Summer is con season. Which means  designers pitching their prototypes to publishers at Origins, Dice Tower Con,  Gen Con and other various cons.  There are so many good designs out there, some of which will go home with publishers for evaluation. For some designers, summer con season will end with the ultimate "yes" and a contract.  Congratulations if you are one of them.

Even more designers will get their hopes up, only to hear a "no".  If you read my three previous posts, you will know that I heard "no" many different times and many different ways before a sweet "yes" I received after Origins.  How can you as a game designer find encouragement after a "no"?

Try to remember that publishers look at things differently than play testers. While play testers will tell you whether they would be willing to buy one of your games, publishers must decide whether they could sell thousands.   To the publisher, whether to say "yes" to your game is a business decision that goes way beyond whether a game is fun.  Still, as a designer, the "no" can be very disappointing.  I have found that the further my prototype makes it through the evaluation process, the tougher the "no" can be when it comes.

Where have I found encouragement after a publisher says "no"?

1.   Encouragement from Publisher Positive Comments
​Once the initial sting of the disappointment has worn off, go back and look over again what the publisher said.  What positive things did the publisher have to say about your game?  Take encouragement from any positive feedback in the rejection email. Was your game not strong enough for that publisher to sign, or was it more a matter of your game was not a good fit for their product line?  I have had publishers tell me great game, not a good fit for us, and then encourage me to keep looking because the game is worthy of publication. Whatever positive thing a publisher says about your game as they say "no" -  hold onto that. Remind yourself of those positive words as needed.

2. Encouragement from Critical Feedback
​Does the publisher feedback point out a weakness in your prototype or something that would make your game even better? Value that feedback.   When a publisher tells you a change that would make your game more likely to be signed, that is a gift. Act on it, so that you will have an even better chance of success with the next publisher to request your prototype for evaluation.  It is hard to hear "no" from a publisher. Yet I can tell you that several of my game designs were improved by quality publisher feedback that came with the "no".  Be encouraged when experienced industry veterans take the time to evaluate your prototype and give you their advice for what could push it over the top with the next publisher.

3. Encouragement from Play Tester Feedback
For me, after a publisher says "no" to a design, some of my biggest rebounds come when I get that prototype back on a public play test table. Take that prototype somewhere where  the publisher "no" can be followed  with some positive play tester feedback.  There are times when I have felt doubts about a prototype after a publisher "no".  Hearing play testers say things like "great game",  or "I would totally buy this" won't completely wipe away the disappointment. Yet it may be the words you need to hear to pick yourself up and encourage you to continue the search for the right publisher match.

Thank you for reading. I hope other designers find this useful.

, Part 1 discussed what I tell newer designers to expect when contacting publishers with whom there is no relationship. Part 2 shared how many "no" responses I heard in the weeks prior to Origins that I received while scheduling the appointment that led to the big "Yes".  Part 4 when written will talk about finding encouragement to persist after hearing "no".  

Part 3 is my story over the years of the times I got a prototype of this game into a publisher's hands, only to ultimately hear a "no".  My hope is that my experiences of "no" before the "yes" will encourage other designers to persist in the quest to find the right publisher for your game creations.

The game I signed last month began as a brainstorm during the drive to Dover, Delaware, for Unpub3 in January 2013.  By that spring, I had a playable prototype good enough for public playtest, and a year later it was on the table at Unpub4.

Publisher #1 requested the prototype for evaluation in January  2014 after Unpub4, and said "no" two months later.  While Publisher#1 liked my game, as a small publisher, there were limited openings in their production queue, and there was another game they were considering that they liked even more.

Publisher #2 requested the prototype after a blind submission. (What pushed them over the edge to ask for the prototype was reading through the rule book I had posted to the Unpub web site.) Three months later they said "no". The "no" came from the owner at their Origins 2014 booth. I introduced myself, he shook my hand, then reached underneath the table and handed the prototype back to me.  He personally liked it, yet his playtesters thought my co-op was too hard and unwinnable.

Publisher #3  requested the prototype via email during a follow-up after Origins 2014.  Publisher #4 requested a few days after Publisher #3. When I told Publisher #4 the prototype was on longer available, they kindly ask I contact them if it became available again.

Publisher #3 said "yes" in July 2014, but cautioned me they had a full production queue, and it would be at least a year until publication.   Every few months I checked in on the status, as 12 months dragged out to 18 months.  During that time, Publisher #3 was acquired by a larger company, yet assured me they retained complete creative control, keeping their distinct brand under the umbrella of the parent company. Turns out Publisher #3 did not retain full creative control, and my game was a victim of the ensuing power struggle. A full 20 months after Publisher #3 said "yes", their new parent company chimed in "no". My prototype came back to me in February 2016. 

Thankfully,  Publisher #4 remained interested despite over a year and a half passing, and requested the prototype. After a three and half month evaluation, Publisher #4 said "no", but also provided some some useful constructive criticism. 

Yet Publisher #4 gave a very special "no". They recommended the game as a good fit for Publisher #5,  contacted Publisher #5, and shipped the prototype directly to them (all with my knowledge and permission).

Publisher #5 said "no" two months later during the Summer of 2016, giving some constructive criticism very similar to that from Publisher #4.  Publisher #5 saw promise in the game and expressed willingness to re-evaluate if some of their issues were addressed.

Armed with the constructive suggestions from both Publishers #4 & #5, I stopped pitching the game and pulled back to rework and improve the game. I play tested version 2 throughout late Summer and Fall 2016. By early 2017, I thought version 2 was publisher-ready. I re-contacted Publisher #5, who requested the new prototype. Yet i received very little feedback from Publisher #5. Several emails went unanswered,  despite some extraordinary Unpub7 feedback in April 2017. I emailed one last time, stating that if I received no response by a specified date, I would assume no interest and resume submissions and pitches to other publishers. The date came and passed, and I interpreted the non-response from Publisher #5 as "no".

Publisher #6 requested the prototype after a successful Origins 2017 pitch. I received a few emails throughout the Summer that sounded very promising, and I made a few requested modifications. But by Fall, the promising emails were replaced by non-responses and silence. I found the owner at their booth at Pax Unplugged and received some quick feedback that play testers thought the game was unwinnable. 

I submitted a different game to Publisher #7 in late 2017. Because of that submission, they took a look at my web page, saw this game listed as in "publisher evaluation", and requested I contact them if it ever became available.

As 2017 was drawing to an end, Publisher #6 had been evaluating the prototype since Origins, and was still not responding to emails following the face-to-face drive by I initiated at Pax Unplugged.  I sent the email stating that if I received no response by a specified date, I would assume no interest and move on. That date came and went, I assumed a "no" response.

Publisher #7 remained interested,  requested and evaluated the prototype, and said "no" four months later.

Publisher #8 was one of three publishers I pitched this game to at Origins 2018.  Twelve days after that pitch, they enthusiastically offered the contract which I returned with even more enthusiasm.  "YES !"

So in summary, over the span of four years, no less than 8 different publishers said "yes" to accepting the prototype for evaluation.

•  Four said "no" after taking a few months to evaluate.
•  Two at some point went silent during the evaluation, forcing me to set a date and then assume non-response to be a "no".
• One said "yes", but was later overruled by the new parent after being acquired.
• One said "yes", with much enthusiasm.

Sorry for the length of part 3.  I talked a lot about my struggles, my journey, and the "no" answers I heard throughout the years.  To any designers who read this, I hope you find some encouragement in my journey. Publishers will say "no" to fun, great games for various reasons. If you have a fun great game (and thoroughly publicly play-tested!) , persist until you find that right publisher match.

