Видео

me, starting the video (clueless): wow how articulate, i bet this guy would have a field day with house of leaves me, 5 and 1/2 minutes in: [WAR FLASHBACKS] lol actually a great video though ! no idea if youve actually experienced the book or not but these sort of concepts as they interact with narrative design have been tumbling around my noggin in a way you articulate so nicely. definitely giving a subscribe!

maybe the best game essay channel right now .

I’m glad to hear things have progressed! Condolences for the loss of even more free time though 😔 This is completely non-sequitur to anything you mention in the video, but the line “the snail has a power level of 5” begs to be used in a RUclips poop/YTPMV

I know it's not the same, but have you considered using Tabletop Simulator to test the game with people online? Maybe folks from your Patreon would be interested? And given that it is just files you don't need to keep re-printing card modifications for each iteration. Didn't know you also participated in GMTK gamejam! Please show your entry in the next video! Would love to check it out!

I enjoyed the question about defining the audience. I'm working on something that's kind of half way between a TCG (instant actions on your opponent's turn, big thinky plays) and Board game (there's a circular grid cut into pieces that people move around on) and it seems like to move it more in one direction or the other it almost feels like I'd have to make the game into something else at which point it isn't the game anymore! Wahhh

Is there a way to make lower capture targets while also making the capture worth less than another capture in an interesting way. Like if you capture a lower cost target, but it doesnt count toward a win-total until you capture another target that synergizes with it. Like a cicada shell could be a very low target that doesnt give you point toward winning, until you also capture "swarm infested tree". The tree can have its own points, but is average until you have the cicada shell

Easiest way to get a lot of playtesting is Tabletop Simulator. Might be a bit annoying to set-up yourself, but if you ever make the current files public and gave the go-ahead I'd be willing to do it. On what you said about the increase in capture points potentially leading to people "giving up" lanes, you could add a rule that if you have a certain amount of points on a lane (maybe 10) and are uncontested, you instantly win it. This might be unnecessary complexity and make players have moves they feel like they're "forced" to play at times, but I think it would entice players who might have intitally thought of seceding a lane to instead try to fight for it.

There’s an important leap I find between playtesting you do with people, and playtesting you do where you just give the materials and the rules. Have you written up a rules document yet that’s for players? Or is it notes you have that you collate and communicate to testers? It’d be really interesting, and potentially easier to organise if you made packs you can give to people, and have them record their experience playing *and* figuring out the rules.

Finding playtesters is definitely the hardest part of designing, but there are quite a few online Dsicord groups that would work well with your timezone

I don't know how difficult it would be to mod a version of your game into Tabletop Simulator, but that game's got a thriving playerbase. If you were to upload a rules PDF with the mod, I'm sure you'd have at least a couple interested players from within the Steam community. And it could be easily linked to Patreon supporters who might already own Tabletop Simulator, too.

If you make a discord, would definitely be up to playtest with other people there.

Hello, thanks for another video. Have you considered releasing part of the game as a free PDF for people to print and play? It might get more people interested in buying/becking it in Kickstarter plus it will act as playtesting. And will there be more episodes in The Story Machines series or has this saga ended?

I give this video series a Worth Quotient of 10

If the art direction factors into worth quotient of a game, but all 3 games here had no distinguishing graphic art direction, what card games would you say *are* noteworthy for their art and presentation? Furthermore, in what ways does a card game's graphic design contribute to the gameplay experience and narrative drama? On a personal note: while I think I understand the perspective, -- essentially calculating the rate at which a game will reward your investment -- I don't know how to reduce input/output or any subjective metric to a number. Like my mind cannot comprehend how to systematically quantify Tic-Tac-Toe and Elden Ring in the same mathematic formula. Heck, even the Worth Quotient for a given game or piece of media can vary over time. As always, I'm happy to hear your perspective on these subjects. Looking forward to the next one~

Yo, my friends and i played so much Starrealms at the local coffee shop on fridays. It was the only deck builder i ever truly loved, and I never won against my friend Josh

for better or worse quotient gottem

But did she get to have a sleepover with Abigail?

Great point there about the faff of setting up the game up before playing it. It's interesting to think how Call of Duty's input value has gone up over the years and it's almost entirely down to everything before you start playing. Previously all I had to do was just install the game, boot the game and start playing but, when I tried to play the new Modern Warfare that was on game pass, I had to download 100GB of updates before I could even boot it. Then I had to sign up for an account (setting up 2FA of course) and sign in. Once I signed in, it turns out I had booted into the "Call of Duty Portal" or whatever it was so I had to find the option for Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer. Then I had to skip past a bunch of advertisements for battle passes and who knows what else. Then, when I tried to queue for a game, it needed to compile all of the shaders (whatever that means) so I had to wait another 10 minutes for that to happen before I could finally, finally get into a multiplayer game! Every time I get the itch to play now, I think "hmm... do I really want to sit through all of those menus first for what's a pretty mindless experience?". Anyway, great video as always! This is fast becoming my favourite thing on YT.

You rock! Thanks for making these videos

Great video! I just wanted to ask you why didn't you think that doing output - input makes more sense? I would much rather play a game with an output of 10 and an input of 5 then an output of 4 and an input of 2. For me I think it's: output - input + 2. Good luck with Bugfight!

Wow! Super cool finish there. That's the exact kind of interaction that I love. When a plan gets foiled, but the game state is just detailed enough that a completely different system can interact with what's already there that it wins the game in a different way. When you get beat by that, it feels deserved, when you win like that, it feels like you were playing the game instinctually.

Have you looked into Dextrous for your card layouts? It has hugely streamlined my iteration process.

the emergent complexity looks amazing in your game, do you have ideas on how to recreate similar results ?

amazing <3

This is what I was waiting to see! Even though you didn’t get a live recording, your recollection captured the emergent complexity from the Bugfight’s systems. I agree that it makes for a good proof-of-concept. I also like how you tackled the “ant-hole” problem by utilizing existing systems to create a new yet intuitive dynamic. A question that is admittedly off-topic but that I’ve been thinking about since the last video: What are the aesthetic elements that you are seeking to incorporate in Bugfight? Your artist friend(s) notwithstanding, where do you see yourself taking inspiration from? As always thank you for the video!! I love the “ASMR” and slice-of-life bits in the introduction. The vibes are so relaxing😊 See ya next time~

It very much feels like you are going for the "unicorn" of game design - low complexity but high decision space. something I feel we all strive for in game design to some extent. One thing I have recently been thinking about in that vein is opportunity cost. Its not the only way to add inherent complexity but its a fairly easy was to add a decision space that doesn't necessarily add rules (e.g. adding a choice of new bug rather than off the top, or some kind of draw 2 keep one per turn, etc). Enjoying the vids, looking forward to more! Thinking about the "gateway" games that are successful (king domino, Carcassonne, even settlers) They often have a secondary layer of complexity based on statistics, and the opportunity cost created by a limited, known, pool of potential outcomes. Just something to think about if your going for this area.

Hi G&C! Thank you for the vid, just found your channel (I wish I had time to record my thoughts, would probably make me a better designer lol) I know what you mean about the "system design" spiral, but you got to where you got to because of a set of design objectives (simple, quick to learn, etc,) if you think the system is not hitting those objectives then by all means change it but if its just that some cards aren't working start by adjusting them. The dichotomy of simple ad strategic is always hard, I will say though that you may find it simple but that is because you know the game inside and out, it is probably twice as complex as you personally think it is! As for the game itself, do the bugs on your opponent side make any effect (other than them capturing the objective before you?) i.e can you use their symbols?

Why not pitch the prototype to a publisher instead of doing everything yourself?

My question is: when you say the game may take 30-45 minutes, does that mean one playthrough of the game, or is that multiple rounds of the game in a best-of-x format? I ask because -and this is just a suggestion- when I think about the family games that I like to play, and that I've been able to introduce to my family to play at dinner time, the ones that get picked up are the ones that (like you said) have minimal rules overhead and take about 10-15 minutes. To me, I think you can get more value out of simple and refined mechanics if you make the game play in shorter increments, and then you can play the game as many times as you like in your session. As an example, I went through the undertaking of teaching my mother and younger brother Root, which was the most complex game they've played to date. We got through it and it was a great time, but by the time we were finished, the next time we could play the game was next weekend. As a counter example, I was able to teach them Love Letter in a couple sentences and examples, and we could play many repetitions of the game which solidified the rules (given, they are already simple) in their mind. The point being: I think if you're aiming for a general audience (which I'd define as families, kids, but also board game enthusiasts that want a lightweight game), then it's better to err on the side of brevity and allow for people to have more agency over how long their gaming session will be, by way of being able to say "hey, this game takes about ten minutes per play, let's play for 40 minutes and get 4-5 rounds in" I also think stripping down the element system from 4 to 3, whilst it will obviously require testing, is probably for the best, as it has a multiplicative affect on the amount of card synergies that the players will actually be able to use by nature of all of the water element cards instead being one of the other three. Anyways, as always, best of luck with your game. These videos was no small part in inspiring me to work on my own lane battling card game, although it's a scenario based solo game with a far different theme, so in the unlikely event I were to publish it don't worry, I'm not taking a chunk of your pie. Take care!

Watching your videos on bugfight, I keep asking myself: "what interesting decisions am I going to have in this game?" The game's idea is neat, but ultimately I play cards (from a limited hand) to spots that give me the most value by activating their powers. Is there something else?

Obviously, you will ultimately make all the decisions for what the identity of your game is. But to me the thing that stands out as unique is acutally the simplicity. Most battlers that I can think of are pretty rules intensive and strategy heavy, so being able to pick it up and play quick is actually pretty cool in my eyes (though I'm not the most familiar with lane battlers in particular, so maybe this is off base). If you decide to lean more on this, then you'll definitely need to keep the design pretty much as minimal as you have now. Wish you the best of luck in development man! Seems like a pretty fun framework for a game

"lane battler" was a new term to me, so idk what the competition looks like. But what I like about this is the ecology theme--I'd say lean into the flavor of "building an ecosystem" and you'd have a game I'd have fun showing to my friends

Oh I made him close his tablet! Hehe, this is fun to follow along with. Makes me want to get back to my projects. Alas, I am on a fantastic, relaxing, and incredible holiday in Japan for another week, lol.

This was a fantastic watch. Keep up the great work!

My 9yo loves Here to Slay. I feel an 8 or 9yo could handle what you've shown so far pretty easily. Of course, it depends on the kid. That said, I showed her a prototype I'm working on that is currently just numbers on plain white cards. Her eyes glazed over instantly. Presentation is key to younger players' investment in a game.

First, putting out a video once a week, even if you consider these to be pretty off-the-cuff, is incredible already. You've got a family and other enriching parts of life to attend to! I'm just glad to see another video come out from you, whenever it may be~ Honestly, I felt like kind of an "armchair project manager" (read: jerk) asking the questions I did regarding a timeline, audience, distribution, etc., it's just what came to me at the time. This entry was, once again, very enlightening. At least, I feel like I have a clearer idea of what your goals and paradigms are for Bugfight. Last time, I said "err on the side of complexity." But upon hearing you describe "gateway games" with regards to tabletop games and also your talk about "complexity budget," I see now that my broad suggestion goes somewhat against your vision for Bugfight. A game that's quick to pick up, quick to play, and with as little "rule exceptions" as possible. I have a greater appreciation, now, for the way the system is designed, and how careful you're being with tinkering with that structure. I... think I have a question this time, but I'm not sure if it's a good one or if it's even fully formed yet: You say you want to avoid "rules exceptions" in which people have to look up a resolution. Do you intend to (or do you think it's even possible to) put in any cards which subvert expectations, the players' understanding of the rules, without resulting in such a "rule exception" or just plain making the game too complicated? As always, thank you for the video! Hope you get well soon, take as much time as you need between these entries.

Hey! Sorry to hear you have covid. I bet your nice setup will help you get better soon. Very relaxing and enjoyable hearing someone talk board games outside! I feel complexity budget needs to be addressed for your target audience for sure but it looks fuzzy at this time. You know that chasing too many rabbits is not a good idea. I suppose you can catch a few but still... The first game that came to mind after listening to the video, and it might help you figure out how to design the game with respect to complexity budget, art and all, is Jaipur. It's a simple yet strategic card game. It's wildly popular amongst people of all ages. It has simple art and meaningful decisions. I don't know if it's the kind of game you really have in mind, yours can go either way like you mention: deeper and complex or more casual.

Thank you for your work! I find the way you talk about games very interesting in thorough. You got me hooked in the "Story Machine" series, will there be a sequel some day? BTW I am sorry for a misspell or something like that, I am not a native speaker.

I hope you have recovered by the time you uploaded the video on RUclips.

Thanks for answering my questions and for the transparency on the complexity tightrope you have to walk when designing a game like Bugfight. Excited to get my hands on the game eventually. Do you think you’ll have resources publicly available before launching the game on kickstarter?

Just found your channel and I wanted to say that I find your approach to discussing game design refreshing. I find these types of "design diary" videos to be rare for board games, but it is exactly what I have been looking for. Really enjoying the videos and looking forward to the next one!

Maybe this comment is not a big contribution to the subject matter of "game design", but you are goddam right about Tenet. Keep the design diary coming! And have a fast recovery!

This is probably a misguided suggestion, but an idea I have is that along with elemental synergy, you could have bugs that synergize with other bugs. Like a spider synergizing with a fly could give the spider a buff at the cost of losing the fly. The ants could probably synergize with themselves, making them a very dangerous card in numbers, which could add a layer of mind games if they're also very common. One mechanic I also don't fully understand are the rest cards. It seems to feel like an arbitrary way to slow down the game. Though I also don't know how they affect the mid to late game where they're probably a lot more interesting, but they do seem to make for a somewhat boring early game though. When it comes to target audience, I think families with young kids is probably the best approach. Just don't try to stress about trying to make it specifically for kids and feel the need to dumb it down or try to pander to them in some way. That said, it's probably best to avoid mechanical bloat as well and not have something that could be too intimidating for your typical family game night.

About your "Ant" problem. I have recently had a similar problem with a worker placement game I have on the design table at the moment. Some of the resources are needed but a worker placement with resources with too many resources is not fun at all. feels more like item management. So I removed the entire system and wanted to start again. (Great Idea, but after 2 days, not helping as it became a downward spiral where the more I change, the more the more other system also have to change... Listening to your system with the Rest (being a way to draw cards is simple and yet so clean - Love it) but the Ant, made me wonder, you said no player wants to play the ant as situation where the ant is powerful is just that, situational and longer gameplan, how about the Ant as Multi Colour Energy. If you turn ants (as base) into each ant being its own energy that can feed into another bug on the field, but more then 1 ant in a row or column becomes "Colony" so leaning more into the nature of the bug instead? Your idea of the bug lane battle game makes me think of the nature of the cards VS birds in a game like Wingspan where an ability has some reference to the animal. And not to dive to deep into the buggy nature of Formicidae, but other bugs eat Ants, is there a way to use that as mechanic, like in digimon TCG where a Digi Egg is needed to hatch a baby? And without to many new mechanics, having ants in each lane VS sacrificing an ant for another bug where if you use the ant as food, there is a + effect on the new bug (or only some bugs can have that). It can create a base of strategy where when an ant is played, the other player might not know what your next more would be.

🪲⚔

🪲⚔

game should work without ants.

Interesting video! Have you read Jamie Stegmiers’ book on crowd funding? how is your play testing going?

I like the idea of bugs fighting over rocks and trash is fun. My thoughts. I think leaning into the theather of reavealing cards is important to the game. I feel like placing down three cards per turn underminds that a bit. It is a lot of new information to parse each turn. It also makes the choices harder because you have to actively think about the sequence of events you want to set up in 3 rows. Having to place a resource in a row first to be able to use it in a subsequent turn times that by three rows, that is a lot of up front planning. I would find a way for players to be both surprised and out think what the opponent is going to play. Give players some information that might give them insight into what opponents will play but enough flexibility to still surprise. I would design the resource and ability sysem in such a way that each type of resource offers a specific collection of abilities. That would give players allow players to plan but not be sure whst the opponent will do. And I would only play one card per turn. If you wanted to preserve the mystery of what line they would be playing into, you could give each player two dummy cards to place in the other 2 lines. I like the idea of taking the location cards. I can't twll if they do anything besides give end game points. I think it could be interesting if the locations gave the player who takes them an ability. Locations with better abilities could be balanced by having less points. They could be abilities that grant a permanent bonus or be a one shot power that you just flip over to show it is used. Also it could be interesting to have different capture requirements besides reqching a strength threshold first. Maybe the location is captured if any bug is there but it goes to the player with the highest power. Maybe if you have 3 of the same bug you caputre. Would open up stratigic choices. Go for low scoring easy to win cards or with abilities or try and secure those big scoring cards and wait for the bonuses. I think the plus bonus cards are clunky. I would let players chain extra bugs into play with special abilities. Lets you plan a combo and discovering combos is fun. Also i would have bugs that knock bugs off the other side. Lets you play a sort of resource manipulation game. Also bugs that care about resources on the opponent's side might be interesting. Just some ideas to spice things up. Good luck with your game. Interesting video. Enjoyed it.

having 2 copies of the same card is difficult in every tcg i've ever tried save pokemon. you'd need to do the skull servant thing where you add a million ways to tutor them out and maybe other cards are technically named "ant" etc I havent played obviously, but the game also seems slow paced. For every bug you have to play a rest. Maybe "draw 1 per turn" is a possible accomodation. that said there's a strong foundation here and I'd play the full version 100% edit: last thing is that breezy and complex arent exclusive e.g. chess