There are many, many, MANY games exploring the opposite end of the design space. If you want simple, there are designers and publishers working on that.
I mean, there's also Mage Knight, but lots of people love Mage Knight. It's a big hobby! Very few games will appeal to more than a small subset of the fan base.
I don't want to recommend anything as such (I have no idea what you're into!) but games like Azul, Splendour, and Patchwork have been super popular recently, and are very clean, minimalist designs. Or a couple steps up the complexity level, Wingspan.
Obligatory "I just bought an item, no other affiliation" notation.
I really like the game, mainly as the rules are incredibly simple. Also don’t have to keep track of what cards were played and what’s left in the deck.
Hive is another simple rules game that’s really fun to play.
https://cheapass.com/tak/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hive_(game)
So go now, and play "Give me the brain", "Lord of the Fries", "Kill Doctor Lucky", "Spree", and "Unexploded Cow".
On the other hand, skip entirely "Bitin' off Heads", "Devil Bunny", and "The Great Brain Robbery".
There are so many games out now, the choices are overwhelming.
I really wish more board-games had a "low-parts mode" or a "trial" mode where you could experience the gestalt of the game without having to cram all the minutiae. Basically: do what this guy did for his daughter but put it in the rule book.
We included new, simpler, components in the game that are exclusively for this tutorial, have players add mechanics and components and systems one or two at a time. During playtesting we went from about 2+ hours to read and semi-understand the rules enough to play, to playing in about 10-15 minutes.
It can be done, but it can add significant cost (materials, development time) to the game.
For example we got Carcassonne recently and it includes an "extension" (Abbots & Farmers). The rules has an additional sheet, so you can play the raw game and pick up the extension later once you've grokked the normal rules.
Settlers of Catan does a similar thing, they have a slightly more basic gameplay in the rules for people starting out.
Of course, that only works for a game like Carcassonne which plays in 45min or less on the first go and can get down to 20min if you're playing with people who know the (base) game well.
Some of the games are notorious for having half-empty rule books that you will eventually fill with stickers for more rules.
One particular well regarded Legacy game for it's slow, careful reveal of rules is Seafall (which is noteworthy for being the first non-licensed Legacy game by the Legacy genre's "father" who built the original Risk Legacy and has contributed to many others like Pandemic Legacy). I've got it on my shelf and have been hoping to find the right group to play it with, so I've mostly tried to avoid spoilers, but the way it was described to me is that it is a full 4X (strategy gaming acronym from videogames for Explore, Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate) that starts with only the rules for Explore and expands out from there. (And it is proper exploration with players encouraged to sharpie their discoveries to the board.)
Even the initial state is too complex for young children but it might suit what you're looking for if that's not actually a requirement - I don't think you'd really enjoy playing phase 1 of his Carcassonne adaptation either.
Every edition after streamlined things and took away detail. The biggest changes came when wizards of the coast bought up tsr and the 3rd edition came out. It barely felt like playing the same game. I haven't played the newest editions, but i've read through the player and DM's guide for them, much of the original complexity of ad&d is gone, in its place are systems that seem.complex, but are far more simple to grasp and play using.
Not just the systems, but the general feel and flow of the game seems to be simplified. It was more about being a fantasy adventure simulator before, where as now the purpose seems to be a fantasy hero story game.
Much of the darker grittier aspects of the game were toned down and generally gone through that sanitizing process most niche things go through when they become popular.
It's still fun of course -- when I was young we would play D&D with no character sheets and just a few dice -- but I agree some of the spirit is lost. I'm sure there are some custom settings out there with the depth of detail you're looking for.
Though I still had to resort to automated character sheets to roll my character because there was shit I just could not figure out how to do from the PHB...
1e was kind of a mess though, remember how Bard was a weird expansion class you could only play after like 20 levels of three other classes instead of “you are a person who has about as much training in music, social engineering, and magic related to those things as anyone else at your level has in whatever they do”?
My 1e/2e groups sure did tinker with the rules to work around shit like that, my GURPS groups mostly went by whatever set of books the campaign was using, and my recent 5e experience after a long time away from RPGs felt like I remember 1/2e being without all the bullshit and confusion that nostalgia elides.
