[scj]

With the exception of board games that are related to existing games I already like, I treat Kickstarter as a negative signal for the first year.

Similar to a video game licensed movie, or a movie licensed video game; even if the title has elements I enjoy, I've been burned enough. Playing it is the only way I'll know I love it.

I can't even trust data collection on BGG, because typically the first wave of Kickstarter ratings are by people who have boarded the hype train. Followed by a re-alignment when people who are playing friends' copies step in.

Component quality bias, as well as cost bias are related (and typically compounded by Kickstarter) phenomena.

[aaanotherhnfolk]

I stopped kickstarting games too because I've had like a 10% hit rate.

One clear signal to me now is if they offer additional game mechanics as a stretch goal. It's hard enough balancing the base game and making it compelling. If a designer thinks they can do this not once but twice, and in a modular way no less, I question their design sensibilities in the first place.

It's possible that this is a flaw of kickstarting board games in general. The platform incentivizes stretch goals and they don't map well onto most board games.

[mcv]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Kickstarter is not intended for purchasing a proven product, but to fund a product that you believe in, that you think needs to be made. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, but this is what it's intended to be.

For boardgames, stretch goals should indeed not be about adding or changing mechanics; that's a red flag. Stretch goals should probably mostly be about better quality components. Wooden or plastic pieces instead of cardboard, metal pieces instead of wood or plastic, a nicer board, more art, that sort of thing.

Extra options can work if options are already a big part of the game, and these are options the designer seriously considered but left out because they're not essential and too expensive to include. More money could mean they now can afford the non-essential options they originally intended but couldn't afford. But completely new game mechanics are a massive red flag.

It's worth noting that stretch goals are the area where a lot of Kickstarter projects mess up. Their original idea was good, but it was too successful and they promised too ambitious stretch goals which were just in the idea stage and never got properly developed, and suddenly they find themselves having promised things they don't have time for. I think this is one of the primary reasons why successfully over-funded projects end up being late.

[aaanotherhnfolk]

Before Kickstarter existed I had read Brian Tinsman's The Game Inventor's Guidebook which explains how to navigate the business side of board game publishing. There's a lot of surprising hurdles a board game must pass, chief among them getting a publisher to agree to print and market your game. Kickstarter helped create an alternative path to publishing but didn't address other key takeaways from the book.

For example: the book talks about the economics of printing game components, warehousing product, and buyer price sensitivity. These all combine to create narrow bands of acceptability for game materials. Kickstarter doesn't change anything about these economics. But now there is no central publisher to steer you away from these predictable issues.

My point then, is that even fancier game components don't make good stretch goals. The high price a game can command on Kickstarter from enthusiasts won't translate to the avg shopper who sees it on a store shelf. And if you print a standard and deluxe edition of your game, you are not effectively capitalizing on Kickstarter preorders to de-risk printing, warehousing, and shipping costs.

It's best to make one game that meets the exacting demands of the Target store shelf if you want to maximize success. Exploding Kittens is probably the best example to date. And that game is not well received by the BoardGameGeek scene (for valid reasons) which highlights the disconnect between the social validation designers crave and market success.

[Lazare]

An often overlapping problem is designers splitting a game into "expansions" that they sell at launch as part of the KS. "Here's the core game, it's everything you need to play! Not too expensive right? ....but here's an expansion with some new races. And another with a new hero. And another with some new missions. They're totally optional, but if you don't back them now you'll never ever find them in retail. How much do you trust that we've put all the good bits in the core?"

Awaken Realms has been one of the worst offenders with this (both fake stretch goals and fake expansions) but their newest KS (Nemesis Lockdown) actually abandoned all that for timed feature announcements.

Hopefully the start of a trend.

[xmprt]

As someone who isn't a huge board game nerd, would additional cosmetics or characters be reasonable stretch goals? Characters might be harder to balance but if you have extra money, you might be able to invest more into it.

This is an approach similar to what a video game might do.

[tialaramex]

I don't kickstart board games but I do play a fair few of them (these days on https://boardgamearena.com/ but under other circumstances as physical tabletop games)

What you describe is a fairly common "promo" incentive, once upon a time you might get it in the version bought at a big event or that sort of thing, these days it'd be for Kickstarter backers.

Yes, you can make small customisations that don't significantly change gameplay, for example Viticulture is a game about owning a small vineyard and to add variation you get a "Momma" and "Papa" for your vineyard which tweak how much money or starting equipment you get plus they have names and little illustrations to give them personality. Maybe Papa Phil gives you slightly less money than Papa Eric but a piece of equipment that's worth the difference if you need it - having Papa Phil saves you taking an action buying the equipment with money, but if you don't use that equipment at first you're still short of the cost whereas someone playing Eric can spend it how they wish. Clearly having one or two extra Mamas or Papas as a promo isn't game breaking (so long as the designer doesn't add Papa Scrooge who has twice as much money as everybody else put together or suchlike). In fact Viticulture went with event cards for Promos, which is a bit trickier to balance, but seems to have worked OK in practice.

But often the correct way to design games is to simplify until it's good, not add more and more until playtesters would rather say it's great than risk being asked to waste another six hours on one more test session. Promo features fight that. Would Viticulture work fine with no Mamas and Papas? Yes it would. Would Can't Stop be better with fancy cosmetic player pieces instead of the typical generic ones? Er, no, not really. So such promotional features aren't very good for the hobby as a whole.

[njharman]

Improved components: nicer card stock, thicker cardboard, wood, metal etc.

Piece organizers, additional players expansion are also good stretch goals.

[NortySpock]

Even characters are a question mark in my opinion. Easier to balance than adding a game mechanic, but if you don't choose powers carefully, the synergies with other characters can be overwhelming or underwhelming.

Cosmetics would be where I would put the stretch goals at (like upgrading the coins to metal coins (remembering to adjust the shipping cost accordingly), upgrading the player tokens, etc), or very expensive t-shirts (as those print runs can also get complicated fast), or stickers or other "simple" swag.

Disclaimer: Have not run or funded a board game Kickstarter, only heard a podcast about one (https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/threes-a-crowdsourci...)

[eru]

That sounds more reasonable. It depends a bit on what kind of game you are making.

What would be an interesting stretch goal is someone promising to take the extra money to spend more time thinking hard on how to remove and simplify mechanics.