The Process: Beta Colony by Matt Riddle and Ben Pinchback

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, Matt Riddle describes how he and Ben Pinchback created Beta Colony, including merging designs, using a new mechanic, upgrading prototypes, failing fast, and more.

20140429_215610.jpg

Process

Our process is pretty consistent across every design. Make it and break it as quickly as possible.

Beta Colony started over four years ago as a game about monks building temples in ancient Bagan. Turns out monks are not a theme that people immediately grab on to. It had a clever but very dry tile placement mechanic that still exists in a modified form in Beta Colony. Thanks to some great feedback from Unpub 4, we began working it to make it less dry and not as focused on the tile laying, but instead having that become the primary scoring/euro thing but with a whole new resource acquisition mechanic and focus.

We were working on a game called Space Vikings 2.0, which featured our “roldel.” (More below! And a random side note: Space Vikings 1.0 is now Wasteland Express Delivery Service!) We saw an opportunity to merge the good stuff from two active projects into one and did it.

We pitched it at Origins to Rio Grande Games and they went, “What about space?” That was funny since half its DNA was a space game, so we did. After a year of development, the game was better and comes out late 2018.

  • The Takeaway: Fail fast. I know that is a business-y buzzword, but it holds true for our design process. Get an idea into alpha test as quickly as possible. If it’s good, work at it. If it is not, move on to the next one.

IMG_0230.JPG

Theory

Mechanically, it our first published use of what Ben and I call our “roldel” mechanic. The basis is simple: Use dice to move pawns around a rondel to select actions/cards/stuff. It is simple but fun and can be twisted in several ways. For Beta Colony, the start player rolls four dice and all players match that roll. Each turn, players use two dice to take an action—one die to move around the rondel, another to activate where you land. That was the basis for Beta Colony: Move around the rondel, gather resources, and use those resources to build tiles (colony buildings) on the planet. It is a relatively simple base goal. Granted, there are tile bonuses, special buildings, VP tracks, and more going on, but the base goal is simple.

That wasn’t always the case. Beta Colony suffered from design barnacles. Good ideas that worked and were even thematic, but only added length, not depth. We worked with the Rio Grande Games developer Ken Hill, to “Knizia” (i.e., streamline) Beta Colony into a 75-minute thematic euro with an engaging dice puzzle to solve each turn, and good, tight decisions.

  • The Takeaway: Knizia your designs. Find what the fun is, and more importantly, what is actually needed. Get rid of the rest.

player board.png

Prototyping

If you follow Ben or me on Twitter, you know that our working protos are famously bland. We spend a good chunk of design working with black-and-white, pencil-covered, ugly protos. When we are finally ready to show it to anyone else, that proto turns into an alpha—which means art stolen from the google and DeviantArt, game icons from game-icons.net, laid out poorly by me in a graphic-design program that is worse but cheaper than InDesign or sometimes PowerPoint even.

Ben and I both have bit bins, so we dig into those for pieces. Tiles are full-page labels stuck to medium-weight Grafix chipboard and cut out with my awesome paper cutter. Pro Tip: Buy a good paper cutter. Unless you are an X-Acto Knife cyborg and can freehand everything, a good paper cutter is key.

Beta Colony has a very large board. Boards are hard. They can be made with chipboard using packing tape to act as the seam. Another option is to have it printed poster-size at Staples. I have done that once; it was expensive but looked great.

  • The Takeaway: Full-page labels make everything easier.

pic4441233.jpg

Playtesting

Make it and break it, be quick to fail, pick your buzzword. Make a proto as soon as there is a game to play and see if it works. If it does, play it 500 times. If after that it still works, then try and get someone that isn’t you to play it. That is difficult, so use conventions and designer meetups.

  • The Takeaway: Design with a partner. Blind testing is important, but the umpteen reps that happen before a game is ready for blind testing is invaluable.

About

Matt Riddle and Ben Pinchback have over 15 published games to date, including Fleet, Piepmatz, and Wasteland Express Delivery Service, to name a few.

