Games, Design and Play: Elements – Anna Mistele

As a thought experiment, swap one element between two games: a single rule, one action, the goal, or the playspace. For example, what if you applied the playspace of chess to basketball? Imagine how the play experience would change based on this swap.

Imagine the game Twister, where a spinner determines what color each player needs to be touching with their hands and feet. If we apply the playspace of soccer—a soccer field—to Twister, the play experience changes significantly. Now, flexibility matters much less than strategic starting positions (and luck). If all players start standing in a grassy area, they will all be fine on a green spin, but a red spin could take everyone out. Players can choose to take the risk of aligning themselves close to another color (a blue billboard, a red piece of a flag), distinguishing themselves from other players—setting themselves up for a potentially easy win—but making themselves uniquely vulnerable to losing. Playing Twister on a soccer field renders players’ flexibility/dexterity (mostly) useless, and instead prioritizes a combination of luck and strategy.

Pick a simple game you played as a child. Try to map out its space of possibility, taking into account the goals, actions, objects, rules, and playspace as the parameters inside of which you played the game. The map might be a visual flowchart or a drawing trying to show the space of possibility on a single screen or a moment in the game.

I played Sardines a lot as a child. Here’s a map of the Sardines space of possibility:

Pick a real-time game and a turn-based game. Observe people playing each. Make a log of all the game states for each game. After you have created the game state logs, review them to see how they show the game’s space of possibility and how the basic elements interact.

For a real-time game, I logged the game states of Give and Take, which I made my improv group play because it was our first practice of the quarter and we were all playing improv games anyways.

• Initially, all players are scattered around the room. Every player holds one item: Player A holds a loop of blue tape, Player B holds lip balm, Player C holds their wallet, Player D holds a hoodie, Player E holds pink nail polish.
• Player A walks up to Player B and hands out the loop of tape. They ask, “Take?”
• Player B says, “Yes.” They take the loop of tape from Player A.
• Meanwhile, Player E has walked up to Player C. They gesture at Player C’s wallet and say, “Give. Give. Give. Give. Give.”
• Player C says, “No.” Player C walks away.
• Meanwhile, Player D ties the hoodie around their shoulders.
• Player B walks up to Player C. They say, “Give take?”
• Player C says, “Give take.”
• Player B hands Player C the lip balm, and Player C hands over their wallet.
• Player B rifles through Player C’s wallet. They pull out a dollar and grin.
• Player C says, “No!” They take the wallet and dollar back.
• Player E walks up behind Player A and pokes the nail polish into their back. “Give,” says Player E.
• Player A, bewildered, gestures that they have nothing.
• Player E says, “No give? Yes take.” They observe that Player A is wearing a baseball cap, and so they take Player A’s baseball cap.
• Player B walks up nervously to Player A. They get down on one knee and hold out the loop of blue tape. “…Take?”
• Player A jumps up and down. “Yes! Yes!”
• Player B stands up. “Yes! Take! Take!” They put the loop of tape around Player A’s ring finger.
• Player A and Player B hug.
• Player C walks up to Player A and Player B and opens up the wallet as if it is a book. They pretend to read the book, and then they look up at Player A. “Take? Yes?”
• Player A looks at Player B and smiles. “Yes.”
• Player C looks at Player B. “Yes?”
• Player B smiles. “Yes.”
• Player C closes the wallet and says, “Give.”
• Player A removes the blue tape ring from their finger, rips it in half lengthwise into two rings, and puts one of the rings on Player B’s finger. They put the other ring back on their own finger.
• Player D and Player E have arrived to spectate. They both start to clap and say, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”
• Player D removes their hoodie and ceremoniously drapes it over Player B.
• Player E beckons Player C to a corner of the room. They move to a private area.
• Player E holds out the nail polish surreptitiously. “Take?”
• Player C looks horrified. “No!”
• Player E shrugs. “No take.” They walk off.
• Player E pulls Player A aside and offers them the nail polish. “Take?”
• Player A is reluctant, but then says, “Yes, take. Give?”
• Player E points at Player A’s ring. “Yes.”
• Player A sighs. They remove their blue tape ring and hand it to Player E.
• Player B walks over and sees that Player A is not wearing their ring. They fall to their knees. “NOOOO!”

The game continues much longer than this, because players can create as many interactions as they want, with storylines and subplots as short or long as they want. But this includes examples of how the players interact with the objects, how objects guide players’ actions, and how the strict verbal rules create space for endless creativity and discovery. The space of possibility varies wildly, and it is determined by the unique set of players and objects. Players may remember favorite stories from previous iterations of the game (marriage proposals, robberies, and illicit dealings are always fun), but with new objects and new interactions with players, the space of possibility is always explored in new directions. This game in particular emphasizes how infinite a space of possibility can feel with an open-ended set of rules, actions, and goals. (That said, the space of possibility is limited by safety of players and their property. A player may feel comfortable ripping a piece of tape but would perhaps not feel comfortable smashing the nail polish on the ground or tripping another player. Also, the space of possibility is slightly limited by what the objects can be interpreted as—for instance, it would be hard to pretend that any handheld objects represent a tractor or speedboat.)

For a turn-based game, I logged the game states of a game of Tic-Tac-Toe, as shown in the nine states below.

At the i‘th turn (one-indexed), there should be approximately 9!/(9–i)! possible game states. (9 total states after the first move, 9*8 total states after the second move, etc.) However, a game may not necessarily go through all 9 turns, if a player wins early. This defines the space of possibility, which is very limited in scope. On a player’s turn, they have ≤9 possible next actions. Also, a player’s move is largely defined by the previous player’s move. For instance, once a player has two shapes in a row, the other player’s hand has been forced—they must block their opponent’s win by placing their shape in one specific place. We see this occur as early as the third game state in the game state log above. In an already limited space of possibility, a player is oftentimes forced into even tighter restraints by the existing objects in the playspace. For this reason, among experienced players, Tic-Tac-Toe usually ends in a tie, which is pretty boring. Therefore, Tic-Tac-Toe has never been one of my favorite games, but it certainly has submission/abnegation appeal.