Proposition density

Proposition density in graphic design refers to the balance between visual elements and the amount of information conveyed. A well-considered proposition density allows designers to present essential messages clearly while maintaining aesthetic appeal, ensuring that each component serves a specific purpose. In general, you want fewer visual elements and more possible interpretations. The general idea is that a stronger design does more with less. Have you ever looked at a logo or design and wondered why it felt cluttered or messy? This was probably why.

The elements of a design are known as “propositions.” That is to say that each element of a design suggests something or carries some meaning. Each element of the visual design is known as a “surface proposition” (also known as Ps). Then you have what’s called the “deep propositions” (also known as Pd). These are the meanings that we attribute to each surface proposition. Then you can form the ratio Pd/Ps. Ideally, this will be a number greater than 1. The only way to be lower than 1 is if you have elements of the design that carry no meaning. Don’t mistake this for an exact science. Instead, view it as a way to gauge your designs to see how they compare to other design options.

The best way to understand this is to dissect a sample. Let’s consider the Obama logo from his 2008 presidential campaign. It is often used as a shining example of this concept.

So if we do the math, we have a 6 to 2 ratio, or a proposition density of 3. This is really strong. Notice how clean and simple the logo is. It uses white space effectively and just looks really visually strong. This is the hallmark of great design.

If we think about this in board game terms, we can obviously use this to assess our graphic design, logos, etc. But you can do even more than that. Let’s consider the components of the game as the surface propositions and the meanings or uses of those components as the deep propositions. Games with lots of components and only a single meaning for each have a low proposition density, and I suspect those games will feel more fiddly or complex as a result. On the other hand, games that pack multiple meanings into a single element often feel elegant or simple. And this has nothing to do with the scale of the game.

Let’s start with Age of Innovation, a rather complex game. On the player boards during setup, we place all the buildings in their proper space. The display shows us the cost and the evolution tree of upgrading our buildings. But there is an extra detail that boosts the deep meanings. Each building placed reveals something under it. These are what you get during income. It serves as a nice reminder (so you don’t have to go hunting the board and trying to remember what you get for each thing). But it also gives that much more meaning and purpose to the player board. It’s not just a decorative place to store your stuff; it has real function in streamlining the game. This detail is very welcome in what is otherwise a complex game. It’s nice to have parts like this that help you play the game properly.

In the game Pandemic, cards can be used to cure diseases, travel, or build research stations. So every card you get has the potential to do one of three actions. What’s interesting is that all of this comes from only one piece of information on the card: the location. So, in a way, the card has very little in terms of surface propositions but multiple deep propositions. Again, this makes the game feel more elegant. Imagine how much more complex it would feel if every card also had a special power on it. Players would almost have too much to consider.

Next, let’s look at Traders of Osaka. I want to focus in particular on the cards. Typically, games that have multi-use cards, like Pandemic, allow you to use those cards to do different actions. This game turns that upside down. Instead, the meaning of the cards changes based on where the card is:

• Cards in your hand are currency to spend.
• Cards in your hand can also be used as insurance.
• Cards in the market and on the table in front of you are goods to be transported.
• Face down cards in front of you are points.

Again, we have a very low number of visual and physical elements and a high number of deep meanings.

An even tighter game is Innovation. This game has only one component: cards. In this game, the cards are added to your tableau. While there, it is possible to “splay” them in multiple ways. This simply means to offset them in specific directions to reveal the desired icons. It sounds simple, but it results in a huge decision space to work with. Players have a lot of agency to set up a wide variety of engines. The cards have multiple visual elements, but even more potential uses.

Terraforming Mars has multi-use tokens, which are interesting to consider in terms of proposition density. In the game, many of the cards collect specific types of tokens, like the one below that collects “animal” tokens. There are no animal tokens; there are just generic player tokens. You simply add those to the card, and they become animal tokens. It’s such a simple idea, but it keeps the physical components low and the deep propositions high. I was very inspired by this years ago and have since made multiple games that use generic tokens in this way. It’s a remarkably elegant approach.

Conclusion

Hopefully, these examples have demonstrated how a very low number of surface propositions and a high number of deep ones can make a game feel elegant and easy to play. Look carefully at the components and design elements of your game and consider how many of each type of proposition it has. Are there things you can consolidate? Are there elements that can be added to reinforce the rules and increase the density of propositions? Are there visual elements or components that serve no purpose at all? What can you remove and have the game not lose any part of the game play?