Skip to Content
 

Considerations when making a board/card game

I'm a big fan of starting completely from scratch and this has been most apparent when I finally started making a game that is now going to be released.

I know most of us here understand what "scratch" means...but do you?

Usually when making a game, it's either "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" or some inspiration brought on by a cool mechanic you've seen displayed in another game. Most will just run with that, but to me, starting from scratch means I gotta so a little planning.

Here are some considerations when making a board game:

Number of players: It's important that you solidify the number of players. The more rigid the number, the easier it is to build around it. The wider the number, the more you have to account for and the more varied the results, which ultimately you need to be able to control with your game design. While solidifying a number may seem restrictive, it can save you a lot of hassle, especially in terms of testing time. You cannot just assume that because it works for 3 players, it will work with 4. The dynamics change, the human element increases the amount of possibilities. Everything has to be tested.

Light or Deep game: There's a huge trend in games with deep gameplay. While it may be tempting to just start with that kind of game in mind, note that a deeper game requires exponentially more development. Many just don't know how much it really takes to make a game like Arkham Horror. The deeper the game the more you have to map out every possibility to make sure your game works. Again, you can't assume that just because it worked a few times doesn't mean it's going to work that way every time. Creating a more lighter game not only challenges your sense of space, it also is easier and faster to test and the more you test, the more polished a game gets.

Time it takes to play: If your game takes 3-4 hours, it's most likely a deep game. Either that or your trying to make some Monopoly roll-and-move derivative or some other form of torture. If every game takes 3-4 hours, set your schedule to playtest this game or a long time...at least if you want to explore every possibility and have a good game when it releases. When I made my game, I wanted a very specific target time: 30min-1 hour. When some of my games lasted 3+ hours, changes needed to be made. You should have a target time in which your game can be played. It will help you focus on what extends the game and what shortens the game.

Rules length: If you're going for a light game that takes on a large number of people, be prepared to use very simple rules. It's easy to lose people when you're trying to teach group of 10+ people rules for something like Battlestar Galactica...heck, it's hard enough to reign in 6 new people to play. If your'e making a deep game, be sure that all the rules are clear and concise. Nothing can break the game more easily than misread rules. Communication is super important. Just because you believe the rules work doesn't mean it communicates effectively. Do blind playtests. Watch someone try and figure out your game without you saying a word. You'll learn so much about the way your communicate through your rules. Again, you can't assume that you'll get it right the first time. In fact, you'll most likely need at least 3 revisions of your rules just to communicate to the widest number of people.

Design: So many people overlook this. Simple design. Things like contrast, color, placement, iconography, grammar, spelling, and font play a vital role in your game. I always see things like fancy fonts that are hard to read, font colors on similar color backgrounds (green text on green background, or some variance), important numbers that are just too hard to read because the designer has so much information they need to put on the card, art that doesn't reflect the ability of the card or board, misspelled or bad grammar, etc. Sometimes...scratch that, MANY times we have to forego fancy for just simple readability. Just because you can read it and see it, doesn't mean another person won't mistake it for a flying penis (no joke). Seriously, ask others to look at it. The more people look at it, and they see what you see, the more other people will see the same thing.

Remember, if the player doesn't get your design, it's YOUR fault for not communicating it effectively. This is not fine art, you WANT people to see your vision, so you have to be sure you communicate that effectively.

The bottom line is that the more you solidify what you're looking for in a game, the easier it is to plan how you're going to make your game successful and the easier it is to find bugs and fix them. Note that the more you want to put in your game, the more it will take to "cook" Don't assume. I repeat: DON'T ASSUME. Don't underestimate the human factor. Test with as many people as possible.

Go and make games.

Comments

Some contrary thoughts...

I'm not sure I agree with all of these. First, the places our design philosophies overlap:

- design should be clear. Absolutely.
- rules should be clear. Absolutely -- though 'concise' often can be bewildering to new players. Sometimes using a bit more space to explain something is very helpful -- check out GALAXY TRUCKER's rulebook, for instance.

As for the others -- number of players, game play time, even depth, I prefer to let these emerge as part of the process. Yes, you need to define these elements fairly early, and it's helpful to have a sense of what you're aiming for, but I don't like to stop a game's organic development because suddenly it would work better with four players, and I was designing for three.

Just some extra spice to add into the mix.

wombat929 wrote:I'm not sure

wombat929 wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with all of these. First, the places our design philosophies overlap:

- design should be clear. Absolutely.
- rules should be clear. Absolutely -- though 'concise' often can be bewildering to new players. Sometimes using a bit more space to explain something is very helpful -- check out GALAXY TRUCKER's rulebook, for instance.

As for the others -- number of players, game play time, even depth, I prefer to let these emerge as part of the process. Yes, you need to define these elements fairly early, and it's helpful to have a sense of what you're aiming for, but I don't like to stop a game's organic development because suddenly it would work better with four players, and I was designing for three.

Just some extra spice to add into the mix.

As far as games being organic, I can agree to a point. But when you start changing the basic elements of the game during production, you're committing to extending your development time. You may be ok with that, but I believe you'll be working backwards. Now if it's a difference between 11 and 12 players, the difference may not be that great, but the difference between a 3 and a 4 player may be drastic.

The reason I say what I did is that I see it happen in front of me. Every quarter I teach a Game Design and Gameplay class where college students learn theory and create their own game by the end of class. Every time a group decides to change the basic elements of the game they've planned, they take longer to develop. Every time.

I think our philosophies differ in commercial vs. hobby. I'm looking at this as commercial art; elements need to be defined so development is as streamlined as possible. You're looking at this as a hobby; kind of a fine art where the art guides the designer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with either. But you did bring up some great points.

Different path

I think most of MY designs span from me having an IDEA about a GAME "X" and how it should be played... That kind of inspiration then get's translated into mechanics in some instances based on other games.

I'm not saying borrow mechanics from other game - but they again, "Why not?"

Then it goes from a "vague idea/concept" in-my-mind and gets transformed into something that is "real/tangible" in terms of a design. How the transformation occurs is not really *special*, I just think up about what mechanics I want to use in the game and then try them out to see how they work together.

As an aside, I have seen MANY good ideas on BGDF - but when examining them in further detail, the ideas fail to deliver in terms of something which can stand on it's own. So I guess what I am saying is "DON'T be AFRAID to post up ideas"... A good design is FAR AWAY from an idea.

That's my 2 cents...

Example: Here is a GOOD idea which really doesn't fly.

Around each card (N/W/S/E) there are 4 different attributes/stats. Players use four (4) cards and rotate them to combine into a unique representation of the cards.

The mechanic sounded NEW and EXCITING... So I wanted to give it a test.

Turns out it's not so good because you need to rotate two (2) cards at a time and if you only have four (4) cards, well you are rotating 50% of your cards...

Not a good interactive mechanic - but it SOUNDED real COOL...!

questccg wrote:I think most

questccg wrote:
I think most of MY designs span from me having an IDEA about a GAME "X" and how it should be played... That kind of inspiration then get's translated into mechanics in some instances based on other games.

I'm not saying borrow mechanics from other game - but they again, "Why not?"

Then it goes from a "vague idea/concept" in-my-mind and gets transformed into something that is "real/tangible" in terms of a design. How the transformation occurs is not really *special*, I just think up about what mechanics I want to use in the game and then try them out to see how they work together.

As an aside, I have seen MANY good ideas on BGDF - but when examining them in further detail, the ideas fail to deliver in terms of something which can stand on it's own. So I guess what I am saying is "DON'T be AFRAID to post up ideas"... A good design is FAR AWAY from an idea.

That's my 2 cents...

Example: Here is a GOOD idea which really doesn't fly.

Around each card (N/W/S/E) there are 4 different attributes/stats. Players use four (4) cards and rotate them to combine into a unique representation of the cards.

The mechanic sounded NEW and EXCITING... So I wanted to give it a test.

Turns out it's not so good because you need to rotate two (2) cards at a time and if you only have four (4) cards, well you are rotating 50% of your cards...

Not a good interactive mechanic - but it SOUNDED real COOL...!

The only thing I'm saying in my blog is that having a plan will help in the development of your game. Everything you said still occurs: Having an idea of how you want the game to be played, borrowing mechanics, asking advice...all of these are the basis on which "planning" helps cement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut