To see the clip, click here and either download the zipped file (22.4 megs) or click and wait very patiently to see it online.

In answer to too-oft-unasked question "what should I play with the family this weekend" see, perhaps this.

Play on!

FY further I, see their rules for Capture the Flag. Not that you should necessarily abandon the "Big Games" concept, but rather to help you get an idea of how such an event is organized. Most fortuitous. Most relevant. And not exceptionally reverent.

I've been thinking about your replayability comment and StarPower. I think that is one of the differences between simulations and games. I think of myself as designing simulations rather than games. For me, the essence of designing a simulation is to try to capture the essence of some process, or reality that exists in the real world. Simlations may be designed for many different purposes. A Physical simulation is often used to make predictions about how a system will work. For instance, a simulation of a harbor might be designed to determine how sand will be deposited in the harbor. I think of many films as simulations of reality. Their purpose is to entertain. many books in my opinion are designed as simulations of a reality. I design simulations to help people learn about some aspect of real life. StarPower is designed to help people understand how power changes the way people behave and are perceived. In my mind it's closer to a film or a book with regard to the issue of replayability (not purpose).

Most people do not see a film more than once or read a book more than once. Replayability I think is very important for games, but for me it is not something I strive for in designing a simulation. I want the simulation to serve as a springboard to learning about the real world. There are simulations that are so rich and complicated that they might be replayed many times, but that's not something I strive for. I want them to move on to thinking about, learning about the real world. In other words, I see the simulation as a tool to look at the world differently.

I think that is a fundamental difference between games and simulations or simulation games. Most people don't play games to learn something, they play games to have fun, to enjoy the challenge of winning, of competing . I would feel that I had failed as a designer if my games were played just for fun. If they have fun that's fine, but that's not the primary outcome that I hope to create. If they didn't have fun, but learned something, I would consider the experience a success. Whereas, I think most people who design games would not.

I think where you and I resonate is in the area of creativity and problem solving. For me, if participating in a simulation or playing a game increases a person's ability to create or enjoy the process of creation or it gives them experience in solving problems, or it provides a more honest and rich interaction among the participants. , I would consider that a learning expereience and a great success.

=======

Here's my response:

And when I look at your games, I think of how fun they are, how they make me want to play, completely, openly, even though I know I might be fooled into learning something. They are so much fun that I am willing to drop my guard and engage in them fullly, despite their ineveitable educational value.

There's also a piece I wrote a while ago, called "The Theater of Games," which you might also find relevant, and maybe even entertaining.

I think she is correct in saying that this discussion is too sensitive and complex to attempt to resolve in class, on the other hand, I find it highly relevant to any designer who looks at games as an expressive medium.

Now, don't go crazy with this. Just use it as a kind of loosening-up exercise as you go about exploring your own Pachisi-like game. Since we're looking for a "themed" version, you might take a quick glance at another game in the Pachisi family - the Egyptian game of Senet. Note how aspects of a life-theme are introduced with squares that stand for "happiness," "truth" and "rebirth." This is the direction that you should be going in your Pachisi interpretation.

The main imagery of the game clearly has a lot to do with chance. So, whatever theme you select, it will need to reflect some of the classic issues of fate, randomness, forces beyond our capacity for control. What's been happening to the people in New Orleans, for example. Then there's the question of strategy and what potency logic really has in the situation you're exploring. In Pachisi, you found yourself bored when you couldn't exercise more logic. But, referring again to New Orleans, what role does strategy play for most of the people involved in the experience. The "citizens" are clearly the main pieces in the game and there are some limited strategies that they can exercise - like help each other. The "authorities" are more like random factors, sadly. When and where they appear might be determined by drawing from a set of cards, or a special throw.

Give yourself time to make something that you feel depicts some significant relationship between players and the universe that is meaningful to you personally. Give yourself more time to make sure that it: 1) provides players with an honest reflection of those dynamics, and 2) is fun! (as in: engaging, involving, exciting, time-warping)

Then figure out what snack would be most condusive to playful engagement.

You'll also need to make a simple sheet of rules so others can play.

We'll start at 6:40

As you begin to explore mods of the basic game, you just might find that bit about how, way back then, they used Cowrie shells instead of dice. Kind of makes you wonder what else you could substitute, and maybe even why. And once you read about the Pachisi-like game called "Charkoni," well, you just won't be able to keep from wondering what it might feel to move 25 squares on a single throw of six shells!

When you think you're ready to explore real world parallels between Pachisi and every day life, you might also find yourself almost more than amused by the discovery that Pachisi is a Cross and Circle game, with direct connections to things like mandalas, the earth and heavens, the self and the universe.

Play on!

I'm thinking this dialogue is going to last all class. It's not going to resolve itself. Which is the point. We want to arrive at as many defining moments of fun as we can experience together. So I thought I'd add a few more of my pieces to the "Fun Puzzle." "Fun Puzzle." What could be bad?

Here's a semi-poetic-like exploration called "More Fun?"

I thought you'd also find this description of "Minor Fun" kind of well, fun in a major kind of way.

And then there's my collection of sometimes surprisingly relevant Links Too Numerous to Mention.

And here, from my FunLog - a little discussion about why Fun is Important.

Got more?