Thoughts on Mashups (also, Candyland + No Thanks = ???)

I like mashups.

What's a mashup?

A mashup is when you take 2 distinct things and, maybe literally, smash them together to make a new thing that's sort of a mix of the original two.

I solicited Twitter real quick to get some other people's off-the-cuff definitions, and they generally agree with what I said above:

@twentysides contributed the following:

Two or more things that are faithful representations of their type combined in a way that still works. So something that is kind of this and vaguely that, I wouldn't call a mashup. Something that is clearly this and very much that, now that's a mashup.

An the ever eloquent @belltowergames describe it thusly:

Two things that are unlike but are of the same kind are brought together to create a work that shares essential qualities of both.

I like all of these definitions, and I think they more than get the idea across. 

I'm trying to think of an obvious genre mashup TV show or movie, but nothing's coming immediately to mind -- maybe that's because I'm writing this in fits and starts as I scan documents for my real job, or maybe it's because I'm feeling a little light headed from my 2nd COVID vaccine dose, or maybe there really aren't that many of them (that can't be!) 

I guess I could point to Daybreak, [warning, I cannot vouch for the safety of that website -- it was recommended to me by someone, but I've never actually used it!], a 1-season TV series I saw maybe 12 years ago that's like Groundhog Day mashed up with a cop show, about a detective who keeps re-living the same day until he solves his own frame-up.

I suppose I could also point to something like Thor: Ragnarok, which mashes up a comedy with a big budget superhero flick. But I don't know if that counts -- is "superhero" really a genre all its own? Also, it's not a great example because I didn't love that movie, but I'm saying in this post that I do enjoy mashups...

The IDEA of mashups

So I guess what I'm REALLY saying is that I like the IDEA of mashups. I find them a good source of inspiration, and I think they can have the potential to take existing stuff I like, and create a new experience that I'm predisposed to like, but that's different enough to be interesting.

As you must know if you're reading this, I like games. I like playing games, I like thinking about games, I like thinking about game design, and of course I like designing games. So how do mashups come into it? Well, even more than a passive story like books/TV/movies,  mashups can inspire new game experiences that are significantly different than any of the games being mashed together. 

A good example of this might be Friedemann Friese' Copycat, which he (somewhat famously) billed as a ripoff of Agricola, Through the Ages, and Dominion. The thing is, Copycat was NOT a ripoff at all! It was inspired by those other three games (deckbuilding inspired by Dominion, worker placement/action spaces inspired by Agricola, and the card row inspired by Through the ages), but the end result feels NOTHING like any of those inspirations. Friese didn't copy those other games, he mashed them up, and then he did the design and development work to make a solid game out of Copycat... whether you think the result is any good or not is up to your preference, but it's certainly distinct from its inspirations. 

Another example could be the decks in the card game Smash Up. That game's whole thing is that you take 2 piles of cards, each with its own feel and flavor, and mix them together to get a deck that plays differently than other combinations. That game used mashups as a main mechanism, and it works rather well!

A starting point that inspires design

You see, a mashup is just a starting point that can inspire a design. You can't just shuffle 2 rulebooks together and press print! 

Like with Copycat, there's a lot of work to be done once you have decided you want to mix together equal parts Agricola and Dominion, and splash in some Through the Ages for flavor. Just like any other source of inspiration, that may be the starting point, but it won't be the finish line by a long shot.

I've entertained some thoughts on a mashup before, a combination of King of Frontier and the award winning Isle of Skye. Whenever I think about Skye Frontier it makes me want to revive the design, because I felt it really did work, and I had made good progress on it already. Just writing this post makes me want to drop everything I'm doing and work on a Tabletop Simulator mod for it! Maybe soon, but for now I've got my attention set on another mashup idea, the recent one about Candyland!

Let's do the Mash! (let's do the Monster Mash)

As a sort of proof-of-concept, I found a Candyland TTS mod, added a handful of checkers, and got my playtesters to try out a few rounds with me of a Candyland/No Thanks mashup. We literally just played Candyland, but instead of drawing a card to advance, we played No Thanks with that card: flipped it up, then either took it and advanced, or put a chip on it. When taking a card and advancing, you also get all the chips on it, just like No Thanks. Oh, and in this mashup, of course, progress down the track is bad!

We didn't play out the whole game, and indeed, with this mechanism, I think a Candyland board is way too long. But as proof of concept, it definitely did work! In No Thanks, a card could come up that's adjacent to one you already have, making that card excellent for you (free chips!) while still bad for everyone else. Every card in the Candyland version has a bit of this potential, as a red card might mean just 1 space of movement for me, but 4 for her, and 8 for you! There was no real analog for that dynamic in No Thanks where you have the 23 and 25, and the 24 comes up (something that's extraordinarily good for you), but with the shortcuts (assuming you MUST take the shortcut if you land on it), there were cards that were extraordinarily bad for you, which added a little consideration to taking a card that advances you a lot, but at least gets you past a dangerous shortcut. I liked the feel of that, and with a redesigned board maybe that dynamic could be exaggerated so it comes up more often. For example, perhaps the shortcut spaces could span 2 or 3 spaces, so as you approach, more cards could potentially land you on one.

One goofy thing about Candyland is the specific treat spaces, which can catapult you all the way across the board, straight to the end (woo hoo!), or even all the way back near the beginning (oh no!). In this mashup, I think I'd just make those "advance to the next special treat" (rather than a specific one) so it's more of a game. Again, those could be not-that-bad (if you're just a few spaces from a special treat), or awful for you (if you just passed one), which is just the dynamic I think this game needs to thrive.

So there you have it, a light, accessible game, along the lines of No Thanks. Is it heavier or lighter than No Thanks if you replace the numbers with a Candyland track? I think it has legs, and I plan to give some of the design details a little more thought.

[last minute thought, just wanted to jot it down... in this mashup, you can clearly see which space you'd advance to, which is a good thing in general. There could however be some subset of cards that have a plus sign or something, meaning that if you claim the card, you also must draw another card and advance per that one as well -- something to make cards a little bit more scary] 

Theme informs design

I've been known to say that even mechanics-first designs are really theme-first, or they become theme-first pretty quickly, as once you have the main mechanism in mind, the theme informs the rest of the design.

As for a theme for this mashup, one idea (sticking with the Candyland aesthetic) is kids binging on Halloween candy, last one to get a tummy ache wins. I like the nod to the inspiring game there, and the theme makes some sense, though I'm not sure it really necessitates movement on a board, but maybe that's not the end of the world.

Another, slightly more grown-up idea is paintball/laser tag/snowball fight, where you spend "luck" tokens to not be the target of an attack, and when you take a card, maybe it has an evasive maneuver on the back (I like the production hook there, take an "incoming snowball" card, and flip it over to show that you dove behind an embankment -- even if it's not mechanically relevant)... eventually your luck runs out and you get hit, last player standing wins. 

Or even more grown up than that, maybe a Battle Royale theme, like Fortnite, where the track board is your health bar. As you take hits, your health goes down (advances toward 0), and when you run out of health, you're knocked out, or dead, depending on the specifics of the theme!

All of these themes seem like they'd work. I kind of dislike the health bar idea just because it makes the shared track board irrelevant - it would be neat if the game board were non-trivial (though I guess in all those ideas the board is kind of trivial). 

I'm open to other theme suggestions, leave 'em in the comments below. And let me know what games you'd like to see mashed together!