sharing the data and other perspectives. When it comes to pitching to publishers, would you suggest briefly mentioning alternate modes if they are just as well received as the main mode, or should that be saved for a later discussion with a publisher?
I've been testing different modes for a simple word game prototype and see parallels with the video. As you mentioned, I'm keeping to an initial definitive mode (simultaneous team vs team) but seeing positive playtests with a turn-based mode and co-op mode. I've made sure to keep the components the same, and the rules similar so players are not learning a whole new game. Going to my first protospiel soon. Hope to get some critical feedback on the modes.
Justin: It depends on the publisher. If you're pitching to Stonemaier, definitely don't mention multiple modes. :)
@@jameystegmaier Ha, noted! I’ll make a point to check each publishers latest games to see if they include multiple modes. Thanks again.
Tindaya is a fantastic multi-mode game. The base game is co-op, players (villagers) vs. conquistadors. It has basic co-op to help teach the game, then more complex co-op, then competitive (which still requires you to be semi-cooperative due to the need to satisfy the gods and keep the conquistadors in check), and then it has the option in competitive mode to have someone turn traitor and play as the conquistadors. My husband is the only other person I have played it with (it also has a great solo mode), and he struggles with the complexity too much to make competitive mode viable at this point. But I want to try it!!!
I think this has a lot to do with how many different games you split your time between! I intentionally pace myself between purchases so that I can play games multiple times rather than having only a taste of many games. Local game nights and demos at conventions are sufficient for breadth for me. With that said most of the games I purchase do not have multiple modes but I do like seeing extra modules or expansions even if I know that they might not be of consistent quality or I might not get to all of them… it’s just icing on the cake.
That said I would really like to see more games have both a competitive mode and a cooperative mode. If it’s a game I really like it would be nice to be able to play co-op with my wife and competitive with family or at game nights. We played most of our early games of Wingspan (this was before the official co-op mode) and Scythe (using Morten’s semi-official variant) this way. Viticulture World was a total game changer for us because even though I love Tuscany she really did not, but absolutely loved Viticulture World.
Long and short game modes are interesting, even if it means the experience changes a bit (honestly I -want- the experience to change if it’s a different mode), maybe the short game is tighter and the longer game is more epic. I can’t say I’ve played around with it much but I will admit to shortening the game Corrosion (at least in 2p) because there are too many ways to delay the game timer. A Feast for Odin and Dune Imperium both have multiple length modes so I’ll have to give those a try. I also see some of the modules of Fenris as potentially shortening Scythe too though I can’t describe how without spoilers!
We always play Marvel Legendary as semi-coop: There can only be one winner, whether that's one of the players, or whether it's the game/villain/mastermind.
Regarding short vs long game modes, one that has recently been on my mind is The Bloody Inn where the long game is only 2 - 3 rounds longer (the short game has around 12 rounds typically). So the game length is only slightly extended, but for me the long game just results in a better, more fun engine where you really start to crank out points and that to me is the biggest joy in the game. The short mode works but it is much tighter points wise because that engine doesn't get a chance to get rolling as much
We really enjoy the West Kingdom Trilogy! Garphil Game later released the expansion Tomesaga with a co-op mode. We loved the change up. We still like completive mode.
The other day we played Outer Rim and certain jobs were co-op. That is really cool!
So I come from a background of running competitive Super smash Brothers Melee tournament, which is a platform fighter, I'm making a card game highly influenced by the feeling and culture from an event like EVO. In competitive play, the stage and your opponents character choice plays a huge role in what character you select and your game plan for defeating your opponent. i.e.some characters are lighter so you want to pick them on large stages where they won't die as quickly. Because those are such important decisions, there are rules that determine who gets to ban stages, who gets to pick the stage and who gets to choose their character first based off of who won and lost the last round. This process becomes like a mini chess match prior to even playing the actual game to try to set yourself up to have the best stage and character combination to where you'll hopefully have an advantage over your opponent due to a certain strategy or familiarity you have with either of the variables. In my card game's core mode this plays out very similarly with the entire game being played out over a best of five round format.
Obviously, many of you that have played Super smash Brothers have never followed this set of rules and probably don't even know about them because you just play what the community calls friendlies. In this mode people pick whatever character they like and a stage is selected randomly to play on. All of the same fun of the game without the layers of pre-planning and depth of strategy. Over time you may develop strategies that you like because you've played your favorite character on a particular stage so often but it comes around organically instead of preemptively. There are also secondary tournaments at the same events where you play two versus two which brings its own new layers of depth and strategy.
There are people who will never play tournament rules, there are people who will never play unrestricted friendlies, and there are people that hate playing with a person on their team, but every single one of those people LOVE playing the game in the fashion that they like. I think that's the biggest benefit for multiple modes. Like you mentioned multiple times, there were modes that you had never played of some of your favorite games because you just preferred how the version you played worked or felt. I'm willing to bet that the adverse is true for those exact same games for many other people where they would never play your version. And I think that an opportunity for more people to enjoy your game is lost if a team hard recommends you play it in a certain fashion or doesn't investigate designing other modes. The recommendation might just be your taste and biases protruding through when there actually is a wonderful and viable alternative mode just waiting to be nurtured.
Sorry this was so long-winded, I just felt maybe I could bring a different perspective since I'm coming from the competitive esports realm and I am now designing physical card/board games with that influence. Truly love all your thought-provoking content!
I appreciate you sharing this unique perspective!
Apologies if it was mentioned and I missed it, but Dune Imperium has two great modes. My play group strongly prefers epic mode despite it making the game a bit longer, but standard is also perfectly fine.
Also Feast for Odin’s default mode is the longer 7-round version which I think is preferred by most players. I haven’t played the shorter mode though I can see its merits.
That's good to know! I almost never play the longer versions of games if I have a choice. :)
I would argue that the epic mode in Dune Imperium is more of a variant. The game is the same but spices up thing a little bit. It's doesn't make many changes. We also always play it epic.
@@nirszi yeah the distinction between mode and variant is a bit fuzzy.
I like when games have a simplified mode for shorter or more simplistic games. Isle of Cats is a great example for this. Sometimes you just wanna get cats and tile lay in a shorter dumbed down version. I also like how Isle of Cats makes it clear that it isn't the standard version, much like your opinion.
Regarding game length, I think a lot of people consider the extended version of Obsession to be the definitive version.
I’ve been playing quite a bit on BGA and I haven’t yet decided which version I prefer as they offer slightly different feels
Isle of Cats left a giant, massive complexity gap between family and normal mode
Maracaibo’s expansion also introduces 4 more modes, two of which are cooperative.
if im buying a game, multiple modes is a plus. whether or not a particular mode is better or not, i like having the option to play it differently. most of the time it lengthens the life of the game ive bought. some people wouldnt/shouldnt play competitive and others wouldnt/shouldnt play coop. personalities are different. being able to get the same game you really like to the table with different people is a plus, obviously if all the modes in the box were developed correctly. just like games, people will have favorite modes to play regardless of how good it is.
There are also two other varieties:
1) Basic/common player powers versus asymmetric player powers, like in _Harbour_ (where one side of the player boards have the basic version and the other side the different ones) and _Terraforming Mars_ (basic corporation versus distinct corporations) though these can be combined.
2) Simple vs. advanced player powers, e.g. _Revive_ and _Terra Nova (2022)_ (and I assume the same is in Terra Mystica, it has been a long time since I played it). These, too, can be combined so that experienced players choose the more complex side.
Thank you for adding those!
Imperial Assault has a skirmish mode and a 1:many campaign mode
The "Best" Version of a game is group dependent.
The most versatile system we have is Marvel United.
Base plays 4 players where it's pure Co-Op
You can play 5 players if you do 1 vs Many
If you do 1 vs Many + Teams, you can have 7 players
Just Teams can play up to 6 players
We mostly play at 5 players ... and even when we have less players, the 1 vs Many is what my children want to play because they like the challenge.
I see that. My counterpoint would be that a game doesn't need to be a Swiss-Army knife--that's why we have have different games for different purposes.
@@jameystegmaier agreed that not "ALL" games "need" to be a swiss-army knife ... yet restricting games & systems to a single purpose is also potentially limiting too much.
It reminds me of an old English teacher on him saying how lone we needed to write a essay.
He wanted it be the like a mini skirt ... long enough to cover the subject, and short enough to keep him interested.
Sometimes that means single purpose ... sometimes that means multiple options for the players. Forcing either is a mistake on a game to game basis.
One game I thought of that get better the longer they are is Xia. It has a "mode", I guess you could call it, to play a shorter game. You just have to set the Fame Points you're playing to. But, it's possible, you don't get that full experience of buying that level 3 ship and/or completing some of the interesting Mission and Title cards.
And a game that came to mind that has multiple modes is Star Realms. I just recently picked up Star Realm Frontiers which has several modes of play in the rule book. There is 1v1, coop, teams, and 1v all.
Hey Jamey. What would you think of a game that was completely designed from the ground up for one mode of play, but after the design is finalized they create another mode (e.g. A family mode) with the components that are already in the base game without affecting the original design?
If ample time and effort is spent designing and developing the new mode, that gives me confidence in it.
I prefer for the designer and publisher of games to focus on the one best mode of play for a game. I don’t see games with multiple modes as a red flag, but I usually only play the main mode of play for games that have multiple modes, unless the different modes of the game are meant to be played under different circumstances. For some games with different modes you just select which mode to play based on preference, but some games have different modes that are best played in different conditions such as modes that determine the length or complexity of the game. For example, I usually always play the main mode of the Isle of Cats, but I have played the family mode once. The time I played the family mode was because I was playing the game with some younger kids, who have shorter attention spans and prefer less complex games. They enjoyed the family mode, but if there had been no family mode, they likely wouldn’t have enjoyed the main mode. I think it is best when games have one main mode of play, but there are definitely times when having a different mode can come in handy if you’re playing with certain people or only have a certain amount of time for the game.
I did a cursory look and didn't see the Paradox of Choice mentioned. In summary, as the number of options to a single decision increase, the satisfaction with the option chosen decreases. This happens in more than just board games, but I see this a lot in this hobby. So when asking people they will usually say that, yes, they want more options, or that more is always better (let people choose). But it doesn't seem to bear that out in reality when tracking how people actually act and feel.
For myself I see it apply to picking a game out of all my games to play, to choosing to include an expansion and which one(s), and then in potentially choosing a mode to play. The more games I have, the more expansions I have, or the more modes there are, the harder it is to choose and the less likely we are to play as often or feel as good about those choices.
That doesn't even take into account that for expansions, or alternative modes of play, there is an overhead not only of choice, but of rules and time and energy to understand it and get it to the table. The opportunity cost being not using that time and energy for the game/mode you already truly enjoy (Maximizers vs Satisficers).
I'm not immune to any of this. I love expansions. I buy them. I rarely use them. We don't play the base game of most games enough, or in close enough sessions, to be able to add in more rules and content. Or we already enjoy the game enough that we don't need more. Although I get the appeal that "maybe it'll be even better with changes" (I mean I buy them!), but that's almost always a losing proposition of chasing something instead of being content with what you have (Hedonic Treadmill).
I think the best expansions are the ones that are 'more of the same' because they generally can be added and left in and require no extra rules overhead. Set and forget. The ones where you have to sort through options, or what to put in or take out, and that add more rules or change rules just become too much. I end up playing those games less after getting the expansions.
One example I have is Port Royal. I wanted the base game plus the first expansion (just to add cards that always can stay in the deck). But it was way more expensive to get those than the new big box. The big box has the base game, the expansion (which also allows co-op play), a family version with different and fewer cards, and a story mode. I like the (base) game itself, but I never choose it. You'd think it wouldn't matter, just play the base game and ignore all the other stuff. But it's overwhelming. It makes me dislike the game. (The paradox of choice also bears this out - people will choose a worse option instead of having to choose between two good ones and feel bad.)
One game where I'm more ok with different modes is Ticket to Ride. It might be the only game where I've used a different mode and where we regularly use an expansion. The team mode in Asia is fun. But I think it's because each box is mostly separate and it's a rules-simple game. We also play the game enough that we don't forget things between plays - both because it's simple and quick and everyone always enjoys it.
