Skip to Content
 

How do You not overthink a design?

7 replies [Last post]
Fri, 02/11/2022 - 18:31
Drion22
Drion22's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2019

When you are thinking about design or a cool concept just pops into your head, how do you avoid your mind immediately rushing into expansions, breaking concept up into kickstarter goals, which publisher's repertoire will it match and other small things that don't actually matter?

I know it might be an extremely specific problem with the examples I gave, but how do you tackle when your mind gets caught up in the technical and it ties up all the creative joy?

Thank you, and have a lovely day
-Drion

Top
Fri, 02/11/2022 - 19:36
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Make a prototype ASAP

Drion22 wrote:
When you are thinking about design or a cool concept just pops into your head, how do you avoid...

My first advice to you is to STOP... And tell yourself it's only an IDEA. What it merits is to be written down in a notebook for future reviewing. Now know this because it's very IMPORTANT: that IDEA no matter how GREAT you think it is... The only way of CONFIRMING this is by creating a PROTOTYPE. Forget RULES at this point in time... Get the game to YOUR table and play it YOURSELF.

This will determine what the IDEA is WORTH. For example: "Is the game BORING and NOT FUN???" That can offer you two choices: "1. Go back to the design phase and see what it is that makes the game boring. 2. Forget this IDEA and move on to one that IS MORE INTERESTING (Promising, FUN, Stimulating, etc.)"

If you CAN'T MAKE a prototype... That means your IDEA is pure CRAP!

I know because I've had concepts (think IDEAS) that in my mind were so NEAT and then when I created the prototype, I realize the IDEAS just DON'T WORK!

Designing Board Games (TO ME) is an iterative process. It's rare that you get the solution the first attempt. Monster Keep (MK) is on iteration 16... There have been 15 prototypes which all had some kind of failure but also moved the design forwards with NEW ideas that have matured the design in HOW to PLAY the game. But still the design (and Prototype) need more WORK (Thought)!

So in Version 16, I am going to go back to Version 13 and mix-in concepts from Version 15 (the latest prototype that I have). As I PLAYTEST more prototypes, I get a FEEL for what WORKS and what needs fixing. And some earlier concepts may be better for the ultimate design in the end which will be more FUN to play.

Version 16 is still being worked on in its spreadsheet. It needs to blend some of Version 13 concepts because they are better. But at the same time, I realize WHY Version 13 failed and so I know that there a certain aspects that need more ANALYSIS.

To conclude... FOCUS on getting the IDEA to be a PHYSICAL prototype. That is your first step. Your rules, you can write them in a TEXT document and make them very rough... But PLAYING your PROTOTYPE will help you determine the REAL potential in a Design...

Cheers!

Top
Fri, 02/11/2022 - 22:22
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
And just in case you were wondering...?

TradeWorlds had two (2) very distinct PROTOTYPES:

1. Was purely written concept in a notebook. It took the ENTIRE note book like 60+ pages and wrote in it all my thoughts regarding this "IDEA" for a game.

Since these ideas were later reviewed at a later time and found that FUNDAMENTALLY the concept was GOOD... The implementation was PURE CRAP!

2. I had to go back to design a 2nd Prototype and when borrowing the ideas from the first "IDEA NOTEBOOK"... I came up with a SOLID prototype. It wasn't perfect... I mean there were no Missions, Tradeships or Colonies. That stuff was made from ideas for an expansion. There was no Adversity AI (This was designed by Joseph Pilkus III) and no bravado (Premium) Role Cards (another expansion idea)

Oddly enough Prototype #2 did a LOT of the work of FLESHING OUT the game. It made much more sense and the gameplay was intuitive and FUN! The extra expansion ideas that have come over the years are well... extras. The "core" of the game has been playtested hundreds of time by people in person, in cons, during game nights, etc.

So sometimes a design "crystalizes" EARLIER than another...

That's why EVEN if something is "BORING" or "NOT FUN"... Move onto something else... But remember that game and see if NEW ideas come to mind. And sometimes those ideas can CHANGE your mind. Monster Keep (MK) is like that for me. On iteration 16... I want to put back certain ideas but with new RULES that come from Version 15 (latest prototype) but roll-back the entire design to a closer Version 13.

Don't abandon all your designs. Otherwise you'll never make ANYTHING!

But do work on things that seem to be MOVING FORWARDS and advancing your ideas and not sticking idly on an idea for which you have no direction to go in... Trust me... When a design pokes you and says: "Yoohoo ... This would be a way of improving 'Z'..." You'll know when you want to refocus on an earlier design with NEW and FRESH thoughts and ideas.

It may not happen every day. But it will come at some point in time. Sometimes just READING your thoughts gives you NEW DIRECTION to follow. And that can come at anytime you read over your game notes (think raw rules and concepts).

I don't want to discourage you... My aim is to inspire you to MORE CONFIDENCE with your IDEAS. Make them HAPPEN and you'll see some will be GREAT and others need more TLC. Regards.

Top
Fri, 02/11/2022 - 22:49
#3
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
An example of pure CRAP (for those interested)

One IDEA was to have "Square" cards with Stats around them and they would each be for a Monster you would "BUILD". Sounds not too bad, eh?! Well add to this that there would be the concept of TURNING the "Square" cards such that you could VARY the Stats of the Monster you are building... Sound pretty neat, no?!

When I took this IDEA and created a prototype, I LEARNED the problem:

questccg wrote:
Rotating one card forced you to rotate ANOTHER card so 2 out of 4 cards needed to be rotated otherwise you would have a duplicate of one Stat on two (2) of the cards.

Bet you didn't see that coming, now did you???

Neither did I. But rotating two (2) cards just made the concept BORTHERSOME. And I quickly dropped this IDEA ... Because I realized there was not sufficient VARIETY in the turning of cards when you'd be forced to rotate 2 cards each time you change ONE (1) Stat.

Just too fiddley... And it didn't feel like you were customizing your Monster, you were reacting to a change and forced to balance it with another...

That too me (IMHO) was a CRAP idea! But the initial concept of Customizing your Monster by rotating Stats around each card... Seemed like it HAD promise. Maybe I could have pursued this IDEA more. But I've got OTHER Monster games that are much more interesting so this idea fell by the wayside. Best!

Note #1: In some way, it felt like you had to modify TWO (2) Stats in order to get a combination ... But it was universal. I take this back to something like One-Arm-Bandit Slot Machines: you have four (4) sections and you pull the lever to get a unique COMBINATION. That's kind of where the inspiration was coming from. But you see that in TRUTH, the problem of duplicates meant that either one (1) Stat was missing or two (2) cards needed rotation to counter-balance the idea...

So there were LESS combinations than you would think.

Note #2: And you couldn't just have TWO (2) STRENGTH values...! Even if you added BOTH ... That would mean you would not have ONE (1) of the other Stats... How do you play with PARTIAL Stats??? I believe the concept had: Strength, Wisdom, Luck and Charisma. So if you rotated to Strength, you would need to rotate the OTHER Strength card to the MISSING Stat. Because if you were missing a Stat how could you PLAY a game that required all four (4) Stats (think like in RPGs).

Top
Sat, 02/12/2022 - 09:23
#4
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Drion22 wrote:When you are

Drion22 wrote:
When you are thinking about design or a cool concept just pops into your head, how do you avoid your mind immediately rushing into expansions, breaking concept up into kickstarter goals, which publisher's repertoire will it match and other small things that don't actually matter?

I know it might be an extremely specific problem with the examples I gave, but how do you tackle when your mind gets caught up in the technical and it ties up all the creative joy?

Thank you, and have a lovely day
-Drion

As you can see. Posting a question like that, gives you yet another example.

I think that the only thing you can do is to focus on your basic design.
If any idea pops up that would be fitting for expansion or a set goal. Then these are part of your creativity. But, you need to simply write them down with some keywords. Do not flesh out the entire set of mechanics for those if you clearly feel they are for future work.
Write down. Then go back to the basics and disregard any connection that the basic game would have to the expansion idea's.

Top
Fri, 02/18/2022 - 07:04
#5
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
First Don't sell the bear's

First

Don't sell the bear's skin before killing the bear.

Second

I used a technique called proto rushing which consist in making a prototype as fast as possible. This way, you will get feedback as early, see problems and try to fix them.

Else you can get stuck in the infinite loop of design where you constantly refine something that has not been proved yet to be playable.

Top
Fri, 02/18/2022 - 17:25
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Also ...

Don't be discouraged if an IDEA yields a poor PRODUCT (Game)... As @larienna says you will get feedback early and SEE the problems with the prototype/idea. While this could be some flaws which make the design unusable ... MOST of the ideas that you have and the prototypes you make, are FIXABLE.

Take my "Monster Keep" (MK), I'm on prototype 16... I see POTENTIAL in this game such that I have NOT given up on the design even IF I have worked through a bunch of issues with the design.

Figure out what designs are more "worthy" of your time and focus on those.

Cheers!

Note #1: IF you find that your 1st Prototype is NOT playable, well like I said earlier... It depends how MUCH you LIKE the idea! Take for an example MK: it proves to show signs of Analysis-Paralysis (AP) and yet I still re-work and fine-tune this design... Why? Because I see POTENTIAL...

Once I simplify things as much as possible... And also add sufficient FREEDOM in the event that the design is TOO RESTRICTIVE (or too tight) and needs some additional flexibility...

It is my HOPE that with the additional "flexibility" that the design will allow players to interact with each other on a "common basis". The more the players are involved with the "decision process" and the less it's a "pre-defined attribute" which players must adhere too... Will give control back to the players... And therefore reduce the chance for "Analysis-Paralysis" (AP)!

And so the conclusion so far is: involve the players MORE in the decision process rather than relying on hard-coded values and hopefully it will reduce the overall complexity of the design.

Note #2: Look at it this way: if the Reach value is PRE-DEFINED (Hard-coded) ... Players must take time determining which Monsters can battle each other. So this involves ANALYSIS... And too much analysis can lead to PARALYSIS (because player's are unsure who to attack and why).

But if instead the players CHOOSE the Reach value... This means they are aware of their OWN cards what Reach is being used AND requires LESS Analysis since they are already AWARE of the values being used. This IMHO will NOT lead to PARALYSIS... Because it's NOT arbitrary, the players chose values THEMSELVES!

Furthermore... better PLANNING can occur in Round #2 such that the revealed Reach Values for Level #1 (determined back in Round #1) can HELP players DECIDE which Monsters THEY WANT to target (and not some pre-assigned value). Players are DIRECTLY involved in the DECISION PROCESS ... Making it more OBVIOUS what Monsters will attack which adversaries.

Top
Fri, 02/18/2022 - 20:16
#7
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
One more comment

It may be that ANOTHER idea may take LESS time to bring "to fruition". Which means that while working for fix a "broken prototype", other game ideas may require less effort. So don't only focus on ONE (1) design/idea. I guess with "overthinking" a design comes also the fact that you are TOO FOCUSED on one particular design/idea which has not been proven (as per @larienna's syntax).

Work on a multitude of designs (think prototypes) and see what matures faster.

This will allow you to "multi-task" with various games and work on designs which are HOT in your mind (in terms of rules and design elements). But if you definitely want to hold on to SOME specific ideas which still need work... That is perfectly acceptable too.

That's why most designers have like a half-dozen to a dozen designs they are currently working on. I've got about 6 to 8 of them myself. But I like to focus on what brings me the most JOY (and ADVANCEMENT). I also hate working on things like re-editing rulebooks... That's why "Crystal Heroes" (CH) is a bit on the "back-burner" ATM... I just don't like what I need to do.

And MK has some extra ideas that took me from Prototype 14 to Prototype 16 too.

So goes the process of converting ideas into actual games!

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut