Abstract Strategy Game Design

Purpose

Design abstract strategy games—games with perfect information, no randomness, and strategic depth. Provides frameworks for ideation, design, and evaluation.

Core Definition

Abstract strategy games require:

Perfect Information: All game state visible to all players
No Randomness: Outcomes determined solely by player decisions
Minimal Theme: Mechanics over narrative
Player Agency: Success depends on strategic thinking

Quick Reference: Game Types

Type	Core Mechanic	Examples
Connection	Form paths/networks	Hex, TwixT
Territory	Control areas	Go, Othello
Capture	Eliminate pieces	Chess, Checkers
Pattern	Create arrangements	Gomoku, Pentago
Racing	Reach goal first	Chinese Checkers

Design Principles

The Holy Grail: Depth-to-Complexity Ratio

Maximum strategic depth with minimum rules complexity.

How to achieve:

Start with single strong core mechanism
Remove anything that doesn't support the core
Every rule should create multiple strategic implications
Prefer emergent complexity over explicit rules

Meaningful Decision Architecture

Four components of meaningful choice:

Awareness: Players understand options
Consequence: Immediate and long-term effects
Permanence: Decisions have lasting impact
Reminders: Game state reflects past choices

Ideal Parameters:

Branching factor: 20-40 moves/turn for human play
Horizon: 3-5 moves ahead with effort
Multiple paths: 3-4 viable strategies minimum

Core Mechanisms Toolkit

Board Topology

Grids: Square, hexagonal, triangular, irregular
Connectivity: How spaces relate
Edges: How boundaries affect strategy
Size: Larger = exponentially more complex

Piece Systems

Uniform: All pieces identical (Go)
Differentiated: Unique abilities (Chess)
Transforming: Change during play (Checkers kings)
Ownership: Fixed vs. capturable

Movement & Placement

Placement only: Pieces don't move once placed (Go)
Movement only: Pieces start on board (Chess)
Hybrid: Both placement and movement (Hive)

Victory Conditions

Elimination, Position, Pattern, Territory, Points, Stalemate

Balance Considerations

First-Player Advantage Mitigation

Pie Rule: Second player can swap after first move
Komi: Point compensation for second player
Variable Setup: Randomized starting positions
Simultaneous: Both move at once

Avoiding Degenerate Strategies

No single dominant path
Counter-strategies exist for every strong position
Passive play punishable
Aggressive play doesn't guarantee victory

Design Process

Three Starting Points

1. Mechanism-First

Identify interesting core mechanic
Build minimal game around it
Add only what enhances core
Remove everything else

2. Experience-First

Define target player experience
Identify mechanisms that create it
Prototype and test rapidly
Iterate on feedback

3. Constraint-Based

Set specific limitations (components, time, space)
Find creative solutions within constraints
Often leads to elegant designs

When to Add/Remove Complexity

Add when:

Core feels solved too quickly
Players master in <10 plays
Decisions feel obvious

Remove when:

Rules take >10 minutes
Players forget rules
Strategies feel arbitrary

Scrap when:

No tweaking fixes fundamentals
Core mechanism isn't interesting
Feels like inferior version of existing game

Brainstorming Techniques

1. Mechanism Extraction from Non-Games

Extract from physics, biology, economics, chemistry, social systems:

Pieces that "decay" unless refreshed (entropy)
Moves creating "waves" along patterns (physics)
Pieces forming "bonds" limiting movement (chemistry)
"Market" squares with fluctuating values (economics)

2. Extreme Property Isolation

Take one property to absolute extreme:

Game where pieces visible only when adjacent to your others
Every move must maintain rotational symmetry
Pieces exist only one turn unless refreshed
Board wraps in non-intuitive ways (Klein bottle)

3. Impossible Constraint Challenges

Start with seemingly impossible constraints:

Game on a 1D line
Pieces in probability clouds until observed
Victory condition voted on by piece positions
Pieces leave "trails" becoming new pieces

4. Anti-Pattern Starting Points

Design intentionally bad games, then invert:

Always-draw game → Add accumulating positional advantages
Pure calculation → Add pieces that change rules
Dominant strategy → Make it vulnerable to specific counters

5. Mathematical Structure Mining

Pieces move along Hamiltonian paths only
Positions valued by prime factorization
Fractal boards with repeating patterns
Moves must preserve mathematical invariants

