Since the post that functioned as the blog recap I'd decided I don't want to discontinue work here entirey but instead I don't want to keep working on the blog at nearly the pace I had previously. This has predictably led me to have more time to work on games, which is good, but without the weekly deadlines I've assigned myself, I don't know if I'm actually bring more productive. It's kind of hard to tell. That said, I've made a lot of work on Proving Grounds. This includes having all the mercenary models painted, magnetized and based, which was obviously a pretty big step! I also have all the units cards finished and the player reference. So then I actually played it. I've discussed previously about the importance of just slamming out a playable prototype of a game as early as possible to avoid wasting time on something that isn't very much fun, or leading you into a dead end of design with mechanics that are kind of crappy. Well, I ignored my own experience and advice on this with Proving Grounds for sure and went in on many hours of painting and building, plus making statblocks and cards.
I'm happy to report it was extremely informative and productive, and the game is quite fun, but obviously still rough around the edges. Few things are as revealing as a first playthrough of a game in development. I can't believe it's almost May. Last week's goals:
Uncommon Valor
I did what I said I'd do, though I have to admit there were a lot of complications. I also have been spending a bit of time playing the Panzer Dragoon games, so there's that. A very good week for testing, though it was a swerve...
Uncommon Valor
I didn't do this. Instead, I played my Monster Mash against some Star Marines. It was very productive. Czech this out: Uncommon Valor
I did get to test this game, a lot. It produced a giant set of notes with corrections and suggestions that have already been integrated to the rules document. It was very, very productive. It was also actually quite fun. This is part of a series on getting and using feedback when designing games. You can find the previous entries by following these links:
Once you have testers and you're playing with them, or you've found volunteers to look over your rules, they're hopefully going to provide you with input. Synthesizing this input can be challenging unto itself because it may conflict with your vision for the game, it might not be very useful, or you may be really attached to something that isn't working... that kind of stuff. So ultimately how do you try to make the most of this valuable resource when it's provided to you? This is part of a series on getting and using feedback when designing games. You can find the other entries by following these links:
How To Use Testers In PersonFace-to-face live feedback is generally the most helpful type you can get when working on a game project for a couple of reasons; immediacy, clarity, and the ability to follow up on statements can happen as quickly as you can articulate thoughts. It's probably smart to prioritize in-person feedback over other types, with the exception of some cases (like when getting rules tested blind to make sure they're mechanically solid); as a result it's worth putting some effort into making sure you get the most out of these precious people who will waste their time on your work.
Depending on where you live, you might have a huge pool of people to draw from who play games and could help you, or an extremely small group to work with. In either case the same principles will apply. The bottom line is above all else you have to respect other people's time. This isn't just a question of manners, but also one of maximizing your own benefit. There's some things you distinctly don't want face-to-face game tests to be resolving, because they're a waste of everyone's time. This is part of a series on getting and using feedback when designing games. You can find the other entries by following these links: The internet is crawling with amateur game designers who want feedback on their project, but few people
offering help. How can you give your project the best chance of getting looked at in a meaningful fashion by somebody who will help you? Before going into that, let's recognize some realities of game design ghettos.
Trying to change these realities might be a noble goal, but for the time being we're going to work within these parameters. Before we go any further, let's sidestep some common landmines that blow up your best chances at getting good feedback from others. Then I started designing Afterglow, I wanted it to feature actions being set under time pressure double-blind. That was the central feature I wanted. This is easy to do using some component configurations that I can easily make myself, but I also wanted things to be easily replicated by print-and-play people who would like to play the game, without relying on elaborate components that most people won't make.
Additionally, since action markers are also essentially the core of interaction during games, they need to have some important properties:
I spend some time in various game design ghettoes: online communities where a bunch of people are grinding away on making their games and interface with each other for help, ideas, and motivation to some degree. These are a sort of swirling maelstrom of creativity and theorizing. This environment is a powerful incubator for ideas, and can provide a project with a lot of momentum towards getting started.
Unfortunately, this is usually where I see things stop and fizzle out. Ideas rarely become games. I posted a spicy hot battle report for Plamo vs Plamo hosted on Imgur. Please do check it out! In this game I was testing the Mystery Box acenario and also working out some of the Flying rules, as well as the Placement Weapons which the Loto was carrying.
The flying rules are ok. I'm not 100% happy with them still, but they're perfectly functional. The placement weapons are pretty cool, with the mind game of laying decoys and a variety of possible combinations of weapon types, triggers and effects. In this game the Loto was using normal mines, but you can build ones that push the enemy away or knock them down, set them on fire, all kinds of stuff. They were quite useful. All considered, a pretty good time. It was also interesting to play a four-way game with each player independently controlling one machine. The Action Track system makes this type of play very viable and fun, since everyone is involved constantly and there were lots of reactions flying around. I'm really happy with the way this game has shaped up. It's only taken two years. |
Blogroll SearchArchives
September 2023
Categories
All
|