|
Writing the rules. You've got it in your head and it's easy to explain. Trouble is, if your game ever gets published you're not always going to be there when someone opens the box for the first time. Perhaps one of the hardest tasks in game invention is to explain the game rules on paper. What might be clear in the inventors head has to be interpreted correctly through the rulebook. So, like play testing, rule writing should be tested to discover that your rules are correctly understood. Also try not to over complicate your game with too many rules. I say this knowing that the complexity in a game will sometimes make the task very difficult. But it is critical to a player's first impression. Presentation. Assuming most game inventors hope a major game company that has the assets, outlets and promotional savvy might accept their game idea, a good presentation could certainly help. Perhaps putting yourself in the position of one of those people that assess the presentations that the publishers receive is a good idea. Consider if you were to assess or appraise a game delivered to you. If that game looked like a finished product and showed a dedicated effort it would more likely get your attention than some notes scribbled on a piece of paper. I have made boxed presentations of each of my games reflecting how they might look as a published product. I also have laminated boards for play test sessions. At the same time as saying that, your game still needs to be more than just a pretty box full of pretty parts. Manufacture. Another reason inventors look to large game companies is probably the experience and resources they have to produce the number required to keep cost down. Coupled with their retail outlets and promotional expertise most inventors can see the sense of seeking a royalty knowing if accepted their game will get wide ranging exposure. Following are stories from two inventors I’d spoken with:- I saw an advertisement in a newspaper for a game called “THE MASTER ASTROLGER”. The ad was for purchase and assembly of several thousand games, parts and boxes plus a glue press and shrink wrap machine. The inventor (a lady) had spent a fortune on overseas patents and trademarks which were included as part of the purchase. In conversation she said she was probably wrongly advised to have spent so much to protect her invention. And then failing to find a willing manufacturer decided to go it alone. The decision was probably unwise as (without wanting to be cruel), the game concept wasn't very strong and while her actual board design looked impressive the components were of poor quality no doubt because of cost restrictions. Any return if sold (and that was a big if) would not have come close to assembly cost. I bought another game at a garage sale called “STOP PRESS” produced by the game manufacturer Crown and Andrews. This game was a fabulous fun concept about opposing players creating and voting on the most sensational newspaper headlines from, Words Names and Places etc. These words were to be pressed from and returned to a heavy cardboard type of board rack and represented old newspaper print blocks. Fitting these words was like fitting, jig saw puzzle pieces that didn't refit either to the rack or these other cardboard newspaper placards. Worse than annoying the game was virtually un-playable. I had since seen other unplayed copies, which is a terrible shame as it had enormous potential. Ever eager to converse with other board game inventors I saw the STOP PRESS designers name Alec Leopold and after a few phone calls got to speak to him. He had long since accepted its lack of success. His was probably a slightly unusual story as to the manufacturer acting probably too eager (that is unusual) in rushing production. The problem with the game parts was really a lack of planning by the manufacturer and not the designer. Aside from that there were a number of changes they made to his game that he didn't really want made which is another thing to consider when you offer it to a game company.
|