Exercises
1. Identify the basic elements in a game of your choice (actions, goals, rules, objects, playspace, players).
Let’s look at my favorite game, Valorant. In this ability-based FPS, the actions involve moving, aiming, shooting, planting or defusing the spike, using agent abilities, and communicating with teammates. The goals center on winning rounds by eliminating the enemy team or successfully planting and defending, or defusing the spike, with the overall objective of winning 13 rounds to secure the match. The rules structure gameplay by defining how rounds are played, how attackers and defenders switch sides, the limitations of health / respawns / ammo, and how the in-game economy determines what weapons and abilities players can purchase. The objects include weapons, the spike, and agent-specific abilities that assist the team, such as smokes, walls, mollies, traps, etc. The playspace consists of carefully designed tactical maps, each with bomb sites, chokepoints, and multiple pathways that encourage strategic play. Finally, the players are two teams of five individuals, each selecting unique agents with different abilities, working together and against one another to achieve victory.
2. 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.
Let’s imagine swapping the playspace of Valorant with the playspace of Among Us. Instead of tight tactical maps with bomb sites and chokepoints, Valorant would take place on the sprawling spaceship or planetary bases of Among Us. This change would dramatically shift the play experience because rounds would feel less structured and more exploratory, with players navigating hallways, small rooms, and vents. Planting and defusing the spike would be harder to strategize around since the spaces are not built for symmetrical balance, making stealth and ambush tactics more central than coordinated team pushes. One thing that would stay the same is being able to have callouts with your teammates based on the location names. On the other hand, Among Us played on a Valorant map would be very different too because the open sightlines and chokepoints would make impostors much easier to spot, reducing the mystery and deception that are central to the game. By swapping playspaces, both games would lose some of their core identity and force players to rethink how they approach teamwork, movement, and strategy.
3. 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.
One game I often played during gym class in elementary school is Capture the Flag. In Capture the Flag, the goals are for each team to capture the opponent’s flag and return it to their home base while protecting their own flag from being stolen. The actions include running, hiding, guarding, chasing, tagging opponents, capturing the flag, and strategizing with teammates. The rules establish that players must stay within the boundaries of the playspace, that a flag can only be taken if a player reaches the opponent’s base, and that tagged players go to the opposing side’s “jail”. The objects are the two flags, which serve as the central focus of all player activity. The playspace is usually a field or gym, with a marked off section for two jails and two spots for the flags, divided into two halves with designated bases for each team. Below in fig 3, I explain the 3 categories of actions and their outcomes. With various strategies, the outcomes are infinite. For example, you could send a decoy attack, coordinate group attacks, or defend the flag tightly, etc.
To elaborate, the space of possibility in Capture the Flag is quite expansive because players must constantly weigh offense and defense. A team can decide to defend heavily, send countless people out, or attempt coordinated distractions. Individual players can choose to sneak around the edges, rush straight toward the flag, or ambush opponents. These branching options create countless possible game states: the location of the flags, which players are in jail, which side of the field players occupy, and how close each team is to winning. From a second-order design standpoint, the game’s rules and boundaries shape this interactive environment, but the unique strategies and decisions of players are what bring the game to life, opening up a dynamic space of possibility every time it is played.
4. 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.
Real-time game: Minecraft
[0:38]: player runs around to find a cave and collect ores
[0:58]: player sets a bed and campfire down to sleep
[1:44]: player starts to build a house
[5:30]: player starts a small farm
[10:43]: player collects flowers
Analysis:
Each log represents a snapshot of the game state, including what the player is doing, what resources are available, and how far along they are toward their personal goals. Because Minecraft is open-ended, the space of possibility is vast: at any given moment the player can choose to mine, craft, fight, build, or explore. The actions (like building or farming) and objects (ores, bed, tools, flowers) constantly reshape the game state, while the rules (like health, day/night cycles, or crafting recipes) limit and guide these choices. This illustrates how the basic elements interact to create an emergent play experience, unique to each player’s decisions.
[0:44]: player fights small monsters
[1:45]: player rerolls for characters and organizes characters on board
[4:15]: player teleports to fight a new player
[6:00]: player teleports to select a character out of a pool of characters
Analysis:
Each log here marks a discrete game state, tied to the player’s decisions between rounds and the outcomes of automated battles. Unlike Minecraft, the space of possibility is more structured. The rules of turn-based combat and resource management strictly define what actions are possible at any given moment. The objects (characters, items, gold) and goals (surviving rounds, building synergies, outlasting opponents) shape strategic planning. Because TFT is turn-based, players make deliberate choices during downtime, and the game state advances step by step rather than continuously.
Comparison:
Minecraft’s real-time structure produces a fluid, ever-changing game state where possibilities expand in all directions based on player creativity. In contrast, TFT’s turn-based system presents a narrower but more strategic space of possibility, with the game state changing in clear increments. Both examples show how the basic elements– actions, goals, rules, objects, playspace, and players– interlock differently depending on the game’s structure, shaping not only what players can do but also how they experience the flow of play.
