
I am a tutor at the University of Michigan in Flint. I only tutor one subject; logic. Formal logic is a subject I am fascinated by not only as a student, and a computer scientist, but also as a game designer. It has so many applications to the things I am interested in, but the thing that keeps me coming back semester after semester is that it is like a game.
Propositional logic proofs (see the link!) are like sudoku or crossword puzzles to me. I enjoy "solving" them and helping other people figure out how to solve them. In the back of my mind, I've always thought that logical proofs could somehow make a good game, but I never went beyond the spark of an idea until recently.
Here's the game in a nutshell.
Components:
- Deck of 52 cards with Propositions on them ( P->Q, R v S, etc.)
- A dozen 6 sided dice for each player. 6 of the dice have letters P, Q, R, S, T, and a blank side. The other six have logical connectors [ v , -> , ~ , ( , & , = ]
- A smaller deck of cards for each player with each of the rules of inference on one side, and special rules on the back.
The Rules are (were) pretty straightforward. Draw some cards, put a card in play for everyone including yourself to use, and try and use the rest of your cards to prove another statement of your choosing. Any inference rules you use to make new propositions you form with the dice in front of you and you can use those to prove more stuff and get more points.
I ran through the game by myself a few times to make sure it worked and everything seemed to work out just fine. Only minor tweaks were needed before I thought I had a nice design. I just needed my buddy Toby to playtest with me to make sure it was ok.
Everything was most certainly not ok. The game didn't get past Toby's first turn because the level of complexity was such that no one who hadn't taken a semester of formal logic wouldn't even be able to understand what to do. I thought for sure my handy reference cards for the inference rules would be enough, but I had severely overestimated the time it takes to soak this stuff in. I had made an educational game that didn't teach anything but frustration. It was a total disaster of mental masturbation and lack of foresight.
I had made a game in which you use the rules you have learned rather than making a game where you learn the rules you will use. I got the whole thing backwards. So now it is back to the drawing board.
The plan from here on out is to have a progression through the game. I'll be adding a game board with two sides. One for beginning players and one for advanced players. You start off on one space on the board and that space will give you very simple instructions about what you need to do to advance to the next level. The game rules will unfold as you play and hopefully the level of complexity will melt into the playing of the game. On the back side of the game board, it will be assumed you're familiar with all the inference rules and it will be lot more difficult.
So now I've learned a very important lesson in game design. You can't always just make games for yourself, because sometimes you'll want someone else to play with.

