Skip to Content

Submission letter.

36 replies [Last post]
Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011

I'm trying my best to polish up my submission letter.

Here are some examples of what I've got. Please recommened some improvements.

Quote:

Dear, XXXXX

I am contacting you in hopes that you would evaluate my new board game "Chase-Bots…the game of robotic tag". I believe that the concept of my game is both exciting and unique.

In Chase-Bots, the first player that can successfully infiltrate each of his opponent's home stations with his own Chase-Bots wins the game.

Up to 4 players control (by means of a special deck of "Program" cards) a squad of four robots called Chase-Bots. There are no dice in this game.

Accomplishing this goal won't be easy, for all players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot! The last player to get at least one of his robots into the main area of play is the first to be IT and takes control of the dreaded IT-Bot. If the IT-Bot tags another player's Chase-Bot, the victim is imprisoned and control of the IT-Bot transfers to the player just tagged. The only way she can once again regain control of her own squad of Chase-Bots (and to release her robot prisoner) is to tag yet another player's robot with the IT-Bot. If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, increasing the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!

What this game offers:

* Several unique mechanics
* Medium weight strategy combined with “Laugh out loud fun”.
* A high replay-ability factor
* A modest game board, only 21 small plastic components in all and two decks of cards.
* Infinite potential for expansions

I belong to a large group of hard-core gamers ranging in age from 10 years old to mid 60's. We meet each week to play such games as "Puerto Rico", "St.Petersburg", "Euphrat and Tigris", your own, "XXXXX" and more titles then I can list. Some of our members are even published game designers in their own right. I have been play-testing Chase-Bots both blind and with this group for quite a while now and all think that Chase-Bots is balanced, well thought out and most importantly fun! Chase-Bots has become a part of our regular game rotation and I believe it is ready for publication and would like XXXXXXX Games to consider it. If you are interested in reviewing my game, do not hesitate to contact me for rules, photos or a prototype.

Carl Kramer
XXXXXXXXx
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX@XXX.com

Sincerely,
Carl Kramer

I also have this:

Quote:

The Date: 9-17-2066
The Place: Lunar Surface (Dark Side)

It all comes down to this. You are competing against rival corporations for a multi trillion-dollar contract. You are up against the most brilliant robotics engineers in the solar system.

Each opponent will deploy a squadron of robots representing decades of development and billions of dollars in material and research.

Your goal: Infiltrate your opponent’s home stations while preventing all of them from doing the same.

But wait! There’s a catch. A single Intercepting Trapper robot represents the previous champion. The I.T. robot will capture and imprison any other robot it comes into contact with.

You will have to use all of your best programming skill. Employ on the fly upgrades to your robots to make them more formidable, more elusive and more intelligent. Of course, your rivals will all be doing the same.

A description of the game itself:

Each player controls a squad of four Chase-Bots. The object is to get your robots into the starting spaces of your opponents. Game play is in three phases.

1. The Programming Phase
2. The Reveal Phase
3. The Movement Phase

In the Programming Phase, each player selects one card from their hand and places it face down in front of them.

In the Reveal Phase players simultaneously turn their cards over. Turn order for each round is determined by the values of the cards.

In the Movement Phase, each player moves his Chase-bots in turn.

The last player to move one of his Chase-bots into the main play area is the first to be IT. He must capture another Chase-bot with the black IT robot before he can move his own Chase-bots again. This makes one of the other players IT.

Throughout the game players will be installing, stealing and interfering with each other’s Upgrades. Upgrades give each player additional abilities such as alternative ways of moving their robots, increasing their hand size and any of up to 30 special powers.

Special Trigger cards add to the excitement as players wrest turn order from each other, steal upgrades from one another and basically sabotage their opponents.

Playground tag was never quite like this!

Carl

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Re: Submission letter.

Carl,

Take my advice with a grain of salt, but here you go:

First, start with more vital stats about the game: # players, playing time, age range.

Quote:

* Medium weight strategy combined with “Laugh out loud fun”.

I'm not sure this is the right term. "Laugh out loud" usually implies a humorous element, and makes me think of a party game. Maybe "uproarious" or something like that might be a better word for what you're looking for.

Quote:

* Infinite potential for expansions

I'm not sure whether this is a selling point or not, but it probably doesn't hurt to mention it.

Quote:

I belong to a large group of hard-core gamers ranging in age from 10 years old to mid 60's. We meet each week to play such games as "Puerto Rico", "St.Petersburg", "Euphrat and Tigris", your own, "XXXXX" and more titles then I can list. Some of our members are even published game designers in their own right. I have been play-testing Chase-Bots both blind and with this group for quite a while now and all think that Chase-Bots is balanced, well thought out and most importantly fun! Chase-Bots has become a part of our regular game rotation and I believe it is ready for publication and would like XXXXXXX Games to consider it.

I would cut this paragraph in its entirety. It says nothing of substance other than "all my friends like it", which is pretty much a given for any game ever designed by anyone. And, it comes across as borderline arrogant.

Quote:

If you are interested in reviewing my game, do not hesitate to contact me for rules, photos or a prototype.

You should press for a decision one way or the other -- ask for something specific. You don't want to be pushy, but you want an answer back. Also, you can probably just include the rules with your submission letter, although there's a chance that it could get blocked by a spambot.

Hope this helps,

-Jeff

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

Very useful.

I'm going to make these changes and repost the corrected letter.

Carl

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

How is this?

Quote:
Dear, XXXXX

I am contacting you in hopes that you would evaluate my new board game
"Chase-Bots…the game of robotic tag". I believe that the concept of my game is both exciting and unique.

Chase-Bots is a game for 2 or 4 players (three player expansion coming soon) ages 10 and up.
Depending on the number of players and scenario chosen a game of Chase-Bots can last between 40-120 minutes.

In Chase-Bots, the first player that can successfully infiltrate his opponent's home stations with his own Chase-Bots wins the game.

Up to 4 players control (by means of a special deck of "Program" cards) a squad of four robots called Chase-Bots. There are no dice in this game.

Accomplishing this goal won't be easy, for all players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot! The last player to get at least one of his robots into the main area of play is the first to be IT and takes control of the dreaded IT-Bot. If the IT-Bot tags another player's Chase-Bot, the victim is imprisoned and control of the IT-Bot transfers to the player just tagged. The only way she can once again regain control of her own squad of Chase-Bots (and to release her robot prisoner) is to tag yet another player's robot with the IT-Bot. If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, increasing the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!

What this game offers:

* Several unique mechanics
* A high replay-ability factor
* A modest game board, only 21 small plastic components in all and two decks of cards.
* Infinite potential for expansions in the form of game boards, pieces and Upgrade cards.

I believe Chase-Bots is ready for publication and would like XXXXXXX Games to consider it. If you are interested in reviewing my game, do not hesitate to contact me for rules and photos.

Carl

Verseboy
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Submission letter.

I definitely prefer the first letter to the second because it is more direct.

Quote:

I am contacting you in hopes that you would evaluate my new board game "Chase-Bots…the game of robotic tag". I believe that the concept of my game is both exciting and unique.

In this first paragraph you're telling them what you want. You should be more specific. You don't simply want them to evaluate it: you want them to consider adding it to their line. Go ahead and say so.

Quote:

In Chase-Bots, the first player that can successfully infiltrate each of his opponent's home stations with his own Chase-Bots wins the game.

Up to 4 players control (by means of a special deck of "Program" cards) a squad of four robots called Chase-Bots. There are no dice in this game.

Accomplishing this goal won't be easy, for all players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot! The last player to get at least one of his robots into the main area of play is the first to be IT and takes control of the dreaded IT-Bot. If the IT-Bot tags another player's Chase-Bot, the victim is imprisoned and control of the IT-Bot transfers to the player just tagged. The only way she can once again regain control of her own squad of Chase-Bots (and to release her robot prisoner) is to tag yet another player's robot with the IT-Bot. If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, increasing the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!
I like all this.

Quote:
* Several unique mechanics

I don't know enough to say if you have several unique mechanics. I will say I'm immediately suspicious of such a claim. A game company likely will be, too. Perhaps you can back it up. If so, great. More likely is that you have "a unique blend of several mechanics." That's for you to determine. You don't want to overstate the case and then have the buyer begin to mentally question every statement you make.

Quote:
* Medium weight strategy combined with “Laugh out loud fun”.

I'll agree with the connotations of "laugh out loud fun." "Raucous, 'take that!' fun" or something might be more what you're trying to convey.

Quote:
* A high replay-ability factor

I'd take the hyphen out of replayability.

Quote:
* A modest game board, only 21 small plastic components in all and two decks of cards.

This is good. It says you've honed things and it suggests that it can be produced inexpensively. You might say how many cards are in each deck.
Quote:
* Infinite potential for expansions

Infinite is a large number. Again, overstating your case calls into question everything you're claiming. Substitute "excellent" for "infinite."

