Some games are complicated - they have really complex rules. Examples of this are games where you have to track many different types of tokens, with different rules for each.
Other games have really simple rules, but still manage to produce extreme complexity in they way they are played.
Go is the perfect example of this. It literally has 2-3 rules, but because you can play anywhere, the complexity it can produce is wide and deep, to the point that tomes have been written on how to play it.
What other boardgames exist that have very simple rules, but produce complex and interesting game play?
I think I agree that abstracts more often have this property, but I don’t think there is a perfect correlation…
Chess is an interesting example, to me it’s rule complexity is kinda medium-high. It definitely does have emergent complexity, and though I have a vast respect for it as a game, it just kind of bores me, and I think its because the ratio of emergent complexity to rule complexity is low… I dunno, maybe I’m just being a brat…
Backgammon and checkers are even less interesting, for the same reasons.
An interesting kinda-counter example is Regicide… If you play the full game, it’s 100% themed, and you can feel that even when you play with a normal deck of cards. But it does seem to have some interesting emergent-feeling property. Even though it’s really just a slightly more complex multiplayer solitaire…
I mean yes and no, you are just saying what lots of fans of abstracts claim makes them superior to other types of games… to which the rest of the board gaming community smiles bemusedly and goes on playing whatever type of game they find the most intriguing which may or may not be an abstract (it probably isn’t).
Yes and no to which part? I’m not trying to claim abstracts are good…
I think that regicide is NOT abstract (not sure though), but still seems to have the property that I like…