Playing Games in Architectural Education

Experimental drawing of architecture students playing COTT as part of the ‘Playing Games’ studio project (2024/5) at LJMU. Drawing by Da Davies.

Jonathan Orlek is a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at Liverpool John Moores University. He is also part of Studio Polpo, a Sheffield-based social enterprise architecture collective. He started a design studio for second-year BA Architecture students at Liverpool John Moores University called ‘Playing Games’, where he introduced COTT in the first session. This blog post is an edited conversation between Henry, Jonathan and second-year students Tom Dunn, Roan Blower, Ava Starkey, Da Davies and Cara Webster, all of whom took part in the ‘Playing Games’ studio and played COTT in that first session. 

Why did you choose to study architecture, and why did you choose the ‘Playing Games’ studio?

Tom: I chose to study architecture as it's something I've had an interest in since I was very young. I like the creative aspects of it. Design is resolving issues, I guess that’s what I find interesting. I chose ‘Playing Games’ because the brief of creating structures where people can interact and getting people to act differently than they normally would in the city is really interesting to me. The brief was open-ended, so we could take it pretty much anywhere we wanted. 

Ava: My answer would be similar to Tom's. But I’d add that architecture interests me because it includes a mix of creativity and logical thinking.

Da: I chose to study architecture as I have had a lifelong interest in construction and design, and I felt the course blended the two very well. I recently had a year out of education to have my son 18 months ago – this led me to select the ‘Playing Games’ studio. I felt it was an opportunity to use my learned experience as a mother and develop the concept of play into something based in architecture. It helped me reflect on the past two years of my motherhood and the beginning of my son’s childhood. 

Jonathan, can you tell us a bit more about your role at the university and how you came to design the ‘Playing Games’ studio?

Jonathan: The second year is an interesting year for students. They start with an urban design project and then design a building for a creative organisation. They're given a (hypothetical) client and a choice of urban sites. They're given a list of types and sizes of spaces that should be included. It's a check to make sure students can design a relatively complex building. This is an important part of architectural education, but I also see my role as an educator as supporting more expansive spatial practices and creative and critical skills, aligning with my own architectural interests and work. For instance, at Studio Polpo, we not only respond to client briefs but also collaboratively self-initiate projects. I wanted to set up a [pedagogical] design studio project that was more open-ended and a clear departure or contrast to this previous prescriptive module. It’s a moment in the curriculum where students are freer and where tutors are encouraged to develop a more experimental design brief, which focuses as much on architectural processes as end products. This is the context in which I came up with ‘Playing Games’. It also coincided with an exhibition at FACT, called Art Plays Games. As well as playing COTT, we visited FACT and played games made by artists. For me, it was a way of introducing participatory processes and questions around architecture and community participation into the design studio. 

I was also aware that a lot of students are under various kinds of pressures outside of the course, so I wanted to set up something that was playful. Maybe it's a bit naive, but I consciously wanted to do something that was a contrast to life pressures outside of university.

Was there anything about the rules or structure of COTT that you found useful or difficult? 

Jonathan: There’s something about the actual mechanics of the game that worked really well with students. The two-minute slots got individual students to start speaking about the project and the brief. During the three-minute slots, there was less whole-group conversation, probably partly because it was right at the start. It would be interesting if we played across different points in the studio to see whether that three-minute slot became more lively… 

Tom: A lot of us didn't know each other. If we were to replay it now, a lot of us know more people in the group, so we'd be more confident to interact in that three-minute slot. 

Da: I think the game was a good starting point and ice breaker as Tom said. We didn’t really know each other; it was a good opportunity to listen to our peers’ opinions, thoughts and feelings and talk through our own regarding the upcoming module. It would be interesting to play it again during different stages of the project, to see how everyone else’s project is developing and discuss how we can develop our own; and then at the end to reflect upon the module and how we think we did and how to develop for the next module.

The game was originally designed for people who are working on something shared. I guess when you're starting out, there's not much shared. 

Ava: It would be interesting to play it again now that we're coming towards the end of the project, especially with us all having our ideas that have developed. It'd be interesting to see how our ideas might be affected by the topics on the cards, and if it's relevant to our designs. 

Jonathan: Let’s play it again, then! Maybe on the day when you've all got portfolio reviews, we can also have a group session. I’d like to reflect on your final projects and see whether there's evidence of this exploratory, experimental game playing and game drawing in your final projects. I’d like to see if and how some of the experimental ways of drawing (facilitated by the game) get carried through into the design and communication of your play installations. 

We’ve thought a lot about the notion of constraint, or rules being placed on ‘players’, which allows them to be freer and more creative. What do you think of that idea? Is that true in your experience? 

Tom: Sometimes, as students or designers, you’re faced with very set ways of doing things that you can't change. Some things have to be done a certain way. With those kinds of constraints, you're going to be limited. But yeah, in a lot of cases, you can find workarounds. A bit more thinking takes place, I guess, to try and find a solution, a creative solution, to that constraint. When you're given parameters and you've got to find a fix, and you want to do something that doesn't necessarily fit within the brief or the constraints, you've got to find another way to get your ideas across. That asks for more creativity than just doing something without constraint.  

Roan: I think specifically on this project [Playing Games], we've been given a very open-ended brief. We’ve just been asked to design a playful installation. In previous modules, you're given more constraints, but they’re very specific. You need to have a room that's this size, and you need to put bathrooms in it, etc. That comes with studying architecture. When the brief has been more abstract, like make a play installation, everyone's ended up doing vastly different things, which is very interesting.

Jonathan, what were your motivations for bringing COTT into the studio or classroom?

Jonathan: Yeah, we used it at the start of the project in the very first session. I didn't know the students; we’d never met before, and I think a lot of them didn't know each other before that either. We used it as an icebreaker. 

The other thing that we did, which is maybe unusual or interesting for you, was to use the cards as part of an experimental drawing activity. So after we played the game, the students spent around twenty minutes drawing the game being played in some way. We combined the playing of the game with experimental architectural representation or drawing. Although the game might seem to be disconnected from more conventional architectural processes, I tried to return it quite specifically and immediately to architecture through this drawing exercise. 

My aim was to introduce the students to creative, artistic, and participatory methods right at the start of the studio. I wanted to share with students some of the creative methods I'd come across through collaborations with artists. (The artist duo Sophie + Kerri first introduced me to COTT during their Artist House 45 residency in Leeds, which was a central case study for my PhD.) But playing the game became more than an introductory teaser or icebreaker; the students used it to raise concerns or uncertainties they had around an open-ended brief. So it became a way for me to understand what the students were concerned about. I found this really interesting and useful. 

There's clearly a power dynamic that is specific to higher education, where I'm the tutor and they’re the students. I am not trying to ignore this or pretend that it doesn’t exist. However, I deliberately played the game with the students, which meant that they could talk to me and each other about their initial thoughts on the brief, and I could also talk to them about my interests in architecture. It's rare that I talk so directly with students about my own experience, background, and motivations. The game offered a clear framework for this, it gave me two minutes to talk.

Cara: Yeah, I think it was the same for us. It was good for us to be able to get things out in the open and see that we were all on the same page. 

Ava: It allowed us to have an open conversation with each other. The cards brought up some topics that we wouldn't usually think of, especially at the start of a project. So it was good to hear everyone talk about the same concerns. 

The power dynamic between teachers and students is often discussed, but what about the power dynamics between students? Maybe power dynamic isn’t the right term, but a trepidation or uncertainty around each other because you don’t know each other's level of knowledge or expertise. Do you think it’s helpful to have an opportunity to see where each other stands from the start of the studio? 

Tom: Yeah, especially as some of us had never spoken to each other before this. It was a way for us to communicate our ideas and our concerns. That was helpful, as this is the first project we’ve done that’s so open-ended. We don't have set points we have to hit. So rather than only getting the tutor’s opinion, we’re speaking to each other and hearing who has similar ideas. It got us talking to people we wouldn't necessarily talk to, which helped us get a broader and wider range of opinions and feelings about the project. 

It's always good to say ‘I don't know about something, I'm worried about this, or I don't know what to do about this’, but it's quite a hard thing to do in a learning environment until you get to know each other better. Do you think the cards helped break down some of those social barriers?

Ava: There's that worry of feeling like you're behind your peers but being able to solve problems and communicate with them is a good thing. Learning how to work together is really valuable. 

A lot of the quotes on the cards refer to ‘the artist’. Is it possible to substitute artist for architect in some of those quotes? If so, what does that do to the quote?

Jonathan: In some cases we literally did that. In my framing of the game, I said it was made by artists and primarily used for socially engaged art projects, and that the language was quite art-specific, but that we could open it out. Often, when the quotes were read out, we were slightly loose with the language. If it said artists, we’d substitute that for architecture, creative or something a bit broader.

Tom: That helped us relate to it more because we don't do art, but we are in a creative subject. The cards and quotes still resonated, but it helped to change the context to fit our needs. It was just about changing what we were given to fit more specifically with our project. It got us talking about similar things that the cards wanted us to talk about. 

Jonathan: To give a bit of context, at Liverpool John Moores, Architecture is within an art school building. There is an intention that the program as a whole, and this module specifically, encourages students to engage with other creative disciplines. We do things like go to the photography studio, and other tutors take their students to the screen print studio. There are deliberate moments where we try to bridge art and architecture. So I don’t think the art language on the cards was off-putting. 

For me, having the choice of several different cards was really important. If one wasn't so relevant, there was usually one of the quotes or themes that was. A few times when we pulled a theme out, we just decided to do it again. Having some degree of choice was quite important in this setting, as some cards might not have landed particularly well or clearly. 

Tom: It goes back to that idea of constraint. We didn't necessarily relate to the language that was being used in the game, but we found a way around that and having that constraint allowed us to become more creative with what we were playing with and what we were using the game for. 

