Probably the number one rule of writing or art is that you have to know the rules before you can break them. Part of knowing the rules is understanding the purpose of each rule. When you know the reason a rule exists, it becomes easier to know when to break it.
One of the most cited Rules of Board Game Design is "rush to prototype." Producing a 'minimally viable prototype' ensures that your game idea is worth pursuing before sinking hundreds of hours into iterations and playtests. Of course, the minimum amount of what you need to test an idea varies widely from design to design. Another rule is to not spend time on art, but instead focus on core gameplay. (The immediate corollary is that publishers are only human and will be influenced by prototypes that are visually appealing.)
In reality, 'rush to prototype' and 'don't worry about art' are different codifications of the same concept: make a game that people want to play before worrying about anything else. Most of the 'basic' board game design rules boil down to this. The 'rules' are attempts to explain how to do this in a way that will work for most designs. However, much of the standard advice requires accompanying paragraphs to explain why a certain rule exists. We need to rework the 'rules' for clarity, much the way we would a game manual. Here's my proposed list:
Proposed New Basic Rules Of Board Game Design:
1. Make a game that people want to play before worrying about anything else.
2. Physically make a game, not in your head. Reality and theory often don't match.
3. Do not spend more than a month making a game before attempting to play it, although less time is better.
4. Play the game you make before adding or changing anything.
5. Prioritize clarity of gameplay over theme/art.
6. Play your game with other people. Often, if possible. Take notes.
7. Iterate your game with the goal of making other people want to play it.
8. At some point, making your game look nicer is what will make other people want to play it. Your game still needs to be good regardless of how it looks.
9. You need to love your game and still be willing to let it grow into something beyond what you first imagined. This may include publisher re-themes.
10. Don't expect to recoup any money you spend on prototypes, etc.
11. Consider the manufacturing cost of publishing your game before pitching with regards to components.
That being said, I think that designing games primarily for yourself, as a hobby, means you can do whatever you like. Not every hobby needs to be monetized.
I break a number of these rules with my designs that have garnered publisher attention. I spent far too long working on a prototype for my game that has 128 double-sided tiles. However, that was after a solo proof-of-concept with colored glass tiles that I knocked out the same day I had the design idea. I spend longer than I need to on finding free art and graphics for all my early prototypes. I am a theatrical artist, so some aspects of design are just fun for me and I make no apologies. My style lends itself to making visually appealing games that I then work toward making play well (which I don't recommend to others, although I know Ryan Laukat has admitted to this "flaw" too). Lately, I've been working a lot on flavor text for a design, but that is mostly due to the fact that my regular playtest group is suspended right now.
This leads me to my point about breaking the rules. That double-sided tile game I mentioned above? I made it to be my "art game" (think art house cinema) to show off what I can do without regards for publish-ability. It has too many components for the weight of game it is. The set up takes too long for the length of gameplay. And yet I have had two publishers contact me about pitching it after they heard about it on Facebook. The takeaway here is that really good ideas are worth more than flawless gameplay. But I know that if I'm breaking Rule 11 (128 tiles, after all), I need to be better about the rest of the rules, especially when it comes to quick iteration. Breaking one rule can make you a visionary; breaking all of them makes you obnoxious.
Learn the why of the rules. Then break the rules.
One of the most cited Rules of Board Game Design is "rush to prototype." Producing a 'minimally viable prototype' ensures that your game idea is worth pursuing before sinking hundreds of hours into iterations and playtests. Of course, the minimum amount of what you need to test an idea varies widely from design to design. Another rule is to not spend time on art, but instead focus on core gameplay. (The immediate corollary is that publishers are only human and will be influenced by prototypes that are visually appealing.)
In reality, 'rush to prototype' and 'don't worry about art' are different codifications of the same concept: make a game that people want to play before worrying about anything else. Most of the 'basic' board game design rules boil down to this. The 'rules' are attempts to explain how to do this in a way that will work for most designs. However, much of the standard advice requires accompanying paragraphs to explain why a certain rule exists. We need to rework the 'rules' for clarity, much the way we would a game manual. Here's my proposed list:
Proposed New Basic Rules Of Board Game Design:
1. Make a game that people want to play before worrying about anything else.
2. Physically make a game, not in your head. Reality and theory often don't match.
3. Do not spend more than a month making a game before attempting to play it, although less time is better.
4. Play the game you make before adding or changing anything.
5. Prioritize clarity of gameplay over theme/art.
6. Play your game with other people. Often, if possible. Take notes.
7. Iterate your game with the goal of making other people want to play it.
8. At some point, making your game look nicer is what will make other people want to play it. Your game still needs to be good regardless of how it looks.
9. You need to love your game and still be willing to let it grow into something beyond what you first imagined. This may include publisher re-themes.
10. Don't expect to recoup any money you spend on prototypes, etc.
11. Consider the manufacturing cost of publishing your game before pitching with regards to components.
That being said, I think that designing games primarily for yourself, as a hobby, means you can do whatever you like. Not every hobby needs to be monetized.
I break a number of these rules with my designs that have garnered publisher attention. I spent far too long working on a prototype for my game that has 128 double-sided tiles. However, that was after a solo proof-of-concept with colored glass tiles that I knocked out the same day I had the design idea. I spend longer than I need to on finding free art and graphics for all my early prototypes. I am a theatrical artist, so some aspects of design are just fun for me and I make no apologies. My style lends itself to making visually appealing games that I then work toward making play well (which I don't recommend to others, although I know Ryan Laukat has admitted to this "flaw" too). Lately, I've been working a lot on flavor text for a design, but that is mostly due to the fact that my regular playtest group is suspended right now.
This leads me to my point about breaking the rules. That double-sided tile game I mentioned above? I made it to be my "art game" (think art house cinema) to show off what I can do without regards for publish-ability. It has too many components for the weight of game it is. The set up takes too long for the length of gameplay. And yet I have had two publishers contact me about pitching it after they heard about it on Facebook. The takeaway here is that really good ideas are worth more than flawless gameplay. But I know that if I'm breaking Rule 11 (128 tiles, after all), I need to be better about the rest of the rules, especially when it comes to quick iteration. Breaking one rule can make you a visionary; breaking all of them makes you obnoxious.
Learn the why of the rules. Then break the rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment