Skip to Content

New Designer Requesting Rules Sanity Check

3 replies [Last post]
racingspider's picture
Joined: 04/07/2016

HI all! I've been a hobbyist of game designing for a long time, and I'm finally getting to the point where I'm making the right 'size' game (i.e. cutting features like crazy and boiling a game down to something attainable).

I've entered a contest and would like some help with my rules - I'd like to make sure they make sense. Without the actual game in hand, I'm afraid it might be difficult to understand.

Anyway, I've posted them here and I'm looking for some feedback.


polyobsessive's picture
Joined: 12/11/2015
A few quick notes

Hi RacingSpider! Congratulations on getting your game this far.

I've only had a chance to take a very quick scan through the rules, so can't give you detailed or properly thought through feedback yet, but here are a few first impressions...

The rules feel long, but this is largely because you have gone to the trouble of providing illustrations and descriptions of the components, which is a Good Thing.

I'll stress how good it is that you are making extensive use of illustrations. A picture really is worth 1000 words, and if the text is unclear, the pictures can sometimes help resolve confusion.

In the upper deck description, you mix "card back" with "card background", which confuses things.

Setup 1... Should the differently backed cards be in different piles? Otherwise, how does the drawing different cards work?

During your turn... Can you do all of the first four actions? Once each?

You usually refer to the resource cubes as colours. This makes it easier to know what is going on from a mechanical point of view (you don't have to remember that 'lore' means blue, for instance), but thematically it strengthens the disconnect with what these cubes actually represent. There is no right way to handle this, but you might want to think about this.

Overall I think that, given the components, I could probably play the game based on reading these rules, so you are well on the way.

Sorry I have only provided a small amount of feedback. I *may* get a chance to look deeper later on, but right now I need to go. Good luck with the game.


racingspider's picture
Joined: 04/07/2016
Thanks for the quick look.

Thanks for the quick look. You bring up some good points, especially concerning the "resource cubes". I'll reword that to be "lore cube", etc.

I'll clean up the actions text and try to make it more clear exactly what actions can be done multiple times and which ones are once.

As far as the differently backed cards go, there are only a total of twelve - so, each 'pile' would be two cards to pick from. I plan on there being more as the game goes forward, in an expansion set, so I figured that mixing them all together and drawing one of each type would make sense. Perhaps it just needs different wording.

Thanks again for the feedback! Much appreciated.

Corsaire's picture
Joined: 06/27/2013
Hi, I have a few thing to

Hi, I have a few thing to add:
I didn't spot anything grammatical or spelling.

The rules are clear enough to play.

I don't see the dice in the components. Also, in components it's common to summarize the total of a type and then break it down. It's nice for players and helpful for a publisher pitch to estimate cost to produce.

There are a few instances where a rule is mentioned out of place. Like cleanup in component description instead of at end of round.

It would be helpful to clearly indicate end of round and associated activities, as the transition almost seems like each player advances the season.

I missed how 3 or 4 years is determined.

I found the Upper and Lower distinction more confusing than helpful as well as the icon associated with those. You have types of cards and places for them, that would be sufficient and easier to learn.

The deck reshuffling seems to be written too many times, and is a bit overwritten.

The text says a 3 x 2 grid, the picture shows a 2x3 grid.

If you could intorduce another layer of headings and maybe bullet points in places, the overall structure would feel more approachable.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut