Replayability (GDJ 6)

"Man Writing" by Oliver Ray

It's been almost six years (!) since my last game design journal post. But my dream of making a game some day remains, and 'never stop starting'. Today's post looks at replayability, with a simple thesis:

A good game has high replayability.

Okay . . . so what is replayability? A starting point: a replayable tabletop game is "a game that is enjoyable even after many plays." That leads me to think on what makes a game enjoyable, which (as I explore here and here) is based on some mixture of meaningful choices, chance, and challenge. Through that lens, I would define a replayable tabletop game as "a game that consistently presents players of all skill and familiarity levels with an engaging and enjoyable challenge." (A challenge of this sort probably involves a mix of meaningful choice and chance . . . but that would make the definition too lengthy.)

Why does replayability matter? It is perhaps easiest to describe this through looking at the antithesis. A non-replayable game is one easily solved—where there is one obvious path/strategy to victory, and once a player gains enough familiarity with the game, must choose that path/strategy if they care about winning. In short, a non-replayable game does not present a challenge after many plays, leaving players bored and looking for other options.

All games can be solved to some degree (veterans of a game will have an idea of which strategies are more effective), but in good games, the decision tree doesn't narrow much: there is enough 1) variation or 2) skill required in execution that even veterans will have meaningful choices to make and view it as a challenge. I think it comes down to those two factors, which I explore more below.

Variation. Does replayability really come down to this? If so, how can games inject variation? Here are a few ways:

- modular boards (changing game board itself)

- unique player abilities (by being assigned a character, for example)

- common chance elements (shuffling decks, rolling dice)

- introducing expansions to add elements (and, in cases of Collectible Card Games, rotating older expansions out of legality, forcing players to use new cards)

Skill in execution. Think chess. There is no variation in setup or chance elements in that game—just pure skill. And it has remained a popular tabletop game for centuries. Just because you know how the pieces move doesn't mean you can play well . . . every board state requires a tremendous degree of analysis. You could argue that this is a subset of the variation category . . . but I think it merits separate contemplation, as the variation is caused solely by the movements each participant chooses.

Are there any other categories to consider for replayability?

If you love games, think about which ones have proven replayable for you and why. Or which ones have been 'solved' and left untouched as a result.