Student Area

Anna Henson, Adam Thompson, Nitesh Sridhar, Andrew Chang, Caroline Hermans

RULES OF PLAY

Keywords used in these rules: (1) Discard – Put a card into the discard pile. This pile is reshuffled and becomes the game pile when the latter runs out; (2) Trash – Remove a card from the game. Trashed cards are not returned to the game unless otherwise stated.

Basic Rules
Players begin the game with 3 cards. On each turn, a player draws 2 cards and plays 2 cards.

A player may never have more than 4 cards in their hand at a time nor can they ever draw or play less than 1 card on any given turn.

A maximum of 4 rule cards can be in play at any given time. To play a new rule, discard an existing rule first. Rules of specific types replace each other.

All rules take effect immediately (Example: if your turn started with Draw 1 and you play Draw 3, immediately draw an extra 2 cards).

Card Descriptions and Actions
There are 24 Basic Cards broken down via color according to the following:
Red (4)
Blue (4)
Yellow (4)
Green (4)
Purple (4)
Orange (4)

There are 6 Character Cards, each Trashed after it is played. They are:
Queen Frostine
Princess Lolly
Gramma Nutt
Mr. Mint
Jolly
Ginger

There are 22 Rule Cards, broken down as follows:
Draw – Draw 1
Draw – Draw 2
Draw – Draw 3
Draw – Draw 4
Play – Play 1
Play – Play 2
Play – Play 3
Play – Play 4

Hand Limit – Hand Limit 1
Hand Limit – Hand Limit 3
Hand Limit – Hand Limit 5

*Draw + 2, Play – 1, Hand Limit – 1
*Play + 2, Draw – 1, Hand Limit – 1
*Hand Limit + 2, Draw – 1, Play – 1

*Empty Hand Bonus – Draw 2

*First Play Random

*Draw from deck or bottom of discard pile

*Switch Draw and Play

*Reverse Order – if another Reverse Order is played, discard both

*Reverse Order

*Rule Limit + 2 (including this one)
*Rule Limit + 3 (including this one)

There are 22 Action Cards, broken down as follows:
On the House – All players draw 2. Rules drawn this way must be played.
Draw 3
Draw 2, Play 1, Discard 1
Discard 2, Draw 4, Play 1
Take 1 random card from every player and play them. You skip your next turn
Trash a Rule
Discard two Rules
Discard two Rules
Draw 1, you aren’t affected by Hand Limits this turn

The revised Candy Land deck can be viewed in its entirety here.

Play the original game and analyze it

Core gameplay mechanics

Guessing/choice, two-player game, turn b
ased, strategic hiding, grid-based gameplay.

Distinctive characteristics

Battleship is probably one of the first tabletop war games children play. The design of the board and pieces aren’t very bright or colorful like other children’s board games and instead use fairly muted colors to mimic a cold sharpness of a naval war room. It’s rules are simple but the stakes seem higher than other guessing games like Guess Who. Key phrases like “hit,” “miss,” and “you sunk my [boat]” give the players almost a script to follow through the game.

Best and worst aspects

Best: Simple rules, not too much skill difference between beginners and expert players.

Worst: Repetitive and there’s not much variety. Similarly, there is a limited skill gap between novice and expert — not much skill can be gained via repeated plays.

Do some research on its history

Battleship began as a pencil and paper game dating back to World War I. In 1967 it was released by Milton Bradley as a plastic board game. In 1979, it was one of the first computer games.

In the 1931 version of the game (called Salvo), initially players can target 6 squares at once (and attack them all simultaneously). As ships are sunk, less squares can be targeted. There are several variations of this game mechanic. The amount of squares you target can be a fixed number each round, or it changes based on factors (such as how many ships the player has left or the size of the player’s largest ship). There’s also differences in how successful attack are called. Sometimes only the amount of hits and misses are announced without specifying where (if more than 1 square is targeted at once)/whether the ship sunk. In another variant, the players can change the location of their ships every 4-5 turns.

The phrase “You sunk my battleship!” has become associated with the game, as popularized by the game’s earliest commercials (from the 1967 Milton Bradley reboot).

What are some similar games?

Battleship Game and GPS / Battleship Google Earth is the Battleship game in real life. The grid is placed in google earth, and the player must be at the specific locations and call “drop” in order to attack the coordinate.

Guess Who is a different game where there’s a mystery/hiding element, as well a guessing. While in battleship players hide the ships in location unknown to the other, in Guess Who a character is selected and is hiding amongst the crowd. In Guess Who literal hints are given, while in Battleship the hit/misses act as the hints each round. One major difference is that the guessing/hiding is done by both players in Battleship, while in Guess Who the players take turns in these roles.

Captain Sonar: an eight-person, real-time, grid-based, naval-themed game. Each team tries to discover the others’ location, and fire weapons when confident. However many maneuvers exist to throw off detection. The game is much more skill-based than battleship, and has more replayability as there are 4 different roles and each “Captain” (one of the  roles) may employ different tactics, leading to varied gameplay.

Developing the prompt: “make it more story-based”
The loose premise of being some sort of commander in a naval war room decided where to strike is already in place for the game. We could either build off of that, or create a new scenario altogether without really changing any core parts of the gameplay.

What’s fun about story games is the the feeling of having control of the direction of the story with choice. Right now Battleship already has a choice mechanic in place with where to attack, so building off of that we could have each guess further some sort of plot. Replayability is also an important factor, especially for board games, so making each playthrough have it’s own unique variation of a general narrative should be considered.

Analysis of Mechanics:

What are its core mechanics?

The game relies on a mix of luck of the draw and choices the players can make. There is a spinner that dictates what place you land on on the board, but there are choices and to make for your “life” at every step. Additionally there are consequences for those choices.
What makes it distinctive?

While in game play it is very similar to monopoly, it’s narrative is unique. There is not really another board game that let’s you competitively play out your adult life. It is essentially a way for kids to pretend to be adults.
What are its best and worst aspects?

The game mechanics are a bit uninteresting. It’s pretty similar to monopoly. Additionally, the narrative of the game is pretty unrealistic and the game seems to be only aimed at privileged people. However, while simple the game mechanics do work well to move the game along at a nice pace. And, the heavy narrative aspect allows for socialization between players. There is also some interesting conceptual potential in the idea of living out a parallel life.

The Prompt

With our prompt “make it relatable to millennials” we decided to make it an MMO themed life game, where you will play out you internet avatars life. We also wanted to make it more social, so now player play out their lives as a MMO party. However, at the end someone is still awarded an award for being the MVP of the party and the person who did the worst is shamed with trash talk from the other players.

We were also intrested in making the decision faster paced, and the game quicker.

The conceptual idea of the piece is to play off of the idea of a parallel life and how millennials where the beginning of a generation who could grow up with digital selves.

 

Play the original game and analyze it

What are its core mechanics?
Risk is a strategy board game of diplomacy, conflict and conquest for two to six players.
The goal of the game is to occupy every territory on the board and in doing so, eliminate the other players.
It is turn-based, and players play in the same sequential order throughout the game.
It is also heavily based on chance (6 troops can potentially lose to 1 troop depending on the dice roll)

What makes it distinctive?
The game is fairly complex and can require some preplanning (ex. conquer an entire continent to gain bonus troops) and negotiation with other players (form allies for part of the game and yet players will also need to break this mutually beneficial relationship as the game goes on).

What are its best and worst aspects?
Best: There are many different ways the player can strategize their and there doesn’t seem to be a dominant strategy to win the game.
Worst: Players need to learn a lot of complex rules before they can start playing the game which can take a relatively long time; The game can be very lengthy (several hours); Once one player ends his/her turn, he/she basically have no meaningful interaction with the game beyond rolling defense dice.

Do some research on its history

What made it successful?
The game required a lot of tactics, strategies and negotiation skills.
You can also find enjoyment in competing with other players, especially when you can dominate them. Once you expand your initial territory, there is also the perceived glory of both war and conquest.

What was its evolution?
1957 – Original release: La Conquete du Monde (French for “The Conquest of the World”), designed by Albert Lamorisse
1959 – Parker Brothers first publishes the Risk Continental Game in the United States. It is later retitled Risk: the Game of Global Domination. The rules are slightly modified.
1986 – The game Castle Risk is published. This variation is played on a map of Europe. It included hidden armies and special cards that included commanders and spies.
1999 – A limited edition of Risk is published in France, an evolution of Castle Risk featuring historical units. An expansion in 2000 added the Ottoman Empire.
2001 – Risk players can now conquer the moon and underwater territories with Risk 2210 AD. It included sea areas and route connections. A second map board represents the moon. Playing pieces were added for five commanders for land, naval, space, nuclear, and diplomat, with five decks of commander-specific cards. Rather than total domination, victory is determined by a point system. A time limit of five turns also modifies gameplay strategy.
2002 – Risk moves to Middle-earth with the release of Lord of the Rings Risk. It has one unit leader and cards for mission, event, and power. It plays well with just two players, and is intended for two to four players.
2003 – Risk travels deeper into Middle-earth with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition.
2004 – Risk: Godstorm is published, injecting mythology into the game of world domination.
2005 – Risk: Star Wars – The Clone Wars Edition is published in concert with the release of the third Star Wars prequel, Revenge of the Sith.
2006 – Risk: Star Wars – Original Trilogy Edition is published. The game features three factions, each with its own victory conditions.
2008 – A new basic edition of Risk is published by Hasbro. Risk 1959 is a reproduction of the original game from 1959.
Source: https://www.thespruce.com/history-of-risk-412339

What are some similar games?
Small World
IKUSA
Twilight Struggle
Diplomacy

Develop the prompt

Research the constraint and make it more specific.
Factors of real-world international politics that are different from Risk:

• There are around 200 nations, some of which have debatable sovereignty
• The United Nations exists and makes more decisions than war. It is led by a security council consisting of China, France, Russia, UK, USA, Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine, and Uruguay
• Some nations have a lot more power than others, which isn’t always proportional to size
• Air travel allows travel across non-contiguous states
• Diplomacy is more popular than war
• Imperialism is (mostly) dead (stay strong, Crimea)
• Most wars are happening in very specific locations

By targeting the fact that many people think the game Risk is too lengthy and thus becomes boring, some of our ideas try to resolve this issue by simplifying the original rules and by adapting the idea of conquest to a more modern situation. However, in some of ideas, we also try to be more extreme and make the game even more time consuming and complex.

Start prototyping

Shrink the game: What’s the minimum level of complexity you can have while still retaining its identity?

Minimum level of complexity: Players take turns picking cards of  where their original armies will be.  AI covers who wins with rolls etc. Smaller continental chunks.  Only one type of army.  2 players.  

Contemporary Board Game Mechanics:
Twitch Plays Risk: Make each decision crowdsourced.  Have what would normally be a player be a team with from 5-100 players each.
Simplicity: Make Risk into only a card game.  Battles could be determined by a rock paper scissors like variant.
Risk Legacy already happened.
Muster: Make Risk even more complicated and add resource management to it.  Certain areas have more supplies, and so are more valuable as you can make more armies with it (example: the Middle East has more oil so you could fuel more planes). Similar to Game of Thrones Board Game.
Traitor!: All choose cards in the beginning.  One Player is determined to be the traitor.  While the rest of the world tries to promote world peace, save the planet, stop world hunger etc., the traitor will try to destroy the world as quickly as possible including the possibility of nukes.  Bonus points for the traitor if they get the others to either not realize they are the traitor or manage to make them fight amongst themselves.  Other players win by defeating traitor.
Shut Up and Play: All communication must be through 3 words or less for per ally each turn.  All negotiations must be in the public.  Code words are acceptable.

Non-Commodified:
Major War: First one to take over CMU campus.  You have to fight for your school.
Shot Through the Heart!: To play each person must accept that war is painful.  Dice rolls are flipped.  1’s are better than 2’s which are better than 6’s.  When attacking, if you rolled a one, you would get one shock/punch.  If you roll a six, you get six punches/shocks.  This will make players have to decide whether or not it is worth it to play.  If they do decide to play, then they will likely be more careful about when/where they attack.  Similar to: The Painstation and Tekken Torture Tournament.

 

Monopoli – Make it playable in 10 minutes.

Adela Kapuścińska, Jake Bittner, LingDong Huang, Xavier Apostol

 

Minimal Version

The game board of monopoly is a directed graph defined by a set of vertices V, and a set of ordered pairs of vertices A. For each v in V, there exists an a in A such that a = (v,w).

Let P be the set of players. Each player P(n) is defined by the tuple (X,M) where X is the vertex the player is at, and M is the algorithm denoting the strategy of the player.

Define any state of the game as S = {R(n) | n <= |P|} where R(n) = {r0,r1,r2…} is the set of resources of the nth player.

Define a transition function d(S,v,M,RNG) = (S’,w), such that there exists a path between v and w in A.

At each turn t, for n = {1,2,…|P|}:

For P(n) = (Xn,Mn), let (S’, w) be the output of d(S,Xn,Mn,RNG). Then S = S’, Xn = w.

Let z(n) = r0*c0+r1*c1+r2*c2… where r0,r1,r2.. are in R(n) and c(n) are constants. P(n) is the winner at t if z(n) = max({z(i) | i <= |P|})

The game of monopoly can therefore described by the tuple (P,S) on a game board (A,V, d).

 

Summary

Today’s Monopoly games advertise themselves as “The World’s Most Popular Board Game,” but how did it get there? Leftwing feminist, Lizzie Magie, patented it in 1903 as The Landlord’s Game: as an educational tool to “demonstrate how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants” (Wikipedia). Through this timeline we can see the progression since that time.

 

From our analysis, we’ve identified five core mechanics that describe Monopoly gameplay. Firstly, the acquisition of resources. In the creator’s approach to arm players with the empowerment that comes with being a landlord, or a monopolist, the act of finding and owning resources such as money and property is an indispensable mechanic of the game. Players must have that feeling of ownership, whether it be money, property, or both. This leads to our second mechanic: conflict of interests. What happens when someone else owns the last piece of your set? What if another player’s property surrounds the property that you own? One’s ownership is not so private that it doesn’t affect another player’s strategy, or the dynamic between the two players. Another key component of that dynamic brings us to the third core mechanic: transactions between players. The transfer of resources is what drives this game and must continue throughout any iteration. Finally, we included the turn-based and chance aspects into Monopoly’s core mechanics. Part of what makes Monopoly so distinctive is player engagement even when it isn’t your turn to roll the dice. The combination of strategy and chance in anticipating how likely it is for a player to steal your property or land on it, along with Schadenfreude, or the thrill of driving your teammates to bankruptcy, is all integral to how Monopoly continues to be so successful.

However, there are poor aspects to Monopoly that users have been griping over for decades. There is a snowballing effect to the game, where given enough chance, a player can ascend to become a dominant force well above any competitor. Though this can at times help to end the game, it’s temporarily torn apart relationships given the ruthless cycle of getting more money and investing more into property and eventually taking over the board. Most notably, users complain about the length of the game. Many of us have experienced a Monopoly game over two, three, even four hours. Trying to drastically cut this time, all the while keeping the core mechanics will prove to be a difficult yet enticing challenge.

 

Conceptual Statement

Iteration I. (as of 9/26/17)

During research, we played the original board game within a 10-minute period, but managed only to situate ourselves across the board, with potential for strife. For comparison, we played the expedited 15-minute card version, Monopoly Deal Card Game; finding this one to be decidedly less intuitive and frankly, rather condensed in terms of gameplay elements. Ideally, we would aim for a product that would fall in between. We would hope that our 10-minute game efficiently establishes multiple conflicts of interest early on, would involve quickly settled transactions, and prolong player life for as long as the ‘snowballing’ effect wouldn’t take place.

 

Candy Land – Make it deep, strategic and adult oriented.

Anna Henson, Adam Thompson, Nitesh Sridhar, Andrew Chang, Caroline Hermans

What are Candy Land’s core mechanics?

• Competitive Race: The game is a race to the finish line.

• Determinism: The movement is based on a deck of shuffled cards, where the order of the shuffle determines the entire rest of the game.
• Turn-based: Each turn, you draw a card that determines your next move.
• Random Special Moments: There are several elements in the game that keep things interesting – such as the special character cards and the rainbow bridges.

 

What makes it distinctive?

• The gameplay is very simplistic, and players don’t need to plan their next move, which makes it ideal for younger children. The game can also help children learn about colors. The game board is bright and inviting, and the characters make the game distinctive as well.  
• Even though the game is deterministic, it feels as though there is an aspect of chance. Still, there is some level of excitement before every turn, where you don’t know which color you’re going to draw next.

 

What are its best and worst aspects?

Best Aspects: Candy Land requires no reading and the most basic of counting skills, making it accessible to the majority of people, and especially to young children; the game is a simple introduction to following rules, and as such is a good primer for more developed game play later in life; the game is quick to set up and quick to play, making it ideal for families, especially those with small children

Worst Aspects: Candyland requires no skill and its outcome is entirely a result of chance; the game eliminates all personal agency; the game glamorizes unhealthy dietary choices to children; pre-2002 versions of Candy Land featured no diversity in character depiction; the game imposes no real consequences for straying from the path (early versions of the game were aimed entirely at “finding the way home”).

 

What made it successful?

Candyland was invented during the outbreak of Polio in the US in the late 40’s / early 50’s. Candyland first came out in 1948, and was invented by Eleanor Abbott, a victim of the disease who was a former teacher. In the Polio ward, she noticed that children were alone often – their parents were not there and they needed something to entertain them. The game could be played easily; it had a low barrier to entry as it did not need reading, just recognition of colors. The game was also designed as a loop – it did not need to end, so the children could play for hours without having to declare a clear winner. The designs of colorful candy worlds would entice and enchant the children whose lives were often constrained to hospitals or homes. The original game board also featured a little boy character who wore a leg brace – to identify with many of the kids who had to wear leg braces as a result of Polio. The game was bought by Milton Bradley in 1949. In 2005 the game was inducted into the National Game Hall of Fame. The game has been successful in iterations as other characters were licensed to theme the game, such as Winnie the Pooh, Dora the Explorer, etc. Candy Land builds skills in socialization by playing together, patience in taking turns, color recognition practice, learning and following rules and directions.

 

What was its evolution?

Early iterations only had fictional locations that you passed by. The narrative was also just about children finding their way back home, but getting distracted along the way. Later, the setting moved to a fantasy candy world and characters were created, which appealed to children. They removed Plumpy from the game.

Fixed the last square by making it rainbow instead of purple (god bless).

 

What are some similar games?

• Chutes(snakes) and Ladders
• Life (?)
• Mouse Trap
• The Great Victorian Cycle Race
• The Cupcake Race
• Lewis and Clark
• Disney Eye Found It
• Downforce ?

 

Develop the prompt

Deep: More than just about candy. (Polio?) Games with high depth are strategically interesting and underlying options help create a system that can be played through multiple times without boring audiences.

Strategic: “Strategy” has been defined as “the art of planning and directing” and so our research might focus on how decision-making, deal-making, and deal-breaking might alter the dynamics, depth, and length of game play.

Adult-Oriented: As Candy Land is designed as a game that is both educational and entertaining to children, our research into an adult-oriented version will also focus on how the game can be entertaining and educational for adults. We might begin with the question: what is a valuable basic life skill that all adults need in order to build other skills and function within any society?

 

Prototyping

We see our prompt as two parts: a new theme, and a strategic game design. We did some initial prototyping of injecting strategic gameplay into Candy Land. Some of our various experiments were, in no particular order:

• Instead of drawing one card each turn, you start with a hand of five cards.
• You can’t move yourself, you can only move other players. When you draw a card, you move the other players forward by that amount.
• If you land on the same square as another player, you have to battle. You play the card in your hand that can move you forward the farthest. whoever‘s card moves them the farthest gets to go there, whoever loses has to go back to the closest card with their color.
• Each character is a boss battle, and no one can pass the character until you collectively defeat the boss. You defeat the boss by playing cards that correspond to the boss (they’re different for each boss).

Some of these were fun and some weren’t, we’re still looking into more possible dimensions to add to the game, and we plan on testing new mechanics one by one.

Next to explore: what if it was a resource management game, and you could trade with other players to get better cards?

Some possible themes – requires more brainstorming

• you can play as adults trying to stop children from having fun
• medical illness and medication
• “Brandy Land” alcohol themed

Minimal version of the game

There are a deck of cards with numbers on them. You draw a card with a number on it. You move forward that many spaces. Whoever reaches the end first wins.

A Mole In Dirt

Our game is called Bureaucratic Drawing Party and rules are as follows:

3 players. One is the Visionary, one is the Viewer, and the last one is the Artist Assistant.

Visionary: The Visionary is given a drawing prompt, but cannot tell anyone what the prompt is. The Visionary can only give commands to the Artist Assistant. The Visionary cannot observe progress on the drawing. They must sit looking away from the drawing or be blindfolded.

Artist Assistant: The Artist Assistant is the tool of the Visionary to complete the task. They must follow orders from the Visionary, and cannot ask questions or give feedback of any form. They must execute the Visionary’s instructions without ever knowing what their actual task is.

Viewer: the Viewer acts as the eyes and ears of the Visionary. The Viewer cannot give orders nor follow orders. They can only give feedback and report progress of the drawing to the Visionary.

In order to complete their task, a team must work in a cycle, with the Visionary giving an instruction, the Artist Assistant attempting to execute that instruction, and the Viewer reporting the result to the Visionary. This continues until the Leader is convinced that the drawing has been completed (based off of information given to them by the Advisor). Once the drawing is done, the Viewer guesses what the prompt that the Visionary was given. If they guess correctly, everyone wins, if they guess incorrectly then everyone loses.

First play test.

Strawberry and Goldfish 

Two People hugging 

(1) Our first game, Trial and Judgment, reworked the concept of Hide & Seek.

 

Themes: In Plain Sight // Using Bystanders // Camouflage // Shrubbery // Color Choice

Rules: The seeker assesses the quality of the hiding spots presented to them. Points are awarded based on the quality of the hiding spot and its relation to the initially established theme. Additional points are awarded based on the order with which each person is found.

Playtest: The judge’s point-system sparked much hilarity and protest.

(2) Deciding to drive this even further, we came up with: Suspicious Activity. It adds elements of Mafia into the blend.

Questions: Why Are You Out After Curfew? // Why Haven’t You Paid Your Bills? // Why Are You Not At My Father’s Funeral?

Rules: A theme is established at the beginning of the game. Once found, those hiding must come up with an adequate excuse as to why they were hiding. The justification should be grounded: it should have a relation to their chosen hiding spot, and they may implicate other players. All the excuses are discussed once everyone is found. The hiders are encouraged to shift the blame, but the judge ultimately makes the decision as to who’s the most guilty.

Playtest: Some playtesters thought the hiding lost its significance (whoops). The majority enjoyed the disjointed narrative, but agreed the narrative premise should be more explicit. Constraining the play space would help, so that the players are aware of each other’s hiding spots.

 

Title: Pick-Me-Up Games

Statement: Elevators have long been uniquely liminal spaces with their own social customs. A variety of researchers have focused their work on these tiny moving boxes, and come to conclusions which would surprise very few: the elevator is a place where personal space is scarce, conversation is forbidden, and the sensation of waiting can border on the excruciating.

Most of this collection of mini-games are adaptations of existing well-known activities, re-contextualized to make use of the elevator’s limited time and space and aimed at upending existing elevator conventions and transforming the lift from an anxiety-saturated metal box into a joyful, social, and entertaining playground.

Research: As a part of our research process, we investigated a number of studies into elevator psychology in the attempt to pinpoint and ultimately upend established elevator social conventions. These studies and reports on their outcome include: Why We Behave So Oddly In Elevators (NPR), Five things elevators teach us about design, psychology and hats (Medium), How to find your Minimum Viable Cat (Medium), Psychology Behind Where You Stand When You Get In An Elevator (Bit Rebels), Elevator Groupthink: An Ingenious 1962 Psychology Experiment in Conformity (Brain Pickings), and Why Do We Behave So Oddly in Lifts? (BBC).

Process & Observation: We started off by wanting to create an elevator photo booth, the idea behind this was a short activity to activate the elevator as a social space.  We then shifted the ‘Elevator Experience’ to be more game-like instead of just being an interaction or experience.

We tested a series of existing and re-contextualized and original games and discovered the following:

Existing, simple games work better if the games are designed to be fun for whomever enters the elevator, but games that are made with us as the target audience required more complexity. The existing games worked better than original ones we came up with for random elevator riders because instruction time is very limited and existing games were instantly understood and embraced. The games that we needed to explain (rather than just say the title of, such as Hot Potato) took up too much of the elevator ride time.

We also played around with how we worded our requests. We experimented with asking people to play by saying “Do you want to play___”, “We’re playing ___, [instruction for user]” and just “[instructions]”.

People were more eager (at least in tic-tac-toe) to play when it was just them. At one point during Hot Potato, there was someone who was adamant about not being filmed and not playing. After they spoke up, the social atmosphere was negative and no one else wanted to interact with us.

Iteration:
Play Test 1- Hot Potato

Instructions: “We’re playing hot potato, if you’re holding it when the door opens, you lose.”

We started with playing Hot Potato. Initially we played with a water bottle, then an empty water bottle, then a rolled up pair of gloves. Whoever had the object when the door opened, lost.

People were pretty involved in this one, as they had to actively catch and toss the hot potato object around. It doesn’t work when too many enter the elevator or when people entered with drinks in hand. It had polarized reception, most people seemed to enjoy the experience, but some people said they didn’t want to play.

Play Test 2 – Speed Hangman

Instructions: ”We’re playing hangman. Every time the floor dings, you lose a body part, but you don’t lose any for guessing the wrong letter.”

A blank poster was hung in the elevator with the initial hangman picture and blank spaces. When someone walked in, we would try to get them to guess the word before they got off. At every floor we hit, we would add one more body part to the hangman (no parts were added for missed letters).

This was also quite successful, and multiple people opted to miss their floor in order to guess the word.

Play Test 3 – Speed Tic-Tac-Toe

Instructions: “Try to get as many wins as you can before you reach your floor.”

A poster with several Tic-Tac-Toe boards was taped to the elevator. When someone walked into the elevator, we asked them to play Speed Tic-Tac-Toe with one of us.

Multiple people who started this got really involved and excited about it, and were very competitive, even going so far as to actively ignore their floor when the elevator reached it in favor of playing more rounds. People responded to this very well since it didn’t require more than a second of explanation and it’s a game everyone is familiar with.

Play Test 4 – Elevator Corner

Instructions: This was a game for us to play, When someone enters the elevator, try to subtly move around in a way that encroaches on their personal space and gets them to actively move into the corner of our choosing.

This didn’t work out. Our initial idea was to try to subconsciously get people to move to a designated spot in the elevator. We didn’t account for what to do when multiple people entered, and it just wasn’t fun for us to play since we all felt uncomfortable in trying to herd people across the floor.

Play Test 5 – Elevator Pitch

Instructions: “Pick a name from the bucket, show it to us but don’t look, we’ll each give you a single hint and you have to guess who it is.”

This game was somewhat successful, but no where near as fun as the previous ones we tried. Sometimes people didn’t quite understand the rules from our initial pitch and looked at the name, or they had to ask if the hints were allowed to be obvious. By the time they understood, sometimes we were already at their floor. It was also sometimes too easy to guess, making it a less satisfying game to play.

Play Test 6 – Pick a Poster

Instructions: “Pick a poster, then give us hints and we have to guess which one you’re thinking of.”

We tried this once, but it was not successful. It took the entire ride for the player to choose a poster and once he picked he didn’t remember what he was supposed to do. We decided this required too much decision on the part of the player instead of just reaction and went back to Elevator Pitch. This furthered our realization that if the game is designed for whomever enters the elevator to play, the instructions need to be very minimal, and we can’t waste time in having them make a decision or a choice.

Documentation:

Ideation & Brainstorming

We started with the one question: how can we take advantage of the community spaces on campus in order to create a playspace fitting for a new game? Our solutions varied between very different approaches. One set of ideas was to acknowledging the “class wars” culture between majors at CMU by re-inventing the spaces at Carnegie Mellon to become something like an airport, where certain users (majors) have special access. Other ideas that our team members came to the table with involved spontaneity, interactivity, and simply entertainment.

Our team settled on one idea on the basis of concrete planning, genuine excitement, and relevance to course content. This idea was to transform the walkways of CMU into highways and streets via chalk, inviting passersby to engage in the experience of mimicking a car’s actions by obeying traffic laws and driving together with your peers. Due to the lack of competitive nature for such an exercise, and the heavy reliance on mimicry, we brainstormed more ways to add to the experience by focusing on vertigo. Ideas included making cardboard cars for people to put on and drop off from points A to B, to play upbeat, radio music on a bluetooth stereo, and to have some team members wear orange jackets with whistles and use loudspeakers to project the rules. Though the cardboard cars idea was abandoned due to the decision to prioritize “ease-of-entry” into the game, many of these tactics to create a more immersive experience stuck around.

---

Prototyping

After the team convened to map out the right location for road transformation and deciding on what road signs to make, we set out to playtest.

Certain aspects of road transformation we focused on were quality of chalking, resource limitations, and how bystanders adhered to the new lines. The quality of chalking was a primary focus because we believed the more realistic the road-lines appeared to be, the more interested people would feel in getting involved. We tried different designs for the yellow, middle lines and agreed that one solid, dashed line up the middle looked most realistic and saved us chalk. We got a good idea of how much chalk we’d need to gather. Finally, we noticed that bystanders didn’t care too much about “staying in the right lane”. Many folks passing by didn’t seem to care much, and were walking on whatever side. The insight we gathered from this is that we would have to be more keen towards making the rules on how to play the game very visible, and interactive. Maybe the road signs could only be used for the rules, or possibly we could hold the signs and read them to folks passing by, asking if they would like to play the game.

The final aspect to our prototyping face involved walking around The Cut, imagining that many of the walkways were sketched as roads, and playtesting our game. We wanted to test if it felt awkward to walk around with our hands up, and see if the rules we designed were realistic and fun. A summary of the insights we gathered were that yes, it is awkward to walk like that but is less weird in groups, and there were too many rules to be accounted for (person with red shirt means stop, person with green shirt means boost, person with white shirt means pull over, etc.) and so they would need to be consolidated to increase ease of playing and reduce confusion.

---

---

What We Did

In preparation for the big day (Thursday 9/21/2017), we completed three important steps: re-defined the ruleset, implemented a marketing campaign, and set up the playspace. The ruleset was too complicated and thus too confusing for people to jump in and play, so we narrowed it to three simple rules.

1. To play, hold your hands up like you’re holding a steering wheel

2. Stay in right lane

3. Stop if someone in a red shirt passes you

We agreed on this ruleset thinking it would find the happy medium between enough rules to be engaging and not too many rules to make it easy to play.

In terms of marketing, a Facebook event was created and publicized to a popular group of Carnegie Mellon students. Our main goal here was to give people an idea of what the game is before arriving and maybe even get some folks excited about playing. Below you can see the event page from Facebook.

Finally, we set up the playspace.  On the morning of, at around 7:45am, we chalked the walkway going from the UC to Doherty. Two signs were made to post the rules of the game in a quickly readable way. One rules sign was tied to a tree at the first entrance, while the other was stored away to be used later in the day at 3:45 when the game would begin.

---

LookyFindy is a game that’s somewhat like a blend of Where’s Waldo, I Spy, MadLibs and a scavenger hunt. It’s an immersive gameplay experience in which you can actively be playing at all times in the day, no matter what activity you are performing, where you are or what time it is.

 

The rules are simple.

Goal: You or your team must try to find scenarios or things that match the “generated statements” described below.

Teams: If the total number of players is less than 5, this game is best played without teams. If there are more players, then teams of two (or more) are recommended. For example, for a class of 24, 6 teams of 4 would be appropriate).

Setup: There are two kinds of cards: Black “statement” cards have MadLibs-style blanks which can be filled with white cards, which contain nouns, adjectives, etc. A black “statement” card is pulled and shown to everyone. Each team is dealt n white cards. The teams stand in a circle, and, going counter-clockwise, fill the next blank in with a word of their choosing from their hand. This process can be repeated to have as many concurrent ’rounds’ as wished. We suggest 3 – 5, with a new black card and new white cards drawn each time. In another variation, each team does this setup process individually, to produce 1 statement per team.

Play: All teams will then have a set amount of time to find as many instances of any statements created by any team. The set time can be anywhere from 15 minutes to a week long or more! All teams can also be connected via a group chat system like Facebook Messenger, allowing everyone to communicate their finds real-time. When finding a statement, simply take a photo or video and share it with the group. Anyone can challenge a picture of whether or not it’s doctored or fake, and further proof must be given. Be sure to take multiple angles or a video to defend yourself!

Points: Each new instance found gives you a point. If your team is the first amongst the competition to find a statement, then your team gets 3 bonus points. The winner is the team with most points.

Our first game, Get Off My Lawn, was unreasonably entertaining to play and watch. Three+ players would stake out equal, reasonably large plots of lawn (chosen either by themselves or by their opponents) that they must protect from passing bystanders. Whoever allows the most bystanders to walk through their lawn within a time limit loses.

Revisiting this product, we’re delivering a free patch for those who want to try this game a more casual and relaxing way to play. Three+ players can instead stake out equal but relatively smaller plots of land (for their opponents) that they hope bystanders won’t step on. Accosting strangers for invading your lawn is encouraged.

More exciting news however, we are revealing a sequel to Get Off My Lawn:

Passer Blaster a fresh take on the Discrimination/Intolerance and Non-Player involvement prompt. There was a time for words, but now is the time for action! Three+ players initially plant one mine in No Man’s Land (~12″ x 12″). If a bystander walks/bikes/drives over a player’s mine, that bystander dies (and cannot trigger another mine). That player crosses out the triggered mine and is able to plant two more (up to four total active mines). If anyone with a hat interacts with a mine, it is defused (players with zero mines can place a new one). Whichever player killed the most infidels within a given time limit wins!

The trailer for Passer Blaster:

A cleaner look at the gameplay:

1.  Constellations: Gather Friends or Acquaintances (preferably very freckly).  Grab a pen.  See how many constellations you can make on their body by connecting moles, freckles, scars etc.
2. Go For It: Find the friend that doesn’t like hugs.  Convince them.  If you do, you win.  If you are that friend, convince yourself.
3. SideWalk Chicken: Get as close as you can to the person walking towards you on the sidewalk without moving to the side.  If you move first you lose.
4. Freedom From Commerce:  Compete with friends who can get things for free by simply asking nicely.  Categories for winning include Best Story and Most Interesting Object.
5. Thesaurus Thesaurus: Find Friend to Play With.  Say “Thesaurus” then a word of your choosing.  Example: Ghost.  Other player must come up with another word for it.  Go back and forth until one player cannot think of another synonym.
6. Broomstick on the Ceiling: Have a party.  Only drink alcohol when told to quiet down by neighbors.  Each knock on the wall counts as a shot.
7. Google Translate Telephone: Find a Friend.  Write a sentence in your native language to any other.  Continue to translate the same sentence from whatever you got out of your first translation.  The person to make the sentence completely incomprehensible with the least number of translations wins.

My name is Sydney.  I am a Senior in Art with a Game Design minor.  I am an artist, maker, and cupcake baker.

1. By Any Other Name Grab a bunch of paint chips and see if your friends can guess the color based off the color name

2.  Frequent Flier Every time a bus stops and you are close enough to catch you must get on for at least 2 stops

3. Garden Party go to a park and impersonate a common object (lamp, bush, trashcan). see how long you go unnoticed

4. Free Education Walk into a (preferably large) class you are not enrolled in. pretend you belong. get to know the teacher, do the homework. see how long you last

5. The Network See how many advancements/connections you can make through linkedIn without logging in , and by only using links in emails

6. Hired! Wear a similar outfit as an employee, and go into a store(like walmart/target). Make sure you study the store so you know where Items would be. Go in every day for a week and help out customers. Try to befriend actual employees.

7. Stranger Danger Walk around campus. Find someone you dont know,  and pretend you know who they are (because of [interp / freshman dorm / orientation week / common forgotten experience ] ). try to hold a conversation and catch up. get to know them. start hanging out. see how long you can last. after 2 years, tell them the truth, this was all a game and you didnt know them after all, but not you do and you have gained a friend

Hi I’m hizal

my website

Clap Whistle Snap – In a group of four, one person begins clapping to the beat of a song they know. Someone next to them begins whistling to a song they’re thinking of, to the beat of the clap. As the two continue, the third person adds snaps to the beat. The trio must continue or reset to a new song until the fourth person can guess the name of the song.

Phone Number Neighbor – Assume your phone number as one 10-digit number, and add one to it. Now text that number anything you like. If your phone number neighbor responds, you win!

What’s it to ya? – Two people in a group of many others agree to end each sentence they say with “What’s it to ya?”. First to get called out for repeating the phrase loses.

Scarf or Scare – Keep your eyes peeled for people wearing a scarf. First person to touch that scarf gets one point. However, if the scarf person notices, the scarf-toucher is eliminated. First to 3 points or last to stay in the game wins.

MOM – Someone shout, “MOM!” to start the game. First person to get a text from their mom (or dad or guardian) wins.

M n’ M n’ M n’ M – Find a partner and someone who likes M n’ Ms, who is designated as the eater. Dump an M n’ M packet evenly between you and your partner, and position the eater and arms-length or two away with their mouth open. Whoever tosses more M n’ Ms in the eater’s mouth is the winner.

No Yo’ Mama – Think of the last Yo’ Mama joke you’ve ever heard. If you laugh, you lose. If you have no idea what a Yo’ Mama joke is then you definitely win.

Sunday – Two people guess the color of car that will pass by them most (on a main road) in 5 minutes. Then count that color that passes for 5 minutes. Winner gets a chicken dinner.

Monday – See if you can sneakily turn on the airconditioner without Suzie Silver noticing. Prize for winning: you get to sit in comfort.

Tuesday – Two or more people compete to see who can balance their phone, on its corner, on one finger, the longest. Winner gets to brag on Social media.

Wednesday – Two people hook their index fingers around each others (like hooking two fish hooks). Then they both pull, tug-of-war style, until one of them breaks form. Loser might have a broken finger or something.

Thursday – A fun game where people try to yell the most realistic/convincingly real but ultimately made up language. Winner is amazing.

Friday – Like assassin, but with markers. See if you can sneak-attack your friends by slashing them with a marker. Winner has the least stained clothes.

Saturday – Each person picks a random word (played best with less people). Put those words together and each try to draw it in under a minute. Best drawing = winner! (i.e. “upperclass” and “octopus”)

1. Utensil Tower Whoever can make the tallest structure of x utensils wins.
2. Untouchable Color Choose a primary or secondary color and don’t touch it. Other player(s) try to guess the color.
3. Pictionary Duals Two players are given different words. They need to draw them, and everyone else playing tries to guess. The two players take turns drawing on the same sheet of paper, taking 5 second turns each. Whoever’s word gets guessed first wins.
4. Account Sleuth Two players compete to find as many of the other player’s online accounts as possible. Whoever can find the most, wins.
5. Google Doodle Calendar Go through Google’s Doodles page (https://www.google.com/doodles/brazil-national-day-2017), and shrink the window such that you can only see the doodle, and not the title. If you can guess the holiday/significance of that day, you get 1 point. Continue on to the next day. Whoever gets to 10 points first wins.
6. Back Attack If you get poked in the back (between the shoulder blades), you’re out. You’re only allowed to make physical contact via attempts to poke the person in the back (no grabbing/holding). Last one in the game wins.
7. Where’s Waldo’s Other Outfit? The first person to spot someone wearing white sneakers, not wearing jeans, and has glasses, wins.