I'm getting to the point in my design journey that I have a few elements that I will generally put in my designs and recommend to others when I play their designs. I would not call these my rules for design, just strong preferences in design execution.
1. I have an aversion to rectangles. I'm not talking about standard component shapes here. I'm talking compounding the rectangularity of standard components with graphics and arrangement of components to make rectangles upon rectangles upon rectangles. I adore the player boards in Quacks of Quedlinburg. But if you're stuck with rectangles, they need to be visually mitigated by art/color/graphics. Seriously, this is my number one thing to critique in prototypes. That may sound mean, but I am at my best as a playtester when critiquing game-feel over gameplay: theme, layout, experience, etc.
2. "Theme is fun."/ "Art is fun." I like fun mechanisms. But that's no reason to deny your game the fun potential that comes from good theme or art. If you are shopping for a publisher you can still have designed space for the possible future art and convey what sort of style would add to the fun-ness of the game. It is not asking too much for the $60 box of rules and components that I bought to both look and sound fun when I am trying to convince my friends to play it with me. I use color liberally in my prototypes for a similar reason: I want to attract playtesters and publishers by using all the tools available to me, and color is fairly easy to add even if all you have is a ten dollar maker set and some sticker paper.
3. Story should be motivated by mechanism. If a character is described as 'greedy' the mechanisms should back up that description. I hate hate hate the lore paragraph at the beginning of a rulebook that has no narrative relation to what is actually occurring during gameplay. However, I do want to know why your factions are at war with each other, even if the reason is outside the scope of gameplay.
4. Verticality is good, but it's better if it's motivated. A game that has an example of both is Santorini. The dimensionality of the pieces is motivated by theme and gameplay. The dimensionality of the board is not motivated. Whether or not unmotivated verticality is worth the added cost of a game is a debate still playing out between publishers and consumers. However, verticality that feels required by gameplay adds so much more to the experience than simply adding extra plastic or cardboard.
5. Obfuscated scoring mitigates a number of 'player problems.' I really like not being sure who is going to win until the end of the game. I like pulling out a few hidden objectives and trouncing my strategic-gamer husband. I like it so much that most of my designs obfuscate scoring in some way.
6. Card or tile flipping appeals to my sense of kinesthetics. I like the motion of flipping things over. I like revealing a new game state with a motion. I'm on my third design where this is a primary mechanic and I'm not bored with it yet.
I may have a few more, but these are ones I return to over and over. Again, this is just how my brain works and I, by no means, see this as a complete set of aesthetic rules. Rather, this is my design bias that I have chosen to lean into. Knowing your biases as a designer doesn't always mean avoiding them; sometimes it means leaning into your strengths to develop your artistic voice.
1. I have an aversion to rectangles. I'm not talking about standard component shapes here. I'm talking compounding the rectangularity of standard components with graphics and arrangement of components to make rectangles upon rectangles upon rectangles. I adore the player boards in Quacks of Quedlinburg. But if you're stuck with rectangles, they need to be visually mitigated by art/color/graphics. Seriously, this is my number one thing to critique in prototypes. That may sound mean, but I am at my best as a playtester when critiquing game-feel over gameplay: theme, layout, experience, etc.
2. "Theme is fun."/ "Art is fun." I like fun mechanisms. But that's no reason to deny your game the fun potential that comes from good theme or art. If you are shopping for a publisher you can still have designed space for the possible future art and convey what sort of style would add to the fun-ness of the game. It is not asking too much for the $60 box of rules and components that I bought to both look and sound fun when I am trying to convince my friends to play it with me. I use color liberally in my prototypes for a similar reason: I want to attract playtesters and publishers by using all the tools available to me, and color is fairly easy to add even if all you have is a ten dollar maker set and some sticker paper.
3. Story should be motivated by mechanism. If a character is described as 'greedy' the mechanisms should back up that description. I hate hate hate the lore paragraph at the beginning of a rulebook that has no narrative relation to what is actually occurring during gameplay. However, I do want to know why your factions are at war with each other, even if the reason is outside the scope of gameplay.
4. Verticality is good, but it's better if it's motivated. A game that has an example of both is Santorini. The dimensionality of the pieces is motivated by theme and gameplay. The dimensionality of the board is not motivated. Whether or not unmotivated verticality is worth the added cost of a game is a debate still playing out between publishers and consumers. However, verticality that feels required by gameplay adds so much more to the experience than simply adding extra plastic or cardboard.
5. Obfuscated scoring mitigates a number of 'player problems.' I really like not being sure who is going to win until the end of the game. I like pulling out a few hidden objectives and trouncing my strategic-gamer husband. I like it so much that most of my designs obfuscate scoring in some way.
6. Card or tile flipping appeals to my sense of kinesthetics. I like the motion of flipping things over. I like revealing a new game state with a motion. I'm on my third design where this is a primary mechanic and I'm not bored with it yet.
I may have a few more, but these are ones I return to over and over. Again, this is just how my brain works and I, by no means, see this as a complete set of aesthetic rules. Rather, this is my design bias that I have chosen to lean into. Knowing your biases as a designer doesn't always mean avoiding them; sometimes it means leaning into your strengths to develop your artistic voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment