bmad-method 5.1.2 → 6.0.0-alpha.0

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project/workflow.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Brainstorm Project Workflow Configuration
+name: "brainstorm-project"
+description: "Facilitate project brainstorming sessions by orchestrating the CIS brainstorming workflow with project-specific context and guidance."
+author: "BMad"
+
+# Critical variables load from config_source
+config_source: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/config.yaml"
+output_folder: "{config_source}:output_folder"
+user_name: "{config_source}:user_name"
+date: system-generated
+
+# Module path and component files
+installed_path: "{project-root}/bmad/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/brainstorm-project"
+template: false
+instructions: "{installed_path}/instructions.md"
+
+# Context document for project brainstorming
+project_context: "{installed_path}/project-context.md"
+
+# CIS brainstorming workflow to invoke
+cis_brainstorming: "{project-root}/bmad/cis/workflows/brainstorming/workflow.yaml"

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/game-brief/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+# Game Brief Workflow
+
+## Overview
+
+The Game Brief workflow is the starting point for game projects in the BMad Method. It's a lightweight, interactive brainstorming and planning session that captures your game vision before diving into detailed Game Design Documents (GDD).
+
+## Purpose
+
+**Game Brief answers:**
+
+- What game are you making?
+- Who is it for?
+- What makes it unique?
+- Is it feasible?
+
+**This is NOT:**
+
+- A full Game Design Document
+- A technical specification
+- A production plan
+- A detailed content outline
+
+## When to Use This Workflow
+
+Use the game-brief workflow when:
+
+- Starting a new game project from scratch
+- Exploring a game idea before committing
+- Pitching a concept to team/stakeholders
+- Validating market fit and feasibility
+- Preparing input for the GDD workflow
+
+Skip if:
+
+- You already have a complete GDD
+- Continuing an existing project
+- Prototyping without planning needs
+
+## Workflow Structure
+
+### Interactive Mode (Recommended)
+
+Work through each section collaboratively:
+
+1. Game Vision (concept, pitch, vision statement)
+2. Target Market (audience, competition, positioning)
+3. Game Fundamentals (pillars, mechanics, experience goals)
+4. Scope and Constraints (platforms, timeline, budget, team)
+5. Reference Framework (inspiration, competitors, differentiators)
+6. Content Framework (world, narrative, volume)
+7. Art & Audio Direction (visual and audio style)
+8. Risk Assessment (risks, challenges, mitigation)
+9. Success Criteria (MVP, metrics, launch goals)
+10. Next Steps (immediate actions, research, questions)
+
+### YOLO Mode
+
+AI generates complete draft, then you refine sections iteratively.
+
+## Key Features
+
+### Optional Inputs
+
+The workflow can incorporate:
+
+- Market research
+- Brainstorming results
+- Competitive analysis
+- Design notes
+- Reference game lists
+
+### Realistic Scoping
+
+The workflow actively helps you:
+
+- Identify scope vs. resource mismatches
+- Assess technical feasibility
+- Recognize market risks
+- Plan mitigation strategies
+
+### Clear Handoff
+
+Output is designed to feed directly into:
+
+- GDD workflow (2-plan phase)
+- Prototyping decisions
+- Team discussions
+- Stakeholder presentations
+
+## Output
+
+**game-brief-{game_name}-{date}.md** containing:
+
+- Executive summary
+- Complete game vision
+- Target market analysis
+- Core gameplay definition
+- Scope and constraints
+- Reference framework
+- Art/audio direction
+- Risk assessment
+- Success criteria
+- Next steps
+
+## Integration with BMad Method
+
+```
+1-analysis/game-brief     (You are here)
+    ↓
+2-plan/gdd               (Game Design Document)
+    ↓
+2-plan/narrative         (Optional: Story-heavy games)
+    ↓
+3-solutioning            (Technical architecture, engine selection)
+    ↓
+4-dev-stories            (Implementation stories)
+```
+
+## Comparison: Game Brief vs. GDD
+
+| Aspect              | Game Brief                  | GDD                       |
+| ------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------- |
+| **Purpose**         | Validate concept            | Design for implementation |
+| **Detail Level**    | High-level vision           | Detailed specifications   |
+| **Time Investment** | 1-2 hours                   | 4-10 hours                |
+| **Audience**        | Self, team, stakeholders    | Development team          |
+| **Scope**           | Concept validation          | Implementation roadmap    |
+| **Format**          | Conversational, exploratory | Structured, comprehensive |
+| **Output**          | 3-5 pages                   | 10-30+ pages              |
+
+## Comparison: Game Brief vs. Product Brief
+
+| Aspect            | Game Brief                   | Product Brief                     |
+| ----------------- | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
+| **Focus**         | Player experience, fun, feel | User problems, features, value    |
+| **Metrics**       | Engagement, retention, fun   | Revenue, conversion, satisfaction |
+| **Core Elements** | Gameplay pillars, mechanics  | Problem/solution, user segments   |
+| **References**    | Other games                  | Competitors, market               |
+| **Vision**        | Emotional experience         | Business outcomes                 |
+
+## Example Use Case
+
+### Scenario: Indie Roguelike Card Game
+
+**Starting Point:**
+"I want to make a roguelike card game with a twist"
+
+**After Game Brief:**
+
+- **Core Concept:** "A roguelike card battler where you play as emotions battling inner demons"
+- **Target Audience:** Core gamers who love Slay the Spire, interested in mental health themes
+- **Differentiator:** Emotional narrative system where deck composition affects story
+- **MVP Scope:** 3 characters, 80 cards, 30 enemy types, 3 bosses, 6-hour first run
+- **Platform:** PC (Steam) first, mobile later
+- **Timeline:** 12 months with 2-person team
+- **Key Risk:** Emotional theme might alienate hardcore roguelike fans
+- **Mitigation:** Prototype early, test with target audience, offer "mechanical-only" mode
+
+**Next Steps:**
+
+1. Build card combat prototype (2 weeks)
+2. Test emotional resonance with players
+3. Proceed to GDD workflow if prototype validates
+
+## Tips for Success
+
+### Be Honest About Scope
+
+The most common game dev failure is scope mismatch. Use this workflow to reality-check:
+
+- Can your team actually build this?
+- Is the timeline realistic?
+- Do you have budget for assets?
+
+### Focus on Player Experience
+
+Don't think about code or implementation. Think about:
+
+- What will players DO?
+- How will they FEEL?
+- Why will they CARE?
+
+### Validate Early
+
+The brief identifies assumptions and risks. Don't skip to GDD without:
+
+- Prototyping risky mechanics
+- Testing with target audience
+- Validating market interest
+
+### Use References Wisely
+
+"Like X but with Y" is a starting point, not a differentiator. Push beyond:
+
+- What specifically from reference games?
+- What are you explicitly NOT doing?
+- What's genuinely new?
+
+## FAQ
+
+**Q: Is this required before GDD?**
+A: No, but highly recommended for new projects. You can start directly with GDD if you have a clear vision.
+
+**Q: Can I use this for game jams?**
+A: Yes, but use YOLO mode for speed. Focus on vision, mechanics, and MVP scope.
+
+**Q: What if my game concept changes?**
+A: Revisit and update the brief. It's a living document during early development.
+
+**Q: How detailed should content volume estimates be?**
+A: Rough orders of magnitude are fine. "~50 enemies" not "47 enemies with 3 variants each."
+
+**Q: Should I complete this alone or with my team?**
+A: Involve your team! Collaborative briefs catch blind spots and build shared vision.
+
+## Related Workflows
+
+- **Product Brief** (`1-analysis/product-brief`): For software products, not games
+- **GDD** (`2-plan/gdd`): Next step after game brief
+- **Narrative Design** (`2-plan/narrative`): For story-heavy games after GDD
+- **Solutioning** (`3-solutioning`): Technical architecture after planning

package/src/modules/bmm/workflows/1-analysis/game-brief/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+# Game Brief Validation Checklist
+
+Use this checklist to ensure your game brief is complete and ready for GDD creation.
