DToW #10 (Play Testing)

How many times do you need to playtest a design?

Well, that is a broad question, and really depends on the circumstance.  I would say way more than you think.  I know we have tested all of our designs well over 100 times each.

100 times, where do you find all that time?

Making a good game is about finding the time.  Not all those playtests are full run-throughs of the game, if something is obviously broken we stop the test and talk about what we experienced.  And ways to improve on the design.  Even with "bad" versions of the game, there is always some good, so I ask people their favorite part.  That is one of my favorite questions because it is usually easier for someone to give you positive feedback than negative feedback.  This starts the feedback discussion.  Then I can go into, "what was your least favorite part?" and "if you could make one change, what would it be?"  These are early playtests questions typically, but I use them all throughout the process as it still breaks the ice, even with a late stage prototype.  During a late stage play test you may get the same feedback over and over and realize something needs to be addressed.

You didn't answer the question.  100 times?  Really?

Yes.  It is crucial to get a lot of playtests on a design.  There are different stages of play testing though, and not all the playtests are with other people.  It also depends on the level of complexity of your game.  Smaller simpler games will need less play testing to be sure you have it right.  Although those are the fastest to playtest normally, so you could easily still get a lot of playtests in.

Also, if you have been designing for a long time you may be able to get away with fewer playtests.  Although I think this is a bit of a copout too, as we have all seen bad designs from well known designers.

You can probably tell from this discussion that I am a big fan of getting your design right the first time.  Some people take the "throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks" approach, but we like to invest a lot of time in each design.  We want to work the kinks out before the general public gets to see it.  Even when we get it where we want it, we work with our publishers to streamline and balance it more.  For each change we try to get at least one play test in for each of us (Mike and myself) so we can discuss our thoughts.

You mentioned different stages of play testing.  What do you mean?

We start by keeping the game in house for a while.  Doing a lot of solo play testing, controlling 2 or 3 characters each if need be.  When we feel we actually have a game, we will get together and play it ourselves a few times and tweak it.  More solo play tests if necessary until we feel it is ready for your close knit gaming groups.  This is key, you don't want to put a lot of crap in front of them or they won't want to play any more of your designs.  Some groups that are extra sensitive to aesthetics.  We won't even put it in front of them until it is almost done.  That is ok, you just have to feel out your groups and see how they respond.  If you feedback is all about the graphic design and art, this isn't a good group for early play tests.

After we have played it ourselves and feel it is good, we will bring it to our closest friends and family.  That way if things go horribly wrong we can just stop and play something else.  Usually I will just play a few turns with my wife to start.  This will give me a chance to teach the rules (usually you will find some flaws right here) and see how easy the game is to understand for someone who hasn't been working on it.

If it passes the family test I will usually try to get it to a convention next.  Unpub conventions are the best (the Kickstarter for Unpub 5 is starting today July 7th at noon, make sure you sign up), but any convention you can convince strangers to play a prototype will work.  Sometimes just setting it up on a table next to you while you play something else will draw people over (please don't do this if there is limited gaming space at your convention and people are looking for tables).

Meanwhile, during all these other steps we are continuing to playtest solo and tweak.  We talk at least 3-4 times a week, usually much more, when we are at this stage of development.  It is also key to start working on the rules if you haven't done so already.  You will need them for the next step of play testing which is the blind playtest.  This is where you give the game to people who haven't played it before with only the rules to learn it from.  It is great if you can be there to observe and see what they are getting wrong.  Try not to intervene unless you know the answer to their question isn't in the rules.  If that is the case, take notes and fix the rules.  Make them look up rules they can't remember so you see how long it takes them to find it.  Make sure to emphasize rules that are forgotten, or missed during these sessions.

After all this is done we start looking for publishers who may be interested in our type of games.  The play testing doesn't stop here though, we are constantly tweaking the games to try and make them better.  If we have sent a prototype to a publisher, we try not to make any tweaks to that game until we get feedback from them.  You don't want to be playing a different game than they are.  Once we get their feedback we go into development mode again and work to correct things.  Then more play tests.  At this point we are doing all types: solo, together (just the two of us), family, game groups, conventions, etc. 

Can you summarize those stages again?

These stages build on each other.  We start with solo and keep adding as we go down.  None ever go away though and we will be solo testing all throughout the design.

• Solo
• With a close friend (lead play tester, co-designer)
• Family and YOUR Game Group
• Conventions
• Blind Play Tests
• Publisher

Anything else?

There is a lot more to cover, but that will be it for this week.  We will hit the subject again in the future.  Don't forget to sign up for Unpub 5 on Kickstarter.  This is an unsolicited endorsement.  As always your feedback is appreciated.

That is it for this week.  Next week we are going to cover board layout and prototyping.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.

DToW #9 (Working With A Publisher)

So are you some kind of expert in working with all publishers?

No.  I only have experience working with two publishers on games, but I thought it may be helpful to share my experiences.  I know some people want to go out and publish their own games, more power to you, but there are some benefits to working with a publisher.

What benefits?

The biggest one for me is that I don't want to deal with art coordination, printers, Kickstarter, BGG advertising, Convention booths, logistics, and everything else I don't even know about.  I want to design games.  I want to design games.  Some people love the other stuff.  More power to you, I will send you some of my prototypes to publish, but for me the fun is in the challenge of design.

What else?

Publishers think differently than I do.  Even AJ, who is a designer himself, will look at the number and type of components.  How to best do layout.  Ideal number of Characters to include in the box.  As a designer, I hope to start thinking about these things, but they definitely aren't at the front of my mind right now.

Also?

Sometimes you are so close to a game you can't see it's warts.  It takes that outside set of eyes to look at it, and make it better.  Play testers are great, but they don't have a financial incentive to keep pushing the design forward. 

A lot of times it is cutting the extra bits, but sometimes it is something little that makes a huge difference.  A perfect example is when we started working with AJ on Salvation Road, one of the first suggestions he made was to start with the locations face down.  We use to just deal them to the board face up.  Doesn't seem like a big change, so we tried it.  Wow what a difference it made.  First off it made explanations to new players easier.  They didn't have to look at 3-5 locations before deciding what to do.  Also, it made the first turn much more exciting, and less calculated.  You get the feeling of discovery as you go out.  Also, you may need to move people around so they are at a more ideal location so the game becomes more dynamic.

I am sure that publishers who have no design experience would be just as helpful in the development process.  It isn't necessarily the same skillset, so I don't think you have to have a design background.  Chis with Dice Hate Me Games is great at development, even though he doesn't have a design background.  I am sure there are countless other examples of this as well.

How do I find a publisher that will help me with my game?

Well that is an interesting question.  And one that will take a lot more than one post to cover, but I will quickly give you my general thoughts here.

If you are looking for a publisher I would start with people who make games that you like.  If you like their games they probably publish the kind of game you are making.  Also, don't get discouraged if you get rejection, this will happen a lot.  It isn't necessarily your game there are a lot of factors that go into their decisions.  Sometimes it is though, so take their feedback seriously.

You may have to dig a little deeper, most of us won't be published by Fantasy Flight for example.  Check out the publishers website and see if they have a submission policy.  If they do, follow it to the tee, this isn't the place to get creative.  Publishers want to know you can follow directions so when they work with you they have a good idea you will be reliable.  Better yet, see if they will be attending any conventions you will be going to.  Try not to just approach them at their booth, send an email ahead of time and try to schedule some time if possible.  You probably won't get a whole demo in, so have a 30 second and 5 minute pitch ready.

The more interesting part of the question is getting help with your game.  Even though publishers schedules are sometimes tight, you may get lucky and they will play your game.  Even if they don't pick it up, they will give some of the best feedback you will get.  As stated above they sometimes look at things from a different scope.  Having this insight will make your choices for developing the game more informed.

What else?

Let me know what you think?  How have your interactions with publishers gone so far?  Am I wrong, should we all be self publishing?

That's if for this week.  Next week we are going to cover play testing.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.

DToW #8 (Unpub lessons)

What was the biggest benefit of the Unpub this past Saturday?

Honestly I think it was the deadline, and the pressure we put on ourselves.  Mike, AJ (our publisher) and I really started drilling down and getting things ready for play testing this weekend and the game improved so much in just 2 days of emails and intense play testing (even before we went).  The fear of failure in front of your peers is a strong motivator.  The games were good before this weekend, but really came together well in the final stretch.

What lessons did you learn by playing your games?

The biggest thing I took out of the session was watching people's reactions.  What were they confused by?  What didn't they see as beneficial? What took too long?  When did the game bog down? What didn't sync in thematically?  All these things can be learned through observation.  Certainly getting the feedback, and suggestions at the end was great and all those will be considered.  But sometimes you don't get too much feedback.  And you don't want those sessions to be wasted, so it is key to be observant during the test.  For that reason it is always better to sit on the sideline and watch.  I try not to help too much (although it is hard) because I want to see what strategies people gravitate toward.  What is interesting to them when they see the board.

Did you play any other game?

Yes, I love playing other peoples games at these events.  Not only to see what cool new concept, or twist, they came up with, but also to test my designer brain.  Can I figure out a solution to a problem they have been having with the game.  If it seems polished, can I break it with a certain strategy.  If it is early, what are the key parts of the game that can be built around and what needs to be taken out, or refined.

I heard you played a game that was almost complete, what happened there?

One of the games I played was very polished looking.  You could tell they were years into the design as there were many charts and tables.  Lots of chits on your board and many cards to look through.  Honestly it was all very overwhelming at first.  Behind it all was a very good game that just needed to have some trimming done.  We talked about some chits on the board that tracked things for realism, but didn't add much to the game.  Taking them out streamlined gameplay without changing anything.  And it was one less thing to look at and set up from the start.

And?

Next we talked about the charts.  There were lots of charts, but not all of them were used at the same time.  So we talked about separating the charts, not by theme, but by when they were used in the game.  That way you didn't have to look at all the charts when you sat down, you could get them when you needed them.  Again, reducing the overstimulation when you sat down.

Lastly?

The key change we made was instead of getting 12 cards at the start of the game, you only got 5.  This doesn't seem like a lot but with there being 3 things you could use each card for 12 was way too many at one time unless you knew the game really well.  There were 3 phases so the same number of cards still came out over these phases, they just came out slower so you didn't get information overload.  You got 5, then 4, then 3.  In the end you still had lots of options without the wave of complexity when you first sat down.

Lesson Learned?

I feel like a broken record sometimes.  The honest answer is streamline.  We figured out the biggest hurdle to the game was just getting started.  We simplified this so people could get to the good game underneath.  Look for things that don't add anything to the game and remove them.  Try to reduce the visual clutter, or the amount of information people have to take in at one time.

Any other games?

I want to talk about them all, but I will just cover one more.  It had very interesting mechanics, but was still pretty rough around the edges.  The first thing that jumped out at me though was that everyone did exactly the same thing on the first 2 turns.  So players later in the order had to pay more to do the same thing people earlier were doing.  At first we thought this was the problem and tried to come up with a solution for balancing that.  Then we realized it was a bigger problem.  Why have the first two turns if everyone is doing the same thing?  After asking that question the designer agreed that it happened that way every game.  We decided that the real fix was to cut the first two turns and start players with different resources to make the market more interesting.  This also had the benefit of shaving time off the game.

Lesson Learned?

Sometimes the problem isn't what you think it is.  Sometimes the problem is deeper, or simpler.  Sometimes it takes other eyes to see that.  When you come up against a problem that seems too daunting, or the fix will change some fundamentals of the game, make sure you are fixing the right problem.  Try to re-examine it in your mind.  Make sure there isn't an easier, or better solution.

Time!!!

Already?  Thanks for joining me again this week.  Next week we are going to cover working with your publisher.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.

DToW #7 (Player Aids)

Why are we talking about Player Aids?  Isn't that something people on BGG put together for published games?

I decided to broach this subject because I have read and heard some other designers talking about how important it is to write down the rules early in the process.  There are lots of benefits, like:

• Understanding when you have a difficult concept (putting it down on paper brings that out)
• Remembering the rules if you put the prototype away for a while
• Getting someone else to read them and help you figure out where they are confusing
• Just the process of writing something will sometimes bring out it's flaws

These are all valid points, but I don't write the rules early in the process, and I started thinking about why.  Part of it is having a design partner lets me talk over lots of game concepts.  If something is hard to verbalize, or there are lots of questions about it, you will figure out really quickly that your concept needs to be revised.  Read more about that here DToW #3 (Co-Design).

The other reason I don't write the full rules is that I write detailed Player Aids very early.  After my first playtest I will usually have a fully flushed out Player Aid.  Here are some additional benefits to the Player Aid, above what you get from just writing the rules:

• Something to give to playtesters that they can look at quickly while you go over the rules
• Something you can look at yourself to find a key rule
• An outline for when you do write the rules
• You rules are fluctuating so much at this point that a Player Aid is much easier to update than a full set of rules

How big are these Player Aids?

I like to keep mine to a half a page.  I will include a couple of examples below. 

As you can see I have them divided into card sized quarters.  I will try to use as few cards as possible, but this lets me know when the rules for any one thing are getting too complicated, or I have too many symbols.  I sometimes start with just a round summary on one card and grow from there.

For The Last Bastion I have an End of Round summary on the First Player Marker.  This lets me kill 2 birds with one stone.  One less component and having a quick reminder right there on the table without taking up more space.

What should you put on them to make them useful?

I usually don't put exceptions, unless they come up a lot.  I just want the basics of the rules. Things like:

• A Round Summary
• End Game Conditions/ Scoring
• Action Summaries
• Symbol Summaries
• Cover any key phase of the game more in depth
• Cover key cards if you have space (better to make one big exception you can apply to multiple cards if possible though)

If your Player Aid is done right, it should be directly translatable to the rule book.  The key concepts will be described in more detail in the rules, but the wording should be directly translatable.

What else?

Nothing this week.  As always if you have comments please post them below, reach out to us on Twitter @MVPBoardgames, or by e-mail: MVPBoardgames@gmail.com.  Also, we will be at the Unpub Mini in Virginia this Saturday 6/21/14, come out and see us.

Next week I will be talking about what I learned at the Unpub Mini.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.

DToW #6 (Tokens)

Why tokens?

I usually use a mix of tokens and cards.  So how do I decide?  If there is just a little bit of information to relay I will usually use tokens.  They are smaller, so take up less room.  They are also cheaper to make, at least the way I do it.  For cards I need to buy sleeves to make shuffling easier.  For tokens I can just put them in a Ziploc bag to shuffle.  There is also something nice about the way a thick token feels.  Makes the game more visceral.

Why not buy little plastic chits, isn't that easier and cheaper?

In some situations I agree, plastic chips make perfect sense.  We like to add a lot of theme to our games, and these are a fairly inexpensive, low tech way to do that.  Certainly there will be times for generic chips, but when you get the games in front of play testers or publishers the more immersed you can get them the better.  Just the little bit of graphic design that will let you know, oh cool that is a bow, or ore.  We don't make elaborate prototypes, but components matter.  And if you can do it quick and fairly cheap, even better.

So how do you make tokens?

Surprise, this week I tried my hand at a video.  Come back when you are done watching to get a link to the punchers I use and some other components I discuss in the video.  Here is the link, it's only 3 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MtGDefrVo&feature=youtu.be

What about double sided tokens?

Yea, I forgot to put that in the video.  Just do the same thing on the other side.  I do try to line them up so when you flip them you don't have to do a whole lot of adjusting, but that is just me and it certainly takes more time.

What do you do if you mess up or change the tokens?

I just print on the 110lb paper again, punch it out, and glue it on top.  If the tokens start getting too thick, I will use a hobby knife to peel off the top few layers first.

What is this Coaster Board you speak of?

I used Chip Board a lot at first, but I was having a hard time finding a thickness I liked.  The medium was way too heavy and broke one of my punchers.  And the light seemed too light.  The side benefit of the Coaster Board is the clean look to the back of your tokens.  I still use Chip Board to make the board, or other pieces, just not tokens any more.  Here is a link:  http://www.stampinup.com/ECWeb/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=129392

What size punches do you use?

I use 3/4 inch punches for smaller tokens.  It seems to be a good size to fit 1 piece of info.  Here is a link to one that is pretty affordable:

http://www.amazon.com/EK-Tools-Circle-0-75-Inch-Package/dp/B0090JVBP0/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1402285006&sr=8-8&keywords=ek+tools+punches

I use 1.25 inch punch for bigger tokens that I need to get more information on.  Here is a link to the one I have:

http://www.amazon.com/EK-Tools-Circle-1-25-Inch-Package/dp/B0090JVF7E/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1402285189&sr=8-9&keywords=ek+tools+punches

Anything else?

Nope that is it for this week, hope you enjoyed it.  Next week I will be talking about player aids.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.

Random Musing #1

I just wanted to reach out to everyone who reads this blog and thank you for giving it a chance.  As we near 1000 views in our first month, I wanted to also ask for some feedback. 

What have you liked so far?

What could you do without?

What topics do you want me to cover in the future?

Would you like video or audio content?

I want this blog to be interactive.  I want to put out content you want to hear about.  Any feedback is appreciated.

DToW #5 (My Top Games of 2013 and What I learned from them)

Why are you telling us about your top games?  Aren't you suppose to talk about prototyping?

I figure this would be a good way to get to know my tastes a little better, but also I think there is a lot to learn from what has been done this year.  I thought 2013 was a great year for games and the lessons will definitely affect my designs in the future.  If you want to skip down to the meat of my design lessons you can skip to the second to last section, I wouldn't though.

What kind of games do you normally like?

This is very interesting when you see my selections below.  I like all sorts of games, but Power Grid, Ticket to Ride and Castles of Burgundy are definitely near the top of my list.  I love games like Blood Bowl (not Team Manager), Summoner Wars and Galaxy Trucker too.  This year I theme definitely won out for me though.  I think this is a good year to start this feature because the best games for me were very comparable to something in the past.  So I will spend so time doing that now.