His games comprise a deck of cards, and then perhaps a few supporting items like money counters or victory point cards. There are two characteristic things about the cards. Firstly, each card can serve several purposes. In Glory to Rome, it can be a plan for a particular building, raw material for a building, an action somehow related to building (starting a building, adding material, robbing your neighbours), or a member of staff who carries out an action. Secondly, one mode of a card will have some sort of ability on it that modifies the rules, or lets you do different things. In Glory to Rome, if you build the insula (a Roman tower block), you can have three more staff than usual; if you build the scriptorium, you can now complete any building using one card's worth of marble.
The basic idea is fairly simple (but not trivial, because of the multiple uses of a card). But there is enormous emergent complexity. My brain fires on all cylinders while playing it.
This looks like a reasonable explanation of the rules:
It took us 4 tries to REALLY ramp up Innovation to the point where everyone (group of 3) understood how you could combo up and compete against others who fell into certain card combinations. It did get particularly fun at that point even as we would regularly discover new Age 9 and Age 10 cards (with somehow even more absurd mechanics)
It is definitely not a game I would recommend for children though :/
Anecdotally, I tried to find a fun solitaire game to play during lockdown and ended up getting Arkham Horror. After reading a ton of rules and even watching some YouTube videos, I still felt like I never truly understood the game and haven't really played it. I can't image cracking something like Gloomhaven and reading through the rules.
If you're selling physical product that needs an app to run, there is no reason for the app not to be Free Software, or distributed in some other friendly way (e.g., Space Alert has a CD-DA disc that plays the scenarios as audio).
Those games work well, but for me, I wouldn't want to play a board game that leans on an app any more than Mansion of Madness; at that point it's a video game, and while I enjoy those, it's not why I play board games!
I highly recommend it, even as a solitaire game. There is a digital version on Steam as well, which approximates the mechanics and gameplay well.
Who cares? The game was still fun, now we play more correctly (God knows what I haven't noticed I do wrong yet). I'm a firm believer in playing early, and learning from mistakes / as you go.
In a group with engineers and lawyers, it was bad enough that each session started with "what will we get wrong this time"
to give you and example: it took 2 weeks to figure out that there is a difference between +1/+1 as a result of an instant or sorcery and a +1/+1 counter.
I disagree about the complexity being associated with only cards that are never used. the "Spells, Abilities, and Effects" is the thing that makes the rule book grow with every release. they keep introducing abilities and it gets more and more complicated
They do tend not to have a strong melding of theme and mechanics, which I think is how/why theme-heavy games can end up being so complex—tighter theme integration implies, if not requires, more mechanics and bits and bobs.
I also love games that are conceptually simple but require mastery like Chess, Go, and their like.
There is a range and the explosion in popularity of boardgaming in this last decade has been a boon as we've seen such a wide array of games and play styles cater to everyone on the spectrum!
I feel you! There's a niche of complex boardgames where they try to "simulate" things, like a colony or a submarine or a spaceship or a party of RPG characters, and I think... this is what computers are good for. This is a videogame. Boardgames ought to have a different design space. If there are lots of things to keep track of, that's a bad sign for a boardgame. Some even try to have a computer do the bookkeeping, which in my opinion is just a band-aid over inadequate design.
All in my opinion, of course. And I do love "lite" dungeon romps and "lite" RPG-like boardgames. But adding complexity I think is both a temptation and a mistake.
Another old set with some great ideas is Loose Files and the American Scramble, for the American Revolution. Originally a magazine article (from the 80s I think?), you can find the pdf floating around online. Three pages of rules, and super tightly focused on what makes the AWI unique. 100% worth a look if you have any interest in the period.
I think you’re right about computer games when it comes to hardcore number-crunching simulation. Computers being better able to portray fog of war is also a huge advantage. But I think tabletop games can do certain things better, especially when it comes to things like command friction. On the tabletop, when an order fails to go through or an unlucky break sees your units dissolve in a rout, you can easily understand what happened and it just becomes part of the story of the game. But in a computer game not having precise control can be very frustrating, like you’re at the mercy of opaque mechanics and the RNG.
"Piecepack is to board games what a Standard Deck of Playing Cards is to card games"
Since it is a common denominator, it enforces some economy in games that are designed for it or adapted to it. I recall a Catan adaptation that had several simplifications in the spirit of the OP.
They pair well with piecepack or playing cards.
Loss of momentum will kill your odds of getting a scenario running.
Munchkin went too far the other way. Do I need deck 3 or 4 next? I can't remember. But at least they sell a big empty box to organize all your sets into. Much easier to stack with the other games.
If you avoid that problem, you then also have to resist 'refreshing' your game look and feel. Otherwise I end up with a base game and expansions that don't match in style, and I am not happy. For instance, I bought a Settlers of Catan addon that barely made it out of the box because it didn't match :/ My friend bought one before the change and we always played with his copy instead.
As an example, Carcassonne is I'd say 95% human. The computer parts are the physical placing of tiles in aligned fashion and counting score, but those take almost no time and effort, compared to actually playing the game. Mage Knight (or god forbid Relic) score very low on that scale - the computer activities start dominating and there is too little game left.
My cutoff point is basically "this would be more fun to play if implemented as a program". Conversely however, if implemented as a program, such games become very good fun. Even just simulating the pieces in a way that frees you from physical constraints (i.e. Tabletop Simulator implementation with almost no scripting) can make a game like that enjoyable to play.
That said, I think complaints about complexity sometimes miss the way elaborate steps can be a sort of calming ritual rather than a part of the game as intellectual strategy and one's preferences there are personal. I personally love the game of Go, a game that probably achieves maximal complexity among face-to-face strategy game but I have seek out other players of this since none of my friends are interested.
I think expansions are the sweet spot. Produce a base game, then add complexity with expansions.
If you want real elegance, look at the core of the old Star Wars Customizable Card Game. Each player has the same number of cards in their deck, and the cards are used to track resources, life totals, and provide randomness to combat in a unified way.
Atop that core, Decipher took an attitude of "which parts of Star Wars should we emulate? How about... ALL OF IT!", so the full rules are pretty gnarly. But it's also one of the last major card games that were developed before M:TG became so entrenched that its conventions shaped how we think of CCGs.
Despite the game being out of print, a dedicated committee of players manage the game: running tournaments, releasing new cards, and keeping the dream alive.
I.e. sometimes I am really in the mood of having 40+ little colored cuber in neat stack on my table ... other times I just want to sit around the table and insists that I am not the Mordred/Hitler/Werewolf ... the other guy is :-)
I.m.o. Mage Knight doesn't really attempt a D&D ... more of a simplifies Heroes of Might and Magic ... but then he goes and invents Galaxy Trucker and Code Words :D
I remember meeting Vlaada Chvatil when he was designing the boardgame port of Factorio and some of his friends were kinda dunking on him along the lines of "Nice game, but don't you think it would be better as a strategy on a PC" :-D
Usually use Shut Up and Sit Down as my recommendation engine, because while they can really appreciate a good mechanic, they seem to be most of the time in the theme over complexity camp :-)
Agricola is a good example. It's basically a resource management game from hell. You've really got to be in the right headspace with the right participants to get into it.
The rules are fairly simple but there are a whole lot of variations and the game is very dynamic.
To me the problems are the "micro rules", those that apply to very specific circumstances and are very hard to remember.
These kind of games get also obliterated by those with a short ruleset but same type of depth.
I'm thinking of Azhul, 7 wonders duel, century. Those 3 are very deep, but the rules are barely a few pages comoared to the 40 pages of mage knight.
Granted that i do like mage knight, committing to it is problematic to say the least. And I have a board game table to keep it out!
“Traders of Genoa” is one of the few games where the bits are relevant to game play. So often the bits are just window dressing to distract from otherwise uninteresting game concepts.
Somehow even quite deep games like Magic: the Gathering or D&D (or indeed chess) manage their complexity more elegantly, by having fewer concepts iterated many times (although in the case of D&D this is managed by the DM who certainly has a terribly complex job).
For example, Mage Knight in some sense tries to create a simplified version of parts of D&D, but it does it with so many moving parts that I freak out at the thought of event getting it out of the box. Whereas I can play actual D&D with one dice and some words.