Today I’m looking at the act of gift-giving for the gamers in my life. This is about putting myself in the recipient’s shoes to find the type of gift that makes them feel cared for, seen, and loved. Only 1 of the 5 love languages shared here involve tangible gifts, which I think is a really important distinction at this time of year.
Words of Affirmation: Share your appreciation and kind words with the person.
play their favorite game (in person or remotely) and talk about the highlights afterwards
if they’re a game designer, playtest their prototype and offer helpful feedback (share what you enjoyed the most and why, along with an example of one thing that didn’t work as well for you)
reach out to a designer they admire for a video clip that celebrates your favorite things about the recipient
Acts of Service: Do something that saves the person time or convenience.
learn and teach a game (this is my favorite)
babysit (if they have kids) to give them time to play a game
make a thematic meal or dish to go with a gaming lunch/dinner
Quality Time: Bond with the person over a meaningful, connective activity.
give them a miniatures painting set and paint together
go to a game cafe or store together
devote time to playing a game you both love
Quantity Time: Spend a longer period of time with the person.
host a game day
play a longer game that they love but rarely get to play
commit to and start a campaign game
Tangible Gifts: Give the person a tangible gift.
consider their preferred player count, cooperative vs competitive preference, classic vs new hotness
go deeper into games they already have and love (expansions, accessories)
if their shelf space is limited, give a digital game (Inkborn, Dispatch, and Blue Prince are some of my 2025 favorites)
If you’re curious about non-gaming gifts, here are some of my favorite things I bought in 2025: an easier way to read on my Kindle, a Dropout TV subscription, Jackery backup power source, metal cups, and Ritual zero-proof whiskey for mocktails.
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I’d like to express my gratitude for various types of people who have had a positive impact on me and Stonemaier Games this year. Perhaps some of these people will be good resources for you as well.
I’m incredibly thankful for…
Supporters, Fans, and Followers (Facebook, enewsletter,YouTube, Instagram, Discord, Bluesky): None of this would be possible without you. I truly hope our games, content, and interactions have brought you joy this year. Thank you for supporting our games, and thank you for sharing them with others. Our 2025 releases were Vantage, Origin Story, Finspan, Tokaido (and expansions), Tokaido Duo, Smitten 2, Between Two Castles Essential, Wyrmspan: Dragon Academy, and the Wingspan promo birds, plus various accessories, disc golf discs, and new Rolling Realms promos.
Stonemaier Champions: I’m incredibly grateful for the 15,000+ Champions who support the 100+ blog entries and 250+ YouTube videos we film each year for creators and designers, and having Champions use their 20% discount on every order (among other perks) to buy directly from us has been a huge help in stabilizing the sustainability of Stonemaier Games.
Coworkers (Alan Stone, Joe Aubrey, Alex Schmidt,Susannah Eisenbraun,Dave Deenik, Christine Santana, and Erica Sanders): It’s so helpful for me to always have people who know the business as well as I do to bounce ideas off of, playtest with, be accountable to, and delegate to, especially in areas where I am weak and they are strong.
Independent Contractors Who Feel Like Coworkers (Morten Monrad Pedersen, Dave Hewer, Shannon Lentz, Karel Titeca): These are people who have other clients and jobs, but they do a lot of amazing work for Stonemaier Games, and I’m incredibly grateful for them.
Retailers and Distributors (see retailers who sell our products): You are the backbone of our supply chain. Thank you for being the bridge between Stonemaier and customers.
Shareholders: We’re fortunate to have a few dozen investors who believe in what we’re building at Stonemaier Games and who share excellent advice, questions, idea, and insights. I’m really grateful for our shareholders.
Independent Contractors and Freelancers: Notable artists for 2025 releases were Clementine Campardou (Origin Story and Wyrmspan: Dragon Academy); Emilien Rotival, Soren Meding, and Valentina Filic (Vantage); Naïade (Tokaido); Ana María Martínez, Catalina Martínez, & Mesa Schumacher (Finspan); the Mico (Smitten 2); along with ongoing support in the form disc golf art (Miles Bensky), realm art (Marius Petrescu), 3D sculpts (Heriberto Martinez), videos (JC Trombley, Pixel Potion Creative, and Emmanuel Ho), voiceovers (Megan Selke), music composition (Joel Winbigler), photos (Tim Chuon and Erica Sanders), Henry Seymour (game teaching), and Andrew Cook (advertising). I’m so grateful that these people communicate quickly and effectively–-I highly value that.
Lawyers, Accountants, Bookkeepers, Advisors, and Payroll (Michael Hargis, Zachary Strebeck, Justin Marty, Leigh Reiter, & Brandi Ruhland at Anders Accounting, Stephanie at Timely Totals, Drea at Execupay, Chris Fleming and Tara Blunt at our bank, Tony Aiazzi and Brian Hires at Moneta, and Benjamin Arana covering insurance): I’m very grateful to have these lawyers to help us create tight contracts, secure solid trademarks, and protect our IP, as well as a great accounting, bookkeeping, and financial advisors.
International Production Partners (Igromag, Feuerland, Maldito, Phalanx, Matagot, Delta Vision, Arclight, Surfin’ Meeple, Ludofy, ALBI, Ghenos, 999 Games, Rebel, and many others): Thanks to these partners, we’ve been able to reach tens of thousands of gamers who wouldn’t otherwise have access to our products.
Replacement Part Helpers (Helen, Mark, Devon, Christian, Dave, Austyn, Xander, Mark, and Yannis): To date, we have received and responded to over 40,000 replacement parts requests. I’m incredibly grateful to have these diligent helpers positioned around the world to take care of lost, missing, and broken components from our products.
Automa: The inclusion of robust solo variants in our games thanks to Morten, David, Lines, and other members of their team has been instrumental in extending our reach to solo gamers. I’m constantly amazed by how well Automa Factory is able to capture the feeling of a sentient opponent without requiring much upkeep or rules overheard.
The Mill and Positively Board Gaming: I really appreciate that Carol and Molly maintain a sponsored YouTube channel specifically to talk about Stonemaier Games from a fan perspective. Our Facebook groups are great for those conversations, but they really breathe life to our fanbase through The Mill, and we’re proud to support it. I’ve also really enjoyed the conversations I’ve had this year with Mitchell on our co-hosted podcast, Positively Board Gaming.
Digital Platforms (Tabletopia, Monster Couch, The Knights of Unity, Acram Digital, Digidiced, Board Game Arena, and Boardspace.net): The skill to take a tabletop game and translate it to the digital space for more people to discover, enjoy, and learn from is astonishing to me. I’m so impressed by and grateful for these folks. I’m also really grateful for Paul Hart, the developer of the free Stonemaier Scores app and Jans Carton, creator of Rulepop.
Shipping and Fulfillment Companies (ARC Global, Spiral Galaxy, Let’s Play Games, Miniature Market, and Asmodee Canada): While most of our games are shipped in bulk to distributors, we offer more direct shipping to those who order on our webstore thanks to these fulfillment companies. We also offer local pickup in St. Louis!
Co-Designers and Game Designers (Ben Rosset, Matthew O’Malley, Hoby Chou, Kai Starck, Ryan Lopez, Elizabeth Hargrave, Morten Monrad Pedersen, David Studley, Travis Jones, Alexander Schmidt, Mike Young, Paolo Mori, Francesco Testini, Mihir Shah, Chris Scaffidi, Connie Vogelmann, Paul Salomon, David Gordon, Michael O’Connell, Antoine Bauza, Ryan Davis, Pete Wissinger, and others to be revealed next year): The talent and dedication of these designers is astounding, and they are integral to our ability to bring joy to tabletops.
Manufacturers (Shannon at Panda Game Manufacturing and Chris at Innova): It’s a true blessing to work with a manufacturer like Panda. Their communication, quality, care, and willingness to work with us on things like making our games more eco-friendly makes them the only manufacturer I ever want to work with. It’s also been fun to continue to make custom discs with Innova this year!
Proofreaders: Using our proofreading and oversight process, a dedicated group of proofreaders can see every step of a product’s evolution during the proofreading process. I’m incredibly grateful for the time and effort that Dana, Michael, Josh, Ian, Brian, Inga, Justin, Crystal, and others have put into our products this year.
Ambassadors: Our ambassadors have made our community and games so much better by answering questions on forums, playtesting our games, making suggestions for my top 10 lists (Aryn, Skiler, Abagail, Kari, Kaitlyn, and Dillon), and welcoming people into our games at game stores, events, and conventions. We currently have around 750 active ambassadors–I love that I can trust this group with ideas while they’re still being formed to get their feedback. A few ambassadors are particularly helpful on an ongoing basis are Josh Ward, Travis Willse, Garrett Feiner, and Julie Bode (though I should really stress that there are many, many active ambassadors who offer their time and talent in incredible ways).
Reviewers, Journalists, Podcasters, and Video Bloggers: I can’t play every game, but thanks to the variety of perspectives from other content creators, I’m able to listen a variety of perspectives from the comfort of my office. I’m also truly grateful for all of the reviewers who create compelling content to help people decide if our games are a good fit for them, and I appreciate reviewer who understanding that we can’t send every product to all 550 reviewers on our list. Also this year I’m grateful for the YouTubers who accepted our sponsorship for playthroughs.
Convention and Event Coordinators/Volunteers (Geekway to the West, Gen Con, Essen, TantrumCon, any convention that uses the play-and-win system, BGG@SEA, etc): It takes a lot of work to put together a convention, and I’m grateful for my coworker, Dave, for coordinating our convention presence (and with the support of the wonderful people at Meeplesource and Inside Up Games). I’m so grateful for the people who create such welcoming environments for old and new gamers to commune with each other, as well as the volunteers who help us at those events. You can always check here to see if we’ll have a presence at a convention. I had fun briefly attending Gen Con this year, at Geekway, Design Day, and the Finspan event, and going on the BGG@SEA cruise to Norway.
Design Day Attendees: The creative energy and generosity of time and talent at our annual Design Day is always inspiring for me. Thank you to all of the designers and playtesters who attended in 2025, and especially to Pieces Board Game & Cafe for being awesome hosts.
Fellow Creators: I love that there are so many brilliant, innovative creators and game designers. You all truly inspire me to be a better creator and a more interesting game designer. I’m particularly grateful for fellow publishers who share their advice, insights, and insights (publicly and privately)–I learn so much from you!
My Gaming Groups: Gaming is my main social outlet, and I’m really grateful to have a few consistent game groups filled with people who love a wide variety of games (including disc golf). I like that these people try to win but focus on having fun, and it’s been fun to play every other week with local friends in person and every other week on Board Game Arena with friends outside of St. Louis.
Charity Auction Participants: The extremely generous donors (along with other contributors like Fulfillrite and participating content creators) who placed winning bids on our annual charity auction enabled us to donate $22,354 to 10 different charities, putting our total donation amount over all charity auctions at $211,216. We also donated hundreds of games this year to organizations that feature tabletop games to serve communities who can’t buy games.
Friends and Family: I’m very grateful for the many ways my friends and family support me in my passion for gaming, for Stonemaier Games, and for serving you.
What are you grateful for in the tabletop gaming community/industry this year?
While playing a tabletop game, has the game ever instructed you to do something that leads you to connect mechanically or thematically with other people playing the game around the world?
Examples are rare (and I’m hoping you can share some in the comments that I don’t know about), but here are a few that don’t involve spoilers:
KeyForge: In the original version of KeyForge there was a format called “Chainbound” that looked at the reported power level of each deck (in KeyForge, every deck is a unique combination of cards). If a deck performs well, it gains “chains” that decrease your starting hand size in subsequent games; likewise, if a deck performs poorly, it can lose chains.
Legend of the Five Rings: In the original version of this card game, the outcome of major tournaments (i.e., the winning faction) had a significant impact on the game’s world. Those outcomes became part of the official lore, leading to the rise and fall of various factions, along with the creation of new cards and abilities. I’ve heard the newer game Sorcery is doing something similar.
Raxxon: In this pre-pandemic game about a rapidly spreading virus, upon opening the game you unlocked a few codes that you could give to other people to buy the game (which for a while was the only way to buy the game).
Before I get to some tabletop spoiler examples, here are a few from digital games that may better explain the concept of “meta-connective”:
Helldivers 2: In this sci-fi video game, you fight to capture planets from alien control. If your mission is successful, you contribute to incremental progress made by players around the world on the same planet (there’s even a website that tracks this progress). Eventually this may add up to the planet being 100% liberated. If that happens to enough planets, the scope of the world increases to include more planets (new content for everyone).
Elden Ring: In this gritty open-world game, there are certain places where players can leave messages for each other. You might stumble upon a warning like “turn back” or “a chamber lies under the ruins” that helps you find a hidden area. There are limited text options designed to avoid hate speech and obscenities, though players still find creative ways to combine words for comedic attempts.
Why does any of this matter? Maybe it doesn’t–maybe it’s just me. I really like that other people are playing (or have played) the same game I’m playing, and I’m enamored by the idea that something I do in the game may have a small impact on someone halfway across the world. The small downside is that these involve a brief digital element (web interface, not a dedicated app), but I think the pros outweigh that con.
With that in mind, here are the two places that meta-connective elements have appeared in Stonemaier games. Click to expand if you’re okay with these spoilers (it’s more of a story spoiler in Charterstone and a small discovery spoiler in Vantage).
Charterstone
In Charterstone, players competitively build a village in the kingdom of Greengully over a 12-game legacy campaign. In each session, the Forever King gives the village something to accomplish, making him either happy or angry. At the end of a specific game, you’re instructed to go to a website where you see your village on a map of Greengully (you name it there), along with thousands of other villages created in other games of Charterstone.
The website instructs you to log the sum of your scores for that game, and it compares your average (weighted by player count) to the average of the other villages (real scores reported in other campaigns). If you’re above average, the king is happy; if you’re below average, the king is angry–both lead to different mechanical consequences.
Vantage
In Vantage, there are a few dozen giant, glass-like orbs scattered throughout the vast planet. If you interact with an orb in a specific way, the game gives you the option to go to a website where you can see limited-text messages scrawled on the surface of the orb by other real people who have previously visited that orb (ala Elden Ring). You then have the option to leave a message of your own. There’s no mechanical impact other than gaining information about your surroundings and how to interact with them, which is a major aspect of Vantage.
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of what meta-connective elements could be…if they’re something that people enjoy. They don’t even require narrative games to work. For example, imagine an economic game where you log the end-game value of goods and resources on a web app. During setup, you check the app to see the current worldwide value of those goods and resources, applying them to your board before starting play.
I’m fascinated by these elements, but again, it might just be me. :) What do you think? Have you seen meta-connective elements in tabletop games? Are there certain types of them that you could see yourself enjoying?
A budgeting and marketing puzzle for any crowdfunding campaign is determining the funding goal. Today’s article is a back-and-forth dialogue on this subject between Ira Fay (Far Off Games) and me (Jamey, Stonemaier Games).
***IRA***
The first printing of Arydia: The Paths We Dare Tread had a successful Kickstarter campaign by any reasonable measure (10K+ backers, $1.3MM raised), but the Kickstarter algorithm did not highlight it as “project we love” or anything like that. We can’t know for sure why not, but Cody and I have a hypothesis: The time it took to reach the funding goal was too slow (2.5 days!) and the ratio of funds relative to the funding goal was too small (less than double).
Cody set the goal for the first campaign at a whopping $720,000 because that was the amount of money he calculated he would actually need to manufacture the game and fulfill all his commitments. It was a real number and it was scary big!
As we approached the second printing campaign, we had the opportunity to talk with various marketing and campaign advisors. One bit of advice we received was to set the threshold artificially low, far below what we actually would need to fulfill the project. In the worst case, the advisors said, we could simply cancel the campaign and refund the money. By having an artificially low funding goal, we please the algorithm while potential backers see that the project has funded and thus feel more confident backing.
As Cody and I discussed this advice, we felt uneasy. If the campaign goal isn’t the real goal and instead it’s just an imaginary number, the whole system loses credibility. Backers gain a false sense of what’s actually needed to manufacture games and fulfill projects. Publishers face unrealistic expectations, striving for practically instant funding. And when a campaign gets cancelled after reaching its artificially low funding goal, backers (who didn’t realize it was a false goal) are rightfully disappointed.
This idea of using artificially low thresholds to get engagement isn’t new. This appears in auctions with a reserve price. For example:
Bidders might initially feel excited that they could get that car for $630, but to avoid disappointment, they must understand the fine print. There is a hidden reserve price that must be met before they actually get the car. At least in this auction situation, people are told explicitly about the hidden reserve!
To be clear, I don’t believe that either of the campaigns shown above are using artificially low thresholds – they are well-deserved, extremely successful campaigns! But one can easily see how the system is encouraging creators to keep thresholds low by reporting scores like this. If the system instead reported “percentage of satisfied backers” or “percentage of followers who actually backed” or “eco-friendly manufacturing score,” it would immediately incentivize different behaviors by publishers.
The current reality of crowdfunding is that the algorithm does reward projects that reach their goal quickly. It makes the project seem popular and successful. I understand the impulse, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s a trend that benefits backers or publishers in the long run. Hiding the realities of the project undercuts one of the big transparency benefits of crowdfunding.
This is a small issue relative to many other things discussed on Jamey’s excellent blog (environmental issues, tariffs, etc.). I hope by shining a light on this topic, everyone can see the algorithm’s influence on publisher behavior, and publishers can perhaps be encouraged to show accurate funding goals despite short-term incentives to the contrary.
***JAMEY***
Thanks for sharing this, Ira! I largely agree with the idea that creators and backers benefit from a funding goal that reflects the real amount needed to create and manufacture the game.
Where I’d push back a little is how that number is calculated. For example, if Arydia had only raised $700,000 instead of $720,000, would that truly have tanked the project? What about $650,000? And so on.
Let’s talk numbers for a hypothetical game. If you want to make a game with a landed cost of $20 (manufacturing plus freight shipping) with a trusted long-time producer like Panda, you’ll have a minimum order quantity of 1,500 units (or 2,000 if plastics are involved). Ideally you’ll make more, but that’s the bare minimum you need to cover that MOQ. So that’s $30,000.
Of course, you’ll need to pay artists, graphic designers, playtesters, and proofreaders–those costs can vary greatly based on the complexity of the game and the quantity of the art. At Stonemaier Games, I would say that those costs add up to around $75,000 on average. Added to the landed costs, that’s $105,000.
However, if we’re investing so much money, time, energy, and other resources, we’re not looking to make only 1,500 units of the game. Our real MOQ is 20,000 (i.e., if we don’t think we can sell at least 20,000 units of a game, we won’t make it). So that puts this hypothetical calculation at $475,000.
