GDD (Game Design Document) Transformative Fun

Team name: Team Escapism (2-4)

Team member names & envisioned roles for the next iteration:

Kibi Yip

Improving asset design

Supriya Bhasin

Game mechanics
Improving player experience

Ethan Tang

Game inspiration analysis
Card/effect balancing

Liam Tangilag

Revising mechanics
tabletop simulator setup

Dinuki Adikaram

Improving asset design
Rulebook adjustment

Shared roles: GDD, final revisions, video/poster/website, Playtesting, Research + card descriptions

Permission to Show Your Work in Future Classes:

We hereby grant permission to show this report in future courses as a sample project.

1 Title & Basic Info

Title: Pain(t)

Players: 4-6

Length: 35-45 min

Age: 9+ years

2 Razor

In a game that highlights the struggles of becoming successful as an independent artist, build your way to the top starting with nothing! Players will need to manage their resources and make decisions carefully, or they will end up back at square one.

3 Slogan

Pain(t) your picture perfect life here! *Artistic recognition not guaranteed

4 Vision Statement & Top level summary of your game idea

Pain(t) is an eye-opening experience that highlights the hardship and exploitation that goes on behind the scenes throughout the visual arts industry. Players will get to witness these struggles by playing as independent artists who are trying to make a name for themselves, and will have to spend what few resources they have wisely: what will they be willing to give up in order to achieve their dreams?

5 Player experience goal(s) + atmosphere users should experience

Items from Lazarro’s 4 Keys 2 Fun (2014):

Hard Fun”: mastery, achievement, “fiero”):

not at all |------X-0------------------------------------| highly so

Easy Fun: Exploring, Imagination, Curiosity, Absorption

not at all |-------X---0--------------------------------| highly so

Altered States (Purposeful/Serious Fun): Values & Meaning

not at all |---------------------X--0--------------------| highly so

People Fun: Relationships, social bonding etc.

not at all |-------X------0------------------------------| highly so

Items from Yee’s Player Motivation taxonomy (2006):

Achievement component

Advancement — The desire to gain power, progress rapidly, accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status

not at all |------------------------------------X---------| highly so

Mechanics —analyzing the underlying rules and system in order to optimize character performance

not at all |-----------------------------X----------------| highly so

Competition — The desire to challenge and compete with others

not at all |-----------------------------------X----------| highly so

Social component

Socializing — Having an interest in helping and chatting with other players

not at all |-----------------------X------0---------------| highly so

Relationship — The desire to form long-term meaningful relationships with others

not at all |----------------X---0--------------------------| highly so

Teamwork — Deriving satisfaction from being part of a group effort.

not at all |-----X--0-------------------------------------| highly so

Immersion component

Discovery — Finding and knowing things that most other players don’t know about

not at all |---------------------------------X-----------| highly so

Role-Playing — Creating a persona with a background story and interacting with other players to create an improvised story

not at all |---------X-----------------------------------| highly so

Customization — Having an interest in customizing the appearance of their character

not at all |---X-----------------------------------------| highly so

Escapism — Using the online environment to avoid thinking about real life problems

not at all |-------X--------------------------------------| highly so

8 items from Hunicke et al’s taxonomy of “fun”:

1. Sensation: Game as sense-pleasure

not at all |-----X-----0----------------------------------| highly so

2. Fantasy: Game as make-believe

not at all |--------------------X---0---------------------| highly so

3. Narrative: Game as drama

not at all |------------------X---------------------------| highly so

4. Challenge: Game as obstacle course

not at all |-------------------------------------X--------| highly so

5. Fellowship: Game as social framework

not at all |------------X-----0---------------------------| highly so

6. Discovery: Game as uncharted territory

not at all |-----------------------------------X----------| highly so

7. Expression: Game as self-discovery

not at all |--------X-------------------------------------| highly so

8. Submission: Game as pastime/go-to leisure activity

not at all |-----------------X----0-----------------------| highly so

Summary

Lazzaro: Although we are aiming for a tile and card-based game, we want to focus less on Hard Fun and create a game that is fairly straightforward to learn, so that players may focus on what the in-game actions parallel in the real world. Through taking on the persona of an artist, and learning in-depth about the challenges in building a successful art career through specific scenarios, we hope to target explorative Easy Fun and Transformative Fun. Additionally, we want to create a game with elements of Player vs Player gameplay as a means of achieving People Fun.

Yee: We think that placing an emphasis on Advancement, Mechanics, and Competition will contribute towards an engaging player experience where players would need to learn and master how to optimally spend their resources and carry out actions in order to win. Since we also don’t want to lose sight of it being a People Fun game, we want to incorporate as many interactions between players as possible. As a result, we are placing a heavy emphasis on Competition, Socializing, and Relationship. The reason why we are not planning on incorporating a lot of Teamwork is because we think that incorporating elements of sabotage will contribute towards more People Fun. Finally, we are planning on implementing quite a bit of Discovery and Role-Playing by making players play as characters with personas. We feel that these personas will further illustrate our game’s message and result in players feeling more of a connection to their characters, and hopefully influence them to also reflect on the individuals going through the same struggles in the real world.

Hunicke: The goal is for our game narrative and challenges to dictate the gameplay in a way that allows the players to learn about a real-world issue, rather than a fantasy world. We aim to keep the game enjoyable by incorporating social elements, possibly roleplaying or sabotage. Additionally, we aim to make the mechanics straightforward enough that people will not be distracted by learning the game, and can instead focus on the information being presented.

6 How does it address the design challenge of a Transformative Game?

a) What’s the underlying challenge/problem your game aims to tackle, and how could addressing this help make this world a better place to live?

We would like to address the phenomenon in the creative industry where artists are mistreated, undergo unseen struggles, and are exploited for their work. This is important to address because it makes the youth believe that art is not something that they can make a career in. Art is a form of self expression which is sometimes not valued enough in our society. The efforts that are put into bringing an idea to life in the mind and making it out on canvas are often not given enough respect and appreciation. There are people who neglect the amount of time that goes into creating an artwork and getting recognition, and we think that addressing this issue can help make these people change their outlook on artists and artwork in general.

b) Background research on underlying problem/challenge that your game aims to tackle

There’s a tendency where people are paid less when they are passionate about their work (reference). In artist cases, most common is that exposure/publicity is sometimes treated as compensation for their work.

Similarly, the struggles of being an unsuccessful artist are often dismissed or romanticized, or even seen as necessary to achieve artistic integrity and recognition (reference).

The business relationship between artists and art dealers/galleries is vital. Some artists take a business approach although others might perceive creating artwork to sell as selling out (reference), while others may not respect their art dealers enough. Art dealers typically have greater influence in the industry compared to new artists, and as such, bad relationships or burning bridges can be detrimental to building a career (reference).

One of the reasons artwork that is created in traditional mediums sells at a higher price is that galleries monopolize trading of artworks and keep the exclusivity by blocking buyers from future sales when there is art trading not done via the galleries.

c) Team motivation

Since we are all in a multidisciplinary program like SIAT that involves art, we acknowledge that we may end up working in the creative industry. We realize that there are artists who are exploited or not treated well because their skills aren’t recognized as useful to society - in a worst-case scenario, we may end up facing these challenges ourselves. For this reason, this is a topic that is important to us. In addition, we noticed that this is a very niche topic that isn’t really talked about a lot, and that there are a lot of misconceptions that need to be addressed.

d) Why would a game be a suitable approach to tackling this challenge/problem?

A game can provide an opportunity for players to see this issue from the point of view of people who work in the creative industry in a simplified and exaggerated way. We think this is an important approach to take with our topic, since part of it deals with exposing the unseen struggles that many artists end up enduring throughout the industry - this will be done by making players play as artists themselves. We think a game also allows us to frame a serious topic in a way that is more palatable and less information-heavy, since we can tell the story through the gameplay and game mechanics themselves (ex. via the resource management and various challenges that players will face) instead of having someone simply read a long article or watch a documentary about this issue. By making players unfold the stories themselves, we believe that the impact and transformative experience will be all the greater. In addition, a gamified approach allows us to create a safe environment for addressing a sensitive topic like this.

e) Desired “transformation” and impact of game on players

Our desired experience is for players, who are not familiar with the visual arts industry, to leave with greater empathy and respect for those within the industry. Ideally, the players will finish with a sense of accomplishment that comes from overcoming the frustrating parts of the game. Players should also be able to recognize the connection between in-game actions and real occurrences in the industry.

f) How would you assess the game’s impact?

We hope to analyze the players’ reactions, decisions, and reasoning during playtesting. We hope players may empathize and support artists after playing our game. Practically, this may look like donating to artists, visiting exhibitions, researching about local artists, reaching out to artists to offer them support, etc. Even writing a letter of encouragement for an artist may mean a lot. To monitor the transformation process, we could ask players for contact information and email a survey some time later to assess indications of success.

7 Inspiration Analysis

“Passpartout: The Starving Artist” (digital game)

https://store.steampowered.com/app/582550/Passpartout_The_Starving_Artist/

In this game, players play as broke artists living in a storage unit who must create their own paintings to sell on the street. Players then hope that the passing NPCs take interest in and buy the artwork so that they can pay their bills and survive. This game highlights the struggles of being an artist and how pure talent alone often isn't enough to make it in the industry: what helps artists make a name for themselves is exposure and connections.

This game is inspiring because of the way it puts players in artists' shoes. By doing so, players get to experience artists' struggles first hand. This also allows them to interpret the message of the game without having to be told anything: the game "shows" the story rather than "telling" it. For our own game, we think it would be beneficial to also put players in artists' shoes so that they can see and experience things from the perspective of the artists first hand - this will hopefully make players more empathetic about the whole situation.

"Starving Artists" (board game)

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/189350/starving-artists

The game is about resource management and trying to become a famous artist before starving. The gameplay consists of turns ("days") where players are allotted two actions per round. In the morning, players choose between buying new canvases, painting artwork, or working to collect more paint. In the evening, players can sell their completed paintings on the marketplace with a catch: if multiple players sell their paintings during the same round, they must split the rewards (food and paint). However, players have to keep track of their hunger levels: if they wait too long before selling their artwork or are unable to complete enough paintings, they will end up starving and losing the game.

We find this game inspiring because it constantly presents players with difficult dilemmas. As a result, players feel the weight of their actions and are forced to make informed decisions. More importantly, the gameplay highlights the struggles of artists and how some may have to live "painting to painting". In our own game, we think it would be good to force players to make difficult decisions that revolve around the struggles of artists who are trying to scrape by, just like Starving Artists. For example, players can be made to decide between spending more money on supplies to create their artwork, or spending that money on their family's food/heating/medicine. We think this would help create a more Transformative experience since players will get to see what it is like to endure the lifestyle of a struggling artist from the perspective of one.

"Art Game" (digital game)

https://hyperallergic.com/64660/all-the-struggle-of-being-an-artist-in-a-video-game/

***Unfortunately, we were unable to try out this game since it is a Flash-game (and Adobe Flash Player is no longer supported in browsers)***

This is an 8-bit game where you play as an artist living in New York. In it, you choose between three different characters who each have different "art styles" - depending on who you pick, you actually create the art by playing one of three classic video games: Tetris, Snake, and Space War. For example, "Tertanov" (one of the characters) uses Tetris to make art. Choosing this character means that you will create works of art by actually playing Tetris.

Once you have completed several art pieces, a curator drops by and decides which of them (if any) are qualified to be showcased in the museum. Unfortunately, the selection process is entirely random. As a result, some pieces that you spent a lot of time and effort creating may never end up making it to the museum.

Although the selection process in the game is entirely random, we think it showcases how difficult it is to put a value on art: someone who put blood, sweat, and tears into making something will typically value it much differently than someone only seeing the end product. In the end, art is really subjective.

This game gave us an idea - so far, it seems like we want our game to revolve around creating art pieces that require a certain amount of materials/resources to make, that players then sell for rewards/resources. Something we can add, based on this game, is the idea of players not knowing how much something is worth until it is made. For example, once a player creates an art piece, they can draw a card from a "value deck" that will determine its value. As a result, a player may get lucky and have an easily-made art piece sell for a lot, or end up with a hard-to-make art piece that sells for very little. We think this idea highlights the whole challenge of valuing art, and how an artist can put all their effort into making something, only for it to be deemed "worthless" by others.

8 Why Your Project is Innovative?

(a) Innovation

We implemented a universal resource system (Energy) that is used towards each of your actions. In addition, the cost to perform such actions varies depending on how much Energy you have in total. We think this simple mechanic adds an interesting dynamic to the game as players are constantly having to determine the most efficient way to spend their Energy each round.

(b) Relevance

Our game provides a meaningful experience to players by allowing them to see the struggles of an artist from the perspective of one. This is meaningful because learning the different locations and effects replicates the learning curves that an unknown artist faces. Additionally, the players will sometimes have experiences of working hard and receiving negative, or otherwise unexpected results - when players begin to notice the disconnect between what they expect to happen in a game, they will be able to connect it to the real world situations we are replicating.

(c) Selling points

Our game’s selling point is that it provides a unique and specific perspective on the business/industry side of the art world. Our target audience, those outside of the visual arts/design industry, may have preconceived notions about what it takes to attain success which we are hoping to clarify or debunk.

9 Introduction

Players are small-time independent artists who are trying to make a name for themselves in the visual arts industry. Since we are addressing a problem that isn’t unique to a specific time period or region, there isn’t a specific setting for our game (aside from a place where artists are enduring challenges when trying to break into the industry). In terms of the objective of the game, it is to become the player with the most Recognition. This is done by going back and forth between different locations (shown below) to spend your Energy to create artwork, complete commissions, make connections, look for job opportunities, and showcase your work.

10 Narrative/Story

There is no strong narrative/story element in our game. Players take on the role of a visual arts, but no specific or named persona.

11 Game mechanics

Number of players:

2-6

Resources: Recognition, Energy. Players use Energy to move across the board and activate cards, in order to gain Recognition.

Setup:

Lay the tiles out in a similar way to the one illustrated in the Movement page of the rules: ensure that the Art Studio is in the centre, with the other three locations scattered around it. Using the basic tiles, connect each of the Locations to the Art Studio and then to each adjacent Location.
Shuffle all of the cards and place them in their corresponding spaces on the Location tiles.

Gameplay Loop:

Note your Energy level at the start of your turn.
Use your Energy to move across the board.
When on a location tile, you may acquire a Location card based on the cost written on its back.

Artwork cards and Commission cards are kept with the player

Gallery cards cost Energy and Artwork cards
Most other cards only cost varying amounts of Energy

4. When activating a card, flip it over for all to see. Adjust your Energy or Recognition based on what its effect is

Players gain Recognition from Connection cards only after they have enough Commission cards to fulfill the Connection request

5. Players may continue moving across the board to different locations and acquiring cards, to a maximum of three cards per turn.

6. End your turn by adding 5 Energy to your current Energy level.

Notes:

Players can obtain a maximum of 3 cards total per turn (regardless of location)
If a player spends more than 2 turns at a Location, they lose 2 Recognition

End of Game:

The game ends once there are no more Artwork cards available. Players will then tally their final Recognition count.

Add additional Recognition based on Energy:

If you have <10 Energy, add 1 Recognition

If you have 10-14 Energy, add 3 Recognition

If you have 15+ Energy, add 5 Recognition

Any players with incomplete Connection cards must subtract according to the card’s specific amount.

The winner is whoever has the most Recognition after the end game tally.

12 Play matrix

Our game involves a bit of skill since players have to determine the best ways to go about spending their Energy. However, a player’s success in the game is moreso based on luck. This is because both the Agency and Gallery (the two locations where players can earn Recognition) consist of positive and negative cards that increase or decrease their Recognition or Energy levels. As a result, there is a bit of gambling involved in our game.

In terms of the other play matrix, our game requires no physical dexterity at all and instead relies purely on mental calculations: players have to constantly keep track of their Recognition and Energy levels, particularly the latter, since the costs of actions are based on their total Energy.

13 Rule Sheet

PDF Attached with submission

Link to Rulesheet PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O7-ZtGj9zXgxnZhYrE8PnZFrnf6Koper/view?usp=sharing

Link to Rules folder (Individual Pages): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SQWHSchjGdTVxKEXV4L79rlyUH9-c7xi?usp=sharing

14 Playtesting script including testing goals, questions, and assumptions/ hypotheses

Goals

Determine whether the cards are balanced
Determine whether the locations are unique enough
Determine how easy or hard the game is to learn and play
Determine whether players can sense the Transformative aspect of the game
Determine whether players are getting some People Fun out of the game

2.Assumptions heading into playtesting

Players may have a hard time at first keeping track of the Energy levels & fluctuating Energy costs
Players who want to play it safe will decide to primarily complete Connections since they are the only surefire way to gain Recognition (as long as they have enough Energy or Commission cards saved up)
Players will often fall into the expensive end of the Energy cost Decision Chart until they realize the importance of the Rest Zone
Once players realize the negative risks of gambling on Gallery cards (they are the highest risk, highest reward cards, and have a 50/50 chance to get a negative or positive card), they will take it slow before returning take their chances again: at the end of the game, players will likely go all-in and take more risks on Gallery cards if they are not in the lead
Players may not realize that the game ends when there are no more Artwork cards in the Studio

