Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - February 2017

This month our list of great board game design links features ways to use dice and cards, advice for designers from a developer, crucial but often overlooked playtesting advice--and an appearance by the fine folks at Cardboard Edison!

featured:

theory:

process:

playtesting:

publishing:


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., David J. Mortimer, Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison's Favorite Tips & Resources - January 2017

This month our list of excellent board game design links includes advice for early in the design process, thoughts on randomness from an expert, a crucial point about using other designers' ideas, plus a special appearance by us!

contests:

process:

theory:

publishing:

industry:

rules:

  • “If a rule is difficult to explain in words or easily forgotten, consider cutting it.” - Sen-Foong Lim

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., David J. Mortimer, Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources of 2016

Our annual list of favorite tips and links features a wide range of useful materials for board game designers...

featured:

process:

theory:

prototyping:

playtesting:

licensing:

publishing:

industry:


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., David J. Mortimer, Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison's Favorite Tips & Resources - November 2016

This month's list of excellent board game design links features advice for getting started, explanations of how the industry works, reminders about what to focus on, and more.

featured:

process:

publishing:

industry:

theory:


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., David J. Mortimer, Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison's Favorite Tips & Resources - October 2016

This month's roundup of our favorite board game design links includes a pair of interviews with self-published designers, some exciting uses for industry data, rulebook writing advice and more.

featured:

industry:

theory:

rules:

playtesting:

process:

  • “Try to understand the market space. From that, identify who will love your product (game). Optimize for them.” - Grant Rodiek

publishing:


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

The Process: Pleasant Dreams by Aerjen Tamminga

In The Process, board game designers walk us through the process of creating their game from start to finish, and how following their path can help others along theirs.

In this installment, Aerjen Tamminga describes how he created Pleasant Dreams, including rapid prototyping, running hundreds of playtests, finding and working with partners, and more.

Process

Pleasant Dreams got its start when I decided to take the Game Design course at MIT. In this course students form groups to work on several game design projects over the course of the weeks. Since I was working full time as a psychology researcher at Harvard, it was recommend that I shouldn’t join a group but make a solo project instead.

I already knew that I really wanted to do something with dreams, but I didn’t have any fully formed ideas. After going through a series of brainstorming exercises I ended up with a goal for an initial prototype: create how you can move through a dream.

In the first five minutes, I “accidentally” designed a ridiculously overly complex game. I put “accidentally” between quotes, because I feel that most (budding) game designers tend to make their games overly complex. At least that’s what I believe after having been involved in the curation process for the Boston Festival of Indie Games, where several hundreds of games are reviewed each year.

Fortunately I recognized that something was going wrong and asked advice from the lecturer, Philip Tan. He responded to my concerns by asking me what I was actually trying to do. Create a mechanic for dream movement that evokes a feeling of increasing suspense. Right, that's something that maybe doesn't need 10 pages of rules. With that I was back on track again and started using the push-your-luck (with insider knowledge) mechanic.

Overall the whole course has been very instructive, but there were a couple of moments that definitely stood out for me. When Rob Daviau attended as a guest lecturer and played my game, he advised me to reduce the difficulty level. Originally, you’d only win once out of every five games. Now, if you play smart, you can win most of the time. For the second edition I want to change this up again, which is why I am trying to create more challenges for solitaire play.

Another great moment was when Zac Hill gave a guest lecture. We actually became friends and his advice and encouragement has helped me keep moving the game forward.

The last session of the class was a day of blind playtesting. I had an amazing time when I watched two students play the game time after time again where one player actually beat the other eight times in a row. That, for me, was great on many levels. Next to seeing people learn the game from the rules, it showed that, even though the game has a push-your-luck element, tactics still matter. It also revealed that the game is engaging enough to want to keep playing even if you’re losing.

  • The Takeaway: Ask yourself what you want your game to achieve and really hone in on that aspect in the design. Simpler is often better.

Theory

In the game the players are in a deep sleep and are sharing a dream; their mind is filled with Pleasant Dreams. As the night wears on, dream fragments conspire to lead them on a nightmarish journey. When bliss twists into terror, will the players succumb to shock or sustain their slumber?

Players get to stack the deck in an attempt to control their fate and overcome the horrors that lie within this competitive dreaming game. They will either pleasantly dream their way to victory or wake up screaming!

The idea I was playing with is how it feels when a pleasant dream slowly turns into a nightmare. One of the things that I remember from having nightmares is that pleasant elements from a dream can turn up at a later time, but in a twisted manner. To emulate this, there are teddy bear cards in the game with different backs. The backs can be relaxing, unpleasant or scary which represents the unpredictability in dreams.

For me, dreams are all about the mind and how the mind works. This is why I wanted to have a game mechanic that is tied to figuring out how the other player thinks. This is done by allowing an active player to return dream fragments back into the dream (i.e. the shared draw pile). They do this by secretly stacking the deck, and the better they’re able to predict their opponent, the more they’ll be able to manipulate the dream in their favor.

Looking back, I am proud of this mechanic. At the same time it is one of the hardest things to explain in a written rulebook. I’ve noticed that when demoing the game in person or when people get it, they usually have fun with the game. I’ve also seen people not (fully) understand it and have a horrible time. Even after blind playtesting the game multiple times and working with professional editors this was a hard thing to tackle. For this reason I will be rewriting the rulebook for the second edition.

I often see that once players latch on to the underlying concept that they start changing their strategies. In the beginning they often play Pleasant Dreams as a pure push-your-luck game and stack the deck close to the top. Later on they figure out that while push-your-luck is an important element that it’s actually a race to the finish. It’s all about manipulating the endgame. The first player that finishes the dream (i.e. deck) while still asleep wins the game. If you play correctly you should almost always be able to finish the dream. Then it all comes down to how you’ve stacked the bottom of the deck and whether you can control who can and should draw the last cards.

To add more variability to the game, I created a series of action cards that can be used to influence the dream and the way the game works. The action cards can both be used for players that are just playing casually and players that are into manipulating the endgame. The better you understand the way the action cards interact with the game and each other, the better you’ll be able to strategize.

  • The Takeaway: If you create a new mechanic, make sure that your rulebook helps people grasp the concept well enough.

Prototyping

I believe that prototyping is to game design as breathing is to life. A prototype is a rough first version of your game and as soon as an idea is born I immediately start creating one. I like to think of prototyping in terms of three stages of complexity or focus, which I’d like to elaborate on while sharing how this translates to the development of Pleasant Dreams.

Stage 1: Minimum viable prototyping. Here I usually grab some sharpies and index cards, throw together a bunch of things, play and figure out what I do or don’t like. Rinse and repeat. In this stage I like to focus on mechanics first and “spark” second. In Pleasant Dreams this is exactly what I started out with. I cut a bunch of index cards in two and used a sharpie to write the card info on them.

One best practice I learned while attending the MIT course on game design (check out their Open Course Materials) is to write out every step of the game on a separate index card. This way it’s easy to switch around the order of a turn, switch out rules and keep track of what’s working best. I try to stay away from fine-tuning in the initial stages and make rough adjustments (e.g. multiply resources x2) to figure out how they affect my game system. In Pleasant Dreams that meant playing around with card distribution until the game length seems to work best. This way I found that a longer game doesn’t increase tension, it feels repetitive instead. Adding +3 wakefulness instead of just +1 and +2 meant that players will start playing almost exclusively in a very defensive way.

When I feel I have something that’s working reasonably well (not perfect) I go and take it to the streets! If after some serious playtesting I find myself with a game that seems pretty interesting and has some spark to it, I feel ready for stage 2.

Stage 2: Lo-fi prototyping where the focus is on usability. Here’s where I start adding some simple graphics to my cards/board. Great sources for these are http://game-icons.net/, http://thenounproject.com/ and http://all-silhouettes.com/. For Pleasant Dreams I used some Halloween vector images I found on the All Silhouettes site. In this stage I also tested a single-sided card design but found that they decreased the sense of control that players had.

What I look for is anything that helps players (users) intuitively understand what’s going on in the game. By the way, if you’re interested in understanding more about design, I can recommend reading the book The Design of Everyday Things. If you’re wondering about what software to use, I prefer using Adobe Illustrator, but basically any vector-based program works well. Inkscape is a free open-source alternative. When working from pen/ink sketches you might prefer something like Photoshop or its free open-source alternative Gimp. Creating card sheets, I use InDesign, and as a free alternative you might want to try out Scribus. Daniel Solis has a great series on using InDesign on his Patreon page, which I can definitely recommend. At this stage I’m fine-tuning rules and looking to see whether they feel intuitive enough for players. When I’ve got my base iconography down and have a very polished game design I might be ready for the final stage.

Stage 3: Hi-fi prototyping where the focus is on aesthetics. I really don’t want to rush into this, because getting great art either costs time or money and often both. In the case of Pleasant Dreams I worked with Wayne Dorrington. He offered his services through BoardGameGeek, where I'm a frequent lurker. After seeing the work in his portfolio I immediately contacted him. We actually talked about three games: Ooh! (Out of Humans!), Leprechaun Slap and Pleasant Dreams. Working with him on Pleasant Dreams has been an amazing experience. When we first met I already had some ideas for the art I wanted to see, mostly based on the experience I wanted to bring across. He immediately liked it and in the brainstorming it became even better.

In creating the art we used objects that people have an emotional connection with. Instead of using a lot of gore, we tried to make them subtly unpleasant although I must admit some of them ended up being decidedly unpleasant. Next to giving the art a vintage tarot look, we were were inspired by prior art such as the illustrations you can find in the original books of Alice in Wonderland and Jan Svankmajer’s 1988 surreal movie adaptation of the same story.

  • The Takeaway: It is impossible to start prototyping too early. It is possible to spend too much time on creating a prototype.

