Part 1 - 16th of December 2020
I partnered up with Jacky for this one; the 18 card game brief is likely one I looked the most forwards to. Development started immediately after the lecture, where we began brainstorming a bunch of different ideas. Jacky offered to make a game first, with cards supporting the mechanics of it, rather than making something entirely card centric. Sounded good, so we both agreed and got to work.
We came up with the following to present for next week’s session:
And just to make sure we had everything well organised, we started a trello board, and then began prototyping and drawing some basic concepts for each game.
Above was drafted a quick example of a matching pairs game, mixing both concepts from the original game of matching pairs, and something along the lines of YuGiOh. I didn’t have much of a theme for it, and only the mechanics of it in mind, sadly.
The game was point based, with pairs of cards having specific effects to increase or decrease a player’s points. Once all pairs were found, the game ended and the one with the most points won.
Jacky himself had come up with a prototype for a railway game, that reminded me greatly of Mini Metro, by Dinosaur Polo Club. [Source.] The goal of which was to link two stations using cards that were streaked with different underground railway lines.
Having stepped out of the notion of a card game, the first thing that had come to my mind with regards to the Labyrinth card game, was something close to the Labyrinth board game (hence the name), by Ravensburger. [Source]. As well as Hand of Fate (Source.) a roleplaying game spoken through the medium of cards that imposed various challenges on the players. The game featured 18 cards that were set up similarly to a maze or a path, with each card a particular challenge or power that had to be succeeded by the players to advance.
Hand of Fate, by Defiant Development
Labyrinth, by Max Kobbert and published by Ravensburger
After having done some research, Jacky made some edits to the basic rules, allowing us to feel more clearly about every project. We began our preparations with regards to the presentations we had to make for next week’s session, hoping we could narrow down our three concepts down to one, and properly focus on said game.
Part 2 - 17th of December 2020
Well, that was stressful. After spending some time in vocal chat detailing the three concepts we had in for this brief. Through the use of quick slides describing the prototypes or ideas each student had in mind. The groups disscussed and deliberated amongst one another what would work, what is preferred, which proposal we think would work well; which leads us to Jack and I’s own project.
Taken from Jacky’s blog – this is the criticism and conclusions we drew before deliberating on which game we’d choose move on with:
“Railwaymaker: needed development, and more refining. I believe it lacks strucuture, there were no instructions to play a round. The rules regarding the card placement needed to be clarified too.
Matching war: A theme was absent, however it had clear rules. The mechanics were simple enough and quick to understand.
Labyrinth: Balance of gameplay is heavily skewed towards one player, other player could be left with nothing to do for a lot of the game.”
Labyrinth was chosen out of the three games we presented, which frankly came to me as a surprise. I expected the Matching Pairs to not make it, but the Railway card game seemed as fleshed out as Labyrinth was. In hindsight, I feel like the latter had a clearer destination, and a few qualities that (probably) steered the two of us to work on it.
Unique card designs.
Competitiveness.
Player agency through constructing the maze.
Following the session we quickly playtested the game’s concept using a (probably one of the best) tool for card testing, PlayingCards.io. We set up the cards as above, and began going through the drafted version of the game’s rules.
Our plan was to get a proper feel of the game, and make gameplay clearer. What I wanted out of the experience was a game where the board itself was also your tool against your opponent. Cards worked best in that regards, as they can be swamped around the board, or taken from it and replaced with one in your hand.
An example illustrating moving the board to your advantage. Here I make the travel longer for Jacky.
Conclusion of Playtest: After a few hours (probably around 2-3) we came to a conclusion with regards to set up, goals, and turn actions.
Goal of the Game: Reach the other side before your opponent.
Set Up: – Players need a small object (pen lid, token, etc) to represent their character throughout the game. – Both players take their starting card and place in front of them. – Tokens begin on starting card. – Shuffle the rest of the cards, draw 6 cards from deck. – Place 6 cards between both starting cards adjacent to one another. – Youngest player goes first.
How to Play: – Turns take place one after the other. During which the players may perform ONE of the following actions: * Draw a card into your hand. * Place a card from your hand into the playspace. * Move your token and attempt a challenge. – Placing a card requires a player to take a card out of their hand and place it in any area they wish. So long as its adjacent to a card.
– Moving your token means the player moves to an adjacent card, according to the movement number that is in the top right corner of the card they’re currently on. When the player lands on card, the player flips it over and attempts the challenge on it. If they succeed, they can move forwards once.
Part 3 - 18th of December 2020:
Alrighty then. After the internal playtesting session we had on Monday, a few conclusions can be… well concluded. Also, Jacky came up with some sweet card designs.
They look amazing, and the card design is pretty clear. (They look sick!) The card is composed of an illustration, a movement number (top right corner), and a challenge description in the bottom half.
The movement rules and game rules lacked clarity. I ended up moving forwards more times than necessary and won too quickly. This action was a far better choice than drawing a card or switching things about.
Card placement needs clarification, the idea was to create one’s own path or force the opponent into a path, sadly this was never used except to lengthen the path of the enemy.
When we lost a challenge and were pushed back, we weren’t sure if the flipped card was to be tried again.
Just overall clarity.
The External Playtests (Steven & Tom).
Playtest with Steven, I took notes and watched the game go on.
Conclusions from the playtest w/ Steven:
* Challenges are considered fun, having both an entertaining and mechanical value to both players, if not a bit too long.
* Card placement needs to be clearer, adjacent needs definition and position of cards does also.
* If flipped previously, no need to redo the challenge.
* Only drawing a card when taking the drawing action is too limiting, stipulate the player must always draw a card.
* Challenges were enjoyable, namely Transmogrification & Cursed.
Playtest with Tom Martin, Jacky & I reversed roles, I played whilst he took notes.
Conclusions from the playtest w/ Tom:
* We realised the game was very physical and didn’t suit a digital surface all that much.
* Tom didn’t really get the “making a path” part of the game, and as illustrated above, placed his cards in an attempt to divert the path itself.
* Lasted too long for the determined time limit.
* Character cards needed to be changed, they couldn’t have a challenge as it felt like being cheated out of a win, we chose to remove said character card challenges later on.
* Playing cards need shortening and simplifying, game itself needs to meet the 5 minute mark.
* Rules & Rulesheet are useful for this, and need more fleshing out. Card placement once again needs clarification.
* Some of the more physical challenges (Stone Gaze, Transmogrification, Cursed) are fun to play, some couldn’t be playtested correctly due to the platform we were using.
Here are the Rules, by the way!:
[Link]
Part 4 - 27th of December 2020:
Following some criticism and returns during our last presentation last week, Jacky decided to come up with a card back that communicated something instead of random lines. The original design was mistaken as communicating something when in fact it was simply just a few lines.
Playtesters believed that cards had to align (when faced down) connecting between both lines to create a path. This was unintentional, but we decided to roll with it and came up with a different card backing design that helped with the game’s layout, as well as understanding how players could move across the board.
So because Jacky is way better at graphic design than I, here are the card backings he drew up after deliberation!
Now each card as a symbol to dissociate between BOONS (in blue) and CHALLENGES (in red.) Boons also have a wind like symbol, whilst the challenges have a clashing symbol, which will allow players to apprehend and anticipate their trajectory through the maze/labyrinth.
Finally each card was styled to resemble a room, using stone walls as their borders, and they all have a path that shows how players might move around the board, that is to say towards any other adjacent card to the card currently stood upon. This design will avoid confusion when setting up and traversing the game board.
An example of how players might move through the board, see how the lines connect to show the potential trajectory a player might take.
We also began drafting more cohesive rules, and changed the set up to have something quicker. * 5 cards are drawn from the deck and placed between both character cards. * 3 cards are then drawn from the deck by both players again, and placed adjacent to this original lane. * 2 cards are then drawn and placed into the player’s hand, these cards can then be used on the player’s respective turns to switch out with one card on the board, or placed adjacent to another card.
The set up should look something akin to the image above, with no cards in the draw pile, on in the discard pile, and both players ought to have 2 cards in their hands at the beginning of the game.
Reflections on the Design Process so far:
I had previous made a card game during my Bachelor’s course, called Stranded Space, which was a single player card game with a randomised path, like this one. Though far more mechanical than the current game, the design process was mostly the same.
Conceptualise
Rough playtest
Asset Making
Clarify rules
Internal Playtesting (between both members of the group)
External Playtesting (between outsiders or with 1 member of the group)
Reiterate according to experience recorded
One major issue of playtesting this game is that due to travel restrictions we could only experience the parts of the game that require less physical interaction. Two solutions then come to mind, either we can focus the challenges onto something more accessible and less constraining, for example: the Wraiths card challenges both players to get on the ground (“play dead”). The quickest on the ground wins.
Or we can playtest with others during the holidays to get a proper grip at how the game might play when physicality is involved, which is the final plan. We’re approaching the final development blog, so I’ll have something larger at the ready seeing as this was merely a quick update on card backs and the explanation of their design.
Part 5 - 27th of December 2020:
Following another check up with David King, Jacky and I went over the rules once again to make its presentation clearer. Key words are now in bold, colours are specifically made to refer to certain types of cards (red is for Challenges, blue is for Boons). Finally, images were pieced up and used to properly convey the game’s set up, movement, and clarifications.
In addition to this, Jacky went over the cards again to make them more printer-friendly, following what Luke Head said about player accessibility and his concerns thereof. As seen above, they were moved from coloured, parchment like cards, to something black and white, being more cost effective and easier to print for those without very performing machines.
It also grants the cards an old school aesthetic, found mostly in many CYOA (choose you own adventure) books, like the Lone Wolf series by Joe Denver, Ben Devere & Vincent Lazzari. (1984 – current). The most notorious artist/illustrator of the series being Gary Chalk.
Fire on the Water, “Lone Wolf” artwork, Gary Chalk, 1984
This will emphasise the theme we’re going for (fantasy dungeon/labyrinth), as well as give a certain charm to the cards that can be found in those old books or old fantasy editions.
The game itself is mostly complete, and is in a playable state now. All that remains is for the cards to be set up in a printable document, and the rules can be printed out properly as well.
Here is a final draft of the rules, accessible through this link:
[Link].
Comments