I'll also throw in that, generally speaking, hybrid options are the worst of both worlds. As you say, the designer should pick what they feel is the best, strongest option and go all in on that. I would bet that if we look at the most loved games, the evergreen games, that they are singular and decisive in what they do.
So put me in the camp that more is not better.
We think similarly about this, Kevin! I have a few videos about expansions in which I discuss the "more stuff" concept as my preference too (at least, if it's just more stuff, I'm much more likely to get it and use it).
I prefer a game that has a single mode that has been been the sole focus of the designers. Designing a good game seems hard enough as it is without trying to make it work as both a competitive and cooperative game, or slightly tangentially, designing a game that is somehow launching on Kickstarter with multiple expansions. Make one really good, focused game and if it is successful, go from there and make expansions, which may or may not include alternate modes of play.
I really like Viticulture World and the idea of cooperative expansions for competitive games in general. But that expansion clearly took a significant amount of time to develop, it's the same game yet an entirely different game. If a cooperative mode had somehow been included in the original release of Viticulture, I can't imagine it would have been nearly as good.
A new expansion for Lost Ruins of Arnak was just announced yesterday and it includes a solo/cooperative campaign with components that can also be used in the regular competitive mode. This seems like a good way of using an expansion to introduce a new mode while also making something that adds to the existing mode.
I fall strong on the side of games having a single or primary mode and even stronger on the topic of multiple lengths. It isn’t that it can’t be done well, it just muddies the water when choosing games. I don’t get to play a ton of games so like Jamey I may only get to play them once or twice. If it is a game I like I would rather have multiple plays of the best of the game to delve deeper into it. As for length, I want the designer to choose the length the game needs to be and not have me have to choose when I may have never played it or only played it once. Also I don’t need or want to make every game fit for me. I am sure I would enjoy the ones that don’t be it they are too long but I don’t want to spend my limited time gaming on a game that is arbitrarily shortened or excessively long. There are so many games out there I will just choose one at the intended length or difficulty.
I wonder if these should be considered different modes: a couple of days ago I played Creature Comforts, which is played during 8 months (rounds) but can be played during 6. The former leaves you with a bigger sense of accomplishment, having made more comforts and comboing them, while the latter left me wishing I had had more time to do so. However, in that occasion I knew I didn’t have time to play the whole 8 months and, although not fully satisfied with the 6 months of the shorter version, I was still glad I managed to play the game.
Even if these are not considered to be different modes, they illustrate others that are, like choosing to play an easier or simplified mode if you are playing with your family instead of playing with your gamer friends. But I do agree that all modes should be well designed and tested, and that does indeed mean that the designer(s) have to spend a lot more time working on the game.
Just to add a comment about rule books, I’d like to mention the ones for Stop! Thief, which has a competitive and a cooperative mode, and Petrichor: Collector’s Edition, which has all the expansions in one box. Both have a single rule book where the rules are explained just once, but the differences are clearly indicated in colored boxes, which makes it easy to read and look up rules whichever the mode is that you are playing.
Thanks for sharing about these different game length options and the rulebooks, Tiago!
I love Obsession, but in the standard version, I can’t get enough satisfaction from building and running my engine. That’s why I greatly prefer the Extended Play version. It’s longer, but it feels so much better.
I have a feeling that people who like more sandbox games would like longer versions of games than the shortest distillation of the core game. I haven't played Obsession but I would play city building video games that have a campaign and would hold off moving to the next mission after hitting the goals because I wanted to start with the city I built a bit longer to expand it into my full vision.
I have played 30 games of Isle of Cats: 3 solo, 2 advanced, 25 family. I wouldn't have bought the game if it didn't support family mode. The family mode is ideal to play with kids, my son has been playing it since he was 5. Now that he's 7, he wins all the time. But he's not ready for the advanced mode and likely won't be for a few years yet. And the game time goes from 30 to 90 min between modes. There is a huge difference between family and advanced mode, it's not just a little simplified.
For the mixing cards issues, I usually just put the cards in different zip bags and identify them, problem solved. But with the KS big box, the card tray is well identified so no need for zip bags anymore.
Friday is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I appreciate when games tell me which mode (or difficulty level) is the "real game". I like when difficult game ease you into the game, but it's important to know what the actual design intent was!
I like that too!
What are your thoughts on Ark Nova and the venom cards? Our group plays with the “nice” version of the venom cards, rather than the “take that”. I appreciated that they had two modes for those cards.
And so elegant too, since the alternate versions double as the primary version for the solo game.
I really like them! We always play the nice way. :)
I think one value of multiple modes is that even when each group might only ever use one mode, they get to choose what that mode is - for some groups the absolute best way to play the game will be a competitive mode, while for other groups it's a coop one
Edit: The modes in Imperial Assault mostly differ by player count, but you could consider them different modes because the 2-player head-to-head game is quite different to the 1-vs-many game with 3 or more players. It has different cards and different rules. There's also an app-driven coop mode.
That's true! I think I just struggle (as a designer) to believe that a designer could have created just as good of a competitive mode as a cooperative mode in the same game (opposed to designing two separate games from the ground up, one solely focused on being an awesome cooperative game and another as an awesome competitive mode).
It's like if I designed a boat that's also a car: Sure, technically it can drive on land and sail on water, but sacrifices have been made for the dual ability--a car designed solely for land will always be better, just as a boat designed solely for water will always be better.
That said, this particular concern is primarily about competitive/cooperative combos. For some other types of modes, I totally agree that they can cater to different types of groups and increase how often a game gets to the table.
@@jameystegmaier I can understand that. I think it depends on how much the additional mode changes the game in meaningful ways and there's probably a lot of cases where an additional mode could (should?) have been a different game.
One game I would like an additional mode for is Outer Rim - my wife and I both enjoy the Star Wars IP and like games in that setting, and playing bounty hunters running about the galaxy has a lot of appeal, but we're not fans of competitive games and scoring 'fame' points just isn't that interesting. This probably fits into that category of games that could have extra modes included in an expansion.
@@JohnLudlow Totally, I agree. I think expansions are great for that, as it shows a full commitment to a specific mode (like the Shadow of Salvation cooperative expansion for Shards of Infinity).
There’s probably better ways to tell you this, but I have a video suggestion. I would like to know how digital adaptations have changed, play testing. Did it make them better or worse? Is there some risk to adapting so much that we stop playing the physical additions? Should we worry about that?
Here's a good place to chat about that topic: stonemaiergames.com/do-digital-board-games-outsell-their-tabletop-counterparts/
Hey Jamey. I gotta say I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to play other modes if you like one the most. Surely you can compare that to playing two different games. If that were the case, why would you not always play your favorite game? Why would you even have multiple games in your collection? Sometimes you just want variety, or you're in a different mood at different times. The important thing is that you enjoy them, no? The same applies to dedicating "game learning" time.
"If that were the case, why would you not always play your favorite game?" Exactly! I'd rather play a game that excels at matching the category I'm in the mood for, not a game where one of its many modes does its best (while probably softened by the various other modes) at matching the category I'm in the mood for.
However, just to be clear, I'm not trying to take away from anyone's enjoyment or preferences. This is my own personal preference. What are a few games you love for which you play multiple modes included in the core box of those games?
@@jameystegmaier For sure! I've never felt anything but the utmost respect from you to your viewers. I'm just trying to understand. Why would you think two modes means one is lesser, while that is not the same for two different games? Is it because modes are not as different from one another as two games can be? Then at what point do you not consider them "modes"? For instance, I don't think you consider the peace/war modes in Rise of Fenris as modes, and thus you don't feel conflicted about those?
@@jameystegmaier To your question, I like playing Lost Ruins of Arnak, Ark Nova and Terraforming Mars with other players as much as I like them solo.
@@Kensai_ Definitely! I mention in the video that this isn't about solo versus multiplayer (it isn't about player counts at all).
@@Kensai_ For a campaign game, I do like split paths that feel distinctly different). A mode of play is a completely different way of playing the same game, not a small tweak or module.
A little late to the conversation, but I have friends who don’t enjoy competitive/certain interactions within games. In this way, having different modes would open the game to people who don’t enjoy take that mechanics, or real time events, or direct interactions.
I see that, though if you're playing with those friends, couldn't you just choose another game that doesn't feature conflict/combat? That said, there are a few games I can think of in that category, but they're typically games that aren't designed for much conflict except for a few specific cards, and I like when they provide the option of removing those cards.
What are your thoughts about Ankh: Gods of Egypt in which It starts as a competitive game and ends up having forced cooperation between the two players with lower devotion?
I would say that fits into the category I laud in this video of games in which the modes are organically integrated into the gameplay itself instead of a choice presented to players before they begin the game (like Betrayal Legacy).
I don't mind that games provides more than one game variant, but more often than not, I feel like it split my time between those multiple variants. I might try them to figure out which one I prefer, but in the end, I'll probably stick to the one I like the most. It will very rare that I'll enjoy all those variants equally.
Even for Viticulture, I already felt that playing with the normal board or the Tuscanny board already change how the game feels and feel like 2 separated ways to play the game. That's part of the reason why I did not get Viticulture World. I already like playing those other 2 competitives version of the game so I see little to no point to get a third way to play a game I already like. I'm glad it exists for people that wants a coop version of the game tho.
The best example of a game I like that has multiple game variants would be Valeria Card Kingdoms. Most of its variant comes in expansion, which I'm totally fine with. I got in during a KS where the expansion presented was offering a coop campaign mode. Even tho I like it, I largely prefer the competitive default mode.
This is really insightful, Keven!
@@jameystegmaier My pleasure 😉
I would like to see a roll n write that works co op as well as a normal competitive.
Games that are better with the longer (full) versions are definitely engine builders and combo games. Shortened versions can cut your engine off too soon. I find that Creature Comforts' short version does end sooner than I would like because of combos that you will want to work towards, but the short version can be good for younger kids with short attention spans.
Definitely! I think the key there is: If you're going to make an engine-building game, the "correct" length for the game is one where players get to use their engine. So why not just feature that as the only way to play (and let players house rule the length as they wish)?
I think you are missing one perspective -- rather than trying to give an individual multiple ways to play a game I think of modes as a different way to capture more types of players.
Bullet I never play competitively because I either play solo or with my partner cooperatively. I hear great things about competitive but that's just not the type of game I'd play at any regular basis. They did a great job at providing something valuable to me and to people who only play competitively. If they didn't do that they would have lost an audience. Same with Summit - co-op and teams but not competitive for me. My sister and her husband like the competitive mode though.
To that perspective the game should be reviewed on each mode standalone for players interested in just that mode and not be given extra credit for two subpar modes where the designers should have just did one well.
I 100% agree that tacked on Kickstarter goals that are new game modes are going to be mostly really bad.
That's a good point! I guess I just tend to turn to another game if the game doesn't capture a specific type of player.
For me, I love having multiple modes.
But this is because I play exclusively co-op, and I enjoy having more co-op games.
There are SIGNIFICANTLY more competitive games, and I would miss out on some of those interesting mechanisms without expansions or alternate modes-co-op Viticulture World (my #4 game), co-op campaign Shards of Infinity (my #15), co-op Terraforming Mars AE (my #33), co-op Stop Thief (my 63) and many more. The cooperative is for me the only way to play. I am willing to pay more to have some competitive content I will never use just to simply have access to the game. But I know co-op is a smaller genre, so really competitive is needed for the publishers to earn more on that particular design.
Also, while I sometimes agree that solo is a player count, often when the game is played in different ways or with separate rule books, etc I actually consider it a different mode personally
Thanks Cory! So would you rather have more cooperative games (built from the ground up as cooperative) or more competitive games with coop modes added later in the design process?
@@jameystegmaier
Well Jamey, absolutely I would love them to be built from the ground up. I think that would be optimal.
But I think just realistically it won’t happen as often as I think it should. Co-op is simply not as big.
For the time being certainly, I am happy with games being adapted.
To me, I see cooperative adaptations as no different than games I like being adapted for solo, giving me an opportunity to play when otherwise I wouldn’t. Many games are not designed as their “best” with solo, but it’s a choice to include the opportunity to play that way (eg Automa decks, etc). Often it even requires some extra content and rules, just like co-op does.
