استریم

دسته: بازی‌های نقش‌آفرینی

  • An Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East After Action Report – InsideGMT


    Introduction by Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s Game Developer, Fred Schachter: When ACME Designers Chris & Mark, as well as myself, first read in BGG James Lowry’s entertaining ACME Game After Action Report, we thought “Wow, wouldn’t this, with a bit of editing, be grand to share with InsideGMT’s audience?!?” and so this article came to be.

    Hopefully, readers will enjoy the Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East gaming experiences of James and his three fellow ACME adventurers as they seek victory to become “The King of the Fertile Crescent”. What’s remarkable is that this was their first time playing the game!  James has a wonderful blog covering gaming as well as a range of other topics of interest to gamers, so if you enjoy his ACME presentation, there’s more, much more, available at: www.rindis.com/blog

    Incidentally, Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea, ACME’s predecessor, is available via GMT Games – Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea, as is Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East (ACME).  See GMT Games – Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East for details as well as a wealth of other ACME material.

    Now take it away James!

    Back on the 25th of May (the day before Memorial Day), I had some people over to my home for FtF gaming. Patch was originally scheduled to attend so we could have a five-player game, but he couldn’t make it, thereby leaving me, Dave, Mark, and Jason to learn the rules for a four-player game of Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East.

    It has been a while, but our group has played its brother game, Ancient Civilizations of the Inner Sea a few times and enjoyed it, so I figured this would be easy for us to get into. I panicked when I looked at the rules before everyone arrived that morning and realized I didn’t remember nearly as much as I thought I did. But once we were looking at the actual game spread out on the table, everything started coming back. Short of the new rules, we just needed to go through the details of conflict (again) and follow the sequence of play on the aid cards.

    Mark and I had gone over the ACME Playbook ahead of time, and we decided upon the “Cyrus the Great” scenario as the only historical four-player scenario utilizing the full map. In hindsight, a more compact scenario would have been better, as we needed a bit of the board to save table space; notably my smallish table held the main board and our supplies of tokens fine enough, but we didn’t have a good place for the cards of available deities. The random draws for civilizations gave me the bullseye—I mean Babylon.

    The scenario’s other civilizations use the game’s standard, somewhat compact, setups, but this scenario’s special rules grant Babylon the entire Fertile Crescent at the start of the game. The real changes in ACME from its ACIS predecessor are the terrain rules, and the game board’s green fertile areas are powerful, as instead of only growing with two-disk settlements, you can just have single disk camps and grow, or, best of all, have three disk cities to get VPs and growth disks.

    With that setup, my initial growth was phenomenal, and only stalled later for a single turn, when a horde of barbarians came storming out of the deserts which kept me from having control of a bunch of fertile areas. After that, they were largely cleared out and my growth resumed to put me back from a poor board position to max out the number of disks in use. (Each civilization has fifty disks available for board position and growth, which then get sent back to stock by events played against you and competition. It’s very much like the stock in Tresham’s classic Civilization board game.)

    Mark had the Medes & Persians to Babylon’s east and was a constant thorn in my side (as he should be). But I didn’t have a lot of other troubles, so while he got more powerful as the game went on, he could never really challenge me in the Fertile Crescent for longer than a turn at a time but progressively took control of areas just east of there. He also refused to join in on the initial rush to acquire a deity, so he didn’t get VPs that way, and at the end of Epoch III (which the scenario starts in), he was trailing well behind in points.

    Dave had the Lydian Kingdom of the board’s northwest, and Jason Egypt, safely tucked in the board’s southeast with the Nile—the board’s other fertile area (but only five areas to the Tigris and Euphrates’ thirteen).  To my relief, the two of them largely focused on each other, partially powered by Dave’s aggressively sea-oriented offensive strategy as he strove to gain a foothold on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. I was more focused on pure growth and managing my frontiers at first, so Dave also took a lead in cities, followed closely by Jason, and I slipped into third place in VPs.

