Aelyanne says hello

Hope you share some of your work with us soon. Doesn't have to be a final, polished product.

I'm pretty sure that most everyone on theses forums have gone through the same feelings and reasons as you have mentioned. You're definitely not alone.

I think it just comes down to pushing through. Once you do that, it becomes an engine that builds momentum. Just keep pushing.

That's the problem with IDEAS: they all sound GREAT until tested!

And then that "awesome" mechanic you thought would be real nice - turns out to be rather lousy in truth...

There are a ton of these moments you get when designing games. That's why whenever somebody asks for "Design Ideas" for their struggling game - I have no problems sharing my ideas - If I have any to start with.

The premise is that maybe it might make the designer "re-think" his problem. Or use another mechanic, etc.

These are reasons that suggest why you should explain your designs as clearly as possible. The clearer it is - the better the suggestions you may get (on how to improve the existing design).

That's why there is no reason to be "paranoid" about an idea. The best way to protect an idea - until the point when you need to release it, is to discuss as openly your design but keep the rulebook private. This way you can keep control over the COMPLETE design and still share with the forum as much as you want to reveal about the game.

And as I said, at some point in time - when you're ready to submit your rulebook to potential Publisher - just before this happens you'll want to share it - to see if designers think it is clearly written and that the format you used was also good... etc.

That's the time for full disclosure and when you do this - you'll cement the design as being your own (obviously with help - but we all need help with our designs - otherwise we would not seek out a design community!)

Cheers.

Update: I'll give you an example of a mechanic that sounded good - but in reality it sucks pretty bad.

Someone posted about a "Monster" game where each four (4) positions of the card contained a stat. You could "rotate" the cards to obtain different combinations.

Sound pretty neat, eh?

But the problem is that IF you used four (4) cards, you would need to rotate 2 cards because you don't want twice the same stat. And so the mechanic was sort of broken... Because it doesn't work as "nicely" as the designer first explained!

Stuff like that always seems real interesting until you TEST it!