P1: Tiny playable prototype of “Sunnyvale, CA”

1. Gameplay Adjustments:
   • Consider changing the shape of single-family homes for clearer representation.
   • Add more cards to include more players (33% increase suggested).
   • Modify some objection cards to be more realistic to Sunnyvale (e.g., replace “National Park” with a relevant local issue).
2. Countdown Mechanism:
   • Find an alternative to using a dice for countdowns.
   • Consider ways to remind players to count down (e.g., visual markers or prompts).
3. Player Board Suggestions:
   • Include a turn flow chart on player boards (e.g., actions, countdown reminders).

External Game Test Observations:

Participants: Jason, Arnav, and Allen

1. Gameplay Mechanics:
   • Players were confused about what replaces what—a diagram could help.
   • Clarify the game’s end condition in the rules.
2. Building and Strategy:
   • Players were unclear about building over single-family homes.
   • Increase density rules need clarification.
   • Some confusion around when and where you can place new buildings.
   • When players only draw cards and take no visible action, it’s not clear they’ve completed their turn.
3. Player Reactions and Comments:
   • “I can’t build here, I can’t build here, I can’t build here…”
   • “These guys are racist so I’m gonna put them in the racist zone.”
   • “You’re doing the community a great service.”
   • “Can single family housing replace single family housing?”
   • “I’m extremely racist”–A funny moment, but consider if this is teachable or should be reframed.
4. Visual and Physical Design:
   • Icons’ shapes and symbols can be confusing (e.g., circling faces for +1 modifier).
   • Consider alternatives to erasing (e.g., using cards, legos, or other markers).

1. Game Balance and Timing:
   • Mastery took a while, and strategies only became apparent toward the game’s end.
   • Evaluating multiple projects created combinatorial explosion, slowing the pace.
   • Autonomy over game end encouraged point counting, leading to a slow pace.

Positive Feedback and Potential Improvements:

1. What Worked Well:
   • Good mechanics; liked how players figured things out as they went.
   • Emphasized empathy by putting players in the mindset of someone opposing affordable housing.
   • Easy-to-grasp mechanics after a few turns.
   • Social interactions and strategy discussions were engaging.
   • The lack of clear optimal strategy made the game more dynamic.
2. Balance Suggestions:
   • Consider balancing affordable housing: As time runs out, it’s no longer a major concern.
   • Maybe allow all remaining actions to be played when the timer is about to end.
   • Timer resetting when cards pass helped maintain flow — consider adding more time for certain scenarios.
3. Scoring and End-Game Considerations:
   • Scoring system makes affordable housing quite punishing.
   • Maybe everyone finishes one more turn after the last card is drawn.
   • Consider modifying score rules or resetting the timer when specific conditions are met.