In part 1, I shared how I tell newer designers when submitting games or requesting convention appointments to expect no response to half your submissions, to expect a polite quick no to the remaining half, no follow up with the half remaining after that, etc., etc.  And I offered to share some real numbers. 

I started contacting publishers in May 2018 to request appointments to pitch three different prototypes (although my primary focus was on two of the three) at Origins 2018 in June.

Armed with the Cardboard Edison Publisher Compendium, a list of Origins exhibitors, and my own web and BGG research, I sent sell sheets to 29 different publishers requesting pitch appointments. For those with a web submission process, I followed that process, for the rest it was via email.

16 of the 29 never responded or acknowledged the contact.

Of the 13 that responded,  6 gave immediate polite "looks interesting, but not what we are looking for right now".

2 of the 13 responding publishers said they would take a look at the sell sheets, and that was the last I heard from them.

​5 of the 13 who responded eventually scheduled appointments with me for Origins  I requested appointments from 29 different publishers, and 24 said 'No".  More importantly, 5 said "Yes" !

Ah, but wait.  2 of the 5 were interested in a prototype they had already played at Unpub8 earlier that spring, and wanted follow-ups at Origins to see how some requested changes worked out.  Those 2 were not cold contacts, they were ringers.  So redo the math, and you have 27 unsolicited appointment requests that gave me 24 "No" responses, and 3 "Yes" responses.  Just for an appointment to pitch. 

So I prepared, I rehearsed, so that I would be ready when pitch time came.

​Once Origins came, I used those 5 scheduled appointments and 2 impromptu pitches to pitch 3 different games to 7 different publishers.  Some of the pitches were for multiple games. There were some gracious declines on the spot.  There were some gracious declines the week following Origins.  

For the pitches themselves, I think the final math (accounting for 2 pitches to some publishers) works out to 10 pitches given. 9 gracious "no"'s (often in the form of great game, but not what we are looking for).  And 1 "yes" that resulted in a signed contract 12 days later. The "yes" started as a web submission, I had no previous contact or relationship with the publisher who signed my game shortly after Origins.

For other designers with great solid prototypes, I encourage you to persist.  Expect to  hear "no".  I am in awe of any designer who never hears that word.  I heard a lot of "no" in the weeks leading to Origins and in the days afterwards. It is often a part of the journey on your way to "yes". Persist.

(Part 1 of what may be a series of 3 or 4 short blogs)

I was fortunate to sign a game prototype with a publisher 12 days after they fell in love with it at Origins.  

If I told you nothing more and omitted the rest of the story, I would give other hopeful designers unrealistic expectations. Because that first sentence makes finding a publisher sound easy when it is not.

Because before I found the publisher who said "YES!" - I heard the word no.  So many different times, so many different ways, at every possible step of the process.

I have been asked by newer designers what to expect when either submitting to publishers or requesting convention appointments to pitch. Here is how I answer.  Not to discourage them, but to prepare them. I have been fortunate to sign three different games with publishers. Two of those began as blind email/web submissions to publishers whom I had never met and had no relationship prior to the submission. I have made it all the way from blind submission to yes.  Twice. Here is what I tell others to expect.

(All of this assumes your prototype is thoroughly play-tested and publisher-ready.  Don't waste your time if not. This also assumes you have done some research and are submitting to publishers for which your game would seem a good match for their product line.)

When blindly contacting publishers with whom you have no relationship...

Expect half your attempts to never receive an answer or acknowledgement.

Of the responses you do receive, expect half to give an immediate polite friendly “no”.  

Of those that express possible interest or say they will take a look at your sell sheet, expect half to never receive any follow-up or further response.

There is a thrill and rush of hope when a publisher does agree to take the time to look at one of your prototypes. Celebrate those moments. Simply making it far enough for a publisher to consider your prototype is an accomplishment. Yet still be prepared that days, weeks, or even months later, when that publisher finally makes a decision, the most common answer publishers give is a sad disappointing "no".

​So let me end part one on a positive note. It doesn’t matter how many publishers say “no’ to your design. Because you only need one publisher to say “yes”.

My ambition is three more blogs on this topic -

- My Origins 2018 experience, real numbers with how many publishers said "no" (and at what stage) as I  requested  pitch appointments  for the game that one publisher said "yes" to.

- The years before Origins 2018, and how many publishers evaluated this prototype and passed, before one said yes.
​
- Encouragement after a publisher says "no".  How does a designer not give up and remain enthusiastic and hopeful to find their game a home with the right publisher.

If any one of those three sounds more interesting than the others, let me know in the comments. I'll write that before the others in case I never write all three.

It’s that time of year again.  Looking for a unique present for a child or grandchild that is not only fun, but will also promote face-to-face interaction between family members? In an always-connected electronic age, tabletop games are a great way to turn the heads away from the screens and towards each other. 

The past several years have seen a resurgence in new game design, and the market is full of games that will engage parents, children, and grandparents alike. Here are some recommendations straight from our family game shelf.

My advice from years past remains unchanged - A $20-$40 game that will be played over and over again over the years is a far better value than a $10 game that gets played twice and then gathers dust on the shelf.

Splendor

Collect temporary gem chips to exchange for permanent gem cards, of which the more expensive earn points. Be the first to collect the right combinations of gem cards, and you earn a noble tile, earning more points.  This game is a regular favorite on our family table.

(2-4 Players, 30 minutes, Ages 10 and up)

Imhotep

You are ancient Egyptian builders, placing stones to build pyramids, temples, obelisks, and other monuments. Where you place each stone has scoring implications, with players constantly trying to outmaneuver one another. A 2016 Spiel des Jahres (Game of the Year) nominee.

(2-4 Players, 40 minutes, Ages 10 and up)

Constellations

Collect cards with different star types, with the goal of trading them in for constellations tiles.  The more stars you need for that constellation, the more points you earn. You also earn points for placing the constellation tile near its neighbors in the night sky, and for matching gem shapes along the tile edges. And as an amateur backyard astronomer, I am appreciative of the scientific facts sprinkled liberally on both the cards and tiles.

 (2-4 Players, 30-60 minutes, Ages 8 and up)

Walk the Plank

Lay down three cards, then take turns revealing as you attempt  to push  all the other players’ pirates off the ship, onto the plank, and into the sea. Last pirate standing wins.

(3-5 Players, 20 minutes, Ages 6 and up)

For more suggestions, here are links to my family-friendly game recommendations from years past, all of which are great fun games worthy of a spot on any family's game shelf.

Christmas 2014 Family-Friendly Game Recommendations

Christmas 2015 Family-Friendly Game Recommendations

I took a game prototype to Metatopia in November. The written feedback was glowing, with one play tester telling me he would have bought the game on the spot if it was published.  Several weeks later, I received an email from a publisher about the same prototype.  While the email said some complimentary things about my game, the main focus was three specific areas where he thought my game needed improvement.

We designers can guard our games as our children, and quickly become defensive when somebody points out something wrong with the games we create. As game designers, it is vital not to perceive critical feedback as a personal slight against us or the games we create.

Every year, scores of publishers are releasing hundreds of new good games.  Having a good game isn’t enough. For a new game to be noticed and bought and played in a crowded marketplace, it has to be great, it has to rock. I’m glad to have play testers who tell me a game is fun; it provides the encouragement I need to continue pushing an idea forward. I’m equally as thankful for publishers who tell me what I need to hear even when I don’t want to hear it. I view this recent experience as the publisher doing me a favor in giving advice on how to move my game from good to great.

I have been (sometimes painfully) learning to welcome critical feedback. When that critical feedback is valid, for me it becomes the spark that drives a whole new round of innovation to take a game to the next level.   

​At an Unpub Mini playtest in the summer of 2013, JoshT commented on the long set-up time for my Firebreak prototype, while BenB told me that despite the burning forests, he never felt in any danger. Within days, both comments led to some brainstorms that resulted in crucial changes that improved the game. Without those comments, the game might have stayed a good game yet not become an even better game. (Regarding Firebreak - I have been told this game is nearing the top of the publisher’s production queue, I am hoping I’ll finally be able to announce the details in 2016.)

The developer for the publisher who signed the game originally named Attatat told me the game got a lot of things right, but they would not publish it as an abstract.  I didn’t like that feedback. Yet it was that critical feedback that unlocked the creative juices that led me to finally find the right theme to match the mechanics (and get the game signed).

Lady of the Diamonds got a lot of play and the attention of an interested publisher on the final day of Unpub5.  However, the publisher had reasons for wanting a different theme. I resisted changing my baby.  But once again, the critical feedback made me rethink the game and an eventual change of theme that got the game signed as Lands of Oz.
​
With the prototype feedback from the other day, it happened much more quickly than usual. Within hours, that critical feedback resulted in brainstorms on how to try to further improve the game that tested so well at Metatopia. The critical feedback was the spark, the push I needed, to not stop but push further to take my fun game and try to make it better still.

Ill-intentioned criticism attacks and demoralizes people. Well-intentioned valid criticism can be the spark that drives us to not accept good enough and instead elevate our work to the next level. 

My thanks to all those who have told me the things I need to hear about my game designs to make them even better.

 Christmas season is here again. If you are a family with children,  games are a great gift idea. Yet sadly, many of the larger stores continue to fill their shelves with board games that may not hold your family's interest after a few plays.  My advice remains that a $20-$40 game that will be played over and over again over the years is a far better value than a $10 game that gets played twice and then gathers dust on the shelf. Many of these gems will not be at your local big box store, but can be found at your local friendly game store, or available online if you don't have a dedicated boardgame store in your area.

​Why is this list so short? Because the fun family games I recommended last year are just as fun now as they were a year ago.  This is one of the reasons why games can be great family presents if you choose the right ones that your family will want to play throughout every season of the year. So please feel free to also look back at last year’s list for more recommendations. 

Roll For It – This game comes in either a red box or a purple box. Both are identical, except that they have four different colors of dice. One box supports up to four players, while adding the second box expands the game to 5-8 players.  Players roll their 6 dice to try to match combinations shown on 3 face-up cards. You may leave dice on cards from turn to turn, in the hopes that somebody else doesn’t win that card and its points before you.
​
 (2-4 Players, 20 minutes, Ages 8 and up)

​Battle Sheep- The sheep are out to rule the pasture. Your sheep checkers begin all stacked on top of each other in the same space. On your turn, move as many as you want in any one direction. But they must move as far as they can – either to the edge of the pasture, or until they run into other sheep. The goal is for your sheep to occupy the most pasture spaces. We added this game to our family collection after a publisher I was working with on one of my own designs recommended it as an example of how a light theme can add character to an abstract game.  It’s a keeper.
​
(2-4 Players, 15 Minutes, Ages 7 and up)

​Camel Up - This game comes out often on our family game table. You are betting on a camel race. You triumph if you can make the smartest bets to earn the most money.  The 5 camels stack on top of each other – whenever a camel moves, any camels on top move with it. On your turn, you can bet on which camel will be leading at the end of the current leg, or bet on the final first and last place finishers.  If you don’t feel like betting on your turn, you can roll the dice to move one of the camels, or try to manipulate the outcome with oasis/desert tiles that send any camels that land on them forwards or backwards a space.  
2014 Spiel des Jahres Winner

(2-8 Players, 30 Minutes, Ages 8 and up)

Lanterns:  The Harvest Festival - You are decorating a lake with floating lanterns of 7 different colors.  Every turn you lay a tile to float more lanterns on the lake. Each new tile gives everyone new color lantern cards corresponding to the color facing each player. You earn points for collecting 4 of a kind, 3 pairs, or one of each 7 colors.
​
(2-4 Players, 30 Minutes, Ages 8 and up)

Casual Game Revolution’s list of recommended casual games is another great resource for fun family Christmas presents.

​Monopoly Millionaire Deal – Unlike its namesake, this is a quick card game. The cards are a mix of cash, properties, actions to either make others pay you rent or take other players’ cash or properties. Gather a 
million dollars’ worth of cash cards to win.  Watch out, the tide can turn quickly in this fast-paced game. 
(2-5 Players, 10-20 Minutes, Ages 8 and up)
​

For other great gift ideas, we highly recommend Casual Game Revolution’s list of recommended casual games.   While I have not played every game on this list, I can tell you that I have never bought  a game from this list that turned out to be a dud. There are a few dud games I have bought for my family, and those mistakes could have been avoided had I checked the CGR recommended list first.  My final word of advice: a $25-$40 game that is played over and over again is a far better deal than a $8 game you only play twice.

To read this blog entry, please go to ​http://casualgamerevolution.com/blog/2014/01/the-true-origin-of-monopoly-lizzie-magie-and-the-landlords-game _

Originally posted to www.hoopcatgames.blogspot.com

This blog is for the benefit of any who are wondering why we haven’t published Attatat yet.   Or why we as a proclaimed self-publisher are submitting an entry to the Unpub4 54-card challenge sponsored by Dice Hate Me Games. Or why we are excited about the number of publishers who are attending Unpub4.

After much careful consideration, thought, and prayer, HoopCAT Games is moving in a different direction.  We are moving away from self-publishing and seeing whether we can publish our designs through other game publishers.

We will enter 2014 with 3 unpublished prototype games:

-          Attatat - This path-building, tile-removing abstract has fared extremely well in Unpub playtesting;
-          FireBreak - Our cooperative game where players work together to save a park from a forest fire has been rating even higher with Unpub playtesters, and;
-          Lady of the Diamonds  - Our entry to the 54-card challenge entry is good enough to make the rounds on the Unpub circuit in the Spring if it doesn’t catch the eye of the competition judges first.

Our goal as we move into 2014 is to find publishers for these games.

The self-publisher must be good at a lot of things, then well-connected and adequately-financed for those things which they are not personally good at.

Having a great game is important, being willing to work tirelessly is essential, yet those two things are not enough to guarantee success. Art and graphic design also matter. You must pay attention to the production and shipping and warehousing details.  Marketing is just as important if not more important than the quality of the game itself.   Self-publish a fun game and you will receive positive reviews, yet good reviews alone are not enough to ensure your game will fly off the shelf and onto game tables.

We realize that there are other small publishers out there who are far better than us at picking the right artist, arranging the production details, running a Kickstarter campaign, using social media effectively, and marketing on a limited budget.  Attatat, FireBreak, and Lady of the Diamonds are all great games.  We want them to be all they can be. And allowing those games to reach their full potential probably means our letting go of some of the control and letting others with different strengths than us publish our games.

We do not regret self-publishing Fill The Barn.  It was an accomplishment that we will continue to treasure in our family memories many years from now.  We developed the idea, found playtesters, worked with the graphic designer to get it ready for commercial publication, coordinated details with the manufacturer, arranged the freight shipment from the Michigan factory, arranged for the warehousing, contacted reviewers who wrote positive things about our very first game, visited area stores who put our games on their shelves, then found a distributor who had the national & international reach to get our games places far beyond where we could go. It was a huge task with a myriad of smaller individual tasks, and we pulled it off to self-publish our first game. We also learned first-hand some valuable lessons along the way. 

Yet if our next games can do even better in the hands of others who are stronger in other key areas, we don’t want to hold our games back from reaching their full potential.  Our HoopCAT logo may not appear on the next games we help to create.  Yet while our name may no longer be on them, trust us when we say our hearts will always go in them.