ICGN125

Slapjack Dice + Liar’s Dice Reflections, Jan 14, 2026

1) Fairness: “same information + speed” vs “hidden information + mind games”

Student experience
Many students compared fairness by focusing on information access and what skills were rewarded. Slapjack Dice was often described as fair because everyone sees the same two dice and success feels tied to attention, reaction time, and quick calculation. Liar’s Dice was often described as fair in a different way: more students felt they had “a chance” because probability reasoning, reading people, and bluffing could compensate for slower reflexes. A recurring tension in responses is that some students treated unpredictability as fairness (“random = fair”), while others saw randomness as reducing control and making outcomes feel less earned.

What students learned
Students learned that “fairness” depends on (a) the type of information available (shared vs hidden), (b) the skills rewarded (reflex, mental math, probability, social inference), and (c) whether the same players consistently benefit from the rules. Several students showed awareness that fairness is partly a perception tied to personal strengths and comfort with uncertainty.

Alignment with course learning objectives
This supports ICGN125 objectives around analyzing how game structure shapes experience: how elements (shared dice vs hidden dice) and mechanics (slap condition vs bidding/calling liar) produce different player judgments about fairness, skill, and control. Students demonstrated early systems thinking by linking design features to felt outcomes.

How students could improve next time (reflections)
Students should define what they mean by “fair” (equal information, equal opportunity, skill-rewarding, or randomness-rewarding) and then support it with one concrete moment from play (e.g., “the fastest player won repeated rounds” or “a bluff worked because…”). Reflections would also improve by adding transfer to university life (e.g., “fairness in group work: same instructions, but social confidence changes outcomes”).

2) Attention, speed, and cognitive load in Slapjack Dice

Student experience
Students repeatedly described Slapjack Dice as demanding continuous focus: watching for doubles or a total of 7, tracking points, and staying ready to slap. Several noted that doubles were easier to detect than doing addition quickly, and that penalties for wrong slaps pushed them to slow down. Common behaviors observed included hesitation (checking before slapping), quick/aggressive slaps, and a shift from reckless speed to careful confirmation after losing points.

What students learned
Students learned how time pressure changes thinking: under speed demands, players simplify strategies (pattern spotting), prioritize speed-accuracy tradeoffs, and adjust based on feedback from point gains/losses. Many recognized that attention is a limited resource and that being constantly “ready” can produce tension even when rules are simple.

Alignment with course learning objectives
This aligns with objectives related to analyzing mechanics and emergent behavior: how a small ruleset can create high cognitive demand and predictable dynamics (hesitation, aggression, heightened readiness). It also supports understanding how feedback systems (penalties and rewards) shape motivation and play.

How students could improve next time (reflections)
Students should describe how their attention strategy changed over rounds (e.g., “I looked for doubles first” or “I waited to confirm the sum”) and include social interaction effects (did table talk distract, did an aggressive player raise pressure, did hesitation spread?). They should also connect the speed/accuracy tradeoff to everyday university contexts like timed quizzes, exams, and classroom participation.

3) Hidden information, trust, and social inference in Liar’s Dice

Student experience
Liar’s Dice reflections strongly emphasized uncertainty and suspicion. Students described watching body language, “poker faces,” and patterns in bidding, especially after someone lost a die. Many noted the mood became more speculative as rounds progressed, with players changing how “honest” they were and the group paying closer attention to each claim. Reveal moments and calling “liar” often created suspense, excitement, or social tension.

What students learned
Students learned that hidden information produces a different skill set: social inference plus probability reasoning. They also learned that trust becomes conditional—claims are evaluated based on plausibility, speaker history, and stakes. Several reflections showed awareness that credibility management and reading group behavior can be as important as the dice results.

Alignment with course learning objectives
This supports course objectives around analyzing how elements (hidden dice) and mechanics (bidding, calling liar) generate social dynamics (suspicion, reputation tracking, persuasion, strategic lying). Students demonstrated understanding of interaction design: rules can directly produce predictable social behaviors.

How students could improve next time (reflections)
Students should include one clear example of a trust judgment (e.g., “I called liar because their bid didn’t match the odds and they hesitated”) and explain the social impact (did it escalate competition, create laughter, shift behavior?). They should also apply insights to university settings such as group projects, negotiation of roles, and deciding when to challenge information during discussions.

4) Agency and adaptation: how penalties, fewer dice, and shifting power change strategy

Student experience
Many students described adapting after setbacks. In Slapjack Dice, losing points led to more careful play and more hesitation. In Liar’s Dice, losing a die was widely described as losing information and power, pushing players toward conservative bids, reduced bluffing, or more frequent “liar” calls. Several students described late-game shifts where having more dice increased confidence and control, while fewer dice increased dependence on others’ claims and raised risk sensitivity.

What students learned
Students learned that choices are shaped by constraints: penalties and resource loss change what feels safe and what risks are worth taking. They also learned that agency is relational—your strategy depends on the shared system state (dice left on the table) and on how other players respond to your choices.

Alignment with course learning objectives
This maps to objectives around systems thinking and decision-making: understanding feedback loops (loss → caution), shifting incentives over time, and how game state changes strategy. Students showed growing ability to explain how mechanics create evolving play dynamics across rounds.

How students could improve next time (reflections)
Students should describe a clear before/after strategy shift (early vs late rounds) and name the trigger (lost points, lost a die, a player pattern). Reflections should also transfer this thinking to real contexts: course selection, leadership roles, or group projects where time/support/trust shrink and strategy must adapt.

5) Emotion and group mood: tension, confidence, and playfulness as outcomes of design

Student experience
Emotional contrasts were consistent. Slapjack Dice produced fast spikes of excitement and tension tied to constant readiness and quick wins/losses. Liar’s Dice produced longer, sustained tension tied to being watched, fear of getting caught, and uncertainty about accusing others incorrectly. Many students noted suspense and excitement at reveal moments. Others described a playful mood when bluffing was treated as humor rather than confrontation. Confidence often tracked power (more dice) and competence (comfort with bluffing or reading people).

What students learned
Students learned that emotion is generated by mechanics (time pressure, hidden information, public challenges, penalties) and amplified by social interaction (peer judgment, teasing, support, observation). Several reflections implicitly recognized that designers can “tune” emotion by adjusting information, pace, and consequences.

Alignment with course learning objectives
This aligns with objectives around reflective practice and motivation in game-based learning. Students connected mechanics to feelings and group mood, demonstrating growth in interpreting play as a designed experience rather than just entertainment.

How students could improve next time (reflections)
Students should connect emotions to (1) a specific rule and (2) a specific social moment. Example: “I felt stressed because everyone watched my bid and I didn’t want to look foolish,” or “the table became tense because one player’s aggressive slaps made everyone rush.” They should then apply this to university contexts such as presentations, exams, peer critique, and how social evaluation affects stress and performance.