I follow Games Unlimited PGH (@gamesunlimitedpgh) on Instagram, and Kylie frequently offers really helpful retailer perspectives for publishers to consider.

One of his recent videos (actually a repost from a few years ago) was both surprising and insightful in a few different ways, as Kylie reveals that he–a very successful retailer–does not like promos.

Even as a publisher that doesn’t make promos (it was something we tried up through Scythe’s release in 2016 and then stopped pursuing), I was really curious to hear his reasons. Especially since a survey I ran of retailers in 2017 indicated that 79% of friendly local game store (FLGS) owners liked promos at the time.

Kylie’s reasons are:

• A lot of publishers send promos to his store, but it takes a lot of work to match them with the game (stores juggle a lot of different games, and promos aren’t always labeled well).
• Many promos just end up in a general bin, making them hard to find and difficult for store employees to remember to pair with a game.
• “A large part of our customers are not actually gamers,” so the idea of a promo is confusing to them. (This revelation was particularly interesting to me. Who are the majority of people who shop at local game stores, if they’re not into games?)
• Even a well-meaning, FLGS-focused publisher who tries to encourage customers to go to a game store using promos as an incentive can actually create an awkward situation if the retailer doesn’t have or can’t find the promo for the customers.

Kylie concludes by simply asking publishers to put promos inside the game box. This seems viable in most cases: Even if you make a special promo card for an existing game to offer at a convention, a content creator, or any circumstance, you can include it in future printings of the game.

I really like that Kylie ends with this: “We’ll do the work of selling your game because it’s awesome, not because we have some rare or exclusive promo.” That 100% echoes my beliefs about actively welcoming people into our games instead of using FOMO/exclusivity tactics.

What do you think about this opinion about promos?

---

Also read:

• The Current State of How We Work with Local Retailers (2025)
• Evergreen Games: What Do They Have in Common?
• How We Sell Some Inventory Directly to Local Retailers
• What Do Retailers Really Want?

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog. 

I recently read an interesting announcement on Board Game Wire that Scott Brady (co-designer of one of my favorite party games, Caution Signs, along with some others I really enjoy like Boop and Hues & Cues), is trying a new “proof-of-play” model of publishing through his company, A Game Studio. Their goal and methodology is to make a single, small print run of selected games “to generate real-world sales, player feedback, and retail validation before presentation to larger publishing partners.”

In the interview, Scott mentions a few problems he is trying to solve through this model:

• Publishers are passing on great games because they already have a full schedule for the next few years.
• Publishers are wary of taking on risk for a big print run without knowing how people will respond to the game.
• Mass-market games aren’t a good fit for crowdfunding.

I agree that those are all legitimate problems facing publishers (and designers). This certainly isn’t the only solution or approach, but I appreciate Scott for trying something different. He’s aiming for a single print run of these games at smaller quantities (1500-3000 units), then try to license the game to a studio that wants to invest in a bigger print run.

Of course, like any publisher, A Game Studio has limits as to how many games they can publish, so they may quickly run into the same issue that any publisher faces when they are inundated by submissions. Scott is starting with two games, and he says in the interview, “I am personally staking my reputation on the games I choose to help.”

I have some questions about the model, and I’m genuinely curious to see how it plays out.

• If a game does extremely well in the proof-of-play model, wouldn’t A Game Studio prefer to keep it in house?
• Are publishers actually looking for more games than they already have in their crowded release schedules?
• Is this actually similar to a publisher signing the worldwide rights to a game that’s currently only found in one language or that had a single successful crowdfunding campaign?
• Given the slim margins on selling games into distribution and retail, will publishers be willing to decrease their margins on these licenses? In this model, a publisher would pay both the designer and A Game Studio based on the sales they generate.

I 100% applaud Scott for trying to create a win-win-win situation for designers, publishers, and his studio, and I genuinely hope it works. I’m sorry I don’t have a link to his website or where publishers can submit to this process–I can’t find it on any of the articles, and web searches for “A Game Studio” aren’t providing accurate results.

What do you think? Will this approach work?

---

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Welcome to Gen Con week! In a similar way to Essen Spiel, the games, announcements, and events at Gen Con attract attention well beyond the tens of thousands of attendees (which is both a lot of people and also a very small percentage of people who play games worldwide).

Stonemaier Games and Meeple Source have again joined forces at Gen Con to share a booth (#2909). Wingspan Pocket, Duel of Meloch, Origin Story: Heroes & Villains, Wingspan Americas, Finspan: Sharks & Reefs, Viticulture Bordeaux, Euphoria Essential, and more will be available (see the full list of products here). You can walk up to the booth to buy any of those products, or you can place an order with Meeple Source now for pick up at Gen Con.

I was hoping to make a day trip over to Gen Con like last year, but a few circumstances–including a recent slipped disc in my back–have led me to decide that I won’t make to Indianapolis this year. However, you’re in great hands with the demo team at our booth and the events area, and you can also find designers for some of our games (Wingspan’s Elizabeth Hargrave on Thursday from 3-6pm and Finspan’s David Gordon on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 2-3pm) and even my podcast co-host, Mitchell Whitfield.

In addition to our games, I wanted to highlight two hidden gems that I highly recommend seeking out at Gen Con:

Kano by Matagot: This is one of the best abstract games I’ve ever played, largely because it doesn’t feel abstract thanks to how the theme (Japanese scroll painting) and components (resin painting jars, cloth board, stunning art on the tiles) intertwine with the mechanisms. Kano is the perfect combination of extrinsic motivations (goals presented by the game) and intrinsic motivations (creating a beautiful painted scroll), with each type of motivation feeding into the other. This is the type of gateway plus game that I would play with anyone. It’s brand new and has flown under the radar, but I think this will be a big hit once people see it and start to play it.

Trick to the Future by Gamehead: I love time travel fiction, and I love trick-taking games. Trick to the Future combines those two genres by structuring the card numbers in the format of a digital clock and giving players “fuel rods” to modify those numbers (e.g., with one rod, a 3 could become a 9). It’s such a clever system to increase player agency and immersion, and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes time travel fiction and/or trick-taking games.

If you’re attending Gen Con, I hope you stop by the Stonemaier booth, even if it’s just to say hi to the amazing demo team. If you’re not attending Gen Con, all Stonemaier products there are already on our webstore, and I hope you play some great games this week.

Do you have a recommendation for anyone who is attending a big convention for the first time?

---

Also read:

• How to Survive and Thrive at Gen Con (or Any Big Convention)
• 10 Things You Should Know About Gen Con

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Have you ever been on the fence about buying or backing a game? You’re following along, you’ve watched some playthroughs and reviews, you have trust in the publisher, and you can afford the price. The game intrigues you, but you’re just not sure yet. What questions do you ask to put you over the edge?

For example:

1. Who will play this game with me?
2. Will I be able to learn, teach, and retain this? Does the setup look cumbersome?
3. If the game costs more than $25, will I play it more than once?
4. Will I actually enjoy playing this?
5. Will this fill a desired niche in my collection?
6. Am I missing out on the next big thing if I don’t buy this?
7. Among my friends, am I the only person local to me who will have this?
8. Am I excited to have this on my table, or could I just play it digitally or at a convention?

Recently I’ve faced this conundrum with a few games. Sometimes simply being on the fence is indicative to me that the game might not be the right fit. But there are plenty of games that I was hesitant to explore and ended up loving, so I try to keep an open mind.