So lets get to it.

The first game I want to highlight is Battle Lore 2nd Edition.  I have always liked the Command and Colors system, and liked the original Battle Lore quite a bit.  I bought quite a few expansions, but spent most of my time playing the base game, without a lot of the advanced stuff.  Why?  Because every time I brought it out I was learning the basic stuff all over again.  The war council stuff seemed fiddly.  And the board took forever to set up.  And again, this is a game and system I like a lot.

So what has changed?

They streamlined a lot of things.  In doing so it allowed them to give units individual powers.  They took that clunky setup, and it still isn't fast, but they made it fun and interactive.  You each set up your own side of the board at the same time.  You have unique objectives you need to think about each game, not just yours, but theirs too.  Setup when from an exercise to a part of the game.

How were they able to make the game more streamlined, yet add powers to the units to make them more differentiated?

That is the beauty.  They took away a lot of the special exceptions and put them on the units themselves.  With the old system there were 3 different colors (green, blue and red).  Each color had archers, melee and cavalry.  Each iteration of these have different move and attack values.  While none of it was complicated, there were a lot of the same colors that didn't equate to the same stats.  The new version focused on a few core mechanics.  When they break the rule, it is on the cards themselves.  You only have a few different types of units that you can learn quickly.  Other rules they broke were on the Lore Cards themselves, but nothing you had to look up.  Bottom line is, the core rules were easier, and the exceptions came on the cards.  And not a ton per card, each unit may only have 1 or 2 special rules at most.  So when that unit was acting, you look at the card not the rulebook.

So what other games you got?

Another great example of streamlining a great game came with Nations.  I love Through the Ages, but Nations took the core of that game and made it so much better.  Yea, there are still problems with the game.  Tracking what resources you get each round is a pain, no other way to say it.  The art is also something that needs to be addressed.  For $100 game you should have more than one piece of artwork that is just repeated over and over.  But that aside the game is amazing.

How is it "better"?

My key take away from Nations is the turn sequence.  That is the major difference.  Through the Ages got so fancy with Civil and Military actions, that a players turn took way too long, and usually you had at least one or two, "oh wait, I need to do that over" moments per game.  So there goes another 10 minutes of my life.  With Nations simply giving you one action per turn, the game moves so much smoother.  Even though it is still a long game, you don't feel it because you know your turn is coming up again soon and it keeps you very engaged.  So if the pacing of your game seems off, think about integrating players turns, that is what Nations did and it worked out beautifully.

What other games did you like?

The next game I am going to cover is Eldritch Horror.  Sticking with the theme, they took the soul of Arkham Horror and streamlined it.  Eldritch took all the monster movement, getting sent to the other world, gates, all the cool thematic stuff about the Arkham.  They kept it all in there but it put it on the cards, not in the rules.  Just remembering a few core rules you can play the game.  I have played games with total new players and got them up and running in 5 minutes.  And the other players were making their own decisions, and understood what they were trying to do.  No they didn't know every consequence to their actions, but that is part of the fun of the game.

Last one?

This was a "New to Me" game from 2012.  I actually resisted this game, and every game like it because of my love for Blood Bowl.  That game was Dreadball.  What did Dreadball do that was so cool?  It kept alive the concept of very different teams (with their own strengths and weaknesses), progression you care about (sometimes more than the score of any one game), and fun gameplay.  But it cut the game times and complexity in half.  I could now teach this game to my wife and friends, and they would actually get it during the first game.  I didn't have to dumb down the rules for them.  They didn't have to play 200 games to get good at it.  The game itself was streamlined, while maintaining all the coolest parts about Blood Bowl.

Main Lessons from 2013?

• Streamline - If you have a good game, think of ways to preserve the core while taking out anything that keeps you away from the fun parts.  If you do want exceptions, put them on the cards in the game, not the rules.
• Pacing - Nations taught me to keep my players engaged.  Don't have really long turns if you can make it more interactive and have several shorter turns.
• Interactive - If you can take tedious parts, like the setup in Battle Lore, and make them interactive.  Have people do them simultaneously and add in little decisions so they aren't just following instructions, but interacting with the game.  This can go too far, I am looking at you Mansions of Madness, but I think the failing of that game is that it was only one person making the decisions while the others sat around.

Next Week?

New week I will be getting back into some tools of the trade.  I will probably talk about Tokens, how and why I make them, and how to use them.  Until then, I am Peter, keep designing great games.