Week 2 - Assignment 2

Strategy Card Game Design, GRATIS and Single Player Playtesting

 
Making Sandwiches 
By ​Dillon Hemphill

A ​1 v 1​ Strategy Card Game

for ​2-5​ Players
Ages ​13+

Game Description:
Players compete against each other to collect all the cards in the deck to win the
game.
 GRATIS Outline
G​oals

● Making a combo and collecting cards against other players.

● Try to collect as many power cards as possible to create an advantage.
● To collect every card from the deck before other player(s).

R​ules

● The cards should be shuffled and evenly dealt face down amongst the players.
● The youngest player goes first and continues in a clockwise fashion.
● During your turn, you can complete the following actions.
○ Action 1 - place your top card down into the middle pile face up.
○ Action 2 - if a combo has been created slap the pile as fast as possible before the other
players to collect the cards in the pile.
○ Action 3 - if a power card is played, the next player must place the appropriate amount of
cards down until another power card is played, the power card is not beaten by a higher
power card, or a combo is created and the pile is slapped.
● COMBOS
○ SANDWICH - the same number cards are placed with only 1 other card in the middle (for
example; 2 - 4 - 2)
○ DOUBLE SANDWICH - the same number cards are placed with only 2 other cards in the
middle (for example; 2 - 4 - 5 - 2)
○ DOUBLE - the same number card is placed one after the other (for example; 10 - 10)
○ TOP-BOTTOM - the same number card is placed with 4 or more cards in the middle (for
example; 2 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 2)
● A triple sandwich does not count as a combo and if slapped to collect, the player should burn a card
(explained below).
● Before your turn ends, the player needs to determine if they should slap the pile to collect the cards.
● Keep collecting the cards until you have all the cards from the deck.
● If you slap the pile to collect the combo, but was found to be incorrect you must burn a card, in
which you place your top card face up on the bottom of the stack.
● Once, one player has collected all the cards there is a chance that the game can continue. The
game is continued with either 1 player using their cards (for games of 2 players) or the other players
continuing (for more than 2 players) and the person can collect the cards from the pile if a combo
was created and slapped before the other players.
○ If the person does not collect cards after this one chance, they lose the game and cannot join
back in.

A​ctions

● Players should take the top card from their own deck and place it face up in the middle stack.
● If a combo was created, the first person to slap the pile collects the pile into their own deck.
● If a power card is played, the next player must place the appropriate amount of cards down into the
middle stack. If the power card is not beat within those cards, the power card dealer collects the
pile. The power card can be beat if another power card is played, in which the next player must
 continue the cycle until it was not beat, at which point the latest dealer of a power card wins the
stack. The power card can also be beat if a combo was created and the pile was slapped in which
that player would collect all the cards from the stack.

T​ransitions

● The game is started by placing the first card face up in the middle of the players.
● The turn ends when their card is placed in the stack.
● Power cards and combos change the way the game or turn is played.
● All the cards were collected by one person and all players do not have a chance to come back in.

I​tems

● 75 x Cards
○ 5x Number 1 Cards
○ 5x Number 2 Cards
○ 5x Number 3 Cards
○ 5x Number 4 Cards
○ 5x Number 5 Cards
○ 5x Number 6 Cards
○ 5x Number 7 Cards
○ 5x Number 8 Cards
○ 5x Number 9 Cards
○ 5x Number 10 Cards
○ 5x each power card
■ 1X Power Cards
■ 2X Power Cards
■ 3X Power Cards
■ 4X Power Cards
■ 5X Power Cards

S​etup

● Each person's deck is laid face down.

● The cards are shuffled and dealt evenly to each person face down.
● The first person to play is the youngest of the group.
 Identify Meaningful Choices
Meaningful Choices

Meaningful Choice #1
● The first meaningful choice would be when a card is played, you have to decide very quickly if you
should slap the pile because there was a combo played. Sometimes that choice is incorrect
because your hand is to fast for your brain and you have to burn a card, and sometimes you luck out
and you made the right decision which helps you get closer to winning the game.
● This choice occurs after a card is played, no matter whos turn it is.

