Defining 'Themeless'

In the last post, I gave my definition of theme: a subject in a setting with an uncertain outcome. In this post, I want to dive deeper and look at what it means for a game to be themeless. 

Let's start with the easy element: the uncertain outcome. In order for theme to be present in a game, it must be tied to the game-state in some way, and games generally do not have scripted endings. Game illustrations can have a subject and a setting, but if they are totally divorced from the momentum of play then the illustrations function only as an aesthetic style. We see this in classic games that have IPs slapped on them in order to appeal to collectors. However, very few mechanics need to reflect the theme in order for theme to feel present. The more connection that theme has with mechanics, the more thematic a game will feel. Theme exists on a spectrum that requires at least one point of connectivity in order to exist. Azul exists on the lower end of this spectrum, but still has several points of connectivity between mechanics and theme: tiles can break, tiles are being placed in a decorative pattern, the best tile-layer is determined at the end of the game. What if the theme is not tied to the win condition? I'm using uncertain outcome to mean that the 'story' of the game does not progress in an identical way from game to game. Games often will start with the same state from play to play but rarely end with the same state. If a meeple took a different pattern of actions one game to the next, its character arc and its world changed. Since the pattern of play is not predetermined before starting a game, I maintain that a theme requires an uncertain outcome, which arises from connectivity to a game's mechanics. 

So, theme must connect to the dynamic nature of gameplay. But can theme exist without a setting? It is both difficult and rare for a subject to exist without a setting. It's arguably impossible on a philosophical level. However, setting is usually viewed as "what we can know about the game world" outside of the central characters and actions. From this angle, I believe that it is possible to have such barely-there settings as to be nonexistent. For example, Werewolf is arguably a subject without a setting. What we know about the world from playing the basic rules of Werewolf: there is a day/night cycle, werewolves exist, villagers exist. Maybe a seer (or similar role) also exists. I would argue that isn't enough context to count as a setting. Where does that leave my definition of theme? I would merely add the additional comment that sometimes, rarely the setting is unspecified. Since setting is largely provided by/fleshed out by illustration, unspecified settings will be most common in games that have a subject connected to the mechanics but no/little illustration or otherwise specified information about setting. Like I said, that's rather rare in hobby games, although classic games like chess could also fit in this category. 

Can theme exist without a subject? I would argue that if a setting connects to mechanics then a subject naturally arises around the actions and goals of the mechanics. So, a purely mechanical game will have no subject, but a game with a specified setting almost certainly has a subject. However, there may be subjects that fall outside of what is broadly considered to be theme. The main one is players acting as themselves. If a game has no setting, no NPCs, and the players act as themselves, I would argue the game has no theme. Many party games, quiz games, and judging games fall into this category. For example, in Dixit the only named role is a storyteller. The game has no specified setting. There is one connection point to the role of storyteller: the sentence you must make up on your turn. But because players are literally fulfilling the role as themselves, the connection point seems too tenuous to be able to confidently call it a theme. "Players are storytellers and then they vote" is, at best, half a theme. So, acting as yourself dilutes the subject because of the overlap with reality. Similarly, if the game actions mimic the real world actions of playing the game too closely, then theme becomes impossible to distinguish from the act of playing the game. For example, a game about two people sitting down to play chess that does not have some sort of thematic framing device is functionally a game of chess. While these games may have a theme, they present as functionally, experientially having no theme. 

So, what is a themeless game? Turns out there are several kinds.

1. Games with no setting or subject of any kind. (These are typically combinatorial abstracts or classic games.)

2. Games with a subject and/or setting that have zero connection to the mechanics. (Like the above games, but with art inserted.) 

3. Games where the subject and setting are so similar to the real world action of playing the game as to be indistinguishable as a theme. Most often seen when players play as themselves. 

ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.