Evaluation Framework

Strategic Richness Indicators

Depth:

Games last 20+ meaningful turns
Opening, midgame, endgame feel distinct
Multiple viable opening strategies
Comebacks possible but not trivial

Complexity:

New players grasp rules in <5 minutes
Experts keep discovering patterns
High-level play looks different from beginner

Common Failures

Problem	Symptoms	Solution
Analysis Paralysis	Excessive turn time	Limit options, clearer objectives
Solved Game	Same outcome always	Increase branching, add variety
Kingmaker	Loser picks winner	Simultaneous resolution

Testing Protocol

Phase 1: Proof of Concept

Test core mechanic in isolation
Verify basic fun factor
Identify broken strategies

Phase 2: Mechanics

Test each subsystem
Look for unintended interactions
Measure game length

Phase 3: Integration

Full game, all systems
Different skill levels
Quantitative data

Phase 4: Blind Testing

Players learn from rulebook only
Identify ambiguities
Test learning curve

Testing Checklist

Mechanical

All rule interactions verified
Edge cases resolved
Victory achievable but not trivial
No unbreakable stalemates

Balance

First player wins 45-55%
Multiple strategies win regularly
No dominant opening
Skill affects outcome

Experience

Games complete in target time
Players want rematch
Decisions feel meaningful
Players improve with practice

Accessibility

Rules learned in <5 minutes
Rules fit one page
No ambiguous situations
Components distinguishable

Quick Evaluation Filters

30-Second Test: Can you explain core concept in 30 seconds?

Originality Test: Does it feel like variant of existing game?

Decision Test: Are there obviously interesting decisions?

Depth Test: Could this sustain interest for 50+ plays?

Session Structure (2 Hours)

10 min: Pick 3-4 brainstorming techniques
60 min: Generate 15-20 ideas per technique
20 min: Expand 5-10 promising ideas
20 min: Combine and explore hybrids
10 min: Apply filters, select for prototyping

Anti-Patterns

1. Complexity as Depth

Pattern: Adding rules, exceptions, and special cases to make the game feel "deeper." Why it fails: Complexity and depth are different. Complex rules create burden; depth emerges from simple rules with rich interactions. Chess has simpler rules than many shallow games. Fix: Ruthlessly remove complexity that doesn't add strategic options. If a rule requires explanation but doesn't create interesting decisions, cut it.

2. Solved Game Blindness

Pattern: Creating a game where optimal play always produces the same outcome—often draws or first-player wins. Why it fails: Once players discover the solution, the game becomes rote execution rather than strategic exploration. No amount of polish fixes a solved game. Fix: Test extensively with strong players. If games start converging on identical patterns, add asymmetry or increase branching factor. The pie rule helps but doesn't solve fundamental issues.

3. Decision Paralysis

Pattern: Every position has dozens of equally viable options with unclear consequences. Why it fails: Strategic games need meaningful comparison between choices. When all options seem equivalent, decisions become random rather than strategic. Fix: Reduce branching factor or create clearer evaluation heuristics. Players should be able to identify 3-5 promising moves without analyzing every possibility.

4. Theme Creep

Pattern: Adding narrative or thematic elements that don't connect to mechanical decisions. Why it fails: Abstract strategy games work because mechanics are the content. Theme that doesn't inform decisions is decoration that slows play without adding depth. Fix: Either commit to a themed game (different framework) or keep theme purely cosmetic. Don't let theme suggest mechanics that don't serve strategy.

5. Perfect Information Violations

Pattern: Adding hidden information, simultaneous resolution, or dice "for variety." Why it fails: Abstract strategy games are defined by perfect information and determinism. Adding randomness or hidden elements creates a different game type with different design principles. Fix: If the game needs variety, add it through board setup, victory condition selection, or piece starting positions—not through mid-game randomness.

Integration

Inbound (feeds into this skill)

Skill	What it provides
brainstorming	Ideation techniques for mechanism discovery
research	Historical game analysis and mathematical structure research

Outbound (this skill enables)

Skill	What this provides
(playtesting)	Designs ready for player validation
(rulebook writing)	Tested mechanics ready for documentation

Complementary

Skill	Relationship
brainstorming	Use brainstorming for raw idea generation; abstract-strategy provides evaluation and refinement frameworks

abstract-strategy