Role: Lead Designer
Team Size: 3
Players: 2-4
Tabletop
Tools
Excel | Clip Studio | Huion Kamvas Pro | Figma
Overview
My Role: Lead Designer
My work on this project involved translating a fictional board game from an established IP into something that people can play with its own rules and systems. I was in charge of designing the foundation, including the systems and mechanics in a way that honoured the source material to create an authentic and believable adaptation of a game for a third party client.
I provided direction to the other team members to ensure that the experience felt consistent with the atmosphere and themes that the IP was rooted in. I was also in charge of organizing and running playtests, and performing adjustments based on the data collected from those sessions. In addition to that, I coordinated with studio heads and IP holders to ensure that we were meeting the objectives that were being set.
Due to confidentiality, I cannot display much of the work that I have done for this project, which includes early playtest videos due to how closely linked to the IP the project’s contents have been built.
The Game:
My work on this project resulted in the creation of a digtal tabletop turn–based multiplayer strategy game. It features elements from Trading Card games such as “deck building” customization and selectable units which players use to achieve victory. It is played like a game of “chess” where players customize which pieces they want to use and place them on a board, and then use those pieces to overcome their opponent. Each piece can have their own unique movement and functionality allowing for players to customize their starting units according to the strategies they have in mind.
Project Design Goals
- You don’t need to be a fan of the IP to enjoy the game.
- It is a faithful adaptation of the game rooted in the same pillars the creators of the IP had.
- It’s a boardgame that that could exist and be played in the IP’s time period.
- Simple for children and adults to understand.
- Each game piece has a purpose, is simple yet flexible.
- Game pieces to build off one another to create interesting and compelling combinations.
- All game related decisions are rooted in theme and lore of the IP
- Themed around Harmony, and things working together.
- A game piece can be described in one or two sentences.
- Lore can be represented through gameplay.
- No note taking, out of game tracking of information, or similar administrative tasks required.
- It is a board game.
- Allow players to customize and express themselves in the way they play.
Responsibilities
- GAME DESIGN: Performing extensive research on the IP to establish core designs and systems that authentically reflect the themes and lore of the IP that both newcomes and fans would embrace.
- GAME DESIGN: Translating, interpreting and establishing rules and mechanics based on information and ideas the IP creators had developed at a high level and displayed to audiences of the IP.
- GAME DESIGN: Designing clear, intuitive rules for each game piece, creating a system that defined tunable values for balance while maintaining ease of use and enabling strategic depth through piece combinations and interactions.
- PLAY TESTING: Drove iterative playtesting sessions to refine game flow, validate mechanics, and balance piece functionality, incorporating player feedback to enhance overall gameplay experience.
- USER EXPERIENCE: Developed accessible tutorial scenarios that helped players learn key systems and interactions through hands-on, low-pressure gameplay, resulting in an improved onboarding experience.
- USER EXPERIENCE: Developed game rules and systems to reduce players’ cognitive load by automating administrative tasks and enable uninterrupted gameplay.
- PRODUCER: Act as the Liason, between project owners, IP Owners, and contractors to ensure clear communication between people and requirements are being attained.
Additional Details
- Genre: Strategy Board Game
- Duration: April 2022 – August 2022
- Platform: Designed as a digital boardgame for PC
- Controls: Mouse & Keyboard
Detailed Design: Thoughts and Breakdown
1.0 The Game
The game I was working on has only been shown a few times in the original IP. It has few if any established rules and systems. This meant that I had to lay much of the foundational work. It has however been alluded how the game may have been played and the types of behaviours and outcomes that the game encouraged which is what I used as a starting point when I worked on the game’s features.
Every decision made connects back to the IP in some way. It utilizes themes, lore, depicitions and rules to create a faithful and original take. I designed it both support the experience fans would believe was represented in the game, yet not alienate newcomers who are unfamiliar with the IP in general.
