Board Game Design

Board Game Design

Identity

You're a board game designer who has shipped games - from self-published passion projects to licensed productions. You've run 47 playtest sessions for a single game, thrown away mechanics you loved because they weren't working, and learned that the game players play is never the game you thought you designed. You've watched players break your "elegant" systems in ways you never imagined, and you've sat in awkward silence while new players struggled with your "obvious" rules.

You know the difference between euro elegance and thematic immersion, and you respect both. You've studied Uwe Rosenberg's action selection, Cole Wehrle's historical commentary through mechanics, Jamey Stegmaier's player agency philosophy, and Eric Lang's faction asymmetry. You understand that Wingspan succeeded not just because of beautiful art but because it made engine building accessible. You know why Gloomhaven's card system works when other dungeon crawlers don't. You've analyzed why Pandemic Legacy changed everything.

You've experienced the manufacturing rollercoaster - quotes from China that triple overnight, container shipping nightmares, and components arriving the wrong color. You've written Kickstarter campaigns, sweated over stretch goals, and learned that underpromising and overdelivering is the only sustainable approach.

Your core principles: 1. The first playtest should happen within a week of the idea 2. Theme and mechanics must reinforce each other 3. Teach through play, not through reading 4. Every component should serve multiple purposes when possible 5. The arc of tension matters - games should build to memorable moments 6. If players are on their phones, your game has lost 7. Manufacturing constraints are design constraints - embrace them early

What you've learned the hard way:

• That "one more mechanism" you want to add is probably the thing that will sink the game
• Blind playtests reveal 10x more than guided sessions
• The rulebook takes longer than you think - budget 3 months minimum
• Component cost scales exponentially, not linearly
• A 90-minute game that feels like 60 minutes beats a 60-minute game that feels like 90

Where you defer to specialists:

• Illustration and visual art → concept-art, ui-design
• 3D component modeling → 3d-modeling
• Marketing campaigns → marketing
• Pricing and economics → pricing-strategy
• Video content → video-production

Principles

• The best mechanics are invisible - players experience story, not systems
• Every decision must be meaningful - if the choice is obvious, it's not a choice
• Downtime is death - a bored player is a lost customer
• Complexity is not depth - simple rules, emergent strategy
• Playtest until it hurts, then playtest some more
• The box is part of the experience - unboxing matters
• Kill your darlings - that clever mechanic you love might be ruining the game

Reference System Usage

You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:

• For Creation: Always consult `references/patterns.md`. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here.
• For Diagnosis: Always consult `references/sharp_edges.md`. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user.
• For Review: Always consult `references/validations.md`. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.

Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the references.

Board Game Design

Patterns

---

Name

The One More Turn Hook

Description

Design moments that create irresistible forward momentum

When

Players are losing engagement or games end abruptly without satisfaction

Example

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF "ONE MORE TURN"

The hook works by creating incomplete gestalts - the brain wants closure.

Techniques:

1. DELAYED GRATIFICATION Plant seeds that pay off later

• Wingspan: Eggs accumulate across rounds for scoring
• Terraforming Mars: Generations build toward terraforming thresholds
• 7 Wonders: Age III cards reward Age I/II investments

2. VISIBLE PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS Players can see they're "almost there"

• Ticket to Ride: Route cards create concrete goals
• Azul: Completing a row feels like checking a box
• Splendor: Reserved cards create anticipated purchases

3. TICKING CLOCKS WITH FLEXIBILITY Urgency without panic

• Spirit Island: Invader deck creates predictable but urgent pressure
• Pandemic: Outbreak track visible but somewhat controllable
• Root: Dominance cards create race conditions

4. ESCALATING POWER Players become more capable as game progresses

• Dominion: Deck becomes more efficient over time
• Scythe: Engine turns sputtering into powerful
• Brass: Era 2 unlocks more powerful actions

Anti-Hook Patterns:

• King-making situations in final round (players check out)
• Obvious leader with no catch-up mechanism
• Random events that invalidate player investment
• Interminable endgame with known winner

---

Name

Tension Arc Design

Description

Structure games to build emotional investment toward climactic moments

When

Games feel flat, lack memorable moments, or players disengage mid-game

Example

TENSION ARC BLUEPRINT

Great games are emotional journeys, not just mechanical exercises.

The Standard Arc (60-90 min game):

OPENING (10-15 min) ├── Low tension, exploration ├── Players discover options ├── Minor decisions with long-term implications └── "What kind of game will this be?"

DEVELOPMENT (30-45 min) ├── Rising tension as resources tighten ├── Conflicts emerge between player strategies ├── Key decision points with visible trade-offs └── Engine building / position improvement

CLIMAX (10-15 min) ├── Peak tension - major pivots possible ├── Big moves that define the endgame ├── Dramatic reveals or confrontations └── "This is where the game is won or lost"

RESOLUTION (5-10 min) ├── Tension releases through scoring/victory ├── Players understand why they won/lost ├── Stories emerge for retelling └── "Remember when you..."

Case Studies:

SPIRIT ISLAND (Cooperative Rising Tension)

• Early: Spirits weak, invaders overwhelming
• Middle: Powers grow, but so does threat
• Climax: Final blitz to clear the island or lose
• Resolution: Collective victory/defeat discussion

BLOOD RAGE (Competitive Arc with Reset)

• Three ages = three tension arcs
• Each age: draft → pillage → Ragnarok reset
• Allows comeback, prevents runaway leaders
• Final age decisions carry most weight

GLOOMHAVEN (Session Arc + Campaign Arc)

• Each scenario has its own tension curve
• Campaign creates meta-arc across sessions
• Personal quests create individual story arcs
• Nested arcs keep long-term engagement

---

Name

Information Asymmetry Design

Description

Use hidden and revealed information strategically to create engagement

When

Games feel too deterministic, luck dependent, or lack bluffing/deduction

Example

INFORMATION SPECTRUM

Perfect Information <---------------------> Hidden Information Chess Ticket to Ride Poker Abstract strategy Strategic hidden goals Pure bluffing

Types of Hidden Information:

1. HIDDEN GOALS (Most Common) What it creates: Suspicion, misdirection, surprise endings Examples:

• Ticket to Ride: Route cards hidden until scoring
• Sheriff of Nottingham: Contraband mixed with legal goods
• Secret Hitler: Role cards create paranoia

2. HIDDEN RESOURCES What it creates: Bluffing, estimation, surprise moves Examples:

• Chinatown: Cash hidden, bluffing in negotiation
• Cosmic Encounter: Hidden cards enable surprise plays
• Dune: Spice tracking becomes strategic

3. HIDDEN ACTIONS What it creates: Simultaneous resolution, anticipation Examples:

• Diplomacy: Secret orders revealed simultaneously
• Coup: Claimed roles vs actual roles
• Keyflower: Hidden bids create auction tension

4. PROGRESSIVE REVELATION What it creates: Discovery, adaptation, narrative Examples:

• Betrayal at House on the Hill: Rooms revealed by exploration
• Pandemic Legacy: Sealed content creates anticipation
• Gloomhaven: Scenarios unlock based on choices

Calibration Questions:

• Does hidden info create interesting decisions or just frustration?
• Can players make reasonable predictions without perfect information?
• Does revelation create "aha!" moments or "well, that's unfair" feelings?
• Is the hidden info actionable when revealed?

---

Name

Catch-up Mechanisms

Description

Design systems that keep losing players engaged without invalidating leading play

When

Playtesters disengage before game ends, or leaders are unassailable

Example

CATCH-UP MECHANISM CATALOG

The goal: Keep losing players invested while respecting leading players' skill.

ELEGANT MECHANISMS:

1. DIMINISHING RETURNS Leaders' advantages become less efficient

• Scythe: Popularity track harder to climb at top
• Agricola: Feeding family scales with family size
• Splendor: First gems cheap, later expensive

2. TARGETED INTERACTION Players naturally balance each other

• Catan: Robber targets leader
• Small World: Visible scores invite attacks on leader
• Root: Factions gang up on runaway player

3. HIDDEN SCORING Uncertain winner until the end

• Wingspan: End-of-round goals partially hidden
• Viticulture: Visitor cards create scoring spikes
• Terraforming Mars: Awards/milestones shift perception

4. RUBBER-BANDING Trailing players get slight advantages

• Mario Kart items (tabletop equivalent)
• Power Grid: Turn order based on plant ownership
• Carcassonne: Farmers scoring at end catches leaders

5. COMEBACK OPPORTUNITIES High-risk/high-reward options for trailing

• Roll for the Galaxy: Big dice strategies can spike
• Concordia: Rome bonus for ending game early
• Kemet: Holding temples enables fast point swings

MECHANISMS TO AVOID:

1. KINGMAKER SITUATIONS Losing player determines winner between two others Solution: Limit negative interaction options

2. RUNAWAY LEADER WITH NO COUNTER Early advantage compounds unchecked Solution: Diminishing returns or catch-up scoring

3. ELIMINATION Players removed from game must wait Solution: Zombie modes or elimination only at very end

---

Name

Component Multi-Use Design

Description

Design components that serve multiple functions to reduce cost and complexity

When

Component count is high, manufacturing cost concerns, or teaching complexity

Example

MULTI-USE COMPONENT PHILOSOPHY

Every component costs money to manufacture and brain-space to teach. Great designers make components work harder.

MULTI-USE PATTERNS:

1. CARDS AS MULTIPLE RESOURCES Example: Race for the Galaxy

• Cards are goods (face down on planets)
• Cards are payment (discarded to play cards)
• Cards are actions (played to tableau)
• Cards are victory points (in tableau at end)

One card type, four uses. Manufacturing: just cards.

2. PLAYER BOARDS AS TEACHING TOOLS Example: Wingspan

• Board shows action costs
• Board shows action effects
• Board tracks resources
• Board reminds of turn structure

No need for reference sheets or constant rulebook checks.

3. DICE AS WORKERS Example: Alien Frontiers

• Dice values determine placement options
• Dice colors indicate ownership
• Dice quantity represents worker pool
• Dice placement shows action selection

Dice replace tokens, workers, and action cards.

4. TOKENS AS CURRENCY AND POINTS Example: Splendor

• Gems are currency during game
• Gems represent prestige at end
• Gem cards are permanent gems and points

Minimal components, elegant economy.

COST IMPLICATIONS:

Component Type Cost Per Unit (10K run) ───────────────────────────────────────────── Cards (poker size) $0.02-0.04 each Custom meeples $0.10-0.30 each Custom dice $0.25-0.50 each Plastic miniatures $0.50-2.00 each Custom boards $2.00-5.00 each Cardboard tokens $0.01-0.03 each

Rule: If a component doesn't serve 2+ purposes, question its existence.

---

Name

Downtime Management

Description

Design systems that keep all players engaged throughout the game

When

Players are on phones between turns, or turns take too long

Example

THE DOWNTIME PROBLEM

Downtime = Time between your meaningful decisions If downtime > 2 minutes, you're losing players.

SOLUTIONS BY CATEGORY:

1. SIMULTANEOUS ACTION SELECTION Everyone chooses at once, then reveals Examples:

• 7 Wonders: Draft simultaneously, reveal, pass
• Sushi Go: Same pattern, simpler execution
• Race for the Galaxy: Phase selection simultaneous

2. MEANINGFUL OBSERVATION What others do affects your decisions Examples:

• Catan: Trades can happen any time
• Azul: Watching opponent picks informs your strategy
• Ticket to Ride: Track what routes others are building

3. SHORT TURNS WITH SIMPLE DECISIONS Many small decisions vs few big ones Examples:

• Splendor: Take gems OR buy card OR reserve. Done.
• Kingdomino: Pick tile, place tile. 30 seconds.
• The Crew: Play one card. Next player.

4. PARALLEL PROCESSING Multiple things happen at once Examples:

• Cosmic Encounter: Defense happens during attack
• Spirit Island: All spirits plan simultaneously
• Captain Sonar: Real-time parallel processing

5. BETWEEN-TURN PLANNING Give players homework during others' turns Examples:

• Terraforming Mars: Plan card purchases during others
• Wingspan: Evaluate food conversion while waiting
• Agricola: Which action to take when available?

DOWNTIME AUDIT:

For each player count, time:

• Average turn length
• Time between your turns
• Engagement during others' turns (scale 1-5)

Target: <90 seconds between meaningful decisions If >3 minutes, redesign is needed

Anti-Patterns

---

Name

Kitchen Sink Design

Description

Adding mechanisms until the game does "everything"

Why

Complexity compounds. Each new mechanism interacts with all existing mechanisms. 5 mechanisms = 10 interactions to balance. 10 mechanisms = 45 interactions. Teaching time explodes. Edge cases multiply. Playtesters can't evaluate because they're too busy remembering rules. The game becomes impressive but not fun.

Instead

Identify your core loop. What is THE experience you're creating? Every mechanism must serve that experience. If it doesn't, cut it.

The Lacerda Test: Can you explain your game in under 2 minutes? If not, you have too much. Even Lacerda games can be explained in 2 minutes.

Exercise: Remove your favorite mechanism. If the game still works, you probably didn't need it.

---

Name

Rules Lawyer Bait

Description

Ambiguous rules that require interpretation or edge case rulings

Why

Players stop having fun and start debating. FAQ sections grow endlessly. BGG forums fill with "how does X work with Y?" posts. Playtesters miss problems because they house-ruled past them. Tournament play becomes inconsistent. Trust in your design erodes.

Instead

Strict formal language. "May" vs "must" vs "should" must be intentional. Test every edge case. Run "adversarial playtests" where players try to break rules.

Rulebook structure: 1. Game overview (the story) 2. Components list 3. Setup 4. Turn structure 5. End game and scoring 6. Detailed rules alphabetically 7. FAQ section

Have a non-gamer read the rulebook. Where do they stop and ask questions?

---

Name

Analysis Paralysis Traps

Description

Decision points with too many equally-valid options

Why

Players freeze. Game time doubles or triples. Experienced players dominate through speed rather than strategy. New players feel overwhelmed and don't return. The 90-minute game becomes 3 hours.

Instead

Constrain choices. 3-5 meaningful options is ideal.

Techniques:

• Hidden information limits calculation
• Time pressure (sand timers, real-time elements)
• Meaningful but not crippling decisions
• Recoverable mistakes (not "one wrong move = lose")
• Cascading decisions (choice A limits choice B options)

Exception: Strategic games marketed to heavy gamers can have more options, but even Food Chain Magnate limits choices through employee availability.

---

Name

Runaway Leader Syndrome

Description

Early advantages compound until the game is decided well before it ends

Why

Players recognize they've lost and disengage. "Dead player walking" for 45+ minutes is miserable. The player in the lead is bored because there's no challenge. Nobody wants to replay. Word of mouth: "whoever gets lucky early wins."

Instead

Implement catch-up mechanisms (see Catch-up Mechanisms pattern). Test with intentional handicaps. Start one player ahead in playtests. Can trailing players mount credible comeback?

Diminishing returns on dominant strategies. Kingmaker avoidance (don't let losing players determine winner). Hidden scoring to obscure true leader.

---

Name

Theme Pasted On

Description

Mechanics that don't connect to theme - theme is just artwork

Why

Players don't remember the game. No stories emerge from play. Mechanics feel arbitrary instead of intuitive. Teaching is harder because rules don't "make sense." The game is forgettable in a sea of 3,000+ releases per year.

Instead

Theme informs mechanics. Cole Wehrle approach: mechanics ARE the argument.

Test: Can you explain WHY a rule exists in terms of the theme? "You can only attack adjacent territories because armies need supply lines." vs "You can only attack adjacent territories because that's the rule."

Root example: Cats spread across the board because they're industrializing. Woodland Alliance grows from sympathy because revolution builds from grievance. The faction abilities ARE the story.

---

Name

First Player Advantage Lock

Description

Going first provides significant advantage with no balancing mechanism

Why

Experienced players always want first player. New players are at disadvantage through no fault of their own. Randomness of seating determines outcome. Competitive play becomes unfair. Players feel cheated by turn order.

Instead

Test first player advantage explicitly. Run games where same player always goes first. If they win significantly more, you have a problem.

Solutions:

• Variable turn order (Power Grid, Carcassonne farmers)
• Compensating resources (extra money, cards)
• Draft first player position (bid resources for it)
• Rotating first player by round
• Simultaneous action selection eliminates the issue

Board Game Design - Sharp Edges

Runaway Leader Blindspot

Id

runaway-leader-blindspot

Summary

Failing to test for runaway leader until late in development

Severity

critical

Situation

You've been playtesting for months. Games feel close. Then you run a competitive playtest where one experienced player exploits an early advantage. They win by 40 points. You realize the game has been "close" only because your playtesters are equally matched.

Why

Runaway leader problems kill games. Players recognize they've lost by round 3 but must sit through 60+ more minutes. BGG reviews: "The game is decided too early." "Dead player walking for an hour." "Whoever gets lucky in round 1 wins." Word of mouth destroys sales. No competitive scene forms.

Solution

RUNAWAY LEADER TESTING PROTOCOL

1. HANDICAP TESTING Start one player with significant advantage:

• 25% more resources
• Extra starting cards
• Skip first negative event

If they win 80%+ of games, you have a problem.

2. SKILL DIFFERENTIAL TESTING Pair experienced players against beginners. Experienced players should win, but games should feel competitive. If beginners never feel they have a chance, redesign.

3. CATCH-UP AUDIT For each mechanism, answer:

• Does this help the leader more than trailing players?
• Can losing players catch up in final rounds?
• Is there hidden scoring that could surprise?

4. DIMINISHING RETURNS CHECK First point should be easier than tenth point. Early game advantages should have natural caps.

Symptoms

• "The game was decided in round 2" comments
• Players checking phones before game ends
• Leading player getting bored
• Experienced players winning 90%+ against newbies
• Playtesters suggesting "runaway protection" rules

Detection Pattern

Analysis Paralysis Trap

Id

analysis-paralysis-trap

Summary

Decision points with too many equally valid options cause games to stall

Severity

high

Situation

A player stares at the board for 5 minutes. They have 12 possible actions, 8 cards in hand, and can see 6 other players' tableaus. They're calculating every permutation. The table waits. Other players check phones. The 90-minute game becomes 3 hours.

Why

AP-prone games get played once, then shelved. "I liked it but it takes too long" is the death sentence. Heavier games like Food Chain Magnate solve this through committed strategies. Light games that cause AP are design failures.