Beta Colony Cover.jpg

Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: Rob Greanias, Peter C. Hayward

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole (Escape Velocity Games), John du Bois, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Joshua J. Mills, Marcel Perro, Behrooz "Bez" Shahriari, Shoot Again Games

JUNIOR INVENTORS: Ryan Abrams, Joshua Buergel, Luis Lara, Neil Roberts, Jay Treat

ASSOCIATES: Dark Forest Project, Stephen B. Davies, Marcus Howell, Thiago Jabuonski, Doug Levandowski, Nathan Miller, Mike Sette, Matt Wolfe

The Process: Dark Moon: Shadow Corporation by Evan Derrick

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, Evan Derrick describes how he created the Shadow Corporation expansion to Dark Moon.

Dark-Moon-Shadow-Corporation-box-top-1-1024x1022.jpg

Process

I made a happy discovery when I began designing Dark Moon: Shadow Corporation: Expansions are so much easier to design. The core system was set in stone and had been proven to be successful, so I simply needed to iterate on top of it. I immediately discovered why designers like Alan Moon and Donald X. Vaccarino put out a seemingly endless stream of expansions for their popular designs. When the development time is as much as 80% less than creating a new game from scratch, it’s not hard to see the appeal of creating five expansions in the time it takes to design one new game.

I had two central design goals when I designed Dark Moon. The first was to create a similar experience to its spiritual big brother, Battlestar Galactica, but in a third of the playtime, and the second was to ratchet up the paranoia and mistrust between players as quickly and intensely as possible. When I sat down to design DM:SC, I didn’t just want to preserve those two goals, I wanted to improve upon them. To that end, DM:SC both shortens the playtime without sacrificing any of the gameplay as well as amplifies the mistrust that players experience. If you experienced a lot of finger-pointing during games of Dark Moon, be prepared to point twice as many fingers when you add in DM:SC.

  • The Takeaway: Expansions are simpler to design since you’ve already done the hard work of building the foundation.

Theory

I’ll let you in on a little secret: I hate that Infected players can publicly “reveal” themselves in Dark Moon. In my designer heart of hearts I never wanted to give players that option. The fun of the game comes from the paranoia and mistrust which, let’s be honest, pretty much evaporates when all of the Infected players have publicly revealed. “If you’re Infected and you played poorly and the other players quarantined you and took you out of the game, too bad! Play better next time!” That was never going to work, however. If a new player (especially one that wasn’t great at lying) was dealt an Infected card, it wouldn’t be much fun for them if they were chucked into quarantine 10 minutes into the game simply because they didn’t have a convincing poker face.

Unfortunately, this means that some Infected players jump the gun and reveal themselves early when they really shouldn’t. Those shiny Infected actions are just too tempting! And the players don’t realize I included those in the game as a release valve, not as a viable strategy (and why should they?).

So for DM:SC I wanted to correct that behavior, which led to the evacuation ship.

Thematically, the evil corporation Naguchi-Masaki has heard about the pathogen spreading across their mining colony and they want a sample of it for their weapons division. They have “helpfully” sent an evacuation ship to Titan hoping that an Infected miner will get on board. The ship, however, has a limited number of seats, so only a few players can actually get on.

Mechanically, players can vote one another on and off the ship, and once it’s full they can vote for the ship to take off. As soon as the evacuation ship takes off, the game immediately ends and players check the status cards of everyone who was on the ship. If everyone on the ship is Uninfected, the Uninfected team wins, but if a single Infected player managed to sneak onto the ship then the Infected team wins. This means that Infected players cannot reveal themselves early, since it would be simple for the Uninfected team to use their voting power to load themselves onto the ship and take off.

The evacuation ship is easily the proudest I’ve ever been of a design mechanism. It accomplished all of my design goals in one fell swoop:

  1. Shorter playtime: Since the game ends as soon as the ship takes off, sessions can be even shorter now without sacrificing any of the fun. Ending the game early and watching each player that was on the ship slowly flip over their status card is an amazing climax to the game.

  2. More paranoia: If you thought it was easy to point fingers in Dark Moon before, wait until people start voting one another onto the evacuation ship! It easily adds paranoia on top of paranoia.

  3. De-incentivize early Infected reveals: Infected players are incentivized to stay hidden as long as possible now. Publicly revealing themselves isn’t a path to victory now, but to defeat, as the Uninfected team will just hop on the ship and take off.

  • The Takeaway: Highlight what worked best with the original game and make sure the expansion doesn’t do away with the game’s strengths. Instead, make sure the expansion amplifies the original game’s strengths.

DM_Proto1.jpg

Theory Part 2

When I started designing DM:SC, the evacuation ship wasn’t necessarily the centerpiece of the expansion (which it is now). I threw in the kitchen sink of things I had discarded for the original game but had always wanted.

The first was a brand new team called the Company Man. If you receive the Company Man Status card, you’re playing to win all by yourself (it was inspired by the Tanner role from One Night Ultimate Werewolf). Unlike the other teams, surviving isn’t part of your win condition. Instead, your goal is to collect a sample of the pathogen and send it back to the company, no matter what the cost.

The second were blackmail cards (which eventually became Threat cards in the final version), a mechanism that had been floating around since the very first version of Dark Moon. Every player is dealt one of these cards at the beginning of the game, each card has specific instructions that that player must follow, and each instruction is for the player to do something incredibly suspicious. Thematically, the company is blackmailing the players to do something horrible (throw other players in quarantine, recklessly throw in all their dice on a skill check, etc.). Mechanically, this forces Uninfected players to act even more suspicious (the consequences for NOT performing the action on your card are much, much worse) and gives the Infected players an opportunity to act.

The main problem with both of these mechanisms is that they’re fairly complex. They require all of the players at the table to have a really strong grasp of the game and how it works and can be disastrous for new players. Misreading your Threat card or failing to understand the Company Man’s victory conditions can throw a wrench into the entire machine. Both add some fascinating tension to the game but they also ask a lot of the players.

Even for an expansion it felt like too much. The evacuation ship, the Company Man, and the Threat cards ratcheted up the learning curve significantly, even for experienced Dark Moon players. I was loathe to get rid of anything, however. Which is when Stephen Buonocore, the president of Stronghold Games and publisher of Dark Moon, made a simple yet brilliant suggestion: “Why don’t we just make them optional modules?”

Boom. That solved everything. The core of DM:SC is the evacuation ship and is included in every game, but the Company Man and Threat cards are now optional modules that you can add to the game if you want to. This allows players to get a good grasp of the expansion and its new rules at their own pace. Fearless groups can throw everything together for their first game, while most will introduce the modules slowly.

  • The Takeaway: Take particularly complex mechanisms and label them “modules,” thereby encouraging players to introduce them slowly rather than all at once.

DM_Proto2.jpg

Playtesting

The playtesting process for this expansion was so much easier than playtesting a new design. Whereas Dark Moon took 2-3 years of consistent development and playtesting, DM:SC was done in only a few months. Rather than make sure an entire game works from start to finish, you’re simply testing to make sure that the expansion doesn’t radically break the original design. Additionally, you have a built-in audience that is fairly eager to try out all of the new stuff you’ve created, making it that much simpler to gather playtesters.

From an emotional standpoint, playtesting a new design can be a fairly grueling process. You have high hopes that this version is the one that’s really going to work, only to watch it crash and burn in the ashes of your shattered dreams. But with an expansion you figure out what works and what doesn’t fairly quickly. You have the context of the original game to work within and that makes the design process substantially easier.

  • The Takeaway: Playtesting an expansion is much easier to do, given that you have a built-in audience as well as a successful design.

About

Evan Derrick is the designer of Dark Moon, Dark Moon: Shadow Corporation, and the upcoming Detective: City of Angels. He is the Creative Director for Van Ryder Games and oversees the art direction for all of their titles. He also has no free time, although he recognizes that’s really his own fault. You can email him at evan@vanrydergames.com or find him on Twitter at @evanderrick.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

ADVISERS: 421 Creations, Peter C. Hayward, Aaron Vanderbeek

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Chris and Kathy Keane (The Drs. Keane), Joshua J. Mills, Marcel Perro, Behrooz Shahriari, Shoot Again Games

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

ASSOCIATES: Robert Booth, Stephen B Davies, Scot Duvall, Doug Levandowski, Aaron Lim, Nathan Miller, Anthony Ortega, Mike Sette, Kasper Esven Skovgaard, Isaias Vallejo, Matt Wolfe

APPRENTICES: Darren Broad, Kiva Fecteau, Scott Gottreu, Nicole Kline, Scott Martel Jr., James Meyers, The Nerd Nighters, Neil Roberts, Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, VickieGames

The Process: The Expanse by Geoff Engelstein

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, Geoff Engelstein describes how he created The Expanse Board Game, including working with licensed IP, creative constraints, keeping complexity in check, and more.

pic3536365.jpg

Process

Although I’ve designed many games prior to this one, this project had a number of “firsts” for me. It was my first game based on a licensed IP, it was my first design where I was specifically hired by a publisher to do a design, and it was my first with a deadline--and a short one at that, which would make it the quickest design I had ever done.

