Team: Butch Nasser, Haven Whitney
See this post for the prior iteration of the game!
Overview
For our P4, we decided to refine EndangerEd, our multiplayer board game intended for 2-6 players ages 13+. In our original game, each player plays as an animal conservationist with a specific endangered animal they wish to preserve. However, due to natural events, lack of money, and players’ conflicting desires for favorable habitats that could possibly suit other species, players may find conservation much more difficult—and competitive—than originally expected. Our aesthetics of fun focused on challenge, discovery and fellowship.
We wanted our game to have significant replayability, as well as the ability to offer differing social dynamics based on each player’s decisions and playstyles; that is, we wanted to create a perfect place for players to show their competitive drive—while also learning about competition in the field of conservation. Players must overcome a set of obstacles from lack of funding, random event cards, and other players’ choices that result in triumph overcoming said obstacles. As players play, they reveal the map’s tiles and learn of new dangers or boons; they also can find solace in working towards a similar goal as other players, but when there’s limited favorable tiles remaining, they may enter into a cutthroat competitive experience to emphasize how endangered animals—and those protecting them—often compete to achieve their goals.
As players participate in the core gameplay loop of taking actions, and both natural and human-directed events affect the habitats they wish to preserve, we wanted players to learn about the financial difficulties of research or conservation, as well as its competitive nature among conservationists. We attempted to embed this understand by making every action cost money, and forcing players to experience negative events in order to gain money—one’s financial gain would often be associated with upsetting the current board state, and the other players’ investments into the board.
In our refinement of this game, we wanted to highlight the facets of challenge and fellowship even more by leaning into the competitive nature of conservation. In the final version of the P1 game, players experienced the game as competitive and cutthroat, but were unaware that this was the intended outcome we designed for; to clarify the game’s nature, we decided to rename our game Fight or Flight to make this intended experience clearer, and focused our theming more on birds to create more consistency across the game’s visual and game-related aesthetics, as well as reduce complexity for player understanding. For this final refinement, we primarily wanted to improve the fidelity of the physical board to create a more streamlined player experience, accelerate the transition to learning the rules, and reduce barriers to smooth gameplay created by the game’s analog components.
Here are our most up-to-date rules. Note that this includes changes post-playtest, as discussed later.
Playtesting and Iteration Changes
Post P1 Final Playtests
Coming into this project, we knew we wanted to address the feedback we received from our last playtests of P1. While players had fun discovering the different natural event and funding event cards and competing with each other, some aspects of the rules weren’t immediately clear and made play more confusing than expected. For example, the rulebook did not clarify how funds for each player would be recorded, or the rules for taking the migration action. We also found that some aspects of the physical construction caused friction. The tiles, for example, were perfectly cut to fit with the frame meaning they stuck easily and there was difficulty grabbing at them to flip over. Some pieces also had ill-fitting paper tops, making it difficult to grasp a tile without peeling at it. Furthermore, due to the wooden tiles being created via laser cutter, the edges of the tiles had char/soot which some players reported noticing on their hands during gameplay, despite efforts to wipe away.
From this feedback, we decided to focus on increasing the fidelity and user experience of the game, as well as the simplicity of set-up and rules comprehension. We recut our board pieces and frame from scratch, polishing each piece to add a glossier finish and seal the edges to avoid char/soot. We made the pieces slightly smaller than the total footprint of the frame, that way there was a bit of flexibility to their placement and retrieval. The paper tops of the tiles were cut smaller as well and more deliberately, and each top fit perfectly on its intended tile with a black border for visual aesthetics. We also used thicker, colored construction paper, versus regular printer paper with ink for each color, as in our P1 playtest.
We also noticed the board was difficult to pick up and put down in our previous playtest, so we added small feet on the bottom of the board covered with felt to elevate the frame and prevent scratches upon placement. In our original playtest, we received some confusion as to why there were 5 birds and 1 turtle as our species to conserve, so we transitioned to a primarily bird-based theme and swapped the turtle for a fifth bird species. We 3D printed our own bird models as animal tokens in 6 different colors; these tokens were printed to be about half the size of our previous animal tokens to allow for less footprint on a tile. Similarly, the danger and biome value tokens were shrunk by half and reprinted and polished.
To add a bit more aesthetic polish, we included cloth bags which we used to separate each animal card, its tokens, and a die to represent funds. This allowed players to have an overall “kit” ready once they opened the game, instead of having to gather pieced themselves. Overall, we wanted to mimic the fidelity of games that make players act in awe of the components alone, which would theoretically draw in players if the game were launched.
To make the user experience simpler and more fun, we updated the rulebook to be more specific in the previously mentioned areas, and also changed the win condition. While in our previous game we allowed for only one winner, we decided to allow for multiple winners to encourage players to strategize on their negotiation tactics with other players. Rather than needing to beat everyone, they simply needed to do well enough for their animal, allowing for more flexibility in approaches. We set a threshold of 8 points, with having an animal in an ideal biome rewarding the player 4 points and having it in the correct biome rewarding 2 points. We acted with the intention to vary this number based on playtests.
Our finished product can be seen below.
P4 Final In-Class Playtest
We performed our final in-class playtest with a group of six undergraduates and graduate students. Three players had played previously, and three players had never played before. A video of the playtest, and some fun timestamps, are included below. Prior to the start of recording, players showed exception appreciation for the fidelity of the game, saying “I love this” while holding up wooden tiles, as well as “ooh this is so cute” with regards to the printed bird tokens.
Timestamps of Playtest:
- 4:00 – A player reads the rules for natural event cards, then draws a natural event card. Other players respond to rule questions quickly and accurately, indicating general effectiveness of the rulebook.
- 4:30 – Experienced players share lessons from past gameplay experiences, and strategize! This indicate the game has enough complexity to afford strategization and multiple gameplay approaches
- 6:50 – “Everything costs money!” Our learning goals are being met and experienced very quickly.
- 9:00 – A player experiences an emotional response when a card is drawn that destroys a tile. The light embedded narrative of our even cards evoke a feeling in our players, in accordance with our initial learning goals.
- 9:40 – A player compliments the theming of card names (“Live Dangerously”).
- 11:40 – Given the opportunity to help or hurt others for a habitat that wasn’t theirs, Anna and Ana form a negotiation/pact (foreshadowing).
- 15:50 “That was the kind of turn that makes you a threat” – Players experience the competitive nature of the game intensely.
- 16:10 “We gotta stop getting funding” in response to funding event leading to drawing more natural events. More evidence that our learning goals are being met.
- 17:20-17:40 – A player takes personal picture in admiration of the bird tokens. This made us happy!! Players clearly express satisfaction with the fidelity of the physical game components.
- 17:47 Simran almost chooses to eliminate Houston without even thinking about it, for more money. Reactions from the rest of the table has her change her mind. Generally, this was a firsthand model of environmentalists supporting their animal, and possible unintentionally interfering with others.
- 22:53 “Honestly this does remind me of what it’s like for environmentalists to fight over funding resources” Simran expresses a clear understanding of the game’s learning goals.
- 28:53 “We could take over the world” – players with Desert animals debate transitioning other habitats to desert, advantaging solely them at the expense of others.
- 29:07: “I revealed the desert tiles for you, we had a pact here!” Ana faces betrayal from the pact.
- 29:55 “Listen, I think we need to be making more strong, antagonistic actions against each other” – Simran chooses violence.
- 31:09 “Dangerous Research Proposal” drawn – Ana gets betrayed!
- 32:43 “I found an Op…” “Who is your op?” “YOU [almost] KILLED ME WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHO IS MY OP?”
- response: “All is fair in environmentalism and war”
- This serves as evidence that our game affords fun through fellowship and social interaction.
- 35:00 Anna starts playing “Enemy” by Imagine Dragons (targeted towards Simran)
- returns at 41:35.
- 38:15 “Anti-Relocation Fundraising drawn”
- Thanh, immediately “this doesn’t affect me!”
- 39:18 “Do I just have to pay $4,500 myself since no one else cares?”
- 42:20 Thanh makes a move that sentences Houston to losing: Houston reacts appropriately.
Our total gameplay was about 55 minutes from start of first turn.
Post-Playtest Feedback
After the gameplay session, we solicited feedback specifically towards the smoothness of entering gameplay, and understanding the rules. Generally, players noted that the rules were generally clear, and players did not need facilitator intervention to understand the rules—we witnessed confused players get their questions resolved from other players also reading the rulebook. Playtesters noted that they were able to enter gameplay rather quickly, and felt in the groove regarding the game’s core gameplay loop of taking turns and drawing event cards.
With this said, some players expressed difficulty remembering what round they were on, and who the first player of a round would be. We decided to add a “Turn counter” to the physical board and print and play. Players also noted that they would like specific sanctuary tokens, instead of flipping over other circular tokens. We have since added those as well.
We also asked players their opinion on the fidelity of the components, and if any physical parts of the components interrupted gameplay. We were pleased to hear that players were satisfied with the fidelity of the bird tokens, and were impressed by the wooden board and tiles. Players reported a distinct absence of any char/soot on their fingers, and found the wood smooth to the touch and easy to lift and flip during gameplay.
However, some players expressed trouble with distinguishing the white and the light gray bird tokens from a distance. While this was mainly a limitation on the available filament on-campus in a short time period, we would take this feedback going forwards and add more variety in the printed colors, to ease distinction of each player. Some players who are more experienced in visual design also noted that text near the bottom of the rulebook seemed cramped, so we took the time to space it out slightly better.
Lastly, players noted that they thought the game’s point system could be more balanced. While we attempted to find a point system that worked for all number of players to reduce complexity and onboarding of new players, the “threshold to succeed” system was only playtested prior with a small number of players. From playtester feedback, we would like to further test points thresholds for groups of player counts (2-4 and 5-6) separately, to create the most balanced game.
Conclusion
Going into this final version of the game, we wanted to focus on improving the fidelity of our physical components to be more aesthetically pleasing. Overall, players were impressed with the fidelity, both in look and feel, of our game components, and reported that the fidelity helped improve the smoothness of gameplay flow. While watching our final playtest, we were exceptionally impressed by the way our game afforded social interactions such as laughing, negotiation, and upset primarily related to the events and interactions within our game; in focusing our mechanics on resource management and system analysis, we created a dynamic were players were constantly messing with one another, establishing social awareness and interaction as a core aesthetic of our game.
Additionally, compared to our final P1 product, playtesters seemed to fully understand the game as competitive from the rulebook and title alone, and were prepared to make choices that may affect other individuals negatively. We were glad to see the learning goals of our initial P1 game still be met, but even prouder that this game ended up being a complex system-based game that affords massive replayability and has thus far yielded significant playtester satisfaction. While we highly encourage playing the high-fidelity version of the game we have worked on for P4, you can download a print-n-play version of the game below. We hope you enjoy Fight or Flight!
Print and Play
Here is our print and play. Do note that you have to scroll right and zoom to first see the files, since there are larger images at the bottom of document, for the board.
