Lessons from the Expo 2018
Returning home after UK Games Expo I feel energised but exhausted, thrilled but intimidated and stunned, but appreciative at how they manage to make the event better every time I go.
It was a weird event for me personally as I felt like I had so many different hats on; game designer, game publisher, board game café owner, customer and most conversations saw me switching between them.
I arrived with three main goals for the weekend:
Playtest, Playtest, Playtest!
Speak to Production Houses
Speak to Games Publishers
PLAYTESTING
I was able to secure a table with Playtest UK (a wonderful group of people who worked tirelessly to get all of the designers playtesters) for the morning slot from 10am to 1pm. This was the very start of the con and I was pretty sure playtesting wouldn't be the first thing on attendees list. That's how it turned out and the first 45mins or so were pretty quiet with attendees rushing here and there, still doing their first scout of the halls. Then one of the wonderful volunteers guided a couple to my table and we were off!
In the Playtest Zone
I don't think my table was empty the rest of the session with a constant rotation of players. I saw some of the plays I expected, one or two I didn't and got nothing but positive feedback.
Now don't get me wrong, I love the ego boost of scoring 10s on feedback forms and receiving comments like "Great game with a great story", but I'm pretty sure my game isn't perfect yet. It was a little disappointing that my only confirmed playtest of the weekend didn't uncover more problems.
I also learnt one other thing - con playtests come in twos. At my café or with friends its been always four players, but over the whole weekend every test was with two people. This is where the game needed most testing and I expected a leaning towards it, so I wasn't at all unhappy with this discovery.
I also managed to get some additional testing done on the Sunday when I camped out in the open gaming area. Maybe it was just the way those games played out, or maybe the cheek of asking for their time at the very end of the con gave players more licence to be more frank, but I got some great critical feedback from that session. Note to self - always push for more testing!
PRODUCTION HOUSES
Somewhere in the not too distant future I plan to kickstart Werewolves of the Black Forest. I know a little about development, a little about design, loads about playing and next to nothing about manufacturing board games. This then was a chance to learn.
Cards, brochures and samples...
I spoke to several production houses at the con and each of them took the same basic line - they handed me a business card, gave me a short spiel about their organisation and a box of samples. While this is great from a first contact point of view and to see what they're able to do, it didn't really help me understand the process and check points or get to the detail I'm going to need.
I feel that this was a missed opportunity, largely due to my own lack of preparation. When I returned from the con I wrote up a full list of components for the game and a host of questions about the manufacturing process and sent them off to the various companies asking for quotes, if I'd had this at the con I believe I could have got more out of those interactions.
PUBLISHERS
My final port of call on the weekend was to speak to publishers. This wasn't really with any urgency and I certainly didn't have a massive agenda, but it seemed like too good an opportunity to miss to find out a bit more about the other route to market.
Most people urge designers not to become publishers and vice versa and at the moment I'm poised to become both. I know that Kickstarter comes with a whole bunch of headaches and risk and to some extent you're out there on your own handling every detail of a process you don't know much about. That said I'm a firm believer in the idea that just because you don't know doesn't mean you can't learn and there are a host of examples of people making this work.
The flip side is the publisher who wants to change every aspect of the precious game you've created and return just a small reward for doing so. This one is more invasive and frankly less true. Publishers aren't looking to change your game for the sake of it - they want to make your game better and have years of experience doing it. They also take on a bunch of financial risk, have production and distribution in place and bring a wealth of experience to the table that justifies their share of any (note that last word) profit.
I found Cardboard Edison while researching what to expect from a publisher and some of their infographics were really helpful in giving me a sense of what getting a game to a publisher might involve and mean - I plan to check out more of their site.
I spoke to six or seven different games companies at the expo and was surprised to find that their approach to game submissions vary wildly. Some expect a finished product that they'll simply slap a label on and print, while others want to be involved extremely early in the process, seemingly when the game isn't much more than a concept. Also how to approach is also varied - some have a specific submission process while others will take the information however you present it. It was eye opening to be told on one hand "is the game good?" was the only concern and on the other to receive a list of game styles and types a company just aren't interested in.
Huge thanks to Zev Shlasinger from WizKids who suffered my first stumbling uninformed questions in this area and for being really generous with his time and advice.
Another great Expo with a lot learned, now its time to set up some blind playtests and see if my rulebook makes any sense...
