Gloomhaven. So, this is a dungeon crawler themed game. I want to move and smack an enemy. But the game requires me to plan turns ahead because I have to use a card for movement. Now that card I use for movement could also be used for some cool or powerful attack. I have to decide which of these cool powerful attacks I now won't get to use for probably a few turns because that card is burned for moving. Now I have to assess every single card I have left in my hand and plan turns ahead to see which cards I may need so I can decide which ones to burn for movement. Really, I just want to move and attack and the game forces me to think like a chess grandmaster thinking many turns ahead. Then next turn I have to do the same thing all over again. Like really? In no other game I have played do I have to think and plan ahead so much just to do the simplest action. In the end, I don't feel like I'm playing a dungeon crawler. Feels more like chess or go.
I encountered a similar issue in my game. If something left from the hand I called it discard, if it left from the board I was using a bunch of similar sounding words but for simplicity sake I changed all of the wording to discard no matter from where. I think it depends on the amount of balance, if you use other terms, it will increase complexity. My thinking originally was that using distinct terms would help with clarity, but i found that it only made it confusing. Your mileage may vary.
I think the overall visuals communicate the style pretty well. However, I do have agree with the other comments about the symbol for 3 cards, just saying it in words would be simpler. I would also say the sentence that follows it should not be a separate sentence, I'd use a comma or semicolon. Other than, I'd maybe suggest a little bit more color for visual clarity, there's a lot of green.
25 isn't too bad at all. Maybe I'm being biased coming from playing TCGs. The average Yugioh card nowadays has around 70 words, compared to back in the day when the average was around 20-25.
Depending whether you have a rule book of some description, if it's only a small selection of cards that need additional info/clarification maybe put that in a section of the rulebook? Perhaps put a small symbol e.g a lightbulb next to the vague text (this text should be enough for the player to remember the full card info at later plays) and towards the end of the rulebook use the same symbol again to show this is the section where additional info is
The UI seems pretty clean on #1 and #2. The straight lines on the background of #3 & #4 might make them hard to read for some people. The color of the background in #5 is a little distracting. I think the first two are the strongest. I think the overall layout is good, not too cramped and it seems like you fit a lot of mechanics on there. I like it overall.
That is a tough call honestly. If I had to pick, I'd say the first one seems more unique to me. The first one also evokes more of a sense of style, at least more than the second one in my opinion.
If it's stuff that didn't work at all, it's the only way to make your game better. But if you have had ideas and they didn't just work out after one match, maybe give it another 2 or 3 tries.
Thanks. Yeah, it mostly worked and I think I was just trying to correct a non-existent problem. The general wisdom that I have heard is to cut out features until the game bleeds and then cut two more times. Leaning on the side of taking things out is probably better so I don't add new problems.
Are they any good DnD simulators that aren't gloomhaven like? I've tried gloomhaven a few times and I just can't get into it. What would you recommend ?
I'm at my 6th full reset for one of my projects that's been going on for 5 years now. I have a clear vision for the feeling and vision, but when mechanics don't hit the spot and I switch them I have to redo all components and cards from the ground up.
If only skulls matter for killing regular enemies do you still roll the numbered dice? What purpose do the cards serve? Are they loot or are they a resource to effect die rolls?
Your mileage may vary but I found tabletopia be way less intuitive than tabletop simulator to be honest. You might be better off with TTS to be honest as others have suggested. Provided that you have created the cards, look at Canva or Nandeck, all you really have to do is drop the cards into the built in TTS deck maker and then add a custom deck from there.
Number scores in general are a little misleading. A seven is a good respectable number. For me a 7 would mean I like the game a fair bit and I think it's worthy of being in my collection, I wouldn't bring it out every game night but I'd consider it depending on the group and there's maybe 1 or 2 minor mechanics that I don't care for. I might even recommend a 7/10 to friends if I thought they might like it. I'd give Pandemic, and Dice throne a 7/10. Secret Hitler is a 9/10, I'd say Aeon's End is a 10/10 for me personally (played solo anyway).
I 100% agree. It's just a thing to do in my free time, I might as well try to get a more polished. And then if I'm satisfied and I have the capacity for it, I'll look at it more as a business. Even then it'd be a small print run.
Cool. Is this an RPG? I think it would be helpful to think in terms of what mechanical advantage the combinations confer and to work backwards from there. For example if they get a bonus for a particular action it can give you a basis to think of what to call that trait and what the associated traits could be, if that helps.
Maybe shift the text about the vassal to the vassal card itself. What is scrap? Also if certain cards types can avoid scrap maybe put that text on those cards. As a general rule, I try to keep card text under 2 short sentences.
I like legacy games, they create a really unique experience. When there's a legacy game on our list it's the only game we'll play on a game night and we can often get 60% or so through one in a single game night. As far as designing a legacy game I think that's a pretty challenging endeavor. You could test the individual scenarios and treat them each separately but eventually you'd want groups to go through the whole thing. Check out Charterstone by Jamey Stegmaier. He's talked about the development process behind it a few times. His blog is also a fountain of really good information.
Maybe think of it like this: you designed 4 different games, and you knew when they weren't working and decided to move on. That's healthy and reasonable design practice.
Stuff you rip out doesn't have to be thrown away. Keep it in your back pocket because some of it might still be useful. I think it's actually quite useful to strip the whole game back down the studs and rebuild it. It helps you get over design sticking points, and as I said the good prior ideas you have you can add back in later, but get the core engine functional and fun before adding too much more in.
I change it after each playtest. Sometimes significantly, I do it mostly because the more you break it the more you'll know what you want it to be. Sounds like you are a little further along in terms of your mechanics/rules. It might be worthwhile to add something totally off the beaten path to your game, you can always take it out but you might find some aspect of it interesting. I tried adding equipment to my card game, and while I didn't end up keeping it in my game. it gave me a few ideas that I'm still trying out in new iterations.
I'd never force anyone, especially my wife, to play something they didn't enjoy. That sounds awful for all parties involved.
I concur. I've accepted that my wife will never play Aeon's End or Red Dragon Inn ever again.
Gloomhaven. So, this is a dungeon crawler themed game. I want to move and smack an enemy. But the game requires me to plan turns ahead because I have to use a card for movement. Now that card I use for movement could also be used for some cool or powerful attack. I have to decide which of these cool powerful attacks I now won't get to use for probably a few turns because that card is burned for moving. Now I have to assess every single card I have left in my hand and plan turns ahead to see which cards I may need so I can decide which ones to burn for movement. Really, I just want to move and attack and the game forces me to think like a chess grandmaster thinking many turns ahead. Then next turn I have to do the same thing all over again. Like really? In no other game I have played do I have to think and plan ahead so much just to do the simplest action. In the end, I don't feel like I'm playing a dungeon crawler. Feels more like chess or go.
It winds up more of a puzzle than a combat rpg simulator and that irks me.
I encountered a similar issue in my game. If something left from the hand I called it discard, if it left from the board I was using a bunch of similar sounding words but for simplicity sake I changed all of the wording to discard no matter from where. I think it depends on the amount of balance, if you use other terms, it will increase complexity. My thinking originally was that using distinct terms would help with clarity, but i found that it only made it confusing. Your mileage may vary.
I think the overall visuals communicate the style pretty well. However, I do have agree with the other comments about the symbol for 3 cards, just saying it in words would be simpler. I would also say the sentence that follows it should not be a separate sentence, I'd use a comma or semicolon. Other than, I'd maybe suggest a little bit more color for visual clarity, there's a lot of green.
25 isn't too bad at all. Maybe I'm being biased coming from playing TCGs. The average Yugioh card nowadays has around 70 words, compared to back in the day when the average was around 20-25.
Thanks. That is reassuring.
Depending whether you have a rule book of some description, if it's only a small selection of cards that need additional info/clarification maybe put that in a section of the rulebook? Perhaps put a small symbol e.g a lightbulb next to the vague text (this text should be enough for the player to remember the full card info at later plays) and towards the end of the rulebook use the same symbol again to show this is the section where additional info is
That's an interesting idea. I could definitely try that. I have a mock up made of a rulebook, which I need to work on.
The UI seems pretty clean on #1 and #2. The straight lines on the background of #3 & #4 might make them hard to read for some people. The color of the background in #5 is a little distracting. I think the first two are the strongest. I think the overall layout is good, not too cramped and it seems like you fit a lot of mechanics on there. I like it overall.
That is a tough call honestly. If I had to pick, I'd say the first one seems more unique to me. The first one also evokes more of a sense of style, at least more than the second one in my opinion.
These are some platforms I've used; each comes with their own learning curve, but they're free to share and nobody needs to install any new software.
Thanks. I'll look into those. I'd heard of screentop but I couldn't really find a good tutorial.
If you can pledge for it, it’s open.
That makes sense to me. Thanks.
I think you have to go with your gut when it comes to this.
Thanks. This is a good perspective. I think it's worth playtesting the new stuff once or twice. I could always backpedal later if it doesn't work out.
If it's stuff that didn't work at all, it's the only way to make your game better. But if you have had ideas and they didn't just work out after one match, maybe give it another 2 or 3 tries.
Thanks. Yeah, it mostly worked and I think I was just trying to correct a non-existent problem. The general wisdom that I have heard is to cut out features until the game bleeds and then cut two more times. Leaning on the side of taking things out is probably better so I don't add new problems.
Are they any good DnD simulators that aren't gloomhaven like? I've tried gloomhaven a few times and I just can't get into it. What would you recommend ?
4 hours from now
I'm at my 6th full reset for one of my projects that's been going on for 5 years now. I have a clear vision for the feeling and vision, but when mechanics don't hit the spot and I switch them I have to redo all components and cards from the ground up.
Phew okay, so four full resets is not a bad thing.
If only skulls matter for killing regular enemies do you still roll the numbered dice? What purpose do the cards serve? Are they loot or are they a resource to effect die rolls?
Your mileage may vary but I found tabletopia be way less intuitive than tabletop simulator to be honest. You might be better off with TTS to be honest as others have suggested. Provided that you have created the cards, look at Canva or Nandeck, all you really have to do is drop the cards into the built in TTS deck maker and then add a custom deck from there.
I'm an accountant who likes hobby games so we do exist.
Number scores in general are a little misleading. A seven is a good respectable number. For me a 7 would mean I like the game a fair bit and I think it's worthy of being in my collection, I wouldn't bring it out every game night but I'd consider it depending on the group and there's maybe 1 or 2 minor mechanics that I don't care for. I might even recommend a 7/10 to friends if I thought they might like it. I'd give Pandemic, and Dice throne a 7/10. Secret Hitler is a 9/10, I'd say Aeon's End is a 10/10 for me personally (played solo anyway).
I joined this group because I was creating my own board game and thought “might as well join a game design group”.
I 100% agree. It's just a thing to do in my free time, I might as well try to get a more polished. And then if I'm satisfied and I have the capacity for it, I'll look at it more as a business. Even then it'd be a small print run.
Are the players picking these or are there 12 preset characters that have some combination of these?
These are preset characters, the players will be assigned one blindly.
Cool. Is this an RPG? I think it would be helpful to think in terms of what mechanical advantage the combinations confer and to work backwards from there. For example if they get a bonus for a particular action it can give you a basis to think of what to call that trait and what the associated traits could be, if that helps.
Maybe shift the text about the vassal to the vassal card itself. What is scrap? Also if certain cards types can avoid scrap maybe put that text on those cards. As a general rule, I try to keep card text under 2 short sentences.
I like legacy games, they create a really unique experience. When there's a legacy game on our list it's the only game we'll play on a game night and we can often get 60% or so through one in a single game night. As far as designing a legacy game I think that's a pretty challenging endeavor. You could test the individual scenarios and treat them each separately but eventually you'd want groups to go through the whole thing. Check out Charterstone by Jamey Stegmaier. He's talked about the development process behind it a few times. His blog is also a fountain of really good information.
Maybe think of it like this: you designed 4 different games, and you knew when they weren't working and decided to move on. That's healthy and reasonable design practice.
I hadn't thought of it that way. That's a positive outlook, thanks.
Stuff you rip out doesn't have to be thrown away. Keep it in your back pocket because some of it might still be useful. I think it's actually quite useful to strip the whole game back down the studs and rebuild it. It helps you get over design sticking points, and as I said the good prior ideas you have you can add back in later, but get the core engine functional and fun before adding too much more in.
Thanks. Yeah I keep all of the prior google docs. I reverted back on a couple of changes at one point. I kind of overcorrected a mechanic.
I change it after each playtest. Sometimes significantly, I do it mostly because the more you break it the more you'll know what you want it to be. Sounds like you are a little further along in terms of your mechanics/rules. It might be worthwhile to add something totally off the beaten path to your game, you can always take it out but you might find some aspect of it interesting. I tried adding equipment to my card game, and while I didn't end up keeping it in my game. it gave me a few ideas that I'm still trying out in new iterations.
Slimes and grubs seem to spawn normally for me, however to mold cavelings escape unless I'm nearby
Idk about odds of getting on the show or how he partners for ads or anything, but:
His podcast is great. I think he only does finished games, a great resource nonetheless.