Howdy! I’ll be presenting on how to use practical philosophical tools to make better games (The same speech I gave at CTXNA in mid-November) at Nerd Nite Austin on December 7th. The other speakers will be presenting on Magic and Balloon Twisting.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[1]
Just read the on-line version of a very clever presentation titled How To Steal Like an Artist.
I mention it here because I liked it a lot. Also because the philosophy and stance behind this presentation is very similar to what inspired me to design and post 120 games in 120 months here at Invisible City. It’s also what inspired me to launch Protospiel South (Coming up on May 27, 28, 29!) and is driving me to write a book on game design.
That’s all. Just wanted to share…
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: epiphanies : thought
On August 12th, I shared 20 of the Un-sticky notes Sharon and I made and wrote about one of them (Everybody Wins) in depth. Let’s take a look and another random selection of 20 Un-sticky Notes..
- Confrontation is not the only kind of interaction
- Change the scope
- Change the scale
- Imagine the box
- End the game
- Stop keeping score
- What did he just say
- Provide small rewards along the way
- Eliminate randomness
- Control for variables
- Fix one thing
- Ask why why why why why (Each “why” after the first is on its own line.)
- Recall the inspiration
- What’s it feel like
- Less exceptions
- Remove a rule
- The narrator is unreliable
- Turn it upside down
- Invert one rule
- Try a different randomizer
Some of these are pretty standard pieces of design advice, like “Confrontation is not the only kind of interaction,” “Provide small rewards along the way,” and, “Less exceptions.” The one I like the most (right now) is, “Imagine the box.” I like it because it’s a jam-breaker. It doesn’t focus on what you’re doing right then and there. Instead, it encourages you to visualize the final product. Doing this helps you picture what your idealized vision of the game will be like, which may reveal aspects of it that you’ve forgotten while bushwhacking your way through probability tables or deck ratio balancing.
I glanced at “What did he just say,” and that gave me an interesting idea. I chose to interpret it as rewarding played for paying attention to what the player before them does. Imagine a game where you have a range of actions available to you (build, move, research, invest, and harvest). Each action costs resources and provides a benefit. Applying “What did he just say“ yields the rule: If you choose the action that the player before you chose, that action costs less (or may even be free).
Can we justify this metaphysically? Can there be a situation where it costs X to do a thing, but if other people do the same thing immediately afterwards, it costs them less than X? Producing in volume works kind of like this: It costs X to produce (say) 500 units, but (1.20 * X) to produce 1,000 units. This is also true if the service provider has to travel to you to offer the service (and passes the travel costs on to you), but is happy to charge other patrons less since the travel costs have already been covered (This implies an interesting game structure and theme…). This is also true if it’s a business where there are significant setup costs (or costs to get the production line running), but it’s easier to produce once the line is active. I’m sure there are other examples, but there’s no need to list all of them. For now, we’ll simply accept that there are several ways to metaphysically justify this mechanic.
What are the consequences of letting following players use a prior action at reduced cost? The obvious one is that the first player to take a desirable action will (unfairly?) bear more of the cost than other players. Also, it’s likely that players will tend to take the same action in clumps. If you choose to build, I’m incented to build, and the player who follows me is also incented to do so. This rule could have the unintended consequence of causing all of the players to play in the exact same (if not very similar) way. A less obvious consequence comes from strategy: I may choose an action that I know you could not afford to take, even at the discounted rate, simply to prevent you from copying my action (and gaining the benefit of the discount).
It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not convinced that it’s a fruitful direction to take a game in. I think you’d have to ensure that each player started off with fairly different resources (like the beginning of Settlers of Catan) to ensure that all of the players don’t end up playing the same game.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[2]
About five months ago, just after I was hired at Steve Jackson Games, Sharon came home with a box of a co-worker’s mis-printed business cards (about 200 cards). We spent an evening writing short ideas and suggestions to inspire innovative board game design ideas (if you’re familiar with the Oblique Strategies deck, this is in the same vein) on all of the cards (Actually, Sharon wrote all of them. I just helped think of them.).
Once we finished, we called them “Un-Sticky Notes,” (Get it? Eh?)
Here’s twenty of ‘em, selected at random:
- Everybody wins.
- Allow multiple paths to victory.
- Provide multiple goals.
- Enable solo play.
- What would a girl do?
- Let the game win.
- Share the pawn.
- Apply clever technology.
- Get messy.
- You’re it.
- Sabotage.
- Assume a benign universe.
- Be more consistent.
- Let them dream.
- Do something impossible.
- (The X, Y, and Z axes, drawn.)
- Steal something.
- What’s the last thing they’d expect?
- Do something dangerous.
- Disguise it.
I really like the cards. Every time I draw one, it kicks my creative mind into gear. Of these, I’d like to discuss Everybody wins. That’s a funny (as in odd) one, in that if you implement it in the broadest, most literal sense, you could argue that it takes a game and changes it from a game into an activity. After all, if everyone who’s playing wins, and everyone who’s playing always wins, and there’s no distinction between “levels” of winning, then why play?
It’s easy to abandon the idea of a game where the players always win every time, but I think there’s interesting space to explore there. Two directions that my mind wants to go with this are a game where the path you take becomes the focus of the game (instead of the outcome) and… Oh nuts. Writing that one pushed the other one out of my brain. At any rate, there are plenty of movies that tell you the end at the beginning of the movie, yet we watch and enjoy them (American Beauty). Could there be a board game that does the same thing? Will players assign victory-like conditions to aspects of play within the game? (“Hey, you found the silver and the gold widgets! Yay!”)
Perhaps I’ll type more on this later. I have to excuse myself for now.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[5]
Howdy all.
Sorry I haven’t been here for a wile, but I just got done hosting Protospiel South and The Inevitable Project just ended its funding drive at Kickstarter. It’s been very, very busy.
A little on Protospiel South: It went tremendously well. Everyone who attended seemed to have a good time. We had just as many attendees as we could handle. The crafting table was a success and got used (although I may have gone a little overboard on the quantity of colored paper). Each meal had just enough (or a little too much) food to feed all attendees. The Austin Chronicle ran the calendar entry that we submitted to them and even made some art to accompany it.
I’m certainly going to have it again next year. Same days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of Memorial Day weekend), but in a different hotel. The Best Western Atrium North was fantastic and very nice, but we filled their largest room to capacity. Next year is certain to be larger.
A little on Inevitable: Donors pledged $9,435 (!!!) to see it get made. That’s absolutely incredible. Now we have to nail down final prices from printers, etc., get it all printed, assemble it, and ship it. This is tremendously exciting, and Jeremy is doing amazing work to see it completed. If you haven’t looked at the Inevitable Leaks Blog, you really ought to. The money is hi-larious.
On SJG:
I’ve been sending out new games for playtest. I’ve made an effort to contact designers with pending games to keep them appraised of what’s going on. (Note to self: Ask the MH guy to create the cheat sheet / play aid that you don’t have the time/skill/resources to create!) I need to remember that I’m good at deconstructing the game to fix the problem and apply that skill more often.
It’s nice to have a job again. This job is still awesome. Now that I’ve been there almost three months, I’m used to the typical flow and can start getting into more complex projects, like establishing procedures, etc..
I’ve readjusted to working. As I plunged into it, I dropped a lot of other stuff I was doing, like game design (ironically), reading, cleaning, cooking, shopping for food, etc.. I’m resuming those things, and that’s nice. For example, Sharon had a nice discussion with Steve Jackson at Protospiel South about dice games in theory and practice. Since then, Sharon’s been thinking a lot about dice games. Sharon and I made up two dice games this afternoon while waiting for our (incredibly awesomely fantastically delicious) doughnut at Gourdough’s. When we got home, I mocked up a board for the game that needed one and we played both of them. The board-based one which we made together is quite fun. The all-dice one I made was a little bland; it needs… something.
There’s not really a lot of “insider advice” here, I suppose. Okay. Here’s one tip: If you go to a game design convention (like any one of the Protospiels) and reps from a game publisher are there, present your game as if they were considering it for publication – even if their public policy is that they are not accepting outside submissions. Don’t get all in their face about it, but make your game(s) look as good as they can. Bring your “A” game. This may be the best and most relevant tip I gleaned from the past two weeks. A corollary: If you have a game that’s thoroughly playtested – a game that’s really done – that doesn’t really need playtesting, but you’re shopping it around… Bring that out and show it off.
A final note: Royce – It was fantastic to meet you and your friends. I wish I spent more time to sit and talk with you at Protospiel South. I genuinely regret not doing so.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
Note: The advice in this post is not mine, but someone else’s. In some cases, my opinion may differ.
Sorry this one is late. I don’t know if I was caught up in my own things or what, but I didn’t really catch anything new to jot down last week. However, my office mate had a lot to say about his preferences for artists who submit portfolios. With his permission, I’m paraphrasing his advice here:
1) Have a website that showcases your work; an online portfolio.
Don’t include your portfolio in an attached Word document, or PDF, or anything like that. My office mate really hates to open (or download) PDFs. A URL that points at your website will be fine, thanks. If you don’t know how to create a website that showcases pictures and art, check out Flickr or DeviantArt. They’re both relatively easy to use and they won’t stop an art director from checking your stuff out.
2) Keep your, “Hi there,” note short.
There was one that he especially liked. It was something like, “Hi. I’m Bob. I make art. You can view my portfolio at http://www.somewebsite.com/portfolio. You can contact me at ###-###-#### or by replying to this email. Thanks, Bob” In reality, the note wasn’t quite that casual, but my example was probably longer than the real email was. My office mate liked it because it was short, to the point, and didn’t imply that the writer expected a response if his art didin’t fit our needs.
3) Your art is what matters. Your reliability is as important, if not more so.
This is a corollary of sorts to #2. Your education and training is less important than your ability to produce and what you produce. Professional references are also very useful to include.