Quote:
I belong to a large group of hard-core gamers ranging in age from 10 years old to mid 60's. We meet each week to play such games as "Puerto Rico", "St.Petersburg", "Euphrat and Tigris", your own, "XXXXX" and more titles then I can list. Some of our members are even published game designers in their own right. I have been play-testing Chase-Bots both blind and with this group for quite a while now and all think that Chase-Bots is balanced, well thought out and most importantly fun! Chase-Bots has become a part of our regular game rotation and I believe it is ready for publication and would like XXXXXXX Games to consider it. If you are interested in reviewing my game, do not hesitate to contact me for rules, photos or a prototype.

You probably took too many words to say this, and Jeff's criticisms are certainly well taken here, but I found the fact that your game is in regular rotation with your gaming group to be a good selling point. The fact that you've blind-tested the game, rather than simply rely on your friends is good. I like that you say it's balanced, well thought out, and fun. That doesn't smack of hyperbole, though every designer will make that claim. It demonstrates confidence without being arrogant.

You end by asking for the sale. I'd be a little more specific in closing. Something like, "I look forward to hearing from you soon. Upon request I can send you rules, photos, and the prototype." Others might recommend you be even more aggressive here. I think that's risky.

In any event it sounds like you have something worth pursuing. I hope I've helped. Good luck.

Steve Bennett

Verseboy
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

My comments above relate to the 2 different letters you put in your initial post, not to the revised letter you posted while I was busy typing.

Steve Bennett

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

Excellent suggestions. I'll do some more editing.

Carl

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Quote:
players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot!

players must navigate past the powerful IT-Bot!

Quote:
protect themselves from being tagged and more!

protect themselves from being tagged, and more!

Quote:
increasing the way they move around on the board

affecting the way they move around on the board

~Josh

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

OutsideLime wrote:
Quote:
players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot!

players must navigate past the powerful IT-Bot!

Quote:
protect themselves from being tagged and more!

protect themselves from being tagged, and more!

Quote:
increasing the way they move around on the board

affecting the way they move around on the board

~Josh

I don't believe you ever put a comma before the word "and".

Is it really "past?" I think that the past tense of pass is passed. Isn't that right?

Carl

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

From dictionary.com:

Quote:
pass ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps)
v. passed, pass·ing, pass·es
v. intr.
To move on or ahead; proceed.
To extend; run: The river passes through our land.

To move by: The band passed and the crowd cheered.
To move past another vehicle: The sports car passed on the right.

I'm thinking based on this that either spelling is okay.

Carl

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

You are not using "passed" in the context of the past tense of "pass".

Past is an adverb. Passed is the past tense of a verb. (Or, as you might argue, the passed tense. ;) )

Look at your example:

Quote:
To move by: The band passed and the crowd cheered.
To move past another vehicle: The sports car passed on the right.

Before the colon is the definition. After the colon is the example.

It (coincidentally, I think) provides the proper context for the two words we're discussing and is certainly not validating both as interchangeable. It even uses past within its definition for passed - signifying that the two are distinctly separate words.

Would you ever write: "The sports car past on the right?"

~Josh

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

Point taken.

Carl

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

I'm with Josh, it's "past" ("the horse passed the finish line" refers to the horse's action, while "the last horse past the finish line" refers to position, which you're referring to) and also "tagged, and more." In this case the serial comma (before the "and") clarifies what "more" refers to. You don't mean that players must protect themselves from being tagged and they must protect themselves from more, you mean that they periodically upgrade in order to do x, y, protect themselves from being tagged, and z.

Only a couple of grammar styles recommend never using the serial comma. Most recommend it when it clarifies, which in this case it does, imo.

Good letter, btw!

-- Matthew

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Quote:
I don't believe you ever put a comma before the word "and".

It's allowable in compound sentences, which is true in the case of the sentence I corrected. I think that it happens to be necessary to preserve the flow of thought and the precise meaning intended. Here's the full sentence:

Quote:
If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, affecting the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!

Without the comma, the sentence explains that the installation of upgrades:

a) affects the way the robots move around the board
b) affects how the robots interact with other robots
c) affects how the robots protect themselves from being tagged and from other dangers in addition to being tagged.

With the comma, the sentence explains that the installation of upgrades:

a) affects the way the robots move around the board
b) affects how the robots interact with other robots
c) affects how the robots protect themselves from being tagged
d) provides other benefits not mentioned.

