Post by: Grant Rodiek

I don’t sit idly well. It drives my girlfriend positively batty and I’m sure my boss will soon fill my yearly review with comments to this regard. I stay busy, often for good, sometimes for ill.

I’m not letting myself touch Wozzle, at least not the version people are testing for us. It’s a good build, it’s testing very well, and it’s important to us that people download it with confidence knowing we won’t just yank it out from under them every 30 seconds with an update. That’s fine with a digital game, but when people take the time to print, cut, and sleeve, we owe them a steady build.

But. The mind wanders. We really want Wozzle to be just awesome. We’ve chased after a few rabbits already. Some entirely fruitless, or mostly fruitless with one tiny benefit. This weekend has revealed yet another rabbit hole.

Naturally, we dove in head first.

Let’s talk about why I chase them.

Note: Forgive the mix of singular (I, me) and plural (us, we) in this document. I’m semi-writing from my own perspective and that of me and my design partner, Joshua Buergel.

What would your favorite publisher do? Or, what would a great publisher do? I had a mental revelation yesterday. When it hit me, it made so much sense that it astounded me it hadn’t guided my thinking prior to this. As I thought on it further, I realized it had influenced me in the past, but not to the same degree. The thought was simply, in regards to Wozzle, “How would Gamewright handle this?”

I think Gamewright is a pretty incredible publisher of games and I own a few of their products. My most recent addition from them, Cube Quest, has already been enjoyed 16 times in the 2 weeks that I’ve owned it. Their games are simple, playful, beautiful, and just fun to own.

I’ve done this with other games in the past. I designed Sol Rising to be something Colby Dauch and Jerry Hawthorne of Plaid Hat Games would enjoy. I have another in-progress prototype that is meant squarely for Portal Games. But, in those cases it was more a high level “who could I pitch this to?” type question.

With Wozzle, it led us to nitpick our rules. Gamewright only publishes a few games a year. They are aimed at a very wide market of parents, families, and children, which means they need to be colorful, clean, easy to learn, and well-refined.

When viewing Wozzle through the same lens, we started asking quite a few questions. Which of these rules add more complexity than they add fun? Which of these rules don’t suit our target audience? Where can we condense and focus the fun?

An example of something we skimped out is the kicker. This is the concept in poker where you have two people tied with, say, a two pair. Neither of them has a higher pair, so you need a kicker. This could be the card in the Community, which means they split the pot, OR a card from somebody’s hand. The problem is, this is a fairly unlikely occurrence. Furthermore, it’s a really complicated thing to explain. Is it so bad in this rare occasion people just split the pot?

No, we determined. The ratio of fun to complexity wasn’t where it needed to be.

In some cases, this process involves us doing a lot of extra work to go from an 85 to an 87 on a quiz, to use an American school system metaphor, but it is what a big, real publisher would do. Therefore, shouldn’t we hold ourselves to that same standard? Another change is that I re-made all 30 cards to not change the mechanic, but the presentation. Why? We think it’ll be more accessible. It was a pain, but it’s what a AAA publisher would do.

In the software world, we often branch our builds. This is often for the purpose of a demo at a convention like E3 or Gamescom. We branch, isolate, and polish a build for the show. Meanwhile, the majority of the team continues to work on the actual, shipping software.

Another, more recent phenomenon is the notion of A/B testing. Pioneered (I think) by free to play game developers, different tuning variables, art, UI layout, or even mechanics will be shown between different sample groups, called cohorts. The purpose is to find out which solution works the best and propagate it to every build.

We’ve branched Wozzle before with minor changes and now we have not one, not two, but three rules documents that we’re testing and pondering. Why? For the same reason our nefarious government overlords have R&D. We want to see if we can learn anything from our branched skunk works projects that can make the main line better. There’s a pretty high chance that these branches will result in fruitless dead ends. But, by chasing these windmills we’re able to determine that the mainline is in fact the superior solution OR, just maybe, find something even better.

I realize all of this sounds like the indecisive spinning of a mad man. But, we’re not! If anything, I think this is some of the most sophisticated, mature development I’ve ever put into a personal project. I’ve personally taken inspiration from other sources around me lately.

At work, we had a few key features “locked down.” We thought they were done. Then, someone asked if they should really be locked down. We all grumbled, sighed, and then thought about it. Like the multiple stages of grief, we soon found ourselves at acceptance. No, it wasn’t as good as it could be. Yes, it can be better. The result? We made it better.

In another case, I have a beloved elder project that I thought was pretty good. As it turns out, the foundation was pretty good. The core was good. But the details? Not incredible and not as good as they could be. I’ve had all of my beliefs and assertions challenged and it has led to a great leap forward.

There’s acceptance of the known and the embrace of potential. Potential, though, like ideas, is everywhere and sometimes just hot air.

Calculated, thoughtful questioning may be the best thing for your design. If you make an B game, is that good enough? Can you make it a B+? Then an A-? The line for when to stop and when enough is enough is really fuzzy. I clearly haven’t found it, or I simply haven’t been able to identify it.

Who then, can show us the line?

Our players and loyal testers are potentially the greatest line identifiers. With each rabbit hole we’ve engaged a mixture of our most dedicated testers, team members, and peers. The response hasn’t been universal yet and I never expect it will be.

Twice, today, we had our survey return with an answer of “No! Don’t do that!” In a sense, it’s an incredible compliment. What the hell are you doing? Don’t touch it. I like what you’ve done. It’s comforting to know both that people like what we already have enough to yell at us AND that we’re humble enough to return from the depths of our rabbit hole, hats in hands, with nothing but shrugs and mud speckled grins.

The lesson I aim to share is this: when you think your rules are done, take another pass. When you think you have the best set of cards, identify your 3 weakest ones and try to replace them. If your mind conjures an alternate mechanic, branch and test. At least discuss it.

When you walk past the cute girl at the park, turn around. Introduce yourself. She may be involved with someone, or she may become the love of your life. That’s a bit hyperbolic, I agree. But, look around. Yeah, that’s right. I chose that name for a reason.

7 thoughts on “Windmills

  1. You’ve made a lot of points that really resonate with me currently! I can’t tell you how many hours I have spent driving my car (I have a long commute everyday – 1.5 hours total) going back and forth about a terrible number of details about my game. Stewing over the details of the rule book, wondering if everything was written in the most clear, concise and easy to understand way.

    Then questioning whether I should change another mechanic only to recognize how many things depend on that mechanic and how every else would need to be different – and I would again need to rewrite rule.

    Then having committed play testers tell me not to mess with it, an others criticize things that so many other have already given such solid feedback on!

    And like you just said, “I realize all of this sounds like the indecisive spinning of a man man!” Haha great post Grant!

    • Amusingly I come off as indecisive, but this was some of the most thoughtful, calculated development I’ve ever done. Every change and idea has a very clear goal, purpose, and end point. But, only testing can prove it out.

  2. I’d love to see what you did with the card design. I started working on a new one last week but wasn’t quite sure if it was what you’d want so I scrapped it for now. (that’s why I made the Wozzle pinboard) We’re working on a web app that would make your card redesign much less painless as long as you have the core info in a spreadsheet.

    • Not ready yet to share. I have a new version printed, but it’s secret until it’s proven. For now, people can play our PNP and still help us support both versions of the game.

      You can actually use Adobe Illustrator and Excel to quickly export card information. I don’t use that personally, but many of my friends do. I’m pretty quick with Photoshop at this point. I’d be curious to see the app and happy to check it out when it’s ready.

      Could I see the Pinboard? I haven’t seen it yet. What’s your goal with the Pinboard?

  3. Pingback: Today in Board Games Issue #159 - Angry Ogre Games - Today in Board Games

  4. This actually came up for me quite recently so I thought I’d share.

    I recently started a blog to review rulebooks called Rulebook Review (clever name I know) and was considering what I could use as a hook of sorts, what would make me unique.

    I ended up taking a plush mustache Susan one of my younger sisters adored and used him as a mascot. Why you ask? I looked at Tom Vassal and his reviews and realized how I liked some of the silly and over the top things he did and how it really made me connect to his reviews. So I took a stab at humor and instead of thumbs up my mustache friend Susan gives curls up (it’s hard to give thumbs up with no thumbs!)

    Plus I agree on reall7\y looking over a rulebook for some reason ;). On a rulebook I just helped out we were able to find just by reading the rules that the game had a fatal flaw, something game ruining. Had he missed it the game would be terrible otherwise, it’s good to get as many eyes as you can looking at a rulebook.

  5. Pingback: Restless Progress, New Wozzle | Hyperbole Games

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: