When first introduced to systems games, and the idea of creating an ecosystem with balanced objects, I immediately thought of Chipotle. A bit silly, yes, but whenever I wait in the long line at the El Camino Chipotle, I always end up thinking about the various tasks that Chipotle workers have to do: take care of in-person orders, take care of mobile orders between in-person orders, track ingredients, cook, clean, etc. It’s a lot to keep track of. Thus, it makes for a good system, especially since a lot of people who order Chipotle don’t realize how much work and decision-making running an establishment actually takes (and lash out at service workers as a result)! Our Chipotle-play ecosystem models a newly established Chipotle restaurant. There are four players: a manager, kitchen leader, and cashier, who form the Chipotle crew, and a corporate “head honcho.” Everyone except the head honcho is trying to keep the new establishment alive for at least three days; otherwise, the establishment shuts down.
The mechanics of the game mimic our intended system well; the mechanics are set up (1) for players to lean into their specific roles (for example, the Chipotle crew self-selects who the manager is, and the manager then assigns the remaining roles) and (2) for players to learn to cooperate and decide how to balance ingredients, money, and customer orders under certain time constraints (for example, crew members have to decide whether to purchase more ingredients in order to serve more customers, but then potentially risk losing money if they don’t use all ingredients by the end of the day). The time constraints and watchful head honcho within our game mimic stressors that real service workers may feel, too. Because players have to work together to overcome certain obstacles (like time pressure or wasted ingredients), the game has “challenge” and “fellowship” as types of fun.
Building this (or any) systems game was super challenging, though; it feels impossible to create objects that “correctly” interact with each other, as adjusting one component affects another (for example, changing the price of the table changes the prices of the ingredients, which affects how many ingredients players can buy at the beginning of a day, which affects how many customers they can serve by the end). Furthermore, it’s difficult to predict the emergent properties of the game and any “creative” actions that could lead down new paths (for example, players choosing to buy only 1 table at a time, or no tables at all). It was also really difficult to incorporate aspects of randomness (for example, having players draw ingredients from the top of the ingredient pile vs having players be able to buy specific ingredients); players would get frustrated, but the other option would make it too easy for players to win. Essentially, building this systems game reiterated the fact that everything is nuanced, and you really have to think about the chain reactions to modifications to certain rules. It was really fun to watch the playtests, though, because people fully embraced their roles; there was lots of yelling from all players about ingredients and tasks to be done – time pressure makes the game a lot more fun.
