Posts

Posted on

Slop or Not

Game Synopsis (Slop or Not)

“Slop or Not” is a social deduction card game that challenges players to distinguish between human-created and AI-generated content in an era where the line between the two is increasingly blurred. Each round, players are presented with a piece of “slop” (a visual, text-based, or hybrid creation) and must decide whether it was made by a human or a machine.

Players vote simultaneously, revealing their choices and earning points for correct guesses. As the game progresses, patterns begin to break down, confidence is shaken, and players are forced to confront how unreliable their instincts actually are.

As a game for change, “Slop or Not” explores themes of authorship, authenticity, and digital literacy. It encourages players to critically evaluate the media they consume and question assumptions about creativity, originality, and trust in the age of AI-generated content. The goal is not just to win, but to realize how difficult (and sometimes impossible) it is to tell the difference.

Core Gameplay Loop

  1. Flip a card → reveal a piece of content (“slop”)
  2. Players decide: Human or AI?
  3. Everyone votes simultaneously
  4. Reveal answer
  5. Score points → next round

Simple. Fast. Brutal to your ego.

Rulebook: Lite 

Players:

2–6 players

Objective:

Earn the most points by correctly identifying whether content was created by a human or AI.

Setup:

  • Shuffle the deck of Slop Cards
  • Each card has:
    • Front: Content (image/text/design/etc.)
    • Back: Answer (Human or AI) + optional context
  • Place deck face down in the center

Gameplay:

1. Reveal Phase

  • Flip the top card and display it to all players

2. Decision Phase

  • Players secretly choose: Human or AI
     (via voting cards, hand signals, or tokens)

3. Reveal Phase

  • All players reveal their choice at the same time

4. Scoring Phase

  • Correct guess → keep the card (1 point)
  • Incorrect guess → card goes to discard pile

Optional Twist (recommended):

  • If ALL players guess wrong → card is worth 2 points next round
    reinforces “collective overconfidence” failure

End Game:

  • Game ends when all cards are used
  • Player with the most cards (points) wins

Mechanics Breakdown

Core Mechanics:

  • Simultaneous Decision Making → keeps pace fast, prevents copying
  • Deduction / Pattern Recognition → players try to “learn” tells
  • Psychological Play → players second-guess themselves and others
  • Push Your Confidence (soft mechanic) → the more confident you feel, the more likely you are to be wrong

Hidden System:

The game should intentionally:

  • Mix obvious vs deceptively ambiguous cards
  • Include:
    • Bad AI (easy wins early)
    • Good AI (mid-game doubt)
    • Weird human content (breaks assumptions)

This creates a confidence curve:

  • Early: “This is easy”
  • Mid: “Wait… what?”
  • Late: “I have no idea anymore”

That arc is where the game actually works.

Game for Change / Serious Game Angle

What it’s actually doing:

  • Exposes how unreliable people are at detecting AI
  • Challenges the assumption that “you can just tell”
  • Builds skepticism and critical thinking toward digital media
  • Sparks discussion around:
    • authenticity
    • authorship
    • trust online
    • creative ownership

(If anyone has any feedback or ideas for how it should be revealed whether the creation is AI or Human made without being too obvious to read, I would appreciate it!)

Posted on

Week 10 Questions

  1. What made the experience fun or not?

The gamble made it fun because you could be on such a good streak and decide to stop and then your opponent gets a bust card.

  1. What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing?

The motivating factor is to keep playing is to get more points than your player and keep gaining points if you lost them.

  1. Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game?

No the game is not persuasive.

  1. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout?

The mechanics that stand out is the gamble of picking up the next card. The metaphor is to trust your gut because you are guessing on if the next card will be beneficial to you or not.

  1. How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for?

The gameplay makes me feel like I shouldn’t be gambling because I could loose so much money in the blink of an eye. It makes me feel empathy for people who have gambling addictions.

  1. Is the game an activist game? If so what does the game play advocate for?

I guess you could consider the game advocating for the people who have gambling addictions so you can see how easy it is to become addicted to the chance.

  1. Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.

guess next cards value

decide if you continue

gain maximum points

Posted on

Game Maker’s Play Test Notes – Refined (In-Session Observations)

What questions did your players have?
Players asked whether actions like busting or card effects applied to their total score or only within the current turn. There were multiple clarifications needed around how long effects last, indicating that rule timing is not immediately clear during play.

How quickly did they learn to play?
Players picked up the game very quickly. Most understood the basic flow within about five minutes. Minimal explanation was needed after the first round, suggesting the core mechanics are intuitive.

What kinds of interactions did the players have?
Players were actively engaging with each other, especially around card visibility. There were repeated moments of players asking others not to hide their cards, which created a mix of playful tension and informal rule enforcement.

What confused players?
Card directions caused the most confusion. Players were unsure whether card effects impacted overall score or just the current turn. Some hesitation during turns suggested uncertainty about correct rule application.

