Mutant Pizza

Hello, Otherworldly Beings—

I had a chance to playtest the latest prototype for this lovely storytelling game that I’ve been obsessively developing. I want to share some insights about it and talk in general about how I prefer to design and iterate.

Throwing things at the wall to see what stick

I prefer to see if the noodles are fully cooked by throwing them at the wall. If they stick, then I’ve got good noodles! Full disclosure, I don’t do that anymore because it makes my walls look disgusting, but please entertain me for a moment. After I’ve established somewhat of a foundation for a game and playtested it for a bit, I then like to overload the game a bit with ideas and playtest that.

Getting feedback from players on what they liked an didn’t like with a bunch of rapidfire ideas is helpful in many ways:

• I get to quickly see what’s fun and what isn’t
• I can test the upper limits of a game, which isn’t just good for the initial release but is also good for possible expansions
• I get to verify where the tension is (For example with this game: is it the collaboration between players telling a story or is it in the push and pull of them changing a story.)
• I can get feedback on a lot of ideas at once in a shorter timeframe than if I were to simply add one thing and test that one thing

Of course, this style of design isn’t for everyone, and it isn’t for every game, either. There are drawbacks:

• It can be hard to figure out where a specific game-breaking issue is
• It’s more difficult to balance (although I, personally, don’t put much thought into some perfect idea of “balance” in a game)
• It might be hard sometimes to figure out whether a specific mechanic is draining the fun from a game, or whether it’s that mechanic’s interactions with some other mechanic—gathering detailed feedback from players on their feelings is key
• This would be a more difficult thing to manage with higher complexity games that might need a rigorous test of different systems

This noodle-checking method is what I’ve been using for my most recent Untitled Storytelling Game playtests.

Whoops…should’ve thought of that

Let me rundown the gameplay for this for anyone reading about this game for the first time…

1. Players have a row of four cards face-up in front of them that they can’t move.
2. These cards consist of people, places, things, and attachable event cards that can “augment” and change them. Each cards has a varying number of keywords on it such as “dangerous” and “mysterious.”
3. At some point during their turn, they must play their leftmost card. BUT before they do, they can play a card out of order if it shares a keyword with any card that has been played.
4. After each round, an “event” occurs that has a voting process combined with a random draw.

I missed one key factor with these “augment” cards, they must be attached to a card that was played. So what happens if players legally can’t do that, but it’s the leftmost card and must be played? Well, it just gets played and nothing happens…it floats outside of time and space, waiting for something cool to happen to it. Well, I don’t want any floaters in my game. That seemed like an easily avoidable oversight; something I should’ve thought through before making them and bringing them to a playtest.

But, that’s okay. Getting a rapid fire idea out there and played, even half-baked, was more important than holding onto the game for a few more weeks and thinking around this problem.

My conclusion is that these “augment” cards are too much—too restricting and too situational. I’ve removed them from the game. Upper limit visualized.

Don’t tell my story for me!

Each card has a little something to it. People have a motivation, something they’re constantly striving toward. Places have a rule, something that can cause problems when violated. Objects have an interaction, an effect that’s triggered based on criteria.

During my early playtests, these were helpful to get players motivated to telling a story. But as I’ve developed the game more, I’ve realized through feedback and observation, that these bits are also too restricting.

I’ve since removed that as well, leaving only the keywords, the suit and type (person, place, thing), and the keywords. I think this will leave players enough information to be able to tell their own stories using only these details and the artwork.

I’ll see how it fairs in future playtests!

Director, what’s my motivation?

One problem I’ve been trying to solve for in the game is giving players just the right amount of rules to nudge the first player to launch the story, and just the right amount of mechanics to keep the gameplay flowing AND keep it interesting. But not too much such that it kills cool ideas the players have.

One piece of feedback I received recently was that it was difficult for players to do cool things because of the restrictions. I think the changes I stated above (removing augment cards and other details of card behavior) will open up the story options for players. But in doing so, I’m expanding a problem that has already existed in the game.

It’s hard for players to know what they’re playing for. Why are they telling this story? What’s their motivation?

My goal with this game is to keep it in the storytelling space. I want to avoid giving each player an individual character to play but to encourage them to use multiple people, places, and things when they add to the story on their turn. I had an idea that I’ve held back on while testing these other things out and I think it’s time to throw it into the mix. I mean, I’ve removed mechanics so there should be room to add a new one, right?

Factions: Oppressive bullies or galactic salvation?

In the build I’m currently designing, faction cards are introduced. Players will play as a single faction with a single mission. A faction will be themed around one of the six suits in the game. They will have a suit—and by extension a faction—that they hate, and one they like. Factions will have a goal that, based on the wording, can’t really be completed. It’s a perpetual, infinite type of deal. This is to avoid players trying to “win” at this game (which is impossible; everyone wins in a storytelling game).

I think players focusing on their own mission will help with a lot of problems in the game, from the first player “how do I start this story?” jitters to the overwhelming details that used to exist on the cards.

Will it be enough? Will it be too much? We’ll see in future playtests.

Event? No thanks, I’m busy that day

I also have event cards in the game that are played at the end of each round. The event has some story element to it and players vote on the outcome by choosing any one card in their row. We then combine the selected cards, shuffle them, and draw the top one. The suit of the card defines what happens.

I’ve had players tell me the mechanic was REALLY cool. But I still think it had a drawback: It told the story for the players instead of letting them tell it themselves.

This is a problem I’m still thinking around. I do think there needs to be something…some type of event or thing that happens so there’s some type of post-round effect that can nudge the story in new and interesting ways. I also need a way to define the pacing of the game. When does Act II come in? When does the game end and how?

I’ll figure that out in due time. But that’s all I’ve got for now!

Thanks for reading. Keep it fun out there, Otherworldly Beings…