LTUE 2016 Panel - Indie Game Development

Seed Questions

Q - Please introduce yourself and some of the games that you have designed.
A - My name is Derrick Duncan. The first game I designed is called Tiles, though I have sold it under the name “Dragon Tiles” or “The Dragon’s Tiles”. It’s a game I designed as a world building tool. It’s the game that people play in story. There is an expansion to it that’s a bit more in depth and modern. I also designed a game called Zombie Siege, and I’m currently working on a game called Hedge Wizard and then Renown. These are all games with a fantastic element, made for people who play games. I’ve also got a game called Family Spotlight which is a customizable trivia game that you can make about your family, work group, etc. Last year I found a business partner, Richard Hart, and created the business Royale Family Games. I’m the lead designer, and we’re mostly focused on games that strengthen family by helping you get to know each other. All of my older games are under review so that we can revise and re-release them, or not, depending on the needs of the business.

Q - How are indie game development and traditional development different?
A - I don’t know much about the Traditional Game development process, but I imagine that the actual development of the games is pretty much the same. Make a game that you think has value to an audience. Look at what you think will be fun or engaging, and iterate on the basic premise. Though I think there will be a few differences. The designing itself is probably not that different. Some of the differences come in marketing, funding, scope, audience, and iteration. I’ll touch on that below the Q&A section.

Q - What is the process that you use to develop games?
A - From start to finish, here you go. First thing I do is jot a note down about the game idea that I have. Usually it starts with a mechanic, but sometimes theme. Then I let it sit. If I keep making notes for the next few days, then I know that it’s something with enough staying power to keep me interested in more development. Then I start to identify some of the obstacles I see. For example, if I’m making a game about dragons, dragons have been done a lot. How do I keep it interesting? If I’m making a game for children, how do I make the game simple enough that they can play without their parents but so that the game is still interesting? I want to make a card game that has an RPG style combat system that uses basic attacks, blocks, and movement. There are a number of obstacles that come with that game.

In my notes by this point, I usually have some basic gameplay mechanics. I decide on the idea, and then I work out a method. For example, in my game Renown, I wanted to give the players a feeling that the world was changing and growing around them. In other words, I wanted them to be playing in a world that reacted to their actions, but was not directly under their control. That’s the idea. Then I got to work on a method. I created a “council” system that let various settlements grow and change without player input. Then I worked out a system that let the player influence, but not outright control, that growth. I write these down as Idea:Method. For the method I am talking about mechanics and game components. Am I going to want cards, dice, etc. Important game elements.

Now I sketch out the rules as well as I can. I follow a system I pieced together from alanemrich.com and as many other places as I could find. Tasty Minstrel games also had some good resources, although their website is under construction, so I don’t know what you’ll find. Anyway, I try to make up some rules, so I can start playing. I try to keep to the basics, but it doesn’t always work.

By this point, I usually put together a prototype. I’ve drawn pictures, I’ve made cards out of  3x5 index cards. Whatever is needed for me to actually see how my idea is working. I get the most basic prototype together. I need to see if the game is actually fun.  I should note that I don’t usually consider how the game will do in the market at this point. I’m creating something, not selling it. That’s probably something that you should consider, but I don’t.

After I get feedback from my first playthrough (often with my very patient wife), I look at what works and what doesn’t. I look at all the extra stuff that I thought was cool, but is really unrealistic. I trim my game down to the basics again. I cut the fat.

Then I test again. I use the same prototype, I just revise the rules. Then I do it over and over again. I play with the same prototype until I feel like it doesn’t fit the game anymore. Then I revise the prototype and test again.

At this point, I get frustrated. I thought my game was done, but it’s not. Now, for the first time, I have a partner who will be running tests and giving me feedback which I will address. I’ve never had that before. It will be nice.

The revision process takes place as I test the game at different levels. I play it myself. I tell others how to play it. I get others to play it with just the rules and I don’t even watch, just get feedback. All of these are useful at every stage.

Q - To get them to market?

A - To get a game to the market, I’ve only sold games face to face. I’ve done the Farmers Market a few times. I went to Dragon’s Keep and talked to some players there. Though I sold the game through Dragon’s Keep and let them take their cut because they were kind enough to let me harass their customers. Mostly I’m in the testing phase. I want to get a feel for how people will react to the game.

I’m working on the marketing end with my business partner now, but art is important. You may not be able to judge how good a game is by looking at it, but the better looking your game is, the more likely it will attract some attention. My goal with my current prototype is to keep the art from distracting the player from the game. We’ll hire an artist to take the art to the next level and draw players in.

Thoughts:

Some of the differences between indie and traditional development come in marketing, funding, scope, audience, and iteration.

Indie marketing is based on finding a market. You’re looking for your audience and trying to get people to notice you. Traditional development, I imagine, focuses a bit more on tapping into known markets. It gives Indie developers a bit more flexibility, but traditional developers more stability. If Fantasy Flight Games put out a game, they’d have certain people who would buy it no matter what. If an indie developer put out a game, the only person who would buy it no matter what is the developer’s parents. Both indie and traditional developers have to work to market their games, but they use different tactics. “Hey, look at me,” as opposed to, “Hey, here’s my new thing.”

Traditional game design probably uses a more defined iteration process as well. A bigger team for testing and refinement, more testers, etc.

Funding is probably different as well. A traditional, or established indie developer has money from a previous project to put into marketing. They can afford to put in a bit more money up front, whereas a new indie developer will need to tap into investors, crowdfunding (which is another type of investor), or other source of tapping directly into the customers.

Scope in traditional development is also probably a big difference. As an indie designer, I can afford to target a smaller group. I don’t have a large company to support. As a traditional developer, I’ve got to find the idea that will appeal to the broadest audience possible. Either way, designing a game just to make money is probably a bad idea. Traditional developers have more money to put into their game, but they have more to lose if they fail. Indie designers don’t have a lot to lose, but they can’t tap into the same resources (artists, testers, prototypes, economy of scale, etc.)

I’m sure there’s more to say on this subject. If you’re going to be at LTUE, be sure to come to the panel and ask us some questions.