In All Fairness: Treating Designers Correctly

I'm a new designer. I have a single published title that isn't even manufactured yet and a pile of prototypes that weren't worth finishing. And there are so many others just like me. We have a few good ideas, a game worth looking at, and no record to point to.

Similarly, especially in this new environment of Kickstarter, The Game Crafter, and the Internet, there are new publishers. Publishers who have only one (or no) titles available for purchase. Titles that were designed and published by the same person (and so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with that). There are many of them and new ones cropping up every day.

For those of us designers who seek the traditional path of publication (i.e. we design, YOU publish), this presents new opportunities and challenges. For one, there are more people who might publish my game. More avenues. But, just like there are dozens of designers who are unworthy of your time because they are too green or too immature, I'm going to argue that same problem exists with publishers.

I submitted Farmageddon to many publishers before I found a great fit with 5th Street Games. Many of my experiences with publishers were greatly unfavorable, not just in rejection, which is expected and a part of the process, but in how they conducted business. I will not name names, but I'd like to call out a few things I think are fair to ask of publishers when dealing with designers.

Why is this valuable? I think the best publishers attract the best talent. If you are a good publisher to treats designers fairly, you'll attract Donald X, Stefan Feld, Knizia, and more. If  you develop a reputation for being a jerk, and believe me, you will, none of these people will work with you. Take a look at the digital space. Not long ago, Activision royally screwed over Infinity Ward. Guess what? Activision's not having a lot of fun signing new developers right now. Who would work with them?

THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. Merely the beginning. Designers: what have I missed? Publishers: what have I missed? Post your comments below. If you know me, send me an email or ping me on Twitter. I'll post an opposing view gladly.

As a publisher, you need to play a submission multiple times before offering feedback.
Publishers who play a game a single time and offer feedback are careless and lazy. A good board game has a mechanic that changes based on the cards dealt, or the players involved, or different strategies employed. By playing the game a single time, you are going to miss a key aspect of a game.

For example, Farmageddon is a game where a player's choices are determined by drawing cards. I took great pains, especially as I gathered feedback, to ensure a player wouldn't have a terrible experience in the majority of cases due to cards drawn. I say the majority because one can never fully control probability. And yet, it was always incredibly apparent when a publisher had only played once because they would give feedback that someone who played even twice wouldn't have given.

Play the game. Learn the rules. Learn the flow. See the variety.

The counter, of course, is that some games aren't worth a second play. This judgement will vary greatly from publisher to publisher. After all, preference is and should be a part of what makes us interesting creatures. If the game is sloppy, or broken, then sure, put it aside after a single play. But if the game mostly works and you just don't get it yet, or something seemed awry, play it a second time. You may find clarification. Furthermore, you'll have more to discuss with the designer when you send him or her feedback.


As a publisher, you owe it to the designer to maintain a reasonable level of correspondence.
This is a tricky one. The immediate response is "I got busy" or "unexpected things popped up." Life is tricky and we all get that. And if we don't, we're jerks.

But here's the thing. As a publisher, you're running a business. Designers are business partners. I've heard many of the new small, indie publishers thump their chests and boldly proclaim that they will be better than the Z-Mans and Rio Grandes because they'll be responsive. And yet months can go by without a single thought or reply to an email.

Writing a single email isn't that hard. Sometimes you're too busy to write the full email, or make the decision, but you can absolutely write an email that says "Hey, we're swamped. Sorry this is taking so long, but we'll need a few more days. Stay tuned." That's not too hard to do and if it is, you greatly need to re-examine your justification for calling yourself a publisher.

How are you going to be responsive to manufactures and distributors? What about customer complaints? If you want to make this your day job, how are you going to simultaneously launch several products with several designers, artists, and graphic designers?

Don't put us in the void and ignore us. We need you, but you also need us. It's about being reasonable and showing respect to others.


As a publisher, if you request a prototype from a designer, you owe it to them to play it in a reasonable time frame.
If a designer submits a game to you unsolicited, then you don't need to rush to play it. Get to it when your priorities allow and only if you accept submissions (of course). But, if you approach a designer and say "We are interested in your product. We would like you to send us a prototype." things immediately change.

I spent a lot of money sending prototypes to publishers who approached me with an interest in Farmageddon only to see my game sit idly for months. If you approach a designer and tell them you're interested, their game needs to become a priority.

If that's not possible, then you need to be up front about the conditions. Be clear on the rough timeline. Go over the process. Your time is valuable, but guess what? So is mine. And so is my money.

This also ties in greatly to the point just above regarding reasonable correspondence.


As a publisher, you need to be willing to hold a discussion about the feedback.
Design is a series of compromises and conversations. The publisher may ask for modifications to streamline the game, adjust it for a different audience or theme, or reduce components to mitigate costs. All of this is awesome and most often leads to a better game.

But, it needs to be a conversation. It is infuriating when the feedback conversation is one-sided. If a publisher expresses concerns, it is my responsibility to address them or add clarification if I desire to be published by the publisher. But, the publisher needs to listen in turn and not approach it as "my way or the highway." This is doubly infuriating when it's clear the publisher has only played the game once.

Here's an example. One publisher was convinced Farmageddon was inherently unbalanced and flawed by the first player's actions. I took this feedback into account and addressed it in several ways. After the second prototype, the publisher came back again with this feedback. I wrote 3 pages of analysis explaining why I believed the problem was addressed. Keep in mind I wasn't standing up shouting and saying "no no no!" I approached it as a point of discussion and tried to provide evidence to back up my point. Evidence backed by a great deal of playtesting. The publisher responded almost immediately with "Well, thanks. Maybe next time."

Both sides need to engage in reasonable discourse. If you're working with a child of a designer who cannot take feedback, then cut them off. But if the designer embraces the feedback and tries to initiate a conversation, then hold the conversation. You may find a better game emerges that neither of you could envision alone.


As a publisher, you owe it to a designer to give them a "No" when you've made a decision.
This is yet another byproduct of the reasonable correspondence note, but I think it deserves its own mention.

If you decide you don't want to publish the game or don't feel your feedback is being addressed, awesome. Take a minute and send the designer the official rejection. Your email can be as simple as the following:

Dear (designer name),

We appreciate your submission and unfortunately do not feel it's a good fit for (publisher name)  at this time. Thank you and best of luck.

Sincerely,
(publisher representative)


You can use that template. On the house.

BONUS ROUND: If you want to guide novice designers to help them become good designers and therefore potential business partners, give them feedback. This is why we didn't publish your game: Points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Here are some suggestions on how to do this in the future.

I see this as a conversation. Designers and publishers should join. Have a good weekend!

Thoughts on General Staff

I'm deep in the midst of Poor Abby Farnsworth content creation. There are many cards to design in a deckbuilding game (shocking) and it's slow and time consuming work. But, the fundamentals remain strong, though slightly modified since I last discussed them.

I think there are two phases to design: big design and little design. Big design focuses on the systems and mechanics. The concept. The theme. The big, fun ideas that come to us quickly in a flash of inspiration. Little design is less glamorous, more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying. And in my opinion, more important. The two phases use different parts of my brain, or at least tax my imagination differently, and I had a few thoughts today regarding what I may work on next.

I like to try new things each game. My first game, Space Encounters, was a big space civilization building game (that sucked). Farmageddon was supposed to be a light, quick game that I think has grown into something a little more, but light nonetheless. Poor Abby Farnsworth is a highly thematic 2 player deckbuilding game. I wanted to try my hand at the fantastic DBG mechanic and try to create something deeper. I decided this morning that I should distance myself a little from cards and try my hand at a board game. New things to learn!

Which way to go? Euro? Perhaps. Design-wise I'm more inclined to lean into the cleaner mechanics, though I like a little theme and prefer games that are an hour or less. Then I thought of a war game. I've been eyeing 1812: The Invasion of Canada, which many have said is a great blend of euro and war game design philosophies. It seemed like a good direction to go. After all, I've always wanted to make a better Risk.

Beautiful cover. I hear the components are top notch.

An idea I've had in mind for a bit involves the two sides of war. Two sets of soldiers engage in war: the old, crusty generals safe in the capital send orders to the young officers, conscripts, and volunteers on the front. There are two different experiences here for two different players. The old Marshall must think upon the grand strategy, supply his field commanders, and please his political masters. The field commander must use the resources given to him, try to carry out orders, and request assistance to better fight the war.

Really, it's perfectly captured in this image (I couldn't find an image of old Prussian men pushing blocks around).

It's a team game with two teams, though obviously it would need to work with as few as two players. I even thought there could be a 3 player variant, with one team of two and a third controlling a guerrilla faction. But that's getting ahead of myself.

There's also room, I think, for competitive cooperation. I.e. both teams most work together to win, but each team only has one true war hero, the one the people love and the fans remember.

Key innovation number one, at least I hope, is this dynamic of strategic versus tactical and the teamplay based upon it. A question I'm asking myself is whether there's an interesting mechanic whereby sharing information is difficult between teammates. For example, is there a fun and interesting way to make it such that a letter takes time to reach a front line commander? It'd be awful to force all players to sit behind screens and not talk. But there could be something.

I have some interesting ideas regarding a dice mechanic that acts for both the supply and the commanders. It's not ready to discuss, but it made me smile when it popped into my head. It felt unique and interesting. But also, really straightforward with lots of interesting possibilities.

Finally, though the game will be greatly inspired by history, especially the tactics, weaponry, and politics of the Franco-Prussian War, I want to create my own world. This lets me distance myself from the well-tread European battle map. It lets me remove myself from the history to create something new. There's approximately a 97.57% chance one of the sides is a very Germanic sounding group. The second side will probably be a bit less, well, Prussian, and more slapdash. Something fun like frontier American types or Australians. It'll be fun to push the flavor in a few key areas and create some interesting new scenarios.

I'm excited by this game. There are some ideas I've been trying to create for some time that I think can finally exist in this game. For the time being I'm calling it General Staff, though I pray I'll conceive of something better. As Poor Abby enters what will be a long test phase, it'll be fun to dive into this new idea.

Wooden blocks, dice, und Krieg. Mein Gott!

The Dustbowl Fracas

It's my goal to find a publisher for Farmageddon. The path towards this goal includes a lot of rejection, though oftentimes that's paired with feedback. Some I take, some I ignore. Most of the feedback I ignore is that which pushes Farmageddon outside of the realm of a casual game and towards something more hardcore. It's not that Farmageddon can't be that, it's just it wasn't designed to do that, plus I feel that direction requires more than a tweak, but an overhaul.

Well, I spent yesterday doing one such overhaul. I spent an hour scribbling notes on my notebook at a coffee shop, then several hours at home drafting the rules and refining the content.

I'm not abandoning Farmageddon, because I think over time it's evolved into a solid casual card game. I believe in my derpy corn. But, there's room for a second entry into the Farmageddon family. I've been working on the game for a year now and that familiarity allowed me to create something new really quickly. That new thing is Dustbowl Fracas.

Before I go into the explanation of the new game, here are the rules for Farmageddon. Here are the rules for Dustbowl Fracas. If you're familiar with the original Farmageddon I think the new game will be both more familiar and more interesting. They are cousins.

Dustbowl Fracas is a deckbuilding game for 2 to 4 players. It includes some of the content and core elements of Farmageddon, but tweaks almost everything in order to serve its new purpose.

The Status of the Expedition

My current lead design project, Frontier Scoundrels, has traversed some difficult terrain lately. I finally played the game from start to finish, which was excellent, but also showed me just how far I needed to go.

The feedback from the test was as follows:

• Explorers didn't have enough interesting choices. They were basically pawns while the Expedition Leader and War Party battled it out. They had little incentives for either outcome, as well.
• Event cards (now Action cards) played almost no role in the game. They were too hard to obtain and didn't matter much.
• Resolving Hardships was too easy.
• The Land mechanic was interesting on paper, but nobody really liked it as executed. During the test, each Explorer selected 1 Land card (from a hand of 3) and gave it to the Expedition Leader face-down. 

I tried to solve these problems in a few ways.

• I made it so that Explorers played a Land card in clockwise order. Instead of the Expedition Leader choosing the order, the Explorer picked it. This actually simplified the game, sped it up, and made the Explorers' choices more interesting.
• I modified the Land to benefit the Explorers more and the Expedition Leader less. This made it so that Explorer's could play cards that leaned in their favor.
• I made it so Explorers earned points as well as the Expedition Leader (though fewer), but also would gain more dice to use throughout the game. 
• I gave players more Action cards at the start of the game and added several ways to get them (primarily tied them into Land to once again make the Explorer's choice more interesting). 
• I made Hardships more difficult by increasing/decreasing the numbers and putting more restrictions on how the dice could be used. I also cleaned up the mechanics here to be more consistent. Just a better change overall. 

The Trial Will Re-Adjourn

I'm trying to make consistent progress on Witch Trial. I've made a few decisions since my last post.

If you're just now joining us, I'm doing this for National Game Design Month. My first post (brainstorm) is here. My second post is here.

Decision the First
The game will come with a deck of ten cards called the Townspeople deck. This will be an assortment of men and women, interesting characters like the constable, the merchant, the fisherman, the baker, and more.

What will be interesting is that each one will have a certain quirk that creates a gameplay element. It'll need to be simple enough, as there will be many, but imagine something like the benefit on a card in Dominion, but you must "control" the person to use it. OR, it'll affect the cards you play.

At the start of the game, you'll randomly deal cards from the Townspeople deck to determine the jurors (currently I'm thinking there will be six jurors) and the Judge (one). The last three will comprise the witnesses, who may or may not be called to the stand to testify.

My goal is that, like Dominion, each game is different. Like Dominion, you cannot use the same strategy every time. And finally, like Dominion, you can learn new combos and experiment.

I'm worried that this will be very difficult to balance. I'm also worried that so much information will be difficult to parse for new players. But, if I follow the standards set by Dominion and Eminent Domain (not hard, right?) it can be done.

Decision the Second, Son of Decision the First
I've decided the Witch will not affect gameplay. She'll always be the same, misunderstood character. She'll be a comically tragic figure who is ultimately always innocent (weren't they all?). I don't think I can have a varying jury/judge/witnesses each game AND a different Witch. It's too much and something has to give.

So, the witch will never actually be a witch. But, if the prosecution plays their cards right, she'll sure as Salem be guilty!

The two lawyers (i.e. players) won't be unique, either. Players will essentially create characters and strategies based on their personal play style and the conditions on the board (Jury, Judge, Witnesses).

Decision the Third, estranged spouse of Decision the Second
The game will be broken into three phases: Opening Arguments, the Procession of Evidence, and Closing Arguments. I really enjoy phases for a few reasons.

Firstly, they help focus a player's decisions, while keeping a certain richness. What do you need to do in order to best maximize your efforts in the current phase AND help you win the overall game? You may have a great initial phase, but you could peter out.

Secondly, I think the broad possibilities of many deckbuilding games can be overwhelming for some. I don't mind simplifying this genre if new players try it out.

Thirdly, it gives a distinct ending to the game. This has been a sticking point for me since my very first unsuccessful game. I like it when there's a clear ending that everyone understands and can work against.

Finally, I really enjoyed the phases in 7 Wonders. I have no clue how I'm going to do it quite yet for Witch Trial but I think that it's a good element to borrow and evolve.

Decision the Fourth, this joke isn't funny
Players earn points by using their cards (i.e. legal maneuvers, evidence) to manipulate the various entities. This will also, in some cases, be how you earn cards. So, play a set of cards to manipulate the judge and acquire a powerful card from him. Use a set of cards to influence several members of the jury, then cash them in to rake in several points.

The game will be point based. Player with the most points at the end wins the case. The poor, poor witch.

Finally, there will be a card or a concept known as "Objection!" I don't know how it will work, but by god it will be in the game.

Sci-Fi Shuffleboard

Ascending Empires immediately stood out to me the second I learned of its stellar existence, so asking for a copy for my birthday was an easy choice. It's hard enough to get in a board game or two, let alone one about space ships that can turn off my less game-interested friends. My patience over the last month finally paid off last night when I was able to corner two friends into playing the game.

I've only played the game once, but the rules were very well written, the components excellent, and the overall strategy deep, but not so obtuse that me and two casual friends weren't able to conceive some cool strategies and have a lot of fun. I'm not a review site, so I'm not worried about putting down my thoughts after one play. If you are, make sure you check elsewhere!

Brainstorming the Witch

I've begun pondering my new game! Farmageddon is in a bit of a holding pattern as I wait and see if anyone wants to publish it. Frontier Scoundrels is finally, finally entering a playtest phase. I know that the game is far from complete and will probably still require an overhaul or two, but the time between playtests can be long and I hate sitting idly. This means I have the time and bandwidth to think about what I want to create next.

I've been watching a lot of Law and Order at night before bed, plus Beth and I tend to watch CSI: Miami on Sunday nights. Crime dramas are fun and I started thinking about the fun of being a detective. I love being the good guy and many of my favorite games are ones that let me feel clever. Unfortunately, the detective genre is jam packed for pretty much every form of entertainment. Every other show on television is a crime drama. LA Noire recently came out. Everyone's talking about Elder Sign. I want to do something unique, so instead of modern crime I shifted my thinking to an alternate setting.

I feel like I just won the lottery

Farmageddon is the #1 Selling game on The Game Crafter.

And so, our Adventurers Set out on the Grand Expedition...

After about a month and a half of brainstorming, rule writing, content creation (and cutting), tuning, scrounging for sweet antique dice and pawns, swapping out components to lower the cost of the eventual game, writing flavor text, designing card layouts, cutting the cards, I finally have a playable prototype of my latest game.

I originally called it The Adventures of CLEB, CLEB being an acronym for the name of the characters (Clark, Lewis, Ethel, and Buford). I then briefly settled on Corps of Discovery, which was the name of the organization to which the explorers belonged. Finally, I decided upon Frontier Scoundrels, which is the name of one of my card types and a name that I feel has a bit of a punch and a ring to it.

Plus, I think Scoundrels are funny and the Frontier is such a good noun.

I'm immensely pleased with the progress so far, but now the real work begins. I've done a great deal of early tuning, balancing, and mechanic re-design. In fact, far more so than any previous game. This is my fourth board game and I'm really starting to get a knack for spotting bad ideas before I go through the effort of testing them. Sometimes, bad is just bad and you can spot imbalance from a mile away.

I'm pleased with how I've simplified the game, while at the same time creating a richer experience. A core mechanic is that the player who is the Expedition Leader (title passes each turn) can order other players to do certain things. Initially, this was very limited (3 choices), always the same, and the design had an incredibly overwhelming play phases that just weren't intuitive or elegant. After stewing over it for a week (and taking in some feedback from a colleague), I created a new small deck of cards called Command cards. There are about 6 different cards, each with a unique role that can be assigned to a player by the Expedition Leader. However, the Expedition Leader can only use a limited portion of the cards.

This does a few things:

• I've removed one confusing choice and given the player an easier, but also broader one
• I've dramatically cleaned up the turns and  phases of the game
• I've added more content that's more interesting
• Each turn will now be different, but still within a familiar range of possibilities

I'm also pretty excited by quality of the current rules; I've edited them at least 50 times. They are 10 pages total (or 5 pages front/back), but the game can be learned in the first 5 pages. The last 5 go deeper into content and provide examples for some of the mechanics. The other reason the rules went from 6 to 10 pages is that almost every concept has a visual component or diagram to help explain it. After reading Pandemic and Forbidden Island's rules, I knew that was the way it had to be for Frontier Scoundrels. 

I'll play a few games with myself this week to pound out the early bugs and flow issues. Then I'll bring my friends over. If all goes well, I'm hoping to send prototypes to colleagues in a few months. This will coincide perfectly with the website for Hyperbole Games going live and the Christmas holiday season. 

Let's be about it, shall we?

"Ocian in view! O! the joy!"

-Captain William Clark, upon reaching the Pacific Ocean

Let's go Exploring: My new game at a high level

This is a long post about my new board game's mechanics. I may sell the rights to this post to Lifetime for a made for TV movie.

I've been finished with Farmageddon for a while now. I'm basically just doing my best to market the game and get it into the hands of bloggers and enthusiasts. There are two game design competitions approaching, one of which is hosted by The Game Crafter, but I've been too excited about my new non-competition game to really give these contest designs their due diligence.

My non-competition game is based on the Adventures of Lewis and Clark, two explorers sent by Thomas Jefferson to explore the western frontier, assert sovereignty over the native Americans, find vital scientific discoveries and trade routes, and generally accomplish much. I love history, so it's a natural fit for my personal interests.

Farmageddon in the News!

I'm working my little marketing machine as hard as I can for Farmageddon. The team at The Game Crafter took it to GenCon with them last week. One writer, Matt Carlson of Opinionated Gamers, mentioned the game in his long write up about the convention.

You can see it here if you scroll way down, or just do a search for "Farmageddon."

Farmageddon is still hanging in the Best Seller section of The Game Crafter, which is awesome. I have had a lot of nibbles lately that haven't turned into sales. A nibble is when someone adds the game to their shopping cart. I'm curious if it's high shipping costs or something else? The shipping costs are quite high for a single game, but only increment by $1 or less for additional games. If you're interested in Farmageddon but don't care for the shipping fee, consider grabbing one of these games, which are also good:

• Vanguard: Rome
• The Golems of Ymhet
• Castle Danger
• Trade Fleet
• Pitch Machine
• Uprising
• Auction Junktion

I'm sure there's more, but I can only comment on what I've played.

Biggus Diggus Would Wuv This: Review of Vanguard: Rome

I try to buy many of the games at The Game Crafter, which is where I sell Farmageddon. I really like the community and I appreciate how much they've supported Farmageddon. I try to return the favor, but lately games like Castle Danger and Vanguard: Rome are making it all too easy to keep purchasing more. These are great games and my wallet is sore!

Vanguard: Rome really stands out due to its unique mechanics -- I haven't really played anything like it. Both players begin the game with two rows of five units each. This is called your battle line. The goal of the game is to eliminate all of your enemy's units from the field. Each turn a player places 1 additional unit and must attack, so attrition is heavy and you cannot rest or turtle up. They key is that you must attack! The concept of defense is completely absent from this game and it keeps the pacing and the strategy focused in a fantastic way.

Your front battle line must always have a Vanguard unit in the middle, who, by default, is the only unit that attacks. However, there are some units with unique abilities as well as Command cards than can mix things up. For example, a ballista may attack the unit immediately in front of it, even if the ballista isn't the vanguard. A slinger gives +1 attack to all adjacent units, which makes him a great unit to place near your vanguard. Centurions, Praetorians, and Consuls may shift places with other units in the line to maximize the damage dealt. Understanding the 12 units and how they must be used in conjunction with others and the Command cards is the meat and potatoes of the strategy.

Vanguard is relatively easy to learn, but full of depth and reasons to keep playing over and over again.

The player who can defeat 2-3 units in a few sequential turns will turn the tide and ultimately win. But, if the losing player plays their cards right, gets a few good draws, and has a little luck, the game can swing completely back. It's very well tuned and balanced.

I have a few complaints with the game. Like all card games or games that deal with any randomness, if a player gets a poor draw they might lose. This is worsened if one player gets a fantastic draw and the other gets an absolutely crummy draw, like I experienced last night. I do want to call out that this game is overwhelmingly based on strategy, not luck. Where you place your units, how you place command cards -- this is not random.

Towards the latter half of the game, it can drag a tinge. It may be clear that one player is going to win, but the losing player can cling for dear life for a few turns without actually making progress towards victory. They won't be winning, they just aren't losing as quickly.

Finally, and this isn't really a negative, because the game has so many unique elements the learning curve can be a bit wavy at times. The rules are very well written and the game is elegantly designed, but it is different. Different can lead to some confusion, but I really respect the designer's desire to be unique.

I've only played the game in 2 player, though it does support 3-4. Personally, I think 2 player is just right.

Vanguard: Rome is very reasonably priced under $20 and is absolutely recommended to fans of unique strategy games. It plays quickly and is full of depth, so you'll want to play again and again. I was fortunate enough to learn to play the game from the designer himself who happens to live in San Francisco. He's a great guy and I can't wait to see more from him.

Walk in the Rain Board Game

We're in the middle of the rainy season in San Francisco. I find myself walking home during the rain at least once a week. I walk, because traffic slows to a halt and taking the bus would take an hour or more.

Walking in the rain is interesting, but ultimately not pleasant. I was curious if I could make a Board game based on the experience. What emerged is the board game linked below. It's not broad or deep enough for a full game, more like a quick, 20 minute experience that plays with a mechanic.

The mechanic is good and bad karma, basically, how the choices you make when trying to get home impact others as well as yourself.

I think the concept is fun and the mechanic is entertaining. I want to take it further and make something bigger out of it. For now, here is Walk in the Rain. You can see the simple game board at this link here.

I want to thank my playtesters Mike P., Andrew deB., and Beth W.

Copyright 2011 Grant Rodiek

Space Encounters: Rules

Space Encounters! is the first game I designed on my own outside of job. It is a big and unwieldy game from which I learned a lot. It's not the best game! But, I'm putting it out there in case somebody wants to spend 5 hours making all the pieces and another hour or two playing it.

Overall the game is cumbersome and tries to combine too many things.

Please enjoy and comment if you play it!

Note: I wrote about the design process for Space Encounters! fairly extensively in three previous posts, found here, here, and here.

The rules and content for Space Encounters! can be read here.


I will post the board layout later!

Copyright 2010 Grant Rodiek

Farmageddon: Rules

NOTE: THE RULES BELOW AND ON THE LINK ARE OUT OF DATE. FARMAGEDDON CAN BE BOUGHT WITH FINAL RULES AND BEAUTIFUL ART FOR $13.99 HERE!


Farmageddon is my most recent card/board game project. I didn't create it to sell, so in the hopes of more people enjoying it I am posting it here for others to create and try. Please feel free to print the rules and build the game yourself. All I ask is that if you play it, leave me a comment and tell me what you thought! If you have any questions, please post a comment.


The rules can be seen in document form here. 

Space Encounters: Board Game Design Part 3

A recent addition to the marketing team at work just so happens to be a 10 year veteran of a board game company. Kyle has had a hand in a lot of really good games and by the look of the collection on his desk, a lot of games I'm dying to play.

I cannot stress how awesome it was to play and discuss my game Space Encounters! with him over the course of an hour. It was also a very cool thing for him to do that I appreciate immensely.

Board Game Design Part 2

I just held the second playtest for my board game. It went surprisingly and utterly well! Obviously I still needed to do a bit of tuning and re-design, but there were no broad, sweeping changes to the game this time. I noticed a few big things that really made me happy...

My Board Game Design Experience

My creative experience has always been with writing or PC game development. As I am not a programmer, board games were a natural fit for my creative energies. But, they present a different set of challenges I found quite interesting. I thought I'd write down my process for any interested.