Friday, July 8, 2016

Board Games, The Breville Tea Maker, and Activity Theory



1) Insights,
2) Problem Statement, and
3) Game Idea



a) group of people,
b) context of use,
d) "goal"









  1. Terrific insights! I've long thought that what sets games apart is their separation from any externally defined, utilitarian goal (per Huizinga's separate, non-consequential space or magic circle).

    So if I understand the terms and model you're using, it occurs to me that games may differ from other designed-things in the balance of weight or focus given to Object and Outcome: in a bluntly practical design for a tool the Object has little weight (which is how we get to poor usability), and the Outcome is all.

    In a game, it may be the reverse: "the play's the thing," to appropriate Shakespeare's line. In a paideic game, the Outcome may have little if any importance; the more formally ludic it is, the more that Outcome matters -- but rarely if ever, I think, to the point of outweighing the internal goal/Object (what I would call the experience, though this has me wondering if I've switched your internal/external terms). A game with more focus on Outcome sacrifices satisfying engagement along the way: the end isn't the sole point in a game, how you get there is at least as important. This may be why games where theme and mechanics separate are unsatisfying, as they have lost the balance and integration of Object and Outcome.

    Lots to think about here. Good post!

    1. Thanks man! Having studied many board game designers I think many of them understand (sometimes only on an intuitive level) that the object serves the outcome. The object is largely based in the mechanisms of the game and the outcome lies in the overall experience of the game.

      I interviewed a designer some time ago who said that he wasn't play testing to prove the mechanisms work as he felt that could be done mathematically. He was play testing his games to see that the players were having the overall experience he hoped they would have by playing the game.

      Back to the tea maker -- if I can use it and it makes a great cup of tea but the experience of using the tea maker is tedious and unpleasant then where does that leave the user? The desired object(ive) is achieved but the outcome is far from optimal. With games (as with most types of design) the desired outcome is often based in emotion or meaning rather than utility. A good tool will effectively address the object(ive) -- a great tool does that as well as produce the desired outcome.

      In my classes I have students primarily aimed at their desired outcomes. These are usually focused on social change or edification of some kind. The object(ive)s are only considered good if they produce the outcome outlined in the problem statement.

  2. So in a game, because of the magic circle, the Object is irrelevant: the goal of the game and the victor of the game have no impact on the real world. However, the Outcome can be greatly significant: the game produces entertainment, possibly teaches transferable skills, and the shared experience within the magic circle can make (and using _Diplomacy_ as an example) or break friendships, regardless of who won or lost the game. The Object is a mechanism to drive toward an Outcome, but the Outcome is the reason we play.