This post is expressly for the purpose of sharing my PoV and where I am coming from. This is not me trying to tell anyone how it has to be, or even how it should be.

I honestly don't believe I know more about the game. If anything I might know a little more of the behind the scenes stuff, since I've been "behind the curtain" a little longer than most. In all honesty, though I may have seen a little more in that arena, it doesn't mean I know how to handle it any better.

The politics of this crazy endeavor of keeping a "dead" game alive through community volunteering is bizarre to say the least. I like to describe it as a headless monster, or like Lord of the Flies. I honestly am still amazed that we've done it succesfully for so long. Many people are to thank for that.

Other things behind the curtain drive me crazy. There is quite a bit of manipulation in different ways from many different directions to move this amorphous blob. Some in contrast with each other. Things move very slowly, and then super fast. Seemingly without rhyme or reason. Diplomacy gives way to bulldozing at times. Mob rules seem to be constantly in effect. Personalities loom large. A suggestion from a designer could be universally shot down, and the exact same suggestion given by a different designer would be lauded as brilliant. Same goes for timing, a day late could end up being much more than a dollar short. Decisions get made without input from many, and efforts to involve everyone get bogged down in bureaucracy. Leave it to gamers to argue about even the smallest piece of structure or rule.

Efforts to have more structure and have the design "run like a business" can be good for us in some ways, but we have to balance that with the fact that everyone is a volunteer, literally working for free and only doing it for the love of the game. Real life is more important, and sometimes gets in the way. I take my commitment to designing seriously, and I know many of the other designers do as well. I was asked to design 2 sets before I started (I was asked to be on set 5, but waited until set 7), and I turned them down because I knew at that time I couldn't give it the focus it deserved. Each designer has to decide their own level of commitment, and what time they can give. I pour 100s of hours (literally) into each of the sets I have designed. Yet still I have lead designs that I regret in hindsight. Some ended up unplayable, some too strong, some overly complex. I think every single designer can say the same.

All we can do is the best we can.


In general, I try to subscribe to the "Robin Hood" method of design. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Some factions have an embarrassment of riches. Others need help. I tend to try and give stronger pieces to the factions (or subfactions) that need help, as well as counters to stronger squad-types in other factions. The stronger factions (factions with many options for top tier squads), I try to just give flavorful/theme pieces to, or bases for new squad types (or subfactions) that won't be tier one right away, and has restrictions to prevent them being added to dominant squad types to make them better.

Faction balance is something I strongly believe in. It's literally impossible in a game like ours, but it is something to strive toward. We certainly don't want everything to become homogenous and bland, faction "feel" and personality is important. That being said - each faction should have top tier squad options. Plural. Not just tweaks on a theme, but fully different options. With fringe I generally aim for needed game mechanics, NPE counters, and additions to all fringe squads that could improve them but not add to other factions' top tier squads.

As always, no designer designs in a vacuum. There are (usually) 4 designers on a set. They (usually) have different viewpoints and design in different way. I think it is good when this happens. This creates balance, and the harder something is to come together, the more it is scrutinized, and often ends up as a better product in the end. When a design team all rockets forward in the same direction with a whole set, often many pieces end up broken. Some disagreements and a little butting of heads is often good for the process, as long as it is done with respect for the other designers and careful consideration of playtesters feedback.

There are designs that serve function. There are designs that serve flavor. Of course the best designs are perfect in both, and we should strive for that. It is hard to do, and impossible to do all the time. I am a designer that tends to focus on function. That doesn't mean I totally ignore flavor, but to me a greater detriment to the game is a broken piece. I feel like we have diverse approaches in this area, which is actually great! With a small set, we need both ends to click. What helps keep the other end in check is designers challenging each other (in a positive way). I will harp on "what function does this piece serve?" "What roll does it fill?" We can have some - fun/flavor pieces, but most the set needs some legit utility. What is great is when other designers then press me by asking "How do we make this more accurate in Universe?" I am an avid Star Wars fan, but I'll be the first to admit that many of you know more about the Star Wars Universe than I do.

We always try to do our homework. Wookieepedia is our best friend. Youtube movie/TV scenes. I am always surprised to see things again I thought I knew perfectly, but they are a little different than I remember. Little things can make a big difference. Thesaurus.com helps with naming abilities. It's very hard to make fictional, fantastical characters/species/abilities/powers, etc perfectly accurate in universe, and abstractions must be made at times. Proper structure ahead of time makes smooth running later on. I cannot stress enough that thorough prep work needs to happen before the set list. Many sets (including former ones I have worked on) have failed to do this.

I think it's best to build for the competitive scene, with options for fun/theme squads. There needs to be things in each set that excites each person. It won't always be the same thing for everyone, but that's a great thing about this game. There should be fun, flavorful characters, but also sound game mechanics that can help certain squad types compete with other types. There is a pendulum that swings back and forth in this game, and it started swinging violently about 3 years ago. As a designer, you see a pendulum swinging one way, and the instinct many have is to give it a push back. I honestly think the better way to do it is to try and slow the pendulum down. Not try and do it all in one set.

Slow and steady is the way to design. You can't counter a dominant squad type in one set. If you do, it's broken. You can't have the mentality that if it's not the best, nobody will play it. This only worsens the already pretty nutty power creep. You can't make whole new squad types rocket to tier 1 in a single set (We've seen how that can turn out). Add a piece or 2. See how it plays out. Add more to it. Build it slowly over several sets. It may not be as exciting for the general community, but it makes for a better game. Instant wow factor pieces are usually broken. They excite lesser players because they help them win, until a better player uses it too, then they hate it. As a designer I'd much rather hear, "That piece has potential. Just need to find the right synergy" That's the best compliment ever. When a piece takes until after several other sets are released to slowly rise up into a top tier squad - that is success in my mind. It's not as glamorous, you don't get as much instant praise, but it's the better way to go. When at all unsure, err on the side of caution. Much better to have a piece go unused than making a broken piece. Trying to push everything into competitive level is the biggest mistake of all. It effects the game for years to come, as we are still feeling negative shockwaves from prior sets that came out years ago. I've already said my piece on the power curve of a set. This helps prevent broken pieces. When it's ignored, there are bad results. There HAS to be not-so-great pieces as well as amazing pieces in a set - but the lion's share needs to be decent usable pieces (power 7/8 ideally)

It's often hard understanding why people don't view something the way you do. It may seem really obvious to you, but the opposite view probably seems just as obvious to them. I know this is elementary human interaction psychology, but when you are passionate about something, it's hard to give up on an idea you love (or hate for that matter). We all have to pick our battles. Sometimes you have to stick to your guns. Other times there are bigger fish to fry. Whining about something when it is already set in place virtually always does no good. The one exception is if a piece is broken. If it is, then play it/against it as much as possible - share the results. If it is dominantly overpowered, then it is negative for the game. If it simply counters an ability you like, then you must challenge yourself to find something else that works.

One other thing I try to be extremely vigilant about is designing pieces we want to play. That should of course happen! Here's where the caution comes in. We should not design a piece that we want to play in the GenCon champs next year. Fun pieces we want to play? Yes! Pieces that make us want to play new factions? Yes! But it is extremely dangerous to design a power 9-10 piece in the faction you love and think to yourself; this will be the piece you play to try and win it all. Robin Hood design, remember, not making the rich richer? In 2016 I went undefeated through Swiss at the GenCon championship. All throughout the design of set 14 I asked myself and the other designers - would this make my squad better? If so - it's too strong. What are counters to the squad that are needed? If anything looks like a Thrawn swap piece that would improve my GenCon squad - I strongly spoke out against it. (Just as an example). We actually ended up creating multiple (soft) counters that would help compete against that squad. As a player I try and find the best combination and exploit it to the limit. I design in the exact opposite way. I literally design to counter myself as a player. If I would love to play it in a competitive tournament, I will intentionally weaken it until that is no longer the case.

Cream rises to the top. Design balanced pieces, and some will become great pieces through clever synergy and community hive mind squad building. Don't design the final puzzle piece to a tier 1 squad (on purpose).

That's all I got for now - can't wait to see where this crazy train of SWM goes from here.


I'll add the same addendum -

In the coming days I will make more threads detailing our process. I recognize that it probably opens us up to criticism of how we failed in certain aspects, but let's try to keep that to a minimum. We already have multi-page threads on very specific things some people don't like. The reason for this post (and others to follow) are simply to share our process.

Note - this post is obviously directly from me (TimmerB123), and though I tried to make it general, ideas from other designers on Any V-set may differ on some aspects. I welcome them to post their thoughts as well.

I am of course happy to answer any questions to the best of my abilities as well.

While long winded, its pretty much spot on as to the design of anything; the more time and thought that goes in, the better for the piece and input helps smooth out the rough edges. I hope all designers are as thorough.