Just Marketing

I am not entirely sure what you mean by

The game will produce a winner eventualy :?: Who long does the game take? Also 6 seems quite young for a game with such complex rules. What is the recommended age for your game and how did you decide on it?

I'm happy to keep the discussion going, but I don't want it to seem that I'm knocking your friends' game; but since you came into a "game designers'" group, I hope you feel that game design questions and criticisms are fair game...

Ok, that's fine. But it seems to me that you can only run for office if you've had the good fortune to land on enough Star spaces and have collected enough money to be in position to run. And therein lies my objection to the "roll and move" effect -- what strategic planning there might be seems to be swamped by "lucky" effects based on which spaces you happen to land on.

Ok, I didn't appreciate this point. Is it the case, then, that the board spaces in the "president track" are generally about getting "Commodity X" and the spaces in the "secretary of state" track are about getting "Commodity Y"? That, I agree, creates a decision point, but since there are only two commodities in the game (money and power) I wonder how much you can really differentiate the tracks. If I were designing the game, I'd make it about risk/reward -- the President can potentially gain a lot, but he can potentially lose a lot as well. Does it work something like this?

Well, first off, I'm definitely not an advocate for "average" family games (Monopoly, Sorry, etc). But I can think of a lot of games with a lot of interaction. Where does the interaction come from in your game? It seems to me that it's only about contesting an election, and then it's just "roll the die and see who gets to the end of the track first", isn't it? What other sources of player interaction are there? (and I'm not talking so much about the proposed meta-game of calling each other by their office, which is a cute idea but isn't really "player interaction" in the conventional sense. "Player interaction", I think, is more about your moves affecting the standing or decisions of other players in the game. That's not the same as "interactivity")

Actually, I think this probably happens more than you might think. Scrabble is a fantastic game for what it is. I don't personally love the game, but I enjoy playing from time to time. I think it has WAY more interaction than your game.

I won't sit here and say the roll of the dice doesn't affect the game. I'm not much of a game of chance gamer myself. So, yes, the fact that you roll and move surely affects your destiny in the game to a point, however, because the inventor is also like us, this game has the possibility for much more strategic depth. I agree that we are the minority in the US, and that because this game can be played by the "roll and move" no strategy game players out there, I agree that it should do fine, but let's not be mistaken that this is ultimately a gamers game.

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Euphrat and Tigris, Puerto Rico, El Grande, are "gamer's games". This is not a "gamers' game". When you say it permits strategic play, I'll buy that, but there's no way that hard core gamers would flock to play this game -- and that's ok. A game doesn't need to appeal to "hard core gamers" to be good or fun. But let's at least be honest about what it is and isn't.

I'm interested in what other kinds of games you like, because you say that "we" are in the minority (of people who like real games). It seems you know me better than I thought! (kidding). In all seriousness, the games I like a lot are games like Puerto Rico, New England, Web of Power, Lord of the Rings (by Reiner Knizia), Carcassonne, Acquire -- games that have simple, punchy rules and lots of agonizing decisions that are shaped more by the players than by the game system. I guess Lord of the Rings is the exception that proves the rule, because it more than the others has a strong luck element, yet this is mitigated by the fact that players have various ways of coping with "unlucky" events. In fact, all of these games have random elements, but what sets them apart is that the random elements are more of a subtle addition to the game that keeps it from stagnating from game to game.

I'm curious, how many of those (or other comparable games) have you played? Do you like them? This isn't the Inquisition or anything, just trying to get a gauge of where you're at. When you say you like "gamer's games", I wonder if you mean abstracts, or wargames, or German games, or traditional American games. Coming from the perspective of someone who primarily likes and plays German games, I don't think your game is what you say it is, and I'm wondering if it's because I just don't know enough about your game (by virtue of not having played it) to really understand it, or if you haven't played enough other games (and other kinds of games) to see the game through the same lens that I currently see it (as a somewhat gussied-up luck-heavy roll and move game).
Again, I could be very wrong here, but knowing where you're coming from would help me to know!

To me, I'd be more interested in a game that at each space (or card draw, or whatever) gave you a choice, and your choice affected your standing in some way. I think the "popularity system" is too simplistic, yet it need not be much more complicated. I think American politics, for example, is crudely explicable in terms of 2 categories: social and economic. A person can be "conservative" or "liberal" with respect to either of these, leading to 4 possible "bins" that you would like to gain support in. Then, for example, maybe you land on a space that says "Gun control lobbyists want you to act on their legislation. Will you?" If you choose 'yes', maybe you get X campaign dollars and get +2 "Social liberal" but if you choose "no" you get -4 "Social Liberal". Or something like that. It could even be done in the construct that you've already got. But what it feels like to me is that I'll just move my piece and do what the game tells me to do, but not have much say in that. For example, maybe I land on the space (which I actually saw on the board), "you take a mistress." That's dumb -- I don't want to take a mistress, not even in game terms; it serves no political purpose. So for the sake of simulation (because many politicians do take mistresses), you've added a silly and superfluous element that involves no player decisions and has a completely abstract effect on the game. If you want to talk about simulation, how about coming up with a way for players to have to "cover up" their personal indiscretions (could be done with a die roll effect, I'm sure...)

I guess it's too late for all this since you're already shipping the game. And it sounds like you did your homework, since you playtested a lot. I don't know...

Is this how many games you've had printed, or have you actually gotten 2500 orders for games already? I'd be quite literally shocked if the latter was true, and very, very impressed!

I appreciate the offer, but I don't think I'll take you up on it at this time. My point wasn't that the game isn't fun -- I'm sure it's a great time to play. But since we're a game design group, we tend to analyze things from a game design standpoint, and unless there's something big that I'm missing, I think it's probably possible to have a decent idea of what a game is all about just from looking at the components and rules. That's not to say you can understand the "fun factor" or appreciate all the nuances without playing, but more to say that based on what I can see, it looks like you roll the die, move your piece, and do what the space says. The "creative control" comes, I guess, in setting yourself up to be in one track or another based on some set of criteria, but once you're in that track, you're just rolling and moving. It doesn't sound like something that excites me from a game design standpoint, but from a gameplay standpoint, again, I'm sure it's been enjoyable for the test groups and hope it will sell well for you.

Who knows...maybe I'll buy the game myself at some point just to try it out.

Again, best of luck with your project, and sorry if I come across as being on a "high horse" or something. I am by no means saying your game isn't fun or isn't worthwhile, just that it isn't what I look for in a game, based on what I can tell.

-Jeff

Looks similar to the game of the Life to me, which can be a good waste of time if you have nothing else to play and don't want the hassle to teach your friends anything too complex. I do think that it could be quite popular with the American public if marketed right, but not a game that would appeal to anyone wanting some or a lot of strategy.

Thanks, Jenn, for being so open and willing to answer questions!

-- Matthew

And player choice too, since you established your own goals, which then determined what you did in the game.
But yes, that was the first game that came into my mind too. This seems to have some of the interesting elements - the side-tracks that have larger rewards etc., but as you say, it seems to be missing the "movement" cards.
I've referenced Careers somewhere else in the forums (but you don't appear to be able to search them, so I can't find it!) because it is still a hugely underrated game.

I'm not sure we're using "mechanics" in the same way. To me, mechanics are specific implementations of game design concepts. So, "roll-and-move" is a mechanic; "trick-taking" is a mechanic. Do you mean that the spaces on the main track are "balanced" such that no one will run away with the game from an early point?

Don't be so sure! For what it's worth, my favorite game is Axis and Allies. I don't mind die-rolling, but I like "intelligent" die rolling; I think randomization can be a design crutch when a better system could emerge. Take impeachment, for example; maybe all the other players should have to "vote" on whether the player is impeached, and the player can try to "grease their palms" to save his bacon. Just a silly idea, but there may be ways to implement this without resorting to a luck of the dice effect. However, a die roll may indeed be appropriate for the effect you're trying to model.

So, what's the best type of game FOR an average family? There aren't many out there that are NEW and different. Most "average family games" lack something... dependant upon your point of view.

Quite so, but you need to be careful here, because you're assuming your conclusion. If you start with the premise "this game is new and innovative", it's not hard to get from there to "this is the best game for an average family", yet you of course need to demonstrate the former.

I suppose you have a point here, that a game the whole family can play and enjoy is a good thing. I'm concerned that there is a lot of reading, which would make the game more difficult for the younger players than a lot of other games out there. I think what you've really hit on with a "game that everyone can enjoy" is not so much the game as the theme -- everyone can relate to it. Carcassonne, eg, is a game that is perfectly fun for a wide age range. I was at a store playing with my 2 year old daughter the other day (well, playing with the pieces anyway!) and at the next table was a 70 year old woman. So it isn't that the game isn't accessible, it's that it's not something that interests most people. The reason people don't want to play games, I think, is more cultural than game-based. But I agree, if you have a theme that can get people interested and involved, that would be a great thing!

Yet, you continue to say "this game is NEW and INNOVATIVE!" which sounds to me like you're selling something, and I guess you are. Could you identify specifically what you feel is new and innovative about the game? Again, not trying to be a jerk, I just want your take on where the game diverges from what else is out there. You've already indicated some awareness of the "larger world" of gaming, so you must have thought about it...

I wouldn't say this is a fair statement with you having never played the game. :wink:

I think we are talking about two different things then. I'm talking about player interaction within the game (ie, "By moving here, I can prevent Joe from doing X") whereas I think you're talking about meta-game interaction (ie, Joe whines about me preventing him from doing X). So, by my definition, Scrabble and Monopoly are highly interactive, because both allow you to directly affect the other players (by blocking spaces, or by building hotels) whereas Life is not very interactive. I don't see any game-based interaction in your game (other than the meta game of calling people by their titles.) Is there any that I'm missing?

No, our first run of the game, we're producing 5,000. Currently, as of this morning, we have "reservations" for 2371. So, I guess I was off a little. :lol:

Wow, I'm really impressed! I'm sure there are some in the group who are considering self-publishing who'd love to know what marketing channels you used to sell so many copies. That's really outstanding, I think!

Let me know what products you've seen through production, I'd be fascinated to hear a success story!

I'm sure there are some success stories on this group, but I certainly don't have one! Primarily for lack of trying -- I don't have much interest in self-publishing a game at this time, and haven't come up with anything that's "done" enough to submit to publishers. Maybe one of those will change at some point, and we can talk shop!

Good luck, once again.

-Jeff

Maybe we should stop...you're starting to get defensive, and I feel that it's probably my tone that is putting you in that posture. Again, my apologies. I am by no means attacking you personally, I'm just applying the same critical scrutiny that I and others on this group bring to all games. As I think I've said repeatedly, this of course says nothing about whether the game is fun or not to play, and that, of course, is what really matters. And what's most essential from a design standpoint is the game matches up with the player experience you're trying to create. I think you've accomplished that commendably, but approaching the game from my jaded "gamer's" perspective is another matter. I am sorry if I've offended you.

Probably not a terminology error so much as a communication error on both of our parts. My point was just that as far as I can tell, there's only one "mechanic" in the game -- move your piece and do what the board says. If that mechanic is "balanced" great. Just a minor quibble over terms, I guess.

Well, try and understand what I'm actually saying. First off, at a minimum, die rolling is inherently probabilistic, and so for a game to be "fair", it has to either allow for lots of die rolls such that they even out, or allow for players to choose actions based on the probability of something happening. A good example of the former is Settlers, which has lots of die rolls, but because there are so many, generally you'd expect that most of the numbers will be sampled probabilistically. A good example of the latter is Lord of the Rings -- the die roll is always bad, but you have some idea what the chances are of a "really bad" result. (For example, if Sauron is 2 spaces away from a player, there's only a 1 in 6 chance the player will be "captured", thus it may be worth risking whereas if Sauron is one space away, there's a 4 in 6 chance...)

By "intelligent", I simply mean that probability can be taken into account in decision making. (ie, "what are my chances of this die roll going the way I want it to?") I think in your game, since you have to roll the die for everything, the only way for luck to even out is to have about 1/2 the spaces be "good" and half be "bad", or whatever.

Not surprising, given that I spent about 1 second coming up with it! My point is more that there might be other ways than a die roll to achieve the effect you want. Or maybe a die roll is perfect for what you want. It doesn't sound like you considered alternatives. No big deal. But don't assume that I hate die rolling in all forms. In some games, it's brilliantly done, but only when players are choosing to "take their chances". When it's forced on them, or when a wild variety of things can happen, it's usually not as satisfying.

I know for a fact that this is one of the best new games for a family? How? About 2,000 people telling me so. This is where the focus parties come into play. For once, a mom can enjoy playing a game with their child instead of struggling through another game of "Tumbling Monkeys." She enjoys it, the kids enjoy it. To me, that's new and innovative. For once, a family game that everyone can enjoy.

Then indeed, you've assumed your conclusion. You're defining "new and innovative" in terms of whether people like the game, then using the fact that people like the game to justify your opinion that the game is new and innovative. To me, "new and innovative" is more in reference to other games rather than whether people liked it or not. If "tumbling monkeys" is their only frame of reference, it sounds like your testers wouldn't know either way whether the game was innovative or not.

I definitely agree that it would be great for parents and kids to have games that they both enjoy playing. But I don't think Politics is the only or even necessarily the best for that. Check out Sarah Samuelson's posts at the spielfrieks group, she has 3 kids, all of whom game. She would actually be a good person for you to contact, being the owner of gamesurplus.com. If THOSE kids, who are steeped in German gaming, find the game new and innovative, then I'll indeed concede your point. I'd equally concede it if you tell me what you think is innovative about the game!

BTW, I continue to be shocked by your numbers. 2,000 playtesters? Who are these people? Where are you finding them? This is absolutely amazing. I can't believe how much market research you guys have done! Sadly, I'm not sure how much game design research you've done. How many of those 2000, for example, were "gamers" like you and the designer? What was their reception of the game? What didn't they like about it?

That's not fair at all. If you didn't want criticism or comments on your rules, you shouldn't have come to a game design group with a sales pitch. I have been very careful to say that I know nothing about the game atmosphere itself, that it might be quite fun to play, that I genuinely hope it does well. What I continue to dispute is your claim that (a) it's new and innovative and (b) it appeals to gamers. Heck, I'm a potential buyer, and in a demographic you claim to be reaching with the game. What about your game haven't I seen before? (specifically) What about it makes the game great for gamers? (and not just the "you can play with your wife", a valid point but not a selling one for me, having other games that my wife and I enjoy...)

I have absolutely no doubt that this is completely true. I'd bet that the majority of America would like your game way more than anything I've designed! (and note that I'm not on some high horse and saying my games are "better" or "elite" something, I just think that they provide a different kind of play experience than yours and that the experience my games provide is more enjoyable to me than what I think your game provides. So please don't misunderstand me here...)

No, the "reading" I spoke of is that every space you land on has text. That may be difficult for the younger crowd. (though maybe not for 8 and up, I guess. But you said it was playable for 6 year olds and I bet they'd have trouble with all the words).

Also, the "secret lover" thing gives me some concerns about the suitability for kids. How much content is there about the sordid details of politics and political issues?

Yes, but only because you're just beginning to make it! What I've been asking all along is where the interaction comes from. You give an example of "take that!" card play, which does indeed create in-game player interaction. Unfortunately, that mechanic has its own attendant design flaws, but since you're already selling the game anyway, no need to belabor my design critique...

Anyway, thanks again for your discussion of the game. I respect that you've put so much work into the game, and have tested it so extensively. And I'm still blown away by the sales figures. Who are you selling the game to? Where is it being sold? I do wish you success, as I think that an accessible and fun game about politics could be a cool thing. The only lament I might have is that your game is perhaps more about entertainment when it could be cool as a pedagogical device to teach the younger crowd about how the government works. But since that didn't seem to be your intent in the design, I could hardly criticize you for that. I just think that at some point, it would be cool to see a game that did that and yet wasn't just a "US history trivia game" or some such.

Again, my best wishes with your project.

-Jeff

I think that the game Politics would be considered new and innovative when it was set before the average american who grew up playing games like monopoly and life. However, *most* of the users of the BGDF tend to lean towards newer games; games like settlers, D&D,Cosmic Encounter, Magic the gathering, mageknight, etc. When I compare these set of games with my limited understanding of Politics, I would have to agree and say that there was nothing new or innovative about it.

HOWEVER, if you consider that the target audience might be or is your average american, then the statement could be considered true. Of the standard set of board games available to the general American public, there is no representation for the theme of Politics, at least that I know of. There is no wrong or right here. It's entirely subjective.

Jenn, I'm curious as to your process of taking pre-orders. Do you require people to prepay for the game? Have you done any estimation of how many people might actually back out of their preorder? My only concern might be that a large sum of people might change their minds. Time is your biggest enemy. As the time between taking the preorder and shipping the product grows, more and more people might decide they don't want the game. Life situations change, people forget why they wanted it in the first place, etc.

My theory on your success for sales has to be your marketing strategy. You guys went all out marketing to anyone and everyone, which fits nicely with the target audience of 'average american'. You dreamed big. I think that's one of the reasons 'german style' games aren't big in the US. People assume that the average american won't be interested in their game, so they don't even bother targetting that market, prefering instead to stick to customers at game stores and convention goers. There some sort of unspoken rule that says average americans only want to play monopoly like games. I think once this misconception is shattered, the flood gates will open for designer games in the American market.

-Darke

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. As I said, the crucial criterion for whether a game is good or not is "player experience". I think you've made a game that matches well with the player experience you're trying to create. It may not be the kind of experience I'm looking for, but I don't believe that I represent your "main audience" anyway. And of course, your game should be evaluated in terms of the experience it purports to provide. cf our discussion about "Mystery of the Abbey", where some feel the game is fundamentally flawed and others feel that the game is geared towards a specific play style and experience.

I guess it depends. I wouldn't be at all thrilled about the "secret lover" for a 6 year old, and even an 8 year old is close. But I don't think it would be anything an 8 year old in our society hasn't heard of.

BTW, I understand that the box is printed as "for 8+", but when it comes to games, I generally assume that this is more based on complexity than content. Thus, if I was the parent of a "smart" 6 year old who was already adept at, say, Carcassonne, I might think, 'well, this game is for 8+, so he can probably handle it', and would thus be unhappy if "innappropriate content" was an ingredient of the age range. I understand that in our society, there's little in your game that would be objectionable to the average 8yo, however, my concern is that we shelter our kids perhaps too little. At each of the two Lord of the Rings movies, I've seen children who were considerably younger than 13. And every Disney movie I've seen with the exception of Cinderalla has some scene of violence or death (how many have parents who die?) that make them completely unsuitable for my young children. You don't need to respond to this, because it's more a soapbox comment about society in general than a specific objection to your game, I just want you to know where I'm coming from and why even a space like "you have a secret lover" is problematic for me. I suspect it wouldn't be for most buyers.

I also saw one card that said (paraphrase) "Your brother is governor, therefore, you get to demand a recount". Things like that are sort of close to the line for me, because I don't particularly want the designer preaching his politics to me, the game player. I will grant that this was pretty mild, however, I hope that you either don't have anything more overt than this, or that you at least are balanced in your jokes that are based loosely in reality. (like a "you invented the Internet" space or something...) Although, probably offending no one's political party would be better than offending everyone's. But that's just my opinion...

-Jeff

Well, hey, I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next guy, but I think that when you overtly poke fun of specific people or viewpoints, you run the risk of offending people in a way that isn't always "just good fun", and I don't think you can use the hand-wave "it's just a game", because obviously we all draw the line somewhere (ie, I'm sure I could think of a game theme that you would be offended by, and I wouldn't have to try all that hard...). Of course, not having seen all the spaces on the board or all of the cards, I couldn't really comment, and I'm sure you have some good zingers in there. But to me, I think if a game is meant to be funny, the danger is always that you're necessarily getting the designers' sense of humor. An example of a game that I find hilarious is Apples to Apples, which doesn't contain a single joke per se and yet, is always a riot to play specifically because it pulls on the sense of humor of the players themselves. Granted, something like this couldn't be done in your game, I guess I'm just saying that humor is as subjective as anything else. For example, I don't find the "peanut farmer" joke very funny. I don't find it offensive, either, but the point is, you don't want to rely on humor as the sole ingredient to give your game staying power. At any rate, it doesn't seem like you've done that here, at least not based on the spaces one can see on the background of the board on your site.

And incidentally, I don't know if I'd say that politics is funny so much as that politics is a joke!

-Jeff