Skip to Content
 

Deck Building = Cult of the New = Bad?

Dominion.

The game that started it all. 10 stacks, small deck, victory points have to be bought while balancing the engine power of your deck as it expands. Lots of possibilities that have been explored over the 8+ expansions and still stands today as the quintessential deck builder.

Not long after Dominion, other games tried to push the genre. Ascension made it quicker to setup and teardown, Thunderstone added a serious RPG thematic element, Nightfall added a clever way to chain and create combos, Quarriors was deck building with dice. These were completely different games and brought something new to the table.

But now...now it seems like everybody that's developing a deck building game is not really pushing the genre as much as they're just adding a new skin. Star Realms is just Ascension in space (of course by the same guys). Cryptozoic's Cerebus Engine is really Ascension but with only 1 resource (instead of 2). Dice Masters is just Quarriors but streamlined. Some are so complicated that the setup time is rivaling the play time (coughLegendarycough).

I'm not saying this is inherently bad, but in some ways I am. It seems as though the deck building genre is the fad; everyone is trying to cash-in on the juggernaut. People are thinking up deck building games because that's all they know that seems to work well. I've played tons of deck building prototypes at many conventions, game stores, etc. In my travels they're just really "deck building + MY idea", which isn't really as much an "idea" as much as it is a deck builder with a different skin. No real difference from Dominion or Ascension, just a new look.

Why can't we think outside the box and give something that no one has ever seen? Xenoshyft introduced a completely cooperative deck building experience, A Few Acres of Snow gave deck building some historical merit, and Puzzle Strike created a resource that measured your health, your money, AND your attack...while putting it in a poker chip format, which made it easier to shuffle.

Please...don't use deck building because it's deck building and because everyone is using it. Use deck building if you're going to come up with something completely new to the table. If you're going to re-skin it, do it blatantly and really bump-up the unique factor. Tanto Coure does this really well...I mean...maids? That's gotta appeal to weeaboos (watch this for a definition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQQALduhzA) Warning...it's lewd.

Unfortunately, the market is becoming saturated with deck building games and people making deck building games. So much that I'm starting to be turned off by people making them. I literally just glaze over them when I read about it...it's becoming a negative effect on me. It took a lot of time before I gave in to buy Xenoshyft...I watched gameplay videos, played it on my iPad, and asked people that had it before I even thought of getting it. Before, I'd just buy it because it was a deck building game. Now, it's getting harder and harder for people to "sell" a deck building game to me and it's sad that so many are jumping on the bandwagon and pasting on a weak theme.

There's plenty of great game mechanics out there. Don't fall into the fad. Try something new.

Comments

Deck building is not cult of

Deck building is not cult of the new its old hat.

A couple of years ago i was on the Origins Awards Card Game Jury and half the games submitted had the sub title 'deck building game'.

For the most part deck building turns me off because most of them are just variations on Dominion and have nothing new to offer. If your going to use that mechanic you do need to stand out or i won't even bother with it and i suspect that is true for many people.

Arguable.

Dralius wrote:
Deck building is not cult of the new its old hat.

It's new in that it's only really been around the last 10 years. I suppose you can argue it's "old hat", but the this industry isn't as fast as, say, the video game industry (though it's getting there).

It's also "new" in the sense that it's the new trend in design...and it will still be "new" until the next "new" game mechanic comes in.

Isn't that the MOBA genre?!

Certainly the terms "Massive" and "Online" make 100% sense in the TableTop or Board Game context, no?

I mean if a game is for two (2) to four (4) players, isn't that "Massive" enough? Okay so maybe because you play it with a Board and not "Online", maybe that makes for a contradiction...

I have seen two (2) games that both CLAIM to be MOBA. But neither seems to address either of these "genre" terms. Maybe they should just call it a 2 to 4 player board game? Meh, maybe that is too common.

Update: To be fair, one game says "Inspired" by the MOBA genre. The other is just called "MOBA". I still don't get it...

As far as Deck-Building is concerned

"Tradewars - Homeworld" is a Deck-Building game. It has been in development for about 2 1/2 years. It uses Deck-Building as the primary mechanic to drive the game forwards. Notice I said "primary".

There are other mechanics such as "Set Collection", "Role Selection", "Hand Management", "Dice Rolling" and "Take-That".

I would characterize my Deck-Building experience as being "different". Instead of trying to specialize in one set of cards, you generalize and try to balance your hand. What the problem is, your goal is to BUY stronger cards, because A>They earn you more credit, B>They allow you to configure stronger starships. And this is the contradiction: you need to balance buying stronger cards and mixing the deck with all types of cards.

Even if you do this 100% accurately, you will need to make TOUGH choices. Do you put out a super strong starship or do you use those high value cards for trading and banking...

That's the part where all the strategy kicks in. Your choices will ultimately tell you if you are using the most optimal or sub-optimal style of game play. You also need to react to what your opponents are doing!

The other thing I want to point out, is our Deck-Builder is designed for Expansion. And we currently have three (3) expansion game ideas. Some more defined, other more embryonic ideas.

Bottom line: Tradewars - Homeworld is a UNIQUE Deck-Building game.

questccg wrote:Certainly the

questccg wrote:
Certainly the terms "Massive" and "Online" make 100% sense in the TableTop or Board Game context, no?

I mean if a game is for two (2) to four (4) players, isn't that "Massive" enough? Okay so maybe because you play it with a Board and not "Online", maybe that makes for a contradiction...

I have seen two (2) games that both CLAIM to be MOBA. But neither seems to address either of these "genre" terms. Maybe they should just call it a 2 to 4 player board game? Meh, maybe that is too common.

M - means multiplayer, not massive. In MOBA.
the only letter which naturally can't be covered in tabletop is Online. But MTBA would sound silly, right?

I imagine you've seen Guards of Atlantis video I've posted around here. The game is for 4+ players (up to 10, actually).

Yeah your game is okay

But I'm talking about the other dude who name his game "MOBA". It's like a "minis" game without minis. Is a wargame, without explicitly being called a wargame...

I didn't even seen where he has more that 2 players...

questccg wrote:But I'm

questccg wrote:
But I'm talking about the other dude who name his game "MOBA". It's like a "minis" game without minis. Is a wargame, without explicitly being called a wargame...

I didn't even seen where he has more that 2 players...

Well, 2 is still multiplayer. Technically.

The definition of the MOBA genre is extremely vague.

ElKobold wrote:Well, 2 is

ElKobold wrote:
Well, 2 is still multiplayer. Technically.

The definition of the MOBA genre is extremely vague.

Actually it's not really vague at all. "Multiplayer + Online" = "Massive". BTW thanks for correcting me... Like if you can play up to 10 players, well for a Board Game, that's A LOT (=massive).

But if it's only 2 players without minis - meh, I don't think it's MOBA at all... To me it's just a "board game".

questccg wrote:Actually it's

questccg wrote:

Actually it's not really vague at all. "Multiplayer + Online" = "Massive".

You could play Doom and Warcraft with 2 players over modem.

Was it not multiplayer? Or not online? Was it massive? :)

@radioactivemouse - sorry for the offtopic

Guards of Atlantis

Okay "Guards of Atlantis" is true MOBA genre game because of the games layout and the fact that you control one character and use other computer generated characters. I stand corrected 2 players is enough to be MOBA.

Too bad I cannot find the link to the other guys thread. He had a video and all - but nothing that addressed the MOBA genre.

Truly wish I could find that thread... Because I want to re-watch his video... It just seemed like your typical "war game" without following ANY MOBA guidelines...

@To everyone: Check out this thread for CLEAR MOBA definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_arena

Another MOBA example is this game:

http://www.bgdf.com/forum/general/announcements-press-releases/battle-ar...

MedioUniversalis

Check this out for multiplayer:

http://www.bgdf.com/image/prototype-convention-play-2012

He's not claiming to be MOBA - but his game sure looks "MASSIVE"!

Back to the OP

@radioactivemouse: Sorry, I think MOBA genre is the latest "Hot" topic for TableTop Games. Just to clarify... Some people adhere better to the rules of the style of game play, others well miss the mark (and sometimes by a lot)!

So I don't think Deck-Building is as "Hot" as MOBA (is these days).

Found that video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_d0iPik_iU

It's called MOBA - but "Guards of Atlantis" are more true to the MOBA genre.

questccg

questccg wrote:
@radioactivemouse: Sorry, I think MOBA genre is the latest "Hot" topic for TableTop Games. Just to clarify... Some people adhere better to the rules of the style of game play, others well miss the mark (and sometimes by a lot)!

So I don't think Deck-Building is as "Hot" as MOBA (is these days).

Found that video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_d0iPik_iU

It's called MOBA - but "Guards of Atlantis" are more true to the MOBA genre.

I believe there are several "trends" out now...MOBA being one of them.

I mean, who doesn't want to cash in on what DOTA, Heroes of the Storm, and League of Legends has raked in?

People are looking for ways to make a MOBA into a board game...and the examples talked about above aren't the only ones out there, I guarantee that.

There's also other trends out there..."social deduction games", "party games", "take-that games", "trick taking", "worker placement", "CCG"...each in varying forms of "fad-ness". The point of what I'm saying is that why would you want to make a game when you're trying to swim in a pond where there are obviously big fish that take up all the space?

radioactivemouse wrote:The

radioactivemouse wrote:
The point of what I'm saying is that why would you want to make a game when you're trying to swim in a pond where there are obviously big fish that take up all the space?

Well, your fish might be smaller, but it could have a different taste.

I would probably disagree that a game _must_ have an entirely new mechanics or theme to be worthwhile.

For example, there's not a single 4x that I've played so far which I like. And I've tried quite a few, being a fan of the genre.

And yes, there's this big fish - Eclipse. But I would rather try something new.

Hey guys, I'm the guy with

Hey guys, I'm the guy with the game called "MOBA"... :) I'm currently thinking of renaming the game because of the massive (pun intended) bad feedback I get on the name alone. Let me explain:
I started playing League of Legends, which is a computer MOBA late (compared to a lot of friends), about 2 or 3 years ago. I quite liked it but I never played alone but always with at least one of my (real life) friends talking via skype.
I especially liked the following aspects:
- skill based combat (for example some projectiles are fired towards your cursor- anticipating where your opponent moves will increase the possibilitie to hit him/her)
- units with different roles (tank, mage , damage dealer - this is like in RPGs) that have to work together, combine their skills, protect each other, hide together in a bush to surprise attack where a weak/low defense unit can work as a "bait"(I think that could be the most interesting aspect)
- unit progression (I like that in parts only)
- flow of the game: the game starts in small combats where its mostly one unit against one unit, later there are game deciding "teamfights" where the whole teams face off

The stuff I heavyliy dislike is the following:
- often highly aggressive community (I had a game where one guy of my team said he wished that I and my family would die of cancer, because I did a mistake...)with lots of trash talking, sexism, homophobism etc

- heavy snowballing: if you do well in the beginning you will get so strong that its hard to catch up for your opponent (on the other hand, this creates great moments, when the other team somehow can do a "comeback")

These two points made me think of doing a (turn based) boardgame version without that flaws. I googled MOBA-boardgame, thinking I had an innnovative idea just to find out that there where about 10 games in development already... I did it anyways, especially for me and my LoL-playing friends, to have a sort of similair experience with a good beer in direct dialouge on a wooden table.

Now I got a pretty standard skirmish combat game (for 2 up to 4 players, if you have more than 2 players you have to "share a team") . But there are two mechanics bringing my game really close to the computer Moba experience (at least concerning the positive aspects above):
- combat: attacker and defender secretly select hitzones they attack/or defend. Depending on the attack, hitting different hitzones will cause different effects (hitting the head for max damage, hitting the torso for only half damage, hitting the legs for immobilizing). Now as a defender you have to anticipate, where your opponent is going to attack you and block exactly that zones. Attackers can go full risk and attack the same zone twice, but in that case both attack cards on that zone are blocked with one well played defense card. Heartbeat goes up, when you put your cards down, hoping you selected the right ones, it's such a high tension moment I seldom have experienced in boardgames - it's a similair feeling to the computer Moba experience.

Second is action cards. At the beginning of each turn, both players select one action card for each of their heroes. These determine how far the hero may move, what damage/effects hits on different zones will have and - important - in which phases of the turn the action may be played. High damage actions are very restricted to certain phases in the middle of the turn. That means, that if your high damage mage is alone, your opponent will a) act before your mage and go into cover (or just kill your mage) before he even can act b) wait your mage's activation out in cover, to go after you in a phase after your mage could act. That means, that your mage cannot go alone, but needs to be supported by more flexible units. For example you could use a unit that can pin down/immobilize your opponent in phase one, so he /she cannot go walk away - and then you can use your mage in a later phase. This mechanic resembles the teamwork/combine action aspect of computer Mobas really well.
Another thing is, that you have to guess which actions our opponent selected. There are reactions for example that can be used as interrupts, adding to the double guessing aspects the game brings to the table. There are actions, that create situations where you have multiple unit figures of one of your unit in play, and only one is the reall position which ressembele, the Fog-of-War computer Mobas have. Actions let you displace enemy and friendly units, lower their defense for upcoming attacks, slow them, stun them, all the stuff you can do in a Computer Moba as well.

A lot of my LoL-playing friends loved the game (I didnt expect, that they would like it so much - after I showed them the Tabletopia version, they continued playing my game over several sessions, with different people, even when I was not there. They printed PnP-Prototypes. They asked me to play again and again (that happened rarely with prototypes of games I designed before and submitted for playtests), to create new units/actions, they had ideas how to implement certain units from the computer games. They told me that they felt a certain familiarity to the computer Mobas/LoL at once (and that was not due to the name :)), they even could use strategies that worked in the computer games. They found units that reminded them of their computer-counterparts, having similair actions and playing similair roles in the team. etc. Even some people that normally disklike boardgames and only played computer Mobas liked it. I personally think, that these points justify callling the game a MOBA-inspired skirmish combat game. Do they justify calling it MOBA?
I came up with the name as I thought it would be funny to take the name but with another meaning. I first thought of Massive offline battle arena, as a pun. I then wanted to emphazize the bluffing/outplay aspects calling it Massive outplay battle arena. I thought it was funny. Now after submitting the game on BGG (together with a lot of other MOBA developers..) I think it could have cost me a lot of attention. I got 0 attention on BGG (there is another thread here, where I asked for help to present the game better and people where very helpful - thanks again). I think the (selfmade) graphics are not the problem, as they look ok (that was what people said, too), but probably the name/genre could be a big turnoff. If you have suggestions for renaming it, these would be welcome.

I don't get why designing a moba style boardgame is considered to be a bad trend nowadays. There is a huge community playing computer Mobas and having fun with them, and there are lots of people who like the idea of it being transferred to the table. It's like saying historic wargames or worker placement games are a bad trend, and designing them will make your game a small fish among sharks. Up to this point, I haven't seen a single well-done tabletop Moba covering the aspects I like about playing computer Mobas (I'm looking forward to Guards of Atlantis as I love the graphics and I defenitly will try it out - I hope it really hits the mark.) And even, if there are Boardgame-Mobas out there already, I wanted to design one where the aspects I like are brought to the table and I think I succeeded. You cannot possibly transfer all aspects of a real time computer game to a turn based boardgame (think of bookkeeping alone...). That means there cannot be a 1:1 tranfer PC to table. Does this mean there cannot be a tabletop Moba? Why question someone who tries to make a boardgame that captures the feel of a computer gamne he/she likes? In case you like skirmish combat and have the time I suggest to give it a chance, forget that MOBA-term - a lot of people disliking the Moba-term related to boardgames never tried a computer Moba themselves. If you don't like skirmish combat this won't be for you, fine too. I can offer to show you the game on Tabletopia (and show you Tabletopia by the way) and other Moba designer will gladly show their projects too, you can then decide to like it or not. It's just that I get the impression that there are people hearing "Moba" in boardgame forums and instantly think this has to be a bad game (often without really knowing what a Moba is, just that it has to do with computer games). Boardgamers and PC gamers ultimately play for the same/similair reasons - challenge, socialization, thinking, fun etc. I don' get why this cannot be achieved for similair games in different medias!

Edit: Oh, sorry OP, I just realized, that this thread was about deck building games.

MOBA...

Chordcommander wrote:

I don't get why designing a moba style boardgame is considered to be a bad trend nowadays. There is a huge community playing computer Mobas and having fun with them, and there are lots of people who like the idea of it being transferred to the table. It's like saying historic wargames or worker placement games are a bad trend, and designing them will make your game a small fish among sharks. Up to this point, I haven't seen a single well-done tabletop Moba covering the aspects I like about playing computer Mobas (I'm looking forward to Guards of Atlantis as I love the graphics and I defenitly will try it out - I hope it really hits the mark.) And even, if there are Boardgame-Mobas out there already, I wanted to design one where the aspects I like are brought to the table and I think I succeeded. You cannot possibly transfer all aspects of a real time computer game to a turn based boardgame (think of bookkeeping alone...). That means there cannot be a 1:1 tranfer PC to table. Does this mean there cannot be a tabletop Moba? Why question someone who tries to make a boardgame that captures the feel of a computer gamne he/she likes? In case you like skirmish combat and have the time I suggest to give it a chance, forget that MOBA-term - a lot of people disliking the Moba-term related to boardgames never tried a computer Moba themselves. If you don't like skirmish combat this won't be for you, fine too. I can offer to show you the game on Tabletopia (and show you Tabletopia by the way) and other Moba designer will gladly show their projects too, you can then decide to like it or not. It's just that I get the impression that there are people hearing "Moba" in boardgame forums and instantly think this has to be a bad game (often without really knowing what a Moba is, just that it has to do with computer games). Boardgamers and PC gamers ultimately play for the same/similair reasons - challenge, socialization, thinking, fun etc. I don' get why this cannot be achieved for similair games in different medias!

Edit: Oh, sorry OP, I just realized, that this thread was about deck building games.

It's not really "bad" in the sense that you've done something wrong. My whole point was that no one can deny the trends out there...what's "hot" and what's not. The MOBA genre is certainly in that category...games like DotA 2, LoL, Heroes of the Storm, Vainglory are popping up everywhere. A MOBA board game seems like something new, but the presentation seems same-old...at least to me.

I believe in the Blue Ocean Strategy, which was introduced to me by watching Reggie Fils-Aime talk about Nintendo's innovation in the video gaming sphere. It says why should we enter the market where competition is basically ripping each other apart creating an ocean full of bloodied water when, strategically speaking, if you enter a market where there's "Blue Ocean" (aka market that's untapped), then you have NO competition and the market is yours for the taking. There are many examples of this strategy and I believe that this is the key to making a game that people will want to play.

It doesn't mean you cannot do a MOBA, but if what you're doing is just "fixing" issues, there's nothing you're really bringing new to the table; you're still competing and will be compared to the other MOBA's out there...regardless of whether it's digital or analog. You should ask yourself, "What am I bringing to the table that's different? Why would people want to buy MY game as opposed to the others?"

At this point, I'm sick of MOBAs (the genre). If you want me to look at your game, convince me that your game is worth playing with something unique. The fact that it was a board game actually got me to watch the video, but as I watched, there was no..."X factor"...the thing that tells me, "I want to play that game".

Please don't look at this as "negative". I don't like sugar coating things and sugar coating does no one any good. I see this as an opportunity to step back, find a direction no other MOBA's have gone, and approach this again. It could be something as simple as art direction, or even pasting a theme no MOBA has ever done before.

If you want your game to be seen...especially in this renaissance of board gaming, I believe you need to make your game so unique that people can't help BUT to look at your game. I saw this one game at BGG Con called Asking For Trobils. It's a simple worker placement game, but what really set it apart from all the other worker placement games is that IT'S FREAKING ALL ORANGE! It sticks out...and it's gotten a lot of media attention...and all the designer did was make everything orange. Worker placement is most certainly a trend, but this designer not only streamlined his game, but made a look so unique that people are looking at it. THAT'S effective branding. If I said "Orange Worker Placement" to the people at BGG Con, they'd most certainly say Looking For Trobils.

I can't tell you what the magic formula is to make your game noticeable, but if I'm looking at "MOBA"...this MOBA-like board game and there's nothing that sticks out as unique or different, I'm not giving it a second look. Be it style, mechanics, components, art direction, genre, whatever, be smart about it because ultimately what you're doing is trying to make money.

Why is Blood Rage so noticed? Vikings...haven't seen that kind of game.
Why is Tanto Coure selling? I've never seen an American released game about anime maids
Why is Netrunner still going? Asymetrical hacking into corporations? No one has done it since its first iteration...and no one has tried to copy it since.
Why is Cards Against Humanity a thing? An adult themed party game that's "fun?" How many adult themed party games were "fun" before CAH? Zero.
What about Mission Red Planet? Two words: Steampunk. Mars.
Vainglory? MOBA on mobile.
Heroes of the Storm? MOBA with Blizzard characters.

So many more examples...

What people don't understand is that game design is not just about making a game that you love, it's more. It's engineering a brand, it's making a strategy for marketing your game (how else are people going to see your game?), it's far more than a love for games...if you want to be considered "professional". Sometimes it's accidental, most times it's engineered. Hobbyists...don't need to worry about what I'm saying, but if you're crowd-funding or looking for a publisher for your game, you're NOT planning to be a hobbyist and you want to make at least some money and get some respect. Do it right.

Be different. Don't be same-old.

radioactivemouse wrote: if

radioactivemouse wrote:

if what you're doing is just "fixing" issues, there's nothing you're really bringing new to the table;

Isn't this an oxymoron?

radioactivemouse wrote:

It could be something as simple as art direction, or even pasting a theme no MOBA has ever done before.

But that's exactly the point. There are NO mobas on tabletop right now. The only one actually released is rum and bones and it's an ameritrashy dicefest.

radioactivemouse wrote:

Why is Blood Rage so noticed? Vikings...haven't seen that kind of game.

Watch their presentation video. Blood rage was _fixing_ 'dudes on the map' genre. And has a super generic viking theme.

radioactivemouse wrote:

Heroes of the Storm? MOBA with Blizzard characters.

Again. HotS is not "moba with blizz chars". HotS is _fixing_ the issues of the MOBAS such as DOTA and LoL, by making it more casual, lowering the learning curve. HotS is Team Fortress of MOBAs. Nothing else.

What IS unique is Overwatch.

While I do agree with your statements in general, I couldn't agree with examples that you give.

Yeah, you got some points

Yeah, you got some points there. But the reason for my answer was not to whine because my game does not generate attention or that I have problems publishing this, but to explain why it's kind of justyfied to call it a Moba-Style game/Moba.
And if anyone has the opinion, that there is nothing new/flashy about the game (in my opinion I have two mechanics, that cannot be found in other games of this genre - and they interlock quite well and create a really tense and unique gameplay feel - and I have playede a lot skirmish games)it's ok, I just think it's kind of odd to completely dismiss a game because of the name / genre name (unless you don't like the genre as a whole or for example don't like games about conflict).

I have to add that I'm not planning to crowdfund, and I'm quite aware of the fact that chances to get this game published are almost 0. I definitly don't plan to make money with my game, the uppermost reason I came here was to share a game I love with people interested in board games (ironically, I thought that chances to get playtesters or people that are interested would be much higher in us/international forums than in german forums, but it's the other way round right now , so that really surprises me).
The upside of this is, that I can leave it like I wanted it to be - of course I could change the setting that it wouldn't be cartoony fantasy characters that battle it out but - for example - different types of german sausages - it would be unique but probably not the game I love (hmm, thinking about that idea a little longer, that could be the next project :) and I wanted to design. As I wrote already I think that my game is unique from a game-machanics standpoint, and for me uniqueness in mechanics is more important than unique theme (but thats an opinion only.)

Honestly

Chordcommander wrote:
Yeah, you got some points there. But the reason for my answer was not to whine because my game does not generate attention or that I have problems publishing this, but to explain why it's kind of justyfied to call it a Moba-Style game/Moba.
And if anyone has the opinion, that there is nothing new/flashy about the game (in my opinion I have two mechanics, that cannot be found in other games of this genre - and they interlock quite well and create a really tense and unique gameplay feel - and I have playede a lot skirmish games)it's ok, I just think it's kind of odd to completely dismiss a game because of the name / genre name (unless you don't like the genre as a whole or for example don't like games about conflict).

I have to add that I'm not planning to crowdfund, and I'm quite aware of the fact that chances to get this game published are almost 0. I definitly don't plan to make money with my game, the uppermost reason I came here was to share a game I love with people interested in board games (ironically, I thought that chances to get playtesters or people that are interested would be much higher in us/international forums than in german forums, but it's the other way round right now , so that really surprises me).
The upside of this is, that I can leave it like I wanted it to be - of course I could change the setting that it wouldn't be cartoony fantasy characters that battle it out but - for example - different types of german sausages - it would be unique but probably not the game I love (hmm, thinking about that idea a little longer, that could be the next project :) and I wanted to design. As I wrote already I think that my game is unique from a game-machanics standpoint, and for me uniqueness in mechanics is more important than unique theme (but thats an opinion only.)

To be honest, I think you have something, I just think it needs something to make is stick out besides MOBA board game...something that will make people look at your game or at least pique interest in your game.

I think the issue is not getting people that like MOBAs to play the game...i fact, it's probably a lockdown. You want to try and hit as many people as you can by drawing them into something that DOESN'T "look" like LoL but still like the MOBA genre. What about a sci-fi MOBA? Western-themed? Christmas shopping (I know that's really left field)?

Quick example. The Wii wasn't successful because it catered to the core gamer group...in fact, it went OUT of that group and catered to the non-gamer...which there are FAR more of. You'll most likely see Wii's in retirement homes than an Xbox 360.

ElKobold wrote: Isn't this an

ElKobold wrote:

Isn't this an oxymoron?

It's not contradiction. People know when someone is just trying to "cash in" on a trend. This appears to be the case, at least in my opinion.

ElKobold wrote:

But that's exactly the point. There are NO mobas on tabletop right now. The only one actually released is rum and bones and it's an ameritrashy dicefest.

I said a MOBA board game is catchy, but I really believe it needs something more

ElKobold wrote:

Watch their presentation video. Blood rage was _fixing_ 'dudes on the map' genre. And has a super generic viking theme.

Blood Rage's description on BGG is this: "Life is Battle; Battle is Glory; Glory is ALL"

In Blood Rage, each player controls their own Viking clan’s warriors, leader, and ship. Ragnarök has come, and it’s the end of the world! It’s the Vikings’ last chance to go down in a blaze of glory and secure their place in Valhalla at Odin’s side! For a Viking there are many pathways to glory. You can invade and pillage the land for its rewards, crush your opponents in epic battles, fulfill quests, increase your clan's stats, or even die gloriously either in battle or from Ragnarök, the ultimate inescapable doom.

It says nothing about fixing anything. Designers notes and marketing are two different things.

ElKobold wrote:

Again. HotS is not "moba with blizz chars". HotS is _fixing_ the issues of the MOBAS such as DOTA and LoL, by making it more casual, lowering the learning curve. HotS is Team Fortress of MOBAs. Nothing else.

Yes it is. Read ANY press release by Blizzard regarding HotS and there's NO mention of fixing things. Again...designers notes vs. "selling" the game. What you've talked about reigns in the core group. Press releases reign in the masses...and that's what you want.

ElKobold wrote:

While I do agree with your statements in general, I couldn't agree with examples that you give.

Research "marketing". "Fixing" issues is not a strong selling point and only pulls in the core group. You want to make money, so you want to get as many people to play it as possible.

Check kickstarter video of

Check kickstarter video of bloodrage.

ElKobold wrote:Check

ElKobold wrote:
Check kickstarter video of bloodrage.

If that is what is truly what they say is what makes it different, why is it not put in the description on bgg.com? Remember, the video is for people to back the game, not for people to buy after the game is backed. I got the game after it was released. I didn't play the game cause someone said it fixed something. I played the game cause somone said it was a viking-themed game about fighting and dying gloriously in battle.

@radioactivemouse: Would you

@radioactivemouse: Would you like a more sci/fi -space setting for the game better? Thing is, I actually was thinking of something like this before and I plan to bring a kind of graphical spin off of the game in a sci-fi setting after I finished the first 10 fantasy heroes (I got 7 ready now.) These would be compatible with the fantasy guys.I did some scifi graphics already, would that be more interesting to you:

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

Would you think this is a more interesting theme and do you like the graphics more?

Cool.

Chordcommander wrote:
@radioactivemouse: Would you like a more sci/fi -space setting for the game better? Thing is, I actually was thinking of something like this before and I plan to bring a kind of graphical spin off of the game in a sci-fi setting after I finished the first 10 fantasy heroes (I got 7 ready now.) These would be compatible with the fantasy guys.I did some scifi graphics already, would that be more interesting to you:

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=597x10000:format...

Would you think this is a more interesting theme and do you like the graphics more?

The art could be cleaner, but I like the direction. Personally, I like the samurai rat and the color scheme of the Sky Prophets. Maybe think up some completely off-the-wall genres just for funsies, you never know what you'll find when you do that and at least you could say you fully explored genres before committing to a direction. Try a completely different art style, add something like a timer or *gasp* use a deck building mechanic (a deck building MOBA? could be interesting...wait...Legendary...ugh)

I don't want you to change your game solely because I approve or disapprove; this is YOUR baby. What I suggest is to print it out (or link it to other places) and ask what other people think. Go to the Game Crafter forums, BGG.com forums, wherever. Ask what they think.

In my game, I'll admit I was climbing up a steep hill when I said I was creating a card game. But in my case, I came in with completely different combat mechanics not seen in any other card game AND I chose an art style that is very minimalistic (http://www.victorypointgames.com/conquest-at-kismet.html#). I did this to try and stick out. And while some don't like that style, they can't deny it looks different than the other sci-fi card games out there. Even with that, my game is doing ok. It got to BGG Con 2015 Top 10 Geeklist (which made front page), it has appeared on the Hotness list on BGG.com, and is selling. In this day and age, it's a tough market just to get people to just look at your game...even if you have something special that no one has ever done before.

A good chunk of my early designs is asking what people think of the idea. I look for the reaction that says, "omg, I want to play this game" based on as few words as I can.

But good luck, man. I wish you all the best.

Trends vs. Fads

radioactivemouse wrote:
There's also other trends out there..."social deduction games", "party games", "take-that games", "trick taking", "worker placement", "CCG"...each in varying forms of "fad-ness". The point of what I'm saying is that why would you want to make a game when you're trying to swim in a pond where there are obviously big fish that take up all the space?

Maybe because the HOPE is that your game is BETTER or DIFFERENT than the games designed by those BIG FISH! But some of it, is lack of a better understanding about games in general. Let me explain.

Most young adults, 18-25, who come to BGDF are interested in making their own CCG/TCG. Why? Because they've played Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Magic: The Gathering... So their world is all about CCGs/TGCs. They think that IF they emulate this game by IMPROVING upon the game (be it a set of rules or a specific mechanic, etc.) their game might be MORE appealing.

They have ZERO (0) knowledge about how that CCG/TCG market segment works. They don't know that ONLY BIG companies can play in the CCG/TCG market. They have no clue how FLGS hate CCG/TCG boosters - because of the high breakeven point and the upfront investment required by FLGS to sell these games.

Sure those games may be staples and attract regulars to the store - but that does not mean that regulars BUY at the store. Often regulars just browse to see what's new and then if they like it, they buy it ONLINE.

But some of those CCGs/TCGs have regular tournaments which attract people to their FLGS... So it's a bitter pill to swallow.

I have talked with some owners of stores and they say, and I quote: "I would rather buy a game for $15.00 and sell it for $30.00 than have to invest $150 in boosters where I need to sell 60% before I make profit." See on a GAME, they make their 50% at the moment of the sale. With BOOSTERS, they have to wait until 60% of the box is sold before making a dime...

So it's about what you KNOW. If you were never introduced to Pandemic, King of Tokyo, Smallworld, Settlers of Catan, etc. You have no clue what are the popular staples of the REAL board game world.

I've learned so much during the last 5 years, 2 1/2 which have been spent working on "Tradewars - Homeworld". We have an up and coming Kickstarter and we'll see how well we do.

But in essence what I am trying to say, many people design from what they KNOW. Only when you start to dig deeper into the staples of the Board Game industry do you learn about what are the real games that have all kinds of interesting mechanics and unique themes.

One thing for certain: I have NOT found the magic formula. When I spoke to Victory Point Games, they were like: "What's the hook? To us it's just another Deck-Builder" I didn't know what to say. Yeah it is another Deck-Builder, but it's pretty clever in how deck-building is incorporated.

And so I'm still learning also.

The "Proof is in the pudding". Written differently, we'll see what Backers think of the game. That's the ultimate litmus test.

Cheers to all and have a Festive Holiday Season! Drink prudently and don't "Drink & Drive"!

I get it.

questccg wrote:

Maybe because the HOPE is that your game is BETTER or DIFFERENT than the games designed by those BIG FISH! But some of it, is lack of a better understanding about games in general. Let me explain.

Most young adults, 18-25, who come to BGDF are interested in making their own CCG/TCG. Why? Because they've played Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Magic: The Gathering... So their world is all about CCGs/TGCs. They think that IF they emulate this game by IMPROVING upon the game (be it a set of rules or a specific mechanic, etc.) their game might be MORE appealing.

They have ZERO (0) knowledge about how that CCG/TCG market segment works. They don't know that ONLY BIG companies can play in the CCG/TCG market. They have no clue how FLGS hate CCG/TCG boosters - because of the high breakeven point and the upfront investment required by FLGS to sell these games.

Sure those games may be staples and attract regulars to the store - but that does not mean that regulars BUY at the store. Often regulars just browse to see what's new and then if they like it, they buy it ONLINE.

But some of those CCGs/TCGs have regular tournaments which attract people to their FLGS... So it's a bitter pill to swallow.

I have talked with some owners of stores and they say, and I quote: "I would rather buy a game for $15.00 and sell it for $30.00 than have to invest $150 in boosters where I need to sell 60% before I make profit." See on a GAME, they make their 50% at the moment of the sale. With BOOSTERS, they have to wait until 60% of the box is sold before making a dime...

So it's about what you KNOW. If you were never introduced to Pandemic, King of Tokyo, Smallworld, Settlers of Catan, etc. You have no clue what are the popular staples of the REAL board game world.

I've learned so much during the last 5 years, 2 1/2 which have been spent working on "Tradewars - Homeworld". We have an up and coming Kickstarter and we'll see how well we do.

But in essence what I am trying to say, many people design from what they KNOW. Only when you start to dig deeper into the staples of the Board Game industry do you learn about what are the real games that have all kinds of interesting mechanics and unique themes.

One thing for certain: I have NOT found the magic formula. When I spoke to Victory Point Games, they were like: "What's the hook? To us it's just another Deck-Builder" I didn't know what to say. Yeah it is another Deck-Builder, but it's pretty clever in how deck-building is incorporated.

And so I'm still learning also.

The "Proof is in the pudding". Written differently, we'll see what Backers think of the game. That's the ultimate litmus test.

Cheers to all and have a Festive Holiday Season! Drink prudently and don't "Drink & Drive"!

That's what I see is lacking in the board/card game design industry: basic knowledge of the industry as a whole. I really really wanted to create my own card game, but I was certainly not going to go into this blind. My degree is in Game Art and Design, I worked at a board game studio for a year, I amassed a huge library of games, I've been to many conventions, and I regularly talk to published designers trying to pick their brain. Even then, it was scary trying to create my own game...how are people going to respond to it? How am I going to get people to play? Do people think it's good?

The truth is, there's so much work a designer has to do in order to just get a game published...and even then your work is just starting. The sad part is that I'm constantly seeing people throw up a KS with a game idea not knowing the work it needs...and it's obvious in their presentation, their video, and the way they support their own campaign.

