My group is still figuring out exactly what we’re doing, but currently we’re leaning towards a cross-campus (or at least indoor/outdoor) party game that begins at a board, has some selection/problem solving aspect, and then encourages players to physically search for the item/location that was indicated, before returning to the board. The mechanics of the game will require prototyping to figure out as we become more sure of our idea. This allows people to respond to a prompt with their own discovery and adventure in groups.
Here are some questions I’d like to answer with a prototype:
- How do users navigate the need to physically move their bodies with traditional, connection-focused games occurring in a centralized location?
This question is important to answer because I believe this is a large roadblock for people curious about trying new games. It is a general appeal that board games can be played at a centralized table/place, which many households have, and encourages live connection. However, if we make our game too specific (ie: requires a garden, landmark, etc), then it may not be accessible to all players in all different spaces
I believe the prototype I will make that will answer this question will look like a version of the game that requires significant searching around the surrounding room, campus, or area (depending on scale of group and timeframe of player testing). This prototype will be a version of an “extreme prototype” which will push one variable (physical movement away from the centralized board) too far, but will work to gain important information about the project.
My guess is that players might not enjoy having to move so much, since people tend to enjoy staying more in a warm, certain environment when they play games. I’m curious to find out how to balance adventure and physical movement with a board game scenario.
- How do players problem-solve in a context where some players might have more knowledge about the surrounding area/space than others?
This question is important to answer because it deals with balance. I think that games that are very location-based, rather than being general, will naturally offer advantages to players more familiar with the space. For example, if the game is like “find a fork”, and the house owner knows where the forks are kept, then that gives a clear advantage to them. I’m not sure if this advantage is too much; in normal circumstances, games naturally offer advantages to certain players (experience, age), so maybe that sort of advantage isn’t a bad thing. The design of the game could equalize it though, to make the competition more fun.
One way to prototype this would be to make a game that is very specific towards a particular place (ie: finding locations that indicate places near a co-op on campus, or in its its surrounding backyard) and specifically play it both with residents of that place and non-residents, capturing the team dynamics, competitiveness, and feedback of both groups. This prototype would allow the different problem-solving strategies of players to come out over the course of the game, in environments they are both familiar and unfamiliar with.
I believe that we will end up needing to make the prototype more general towards many locations, which allows commonality to be built in terms of problem solving. We might also need to add a team-selection function that sorts teams based on some common characteristic, because we want people to bond through problem solving as a group.
3. How might we incorporate an element of necessary social interaction into the project, perhaps through hidden information or bluffing?
This question is important to answer because it is relevant to the assignment structure, and the design constraint of “requiring social interaction” will lead to a more interesting and structured game.
One way of prototyping this is including an element of hidden information in the prototype. For example, if 3 people all know what the clue is, but the 4th doesn’t, and needs to figure it out from context clues, and they must all silently search for a particular thing in the room or place on campus. Or, if each person on the team has part of a puzzle, and must together decipher it to figure out the next place to go or item to find. These teamwork style structures can be tested through quick prototyping to evaluate how information is conveyed and how it changes the teamwork style.
I believe that these elements compared to the other prototypes will be very interesting and perhaps enjoyed better, as it necessarily involves everyone in the discussion. I also wonder if if there is a deception element or some sort of “tell” involved, if that would lead to higher levels of stress in that individual, especially if physical movement is involved.
