Framework: Pieces and Sets / Method and Theory 

As a caveat, this page is probably going to be very important as I try to make this thing grow, but it's a little mish mashed at the moment, and really not ready to be read. I think it's interesting and accessible, but the arrangement of it is going to get massively reordered and redrawn in the future, and some of those reorganizations are likely present in it now, so it might also be a bit disorienting.

This framework has four parts, or two pairs. The first pair is called "Game Pieces and Sets." The second pair is called "Method and Theory."

Calvinball Variations has only one pre-existing rule: you have to use your body in some way. Otherwise, there aren't any rules other than the ones those that get invented, which is the point. It's a rule creation game. This sounds neat, but I think it's hard to picture how such a thing looks when played. Taken to its logical conclusion, a true rule creation game couldn't actually exist, not for humans anyway, not outside of our imaginations. Gravity and words and even the idea of rules, even the idea of invention, would have to be invented. So, we don't start at zero. We assume a few things, guess at others, mix some more, and steal the rest. 

Making this little art project work has required a lot of theft, but that's the easy part. Understanding and applying something appropriated takes a bit more work, which happens in the moment and through trial and error, but also, I think I've stumbled across a framework for this work, so that we don't have to start from zero every time we try to use something we've stolen. 

This brings us to the first pair in the framework, of Sets and Pieces.

Some of these "pieces and sets" are just pieces: a balloon, a funny step, a map, a ball, a way of measuring 100 meters through pace count, a pen and paper, a random person in the park. Just a thing that I'll bring up along with a few ideas about how it could be used to make a game. Other "pieces and sets" that I bring are better thought of as whole sets. They're bigger systems taken from various genres of art or sport or philosophy, things like Improv Comedy or Exquisite Corpses or Kantian Ethics. These things have lots of little pieces and principles and practices in them, but they are more than just the sum of these pieces. These things include grand strategies and refined philosophies. We can take a few small pieces from different places, mix them, and then use our understanding of overall strategic pictures from these sets to refine those mixtures. Take the very simple game of "zip-zap-zop" from Improv as a piece we toss out there, and then mix it with wind sprints. This sounds a bit tough, but can get softened and tweaked and adapted, and see what else in the Improv set we can use to walk it in. Alternatively, we can put two very different sets next to each other, and see how various pieces within them interact. Or just jam some some random piece into a random set to see what happens and then refine it. 

So, this is the first purpose of these "pieces and sets", and the web pages that follow. They are a collection to help us develop, explain, and share different ideas for how to play game creation games. They're the methods. 

The second pair is Theory and Method.

There is a second purpose to all that I've written about this, which to explore some of the deeper philosophical underpinnings of this silly idea of mine. This is the theory. I hope you enjoy the funny ponderings and manifestos that accompany some of these pages. Rule creation games aren't by necessity philosophical, but they do seem to go that way. Answering deeply open-ended questions can force quite a lot of extra "why" along the way, but digging through a few extra "whys" should make wading through layers of "how" not only easier, but more playful and creative. Theory enlivens method. I'd encourage you to think a bit about these little philosophies but not take them too seriously. Philosophy, like math, is in the same breath very real and very imaginary, not necessarily useful but often incredibly so. It strives for perfect consistency while absorbing irreconcilable paradox; encompasses everything while accepting it is only a small part of it all. Understandings are a useful part of life, but they're one part among many. Don't get too lost in them.

Otherwise, if you show up without having read any of these, you'll be fine. There won't be a test or anything like that. I'll be facilitating, which means I'll come to each day with plans for games and strategies for changing my plans, based on how well things work and what folk prefer. So you can read through these if you find them interesting, but otherwise just show up and be ready to run around and goof off for a bit. 

One bonus about reading them is that it should help you assume a facilitator or leadership role, as each game will have at least a few little moments for leadership to shuffle around. I'm curious about how far this could go, just how many ways there are to give meaningful control of the structure of a game to its participants. I'd like to have days where I remove myself completely from the role, and possibly eliminate the role altogether, and see what happens. But haven't gotten there yet.