I previously sent a prototype to VPG about a year before I pitched Kismet. The response was: the mechanics were good, but it just wasn't fun. Ow. That was a blow. But it made me learn. I came back with my second design (Conquest at Kismet) and not only did I blow through the pitch, the game was fast-tracked and was released not 8 months later...I have an idea of what the magic formula is, but who am I? I've only released 1 game. This was s great accomplishment for me, but I'm still learning as well.

You can't give up, man. I'm glad you're still chugging away at your game; one day I hope to see it on Amazon or Miniature Market :)

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

@radioactivmouse: hehe - a

@radioactivmouse: hehe - a deckbuilding MOBA game, maybe I call it MOBAopoly and I have all things that are (considered to be) evil combined in this one game :).
No worries. I won't change the art style of my game because of your opinion (some guys in Geran forums said they wanted to PnP/try the game alone for the artstyle - they didn't even ask about mchanics...), on the other hand- I came here for opinion and suggestions and it would be foolish to not take these suggestions into account. As I said, when I started to design the game there was one point where I had to decide Fantasy or SciFi (I thought about something in the direction of ratchet and clank) and decided to let it be Fantasy.

I really like the style of your cards in Conquest at Kismet, this could work in a bunch of other games too, especially in component heavy ones where you alkready have tons of tokens and bits to calm things down. As you said the style made me have a closer look - seems interesting gameplaywise. One thing: I'd like to have some sort of overview picture how the table (with cards laid out) etc. will look like, and I think it's not there (in the link you gave us) - that would be crucial for me to decide if I want to buy a game. Congrats for your success with it!

About the work that comes in in addition to pure game design: that is what I hugely underestimated (and why I won't try crowdfunding). I invested lots of time already just do do a little advertising of a free game (allthough I sometimes have the impression that people think that a game offered for free cannot be good..) - with little success. I comletely overestimated the Power of Tabletopia (in regards to getting playtests in) - even people that where intereested in Germany preferred to do the PnP-prototype. There is so much stuff needede to be done regarding networking, advertising, constantly updating homepages etc that it seems daunting (especially if you are a one man show already doing all mechanics and arts yourself like I do...). I'm kind of glad that I just decided for me that crowdfunding is not the way I want to go, to work on without havinbg any sorts of pressure or needing to adjust the game to target grpups etc. I'll try to get the game out to as many people as I can, and that's probably it. Thanks for the insights though and for a "success story" of a game really published - they are rare!

@questccg:

interesting to get some insights in FLGS-views - I always thought that boosters would be one of the most important cash cows of these stores (as often up to 90% of the customers are exclusevily playing TCGs).

Happy new year!

Thanks :)

Chordcommander wrote:

I really like the style of your cards in Conquest at Kismet, this could work in a bunch of other games too, especially in component heavy ones where you alkready have tons of tokens and bits to calm things down. As you said the style made me have a closer look - seems interesting gameplaywise. One thing: I'd like to have some sort of overview picture how the table (with cards laid out) etc. will look like, and I think it's not there (in the link you gave us) - that would be crucial for me to decide if I want to buy a game. Congrats for your success with it!

About the work that comes in in addition to pure game design: that is what I hugely underestimated (and why I won't try crowdfunding). I invested lots of time already just do do a little advertising of a free game (allthough I sometimes have the impression that people think that a game offered for free cannot be good..) - with little success. I comletely overestimated the Power of Tabletopia (in regards to getting playtests in) - even people that where intereested in Germany preferred to do the PnP-prototype. There is so much stuff needede to be done regarding networking, advertising, constantly updating homepages etc that it seems daunting (especially if you are a one man show already doing all mechanics and arts yourself like I do...). I'm kind of glad that I just decided for me that crowdfunding is not the way I want to go, to work on without havinbg any sorts of pressure or needing to adjust the game to target grpups etc. I'll try to get the game out to as many people as I can, and that's probably it. Thanks for the insights though and for a "success story" of a game really published - they are rare!

Happy new year!

The idea about board setup is a great idea! I totally didn't even think about it (or at least I thought about it, but never got around to it). I'll get it up at least on BGG.com. The fact is, the game actually has a small table footprint, which was what I was going for. Since each ship can only have 3 supports max and combat is done in 1 shared stack of cards, it doesn't take up much space. I've even played it on a plane!

I think that people are way too protective of their ideas, which is why there's not that many people willing to talk about the process of their game. The truth is, a game is probably about 15% idea and 85% implementation of the idea (aka hard work). Even then, our industry thrives on borrowing ideas from other games, so I'm not worried if someone steals my idea...that just means my idea was good enough to BE stolen! That's an honor, really.

My game may be considered a "success", but I'm not making much money; the fact I am making money at all is a success enough for me. I do plan on building from here because even though I went through a publisher, I've learned so much while avoiding a lot of potentially fatal mistakes. The sacrifice of profit for peace of mind and time to focus on finishing my game was worth it. At times I'm pretty harsh here, but to me this can't be something you just think on a whim and it suddenly becomes this Cinderella story where everyone loves your game and buys it. It's really hard work. Dedicated time. Serious research. Heavy networking. Many meetings. Playtest, iterate, wash, rinse, repeat. And even then, there's no guarantee of success.

If you can use anything I've said to make your game a success, then by all means go for it. I appreciate you taking the time to actually read my thoughts :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut