When we initialy brought up the concept of thig game the first things we thought up were the objectives. And I'd like to think that was a smart move considering it was one of the basic elements of play design (45 macklin). Once we had the purpose of the game, everything else fell into place. we figured out roles for our participants which helped us figure out the optiumal number of people to participate in the game, the size of the space we would need, the rules for the game, with house rules and basic overarching rules. Everything, was in place and we had a semblance of a game. The phrase from Macklin "a game doesn't take form until it's played" (38 macklin) came into account when we were in class and we had done all of the planning pre game but we still hadn't the slightest of a clue to how it would truly play out. But once we got into the test of our murder mystery game it all started feeling more alive and we could truly observe all of the elements which made the game truly a game. The iterative game design process (50 macklin) came into effect here, where we saw a possible issue in the rules or the number of players, or and basic opperations in the game and we would have to tweak, evaluate and try again. We never goit to do our game with the class because of time restraints, but hearing outsider feedback and others ideas on how to make the game better would be super cool and beneeficial towards the games progress. When i referenced house rules earlier, these are rules to add onto whatever base rules we end up on, and this creates a space of posibility for players so no 2 games are the same, to further make the game more and more fun.