The First Time It Hit the Table
The first playtest of Unicorn Hunters answered the most important question almost immediately:
Was the game fun?
Yes.Unfortunately, it also answered another question.
Did the game actually work?
...mostly.The earliest playable version of Unicorn Hunters went to the table with 36 Progress cards, 18 Cockblocks, and 18 Unicorns. It was rough, handmade, and still close enough to the original idea that almost everything felt experimental.
But people could play it.
That mattered.
For the first time, the game wasn’t happening inside the designer’s head. Someone else could pick up a card, make a decision, pursue a Unicorn, sabotage another player, and react to what was happening around the table.
And, thankfully, the basic behavior of the game looked a lot like what we had hoped for.
Players understood the general rhythm. They built toward their targets. They interfered with each other. The social, competitive part of the game was there.
Most importantly, the game was fun.
Version .1 was flawed, but players were enjoying themselves — and that was enough to prove there was something worth fixing.
Then we looked at the Progress economy.
Oh no.
The Progress System Had a Problem
The basic Progress concept was simple.
Each Unicorn required a combination of different qualities before they could be claimed. Progress cards supplied those qualities: things like Adventure, Vibes, Mystery, Stability, Trust, Communication, Humor, Respect, and Charm.
The earliest version also included two stats that no longer exist:
On paper, having more stats sounded like more variety.
At the table, however, a much more important question appeared:
That sounds obvious now.
It was not obvious enough when we built the first deck.
A Unicorn requirement is only meaningful if the deck gives players a realistic opportunity to satisfy it. If a Unicorn needs two Mystery and Mystery appears frequently enough in the deck, that requirement creates a challenge.
If a Unicorn needs a stat that almost never appears?
That is not challenge.
That is a locked door.
And Version .1 had several locked doors.
Create a simple visual showing the original eleven Progress stats in one row or grid, with Social Proof and Bad Idea highlighted as later-removed stats. Original stat icons would work especially well.
/assets/studio/playtesting-notes-part1/original-progress-stats.jpg
Social Proof and Bad Idea Were the Smoking Guns
The Progress distribution was uneven, but Social Proof and Bad Idea were the clearest warning signs.
There were simply too few cards supplying either stat.
That meant some Unicorns could require Progress that players had virtually no realistic way to collect. In the worst cases, those Unicorns could become effectively impossible to claim.
That exposed a distinction that became important very early in development:
A difficult Unicorn should make the player work.
Maybe the requirements are high. Maybe the combination of Progress is inconvenient. Maybe another player keeps interfering. Maybe you have to decide whether the pursuit is worth continuing.
Those are decisions.
Waiting for a card that barely exists is not a decision.
It is just waiting.
And waiting is especially dangerous in a game that is supposed to feel fast, social, competitive, and a little chaotic.
Use a clean chart or cropped table from the v.02 balance-analysis workbook showing how often each Progress stat appeared in the deck compared with how often Unicorn requirements demanded it. Social Proof and Bad Idea should be visually called out.
/assets/studio/playtesting-notes-part1/progress-balance-analysis.jpg
The First Real Design Lesson
This was probably the first major lesson Unicorn Hunters taught us:
If a card tells the player, “Collect these resources,” then somewhere underneath the jokes and artwork there has to be enough mathematical support for the player to reasonably do that.
That doesn’t mean every resource needs to appear equally.
In fact, equal distribution can be just as boring as bad distribution.
Some stats can be more common. Some can be rarer. Some Unicorns can absolutely be harder to claim than others.
But rarity has to feel intentional.
The player should be able to look back at a difficult pursuit and think:
Version .1 sometimes landed much closer to the second answer.
The Good News Was Better Than the Bad News
The Progress economy was broken.
That sounds catastrophic.
Oddly, it wasn’t.
Because the part that is much harder to fix — the reason anyone would want to play the game in the first place — was already working.
People were having fun.
The core interaction behaved roughly as expected. Players pursued Unicorns, reacted to one another, and used Cockblocks to interfere with rival pursuits. The overall play style did not suddenly turn into something completely different once real players touched it.
That was enormously encouraging.
Numbers can be changed.
Cards can be removed.
Requirements can be adjusted.
A deck can be rebuilt.
But if the underlying experience is boring, none of those changes matter.
The first playtest told us that Unicorn Hunters had an experience worth rebuilding the math around.
Sometimes the Correct Fix Is “Delete It”
There is a temptation when designing something to protect every idea simply because you already spent time making it.
We didn’t do that.
Social Proof and Bad Idea were both removed from the Progress system after the initial playtest.
Could they have been saved?
Probably.
More cards could have been added. Requirements could have been redistributed. The stats could have been redefined.
But neither one was important enough to justify complicating the economy just to preserve it.
So they went.
That left a cleaner Progress system built around stats that were easier to understand, easier to distribute, and easier to balance against the Unicorn roster.
More importantly, it established a development rule that has stuck with the project:
If the game gets better when something disappears, it disappears.
Show one or two original Progress cards using Social Proof / Bad Idea beside the cleaner post-playtest stat system. A crossed-out or retired treatment would make the design decision immediately understandable.
/assets/studio/playtesting-notes-part1/stats-before-after.jpg
From Version .1 to Version .2
The first playtest didn’t tell us to start over.
It told us where to look.
So Version .2 became less about reinventing Unicorn Hunters and more about rebuilding the machinery underneath it.
Progress distribution needed another pass.
Unicorn requirements needed another pass.
The relationship between the deck and those requirements needed to become something we could actually measure instead of something that merely felt plausible while designing cards one at a time.
That was also when the project began moving away from intuition alone and toward more deliberate balance analysis.
Once enough cards exist, you cannot reliably judge an economy by looking at them individually.
You have to step back and ask what the deck looks like as a system.
- How much Adventure exists?
- How much Trust?
- How many Unicorns ask for each stat?
- Which combinations are common?
- Which combinations are bottlenecks?
- Which card looks fine alone but becomes a problem at deck scale?
Those questions started becoming part of the design process because the first playtest made it obvious that they had to.
The Prototype Did Its Job
It would be easy to describe Version .1 as a failure.
It wasn’t.
Version .1 did that beautifully.
It showed us that the central idea worked.
It showed us that people enjoyed the competitive interaction.
It showed us that Progress was a viable foundation for the game.
And it showed us that the first Progress economy was absolutely borked.
That is useful data.
The next version would fix it.
Or, more accurately:
we thought the next version would fix it.
But that is a story for another Playtesting Note.