With a core idea selected, we began to plan our first playtest to identify issues with the core concept, and make changes to the rules by identifying the strengths of the format and focusing on amplifying them. My group conducted a test with our course mates in the morning and I conducted an independent test with a group of my own friends later the same day as I was unavailable. Two sets of rules were used in the playtest:
Original Concept
- One player selects a word and attempts to act out the word to the other players
- They then specify another player who guesses the object in secret and performs a different action of what they believe the object is
- This process continues until the penultimate player who types out their interpretation of all the previous actions linked together into a story
- The last player then gets this story in secret and must act it out in it’s entirety
- All the players guess what the original word was and the story is revealed
The rules don’t clearly specify an objective but still provide a fun “space” for players to perform and creatively interpret each other’s performances. It provides a strangely altered “Telephone” situation where players can progressively misinterpret the previous player’s actions. The morning playtest was conducted with an additional rule where each player could only see the previous player’s actions in order to increase this effect.
Adapted Concept
- One player chooses a word and reveals a category related to that word (Animal, Person, Object)
- All other players then think of other words in that category to act out
- Any player can start acting, beginning a clue round. In this round, if another player believes that they know what the action indicates, they can indicate that they know, both players count down from 3 and say the word they were thinking of.
- During this time, the word holder can shout guesses at the performer, and if they guess correctly the clue is cancelled out and the word cannot be used again.
- If however both players shout the same word at the end of the countdown, and before the word holder can guess it, the word holder reveals a new category relating to their word.
- New clues must be in every category given so far, making the game harder for players as it goes
- The game ends whenever the original word is guessed and players can guess the word at any point by asking the word holder
- The player that guesses the correct word becomes the new word holder and the process begins again
The second rule set is adapted from a game I play regularly called Contact. Instead of categories the word holder gives a letter, other players then give verbal clues to their own words starting with the same letter and successful clues earn the players another letter until the word is guessed.
I believe that this variation allows the game to have a bit more competition as well as a more fast paced rhythm as players can quickly give clues and the word holder must diffuse clues as quickly as they appear. I also just wanted to test one of my favourite, go to games with a more physical approach, using more physicality.
Results and Analysis
Throughout the playtests, feedback was varied, with more positive feedback falling towards the contact variant, although I would presume partially because it was a game we were familiar with. The key points of feedback that were common across both playtest sessions of the original concept were:
- Too much in game downtime for players, during rounds as well as the guessing segment where the answer is usually vague and confusing, allowing the segment to drag on.
- No clear goal for the game or incentive to play for players that wanted to try hard.
- Doesn’t maintain the attention of players throughout, in my playtest session the format was abandoned after two rounds as we forgot to keep playing.
- A decently fun game to play in the backdrop of a conversation.
Given the similarity of the second format to Contact, I chose to abandon it as I felt it was too derivative to continue development as our own game. From both concepts however I did learn some key aspects of the games that players enjoyed, and from discussing these with my team I came up with some design pillars that I wanted to personally work towards implementing into the game structure.
Firstly I really enjoyed the use of props when playing the original variant of the game and after consulting with my team and playtesting another team’s game that used props as a specific mechanic, I realised the unique aspect of video conferencing tools that it was utilising. All the players are in the same chat, as if they were together, but the space they each occupy is unique to them, and as we tend to do these things from our rooms, filled with personal effects that can be used in fun ways unique to each player to tell stories.
Another key aspect that I realised that I personally enjoy is a simple competitive veneer to an otherwise goalless game. This allows players, especially those who are friends, to enjoy the sense of competition, which engages them more with the game, while also enjoying the format of the game itself more as it is easier to comprehend when there are clear emphasised goals.
Finally, I want to maintain the sense of comedy that comes from charades type games, by allowing for and encouraging interesting situations. As an example, for most of our playtest, we had to shout loudly while acting in order to centre zoom’s speaker camera on us. This made every player come up with progressively more ludicrous sounds, that created comedic situations.
Conclusion
Moving forward, we will be revising our concept through agreed key core pillars that should form the game, while taking into account staple examples of easy to play party games, to refine the core concept down to a simple game.
From there we will need to playtest the game more in order to identify issues with gameplay and player experience, as well as with new and different groups to see how it plays in different circles.