Skip to Content
 

[TiGD] Determining project goals

22 replies [Last post]
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008

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

s2alexan
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

This is something I have thought about quite a bit...

I really enjoy designing games. Actually, it's more like "I can't stop designing games". Ideas come to me all the time - even when I don't want them. I try to focus on a game, and work on it, but in the middle of the development inevitably some other idea takes over, and I have to flesh it out and write it down before I can continue with the original game.

So, I could design exactly the type of game I want, as a hobby. This would be the most fun, but I couldn't do it that much (since I have a real job). Or, I could design the types of games other want to play, which would also be fun, and then, maybe, if I'm really lucky and work really hard, I could get one published. Although unlikely, this gives some credibility to my design work, and that's one step closer to designing (or at least working with) games for a living.

So, for me, I always design, from the ground up, with publishing in mind. Maybe if I'm lucky I can do what I love (or what I end up doing anyway) for a living. I at least have to work towards it...

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
[TiGD] Determining project goals

In the first place, I design games for myself. Sometimes, I come up with a nifty new mechanic, or a cool theme and I want to design a game around that. Sometimes I play a published game and I think "this game would be better if they had changed that and that..." and I want to try out those changes and sometimes that ends up as a complete design. Sometimes I come up with a game concept specifically targeted at one of the members of our playing group, because I know he would enjoy such a game immensly.

Whatever the intial thought that triggered the creative proces, it always come down to this: I want to make something that doesn't exist yet. That's my driving force; to create something new.

For a long time I just talked, thought and wrote about game design, but I didn't actually make the games. I don't really enjoy making prototypes and for a long time that was a huge hurdle. The first time that I made a game idea into a real prototype was when I teamed up with a friend of mine. Working together with someone is a good motivation to move along with a design. While I was working on the prototype for this game I learned alot about how to work efficiently with graphic tools on the computer and this helped me later to overcome the prototype hurdle somewhat.

Another big motivator to get a game done was the "Doomed Civilization" contest right here on this forum. I love working towards a deadline, it gets the creative juices flowing and demands that you get your work done on time. Same with the Hippodice competition last year (which reminds me...)

For me, trying to get a game published is just another motivation to move a design forward and not let it linger in limbo land. Another reason why it would be nice to get a game published one day is because of the recognition. It means more people will play, and hopefully enjoy, the game and that, to me, is what I ultimately want.

- René Wiersma

Joe_Huber
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: [TiGD] Determining project goals

jwarrend wrote:
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?
...
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?

How does it shape the design process? That's the easy one, in my opinion - the goal shapes the design process primarily by either imposing manufacturing and marketability constraints upon the project, or not. If I am designing a game with no particular thoughts of publication, then I don't worry about whether or not the theme will appeal to others, I don't worry about the fact that the game takes a small deciduous forrest worth of wood in parts, and I don't worry about the fact that it takes 4 days to complete the first turn. What I worry about is designing a game I will like; if I'm designing to a particular purpose (to give to a friend, perhaps) than I worry about designing a game I believe that person or those people may enjoy.

On the other hand, if I'm designing a game with some thought toward looking for a publisher to pick it up, I'm doing so with the context of component limits and the need to remove fiddly bits and play time constraints and so on. The basic goal is always there - if I don't like it, I'm not working on it - but the manufacturing and marketing constraints set the scope for my problem.

Why is it that publication often immediately leaps to mind? Many reasons...

1) Ego. Every game designer likes to believe that they've designed good games; publication is one form of confirmation of this. (Contests are another; awards are a huge one.)

2) $. A lot of people look to publication for financial gain, but even for those who've realized how little money is available money is an incentive; designing games isn't a free hobby, and having money come in helps offset the outflows.

3) Fame. Most people seek fame; publication is a good way to receive some minor amount of it. Think of how many people know Stephen Glenn's name now to the number who knew it before Balloon Cup...

For me, I think publication is generally an awful goal to go into a game design project with - it distracts from real goal #1 (designing a game I enjoy) and real goal #2 (the fun of the design process). Trying to get your games published is time consuming and can be expensive even if you aren't self-publishing; it's also easily discouraging. By never making publication a goal, I believe I have a lot more fun with the process - whether I include manufacturing limits as a constraint or not.

Joe

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Nice topic jwarrend.

While the thread is still quite new, I've already enjoyed reading people's comments, which have helped me get some better insights into why I want to design boardgames.

For those who've read the Game Inventor's Guidebook, there's a small paragraph near the end that mentions the emotional payoff of making a game that brings enjoyment to other people.

I am yet to design a game for just me and a few close friends, because I like the challenge of designing a game with a broader appeal than that. I'd like to see a game of mine published because then the game has that opportunity to brings hours of fun to lots of people.

