Expanding the Farm: Learning about Expansion Design

The Kickstarter campaign to raise money to manufacture Farmageddon went insanely well. It went so well, in fact, that our backers began clamoring for a fantastic stretch goal. our solution was a full expansion to the game. By full expansion I don't mean the 2-3 promo cards that folks might throw into a game, but something that significantly adds to the game.

I found, and still find, this prospect a bit terrifying. I'm worried it's a tinge cart before the horse and I'd vastly prefer to design without the pressure of over 1200 excited people. But, this is a good problem to have.

Expansion design is quite different from creating a new game. You have an existing structure you must work within or expand very carefully. You need to take what was balanced, add a few layers, then polish it again. But, unlike a digital game, you cannot just patch or overwrite the base experience. Oh boy.

The purpose of this post is to share some general lessons I've found as well as discuss some aspects of the expansion, which is currently titled Livestocked and Loaded. 

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!

By Jove a Witch

I'm making great progress with Poor Abby Farnsworth. Typically I'd be worried about writing so often on my blog, but it's easy to be prolific when you're excited. And I am!

I finished the last Evidence card on the shuttle home from work tonight. 60 cards! I also have 5 of the 15 Objection cards designed and really, those will come quite quickly. I did a re-write of the rules to bring them inline with some of the changes that emerged from the content. Finally, I did some really rough iconography work NOT to present as final art, but to begin the work of making the game clean, accessible, and easy to learn. I want people to focus on playing the game, not learning the game.

Before I discuss the changes, here are the updated rules to Poor Abby Farnsworth.

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 Rules to Witchcraft plus Hyperbole

A week or so ago I wrote a post about my design progress on what was then known as Witch Trial. You can read it here. Since then, my brain has been very busy. I've answered many questions and I was able to draft a first pass set of Rules for the game. I was quite pleased with the rules immediately -- the game felt good, sound, tight, and interesting. This is a feeling I never gained from Frontier Scoundrels, but one I did have from Farmageddon. That's a good thing, to me.

I also created the character of the Witch, Abby Farnsworth, and mentioned it in a tweet. A co-worker of mine (who just so happens to be a designer) commented that I may have a name, and indeed I did. The game is now known as Poor Abby Farnsworth: A Salem Witch Trial.

Finally, I sent the rules to four peers, two of whom managed to find the time to provide me with excellent feedback. Thanks to Phil Kilcrease and AJ Porfirio for their time! I took full advantage of it.

I have not had a few hours to unplug to design the Objection and Evidence cards, though I plan to do that tonight or tomorrow. Nevertheless, I have a strong feeling that Poor Abby Farnsworth will eventually become a completed, fun game.

For those of you interested, here are the current full rules for Poor Abby Farnsworth. It is a dice and card based deckbuilding game for two players. I hope you take a chance to read them and share your thoughts. I feel like there's a solid core and a good foundation upon which to I can create fantastic content.

Enjoy!

As a final note, a month or so ago I hired a friend of mine to design a logo and website for me. I plan to migrate all of my design blog posts there and use the site as a basis for all my design efforts. Note my focus on design. I don't intend to join the ranks of independent board game publishers. I don't think I have the know-how or talent for such a thing, so I'll leave that to those more clever than I.

The logo is nearing completion and I think we have a nearly final candidate. My friend managed to design something that I think is simple, sharp, and makes me laugh.  I wanted to share it. The site will be HyperboleGames.com.

The Best of Exiled Here 2011

The vast majority of the things I write on this blog can be summarized as "Grant describes at length why his new game is bad." However, every so often I write what I believe is a worthwhile contribution to the Internet. I was thinking about the year on my morning run and thought it'd be nice to present a Best of Exiled Here styled post.

I wrote 63 posts in 2011. These are the ones I think you should read. (Note: Though some of these are about board games, not all of them are!)

Converting the Heathen
I don't write enough humor posts for my tastes anymore. Perhaps it's because I'm simply not funny or maybe it's that I have my head so deep in board game mechanics that I'm failing to notice the hilarity exploding all around me. This is one of the few humor posts I wrote this year about one of the more hilarious episodes in my life.

I brought home a girlfriend in college who was, among other things, a vegetarian. This is the story about what happened when I brought her to Texas for Thanksgiving.

An Interesting Year

At the very end of 2010 I left my great job of 5 years to venture forth to the land of start ups. 2 companies later I went full circle and arrived back at my old job, though with a new title and role that excited me. Though it's fair to say I ultimately failed, I learned an immense amount about being a designer, designing and building mobile games, working with new people, being a leader and manager, and I'm far better for it. I wouldn't change the experience, hard though it was.

Ultimately, success in your creative and professional endeavors is the result of primarily hard work, being good at your job, and maximizing your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses. We all have some of each. The sooner you admit this and acknowledge it, the better you will be.

This post is a fairly concise recollection of some of the lessons I learned.

Writing Rules (i.e. Design)

One of my favorite aspects of the Twitter board game community is that I'm often asked to review the rules of other designers. I love doing this. Love it. Professionally, I'm a producer by trade, which is essentially a design editor for the game industry. I'm also a designer, but at the end of the day I have to admit I'm a better producer/editor than I am a designer. Sad, but true.

I wrote this post about some of the principles on rule writing. I think it's a worthwhile read. I was doubly pleased that one of my design mentors, Ray Mazza (@raymazza) chimed in as well. 

An Evening with Lazy Bear

San Francisco is one of the food (foodie?) capitals of the world. We have astounding restaurants that delight their patrons with cuisine from every corner of the globe. It is one of my favorite things about this city.

Lazy Bear is a bizarre and unique entry to this landscape. The chef/owner is a former lawyer who now runs an infrequent "underground restaurant." He, along with his wife and friends, rent a space in the Mission and serve a prix fixe menu that is absurdly delicious. 

Quick rewind. For a time at university I was doubling as a professional writing major. I ultimately dropped this because I wanted to graduate in four years and I doubted my ability to earn a living as a writer. But, I always wanted to write big features for a magazine that went beyond just what was happening, but focused on the experience.

I feel like this piece is somewhat that. As a side note, we have since dined with Lazy Bear again at his inaugural brunch. It was delicious.

My Thoughts on Kickstarter
The most read post that I wrote in 2011 was by far My Thoughts on Kickstarter. My twitter feed is jam packed with game designers and publishers, many of whom have put a game up on Kickstarter in hopes of it being backed. Those who haven't personally used Kickstarter have spent money on it or observed its impact on the board game space. It's impossible to ignore.

The problem for me, was that every few days the same argument would reignite about Kickstarter. Many of the same entrenched foes would do battle with the same arguments. 140 characters is an impossibly short space to compose a well-written argument and I was tired of it. I decided, with some prompting by folks on Twitter, to put down my thoughts permanently in blog form.

I'm glad I did.

Interestingly enough, I feel that many of the people who came to the post didn't actually read it. Based on their comments to me afterwards in my feed or via email, it felt as if they got snagged on a buzzword and just activated their auto-pilot. What have we always been told? Oh yes, don't get into arguments on the Internet. I should know better!

If you want to skip the long article, here are my thoughts. I still fervently believe them today.

Any creative and entrepreneurial atmosphere in which you have:

1. No (or relatively no) barrier to entry
2. Greatly reduced or entirely reduced financial risk 

Can lead to a terrible experience for customers in the short run and bad tidings for our industry in the long run. Just because you can release your game doesn't mean you should. The book industry has similar issues with e-Books.

We must ONLY deliver high quality experiences. 

One opinion of mine did change after hearing Richard Bliss (@gamewhisperer) discuss it on The State of Games. I used to be on the fence/negative side regarding established publishers or even independent publishers using or re-using Kickstarter. The truth is, it's a great marketing opportunity, or as its detractors note, merely a "pre-order tool." I absolutely agree this isn't Kickstarter's intent, but I can't say I mind it personally.

Our 3 AM Adventure

I cannot leave you fine folks without a fun pet story! Here's a fairly short, simple, and amusing post that I think all pet owners will enjoy. It's about my beloved Peaches and my beloved Beth and how their paths disgustingly collided one January evening.

Thanks for reading. If you have a blog and you have something you're proud of, post it in the comments! Have a great 2012 folks.

Try Me! An Update on my Witch Trial Themed DBG

Last night's design/prototype efforts, brought to you by Crayola.

I've made some interesting progress on Try Me! lately, so I wanted to put my thoughts down to see if others had insight or thoughts to guide me further. I'm referring to Witch Trial as Try Me! because Witch Trial is already taken. Obviously, the name still needs work.

Initially, Try Me! was a deckbuilding game based on a witch trial in colonial Salem. It's a two player game with the players comprising the roles of the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney. I love the deckbuilding game mechanic and the theme has been a huge hit with everyone who hears it, so the two seemed like a natural pairing. Plus, I've wanted to design a more focused two player experience.

My Favorite Games for the year 2011

Like most nerd inclined folk, I write a post most years about my favorite games that I played. Typically, these are video games, and typically, they are mostly in line with common sentiment, with the exception of Red Dead Redemption, which was and is total garbage.

Interestingly enough, I didn't really play that many video games this year. Instead, my focus and interests shifted 200% (that's not possible!) to mobile games and my new love, board games. Below is my list of my favorite games for 2011. Note that not all of the games I mention came out in 2011. Board gaming is a fairly new hobby of mine, so I had some catching up to do.

Read on to see my favorite mobile, board, and electronic games of the year.

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.

How My Playtime De-Evolved

A few years ago the entirety of my discretionary income was spent on games for my Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and PC. The entirety of my free time was spent playing these games as well. The only games I played were digital. I sought Achievements and life was good.

Around this time I went on a trip to Australia with Beth and two friends. While shopping in Melbourne, I found a small, hole in the wall board game store. After hours of ogling clothes I didn't want, I escaped into the board game store like Peter leaping into the wardrobe in C.S. Lewis' tale.

Fixing the Trainwreck

Game design is a treacherous path of bad ideas, good ideas paired with bad ideas, and too many good ideas that form into a multi-headed bad idea that just won't go away. Games are one train wreck after another that just keep dog-piling into their predecessor, and just when you feel your playtesters are going to stab you for putting them on yet another no-fun high speed death trap of metaphorical proportions, someone has fun.

That is a magical moment, but for me and Frontier Scoundrels, we just encountered a massive fuel tank laden locomotive colliding with an 18 wheeler crap fest. We are so not there.

An Interesting Year

In the fall of 2010 I decided to leave my solid career of 5 years and take my chances in the realm of start ups. People leave their jobs for several excellent reasons: more money, better location/commute, opportunity, frustration with their existing job, or just because. Personally, I dabbled in a few of these.

I wanted to work in San Francisco, my home, to shave 2 hours of driving out of my daily routine. I wanted to be a designer; after years as a producer doing design work, assisting design, and doing design work on the side at home, I wanted this to be my title and primary task. I wanted to work on mobile games. I love PC games, but I saw (and still see) mobile as one of the bright futures of gaming. It's a barely explored frontier with huge potential for growth and innovation. People scoff at the simplicity of mobile games, but I fully embrace the potential of a miniature computer in the pockets of millions of people with a minute to spare. I also wanted to be a part of something new. I loved the idea that on the off chance that we succeeded, I could point back in years and say "yeah, that was me!"

I took the jump and joined a friend/colleague at a new company with heaps of potential. The company was founded by industry vets with ridiculous resumes, was well-funded, had already released a few solid titles, and employed a few dozen brilliant developers. Unfortunately, things didn't work out for a wide variety of reasons. After 6 months I gave notice and left.

At this point I was in an interesting position. I explored a handful of options and unfortunately not all of them panned out. In one instance my contact was pulled into some last minute, multi-week long meetings and disappeared. I thought he had lost interest when in reality, he just wasn't on email. In other cases it was a matter of timing. Another problem is that I do NOT handle uncertainty well. I have plenty of savings and I didn't actually need a job as quickly as I accepted an offer, but the anxiety of unemployment was killing me and I was too quick to take one. I had two or three other solid avenues I should have investigated and I didn't do so. Finding a job is a big deal and it is not something you should do with haste if you can afford a slower pace. This was a mistake. Friends of mine suggested I join them at their company. I had an uneasy feeling but, hey, it couldn't be that bad, right?

After a few days I knew I didn't want to work there and I set my current plans in motion. After a few months I gave notice and left yet another job. Needless to say, it was an interesting year. I see no value in naming names or being a jerk, but I do see value in listing some things I learned. If for nothing else, it's good to get these things off my mind so I can move on with my career and life.

1. Past team leadership and experience doesn't always transfer well to corporate leadership. Running a team of developers is one thing. Steering a company is a different beast. When looking for a company, do your homework and make sure the people up top are setting up the company for success.
2. Politics will exist at every company. I've now worked at companies of thousands, dozens, and hundreds, and all of them featured politics. Learn quickly how to communicate so that you can navigate these treacherous waters. In some cases you cannot fix the problem, so learn to deal with it so you can remain happy (if possible) and productive.
3. Dig deep and ask about process in your interview. Ask tough questions. Too much and too little process can absolutely kill a company. Furthermore, process defines the parameters by which you will be doing your job each and every day.
4. Dig deep and ask who makes decisions and how the decisions are made. Companies with too many decision makers, the wrong decision makers, or arbitrary stakeholders should send a red flag straight to the top of your metaphorical flag pole.
5. Examine the back catalog. You need to be inspired and interested in what they have done as a company. If this requirement isn't met, move on. It all depends on your amount of faith. For me, I'm more interested in what a company has done than what they claim they will do. If the company is really new and doesn't have a record yet, you need to really like what their road map contains.
6. If you get a bad feeling in the interview, ask the questions you need to ask to set your mind at ease. And if you can't ask that question or get the answer, move on.
7. If you want more money, counter-offer. Negotiate. I did this once with mixed success. The worst they can say is no. Fortunately, I've always been fairly comfortable with my salary and I don't really like pushing too hard here. But, that's the thing. If you want more money and getting it will make you happier and more effective, then ask.
8. The most important thing is enjoying the people you will work with every day. You need to leave your interview knowing that a.) you will enjoy getting lunch and coffee with the team and b.) you can rely on them to do their part.

Interestingly enough, at the end of this long odyssey I'm back where I started...somewhat. I have a new role on a new team that has a creative and business focus that thrills me. I'm surrounded by people with whom I work incredibly well. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of my peers and the company. Best of all, everything I've learned this year, both good and bad, can now be put to use. 

I have plenty of regrets, but I do not regret the decision to leave. People always simplify the entire leave vs. stay decision as "is the grass greener?" and I think that's understating the issue. I think in some cases the grass is greener, but by and large I think it's more that the grass is different. Every organization has its strengths and weaknesses and it's important for you to find one that maximizes that which is most important to you. Having had this experience now, I know better understand what's important to me. I'm better at my job, happier, and I can slowly impact the changes I wish to see on my team. 

As miserable as they can be at times, interesting times are what make us interesting and valuable employees and, someday, fantastic leaders.

Farmageddon Next

The Farmageddon that's published now on The Game Crafter is the one that will remain. I set out to create a game that was accessible, quick to play, and fun for casual gamers, or more hardcore gamers who need a filler game in between the meaty Euro titles. I've had a few great reviews from users on The Game Crafter and ones like this one from Father Geek have started to come in. I feel like some of the goals have been validated by customers, which is the best kind of validation.

But, a lot of these same folks are asking for more. A little more depth and a little more meat to push this past a casual game and into something with more heft. Well, I've been listening and taking notes. I've received feedback from Father Geek, Board Game Reviews by Josh, Dice Hate Me Games, and dozens of my players. Plus, I've thought about what I myself want to see.

My Thoughts on Bastion

Bastion is a recently released, critically praised Action RPG for Xbox Live Arcade and Steam from new developer Supergiant Games. I just finished the Xbox version and I wanted to note my thoughts. Overall I'm pleased with the game and glad I made the purchase and put in the time to finish it. However, I definitely have some complaints about the game. Despite what my Twitter feed indicates, I didn't find it to be the second coming.

Questing Solo

This recent birthday of mine was the first in a long time where I actually asked for something. The result, was that I received several bright and shiny new board games from Amazon. I'll try to write about them all in due time, but today I want to focus on The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game by Fantasy Flight.

This is a cooperative game that can be played solo or with one other. Or, if you have a friend who has a core set, you can play with up to four players. I've played three games so far by myself and all tend to last right at or under 45 minutes.

I've only played 2 of the 3 scenarios that come with the core set, and none of them with another player, but I feel I have sufficient grasp of the mechanics to take a stab at it.

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

Writing Rules (i.e. Design)

I've had several people ask me to review their rules lately. I love this kind of work, to be honest. Good feedback in game development is so hard to find and I try to provide good feedback. I've had the itch to write a larger post about my overall thoughts on rules and design, especially in light of what I've been reading and the type of feedback I've given. I've decided it's time to scratch the itch.

Before I start spouting off epic truths, I want to throw in the disclaimer that I'm still relatively new at board game design. I have 3 games, only one of which was worth self-publishing, and I've just turned my full game playing focus from digital games to board games over the past few months. But, I've been producing and designing digital games for 6 years. Surprise surprise, board game designers can learn a great deal from digital game designers and vice versa.

Rules are so Crucial
Everyone has their own creative process. Honestly, there is no one correct way to do anything in this world. But, I believe that good rules should  be created to act as a foundation for your game as soon as possible.

Political Correctness can make things difficult for historically-based design

My current board game is based on the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804-1805. One of the things that really appealed to me about the theme and setting is that there were a ton of hardships the expedition had to face, including horrible weather, disease, hostile Native Americans, and just flat-out getting lost.

I wanted to really leverage the Native Americans in particular as I thought their contributions to the story were pretty significant and interesting. At some times, the Natives greatly assisted the explorers. In fact, without them the explorers may have failed or perished.

However, in other cases, the Natives were hostile or supposedly stole from the expedition. This is great variety and frankly, I don't necessarily blame the natives for being hostile. After all, the Americans and Europeans didn't exactly greet them in friendship.

It's a tricky balance and it can be a very touchy subject. It's very tempting to use words like "savages" and acts like "scalping," but I don't think that improves the game, it doesn't match the theme or history, and it'll probably offend someone.

I've tried to stick to the history I've found on Wikipedia and other sites and go from there. My cards won't always be 100% factual, but they'll be within the ballpark. For example, in one event you can negotiate with Sacajawea's husband to bring her on as a translator. In another case the Blackfeet steals things from you. You attempt to trade with the Otas and the Omahas may give you fair warning of an impending attack.

There is history to mostly back this up and as a result I think I've created something that's entertaining, fairly presents the various entities involved in the history, and most importantly, leads to a fun game.

Plus, I've bolstered the mostly factual with the completely absurd with entities like the Missouri River Piranha and other less factual creations.