Skip to main content.

Dev Log

Version Archives

Current Version

Current Print & Play, v3.2

Current Commercial Version:

Previous Versions

Here is an archive of previous prototype versions of UNFUNDABLE.

Note: not every prototype is archived in full, and thus not every version appears above. For example, some prototype versions have been archived privately, solely in the form of a changelog, if a series of rapid, minimal edits were expected in the development timeline.

Dev Log Timeline

v 3.2

Coming soon!


Coming soon!

v 3.0

Coming soon!


Coming soon!

2019.07.16 Printed Prototype

Coming soon!

Prototype v2.2

Coming soon!

2019.05.16 Demo at MIT Media in Transition Conference

Coming soon!

2019.05.20 Pitch at Boston New Technology Meetup

Coming soon!

2019.05.23 Demo at MIT Media in Transition Conference

Coming soon!

Prototype v2.1

Coming soon!

2019.04.26 Playtest at Public Health Lab

I brought the game back to the Viswanath Lab at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health to play with a different set of researchers, mostly established career scientists.

Prototype v2.0

Coming soon!

2019.04.14 Game Night at MIT Museum, Cambridge Science Festival

I was able to bring this game to the Cambridge Science Festival for play tests with multiple groups, ranging in age from preteens to adults. On the younger end, the scenario seemed to kind of go over the playteesters' heads, but they enjoyed the negotiation mechanic a lot. On the older end, players enjoyed the negotiation mechanic just as much. At the end they thought it was funny that they took the negotations seriously even though they all ended up winning in the end. This experience showed me that the central mechanic was engaging, but there were still a few too many rules/steps to remember and a few too many tiles moving around the table.

2019.04.12 Feedback from Public Health Researchers

I brought the game to test out with researchers at the Viswanath Lab at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health. The partcipants ranged in experience from an undergraduate student to post-doctoral fellow. A major takeaway from this playtest was that the prototype was too easy. It was never that hard to accomplish your Personal Goal or work together, since everyone's Goals were very different from each other.

2019.04.02 Feedback from a Game Lab Professor

I had a one-on-one meeting with Philip Tan, from the MIT Game Lab. He provided helpful feedback and questions for me to figure out if the mechanics matched up with the scenario I had in mind. This prompted me to think edit the event cards and rethink what happened to the resource tokens between rounds. He also gave me the idea to put the post-game discussion prompts on the back of the Lab cards.

2019.04.12 Feedback from Public Health Researchers

Coming soon!

2019.04.11 Presentation to Civic Media Group at MIT Media Lab

Coming soon!

Prototype v1.32

Coming soon!

2019.03.14 Feedback on Prototype v1.31 as Final Project for EDU T810A

Final Project for EDU T810A

Prototype v 1.31

Coming soon!

2019.03.07 Presentation of Prototype v1.31 at American Academy of Arts and Sciences

This was the final presentation of this project in the Harvard class "Cultivating Public Engagement with Science."

2019.02.26 Feedback on Prototype v1.3

A quick walkthrough of the game took place at the MIT Open Documentary Lab, with one undergraduate student and 2 Master's students. Feedback included suggestions that something should happen that effects all players and that grants could do something more than mark progress. There was also an interesting idea about a version of this game that let someone play as the NIH.

2019.02.21 Play Test of Prototype v1.2

This playtest was carried out with 4 players. Key observations from this playtest include the confusion of using "rounds" of gameplay when resources constantly respawned. People started talking about "buying" grants and using the term "negotiator" to describe the player whose turn it was. This highlighted the need to make the theme of the game a bit clearer.

2019.02.21 In-Class Demo, Prototype v1.1

Classmates in the Harvard Graduate School of Education class, "Cultivating Public Engagement with Science" provided feedback on a demo of the game. Feedback included the need to make the different kinds of grants more meaningful to the gameplay, the need to provide more guidance for a post-game discussion, as well as the possibility that all players could have their own unique win condition. Classmates also highighted the way this prototype conveyed the negotiation process of doing research, as well as the potential to spark conversations about "war stories" and past experiences with these dynamics.

2019.02.14 Playtest of Prototype v1.0

This version of the game was designed for exactly 5 players. We playtested with 4 players, and one dummer player to fill in the extra spot. This playtest provided a lot of valuable information, but the main lesson was that a time-based central goal was not really helpful for the pace of the game. This prototype punished players for letting unclaimed grants build up, which distracted from the negotiation-based game mechanics, which were the most interesting part of the game. There were also too many tokens flying around, and it was hard to keep track.

Prototype v1.0

Coming soon!

2019.02.11 Meeting with HGSE Instructor

A meeting with the instructor of "Cultivating Public Engagement with Science" at the Harvard Graduate School of Education provided useful prompts for game development. Should there be a piece written for mentors and instructors? Are there mutiple levels of winning, like one cooperative goal and individual goals? Is the game set up so one is obviously more important than the other? Is each person representing a lab or an individual?

2019.02.10 Name Brainstorm

It was difficult to incorporate lessons from previous rounds of background research into a rule set. Brainstorming about the name provided useful guidance for the tone and thematic focus of the game. It was important that the name include letters that could easily be swapped out for math and science symbols in a logo. These symbols would work in tandem with colors to differentiate players. Alternate titles included: CONFOUNDABLE, BOLDFACED, FUNDABLE, and FORMIDABLE.

2019.02.08 Interview with Research Scientist

This interview with a research scientist at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health provided useful background information. A flexible timespan and number of players would help the game be more usable. It would also be good to frame the game as part of a system of contact between scientists and students.

2019.02.07 Playing Startups

Startups provided helpful lessons for developing UNFUNDABLE. It's very helpful that the game doesn't require a board. UNFUNDABLE should similarly fit inside a compact box. Startups also creates an interesting mechanic where all players have the same goal, but can take different routes to get there. It also keeps a litlte bit of information secret, while keeping most of the players' progress out in the open. These elements inspired the development of UNFUNDABLE's Personal Goals and accumulation of papers.

2019.02.05 Playing Castle Panic

Castle Panic was a good game to try out and compare to the ideas for this game. It highlighted some mechanics to avoid in the multiplayer setting of UNFUNDABLE. The game should not basically comprise one collective hand. An element of competition matches the setting of academic research more closely. The game should not double down on the collective goal to determine an individual winner. An element of hidden information or secret goals could help provide more unique motivations for each player.

2019.01.30 Inception

This project began as an idea for engagement between college students and academic researchers. In the class room and in pipeline programs, there is a lack of focus on the long-term interpersonal dynamics of grant-funded academic resarch. This project began with the question of how to model this competitive yet collaborative world for students to engage with and question. A board game was the initial format for this project idea, in which players would compete with each other but be incentivized to work together at times.