Read in Italian

Back to Blog

6 min read

Since 2009, Kickstarter has been one of the most popular and widely used crowdfunding platforms worldwide, a key reference point for independent creators looking to bring their projects to life.
Among its many categories, Tabletop Games stands out for its creativity and continuous evolution, offering a universe where innovation, community, and storytelling constantly intertwine.

It’s estimated that in 2024 alone, more than 1,000 successful campaigns were launched in this category, generating over $185 million in total funding, with a success rate of 78% (source).
Kickstarter’s official data show that, over its entire history, the broader Games category ranks first for total funds raised, reaching $2.66 billion (source).

But what really makes a Kickstarter campaign successful?
And what communication and marketing strategies can a first-time independent creator adopt to maximize both the success rate and funding speed of their campaign?

To explore these questions, this series of posts analyzes three successful campaigns in the Tabletop Games category, to uncover which strategies and communication choices allowed their creators to engage audiences and exceed their funding goals.

In this first part, I focus on the temporal patterns of support and funding that commonly emerge in successful Tabletop Games campaigns.

Temporal Patterns in Three Successfully Funded Campaigns

Among the projects that achieved outstanding results, I selected three emblematic cases of first-time creators on Kickstarter:

• Algomancy (Caleb Gannon, 2025, funding goal: $15,000)
• Botany (Droz & Droz, 2024, funding goal: $5,000)
• Shasn (Zain Memon, 2021, funding goal: $25,000)

By the end of their respective campaigns, these projects far exceeded their original goals:

• Algomancy: $364,854 raised (2,432% of goal)
• Botany: $1,057,307 raised (21,146%)
• Shasn: $339,045 raised (1,356%)

The charts below illustrate the daily distribution of backers throughout each campaign (data sourced from Backerkit).

Despite differences in scale, all three campaigns display remarkably similar funding patterns characterized by:

1. Strong initial support, concentrated mainly on launch day.
2. Moderate but steady backing during the mid-campaign period.
3. Renewed spikes in engagement during the final days as the deadline approached.

Comparison with Unsuccessful Campaigns

To provide contrast, I built a comparison sample including three additional projects that did not reach their funding goals.
Selection was based on three main criteria:

• Belonging to the same product category
• Having a similar funding goal range to the successful examples
• Featuring a well-presented campaign page consistent with platform standards

Based on these parameters, I selected three campaigns: Fish N Ships, which aimed to raise $15,000 but collected only $2,479; Gold Heist, which set a goal of $8,602 and reached $1,247; and Towndraft, which targeted $3,000 and ended up raising $2,164. 

The charts for these campaigns reveal very different funding behaviors compared to the previous group. In particular:

• The daily volume of backers was significantly lower.
• The initial launch spike was weak or almost absent.
• During the campaign, there were numerous inactive or negative days, indicating that some users even withdrew their pledges.
• In the final phase, there was no revival of interest the pattern remained flat and lacked any final momentum.

Final Observations

The analysis of these six campaigns highlights a clear difference in the temporal distribution of backers between projects that achieved their goals and those that did not.

Successful campaigns consistently follow a recognizable three-phase pattern:

1. A strong initial spike within the first 24–48 hours, capturing the highest share of new backers.
2. A stable but moderate middle phase, with steady daily support and no major fluctuations.
3. A clear final surge in the closing days, with a renewed wave of backers before the deadline.

In contrast, unsuccessful campaigns tend to show the opposite trajectory:

• A weak or absent initial spike, with few early supporters.
• A discontinuous middle phase, marked by inactive days or even pledge cancellations.
• A lack of closing momentum, with flat curves and no acceleration toward the end.

Overall, the data suggest that successful Kickstarter campaigns stand out for their structured, sustained, and dynamic funding patterns, while unsuccessful ones tend to appear static, weak, and lacking in rhythm.

In the next posts, I’ll explore in more detail the communication and strategic factors that contribute to the formation of these successful temporal patterns.

---

Thanks for reading my article! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work: