Game Designer Interview: Bruno Faidutti

Bruno Faidutti has been designing games for a long time, including Mystery of the Abbey, Spiel des Jahres nominee Citadels, and Lucca Games’ Best of Show winner Ad Astra. Most recently, his game Isla Dorada was co-published by Funforge and Fantasy Flight Games, and he took the time to answer some questions of mine about that game, and game design in general. Much thanks to Bruno for taking the time to respond to this interview.

Game Design

You’ve designed many, many games at this point, with varying degrees of success. What do you think needs to happen for a game design to be successful in this day and age? Are there games of yours that you think would have been more, or less, successful if they were published at a different time, or in a different way?

It’s really difficult to guess what game will be successful and what game will not, and I’m sometimes surprised by the reception of my games. Of course, it was probably easier to design a “successful” game ten years ago, when there were not that many game designers, when the gaming world was smaller and when, I think, the average technical quality of game designs was a bit lower. I’m astonished by not only the number of games published recently, but also by the number of good games. As a result, it seems that while a game still needs to be good – meaning interesting, well published and more or less original – it also needs to be lucky.

Let’s take an example from the last Essen fair. Troyes and Norenberc are both heavy management Eurogames, really well produced, with a similar medieval setting. Both are outstanding designs, and I can’t see a reason why one would be more successful than the other. However, since they are clearly aimed at the same rather small market niche, the buzz had to be for one and not the other. It happened to be Troyes, but it could have been Norenberc.

As for my own games, of course, there are many which, I think, could have been more successful.

Sometimes, I don’t really understand why, since I can’t see any flaw in the way they were published, and it seems to be just bad luck or bad timing. That’s the case for games like Castle, Key Largo, or Fist of Dragonstones. I rate them among my very best designs, but they didn’t sell very well and were soon abandoned. Castle sold very well in the first year, even more than Citadels, and then it was completely forgotten, probably outshone by the lasting success of Citadels. So, it’s a case of bad timing – I should not have had both games published at the same time. I hope that Castle gets a second chance.

Sometimes, I have my idea on why it didn’t work – but of course, I may be wrong. Let’s take two light games recently published by Fantasy Flight and which were not really noticed, Letter of Marque and SmileyFace. Letter of Marque is sold in a Citadels-size box and presented as an adult game, while SmileyFace is presented as a child’s game. It’s obvious for me that it should have been the reverse, and that SmileyFace worked better with its original setting.

Let’s take another example, Mission: Red Planet. It has good reviews, good ratings on the geek, but the sales were really modest, and even more in France than in the US. Maybe it’s the cyberpunk graphic style which is too geeky, even when I personally like it. Maybe it’s the mediocre components and the glossy box. I’m not sure, but it’s another game which, I think, could deserve a new edition.

Looking through your extensive list of designs, many of them are co-designs, and my personal favorite among them is Mission: Red Planet. However, in some of the reviews for it, the reviewer seemed to classify it solely as a “Bruno Faidutti game.” As a designer with some famous trademarks (characters, chaos), do you ever find your own voice “too loud” in a co-op design? What are the kinds of things you can point to in a co-design of yours and say, “That was really the hand of [the other author(s)]”?

I think the main point here is just that I’m designing games for much longer than Bruno Cathala, Antoine Bauza or Ludovic Maublanc. If Mission: Red Planet was published now, I think it would really be perceived as a game by the two Brunos. When it was published, Bruno Cathala was not as well known as he is now.

As for the loudness of my voice in co-designs, I think it really depends. Every design is a special case. I’d say indeed that my voice is probably stronger than Bruno’s in Mission: Red Planet, but it’s the reverse in Boomtown. And maybe he thinks the reverse…

It’s always difficult to say what is the work of each designer in a game,  especially in an old one. I don’t always remember, and it was not always really clear to start with, when many elements start from talk and talk. But it’s true that, once the core system of a game is finalized, I often want to add action cards. However, believe it or not, I think it was Serge’s idea to add the alien artifacts in Ad Astra, even when I then designed most of them.

As mentioned, some of your famous games have a chaotic element, and ways to directly attack other players. Some competitive personalities might find these elements frustrating, complaining that they make skill irrelevant. When you design a game, how do you balance “tests of skill” with “chaotic fun”?

With a game based purely on skill, there is always a risk that it will become more a contest, a kind of competitive exam to sort out who’s the best, rather than a game. This happens almost always in sport, and far too often in other skill games such as chess, go or even trivia games. For me, this breaks the game, because it breaks one of the core elements of gaming – the fact that the game issue is totally irrelevant once the game is over. That’s the reason why I totally stopped playing chess at eighteen, even when I was really good at it, because it felt less and less like a game.

On the other hand, if there’s no skill involved in a game, if it’s pure luck or pure chaos, you cannot even try to win and the game is just not challenging enough to get one’s attention.

So, I try to get the right balance – meaning my right balance – in my designs. I try to design games in which the best skilled player is more likely to win, but never certain to win. One can do this with relying on cards or dice probabilities, or on interaction with other players. I try to use both. For me, a good game is a game in which the winner can think he won because he played well, and the losers can think they lost just because they were unlucky. And it’s even better if they are all right.

Your ludopathic gatherings have produced several fine up-and-coming designers (Sebastien Pauchon, Antoine Bauza)… who should we look out for next?

That’s a good question. I’ve no new name to give. Maybe it’s just that I am getting old, as are most of the attendants at my gathering, and the young promising designers are now somewhere else. Or maybe I’ll have a name to give you in May, who knows.

Although you’ve indicated that you won’t be designing as frequently in the near future, can you give us any hints about projects still in the pipe? Or any games of yours you’d like to see reprinted?

I’ll try not to forget anything… Bugs & Co is a very light, real time action and memory game I designed with Tom and Yako, the authors of Jungle Speed. It should arrive in February. It’s not the game of the century, but it is good light fun and will probably sell like hell.

You wrote that “chaotic fun” is my trademark, so The King of Dwarves ought to be viewed as the archetypal Faidutti. It’s a fun and chaotic trick taking game, a distant cousin of Whist, Hearts, or Black Maria with many special cards and ever changing game goals. I know there are many designer trick-taking games, but it’s my first attempt at this genre, and I’m quite proud of it.

There will be a new edition of Dragon’s Gold, and by the same publisher a completely new board game, a light racing game which can be seen as something like “Citadels meets Candyland”.

Isla Dorada

You’ve stated that you believe Isla Dorada is the best game you’ve ever done. What makes it the cream of the crop?

Let’s be fair – I always tend to think that my very last design is the very best one. But I have this feeling more strongly than ever in Isla Dorada, and it’s probably the first time I still regularly want to play one of my games after it has been published.

Look at the Isla Dorada page on BoardGameGeek. The game has an average rating of 6.81 (as of this morning), which is quite good, but not outstanding. But if you look at the rating comments page, you’ll see one word regularly repeated – fun. That’s probably the point. A game doesn’t have only to be fun. It must also be immersive, challenging, etc… But when it’s fun, it’s a fantastic plus, and Isla Dorada is always fun to play.

Another reason I’m really engrossed with this design is that it has been a very long work, on which I’ve been for about ten years, of which there have been dozens of versions with different themes, and the final product feels like an achievement for me. I don’t see anything I would have made differently. Well, maybe slightly smaller figures. And maybe it would have been great to have the graphics of the board before designing the destiny cards, so as to make a better use of some board features, such as the shipwrecks, but that’s a very, very minor issue.

A third reason, which might have to do with the fact that it is based on Ulysses and Elfenland, is that it feels a bit like the classic German-style games from a few years ago, like Ticket to Ride, Elfenland, Settlers of Catan, a style of game I really like. The result is that, while there’s no really new game system or idea in Isla Dorada, it feels paradoxically fresh and different among the more recent Eurogames, which are often either serious management games, or complex card-combo games.

I understand that the three other designers on the box are there more because they were inspiration than anything else, as this game is largely a hybridization of Elfenland and Ulysses. While merging the mechanics from these two games, how did you go about making the game your own? (Apart from, obviously, the character cards… ) What input did you get from the other designers, if any?

I’ve told this story a few times, including on my website. This game started from an idea for playing Ulysses on the Elfenland board, end evolved from there into a different game played on a different board but which still looks and feels a bit like both Ulysses and Elfenland. I am quite happy to read on many reviews that it feels like “typical Faidutti”, even when it’s not really intended as praise, because it means indeed that it has become maybe not more, but at least something else than the sum of its parts, and I think it’s not only the action cards, it’s also the global balance, the variety of the destiny cards, the general meanness of the game.

As for the other designer’s input, from Alan I got mostly encouragements – but quite regular and consistent ones. Andrea and PierGiorgio were more involved, especially in the last stages of the design, for the design and tuning of the various cards.

You’ve expressed on your website your distaste for the “common bidding variant” in the rulebook, saying that you prefer the rules as written. Do you feel that the game is as finely tuned as it could be, or are there any tweaks you wish you had made? In particular, some possible buyers are paranoid that the Panda and Samedi cards are too powerful. What would you say to persuade them otherwise?

They should have seen the original Panda card, which the publisher thought – rightly – too powerful and urged me to modify…

I like “take that” cards in a game when their use doesn’t feel arbitrary or random.  With both Panda and Samedi cards, one can choose one’s target. This means that the card is usually targeted at the perceived leaders, which has a balancing effect. It’s a simple, fun and efficient way to balance a game. Also, especially in a rather light game like Isla Dorada, “take that” cards are always fun because they bring action and tension to the game, without being mean and frustrating like they can be in heavier and more serious game.

One of the primary appeals of this game is the gorgeous, stunning artwork (both on the cards and the board). Did you interact with these artists at all? Can you talk a bit about your experiences with the artwork and components?

All the contact with the artists was made by the French publisher, Philippe, and I almost never interact directly with the artists.

Of course, I’m glad the game is so well published and illustrated, because I know from experience how important it is for the success of a game. I don’t think Citadels would have been as successful as it is without the fabulous artwork on the cards, and think Naiiade’s cards and Gorg’s board will really help this game being successful. I hope I’ll have more games illustrated by them in the future. Actually, Naiiade made some of the graphics for Bugs & Co.

Any strategies you’d like to share with us on playing the game?

It’s not a really a strategy game…

Anyway, there’s one strategic error I’ve seen made by a few people in their first games. Usually, it’s better to keep destiny and treasure cards which seem to fit together, often in the same part of the board. There is one exception that many players miss: If you keep a destiny card which makes you want to end the game in a specific site, you ought not to keep treasure cards for this same site or for neighboring sites. If you try to fulfill your treasure cards in the first round, the expedition will be less likely to go there in the end. If you keep your treasure cards for the end, you can have them stolen, and you won’t have much to do in the first rounds.