Space Jamming is a chance to create small games for people to practice living by their values. We want to support the value, but make sure not to jump over the hard steps... space jams should help us get better at living by our values in everyday life.
← Insert Hard Steps Help Here
Audience
Are people going to stick around?
Examples: Loyal — dinner with close friends. Trapped — WhatsApp group, open mic Fickle — people passing on the street Unclear — you can’t tell
What kinds of responses are possible?
Examples: like | friend | follow | thank | review | comment | join | commit | request | buy | eye contact | body language | hand signals
How long are we present?
Examples: None — twitter, news feed Brief — speed dating Some — weekend workshop Enduring — workmates, old friends, family
Connections
What clues connect people?
Examples: Deep Context — education, talents, skill sets, interests, values Shallow Markings — age, class, gender, race, beauty None/Random — chat roulette
Do we need each other to proceed?
Examples: Dependent — parents/children, gatekeepers Interdependent— congress, social club Independent — news feed
How well are people acquainted?
Examples: close friends | acquaintances | strangers | anonymous | mixed |
How do we interact?
Examples: In pairs — news feed Teams — sports league Whole Group — sharing circle Disjointed — high school dance (in-groups/out-groups)
Contribution
Why are we communicating?
Examples: Shared Goal — team meeting Shared Value — close friends Shared Topic — comment thread Interlocking Goals — marketplace Unclear — strangers at a party
How quickly are we communicating?
Examples: Off the cuff — improv, chat rooms Asynchronous — texting Thoughtful — journal and share Contemplative — blog posts
Why is this or that person talking?
Examples: Invited — dinner/camping trip Uninvited — question time at a public event / comment in a public forum Selective — standard barrier (e.g., university)
Consequences
Is there a social hierarchy?
Examples: Flat — no, we focus on equality Ranked — scores or skill levels Celebrity — huge differences
How much will outcomes affect me?
Examples: High — THIS MATTERS!!! Medium — I'll live either way, but... Low — who cares?
Will what I say stick around?
Examples: Ephemeral — Talking at a bar Temporary — Snapchat Searchable (w/effort) — Microfiche Permanent Record — Twitter
Other
What else is relevant to the situation?
You’ll need to develop a new eye for games. What makes them fun, interesting, powerful? Study games you know well—games like Truth or Dare, Charades, Twister, Tag, Chess, Basketball—to see for the first time how they work, where their richness comes from.
These 8 ways your game could suck will help you understand what the classics get right and improve the games you’re making:
YOUR GAME SUCKS BECAUSE...
Does the game begin and end in a satisfying way? Is the beginning scary? The end triumphant? What design elements are important here?
Some people go all-in as soon as a game starts, and others are slower to warm to it. Ideally a game can accommodate a variety of levels of engagement and win people over to a kind of commitment through play. Does your game do this? How does it create room for the less engaged player? Will they have experiences that draw them in? Will social pressure exists even among less engaged players that will push them towards commitment? Can it accommodate different rates of engagement?
Does the game have a skill set all its own, or does it just engage standard issue human skills (i.e., will the winner generally just be the strongest, the best at pattern matching, the most social)? Ideally, challenges of the game should be unfamiliar and worth improving at.
The best games have a complexity and richness which isn’t revealed in the instructions but instead slowly through play. Does your game have strategies which a player would only hit upon after 10 minutes (or 10 hours) of play? Do the roles and tasks create an ecosystem together which affords a variety of ways of playing and of attending to the play of others? Are there different ways to use the room, to use props, or to use other players which take time to explore? Do the instructions manage to create a good beginning and a good end without spelling exactly out how they happen?
In game design, the word balance is used to mean a game in which very different personality styles and very different strategic approaches can compete equally. So a game is balanced if offensive strikes and more defensive approaches can both seem like a good idea. Or if introverts and extroverts can play against one another, using their different strengths. Balance, more than any other feature, is what makes a classic game.
What do the players focus on, at each stage of the game? Do competitive or race condition tasks take players focus off of each other, and is that desired? Does a difficult task take focus off how a player is being perceived? If there are moments of conviviality, how does focus come to be on the group feeling?
Is there a rhythm to the engagement of the game? Does it give people time to breathe, to appreciate their accomplishments, to plan? Are there quiet moments, or moments of sub-group intimacy / knowing eye contact / etc?
At what level are players able to contribute something of their own? Do they invent their own strategy? Is there a performative quality they can bring? Are their creative tasks? Does a player have room to really invent or are they pressured to optimize? Is their contribution actually of consequence or is it merely a gloss?
Redesign notes: