1. Identify the basic elements in a game of your choice (actions, goals, rules, objects, playspace, players).
In the game DEFCON (seen as the featured image), the player attempts to manage a nation’s nuclear resources as the world descends into nuclear war.
- Actions: positioning defense equipment and interacting with it in order to engage the defense space/equipment of other players
- Goals: lowest personal deaths, highest enemy deaths, some mix of the two (weights depend on game mode)
- Rules: where, when, and how players may interact with their defense equipment (i.e., traditional units can engage during DEFCON 3, nuclear units engage during DEFCON 1)
- Objects: defense equipment (i.e., nuclear missiles or naval fleets), which can then be moved and interacted with
- Playspace: a map of the world, mimicking the DEFCON boards seen in the Pentagon. In a higher sense, a game lobby that includes this map, but also with icons to place tokens and chat features to facilitate group play
- Players: both real human players at a keyboard, and virtual AI opponents
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.
If one swapped the action of rolling a die (with weighted points behind it) from D&D to chess, it would make the play style and strategy of chess notably different. Adding random chance would make the certainty of chess moves much less predictable, and would instead shift strategies of far-reaching turn predictions into those of statistical predictions. The certainty of the possibility space would be destroyed, and play may become less methodical and more dynamic.
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 liked to play as a child was Four Square. In this game, four players stand in a square play area which has been separated into four sub-squares, where they pass around a ball. The ball is bounced around the squares, and a player is ejected from the square if they: 1. bounce the ball outside of the larger square or on a line, or 2. let the ball bounce twice in their square or fail to bounce the ball (hold the ball, interfere, etc).
For players playing the game (i.e., not waiting in line to play the game, as shown in the picture), there are two “meta-states” the player will find themselves in: preparing to counter a bounce, or bouncing the ball. With regards to the game’s space of possibility, however, I argue these states only differ most appreciably via the interaction with the all important game object: the ball. While actions differ slightly if one can or cannot interact directly with the ball, the playspace, rules, and goals remain constant for each player. This facilitates an overall “competitive” and “sporty” space of possibility. Players are not expected or incentivized to find creative work-arounds to the rules, and instead are prompted to find enjoyment in physically engaging with and against their fellow players. There is fun in challenge and submission, but the overall game parameters (actions, rules, objects, etc.) keep a tight hold on the space of possibilities.
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: Musical Chairs
I observed a three-player game of musical chairs. In this game, there are n players, with n-1 chairs. The chairs are arranged in an outward-facing circle, and players will walk around this circle for the momentary duration of a musical piece. When the music stops (often suddenly), the players must sit down in a seat, one player per seat. The player who is not able to find a seat is eliminated. The next round, a chair is removed, so the “n players:n-1 chairs” metric is preserved. The game continues until only one player remains.
The game states existed as follows:
Game Setup: three players, two chairs. Players confirmed understanding of the rules and readied for moving.
Stage 1 – music: the three players moved around the chairs, often heavily monitoring their closest chair
Stage 1 – no music: the three players rushed to their seats. One seat became contested, and a player was eliminated.
Stage 2 – pre stage: a seat was removed.
Stage 2 – music: the two players rushed around the one remaining seat. Players often ran around the backside of the seat, and lagged around the front side of the seat, due to the asymmetry of being able to access it. A stool may have been a better choice here!
Stage 2 – no music: the two players rushed to the seat, with one player being eliminated.
Final: with one player left, the game concludes.
Turn-Based Game: Scrabble
In Scrabble, each player has seven tiles, each with a letter on them. Players attempt to make words on the board, getting a number of points corresponding to each letter used (or certain bonus blocks covered on the board in the process). Players alternate rounds, and keep going until a timer is reached. Winner is determined by maximum score.
Game setup: board setup, each player drawing seven tiles
Round 1 – other player: “kantar”, draws six tiles to replenish tiles back to seven.
Round 1 – me: “Jake”, playing on “a”. Draws three tiles.
Round 2 – other player: “boat” + “ta”, draws three tiles. Two words!
Round 2 – me: “fage”, draws three tiles.
Round 3 – other player: “maqui”, draws four tiles.
Round 3 – me: “pie”, draws two tiles
Round 4 – other player: “Paty” + “at” + ta”. Three words! Draws three tiles.
Round 4 – me: “pier”, playing off “pie”. Draw one tile.
Round 5 – other player: “quod”, draws three tiles.
Round 5 – me: timer ran out. No play.
End of game: score counting, other player won.
These two games were interesting in that they both had few objects, limited play spaces and actions, and very defined rules. (In fact, they were somewhat chosen for those very reasons!). In musical chairs, one object type (the chair) is the center of player attention, and attaining a seat in it (or one of them) serves as the single goal of each round. In Scrabble, players effectively can only make actions, too, with a single object (their letter tiles), but these tiles are more differentiated than the chairs. This simple difference already lets us see that a simple change in object space can expand the space of possibilities. Scrabble and musical chairs also shares a markedly different playspace. Where Scrabble limits the play space to a tile grid, musical chairs exists in the real world, allowing players to make a wider range of actions to conduct themselves as they move. Scrabble only allows tiles to be placed a certain way, along certain paths at certain times, while musical chairs can only set a general guideline for action in certain times (i.e., move in roughly any way around the chairs, sit in roughly any way into the chairs, compete for the chairs in any [hopefully non-violent] way!). With musical chairs having a looser play space, we similarly see a widening of the space of possibilities respectively.
Both games show that fun can be cultivated in an object-limited, tight rule-spaced environment, as long as there exists a more loosely parametered area for the space of possibilities to thrive in (i.e., play space, object space, etc.). A rigid structure is important to allow for players to grasp the challenge and allow for strategy, but at least one more loosely defined space is necessary to allow for creativity for solutions and play!
