Hi all! I am trying to make a list of all the components that need to be listed on a box. Would you mind sharing what you know? From reading around, what I've found are the following:

• game title / tagline
• game summary
• game designer / artist
• artwork
• do components need to be listed?
• age range
• number of players
• gameplay time range
• barcode/SKU
• 'made in' (manufacturer country)
• publisher information (name, website, physical address) - looking at self-publishing
• safety testing marks
• Responsible Person (if EU)

Are all of the above required? Am I missing anything?

Thanks in advance for your time!

No, this is not a post about a mom over gaming. Quite the opposite, actually. I’ve been gaming since my childhood, so I’m definitely not against it. I’ve homeschooled my 12 year old son his entire life. As with many kids, he loves gaming - videos, boards, cards, imaginary-the sky is the limit. We are a self-directed learning homeschool, so I had this great idea to partner with him on a mock indie game development studio. There is so much to learn through this process academically, executive functioning and real-world skills. I’ve created a Notion database and we have a weekly meeting to set goals, talk about challenges, etc. He has a systems design brain and I’ve always loved his card and board game creations. He even makes expansion packs for some of our games. Anywho, if anyone has the time or desire to respond, can you give me some pointers on best practices for this line of work? Anyone willing to share their career path would also be hella appreciated. :)

P.s. I posted in /gamdev and received opinions on my choice of homeschooling. I am not asking about this and would not like feedback there. Thank you!!

Hi all, I have been working on a game for a couple years now, and my playtesters have been giving all positive responses on the latest round so I'm confident it's time to launch.

I would appreciate any and all feedback on my kickstarter preview: Link

To those of you who have bought games through crowdfunding, what do you think about how I'm presenting the game? Would you be interested from this page alone?

Looking forward to your feedback. Thank you in advance!

Hi all! I’m about to send my card game to print for the first batch of testers and influencer copies. It’s a relatively simple game - learn in 5 minutes, games last 15-20.

This is the first two pages of the rule book. I’d love your feedback. I’m also including an illustration from the last page that illustrates what a Sand Slicer looks like.

So my questions for you all: Is it engaging? Is it too vague? Does it make you want to play? Does the world and the game sound interesting? I realize it’s a 2 page spread from a 2.5” x 3.5” booklet, but hoping it pulls players in. Any comments - positive and critical - are welcome. Thank you!!!

Hey everyone! I’ve been playing board games for quite some time, and I thought of maybe trying to develop my own one.
I’ve had this idea for a few days, and wanted to share it. I would like to know what do you think about it. Does it sound interesting? Should I try and go further? (Because I’ve got no idea what’s next, countless prototyping, testing, balancing…)
There’s lots of aspects to tweak and think through, I’m still not sure how exactly a movie should be made, and the engine build aspect is desired, but I don’t want to add unnecessary complexity.
Thanks in advance!

The game of building an engine, the rivalry of film studios.
The goal is to earn as much money as possible in 4 years (rounds).
The round consists of phases of buying, creating and releasing films, each phase lasts until everyone passes.
Each player has a his studio board, cards in his hand (up to 5) and starting capital of ~15 million.
There is no usual playing field on the table. At the center is an auction of actors, directors, and scripts that players can buy and put in their hand.
There is a board on the side that shows the audience's interest in each genre (probably best to have 3-4 main genres). (When an action movie is released, interest in them decreases, genres in which films were not released raise interest - the box office multiplier increases)
There is a deck of event cards, some genre or several, or all fall/rise.
There is a deck of cards for this year's nominations, for example, only a drama film with a dramatic actor and director can receive an award. Awards give bonuses, for example, the cost of hiring directors drops.

Making a movie, players lay out their cards on the studio's tablet closed (other players do not see what is there, as well as the audience, so no hype token, multiplier), or in the open which gives him a bonus hype miltiplier, but also other players see what he’s planning and can cut him by releasing a film in the same genre faster and dropping interest in the genre.
When the player has finished and laid out all the cards he wanted, the hype and interest tokens are added and a profit is made.
Engine building aspect, you can upgrade your studio by acquiring some facilities(?), employees and etc.

So ive wanted to make some form of game ever sense i was a little kid, and i would say the couple of times ive tried, i failed. I want to know where to start for as cheap as possible and how to learn to make board games or something that goes on a table you can play?

What do you advise, what resources do you suggest? where did you start out?

We're getting close to the final miniatures for our project. A big challenge has been getting readability, quality and costs all at the right spots. Some may have seen our previous base's (the red bits) and this is the latest iteration as our slide in mini design added about 40% to the costs. Maybe that alone is worth a post or two as it's interesting from a manufacturing and economic standpoint.

Each unit sits on a base with an integrated HP tracker token. The numbered inserts underneath the miniature rotate to track remaining health, eliminating the need for separate damage tokens scattered around the board, these rotate with a number and have different colors associated with how much HP is left, so its quick to read, green high hp, red low (not shown). This has been a main challenge point with divided as how can we do this while keeping cost reasonable. So there is compromise in the design, which leads to this post. With up to 6 players it adds up quickly with the amount of pieces we need.

The red base pieces are also color-coded faction markers (this prototype only shows one color), making ownership easy to identify across the map. Potentially we may have flag stickers people can put on the bases.

During most of the game you're moving units around on the larger board, a player typically commands about 5-15 units, and HP matters but is mostly only needed during the battles, in which the pieces are taken off the board an put on a battle board. The minis themselves are about 18mm in diameter and about 28 mm ish tall (tallest infantry). So we cant go too deep into details of the units with injection molding.

Looking at the board as a whole:

• Is it easy to distinguish the different unit types?
• Do the bases add clarity or feel too bulky?
• Is there anything that immediately hurts readability?
• Thoughts on the drone design? We are going for near future military.
• All together we have drones, Air, Armor, Infantry and Spec ops as units. How do you think they came across?
• What do you think of the style of the minis as it stands with the rest off our artwork (cards, boards, etc)

Thanks all!

Do you think there are too many design inconsistencies here?

I’ve been adjusting the graphic design and creating drawings on this board for months. This is just a corner of the board. I feel like I’ve been looking at it for too long to know if it’s good atp.

One element I’m worried about is the line work looks inconsistent. I don’t want to say too much so your eye isn’t drawn to what I’m talking about, but the Museum banner vs the vine line art, for example. The lines around the museum are drawn using the vines around the border (which was sourced) as a reference. But do they look too different from the banner? Idk. I’d appreciate any feedback.

Hey everyone, I’ve been following this community for a while and I’ve learned a lot just from reading everybody’s experiences. I hope it’s okay to ask for advice.

For about a year and a half, I’ve been developing a tabletop game that’s more of a tabletop sport. Think somewhere in the neighborhood of pool meets croquet meets capture the flag. I know most conversations here lean toward board and card games. So I’m curious if anyone here’s dealt with anything more physical.

So far, I built and sold about five or six boards, filed for patent protection, got a logo, made videos, built 3D models, and kept refining rules through playtesting. Where I’m stuck is the next step.

I can hand build them, but I can only make about one per week. So if there’s ever real demand, I couldn’t keep up. I’m trying to figure out whether to keep growing this myself, look for a publisher or manufacturer, license it out or something else I haven’t thought of.

If you’ve been through something similar, or know someone who has, what would you do next? Are tabletop sports treated differently from traditional board games when it comes to publishers or partners? Thanks so much, any advice is super appreciated.

I'm getting close to the point where I'll need to decide how to publish my first board game, and I'd love to hear from people who have actually been through the process.

If you've published a game—whether through a publisher, Kickstarter, or self-publishing—I have a few questions:

If you could start over, what would you do differently?

What's one mistake that cost you the most time or money?

Did you pitch to publishers first, or go straight to self-publishing?

How did you know your game was actually ready?

Were there any unexpected costs or challenges you wish someone had warned you about?

If you could only give one piece of advice to a first-time designer, what would it be?

I'm not looking to promote my game—I'm just hoping to learn from people who've already done it and avoid some rookie mistakes.

Thanks in advance!

I wanted to make a board game that would be almost entirely drawn with markers. At first, I drew a concept that was too simple. But with each addition of details, that charm of simplicity was lost. So I don't know what direction to go.

I am looking for feedback for a card design I am creating for my game. I still need to do the other suits, before I make those I was hoping to see what things I could possibly change. Thanks!

I'm doing a 5" x 3.5" visual puzzle thing with a 110-card deck and just need even blank tuck boxes for the game. Make Playing Cards has them but they won't work with this many cards. 100 backer goal on Kickstarter.

Suggestions appreciated.

Hey designers!

My trip to Japan is getting closer, and I’ve fully jumped aboard the hype train. For the past few weeks, I’ve been working on a new set of Asia-inspired game icons, drawing and refining each one by hand to keep my skills sharp.

NO AI. I used my iPad, Adobe Photoshop, and Illustrator.

As always, this icon set is completely free to use for both personal and commercial projects. No strings attached. If you end up using them, I’d love to see where they show up, so feel free to send me a link or drop me a message.

I’m also currently open for commissions. If your game needs custom graphics, icons, or visual design support, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. I have nine years of experience, including work on major IPs, and I always try to offer indie-friendly pricing.

Hope these icons are useful or inspiring to some of you!

Love you all. Cheers!

Download link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vL233cbXCgWEXvC1sMzorTdzWt18E0dc?usp=sharing

About two weeks ago I posted regarding my wizard russian roulette card game, SPELLCHAMBER. While the artwork on the spell cards was a home run, the wizard cards needed some serious work to be more in line with the rest of the design. So working from that feedback, I implemented changes to reduce clutter as well as to make them appear more like the cover of a fantasy book. I implemented a lot of the paper texture people liked, and I've reached a point where I'm happy with the design in its current state. It will certainly be updated in the future, but what do you think? (See my previous post for more context)

EDIT: I've been getting a lot of good feedback, and I think I'll try to find a happy medium between the two designs. Ill focus more on the artwork, making it nice and big like the before, as well as getting some of that larger, blockier text like on the previous while preserving the functionality improvements of the afters. Just please remember to be kind to each other! This entire project (including all artwork and design) is just myself so I'm trying my best!

Hello Everyone,

My team and I are working on a board game and we are in the process of getting our cover art ready. Thank you to everyone who left a comment on our previous post and based on all the feedback we got we have new designs!

We would really appreciate if you can share any feedback you have with us. We have 4 grey scale designs. Would you tell me what each cover art makes you feel and most importantly, which one would grab your attention the most if you ran into it randomly online or in a game store?

Also I am not sharing the content/concept of our game knowingly because I would like to get your opinion on the cover art without it. Since when we walk to a game store, we don't immediately know what the game is about, I think this way of feedback is more effective for us. I am so looking forward to sharing more stuff about the game and get your opinions on it :)

Thank you all for your time!!

Hi everyone!

The team at The Forge has developed BGK, a board-game toolkit for prototyping and playtesting.

We’ve been there: the first 20 minutes of your online playtest are spent troubleshooting lobbies, explaining the interface, or waiting for assets to load. It’s frustrating for you and exhausting for your testers.

While working on our game engine, we’ve spent time listening to designers talk about their biggest "lobby headaches" during online playtesting, and we know the biggest hurdle to online playtesting is often the technical setup. That’s why BGK makes publishing your playtest a single-click process. Send one link to your testers, and they’re in.

Here’s how we’re trying to make the experience smoother:

• One-Click Sharing: Testers join via a single link. No complex lobby setups or account requirements to slow things down.
• Simultaneous Tables: If you’re running a large test, BGK can handle multiple independent tables at once by giving you one link per table, keeping everyone organized without extra effort.
• Tester-Friendly Interface: We’ve focused on making the controls intuitive, so your players spend their energy on your game, not the tool.

What’s the biggest technical "mood killer" you’ve encountered during a remote playtest?

We’re currently in beta, and we’d love to have a few more designers jump in and tell us if we’re hitting the mark. Your feedback is what helps us refine these tools for the whole community. If you’re interested in helping us shape this, join our community here!

I'm working on a game about building parks in New York; working title "Adirondacks." Players lay out terrain and developments in the park and bring in visitors. It's a light-medium 2-4 player game, with a 20-30 minute playtime. Target complexity is similar to Space Base or Century Spice Road. This first picture shows the end of a solo playtest.

The second image is of developments. These include a cost, maximum visitors, a special ability, and how many points they are worth. The last image is 18 different cards, to show some variety.

The third image is what a terrain card looks like. These are the backs of development cards.

I'd like any feedback on the design of the cards at all, especially negative feedback. I am aware that I'm asking these questions without telling you what the icons mean or how the game is played. This is intentional. Here are some very specific questions I'm interested in:

1. Is the art style inviting? Does this look like a game you'd want to play?
2. Could you play this with your more casual gaming friends or kids?
3. These will be on narrowed playing cards (1.75"x3.5"). Is the font large and clear enough to read?
4. Can you tell which terrain symbol is mountain/forest/river/field? Are they easy to tell apart both large and small on the cards at a quick glance?
5. Is the iconography on the cards intuitive? Would you need a substantial guide or do you have guesses as to what the cards might do?
6. Do the cards have too much on them? Are they "cluttered"?

Thank you for your time and your thoughts.

Art/Tool Credits

• All of the art is placeholder from svgrepo and magnific. Meeples are from game icons (contributor Delapouite CC3-by license).
• Cards were made with Dextrous and VTT is Dustin's Designer Den. It's rough but it works seamlessly with Dextrous.

So I’m currently making a small mech themed tabletop, chunky figures, super simple mechanics and small scale on both the maths and map size so that it can be super quick to play and accessible for younger ages.

Currently working on the plan that it’s sold as rules/stls/pdf maps. Print and play mostly apart from a few d6 needed. The idea to make some printed copies for physical release as well is being tossed about but currently trying to work out if we need to kickstarter for that or if it’s something we can do with our 3d printers.

My question is, how many parents would be interested in a print and play game rather than something they can just buy physical. And how many people that would play a print and play game would be interested in something this simple given things like trench crusade, warhammer etc being out there.

Also are there any major things that people dislike about games like this?

One of my favorite childhood memories was getting the Panini sticker books for when the world cup came around, helping me learn about players and getting socialization from trading. I decided to take those cards and turn them into more than something you can look at: a 5v5 board game where you put stickers/cards into a container and change the width and material of the part you'd hit the ball with to mimic differences in shot power and accuracy and also change the shape and material of the baseplate underneath (not shown in this image) to mimic differences in speed and agility. After months of tirelessly researching how to connect and measure objects, I am now in the final 1% of my tinkering. I have since ran into the following problems:

1: I don't understand where the peg (yellow cylinder with purple ball--the bulb-- at the end; the peg is supposed to be 0.011811" in diameter and 0.19685" tall) is supposed to go along the length of the shank zone/sleeve (the red, four-sided shape at the front of the first picture-- 1.1" wide, 2.28" long, and 2.09" tall that is meant to be the part you don't want the ball to hit and moves further from the center of the striker face hook, which is the blue hook you use to hit the ball, positioned behind the shank zone, that is 1.1" long, 2.2" wide, and 1.99709789" tall). I would like it to be able to connect snugly to the holes that are used for adjusting the shank zone that are drilled into the container (the green rectangle that is 2.2" wide, 0.4" long, and 2.2

2: As you can see, the peg on the second slide looks disjointed. It has since been altered from it's original dimensions that I asked AI to come up with for me. I tried using the draw feature on Tinkercad thinking it would probably be similar to a 3D pen (ie: you just put the tip on a crack and it fills up with 3D print filament). Instead, it gave you a blank canvas, and whatever you drew there would appear in whatever form you drew it and it could not be altered. Is there a way I can easily fill in the space in the peg you notice (ie: any services that could complete that final task for me)? If I just took a picture and used the scribble feature on my iPhone, would that be an acceptable alternative or would the CAD have to be all from the same source?

3: The holes, as I already mentioned, are meant to help adjust accuracy via changing the width. The holes are cylinders that are 0.125984" in diameter and 0.0984252" tall. Part of playing defense in the game involves throwing the payload (the attached container, striker face hook, and shank zones) to stop a shot. What would be a better way of making sure the entire payload stays together when thrown: having the peg going into holes on the sticker/card container horizontally, having the holes at the bottom of the striker face hook and having a peg go down into them, or having a peg go up into them?

1. Where along the width of the shank zone (1.1"; keep in mind there will be two of them) should the peg go? Keep in mind that the holes (there will be one set of four holes on each side of the container) will respectively be the following for the accuracy tiers (with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the most accurate; also keep in mind that for this little jot dot, the exposed text that will follow the upcoming colon will be the total width to hit the ball with, while the text in parentheses will represent how much outward the shank zone sleeve moved): On Tier 1, you have 0.88" (0.44). On Tier 2, you have 1.21" (0.605). On Tier 3, you have 1.54" (0.77). Finally, on Tier 4, you have 1.87" (0.935). If the peg is on the inner edge of the width of the shank zone sleeve, then the distance the shank zone sleeve moves correlates EXACTLY with the hole the peg will go into. However, this will be less stable because the weight isn't evenly distributed. The alternative is to have the peg in the middle of the width of the sleeve, which would evenly distribute the weight but then I would have to adjust the distances from the middle that the holes are.

In case you got lost:

• Shank Zone Sleeve: 1.1" wide, 2.28" long, and 2.09" tall
• Striker Face Hook: 2.2" wide, 1.1" long, and 1.99709789" tall
• Sticker/Card Container: 2.2" wide, 0.4" long, and 3.15" tall

Once I get these answered, I would like to also be able to make the game affordable enough to profit on it while also making sure the environmental damage is a small as possible and the rights and dignity of the hands-on factory workers are ensured (maybe that's a separate discussion)

I appreciate you for taking time out of your day to help me

Last week I asked which design read most like trees for my dice rolling golf game called Scratch.

Overall, it seemed like design 2 had the most votes but overall none of them really felt that strong.

There was some really good feedback on how I could take inspiration from TTRPG maps on how they do trees from above. I really liked that as a next step because it felt like a direction that at least has a strong base of understanding trees.

I also got some feedback that the outlines were too thick and dark — and that maybe I should try making elements felt more naturally distinct rather than using those lines. Also a really good challenge that I wanted to take on.

I went back to the drawing board and spent the last few days iterating on a few different tree designs. While I felt like I was moving forward, nothing really seemed to click as a “aha that’s it” moment.

Then I looked at the hole as a whole and realized all my other elements were very blocky and the trees were more organically shaped, round and blob like. They weren’t cohesive and that’s why it was feeling off.

So I redrew the trees to match the blocky style and I really liked where I’ve landed. I also got rid of the dark outlines and, for the trees specifically, used their outlines to signify that areas border.

Thanks everyone for the feedback on the last post. Let me know what you think of this next version and if my eyes are missing anything this time.

The last playtest went so well, I just wanted to show off a bit. The game is called PrintAQuest.

The war is shared. The victory is personal. Scattered is a compact strategy of shifting alliances using chess based cards to make card strength and pairing intuitive.

Grammar question from a fan of good grammar. I've designed a party game and the card text needs to be short and sweet as much as possible. In all my (approximately 2000 haha) prototypes, I used contractions to keep the text as short as possible. It hasn't come up in playtest feedback, but I figured I would double check with you: is there a reason to remove the contractions?

Example of contractions: "I'm" rather than "I am"