Tag: Documentation

Attached is also a player’s review sheet for both of my competed games. I asked my family for their feedback and took these notes before my final revisions.

Game 1 – Deadline:

The biggest changes I made to my card game throughout the semester was clarifying the rules and balancing the final scores. I learned that adding illustrations was a more effective way of conveying the layout and specific objectives. I also took note of any confusion during the gameplay experience and made sure that my updated rule sheet reflected these notes from playtesting. In my next iteration I would test out the scoring of consecutive cards of different suits, as well as creating a specialized deck of different classes (Math, English etc.). I also need to expand on the rules regarding extra credit, and building off of extra credit to accumulate points for a “completed assignment” in the game. Playtesting my first game taught me to be thorough with filling these gaps and anticipate questions players might have, especially if they have no experience with Gin Rummy suit building mechanics.

Game 2 – Witch’s Brew:

The first iteration of this game had a lot of room for improvement. I explored the use of dice, inspired by Catan, as well as an alternative version using a Game of Life board game spinner (1-10). Though the spinner would have worked for gathering the necessary ingredients, I attempted to balance the game with the probability curve of using two dice. I ended up simplifying the spells, adding action cards for rolling a 7 (the most common combination), and adding special benefits for rolling a 1 or 12 (the most rare combinations). In the next version of this game, I would test out a board more similar to Catan for balancing. Playtesting I learned about game pacing, and managing player frustration.

Game 3 – Takedown:

This was our two player game. Originally we used a number system for the blocks, but found that colors would be easier to identify on all sides of each block. We also removed six blocks from the original Jenga game to account for the height of the towers and chosen number of blocks per color. We then worked on crafting the blocks, which were painted with acrylic and then spray painted with a satin finish, and our matching spinner. For the spinner, I used a heat reactive glue sheet (I forget what this process is called) and baked a printed image onto the surface. This was easier than I would have imagined, and I believe it game the prototype a finished look. As for the gameplay, we defined and redefined how many blocks would have to fall for the players would lose the game, and how blocks could be stacked. In the next version, I would like to incorporate wedge blocks like we had talked about, and maybe special weighted blocks so that support the building mechanic and potential for sabotage.

Game rules:

Objective: 

Be the first to finish your stack of ice cream dishes. 

Materials:

1 deck of 60 cards

Setup: 

Shuffle the Deck and deal each player 30 cards randomly

Gameplay: 

Flip over two and place in between your deck of cards. 

There are no “turns”. The players race to be the first to finish their deck by rapidly matching either the flavor, type of dish or number of dishes on their card to the respective ones on EITHER of the cards that are flipped up in the middle. 

As the game progresses, obviously the cards will change based on what cards the players place on top. Keep placing matching cards as fast as you can, whenever you can.

Winning:

The game ends when one player finishes their stack. That player is the winner. Hooray!

Reedit of the Rules:

Objective: The first person to get rid of their deck of cards wins!

Setup:

• 1 deck of 60 ice cream cards in different color, shape, or type of ice cream holder variation
• Shuffle the deck and deal each player 30 cards randomly
• From your deck pile pull four cards to keep in your hand at the start of the game
• then flip your deck pile so you cannot see the front of the cards.
• Place two cards in the middle of you and your opponent (face down)

Gameplay:

• there are no turn involved and both players are going simultaneously
• The game will start when you and your opponent flip over the two cards in the middle
• Both of you will try to match the cards in your hand with the one of the cards in the middle.
• You match them by either matching shape, color, or type of bowl, shake, cone, or waffle bowl

• after you found match, you will place the matched card in your hand over the matched card in the center (face up)
• Continue to repeat this until your deck has run out

What if you get stuck?

• if you get stuck, you get to pull 2 cards from your deck. And, if you are still stuck you must wait until your partner matches something, that opens it up for you!

Winning/Losing:

• the fastest person to eliminate their deck wins!!

Some changes we made was actually rewriting the entire game. We thought that our game creation could our chosen amount players able to play our game. So, we changed it to a 2 person game. That changed the whole landscape of the game, and we went into the direction of making a fast paced game to get the heart pumping.

Some design alterations was to change the vanilla ice cream flavor to a different color to stand out more. I think in the future, I would also change the waffle bowl so it doesn’t look as similar to other cards. Which would make it easier to play at a fast pace.

Honestly, I really loved making these designs. Even though, they were extremely tedious to cut out and make each card individually, it was super rewarding and fun to see everyone play it. I think Kali and I had some frustrations and stress since we had to recreate a game with limited amount of time since we already had our whole entire game planned out.

Below, is some of our notes we took during the creation process.

brainstorming:

Ice Cream game 

Game starts:

Objective: to complete tasks to keep your ice cream shop running and gain points. 

• Each player has the opportunity to sabotage the game (if you successful sabotage then you will gain more points) but you risk getting caught and lose points (depending on the round) 

Materials needed:

• Task cards
• Sabotage cards
• Problem cards
• Points key
• Melt down meter ( how you lose)

• Two types:

1. Task cards

• Sabotage cards

2. Problem cards

(the task cards will address the problem cards and the players will draw from the task cards)

• Each player starts out with 4 task cards

Game prior

Melting Mystery

5 players

Objective: 

Keep your ice cream shop running as the Staff while Problems arise throughout the day and ward off the Saboteur

Materials: 

Problem Cards (diff problems) (15 cards max) 

Task Cards (with Sabotage and Defend Cards)   *** sabotage (all the same) (Defend all the same) (Task (fixing cards/cleaning)) 

Role Cards (4 Staff and 1 Saboteur) **all the same staff card and one saboteur card

1 Staff Points Meter and 1 Saboteur Points Meter

Setup:

2 stacks of cards – the Problem cards and Task cards (include sabotage and “diffuse sabotage” cards) 

5 Role Cards – 4 Staff and 1 Saboteur – at the beginning of the game each player is given one of their cards to determine their role throughout the game. 

Place the Staff Points and Saboteur Points meters within reach (designate one person randomly to be in charge of points)

Each player is dealt 4 Task cards into their hand (after shuffling).

Place Problem cards in the middle of the table and flip over 1 Problem card face-up.

Gameplay:

Each turn players draw one card into their hand (so that when they play one they will have 4 remaining) 

Players will play cards to deal with problems that arise.

Based on the Problem, players discuss with each other what part of the Problem card they will address. Feel free to lie. Because someone is the saboteur.

FOR EXAMPLE: 

The Problem card on the table says “Fix Soft Serve Machine” : Tasks to Complete: 2+ “Fix it” Task Cards and 1+ “Cleaning” Task Cards

Players will then discuss with each other what cards they plan to use to fix the situation and all place their cards face DOWN on the table. Someone then mixes them up and reveals the cards by placing them face up in a line on the table.

IF player does not like their hand they have the option to pass on a round and replace any number of cards that they like – but caution this can mess up resolving a Problem so make sure you are communicating with your fellow Staff (or enemies heheheehe)

Based on the order the cards are revealed in, if a Sabotage Card is played it sabotages the Task that is to the left of it

If the correct amount of Tasks are played (and not sabotaged) to resolve the Problem, the Staff wins the round. However, if the Problem is not resolved because of a sabotage card, the Staff loses the rounds and the sabotager wins. Each win is worth one point respectively.

NOTE: there are Defend Cards that “diffuse” Sabotage Cards and when played basically make it like there was never a sabotage card – wherever they land in the order when placed face up they automatically diffuse the sabotage.

At the end of every round, the table is cleared (whether the Problem is resolved or unresolved) and a new Problem card is put on the table.

The game consists of 7 rounds. At the end of 7 rounds, proceed to ending the game.

Ending the Game:

The end of the game is where the Staff tries to determine the Saboteur. Discuss amongst yourself who you think has been suspicious throughout the game. Again feel free to lie to the Saboteur to try to win the game. Each person votes who they think is the Saboteur. 

If the majority votes the correct Saboteur, the Staff gets an extra point. If EVERYONE votes the correct Saboteur, the Staff gets 2 points.

If the Saboteur does not get voted off (needs a majority vote) they get 2 points.

WINNING:

Whoever has the most points on their respective points meter WINS. Congrats. You have successfully operated your ice cream shop.

Or not, the Sabotager melted all your products. 

Additional Rules:

When Staff members get Sabotage Cards in their hands, they should keep them there.

Reactor 21 changed quite a bit as I tested different versions of it. The basic idea was always there—two players trying to keep a failing reactor stable—but it took some back-and-forth to figure out what actually made the game interesting. Early versions had the right intention, but some of the mechanics didn’t create the amount of teamwork or pressure I wanted. The game felt like it needed a bit more structure around how instability spreads, what happens during a meltdown, and how the players recover from setbacks.

Most of the improvements came from simply seeing how people reacted to certain moments in the game. Some rules felt too loose, and others were a little unclear in how they resolved. Adding the Nuclear Waste pile, tightening the meltdown rules, and clarifying how cards move between piles helped everything feel more intentional. The goal was always to keep the experience focused on communication and shared decision-making, and those adjustments moved the game in that direction.

During all of this, ChatGPT was helpful for keeping things organized. Any time I adjusted a rule or tried a different way of handling a reactor event, I used ChatGPT to help rewrite the sections cleanly, make sure the terminology stayed consistent, and compare versions so nothing got lost. It also made it easier to step back and look at each revision as a whole instead of just patching small pieces. The mechanics themselves still came from testing and intuition, but having a tool to structure everything made the development process a lot smoother.

Reactor 21 ended up feeling more balanced and readable because of that steady cycle of testing, revising, and tightening the language around the rules.

