The game I chose is Taboo designed by Brian Hersch. It’s a card/board game for ages 13+ and is fun for families and serial talkers. I played Taboo online with friends from home, as well as here with my dorm friends.
The game my group is making is called YAP and is for a similar audience. Generally, it’s a debating game where players must sneak in words, phrases, or actions into a debate argument while winning the argument. Other players can call them out and steal points.
Taboo and YAP have similarities and differences in each of the MDA categories. These comparisons lead to the biggest aesthetic similarity being both games as a challenge, and the biggest aesthetic difference to be fellowship (Taboo) vs. sensation (YAP).
There are a few obvious mechanical similarities between Taboo and YAP. The main mechanic of both is that players speak on a timer. Other players must guess words (nuance: in Taboo to guess their teammates word, in YAP to identify which words were snuck in from a card). Other players/opponents must also keep the speaker accountable in some way (nuance: when I played Taboo, accountability feels more like a “yeah okay I’ll be the one to do it,” while in YAP it’s a skill important to winning points). The main mechanical differences are that YAP is a free-for-all while Taboo is rigidly team-based. But, we’re considering adding 2v2 to YAP to add a team-based aspect. I guess the evidence for these mechanics is that those are the rules and instructions of the games.
These mechanics among others bring out several similarities/differences in game dynamics. The biggest dynamic similarity is the player tendency to engage in direction/misdirection through efficient speech. It’s done differently, however.
In Taboo, players must direct their teammate to guess a word without using words from a specific list. This often involves sharing similar/descriptive words not on the list or getting in the head of their teammate to use more personal examples. When playing online Taboo with my friends, I described “Banana” using “Minion’s favorite meal” which my partner got instantly. Otherwise, I would have had to dance around words like “yellow” or “fruit”. That strategy wouldn’t have worked with, say, my parents.
In YAP, players may direct the whole room toward believing their side of the debate while redirecting away from the words/phrases/actions embedded into their speech. Strategies differ as the attention must. This often involves using red herrings/false words to get other players to guess wrong. When prototyping YAP, I would keep saying weird words/phrases (ex: onomatopoeia, you ate queen!) or doing weird actions (ex: Harlem shake) so I could cover up the weird actions. Another dynamic difference is that, in Taboo, we spoke to pigeonhole our partner toward an idea and only focused on their experiences/knowledge. In YAP, it was a FFA where we had to convince the whole room. Because this was harder, some of us stopped caring about it and started just having fun. That’s a good transition to aesthetics.
The biggest aesthetic similarity is the feeling of challenge, which stems from both games’ dynamics of direction/misdirection. There were clear obstacles in both—in Taboo, it’s describing a word, getting in the head of my teammate, all without saying certain terms. That’s difficult and even a little stressful on a timer. When playing, sometimes we would be clearly nervous to speak on the next turn.
There’s a similar effect in YAP. Debating can be stressful in general, especially on a timer, and subtly implementing phrases/actions makes it a real challenge. Similarly, identifying the impostor words takes a lot of focus and educated guesswork.
The biggest aesthetic difference occurs from the dynamic difference of speaking to the whole room vs. speaking to pigeonhole your partner toward an idea. Because in Taboo you have a teammate who you’re trying to get in the head of, you feel psychologically close to each other as you try your best to make/understand relatable clues. I certainly felt myself getting closer with my teammate and genuinely would ask about their life in order to understand the way they think better. In YAP, however, it’s more of a performance. In trying to convince the entire room while playing with the flair of distracting red herrings, it’s like you’re on stage, and the game adopts the aesthetic of sensation. People are laughing, getting loose, and inside jokes are being made. You may not have teammates to experience fellowship with, but everyone feels closer after doing so many embarrassing things to cover up the embarrassing things that give you points. I definitely felt more comfortable in my own skin and around these people, less like I was that much closer to them, but more that we could share laughs together.
