Puzzle Game Forum

This is a forum to discuss a puzzle game that Alan Stone is working on. The conversation will happen in the comments section, so feel free to subscribe to the comments to get e-mail notifications as people share their thoughts.

Leave a Comment

69 Comments on “Puzzle Game Forum

  1. I love puzzle games while my friends tend to plat RPGs. They consider that puzzle games are for kids only, But, no. Puzzle games help me to relax and have some energy to start a day. I got some from top1apk so that i can play on subway. I also spend 5 min break at office to play puzzle games online becuase i can’t downlaod all to my phonne.

  2. Alan,

    I have found that it is very difficult to get accuracy when die-cuting an image. PandaGM is reluctant to give more than 1.5mm accuracy between cut line and image. This is a tricky point when we are talking about such small pieces as in a jigsaw. and when we are talking about putting marks or specific patterns on each piece. have that in mind and try not to relay on accuracy that much. (as in use large pieces)

    I am contacting Wentworth puzzles in the UK to see if they can do prototypes. theirs are the best quality Puzzle I have seen. (but expensive) maybe they will also be able to make a luxury line of puzzles.

    Prototypes on jigsaw puzzle can be expensive to do if you have an specific cut pattern in mind.

  3. Oops, a couple of errors and important omissions in my last comment.

    Kept tiles are discarded on the next turn of the player, whether they are used or not.

    If a space on the marker trail is blocked by another player the pawn moves forward or backward to the next free space of the designated color.


    I used a score pattern of 1, 3 and 5 for the marker board, resulting in a distribution of 16 red, 48 green and 80 yellow. This was done to reflect my initial idea of linking the distribution to the 4, 12 and 20 distribution of the squares in a 6×6 board (4 centre squares, 12 in the first ring and 20 in the outer ring).

    I left it in to speed up the game through larger forward jumps and because it was a rush design example. The pattern is reflected in the color distribution of the tiles, but it doesn’t match the distribution of colors on the D6 – which is 1, 2 and 3.

    If the color distribution on the tiles was brought into line with the D6 it would result in 24 red half circles, 48 green circles and 72 yellow circles. Looking at it again, this would probably be a better distribution option.

    The game wouldn’t be lengthened by that much and the presence of more 3 color spaces on the spiral marker trail would create more interesting choices in regard to which tiles a player rolls for (in respect to the outcomes arising from their placement).

    … back to wrapping presents.

  4. I read through the outline/comments and found the initial idea and the responses very interesting. After a bit of quick thinking about possible suggestions I came up with some ideas. Instead of commenting with each idea I bundled them all together in the form of a rough and ready game design. It was a simpler way to give an impression of how various ideas link up. Hope some of the elements in it are of use.

    I popped a picture of the game components on the BGDF.



    The game components include 36 square tiles and 6 dice, with 3 yellow faces, 2 green faces and 1 red face. Each player receives 3 pawns for movement on the spiral marker board and scoring. A playing board with a 6×6 grid is optional.

    Game Play

    On their turn the player takes the 6 dice and they roll them. Having rolled the dice a player can re-roll any number of the dice by discarding 1 dice. Discarding 2 dice will lower their total dice to 4, which is the minimum dice they can have (giving a total roll allowance of 3 rolls).

    During the rolls the players are attempting to roll color results that match with the colors on the tiles. If a player matches all 4 of the colored half circles on a tile with four of their dice results they can take the matching tile.

    Tiles can be taken from the general supply or they can be taken from those that have been played to the gaming area (or the board if it is used). A player can only take a tile from the central gaming area if it is not wholly enclosed by other tiles, it must have at least one edge free.

    When a player takes a tile from the general supply they can add it to the tiles in the central gaming area. When a tile is added one of the half circles on one of its edges must color match with the half circle on the edge of an existing tile in the central area. If a placed tile borders more than one of the existing tiles in the central area all of the edges that touch must color match.

    When a player takes a tile from the central area they can return it to the general supply or keep it in hand. When a player keeps a tile in hand they can use it to pre-set four of the dice to match the colors on the tile, before they begin rolling. A player can only keep one tile in hand at any one time.

    Completed circles earn the player movement points. A player can use these points to move one of their pawns forward on the spiral marker trail or the pawn of another player backwards. The player moves the pawn forward to the next color circle on the spiral marker board that matches the completed circle they formed by adding their tile. So if a player completes a red circle they can move their pawn forward to the nearest red circle or the pawn of another player back to the nearest red circle.

    If a player completes multiple circles by adding a tile they can move once for each circle. They can choose to translate their completed circles into movement in any order.

    A player can only have one pawn on the spiral marker trail at any one time. When the pawn of a player reaches the last position it is removed from the board and placed in the players score pile. They are then free to move their next pawn.

    The game ends when any player succeeds in moving all of their pawns to their scoring area or when there are no more tiles left to take. In the first case the player who moved all their pawns to their scoring area is the winner. In the second case the player that is closest to achieving this is the winner. This can be quickly determined by looking at which player has the most pawns in their scoring area. In the event of a tie the player furthest along the marker trail with their in play pawn is the tie break winner.


    The tiles can be placed in a free form pattern or a board could be included to limit placement.

    Instead of restricting the dice rolls each player could have 30 seconds to roll, win and place as many tiles as they can (this would be measured by a sand timer).

    The tiles could be double sided.

    The movement of pawns on the spiral marker board could be restricted. If an intended forward move would place a pawn on an occupied space the player moves to the next free space (or, alternatively, they can’t move). If an intended backward move (affecting another player) would land them on an occupied space they are moved back to the next free space. If no free spaces are available at all they return to the start.


    This game design is only a couple of hours old and it hasn’t been play tested in any way shape or form. I may get time to make and test it this weekend, but I will be very busy wrapping presents for the next few days :)

  5. Thanks to all who commented! The forum seems to be winding down. I think we have a good idea of how to proceed. I am going to wait to make a video until we decide for sure what we want to do. If a video is made, I’ll definitely give those on this list a heads up. I still welcome comments and will respond, but I don’t want everyone returning to see if the video has been posted.

  6. I love this idea for a game. Would be a quite filler-ish game but could also be a gateway for new gamers. I could also see this having expansions that can selectively be added in to make things more strategic such as special powers from placement of specific pieces etc.

    But without any changes I love the idea of a game like this. One way to make it cooler, use pictures of art from board games…

    And yes, I am a puzzle kind of player so this spoke to me rather quickly. If you need playtesters, hit me up. Would love to play it and give you feedback.

  7. 1. Definitely interested.
    2. Same as some of the above, though in my case I have a rotating pool of people that get together roughly whenever schedules allow. I could definitely see springing it on some of them though :P

  8. I like the idea of a competitive puzzle with a timing element. I don’t have a gaming group, so I can’t say if it’s something I’d pull out regularly, but it seems new and interesting to me. One thought I had–it’d be cool if a set of 5 puzzles could also be combined to make one larger, awesome puzzle (or in some way some of the pieces could combine with pieces from other puzzles and some would be “duds,” which would create an interesting element as well).

  9. one way of incrementing the interactivity between players will be to limit the amount of pieces that can be set down any given moment. You could do that if you do a narrow puzzle.

    lets imagine a puzzle of 6 by 50 pieces. and you star at a narrow side and build the puzzle towards the other narrow side. at any given moment there will be anything between 6 to 9 pieces to set down at any given moment. therefore if a player finds a piece that he could use while the others are playing. there is still a good chance that another player will play it before his turn comes. therefore you will have a kind of Bingo feeling going on in which you are hopping that nobody else discover your piece.

    there could be to ways of playing. you could allow players to pick up their next piece even when it is not their turn. or you could put a rule in which only the player in turn can touch pieces. it will be different ways of playing but in any case it will give interaction.

  10. I found out that the idea of the competitive jigsaw puzzle can produce quite an intense gameplay. but It is more like a Race game. It is difficult to introduce interaction between the players, as everybody is busy looking for their own pieces. in this game the players will be looking for pieces even on the others turn. nor does the pieces that other players put down matter to much. especially if there is a large number of pieces you can put down.

    Also strategy is difficult. for strategy you need choice and introducing choice on a jigsaw puzzle, I found it difficult. as pieces only have one place where they belong the only choice will be which piece to look for.

    A game that it is only about racing. and there is little or no interaction or strategy is not so good. one gets tired of it quite fast. You will need to find ways of introducing as much interaction and strategy as possible. If you try to do it with rules you might make the game slower.

  11. How do you start the game? a random player puts a piece of their choice? and then other players connect to this piece? if this is the case the puzzle starts very hard as there is only a few pieces to find at the beginning. You could solve this with a bespoke die-cut which has a large starting piece somewhere in the center.

    Does this puzzle then grows in one single “island” or is there the chance to put non connected pieces somehow?

    if you write a value on all pieces the image of the puzzle will suffer. so I believe a majority of the pieces should have a no mark/nominal value on then

    Would a player spend his whole minute looking for a high value piece? it sound like the more serious players will use their whole time to make sure they pick the right piece. that could spoil the game.

    how are you planing to measure time? sounds messy. people will start to forget to start a clock on each and every turn.

    my puzzle has 216 pieces, and was designed to be as easy as possible to do (or so I think) it takes 24ish minutes to finish by one person. Something very funny I found is that the time to do it, does not goes down much at all with 2 players. but this might be because of my rules.

  12. Hi All,

    As I told Alan before, I am also developing a competitive Jigsaw puzzle. So this forum is amazing for me. Yes I am interested on this game.

    I had the opportunity to test a few of my own ideas with some prototypes already. I will drop some ideas now. But first, I do not understand very well the scoring idea you are proposing. nor the branching concept? Could you please clarify this a bit?

  13. I think a video demo would be very helpful in understanding the concepts of basic game play. One thing that is confusing me is that you build the scoring track as part of the puzzle? What happens if you don’t build the scoring track first? Or is every piece part of the track? Is it possible to gain more points and not have enough of the scoring track built to actually keep score. The second thing that is confusing is that you mention grabbing a random piece to put pressure on your opponent to place their piece faster. What if that random piece you grab doesn’t fit with any part of the puzzle that is currently built? Say its a corner piece and you place it in the corner you think it is in, but later have to move it slightly to connect some pieces together. Do you get points for laying a lone corner? If you have to move it to connect to other pieces is it considered “the right spot?”

    To answer the above questions:

    1) I joined this forum because of my wife. She loves puzzles. I do puzzles, but am not they kind of guy that is like “ya lets do a puzzle!” However, I am competitive and I love boardgames. So I think this would be something both my wife and I would enjoy.
    2) There are other members of my family (puzzle people) who would really like this. I like that game play is not to long, but the option for a longer game is nice (no more than an hour is my vote).

    In regards to the ideas above:
    Idea 1 is great. It would require strategic timing and could really affect the way you play the game/build the puzzle.
    Idea 2 is good for more than 2 players as long as it doesn’t lead to 2+ players ganging up on the initial leader and leaving them in the dust.
    Idea 3 I’m not really sure how this would work unless it is possible to finish the game without completing the puzzle. I assume both teams would have an even number of there shade of puzzle pieces. So if the puzzle is complete wouldn’t both teams tie?
    Idea 4 is good. Anything that can help a non-puzzle person keep up with a good puzzle person is nice for balance and will keep me from getting destroyed.

    I could see RPG-like spinoffs of this puzzle/game with traps, artifacts/treasure and bonuses for the specific type of character you choose.

    I like the overall idea assuming what I am picturing in my head matches what your thinking. Again a video would help!

      1. Hi Chad, It is indeed a jigsaw puzzle. Also, you cannot place a piece in open space, it has to connect to another piece. If the track isn’t built you can’t get your score unless there’s room on the track that has been built so far. This tends to encourage that the outside of the puzzle be built first. Also, on the point of picking a random piece, you still have an educated guess that a piece will fit somewhere near the area based on colors etc. Again, this isn’t a super large puzzle because you want it to be fun for everyone, not just the intense puzzle crowd.

    1. Regarding Idea 3: There would be two copies of each puzzle piece (one of each of the two shade) and they’d be all mixed up. Since you’re on a time limit you might end up only finding the piece you need in the opposing team’s color, and so you might place that to help yourself, even though it hurts your team. Thus the split of shaded pieces placed probably wouldn’t be 50-50.

      As I understand it there are also turns where a player runs out of time or fails to place a piece correctly and doesn’t place a piece and thus one team might get to place more pieces than the other.

      The alternate suggestion of having the winner be the team that had created the longest line of their own shade, would likely be better at avoiding the 50-50 issue.

  14. #1: Yes, it sounds very intriguing!
    #2: Possibly. I’m not sure how many of my friends enjoy puzzles, but I’m sure they’d be up to give it a try.

    Questions: How do you start? Is there a piece that is the starter piece, or does the person that goes first automatically get points for just setting their first piece of the puzzle? Or does it have a base, with the pieces outlined (or indented) on it?

    Are the other pieces just randomly scattered across the table face-up for the “draw pile”?

    Will the “picture” itself, making sense, be the determining factor of whether the piece fits or not, or will each piece have different connection types?

    Will you be able to score points if the scoring track section isn’t put together?

    Hope these are valid questions, as I’m also having a hard time wrapping my head around what it would look like. :)

    1. Great questions Denise. You start with the left most side of the puzzle already built to x pieces based on puzzle size so there’s already room for scoring early and a bit of the puzzle complete to add to.

      The draw pile is set with all the pieces face up for the current version. In larger versions I could see the backs being shaded differently so the game could be played in rounds.

      Puzzles are fun, in part, due to great pictures! While we’re toying with ideas like abstract puzzles, for the most part the intent is to use beautiful scenes. I think a game just based on shapes of pieces would be quite difficult and potentially less fun.

      You can only score to the end of the scoring track, if a piece isn’t there you can’t move your meeple onto that spot until it’s built. Stay tuned for the video, we can’t do it tonight. Hopefully tomorrow night.

  15. I’m definitely interested in a game like this, but I’m trying to determine how well the mechanics work. The idea of losing my turn if I try a wrong piece means I need to be pretty sure where it goes before I try it. For me, that leads to hovering the piece over possible areas. I wonder if it would work better if I weren’t allowed the pick the piece up while looking for its location. Maybe I select the piece, place it in a little space in front of me, then start looking. Then I declare where it is going within the 1 minute time limit.

    Would the game work if both players were trying to place their pieces simultaneously? I know it’s good to keep both players engaged, but I’m not sure if this is necessary since the other players would be planning their next moves.

    1. Currently the game is set up in a way that you are not allowed to hover. So yes, you have to be pretty sure that your piece is going to work. That said you have time to hold your piece and look over the board, which certainly takes a bit of self control. It does make puzzling a more deliberate action, but we haven’t found it to be cubersome. My wife and I both believe it makes us faster at putting puzzles together because we don’t get stuck on that one piece that just won’t fit. Also, losing your turn is not the end of the world, it happens several times in a game to each player but things still seem to even out.

  16. Here’s a thought on scoring…
    What if the scoring track had a series of symbols (circle, triangle, square, star, etc.) in different frequencies. The pieces would have those symbols on them, with the frequency of the symbol on the scoring track correlating to the difficulty of the piece. This would add a unique challenge of finding a piece that you need to move as far as possible on the scoring track. Sometimes an easy piece will help you advance more, but usually a harder piece is going to move you farther.

    1. That is the idea, Craig. Currently we’re working with different colored spots on each piece that don’t betray the direction the piece should be played as some symbols might do. I am looking for a clever way to do the scoring track because a sequence of numbers poses the same problem and also adds a paint by numbers puzzle completion problem. One possibility is that the scoring track spirals around the entire board so points aren’t as important as distance traveled. We’ll see how that plays out.

  17. 1. Yes. I like the idea of making a puzzle competitive.

    2. At first definitely. Then, as we learn the puzzle, it will depend on how well it remains challenging with people who kind of know the puzzle and others who are playing for the first time.

    What are you planning on making the pieces out of? Standard puzzle pieces are very fragile, especially if you have one of the terrors of puzzledom (cats, small children, etc.) in the house.

    1. You’re correct Sterling, many puzzles can be a bit fragile. However, as a children’s counselor, I have several that have taken quite a beating over the past few years and are still holding up. I’m confident we can find a solid enough material to hold up for several plays.

      As for replayability the idea of several in a box should help folks get many plays out of one puzzle as they can play one once then go to another to essentially forget what they learned about the puzzle after several plays. On the other hand, for two players it has been quite a bit of fun getting better at the puzzle and going faster and faster to complete it.

  18. I think the idea of a game you can play in one sitting is good. However, I also love the concept of having a much larger puzzle that you could set up and play over a few days–like during a family holiday or something. Perhaps if multiple puzzles are included in one box, they could be different sizes to allow for different time lengths of play?

    1. Yes, this is the plan MIke. The rules would likely be a bit different, but it should still be fun. My wife and I both have memories of the “vacation puzzle” where the family put it together over a week. Nothing wrong with adding a little competition to a family gathering.

  19. I can’t quite get my head around what this is other than it’s a jigsaw puzzle (which I do enjoy doing). I think a picture or series of pictures (or video) of an actual game would help, so we could see the progression as the game plays out. I’m having problems with ‘seeing’ how this game plays and have tons of questions, but without a lot of hand waving a pointing, I have no idea how to ask them or phrase them without knowing what it is I am asking about.

  20. Idea 4: The alternate version of puzzle pieces mentioned in Idea 3 could instead be traps that hinders the first player to step on the puzzle piece (the trap wouldn’t affect the next players to pass the trap). It should be visually obvious which pieces are traps and which aren’t.

    Since the traps would only trigger for the first player to pass them and those who’re behind would want to place traps in front of the leading player, while the leading player would want to place the non-trap version of the same puzzle piece, and the traps would work as a catch up mechanism.

    The traps might also combine well with the branching path idea mentioned in Idea 2.

    1. I think all these ideas are intreaguing, Morton, but I like the trap idea the most. Keeping the game close is lots of fun, and there’s less concern about screwing the leader because even if they hit the trap they are still in the lead because no one has built beyond that. What this does is hel prevent the runaway leader.

  21. Idea 3: There could be two differently shaded versions of all or some puzzle pieces corresponding to two teams. At the end there would be a bonus to all players on the team who got most of their pieces placed or the bonus could be to the team who had formed the longest line of pieces of their shade.

    If you spot a piece you need in the opposing team’s color you’d have a dilemma whether to place it or not and there’d be tension within each team, where it could be in one player’s best interest to do what helps him and sometimes ignore the team color, but if everyone in the team does this while the other team cooperates then everybody on the first team would lose.

  22. Idea 2: The track could branch temporarily (and later join up again). This could provide a catch up mechanism, since the player who’s ahead would reach the branching point first, and thus have to make the decision on which branch to take first, and he’d then risk the other players taking the other branch, and thus he’d be alone in building the branch he’s on, while all the others would cooperate on placing puzzle pieces on their branch.

    1. The idea of a branching score track is kind of cool but, on the other hand, I can see the irritation it might cause. If there’s two 15 point spaces why can’t I move to the one that lets me move up? Perhaps if there was a way to use your un-claimable VPs to shift branch might make the catch-up mechanic less screw the leader.

      1. The scoring track is already a bit precarious for the leader as they have to build to score, wheras someone who is five points behind can catch up easier by scoring a higher point piece. However, if someone creates their own branch they are going to be in the same predicament as the leader, plus they are taking a track through the middle of the puzzle which is going to be more difficult than putting together edge pieces. Of course this will need to be play tested but I think Morton’s idea could add a fun component to the game.

  23. Hi Alan

    I’ll recap some of the ideas I mentioned to you on mail, so that others can chime in. I’ll do it with one post per idea, so that we can keep things separate.

    Idea 1: Players could gain bonus points for placing the puzzle piece that completes a specific part of the picture.

  24. It does sound intriguing. My fiancé is more of the puzzle enthusiast; however, this would definitely provide us incentive to complete one together. I could see it hitting the table, if it was only 20-30 minutes in length. In fact, it might be nice, if it included different size puzzles that averaged different lengths to complete. If that were the case, the corresponding puzzle could be selected based upon the desired amount of play time/players.

  25. I’d be interested in trying it with my group. We do a wide variety of games and it sounds like it could be fun. Also, one of my games works with young children after school and it might be interesting for youngsters to play something simple. It sounds like it could be a good family type game.

    1. Todd, my heart sank a bit just now. I looked to see if there was anything like this going on anywhere and I didn’t come accross it, but this is a similar concept. If we go further we’ll have to see if this is too much like what we’re working on.

        1. 700 pieces would make for a long game. Shorter is better but maybe 20 minutes is too short? Maybe you could mix multiple small puzzles together to have a bigger game?

      1. I remembered seeing a video from one of the big conventions last year where they showed it off but I can’t find it online. There is very little info about the games online that I can find. connectwithpieces.com shows several different sets that are available but no real info.
        I like the idea making a game of puzzlemaking, so I hope this doesn’t mean an end to this project

  26. I’m definitely interested. My regular gaming group probably wouldn’t be that interested but like DR said, I could get my girlfriend to play. We both enjoy jigsaw puzzles.
    How many pieces are the puzzles? If the game plays in 20 minutes, they would have to be rather small and my biggest concern would be the difficulty level. And can you balance it so that people of different skill levels can compete?

