Wargamers routinely play games that take 15~45 minutes to set up. Because the games they play are worth the value (learning about historical choices made by the leaders who were there, etc.) of such set-up times; other games, not so much.
This!!! It's insulting when someone makes a stink after the Kickstarter and think they speak for everyone. If there are 1000 backers not complaining and only one person has a problem, _maybe they should consider that THEY are the problem._ Instead of making demands and manipulating everyone's copy of the game, they just should've not backed in the first place.
Donald Macleod YES. That goes with too many variables. this game was originally all players against each other, but now we added teams and solo and Co op because people asked. If this is what they want, maybe they should get a different game. If you force options, it makes me feel they'll be no good.
Be vocal during your Kickstarters. Designers are often looking for feedback since the game is often in the prototype phase. If two people are being vocal and there is no dissenting opinion then why wouldn't a designer listen to them? As a back you are not just a consumer you are a investor. You need to make your opinion heard. Wake up , get up and get out there.
@@jgtogi6839 Not when you aren't offering your copies as retail copies. In that case, consumers and "investors" alike have no choice. If you are sending an already designed (mechanically) game to kickstart, changing it for someone who has never played it is ridiculous
That is just because there is direct sunlight hitting the ground behind them. They should experiment to find the time of day when there is enough light, but it doesn't create the effect where it almost looks like two layers.
Holy Cow Zee! I stopped the video to write this comment. Your #2 is amazing! "Start listening to playtesters for emotions". Wow man. I just had 2 play tests yesterday, and I certainly did not incorporate this as well as I will on my next one. Thanks man. Real deep, but practical stuff here.
Not at all, every designer is looking for play testers, since its the most important phase of design. Here's a BGG forum for people looking for testers. boardgamegeek.com/forum/1530034/boardgamegeek/seeking-play-testers
This is expert advice. They could've charged thousands for this. And they would've made much more had they written this up and sold it to a book publisher. The Dice Tower just did everyone a solid by giving away their combined decades of experience for free.
I don't think there is a lot of money in board games and probably even less in selling ebooks on making board games, no matter the quality of what you're saying.
XShrike I think the video is based on self-published games and stuff that they've had demoed to them by wannabe designers directly, at cons, or sent to them by mail. Basically, it's all the advice based on seeing unpublished and shouldn't-be-published games. You would never have heard of any of the examples, if they said a few names, and I doubt they have any specific games in mind anyways, because they're talking about things they see over and over. I've never encountered half the things they mention, as a player (40 variants in the rule book, etc.), so I'm pretty sure that, like I said, they're talking mostly about games that can't be found anywhere in the world except for one copy that a guy keeps in his basement and pulls out once a year to pitch at cons.
Several of these combine into my view which is "Stop using the paying public as your playtesters". It's becoming too common for a game to come out and then a year later a version 2 appears which adds or changes rules to iron out all the issues players have discovered. I would prefer the game was released a year later once those issues had been resolved.
Good Point! Video games are even worse at this, because it’s so much cheaper to release software than physical games. But board game designers should not copy how EA do their business, everybody just suffers through that and you don’t want your players to feel like you’re EA.
The hilarious thing is that anyone who needs this information WON'T ever see it. They have egos and don't do research like watching these sorts of videos.
The main reason why designers won't look at this is this is now how games are designed anyways. Most game designers will never have their games published good or bad. For one big publishers don't often take on random submission. Most game designers will never make much on their game anyways so most who do pursue publishing their game must have egos of some sort to see that their idea gets published. In fact most game designers don't publish to make money they publish because they want to see their idea published. The truth is you will now if you have a good game or not by play testing to your target demographic. A designer then usually chooses a publisher who publishes games for that market. Some publishers are willing to sometimes broaden their horizons. Idea, theme, mechanics that bring out theme, play test towards target group, publisher experienced or willing to target that specific group. But most of all expect failure and rejection and try again. Few ever get published so you have to believe in your idea if you really want it published.
I'm designing my First boardgame, a 4x with heavy resource management Focus, and thank god i'm making a Lot of research, because i broke like 7 or 8 recomendations they gave...
I gave my rule-book to my Mum because she's really attentive with proofing, also she's not a gamer... I'm not saying she tore it apart but DANG! It became 5 times clearer to any layman on the street. Constructive criticism is not criticism and the best thing anyone can do is be honest with you, encourage your play-testers and proof-readers to be brutally honest :-)
I've got friends who do game design (started with a tabletop RPG, and moving into card games). The biggest favor I did for them (since I'm good with technical writing and have read TONS of rule books) is ripped their rulebook to shreds with red ink. Sure, they're my friends. But if I want them to succeed, they don't need their ego's praised. They need their rules fixed. And thankfully, they are wise, and thanked me for my harsh critique. They took it to heart, and spent the time to update it again. The next blind playtest they did had significantly fewer questions by the GM/players.
If you know that your mom/friend/whatever is capable of doing that, and won't sugarcoat it because of you, that is totally fine, but you need to be shure that said person can do that. I am for the most part always trying to avoid conflicts and such, and I rather not give my opinion to persons who I know won't react to it gladly, UNLESS those persons clearly ask for it and use keywords such as "be honest" or "seriously", in which case they will get just what they asked for.
I got quite late into dev and started playing with my friends. One of them said, "It would be better if your game was any fun." Gotta admit, that stung for a bit but I got back to the pen and pad and made a version that was way better lol
Good for your Mum, TheEpinema. The bane of my gaming experience is rules which, as stated in the rule book, are unclear, ambiguous or otherwise inadequate.
STOP only including one reference sheet in your game. So many games slow down because players have to keep passing around the one reference sheet for consultation. Whatever the max number of players is for a game, include that many reference sheets.
As a maths teacher, watching this as I mark tests... I love the combinations/permutations discussion. Properly made me chuckle. Also love First Class so I was already listening to the advice. And yes... it is 10. AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE and DE
Damn, watching this as a product designer myself, couldn't help thinking that Zee would be an amazing designer! Lots and lots of good insight, keep it up you three!
I don't normally agree with Sam, but I thought his list was spot-on here. That being said, this list felt very directed compared to their previous list about designer tips.
As someone new to game design, these videos are immensely helpful in helping me learn what to avoid and what aspects of my prototype will probably need a fair bit more work. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
Copyright and Patents are very different. You can't copyright a game with any amount of money, as Copyright is both automatic and free (you just have to prove you did it first). Copyright protects "Copy", for example, the aesthetics, the rules (as written), and anything you have written about your game (e.g. text on cards etc.) Patents protect technologies (generally speaking) - so in theory, you would patent a mechanic. However, this is incredibly difficult, and potentially very expensive, and time consuming etc. As Tom said, it's not worth it! You cannot protect an idea, you can only protect the tangible result of an idea. Most games out there use the mechanics from one or many other games that already exist. It is very rare to have a truly unique or new mechanic. For example, drawing cards is a mechanic, and an idea - you can't protect the idea of drawing cards. You can design very unique looking cards, and copyright the designs but that would be automatic.
I design and create art work for cards and books and I don' t know how many times I tell people you don't really need to waste your money copyrighting the art work. One once I draw it and create the art its copyrighted. I then give them a license or the rights to the art work. That all they really need. Oh and not all text covered by copy right including much of the text on cards. It has to still be unique language and original. But yes you don't need to copyright especially unless you have the money to waste to have it officially logged.
ZEE, loved your #2 on listening to playtester's emotions. My main experience playtesting was for the Roll Player expansion. The designer really seemed most interested in feedback like "it feels like the solo gamer is getting cheated here." I hadn't really even pieced that together until I saw this.
Great job by all three. This time I have to say Sam brought it. When these lists are games I don't always agree with his reasons for certain games being on or left off a list. But with this stuff he nailed it. Nice
Gaaaaah I'm watching this video two years later and I'm really interested in Zombicide BP/Green Horde at the moment, are they talking about it?? Or what??
Interestingly, as a video game developer, a lot of these (or at least, the spirit of them) apply to video game development as well. Thanks for the insight, this was a really great video.
Sam: there are people out there whos favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla. Zee: I don't think so ... Whaaaat !!! I'm Portuguese and I never understood why using the word vanilla with that meaning. Now I understand. You think vanilla is not a flavor, lol !!!!! One of my favorite flavors is vanilla and also for many people I know.
10 combinations is correct. You choose one module out of 5, then one out of 4. 5x4 = 20. But that counts (A,B) and (B,A) twice, so you divide by 2. 10 :)
I actually show that segment to my students, as an example of what an educated person should know. It's simple, but I like the ease with which Tom answers it!
Tom if it is so easy to get our games published now days, then tell us how or what companies are more likely to publish 1st time designers. Make a video of that.
In many cases if I find out a game winner is decided on a points system - I don't buy it. A heavily themed game that is decided on points when points is not a real part of the theme, actually makes me not want to bother getting into the theme because the points drags me out of the theme.
I did one thing here that they said not to do. see, I typically hated card and board games. never appreciated them....until I came up with an idea. I figured "Hurr durr, its just a card game, anyone can do th-NO... it's an involved process that's taken me years to research, and scrape together. but so rewarding. I've been holding back going for funding until I get a few more details ironed out. I still don't really enjoy card games or board games but I have a new appreciation for them
Really enjoyed the video! You made a lot of good points, but I also feel some of your thoughts boils down to personal opinion and how well it's executed (e.g. long games, roll to move, ignoring replayability, artwork, Shout this!). Look forward to more videos like this. Really nice background :)
I'd like to add "stop ignoring color composition, contrast, & readability issues". Bad colors can ruin otherwise great art. Having texts/symbols that are hard to read would defeat their purpose of clearly communicating rules, effects etc to the players. Having outlines or unsharp masking might help
IMPORTANT: Vanilla is my favorite flavor of ice cream. I do not think there is a single flavor that compares to it. It has a fullness or weight to it that the other flavors don't offer. Chocolate bland. Strawberry (i would have gotten a shake if i was interested). But vanilla carries a full weight liken unto ambrosia. :)
Christian Abbott Yeah chocolate is overdone and more "vanilla" than vanilla is at this point. Triple chocolate with chocolate chips and chocolate syrup ice cream etc., the stuff they come up with just combines into bland sugar overload as there is no contrast of flavours. Quality vanilla is still rated very high for me as well.
Thanks for the video! Great points - especially helpful for me were "playtest for emotions rather than mechanics" and "don't become a publisher". I'm pleased that I was in strong agreement with almost all entries; hopefully it means I'm on the right path :) @Sam Healey: Regarding your #1 (dice rolling for movement / combat), obviously it can be poorly done so the game is dominated by luck, but would you still have a problem with the mechanism if the game is designed so that a skilled player can dominate? For instance, in backgammon where one can adopt a back game strategy when behind in the race? Or hypothetically a game where one could modify dice / choose alternative dice for different probability distributions?
This is why I hate Talisman. Roll to see where you move. Roll to see what happens to you. Roll to see if you attack someone. Roll to see if you defend yourself. Roll to see if the game just kills me by random chance. Roll to kill myself. Why don't we just roll die. See who rolls higher. That person wins. There you go, that's Talisman. There are so many other games out there that can give you the same style of play: that look better, play faster, give you player agency, and are actually fun. It's like how people think Monopoly is a good economics game because it's been around forever. NO. It's been around forever because it's old and people remember old things. And since it's been around forever THAT MEANS ITS OLD. And so it plays like an old boring game. Do you not think there has been advancement in game design in the last 50+ years?! Why the **** are you still playing a board game that your grandfather played?! Yeah an old Model T might be a cool old blast from the past car. And you can drive it once and immerse yourself in the wonder of the past with the first mass produced auto mobile. But NOBODY! NOBODY! Wants to drive a Model T every single day to work. When they could drive a car made with AC, power steering, antilock brakes, cushioned seats, air bags, seat belts, led/halogen headlights, turn signals, brake lights, rear view mirrors, radios, GPS, cup holders, multipane glass windows, unibody frames, keyed ignition, and I could go on... Game design has improved. Why would you choose to play an old boring antiquated completely random chance game. When thousands upon thousands of games exist out there that you could play?
It's just that KS games get more exposure therefore it appears as if they are a bigger culprit. I'm sure that there are and have been plenty of games guilty of this that never even went near KS.
With the expansion one I want to clarify a couple exceptions; A) an expansion that adds a different play mode such as altered player count which the original form of the game would have to be modified to accommodate(game still works as intended just with less players, no 1-2 player mode etc) or B) the features in question fall within a kind of interaction that isn't necessary to the game inherently and involve negative player interaction that you want to leave as an option but not force it into the original when it will have a broader appeal as a game with other forms of interaction that are less aggressive, direct competition-style etc. That's where I'm at right now.
Cards Against Humanity is only fun the first time you're playing it with a new group. Then it's funny. But I am so tired of that game now! I would rather play Munchkin any day. But people think of that as a little-kids game, so I don't even bother suggesting it anymore. Other games that I like that are just played with cards are The Grizzled and Machi Koro. Even though the new expansions of Machi Koro took away some of the fun mechanism of the original game :/
Publishers decide what the budget is for artwork, not the designer. Artwork doesn't start with the designer because few designers have £5000 in their pocket to forward fund a unique deck of cards. 90%+ of a designers play tests will be carried out with 'mediocre' artwork. That's a sensible expedience to prevent wasting money on an artists time spent on redundant aspects of the game.
That is all too true. I designed all the artwork to a client who was making a card game. I first sent just sketches so they could play test their game. Waiting for me to finish the art and printing up full color versions to demo to people would costed them a ton of money. It also proved how good their game design was. Playtesters were not blinded by the pretty art and loved the concept. Art when done was displayed on their website for those interested to critique for final changes. Surprising some of the feed back wanted the art work scaled back on certain components and simplified. Yes sometimes the simple black and white (which it had different colors not black and white) is works better for function. lol
Sheriff of Nottingham strikes me as a game where the playtesters were all of one mind. It's as if no one had even considered not lying. The game seemed to assume that everyone would always try to smuggle contraband through, and when it was released and people pointed out that you could win most of the time by just dealing in legal goods the designers were like "Huh, who knew". Hence the expansion which really ups the rewards from smuggling goods.
I haven't played Sheriff of Nottingham, so I do not know if there is a meta game involved. If the majority of the players lie and smuggle but get caught, probably someone trading legal goods can win. But my question is this: If majority now starts dealing in legal goods, can someone cheat the system by occasionally smuggling? Perhaps the phase where everyone cheats is just the beginning, and real game starts to happen when most of the players start trading the legal goods?
There is a meta game to it, exactly what you described but the payoff for trying to bring in contraband doesn't make sense mathematically. I feel like even if you get only busted 20% of the time, you'll still be worse off point wise than when bringing in the legal goods only.
Zoran Vujcic sorry but this doesn't make sense. If at the end of the game you have 100 chickens vs 100 chickens + 20 contrabands the contraband wins. Instead of smuggling 4 chickens, you smuggle 4 chickens and a crossbow the contraband guy wins
I've watched enough of your videos now, to wonder why you haven't noticed that at least 50% of your thoughts either closely link or are the same thing. It would save all of us about 10 min per video if you could gameplan your videos to boil it down to 10 actually unique things rather than a video of this length being so repetitive.
My uncle usually goes for vanilla ice cream for dessert. Sometimes with raspberries. 99% of my family are chocoholics, and we don't understand him at all, but I guess it's more chocolate for us.
I watched this video a while back. And I was thinking about this today. . . One thing designers need to STOP doing is creating games that ONLY WORK FOR 2, 3, OR 4 PLAYERS. PLEASE create games that work well for 5 OR 6 PLAYERS. 5 or 6 player games are REALLY NEEDED!
Regarding telling people not to try and design and publish: While I understand why you are saying it (since most will fail), if no one tried it those exceptions to the rule would not exist.
I agree. The vast majority of designers ideas are rejected. Doesn't matter if their game is good or bad. In the end best advice it to try, try again and play test your game to death. If players like it they will play and buy it no matter if its just another zombie game and it will become the exception to the rule. After all if its good its good. Who cares if its like another Mars game.
I think Talisman is popular despite having roll and move because a) 6 tends not to be 6 times better than a 1 in this game. You're not generally racing to anywhere. Sometimes the 1 is the number you'd prefer over any other. b)After you've rolled you have meaningful choices with what to do with the roll. At the basic level, you need to compare the option clockwise or the option counter-clockwise. - but also which space gives you the better chance of something good next turn. I know the game has dated some and I'm biased by nostalgia reasons, but Talisman's roll and move doesn't produce variance anywhere near as disastrous as many implementations of the mechanic.
Monopoly is also popular. Being popular isn't equal to being a good mechanics in a game. And it's not always a matter of die. When there's a chance of always not gaining anything, because of that chance and nothing else, then that's a bad mechanism. If in Talisman the 1 is the better one, nothing has really changed about the fact that die is choosing your faith. It's not adding randomness, it's THE randomness. If you have something to remediate that, that'd be cool. If you have the choice of not rolling that die, that'd be cool. But if you should roll each and every turn and you might roll the unlucky one, that's not cool at all.
Re: Tom's #9: "Wasting time copywriting" (6:13 - 7:26) : I wonder if the word "copywriting" could be edited? Tom is talking about getting a copyright for your work (copyrighting), not writing for advertising or marketing (copywriting). Thanks for making all these videos. They are helpful!
No offense, but maybe, when you make videos, you should coordinate each other's points beforehand so we don't have to listen to three different takes on the same matter of playtesting. This is really 30 things designers need to stop doing, only 10 to 15 of which are actually different.
Don’t make a game that 100 people LOVE rather than a game that thousands love. Also Don’t make a game for everyone. That is a tricky range to hit perfectly, both wide appeal and not universal appeal, and niche appeal.
Yes, those long games! It is so difficult to find people who are willing to play those with me. I don't even like the ones that go more than two hours. One exception recently is Terraforming Mars. As it went on, it got more exciting. And the rules were simple enough that we were able to learn it quickly as we went. I love the games Scythe and Agricola, but it takes about an hour to teach people the games and then they're playing for another two or three hours. And then they never want to look me in the eye again when I mention a game night. It's just too long and there is too much happening. I bet they could have been honed down a bit. So now I end up playing them solo a lot. Too much. :(
Zee was the MVP here, some very well thought picks and not so obvious. Especially his 8 was gr8! But also a very good idea for a top ten, bravo DT team!
Same thing with playing cards, one one point everyone was designing Cthulhu decks or zombie decks or robot/steampunk decks. Like do something original, lol.
Some of my favorite games: Risk, Star Trek Ascendancy, Betrayal at House on the Hill, plus other massively successful games like Gloomhaven, every version of Risk (except Office Politics), and war games set in Westeros or Middle Earth... Sorry, not worth watching this video if your first point is a terrible point.
So many times during this video I wanted someone to tell the designer, "Just save it for the expansion." Whether it be a variant, more components, more rules, or more mechanisms -- "Save it for the expansion."
A bit late to the party but here's mine: have your rule book edited by a professional copywriter. As language professionals, it's often depressing for my husband and I to go though rule books with haphazard idea organization and ambiguous phrasing. It's especially insulting when we know it would have been so easy for a professional to go through it and flag all the problems. We're not talking about design or idea rework, just rearranging the order of sections and editing the language to make things as clear as possible.
I think it would be informative if the Dice Tower would do a video of what the process of game design is like. From designer to publishing. Much of what they are complaining about is actually in the hands of the publishers after they agree to publish a designer s game. They should also interview game designers and their publishers. I think this would be more useful to future game designers. From what I have read from game designers their games are sometimes rethemed and mechanics changed by publishers.
A good example is "decide who is first player" I've played two games recently that do this. Near and Far has no way to determine the first player. SMOG is even worse having the players decide themselves who gets to be leader of the group and the leader has final say in everything. If you get two people that think they should go first or be leader than you start the game with a disagreement at best and argument at worst. Does this sound fun to you? I think not. This is why it is so high on their list.
An example is, when the price for a thing is determined by an auction in the game when the designer could have made a fixed price instead, but was too lazy/unable to figure out the proper price.
Sam and Zee aren't disagreeing on #9 in the way they seem to think they are. Zee's point was that designers shouldn't get hung up on arbitrary limitations. Sam is saying that designers need to focus their game on its strongest points/mechanisms and not throw in a bunch more just because they seem cool. The kind of "limits" he wants designers to impose on themselves aren't arbitrary (such as Zee's example of box size) but revolve solely around the gaming experience. Their points complement each other very well and it's a shame that no one at the table seemed to realize that.
Great video. very thought-provoking on what makes good design, and bad design. Makes me appreciate my boardgame collection and the effort that went into making some really great and fun games.
Vanilla is awesome! Yes i like chocolate ice cream with syrup and raspberry, But a good vanilla hits the spot! Yes it is a flavor... and its a good flavor!
Great video guys! Tom's reaction to Zee's #4 was hilarious. Also, kudos to Tom for not beating around the bush with his #2. That probably hurt some feelings but he makes a solid point.
I am one of those beta testers. I test games for FFG. I do think testing should be longer though. I just tested a game and only had 3 weeks to do it. I didn't think it was enough time. However, when they had 8-12 groups doing it, maybe they can get those wrinkles out. Not sure...
I started watching Toms Classic series podcast from 2005 and he never used to be like this. He used to be much more reserved to the point where he even said "monopoly gets a worse rep than it's worth." Time on camera effects people I guess. I liked when he was more reserved and less mean.
My friends are ruthless and are much more likely to be critical than Joe Blow, but I still agree with your point. I do have friends I know I cannot ask them to test a game, or I would not know how to get a critical response from them.
It's not just if they're or not emotionally attached to you. It's because you don't get enough variation of personalities or thinking. I usually play with the same group, and we tend to do the same strategies from game to game, also, we get used to ourselves, then we adapt our way to victory and maneuvers to what we think our partners will react. , And then, when it happens that I play with a differeng group, the others approaches the game in a different way, that surprises me, because it can be totally different. And then it's like playing a new game, not for the mechanisms or the game itself, but by the players.
Mechanisms of a game would be patents not copyrights, but probably like software functions it would also not be able to be patented. But the game itself could be rather easily copyrighted.
Something I'd add to the list is: Consistency in terms. I've played so many games that are inconsistent in terms, therefore messing up rules. War of Whispers for instance, sometimes uses "any region" and other times "region it controls" or even "controlled region" to all indicate the same thing. As a result, we first thought there was a difference (any = uncontrolled as well), but there isn't meant to be a difference. We ended up dumping the game due to endless rules discussions as a result of inconsistent terms.
New Kickstarter: Star Wars: Vikings vs Zombies, Cthulhu edition
Take my money!!!!!!!!
I am waiting for the legacy version.
meh. needs more miniatures.
it's a deck building, dice rolling, free for all dungeon crawler.
Vikings lead to Wars, Wars leads to Zombies, and Zombies lead to Chthuuulu. Don't worry young whatchama-call-it, the farce will be with you.
one of my ten would be:"set up and teardown is part of the game experience. if it takes 45 minutes to set up the game, it will rarely hit the table"
Wargamers routinely play games that take 15~45 minutes to set up. Because the games they play are worth the value (learning about historical choices made by the leaders who were there, etc.) of such set-up times; other games, not so much.
Well Arkham Horror can take up to 2 hours for setup alone, but still worth it
Depends on the type of games
If I want setup to be part of the game(or even the game itself), I'd rather play LEGO instead
Yeah
That is why Eldrich Horror was such a failure.
Kickstarter designer's please don't change things mid campaign because of the 2 vocal people in the comments page.
This!!! It's insulting when someone makes a stink after the Kickstarter and think they speak for everyone. If there are 1000 backers not complaining and only one person has a problem, _maybe they should consider that THEY are the problem._ Instead of making demands and manipulating everyone's copy of the game, they just should've not backed in the first place.
Donald Macleod YES. That goes with too many variables. this game was originally all players against each other, but now we added teams and solo and Co op because people asked. If this is what they want, maybe they should get a different game. If you force options, it makes me feel they'll be no good.
....Or because of 3 vocal top-ten listers. Zing!
Be vocal during your Kickstarters. Designers are often looking for feedback since the game is often in the prototype phase. If two people are being vocal and there is no dissenting opinion then why wouldn't a designer listen to them? As a back you are not just a consumer you are a investor. You need to make your opinion heard. Wake up , get up and get out there.
@@jgtogi6839 Not when you aren't offering your copies as retail copies. In that case, consumers and "investors" alike have no choice. If you are sending an already designed (mechanically) game to kickstart, changing it for someone who has never played it is ridiculous
Not sure why but the video looks great with you guys on the porch. Maybe it is the nature light but I think you should keep doing them there.
You mean green screen light? :)
Not a green screen. It's the covered porch at the Dice Tower HQ :)
Huh! Still looks weird to me )
I was going to say the same thing. I love this new setting.
That is just because there is direct sunlight hitting the ground behind them. They should experiment to find the time of day when there is enough light, but it doesn't create the effect where it almost looks like two layers.
Holy Cow Zee! I stopped the video to write this comment. Your #2 is amazing! "Start listening to playtesters for emotions". Wow man. I just had 2 play tests yesterday, and I certainly did not incorporate this as well as I will on my next one. Thanks man. Real deep, but practical stuff here.
Yeah, I really thought that was the standout moment of the video. It's a very incisive point phrased in a very simple manner.
How do you get to be a play tester? Do you have to be a well known person in the community?
Not at all, every designer is looking for play testers, since its the most important phase of design. Here's a BGG forum for people looking for testers.
boardgamegeek.com/forum/1530034/boardgamegeek/seeking-play-testers
This is expert advice. They could've charged thousands for this. And they would've made much more had they written this up and sold it to a book publisher. The Dice Tower just did everyone a solid by giving away their combined decades of experience for free.
I think you're telling the truth.
They are making money from UA-cam ad revenue
@@parkertownley-smith6109 So lunch is covered you're saying.
I don't think there is a lot of money in board games and probably even less in selling ebooks on making board games, no matter the quality of what you're saying.
I wish they would give some examples of games that commit these issues.
XShrike my guess is they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings
Super Dungeon Explore
I love painting the minis but they never developed the rules properly. Too clunky, too long, unclear rules...
XShrike I think the video is based on self-published games and stuff that they've had demoed to them by wannabe designers directly, at cons, or sent to them by mail. Basically, it's all the advice based on seeing unpublished and shouldn't-be-published games. You would never have heard of any of the examples, if they said a few names, and I doubt they have any specific games in mind anyways, because they're talking about things they see over and over. I've never encountered half the things they mention, as a player (40 variants in the rule book, etc.), so I'm pretty sure that, like I said, they're talking mostly about games that can't be found anywhere in the world except for one copy that a guy keeps in his basement and pulls out once a year to pitch at cons.
XShrike yes I think they should do a video on that
This video is almost worthless without examples
Several of these combine into my view which is "Stop using the paying public as your playtesters".
It's becoming too common for a game to come out and then a year later a version 2 appears which adds or changes rules to iron out all the issues players have discovered.
I would prefer the game was released a year later once those issues had been resolved.
Good Point!
Video games are even worse at this, because it’s so much cheaper to release software than physical games. But board game designers should not copy how EA do their business, everybody just suffers through that and you don’t want your players to feel like you’re EA.
The hilarious thing is that anyone who needs this information WON'T ever see it. They have egos and don't do research like watching these sorts of videos.
bronzedivision This, unfortunately..
The main reason why designers won't look at this is this is now how games are designed anyways. Most game designers will never have their games published good or bad. For one big publishers don't often take on random submission. Most game designers will never make much on their game anyways so most who do pursue publishing their game must have egos of some sort to see that their idea gets published. In fact most game designers don't publish to make money they publish because they want to see their idea published. The truth is you will now if you have a good game or not by play testing to your target demographic. A designer then usually chooses a publisher who publishes games for that market. Some publishers are willing to sometimes broaden their horizons. Idea, theme, mechanics that bring out theme, play test towards target group, publisher experienced or willing to target that specific group. But most of all expect failure and rejection and try again. Few ever get published so you have to believe in your idea if you really want it published.
I'm designing my First boardgame, a 4x with heavy resource management Focus, and thank god i'm making a Lot of research, because i broke like 7 or 8 recomendations they gave...
@@LookAtTheBacon fortunately, people who do look for & accept these kinds of input would likely find them helpful
@@revimfadli4666 that's true, absolutely. Glad there are these people :)
I gave my rule-book to my Mum because she's really attentive with proofing, also she's not a gamer... I'm not saying she tore it apart but DANG! It became 5 times clearer to any layman on the street. Constructive criticism is not criticism and the best thing anyone can do is be honest with you, encourage your play-testers and proof-readers to be brutally honest :-)
I've got friends who do game design (started with a tabletop RPG, and moving into card games). The biggest favor I did for them (since I'm good with technical writing and have read TONS of rule books) is ripped their rulebook to shreds with red ink.
Sure, they're my friends. But if I want them to succeed, they don't need their ego's praised. They need their rules fixed. And thankfully, they are wise, and thanked me for my harsh critique. They took it to heart, and spent the time to update it again. The next blind playtest they did had significantly fewer questions by the GM/players.
If you know that your mom/friend/whatever is capable of doing that, and won't sugarcoat it because of you, that is totally fine, but you need to be shure that said person can do that.
I am for the most part always trying to avoid conflicts and such, and I rather not give my opinion to persons who I know won't react to it gladly, UNLESS those persons clearly ask for it and use keywords such as "be honest" or "seriously", in which case they will get just what they asked for.
I got quite late into dev and started playing with my friends. One of them said, "It would be better if your game was any fun." Gotta admit, that stung for a bit but I got back to the pen and pad and made a version that was way better lol
Good for your Mum, TheEpinema. The bane of my gaming experience is rules which, as stated in the rule book, are unclear, ambiguous or otherwise inadequate.
love how you guys are sitting on your covered porch. very nice atmosphere
STOP only including one reference sheet in your game. So many games slow down because players have to keep passing around the one reference sheet for consultation. Whatever the max number of players is for a game, include that many reference sheets.
As a maths teacher, watching this as I mark tests... I love the combinations/permutations discussion. Properly made me chuckle. Also love First Class so I was already listening to the advice. And yes... it is 10. AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE and DE
Loved it. Was counting in my head as he said it.
Def. more than 10:
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
BC
BD
BE
BF
CD
CE
CF
DE
DF
To the fellow on the right... who are you and what have you done with Sam Healey?!?
I wish you would have given a few example games for each point you made.
The “holding back parts for expansions” is definitely happening a lot in video games...
and it works so well so we'll see it in tabletop games as well
What core mechanisms have been left out of video games for an expansion? lol
Damn, watching this as a product designer myself, couldn't help thinking that Zee would be an amazing designer! Lots and lots of good insight, keep it up you three!
Or at least a developer
Best comment: "It takes more time to design a game than make a kid."
Just commenting to say you guys are growing a better synergy with every video. Congrats youre one of my fav youtube channels.
Designers should not stop until there is a Cthulhu version of every game. And I mean every game. I'm looking at you Chutes and Ladders.
anubis243 Cthutes and Ladders
what have you got against snakes?
Instead of snakes and ladders, it could be tentacles and ladders.
@@bobthemonitor9697 Cthandy Land.
I don't normally agree with Sam, but I thought his list was spot-on here. That being said, this list felt very directed compared to their previous list about designer tips.
Zee Garcia HAS to be one of the funniest guys on youtube. His expressions in every video are genious. :D
As someone new to game design, these videos are immensely helpful in helping me learn what to avoid and what aspects of my prototype will probably need a fair bit more work. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
Copyright and Patents are very different. You can't copyright a game with any amount of money, as Copyright is both automatic and free (you just have to prove you did it first). Copyright protects "Copy", for example, the aesthetics, the rules (as written), and anything you have written about your game (e.g. text on cards etc.)
Patents protect technologies (generally speaking) - so in theory, you would patent a mechanic. However, this is incredibly difficult, and potentially very expensive, and time consuming etc. As Tom said, it's not worth it!
You cannot protect an idea, you can only protect the tangible result of an idea. Most games out there use the mechanics from one or many other games that already exist. It is very rare to have a truly unique or new mechanic. For example, drawing cards is a mechanic, and an idea - you can't protect the idea of drawing cards. You can design very unique looking cards, and copyright the designs but that would be automatic.
I design and create art work for cards and books and I don' t know how many times I tell people you don't really need to waste your money copyrighting the art work. One once I draw it and create the art its copyrighted. I then give them a license or the rights to the art work. That all they really need. Oh and not all text covered by copy right including much of the text on cards. It has to still be unique language and original. But yes you don't need to copyright especially unless you have the money to waste to have it officially logged.
MATH! 10 ways of combining 2 modules from 5 possibilities. Tom knows math.
AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE
Combinations. Not Permutations.
I don’t wear a hat. But hat’s off to you Vassal.
ZEE, loved your #2 on listening to playtester's emotions. My main experience playtesting was for the Roll Player expansion. The designer really seemed most interested in feedback like "it feels like the solo gamer is getting cheated here." I hadn't really even pieced that together until I saw this.
Great job by all three. This time I have to say Sam brought it. When these lists are games I don't always agree with his reasons for certain games being on or left off a list. But with this stuff he nailed it. Nice
"Stop rolling for movement!"
They rolled for movement.
Great video, as usual.
Stefano Crespi they rolled for order, not movement.
What game was Sam talking about on his #2....Zombie KS game that excluded a core mechanism from the retail edition??
J Dubb also wondering about this. please share your knowledge with us.
Gaaaaah I'm watching this video two years later and I'm really interested in Zombicide BP/Green Horde at the moment, are they talking about it?? Or what??
Interestingly, as a video game developer, a lot of these (or at least, the spirit of them) apply to video game development as well. Thanks for the insight, this was a really great video.
Sam: there are people out there whos favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla.
Zee: I don't think so ...
Whaaaat !!!
I'm Portuguese and I never understood why using the word vanilla with that meaning. Now I understand. You think vanilla is not a flavor, lol !!!!! One of my favorite flavors is vanilla and also for many people I know.
MrTravolta7 oh have you never tried vanilla with other flavors added? Because vanilla is a base, not a standalone.
The vanilla extends life. The vanilla expands consciousness.
10 combinations is correct. You choose one module out of 5, then one out of 4. 5x4 = 20. But that counts (A,B) and (B,A) twice, so you divide by 2. 10 :)
1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, 3 and 4. 6 combinations with 4 variables.
MasterdoMagic combinatorics!!
Hurray for people who stayed awake during maths classes!
I actually show that segment to my students, as an example of what an educated person should know. It's simple, but I like the ease with which Tom answers it!
1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 1 and 5, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 3 and 5, 4 and 5 = all combinations
Great stuff all around in this video, but Zee is dropping some SOLID GOLD
One of the best top tens in awhile! Everyone had really good points, but Sam was on fire, especially with his #'s 2 and 3.
Tom if it is so easy to get our games published now days, then tell us how or what companies are more likely to publish 1st time designers. Make a video of that.
/facepalm
Days of Wonder has published first time designers as codesigners on their two most recent games. Look esoteric publisher.
In many cases if I find out a game winner is decided on a points system - I don't buy it. A heavily themed game that is decided on points when points is not a real part of the theme, actually makes me not want to bother getting into the theme because the points drags me out of the theme.
Laughed when tom was going through his permutation list. 10 vs 16. I was sitting here adding them up in my head.
Ah, so I wasn't the only one who did that.
And he was totally checked out of what Sam was saying as he mentally worked on the puzzle
I did one thing here that they said not to do. see, I typically hated card and board games. never appreciated them....until I came up with an idea.
I figured "Hurr durr, its just a card game, anyone can do th-NO... it's an involved process that's taken me years to research, and scrape together. but so rewarding. I've been holding back going for funding until I get a few more details ironed out.
I still don't really enjoy card games or board games but I have a new appreciation for them
This was one of the most entertaining Top 10s you guys have done. Bravo.
Really enjoyed the video! You made a lot of good points, but I also feel some of your thoughts boils down to personal opinion and how well it's executed (e.g. long games, roll to move, ignoring replayability, artwork, Shout this!). Look forward to more videos like this. Really nice background :)
I'd like to add "stop ignoring color composition, contrast, & readability issues". Bad colors can ruin otherwise great art. Having texts/symbols that are hard to read would defeat their purpose of clearly communicating rules, effects etc to the players. Having outlines or unsharp masking might help
I'd love a top 10 best spiel des jahres nominees (no winners)! Has it already been done?
I think Tom did something like that.
IMPORTANT: Vanilla is my favorite flavor of ice cream. I do not think there is a single flavor that compares to it. It has a fullness or weight to it that the other flavors don't offer. Chocolate bland. Strawberry (i would have gotten a shake if i was interested). But vanilla carries a full weight liken unto ambrosia. :)
Totally agree. Vanilla us awesome.
Mine too ... or more specifically, vanilla bean.
Christian Abbott Yeah chocolate is overdone and more "vanilla" than vanilla is at this point. Triple chocolate with chocolate chips and chocolate syrup ice cream etc., the stuff they come up with just combines into bland sugar overload as there is no contrast of flavours. Quality vanilla is still rated very high for me as well.
French Vanilla all the way!
It's Vanilla all the way down.
5 choose 2 indeed equals 10 :) nicely done Tom. I'm excited to talk math with you on the cruise
Thanks for the video! Great points - especially helpful for me were "playtest for emotions rather than mechanics" and "don't become a publisher". I'm pleased that I was in strong agreement with almost all entries; hopefully it means I'm on the right path :)
@Sam Healey: Regarding your #1 (dice rolling for movement / combat), obviously it can be poorly done so the game is dominated by luck, but would you still have a problem with the mechanism if the game is designed so that a skilled player can dominate? For instance, in backgammon where one can adopt a back game strategy when behind in the race? Or hypothetically a game where one could modify dice / choose alternative dice for different probability distributions?
hahahah zee's #4 - i bought a game named "Pictureka!" a few years ago. I've never played it because of the shouting "PICTUREKA!" rule.
This is why I hate Talisman.
Roll to see where you move.
Roll to see what happens to you.
Roll to see if you attack someone.
Roll to see if you defend yourself.
Roll to see if the game just kills me by random chance.
Roll to kill myself.
Why don't we just roll die. See who rolls higher. That person wins.
There you go, that's Talisman.
There are so many other games out there that can give you the same style of play: that look better, play faster, give you player agency, and are actually fun.
It's like how people think Monopoly is a good economics game because it's been around forever.
NO.
It's been around forever because it's old and people remember old things. And since it's been around forever THAT MEANS ITS OLD. And so it plays like an old boring game. Do you not think there has been advancement in game design in the last 50+ years?! Why the **** are you still playing a board game that your grandfather played?!
Yeah an old Model T might be a cool old blast from the past car. And you can drive it once and immerse yourself in the wonder of the past with the first mass produced auto mobile.
But NOBODY!
NOBODY!
Wants to drive a Model T every single day to work. When they could drive a car made with AC, power steering, antilock brakes, cushioned seats, air bags, seat belts, led/halogen headlights, turn signals, brake lights, rear view mirrors, radios, GPS, cup holders, multipane glass windows, unibody frames, keyed ignition, and I could go on...
Game design has improved.
Why would you choose to play an old boring antiquated completely random chance game. When thousands upon thousands of games exist out there that you could play?
Heard you guys diss vanilla flavored ice cream, immediately went to the comment section and was not disappointed
Seems like you should rename the video to "Kickstarter Designers".
It's just that KS games get more exposure therefore it appears as if they are a bigger culprit. I'm sure that there are and have been plenty of games guilty of this that never even went near KS.
No doubt
Sam have you been losing weight? You look great!
Was thinking the same thing. It's hard to tell overall when they are sitting, but his face does look a little thinner
I really do not mind people "stealing" ideas for mechanics. If a mechanism works and works well, it SHOULD be part of everyones tool kit now.
With the expansion one I want to clarify a couple exceptions;
A) an expansion that adds a different play mode such as altered player count which the original form of the game would have to be modified to accommodate(game still works as intended just with less players, no 1-2 player mode etc) or
B) the features in question fall within a kind of interaction that isn't necessary to the game inherently and involve negative player interaction that you want to leave as an option but not force it into the original when it will have a broader appeal as a game with other forms of interaction that are less aggressive, direct competition-style etc. That's where I'm at right now.
coldstone has an ice cream flavor "sweet cream" that is pretty flavorless, it's just sweet.
Substituting funny for good: Cards against Humanity anyone?
AlmightyK Munchkin came to my mind first. :)
But CAH is neither funny nor good.
Munchkin, however, is both.
It depends on your taste, really. I would rather play CAH than Munchkin. :)
Whether or not you prefer it, CaH is mechanically a bad game
Cards Against Humanity is only fun the first time you're playing it with a new group. Then it's funny. But I am so tired of that game now! I would rather play Munchkin any day. But people think of that as a little-kids game, so I don't even bother suggesting it anymore. Other games that I like that are just played with cards are The Grizzled and Machi Koro. Even though the new expansions of Machi Koro took away some of the fun mechanism of the original game :/
Publishers decide what the budget is for artwork, not the designer. Artwork doesn't start with the designer because few designers have £5000 in their pocket to forward fund a unique deck of cards. 90%+ of a designers play tests will be carried out with 'mediocre' artwork. That's a sensible expedience to prevent wasting money on an artists time spent on redundant aspects of the game.
That is all too true. I designed all the artwork to a client who was making a card game. I first sent just sketches so they could play test their game. Waiting for me to finish the art and printing up full color versions to demo to people would costed them a ton of money. It also proved how good their game design was. Playtesters were not blinded by the pretty art and loved the concept. Art when done was displayed on their website for those interested to critique for final changes. Surprising some of the feed back wanted the art work scaled back on certain components and simplified. Yes sometimes the simple black and white (which it had different colors not black and white) is works better for function. lol
Which zombie game that was made "complete" with the expansion?
Also for Sam's #1, what about Masmorra for rolling which actions you get to take?
The number one of Tom : Every miniature games ever.
Sheriff of Nottingham strikes me as a game where the playtesters were all of one mind. It's as if no one had even considered not lying. The game seemed to assume that everyone would always try to smuggle contraband through, and when it was released and people pointed out that you could win most of the time by just dealing in legal goods the designers were like "Huh, who knew".
Hence the expansion which really ups the rewards from smuggling goods.
I thought I was the only one who felt this way!
The designer agrees with you, but the publisher changed the rules...
I haven't played Sheriff of Nottingham, so I do not know if there is a meta game involved. If the majority of the players lie and smuggle but get caught, probably someone trading legal goods can win. But my question is this: If majority now starts dealing in legal goods, can someone cheat the system by occasionally smuggling?
Perhaps the phase where everyone cheats is just the beginning, and real game starts to happen when most of the players start trading the legal goods?
There is a meta game to it, exactly what you described but the payoff for trying to bring in contraband doesn't make sense mathematically. I feel like even if you get only busted 20% of the time, you'll still be worse off point wise than when bringing in the legal goods only.
Zoran Vujcic sorry but this doesn't make sense. If at the end of the game you have 100 chickens vs 100 chickens + 20 contrabands the contraband wins.
Instead of smuggling 4 chickens, you smuggle 4 chickens and a crossbow the contraband guy wins
I've watched enough of your videos now, to wonder why you haven't noticed that at least 50% of your thoughts either closely link or are the same thing. It would save all of us about 10 min per video if you could gameplan your videos to boil it down to 10 actually unique things rather than a video of this length being so repetitive.
Watching this again now I think of sleeping gods tides of ruin in sam’s comment of holding back content meant for the base game
My uncle usually goes for vanilla ice cream for dessert. Sometimes with raspberries. 99% of my family are chocoholics, and we don't understand him at all, but I guess it's more chocolate for us.
I watched this video a while back. And I was thinking about this today. . .
One thing designers need to STOP doing is creating games that ONLY WORK FOR 2, 3, OR 4 PLAYERS. PLEASE create games that work well for 5 OR 6 PLAYERS. 5 or 6 player games are REALLY NEEDED!
Good games don't work at that player count. You need to stop inviting 5-6 players over unless you own 2 tables.
@@benanderson46 Do you know or understand my situation? It's a FAMILY of five gamers.
I Agree with Sam's #1, But I have made it my personal goal to develop a game that does roll for actions right. I think i'm close.
That moment when you realize that half of the comments are about vanilla ice cream -_-
The thing that I hate the most is upkeep. If your game has more upkeep than playtime, maybe make it a videogame.
Regarding telling people not to try and design and publish: While I understand why you are saying it (since most will fail), if no one tried it those exceptions to the rule would not exist.
I agree. The vast majority of designers ideas are rejected. Doesn't matter if their game is good or bad. In the end best advice it to try, try again and play test your game to death. If players like it they will play and buy it no matter if its just another zombie game and it will become the exception to the rule. After all if its good its good. Who cares if its like another Mars game.
I think Talisman is popular despite having roll and move because
a) 6 tends not to be 6 times better than a 1 in this game. You're not generally racing to anywhere. Sometimes the 1 is the number you'd prefer over any other.
b)After you've rolled you have meaningful choices with what to do with the roll. At the basic level, you need to compare the option clockwise or the option counter-clockwise. - but also which space gives you the better chance of something good next turn.
I know the game has dated some and I'm biased by nostalgia reasons, but Talisman's roll and move doesn't produce variance anywhere near as disastrous as many implementations of the mechanic.
Pretty much what I wanted to say.
Monopoly is also popular. Being popular isn't equal to being a good mechanics in a game. And it's not always a matter of die. When there's a chance of always not gaining anything, because of that chance and nothing else, then that's a bad mechanism. If in Talisman the 1 is the better one, nothing has really changed about the fact that die is choosing your faith. It's not adding randomness, it's THE randomness. If you have something to remediate that, that'd be cool. If you have the choice of not rolling that die, that'd be cool. But if you should roll each and every turn and you might roll the unlucky one, that's not cool at all.
Re: Tom's #9: "Wasting time copywriting" (6:13 - 7:26) : I wonder if the word "copywriting" could be edited?
Tom is talking about getting a copyright for your work (copyrighting), not writing for advertising or marketing (copywriting).
Thanks for making all these videos. They are helpful!
Exactly. Copyrighting your game may or may not be useful, but writing good copy will probably improve your sales.
No offense, but maybe, when you make videos, you should coordinate each other's points beforehand so we don't have to listen to three different takes on the same matter of playtesting. This is really 30 things designers need to stop doing, only 10 to 15 of which are actually different.
Yes, this is a bummer with this format.
5 choices x 4 choices /2 because order don't matter = 10. Tom is right.
Don’t make a game that 100 people LOVE rather than a game that thousands love.
Also Don’t make a game for everyone.
That is a tricky range to hit perfectly, both wide appeal and not universal appeal, and niche appeal.
Yes! I can't stand KS projects that are bloated and expensive but make their goal because of a bunch of whales, who are attracted to that niche.
Yes, those long games! It is so difficult to find people who are willing to play those with me. I don't even like the ones that go more than two hours. One exception recently is Terraforming Mars. As it went on, it got more exciting. And the rules were simple enough that we were able to learn it quickly as we went. I love the games Scythe and Agricola, but it takes about an hour to teach people the games and then they're playing for another two or three hours. And then they never want to look me in the eye again when I mention a game night. It's just too long and there is too much happening. I bet they could have been honed down a bit. So now I end up playing them solo a lot. Too much. :(
No offense, but I find dice towers to be highly impractical gimmicks :D
So vague and ambiguous, I can't see any designer getting much out of this.
Zee was the MVP here, some very well thought picks and not so obvious. Especially his 8 was gr8!
But also a very good idea for a top ten, bravo DT team!
Same thing with playing cards, one one point everyone was designing Cthulhu decks or zombie decks or robot/steampunk decks. Like do something original, lol.
Some of my favorite games: Risk, Star Trek Ascendancy, Betrayal at House on the Hill, plus other massively successful games like Gloomhaven, every version of Risk (except Office Politics), and war games set in Westeros or Middle Earth... Sorry, not worth watching this video if your first point is a terrible point.
So many times during this video I wanted someone to tell the designer, "Just save it for the expansion." Whether it be a variant, more components, more rules, or more mechanisms -- "Save it for the expansion."
A bit late to the party but here's mine: have your rule book edited by a professional copywriter. As language professionals, it's often depressing for my husband and I to go though rule books with haphazard idea organization and ambiguous phrasing. It's especially insulting when we know it would have been so easy for a professional to go through it and flag all the problems. We're not talking about design or idea rework, just rearranging the order of sections and editing the language to make things as clear as possible.
Permutations 5*4 =20
Combinations 5*4 /(2*1) = 10
What a bunch of nerds. Love this channel. Photosynthesis is awesome.
A bit of a Ballmer moment here from Tom (development, development, development) :D
On the subject of intellectual property: one could make a Sherlock Holmes game.
Pretty important: Control your gorram randomness in your game. Seriously. We should play the game, not the game itself.
I think it would be informative if the Dice Tower would do a video of what the process of game design is like. From designer to publishing. Much of what they are complaining about is actually in the hands of the publishers after they agree to publish a designer s game. They should also interview game designers and their publishers. I think this would be more useful to future game designers. From what I have read from game designers their games are sometimes rethemed and mechanics changed by publishers.
I'm curious what more examples of the "Making the players design the game" thing would be.
MultipleManArmy putting it on kickstarter then pulling it off and adding solo and Co op modes
Watch Tom's "Mr. Game" review...
A good example is "decide who is first player" I've played two games recently that do this. Near and Far has no way to determine the first player. SMOG is even worse having the players decide themselves who gets to be leader of the group and the leader has final say in everything. If you get two people that think they should go first or be leader than you start the game with a disagreement at best and argument at worst. Does this sound fun to you? I think not. This is why it is so high on their list.
An example is, when the price for a thing is determined by an auction in the game when the designer could have made a fixed price instead, but was too lazy/unable to figure out the proper price.
38:42 Hate to break it to everyone, but Twilight Struggle, the game that was #1 on BoardGameGeek for ages, has a dumb "shout this" rule.
...Vanilla is my favorite flavor, no toppings.
My wife got me into it. It's not bad. Especially if you get like, a weird region vanilla that tastes really unique.
Sam and Zee aren't disagreeing on #9 in the way they seem to think they are. Zee's point was that designers shouldn't get hung up on arbitrary limitations. Sam is saying that designers need to focus their game on its strongest points/mechanisms and not throw in a bunch more just because they seem cool. The kind of "limits" he wants designers to impose on themselves aren't arbitrary (such as Zee's example of box size) but revolve solely around the gaming experience. Their points complement each other very well and it's a shame that no one at the table seemed to realize that.
Great video. very thought-provoking on what makes good design, and bad design. Makes me appreciate my boardgame collection and the effort that went into making some really great and fun games.
Vanilla is awesome! Yes i like chocolate ice cream with syrup and raspberry, But a good vanilla hits the spot! Yes it is a flavor... and its a good flavor!
Great video guys! Tom's reaction to Zee's #4 was hilarious. Also, kudos to Tom for not beating around the bush with his #2. That probably hurt some feelings but he makes a solid point.
I am one of those beta testers. I test games for FFG. I do think testing should be longer though. I just tested a game and only had 3 weeks to do it. I didn't think it was enough time. However, when they had 8-12 groups doing it, maybe they can get those wrinkles out. Not sure...
This is simply a great video. I linked to it on "The Boardgaming Way." I hope that's ok with you.
Thanks,
- Fred
I started watching Toms Classic series podcast from 2005 and he never used to be like this. He used to be much more reserved to the point where he even said "monopoly gets a worse rep than it's worth." Time on camera effects people I guess. I liked when he was more reserved and less mean.
I could not agree with Sam more about #2. If a game is incomplete without its expansions then I'm not buying it.
My friends are ruthless and are much more likely to be critical than Joe Blow, but I still agree with your point. I do have friends I know I cannot ask them to test a game, or I would not know how to get a critical response from them.
It's not just if they're or not emotionally attached to you. It's because you don't get enough variation of personalities or thinking. I usually play with the same group, and we tend to do the same strategies from game to game, also, we get used to ourselves, then we adapt our way to victory and maneuvers to what we think our partners will react. , And then, when it happens that I play with a differeng group, the others approaches the game in a different way, that surprises me, because it can be totally different. And then it's like playing a new game, not for the mechanisms or the game itself, but by the players.
Mechanisms of a game would be patents not copyrights, but probably like software functions it would also not be able to be patented. But the game itself could be rather easily copyrighted.
Love the looks from Sam and Zee during Tom's #2...haha...see what I did there?
Apocrypha2012 Made my day haha. Thanks sir.
Something I'd add to the list is: Consistency in terms.
I've played so many games that are inconsistent in terms, therefore messing up rules.
War of Whispers for instance, sometimes uses "any region" and other times "region it controls" or even "controlled region" to all indicate the same thing. As a result, we first thought there was a difference (any = uncontrolled as well), but there isn't meant to be a difference. We ended up dumping the game due to endless rules discussions as a result of inconsistent terms.