Scott Allen CzyszUnited States
I've talked about bits and pieces of this in previous blogs, but I thought this time around I would try to cover the entire game design process for me, as sort of a self-evaluation of where I am doing well and where I probably need to improve. I will mention examples from my experience along the way.
After a bit of pondering and scribbling of notes (which, by the way is how a game design idea typically starts for me), I have come up with a 6 phase process for my game designs, from "idea" to "published":
For me, a game idea can (and has) come from just about anywhere: a book, a movie, a song, an album cover, a conversation, another game, a mechanism, a theme, a desire to take part of an existing game and make it better somehow. Looking back, I think most of my game ideas start with a theme. More recently however, my game ideas have been coming from a mechanism, experience, or even player count and components (18-card multi-player game, for example). I don't know if this matters at all, if it is good or bad, or a progression from beginner designer to more experienced designer, or just random.
Once I have an idea, I will try to capture it in a notebook I have. I don't have a strict format, I just try to capture as much of the idea as I can and try to translate it to gameplay, components, mechanisms, etc. These are all hand written, maybe with sketches - very free form, and that is intentional. At this point, I don't want to be bound by any kind of structure. Even the notebook I use is in a sense unbounded. I use Staples brand Arc notebooks which allow pages to be added, removed, and moved around the notebook (or from notebook to notebook). I really like it.
Next, I sometimes write up a summary of the game to shift from a collection of random ideas to some sort of structure. This may be in the format of rules: Game Overview, Components, Set-up, Gameplay, but not all the time. Then I will read this, ponder this, and try to decide if this game idea has some promise, or if it is just a theme I like trying to be force fit into a tabletop game. Sometimes, I will then also write a paragraph or two starting with "So What?" Here I try to talk myself out of this game idea because it's already been done, or too simple, or too complex, or whatever. I find that if I have a real easy time here, then the game is likely not worth developing further. If I really struggle here, then I think "maybe I'm onto something here".
At this point, sometimes I will utilize the "Board Game Identity Pyramid" I heard about here:
I am not sure if this is the perfect tool for me at this stage, but it does force me to think through the game design and be thorough about it.
Another big part of this phase is research. This is oftentimes looking for other games that have similar themes and mechanisms, mainly to stop me early if I am just unintentionally re-inventing a game that already exists. I may (and maybe I should do more) research on mechanisms. But usually, this research involves the theme, the genre, the period, and also researching or searching for some inspirational art. Finding this art helps me focus in on the desired feel or tone of the game idea.
For me, the "game idea" phase is a blast. It's energizing and positive. If I could just do this and hand the rest of the work off to someone else, I'd be OK with that.
I don't have a strict hand-off point between "game idea" and "game design". On the other hand, I don't consider a game a game (it's still an idea) until I have rules written. So, let's consider "game design" starting at the first version of the rules - usually a very rough draft of the rules. Likewise, where "game design" ends and where "game development" starts is a bit murky. I am lucky enough to have a monthly meet-up with other game designers. If I have a game design that is done enough to bring it to them to playtest, I will call the start of game development.
The design phase is another phase that I very much enjoy. Noodling an idea around in my head and in scribbled notes is fun, sort of like doodling is fun, but to take those ideas and turn them into something physical that works and is enjoyable is very rewarding.
Like everything else, there is not a single recipe here, but it is typically going to be some combination of defining:
- mechanisms, and
- and then creating a prototype.
As for mechanisms, I don't have a book of mechanisms to consult, but I have designed a couple dozen games, so I do have sort of an informal library of mechanisms to pick from. Other than my game Highlands, where I intentionally set out to create sort of a simplified version of another game (Scythe), I don't typically consciously pick mechanisms from games I know.
I can't really define how I select mechanisms for games, other than to say they depend on the "feel" or experience. I usually want to give the player choices (which I know sounds obvious, but it means I don't like things like "skill checks" where the player rolls a die and sees how they did).
I am happy to say that I can now usually design a game that works (meaning it isn't a train wreck the first time I try to play it). But, I can't always design a game that's fun. I have several game designs that work fine, but I just have no desire to play them - they're not fun. And, to be honest, that can be a bit frustrating. I guess the lesson here is a well known one: get a game idea to the table to playtest as soon as possible. So, a big challenge here is, as Gabe Barrett of the Board Game Design Lab says, "find the fun".
How do I find the fun? Great question. I wish I had an answer. This is where I have progressed as a game designer: I can usually design a game that works, but I haven't yet figured out how to methodically and repeatably design a game that is fun. The result is I spend time on a game idea and a game design, and then just set it aside because it isn't fun. Obviously, I'd like more of my games to complete the whole process and not get set aside a couple phases into the process.
One piece of the answer may be the game's "hook". One of my design tenets is "There is a fine line between a hook and a gimmick", meaning I don't want to design games that are popular just because of a gimmick, a particular theme, or art, or whatever. But...with so many games existing in the world today, I realize that any new game, especially one from a small game designer needs to stand out. So, how do I add a hook to a game? Another great question that I do not know the answer to. Does a hook come as part of the game idea phase, or in the game design phase, or in the development phase? And how does it come? As a flash of inspiration, or are hooks methodically created? Please comment here if you know the answer.
I initially thought that all 6 of these steps would fit in a single post, but it is already getting long, so I stop here for now.
