- I enjoyed Reactor 21 a lot. While the mechanics foil down to basic Blackjack, the mechanics added to the base game allow the concept of Blackjack to take an entirely new shape.
- Every decision needed a debate in Reactor 21 because the game is quite unforgiving. In our test, we had to make it slightly easier to account for the bad card luck.
- As someone who understood blackjack, it made understanding this game easier. However, Reactor 21 adds much more meta-game to the original blackjack formula, which took a bit to learn.
- The game, like blackjack, is entirely luck based. However, Reactor 21 gives you some breathing room to make mistakes and forces you to make otherwise bad decisions to risk reward.
- The stress of each decision and relief of a card that saved the game made the setting so much more real. It almost felt like we were balancing real nuclear reactors. The game does really well in balancing risk and allowing players to take risks to get a better result.
- A problem we ran into was not enough chances to recover in the event of too many “dead draws”. Even if you played perfectly, you could draw a max of 3 bad cards before you lose. This made the game really tough to win. We then expanded the limit of “instability” points to allow more breathing room.
- In my opinion. All the game needs is some theming and places to put points.
- Yes. Even for non-blackjack players, I think the game stands well enough on its own to be a complex game of risk and luck that requires decisions at every turn.
- In act one, players draw their first card and need to choose which reactor to add it to. In the second act, players have stabilized their reactors or have rising instability (depending on their luck). By the third act players need to make tough calls to balance their reactors.
- The game is entirely collaborative. A decision can greatly change the outcome of the game in the unforeseeable future, meaning every move counts. We were excited to see cards and devastated when we drew bad ones.
- The game has a nice theme about balancing nuclear reactors that are one wrong move away from destruction. I am not sure if any other game could highlight that stress as much as blackjack. The gameplay and setting blend seamlessly I’m my opinion.
- Hectic. Hard. Chance.
Takedown Inc. – Game Review
- The game was fun. I liked the methodical take on a pretty spontaneous game. The spinner forcing players to make decisions they might not make can put them in disadvantageous situations.
- Players took turns taking bricks from each others’ tower to reinforce their own, but had to make sure that they did not knock over their opponent’s tower.
- The game was quick to learn. The instructions build off of Jenga and were easy to understand.
- Some of the wild/action cards were not specified, and their ability to be played at any time interrupted the experience a bit. Also, no rules about taking bricks from the top were stated, which allowed players to avoid the dangers of the lower parts of the tower.
- I enjoyed the idea of the game. I believe that it was a nice blend of Twister and Jenga. I hope that, in a future version, colors and numbers can be used to further force players into tough situations.
- I wanted more ways to interact with my opponent. For example, an action card that forces players to take from their own tower can make the conflict stronger.
- I would add more rules or systems to the game to speed up the gameplay. I feel that the game takes a bit long to reach a point where players need to be worried about knocking their opponent’s tower down.
- Yes. It makes a fun party game that requires a bit more focus than normal Jenga.
- Players take their first bricks in the first act. In the second act, towers are losing their integrity as players are forced to make more dangerous decisions. Act three begins and ends a tower falls.
- Players are directly competing with each other, but do not want to knock their opponent’s towers over (which is a nice paradox).
- I believe the standout mechanic is the spinner and marked bricks. The spinner takes the agency of choice away from the player, forcing them to make plays they otherwise wouldn’t make. This makes the game more adaptive than normal Jenga.
- Stressful, Adaptable, Casual
Patchwork City – Game Review
- The concept of the game was fun. I liked the idea of a complex resource management game where players need to weigh the pros and cons of buildings, and balance costs and resources.
- We as players did not interact much. Players were a bit isolated, silently competing with each other. What really mattered was what building somebody built at the right time.
- The game took a while to learn. Many of the mechanics were vague and unexplained, which made it hard to interpret and learn. We had to adapt many of the rules and procedures to have a playable game.
- The rules and instructions were very vague. The images above show revisions we made to make the game playable. Many of the mechanics of the game are not explained and leave players questioning, like money, population, goods, etc.
- I liked the macroeconomy that the game was going for. The large amount of resources to manage makes the game enjoyably complex. With some polish, it could really become a cool strategy game.
- I wanted to understand more.
- I would enforce a rule to match building colors with zone colors. I would also make resource acquisition a priority, as it wasn’t mentioned much and did not even affect the buildings in the late game.
- Yes, I would play the game when the rules are tightened and the scope is reduced.
- Act 1: Players build their first residential zone and acquire resources. Act 2: Players make strategic investment decisions in which property to build to compete with others. Act 3: Players rely on the revenue they generate to pass the money limit and win.
- Players are competitive in that they fight for the same resources and must be the first to reach a wealth goal.
- The game has a similar metaphor to Monopoly but players are much less adversaries than they are competitors. Players need to find the right strategy to generate enough wealth to win. A player’s immediate actions rarely affect other players.
- Players must plan their approach. Players must balance their resources. Players must be the first to the top.
“Chef Check” (ver. 1) – Rules
Created by: Harmony & Bryce
Players: 2-4
Age: 10+
Objective:
The goal of Chef Check is to be the first chef to reach the winning score by creating complete meal “runs” and earning points each round.
During each round, players race to get rid of all their cards by forming as many runs as possible, each run scoring valuable points. The round ends when one player plays or discards their last card, and everyone adds up their total points from completed meals.
Keep track of your points throughout the game.
Setup
- You need a score sheet and a pencil.
- Shuffle the Food Cards and deal all players 7 cards, and place the rest face down in the center as the Draw Pile.
- Turn the top card face up beside it — this is the Food Discard Pile.
- Create a separate space for the Sabotage Discard Pile, where used sabotage cards will go (they can’t be reused or picked up later)
Gameplay
- Any player can go first, and game continues clockwise
- To start your turn you must pick up a card from the discard pile or the draw pile.
- During your turn, you then have freedom to then lay down any meal runs you may have and/or use a sabotage card.
- When you use a Sabotage card, place it in the sabotage discard pile.
- Then to end your turn you have to discard one of your cards from your hand
- IF you picked up from the discard pile to BEGIN your turn, you CANNOT discard that card during the same turn.
- When discarding your card, place it on top of the previous card so that the previous card is no longer visible.
- IF the deck runs out of cards, reshuffle the food discard pile and take the top card and flip it over to begin the new discard pile and continue play.
Points
Players add up their points at the end of each round. These are the values of cards/runs:
- Chef Meals: 20pts
- Regular Meals: 10pts
IF you have cards remaining in your hand after a player has run out of cards, you subtract the point value of what is in your hand from your current points. Each card left in your hand is -5 points.
Winning
Once a player reaches 100 points after a few rounds of play, wins the game and the game ends.
Card Types:
There are 4 types of cards in Chef Check: Entree cards, Side cards, Drink cards, and Sabotage cards. Three cards of all food types make up a set:
Example: (Fillet Mignon [Entree], Rice [Side], Water [Drink]).
Entree cards are distinguished by the image of a plate with utensils, side dishes have an image of a bowl, and drinks have an image of a glass. Sabotage cards can be played once during a player’s turn, which can affect themselves or other players.
Chef Meals
Chef meals are special card sets that yield extra points when played. Instead of receiving 10 points for a set of 3 unrelated food items, completed chef meals yield 20. Cards in the same meal set are color coded below.
- High Class – Filet Mignon, Mashed Potato, Red Wine
- Pescitarian – Salmon, caesar salad, lemonade
- Meal prep – Roast Chicken, Rice, Water
- Cookout – BBQ Ribs, Mac and Cheese, Beer
- Red lobster – Lobster tail, Veggies, Dr. Pepper
Sabotage Cards: ( ! symbol on each card )
- Mice Attack: Your target has to get rid of ONE of their runs and put it in the discard pile.
- Kitchen Fire: You burnt one of your food items, discard a useless card from your hand.
- Food Swap: Swap one random card with another player.
Quads (ver. 3) – Rules
Introduction:
Quads is a fast-paced card game that blends the style of Poker with the mechanics of Spoons. Players pass cards between themselves, aiming to collect a winning hand to bet on. After a timed card-passing phase, players bet on their hands for the chance to win the pot.
What you will need:
- 3-6 players
- 1 deck of cards that includes Jokers
- A 30-second timer
- Betting chips in at least two different colors (or denominations), with enough for multiple rounds.
Game Setup
- Shuffle the deck of cards. Remember to include the jokers.
- Pass 1 card to each player. The player with the highest card becomes the “Passer”, who will cards from the deck during the Passing Phase. If two players tie, repeat this process between the players who tied until a tiebreaker is reached. If a joker is drawn, discard it and draw another card.
- The winner chooses the direction for passing cards: clockwise or counterclockwise. All players must pass cards in that chosen direction. (If you’d like, you can alter the direction of play after every round)
- Deal a number of chips depending on the difficulty you choose to play the game:
- Easy: Deal 5 green chips and 6 red chips to each player (21 points to start)
- Normal: Deal 4 green chips and 3 red chips to each player (15 points to start)
- Hard: Deal 2 green chips and 6 red chips to each player (12 points to start)
Green chips will be counted as 3 points, and red chips will be counted as 1. Extra chips should be made accessible if players run out of certain chips, and wish to exchange for chips of an equivalent value. If new to the game, play the game with a Normal level of chips.
Hand Rankings
This game borrows the hand ranking system from Poker, but removes some of the winning hands. Familiarize yourself with the ranking of hands below. Players with the highest ranking hand will claim the pot, or all chips in play. In the event of a tie, players must split the pot evenly, regardless of any extra cards (unless you are playing the Advanced Edition). When ready, start the passing phase.
Here are some examples of the hands you should be looking for.
- Four-of-a-Kind (Quads) – 4 cards of the same number (all suits): (4♠,4ç,4♦,4♣)
- Straight Flush – 4 sequential cards of the same suit: (2♠,3♠,4♠,5♠)
- Three-of-a-Kind – 3 cards of the same number (regardless of suit): (3♣,3♥,3♠,1♥)
- Two Pair – 2 pairs of cards with the same number (regardless of suit: (6♥,6♦,8♣,8♠)
- Pair – A pair of cards that share the same number (regardless of suit): (7♦,7♠,2♦,6♦)
Passing phase
- Shuffle the deck and deal 4 cards to each player. Place the remaining cards in an accessible place, this will become the draw pile. If a player receives a joker, reshuffle the joker back into the draw pile.
- When ready, the Passer will begin by drawing a card and discarding a card in their chosen direction. The player who received the card from the passer must collect the card and discard a card in the direction of the passer.
- When the last player in the cycle receives a card, they must discard a card in a pile adjacent to the draw pile. You should maintain a hand of 4 cards at all times.
- At any point during this process, players can “lock-in” their hand by placing their cards face-down and announcing it to the table. Locked-in players can no longer receive or discard cards. Players must pass around the locked-in player, and can draw if the previous passer locks-in.
- Continue this process until the first player locks in, or a Joker is drawn. If a Joker is drawn, the Passing Phase ends immediately and the betting phase begins.
- After the first player locks in a 30-second timer will begin. All other players must lock in their hands before the countdown ends to continue to the Betting Phase. When all but one player lock-in their hand, the passing phase ends immediately.
- Players who are holding more than 4 cards by the end of the Passing Phase are disqualified from the betting phase. Move quickly.
Betting Phase
Once the Passing Phase ends, all players (that are not disqualified) enter the betting phase. Given their current hand, players can choose to:
- Bet High – Place one green chip worth 3 points.
- Bet Low – Place one red chip worth 1 point
- Fold – Place your hand face down and disqualify yourself, making no bet.
The player who is locked-in first must start the betting phase, and the order of betting will follow the order of passing. After all decisions have been made, players enter the Reveal Phase.
Reveal Phase
Once the Betting Phase ends, all betting players must reveal their hand to the table. The player with the highest ranking hand will take the entire pot. If two players tie, and no other hand outranks them, they must split the pot as evenly as possible (Exchange chips if needed). If all players but one fold, the winner can take the pot “uncontested” and does not need to reveal their cards (It would make the game funnier if they did though). Players who run out of chips are eliminated from the game unless house rules state otherwise.
Collect the cards, shuffle the deck, then restart the Passing Phase. Continue until a Win Condition is reached.
Win conditions
Players can decide a winner using points, rounds, disqualification, or some mixture of the 3. Here’s some standard examples to provide a framework, but feel free to create your own:
- After 5/10/15 rounds, count the value of the chips. The player with the highest number of points wins. To start, play between 5-8 rounds and choose the winner based on chips.
- Given the number of points each player starts with, set a winning number of points players must reach to win.
- The last player to be disqualified wins the game.
Advanced Edition (Optional Rules): Read if you’ve played Quads enough
If you’ve played enough Quads to understand the game, and want more complexity/challenge, feel free to add some bonus rules:
- No betting limit: Players can bet as many or little points as desired (be sure to adjust the points/starting chips to account for this)
- Add more winning hands to the game
- Straight – Any hand of cards that progress in numerical order, regardless of suit
- High Card – If two players tie with the same hand rank, the player with the highest unmatched card wins the pot.
- Add 1-2 more decks to the original to increase complexity
- Expand the hand limit from 4 to 5
- Play with more players (alter time and decks for extra players)
Witch’s Brew Game Review
- Much of the game is centered around chance, making it hard to form offensive or defensive strategies. Players would hoard their cards for a while until they had enough of a stockpile to play offensively or defensively.
- I like the idea of Tarot cards being “wild-cards” in essence. They can aid in strategies, speed up gameplay, or completely shift the momentum. However, I feel that they should be treated as special cards drawn from a special pile or earned for performing actions.
- There were plenty of opportunities in the game. The mechanics blend nicely, and the gameplay is smooth.
- I would add more spells for extra complexity and make the ingredients more universal (meaning they can work for multiple spells). If this were to change, the points to win may need a change. I would also expand on or emphasize some of the conditions that come with cards.
- I liked the layered gameplay of collecting cards and using them against others in a greater way. I liked the punishments for being cursed and the idea of using spells to counteract their effects. I made a strategy to play offensively if I could defend against attacks as well.
The Trial of Taming Spires
- The game leaves the entire world building, adversities, and situations up to the game master. Despite this making the game much more open than more linear DND style games, it also makes the game’s fun entirely contingent on the game master’s creativity. I was automatically decided to be the game master (which is an honor), but I felt overwhelmed because I had no framework or idea from where to build off of. I would consider adding more context or foundations for game masters who may not be as improvisational.
- I had a lot of fun challenging myself to create an improvised story that featured character arcs, branching paths, and a world that I know little about. I was just as reliant on the enthusiasm of the players as I was on good storytelling.
- I wanted a greater idea of what I was guiding my players towards. Though the game master sheet provides a brief explanation of the overall themes and enemies that are not to be revealed until the end, it does little to help develop a story; it only provides a setting. Contrast this to the Honey Heist, where locations, adversities, and main antagonists were determined on a dice roll.
- I would add more relevance to the beasts that each character possesses, whether it be a deeper battle system or a way of distinguishing beasts from one another. Also, it is difficult to keep track of the traits each character has on top of the traits each creature has.
- I enjoy story-driven games that are up to the imagination of a player. While the mechanics and rules cold be refined, I believe that the game is a fun DND-style experience.
- Yes, I would play The Trial of Taming Spires again, though I’d like to make a character and not always be chosen to be game master.
Headlampers Game Review
- Near the end of the game , the low amount of available tiles on the board meant that players spent more time rolling the dice to get the number on the tile. Furthermore, if you miss the tile number, your turn is skipped. This made the game much longer, as much of the end game was spent rolling the dice to get a specific number repeatedly. I would recommend adding a re-roll mechanic that allows players to get more out of their turn during the end game.
- I loved the theming and competitive factor between players in the game. I believe that the concept is simple, yet solid.
- There were many moments of inaction in the game because none of the players could roll the number needed to pick up a tile. I would change this mechanic, either through new rules, cards, etc to eliminate that downtime.
- The amount of wildcards was plentiful, but the cards themselves were often repetitive. I believe that adding more diverse cards could enhance the game play more.
- I did not mind the dice rolling being the primary action in the game. The dice make the game naturally fair, and the wild cards enhance the game by giving players reasons to challenge each other.
- Yes. I think the game is fun to play casually with friends. With some added mechanics, or tweaked features, I believe some of the aspects of the game could be ironed out to make the game better. However, I believe that the simplicity works in Headlampers’ favor, because it gives all players the likely chance to win at the cost of skill expression.
Week 8: Question Set 2
- Play testing my game taught me not to be too invested in how I believe the game should be played. I had the thought to force players to act a certain way, and was slightly frustrated when reality did not match my expectations. With this, I learned to give my players more leeway, especially when just starting the game. I believe I created a nicer, more player friendly, rule set because of the feedback from my first play test.
- I’d like to replay my game with the same play testers as last time, so that I can gather their thoughts on the differences that they noticed. But I am also able to play test with new players, so I can get different perspectives on the core game play, as well as the changed rules.
