1. Identify the basic elements in a game of your choice (actions, goals, rules, objects, playspace, players).
In Solitaire, actions include drawing cards from the deck, stacking cards, moving cards between stacks, flipping over hidden cards, and placing cards onto the foundation piles in ascending order by suit. The main goal of Solitaire is to move all cards into the foundation piles, sorted by suit from Ace to King. Some players may also have the goal to do so in the least number of moves and/or the least amount of time. The rules of Solitaire define what moves are allowed and how cards can be arranged. For example, only Kings can be placed in empty stack spaces and cards in each stack must alternate colors and descend in value. The objects in Solitaire are the standard 52-card deck, which can start off in the original stacks (there are 7—the first has 1 card, the second has 2, etc with only the card on top flipped over) or the draw pile. The playspace is wherever the cards have been laid out, which ranges from a physical tabletop to a digital screen, and Solitaire has a single player.
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 you swap Uno’s goal for poker’s, the game shifts from shedding cards to building the strongest hand. Now, players may want to be more strategic about how the cards they have interact with one another as their relationships with each other (to form a hand) are now just as if not more important than their relationships (e.g. same color, same number, etc) with the top card on the pile. The focus moves to strategic hand-building and inference, as players watch what others discard to ascertain what their hands are and act accordingly.
If you swap poker’s goal for Uno’s, the game becomes a race to shed cards by matching them (i.e., by suit or rank) to the five cards on the table. If a player has a match to one of the cards on the table, it could be strategic to not reveal that until they have both cards matching to increase the size of the betting pool. This means that players may not know whether others have matches until they put their matches down and the game ends immediately. The game becomes faster as well as less about various possible combinations of cards and more about direct matches with the suits/ranks on the table.
In both cases, changing the goal transforms the play experience, shifting the strategy, tempo, and what players value most. The same cards and playspace create new dynamics simply by redirecting incentives and rules.
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.
The space of possibility in tag is shaped by the constant branching of choices and outcomes as players move, chase, and evade within the boundaries of the playspace. Every moment, “it” must decide whom to pursue and how to cut off escape routes, while runners choose whether to sprint, feint, or rest (if they’re not currently being pursued). Elements such as the playspace (e.g., the larger it is, the bigger an area “it” has to cover) and the presence of objects (e.g., obstacles) can open up or restrict the game’s space of possibilities. Additionally, because a single tag instantly flips roles and resets the chase, the game state is always in flux, with new possibilities emerging after every tag. The space of possibility is also affected by how long it takes “it” to tag someone (i.e., if it’s taking a long time and they get tired, perhaps even wanting to quit). Thus, the combination of competing goals (tag or run from “it”), actions (run, dodge, tag), possible objects, rules, and the playspace means that the possibility space in tag is vast and unpredictable, with each round unfolding differently based on player choices and the environment.
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.
For a turn-based game, I played a card ranking game. Each person got a card but couldn’t see their own, only everyone else’s. The goal was to guess where your card ranked compared to the others, and there were two rounds of guessing. The rules forced everyone to make decisions with incomplete information, and the main actions were observing, guessing, and adjusting based on what others did. The game state shifted as people made their guesses, saw what others picked, and then decided on a final answer. For example, in the first round, people with low cards guessed low ranks, and those with higher cards picked higher ranks, but in the second round, several people changed their guesses to avoid conflicts or try to outsmart others. When we revealed the cards, some people were surprised by their actual rank. Two players had guessed correctly the first round but changed their answer, showing how second-guessing and overthinking can shift the outcome. I relied too much on what seemed statistically likely—seeing clusters of low and high cards, I assumed I was in the middle, but I actually had a high card. The space of possibility came from all the different ways people could interpret what they saw, guess, and respond to each other’s decisions. The game state kept evolving as everyone tried to read the situation and anticipate what others were thinking, so each round was a mix of deduction, bluffing, and adapting to new information. The objects (the cards themselves) were simple, but they became meaningful through the rules and the social playspace at the table, while the players’ choices drove the whole process.
For a real-time game, I played Spikeball. Here, the game state was constantly changing: every serve, hit, and miss shifted the situation. The rules (three touches per team, rim is out) and the physical objects (the net and ball) shaped how we could play. If the other team missed a return, it was a quick point and a new serve, but sometimes rallies got long, with both teams scrambling, repositioning, and the ball bouncing unpredictably off the net. The main actions were serving, hitting, diving, and moving around the playspace, and the players’ decisions and teamwork had a huge impact on how each rally played out. The game felt chaotic because every hit could go in a different direction, and you had to react instantly. You never knew if the other team would return the ball in one touch or use all three, or if the ball would come right to you or end up on the other side. The space of possibility was huge—players had to make split-second decisions, adjust their positioning, and communicate constantly. The game state was always in flux, so teamwork and quick reactions were key.
Comparing the two, the card ranking game was about interpreting information, guessing, and adjusting based on what you saw and what others did, while Spikeball was about reacting in real time and adapting to unpredictable changes. Both games highlight how the basic elements interact to create a unique space of possibility, but the experience is totally different: one is more strategic and cerebral, the other is fast-paced and physical.
