First, we spent time going over a productive definition of games: "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." - Salen & Zimmerman 2004, p80

This definition is elaborated further here.

Further, it is important to create interesting constraints. We had an extended discussion of the meaning of "mechanic" as it relates to games. A few possible definitions follow:

• Reducing the description of your games to a few words
• Reducing what the player does in your game to a few words
• Describing what the player can get better at
• Describing what the player can potentially master in the game

Mechanic proved to be a complicated term but one that is in the process of adoption among game theorists.

Rafael described Zelda as a game of dexterity, solving puzzles, and making relationships.

Fluxx was played and we asked where the artificial conflict was. Here are some of my and others responses:

• Between players
• Between cards in the game (rules can conflict with goal)
• Internal to player
• Implicit rules conflicting with cultural assumptions (relates to previous point)

We also discussed axioms about assessing play experiences (full document available here). In addition to the two primary levels of difficulty for designers (is it fun for me; is it fun for someone else), there was some discussion around the question of fairness.

• What is fairness?
• When is a game balanced?
• What defines fair play (of players)?
• What defines fair game challenge?