My biggest challenges in these first two steps are:
1) "finding the fun", and
2) finding or creating a "hook" for the game
Any thoughts or ideas on these two things are gladly welcomed.
A place to share my game designs, works in progress, game design philosophy, and ponderings.
17 Jan 2022
- [+] Dice rolls
03 Jan 2022
I'll be honest, I like looking back on the year that was for my own sake. I am not sure how entertaining this post will be for others.
I'll ramble a bit about my game playing in 2021, then ramble a bit on my game design activities in 2021.
My wife and I moved cross country to Colorado over two years ago now. Moving to a bigger city and making the friends we have made have enabled us to play many more games with others. In addition, thanks to the pandemic - and also I think to moving cross country and initially not having a friend group here - my wife now enjoys playing board games with me, which is great. In fact, she has beaten me at Scythe twice today.
Looking at my recorded plays here on BGG, in 2021 I played:
31 different games a total of 417 times, so on average, I played each game about 13 times. But, averages aren't great for stuff like this.
I played 3 different games over 50 times each, and
I played 19 games less than 10 times each
(and 7 of those only 1 time each).
Somewhat surprisingly to me, my most played game in 2021 was The Isle of Cats. It is one of my wife's favorites, and it is one that we will sometimes play 2 or 3 times in one sitting, so I guess not that surprising.
Scythe was my second most played game. This is another favorite for my wife (once she finally took the plunge to learn it). We played through Scythe: The Rise of Fenris with our friends. That was a blast, and we are planning to do it again hopefully soon.
And, my third most played game last year was Fantasy Realms. This one plays quick and plays great from 2 to 6 players.
I think the favorite "new to me" games in 2021 are:
Raiders of Scythia A very well designed worker placement game by Shem Philips.
Fantasy Realms My go to quick to play, easy to learn, thinky game.
Ragemore A cool, and cool looking solo game from ButtonShy Games.
I won't single out any games that I didn't enjoy, and honestly I don't think I played any that I did not enjoy. But, there were a couple games I played that didn't give me the "I've got to get this game" feeling. The three I can think of:
one didn't do anything new or exciting, it was fine
one seemed mechanical to me, the theme didn't connect well with the mechanisms
one seemed more complicated than it needed to be, complexity added for complexity's sake
Two of my game designs were added to the BGG game database last year:
I had a lot of fun designing and playing this game. Unfortunately, it's a bit of bear to PNP, 108 mini cards, plus other stuff. Luckily a geek buddy of mine, David Francis, from the other side of the world was willing to build it, play it, and offer a bunch of great feedback. I named one of the player ship mats in honor of David. Or, I guess more correctly, I let David name one of the ships, so that was cool. This game is available to purchase on TheGameCrafter.com, but of course it is not cheap there. I'd like to make a couple tweaks to this game this year, then perhaps pitch it to a publisher.
Count of the Nine Estates
This is an expanded, and I think much improved version of my 9 card game Count of Nine. ButtonShy Games released this game on Black Friday (late November) after it being part of their Board Game of the Month club. And, it sold out on the same day it went on sale, so that was cool (for me). Hopefully, there will be a reprint in 2022.
As for other design activities, I am intentionally trying to expand my horizons some by designing multi-player games, in addition to my usual solo designs.
A solo design I like is called "Foray". It is a solo, 54 card, play through the deck one time game, maybe closest in feel to Lord of the Rings: The Adventure Deck Game. Here is what it looks like:
I like it. It needs better art. I submitted it to one publisher, but they thought it needed more tension. I think it is fine, but it is a short playtime game, maybe just 10 minutes or so. So, if I have time, I might try to improve the art, put in on TheGameCrafter, and maybe just print some nice copies for family and friends. I'm not sure any publisher is looking for a 10 minute solo game to publish.
My first multi-player attempt this year, I called "MyRobot". It can play 2 to 5 players (maybe 6). It works and is fun, but isn't anything special.
Maybe another good 'friends and family' game.
Next, I designed a game I am calling "Forest Sky". This is an 18 card, 2-4 player game that feels a little like Fantasy Realms (intentional on my part), and a little like Texas Hold'em poker (not intentional.
I want to run this on by my local designer meet-up group again, get some other people to playtest it, tweak it as needed, then submit it to a publisher, likely ButtonShy.
Finally, as mentioned in the last blog post, I am working on another multiplayer game, as yet un-named.
I have enjoyed playtesting other published games and/or the solo mode of other games. Here is a list of games that I either playtested in 2021, or I playtested them earlier and they were published in 2021:
Pulp Invasion Yes, it's a Todd Sanders game, no it is nothing like Pulp Detective. A fun solo game with great retro scifi art.
Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig: Secrets & Soirees Expansion An expansion that adds solo play to a fun game.
Tapestry: Arts & Architecture This is a family favorite game of ours, so it was great to playtest this expansion a while ago. My wife helped me playtest the 2-player rules, so we both got our names in the credits on the side of the inside box, so that was very cool.
Upcoming Stonemaier game - I obviously can't say anything about this, but it was fun to playtest and looking forward to seeing the real game.
I've mentioned this before, but a big surprise to me was that in the Tapestry expansion, Stonemaier published a technology card based on a joke thread I posted a while ago.
I half-jokingly say that that will be my highest volume game design contribution, since the expansion will I am sure print tens of thousands of copies.
Count of the Nine Estates selling out in one day was great and memorable for me.
Pocket Landship's planned expansion and re-print in 2021 did not happen due to a family tragedy with the publisher. Hopefully in 2022.
I did sign another game with a publisher for hopefully a late 2022 Kickstarter campaign, but I can't say more than that.
My wife loves that I have a hobby (game design) that actually pays me money, rather than a hobby that costs a lot of money to enjoy, so she is encouraging which is nice. I received royalty payments/advances in 2021 that would pay for one or two monthly car payments, but that is just fine, I am not complaining at all.
- [+] Dice rolls
29 Dec 2021
At least, that is what I hope to do.
As I have mentioned here several times, my game design resume is mostly small solo games. That is fine, I am not ashamed of that or anything, but, as my game playing has changed to more 2-player and multi-player games, I also want my game designing to head in that direction. I will definitely still design solo games, but I want to add to that and design multi-player games as well.
I talked previously about "Forest Skies", an 18-card game for 2-4 players. That game is a game design success for me, and maybe someday it will get published.
For my current - as yet un-named - multi-player design, I took a reflective approach. I looked at about 20 multi-player games that I enjoy playing to some degree. These games varied from great (to me) games to games I sold after a few plays. Themes varied from revolution to cats to spirits to fantasy to civilization building, and more. For each of those games, I wrote down one or two things I liked about them, and one or two things I don't like about them. And, from all of those scribbles, I created a more concise list of about 15 things I like and about 10 things I don't like. It was a fun exercise, and I realize it may do nothing more than create a pieced-together Frankenstein's monster of a game. But, I am hoping that it creates sort of the "guard rails" to keep me on track to get closer to a game design that will be enjoyable (to me, at least) to play.
I will share my likes and dislikes here.
In no particular order, my "likes":
Limited luck: Minimize dice rolling, drawing cards, "output randomness", etc.
Have a clear set of limited choices per turn, 3-6 or so choices per turn, not 1 or 2, not 12-50.
Tactile: Minis are cool, bigger chunky pieces are good
Spatial: Plotting a route, fitting things together, etc.
Multiple paths to victory
Central, shared board
Choices: card drafting, market to buy a selection of items
Simple rules, or at least not complexity added for the sake of complexity
Leveling up, upgrades
Engine building: start small, "snowball" to bigger, more powerful
Tile laying with choices, more than "pick a tile, play that tile"
"Grueling" choices, "I don't know what I should do" (because several choices offer benefits) decisions
Building stuff that at the end of the game you can look at and admire
Good, logical graphic design
NPCs and/or neutral factions or similar to make 2-player games feel like multi-player games
And, in no particular order, my dislikes:
Long set-up time
Spending most of the game just focused on your own player board, not knowing or caring what other players are doing
Luck of the draw, stuck with a bad card draw
Goal of the game is to survive, not die, versus growing, thriving, etc.
Mechanical feel, not thematic
Little tension, just play till it's over to see who won
No "wow" factor
How does all that compare with my "design tenets" I came up with a while ago?
1) Theme and mechanisms are important, and a game design can start with either, but what is key is creating the desired "experience": feelings, emotions, etc.
2) Give the player meaningful choices.
3) Low rules overhead.
4) Quick-ish set-up.
5) Multiple paths to victory.
6) Logical graphic design.
7) If dice are rolled, roll dice (not a single die).
8) Small-ish box games can be elegant.
9) There is a fine line between a "hook" and a "gimmick".
I think - and not surprisingly - my likes and my design tenets do match up fairly well. (I bolded the overlaps).
So, let's get to the game design, how it started, where it's at now, and where it is headed.
First off, I should say that this is definitely a "mechanisms first" design versus a "theme first" design. This is not a surprise since none of my "likes" above were about a particular theme, and as I wrote a while ago, theme probably doesn't matter as much as I used to think.
Does Theme Matter?
My first scribbles of this game idea were VERY mechanical:
2-4 choices/options per turn:
tiles to choose from
face up cards to choose from: objectives, upgrades, etc.
leveling up, engine building
set collection for upgrades?
And, that was about it. So, some type of central board, tile laying game with upgrades and objectives. As for the tile laying, I didn't want just "pick a tile, play a tile". I wanted to somehow link the tiles to the game's economy: do something to produce revenue/resources/money to then spend on tiles. So, I could save up for more expensive/better tiles, or buy cheaper tiles now.
From there, more ideas formed. I came up with different types of tiles, and the idea of linking your tiles together, sort of like Blokus, but you have to pay for the tiles you play by generating resources on the board. So, first cut at types of tiles:
> Power generators that will power mine and refiner tiles
> Power recyclers that will add a power boost to any adjacent Power Generator
> Mine that will gain resources (just 1 type of resource, call it Gold, Money, whatever)
> Refiner that acts like a recycler, except with the Mines - any adjacent mines gain a resource production boost
> Connectors that connect all these pieces together
There is an economic aspect to the game where players need to decide to spend up on higher performing tiles, or go for the cheap ones.
There are also (at this time) objective cards that can be picked up as an action.
And, there might be upgrade cards that can also be picked up.