+
+## Game Vision ✓
+
+- [ ] **Core Concept** is clear and concise (one sentence)
+- [ ] **Elevator Pitch** hooks the reader in 2-3 sentences
+- [ ] **Vision Statement** is aspirational but achievable
+- [ ] Vision captures the emotional experience you want to create
+
+## Target Market ✓
+
+- [ ] **Primary Audience** is specific (not just "gamers")
+- [ ] Age range and experience level are defined
+- [ ] Play session expectations are realistic
+- [ ] **Market Context** demonstrates opportunity
+- [ ] Competitive landscape is understood
+- [ ] You know why this audience will care
+
+## Game Fundamentals ✓
+
+- [ ] **Core Gameplay Pillars** (2-4) are clearly defined
+- [ ] Each pillar is specific and measurable
+- [ ] **Primary Mechanics** describe what players actually DO
+- [ ] **Player Experience Goals** connect mechanics to emotions
+- [ ] Core loop is clear and compelling
+
+## Scope and Constraints ✓
+
+- [ ] **Target Platforms** are prioritized
+- [ ] **Development Timeline** is realistic
+- [ ] **Budget** aligns with scope
+- [ ] **Team Resources** (size, skills) are documented
+- [ ] **Technical Constraints** are identified
+- [ ] Scope matches team capability
+
+## Reference Framework ✓
+
+- [ ] **Inspiration Games** (3-5) are listed with specifics
+- [ ] You know what you're taking vs. NOT taking from each
+- [ ] **Competitive Analysis** covers direct and indirect competitors
+- [ ] **Key Differentiators** are genuine and valuable
+- [ ] Differentiators are specific (not "just better")
+
+## Content Framework ✓
+
+- [ ] **World & Setting** is defined
+- [ ] **Narrative Approach** matches game type
+- [ ] **Content Volume** is estimated (rough order of magnitude)
+- [ ] Playtime expectations are set
+- [ ] Replayability approach is clear
+
+## Art & Audio Direction ✓
+
+- [ ] **Visual Style** is described with references
+- [ ] 2D vs. 3D is decided
+- [ ] **Audio Style** matches game mood
+- [ ] **Production Approach** is realistic for team/budget
+- [ ] Style complexity matches capabilities
+
+## Risk Assessment ✓
+
+- [ ] **Key Risks** are honestly identified
+- [ ] **Technical Challenges** are documented
+- [ ] **Market Risks** are considered
+- [ ] **Mitigation Strategies** are actionable
+- [ ] Assumptions to validate are listed
+
+## Success Criteria ✓
+
+- [ ] **MVP Definition** is truly minimal
+- [ ] MVP can validate core gameplay hypothesis
+- [ ] **Success Metrics** are specific and measurable
+- [ ] **Launch Goals** are realistic
+- [ ] You know what "done" looks like for MVP
+
+## Next Steps ✓
+
+- [ ] **Immediate Actions** are prioritized
+- [ ] **Research Needs** are identified
+- [ ] **Open Questions** are documented
+- [ ] Critical path is clear
+- [ ] Blockers are identified
+
+## Overall Quality ✓
+
+- [ ] Brief is clear and concise (3-5 pages)
+- [ ] Sections are internally consistent
+- [ ] Scope is realistic for team/timeline/budget
+- [ ] Vision is compelling and achievable
+- [ ] You're excited to build this game
+- [ ] Team/stakeholders can understand the vision
+
+## Red Flags 🚩
+
+Watch for these warning signs:
+
+- [ ] ❌ Scope too large for team/timeline
+- [ ] ❌ Unclear core loop or pillars
+- [ ] ❌ Target audience is "everyone"
+- [ ] ❌ Differentiators are vague or weak
+- [ ] ❌ No prototype plan for risky mechanics
+- [ ] ❌ Budget/timeline is wishful thinking
+- [ ] ❌ Market is saturated with no clear positioning
+- [ ] ❌ MVP is not actually minimal
+
+## Ready for Next Steps?
+
+If you've checked most boxes and have no major red flags:
+
+✅ **Ready to proceed to:**
+
+- Prototype core mechanic
+- GDD workflow
+- Team/stakeholder review
+- Market validation
+
+⚠️ **Need more work if:**
+
+- Multiple sections incomplete
+- Red flags present
+- Team/stakeholders don't align
+- Core concept unclear
+
+---
+
+_This checklist is a guide, not a gate. Use your judgment based on project needs._