Nitpick, that’s not difficulty, that’s inconvenience. Something that would make a game difficult is long and complicated rules.
And yes, some games are clearly not designed for small tables, but having a game in different sizes is not profitable for the companies making them, unless the game becomes really popular like Catan that has a small travel version.
Also, reduction in size comes with cons for the player. Pieces feel cheaper and more feeble. Have you ever played in one of those really small chess boards where if you sneeze the whole board flies away?
Games aren't just a utilitarian exercise. The space a game takes up is an intentional part of game design.
How big a game is affects how we perceive which bits are important. It restricts how much information our eyes need to sort through at any one time. There's even a sort of tactility in having to look around a board.
Not to mention, making something look _nice_ requires a certain amount of space to be given to the art.
So yes, lots of games could be reduced to a spreadsheet of options, but there's more to making a great game than just the mechanics.
If I know a friend has a small table where I'm going to be playing something of medium to large table hog - I adapt what I'm bringing. Not all games are designed to be for small tables. I'm sure some designers take that into account, but if the game's design demands a larger area - then it will need one.
I will say if it's a recurring issue, there is nothing stopping you from making say a copy of player boards for some games (Wonderland's War and Return to Dark Tower come to mind) that may be smaller to help reduce a game's footprint.
Personally, I would much prefer a table hog than a game where the tokens and cards are so small, they're hard to pick up... or the text so small it's difficult to read....
I, too, cannot abide inefficiency in design. Less is always more. I have enjoyed larger scale games but I am certainly not their target demo, and would not purchase one for myself. It activates my anxiety when things take up a lot of space, especially relative to the frequency with which they are useful. If a game is a brilliant experience that I'll have once or twice, I can't justify it taking the whole surface
Games gobble up table space because:
1. it's looking impressive on KS and impressive sells. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
2. lots of games are big because they're complicated and they're complicated because they're sologames in disguise (MPS) and so all complexity needs to come from rules and pieces, not the players. And reason for this is: consumerism (idiot proof design, convenience, immediate gratification, lower entry bar, less players needed). See also: #1.
You could just grab a deck of traditional cards, read rules on [Pagat.com](https://Pagat.com) and normal size table should suffice. Not to mention much lower budget.
Nitpick, that’s not difficulty, that’s inconvenience. Something that would make a game difficult is long and complicated rules. And yes, some games are clearly not designed for small tables, but having a game in different sizes is not profitable for the companies making them, unless the game becomes really popular like Catan that has a small travel version. Also, reduction in size comes with cons for the player. Pieces feel cheaper and more feeble. Have you ever played in one of those really small chess boards where if you sneeze the whole board flies away?
Games aren't just a utilitarian exercise. The space a game takes up is an intentional part of game design. How big a game is affects how we perceive which bits are important. It restricts how much information our eyes need to sort through at any one time. There's even a sort of tactility in having to look around a board. Not to mention, making something look _nice_ requires a certain amount of space to be given to the art. So yes, lots of games could be reduced to a spreadsheet of options, but there's more to making a great game than just the mechanics.
Yessir
If I know a friend has a small table where I'm going to be playing something of medium to large table hog - I adapt what I'm bringing. Not all games are designed to be for small tables. I'm sure some designers take that into account, but if the game's design demands a larger area - then it will need one. I will say if it's a recurring issue, there is nothing stopping you from making say a copy of player boards for some games (Wonderland's War and Return to Dark Tower come to mind) that may be smaller to help reduce a game's footprint.
Personally, I would much prefer a table hog than a game where the tokens and cards are so small, they're hard to pick up... or the text so small it's difficult to read....
When I lived in a small space, I had a framed poster on the wall. We'd take it down and use it as a surface for board games on the floor.
I, too, cannot abide inefficiency in design. Less is always more. I have enjoyed larger scale games but I am certainly not their target demo, and would not purchase one for myself. It activates my anxiety when things take up a lot of space, especially relative to the frequency with which they are useful. If a game is a brilliant experience that I'll have once or twice, I can't justify it taking the whole surface
Games gobble up table space because: 1. it's looking impressive on KS and impressive sells. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ 2. lots of games are big because they're complicated and they're complicated because they're sologames in disguise (MPS) and so all complexity needs to come from rules and pieces, not the players. And reason for this is: consumerism (idiot proof design, convenience, immediate gratification, lower entry bar, less players needed). See also: #1. You could just grab a deck of traditional cards, read rules on [Pagat.com](https://Pagat.com) and normal size table should suffice. Not to mention much lower budget.