For this critical play, I chose to play musical chairs. This is a classic folk game with origins in the 18th century, but there is no clear single creator. It is made to be playable for all ages and demographics, from preschool age children to grown adults. This game is entirely physical: the only things you need are chairs and the players themselves.
Musical chairs has several points of similarity with my team’s game—which is a variation of “Duck, Duck, Goose!”, but with novel elements we incorporated to distinguish it from the original and make it more like musical chairs. In particular, rounds of our game are structured so a player is eliminated every round until the win condition is met (last man standing). Additionally, there is a “rush” element where players have a trigger (drawing a goose card) that forces them to scramble to grab eggs in order to assign roles—specifically goose and runner, where the goose is the chaser—that ultimately determine who is eliminated. In musical chairs, players circle around chairs until a trigger (the music stopping) forces them to fight for a spot to avoid elimination.
In playing musical chairs, we saw that both active and eliminated players were highly engaged and invested in the outcome of the game. I noticed two mechanics that were particularly important: 1) there are always n players and n – 1 chairs, forcing an elimination every round and 2) music plays continuously until a moderator pauses it to trigger the rush for chairs. This contributes to a dynamic of constant underlying tension: players of the game are forced to be quick on their feet to survive and there is an inherent uncertainty and anxiety that they feel as they wait for the music to stop.
We saw that active players hovered over chairs to avoid elimination and sped up their walking tempo as there were fewer chairs remaining, and the choice of a song that is aesthetically whimsical but played in a nefarious elimination game context (Squid Game) added to this stressful yet silly social atmosphere. I myself felt the pressure to move faster than my opponents and waited in nervous anticipation for the music to stop so that I could rush for a spot. This dynamic kept eliminated players entertained as they likely felt a combination of schadenfreude and second-hand anxiety as they speculated over who would be the unfortunate player to join them each round. Both active and eliminated players were excited to see who would become the overall victor of the game.
It was insightful to observe how simple elements (choice of song, elimination format, play-and-pause music) had such a large impact on the overall feel of the game. My team wanted to lean into a number of these formal elements for our game. Our ultimate goal was to create a dynamic that is silly and casual but keeps players on their toes through the physicality and unpredictability present in musical chairs. The uncertainty generated by the elimination mechanic and “play-and-pause” nature of the music in musical chairs is facilitated by our game’s design in several ways: the card decks, egg draw, and goose chase.
Our game has two card decks. The first deck is a standard deck that contains duck, goose, and physical challenge cards: active players draw continuously until a goose card is reached, triggering the start of elimination. The second deck is a “revenge” deck, which only eliminated players draw from. Cards from this deck sabotage active players (e.g. physically blocking running players, forcing them to sing for a round) and apply positive effects (revival) to eliminated players, allowing them to have agency and the potential to get back in the game. Both sets of players do not know what cards they will draw ahead of time and thus do not know when elimination will be triggered or what effects will be applied to them, which replicates the uncertainty of musical chairs.
We continue to add two more layers of uncertainty: 1) the outcome of the egg draw phase—each player scrambles to grab an egg after a goose card is drawn and the two players who get the goose and runner eggs will engage in 2) the goose chase phase of the game. The goose gets eliminated if they cannot catch the runner and the runner is eliminated if they are caught by the goose. This parallels the elimination mechanic of and tense dynamic of musical chairs. From our playtesting so far, we have seen that spectating players are not left bored: rather, they enjoy the silliness of watching players running, doing physical challenges, and being subject to the effects of revenge cards.
In conclusion, both musical chairs and our “Duck, Duck, Goose” variation—we are working on the title of our game, but I have proposed “Duck, Duck, Goose: Reducks” as an option—share many of the same formal elements. The two games lean into sensation, challenge, and fellowship as their primary forms of fun. What I believe helps distinguish musical chairs from other similar games in the genre is the round-based elimination mechanic, physicality, and of course, the music, which all help to strike a balance between a whimsical and tense competitive atmosphere. However, gameplay can potentially get repetitive given the very simple nature of the game. The original version of “Duck, Duck, Goose!” has the physicality but does not have a win condition, which limits the tension and sense of competition that musical chairs possesses. Our game aims to address the gaps in both games and combine the best mechanics of both. We incorporate an explicit win-condition; elimination mechanics; physicality via the physical challenges, egg draw, and goose chase; and card effects. These elements collectively add complexity and replayability while maintaining the simplicity and accessibility of the original games from which they are derived.
Note: To respect player privacy, I have omitted the photos and videos from this critical play, but several CAs were active participants (players) for the session since we conducted it at Game Night.