3.In-game observations

Quantitative:
- How often do locations run out of cards? Which ones?
- How often do players end up below 10 Energy (the expensive part of the Decision Chart)?
- How many cards do players typically draw from one location at a time?
- How many turns do players typically spend at a location?
Qualitative:
- Do some cards increase/decrease too much Energy/Recognition?
- Does it seem like there are too many positive/negative cards?
- Are players taking a lot of risks (particularly with the Gallery cards), or are they playing it safe by completing primarily Commissions?
- Do players end up using all the locations?
- Do players try to end the game asap (by purchasing all the Artwork cards) when they are ahead?

4. Postgame questions

What was fun about the game, if at all?
How difficult was it to keep track of your Energy levels and the Energy costs?
What locations did you use the most?
Did some locations seem pointless?
Did you discover any loopholes?
Is there an appropriate balance of luck versus skill?
Are the Energy cost effects too punishing for players who are low on Energy?
How often were you above/below 15 Energy?

15 Insights and results from playtesting: Test for foundation/fun and structure, then later for functionality, completeness, loopholes, balance, and dominant strategies

Playtesting Direct Feedback:

Game Version 1.1

Playtest #1: Team 2-4 (in-team playtest): Kibi Yip, Supriya Bhasin, Ethan Tang, Dinuki Adikaram, Liam Tangilag

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?

Team reflection:

We like the idea of having one resource for movement and performing actions. It keeps things simple and implements some dilemmas since players know that spending their resources on one action (ex. moving) will impact something else (ex. buying supplies for artwork)

What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?

Team reflection:

Our game is in a really rough state and we currently don’t have much to work with, so we just need to focus our efforts on creating a fully playable prototype.

Playtest #2: (semi-supervised playtest) Team 2-1: David Kwon, Jinous Safaei, Seansky Liu, Dinuki Adikaram, Liam Tangilag

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?
- David
  - cards were interesting
- Jinous
  - working out the strategies
- Seansky
  - competitive atmosphere that doesn’t involve sabotage (friendships don’t go to die)
What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?
- David
  - the game can be ended within a few turns since the rules don’t specify a limit on how many cards a player can get per round
- Jinous
  - players didn’t have many interactions with each other
- Seansky
  - Rules were a bit confusing: are the different energy costs based on how much energy you have at the beginning of your turn, or just before spending?

Playtest #3 (in-team playtest): Kibi Yip, Supriya Bhasin, Ethan Tang, Liam Tangilag

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?

Team reflection:

We felt that the unexpectedly negative impacts felt very transformative, and even kind of demoralizing which was an improvement from our previous iteration. The rest stop also worked well for this version.

What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?

Team reflection:

Our energy/recognition changes could happen at any location, so having different locations felt pretty arbitrary. The commissions were also way too overpowered and the effects sometimes felt disconnected from the strategy each of us was working towards. Also, having 3 card decks at each location felt a bit unnecessary: the “random” 1-cost cards in the Agency and Gallery did the same thing.

Playtest #4 (unsupervised) Team 1-4: Melissa Chan, Chamira Perera, Anna Chi, Mustafa Wasee

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?
- Melissa
  - Member Name X Feedback
- Chamira
  - The negative effects make sense for the theme and message
- Anna
  - The difficulty in getting recognition points gets the point across
- Mustafa
  - It’s interesting how you work hard to get a negative impact. The gameplay was very elaborate.
What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?
- Melissa
  - Majority of the cards have negative impacts which made it less fun/engaging. Decision chart was confusing.
- Chamira
  - Energy spending/movement is confusing
- Anna
  - Took a while to completely understand everything (movement, energy, etc). Some wording could be fixed/clarified.
- Mustafa
  - Not very social. Could improve the board to aid the movement.

Link to playtest: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GsHbVCcVRAHyh9oyNopbEmQShTRdkB9u/view?usp=sharing

Playtest #5 (in-team playtest w/ Chelsea)Team 2-4: Chelsea Mills, Kibi Yip, Dinuki Adikaram, Liam Tangilag

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?

Chelsea:

(Some) negative card effects make the game feel transformative. For example, a player can go through so much work to prepare for a Gallery Showcase or Feature, only to buy a card that decreases Recognition.

Team reflection:

All of our strategies were somewhat aligned at the beginning (Most of us went to the Rest Zone first, then the Art Studio) which meant that the signifiers/affordances make sense

What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?

