Flipping into the Deep End
Goal and Direction
As part of Dan Felder's Mastering Game Systems: Design Bootcamp, students were challenged to design a game built around a single core system mechanic: the flip of a coin. For this challenge, my goal was to design a game inspired by the core push-and-pull gameplay of Snakes & Ladders while introducing additional system mechanics.
After establishing the initial concept, I developed a series of questions to generate a wide "scattershot" of interesting ideas and help guide the design process:
- How would the push-and-pull of Snakes & Ladders feel if it were pushed to its extremes?
- When does randomness stop being exciting and start becoming frustrating?
- What types of mechanics could be added to a Snakes & Ladders-style game?
Initial Designs
System 1: Movement System
This system gave players three Travel Coins. During the Travel Phase, players flipped these coins to move across the game board. They moved forward for each head flipped and backward for every two tails flipped.
Goal: Test the limits of push-and-pull gameplay (Q1) and determine how much randomness players would tolerate (Q2).
System 2: Interaction System
Inspired by D&D rolls, this system gave players three Interaction Coins. During the Interaction Phase, players flipped these coins to trigger encounters based on the total number of heads flipped.
The interactions were as follows:
- 0 Heads: No interaction
- 1 Head: Trigger Combat
- 2 Heads: Trigger Detour (move backward)
- 3 Heads: Trigger Shop
Goal: Test probabilistic encounters (Q2) while creating a sandbox for mechanics such as combat, shops, and movement debuffs (Q3).
System 3: Combat System
This system gave each player three Combat Coins. During combat, players flipped these coins twice—once for themselves and once for their opponent—with outcomes determined by comparing the results.
The outcomes were as follows:
- For every head fewer than your opponent, take 1 damage.
- For every head more than your opponent, gain 1 gold by looting the enemy.
- If both players flipped the same number of heads, nothing happened.
Goal: Test the upper bounds of system complexity while introducing additional mechanics (Q3).
System 4: Shop / Bartering System
The Shop System allowed players to purchase items, while the Bartering System determined discounts through coin flips. Health could also be spent as a substitute for currency when players could not afford an item.
Goal: Test player agency (Q2) while evaluating the complexity and suitability of additional mechanics (Q3).
Playtesting & Changes
After a live playtest session, the following conclusions were drawn:
- Players enjoyed the Movement System but became frustrated by frequent backward movement, which slowed overall progression.
- The Combat System was readable and engaging, but draws felt unrewarding and unsatisfying.
- The Interaction System created interesting variety, but many events were too rare or disruptive, causing pacing issues.
- The Shop / Bartering System functioned mechanically, but players often failed to understand that health could be used as currency, leading to missed opportunities for interaction.
Although the game was not the most entertaining version to playtest, the session was an overall success. It proved highly informative, answering my original questions, revealing promising directions for further development, and helping establish clear design boundaries.
Based on this feedback, I made the following changes:
Modification 1: Communication
The Shop and Bartering Systems remained largely unchanged throughout later iterations, as the issue was not mechanical but communicative.
To address this, health and currency were merged into a single shared resource called Prosperity, creating a more intuitive relationship between health and spending, communicated intention clearer, and reinforced the game's theme.
Modification 2: Interaction Redistribution
Interactions were redistributed into fixed phases and board-based triggers to improve clarity and pacing. Combat was moved into its own dedicated phase each turn, while shops and detours became board tile effects.
Modification 3: Simplified Movement, Checkpoints, and Tolls
Movement was simplified. Instead of moving backward for every second tail flipped, players now move forward only according to the number of heads flipped, removing the negative feedback associated with per-turn backward movement.
Combined with the redistribution of detours, this significantly improved pacing through the introduction of Checkpoints, Tolls, and alternate pathways.
These additions preserved the game's push-and-pull dynamics while reframing them as positive feedback loops. Upon reaching a Toll, players could either pay to unlock it or choose not to.
If they chose not to unlock it, they would travel back a short distance, allowing them to gather additional resources or take alternate routes. If they paid to unlock it instead, the Toll became their new Checkpoint, safeguarding their progress.
This also helped balance progression naturally. Players who accumulated more currency could unlock Checkpoints earlier, but only the first player to unlock each Checkpoint was required to pay the Toll.
Modification 4: Combat
The Combat System proved more difficult to iterate on. I wanted it to address the playtest feedback while also fitting more naturally within the game's overall theme.
Eventually, I settled on simplifying the system by removing draws entirely and reframing combat as an Income Phase.
The revised mechanic was as follows:
- Flip 2 coins: Gain +1 Prosperity for each head flipped. If both coins land tails, lose 1 Prosperity.
This iteration aligned much more closely with the game's theme while significantly simplifying gameplay and making the rules more accessible.
Conclusion
After a few playthoughts of the game, this would be the result I would hand in for this challenge.
Thanks for reading, If you'd like to play the game, or just read the rulebook, you can find it here.
Back To Blog