From an off-platform discussion with a participant in yesterday’s event:
P: That was cool, thanks! I might have a couple ideas to share as feedback. To make sure i don’t waste your time, I’d need at least a simple statement about what type of dynamic you want to promote and what would be the objective from a player perspective.
Me: (in the long run): Creating a canvas for futures proofing/ planning. You have the thing you care about, and you have a setting within which you can explore, develop and stress-test it in different systems. The dynamics we want are: people can approach issues from different angles (e.g response to a specific kind of crisis , or a specific topic they want to explore/understand/develop). And see how it connects to other issues/concerns
P: Do you want to push for collaboration, cooperation, competition, individualism, or continuous engagement?
Me: Co-Alignment, cooperation. For example it could be: Seeding and speeding up evolution of networks into clusters. What I mean by this: Long-termism in economic thinking: reflecting on the experience of the Messina advanced cluster
P: One off or on a continuous basis? The current cards based setup seems oriented towards the single session game mode. But the multiple rounds seems to invite to more complex dynamics. I’d say it can go both ways from here, but you’d still need to pick one.
Me: I would see it as a process of a series of events/game play sessions. Almost like a recurring game night.
P: I feel there are mainly two things missing or at least needing improvement in the version we played today (apart from the interface bug, which of course I won’t even consider as it’s too early).
an antagonistic component. You’re given a challenge to tackle, but it’s like if in LOTR you had the company of the ring with no orcs nor Nazgul nor dark wizard. It felt like we were basically all trying to do our reasonable best with no “hostile” factor. If the game assumes that we’re all there to make things work, most players will just do that and accommodate each other, especially as the stakes are 0. This makes for a very pleasant interaction but an underwhelming game to play more than once.
A clear but not too predictable action\reaction sequencing. If we are given an initial scoring, a target, and cards with specfic scoring to achieve our goal, it’s basically just a matter of running the math.
P: Do you have the gameroll or gameplay structure written somewhere? With scores and steps? I also might have some suggestions but first I’d need to know how the system is designed in detail.