Introduction: UX and Tabletop Games Are More Connected Than You Think
I’ve never designed a tabletop game—but I’ve played plenty. And the more I reflect on those experiences, the more I realize how much they teach me about UX and tabletop games.
Whether I’m decoding a messy rulebook, onboarding new players, or watching people break a mechanic in unexpected ways, I start noticing patterns. These aren’t just quirks of gameplay. They’re user experience challenges. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
So this isn’t a game design deep dive. It’s a reflection on what playing tabletop games can teach us about building better digital experiences—especially if we pay attention to the moments that confuse us, guide us, or delight us at the table.
Onboarding in UX and Tabletop Games Should Feel Like Setup, Not Homework
The first few minutes of any board game are critical. If the setup takes too long or the rulebook feels like a wall of text, excitement turns into friction fast. That’s happened to me more times than I can count. A great game with poor onboarding can kill the momentum before it starts.
That’s no different from digital products. If users feel overwhelmed the moment they land in your app, chances are, they’ll bounce.
Some tabletop games solve this by:
- Including quick-start guides or summary sheets (Codenames, Splendor)
- Offering guided playthroughs (Unstable Unicorns comes close)
- Letting players “learn as they go” (Coup, One Night Ultimate Alien)
On the flip side, games like Santa Monica and Betrayal at Baldur’s Gate can be difficult to return to after a while. Even if you’ve played before, the rules don’t always stick, and it feels like you’re starting from scratch each time.
In UX and tabletop games alike, onboarding success depends on:
- Well-placed tooltips or micro-onboarding flows
- Just-in-time education instead of long tutorials
- Progressive disclosure—revealing complexity only when needed
It’s not about giving users everything up front. It’s about giving them enough to get started.
Game Mechanics and UX Patterns Work the Same Way
When you play a game, you learn its core loop: what you can do, what you should avoid, and how to win (or not lose). That’s the same rhythm users fall into when navigating an app.
Think of:
- The bluffing mechanic in Coup as a risk-driven interaction with clear consequences.
- The engine-building loop in Wingspan and Century Spice Road as metaphors for scalable systems—each choice builds on the last.
- The point-chasing rhythm in Parks, which rewards planning and movement.
On the other hand, games like Wazabi and Tempurra, while easy to teach and play, rely heavily on randomness. They are repeatable and learnable, but can also get old too quickly. That same feeling happens with apps that rely on novelty but don’t offer much depth.
Each mechanic teaches players how to interact with the system. Good UX does the same. Whether you’re dragging cards into a deck builder or uploading files into a CMS, the interaction pattern needs to feel:
- Learnable
- Repeatable
- Satisfying
The more intuitive the pattern, the less cognitive load users feel—and the more agency they gain.
Edge Cases in UX and Tabletop Games Tell a Bigger Story
Games break down at the edges—when a rule is unclear, a goal feels fuzzy, or a mechanic behaves differently than expected.
In UX, these are your error states, 404s, or moments of ambiguity. When users don’t know what happens next, they hesitate. Or worse, they leave.
One example that stands out was the first time my wife and I played 7 Wonders: Architects. While the game was technically designed for a minimum of two players, it felt like it was built with larger groups in mind. As a two-player game, it moved very quickly and lacked the tension or challenge we expected. We weren’t sure if we were playing it “right,” or if the experience was simply too streamlined for a pair.
Another example is Santa Monica, which has a lot of possible end goals but doesn’t do a great job surfacing which ones matter at what time. My wife and I struggled to understand what we were working toward, and while the mechanics were interesting, the goals felt scattered.
Good game design—and good UX—anticipate these edge cases. They don’t prevent creativity, but they help users stay on track.
Feedback Keeps Users and Players Engaged
One of the things I love about games is how clearly they tell you if you’re doing well.
In Coup, you feel power when you eliminate a rival. In Splendor, you feel momentum when your engine clicks and nobles arrive. These aren’t just points. They’re feedback loops.
UX should feel the same way.
- When you complete a task, you should see or feel that something changed.
- When you make progress, you should be rewarded—even if subtly.
- And when you fail, it shouldn’t be a full stop. It should be a signal.
Games rarely stop you from playing. They just shift your strategy. But that shift only works when the game keeps you invested. One example that comes to mind is Raise Your Goblets. It had great potential and an interesting premise, but it often felt like something was missing. The mechanics were clever, but the experience didn’t quite have enough to keep us engaged over multiple rounds. Apps can suffer from the same issue—they need to provide just enough challenge or reward to keep users motivated to continue. UX should do the same. Help users course-correct, not quit.
UX for One ≠ UX for Many
Some games are solo-friendly. Others depend on group dynamics—negotiation, betrayal, teamwork. The same goes for apps.
What works for an individual workflow might completely fall apart in collaborative use. (Ask any team who’s tried to use a task board with no permissions or notification logic.)
Games like One Night Ultimate Alien or Avalon hinge entirely on player interaction. There’s no game without the social layer.
For UX designers, this is a reminder: Designing for individuals isn’t the same as designing for groups. Roles, visibility, and feedback need to shift depending on the experience.
UX and Tabletop Games Share a Lot More Than You Think
You don’t need to design games to learn from them. You just need to play—and pay attention. UX and tabletop games share full of tiny lessons:
- How we learn systems
- How we deal with ambiguity
- How feedback shapes behavior
- How friction either stops us or draws us in
As someone who builds digital experiences, I’ve found that game nights sharpen my UX instincts. They show me where people hesitate, where they light up, and where design becomes invisible. And sometimes, those are the best lessons of all.
That said, I don’t claim to be an expert in game design. I’ve never designed a tabletop game. While UX design comes more naturally to me, game design feels like an entirely different discipline. The way systems, mechanics, and player psychology come together in tabletop games is something I admire—but haven’t attempted myself. This reflection isn’t about claiming mastery in both. It’s about exploring the space between them with curiosity.
About Me
I’m JP B. Bantigue, CLSSBB — a multidisciplinary digital professional with a background in UI/UX design, front-end development, and process improvement. Outside of work, I spend weekends playing board games, where I’m constantly reminded that every product is also an experience—and every experience is an opportunity to design with intention.
