/pic1017544.png)
/pic2200943.png)
The next title from Flatlined Games is Robin, by Fréderic Moyersoen. This series of articles will tell you the tale of making Robin from the initial idea to the finished product.
The current Flatlined Games range is made of four games: Dragon Rage, an old-school wargame for hobbyists; Rumble In the House and Rumble In The Dungeon, two simple and zany party-games with bluffing and deduction; and Twin Tin Bots, our robot programming game by Philippe Keyaerts. Flatlined Games is still a small publishing house. I am alone and cannot afford to release a big box game like Twin Tin Bots every year. I have therefore decided to publish a few smaller games in order to be able to make other big box games later on.
/pic474383.jpg)
I usually discover new prototypes during boardgame events, at gaming weekends, or by designers contacting me out of the blue via email. For this project, I took a different approach. Fréderic jokingly mentioned at a gaming weekend that we had known each other for a while but I hadn't yet published any of his games. I was actively looking for small games, so I browsed his catalogue of games. (Fréderic has an online catalogue of unpublished games that he makes accessible to publishers. The format is quite simple: one page per game with a small photograph of the game materials, a short description of the theme and game idea, and a technical summary with age, number of players, duration, and a list of the components. This makes it easy to browse the whole list of unpublished games and select a few for further evaluation.)
Over time, I have played a lot of Fréderic's prototypes, many of which were eventually published. I therefore had a good idea of most of the games in his catalog already. There were a few games matching the format I was looking for, some that I had played already, so I asked him to bring a few to an event we were both attending. I played each one once again and eventually selected one, which was named "Guilds" at the time.
"Guilds" prototype
/pic438280.jpg)
At the heart of the game is a central track with one pawn for each player. Their position on the track dictates the income they will receive. They must then contribute to a common fund according to their income: If they receive much, they contribute more, and if they received nothing, they get an allocation from the common fund.
Income is made of cards, which are exchanged by the players during the course of the game. Cards belong to several types and the goal of the game is to gather a set of cards of the same type, as in the classic Happy Families game.
During exchanges, pawns are moved on the track according to the exchanged cards. This allows careful players to improve their income and reduce other players' income in order to be the first to collect a winning set.
The game system is therefore very simple and can be played with the whole family. The game is fun and quite interactive, and the exchange system keeps all players in the game each turn with little downtime. It is also important to keep track of who exchanges what in order to guess the sets that players are collecting and avoid giving them an easy victory.
Medieval guilds was working as a theme, but that was too plain for my tastes. Not only did it not fit well in Flatlined Games' editorial line as we privilege fantastic and popular culture themes, but it was also set in a very crowded setting. (Medieval commerce has been used in hundreds if not thousands of games already.) I asked Fréderic to explore other themes, and he was enthusiastic.
We needed a theme that matched the "mutual insurance fund" mechanism as it is central to the game and that fit naturally and didn't feel artificial or pasted-on. Transposing medieval guilds to a futuristic space opera setting with space guilds would have been too easy, of course, and pretty transparent.
We explored a few themes that could more or less fit the game engine and eventually decided for Robin Hood. The theme change felt natural and was coherent with the game engine: Instead of moving from floor to floor in the guildhouse, players would roam the road from Sherwood Forest to Nottingham Castle. Spaces near the castle would bring more rich passersby to rob but at a higher risk, and spaces near the forest would bring less or no loot but the merry men would compensate for the difference in income as you work to help at the camp. The whole Merry Men thing of stealing from the rich to give to the poor somehow works as a mutual insurance fund — only deposits are not always voluntarily made...
Part 2: Game Development and Playtesting
Once the contract for publication of Robin was signed, we started working on the game development. The game had already been published in limited quantities by an insurance company, but it's always a good thing to review all aspects of a game before publishing it: This allows you to find any remaining issues and to further polish the game before publication.
«A game is never really done; at some point of its life, it just gets published.» (Jim Dunnigan)
I started to get the Guilds prototype played at game nights, weekends and events, and it was overall well-received. The game engine ran smoothly and play was around 20 minutes. At some point, players found a problem in the game engine where it was possible to empty the community pool and to progressively empty all player's hands. Fréderic quickly found a solution to this and modified the game accordingly. Guilds was now more solid and polished.
Once the game had been re-themed to Robin, I put together a new prototype with that theme and proceeded to playtest it again. Even if you change nothing to the rules and the retheming is only cosmetic, each modification done must be checked. For instance, in Guilds players go up and down in the guild house on the game board, and in Robin they go from left to right on the road from Sherwood Forest to Nottingham Castle. I wanted to make sure the arrows were still clear for all players, even on a big table, and that the direction of the arrows could not be confused. Playtesting also allowed us to make sure that during rules explanation the new theme matched the game engine, helped rules comprehension, and made a coherent whole for the players. We quickly realized that the new theme worked very well, even better by some aspects than the guilds theme.
We playtest a lot, and it happens that other publishers and designers participate in these playtests. This usually is very interesting as they have different views on what a game should be like and offer constructive criticism during the playtesting debriefings. This happened also with Robin. During an event in Brussels, Sébastien Dujardin (from Pearl Games) suggested adding a small mechanism to the game to make player position on the road track more important. We tested that immediately and it was added to the core game as it worked really well with the rest.
Goodie or No Goodie?
Fréderic also had designed a small set of special cards for the game, which could be used as a promotional goodie upon the game release.
During playtests, we decided to add these to the main game. These added a few interesting effects to the game engine, and it would have been a bit sad to only allow the lucky few who could get ahold of the goodie set to benefit from these cards. As time goes by, I'm growing more and more convinced that goodies that change or add to the actual gameplay should not be limited to a select few players who just happened to be lucky enough to get them.
Over a year and a half, Robin was playtested dozens of time. Although the resulting changes were minor overall, they have allowed us to further polish the game and to make sure players would play it over and again before getting tired of it.
Part 3: An Interview With Fréderic Moyersoen
Fréderic Moyersoen agreed to a session of questions and answers, a good opportunity to learn more about this prolific but discreet designer.
Q: Robin started as a commissioned work for an insurance company. Is this a common occurrence, or is it the exception?
It is rather exceptional, but it happens. In 2004 I was hired to design a game for a magazine. I had one month to design the concept. It was eventually republished in 2009 under the name Van Helsing.
More recently, I was contacted by a publisher from the Netherlands for a very ambitious project. Unfortunately the whole project went tits up and the game was never published. The normal process is rather that I create games and then look for a publisher.
Q: Was the requirement set provided by the client very specific or rather large?
A business usually has little knowledge of board games, so it was rather large. The key aspect was that it had to be a small game, simple, and of course fun to play.
Q: Creating for a commission implies a set of constraints. Is this a difficulty, or do these constraints help kickstart creativity?
This is an interesting question. I'll say that all games are created around constraints. When you freely create, you set yourself arbitrary constraints because you want to fit the range of such or such publisher.
If you use too much material or it is too costly, the game will be difficult to sell. Also, a game that is too original, too different, can be tough to sell.
With a commission, constraints help to focus your imagination, not unlike the kind of canvas a painter uses will change the way he works. A smaller painting works differently than a big one. Watercolors will lead him to a different place than oils.
Q: What are the pros and cons of such a commission work ?
First, for a commission there is a deadline to meet. Time is scarce so you must quickly find a concept that works. It's a real challenge.
Then, you need to get a good grip of the client's decision process. For Porto Seguro, which was the name of the commissioned game, the contact person had no decision power. I had to also sell the idea to his superior, then I was summoned before a panel of about twenty people to defend the idea before a final decision. This was quite trying, but the game was strong enough to pass these obstacles.
The prototype for Porto Seguro, which later became Robin
Q: Have other paths been explored, or were the central mechanisms already set from the beginning ?
Time was too limited to explore various paths. From the start, the game engine has not been changed a lot; it was only development, tweaks and ameliorations to balance all aspects of the game.
Q: Porto Seguro was created a few years ago. Today, would you accept that kind of commission work ?
It depends. Now that there was this failed project I would be much more cautious before taking on such a new commission work.
Q: After the client for Porto Seguro printed the game and distributed it to its employees, what made you bring the design back to the drawing board and work on it for a new version?
With Porto Seguro, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of any distribution plan. The client company printed the game internally and had no plans to distribute it outside the company. There may very well still be stacks of unused boxes in their warehouse. A game is created to be played, so it's sad to see it gathering dust, unplayed. This was a very strong motivation to start working again on this game.
Q: It's a game built closely around a very specific theme. Was it difficult to change the theme from Porto Seguro to guilds?
All my games are built around the theme, but I was pleasantly surprised to see this game could easily be adapted to another theme such as medieval guilds or later on Robin hood.
The commissioned theme was social security, so I researched the origins of social welfare and ended up on medieval guilds. Robin Hood's Merry Men most probably had a similarly geared organization to support each other.
Q: Work on the game was completed and it was fully developed when Flatlined Games picked it up for publication, yet they wanted to bring it back to the drawing board, develop it yet further again, and re-test everything. Is this common for a publisher?
Most publishers want a game that is ready for publication. This allows them to invest less time for a maximum return over time invested, or so they seem to think. I am very happy that Flatlined Games wanted to push development further, well beyond the point I thought the game was completed. It is rather rare that a publisher will invest so much time, expertise and imagination to further polish a concept that is supposed to already be ready for publication.
Q: Was this third development phase not somehow redundant ?
No. Without hesitation I can say that the game was good, but Flatlined Games made it excellent.
Q: Flatlined Games kept you in the loop during the whole process: playtest reports, choice of materials and packaging, illustrations from the first sketches to the final rendered art... This requires a lot of implication whereas some publishers will just stay silent once the contract is signed until they come up with the finished product ready to be put on the shelves. Did you enjoy this level of implication?
This is by far the best way to see a project evolve. Creating a new game is a bit like parenthood. As the father, you want to be there when the mother delivers, and then see how the kid grows. With some games, I felt like a sailor that knocks up the mother, sets sail, and only comes back ashore to a kid he did not see grow up.
Q: What do you think of the final product that Robin is? (packaging, art, ...)
It's all excellent. The artist is talented and did a great job. The publisher made interesting choices and assessed all options to only retain the best ones.
3D rendering of the components; cards are 100% plastic
Q: Robin hosts 2-6 players, like many of your creations. Is it important for you to allow for more than two or four players, or is this a market-related constraint?
As a player, I often have to pick a game according to the number of players around the table. Even if most want to play a given game we sometimes have to pick another game because the numbers don't fit. By creating games for two to six players, I can avoid this dilemma.
Q: You are known for several games, but the most famous is Saboteur, which is nearing a million copies sold. Does this help your other games, or do they have to somehow live in the shadows of your best-seller?
Unlike writers, game designers are not well known and advertised. In a library, books are sorted according to writer name, not by publisher. With games it is different. Publishers put forward a range of games with a visible and recognizable brand. Having the designer's name on game boxes is by the way a recent trend. So all in all I think the Saboteur effect is minimal on my other games.
Q: From 1998, it's now sixteen years that designing board games has been your only profession. What are the big changes you've witnessed in the game industry over that time?
The number of new publishers never stopped growing, and neither did the number of new titles published. I witnessed a real boom in the boardgames market. If you take into account the fact that gamers represent only about 2-3% of the population, we could still be far from saturation. At the same time, I saw the shelf life of games diminish and that's something quite bad. Too many publishers release new games to then just forget about them and turn on something else. I am quite happy that Flatlined Games works on a longer scope and wants to keep their games available on the market for a long time.
Q: If you had to start over now, would it still be possible? Harder or easier than in 1998?
Well, in 1998 I wrote letters to contact publishers. Most of them never even bothered to reply, by the way. With the Internet and all the modern communication channels it's easier to get in touch with publishers. The quantity of designers also rose in the same proportion, so I guess it's about as hard today as it was in 1998 to get started in this business.
Q: What changes did you find the most promising these last few years?
I feel the world shrunk. Sixteen years ago each publisher was selling games in his local market: Germans in Germany, French in France. This has changed a lot, and top of the line publishers now all have a global market strategy.
Q: And which changes were the least positive?
I did not see notably bad changes happening.
Q: A few years back, the designer's name was not on the game box. Now, they are more and more placed in the spotlight and actively take part in promoting the games as in the book business: biography, signings, videos, interviews,... What do you think of this evolution?
It's positive and normal, and long term it is a requirement. This means the board game business becomes more mature and professional. There is a huge amount of games being released each year, and the publisher must find ways to stand out in this crowded marketplace. Using the designer as a star and putting him in the spotlight helps sell the games.
Q: You're one of the few full-time game designers. How many of your games have been published, and how many prototypes still sleep on your shelves?
Now about twenty titles have been published. About ten more are being worked on by publishers as we speak, and about a hundred are available for publication. As I create about eight new titles every year, my shelves fill up faster than I can sell my games to publishers.
Q: You create games for a wide audience, from children's games to historical wargames. Is this a professional approach to cover various areas of the market, or has this grown over time according to your whims?
I hold a fondness for historical wargames, but these have become unsellable nowadays. Over time we also grow lazy and reading sixty pages of rules before starting a set-up session of over one hour does not attract me so much anymore. The market clearly evolves towards simpler and lighter games. As a professional, you must adapt to the market and follow the trend.
Q: The design process is quite different from designer to designer. What is your criteria to decide whether an idea is worth pursuing, to the point of making a prototype and starting to develop it?
The theme I chose must engage me enough to go all the way in the creative process. I often will read a book after I pick the theme to get some ideas and get my teeth into the theme.
Q: Some designers have started self-publishing, especially with platforms such as Kickstarter. Do you think this challenges the role of publishers and distributors, or do you see that as a new market, complimentary to the current one?
It's obvious that publishers and distributors must take into account this new phenomenon, which challenges their traditional work methods. Some publishers also use Kickstarter as a promotional platform, but where will that lead us in the long term? Will gamers eventually need to preorder all their games before they are released? I am convinced most players want to see and hold the game box before they open their wallet and consider making a purchase.
Q: Each year, hundreds of new games are released and it's harder and harder for a new game to get noticed. What do you make of this?
I try not to worry too much about it because it could block my creativity. On the other hand, I always check whether an idea has already been released in the recent past. There is no use creating a game that already exists. As a game designer, I try to get noticed by creating new concepts. A publisher once told me: We are looking for a game idea that will have us say "Wow!" This is obviously easier said than done.
Part 4: Graphic Design
During the whole development work, prototypes are usually quite ugly, using clip-art, hand drawn sketches, and pictures from the Internet. We need only enough elements to play and test the game engine. This is also where the rough layout of the game gels in place: board, tokens, cards, etc.
A card from the Robin prototype; the background illustration was a first sketch from artist Quentin Ghion
Once development work is done — or at least when it's far enough that the layout will not change anymore — a proper artist needs to step in and start graphic design for the game.
I started by discussing with Fréderic the overall style for the game's art. Once we agreed on the art style and tone we wanted, I wrote a graphical brief document that summarizes the game, explains the style we are looking for, and details all elements that need be illustrated. Such documents also have examples of images in the required style and sometimes a mood-board, a series of unrelated illustrations in different styles that's put together to help define the overall atmosphere for the project.
This graphical brief has several uses. First, I use it to confirm with the designer that we are on the same page with regard to the graphic design for the game. Then, I use it to contact artists, as a reference allowing them to assess the work required and provide a quotation. Then during the production of the art it will serve as a reference to make sure no item was forgotten and that we are still in line with what was commissioned.
I keep the portfolio addresses and contact info of artists I have been in contact with over time, and when I start a new project I browse these portfolios to find the artist best suited to the project. I then contact them with the graphical brief asking whether they are interested and available and what their fees would be.
For this project, I hesitated for a while between working with an established artist or with a newcomer. A few months ago, Quentin Ghion contacted me, fresh out of school. His portfolio, under the alias "LopSkull", had lots of potential, even though his style was different than what we were looking for — but that was also an opportunity as bringing an artist out of his comfort zone, to explore new territories, often brings interesting and original results. Furthermore constraints can springboard artistic talent and creativity.
A portfolio illustration from Quentin "Lopskull" Ghion
I was won over by his sense of light and details and eventually decided to trust him with illustrating Robin, and he luckily was still available. This was me taking a risk, as not only his style was different and he would need to be guided through the whole process, but also this is a card game with lots of illustrations to create. And to make it all even more fun the available time was short if we wanted to finish in time to have the game produced before October 2014. A big project on a limited time — what better challenge is there to get started with board game art?
Another portfolio illustration
Quentin lives in Belgium, so we could afford a rare luxury: We sat down together — designer, artist and publisher — and played the prototype for Robin before starting work on the art. This is quite rare as all parties usually live far from each other. This is, of course, a real plus for the game as it allows the artist to get a good grip of the game and easily understand which information is important and which is secondary.
We followed a stepped path to manage the amount of work to be done: first pencil sketches and doodles to quickly define each illustration and allow for easy changes or variations. Then roughs, quick sketches to define the color palette and overall placement of light. Only then was each illustration rendered in full color and detail. This breakdown makes it easy to do changes if an illustration doesn't work well or doesn't match our expectations.
It is usually the publisher that is in charge with regards to the graphic design and marketing of a game, and the designer for all matters that relate to gameplay. I, however, kept Fréderic in the loop at each stage, asking his feedback and sometimes asking changes of Quentin based on it. I also included the team at IELLO and some retailers I know well in the loop for more feedback. They really helped me make Robin a better game.
As soon as I saw the first sketches, I knew that hiring Quentin was a good decision. He was able to fit the style we wanted while bringing his own style to it and made the game a homogenous whole. He was also very quick, creating most of the art for the game in under a month, which is no small feat. I would not be surprised to see his name on more game boxes in the future.
Part 5: Quentin "LopSkull" Ghion in His Own Words
The English lop is a breed of domestic rabbit with long hair and long lop ears, so my artist name is the skull of a lop-eared rabbit, which defines me quite well as I like dark settings, humor, and of course rabbits.
So where are the blue skies, chlorophyll, and warm smiles ?
They are quite rare in my portfolio where I rather travel in dark places with brutes and ugly monsters, which I have a lot of sympathy for — and it works quite well when you have to create art for video games.
It doesn't come very handy, however, when you want to take on a family theme such as Robin Hood and his Merry Men, with their bright smiles. That is the challenge that Eric and Fréderic brought to me with their new game Robin.
And I gladly took them on, even if they had to put me back every now and then on the path to joy and colors, to fight some entrenched habits. I kind of had forgotten that a sky is blue, and when I checked through the window it was indeed bright blue. I was eventually quick at home with the characters, giving them each a personality of their own. Taking on a classic theme is interesting as you easily reach people, while still being able to integrate your personal touch to it.
The most difficult aspect may have been the background for each series. We needed each family to be easy to recognize, while still integrating well with the illustration. Eric trusted me on my approach, and I am glad of the results we got.
The experience was overall very positive, with an efficient production workflow, a great first experience with boardgame illustration.
The most difficult series was the places. They had to be part of a whole, while having very different settings and moods. The common trait of the places is a bright blue sky, but how should I integrate the castle's jail or the farm in that series? Eventually, the compositions were enough to link the series together, and the pictograms would further help.
Production was quite efficient, starting with doodles and sketches, a few changes, then rough light and color placement, and a last step with details and rendering. I also had to correct some anachronistic details as Robin Hood is set in a well-defined historical context.
Most of the work was to create the cards, but the box cover, board and box itself were also quite a challenge. I designed several covers, including one I liked a lot as it was more dynamic, but which was deemed too aggressive in the end.
Using the game box as game board was an interesting idea, but playtest showed us that players didn't like it during play as it got in the way, so it was dropped. The box will be a very nice object, however, which I am impatient to hold in my hands.
As for all parts of the game, actually. It's quite a thing to see your work made into a real object, to hold the cards in hand, move on the board, and win the game, of course.
Thanks to Eric and Fréderic for their trust, and for offering me a first opportunity in the magical world of boardgame illustration.
/pic2260704.jpg)
/pic2256737.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic2255787.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic2197597.jpg)
/pic2073938.jpg)
