We’re still in the midst of our “Player Goals” series (which is somewhat on hold, but will likely resume next week), but I thought I’d make a brief detour into a tangentially related topic of “designer goals”. The issue on the table this week is, how do we as designers determine what we want the end state of the project to be (e.g., publication, self-publication, etc), and how does that affect the choices we make for the game’s mechanics, components, theme, etc?
What sparked my interest in this conversation was a separate post where I observed that many of us, having designed a game that is enjoyed by family and friends, seem to immediately jump to “now, I have to figure out how to sell this!” My question is, why is that such a common and such an immediate reaction?
I will briefly give some elements of my answer to such a question. I confess that my first design, currently in the “defunct” pile, inspired me with delusions of grandeur -- millions of sales, an easy Spiele des Jahres win, etc. I had completely overestimated the quality of the game, and my own skill as a designer. And I think this was sort of corroborated by a psychology study I read, that incompetent people tend to be most likely to overestimate their own performance. This isn’t to say that I think of myself, or anyone else, as incompetent, so much as that I think the more likely error that we fall into, in any enterprise we engage in, is overestimation of our own performance. Look at reality shows like Survivor, for example -- when someone is asked why they thought the others voted them out, they will inevitably respond “it’s because they saw me as a threat.” They can't imagine that there is any flaw in their performance that led to their getting the boot; and, quite the opposite! It was that their performance was so superlative that the others had to take action and elimate the threat that they represented! So, bottom line, I think people are prone to overestimation of their own abilities.
But this doesn’t really answer why we want to have our games published; it only (partially) explains why we think that we personally are likely to succeed with selling the game, regardless of how many others have failed before us, etc.
So there are sort of two topics on the table here -- how does the project goal shape the design process, and why is it that for so many of us, publication is the immediate project goal that leaps into our minds?
Looking forward to a lively discussion!
-J
Just to offer my own thoughts on the subject:
For myself, I very rarely make design decisions based on production considerations, and I agree with Joe that this is probably the main reason why your project goal would matter. I don’t particularly seek to have decks of 108 cards (though I roughly try to approximate this number), or minimize any particular component count, or anything. Presumably, when a game looked like it had the legs to be submittable, I’d start really addressing these issues, but I try not to rein myself in too much in the early stages of a design. The one component I do think about is the board size, and specifically, the board layout -- how will I present the info I want the board to convey in a reasonably-sized board?
On the other hand, I think it could be useful to think about component type and cost, as doing so could lead to interesting systems and solutions for problems presented when it appears that many components, or non-standard componentry, would be needed.
With regard to the second point, I once read an interview that Joe gave that matches my own position pretty closely. He said something like he wants to publish games to see the finished production of the game, and knows he can’t achieve that state on his own. I feel the same way. One of my games, I’ve always wanted to see get published just to see the game as I envision it in my head, with funny illustrations and such. Having no art skill, I know it will never get into that state unless it was published. So there’s a certain sense in which if no one else other than me was ever going to play some of the games I’ve designed, it wouldn’t bother me, but I’d still love to have a “pretty” copy for myself, and publication seems like the most cost-effective way to get that (though probably not self-publication, and that’s why I haven’t ever seriously considered making that jump).
For other games, like Disciples, I feel there’s enough of a “statement” behind the design that I’d really like to see it get published. Disciples, e.g., is meant to demonstrate that a legitimate, highly-engaging board game with an overt and organic Christian theme is not a contradiction in terms. I have other projects that I view in some sense as game design “essays”, and that I’d love to see other people play and enjoy. I think there’s certainly an element of ego in there -- certainly part of me wants people to play my Civ lite game and say “Aha! Jeff has solved the Civ lite ‘design problem’”, but for some, like Disciples, my motives are more “pure” -- as Zaiga says, the games just don’t currently exist, and I think that they ought to (and that other people are likely to think so as well).
I don’t completely agree with Joe that a game can’t have a publication goal from the outset without losing something; Snoop’s “Balloon Cup” was specifically earmarked for Kosmos from an early stage, yet the game has still been quite well received and I bet he had fun working on it. I agree with the broader point, though, that setting out to design games as a route to fame and fortune, rather than simply for the love of designing, will likely end up in frustration.
-Jeff