    1. The puzzles are relatively easy compared to something adults might do when not competing, so that helps. The timer also definitely balanced the games that we’ve played. One strategy is to grab a piece quickly without giving much thought to where it will go to put pressure on your opponent. Then while they are sweating over their move, you have time to study the puzzle and consider it’s placement before committing to a spot. The current rule is you can’t hover over the board with your piece you just have to study it from a far, but the game could be altered for less skilled players to give them more opportunity for trial and error.

  27. This intrigues me. So it’s still like a normal puzzle, but now it’s turn based, and each move you make can net you points as long as it fits beforehand? That sounds interesting, and more so if it has such a short play time. I’m kind of drawing a bit of Carcassonne from this, minus the meeple placement.

    Just a note on replayability. Have you considered perhaps, creating an abstract version of it? Like have 3 normal puzzles and the last puzzle just be made of colors and/or shapes and just have people just try to fit it together while conforming to the edges. Pieces with more complex edges may be worth more points or if you can match multiple traits (such as the sharp or the color of the edges) you’ll get more points? I’ll run along the same line as when I play Carcassonne with my girlfriend, we just pour all the pieces out and piece by piece put it together and once we are done, we just step back to admire it.

    And a small question, do you know if the pieces will be tiles (like Carcassonne or other flat sided tiles) or like jig saws?

    Thank you, looking forward to seeing this!

    1. Thanks RIcky!

      I definitely like the idea of an abstract version.

      As for the flat sided version, that could be interesting. The concern might be that it would be hard to know for sure that the pieces fit without the picture being very clear, with scoring being so quick I’m not sure we’d want there to be an question during the game.

      This is the fun of this idea though, in game publishing terms this would be easier, so many different versions and formats could be possible. There could even be rule variations for much larger puzzles so players could put them together over days keeping score with timed increments.

  28. Hei Alan. From the description, the game seems to be competitive, right? I would say that for this type of game, the best is some kind of collaboration, right? Otherwise you will not want to give hints to other players…or maybe I am getting this wrong? could you give some more details on the gameplay (secrecy allowing, of course)?

    1. MK, I think for most puzzles they are certainly collaborative so in order to create something unique we created something that is more competitive. You are working on the same project and therefore forced to cooperate in a way, however, this structure created a fun rivalry. I should point out that we were working with a relatively simple puzzle in jigsaw terms because we wanted it to be easy enough to find your pieces without having to search through 500 pieces, sort them, etc. Adding a speed component doesn’t require such a difficult puzzle to be challenging and fun for those who might want to prove who the best puzzler in the house is. (My wife and I are currently tied for that mark.)

  29. And to answer your two questions directly:
    1 – Heck yeah!
    2 – For me and my wife yes… as for others in my group I’ll have to ask around.

  30. I’m interested. Can you do a gameplay video to give us a better idea of how it works? I think it sounds like a lot of fun, but I can’t quite picture it.

  31. Hi everyone. Thanks for signing up for this discussion. To start off I’ll describe the game and then post a few questions to get things rolling.

    What I set up is a puzzle with a light strategic and competitive twist. We’ve only played a two player version but it should scale quite easily.

    The basic idea is a puzzle with a scoring track, there have been discussions of adding more strategic elements but the following is the main mechanic. Each puzzle piece is marked representing it’s value. Outer pieces are worth the least, inner pieces are worth more, the most difficult pieces are worth the most points. Players take turns picking a puzzle piece and attempting to place it. As a player places a puzzle piece they get to score and move up on the scoring track. The scoring track, being part of the puzzle, must be built as the game goes along. Players are restricted in that they choose one piece to place, and once they declare their spot it must fit or they lose their turn. Also, if it is your turn and your opponent has chosen their piece, player 2 has one minute to place their piece.

    So far my wife and I have played, and Jamey and I have played. We all found it to be fun and intense. It changes the focus of a puzzle from trial and error to being very deliberate and effecient. We initially had concerns about replayability but becoming better at a particular puzzle actually seemed to make the game faster and more intense. Also, we would likely put 4-5 puzzles in one box if we published something like this so folks could rotate through to make each puzzle last longer.

    As for the questions, we’re interested in hearing your feedback on a few things.

    1. Is this an idea, as a puzzle person, that excites you?

    2. If so is this something, provided you thought it was fun, that might hit the table on a game night as a 20 minute game between others?

    I look forward to your comments, and thanks again for all you do for us!


© 2020 Stonemaier Games