When to stop?

I think that the urge to overhaul is one that needs to be resisted but not necessarily completely ignored. There's a game I've been working on for about 2 years now, and it's currently in its ninth rulebook. Most of the versions are simply rules iterations, but there have been at least 3 major structural changes to the game that have fundamentally changed the nature of the game. In the process, I've tossed out some of the mechanics around which the original design was based, and that, I think, was the hardest part, since it made me say: "hey, but this is where the design started; shouldn't this aspect be sacrosanct?" But it just didn't work in the new formulation of the game. The good news is that those removed mechanics will find a home somewhere else, and that this game has moved (I think, pending playtesting) from a halfway decent game to something that I am very proud of. And it took some serious outside-the-box thinking and a willingness to start over from scratch to do it.

However, in this project, I had a huge advantage in making overhauls in that one of my overall project goals -- that the game be playable in <3 hours -- was not being met; the game was taking 5 hours or more to play. So in a sense, I had to overhaul the game to achieve my project goal. Had game length not have been an issue, I might not have tried so hard. And I wouldn't have as good a game.

I would say, don't be afraid to make big changes if you can tell that the changes will make the game better. But there are a lot of changes that one can come up with that will make the game different without providing a clear improvement. I would be more careful about these kinds of changes. I don't think that being a thorough designer requires considering every possible permutation of rules you can envision. If something seems neutral, think it through, talk it over with playtesters, and keep it open as an option should the current incarnation not pan out. But only go for those really big changes if your project isn't meeting a specific goal -- like providing a certain player experience (e.g., not strategic enough, not fun enough, etc), or doesn't work with the number of players you want, or requires too many components, or whatever.

I should also confess that my philosophy on this subject tends to be "don't let 'good enough' be the enemy of 'perfect'", and so I'm usually willing to try different things and consider big changes. It works for me because I'm not in any particular rush with any of my games, so meandering a bit is ok. But meandering too much will try your playtesters' patience, and if you're creating the game from whole cloth every time you play, they and you will get frustrated, so it's best to try to lock in some tentative mechanics early on if possible.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Good luck!

-Jeff

I tend to go along with jwarrend.

I've been working for the last yea on my project. After a review on the GDW, i was about to throw it out even if the commetaries we very good on it.

Even if my game was fun to play, I want to spice it up and include some comments from the GDW. For this I'll have to trash some of my work and start again.

I must say in the other hand that I took the long way to produce a playable prototype. My goal was to have a nice prototype to send for contest. Unfortunatly, I spent more time on arts and design that play factor and rules. I learn a lot doing this (Photoshop, Mojo World, Illustrator, card producing techniques), but I should have been able to pull my work out faster.

I'm also thinking that a good editor will be in a position to playtest and help you with minor changes so you don't have to make it perfect. You just have to make the best you can give. Iguess that even our best isn't enough to get publish :(.

Have a good day.

Yes, I'd go along with that. I've certainly had this experience, with one early design of mine being a total failure but the three interesting mechanics spun off into three entirely different games, at least two of which work really well.

And don't forget - when you're a rich and famous... well, ok then, famous designer, you can always go back to those old designs and try and sell them again :-)

Seriously though, it's interesting to see that many published designs have then subsequently evolved into later better versions (good examples here would be Volldamf - Age of Steam and Basari - Edel, Stein & Reich. There's nothing wrong with the "earlier" versions, but given the choice I'd always play the later one.

I think the best point made so far is that if a change just makes the current design different without making it better, to not do it. The urge to tweak will never end, and I'd advise you to move on, do another, differnt game, and then come back to this current one. A bit of distance will make the urge to tweak less, as well as lend you perspective on what's working and what isn't.

On the other hand, if enough time passes your design easthetic will have changed, and you'll want to go into your rules with a pickaxe and night goggles. Best to start from the ground up, in that case, and rename the project. Not just another edition. A new name. a new identity. Let the old incarnation stand, and begin again.

So you'll end up with two very similar game... so what? One will be head and shoulders over the other, probably. And no identity crisis, either!