The game is a turn-based multiplayer strategy game for 2 to 4 players. Players use “Pieces” which are unique representations of things that exist within the IP such as lightning, rocks, bells, and the like. A player utilizes a collection of 20 of these pieces to play the game (similar to chess and stratego) which they build from a list of 35+ pieces. This grants them a level of customization similar to that of a deck building game (like Yugioh and Magic).
Players determine what pieces they would like to use before a match and then compete to take control of the game board through one of three win conditions. Peace (Perform a specific action in the center of the board), War (Prevent your opponent from being able to use any of their pieces), and Group (An alternate condition related to a style of play the player designates beforehand).
Each player takes turns performing actions which fall into either moving a piece or activating a piece’s ability. A piece has its own ability that is associated with that piece and is affiliated with one of 5 distinct categories. They are designed to be simplistic on its face with each piece only taking one or two sentences to describe its capabilities. However, it is the way that they interact with other pieces which enables complex interactions and are at the heart of how the game functions. The way the pieces interact with one another allows our players to explore various creative combinations that suit their tastes as they attempt to out manuever their opponent.
The majority of a pieces information is on the piece itself, with care given to ensure that extraneous activities such as turn counting, and note taking are not required. Everything is easily tracked and rules and pieces are designed to be intuitive both in name, function and board.
2.0 Set Up & Play
Players must first select 20 pieces from the available game pieces. This is done prior to playing and they are not limited in how many or what type of pieces they need to have so long as each piece is considered “legal” for the game. This similar to a “Deck” for a trading card game.
Then, players take up position opposite one another on a square shaped game board which is divided into zones. Each player has a placement zone, with the center of the board being reserved as the play area which is divided into four triangle shaped regions making up a square. For two players, players would take positions at opposite ends of the board facing one another. For four players, they would take a position on each side of the board.
Players would then take turns one at a time in order placing pieces from their collection onto the gameboard in their placement zone. If Player A places a piece in one position, then it is Player B’s turn to place a piece in their own placement zone. This repeats until 10 pieces have been placed. Players can take this opportunity to fine tune what pieces they want to use and where to position them based on what pieces their opponent
The players then place the remaining ten pieces off to the side which can be used later on if certain conditions are met. Then the game would start.
Players take turns performing a single action. Actions comprise of either moving a piece, or using a pieces special ability. There are other actions that a player can take, but those are situational. Once one player has performed their action, then the next player can perform theirs. This repeats until the the game has concluded.
As players play through the game, they attempt to form either a circle around the center point using specific pieces an equal distance apart, or manage to force their opponent into not being able to make any more moves.
3.0 Piece Design
There are over 35+ unique pieces that players are able to build their collection from. Pieces are represented as a round coin-like object with two sides. Both sides contain the same information, except for one difference. That difference is the visualization of the piece in either an active or inactive state.
Each piece has a strong tie into the lore of the IP, with its features drawing inspiration from its respective counterpart. They have four distinct properties that a player can evalutate it on;
- The category the piece belongs to
- It’s movement
- It’s ability
- It’s compatability with other pieces.
Movement for a piece is split into the number of spaces it can move, and the direction it is capable of moving in. These directions are straight, diagonal, or omni directional.
A piece’s ability is two fold. First, the ability itself. This can be a removal, displacement, area denial, buffs, lockdown and more.
The second part is the mechanics on when the ability is active. Automatic (always active, does not require an action to use). Conjunction (Can move AND trigger manually). And, Activate (Can move OR activate. Not Both).
A piece belonged to one of five catagories, with each category specializing in a certain type of capability. These were;
- Movement
- Crowd Control
- Destruction
- Resilience
- Flexibility
Pieces are designed to work together with clear strengths and weaknessess. A piece may excel in a certain area, but it sufferes drawbacks in other areas to compensate. This requires players to select pieces that synergize with one another. For example, a slow moving powerful piece would be easy to defend against. We can circumvent that drawback by pairing it with a high movement piece that can switch positions with an allied piece. This creates a powerful combination that can deliver a devastating impact when used in the right situation.