The timeframe was the biggest thing I was worried about when I took this on, but in the end it was a blessing. It forced me to focus, playtest earlier and harder than I usually do, and make tough choices. I have a tendency to “theory-design” in my head quite a bit before testing, to try to identify problems and strategies. It’s a bad habit. There’s really no substitute for testing a physical prototype.

For my day job I do engineering product development, and hitting milestones is a key part of being a professional, and not just a tinkerer. Having a deadline to complete a design really forced me to professionalize my process, set intermediate goals, and all the good things you should do on a project.

I’m a big believer in constraints aiding the creative process, and The Expanse reconfirmed my thoughts on that. I was given a specific set of criteria by WizKids: theme, component cost, complexity, play time, and when I needed to deliver. I’ve never designed like that before, except perhaps for Survive: Space Attack, but that was an extension of an existing game. My other original designs were all clean sheets of paper, and I could go in any direction I wanted, which makes it harder to settle on a final direction.

  • The Takeaway: Constraints, even if you’re just placing them on yourself, are important to keep you focused on what you’re trying to achieve.

Theory

I’m a big fan of The Expanse universe, and had a good idea of what I wanted to achieve. It’s very much about political maneuvering and posturing. While the threat of war is ever-present, war really doesn’t break out--at least not in the part of the series that was going to be covered by the game.

So, in spite of all the military deployments in the source material, a “dudes on a map” game like Kemet or Twilight Imperium really wasn’t going to work. It also wouldn’t fit the type of components WizKids wanted to use for this project. But the scope needed to be big, as the desire was for the players to represent the big factions in the game, not individual characters having adventures.

The key feeling I wanted to capture was one of spreading influence and pressure, which naturally translated into an area control game.

My main inspirations were the dual-use cards of Twilight Struggle and the COIN series, where other players might get to do actions based on cards played on your turn. As is my wont, I started too big, with too many options and mechanics. For example, originally every faction had different goals to win the game, there was an economic system, and there was a whole “tension” mechanic that governed what players were allowed to do.

These proved to push the game past the complexity we wanted for the target audience, and in any case didn’t really add that much interest. I ended up differentiating the factions by giving each a series of special abilities (called Techs) that are gradually introduced throughout the game. This controlled the complexity, by slowly introducing special abilities, but also recreated the tension mechanic by making it easier for players to attack each other as the game went on.

The biggest design challenge was making the Action/Event system work for multiple players. If the active player couldn’t or didn’t want to do the event on the card, who would get to do it? In the end, simplicity won out, with a basic priority system that added interesting choices, layered on top of a “card queue” system. The economic system got absorbed into the Victory Point system. Rather than adding a new resource into the game, players can spend VPs to do special things, and controlling bases that match the type of resource they need (like Food for the OPA), gives bonus VPs, which gives more spending flexibility.

  • The Takeaway: You can still be innovative while starting with something proven.

One of the earliest prototypes of The Expanse Board Game

One of the earliest prototypes of The Expanse Board Game

Prototyping

Traditionally I design my cards with Adobe Illustrator. But I knew that I would have a lot of iterations of cards with a standard layout for The Expanse. So I decided to bite the bullet and learn how to combine Excel and InDesign to create merge cards.

It turned out to be not all that complex, and really saved me a tremendous amount of time iterating. It was easy to just change the Excel spreadsheet, and then the cards semi-automatically updated.

It also made it easier to supply the data to the publisher in a way that the graphic designer could use, and made it easier to check down the line.

For cards I also invested in a good paper trimmer. It was a little pricey, but the Carl 18” Heavy Duty Paper Trimmer was a lifesaver. I could cut out all the cards for the game in a matter of minutes. Being able to stack three or four sheets of cardstock and cut them quickly all at the same time made a huge difference. Recommended!

  • The Takeaway: Learn how to use all your tools--both software and physical.

F inal artwork for the Newsfeed card

F inal artwork for the Newsfeed card

Playtesting

I was under a strict NDA about discussing the game, so I was limited in my circle of playtesters. I needed to get them cleared by the publisher, so I stuck to a local group of designers that worked with WizKids.

About halfway into the design I wanted to bring it to a local playtesting convention, Metatopia.The game had still not been announced, so we looked at a few options for having people there try it. Having players signed NDAs seemed challenging, and I didn’t want to worry about playtesters being spooked by that. In the end I ended up changing all the game elements--including card names, map locations and more--to remove all traces of the IP, and create a new backstory. It was a lot of extra work, but in the end it paid off and we got several great playtests in.

  • The Takeaway: Do what you need to do to get a wide variety of playtesters. It’s invaluable.

Map prototype that was submitted to WizKids

Map prototype that was submitted to WizKids

Conclusion

This was a different project for me, as it was a commission rather than me trying to pitch it to a publisher. However I did have to interface with the licensor for the IP, which was a new experience for me.

In spite of some horror stories I’ve heard about working on licensed products, I had a really good experience. The authors had good input, and patiently answered all my questions. We didn’t have big issues getting the artwork we wanted, and the graphic designer did a great job capturing the graphic look of the television series.

  • The Takeaway: Working on a licensed product provides strong constraints, which can be both good and bad. Designing under constraint can help to focus your efforts, but it may also limit creativity. You also have to consider the expectations that the fans are bringing to the table, as they expect the game to let them live within the world of the license, which creates a lot of pressure to deliver.

Final map for The Expanse Board Game

Final map for The Expanse Board Game

About

Geoff Engelstein is an award-winning tabletop game designer, whose titles include Space Cadets, The Fog of War, Pit Crew and The Expanse. He is also a noted podcaster. Since 2007 he has been a contributor to the Dice Tower, the leading tabletop game podcast, with a series on the math, science and psychology of games. He has also hosted Ludology, a weekly podcast on game design, since 2011, and recently published GameTek, a collection of essays on game design. Geoff teaches game design at the NYU Game Center, and has spoken at a variety of venues, including GDC, PAX, Gen Con, Rutgers and USC. He has degrees in Physics and Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is currently the president of Mars International, a design engineering firm.

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

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

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

The Process: Biblios by Steve Finn

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, Steve Finn describes how he created Biblios, including finding inspiration from PBS, exploring many different mechanics, moving between licensing and self-publishing, and more.

Theory

To understand my game designing process, it is best for me to explain the start of my game publishing business, Dr. Finn’s Games. I started a business called Dr. Finn's Card Company in the early 2000s while living in Seattle. At that time, I was looking for a way to make small runs of custom playing cards as a way to self-publish my own card games. I worked out an arrangement with a local print shop to use their digital printer for a discounted price. I also bought an old, war-era Kluge letterpress machine (used for die-cutting the cards). I started the company to make custom cards, which actually kept me from my original intention of making card games, because I was making small batches of custom playing cards for people.

When I turned to my own game designing, I was often guided by the fact that I would be manufacturing my own games. This impacted the design because I wanted to make sure I did not get over my head and have a game with too many components. With Biblios, for example, I chose to use dice as a scoring mechanic because it seemed like an easy way to keep track of the values and I could easily buy large quantities of dice.

So, let me talk more directly about Biblios. I first had the idea because the medieval world was interesting to me. My wife and I liked medieval mysteries (such as PBS’s Cadfael and we liked The Name of the Rose), so I decided to use that theme. The game, which was originally called Scriptorium, began as a pick-up-and-deliver board game (this was before I started the card making business). To be honest, it’s been a very long time since I designed the game, so I am not sure this is completely accurate, but I believe players were trying to pick up sets of cards and the values changed as people moved around the board. However, after deciding to manufacture games, I needed to streamline it to just a card game.

The original version had divided the main cards into two types: workers (scribes and illustrators) and resources (manuscripts, scrolls, supplies). The new publisher changed this (I will talk about the new publisher later) and it therefore lost the reasoning why the two main categories have different card distributions.

The main mechanic of the first half of the game, drawing cards 1 at a time and deciding what to do with them, was pulled from a two-player version of Hearts I devised with my friend right after college. We both enjoyed playing Hearts and we modified it to make 5 different rounds in which we got cards in a different manner. One of those methods was to choose a card and then decide whether to keep it or give it to the other person.

I think the main mechanic from the second half of the game must have come from any number of auction games I may have played at the time. At this point in my life, I enjoyed board and card games, but I was only scratching the surface. So, I don’t think I had yet played Merchants of Amsterdam (which has a similar drafting mechanic). I also did not play For Sale, which similarly divides the game into two halfs, drafting and auction.

  • The Takeaway: I playtested this game a ton and allowed it to move through all sorts of different mechanics. Perhaps this is why it is my most popular game.

Process

When I say I created a “company” to make cards, this was always a small side project. In the real world, I am a professor of philosophy. The card company (which later was changed to Dr. Finn’s Games, to focus just on designing and making my own games) was, and still is, a small part of my working life. It’s more like a hobby with benefits. With Kickstarter, I was able to grow the game company. This all started in the early 2000s and only now, in 2016, is the company able to have a more consistent stream of business. With regard to Biblios, Iello’s biggest year of sales was 2015 (and consequently mine).

  • The Takeaway: If you take the self-publishing route, you must be patient and can only expect interest in your game to grow over time.

Prototyping

When I had the arrangement with the print shop, I printed cards on sheets of glossy cardstock that were 12 x 18, which were divided into 2 sections that had 9 cards each (18 cards per sheet) I cut the sheets in half to 9 x 12 and then fed them into my letterpress machine, which cut them into 18 cards. So, for my early games, I would often make sure that the game contained multiples of 18 cards. Since I moved from Seattle to New York, I have not been manufacturing my own games, so the prototyping process is different for me. I now simply use a color printer at home to make prototypes that I use for designing the game. I sometimes bring files to a print shop, and cut the cards myself, when I want to make a higher-quality prototype. However, since I am self-publishing, I don’t feel the need to make very high-quality prototypes, as I am not pitching the game.

  • The Takeaway: If the game is good, I don’t think the quality of the prototype matters too much. Though, perhaps this only applies to self-publishers.

Playtesting

I designed Biblios almost 15 years ago and I cannot really recall all the different iterations it went through. I know that it dramatically changed from its first concept to finished idea. Since that time, no other game has really taken that long for me to get into its final form. The development did not take long because I am a perfectionist, which I am not. I think it was mostly because I was not sure of myself. I may have listened too much to other people and not to my own gut. While I think it is extremely important to playtest a game a lot, you have to consider other people’s opinions with a grain of salt. You hear all sorts of things, and it’s important to consider everything and question your own intuitions. However, you also have to be sure of yourself and make the game you want to make.

  • The Takeaway: Consider all opinions, but trust yourself when you really like something.

Licensing & Publishing

When I first manufactured “Scriptorium,” I sent out free review copies to people on boardgamegeek.com, a website I had recently discovered. I then found out that there was already a game with that name, so I changed it to Scripts and Scribes. As it turned out, a lot of the reviewers really loved it. So, I made more batches of games and started to sell them to individuals. Eventually, Iello contacted me because they either read about the game or somehow acquired a copy. I never had to pitch the game to anyone. They offered me a deal, which I accepted after making some changes to the contract, and they started selling the game.

  • The Takeaway: I have little advice to offer about licensing a game to others other than to read the contract carefully (or having a lawyer do it). I self-publish all my other games.

About Steve Finn

I am the father of two boys, a husband, an associate professor of philosophy, an avid ultimate frisbee player, and the owner of Dr. Finn’s Games. My design philosophy, for the most part, has been to design intelligent filler games that are easy to learn, yet still require strategic thinking. Much of my game designing has been influenced by the games of Reiner Knizia. However, I am now trying to venture into more complex games, like those of Stefan Feld (probably my favorite game designer). I am very excited about my upcoming game, C.O.G., which combines a Scrabble-like word game with a point-salad, worker placement game. I describe it this way: imagine combining The Castles of Burgundy with Scrabble. I am guilty of placing most of my attention on mechanics and often having a pasted-on theme. This, however, does not bother me, provided the mechanics are solid.


Cardboard Edison is supported by our patrons on Patreon.

SENIOR INVENTORS: Steven Cole, John du Bois, Richard Durham, 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., Marcus Ross, Sean Rumble, Diane Sauer, Steven Tu