Explanation ​(answer in at least ​one paragraph​)

How do the Meaningful Choices listed above impact your game? How do they improve the
gameplay? What would the gameplay be like without these choices?

The meaningful choice listed above impacts the game because it gives it some variety. If you are incorrect
and the card played wasn’t for a combo, you have to burn a card. This makes the game fun and it gives a
consequence to just slapping your hand down no matter what card is played. If the choice wasn’t there
everyone would just slap the pile every time a card was played and then the game wouldn’t be about wits
and paying attention to what was played it would just be how fast your reflexes are. I think they improve the
gameplay a lot by giving that choice to people helps them to have more fun playing the game because it is
about how they play instead of just random chances and luck.
Single Player Playtest #1 Photo
 Single Player Playtest #1 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. In 2 or 3 sentences, how would you quickly (but accurately) describe your game to others?

This is a fun game to play with others to collect all the cards playing against your friends. This game is a
test of your wits, how fast you can think, and your reflexes.

2. Did you run into any loopholes or dominant strategies with your design? If so, how did you alter the
design to fix these issues? If not, what about your design prevented those loopholes?

I did not run into any dominant strategies with the design since it is simple, but still fun. Some loopholes
were figuring out how to prevent somebody from just slapping their hand on the pile every card. I had to
create a rule that if you did that and you were incorrect, you have to give up one of your cards. Everyone
kept trying to collect cards even when there was no combo, so there needed to be some kind of
consequence. I think the design is worked out a good bit where there aren’t many loopholes to try to cheat
from the other players because there aren’t many chances to.

3. What are some of your thoughts on your design? Did the mechanics you made on paper translate well
when actually playing the game? ​For example: What were the most used actions, least used actions?

When I was designing this game writing it on paper made so much sense in my head of how it was
supposed to be played. However, when I went to play it, I found a lot of drawbacks about how people
could try to cheat the system, or how easy some combos were to make and it made the game very short.
Most stuff translated well into actually playing the game like how to play the game. I did have to make
more rules about which things could be done and how to win the face up cards. I would say the face up
cards were the hardest part to really describe how they were to be played on paper that it translated kind
of weird.

4. Did the player choices in your game feel meaningful? If so, how were they meaningful? If not, why not?
What can you do to improve the meaningful choices available to the player?

The player choices in the game did feel meaningful. I thought that when playing it was random about
which cards were played because you have no control over that. However, you have control of how you
react and how fast you react. This made the game fun because if you mess up it's your fault. I think it
would be good to include more meaningful choices to the players, but I am not sure how to go about doing
that when the game makes so much sense now.

5. How long did your game setup take? How was the presentation and usability of your materials? What
improvements can you make for the next playtest to go more smoothly and look more professional? ​For
example: did you use card sleeves, were you trying to shuffle loose leaf paper?
Really the game is very simple in materials and setup, but complex in the way it is played. The
presentation was very simple because I was using loose leaf paper for the cards, it definitely needs to be
updated to be more professional. The usability was very easy for me because its a simple game. The
setup of the game took maybe 1 minutes just to shuffle the deck and deal it between myself and another
player. The cards were created from paper, so I would like to create the game online or make cards from
actual stock paper and print them for the final draft to make them more professional, as they are a first
draft.
Single Player Playtest #2 Photo
 Single Player Playtest #2 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. After a second playthrough, did you run into any new loopholes or dominant strategies with your
design? If so, how did you alter the design to fix these issues? If not, what about your design prevented
those loopholes?

There were a couple loopholes that I didn’t see in the first playtest which I saw in this one. One example
was it was easier to make combos with multiple people, but you have to be faster to react before
someone else does or puts a new card down. As well, if there were multiple people, only giving one
chance to have them come back into the game prevents the game from lasting indefinitely. Also, and easy
combo was having a triple sandwich, but it occurred so often, that it was removed so that it was a more
challenging game to play. I think changing these helped to improve the game to make it harder and not as
simple.

2. After a second playthrough, what are your new thoughts on the design? Did the changes you make from
the first playtest improve your game? Explain some of those changes and how they improved or detracted
from the game experience.

The changes from the first playtest did improve the game a lot actually. Once playing the game I was able
to fully explain how to win against face up cards and how the turn should end. I was also able to figure out
what rules should be used to prevent cheating and any dominant strategies that could happen. Most of
the changes that were made were done so to improve how everyone played the game instead of being a
game were pretty much only one person could win. I feel like it is a good game for many people to play
with their friends and have fun with.

3. After your presentation updates from playtest #1, how did your play experience improve? Were there
any issues with the user experience? How can you continue to improve the flow of your game for the next
test?​ ​If you did not make presentation updates, what should you do before the next playtest?

There were still some kinks in the second playtest like the triple sandwich that occurred a lot. There was
also an issue of how to end someone’s turn and who went after the person collected the cards. Other than
small things that needed to be fixed I think it worked pretty good. I might include some more cards to
increase chances of winning, possibly something like a skip card? I would like to print cards for the game
so that it looks more professional and easier to hold. The game could use some more meaningful choices
most likely, but as of right now it is a good game to play.

4. Which actions did you use the most, which did you use the least? Were some not used at all? How can
you balance out your actions to create multiple, interesting paths to victory?

All the actions described in the GRATIS were used during the game. Probably the most used action would
be action 1, since that is the entire concept of the game. However, action 2 and 3 were used a lot as well
so that players could collect the cards to win the game. I think all the actions balance out nicely right now.
A lot of what happened was that faceup cards would be played during the opponent's placing of their
cards, a combo would be played which allowed faceup cards to be collected so that the game became
harder the more you played it.
5. Describe the decisions you made throughout a few example turns in your game. Point out each major
decision, and quickly describe how that decision was meaningful.

While you have to play the top card from your deck, a big decision to make as fast as you can would be
whether you needed to slap the pile to collect the cards. If you are right, you can collect the cards and
possibly win the game. If you are wrong, you have to sacrifice one of your cards to the pile. If you don’t
then someone else will collect those cards and possibly win. This is a huge meaningful choice because
you have to decide fast if you should slap the pile. Then you need to have fast enough reflexes to get
there before anyone else can.
 Week 3 - Assignment 3
Flowchart, Game Components and Group Playtesting

Flowchart
Group Playtest Photo #1
 Group Playtest #1 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. Describe the Meaningful Choices available to your players during this playtest. Did these choices lead
to interesting strategies, or was there a dominant strategy / obvious choice always available? Were there
multiple viable ways for players to achieve victory? What improvements can you make from these
observations to enhance the Meaningful Choices available?

During this playtest, the players have a meaningful choice available to them when they have the option to
slap the deck when a combo is created, or to not slap the deck when a combo is not created. This choice
leads the players to learn how to control their reflexes. The choice does not lead to a dominant strategy,
you just have to be fast enough to slap the stack first, and controlled enough to not slap the stack when a
combo is not there. The players had fun with the choice available and enjoyed testing themselves and
their friends to not slap the stack when a combo is not there and to compete against each other.

2. Did your Flowchart do a good job of explaining the player actions and overall flow of the game? What
questions did your players ask you during the playtest about your rules? What steps will you take to clarify
those areas? Were there any instances or situations that were not covered by the rules or Flowchart at all?

The players found the flowchart easy to follow and understand what the next step was. The players asked
questions about how to beat a power card mainly and what specified the combos and how to make them.
I tried to explain to them in words how it works, but it was easier to show them using the cards how to play.
There was one instance where there was a triple sandwich made and the stack was slapped, but once
explaining why it was not a combo the mistake was not repeated. Other than that there was not a situation
that was not covered by the rules or flowchart.

3. What are some of your thoughts on your design? Did your players have any contributions or thoughts
on your design? Are you planning on changing your design based on those observations? Explain your
decision.