4) Thumbnail + larger version + full-resolution options = happiness.
This is an extension to #1. If your website has a page of thumbnails that you can click on to get a larger, screen-sized version, that’s good. If visitors can also view high-resolution versions of your art, even better.
5) Don’t rely on a specific screen size.
If you’re making your website yourself or hiring someone to do it for you, don’t rely on viewers having a specific screen size if you can help it. Odds are that any art director will have a monitor that’s more than big enough to view what you choose to display. A related tip: Please don’t force the browser to resize the window. It’s irksome.
That’s about all I have for this week. It was a good week, and I’m looking forward to Protospiel South 2010. That’s one month away. Wheee!
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
This week, I learned (or am starting to learn) several things: Work-life balance, the power of friendship, how to share with enthusiasm, how to reserve your mojo, and how to be a good conversationalist. Let’s break ‘em down one at a time…
Work-life Balance: The job’s awesomely fun. I think I’ve established that pretty firmly. However, you can get too much of a good thing. Even though I’m salaried, my boss has asked me to cut back a little, and I have to agree with him. In weeks four and five, I accumulated 99 hours – nine extra hours in each week. This would explain why I haven’t been getting dishes done at home, some prep work done for Protospiel South, or had time to advance my personal gaming projects (Inevitable) to the extent I’d like to.
Lesson learned: Reserve a little more time for my sweetie and me.
The Power of Friendship: Thursday was playtest night. It was also tax day (the 15th) and rainy/thunderstormy. I suspected that attendance would be low, and we had games that really needed playtesting. I contacted the folks I game with on Tuesday nights and invited them to playtest.
Note that this is something I’ve avoided doing for two reasons: (1) I don’t want to seem like I’m showing off. “Hey, lookit my nifty job! Lookit me! Me-me-me!” It just seems gauche. (2) I want to keep personal life and work life at least a little compartmentalized. That’s why I haven’t brought playtest games to Tuesday night gaming. I think it’d be rude to use my friends as my personal batch of game-playing guinea pigs.
Their response was overwhelmingly positive. I was very happy to have them there. We had 16 attendees, and only six of those were SJG employees. That’s a really good ratio; much better than the usual 1:1. As things wrapped up, several of them asked to be included in the weekly playtest announcements.
Lesson learned: Friends like you and want to help you. Things you think are fun, they’re also likely to think are fun.
Sharing With Enthusiasm: When I tell friends and acquaintances what I do, they often respond with, “That’s so cool!” Lately, my reply has been a muted, “Yeah. It’s pretty neat.” In part, I’m understated because I’ve gotten a little used to it, but mostly I’m just not trying to be a jerk. I figure that if I’m not hyper-exuberant about it, I won’t look pompous. I suspect that’s not really what people want to see. I think that people like to see others get happy and excited about things.
Lesson learned: It’s okay to continue to be excited about my job and to share that excitement with other people when I’m talking about it.
Reserving Your Mojo: This ties in to work-life balance, above. Yesterday, a friend asked me if I’ve been working on my own games. I realized, with more than a little surprise, that I really hadn’t. Sure, I’ve been communicating with Jeremy about Inevitable, but that’s really the extent of it. I haven’t done any additional work on Ninja Golf or any of the other projects I was working on before woking at SJG.
To be fair to myself, I am working on Protospiel South 2010, which will take more and more of my spare cycles until it takes place on May 28, 29, and 30. Even so, development of my other personal projects has ground to a standstill. I’m making great progress on my projects at SJG, so I still get to be creative. It’s just not on my own stuff. This creates an interesting… Dilemma isn’t the word I’d use to describe it. That makes it sound too dramatic. Even “conflict” is too hard a term. Let’s call it a mild dissonance. I’m used to advancing my own projects, and that’s not happening right now.
Lesson learned: Work-life balance is important. When things realign, reserve some time for your own projects, as well as work.
Being a Good Conversationalist: This blog (or this series of entires, at the very least) epitomizes this emerging problem. I’m talking about myself too much and not listening to others as much as I’d like to. However, I also really like to share what’s going on in my life. This is neat stuff! I need to figure out how to balance these two things.
Lesson learned: Actually, I haven’t “learned” this one yet. It’s just something I need to pay attention to and figure out. For this blog, at least, I’m going to start taking notes as I work for factoids that will be useful to y’all.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
A few simple things I learned in week 5 at SJG:
1) I trained myself to make card games in multiples of 52 or 54. If you’re printing in the USA, that’s relevant. If you’re printing in China, it’s not. You can make a game with 108 cards in it, and odds are good that you’ll get the same quote to print if you make it with 110 or 120 cards in it. Why? I don’t know. I don’t even pretend to know.
2) In contrast to note (1): Keeping your component requirements to a minimum is critical. If you create a game that can be played just with cards, but could be expanded to accomodate miniatures, a fist-full of dice, etc., you’re in pretty good shape. If you’re designing a game, and you keep adding components to it, be certain that those components are essential. If they aren’t, you’re making your game less appealing to publish without adding sufficient value.
3) Get enough sleep.
4) If you’re working and working and working on a game and it’s just not coming together, take a step back. Ask yourself, “What’s this game really about?” “Who’s the audience for this game?” “What story arc do the players follow as they play the game?” If you’re fortunate enough to have mandates from your customers, take a look at those too. Now break the game down and figure out what it needs to do actualize those primal roles and meet those mandates. Strip off any extra cruft that’s attached itself to the game. Try it again. Is it better? Is anything missing?
5) Capture notes at every meeting, even the small ones.
6) Offload the math onto the components. Even if you think the math is super-simple, offload it anyway. Why? Math you think is simple may be daunting for other people. Making components that “do the math” makes the game more accessible, more fun, and is likely to improve the game play in ways you didn’t even expect it to.
7) Order enough food for play test sessions. However much you’ve ordered, increase it by 10%.
8) It is very, very easy to make a game that color-blind people can not play. Be vigilant. (Note: I am not color blind, but I know several people who are to varying degrees. This includes one person who is completely color blind (grayscale vision) and an avid gamer. This is more of a problem than you’d initially expect, but just think about it for a moment.)
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
Howdy all,
As you may or may not know by now, I’ve been hired by Steve Jackson Games. I fill several roles, but the two I operate in most often are Playtest Coordinator and Game Developer. When I announced this (very welcome) conclusion to my membership among the unemployed, I received many congratulations. I also received more than a few requests to start a blog about it.
I put the Game of the Month on indefinite hiatus after posting the 120th game in December 2009. Since then, I haven’t been sure about what to do with Invisible City. I’ve been looking for something that would be interesting to the same kind of people who liked the Game of the Month that I’d update on a regular basis. I was going to use it a a forum to share and discuss the book I’m writing about game design, but (now that I’m employed) I’m not working on that as much as I had been. I figure that a blog about my experiences at Steve Jackson Games fits nicely.
I’m going to write about things that I think you’ll be interested in, but I’m not you. Consequently, what I choose to write about may not match what you want to know. I’d like to see this become a two-way dialogue. If you ask questions or provide guidance about what you’d like me to write about, I’ll address your requests to the best of my ability. That said, there are three important rules I will not violate:
1) I will not discuss unannounced products coming from Steve Jackson Games.
2) I will not name anyone in the company by name.
3) I will not accept your game prototype for submission to Steve Jackson Games. The company is not currently accepting unsolicited submissions.
About my position: I’m responsible for coordinating in-house and out-of-house play tests of upcoming board games. I’m also responsible for shepherding all of the non-Munchkin board games from submission to the point where they’re ready to hand off to production for art and layout. At that point I keep an eye on them, but I’m not nearly as involved. Once the game goes to the printer, I’m no loner involved.
Some things I learned in the first three weeks:
The prototypes I’ve made and sent to companies are not nearly as good or as bad as I thought they were. They’re right smack-dab in the middle.
If you can, put your prototype in a box and put a big label on it. Use a good, durable box from another game if you can. Include the name of the game, your name and contact info (phone, address, email), and the date you submitted the game. There are several reasons for this:
- It looks better and stores better than a large Ziploc bag (Which is what I’ve always used in the past – not good).
- It tells the people you’ve sent it to who made the game, and when they got it. The latter part is tremendously important.
- If the box is a decent size, it creates a place to store information about your game. It’s also a great place to put a SASE if you want your game returned to you in the event that it is declined.
Unless you really, truly don’t care about getting it back, do not send your hand-made prototype. This is especially true if you painstakingly hand-drew all the art on your 104-card deck, for example.
Play test your game before you send it to a publisher. Blind play test your game before you send it. Hand the rules to someone who doesn’t play games and have them edit them without even playing the game. Hand the rules to someone who’s an absolute game cheese-monkey and have them edit them without playing the game. Do the same thing with any cards or other components with text on them. (I’m not worried about not play testing the Game of the Month games enough. However, there are several games I’ve set off to publishers that I really did not play test enough.)
They’re a pain to use, but (unless your prototype cards are really, really high quality) put your prototype cards in card sleeves. It looks better, they’ll handle better, and the play test at the publisher will go better.
If you have a component in your prototype that physically makes the game hard to play, make it better before sending it off. (I used to not concern myself with that when I sent my games off to publishers, figuring that it wasn’t my concern. After all, I just have to make a fun game, right? Wrong. If physical components get in the way of playing the game, it tarnishes the “fun” and will bias people against your game.)
You can assume that the publisher will have dice, pawns, etc., but it’s far better to provide all of the components needed for play (except perhaps pencils). It costs more, but you’ll look like a champ. It shows that you’re completely aware of what goes with the game.
Okay. That’s enough for now. More next Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[6]
Older |
recent posts |
recent comments |
January Game of the Month:
Howdy! I’ll be presenting on how to use practical philosophical tools to make better games (The same speech I gave at CTXNA in mid-November) at Nerd Nite Austin on December 7th. The other speakers will be presenting on Magic and Balloon Twisting.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[1]
Just read the on-line version of a very clever presentation titled How To Steal Like an Artist.
I mention it here because I liked it a lot. Also because the philosophy and stance behind this presentation is very similar to what inspired me to design and post 120 games in 120 months here at Invisible City. It’s also what inspired me to launch Protospiel South (Coming up on May 27, 28, 29!) and is driving me to write a book on game design.
That’s all. Just wanted to share…
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: epiphanies : thought
On August 12th, I shared 20 of the Un-sticky notes Sharon and I made and wrote about one of them (Everybody Wins) in depth. Let’s take a look and another random selection of 20 Un-sticky Notes..
- Confrontation is not the only kind of interaction
- Change the scope
- Change the scale
- Imagine the box
- End the game
- Stop keeping score
- What did he just say
- Provide small rewards along the way
- Eliminate randomness
- Control for variables
- Fix one thing
- Ask why why why why why (Each “why” after the first is on its own line.)
- Recall the inspiration
- What’s it feel like
- Less exceptions
- Remove a rule
- The narrator is unreliable
- Turn it upside down
- Invert one rule
- Try a different randomizer
Some of these are pretty standard pieces of design advice, like “Confrontation is not the only kind of interaction,” “Provide small rewards along the way,” and, “Less exceptions.” The one I like the most (right now) is, “Imagine the box.” I like it because it’s a jam-breaker. It doesn’t focus on what you’re doing right then and there. Instead, it encourages you to visualize the final product. Doing this helps you picture what your idealized vision of the game will be like, which may reveal aspects of it that you’ve forgotten while bushwhacking your way through probability tables or deck ratio balancing.
I glanced at “What did he just say,” and that gave me an interesting idea. I chose to interpret it as rewarding played for paying attention to what the player before them does. Imagine a game where you have a range of actions available to you (build, move, research, invest, and harvest). Each action costs resources and provides a benefit. Applying “What did he just say“ yields the rule: If you choose the action that the player before you chose, that action costs less (or may even be free).
Can we justify this metaphysically? Can there be a situation where it costs X to do a thing, but if other people do the same thing immediately afterwards, it costs them less than X? Producing in volume works kind of like this: It costs X to produce (say) 500 units, but (1.20 * X) to produce 1,000 units. This is also true if the service provider has to travel to you to offer the service (and passes the travel costs on to you), but is happy to charge other patrons less since the travel costs have already been covered (This implies an interesting game structure and theme…). This is also true if it’s a business where there are significant setup costs (or costs to get the production line running), but it’s easier to produce once the line is active. I’m sure there are other examples, but there’s no need to list all of them. For now, we’ll simply accept that there are several ways to metaphysically justify this mechanic.
What are the consequences of letting following players use a prior action at reduced cost? The obvious one is that the first player to take a desirable action will (unfairly?) bear more of the cost than other players. Also, it’s likely that players will tend to take the same action in clumps. If you choose to build, I’m incented to build, and the player who follows me is also incented to do so. This rule could have the unintended consequence of causing all of the players to play in the exact same (if not very similar) way. A less obvious consequence comes from strategy: I may choose an action that I know you could not afford to take, even at the discounted rate, simply to prevent you from copying my action (and gaining the benefit of the discount).
It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not convinced that it’s a fruitful direction to take a game in. I think you’d have to ensure that each player started off with fairly different resources (like the beginning of Settlers of Catan) to ensure that all of the players don’t end up playing the same game.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[2]
About five months ago, just after I was hired at Steve Jackson Games, Sharon came home with a box of a co-worker’s mis-printed business cards (about 200 cards). We spent an evening writing short ideas and suggestions to inspire innovative board game design ideas (if you’re familiar with the Oblique Strategies deck, this is in the same vein) on all of the cards (Actually, Sharon wrote all of them. I just helped think of them.).
Once we finished, we called them “Un-Sticky Notes,” (Get it? Eh?)
Here’s twenty of ‘em, selected at random:
- Everybody wins.
- Allow multiple paths to victory.
- Provide multiple goals.
- Enable solo play.
- What would a girl do?
- Let the game win.
- Share the pawn.
- Apply clever technology.
- Get messy.
- You’re it.
- Sabotage.
- Assume a benign universe.
- Be more consistent.
- Let them dream.
- Do something impossible.
- (The X, Y, and Z axes, drawn.)
- Steal something.
- What’s the last thing they’d expect?
- Do something dangerous.
- Disguise it.
I really like the cards. Every time I draw one, it kicks my creative mind into gear. Of these, I’d like to discuss Everybody wins. That’s a funny (as in odd) one, in that if you implement it in the broadest, most literal sense, you could argue that it takes a game and changes it from a game into an activity. After all, if everyone who’s playing wins, and everyone who’s playing always wins, and there’s no distinction between “levels” of winning, then why play?
It’s easy to abandon the idea of a game where the players always win every time, but I think there’s interesting space to explore there. Two directions that my mind wants to go with this are a game where the path you take becomes the focus of the game (instead of the outcome) and… Oh nuts. Writing that one pushed the other one out of my brain. At any rate, there are plenty of movies that tell you the end at the beginning of the movie, yet we watch and enjoy them (American Beauty). Could there be a board game that does the same thing? Will players assign victory-like conditions to aspects of play within the game? (“Hey, you found the silver and the gold widgets! Yay!”)
Perhaps I’ll type more on this later. I have to excuse myself for now.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[5]
Howdy all.
Sorry I haven’t been here for a wile, but I just got done hosting Protospiel South and The Inevitable Project just ended its funding drive at Kickstarter. It’s been very, very busy.
A little on Protospiel South: It went tremendously well. Everyone who attended seemed to have a good time. We had just as many attendees as we could handle. The crafting table was a success and got used (although I may have gone a little overboard on the quantity of colored paper). Each meal had just enough (or a little too much) food to feed all attendees. The Austin Chronicle ran the calendar entry that we submitted to them and even made some art to accompany it.
I’m certainly going to have it again next year. Same days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of Memorial Day weekend), but in a different hotel. The Best Western Atrium North was fantastic and very nice, but we filled their largest room to capacity. Next year is certain to be larger.
A little on Inevitable: Donors pledged $9,435 (!!!) to see it get made. That’s absolutely incredible. Now we have to nail down final prices from printers, etc., get it all printed, assemble it, and ship it. This is tremendously exciting, and Jeremy is doing amazing work to see it completed. If you haven’t looked at the Inevitable Leaks Blog, you really ought to. The money is hi-larious.
On SJG:
I’ve been sending out new games for playtest. I’ve made an effort to contact designers with pending games to keep them appraised of what’s going on. (Note to self: Ask the MH guy to create the cheat sheet / play aid that you don’t have the time/skill/resources to create!) I need to remember that I’m good at deconstructing the game to fix the problem and apply that skill more often.
It’s nice to have a job again. This job is still awesome. Now that I’ve been there almost three months, I’m used to the typical flow and can start getting into more complex projects, like establishing procedures, etc..
I’ve readjusted to working. As I plunged into it, I dropped a lot of other stuff I was doing, like game design (ironically), reading, cleaning, cooking, shopping for food, etc.. I’m resuming those things, and that’s nice. For example, Sharon had a nice discussion with Steve Jackson at Protospiel South about dice games in theory and practice. Since then, Sharon’s been thinking a lot about dice games. Sharon and I made up two dice games this afternoon while waiting for our (incredibly awesomely fantastically delicious) doughnut at Gourdough’s. When we got home, I mocked up a board for the game that needed one and we played both of them. The board-based one which we made together is quite fun. The all-dice one I made was a little bland; it needs… something.
There’s not really a lot of “insider advice” here, I suppose. Okay. Here’s one tip: If you go to a game design convention (like any one of the Protospiels) and reps from a game publisher are there, present your game as if they were considering it for publication – even if their public policy is that they are not accepting outside submissions. Don’t get all in their face about it, but make your game(s) look as good as they can. Bring your “A” game. This may be the best and most relevant tip I gleaned from the past two weeks. A corollary: If you have a game that’s thoroughly playtested – a game that’s really done – that doesn’t really need playtesting, but you’re shopping it around… Bring that out and show it off.
A final note: Royce – It was fantastic to meet you and your friends. I wish I spent more time to sit and talk with you at Protospiel South. I genuinely regret not doing so.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
Note: The advice in this post is not mine, but someone else’s. In some cases, my opinion may differ.
Sorry this one is late. I don’t know if I was caught up in my own things or what, but I didn’t really catch anything new to jot down last week. However, my office mate had a lot to say about his preferences for artists who submit portfolios. With his permission, I’m paraphrasing his advice here:
1) Have a website that showcases your work; an online portfolio.
Don’t include your portfolio in an attached Word document, or PDF, or anything like that. My office mate really hates to open (or download) PDFs. A URL that points at your website will be fine, thanks. If you don’t know how to create a website that showcases pictures and art, check out Flickr or DeviantArt. They’re both relatively easy to use and they won’t stop an art director from checking your stuff out.
2) Keep your, “Hi there,” note short.
There was one that he especially liked. It was something like, “Hi. I’m Bob. I make art. You can view my portfolio at http://www.somewebsite.com/portfolio. You can contact me at ###-###-#### or by replying to this email. Thanks, Bob” In reality, the note wasn’t quite that casual, but my example was probably longer than the real email was. My office mate liked it because it was short, to the point, and didn’t imply that the writer expected a response if his art didin’t fit our needs.
3) Your art is what matters. Your reliability is as important, if not more so.
This is a corollary of sorts to #2. Your education and training is less important than your ability to produce and what you produce. Professional references are also very useful to include.
4) Thumbnail + larger version + full-resolution options = happiness.
This is an extension to #1. If your website has a page of thumbnails that you can click on to get a larger, screen-sized version, that’s good. If visitors can also view high-resolution versions of your art, even better.
5) Don’t rely on a specific screen size.
If you’re making your website yourself or hiring someone to do it for you, don’t rely on viewers having a specific screen size if you can help it. Odds are that any art director will have a monitor that’s more than big enough to view what you choose to display. A related tip: Please don’t force the browser to resize the window. It’s irksome.
That’s about all I have for this week. It was a good week, and I’m looking forward to Protospiel South 2010. That’s one month away. Wheee!
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
This week, I learned (or am starting to learn) several things: Work-life balance, the power of friendship, how to share with enthusiasm, how to reserve your mojo, and how to be a good conversationalist. Let’s break ‘em down one at a time…
Work-life Balance: The job’s awesomely fun. I think I’ve established that pretty firmly. However, you can get too much of a good thing. Even though I’m salaried, my boss has asked me to cut back a little, and I have to agree with him. In weeks four and five, I accumulated 99 hours – nine extra hours in each week. This would explain why I haven’t been getting dishes done at home, some prep work done for Protospiel South, or had time to advance my personal gaming projects (Inevitable) to the extent I’d like to.
Lesson learned: Reserve a little more time for my sweetie and me.
The Power of Friendship: Thursday was playtest night. It was also tax day (the 15th) and rainy/thunderstormy. I suspected that attendance would be low, and we had games that really needed playtesting. I contacted the folks I game with on Tuesday nights and invited them to playtest.
Note that this is something I’ve avoided doing for two reasons: (1) I don’t want to seem like I’m showing off. “Hey, lookit my nifty job! Lookit me! Me-me-me!” It just seems gauche. (2) I want to keep personal life and work life at least a little compartmentalized. That’s why I haven’t brought playtest games to Tuesday night gaming. I think it’d be rude to use my friends as my personal batch of game-playing guinea pigs.
Their response was overwhelmingly positive. I was very happy to have them there. We had 16 attendees, and only six of those were SJG employees. That’s a really good ratio; much better than the usual 1:1. As things wrapped up, several of them asked to be included in the weekly playtest announcements.
Lesson learned: Friends like you and want to help you. Things you think are fun, they’re also likely to think are fun.
Sharing With Enthusiasm: When I tell friends and acquaintances what I do, they often respond with, “That’s so cool!” Lately, my reply has been a muted, “Yeah. It’s pretty neat.” In part, I’m understated because I’ve gotten a little used to it, but mostly I’m just not trying to be a jerk. I figure that if I’m not hyper-exuberant about it, I won’t look pompous. I suspect that’s not really what people want to see. I think that people like to see others get happy and excited about things.
Lesson learned: It’s okay to continue to be excited about my job and to share that excitement with other people when I’m talking about it.
Reserving Your Mojo: This ties in to work-life balance, above. Yesterday, a friend asked me if I’ve been working on my own games. I realized, with more than a little surprise, that I really hadn’t. Sure, I’ve been communicating with Jeremy about Inevitable, but that’s really the extent of it. I haven’t done any additional work on Ninja Golf or any of the other projects I was working on before woking at SJG.
To be fair to myself, I am working on Protospiel South 2010, which will take more and more of my spare cycles until it takes place on May 28, 29, and 30. Even so, development of my other personal projects has ground to a standstill. I’m making great progress on my projects at SJG, so I still get to be creative. It’s just not on my own stuff. This creates an interesting… Dilemma isn’t the word I’d use to describe it. That makes it sound too dramatic. Even “conflict” is too hard a term. Let’s call it a mild dissonance. I’m used to advancing my own projects, and that’s not happening right now.
Lesson learned: Work-life balance is important. When things realign, reserve some time for your own projects, as well as work.
Being a Good Conversationalist: This blog (or this series of entires, at the very least) epitomizes this emerging problem. I’m talking about myself too much and not listening to others as much as I’d like to. However, I also really like to share what’s going on in my life. This is neat stuff! I need to figure out how to balance these two things.
Lesson learned: Actually, I haven’t “learned” this one yet. It’s just something I need to pay attention to and figure out. For this blog, at least, I’m going to start taking notes as I work for factoids that will be useful to y’all.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
A few simple things I learned in week 5 at SJG:
1) I trained myself to make card games in multiples of 52 or 54. If you’re printing in the USA, that’s relevant. If you’re printing in China, it’s not. You can make a game with 108 cards in it, and odds are good that you’ll get the same quote to print if you make it with 110 or 120 cards in it. Why? I don’t know. I don’t even pretend to know.
2) In contrast to note (1): Keeping your component requirements to a minimum is critical. If you create a game that can be played just with cards, but could be expanded to accomodate miniatures, a fist-full of dice, etc., you’re in pretty good shape. If you’re designing a game, and you keep adding components to it, be certain that those components are essential. If they aren’t, you’re making your game less appealing to publish without adding sufficient value.
3) Get enough sleep.
4) If you’re working and working and working on a game and it’s just not coming together, take a step back. Ask yourself, “What’s this game really about?” “Who’s the audience for this game?” “What story arc do the players follow as they play the game?” If you’re fortunate enough to have mandates from your customers, take a look at those too. Now break the game down and figure out what it needs to do actualize those primal roles and meet those mandates. Strip off any extra cruft that’s attached itself to the game. Try it again. Is it better? Is anything missing?
5) Capture notes at every meeting, even the small ones.
6) Offload the math onto the components. Even if you think the math is super-simple, offload it anyway. Why? Math you think is simple may be daunting for other people. Making components that “do the math” makes the game more accessible, more fun, and is likely to improve the game play in ways you didn’t even expect it to.
7) Order enough food for play test sessions. However much you’ve ordered, increase it by 10%.
8) It is very, very easy to make a game that color-blind people can not play. Be vigilant. (Note: I am not color blind, but I know several people who are to varying degrees. This includes one person who is completely color blind (grayscale vision) and an avid gamer. This is more of a problem than you’d initially expect, but just think about it for a moment.)
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: thought : gaming
[1]
Howdy all,
As you may or may not know by now, I’ve been hired by Steve Jackson Games. I fill several roles, but the two I operate in most often are Playtest Coordinator and Game Developer. When I announced this (very welcome) conclusion to my membership among the unemployed, I received many congratulations. I also received more than a few requests to start a blog about it.
I put the Game of the Month on indefinite hiatus after posting the 120th game in December 2009. Since then, I haven’t been sure about what to do with Invisible City. I’ve been looking for something that would be interesting to the same kind of people who liked the Game of the Month that I’d update on a regular basis. I was going to use it a a forum to share and discuss the book I’m writing about game design, but (now that I’m employed) I’m not working on that as much as I had been. I figure that a blog about my experiences at Steve Jackson Games fits nicely.
I’m going to write about things that I think you’ll be interested in, but I’m not you. Consequently, what I choose to write about may not match what you want to know. I’d like to see this become a two-way dialogue. If you ask questions or provide guidance about what you’d like me to write about, I’ll address your requests to the best of my ability. That said, there are three important rules I will not violate:
1) I will not discuss unannounced products coming from Steve Jackson Games.
2) I will not name anyone in the company by name.
3) I will not accept your game prototype for submission to Steve Jackson Games. The company is not currently accepting unsolicited submissions.
About my position: I’m responsible for coordinating in-house and out-of-house play tests of upcoming board games. I’m also responsible for shepherding all of the non-Munchkin board games from submission to the point where they’re ready to hand off to production for art and layout. At that point I keep an eye on them, but I’m not nearly as involved. Once the game goes to the printer, I’m no loner involved.
Some things I learned in the first three weeks:
The prototypes I’ve made and sent to companies are not nearly as good or as bad as I thought they were. They’re right smack-dab in the middle.
If you can, put your prototype in a box and put a big label on it. Use a good, durable box from another game if you can. Include the name of the game, your name and contact info (phone, address, email), and the date you submitted the game. There are several reasons for this:
- It looks better and stores better than a large Ziploc bag (Which is what I’ve always used in the past – not good).
- It tells the people you’ve sent it to who made the game, and when they got it. The latter part is tremendously important.
- If the box is a decent size, it creates a place to store information about your game. It’s also a great place to put a SASE if you want your game returned to you in the event that it is declined.
Unless you really, truly don’t care about getting it back, do not send your hand-made prototype. This is especially true if you painstakingly hand-drew all the art on your 104-card deck, for example.
Play test your game before you send it to a publisher. Blind play test your game before you send it. Hand the rules to someone who doesn’t play games and have them edit them without even playing the game. Hand the rules to someone who’s an absolute game cheese-monkey and have them edit them without playing the game. Do the same thing with any cards or other components with text on them. (I’m not worried about not play testing the Game of the Month games enough. However, there are several games I’ve set off to publishers that I really did not play test enough.)
They’re a pain to use, but (unless your prototype cards are really, really high quality) put your prototype cards in card sleeves. It looks better, they’ll handle better, and the play test at the publisher will go better.
If you have a component in your prototype that physically makes the game hard to play, make it better before sending it off. (I used to not concern myself with that when I sent my games off to publishers, figuring that it wasn’t my concern. After all, I just have to make a fun game, right? Wrong. If physical components get in the way of playing the game, it tarnishes the “fun” and will bias people against your game.)
You can assume that the publisher will have dice, pawns, etc., but it’s far better to provide all of the components needed for play (except perhaps pencils). It costs more, but you’ll look like a champ. It shows that you’re completely aware of what goes with the game.
Okay. That’s enough for now. More next Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
— Jonathan A Leistiko :: gaming : thought
[6]
Invisible City Productions is a collective of game designers, writers, and artists who provide this as a space for the creators of secret media to come together and touch antennae.