P1: Reflection (Inspector, Inspector!)

Learning outcome: showcase the priorities and tradeoffs of operating the NYC Subway and foster a sense of empathy for the stakeholders involved.

Dynamics: Narrative, Challenge

Before starting the P1 teaching game, I thought the process would be pretty straightforward in that we can connect the dots from learning outcomes to game mechanics. We wanted to tackle the challenge of revealing problems with the NYC subway system and educate players about socio-economic challenges. However, I really learned that game design is far more complex, requiring a lot of detail to achieve the right balance between fun and education, and in general to balance the resource allocations themselves. During the project, for a week-long sprint our team spent a lot of time discussing over decisions, refining and sometimes completely reworking mechanics to ensure they aligned with our teaching goals.

Something really interesting was how we initially debated whether the “turnstile-jumping” mechanic should be a simple dice roll or a more elaborate risk-reward system. We tested variations where players had to choose between spending money for a guaranteed ride or risking a fine with a dice roll for a free ride. We hoped this would highlight the socio-economic choices faced by low-income commuters, but during playtests, some players took the risk simply for fun, while others saw it as an unfair penalty. This inconsistency led us to reconsider the mechanic entirely, realizing that we needed to adjust the messaging and context around it to make the decision feel more impactful.

Another interesting challenge was integrating the role of the “inspector.” Initially, the inspector’s task was simply to moderate and distribute resources based on players’ arguments. However, during playtesting, we saw that this role was interpreted differently by each player, so we added event cards that would influence the inspector’s decisions.

The character cards and their hidden goals were another area where we had to iterate a lot on. We initially designed the character cards with generic objectives like “pick up kid from school”. However, we found that these goals didn’t always translate well into gameplay and didn’t align with the learning outcomes of providing a more macro perspective of stakeholders of the NYC subway. This led us to change character cards to community cards (ex. the finance bro card). For example, we added a “transit workers union” character whose goal was to lobby for better working conditions and safety measures. This change provided clearer direction for players and led to more meaningful debates during gameplay.

The most delightful part of this class was playtesting our game, and also playtesting other’s games. I loved every game I played and I felt like I was learning more about what makes good and bad design to bring back to our own game. I was very excited during the last playtest, players with the “transit workers union” card for example used their upgrade options strategically, placing safety upgrades in high-risk areas to maximize their influence. This sparked a debate among the group, with another player, embodying the “financial district” community, arguing that these upgrades should prioritize business zones to reduce crime rates and increase property values. The discussions became very animated, and I saw how the mechanics we designed could create real-life parallels and debates.

Now, I have a much deeper appreciation for the intricacies of game design, particularly in an educational context. During this whole process, I really experienced adjusting each mechanic—like the inspector’s role, the turnstile-jumping risk, and the character goals. Watching players respond to these elements and how each small change impacted gameplay in another way when it comes to connecting with the socio-economic dynamics we were trying to highlight was quite powerful. I also really saw the value of thorough playtesting and feedback, and how crucial it is to make iterative changes that address not just the mechanics, but also the narrative and player engagement. Without playtesting, I felt like our group could discuss forever, but we eventually realised that it makes better sense to come from the angle of setting the right intention of the mechanic towards our learning outcome, and then — “we’ll see what happens in the playtest”.

About the author

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.