Using you as an example - I like your mechanisms, I like the idea of your games, watch all of your Sunday sitdowns, love the company, am a champion, etc, but I simply don’t play competitive. Thus far, you personally haven’t designed co-op (except Smitten, which I have played a lot). I wouldn’t scoff at all if you created co-op versions of all of your games, and you had a “co-op factory”. It’s obviously more expensive for the player buying co-op if they are buying something with a lot of competitive components, but I actually don’t think it’s too much different than someone buying a large game with a ton of components for 5 players even if they know they will only play solo.
I think numbers show the sales of competitive vs co-op. I think it’s also shown through competitive games being supported much longer with expansions.
So, frankly I understand why companies would include competitive modes almost always - the market is just bigger.
@@CoryLovec14 Thanks for your answer! I'm actually designing a big cooperative open-world game, so you'll get at least one big game from us designed from the ground up to be cooperative. :)
I thought you were going to focus on games that change modes during the game, like Betrayal. I thought that would be an interesting topic since it is so rare. I think there are others but the only one I could think of is the old Nuclear War card game. It changes several times throughout the game from Peace to War and back again.
That is a good topic...I can't think of many games that do that. Ankh does it too.
That is a very cool idea. I'd never get it on my table but an interesting design and I'd be interested in checking it out just to learn from it.
Tindaya has the option to include a betrayal mode if you play it competitively. (I have only played solo or co-op to date).
So far I can't say any co-op mode of a competitive game has "grabbed me". I hoped the co-op mode in Rise of Fenris would - it's nice, great to try, but the standard mode of play in Scythe is what I want to play. Same with Viticulture. I have yet to try the co-op mode in Wingspan: Oceania, but I'm not really compelled to. (The duet mode of Wingspan: Asia, though is a hit with us.) I very much disliked the co-op mode from Terraforming Mars: Ares Expedition, which definitely felt "tacked on" (unless I'm just horrible at it). I also really wanted to like the co-op modes for the West Kingdom games available in the Tomesaga expansion, but I can't say I enjoyed the Pandemic-style "put out fires" mechanisms of the Architects and Paladins co-ops. The co-op mode for Viscounts, on the other hand, introduced some really interesting game play strategies. I'd say of all the co-op variants for competitive games that I've played, that's the one I'm most likely to choose to play.
I'll check out that mode for Viscounts!
I struggle to see why a new mode introduced in an expansion is ok but a new mode introduced in the base game would be tacked on... To me, if it adds variety to the game, either way is fine. Leave the choice to the players. Most of the time, they will play without the added modules when they start, and add modules in future games. Glenmore II Chronicles did exactly that, where each chronicle is a module.
A campaign/legacy game is the same except it forces players to add modules as the campaign progresses, giving a sense of progression/storyline which is nice, plus it kinds of make you want to play the game again, that's the ideal way to add modules I would say.
I can help with that struggle! When I'm designing a game, I'm trying to design the best version of that game. One version, one game. With an expansion, it's a completely separate design space, with the motivation to design the best expansion, which may involve a different mode.
The only time I appreciate multiple modes is when there's a 'single session' mode and a 'campaign' mode. That way I'm not tied down to always having to play a campaign and can get the game to the table as a one-shot a whole lot but if I find a group we can play multiple games together as then we can enjoy that extra juice :D
I like that distinction too!
I think that referring to solitaire being just a change in the number of players is fundamentally incorrect. Multiple player competitive games are fundamentally PvP, while solitaire is PvE (to use computer game terminology). These are very different in audience and feel.
That said, cooperative games are fundamentally solitaire with multiple players. Nearly any coop game that doesn't rely on limited communication can be played just as well by a single player taking all the roles. Though of course that does not give the same feeling of a collective experience.
I agree, Doug, and perhaps I oversimplified it here simply because it isn't the conversation I was intending to have. In our games, the Automa solo modes are described exactly as that--modes--because they contain systems that are entirely unique to playing against the Automa. This entire video, though, isn't about player scaling (that's a different topic). It's about when a multiplayer game offers completely different ways to play. Sorry that wasn't more clear in the video!
Marvel Champions added a campaign mode which I feel diminishes the standalone scenarios personally
Interesting! How so?
I think Lost Cities is best at 3 rounds v 1