Our game is a cooperative emergency response game where players act as specialists (Commander, Medic, Engineer, Scout) responding to a large-scale disaster. Each player has different abilities and communication constraints, and the team must coordinate to rescue survivors before time runs out. The core of the game is social coordination under pressure and limited communication.
Roles
- Commander: sees the full map/board but cannot take direct actions — can only direct others
- Medic: can stabilize any situation on the board but has limited movement range
- Engineer: can remove obstacles or unlock new areas but needs resources from other players
- Scout: has the most mobility and can reveal hidden information, but holds the fewest cards
1. Will the Commander dominate decision-making and turn the game into a one-person game?
This is important because if the Commander becomes too powerful, other players might feel bored since they are just following instructions, and eventually lose interest. To test this, we plan to run a playtest where the Commander can only speak (no pointing or physical actions), and observe whether that is enough to limit their control. My guess is that the Commander might still be too powerful, even with this restriction, so we may need to add extra constraints, such as limiting communication time (e.g., 30 seconds per round). Or different survivors will die at different time.
2. Do the communication constraints actually create tension and interaction?
This is important because the main fun of the game comes from tension and interaction. If the constraints don’t really create pressure, the game might feel flat even if players complete the objective. We will test this by running a smaller scenario (for example, rescuing only 3 survivors) and focusing on how players communicate under the constraints. I think at the beginning it might feel confusing, but after a few rounds players may develop their own gestures or tricks, which could lead to interesting emergent gameplay.
3. Does each player feel unique and necessary for the success of the game?
This is important because if a role is not unique or necessary, players might feel left out, similar to being eliminated early in games like Werewolf. Also, if cooperation is not actually required, the game may feel less engaging overall. To test this, we will try playing a round where players intentionally do not cooperate, and another round where we remove one role to see if the game still works. My prediction is that some roles might feel less important than others, and we may need to adjust their abilities to make them more essential.
