Pastry Party
Group 3 (Mai Mostafa, Myan Ngo, Thu Le, Kimberly May, Tesvara Jiang)
Artist Statement
We created Pastry Party to be a casual, in-person card game for 2-4 friends ages 8+! Our intention is to appeal to all people from cooking enthusiasts to people who don’t know much about competitive baking (but maybe have moms who are really into the latest and spiciest cooking shows!).
Pastry Party is inspired by competitive baking shows that have become cultural phenomena like The Great British Bake Off, Cupcake Wars, and Nailed It! In our game, players take on the role of aspiring patissiers competing to craft the best recipes using limited ingredients. Not only do they have to craft the best recipes, but they have to prevent their competitors from completing their recipes through strategy and calculated sabotage.
We designed Pastry Party to be both engaging and dramatic while remaining easy to learn. Build your inventory of ingredients while strategically blocking others from completing their recipes. The game incorporates aspects of collection (gathering the right ingredients), competition (racing to complete recipes first), and strategic sabotage (moving ingredients and using Pastry Party cards to disrupt others)—gameplay mechanics we learned in class through testing and playing other games.
Can you become the top patissier?
Concept Map
Initial Decisions
Formal Elements
Our game was inspired by a card game called Unstable Unicorn that we played in class. We initially decided on a card game that allows for multilateral play with an emphasis on some form of sabotage. Initial design decisions included a cooking game of sorts centered around a stew, with players assigned hidden roles. One hidden role would include a poisoner, akin to the function of mafia (from Mafia) or werewolf (from Werewolf), who would try and ruin the stew. This would focus more on deception and bluffing mechanics to create paranoia and entertainment as players try to ferret out the poisoner.
Figure 1: Initial Ideation
After careful discussion, we pivoted away from the sabotage mechanic towards a collaborative baking game, where players would place cards on a 3×3 or 6×6 grid to create recipes. In doing so, players had to balance building their assigned recipes without helping others. Instead of a sabotage mechanic where there is one hidden enemy, it became a free-for-all competition which simplified who players were actively competing against. This also allowed for more flexible play, as players could align themselves with those with the same recipes, creating more opportunities for collaboration and communication. There are still elements of deception, as players hide their recipes and can take advantage of other players’ placements to build their own recipes for them.
Our initial mechanics can be summarized as:
- Drawing ingredients
- Drawing recipes
- Ingredient placement on a 3×3 grid with pattern matching to complete recipes
- Negotiation and communication to collaborate to build or not build recipes
These mechanics allow for flexible play and social interaction between players, by providing ways they can both collaborate and sabotage each other. Small, temporary alliances would appear between players with the same recipes, whereas other players who have different recipes are in opposition as they needed to clear the board to make their recipes.
Game Values
| Values | Description |
| Social Engagement | Players can trade cards with others or ask others to build the same recipe |
| Strategic Play | Players can ‘steal’ recipes by building them off of other players’ work |
| Critical Thinking | Players can guess what other players and building or their high cards to oppose them |
| Inclusivity | The game is very friendly for all ages and has no violent or inappropriate content, while teaching elements of negotiation, deception, and strategy |
| Creativity | Players have multiple avenues to winning, with a variety of means to complete them. By using creative |
Testing and Iteration History
Version 0.1. Foundations of a Baking Game
In our initial prototype we wanted to specifically playtest the foundations of our game with the most basic mechanics. Our goals were to see if the premise of the game was playable without a hidden saboteur role, as well as test to see if the current approach was playable.
Setup
Players draw one recipe at the start of the game. Players were assumed to build recipes on a shared grid by placing ingredients. Each players’ turn was composed of rolling a die for an ingredient card and then either playing that card or rolling again. Numbers one to five were linked to random food emojis as ingredients, while rolling a six would allow for a user to move or remove a card on the grid. Recipes were made using a Minecraft crafting box printed on slips (Figure 2).
Decisions & Assumptions
- Rolling a six would allow for more flexibility as well as a ‘downgrade’ move on other players
- The game would result in players carefully placing cards to build their recipes but not build others’
- A 6×6 grid would allow for more space to build recipes, making it easier to win. A 3×3 grid however would limit players and force them to interact with each other. Which one is better?
- Recipe building requires that the grid must match the recipe exactly. There cannot be ingredients that aren’t used.
- Recipes can be completed by other players, giving the win to whoever had the completed recipe
Figure 2: Minecraft Recipes
Playtesting
We playtested in class with a group of four. Participants were unfamiliar with each other and the game. Mai moderated while Myan took notes. We decided to playtest with a 3×3 grid.
Positives
- Game was very intuitive, with players engaging with game mechanics early on.
- 3×3 grid allowed for healthy competition, and worked well enough.
- People had fun!
Negatives
- Rolling a six was somewhat common.
- Turns were wasted because there were no cards to remove or they didn’t want to remove cards.
- Games were completed by accident, with someone unknowingly completing others’ recipes
- While it introduces paranoia, recipes were not expected to be memorized.
- Players could essentially win by not doing anything
- Multiple players who share the winning recipe can win, meaning that players could win off of someone else’s work
- Not a lot of talking
Design decisions
- Continue with no hidden saboteur role
- Settled on 3×3 grid
Questions
- How do we make winning reflect the ability or effort of the player?
- No freeloaders!
- How should we introduce power-ups in a fair and useful manner?
- How do we encourage conversation and collaboration?
Version 0.2. Pastry Party!
Our second prototype was building more of the branding of the game. We decided to rename our game from ‘Sabotage Stew’ (a relic of a name from our poisoner-hidden saboteur idea) to ‘Pastry Party’ to reflect our decisions to use baking ingredients and recipes. We lean in on the idea a bit more.
Setup
Players can win points by building recipes. Recipes are placed on a 3×3 grid in any orientation, allowing for non-recipe ingredients on the grid. Players have two actions during their turn: roll for ingredients and either place an ingredient or roll for an ingredient or roll for a power-up. When players are doing their optional second roll, players must announce they are rolling for an ingredient or using a number generator for power-up.
Decisions & Assumptions
- Rolling for ingredients is only numbers one to five. Number sixes are rerolled.
- Five is a good number of ingredients, balancing variety and playability
- Allowing non-recipe ingredients on the board during recipe completion
- Previously forcing a clear board made it extremely difficult to win, as the board had to match the recipe exactly. According to previous mechanics, players would have to roll until they get sixes to remove ingredients.
- Recipe completion gives points rather than a complete victory.
- Allows for the game to continue after accidental completions, all the while preserving the opportunity for freeloaders
- Free-loaders are good to a degree
- Forces players to be cognizant of who else shares their recipes
- Increases pace of the game
- Adds luck component
- More power-ups are introduced, decided by random number generator from 1-7.
- [1] Remove an ingredient from the board
- [2] Move an ingredient to another cell on the board
- [3] Steal an ingredient from another player
- [4] Switch recipes with another player
- [5] Steal recipe from someone (they draw a new one)
- [6] Reveal one of your recipes
- [7] Discard one of your recipes and get a new one
Figure 3: Playtesting our game
Playtesting
Four of us played the game on a Saturday morning. Players were familiar with the game and were actively critiquing the game as it went.
Positives
- Validated point system and free-loaders as a reasonable game elements
- Non-recipe ingredients allowed on the board introduced more flexibility, with more recipes made
- Power-ups introduced more mechanics of the game
Negatives
- Rolling a die or using number generator proved to be time-intensive
- Still little social communication or collaboration
Design decisions
- Continue with five ingredients only
- Keep a variety of power-ups that are not tied to chance of rolling a six
Questions
- How can we balance the game?
- Some power-ups seemed less relevant to game objective, some of them were overpowered
- How can we streamline gameplay experience?
- How do we encourage conversation and collaboration?
Version 0.3. Industrial Oven
To streamline gameplay experience, we wanted to balance the game a bit more. Slight tweaking of ideas and elements. We remove the usage of dice and number generator and replace them with cards to draw.
Setup
Players draw three recipe cards at the start of the game. On a player’s turn, they draw one ingredient card. After that, they can choose to place an ingredient card, draw an additional ingredient card, or draw a power-up card. Upon recipe completion, any player who has the completed recipe earns points based off of the complexity of the recipe. Players will always have three recipe cards, and should draw after completion to replenish the recipe stack.
Figure 4: Playtesting in Class
Decisions & Assumptions
- Three recipes in hand allows for faster gameplay and more flexibility.
- Physical cards to draw allows for easier game comprehension and faster drawing times.
- Points based off of complexity rewards completion of complicated recipes
Playtesting
Two players played in class. They were unfamiliar with the game and were already friends.
Positives
- Players enjoyed having a more efficient way to be able to alter the ingredients on the board through the powerups
- Players did show more interaction than previous, but still not much
- The pacing appeared to move much faster with the addition of the powerups
Negatives
- Players were still not interacting a lot with one another
- Players indicated they wished they could “uno style” steal the recipes from one another, ie. if a player completes their recipe and the other player has it, whoever puts their recipe card down first gets it. They felt this would make the game more fun and cause more competitive interaction
Design decisions
- The primary takeaway from this is we need to find more reasons for the players to interact with one another and heighten competition. We felt the chaos of the “uno style” stealing would not be for everyone, but we really heard that they wanted more reasons for competition. That’s why we chose to introduce high cards as another way to earn points in our next iteration.
Questions
- How can we introduce more mechanics that encourage the players to communicate and compete with one another more without making it too chaotic?
Version 0.4. Egg Empire
While the game’s objective to create recipes is good, there is only one way to win. We introduce a new way to earn points to add more flexibility in the game as well as hopefully introduce more communication.
Setup
Players draw three recipe cards and a high card at the start of the game. A high card indicates on it an ingredient which a player gets one point for each one they have at the end of the game, hopefully incentivizing more interaction by causing players to try to hoard specific ingredients. On a player’s turn, they draw one ingredient card. After that, they can choose to place an ingredient card, draw an additional ingredient card, or draw a power-up card. Upon recipe completion, any player who has the completed recipe earns points based off of the complexity of the recipe. Players will always have three recipe cards, and should draw after completion to replenish the recipe stack. The winner is determined by who gets the most points, and the high cards can contribute to this.
Figure 5: Playtesting our game in class with highcards
Decisions & Assumptions
- Adding a new way to gain points would make the game more competitive and incentivize more interaction
Playtesting
Five players played in class. They were unfamiliar with the game and with each other.
Positives
- Players did appear to enjoy the addition of another way to move towards winning the game
- There did seem to be a heightened level of competition as a result
Negatives
- Players still were not necessarily being drawn to interact with one another, even when teaming up was encouraged in the rules to allow them to work together to build recipes
Design decisions
- In order to highlight interaction and incentivize teaming up, we have decided to add an explicit discussion period to prompt players to consider negotiation and working together.
Questions
- How can we incentivize players to work together in a competitive environment?
Version 0.5. The Milk Road
To further encourage negotiation and bartering of resources as a means to gain resources to complete recipes or collect highcards, we implement designated trading time. We have also changed the ingredient draw from one to two ingredient tokens at a time and have explicitly included in the rules what happens if the board reaches a stalemate.
Setup
Players draw three recipe cards, a high card, and 3 randomly drawn ingredients at the start of the game. A player’s turn moves in two phases. In the first phase, The Gain Phase, players have the option of either a) drawing two ingredient tokens b) drawing a powerup card or c) Trading 3 of 1 ingredient for 1 of another of their choosing.. After that, they can choose in The Play Phase to a) place an ingredient token b) play a powerup card or c) gain again . Upon recipe completion, any player who has the completed recipe earns points based off of the complexity of the recipe. Players will always have three recipe cards, and should draw after completion to replenish the recipe stack. If at any point the board becomes full and no recipe can be made, it must be cleared. At the end of each rotation, we have incorporated a trading/bartering round in which players can discuss trading ingredients, trading powerup cards, and making recipes together.
Figure 6: Final Rules for the Game
Decisions & Assumptions
- Trading/Bartering will inherently make the game more social
- Drawing two ingredients a turn instead of one allows for quicker pacing
Playtesting
Submitted as final gameplay. Players were residents of a dorm and had not previously taken part in any playtesting
Positives
- Residents very much felt as though the game was fun
- Explicitly stating stalemate mechanic made players more willing to put things on the board
- Trading and Bartering did incentivize more interaction
- The additional token draw allowed for faster pacing
Negatives
- Residents experienced a buildup of unnecessary ingredients over time with the change of the token draw, although it did help with pacing
- Residents often felt due to the excess of ingredients that there was never any need to trade
- Residents felt the balance of the points could be a bit better, suggested making the easier recipes significantly lower in point value and/or increasing the value of high card ingredients at the end of the game
- One of the residents felt there was a significant power imbalance between the powerup cards and the ingredients, and suggested they should instead be a reward for completing a recipe rather than something you may draw at any time.
Design decisions
- Due to the timeline and the fact that we did get many moments of fun, we decided to turn in this as our final version of our game. However if we were to go forward, we would likely bring back the single ingredient draw instead of two, and perhaps reconsider the point system.
Questions
- In the future, what would a properly balanced point system look like? How could we encapsulate the level of difficulty it takes to complete recipes with more ingredients?
- How can we incentivize people to use the trading period more and interact with each other at a higher level?
Final Prototype
Download our print and play here: Pastry Party Print and Play.
Here’s pictures of our physical final product:
