I really loved learning about how prototypes manifest in different ways and the rationales behind why we prototype. To guide the development of our game prototypes, I’d like to ask three equations:
1) How would negotiation amongst players differ from round to round? Will increased negotiation lead to a more intense and high-stakes gameplay ?
It’s an important question to answer because the dynamics for negotiation are critical to playing on sensations of the user experience. Do we want to encourage players to lie? Will players be deceptive, flip flop, or form alliances based on real world relationships? Do such personal relationships influence doing “favors” for one another? Can trust be recouped if it is lost?
A prototype I’d make to answer this question is a french-card suite where players have to end each round without the Joker. If a player holds the Joker, they lose the round. We would play with varying numbers of Jokers based on the total number of players, and see how negotiation tactics change from round to round. Another dimension to test would be adding a temporal component to see how players’ negotiation tactics change under pressure.
It may turn out that players carry over their experiences from round to round. For example, if a player lies in Round 1 to Player 2, will Player 2’s gameplay or attitudes towards Player 1 be affected in subsequent rounds? How do we mitigate bias that may lead to players alienating others?
2) What should the appropriate size of the game board be (i.e., number of available moves) be to host 4 players?
It’s an important question to answer because the number of available moves for a given player affects their own gameplay experience; nobody likes waiting for a stalemate situation to resolve itself at the mercy of other players, or being the first one to exit a game early on.
A prototype I’d make to answer this question is a 10×10, 15×15, and 2020 black-red checker-style game board where players are only able to move to B or R spots based on the color of the suite card they draw. If a player successfully moves to a spot, they reserve it and nobody else can. Game ends when all spots are reserved or majority are reserved by one player.
It may turn out that players are stuck in slumps where they are consistently not drawing the color they need to make a move, making for a miserable gameplay experience. Or, certain players dominate the game board at a disproportional rate. We would have to balance such conditions out somehow.
3) How many policy cards should players hold at any given time?
It’s an important question to answer because the number of policy cards a given player holds dictates the speed and longevity of the gameplay. For example, if we make it such that the conditions of the game allow for a high turnover of cards in a small time frame, all cards may be exhausted and the game could be short and uninspiring (especially because our game relies on emotional build-up).
A prototype I’d make to answer this question is a set of French-Suited cards, experimenting with the number of cards players hold and the effect on respective turnover (namely, having them discard pairs of cards until all cards are exhausted). We would test drawing/maintaining 3, 5, and 7 cards at a respective turn.
It may turn out that players actually prefer speed versus longevity of the game, making it a more competitive and exhilarating experience. However, when a territorial element or game board is added, would they prefer having faster rounds or slower rounds? Perhaps, to test this, we can add strategic complexity by asking players to identify patterns beyond pairs (namely, a royal flush or other poker hands) while discarding their cards.
