Our game is a two player board game. Players each start with 5 wood and 3 cobblestone. Each resource is color coded. Player one’s wood and cobblestone is purple and green, respectively, and player two’s wood and cobblestone is red and blue, respectively. They play on a 7x7 grid game board, and can place materials on the grid to build a territory. Placing 3 of the same material in a row will gain players extra points at the end of the game, should it still stand. Territory can also be destroyed by using resources. To destroy one wood, it costs the destroyer one wood. To destroy one cobblestone, it costs the destroyer 1 cobblestone or two wood. Once players are out of materials, they must solve a math problem-addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division- in order to gain more materials. As players continued to gain more resources, the problems would increase in difficulty. Each turn of the game consists of two actions, and the game lasts 6 rounds of turns. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins.
![]() |
| Playtesting Sticks & Stones |
While Stanley and I were reworking the game, we both put our heads together to figure out solutions to the issues that arose during the last playtest. We both put in equal effort to make these changes, discussing new ideas before deciding what we would keep and what we would pass over. Both of us worked on the rule sheet, and Stanley was in charge finishing it up. I created the math problem flashcards and answer sheet.
During our playtest, there was a lot of initial confusion on the rules. While the rules made the game more enjoyable and more straightforward, the wording was unclear and confusing. One of the biggest points was the definition of “move”. Since our game wasn’t a traditional board game where players take their game piece and move along a path, the word “move” was misleading. It was also unclear what defined a move, as players would place more than two total resources per turn. Many playtesters suggested we should define what a move was, since our definition of move was defined as building territory, destroying an enemy’s block, or gaining resources. Building territory wasn’t clearly defined as placing one block per move, so players placed all their resources on the board at the beginning.
Another common issue that came up was territory building. This was different than the previous issue, as people were placing multiple pieces of material in one space on the board. This goes back to our rules being unclear. Our rules state that players can build territory by placing material on the grid, however we did not specify how many pieces can be placed on each space. This led to players piling pieces onto the board, which we quickly cleared up. This also caused players to skip over collecting resources during the first round of the game, which is a strategy some players took after the issue was resolved.
The third biggest issue was the point system. It was confusing in multiple ways. First, it seemed like the building aspect was not as prominent, so point scores were not as high. Second, the pattern system was not clarified. It was unclear that it had to be 3 of the same material in a row, and also unclear that it could be either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. It was suggested that we add pictures to demonstrate ways players can gain points, and how they can gain double points via having 3 in a row. Additionally, we found that it was difficult to calculate double points when certain patterns were made. This required some logical reasoning that I believe to be a little bit complicated for an elementary schooler to understand, so a chart might be necessary to help determine points.
![]() |
| The pink balls (Player two’s wood) is a demonstration of one of these patterns. |
The game could use plenty of tweaks, mainly the rulesheet. In addition to rewording some of the instructions, pictures are a huge addition. One of the playtesters noted that younger players, much like players in general, want to skip over the instructions and tutorials and just want to jump right into the game. He suggested that pictures be used to further simplify the instructions and add illustrations to the instructions in order to give a faster visual direction, so that players can jump into the game faster.
Going forward, I definitely think that this game has a lot of potential, even in this very basic prototype stage. Rewriting the instructions and adding more actions, and maybe even a story could make this a great board game for students. I think in order to achieve that, having more playtesters outside of the in-class playtesting would be extremely useful so that we can have even more iterations of the game to review. This way we can spot-check for small things like wording in the instructions.