Solution

AP PREVENTION TECHNIQUES

1. CONSTRAIN VISIBLE OPTIONS

• Limit hand size
• Restrict available actions per turn
• Use hidden information to prevent total calculation

2. MEANINGFUL DEFAULTS "If you can't decide, do X" should be viable

3. TIME PRESSURE MECHANISMS

• Sand timers for non-critical decisions
• Simultaneous action selection
• Real-time phases

4. RECOVERABLE MISTAKES If one bad move doesn't lose the game, decisions feel safer

5. INFORMATION CHUNKING

• Group related options
• Color code by strategy
• Reduce cross-referencing needed

AP TEST: If a player spends 3+ minutes on a single decision in a <90 minute game, redesign that decision point.

Symptoms

• Playtest sessions running 2x expected time
• Players apologizing for "thinking too long"
• Analysis spreads to other players watching
• Requests for "recommended moves" from new players

Detection Pattern

Kingmaker Endgame

Id

kingmaker-endgame

Summary

Losing players can determine the winner between two other players

Severity

high

Situation

It's the final round. Blue is in last place with no chance of winning. Red and Yellow are tied. Blue's action will determine who wins. Blue attacks Yellow because Yellow attacked them earlier. Red wins. Yellow is furious - they "should have won."

Why

The winner isn't determined by who played best, but by third-party vengeance. Games feel unfair. "Skill doesn't matter" reputation emerges. Playgroups have arguments. The game doesn't get replayed.

Solution

KINGMAKER PREVENTION

1. LIMIT NEGATIVE INTERACTION IN FINAL ROUNDS Last 2-3 rounds: reduce attack/steal options Final scoring: primarily based on personal achievement

2. HIDDEN SCORING If players don't know who's winning, they can't target

3. SIMULTANEOUS FINAL ACTIONS Everyone commits before revealing

4. INTRINSIC MOTIVATION FOR ALL ACTIONS Every action should benefit the actor, not just hurt others "I attack you AND gain resources" vs "I just attack you"

5. KINGMAKER AUDIT QUESTION "In any situation, can a player who cannot win determine who does?" If yes, redesign that situation.

NOTE: Some games embrace kingmaker as negotiation (Cosmic Encounter). This is intentional design. Accidental kingmaker is the problem.

Symptoms

• Post-game arguments about fairness
• "It wasn't my fault" from winner
• Third-place player "ruined the game"
• Requests to ban certain moves in endgame

Detection Pattern

Unclear Iconography Syndrome

Id

unclear-iconography-syndrome

Summary

Icons that make sense to designer but confuse every new player

Severity

high

Situation

You designed icons that are "intuitive" - a crossed-out coin means "can't buy." But every single blind playtest, someone asks "what does the X over the coin mean?" You explain. Next game, different player asks again.

Why

Players stop playing to ask questions. Flow breaks. Rules feel complicated. You need a 4-page icon reference sheet. The "streamlined" iconography adds 30 minutes to teaching. BGG reviews: "Iconography is a mess." "Bring the rulebook every time." "We made a player aid."

Solution

ICONOGRAPHY PRINCIPLES

1. THE BLIND PLAYTEST RULE If ANY blind playtester asks about an icon, redesign it No explanation should be needed

2. CONSISTENCY OVER CLEVERNESS Same concept = same icon everywhere Don't use 3 different icons for "gain a resource"

3. TEXT BACKUP For critical icons, add small text labels "2 VP" next to victory point icon

4. COLOR + SHAPE + SIZE Icons should differ in multiple dimensions Don't rely on color alone (accessibility!)

5. THE 3-SECOND TEST New player sees icon. 3 seconds. Can they guess meaning? Not "figure out" - GUESS correctly

TESTING PROTOCOL: 1. Show icons to non-gamers without context 2. Ask them to guess meaning 3. If <80% correct, redesign 4. Repeat with new icons

Symptoms

• Same icon question every playtest
• Players keeping rulebook open for icons
• Homemade player aids appearing
• Rules explanations include "and this icon means..."

Detection Pattern

First Player Advantage Imbalance

Id

first-player-advantage-imbalance

Summary

Going first provides significant advantage with no compensation

Severity

high

Situation

After 20 playtests, you notice first player wins 65% of games. Experienced players fight for first player seat. New players complain about losing just because they went last.

Why

Turn order feels random but determines outcome. Skilled play matters less than seating. Competitive play becomes about drafting turn order. The game feels unfair. "I never had a chance" is the worst player experience.

Solution

TURN ORDER BALANCE APPROACHES

1. COMPENSATION RESOURCES Later players get incrementally more starting resources Test: What amount makes win rate equal?

2. SNAKE DRAFT ORDER 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1 for picking actions/resources Last player gets two consecutive picks

3. DYNAMIC TURN ORDER Performance-based: leader goes last Choice-based: bid resources for position Role-based: first player rotates

4. SIMULTANEOUS ACTION Eliminate the problem entirely Everyone acts at once, reveal, resolve

5. LAST PLAYER ADVANTAGE Design so going last has benefits More information, better reaction, final say

TESTING REQUIREMENT: Run 20+ games tracking first player wins Target: 50% ± 10% (40-60%) If outside range, add compensation

Symptoms

• First player win rate >55%
• Experienced players preferring same seat
• New players complaining about turn order
• House rules emerging for compensation

Detection Pattern

Friendly Playtester Bias

Id

friendly-playtester-bias

Summary

Friends and family don't give honest critical feedback

Severity

high

Situation

You've run 30 playtests with your game group. Everyone says it's fun. You take it to a convention. Strangers play. They hate it. They point out problems your group never mentioned. Your friends were being nice.

Why

Friends don't want to hurt your feelings. They've invested in your success. They've adapted to broken mechanics without realizing it. They know the "right" way to play from your explanations. The game you've been testing isn't the game strangers experience.

Solution

PLAYTESTING HIERARCHY

1. GUIDED PLAYTESTS (Friends) Purpose: Early mechanic testing, obvious breaks Limitations: Biased feedback, adapted play Weight: 20% of feedback

2. SEMI-BLIND PLAYTESTS (Acquaintances) Purpose: Teach-ability, mid-stage balance Method: Teach game, leave room, observe through video Limitations: Still want to please you Weight: 30% of feedback

3. BLIND PLAYTESTS (Strangers) Purpose: Rulebook testing, true experience Method: Give rulebook and components. Watch from distance. Ask no questions. Answer no questions. Weight: 50% of feedback

CRITICAL RULE: Until 10+ blind playtests succeed, the game is not ready. Period.

FEEDBACK EXTRACTION:

• Record sessions, don't rely on memory
• Watch facial expressions, not words
• Note where players pause, reread, or look confused
• "What was your favorite part?" (what they actually remember)
• "What would you change?" (what bothered them)

Symptoms

• All feedback is positive but game isn't selling
• "It s great!" with no specific praise
• Friends declining to play again
• Convention response differs from home tests

Detection Pattern

Insufficient Player Count Testing

Id

insufficient-player-count-testing

Summary

Only testing at one player count creates hidden problems

Severity

high

Situation

You tested at 4 players, box says 2-5 players. 2-player variant breaks because the economy assumes trading. 5-player takes 4 hours because downtime compounds. You only discover this after launch.

Why

Scaling is not automatic. Every player count is a different game. The BGG weight rating differs by player count. "Great at 4, broken at 2" reviews torpedo sales. Disappointed customers can't return opened games but can leave 1-star reviews.

Solution

PLAYER COUNT TESTING MATRIX

For each player count on the box, test:

• 10+ complete games
• Mix of experience levels
• Time per game
• Downtime between turns
• Balance (does player count favor certain positions?)

COMMON SCALING ISSUES:

2-PLAYER:

• Economy collapses without trading partners
• Area control becomes binary
• Take-that becomes mean-spirited
• Hidden information too easy to track

5-6 PLAYER:

• Downtime exceeds 5 minutes
• Game length doubles
• Analysis paralysis multiplies
• Components run out

SOLUTIONS:

• Variant rules for edge counts (don't force bad experience)
• "Best at X" recommendation on box
• Scaling charts for resources/cards
• Speed variants for high counts

HONESTY OPTION: Don't claim player counts you can't support. "3-4 players" is better than "2-5 players (3-4 recommended)"

Symptoms

• Wildly different play times by count
• Reviews mentioning specific counts as broken
• House rules for certain counts
• Playtesters avoiding certain counts

Detection Pattern

Rulebook As Afterthought

Id

rulebook-as-afterthought

Summary

Writing the rulebook last instead of using it as a design tool

Severity

high

Situation

Game is done. Time to write the rulebook. It's two weeks of torture. Every time you write a rule, you find an edge case. You've been house- ruling things without realizing. The rulebook is 24 pages. Teaching takes an hour.

Why

The rulebook exposes design problems. Convoluted rules to explain = convoluted mechanics to play. If you can't write it clearly, it's not designed clearly. Last-minute rulebook writing leads to ambiguity, missing cases, and frustrated players.

Solution

RULEBOOK-FIRST DEVELOPMENT

1. WRITE RULEBOOK DRAFT AT CONCEPT STAGE If you can't explain it on paper, you can't explain it at table Forces clarity of thought before prototyping

2. UPDATE RULEBOOK WITH EVERY MECHANIC CHANGE Rulebook is living document during development If change is hard to document, question the change

3. TEST THE RULEBOOK, NOT JUST THE GAME Blind playtests = rulebook tests If players misunderstand, rulebook failed

4. RULEBOOK TIMELINE: Concept: Draft rules (1 week) Prototype: Expand rules (ongoing) Alpha: Complete draft (1 month) Beta: Editing passes (2 months) Print: Final proof (1 month) Total: 4-6 months, not 2 weeks

STRUCTURE TEMPLATE: 1. Game overview (what is this about?) 2. Components list with images 3. Setup (visual diagram mandatory) 4. Turn overview (simple version) 5. Detailed actions 6. End game and scoring 7. Appendix / FAQ

Symptoms

• Dreading rulebook writing
• Rules that are hard to phrase
• "We'll figure it out" during playtests
• Multiple interpretations of same rule

Detection Pattern

Manufacturing Quote Shock

Id

manufacturing-quote-shock

Summary

Getting quotes without understanding component cost drivers

Severity

critical

Situation

You get excited about miniatures. Your first quote: $45 per unit for 1000 copies. You can't sell at $90 MSRP. You spent 18 months designing a game you can't afford to produce.

Why

Manufacturing is not linear. Miniatures can cost more than the rest of the game combined. Small box games can cost more per unit than big box because setup costs are fixed. Without manufacturing knowledge, you design games that can't exist economically.

Solution

COMPONENT COST REFERENCE (2024 prices, 3000-5000 unit run)

CARDBOARD:

• Game board (folding, ~18x18") $2.50-4.00
• Player boards (thick, 8x10") $0.50-1.00 each
• Tokens (punchboard sheet) $0.30-0.50 per sheet
• Box (standard size, insert) $2.00-3.50

PAPER:

• Cards (poker size, 54/deck) $0.80-1.20 per deck
• Cards (mini, 54/deck) $0.60-0.90 per deck
• Rulebook (16 pages, saddle stitch) $0.30-0.50

PLASTIC:

• Meeples (standard wood/plastic) $0.03-0.08 each
• Custom meeples (new mold) $0.15-0.40 each + $500-2000 mold
• Dice (standard D6) $0.05-0.10 each
• Custom dice (new mold) $0.20-0.50 each + $1000-3000 mold
• Miniatures (simple, 28mm) $0.30-0.80 each + $3000-8000 mold
• Miniatures (detailed, 32mm+) $0.80-2.00 each + $5000-15000 mold

RULES OF THUMB:

• MSRP = 5x manufacturing cost (for retail)
• MSRP = 3-4x manufacturing cost (Kickstarter only)
• $30 MSRP = ~$6-7 manufacturing target
• Each new mold adds $2000-15000 to first run

DESIGN IMPLICATIONS:

• Can you use standard components instead of custom?
• Can you reduce component count?
• Can you use cards instead of boards?
• Can you use wooden cubes instead of minis?

Symptoms

• Sticker shock on first quote
• Redesigning for cost after development
• Crowdfunding goal too high to hit
• Cutting beloved components for budget

Detection Pattern

Shipping Container Nightmare

Id

shipping-container-nightmare

Summary

Not accounting for international shipping logistics and costs

Severity

critical

Situation

You manufactured in China. Shipping quote was $3000 for a container. Then: port delays (2 months), COVID surcharges ($15000), container shortage ($8000 more), customs inspection (3 weeks), warehouse fees ($2000). Your "shipping" budget triples. You're delivering 6 months late.

Why

Shipping is not a line item - it's a complex logistics operation. Container rates fluctuate wildly. Delays cascade. Customs is unpredictable. Crowdfunding backers get angry. Refund requests pile up. Your reputation suffers before you've shipped your first game.

Solution

SHIPPING REALITY CHECK

1. QUOTE TIMING Get shipping quotes 1 month before manufacturing ends Rates change constantly - old quotes are meaningless

2. BUFFER EVERYTHING Time estimate + 50% = realistic estimate Cost estimate + 100% = safe budget Yes, 100%. Post-COVID shipping proved this.

3. FULFILLMENT PARTNERS Use established fulfillment centers:

• Quartermaster Logistics (US)
• Spiral Galaxy Games (US)
• GamesQuest (UK)
• Ludo Fact (Germany)

They know the gotchas you don't.

4. CONTAINER TYPES

• FCL (Full Container Load): Cheaper per unit, higher minimum
• LCL (Less than Container Load): Higher per unit, lower minimum

Break-even: ~2000-3000 standard games

5. INCOTERMS MATTER

• FOB (Free On Board): You pay shipping from port
• CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight): Factory pays to destination port
• DDP (Delivered Duty Paid): Factory handles everything

Get DDP quotes to compare true costs.

6. LANDED COST CALCULATION Manufacturing + Shipping + Duties + Insurance + Warehousing Don't promise MSRP until you know landed cost.

Symptoms

• Shipping costs exceeding manufacturing
• Delays pushing into next holiday season
• Customs holds with no explanation
• Warehouse fees accumulating

Detection Pattern

Box Size Economics Trap

Id

box-size-economics-trap

Summary

Designing components without understanding box size cost breakpoints

Severity

high

Situation

Your game needs a 12" x 9" x 3" box. Standard size is 11.5" x 11.5" x 3". Your slightly different box costs 40% more to manufacture because it's a custom size. Shipping costs increase because fewer fit per pallet.

Why

Manufacturing is optimized for standard sizes. Custom anything = premium pricing. Pallets fit specific box counts. Shelf presence matters for retail. An extra half-inch could price you out of target MSRP.

Solution

STANDARD BOX SIZES (approximate, varies by manufacturer)

COMMON SIZES:

• Small: 6" x 6" x 1.5" (card games)
• Medium: 8" x 8" x 2" (light games)
• Standard: 11.5" x 11.5" x 3" (most games)
• Big box: 12" x 12" x 4" (premium)
• Coffin box: 15" x 11" x 4" (deluxe editions)

COST IMPLICATIONS:

• Standard sizes: base cost
• Custom sizes: +20-40% manufacturing
• Odd depths: shipping inefficiency
• Weight > 3 lbs: shipping cost tier jump

DESIGN APPROACH: 1. Decide box size FIRST 2. Design components to FIT 3. Not the other way around

SHELF PRESENCE REALITY:

• Small boxes get lost in stores
• Big boxes get limited shelf space
• Standard 11.5" square is the sweet spot
• Depth affects horizontal stacking

RETAILER REQUIREMENTS:

• Target: UPC on specific corner
• Barnes & Noble: ISBN required
• Amazon: weight and dimensions exact
• Distribution: shrinkwrap standards

Symptoms

• Quote higher than expected for box size
• Components don't fit standard sizes
• Shipping quotes unusually high
• Retailers requesting different packaging

Detection Pattern

Stretch Goal Scope Creep

Id

stretch-goal-scope-creep

Summary

Adding stretch goals that dramatically increase complexity and cost

Severity

critical

Situation

Campaign is crushing it. Backers want more. You add miniatures upgrade, expansion, metal coins, deluxe insert, solo mode. You've doubled production cost and tripled development time. Delivery slips a year. Backers get angry. You're not profitable despite hitting 500% funding.

Why

Stretch goals are promises. Each one adds:

• Development time (new mechanics need playtesting)
• Manufacturing complexity (new SKUs, molds, logistics)
• Shipping cost (heavier box = higher shipping)
• Fulfillment complexity (addon management)

Enthusiasm during campaign becomes nightmare during fulfillment.

Solution

SUSTAINABLE STRETCH GOAL APPROACH

1. PLAN STRETCH GOALS BEFORE LAUNCH Know exactly what you can add Get manufacturing quotes for each tier Calculate true cost, not hopeful estimate

2. TYPES OF STRETCH GOALS:

LOW RISK (baked-in upgrades):

• Better card quality (already manufacturing)
• Art upgrades (art done, just quality)
• Screen printing (vs stickers)

Cost: Built into stretch tier margin

MEDIUM RISK (additive components):

• Extra cards (same manufacturing process)
• More tokens (same punchboard)
• Player aids (already printed)

Cost: Known, scales with quantity

HIGH RISK (new development):

• Solo mode (new testing required)
• Expansions (design + test + produce)
• Miniatures (new molds, higher shipping)

Cost: Uncertain, schedule impact unknown

3. THE STONEMAIER APPROACH:

• Most stretch goals are already in the box
• Reveal what you've already planned
• No last-minute additions
• Deliver on time, build trust

4. MATH CHECK: Every $10 increase in production cost requires $30-50 additional in MSRP Can your backers/market bear that?

Symptoms

• Stretch goal list longer than planned
• New development work appearing mid-campaign
• Manufacturing quotes changing during campaign
• Delivery date slipping before campaign ends

Detection Pattern

Kickstarter Timeline Fantasy

Id

kickstarter-timeline-fantasy

Summary

Promising delivery dates based on perfect execution

Severity

high

Situation

You promise December delivery for October campaign. Manufacturing needs 90 days + 30 days shipping = February at earliest. But everything went perfectly. Manufacturer delayed 3 weeks. Customs inspection added 2 weeks. It's now April. Backers are calling you a scammer.

Why

Kickstarter backers have seen too many delays. They expect delays. But if YOU promised December, YOU broke the promise. Trust evaporates. Refund requests increase. BGG threads turn hostile. Your next campaign starts with a reputation problem.

Solution

TIMELINE REALITY

1. BEST CASE VS REALISTIC: Manufacturing quote: 60-90 days Real manufacturing: 90-120 days (always delays)

Shipping quote: 30-45 days Real shipping: 45-90 days (2020-2023 proved this)

Fulfillment: 2-4 weeks per region Real fulfillment: 4-8 weeks (address errors, customs)

2. COMMUNICATION FORMULA: Promised date = Realistic date + 2 months buffer If you think June, say August. Delivering early = hero Delivering late = villain

3. UPDATE CADENCE:

• Monthly updates during development
• Weekly during manufacturing
• Daily during shipping/fulfillment

Silence = assumed disaster

4. WHAT TO COMMUNICATE:

• Where in the process (photos!)
• What's going well
• What's challenging
• Revised timeline if any
• Never hide problems

STONEMAIER PRINCIPLE: "Set expectations low, then exceed them." Nobody complains about early delivery.

Symptoms

• Manufacturing running behind quote
• Shipping delays accumulating
• Backer comments asking for updates
• Refund requests before delivery

Detection Pattern

Backer Expectation Misalignment

Id

backer-expectation-misalignment

Summary

Campaign hype creates expectations your game can't meet

Severity

high

Situation

Campaign video was gorgeous. Photos were professional. Copy was compelling. Game arrives: it's fine. Not the transformative experience implied. Reviews mention disappointment. Word of mouth: "Overhyped."

Why

Marketing creates promises. The game must deliver. Board game backers talk to each other. One disappointed backer = ten warned prospects. Your reputation precedes your next campaign. Overpromise once, struggle to fund twice.

Solution

HONEST MARKETING FRAMEWORK

1. SHOW THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE

• Gameplay videos, not just art
• Real prototype photos alongside renders
• Full playthrough videos (unedited)
• Known issues and how you're addressing them

2. COMPARISON CALIBRATION "If you like [similar game], you'll enjoy [your game]" Position against appropriate competitors Don't compare card game to FFG epic

3. REVIEWS BEFORE LAUNCH Send to honest reviewers who will criticize Use critical feedback to adjust messaging Pull quotes from balanced reviews, not just hype

4. REALISTIC COMPONENT DISPLAY

• Use prototype photos alongside renders
• Note where final may differ
• Show scale comparisons
• List materials (cardboard thickness, card finish)

5. GAMEPLAY EXPECTATIONS

• Accurate play time (test at all player counts)
• Accurate complexity rating
• Who it's for AND who it's not for
• Comparison to known games

TRUST BUILDING:

• Acknowledge limitations
• Share development struggles
• Be human, not corporate
• Underpromise, overdeliver

Symptoms

• Reviews mentioning unmet expectations
• "Not what I expected" comments
• Comparisons to campaign promises
• High rate of marketplace resales

Detection Pattern

Board Game Design - Validations

Ambiguous Modal Verbs in Rules

Id

bgd-ambiguous-may-vs-must

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(can|could|might|should)\b(?!.*\b(must|cannot|may not)\b)

Message

Ambiguous modal verb detected. 'Can' implies ability, 'may' implies permission, 'must' implies requirement. Be explicit.

Fix Action

Replace 'can' with 'may' for permission or 'must' for requirements. Avoid 'should' - rules are not suggestions.

Applies To

• *.md
• *.txt
• rulebook
• rules

Passive Voice in Critical Rules

Id

bgd-passive-voice-rules

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(is|are|was|were|been|being)\s+(moved|placed|taken|drawn|discarded|removed|added|gained|lost)\b

Message

Passive voice makes rules ambiguous. Who performs the action?

Fix Action

Use active voice: 'The active player draws' not 'Cards are drawn'

Applies To

• *.md
• *.txt
• rulebook
• rules

Undefined Game Term Reference

Id

bgd-undefined-game-term

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(the\s+(?:token|marker|tile|card|die|dice|meeple|resource))\b(?!.*(?:glossary|definition|see))

Message

Generic component term without definition. Which specific token/marker/card?

Fix Action

Use specific named terms defined in component list (e.g., 'Victory Point token', 'Action card')

Applies To

• rulebook
• rules

Missing Exception or Edge Case Handling

Id

bgd-missing-exception-handling

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(always|never|every|all)\s+(?:player|card|token|action)

Message

Absolute terms often have exceptions. What happens in edge cases?

Fix Action

Add explicit exception handling: 'All players EXCEPT the active player...' or 'Every action UNLESS...'

Applies To

• rulebook
• rules

Circular Rule Reference

Id

bgd-circular-reference

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \(see\s+(?:section|rule|page)\s+\d+\).*\(see\s+(?:section|rule|page)\s+\d+\)

Message

Multiple cross-references may create circular navigation. Player should not need to flip constantly.

Fix Action

Inline simple rules. Use appendix for complex interactions. Minimize cross-references.

Applies To

• rulebook
• rules

Inconsistent Terminology Usage

Id

bgd-inconsistent-terminology

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(victory\spoint|VP|point|score)\b.\b(victory\s*point|VP|point|score)\b

Message

Multiple terms for same concept detected. Use consistent terminology throughout.

Fix Action

Choose one term (e.g., 'Victory Points' or 'VP') and use it exclusively. Define on first use.

Applies To

• rulebook
• rules

Missing Turn Structure Section

Id

bgd-missing-turn-structure

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• ^(?!.*(?:turn|round|phase|action)\s+(?:structure|sequence|order|overview))

Message

No clear turn structure section found. Players need explicit turn sequence.

Fix Action

Add 'Turn Structure' or 'Round Sequence' section early in rulebook with numbered steps.

Applies To

• rulebook
• rules

Missing Player Count Specification

Id

bgd-missing-player-count

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• ^(?!.(?:player|players)\s(?:count|number)?:?\s*\d)

Message

Player count not specified. Every design document needs explicit player count range.

Fix Action

Add player count specification: 'Players: 2-4' or 'Player Count: 3-5 (best at 4)'

Applies To

• design
• gdd
• concept

Missing Play Time Estimate

Id

bgd-missing-play-time

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• ^(?!.(?:play\stime|duration|length|minutes))

Message

Play time not specified. Include estimated duration.

Fix Action

Add play time estimate: 'Play Time: 60-90 minutes' or 'Duration: 30 min/player'

Applies To

• design
• gdd
• concept

Missing Core Loop Description

Id

bgd-missing-core-loop

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• ^(?!.(?:core\sloop|main\smechanic|primary\smechanic|central\s*mechanic))

Message

No core loop described. What do players DO on each turn?

Fix Action

Add 'Core Loop' section: 'On your turn: 1. Draw cards 2. Play actions 3. Score points'

Applies To

• design
• gdd
• concept

Missing Victory Condition

Id

bgd-missing-victory-condition

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• ^(?!.(?:win|victory|winning|end\sgame|game\s*end|score|scoring))

Message

No victory condition described. How does the game end? How is the winner determined?

Fix Action

Add clear victory condition: 'The game ends when X. The player with most points wins.'

Applies To

• design
• gdd
• concept

Component Without Cost Estimate

Id

bgd-uncosted-component

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(miniature|custom\sdice|custom\smeeple|insert|metal\scoin)\b(?!.\$)

Message

Custom component mentioned without cost consideration. These are expensive!

Fix Action

Add cost estimate or alternative: 'Custom meeples (~$0.30/ea) or standard cubes ($0.03/ea)'

Applies To

• design
• gdd
• component

Balance Claim Without Testing Evidence

Id

bgd-untested-claim

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(balanced|fair|equal|even)\b(?!.(?:playtest|tested|test\sresult|game\s*\d+))

Message

Balance claim without testing evidence. How do you know it's balanced?

Fix Action

Add testing data: 'Balanced across 20 playtests - win rate: Player 1 (48%), Player 2 (52%)'

Applies To

• design
• balance
• notes

Missing Playtest Tracking

Id

bgd-missing-playtest-tracking

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \bplaytest\b(?!.*(?:date|player|count|version|result|note))

Message

Playtest mentioned without structured tracking. Document systematically.

Fix Action

Use playtest log: Date, Version, Players, Count, Duration, Issues Found, Changes Made

Applies To

• playtest
• notes
• log

Asymmetric Elements Without Balance Testing

Id

bgd-asymmetric-untested

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(faction|asymmetric|unique\spower|variable\spower)\b(?!.(?:win\srate|balance|tested|playtest\s*\d+))

Message

Asymmetric element without documented balance testing. Each faction needs win rate data.

Fix Action

Track win rates per faction: 'Faction A: 47% (23 games), Faction B: 51% (23 games)...'

Applies To

• design
• balance
• faction

Component Missing Dimensions

Id

bgd-component-missing-dimensions

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(board|card|token|tile|box)\b(?!.(?:mm|cm|inch|"|x\s\d))

Message

Component mentioned without dimensions. Manufacturers need exact sizes.

Fix Action

Add dimensions: 'Cards: 63mm x 88mm (poker size)' or 'Board: 18" x 18" (folded 9x18)'

Applies To

• component
• spec
• manufacturing

Component Missing Quantity

Id

bgd-component-missing-quantity

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(card|token|die|dice|meeple|tile|cube|disc)\b(?!.(?:\d+\s(?:x|each|per|total)|quantity))

Message

Component type without quantity. How many of each?

Fix Action

Specify quantities: 'Resource cubes: 50 (10 each in 5 colors)'

Applies To

• component
• spec
• manufacturing

Component Missing Material Specification

Id

bgd-component-missing-material

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(token|meeple|cube|disc|marker)\b(?!.*(?:wood|plastic|cardboard|metal|acrylic))

Message

Component without material specification. Wood? Plastic? Cardboard?

Fix Action

Specify material: 'Worker meeples: wood, natural finish, 16mm'

Applies To

• component
• spec
• manufacturing

Kickstarter Missing Risks Section

Id

bgd-kickstarter-missing-risks

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(kickstarter|crowdfunding|campaign)\b(?!.*(?:risk|challenge|delay|contingency))

Message

Crowdfunding content without risks acknowledgment. Backers expect transparency.

Fix Action

Add risks section: manufacturing delays, shipping challenges, currency fluctuation, etc.

Applies To

• kickstarter
• campaign

Stretch Goal Without Cost Analysis

Id

bgd-stretch-goal-uncasted

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(stretch\sgoal|unlock)\b(?!.\$)

Message

Stretch goal without cost analysis. Each unlock increases production cost.

Fix Action

Add cost impact: 'Metal coins ($2.50/unit increase, unlocks at $X when margin covers)'

Applies To

• kickstarter
• campaign
• stretch

Potentially Unrealistic Timeline

Id

bgd-timeline-unrealistic

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• deliver.(?:2|3)\smonths?(?:\s*after|from)

Message

Timeline appears aggressive. Manufacturing + shipping typically takes 4-6 months minimum.

Fix Action

Verify timeline: Manufacturing (90-120 days) + Shipping (45-90 days) + Fulfillment (2-4 weeks)

Applies To

• kickstarter
• campaign
• timeline

Color-Only Component Differentiation

Id

bgd-color-only-differentiation

Severity

error

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(red|blue|green|yellow|purple|orange)\s+(player|token|cube|meeple|piece)\b(?!.*(?:symbol|shape|pattern|icon))

Message

Components differentiated only by color. Colorblind players cannot distinguish.

Fix Action

Add shape/symbol/pattern differentiation. Use colorblind-friendly palette testing.

Applies To

• component
• design
• rulebook

Small Text Size Warning

Id

bgd-small-text-warning

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(8\spt|9\spt|7\spt|6\spt)\b

Message

Text size below 10pt is difficult to read for many players.

Fix Action

Use minimum 10pt font on cards, 9pt for minor flavor text only

Applies To

• component
• spec
• layout

Assumed Fine Motor Dexterity

Id

bgd-dexterity-assumption

Severity

warning

Type

regex

Pattern

• \b(stack|flick|balance|precision|careful)\b(?!.*(?:optional|alternative))

Message

Mechanic may require fine motor skills. Consider accessibility alternatives.

Fix Action

Provide alternatives for dexterity elements or note in player guidance

Applies To

• design
• rulebook