Playtest 2 Game Maker’s Notes for – “The Sell Me This Challenge”

How to handle defects in the product: Players were unsure how to pitch a product with major defects, especially in scenarios like “selling a broken object” or “passive-aggressive buyer.” Some asked if there were more flexibility with the Scenario Cards or if it was okay to ignore defects in favor of creativity.
How to handle the time pressure: Players wondered whether they had enough time to fully think through their pitch, especially when using variations like the 1-minute or Mystery Box challenges. Some felt rushed and weren’t sure if they were using the full 2 minutes effectively.
Scoring clarity: There was some confusion around the point system, especially for the more challenging products. They wanted more guidance on what makes a sale successful, aside from just the majority “Buy” vote.

Quick to pick up the basics: Most players quickly understood the core mechanics—spin the wheel, pick an object, pitch it, and get feedback from the buyer. The concept of the game was easy to grasp within the first few rounds.
Some initial confusion around Scenario Cards: The concept of Scenario Cards, especially those that imposed restrictions or forced defects, took a little longer for players to get comfortable with. But once they got the hang of it, they embraced the challenge.
Learning curve: The learning curve for variations like the “Mystery Box Challenge” and “Time Pressure” was a bit steeper, as players had to adjust to the unpredictability.

Creative brainstorming: Players worked together to come up with the wildest, most convincing pitches they could. Sometimes, there was friendly competition to see who could be the most convincing.
Role-playing: As sellers, players got really into their characters, sometimes taking on exaggerated personas (like “fashion expert” or “aggressive salesperson”) to sell the object. This led to funny, engaging interactions.
Feedback sharing: After each round, players gave constructive feedback on the pitches. Some buyers were critical, offering suggestions on how to make the pitch more persuasive, while others were more lenient, enjoying the creativity.

Scenario Card limitations: Players were confused about how strict some Scenario Cards could be. For example, when selling a broken item, some players were unsure how much they could bend the rules or be creative without making the defect too obvious.
Handling the “passive-aggressive buyer”: The buyer in this scenario seemed to throw off some players because the sarcasm and negativity sometimes made it difficult to maintain a positive pitch.
Timer management: Some players were confused about how much time they should be spending on different parts of the pitch. For instance, whether to focus on humor, addressing defects, or delivering the product’s benefits.

Improvising pitches: The most enjoyable part was making spontaneous, sometimes outrageous sales pitches. They loved getting creative with their approach to make even the most mundane items seem desirable.
The fun scenarios: Players really enjoyed the “Mystery Box Challenge” and “Theme Pitches” because it pushed them to think on their feet and embrace the absurdity of selling something unexpected.
The feedback round: Players had a great time giving and receiving feedback after each pitch. It became a fun part of the game, where players tried to impress the buyer while also getting better at understanding what made a pitch convincing.

Time constraints: The pressure of the timer, especially when combined with difficult Scenario Cards, led to some frustration. Players felt rushed during their pitches and couldn’t always get their points across clearly.
Defective products: Having to sell items with clear defects (like broken or incomplete objects) felt like a major obstacle to some players. They weren’t sure how to balance honesty with creativity without getting too bogged down by flaws.
Limited role flexibility: The restrictions on certain scenarios limited some players’ ability to be as creative as they wanted to be. For example, being forced to sell a pencil case with no real unique selling points became frustrating.

Clarify Scenario Cards: I’d clarify the rules around Scenario Cards to ensure players know they have some leeway to get creative with defects. I’d also provide examples of how to pitch a product with flaws, emphasizing that creativity is key.
Adjustable timers: For certain challenges, I’d add an option to adjust the timer based on the difficulty of the product or scenario, giving players more time when necessary, particularly for tough products or unexpected challenges.
Flexible scenarios: I’d add an option to pick between different types of challenges within a scenario to give players more agency in crafting their pitch. For example, allowing players to choose between a “difficult buyer” or a “broken product” scenario would add variety without overwhelming them.
Expand role play: I’d allow more flexibility in how players pitch products. Maybe a “cooperative pitch” option could let players team up and share the spotlight for a more fun, collaborative experience.

Refine the message of creativity over perfection: If players didn’t fully grasp the message that creativity and persuasion are more important than the flaws of the product, I’d include more examples and practice rounds to emphasize that. I’d also add “cheat cards” or hints to encourage thinking outside the box.
Encourage risk-taking in pitches: If the players were too focused on delivering a flawless pitch, I’d introduce more risky scenarios where they have to exaggerate or push the boundaries of logic to sell a product. The point is to show that sometimes, the most ridiculous or unconventional pitch is the one that works best.
Clarify the objective: If players were too focused on the idea of “selling a perfect product,” I’d remind them that the game is about overcoming obstacles, not presenting the perfect item. Players should focus on creating a compelling story around the product, no matter its imperfections.