POLL RESULTS: Familiar Themes vs. Familiar Mechanics

Earlier this week I asked which mix of familiar or unusual mechanics and themes you preferred. I asked mainly because Reiner Knizia once advised on Twitter that a design shouldn't be too unusual. To do so would turn off too large a section of your audience. Basically, if you're designing a game for the larger hobby market, he advised either making the theme unusual or the mechanics unusual, but not both.

That seems to hold true for a significant portion of poll respondents. Here's the breakdown of 82 responses.

Unusual Themes + Unusual Mechanics         35      43%
Familiar Themes + Unusual Mechanics         34      41%
Unusual Themes + Familiar Mechanics         11      13%
Familiar Themes + Familiar Mechanics         2        2%

What are we to take from these responses? Bear in mind that it's a very tiny sample from an admittedly skewed pool of respondents. Most respondents want unusual themes AND unusual mechanics, which is surprising.

I expected the #2 response to be much greater given Knizia's advice. After all, unusual mechanics may be easier to learn if you're familiar with the basic premise of the game. But no, it seems the respondents prefer lots of novelty in both categories. If they must sacrifice some novelty it would be in theme, not mechanics.

A smaller subset would rather have an unusual theme and familiar mechanics. I imagine those respondents would be amenable to themed expansions of a game franchise, take for example the numerous Fluxx or Munchkin expansions. I'm curious!

And by far the fewest respondents favored total familiarity. I imagine those respondents have a handful of genres they really like and explore those games very deeply, perhaps pursuing complete mastery?

So, how did you respond? What do you prefer? Share your thoughts in the comments!

POLL: Familiar Themes vs. Familiar Mechanics

Time for a quick poll about mechanics and themes in tabletop games. Reiner Knizia once tweeted that it's better to have some element of familiarity mixed in with novelty. Of course he never specified the exact percentages of familiarity or whether it's better to have a familiar theme or familiar mechanics. So, let's turn to the public! Which do you prefer in your tabletop games?


I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the difference between a "familiar theme" and a "unique" theme since everyone has different frames of reference. When it comes to mechanics, the question becomes even more contentious. So, I'll let you make the call.

Kickstarter/Crowdfunding Delivery Survey Results

Last week I asked a whole bunch of questions about what you expect as a backer of a crowdfunded project, including communication levels, delivery timelines and satisfaction with what ended up being delivered.

Originally I planned to aggregate all of this data into a nice infographic, but unfortunately it's been an extremely eventful week so I hope it's cool if I just link you to a spreadsheet with the responses. I'll make something else fancy later, promise!

Click here for the results!
Click here for the charts!

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of respondents backed projects in the Games category. That's to be expected given my audience. What surprised me was how many more respondents backed three or more projects. I guess it's not all that shocking, maybe those prolific backers are more inclined to share their opinions on a crowdfunding survey?

Anyhoo, check out those results. Lots of raw data for you number crunchers out there.

Survey Results: Crowdfunding Project Creator Updates

I want to put together a nice infographic of results from last week's fulfillment survey, but it's been an eventful few days. I'll fill you in on the details of that soon, but for now, here's a taste of some of the anonymous comments regarding creator updates. In that survey, I asked:

Care to say a little bit more about your feelings about creator updates?

Generally the positive responses cited the necessity of updates to track actual progress in the job (or lack thereof)

Regular creator updates are vital, regardless of whether news is good or bad. Getting an update announcing a delay or problem in project completion and fulfillment, with an explanation of the reasons/causes of the delay/problem, is far preferable than not getting an update at all. Some creators have given the excuse that frequent updates detracts from their time available to work on the project; but I (and probably many others) consider this a very poor excuse for inadequate communication.   

I like them. They make me feel that the creator's still invested in her project, and it's neat to see the process in something like real-time.

I like them when they have something to show, or when there's a big breakthrough on the project, less so when it's excuses about timing, etc. In those situations, I'd rather hear less, rather than be reminded they've blown their deadline, so long as I get an assurance that they're working on it.

It's the thought that counts - if a delivery date has been delayed, regular status updates (whether it's "Hurricane Sandy left us without power for a week" or just "We've run into some delays but are working hard to finish the project") are the best way to make peace with backers. At least we'll know you haven't fallen off the face of the earth.

A handful mentioned their annoyance with updates in which there is no discernible progress with the project.

"When product is going to be delayed for what ever reason an updated should be posted to give the funders an idea of what is going on.

Essential, but frustrating when they're just fluff with no real indication of progress.

"Still no progress" updates are annoying. 

And that leads us to the negative responses regarding creator updates. Some of these responses called out grievances against specific project creators, but I don't want to make this a forum for any particular project's complaints. I do recommend you contact that project creator if you wish to find out the project's status. Unfortunately, no one is going to keep creators accountable but the backers.

I usually accumulate a number of updates for a given project before I get around to reading them. That said, I do appreciate communications from the creator. Even unread updates in my inbox let me know that the project hasn't been abandoned or something. 

Most of the projects I funded I kind of funded for the general good.  I read the updates, sometimes, and sometimes I didn't.  Once they got funded, it kind of felt out of my hands how they proceeded.

I find that most updates are pointless. They're either the creator whining about why fulfilling their project is so hard or telling us about awesome things that don't affect us. For example, it irks me that Goblins Drool is late to ship to me but there's tons of people who got to play it at GenCon. As a backer, I should be the first person in on the fun.

I don't need twenty-six updates in two months about a project. If there's a ton of stuff happening that's really cool about the development and fulfillment of your project, consolidate that into a weekly update.

Most of the time, they're kind of worthless fluff pieces. I prefer much more concere progress reports, just often enough for me to not forget about the project and feel like its actually progressing.

And a slight tangent to address video updates. First, a detractor:

I pay less attention (I skim) to ones that aren't about actual product delivery, "go here and download this", etc. They're high volume. Long ones, I just don't have time to read through. Videos, similar issue around time investment.

And a fan:

I usually skim them, to see if there are any updates about ship dates, delays or production previews. For projects with supplemental content (videos on the making of the product, for example) I pay extra attention.

But overall, the comments highlighted the mixed blessings of creator updates.

Without a doubt the most variable part of the crowdfunding experience. As the sites become more standarsized in their part of the equation it is this place where a developer's rigorous (or not) detail orientation as well as transparency position come out.

I always have to brace myself when backing a new project to receive way more emails, because I know that in addition to the updates I care about, many creator updates will just be advertisements for other Kickstarters or similar marketing.

Additionally, different creators use updates before and after funding success differently. I prefer creators who use post-close updates simply as a "here's where we are in our production timeline" rather than, "here's more information about the project itself." Wormwood Saga is a good example of the first, Project Eternity is a good example of the second."

Most Kickstarter creators are diligent about updates during their campaigns and directly afterward, but once we get into the long, dark, tea-time of the actual manufacturing process, the updates usually dry up.  As a prolific backer, I find that I may forget about a given project without regular updates.  At least until I go look at my history and review what I am still waiting to receive.

Updates that are simply new information, updates on progress need to be MORE distinct from updates that require active response from backer. I believe the current system of sending out surveys and NOT getting positive confirmation back from creators is problematic.

This list of best practices seemed to sum up most people's feelings on the subject.

I really appreciate updates, WHEN THEY ARE RELEVANT. To whit:

1. You are telling us about a new stretch goal.
2. You are informing us of an exciting new funding level!
3. You are showing us a how-to-play, an instructions PDF, a Print-n-Play, or the like.
4. You are updating us on how the game is shaping up, where we're at with regards to production, and shipping, etc.

I EMPHATICALLY DON'T CARE TO BE UPDATED ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS, WHETHER YOURS OR SOMEONE ELSE'S.

But this was my favorite comment.

Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple was the only project I backed where I actually wanted to get updates.

Aw shucks! Thanks!

POLL: Kickstarter/Crowdfunding Delivery Survey

It's time for another Kickstarter/Crowdfunding poll! This time, we're focusing on the delivery/fulfillment timelines for crowdfunded projects backed between January 1 and August 31 of 2012. Answer in the questions below and I'll put together an infographic next week.

Kickstarter Stretch Goal Perks: More or Better? [POLL RESULTS | INFOGRAPHIC]

Following up on the poll earlier this week, I asked if you prefer Kickstarter stretch goals that add more perks or improve the perks you already expected. This question got a lot of really great responses and the voting was very tight. Interestingly, though BETTER won the day, MORE had far more supporting comments. Granted, comments from either side had plenty of caveats.

"MORE!... Assuming the base product is already high-quality."
"BETTER!... Depending on the type of product."

So what do you think of the results? Surprised? Relieved? Share your thoughts in the comments!

POLL: Do you prefer Kickstarter stretch goals that improve your perk or give more perks?

I've been thinking about the finer points of Kickstarter campaign design lately. In particular, I'm curious to understand more about how stretch goals ought to be structured.

For context, stretch goals are funding goals that exceed the original funding goal. In the past two years, they've organically become central to any fundraising drive. Honestly, I'm shocked stretch goals aren't already a built-in feature of Kickstarter's interface.

Stretch goals typically promise two things:

• MORE: "If we hit 200%, all backers will get the latest expansion along with the base game and an exclusive backer-only promo card!"
• BETTER: "If we hit 200%, the base game will be produced with full-color art throughout and be printed on thicker, more durable material!"

Plenty of campaigns mix these two stretch goals or combine them into a single stretch goal, but I am curious what you find more motivating as a backer. Share your answer in the poll below and leave some comments with your thoughts!