Playtest #2: Finding Balance

In July 2025, I ran the second playtest of Mental Forest with the same group as the first: two of my fellow Art in Science master’s students and Professor Mark Roughley. This time, the game had already gone through its first big round of revisions. After learning in the first test that the pace was far too slow and that collaboration was missing, I introduced major changes: more playable squares on the board, new “Heart” cards to encourage interaction, and a cleaner, more cohesive design overall.

Like the first playtest, this session was restricted to mechanics only. Without ethical approval, I couldn’t ask my peers to comment on the mental health themes or metaphors. Instead, their role was to stress-test the practical side of the game — pacing, rules, flow, and interaction. Even though this limitation sometimes felt frustrating, it forced me to make sure the mechanics could stand on their own, independent of the emotional narrative I hoped they would eventually carry.

What Happened

The difference from the first playtest was noticeable almost immediately. The extra playable squares created a smoother rhythm, and the inclusion of Heart cards brought in moments of interaction that hadn’t existed before. The game felt less static, and the group seemed more engaged.

As they moved through the board, it became clear that the changes had solved some problems but created new ones. With so many new cards — particularly the star cards — the balance tipped too far in the other direction. Goblin squares, which had been designed to represent obstacles, started to feel redundant. Instead of striking a balance between challenge and reward, the system risked overwhelming players with too much to manage.

Feedback

The group offered thoughtful, practical insights:

“There are too many cards, especially the star ones — they make the goblin squares feel pointless.”

“Could you illustrate both sides of the characters so they’re easier to find on the board?”

“Maybe add some unknown squares or cards, using thermo chromatic elements — it could make things less predictable.”

“A physical rule book would help make the structure clearer.”

“The skull symbol might be too triggering — change it to a ghost, and note in the rule book that players can skip it if necessary.”

This feedback confirmed that the flow was stronger, but it also showed me that mechanics always need refining. What was encouraging was the way the group engaged with the game. They didn’t just play — they started to think about how symbols, materials, and mechanics could shape player experience. Even though we couldn’t discuss mental health themes directly, their comments hinted at how the game’s design choices could matter emotionally.

My Reflection

This second play test gave me a sense of progress. The game worked better, and the players seemed more animated than in the first session. Still, I felt the weight of the ethical boundaries: I wanted to ask them how it felt to play, whether the metaphors resonated, whether the Heart cards captured something true. But I couldn’t. Instead, I had to focus on structure and detail.

In hindsight, this was probably the right order. Without solid mechanics, the metaphors wouldn’t land. What the session taught me was that balance in game design is delicate. Too few mechanics, and the game drags. Too many, and the core ideas get lost. This mirrors mental health itself — finding balance between challenge and support, between structure and unpredictability.

What I Learned

• Pacing had improved, but mechanics still needed simplification.

  
  

• Too many cards undermined the purpose of obstacle squares.

  
  

• Symbols carry emotional weight — imagery like skulls must be handled with care.

  
  

• A clear, physical rule book is essential for accessibility.

  
  

• Small details, like double-sided characters, can make the game smoother and less frustrating.

Changes Made

Based on this feedback, I made the following revisions:

• Removed a third of the cards and balanced the deck more evenly between positive and negative outcomes.

  
  

• Changed the skull symbol into a ghost, with a rule book note allowing players to skip it if too triggering.

  
  

• Redesigned the characters and key pieces for clarity.

  
  

• Added all details and options into a new physical rule book.

Closing Thoughts

Playtest 2 confirmed that Mental Forest was moving in the right direction. The mechanics were smoother, the pacing more engaging, and the feedback pointed toward concrete refinements. More than that, this session reminded me of the importance of detail. Every choice — from the number of cards to the imagery on the board — shapes how players experience the game. Even though this playtest was still limited to mechanics, it pushed me closer to creating a balanced system that could eventually hold the weight of metaphor and conversation.