The game my team has come up with is Dealbreakers. In this social card game, one player draws a relationship card (for example, “your boss” or “your roommate”) and five dealbreaker cards. The player ranks the dealbreakers from least to most extreme, and everyone else tries to guess the order. For P1, I want to use paper prototypes to answer a few questions about what actually makes the game fun and replayable. Below are the list of questions:
1. What kinds of relationship cards create the most interesting conversations?
This is important because the role of the relationship card is to change how people think about the dealbreakers. Ranking dealbreakers for “your best friend” may be different from “your boss”. However, if the relationship cards are not specific enough or are too similar, the game may become repetitive.
As a result, my group and I plan to make a paper prototype with 10-15 different relationship cards to test out during playtesting. My group and I also want to include different types of relationships ranging from professional to personal to strangers. During playtesting, we will observe which ones make people laugh or explain themselves the most.
My guess is that the successful cards will be the ones where the relationships are specific enough to create strong opinions but broad enough so everyone can relate to them. I think cards like “your boss,” “your roommate,” and “someone you just started dating” will create the best discussions because people can generate strong opinions about these relationships.
2. How extreme should the dealbreaker cards be?
This is important because the game depends on how difficult it is to rank the dealbreakers. If the dealbreakers are too mild, they may be easy to rank and the game will become boring. However, if they are all too extreme, people may feel uncomfortable ranking which may lead to an unethical and non-inclusive environment.
My group and I would test this question by a paper prototype and by making three sets of dealbreaker cards. These versions will include a set with mild cards, one with extreme cards, and one with a mix of both. Then, I will test all three and see which one is the most fun to the players.
My guess is that the mixed desk will work the best. This is because the game will be interesting if there are 2 cards that are more extreme/terrible, and 3 cards that are mild. People may have different opinions of the extreme/mild cards and the way they should be ranked, which will make the game interesting while preserving the ethical component of the game.
3. Is it more fun to guess the ranking or to discuss as a group?
This is important because I am not sure if the core of the game is the competition or conversation. One version could have players write down rankings and earn points if they are correct. Another version could have everyone discuss and agree on a ranking together.
To answer this question, I will test this using a paper prototype and will have players play 2 rounds. In the first round, players guess the ranking individually. In the second, the group works together to come up with the ranking. I will compare people’s reactions and also ask them about which version felt more exciting.
My guess is that the group discussion will be more fun. Since the game is about learning how other people think, I think the best part will be hearing people argue for why one dealbreaker matters more than another.
4. How many dealbreaker cards should each round include?
This is an important question because too few cards could make the game too easy, while too many could make it too hard. Right now, our team thinks that we will use five dealbreaker cards, but I want to see if that is really the right number.
Players will play three rounds of a paper prototype game using three, five, and seven dealbreaker cards. While they are playing, I will analyze how difficult the round is and if people stay engaged.
My guess is that five cards will be the ideal amount of dealbreaker cards. Three cards will probably be too easy and seven cards will probably be too hard and overwhelming to rank.
5. Does adding a “why?” discussion after each round make the game better?
This is important because the most interesting part of the game might not be whether people guessed correctly, but why the player and the guessers/group ranked the dealbreakers in that order. A short explanation could help players get to know each other.
For this paper prototype, I will test the game with and without a required explanation after each round. In one version, the player and guessers just reveal the order. In the other, they also explain the reasoning behind their top and bottom choices.
My guess is that the explanation version will make the game much stronger. I think the game will then focus on learning about people and how they think, which is what makes social games fun.
