✧₊∘ Welcome to Heartland ∘₊✧
Farming in the Central Valley
created by: Lucas Wang, Sebastian Hochman, and Ngoc Tran
Overview
California’s Central Valley feeds the country while answering to the weather, the water, the market, and the government. In Heartland, you play as those farmers and ask their question: what do I plant now, and what can I live with later? Our core idea was simple—but also relentless. How can we turn these real-life pressures that real-life farmers face into actions that you can really feel in the moment? And: What do we learn from being placed directly in the front seat of the tractor?
Heartland distills that pressure in a lot of different ways, there’s a dust day here, a tariff there, an enemy farmer sabotaging you when you need to plant. Sometimes you catch a break; often you don’t. We want players to leave the game understanding the true realities of what farmers must face: a PM-10 dust advisory or Asian citrus psyllids mess with a players’ farms in significant ways, causing the players to feel the impact of these things, not just be lectured to.
The loop is tight: Events -> Draw Resources -> Plant/Play -> Grow -> Repeat. As players become more and more familiar with the game, the rules fade away, and the immersion becomes clearer and clearer. In the events phase, players are met with those real-life events, both governmental and natural that really affect Central Valley farmers. One prevents all players from planting, another disallows players from picking resource cards, they must select crop cards.
The game, which is designed for 3-4 players to actively play, and has an estimated playtime of 60-90 minutes, aims to be both a game and a guided lens. It’s an immersive and social way to understand how policy, climate, logistics and neighborly feuds intertwine.
Rules
In Heartland, players fight governmental events, natural events, and each other to be the first farmer to reach $15K. Players earn money from planting and growing crops, as well as completing challenges and earning subsidies from the government.
Initial Setup
At the beginning of the game, every player places a public player board in front of them, moves their money token to $0, and shuffles every card deck (supply cards, challenge cards, government event cards, and natural event cards) before placing them in the middle of the table. These card decks should be in arms reach (and readable) for every player.
Players do not start with any cards, but start with five plot trackers (paperclips). Then, three challenge cards should be drawn face-up and placed into the middle of the table.
Game Loop
After this initial setup phase, players run through two phases throughout the general game loop: the Drawing phase and the Action phase.
Drawing Phase: First, draw 1 Government Event and 1 Natural Event from the top of their respective piles, and reveal them to everyone. These new effects immediately take place and replace any previously existing event card effects. Then, draw Supply Cards from the top of the Supply Card pile and place them face-up into the middle, equal to the number of players times two. Then, choose a starting player based on the player who has most recently planted something. The starting player takes 1 card from the Supply Cards in the middle, and place it into their private hand (NOT a plot on the personal board). Move clockwise from the starting player until every player has drawn 1 card. Afterwards, players draw the remaining cards in reverse order (counter-clockwise).
To understand how to read the information on a crop card, refer to the image below:
Figure 1: Image of a crop card (different sections labeled)
Action Phase: First, every player goes through a quick maintenance check. Players first collect money from any fully grown crops that generate passive income (ex: trees). When a crop is fully grown, players re-gain all of the plot trackers attached to that crop. Then, players advance all planted crops (that aren’t infested by bugs) by one round. Crops that reach 0 turns are fully grown; players that fully grow a crop immediately earn money equal to that crop’s yield bonus. Then, starting at the same player who began the previous phase (and moving clockwise), every player does one of the following as their turn:
- Draw 1 Supply Card
- Claim a Challenge: If you meet requirements of an active Challenge, claim it and replace with a new one.
- Take Actions: Do any of the following, any number of times, in any order:
- Plant crops up to your plot limit. Crops require the player to attach the listed number of plot trackers to be planted (see Figure 2). If the player does not have enough plot trackers to plant a crop, that crop cannot be planted.
- Compost crops: Discard 3 cards of the same crop type from your hand OR the field to either (1) speed up a crop by 2 rounds, OR (2) delay another player’s crop 2 rounds.
- Play a resource card held in hand.
Figure 2: Image of crop cards with plot trackers attached to them (garlic has one plot tracker, olive tree has three plot trackers)
Game Pieces
Base Supplies
- 1 – Rule Book
- 4 – Player Mats
- 4 – Money Tracking Pieces (not supplied on printable)
- 35 – Paper Clips (not supplied on printable)
Supply Cards
- 50 – Crop Cards (10 different crops, 5 of each)
- 27 – Resource Cards (9 different resources, 3 of each)
Natural Event Cards
- 27 – Natural Event Card (9 different natural events, 3 of each)
Government Event Cards
- 18 – Government Event Cards (6 different gov. events, 3 of each)
Challenge Cards
- 18 – Challenge Cards (9 different challenges, 2 of each)
Figure 3: Image of various types of cards, alongside the rulebook, and some player boards
Assessment Goals
As developers, our goal is to raise awareness of the agricultural industry by highlighting the significance of California’s Central Valley and fostering empathy for the farmers who sustain it. We aim to help players better understand the environmental, economic, and policy-related challenges these farmers encounter in their day-to-day work. Thus, below, we have highlighted Heartland’s learning goals and the design choices we made to target these goals:
| Learning Goals | Design Choices |
| (1) Identify and explain key agricultural and trade-related terminology, including terms such as Bill of Lading, tariff, various pests, and PM-10. | Event, Challenge, and Supply cards will utilize real terminology used in the agricultural industry.
For example: The Challenge Card, C.D.F.A. HEALTHY SOILS TRIAD, highlights a real California initiative by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to enhance soil organic matter and microbial activity. (Ref: www.cdfa.ca.gov/healthysoils/) |
| (2) Describe the common challenges faced by farmers in California’s Central Valley, including both natural and governmental. | Nature and Government Event Cards will simulate real conflicts farmers face, including pests, climate change effects, tariffs, and ICE audits.
For example: Tariffs → Lost in profits for farmers ICE audits → Loss of labor and resources Wildfires → Crop destruction |
| (3) Recognize the interconnections between environmental factors, economic pressures, and policy decisions that shape the experiences of Central Valley farmers. | Cards and mechanics emphasize how intertwined systems– such as weather patterns, market fluctuations, and regulatory actions– collectively impact agricultural outcomes.
For example: Climate Policy Deregulated (political) → Crop and environmental destruction (environmental) → less profits (economic) S.C.B.G.P. Diversity Trio (political) → Government promoting biodiversity for environmental health (environmental) |
Methodology
To assess these goals, we conducted pre- and post-assessments, where players filled out the following form (fig. 4) twice, once before playing and again after playing. The multiple-choice portion aims to test learning goal (1), targeting some key terminology mentioned in the game. The free-response portion aims to assess learning goals (2) and (3):
Figure 4: Front and back side of Heartland’s learning assessment
Learning Goal 1: Terminology Test
Figure 5 illustrates the results of the multiple-choice terminology test. Although the results show an increase in overall score by +7.2%, these results may be inconclusive due to insignificance at n=7; p =0.18. Additionally, our game’s target audience is for players ages 8+, making the game accessible to a broader audience. Since our sample size came from college-educated students, the assessment may not fully reflect the learning potential for younger audiences. These playtesters likely possessed higher baseline knowledge of some agricultural and political concepts, which could have limited measurable gains in the post-assessment. Despite this, the upward trend in scores, combined with qualitative observations during gameplay, suggests that the game successfully engages players and introduces key concepts about Central Valley farming.
Figure 5: The average post-assessment score (82.9%) was higher than the pre-assessment score (75.7%)
Learning Goals 2 and 3: Qualitative Test
Below are notes from our assessment of general knowledge regarding the common challenges faced by farmers. Overall, our playtesters entered the game with varying levels of prior knowledge and were able to leave with a greater cognizance towards farmer’s experiences, meeting the requirements for Learning Goal 2.
In addition, the playtesters demonstrated some progress toward Learning Goal 3, recognizing the interconnections between environmental factors, economic pressures, and policy decisions. Participants noted how unpredictable natural events, such as pest infestations, wildfires, and water scarcity, directly influence crop yields and farm profitability. They also observed the impact of governmental policies, including tariffs and immigration enforcement, on labor availability and operational decisions.
| Pre-Test | Post-Test |
|
|
While most of the learning was on the surface level, players demonstrated engagement with key concepts and terminology, gained a broader understanding of the challenges farmers face, and began to recognize the interconnections between environmental, economic, and policy factors. The game successfully introduced foundational knowledge, fostered empathy for the experiences of Central Valley farmers, and highlighted areas where deeper learning could occur with repeated play or a larger, more diverse sample.
History Versions of Game
Playtest 1: Ngoc, Lucas, Alex
This playtest was conducted on September 30, 2025, with three college-aged participants: Ngoc, Lucas, and Alex. Since this playtest was more informal, including two developers, we played mostly to get a general feel of the game. The key takeaway was that the game was too “easy,” making it unfun. There was little player interaction and major balancing issues.
Too Many Cards In Hand: We found ourselves with too many cards in hand at a time due to plot restrictions.
- Change: We decided to have a pool of (players * 2), rather than (players * 3) cards during the drawing phase.
Little Player Interaction & Competitiveness: We found that the game was too “streamlined” due to few conflicts between players.
- Change: Acknowledged that we needed to add resource cards that can target players. We could not make this change before the next playtest.
Playtest 2: Rachel, Ari, Aalaap, Amaru
This playtest was conducted in class on October 1st, 2025, with four college-aged participants: Aalaap, Amaru, Ari, and Rachel. In a pre-playtest interview, we discovered that all players had some experience with playing board games, but did not have much background knowledge on the act of farming or its importance in the Central Valley.
Clarity Issues: Players struggled with inconsistent terminology throughout the game. Rachel noted confusion between “turn” and “round” labels, stating “This says turn (pointing to plot board), and this says round (pointing to card).” Resource differentiation also caused problems, with Rachel asking “What are resource cards?” and Aalaap mistakenly trying to plant resource cards on the crop board.
- Change: We standardized terminology to use consistent labeling and created clearer visual distinctions between resource and crop cards.
Game Complexity: The game’s complexity proved challenging for players. While Rachel appreciated the thematic integration, saying “I like that the theme is very strong, every part of this game is so complicated,” she also noted the game felt slow. Ari expressed feeling overwhelmed, stating “this is so hard guys, I don’t know how to do this.”
- Change: We reduced the number of available crop types to streamline gameplay.
Timing Mechanics: Players found card timing confusing. Ari suggested “it would be better if the card was more explicit about it, or stick with cards only applying to things this round.” Amaru recommended restructuring turn order, suggesting “if we drew the event before the drawing round” to reduce confusion.
- Change: We made card timing effects more explicit and restructured when event cards are drawn.
Positive Interactions: Despite the complexity, players found engaging elements. Aalaap “liked the tactile point of the board, like having pieces to move through the money tracker,” while Amaru appreciated “the interaction that we had with each others’ boards.”
Figure 6: Playtest 2 summarized changes
Playtest 3: Ngoc, Lucas, Sebastian
This was a brief playtest that we conducted ourselves to really understand some of the intricate problems of our game that players who were just trying to learn the rules might have missed. Here’s what we realized and changed, along with a fair amount of small balances, including:
Balance Changes:
- Change: Compliance Hold now covers crops and resources
- Change: Pesticide clears bugs immediately
- Change: Protest cancels the current Government event
Game Complexity: We also realized that the game felt too chill and boring, and wanted to give players more opportunities to see more events.
- Change: Removed event cards where nothing happens for that round
Interaction and Agency: Players wanted to mess with each other more, because the game was feeling like “parallel play” a bit too much.
- Change: We incorporated more offensive resource options, to allow players to be directly affecting each others’ farms. We also realized that plot points were valuable resources, so we began to think of methods to gain plot points later-on in the game.
Figure 7: Playtest 3 summarized changes
Playtest 4: Ryan, Julia, Crystal, Mariel
This playtest consisted of 4 classmates and was extremely short, only having about 15 minutes at the end of class to play. We realized that, without a rulebook, onboarding became increasingly difficult, especially with short bursts of time. Despite the short length, we were able to assess lots of difficult points, and make a fair amount of changes afterwards, however we weren’t able to assess the learning goals, as we didn’t get very far into the game.
Clarity: New players were unsure “what to do now.” We reworked the player board with a compact, step-by-step “what to do on your turn” list so that people know what to do now. People were also unsure which cards were which, which led us to changing the backs so that they had unique imagery to follow, as well as balancing the values of the cards greatly so that players could make clear 1-1 decisions during the drafting phase.
Mastery, Progression: We added “Challenge Cards,” after a player said they wanted more direction in what they were supposed to plant. Not only was this a solution to getting more money and plot points into the players’ possession, but it was both a motivator to pick certain items in the draft, as well as learn about super-specific government programs that really exist.
Player Interaction & Hand Flow: We also introduced composting: discarding three of a kind to speed your crop or delay an opponent, which both unclogs hands and adds more offensive and defensive strategic elements.
Figure 8: Playtest 4 summarized changes
Playtest 5: Ryan, Amaru, Marielle, Julia
Figure 7: Image of the final in-class playtest, featuring hi-fi box and cards
Video to Playtest: Google Drive Video
This playtest was conducted on October 8th, 2025, with four college-aged participants: Ryan, Amaru, Marielle, and Julia. The group had varying levels of farming knowledge, with Amaru having academic background in Earth Systems and experience as an “almond tree farmer,” Julia having personal connections to Central Valley farming, and Ryan and Marielle having minimal prior knowledge.
Rule Clarity: New players struggled with basic game mechanics and turn order. Ryan frequently asked questions like “And how do you get plot points?” and took extended time for turns. Julia experienced major confusion, noting “GUYS I haven’t been planting this whole time because I thought I used up all my plot points.”
- Change: We introduced a paper clip tracking system to make plot point values visible and revised the rulebook for clearer explanations.
Challenge Card Mechanics: Players showed confusion about prerequisites that were not well-explained in the rule book. Marielle accidentally tried to claim a challenge with crops in hand that weren’t fully grown, while Amaru questioned if played resources counted toward challenges.
- Change: We clarified challenge prerequisites and different phases in rulebook revisions.
Player Agency: Players appreciated improved agency from previous iterations. Amaru noted “the agency that we have in the game, it feels a lot better than the previous iteration.” Julia enjoyed the social dynamics, while Ryan playfully complained: “I feel like you guys are aggressive, you like to target fellow farmers.”
Emotional Engagement: Players showed strong investment in their farms. Amaru reacted intensely to crop loss: “WHAT THE FUCK. IM SO PISSED OFF! MY ALMOND TREE, THATS RIDICULOUS…” Ryan expressed enthusiasm: “We’re going all in… I’m a farmer, all I know is to plant.”
Figure 9: Playtest 5 summarized changes
Playtest 6: Noah, Kate, Ben, Sebastian
Figure 10: A for-fun playtest at midnight on a basketball court
One of our last playtests, this ultimately came out of the desire to just play the game again, as we were having a lot of fun playing it at midnight on the basketball court. It was really the test of fun. We didn’t need the rulebook, as I was there to explain it to the group, and we flew through—people enjoyed it and continued to enjoy it. “We don’t have to keep going,” I said, an hour in, which was met by anger: “NO! We have to finish it. I have to win!”
Two small fixes surfaced.
Card Counts: First, we ran the fruit stack dry, which wasn’t a rules issue so much as a deck-mix problem
- Change: We’ve bumped the count so citrus shows up at a sustainable rate.
Tiebreaks: Second, we ended on a tie, which we added to the rulebook as a possibility.
- Change: Included tiebreaks in rulebook
Some learning takeaways:
- “I learned that bugs suck.”
- “t’s harder to grow almond tree than garlic.”
- “Nature and govt. is bad for farmers.”
Playtest 7: Aiden, Alex, Kevin, Ngoc
Figure 11: Playtesters filling out their post-assessments
This playtest was conducted on Oct 10, 2025, with four college-aged participants: Aiden, Alex, Kevin, and Ngoc– mostly because Ngoc wanted to play a more final version of the game 😀!
Challenge Card Confusion: Players were confused at how to collect some of the challenge cards (i.e. Does the crop need to be fully grown, on the board, or in-hand? Do already-played resource cards count?)
- Change: Minor tweaks to challenge card text to read “fully grown” for crops and “in hand” for resources.
Challenge Card Difficulty: Some players found that the challenge cards were hard to collect. In the game, only 2 were collected, both of which were late-game. Thus, the monetary bonus pushed someone to win, something that Alex did not like.
- Change: Challenge cards are slightly easier to obtain (aiming for mid-game, rather than late-game)
- Change: Challenge cards award slightly less money.
Rule Changes: Minor confusion on if the event cards impact you during planting phase (i.e. seed weevils attack oilseeds, but are planted oilseeds later in the planted segment impacted?). Minor confusion on if you can protest ICE Audits.
- Change: Adjust rules to answer these questions.
Print-and-Play
If you’d like to print out the game to play for yourself, you can find all of the game assets here: Figma Link
Alternatively, here is a Google Drive Link to a printable PDF: Google Drive PDF
OR Alternatively, if you want an embedded PDF:
Print-and-Play Instructions:
- Make sure you print pages 5-9 single sided and pages 10-19 double sided.
- Pages 1-4 –> no need to print covers if you don’t want to make a box, no need to print pages 3/4 which are just additional instructions
- Pages 5-9 –> print 1 copy of each page
- Pages 10/11 –> print 5 copies
- Pages 12/13 –> print 3 copies
- Pages 14/15 –> print 3 copies
- Pages 16/17 –> print 2 copies
- Pages 18/19 –> print 3 copies, discard 1 sunflower
- Note that some of the game’s pieces cannot be printed, such as the player money tracking pieces and plot trackers (paper clips).
Photos of “Packaging” and Art:
All art and cards were hand-drawn and digitally designed by our team, including card images and box covers. No AI-generated art was used.
