design courses, syllabi, schedules, resources and policies
Ideally, one of these three google docs will be turned into a full on Canva full book with design for trackers, boards, and pieces!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rQuTxLD_zsCqjZ-DdqU3fSY69-pobqzdBuiGp3ZZES0/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vaFjA1YR0cysaFlZemEZfSt4XpyixNACg89oznWaUO8/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gzvfe0WtpylT40FzF7VQuVMp-DgE6FLRIxZBxItfbuM/edit?usp=sharing
Tweaks were made to rules based on playtest. Specifying that players must be evenly matched in each of the service areas and that the game must be played with an even number of players. Art and design tweaks made as well. This is the final iteration!
6 game ideas, the best one from each category of my last post, fleshed out into, “lite,” versions of play testable rulebooks!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BgBUpPJTtz6XqsZyzTd-lSDjkuLU34TKPoWI8tNzJLs/edit?usp=sharing
“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.
Simple. Fast. Brutal to your ego.
2–6 players
Earn the most points by correctly identifying whether content was created by a human or AI.
1. Reveal Phase
2. Decision Phase
3. Reveal Phase
4. Scoring Phase
Optional Twist (recommended):
The game should intentionally:
This creates a confidence curve:
That arc is where the game actually works.
What it’s actually doing:
(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!)
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.
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!
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.”
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.
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.
A card-based game where players accumulate points by drawing cards but must decide when to stop before losing everything. The angel/devil dynamic represents internal conflict.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Demonstrates impulse control, risk escalation, and how confidence leads to overextension.
Players match yoga poses to their correct names while navigating misleading options and decoys.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores cognitive bias, overconfidence, and how familiarity can lead to incorrect assumptions.
Players allocate limited resources across life domains represented by the 12 astrological houses.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Encourages systems thinking, prioritization, and understanding tradeoffs between competing life areas.
A deliberately unstable economic game where prices and values shift unpredictably over time.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Illustrates inflation, economic instability, and how systems degrade under pressure.
Players manage limited food resources within a shared system facing increasing strain.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Highlights ethical decision-making, scarcity, and the complexity of distribution systems.
Players act as different insect roles within a shared ecosystem.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Teaches ecological balance, interdependence, and cascading environmental effects.
Players balance development pressures with environmental preservation.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores sustainability, land ethics, and tradeoffs between growth and conservation.
Players build influence while managing identity stability and burnout.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Demonstrates feedback loops, attention economics, and identity fragmentation.
Players juggle tasks, distractions, and limited energy.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores procrastination, time fragmentation, and compounding consequences.
Players build communities based on shared texts that evolve through interpretation.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Examines how interpretation and context shape belief systems and structures.
Players alternate between company and consumer roles.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Demonstrates pricing psychology, information asymmetry, and trust erosion.
Players interpret and present events through different lenses.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores bias, framing, and narrative construction.
Players interpret ambiguous signals and decide whether to act.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores how humans create meaning from ambiguity and noise.
Players attempt to stay aligned with a shifting environment.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Teaches adaptability and the difficulty of maintaining balance in dynamic systems.
Players build routines that provide benefits but reduce flexibility.
Core Mechanic:
Educational Value:
Explores habit formation, dependency, and adaptability.
A layered systems game in which players build and expand AI infrastructure (data centers, energy grids, and model capacity,) unaware that they are collectively “awakening” an ancient, buried intelligence embedded within the Earth. What begins as optimization gradually shifts into something less controllable.
Core Mechanic:
Structural Twist:
The game transitions from a competitive optimization game into a cooperative survival dilemma as the awakened system gains influence.
Educational Value:
Explores the material reality of AI (energy consumption, infrastructure, environmental cost) while questioning assumptions about control, intelligence, and unintended consequences of technological expansion.
A social simulation game where players create and manage a small community of characters (“residents”) with distinct traits, preferences, and relationships. Rather than directly controlling outcomes, players influence interactions through subtle inputs and environmental changes. (Ode to Tomodatchi Life)
Core Mechanic:
Structural Twist:
Players are not in control of individuals, they are curating a system and watching it respond. Outcomes are often unpredictable, and attempts to control too much can backfire.
Educational Value:
Explores emergent systems, indirect influence, and how personality, environment, and chance shape social dynamics. Highlights the limits of control in complex human systems.
