Category: Documentation

Posted on

Carbon Clash Revised Rules: PA Edition

Objective: Have the lowest total carbon footprint (fewest cards) when the main deck runs out.

1. The “Clash” (The Win/Loss Flip)

  • On your turn, choose one card from the top of your pile to play into the center.
  • All players reveal their chosen card.
  • The player with the HIGHEST carbon footprint (highest score) must collect all cards played in that round.
  • These cards go into your Secondary Pile (your “Carbon Debt”).

2. The Debate (Tie Rule)

If two players play cards with similar emissions (e.g., a Hybrid Car vs. Carpooling):

  • Players enter a Debate.
  • Each player has 15 seconds to argue why their activity is worse for the environment, specifically (e.g., “PA has a high-density bus network in Philly, making it more efficient than a single Hybrid, therefore, a hybrid has worse emissions”).
  • The other players vote. The winner of the debate takes the cards.

3. Pennsylvania “Learning Twist.”

If you play a “High Impact” card (score 200+), you may discard it instead of giving it to the winner if you can name one specific PA-based initiative or fact (ex, “The state’s transition toward natural gas over coal”).

End of Game & Scoring

The game ends immediately when any player’s Primary Stack (the cards they were dealt at the start) runs out.

Determining the Winner:

  1. Count the cards in your Secondary Pile.
  2. The player with the FEWEST cards wins.
  3. Tie-breaker: If card counts are equal, sum the carbon scores. The lowest total score wins.
Posted on

Star Sailor v1 and v2

Star Sailor is a game about focusing on the environmental impact of pursuing your goals, while keeping your energy and life meters in check.

v1: Version one went well. The game took about 20-25 minutes to play and learn. The biggest criticisms were an upgrade to the game board and visuals. And a few more key features to make the game more engaging.

v2: Added content was new dice, new character and stat cards, and a few new mechanics.n This was recived better, however the pathway for the new map was still a little confusin. It was stated that having the cards may be a little reptivitve, so that will be removed in the next version. The black-hole mechaic was also fixed so now that players will move to a new planet instead of being in the black hole.

For the next version I want to shrink and make the dice out of a diffrent materail to make them sound less terrible, make a new map and add some kind of upgrade mechanic.

Posted on

game 2 documentation

Aleah, Mason, Lauren

Rules : ⚔️ Speed War: Treasure Hunt 

🏝️ Story

Players are adventurers exploring a dangerous island in search of treasure.
Every card flipped represents something you encounter along the journey.

🃏 Card Meanings (Using a Regular Deck)

  • Number Cards (2–10) → Explorers
    • These are your adventurers competing for treasure
    • Higher number wins the round
  • Face Cards (J, Q, K) → Monsters 🐉
    • If a player plays a monster card, they instantly lose the round. The player then must discard the monster out of the game and put 2 cards into a pile on the side.
  • Aces (A) → Treasure 💰
    • First player to slap wins the pile and takes back the treasure into their deck
  • Jokers (optional) → Traps ⚠️
    • Last player to slap loses 3 cards and adds them to the pile

▶️ How a Round Works

  • At the start of the game give each player the same number of cards
  • Both players flip a card at the same time (like in War).
  • If both cards are number cards, the higher card wins the pile.
  • If a special card appears, players must react quickly and slap the card
  • If you win the round, you will take back your card and the other players card.

⚡ Special Events

  • Ace (Treasure Chest 💰)
    → First player to slap gets all the cards in the pile
  • Face Card (Monster Attack 🐉)
    → If a player plays a monster card, they instantly lose the round. The player then must discard the monster out of the game and put 2 cards into a pile on the side.
  • Joker (Hidden Trap ⚠️) (optional)
    → Last player to slap must give away 3 cards into the side pile 

🏆 Goal

Collect the most cards (treasure) and survive the island by the end of the game.

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

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

Notes from the second playtest, I noticed

Bulleted List

Spoon Buffet

  • If “unsupported” cards didn’t make sense
  • Label task cards and self-care cards
  • Fix card deciphering 
  • Can you play a self-care card and a task card 
  • Redo everything
  • Real spoons
  • More sabotage
  • More player interaction
  • Stack cards, tasks, and self-care
  • Fewer gain spoon cards
  • Easier to get rid of the spoons or take another spoon