We’ve often found that disagreement or dislike of a quote card can provoke valuable discussion. Not liking a quote, or finding it wrong or confusing, can be as provocative as agreeing with it. 

Some Theme Cards say things like ‘administration’, ‘money’ and ‘politics’. During my art education, I didn't think much about those things other than as possible subject matters in work… not so much as things that are going to affect me and I might affect once I'm out in the world. Is that the same for you guys? Do you think about the political position you're going to be in as architects, or the kind of administrative constraints you're going to work within? How much do you worry or think about those areas that aren’t necessarily seen as part of creative practice?

Roan: We consider materially what we're using and how that would impact the planet. Sourcing materials and different processes around finding materials is a big thing politically when thinking about design.

Tom: As students and with the projects we’ve had so far, there’s been a lot of freedom. We don’t have to think about some aspects of a design, like the cost of materials, things we’ll have to consider once we’re out of education. Costs and budgets etc. 

Jonathan, will you use them again in other teaching contexts? 

Jonathan: Yeah,  this year there was a real alignment with the game and the theme I set for the studio. But the game would be valuable even if the theme of the studio were different. It’s valuable as both an introductory exercise and collective feedback mechanism. I’ll definitely use it again. It would be interesting to use it at different levels of the programme as well as in different moments within a module. But there is a balance to be struck here, I think: I wouldn't want it to become built into the course or become too embedded in the formal structure of the studio.

[The students] get inundated with different module evaluations, student surveys and requests for feedback. I suppose an open question is, what is the relationship between this type of shared learning experiment, which is also a type of evaluation exercise, and other established university feedback and evaluation mechanisms? 

The gamification of a context often involves a combination of choice and random selection. A lot of games work with that combination in different ways. Without necessarily limiting this question to COTT, would you use that kind of gamification in your practice? What do you think a game might do to the professional atmosphere of being an architect?

Tom: I don't know, I probably wouldn't present it as a game. I’d present it as an activity to break the barrier between the client and the architect.  You could present it as a way of collecting ideas and finding solutions, rather than saying we're going to play a game. Like the way we used it, it was a game, but it didn't necessarily present itself as a game. It presented itself as an activity to talk about things with people that we don't normally talk to. It could be a way to generate ideas and figure things out right at the start of a project.

Jonathan: That's really interesting. I've used card games as part of the work I do with Studio Polpo. For example, as part of a co-housing design project where there were lots of people involved in the design of their own housing. We used cards and framed them as a participatory design process. If it's framed as “now we're going to do this co-design exercise”, it's more recognisable. The term co-design is overused and often fairly meaningless, but I guess it gives playful activities such as COTT a framing for use within an architectural design process. 

I agree that terms like co-design can often be a bit meaningless or overused. Something we’re trying to do with the game is disrupt the habitual language people come to collaborative situations ready to use. The cards encourage players to try and step outside their usual use of language. It's interesting that the word ‘game’ or the idea of using a game isn't something you would do in a professional context.  Is it because games are fun and work isn't supposed to be fun? 

Roan: Maybe it's because of the subject matter, [professional] conversations are serious. When you frame something as a game, you think of Cards Against Humanity or something; that’s a game. That’s considered a game because you don't bring real conversations to it. What you talk about starts and ends in the game. Conversations in a game are fun, they're more hypothetical.

Tom: If you frame it as a game, what you talk about is then seen as hypothetical. Rather than something that you're going to take elements from and put into practice, or consider whilst designing something. It's the word game - people don't relate to it as a serious conversation about design processes. Society doesn’t see work as something to be mixed with games and play. COTT is a way of incorporating that, whilst also remaining productive, and people can then be more inclined to interact and generate more ideas. 

Interesting, so games are for leisure, design processes are work? 

Jonathan: Where does that idea come from? You’re two years into studying architecture, and you haven't been in an architectural workplace yet… 

Ava: Each module we've done so far has a sense of strictness to them. This module is more open-ended and playful, there’s a contrast. 

Jonathan: So it comes from other areas of teaching?

Several students together: Yeah 

Tom: We haven't had jobs in a more serious context to do with architecture, the idea that design should be serious and done a certain way is passed from other people and other ways of teaching, rather than having multiple different avenues for looking and things. 

Roan: I’d imagine it's still based on the context, right? If you're working with Norman Foster, maybe you don't bring out COTT, but there are a lot of smaller architectural firms that approach things in a more artistic way, similar to the game. I imagine in those situations you would have more open conversations like this, but there are different levels to it. 

Postscript

Photograph by Jonathan Orlek, May 2025

‘Playing Games’ resulted in a wide range of proposals for a playful urban intervention in Liverpool: Ava designed an immersive environment inspired by how bats inhabit and navigate space; Roan created a climbable brick folly; Da developed children's play activities such as peek-a-boo into a mobile playground; Cara created a pavilion which played with the structural properties of cork; and Tom designed a CNC fabricated inhabitable periscope. These projects all included elements of prototyping and live testing.