This week I mostly brainstormed the initial idea for the stacking game.
The ‘cards’ are circular, and represent different ‘layers’ of a burger: bun, lettuce, sauces, bacon, cheese. Written on each one are a series of prompts that could describe objects in a room: thick, squishy, flammable, living. Players are split into two teams, and must compete to build the tallest ‘burger’ by stacking objects that correspond to one of the prompts, and sandwiching them between the cards. For example, the first card placed is always the toasted bun card – players pick or are assigned at random a prompt from the bun card, and have to stack objects on top until time runs out. Then they place another card (say, lettuce) on top of these objects, which assigns them a different prompt. The timer starts again, they stack until it stops, then place another card on top (say, cheese). This assigns them another prompt, and play continues in this fashion until the final timer runs out and the sesame bun tops the stack. The team with the tallest freestanding burger wins.
I came up with a few solves for randomising the prompts: the opposing team could pick the prompt to ensure maximum difficulty/hilarity, or the cards could be flipped in the air onto a surface, and the prompt closest to a particular edge or extended finger could be selected.
After messing around with different prompts and failing to get any surprising stacks, I simplified the restriction to different letters. The game now relied on players being able to define objects by different names so they can be legally stacked – there’s a little more invention in this approach, rather than just physical dexterity. This mechanic also feels more suitable for children, and inspired a cool name: Alphaburger!
Reflections and Feedback:
I spent a day playing around with stacking using Alphaburger‘s draft rules. One of my chief problems was why this needed to be a card game at all – was I just making a complicated reason to stack objects?
A second worry was the consistency of play – surely clever players would just place square/flat objects, and aim to win on stability rather than height? A restriction on object size could be made – for example, the bottom-most object must fit entirely within the bounds of the card – but the idea of making rules for what can be stacked and when feels like it would drag the pace of the game.
On revisiting other stacking games like Jenga and Beasts Of Balance, I found that they shared a consistency of shape and material which narrows the predictability of the game. Even stacking objects on my desk and in my room, I naturally selected objects which were more solid and predictable, otherwise the game was more likely to end instantly.
During our feedback session, David observed that the cards could be used as individual prompts rather than physically involved in the game, but again, this just seemed like a weak implementation of actual cards. He also observed that the material of the cards (most likely paper) might not suit the kind of flipping that I was describing. I agreed.
Ultimately, I think it likely that this game plays better in abstraction than it does in reality.