How much must the designer get done himself?

I think that the ultimate rule of thumb is that the prototype should be playable.

That means that the board, peices, cards and instructions should work well. In terms of form over function they should be effortless in terms of reading text, recognizing one peice from another and differentiating one part or card from another.

Esthetics are entirely up to you and fall into the catagory of showmanship and labor of love.

I made my prototype as close to a finished product as possible more for myself than the potential publisher. It also helps to get playtesting done if the protoype is very attractive.

In terms of publishing, it's all about utility. Will the publisher keep mistaking your "blonks" for "blinks?" Are the suits on your cards too similar to one another? Are the spaces on your board easy to see and distinct?

That's really all that matters.

In terms of packaging, I wouldn't worry about box art at all. I personally use any box that fits well.

My last prototype was a perfect fit for an empty pizza box. So, I used a Papa John's 14" pizza box for months. That's the same package that I just shipped my prototype to a potential publisher in.

Most importantly do NOT expect the potential publisher to do any work for you.

It is up to YOU to cut out the cards, punch out the pieces, apply all thesitckers and supply all the dice, cards, pencils, paper, spinners etc. yourself!

Good luck.

Carl

In general, publishers are going to have the artwork and graphics professionally done upon accepting a game for publication. There's nothing wrong with having a game that looks very nice, and in some cases, if the artwork is good enough, the publisher may choose to use that in the design, but I don't think this is likely to be much of a selling point if the game itself is not exceptional. Make the game as good as you can, and make the prototype as functional as possible, but only worry about making it look pretty if you already have those skills or are willing to invest the money.

Agents really only come into play if you're looking to design a mass market game, and the considerations there are probably completely different.

-Jeff

My All For One prototype is in a Picurro's Pizzeria box, and at the KublaCon design contest thing James Earnest joked that the best part was the "Five locations in Tucson" on the side of the box :)

- Seth

Ugh. So we are only supposed to design mechanics so publishers can paste a theme on them? No thanks. To me a good game with be able to integrate the mechanics to the theme for a whole package. If I was designing only mechanics - I probably wouldn't bother with game design.

I think a publisher will recognize if you have done this and will take a game more seriously that already has a theme so they don't have to work to make one up. Maybe I am wrong, but if I were a publisher - I would take a complete game with mechanics/theme over mechanics only any day.

Actually, I think that for the most part, companies like Uberplay and Days of Wonder aren't accepting submissions from anyone, unless your name is already well known. If they're using agents now, that would be a pretty new policy. You may be thinking of Ravensburger, who adopted a policy maybe a year ago (?) that all submissions from unknown designers would have to go through one particular agency, and by the way, you had to pay a pretty exorbitant fee up front, and by the way, that agency would help themselves to 40% of your royalties if your game did get published. It was (if I recall the details correctly) a pretty raw deal, I think the idea being that Ravensburger was getting bombarded with unsolicited submissions and perhaps wanted to stem the tide a bit?

Having attended PowWow last year, I can certainly believe this: one sees some amazing looking prototypes among amateur designers! I think there are good reasons for this. The big names like Moon, Knizia, survive on volume, whereas unpublished designers typically have a couple of projects that they can work on as a labor of love. Additionally, it's trivial for a Moon or Knizia to snap their fingers and get an army of playtesters for any game, even if it's made on Kleenex, whereas a rookie sometimes needs to have a more visual element to attract playtesters to want to try the game. Your point is completely accurate, though: don't make the game pretty in the hopes that it will lead to publication, as that may not be the way it will work out.

-Jeff

I don't think there is any harm in making a pretty prototype unless you consider lost time harm.

It is good to know that publishers care more about game play quality than the quality of bits.

From my perspective, as a fledgling at game design, I have spent a lot of time on my crappy little war game. And ultimately I may be the only person who ever plays it. So I want a decent copy. :)

You are confusing "Through the Desert" with "Ra". "Through the Desert" started out as a Rockefeller game, then was turned into the famous camel herding game.

As far as I know "Ra" has always had an Egyptian theme. Originally "Ra" was a much more involved game, and with much longer playing time, but after trying out various incarnation Knizia came to a very stripped down version, containing little more than a cool auction mechanic. But it always kept its Egyptian theme.

Some other Knizia games did change theme, though. "Taj Mahal" was originally staged in early Medieval England. "Palazzo" also had a different theme, which got changed by the publisher. In all these cases it is said that Knizia wasn't too happy about the thematic changes, but obviously he realizes that it's the publisher who has the final say.