An analogy between a board game and forum
theatre to increase the reflective approach upon
design processes
Ligia Estera Oprea
Malmö University
Malmö, Sweden
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Complete me is a board game about drawing,
environment exploration and appropriation of
everyday objects. Since the game revolves around
two roles, Critic and Artist, in this paper I will talk
about the similarities of these roles with the ones
from improvisational theatre and the act of
performance. The aim is to emphasize the
connection between art and play and strengthen
the social aspects of performance in games. Also,
to encourage the reflective approach upon design
process using analogy between interdisciplinary
fields.
One player is the Critic who chooses randomly a
card with a topic that the rest of the players, the
Artists will draw by using objects to complete
their drawings (Figure 2). The Critic blindfolded
the entire game, in the end judges the drawings
and declares the winner of the round.
Author Keywords
Interaction design; performance; appropriation;
MDA; magic circle; social interaction.
INTRODUCTION
Concept
Complete me is a party game for 4 – 6 players, a
drawing game about appropriation allowing the
players to satisfy their curiosity by snooping
around people’s homes. The game has 144
drawing cards, 1 blindfold, 6 white boards, 6 dry
pens, 6 erasers, 32 tokens for keeping up the score
(Figure 1). Plus, the companion app available for
Android in Google play, that allows the players to
set up a timer and search in the same time
inspiration on google images by scanning the QR
codes from the drawing cards.
Figure 1. The game props: the box, the tokens, the
whiteboard with the pen, the drawing cards
Figure 2. Example of appropriation, drawing from the
3rd lo-fi prototype playtesting
Meanwhile, the Artists search around the house or
in the space they situate themselves for one object
to complete the drawing topic. Although the main
mechanic (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004) is
to draw and make use of the environment, there
are no special skills required to play this game,
because the focus is not on drawing but on
appropriation (Sicart, 2014).
Appropriation
According to Miguel Sicart, appropriation is one
of the core attributes of play and strongly
connected with playfulness. Therefore, to
appropriate a context presumes that it was not
created or intended for play (Sicart, 2014). Every
object that it is used in a different way than the one
it was created for, it is appropriated. For example,
using a pencil to make a hair bun instead of a hair
clip. “Appropriation in art is the use of preexisting objects or images with little or no
transformation applied to them” (Chilvers,
Glaves-Smith, & Chilvers, 2009).
So, using the everyday objects in their original
form and not changing them, adds an extra
challenge to the game. The players are constrained
to see the object as a whole and reinterpret it.
Improvisation
Improvisation is a form of live theatre in which the
plot, characters and dialogue of a game, scene or
story are made up in the moment ("What is
Improv? « Austin Improv Comedy Shows,
Classes – The Hideout Theatre", n.d.) It is most
known from the stand-up comedy shows, although
improvisation has been present in many areas, like
classical theatre, forum theatre – the theatre of the
oppressed and of course, LARPs. Every LARP,
live action role playing game is based on
improvisation no matter the genre (Jonsson,
Montola, Waern, & Ericsson, 2006). The
improvisation in Complete Me is about actions,
imagination, creativity, and reaction speed. The
artists need to draw based on a random topic but
first, they need to adapt to the space context. A
friend’s house or a relative’s, the chosen object
can be used from complex or simple perspectives.
Performance
The critic is blindfold so she cannot see the artists’
drawings, only in the end she can see the drawings
and critique according to her personal style
(Figure 3). Every action made in front of an
critique. The fact that the critic behavior becomes
more prominent at the beginning and in the end,
can also be a similarity. Because, during the game,
the emphasis is on the artists, on the actors in
forum theatre. Although, theatre of the oppressed
is about power, equilibrium, and democracy and
Complete me is about drawings, appropriation,
reinterpretation, and exploration, they are still
alike. The design process behind the board game
assured there is power balance between Artists
and Critic. Also, because it has more rounds and
at every round the critic changes, it allows
everyone to become at some point Critic and
Artist.
Magic circle
Performing a play, creating a piece of art, playing
a game is like stepping inside a magic circle where
special rules apply (Juul, 2009). The magic circle
is a phenomenon in which players decide to play
and by consent enter the special social and
psychological space of a game. By entering the
magic circle the artists are allowed, empowered to
snoop around, to search and explore the
environment especially when they are in a friend’s
house. Conform to social etiquette, certain
behavior is considerate inappropriate, but in the
magic circle it is allowed.
METHOD
The iterative design process, “test, analyze refine,
repeat” (Fullerton, Swain, Hoffman, & Isbister,
2008) started from a pitch game inspired by the
illustrator Cristoph Niemann’s work named
Sunday Sketches (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Critic blindfolded, waiting for the Artists to
finish their drawing
audience becomes a performance, either as a
Critic who judges the drawings or as an Artist who
performs with his piece of art in front of fellow
players (Schechner, 2013).
The analogy that I am going to make between
Complete me and performance is linked to
Augusto Boal’s theatre of the oppressed. In forum
theatre, the spectators are encouraged to
participate, becoming at some point actors in the
play, by a Joker. The Joker is the facilitator, the
one who instigates to discussion, to participation,
a mediator between actors and spectators (LEE,
2015). The Joker becomes the critic who
facilitates the game, by choosing the card at the
beginning of the game and in the end by giving
Figure 4. Sunday Sketches by Cristoph Niemann
After playing Pandemic and Cards against
humanity and analyzing their mechanics,
dynamics and aesthetics (Hunicke, LeBlanc, &
Zubek, 2004) and we decided for simple rules,
multiple rounds, timer. As for the aesthetics, we
wanted the players to enjoy regardless their
drawing skills level. Our testers confirmed later
that contrary to other drawing games, e.g.
Pictionary, they did not felt pressured to make
nice drawings. Although, few of them expressed
their desire to learn how to draw. Around 20
playtesting have been done during the design
process, and about 6 of them were done remotely.
The playtests done by ourselves on the site were
video recorded. For the remote playtesting,
without us as observers, we created a format
document requesting information about the host,
the numbers of players and their thoughts on the
Artist and Critic’s role.
The playtesting involved international students
and adults of different ages (Figure 5), sometimes
we asked them to play different versions of the
game so that the testers could compare themselves
and notice the differences, but mostly we played
different versions with random group of people
and make our own observations.
Figure 5. Playtesting the hi-fi prototype. Waiting with
curiosity the Critic decisions.
FINDINGS
The entire design process had a user centered
approach. The testers were the ones that
influenced the present concept, although further
testing is needed. The players expressed their
desire to keep the Critic blindfolded, because their
other senses, like hearing become enhanced. “hm,
I was just waiting but I was excited to see what
will come out”, one Critic said. “I could hear you
coloring”. As shown above in the performance
sub-section, the Critic is not an outsider, but he
takes part in the game, only that his control over
the game culminates with the end of the round.
The testers were the ones that guided us to take the
right decisions regarding the concept. Though, it
is not enough to listen to an opinion. In order to
adapt an improvement, it should be validated by a
larger number of people. And any feedback should
be carefully analyzed, because sometimes the
explanations behind a behavior are more complex.
When there is little chance to involve the end users
in the design process, it should be taken into
consideration the “the distance relationship”.
Remote
playtesting,
with
structured
documentation, offered us the chance to receive
more various and detailed feedback. As a
reflective activity, writing down their thoughts
and impressions about the game, after they
finished playing it, it gave space for a more
elaborate and analytical feedback.
DISCUSSION
Csikszentmihalyi
talks
about
autotelic
experiences when referring to an activity and says
that no future benefits are expected because the
reward is the doing itself (Kiili, 2006). People
enjoyed playing Complete me, even if in the
beginning were a bit skeptical about their drawing
skills. They realized that each Critic is subjective
and that leads to unexpected outcomes. People
described it as being “fun”, though we know from
Bogost that “fun” is overrated and sometimes
opposite to enjoyment (Bogost, 2016). Some
experiences are intriguing and questionable, like
“how come you always win?”. Barbara (Barbara,
2015), explains so well the valuable characteristic
of board games, which is bringing people
together. The players do not face screens, but they
face each other as they sit around a table or a
board. Interacting with tokens, with surfaces, the
tangible nature of the board game facilitates social
interaction. “Whenever people meet in dialogue
the outcome is somewhat unpredictable and
spontaneous (Clark, 1996). Acts are performed on
the spur of the moment, often unexpectedly. What
previously was private may therefore, in a
serendipitous interaction suddenly be needed for
joint actions” (Arvola, 2005).
CONCLUSSION
“To play means to do something that is neither
“serious” nor “real”. Yet play is nonetheless
important, for it demands risks and promises
rewards that may have consequences for our
everyday lives. We play to escape, to step out of
everyday experiences, if only for a moment, and
to observe a different set of rules. We play to
explore, to learn about ourselves and the world
around us. We can learn so much about a
community by studying the way that its members
play as we can by studying rituals“ (Bial & Brady,
2016). And this is what I would like to emphasize,
analyzing the design process with different lenses
– the lenses of art and performance, making
analogies between interdisciplinary fields as part
of a reflective stage in the design process can
bring new understandings over social interaction.
The relationships between players, between
actors, between the members of a community
while they mingle in the magic circle brings out
different roles: “from arch-enemy to team leader
to partner-in-crime” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003).
REFERENCES
1. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004).
MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and
Game
Research.
Retrieved
from
http://www.aaai.org
2. What is Improv? « Austin Improv Comedy Shows,
Classes – The Hideout Theatre. Hideout Theatre.
Retrieved
13
January
2017,
from
http://www.hideouttheatre.com/about/what-isimprov
3. Sicart, M. (2014). Play Matters (1st ed.).
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
4. Chilvers, I. & Glaves-Smith, J. (2009). A
Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art (1st
ed.). Oxford: OUP Oxford.
5. Jonsson, S., Montola, M., Waern, A., & Ericsson,
M. (2006). Prosopopeia. http://dl.acm.org/.
Retrieved 13 January 2017, from ACM.org.
6. LEE, Y. (2015). Theatre for the Less Oppressed
than I: Reconsidering Augusto Boal's Concept of
Spect-actor. /www.cambridge.org. Retrieved 13
January 2017, from Cambridge.org.
7. Juul, J. (2008). The magic circle and the puzzle
piece. Universität Potsdam.
8. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., Hoffman, S., & Isbister,
K. (2008). Game design workshop (2nd ed.).
Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.
9. Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an Experiential
Gaming Model. Human Technology: An
Interdisciplinary Journal On Humans In ICT
Environments,
2.
Retrieved
from
http://humantechnology.jyu.fi/articles/volume2/
2006/kiili.pdf
10. Bogost, I. (2016). Play anything (1st ed.). New
York: Basic Books.
11. Bial, H. & Brady, S. (2016). The performance
studies reader (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
12. Barbara, J. (2015). Measuring User Experience
in Multiplayer Board Games. Games And
Culture.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412015593419
13. Arvola, M. (2005). Shades of Use (1st ed.).
Institutionen för datavetenskap.
14. Schechner, R. (2013). What is Performance
Studies?, Rupkatha Journal, Volume V,
Number 2, Special Issue on Performance
Studies, page 2 – 11.
15. Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of
play (1st ed.). Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: The
MIT Press.