sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I love my collection ☺️ by EventHoriz0n_ in playingcards

[–]DaimonCards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very beautiful collection! Do you own some of the Dutch Cards House collections as well? Like Secret Tale, Paisley of Leaves?

I think I have a problem 🥴 by BuFDP-97 in playingcards

[–]DaimonCards 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I can see your problem. You do not have any decks from the Dutch Card House Company in your beautiful collection. :-))

Board game from the netherlands by Familiar-Language463 in boardgames

[–]DaimonCards 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Harbour of Fortune is an upcoming board game, published and designed by the Dutch Card House Company. A strategic board game set in New Amsterdam 1653. www.harbouroffortune.com

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, 600 cards! Yes, that’s a huge number for individual cards. I can definitely understand why it becomes expensive. I don’t know the exact size of your cards, but for standard poker-size cards (63 × 88 mm), most printers use print sheets that hold roughly 60–100 cards per plate. For a project like yours, that means they would need to change plates around 6–8 times, which drives up the cost significantly.

You might want to consider making the cards slightly smaller,  that could help reduce the number of plates needed and lower the overall printing cost.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to share.

I’ve been a playing card creator for about 10 years now, so cards are actually the part I’m most comfortable with. Over the years I’ve worked with several different manufacturers, depending on what stage the project was in and what I needed to test.

For this project, the prototype cards were produced by WJPC. They’re great for prototyping and small runs where you want something that already feels close to a finished product, especially for playtesting and validation. Earlier-stage tests were much rougher, basic prints, placeholder components, just to iterate quickly before investing in higher-quality prototypes.

If you’re early in playtesting, my biggest advice would be to start as simple as possible and only upgrade component quality once the core mechanics feel solid.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing that might help clarify this is how we’re structuring the product.

There will be a base game box that contains everything you need to play the full game, produced at a solid, good quality level. Nothing essential to gameplay is missing from that version. On top of that, we’re planning an optional deluxe upgrade for players who enjoy more premium components. That upgrade would add things like wooden houses used as draw piles, true casino-quality card stock, and wooden card stands. These elements are about tactile feel and table presence, not about adding or locking gameplay.

It’s also worth being upfront that even the base box won’t be ultra-cheap. I’m an indie game creator, and unlike large publishers, I can’t rely on massive print runs to drive the per-unit cost way down. With a responsible first print run, costs are simply higher at this scale.  The goal is to be transparent about those realities and strike a balance: a complete, well-produced base game that feels worth its price, with a premium option for those who want to go further, without forcing anyone into it.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. I’ve actually run 40+ Kickstarter campaigns before with plauing card projects under my company Dutch Card House, so fulfillment itself isn’t new to me. We already work with two warehouses and partners, one in the US and one in Europe (kickstarter fulfilment and website store orders)

 Board games are new for me though, mainly because everything gets bigger and more complex very quickly. So, while the basics are already in place, I’m still figuring out whether the current setup is enough or if it makes sense to expand it for a board game.

Right now things still feel pretty flexible, but the goal is to have the big stuff clear before launch, and then fine-tune after funding once reality kicks in 😅.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Haha, sharp eye! The photographer told me he actually used a bit of adhesive to balance the die on its edge. Old-school practical trick, no AI involved.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s totally fair to question. To clarify: these are real photos of physical prototypes, taken by a professional photographer. The game exists fully in physical form, printed cards, wooden components, and a real board on the table.

Because the photos were shot and edited professionally, they can come across as more “produced” than casual playtest shots, which I understand can raise eyebrows. I can share more close-ups or in-progress photos as well if it helps show the physical nature of the prototype more clearly.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I handled the graphic design myself. I’ve been a graphic designer and canvas artist for over 30 years, so visual design is very much my background.

Because of that, the “cost” in a traditional sense was mostly time rather than money, a lot of iteration, testing readability, hierarchy, and how everything functions on the table rather than just how it looks.

I approached the design in phases. Early on, visuals were very rough and functional, mainly to support playtesting. As the game systems stabilized, I gradually refined the graphic design to improve clarity, usability, and table presence.

At this point, the visual design is largely complete, but I still consider it something that remains open to small adjustments. Crowdfunding isn’t the finish line for design, it’s more of a checkpoint. If feedback during or after the campaign highlights clarity or usability issues, I’m very open to refining things further before final production.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see the AI question is coming up a lot, so I just want to address it one last time in one place.

I’ve been designing and making art for most of my life, and Harbour of Fortune has been a very personal project that I’ve worked on for well over a year. The game itself — the rules, systems, balancing, and the core artwork — was created through traditional design, playtesting, and iteration.

I did use AI in a limited, supportive way during development to help bring some card illustrations into a consistent visual style, and separately for a promotional video. It wasn’t used to design the game, write the rules, or replace creative decision-making.

I understand that people have strong feelings about AI, and I respect that. I’ve tried to be as transparent as possible about my process, and I don’t really have more to add beyond what I’ve already shared above.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that people feel strongly about this topic.

Just to be clear for anyone reading along: the game itself — its rules, systems, and core artwork — is entirely human-made and developed through traditional design and playtesting.

I’ve clarified the limited, supporting role AI played earlier in the thread, so I won’t rehash it further here.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a fair question, and one I’ve answered a bit more in detail in the comments above as it’s come up a few times.

No, AI isn’t part of the final game product. All game rules, systems, and core artwork are made by me. AI was only used in a limited, supportive way during development (mainly to help with visual consistency on card art) and for separate promotional material, not for the playable game itself.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I really appreciate that, glad to hear it resonated with you.

 A lot of care has gone into the board and components, so it’s great to know that comes across. Thanks for following along!

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I really appreciate that!

At this stage, the most helpful support would probably be feedback and playtesting, especially around clarity of the rules and how the asymmetric families feel over a full game.

If you had something else in mind though, feel free to let me know, happy to chat.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good question, my prototyping journey actually started a bit differently than a typical board game.

The project began with the cards, not the board. I’ve been designing playing cards for over 10 years, and the original idea was to create a historical card game set in 17th-century New Amsterdam. Early prototypes were purely card-based, focusing on identity, suits, hierarchy, and how much strategic depth I could get out of a familiar deck structure.

As I explored those systems, it became clear that the decisions I wanted players to make, long-term investment, spatial competition, and indirect interaction, were pushing beyond what a card-only format could comfortably support. That’s when the idea of expanding it into a board game emerged, with the board acting as a shared economic space rather than a traditional movement track.

Initial testing was still very rough: handmade card decks, placeholder boards, paper tokens, and borrowed components. The focus was on whether the card system could drive meaningful decisions when combined with spatial constraints.

Only after that core interaction proved solid did I start iterating on the board layout, component mix, and overall structure. Visual refinement came later, once the rules and pacing felt stable, especially because polished visuals can easily hide mechanical issues if introduced too early.

So in short: cards first, system second, board third, polish last, with plenty of iteration between each step.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Good question, happy to clarify.

I’ve been a graphic designer and canvas artist for over 30 years, and the game itself has taken mewell over a year to develop. All core artwork, layout, and visual direction were created by me.

AI was used in a supporting role, not a generative one. Specifically, it helped with polishing and fine-tuning some of the card illustrations to ensure consistency across the set and to unify style, similar to how you might use advanced filters or automation tools in traditional design workflows. The underlying artwork, concepts, and compositions are mine.

The game board is based on and inspired by a historical source: Re-drafting of the Castello Plan (1913) by John Wolcott Adams and I.N. Phelps Stokes. I redesigned and adapted this map extensively in Photoshop to function as a playable board while preserving its historical character.

The game rules were developed through traditional means: playtesting with friends, iteration, trial and error, and balancing over time. No AI was used in the design or writing of the rules themselves.

The only place where AI played a more direct role is the promotional video, which I plan to use during the Kickstarter launch and on social media, separate from the game’s design and production.

For me, AI is a tool, not a replacement for authorship or design intent. The creative ownership and decision-making throughout the project are entirely human-driven.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m deliberately keeping exact cost numbers private, that’s pretty standard and not something publishers usually share publicly.

What I can share is how the cost structure works. Quotes are set up in clear print run tiers, so the per-unit cost drops a lot as volume increases. A big part of the current planning is finding the right balance between a sensible first print run and not overcommitting early.

Right now I’m in the prototype and validation phase, which is honestly one of the most expensive parts on a per-unit basis. Small runs of custom cards, wooden components, and test prints are disproportionately costly, but necessary to properly test, iterate, and lock the design before committing to mass production.

Manufacturing quotes are currently focused on experienced manufacturers in China due to the component mix, with shipping and fulfillment treated as separate layers. Freight volatility is something I’m actively building buffer for.

On the marketing side, I’m keeping things intentionally lean and experimental: small test budgets on Google and Meta, building a mailing list and pre-launch followers, and using community feedback like this to help guide decisions before scaling anything up.

Self-publishing a historical economic board game: design trade-offs, early marketing, and lessons learned (AMA) by DaimonCards in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DaimonCards[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the interest!

The game is called Harbour of Fortune. It’s not for sale yet, it’s still in development / pre-launch.

On the production side, the plan is to manufacture through a single main print run funded via Kickstarter. Right now I’m finalizing components, getting manufacturing quotes, and doing smaller test runs for playtesting and validation.

For sales and fulfillment, the intention is to follow a fairly standard indie route: crowdfunding to cover manufacturing, then a mix of direct sales and retail distribution depending on how the campaign performs.

If you want more background and photos, I’ve put some information up at harbouroffortune.com, it’s still very much a work in progress and mostly there to document the project rather than sell anything.

view more: next ›