Listen to this playlist as you read through!:

Artist’s Statement:

Cabo Castaways is a social deception and judging game that invites players to get to know their friends and the space around them better.

Unlike many of the judging games you are used to, Cabo Castaways does not enclose itself within the game box. Rather, as players, you define the magic circle and the boundaries of the game.

As survivors trapped on a deserted island, your goal is to find objects which satisfy each case scenario and your personal challenge. For example, you might have to find something that shields you from the rain (scenario) but is shiny (personal)! You can play it on a beach, in a room, in a foreign city… the world is your deserted island. The mechanics of searching for an object under one minute in your defined space mirrors a person rummaging through scraps on a deserted island. We immerse you into the world of survival without using actual props but rather your own imagination.

Cabo Castaways aims to redefine the boundaries in which a game is played. It is a friendly reminder that a game can be played anywhere, even in a “boring” room, and that the world is your playground.

Concept Map and Ideation Exploration:

The concept map, depicting the layers of Cabo Castaway’s game mechanics: — A concept map, depicting the layers of Cabo Castaway’s game mechanics:

When brainstorming our game, we were eager to create a social deduction game like Mafia. We loved how Mafia used existing friendships to spark fellowship, sensation, and thrill. However, after reflecting on Mafia gameplay in class, we noticed a limitation: players unassigned an “active” role for multiple rounds often felt disengaged. Learning from this, we wanted to change the mechanics of the game so that everyone was a “Mafia” in some shape or form, designing a system where every player has a hidden agenda.

To ground our design process, we aligned on a “north star” statement: we wanted a game that would foster social connection, spark storytelling, and create layered strategies of deception and discovery. Using this vision as our anchor, we applied the diverge → converge brainstorming strategy discussed in class. Each team member generated a range of mechanics and theme ideas individually, and we then came together to discuss them as a group.

We collected all ideas into a shared document, labeling those that resonated most strongly with the team. Some early concepts included building shelters from scavenged materials, forming secret alliances and betrayals, or racing to collect sets of objects tied to secret objectives. Through this process, we observed a strong shared excitement in the team around physical movement, flexible environments, and creative object interpretation- elements that emphasized the core aesthetics of sensation, discovery, and expression that we knew we wanted to include in the end.

General concept decided, Cabo Castaways was born-Huzzah!

From these shared interests, we narrowed and synthesized our ideas into the foundation for Cabo Castaways: a scavenger hunt-based social deduction game where players search their environment to find objects that fulfill both public and hidden objectives. We found ourselves excited about the idea that the boundaries of the play space would be flexible to fit different settings, encouraging accessibility and player creativity. The concept of Cabo Castaways was coming together bit-by-bit, and it was now time to consolidate our initial decisions to bring the game to life!

Initial Decisions:

We wanted our game to have layers by including multiple objectives for the players. The primary objective was to gain the most number of points by the end of the game. In our initial design, we were going back and forth between having the objective be to gain the most points after a set number of rounds, or trying to be the first player to reach a set number of points. We initially decided on the latter and our playtesting solidified that decision. Within that primary objective we had two smaller objectives that players could try to reach in order to meet the main objective. One was returning with the best object and making the best argument. This is a solution-driven outcome because the players are trying to find the best solution to the group scenario that is presented at the beginning of each round. From the start, we liked the idea of having a game where the group has a common goal but everyone also has a secret challenge. The second stacked objective is outwitting the other players and trying to guess their personal challenge and simultaneously mask their own. Having these stacked objectives as means of gaining points was an interesting element to us in order to have multiple ways to reach a winning zero-sum outcome and allow for different types of fun.

The procedures and rules that we decided on involved two types of cards: personal challenges and group scenarios. The group scenarios would be some sort of general challenge of what type of object to bring back and the personal challenge would be each player’s secret individual restriction. The players would have a set amount of time to find an object and bring it back and then would have time to deliberate over who had the best object. Then, they would vote and the winner would get a point. If anyone guessed another player’s personal challenge, they would get their point.

The boundaries of the game were designed to be somewhat flexible, on purpose. In general, we designed the game to have the boundaries of whatever room you were already in, allowing players a somewhat small space to wander to search for an object. However, by design, this could be adjusted to fit the group. For example, a group could choose to allow players to leave the room to find an object, as long as they still returned in the allotted time. The boundaries could even be the circle/space within where the players are sitting, by only using objects on their person and potentially bringing an assortment of objects to the middle of the group. This would also be a more accessible way to play, since it would not require movement across the room.

The resources are the cards that provide the challenges, but are also just whatever the players agree can be resources. The game was initially designed for the resources to be any object in the room, with players able to adjust this based on the boundaries they set.

Through these elements and mechanics, we wanted to evoke a couple different types of fun. We wanted to allow for expression and sensation, through players getting to move throughout the room to find an object and creatively come up with an explanation for why it is the best. There is also an element of challenge and discovery, trying to find out what everyone else’s personal challenge is. By developing different types of fun, we hoped to create a game that would be engaging and enjoyable for many different types of players.

Brainstorming of our initial decisions for formal elements and mechanics

Testing and Iteration:

At this stage, we also identified a few mechanics we were uncertain about and wanted to explore, such as how to structure voting, whether to have a judge or group consensus, and how much time should be allotted for scavenging and arguing. We knew that there would be no better way to find the answers to these questions than to see them in action through playtesting! Now having our first draft of mechanics, we went to work to create effective rapid prototypes to test the core of Cabo Castaways and see what interesting dynamics might appear.

Questions to answer via Prototyping + Playtesting

For our first prototype, we wrote out about 10 different group scenarios and 10 different personal challenges. The medium for the first prototype was composed of sticky notes and construction paper. We didn’t have a timer included in our first prototype, so we just used a phone or computer timer. We knew we wanted to eventually add more prompts and cards, but started small for the sake of getting a prototype out to playtest.

Our first prototype for the Group Scenario cards

Our first prototype for the Personal Challenge Cards

Playtest 1: Testing Core Flow and Timing

Our first playtest was conducted with a group of five close friends and groupmates from CS247G. From the start, players were highly engaged: laughter filled the room as everyone hurried around gathering objects, and players enjoyed having secret personal challenges to work around. The energy in the scavenging phase confirmed that our goal of delivering sensation and discovery was on track.

However, some pacing issues quickly surfaced. We realized that we had allotted too much time for the “Campfire” arguing phase, leading to awkward silences as players ran out of things to say. In response, we decided to shorten the argument time from 40 seconds to 30 seconds per player, keeping the momentum lively.

Players also expressed skepticism about the original five-round structure, worrying that they wouldn’t have enough rounds to properly detect patterns in others’ behavior or avoid ties. Based on this feedback, we modified the victory condition: instead of ending after five rounds, the game would continue until the first player collected three resources. This created a more flexible, dynamic endgame tied to player success rather than a rigid round cap.

These early adjustments showed us how small tweaks could dramatically shape pacing and tension, crucial dynamics for the sensation and challenge aesthetics we wanted to evoke.

Playtester revealing their personal challenge

Playtester zooming off to find their item

Playtest 2: Exploring Voting Structures and Scavenging Boundaries

For our second playtest, we deliberately gathered a group of players who did not know each other well. We wanted to test whether Cabo Castaways could spark fellowship and playful interaction even among strangers, without relying on preexisting bonds.

The new time limits worked beautifully. The one-minute scavenging timer felt just right, keeping players energized and focused. Players enthusiastically dashed around the room, reinforcing our aesthetic goals of sensation and discovery.

In this playtest, we also introduced a new mechanic based on iteration from Playtest 1: assigning a single judge to choose the winning object each round. At first, this streamlined decision-making and prevented long voting discussions. However, new issues soon emerged. Giving a single player the power to decide each round felt hierarchical and unfair, with several players expressing frustration that their creativity was dependent on one person’s tastes. This dynamic undermined the fellowship aesthetic we were trying to support.

We also encountered a new challenge around scavenging boundaries. Some players hesitated to pick up objects they felt might be personal property, revealing that our initial ruleset needed clearer guidelines on what was fair game. Additionally, a few of the group challenges, such as “find a mental health buddy,” turned out to be confusing or difficult to interpret, limiting player creativity instead of enhancing it.

Taking all this feedback into account, we made several major changes for the next iteration. We reverted back to group voting for round winners, restoring the sense of collective judgment and fairness. We also revised the rulebook to recommend that groups agree beforehand on which items were available for scavenging, encouraging the use of shared or communal resources. Finally, we rewrote confusing personal challenges to focus on more concrete, accessible object traits, supporting more creative and flexible player expression.

Group Challenge announcement + an intrigued Annie

Final Playtest: Validation and Emergent Mechanics

Our final playtest was held with a new group of mostly strangers in CS247G. We immediately noticed that players were drawn in by the playful tone of the materials, reaffirming the strength of our visual and thematic design choices.

Gameplay flowed smoothly. Players required minimal moderator clarification, aside from a few edge cases: they asked whether items could be reused across rounds and whether objects needed to come from specific areas. These questions led us to update the final instruction manual, clarifying that items cannot be reused and must come from the immediate room or agreed-upon play area.

One exciting emergent mechanic appeared during this playtest: players organically began keeping the scenario cards as a way of tracking round wins. We loved this idea, as it created a simple, tangible record of achievement that fit naturally into the narrative of resource gathering. We officially adopted this change into the final ruleset.

One final improvement stemmed from observing the scavenging phase. Without a visual timer, players struggled to manage their return time effectively, occasionally creating rushed or confusing endings. To solve this, we decided to include a physical visual timer in the final kit, reinforcing pacing and maintaining the sensation of urgency we wanted players to feel.

Through each iteration, Cabo Castaways evolved into a game that more deeply delivered on its intended aesthetics: sensation (quick, energetic scavenging), discovery (exploring new objects and spaces), expression (creative justifications and storytelling), and fellowship (collective play and judgment). Each round of playtesting made the game more accessible, more dynamic, and ultimately, more fun.