Litter Patrol: Case Study

Core Concept

Litter Patrol is an asymmetric board game where one player takes on the role of a Litterer while two others play as environmental defenders (a Civilian and an Officer) in a community setting. The game explores environmental stewardship through strategic gameplay that balances entertainment with educational value.

Message & Purpose

The game aims to raise awareness about the impact of littering on community spaces while creating an engaging play experience. Rather than being preachy, the game demonstrates consequences through mechanics that feel natural and strategic.

Core Rules

• Setup: Assemble modular hexagonal board, place character pieces at starting positions, distribute cards, set environmental health tracker to 100%
• Turn Order: Civilian → Officer → Litterer
• Basic Actions: Movement, placing/removing tokens, playing cards, resolving scenarios
• Victory Conditions: Defenders win by maintaining environmental health above 40% for 12 rounds or restoring it to 90%; Litterer wins by dropping environmental health below 20% or keeping it below 30% for 3 consecutive rounds

Key Mechanics

• Asymmetric player roles with different abilities
• Environmental health tracker that responds to board state
• Dynamic scenario system presenting everyday environmental choices
• Strategic token placement and removal
• Card-driven special abilities

Iterative Design

First Prototype: Basic Asymmetric Structure

The initial design featured simple mechanics where the Litterer placed tokens and the Defenders removed them. Playtesting revealed this was too straightforward and favored the Defenders, making the Litterer role unsatisfying.

Challenge: Creating balanced asymmetric gameplay Solution: Enhanced the Litterer’s abilities with “Blend In” and “Sneak Littering” options, while adding restrictions to the Defenders

Second Prototype: Adding Depth

Added card systems for each player role but discovered the game lacked a connection to real-world scenarios. The environmental message felt forced and separate from the gameplay.

Challenge: Integrating educational content without sacrificing fun Solution: Developed the scenario system to create meaningful choices tied to everyday situations

Third Prototype: Fine-Tuning Balance

Initial scenario design made winning too easy for the Defenders. The game became predictable after a few plays.

Challenge: Creating tension and replayability Solution: Adjusted winning conditions, introduced variable board setups, and added the “Public Opinion” and “Budget Constraints” trackers

Environmental Health System

The central game state tracker that responds to the presence of litter tokens on the board. Different litter types have varying impacts:

• Standard litter: -1 health point
• Food waste: -2 health points
• Toxic waste: -3 health points

Health can be restored through cleanup actions, but at a slower rate than it can be depleted, creating strategic tension.

Scenario System

When a player lands on a scenario location, they activate a card presenting an everyday situation with environmental choices. Each player’s decision grants different advantages or disadvantages.

Show Image

The Fast Food Drive-Thru scenario illustrates how the system works:

• Litterer chooses between immediate gratification (toss trash now) or delayed higher impact (leave parking lot mess)
• Civilian chooses between punishment (reporting) or restoration (cleanup)
• Officer chooses between prevention (monitoring) or education (distributing bags)

Asymmetric Abilities

Litterer:

• Higher movement rate (4 spaces)
• “Blend In” ability to avoid detection
• “Sneak Littering” to affect adjacent spaces
• “Distraction” tokens to temporarily block opponents

Civilian:

• Education tokens that create protected zones
• Volunteer coordination for passive cleanup
• Community Action cards for special abilities
• Civic Points that unlock powerful one-time abilities

Officer:

• Enforcement tokens that block littering
• Citation ability to penalize the Litterer
• Strategic positioning powers
• Budget-limited special actions

Player Goals

Litterer Objectives

The Litterer aims to degrade the environment by strategically placing litter tokens across the board. Success comes through:

1. Targeting high-value areas
2. Exploiting scenarios for maximum impact
3. Using special abilities to evade Defenders
4. Creating “pollution patterns” that are difficult to clean up
5. Managing the timing of high-impact moves

Victory Path: Drop environmental health below 20% through concentrated littering efforts, or maintain it below 30% for three consecutive rounds through consistent pressure.

Defender Objectives

The Civilian and Officer must coordinate their complementary abilities to protect the environment:

1. Establish protected zones through education and enforcement
2. Respond efficiently to the Litterer’s actions
3. Leverage scenarios to gain advantages
4. Build “Civic Support” through positive actions
5. Strategically divide responsibilities based on each role’s strengths

Victory Path: Maintain environmental health above 40% for 12 rounds through vigilant protection, or restore health to 90% through concentrated cleanup efforts.

Setup Phase

• Board assembly with scenario placement
• Character positioning
• Card distribution
• Tracker initialization

Early Game

Players establish their strategies while learning each other’s patterns. The Litterer typically gains an early advantage as Defenders need time to establish protection systems.

Mid-Game

Tension builds as scenarios create pivotal moments. The environmental health tracker typically fluctuates between 40-70% during this phase as players execute their strategies.

End Game

The final rounds feature high-stakes decisions as players race toward their victory conditions. Special abilities saved for critical moments often determine the outcome.