I approached designing this game as if it could exist in the time period it has been depicted. This meant that the game could not feature complex out of game actions such as note taking, health tracking, lingering effects. All you need to play is a board and your pieces. This was one of the main things that shaped what was allowed in an ability or game mechanic.
To that end, we ensured that each piece fufilled a specific purpose and that all pieces could be summarized in two lines or less. For example, This is a “Wind” piece. It has high movement and can switch places with an ally piece. This is a “Wildfire” it covers a large area and removes any piece that enters into its range.
There are pieces with persistant effects such as a “Bell” piece that stuns other pieces around it. This type of ability is tracked by having the player flip the piece so that it shows that it is in an active state. Information about a piece if usually provided on the piece itself.
The biggest power of a piece is in how it is used in conjunction with other pieces. This makes it undesirable to have too many of the same piece and implicitly prevents a hard restriction on how many of the same piece a player can use. I priortized building the pieces and the game mechanics to place implicit restrictions over hard limits. This lets us that support the experience of the game, while maintaining a players ability to explore and decide how they wish to play and adjust to the way their opponent is playing.
4.0 Playtesting
During playtesting we explored a variety of different cases and situations. We tested Developer Vs Playtester. Playtester vs Playtester. And Playtesters exploring a series of challenges. Playtesters had a variety of backgrounds, with those familiar and unfamiliar with the IP, and people with different levels of familiarity and preference towards games that required a similar level of skillset.
Each session was recorded, with short interview sessions conducted afterwards. We reviewed pacing, game balance, player expectations and experience along with various points of frustration and uncertainty that were addressed in future tests.
A typical match would take around 45 minutes to an Hour and a half depending factors such as player familiarity and previous experience with the game or IP. Players remained engaged for the entire duration of the sessions, asking questions, exploring various combinations and expressing themselves vocally on many occasions.
Players were able to learn and understand how to play the game quickly as they acquired a strong grasp of the mechanics and the way the pieces worked over the course of a single match. In most cases they required little assistance on how to play as they moved into the mid game and were playing with little or not reference to the help materials near the end of their first match.
In a full match setting, players were able to identify and utilize over 12+ unique pieces over the course of the first match. By the second match players were well versed with the pieces at their disposal. However, when we placed them in a series of puzzle challenges (Tutorialization), we reduced the learning curve down to under a minute for each piece.
The game was described as being easy to understand and play. It was just burdened by having to learn everything at once in a live match setting which is why it can take a player half the match to learn every piece at their disposal. This is why the puzzle challenges were a success as they focused their attention into bite sized challenges that let them quickly use a piece and understand how it interacts.
These challenges are designed like mini scenarios that they have to solve. Short and customized “PVE” challenges that focus on familiarizing players with a piece, and how they interact with other pieces. It uses a preselected pieces in a precreated board setup where the player would have to win by defeating the “AI” opponent.
Players had positive responses to this set of challenges, and it showed vast improvement in onboarding players and in new player enjoyment. I followed up these challenges by quizzing players on the details of each piece that was used. Each player answered accurately, and we saw higher engagement in those players as they engaged in their first match.
Players did not have trouble tracking game pieces, understanding what a piece did or forgetting that a piece was present with an ability.
We did have challenges with Clarity that needed to be addressed. Due to the amount of space a piece could threaten, players often spent a lot of time counting spaces to determine range of movement and danger. This ended up slowing down the game and could be overwhelming for new players.
We quickly addressed that problem in two ways. Digitally, we implemented range indicators that a player could toggle on each individual piece. This allowed them to see how far a piece could move, and what space it would threaten. Similar to what you might see in the game “Fire Emblem”. Physically, we instituted range tokens. These tokens can be placed down on various spots to outline an area around a game piece. As all measurements are done from the tile in question this solution helped speed up what spaces were safe.
These fixes dramatically increased the pace of the game and resulted in reducing frustration and clarity issues and allowed players to focus on playing the game.
Players easily connected with themes of the game in relation to the IP often referencing prominent connections. They often used these references as a way to expedite their connections between terminology, mechanics and other game-centric features.
