Artistic Statement:
Your partner cheated on your best friend in elementary school. Your professor writes viral My Little Pony fanfic. Your therapist thinks the earth is flat.
What says more about them—and what says more about you?
“Dealbreakers” is a social party game that turns private judgments into public tension. Our target audience is 4-8 friends or acquaintances as the game invites players to confront an uncomfortable truth. We all make snap judgments, but we rarely examine why, or how others might see them differently.
Each round, one player becomes the “ranker”, secretly ordering a set of potential dealbreakers within a specific relationship context while the rest of the group keeps their eyes closed. The Guessers are left in the dark (literally) and must come together to reconstruct the Ranker’s thinking. As a group, they debate, negotiate, and collectively decide how the list was ordered, trying to map not just what is “bad,” but what is worse in the eyes of the ranker. The result is a whirlpool of discussion, charged with psychology and revelation where every guess exposes assumptions and discovers values.
Our game eschews standard game objectives like scoring points, instead prioritizing connection as a goal itself. The game pushes past surface-level conversation, bringing out the judgments people usually keep to themselves. Through humor and tension, it creates a space where people can explore differences and reveal how they really think without fear of judgement.
“Dealbreakers” does not give answers. It asks better questions and makes you answer them… out loud.
Concept Map and Ideation Exploration:
Our team chose to create a “get to know you” game because existing games in the genre, like “We’re Not Really Strangers”, “Two Truths and a Lie”, and “Speed Dating” tend to prioritize surface-level conversations instead of deep connections. We were especially interested in creating fun through fellowship and discovery, particularly the excitement of learning something unexpected about another person. Since we wanted to focus on guessing and inference, we decided to include a “social deduction” component in our “get to know you” game.
As a result, our team set out to create a “get to know you” game where players create more interesting conversations by predicting each other’s thoughts, values, and preferences. We brainstormed a variety of ideas and mechanics individually and then discussed our ideas in a group setting on a doc. We then ranked our top 3 ideas by putting our initials by the ideas we liked. Some of the ideas we brainstormed included a game where you play bingo but can’t fill out an incorrect/deceptive square, a multidimensional get to know you game which combines “Two Truths and a Lie” and “Wavelength”, a game where people try to break a social norm without other people guessing what it is, and a game like “Priorities” where one player secretly ranks traits or behaviors and the other infers their preferences.
A concept map showing “Dealbreakers” mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics
We observed that the team really liked the social norms and “Priorities”-like games. Since we didn’t want to make our game just like “Priorities”, we decided to combine the two ideas. Specifically, we took the idea of ranking social norms or dealbreakers (like chewing with your mouth open, talking loud, and picking your nose) and applied it in a variety of different contexts (relationships and environments). We thought that this concept allowed us to emphasize the core aesthetics of discovery, challenge, and fellowship.
This helped form the foundations of the game “Dealbreakers” and we were excited about testing the limits of what people would feel comfortable ranking and the discussions/interpretations that would arise from the dealbreakers. After coming up with this idea, we decided to focus more on shaping the initial decisions for “Dealbreakers”.
Group Brainstorming Session
Concept Doc
Individual ideation via sticky notes
Initial Decisions:
We put a lot of thought into deciding what kinds of cards to include in the game. At first, we considered having many different kinds of context cards (like relationships, environments, and background information). However, we realized that too many types of contexts would make the game complicated and confusing. Instead, we chose to focus only on relationships. We brainstormed a wide variety of relationship cards, such as “your partner,” “your mother,” “your boss,” “your professor,” and “your car mechanic,” because we wanted to test whether people only have strong dealbreakers in romantic relationships or whether they also have them in many other types of relationships, and to see which among a person’s values take priority in which situations.
We then created a set of dealbreaker cards that could apply across many different relationships, such as “doesn’t floss,” “is an early bird,” or “is a picky eater.” In each round, one player—the ranker—secretly orders these dealbreakers from most unacceptable to least unacceptable for a particular relationship, while the other players try to guess the order. We thought this would create dynamics such as uncertainty, surprise, and the need to “read” the ranker. We also intentionally kept the dealbreakers somewhat vague so that players might interpret them differently, leading to disagreement and discussion.
To create even more discussion, we added an optional “draw the line” mechanic. After ranking the dealbreakers, the ranker can draw a line showing the point at which they would no longer want that relationship, even if everything else about the person were ideal. We hoped that this would spark conversation because players would now also have to debate whether certain behaviors are acceptable at all.
One of our biggest design decisions was whether the game should be cooperative or competitive. We thought a cooperative version, where the guessers work together to create one shared ranking, would lead to more discussion. However, we thought that this might lead to extroverted players controlling the conversation; moreover, if players disagreed, the game risked becoming more about persuasion than about understanding the ranker. A competitive version, where each guesser makes their own ranking, would ensure equal participation, but it would also likely reduce the amount of discussion and debate. We decided to begin with the cooperative version and adjust it through playtesting.
We also chose to keep the point system simple and relatively unimportant because the purpose of the game is to encourage conversation and help people get to know one another, not to focus on winning. In this version, the group earned 1 point if they guessed both the ranking and the cutoff line exactly correctly, while the ranker earned 1 point if any part of the group’s guess was wrong.
Through these mechanics, we hoped to create several kinds of fun. The game emphasizes discovery and fellowship because players learn surprising things about one another through a unique social experience. It also includes challenge, since it can be difficult to predict someone else’s preferences. Finally, it allows for expression and emotion, because players can rank the dealbreakers however they want, often leading to humor, disagreement, and lively discussion.
List of initial relationship cards and dealbreakers
Testing and Iteration:
Along with the point system and a cooperative vs competitive game, we tested several different mechanics including the relationship cards, the draw the line mechanic, and the overall timing of the game. We created prototypes, made from index cards, to playtest the game and understand the core components and dynamics/aesthetics that emerge.
Initial rules/mechanics of the game
Questions to answer while playtesting
Example of dealbreaker and relationship cards
Playtest 1: Strangers in CS 247G
Our first playtest was conducted with five people from CS 247G who did not know each other. Throughout the playtest, players were engaged and seemed to be enjoying themselves. There was a lot of laughter, heated discussions about the ranker’s relationship with his mother and how he “cares about his mother’s political statements,” and disbelief, such as “why did you rank it that way?” Players also said it was a fun game, saying things like “I like this game a lot better than my own game” and “we really learned more about each other.”
We played one round using the cooperative framework and one using the competitive framework. For the competitive round, we encouraged players to discuss after making their individual rankings. Players preferred this version because it “encouraged more discussion.” Interestingly, the group also liked the competitive aspect of the game. As a result, they wanted the point system to award a point every time a card or cutoff line was placed in the exact same spot as the actual ranking because they thought “it would be fun to see who was closest to the actual ranking.” Beyond this, they thought that “giving a point to the ranker would just encourage them to lie and deceive, which does not seem to be the point of the game.”
The players liked the mechanic of drawing the line and thought it was “fun and engaging,” but they felt that it was “described in a confusing way”. Aside from the confusing rules, players liked the relationship cards. However, they felt that some of the dealbreakers and relationship roles did not make sense together: “Why would I care about my psychic’s dealbreakers? I don’t even have a psychic! Even if I did, I don’t think I’d care if they were lactose intolerant.” To address this, they suggested making the dealbreakers more “specific and extreme. Push the boundaries more!” They believed that doing so would create a stronger connection between the dealbreakers and the relationships and would lead people to have stronger opinions about them.
Initial set up of game
Team brainstorming and making decisions after Playtest 1
Lastly, we noticed that each round lasted a long time (around 5–6 minutes). Although there was a fair amount of discussion, much of this time was spent writing the dealbreakers onto sticky notes and placing them in guessed rankings. Players felt that this process took “too much time and was too tedious.” They proposed using another system, possibly involving a board or tokens.
Guessers also asked whether they could ask the ranker indirect questions about their rankings. We allowed each guesser to ask one optional question per round. Some people liked this mechanic because it gave them clues about the ranker’s preferences. However, others felt that it was “giving away the answer.” From this, we realized that the game is not well suited for complete strangers, since they don’t have enough context about each other to accurately guess the ranker’s preferences. Instead, we realized that the game’s target audience should be people who have some level of familiarity (like friends and acquaintances) because they can draw on past experiences and knowledge of one another. Thus, “Dealbreakers” should be treated as a social party game. As a result, we decided to conduct the rest of our playtests with groups of friends.
Based on this first playtest, we made several major revisions. Specifically, we created a system in which players rank cards using tokens labeled 1–5 (faced down) to cut down on the time it took to rank dealbreakers. We made the game more competitive by giving each guesser their own score, adjusted the scoring system so that points were awarded only for correct placements (the ranker never received points), and added a rule allowing each guesser to ask one optional indirect question per round. The biggest change was making the dealbreakers more specific so that players could have stronger, more subjective opinions about them, increasing the opportunity for diverse interpretations between players. For example, “rides a motorcycle” became “leads the largest lawless bike gang in America.”
Revised list of dealbreakers
Playtest 2a: Sosi’s Roomates
After making changes from Playtest 1, Sosi ran another playtest with her four roommates, since they’re all close friends. We tested the competitive version where guessers had individual scores, but they said the game felt “really quiet” and that they “preferred to discuss” with each other. So we shifted to a cooperative format where they worked together to agree on a final ranking. They said they “liked the enjoyment and excitement that came from the discussion,” which suggests that friends naturally prefer collaborating rather than competing, especially compared to strangers.
They also liked the tokens, saying they “helped them rank,” although some were “hard to read.” Rounds were still about 5–6 minutes, but most of that time was now spent in lively discussion, since the tokens made ranking smoother. However, a new issue came up: they realized they could “infer the ranker’s rankings by the order the tokens were placed,” even without seeing the numbers.
Ranking dealbreakers via tokens
Overall, they found the relationship and dealbreaker cards “fun and engaging,” though they mentioned the rules could be clearer about how those cards work. They didn’t have strong opinions on the point system, since they were mostly focused on guessing and using what they already knew about the ranker. Because of this familiarity, they never used the optional indirect questions. They were also so engaged in discussion that they completely forgot about drawing the line, saying “oh I completely forgot about it,” and treated it more like an afterthought.
Sosi’s roommates had a lot of fun as can be seen by these pictures!
Playtest 2b: Acquaintances in CS247G
We ran another playtest in class with a different project group. They were acquaintances and not as close as Sosi’s roommates. At the start, there was some confusion around small rules and logistics. For example, they suggested switching the scale so that “5 is the biggest dealbreaker,” since that feels more intuitive. They also asked, “do we draw a physical line?” when reading the rule about drawing a line.
People were confused about how to lay down the dealbreaker and relationship cards saying “where do I put the cards?”. One member said, “I like the tokens,” but there was confusion about how and when to use them and where to place them. They weren’t sure if the ranker should go first or if guessers could rank at the same time. They also pointed out that it was “too easy to guess if the ranker ranks in front of the guessers,” since “you wouldn’t rank the 4th dealbreaker first,” which gives away information.
Ranking dealbreakers with tokens
The group really enjoyed the collaborative version, saying “I like this version a lot more.” They got very into the discussion. Specifically, when we paused them for feedback, they said “wait, why do we have to stop discussing?” and were clearly frustrated. This suggests that adding a timer for discussion wouldn’t actually improve the game.
Like before, they were surprised by the final rankings, saying things like “it’s crazy how you ranked the dealbreakers in the opposite order of us.” They did keep track of points, but it didn’t feel like the main focus. They also forgot about drawing the line and had to be reminded. Additionally, when this group of playtesters saw the “one optional indirect question rule”, they were confused and asked “what does this mean? What questions can be asked?” Even though they ultimately asked the ranker questions, the rule did not clear up their confusion.
The biggest confusion was around the term “dealbreaker” as several players didn’t fully understand what “dealbreaker” meant in this context, especially for non-romantic relationships. One person asked, “what does it mean to have a dealbreaker with your mother?” This led us to two possible fixes: either clearly define what a “dealbreaker” means in the game and remove relationships where that concept doesn’t really make sense, or rename it to something that works across a wider range of relationships.
Players having a lot of fun with “Dealbreakers”
Playtest 2 Conclusions:
From both Playtest 2a and 2b, we found that the game worked best when the guessers collaborated with one another. This conflicted with our findings from Playtest 1. We think this may be because strangers are more comfortable making assumptions on their own rather than sharing and discussing them with people they do not know. In contrast, friends/acquaintances are more comfortable discussing their assumptions, debating different possibilities, and trying to come to the correct conclusion together. Friends/acquaintances are also more comfortable talking openly about dealbreakers than strangers.
Because the “draw the line” mechanic did not add much to the game and instead made it more complicated—many people forgot about it entirely—we decided to remove it. We also didn’t limit the length of each round, since players disliked being cut off during Playtest 2b. We kept the point system because it helped people focus on how many placements they got right and encouraged discussion about the results.
We spent a lot of time improving the rules to explain the game more clearly. We removed the “optional indirect one question” rule as it led to further questions about “what is an indirect question?” We could have added more description, but this would have made the rules too wordy, detracting away from the simpleness of the rules. We also added a rule that while the ranker is creating their ranking, all of the guessers must close their eyes so that they cannot see the order in which the dealbreakers are being ranked. To avoid the issues that came up when placing tokens and cards, we created a board so that players had a more systematic way of laying out the components which also made the rules clearer.
We also debated whether we should change the name of the cards from “dealbreakers.” We came up with alternatives like “characteristics” and “traits,” but these felt too vague. As a result, we decided to keep the cards’ name as “dealbreakers.” However, we removed relationship cards like “Your Mother,” where the idea of dealbreakers does not really make sense, and cards like “Your Psychic,” which not many people can relate to. We also added a definition of a dealbreaker to the rules: “A dealbreaker is the point where you would no longer want to maintain the relationship.” This helped make sure players understood what the term meant.
Final rules for the game
Final Playtest:
Positives:
We had 5 players play 12 rounds of the game. Four of the players were friends, and one was an acquaintance/classmate. We intentionally included someone the group didn’t know as well to test whether the game could work to facilitate meaningful interaction in groups with different levels of familiarity.
Overall, the game was a huge success. After every round, players were laughing, clapping, staying engaged, and actively discussing their rankings (which is a key mechanic we want to preserve). Players shared very positive feedback, with some saying the game is “more fun than Cards Against Humanity” and asking, “when are we going to get a copy of this game?” Another player said, “It is super fun! I would buy it. It makes me know more about the people at my table,” while someone else added, “Really fun! Great initial concept that allows room for socialization without too much onus on the players.”
Players laughing and discussing while playing
What made the game especially fun was the card design. Players said the dealbreakers “made sense in every relationship,” which helped them engage more naturally. Because of this, people enjoyed “seeing new combinations of cards” and felt that the cards “make it easy to share about each other.” Playtesters also pointed out that the dealbreakers were very specific, and noted that “specificity is funny,” which shows that our effort to make the cards more detailed after earlier playtests worked. One player even said, “the prompts were very well written… you can end up with inside jokes as the game goes on.” The group also highlighted the key goal of “Dealbreakers” as they felt the game stood out because players try to “understand people’s cultural context and values”.
There were two other positive surprises from the playtest. First, the game helped the group of friends and the acquaintance/classmate get to know each other better. This happened both through how the players ranked cards and through “the way the players thought about other people’s rankings,” since those decisions revealed a lot about each person. This suggests that “Dealbreakers” can work well in social settings where players share some common ground but don’t know each other very well, making it more broadly accessible. Second, the “close your eyes” mechanic worked better than expected. Players said it “acted as a reset from a highly engaging game,” helping prevent burnout and keeping the experience enjoyable over multiple rounds.
Players closing their eyes while the ranker makes their choices
Improvements:
Despite this, a few minor issues came up. While players were ultimately able to understand the rules, there was some initial confusion. In the first round, the ranker asked, “Am I supposed to lie to you guys about my ranking so you don’t get points?” This revealed an unintended dynamic. Specifically, the points system encouraged deception rather than honest rankings, which goes against our goal of helping players understand each other better. The group quickly responded that “the game seems to be about getting to know each other, so I don’t think you should deceive us,” but this moment still highlighted friction. The presence of points was subtly pushing the game toward competition instead of collaboration. Because of this, we decided to remove the points system.
There were also some smaller rule-related issues. The rules didn’t specify how to choose the next ranker, which led to a brief pause as players “tried to decide who was the next ranker.” To fix this, we added a rule that the role of the ranker rotates clockwise. Players also asked if they were “allowed to ask the ranker questions.” They naturally began doing so, with the ranker choosing which questions to answer or ignore. We decided not to formalize this and didn’t add a rule about questions because adding strict guidelines would have made the rules more complex. Additionally, allowing players to choose how they want to interact doesn’t hurt the core discussion dynamic. In fact, it may even strengthen it.
Guessers asking questions during a round of guessing
There was also some feedback about the game’s aesthetics. Specifically, the players were confused about why relationship cards had “dealbreaker instead of relationship on the back of the cards” so we changed this. They also stated that “there was a mismatch between the token colors and the column colors on the board” which lead to slight confusion and a lack of unity. As a result, we changed the tokens and columns to be black and white. Additionally, the players wished that the “tokens were thicker” so that they could be picked up easier and placed on the board. Thus, we 3D printed black and white tokens. After receiving feedback from our TA Noe regarding making the board “stand out a little more”, we decided to include some shards on the board to really fit the “Dealbreakers” theme.
We had some questions about the replayability of the game. Since our players played 12 rounds of “Dealbreakers”, we thought that it may have gotten boring after a while but players “enjoyed and wanted to keep playing”. Despite this, they said that having the deck be more than 72 cards “could help with replayability”. They also suggested an extension of this game where relationships are more specific. Specifically, instead of “Your best friend,” a relationship could be “ Your best friend for 15 years who used to be in love with you”. This change could potentially change the game from real reactions to imaginative scenarios, perhaps changing the dynamics of the game. However, this would be interesting to explore in the future through additional playtesting.
Game board after a round of guessing
Final Game Analysis:
Our games, Dealbreaker, is designed for young adults (18-30) who enjoy social party games where you get to know the people around you better. It is primarily designed for friends, as players feel comfortable joking and sharing personal values and opinions in these settings. Additionally, because of shared experiences and values, there is often more discussion and discourse when guessing the ranker’s rankings. However, the game can also extend beyond its core audience to include people you meet in social settings but don’t know well, such as classmates, acquaintances, or coworkers. Specifically, we saw that if a random classmate was included in a group of friends, the game still fostered strong engagement and connection as the group learned about the classmate over time. This shows that even though friendship enhances the experience, the game can act as a social bridge for mixed groups.
We see the game supports this audience as the mechanics are simple and accessible. Specifically, the ranker ranks dealbreakers while the others (guessers) collaboratively determine the ranking. These mechanics are easier to learn which lowers the barrier to play the game in social settings. Removing the points system further makes the game more interactive as it eliminates competitive pressures. Instead, it encourages honest discussions in our socially motivated audience, specifically with friends but also with acquaintances who want to feel comfortable participating.
These mechanics can also create dynamics surrounding discussion, strategy, surprise, and suspense. Guessers have to strategize and think from the ranker’s perspective. The ranker’s results may surprise people and the anticipation leading up to that creates suspense. This combination naturally leads to conversation and debate among players. For our target audience of young adults who are in a social environment, these dynamics are important as they encourage social interaction. As a result, the game does not just entertain but creates opportunities for players to talk, joke, and engage with each other. This is exactly what the audience of party games wants.
These dynamics further lead to the aesthetics of fellowship, discovery, and challenge. Throughout the game, players experience fellowship as they laugh and form inside jokes (as shown during playtesting). This naturally appears in friend groups, but can occur between people who are not as close as they develop a bond through the game. Discovery also occurs as players learn things about people’s values and preferences, drawing friends and acquaintances closer. Challenge also occurs as players predict other players’ rankings without exact knowledge. Discovery and challenge complement each other as the more players learn about others, the easier it is to predict rankings.
The tone of the game is lightheartened and reflective. Specifically, the specificity of the dealbreakers creates scenarios that are funny, creating humor while still allowing for reflection. Additionally, the lack of strict rules around questioning allows groups to adapt their experience to their comfort level, which is important in social settings where the audience could differ (ranging from friends to acquaintances).
In terms of formal elements and player types, the game supports both expressive players (who enjoy sharing opinions and stories) and analytical players (who enjoy reasoning through others’ choices). The ranker roles would appeal to people who like self-expression, whereas the guesser role appeals to those who like collaboration/deduction. This ensures that everyone in a social setting stays engaged as it appeals to different player types.
The game loop also consistently generates new conversations through varying relationship and dealbreaker cards. As a result, people continuously learn about each other, keeping conversations engaging. However, as people learn more about each other, they understand them better, shifting the game from surface-level guesses to deeper understanding. This is especially meaningful for friends/acquaintances who have some knowledge about the players around them but want to develop a deeper understanding of them.
Therefore, each element in “Dealbreakers” is designed to support engaging discussions between young adults in social settings. While “Dealbreakers” primary audience is friends, our playtesting shows it can adapt to social scenarios beyond this, including groups of acquaintances.
Ethical Considerations:
The first ethical consideration we came across was balancing the dynamics of attention throughout the game. Discovery is a core aesthetic of the game, and we wanted everyone participating in the game to be discovered. In order to foster inclusion, we heavily debated whether the game should have a collaborative or individual ranking dynamic. Individual rankings from the guessers would allow those who were competitive in games to shine, but at the same time, those who are less out-spoken or inclined to competitive games may find it difficult to participate. We reflected on the core message of this game, and decided it is more important for everyone to bond as a team and focus on understanding the ranker based on what the guessers collectively know about them, rather than making the core message about who knows the most about the ranker. Thus, final rankings are discussion-based where there is a chance for anyone to pitch in what they know about the ranker.
Another major consideration was about which relationship cards were allowed in the game. In both playtest 1 and 2, a ranker drew the “your mom” card, which was difficult to navigate. Given the nature of the game, people could feel uncomfortable talking about family situations or what qualities would make them question their relationship with their family members. Talking about family or judging certain dealbreaker cards onto family may cross a boundary for people or be something unexpected when they agreed to enter the magic circle. Thus, we decided to remove all close-family relationship cards like parents, siblings, and grandparents.
Lastly, we talked about limits to the quality cards. We were careful to take out cards with politically sensitive topics or cards that could pressure players into revealing deeply personal beliefs or experiences. The game encourages players to make judgments and discuss preferences but there is a risk that certain prompts could unintentionally create discomfort or social pressure within the group. Thus, we prioritized designing cards that were more open-ended and light to allow players to engage at their own level of vulnerability.
Dealbreakers:
Top and bottom of the box
The final cards and tokens
Layout of the game
Feel free to look at our Print-n-Play and Figma mockup here! Instructions to print are here (all prints should be done in color!!):
- The top and bottom of the box can be printed as is and folded into a box and lid or printed on a game box
- “Cards to print” numbered 1-4 should be printed double sided with “back of cards” and cut out along the outline to form double sided dealbreaker cards
- “Relationship cards to print” should be printed double sided with “back of relationship cards” and cut out to form double sided red relationship cards
- The game board can be printed as is
- “Pamphlet side 1” should be printed double sided with “pamphlet side 2” and folded along the center line to form the instruction manual
- To set up the game, follow the instructions at the beginning of the instruction manual
Final Playtest:
Watch the full playtest here!
Informative Video:
Extra Credit:
For extra credit, we created an explanation video. We also created cards with rounded corners, used card stock, and put our game in a shelf ready box. Additionally, we 3D printed our tokens so that they were more graspable.
