Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

CodfishCartographer posted:

Holy dang, thanks for all that feedback. I'm on vacation and only have access to my phone so hopefully this write-up isn't awful!

1&2) I had wanted to put in a time-limit, but wasn't entirely sure how to implement it - my initial idea was to make the timer board X spaces long, and when the last player crosses the start then they lose as they have ran out of time. A physical timer in the form of a soundtrack hadn't occurred to me, but it's a brilliant idea. Then I could have it where each section of the soundtrack uses a different behemoth deck, each one getting progressively more difficult. As a further anti-quarterback mechanic, I was intending to take notes from pandemic and add a game variant where one player controls the behemoth, but haven't had any time to play test that system yet, and wanted to further solidify and refine the current system before doing so.

3) I'm not sure if you guys were playing the sharpness correctly, most likely I didn't explain it correctly in the rules: if you're at low sharpness you still deal normal damage, you just don't deal durability damage. So you still hurt the behemoth, you just can't break any components.

4) Yeah, I haven't done a whole ton of weapon balancing unfortunately. This was definitely something I was worried about, so it's good to know that it is something that needs addressing. I'll look into reworking some of the weapon cards / powers for the ones you listed, are there any other weapons you guys found not very fun? Any you found to be particularly enjoyable aside from gun lance?

5) I think adding a bit of a flavor-text hint on the back of a card ("Flame begins dripping from the Ashral's mouth" "The Ashral spreads its wings and looks ready to leap to the sky") when coupled with a timer would certainly help this. My primary concern, like you pointed out, is that this could make avoiding things very easy.

6) Yeah I figured the instructions were crap, since it was my first time writing them. Any other things you struggled to find? What were some things with the game you could find, but had to recheck the rule book for while playing?

7) Thanks for the feedback on this, movement hasn't really been a huge part of the game, but it definitely is something I could work on making more interesting.

Since talk of a timer is happening a lot, how long were the games you played, and how many players did you have? Did you win or lose them? If you won, how close did you ever come to losing? If you lost, how close were you to winning?

1&2) That sounds solid.

3) In the manual I'm pretty sure you say that you must have the monster's color of sharpness to damage it, but you may have meant "damage" in terms of durability. Otherwise yeah we were playing that wrong.

4) I think Sword & Shield needs some work, it doesn't really do damage and the block isn't particularly good barring the attack that lets you keep it readied. Using items faster is cool, but when the vast majority of your item usage is "use a potion or sharpening stone" it's a bit bleh. I found myself using Monster Traps with it not because it helped a lot (though it was nice), but just so I could feel like I was taking advantage of the weapon's ability. Consider something to play up the weapon's versatility in MH, maybe something like the option when you ready attacks to do unique things, like the Bow's delay options. Like "Shield" attacks can gain +2 Delay to block another 10 damage and something else for "Slash" attacks. It's also a weapon that'd pair well with movement mechanics if you decide to flesh that out (Bow, Staff, or Light Bowgun too if you decide to change/make that).

As for other weapons, I'd have to talk with my players, but I know the Transform Axe user felt underwhelmed with the needed amount of build up to make his points worth much (or at least feel worth it, I don't know what the best time to dump combo points is mathematically). For that I'd weaken Sword attacks and buff the point multipliers for Axe ones (or the other way around? I don't remember), but maybe there's other options. The guy who used the Dual Swords never really used his power, which obviously means little for balance, but it might mean it doesn't inspire people to care. The Hunting Horn user seemed happy, especially since having a HH in the group seems to shift the focus and that person is basically the star of the show. I didn't try the Bow or the Hammer.

5) Yeah I don't have an easy fix for that. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to have attacks predictable, they were in MH, but you'd probably have to make HP lower since at that point you're relying on the timer/human error to cause the fail state. Though with a harsh enough timer or making dodging suboptimal (like make moving cause the players Delay?) helps that a bit.

6) The big one was that we had no idea where the boss was at the start of the game. I know there's a few other things, I think we missed that the monster hits with all listed body parts (ie "Head and both Claws") and not just the one that corresponds to that zone. It's definitely mentioned, but if you do an FAQ somewhere it might be worth putting there.

7) I don't have many suggestions aside from maybe making a few weapons key off movement (extra damage when you move? easier to dodge? modified delay opportunities?), or the things with the timer and delay. There might be something there though.

None of the games I played were games where everyone knew the rules, so I wouldn't take my experiences as the status quo, but the first one took a bit over two hours due to NONE of us knowing, and the other about 30 minutes less since I knew everything. I think a well read group could finish a game in an hour, maybe less, especially if you had something in the rules for dividing up the bookkeeping and logistics (Party Leader handles monster health and keeps the game flowing, Tactician monitors the monster deck/enrages, etc.).

# ? Jul 3, 2014 02:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 22:04

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

Casnorf posted:

I'm working on a little project, sort of a challenge that I've set for myself. I wanted to see how well I could divorce game mechanics from theme, and let the mechanics of the result evoke a theme. To that end, I wanted to see what the folks of this thread thought what themes, if any, are suggested by what mechanics.

I'm working under the assumption that some mechanics lend themselves naturally to certain themes. The unknown betrayer makes sense for a suspense environment, and drawing rewards out of a deck can suggest treasure hunting (finding!) in all its themed variations. Of course the themes we're working with here will be very broad given how abstract a game mechanic tends to be.

So far it's just a fun thought puzzle but I'd love to see what comes out.

Hmm. Just off the top of my head...

Deckbuilding evokes the sense of starting at the very bottom and working your way up to greatness (e.g. Being a poor heir apparent in Dominion or a desperate survival group in Arctic Scavengers)
Worker Placement gives you a sense of being a scheming leader trying to do a lot of things at once (e.g. the patriarch of Agricola or the eponymous Lords of Waterdeep)
Tile Placement is very reminiscent of being an explorer or a city planner (e.g. the community organizer in Suburbia or the exciting uncertainty of revealing the misty tiles in Settlers of Catan: Seafarers)
Resource Management really makes you feel like a shopkeeper or a greedy collector (like in... most Worker Placement games, actually.)

EDIT: I just realized this has nothing to do with what you were asking. I thought you were trying to use mechanics with themes they wouldn't normally be paired with, but what you're actually doing is starting with mechanics and seeing what themes spring up naturally. In any case, maybe this list will be helpful anyway.

I do like the idea of playing with the conventions, but just like any other similar goal, I'd caution that those conventions exist for a reason. Too off-the-wall, and the game will feel clunky, not innovative. But if you're really going for it, here are some ideas:

Deckbuilding: Most deckbuilders start you off with nothing. What if you got to start off with a lot of cool stuff, and the things you picked up were special things that enhanced your deck rather than formed the backbone of it? Most deckbuilders have one pool for all of the characters. What about multiple pools, or even separate pools for each player? I don't particularly like deckbuilders with lots of resources, but what about that? What about having more than one deck, having to decide which new cards go where? One idea I had involved cards that had both benefits and drawbacks; each Day turn, you played a benefit, and each Night phase, you played a drawback.
Worker Placement: Lots of Worker Placement games have "universal" workers that you can place anywhere. How about workers that can only placed in certain areas or in certain ways? Or perhaps each worker would carry with it a certain kind of bonus depending on where you play it. Or how about this: lots of worker placement games give you "your" workers that stay with you the whole game. What if your staff grew and shrank as you played? You play a worker, and they're gone forever, so you have to make sure you're getting workers back as well, or you'll be wasting future turns rebuilding your team. What if, instead of being a manager, you were an army general? What if you could play multiple workers on a single task, and the more you placed, the more effective they were? Or, to make the army idea more clear, what if you could place your workers in formations? What would that do?
Tile Placement: Generally, once a tile's on the board, it stays there. But what if tiles came on and off as they were used, or you could shift the orientation freely? What if instead of everyone playing on one contiguous area, everybody ran their own countries? What if those areas then started to bump into each other, and you could conquer people's tiles? Or what if you had tiles that were like little bottle worlds, and as an action, you could introduce that whole cluster into the world proper? I was actually working on a game where the tiles were secret, and you had to pretend that you knew what they were to gain benefits. What if you were geomancers, and instead of exploration, you were modifying an extant world instead?
Resource Management: One thing that always bugs me about resource management is how little you have. What if there were a resource management game where you had lots of money and cows and grain, more than you knew what to do with? Where your stock is never the same two turns in a row? Or how about an alchemy game where you start with base materials and, with the right recipes, you can make more advanced stuff? How about an asymmetric game where each person gets a different effect from the resources, like superheroes who react differently to Magitanium radiation? Or how about a communist cooperative game where all the stock is everyone's equally? Or Hanabi-style where you can see other people's resources, but not your own? How about a game where you never gain resources, only slowly lose them? Or, like one of my favorite games that sadly is very flawed, Technopoly, what if the resources were your own inventions?

So... that's me spitballing stuff. Hope it's at least vaguely interesting.

ActingPower fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jul 3, 2014

# ? Jul 3, 2014 02:59

CodfishCartographer: Feb 23, 2010; Gadus Maprocephalus; Pillbug

Countblanc posted:

Words

My initial timer idea for the game was around 40-60 minutes, and I think that may sound about right for your time-frame. It might be a bit tight but that's not really a bad thing. The group roles is a good idea, I was thinking of suggesting something like that in the rules but may as well include it as an actual game mechanic to streamline it. As for the behemoth card descriptions, I think I'll make a version with those and try it out to see how things go - I'd rather not lower player health and make it more about player error, because that could easily mean one or two mistakes and then someone does and everyone loses, and I'm not sure I want THAT small of a margin of error. I think right now the damage/health ratio is close enough where players feel pressured but still have wiggle room to make mistakes. Although with segmented behemoth decks I could make it so the margin of error gets tighter and tighter, so early mistakes won't gently caress things up but later on could cost you the game.

Right now my plan for Dual Swords is to make it so that you get a continuously building bonus damage each time you move (add a counter each time you move, increase damage dealt by one for each counter) but have it reset when you take damage (or don't move?) so you get a good feeling of building up damage and keeping it if you're good enough - then maybe also allow it to recover sharpness on a successful evade. That's the general idea anyways, I'll probably end up tweaking it. As for switch axe, my plan is something similar but it builds up when switching between the two modes, and maybe is depleted a little at a time rather than all at once. Still brainstorming ideas! As for sword and shield, I think I could definitely up the damage on it and then try to add in some more useful items. I had many more items originally, but in basically all of my play tests with them players very rarely used them - the ones I included in the print and play were pretty much the only items anyone used. My current idea is to add in a couple more offensive items and then have SnS double(?) item values along with the reduced delay. Maybe have it be able to use potions / sharpening stones on other players?

Theme and Mechanics (not behemoth chat)

ActingPower definitely touched on this some, but one of the most interesting ways I've heard of for designing games is to ask yourself what's expected of a game/genre, and then pose a theoretical game mechanic that goes against that expectation. For example, in a deck builder you expect to add cards to your own deck. What if there was a game where you only add cards to OTHER players' decks? Or in a resource management game, you expect to buy supplies with resources. What if there was a game where you buy resources by selling an initial, ever-dwindling stock of supplies? This can often lead to dumb ideas that aren't good: remember, there's a reason some of these expectations and tropes exist. However, it can sometimes lead to really interesting and innovative ideas.

As for theme with mechanics, you can really tie any theme to any mechanics with enough creativity. Last night I was playing around with a push-your-luck semi-coop game where players would need to manage three sand timers simultaneously, ensuring that not all of them ran out at the same time. My initial thought for the theme was air or fuel being used in a spaceship, but man is space generic so I thought it could work well as the water supply for a group of explorers in a desert. That got me thinking of what else it could represent - players are game developers trying to push back an ever-looming deadline; players are bullies beating up nerds before getting caught; players run stores trying to lure in customers, etc. Game mechanics are often so abstract you can stretch the players' imaginations pretty far.

CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 3, 2014

# ? Jul 3, 2014 07:23

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Casnorf posted:

I'm working on a little project, sort of a challenge that I've set for myself. I wanted to see how well I could divorce game mechanics from theme, and let the mechanics of the result evoke a theme. To that end, I wanted to see what the folks of this thread thought what themes, if any, are suggested by what mechanics.

I'm working under the assumption that some mechanics lend themselves naturally to certain themes. The unknown betrayer makes sense for a suspense environment, and drawing rewards out of a deck can suggest treasure hunting (finding!) in all its themed variations. Of course the themes we're working with here will be very broad given how abstract a game mechanic tends to be.

So far it's just a fun thought puzzle but I'd love to see what comes out.

Are you thinking in the vein of Tekopo's "Tigris and Euphrates is one of the most thematic games I know"?

# ? Jul 3, 2014 12:03

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

CodfishCartographer posted:

Maybe have it be able to use potions / sharpening stones on other players?

Making an effective "alchemist" role is cute, but at that point the weapon's action cards are secondary to the ability. Also you then run the risk of a group always needing/thinking they need one, since it's a healer and everyone knows you gotta have a healer, and no one likes being the person who has to spend 60-80% of their turns using items on other players. If you want to emphasize items with it, I'd say make it so SnB attacks can "combo" into items for less delay, maybe a flat -2, since then you absolutely must play action cards as well. Or make it a flat -1 and toss in some other ability if you want.

# ? Jul 3, 2014 18:54

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

CodfishCartographer posted:

Game mechanics are often so abstract you can stretch the players' imaginations pretty far.

That's actually sort of what I'm getting at: what mechanics aren't so completely abstract that they can evoke a theme or genre? To put it another way, can you give the suggestion of a theme in an otherwise abstracted game?

If you want your player to feel a certain omnipotence then you allow them to affect the game state directly. Wouldn't mechanics that encourage that suggest god-games and other games where your societal position is high?

One of my favorites is the extremely limited communication in Close Action. A few words per turn, even without the theme, evokes semaphore or ELF transmission and in either case suggests a naval theme.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 00:28

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

I think that's where my post comes in. See, it's not just the mechanic that creates a certain theme, but the way it's implemented. I mean, as a stark example, your example of "drawing from a deck is like finding treasure" can be turned into a harrowing, suspenseful experience if the stuff in the deck is bad instead of good. Same mechanic, totally different feel. Worker placements can make you a business manager, a patriarch, an army leader, an octopus, whatever. Tile placement can be exploration, control, trap revelation, modification, modulation, resource production, etc. See what I mean? It's not enough to say, "Tile placement makes you feel like an explorer" because that doesn't have to be true. It's true in a lot of cases, in fact it's probably true in most cases, but bereft of theme, it doesn't have to be.

EDIT: The thought occurred to me re:limited communication. Aren't you just a tad biased in that regard? :cheeky:

"I was playing a boat game, and there was limited communication. I bet any game with limited communication will feel naval." Off the top of my head, you could have, say, a game set in a monastery; a horror game where speaking draws the monster closer; a caveman game where communication is primitive and rough (this exists); a game with two societies with differing languages (also exists); or a wizard game where every word you speak is a WORD OF POWER, to be used wisely and with discretion.

ActingPower fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jul 4, 2014

# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:35

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

As my example was trying to say, you're sure not exploring in T&E! You're helping construct a story of how civilizations built, warred, and were torn apart.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:38

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

That's true. Tigris and Euphrates is quite an interesting game in that regard. In fact, short of a downright clone game, I bet you can find some intriguing uniqueness to any game you look at.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:59

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

ActingPower posted:

I think that's where my post comes in. See, it's not just the mechanic that creates a certain theme, but the way it's implemented.

EDIT: The thought occurred to me re:limited communication. Aren't you just a tad biased in that regard?

You are totally correct and I'd have quoted you but I was phone posting. But yes, i agree on both counts and that's exactly why I started down this line of thought. I'm clearly not imaginative enough, haha.

I haven't played Tigris and Euphrates nor read the article so I'm sorry but that one escapes me.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 02:46

gutterdaughter: Oct 21, 2010; keep yr head up, problem girl

ActingPower posted:

...say, a game set in a monastery; a horror game where speaking draws the monster closer...

...Pardon me. I'm just going to, um, put these ideas somewhere safe. Yeah, that's it.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:11

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

Gutter Owl posted:

...Pardon me. I'm just going to, um, put these ideas somewhere safe. Yeah, that's it.

Lol, go for it. They certainly sound like they could make for good ideas. I've got a million of 'em. Now if only I could get paid to come up with ideas that other people have to do all the hard work expanding...

ActingPower fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jul 4, 2014

# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:19

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

ActingPower posted:

Lol, go for it. They certainly sound like they could make for good ideas. I've got a million of 'em. Now if only I could get paid to come up with ideas that other people have to do all the hard work expanding...

Wanna have a board game jam? See what we can do with one of your rad ideas. I rather liked the Word Of Power one.

# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:54

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

Casnorf posted:

Wanna have a board game jam? See what we can do with one of your rad ideas. I rather liked the Word Of Power one.

Of all my ideas, you pick the one I added in a rush just to have a decently-long list. :xd:

But sure, if you've got some ideas for it, I'd love to hear them. Maybe it'd be about some wizards with a cauldron full of magical material, and whatever you say out loud changes its composition. So you can't even say things like, "I want to make..." because that would cause DESIRE and CREATION to strengthen. (Partially inspired by Symmetria or whatever it's called.)

# ? Jul 4, 2014 04:08

CodfishCartographer: Feb 23, 2010; Gadus Maprocephalus; Pillbug

Casnorf posted:

Wanna have a board game jam? See what we can do with one of your rad ideas. I rather liked the Word Of Power one.

I think a board game design contest thread with the theme of "games involving talking" would be pretty dang cool to see what comes up, you should make a thread for it. The July contest thread did just pop up, but it's more RPG-oriented so maybe it'd be fine to host another, shorter contest?

# ? Jul 4, 2014 07:56

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

ActingPower posted:

Of all my ideas, you pick the one I added in a rush just to have a decently-long list. But sure, if you've got some ideas for it, I'd love to hear them.

The object is to cast a specific spell, by saying it aloud, but what words you can say are limited by a visible-to-everyone pool (of tokens? cards?) in front of each player which are consumed when spoken. So you're trying to obtain the appropriate words while protecting and conserving the ones you have. Words you don't have you can't say. If pointing at a word and writing it are thematically forbidden, it could be a fun game of bluffing and pantomime.

Codfish Cartographer posted:

maybe it'd be fine to host another, shorter contest?

This has some potential, though I don't know how many people would really be all that interested in the sort of short-form jam-style board game design I have floating around in my head.

# ? Jul 5, 2014 04:09

sector_corrector: Jan 18, 2012; by Nyc_Tattoo

What do you guys think of this idea? Basically it's a drafting game where you're trying to set up chains of cards based on colors that connect them to either the left or the right side. I'm taking a bit from Bohnanza, where your hand order is relatively set and not easily changeable. The specifics at the end probably aren't balanced, but are included to give an example of what's possible.
-----------
Voudon is a drafting game where players are competing occultists trying to summon their respective dark lord.

The core mechanic is drafting. Packs of 10 cards are drawn from a randomized deck of 200 cards. Each card has two chain inputs on it, left and right. As the pack is passed, players take one card from it and add it to their hand. Players cannot shuffle cards around, but must instead keep them in the order that they are received. However they may add it at either the beginning or the end of the chain.

Play proceeds as follows:

Each player gets a pack of 10 cards. They look through them, and take one card, then passing the cards to their left. Cards have the following elements:
Right channel: One of four colors of wax, Red, Blue, Green or White. White is a wild card.
Left channel: As above.
Component: One of five different ritual elements, Pentacle, Sword, Cup, Wand and Blood

A turn starts with drafting, adding the drafted card to the current chain, and then players activating parts of their chain as they desire. At the start of the game players get an Idol card, which represents the entity they are trying to summon. Each entity has two different actions, and one goal.

Actions are represented by a series of three different ritual elements. For example, activating a chain containing a Pentacle, a Cup and Blood will produce the effect "Deep Knowledge" allows the player activating it to take two cards from the pack in front of them and instantly add it to their chain. When they are assembled, after the effect has taken place, they are put into a discard pile.

The first player to take an action is denoted by a token which switches possession to the left at the end of each turn.

Goals are what each player is working towards. They represent three different chains of five, which are typically more difficult to produce. When they are assembled the cards aren't discarded as with actions, but rather placed in front of the player.

When assembling chains players start at their first card of their choosing and advance to the next card where the left channel color matches the right channel color of the first. For example, player 3 has the following cards in their hand, with the lowercase left and right letters representing the left and right channel, and the uppercase letter representing the symbol...

r(ed) b(blue) g(reen) w(white)
p(entacle) s(word) c(up) w(and) b(blood)

rSb gBr bPg rCb wCg

The first card, the sword, needs a blue left channel to chain, and the next legal card is the pentacle. The pentacle needs a green left channel to chain, and the next legal card is the cup (which has a wildcard left channel and matches anything). Since this corresponds with their entity's "Possess Follower" ability, they may remove a card at random from another player's chain. The other cards in this chain fizzle (the blood and the first cup) and are discarded along with everything else. If players start a chain somewhere in the middle, then the cards on either side collapse to take up the space of where the selected chain had been.

When a pack is exhausted whichever player would receive the exhausted pack next draws a fresh ten cards from the draw deck. When the deck is exhausted, the discard pile is reshuffled into the draw deck.

There are five possible entities which may be drawn on...

Baron La Croix (focuses on searching the discard pile and forcing an opponent to swap cards in their chain with those in the discard)
Old Scratch (focuses on discarding cards in your hand to draw extra cards and swapping 2 for 1 with an opponent)
Thoth (focuses on overdrawing and then discarding and searching the packs of other players for specific cards)
Morrigan (focuses on drawing specific named cards directly from the draw pile and destroying random single cards in your opponents' chains)
Baal (focuses on allowing the player reorder cards in their chain and forcing all players to pass one card of their choosing to their left except for you)

# ? Jul 7, 2014 22:06

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

sector_corrector posted:

What do you guys think of this idea? Basically it's a drafting game where you're trying to set up chains of cards based on colors that connect them to either the left or the right side. I'm taking a bit from Bohnanza, where your hand order is relatively set and not easily changeable. The specifics at the end probably aren't balanced, but are included to give an example of what's possible.

I think this is an amazingly clever and well thought out design. My one concern is the Dark Lords powers seem unequally potent but I suppose you can always balance that by having them require chains of different lengths to trigger there powers. Also have you considered having players play cards as they draft them? Though I could see that making the game much, much harder.

Have you prototyped it yet?

# ? Jul 7, 2014 23:16

sector_corrector: Jan 18, 2012; by Nyc_Tattoo

I haven't prototyped it yet. It sort of came to me while I was checking out some other drafting games, and fit with a few other concepts I'd been working on in other projects.

I do agree about balancing the dark lords being the hardest part...

I was also thinking about it last night, and one major problem would be a "gently caress the leader" mentality where once you had 2 goals achieved, it would become much harder to do anything else after that.

# ? Jul 8, 2014 20:04

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

sector_corrector posted:

I was also thinking about it last night, and one major problem would be a "gently caress the leader" mentality where once you had 2 goals achieved, it would become much harder to do anything else after that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Morrigan and La Croix are extremely good at that, right? They can just screw up your perfect chains and make you start over. The game sounds interesting, but also super hard...

# ? Jul 8, 2014 20:13

Jemak: Dec 27, 2003; Go to JAIL.
Go directly to JAIL.
Do not pass GO.
Do not collect :200bux:

Hello everyone.

I am also a published game designer; unfortunately I only just found out about this thread but since the OP's second post hasn't been edited since 2/2013 I'd like to share my opinion on a few things with just my personal advice-- your mileage may vary.
Disclaimer: I am not an industry veteran. I am a person who a couple years ago was just a guy with a neat idea for a game. I have one game published already that is in transit right now to KS backers and retailers with a two more that are in development- one of which was a commission from a publisher who liked what he saw me working on at a convention. I didn't come here to talk about me, but if you want to know I won't hide from you.

1) Play more games - a writer that doesn't read much probably produces literature that you wouldn't enjoy. Same goes for game design. Get on google and find the nearest game store to you and find out if they have a board game night. If they don't, try to start one. This is where your market lives. It is an ideal place to find playtesters (and to just make some friends who have similar interests) most of the friends I remain close with today I met as strangers in my FLGS who really liked what I was doing and now we get together once a month and break out whatever it is I'm working on. (They love to see their names in the playtesters credit section too). Play games that you've never heard of. Play games that you hate with people that love them. Play games that make you say "what the hell" when you look at the package- or the components- or the art. I have gotten more inspiration from seeing things that

2) The Game Crafter - https://www.thegamecrafter.com - I can understand why xopods might not recommend them given the time of the post, but I met with the team there several times to take a look at the products and services they offer since they launched their site around 2009. They have made dramatic improvements to their product line, pricing, and the quality of products they offer. Once upon a time, the only custom printed product they used to offer was poker-sized poker cards. Now they do boxes, boards, tuckboxes, tiles, chits, dice, player screens, dials, and I'm forgetting a dozen other things I'm sure. Primarily though I want to remark on their pricing and how they have shifted their focus to accommodate those wanting a part of the kickstarter craze. They now offer bulk pricing and fulfillment services and the kickstarter projects I have gotten that were produced by them have been of more-than-acceptable quality. It is worth comparing prices if you plan to run a project of your own; for what I like to call "small large-runs" under 1000, it is possible that you will get a better margin than having a product produced overseas and shipped to you/a warehouse. You would also be able to say that it was produced in the USA, which matters to a lot of people on kickstarter.

3) Go to conventions. Yes, even those conventions.
There are a lot of conventions that don't have much to do with gaming officially, but have really a large gaming presence. Phoenix Comicon especially has a massive amount of gaming vendors and programming. Comic conventions, Author/Writing conventions, videogame conventions...check out their websites and send an email to ask if you're in doubt, cons are a great place to get playtesters you don't know to try your game and get feedback--and a lot of them will give you your pass for free if you agree to run X hours of games (which can be your very own). Even if you don't have a finished project to "sell", I met most of the industry contacts I have by just going to different conventions and chatting with people, ask people how they got started in the business. Ask them if they are working on any projects currently that they are allowed to speak on (as a developer or a designer) you might get lucky and receive an offer to play their game, or maybe just have a beer; which might be a good opportunity to show them what you currently have and see if they have any advice for you. Find the closest gaming convention (within driving distance if neccessary) and try to go if you're serious about this. My first trip to GenCon was invaluable to my endeavors. GenCon, Origins, BGGcon, Pax...all outstanding. The only one I have been disappointed in so far (in terms of gaming representation) was San Diego Comic Con. Their boardgaming zone last year was about a dozen people in a meeting room.

4) There are two more good resources I recommend for prototyping:
http://opengameart.org/ - Great resource for placeholder art that won't get you in trouble with anybody. Pay attention to the licenses though if you want to use any of this stuff on a project you want to sell--not all of it is OK for that but a lot of it is.
and
http://game-icons.net/ - Simple, clean, and aesthetically consistent symbols and icons such as these can make prototypes feel much nicer.

5) Consider the colorblind - Accessibility is becoming a bigger blip on the radar for a lot of publishers, and taking this into consideration when you design can only be a benefit to you later on.

6) Keep it simple - The "hot thing" right now is small- and micro-games. And by that I mean games in small boxes that still offer real strategy and meaningful decisions. (Tiny Epic Kingdoms is a great example of this and how successful it can be) Especially if you are a first-time designer, it's much easier to convince a publisher to take a risk on a game that would retail for $20 and can fit in a pocket (which people are buying now like crazy to boot) versus a $99 game that would have to come in a Fantasy Flight big box and probably only appeals to a niche market. I have a couple giant-box designs too that I keep picking at, but I had to accept very early on that I need to let it wait until I have a stronger reputation behind my name.

7) Playtest for others, large and small.
One of the best and most helpful design exercises I ever had was a stroke of luck in making a contact and Fantasy Flight games who needed playtesters for a couple of games they had coming up. I worked on Death Angel and a Battles of Westeros expansion as I guess what you might call a "compensated" playtester, which was credited in the rulebook and was given some store credit at the end of the project (typically enough to buy the game I helped with). My responsibilities were basically to print, play, and write a report. It doesn't sound like much but it gave me a taste of what kinds of questions and experiences I would have to handle when the roles were reversed, when I would be the designer and developers are giving me feedback based on their experiences and what they believe needs to change in the game. It helped me learn to quantify what I was thinking and feeling when I just didn't like what I was playing; because they never want to hear "It isn't fun" you need to be able to tell them why and suggest how to fix it. Doing this for someone else (and on a specific schedule) will help you do it for yourself. Email a handful of different game companies and ask them if they need testers or how their playtest process works. (Pro-tip: if you test and write reports on a few games for a company, and then ask them about their submission process, your foot is already further in the door than someone who walks up to the booth at a con as asks for a pitch session)

8) If you are in Arizona and you're interested in game design, I have additional more specific resources and advice I can offer if you'd want to hear it. Apparently this state is a huge game design hotspot with a lot of designers and publishing companies in close proximity with a lot of gaming conventions at different times of the year.

# ? Jul 8, 2014 22:33

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

So I've been working on a drafting game for a while that I've temporarily named Mythmaker.

The flavor of the game is that each player is a Hero from antiquity working on crafting their legacy by performing heroic feats. I've playtested it a bit and it seems to work, with most of the criticism I've received was that the way I was teaching it didn't properly convey a goal, something I believe I've managed to fix.

Here's a link to the rules.

A typical card looks like this, for reference.

The Attributes referenced are [C]unning, [S]trength, and [W]isdom. With tertiary attributes of Renown (which is similar to colorless mana in Magic in that any other attribute can pay for it) and Dual Attributes (which function like hybrid mana in Magic.)

Any thoughts on this? I'd appreciate any and all criticism and/or advice.

And if anyone wants to help playtest it please shoot me a PM!

Anniversary fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jul 9, 2014

# ? Jul 9, 2014 08:31

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

From the rules, it wasn't clear that the cards were two-sided. I figured it had to be that way, but in the rules it was kinda hard to catch. The other thing I found weird was the point system at the end. So, wait, your Hero only gets Renown from Legacies with certain traits? So if I were, say, Odysseus, and Cunning was the trait I was shooting for, that example card full of Wisdom would be worthless? Or is the 4 like a Magic colorless 4, and I'd have to play my Cunning that way in order to get any points off of that card? That seems kind of unfair, especially if my Solomon opponent had gotten that card instead and loaded up all eight slots with Wisdom.

But despite me complaining, I actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Are you intending to name each of the Feat cards? (Say, your example being "The Trojan Horse" or something like that.) That might help make the theme a little more obvious.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 15:29

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

ActingPower posted:

From the rules, it wasn't clear that the cards were two-sided. I figured it had to be that way, but in the rules it was kinda hard to catch.

Good point, though to clarify the cards are single sided with the two attribute instances being in different places on the card physically (I'm thinking the next revision will have the attributes along the top left to make them easy to see while fanning a hand and have the requirements along the bottom and bigger so that their easy to make out while playing on the card proper.) I figured it'd be simplest to explain that with a picture of the card anatomy in the rules but didn't quite have the tools to make that work (outside of the image I included), I should probably try to find a better way to present that; any suggestions?

quote:

The other thing I found weird was the point system at the end. So, wait, your Hero only gets Renown from Legacies with certain traits?

Yes. However you also get points for failing legacies with certain traits as well. I've nicknamed this scoring mechanic Hubris, so for example Midas gets points for succeeding on cunning and for failing on wisdom.

quote:

So if I were, say, Odysseus, and Cunning was the trait I was shooting for, that example card full of Wisdom would be worthless?

Possibly, right now Heroes care about two of the three Attributes. They want one to succeed and one to fail so you have to try to discern if the reason your opponent is playing on your cards is to make them succeed or to bluff everyone out so that the card fails.

quote:

Or is the 4 like a Magic colorless 4, and I'd have to play my Cunning that way in order to get any points off of that card? That seems kind of unfair, especially if my Solomon opponent had gotten that card instead and loaded up all eight slots with Wisdom.

To start, you would get no points off the card succeeding in your Odysseus example (as you calculate score at the end of the game based on the requirement values, something I need to make sure is clear in the rules.) However you have control over what shows up as Legacies just as much as your opponent does, as though your initial card selection is random you control, through drafting, which cards are the Legacies. And it'd be quite hard for your opponent to both ensure all the Legacies were Wisdom and still be able to make them succeed. (All of my testing has been with 2 player games and in those cases on average 2-3 of the 4 Legacies succeed each round.)

quote:

But despite me complaining, I actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Are you intending to name each of the Feat cards? (Say, your example being "The Trojan Horse" or something like that.) That might help make the theme a little more obvious.

Oh definitely! I've yet to tie the flavor in to the cards yet but that's definitely been a goal from the start. Especially because I really want to throw on some evocative mythological art to tie everything together and help with card identification.

Thanks for going over everything. I really appreciate a fresh set of eyes on this and it sounds like you've pointed out some places where I could straighten up the rules.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 15:51

Tunga: May 7, 2004; Grimey Drawer

I'm thinking about putting together a simple turn-based game as an Android dev project, mostly because I want to play with Google's multiplayer library and we don't get to use it at work (for some reason banks do not want me to make games). Even though it's actually a mobile game, it'll effectively be a board game.

My idea was to combine a couple of classic simple board games which I used to enjoy: Isolation and Blockade. We'll need a couple of new mechanics to make each game different and because neither of these games have very interesting goals. Here's quick rundown of what I am thinking about :

Players start with one pawn at opposite sides of a 9x9 square grid. In the centre tile of the board is a treasure. Each turn, a player can either move two tiles (orthogonally) or cast a spell:
Wall: Conjure a single solid Wall two tiles wide along a tile boundary. Players cannot move through Walls.
Fire: Conjure a Fire to cover a single tile. Players can't move into (or through) Fire, but Fire can be cast on a tile with a player on it.

Upon reaching the treasure, a player claims that treasure and a new treasure appears (randomly placed, probably at some minimum distance from either player. Players can stash all treasure that they have claimed by returning to their start square.

If a player starts their turn in a Fire tile (i.e. if they are unable to move and the other player has cast a Fire on them), they lose all treasure that they are carrying and return to their stash. I'm unsure if they will then take a turn immediately or not.

First player to have five treasures (stashed or not) wins.

So the idea is that you can either play it safe and take your treasure back to your stash each time or you can risk what you already have trying to get the next one as well.

I have some thoughts about potential pitfalls but I'd love to hear any first impressions of this idea from others before I delve into my own thoughts.

Tunga fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 10, 2014

# ? Jul 10, 2014 11:22

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

Tunga posted:

I have some thoughts about potential pitfalls but I'd love to hear any first impressions of this idea from others before I delve into my own thoughts.

The only issue I see from that description would be how do you prevent the board from becoming completely walled in? Otherwise seems like a nice straightforward game.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 11:41

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

I played another game of Behemoth with a different group today. Most of the feedback was the same as what I said before, but since we tried other weapons I can comment on those, and have a few other remarks.

Bow and Arrow: The person who played it basically said it was completely underwhelming. Not that it was bad, but that he felt he never got to make decisions (because the decision was just "which delay do I pick to sync up with the other players or sometimes the monster if I need to dodge," or at least it felt that way). He mentioned that the lack of abilities on the attacks themselves made his turns very boring since the only choice he got to make was which player he wanted to sync up his turn with. Also, the weapon's gimmick is HUGELY punishing and streaky - If a monster is pushed back too far on the delay board you can't really set up a dodge, so even if know see an Inferno coming at you you just have to cry and eat the 120 damage (or worse, literally get 1-shot if it does an early claw+claw+head attack, we actually ruled that the archer can't be killed from full health instantly).

We had a proposed solution - assuming you don't change any mechanics - that would hopefully fix this randomness as well as offer a use for movement; Make it so the bow's power doesn't double damage received but instead adds a flat number (20-30 probably), and you get hit if you're either directly in front of the monster or in one of the two adjacent zones. Then make archer have some sort of "aimed shot" gimmick, either as an attack card or two, or as an innate ability. Like, an option to forsake your movement to add a bonus printed on the card (extra damage, less delay, etc.), and maybe make a few actions that get bonuses if you do move ("Skirmish Shot" or something).

I'll write up some more later, I just wanted to get my thoughts out before I forgot them.

E: more comments

Sword and Shield: We had a completely new player using this one. I feel like I might have been leading him a bit by basically saying "it seemed like X was a problem, was it?", but basically the general issue was that he felt there weren't enough items that were worth spending your turn on for the item gimmick to work (if you stick with that). He suggested making the SnS user able to get one free use of each item since he was always concerned with the idea of "using everyone else's stuff", which sounds really dumb to me but maybe kick that around a bit. Unrelated to the player, I contest that SnS and other fast weapons are inherently problematic in the current design sphere because the user is taking more turns and making more decisions than all the other players, which can lead to boredom. There's many ways to confront this issue, but I think you need to look very closely at the game's shell a bit more regarding things like real time mechanics, "roles," and delay since it's impossible to get a final design idea in mind for the weapons without those.

Hammer: This just felt really uninspired, frankly. Like, I don't see how the weapon evokes the feeling of using a huge hammer - It delays a bit but not a ton (probably because you figured that'd be broken) so the "concussion" element isn't really there, and the acceleration weapon ability just seems janky. Hammers in MH had attacks which charged up, you could probably do something with that. Maybe make it do extra stuff depending where it strikes the monster, which goes hand in hand with making movement more important - Hitting the head causes additional delay, hitting claws breaks them faster, etc. If you do decide to do stuff with positioning like this you need to make the monster's movement less random though. "Random" might be the wrong word, but I think it'd be frustrating as the hammer user to try to line up a strike on a specific part, only to have someone enrage it and turn it when it wasn't expected, and stuff like this would happen if people weren't playing perfectly (real-time, not sharing information/planning together, etc).

Countblanc fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jul 19, 2014

# ? Jul 19, 2014 07:25

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

I have been tooling around with an idea for an Agricola variant. Nothing I would want to sell or anything, just a new board and round spaces that could be used with an existing set of Agricola pieces/cards.

It's called Collective: The Soviet Farming Game. The mechanics would be very similar but with a few major differences that I wouldn't mind some feedback on. The multiplay cards on the left hand side of the board would start face down and must be earned. How you ask? As rewards for providing a food surplus to feed the glorious soviet industrial cities.

During the feeding phase instead of taking care of your own people each person secretly places whatever food they are contributing into a cup. Then beginning with the player with the staring play token each person is allowed to take out 2 food and pass the cup anti-clockwise (the opposite of normal turn order) to feed their people. The cup goes around until every person is fed or until the food runs out. If everyone is not fed then there is a famine and the most recent left hand optional improvement is turned face down again; in addition to begging cards everyone is punished collectively. If there is a surplus then for each 2 food remaining one of the optional spaces is turned face up; Stalin rewards team work.

Rutibex fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 19, 2014

# ? Jul 19, 2014 11:15

Broken Loose: Dec 25, 2002; PROGRAM
A > - - - LR > > - - LL > - - -

Trip report: Of 2 interested publishers, 1 has sent a response wherein they stated that they loved the game while also completely missing the point. Given the option of trying to get to Gen*Con somehow (which I can't really afford to do) to reach a bunch more publishers or just sending out prototypes, I'm just about ready to roll back the last 6 months ago and prepare to self-publish, again. Exhausting.

# ? Jul 20, 2014 06:32

girl dick energy: Sep 30, 2009; You think you have the wherewithal to figure out my puzzle vagina?

Broken Loose posted:

Trip report: Of 2 interested publishers, 1 has sent a response wherein they stated that they loved the game while also completely missing the point. Given the option of trying to get to Gen*Con somehow (which I can't really afford to do) to reach a bunch more publishers or just sending out prototypes, I'm just about ready to roll back the last 6 months ago and prepare to self-publish, again. Exhausting.

Which game, Jac-Oopsie?

# ? Jul 20, 2014 07:36

Broken Loose: Dec 25, 2002; PROGRAM
A > - - - LR > > - - LL > - - -

Poison Mushroom posted:

Which game, Jac-Oopsie?

Final Attack! There's no way I'd try to run Jac-Oopsie! through a publisher before any of my other games except maybe for Special Olympics.

# ? Jul 20, 2014 23:55

Crackbone: May 23, 2003; Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Everything I've read is your experience is pretty common. Most publishers are going to want to tweak/retheme a game that's presented to them. If you're in love with it as-is, you better kickstarter it.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 01:16

Broken Loose: Dec 25, 2002; PROGRAM
A > - - - LR > > - - LL > - - -

Crackbone posted:

Everything I've read is your experience is pretty common. Most publishers are going to want to tweak/retheme a game that's presented to them. If you're in love with it as-is, you better kickstarter it.

It really looks like they just want to change things for change's sake. Cost reasons I can understand, but they literally wanted to remove the real-time, social, and puzzle-solving elements from the game. Their replacement suggestions were pretty awful, too.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 03:45

ActingPower: Jun 4, 2013

This isn't a game I made myself, but it is a game I like a lot that has some rough patches. It's called Technopoly by Kevan Davis, and it's quite a lot of fun. However, I'd like to see what you guys would do to improve it.

So, here's the main gist of the game. You are colonists on a strange new planet with all sorts of weird resources. You have a team of robots, and your goal is to discover, produce, and trade the resources on the planet. The player with the most resources at the end wins!

I don't want to go too in-depth into the rules, since you can just go look at them up there, so let me summarize the basics:

When discovering an object, you play one Attribute (usually something good), then every other player can play an Attribute on it as well (usually bad). If the resource has an Activate Attribute on it, it's a Machine. Otherwise, it's a Fuel.
Some Attribute cards make the object cost Fuel to produce or activate.
You can send your Robots or other Manipulators to attack and destroy opponents' objects.
Your Robots (and other Manipulators) can make more Robots/Manipulators, basically without limit.
After turn 10, a d20 is rolled at end of round, and if it's less than the turn number, the game ends.

Now, I like the concept in general. But here are my complaints with it:

There are way too few good Attributes and too many bad ones. This means you either have to sit around not creating stuff or start the bidding with a bad Attribute, which just feels wrong. In fact, it's way too easy to get to the point where you make a Fuel with no defining characteristics, which is extremely easy to abuse. (And that's not even getting into the Machine-only Attributes, which only exacerbate these problems!)
You don't start with any Fuels, and it's way easier to make Machines than Fuels. Don't forget also that your opponents could throw Activate Attributes on your designing, forcing you to make a Machine when you really just need another Fuel. This also creates the weird scenario where someone plays a card making your Machine require Fuel to run, but there aren't any Fuels discovered to run it on.
The combat system sucks really bad. Whenever I played this with my brother, we almost never did combat, just because it's so unwieldy and dumb. More often than not you tend not to hit anything, or even worse, you hit another Robot and you blow up instead!
The absolute best strategy is to spend the first few turns making as many Robots as possible, then using your last few turns to make a huge amount of objects to win the game. Likewise, tons of things are crazy broken, like Plentiful, Self-Replicating, Miner, Destroyer, Fixed, Flawed, and Unstoppable.
The ending condition is... odd... but I'm not sure how else to go about ending it. A static end (say, 10 turns) is fairly reasonable, but then the Transmitter doesn't do anything.

Like I said, I think this is a really cool game with some fun ideas, but it's got some bugs that really need ironing out. I've got an idea revolving around planets with predetermined Attributes and Fuels, space travel, and storage, but I'd like to see what ideas anybody else has. Thoughts?

# ? Jul 24, 2014 23:23

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay.

Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 10:46

girl dick energy: Sep 30, 2009; You think you have the wherewithal to figure out my puzzle vagina?

Anniversary posted:

Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.

The closest thing you've got to a parallel right now is actually Stratego.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 11:22

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Poison Mushroom posted:

The closest thing you've got to a parallel right now is actually Stratego.

Which, while definitely showing its age, is still a decent game for what it is, which is a fog of war tactical game.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 15:54

ThisIsNoZaku: Apr 22, 2013; Pew Pew Pew!

Anniversary posted:

So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay.

Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.

I wrote a thing that gives the suits special powers.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 21:00

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

Anniversary posted:

So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay.

Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.

That sounds like a less complex version of Yomi, which is played with a 52 card deck and is entirely about giving a few cards unique powers and weighing risk/reward and reading the opponent. Your idea is definitely more simple, but seems pretty similar.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 21:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 22:04

Anniversary: Sep 12, 2011; I AM A SHIT-FESTIVAL

Countblanc posted:

That sounds like a less complex version of Yomi, which is played with a 52 card deck and is entirely about giving a few cards unique powers and weighing risk/reward and reading the opponent. Your idea is definitely more simple, but seems pretty similar.

And lacking the rock paper scissors elements too? Hmm. I wonder if maybe my game is a little too shallow. I'll see what I can do.

Thanks for all the responses! I've got a version mocked up and will likely get to test it in a few hours. I'll let everyone know if it seems like something worth exploring.

e: Tested very, very briefly. It feels very shallow. I think with a lot of work on the rules it may work as something but first I'll have to brainstorm just how to make that work.

On another note I've been playing around with a dungeon crawler type game that came from the inspiration to make a game in the genre 'like Munchkin, but with less terrible design'. And it seems to be working. The classes feel distinct ('Everything I do as the Mage feels like Overkill / it feels very Harry Dresden') which is a huge plus imo. But working on cutting the game length down to be very quick. I like to design games that can be knocked out in 15 minutes but that have replayability and complexity that merits multiple plays per sitting and I think I'm going to have to work on this one to get it into a place where its length feels just right. But other than that and some easy fixes I think the games on a very good track.

Anniversary fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 10:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples

«‹›83 »