~Josh

Verseboy
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Josh is correct in all cases, and he has done an excellent job of explaining why he is correct. I'm a former English teacher. I don't always get it right when I post in forums, but I make every attempt to be technically perfect when I write cover letters.

These grammatically points are small details, but you don't want to give the reader any excuse to ignore or reject you. You want every advantage you can muster.

I agree that it's a pretty good letter and it sounds like a pretty good game. I hope you can get someone to look at it.

Steve Bennett

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

I warmly welcome all criticism on this letter. Anything to help me polish it up.

I am a very bad salesman. I make great games though!

Carl

Verseboy
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Krakit wrote:
I warmly welcome all criticism on this letter. Anything to help me polish it up.

I am a very bad salesman. I make great games though!

Carl
Actually, I think you're doing a good job of selling your idea. And I appreciate that you're taking criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.

Steve Bennett

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

I'm going to incorporate all of these suggestions (including the grammer) in the final letter.

My goal is to get a short punchy submission letter that explains the game. Hopefully it will sound like fun to play and more importantly like something a game publisher would be willing to invest some time in (to try the prototype).

At that point I'll let the actual game play speak for itself.

Carl

ganglynerd
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
short and sweet

I'd suggest that shorter is better, in most instances. I'd hypothesize that publishers receive numerous submissions. If you do them a favor by writing a concise letter, they may have more time to spend looking at the prototype.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Re: Submission letter.

Verseboy wrote:

You probably took too many words to say this, and Jeff's criticisms are certainly well taken here, but I found the fact that your game is in regular rotation with your gaming group to be a good selling point. The fact that you've blind-tested the game, rather than simply rely on your friends is good. I like that you say it's balanced, well thought out, and fun. That doesn't smack of hyperbole, though every designer will make that claim. It demonstrates confidence without being arrogant.

But I think that because every designer will make a similar claim, it doesn't say anything useful to the publisher that will help them make a decision whether to look at the game further or not. Of course you think your game is great, and of course your friends do too.

I think the other concern is that the way Carl phrased it, it comes across as sounding both naive and erudite at the same time. Anyone who hangs around BGDF knows that the two sure-fire "tells" for a new designer are that they ask how to copyright their awesome new idea (which they can't tell you anything about, of course), and they claim that their game is great because "all their friends like it". Once you've designed a bit, you realize how commonplace these things are, and you stop saying them yourself. So in that sense, Carl's verbiage is incongruous -- he's saying "I have a group of super-gamers, whose authority is reliable", and yet he uses this to back up a claim that only a novice would use to try to sell a game. (My apologies, Carl; I'm not criticizing you, I'm just criticizing the way your letter was originally written.)

I think you could possibly say "I've tested the game thoroughly with friends and strangers, and the positive reaction it has generated has encouraged me to seek to have the game published", but I definitely wouldn't say anything that takes more words than that, and even that might be a time-waster. What they are ultimately going to decide upon are facts -- the game's length, #players, theme, overview of mechanics. The designer's opinions are probably of somewhat limited relevance, and probably only come into play insofar as if you don't appear excited about your game, they wouldn't expect to be either. Otherwise, the support of one's group is a given.

-Jeff

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Carl, my mind started to wander when reading the paragraph "Accomplishing this... more", so I suggest shortening it.

Also, what makes this different from RoboRally? I know what makes it different from RoboRally, you got a squad of robots instead of just one, there's this IT-bot you can control, and I'm sure you are able to list a dozen of other differences. Still, it is a racing game with robots and program cards, and I can imagine that a publisher might reject your proposal based on the argument "it looks too much like RoboRally". Not much you can do about this except changing your game and certainly not something you can or should address in your pitch.

The fact that it is only for 2 or 4 players, not for 3, is another reason why a publisher might reject it. Why include the possibility of adding a third player in an expansion and not in the base game? I'm certain a game that is for 2, 3 or 4 players is much easier to sell than a game for 2 or 4 players.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Submission letter.

Krakit wrote:

Chase-Bots is a game for 2 or 4 players (three player expansion coming soon) ages 10 and up.

Does the 3 player version utilize the same componentry? If so, you should probably keep working on the game until the 3p rules are ready. Expansions are usually something that are bought to make the game playable by an even bigger group (cf the expansions to Settlers, Carcassonne). It's weird that you'd have to buy an expansion to play with 3; that doesn't sound like a selling point to players.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether the existence of expansions is something that companies are or are not interested in. On the one hand, you'd think it would be a good thing since it's more sales for them. On the other hand, they're probably only going to want to publish expansions for games that sell very well (or perhaps give them away as free promotional items), so it's a tough call whether to sell this aspect too heavily or not. I think just mentioning it is ok.

Quote:
Accomplishing this goal won't be easy, for all players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot! The last player to get at least one of his robots into the main area of play is the first to be IT and takes control of the dreaded IT-Bot.

Do ALL players have to navigate past the "powerful IT-Bot" or just the players who are not the LAST to enter the main area of play? I know that eventually, players will take turns being IT, but in these two sentences, it appears that you've contradicted yourself. Also, you've given the IT-bot two adjectives in two sentences, which is probably overdoing it a bit.

Quote:
The only way she can once again regain control of her own squad of Chase-Bots (and to release her robot prisoner) is to tag yet another player's robot with the IT-Bot.

I find this gender-inclusive stuff annoying, not because I'm sexist, but because it's distracting. What you basically do when you use "she" for the 3rd person gender-neutral pronoun is say to the audience "look how gender-sensitive I am! I'm not so sexist as to use 'he' as a 3rd person gender neutral pronoun. I recognize that women play games too, and I celebrate that fact!" It's only a slight distraction of course, but it still takes the audience's attention away from what you're trying to communicate.

Quote:
If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, increasing the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!

Now you've switched to "they" for the 3rd person gender neutral pronoun. I think you should be consistent. Either stick with "he/his" (my preference, and the traditional way of doing things), or "she/her", or "they/their", and use it throughout.

Also, this sentence is not well-written. It's not clear whether the technology just increases their movement abilities, or whether it "increases the way they interact with other robots" and "protect themselves from being tagged" and "more". I assume that all of these are benefits of upgrading. But if so, it's not clear why the ability to upgrade is a "challenge", except insofar as other players will be upgrading as well.

Quote:
* A modest game board,

Do you just mean that it's not very big? If so, say "moderately sized". Or just give the dimensions.

-Jeff

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

The three player game requires a triangle shaped board with triangle shaped spaces.

The 2 or 4 player board is square with square spaces.

That's why the 3 player game is an expansion. I've also considered a Hex or Octogon shaped board as well.

I know that without reading the rules or playing the game that the Robo Rally comparrison would be an easy leap. However, there is nothing other than Robots (which is not a pasted on theme) and getting from point A to B that my game and RoboRally have in common.

There is no combat, no elimination and the Program cards represent how many spaces on the board you can move. Not direction or actions. If anything I borrow more from Cosmic Encounter than any other published game.

The upgrades are like the Alien powers in CE in that you get to break rules with them. However, unlike CE each power is short lived. They can be broken, stolen or discarded. There is also an element of "I'm the Boss" in that there are ten "Power Surge" cards that are used spontaneously to wrest turn order away from other players.

All special abilities are unique. Currently I've pared the game down to the 30 best ones but I think of new ones all the time (that's why I can create infinite expansions. There will always be new ways to upgrade in this game). Typically every power is used once before the end of the game. Only one Upgrade per player is ever in play at one time.

As for the Program cards. Each card has a red number and a black number on it. Hand management is part of the game as these number rarely match each other. The red numbers represent how far you can move a robot when you are not it. The black numbers represent the movement spaces when you ARE it.

There are currently three scenarios for game play. The most basic (for shortest game play) is to be the first to move any two Chase-bots into any opposing starting spaces ("stations"). The next up is to move any three (or any four for longer games) into opposing starting spots.

Advanced play is three Chase-bots into three different stations. Ultra advanced play is when you introduce the decoy Chase-Bot. All the Chase-Bots are identical but one of them has a spot underneath. You have to move three Chase-Bots into stations but NOT the one with the spot. When you move your third bot into place you check the undersides for the decoy. If the decoy is docked you have to move him out and move the remaining Chase-bot in before you can win the game.

The Chase-Bots move orthoganlly, the IT bot moves diagonally. There are other more subtle mechanics within the game but that's the gist.

I have also come up with a capture the flag version of the game (not introduced with the prototype rules).

Carl

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

Just wanted to say this again. My game had to be robots. I tried to make it insects or even aliens but the special abilities that make up the meat of this game lends itself to the robot theme perfectly. It would be strained otherwise. I wouldn't want to hurt the flavor just to avoid the comparrison to Roborally. There are tons of Pirate and Fantasy games. There are a few robot games as well. Ricochet Robots has robots going from point A to B too and it's not a roborally clone.

If you played Chase-Bots you wouldn't even consider making more than a cursory comparrison to Roborally.

Carl

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Submission letter.

Carl, it's only natural that you want to defend your game and explain how it works, but you don't have to convince me, you have to convince the publisher. And you have to do it in a few paragraphs. I have sent submission letters to different publishers for different games and I know how they react.

Most of my submissions get turned down because "it looks too much like game X". Even when the game is *nothing* like game X, if the publisher gets that impression then they have a reason to turn it down. You don't want to give them reasons to turn your game down. If your theme is a lot like game X, then focus your pitch on the mechanics. If your game has a mechanic that looks a lot like the mechanic in game Y, then don't mention it, or only briefly. In other words, mention the stuff in your game that is unique, not the stuff that is not unique.

Krakit wrote:
The three player game requires a triangle shaped board with triangle shaped spaces.

The 2 or 4 player board is square with square spaces.

That's why the 3 player game is an expansion. I've also considered a Hex or Octogon shaped board as well.

Again, don't try to defend your game, because publishers *will* turn down your game on things like this. Try to think about ways to solve it instead. Have you considered a double-sided board? On one side it shows the square board, on the other side the triangular board. You might need a bigger board to fit both shapes, but it certainly is a lot better then a game that doesn't work for 3 players. Heck, even including two boards would be a better solution.

In any case, good luck!

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

A three player game would require a seperate board (it would be far too awkward to put an equalateral triangle on a square board).

This would add to production costs significantly and be an even greater deterent to publication imo.

Carl

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Submission letter.

Krakit wrote:
A three player game would require a seperate board (it would be far too awkward to put an equalateral triangle on a square board).

Is the base length of the triangle board significantly larger than the side length of the square board? If it is, does it need to be? I think Rene's intuition is correct, that printing on the back of the board to allow a 3p version in the same box is probably a good option if it can fit. A tringle board will be an expensive component to make compared to a rectangular or square board.

-Jeff

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

So many games out there require at least 3 people to play them.

There are actually few games that work as well as a 2 player game than a four player game. There are even fewer games that really work well as a three player (although many state on their box that they do).

Many games claim to be good for 3 players when they are really inferior when played that way. Same goes for the claim of 2 player in multiplayer games.

You could play a 3 player version of Chase-bots with the included board. It wouldn't be very balanced, but you could play it.

Rather than comprimise on that I just state flat out that the game works with 2 or 4 rather than saying 2 through 4 because 3 would be weak.

I did devise a method to balance a 3 player game with a triangle board.

I submit that rather than the drawback that 3 players can't play a balanced game (like Saint Pete for example should have done) that stating that additional printing costs must be incurred to publish is a greater deterent to attracting a publisher.

Outlay to me seems like something a small publisher (because let's face it that is what a neophyte like myself must court) would be more concerned with.

As it stands, the game in it's current form was about to be published by Angela Galeama at Plenary games in 2003. We were in negotiations when Plenary went belly up. The game has legs just as it is without tweaking. I need help with my letter only.

Carl

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Submission letter.

Sounds like you've got everything under control. Good luck.

-Jeff

Krakit
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2011
Submission letter.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as somewhat miffed but I seem to be getting less tips on how to write my letter and more tips on how I should improve/change the game itself.

I playtested this game for three years and my group still plays the finished product three years later. The game is fine. If a publisher wants to make changes that's fine too. However, I'm not interested in fixing something that isn't broken.

Forgive me my peevishness but the thread has gone off track.

Carl

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Submission letter.

Well, threads going off track is just something you have to get used to at BGDF! But in this case, I don't see anyone trying to change your game. (we don't even really know much about it, so it's hard to imagine how we even could do that) It appears you have a 3p version of the game ready to go. It is played on a triangular board. All Rene and I are asking is, "can you just put the triangle board on the back of the square board"? If you could do this (or at least mention it as a possibility), it would make the game playable by 3p in the same box, which may be attractive to a publisher.

Or it may not matter. Or they may just ask "what needs to happen to make this playable with 3". The point is that several of us latched on to the fact that you presented the 3p version as an expansion. I don't think that's a selling point, and would strike that clause altogether. Then, if a publisher asks "can't it be played with 3?", you can say "well, it takes a triangular board, which could be back-printed on the board or packaged as a separate expansion."

-J

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut