Brandon Korn - Space Raccoons

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

• Co-designed and developed a multiplayer card game over 2+ years, from paper prototype to commercial publication.

• Designed and balanced 100+ cards, core mechanics, scoring systems, and player interactions through hundreds of playtests.

• Led playtesting efforts, gathering feedback from experienced hobby gamers, casual players, friends, and family to improve accessibility and game flow.

• Successfully launched the game through Kickstarter under Trashtronauts LLC, raising nearly 2x the original funding goal.

• Collaborated with designers, artists, manufacturers, and playtesters throughout development, proofing, and production.

• Developed the Trash Heap system, a shared card ecosystem where played cards return to circulation and remain relevant throughout the game.

• Drove the transition from static point scoring to set collection, creating more flexible strategies, stronger player decisions, and healthier card balance.

• Refined the game's onboarding and rules over dozens of iterations, removing unnecessary complexity and reducing barriers for new players.

Overview

Space Raccoons is a 3–5 player set-collection card game about raccoons rummaging through piles of space trash in search of the coolest junk before anyone else.

Over two years, my team and I designed, playtested, and refined the game through hundreds of playtests before successfully launching it through Kickstarter under Trashtronauts LLC. The campaign nearly doubled its funding goal and the game is currently in production.

My primary responsibilities were card design, game mechanics, balance, playtesting, and iteration.

My Contributions

Designed and balanced the game's cards, scoring systems, and core mechanics.
Led playtesting efforts and translated player feedback into design changes.
Worked closely with artists to ensure mechanics, theme, and visuals supported one another.
Helped prepare the game for Kickstarter and publication.
Collaborated with two other designers throughout development.

Starting with the Core Mechanic

Space Raccoons began with a simple question:

Is searching through piles of cards fun on its own?

Before there were special card effects, artwork, or even a theme, the game consisted of little more than a deck of playing cards arranged into messy piles. Players would reveal, move, and collect cards while searching for valuable finds.

We believed that if the core mechanic wasn't fun by itself, no amount of flashy card effects would save it. The early prototype proved surprisingly engaging, so we continued exploring the idea.

As development continued, those piles became the Trash Heap, a shared space representing chaotic stacks of garbage. Players search through the Trash Heap looking for valuable collectibles, useful tools, and dangerous hazards.

The theme followed shortly afterward. We were thinking a lot about games like Exploding Kittens and the idea of "cute animals somewhere they shouldn't be." Raccoons digging through space trash felt funny, memorable, and gave us plenty of room for interesting card ideas.

Playtest Card Frame

Core Design

At the center of Space Raccoons is the Trash Heap.

The Trash Heap consists of several piles of cards that players can search, manipulate, reveal, and reorganize throughout the game. Unlike most card games, cards only leave circulation when they are stashed for points. Cards played for their effects are eventually returned to the Trash Heap, allowing multiple players to use the same cards over the course of a game.

Players are constantly deciding between two competing goals:

Play cards for their effects now OR
Stash cards to score points at the end of the game.

Every card played is one less card available for scoring, creating meaningful tradeoffs throughout the game.

Why Set Collection?

One of the most important design decisions was determining how players would score points.

Early versions relied heavily on static point values. While this created competition for specific cards, it also made some cards objectively better than others and created balancing challenges.

I pushed for a stronger focus on set collection instead.

The change gave players more flexibility while still preserving competition. Players often fought over the same cards for different reasons: one player might want to stash a card for a set, while another wanted its effect, or simply wanted to deny it to an opponent. It also made balancing much easier. Since cards scored similarly, success depended more on building synergistic collections and efficiently stashing trash than on finding a handful of high-value cards.

Finalized Card Frame

Design Challenges

Making the Trash Heap Interesting

We spent more time on the rummage mechanic than almost anything else in the game.

From the beginning, we knew players needed a way to search through the Trash Heap. We liked allowing players to move cards around and put cards back into circulation because it made the Trash Heap feel alive and unpredictable.

Finding the right amount of information was difficult.

When players could reveal too many cards, turns became slow and methodical. Players could reliably find exactly what they wanted and much of the tension disappeared.

When players saw too little information, the different piles stopped mattering and the game felt random.

After many iterations, we settled on a middle ground that gave players enough information to make informed decisions without completely solving the puzzle.

One thing we noticed throughout testing was that public information was almost always more engaging than private information. When players could see cards being revealed, moved, or manipulated, they stayed invested even when it wasn't their turn. That observation influenced many of the game's later mechanics.

Simplifying the Game

One of the biggest mistakes we made early was designing for ourselves.

Most of our early playtests were with other RIT game design students. We were all experienced card game players, so mechanics that felt obvious to us often confused everyone else.

The wake-up call came when we started testing with friends and family.

Rules explanations dragged on. Players missed important interactions. Some mechanics that we thought were simple clearly weren't.

At one point, the game had numerous keywords, triggered abilities, and combo-focused interactions. While experienced players enjoyed exploring those systems, they created barriers for newer players and distracted from the parts of the game we actually cared about.

Many mechanics were removed over the course of development. As we simplified the game, the core experience became easier to learn and more enjoyable to play.

Learning How to Use Feedback

Another challenge was learning when not to make changes.

Early in development, I wanted to fix every problem immediately. A single playtester would identify an issue and I would spend the next week redesigning mechanics to address it.

That approach created instability and often wasted development time.

Over time I became much more disciplined. Instead of reacting to individual comments, I started looking for patterns across multiple playtests. One person struggling with a mechanic might be an outlier. Ten people struggling with the same mechanic usually means there's a real problem worth solving.

That shift made our testing process far more effective and helped us focus our effort where it mattered most.

What I Learned

Space Raccoons taught me a lot about how players actually experience games.

One lesson that stuck with me throughout development came from a quote a friend shared:

"A game is not finished when there is nothing left to add. A game is finished when there is nothing left to remove."

As designers, it's easy to fall in love with new mechanics. We certainly did. Many of our early versions were full of keywords, triggered effects, and systems that seemed exciting on paper. Over time, we found ourselves cutting more mechanics than we added. The game consistently improved when we focused on strengthening the core experience instead of layering on additional complexity.

I also learned how important it is to test with the right audience. Designing primarily around experienced players led us into several dead ends that only became obvious once we expanded our testing pool. Watching new players interact with the game taught me far more than explaining mechanics ever could.

The project also changed how I think about feedback. I still enjoy tinkering with mechanics, but I learned the value of patience. Good playtesting is often about identifying trends rather than chasing individual comments.

Most importantly, the project reinforced how much I enjoy collaborative design. Some of my favorite moments came from discussing ideas with my teammates, debating the goals behind potential changes, and then testing those ideas to see whether they actually improved the game. Every meaningful change started with a clear design goal and was followed by testing to see if we had achieved it.

One thing I continue to carry into new projects is a focus on player interaction. Not just interaction through game mechanics, but interaction between the people sitting around the table. Throughout development, I spent a lot of time looking for ways to keep players engaged even when it wasn't their turn. The moments I remember most from tabletop games are rarely the mechanics themselves. They're the conversations, reactions, and stories that happen around them.