Category: Game Design Brain Dump

Game Design Brain Dump: March 6, 2026

Published on by KyraLeave a comment

Hey, hey, Geekly Gang! Kyra Kyle here with another brain dump. Today’s post will be about board game design, but these brain dumps have a nasty habit of crossing over from writing to game design and back again. I may have found my stride. We’re averaging a brain dump (alternating between game design and writing) every other week. That feels good, so the next writing brain dump should occur on March 20, 2026. Yay! But let’s go to a macro look at game design. That’s right. We’re zooming out and potentially talking about the creative process as a whole.

I read another game designer’s (Ann Journey’s) game diary. She likened her design technique to her writing process, and it rang true. There’s a lot of crossover between game design and writing as both are creative endeavors. She would brainstorm, create an outline, and build her board game based on the outline. This resembles the Plotter approach to writing. Plotters are at one extreme end of the writing spectrum.

Yes. Like most things in life, writing can be depicted as a spectrum. In fact, the opposite extreme ends of the writing spectrum tend to get as hotly debated as political factions. When I say Plotters are at one end of the writing spectrum, we’re talking Ultra Conservative or Wacky Liberal levels of extreme. Plotters like JK Rowling insist that writing without an outline would be like taking a trip without a map. You’ll get lost. That makes sense. Pantsers are at the other end of the spectrum. They never use outlines. Stephen King may be the most famous Pantser. King wrote in On Writing, “Outlines are the last resource of bad fiction writers.” King suggests outlines limit inspiration and the joy of creativity. This also makes sense.

And like most things (like gender identity and sexual orientation), I fall somewhere in the middle. Pantsing and Plotting aren’t the only ways to write or design games. They’re the ones that get all the attention.

I’m somewhere in the purple. I like purple. Yay! We discussed how Plotting works within board game design. Ann Journey uses this method to great effect in Cretaceous Rails. Brainstorm, create an outline, and build a game based on the outline. Euro Games may insist on this method of board game design. Euros lend themselves to following a well-crafted outline and often feature distinct beginnings, middles, and ends.

But you could Pants your way to a good game. In the past, Molly Johnson, Robert Melvin, and Shawn Stankewich shared that they threw various ideas at the wall while designing Point Salad. If it’s cool, it rules, and if it rules, it makes it into the rulebook. That sounds akin to Pantsing. The Point Salad series of games (which also includes Point City and Point Galaxy) tends to be adaptable and demands that players remain flexible. This could be a feature of this method of board game design. I’m just throwing something against the wall here.

Then we get to two alternatives to Pantsing and Plotting: Lighthousing and Blotting. Are these two methods in the purple, or is there a Y-axis to this spectrum that I don’t see? I’m unsure, but I do know that Lighthousing and Blotting are two major alternatives to Pantsing and Plotting. There may be others.

While writing, whenever I Lighthouse, I usually know where my story begins (the opening scene), and I know a Lighthouse scene for the future, a poignant scene I know will make the final story, but I don’t know how to get there yet. This Lighthouse scene informs my decisions, but it also gives me leeway to explore. Early into Mysterium’s development, Oleksandr Nevskiy and Oleg Sidorenko knew how the game would begin and the game’s final turn. Most–if not all–of Mysterium’s design choices were in service of the game flowing from its beginning to that final turn. Lighthousing may be the method you’ll want to use if you have planned an epic final turn or series of turns.

Finally, we get to Blotting. I picture myself with a blank canvas whenever I Blot while writing. In my hand, I have a sopping wet paintbrush, like Bob Ross and his wet-on-wet painting method. I slap a scene on the blank canvas, and it causes a blot. Then I add another and another, and after I’m finished, I have to make sense of the mess by molding these Blots into a cohesive whole. While designing Marvel United, Eric Lang suggested that he knew his theme (Marvel Comics, obviously) and a handful of the game’s mechanisms. He just needed to take those elements and sculpt them into a cohesive gaming experience. Sounds like Blotting to me. Blotting can lead to fun and exciting fusions of disparate elements.

Word of caution for Blotting (and for designing games in general): One can add too many elements to a game. Typically, the fewer gaming elements, the better. The old adage “Less is More” is key.

I’ve used all of these methods for game design and writing. There are some I prefer and others I don’t. I wouldn’t say one method for a creative endeavor always trumps another. Your goal is to find which method works best for you and for your project.

And just because you Pants or Lighthouse your way to a story or game, doesn’t mean you can’t use a reverse outline. Have I talked about reverse outlines? Yes, in a previous writing brain dump. I’ll leave that link right here.

Remember, Stephen King subscribes to Pantsing. He has suggested that one’s reader won’t be surprised if you’re not surprised as the writer. Pantsing induces moments of surprise in King whenever he writes. But King is also known for horror fiction. The element of surprise is important for horror stories. There may be a reason Stephen King chooses the Pantsing method.

If you’ve made it through my rambling, you’re awesome. We all know it. Thank you for reading, and wherever you are, I hope you’re having a great day.

Game Design Brain Dump: January 16, 2026

Published on by KyraLeave a comment

Happy Friday, Geekly Gang! Kyra Kyle here with another game design brain dump. Our first of the year. Yay! Recently, I watched Netflix’s Delicious in Dungeon. I even shared it during one of our Watcha Watching posts. And instantly, I had a new idea for a board game. Well, Dungeon Chef is a variant of an old game design idea I had years ago. Let’s dish. Great. Now, I’m hungry.

Above is an image of Food Court Hustle’s most recent iteration. Yes, Food Court Hustle was the game’s original name. Food Court Hustle was a card-drafting game where players manage restaurants in a food court. It played quickly, had plenty of Take That elements, and never took itself too seriously. I liked the concept and loved the name. But food courts are a little dated. That was the biggest complaint I heard from playtesters. The concept for Food Court Hustle’s game mechanisms was to give players more control during card drafting. Each round, players would choose one card to play (for its effect) and then choose a card to discard for its ingredients, only every player–not just you–gains the ingredient.

Like most card-drafting games, Food Court Hustle plays swiftly. Simultaneous play helps with game speed. Seriously. This was one of the few games I never felt the need to incessantly time. And that’s a good rule of thumb when designing games. Always time your games. You want to waste as little of your players’ time as possible. I’m not saying you can’t design a two-hour or longer epic board game, but the game should earn its play time. Getting back to Food Court Hustle, something beyond the theme was missing.

Tangent: the image above is Dungeon Chef’s player board, and the previous image was of a Food Court Hustle player board. The scale of these two images is almost what it should be, so I managed to shrink the player’s space while ditching customers. Yes. The original game included customer cards that wouldn’t always appear when players wanted to make a dish. Another gameplay gripe. You could have the ingredients and not be able to make a meal. Dungeon Chef gets rid of that layer of randomness. I also got rid of a lot of the Take That mechanisms and replaced them with global effects.

Above is a sample Dungeon Chef card. The top half is the action you may choose to play. The number indicates the player’s initiative for that turn. All cards in the three day decks are numbered 1-50. The higher the number, the quicker the action. I’ve seen players choose a card for its initiative, which is wild. The bottom half is the monster parts you may add to the communal ingredients. You wouldn’t be the only one gaining a man-eating plant. Everyone at the table gains a chunk of man-eating plant. And returning to the action on this card, you can turn up the temperature of the communal stove. That’s right. Most game elements in Dungeon Chef have global effects. Half the game is steering the game state in your direction.

Players can select a recipe by spending the ingredients on the recipe card. Then, they add the recipe to their player board, lining up the wok with the flame. And near the end of each turn, move the recipe card up the number of spaces indicated by the communal stove’s temperature. Players can take their active recipe off the stove and claim the victory points indicated on the card at any time. But beware, if a player leaves their meal on the stove too long, they could burn their meal, and it goes into the trash, costing them 10 points at the end of the game. Whoever has the most points at the end of three days wins. There’s little more to Dungeon Chef. I tried to keep it short, easy to understand, and stick to the Delicious in Dungeon theme as best I could.

We’ll see where this design goes. And who knows? Perhaps I’ll be at a gaming convention near you. Let me know which convention I should attend. If you made it this far, you’re awesome. We all know it. Thank you for reading, and wherever you are, I hope you’re having a great day.

Game Design Brain Dump: November 21, 2025

Published on by KyraLeave a comment

Happy Friday, Geekly Gang! Kyra Kyle here with another board game design brain dump. I’m taking a break from Rustbucket Riots—which I covered in last month’s brain dump–and discuss a Blackjack Deck Building game I originally made in 2018. Seven years! Yikes! Guess I got the seven-year itch. This Blackjack Deck Builder has gone through multiple minor rule modifications and name changes. The deck, based on a standard playing card deck, doesn’t have jacks and kings, so it’s had the name No Jack and No Kings.

Play Faster

My oldest daughter had a high school friend, who will remain nameless. We’ll call her C. C loved deck building games, but she wouldn’t draw her hand at the end of each turn (allowing her to plan her next turn), and every time she drew cards into her hand, she’d act like she was reading them for the first time. This frustrated my daughter and her friends. I thought of No Jack or No Kings to fix this issue.

A quick explanation of deck building card games: each player begins with the same (or at least similar) small decks and purchase cards from a supply to add to their decks, making each deck unique.

While many starter cards in a deck building game have limited text, cards one would add to their hands could contain a heap of text. This would cause C’s turns to last three minutes or more, as she read the more complicated cards that she added to her deck. So, I took out most text. Standard playing cards have little to no text. Next, C had the issue of not drawing her hand at the end of her turn. What standard card game doesn’t require a hand? Blackjack.

The above sample card (Page of Coins) is a prototype. The end product will hopefully look a lot better. Lol.

I merged deck building with Blackjack and came up with No Jack or No Kings, and it worked. With the exception of changing the suits, the only cards that look different from a deck of standard playing cards are the face cards. C knew how to play Blackjack. Players would draw cards from the top of their decks, following the standard rules for Blackjack. If you drew over 22 points of cards, you’d bust and lose your turn. If a face card remains in play (without busting) at the end of a turn, the player can move the face card to their tableau and gain its ability. In the case of the page above, every time that player draws a coin suit card, they gain one extra money to purchase other cards. No Jack/No Kings starter decks begin with one face card from one of the four suits. Each suit has a different power.

Trouble with Asymmetry

Most players in deck building games begin with the exact same cards. Choosing to go with asymmetric powers at the onset of this game, however slight, proves difficult to balance. Brushes allow players to cull cards from their discard. Deck building experts see this as overpowered. But Diamonds and Cups have better win percentages. Diamonds allow players to manipulate decks (take cards from a discard and placing them on the bottom). If you’re good at counting cards, you can induce more 21s (or Blackjacks). Cups let players discard a drawn card and draw a new one. This is also strong.

The first page I showed, the Page of Coins, is the weakest of all four. But perception matters. Even though I’ve playtested No Jack/No Kings hundreds of times and found Cups and Diamonds win more often than not, players still “feel” more powerful with Brushes and, to a lesser extent, Coins. Granted, one of my playtest weekends was with someone at a Protospiel. He played No Jack/No Kings throughout the entire weekend (like a few dozen times), hoping to sculpt a deck of only Tens and Aces. This gamer played Brushes in each game and lost every time. Winning didn’t factor into his enjoyment. He wanted to build a near-perfect deck. So, the numbers may be a little skewed.

Does anything need to be changed? Honestly, I don’t know.

How to Win at No Jack/No Kings

I just realized we discussed No Jack/No Kings mechanisms without sharing how to win. There’s a separate deck of Patrons. Every patron can be claimed with a Blackjack (21), but each patron also gives discounts to two suits. If you have a face card from either suit in your tableau and you reach the lower number, you can claim the patron. Every turn, you can either claim a patron or purchase cards from the supply. That’s how the gamer (Protospiel) lost so many times. He would purchase cards if they fit in his “perfect deck” instead of claiming a patron. The first player to claim six patrons wins.

No Theme and Simple Mechanisms

I don’t know why I shelved No Jack/No Kings for almost a decade. My best guess is that I wanted No Jack/No Kings to have more theme or more complexity. I no longer care if No Jack/No Kings has a theme, and any additional mechanisms I added to the game diluted the core gameplay. I was obsessed with everything No Jack/No Kings didn’t have and failed to see what it did have. That same Protospiel (seven years ago, I’m guessing), I only taught the game once. Other gamers taught No Jack/No Kings to the rest of the convention, and the game was played consistently for two and a half days. I need to get out of my own way. Ugh!

I’m finalizing the starter decks and the cost of cards. But there are shockingly few things to balance/tweak after I pin down the starter decks, so I’m left with one question. Which name do you like better, No Jack or No Kings?

Let me know in the comments. Thank you for reading, and wherever you are, I hope you’re having a great day.

Game Design Brain Dump: October 10, 2025

Published on by Kyra3 Comments

Hey, hey, Geekly Gang! Kyra Kyle here. Last week, we began a series called–for the time being–Writing Brain Dump, and this week is the time to roll out Game Design Brain Dump. The title is a work in progress. Let’s hope I can express my board game design process with this series. Fingers crossed for a cogent thought or two. Strap in for a Board Game Design Brain Dump.

Rustbucket Riots Origins

I’m going a different route from last week’s writing brain dump. Recently, I attended a panel about board game design at Nuke-Con (Omaha’s board game convention) and figured we could begin with what prompted me to begin designing Rustbucket Riots.

I knew Mega Man: The Board Game by Jasco Games wasn’t the best when I purchased it at a severe discount. Honestly, I wanted the bits. Jasco Games did an amazing job with Mega Man’s miniatures and the look of the game. But good luck finishing a game of Mega Man in under 10 hours. Each robot stage plays like five games of Munchkin played back-to-back, with every other player doing their best to prevent you from completing the stage. And you need to complete multiple boss stages. 10 hours may be too few hours to complete this game. You may need to dedicate a table to preserve your month-long game of Mega Man.

I hope I won’t get copyright claimed for any images. Eek! I began with a simple dice chucker of a game. Players would roll standard six-sided dice (I don’t recall the exact number, but it was likely around four or five) and then place the dice on their player boards. Each space on the player board would grant different abilities, with the final four slots variable for powers obtained by defeating robot bosses. Players could place multiple dice in a single space to combine the rolled result. A six may be played with a single die showing a six or with a two and a four or any other combination of six.

I chose dice chucking because rolling dice and placing them with predetermined spaces made for quick turns. Quick turns lead to a game that one can finish within ten hours. This game worked well. Heck, I even tried it as a real-time game, and it worked extremely well. Games lasted less than 15 minutes. I even saw this Mega Man variant as a game that could be played in tournaments of speed runs. Now that I think about it, I may revisit this variant in the future and give it a reskin. Sorry, the ADHD took the wheel for a second.

For some reason, I abandoned the above game concept and went in a different direction. I love Cretaceous Rails. Unlike Jasco’s Mega Man, there isn’t much I’d change with this title. Cretaceous Rails makes this list because I wanted to try using one of its core game mechanisms: dual action selection. I even asked Cretaceous Rails’ designer, Ann Journey, if it’d be okay if I borrowed this game mechanism before trying the next Mega Man remix iteration. The result was a game I nicknamed Rondelande.

Oh my goodness. This game wasn’t just a different direction from my first Mega Man remix; it was different in every possible way. I didn’t keep any of Rondelande’s hardcopy versions. I only have the digital files, and it’s difficult to recreate what the game looked like without a physical copy. But I’ll try my best.

That’s a lot of color going on. Those are supposed to be three rondels (a circular game mechanism with pie wedges representing which actions one may take) stacked on top of one another. Each turn, players would place their gear tokens on one of the hexagon-shaped spaces and take the actions indicated. But before placing gears, players could play up to two cards (depicting one of the actions run, slide, jump, shoot, or climb) underneath the spaces on the outer edge. Players would then be able to take all the actions, including actions on cards, during their turn.

Note: The trapezoid spaces had different actions like draw cards or oil cans (that functioned as wild actions) or even rotating one of the top two rondels, so the action selection could vary.

Rondelande was a lot of fun. It ventured far from what I had originally intended to make. That’s the ADHD brain taking the wheel again. Unfortunately, Rondelande was a space hog. The image above is at least a twentieth of the size of the original game. Despite its size, Rondelande may have been a great game if I had stuck with it. I liked how players could build up the board as they went, benefiting themselves for a turn, but also allowing an opponent to take the same action in a future turn. Players could even refresh (take back their gear tokens) or choose not to refresh for a turn to prevent someone from taking an action their token is currently occupying. Rondelande was great. But something felt off. I wanted interlocking gears for the board because it made sense for a robot theme. I had chosen rondels because they were easier to build. And then I found gears that would work.

I found a file that could work for interlocking gears. Yay! As an aside, I was working on making this file work while producing my Mega Man variant and Rondelande, so a lot of what we’re about to discuss happened concurrently with the previous two games.

At first, I was using a lot of memory foam. Rondelande’s rondels were comprised of foam. I’d print out the digital files (of that rainbow nightmare above) onto full sheet labels and then sticker them over the foam and cut them out. I tried the same concept with the gear pictured above. And it worked…for like one playthrough of the game. Foam likes to shred under friction. Who knew? So, I put the interlocking gears aside until I found a set of wooden gears on Amazon.

Yes! I was in business. I could continue with Rustbucket Riots. The picture above is a modern version of the game; the first version still used foam for its board (the gears haven’t changed too much). I still have a version of the first game and will include a picture of it in a future post. Rustbucket Riots combines multiple ideas. I brought back dice chucking from Mega Man, only this time, I used specialty dice that included run, slide, climb, shoot, and jump. And I always thought Tzolk’in’s gears didn’t move enough. I could fix two issues I saw in other games. Jasco’s Mega Man took too long, and Tzolk’in (Tzolk’in is an amazing game that earns its spot in BGG; I’m nitpicking) could have gears that frequently turn.

The name Rustbucket Riots came swiftly. Originally, I wanted to make a better Mega Man board game, but I couldn’t copy Mega Man exactly. So, I wondered if I could make the player characters villainous. The Boss Robots attempt to free themselves from an oppressive corporocracy and the humans using them as cheap labor, while the players assume the role of corporate robots tasked with bringing the rogue robots under control. Even though the Boss Robots would view what’s happening as a revolution, we’re playing this game from the viewpoint of corporate robots, and they’d see it as riots. Throw in a slur, and you get Rustbucket Riots.

I think that’s everything up to the idea of Rustbucket Riots materialized. We’ll cover early iterations of the game in the next board game design brain dump. If you’ve made it this far through my rambling, you’re awesome. You know it. Thank you for reading, and wherever you are, I hope you’re having a great day.