Now, if I were to use crowdfunding, would I use $475,000 as the goal? I would not. My reason is because it’s aspirational–just because I want to sell 20,000 units doesn’t mean the game isn’t feasible at 1,500 units. Also, I’m not a first-time creator, so I’m prepared (financially and otherwise) to bet on myself. Like you and other publishers, I’ve already done a lot of the work to create the game before I’ve presented it on a crowdfunding campaign. Essentially, I’ve already decided that the game is worth a certain amount of investment no matter what backers can provide. So if I’ve already spent $50,000 on artists, graphic designers, playtesters, and proofreaders, it isn’t my expectation that backers should reimburse me for that investment. That drops the goal down to $55,000.
My last thought is about transparency. I love your focus on transparency, though I don’t think it solely rests on the funding goal itself. In the hypothetical example above, I might list the funding goal at $55,000, but somewhere else on the project page I might discuss that I’ve already invested $50,000 in the game and that the additional $55,000 is for an MOQ of 1,500 units even though I’m really hoping to make at least 5,000 units.
I’m not claiming that any of this applies to Arydia specifically (in fact, I’m 100% sure that Arydia’s landing costs and sunk costs are significantly higher than the example I provided). Rather, I just wanted to point out that an accurate funding goal is relative to various factors and that transparency extends beyond the goal itself.
What do you think? Feel free to close out the article with anything else you want to counter or share. ***IRA***
Drawing the Line: After doing all the math and calculations, let’s say we end up with a goal of $52,000. I can always ask myself, what about $51,999? Surely that would still be OK. What about $51,998? etc. It’s quite tricky to find where exactly to draw the line. One approach is to pick a number substantially lower, like $40,000, and convince yourself that it’s really too low. Then you can go up from $40,000 and down from $52,000 until you feel like you’ve found the lowest reasonable goal.
Stretch Pay: If you’re offering an expensive game, many backers may want to pay via installments, which Gamefound calls Stretch Pay. I don’t know the data across all of Gamefound, but to share a single data point (since I really appreciate how Jamey shares real data here): As of Day 1 of the Arydia reprint campaign while I’m writing this, 47% of pledged dollars are in the form of Stretch Pay! That means we won’t actually get the cash flow until much later in the process, after we’ve needed to make payments to the manufacturer. If you’re going to offer Stretch Pay, be sure to plan out the payment schedule to align with your manufacturing bills!
Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this topic!
***JAMEY***
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Ira! I wish you the best with the second-printing campaign (currently $476,408 raised for a $200,000 funding goal).
I’d love to hear what other backers and creators think about the funding goal calculation. Let us know in the comments below!
Last month we announced and launched 6 promo packs of all-new Wingspan birds. Each pack focuses on a different region (Asia, Great Britain, Canada, Continental Europe, New Zealand, and USA):
We packaged each set of 25 birds in its own “booster pack” so customers could pick and choose the right combination of packs for them. It’s okay to buy all of them, but you could also just try a few of the packs to see what they add to Wingspan.
It’s rare to have a different product design for our webstore vs retailers. Due to the extra graphic design and production, we prefer to have a single version of each product. The majority of Wingspan’s 2 million copies in circulation have sold through retailers (not our webstore), so we also wanted to offer these packs to retailers and distributors. Based on feedback and experience, we knew that local retailers would want a way to buy the packs together and then display them.
After much discussion and experimentation, we created a display box for retailers. It contains all 6 promo packs, so a retailer can sell the box by itself or open the box to sell individual packs:
The display box also prompted us to slightly change the packaging of each pack so that there’s a band of color at the top, signaling that each pack is different. We also moved the name of the pack closer to the top:
The display box set is unique to local retailers; it will be available from them starting on December 5.
Have you seen other cases of slightly different product design between a publisher’s webstore (or crowdfunding campaign) vs the retail version? I’m not talking about gameplay or component differences (i.e., deluxe vs standard editions), though that is another consideration when trying to appeal to early adopters vs long-term retail viability.
***
There’s more information about the new promo bird packs in today’s World of Wingspan newsletter, including the expansion timeline and a region vs region variant.
I write or rewrite most of our rulebooks at Stonemaier Games, and today I thought I’d share a few observations and techniques I’ve learned over the years.
My Techniques
For initial local playtesting, I create player aids instead of a rulebook, as the rules are very much in flux at that stage (plus, it sets the groundwork for each player to have a player aid in the final product too). It’s only when I’m approaching blind playtesting that I write the rulebook.
I have a simple rulebook template I follow: overview & goal, components, setup, gameplay overview, detailed gameplay, other info, and end of game.
I typically reserve the last page of the rulebook for an icon guide, game flow, and/or index (though often the table of contents at the beginning does the job of the index).
I try to construct rulebooks in such a way that their length is indicative of the complexity of the game, using other components to assist. For example, when I rewrote the Tokaido Duo rulebook, I extracted the character instructions into two separate sets of player aids (i.e., more helpful for players to use during the game, and more representative of Tokaido Duo’s low complexity).
I write rulebooks as if I’m talking to you. “Pay $1 to gain 2 resources,” not “The player pays $1 to gain 2 resources.”
If I ever need a full page to explain a minor concept, that’s a good sign that the concept is too complex for what it contributes to the game. Similarly, in 99% of cases, if I use the word “exception” in the rulebook, it’s a sign of something that will be difficult for players to remember and should be removed from the gameplay.
My favorite rulebook size is 180x240mm. This is big enough for the rules, visuals, and examples, but small enough that you can keep it on the table while playing.
Blind playtesting (when a game is playtested without me there to teach or supervise) is 25% for the purpose of improving the rulebook. If a playtester misses a rule, even if it’s marked clear as day in the rulebook, I consider it an opportunity to make it even clearer or put it in a more obvious place.
My general philosophy is to put text on cards (not combinations of icons to decipher) and that the text be self-sufficient enough that a separate appendix isn’t necessary. However, sometimes there just isn’t room for lots of text. In those cases, either an appendix (like in Apiary) or the back of the card/tile (like in Tokaido) are good places for the text.
I find it helpful to review a rulebook backwards (section by section), as I can hone in on specific elements without skimming ahead by accident.
We have a style guide for the copyeditors and proofreaders in our oversight process. They have full access to all versions of the product (prototype and typeset files).
When the pre-production copy (PPC) of the product is ready, one of the things I’m looking for in our playtests is how easily I can find answers to questions in the rulebook. If I can’t find the answer quickly, I revise the rulebook accordingly.
As much as I appreciate the effort publishers put into selling a new game and sharing its features (through reviews, videos, newsletters, updates, social media, ads, etc), I’ve found that what I end up valuing the most is the effort they put into helping me actually get the game off my shelf of opportunity and onto the table for the first time.
This manifests in many ways: Ease and instructions for the initial unpacking/organizing, clear rules/tutorials in a variety of formats (rulebook, video, Dized, Rulepop, etc), reference cards for each player, game design that promotes an intuitive onboarding process, and so on.
But there’s one way that’s often overlooked, and I highly value when publishers do this type of customer service: When the game ships and/or releases, send an update that consolidates all of the onboarding instructions in one place. This significantly increases the chance that I’ll get the game to the table soon and that I’ll play correctly the first time.
Today I sent this update for Origin Story, as we’ve now shipped over 5,000 copies to webstore customers (the retail release is coming soon), and I thought I’d break down the update into segments to illustrate our methods. If you have any feedback about how to improve this type of update, please let me know!
I’m sure that there are some people in the Origin Story Facebook Group or on BoardGameGeek who don’t subscribe to our Origin Story newsletter, so I typically post a weblink to the newsletter content there and on our website. Including the subscription link makes it easier for someone who is reading the newsletter as a webpage to subscribe to future updates.
By the time I send this update, I’ve heard from customers who may have struggled with some aspect of the game’s initial setup. This is a chance for me to use that feedback to improve the experience for anyone who hasn’t opened the game yet.
This portion is the heart of the update, as it provides the tools for people to learn the game and ask questions while they’re learning/playing. It’s also intended to get people thinking about what they can do after they’ve played the game (some low-key creative and social media ideas).
Our oversight process attempts to make the rules clear and complete, but we’re always trying to learn from players. If they’re asking some of the same questions, I like to highlight the answers up front for those who are close to trying the game for the first time.
I record how-to-teach videos for all our games, as the person who is learning the game is likely the person who will be teaching the game. My teaching method (and the way I design games) is to explain a few core concepts and then teach while playing.
Finally, the newsletter ends with some things players can do after they’ve played game. I also include links to our webstore, as there are likely some subscribers who are following along but haven’t actually purchased the game yet.
In breaking down this type of update, I think I could probably put a little more focus on the Learn to Play paragraph (maybe add some visuals or present it as a list instead of a long sentence) and shift the creative and Instagram suggestions to the end of the newsletter.
I’d love to hear what you think–are these types of updates (from us or any publisher) helpful for you? What makes them useful, and what could make them better for helping you play the game for the first time?
Today I was looking through the recent YouTube videos of a content creator, and I happened to notice that a certain type of video garners significantly more views than other videos. It’s a type of video I don’t make or watch, so it really stood out.
I decided to look at a handful of tabletop YouTube channels that post a variety of videos to see if their audiences were just as interested in this type of video. And they are!
Here are the channels I looked at, each of which features at least 4 different types of videos on a regular basis, along with an image showing a content cross-section:
For each of these channels, I looked at average views for different types of videos posted over the last few months. This was a very un-scientific process, as there are a variety of factors that can impact the views of any single video.
Here are my three biggest takeaways from this very small dataset:
People Love Anticipation
This is the type of video that surprised me the most. It’s by far the most-watched type of video on these channels.
It doesn’t surprise me that people like anticipating things; I love to look forward to specific games, books, movies, restaurants, etc. Rather, I’m surprised that videos about anticipation are so highly viewed, as they are the one type of video on this list about games that the content creators haven’t even played yet. They’re mostly talking about a game’s potential, not their experiences playing the game.
I’m truly happy that these content creators and their audiences enjoy the anticipation-style videos. However, it isn’t content that I’m personally interested in making–I want to share my excitement for games I’ve played, not games I might someday play–but it’s a great reminder about the marketing power of anticipation.
Lists Are Still Great
In an era of 30-second clips on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, people still seem to enjoy the option to learn about multiple games over 10-20 minutes in a single video. As much as I love a focused deep-dive into a specific game–in fact, that’s my heavy preference for podcasts–for videos I like the efficiency and order to longer lists.
The data was a good reminder that top 10 lists aren’t the only way to do this. Various creators have their own twists on variety episodes, including “if we could only keep 5 games,” “comparing these 3 games,” and “let’s talk about games we recently played.”
Playthroughs Are the Most Valued Sponsored Content
Just recently I wrote about how content creators can (if desired) earn a little revenue from paid, non-opinion content like previews and rule videos. However, it seems that playthroughs are the clear winner if a publisher is considering a content sponsorship.
***
Data aside, my motivation for creating YouTube videos is almost entirely driven by the intersection of two factors: (a) What our audience enjoys and (b) what I’m passionate about filming. I’m not going to make something that isn’t true to me (e.g., absolutely no hate-bait) or if very few people engage in it (considering not only views, but comments and likes too).
What’s your takeaway from this data? Again, it’s a very small cross-section, so I’d love to hear your observations from other channels too.
We’ve had a busy year at Stonemaier Games! Now that we’re done releasing new products for 2025, I thought I’d reflect on the major lessons learned from the product design and marketing of these products. Here’s what we launched this year:
Vantage: Open-world cooperation for 1-6 players on a vast planet.
Origin Story: Superhero-themed tableau-building and trick taking for 1-5 players.
Finspan: Dive underwater in this language-independent Wingspan-inspired game for 1-5 players.
Wingspan Fan-Designed Birds: 6 packs, each with 25 brand-new birds.
Tokaido Expansion & Playmat: Crossroads, Matsuri, and promos in one box.
Wyrmspan: Dragon Academy: More cards and fledglings (dragons to train).
Tokaido Duo: Draft dice and race to be the first to complete a traveler’s goal.
Smitten 2: Tiny cooperative puzzle for 1-2 players.
Tokaido: Traverse across Japan as far forward on a path as you dare.
Between Two Castles Essential Edition: Work together with your neighbors to build castles, but there’s only one winner (1-7 players).
Overall, as much as I love these games and expansions, I feel like we packed too much into 2025 from a marketing and customer service perspective. Our goal is to shine the spotlight on a select few products each year so we can best serve you, and I don’t think we accomplished that goal by letting 2025 get so crowded. Next year will be more focused.
As for specific products that have provided takeaways for product design (not game design) or marketing:
Vantage: I’m really glad that I broke from tradition and started posting design diary updates well before the launch, as it both gave me time to tell the story of this 8-year passion project and gave curious followers something big to anticipate. As for the product design, now that I’ve seen the effectiveness of the optional Rulepop digital storybook (and rule support) web app, I wish I had worked with Rulepop in advance rather than after the launch so people would see it mentioned in the rulebook.
Origin Story: We aimed to put a big game with a ton of replayability in a smaller box, which served as a great reminder of how much the box size can impact a game’s manufacturing cost (and thus the final consumer price). Using a Wingspan-sized box would have added close to $10 to this game’s MSRP and added freight shipping costs. However, we did something with the box that I’d do differently in the future: Because the box is double-sided (both the front and back have full illustrations), we added a disposable piece of paper to the back of the box with retailer-focused product information. Our manufacturer put a touch of removable glue on the paper so it wouldn’t shift when the box goes through the shrinkwrap machine, but the glue leaves a small bubble when removed.
Finspan: My main takeaway is for me to add more of a buffer to the quantity certain components, especially when an upgrade pack is involved. People run out of school tokens at higher player counts more often than expected when playing Finspan.
Wingspan Fan-Designed Bird Promo Packs: I wish I had pursued these last year and release them in batches of 3s instead of 6 all at once–it’s a more palatable expense that way. In the future if we make more of these, we’ll most likely release them in sets of 3, similar to what we did with Rolling Realms promo realms.