Playtesting

During all stages of development the game went through heavy playtesting. The fact that Pleasant Dreams also plays well as a solitaire game made things easier. Add a playtime of about five minutes to that and you can imagine how this is a game that was easy to test literally hundreds of times. In the beginning, playtesting was mostly at MIT and at home (solo and with my wife), but pretty soon I started bringing it to the Game Makers Guild too (a Boston-based group of indie tabletop designers). There I’ve done regular, blind and intensive playtesting sessions. Intensive playtesting sessions are ones when the same group of people play a game many times in a row, to see whether the game holds up after players get a deeper understanding of the tactics and strategy involved. What I enjoyed seeing is that this lightweight game actually allows for quite a variety of strategies that are dependent on your opponent.

Community

Being part of the game design community is, in my opinion crucial, when you want to design great games. Over the past few years I’ve gotten excellent advice from various people and want to highlight a couple of these:

  • The Game Makers Guild has provided resources, was my main source for playtesting, and the awesome members have given me a lot of encouragement for my project.

  • The people on BGDF have given me their thoughts on art and on a series of poems that were originally on all the cards.

  • BoardGameGeek was where I found the game’s illustrator, Wayne Dorrington.

  • MIT: Taking a course on game design was a great way for me to nudge myself out of my own game design habits. By taking a more focused approach to game design, I feel that I have become a better overall designer.

  • Boston FIG: Working intensively on the festival was an amazing experience for me. It got me many friends and connections in the game design industry (and actually my second contract proposal) and helped me look at games in a different way. Guess that evaluating the feedback for several hundreds of games leaves a mark.  :)

  • Boston Indies: I’ve only been to one of their demo nights, when Pleasant Dreams already was in its final stage. I got an overwhelming amount of positive responses and some excellent food for thought.

  • Various game design-related Facebook pages (like this one or this one) have provided me with tons of information.

  • The Takeaway: Playtest, playtest, playtest. It’s the only way for your game to go from good to great.

Publishing

Working with the artist meant that we had a long Skype conversation at the start of our collaboration, brainstorming on the look and feel of the game and looking at prior art for inspiration. After settling on an initial idea, Wayne went to work. We went back and forth a lot on the design for the Bear. After we were both satisfied with the result, I gave him a list of themes to incorporate in the cards and he cranked out one after another. Below are a couple iterations of the Bear.

[The Kickstarter campaign ran during Easter, so I created several Easter eggs that were visible only during Easter. The video that is referred to is: Teddy has an operation.]

Before deciding on running a Kickstarter I did look into publishers, but I decided that I wanted to go through the entire process of publishing a game myself at least once. This way, I would be able to understand the industry that I want to work in better. At the same time, being new to this I did look for collaborators that could help me ensure things running smoothly.

To ensure a high-quality service when it comes to production and fulfillment I decided to collaborate with Mark Diaz Truman. Mark has run several successful Kickstarters for his own company Magpie Games and now provides services for other designers. Working with him was a great experience. He’s very knowledgeable and this made me feel more confident (and less stressed out).

When looking for a manufacturer, I decided to work with a U.S.-based company that has relations with manufacturers in China. This helped communications along, while still providing an affordable quote. Going into the Kickstarter I made sure I was familiar with their production requirements, timelines, payment schedules, communication methods and freight arrangements. In the end I did ship the game later than expected. This was mostly due to upgrading the box design after the Kickstarter was over. I received some feedback from backers that they weren’t very enthusiastic about the tuckbox design. This is why I decided to use some of the pre-order funds that I received through Backerkit as a way to pay for a telescoping box instead.

If I get into running the Kickstarter itself, this article will probably be at least twice as long. So let me just summarize and say it has been an amazing experience! Sometimes stressful, but all the time really rewarding in terms of community engagement. It did help that the game funded rather quickly too. :)

  • The Takeaway: Collaborating with someone you trust and who has already gone through the process of publishing before can help set your mind at ease. For me it was the difference of running a Kickstarter with a lot of stress versus with some stress.

About Aerjen Tamminga

I work as a game designer and as a COO in a mental health organization and I like to use my background in psychology when working on theme, art and usability in my games. When I'm not running experiments to figure out how humans work, I play games and try to figure out how humans work.

I've developed and taught several courses on game design and when living in the States I was one of the directors of the Boston Festival of Indie Games and was chair of the board of the Game Makers Guild.

My personal goal in life is simple: getting someone to smile. This is the driving factor behind the things I do; work and hobbies alike. When I work as a clinical psychologist, I try and make people happy. As a research consultant I hope to find out how to create more happiness in the world around us and as a game designer, first and foremost, I just want to see people have a good time with each other.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, RetroIn Games, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

Meaningful Decisions: Gil Hova on Design Choices in The Networks

In our Meaningful Decisions series, we ask designers about the design choices they made while creating their games, and what lessons other designers can take away from those decisions.

In this edition, we talk with Gil Hova, designer of The Networks, about incentivizing interesting behavior, elegance vs. fiddliness, solo modes and more. 

You've said that one of your design philosophies is to "incentivize interesting behavior." What are some design choices you made in The Networks to incentivize interesting player behavior?

I think the biggest one was to make sure players stayed engaged in the core activity of the game, which is constantly canceling and developing TV shows. If a player stops doing that, the game gets dull.

Each show has a number of viewers that it gets over the course of four seasons. Generally, shows start strong, maybe get a little stronger or weaker in their second season, weaken in their third season, and are horrible in their fourth season. There are a couple of exceptions here and there (like the show "Broken Worse," which starts slow but peaks significantly in its third season), but every single show is terrible in its fourth season, and most are bad in their third season.

At the same time, there are three decks of Show cards that you use across the five seasons of the game. One is for Season 1, one is for Seasons 2-3, and one is for Seasons 4-5. Each deck is more powerful than the last, so Season 4-5 shows generally get more viewers than Season 2-3 shows.

These are both deliberate design decisions. At the start of each season, players will generally have one show in its third season, and a few shows available to develop that would be significant improvements. Some testers suggested a show that would get stronger in its fourth season, but that would do exactly the opposite of what I want. It would incentivize players to disengage from the core of the game, and that would make the game more boring.

Same thing with money being only a tiebreaker in the game. For a long time, I had a conversion of money to viewers at the end of the game, and then a bonus for most money. I found that was incentivizing hoarding, which is boring in this game. The Networks is fun when you're spending money, not when you're saving it. So there are no significant in-game rewards to have lots of money on hand, except for a couple of Network Cards and the 5-Show Genre Bonus (which you really need to work towards).

What can designers do to identify the interesting behavior that their game could bring out? Is this the same as the maxim that designers need to "find the fun" in their game?

Yes, I think that's generally the same thing, unless you're making a transformative/experiential game that is engineered to highlight disturbing or uncomfortable behavior. In that case, you're incentivizing something that isn't necessarily fun, but that should be rewarding if the design does what it should.

The biggest thing a designer can do here is playtest. Theorycrafting doesn't really get you very far. I recently worked on a small commissioned design, and I got it on the table as soon as I had a protean ruleset. I built the game around one aspect of the art of the cards, but I found that there was only one rule about passing cards that players were really having fun interacting with.

So I threw out all the art-related rules I had and rebuilt the game around passing cards. It was much better, and it only took me a few playtests to discover it. I would have never discovered it theorycrafting.

Related to this is: Don't be precious about your idea. Ideas are cheap. If I'd been precious about my art-based idea, I never would have been able to let go and pivot to the passing-cards idea. Let your initial idea be your scaffolding, and don't hesitate to dismantle that scaffolding once you find the soul of your game. You owe your original idea nothing.

If you're not used to this way of working, it can be very uncomfortable at first. There's a lot of blunt honesty, especially when you find a group of good playtesters, instead of the close friends and family that think the way to support you is to praise what you do, regardless of how they felt about it.

But if you're going to be a designer in this industry, blunt playtest feedback is just the beginning! You have all other sorts of great stuff to look forward to, like publisher rejections, failed Kickstarter projects, negative reviews, public criticism of your game (which is preferable to public indifference to your game), convention-goers rudely walking away from you as you start your demo, 1 ratings on BGG, and at least one GeekList notification of your game for trade, sale, or auction per day.

If you feel uncomfortable with any of the above, I would advise against designing games for anyone past your immediate circle of friends.

Sorry, I drifted a bit, but that's an important topic.

Each round, players score viewers and then age their shows. Why do players score their shows a second time at the end of the final season, instead of once as they do for every other season?

That's an important mechanism in the game. Without it, Season 5 would be short and anticlimactic. A show you get in Season 3 would be in its third season, so you may not feel the need to replace it. Also, Season 5 shows only score their first seasons, so they never get a chance to blossom if their second seasons are more powerful.

With the extra scoring, Season 3 shows will crash in final scoring, so players will need to replace those shows too. The end of the game becomes more urgent, critical, and dramatic. And Season 5 shows don't feel cheap.

When should designers create exceptions that sacrifice some consistency and elegance for a better play experience?

This is a very tough line to walk, and there's no consistent answer. One piece of writing that influenced me as a designer was Kory Heath's design blog for Zendo (which is still a fantastic read, and worth it for anyone interested in game design). Kory is almost religiously elegant in his game. He sweats and bleeds to make sure his games have no exceptions or weird edge cases. It's a fascinating mindset, and when I've tested with his friends, they are always pushing to streamline, streamline, streamline.

On the other hand, you have great games like Terra Mystica, Power Grid, and Brass, which almost flaunt their exceptions and edge cases. Remember when someone first tried to explain how the Bowls of Power work? How many times have you forgotten to discard the cheapest power plant in the market entering Phase 2? Don't even get me started on the freaking Birkenhead virtual link.

Obviously, there's a very big difference in weight, complexity, and play time between Brass and Zendo. So the bigger your game, the more tolerance it will have for exceptions and edge cases. 

It's impossible to quantify this relationship. It's one of the many reasons why I'm such a big advocate of getting games on the table and testing them. Watch your players dealing with your game's edge cases. See if they enhance the fun of the game, or immediately attenuate it. If players keep intuitively thinking that a rule doesn't exist, it's a good sign that the rule shouldn't exist, and you had better find another way around the issue it's supposed to address.

This is also a good time to bring out another design maxim: Try to mix up your playtest groups. Don't test exclusively with a single group. After a few plays, your group will adapt to your game's fiddliness, but it's worth watching how another group tries to deal with it. If a bunch of groups have a hard time adapting to your game's complexity, and they're players you're specifically trying to target, then your game should probably be streamlined.

This is a question that fascinates me, though. I would love to design a deep, meaty, three-hour mega-Euro. But I have a tendency to streamline my designs, and they usually clock in at 90-120 minutes. I see other designers getting away with fiddly rules that my playtest groups and I would deep-six immediately. 

The root cause is that those heavier games get their heaviness not from one or two complex systems interacting, but many simple systems interacting. New designers usually try to make games with many complex interlocking systems, which tend to be too opaque for players to be able to strategize through. But a good heavy game gets its heaviness from a few simple systems whose chaotic interactions open up all kinds of scenarios. This sort of chaos tends towards exceptions and edge cases. 

If you take away one of those simple systems, you'll take away a lot of the exceptions and edge cases, but you'll also take away a lot of the game's meat. Think of Brass. Fundamentally, it's pretty simple; it's a few interlocking systems (coal/iron, cotton/ports, ships, canals/rails, cards, money/turn order) that are all easily explained on their own. But the way they interlock makes the game. If you removed half of those mechanisms, say, coal/iron and canals/rails, you'll have a simpler game, but one that's missing a lot of the meat that fans of the game were attracted to in the first place.

Splotter games are the same way. Food Chain Magnate, Great Zimbabwe, and Roads & Boats are all surprisingly elegant games, but they take some time to teach, learn, and play because of the complex interactions between all their systems. For all their complexity, they're surprisingly streamlined, and any further reduction in complexity would remove the souls from the games.

This might make a nice game design exercise. Find a 2+ hour game and try to shave an hour off its play time by removing at least one mechanism, while still making it engaging and interesting (albeit with a different level of engagement, as it will be a lighter game once you're through). It's amazing how much more bland the game will end up being; eliminating 25% of the rules could remove 75% of the fun!

The Networks' solo mode adds an immediate loss condition, in addition to the win/loss endgame goal. Why?

Jane McGonigal points out that all games have goals and feedback. You take actions to advance to the goal, and the game gives you immediate feedback letting you know how much progress you made. This is a truth that all good games share.

I found the opening of the solo game was rather boring. You have a goal of 265 Viewers, but the game has a slow ramp-up. So let's say you have 50 viewers at the end of the second season. Is that good? Bad? There wasn't any feedback there at first, so I had to do a couple of things.

First, there's the immediate loss condition. So even before the 265 viewers, there's the question of if the solo player will even make it to the end of the game. Tension and stakes are present from the very beginning, especially if the player makes a risky move in the first season. The game is giving feedback on the immediate-loss axis, so there's significant meaning to early play.

Second, there are bonuses to hitting score targets in the second and fourth seasons. This helps offset early risk-taking. More importantly, it provides the critical long-term feedback the game was missing. Now, having 50 viewers at the end of the second season shows that you're 15 viewers short of the bonus that removes those nasty cubes from the board. Even though it's only Season 2 in a slowly-ramping game, we know we must take risks to hit 265 viewers and win the game.

What can designers do to add tension to a solo mode, in the absence of tension from the other players?

An immediate loss condition is one good thing. It focuses early play and makes early decisions meaningful. In my first game, Prolix, you're trying to hit a steadily-rising point target. If you miss, you're out. 

My newer version of the game, Wordsy, has a slightly different solo mode. There's no immediate-loss condition, but there is a penalty if you don't hit a point target within a few consecutive rounds. That felt right for the game, as it plays so quickly, an immediate loss didn't really feel very significant.

Another good thing to do is to make sure early plays have clear and meaningful implications later in the game. I helped test the solo version of Cobras. Early on, you got one King Cobra card at the start of each of the three hands. I suggested getting two King Cobra cards at the start of the first hand, and being able to win a single King Cobra card by hitting a point target and the end of each hand. This way, the decision to hold or save a King Cobra card in the first and second hands is incredibly meaningful, as it's not guaranteed you'll have one in the final hand. You may even gamble and play two King Cobras in a single hand, if you feel confident you won't need one next hand. Instead of having each hand be an isolated atom, your play in one hand will have an impact in the next hand.

One thing about solo play and me: I don't like point grades at the end of the game. I don't want to know if I did "great" versus "good." To me, a binary outcome is more interesting: did I win or lose? I'm OK with a "critical win" or a "critical loss" to differentiate outcomes, or deciding on a higher point threshold when beginning the game to make the game scale better for experienced/inexperienced players, but if I finish a solo game just to see that I did "average," I'm not going to find that as satisfying.

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: 
Peter C. Hayward, RetroIn Games, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - September 2016

This month's roundup of our favorite board game design links includes an interview about a Spiel des Jahres nominee, thoughtful articles on small but important corners of game design, answers to legal questions and much more.

featured:

theory:

process:

licensing:

publishing:

industry:

  • Answers to game designers' legal questions: NDAs, IP protection, art contracts and lots more (audio). Part 1, Part 2.

  • “It’s way better to have a game that a smallish group really likes than a game that everyone kind of only sort of likes.” - Sandy Petersen


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, RetroIn Games, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

Meaningful Decisions: Phil Walker-Harding on Design Choices in Imhotep

In our Meaningful Decisions series, we ask designers about the design choices they made while creating their games, and what lessons other designers can take away from those decisions.

In this edition, we talk with Phil Walker-Harding, the designer of Imhotep, about designing for an audience, player control, adding variable elements and more.

Certain players seem to be attracted to certain sites, each of which awards points or benefits in a different way. One rewards well-timed maneuvers, another is about edging out the competition, another is puzzle-y, and so on. How did you settle on the way the different sites behave? Was appealing to different types of players a conscious decision?

More than appealing to different types of players, I was really trying to make each site feel like a unique and interesting mini-game. So I suppose it makes sense that different players prefer the different styles of mini-games! In the very early stages of the design, the players were just building the pyramids, and straight points were awarded based on the position of each stone. But quite quickly I realised things would be much more interesting with multiple monuments that scored differently. Obelisks came to mind next, and it immediately made sense that they should score based on who had the tallest. The temple was inspired by Arkadia and Blokus 3D, where having your pieces be visible from above is important. I also wanted a site that used spatial connections, and this idea developed into the burial chamber. I have always been very influenced by Reiner Knizia's use of different methods (especially in Ra), and how they can drastically change the whole way you feel about some element of the game. So I am sure the lessons I have learnt from him were also at play as I designed the sites.

Are there ways a designer can make a game that "has something for everyone" by appealing to different types of players? Are there pitfalls to trying to do this?

I think it is really important that a designer has a specific audience in mind during the design process. I think the best way to be broadly appealing is actually to know your audience really well and then try and design a standout game for that audience. This way your game might jump out from the crowd and hopefully be found by other audiences who might enjoy the design. For example, when I designed Sushi Go! I was aiming at those who like quick cute colourful filler card games with just enough decision making to keep older players and even gamers a bit interested. Now that is quite a broad audience, but I did everything I could to hit that mark. I think if I had set out to include "something for everyone", for example some extra planning to appeal to advanced gamers, the design would have lost focus. It can be tempting to put disparate elements into a design in the hope of wide appeal, but I think it usually leads to more muddled designs that don't hit the spot for either audience.

Players are allowed to sail a ship even if they don't have one of their stones on it. This means you rarely have total control over what happens to your stones. Was this always the case?

Yes, this was always the rule for sailing ships in Imhotep. I briefly tried some other rules but they were nowhere near as fun or interesting, and also presented other problems. For example, the timing and turn flow in Imhotep is very interesting to me and very important to the feel of the game. Every turn is a whole action and therefore crucial, so to place prerequisites on any of the actions (for example, you can't move a ship without any of your stones) would mean this structure would break down. An influence on this part of the game was the classic Coloretto. In that game you either add a card to a row or take a row of cards. When playing Coloretto I don't really think of the cards as mine until I have actually taken a row. Rather, I am focused on setting up each row to benefit me. So I suppose this was in my thinking as I designed the sailing mechanism. I was much more interested in the decision of how to best place your stones so that they are of some use, no matter where they are sailed. This also brings the players into all sorts of subtle conflicts and alliances and is really the core of the interaction within the game.

In general, how much control over their fate do players seem to be willing to cede to other players? Are there guidelines for designers to keep in mind?

This is of course pretty subjective, and there are many different tastes in game style. However, I do have a bit of a guideline for myself. I think it is very important that players have a strong sense of involvement in their own fate in a game. I am always trying to make sure the players' decisions feel important and respected by the game environment. For example, in Imhotep even if someone takes a ship somewhere I wouldn't prefer, I at least know that I chose to place my stone when and where I did, and that I left myself open for that ship to be moved. This is much more interesting to me than a straight "take that" mechanism--for example, where an opponent plays a hidden card on me that means I lose something. I had no involvement in that moment happening, and so it feels more like an attack or just bad luck. For me, the ideal in very interactive games is to make sure the players feel active in their destiny rather than like they are just being acted upon.

Imhotep comes with a second set of sites. How did you decide which sites to include on side A and which to include on side B?

The B sides were actually something which came along later in development in order to increase the game's replayability. I first thought it would be quite easy to find four new board designs, but it actually proved very tricky! The structure of the game was so tight that many ideas that I thought would work really didn't. So in the end there were only four new sites that both myself and the publisher felt were really keepers. The secondary versions of the palace and pyramids are more complex rules-wise so we put them on the B sides. The B side of the obelisks and burial chamber are quite similar in complexity, but I was so used to my original versions, and I slightly prefer them, so it felt right to keep them on the A sides. Since the game's release I have managed to come up with some more site designs, should an expansion ever happen!

Are there things designers should keep in mind when creating alternative mechanisms or scoring conditions for their game?

Adding variable elements to a game is a really interesting part of designing to me. Dominion is recognised for introducing the deck-building mechanism, but I think it has also been very influential in showing how fascinating it can be to have high variability in a game's setup. My advice when attempting this would be to first do a huge brainstorm of many different ideas. Think about all your favourite games and if there are any elements in them that could be adapted into the gameplay of your design. Then it is a matter of testing them all out and only persisting with those that really feel "within the spirit" of the original game. Having elements that seem different to players but not so different they don't belong can be a hard balance to find. I think the aim is to have each alternative seem like it naturally belongs in the game, rather than feeling strange or like a gimmick. Also, it should be said that not every game needs huge variability. Sometimes throwing extra ideas in just because you have them can confuse players learning the game or just dilute the way the game presents itself.

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS:
Peter C. Hayward, RetroIn Games, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - August 2016

This month's roundup of our favorite board game design links includes advice for new small publishers, ways of creating the experience you want in your game, tips for finding a publisher, important things to keep in mind as you design, and more.

featured:

theory:

playtesting:

publishing:

licensing:

process:

  • Ways to cope with being overwhelmed or blocked in the game design process (audio)

  • “You’ll make a game and think you’ve nailed it the first time you write the rules. Then comes the real work, which can be exhausting, discouraging, confusing. But if you believe in your game, don’t be dismayed. Get it in front of people. Playtest it. Toss out what isn’t working, explore new ideas. Make something you love playing, and then enjoy what follows.” - David Somerville

  • “Remind yourself, always: Your game is not as simple as you think. It is not as elegant as you think. It is not as intuitive as you think.” - Eric Lang

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Peter C. Hayward, RetroIn Games, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

The Publishers: Q&A With Stephen Buonocore of Stronghold Games

In this installment of The Publishers, we speak with Stephen Buonocore of Stronghold Games about breaking into the industry, identifying great games, working with big-name designers, overseas partnerships and more. This interview was conducted at Metatopia 2015. It has been edited for clarity and length.

Stronghold Games got a foothold in the industry by doing reprints and by licensing games from outside of North America. Do publishers need some kind of angle to break into the industry?

It certainly was the way that we did it. Once we got past that beginning phase, we then said, OK, now we've established ourselves, now we'll go out and start looking for other things.

Do companies now need a hook? I think companies now need to bring out great games. I'll mention Kickstarter. Now you have a vehicle there so you can get the publicity that is invaluable. Not only can you get the capital that's invaluable--and let me tell you, that's really important--but you get publicity that's invaluable too.

Everybody really needs to be bringing out games that excel in some way. There are just too many games coming out--and I'm as responsible as anybody! But we need to focus on what are truly great games, and if you're bringing out great games, the gamers will find you, especially with a vehicle with a built-in marketing capability like Kickstarter.

How can a publisher identify a great game?

That's the secret sauce. I always ask any designer who pitches me a game, or when I'm evaluating an already-published game from overseas, why should this game be published? What's the game doing in our space that sets it apart? And if there's not something new going on here, if you're just turning red cubes into green cubes and putting them on the other side of the board, that sounds like something that's been done a few times, or a few hundred times. So you need to find games that have a uniqueness to them.

Beyond that, it's gut feel. There's no way of throwing the ingredients into a pot and then boom, there's your great game. You're going to need to use your experience as a gamer, then test it with gamers and get feedback.

How does it excel in one of three ways: thematically, mechanically or, my own word, funtastically? If you can say this game does it better or more uniquely than anything else in one of those categories, then we've got something we can start talking about.

How big a factor is it for a designer to have a reputation in the industry, if they're looking to build relationships with a publisher? Is it a big deal from a publisher's perspective to get a "name" designer?

I think the answer's going to change depending on who you speak to, but for me it is. It is a big deal. I think that games by known designers have an automatic sell. You're going to get the BoardGameGeek crowd to immediately latch onto a Stefan Feld game.

Having said that, that's the catch-22. You need experience to get a job, but you can't get a job unless you have experience, right? How do you do it?

A designer should try to crack in any way he can and get that first published game. But even if you can't do that, make as many relationships as you can because this industry, as much or more than any other, is about relationships. You get to know publishers, you get to network with them at conventions, people get to know you, so yeah, I think it is very important. Getting over that first hurdle of getting a game published is always going to be hard, but getting known in general in the industry is certainly going to serve you very well.

You've been striking up partnerships with a lot of other publishers, especially from overseas. How did you get into that approach?

I'm a relationship kind of guy. There was an opportunity to look toward these publishers out in Europe that just don't have distribution--they just distribute in Europe--and to meet up with them when we're in Essen or when we're at The Gathering of Friends, strike up a relationship, make them want to work with you. I want to strike up those relationships, because relationships are what make business grow. Doing that, going out and then looking at their lineup, certainly their new stuff and saying, hey, I'll get it out to a bigger audience--and for the most part most publishers want to see that happen. All publishers want to see their games find a bigger audience, and of course they get some extra money when that happens as well.

If a small publisher wanted to form those kinds of relationships, what piece of advice that would you have for them?

It's similar to finding designers to work with. Put yourself in a position to meet those other publishers. So for European or Japanese publishers, you should be at Essen. And you need to make appointments with them beforehand. Nobody takes a meeting if you just walk up and say, hey Asmodee, I want to take a meeting with you. It's not happening. You have to tell them what you're about beforehand and then try to get the meeting there. Having a catalog behind you, having a certain amount of sales behind you, is going to help. They better know who you are or they might not do that.

Again, it's a catch-22. You have to get a catalog, you have to get known a little bit. I wasn't taking these meetings from day one, but two years into this I could meet with almost anybody in the industry. So keep working on it, keep building your catalog, building your relationships, bringing out great games, and that effect, hopefully if you're doing it right, will snowball into bigger things for you.

Stronghold Games' 2017 release schedule features title including The Dragon & Flagon, Terraforming Mars, Great Western Trail, La Granja: The Dice Game - No Siesta!, Sola Fide: The Reformation and Fabled Fruit.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: 
Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Koen Hendrix, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Danica E., Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, JR Honeycutt, Knight Works, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Smarter Backer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - July 2016

This month's roundup of favorite board game design links includes an extensive reference list of game mechanisms, advice for finding work in games, ways that game designs can change player behavior and more.

theory:

industry:

playtesting:

process:

  • “Designers, never hesitate to kill your darlings. It might just make your game better.” - Gil Hova


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISER: Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison's Favorite Tips & Resources - June 2016


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISER: Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Marcel Perro

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Meaningful Decisions: Dan Cassar on Design Choices in Arboretum

In our Meaningful Decisions series, we ask designers about the design choices they made while creating their games, and what lessons other designers can take away from those decisions.

In this edition, we talk with Dan Cassar, the designer of Arboretum, about game progression, scoring systems, balancing cards and more.

Arboretum has a very simple structure: Each turn players draw two cards then play one and discard one. How did you settle on this?

The structure is simple but it's pretty unusual. From the start, I knew from very early on that I wanted players to be building paths that would grow organically in many directions, and I also wanted players to have to manage their hands carefully. So there were two parts of the game that needed to have cards feeding it every turn.

Originally, I tried it with the traditional rule of drawing one card and either playing or discarding it. But then it was too easy to sit back and not commit to which colors you were going to score. Increasing the number of cards coming into your hand each turn allowed me to feed both systems at once. I could force you to both commit something to your tableau as well as have to make a choice about what cards you're going to hold back.

The other nice side effect of drawing two each turn is that you can actually dig through a discard pile because you can remove cards faster than it will get filled. This means that any card that gets discarded is potentially playable at some time later in the game. This is something I always wanted to do in traditional card games like Gin or Rummy, but never could.

How important is it for a design to naturally progress toward an endgame state, and what can designers do to ensure their game has forward momentum?

Progression is one of those non-obvious but really critical aspects of game design that I struggled with a lot when I first started. It's something that I never thought too much about explicitly until I heard Geoff Engelstein talk about it on Ludology when he was on with Ryan Sturm a while back, and then he and Mike Fitzgerald mentioned it recently in their Game Design Checklist: "What drives the game towards a conclusion?"

I'd agree with them and say momentum is absolutely critical. Since games run in loops, it's natural for them to want to return to the same state they had in a previous turn. But if you allow that to happen, then your engine stalls. Game state progression is the plot of the story. Everyone wants to know how a good story ends.

Players only score paths if they also have the highest sum of that suit in hand. This one rule has numerous effects on how players interact with the game and their opponents. What are some of them, and were these outcomes entirely intentional when you were designing the game?

The issue I was actually trying to solve was how to determine which player got to "own" a particular color. Thematically, I wanted one arboretum to be known for magnolias and dogwoods, and another to be recognized as having an especially attractive collection of cassias and willows. I wanted there to be competition for control of individual colors, but since paths were allowed to have many colors (as they do in a real arboretum), it was common for several players to have valid paths. When I allowed multiple players to score a single color, the strategy was not about choosing which colors one would focus on, but instead everyone would try to score everything.

So when I thought about it, I reasoned that if a player has several cards in their hand of a particular color and has additional cards of that color in their tableau, they really controlled the majority of that color throughout the game. Therefore, it made sense that they would gain the right to score that color. So I figured I'd try it, and suddenly it made everything fall into place. The game felt like I had originally envisioned the game feeling.

I once heard someone say that your scoring system is your game, and I think this is a lesson one really needs to take to heart. Things in your game are important only insofar as they contribute to your score. Everything else is either an intermediate step to getting there or else it’s just a distraction.

So if the designer says that you only score if you do a specific thing, that necessarily makes that thing your number-one priority as a player.

Players are allowed to draw from any player's discard pile. What effects does this have on the design?

The open-information draft is an underutilized mechanic, in my opinion. It's one of my favorites because it's so simple and yet can create great tension by controlling how much information each player has. I wanted a drafting element to the game because I wanted players to have more control over how their arboretums would be built.

Having a separate discard piles for each player that are fed each turn by each player created a simple way of creating a drafting element to the game. It automatically scales with the number of players and it ensures that there are always new cards to choose from.

What are the risks and benefits of giving players some control over the game clock in a design?

I never really thought about this idea until I saw it in Lost Cities. I loved the way that it created tension, especially toward the end of the game. It creates those situations where you're ahead now, so you want the game to end sooner, so you can draw from the deck to help hurry things along. Or maybe you want to surprise your opponents by scoring a color you introduce in the last two turns of the game.

The risk of putting that control in the players' hands is a danger of stalling somehow. But as long as your game state progression is built in, it's a neat thing to have in the game because it just offers one more thing for players to consider during the draw phase of their turn.

During scoring, the 1 card in a suit reduces the 8 card in the same suit in an opponent's hand to 0. Why?

This was the last rule that I added to the game, but I feel it was an important one. I was playtesting Arboretum pretty extensively at conventions, and one thing I noticed was that 8's were rarely ever played to players' tableaus. The reason why was because it was the most efficient way of gaining points toward gaining the right to score.

So it was an automatic decision what to do with an 8 when you drew it. You held it. Automatic decisions are no fun, so I wanted to come up with a way to create some uncertainty around the utility of the 8 in hand.

What can and should designers do to address potentially overpowered cards or strategies in their designs?

The biggest problem with an overpowered card is that it's boring. If you get that card, you win. If that card is in your hand, you play it. There's no decision there. Other cards become irrelevant. So bringing everything in line makes things more fun because the strengths and weaknesses of the cards become situational as opposed to structural.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - May 2016


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

The Process: Cutthroat Caverns by Curt Covert

In The Process, board game designers walk us through the process of creating their game from start to finish, and how following their path can help others along theirs.

In this installment, Curt Covert describes how he created Cutthroat Caverns, including how a new gaming group inspired the game, designing with your own sensibility, engaging players’ emotions, finding art on a budget pre-Kickstarter, marketing by word of mouth, the importance of customer service and more.

Theory

My company, Smirk & Dagger Games, is well-known for its design aesthetic, in that we specialize in “stab your buddy” games. I just think they are more fun--highly emotional, laugh-filled, curse-filled, fun.

Every aspect of Cutthroat Caverns was carefully designed to live up to that and was inspired by my early years of playing Dungeons & Dragons. You see, my high school D&D group was very Tolkien-esque. We were all pretty Lawful Good, “all for one, one for all” brothers in arms. (Actually, my 1980’s player group was entirely women, other than me, but that’s beside the point.) If you found a magical item, you gave it to the person who could best wield it. We were all true heroes.

Well, when I got to college and played the first time with a whole new group, it was quite different. Chaotic Evil alignments, selfish unscrupulous folk, assassins, true mercenary brutes, all of them. I shall never forget the horrifying moment that I suddenly realized that the other players in my party were far more dangerous than any creature the DM could summon. That feeling of shock and horror was the exactly what I wanted to recreate and perpetuate throughout Cutthroat Caverns.

So I started with the premise. You’re a group of adventurers who had vowed, by all you hold sacred, that each day the first pick of treasure would go to the person with the most prestigious kills--except today, you found “the one ring / the holy grail / the most glorious treasure imaginable” and now you will do anything to make sure that person is you. But this is a vicious dungeon, filled with creatures that will overwhelm and destroy you, and you must escape before you can claim your prize. As the box says, “Without Teamwork you’ll never survive. Without Betrayal, you’ll never win.” It is a game about “kill stealing” and gaining more prestige by landing more killing blows on the toughest creatures--before the other party members can. It was a simple enough construct--but lead to a pretty unique style of game play. Too diabolical to be called a semi co-op, I coined the term “cooperative backstabbing.”

The monsters in the game had to be deadly and the illustrations and mood of the game had to put players on the defensive. Each time an Encounter is revealed, there has to be a gasp around the table--an ‘oh, crap!’ moment, in which they fear for their lives. That perpetual feeling becomes the driving force to work together. Then, balanced in equal measure, each creature also provides a reward for your sudden and inevitable betrayal.

It was clear that the creature stats would need to increase with the number of players at the table, in order to keep the threat level appropriate. But I took this opportunity to assure that the player elimination aspect of the game, which can be polarizing for players, didn’t lead to anyone being pushed out too soon. I simply ruled that, should players die early on, the creatures you’ve yet to face would not get weaker. The creature stats remain set to the number of people who started the game and the remaining players may no longer have enough firepower to win. This encourages keeping your opponents alive in the first three quarters of the game, yet allows for player elimination in the end game, especially of the prestige leaders, to remain an important avenue for players to win.

I then turned my focus to the players and the core mechanics of the game. For thematic reasons, I didn’t want any straight-up, player-versus-player combat. After all, we are a team--right, Boromir? Instead, player conflict would be more passive aggressive, as you attempt to get other players hit more often by the monsters. I also decided, at the outset, that there would be no dice rolling in the game, especially in regards to combat. Those games already existed and I was hunting for a different experience. But more important, I wanted players to have a high degree of control over how hard or soft they would strike. I wanted an intricate dance as they jockeyed for position to land the killing blow. Borrowing initiative order from my days of D&D, players would know and could plan their strategy in secret based on turn order, but would have to “set” their selected attack without knowing how hard others would swing.

I was delighted to discover that cards doing little or no damage could be just as valuable as those doing a lot of damage. If you can’t kill the creature yourself this turn, your best play is to sandbag, hoping the creature survives long enough for you to kill it next round. Most players assume low cards are worthless and watching their faces light up as they discover their value is almost as sweet as watching the faces of those who feel robbed of a kill, because they had planned on you doing more damage. I love to see people discard low cards, knowing they still have much to learn about the game.

Of course, there needed to be “take that” cards capable of increasing or decreasing your attack strength, changing initiative, spoiling your attack completely, stealing items or reassigning damage as well as limited-use items to fight over, which never get shuffled back into the deck, to keep their intrinsic value high.

There were two design decisions that were long debated, Bonus Prestige and Character Abilities. One concern, early in design, was the emergence of a “runaway leader.” At some point, it could be mathematically impossible to catch up with the leader, and this drains the fun out of the endgame. One solution is for players to eliminate the leader or several of them at the end of the game, but this is not always possible. So I devised a somewhat controversial fix, Bonus Prestige. In Rounds 7 and 8, as the exit draws closer and the tension rises, creatures deliver 3 additional bonus prestige. In rounds 9+, five bonus prestige are added. This provides those trailing in prestige a means to catch up in the critical last rounds. It is an effective solution, but has been criticized by some who felt the first encounters mean almost nothing, so long as you score the final kill. In truth, it isn’t quite so, but it most certainly can make all the difference. But I could find no better solution at the time. Since then, additional prestige resources (Relics, for example) have mitigated this.

The second debated design consideration, perhaps the most hotly fought in development, was whether or not we should have asymmetrical characters in the game, granting players unique abilities. With the creatures changing the play environment every round, with different rules and exceptions, I felt strongly that player abilities would only further complicate the game. Worse, I was afraid that players would argue about the balance of the character abilities. I never wanted to hear, “If I’m not the Dwarf, I’m not playing. That’s the only way to win.” Instead, I wanted the sole focus of the game to be about the players themselves and what they were willing to do to each other to win. That was far more interesting and engaging game play, a social experiment almost. But my partner argued that when you play a fantasy adventure game, players want and expect that their characters will be unique. We were both 100% correct. I made the final call to go without. It was more important to deliver a game unique unto itself.

But fans echoed my partner’s position. In the first expansion, I tried a limited one-use ability to try and meet their demands, but I was never happy with it. Years later, with the concept of drafting more popular, I finally found a great solution. I allowed players to draft ability cards and then choose abilities they wanted before the game began. But for each they took, their maximum Life Totals would be decreased. The fact that they could construct their own characters removed the possibility of arguments over balance. In addition, we created 12 pre-set characters, should players want to play them, which were created from the ability cards used in the draft, theming the official characters of the game. I’ve been very pleased with how it came out.

In truth, the “tool kit” of mechanics and variables in Cutthroat Caverns are fairly limited and straightforward. And it is therefore shocking how much variety we have been able to deliver, in terms of unique encounters (of which there are now 140 or so), items and events. Each encounter drips with theme and plays very differently from one another. This variety, and the emotional impact the game delivers, is what brings people back, time and time again. I think it remains my best design.

  • The Takeaway: Create a glossary for your game at the outset, and live by it religiously. I’ve had a very rough learning curve on this with Cutthroat. Synonyms, alternate phrasings, inconsistent descriptions can all lead gamers to infer unique rules loopholes, where you intended none, or else lead to needless confusion. I’m sad to say, the game still suffers a bit from my sins of the past in this regard, but I’ve learned a valuable lesson for the future.

Without engaging the emotions during the game, there is no story to tell after the game. Epic betrayals, clutch plays, triumphant comes-from-behind--this is the stuff of legends. Playing your game should lead to great tales.

