Simulation game: Game of goose
If learning isn't made fun, it isn't working ... and so we humans, in our infinite wisdom, make it fun!
The oldest spiral Game of Life we know, Mehen, was reported found in Egyptian Old Kingdom graves dating as far back as 5000 BP. This form of game seems to have spread over Europe in the 16th century.
Spiral games of life seem to have in common that they have 63 (7 times 9) fields, obstacles and surprises are placed at 6, 19, 31, 42, 52 and 58, and the spiral goes inward counterclockwise, mirroring the possible dangers, coincidences, happy occasions, progress, hitches and certain death affecting human life (and businesses, teams, our contextually non fitting opinions, assumptions, belief systems, and worldviews, whole cultures, species, planets, stars, ... in short, systems ;-).
The rules of this Game of Goose version have been changed to get rid of limiting beliefs about our capacity to work together as a team. It is open source. If you wish to facilitate it in your local context, feel free. Related files to "steal from" can be downloaded below.
At the games first public run at a Dutch local Chamber of Commerce meeting, it was embedded in a 3 hour session wedged comfortably between a goal (re)writing exercise of by participants themselves brought goal statements and a hilarious video on human and team stuff. Later runs drew also from otherwise gathered data, like at US Consultants Camp in 2003, facilitating with PTPT, where a nature walk was used to gather noticeable keys.
This game is open source. Feel free to download and adopt/adapt/use. For boards you can contact toy companies Ravensburger, Selecta or Jumbo International. In the US the Jumbo International version is sold through Toys "R" Us.
Facilitator guide
This Game of Goose, an old obstacle board game, with its changed rules, is intended to create space for awareness of likely responses of a body (operational system) to given objectives and to strategic aim changes from the head (executive system). The rules have been adapted to serve collectives.
And by association this game prepares the way for Nextspectations, a tool for supporting systems that need (to learn) effective aiming and shooting in steering and anticipating ways -- Why Investigate System Responses?
Embedded process
This game must be embedded in something like an experiential learning cycle (download experiential learning flyer (pdf)), learning in which students do something - not just think about something. Minimally this cycle would be something like:
- Context setting: A short explanation on experiential learning and the game; request teams; provide board and rules. (ten minutes)
- Concrete experience: Playing the game (twenty minutes)
- Reflective observations: Asking the teams for what happened and their experiences (ten minutes)
- Generalizations about experiences: Tie-in with “real” world (ten minutes)
The objective given to teams clearly states the whole team needs to get to the end of the obstacle course. So far nearly no teams figured out playing with non-existing individual rules by themselves. Facilitators may perhaps need to introduce this notion as transforming idea with respect to game timing and team energy pressures. Around ten minutes in the game I use sentences like “You seem to be playing against rules in your head”.
Resources
- A room to play in, with enough tables and chairs
- Comfortable in light and temperature
- Feedback questions
- The Rules Of The Game one-pager
- Board of Goose per five players, with 5 pawns and two dice per board
- Sweets/candy
- Flipchart with enough flip chart paper and pens
- Enough playful minds
- One extremely playful multi-team facilitator
Rules game of goose
Purpose
The team conquering all obstacles and reaching the target field 63 exactly with all pawns, has won.
Resources & start condition
Every player receives a budget of 5 counters/sweets.
All pawns of a team are placed before field 1, for that is life's order.
General rules
The youngest team member may begin.
In clockwise turn the dice are thrown by the players. Players move a goose pawn as many fields on the game board as the total number on the dice.
A pawn may not be placed on a field already taken by another pawn.
Exceptional rules
If a player throws 5 and 4 in his or her first throw, a pawn may be moved to field 53 immediately.
If a first throw is 2 and 6, a pawn can be chosen to move to 26 immediately.
Operational rules
Number 6 is the Bridge leading to the target field faster: Payment of 5 sweets gets your pawn across and advances you to field 12. Without payment you are using a toll free bridge, the long raod. Pass over a turn for throwing the dice.
19 is the Inn. 5 counters must be paid for keep, or you collapse and need to recoup for two turns.
31 is the Well. This costs you all your counters and you’ll have to wait until someone comes to rescue you. And of course, if that happens your savior drops in the well while saving you.
42 is the Labyrinth. Pay 5 counters and go back to number 37.
52 is Prison. Wait until one of your accomplices frees you. Alas, your mate is apprehended whilst in the act of freeing you. He now goes to prison instead.
58 is Death. Start anew, at Number 1.
Suggested feedback questions
What were the key elements of the game for you?
Which parts came through very clearly for you?
Which parts were unclear?
What did you like, or not like, about the game?
Where did your team struggle most?
Where did you have breakthroughs and/or new insights?
Has the game been fun?
Did it meet your expectations? If so, how has it met your expectations?
How will you be applying what rule changes you made?
What follow up is likely to help you apply effectively what you have learned?
Who else, do you think, could benefit from playing this game too?
Why investigate system responses?
Humans and collectives thereof can be perceived to use one of four ways of dealing with aiming for and shooting at targets. Depending on what product is required of a system to solve a particular problem, we need to pick one of these aiming and shooting stances as agreed upon way of getting “somewhere” and we also need such awareness for each and every problem or obstacle we will meet underway.
Variable
We aim at a target, and when we miss, we missed. We then take aim again. We’re learning shooting.
This approach suits innovative projects where we are willing and aware of entering The Great Unknown. There seems to no other way for entering uncharted territory than by travelling it and charting it. When used for the wrong product type this stance results in a blaming culture. No one will dare take accountability for any of the problems. Not me!
Routine
We aim at a target and when we miss we investigate why our body missed hitting the target. We’re learning how to learn to shoot better.
This approach is suitable for consolidation and balancing. When doing this, the systems products are its processes. Examples are archiving systems. When used incongruently this stance results in placating. People will spend most of their energy and time on maintaining the system, and the system will come to a grinding halt in terms of learning how to deal with changes in its environment. Every attempt to change anything is done in a routine manner, even when not intended as such. Foreign elements get rejected, encapsulated or fought.
Steering
We aim at a target and when we miss we investigate why we aimed at something else because our body shot something else. We’re learning how to aim better.
With this approach to aiming and shooting we can best create systems on demand. When used improperly this stance can result in head (executive system) and body (operational system) going to war (love/hate) or existing in total misunderstanding (irrelevance) of each others pressures and their own. Lots of rumours and puzzles flying. People start solving apparent non-problems as if the world depends on it. Other people vote with their feet - now that is really useful for solving any “real” problems!
Anticipating
We imagine aiming at several likely targets, but do not really have to shoot the arrow each time. We can predict likely effects. We’re learning what to aim for.
This way of aiming and shooting is highly recommended for producing security and reliability products. When used for a non-fitting product this stance can result in super-reasonable behaviour of the system. The system looses endless energy and resources to maintaining a changing vision and may eventually drain all of its resources in no longer just seeking the essential vision, but in seeking the essential change in vision.
Having figured out what aiming and shooting stance we need to solve a particular problem, is only the beginning of solving a perceived problem. A required stance may not be the stance that we know (well) how to do. In fact, a stance may be uncharted territory in and off itself.
The first two stances seem widely known and practiced by many companies, even when products are chosen that would be better served with aiming and shooting stances mentioned in the third and fourth pattern. Many companies and individuals appear to get stuck in the second stance as some sort of addiction to balancing, in particular shying away from The Great Unknown.
Investigating likely system responses in an aware manner can reveal and predict system pressures that we may need to deal with on a journey of learning to take steering and anticipating stances.