The game my team is designing (shoutout group (4)20) at the moment is called Filibuster. Filibuster is an unconventional bluffing game in which a player draws one card with a set of keywords and a topic card. Then, this player (the “speaker”) will set a timer for 60 seconds and speak about the topic listed on the card while trying to sneak in one of the keywords from their keyword card, gaining a certain amount of points depending on the number of times the keyword is said. At any time, the other players may interject and guess what the keyword is. If they are correct, the round ends and the speaker gains points equal to the number of times they said the word.
Question 1: What if a player can’t think of anything to say?
Why is this an important question to answer: The game relies on being able to speak for at least 60 seconds about a single topic. If you don’t know very much about the topic on the card you drewor can’t come up with a fun story, there is no game and it’ll result in players not engaging or having fun.
What type of prototype will answer the question: If we experiment with topic cards that have multiple topics, or look up topics that the general public knows enough about, it may make the game more fluid. We could also experiment with “Theme Packs,” or sets of cards relating to specific professions or themes (i.e. engineering, music, math, etc.) for those interested in more focused topics.
What do I predict will happen: I predict that simple topics such as “Birthday Plans” or “Homework” would create more fluid gameplay than “Structural Analysis of a B-737’s Main Wing.”
Question 2: Does this game favor people with larger vocabularies and create issues with accessibility?
Why is this an important question to answer: If the game is too inaccessible, players will be at a disadvantage with their friends and not want to continue playing. We want to encourage the use of more obvious words (i.e. “serendipity” over “phone”), but if a person doesn’t understand what the hardest word is then they’ll be at an immediate disadvantage.
What type of prototype will answer the question: Although there is no way to ensure every single player has the same vocabulary, we can try to make the game accessible by having the “harder” words simply be longer and more obvious words rather than “harder” words. Instead of going into a thesaurus to find ridiculous words no one’s ever heard before, we could just pick longer multisyllabic words like “hippopotamus” that are harder to hide but most people understand.
What do I predict will happen: I think players will respond well to having easier long words that will keep the game challenging without feeling demeaning to those that wouldn’t know the definitions of more obscure words.
Question 3: What if the speaker is just a bad liar?
Why is this an important question to answer: If one of the players is bad at lying/bluffing and can’t last more than ten seconds, the player will be discouraged from continued play.
What type of prototype will answer the question: Experimenting with harsher punishments for incorrect guesses from the other players may improve this aspect of the game. As we have designed the game currently, incorrect guesses increase the time the speaker is allowed to filibuster. However, even in the small tests we’ve already done, these players are still incentivized to continue guessing because eventually they’ll land on the right word. If we design harsher incentives, such as immediately ending the round or only allowing a player to guess the word once, this may make it easier on a player that is struggling to speak for all 60 seconds.
What do I predict will happen: I would hope this change would disincentivize players from guessing every other word the speaker says and to collaborate more between each other before reaching a consensus on the word.
Question 4: How will the speaker keep track of the number of times they said their word?
Why is this an important question to answer: We want to keep the speaker honest and allow them to focus on what they’re saying.
What type of prototype will answer the question: If we experimented with a moderator/judge role that isn’t playing and is only listening, they could mentally keep track of the number of times the word was said to keep track of points. They would have access to the keywords card in order to know which word the speaker picked.
What do I predict will happen: I predict the judge will make the game more honest and easier for the speaker as there is already a lot of stress on them to speak and try to misdirect the other players on the word they chose.