So, on a players turn, they can do two different of the following:
> buy a tile
> place a tile
> run their mines to gain resources
> choose an objective card
> choose an upgrade card
> implement an upgrade
I played the game a few times solo 2-handed, and it seemed to work, but it's hard to tell if it is really fun.
Over Christmas, when my adult kids were in town, I recruited them to play a game, and got positive feedback (I know, they're my kids, so what did I expect?). They also gave me some ideas to improve the game.
Here is a shot of the end game:
So, still definitely a work in progress. I have some changes in mind to make, and a couple themes I am playing around with. I'll keep you all informed as I progress.
EDIT: Added Thoughts...
In the photo above, you can probably see that there wasn't much tension getting the territory you wanted, so the map probably needs to be tightened up some, and that could be done a couple different ways: just make the map smaller, or add some sort of obstacles, etc.
I was a little surprised how few "tile laying on a shared board with an economy (meaning tiles cost different amounts, etc.)" games are out there. I think the only real one I found is In the Hall of the Mountain King. I have not played it, but might need to check it out.
The yellow tunnels are the tiles placed by the players.
- [+] Dice rolls
29 Nov 2021
For this post, I thought I would share the current progress of my game design in progress "Forest Sky". Not because it is awesome (yet), but because it has hit a bit of a hurdle that is typical with game designs (at least for me).
I posted a couple weeks ago about my 18-card game, Forest Sky.
Forest Sky - A Design Diary
So far, this game has been playtested by:
me, playing multi-handed (~10 games)
2 player, me and my wife (~20 games)
4 player with a game designer meet-up (2 games)
3 and 4 player on Thanksgiving with family (~5 games)
After these plays, my current conclusion is "I think this game is about 90% there" - which I know means it still has about 50% to go.
I think the game is doing these things right:
compact, 18-card game (no other components)
plays well at 2, 3, and 4 players, thanks to the public card pools
tough decisions most turns, the "I don't know what to do!" feeling (the good one, not the bad one)
simple rules, easy to learn, but crunchy game
With these undecided effects:
to score well, players usually have to "sacrifice" a card they want, playing it to one of the public pools, putting it at risk of another player taking it - this isn't always fun
especially at the start of the game, no clear direction on what to do, what card combos to go for
One of the biggest issues may be:
I like the bird theme, but it is probably a mismatch for the crunchiness of the game. This game is very thinky.
So, I kind of see it like the red cross in the image below: the game is close to a summit, but will probably need to go down some if it is ever going to reach the peak.
So, what to do?
1) Change the theme to something that better prepares the players for what is ahead with the game.
2) Change the game to be less "crunchy", basically, make the game a little easier for players.
Change the Theme
This game is, at its core, an abstract card game, sort of like poker. But, the current theme is birds in a forest that look sort of pretty, sort of cool:
The four different bird types are the four suits of the cards. In my mind, the game is sort of building the best alliance of 6 cards, but again, the game is basically an abstract. That's OK, it means it should be easy to re-theme. So, an option is to re-theme the game to something more crunchy, more gritty, more cut-throat. Maybe some sort of political, espionage, back-stabbing, behind the scenes influencing type theme? This would fit with the gameplay where players have to put some cards at risk.
Change the Game to Fit the Current Theme
If the current theme is sort of pretty and laid back, maybe the game should be too. This is tough because I think the game is currently pretty good, it's just that first time players aren't expecting the crunchiness of the game, and that may be a turn off to players.
In the game, each player will score the three cards in their hand at the end of the game, using those 3 cards, plus one of the 3-card public pools -- so scoring those 6 cards. One way to simplify the game is to only score 5 of the 6 cards. So, get rid of the "6 even numbers" card and replace it with simpler, "5 even numbers", for example. This should be fairly easy to do, it will just take some time, and playtesting.
Which of these is the right answer? I honestly have no idea. I will probably play around with both and see what works best. What do you think?
- [+] Dice rolls
After a long wait for me, Count of the Nine Estates will be available for order at:
on Black Friday (Friday November 26).
It's been a long wait for me because I had this game designed about a year ago. Welcome to the world of game publishing. I am not faulting Button Shy. They crank out so many games a year - several Kickstarter campaigns, plus a Board Game of the Month Club that sends out several games a month. And, I am very happy that the game is being released on one of the biggest shopping days of the year. So, that is good, I think.
So, what is this game all about? It is an enlarged and improved version of Count of Nine, a 9 card, solo, euro game I designed a few years ago:
I am proud of Count of Nine - a solo euro game with only 9 cards (no dice, or cubes). But, it had a bit of a constraining feel to it. So, this new game I think fixes that.
So, how does it fix that? By adding 9 more cards and making all 9 of those "estate" (formerly "high structure") cards. And, at the start of the game all 9 estate cards are off to the side available to the player.
But, wouldn't that make the game too easy to have all those choices of estate cards? Why yes, yes it would. So, what we did was: when you build one estate card, discard all the other estate cards in the same row and column. Here is what happens when the second estate card is built:
The second built estate card moves over to your tableau, and the estate card in the same row and the estate card in the same column are discarded from the game.
This adds a very nice strategy element to the game that was not there in its former incarnation. So, at the start of the game, there are 9 estate cards available. Once you build one, 4 others will be discarded. If you build a second estate card, 2 others will be discarded and you will only have one left to choose from. I think it works very well.
We also added some "bonuses" to some of the smaller point estate cards to add another decision in the game: Do I go for the 6 point estate, or for the 3 (or 4) point estate that gives me an extra work crew or gold to work with.
I really like the feel of this expanded game compared to the predecessor.
Remember, Count of the Nine Estates will be available for order at:
on Black Friday (Friday November 26).
- [+] Dice rolls
08 Nov 2021
I was going to title this: "A Design of Mine To Be Published by Stonemaier Games". That headline is technically correct, but misleading.
What is this all about? Read on.
About a year ago, I made a humorous post just for the heck of it. I really can't remember why I bothered to make it. Here is the post:
The Biggest Design Flaw of Tapestry - Sorry Jamey
Tapestry gets critiqued for a few things: not being a REAL civ game, stuff like that. But for me and my wife, we enjoy it. So, I think I just wanted to share some positive vibes about the game, so I made the humorous post.
Fast forward to a couple days ago, and I'm reading the design diary for the next Tapestry expansion, and I see my silly card creation, and it is actually going to be included int eh expansion!
You can see more at the Deisgn Diary for November 7 at the bottom of this page:
So, in the grand scheme of things, it's just one silly card. But...it's one silly card included in a game of one of the biggest game publishers in the world, and I think that's pretty cool.
- [+] Dice rolls
26 Oct 2021
Last time, I talked through several game designs I had been working on...then I didn't post here for several weeks. Well, part of the reason was I have been working on a new game, and now I would like to tell you about it.
Now that I am generally not designing for a BGG design contest, when I start a design I usually need sort of a target audience. For this game my starting point was:
1) design a multi-player (2-4 player) game
2) design within the normal constraints of ButtonShy Games = 18 cards, no other components (if this game design goes well, I will submit it to ButtonShy)
My first notes, from August 26 were:
1-4 cards in hand per player
no/minimum flipping and swapping cards (an overdone mechanism in card only games in my opinion)
shared pool of cards (~ Texas Hold'em poker)
no complicated math scoring
Here are more early thoughts originally from ButtonShy's Discord server's "Design Discussion" channel:
A) I started noodling on a design idea for a multi-player (2-4) 18 card game, hoping that maybe there is a publisher out there somewhere that would be interested in a game that is just 18 cards.
B) One of the things with 2-4 player games is that they can feel very different with 2, 3, or 4 players, so I wanted to try to minimize that. The solution I am thinking of is sort of "NPC"s (non-playable characters), although they won't really be characters, just 2 pools of 3 cards each.
C) I am thinking each player starts with 3 cards, plus these 2 pools of 3 face up cards in the middle of the table. For 2 and 3 player games, the unused cards would be in a face down draw deck between the 2 pools. In a 4 player game, all 18 cards would be used.
D) So...what's the game?? To make the best hand of cards from your 3 cards in your hand plus 3 cards in ONE of the public pools of cards. "Best hand" is still to be determined, for simplicity for now, maybe just think best poker hand (but could also be combo building a'la Fantasy Realms, or something else).
E) Each turn, a player could do ONE of the following actions:
1) swap a card from their hand to one of the pools,
2) swap one card between the two pools,(decided not to do this one)
3) (for 2-3 player games only) draw a card from the deck and replace a card in one of the pools (discarding the card that was in the pool), or
4) "lock" one card in one pool by rotating it 90 degrees. Game ends when 5 of the 6 pool cards are locked.
F) So far, I have only playtested it 3 or 4 handed solo. It works fine mechanically, but hard to tell solo if it is fun. What are your thoughts? Is this (or could this) be enough for a game? Or, it it just a variation on Uno, Go Fish,...? (Counterpoint: If "The Mind" can be a fun game, why can't this?) Any thoughts will be very much appreciated. Thanks.
G) Or, does this game (or something very similar) already exist? Would not be surprised. Stripped down to its bones, this game idea is sort of like Texas Hold'em Poker except with 2 3-card "flop"s to pick from and we can swap cards between our hands and one of the flops.
H) Game layout:
I received some good feedback, then started working on a sharable version of the game.
With 18 cards, I was originally thinking 3 suits of 6 cards because...that adds up to 18 cards. But then, I realized I could make 4 suits of various counts: 3+4+5+6=18 cards. So, just to make it interesting, that is what I did.
For theme, as mentioned a while ago, I wanted to do a raptor theme, so I made the 4 suits: grows (6 cards), hawks (5), owl (4), and eagles (3). The "story" is each player is trying to build the strongest alliance of 6 birds (3 in their hand plus 3 in one of the two public pools). But, admittedly, this theme is pretty thin.
I originally called the game "BS24" for ButtonShy (potential) 2-4 player game. Then, I called it "BirdCard".
Then, I started calling each of the two 3-card public pools "forests" and each player's hand of 3 cards their portion of the "sky". So, I called the game first Forest Skies, but now I am calling it just "Forest Sky".
I am not a graphic designer or artist, so I look for public domain art, and try to keep the cards simple. Here was my first non-hand dran card for the game:
The card suit is: Hawk
The card is reddish (pink) also signifying its suit.
The card's rank (value) is 4.
The Hawk cards are available from 4 to 8.
And, finally, this card's bonus if it is in your hand at the end of the game is: +4 points if in your hand of 3 cards plus the one public pool of 3 cards you select, no card is lower than a 4.
Functional, but very plain.
Future iterations of cards (not the exact same card):
The sharp corner outline of the card bonus is important. It means you can only count ONE bonus with sharp corners in your hand. This is so you can't get the bonus points for both 4-of-a-kind and 2-pair with the same 4 cards. (There are also rounded corner bonuses that you can't "stack", like a 3 card straight and a 4 card straight with the same cards.
Next, I wanted to make the card's rank (value) stand out a bit more:
And, finally, the current version of the cards, just trying to make the look a bit more consistent, and make the bonus text more readable:
The feather image (and a talon image) replace the sharp cornered and rounded corner boxes. I think they stand out a bit better.
I have playtested the game solo multi-handed several times with good results, and I have playtested it 2-handed with my wife several times.
The game is "crunchy", sort of "brain burny", which I am happy with as an accomplishment with just 18 cards, but that crunchiness might need to be dialed down a bit.
Here is a photo of a simulated 4-player game at game end (5 of the forest cards are "locked" - rotated 90 degrees):
And here are all the cards laid out by suit and rank:
I am happy with the game. It still needs more playtesting, but it is one of those designs that just sort of seems to fall in place nicely.
So, then, just for fun, I thought I'd try to design a logo for the game. First attempt:
Trees in the background are a modified photo from a hike my wife and I went on this last weekend.
OK, but not real happy with it. I posted this back on the ButtonShy Discord design area and got good feedback from a few people, including from Jason Tagmire (head of ButtonShy), so that was cool.
Modifications based on their feedback:
For now, I am using this:
If you look closely, you can see 3 birds in the sky (your 3 "sky cards), and 3 light gray birds in the forest (the 3 public pool cards you select, one of the two available "forest"s).
And, there you have it, an 18 card 2-4 player game designed by me over the span of about 2 months.
If you would like to playtest the game, please do and feel free to geekmail any feedback you may have. Thanks.
Here is the Google Drive link:
Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed this somewhat detailed "peek behind the curtain". If you have any comments, feedback, or questions, please comment below.
Updated logo (also in comments), and updated cards:
- [+] Dice rolls
03 Oct 2021
I had hoped that by this time in 2021 I could be talking about some cool game publishing news, but for a variety of reasons, that is not the case.
ButtonShy Games is publishing Count of the Nine Estates (an expanded and improved version of Count of Nine) as part of their Patreon "Board Game of the Month Club". After it is sent out to subscribers, some copies will also be available from their webstore. I am hoping this isn't too far off.
Word Forge Games was planning an expansion for Pocket Landship plus a reprint of the base game through a Kickstarter this year, but Mark who runs Word Forge Games had a family tragedy, so all things are on hold there, and I will not be pushing him at all.
I do have something else in the works with a publisher that I am excited about, but unfortunately, I cannot talk about it now.
However, I have been enjoying working on some new and re-worked designs, so I thought I would talk more about those in this post.
Before I dive in, a little background. Now that I am a "published designer", I don't feel right entering BGG design contests. I remember when I was starting out, it was a bit depressing to know I was going up against very experienced designers. So, never say never, but I probably won't be participating in BGG design contests anymore. (I am definitely NOT saying that I am so awesome as a designer that no one else would have a chance - far from it).
A while ago I entered a couple designs in TheGameCrafter.com's contests, but those are a different animal. They will have 100 or more entrants in a contest, then the first round of voting is by the public - but really it is mostly the designers in that contest. And, the voting is based on the game's page on TheGameCrafter. So, there is no or at least very little playtesting as part of the voting there. That's fine, but it's not for me.
So, where does that leave me? Still happily designing, but I don't have that great sort of "built in" audience I had when I was participating in BGG design contests. I miss that, but that's OK. I do have a geek buddy or two here that have playtested some of my recent designs, and I am very grateful to them. Also, I have an in-person monthly designer meet-up here that I participate in.
But, if I am not designing for a contest, who am I designing for? The answer is: me, and potential publishers. Ever since I started designing games, it has become a part of me - something that I am often thinking about. Much of my free time is spent on game design. But, I still consider myself a "hobbyist game designer". I do this because I enjoy it. I am not following a step by step process in order to get the point where I have a $2 million Kickstarter campaign. Maybe I should be doing that, but I am not. Instead, I am trying to design games that I want to play. In addition, if there is a publisher out there looking for something in particular, and that something fits with my abilities and interests, I will gladly give it a shot and sort of treat it as my own design contest.
OK, enough background, let's dive in...
"My Robot", 2-6 player filler card game
A while ago I discussed the early stages of a quick filler game I was designing, tentatively called "My Robot". Here is what the prototype looks like:
It is a simple hand management game trying to build a 4 part robot worth the most points. It works, it's fun, but it's not the best game ever. I will probably just keep it stashed away for possible revival some day in the future.
simple rules, but thinky
the entire game is 54 cards, no dice, no cubes
each player has a small hand of cards, plus a couple face up cards in front of them, their "public laboratory" that other players can steal from, so there is some interaction
objective cards are open to everyone (each person can take a max of one), but if you don't achieve the objective you get negative points, so this creates a good bit of push your luck on how soon you want to take an objective card
nothing major, but the game is what it is: simple, fun, but not outstanding
"Astro-Archeology", solo, cards only, space artifact retrieval game
This was a theme first game for me. There are plenty of space race and space exploration games out there. I thought it would be cool to have a game where the goal is to retrieve historic space artifacts - like an Apollo lunar rover - to bring back to put in a museum, or Elon Musk's front yard, or whatever.
There is a small publisher looking for 54 card games (no other components), so I then tried to fit this theme into 54 cards. The game is to build your rockets (basically Small, Medium, or Large) to pick up low orbit space junk, high orbit artifacts, or go to the moon to pick up artifacts. There's also some risk and reward: build a lower reliability rocket quickly, or take more time to build a higher reliability rocket.
theme and mechanics work
the "pay-off" fell flat, the missions weren't exciting
"Foray", solo cards only, adventure/combat game
I took a lot of the mechanisms from Astro-Archeology and switched the theme to sort of a shooter game. Theme was inspired by a great book I read a while ago "Sea of Rust": post-human era, robots wander the world trying to avoid being sucked up into huge collective AIs. Here's what it looks like mid-game:
the game works, and is fun
clever (I think) combat resolution that introduces some randomness, but you always know your odds
play time is a bit short, about 10 minutes, I wish it was longer
"Beowulf's Beasts", a solo dice game
This was a past mint tin design contest entry of mine. The game is made up of 10 mini games, which I think helps give it a feel of an epic. Each mini game (except one duplicate) is a different type of game: some dice allocation, some dexterity, some Yahtzee-style.
a theme I enjoy
the collection of mini games makes it feel like a many year epic
each phase of the game uses a different card, at the end of each phase, flip that card over to add text to the ongoing story, which feels neat
So what? Will any of these end up published? Who knows? A couple are being designed with a publisher in mind, but they still need work. All of them have very basic art.
But, if nothing else, each of these was/is a good exercise in design for me. And, I am sure chunks of some of these games may end up in future designs. I am designing for the love of designing, and I am OK with that.
- [+] Dice rolls
13 Sep 2021
As you have probably figured out by now, if you've been following along with here, this blog isn't my sneaky attempt to get you to sign up to my mailing list, or follow me on Twitter, or anything. It is not part of a cross-platform marketing campaign. This blog is just a place where I can share what is going through my head as a designer. It is great when a blog post is the start of a conversation in the Comments section of that blog. But, even when that doesn't happen, I am still glad I put the time in creating the blog post, because it helps me organize my thoughts. So, thanks for reading, and a bigger thanks for those who comment on these posts.
So, today, I would like to talk about another way that we can connect and converse - if that is what you would like to do.
But first, some background...
I like BoardGameGeek.com and as a designer, it is a great resource to have, knowing that if people have a question about a game of mine they can go to BoardGameGeek, find the game, go to the Forum section and ask their question. And, I try to answer these questions within 24 hours.
So, I think BGG is great for boardgames. But, as an individual game designer, I don't think BGG is great. It's fine, but not great. Yes, I have a designer page here and it lists a short bio and all of my games on BGG. That's fine.
So, I created this blog to sort of be my own personal "presence" on BGG. I am grateful for the regular followers of this blog, but I don't think this blog is or should be my primary presence on the internet.
So, I (or more accurately, my son) created a website for my tabletop game efforts: https://narrowgategames.com/ I see this as sort of my official presence on the internet as a game designer. I can organize it however I want. But, it is basically one way communication (me to you).
I am not a fan of Facebook, and do not have a game designer presence there. I have a Twitter account and follow many game designers, publishers, reviewers there, but use it mainly as a news feed. I do not have Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch, TikTok, etc., and don't plan to. All of these social media platforms are way too unstructured for my liking.
But, one other platform that I am enjoying lately is Discord. Because ButtonShy published Count of Nine as one of their Board Game of the Month Club games, I got involved on ButtonShy's Discord server. It's cool to be able to chat with Jason Tagmire (head of ButtonShy Games) there, and chat with others there. Once I was into Discord, I found several other board game and board game design Discord servers I have been enjoying.
"Servers" on Discord can be broken up into "categories" of "channels", so it is easy to keep conversations organized. So, that's what I did: I set up a server for my game designs, added categories and channels.
Since I am now a "published designer", I am not entering BGG design contests much. I just feel like those contests should be a place designers of any skill level should feel like they have a chance at winning - even though in my mind, winning is not the point of those contests. (I am in no way saying I am a better designer than anyone, but I know there is a perception that "published designers" may have an advantage).
So, even though I am not entering my designs into BGG contests much, I would still like to share my designs as they are being worked. And, I think this Discord server of mine may be a good way to share those designs.
Here is what my Discord server currently looks like:
I've got channels for:
My Contact Info
And then, a category for games I am working on:
Foray (a 54 card solo game)
Other games of mine
I am sure I will add other channels, so if you have any ideas, please let me know.
If you are interested in checking out the Discord server, please check it out:
To be honest, this all feels like a lot to manage, but I think it makes sense. Here is the way I see my game designer presence:
This blog for occasional posts by me with occasional discussion in the comments.
If you have a question on one of my games, go to the game's page and ask in the Forums section.
My "formal" game designer presence on the internet with my contact info, mailing list sign-up, About Me, My Design Tenets, and info on my published, to be published, and hope to be published games.
I will post news and updates here.
My Discord Server:
A place I can share new game design progress, ask for feedback, playtesters, etc.
A place people can chat with me about game design in a way that feels more personal - more "chat"-like, less forum thread-like.
Long post, not really thought provoking, but if you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
- [+] Dice rolls
What Are Gamers Paying For When They Buy a Game? - Thoughts on Sustainability and the Future of Physical Board Games
07 Aug 2021
This will be a slightly longer post than usual, and a bit of a different topic than usual.
I think this will be broken down into three chunks:
Current state of board game manufacturing
What are we paying for when we buy a game?
Possible future direction of board game manufacturing
Current state of game manufacturing: Big batches, mass produced, then shipped around the world
Stonemaier Games had an interesting blog earlier this week:
The blog focused on a game, Earthborne Rangers, now on Kickstarter that is planning on manufacturing the games regionally (China, U.S., Europe) so that each backers' game (or at least most backers' games will be made on the same continent as the backer. The purpose of this is at least twofold:
1) Reduce environmental impact (sea shipping), and
2) Keeping a backers' money (or at least some of it) in the backers' region.
I think this idea is great, and hopefully it will be a success.
Jamey Stegmaier's thoughts on applying a similar approach for Stonemaier's games were practical, but I thought not very visionary or forward looking. He basically said: the games will cost more (true), and there is not manufacturing capability in the U.S. (possibly true today). That is sort of a similar answer heard from Apple and other technology companies on why they can't build their products in the U.S.
My belief is that big players in industry (Apple for phones, Stonemaier for board games) can impact where their suppliers produce their products. It is definitely not an easy "just flip a switch and it will happen", but I believe it is possible.
I should probably stop here and share a bit of my background.
I am located in the U.S.
I have worked in the manufacturing world my whole career (over 30 years).
I unfortunately know many people that have lost their jobs due to their company moving their jobs overseas.
So, I look at these thoughts as a big fan of local/regional manufacturing. But, I think there are also big positives from an environmental standpoint and from a leadtime standpoint.
So, would people who buy games be willing to:
1) Pay more for a game manufactured regionally?
2) Accept lesser quality (but still good) components in a regionally manufactured game?
Would they be willing if they knew these sacrifices helped the environment in a relatively small way?
I don't really know. Which leads me to maybe the main topic of this blogpost....
What are we paying for when we buy a game?
A pretty box?
Great game art?
Cool theme, cool mechanisms, fun, the experience? The game experience, or the product experience?
What do I mean by product experience? Peeling the shrink wrap off the box, admiring the art on the box, opening the box and seeing what is inside, punching out the pieces, paging through the glossy rulebook,...?
I think many/most of us have been conditioned to believe that a large part of the value of a boardgame is the "product experience". Why else would "new in shrink" and "unpunched" games sell more for slightly used games? Because we are paying for the product, not the game experience.
Is this bad? Not necessarily, but I think it does lead to an expectation of what a board game should be:
hefty (big box, etc.)
unique to this game components
And, if that is the expectation, I think that the status quo (mass produced complete games made in low cost parts of the world, and shipped by sea) won't change, or won't change easily.
Assuming tabletop games are still around in 5, 10, 20 years, I could imagine many things. Some of these may be "pie in the sky" dreams, but I think some are practical and possible.
A digital playmat - Unroll your playmat on the table, turn it on, select which game you are playing on your phone, and the playmat displays that game's board on itself.
The benefit would be we wouldn't need a different game board for each game, which means most games could come in smaller boxes, which means less weight shipped across an ocean.
Local Print on Demand Games
Today, when I want a physical print of a photo I or a friend took, I send that digital file to a local pharmacy or big box store, then drive there 30 minutes later to pick up the physical print. Could this be done with board games? If the volume was high enough, I think it probably could, at least for game boards, cards, rulebooks, player mats. What about dice, cubes, meeples, minis,...?
Personal Game Supplies
What if we each had in our homes 1-8 (depending of number of typical players) sets of:
Dice: 6 D6, 4 D8, 4 D10, 4 D12, 2 D20
Meeples: 12 in our favorite color and shape
Cubes: 20 in our favorite material and shape
Character Mini: 1 Fantasy, 1 Space (for example)
Then, when we buy a game at the local printer (rules, board, cards), we add our own personalized components.
If some combination of all of this came into being, buying a boardgame would change from going to a store to buy the physical game, to going to the game publisher's website to download the files. When I think about it, it's really not that different from the progression of how we "buy" movies today:
In the past: go to a store and buy a physical DVD, Blu-Ray
Present: download from Netflix
Wrapping this all up...
For the sake of:
1) less negative environmental impact from the manufacture and distribution of boardgames,
2) much faster delivery of a boardgame to each purchaser,
In the near term (1-5 years), I think that if large game publishers made an effort, regional manufacturing of board games could become feasible. This would have a positive impact on the environment and reduce the leadtime of the distribution of games (especially compared to today).
Longer term (5-20 years), I can imagine options that would make the distribution of board games closer to the Netflix model.
I think if games can adjust their expectations away from pretty boxes and bling and shiny objects, and focus more on the game play experience being the value we are paying, it would help move us in this direction.
- [+] Dice rolls