I've been designing games for about three years now. I can tell that I'm more experienced now because they're much more complex. Does this mean they're better? Well, they are more complex... :)
I've put a lot of thought into what exactly I want to do with my games. Do I want to run the gauntlet of publishers? Do I want to self-publish? And I've come to this conclusion...
It's all about solid games. A solid game is not a solid game idea that you're convinced will work, nor is it a game that you've invented that you need playtesters for.
A solid game has been playtested, both with the designer and blind. A solid game not only has a strong game design, but an understandable and attractive graphic design and a clear, consice rulebook.
A solid game is a game that a complete stranger - a person that I've never met, and will never meet - will open up, read the rules, play, and say, "I like this game. I want to play it again."
Simply put, a designer who's never designed a solid game (like me) who is thinking about getting a game published is like a 13-year old trying to decide what luxury sports car he wants to buy.
So my challenge to myself: before I even think about pulishing, I need a few solid game designs. Not one, but at least three.
Once I have three solid, tested designs that can work with almost any game group, I'll concern myself with publishing.
I wonder if anyone else has made a similar ultimatum to themselves. Or if anyone has just jumped in with a design that isn't solid, and has lived to tell the tale.
Do tell!
From what I hear all over, that is a good ultimatum to give yourself, but also once you have one solid game there is no harm in sending query letters to game publishers to see if they will either buy your game or even look at it.