I had 2 ideas for you for future videos, in the spirit of the 10th anniversary. One would be an almanac where you count up the years from 2012 to 2022 and highlight 1 significant event for the company. (Surely there would be no surprise for 2012 - Viticulture funding - but I wonder what you'd pick for other years.) The second idea was a companion to your "design regrets" video, where you highlight the thing you're most proud of for each game. A component, a mechanism, a marketing strategy - what makes you proud about each title.
You were right, those were great questions. WRT #7, there are a few games, like Arena for the Gods, that have player elimination, but that also ends the game. The first player out triggers all players to reveal their remaining health (hidden behind a screen) and the highest health wins. One side effect of this is there's no ganging-up-on-the-loser situation - anyone who is not in first place needs to keep the player in last place from being eliminated if they want a chance to win. I suppose a different example, but one I've not played in person, is the much-discussed merge mechanism in Ankh, where a player isn't eliminated but loses their individual identity.
Thanks for these ideas, Steven! I have two videos kind of along the lines of the second idea (one is my favorite mechanism in each of our games and one is my favorite component in each of our games), but I'm always happy to revisit our games. I like your point about elimination games where the game ends if someone is eliminated!
In lieu of the elimination mechanism, I also like when an area control 'tie' suddenly ends a game (3 ties = French invasion disks, in the "King is Dead", or 4 ties in "Samurai").
I have just begun the early stages of board game design and your videos, blog, and podcasts that you have been on have been extremely helpful. Very thankful you have taken the time to put all these resources together for aspiring designers!
So I have a thought on a game design problem that I have seen actually a lot. When a game has scripted first 3 to four turns. I tend to actually really like a lot of these games, but they falsely give an allusion of choice, when actually you need to do a proscribed choice or you have already lost the game. A few games that have this are Agricola, Puerto Rico and Roads and Boats (I feel like any Splotter game could fit in here). Maybe I am overestimating how much this happens, but I feel like this does create both a barrier to entry for new players, because telling a player they have certain action or actions they have to do first feels like someone is playing their turn, and second it artificially lengthens a game because experienced players will have the same plays every time. Another great video Jamey! Look forward to the next one!
That's an interesting point, Josh. In some ways, if designed well, I could see that as a way to onboard new players. At the same time, for experienced players, it seems like it could be replaced by an accelerated started setup.
For an interesting twist on player elimination, check out Red Raven's New game Knight Fall. Everyone starts as an asymmetric demon or knight trying to defeat the other side. If your demon or knight is defeated, you simply grab another character and stay in the turn rotation.
I love the point about dealing with elimination even though you do not actually own the clan or unit etc. most current game example I know is dawn of Ulos where you influence the tribes/clans but never really “own” or completely control them. I personally like the idea of having elimination only in quick games like love letter or coup especially when it’s only for the round and the game is fairly quick so depending on the design I feel player elimination might still be a option for increasing tension, Thank you for these videos as always :) I really do look forward for these tips help me to catch things in my own designs to consider.
Great video! I liked the question 2. I play myself as a 4 players sometimes! it's a drain for the brain. and As Jamey said, it's not the same, because we don't k ow what other 3 different people would do, but it surely has a lot when it comes to iteration! it does make a great help in advancing with your design.
Hi Jamie, I found it interesting when you were talking about game length both from the ones you design/publish, and the ones you prefer to play when comparing that to the experiences of my game group who's favourite game is Viticulture, with the Tuscany expansion. Most of the time we play it's with 6 players, and we're lucky to finish the game in under 3 hours, although despite the length if we have the time it's the game that's most requested. We usually play Viticulture on Sunday afternoons, after lunch, and before dinner which works great.
Only 2 hour game night? That's just enough for setup and explaining the rules. ;) Attention span running out after 2 hours? I think for me it's often that it takes up to an hour till I can relax and fully focus on the game. Then it's sad when the game is over too quickly and all people want to go. :)
One thing that has recently intrigued me is "programmed" solo games. I'm not referring to systems that simulate the play of an player/opponent, but rather a system designed to keep track of a hidden solution. I'm not sure how else to describe such a system. Black Sonata is a hidden movement game for one player. Turing Machine is a deduction game (for 1-4 players). I think other deduction games (Beyond the Sun is another that comes to mind) are ones that typically fall into this category. I'd like to find some information on how these systems are designed. I'm sure it's a heavily mathematical process.
How to iterate play tests? Tabletop Simulator is your best friend. I've have done in weeks, what would have taken me months/years. You can port your own images. There is a Hotseat mode where you can simulate more than one player playing your game, with features such as each player having their own hand of cards and passing turns. Many tutorials here on UA-cam.
Question 11 should have asked just for board game designers that you don't know personally and especially that you don't work with for publishing games.
I have a (double) question! How do you know when a particular aspect/mechanism of a prototype is done and when do you decide not to pursue an idea any further? I suppose this question relates to how you deal with doubts along the way. Thanks!
My method, Henri, is mostly to see when playtesters stop mentioning any frustrations about the mechanism (and ideally start mentioning that they enjoy it). Part of it is also instinct from my personal playtests.
Hey, Jamey! Thanks for mentioning the hard-to-read text thing. I can't understand why the words on Codenames are crisp and clear in one direction, and much less so in the other. Both sides equally need to see and process the words. Anyway, my eyesight isn't ever going to be like what it was when I was 18, so I certainly agree with you on this point.
I haven’t seen any game do it but I have a vague sense I’ve heard of it before - a player elimination game in which as soon as *any* player is eliminated the game ends (or at least the end-game is triggered). Seems like it’s a fairly unexplored space but could be my lack of familiarity with those styles of games. Or maybe it doesn’t work well in practice in multiplayer games due to necessitating an arbitrary win condition for the remaining players.
Hey Jamie. I was hoping a question similar to this was asked so I’m hoping you can answer it. You play a brand new game you’re excited about for the first time. What is your thought process like as you play to learn and understand what works, what doesn’t, what you like, and what’s lacking in the game? What do you think about first? How do you mentally break the games down?
When I play a new game, my top priority is simply to understand how the game works. Once I have a good grasp for that, I start to pay attention to the aspects of the game that provide opportunities for me to feel clever and if there are any areas of frustration. I also like to look at the user interface and the components, how they bring the theme to life and how they make the game easier to understand.
Hard to read font size is a good answer to the design flaw question. I'm curious what are your exceptions for the games longer than 2.5 hours that you'll play? I'm having trouble thinking of one for myself. Maybe Wallenstein.
Great questions. Thank you for sharing as always. The video game tutorial/opening is such an interesting conundrum. It feels like certain types of games more organically lend themselves to that if they have mechanics or story that unfold over time and you can step by step through it early when there isn't a lot of info to dump on players but I'm interested to see a game where you can basically have access to everything from turn one and you kind of have to know it ahead of time handle that well. Do you have any suggestions/ideas for that? I'm working on it myself for a more story driven game and I'd like it to feel like a part of the story that's so subtle that you don't even realize you are doing it. I have the opposite experience in that I was heavy into video games and just now transitioning into board games heavily (just got Gloomhaven as an early present and can't wait to dig in, still want to try Spirit Island) I feel like the two worlds are very complimentary and often try to imitate each other with Marvel midnight suns just releasing this week doing card based tactical turn based combat while some board games try to emulate that feel of a video game. Do you feel like apps in board game are trying to bridge that divide more? Or is that more of just a new tool in the toolbox?
"I'm interested to see a game where you can basically have access to everything from turn one and you kind of have to know it ahead of time handle that well." I would put this in the category of games with really good reference cards. For example, take a look at the reference cards in Red Rising--is pretty much explains the entire game. If you're looking for tutorials that add layers and layers, here's a video on the subject: ua-cam.com/video/fhil3lk0yx4/v-deo.html "Do you feel like apps in board game are trying to bridge that divide more? Or is that more of just a new tool in the toolbox?" Sometimes they do, and sometimes they're more there to track information easier than players could (apps can retain info and calculate things that would be arduous for players).
Great video! Many thanks. One recurring flaw I see (just my opinion) is where player characters (PCs) are effectively "frozen" whilst players wait for their turn, and yet in-game time keeps going between player turns! This creates thematic dissonance for me. It's as if all the PCs are just standing around watching one other PC, and then the game world moves on before everyone stands around again watching a different PC do stuff. Some examples... In Alien: Fate of the Nostromo, which I really wanted to like, the alien gets an action between player turns based on a card draw, and will often move through the ship. In, say, a 4 player game, that's a lot of in-game time during which a PC is standing around, watching the alien heading towards them, yet they can do nothing because it's not their "turn". In E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial: Light Years From Home, one kid does some actions, then the agents act, based on dice rolls. Then one other kid does some actions, then the agents act again. What were the other kids doing whilst the agents got all those actions? In Back to the Future: Back in Time, the time tracker moves, then one PC does their actions, then the time tracker moves, etc. Surely PCs can do stuff at the same time! In Pandemic (and in Thunderbirds, which is quite similar), one PC does stuff, then cities are infected (or a disaster card is drawn in Thunderbirds), then one other PC does stuff, etc. There's no simultaneity, which really kills these games for me and puts them on the sell shelf, and in fact I've stopped buying games designed in this way, which is a great shame. I don't want to have to house rule these things all the time.
I always enjoy getting your insight on game design. They help me greatly with the games I'm designing. Thank you so much for your videos. I was curious with regards the question on play length... how does Stonemaier establish the playtime on the box? For example, we just played Tapestry on Saturday, which we love by the way, and it was a 210 min game for 4 of us. We all have played the game multiple times and we do not mind the length but the box shows a 90 to 120 min playtime. Is there a industry standard for determining what goes on the box?
I can't speak for the industry, but for us we use playtester data to determine the range (which includes setup and cleanup). For Tapestry, there's very little preventing players from planning exactly what they want to do on their next turn when it isn't their turn, which typically keeps the game moving at a quick pace.
@@jameystegmaier Ya...a lot of the friends I play with are very methodical and they take a long time on their turns. My wife included. 😁 With my game, KOR, I've had a 4 person game last from 160 to 210 mins but I'm mostly play testing with those new to the game. So I figure it will get quicker with repeat players. Hence I went with 40 mins per player. But out of some 20 something plays so far no one has ever said it's too long. Most say they could play longer which I guess means they are having fun. 👍
I'm curious as to what components you use to prototype with? Do you just print and play? Use scraps of paper? Reuse bits from older games? I know that it's been reported that Reiner Knizia just keeps an entire room of bits in the tens of thousands. I doubt you have that much, but do you do anything similar?
Hi, since you mentioned it on Instagram after my question I'll add it here as well: do you prefer a table in which you look up the result of a dice roll or do you prefer written text where it is said to add values to get to the needed result?
Thanks for asking this here! If a mechanism like this is necessary, I prefer that the rulebook and/or reference card include a table plus a written explanation and an example with a visual.
As an aspiring game designer who now has been working on a game for around 6 months, this video was so helpful, thank you for sharing!! 😁
I had 2 ideas for you for future videos, in the spirit of the 10th anniversary. One would be an almanac where you count up the years from 2012 to 2022 and highlight 1 significant event for the company. (Surely there would be no surprise for 2012 - Viticulture funding - but I wonder what you'd pick for other years.) The second idea was a companion to your "design regrets" video, where you highlight the thing you're most proud of for each game. A component, a mechanism, a marketing strategy - what makes you proud about each title.
I like those ideas especially the “most proud of” idea
You were right, those were great questions. WRT #7, there are a few games, like Arena for the Gods, that have player elimination, but that also ends the game. The first player out triggers all players to reveal their remaining health (hidden behind a screen) and the highest health wins. One side effect of this is there's no ganging-up-on-the-loser situation - anyone who is not in first place needs to keep the player in last place from being eliminated if they want a chance to win. I suppose a different example, but one I've not played in person, is the much-discussed merge mechanism in Ankh, where a player isn't eliminated but loses their individual identity.
Thanks for these ideas, Steven! I have two videos kind of along the lines of the second idea (one is my favorite mechanism in each of our games and one is my favorite component in each of our games), but I'm always happy to revisit our games.
I like your point about elimination games where the game ends if someone is eliminated!
In lieu of the elimination mechanism, I also like when an area control 'tie' suddenly ends a game (3 ties = French invasion disks, in the "King is Dead", or 4 ties in "Samurai").
I have just begun the early stages of board game design and your videos, blog, and podcasts that you have been on have been extremely helpful. Very thankful you have taken the time to put all these resources together for aspiring designers!
Thanks Ameen! I'm glad this content is helpful for you!
So I have a thought on a game design problem that I have seen actually a lot.
When a game has scripted first 3 to four turns. I tend to actually really like a lot of these games, but they falsely give an allusion of choice, when actually you need to do a proscribed choice or you have already lost the game.
A few games that have this are Agricola, Puerto Rico and Roads and Boats (I feel like any Splotter game could fit in here).
Maybe I am overestimating how much this happens, but I feel like this does create both a barrier to entry for new players, because telling a player they have certain action or actions they have to do first feels like someone is playing their turn, and second it artificially lengthens a game because experienced players will have the same plays every time.
Another great video Jamey! Look forward to the next one!
That's an interesting point, Josh. In some ways, if designed well, I could see that as a way to onboard new players. At the same time, for experienced players, it seems like it could be replaced by an accelerated started setup.
For an interesting twist on player elimination, check out Red Raven's New game Knight Fall. Everyone starts as an asymmetric demon or knight trying to defeat the other side. If your demon or knight is defeated, you simply grab another character and stay in the turn rotation.
That's clever! Thanks for sharing.
I love the point about dealing with elimination even though you do not actually own the clan or unit etc. most current game example I know is dawn of Ulos where you influence the tribes/clans but never really “own” or completely control them.
I personally like the idea of having elimination only in quick games like love letter or coup especially when it’s only for the round and the game is fairly quick so depending on the design I feel player elimination might still be a option for increasing tension,
Thank you for these videos as always :) I really do look forward for these tips help me to catch things in my own designs to consider.
Great video! I liked the question 2. I play myself as a 4 players sometimes! it's a drain for the brain. and As Jamey said, it's not the same, because we don't k ow what other 3 different people would do, but it surely has a lot when it comes to iteration! it does make a great help in advancing with your design.
Hi Jamie, I found it interesting when you were talking about game length both from the ones you design/publish, and the ones you prefer to play when comparing that to the experiences of my game group who's favourite game is Viticulture, with the Tuscany expansion. Most of the time we play it's with 6 players, and we're lucky to finish the game in under 3 hours, although despite the length if we have the time it's the game that's most requested. We usually play Viticulture on Sunday afternoons, after lunch, and before dinner which works great.
You're absolutely right that some of our games can extend outside of the target range! :)
Great video Jamey! Always enjoy hearing what thoughts go into designing and publishing games!
Only 2 hour game night? That's just enough for setup and explaining the rules. ;)
Attention span running out after 2 hours? I think for me it's often that it takes up to an hour till I can relax and fully focus on the game. Then it's sad when the game is over too quickly and all people want to go. :)
One thing that has recently intrigued me is "programmed" solo games. I'm not referring to systems that simulate the play of an player/opponent, but rather a system designed to keep track of a hidden solution. I'm not sure how else to describe such a system.
Black Sonata is a hidden movement game for one player.
Turing Machine is a deduction game (for 1-4 players). I think other deduction games (Beyond the Sun is another that comes to mind) are ones that typically fall into this category.
I'd like to find some information on how these systems are designed. I'm sure it's a heavily mathematical process.
How to iterate play tests? Tabletop Simulator is your best friend. I've have done in weeks, what would have taken me months/years. You can port your own images. There is a Hotseat mode where you can simulate more than one player playing your game, with features such as each player having their own hand of cards and passing turns. Many tutorials here on UA-cam.
Due to some ethical issues, I can't endorse TTS. However, we work with Tabletopia and are very happy with their platform.
Question 11 should have asked just for board game designers that you don't know personally and especially that you don't work with for publishing games.
I have a (double) question! How do you know when a particular aspect/mechanism of a prototype is done and when do you decide not to pursue an idea any further? I suppose this question relates to how you deal with doubts along the way. Thanks!
My method, Henri, is mostly to see when playtesters stop mentioning any frustrations about the mechanism (and ideally start mentioning that they enjoy it). Part of it is also instinct from my personal playtests.
@@jameystegmaier Thanks a lot, I will keep that in mind. Kudos for your sincere dedication to your craft and fanbase. It reeeaaally shows!
Hey, Jamey! Thanks for mentioning the hard-to-read text thing. I can't understand why the words on Codenames are crisp and clear in one direction, and much less so in the other. Both sides equally need to see and process the words. Anyway, my eyesight isn't ever going to be like what it was when I was 18, so I certainly agree with you on this point.
I haven’t seen any game do it but I have a vague sense I’ve heard of it before - a player elimination game in which as soon as *any* player is eliminated the game ends (or at least the end-game is triggered). Seems like it’s a fairly unexplored space but could be my lack of familiarity with those styles of games. Or maybe it doesn’t work well in practice in multiplayer games due to necessitating an arbitrary win condition for the remaining players.
Another great video. Thanks for what you do.
Thanks!
Hey Jamie. I was hoping a question similar to this was asked so I’m hoping you can answer it.
You play a brand new game you’re excited about for the first time. What is your thought process like as you play to learn and understand what works, what doesn’t, what you like, and what’s lacking in the game?
What do you think about first? How do you mentally break the games down?
When I play a new game, my top priority is simply to understand how the game works. Once I have a good grasp for that, I start to pay attention to the aspects of the game that provide opportunities for me to feel clever and if there are any areas of frustration. I also like to look at the user interface and the components, how they bring the theme to life and how they make the game easier to understand.
Hard to read font size is a good answer to the design flaw question. I'm curious what are your exceptions for the games longer than 2.5 hours that you'll play? I'm having trouble thinking of one for myself. Maybe Wallenstein.
Great questions. Thank you for sharing as always.
The video game tutorial/opening is such an interesting conundrum. It feels like certain types of games more organically lend themselves to that if they have mechanics or story that unfold over time and you can step by step through it early when there isn't a lot of info to dump on players but I'm interested to see a game where you can basically have access to everything from turn one and you kind of have to know it ahead of time handle that well.
Do you have any suggestions/ideas for that?
I'm working on it myself for a more story driven game and I'd like it to feel like a part of the story that's so subtle that you don't even realize you are doing it.
I have the opposite experience in that I was heavy into video games and just now transitioning into board games heavily (just got Gloomhaven as an early present and can't wait to dig in, still want to try Spirit Island)
I feel like the two worlds are very complimentary and often try to imitate each other with Marvel midnight suns just releasing this week doing card based tactical turn based combat while some board games try to emulate that feel of a video game.
Do you feel like apps in board game are trying to bridge that divide more? Or is that more of just a new tool in the toolbox?
"I'm interested to see a game where you can basically have access to everything from turn one and you kind of have to know it ahead of time handle that well."
I would put this in the category of games with really good reference cards. For example, take a look at the reference cards in Red Rising--is pretty much explains the entire game. If you're looking for tutorials that add layers and layers, here's a video on the subject: ua-cam.com/video/fhil3lk0yx4/v-deo.html
"Do you feel like apps in board game are trying to bridge that divide more? Or is that more of just a new tool in the toolbox?"
Sometimes they do, and sometimes they're more there to track information easier than players could (apps can retain info and calculate things that would be arduous for players).
Great video! Many thanks.
One recurring flaw I see (just my opinion) is where player characters (PCs) are effectively "frozen" whilst players wait for their turn, and yet in-game time keeps going between player turns! This creates thematic dissonance for me. It's as if all the PCs are just standing around watching one other PC, and then the game world moves on before everyone stands around again watching a different PC do stuff.
Some examples...
In Alien: Fate of the Nostromo, which I really wanted to like, the alien gets an action between player turns based on a card draw, and will often move through the ship. In, say, a 4 player game, that's a lot of in-game time during which a PC is standing around, watching the alien heading towards them, yet they can do nothing because it's not their "turn".
In E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial: Light Years From Home, one kid does some actions, then the agents act, based on dice rolls. Then one other kid does some actions, then the agents act again. What were the other kids doing whilst the agents got all those actions?
In Back to the Future: Back in Time, the time tracker moves, then one PC does their actions, then the time tracker moves, etc. Surely PCs can do stuff at the same time!
In Pandemic (and in Thunderbirds, which is quite similar), one PC does stuff, then cities are infected (or a disaster card is drawn in Thunderbirds), then one other PC does stuff, etc.
There's no simultaneity, which really kills these games for me and puts them on the sell shelf, and in fact I've stopped buying games designed in this way, which is a great shame. I don't want to have to house rule these things all the time.
I always enjoy getting your insight on game design. They help me greatly with the games I'm designing. Thank you so much for your videos. I was curious with regards the question on play length... how does Stonemaier establish the playtime on the box? For example, we just played Tapestry on Saturday, which we love by the way, and it was a 210 min game for 4 of us. We all have played the game multiple times and we do not mind the length but the box shows a 90 to 120 min playtime. Is there a industry standard for determining what goes on the box?
I can't speak for the industry, but for us we use playtester data to determine the range (which includes setup and cleanup). For Tapestry, there's very little preventing players from planning exactly what they want to do on their next turn when it isn't their turn, which typically keeps the game moving at a quick pace.
@@jameystegmaier Ya...a lot of the friends I play with are very methodical and they take a long time on their turns. My wife included. 😁 With my game, KOR, I've had a 4 person game last from 160 to 210 mins but I'm mostly play testing with those new to the game. So I figure it will get quicker with repeat players. Hence I went with 40 mins per player. But out of some 20 something plays so far no one has ever said it's too long. Most say they could play longer which I guess means they are having fun. 👍
You know how Gary Kasperov played Deep Blue the computer? Is there a program you can game test in and gather balance data?
Not at this point, but there are some companies working on it.
I'm curious as to what components you use to prototype with? Do you just print and play? Use scraps of paper? Reuse bits from older games? I know that it's been reported that Reiner Knizia just keeps an entire room of bits in the tens of thousands. I doubt you have that much, but do you do anything similar?
I have a cabinet full of little tokens, some from our games, some from others, some purchased. I print prototypes, cut them up, and assemble them.
Hi, since you mentioned it on Instagram after my question I'll add it here as well: do you prefer a table in which you look up the result of a dice roll or do you prefer written text where it is said to add values to get to the needed result?
Thanks for asking this here! If a mechanism like this is necessary, I prefer that the rulebook and/or reference card include a table plus a written explanation and an example with a visual.