    We broke for a late-ish lunch at the end of Epoch III, and Epoch IV saw the earlier conflicts come into ever-sharper focus. Mark was getting his act together and caught up to me in points (fueled by that bad turn with the barbarian invasion), and he started catching up to the other Civilizations as well. I swept away the Fertile Crescent’s barbarian invaders and concentrated on cities (and growth!) for a revival during the game’s last two turns that put me near the VP lead again, but I didn’t quite catch up to my rivals.

    Both Epochs ended after three turns (it varies from two to four), and IV concluded with a Lydian (Dave -Blue disks) win with 36 VPs, followed by Egypt (Jason – Green Disks) at 34, Babylon (me – Light Colored Tan Disks)  at 33, and the Medes & Persians (Mark – Red Disks) at 27 VP.

    Presumably, a fourth turn could have favored me for a win, but the VP gain caused by twelve cities caught everyone’s attention, and with the borders of Egypt and the Lydians now truly at my doorstep in the west, I was looking at a lot of negative attention at that point. (On the other hand, you can see in the photo below that Dave was still dealing with the aftermath of two rounds of barbarians.) I had actually gambled on this turn to build as many cities as I could (and since my cities could generate growth and VPs it’s not the serious decision it is for everyone else) to get back in the lead. Sadly, I didn’t quite make it, and didn’t have the extra turn to carry the momentum forward.

    I think I like the long, skinny map set up of ACIS better, and I don’t see enough difference between the wonder and deity mechanics for it to matter all that much save that an ACME civilization can have but a single deity. But the terrain mechanics (including desert and mountain, which are also important) really make ACME the better game in my view.

    Certainly, all of us have enjoyed both “brothers”, ACIS and Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East, and they will see the table again. ACME has a wealth of scenarios and seventeen different civilizations, each with their own unique abilities (we didn’t leverage ours very well; too busy getting used to the flow of the game), and options for putting together any mix of them in non-historic scenarios. We’re really still just in the wading section of this game. Thanks for this gem of a game GMT!

    Our Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East’s gameboard at the end of Epoch IV’s Turn 3. Note how red, the Medes & Persians, had established a city in the Fertile Crescent next to my homeland (the big tan square block). This was his third, and most successful, incursion into fertile terrain, and I’d been too busy to push him out. A theoretical turn four would have turned into a big fight in there.
    We’d had comparatively few barbarians this game, but two turns of them in Anatolia had taken a severe toll on blue’s, Lydian home, which had been full of cities for almost all of Epoch III. Perhaps the most surprising board position is the VP markers. Nine VPs from first to last isn’t much, and I was surprised at how much the “pack” stayed together for the entire game.



    Source link

  • Brown Water Brawl: A Combat Commander: Vietnam AAR – InsideGMT


    Designing a game with the scope of Combat Commander: Vietnam requires a lot of testing. Before the game is opened up for broader playtesting, the core design team has to ensure that all of the pieces of the design are working to provide the play experience we want. In the previous article we discussed how the Random Scenario Generator (RSG) and the data behind it is the anchor for the whole system. Indeed the RSG data serves as a validator for all 24 of the designed scenarios that will come with the base game.

    Scenario design for the Combat Commander series is very delicate when looking at specific historic engagements, and perhaps even more for generalized engagements. Data models trend towards the average, so the RSG system uses player agency to tilt the odds with their choices. In written scenarios, the designer is the one that tilts the odds, often to align with the historical record. Without these little tweaks the scenario might feel too generic, but tweaked too much and things can end up on the rails.

    The scenarios for the base game of Combat Commander: Vietnam are pulled from the archival records of the participants. The maps are drawn from 1:50,000 scale maps from the period, zoomed in to match the scale of Combat Commander. The scenarios designed for these maps fit the details we know historically into the framing of the game. The goal is for the core system rules to cover 85% or more of any scenario.  Adjustments are then made with a few special rules to bridge the gaps between historicity and playability.

    What follows is an After Action Report from a recent playtest of scenario #9, “Brown Water Brawl”. This is a key scenario in the base game because it introduces Amphibious Assault rules. Amphibious and Air Assaults are among the many things we’ve heard fans say they want to see in the system. This was a playtest to see how the rules affect gameplay for both attackers and defenders.

    SITUATION REPORT:

    Rach Ruong Canal, IV Corps, South Vietnam, December, 1967 – Although initially blocked from deploying forces to the Mekong Delta due to opposition from the South Vietnamese Government, in 1967, the Mobile Riverine Force (MRF) became America’s force in the Delta. Pairing the 2nd Brigade of the 9th Division with Navy brown water assault craft, the MRF sought out NLF forces along the many rivers and canals of the Delta.

    After receiving rocket fire from the west bank, a company of the MRF lands with support from Monitor assault crafts to engage elements of the NLF’s 502nd Local Force Battalion.

    Information display showing the scenario year, victory points, and other details (playtest graphics)

    The NLF gets to set up its detachment first with three bunkers provided by the scenario rules. One of the bunkers is set up forward to contest the coastline where the MRF will land. The other two bunkers are placed in the open, one to cover the forward treeline, while the other defends the treeline in the rear. A few squads are also placed forward in order to contest the Americans before they get off the coast and toward the open area.

    Gray NLF units set up to resist the American landing and hold key positions (playtest graphics)

    As an Amphibious Assault, the Americans will have three waves of platoons enter the map from the water in the northeast, one per turn. The first wave picks the landing zone which will be used by all subsequent waves. The Amphibious Assault rules provide the defender with the ability to contest the landing zone after the first wave has deployed. One of the things that came out of this play was the need to encourage aggressive play from the NLF to actually contest the landing zone. As it is, that possibility does not come up in this playthrough.

    While the landing zone is not really contested, the landing parties can be, which leads to the other key part of the amphibious rules that allow the landing craft free attacks during each deployment. Recognizing this is one of the reasons the NLF play it safe with their setup, but playing it safe does not prevent them from taking fire.

    Victory in scenarios is measured by VP which are scored in a number of ways. The clearest is combat attrition. Both sides earn 1-4 VP for eliminating opposing units. Additionally for Attacker Defender scenarios VP are scored at each time check for any held objectives. Because the defender starts in control of the objectives, it is on the attacker to take those objectives as quickly as possible to keep the defender from scoring them.

    Finally each side holds a secret objective which is only revealed and scored at the end of the game. The end game is triggered either on turn 8, by one side choosing to Break Contact after the Time marker reaches the Support marker, or one side having to Break Contact the Time Check after their casualties are equal or greater than their Break Point level (we will save the discussion of Break Contact and the other new mechanics which support it for a future article).

    Time 0

    VP: 0

    US Casualties: 0

    NLF Casualties: 0

    Support Marker: 5

    The Americans start by picking their landing zone. They choose a spot whose line of sight is blocked by huts, to allow some of the units to deploy into cover. On landing, the platoon leader spots the forward NLF bunker for the assault craft to perform its free attack. The bunker makes for strong cover, protecting the units inside whose return fire suppresses the leader. One of the squads outside of the bunker however, does take a hit from the bombardment.

    The NLF in the bunker continue firing, their recoilless rifle wounding the leader while small arms fire suppresses the machine gun team with him. Two American squads and the other machine gun team use the vollying fire to screen their movement in the opposite direction, where they find cover in the huts to the south behind the treeline. The platoon leader at the landing zone targets the bunker with mortar fire, failing to break the units inside but giving the units with him a little time to recover.

    The lead squad to the south, hearing rustling ahead, moves into the treeline guns at the ready to assault fire as they make contact. The NLF local force squad there is slow to react and takes a hit.

    The American group by the landing zone spray fires at the bunker and the squad hiding in the woods next to it. The bullets do nothing to the bunker but are able to hit the units in the woods.

    The wounded NLF to the south are able to rally before moving out of sight of the Americans. Another NLF squad reacts to the gunfire and moves to flank the squad in the woods, but have to slow to cross the canal which is particularly high for this time of year.

    The Americans by the landing zone all fire into the woods by the bunker and are able to eliminate the NLF squad there. The American squad in the southern woods continues to close on the retreating NLF squad, suppressing them with their assault fire.

    Time 1

    VP: NLF 1

    US Casualties: 0

    NLF Casualties: 1

    Support Marker: 5

    As the second American platoon arrives at the landing zone, the assault craft targets the bunker again, this time breaking the NLF squad inside, through the cover. An American squad in the south closes in to flank the retreating NLF unit in the woods. The other NLF squad makes its way across the canal to assault fire the initial American squad, but the Americans manage to use the cover of the woods to their advantage.

    The other suppressed NLF squad moves back through the rice paddies to avoid being attacked. The American squad on the treeline counters the NLF that assaulted from the canal before they can pull back. The ambush breaks the NLF unit before they are eliminated in the ensuing melee.

    With the woods to the south now clear, the Riverine forces move the arriving platoon in from the south avoiding the forward bunker all together. Another call is made from the first platoon leader for Fire Support. The NLF uses the opportunity to rally the squad in the bunker, then the recoilless rifle lands a shot at the group hiding in the huts, eliminating the leader.

    Down a leader, the Americans try to regroup. More NLF emerge from hiding near the bunker on  the other side of the canal, preparing for a stronger defense against the attackers coming from the treeline. The NLF recoilless rifle continues firing at the coastal huts, breaking the remaining units there. The broken units try to immediately recover but instead end up suppressed. One of the American squads on the treeline opens fire at the NLF units by the bunker, breaking them before they counterattack.

    Time 2

    VP: NLF 3

    US Casualties: 1

    NLF Casualties: 2

    Support Marker: 5

    The final wave of the Riverine Force arrives at the landing zone with their platoon leader joining the units in the huts to spot for the assault craft, but it cannot find the target. Instead of returning fire, the local force leader calls in for Fire Support. The NLF squad in the paddies recovered, then heads back into the woods to contest the approaching Americans.

    The last platoon leader helps rally the team in the huts by the landing zone, while the Americans at the treeline keep firing at the broken NLF squad in the clear across the canal until they are eliminated.

    Time 3

    VP: NLF 4

    US Casualties: 1

    NLF Casualties: 3

    Support Marker: 5

    The other American squad in the woods moves to assault fire the NLF squad at the treeline, suppressing them. The second platoon leader by the canal calls in a request to delay the rear support as he prepares his men. The NLF at the treeline again retreats back to the paddies before it can be attacked.

    The second platoon leader makes the call and the Americans move into positions along the treelines on both sides of the canal. The squad already there makes a dash through the clear past the suppressed NLF to secure the objective at the turn in the canal.

    Unable to recover from their wounds the broken American squad from the first wave is sent back to the landing zone while the freshly landed platoon uses the activity in the woods to make their move north. The lead squad manages to avoid taking fire from the group in the forward bunker and surprise the NLF unit in the woods off the path with an assault that breaks them. Some of the platoon follow behind into the huts off the path in the north, while the remaining squads go to reinforce the groups in the trees across from the bunker.

    The broken NLF squad in the north pulls back through the clear behind the trees and out of line of sight. They warn the other broken squad there about the coming wave, so they can make their way into the trees for cover. The Americas charge in before the warning NLF squad can follow, leaving them extremely vulnerable in the open.

    The second American platoon leader makes another call back for Fire Support as a squad in the rear moves towards the action in the south. The squad on the canal objective tries to fire at the suppressed NLF unit through the hinderance of the paddies but can’t hit the target. The NLF leader from the bunker in the open calls back for their own fire support.

    In the north, the broken NLF squad tries to fall back through the paddies. The Americans open fire but are unable to land any shots on the retreating unit. The NLF squad in the south also falls back through the paddies without taking any opportunity fire.

    At that moment the second platoon leader gets confirmation on their approaching close air support and helps them spot the bunker across the canal. Napalm comes down on target forcing all of the units in the bunker, and the one behind it, out before the bunkers are destroyed by the blaze. All of the NLF units break from the attack as they run into the clear. In the midst of this an NLF sniper manages to hit an American squad still by the landing zone.

    One American squad on the southern treeline jumps the gun and rushes across the canal to assault fire the NLF trying to escape the napalm fire managing to suppress the squad and the leader. The NLF try to rally but only the leader manages to do so.

    Time 4

    VP: NLF 5

    US Casualties: 1

    NLF Casualties: 3

    Support Marker: 6

    The NLF leader escaping the flaming bunker urges the other units to withdraw but the Americans don’t hesitate to fire on their retreat, eliminating the squad with the mortar and the team with the recoilless rifle. Now alone in the open the leader takes fire from the American squad on the objective and the one that crossed the canal, but manages to avoid taking hits. With the air support still in the area the third platoon leader calls in another strike on the forward bunker. The spotting is off this time, missing the NLF with its package of more conventional bombs.

    The NLF leader in the bunker finally connects with their Fire Support and calls in mortar fire that drifts south to break the Americans that crossed the canal and suppress the leader at the treeline. Understanding the reality of the situation the NLF leader then tells the group with them to start falling back. The squads creep through the smoke from the American bombardment but the leader stays with the recoilless rifle team hoping to eliminate more Americans before pulling back.

    While the Americans in the south rally, the fire group in the north opens fire through the hindrance of the paddies to eliminate the remaining broken NLF unit. More Americans start pushing out from the treeline as the NLF squad in the southern paddies crosses the canal to link up with the leader from the bunker.

    The Americans in the north rush the forward bunker to surround and cut off the retreat. The NLF in the south pull back even further. Then the Americans converge on the last bunker going into melee.

    Time 5

    VP: US 1

    US Casualties: 2

    NLF Casualties: 6

    Support Marker: 6

    An ambush breaks a US squad but they still manage to eliminate all of the units in the bunker, hitting the NLF break point.

    The surviving group in the south continues to withdraw without taking fire until they are behind the flames of the napalm. Everyone still alive manages to Break Contact, except the NLF leader that gets captured when the Americans secure the area.

    Endgame

    VP: US 4

    US Casualties: 2

    NLF Casualties: 9

    Support Marker: 6

    An ambush breaks a US squad but they still manage to eliminate all of the units in the bunker, hitting the NLF break point.

    The surviving group in the south continues to withdraw without taking fire until they are behind the flames of the napalm. Everyone still alive manages to Break Contact, except the NLF leader that gets captured when the Americans secure the area.

    Endgame

    VP: US 4

    US Casualties: 2

    NLF Casualties: 9

    Support Marker: 6

    Timelapse of Playthrough

    Previous Combat Commander: Vietnam InsideGMT Articles



    Source link

  • Pine Island Playtesters – Game Submission Review Process — Pine Island Games

    Pine Island Playtesters – Game Submission Review Process — Pine Island Games



    We reach out to those games’ designers and arrange a playtest. These playtests are usually with the designer on TTS, although I have been sent physical prototypes to test on our own.

    Pine Island Playtesters

    A relatively new addition to our community is our Pine Island Playtesters. These are insiders from the mailing list, discord, or Kickstarter who’ve expressed an interest in being more involved with the company.

    We loop in our playtesters for the handful of games that we are seriously considering signing.

    We usually have specific questions for our playtesters about game mechanisms, and how they view the game versus other games in the genre.

    There is still room for improvement in our process. But, it’s come a long way, and it couldn’t be what it is, and we wouldn’t have the opportunities we have, without this amazing community.

     

    If you’d like to be Pine Island Playtester and get a front row seat as we look at games to license, shoot me an email at jasper@pineislandgames.com.





    Source link

  • The Power of the Premium Pledge Tier

    The Power of the Premium Pledge Tier



    We’re also trying to sort out a super-premium tier offering with a lacquer wooden game box – although we haven’t puzzled out economic manufacturing.

    Having options, add-ons, and premium upgrades adds value for your customers.

    Price Discrimination

    Despite the nefarious sounding name, price discrimination is about allowing consumers to pay what they want for the goods that they want.

    It is the other side of the coin to offering consumers more options. They will self-discriminate based on their preferences. For instance, consumers who can afford more premium options, and find value in them, will spend more money on those items.

    When some portion of backers pledge for higher tier levels, or add-ons, it raises the average revenue and (ideally) profit per backer. This allows for faster funding velocity, but also aids in a number of areas such as making advertising more profitable (and so a campaign can afford higher costs per click).

    Discoverability & Momentum

    It’s important not to underestimate the power of Kickstarter’s algorithm – we found that 52% of backers discover our Nut Hunt campaign through Kickstarter, versus 43% through organic or direct non-Kickstarter sources.





    Source link

  • Prescriptive Tasks & Workflows – Board Game Publishing — Pine Island Games

    Prescriptive Tasks & Workflows – Board Game Publishing — Pine Island Games



    A task becoming more prescriptive doesn’t mean that it’s less creative. Even though I now have more frameworks around sourcing illustration or graphic design – they are still creative processes. It’s just that I now know how to approach those tasks.

    By the same token, a lot of tasks are iterative. But having a framework for how to approach tasks helps us iterate more efficiently and come up with better products.

    I like this way of thinking about and framing the business. It makes it easier to approach less-well-defined problems, knowing that working through them will help me learn and level up my games publishing craft.

    The next time they crop up they won’t be nearly as scary.

     

    Passing it On

    My hope is that Pine Island Games will grow as a company, and that some day we’ll have in house partners who benefit from the experience I’m building now.

    It’s also why I write this blog.

    I want to help other indie publishers learn processes and methods that help them on their journeys. It’s my way of giving back to this community, which I owe so much to.

    A lot of articles are like this, a little more philosophical and less full of specific device, but I also try and provide some real concrete advice.

    Our Nuts & Bolts series is for instance bite sized prescriptive advice on tackling specific publishing problems. I recommend checking them out:

    Game & Product Design

    Publishing

    Marketing

    Graphic Design, Illustration, Packaging & Iconography

     

    What’s is a complicated problem that you’ve developed a prescriptive method to tackle?





    Source link

  • Tools & Models for Indie Kickstarter Creators — Pine Island Games

    Tools & Models for Indie Kickstarter Creators — Pine Island Games



    I wanted to re-share it here along with some linked resources in the model.

    The basic idea is that you can input your development costs (to market costs), along with unit economics (manufacture cost per game, freight, shipping, etc), and see how many games you need to sell to break even, along with your P&L for any given number of games sold.

    Tool 2 – ROAS Calculator (for Ad Campaigns & Review Campaigns)

    This tool is inspired by Crowdfunding Nerd’s e-mail list tool “Kickstarter Success Calculator”, but it has some material differences. It also goes farther with a section to calculate your return on ad spend (ROAS) not just for a paid advertising campaign, but also for a review & preview campaign.





    Source link

  • How to Find & Hire a Fulfillment Provider for your Board Game Kickstarter or Gamefound — Pine Island Games

    How to Find & Hire a Fulfillment Provider for your Board Game Kickstarter or Gamefound — Pine Island Games



    They will be able to provide shipping rates by geography – like this shipping estimate for Sigil from Fulfillrite. Most will break down their picking fees, the cost of packaging, and postage costs.

     

    Key Considerations

    Price isn’t the most important consideration when finding your fulfillment partner.

    Reputation: Reputation and surety that they will get the job done smoothly, and without undue product damage, is far more important than a dollar or two savings on picking and packing. I recommend asking around in game design and publishing forums for peoples’ experiences with your with your most competitive.

    Ease of Communication: You’ll need a good relationship with your sales rep to smooth the freight delivery process, and address any hiccups that come up during fulfillment. Make sure your sales rep is responsive and can help you workshop your fulfillment options.

    Technology: My favorite thing about Fulfillrite is their tech platform. They have a dashboard where I can manage inventory, upload shipping details, and best of all, it automatically ties into our Shopify storefront.





    Source link

  • Kickstarter Tips & Tricks — Pine Island Games

    Kickstarter Tips & Tricks — Pine Island Games



    A couple of months ago I wrote up a pretty comprehensive guide on How to Structure a Kickstarter page. We’re still deep in the weeds putting together our Kickstarter for Sigil (launching 05/16!!), and I wanted to share some more tips and tricks that for taking your page to the next level.

    Dead Space & Boarders

    Kickstarter automatically inserts line spacing between images (the cannot abut against eachother). This means that when create assets for the page you need to take into account that there will be dead white space between them. There are a few ways to deal with this.

    1. Combine Assets into Large Images

    This is a trick we are doing for our Sigil Kickstarter. Instead of having a headline image, quote, and then what’s in the box image each separately, we are combining them into one master image. We have more control over the flow of the page, and can seamlessly have assets flow into each other without dead space.

    You do need to break images (and have dead space) when you want to insert a link, a button or a video. So, eventually you’ll need to plan for the image to end, and how it will transition to dead space or your next graphic.

    2. Fade Images into the Negative Space

    A good example of this approach is the Elden Ring board game campaign. The IP includes a lot of mist effects which the creators incorporated to allow their images to blead into the negative space that Kickstarter forces between images.





    Source link

  • The Board Game Content Ecosystem — Pine Island Games

    The Board Game Content Ecosystem — Pine Island Games



     Paid Versus Unpaid

    It’s important to note the difference between paid and unpaid content. Most review content and round ups is unpaid, while a lot of preview content is paid. Whether content is paid or unpaid will also depend on the individual creator, and the size of the channel’s audience.

    For instance, a smaller channel will likely create preview content for free (to help build its audience and have novel content), while larger established channels will charge a fee for content.

    Not all paid content is created equal, and it’s important to partner with creators whose tastes and audiences align with your design. Even when content is paid, you can tell how enthusiastic content creators are about the game they are covering.

    Getting Coverage

    There are two main kinds of coverage – coverage before your game is released or crowdfunded, and coverage after your game is published.

    I wrote up an article on how to reach out to content creators: How to Query Content Creators.

    It’s worth noting that the process of reaching out to content creators is relatively similar in each case. However, once your game is published you will get a higher proportion of inquiries for coverage, as well as unprompted coverage.

    Once a game is published, unless you are paying for specific content (like a how to play video), the vast majority of coverage will be unpaid (although you may send a review copy of your game).

    Where to Find Content Creators

    Most readers will have their own favorite board game content creators. Those are a great place to start when looking for reviewers and previewers for your game. But, it’s always worth expanding your playlists. Here are a few places to look for content creators for your game:

    Who are your favorite under the radar board game content creators?





    Source link

  • Stretch Goals & Startfalls — Pine Island Games

    Stretch Goals & Startfalls — Pine Island Games



    I like to think of stretch goals in a couple of categories:

    1. Component upgrades (ex: black core card stock)

    2. Additional game content (ex: playable character unlocks)

    3. Non-game content add-ons (ex: sticker sheets included with the game)

    4. Out of game content (ex: phone wallpapers)

    While I understand game content as a stretch goal for content heavy games that are still in development (writing quests costs money), I prefer games that have a strong baseline of component quality and include stretch goals that take a game beyond what would be expected in a retail edition – add-ons like sticker sheets, super-premium stock & finishes, or even a box insert (an expensive component for the publisher).

    Are Stretch Goals Powerful?

    Qualitatively stretch goals seem to have at least some impact on campaign success – I noticed more activity on our Nut Hunt campaign when we were approaching stretch goals (which increases visibility). However, it is hard to really know how much of an impact stretch goals have.

    My gut is that monetary stretch goals are more meaningful for smaller and moderate sized campaigns where backers understand that stretch goals are more of a sharing of economics – and the publisher doesn’t necessarily expect all goals to be hit. In this sense, I expect some backers of big (multi-hundred-thousand dollar) campaigns go into backing with the expectation that all stretch goals will be unlocked (as evidenced by big box publisher behavior of unlocking all goals after the campaign even if they weren’t hit).

    In this sense, the power of stretch goals for bigger campaigns is more in the excitement they provide for the community, and the interaction they drive, rather than as an mechanism for component upgrades or additional game content.

    Which brings us full circle to Fractured Sky

    Starfalls

    In forgoing traditional monetary (content & component upgrade) stretch goals, IV Studios has what they call “Starfall Rewards”.





    Source link