146 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# Polycentric at Codex
|
|
|
|
## Overview of game
|
|
|
|
Polycentric is a role-playing game of agreements. Players engage in open exploration through agreement space, with available resources available not constrained to capital. Players assume Roles, which have a set of Values, Resources, Goals, etc. There is no set victory condition for the game, so solution space need not be limited. The fitness function for players in the state of play could be to:
|
|
|
|
- openly imagine and explore new forms of agreements typically restricted by ontological and material constraints
|
|
- improve understanding of a role through experience negotiating/feeling through its available agreement space
|
|
- improve understanding of a network and its available agreement space
|
|
|
|
## Session Zero
|
|
|
|
Though we hadn't even played the game ourselves yet, we thought it wise to run our first play test session in the wild at Stanford CODEX's annual gathering of Law, AI, Systems thinkers hosted by the respectable Tony Lai.
|
|
|
|
- notes on audience (law-adjacent)
|
|
|
|
## Setup (30 mins)
|
|
|
|
Z explained the game overview and basic rule set.
|
|
Ruleset:
|
|
Dorn described the Scenario (Grassroots Innovation Assembly)
|
|
Description of scenario:
|
|
Distributed roles to players
|
|
Description of roles:
|
|
Ven prepared the Board of Agreements
|
|
|
|
- notes on the prototype (materials and data collection/visualization)
|
|
|
|
## Play time (60 mins)
|
|
|
|
Players familarized themselves with their roles in relation to the scenario, and then made a quick introduction of their role to the group.
|
|
|
|
We then basically said 'Play', merely instructing them to start talking with each other to discover and build agreeements. Some players began negotiating with their neighbors. Most moved around, bouncing from negotiation to negotiation. Many pods of agreement-forming activity could be seen, with agents flowing in and out between them.
|
|
|
|
As agreements were made, players would write down which agents were apart of the agreement and what obligations were given, and benefits received. Tack it on the right side of the board and connect the involved agents from the left side.
|
|
|
|
The first agreement was a small MOU style agreement between a global policy advocator and indigenous practitioner to hold space together and learn from each other.
|
|
|
|
The second to last agreement was a complex multilateral agreement. A coalition formed of 5 developer-related roles, adding a new agent to the board, which then formed another bilateral agreeement with another agent for final agreement before lunch was to start.
|
|
|
|
## Debrief (30 mins)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Players were having a great time playing the game, so play continued through lunch, where we did a debrief. For each agreement, a player who participated would come up and share the dynamics of the agreement. Which agents were involved, and to what degree, and the purpose or benefits of the agreement.
|
|
|
|
## Observations from Session Zero
|
|
|
|
**data visualization**
|
|
|
|
_bipartite network graph of agents (blue) and agreements made (green)._
|
|
|
|
**types of agreements made**
|
|
|
|
bilateral symmetric
|
|
multilateral asymmetric
|
|
|
|
**modes of play observed**
|
|
|
|
Players embodied their roles extremely well. Though there was variance in how they embodied their roles. Some more emotional and others more strategic and calculated.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
notes from block.science governance pod
|
|
|
|
ds: were players good at agreements?
|
|
lawyer-adjacent made them good at agreements, and role-adjacent made them good at embodying the roles
|
|
|
|
rj: challenge of subjective play
|
|
|
|
stuff for dms
|
|
stuff for players
|
|
stuff the dm creates for the players
|
|
|
|
ilan:
|
|
what is our goal?
|
|
|
|
directionality of humans through pre-capitalist agreement space
|
|
|
|
\*\*RJC re: Ilan: absolutely right on design comment. because its an exploratory game and doesn't have an explicit fitness function for players to track (a score) theres less of a need to restrain the solution space (admissable action) of the player
|
|
|
|
pedagogical to teach about practical governance tensions and agreement networks
|
|
|
|
socialization of ideas and possiblities
|
|
|
|
development of framework
|
|
|
|
counterfactual role-building
|
|
|
|
rml: can we get our divisive tribal leader to just come together play a game
|
|
|
|
platform to launch variants
|
|
experiential play
|
|
|
|
- capabilities play
|
|
- fitness function is
|
|
empathagenic
|
|
|
|
debrief
|
|
|
|
- maybe a coach for roles that are novel to them
|
|
|
|
dimensions of play/development
|
|
analog human
|
|
digital human
|
|
digital agentic (simulated play)
|
|
|
|
Exhaustive search of a game space
|
|
|
|
Action paths
|
|
|
|
- knowledge container
|
|
|
|
Action tracks
|
|
|
|
- things we'd like to do
|
|
- building roles and scenarios
|
|
- building software
|
|
- ethnography
|
|
- graphing with hyperedging
|
|
- financial support
|
|
|
|
web3:
|
|
projects building dao tools
|
|
|
|
which patterns are stable and resistant
|
|
|
|
- quick start
|
|
- facilitator guide
|
|
- rule set
|
|
- materials
|
|
|
|
gather town
|
|
people can break out on their own.
|
|
|
|
zoom for setup and introductions
|
|
gather town for playtime
|
|
typeform for agreements
|
|
agent, agent, set of obligations/benefits
|
|
multilateral
|
|
formation of new body, resulting actor, and who can speak for them.
|
|
|
|
regather into zoom for debrief
|
|
|
|
hyperedges on the graph?
|