Rules on rules on rules vs. abstract strategy
Hi game creators! I have a question to ask all of you, but first, a quick background.
I have been designing games that mostly fall under the category of "abstract strategy" for the most part (think Hive, Onitama, etc). When I do, I occasionally get some kind of comment saying that the game could use some more oomph with things like "special abilities" or cards that manipulate the rules.
I think that these players tend to like games that are more similar to Wingspan, or Terraforming Mars. I call these games "rules on rules on rules." While I don't despise these games, I tend to stick to games where all the rules "fit in the rulebook" and a short rulebook at that. I like it when, in theory at least, just looking at basic rules is enough to figure out why the game is fun and start theory crafting strategies - the complexity is "emergent" and not baked in. Games with too many systems end up putting me in a state of "well, let me get a spreadsheet and plug in the numbers" mindset, and I lose interest quickly.
I want to be clear: I recognize this as a matter of taste, and I don't think those games are inferior in any way.
That said, I've noticed that most boardgame enthusiasts tend to like these kinds of games: lots of systems, lots of cards/tokens/meeples, multiple victory conditions, etc.
I'm curious to poll the community here. Which do you prefer, and why not the other camp?