Unit 2 - Playtest 2 for Food Credit

Group 3

Members: William Coleman and Shouyi (Zoe) Yan

Food Credit

Synopsis: Food Credit is a game targeting college students who are competitive, achievers of victory, love to direct gameplay, or want a more challenging version of Candyland. The fate of two players is determined by dice rolls, the usage of cards, and the luck of landing on bus spaces. The first player to reach the goal wins.

Report of Playtest: 

Conflict: 

• Usage of cards not properly explained

The first playtest went smoothly. The playtesters had played our game in the previous session. Although they commented on how much the rule sheet had improved, they did not use the cards in the proper order they were meant to be used. One instance was when one player used a "Lose-Turn" card, the other player used the same type of card to cancel the effect, but it was not done properly. Players cannot immediately play a card after they lost a turn unless it is a face-down card. However, in the past playtests, it was rare to see playtester place cards face down. Either the playtesters did not understand how they work or didn't see the benefits of it clearly. Another instance was when the players used 2 cards at the same time despite the rule sheet stating that cards can only be used once before the dice roll and once after the dice roll. It's apparent that our rule sheet still needs strongly clarify when cards are used.

• Feedback: The feedback we received about this was to clarify the rules regarding the cards in the rule sheet. We might need a better explanation of face-down cards, how they work, and when players can use them. But the playtesters did note that the rule sheet was an improvement from the last playtest regarding what the cards are and what they do. We just need clarification on when the cards can be used and what face-down cards can do.
• Solution: We will definitely clarify further on how the cards work. My group member has been thinking of removing the face-down cards method seeing how it can be confusing and further explanation to it will only increase the length of the rule sheet. It still might not even be used if we did further develop it. 

• More clarification in rule sheet

Stated many times before, our rule sheet still needs polishing. Although it has improved from the first version, there's always room for improvement. Last time, we had to move the procedures above the rules so the players could start playing and learn the rules along the way as the game progressed. Even though our rule sheet was bullet-pointed, it was still mainly text. Our first playtest session had feedback that suggested we add more pictures. So for this time, our rules sheet had pictures explaining the setup and the cards. We tried to limit the number of bullet points so players wouldn't be stuck reading a wall of bullet point after bullet point. Though some parts still had confused the players.

1. Feedback: Improvements that were suggested were grouping topics together, clarifying some rules, and adding rules that explain aspects of gameplay that weren't in the rule sheet.   
2. Solution: Moving rules and procedures around so they flow better is a definite point we needed to touch. I'm glad we got feedback on that because we did not think about that at all. As for adding rules and clarifying, we will try to clarify certain rules further but we might also need to remove features so the rule sheet isn't too long. At the moment it still takes quite a while for the players to read through the rule sheet. An average of 5-8 minutes of each playtest was dedicated to the players reading the rule sheet which I believe would bore players. 

• Board is lacking interactiveness

Lastly, our board needs more features. One of the feedback suggestion was to make our board more interactive. And I would agree. I feel that it would be best to remove some card features and focus on improving our board by adding spaces that have an effect. Currently, we only have one type of effect space and it is the bus spaces which can take players 8 spaces forward at the cost of 1 bus pass. More spaces similar to that would get our players more excited to move around the board and it would definitely increase the fun levels of the game. After all, the board is the main space where all the action occurs.

1. Feedback: During our second playtest, one of the testers suggested adding some of the card's features onto the board such as the move forward [number] of spaces or spaces that makes a player lost a turn and etc. 
2. Solution: I'd love to add more features to the board and definitely will. Of course, our main focus at the moment is deciding whether the cards are effective or overwhelming. Perhaps we could move the card features onto the board, as the playtester suggested, to even things out. 

Unit 2 - Play test of Food Credit v.1

Group 3

Members: William Coleman and Shouyi (Zoe) Yan

Food Credit

Synopsis: Two players are pitted against each other to see who can reach the goal first. Each player has a set of tools at their disposal to give themselves an advantage each their opponent. This game targets college students to use their wits and skills, who would be the first to reach the goal?  

Report of Playtest: 

Conflict: 

• Long rule sheets

The thing that shocked every playtester was our three-page rule sheet. Despite the rules and procedures rather being coherent and unique, the fact it spanned across three-pages seem to frustrate the playtesters. Of course, we knew that it might have been boring to rule blocks of text, so our group tried to make the rule sheet appealing as possible using bullet points and pictures. However, there were too many rules that a lot of the time during the playtesting the players forgot to do certain actions and what certain combinations of cards can benefit them. For example, the player draws a card after each of their turns. A lot of times the opponent had to remind the player to draw a card or they both forgotten to. Another example is the fact that using three spoil cards, regardless or not if they were used in a row, causes the opponent's piece to go back to start which would have benefited the player and prolong the game. But since the players during the first playtest forgotten about this rule, the game lasted roughly 10 minutes. Both playtests had players referring back to the rule sheet most of the time, cutting actual play time which would usually hinder gameplay and leads to player frustration. 

1. Feedback: Our playtesters suggested we cut down on certain rules the best we can. If possible eliminate rules or procedures that do not affect the game heavily.
2. Solution: I do believe the best course of action is the see what we can do to fit the procedures and rules on one or two sheets externally (font/spacing/perhaps sort them on a table). If we cannot shorten the rules down to one and a half, we'll take out some rules. 

Conflict: 

• Confusion about card types

Playtesters also were confused by our cards. They were not sure how to use them and constantly referred back to the rule sheet. Especially for the spoiled cards (SP) which had an important special effect if a player uses three spoiled cards. However, due to our many rules and options of the game, players did not remember this effect. The wording (F/V/D/G) of the cards was somewhat confusing as well despite most of them not meaning much. F/V/D/G categorize the foods in a sort of accessory fashion, the thing players should have paid the most attention to is the positive or negative numbers each card held which determined the number of spaces the card's effect held over. 

1. Feedback: Playtesters suggest we clarify on the cards and bold the text in our rule sheet that held importance, especially for the spoil cards which had a big impact in gameplay.
2. Solution: The bold text suggestion is one of importance and we will definitely do that to improve our rule sheet. I do feel like we can explain how the cards work better perhaps through more pictures or even a model/illustration in our rule sheet.  

Conflict:

• Shuffling is difficult

Our cards were hard to shuffle so during the playtesting, the players drew a lot of bad sets. For example, during our first playtest one player drew four spoiled cards despite spoiled cards having a smaller ratio compared to the rest of the cards (20 healthy cards, 20 unhealthy cards, and 10 spoiled cards). Then in our second playtesting, one player kept drawing V cards or vegetable cards that had only a small negative effect on the opponent. 

1. Feedback: Not much feedback was given about this since creating official cards (cards similar to playing card decks) would cost too much money and time. One playtester suggests we take out some spoiled cards to enforce scarcity and replace them with more choice cards (cards that let the player choose which number of spaces to move). 
2. Solution: I feel like that we can't do much about the cards being bad to shuffle. However, we can replace some of the spoiled cards to make it more rare and effective.