There were some thoughts on how to make the cards eye-catching more so than the ones created last
week. The players did not have any thoughts on the design other than that it was a fun game to play.
They said it was interesting, and it kept their attention throughout the whole game, until someone won. I
am not planning on updating the design because there was not any changes that were brought to my
attention from this playtest.
Group Playtest Photo #2
 Group Playtest #2 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. After your updates from the first playtest this week, describe the Meaningful Choices your players
made this time. Did these choices lead to interesting strategies? Did you eliminate any dominant
strategies, or are they still present? What other improvements can be made to the mechanics of the
game?

There were no major updates that changed the meaningful choices after the first playtest this week, so it is
still the same as above. The players have a meaningful choice available when they have the option of
slapping the deck when a card is played, whether a combo has been created or not. This choice lead to
an interesting strategy between the players or having their hand up ready to go to slap the deck when a
card was played, but they quickly learned that was a bad idea because they were slapping the deck
automatically. This lead to them having to burn a card and having a harder chance of winning the game
each time they did so. I did not have any complaints or ideas from the players about the mechanics and I
cannot think of any improvements that can be made.

2. After updating your rules and Flowchart, did players understand how the game was to be played? Did
you encounter new questions that were not addressed in the rules? How can you continue to clarify and
simplify the explanation of your rules?

Players understand how the game is to be played from the rules and flowchart as it clearly explains how to
play. I encountered the same question about the triple sandwich, which I am considering adding back into
the game, but I feel it would be better left out since it was so easy to make as a combo. I think a good idea
would be to have players play the game a couple of times and ask them to explain the rules as they
understand, so that I can better explain the rules and how to play the game. This way it would be easier
for everyone to understand and new players can have an easier time.

3. How did your design changes after the previous playtest alter the gameplay? Were these good
changes, or did they negatively affect the game? Are you finding that these iterations are smaller tweaks
or larger mechanical changes? With this in mind, do you feel like you are close to the “final design” of your
game?

There were no design changes that were done after the previous playtest so there was no alteration to the
gameplay. There were no negative aspects of the game that were spoken to me or that I noticed. I have
had no complaints about large mechanical changes that need to be done. With this in mind, I am feeling
like I am close to the final design of the game.
Group Playtest Photo #3
 Group Playtest #3 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. What type of gameplay emerged from this next playtest? Did you encounter different Meaningful
Choices for your players, or were they the same as last time? Is the gameplay varied enough to remain
interesting for multiple playthroughs?

This group did really good in understanding how to play the game and the rules. This group was made up
of younger generation as well as an older, so it was interesting to see how they interacted when playing
the game. The older generation did have a harder time to slap the stack when a combo was created, but
they were smarter about it and did not draw attention like the younger generation. The group encountered
the same meaningful choices as last time, but the players found they really enjoyed playing the game and
doing so with their family.

2. Were you able to explain your game by only reading from the Rules and Flowchart? Did you need to
supplement your rulebook with clarifications and examples? If so, how could you incorporate that
information into a more effective set of rules for the next playtest?

I was able to explain the game by only reading from the rules and flowchart this time. I included examples
of how the combos were created, so they did not need clarifications from me on how to play. They found it
a little bit harder to understand how the power cards were played and how they could be beat it and if
multiple power cards were used who won them, so I did have to clarify that a little. I will try to clarify the
rules a little more so that people can understand them on how to play with power cards, but the flowchart
helped them understand how to play very well.

3. How has the game changed since your original design? Reflect back on the changes and iterations
you’ve made since your single player playtests. Think about the critiques and feedback you have gained
from other players and how their input has shaped your game.

Honestly, from this rough draft of a game that I had come up with as a kid, it has become a full-blown
game that makes sense to play and is fun. The original design was very rough around the edges, and
when played didn’t make sense, but since having so many people play it and give their advice it has gotten
very good. They helped me to change how to explain rules and how to play the game. A big thing was
also how the flow of the game changed so drastically from how I originally imagined it, but it works so
much better now.
 Week 4 - Assignment 4
Rulebook, Quick Reference, Observed Playtest and Final Reflection
 Rulebook
Thematic Backstory

Compete against your friends and family in the newest card game that will keep you on your toes and alert
at all times! Test how good your reflexes and attention span are in this innovative game for everyone.

List of Game Components

Here is where you will list the components of your game, typically in bullet form.

Components Example:
75 Game Cards
● 5 #1 cards
● 5 #2 cards
● 5 #3 cards
● 5 #4 cards
● 5 #5 cards
● 5 #6 cards
● 5 #7 cards
● 5 #8 cards
● 5 #9 cards
● 5 #10 cards
● 5 1X Power Cards
● 5 2X Power Cards
● 5 3X Power Cards
● 5 4X Power Cards
● 5 5X Power Cards

Game Setup

All cards are dealt evenly between all players face down in a stack. Youngest person in the group starts the
game by flipping a card from their stack faceup to the middle of the circle. The game continues clockwise
around the circle.

Objective

The objective of the game is to collect everyone’s cards and finish with all 75 cards in your hand.
Turn Overview

Each player’s turn consists of three parts:

1. Play the top card from their own deck.
2. Decide whether to slap the stack if a combo was made, and if so slap the stack.
3. If a power card is played, the persons turn is over and the next person must continue.

While a big portion of the game is luck and chance, a bigger portion of it is up to your attention, reflexes,
and your ability to control yourself. Once there is no other action to do, the player on their left should go
next and so forth, until all 75 cards are collected by one person.

Details Regarding Various Game Mechanics

COMBOS
● SANDWICH - the same number cards are placed with only 1 other card in the middle (for example;
2 - 4 - 2)
● DOUBLE SANDWICH - the same number cards are placed with only 2 other cards in the middle (for
example; 2 - 4 - 5 - 2)
● DOUBLE - the same number card is placed one after the other (for example; 10 - 10)
● TOP-BOTTOM - the same number card is placed with 4 or more cards in the middle (for example; 2
- 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 2)

Before your turn ends, the player needs to determine if they should slap the pile to collect the cards.
● If you slap the pile to collect the combo, but was found to be incorrect you must burn a card, in
which you place your top card face up on the bottom of the stack.

POWER CARDS
1. If a power card was played, that person’s turn is over. The person to their left must continue by
playing, one by one, the number of cards the power card indicates. For example, 5X Power Card
would result in the next player playing 5 cards one by one.
2. If a combo is created, while the person is playing the obligated cards, the turn can be interrupted by
anyone slapping the stack and collecting the stack.
3. A power card can only be beat by a combo or a higher power card. If a higher power card is played,
that person’s turn is over, and the person to their left must continue by playing the number of cards
the power card indicates.
4. The cycle can continue until the power card is beat by a combo, or it is not beat and the dealer of
the latest power card collects all cards from stack.

Each player should keep collecting the cards until only one person has all the cards from the deck. Once,
one player has collected all the cards there is a chance that the game can continue. The game is continued
with either 1 player using their cards (for games of 2 players) or the other players continuing (for more than
2 players) and the person without any cards can collect cards back, if a combo was created and slapped
before the other players.
● If the person does not collect cards after this one chance, they lose the game and cannot join back
in.
Ending the Game

The game ends when one player has all 75 cards, and the other player(s) have no other chances of coming
back into the game.

Examples of Play

Play example: On the first turn, Dillon plays a 4X power card. Grace is to his left and she plays one by one
4 cards, 2, 7, 1, and a 3X power card. Because the 4X power card was not beat with a combo or a higher
power card, Dillon got to collect all 5 cards in the stack.

Example play: Grace thought a combo was created when the following cards; 2, 7, 4, 3, 2. She slapped the
stack, but realized that it was not a combo. She has to burn a card, by taking the top card from her own
deck and place it on the bottom of the stack in the middle of the group.

Example play: Later in the game, Blaze has lost all of his cards and has one chance to come back in.
Grace and Dillon play the following cards; 9, 1, 5, 3, 2, 8, 9. When the 9 was played Dillon slapped the
stack and collected all 7 cards, while Blaze lost his chance of coming back into the game.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: ​Is there a combo called a triple sandwich?

​ o there is not and if a person slaps the stack trying to collect a “triple sandwich” they must burn a card.
A: N

Q: ​Does a burned card become the new bottom for a top-bottom combo?
​ o you must remember the original bottom when trying to collect a top-bottom combo.
A: N

Q: ​When two or more people slap the stack at the same time who gets to collect the cards?
A:​ The person with the most fingers on the stack claims the cards and collects them.

Documentation Updates (Patch Notes)

Version 0.2 - After Observed Playtest #1

Explained more clearly how power cards worked after confusion regarding how many cards to play and how
they can be beat, and if not beat what happens. Also, who collects the cards if a power card was not beat,
when multiple power cards were used in the play.
 Quick Reference (Cheat Sheet)

How to win:
Collect all 75 cards in the deck before other players to win the game.

How to play:
● Player places top card from own deck face up in the middle of the group.
● If a combo was created slap the stack before other players.
○ If the stack was slapped, but a combo was not created, the player
must burn a card.
● Power cards can be beaten by a higher power card or a combo.

TIPS:
1. Memorize combos so you can react fast to slap the stack.
2. Have good reflexes and pay close attention to what is going on in the game.
3. Play smarter, not harder!
Observed Playtest Photo #1

How long did this playtest last in minutes?

32 Minutes
 Observed Playtest #1 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. Were your players able to understand the rules and mechanics of your game by reading the rules you
provided? What changes would you make to how you present the rules for the next playtest? Did your
players use the Quick Reference (Cheat Sheet)? Did they find the information clear and useful? What
changes could be made to improve the Quick Reference?

The players were able to understand the rules and mechanics of the game by reading the rules provided
with a little bit of confusion. I went back and explained more clearly how power cards can be beat and
used examples to show people exactly what works. The players did not need to use the cheat sheet
during this playtest, as they understood the rules from the rulebook. While they did not need to use the
cheat sheet, at the end of the game I did ask them to read over it and tell me if it would have been useful
during the game and they said yes it would have. They did not suggest any changes that could have been
made to improve it.

2. Tell us about some of your observations from the playtest. Were players getting frustrated, when and
where? Were they excited? What were some notable reactions to the game? Try to explain why you think
these reactions happened and if they were a part of the design goals of the game.

Players were excited when faced with trying to beat their friends to slapping the deck when a combo was
created. Some players were frustrated with not being fast enough to slap the stack first to collect the
cards. One player was upset that he had lost his cards so fast during the test. The game was designed to
make people think fast and enjoy the time spent with their friends and/or family. I think frustration comes
with any game, some people just don’t like to lose, so it was normal for me to see and wasn’t worrying.
The most emotion I saw during the playtest was happiness and laughter from people competing against
each other and having fun.

3. How was the user experience of the game? Were players able to shuffle and deal cards easily? Were
the descriptions and text on the cards, rules, and Quick Reference clear? What can be improved here for
the next playtest?

The game was user friendly in that all the descriptions and text on the cards, rules, and quick reference
were clear for players to understand. However, they did have some trouble when shuffling and dealing the
cards as they are paper cards. Also, they were decorated with marker so when they are face down you
can still see what card they are from the other side. Because of this players were able to somewhat cheat
and know when a combo would be created. I think I would like to make new cards from a thicker paper so
that players can't cheat anymore.

4. Describe the meaningful choices you providing for your players. Are they using all of those
meaningful choices, or only some? What changes to your design could further improve your game?
There was really only one meaningful choice in the game. That was they have the decision to make of
slapping the deck when a card is played, whether it made a combo or not. From this information they have
to figure out whether to slap the deck and collect all the cards possibly, or have to burn a card and
relinquish one of the cards and lessen their chances of winning. This means that players have to use this
meaningful choice, so they do use all of their meaningful choice options during the game. From what
everyone has told me they think that this game is very interesting and simple enough to keep people’s
attention and has no need for changes.
Observed Playtest Photo #2

How long did this playtest last in minutes?

26 Minutes
 Observed Playtest #2 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. Did your group encounter any dominant strategies during the second playtest? Did you encounter any
unexpected player strategies?

This group did not encounter any dominant strategies during this playtest. One player did try to have their
hand up ready to slap the deck at all times, but after having to burn a couple of cards, they learned their
lesson. Two players tried to trick each other into thinking they needed to try to slap the deck even if there
wasn’t a combo, which was a smart idea. There were not any other strategies used during this playtest
that had not been seen when I played with people.

2. How long did it take for the group to learn your game this time? Were your rules and Quick Reference
updates effective? Are there any other iterations you can make to improve the clarity of your game rules?
For Example: Provide a Sample Turn.

It took the group about 3-5 minutes to learn the game from the rulebook and quick reference cheat sheet.
They found the play examples helpful in seeing what can happen during the game and how to play. The
players did say that they found the rulebook easy to understand, more so than the first version of it. There
could possibly be more examples that could be used to improve players understanding of the rules.
However, the ones that are provided were sufficient enough for players to use and know how to play.

3. What sort of gameplay dynamics emerged within this group? How did those dynamics affect the
gameplay? Would you encourage or discourage those dynamics for future games?

This group was more aggressive towards each other when playing the game than others. This made it so
that the group did not have as much fun and was not as happy as the other groups. One player did try to
mediate for the group but also got caught up in winning. I would discourage this behavior in future games
as it is not the goal of the game to create tension between families and friends. Rather, it is to create an
environment for fun and happiness.
Observed Playtest Photo #3

How long did this playtest last in minutes?

21 Minutes
 Observed Playtest #3 Questionnaire
(at least ​one paragraph per question​)

1. Can you put this version of your game down in front of a group of people, walk away, and have them
fully understand how to play the game? If yes, how did you achieve this. If no, what needs to be done to
get there?

For Example: Are your Rules clear? Is your Quick Reference helpful? Are the cards concise and
descriptive?

Yes I would be able to leave this game in a separate room with someone else and they could figure it out.
This can be achieved from the clear, concise rulebook and the helpful cheat sheet. The game is simple and
very easy to learn, but has enough interesting qualities to keep people coming back. The cards are also
very easy to remember for all ages, and are described in the rulebook for people to know exactly what they
are using to make which plays.

2. Did each gameplay session feel unique? Were new strategies and interactions happening each time
a group played, or was the same strategy used every game to win? How can you ensure that your game
remains interested and replayable?

I think that each gameplay session felt unique between the last 3 weeks. From all of the gameplay
sessions, each game felt like it was brand new because of the new and fresh interactions that were
happening. From my perspective, there was not a strategy developed that made it so the same person
could win every time. Because the game is simple and also somewhat relies on luck and chance, a
person can develop a strategy for one game, but when playing the next game it does not work. This
means the game remains interesting and replayable for people and usually the players want to play
immediately after the game ends, because they want to challenge the winner to a rematch.

3. What feedback did you get from your final group of playtesters? What were their impressions of the
game? Did they offer any helpful or unique insights on the design of your game?

The final group of test players had a lot of great insight into the game and the design of it. They had a great
impression of the game from the very beginning, all the way to the end, and kept wanting to play it
afterwards. They said the game was designed very well and it was simple enough, but still somewhat
complicated to keep people wanting to play all the time. The rules made sense to them and they found the
tips in the cheat sheet very helpful. They liked the game very much and said that they would definitely buy
it to keep in their homes for when they want to play on game nights.
 Final Reflection Questionnaire
(at least ​two paragraphs​ per question​)

Here you will record your experience with documenting, prototyping and testing your first game design. Go into
as much detail as possible, this is incredibly helpful when you come back to reference this project in the future.

1. What did you learn about game design documentation? (two paragraphs minimum)

I learned that designing a game takes a lot of attention to details. I never knew so much needed to be
documented when designing a game, even a simple one like this card game. Every single little piece of
idea needs to be written down and needs to be explained. I also learned that when things sound good in
my head, when written down they don’t make sense at all. The documentation process was very difficult
because of this reason, and it made me change a lot of things in the beginning.

I also learned that game design documentation never stays the same. After every single play test, there
was something that needed to be changed to make the game better. Of course, it was difficult to figure out
what could be changed to benefit everyone, or if it would just benefit a few. The documentation process
has been very helpful though, in really understanding how a game is designed and how it can be changed
from the beginning all the way to the end. All of the documentation; the flowcharts, the questionnaires, the
GRATIS, the rulebook, and the cheat sheet, were very interesting and challenging to develop for this
game, but it helped immensely and helped me develop the skills needed for my future career.

2. What did you learn by using the iterative design process? (two paragraphs minimum)

I feel the iterative design process was a good way to design any game. Having to repeatedly look over the
game and its documentation helped to really make it the best game it could be. I could not imagine what
the game would look like if I had not been required to use the iterative design process. It would not play as
well, it would not make sense, and the rules would not be as thought out. Continuously repeating the
process also helped to get it to a final draft version that worked well.

As well, using the iterative design process made the documentation interesting. One day it would make
sense, but when I went back and read through it, I had no idea what I was trying to say. Then you had to
go back and update everything once a play test was completed. Whether it be a small update, or
something huge that needed to be taken out, the documentation had to be correct and appropriate to the
feedback that was given. Because of the iterative design process, Making Sandwiches is an awesome,
fun game to play now after the last 3 weeks.

3. What did you learn about play testing? (two paragraphs minimum)

I learned that play testing was a great way to find out the pros and cons of the game. To find out how
players can find advantages/disadvantages of the play, and how strategies can be developed. Play testing
really is so important because it allows you to understand other people’s perspective and how things can be
understood. While some people understood the rules and plays, more people needed help to understand
which is what lead me to reword a lot of the documentation so it was easier to follow. I would never have
thought of doing that because it made sense to me, since I developed the game.

A huge part of play testing that I learned from this class, was how much you have to repeatedly play test
with new people. Every single person had a new perspective of what would be a good idea, or what should
be taken out, or changed. A big part of play testing that I learned was that you cannot listen to every single
person, or else your game will become theirs and will change into something that wasn’t the original idea.
While it is important to listen to people and their ideas, you have the final say and the only thing that should
be changed is what can make the game better, not a different game. Play testing has been so important in
this game design process and has given amazing feedback towards this game.

4. What did you like about your game? What didn’t you like? (two paragraphs minimum)

I enjoyed the fact that the game was something that I created. It brought a new outlook to myself and what
games I can develop and create ideas for. I like that the game is both physically and mentally challenging
for all players. I also like that the game is simple enough that many people can play it and have fun, but is
still interesting that people keep coming back to play it. I really like that it takes luck, attention, and your
reflexes to really win the game, and it helps to develop your attention span and reflexes so you can get
better and better the more you play.

There wasn’t really anything I didn’t like about my game. I think the only big thing was that I wished I had
designed it a little bit differently so that I could introduce more meaningful choices than just the one. I did
not like that there so few actions to play, as there are power cards and combos. I also wish I could have
introduced more plot twists and made it more interesting to play. However, I feel the game I designed is a
great one that many people will enjoy playing.

5. How can you improve your process the next time you make a game? (two paragraphs minimum)

Now that I have experienced making a game and the design process I know what to expect. I can predict
how things will go, so automatically design them in a way that should fit everyone. This way the play tests
can go smoother than the initial ones that happened from this game. I also can see how detailed you have
to be when figuring out the idea. The pros and cons of the upcoming game has to be very well thought out
before ever play testing and introducing it to people.

I can improve the designing process the next time by understanding how people think, so that when I
describe things in the documentation, rulebook, etc. it can make sense without much updates. I can also
learn to improve how to think about designing a good game and the ideas that can actually be made later
on. Some ideas are good, but just not feasible to even think about trying to design completely, or don’t
even make sense when writing it down. I can also improve my expansion of ideas towards any other
upcoming projects by reviewing and examining how other people work and design in this field, and use
those actions to progress myself. This class has taught me a lot about the game design process and I am
very excited to use these skills to design, document, and make my own awesome games for people to
enjoy.