An academic conference exploring everything from publishers’ environmental claims and sustainable manufacturing to Pokémon card investing and onboarding new players is set to kick off tomorrow, as researchers examine the many interpretations of this year’s theme ‘Green’.
The free online Generation Analog 2026 event has been organised by Analog Game Studies, a quarterly journal dedicated to studying games with a substantial analogue component, and Game in Lab, an academic research grant programme co-created by Asmodee in 2018.
While many of this year’s presentations explore environmental issues, the conference’s broad ‘Green’ theme also encompasses topics including newcomer experiences, representation, identity, game history and design philosophy.
All of the talks are set to be recorded and made publicly available after the event, which takes place on July 15 and 16.
Example sessions include Plastic Dystopia: Ideas towards More Sustainable Miniaturing Practices, which aims to propose new ways of minimising the ecological footprint of the hobby, and How Green Is Green Play? Gamewashing in Analog Board Games, examines what the researchers describe as “gamewashing” – where environmental themes or sustainability messaging may not be reflected by a game’s actual mechanisms or player experience.
Several sessions examine how environmental themes are represented in commercial games, while Daybreak co-designer Matteo Menapace will be providing a keynote speech discussing the Kennerspiel des Jahres-winning title and how its realistic and utopian theme can be an antidote to capitalist realism.
Elsewhere, researchers from the University of York analyse five published climate change board games, arguing that many reinforce solutions rooted in existing economic assumptions rather than encouraging players to foster deeper engagement with the colonial and capitalist roots of the climate crisis, while another presentation explores how the relations between humans and animals are depicted in Uwe Rosenberg’s design Atiwa.
The full schedule for the conference is available here, and anyone interested in registering to view the panels and keynotes can do so here.
The post Academic conference puts board game sustainability, environmental theming and more under the microscope first appeared on .
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.
In den letzten Jahren haben Maker Spaces ihren Weg in viele Schulen gefunden. Das ist zunächst einmal eine gute Nachricht. Schülerinnen und Schüler sollen gestalten, experimentieren, Probleme lösen und Prototypen entwickeln. Sie sollen lernen wie Ingenieur, Designer oder Erfinder:innen: durch Ausprobieren, Scheitern, Verbessern und erneutes Testen.
Wer sich mit den Konzepten hinter Maker Spaces beschäftigt, stößt schnell auf Begriffe wie Design Thinking, Prototyping oder iterative Entwicklungsprozesse. Die Grundidee ist immer ähnlich: Es gibt ein Problem oder eine Herausforderung. Dafür werden Lösungen entwickelt. Diese werden als Prototypen umgesetzt, getestet, überarbeitet und verbessert. Der Lernprozess steht dabei im Mittelpunkt – nicht das fertige Produkt.
Das klingt – für mich – erstaunlich vertraut. Denn genau so arbeiten Spielautor:innen.
Wenn ein (Brett- ) Spiel entsteht, beginnt alles mit einer Idee oder einer Fragestellung. Die erste Version eines Spiels entsteht oft aus Papier, Karteikarten, Würfeln und Stiften. Sie ist selten gut. Meistens funktioniert sie sogar erstaunlich schlecht. Die Autor:innen testen ihre Ideen. Sie beobachten, was funktioniert und was nicht. Regeln werden verändert, Karten neu gestaltet, Mechanismen verworfen und ersetzt. Es wird gespielt, diskutiert, analysiert und erneut getestet. Der Entwicklungsprozess eines Brettspiels gleicht damit verblüffend stark dem typischen Maker-Space-Projekt:
Der Unterschied? Für die Entwicklung eines Brettspiels braucht man häufig nicht viel mehr als Papier, Scheren, Stifte und kreative Köpfe.
Viele Schulen würden gerne Maker Spaces aufbauen. Gleichzeitig wissen wir alle, dass die finanziellen Möglichkeiten oft begrenzt sind: 3D-Drucker, Lasercutter, Robotik-Sets oder spezielle Werkstätten kosten Geld. Hinzu kommen Wartung, Fortbildungen und räumliche Voraussetzungen. Die Entwicklung analoger Spiele benötigt dagegen kaum zusätzliche Ressourcen und auch für die Entwicklung digitaler Spiele gibt es tolle Werkzeugkästen.
Was braucht man für ein Brett- oder Kartenspiel? Einen Drucker, Würfel und Figuren aus vorhandenen Spielesammlungen, vielleicht etwas Bastelmaterial. Mehr nicht.
Die entscheidende Kompetenz liegt nicht im Umgang mit einem bestimmten Gerät oder einer bestimmten App, sondern im kreativen und problemlösenden Denken.
