際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Ludology what we changed

Download as PPTX, PDF
Darren Mc Hugh
Darren Mc Hugh

This document describes changes made to a board game after playtesting to improve gameplay. The number of squares was reduced from 100 to 64 to shorten games. Poker chips were added to track votes instead of relying on players, which caused chaos. Starting votes were increased to 50 to build momentum. Propaganda card rules and losses were adjusted. Vote values were increased to simplify calculations. Question squares were added directly to the board rather than using cards for every square. Fewer propaganda squares were used to speed up gameplay. Playtesting identified issues that slowed the game, which the changes addressed to improve fluidity while keeping the core concept.

1 of 9
Download to read offline
Propaganda What we used to have and why we changed it.
The squares The first thing we learned from play testing was that any game with 100 squares and a single dice as a means of progress is overlong. So we shortened the number of squares from 100 to a more fun 64.
The chips We implemented poker chips into the game to act as the votes. Prior to the chips we were hoping the players themselves could track their own scores, even lie to hint at the underhandedness of modern politics. In reality the game became too chaotic and the rules were subverted leading to a mess.
Votes/ points We also found that the rules of the game regularly took votes instead of giving them. The result was most players had to go into a negative score system. As a result we gave each player a starting vote count of 50. this gave the player something to lose and also built up momentum much quicker than the old system.
Propaganda cards Most of the propaganda cards underwent little change however the quotes out of context card changed its meaning from an identify a quote one to a create a chained sentence rule. Also most of the cards had to change their losses to a higher number as a way to make the game more challenging.
Vote worth Initially we attached a value of either 1, 2, or 3 votes to each question corresponding to their difficulty level. In the play tests these number were too low and mathematically required awkward subtractions and adding. To fix this we changed the value to 5, 10 and 15, making the calculations even simpler and the vote earning and losing easier to comprehend.
On the board On the board I added Q squares as before every square held a question, this bogged the game down. By adding a set number of Q squares it helped the game play become more fluid as well as saving the use of Question cards. I also added less propaganda squares as too many of these also slowed the game down.
conclusion All in all it was the play test that highlighted the small glitches within the game, many of which related to the fluidity of the game. The basic concept itself stayed much the same and the game itself is the best it can be.
Ludology what we changed

More Related Content

Ludology what we changed

  • 1. Propaganda What we used to have and why we changed it.
  • 2. The squares The first thing we learned from play testing was that any game with 100 squares and a single dice as a means of progress is overlong. So we shortened the number of squares from 100 to a more fun 64.
  • 3. The chips We implemented poker chips into the game to act as the votes. Prior to the chips we were hoping the players themselves could track their own scores, even lie to hint at the underhandedness of modern politics. In reality the game became too chaotic and the rules were subverted leading to a mess.
  • 4. Votes/ points We also found that the rules of the game regularly took votes instead of giving them. The result was most players had to go into a negative score system. As a result we gave each player a starting vote count of 50. this gave the player something to lose and also built up momentum much quicker than the old system.
  • 5. Propaganda cards Most of the propaganda cards underwent little change however the quotes out of context card changed its meaning from an identify a quote one to a create a chained sentence rule. Also most of the cards had to change their losses to a higher number as a way to make the game more challenging.
  • 6. Vote worth Initially we attached a value of either 1, 2, or 3 votes to each question corresponding to their difficulty level. In the play tests these number were too low and mathematically required awkward subtractions and adding. To fix this we changed the value to 5, 10 and 15, making the calculations even simpler and the vote earning and losing easier to comprehend.
  • 7. On the board On the board I added Q squares as before every square held a question, this bogged the game down. By adding a set number of Q squares it helped the game play become more fluid as well as saving the use of Question cards. I also added less propaganda squares as too many of these also slowed the game down.
  • 8. conclusion All in all it was the play test that highlighted the small glitches within the game, many of which related to the fluidity of the game. The basic concept itself stayed much the same and the game itself is the best it can be.