In my last series of playtest drawing close to the deadline, I was very happy with my game, as I believe that its series of simple mechanics give rise to an engaging 10 minute gameplay experience with repeatability. This is due to a few simple mechanics that are given emergence by the bluffing and misdirecting human elements of gameplay. I was especially happy to see, across the design process and playtesting, a simple metagame developing that players came up with themselves as I was initially worried that the game would not have enough player input to allow for a distinct metagame.
I therefore wanted to add a few new minor mechanics and effects to the gameplay that allowed for a possible comeback mechanic, and more player input. The rule changes that I introduced were tested in 5 rounds and were added on top of each other one by one when I was happy that the mechanic worked with the previous design and therefore I introduced the mechanics one at a time to give myself and my players time to feel them out and give better feedback
The mechanics I introduced and the order I introduced them in were:
- Card effects to the two junk cards
- Card effects to the 200c cards
- Role cards are worth 1000c to their respective players rather than 800c
- Cards that players take each round can be taken by the next player
- Players must declare what cards they place down each round, they may bluff
Results : Junk Card Effects
The added one effect to each of the junk cards that come into effect when they are added to the player’s trove:
- The Bowl junk card allows you to swap one card from your trove with one from your hand
- The Chisel (now monocle) junk card allows you to ask another player if they have a card, and they must answer truthfully
These new effects immediately added new options for players and allowed them to find more indirect value from adding the lowest value cards to their troves. The Monocle effect now also adds a new option for gaining information from other players in a limited way.
While I knew that I wanted to keep both of these effects, the playtesting revealed that one of the cards, The Bowl, has far more value to a player than the Monocle, as immediately gaining the value of a chosen card from your hand is a more desirable effect than gaining information that can be acted upon but may not lead to a direct benefit. For this reason I introduced my next change
Results: Low Value Card Effects
I decided to separate the two effects as they were very different in desirability, and apply the stronger effect to the Junk cards and the weaker effect to the 200c cards. This way the effects will occur more often giving the players more chances to make meaningful decisions and providing more information to players throughout the game.
It was immediately apparent that the game felt more fluid and players made decisions more carefully about what cards they put in play each round, and how they used the effects of the cards that went into their troves.
Results: Role Cards worth 1000c
Initially, role specific cards being wroth 800 meant there was little reason to trust players who tried to give you a card that you want, as they are likely putting another card in play that round that they themselves want. For this reason I wanted to test how increasing the value of these cards to the players that want them would affect the outcome of each round.
I found in the few tests that I did that it lead to more bluffing throughout the game, and more trades between players to increase their own wealth while allowing the other player to do the same.
Results: Players can take cards that have been taken that round
This rule was designed to incentivise players to make more attempts to bluff and trade with other players, and be more active in directing other players to take cards. Unfortunately after playtesting it seemed that it instead incentivised people to more often take the card taken from the previous player, as from my feedback, it was funny.
While I enjoy that this added an element of unintended fun to the game, I also think that it temporarily made the game feel once again as random as it had in it’s first iterations and this is an outcome that I want to avoid for the game. I did however decide to include it as a potential house rule in my rules pdf
Results: Declare cards with bluffing
Due to the previous rule’s failure to provide the effect that I wanted, I decided to add a rule to force players to make the decision to bluff or tell the truth at the start of each round.
I found that this made the game feel much more purposeful, and was told that while it felt clunky to go from not having the rule, to having it, it also made them engage more with each round, and attempt to bluff more often.
While not originally intended as an effect, I realised that a part of bluffing games that I enjoy, is that without bluffing and not getting caught, other players that do engage in bluffing will pull ahead and win. For this reason I felt that I had put the game in a more enjoyable state and decided to then turn to how to better convey these new elements.
Design Elements
In order to communicate these effect changes, I decided to include two new symbols on the cards that represent these effects, rather than describe them on the cards. I will then also include descriptions of these effects in the rules document. The symbols I designed were:
Trade Cards Symbol Ask Question Symbol
In order to bring all these elements together, I will tie them into the rule’s and explanation document.