Sidney Icarus
@sidneyicarus.bsky.social
Applied Game Designer - ARPIA Best Game Award Winner - Systems Design Consultant
That's why we name them "bubbles", after those things that stay around forever.
November 27, 2025 at 12:41 AM
That's why we name them "bubbles", after those things that stay around forever.
Really fucked me up. None of the criticism was stuff I didn't know. But it was stuff I wasn't testing and was explicit about. I'll get over it, but the only way to do that is to test again.
Just, y'know, Metatopia was meant to be a mountaintop experience, and now it just feels like Mean Girls
Just, y'know, Metatopia was meant to be a mountaintop experience, and now it just feels like Mean Girls
November 27, 2025 at 12:03 AM
Really fucked me up. None of the criticism was stuff I didn't know. But it was stuff I wasn't testing and was explicit about. I'll get over it, but the only way to do that is to test again.
Just, y'know, Metatopia was meant to be a mountaintop experience, and now it just feels like Mean Girls
Just, y'know, Metatopia was meant to be a mountaintop experience, and now it just feels like Mean Girls
Is this a common thing? Going to playtest cons and writing up your little list of nitpicks afterwards?
Personally, I would at least have asked the dev. But I've got empathy and c
A lil tact, so fuck me, I guess?
Personally, I would at least have asked the dev. But I've got empathy and c
A lil tact, so fuck me, I guess?
November 26, 2025 at 11:48 PM
Is this a common thing? Going to playtest cons and writing up your little list of nitpicks afterwards?
Personally, I would at least have asked the dev. But I've got empathy and c
A lil tact, so fuck me, I guess?
Personally, I would at least have asked the dev. But I've got empathy and c
A lil tact, so fuck me, I guess?
Thanks! I appreciate the correction.
November 24, 2025 at 11:44 PM
Thanks! I appreciate the correction.
Makes sense! Thanks!
November 24, 2025 at 11:28 PM
Makes sense! Thanks!
My reading of the title and the first chapter alone is a pretty explicit rejection that games can be productive. The Grasshopper does not (cannot!) play with any purpose. I don't have my copy with me rn but from memory the first chapter explicitly rejects that we could ever "play usefully"
to.be
November 24, 2025 at 11:15 PM
My reading of the title and the first chapter alone is a pretty explicit rejection that games can be productive. The Grasshopper does not (cannot!) play with any purpose. I don't have my copy with me rn but from memory the first chapter explicitly rejects that we could ever "play usefully"
I've supported work on Climate Science and citizen engagement through play. I can't help feeling unsatisfied by seeing people "play" "games" and then to have some Suitsian analysis say "but they're not really games and you're not really playing".
And worse, that response only because it's "useful"
And worse, that response only because it's "useful"
November 24, 2025 at 10:58 PM
I've supported work on Climate Science and citizen engagement through play. I can't help feeling unsatisfied by seeing people "play" "games" and then to have some Suitsian analysis say "but they're not really games and you're not really playing".
And worse, that response only because it's "useful"
And worse, that response only because it's "useful"
I cut my teeth in military air combat simulation, so there's always a question for me where play is (in the single act) a dogfight where we abide by rules and pretend to shoot each other, and (in the macro) a building block of a pilot's toolbox for warfighting.
But also...
But also...
November 24, 2025 at 10:58 PM
I cut my teeth in military air combat simulation, so there's always a question for me where play is (in the single act) a dogfight where we abide by rules and pretend to shoot each other, and (in the macro) a building block of a pilot's toolbox for warfighting.
But also...
But also...
I was particularly interested if you have any thoughts beyond the voluntary as an extension of Puppygirl (which I have in my Zotero for a DIGRA submission 😂)
November 24, 2025 at 10:42 PM
I was particularly interested if you have any thoughts beyond the voluntary as an extension of Puppygirl (which I have in my Zotero for a DIGRA submission 😂)
Thanks! On the list!
November 24, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Thanks! On the list!
(which feels like the eternal struggle between "game scholars" and "play scholars", which explodes exponentially when we add game practitioners and players to the conversation)
November 24, 2025 at 10:28 PM
(which feels like the eternal struggle between "game scholars" and "play scholars", which explodes exponentially when we add game practitioners and players to the conversation)
I've been falling back to the word "meaningful" too often, but this feels like one of those times. Sure, they're not the same (Suitsian) game, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful difference, worthy of the time needed to split those particular hairs.
I can understand its accuracy, but not its value.
I can understand its accuracy, but not its value.
November 24, 2025 at 10:28 PM
I've been falling back to the word "meaningful" too often, but this feels like one of those times. Sure, they're not the same (Suitsian) game, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful difference, worthy of the time needed to split those particular hairs.
I can understand its accuracy, but not its value.
I can understand its accuracy, but not its value.
Voluntarily inconveniencing myself implies wholly or at least mostly informed consent. I'm not sure that's a requirement to play.
November 24, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Voluntarily inconveniencing myself implies wholly or at least mostly informed consent. I'm not sure that's a requirement to play.
Thought of another example: if I let you teach me a game, and I agree to abide by the rules, but don't know what they are yet (during turns 2 and 3, I'm still learning details), am I playing a game? Can I "voluntarily" follow a rule I don't know?
Or Root. Different players have dif rules visibility
Or Root. Different players have dif rules visibility
November 24, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Thought of another example: if I let you teach me a game, and I agree to abide by the rules, but don't know what they are yet (during turns 2 and 3, I'm still learning details), am I playing a game? Can I "voluntarily" follow a rule I don't know?
Or Root. Different players have dif rules visibility
Or Root. Different players have dif rules visibility
I don't think learning with a game is the most efficient way, is probably the only place I deviate. But I think that's a discussion about method, not a disagreement on the philosophy.
November 24, 2025 at 9:09 PM
I don't think learning with a game is the most efficient way, is probably the only place I deviate. But I think that's a discussion about method, not a disagreement on the philosophy.
So glad we made something like this. When are you making season 3, mate?
November 24, 2025 at 9:05 PM
So glad we made something like this. When are you making season 3, mate?
Oh I forgot about George. Good callout!
November 24, 2025 at 9:03 PM
Oh I forgot about George. Good callout!
This is the unsatisfying place (tm) though, where one simply says "being toxic instead of collaborating is no longer playing the game" where we declare one to be play and the other not to be play simply because they violate the definition (Suits has a good bit on cheats and trifflers that does this)
November 24, 2025 at 10:12 AM
This is the unsatisfying place (tm) though, where one simply says "being toxic instead of collaborating is no longer playing the game" where we declare one to be play and the other not to be play simply because they violate the definition (Suits has a good bit on cheats and trifflers that does this)
I also want to pin this because efficiency (violating ludic means) is one threat, but so is, like, non-playful inefficiency. Toxicity in multiplayer games is inefficient, but comes as a result of some purpose (League of Legends ELO, WoW Loot) overtaking the goal (beat this dungeon with a group)
November 24, 2025 at 10:08 AM
I also want to pin this because efficiency (violating ludic means) is one threat, but so is, like, non-playful inefficiency. Toxicity in multiplayer games is inefficient, but comes as a result of some purpose (League of Legends ELO, WoW Loot) overtaking the goal (beat this dungeon with a group)
There's research on this that suggests you're right! But then, why is chess chess when ELO exists?
Does Magnus Carlson not play chess?
Does Magnus Carlson not play chess?
November 24, 2025 at 10:03 AM
There's research on this that suggests you're right! But then, why is chess chess when ELO exists?
Does Magnus Carlson not play chess?
Does Magnus Carlson not play chess?
Two things: Firstly, I love being able to talk about Threat and Snooze and pretend we're serious. This book is a riot.
Secondly, I may be conflating flippant rules with flippant goals. The reason you can't save Snooze is flippant (can't step on the grass), but the (prelusory) goal can be less so.
Secondly, I may be conflating flippant rules with flippant goals. The reason you can't save Snooze is flippant (can't step on the grass), but the (prelusory) goal can be less so.
November 24, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Two things: Firstly, I love being able to talk about Threat and Snooze and pretend we're serious. This book is a riot.
Secondly, I may be conflating flippant rules with flippant goals. The reason you can't save Snooze is flippant (can't step on the grass), but the (prelusory) goal can be less so.
Secondly, I may be conflating flippant rules with flippant goals. The reason you can't save Snooze is flippant (can't step on the grass), but the (prelusory) goal can be less so.
I really like that, "for a variety of reasons", but doesn't Suits say, explicitly that if there is a "good" reason to accept a limitation (in his example, not killing Dr Threat to save the life of Prof Snooze) it isn't a game, because games imply some voluntary pointlessness ("it doesn't count")
November 24, 2025 at 9:57 AM
I really like that, "for a variety of reasons", but doesn't Suits say, explicitly that if there is a "good" reason to accept a limitation (in his example, not killing Dr Threat to save the life of Prof Snooze) it isn't a game, because games imply some voluntary pointlessness ("it doesn't count")
All in progress. Still gathering. Still need to read a bunch of other thinkers who are more accepting of "play for purpose" as a valued function of games, rather than, y'know, Suits' eponymous rejection of play achieving anything by voicing through Aesop's Grasshopper (who cannot have purpose)
November 24, 2025 at 9:45 AM
All in progress. Still gathering. Still need to read a bunch of other thinkers who are more accepting of "play for purpose" as a valued function of games, rather than, y'know, Suits' eponymous rejection of play achieving anything by voicing through Aesop's Grasshopper (who cannot have purpose)
Which provides me a defence against say, Rousseau-ian social contract reading that "nothing in society can be playful, because social contracts depend on coercion and thus aren't voluntary" (or even concepts like "fudging dice breaks constitutive rules and thus DMs aren't playing a game").
November 24, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Which provides me a defence against say, Rousseau-ian social contract reading that "nothing in society can be playful, because social contracts depend on coercion and thus aren't voluntary" (or even concepts like "fudging dice breaks constitutive rules and thus DMs aren't playing a game").