This week it’s time to playtest our game. By this time we have 2 versions of the game: more simple and abstract and thematic with developed rules and teamwork.
WE developed approximate rules for both options:
// Rules //
Player Count: 6-10 players;
- players are separated into two groups (red & blue), each player has 2 lives (or more).
- goal is to gain as many points in 5 rounds. team with the most points winds.
- points are won by taking out members of opposing teams.
- at the start of the round players from each team choose which room they want to go to.
- if there are more players in a room than the other, the team with the highest amount of players takes a point. the room used cannot be chosen again on the next round.
- a room w/ 1 player alone, or a stalemate gives no points.
- how the teams / players communicate is up to them, but voice cannot be used. decision making is kept to 2 minutes max.
// ‘Simpler’ version //
Player Count: 3 – 6;
- players start with 3 lives
- each player must move every round (cannot stay on the same number)
- Round begins with players deciding a number from 1-9, they shout/type out the number, or display the number with their fingers
- if anyone calls out the same number then that person loses a life (how do we decide which of the 2 loses life?)
- If there is a clash and two or more people call out the same number, that number can no longer be used
- Rounds are repeated until there is one person left (or somehow all the numbers are called out)
On Thursday we had our playtest and here are some results and analysis.
Game 1 simple version
(we deсided that simple option will go without teams eventually)
5 players, 3 lives
Option 1: A square disappears till the end of the game:
+ it works as a mechanism to speed up the game as it limits game space, making players to clash more in the rest of the rooms. Taking into account that the game is pretty random, the less people are left the more tries will be needed for them to clash and proceed the game.
Option 2: A square disappears just for 1 round:
Potentially that could be of use if the number of players is big enough (10+), when decreasing the game space will cause too many players clashing at the same time and loosing lives too fast. The issue can be corrected with increasing the number of lives for each player, but still a playtest is needed here, which is pretty hard to provide with that amount of players. So, I guess option 1 is better for our case since we managed to playtest it and it worked well enough.
Major problems encountered:
- Simultaneous answers. The game requires players reveal their positions simultaneously so that none of them could change their mind. Playtest revealed that it’s very hard to do in audio chat. Possible solution – using the writing chat, where players post on count 3-2-1, what worked well during the playtest of game version 2.
- 1:1 final clash. When 2 final players left with 1 life remaining – they will both loose life when they clash. Possible solution – implementing a final round rule where a death square is assigned by one of the players or a game master. The player, who finishes in that square – looses. (But what if they both choose the death square? We’ll have same situation left. Or we can accept, that after the final round both can lose. TO BE CONSIDERED)
Some more questions to consider:
The amount of lives and rounds (if any for this version). We tested 3 lives which worked fine. I don’t think we need rounds here and just lest the game finish with the last one standing since the game is fast
Do we need a game master. During the playtest Arthur was in supervisor role and helped to follow the amount of lives and players’ positions in both versions of the game. I personally (as a potential player) would prefer having a game master without the need to follow myself. And it makes the game more organized. But for the simple version it can be decided by the players themselves, and the game master can play alongside others as the counting is not hard. Thus the role of a game master becomes more significant in the developed version with the mansion house as the game transforms into sort of a role-play as well, where the game master should not only document the process of the game, but to be a real host and sort of an entertainer as well.
According to the feedback, simple version is quick, easy, tense and random. The visual greed should be always visible to players, which is easier than draw the grid by players individually.
Game 2: long version – thematic: haunted mansion
2 teams: ghosts and ghost hunters aka team red and team blue.
5 rounds
Clash system – if there’re more ghosts than hunters in one room, ghosts score a point and vice versa.
Goal – get max team points for the set amount of rounds.
Team members don’t lose lives while in clash
If there’s a draw in the room – nothing happens and the game continues with no one scoring
According to the feedback, the game was more fun and entertaining as it can potentially develop a role play element, which will make the game more immersive. Adding strong visuals to our mansion scheme will be a bonus.
This time we tried revealing the positions via written chat, which was much more comfortable (for me as well since I was one of the players).
Major issue: ‘a lot of “nothing happened”’. During the playtest the majority of rooms were taken by one team member or “draw room” happened. We should think about how to increase the amount of action. Possible solution – set up a system of amount of playable rooms depending on the amount of players to make them clash more. We used the same system to cross out the clash rooms, but for the amount of test players that was still too much.
Communication questions: Originally we had 2 options for communication – silent or separate chats for teams. First would allow randomness and second would allow strategy. But during playtest we opted for the silent/secret one because we’ve realized that otherwise teams would just vote for all coming to one room and waiting. So we need to make them constantly change positions.
Suggestions:
To intersect the theme with gameplay. Playtesters offered to adjust teams possibilities to their roles. For example, ghosts can move to any room, while hunters can move only to one closes to the one they’re currently in.
To implement boosts. Game master can have a number of boosts for both teams that he can distribute during the round, before teams announce their positions. One spread, game master can’t change position of boosts. Like protection for hunters or “add one team member to the room”. Per round game master can display all or some boosts. Players don’t know where the boosts are. Game master announces if a boost had been activated in the room.
I believe that second option has more potential in terms of immersiveness and fun, because this session was more aluve and players were active with thematic jokes. Additionally this option doesn’t have major gameplay issues like 1:1 situation in the simple version. Even if we’re making a video chat game, it can be something more than just party games. The only thing I’m concerned about is that we can omit using video, which is good from one point since you’re still able to play it even if you don’t have/don’t want to use a camera. On the other hand, such omitting may be considered as project rules violation in some point. That’s why we’re also thinking about allowing team members use some code gestures to give hints to each other.