Game Board & Components

Board Design

The modular hexagonal tiles create variable setups for each game. Different zones feature distinct characteristics:

• Parks (high visibility, medium traffic)
• Commercial areas (high traffic, medium visibility)
• Residential areas (medium traffic, low visibility)
• Waterways (low traffic, high environmental impact)

Components

• Character Pieces: Distinctive figures with different heights for clear identification
• Litter Tokens: Color-coded by impact level (yellow=low, orange=medium, red=high)
• Education Tokens: Blue shield-shaped markers
• Enforcement Tokens: Red octagonal markers resembling stop signs
• Scenario Markers: Green question mark tokens that indicate active scenarios

The physical design of components reinforces their function – litter tokens are small and numerous, while education and enforcement tokens are larger and more substantial, symbolizing their protective nature.

Rulebook & Playtesting

Rulebook Sample

---

SCENARIOS

Scenarios represent everyday situations where environmental choices matter. When your character lands on or passes a scenario marker, follow these steps:

1. Reveal the Scenario Card and read it aloud
2. Choose Your Option based on your character:
   • Litterer: Select one of two ways to exploit the situation
   • Civilian: Choose between education or direct action
   • Officer: Decide between enforcement or prevention
3. Resolve Effects immediately as stated on the card
4. Place Used Scenario in the discard pile

EXAMPLE: ICE CREAM OUTING

A hot day at the park with melting ice cream cones creates an opportunity for environmental choices.

Litterer Options:

• Drop wrapper on ground: Place 2 litter tokens in your current location
• Create sticky residue: Place 1 “Sticky Residue” token that attracts an additional litter token each round for 2 rounds

Civilian Options:

• Properly dispose of waste: Gain 1 Civic Point and draw 1 Community Action card
• Organize snack station: Place 1 Education token in your current location and 1 adjacent space

Officer Options:

• Set good example: Gain ability to place your next enforcement token at half-cost (no action required)
• Distribute proper disposal bags: Place 1 protection token on up to 2 adjacent spaces

---

Playtesting Notes

Playtest Session #3 – April 12, 2025

Players: Clarkie (Litterer), Emily (Civilian), Sarah (Officer) Game Duration: 47 minutes

Observations:

• Maya found the “Blend In” ability too powerful when combined with “Sneak Littering”
• Carlos struggled to effectively use education tokens in the early game
• Jen noted that enforcement tokens felt too temporary
• All players enjoyed the scenario system but wanted more variety
• Environmental health dropped to 35% by round 8, then stabilized

Player Feedback: “The tension was great in the middle game, but I felt too powerful at the start.” – Clarkie (Litterer) “I need more ways to counter the Litterer’s special abilities.” – Emily (Civilian) “The scenarios made me think differently about everyday situations.” – Sarah (Officer)

Adjustments Made:

• Limited “Blend In” to once per game
• Added early-game boost to Civilian education efforts
• Extended enforcement token duration to 2 rounds
• Expanded scenario deck from 20 to 40 cards
• Adjusted environmental health impact values

Playtest Session #5 – April 26, 2025

Players: Dad(Litterer), Sarah (Civilian), Me (Officer) Game Duration: 52 minutes

Observations:

• Game balance was significantly improved
• High traffic areas created interesting strategic choices
• Public Opinion tracker added meaningful consequences to actions
• Scenario chain reactions created memorable moments
• Final environmental health: 43% (Defender narrow victory)

Player Feedback: “I had to think several moves ahead – it felt like chess!” – Amir (Litterer) “Coordinating with the Officer player created interesting social dynamics.” – Sarah (Civilian) The budget being constrained made me prioritize my actions. – Me (Officer)

Game Reflections

What Worked Well

1. Asymmetric Design: Creating distinct player experiences that remained balanced was our greatest success
2. Scenario System: Connecting gameplay to real-world situations made the environmental message feel natural rather than forced
3. Variable Board Setup: The modular design created high replayability
4. Tension Building: The environmental health tracker created a clear visualization of game progress that built tension

What Could Be Improved

1. Game Length: Some playtest sessions ran longer than the target 45-minute playtime
2. Complexity: First-time players needed clearer onboarding to understand their unique roles
3. Component Count: The number of tokens could be streamlined for easier setup
4. Scaling: The 3-player requirement limited some play opportunities

What I Learned

1. Educational Balance: Finding the sweet spot between educational content and fun gameplay requires constant iteration and testing
2. Asymmetric Design Challenges: Creating balanced but distinctly different player experiences takes substantial playtesting
3. Physical Component Design: The tactile nature of components significantly impacts player understanding and enjoyment
4. Scenario Integration: Tying mechanics to real-world situations creates more empathetic experiences

Future Development

If developing this game further, I would:

1. Create a 2-player variant where one person controls both Defender roles or there is no cop character
2. Develop an expansion with seasonal scenarios and weather effects
3. Refine the component design for easier manufacturing
4. Create a companion app that expands the scenario system with community-submitted ideas

Litter Patrol succeeded in its core goal: creating an engaging game experience that naturally inspires environmental awareness through play rather than preaching. The design process reinforced that educational games work best when the message emerges organically from well-crafted mechanics rather than being superimposed onto gameplay.

Breaking the Cycle: Case Study

Core Concept

Breaking the Cycle is a cooperative storytelling card game where players work together as a support network to help a survivor escape domestic violence and rebuild their life. The game creates a safe space to explore complex social issues while providing factual information about available resources and effective intervention strategies.

Message & Purpose

The game aims to increase awareness about domestic violence, develop empathy for survivors, and educate players about warning signs and support options. By placing players in the role of supporters rather than survivors, the game avoids trauma exploitation while still creating powerful emotional investment in positive outcomes.

Core Rules

• Setup: Select a Survivor Profile card, deal Resource cards and Support Action cards to players, and place the Journey Track
• Turn Structure: Draw a Challenge card, discuss possible responses, play Support Action and/or Resource cards, track progress on the Journey Track
• Victory Conditions: Reach the end of the Journey Track with the survivor having achieved at least 3 Empowerment tokens

Key Mechanics

• Collaborative storytelling driven by card play
• Resource management and strategic allocation
• Empowerment tracking system
• Decision-making with imperfect information
• Progressive revelation of survivor narrative

Iterative Design

First Prototype: Basic Structure

The initial design featured a linear progression track and straightforward challenges. Early testing revealed this approach felt too simplistic and deterministic for such a complex issue.

Challenge: Creating gameplay that respected the gravity of domestic violence while remaining engaging Solution:Introduced branching paths on the Journey Track and more nuanced Challenge cards

Second Prototype: Addressing Sensitive Content

Players reported discomfort with explicit descriptions of abuse in early versions, which detracted from learning objectives.

Challenge: Finding appropriate ways to represent abuse without graphic descriptions Solution: Shifted focus to warning signs and patterns rather than incidents, used symbolic rather than explicit representations

Third Prototype: Enhancing Education Value

Testing revealed players sometimes prioritized “winning” over learning, occasionally missing educational opportunities.

Challenge: Balancing gameplay with educational content Solution: Integrated “Moment of Reflection” cards and redesigned the scoring system to reward learning and thoughtful discussion

Game Mechanics

Support Network Mechanics

Each player takes on a specific support role (Friend, Family Member, Counselor, Legal Advocate, etc.) with unique abilities:

• Friend: Provides emotional support tokens more efficiently
• Family Member: Can safely store the survivor’s resources
• Counselor: Reveals Challenge cards in advance
• Legal Advocate: Reduces legal barriers on Challenge cards

The design ensures that success requires cooperation between different types of support, reflecting reality.

Empowerment System

As the game progresses, survivors collect Empowerment tokens through successful resolution of challenges. These tokens can be spent to:

• Overcome difficult challenges without support
• Access new opportunities on the Journey Track
• Prevent backsliding during setbacks
• Unlock “New Beginning” cards for end-game scoring

This system mechanically represents the growing agency of survivors as they progress through their journey.

Challenge Resolution Mechanics

When facing challenges, players:

1. Analyze the situation presented on the Challenge card
2. Discuss possible responses as a group
3. Play Support Action cards that match the type of support needed
4. Commit Resource cards to strengthen their response
5. Roll the Resolution die to determine success level
6. Move forward or backward on the Journey Track based on outcome

Player Goals

Primary Objective

Guide the survivor through their journey from crisis to safety and ultimately to a new beginning with increased agency and empowerment.

Secondary Objectives

1. Education: Learn about domestic violence warning signs, patterns, and resources
2. Resource Management: Efficiently allocate limited support resources
3. Safety Planning: Develop strategies that prioritize survivor safety
4. Building Trust: Accumulate Trust tokens through consistent support
5. Empowerment: Help the survivor build independent coping mechanisms

Victory Path: Successfully navigate the Journey Track by overcoming challenges through appropriate support, while collecting at least 3 Empowerment tokens that represent the survivor’s growing independence and agency.

Gameplay Sequence

Setup Phase

Players select a Survivor Profile card that outlines a specific situation. They then receive their role cards, initial resources, and establish the Journey Track according to the profile’s specifications.

Crisis Phase

The early game represents the immediate crisis period where safety is the primary concern:

• Higher frequency of Safety Challenge cards
• Limited information about the full situation
• Focus on immediate resources (shelter, emergency funds)
• Building trust with the survivor through consistent support

Transition Phase

As play progresses, challenges shift toward rebuilding stability:

• Housing and employment challenges emerge
• Legal complications may arise
• Children’s needs become more prominent (if applicable)
• Emotional recovery challenges appear

New Beginning Phase

The final stage focuses on long-term independence and healing:

• Education and career development opportunities
• Building healthy relationships
• Processing trauma
• Establishing permanent housing
• Financial independence

Game Components

Challenge Cards

Color-coded by type (Safety, Housing, Legal, Emotional, etc.) with clear iconography. Cards include:

• Challenge description
• Required support type(s)
• Consequence of failure
• Educational fact related to the challenge

Support Action Cards

Represent different ways players can intervene, with:

• Action name and description
• Support type icons
• Effectiveness rating
• Real-world example of this support type

Resource Cards

Tangible resources that strengthen support actions:

• Financial support
• Transportation
• Childcare
• Legal documents
• Safe housing options

Journey Track

A board showing the survivor’s path from crisis to new beginning, with:

• Branching paths representing different recovery trajectories
• Checkpoints for group reflection
• Spaces for Empowerment tokens
• Crisis points where challenges intensify

Rulebook & Playtesting

Rulebook Sample

---

PROVIDING SUPPORT

When facing a Challenge card, players must work together to provide appropriate support. Follow these steps:

1. Analyze the Need: Identify which support types are required (emotional, practical, legal, etc.)
2. Discuss Options: As a group, talk through possible approaches, keeping in mind:
   • Survivor’s current needs and preferences
   • Safety considerations
   • Available resources
   • Long-term impact
3. Play Support Action Cards: Each player may contribute one Support Action card that matches a required support type.
4. Add Resources: Players may strengthen their support by adding Resource cards.
5. Determine Success: Calculate your Support Value:
   • 1 point per matching Support Action card
   • 1 point per relevant Resource card
   • 1 point per applicable Role bonus
   • -1 point per Safety Risk factor
6. Compare your Support Value to the Challenge Difficulty:
   • Value > Difficulty = Full Success (advance 2 spaces)
   • Value = Difficulty = Partial Success (advance 1 space)
   • Value < Difficulty = Setback (remain in place or retreat 1 space)
7. Empowerment Check: If your action led to Full Success, the survivor may gain an Empowerment token if they actively participated in their own support.

EXAMPLE: HOUSING CHALLENGE

The survivor needs to find safe housing away from their abuser, but has limited income and a pet they won’t leave behind.

Challenge Difficulty: 4 Support Types Needed: Practical, Financial

Possible Support Actions:

• Help search for pet-friendly housing (Practical)
• Provide temporary housing in your guest room (Practical)
• Connect with emergency housing fund (Financial)
• Assist with housing application (Practical)

Potential Resources:

• Transportation to view apartments
• Pet supplies
• Application fee money
• Reference letter

Success Result: Players played 2 matching Support Actions and 2 Resources for a Support Value of 4, resulting in a Partial Success. The survivor advances 1 space on the Journey Track.

---

Playtesting Notes

Playtest Session #2 – March 15, 2025

Participants: 4 players Duration: 67 minutes

Observations:

• Players appreciated the realistic challenges but noted some scenarios felt oversimplified
• The game created powerful discussions about intervention strategies
• Early game felt too difficult, creating frustration
• Some cards unintentionally reinforced problematic assumptions about survivors
• Educational content was well-received, especially the fact cards

Key Feedback: “The mechanics effectively show how different types of support must work together.” – Participant A “Some Challenge cards need more nuance about why survivors might return to abusers.” – Participant B “The Empowerment system feels meaningful but needs more clarity.” – Participant C

Adjustments Made:

• Rebalanced early game challenges to create more winnable scenarios
• Added “Context Cards” to provide more background for complex decisions
• Revised language on several cards to avoid victim-blaming implications
• Enhanced the Empowerment mechanics with clearer instructions
• Added debrief questions for post-game discussion

Playtest Session #4 – April 2, 2025

Participants: 5 players (university students with some knowledge of domestic violence) Duration: 75 minutes

Observations:

• Players showed significant increase in understanding of domestic violence patterns
• Group discussions were thoughtful and nuanced
• Some players felt emotionally impacted but in a constructive way
• Journey Track created a clear visual of progress and setbacks
• Game length was longer than target 60 minutes

Key Feedback: “I never understood why someone would stay before, but now I see how complicated these situations are.” – Participant D “The cooperative nature really drives home how important community support is.” – Participant E “The factual information on the cards was eye-opening.” – Participant F

Adjustments Made:

• Added optional “Quick Play” rules to reduce game length
• Created reference guide for facilitators with discussion prompts
• Enhanced visual design to make mechanics more intuitive
• Developed additional Survivor Profiles with varying complexity levels

Game Reflections

What Worked Well

1. Role-Based Support System: Players connected with their support roles and understood the importance of a comprehensive support network
2. Educational Integration: Information felt natural within gameplay rather than forced
3. Empowerment Mechanics: Successfully represented survivor agency increasing over time
4. Emotional Impact: Created empathy without exploiting trauma
5. Conversation Catalyst: Generated meaningful discussions about domestic violence

What Could Be Improved

1. Game Length: Sessions consistently ran longer than the target 60 minutes
2. Complexity Balance: Some mechanics were too complex for new players
3. Emotional Weight: Needed clearer guidance for processing difficult content
4. Replay Value: Initial version had limited replayability once players knew all challenges
5. Accessibility: Text-heavy design created barriers for some players

Lessons Learned

1. Sensitivity Readers: Involving experts early prevented potentially harmful content
2. Mechanics as Metaphor: Game mechanics can powerfully represent complex social dynamics
3. Balance is Critical: Games addressing sensitive topics must balance education, engagement, and emotional impact
4. Aftercare Matters: Providing debrief questions and resources for players was essential
5. Respect Lived Experience: Design choices should honor the real experiences of survivors

Future Development

If developing this game further, I would:

1. Create a digital companion app with additional resources and guided discussions
2. Develop an expanded version with more diverse survivor profiles and situations
3. Create a training version specifically for professionals who work with survivors
4. Design a simplified version for educational settings with younger players
5. Develop facilitator guides for using the game in therapeutic contexts

“Breaking the Cycle” successfully achieves its goals of creating awareness, developing empathy, and providing education about domestic violence through engaging cooperative gameplay. By putting players in the position of supporters rather than survivors, the game creates emotional investment while avoiding exploitation of trauma. The iterative design process, guided by expert input, resulted in a game that handles sensitive material respectfully while still creating meaningful play experiences.

My modular board game, Invasion, was originally inspired by an experience in class with virtual games that introduced me to the concept of socially aware game design. One of the games that sparked my interests was Factorio, a game centered on resource extraction and automation. While its gameplay mechanics are impressive and engaging, I found myself disagreeing with the underlying narrative: the player’s advancement depends on the destruction of the planet’s native ecosystem, which is portrayed as an endless horde of alien bugs. This depiction not only dehumanizes indigenous resistance but also reinforces a colonial exclusive mindset that doesn’t give the Natives any true chance to win. So, I took it upon myself to introduce a similar concept, only this time with two opposing sides; each with advantages and disadvantages attributed to their culture.

after looking back in my discography, however, I came to realize that I took quite literally no pictures of the prototyped version of this game, that is except for a few aftermath photos of what it looked like after I had torn it up and used it to create the final iteration of the game.

The picture seen here is just half of the base part, which connected the rest of the modular tiles on top of it through a slitted grid of 43 segments for modular tiles, also cut out with that same material, foam board. I guess I was so wrapped up in creating a finalized version of this game, that I didn’t take the time to document the prototype to my wishes. Especially since I was so focused on iterating the game until I had such a clean final product. In the end, my new goal was to make a colonizing/defending/battling simulator civ game like Civilization 6 or Settlers of Catan; However, first I needed to figure out how to refine the game mechanics, as originally when I had built the prototype, the only playability that I had accomplished was movement and action cards. However, this seemingly made the original play tests of the game feel very un-dimensional and flat. Kinda lacking a sorta thrill if you will. So, I decided to hit the white boards in the laser cuter room and begin working on a mapped out description of a battle system.

Overall the battle system added a huge benefit to the game’s final touches, as well as a touch of excitement that I knew the final game needed. A big change that I inevitably ended up incorporating into the final rules was also the un-inclusion of an Event card deck/system, in which originally I had planned on making it so that every time a player rolls a 13, they must draw an event card, which would in turn determine how that round would play out, with advantages and disadvantages towards certain sides throughout the gameplay. Later on, I tried incorporating the concept of drawing an Event Card before every round. However, after completing quite a few play tests at home, I then decided that I didn’t want to junk up the rounds with too many mechanics. So, in turn, for the final set of rules I decided to axe this completely.

Another game iteration that I changed throughout the process of polishing this game into a wonderfully crafted final product, was the look and feel of the board and tile pieces themselves. For every piece, I had originally planned on having a numerical value on each tile correspondent to that said value, as originally I thought this would help aid the player in understanding how to play better, and although when I removed these numbers, the overall class reactions seemed to originally be against that decision, I still fully back my decision to remove the numbers as it not only makes the game look more aesthetically pleasing, but with only 3 numerical values to remember, I thought it was also a fun way to get players to learn and actually comprehend how to play, rather than being told what to do. I also upgraded from a spray painted foam board cut out, to a series of evenly 3D printed clean cut tiles with texture and character to them, which I then painted when completed.

I accomplished this clean finalized look by combining 3D models that I was able to find off of the internet, with an excruted hexagon shape, and meshing the two together in blender before sending it to print as an STL file. Above are some examples of what the 3D models of the physical pieces looked like before they were sent to the printer.

I then decided, I wanted the actual board piece itself to be something a little more crafty than a cut out foam board, so I hit up the wood shop in efforts to create a base that all the modular pieces could live on out of plywood. I also cut this board to be a hexagon, to go with the hex aesthetics of the game.

With a little paint work, I ended up making the overall look of the game beyond what my original expectations for it were, and I couldn’t be more happier with how it turned out. Below is a video describing in depth, step by step detail of how to play the game, Invasion.

Overall, I think that there was a huge difference in what took place at my apartment, vs the play tests that went down at school. Anyone I introduced the game to at home seemed to take more of an interest in the game, as they were not only seeking a thrilling and fun experience, but they were also willing to learn about how to play and have strategy and all that good stuff. Simply with the original rule book that I had for everyone in class, this wasn’t enough. Nobody was receiving the hard core understanding of mechanics and why certain things are the way they are throughout the game. I found many of my classmates questioning the game before taking the time to understand it; which is totally fine. However, for some reason it was night and day in terms of enjoyment of the game itself. My friends at home truly took a liking to what I had created, while in school, it felt almost as though they were looking for things to change, not for the better, but rather for the easier route of not having to memorize complex game mechanics with layers and steps to them.

Finally, I decided that a great way to help my peers understand the game more without it feeling like a bore to them, was to add an in depth visualization/instruction manual to go with the finalized version of the game. Here, I showed not only how certain mechanics worked in the game, but I also laid everything out in a much more visually appealing way than I had the original instruction sheet; as the original instructions were simply words conjoined all over a google doc, which understandably can get dull quickly for certain players who are more visual learners.

Overall, I think this project was a great experience for me in terms of learning how to take a concept and fully flesh it out. I mean everything from minor detailing on the board itself to a visualizer to go with the game as though it was in a box at some game store. I also learned who my target audience for this game was. My one nerdy friend Johnny seemed to like it the most, and he has ran quite a few DnD campaigns before. All around I had fun making this and would recommend that everyone uses the resources provided by the school as without these resources I wouldn’t have been able to complete such an amazing piece of work in such a short amount of time.

Second Chance Sanctuary: Case Study

Short Summary

Second Chance Sanctuary is a cooperative board game where players take on roles as animal welfare workers in an animal shelter. Players work together to rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome abused, neglected, or abandoned animals. The game is designed for animal lovers, board game enthusiasts, and individuals interested in social impact gaming, ages 12 and up. With its educational component highlighting real animal welfare issues, Second Chance Sanctuary balances challenging gameplay with heartwarming stories of animal rescue.

Design Process & Thought Process

Core Concept

Second Chance Sanctuary is a cooperative resource management game where players work together to save as many animals as possible within the constraints of a busy animal shelter.

Message/Purpose

• Raise awareness about animal welfare issues
• Educate players about the challenges faced by animal shelters
• Inspire empathy for rescued animals and the people who care for them
• Highlight the importance of responsible pet adoption

Rules Overview

• 2-6 players
• 60-90 minutes playtime
• Cooperative gameplay
• Players win by successfully rehabilitating and rehoming 5 animals
• Players lose if they discard 3 animals, or deplete the resource deck

Key Mechanics

• Role-based moral decisions
• Cooperative decision-making
• Push-your-luck elements
• Storytelling through animal cards

Iterative Design

First Iteration

Our initial design focused heavily on the educational aspects of animal welfare but lacked engaging gameplay. The first prototype included:

• Basic typed papers as cards
• Simple animal cards with minimal attributes and storylines
• Pictures of the animals separate from their needs

Challenges: Playtesting revealed that the players appreciated the theme, the gameplay is truly empathetic and could have some great game play but needed some work in the challenges cards.

Second Iteration

We introduced specialized roles and expanded the animal attributes to create more varied gameplay experiences:

• Based animals off of real dogs at the Washington Area Humane Society
• Enhanced animal cards with specific needs and recovery tracks
• Created more diverse resource cards
• Introduced the challenge deck

Challenges: The game became too complex when it came to the cards, with too many elements to track simultaneously. Players felt overwhelmed by the number of decisions required each turn.

Third Iteration

We streamlined gameplay while maintaining depth:

• Simplified and researched into real life resources for resource cards
• Consolidated animal needs into three categories (Medical, Behavioral, Support)
• Restructured gameplay into distinct phases
• Refined the adoption mechanic to focus on matching

Challenges: The balance between difficulty and player agency needed adjustment. Players felt that bad luck with the challenge deck could make winning impossible.

Fourth Iteration

Our final iteration focused on balance and emotional investment:

• Added more design elements to animal cards
• Created a more balanced challenge deck pick-up
• Developed the adoption matching mechanic to create more meaningful choices
• Developed “discard” of animals if animals can’t be helped at all. 

Game Mechanics

Animal Rehabilitation System

The core mechanic of Second Chance Sanctuary revolves around a multi-step rehabilitation process:

1. Intake: Animals enter the shelter with specific needs and a Recovery Track.
2. Resource Allocation: Players apply appropriate resources to address animal needs.
3. Recovery: Animals gradually improve based on resources applied.
4. Adoption: Fully rehabilitated animals are matched with suitable forever homes.

Resource Management

Players must carefully manage their hand of Resource Cards to address the most urgent needs:

• Each player has a hand limit of 3 animal cards
• Resources are categorized by type (Medical, Behavioral, Support)
• Some resources are more versatile than others
• Strategic discard and draw decisions are crucial

Challenge Response System

The Challenge Phase introduces unexpected difficulties that test the team’s resilience:

• Some challenges affect all animals
• Some affect specific types of animals
• Some limit player actions or resources
• Players can mitigate challenges through resource cards or after a certain amount of turns

Player Goals

Primary Goal

Successfully rehabilitate and rehome 5 animals by:

1. Addressing their specific needs with appropriate resources
2. Matching them with suitable adopters
3. Use opinions and morals to make certain decisions about animals

Victory Conditions

Players win when they’ve successfully placed 5 animals into Adoption Families area, representing animals that have been fully rehabilitated and matched with forever homes.

Loss Conditions

Players lose if:

• The Resource deck is depleted
• They “discard” 3 Animal Card

Gameplay Sequence

Setup Phase

• Players select their first animal
• Dice is rolled, Odd numbers receive a challenge card, even receives resource cards

Round Structure

Each round consists of six distinct phases:

1. Intake Phase: A new animal enters the shelter every two rounds
2. Resource Phase: Players play Resource Cards to help animals 
3. Challenge Phase: An unexpected challenge affects the shelter 
4. Recovery Phase: Animals are given resources they need
5. Adoption Phase: Rehabilitated animals are matched with adopters 

Animal Cards

Detailed cards that tell each animal’s story:

• Name, species, and age
• Background story
• Specific needs (Medical, Behavioral, Support)
• Special considerations for adoption families

Resource Cards

Tools and services needed to help animals:

• Medical resources (veterinary care, medications)
• Behavioral resources (training, socialization)
• Support resources (foster care, equipment)

Challenge Cards

Unexpected difficulties that arise:

• Shelter challenges (budget cuts, staff shortages)
• Animal challenges (medical emergencies, behavioral setbacks)
• External challenges (community issues, weather emergencies)

Adoption Cards

Potential forever homes for rehabilitated animals:

• Home environment
• Adopter characteristics
• Ideal match criteria
• Limitations
• Special abilities

Rulebook & Playtesting

Rulebook Sample

The rulebook excerpt below demonstrates our approach to clear, concise instructions that maintain the game’s emotional core:

WELCOME TO SECOND CHANCE SANCTUARY

In this cooperative game, you and your fellow players take on the roles of animal welfare workers at Second Chance Sanctuary, a shelter dedicated to rescuing, rehabilitating, and rehoming animals that have experienced abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

Your mission is to work together to save as many animals as possible while managing limited resources and facing unexpected challenges. Every animal has a unique story and specific needs that must be addressed before they can find their forever home.

PHASE 2: RESOURCE PHASE

Starting with the first player and proceeding clockwise, each player may play Resource Cards from their hand to help animals in the shelter:

• Place Resource Cards on Animal Cards to address their specific needs
• Each animal has different needs (Medical, Behavioral, Support)
• Multiple resources are needed to advance an animal’s rehabilitation

Example: Brooklyn the Belgian Malinois/German Shepherd has three needs: Medical Care, Trust Building, and Basic Training. A player could play the “Veterinary Exam” Resource Card to address her Medical Care need.

Playtesting Notes

Playtest Session #1 (First Iteration)

Participants: 4 players Feedback:

• “The theme is compelling, but gameplay feels too simple.”
• “Not enough meaningful decisions to make.”
• “Love the animal needs but want to see them and more interaction with them.”
• “Too easy to win or lose based on luck of the draw.”

Action Items:

• Develop more complex animal attributes
• Create specialized player roles
• Add more variety to resource cards

Playtest Session #2 (Second Iteration)

Participants: 5 players Feedback:

• “Too many things to keep track of at once.”
• “Some roles feel more useful than others.”
• “Challenge cards can be devastating with no way to mitigate.”
• “Recovery tracks are interesting but hard to visualize.”

Action Items:

• Streamline tracking systems
• Balance role abilities
• Add mitigation options for challenges
• Redesign recovery track visualization

Playtest Session #3 (Third Iteration)

Participants: 3 players Feedback:

• “Gameplay flows much better now.”
• “Still feels like luck can dominate strategy sometimes.”
• “Adoption matching is interesting but needs more depth.”
• “Success feels rewarding when you save an animal.”

Action Items:

• Further balance the challenge deck
• Enhance adoption mechanics
• Add more feedback mechanisms for successful rehabilitations

Playtest Session #4 (Final Iteration)

Participants: 6 players Feedback:

• “Everyone felt engaged and important to the team.”
• “Emotional connection to the animals was strong.”
• “Difficulty feels challenging but almost fair.”
• “Success Stories area gave a sense of accomplishment.”
• “Would like to see more animal varieties in future expansions.”

Game Reflections

What Worked Well

1. Emotional Connection: The animal stories created genuine emotional investment from players, who celebrated each successful adoption.
2. Cooperative Mechanics: Players engaged in meaningful discussions about resource allocation and strategy, creating a true teamwork experience.
3. Educational Value: Players reported learning about animal welfare issues while enjoying the gameplay experience.
4. Balanced Challenge: The final iteration struck a good balance between difficulty and player agency.

What Could Be Improved

1. Setup Time: The game takes longer than ideal to set up, which could be streamlined in future versions.
2. Component Optimization: Some physical components could be redesigned for better usability and visual clarity.
3. Scaling: The game works best with 4 players; better scaling for 2-3 or 5-6 players could be developed.
4. Expansion Potential: Players requested more animal varieties and special case scenarios that could be addressed in expansions.

Lessons Learned

1. Theme-Mechanics Integration: We learned that mechanics must serve both gameplay and thematic elements to create an immersive experience.
2. Playtesting Value: Each playtest session provided invaluable insights that dramatically improved the game quality.
3. Emotional Design: Games that create emotional connections can motivate players beyond the traditional win/lose conditions.
4. Accessibility: Clear rules and visual design are crucial for complex games to remain accessible to various player types.
5. Educational Balance: Educational content must be balanced with engaging gameplay to be effective.

Future Development

Based on our experience developing Second Chance Sanctuary and feedback from playtesters, we’ve identified several opportunities for future development:

1. Community Expansion: Adding community events, fundraising challenges, and public education campaigns.
2. Exotic Animals Expansion: Introducing more specialized animals with unique care requirements.
3. Digital Implementation: Creating a companion app to streamline setup and track complex game states.
4. Educational Version: Developing a simplified version for classroom use with additional educational materials.
5. Campaign Mode: Creating a series of connected scenarios that tell a larger story about animal welfare efforts in a community.

Second Chance Sanctuary has evolved from a simple educational concept into a sophisticated board game that balances mechanical depth with emotional storytelling. Through four iterations of design and testing, we’ve created an experience that engages players while raising awareness about important animal welfare issues.

Setup:

Board:

Card Holder:

Store Card Holder:

Money Holder:

Product Cards

Store Cards:

the campaign trail is a game about the struggles and certain unpredictability of running for a political position. certain factors play a lot in weather a candidate can win and weather they have a chance. in this game i have used real data on voter preferences and used those to disadvantage the minority groups running in the game. a lot of people don’t like to think about this gap in preference but it is highly prevalent. like when have seen in the past it is still possible for the minority candidate to win it is mostly just lick of the draw sometimes.

the final rulebook

the campaign trail –

To start the game the deck of candidate cards will be passed around the table face down. When you get the deck of cards you are to choose a card randomly without looking at them. This will be who you play as during the game. 

Also shuffle the chance cards and ad cards and place them next to the board. 

Start the round with the oldest player rolling the 6 sided die. 

Play will continue clockwise.

Landing on a red or blue dot will gain you voters and you track this on your ballot card. 

You can only gain voters if you land on the color that matches your party. 

The amount of voters you gain each time is indicated on your candidate card.

Not all of the amounts on the cards are the same, this difference is based on statistics about voter preference in a candidate. Things like ethnicity and gender affect these statistics.

Chance cards:

• Chance cards are pulled every time you land on a big white spot. 

Smear campaign:

If you pick up a smear card you are able to make a campaign against one of your opponents. First choose which opponent you will steal from and then roll the die to see how much of your opponent’s voters you steal for yourself.

1 = .1x of opponents

2 = .15x of opponents

3 = .2x of opponents

4 = .25x of opponents

5 = .3x of opponents

6 = .35x of opponents

Scandal:

Scandal cards will make you lose a percentage of your voters. 

That percentage will be said on the card.

Investors:

Some chance cards have investors, these are people interested in giving you money. The card will say the amount of money you gain from this and you rack this on your balance sheet

AD campaign: 

With the money that you can get from investors and the money you have at the start of the game you can buy an ad campaign. You are able to buy one per turn and the amount this card gives you is random. Pick it up and keep it till the end.

The game ends when everyone makes it to the end. The goal is to have the greatest number of voters.

the original rule book

the campaign trail –

To start the game the deck of candidate cards will be passed around the table face down. When you get the deck of cards you are to choose a card randomly without looking at them. This will be who you play as during the game. 

Start the round with the oldest player rolling the 6 sided die. 

Play will continue clockwise.

Landing on a red or blue dot will gain you voters. 

You can only gain voters if you land on the color that matches your party. 

The amount of voters you gain each time is indicated on your candidate card.

Not all of the amounts on the cards are the same, this difference is based on statistics about voter preference in a candidate. Things like ethnicity and gender affect these statistics.

Special spots:

Smear campaign:

If you land on this space you are able to make a campaign against one of your opponents. First choose which opponent you will steal from and then roll the die to see how much of your opponent’s voters you steal for yourself.

1 = .1x of opponents

2 = .15x of opponents

3 = .2x of opponents

4 = .25x of opponents

5 = .3x of opponents

6 = .35x of opponents

Scandal:

Scandal spaces will make you lose a percentage of your voters. 

That percentage will be said on the space. 

Ad campaigns:

When you land on an ad space you will pick the card on the top of the ad pile. You will keep this card until the end of the game. At the end of the game you can flip these cards over and add how many votes you get to your score. 

The game ends when everyone makes it to the end. The goal is to have the greatest number of voters.

diffrences

as you can see the biggest difference in the game pieces itself is the board. after the first playtest i realized that the white dots were to far apart so i made a standard of 3 4 or 5 dots between white spots. this makes it so people are interacting with cards and making the game drag less in the beginning. i also took off the events being on the spots themselves. the writing is to hard to see on the board so i made cards instead.

in the original game i had excluded the money aspect of the game. i had wanted to see if the games point got across without this mechanic of buying ads for more money but that is a huge part of campaigning as a politician so i ended up putting it back with my final design.

investors are also a big part of running for an office, without investors ost people who run would have a 0 percent chance of being able to be seen and heard before elections. so this was a must.

playtesting

the few playtests i had helped me realize my pacing was dragging, especially at the beginning. players had to role to many times before anything as really happening. so i was able to speed that up.

also players wanted more opportunities to lose voters so it wasn’t jut a game of gaining. so i made the smear and scandal cards more frequent in the deck of chance cards so it would balance the constant gain of voters.

some people had mentioned losing voters if you landed on the wrong color but i feel that was to much losing because i don’t want players to go into the negatives.

I played Hues and Cues a couple weeks go, and I very much enjoyed it. I really had a hard time coming up with words for the particular colors. I saw that I had an easier time with certain shades at first, but it became harder to come up with words after a while though because it became a bit repetitive with the color picks. So as much as I loved the game and would maybe play it again at a family party, it wasn’t my favorite game in the entire world.