- My initial target audience was fast-paced card players. I enjoy cards, and games where speed is integral, so I wanted to create a game that blends the two together. Creating this game taught me that many players are unfamiliar with cards, which meant that I had to change my game to accommodate.
- I would like to play test the game with my friends outside of class. As card players, I feel like they would be not only more excited to play, but also more familiar with the process of drawing cards, understanding sets/runs, and betting on their hand.
Week 8: Reading Question Set 1
- According to Kobold’s Guide to Board Game Design the author states that the difference between game developers and game designers are their positions in the process of a game’s creation, from inception to release. Game designers create the skeleton of the game: the theme, mechanics, game play, and initial rules of the game. Upon finishing a working draft, developers then take the game and polish it to make the game more inciting to publishers and players alike. Dale Wu, and Mike Selinker, in their review of Dominion’s mechanics and development, equated designers to book authors and developers to editors who make suggestions and revisions before the publisher.
- Using Dominion’s development as inspiration, Selinker mentions four key events that occur in game development: Initial play testing, rule setting/refining, blind play testing, and theming/titling. In the initial play test, the designers ensure that the game is playable, and lacks key flaws missed during development. Rule setting is when the rules are drafted that better interact with the mechanics. Blind testing is putting the game in front of new players to test whether they can understand the game’s mechanics and uncover any oversights. Titling and theming is developing the core metaphor or theme that the game is based around. These events to not always happen in the same order. The theming can come before the play test, and the blind test can come before key rules are developed.
3. Two key challenges that Paul Peterson mentions in game balancing is accounting for every combination of actions, and understanding the cost of each action. A large challenge in game design is ensuring that every action is balanced around so that a sequence of actions or cards, does not create an unfair situation. Doing this is time-intensive and difficult with more complex games. The solution is to test the most unfair combinations. Another challenge in game design is balancing around the cost of an action, like playing a card or taking an action. All games have an inherent cost, and I associate with risk. If the cost of an action is not justifiably high or low, actions will feel overpowered or under powered. Peterson’s solution was to lean into the imbalance, but develop around it.
4. Every player in the game should believe that they have an equal chance to win. Dave Howell cites this as one of the most important principles of game design. Without the belief, even a small one, that any and all players can win, players will psychological divest themselves from the game and become apathetic to the outcome. In short, players must feel like they can win up until the end, because if they don’t they can become apathetic.
5. There are many things designers can do to avoid stealing players’ fun. Many of them involve how players interact with each other, rather than how players interact with the game. One of these things is avoiding “Kingmaking” (allowing players to choose winners), because “Kingmaking” leaves the fate of the game to the players, which often relies on chance and not skill. Games should also not reward winners and punish losers too much, as they create situations where momentum keeps players ahead or behind. They also create situations where hopeless players grow apathetic.
6. The ten maxims Mike Selinker mentions(along with my interpretations) are:
- Use no intermediary terminology: “Call things what they are.”
- Use real words: “Make your rules understandable from the get-go, and ensure that they are consistent”
- Make no more work than necessary: “Do not over complicate core processes of the game”
- Add flavor (but not too much): “Understand how much flavor your game needs”
- Make your text no smarter than your reader: “Do not obfuscate rules”
- Discard rules that cannot be written: “If a rule is too complex to understand (or even write), remove it or alter it.
- Take a breath: “Break your text up if it is getting to long”
- Go easy on the eyes: “Make your rules readable”
- Playtest your final version: “Review your rules in a final play test to fully understand their interpretations.”
- Fix it in the FAQ: “Make subsequent clarifications later (do not ignore them).”
Strays – Play-test
- One frustrating aspect of the game was the lack of a specified win-state. More clarity on how the game ends would allow more strategies to form. However, we were playing on a time-limit, so that could have affected how the game was played. Another frustrating aspect of the game were the start points. Your spawn depends on the dog you choose, so some players may end up clumped together while others will be separated. One problem I saw though were the lack of specific directions. For example, a card stating “Go back 2 spaces” is confusing because there is no sense of “forward” and “back”.
- I enjoyed the art of the game. I liked the “open-world” aspect of the game, where you can choose to go anywhere. I also liked the chance aspect of the cards you drew, which added a lot of world building to the game.
- I would have liked a better way to track point. Some of the cards force players to give up, or swap, houses (and their point values). The problem began when players forgot which house came from an alley or a road. This is important because points are doubled if houses come from the alley. I would either remove the “double points” rule, color the alleyway houses differently, or create a new way for players to track their houses.
- I would clarify some of the rules in the game. We always discarded cards after we drew them. However, cards often had lasting affects that we were unaware of, or worked retroactively. A rule that clarified that we should collect the cards we draw would clear some of the confusion. I would also add a way to force a direction for players.
- I enjoyed this relaxed style of board game. There were many moments of fun conflict between players because of the competition the cards forced.
- I would play Strays again. I really liked the theme of the game, and the idea of scouring the neighborhood to collect loyal followers (households). Our group got very territorial, which was the hidden intent of the game.
The Alleyway Pharmacy – Play-test
- Two frustrating aspects of the game was the slow pace and lack of player interactions. Even though players understood the game fundamentals, the game play often revolved around players deciding which action to take (and trying to figure out what each action did). I would commit to the idea of writing action descriptions on the cards themselves, and not coloring them so that they do not stand out. Another aspect of game play was the lack of sabotage. It did not feel like my actions affected other players very much. Moreover, the game was not very punishing.
- I loved the theme and irony of drug dealers selling food and being caught for selling candy. It was a creative theme, and I enjoyed seeing the subtle jokes each card had. I also enjoyed the hand and stash mechanic. It added a complex layer the game, where players must make commitments to selling their product and cannot undo their decision, allowing other players to pass candy into their stash.
- I wish for more opportunities to affect my opponents. While Steal, Snitch, and cards of that category did spice the game up slightly, I felt as though they had little to no affect on the game.
- I would make the card count depend on the number of players in the game.
- I really liked the layers of game play in The Alleyway Pharmacy. Players have a hand that they can view, and a stash that they cannot. Players must make the choice to risk being sabotaged when they decide to stash and sell their product.
- Yes. I would play The Alleyway Pharmacy again, with some tweaks, it could become a great well-rounded competitive game.
Deadline – Play test (Version 1)
- One frustrating aspect of the game was the lack of control over what cards were taken.
- I enjoyed collecting cards from others and getting a lucky break during a round. The high-risk, high-reward style of game play made the game easy to learn but difficult to master.
- I wished for more ways to affect my play. Discarding jokers is near impossible, almost always locking you into a situation where you lose points.
- I would tweak, or at least, reevaluate the way that points are calculated. Players are almost always trying for high cards (Jacks, Queens, Kings, etc.). Though this inherently makes getting runs/sets of high cards more dangerous, it does not balance out against the low value of the lowest cards. Three 2s will almost always be the worst hand to hold on to. I would balance some of the lower cards to keep up with higher sets/runs.
- I thought that mechanics were well designed. Rounds flowed into each other and the game play sped up as we understood the game more.
- I would really like to play Deadline again. As a person who enjoys card games, I think it blends a simple concept, a nice theme, and a high skill ceiling very well.
Tale Weavers – Play test (Version 1)
- One frustrating aspect of the game was trying to work within the strict scope of the cards provided. Many of them are extremely specific, meaning one must work really hard to spin the story of the card together. There were many instances of players changing the prompt so that the story fits better.
- Two events stuck out to me during game play. Reading the card prompts is quite funny, they’re witty and employ a dark or ironic style of humor. Many of the stories people created on the fly were very funny.
- I wanted a rule, similar to a house rule in Cards Against Humanity, where players can discard their entire hand and collect new cards to better match the prompt. It felt like my cards rarely aligned with the prompt.
- As mentioned before, I would remove some of the specific wording in some of the cards, and make them more vague.
- The mechanics are well thought out. Though I often struggled to flow my story cards together with the settings and characters, when they did align it made an incredible story.
- I would play this game again. It would make a nice party game for large groups of adults.
Broken Mime – Play test (Version 1)
- The most frustrating actions in Broken Mime was the inability to repeat actions done. Though the intent of this restriction is reasonable, it makes cards that depict specific actions difficult to re-enact.
- The charade’s style game play of Broken Mime lent to many funny moments. I also enjoyed the debate that happened after the card’s prompt was revealed.
- As mentioned before, some cards were incredibly specific, so it made not repeating actions difficult.
- I would add more clarity to some of the rules. For example, are players besides the participating two supposed to watch or look away?
- The charades mechanics work with the concept of Telephone well. Rounds often ended with hilarious debates of what the original card was.