Roommate Beef
Ana Nguyen, Thanh Tieu, Shirley Wei, Grace Xu
Overview
The name of our game is “Roommate Beef”. The intended player number for this game is two players. The players will work together and try to keep their apartment clean. The intended audience for this game will be college freshmen or any young adults entering into a shared living experience. The intended fun for this game is fellowship and challenge. The players will demonstrate fellowship as they cooperate on several tasks, such as sharing tools, cleaning their individual rooms as well as shared living space, and sitting side-by-side when playing the game. Challenges will arise through personality cards and event cards, as the roommates learn more about each other and run into troubles that may arise during a school year.
There are multiple learning goals that we hope to achieve through this game. First, we hope that players will gain a basic understanding of how shared living feels like in terms of housekeeping, preparing them for the shared living they will face in the future. We also hope players can practice their communication skills with their roommates about shared responsibilities and shared tools. As we have noticed from our shared living experience, communication lies at the heart of many roommate beefs, and we would like to help players practice expressing themselves. Last but not least, we would like to prompt players to think about the potential consequences of their actions. For example, wearing shoes indoors may feel comfortable, but it could make cleaning harder for their roommate. We would like to help players to become mindful of their roommates as the game progresses, helping them to become better roommates as they enter their shared living experience.
Game Bits
Room board, tool cards, personality cards, event cards, 2-minute timer, 3 sanity cube tokens, 5 personality tokens with a -1, 15 circle tokens for cleanliness points
Assessment Goals
Due to the learning goals that we define in the “overview” section, we hope to assess whether players have learned more about shared living. Hence, we settle on pre- and post-observation as a method of assessing. Before the game, we ask the players, who will be “roommates” living in an apartment, to come up with a roommate contract. While the players discuss what rules they want to enforce in their living space, we would observe players’ discussion, noting down whether they discussed anything on shared cleaning activities or cleanliness of the space. If it is a topic of discussion, we would also pay attention to how detailed their conversation is. For example, do the players agree on specific time intervals, cleaning every two weeks, or do the players simply state “I would like to keep the living room clean.”
After the game, during which players should learn about communication and shared responsibility in cleaning, we would ask the players to look back on the roommate contract they have proposed and ask them if they would like to add on or alter anything. If our game is truly educational, we should observe players adding more detailed descriptions of actions (eg. not wearing shoes inside). The players, as a result of playing this game, should also be more mindful of each other’s individual responsibilities and communicate at a greater level, as compared to what they did before the game. If the players are joking about the misbehaviors in the game, such as procrastinating on cleaning the sink, we would know that the players have noticed the presence of shared responsibility, and, hopefully, this acknowledgment can reduce the chance of players misbehaving as roommates. For example, while we were playtesting our game, the players would gradually become more communicative, discussing with each other about which areas needs cleaning and how to distribute the tools. In multiple roommate contracts, when the players get to reflect on their initial roommate contract and add on, the players show a higher awareness of the consequence their actions may bring. Specifically, the freshman pair revised their agreement on partying, noticing that partying typically results in a messy situation. The two female players, during our first in-class playtest, added in the roommate contract to include more communication about shared items.
History Versions of Game
Original Version
The game was originally about house cleaning and aimed to teach people techniques on how to clean certain appliances. We quickly pivoted to cleaning in shared living spaces and focusing on the shared communication aspect of roommates because that was easier to facilitate teaching on a tabletop game.
We decided to create a 2 – 4 player game with hidden personality cards that ranks players at the end of the game, 1 global event per round, and tool cards that are confined to a room. We listed out all cleaning locations in a single sheet of paper and slid tokens to indicate cleanliness points.
Change 1:
We changed the max cleanliness points to 1 higher than the starting value since the game was not balanced and multiple locations kept going to 0 each round. We added detergent as a tool for laundry since we noticed players having to continuously clean laundry every single round. We decided to rotate the starting player each time to introduce some variety. We changed the global events so that the first round had no event so players could get used to the mechanics of the game, then increment the global events by 1 in later rounds.
Change 2:
We decided to increase the number of personalities as rounds progress and start from 1 since drawing a lot of personalities at the beginning was overwhelming and led to less action in later rounds. We also removed tools from the starting round to help players get used to cleaning actions. To measure learning outcomes, we decided to have the players create a roommate contract for pre-interview, and edit/change it after playing it for post-interview
Change 3:
We added a tracker board for each player’s room and the shared living room that was separate from the room map to help players keep track of tokens and move it in one place. We also distinguished global events into easy and hard to have easy rounds at the start of the game and make it progressively harder towards the end. We decided to move from 7 to 5 rounds with the starting round with no tools or globals, two rounds with easy globals then two round with hard globals to make the game go faster and be more interesting
Change 4:
We decided to remove the separate tracker board and add the cleanliness point values onto the map itself so players can interact with the map more and not have to keep track of 2-3 mats at once.
We also added a round tracker that gives information on what to draw each round so they don’t need to refer back to the rules. We clarified the win/lose goal conditions of the game to make the game objective more obvious and added sanity points to the top of the game. Sanity points would go down 1 per round if any appliance reached 0.
Change 5:
We created a rules document to see if players could set up the game and play without a moderator to help them. We also changed the sanity points to work as tokens and they would be placed on any appliance that reaches 0 at the end of the round. They can now regain sanity points by making the item go to the max cleanliness value. This helped rebalance the game and prevented them from dying too early and a way to bounce back from harsh global events and mistakes early on. We combined both easy and hard global events back into 1 global event card since maintaining two separate decks was confusing for players.
As seen above, we created a new map board of the room with clearer point categories for legibility and hand drawn furniture to make it seem more cozy
Change 6:
We clarified what the point values on personality cards mean (aka -1 on the personality card is in addition to the -1 at the start of each round). We decided to implement a timer for each round since we noticed that players would take extremely long times strategizing and planning their moves before carrying out their actions. We added tokens for personalities that subtract from certain locations per round so players don’t have to reference their personality cards at the end of every round.
To make our game more accessible, especially for colorblind folks, we changed our card design to use color codes and distinct icons for each type of cleaning location. We created different card shapes between tool, personality, and global cards to help players differentiate them easier. We also rebalanced many of the tool cards so they would only affect one type of location (e.g. tubs, tables, floor, or laundry) and added more cards that cleaned tubs since there were more tub locations on the map. We changed the stove to be a tabletops location since the living room had too many tubs which were unbalanced.
Photos/Video Clips of Game Testing
We did 9 playtests.
- The first playtest was in class, and the players were two females. They complained that it is very easy to lose all the sanity points, as it is easy for an appliance’s points to drop to zero.
- The Second playtest players suggested introducing global events related to jobs or school to reduce action points and create a roommate contract for pre- and post-interviews.
- During the third playtest in class, the first round was slow to understand the mechanics, and some players forgot key actions like moving before cleaning. But as the game progressed, they started communicating and strategizing more effectively. Players enjoyed the challenge, finding that the global events, the appearance of the antisocial personality, and the stacking of personality traits made the game more interesting. Additionally, from the game, they started thinking more about cleaning, including what needs to be cleaned and how to maintain it. They suggested keeping an eye on the balance between the points of amenities and the points given by tools and considering adding cleaning points on the map for more fun.
- On Oct 4, Shirley and Grace did the fourth playtest. There was some confusion regarding the tracking board, especially whether the first dot represented 1 or 0. Players forgot to draw tools in the second round. The messy tracker boards and lack of use of the turn tracker were noted as issues. Additionally, players felt it would be helpful to show an ideal layout due to the number of cards in play. Despite these issues, players enjoyed the game. One player exclaimed, “I’m gonna die. Save meee!” while the other coordinated responsibilities, like taking care of the living room. Suggestions for better organization and clearer instructions were made to improve the overall gameplay experience.
- Thu and Caitlynn did the fifth playtest. They used the old board and mats, as the newly drafted mat was found too confusing. Players communicated frequently, planning their actions before moving, but forgot to draw tools and needed reminders about the order of rounds and tool usage. Suggestions included clarifying that something can start at zero and only lose sanity at the end of the round, maybe having a red zone, adding a checklist for rounds, and introducing a final challenge or “curveball” to make the game harder. The overall feedback was positive, as players enjoyed the cooperation, though they felt the game could benefit from shared spaces and more difficult challenges.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtF_yME6DpTrBICACl_bmC5JEgWKSHhn/view?usp=sharing
- The 6th playtest was conducted in the classroom with two males. Players found the term “appliance” in the rulebook confusing. They were unsure whether the floor was considered an appliance. Moving action points and whether players could view or share the content of personality cards with each other should be clarified in the rulebook, as the players asked the monitor relevant questions. There was also confusion about whether reaching 1 point was considered as 0, suggesting the need for a clearer tracker for 0 points. In terms of feedback, players found it challenging when global events and personality traits occurred simultaneously, but they also described the game as fun. However, the players thought the game map was messy, which made it harder for them to understand the game’s flow.
- In the seventh playtest, players tended to forget about the antisocial aspect of the game. There was also confusion about what actions to take if a global events card could not be completed. Some players found the experience stressful rather than enjoyable.
- Two Stanford freshmen participated in this playtest. They are Amy and Austin and they both had prior shared living experiences but mentioned they had never formally done a roommate contract, stating they were generally “good with the status quo.” Gameplay revealed some confusion, such as whether the stove belonged to the tub, and the tracker was noted as messy. While they encountered mostly easy global events, they still found them tricky to manage. They suggested adding a wake-up and sleep system where one player cannot move if the other is asleep and the need for more collaborative tasks that require two players to be present at the same time to complete.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYKGoVPJhbGcM-hKtF-QZBlwxhMnk2L4/view?usp=sharing
- In this in-class playtest, Asher and Chinat (both male students) experienced several points of confusion. They struggled with placing tokens at the beginning and required assistance from the monitor. The new map lacked labels for “Room A” and “Room B,” causing further confusion. Players were unclear about “the one’s personality would affect the other one?”, “how personalities and global events interacted when personality traits conflicted”, and “What is the scope of the global event and what is the scope of personality?” The laundry personality and closet card also created confusion, but they were clear after receiving the explanations from the monitor. Players planned their moves and divided tools ahead of time, which led to one player dominating the conversation.
Players communicated more than in previous playtests, providing helpful suggestions such as using color coding for better tracking and increasing the size of symbols for better readability. They also gave feedback included the need to clarify card instructions, perhaps introduce player tokens after an antisocial card is pulled, and consider adding a round timer or tokens for personalities. Another suggestion was made to incorporate more global events in later rounds to increase difficulty. Additionally, the playtesters found the resource management mechanics surprising but noted the need for simplified rules and better legibility.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1amZLBqyGoEuoRuBIDuw76fKJNjRAVQBL/view?usp=sharing
Print N Play Link
Not included: 2-minute timer, 3 sanity cube tokens, 5 personality tokens with a -1, 15 circle tokens for cleanliness points
Photos of Packaging
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vVpxOe9HMDmW9Fl2PlmI-8r4-GqCgk8Q