The uidity of the magic circle: using playful interventions in the design process

Richard Tempest Wood

HighWire, Lancaster University Lancaster, England +44 (0) 1524 510515 rich.t.wood@gmail.com

Paul Coulton, Leon Cruickshank

Lancaster University Lancaster, England +44 (0) 1524 510515 p.coulton@lancaster.ac.uk, l.cruickshank@lancaster.ac.uk ABSTRACT The use of games as part of the design process has been extensively explored in much of the current design research literature (Brandt, 2004, 2006, 2008)(Habraken and Gross, 1988)(Johansson and Linde, 2005). However, to date, the research focuses primarily on three key aspects, collaboration, theory and method of games with intended outcomes. Academic research for games and more generally play within a creative and collaborative context is wide and varied. This is evident from management theory (Schrage, 2000)(Roos, 2006), through computing (Prensky, 2000) and into design (Brandt, 2004)(Johansson, 2005)(Lockton, 2008). Nonetheless, research into other potential contexts within which play can be applied is limited. This paper examines the effects of using playful interventions within the design and creative processes by using the exploration of the boundaries of the magic circle within a game-like activity as a means to assert new and creative outcomes. Through the use of previous design-games1 research, the refocusing of the play elements within the process as well as borrowing heavily from the games design research this paper aims to establish and manipulate context within the design eld through the use of play. When Johan Huizinga wrote his book Homo Ludens about the play-element of culture (Huizinga, 1938), he introduced the concept of a magic circle within which play is undertaken. Inside this circle the player is protected from the rules, laws and dangers of the outside world. It is a sphere within which the rules are often unspoken, and in which the liberty of play is preserved. In Caillois view (a particularly negative outlook on the clash between culture and instinct) this circle protects social integrity from the instinctual intensity of play (Caillois, 1958)(Rodriguez, 2006). The more commonly accepted interpretations of Huizingas work, assert that outside the circle implies seriousness (Caillois, 1958)(Salen and Zimmerman, 2004), separating both play and playfulness from benecial undertakings such as social good. There is now however a growing opinion from within the communities of games designers and play theorists that highlights this separatist view of play and seriousness as a misinterpretation of Huizingas original writings. Where once no material prot was seen to be derived from play (Huizinga, 1938)(Caillois, 1958) (Brown, 2009), we are now observing a blurring of the boundaries of the magic circle and real life (Rodriguez, 2006)(Woodford, 2008) potentially enabling the direction and creation of benecial and productive outcomes. This shift in academic focus, particularly in the games research community, towards a weak-boundary hypothesis (Pargman and Jakobsson, 2008) is paving the way for a redenition of the magic circle as a exible lter that permits cultural, social and economic trafc to ow from everyday life to the play world and back (Harambam et al. 2011). A line of thought that would allow that which is outside the magic circle to inuence, inform and contextualise that which is within.
1. Where a design-game is a term used to describe games used as part of a process of exploring new ideas within general design practice Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.

Pargman and Jakobsson (2009) opine that play in itself forms part of normal life with no need for this separatist view. Copier (2005) argues (inline with many of her contemporaries) that the space of play is not a given space but is being constructed in negotiation between player(s) and the producer(s) of the game but also among players themselves. Further scholars still call in to question the formalist view and very existence of the magic circle (Consalvo, 2009)(Fine, 1983)2. Consalvo states that from a structural, formalist perspective, in the World of Warcraft (WoW) Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG), when a user breaches the conditions of game play set out by the games designer, they have also perforated the perceived magic circle. However, that gamer may still be actively involved in the play state. By focusing not only on the magic circle and the rules governing it within the game, but on the context of a players actions, we can discern a great deal more about the meaning-making process and what it means to be a player (Consalvo, 2009). Forming part of the basis of Consalvos argument against the existence of the magic circle, Fine (1983) adapts the work of Goffman (1974) in relation to Frames and Keys. The proposition being, that daily life is being governed by a series of frames that both organise activity and structure the individuals experiences. The addition of sets of keyings then allows us to determine what we really think is going on (Goffman 1974) by allowing us to differentiate between, amongst other things; make-believe, play, rehearsals, simulations and practicing (Consalvo, 2009). As such, Goffmans original research can be viewed as another structuralist formalisation of games and play semantically swapping inside and outside the circle for keys and frames. Where Fine deviates from this rigidity and where Consalvo aligns herself (and fantasy gaming) is that he introduces three frames that are in operation: ...the world of common sense knowledge grounded in ones primary framework [a set of real-life understandings that the player has brought with them into the game], the world of game rules grounded in the game structure, and the knowledge of the fantasy world... (Fine , 1983). Further still, Fine (1983) sees the keys as a transitional vehicle between different frame states as opposed to the variant versions of individual frames coined by Goffman. Here then, Consalvo (2009) is opposed to the static and overly formalist implications of using the magic circle as a way of understanding games and play. She states that the uid and graceful nature of the transition between frames can be limited by this Huizingian approach, which does not allow for the obvious transcendence of life-to-game and game-to-life experiences and knowledge. This then is in stark contrast to Juuls (2008) interpretation of the magic circle. Here, Juul examines the magic circle as a means to describe the boundary at which these rules and norms of game-playing are activated (Juul, 2008). In Juuls view, games are not only governed by the rules presented to the players, they are also regulated by social and cultural conventions. Juul explains his position through example: ...if at a family dinner, person A sees person B reaching for the salt, it is extremely rude for A to snatch that salt away or in any way to block B from accessing the salt. However, if A and B are to play a game of Parcheesi or Ludo later in the evening, and A has the option of capturing Bs nal piece, this is socially acceptable. In other words, during dinner it is socially problematic to prevent someone from reaching their personal goal, but it is socially acceptable when playing a game. (Juul, 2008) Here then, the magic circle is not a segregation between real-life and play, it is merely a descriptor of the differences between the two. It is an imperfect separation that players negotiate and uphold (Juul, 2008). A type of play meta-data enabling the player(s) to understand the context within which they are existing. This is a concept previously explored by Richard Gareld (2000), where he explored how games interface with life and what players may bring to and take from game playing. This, he describes as metagames (Gareld, 2000). The negotiable boundaries put forward by Juul (2008) become an important part of the play process itself, allowing the player(s) to adapt and understand the context within which they are playing. Juul (2008) believes that it is perhaps best to reframe how we view the magic circle. Instead of the rigidity of the bounded circle Juul believes that viewing games as puzzle pieces is a much more effective way of
2. It should be noted here that although Fine does not actually voice his juxtaposition to the magic circle, it is easy to draw this conclusion from his work. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.

viewing the real-life to game relationship. Puzzle pieces can only t when certain aspects align and a game may not t within an appropriate context at that moment in time. Although among the play-theorists, ludologist, game-designers and philosophers, there is little unanimous agreement about all things magic circle; there seems to be a common thread of contextual importance. In the case of MMORPGs, players that cheat in terms of the rules of a particular game often offer the context of their actions by way of mitigation (Consalvo, 2009). Where players were bound by social constraints, it was the context and timing of their situation that governed the appropriateness of their actions (Juul, 2008). In most cases, there is an underlying consensus that the idea of a dichotomy between real-life and play-space is inaccurate, outdated for the digital world, or that it has been a misinterpretation from the outset. A further common thread that runs through much of the magic circle research is the need for uidity in the boundaries of the magic circle. Be that through a weak-boundary hypothesis (Pargman and Jakobsson, 2008), the magic circle taking on the role of puzzle pieces (Juul, 2008), or the use of frames and key (Goffman 1974)(Fine 1983)(Consalvo, 2009). In juxtaposition to Huizinga (1938) and Caillois (1958) where they both stated that before play can commence a set of understood rules and boundaries must be established, Rodriguez (2006) examines the possibilities of creating a game-like structure without a dened start point, rules or boundaries. Placing the onus of establishing and negotiating the magic circle on the players through their responses and decisions. Rodriguez opines that this has the potential to create new forms of creative association and communities that eventuate in a new subject or aim of the game. The blurring of the boundaries between real-life and the magic circle can often be used to heighten a sense of trust or suspicion. Here then, the game designer has the ability to control the players sense of reality between the two states. This approach also calls in to question aspects such as who is the player? and have the participants in the game become mere toys for the game designer? By forcing the player to question where the edge of the boundaries lie, we entice them into a state of paranoid gaming. Here, the existence of the magic circle becomes core to the game. It allows for reection on the relationship between the player and their play space as the player is forced to search for the context in which they are playing (Rodriguez, 2006). Where design begins to introduce games as part of a process is currently at the conceptual, ideation and iteration phases. Here games are often used as a means to allow participants equal voice within a considered project as a means to substantiate different participants viewpoints or as a means for the participants to better understand their target audience (Holmlid et al., 2007)(Brandt et al., 2008 )(Cantoni et al., 2009). This however limits the possibility of playful interactions between participants in the initial phases of the project, the context being conception, ideation or iteration. This then is where we can begin to change and evolve the context in which those participants are playing and at which point the end users become player-participants themselves. By allowing for uidity in the structure and boundaries of the magic circle we can use play outside of those more common areas. Allowing play to avoid the trivialisation of mere association with ideation and in turn allowing it to transcend the boundaries of what is playful and what is serious. Design-Games such as those explored by Brandt (2004), Johansson (2005) and Cantoni (2009) allow the participants to approach a design problem with an increased level of equality. Participation is increased and differing points of view are given a platform from which they can be expressed and considered within the design outcome. This approach facilitates a user-centered design approach, increases communication and ideation and can increase creative quantity (Brandt, 2004). These design-games however have their boundaries and rules preset by the game designer. Johansson (2005) argues that by creating a framework for collaboration, the potential for playfulness, experimentation and new design ideas is dramatically increased. Equally, Brown (2009) states that play can often lead to collaborative participation. By reversing this previously examined design-game relationship of collaboration and playfulness, we can further explore the potential of unbounded forms of creative association across a wider breadth of the creative process. In this paper we describe the effect of removing and/or playfully adjusting the boundaries of the perceived magic circle through the adjustment of context and the inclusion of choice elements within the design process from ideation through to distribution. Moving away from the design-games association between
Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.

design and gaming, other core elements of the creative process come in to focus. This paper explores two case studies in which play has been contextually adapted to include parts of the creative process not previously considered. The rst of which is Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/). Kickstarter is a creative project crowd-funding platform that aims to connect users with creative ideas with those that have a willingness to sponsor those projects (Kickstarter, 2011). Here, Kickstarter uses play as a means for individuals and groups to raise funds by competing for contributors attentions. Here then, the context of the play process has been manipulated to allow for material gain. The second case study this paper uses is that of the social route nding application Waze (http://waze.com). Waze uses crowd sourcing to determine road location data and trafc information (Waze, 2011). Waze uses a game layer over the data collection process changing the context of the process for both the users and the designers involved. Further to this, both organically formed and pre-selected communities have been used to examine the potential uidity of the respective roles of player and participant, the reective design process and the designers role within that process. Participant observation was used as part of a third case study during a live design process using playful interventions to determine if the user group would then lter that playfulness into further aspect of their lives. This was observed over both a non-adjusted and adjusted design process, preceded and followed by a series of informal interviews with each of the participants. The proposed method of this paper focuses less on the efciency and effectiveness (as highlighted by both Dorst (2008) and Rodriguez (2009)) of the design process and more within the levels of creative response and the effect on the formulated communities.

Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.

REFERENCES Brandt, E. & Messeter, J., 2004. Facilitating collaboration through design-games. Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - PDC 04, p.121. Brandt, E., 2006. Designing Exploratory Design-Games a framework for participation in participatory design ? Design, pp.57 - 66.
Brandt, E., Messeter, J., 2008. Facilitating Collaboration Through Design Games, paper, Toronto

Brandt, E., Messeter, J. & Binder, T., 2008. Formatting design dialogues - games and participation. CoDesign, 4(1), pp.51-64. Brown, S., 2009. Play. Avery, New York Cantoni, L., Botturi, L., Far, M., Bolchini, D., 2009. Playful Holistic Support to HCI Requirements using LEGO Bricks. In M. Kurosu (ed.), Human Centered Design, HCII 2009, LNCS 5619, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 844-853. Caillois, R., 1958. Man, play and games. University of Illinois Press, Chicago. Chaston, A. & Kingstone, A., 2004. Time estimation: the effect of cortically mediated attention. Brain and cognition, 55(2), pp.286-9. Consalvo, M., 2009. There is no magic circle. Games and Culture 4: pp. 408417. Copier, M., 2005. Connecting Worlds. Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic Circle, Changing Views Worlds in Play. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference Dorst, K., 2006. Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), pp.4-17. Dorst, K. & Royakkers, L., 2006. The design analogy: a model for moral problem solving. Design Studies, 27(6), pp.633-656. Dorst, K., 2008. Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29, pp.4-11. Fine, G. A., 1983. Shared fantasy: Role-playing games as social worlds. University of Chicago Press. Gareld, R., 2000. Metagames, in: Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Essays on Roleplaying, eb. by Jim Dietz, Charleston: Jolly Rogers Games, 14-21. Goffman, E., 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Habraken, N. & Gross, M., 1988. Concept design-games. Design Studies, 9(3), pp.150-158. Harambam, J., Aupers, S. and Houtman, D., 2011. Game over? Negotiating modern capitalism in virtual game worlds Holmlid, S., Evenson, S., 2007. Prototyping and Enacting Services: Lessons Learned from Human-Centered Methods, in Proceedings from the 10th Quality in Services conference, QUIS 10, Orlando. Huizinga, J., 1938. Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. The Beacon Press Boston. Johansson, M. & Linde, P., 2005. Playful collaborative exploration: New research practice in participatory design. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), pp.1-18. Johnston, A., Arnold, D.H. & Nishida, S., 2006. Spatially localized distortions of event time. Current biology : CB, 16(5), pp.472-9. Juul, J., 2008. The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece. In Stephan Gnzel, Michael Liebe and Dieter Mersch (eds.): Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press. Kane, P., 2004. The Play Ethic. Macillan, London Kickstarter, 2011. Kickstarter - About page. Available at: http://www.kickstarter.com Lockton, D., 2008. Design with intent: Persuasive technology in a wider context. Persuaisve Technology 5033, pp. 274-278. Pargman, D. and Jakobsson, P. 2008. Do you believe in magic? Computer games in everyday life. European Journal of Cultural Studies 11(2): 225243. Pomares, F.B. et al., 2010. How a clock can change your pain? The illusion of duration and pain perception. Pain, 152(1), pp.230-234. Prensky, M., 2000. Digital Game-Based Learning. McGraw Hill, USA
Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.

Rodriguez, H., 2006. The Playful and the Serious : An approximation to Huizinga s Homo Ludens. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 6(1). Ruskov, M. & Ruskov, P., 2006. Negotiation Design Pattern for Serious Games. Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of play, game design fundamentals, MIT Press. Schrage, M., 2000. Serious Play. Harvard Press. Sutton-Smith, B., 1997. The Ambiguity of Play.Harvard University Press, Boston. Walz, S.P., 2010. Toward a Ludic Architecture . The Space of Play and Games. Technology. Waze, 2011. Waze - About page. Available at: http://www.waze.com Woodford, D., 2008. Abandoning the Magic Circle. In dpwoodfordnet. University of Tampere, pp. 1-8.

Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play. 2011 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.