The three acts of the game are as follows:

Act 1 – Getting your footing

The game starts off pretty gentle. You’re drawing cards, placing them where they fit, and getting a feel for how the reactors behave. Most cards go somewhere without much trouble, and the token tracks are empty, so nothing feels dangerous yet. This is where you learn the rhythm: keep totals tight, stabilize when you can, don’t waste options.

Act II – Things start heating up

Now the reactors are filling up, and suddenly every card matters. A placement that was easy earlier now feels risky. You’re choosing between Instability and Meltdown more often, and both choices actually hurt. The Nuclear Waste Pile kicks in and you start to feel the deck thinning out. This is where the team talks things through, plans moves, and tries to stay one step ahead of the system.

Act III – Hold it all together

By the end, everything’s tense. One bad draw can end the whole run, and every card feels like it might be the last piece you need—or the thing that breaks the grid. You’re trying to lock down those last stabilizations before either track fills up. When the final reactor hits 21, it feels earned; if the system blows, it’s usually by a hair.

(Final thought created with the assistance of AI, using my input)

As I refined A Game About Colors, More or Less, the color system became one of the most important aspects of the design. Early versions relied on fully saturated colors, which made the comparisons visually clear and, in many cases, too easy. During testing, it became obvious that players could identify the stronger or weaker color channels with very little effort, which reduced the level of deduction the game was meant to encourage.

To address this, I shifted the palette to include added black (K) values between 30% and 70%. Lowering saturation created a more subtle, more challenging set of swatches. Colors that once felt predictable became more ambiguous, and players had to make more thoughtful evaluations based on small differences, rather than relying on obvious saturation cues. This adjustment aligned the visual experience more closely with the intentions of the mechanics.

Throughout the development process, ChatGPT was used as a collaborative tool to help build, refine, and organize the rule set. It played a role in structuring the language of the rules, maintaining consistency across versions, documenting changes, and evaluating how each update affected clarity and player experience. It was also useful for keeping a clean version history and ensuring that revisions—such as the shift to a reduced-saturation deck—were incorporated accurately and consistently. The core design decisions remained my own, but ChatGPT helped make the documentation process more efficient and reliable.

This combination of iterative testing and structured rule development resulted in a color system that better supports the game’s deductive, perception-based gameplay.

Act 1 – Getting a feel for the deck’s color language

Early on, players are mostly just getting acquainted with how the deck moves. They make a guess, flip the card, and start noticing which kinds of shifts catch their eye — a bump in brightness, a little pull toward red, or a change in saturation that didn’t seem obvious at first. It’s basically a warm-up for the eyes, where players start realizing that the game isn’t about naming colors; it’s about noticing how they behave.

Act 2 – Learning what actually matters in a swatch

Once everyone has a few cards in front of them, they naturally start leaning on simple bits of color theory — whether they mean to or not. Some players pay attention to value first, because brightness jumps out. Some start tracking saturation because muted colors hide shifts better. Others zero in on hue and notice how small moves between neighbors (like teal to blue-green) feel trickier than big jumps. This is where players start building their own internal system for judging the cards, one clue at a time.

Act III – Stay consistent with the system you’ve built

The game doesn’t suddenly get more intense toward the end — it just asks you to stick with whatever approach you’ve developed. By this point, players have their own way of reading the swatches, and the last part of the game is about trusting that instinct. Maybe you’re watching for low-saturation curveballs, or maybe you’re checking how the brightness sits against the last few cards you saw. It’s steady, calm decision-making — more about consistency than pressure — and the satisfaction comes from seeing how well your eye held up across the whole run.

Race to 65 didn’t change too dramatically as it developed. Most of the core structure was there from the beginning; the main work was just tightening the rules and making sure everything felt clear and consistent. A few of the early versions had small gaps or places where players weren’t totally sure how to handle certain situations, so the updates were mostly about smoothing out those rough edges.

The biggest adjustments were clarifying how tiles flip, how players advance toward the target number, and how the end-of-game callout works. These weren’t major changes, but they helped the game run more cleanly and made the turns feel more intentional without adding complexity.

ChatGPT was helpful mostly on the documentation side—rewriting sections for clarity, keeping the terminology consistent, and making sure each version lined up with the previous one. The game itself didn’t go through big mechanical shifts, but having support to organize the rules and clean up the language made the whole process easier.

The three acts of the game are:

Act I – Getting started

The game opens in a pretty relaxed way. Players start flipping tiles, getting a feel for their numbers, and easing into the rhythm. There’s no pressure yet—just settling in and seeing how the early moves shape things.

Act II – Building toward the goal

As the game moves along, players start paying closer attention to their totals and making more thoughtful choices. It’s still simple and approachable, but you do get that feeling of trying to outpace the hourglass a little. Small decisions start to matter, and players begin watching how close everyone is getting.

Act III – Making the final call

The endgame comes into focus once players approach the target number. At this point, the game turns into a light race against time and each other—just trying to hit the number cleanly without going over. It’s not intense or heavy; it’s more like that moment in a puzzle where you can feel you’re close, and you’re trying to line everything up just right before someone else finishes.