Small games ("Microgames")

While going through my old gaming stuff recently I ran across a copy of what appears to be the original version of "Ogre". With *thin* cardboard pieces and a paper board, it cost all of $2.95 (closer to $10, I guess, in today's money). I don't know if Ogre was the first of the "microgames", but it was certainly very popular. "Microgames" often involved lower production values, but also much lower prices, than typical games.

In the late 70s I had the idea for a line of small games that would be easy and quick to play (25-60 minutes), would be inexpensive to produce (64 pieces, a small board, and one or two dice), yet would be entertaining and allow for lots of variations. Rules would be short, with few tables and minimal or no recordkeeping required during the game. I called them Bookgames, to be packaged in a box the size and shape of a paperback book and cost considerably less than a full-size game. There was also the potential to get "Bookgames" distributed by the book trade, as D&D was for many years, if the dice were left out of the games. I believed these would sell very well, and designed quite a few (it was fun). Unfortunately, I was unable to convince any publisher to risk this relatively radical format.

One of the games I designed grew beyond the original limitation of 64 pieces and became Dragon Rage, published in 1982 by Heritage/Dwarfstar. It was the only asymmetrical game of the ones I designed, as it happens, that is, the only one with unbalanced forces. The eight games of the Dwarfstar line were quite popular, and still are today. Joe Scoleri ("The Maverick") recently set up a web site devoted to those games, and the ones designed by Dwarfstar employees can be downloaded there http://dwarfstar.brainiac.com/. The two designed by outside designers are not available; in my case, I'd like to see Dragon Rage republished, especially because I was never paid a cent for the original publication of 10,000, as Heritage went bankrupt owing to obligations incurred by the older, miniatures part of the company.

When games were often found in shops and people bought on impulse, on seeing the game, microgames made a lot of sense. They were inexpensive, easy to learn, immediately gratifying. Now, apparently with most long-term wargame sales over the Internet/mail order/phone/catalog, much of the impulsiveness is lost. I doubt that individual microgames, as separate games, have much chance to sell in a market crowded with titles of larger games.

I noticed, walking around PrezCon in Charlottesville this February, that there don't seem to be any more "small" games, at least in the physical size or boards and pieces. I haven't seen games listed from the larger publishers that fit the description, especially the low price. There seem to be few short wargames, of any size.

My idea now is to package three or four of these short, simple, but varied games in one box, a "4 in 1" or "Quadruple Threat" (or Triple Threat, depending on costs), to be sold at a typical price for a larger game (though still relatively low, because of the low production costs of games with 64 counters each and small boards). I have not yet found a case where this was tried, and I think it would stand out amongst the expensive, often large, games of today.

Yes, there are a few small publishers who do old-fashioned cheapo microgames, but in this day and age, people don't want cheap pieces and boards. I'd want to do a "Quadruple Threat" with at least 5/8 inch counters, if not larger; I sometimes playtest some of mine nowadays with one inch plastic pieces, but that would be impractical, I should think, where you want to keep the price down.

Such "Quadruple Threat" games could be advertised as good for those times when you don't have the time, or enough players, to play the typical larger wargame of the day, and also excellent for tournaments; you might even have time for double-elimination.

One of my current playtesters, who has almost no experience of playing boardgames but lots with computer games, referred to one of these small games as "violent checkers"--he really likes it, and thinks it would be popular. While actually far from the abstract nature of checkers, the games are not realistic by the standards of historical gamers, not simulations, but nonetheless do a decent job of reflecting the important relationships in a variety of combat situations. Though I have a Ph.D. in military history, I have always preferred good games to good simulations. The games include naval, land, air, fantasy, science fiction--a great variety. Some are tactical, some are more strategic.

The question, of course, is whether this kind of package would sell, and whether games of this sort would be popular. I should think that boardgames have a better chance of being played when they're nearly as accessible as computer games--short rules, short playing time. Who knows?

Lewis Pulsipher

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."  Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery