basic game or advanced

Hi

Bin there, done that. Know the feeling.

Work suggestion:
- Write a list of everything you want to be included.
- Scale it down to the basic list (things that must be included for the game to be playable).
- Design the basic game but always do the rules so you don’t have to bend the rules to add the advance part (there are a number of games that has done that mistake. Examples are Squad Leader (expansions made the game unplayable), Magic (had to find a way to make old cards obsolete) and WHFB (they had to do a complete remake of the game with new army lists)).
- Test and make the basic game ready.
- Add more advanced components (do this in steps).

The risks you take when you are doing all in once are:
- The game gets to complex.
- If there are errors, it is harder to trace, where and why the errors are.
- It is more difficult to test.
- The game is not build to play as a basic game and that will feel like an emergency solution (and not as an real game).

// Johan

I have lots of great ideas for the facade and ornamentation, and every floor will have interesting rooms in it.

The only problem is that the foundation is not strong enough to support the weight of so many storeys. Without a strong foundation, my magnificent skyscraper might crumble or topple.

Should I build my skyscraper, or strengthen the foundation first?

~Josh

Nice parable.
-Darke

I agree with everyone (?) here: Build the basic game. When that is solid, add in features, either in pieces or as a whole. If the basic game is fun (Note that I said "solid" above.), then you'll probably want to try to market it that way, with an advanced option or expansion. If the basic game is solid (it works) but is not especially fun, then you'll want to incorporate some or all of the advanced rules into the basic and market the game that way.

Steve

In my case I somewhat had the same problem. I had the basics and the additional element. We have made around a dozen of play test game, and I have not introduced yet any additional element, we still find problems with the basics.

If the basics works, then adding stuff is easier. It will also prevent you from moving backward to correct problems. If you advance too fast, you might have to redo some work already made, so will you lose some time.

Well, I'd just like to bring out my much-used "emergent complexity" flag, and wave it around a bit.

Remember that every rule you add interacts with every other, making the game far, far more complex. This makes problems hard to isolate, and your playtesting will never end. It will be a perpetual prototype, and will feel like it.