Skip to Content
 

A Warning To All Board Game Designers!

7 replies [Last post]
Archimedes42
Archimedes42's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/15/2014

Hey everyone. In one of my earlier posts (in the 'Welcome To BGDF' forum topic) I mentioned that I might talk about the game that I just gave up on - the one that crashed and burned.

Well, this is it:

This certain game I had been cultivating the idea for, for about two years, and I had actually been working on it for about one year. (The board game was called 'Winds Of Fate', and was an attempted Ameratrash-Euro hybrid.) I'll try to briefly explain the basic premise:

Theme:

In a nutshell, the theme of the game was of nautical adventure in the golden age of piracy. Although many concepts were taken from historical evidence, many were also of my own invention, and by no means historically accurate. For example, the actual location of the game was not specified, although it was implied that it was a warm Carribbean-like environment that was (prior to the game) unexplored. Basically, players were captains of ships (you could control more than one captain, and more than one ship), and could either be pirates, explorers, merchants, or even politicians. The game was geared towards adventure, although it also had quite a lot of strategy. I took my inspiration for this game mostly from Assassins Creed Black Flag (video game), Merchants And Marauders (board game), and Sails Of Glory (miniatures/card game.)

Mechanics:

The mechanics that were included in this game can basically be divided up into two parts: The Ameratrash mechanics, and the Euro mechanics. The main Euro mechanic was essentially the heart, or the backbone, of the game: Each player controlled at least one ship, which was represented by a player board with an illustration of the ship on it, and many different action spots situated all over it. Players assigned their crew (workers) to different action spots on their ship, which would allow them to do different things on the main board. Some of these action spots could become damaged, and different kinds of ships had different action spots. Also, when a player was in a port, they could assign their crew to the different port actions to buy goods, repair cargo, et... Now for the Ameratrash mechanics: There were many of these, although the most notable ones were the explorable map (main board), the insight cards, and sea and land movement. The main board/map was made up of a series of large tiles, consisting of points of interest, islands, ports, storms, fog, and mostly water. As the game went on, players could explore new tiles, and expand the horizons of the new world. The insight cards were my favourite part of the game (and still are.) They were cards that players could gain, that would give them certain information - these could be quests and adventures to go on, or secret pirate meetings that were being held, or villages in danger, or treasure maps, or submarine technology, or even books of mystical spells. Players could exchange this information, or sell it, or even torture it out of each other. Players could move and combat their ship(s) along the water, and they could also move and combat their crew along the land. This game had a lot of customization: Players could customize game length, game difficulty, and even the different types of insight cards that players could include in their game.

So what was the problem?

Now we get to the point. (Finally.) After the first play test of 'Winds Of Fate' I realized that the game had one over-arcing flaw that was virtually impossible to fix: The Ameratrash mechanics and the Euro mechanics clashed, and so did every other mechanic. They just couldn't fit together. Why was this? Because, when I was first working on the concept of this game, I came up with a bunch of mechanics that I thought would be cool, and then I worked on them individually, refining each one until it was perfect. The problem was, when I tried to put the mechanics together, they just didn't fit: The game didn't feel smooth; it felt like a bunch of individual mechanics held together by a weak glue that might just let it all fall apart. Furthermore, I should have play tested this game sooner, so that I would realize this serious problem, before I had put years of effort into the game. Since the only way of fixing this would be to restart, I trashed the game, and now I simply think of it as an extremely valuable learning experience.

Morals of the story:

1. Get your game on the table as soon as possible.
2. Think twice before designing a Euro-Ameratrash hybrid. It is very difficult to do right.
3. Don't design a bunch of mechanics and try to fit them together afterwards: Instead, create one or two central mechanics, and branch off of them. (I find that creating a web/mindmap helps with this.)
4. Don't be afraid to just let a game go, and use it as a tool for further learning, to make better games in the future.

Anyone else have any sad stories to share? :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not a warning to all.

Not a warning to all. Just the new.

This is my sad story:
1 check.
2 wut?
3 check.
4 rather the new mechanics that branch off the primair mechanic.
5 with enough branches, your game might get too complex. Have no fear; if you can manage to create a learning curve, you do just that.

Beggarking
Beggarking's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2014
I'd agree - playtest early

I'd agree - playtest early and often, and don't be afraid to throw away something that doesn't work. The good news is, all of those refined mechanics will likely pop up in other designs.

MarkD1733
MarkD1733's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/05/2014
don't throw it all away though

It is important to simplify your game. Maybe you have simply put too much together all at once. Are all the mechanics necessary? Prioritize. Which are most important? Why? If you adjust the theme, does anything change.

While throwing the game aside for now might be the right choice, don't assume its dead and gone. It might need some "settling time" for you to find whatfits best.

Archimedes42
Archimedes42's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/15/2014
Resurrection Opportunity

I totally agree that a lot of mechanics are brilliant, and would work very well in a game, however, I simply don't think that these mechanics work well together. (Maybe some, but not enough to design a game with.) Here's a list of some mechanics that I think would work well in other games. Do you agree?

1. Insight Cards*
2. Worker/Crew Placement On A Ship/Vehicle
3. Explorable Map
4. Game Length Customization
5. Game Difficulty Customization
6. Customization Of Different Types Of Insight Cards
7. Movement On Land, And On Sea
8. Worker/Crew Placement On A Port

*This especially!

Maybe I'll even redesign this game one day, you never know!

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Make a model, not a bunch of mechanics

When you start with a bunch of mechanics, you can get this ill fit.

If you start off trying to model something, you can get the mechanics to fit, because the mechanics grow out of the game.

In particular, "Ameritrash" games are usually models of some reality (though often quite poor models, as in Risk).

So when trying to design hybrids, start with a model, not with a bunch of mechanics. (Example my Sea Kings (on Kickstarter until 1 Nov).) You won't get a hybrid out of a bunch-of-mechanics mental-gymnastics kind of game.

And yes, playtest as early as possible.

mistre
mistre's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Keep it Simple

It seems like you were just trying to do too much within the realm of one design. Board games can not be complete simulations (unless you want a game that takes all day to play). You have to decide where you are going to abstract out some of the mechanics. And the only way to figure this out is to playtest. So, unfortunate that you waiting so long to actually try it all out.

I wouldn't necessarily give up on a Euro-Ameritrash hybrid though. Of course, I wouldn't even think about categories when designing. Just design the game you want to make and worry about other people categorizing it later.

mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
A lot of agree here :D

When designing my first game I was over designing and not testing enough. That is not my tragedy. Mine is that during a move all 100+ pages of rules and notes just vanished.

On my new one though I learned a lot and built a simple core game and tested from the very beginning. I have varied my test group to different types of gamers and gathered all the feedback. The game has now expanded and changed quite a few times. I find it to be much better than when I started.

So:
1: Agreed
2: Meh, it can be done. Just takes a different route
3: Very agreed
4: More agreed. I have seen someone try and save a game and just refuse to let it go. It very rarely has the ability to get fixed because the are to invested in the rules they have put so much time in and can't step back and see they just don't work.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut