Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

According to Caillois (1961, p 5), play and games do not include material
interest or profits: “Property is exchanged, but no goods are produced. This
exchange affects only the players.” He excludes the professionals who earn
their living by playing by considering them as workers instead of players.
As I see it, this is not self-evident in all games; for instance, if you think
about gambling, which is inherent in many games, a great part of the tension
comes from the exchange of profits or material artefacts. Based on my
own experiences playing many sort of games, I would say that, whereas
there are different reasons for playing, depending on the particular game
and the player, the tension, whether it comes from competition, surprise,
learning, or some other means, is often a bigger driving force than any possible
material gain.
Caillois (ibid. pp 9–10) builds on Huizinga’s work but proposes an
alternative way of organizing the main play-qualities: according to him,
play is free, separate, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, and makebelieve.
The important contribution by Caillois, in terms of design games,
is his classification of games into four categories depending on which the
most dominant characteristic is (ibid. p 12) competition (agôn), chance
(alea), simulation (mimicry), or vertigo (ilinx). Thus, whereas Huizinga
(1950) proposed two main functions for play, contest and display, Caillois
(1961) identified four main functions from which simulation, or in other
words mimicry, is perhaps closest to most of the design games. The four
classes of games differ fundamentally in terms of the driving force but they
all share some play-qualities, hence belonging to a play category (ibid.).
From the co-design perspective, there are some characteristics of
play, games and performance, as they were described above, that could
describe design games as well: they are bounded with regard to time and
space, they proceed according to explicit rules, are typically intensive
and they utilize the magic circle of play, the make-believe. All of these
play-qualities together create a special play spirit (Figure 25). These qualities
are further elaborated in the next sections, where I broaden the view
from language to bodily engagement by looking at co-design gatherings
through the lens of performance.
The way play and games are described above show them as structures
with particular play-qualities and rules for action. Moreover, they focus on
characteristics that create a special play spirit. I already discussed some of
the play-qualities in relation to performances, however, in this section I
will extend this view by considering co-design gatherings as performances.
I will utilise the performance theory, as outlined by Schechner, to widen
the perspective into the unfolding of performance process. Schechner
builds on, among others, Johan Huizinga (1950) and Roger Caillois (1961),
underlying the notions of play and games, but shifting the focus on performance
process as it emerges in theatrical performances but also in rituals
3.2.3
Co–design
gatherings
as
performance
120