Tokaido Expansion: When I first starting working on combining Crossroads and Matsuri (which were originally separate expansions), I was a bit daunted by the rulebooks, which totaled 12 pages between them. But then I realized that they were actually rather elegant expansions with a ton of content in the rulebooks that could instead be on other tiles and cards in the game (and easier to reference that way). The final result is a single-page rulebook (printed on both sides) that much more accurately conveys to players how easy it is to add the new content to Tokaido.
Wyrmspan: Dragon Academy: By far the biggest surprise about this expansion has been the incorrect assumption that the included tray is designed to hold ALL Wyrmspan cards. As an expansion tray, it’s actually designed to hold just the expansion cards. There wasn’t a plastic tray in Wyrmspan’s first printing, so we thought we could better serve fans of the game by including an expansion tray to hold at least some of the components (and if you want to store all cards in trays, the tray is sized so that the box also fits a second tray, which we offer discounted on our webstore). Perhaps the lesson is to include an organizer tray in the base game from the start and don’t try to retcon it later.
Tokaido Duo: Before we acquired the Tokaido brand, all the marketing I’d seen about this Antoine Bauza dueling game seemed to gloss over two major features that I’ve tried to highlight: One, it’s a dice drafting game (meaning that both players are involved in every turn). Two, it’s a race to complete one of several goals, ala the designer’s other incredibly popular 2-player game, 7-Wonders Duel.
Smitten 2: We tried to make the packaging for this sequel more retailer friendly by adding a hangtag and using a box instead of an envelope. The result is fine, but I’ve found that it sacrifices some of the ease-of-access of the original packaging.
Tokaido: My biggest lesson learned is to be incredibly wary of making late-stage graphic design choices, and if I do, I need several sets of eyes to ensure that there aren’t any unintended consequences. What I’m referring to is a change we made early in pre-production to make the score track wrap around the board (which is good). However, during the process of changing this, a layer shifted in InDesign, resulting in the path shifting by a few millimeters. It doesn’t impact gameplay, but it was an embarrassing, aesthetically unpleasing way to introduce Tokaido to the Stonemaier brand. (And yes, we’re fixing it for future printings, and it’s fixed on the rubber playmat.)
Between Two Castles Essential Edition: This combines the core game with the expansion into one seamless product, and I have few notes other than maybe we made slightly too many copies. In the past we’ve seen a pretty big bump from retailers when we give a product this “essential” treatment, but I think there are so many new games, spinoffs, sequels, and second editions on the market these days that they don’t have quite as much appeal as in the past. Despite the slight over-forecast, it’s still sold well enough to justify the Essential Edition.
Those are my primary product design and marketing lessons learned from our 2025 releases. What do you think, and what would you like me to learn from these products so we can better serve you in the future? I love questions, so feel free to ask if you don’t know the full facts or backstories behind a product design or marketing decision.
I’m incredibly grateful for my coworkers (Dave, Susannah, and Alex) for traveling across the world to Essen for the Spiel festival this past week, along with the many incredible members of our demo team who made the trip from Iceland, England, Belgium, and a variety of other locations. Huge thanks to everyone who stopped by our booth to learn about our newest products: Vantage, Origin Story, Wyrmspan: Dragon Academy, and more.
Last year we tried a secret experiment at Essen that resulted in some fun for the team and customers; I think a variation of it was implemented this year as well. I asked my coworkers if they tried anything new at Essen Spiel this year that other creators and publishers might be interested in, and Alex shared the following:
Combined Sales Counter at a Shared Booth: While Stonemaier and Inside Up have shared a booth the two previous years, this is the first time we had a single combined sales counter. It was really cool how the intermingling of stock led to people coming to the booth looking for games from one company and walking away with games from both. It really exemplified the synergy we’ve built up with the partnership between the two companies.
Great Lighting: It’s really amazing what good lighting does to make a space feel friendly and welcoming. I’ve personally experienced this in the difference between retail stores as well but at Essen we add quite a bit of extra lightning to our booth and it makes the space quite literally shine as a standout beacon next to the booths around it.
Quick Pitch Tables: This year we added a row of “pitch tables” at the front of the booth, with demo tables to do full playthroughs in the space behind it. This is similar to the tables at the Gen Con booth. It’s really cool to be able to have different ways to share our games depending on the different needs of the people coming by. We also had lots of people coming up to the game shelves, picking up the boxes and reading the backs. I was really glad for the sheet on Origin Story for this and it was fun to see people pick up Vantage and realize just how heavy that box is!
All three of these are about trying to serve customers. If you’re buying products from two companies at the same booth, it’s more effective for your time to check out once instead of twice. Great lighting is crucial for inviting people into a booth and encouraging them to hang out for a while. And not everyone wants to sit down for an extended demo–they might prefer just to briefly look at a game.
If you’ve attended a convention recently, what have you seen (or implemented) that makes the experience welcoming and memorable?
Anmelden
