u/Hour-Cranberry5300

I searched a few older threads here and in related board game design communities before posting this, and one thing that stood out to me is that “AI in board game design” is not really one topic. It seems to be several different topics that often get mixed together.

From what I found, the discussion often seems to collapse into “AI art: yes or no?”, but I’m curious about the broader workflow question. I’ve seen a few recurring distinctions come up:

- temporary prototype art vs. final/published art
- rules editing vs. having AI design the game for you
- brainstorming prompts vs. outsourcing creative decisions
- AI-assisted playtesting/simulation vs. human playtesting
- private prototypes vs. pitching, crowdfunding, or selling a game
- disclosure/transparency when AI is involved

For context, I’ve been experimenting with AI in parts of my own board game design workflow. Mostly things like tightening rules text, checking whether a rule explanation is ambiguous, generating edge-case questions, brainstorming terminology, and making rough prototype visuals based on my own sketches or ideas.

At the same time, my current feeling is that board game design is still an entertainment medium built around the emotional experience of play. AI can suggest directions, variations, mechanisms, edge cases, or wording improvements, but I don’t think it can meaningfully judge whether a game is actually fun to play, at least not in the way humans experience fun at the table. A rule idea can sound good in text and still fall completely flat once people actually play it.

So I don’t see AI as a replacement for designers, artists, editors, or playtesters. I see it more as a tool that can help me think through options faster, while the real test is still human play, table feel, and whether people actually enjoy the experience.

I’m more interested in the practical boundaries people actually use.

For designers who use AI:
What do you use it for?
What has been genuinely useful?
What turned out to be misleading, low-quality, or not worth it?
Where do you personally draw the line?

For designers who avoid AI:
Is your concern mainly ethical, legal, creative, quality-related or something else?
Are there any uses you consider acceptable, such as rules proofreading, placeholder assets, brainstorming, or accessibility support?

I’m especially curious whether people treat these cases differently:

1. AI for private solo prototyping
2. AI for playtest materials shown to other people
3. AI for publisher pitches
4. AI for crowdfunding
5. AI for final commercial products

I’d love to hear how people are thinking about this in practice.

I’m curious how other designers collect feedback after playtests.

Do you usually just talk with players after the game, or do you prepare some kind of form or template?

I’ve tried both, but I don’t have enough experience yet to know which approach works better. Verbal feedback feels natural and can lead to useful discussion, but it can be hard to compare across different sessions. On the other hand, forms make feedback easier to organize, but creating a separate form for every game or prototype version can feel like extra work, especially when the design is still changing quickly.

Do you use a standard set of questions?

Do you make a new form for each game?

Do you collect feedback differently for early prototypes vs later versions?

I’d love to hear what has actually worked for you in practice.

For me, the hardest part isn’t coming up with ideas.

It’s turning those ideas into something I can actually playtest with other people.

Getting from “this might be a fun mechanic” to “this is a playable game on the table” always feels like a bigger step than it should be. Between making components, setting up cards, figuring out layouts, and just making it usable for other players, I feel like I lose a lot of momentum there.

I’ve tried things like home printing, sleeves with paper inserts, and digital mockups, but they all seem to introduce their own kind of friction.

I feel like there’s this awkward gap between “I have a game idea” and “I can actually test this with people.”

Curious what part of that process frustrates you the most.

For me, it might be Viticulture.

I really respect the game. The theme is stylish, the vineyard/wine production flow feels elegant, and I especially love these little transparent grape and wine components. I also think the “parent cards” at the start are a funny and interesting system, almost like being born into the right family in vineyard life.

But for some reason, I just can’t seem to win this game. I still have fun when I lose, but the “I respect this game” feeling is stronger than the “I love playing this game” feeling for me.

I usually enjoy a pretty wide range of games, from light party-style games to heavier strategy games, so I don’t think it’s just “not my type.” Maybe Viticulture and I simply have a complicated relationship.

What’s a game you respect more than you actually enjoy playing?