What made players excited?
Specialty cards generated the strongest reactions. Players became noticeably more engaged when these cards were played, especially when they influenced outcomes or other players.

What did your players enjoy doing?
 Players enjoyed influencing other players’ outcomes. There was clear interest in mechanics that allowed interference or control, which led to more engagement and table discussion.

Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
Frustration was low overall. Some minor frustration occurred when players busted or lost points, particularly when outcomes felt sudden or unclear.

What did your players learn / take away from your game? Was that what you intended? Players appeared to recognize themes of risk, greed, and self-control during gameplay. Their reactions to pushing limits versus playing safely aligned with the intended psychology of gambling mechanics.

What is your plan to address player questions, confusion, and frustration?
Rules and card text need to be clarified, particularly around how and when effects apply. Adjustments will focus on simplifying wording and making outcomes more immediately understandable during play.

If your players didn’t get your intended message, what will you change?
The intended message was generally understood, but reinforcing it through clearer cause-and-effect feedback during gameplay would strengthen the connection.

Posted on

Game Maker’s Play Test Notes – Baristas & Budtenders

What questions did your players have?
Players asked a lot of early clarification questions around how shifts work, how customers move/interact between spaces, and how tips are actually earned and scored. There were also questions about how mood affects outcomes and whether certain actions stack or reset between turns. (Wednesday resets took a bit of explaining)

How quickly did they learn to play?
The core idea clicked pretty quickly after a round or two, especially once players saw the flow of a full shift. However, some of the finer mechanics (like mood influence and scoring efficiency) took longer to fully understand.

What kinds of interactions did the players have?
Players were very engaged with each other! There was a mix of light competition and indirect interference, especially when managing customer moods or trying to maximize tips. A lot of table talk happened, with players reacting to each other’s choices and outcomes.

What confused players?
The biggest confusion came from balancing customer moods and understanding how different mechanics interact (especially adjacency and emotional effects). There were also moments where players weren’t sure what the “best move” was, which suggests some systems may need clearer feedback or simplification.

What made players excited?
Players got excited when they pulled off high-tip turns or when multiple mechanics worked together successfully. The theme also resonated; people liked the humor and relatability of dealing with customers in both café and dispensary settings.

What did your players enjoy doing?
They enjoyed managing customers and trying to optimize their turns for maximum tips. The decision-making around where to focus energy (coffee vs. dispensary) was especially engaging, along with reacting to shifting customer moods.

Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
Yes, balance was a noticeable issue. The game was playtested twice over spring break with family, and it became very clear that the game MUST be played with an even number of players (2 or 4). When played with 3 players, the side with fewer players gains a major advantage and tends to win almost automatically, which breaks fairness and overall enjoyment. This will need to be addressed or restricted in the rules.

Final Revisions & Next Steps
Based on playtesting (conducted twice over spring break with family), the most critical revision is enforcing an even player count. The game will be updated to require 2 or 4 players, as testing showed that uneven setups (e.g., 3 players) create a structural imbalance where the side with fewer players has a consistent advantage and tends to win automatically. This adjustment is necessary to preserve fairness and intended gameplay dynamics.

After implementing this rule change, further development on Baristas & Budtenders will pause in favor of shifting focus to other projects for the remainder of the semester. Priority will be placed on revising Enough? based on playtest feedback, as well as continuing development on a collaborative game project!

Posted on

Game Ideas Week 6

5 ideas for simulations

  1. A city planning simulator. Players design systems of transportation to account for growth and traffic issues. 
  2. A game that simulates space exploration, but operating off a deck building mechanic like that of Dominion. I would incorporate discoveries that would dictate the strength of a hand at any given moment to keep it dynamic.
  3. Players work as a nurse at an understaffed hospital. They must prioritize patients with limited time and resources. The game would simulate the pressure and emotional strain of working in healthcare.
  4. An educational game in which players are challenged with repairing lines of code to earn points and prevent system failure.
  5. An air traffic control simulation where a player manages multiple flights at one time and avoids collision or delay.

Posted on

Game Ideas Week 4

Game Ideas Week 4

5 game ideas that are serious

  1. A collaborative card game in which players keep their town from flooding. They must stack barrier cards and share limited resources.
  2. A resource management game, inspired by the game Catan, that allows players to explore scarcity.
  3. A trading based game where Teams start with a small, random, item and must trade up to having the one that is “most valuable”. This would be determined by rolling dice and drawing cards to either progress or lose everything.  
  4. A new chess game that utilizes the concept of suits the way that cards do. It would be a deception game centered around a theme of crime and corruption. I would also be interested in modifying the board to be interactive 3-Dimensionally. 
  5. A murder mystery card game that utilizes the collaborative card set up of Hanabi, but instead of building suits, players exchange information to find the killer. 
Posted on

Enough? : Game Synopsis & Rules

Enough? is a push-your-luck card game about self-control, temptation, and the moment where confidence turns into overreach. Players draw cards to build points, but must decide when to stop before risking it all; balancing reward against the constant threat of losing everything.

The game uses an angel/devil framework to represent internal conflict, with card types that encourage, pressure, or punish continued play. As players push their luck, small decisions begin to compound, making it increasingly difficult to walk away.

Ultimately, Enough? is less about winning and more about recognizing limits. It challenges players to reflect on risk, impulse, and the consequences of “just one more.”

Enough-GameRulesDownload
Enough-GameCardsDownload

Posted on

3.13 Playtests

Spoon Buffet: Playtest Responses

What made the experience fun or not?
The tension between wanting to complete tasks and needing to preserve spoons made every decision feel consequential. It’s fun in a low-key stressful way, where you’re constantly negotiating with yourself. It only starts to feel less fun when you realize how easy it is to slip into Spoon Debt, which honestly feels both intentional and realistic.

What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing?
The main motivator is maintaining control aka trying to stay balanced while still progressing. There’s also a subtle push to “optimize” your turn, which can backfire, and that loop keeps players engaged.

Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game?
Yes, it’s persuasive in a quiet way. It encourages you to think more realistically about your own limits and energy management, especially how overcommitting can have lasting consequences. It also pushes you to either be selfish in your cards/turns or help others along the way.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics stand out?
The spoon system is a direct metaphor for personal energy, and it’s very effective. Spoon Debt stands out the most because it turns short-term decisions into long-term consequences.

How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for?
It creates a sense of pressure and awareness more than excitement. It builds empathy for people managing chronic stress, burnout, or limited energy in everyday life.

Is the game an activist game? If so what does the game play advocate for?
In a subtle way, yes. It advocates for recognizing limits, valuing self-care, and understanding that productivity isn’t always sustainable.

Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.
 You start with enough.
Somewhere along the way, it stops being enough.
And you realize it never really was.

The Color Game: Playtest Responses

What made the experience fun or not?
The perception element is what makes it engaging. There’s a constant sense that what you’re seeing or choosing might not be as obvious as it seems. The fun comes from that uncertainty, although it can also feel slightly disorienting in a way that seems intentional. It made me feel like more complex combos should have some sort of time handicap.

What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing?
Curiosity and competitiveness is the main driver. Players want to understand the system, recognize patterns, and figure out whether their perception is accurate before others. Speed being a main  factor of, “mechanic.”

Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game?
Yes, it pushes players to question how they interpret others and the world around them. It encourages reflection on bias, assumptions, and how quickly we categorize things.

What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics stand out?
The use of color combos can act as a metaphor for perception or categorization. The standout mechanic is how speed influences who builds stacks the quickest!

How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for?
It creates a sense of uncertainty and reflection. It builds empathy for people who are colorblind or in design adjacent fields.

Is the game an activist game? If so what does the game play advocate for?
No, it feels more like an educational game if anything, which you could argue in a way is a type of activism but for all intents and purposes I do not believe so.

Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.
 You think you see clearly.
Then the colors start to shift.
Maybe they always were.

Posted on

Bekzod N

1. Nikayla Haynes

2. Close enough

3. The actions with the prop

4. Maybe make some parts clearer

5. It was okay but a little slow

1. Kayla Bowman

2. I’m not fully sure

3. The concept

4. Maybe improve the angles

5. It was fine

1. Gabrailea Thomas

2. I’m not sure

3. The overall idea

4. Maybe smoother editing

5. It was okay

1. Ethan Bookbinder

2. Yes

3. Voiceover

4. Human body and movement

5. It was good but a little short

1. Tyler Lucas

2. Yes

3. The way he is lifting

4. Probably make it slower

5. Yes, it was

1. Anoni Valeri

2. I’m not sure

3. The visuals

4. Maybe better pacing

5. It was okay

1. Lily Clifford

2. Yes

3. Using the 360 camera

4. Probably record as her POV

5. Yes but a little rushed

1. Murro Gill

2. I’m not fully sure

3. The idea

4. Maybe clearer scenes

5. It was okay

1. Aliena Sargent

2. Yes

3. Voiceover

4. Probably reshoot from POV

5. Too much movement, could be slower

1. Nada Almatani

2. Yes

3. The way she does things in an odd way

4. Make the video a little shorter

5. Yes, it was smooth

1. Sid Crabtree

2. Yes, he did a good job

3. The way he falls

4. Get closer when he is sitting

5. It was good but needs more brightness

1. Gaige Stebler

2. Yes

3. Filling his water bottle

4. Probably use subtitles

5. Yes

1. Saoimi Jemenez

2. I guess so

3. Voice over

4. Maybe not black and white

5. Add more movement like walking

1. Noah Schardt

2. Yes

3. Sound effects

4. Maybe improve editing

5. It was good