[Aside - I grew up loving boardgames, both with friends and family and that's something I'd like to see more of generally, so I'd like to do my part to help this happen ... ]

I'd like the game to be published by someone else because they are going to be a harder judge of the game than I am. As such, I would consider it a nice pat on the back for someone else to say 'hey, this is worth publishing' and, sure, it would be great to see my name printed on the box and/or ruleset.

Just as importantly, however, it means that by going through more stringent 'quality control processes', any game that does make it to the end, has a far better chance of meeting my final goal of making a game with broad appeal that people will enjoy.

Yes, getting a game published by someone else is difficult, even more so for some types of games. It may not happen for me. It's one of those things that I aspire to do at least once in my life and if it gets done, I'd be over the moon. In fact, just having a publisher ask for a prototype after reading the rules to 'High Council of Evensford' felt great and whuile I'd be disappointed if things didn't progress further, I'd still be very happy with how far it went (although I wouldn't necessarily give up with the game!).

So, in summary, my goal is a game which a reasonable number of people would want to play and would enjoy. This would in turn give me 'warm fuzzy feelings'. I'd like to explore being published by someone else for the extra quality control (and reality check) that this avenue brings.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

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

Anonymous
[TiGD] Determining project goals

A couple of clarifications...

jwarrend wrote:
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.

Actually, I find it to be a fun problem to solve sometimes, and a fun restriction to get things going.

The mental starting points for Ice Cream was the thought of what could be done with just a 60 card deck...

Quote:
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.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - having publication as a goal removes certain degrees of freedom in the design process, but it doesn't necessarily make it any less enjoyable. It _can_ - if you spend your time trying to make a popular game rather than one you enjoy, you're likely to find yourself frustrated - but as long as publication is only _a_ goal, it's probably not going to stand in the way of your enjoyment.

Joe

Trickydicky
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
[TiGD] Determining project goals

When I was a kid and you would have asked me "What do you want to be when you grow up?" I would have answered a whole slew of things, i.e. actor, author, firefighter, etc.

I guess I am becoming as a little child. To me getting published is like my childhood dream jobs. In fact being a game designer is my adult/child dream job. It is these kinds of dreams that bring a lot of us hope and push us forward.

I also think it is part of our human nature to want to be our own boss. To make money doing something we love, and living "the American Dream". Doesn't everybody want that? No matter how foolish or unlikely it seems, the dream is still there so it drives me forward, and I'm loving the ride!

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Having already talked in this post about my goals as a game designer, I thought I should also talk about game-specific goals.

Examples of game-specific goals have been:

- a lite city-building game with building and technological development
- a game which captures the feel of greek gods competing with ecah other through influencing what happens on earth
- a game where everyone is trying to build a single 'thing', but their design objectives are all different (and hidden)

That is, I do start with a mechanic or a theme that I'd really like to try out and my goal is to make it work.

Then of course, I decide later that a different mechanic or theme would do a better job of it and I'm fine with that ... but I might still put the old theme or mechanic on the backburner as a goal which still needs to be achieved.

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
[TiGD] Determining project goals

The following are some of my game design goals:

A civilization lite
Isn't this the holy grail we are all searching for? A civ type of game, with technologies, buildings and wonders, military units, government types, the whole shebang. And, of course, playable within a 2 hour time frame, and with a rulebook that doesn't exceed 4 pages.

SimCity, the boardgame
A city-building game where players manage the various facets of an expanding city. One of my first designs was a stab at trying such a game. That game had some nice ideas, but it just wasn't exciting enough. Perhaps I'll try again in the future as I like the theme.

An area-majority game
Perhaps this has been done to death already, but I would like to try and see if I can find a new perspective on the area-majority scoring mechanic. I'm currently working on such a design and it is shaping up nicely, although, ironically, as the design progresses I'm taking the focus away from the area-majority scoring and I'm focussing more on the other mechanics.

A "Prince of Persia" themed game
It's a very interesting theme, that hasn't been fully explored yet in my opinion.

A negotiation / deal making game
I've already tried to design a game in this genre, with some "take that!" type of card play. I will probably pick up working on that design again, when my other "works in progress" have been completed. I know one of the members of my regular playing group would love such a game.

A 2-player card game
Or any 2-player game for that matter. I have some sort of mental block when it comes to designing 2-player games. It can't be that hard, can it?

And then there's a jumble of mechanics that I want to use in one game or the other: two different simultaneous action selection mechanics, and another non-simultaneous action selection mechanic, as well as some other ideas.

- René Wiersma

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

zaiga wrote:

A civilization lite
Isn't this the holy grail we are all searching for? A civ type of game, with technologies, buildings and wonders, military units, government types, the whole shebang.

I thought that "Gheos" was the solution to this design challenge? Just kidding; Gheos looks like a beautiful game, but perhaps it's Civ "ultra-lite" compared to what I think you're talking about and what people usually mean by "Civ lite". (But I think it fills the niche it purports to fill quite wonderfully, and that's really all that matters!)

"Civ lite" was one of the "holy grails" I started work on fairly early on in my development as a designer, and it's kind of interesting to see how the changes that I've made in the game mirror the things I've learned and the philosophical shifts I've undergone as I've grown as a designer. Thanks to the help of the group last week, I think I'm finally converging on putting the finishing touches on my personal "Civ lite". Except that...

Quote:

And, of course, playable within a 2 hour time frame, and with a rulebook that doesn't exceed 4 pages.

it breaks these requirements. I think 3 hours is possible but 2 may be tough. And the rulebook will be more than 4 pages. The rulebook bit was supposed to be one of the big selling points of Mare Nostrum, but my understanding was that it was a stupid gimmick -- the actual "rulebook" omitted essential rules that could only be found in the "examples", and the overall rulebook was criticized for being too terse. In that sense, I think that deliberately aiming for a rulebook that requires less than X pages to explain is not a valid goal, because we then deliberately cut corners in our explanations to come in with a "short" rulebook. Let's face it -- games like Acquire, with it's one page rulebook, are singular achievements. It's ok if we can't be so succinct with our designs...

Quote:

SimCity, the boardgame
A city-building game where players manage the various facets of an expanding city.

This is a cute idea, as well. The trick with this is that SimCity was basically a toy, not a game. In that sense, SimCity the boardgame will face the same kind of obstacle -- defining a sensible goal for the players to be working towards. I started the thread about "player goals" elsewhere in the forum to explore this very subject. I think that coming up with an interesting set of thematically motivated goals that go beyond "you get X VPs for this, Y VPs for that" is simultaneously the biggest obstacle we face as designers and the greatest opportunity for innovation. I think it's too easy to get stuck in the "VP rut" where a game's goal system is just yet another way to push VPs around. Moving beyond that could make for some interesting games!

Quote:

A 2-player card game

It would be really nice to design a 2 player game just because it's so much easier to playtest the thing! I have a few in the works but none have advanced to the prototype stages just yet...

One other addition:

A game consisting only of a deck of 54 cards

After playing "Verrater" and "Meuterer", I've always wanted to design a game that "feels" like a board game but requires only a deck of cards to play. I haven't had a thematic idea that seemed appropriate yet so I haven't tried to force it yet.

It seems like an interesting contest might involve tackling these "holy grails". Kind of like those math contests where the first person to solve some difficult problem gets $1 million, only the idea would be that the person with the best "solution" to the challenge would get accolades of some sort. In a sense, though, that already exists in the court of public opinion, and the great thing is that there can be more than one "solution" to any particular design "grail".

I've often said that I see my designs as "essays", ie, as my own personal statement about what such-and-such a genre or theme or mechanic should look like. So I think for me, it's quite natural to try to tackle these "holy grails" since they seem in need of having "essays" written about them!

***

And not to derail your train of thought, but I was thinking a bit today about the original topic of this thread, and your post brought it back in my mind: Many of our games will never see publication, even if we hoped that they would. My question is, if publication of a game is your goal, what do you do if it fails to meet that goal? (Aside from the obvious, "keep trying to find a publisher" -- assume for the sake of argument that the game is not, ever, going to get published). I've often said that playing and enjoying the game with one's friends and family is a worthy enough achievement in itself, but are there other things we could do? Are there ways to feel satisfied with a project that doesn't live up to our aspirations?

Just another question I find interesting...

-Jeff

Chad_Ellis
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
[TiGD] Determining project goals

For me, the biggest constraint that design-for-publishing involves is time. I like long games, and am quite happy to have one game take up an entire evening, or even more. Titan, Diplomacy, etc., are favorites of mine from various points in time, and I'm definitely NOT the reason that tournament chess has shifted more and more to "Action" chess with 30-minutes on each player's clock.

If I were designing games for myself, 2-3 hours would be a very happy normal play time. But I know that this isn't what the "German-style" market wants, and I'm aiming for that market.

My first self-published design, Succession, has a normal play of 1-2 hours. That's not quite short enough, but the game demands a "healthy" length of play because it involves lots of open-ended negotiations. My current project, Song of the Dwarf Lord, will play in 45 minutes or bust. :)

There are also some practical aspects that come into it. Components is an easy one. I'd like my next board game to retail for under $30, and if I can do it for $20 I'll be very happy. (I think SotDL can hit $25 retail and maybe less, as it will need only a single board, a deck of cards, and markers.) That requires a very tough attitude towards costs. But other aspects are important, too. How easy is the game to learn? What is the "value proposition" that will get gamers to try it?

Another issue I've learned the hard way is that you have to think about how reviewers will experience the game with no coaching and just a couple of plays. Space Station Assault has picked up some negative reviews because, quite frankly, the reviewers only played a couple of games and confused inexperience (which makes defense hard) with a structural problem (i.e. defense is impossible, so all-out attack is the only viable strategy).

As to why I publish my games, there are a few reasons but they all basically come down to fun. I want to publish innovative games that people enjoy playing and say, "Wow, that was really cool." I want to be able to make a living out of my passion. I don't know if the latter will be possible, but I'm certainly going to try.

One thing I find is that constraints are actually a fun part of the creative process. Just like it's more satisfying to win a game against a strong opponent, it's more fun to design a game within practical limits.

Hugs,
Chad

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Quote:
Another issue I've learned the hard way is that you have to think about how reviewers will experience the game with no coaching and just a couple of plays.

I agree that this is an important point. Some games are not fun when they appear unbalanced. Sometimes a game can seem unbalanced, or even broken, when players don't understand the nuances of the game. If they play the game more, they might better understand the nuances, which leads to more balanced play and more enjoyment for the players.

However, if a game is not fun on the first playing, players might not want to give it another try, which means those players will never get to the point where they understand the nuances of the game.

It's a Catch-22, really. To me it seems that a first impression is something that really matters with board games, just like with many other products. Days of Wonders even states on their online game submission form that it is important for them that a game gives "immediate satisfaction".

Quote:
One thing I find is that constraints are actually a fun part of the creative process. Just like it's more satisfying to win a game against a strong opponent, it's more fun to design a game within practical limits.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

- René Wiersma

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Quote:

Another issue I've learned the hard way is that you have to think about how reviewers will experience the game with no coaching and just a couple of plays. Space Station Assault has picked up some negative reviews because, quite frankly, the reviewers only played a couple of games and confused inexperience (which makes defense hard) with a structural problem (i.e. defense is impossible, so all-out attack is the only viable strategy).

I haven't played Space Station Assault yet, and haven't actually even read the rules yet, but the premise certainly sounds interesting enough. My sense was, in reading Greg Schloesser's comments, at least, was that the problem he saw was the "Quidditch" problem where one scoring mechanism dwarfs all the others so pursuing that scoring mechanism becomes the dominant focus of the game, rendering the rest of the game superfluous. As I understand it, destroying an enemy ship is worth 1-4 points, and the station itself is worth 60 points. So, you'd have to build up a 60 point lead, amassed in very small increments, to be able to beat someone who destroyed your station. I have no idea whether this is an accurate characterization of the game or not, not having played, but if it is,
it does sound somewhat peculiar.

Having said that, I will agree that the gamer community seems alarmingly unwilling to give a game enough plays to really appreciate its depth, and very confident in its ability to accurately evaluate a game after just one or two plays. The defense of this is that "there are so many great games, why waste time on one I don't like?" There's some sense to this, and I think that a game has to be enjoyable enough to sustain interest over multiple plays. But for myself, I find it very satisfying to grow into a game, to learn how it works and what it rewards, and this can only be done with an investment of time. But the whole "I have to play every release that comes out" mindset can be somewhat antithetical to this (or at least, it would be if one didn't spend a lot of time playing games). However, such a mindset IS probably more favorable to a publisher than my own (which is "I'm going to choose only one or two games to try, and play them a lot of times"), as it would result in more sales.

But yeah, it's a legitimate question as to how much a game's strategies and depth should be "transparent" after one or two plays. It probably depends on the game somewhat; a 15 minute game can probably get away with a bit more opacity than a 3 hour game, but then again, people probably expect more "hidden depth" in the longer game than the shorter, so they might be willing to invest more effort to attempt to discover it.

Quote:

As to why I publish my games, there are a few reasons but they all basically come down to fun. I want to publish innovative games that people enjoy playing and say, "Wow, that was really cool." I want to be able to make a living out of my passion. I don't know if the latter will be possible, but I'm certainly going to try.

I think this is a great goal and I hope your company experiences great success! For myself, I don't know if I'd be able to "take the plunge" with self publishing, because even setting the money thing aside, it would amount to being able to do two very difficult things: (1) consistently design world-class games and (2) have the discipline to not push too hard on a game that wasn't world-class.

(1) is hard enough, but to me, the advantage of going through a publisher would be an added "filter" to help ensure criterion (2). The reason, of course, is that in my mind, all of my games are world class (in the sense that every designer thinks that about his own games). But obviously this may not be the actual state of affairs. Certainly, a sensible self-publisher will blind-test his games and find out how they're being received, but after investing a lot of time, energy, and money into a project, is one really going to have the stomach to truly listen objectively to the testers and jettison a project that isn't well received? I'm not sure I could really do it; I think that designing a game is too personal a venture. Having to have the game accepted by a publisher is something I think I would need to ground me in objective reality. This is not meant in any way to denigrate the efforts of small and self-publishers; just my way of looking at things.

Quote:

One thing I find is that constraints are actually a fun part of the creative process. Just like it's more satisfying to win a game against a strong opponent, it's more fun to design a game within practical limits.

I think this is true in some cases but not in others. To say "what kind of game could I design with only a deck of cards" is a fun challenge. But I think it can hamper your creativity as well if one starts saying "ah, I can't add this set of tokens since it would up the production costs too much, even though having them would open up a whole new strategic route to the game". I think I tend to design more with an eye towards player comprehensibility than production costs -- ie, a game shouldn't have 800 tokens, not because it would be too expensive to publish, but just because it would be unfeasible and unfun to play such a game. I can definitely understand how designing for self publication has to incorporate such considerations. I guess my point is just that, for me, I feel like each design should be given the freedom to go where it needs to go to make the best game possible. To diminish the game on the basis of componentry is to be avoided if at all possible. But of course, preserving the game but developing interesting solutions that let you do without some of the componentry can be the best of both worlds, and that seems to be the point you're making.

-Jeff

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

{Note: there are a lot of good threads that I missed over the past couple months ... now that my schedule has returned somewhat to normal, I hope to get caught up with my reading (and replying, in some cases) in the next few days.}

When I have a new game design idea, I usually put it into 1 of 4 categories: mental excercise (used to solve or prove something, but not end up as a playable game), table top game, computer game, or 2-medium game (meaning both table top and computer versions).

Currently, I'm not considering anything other than self-publishing. Interestingly, it seems that I am at the opposite side of the philosophy spectrum from Jeff. I don't think the games that I'm coming up with are anything overly special. I think I would have to put a lot more "stuff" into one of my designs to make it something that a games publisher/company would consider taking a risk on ... the "stuff" would make it more meaty, interesting, and/or marketable depending on the project. So, I'm left with something of a self-publishing hobbyist approach ... throwing the "spaghetti" against the wall, where "the wall" are gamers who might find a game of mine interesting and/or fun to play.

This is similar to the approach I've taken in the past with other creative items -- such as writing music or fiction -- which I've shared with my family and friends. Only I think I've been able to elevate my game designs a little bit ... taken it to a level where I feel like sharing them with total strangers.

As for how a design ends up in one of my buckets ... these days I almost always start with seeing if it would fit in the "table top" bucket first ... if so, then I see if it might also make an interesting PC game -- if so, then I figure out if there are extra things I could/should add to the PC version. If it won't exactly work as a tabletop game (due to fiddly math or too many components or complex accounting, etc.), then I see if I could make it work just as a computer game.

-Bryk

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Brykovian wrote:

Currently, I'm not considering anything other than self-publishing. Interestingly, it seems that I am at the opposite side of the philosophy spectrum from Jeff. I don't think the games that I'm coming up with are anything overly special.

Just to clarify my remarks just a bit: I didn't mean to come off sounding like I think I'm the world's greatest designer or that my games are priceless gems waiting to be discovered (and I know you weren't saying that I said that either) My point was more to say that I think at some level, we all think our games are great, certainly as great as the other games coming out. If that wasn't the case -- if we thought our designs were mediocre -- why would we be talking about publishing or self-publishing in the first place? Have we so little self-respect that we'd try to foist an inferior product on the ignorant, unsuspecting masses? The point is that in my mind, I've probably overestimated the quality of my games, and because of that, I don't think I'd have the objectivity to make wise business decisions. I believe that Anye Sellers said basically the same thing -- that she quickly stopped publishing her own designs for this very reason.

I think that your publishing model is probably also a bit different than what I had in mind; I wasn't speaking as much to the "spagetti--wall" model as the "print 3000 of game 1, then 3000 of game 2, etc" model. The games of a company with the latter model have to be world-class, or else the company won't survive; wheras in the "spagetti" model, you can sell games, or not, and it's ok -- although you'd obviously prefer to sell some. I think your model would be a fun one to adopt, but sadly, probably difficult for me to adopt based on the kinds of games I'm designing.

Hey, I think your model is perfectly great, and so is, for that matter, the model of doing runs of 3000 games at a time (or whatever size the print run is). Just saying why I probably wouldn't be able to do it, financial issues notwithstanding...

-Jeff

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Jeff ... I think we're agreeing that there are different approaches. There's no way I'd pre-order 3,000 copies of any of my designs ... so a JIT build-to-order model works better.

However ...

jwarrend wrote:
My point was more to say that I think at some level, we all think our games are great, certainly as great as the other games coming out. If that wasn't the case -- if we thought our designs were mediocre -- why would we be talking about publishing or self-publishing in the first place? Have we so little self-respect that we'd try to foist an inferior product on the ignorant, unsuspecting masses?

The point I'd like to be clear on is that I don't believe any game is simply "good" or "not good" ... I think each game will have players who "get it" and players who don't. Each game will have a different number of players in each camp. I think each design will hook *someone* who thinks it's interesting ... some games will hook more people than others.

All you have to do to see that is to see the range in scores for most games on the Geek. Most games will have some 9s & 10s and at the same time have scores below 5.

-Bryk

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Brykovian wrote:

The point I'd like to be clear on is that I don't believe any game is simply "good" or "not good" ... I think each game will have players who "get it" and players who don't. Each game will have a different number of players in each camp. I think each design will hook *someone* who thinks it's interesting ... some games will hook more people than others.

I agree with you that it’s not as simple as saying “this game is good, that game is bad”; I fully acknowledge the inherently subjective nature of that enterprise. But, I also don’t think you can reduce it to those who like the game being the ones who “get it”, and those who don’t like the game being those who simply “don’t get it”. I think it’s entirely possible to understand a game perfectly well, to understand the kind of experience it’s trying to provide, and still not like it, and this even goes beyond the kind of blanket distastes like “I don’t like bidding games” or whatever. For one thing, there are games that have objective problems, and we’ve discussed some of those -- kingmaker, hit the leader, etc. But more importantly, I think it’s shaky ground to say that if someone doesn’t like a game, they just “didn’t get it”. I think that doing so is an extension of the very mindset I’m arguing against, in which we’re all prone to overestimate our own performance. I think it feeds this to hand-wave away detractors of our games by saying “they must not have gotten it” rather than listening to their actual criticisms.

While I’ve granted the subjective nature of formulating likes and dislikes, I do think that almost everyone at least tries to ground their preferences on something concrete -- even if it’s after they’ve already formed an opinion. And I think it’s these concrete reasons that make it possible to say that there are qualitative differences between a “great” game like Puerto Rico and a “mediocre” game like the much-maligned Monopoly. There’s of course the caveat that every game has its own target audience, and it’s hard to compare different styles of games, etc, etc. I think the difference between Puerto Rico and a lower-ranked game isn’t passive -- i.e, that the higher rankings of PR are simply a statement that more people liked it than some other game. Rather, I’d say that the differences between PR and a lower-ranked game are causative of those differences in ranking -- that because PR is a “better” game, it enjoys higher rankings overall.

The bottom line is, if one is trying to sell games, I don’t think one can just hope that enough people “get it” for the game to do well -- I think you have to do your absolute best to ensure that the game is as good as it can be. “Goodness” in games is one of those things that’s hard to define but easy to recognize. The important point is that the “some people will get it, some people won’t” mindset could be a hindrance to actually pushing your game to be the best it can be, and could rationalize tuning out negative opinions. And I think that since we’re already prone to do that with our own games anyway, it’s a mindset that is unhelpful to adopt.

Quote:

All you have to do to see that is to see the range in scores for most games on the Geek. Most games will have some 9s & 10s and at the same time have scores below 5.

I think that how you interpret this phenomen depends on how uniform the ratings criteria are on BGG. As I've granted, tastes differ. But for myself, and I think for a lot of people, I can recognize a game's quality without personally liking it. A good example of this is Euphrat & Tigris or El Grande; I don't really care for the games very much, but I recognize that they are "good" games. So it's a question as to whether people post ratings based on their preferences or on their evaluations of the games. I know that BGG has a criteria for ratings, but it's not clear how you'd know whether everyone was following it or not.

-Jeff

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Good conversation, Jeff -- you've got my brain a-workin' and that's never a bad thing.

I think that one area in which we separate is how to evaluate one's own design. You feel that a designer will be blinded by the "beauty of his child" (much in the same way that I *know* that I have 2 of the most beautiful, smart, talented children in the world -- both of them will need G&T classes and will start on all of the sports teams ... not to mention get the lead roles in the plays ... once they hit school!! ;) ). You then follow this up with saying that an outside, objective viewpoint is needed to determine whether the game is actually "good" or not.

I'd have to say that I approach my games a bit differently, and I think it's just a follow-on to how I've always approached any creative work. Once a "thing" was first created, I usually consider it separated from myself ... having it's own life and value. So, I'm able to look at it as its own thing with good points and flaws instead of as still being a measure of me. (I'm not so good about doing that with my actual children, though.)

When I share a work with others, I will respect their feedback, and use it to shape the thing, if I feel it applies. However, if someone says the very thing I'm trying to accomplish with the piece doesn't appeal to them, I might simply nod, thank them, and continue on with what I was doing.

For example, whenever I wrote a story or a song (and it's been a *long* time since I've done either of those), I started by assuming the thing had some interesting elements to it, but that it would need some work. Even after a number of critical passes through the material with re-writes ... even when it was at a point where I felt it was good enough to share with others, I figured there was something else that could still be improved. Usually, I used the feedback from those other folks to tweak the thing a bit more. At some point, however, I would consider it "good enough for what it is". And I wouldn't think that my 7-page short story about a recent college graduate who returns home and finds that his childhood toys start talking to him would be an enjoyable read for everyone ... but it was good enough for what it was -- a bizarre short story about leaving things behind as a person moves through life's stages.

Now, this is also how I approach my game projects as well. I have an idea or two and form a game concept from it. I put something together and beat it up myself for a while until its into a form that I can share it with others. Then I share it -- playtesting -- and adjust it accordingly. At some point, I have to say it's good enough for what it is. Sometimes, I have problems finding that "good enough" point ... but if something happens that makes me want to improve it a step further, I think I should. I wouldn't expect that a lightly themed abstract game (a "short story", if you will) will appeal to people wanting novels. I wouldn't expect that a heavily themed 3-hour slogfest is going to appeal to people are looking for something light and quick.

I'm a strong believer in "perfect" being the enemy of "good enough". And also in "a place for everything and everything in its place". (Not exactly sure how those two phrases mix, but somehow it works in my head.) Maybe I'm too easily contented? ;)

-Matt

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

jwarrend wrote:
I think that how you interpret this phenomen depends on how uniform the ratings criteria are on BGG. As I've granted, tastes differ. But for myself, and I think for a lot of people, I can recognize a game's quality without personally liking it. A good example of this is Euphrat & Tigris or El Grande; I don't really care for the games very much, but I recognize that they are "good" games.

I find this to be much more apparent for me with television and film: I can see that shows like "er" and "Six Feet Under" are well-written, acted and shot but I just don't like them. (As opposed to the reverse syndrome: shows that are badly-written, acted and shot but I love them :-)

With board games it is slightly tougher to discern whether the reason I don't like the game is because I don't like it, or because it is objectively bad. I am no longer unsure about El Grande - I don't like it, but it clearly isn't objectively bad. I am not at all sure about something more recent like Fifth Avenue because the "laboratory results" aren't really in yet. (There's a thread on the 'geek about not rating games until you've played them three times which has some bearing on this discussions too.)

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Quote:
You feel that a designer will be blinded by the "beauty of his child".

Yes, there’s absolutely no question that this happens -- how many times have we had posts to the forums saying something like “I’ve just invented a game, now I need to know how to sell it”? How many of us ourselves were once in that position? I know I was once.

Let me put it this way: it is human nature to overestimate the quality of one’s individual performance, and that’s true for any endeavor.

Quote:

You then follow this up with saying that an outside, objective viewpoint is needed to determine whether the game is actually "good" or not.

This is sort of accurate. I’m saying that when making a big decision like “should I try to sell this game or not?”, I personally wouldn’t have the objectivity to make a wise decision, because I’m too close to my designs. I think a publisher's acceptance or rejection of an idea is a great, if not a necessary, filter that will ground this kind of decision in something objective.

I do think a designer who’s played a lot of games can tell when he’s designed a good game, and I think he can also tell when he’s designed a bad game. But it’s sometimes a subtle line that separates a good game from a great game, and I think it would just be too difficult to consistently design games that are on the “great” side of the line AND to be able to know the games that fall short.

Quote:

When I share a work with others, I will respect their feedback, and use it to shape the thing, if I feel it applies. However, if someone says the very thing I'm trying to accomplish with the piece doesn't appeal to them, I might simply nod, thank them, and continue on with what I was doing.

Yes, this is a very important point, that one must know what it is he’s trying to create. Too often we start a game project by saying “I want to make a game about pirates”, or whatever. But the most important project-shaping decision is, what kind of player experience are we trying to create? Starting with a theme is perfectly fine, but an early step has to be definition of the project goal, and once you have that, you have a schemata for interpreting feedback.

Quote:

Now, this is also how I approach my game projects as well. I have an idea or two and form a game concept from it. I put something together and beat it up myself for a while until its into a form that I can share it with others. Then I share it -- playtesting -- and adjust it accordingly. At some point, I have to say it's good enough for what it is.

I think this is the point at which I’m starting: I’m assuming we can recognize when our games are broken and need further testing and improvement. But when the game “works”, when it’s ostensibly “done” -- is it “good enough” to invest a lot of money into it? And more importantly, can we ourselves answer that question objectively? Those are the questions I'm trying to consider here.

Quote:

I'm a strong believer in "perfect" being the enemy of "good enough". And also in "a place for everything and everything in its place". (Not exactly sure how those two phrases mix, but somehow it works in my head.) Maybe I'm too easily contented? ;)

I look at it like this: once a game, or a song, or a book, or whatever, comes out in publication form, it basically becomes immutable. (Sure, there can be revised rules or 2nd editions or whatever, but it would be sloppy practice to count on that when designing). So, if you’re going to publish a game, you really have one shot to get it right. For a very popular game or very well-known designer, perhaps there’s the chance that you could release “different but similar” games (e.g., the Carcassonne or Settlers series) to improve the original idea. But I don’t expect to have that chance. So, setting aside the issue of the game needing to be perfect to sell well, to me, it needs to be perfect simply because you’re not going to have another chance to fix it up. So, I think it’s better to wait and make the game perfect as opposed to publishing a “good enough” game. I know many of us would be happy just to get a game published. But I think that satisfaction would quickly fade if the overwhelming consensus of feedback about the game was "what a wretched piece of design this is!"; it would probably fade even if the feedback was "it's a good idea for a game, but it's flawed".

Having said that, there are levels of perfection, and I basically agree that if one is talking about spending 30 years to perfectly balance the costs and VP payouts and everything when, 9 times out of 10 the balance one has already achieved works fine, that may not be time well spent. I guess I’m simply saying that, to me, it’s always very surprising when any published game is revealed to have some sort of flaw, because to me, it’s a given that you’re going to work on the thing until you’re absolutely sure it’s as close to flawless as it can get.

-Jeff

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

Brykovian wrote:

jwarrend wrote:
My point was more to say that I think at some level, we all think our games are great, certainly as great as the other games coming out. If that wasn't the case -- if we thought our designs were mediocre -- why would we be talking about publishing or self-publishing in the first place? Have we so little self-respect that we'd try to foist an inferior product on the ignorant, unsuspecting masses?

The point I'd like to be clear on is that I don't believe any game is simply "good" or "not good" ... I think each game will have players who "get it" and players who don't. Each game will have a different number of players in each camp. I think each design will hook *someone* who thinks it's interesting ... some games will hook more people than others.

Suppose you define "good" as "hooks more people." So the more people a game hooks, the "more good" it is. There, now we have a frame of reference and we're all talking about the same thing :)

Well, if I'm posting in the thread, I might as well say something interesting- or at the very least, relevant. I for one never did the "I have a great game, now how do I sell it!" thing. I've actually never really been interested in selling a game until recently, when Scurra and I have started to think about submitting All For One. Even that is only brief mentioning, and not really the focus of any discussion at this time.

Rather I've always been interested in making a good game, where "good" here refers to the above definition. I would like to make games that people like. In American History class in high school we learned that Thomas somebody went on the theory that people would agree with him. Not everybody, but a large number of people would see things his way. I take this approach in designing games- If I like a partiular thing about a game, there's a good chance a thousand other people (especially people like me) will feel the same way. Maybe a couple thousand. Maybe a million... the exact number isn't important.

However... I tend to adhere to certain guidelines when undertaking a creative process such as game design. Jeff asked why people design with publication restrictions in mind... I'm going to answer with an analogy to Magic: the Gathering. Until recently I played a lot of Magic. I loved to build decks, and I loved to play competetively in tournaments. When building a deck I would adhere to the tournament deck construction rules. I would do so, of course, when I intended to play the deck in a tournament, but also when I just wanted to play for fun. Why would I adhere to tournament rules when building a deck just for fun? Well, several reasons...

Opponents. In Magic, much like any game, you need at least 1 opponent. Many people carried tournament legal decks, and playing a deck made with tournament restrictions against a deck that is 'illegal' can be absolutely no fun whatsoever. Unless both decks were made with the same restrictions in mind, they will not be evenly matched. This is not always the case, but the extreme would be a very powerful deck which outclasses it's opponent simply because it uses better cards the opponent doesn't have access to. In game design this relates to players wanting to play your game. If there isn't a check on complexity and componentry then fewer people will want to learn and play your game. This is not to say that you can't make a gae that a select 4 people in the world will like and that's it... I'm just saying when I design, I'm looking to make a game lots of people will like. The closer a game resembles a professional product, the more likely it will be liked/accepted by people. Or that's my perception anyway.

Fun. This may tie in to the previous reason, but where's the fun in just putting together whatever cards you want? The fun comes from the restrictions, and tournament restrictions were a convenient way to let everyone know what the restrictions are. Similarly, if you design a game with a million components and rules, then even if it's fun to play... where's the fun in that?

Looking ahead. Once I made a deck "just for fun" and played it a few times. It was beating my friends' tournament decks, so I played it in a tournament or two (something that couldn't be done if I hadn't followed the tournament rules), made a very few adjustments, and got second place at a Pro Tour qualifying tournament (in fact should have been first place, won $250, and qualified for the pro tour, but that's along story). This is analogous to desining a game within pubication guidelines... If it's good, it might get published.

That's how I see it, and that's why I keep publication restrictions in the back of my mind. I don't always follow them, but I try to at least acknowledge them.

- Seth

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
[TiGD] Determining project goals

sedjtroll wrote:
Suppose you define "good" as "hooks more people." So the more people a game hooks, the "more good" it is. There, now we have a frame of reference and we're all talking about the same thing :)

I think I'm simply going to have to be content with the idea that I look at this differently than most of the rest of you do. :-D

Pretty sure I'm in the (vast?) minority with my approach and project goals. So, I'll quit beating the horse-with-no-legs that I dragged in here in the first place.

;-)

-Bryk

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut