Revisiting the board game design independent study (#1360)

Topics/tags: Teaching

About a decade ago, after a summer of Board Game Night at the Rebelskys’, some students convinced me to run an independent study [1] about board game design. Or was it one student who convinced me to do the independent, and then we did a follow-on with multiple students? I can’t recall. What I do recall is that the student designed a great game about time travel that was a bit fidgety, but a lot of fun. One reason I think that we had two semesters is that I recall doing a weekly discussion of a new board game feature each week in one semester and a weekly let’s design a board game in the other. Perhaps it was both, combined. Unfortunately, I didn’t put independent studies in my list of courses taught [2]. Are they in my CV? Yes, they are! [3] The guided reading on game mechanisms was in the spring of 2013, and the follow-up board-game design was in the fall.

In any case, this summer of BGNatR made me consider whether I’d want to revisit some kind of independent on board game design. It’s not my primary area of expertise, but design, writ broadly, is certainly an aspect of computer science (also art, theatre, and more). I’ve even taught human-computer interaction since the last time I ran the independent.

Since I’m on sabbatical this year, it’s both a good year and a bad one for an independent study. Good, in the sense that I’ll have more time than usual. Bad, in the sense that doing the independent will take away from my primary sabbatical projects. However, in my sabbatical application, I noted that other opportunities might present themselves. One already has: For some reason or other, I’ve ended up as one of the Program Co-Chairs for SIGCSE Virtual 2026 [5]. I can mix things up a bit more [6].

There are many potential benefits to running the independent. I’d have an excuse to organize my excessive collection of board games and perhaps even give some away [7]. I’d be able to charge some of my board game purchases to my research funds [8]. I’d get to have fun playing games. Well, I’d get to play games; the fun is just a likely side effect. I might finish the design of a few of the games that keep bouncing around my brain. And, hey, we might even end up designing appropriately educational games [10].

On the downside? I’d have yet another obligation in my life. And it would require me to set aside time to meet regularly. I’d need to figure out how to grade the course. I’d need to figure out how to select students. I’d need to design and write a syllabus. I’d also need to do more background research on what board design courses look like. Wait a minute! I like designing syllabi, and I’d have fun doing background research on game design courses. Nonetheless, both would take time.

Are there other downsides? I’d be tempted to buy more games and more game design supplies. That may sound good, but evidence strongly suggests that I’m addicted to accumulating stuff. And, since I’ve given up my primary research lab, I should be decreasing the amount of stuff I have, rather than increasing it. However, as my kids are apt to remind me [12], stuff brings me joy.

Oh well. Independent-study applications for the fall closed months ago, and independent-study applications for the spring aren’t due until … let’s see [14] … November 24. I can wait until fall break or beyond to make the decision. But I should announce the opportunity around November 1, since Registration is November 5–7.

That doesn’t mean I can stop thinking about it, though. My muse suggests that I at least sketch out a structure for the course. For the guided reading, I used David Parlett’s Oxford History of Board Games, which I see has a new edition [15], and Hobby Games: The 100 Best, which I see has become affordable again. There are also a bunch of self-published books, a series from CRC Press, a second edition of Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An Encyclopedia of Mechanisms, and more. There are also YouTube channels, designer diaries on BoardGameGeek, Podcasts, and more. Putting together the reading list may be a bit of a challenge.

However, I consider the readings somewhat secondary to the structure. My current vision is a two-hour-per-class, one-day-per-week, two-credit course. Let’s see.

• Week one: Getting started. Discuss the goals and structure of the course. Share student goals, backgrounds, and perspectives. Perhaps play and debrief on a small game.

We then enter a four-week cycle to focus on one mechanism. Note that when I write mechanism, I mean core game idea. We might, for example, explore worker placement games (a mechanism) or train games (not quite a mechanism, but still something to focus on).

• Week two: Our first mechanism. In advance of class, students will have read about the mechanism, identified some games (good and not so good) that use the mechanism, found their rulebooks, and skimmed them. Class time will be devoted to discussion of what we’ve learned.
• Week three: Hands-on exploration and debrief. In advance of class, students must play one or more games that use the mechanism. I’ll see what I can provide from my library. Perhaps they can also use Tabletop Simulator, Tabletopia, or something similar. Class time is devoted to discussing the game.
• Week four: Game design. Students design a game using the first mechanism. Class time is devoted to presentations about the games. I’m a big fan of making physical games, but I suppose they could use one of the aforementioned electronic alternatives.
• Week five: Playtesting and debrief. Students playtest each others’ games and fill in review forms. Class time is devoted to debriefs.

Then we do the cycle again with a second mechanism.

• Week six: Our second mechanism.
• Week seven: Hands-on exploration and debrief.
• Week eight: Game design.
• Week nine: Playtesting and debrief.

And a third.

• Week ten: Our second mechanism.
• Week eleven: Hands-on exploration and debrief.
• Week twelve: Game design.
• Week thirteen: Playtesting and debrief.

Then we wrap up.

• Week fourteen: Demo day. Students pick one of their three designs, refine it, and make copies for a public demo session. I wonder if we can partner with the Makerspace so that they can do some fancier stuff (e.g., using the laser cutter to cut acrylic or wood pieces/boards).

That sounds like a good independent, doesn’t it? Students study mechanisms in multiple ways: They read books about them, they explore how they are employed in different ways by reading rule books and playing games, they discuss what they’ve learned, and they apply them in the design of new things. They also revisit the ideas as they playtest each others’ work. Grades will probably be S/D/F, if that’s permitted.

What mechanisms will we explore? For the first offering [16], I was thinking of doing race games for the first mechanism, programming games for the second mechanism, and letting students vote on the third mechanism. Alternately, if I need to cut a week (e.g., because I’m out of town or there’s an overlapping holiday), we could do Pairs for the third mechanism [17], since it wouldn’t require as much exploration. Or, if I had the full fourteen weeks and wanted complete control, I could choose another mechanism I like, such as tile games, polyomino games, or abstract games. One great thing about race games plus programming games is that we can play Robo Rally for both [18]!

What other race games would I suggest? Well, Heat is fairly popular right now. Camel Up is a very different race game. Yacht Race is a classic. Michelle and I used to play Circus Maximus. My family used to play Sumrun. And there are many others.

What about programming games? Robo Rally is my go-to game for that area, but I know I’ve accumulated others. I’m including programming games, in part, so that it feels more like a CS independent. The last time I may have taught these as Technology Studies independents, but Technology Studies is gone [19].

As I said, none of this is certain. I’ll need to reflect on whether I actually want to teach such a course. Nonetheless, the reflection has already started me looking at books. In any case, since it’s all uncertain, I’ve almost certainly mused enough for the time being.

[1] Perhaps a guided reading.

[2] Whoops. I need to update that.

[3] Nonetheless, I need to update my CV, too [4].

[4] Has it been a decade since I’ve taught a non-MAP academic-year independent study? I don’t have the time or energy to figure that out right now.

[5] Did I post my application letter for that position? Sam looks. Nope.

[6] My summer research students were a bit surprised to find that the initial plans for summer research were not the same as our final projects; I don’t think they understood quite how open the initial plans were supposed to be.

[7] Yes, offspring, I know that I should give many away.

[8] I might even be able to charge them to the Department’s research funds, since they would be class supplies [9].

[9] Of course, I usually forget to charge class supplies to the Department, including the games I used in CSC-151 this past spring. Oh well.

[10] Yes, Programming is one of the game design mechanisms we will explore [11].

[11] Hmmm … I wonder whether it would be fun to make a physical version of Core Wars. I also wonder if someone has done that already.

[12] Usually sarcastically.

[14] Sam checks the Student Dates to Remember.

[15] It’s now Parlett’s History of Board Games.

[16] Is it right to describe it as an offering? And would it be okay to regularize it as a course?

[17] Pairs is a triangular card deck: one 1, two 2’s, three 3’s, and so on up to ten 10’s. No jokers.

[18] I can already hear my children groaning.

[19] Don’t worry; it evolved into two concentrations! One is Science, Medicine, and Society; the other is Digital Studies. Neither seems appropriate for a board game independent.

Version 1.0 of 2025-08-07.