Kere Habba (16th Feb)
Time: 10 am to 12pm
Number of people: 16 (in two groups)
1) INTERVENTION:
This includes details about what you are trying to introduce any particular blog post (the first week can be your idea, the next a hypothetical situation, the next your proposal, the next your game idea. The intervention is *not* the play, it's merely the new factor you're introducing. (For example, an intervention in November would have been The Idea of The Commons in Modern Democracies.) It ideally should be the aspect you're working on in real time, at that stage of the process.
- Exploring the possibilities of outdoor spaces and how does it change/alter the experience.
- Walk-in players as opposed to invited/rsvp players.
- To test the accessibility of the game with people who have no specific background in gaming, board games etc.
- To tap into the local community and seek their interest in such an experiment.
- To understand the dynamics of an outdoor space between citizen groups, government and residents.
2) TESTING THE IDEA:
How does that intervention prove to be successful?
If it affects the final play, or contributes to it.
Briefly explain how you're testing a particular intervention - by having a conversation and soundboarding your ideas/by talking to a game designer. A test needn't be a trial. It could be a meeting, a game playing session, an automatic writing session etc.
- We started by testing for a 12 player version. Unfortunately, we could only have 8 players for this trial round.
- Initiating a conversation post the game play to ask their views, contextual relevance etc.
- We wanted to test the external factors that would affect the game play such as weather, wind, sunlight, shade, logistics required.
3) ASSUMPTIONS:
These are the mechanisms in place already/assumptions you're making for a test to occur. These are the variables you're taking into account - the collaborators, the circumstances, the volunteers, some common reading etc.
- The game board, design and the overall objective of bringing water to the board works as the core idea.
- The fact that the rules are pretty simple and easy to get a hang of the game for a first time player.
- A team of four is what we need in the trial rounds- production manager, co-facilitator, facilitator and videography/photography.
- The game will run for about 30-45 minutes minimum.
- That we will have a more concentrated, disciplined space but whereas it was quite scattered, as there were other stalls nearby with other activities.
4) MAIN OUTCOMES: AN OUTLINE:
This includes *what you anticipate/hope* for the larger whole using that intervention
AND
what *actually happened* at the end of your reflections post your test.
The last aspect incorporates your thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, wants and needs.
Facts (current and historical) will make their way into assumption and testing the theory.
- We anticipated that we may not have enough people interested in it but we landed up having 16 people, across two groups.
- We hoped to have more neighborhood specific conversations but instead we had people talking more about the game itself and conversations remained very superficial.
- We hoped to have some active citizen pressure group members but the ones we invited did not turn up (could also be that they might be asked questions which they may not want to answer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIHS (17th Feb)
Time: 6 Pm to 8.30 pm (including feedback)
Number of people: 12 players and about 5-6 observers.
1) INTERVENTION:
This includes details about what you are trying to introduce any particular blog post (the first week can be your idea, the next a hypothetical situation, the next your proposal, the next your game idea. The intervention is *not* the play, it's merely the new factor you're introducing. (For example, an intervention in November would have been The Idea of The Commons in Modern Democracies.) It ideally should be the aspect you're working on in real time, at that stage of the process.
- Exploring the possibilities of creating a more formal, theatrical space by using four sided seating.
- The players will have to get up and play as opposed to becoming a purely inward, tabletop exercise.
- To understand the design possibilities with indoor spaces.
2) TESTING THE IDEA:
How does that intervention prove to be successful?
If it affects the final play, or contributes to it.
Briefly explain how you're testing a particular intervention - by having a conversation and soundboarding your ideas/by talking to a game designer. A test needn't be a trial. It could be a meeting, a game playing session, an automatic writing session etc.
- Since we had more than 12 sign ups, we wanted to test the idea of viewer/spectator.
- Testing the game with academics, scholars working on urban policy making.
- Testing the narrative being embedded into the game play itself and different story conditions triggered at different points during the game.
- Keeping a scoreboard to act as a reminder, generate excitement.
- To have specific player objectives outlined for each player.
3) ASSUMPTIONS:
These are the mechanisms in place already/assumptions you're making for a test to occur. These are the variables you're taking into account - the collaborators, the circumstances, the volunteers, some common reading etc.
- Considering the players were from a research background, we wanted to add multiple constraints and expected it to work, as they have a context to gaming and the theme.
- The game will run for about 45 minutes minimum with 12 players.
4) MAIN OUTCOMES: AN OUTLINE:
This includes *what you anticipate/hope* for the larger whole using that intervention
AND
what *actually happened* at the end of your reflections post your test.
The last aspect incorporates your thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, wants and needs.
Facts (current and historical) will make their way into assumption and testing the theory.
- We anticipated that people would get onto the game really quick but there were many hiccups. Especially for them to follow the rules.
Overall, it was an enriching experience to play it indoors in a big sized room as that allowed us to see the piece as a performance piece, as opposed to just a tabletop game.
Some of the questions that came up during the feedback:
- What is the objective of the green cover?
- Can players be allowed to trade cards?
- Can we have characters assigned to players instead of just calling them players?
- Should time constraint be introduced to the game?
IFA (21st Feb)
Time: 4.30 pm to 6 pm (including feedback)
Number of people: 12 players and about 4-5 observers.
1) INTERVENTION:
This includes details about what you are trying to introduce any particular blog post (the first week can be your idea, the next a hypothetical situation, the next your proposal, the next your game idea. The intervention is *not* the play, it's merely the new factor you're introducing. (For example, an intervention in November would have been The Idea of The Commons in Modern Democracies.) It ideally should be the aspect you're working on in real time, at that stage of the process.
- To understand the idea of story triggers/situations during the course of the game.
- To understand ways in which local context can be set in the game using material from the existing archives
- To see how the stories would read if players read it out.
2) TESTING THE IDEA:
How does that intervention prove to be successful?
If it affects the final play, or contributes to it.
Briefly explain how you're testing a particular intervention - by having a conversation and soundboarding your ideas/by talking to a game designer. A test needn't be a trial. It could be a meeting, a game playing session, an automatic writing session etc.
- Exploring the possibilities of more story conditions based on how the board changes and also working with a new card balance, where there are no water cards in the initial hand of the players.
- Reaffirming the same story conditions along with new ones that we did at IIHS.
- To test the time duration of the game with 12 players.
- Keeping a scoreboard to act as a reminder, generate excitement.
- To remove player objectives that we used in IIHS.
- To test the safe space rule.
- To test the audience sharing a story of neighborhood participation.
3) ASSUMPTIONS:
These are the mechanisms in place already/assumptions you're making for a test to occur. These are the variables you're taking into account - the collaborators, the circumstances, the volunteers, some common reading etc.
- That the game would need a minimum of 45 mins to play to reach victory condition.
- That keeping a track of the water card on the scoreboard is a useful method to keep the tension alive.
- The game can run faster with 12 players.
- The players would have a fair context of the stories of the lakes in Bangalore.
- The rules are simple enough to get onto the game.
- That one of the audience members would share a story about neighborhood engagement, participation.
- To have rules for exchange of cards which would not lead to random exchange of cards.
4) MAIN OUTCOMES: AN OUTLINE:
This includes *what you anticipate/hope* for the larger whole using that intervention
AND
what *actually happened* at the end of your reflections post your test.
The last aspect incorporates your thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, wants and needs.
Facts (current and historical) will make their way into assumption and testing the theory.
- We anticipated that there might be many individual victory conditions but no one did.
- We hoped that the rules would be easy to follow but some needed guidance even 20 minutes into the game.
- We expected more feedback on the content but we had a lot of feedback centred on the game itself.
Overall, it is always good to test your project with the funders :-) :-)
Some of the questions that came up during the feedback:
- Can the player assume different roles?
- Can the players receive incentive upon registering individual victory conditions?
- What about ecological imbalance due to too much water?
- Can the board after each round be projected to show variations and comparisons on the board from one round to another?
- Can there be more irredeemable variations added to the game like that of the polluted water?
Shiv Nadar University (27th Feb)
Time: 6.00 pm to 7.30 pm (including feedback)
Number of people: 12 players and about 4-5 observers.
1) INTERVENTION:
This includes details about what you are trying to introduce any particular blog post (the first week can be your idea, the next a hypothetical situation, the next your proposal, the next your game idea. The intervention is *not* the play, it's merely the new factor you're introducing. (For example, an intervention in November would have been The Idea of The Commons in Modern Democracies.) It ideally should be the aspect you're working on in real time, at that stage of the process.
- To understand the idea of story triggers/situations during the course of the game.
- To understand ways in which local context can be set in the game using material from the existing archives
- To see how the stories would read if players read it out.
2) TESTING THE IDEA:
How does that intervention prove to be successful?
If it affects the final play, or contributes to it.
Briefly explain how you're testing a particular intervention - by having a conversation and soundboarding your ideas/by talking to a game designer. A test needn't be a trial. It could be a meeting, a game playing session, an automatic writing session etc.
- Exploring the possibilities of a board layout that is more scattered rather than linear which was the case in the previous trials.
- To test the game with players being aware of the individual win conditions from the beginning of the game.
- Exploring the possibilities of players receiving an incentive (ability to build something of their choice on the board) upon achieving the individual win condition.
- To test the content with a demography in an university outside Bangalore.
- To test the game with an additional penalty in case a player wanted to skip a turn.
3) ASSUMPTIONS:
These are the mechanisms in place already/assumptions you're making for a test to occur. These are the variables you're taking into account - the collaborators, the circumstances, the volunteers, some common reading etc.
- That the game would need a minimum of 45 mins to play to reach victory condition.
- That keeping a track of the water card on the scoreboard is a useful method to keep the tension alive.
- That revealing individual victory conditions of the game at the beginning will increase enthusiasm during the course of the game.
- The players would have a fair context of the struggles around the concept of Urban Commons as the game was held after a day long conference titled (un)doing the commons..
- The rules are simple enough to get onto the game.
- To have rules for skipping a turn and penalty conditions for the same.
- That one of the audience members would want to skip a turn and will reconsider their decision once penalty for the action is introduced.
- To have rules to achieve additional power to build something on the board once individual victory conditions are met.
4) MAIN OUTCOMES: AN OUTLINE:
This includes *what you anticipate/hope* for the larger whole using that intervention
AND
what *actually happened* at the end of your reflections post your test.
The last aspect incorporates your thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, wants and needs.
Facts (current and historical) will make their way into assumption and testing the theory.
- We hoped that the rules would be easy to follow but some needed guidance even 20 minutes into the game.
- We anticipated that achieving the collective win of getting 16 water cards would not be achieved as the individual win conditions were revealed at the beginning. But the collective victory condition was achieved at the end of 60 minutes.
- We hoped that there would be more questions around Bangalore’s lakes but they were rare.
Overall it was a good experience to play the game with researchers and academicians who have been toiling hard in the area of urban commons.
Some of the questions that came up during the feedback:
- Can there be more categories in the category of cards - eg: when one says water, it could mean any water. But the way someone looks at water changes when the vocabulary used is lake/ river/ ocean, etc. Similarly for the other categories on the board.
- Can there be more uncertain triggers/ risks at different junctures of the game like the polluted water cards when there are more than seven industries on the board?
- Can we tweak the conditions and criteria for incentives (building things) once a player reaches an individual victory condition?
- On the content/ stories - is the background of mythology necessary and will it work in different spaces?
Buguri Library (10th March)
Time: 4:30pm to 6:00pm
Number of people: 10 (age group 8-12)
1) INTERVENTION:
This includes details about what you are trying to introduce any particular blog post (the first week can be your idea, the next a hypothetical situation, the next your proposal, the next your game idea. The intervention is *not* the play, it's merely the new factor you're introducing. (For example, an intervention in November would have been The Idea of The Commons in Modern Democracies.) It ideally should be the aspect you're working on in real time, at that stage of the process.
- Exploring the possibilities of diversity in age group and how does it change/alter the experience.
- To test the accessibility of the game with people who have no specific background in gaming, board games etc.
- To tap into the local community and seek their interest in such an experiment.
- To test the new balance of the cards on the board.
2) TESTING THE IDEA:
How does that intervention prove to be successful?
If it affects the final play, or contributes to it.
Briefly explain how you're testing a particular intervention - by having a conversation and soundboarding your ideas/by talking to a game designer. A test needn't be a trial. It could be a meeting, a game playing session, an automatic writing session etc.
- We wanted to test the new balance of the cards on the board.
- We also wanted to test the new board layout with children as most of the previous rounds were more or less homogenous groups - age wise.
- We wanted to test the game while engaging with children who come from vulnerable communities of the society.
- We wanted to test conducting the game and narration of the stories in Kannada.
3) ASSUMPTIONS:
These are the mechanisms in place already/assumptions you're making for a test to occur. These are the variables you're taking into account - the collaborators, the circumstances, the volunteers, some common reading etc.
- The game board, design and the overall objective of bringing water to the board works as the core idea.
- The fact that the rules are pretty simple and easy to get a hang of the game for a first time player.
- A team of four is what we need in the trial rounds- production manager, co-facilitator, facilitator and videography/photography.
- The game will run for about 30-45 minutes minimum.
4) MAIN OUTCOMES: AN OUTLINE:
This includes *what you anticipate/hope* for the larger whole using that intervention
AND
what *actually happened* at the end of your reflections post your test.
The last aspect incorporates your thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, wants and needs.
Facts (current and historical) will make their way into assumption and testing the theory.
- We anticipated that the children will take longer to understand the game rules. But instead the children picked it up fairly quickly. Though the rules of the game was followed precisely, we observed a that planning & strategy could not be adopted by the children.
- We hoped to have more neighborhood specific conversations. And children spoke about the scarcity of water in their community. They observed the need to save water.
- We hoped that the children will be more interested in the stories. They were and they remembered few bits from the introduction story towards the end of the game during the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Project is supported by India Foundation for the Arts under the Project 560 programme.