THE STRUCTURE OF THE GAME ALLOWS US TO BEGIN WITH EASIER TASKS THEN MOVE ON TO MORE DIFFICULT ONES, EACH TIME DELVING INTO A DEEPER, MORE FOCUSED AND COMPLEX WAY OF HANDLING DIFFERENT OBSTACLES.
Pick one card as a group and put it in the middle of the table.
Randomly deal out cards to everyone depending on the number of players:
2-3 players: 14-12 cards
4-5 players: 10-8 cards
6-8 players: 6-4 cards
Moving clockwise around the table, players take turns to put down one of their cards, connecting it to one that is already there. The connection must be based on a logical, cause-and-possible effect relationship between the words or phrases. The card that is already on the table is the cause and the one that is put down should be a possible effect.
If INFORMATION FLOW is on the table, you must find a card to link to it that shows a word or phrase which you believe is a possible result of INFORMATION FLOW, for example, COOPERATION.
If there is disagreement, all the players must explain their point of view and debate until they can reach a consensus. If the players can’t find a middle ground then they have to vote. If we all agree the player get one token.
We can make the decisions easier, examining the very basic, and primary meaning of the particular expression.
Try not to use labels, or cliches, or actual interpretation of the word.
However, in some cases, we can examine historical examples too.
We do not accept the connection between two phrases which have not got any substantive conceptual relationship between them, not even if, they are not mutually exclusive.
This question sometimes occurs in multiconnection situations.
As the game progresses, more and more cards will be on the table, giving multiple options. The hexagonal cards allow a total of six potential connections, but all connections must demonstrate cause and the possible effect. The more connections you can make with one card, the more tokens you get, one for each connection.
Let us build on our network:
The next player gets two tokens, linking the card FLEXIBILITY with INFORMATION FLOW and COOPERATION. Let's move on with the same method, with the phrases TOLERANCE, and EMPATHY.
Building the network from the word INFORMATION FLOW, we can follow another path with phrases DECENTRALISATION, DISORGANISATION, FRUSTRATION, and even HOSTILITY at the end.
The more sides are connected, the more logical connections are made with one card, the more complex feature and interpretation can be shown. Causes on the table, the possible effect is our card.
Another part of the network also starts with INFORMATION FLOW but follows the words ENLIGHTENMENT, PERSONAL FREEDOM, HAPPINESS, INDIVIDUALISM, at the end, so we can easily connect IRRATIONALITY as a possible effect. The next phrases can be ADULT CHILD, or even DEMAGOGY, or POPULISM.
This is quite an interesting process, how IRRATIONALITY can change the way to DEMAGOGY and POPULISM.
We started with a simple word INFORMATION FLOW and following the cause and possible effect system we reached the most diverse expressions.
Players can put one card on another if it has all the cause and possible effect relationship with the cards next to it. In that case, they also get one token for each connection.
For example, if we put VIRTUALITY on the top of HAPPINESS, we have to explain and agree how can VIRTUALITY have a cause–possible effect connection with the cards previously connected with HAPPINESS, such as; PERSONAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, and IRRATIONALITY. We can even discuss the similarities and differences of HAPPINESS and VIRTUALITY.
We can have interesting discussions when we try to put EQUALITY on ORGANIC GROWTH (previously; INFORMATION FLOW). Let us examine the cards around; INDEPENDENCE, DECENTRALISATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, COOPERATION, and FLEXIBILITY.
Can they be possible causes of EQUALITY too?
Can we change ORGANIC GROWTH to EQUALITY or DIVERSITY in this construction? Can we use GLOBALISATION, or NETWORKING too? If not, why not?
Can we put GREEN ENERGY or INTEGRATION on COOPERATION, in this specific network? What are similarities, and what are differences?
Can we put WORKAHOLISM or RISK SEEKING on VIRTUALITY (previously; HAPPINESS) in this construction?
Isn't it interesting that NIHILISM might change VIRTUALITY and HAPPINESS in this situation?
And what about EXTREMISM?
Many exciting variations occur even in one turn.
However, if we can not link any of our cards, we may opt to miss a turn.
When everyone puts down all of their cards, the player with the most tokens wins.
In the next round, each player takes a card of their choice - target cards -, from the box together with three other random cards (what is written on these does not matter).
Our target cards can be anything; HOSTILITY, DISCOVERIES, SKEPTICISM, RISK AVERSION, or ECO VILLAGE, anything we find interesting to reach.
Turn the random cards upside down and place them on the table so as to create a path leading from the existing network to the target cards. The recommended number of the path for this is six-eight.
The winner of the previous round begins.
Players take turns to pick a card at random from the box and either expand the existing network on the same cause-and-effect basis or use their card to start filling in the gaps on the paths to the target cards. The players can choose to fill out gaps on any path, not just the one they’ve created. The player who manages to fill in the last gap on a path gets ten tokens. The rest of the scoring system is the same.
If some of the paths start with CONTROL, we can use, for example, AUTOCRACY or DESPOTISM, or even SLAVERY and CRUELTY at the end.
However, on the other hand, we can also link with CONTROL, RESPONSIBILITY, SELF- CONSCIOUSNESS, AWARENESS, reaching a completely different target card.
This round is over when all the paths are completed.
The rules are the same, there should be agreement on all the connections.
The winner of the previous round can continue the game with a more difficult task. The player has to take the existing network on the table and re-assemble it to model a real historical event. Only the cards already on the table may be used.
The player tells the others which cards are the start and the finish of the story and the other players have to guess the event. The player who guesses correctly wins the round and both players get ten tokens.
In most cases, we can create a historical process by using concepts not normally used to describe the given age. Nevertheless, it can be used to characterize it. Let us examine the reason for the use of these words in that particular era. We can have interesting discussions about the reasons we use on word or phrase in association with a time period in history.
INDIVIDUALISM IN RENAISSANCE,
POPULISM IN ROME,
FEUDALISM AND SLAVERY IN CURRENT ERA, URBANIZATION IN ANCIENT WORLD, REFORMATION IN EGYPT,
INFORMATION FLOW IN ROME,
MIGRATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES,
GREEN ENERGY IN ANCIENT WORLD,
RISK SEEKING IN PREHISTORIC TIMES, NETWORKING IN ANCIENT GREECE,
LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN AN UTOPISTIC WORLD,
SUPERCITIES IN ANCIENT WORLD
The winner of the previous round may create an alternative to the historical event. They have to examine the chain of events created in the last round, identify the point where things could have gone differently and create an alternative.
This can be done by reorganizing the existing cards on the table.
The more cards the new network has the more tokens they get.
THE AIM OF THIS TURN IS TO IMAGINE THE POSSIBLE FUTURE A SOCIETY CAN HAVE OR THE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES AN EVENT CAN CAUSE.
STAFF OFF BY MODELLING A FICTIONAL WORLD,
A HISTORICAL EVENT
OR A CURRENT POLITICAL ISSUE.
MODEL AN UTOPIAN
OR DYSTOPIAN SOCIETY
Ideas: think of a science fiction movie, or your favourite TV series, a novel you have read, anything that interests the players.
MODEL A REAL HISTORICAL EVENT
Ideas: French Revolution, Spartan Society, the Fall of the Roman Empire.
MODEL A CURRENT SITUATION IN THE WORLD
Ideas: populism, overconsumption, robotisation, migration, energy crisis, technological singularity.
First, decide together what you want to model. Choose one card to be the centre point and another six which also fit into the chosen story. Create a flower shape as shown in the illustration.
Once the model is done move onto the second part of the game and imagine what other events or conditions can derive from your model.
Create paths form the middle by turning three random cards upside down.
At the end of each path put a card that has a phrase or word that you think would be an unexpected, exciting outcome or of the system or situation you’ve modelled.
Six paths create an ideal structure, but more can work too.
Each player then randomly picks a card from the box and can start filling the gaps on any of the six paths. This time the connection should have a cause and possible effect relationship again.
Discuss, debate and vote if there are disagreements.
The first one to finish a path wins.
The game is ideal with six players, but it can work with more or fewer players as well.
This is a short quick game, but you can develop it with more and longer paths to fill or you can choose to extend the network.