Meeting 6 – 9/11/2020
Shiquan’s internet was down so he was unable to join us for much of this session.
Jacky reported back on his playtest with friends from last week – feedback was fairly consistent with that of other playtests, which reconfirmed the areas of investigation/improvement we had decided on for this week. They were:
- The order of play
- Different bidding systems
- Making the improvisations central to the mechanics
- Different methods of valuation and point-scoring
The lecture on Psychology and Game Design in the morning gave us some clear vocabulary to frame our discussions, and we touched on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators in the game, as well as the balance of fast and slow thinking (both modes present, but maybe in the wrong places for a 15-minute game, we concluded).
Of particular use was the concept of bits, chunks, and the magic number (7 ± 2). Using this system to analyse the amount of information in our game, and the difference between those pieces of information, we were able to see that we were demanding too much of a player’s memory. With three players, by the end of the game each player would have to have kept track of: their own money, which went up and down dynamically; 9 items, their respective stories, and both their initial and current owners; the money of other players, at least in relation (bigger/smaller) to their own money. Much too much.
Aiming to decrease the amount of information needing to be held or parsed, we divided the game into clearer rounds, turns and actions. Presenting, bidding and valuating should all be wrapped up in each round, so that players can ‘forget’ the previous set of items before moving on to the next one. This also gave us the idea to add rewards/punishments for play during that round – the player with no items could get +5 coins; the player who drew the highest bid would get +5; the players’ backers open up different levels of cash per round, so nobody becomes stuck at 0 coins.
Experimentation with different bidding systems was unsatisfactory. We used Modern Art’s systems as examples, but came to the following conclusions:
- Hidden Bids rely on the presence of game tokens (physical money), which obviously can’t be physically exchanged over videoconference.
- Going ‘round the circle’, as per the One Offer or Fixed Price auctions, is cumbersome to facilitate on videoconference.
The only auction technique to create a sense of excitement over videoconference was our original one – Open Bid – in which the auctioneer controls the flow and tempo, encouraging bids. It is as engaging for the auctioneers as it is for the bidder, and can vary in length and intensity.
Meeting 7 – 10/11/2020
Another brainstorming session – finding available playtesters has proved difficult, with so many people on different timezones.
After two hours of rule alterations and playtesting, we finally landed on a system that we felt worked. By defining the goal of the game as ‘becoming the best antiques dealer’ rather than ‘having the most money’, we could
Antiques now have a flat value of 1 VP. The player who sells their item for the highest bid each round gets an extra 1 VP, and the player with the most money left over at the end gets 1 extra VP.
We also repurposed the finger-based system as a method of determining the opening bid: now, after an item is presented, the players vote using their fingers (up to a value equal to the current round) to determine the starting bid for that item. This feels like a reward system for giving a great pitch on your antique, but there is also a strategic level to it: you can lower the likely price of an item you want, or you can bump up the price of an item you know you won’t or can’t buy. Canny players can even force the presenter to buy it themselves at an inflated price, or make it impossible for any player to buy, thus removing it (and a VP) from the game.
We spent an hour writing up this version of the ruleset, ahead of a playtest the following day.
Playtest with Luke – 11/11/2020
We thought it would be useful to playtest the game with an unfamiliar player in charge of explaining the rules. Luke was kind enough to jump in – I observed, and Shiquan and Jacky joined him in playing.
Generally, the game was a lot of fun, with Luke really engaging heartily with both the roleplaying and competitive aspects.
Reflections and observations:
- 5 minutes talking through the rules – think we need to take this down to like 3 minutes…
- 20 minute playtime – game is still slightly too long for the brief!
- Luke was unclear on how to deliver the countdown for the valuation round, this needs to be made very obvious in rules.
- Luke got really into the role; looked for a gavel at one point! Suggest we add some gavel flavour to the intro! ‘Open the bidding at…’ would be a good phrase to use in the rules, as would ‘going once, going twice’ etc.
- Should we have a rule on no objects from the future? This category never results in a very interesting round.
- The pdf was difficult to follow as just text – Luke suggested working on the layout of the rules
- Confusion about what a round was / what a turn was re: the entire gameflow
- Luke felt anxiety about finding his three objects at start, relaxed once he realised this wasn’t a ‘rule rule’ – suggest more open / relaxed language about finding objects (tom today suggested the word ‘props’ as useful here)
- Luke also asked if after the project was over he could play it with his gaming group! Good to hear.
- Luke very aware of strategy, thought at least one round ahead in terms of bidding and saving money
Feedback:
- Generally very positive about game, and didn’t find anything too difficult to track. Luke liked the competitive aspect to it, but also appreciated that many players would be in it for the make-believe and fun factor.
- “Theme really works”
- “I’d love to play it again”
- “Nice diagrams” – about the draft valuation diagrams, suggest we lean into diagramming this game out through illustrations
- “Exciting!” about ‘your backers are excited’ – again, flavour has a big impact on player reaction! (maybe applause and reactions to each presentation could be encouraged in the rules?)
Meeting 8 (UAL campus) – 13/11/20
A quick meeting – we had intended to do some playtesting with our classmates, but realised that none of the computers in the UAL labs have webcams, so we’d just be running the ‘in person’ version of the game, about which we have fewer questions.
Jacky reported back from another playtest with his friends – they had been less keen on the Victory Points system than Luke or ourselves, reflecting on ‘having another thing to count’. They preferred the objective of ‘getting the most money’ at the end. I observed that it might be worth taking this feedback with a pinch of salt, since it was the group’s second time playing the game and would have been coloured by expectations and experiences found in their first playthrough. Something to keep in mind though – in our view, the Victory Points de-intensify the mathematical difficulty of the game!
We used our time together to work on the whiteboard, responding to Luke’s notes on the rules document by drafting some ideas for visual communication.
We divided information into two columns: at-a-glance/necessary to start play, and in-depth/consulted during play. The first column was primarily to do with the flow and order of play, so we experimented with different diagrams to communicate that:
- There are multiple rounds, and
- Each round contains three repeating phases, led by a different player.
For the immediately necessary gameplay diagram, we settled on a triangular ‘loop’ that clearly illustrates the three phases of play, and shows that they continue until each player has presented, evaluated and auctioned. This will serve as a loose outline for the visual design of the final ruleset.
With only a week to go on this project, we want to spend our time playtesting and balancing the current ruleset, as well as producing some striking and polished material for our game, establishing tone and theme as early as possible. Tassos Stevens has a nice adage: the [piece of art] begins when you first hear about it and ends when you stop talking about it. So we want a title, some illustrations, and some game copy that primes the player for the sort of roleplay that will be useful, and connects them to the goofy worlds of Antiques Roadshow / Roadtrip, before they’ve even begun playing the game.