|
The worst submarine posted:Diplomat for 3-6 players
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Thanks! Tip for playing the game IRL: if someone is down to just their Diplomat, they should leave it face-up in front of themself. Makes it easier for remaining players to see who's still in, and the loser gets some time to reflect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Xom posted:Not having played the game, I'd think each player should arrange their discards face-up in front of them. Some people like to play with discard face down which adds to the tension when you forget who has what. The worst scenario is when people only have guards left - players will play out the rest of the round even though it can only tie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
After facing a roadblock for weeks since I got to work on this game, my tile laying worker placement finally has a wincon I'm willing to try testing. I was hesitant about adding another component to the game, but in the end this worked out to actually trim down the number of unique components I needed. Each game will now have a row of building cards that can be built this game. There will be five(?) buildings dealt out before the game begins, with their cost and bonus printed on them. Players can only build these five buildings throughout the game. The first player to complete all the buildings will win the game, or whoever has the most buildings in play when the tiles run out. I like this because it allows for each game to have some variety in win conditions and allows for (if it ever gets this far) expansions to add variety without being incredibly component heavy or unwieldy to slip in with the base set
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Nah those are pretty out of date at this point, I'll be making a new one "soon" but it's low on the priority list for right now. The main similarities are there are still four locations around the behemoth, the behemoth's health is done with its deck, and player decks are premade and determine their weapons and attacks. There's no more timer track system from the old game, there's now dice for damage, players are more focused on bodyblocking attacks instead of avoiding them, etc. Ah ok. Curious to see where it's gone. There's some pictures and a brief summary a bit back. My current plan is to completely remove the time aspect and instead just make the monster 'enrage', performing more and more attacks each turn. I'm also getting rid of the monster's exhaustion/tranquillisation counter and instead making it so that it's attack deck also represents its energy reserves - if it runs out the players win, if all the players are knocked out the monster wins. Goldfishes ok but going to need more testing with real players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
I'm working my way through some game design challenges, and I'm near the beginning, so have a pretty simple one: design a territory control game without a theme that focuses entirely on the mechanic of territory control. I'm really interested in this challenge, because one thing I tend towards is making games that are super fiddly and very thematic. I decided to use a standard 52 playing card deck to try and simplify things, and came up with the following ruleset: RULES//////////////// Set-up: divide the deck into suits. Place all clubs and spades into a common deck, and shuffle these together. These are the territories for the game. Place all hearts into one deck, and all diamonds into a another: these are the player decks. Shuffle player decks, and each player draws a hand of three cards to constitute their hand. Shuffle the territory deck, discard 13 cards and remove them from play. Using the remaining cards, Create a 3 x 3 grid of cards from the top of the territory deck to constitute the playing field. Determine a player to go first. Put the cards not in the grid off to the side to form a draw deck. Each turn a player may: > Play one card from their hand to a matching card on the field. They now have claimed this territory. >> They may also play to a matching card of their opponent's suit. They have trumped this territory and now have a lock on it. > Discard one of their held cards, and draw a new card from the top of the deck. They should keep the discarded card a secret. >> This ends their turn. > Draw from the top of the territory deck and place it on top of a card on the field. Players cannot play to a claimed territory - only a black card from the territory deck. >> They may then play a card from their hand to the field, if they are able. The player loses the ability to discard at this point in their turn. > Pass without playing. >> You may always end your turn by keeping held cards, and deciding to not play anything from your hand this turn. >At the end of your turn, draw up to three cards. You will always have three cards in your hand, so long as you have cards to draw from. The game ends when each territory is claimed by a player, or the territory deck is exhausted. Keep track of the starting player - if the territory deck is exhausted on their turn, then the other player gets one more turn to make thing even, and the game ends. If you run out of draw cards, then you may still play a new territory card from the deck. Win Condition: Whoever has the most claimed territories is the winner. In the event of a tie, add up the face value of cards remaining in your hand, and the highest value is the winner (A=1, Face-10). In the event of a further tie, both players share victory. //////////////////RULES So, I played this a few times, and it's not bad. It's also one of the least complex things I've ever designed. It also seems like it's mostly luck... maybe the choices the player makes aren't too interesting. Also, being able to count and memorize cards is one of the main mechanics (seeing what's been buried in the territory field, and also keeping track of what your opponent has played). It also seems like there's a huge advantage to going second, since you'll have a greater opportunity to trump your opponent. Any other thoughts on what's a relatively simple game, or ideas for how to spice it up a bit? Maybe balance issues? sector_corrector fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:I'm working my way through some game design challenges, and I'm near the beginning, so have a pretty simple one: design a territory control game without a theme that focuses entirely on the mechanic of territory control. - Capturing on the first turn is always a bad idea because the opponent will be able to trump that at some point for a +2 swing while you claim no long-term benefit. As you suggested, this results in a loop where the first player to place a card on the board probably loses. - If there is a duplicated territory, one of them is never used. Ex: There are two Ace territories on the board. At some point, player one captures an Ace. If the second player wants to play an Ace, he will always trump the other Ace instead of playing on the other unconquered Ace as his trump cannot be defeated and it is a bigger point swing. - Even though there is a 3x3 board, the area control theme fails as the areas have no relevance to each other. (Holding one area does not affect other areas) Possible fixes/suggestions: - Change the areas to have a long-term/passive benefit beyond end-of-game scoring. - Add a positional mechanic, as in one zone can affect adjacent zones. You have a neat 3x3 board, use it! - Have another way to capture something besides having the matching card. - Make trumping more restrictive or have downsides. - Have a nice day. - Consider using the unused territory cards somehow. The worst submarine fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
A long long time ago I saw a description somewhere of a "risk-like" where you had some playing cards arranged in a grid, in alternate horizontal/vertical orientations. Players could only attack in the two directions the card was pointing (and there were some other relevant details that I couldn't possibly remember). To be fancy, you might even extend the concept to a hex grid. Since you don't have area-to-area attacking (at least not currently), maybe this could translate to some scoring synergy instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Dancer posted:A long long time ago I saw a description somewhere of a "risk-like" where you had some playing cards arranged in a grid, in alternate horizontal/vertical orientations. Players could only attack in the two directions the card was pointing (and there were some other relevant details that I couldn't possibly remember). To be fancy, you might even extend the concept to a hex grid. Since you don't have area-to-area attacking (at least not currently), maybe this could translate to some scoring synergy instead. Fields of Fire? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Ok, I made a few alterations: > Instead of going for straight territory control, there's now a point system. Claiming a new territory gets you two points. Trumping a claimed territory gets you 1 point. > You can take any of the two alternate actions (either discarding and draw, or placing a new territory) and then place a card. If you do, then whatever action you take gets you 1 point instead of 2. > The middle square of the board is now a joker. You can start with any card you want on a joker, but it can be trumped by any higher card. Players still get 2 points for first claim, and 1 point for a trump. The real trump for this square is the second Ace that's played onto it - but obviously you might want to play that Ace on an actual territory square. > At the end of the game, in addition to running points accumulated through play, you also get points for however many territories you have. If these territories form a straight vertical, horizontal, or diagonal line, then you get double points. The wildcard joker is meant to mix up the predetermined feeling of the game. Players, depending on the board and their hand, might be tempted to go for an early 2 points, but also run the risk of being trumped in a space that is most useful for forming straight lines. The point system is meant to give a benefit to being the first to claim a square. You can play aggressively and go for end-game before your opponent has a chance to trump you (which effectively gives them a matching score - 1 point for laying down, 1 point for end-game). I might try a change here, and make first claim 3 points, and a trump 2 points, since I've been playing a follower strategy with Diamonds, and Diamonds has tended to win most games. The line scoring is meant to give meaning to the relative position of territories. Another change I'm considering is to have the player draw six cards instead of 3. This is roughly half the deck, and gives a much broader range of possible choices, but also leads to less differentiation between players... I'm also thinking that it might be possible to make this a 3P game, but that would obviously involve moving beyond a 52 card deck. Speaking of which, I'm wondering if there's a set of cards that makes more sense than a 52 card deck. That also starts getting more fiddly (like I can already see the rationale of having some claim cards have special effects on them - that's exactly what I want to avoid!)...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I'm working on a (primarily) worker placement game right now based on the real life way bees behave. As such, the game kind of necessitates an AI to run NPC Hives that are independent of players. The actions they would do are pretty limited, basically occupy certain tiles near them and attack/defend against other player run and npc run hives near them. I am thinking of just using a custom deck of cards to determine their actions, but if anyone has any good examples of AI like that run in board games I would love to hear about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:I'm working on a (primarily) worker placement game right now based on the real life way bees behave. As such, the game kind of necessitates an AI to run NPC Hives that are independent of players. The actions they would do are pretty limited, basically occupy certain tiles near them and attack/defend against other player run and npc run hives near them. I am thinking of just using a custom deck of cards to determine their actions, but if anyone has any good examples of AI like that run in board games I would love to hear about it. Download the rules/crib sheets for any of the COIN games like Fallen Sky. They're built to be playable solo with intricate (for a board game) bots. Also Commancheria and Navajo Wars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
So I did some initial testing at a family dinner for a Time Travel Trivia Traitor game. The idea is that there is someone trying to mess with the timestream and you have to go stop them. But one member of your team is secretly on the other side. I think it's a super fun concept, but I hit an unexpected snag. With 3 well educated people guessing, for any historical event before around 1800, the closest guess would be off by around 100 years and the farthest by about 500 years. So, uhhh, I don't think you're going to be able to tell at all if someone is the traitor or a teammate who honestly thinks that Leif Erickson's voyage to Newfoundland happened around 500AD (it was in 1000AD). I didn't even try the questions about non-European history since the European stuff went so badly. I don't think of myself as that much of a history nerd, so I was surprised at how badly they did. I'm not sure if I can salvage the idea of a game focused around guessing dates if I can't expect players to have even the foggiest of ideas when things happened. I have a couple of ideas, but I'm not sure which of these will help: - limit the dates to things after 1900, and mostly to inventions. When was nylon invented, the first Barbie doll sold, etc. This throws off my initial mechanics for picking dates because now there are only 2 digits instead of 4 in play, but I can come up with different guessing mechanics, I suppose. - limit the guessing space with a prop like a bike lock, where each digit can be off by at most 1. So if the lock reads 1645 then you know that it might be 1534 or 1746 but couldn't possibly be 1302. This would be cool because props are cool, but would bring in a new problem: how to set the lock up and keep the hidden info hidden about who the traitor is. Seems like it might almost need a moderator and that's no fun. It also doesn't solve the problem of people having not even the slightest clue as to which date to guess sometimes. - have each card include hints about other related historical events that the players could use to narrow things down but at some cost. So if the question was about the battle of Waterloo, a hint might be the year that King Louis XVI was executed to get them in the right ballpark at least. I'm just not sure this is salvagable at all. Maybe people just don't give any fucks about history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Even history nerds think memorizing dates is boring, I think this game concept needs some work. What if you had something like this: every player gets dealt out a card that lists some random historical fact. Without showing their card to anyone else, everyone reads their fact out loud to the group, but the traitor must falsify theirs in some way, and then the group tries to guess which of the facts given is fake. "Is this true or false" is a much easier problem than recalling an exact date, and outside of hardcore history nerds you're going to get a lot more engagement asking details other than dates. The average educated person is going to be a lot more accurate guessing how many wives Henry VIII had than they would be at guessing the year of Henry VIII's birth/death/coronation, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So I did some initial testing at a family dinner for a Time Travel Trivia Traitor game. The idea is that there is someone trying to mess with the timestream and you have to go stop them. But one member of your team is secretly on the other side. What's the flow of information like in the game? Like, what do traitors know, and what do agents know? How much information do they have? When do they get it? What game elements confer it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Even history nerds think memorizing dates is boring, I think this game concept needs some work. This, too. Unless it's a pretty generous date range, I'd have trouble guessing a lot of stuff that didn't happen in the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries, and even then I'd be fudging a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The idea is that you have to travel back in time to the date, so if you arrive too late, you are out of luck. If you arrive early, that's okay, but the earlier you arrive, the more time you spend waiting around. You would have a time budget. So over 10 questions you could afford to wait a total of X years. So if you find that you arrived 127 years early, you'd have to vote as a team whether to take 127 years out of your budget or whether to take a loss and miss that event but preserve your budget. So the point absolutely is not to know the date that a thing happened, because that is impossible, but rather to just get kind of close. The problem is that people can't even get kind of close most of the time, except for obviously recent stuff. Like sure, people know Napoleon was in the 19th century. But they have no idea if Charlemagne was in the 4th century or the 12th or anywhere in between. When was Julius Caesar assassinated? They might guess 600 BC. My idea was that the traitor could hide behind feigned ignorance, but when everyone is off by multiple centuries, it just doesn't work regardless of any other mechanics I might add in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I've been severely slacking in terms of giving feedback in this thread lately due to lack of game-dev time myself, but I would love it if someone could give a read over this ruleset and see if the game as written makes sense and if there are any glaring problems. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xo7hRP_9bKD25yDNKyOxgT_KyLbv9ojtpWOqjxHa3Gg/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Sorry, I should have been more clear. Hmm, that's interesting. Typically with traitor games you have set data that determines traitors and agents. Here, you're relying on personal knowledge (which is massively variable). If I'm playing Werewolf, then I know what my role is, and formulate strategy based on its abilities and what others are doing. If I'm a traitor in your game, and also bad with history, then it's hard to tell if I'm ignorant or scheming. I think that one good step would be to sit down and think specifically about what verbs you want your players to do. Right now it seems to be: > Know about history, and use that knowledge to... >... Trick others into thinking that an even took place at a different time, or conversely... >... See through tricks that the traitor is putting out. > Alongside that there's a procedural task of managing a 'time' resource, that allows the group to travel to specific dates. The idea of using personal knowledge as a primary element of a traitor game is interesting, but I think it's running into the very problem you mention here, which is that not having personal knowledge (or having widely disparate personal knowledges across the group) hampers game-play. So, if they don't have item one, then that makes items 2, 3 and 4 a lot more difficult to enjoy. One thing that this brings to mind is Spyfall. The basic idea of the game is that one player is the spy, and the other players are agents. Each agent has a location card (shopping mall, casino, cruise ship), while the spy does not. The agents ask questions around the table, getting a feel for what each person knows. The spy has to pay attention to what's being said and either figure out where everyone is, or avoid detection until someone else is accused of spying. This requires a little bit of outside knowledge (like, if you didn't know what a shopping mall was, then you'd be poo poo out of luck), but is also scaffolded by the cards, and general enough that the outside knowledge requirement is minimal. So maybe you need to scaffold the outside knowledge bit? Or maybe you need to rethink what your most important verbs are?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
I just really like the concept and the idea of making a trivia game where the strategy isn't just "know the answers". I mean, I love trivia games about knowing the answers for playing with other trivia buffs, but a game like Wits and Wagers is even better because I can play with people who don't know much trivia and they can still play well and even win by excelling at the meta part of the game even if their actual answers are poo poo. So you make a guess without any info, then the info you gain is the knowledge of what everyone else guessed. Then you get to re-evaluate in light of that before making a decision that will actually count for the scoring. The conceit was "what if Wits and Wagers but with a traitor and with a time travel theme". Also, using a little bike lock thing to punch years into the time machine seemed like a fun prop idea, though I didn't know how to work it in yet. My kids' bike locks can be reset to any 4-digit number in seconds. So basically I've got some fun goals but I don't actually have a game yet. Unless I just stick to 20th century history and then the game might actually work alright because people have enough context to make reasonable guesses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I just really like the concept and the idea of making a trivia game where the strategy isn't just "know the answers". I mean, I love trivia games about knowing the answers for playing with other trivia buffs, but a game like Wits and Wagers is even better because I can play with people who don't know much trivia and they can still play well and even win by excelling at the meta part of the game even if their actual answers are poo poo. Could you do it by stealing a trick from that game where you have to place the guesses relative to other things that people have already put down? That solves the 'knowing dates' issue
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Could you do it by stealing a trick from that game where you have to place the guesses relative to other things that people have already put down? That solves the 'knowing dates' issue That's Timelines, and yeah it a good job of making history fun by not requiring that you actually KNOW any dates, just that you know that the great wall of China was built after the pyramids but before the eiffel tower or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Cross posting here and in the PAXUP thread, if you are prototyping and want to do some playtesting at PAXUP, https://twitter.com/TheUnpub/status/907225957085450240
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I'm worrying a bit about the art stage of these projects and am wondering if any of you have any insight into both how much to expect to pay for art and how artists are paid. I realize the how much to expect to pay question may vary widely depending on just what you need, but even a ball park is useful. I am more concerned with how artists tend to be paid for these projects, especially for crowdfunding. Is it all upfront and you expect to recoup it from sales later, do some work more as partners where they get a down payment and then a percentage of sales, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:I'm worrying a bit about the art stage of these projects and am wondering if any of you have any insight into both how much to expect to pay for art and how artists are paid. I realize the how much to expect to pay question may vary widely depending on just what you need, but even a ball park is useful. I am more concerned with how artists tend to be paid for these projects, especially for crowdfunding. Is it all upfront and you expect to recoup it from sales later, do some work more as partners where they get a down payment and then a percentage of sales, etc.? So it really depends on your plan for the future of your game when it comes to cost specifically. Are you planning to go the Kickstarter route? Generally, you want to pay for some professional artwork beforehand if that's the case. You probably won't have all of your art done, nor be able to afford it, before a kickstarter launches, but you want some art to attract people to it. Are you planning to pitch it to a publisher? If that's the case, your art should be overall much lower quality than the art you'll see on Kickstarter for one simple reason: a publisher may accept your game and then completely retheme it, meaning all the high quality artwork you dropped hundreds or thousands of dollars on is all for nothing. Regardless, you should be setting up a written contract between you and an artist with a payment schedule that works for both yourself and the artist. It is very, very rare that your artist will accept part of sales for payment and it is not something you should plan on. If your game bombs, they don't get paid for their work, and if your game is successful you will have to pay more of your small profits away. Generally, people set up a schedule such as "1/2 up front, 1/4 after sketches, 1/4 after finished product" or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
A schedule totally makes sense. I guess I mostly just wasn't sure what industry standard was. I've done a few film projects and there it was fairly standard to get a small sum upfront but work for points (which were just percentage of profit) after the film is released which you understand may end up being worth nothing. I had no idea if that kind of thing happened in the game industry as well or not. As for which route, the idea of doing a kickstarter, as much of a pain I know it will be, is appealing to me. Finding a publisher would be ideal, though. At least I think it would be. Its pretty early stages at this point regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
nesbit37 posted:A schedule totally makes sense. I guess I mostly just wasn't sure what industry standard was. I've done a few film projects and there it was fairly standard to get a small sum upfront but work for points (which were just percentage of profit) after the film is released which you understand may end up being worth nothing. I had no idea if that kind of thing happened in the game industry as well or not. Speaking as a professional illustrator, the final cost really depends on what you want and how quickly you want it. 400 full-color unique card illustrations that will take me weeks of work will get a different rate than a game that just needs 6 black and white cards and box art. Generally, an artist is going to calculate their pay at about $30-40 an hour, but keep in mind that a lot of artists will be flexible and try to work within your budget. Also, please don't be the guy that says "It'll be great for your portfolio!" or "Low pay, but we'll put your name in the thank you section!" It's really lovely, and signals that you don't take the art seriously and/or respect their time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Yeah, don't worry about that second part. I'm professionally in the archives and academic fields and we have that same problem, particularly with people fresh out of school. I've experienced it myself and yeah its pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
I'm continuing to work through my game design challenges, and my next one is to make a game based around exploration. I have an idea to make a game without a loss state that is mostly focused on structured narrative - thematically I want it to feel similar to STALKER, where the group of players is being guided through an experience. However I also want to try and stick with designs that are light, play relatively quickly, and have few components. I know about Tales of Arabian Nights, but are there any similar games that are more light-weight?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
That seems really difficult, and I'm not where I'd even start with that. A structured/guided experience by definition tends to be heavier due to the rules having to account for and deal with situations to make sure that players stay on the path you want. I don't have anything to really offer beyond that
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
The closest I can think of in wide release is Mice and Mystics, which is relatively lightweight, but it might be more involved than what you're looking for. There is an indie roleplaying game called Ten Candles that might fit your criteria. I have yet to play it so I can't comment on the mechanics, but it's a no-prep game where a group of players guided by a GM try to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. The only components are the rulebook, a scraps of paper to write character info on, and ten candles (or christmas lights, or whatever) that act as a "timer" and a way to burn your character when they die. You start the game knowing that everyone in the party will die - no exceptions - and the rest of the game is creating a narrative on how you get to that point. It's a neat concept and the rulebook is available as a PDF if you want to check it out. Chip McFuck fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Generally, what is the cost/price ratio of a board game? I've been working on Empire for a bit and it has gone through some playtesting, so I decided I am going to just take the plunge and bring it to PAXUP and see what happens. Pricing it out on GameCrafter hits $24 for a single copy, $15.85 if 100+. Should I be shooting for like..a $25 price point if I do a run of 100?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Chip McFuck posted:The closest I can think of in wide release is Mice and Mystics, which is relatively lightweight, but it might be more involved than what you're looking for. This is really helpful, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Chip McFuck posted:There is an indie roleplaying game called Ten Candles that might fit your criteria. I have yet to play it so I can't comment on the mechanics, but it's a no-prep game where a group of players guided by a GM try to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. The only components are the rulebook, a scraps of paper to write character info on, and ten candles (or christmas lights, or whatever) that act as a "timer" and a way to burn your character when they die. You start the game knowing that everyone in the party will die - no exceptions - and the rest of the game is creating a narrative on how you get to that point. It's a neat concept and the rulebook is available as a PDF if you want to check it out. This game looks like it fuckin rules, gotta play it this Halloween.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Generally, what is the cost/price ratio of a board game? I've been working on Empire for a bit and it has gone through some playtesting, so I decided I am going to just take the plunge and bring it to PAXUP and see what happens. Pricing it out on GameCrafter hits $24 for a single copy, $15.85 if 100+. Should I be shooting for like..a $25 price point if I do a run of 100? General rule (I'm coming from comic books here but the same rule should apply) is that a single copy should pay for itself and another copy. So about double production, plus an additional 20 or 30 percent if you plan on distributing through retailers. So $15 to produce a copy you'd do well selling it for $30.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
al-azad posted:General rule (I'm coming from comic books here but the same rule should apply) is that a single copy should pay for itself and another copy. So about double production, plus an additional 20 or 30 percent if you plan on distributing through retailers. So $15 to produce a copy you'd do well selling it for $30. For boardgames I've always heard production needs to be a fifth of retail. Partially because distributor prices should be about half retail. That said tgc is in a weird place where it's both production and retail so pricing for it is... Tricky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:For boardgames I've always heard production needs to be a fifth of retail. Partially because distributor prices should be about half retail. That said tgc is in a weird place where it's both production and retail so pricing for it is... Tricky. Yeah searching around the 1/5 of retail seems to be the go-to number. Yikes. Granted, TGC is going to be significantly higher and if I do a print of 1000 I can probably get it quite a bit lower, but I hope it's not too crazy. I didn't think I had too many parts 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
I'm not sure the normal rules for retail pricing are going to apply if you use GameCrafter just for printing, and not sales. I've got a game that's just 103 cards that I can get for roughly $15 through GC, if I'm just printing a few for prototypes. At retail, I don't think I could get away with charging more then $25 at most. The game just doesn't warrant anything higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I think TGC is fine for a few copies but not for an estimate of what I'd be looking at for an actual print run. Anyone know of a tool that'd be able to give me more of a realistic pricing for a run?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Well, today I was approached by a publisher who expressed some pretty enthusiastic interest in one of my games currently playtesting. I am super excited, but I also have no idea where to even start with talking with them. What should I be looking for and what are some red flags to avoid?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 13:30
|
|