This type of decision is highly subjective, but I’m curious if publishers can do certain things to help on the product page:

1. Who will play this game with me? –Showcase photos of people playing the game, potentially in different situations if the game scales well to various player counts (or focus on the most common situation in which this game will be played).
2. Will I be able to learn, teach, and retain this? Does the setup look cumbersome? –Use a 3-step infographic to convey the core steps of the game and mention rulebook length and setup time.
3. If the game costs more than $25, will I play it more than once? –Mention the strongest asset for replayability without overwhelming the customer with too many modes or options.
4. Will I actually enjoy playing this? –Share playthrough videos and offer demo versions online and even pre-production copies at local game stores (IV Studios does this well).
5. Will this fill a desired niche in my collection? –Accentuate 3 truly unique elements about the game.
6. Am I missing out on the next big thing if I don’t buy this? –Direct attention toward social proof (i.e., the number of backers, if it is high).
7. Among my friends, am I the only person local to me who will have this? –I’m not sure a publisher can answer this question.
8. Am I excited to have this on my table, or could I just play it digitally, at a convention, or at a local game cafe? –Highlight great art and the component hook(s), and don’t offer the full version digitally until well after the tabletop release.

I try to do a few of these things in our infographics (see below), but I’m realizing that there’s a lot of “over the edge” questions not answered in this format. What do you think about these questions and how publishers can help to answer them when you’re on the fence?

---

Also read: The 10 Reasons I’ll Back a Kickstarter Project

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Am I actually the person acting like a jerk right now?

I participate in a wide variety of discussions on the internet (mostly in relation to tabletop games), and on occasion I will find myself responding to some aggravating comments. It’s in those moments when I’m pounding away at the keyboard that I try to step back and ask myself, “Wait, am I being a jerk?”

Sometimes the answer is no. But sometimes, sure enough, my response isn’t kind (or at least neutral), and that is directly counter to my goal of building community. Regardless of how the other person is acting, I have control over my own behavior.

There are various versions of this question; here are some others that I ask myself (and often wish others would ask themselves):

• Would I speak differently if the other person was a friend or if I was face to face with them?
• Is the phrasing of my question, request, or post aligned with the outcome I’m hoping to achieve? (i.e., if I start a conversation by calling a game “a total joke”, I shouldn’t be surprised when the ensuing conversation ignores my more salient points)
• Is this an opportunity to ask a question instead of assuming or declaring? (i.e., it’s really important to get the facts straight before forming conclusions. See also this open letter to the internet.)
• Am I addressing the right person for this criticism or question? (i.e., if I have a question about a game in a specific language or digital format, am I asking the correct publisher/developer?)
• What if everyone requested this or asked this privately? (i.e., if 1,000 people asked this same question, would that be fair to the person I’m asking? See also the value of public questions.)

I truly believe that the internet would be a better place if we more consistently asked ourselves a self-awareness question. So I asked Stonemaier ambassadors to see if any of them had a question along these lines, and they had some great responses beyond those listed above. Here are a few of the 100+ questions they shared:

• 

  Am I participating in this discussion to be helpful or I just have something to prove?

• Does this affect my daily life? If so, is there anything I can do about it?
• Is this helping or hurting?
• Will this comment help anything/anyone?
• What am I trying to achieve?
• Am I treating this person like a person, or like a symbol of something I dislike?
• Am I responding to what they actually said or to the worst interpretation of it?
• Am I expecting others to think the way I do?
• Deep breath, how would I want someone to respond to me on this?
• Does my comment add value to the conversation?
• Would I be happy with what I wrote if I come back to the thread and reread it in the future?
• If I did not know me and my intentions, what would be my first reaction to reading what I wrote?
• Is my response furthering a meaningful discussion or just adding fuel to the fire?
• Is my comment on topic?
• Is this really worth letting someone who has no real impact on my life get me upset?
• What am I actually upset about that is provoking this reaction from me?
• What am I missing?
• What implicit bias do I have that is making me react this way?
• What is driving my need to respond right now?
• What is the right thing to do/say?
• What would my mom/spouse think if they saw me acting this way?
• Would I do/say this in a professional setting?

Do you have a go-to self-awareness question that helps you be the best version of yourself on the internet? Let me know in the comments.

---

Also read: An Open Letter to the Internet

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

A full day has now passed since we launched 3 new products (plus 2 accessories) on the Stonemaier Games webstore, so I thought I’d share a few observations about the launch and sales data collected for each product.

All of these products are currently in stock at our 4 fulfillment centers, and shipping is underway. The launch discounts will last through July 19.

US Store | Europe Store | Canada Store | Australia/NZ/Asia Store

---

Product Summary

Wingspan Pocket (details): Create and activate a single row of cards on every turn in this swifter, smaller, and streamlined version of Wingspan. The cards are all double sided: a food side and a bird side. Bird powers are primarily indicated by icons instead of text, and they include a new type of power, ongoing (green) benefits.

Duel of Meloch (details): Clash head-to-head on a tight map in a race to victory in this standalone game of Scythe vs Expeditions (it is also an expansion for those games, and the content in those games is duel-compatible). The duel takes place in a tight space on a new double-sided map—only 10 locations and 2 lakes—in a race to 4 stars on a new double-sided Triumph Track, so every turn is crucial.

Origin Story: Heroes & Villains (details): Triple the number of heroes (and villains) to become in Origin Story! Just shuffle these 21 new superhero–and supervillain–cards into the original deck to vastly increase replayability.

---

Data

The following 24-hour sales data spans our 4 consumer webstores and our 1 direct-to-retailer webstore:

• Wingspan Pocket: 11,046 units sold
• Duel of Meloch: 4,479 units sold
• Origin Story: Heroes & Villains: 2,359 units sold

We have also sold 2,007 metal mech packs and 2,533 airship add-ons for Duel of Meloch.

---

Observations

Wingspan Pocket: I anticipated that we would hear from a few people who struggled with the behavioral psychology of paying $10 shipping for a $20 product (or $18, as is the launch price for Wingspan Pocket). I totally understand, and that’s why I largely view Wingspan Pocket as a game for local retailers (mid-August release).

It’s for this psychological barrier that we often launch lower-price products along with other products–with our flat-rate shipping, it’s still $10 even if the order is more robust. In truth, the shipping fee we pay for Wingspan Pocket (postage, packaging, and labor) is $14, so we’re already subsidizing this on behalf of customers.

Despite all that, I’m happy to see how many people have embraced Wingspan Pocket on launch day, whether they’re buying a single copy or several copies (I think it makes a great gift).

Duel of Meloch: I’m a little surprised sales aren’t stronger so far. There are over 600,000 copies of Scythe in circulation worldwide, and for years Scythe fans have asked me to make another expansion. Maybe it will just take a little time for people to see how much this adds to Scythe (and to Expeditions, and as a standalone dueling game).

Origin Story: Heroes & Villains: I wasn’t sure what to expect from this expansion’s initial sales, but so far I’m excited that so many people are giving this mini-expansion a chance. We really wanted to have Origin Story itself back in stock in the US in time for this launch, but worldwide freight shipping is currently quite tumultuous. Many of the restocks we were hoping to have for this launch aren’t arriving until mid-August or early September.

---

I’m curious to hear your thoughts, questions, and analysis of this launch. What would you like us to learn from it, and what might other creators learn from it?

US Store | Europe Store | Canada Store | Australia/NZ/Asia Store

---

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Taking a note from Hollywood, the tabletop game industry has been enamored with sequels for the last decade. It makes sense: If people already like X game, a way to serve that audience is to make X2.

I’m specifically talking about sequels, not new editions, spinoffs, or duel versions. Different game with the same core mechanisms and core theme. There’s a blurry, debatable line between sequels and spinoffs, but here’s a potential guidepost: I consider Wingspan Pocket a sequel to Wingspan, but I consider Wyrmspan and Finspan to be spinoffs.

Here are a few well-known sequels:

• Frosthaven is a sequel to Gloomhaven
• The 7th Citadel is a sequel to The 7th Continent
• The Queen’s Dilemma is a sequel to The King’s Dilemma
• Dune Imperium: Uprising is a sequel to Dune Imperium
• Great Western Trail: New Zealand is a sequel to Great Western Trail
• Age of Innovation is a sequel to Terra Mystica (as are, arguably, Gaia Project and Terra Nova)
• Azul Summer Pavilion is a sequel to Azul
• Ticket to Ride Europe is a sequel to Ticket to Ride
• Mysterium Park is a sequel to Mysterium
• Between Two Castles is a sequel to Between Two Cities
• The Isle of Penguins is a sequel to The Isle of Cats

I could go on and on. There are way more new games than sequels, but there are still plenty of sequel examples to draw from.

This leads me to two questions:

1. How does a publisher/designer know which games to select for sequels?
2. What do people really want from a sequel?

How does a publisher/designer know which games to select for sequels?

I think there are a few overlapping factors here. One is the customer response to the original game. If your game brings joy to thousands of tabletops and those customers are still asking for more, that’s a good sign. Of course, you still have a choice between a sequel, a spinoff, or an expansion.

That’s where the second factor enters play: What are you excited to make, if anything? If you’re completely done with a game after creating it, that’s perfectly fine. Or maybe you’re only excited to make an expansion. Or perhaps you want to explore the same world but with new mechanisms (e.g., Expeditions as a spinoff of Scythe). You are the driving force behind this creation, and I think it’s worth listening to what you’re excited to make.

What do people want from a sequel?

This is the question I’m puzzling over the most, and I’ll say this up front: I don’t have a clear answer other than “it depends on the game.” A big reason for this uncertainty is the impact of the original game’s popularity on the data available for the sequel. In fact, I’m not aware of any sequels that have higher ownership stats on BoardGameGeek than the original game. Higher ratings offer some guidance, but I’m unsure as to how much weight to put on them. I’m interested in what people are actually playing time after time.

Here’s my experience: I’ve found in most cases that the sequels I play that offer bigger gameplay end up getting to the table much less than the original game. Rather, it’s the sequels with similar or streamlined gameplay that I enjoy time after time (and that don’t replace the original game).

I think there might be a tendency for designers to think they need to go big if they make a sequel. Going back to the first question, if you have more fun designing a bigger game, go for it. But please don’t overlook the option to offer a sequel of similar weight (as that’s what people gravitated towards in the first place) or even a lighter weight sequel (since the original weight already exists).

I’d love to hear what you think. What are a few of your favorite sequels that you actually play more frequently than the original games? And what’s one game you love for which you really want a sequel (and what do you want from that sequel)?

---

Also read: The Precarious Balance Between Past Successes and Future Experiments and 10 Brand Extension Strategies for Tabletop Games

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Tabletop play is always our top priority at Stonemaier Games. We design games for the tabletop, we playtest games on the tabletop, and we only sell physical versions of games.

However, over the years my appreciation has grown for the existence of digital versions of tabletop games, as those licenses allow us to serve our customers in a few important ways:

• They can help people learn the game more easily than reading a rulebook (or discover that they’ve been misplaying a game they already know). While not a digital port, Dized has been instrumental in teaching people how to play our games.
• They enable people to play with friends and strangers around the world, building community and helping those who don’t have a local game group/partner.
• They’re accessible to those with social anxieties, disabilities, or those with only small pockets of time to play.
• They let people try-before-they-buy (or pay only a small amount before they decide to pay the full cost of the tabletop version). This is why we release all of our games on Tabletopia.
• They allow players to go deep into a game, gaining dozens of plays in a short amount of time thanks to automated setup.

Every year in our demographic survey, I ask people if they’re playing digital versions of tabletop games and which platforms they’re using. In 2025, Board Game Arena was the top pick, followed closely by Steam.

Since our primary focus is tabletop play, other than the Tabletopia versions of our games, we typically wait around 2 years before authorizing other digital platforms to add our games. This often means there’s another year of programming before the game is added.

So something that has been intriguing to me recently are platforms that can implement our games much faster while still providing intelligent, intuitive user interfaces. One of them is Merchants of Play (My Little Scythe and Stamp Swap), and the other is Ludika (Origin Story, Euphoria, and Apiary).

Ludika is currently seeking funding on Kickstarter, so I asked them about their core differentiating features:

1. The host owns the game; everyone else just shows up. Guests join via a browser link with no subscription, no download, and no account required. Exactly like having people over to play.

2. You’re playing in 30 seconds. Select a game or scenario from the catalog, press play, and you’re at the table. No hours of asset hunting, no manual setup, no learning a construction tool.

3. Rules tutor, but not a strategy guide. Players can ask it questions mid-session and get accurate answers with citations back to the rulebook (just rules–by design, it won’t answer strategy questions).

4. Intellectual property is fully protected and respected. Every title in the Ludika catalog is submitted by the publisher or rights holder and goes through our approval process before it goes live. No third party can publish or distribute a game through without the publisher’s authorization.

I’ll add those platforms to our 2026 demographic survey later in the year; hopefully they add value to people in fresh ways.

What is your current relationship with digital versions of tabletop games? What features do you value most or wish were more prevalent?

---

Also read:

• The Current State of Digital Versions of Tabletop Games (2024)
• Do Digital Board Games Outsell Their Digital Counterparts?
• The Truth About Digital Games
• 7 Insights from Our 2023 Demographic Survey
• Full list of all digital Stonemaier Games (and links to digital newsletter)

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Historically, we put our games through a gauntlet of local playtesting, development, blind playtesting, data analysis, copyediting, and proofreading, plus a few pre-production copy playtests (typically by coworker Joe and then me and my St. Louis coworkers). Most of these playtests focus on making the game as fun, functional, balanced, and intuitive as possible.

But over the last year or so, we’ve added two enhancements to this process: One, we often ask Panda to make a pre-PPC copy as soon as possible after the proofs are approved. This looks like a real copy of the game, or at least what the game could be. Two, when we get to the real PPC stage, we make 4 PPCs instead of 1, and each of them is reviewed and playtested by multiple people. Both of these help us playtest the game as a product and to increase the chances of finding anything critical that was missed during the oversight process.

This brings me to Wingspan Pocket.

In some ways, Wingspan Pocket is one of our smallest games. It’s only around 6x4x2 inches, it only takes 30 minutes to play, and it asks each player to manage only 1 row of bird cards. Yet by another metric it is our biggest game, as there are 175,000 units in the first English print run, by far the most in our 14-year history.

With that much at stake, we really, really needed to get it right.

At our January company retreat in Phoenix (the first time all 8 of us have ever been in the same place), I proudly presented to my coworkers the pre-PPC of Wingspan Pocket, the product I had carefully crafted over the last year with the designer (Elizabeth Hargrave), playtesters, proofreaders, and the graphic designer.

I say this with love, appreciation, and humility: My coworkers proceeded to tear apart every aspect of the product. Not the game design–that was fine. Rather, it was the product design (a major component of my job) that fell short of their expectations.

The following result of 3 days of conversations, playtests, and pages of notes was a vastly superior product to the pre-PPC, especially in terms of onboarding. Accessibility is important in any game, but it’s even more important when a major goal of the game is to invite anyone and everyone into the world of Wingspan.

Many of the initial discussions focused on the box itself. The original box was an awkward shape, kind of like a smaller Oceania expansion box. With 130+ cards and 60 egg tokens, we knew the game wasn’t literally going to fit in anyone’s pocket, but the box needed to fit a smaller space on a shelf (whether that shelf is yours or at a game store).

After the company retreat I actually visited Barnes & Noble to look at their small-box games to see if there was a size that felt right, displayed well, and would fit the components of Wingspan Pocket. The end result is a box that is roughly the size of my hand.

The art for the front of the box had some debate, but with the name “pocket,” I felt strongly that we should keep the illustration of the pouch nest while making the word “Wingspan” as big as possible. (Of course, we had already debated other game names like Wingspan Go, Wingspan Swift” and Wingspan Nest, but we ruled them out due to connections to Pokemon, the Wingspan swift-start pack, and the Wingspan Nesting Box.)

The back of the box also went through a number of revisions to convey the simplicity of the game. We landed on a method used by many publishers for streamlined games: Explain the game with an image and 3 short phrases.

As we played the pre-PPC, we found that the reference card needed a lot of work. My initial goal was that someone could play the game from the reference card alone and only use the rulebook for a deeper dive, but there’s still a key difference between referencing key elements of the game and actually understanding the entire game.

In revising the reference card multiple times, we also revisited the rulebook itself, especially the first page. We truly wanted Wingspan Pocket to be accessible to everyone, including those who might be daunted by a short hobby game rulebook, so right on the front page we talk about what you need for your first game and showcase a rules video QR code.

While most of the discussions focused on the product design, a few gameplay-related elements came up as well. Originally, after someone played their 6th bird, players each took an extra turn (after each player had taken the same number of turns in the game). While this didn’t bother previous playtesters, we found at higher player counts that it really didn’t feel necessary and could turn a 30-minute game into a 45-minute game. So I talked to Elizabeth about removing the extra set of turns, and she approved the change.

Also, the goal cards in the game (which score 1 VP per egg on specific types of birds) were previously the default way of playing, and the rules suggested that players remove the goals for their first game. Instead, we switched to the goals being excluded by default, and for “advanced play” you can add them. Wingspanners accustomed to goal tiles and bonus cards should have no issues adding these cards.

I don’t think we’ve ever had a product that went under the microscope to the extent of Wingspan Pocket. We collectively put our hearts and minds into this game as if it is the only game we make, and I hope the final result brings joy to your table.

I’m sure we are far from the first publisher to playtest both a pre-PPC and multiple PPCs to improve the design of a product. But I’m sharing this because maybe you aren’t aware that these are options to explore–granted, very expensive options on a per-unit basis–as you seek to increase the chances of success of your product and to reduce errors.

---

Also read:

• Results of the Stonemaier Company Retreat
• Our New Proofreading and Oversight Process

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Yesterday we announced Wingspan Pocket, a new standalone 1-5 player game that distills the Wingspan experience down to a lighter, shorter, streamlined experience that has each player activate a single row of cards on each of their turns (even on the same turn you play a bird). The cards are all double sided: a food side and a bird side. Bird powers are primarily indicated by icons instead of text, and they include a new type of power, ongoing (green) benefits.

On Monday I will have an article about the in-depth pre-production copy testing process of Wingspan Pocket, but I haven’t posted the corresponding design diary entry yet, so today I have an interview about a completely different game from another publisher!

Gabe Barrett runs Best With 1 Games, and over the last few years I’ve seen him adapt a really interesting strategy for creating and launching games. With their latest game, Stonefall, in its final days on Gamefound, Gabe was kind to take some time to answer questions about his methods.

---

1. As far as I can tell, you’ve run solo-coop game campaigns once a month every month for several years now. Is that correct? How many games are we talking, and what are the biggest hits so far in terms of the campaign and retail?

That’s correct. Since January of 2024, I’ve run a solo game campaign every single month on Gamefound. Through those campaigns, I’ve shipped around 60,000 games so far with another 8,000 set to go out in the next few weeks.

The biggest hits have been Rome: Fate of an Empire, Radiance, and Small Time Heroes. 

2. Do you manufacture and ship each game independently, or do you have any overlapping production runs and fulfillment (i.e., so multi-campaign backers can pay shipping once for multiple products)?

Each game is sent to the factory independently, but there have been a few instances where the queue line got backed up to the point that several games were printed and shipped at the same time. However, I use a fulfillment company based in China that ships worldwide and charges by the gram, so there are no cost-savings in bundling. 

Games ship as soon as they’re completed, and there’s no crossover between campaigns from an admin level – every campaign is a separate spreadsheet.

3. How have you found the project management puzzle for juggling so many projects? Any key tips or tools that you’ve found work well? Is there something specific about solo games that enables you to have so many projects in the works?

I wish there was some secret or magical piece of software that I could share, but I’ve found that a basic checklist is the best tool overall. I’ve used Trello and other project management apps, but nothing works as well as a good, old fashioned checklist with every aspect of a game’s production broken into line items.

Then, you just work the list and check things off as they’re completed.

The “magic” comes from realizing the checklist needs improvement over and over and over again until you finally get something that works best. And when you run a campaign every single month, you get a lot of opportunities to make revisions.

Nothing about publishing solo games specifically makes things easier, but standardizing as much as possible helps a great deal. I only offer a couple different box sizes which makes designing, publishing, manufacturing, and shipping everything much simpler as I’ve removed all but a few variables. It also allows me to order certain things in bulk and get a better price – shipping boxes and foam, for example.

4. Are you happy with the current pursuit of 1 game per month, or have you considered spacing out campaigns (e.g., every 2-3 months)? I’m curious about what you view is the advantage of 1 game per month. 12 new games a year seems like a lot for you and for customers–what drives that quantity versus any other quantity of games per month/year? Is that based on what backers have told you they want, sheer momentum, company finances, etc?

“Solo Game of the Month” has a nice ring to it. “Solo game of the quarter” or “solo game of the fortnight” just doesn’t sound quite right.

But once the right systems are in place, and you find great people to work with, twelve games a year is really not that hard to get your arms around. We’ll probably end up doing around 20 new games this year in total. Most of those will be Gamefound campaigns, but others will be direct-to-retail.

However, these aren’t expensive games. Most are $25, and a lot of the “extra” games we’re working on in the background are $15. I don’t think it would be possible to do 12 traditional crowdfunding style games that are $100+ and contain boxes upon boxes of minis and content. The customer base would burn out quickly, most people’s monthly budgets can’t handle it, I would probably be speedrunning my time on this earth, and game shelves wouldn’t be able to support it.

But for the price of a couple meals at McDonald’s, you can get a box the size of a VHS case containing a fun game with great art that offers an excellent solo-gaming experience.

And at that price point, people are more likely to give a game a chance when they might not normally vibe with the theme or core mechanisms. Also, since I don’t print very many extras, a game is easy to sell on the second-hand market, if you don’t enjoy it.

Am I happy with the cadence of one a month? Absolutely. 12+ games a year means I can take some chances on games that might not have wide appeal. It means I get more opportunities to find hits. And it means consistent cashflow to grow a sustainable business.

5. Are most backers just picking and choosing a few of your games each year, or is there a significant percentage of people who back every Best With 1 campaign? If so, do you offer a subscription option for them? How has it been to work with Gamefound so consistently?

I have a core group of about 500 customers that buy basically everything, and around 40% of my customers have purchased more than one game, so I get a ton of repeat buyers. People often discover the series through a campaign and then purchase a bunch of the previous games.

And that’s by design. I started the company to create a home for solo gamers where everything would be tailored to a one-player experience. The games are all pretty different, but if you like one, you’ll probably like at least ten others.

As far as a subscription, I planned to have one before diving into things in 2024, but I got talked out of it by someone who was doing one. It’s not that they’re bad; they just don’t integrate very well with crowdfunding platforms, and they create a bunch of extra work and overhead. And since simplicity is one of the main pillars of my company, I opted not to go the subscription route.

However, I’m finding other ways to reward repeat customers. For example, a couple months ago, I sent a free game to all 500 of the core customers mentioned above.

And working with Gamefound has been great. I’ve had an awesome account manager named Luke who has been extremely helpful and pretty pivotal to my company’s success.

6. Last, I was excited to see a game (Stonefall) from Peter and Michael of the One Stop Co-op Shop as the latest Best With 1 campaign. For people who haven’t dived into the world of solo games, are there a few Best With 1 games you recommend they start with?

Yeah, Stonefall is a project I’ve been excited about for a while, and I’m really pleased with how it’s all come together!

As far as recommendations, if you like meaty Euro games, check out Rome: Fate of an Empire. If you like card-crafting and/or rogue-lites, check out Mech Bunny. If you like Slay the Spire and/or deckbuilding games, check out Small Time Heroes. If you like boss battlers, check out Storybook Saga and Witch Hunter.

But in general, if you’re a solo gamer, my catalogue probably has something you’ll enjoy.

And if anyone wants to sign up to be notified when new solo games launch, they can join the newsletter here: https://bestwith1.com/month/

---

Big thanks to Gabe for answering these questions! I’m curious to hear your thoughts and questions in the comments. If you want to check out other creator interviews and guest posts, here’s a list dating back to 2012!

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

A long time ago in a fulfillment center far, far away, Stonemaier Games offered a few ala carte options to webstore customers. Glass beads for Viticulture, plastic mechs for Scythe, metal coins for Charterstone…these were all included in their respective games, but sometimes people wanted more/extras.

Back in those days, we didn’t have many products, we only had one webstore, and we had lots of spare replacement parts. So we would have our replacement parts helper label a few cartons with a new SKU, and I would snap a few photos and add the ala carte item to our webstore. Typically we would also ship a few cartons from the US to our fulfillment centers in Canada, Europe, and Australia.

Now in 2026 we have over 250 SKUs, ranging from games to expansions to accessories, promos, and more. Not only have we grown, but so have our fulfillment partners: They employ dozens of people to service a number of companies. They process hundreds of orders every day using robust inventory management systems that require every item in an order to be scanned. These are massive warehouses filled with thousands of different products.

Every product needs to have a barcode (either integrated into the packaging or printed as a sticker and applied by the manufacturer). Every product also needs a production quantity, and then that production quantity is split between our 4 fulfillment centers and distribution/retail based on our best-guess forecasts. Every product needs a listing on our 4 Shopify webstores, and every product requires ongoing inventory and webstore management.

Basically, it’s a huge logistical challenge to produce and stock even just one product. Each additional SKU is exponentially more complicated, both up front and on an ongoing basis.

This is why games are sold as they are: One preset package, not a dozen different components that you can pick and choose from. Look at any game on your shelf, and there are probably a few components in it that you don’t use (maybe based on player count or modular preferences), but that’s okay. It’s much more optimized–and more cost-effective, which carries over to the price you paid–to combine those components into a cohesive product instead of selling everything ala carte.

Why is this on my mind today? Duel of Meloch, our new game (which is also an expansion for Scythe and Expeditions), has a lot of components. Scythe components, Expeditions components, overlapping components specific to the duel, etc. One of the most common questions I’ve heard so far is if someone can buy just some of those components but not others; as explained above, the answer is no.

The game also has two optional add-ons available for the July 15 webstore launch, despite the logistical complexity of extra SKUs. We split off the plastic airship miniature because it isn’t used in the duel format and would have increased the price (both for the component itself and the increased box size). There is also a metal mech pack (4 metal mechs for Scythe and 1 for Expeditions); due to the factors described in detail above, we can offer them combined at a better price than if there were two separate metal mech packs.

I mention all this because it’s an interesting area of customer service. On the surface, it might seem like we could best serve each customer by enabling them to buy only the precise components and elements they want. But in reality, ala carte makes it much harder to serve everyone, and it makes things more expensive for everyone.

Please note that I put ala carte in a completely different category than replacement parts. If any of your Stonemaier products have missing or broken components, it is our job to fix that problem. We consider our replacement parts system essential to serving customers despite it being a suboptimal, money-losing endeavor.

Also, just like most products, Duel of Meloch is more than just a sum of its parts. For example, you might buy it primarily as a Scythe expansion, but along the way you might discover that you love the duel mode (which can even be played Scythe vs Scythe if you already own Scythe or the Invaders from Afar expansion) or that you enjoy Expeditions.

Are there other industries where it’s common to request individual components instead the entire product?

---

Also read:

• Board Game Supply Chain Basics
• The Current State of Worldwide Fulfillment (2026)

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

In mid-2024, I had a hankering to design an asymmetric dueling game. However, I was daunted by the task of essentially designing two different games that existed in the same world and could have meaningful overlapping tensions. I quickly realized the obvious: Scythe and Expeditions are already different games that exist in the same alternate history and already have overlapping elements.

I then got really excited about the idea: The kid in me who debated which superheroes would win in a fight now wondered the same thing about Scythe’s engine building, hordes of units, and combat focus vs Expeditions’ hand management, 1 single giant mech, and abundance of actions. Who would win in a duel?

However, there was a branding problem: We make games that scale from at least 1-5 players at Stonemaier Games. We’re missing players 3, 4, and 5 in a 1-2 player dueling game.

Fortunately, we’ve had some experience in that realm thanks to Wingspan Asia, which is a 1-2 player standalone game that also expands Wingspan. Its position as an expansion solves the player count branding issue.

Duel of Meloch is a 1-2 player standalone game, and it expands both Scythe (including its new faction and player mat, completely new deck of 60 combat cards, 3 new Factory cards, and 6 new encounter cards) and Expeditions (including its new mech, character, companion, and 30 new discovery cards).

Wingspan Asia also accomplishes something more subtle: If you own other Wingspan stuff, you already own expansions to Wingspan Asia. We’re adding utility to products that customers already have.

Could we do the same thing with Duel of Meloch for two different games, both Scythe and Expeditions?

As it turns out, we can! All existing Scythe factions, player mats, encounter cards, and factory cards are compatible with Duel of Meloch, as are all existing Expeditions mechs, characters, companions, and discovery cards (items, meteorites, and half of the quests). There are only 10 locations in Duel of Meloch’s smaller map, so if you’ve shuffled in your Expeditions cards and draw a quest for locations 11-20, you just discard it and draw another.

In this way, if you already own Scythe and/or Expeditions, you already have a bunch of expansion content for Duel of Meloch. You don’t need any of that–everything you need to play the game is included in Duel of Meloch–but it adds more utility to stuff you may already have. Plus, if you have Scythe, you can even play Scythe vs Scythe duels (same with Expeditions vs Expeditions).

The only sacrifice is that I couldn’t add any Scythe components that specifically reference elements unique to Expeditions (like corruption), and vice versa (like objectives). Fortunately, there’s a lot of overlapping iconology between Scythe and Expeditions, so even with that design constraint there are many areas of tension in Duel of Meloch as you race to place 4 stars:

The Map: I wanted the map to be small enough that players would almost constantly play cat-and-mouse with each other (while still having a little space for engine building). So I designed two map layouts, each set in a new region–specific to the new characters–with 10 locations and 2 lakes. It’s a natural rubber playmat that fits perfectly in the game box.

Triumph Track: I love tug-of-war elements in dueling games, and my version of this is in the new double-sided Triumph Track. Each side has 8 categories like combat, coins, power, etc, along with some that are related but not exactly the same between Scythe and Expeditions (e.g., upgrades vs melded meteorites). So while the Scythe player is racing to, for example, reach 10 popularity, the Expeditions player is racing to solve 3 quests. If you see that I’m pulling ahead in a certain category, you may try to get in my way or bluff that it’s important to you, or you might just let me pursue that category while you focus on others.

Encounters: Scythe and Expeditions use encounters in different ways. There are 9 map tokens in Duel of Meloch, with 6 random tokens used each game. If Scythe gets to a token first, they use it to draw an encounter card; if the Expeditions mech gets there first, they flip it over and gain the benefit on the back.

Other Tracks: Both players might see a few cards (encounter or discovery) that force the opponent to decrease each token on tracks by 1. The Scythe player has a popularity and a power token on a track; the Expeditions player tracks power and guile on their mech mat.

Combat: This isn’t purely a combat game, but fights can break out! Scythe has the upper hand in that they can play 1 combat card per combat unit; however, the Expeditions mech (which can only play 1 combat card) has a movement range of 3 locations, so they can swing in for an unexpected combat. The combat cards are also much more versatile now, with combat abilities that create parity and non-combat discard benefits.

Meloch Cards: When one player places a star on the Triumph Track, the opponent gets to draw a Meloch card and gains a small bonus from it (a choice of two). They actually place the card on top of previously revealed Meloch cards to gain 1 or more small bonuses. In this way, if you’re somehow running away with the game, I get bigger and bigger boosts as I try to catch up.

I’m really excited about the versality and cross-compatibility of Duel of Meloch, and I’d love to hear your thoughts about the concept. It will be on our webstore on July 15 with shipping to follow later in July (along with copies at Gen Con and a retail release later in August).

---

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

The biggest reason Stonemaier Games hasn’t returned to crowdfunding is the gap between asking customers for payment and actually delivering the product to those customers. Even if a game is 99% production ready leading into the campaign, roughly 6 months are needed for pre-production, production, and freight shipping.

So I’m always fascinated when publishers employ creative methods to close that gap in service of their customers (and also as a marketing tool). Some publishers offer a demo version of the game digitally, Earthborne Games and Covenant offered free preview decks of Hubworld Aidalon, and the recent campaign for The Old King’s Crown started production on the first reprint before the campaign via Gamefound’s “express crowdfunding” option, allowing some backers to receive the pre-printed games just a few months after the campaign’s conclusion. There are also the options to demo games at conventions and even game stores before their release or to offer partial print-and-play copies of the game for people to try at home.

Let’s jump forward to early May 2026, when I saw a Facebook ad for an upcoming crowdfunding project, Cataclysm Arcade. It featured some intriguing mechanisms, so normally I would have just clicked the prelaunch “follow” button and waited for a launch notification (especially as a trading card game).

However, Cataclysm Arcade combined two elements in the ad that made me pull out my wallet: One, it offered curious customers the option of buying a few booster packs before the campaign for $5 each. Two, as long as each player has a booster pack, that’s all you need to play a game of Cataclysm Arcade!

I want to call this “try before you buy,” but it isn’t exactly that, as I literally spent $10 to buy two packs. It felt that way, though. The real hook for me was the ability to play a full game using just 1 booster pack per player. Cataclysm Arcade accomplishes this by using a modern deckbuilding mechanism: If you run out of cards in your deck to draw, simply shuffle your discard pile to form a fresh deck.

Not only was this a player-friendly sneak preview, but it was also great marketing: It had me actively thinking about the game before the Kickstarter project, it showed that the game was fully designed and ready to print, it gave potential backers a chance to try the game before backing it, and it gave content creators a timely way to talk about the game (as I did on our channel).

As I mentioned in last year’s article about free preview decks, this method won’t work for most games. Small packs of cards are incredibly cost-effective, so you need a cards-only game where you can play the game with a small subset of the cards while still leaving players wanting more. Yet it’s a pretty cool tool to consider during the design and marketing process.

Do you have an example of a game you were able to try on the table well before crowdfunding fulfillment? How did it impact your experience with the game? Did you end up backing the project?

---

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

In the 9 years since we launched the submission form on our website, we have received nearly 3,000 game submissions, many of which were eligible based on our guidelines.

Alan reviews all submissions and shares some with me, and if I’m intrigued, we request a prototype and interact a little with the designer to see how they communicate. Finally, if we both think the game could be a Stonemaier game, we share it with the rest of the team (conceptually and on the table) to make sure we’re not overlooking anything.

Of those games, how exactly do we decide which games to publish?

It boils down to a series of questions we ask ourselves:

• Will this game bring joy to tabletops worldwide? This is our mission statement. It’s a broad question, but it helps us try to picture the game on different types of tables worldwide.
• Do we love the game? We spend a lot of time, energy, and resources on every game we publish, so there’s a high bar for how we feel about it from the start.
• Does it feel like a Stonemaier game? There’s a certain vibe captured by our games, largely described in the 12 tenets. Just because we love a game doesn’t mean that it feels like a Stonemaier game.
• Do we already publish a similar game (mechanically or thematically)? If someone submitted a winemaking game to us, even if we really liked it, it would be incredibly difficult for us to decide to publish it since we already make Viticulture.
• Has another publisher already made a close facsimile to this game? Or, asked another way: If this game shares a core mechanism with another game (but with a twist), would we choose this game over the existing game?
• Does it have the potential of being a big hit with evergreen potential? This is, in some ways, an unfair question. There are many games I love that have only sold a few thousand copies. But given that we average less than 2 game releases per year and that we invest heavily in every game we make, we want it to have the potential of being a big hit. This question includes the value proposition (the game’s estimated price versus what price it would need to have to be successful).
• Are we excited to teach and share this game over and over? Something I learned in the early days of Stonemaier Games is that I don’t actually get to play the published versions of our games all that much. Instead, most of my involvement with our games is teaching them and talking about them. So even from the start, we try to envision ourselves doing that over and over to ensure this is a game for which we can maintain a high level of excitement.

Importantly, these questions also apply to games I try to design. There are multiple checkpoints throughout my design process when I share the status of a design (through video and playtests) with my team, and if we don’t answer the above questions affirmatively, the game does not get published.

Keep in mind that these questions are in addition to all the guidelines and tenets listed on our submission page. Many games check the submission boxes, but in the end it’s a very subjective decision. We’ve passed on games that went on to be successful with other publishers, and I’m always happy to see that they found the right home.

Also, in full transparency, I think we’ve been “wrong” about some games we’ve published in that at least one of the answers to these questions wasn’t as much of a full “yes” as we originally thought. I don’t regret publishing them, but those misses are a good opportunity for me to evaluate the process and the questions asked along the way.

What do you think of these questions? If you’re a publisher, how exactly do you decide which games to publish?

---

Also read: How to Pitch (and Not Pitch) Your Game to Stonemaier Games

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

When I’m scrolling through Facebook, there’s a specific type of image that frequently catches my eye. It’s used the most by digital game news outlets: An evocative image plus a few descriptive lines of white and orange text on a black background.

I like this format so much that I recently decided to apply it to our games. In fact, I made two versions for each game: One using art and thematic vibes; the other using a photo of the game on the table and a few stats:

Despite having an active Facebook page for Stonemaier Games, I rarely use it to post about our games. So I’ve started posting one of these images once per week.

While I would prefer to equally showcase each of the two images per game, I think this type of image has the biggest impact when it’s alone. So for the first 25 posts I’ll use the thematic image and post the photo version in the comments with a link to the game’s page; after I get through every game, I’ll switch the two.

The most surprising result after doing this for Vantage and Apiary is the number of people who have commented on the posts (despite there not being a question or prompt). Some have shared their love of the game, others have asked questions. A rare few have even decided that this is the right place to share how they dislike the game.

But I love that a simple image has generated conversation and sense of community outside of our Facebook groups. Given that, I may also post these images on Instagram and Bluesky in the future.

What do you think about this approach? Are there other eye-catching image formats on social media that pique your interest (without being clickbait)?

---

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

For years I’ve written a cautionary tale about the pros and cons of being the face of a brand or company. Yet it wasn’t really until this year that we started to act on the potential perils–more on that in a minute.

This topic came to mind because I recently received an email from Emily in marketing at Alkem Gear (which I mentioned in this article). A lot of what Emily shared was centered around Tim, the founder and creator of Alkem, yet I saw very little of Tim on Alkem’s website or the Kickstarter project. So I asked this:

“How does Tim remain closely connected to the campaign despite partnering with others–like you–for public-facing roles?“

Tim himself wrote back with a detailed answer; here are the two key quotes:

“One thing I believe is really important as a founder is understanding my own limitations. My background is in engineering and product development, not marketing, so I’ve always believed the best way to build something meaningful is to surround yourself with people who are genuinely better than you in certain areas. My role is to help set the vision, establish the values behind the brand, and make sure every decision stays aligned with the kind of community we want to build.

At the same time, I’m intentional about not making the brand revolve around me personally. I’m happy to do interviews, demos, podcasts, or community discussions, but my goal isn’t to become the face of the brand. I want Alkem to have its own identity, one built around service, humility, quality, and community. I want something that can outgrow any one individual.”

This is a really solid answer. I’ve talked in past articles about the power and appeal of a creator sharing themselves with backers during a crowdfunding campaign (opposed to outsourcing to other people or marketing services); see links at the end of this article. However, as someone with 7 coworkers, I also understand the value of delegating to people who are far better at their jobs than I am (or was, as I once wore nearly every hat here). I admire Tim for wanting Alkem to have its own identity.

Despite that, it’s still me (Jamey) writing these articles, replying to questions on social media and email, posting on Instagram, writing newsletters, recording the podcast, running the livecast, and recording YouTube videos. There’s plenty of upside to this personal touch, but the downside is that if you don’t like Jamey, if Jamey is hit by a bus, or if Jamey is no longer part of Stonemaier Games, it would be an abrupt transition to suddenly see someone else appear in my place on social media.

So a few months ago I talked to my coworker, Erica, to see if she would be interested in joining me on some YouTube videos. Not only does it put another face to Stonemaier Games, but you also get to hear from someone else who cares passionately about the tabletop hobby. Our latest video just posted yesterday, and it delves into a subject that was dear to Erica when she worked at a local game store.

Also, I would be remiss to point out that I’m far from the only face or name you’ll see if you have different experiences with Stonemaier Games. If you attend a convention, you’ll probably see Dave or Alex. If you’re a retailer, you’ve probably talked to Susannah. If you’ve had a customer service request, you’ve likely corresponded with Joe. And if you’ve submitted a game to us, you may have heard back from Alan. There’s also Christine (graphic design), but that’s truly a behind-the scenes role.

There’s still room for more versatility, but I really appreciate Erica for joining me as another friendly face on the YouTube channel. She’s also very active in the comments of our shared videos. She and Susannah have also stepped up for the livecast when I’ve traveled (I think Alex may have been on one of those too).

What are your thoughts about the delicate balance between making a company approachable, personable, and relatable without putting all your eggs in the same face?

---

Also read:

• Cult of the You
• Who Do You Root For?
• Should You Hire Someone Else to Run Your Crowdfunding Project for You?
• The Psychological Benefit of Showing Your Face
• What’s Your Hit by a Bus Plan?

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

“Stonemaier Games does not, has not, and will not use any form of AI to replace or augment creative work. If we’re creating something, we want it built from the ground up by talented people from different backgrounds, perspectives, and cultures, not an algorithm.”

I wrote this in April 2024, and after 2 more years of the generative AI onslaught, I thought I’d revisit the topic to see what, if anything, has changed between now and then.

Thanks to most of the science fiction I’ve read and watched over my life, leading up to the modern era I actually had an optimistic view of AI as something that could solve the problems that humans are unable to solve (or would otherwise take hundreds of years). Cure cancer, invent teleportation, end world hunger, and so on.

Maybe that’s where it’ll eventually lead–I’ll hold onto that optimism. In the meantime, instead of achieving the impossible, generative AI seems has become an output device to replace creative endeavors that are already quite possible. Enter a prompt, and the machine spits out an article or image.

Now, if you’re passionate about AI, I’m truly not here to shame you. I try to keep an open mind as the world changes, which is why I’m revisiting this topic today.

There are even elements of AI that aren’t as bad as I thought: For example, check out this episode of Science Vs about the water consumption from data centers. I’ve personally found AI summaries to be unavoidable when searching on Google, though I always try to look at the sources. Also, as much as I loathe the idea of AI replacing humans in any capacity, that’s somewhat inherent to technological advances (e.g., the excellent movie Hidden Figures shows how humans literally were computers until machine computational capacity improved).

In fact, I’ll admit that I accidentally used a logo for our podcast that was generated by AI (not by me). I didn’t realize it at first, then I realized it and wasn’t comfortable saying something, and finally I just decided to pay a graphic designer to create a new logo. I feel much better about it now.

Here’s my truth: I continue to not be interested in generative AI. The process of creativity is key to me as a person. I want to write these articles and film my videos from scratch. I want to come up with my own game ideas and put in the work to bring them to life. I want to read, research, think critically, and seek out sources, not rely on AI summaries. I want to embrace the process. I want to learn from my mistakes and share those lessons with you.

Likewise, I’m more passionate than ever about working with creative people and paying for their time and talent. The only difference now is that it’s in our contracts for artists, designers, third-party accessory creators, and digital developers that we don’t permit the use of generative AI. Similarly, we’ve added “human made: no generative AI” to the back of our game boxes, as we seem to have reached a tipping point when people are unabashedly quick to assume you are using AI unless you specifically indicate otherwise.

Last, I support creators and companies that pay my fellow humans for creative work. I’m only interested in games (and other media) that were designed by people, written by people, and illustrated by people. At the same time, I’m not going to spend my time, energy, or social currency shaming or bashing people who use generative AI. I choose to elevate, not denigrate.

I know that this is a sensitive topic, so while I genuinely want to hear your thoughts in the comments, I ask that you approach the conversation with an open mind and respect for your fellow humans. Let’s be good to each other. If you have hot take, please support it with a specific example or evidence. Thank you!

UPDATE: I realized after writing this article that even though I talked about being open-minded, I didn’t actually revisit the 2024 quote to see if it has changed in mid-2026. While I’m not interested in generative AI, it is possible that there will be uses of ethical AI in the future as related to Stonemaier Games that do interest me–we’ll see!

Stonemaier Games does not use, has not used, and does not plan to knowingly use generative AI for creative work (text, art, videos, etc). If we’re creating something, we want it built from the ground up by talented people from different backgrounds, perspectives, and cultures. We believe that the process is integral to our output, and it allows human creativity to shine. We do not actively use other forms of AI in our workflow either, but it is becoming so engrained in common technology that we acknowledge its passive use may become unavoidable.

---

Also read: Generative AI? Not for Us!

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

If you have a missing or damaged component inside your English-language Stonemaier Games product–no matter where or when you bought it or how long you’ve been playing it–you can fill out this form and we’ll send you what you need.* We use software called Jira to manage this process, as we have 7 replacement parts helpers in 5 different regions around the world.

Serving our customers this way is incredibly important to us, but we can serve them even better if replacement parts (and replacement parts requests) aren’t needed in the first place. Recently I talked to a few people connected to this process at Stonemaier Games, and we compiled a list of product design mistakes that resulted in quite a few replacement parts.

We learned these lessons the hard way, so I’m hoping this will help you avoid these mistakes from the start. Some of these are as simple as packing components in a way that makes them easy for the customer to identify.

1. Meeples and Minis with Protrusions: Some of our most common requests are for broken meeples or mechs where we got a little too detailed, and those little details snapped off in transit or gameplay. Whenever I get sample meeples or mechs, I try to snap off any protrusion–if I can, I either remove it from the design or bulk up its connection point.
2. Missing Tokens and Clasps: It is common when we’re including either a lot of the same type of token–50 glass beads or clasps for dials–that 1 is missing in production or 1 goes missing later. So we often include an extra token, but we list the lower quantity: We make 51 tokens but say that there are 50. So even if 1 is missing, you still have the “correct” amount (though, honestly, for these types of tokens, it’s incredibly rare in gameplay that the full quantity is needed).
3. Matching the Insert: In Libertalia–a 6-player game where each player has their own deck of cards–the cards are packed in 5 card bricks. When opening a new game, you see 5 bricks of cards in 5 of 6 slots in the insert, and 5 of the 6 player colors happen to be visible in each brick. This leads to assumptions that the entire green deck is missing before opening the cards. Something similar happens in Scythe, a game that can only ever feature combat between 2 players, so we only included 2 combat dials–players assume the other 3 are missing (partially because the 2 included dials have specific faction colors).
4. Matching the Trays: The first few printings of Wingspan included 4 clamshell trays (2 for an assortment of eggs and 2 for an assortment of food). There’s no need for each type of food token to be kept in a separate compartment, but we soon learned that many people assumed that the trays were only for food and that a tray was missing (there are 5 types of food in the core game and only 4 trays).
5. Packing Choices: We hear from customers that they think they’re missing the action cubes in Wingspan Asia, as those cubes are packed in the same bags as larger tokens of the same color. Similarly, some customers struggle to find the gray temporary worker in Viticulture, as it’s packed in the same bag as some of the player tokens (it previously came in a separate bag with the first player token).
6. “Missing” Cards: In the solo mode for Libertalia and Scythe: The Wind Gambit, there are “missing” cards that aren’t actually missing. For example, there is no Automa card 37 in Libertalia for design reasons. This is explained in the rules, but when looking through the cards, it’s a common mistake for people to see cards 36 and 38 and assume they’re missing card 37.
7. “Missing” Components: In Scythe: The Rise of Fenris, there’s a big warning label when you open the box that tells people not to look inside the spoiler tuckboxes. However, it happens all the time! One of the tuckboxes has a “missing” component that’s actually in one of the other tuckboxes–oddly, people seem to open that tuckbox but not the others; if they did, they would find that “missing” component.
8. Dents in Boards and Mats: I learned early on with Viticulture that if sharper components (like meeples) are packed next to a board or mat, they might press into the cardboard over time, leaving lots of little dings and dents. Instead, we now pack them elsewhere in the box or we fold the mats inward, with the gameplay elements on the inside. However, this also leads to the occasional confusion from customers who don’t know the mats are folded–they see the faux leather illustration on the outside of a Wingspan or Wyrmspan mat and think they received a misprint.
9. Card Sorting: It’s inevitable that customers will lose or damage cards over time if they play a game frequently, and we’re here to help. With Wingspan, we originally didn’t have any type of card sorting system, so if a customer requested a Peregrine Falcon, our replacement parts helpers had to look through every card to find it. In reprints we alphabetized the cards, which significantly sped up this process. In games where cards don’t have a name, we number the cards and sort them as such.
10. Publisher Assumption: When we were working on the Pie in the Sky expansion for My Little Scythe, I didn’t go through the component list with the right mindset, and it resulted in me never asking our manufacturer to include faction-specific tokens for the 2 new factions (everything else was there, including the minis). This was before we sent pre-production copies first to the designer and to my coworker, so no one caught the mistake until everything was printed and shipped. We tried to fix it after the fact by making a pack of the missing tokens for our webstore, retailers, and distributors, but we still hear from customers all the time who buy the expansion from a retailer and don’t get the tokens. It was an important wake-up call for me to never assume anything and to add as many checks-and-balances as possible during the pre-production process.

Hopefully this list will help you avoid the same mistakes; there are even some we still need to address better at Stonemaier Games. If you have any insights about replacement part requests, please let me know in the comments!

*Box Dings and Dents: If you ordered a game from Stonemaier Games and the box arrived with dings and dents, we’re truly sorry. You paid for a mint-condition product, and we didn’t deliver. That’s on us. For some people, a dented corner won’t impact the fun they have playing the game. For others, it will. A replacement box for a dented corner is actually a replacement for the entire game, a process that involves having you send your game to a reviewer of our choice–we provide the label–and we send you another copy of the game. If you would like to go through that process for a game ordered from our webstore, please email your order number to contact@stonemaier.com. Photos of the packaging and damage help us share feedback with our fulfillment centers.

---

Also read:

• Replacement Parts
• Replacement Parts: Why Would (or Wouldn’t) a Company Offer This Service?
• 10 Production Secrets for Tabletop Games

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.