Das geht als AG, als Wahlpflichtfach, aber auch im regulären Fachunterricht: Im Geschichtsunterricht könnten Schülerinnen und Schüler ein Spiel zur Industrialisierung entwickeln. Im Biologieunterricht ein kooperatives Spiel über Ökosysteme. Im Politikunterricht ein Verhandlungsspiel über demokratische Entscheidungsprozesse.
Wer ein Spiel entwickelt, muss Inhalte und im Idealfall deren Strukturen verstehen. Man muss Zusammenhänge analysieren und entscheiden, was wichtig ist. Es ist gut ein paar unterschiedliche Spiele zu kennen, um zu überlegen, welche Regeln und Mechanismen am besten zu Thema und Ziel des Spiels passt.
Das ist Anwendung, Transfer und kreative Konstruktion von Wissen. Kurz gesagt: genau, wie das Lernen in Schule – aus meiner Sicht – auch sein sollte.
Ein weiterer Vorteil der Spielentwicklung liegt im Testen. Ein Spiel ist erst dann ein Spiel, wenn andere Menschen es spielen. Deshalb gehört Feedback zwangsläufig zum Entwicklungsprozess.Schülerinnen und Schüler erleben unmittelbar, ob ihre Idee funktioniert: Verstehen andere die Regeln? Ist das Spiel spannend? Ist es fair? Die Rückmeldungen führen fast automatisch zu Überarbeitungen. Plötzlich wird Kritik nicht mehr als Bewertung verstanden, sondern als notwendiger Bestandteil eines kreativen Prozesses. Genau diese Haltung gilt heute als eine der zentralen Zukunftskompetenzen.
Vielleicht ist das stärkste Argument für Game Design in der Schule seine unmittelbare Umsetzbarkeit. Für die Einführung eines Maker Spaces braucht es häufig lange Planungen, Finanzierungsmodelle und technische Ausstattung. Spielentwicklung kann dagegen morgen beginnen. Oder nächste Woche. Oder in den letzten Unterrichtsstunden vor den Ferien. Vier bis sechs Stunden Arbeit reichen oft schon aus, damit erste Prototypen entstehen. Auch eine Projektwoche bietet sich dafür an. Und selbst einzelne Unterrichtssequenzen können Elemente des Game Designs integrieren.
Maker Spaces haben wichtige Impulse für die Schulentwicklung gesetzt. Sie zeigen, dass Lernen aktiv, kreativ und produktorientiert sein kann. Doch die zugrundeliegenden Prinzipien sind nicht an teure Technik gebunden. Wer Schülerinnen und Schüler Probleme lösen, Prototypen entwickeln, testen, reflektieren und verbessern lassen möchte, kann genau dies auch über die Entwicklung von Spielen erreichen.
Spielentwicklung ist deshalb nicht die günstige Notlösung zum Maker Space. Sie ist eine eigenständige und äußerst wirksame Form modernen Lernens. Vielleicht sollten wir deshalb weniger darüber diskutieren, welche Geräte wir noch anschaffen müssen. Und mehr darüber, welche Spiele unsere Schülerinnen und Schüler entwickeln könnten. Die Materialien dafür liegen wahrscheinlich bereits im Lehrerzimmer…
A friend recently mentioned a statistic (that I’ve since verified according to multiple studies) that most people–over 80%–who have purchased a bottle of wine have made their decision largely based on the label. Not taste or research, just a label that spoke to them.
Have you ever purchased something based on its packaging? I absolutely have. Wine, games, books, chocolate, coffee, disc golf discs…sometimes the packaging draws me in and inspires me to learn more, but sometimes it’s almost the entire decision (i.e., I want this because of how it looks).
I mentioned this topic on a recent livecast, and viewers had even more examples: beer, hot sauce, restaurants, cereal boxes, and more. It also came up on a recent podcast episode of Unit Economics about how Byte’m brownies focused their packaging on a delicious-looking brownie instead of on their high-quality ingredients.
In the tabletop game space, box covers have a huge impact. It isn’t just about their marketing appeal; publishers try to make boxes that people are proud to display, that are compelling both at a game store and in an online thumbnail, and that function from different angles.
For all those reasons, at Stonemaier Games we pay far more for the box illustration than any other individual piece of art in the game (only a detailed game board comes close). I often look to other games for inspiration (thank you, BoardGameGeek!), and I always like to get at least 3 concept sketches from the artist before pursuing one of them in detail.
Then there’s another set of decisions to make about the labeling on the box: The size and position of the game name, the names of the designer(s) and artist(s), and the inclusion of key information like player count and playing time on all 6 sides.
There’s also the presentation on the back of the box, where we’ve traditionally placed a 3D setup image. We’re starting to pair that with 1/2/3-style explanation speech bubbles so a potential customer can quickly grasp what the game is about.
It’s always a work in progress, and I’m always learning from other publishers–it feels like every week there’s a new game announced with a truly stunning, evocative box. Whenever I go to a local game store, I try to pay close attention to which boxes grab my attention; I also recently went to Barnes & Noble for this specific purpose.
Have you ever bought a product based on its box, label, or cover? What would you like game publishers to learn from your experience?
***
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 spent the last weekend hosting friends at the Gamers Ranch, a gaming-focused vacation property in the middle of Missouri. I had an amazing time, and I loved seeing the power of the tabletop community in action, especially in seeing different gaming friends intermingle.
As I reflected on the weekend, I realized that among the dozens of games played, there were 5 games that hit the table more than any others. I thought I’d briefly look at each of those games to see what made them work particularly well for events and conventions, which can sometimes be the difference for a game to break out.
Moon Colony Bloodbath: I taught and played this 6 times over the weekend, and nearly everyone played again later. Even though it’s heavier than the other games on this list, the single deck of cards (flip a card and everyone does what it says) helps a teacher to guide everyone through the first few turns. It’s also entirely simultaneous, so there’s no downtime. There’s also the dark humor of the theme and the bold name, which seemed to attract curiosity from those who hadn’t played.
Lord of the Rings Trick-Taking: The cooperative nature of this game creates a sense of camaraderie; camaraderie is often a primary motivator for someone to attend a gaming event. Also, the short playing time and the variety of each chapter–all based on a simple core system–created a “just one more game” mentality.
Bomb Busters: I’ll continue what I said above about the Lord of the Rings trick-taking game, as this applies to both: I’ve noticed at gaming events that many people are hesitant to commit to a 3-hour game, yet they’ll end up playing short, escalating, cooperative games like Bomb Busters for hours. I love the idea of breaking a longer game into bite-size pieces.
Magical Athlete: Everything about the product design of this whimsical racing game lends itself to events. While it asks players to make a key decision before the game starts (which characters you select in the draft), the rules are so bare-bones that this isn’t a problem. I noticed that people seemed to gravitate towards this game after playing a heavier game, as it’s a great brain break.
Mindbug: This snappy two-player dueling game has a unique hook that seemed to intrigue people (twice per game when your opponent plays a card, you can claim it as your own instead). An accessible, quick 2-player game is really nice for an event when a few people are waiting for longer, larger-group games to finish.
Also note that all of these games are super fast to set up.
One other commonality between these games is that they all had someone championing them. This can make a huge difference at an event or convention: If there’s someone visibly excited to play a game they already know, people will gravitate towards that game.
Have you noticed a game spreading like wildfire at events or conventions? What is it about that game or the situation that resulted in the game returning to the table over and over?
***
Here are the events and conventions in which Stonemaier Games is participating in 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.
Recently a book publisher friend told me that the #1 thing he seeks from his authors is longevity. “If you haven’t spent at least 10 years working on a problem that a lot of people share, it probably isn’t a book for us.”
I’ve thought about this perspective a lot lately. I’m fascinated by anyone who takes that much time to work on a single project, though it didn’t seem like something I could possibly endorse to tabletop game designers. 10 years is a long time to work on the same game! Even Vantage “only” took 8 years for me to create.
But something clicked yesterday when I saw The Enigmatist in St. Louis. David Kwong is a magician, NY Times crossword designer, and an avid puzzler and gamer. The 2-hour show is full of riddles and puzzles for the audience to solve (if they wish), and Kwong seamlessly intertwines them with some more traditional magic elevated by his remarkable vocabulary and memory. We had so much fun at the show, and I highly recommend seeing it in St. Louis at The Rep over the next few weeks.
What I realized in experiencing the show is that Kwong has been working on this show for many years. While The Enigmatist itself didn’t exist 10 years ago, Kwong was cultivating his craft. I’m sure the show itself took years to create, and he originally performed it in New York in 2019, so The Enigmatist has existed in some form for 7 years. Along the way, Kwong wrote two related books and created a deck of playing cards that is also a series of puzzles.
In other words, David Kwong has devoted himself to this 2-hour show for at least 10 years. He worked hard to create something great, and he continues to share it with as many people as possible (likely while improving and enhancing it along the way).
One of the reasons I was hesitant at first to write about this topic was that it truly felt like a luxury to work on Vantage for 8 years; how could I possibly recommend that approach to other designers and publishers?
But Vantage isn’t alone in this category. A few other examples of games that have been someone’s primary focus for many years are The Old King’s Crown (Pablo Clark), Obsession (Dan Hallegan), Galactic Cruise (T.K. King), and Stardew Valley (Eric Barone). All of those tabletop games are rated 8.1 or higher on BoardGameGeek, and Stardew Valley is one of the top-rated, most-played digital games of the last 10 years.
In other words, if you have the opportunity to work on a passion project for many years, it could lead to something truly special, especially in a time when it’s more difficult than ever for a game to stand out from the deluge of high-quality projects.
Also, working on a project for 5-10 years doesn’t mean you can’t work on other projects in the meantime. I’ve found it incredibly helpful in my design process to have 2 games in the works at the same time. When I run into a wall on one game, I bounce over to the other game for a while.
That said, there are certain risks that accompany long-term passion projects. If the investment of all that time (and probably money too) doesn’t lead to something that resonates with people, you may just be making something for yourself. A safeguard for that is to not work in a vacuum–include others in the process and welcome their feedback.
Also, the world (and your world) can significantly change over 10 years. Something that might be exciting and innovative today might feel outdated in 2036. I tried to stay flexible and open-minded while creating Vantage; I constantly researched and played other open world games during the process.
10 years is a long time, though I don’t think that’s some magical number for longevity. Rather, this is more about a patient commitment to excellence. I want to give our projects the time they need to truly shine, quality over quantity.
I’ve only named a few high-profile projects here; can you think of any others? What are your thoughts on having a long-running project (even as you might work on others in the meantime too)?
***
Also read:
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.
Ein Brief sorgt für Bewegung in der Brettspielwelt. Cole Wehrle verlässt Leder Games. Kein Skandal, kein Bruch, sondern ein klarer, selbstbewusster Schritt eines Designers, der das moderne Brettspiel geprägt hat wie kaum ein anderer. Root, Oath und Arcs stehen nicht nur für erfolgreiche Titel, sondern für eine Haltung, die Spiele als politische, narrative und fordernde Erlebnisse versteht.
Warum dieser Abschied weit über eine Personalie hinausgeht, beleuchten wir hier im Blog und ausführlich im Podcast Beyond the Table, den du direkt unter diesem Artikel hören kannst.
Cole Wehrle war bei Leder Games nie nur Spieleautor. Als Creative Director hat er den Verlag entscheidend mitgeformt. Root wurde zu einem der prägendsten asymmetrischen Brettspiele der letzten Jahre, Oath zu einem kontrovers diskutierten Statement darüber, was Brettspiele leisten können.
Dass Leder Games diesen Weg mitgegangen ist, zeigt, wie viel möglich ist, wenn ein Verlag bereit ist, Risiko, Haltung und kreative Freiheit zuzulassen.
Bemerkenswert ist die Konsequenz dieses Abschieds. Oath und Arcs wechseln zu Coles neuem Studio Buried Giant Studios, während Root bei Leder Games bleibt. Ein Schritt, der in einer oft markengetriebenen Branche ein klares Zeichen setzt. Vertrauen, Fairness und Respekt vor kreativer Arbeit sind hier keine Floskeln, sondern gelebte Praxis.
Parallel dazu führt Cole Wehrle weiterhin Wehrlegig Games. Historische Spiele, klare Autor:innenhandschrift, kein Blick auf den Massenmarkt. Wehrlegig ist bewusst klein, bewusst sperrig und genau deshalb relevant. Es zeigt, dass Erfolg im Brettspiel nicht nur in Verkaufszahlen messbar ist. Aber es ist nicht zu unterschätzen, dass Spiele wie Pax Pamir durchaus auch große und wirtschaftlich relevante Auflagen erreichen können.
Der Abschied von Cole Wehrle wirft grundsätzliche Fragen auf.
Wie viel Einfluss sollte ein Designer auf einen Verlag haben?
Welche Verantwortung tragen Verlage für die Welten, die sie miterschaffen?
Ist dieses Modell ein möglicher Weg für die Zukunft der Branche?
Diese Fragen stehen im Mittelpunkt der aktuellen Beyond the Table Folge, die du direkt unter diesem Artikel anhören kannst.
Cole Wehrle verlässt Leder Games, aber er hinterlässt eine klare Spur. Spiele, die etwas wollen. Partnerschaften, die funktionieren. Und ein Beispiel dafür, wie erwachsen, transparent und respektvoll diese Branche sein kann, wenn sie es will.
Haben Siegpunkte einen schlechten Ruf? Vermutlich nicht, aber sie werden gerne mit dem eiskalten Kalkül eines modernen Eurogames verbunden, Spiele in denen man keine epische Schlachten schlägt oder große Abenteuer erlebt, sondern nüchtern-sachlich ein klein bisschen effizienter spielen möchte als die anderen am Tisch. Das ist natürlich sowohl reduktiv (Siegpunkte kommen in allen Genres vor), […]
Anmelden
