Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/05/06 01:21:25
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
So I discovered that theres someone else working on a game that is almost identical to the one I've been working on on-and-off for the past 15 years. Same top-level setting, same gimmicks and hooks, similar mechanical approach (though taken in different directions), etc. etc. etc. Except this other guy is a bit ahead of where I'm at despite starting sometime in the past 3 or so months (I've "reset" my progress numerous times and gone through many iterations as I attempt to dial in something I'm happy with). In a lot of ways what hes doing now resembles more closely what I did maybe 10-12 years ago, around my second or third iteration of things.
I don't know how to feel about it, its incredibly frustrating to me as I feel he will likely beat me to market on this, as I'm juggling a number of personal and professional projects and can't go nuts on this one thing. I felt like what I was working on was something fairly unique and different and would fill its own niche in the market, but now that I have what I guess would be a competitor I'm feeling much more self-conscious and uneasy about things. The one question I keep asking myself is "am I basic?" since it feels like if someone else is doing this thing too then I must not be as clever as I thought I was.
/rant
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/06 15:32:54
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/06 15:38:24
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
chaos0xomega wrote: So I discovered that theres someone else working on a game that is almost identical to the one I've been working on on-and-off for the past 15 years. Same top-level setting, same gimmicks and hooks, similar mechanical approach (though taken in different directions), etc. etc. etc. Except this other guy is a bit ahead of where I'm at despite starting sometime in the past 3 or so months (I've "reset" my progress numerous times and gone through many iterations as I attempt to dial in something I'm happy with). In a lot of ways what hes doing now resembles more closely what I did maybe 10-12 years ago, around my second or third iteration of things.
I don't know how to feel about it, its incredibly frustrating to me as I feel he will likely beat me to market on this, as I'm juggling a number of personal and professional projects and can't go nuts on this one thing. I felt like what I was working on was something fairly unique and different and would fill its own niche in the market, but now that I have what I guess would be a competitor I'm feeling much more self-conscious and uneasy about things. The one question I keep asking myself is "am I basic?" since it feels like if someone else is doing this thing too then I must not be as clever as I thought I was.
/rant
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
I spent a long time making a game called "into the lab". It featured players going into a laboratory, exploring as they go, placing room tiles and dead ends, finding pools of blood, taking psychological damage, and then revealing one of many plots where one of them was the traitor and playing it through to the end. I even had my friends help me to playtest it. Then we went to a board game cafe a week later, pulled out Betrayal in the House on the Hill, and I realised that everything I had been working on had already been done, and better!
That was an issue with me not researching the market before I started - something I now do whenever I have an Idea!
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Easy E wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
So heres the thing with that - I am 100% making the game I want to make. I'm taking a pretty big gamble with that though, because a lot of the things I want from a game are things that a majority of others do not want, or at least they think they don't want. So, I feel like I have a stacked deck against me and to do it right and the way I want to do it, is also going to be fairly costly. I have a "startup plan" that can get things moving for low cost and build a fan/customer base with so that I can build up the product over time through expansions and modules, etc. BUT I feel like with someone else doing many of the same things I am I am now facing two big risks (especially since, in all likelihood, I think he will get his product to market before me):
1. The other dude gaks it up and alienates potential customers from my game more or less via association/similarity (i.e. chaos0xomegas game has features x, y, and z. I played this other game from this other designer that had a lot of the same features and hated it, so I am 100% uninterested in chaos0xomega's game), preventing me from ever getting it to where I want it to be. Its not an insurmountable risk, but it makes my product a much tougher sell, and I already feel like my game is facing an uphill battle in that regards as I've consciously made certain decisions that I know people are going to complain about without ever even giving them a chance.
2. The other dude succeeds and his product overshadows mine, preventing me from ever really gaining traction in the market to build the product i really want to build, because mine will always be seen as the "knockoff" version or just the inferior version. There are some differences in our game designs based on what I've seen from him, but I think some of the differences are actually to his benefit rather than mine.
I will say, I think my IP/fluff setting will be more unique - and IMO better - despite the obvious surface similarities, but I'm not sure that will make up for the fact that gamers are seemingly automatically disinclined towards certain mechanical aspects of what I'm working on. So as to not beat around the bush too much, I think the biggest thing I have against me (but by far not the only thing) is that my design (but not the other guys) uses both proprietary (polyhedral) dice AND a proprietary/non-standard deck of playing cards. All the survey and market data I have ever collected (or seen collected by others) basically says that there is a large chunk of gamers out there that will say "no thank you" to any game that features features playing cards OR proprietary dice automatically without ever giving it a shot, to have both proprietary dice AND proprietary playing cards in my game is just a nightmare from a marketing standpoint BUT mechanically speaking I simply could not efficiently achieve what I want to make by doing it any other way - not really being hyperbolic here, but the simplest way to put it is that the cards and dice are being used for more than just RNG.
From what I have gathered the biggest issue with this is that the moment the word "proprietary" gets attached to something gamers see it as a cash-grab, I have a plan to address that and I intend to release a printable deck of cards and 3d printable stl files of the dice so that gamers can print-and-play it themselves at a lower cost (which will basically be necessary anyway as I intend to put the game out to a free open beta before going commercial with it) AND for those that really don't like cards I am exploring the option of chits/tiles that can be printed instead and you would pick em out of a bag or a scramble (domino style, at a basic level it works the same mechanically for most applications, but there are certain things which become more complicated when you aren't using a deck of cards) AND for those who are just really attached to their bespoke $500 set of premium dice made from precious gemstones I plan on releasing a set of conversion charts/tables and tokens to help them translate their non-proprietary dice to proprietary results (but that will add a huge cognitive load and dramatically slow things down so I'm not even sure its worth it), but I'm not sure if this is really enough to shake the stigma and convince people to say "lets give this a chance".
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
Thats a good way to look at it. I mean, mechanically it seems that my design is still fairy unique, its more an issue of what it is I'm trying to accomplish with those mechanics is virtually identical. At a basic level its like comparing DnD and Pathfinder (or maybe a more apt comparison might be Warmachine and Malifaux, or Warmachine and Warcaster). Strong thematic/fluff similarities (in this case DnD/Pathfinder would be a better comparison than the other two I gave, the IP here is fairly unique, which is why its so jarring that this other person came up with so many of the same concepts and ideas), very similar intent on what the game is trying to model and achieve, but different executions on that concept mechanically - they both get us to the same place, but they do so via different means.
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
I think the thing I am most frustrated about is really the non-mechanical elements, i.e. the fluff and theme. Its the part of all this that has changed the most dramatically over the past 15 years, and those changes were a big source of why its taken me so long to really advance things. Within a few years of starting the project another game with a very similar setting and theme was released, so I went back and made revisions to differentiate mine, within a couple years of that another game was released with an IP similar to my new setting, so I went back and then a couple years later yet another popped up. After 4 or 5 revisions I basically said to myself "I'm going to scrap the setting entirely and restart from scratch, no more iterative development on my existing setting, I'm going to push this as far as I can into new territory and try to do something much less obvious - while still being true to my original inspirations - so that I don't have to worry about a crowded field of otherwise very similar IPs." Basically, I wanted a setting that was Age of Sigmar in a sea of WHFB clones and knockoffs. And for all intents and purposes I feel like I nailed that, it took me a few years of work to figure out, but I think I got there and I was happy with it, and I *finally* could really get cracking on the mechanical stuff again, and now suddenly I feel like I'm back to square one with someone else doing something that, at least superficially, very strongly resembles what I had been working on.
Like, I don't think I'm creative enough to push the boundaries any further than I already have in terms of fluff, it took me years of frustration just to get it to where I am now. Mechanics and crunch, I think I can do (and I think, like I said before, I'm safe there - mechanically the "journey" part of my game is unique, even if it gets you to the same "destination", I think I'm mostly okay with that), but I don't want to have to revisit my fluff when I finally got it somewhere where I am happy with it and where I could say it was completely unlike anything else out there (up until like 2 weeks ago). Maybe I just feel like I'll be accused of plagiarism or something? I dunno, maybe I just need to start getting some fluff published online and start actually building recognition of the IP so it doesn't feel like I'm following in someone elses footsteps.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/06 20:10:36
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Easy E wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
So heres the thing with that - I am 100% making the game I want to make. I'm taking a pretty big gamble with that though, because a lot of the things I want from a game are things that a majority of others do not want, or at least they think they don't want. So, I feel like I have a stacked deck against me and to do it right and the way I want to do it, is also going to be fairly costly. I have a "startup plan" that can get things moving for low cost and build a fan/customer base with so that I can build up the product over time through expansions and modules, etc. BUT I feel like with someone else doing many of the same things I am I am now facing two big risks (especially since, in all likelihood, I think he will get his product to market before me):
1. The other dude gaks it up and alienates potential customers from my game more or less via association/similarity (i.e. chaos0xomegas game has features x, y, and z. I played this other game from this other designer that had a lot of the same features and hated it, so I am 100% uninterested in chaos0xomega's game), preventing me from ever getting it to where I want it to be. Its not an insurmountable risk, but it makes my product a much tougher sell, and I already feel like my game is facing an uphill battle in that regards as I've consciously made certain decisions that I know people are going to complain about without ever even giving them a chance.
2. The other dude succeeds and his product overshadows mine, preventing me from ever really gaining traction in the market to build the product i really want to build, because mine will always be seen as the "knockoff" version or just the inferior version. There are some differences in our game designs based on what I've seen from him, but I think some of the differences are actually to his benefit rather than mine.
I will say, I think my IP/fluff setting will be more unique - and IMO better - despite the obvious surface similarities, but I'm not sure that will make up for the fact that gamers are seemingly automatically disinclined towards certain mechanical aspects of what I'm working on. So as to not beat around the bush too much, I think the biggest thing I have against me (but by far not the only thing) is that my design (but not the other guys) uses both proprietary (polyhedral) dice AND a proprietary/non-standard deck of playing cards. All the survey and market data I have ever collected (or seen collected by others) basically says that there is a large chunk of gamers out there that will say "no thank you" to any game that features features playing cards OR proprietary dice automatically without ever giving it a shot, to have both proprietary dice AND proprietary playing cards in my game is just a nightmare from a marketing standpoint BUT mechanically speaking I simply could not efficiently achieve what I want to make by doing it any other way - not really being hyperbolic here, but the simplest way to put it is that the cards and dice are being used for more than just RNG.
From what I have gathered the biggest issue with this is that the moment the word "proprietary" gets attached to something gamers see it as a cash-grab, I have a plan to address that and I intend to release a printable deck of cards and 3d printable stl files of the dice so that gamers can print-and-play it themselves at a lower cost (which will basically be necessary anyway as I intend to put the game out to a free open beta before going commercial with it) AND for those that really don't like cards I am exploring the option of chits/tiles that can be printed instead and you would pick em out of a bag or a scramble (domino style, at a basic level it works the same mechanically for most applications, but there are certain things which become more complicated when you aren't using a deck of cards) AND for those who are just really attached to their bespoke $500 set of premium dice made from precious gemstones I plan on releasing a set of conversion charts/tables and tokens to help them translate their non-proprietary dice to proprietary results (but that will add a huge cognitive load and dramatically slow things down so I'm not even sure its worth it), but I'm not sure if this is really enough to shake the stigma and convince people to say "lets give this a chance".
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
Thats a good way to look at it. I mean, mechanically it seems that my design is still fairy unique, its more an issue of what it is I'm trying to accomplish with those mechanics is virtually identical. At a basic level its like comparing DnD and Pathfinder (or maybe a more apt comparison might be Warmachine and Malifaux, or Warmachine and Warcaster). Strong thematic/fluff similarities (in this case DnD/Pathfinder would be a better comparison than the other two I gave, the IP here is fairly unique, which is why its so jarring that this other person came up with so many of the same concepts and ideas), very similar intent on what the game is trying to model and achieve, but different executions on that concept mechanically - they both get us to the same place, but they do so via different means.
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
I think the thing I am most frustrated about is really the non-mechanical elements, i.e. the fluff and theme. Its the part of all this that has changed the most dramatically over the past 15 years, and those changes were a big source of why its taken me so long to really advance things. Within a few years of starting the project another game with a very similar setting and theme was released, so I went back and made revisions to differentiate mine, within a couple years of that another game was released with an IP similar to my new setting, so I went back and then a couple years later yet another popped up. After 4 or 5 revisions I basically said to myself "I'm going to scrap the setting entirely and restart from scratch, no more iterative development on my existing setting, I'm going to push this as far as I can into new territory and try to do something much less obvious - while still being true to my original inspirations - so that I don't have to worry about a crowded field of otherwise very similar IPs." Basically, I wanted a setting that was Age of Sigmar in a sea of WHFB clones and knockoffs. And for all intents and purposes I feel like I nailed that, it took me a few years of work to figure out, but I think I got there and I was happy with it, and I *finally* could really get cracking on the mechanical stuff again, and now suddenly I feel like I'm back to square one with someone else doing something that, at least superficially, very strongly resembles what I had been working on.
Like, I don't think I'm creative enough to push the boundaries any further than I already have in terms of fluff, it took me years of frustration just to get it to where I am now. Mechanics and crunch, I think I can do (and I think, like I said before, I'm safe there - mechanically the "journey" part of my game is unique, even if it gets you to the same "destination", I think I'm mostly okay with that), but I don't want to have to revisit my fluff when I finally got it somewhere where I am happy with it and where I could say it was completely unlike anything else out there (up until like 2 weeks ago). Maybe I just feel like I'll be accused of plagiarism or something? I dunno,
maybe I just need to start getting some fluff published online and start actually building recognition of the IP so it doesn't feel like I'm following in someone elses footsteps.
That's a good idea. Especially if you can turn it into a webcomic or art series, or a set of awesome stories - something that people will start to follow, and when your game is ready, you have the foundations to prove its origins.
(by webcomic, I'm imagining more like romantically apocalyptic, rather than a cartoony webcomic!)
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/06 20:52:14
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
Art is the stumbling block for me as well - I've found I can achieve passable sketches, given enough time, motivation & cups of tea, but nothing which falls into the purview of releasable art with which to advertise the game. I hope to get a drawing tablet so I can scan in my pencil sketches and then go over them on photoshop, see if I can improve my graphics that way.
Have you made any concerted efforts into art? My partner has recently put a fair amount of time into learning to draw, and she has come on leaps and bounds in a few weeks. It might be worth really pushing yourself (and most importantly, not giving up because it doesn't look exactly as you pictured it off the bat) and trying to get some sketches and concepts together for your lore. If you can start posting some sketches and concepts along with the descriptions and background stories, and steadily improve your artwork (or ultimately take the plunge and hire a professional) then you will also have the "I was there from the beginning" fanbase, and you can include special sets with original artwork for those hardcore fans. If your skills lie in the writing, then a series of short stories with sketches to set the scene better would also do well. It's the fluff you're plugging, not the art, but a story with so-so pictures is far better (to me) than a story with no pictures at all.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
So, it sounds like your game has a lot of overhead and production costs.....
.... as a Business guy, not as a game design guy, I will say that is bad, very, very, very bad. Unless, you can find someone else to take the $$$$ risk or you have plenty of $$$$ to lose.
The essence of good business is getting other people to risk their money. You may wan tot connect with your local Chamber of Commerce or Small-Business Community to see if they can tap you in with an Angel Investor. The SBA might also be able to help if you have a local office.
Right now, based on the small amount you have told us; your biggest issue is getting money and connections to help. That will require a business plan for the scale of game you have described to me. This is not a basement gig style game. Probably worth its own thread......
As for me, I made some quick templates/play tokens for some common American and Communist forces for my Korean Air War game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/06 21:01:21
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/06 22:26:39
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
+1 for giving it it's own thread - even if you stay shtum on the details, we can offer you more advice, support etc in your own thread. Tell us all you can!
I did some "product research" today...
...I played board games. didn't do anything on the game
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
Art is the stumbling block for me as well - I've found I can achieve passable sketches, given enough time, motivation & cups of tea, but nothing which falls into the purview of releasable art with which to advertise the game. I hope to get a drawing tablet so I can scan in my pencil sketches and then go over them on photoshop, see if I can improve my graphics that way.
Have you made any concerted efforts into art? My partner has recently put a fair amount of time into learning to draw, and she has come on leaps and bounds in a few weeks. It might be worth really pushing yourself (and most importantly, not giving up because it doesn't look exactly as you pictured it off the bat) and trying to get some sketches and concepts together for your lore. If you can start posting some sketches and concepts along with the descriptions and background stories, and steadily improve your artwork (or ultimately take the plunge and hire a professional) then you will also have the "I was there from the beginning" fanbase, and you can include special sets with original artwork for those hardcore fans. If your skills lie in the writing, then a series of short stories with sketches to set the scene better would also do well. It's the fluff you're plugging, not the art, but a story with so-so pictures is far better (to me) than a story with no pictures at all.
I simply don't have the time, by night I work on my 3D miniatures and terrain business, by day I do my regular job and find time to squeeze in some writing/rules design when Mr. Boss Man ain't looking.
.... as a Business guy, not as a game design guy, I will say that is bad, very, very, very bad. Unless, you can find someone else to take the $$$$ risk or you have plenty of $$$$ to lose.
The essence of good business is getting other people to risk their money. You may wan tot connect with your local Chamber of Commerce or Small-Business Community to see if they can tap you in with an Angel Investor. The SBA might also be able to help if you have a local office.
Right now, based on the small amount you have told us; your biggest issue is getting money and connections to help. That will require a business plan for the scale of game you have described to me. This is not a basement gig style game. Probably worth its own thread......
Connections are absolutely the *last* thing I need right now, I'm probably one of the most inadvertently well connected people to post in this thread (Mr Hewitt notwithstanding) - My girlfriend works for one of the largest board and tabletop game publishers in the industry and is on a first name basis with a lot of major designers and quite a few publishers, personalities, etc. I've discussed my project with a couple of them in a past and they took some interest in it, but I see them more as "her friends" rather than someone I would feel comfortable approaching in a business capacity Also I'm very much interested in self-publishing this, even if it takes time to get myself fully up to speed.
Money though, yes. If I could get a bucket load of it that would be great. In any case, I have the 3d printing startup going, pulled about $6k on the kickstarter and have a few hundred more in late backers waiting for me to go live on my online shop, hoping to keep expanding my operations in that area as the stl sales are low overhead and a good "ramp" or springboard I can use to raise funds for other endeavors. I have a product launch plan for physical prints too but but COVID derailed that entirely.
I have ANOTHER semi-related project on the back of my mind that I would absolutely love/need an angel investor for, as well as a team of really knowledgeable coders. If it worked/took off that project alone would bankroll everything else I could ever dream of doing for life, but app/tech development is an area that I have no knowledge or familiarity with and wouldn't even know how to begin laying the ground work to make a realistic pitch to someone for the funding.
In any case, I think I can launch as a print and play type project via Patreon to cover some of the early development costs, and ramp up to Kickstarter as it matures. While the fully realized game would be a massive undertaking (as you suggest), its "modular" enough that I can break it down into smaller chunks as I build it up into its final form over a period of time. Provided that the cash flow builds over time of course.
And yeah, it probably *does* deserve its own thread, but I'm still working on maturing the mechanical parts of it to the point that I can actually post something on dakka that people will actually read and be able to discuss in a meaningful manner. Hoping for that to happen this summer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/07 11:46:33
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/07 15:25:31
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
I simply don't have the time, by night I work on my 3D miniatures and terrain business, by day I do my regular job and find time to squeeze in some writing/rules design when Mr. Boss Man ain't looking.
...
And yeah, it probably *does* deserve its own thread, but I'm still working on maturing the mechanical parts of it to the point that I can actually post something on dakka that people will actually read and be able to discuss in a meaningful manner. Hoping for that to happen this summer.
Ah, busy man! yes, I can agree that it's a lot easier to squeeze in sneaky rules-writing than having a sketchpad open full of doodles!
Hopefully your 3D printing will take off sufficiently for you to go part time and get some more free time for your passion!
We'll look forward to seeing the basics of it when you've got it together!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
I worked a bit of tinkering here and there on a couple of projects, a paragraph of rules on this, a paragraph on that, some mock-up profiles there.....
Nothing too conclusive as it was in between video meetings.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/07 21:46:06
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
When I get around to getting more public with things it'll come from my "professional" account, I'll make sure to pm you guys so you know its me. Very much prefer to keep that identity and my online shitposting troll identity separate lol
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/07 22:00:24
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
I threw some ideas for a time travel game around a bit, then threw them all out of the window again. it might be some of the ideas will resurface in time (badum-tsh) but I didn't get excited about enough of it to make it seem interesting to me!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
chaos0xomega wrote: When I get around to getting more public with things it'll come from my "professional" account, I'll make sure to pm you guys so you know its me. Very much prefer to keep that identity and my online shitposting troll identity separate lol
Nice! I should follow your approach, but I am too dumb.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/11 19:28:52
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Not to hog a thread, but a question for you wizened gentlemen:
How developed do the rules be for you to be comfortable publishing them? I'm trying to gauge a "standard" for what point I should be ready to put the rules on dakka or elsewhere.
My current thinking is that I'm going to try to just get the barebones "core" rules written up - i.e. basic turn structure and combat mechanics, etc. Not worry about things like the mission/scenario, deployment, terrain rules, force construction/points system, etc. - Even though all of that will have a big impact on gameplay given the intent of the game design, worrying about feedback and playtesting on that is pointless within a solid base to build on.
Beyond that, the plan is to include a single sample unit in 3 "tiers" - basic, intermediate, advanced. The tiers don't have any applciability to the final game design, but rather refer to the complexity of the unit design itself for testing purposes. The basic unit is barebones, no special rules, just basic statline and thats it - you play a game or two with it just to get the hang of the mechanics, and then you move on. Playing with the basic unit gives you an understanding of the "how" the game play, but not the "why" - specifically with regards to the card/dice system. If you only play with the basic unit then I think you're going to say, "okay, I see how this works, but I don't understand why you would do it this way when you get the same results much more simply with just a d6". It's not necessarily ideal for introducing someone to the game and letting them understand what it is I've created, but the game design uses a very non-traditional approach to turn structure (through my various game design explorations I've basically realized I'm allergic to conventional turn structures) and I don't want to overwhelm them with special rules effects while they are still adjusting to some of the new concepts I've introduced.
So then you step up into the "intermediate" unit, and you play a game or two with that so you get introduced to some of the more complex rules interactions and aspects of the mechanical framework. You can start to see the card/dice integration and the mechanics at work, and you get a better appreciation for the "why" and what core gameplay is like.
And then you step up into the "advanced" unit which is the extreme end of what the system is capable of, but probably not something you would encounter in the fully realized game (and if you did it would be a rare thing, hero unit, etc.). I view this as serving the role of a bit of a "stress test", not just of the ruleset but also the cognitive load placed on a player by way of unit design.
If everything goes smoothly I can continue development from there, if not its back to the drawing board. Good approach? Yay/nay?
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/11 19:59:53
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
More or less my approach too, bare-bones mechanics> vertical slice> fleshing out parts> then fine tuning.
I would wish I could get the bare-bones part working its been 3 months that I just keep scrapping it...
I have also found telling the core rules to somebody else can be a great way to externalize them and scrap them because 9/10 when you describe your idea it shows its flaws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/11 20:00:15
2020/05/12 03:47:46
Subject: Re:Game Designers: What did you work on today?
This week, I finished the first pass at a Data Disc, which is basically the 'stat card' used to control a unit in my game Saucer War One.
I'm pretty happy with how that's looking for now. The Orange ring has named Connector Points that indicate where you place the Saucer's Crew Disc, Weapons, (Hardpoints) and Equipment or transported things (Special). Some tweaks to add, but I think it has the right look for a 50's retro vibe. What do you think?
However... I also found a fundamental flaw in a basic unit concept (at 1:00 in the morning, of course), which led me to completely trash that concept, and re-write some fundamental rules.
The problem was that I'd let myself wander off-target. Saucer War One is all about combat between flying saucers. Flying saucers are the front-and-centre focus. They have to be. It's right there in the name. No getting round that.
So why did I start writing up every unit aside from Saucers as options that could potentially be taken en masse and gang up on the Saucers in ridiculous ways??? Things like 20 anti-aircraft half-tracks against each Saucer!!!!
Why? Because I'd started to stray into exploring how to make jet fighters of the era viable unit choices. Seemed reasonable. Saucer War One is intended to appeal to gamers who like air combat. Stands to reason they may have squadrons of fighters they'd like to get into the game. I've set the scale at 1/200th partly for that reason. Early feedback is proving I'm right there.
So, I tried to beef up the fighters, so they wouldn't just get creamed by the Saucers. But then, looking at the other Assets (units) players can choose, I realised they were now really underpowered. So I added some muscle to those, too.
And then I thought if the Saucers can have options to swap out weapons, crews, and equipment, (which they do), shouldn't the other Assets be able to do the same? Halfway through that process, I had the sense to step back and look at the monster I was building. Gahhh! What had I done? Why was I bothering working out weapon options for a couple of Men-in-black agents in a Buick when the game is about Saucers fighting with guided plasma missiles at Mach 4????
Things like Men-in-Black and 'contactees' and other Ufology-related Assets do serve essential roles in Saucer War One; The game can't be won be just shooting down more Saucers than your opponent. It is scenario-driven, and 'boots on the ground' are vital for silencing witnesses, recruiting believers, abducting people or mutilating cows. But, those shouldn't be given equal focus in the game's mechanics. They are supposed to be more a means to an end; the supporting cast. Not the heroic leads that makes you want to pay for admission and popcorn.
Result: Assets are now treated as Equipment that must be transported on a Saucer, dropped off, do their thing, and be retrieved. A bit like a spec ops team being inserted by helicopter, and then extracted when the deed is done. Each Asset has fixed stats, presented on a smaller Data Disc the same size as the discs used for Equipment, Crew, etc.
So, the moral of this week's lesson is - be like Gold Leader, and "Stay on Target".
But mind the Death Star...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/12 03:48:54
Hobbies from Other Dimensions!
www.miniaturemartin.com
2020/05/12 11:39:21
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
PsychoticStorm wrote: More or less my approach too, bare-bones mechanics> vertical slice> fleshing out parts> then fine tuning.
I would wish I could get the bare-bones part working its been 3 months that I just keep scrapping it...
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
I have also found telling the core rules to somebody else can be a great way to externalize them and scrap them because 9/10 when you describe your idea it shows its flaws.
That depends on how self-conscious and self critical you are I think. Whenever Ive tried explaining my rules verbally has only ever really resulted in me getting inside my own head and worrying that they don't undestand it, they think its ridiculous or overly complicated, etc. In my case I think its a real challenge communicating the concepts and design concisely as I've taken such a different approach to so many things that unless the person I'm discussing things with is interested in game design themselves and/or has dug into a wide variety of games from the past 50+ years across a number of different genres they are probably going to struggle to comprehend what it is I'm trying to explain to them. I wouldn't consider the design complicated (but it is certainly complex), and I think its fairly simple to wrap your head around it once its down in writing and you can follow the steps for yourself or look at a visual example in the rulebook, etc. Unfortunately, when so many games on the market today can be described in terms of "Its like warhammer 40k, but instead of x it has y instead", or "its like D&D but it uses d6 dice pools", etc. etc. and the person you're speaking to can instantly figure out what it is you're describing, but you can't make any such simple comparisons for your own design or are reliant on games that you know they've probably never even heard of, you kinda start to feel nervous about what it is you've done.
This week, I finished the first pass at a Data Disc, which is basically the 'stat card' used to control a unit in my game Saucer War One.
I'm pretty happy with how that's looking for now. The Orange ring has named Connector Points that indicate where you place the Saucer's Crew Disc, Weapons, (Hardpoints) and Equipment or transported things (Special). Some tweaks to add, but I think it has the right look for a 50's retro vibe. What do you think?
That looks so cool, I think its a really good bit of graphic design thats functional but also highly thematic.Without knowing the mechanics of your game, just looking at that I think I can get a pretty good idea of what everything means and represents.
The game sounds awesome though, and a very unique thematically. I'd play it!
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/12 12:15:48
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
Yes, the more I tested some core concepts the more I felt this is a digital game in the making and not a hybrid of a skirmish/ dungeon crawler boardgame I want to make, or a pure resource management boardgame simulating skirmish combat that does not need spacial elements, just cards.
Maybe both could be nice games by themselves a digital xcom style game and resource management cardgame, but neither is what I want to design.
2020/05/12 13:23:38
Subject: Re:Game Designers: What did you work on today?
I'm trying to write new posts every week. It helps my creative output, because it gives me a regular deadline to meet, and that stops me from giving in to distractions. (So many shiny things to occupy the idle wargamer...
Hobbies from Other Dimensions!
www.miniaturemartin.com
0009/10/09 13:49:07
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
Yes, the more I tested some core concepts the more I felt this is a digital game in the making and not a hybrid of a skirmish/ dungeon crawler boardgame I want to make, or a pure resource management boardgame simulating skirmish combat that does not need spacial elements, just cards.
Maybe both could be nice games by themselves a digital xcom style game and resource management cardgame, but neither is what I want to design.
Sounds like maybe your issue is one of scope? Not in the sense of your scope is too broad, but rather that the way you've implemented that scope has resulted in the game becoming mechanically broad instead of focusing that scope narrowly into one particular area? When I hear "resource management" and "skirmish game" the first place my mind usually goes is Warmachine. The resources management exists within the Focus system, but the way that integrates with the rest of the gameplay the resource management aspect remains solely around supporting the core gameplay elements rather than overpowering it, or becoming a sub-game or a side-game to the skirmish battle element. If you're comparing what your mechanical impelementation is doing to XCOM or concerned that it constitutes a resource management game which simulates skirmish combat, then it sounds like the resource management aspects of your mechanics are essentially overpowering the "core" gameplay that you're striving for? If thats the case then you have to peel back the resource management layer and find a way to re-integrate it back in with the skirmish combat layer in a way that enmeshes the two together more closely so its a more holistic design.
That being said, whats wrong with a tabletop game that feels like a digital game? Mechanically speaking, 2 of the biggest influences on one aspect of my game mechanics are Eve Online and World of Warships, another aspect of the design attempts to simulate "button masher" combat from hack and slash games like Devil May Cry and God of War, or fighting games like Street Fighter and Tekken (I promise you this will make a lot more sense once I'm ready to stop being cryptic about my project). In many ways, what I'm shooting for pulls a lot more from video games than it does from other tabletop games, even though I mostly referenced tabletop games as part of my design research - the digital game concepts are what inspired me, the tabletop games are what informed the implementation of those concepts. Anyway, all of this is to say is if your design is playable and you enjoy playing it, it shouldn't matter that it feels like it should be a video game.
Macrossmartin wrote:chaos0xomega, thank you! I'll start a thread about the design and writing of the rules for Saucer War One soon, rather than hog this thread.
Meantime, do come and take a gander at my blog, if you'd like some more insights into what I'm up to:
I'm trying to write new posts every week. It helps my creative output, because it gives me a regular deadline to meet, and that stops me from giving in to distractions. (So many shiny things to occupy the idle wargamer...
I'll be reading through your blog over my lunch break and will def keep an eye out for more from you!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm back from reading your blog Martin. Your work thus far is incredible, makes me want to toss all my work out and sulk in a corner, nothing I do will ever be that clever or intuitive.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/05/12 16:26:08
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/13 01:01:25
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
I'm back from reading your blog Martin. Your work thus far is incredible, makes me want to toss all my work out and sulk in a corner, nothing I do will ever be that clever or intuitive.
Well, I am flattered and ashamed, simultaneously!
Delighted that you took the time to come and peruse my blog, but I never intended it to be anything other than a record of my ramblings and (hopefully) a source of inspiration. I can only say that I consider myself neither clever nor intuitive. It's just 20 years experience as a professional editor, graphic designer, and hobby retailer combining with an absence of work right now, and a sustained session of finger-out pulling!
Hoping you don't mind the unsolicited advice, chaos0xomega, but I'd suggest getting your light out from under the bushel; You seem pretty coy about your game? I have been the same way in the past, but have found that showing others what you're working on, gathering feedback, building community and buzz, works wonders for your creative output and confidence. Even if its current state is the gaming equivalent of a sketch pad full of doodles, Whatever you're designing, stick it out there! (All together now: "Oo-er, Missus!")
Hobbies from Other Dimensions!
www.miniaturemartin.com
2020/05/13 19:00:56
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Delighted that you took the time to come and peruse my blog, but I never intended it to be anything other than a record of my ramblings and (hopefully) a source of inspiration. I can only say that I consider myself neither clever nor intuitive. It's just 20 years experience as a professional editor, graphic designer, and hobby retailer combining with an absence of work right now, and a sustained session of finger-out pulling!
I don't think you appreciate the brilliance of your maneuvering system. Not only is it highly thematic ("Keep it in the green, Dean!" - I could totally see/hear that coming from one of those 50's era educational films, followed by the narrator chuckling to himself as the enthusiastic young ANTIC cadet gives the camera a thumbs up), but its *simple*, very appropriate to the subject matter (if flying saucers are/were real, your maneuver system is an accurate representation of how I would expect them to realistically behave), and its what I would call "delightful" in both form and function. Its an incredibly simple and downright elegant way of handling something that is otherwise extremely complex. The fact that (at least at a quick glance) the artwork on the maneuver discs looks like radar screen return blips makes it even cooler - as a player I could imagine a Radar operator (the other player) staring at his screen watching these impossible maneuvers in a panic while I'm laying these discs down on a table to plot my course, etc.
This is the sort of thematic-mechanical integration which allows for a simple solution to a complex problem that I strive for in my own work, but I think I often come up short on. I often find that I am a creature of complexity, I thrive on it in many ways and enjoy seeing all the many moving parts under the hood coming together - if complexity were a bright flame, then I'm a moth. But I also intrinsically understand the value of simple and elegant solutions that mitigate or eliminate much of that complexity and boil it down to something that has little or no cognitive load involved. While I want the latter I am attracted to the former, and I often find that I am at odds with myself when approaching a design problem which usually results in something that I'm happy with on the surface, but wish was more "high concept" in execution.
Maneuver is a particular area that has given me some trouble in streamlining/figuring out. I too opted for tripod bases, but in my case the tripod is used basically as a stand to create a raised platform for a proper base with some relevant unit info on it (similar to an X-Wing/Armada base, or Dropfleet Commander), from which a single stem rises up to carry the model in position. Basically a "best of both worlds" type approach, but I still haven't figured out a movement system that I am happy with.
Hoping you don't mind the unsolicited advice, chaos0xomega, but I'd suggest getting your light out from under the bushel; You seem pretty coy about your game? I have been the same way in the past, but have found that showing others what you're working on, gathering feedback, building community and buzz, works wonders for your creative output and confidence. Even if its current state is the gaming equivalent of a sketch pad full of doodles, Whatever you're designing, stick it out there! (All together now: "Oo-er, Missus!")
Don't mind at all. You're right, thats what I would like to do, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist and have a "minimum standard" I would like to achieve before doing so. I don't just want to put a word doc/pdf out there thats a wall of text, I'd like some basic artwork and diagrams and "polish" so it looks like its a serious attempt at designing a consumer product. Your blog meets that standard, IMO. Unfortunately, what I have done so far for myself does not.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/14 19:36:36
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
- Some famous dead guy
This is the #1 mistake I see game designers, writers, artist, etc make. Then, they get in their own way and never get anything finished or released into the wild.
To be a game designer you need two things, a game and a person willing to play it. Everything else is bonus.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/14 23:46:05
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
It is good advice to not let perfect get in the way of better. tabletop games, particularly complex ones, are akin to nearly unsolvable equations - you might spend months or even years working on them to get the exact answer of 3.0294652974683, only to realise the "about 3" works just as well for the context you're working in.
99% of players won't have an issue if one particular ability is marginally better or worse than it should be, and such things can be fixed through playtesting fairly easily.
I've not gotten to this state myself yet, but most of what I've heard tells me that a game will rarely (if ever) make it through large-scale playtesting unscathed. You might have mechanics you spent months writing need re-jigging because one player found one unit which abuses them. You're better off getting the rough ideas and then playing some games with a friend expecting to have to change things, than spending years writing what you think to be the perfect rules, only to still have to change them when you play it. You'll be a lot less emotionally invested, and you will therefore find it easier to change things which need changing, thereby resulting in a better game.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
I do not know about you guys, but this WFH has done wonders for my creative output.....
I have managed to knock out the basic rules for about 4 rulesets that have been circling in my head for years. I did all 4 in about 4 weeks. 1 a week for core rules is not bad.
Too bad the campaigns, scenarios, playtesting, editing, and other stuff will take me a long time afterwards to flesh out. Still, not bad.....I am at least at I point where I can make pitches for some of these projects.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2020/05/15 21:13:14
Subject: Re:Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Im extremely sour and salty about the whole "working from home" thing. The lady has been enjoying that since February (and her productivity had increased dramatically even though she's sleeping in), but my job is both essential and national defense critical so I've been having to go into work daily, even when the rest of the building has been told to stay at home - about 800 of the 1400 employees at my location have been working from home though, and it sounds like management is going to push for that to be a permanent thing - unfortunately my job can't be done at home so I'm not ever going to get that benefit.
I could get *so* much done if I wasn't in the office every day.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2020/05/17 20:37:14
Subject: Game Designers: What did you work on today?
Did some more playtesting and tweaking, and I'm feeling pretty good about the main engine. I'm sure there's a bit more balancing that needs to be done, and lots of new scenarios, but I feel like it's getting there. So much so that I shot out a call for playtesters in my Facebook groups, so I'm bracing for the incoming "your game sucks" posts.