Chelsea:

Clarify the rules a bit more, especially regarding Energy spending
Maybe allow players to choose what they lose (when drawing a negative card)
- introduces more meaningful dilemmas for players

Team reflection:

Various rules were still confusing
Add the 5 energy at the end of your turn

Playtest #6 (in-team playtest before the showcase)Team 2-4: Ethan Tang, Dinuki Adikaram, Liam Tangilag

What did you enjoy most about the game? Why?

Team reflection:

We held this playtesting session to see our final changes in action. We liked the changes we made to the more potent Gallery cards (allowing players to choose what they lose - ie. Recognition or Energy - since they added further meaningful dilemmas to the game. It also made things a little less punishing, since going to the Gallery was the highest-risk strategy.
The changes we made to the Energy chart and card backs also made a huge difference since things are now much more simple and clear
- Writing “See Energy Chart” on the back of the more potent cards makes it immediately clear that they are the ones that have varying costs
- The Energy Chart only shows the costs of the more potent cards: before, we showed that lesser-potent cards were 1-cost. This made the chart way too cluttered and added some redundant columns, since all the lesser-potent cards were 1-cost anyways

What were major issues with the game? Why? Any suggestions on how the game could be improved?

Team reflection:

The only issue with the game is that there aren’t very many player interactions. If we had more time we would have liked to add some special tile-effects, and maybe even a player-deck that is used to boost one’s own stats or sabotage another’s.

16 Analyze your game in terms of decision types, dilemmas, rewards, surprise, and endings

(a) Decision Types

Analyze for hollow, obvious, or uninformed decisions

Our game doesn’t have any hollow decisions since each location and card has a consequence: they either increase or decrease one’s Recognition or Energy. As for obvious decisions, players are faced with one once they enter the Rest Zone: if they have 15 or more Energy, the more potent cards only cost 2 Energy. As a result, there is really no point in buying a 1-cost Down Time card (lesser-effect) since they can spend just one more Energy and get a Day Off card (much stronger effect). This problem mainly stems from the fact that the Rest Zone only has positive cards - we can resolve these obvious decisions by incorporating a careful amount of negative cards. We didn’t incorporate negative cards in the first place because we didn’t want to punish players who may be entering the Rest Zone out of necessity (as a result of having low Energy). Finally, in terms of uninformed decisions, there are a few in the early stages of gameplay since players may not know the best way to go about increasing their Recognition. As a result, they may wander around the board trying things out arbitrarily. We can solve this by including some tips or general strategies/paths in the instructions.

Analyze for desirable decisions

5 desirable decision types:

Informed decisions:
- Our game involves informed decisions because players can see each other's Energy and Recognition points. They also get to see whether a player draws a positive or negative card. Players will have to use this information wisely. For example:
  - They may decide to work with each other to block a particular player (who may be in the lead) from entering a Location
  - They will have to determine when to try and end the game (by buying the last Artwork card) - it would be the most optimal to do so once they have a significant resource lead
  - They may perform some card-counting to determine when it is the safest to take a gamble on some Agency or Gallery cards
- These improve gameplay because it makes it so that players don’t need to rely solely on luck to win the game
Dramatic decisions:
- Our game involves dramatic decisions because of the luck involved with the Agency and (particularly) Gallery cards. Players will have an even greater emotional reaction to these cards if they put a lot of work into preparing for a Showcase or Feature, only to end up drawing a negative card. This improves gameplay since it makes players more emotionally invested in the game, and incorporates some adrenaline-pumping moments when players are taking big risks.
Weighted decisions:
- Our game involves weighted decisions with the Showcase cards - players get to determine which resource to lose if they end up drawing a negative card.
- The less-potent versus more-potent cards at the Gallery (Feature vs Showcase) and Agency (Opportunity vs Connection) also introduce weighted decisions, as players will have to determine whether to take a low-risk low-reward approach or a high-risk high-reward one.
- These decisions improve gameplay because they add some meaningful dilemmas to the game
Immediate decisions:
- most of the cards have immediate impacts (eg. increase/decrease Recognition or Energy)
- players who choose to lose Energy (when drawing a negative Showcase card) will feel an immediate impact as it will affect the actions that they can immediately take.
- These decisions improve gameplay since they allow players to feel the immediate consequences of their actions
Long-term decisions:
- players who choose to lose Recognition (when drawing a negative Showcase card) will feel its effects in the long run, since it is used to determine the winner of the game
- players will have to plan out their route around the board early on so that they do not end up wasting resources
- These decisions improve gameplay because players will get to try out different routes each game, and will feel a great sense of satisfaction when they finally find a path or strategy that benefits them in the long run.

(b) Dilemmas

The main meaningful dilemmas in our game come from:

knowing the most optimal way to spend your Energy, especially because of how some card costs change based on how much Energy you have in total (ie. when you have more Energy the more-potent cards become cheaper, and when you have less Energy the more-potent cards become more Expensive).
knowing which cards to buy at a location: eg. should a player take a low-risk low-reward approach with the less-potent cards, or should they take a high-risk high-reward approach with the more-potent cards? Should a player take a risk with the Gallery, or take a safer approach?
knowing which location to go to first: eg. should a player go to the Rest Zone to stack up their Energy first, or should they rush to complete Connections first?
determining whether to sacrifice Energy or Recognition when drawing a negative Gallery card - losing Recognition has a more long-term effect as it is the end goal of the game, whereas losing Energy has a more immediate effect on a player’s ability to strategize
players determining whether they should work together to try and block another from entering a location
players having to determine when to try and end the game by buying the last Artwork card: when a player buys the last one, they get to finish their turn. The rest of the players will also get one more turn. As a result, they must be careful when trying to end the game, as another player may come out on top in the end with their last turn or with the final tally bonus.

These dilemmas are part of the core gameplay because they occur every turn, are a part of each action that a player can possibly take, and have to do with the main goal of the game (obtaining the most Recognition). They are also interesting because they highlight the strategy aspect of our game and how the decisions are meaningful in that they have a direct effect on a player’s chances of success.

Most importantly, these dilemmas contribute towards the Transformative aspect of our game: the Energy dilemma in particular (and how the prices of certain cards increases as you have less Energy) reflects how a lot of the struggles that artists have in the real world have to do with morale and energy, and how they can fall into a downward spiral if their morale and energy drops too low. The dilemmas involved with the Gallery also contribute further Transformative experiences: if a player decides to spend a lot of time and resources preparing for a showcase, they will feel frustrated if they end up drawing a negative card. As a result, these dilemmas improve gameplay because they make each of the actions feel like they have significant weight and consequences.

(c) Rewards

The rewards in our game are the Recognition points and Energy. This former is gained by featuring or showcasing artwork at the Gallery or by finding job opportunities and completing commissions at the Agency. This is the most important reward in the game because it is used to determine the winner. As for Energy, players can gain some by visiting the Rest Area or by ending their turn (since they get 5 at the end of each turn). Since the Gallery and Agency has an even balance of positive and negative cards, players will be taking a gamble each time they try to increase their resources -- resulting in them feeling thrilled whenever things go their way, and frustrated whenever things don’t. From our in-team and outside-team playtesting, we noticed that drawing one positive card was often enough to offset players’ frustrations from drawing several negative cards in a row (if a player is unlucky enough for this to happen). As a result, we think that this element of luck reinforces players to keep playing as they usually don’t feel “completely” out of the game.

(d) Surprise

Our game has a number of surprises because of the amount of luck involved with the Agency and Gallery. After players make a choice of picking up a card in a gallery or agency, the effect on the card is a surprise for the players as the outcome is not known beforehand. This makes the gameplay interesting and unpredictable because the cards could either have a positive or a negative impact. From our playtesting observations, players were usually surprised when drawing negative 1-cost cards from these locations. However, they were even more surprised when drawing a negative Showcase card from the Gallery. This is because a lot more work goes into preparing for it (since they must create at least 2 Artwork) - as a result, our playtesters often stated that they initially thought that the Showcase was supposed to be the safer approach. This surprise also resulted in a more Transformative experience for them since they could see how it reflected some real-world struggles of artists.

(e) Endings

The game ends when there are no more Artwork cards available. Once a player buys the last Artwork, they will get to play out the rest of their turn, and all other players will get one more turn. Afterwards, there will be a final tally (which subtracts points for incomplete connections/commissions and adds points to players who managed their energy well): the person with the highest Recognition then wins the game. We think that this ending is satisfying because players can choose to speed up the end-condition, adding an element of strategy to the game. As a result, players will need to determine when it is best to try and end the game based on their current resources, the final tally, and their opponents’ resources and chances of pulling ahead with their final turn.

17 Overall Reflection

The negative scenarios in our game worked well, but we could still do further playtesting to ensure the negative/positive effects ratios are reasonable. If we were to revise this game further, we would consider adding effects onto the regular tiles (perhaps removing the Rest Zone and allowing players to gain energy from certain in-between tiles). Additionally, we would delve into more scenarios/effects to make the game more replayable, because players would encounter new scenarios every time.

Brainstorming/ideation stages: During the brainstorming / ideation stages, our team wanted to have an underlying theme of empathy. We determined our transformative idea would be based on the struggles that artists have, since all of the team members are artists. We researched our issue, and found that many artists spend a lot of time and effort only to be criticized, rejected, or not recognized for their work. We wanted to explore this issue through our game, and began ideating how our mechanisms and gameplay can show this. We did most of this using Miro and Figma, as they are online interactive spaces where we can all throw ideas out and organize them.

Prototyping: Before jumping straight into Tabletop prototyping, we used quick and easy methods like Miro to organize our ideas: for cards and tiles we used sticky notes that we wrote the card effects on. We then set up a mini board map, with a few locations where resources could be obtained. We did our rough prototyping this way before importing assets into Tabletop since we could easily organize all of our ideas. Once we imported everything into Tabletop, we found it really convenient to be able to play around and see if the ideas that we came up with actually played out the way we envisioned them to.

Playtesting: Playtesting helped us uncover a lot of problems with our game, especially when conducted with people outside of our team. Just like our experience with the People Fun game, a lot of the problems that our outside-team playtesters brought up were things that we overlooked or did not foresee: we realized that most of the problems surrounded the clarity of the rules, mechanics, and card effects.

Critiquing & Iterating: During our first couple of in-team playtests, we realized that our energy system and resources were flawed. Our idea was that players would run low on energy and need to rest - however, players had plenty of energy to spare. For each location, players could obtain multiple types of different resources. This was a bit redundant, and reduced the need to go to the rest zone to replenish on energy. We decided to limit the amount of resources players could obtain. We also quickly realized that there were far too many resources to keep track of: Energy, Morale/Motivation, Skill Points, Art Supplies, and Recognition. We then combined some resources which slimmed things down to two: Energy and Recognition.

One of the main general critiques we received from our playtesters was that our game was a bit confusing to learn. This was due to the varying Energy costs & Energy chart, the gameplay loop, and the rules themselves. We used this advice to create a much more visual rulebook with things spread out across multiple pages. We then created a much more simple Decision chart and clearer card effects by color coding things and cleaning up the flavor text. We also reduced the amount of decks per Location to two, and made the Locations more unique. This made it more clear to the players as to what the point of each location was, and why they were separate from the others in the first place.

One thing that we achieved well was the transformative aspect. When players submitted their artwork to the gallery, they assumed that they would be rewarded and gain recognition for it. Not all artists are so fortunate however, and players would realize this by losing some Recognition or Energy if they were unlucky. (Cards were drawn to determine the player's outcome: gain energy / recognition or lose energy / recognition). Most of our playtesters experienced this at least once during the game and mentioned that this was an effective way to get a message across through mechanics alone.

A big thing that we learned from the iterating process was that it’s important to refine the core mechanics of a game before implementing additional ideas. For example, when we discovered that our game could involve more player interactions and People Fun, we had the idea of incorporating “Player Decks”, tile effects, same-tile effects, sabotage, and so on. This was short lived, as we quickly discovered that we were adding too many layers of complexity to the game. As a result, we also learned that sometimes less is more, and that we can improve our game by removing elements rather than adding.

Future: If we had more time, we definitely would have made the game much more visually appealing: we would’ve created icons for the different card types and splash art for each of the cards (like we did for the People Fun game). We also would have experimented with implementing a careful amount of sabotage and/or tile effects in order to incorporate more player interactions within our game.

18 Team Communication and Processes

Our team has been using Discord from the beginning to communicate, but we ended up creating a dedicated server (instead of just using the same group DM chat). This allowed us to be much more organized through the use of several text channels: #brainstorming, #links, #screenshots, #to-do, and #general. By doing so, we were able to much more easily keep track of progress, playtestion sessions, and different ideas.

For more visual communication, we used Figma and Miro. These allowed us to emulate working in Post-it Notes as if we were in person, and quickly express our ideas. We find these tools extremely useful because they allow us to work on the same thing at the same (or different) times without having to send files back and forth.