The game that our team is thinking of creating is one that we have called On Display (tentative). The idea is that players will all very quickly scribble down a beautiful masterpiece in response to a general prompt picked out by a museum curator, and each player will have to give their spiel as to how their masterpiece matches the prompt better than all their peers. The museum curator at the end will ‘pay’ for the artwork he or she liked most, based on many factors such as vibes and the sound of the argument. Some Prototype questions I thought of are before.
Would this game be fair? To be specific, would those with more experience drawing/producing art be at an unfair disadvantage compared to other players?
- As is the case with many drawing games, this is a difficult problem to address and solve. Artists will carry inherent skills and abilities that will nearly always give them a benefit in these games, and this can inadvertently discourage non-artists from participating as they feel they may not be able to compete alongside artists.
- We hope to alleviate this imbalance by incorporating ‘challenge’ cards alongside the small canvas size and limited time to draw. Being able to use only one line, for example, or drawing with your least dominant hand might give non-artistic players more comfort and confidence that they will be able to compete alongside artists.
- I predict that this will contribute to a more enjoyable experience for artists and especially non-artists alike. Having to navigate around the challenges could be a bit challenging, but hopefully will result in lots of laughs during pitching time.
Does the museum curator hold too much control over the game? How can we make the game more rewarding for all players as player numbers increase?
- This is rather important to answer as we want all players to feel as though they have the opportunity to ‘win,’ or at least get ahead of their competition. If, after everyone delivers their eloquent pitches, the curator is only allowed to pick one ‘winner,’ the game might feel too futile and may reduce a player’s overall satisfaction while playing.
- We are still playing around with specific mechanics, but some ideas to address this issue have been to include a kind of ‘popular’ vote to reward the player that produced the drawing that the majority of other artists found amusing/funny/amazing. Or, the curator has a set ‘budget’ of money that they can choose to distribute amongst their favorite artists. (for example, they are given 10 dollars, they can give 5 dollars to their favorite, 3 dollars to their second favorite, and 2 dollars to their third favorite?)
- I predict that this can help make ‘winning’ more accessible for all players. This in turn will make the game feel more worthwhile playing, as each player will have some more hope of amassing the most money and/or getting more money than their partner.
What is the objective of the game? Why will players play this game?
- this is a crucial question to address. There must be a clearly defined goal and objective for players to feel the desire to play our game. Is there ‘winning’ or ‘losing?’ How does a player ‘win?’
- Our ideas so far (that have also been hinted at above) involve incorporating a ‘money’ system for players. Once they ‘sell their art,’ they will receive some cash for their efforts, and at the end of a session, the player with the most money amassed will be crowned the resident artist. This way, the objective is very clear and players will generally know what they must do in order to win?
- I predict this will create a clear objective that players should strive for. However, I do wonder if the game cycle might become too repetitive and/or boring. Or, if one player clearly has far more money than everyone else, if other players will wish to continue to play the game.