I love the delicate balance of cooperation and betrayal needed to win. There is such an amazing dynamic here and one I would love to see explored more in the industry.

The best designs allow your fans to contribute to the game. After our first expansion, I wanted to deepen the relationship with fans and their involvement in the game--just as I had done so many years ago building expanded content for games I loved. In Deeper & Darker, I included a surrogate encounter card that would be a placeholder in the deck for your own creature designs. A year later, I ran a contest to create a new encounter for the game. The winner would have their encounter considered for inclusion in our next expansion and they’d win a bunch of games from our catalog. Well, I was bowled over by the response. I thought I might get a few very rough ideas. What I got was almost a hundred well-considered encounters, which pushed the game into lots of new and innovative directions. Sure, we had plenty of work to do to balance and refine them, but it inspired and created game content for our next two expansions, including the Event deck of Relics & Ruin, and a slew of brilliant creatures like fan faves, WereBoar, Gluttony, Greed and Emperor Lich.

I learned the power of creating a “funnel” in the game. Since I wanted a specific emotional reaction consistently throughout the game, I had to define it and then find almost endless ways to elicit it with a handful of game tools--imminent death versus a host of possible rewards for risking the death of yourself and everyone else. Anything that helped funnel people towards making this critical decision was exploited and added to the game. Anything that did not was cast aside.

First rough concept for the Cutthroat Caverns box. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

First rough concept for the Cutthroat Caverns box. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

Process

The heart of game I set about designing myself, but I have always relied on my partner in crime, Justin Brunetto, to kick the tires and suggest areas to improve. And I try to learn something from every playtest. The design evolved over the course of a year where we debated wordings, how deadly to make the dungeon, bonus prestige and the final Encounters paired down to the best assortment.

My first step is always to mock up materials as rough as possible, for myself, where I play mock hands alone. This lets me see the game flow for the first time, identify very coarse issues, and make any adjustments before subjecting others to an overly flawed design. In Cutthroat, this initial runthrough allowed me to see the benefits of a damage stack of cards and verified the viability of printing adjusted damage along all four edges of the card, so they could be rotated to one side to show ‘half damage’ and the like.

I might ask family and friends to do one session with me, just to gauge the human element, but I never expect a great deal of reliable feedback here, as friends and family can be guarded on criticism. The real work happens with players who don’t know you. That is where all the learning is done, with all sorts of player styles.

I do not rush the process and a game is only done when it is ready. Often times, as primarily a one-man shop, I am weaving development time in after work at local game stores, on the weekends and comping and editing rules where I can find time. You can sense you are close when major rules questions begin disappearing. But for me, I know a design is done and worthy of printing when a playtest ends in a couple of the players excitedly asking me when the game will be available. If I have to ask if they like it, it probably isn’t ready yet.

  • The Takeaway: The design process for Cutthroat was fairly seamless. The final game was very close to the initial design, and my assumptions regarding how players would react given the situations I purposefully placed them in were dead on. Making sure the creature Encounters were balanced yet emotionally engaging was the fun part and then took some tweaking here and there.

Everyone approaches the design process differently. Some designers are more mathy, some are looking for intricate decision trees, while I stress a gut feel of gameplay delivering on the emotional impact of play. I want to see highs and lows, gritting of teeth and laughter. But no matter what your style, build and develop with your own sensibility at the heart of the matter. Build your game, no one else’s.

But be fluid, not every design is the same. Let the game itself guide you. Let playtests challenge your assumptions.

Prototyping

I come from a graphic art background, so prototyping was always second nature. I have a few tools that may not be as easy to come by for others, but there are easy replacements to be had.

First rule: First prototypes should not be pretty. You are testing core concepts, so keep it rough. You can even handwrite the cards if you want or just have black type on featureless cards. Make sure the core mechanics work before trying to make it look good.

Second rule: Editable prototypes are better than fixed, beautiful prototypes. Don’t run to The Game Crafter with your first prototype. You will be changing a lot in the process. My favorite thing for cards is to print out roughs on regular copier paper and drop them into card sleeves with a playing card backer (for stiffness). Anytime you have a rule change, swap the paper and you are good to go. Card sleeves of different colors can help separate different card decks.

Once I have a design that I’m fairly happy with, I will add a little art and design that help people imagine the theme of the game. That can impact how people perceive the game, helping put them in the world you imagine. I have often used clip art or other things “for position only” (it is good to mark it as such) before actually working with an illustrator to develop art. I would only do so once I had a very final design in place.

For chipboard tokens, game boards, etc., I tend to lay those out on tabloid (11x17) sheets on a computer. Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign are industry standards. But you can hand draw them as well if you need to. But I typically run color lasers and then apply adhesive to the back with a Xyron machine. They can be bought at Staples and other such office stores. It is essentially a roller system that applies a uniform gummy coating to the back of your printouts, so you can then carefully adhere them to some nice art board, chip board or even heavy duty card stock. Without a Xyron, use 3M Spray Mount (light tack). Spray a very light, even coat (you don’t need much) and do so outside on a surface you don’t mind getting tacky.

Once I’ve got a solid design and developed/semi-developed artwork, I do a final comp that I can showcase with gamers, retailers and distributors. At this point, if you want to go to Game Crafter for a more professional level of finish, go for it. I don’t, but I do upgrade to clear sleeves and comp the back of the cards as well.

  • The Takeaway: A beautiful prototype can definitely help draw people in and get them involved in the game’s theme--but do so later in the process to save yourself some time and money.

Cutthroat Caverns character design. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

Cutthroat Caverns character design. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

Playtesting

Until you playtest, you don’t really have a game; you have an idea for a game. It is in playtesting the game that you find all the ugly bits, prove out your concept and perfect it.

I’m big on playing with people I don’t know and often travel to board game meetup groups, game nights at retail stores and conventions to find gamers who are not friends and family. Some people go through the rigor of having playtesters write down their thoughts and ask specific questions, but I have often found that a quick conversation can be more meaningful. Let your players know that part of the test is chatting about it afterwards. If you have things you are specifically trying to get input on, by all means mention it. But a conversation will allow you to follow up with clarifications or even pull additional input from them. Try to avoid making comments or reactions that cause them to shut down. You can filter for what is useful later, but accept what you are given with open ears and an open mind. Evaluate later.

Don’t try to accommodate all the input you receive. Some will be smart, insightful and right for your game. Some you will discard as a direction you do not wish to move in. All input is important; not all is actionable.

On Cutthroat, our playtesting did indeed prove that players were interested in unique characters and asked why we didn’t have them. Most were satisfied with my answer about wanting to instead focus on the lengths players would go to achieve their selfish needs, but it didn’t stop them from requesting. In the end, I had to decide what game I wanted and why--and stuck to my guns. We reduced much of the grey areas in describing the unique rules pertaining to each creature.

Publishing

Cutthroat was the fourth title Smirk & Dagger produced. My previous games had generated just enough income to reinvest in the printing, but little else. Mind you, this was well before Kickstarter. My first games required me taking on a second mortgage to fund the printing, which took a long time to pay off, but this game scraped by on money I’d generated from the first three games. That said, I had very little available for art--and huge art demands.

The art was critical for the theme. I needed somewhat whimsical player character art to show that the game itself was light-hearted--and really awesome, nasty creature art that made you think these creatures would tear you all apart. It was the first time I had to go outside for illustrations, having used my own cartooning skills and graphic art ability on previous games.

It was important for the characters to be consistent in style, from a single artist. I found a great artist who had been working on his own comic book, with a style somewhere between Marvel and Disney art. His previous works were unpublished (officially) so I was able to work with him on a budget that worked great for both of us. We worked through pencil sketches right into final color art. I had him illustrate the characters as full body, standalone poses and planned to combine them into a composition for the cover art, to avoid having to create separate cover art.

Much as I wanted unique art for each Attack, Action and Item card, it was simply not possible, so I created graphic treatments for each, which were clean and functional. This left the creature art. I needed 25 illustrations and had largely run out of resources, certainly not enough to commission new works of art from scratch. So I decided to contact a handful of illustrators whose previously created works had caught my eye, with existing creature art that would suit the cards. All were personal projects they had done, in some cases years before. I worked out arrangements with each to feature their works as part of a very eclectic gallery of encounters. It was a unique solve and the diversity of styles became a strength for the game.

Marketing was very word-of-mouth, mostly convention appearances and reviewers whom I sent review copies to. I also submitted to the Origins awards and other award panels. Happily, the game itself did much of the work for us. It was innovative and despite a few rough spots in the rules (we’ve been through a number of improved versions) it garnered a lot of attention, earning a number of nominations for game of the year.

The art of the demo was critical in the success of the game. It takes 90 minutes to play and that is way too long for a convention booth demo. It took a while for us to figure out how to best show it. First, I created a “teaching board” with pictures of all the key cards neatly arranged. Instead of fishing out cards every time I taught the rules, I could just point to the right spot on the board. It cut teaching the game in half. Then we decided we could showcase everything about the game in just three or four encounters. We chose an example of a few very different encounters to highlight different mechanics in the game and dropped everyone’s life total in half to keep the danger level appropriate. It delivered the full experience in just 15 to 20 minutes. Still a long demo, but one that felt robust and full, and led very reliably to sales.

  • The Takeaway: For every game you design/publish, craft the shortest, best experience to showcase your game. Stack the deck, streamline setup, remove cards that lead to confusion, etc. The demo should be pretty consistent and show off the best aspects of the game. Above all, create an experience they will remember. I’ve always said that I never have to “sell” a game. I just have to show people what excites me about it.

Do not be stingy with handing out copies to podcasts and reviewers. Consider it part of your marketing budget, because it is--and the least expensive marketing you will ever do. Demos are the number-one best way to market your game, reviews are number two.

Customer service is critical. Professionalism is critical. Don’t be a dick. Ever. To anyone. Fans, artists, printers, reviewers and people in general. Show them your passion, treat everyone with the respect they are due, expect nothing and appreciate everything. This will always open a door--or at the very least, won’t close them.

Cutthroat Caverns character design. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

Cutthroat Caverns character design. Courtesy of Smirk & Dagger Games.

About Curt Covert

Curt Covert is the owner of Smirk & Dagger Games and the designer of Hex Hex, Run for your Life Candyman, Cutthroat Caverns, Sutakku, Nevermore and a number of other titles that prove games are more fun when you can stab a friend in the back. He still has a full-time job as a creative director for a major marketing company and a very patient and understanding family. Smirk & Dagger will have an unprecedented number of new games in 2016, including Dead Last, our social collusion game of shifting alliances and betrayals, J’Accuse!, a game of accusations, denials and murder, and Specters of Nevermore, an expansion to our card drafting game featuring 12 unique characters based on Edgar Allen Poe’s literary characters.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Meaningful Decisions: Doug Levandowski on Design Choices in Gothic Doctor

In our Meaningful Decisions series, we ask designers about the design choices they made while creating their games, and what lessons other designers can take away from those decisions.

In this edition, we talk with Doug Levandowski, the co-designer of Gothic Doctor, about player choice, balancing powerful cards, endgame triggers and more.

The rules for Gothic Doctor tell players to remove any action cards they want to before starting the game. Why?

Gothic Doctor is a broad enough game that it could be good for younger gamers or gamers more interested in a light experience--and with the Partial Treatments variation in the expansion, it can be good for players who want to make more risk vs. reward kinds of decisions. With that in mind, John McNeill, the game’s co-designer, and I decided--even before the expansion--that we wanted to put this caveat into the rules.

Some players want to play more of a multiplayer-solitaire game, and some players (especially in set collection games) really hate having their sets disrupted; on the other hand, some players want to have a stronger take-that element to the game. So in light of that, we decided the easiest way to make the game fun for all different kinds of players was to give players the option to alter the balance of the action cards however they wanted.

We sort of stole that idea from Dominion. Don't want curse/attack cards? Cool! Leave them out! Want to attack nearly constantly and have high score in the game be, like, 7 points? Cool! Witches for everyone! Moats for no one!

Then, as we developed the Partial Treatments expansion, that ability to change the action cards mattered even more; the more you can affect the waiting room, the riskier it is to partially treat a patient, especially to drop a bunch of treatments on a higher-value patient. So if we had any doubt about that caveat before, giving players the ability to skew that risk/reward ratio became something we were really excited about.

What are the pros and cons of giving players the ability to change the type of experience they'll get in a game?

I think the most significant pro is that it allows players with some experience with the game to alter the balance of what will happen in the game. My friend Ian Reed and his significant other Devon are really aggressive players, so he recently told me that when they play, they take out many of the action cards that are neutral to the other player; they want that sort of experience where they can really screw over the other player even if that means low scores in the game. My wife, on the other hand, wants to play friendly games, so we take out the aggressive actions. My experience with games with variable card powers is that every player has some that they absolutely love and want to see every game--and some that have the potential to ruin the game for them. So a serious pro is letting players mold the game to the kind of experience they want to have.

A pretty serious potential con, which I think we avoided in Gothic Doctor, would come if the change to the experience could make the game unbalanced in some way. In Gothic Doctor, players can't (for example) change the number of Panaceas in the deck or get rid of one type of treatment. If they could, that would change how easily doctors could cure patients, and that would really skew the core of the game. But the actions cards don't run into that issue in my experience.

Another potential con is if there are elements that have the potential to ripple out in unexpected ways that players might not understand, especially after only a game or two. Altering the core elements would definitely lead to that--like if players could decide how many rounds they wanted the game to last for. That seems superficial, but in Gothic Doctor, it has big implications for things like the specialist and generalist bonuses.

Gothic Doctor ends after a set number of rounds. Did it always, or did you test other endgame triggers?

Heh, no, it wasn't always that way, and this is one of my embarrassing first-time-designer stories. Originally, the game ended when a doctor had treated 650 pounds worth of patients. (Typically in a current game, scores range from 325 to 500 pounds--so they were much longer games.) But I really liked playing to a certain value, since the theme of the game is that you're trying to make partner in a practice, and it made sense to me for the practice to be saying, "When you've made this much, then you're partner."

John found that the people he was playtesting with were saying, "This is pretty long..." but I was absolutely dead set on keeping it, so I said, "Fine, then we lower the value!" We argued and argued about it--pretty forcefully, actually--until one day, he said, "Sit down. Play it this way." And within three rounds, I was absolutely convinced how right he was.

With the round-based endgame, we were able to say thematically, "You have this many hours of night. Go!" and that makes a lot of sense, too. It also prevents players from having to be counting their score constantly, which was very tedious, though we could have mitigated that with a score tracker. And, more importantly, playing to a set number of rounds gives you a strong sense of moving towards a conclusion, which is helpful in the arc of the game: "I only have two more rounds, and I need to get another Bestial patient to get that Veterinarian bonus!" or "I just have to keep my opponent from getting another Insane patient for three more rounds..." There's a lot better tension this way than, "Oh! I have enough to win! Game over."

So, the takeaway for me here was to playtest something even if you think it's going to change the DNA of your game. If it does, it might change it for the better.

We also briefly kicked around the idea of having to treat all of the patients in the deck. Super tedious... That lasted half of one playtest.

Are there ways a designer can tell what type of endgame trigger is best for a particular game?

Experimentation is really the best way, I think. If you can think of something to try, my really strong stance is that you should just try it. After one test, it might be clear that it won't work--but even if it stinks, it might open up some other ideas that could work in other ways.

But along with that, I'm a strong advocate of the fusion of theme and mechanics. So if there's a thematically relevant endgame trigger, that's the first one I'd test. More importantly, though, the game has to end before players are bored with it. So thematic concerns have to be adapted to make sure that the fun's still there. Luckily, theme can usually be massaged to make that work.

When drawing cards, players may draw from either the treatment deck or the action deck, in any ratio they choose. This gives players the flexibility of crafting their hand of cards. Why did you divide the cards this way, and why did you make both card types contribute to the seven-card hand limit?

This decision came down, again, to player choice--but it also had a lot to do with controlling randomness in the game. Originally, the decks were shuffled together and you just drew from them--but it could be really, really frustrating to keep drawing action cards when you need to treat a patient. So we split the deck.

In keeping with the elements of choice that we worked into the game, we wanted players to be able to balance their hands however they wanted. I mentioned how aggressive Ian and Devon are with each other; they're heavy action card users too. Some people don't use them at all (which is a thing that newer players tend to do before they see just how much some of them can affect the game). But ultimately, that's one of the strategic elements in the game: If you can cure one patient in the waiting room with the cards in your hand, do you take an action card? They're very powerful, but almost all of them are conditionally very powerful--higher risk, higher reward. Or do you take another treatment card to have a more balanced hand? John and I were really, really happy with this change and the control it gave players over the management of their hand.

How can a game's rules accommodate different players' preferences? Should there be limits to how much flexibility a game gives players?

Player interaction is a key way to do this; it's something that I've picked up from playing Jay Treat's designs (especially Grandeur and Merchants of Araby) and your Sultana, which has one of the best interactions I've seen. Players can decide in these games how much that interaction matters. In Merchants, you can build your engine on your own, or you can work very collaboratively, especially in early rounds. In Sultana, you and your opponents get to choose which path(s) to victory you're focusing on.

At the same time, though, with high collaboration games, there's a sort of paradox there: It can also limit the ability of players to exercise their preferences. When what other players do influences optimal play, it makes it so that what they do alters the options you have, usually not increasing them. But at the same time, it also expands them. It's weird that way.

Another way to accommodate players' preferences, of course, is modular setup--anything from altering what action cards are in the game to changing the setup of the board to encourage or discourage certain paths to victory. And then of course there's something like 504 where even the core mechanics are variable, though I haven't checked that one out...yet. Actually, given how different 504 games can be (from what I understand), that's like saying that you can accommodate players' preferences by letting them choose what game they play...

In terms of limiting flexibility, I think choice should be bounded by the fun in the game. To some extent, that's about protecting players from themselves. Even great, great game designers have ideas that sound awesome in their heads but wind up being unmitigated disasters on the table. So I don't want any of my rules to be so loose that a player could make the game unfun. There are house rules, of course--but then players would know, hey, this isn't allowable in the core.

The Panacea cards are especially powerful because they're required to treat the most valuable patients, and they can be used as wildcards in place of other treatments. How does the game counterbalance this?

Super powerful--and unlike the action cards, Panaceas aren't conditionally powerful. They're powerful every time you treat. So, to counterbalance that, we did a few things. First, drawing them face up costs two draws instead of one, decreasing your hand size until the end of your next turn.

Second, you need them in order to treat the more valuable patients, so they serve more than one function in the treatment process.

Third, we put 13 of them in the treatment deck--while each other treatment card only has 5. When you have a very powerful card, I think you want to make them more widely available to reduce the imbalance based on luck for the number that players draw--as much as is possible in a game based, in some ways, on the luck of the draw.

Fourth, the fact that they are so powerful leads players to have to make decisions about whether to use them as a wild--and when. People tend to not throw them around given how valuable they are, so that helps a bit to mitigate it.

In the playtesting, we tested towards the end for whether having more Panaceas pass through their hands correlated with higher score. They didn't, so, good to go!

Are there go-to ways of counterbalancing powerful cards that designers can keep in mind?

Conditional power is a big one, for sure. For example, one really powerful action card allows you to take a treatment card into your hand when an opponent uses it. So, it's basically a free Panacea--but you have to wait until an opponent drops a Panacea to use it. Sometimes that's nearly immediately, but I've waited more than three rounds to be able to use that card as it takes up space in my hand. And since that's keeping me from having one extra card to create a set, that's a big deal. So making a great card only actually great in a specific situation is good.

The more powerful the card has the potential to be, the rarer the condition should be. But there's also a balance to that. A card that's so, so rarely useful makes it so rare that having it at the right time becomes more luck than calculation. I don't have the exact number here--I think playtesting is the trick here. Mathing it out is great, but ultimately, I think it comes back to having it feel subjectively right to most players during actual games.

Another way is making them more difficult or costly to acquire, as discussed above--though it could also be more expensive to use. One of the things we toyed with was forcing players to spend 25 pounds to use the Panacea, but that proved to be too much of a disincentive. But if a game employs action point allowance, having to spend more action points to use more powerful cards is a way too.

Mitigating the ways in which cards are randomly acquired is important too. If it's all blind draws, then more powerful cards are more problematic since acquiring them or not will always be luck-based.

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

Cardboard Edison’s Favorite Tips & Resources - April 2016

This month, our roundup of favorite board game design links includes a thorough checklist for designers, fascinating articles on key game concepts, practical advice for a pitching tool and lots more.

featured:

process:

theory:

playtesting:

licensing:

publishing:


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer

The Process: Scoville by Ed Marriott

In The Process, board game designers walk us through the process of creating their game from start to finish, and how following their path can help others along theirs.

In this installment, Ed Marriott describes how he created Scoville, including how networking led to a publishing contract, finding an incentive to encourage player behavior, the value of public playtesting, and more.

Process

Back in the fall of 2012 I was basking in the enjoyment of having attended my first Gen Con and meeting tons of awesome people, designers and publishers. It was after Gen Con 2012 that I submitted my first game design to a publisher, but we don’t really talk about that. Well, no one except my mom talks about that one.

After Gen Con 2012 I was inspired by a particular designer and a particular publisher. I won’t name names because it’s not necessary here, but needless to say I rode the wave of inspiration and it gave me Scoville. One of the big tips was that I should get on Twitter and start following designers and publishers. I joined and met (virtually) a ton of great people who I now know in real life. Through those awesome Twitter people I learned a bunch about game design, the game industry, people’s personal opinions about games, and more.

I had been brainstorming themes for game designs and was coming up with all sorts of things. I was also currently designing a game about beavers building dams and another game about the Fort Union Trading Post. But then I came upon the Scoville Scale. While I’m not a hot pepper kind of guy I was fascinated by the science behind cross-breeding peppers resulting in hotter and hotter peppers. With the idea firmly planted, I set out on putting the design together.

So I came up with the concepts for Scoville where players would cross-breed hot peppers and work toward meeting the town of Scoville’s need for heat! That meant I needed a way for players to use hot peppers in the game. The result was a Farmer’s Market and a Chili Cook-off.

  • The Takeaway: Network! Get on Twitter. Go to designer conventions like Protospiel or Unpub. Go to game conventions. Meet designers and publishers and learn what they do well. Check if your local game store has any game designer days where you can playtest your games.

Scoville's first playtest

Scoville's first playtest

Theory

When I first started working on the cross-breeding concept in September of 2012 I thought it would make a great card game. So I had a concept where you would collect three cards of a kind. Then you could turn those in for a hotter pepper card. Through a long series of trading up like that you could get access to the hottest peppers.

That would have been a really boring game. So I needed a better way to have players obtain peppers. Around Christmas 2012 I came up with the pepper field idea where players would walk their farmer through the field to cross-breed peppers. I had a few variations for how it might work but I settled on the simplest one. Each turn players plant peppers in the field. Then their farmer earns cross-bred peppers as they walk between the pepper plots.

Now I had the main game mechanic for obtaining peppers and had to figure out the most fun and rewarding things for players to do with those peppers. So I came up with the Farmer’s Market and Chili Recipe concepts. The Farmer’s Market serves as short-term strategy goals as well as a timer for the game, and the chili recipes serve as long-term strategy. I also added an auction that would reward players with a pepper or peppers and would serve to modify the turn order. With those main elements in place the game was ready for prototyping and playtesting.

  • The Takeaway: Games are meant to be fun and social. Find a theme or a mechanic that you enjoy and make it into a game!

Prototyping

In the game there have to be a lot of peppers. What better thing to represent peppers than plastic cubes?!? So I bought a big tub of cubes. I also was learning to use the vector graphic software Inkscape. This would prove exceedingly useful for the prototype.

Early on I would print my artwork on paper and glue it to cardstock. I found this was not a good method because the glue, from a glue stick, would cause the final product to warp. So I figured I needed thicker cardboard and learned you can buy matte board remnants at Hobby Lobby for pretty cheap. I’ll bet you could get remnants from other places that frame pictures as well.

The best way to learn about how I made my Scoville prototypes is to read my blog article about it on BoardsandBarley.com: “Prototyping Techniques Applied to Scoville.” If you don’t want to jump to my site here’s the brief version:

  1. Make prototype art (this can include Sharpies on cardstock)

  2. Print, glue, cut. Print the artwork, glue it to matte board or chit board, cut it to size.

  3. Gather non-printed components like meeples, money, cubes, etc.

Another potentially enjoyable read if you are a game designer looking to make your own prototypes is my article, “Game Design: Starter Prototyping Tools.”

The items I use the most for prototyping are my rotary cutter, glossy photo paper, glue sticks, and blank cards. Meeples, dice and cubes are readily available for purchase at a bunch of places.

  • The Takeaway: It doesn’t matter if it is ugly or pretty, just make a prototype and get it ready for playtesting!

Playtesting

After making the prototype I was so pumped to get the game to the table and see what it really was like. I remember I didn’t have the right color cubes to represent the peppers so I used pink for the gold peppers (gold peppers are now the Phantom peppers). My friend Jeremy came over to test the game. I taught him the rules quickly and we set out on a great adventure. That was Jan. 11, 2013. The playtest went brilliantly.

However, over the course of the first dozen or so playtests I found that players would hoard the hotter peppers (brown, white and black). I had to figure out a way to incentivize players to get them to plant those peppers. I wanted something that would fit thematically since the theme is huge in this game. So it was time to call in the Town Mayor.

At that point I added the bonus plaques from the Town Mayor. These worked extremely well, fit thematically, and served their purpose to get players to plant those peppers. The main result I was after was to get spots on the board that would produce hotter peppers sooner in the game.

I was very grateful that my regular gaming group was happy to test the game for me. Over the course of two months it was tested 20 times! I received some excellent feedback as well. One of the key issues early on was how the auction operated. It was set up that the highest bidder would move into the first spot in the turn order. This was bad, though, since it would provide an incentive for people to NOT bid if they wanted to harvest first. So my friend David recommended that the auction become a “buy your spot” auction where the highest bidder would choose their spot in the turn order. This was the perfect change for the auction because of the value that harvesting first holds. So I was very pleased with people being willing to playtest and with the feedback I received.

In March of 2013 I thought I had a fun game on my hands but I went to Protospiel-Milwaukee with the goal of “validating” the design. I wanted to know if people who were not my “friends” thought the game was fun. I hadn’t yet applied the auction change because I wanted to know if I would get the same feedback. I did. No one liked the old auction. So overnight I implemented the auction change and got a couple repeat testers the next day who thought the auction was drastically better. That was fantastic, and I highly recommend you attend a Protospiel event as a designer.

  • The Takeaway: Playtesting teaches you about your game in a very tangible way. Get the game to the table, seek feedback, and figure out the best way to apply that feedback to make your game better.

Licensing

My publisher is Tasty Minstrel Games. I had attended Gen Con 2012 with one of my goals being to meet Michael Mindes, founder of TMG, and pick his brain about game design. I managed to meet Mindes, and he was very helpful in guiding me in the world of game design. After Protospiel-Milwaukee, Mindes requested a prototype of Scoville, and I was elated to send him one. Networking pays off, people!

A few months later I was chatting with the TMG team and they mentioned that they and their playtesters liked the game and they were going to send me a contract. I don’t think I stopped smiling for like a month. I couldn’t believe it. I was so excited!

As for the contract I had done some research about what is good and bad in terms of royalties or whatever. I had a lawyer friend look it over to make sure it seemed solid. I did request a couple of changes to the contract that would allow me direct access to the games if I needed, but otherwise I was very happy to sign on the line. My dream was coming true!

  • The Takeaway: I didn’t have to pitch because I already had a relationship with the publisher. Networking is valuable.

About Ed Marriott

I am a Wisconsin native. I am married with three little kids who do their best to make sure I am too tired at night to get any game design done. I’m a nuclear engineer working on fusion reactor design. I got into game design because I started playing a lot of great games and thought that maybe I could design one myself.

My first game design was a worker placement game called Microbrew about running your own microbrewery. I’ve learned so much since then. I’ve gone through a whole bunch of game design concepts and have learned the value behind trashing your ideas.

I have two current projects, Ziggurat and Raising Atlantis. These are both in the playtesting phase and I’m looking forward to developing them further. I also have many previous game designs that I’ve abandoned for one reason or another. These include Conclave, Brooklyn Bridge, The Grand Illusion, Impossible, Trading Post and more. It’s easy to come up with concepts, but it’s difficult to turn them into fun games that work well.

For more info about me and my game design stuff check out my blog: boardsandbarley.com.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, Peter C. Hayward, Matthew O’Malley, Isaias Vallejo

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Luis Lara, Behrooz Shahriari, Aidan Short, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Marcel Perro, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Kevin Brusky, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Michael Gray, JR Honeycutt, Scott Martel Jr., Mike Mullins, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer