On (Not) Designing Boards

I dislike designing boards. Here's why.

Boards lack the constraints of cards or even tiles. Boards have a wider array of sizes and shapes which present nearly infinite options for how to convey information. 

On the other hand, boards set the layout of your play-space in stone. Boards define boundaries. If you want a different set up, you have to design a different board. (Modular boards, to me, just means designing lots of boards. Which I don't like.)

In spite of the array of options for boards, boards have a greater tendency to end up looking like spreadsheets. I greatly dislike rectangles, and many boards are rectangles within rectangles: actions spaces, tracks, grids, card slots. Then you add cubes. Good graphic/product design avoids becoming to spreadsheet-y, but that usually happens later in the design process. 

Shared boards have a perspective problem. Unless all information is radially symmetrical, someone will be at a disadvantage when viewing the board. Cards or tiles can be picked up and passed around the table, but boards cannot. Therefore, information must be presented clearly to every player position. (I think that's  best done by not putting too much information on the board and instead having player aids.)

Lastly, I dislike designing boards because they are more difficult to prototype. For all of the reasons stated above. Also, they require more material and can be more difficult to print and assemble. Cards or tiles can be edited one at a time or in batches, but changes to a board often requires printing a new board. 

I'm not against boards in games. I like a well-designed board. But for my preferred work flow and design style, I try to avoid boards unless the game requires one.