gameLudography

# DungeonMaker: Embedding Tangible Creation and Destruction in Hybrid Board
Games through Personal Fabrication Technology

Evgeny Stemasov  0000-0002-3748-6441<EMAIL_ADDRESS>,  Tobias
Wagner  0000-0002-5907-5248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ulm UniversityUlmGermany
,  Ali Askari  0000-0002-4374-3635<EMAIL_ADDRESS>,  Jessica Janek
0000-0002-7483-0096<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ulm UniversityUlmGermany ,
Omid Rajabi  0000-0003-4498-2539<EMAIL_ADDRESS>,  Anja Schikorr
0000-0003-0842-5890<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ulm UniversityUlmGermany ,
Julian Frommel  0000-0001-8783-7783<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Utrecht
UniversityUtrechtNetherlands ,  Jan Gugenheimer  0000-0002-6466-3845
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>TU DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany Institut
Polytechnique de ParisParisFrance and  Enrico Rukzio  0000-0002-4213-2226
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ulm UniversityUlmGermany

(2024)

###### Abstract.

Hybrid board games (HBGs) augment their analog origins digitally (e.g.,
through apps) and are an increasingly popular pastime activity. Continuous
world and character development and customization, known to facilitate
engagement in video games, remain rare in HBGs. If present, they happen
digitally or imaginarily, often leaving physical aspects generic. We developed
DungeonMaker, a fabrication-augmented HBG bridging physical and digital game
elements: 1) the setup narrates a story and projects a digital game board onto
a laser cutter; 2) DungeonMaker assesses player-crafted artifacts; 3)
DungeonMaker’s modified laser head senses and moves player- and non-player
figures, and 4) can physically damage figures. An evaluation ($n=4\times 3$)
indicated that DungeonMaker provides an engaging experience, may support
players’ connection to their figures, and potentially spark novices’ interest
in fabrication. DungeonMaker provides a rich constellation to play HBGs by
blending aspects of craft and automation to couple the physical and digital
elements of an HBG tightly.

Board Games, Personal Fabrication, Hybrid Board Games, Fabrication Games,
Laser Cutters, 3D-Printers, Craft Games, Playful Fabrication

††journalyear: 2024††copyright: rightsretained††conference: Proceedings of the
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; May 11–16, 2024;
Honolulu, HI, USA††booktitle: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI,
USA††doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642243††isbn: 979-8-4007-0330-0/24/05††ccs: Human-
centered computing Human computer interaction (HCI)††ccs: Applied computing
Computer games

Figure 1. DungeonMaker is a hybrid board game played using fabrication devices
(laser cutter, 3D-printing pens) to tightly couple digital and physical game
elements. a) Players can create artifacts with a 3D-printing pen to
personalize and improve their game figures; b) DungeonMaker can assess
players’ creations using a camera-based input system, which also processes
dice- and token-based inputs; c) a custom attachment to a laser head can grab
and move figures according to player commands or game logic; d) the laser
cutter can also permanently damage figures; e) DungeonMaker unifies the
aforementioned components into a tabletop role-playing experience while adding
display and narration capabilities for an immersive experience.

##  1\. Introduction

Board games have been a well-established pastime activity in many households
(Rogerson et al., 2016). They provide a playful, social, and tangible
experience that usually engages multiple, co-located people in an informal
setting (Sousa and Bernardo, 2019; Xu et al., 2011). To further this analog
concept, so-called _hybrid_ board games have emerged as a more recent
phenomenon (Cavicchini and Mariani, 2019; Rogerson et al., 2021b, c). Hybrid
board games combine physical, tangible elements with digital elements (e.g.,
support tools) to augment the experience, for instance, by helping players
learn rules, providing calculations, or storytelling elements (Rogerson et
al., 2021a). In summary, hybrid board games aim to combine the tangible
experience board games provide, with digital benefits, to _augment_ the player
experience (Jarvis, 2022).

While hybrid board games aim to augment the tangible, physical experience of
traditional board games, they have little to no effect on the physical play
space (e.g., players’ figures or the game board). This constrains the design
space for hybrid board games in different ways: (1) Digital-physical
synchronization: State changes created via the digital part (e.g., a figure’s
position) have to be “enacted” by players to keep digital and physical
representations in sync. This constrains the influence of the digital part of
a hybrid board game to simpler, digital-only aspects, like keeping track of
statistics (Rogerson et al., 2021c). In turn, this leaves an untapped
potential for novel, hybrid board game experiences that connect and unify
digital and physical elements. (2) Absence of Personalization: Unlike digital
games, analog or hybrid board games allow for little to no _personalization_
of the physical artifacts involved: figures and boards, for instance, are used
as-is, while changes, if any, are kept track of in the digital domain. This
limits the expressivity of the game, while also hindering players’ attachment
to their representations (i.e., avatar/figure) during the game, as they are
left with generic physical representations of themselves. Personalization is
often manifested in board games using character sheets, most commonly known
from games like Dungeons and Dragons dnd, but also present in legacy-style
games like Pandemic Legacy pandemiclegacyseason1, which are missing a digital
dimension and rarely manifest in physical space beyond paper elements. Such
connection with characters and avatars, however, is an essential component of
numerous _digital_ game experiences (Birk et al., 2016; Kao and Harrell, 2018;
Turkay and Kinzer, 2015), highlighting the potential for fostering such an
experience in hybrid board games. (3) Absence of Physical Risk and Continuity:
Lastly, there are few persistent, lasting effects possible and feasible in
hybrid board games: damage, destruction, and loss happen in the digital domain
and are often non-permanent. An outlook of permanent loss, however, can be
beneficial for player experiences (e.g., cf. permadeath in DayZ dayz(Allison
et al., 2015; Carter and Allison, 2017)), and support notions of risk and
consequences (Carter and Allison, 2017) when used as a conscious design
element (Rossmy et al., 2023, 2020). Permadeath is indeed present in several
non-hybrid board games like Pandemic Legacy pandemiclegacyseason1, where it
remains in the physical domain and has to be enacted by the players. Such
experiences could be fostered by integrating _lasting_ and _physical_ effects
into hybrid board games.

To introduce and probe these dimensions currently largely absent from or
underexplored in hybrid board games, we developed DungeonMaker. DungeonMaker
is a hybrid board game, collaboratively played by 3 players using a set of
craft and fabrication tools (Fig. 1). It is a tabletop RPG (Role-Playing
Game), presenting a scenario where 3 players are trapped in a dungeon and must
coordinate their escape. Each player controls one figure (representing their
avatar), which they can customize with a 3D printing pen to their liking. The
players have to gather clues about how to escape a dungeon, while also
engaging with enemies spawning on the board. During the game, users get the
opportunity to fabricate weapons for their figures with a 3D-printing pen
(Fig. 1a), which are evaluated by the system and given gameplay-relevant stats
(e.g., damage, Fig. 1b). The figure customization and weapon-making introduce
an aspect of _physical creation_ and _personalization_ to the game, as users
craft and attach these artifacts to their own figure, which serves as their
avatar in the game. Figure movement is executed by the laser cutter (Fig. 1c)
following user input through tangible tokens. In the case of a defeat during a
battle, the laser cutter may damage a figure, along with the weapon made by
the player (Fig. 1d). This introduces permanent, physical _destruction_ to the
gameplay. The experience is further supported through audio narration and a
game board projected onto and into the laser cutter (Fig. 1e). In sum,
DungeonMaker embeds both additive and subtractive manufacturing approaches but
deliberately does not do so with the goal of solving engineering or design
challenges, but rather to augment hybrid board games, further unifying their
digital and physical representations through playful interaction with and
through fabrication devices.

We probed how users engage with DungeonMaker in an exploratory evaluation to
understand how fabrication-augmented hybrid board games may alter the player
experience and connection to players’ figures. Groups of 3 were invited for
game sessions taking up to 50 minutes. This was the approximate duration of
one scenario, including all (deliberately time-constrained) fabrication
activities. Through our evaluation, we found that DungeonMaker provides an
engaging and enjoyable experience, increases players’ perceived connection to
their figures, and may even serve as a point of first contact with personal
fabrication, as it increased self-reported curiosity for fabrication in
novices. Based on the evaluation and DungeonMaker’s development, we reflect on
design considerations relevant for fabrication-augmented hybrid board games.
We argue that DungeonMaker is a novel instance of infusing current hybrid
board games with fabrication concepts to enable a tighter coupling between the
physical and digital environment. This leads to a stronger relationship
between players and game experience through personalization and the potential
for tangible loss.

The contributions of our work are the following:

  1. (1)

Development of DungeonMaker, a collaborative hybrid board game played using a
set of fabrication devices. The setup enables the creation and alteration
(i.e., personalization), destruction, and movement of physical figures and
their attached equipment, processes commands based on tangible inputs, and
uses projection to display a dynamic game board, along with the game state.

  2. (2)

Insights gathered from an evaluation of DungeonMaker with 4 triads
($n=12=4\times 3$), indicating an engaging, enjoyable player experience and
players’ increased identification with their figures after a game session.

  3. (3)

Design considerations for fabrication-augmented hybrid board games through the
lenses of technology accessibility, value creation, and personalization.

##  2\. Related Work

DungeonMaker is inspired by prior works in the domains of (hybrid) board
games, playful craft, and fabrication approaches, personalization in games,
and augmented or unconventional uses of fabrication devices. It is further
inspired by established commercial board games (e.g. legacy games
risklegacy,pandemiclegacyseason1, wargames warhammerthirdedition,fullthrust,
hybrid board games xcomtheboardgame, and games with craft components
exitthegamethesecretlab), whose influence we outline in Section 3.1.3.

###  2.1. Hybrid Board Games

Hybrid board games are defined as combinations of physical board games and
digital artifacts “uniting” (Rogerson and Gibbs, 2020), “augmenting”
(Tanenbaum et al., 2017), or “blending” (Arjoranta et al., 2016) digital and
physical elements. We situate DungeonMaker as a step beyond disjoint digital
and physical game spaces in hybrid games, by coupling them further through
creation and destruction processes. Rogerson et al. identified roles of
digital tools in hybrid board games (e.g., calculation, storytelling,
randomization) (Rogerson et al., 2021a), attitudes towards digital
augmentations (Rogerson et al., 2021c), and analyzed existing commercial
hybrid board games (Rogerson et al., 2021b). Mandryk et al. (Mandryk et al.,
2002) and Kankainen et al. (Kankainen, 2016) further explored social
components (Nummenmaa and Kankainen, 2019) of hybrid board games, as they
mediate social interactions in addition to interactions with the game itself
(Grasse et al., 2021). More specific design guidelines are also present in the
space, and, for instance, include “customizability” (Kankainen, 2019) or
“aesthetics” (Kankainen, 2019), aspects we embrace with DungeonMaker.
Kankainen and Paavilainen further mention “tangibility” (Kankainen, 2019) and
“tutorials” (Kankainen, 2019) as relevant guidelines, which we similarly
enable and support with our implementation. Narration-focused experiences were
also explored for analog board games (Sullivan and Salter, 2017) and hybrid
board games (O’Brien, 2017), highlighting the aspect of immersion. Approaching
hybrid board games from a technical perspective, G??mez-Maureira highlighted
the relevance of autonomous components in hybrid board games and the potential
of artificial intelligence (Gómez-Maureira et al., 2020). Similarly, Jensen et
al. augmented “Settlers of Catan” thesettlersofcatan using electrochromic
displays that can dynamically change (Jensen et al., 2020), which embodies an
alternative approach to app-based hybridization (Rogerson et al., 2021a).

Despite their hybrid nature (i.e., being situated in physical and digital
spaces simultaneously), hybrid board games only control the digital game
space, with no direct control over the physical one. DungeonMaker leverages
fabrication devices to allow the game control over this physical space (both
through manipulations like motion, and through destruction), while also
allowing players to contribute to the physical play space in a creative and
functional (i.e., gameplay-relevant) fashion.

###  2.2. Craft and Fabrication Games

Expression through craft and design as a gameplay element has also been
considered in game experiences. With the emergence of accessible digital
fabrication devices (Baudisch and Mueller, 2017; Mota, 2011), this trend was
further reinforced. Sullivan and Smith specified aspects and categories of
“craft games” (Sullivan and Smith, 2016). DungeonMaker falls under two
categories of their classification, as it is a game “[…] in which crafting is
part of the core mechanics” (Sullivan and Smith, 2016) but also one where
“crafting machines or tools [are] used as game interfaces” (Sullivan and
Smith, 2016). Tanenbaum et al. introduced the notion of “playful fabrication”,
arguing for uses of fabrication technology beyond prototyping (Tanenbaum et
al., 2017), a concept we embrace with DungeonMaker, along with the patterns of
idleness, augmentation, and accumulation presented in the work (Tanenbaum et
al., 2017). “Fabrication Games” by Bhaduri et al. similarly outlines several
ideas, like the creation of game pieces, mementos, or input capture (Bhaduri
et al., 2017). By adding, destruction, automated motion, narration, and visual
output, we continue this line of thought and augment the hybrid board game
experience through fabrication devices.

“Exquisite Circuits” by Qi et al. used the game of “exquisite corpse” to
enable the collaborative and playful creation of electronic circuits (Qi et
al., 2021). Hybrid Embroidery Games by Lee and Albaugh presented textile-based
game systems, similarly enabling playful interaction with fabrication devices,
while further highlighting social experiences (Lee and Albaugh, 2021). Grasse
and Melcer developed “Generation”, a game that requires players to fabricate
and assemble components to progress (Grasse and Melcer, 2020). Notably, the
elements are 3D-printed during the game, and they are digitized using a tablet
(Grasse and Melcer, 2020), creating a constellation resembling a hybrid board
game. “Threadsteading” by Albaugh et al. presented a hybrid board game played
using an embroidery machine (Albaugh et al., 2016). Notably, each game session
yields a quilt that is comprised of traces of the game session–a tangible
memento. This is comparable to the work of Sullivan et al., who used a Loom to
interact with a game while fabricating a tangible memento of the game
(Sullivan et al., 2018). Eickhoff et al. presented “Destructive Games” using a
laser cutter (Eickhoff et al., 2016). With DungeonMaker, we explore
applications beyond minigames, but rather more complex scenarios, and we
further allow users to create artifacts that meaningfully influence gameplay
and can be lost during it. This is also related to tabletop roleplaying games
that similarly sometimes feature the destruction of components (Engelstein and
Shalev, 2022). Such games have already been explored in the context of
hybridity, for example, by Buruk et al. (Buruk et al., 2017a), who developed
interactive digital artifacts to enable and explore augmented tabletop RPGs.
“FabO” presented a novel workflow to add fabrication activities to existing
digital games, for instance, to create mementos of a salient moment in a game
(Turakhia et al., 2021). This approach was further evaluated with a focus on
aesthetics (Turakhia et al., 2022b). Embedding craft and (digital) fabrication
in game experiences augments them by providing them with ways to control and
influence physical spaces, not only digital ones. The desire of players to use
fabrication in board game play is also evident in recent work. Tchernavskij et
al. (2022) found that game masters in tabletop roleplaying games made use of
devices like paper printers and laminating machines when preparing for their
sessions. Such approaches were also used by other board game players. In their
study on homebrewed hybridity during COVID-19 times, Sparrow and Rogerson
(2023) found that distanced boardgame players used at-home fabrication devices
such as printers and 3D printers.

With DungeonMaker, we embrace these notions and apply them to hybrid board
games, facilitating not only creation and personalization but also the
potential for physical damage and loss.

###  2.3. Personalization and Agency in Games

Games are influenced by a multitude of constructs that define the player
experience as a whole. Digital games provide ways to personalize one’s avatar
– a representation perceived by others, but also one that players themselves
perceive (Sibilla and Mancini, 2018). Turkay and Adinolf determined a positive
effect of customization on motivation (Turkay and Adinolf, 2015). This was
further confirmed by Birk et al., who emphasize intrinsic motivation as a core
factor (Birk et al., 2016). Kao and Harrell explored the effects of badges as
a personalization element (Kao and Harrell, 2018). In the context of immersive
environments (Virtual Reality, VR), Cuthbert et al. confirmed that avatar
customization has a positive effect on players (Cuthbert et al., 2020), which
was echoed by Kouloris et al. in the context of VR exergames (Koulouris et
al., 2020). While there is an aspect of personalization and self-expression in
the context of Warhammer (Harrop et al., 2013) tabletop games, for instance,
they do not rely on machine-driven influences, and assessments and usually
involve no lasting physical consequences (Carter et al., 2014).

With DungeonMaker, we also alter notions of _agency_ in board games, by re-
assigning roles (e.g., moving figures). Abeele et al., for instance,
emphasized how curiosity and autonomy are crucial components of player
experience (Abeele et al., 2020). Thue et al. highlighted how agency in the
context of games is highly relevant and positively influences the experience,
making interactive applications such as games powerful candidates to hand
agency to users (Thue et al., 2010) and foster it through perceptible control
(Thompson et al., 1998; Seinfeld et al., 2021).

In games research, the concept of permadeath (i.e., characters becoming
permanently unavailable) is also present in both digital games and board
games. West et al. state that a prospect of permanent loss may create meaning
(West et al., 2022). This is echoed by Carter and Allison for the multiplayer
shooter “DayZ” dayz, highlighting how negative experiences may intensify the
experience (Carter and Allison, 2017).

Personalization and attachment are highly relevant factors in digital games,
but are largely absent from physical components of analog board games (apart
from role-playing games; dnd,kingdomdeathmonster) and from hybrid board games.
This constrains the design space of such games, despite their inherent
materiality (Rogerson et al., 2016). With digital fabrication and craft
technologies, personalization can be made possible for hybrid board games, by
handing players ways to customize their avatars to increase identification and
handing games ways to alter and destroy artifacts players may have grown
attached to, echoing notions of loss and “permadeath” (Carter and Allison,
2017; West et al., 2022) in physical game experiences.

###  2.4. Expanded Uses of Fabrication Devices

DungeonMaker leverages available fabrication devices to enable new behaviors
and applications. In particular, it relies on computer numerical control
(CNC), which allows for motion control, commonly applied to manufacturing.
This notion has been expanded upon by Katakura et al., who augmented a
commercial 3D-printer to be able to assemble objects or remove support
material (Katakura et al., 2019). Teibrich et al. added a mill to a 3D-printer
head to support the notion of “patching” physical objects instead of re-
fabricating them (Teibrich et al., 2015). LaserFactory by Nisser et al.
leveraged a laser cutter to fabricate functional objects within the device’s
workspace (Nisser et al., 2021), essentially expanding the device’s output
capabilities. Augmented reality (AR) has also been applied to augment design
tools (Stemasov et al., 2020, 2022b; Weichel et al., 2014) or expand the
output capabilities of fabrication devices. Ludwig et al. used this to allow
meaningful, in-situ output from a 3D-printer (Ludwig et al., 2019). Olwal et
al. (Olwal et al., 2008) applied this notion to industrial CNC machinery.

Notions of unmaking (Song and Paulos, 2021; Wu and Devendorf, 2020),
ephemerality (Stemasov et al., 2022a), and destruction (Mueller et al., 2015)
in the context of digital fabrication have also been explored as a design
material and interaction paradigm. Role assignments between humans and
fabrication devices have also been questioned in the works of Devendorf et al.
(Devendorf and Ryokai, 2015; Devendorf et al., 2016; Devendorf and Rosner,
2015).

DungeonMaker is inspired by these works and similarly reconfigures how
audiences engage with fabrication devices to enhance the experience of hybrid
board games. We leverage CNC as a foundation (Katakura et al., 2019) to allow
a laser cutter to translate figures, and enrich this constellation through
tangible (Stemasov et al., 2023), self-made inputs and dynamic in-situ outputs
(i.e., projection and audio).

##  3\. Implementation of DungeonMaker

Figure 2. Overview of all components used in DungeonMaker and how they are
interconnected. The core components are the DungeonMaker game, the camera-
based input system (used to scan tokens, dice, or crafted inputs), and the
motion control system connected to the laser cutter. Visual output is handled
through a projector, rendering onto two surfaces: the lid of the laser cutter
and its working area (the top projection in this figure was composited for
clarity).

The following sections first outline the design rationale we followed for the
development of DungeonMaker. This is followed by a description of the
technical setup and the game we implemented.

###  3.1. Design Rationale

With both the hardware setup of DungeonMaker, and the implemented game, we
aimed to cover an extensive range of design components within the space of
combining hybrid board games and (personal) fabrication technologies. To do
so, we initially outlined a design space, which combined fundamental actions
in (hybrid) board games (Rogerson et al., 2021c, a; Kankainen, 2019) (e.g.,
motion, calculations, narration) and fundamental actions enabled by
fabrication devices (Tanenbaum et al., 2017; Turakhia et al., 2022b; Baudisch
and Mueller, 2017) (e.g., motion, material addition, material removal). Each
resulting cell can then be used to generate (inter)actions between players and
machines. For instance, using additive manufacturing for narration may require
a pen plotter or 3D printer to print text onto the game board. These types of
alterations, re-assignments (i.e., changes to role distributions between
players and machines), or augmentations (i.e., additions to established board
game experiences, like manufacturing) were then explored in a formative
survey, which is described next.

####  3.1.1. Formative Survey

We initially conducted a formative survey ($n=68$) to probe stances towards
alternative role distributions between players and digital systems in (hybrid)
board games, along with prospects of physical loss and damage.

##### Sample:

The participants were recruited across our personal networks. Filling out the
survey took participants around 17 minutes, on average. Their age ranged from
20 to 59 ($M=28.8,SD=8.6$); 31 of them were students, 29 were employed, with
the remaining occupations being self-employed, apprentices, or homemakers. 41
participants identified as male, 24 identified as female, and three
participants preferred not to disclose their gender. 30 participants reported
having played board games 1-6 times in the last 6 months, 19 participants
played 6-12 times, and 13 played over 12 times. For 27 participants, the ideal
duration for a board game session was 45-60 minutes. 15 participants preferred
durations between 60 and 90 minutes, and only 3 participants preferred game
session durations of over 90 minutes. 32 out of 68 participants have played
multi-session games (e.g., “Dungeons and Dragons” dnd). When it came to purely
digital board games, 31 out of our participants reported having played a game
with some degree of digital assistance (e.g., “Catan Classic”
thesettlersofcatan). 29 participants reported that they had played hybrid
board games before (e.g., “XCOM the Board Game” xcomtheboardgame).

##### Re-Assigning Roles:

We specifically wanted to understand sentiments towards (potentially
unconventional) changes to role distributions in hybrid board games, where a
device may be responsible for more than calculation support or narration.
Participants were asked to rate a set of statements regarding “leaving actions
in a board game to a technical device” on a 6-point Likert scale.

Tendencies to leave specific tasks to a digital system were found in tasks
like the motion of non-player game pieces (69% agree), explaining rules (79%
agree), distance measurements (62% agree), calculating cores (79% agree), or
serving as a narrator or game “master” (68% agree). Additionally, 59% of
participants could see a system creating and modifying game pieces.
Participants had differing opinions regarding tasks like moving figures
assigned to a player (46% agree) and destroying figures assigned to another
player/opponent (51% agree). Lastly, the survey participants had reservations
about leaving certain tasks to a digital system. This included rolling dice
(40% agree), destroying figures assigned to the player (44% agree), or
displaying possible moves (44% agree). These results echo sentiments present
in literature (Rogerson et al., 2016, 2015), where users value tangibility and
agency while being open to relinquishing certain tasks like scorekeeping to
digital systems.

##### Loss and Destruction

Lastly, we wanted to get an initial understanding of how potential users may
react to the prospect of physical loss in hybrid board games. Permanent
destruction has been presented as a design element in HCI literature (Rossmy
et al., 2023). Rossmy et al. outlined how physical alteration can be value-
adding or value-removing and turns thoughtless interactions into thoughtful
ones, if they are known to be irreversible (Rossmy et al., 2023). With
DungeonMaker, we aimed to embrace these notions in the context of hybrid board
games and the coupling of their physical and digital components. Participants
were asked to imagine a scenario where they were bringing their own figures to
a board game session. In the described scenario, it would be possible for the
figures to be permanently damaged or destroyed. For self-made (e.g.,
3D-printed) figures, 46% reported agreement that they would be willing to
bring them to such a game session. In contrast, purchased game pieces were
less likely to be brought into such an environment, with only 31% of
participants reporting agreement here.

While our sample is likely biased toward board game enthusiasts (evident in
their experience of more complex (Carter et al., 2014) board games, such as
“Warhammer” warhammerthirdedition), the survey helped us understand sentiments
towards re-assigned roles and the absence of tangible loss in hybrid board
games. In particular, users are willing to relinquish some of the roles they
may be used to in board games and may be willing to engage with destruction in
the context of board games, depending on their investment. To explore notions
of craft and value-creation with a prospect of damage, we chose to embed these
components in DungeonMaker, but circumvent _financial value_ and loss
(Eickhoff et al., 2016; Harrop et al., 2013). Similarly, while we remove
“chores” (Xu et al., 2011; Rogerson et al., 2015) like movement or
scorekeeping, we introduce new ones, like crafting.

####  3.1.2. Design Goals

Based on the formative survey, along with practical and theoretical
considerations found in the literature, we outlined the following high-level
design goals for the development of DungeonMaker:

  1. DG1

Personalization: Provide ways to express avatar personalization in a tangible
fashion, replicating identification-increasing effects known from digital
games and analog RPGs. Additionally, personalization may have not only
aesthetic but also gameplay-relevant effects – (White, 2014; Turkay and
Kinzer, 2015).

  2. DG2

Physicality and Continuity: Enable tangible, physical consequences of
decisions that may transcend a single game session – (Rossmy et al., 2023;
Eickhoff et al., 2016; Engelstein and Shalev, 2022).

  3. DG3

Bidirectionality between Digital and Physical: Provide ways for the digital
part of a hybrid board game to enact computational decisions on physical game
elements (e.g., game board, figures) – (Kaimoto et al., 2022; Zhu et al.,
2022; Weichel et al., 2015).

####  3.1.3. Game Design Process

The following paragraphs briefly outline elements of the design and
playtesting process used for DungeonMaker. Initial inspirations were
established games like Full Thrust fullthrust, EXIT exitthegamethesecretlab,
Monopoly monopoly, Dungeon Fighter dungeonfightersecondedition and Stuffed
Fables stuffedfables, which all are not only complex, but also have complex
individual components to them (e.g., non-trivial motion and damage calculation
in Full Thrust fullthrust). We analyzed the aforementioned games with respect
to components such as lasting changes, time pressure, opportunities for
creative expression (functional and aesthetic), changes to the map or
environment, story, motion, goals, constellations (player-versus-player or
player-versus-environment), and resources (e.g., currencies). As an initial
design exercise, all aforementioned components were considered through the
lens of fabrication devices providing aspects like motion, creation, or
damage.

##### Gameplay

Initial development of the game and its rules was done using a collaborative
online whiteboard tool (Miro111https://miro.com/, Accessed: 29.01.2024), akin
to a paper prototype. Here, a digital variant of a board, was created, and 3
of the authors played sessions on the whiteboard using dice simulators. This
helped choose the game flow, find initial statlines for equipment and NPCs
(non-player characters), or discard cumbersome concepts like dedicated noise-
dice222The noise concept remained in the game, but is calculated implicitly
from the movement decisions (proximity to NPCs and travelled distance) players
make. Aspects like the size of the game grid were informed by two aspects:
scenario duration and hardware capabilities. This highlights the cross-
pollination between individual elements of DungeonMaker across digital and
physical domains. Specifically, the figure size was informed by the hardware
constraints (e.g., for reliable gripping). The figure size, in turn, informed
the grid size of the final game prototype. After the prototype, consisting of
the digital and physical game elements, was playable, several testing sessions
for balancing followed, also done by 3 of the authors.

##### Assessment of Player-Crafted Objects

Given that equipment fabricated by players can be highly diverse, especially
when they have not had any experience using a 3D printing pen, a formative
evaluation of crafted artifacts and their ratings was done. 9 participants
were asked to use the 3D printing pen to create an axe, a sword, and a bow,
DungeonMaker’s basic weapon types. All participants had no prior exposure to a
3D-printing pen. This exploration was done informally by one of the authors to
understand how novices may use a 3D-printing pen and to inform thresholds of
the recognition algorithm of DungeonMaker. The resulting ratings were used to
define the rarity (i.e., power) levels that DungeonMaker derives from a
contour similarity value (cf. Section 3.3.5).

##### Fine-tuning

Prior to the evaluation (Section 4), more testing and fine-tuning (e.g., of
random effects) was done by 2 of the authors to optimize the game for a study
session of 30-45 minutes, to accommodate pre- and post-study questionnaires in
a reasonable timeframe. We do not argue that the resulting gameplay and
balance are impeccable (cf. Section 4, where potential for improvement became
apparent), but consider that they enabled an enjoyable experience, with the
relevant values (e.g., weapon power, enemy counts, enemy statlines) being “in
the ballpark” and suitable for a short and enjoyable session.

###  3.2. Technical Setup

The following sections focus on the hardware constellation that enables
DungeonMaker as a platform for fabrication-augmented hybrid board game
experiences. An overview of the components can be seen in Fig. 2. The core
components are a laptop running the game using the Godot game engine, a laser
cutter (Emblaser 2 by Darkly Labs333https://darklylabs.com/emblaser2/,
Accessed: 28.01.2024), and two Raspberry
Pi444https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-4-model-b/, Accessed:
28.01.2024 4 single-board computers – one connected to the laser cutter and
the gripper, and responsible for motion control and gripping, the other
connected to a camera below the input area and responsible for parsing inputs
(dice, tokens, crafted weapons) placed there. Additionally, we designed a
custom attachment to the laser cutter nozzle to enable sensing, gripping, and
re-positioning of players’ figures on the game board. The laptop running the
game serves as a central point for communications and is connected to the
Input Module using HTTP/REST, and to the Motion and Gripping System using
websockets. The projector is connected to the laptop and renders the game
onto/into the laser cutter while also outputting sound (i.e., narration)
through a speaker.

####  3.2.1. Motion Control and Gripper

Figure 3. DungeonMaker adds a module to the laser head (a), consisting of an
electromagnet for gripping figures, a servo motor to rotate them, a camera
module (a/b, top) to recognize figures on the board, supported by LEDs to
ensure a well-lit workspace. The attachment design (c) allowed the laser
cutter to remain operational as a fabrication device despite the modification.

The control software to enable motion and grabbing of figures uses an adapted
version of Pronterface555https://github.com/kliment/Printrun, Accessed:
28.01.2024. A Raspberry Pi 4 runs the software and connects to the laser
cutter via USB. A custom 3D-printed attachment to the laser head (Fig. 3)
enables DungeonMaker to sense and move figures on the game board. In addition
to serving motion control commands using G-code, the software can toggle the
electromagnet at the gripper, and control the servo motor that can rotate the
magnet. The electromagnet is toggled through the software via GPIO (General
Purpose Input/Output) pins of the Raspberry Pi and an NPN transistor, but
receives power from an external 5V power supply.

##### Figure Movement

To grab a figure from the board, the modified laser head has to be able to
detect the figures. To do so, a camera, supported by 2 LEDs, is pointed
downwards to recognize ArUco (Garrido-Jurado et al., 2014) markers attached to
the base of each figure. To re-position a figure, the head is first moved to
the grid cell the figure is supposed to be in (as per game logic). Then, the
camera detects the position and orientation of the marker, calculating the
offset needed to be able to grab the figure correctly. This offset is then
applied to the laser head, which executes a correction movement to position
the magnet above the metal part of the figure. The laser head then lowers the
z-axis, turns on the magnet, raises the z-axis again to clear other figures,
and moves the figure to the target cell, releasing it there. An overview of
the modified laser head is seen in Fig. 3. Notably, the laser cutter remains
fully functional and usable as a fabrication device, despite these
modifications, apart from a minor reduction in the work area in the x
dimension (reduced from 50cm to approximately 40cm).

##### Figure Design

DungeonMaker requires a special figure design to enable tracking and motion.
Figures are mounted on a 3D-printed base (labeled as base plate), which
provides an attachment for an ArUco marker and provides an interface used by
the gripping mechanism (cf. Fig. 6a)-b)). Given that the gripper relies on a
magnet, this interface consists of a metal nut attached to a plastic rod
protruding from the base. They are also standardized with respect to their
height, to ensure that the laser is focused when damaging figures. The arms
are also offset from the base, to ensure that the laser cutter, or melting
plastic, do not damage the ArUco marker. Our current figure design is
_modular_ and allows for the replacement of damaged arms rather easily. While
this approach was applied to the player figures used in the study, there are
few limitations beyond the base design and size constraints. The dragon NPC
(cf. Fig. 6c), for instance, was handcrafted using a 3D-printing pen,
combining the design with the more precisely manufactured base (Takahashi and
Kim, 2019). Similarly, the generic design is meant to leave room for
personalization.

####  3.2.2. Tangible Inputs

Figure 4. Tangible inputs handled by DungeonMaker: a) dice are recognized
using blob detection, while tokens have a fiducial marker on their backside.
b) to move a figure, players place a set of motion tokens, which are converted
to a path (here: right–right–up); c) crafted weapons are put on the plate, and
contours are extracted d) and matched with a reference shape. The similarity
score defines the game-relevant value of the crafted artifact.

DungeonMaker is able to process a set of tangible inputs made by players using
the Input Module (Fig. 4). Specifically, this enables two types of input:
object-based and marker-based.

##### Marker-Based Inputs

rely on tangible tokens that have a human-readable side for the players and a
machine-readable side (i.e., markers) for the camera system (Fig. 4a, right).
To give motion commands (i.e., to move player figures), players lay out
movement tokens on the camera-based input plate (Fig. 4b). Depending on the
character???s equipment, up to 4 such tokens can be placed and composed into a
path command. The order of tokens (left$\rightarrow$right,
top$\rightarrow$bottom) is taken into account to generate a path. Invalid
commands (e.g., passing through walls) are discarded by the system. When
confirmed by the player, DungeonMaker detects their figure, grabs it, moves it
along the selected path, and sets the figure back down at the target field.
For interactions with NPCs, behavior tokens are used: they can be seen as ways
to select specific options in interactions with the environment.

##### Object-Based Inputs

Lastly, there are inputs that can not be represented with fiducial markers,
either because the input space is too large (e.g., unique, crafted objects) or
because they might compromise established visuals (e.g., dice), and are
handled through contour-extraction (Fig. 4). For combat, dice are used, as is
established in tabletop games (Fig. 4a, left). Players may roll their dice–in
the case of DungeonMaker, six-sided–on the camera-based input plate, and the
system detects the dice values using blob detection (while inverting the input
to represent what the players see, i.e., the opposite side of the dice).
Weapons and riddle solution attempts are similarly evaluated by the system
(Fig. 4c). To do so, DungeonMaker uses OpenCV (specifically the
cv.matchShapes() function) to extract contours and compare them with a
baseline representation (Fig. 4d). A weapon input is compared to all “baseline
contours” (i.e., an axe, a sword, and a bow) to determine what the user has
likely built. The lower the score, the higher the similarity. To determine the
rarity, and, therefore, the power, of a weapon, the similarity is compared to
quantiles determined in an informal study done during the design process (cf.
Section 3.1.3). The greater the similarity to this regular and symmetrical
“baseline contour”, the higher the rarity and the better the gameplay-relevant
values of the weapon.

####  3.2.3. Projected Game Board

DungeonMaker relies on projection (spatial augmented reality (Bimber and
Raskar, 2005)) to add a dynamic game board to the surfaces involved in the
game (Fig. 5). The projection maps to two depth levels, projection surfaces 1
and 2. Projection surface 1 is on the lid of the laser cutter (Fig. 5c). Here,
the user interface is displayed, containing information about non-player
characters, the players’ characters, and narrative information (e.g., parts of
the story, dialog elements, or instructions on what players have to do and
whose turn it is). Projection surface 2 is inside the laser cutter (Fig. 5b).
An MDF (medium-density fibreboard) plate with a thickness of 3mm is covered
with a white sheet of glossy paper, which serves as the projection surface
inside the laser cutter. Here, the game’s board is displayed, and the figures
are moved around through the gripping system attached to the laser cutter
head. The Emblaser 2 laser cutter uses an orange-tinted laser safety glass in
the lid. To counteract this optical alteration, a shader was written to
accommodate for the induced tint and to retain contrast when players view the
projection through the lid. This shader is only applied to projection surface
2, displaying the game board, and not to projection surface 1, where the UI
(user interface) is displayed.

####  3.2.4. DungeonMaker Game

The game part of DungeonMaker was implemented using
Godot666https://godotengine.org/, Accessed: 27.01.2024 3.2.2, an open-source
game engine. Given that DungeonMaker required 2D graphics (cf. Fig. 5), this
proved to be a reasonable choice over alternative approaches. The laptop
running the game uses an NVIDIA GTX 1060 graphics card and a 4-core Intel i7
processor. We outline the specific gameplay elements in the following
sections.

###  3.3. Gameplay

Figure 5. Overview over the projected output of DungeonMaker: a) output from
the Godot application; b) view inside the laser cutter with player figures on
top of the projection (projection surface 1); c) game UI with player and enemy
statistics (projection surface 2).

DungeonMaker provides a collaborative tabletop scenario, meant to highlight
the possibilities of hybrid board games that engage with and have control over
physical/tangible elements of the play space. The following sections outline
aspects of the game implemented and used in the study.

####  3.3.1. Introduction and Narration

DungeonMaker supports narration in the form of spoken audio (in our case,
spoken by a narrator), but also through textual output on the UI projected
onto the laser cutter’s lid. Users initially receive a longer introductory
narration to present them with the game???s story and goals. The narration
then calls for the first actions to be performed by the players, turn by turn.
Some of the instructions are timed, like fabricating something under a time
limit. This applies to crafting weapons, and is explained through the merchant
being impatient. Gameplay-wise, this creates a challenge and a sense of
urgency. The narration component further provides dialog from NPCs (e.g., the
merchant) and descriptions of events, like combat losses and wins, and damage
taken or dealt. Dialog from different characters may also rely on a different
voice, while background music and sound effects can be played for added
immersion.

####  3.3.2. Scenario Goals

The goals of the implemented game follow the trope of “escaping a dungeon”,
where the players awake imprisoned, and have to collaborate to escape
successfully. To do so, they need to forge777Both in the “counterfeit” and in
the “make”/“build” definitions of the word. a key. Hints as to how the key
looks are scattered across the map. Some can be won from the jailer, and
others are found in chests. The implicit second goal is survival. Both goals
require collaboration between the three players: combat is easier with
multiple participants, and the hints can be found more quickly if the players
spread out to search chests.

####  3.3.3. Game Board

The game board mimics the look of maps used for tabletop role-playing games
like Dungeons and Dragons dnd. These are often hand-drawn – however, nowadays,
there is a rich landscape of tools to support this. It consists of floor
tiles, combining impassable terrain (holes, walls), interactive objects (the
dungeon exit, chests), and characters (player characters and NPCs). Characters
are digitally represented using circular sprites, with the currently active
player receiving an outline around the respective sprite on the game board and
the UI. Movement across the board is based on tokens (cf. Fig. 4b). Depending
on the players’ equipment (i.e., specific weapons increase or decrease their
movement range), they can set up to 4 movement tokens per turn, which are
converted to a movement command executed by the laser head in the order the
players place them. When ending a movement next to an NPC, or when an NPC ends
their movement next to a player, combat or interactions are triggered. Combat
requires players to roll 2 dice, whose values are compared to the NPCs’
digital dice roll. As with movement, weapons can grant players a round bonus,
allowing them to roll the dice several times per combat.

####  3.3.4. Non-Player Characters

The game we implemented relies on a set of non-player characters (NPCs) to
facilitate the envisioned gameplay elements (exploration, combat, crafting).
The NPCs and their properties are outlined in the following paragraphs.

##### Merchant

The merchant is the first non-player character the players engage with. This
NPC allows players to craft their first weapon, right at the start of the
game. Seeking out the merchant during gameplay allows players to craft
additional weapons for their figure. Doing so is likely to benefit their
characters’ properties and may make combat easier.

##### Enemies

Combat is a mechanic commonly found in tabletop role-playing games. To enable
this, DungeonMaker provides a set of enemies for players to either actively
engage with, or to avoid. A dragon is present in the upper part of the play
area. It sleeps initially, but movement within its hearing range of 3 tiles
will gradually wake it up. Players can circumvent this by “sneaking” past it
(i.e., making one-tile movements per turn). The enemy dragon is an embodied
NPC and has a tangible representation on the game board. When awake, it will
be moved by the laser head toward the player figures and engage in combat.
Additionally, weaker, non-tangible enemies are present: spiders, which spawn
in regular intervals out of holes in the floor. While they are low-health,
compared to the players or the dragon, they can still deal damage to unlucky
(i.e., with their dice rolls) players.

##### Jailer

In the narrative of the game, the players awake in a dungeon with no escape.
The ghost of a jailer roams the dungeon and stands between the players and
their escape. Unlike the enemies mentioned earlier, no combat is possible with
the jailer. He is able to provide several hints about the key the players need
to escape. When met, users can choose a behavior (aggressive, defensive,
deceitful) to use when interacting with him. This represents a round of “rock-
paper-scissors”, with the jailer randomly picking an option. If the player
wins, they get a hint or a different reward (e.g., healing). In case of a
draw, nothing happens, and the jailer moves to a different position. In case
the player loses, a negative effect is applied (e.g., damage or the dragon
being deprived of sleep points). After each such interaction, the jailer moves
on and has to be reached by one of the players to trigger this minigame
another time.

####  3.3.5. Craft Activities

Figure 6. Modular character models consist of a base (a) to enable
tracking/gripping and enable different character designs, used for player
models (b) or tangible NPC figures (c).

Over the course of a DungeonMaker game, players have to engage in a set of
craft/fabrication activities with the 3D-printing pen. Initially, they may
customize their game figure using the pen. DungeonMaker relies on a
standardized base design for figures (Fig. 6a), which either provides a
skeleton to customize (Fig. 6b), or could leave room for design “from scratch”
(Fig. 6c). Each time players meet the merchant, they may fabricate one of
three weapon types: a bow, an axe, or a sword. Players are provided with a
rough guidance in terms of size and some examples of how their artifact may
look like. The crafted weapons are put onto the input plate and are scanned
and rated. The rating consists of video-game levels of rarity, ranging from
common, over rare, to legendary. The type of weapon and its rarity influences
the bonuses players receive from them (e.g., attack damage, movement range, or
turns usable for combat). After that, layers retrieve their figure from the
laser cutter and attach the weapon to it.

When arriving at the dungeon door towards the end of the game, players can
attempt forging the key they need to win their scenario. The solution consists
of 3 elements: a trident and a circle, connected with a line. Each of these
elements is conveyed through riddles (e.g., “One part of the key is the shape
that does not fit into this row: G D B L C S”888Solution: Here, the solution
is “L”, as that is the only letter in the row without curves. This is seen in
Fig. 8.1 b), where the “L” is the connecting element). The key is evaluated in
a similar fashion to weapons, with the output being success or not. An
unsuccessful attempt draws the attention of enemies. This happens towards the
end of the game and may be preceded by a longer discussion phase between the
players, trying to combine the hints received over the course of the game into
a (physical/spatial) solution.

##  4\. Evaluation

To further explore how DungeonMaker augments and alters the board game
experience, we set out to test it with a set of participants.

##### Study Design

The goal was to evaluate DungeonMaker in exploratory sessions focusing on
players’ holistic experiences. Therefore, the study was framed as a
collaborative game session that happens to be preceded and followed by
questionnaires. The study was similarly meant to confirm the functionality of
DungeonMaker when used by players and to explore technical limits.

##### Metrics

The core (quantitative) metrics, on which we focused, were affective state
(i.e., valence, arousal, and dominance measured using the Self-Assessment
Manikin (Bradley and Lang, 1994)), connection to one’s figure (measured using
the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron et al., 1991, 1992),
adapted to refer to the players’ closeness with their figure), and a set of
Likert-scale questions regarding sentiments towards fabrication technologies
and the game mechanics that DungeonMaker introduces. These metrics were
measured before and after the game session to allow for comparisons. Lastly,
we solicited open comments from the participants and qualitatively analyzed
video recordings from the play sessions along with the observation notes that
the instructor took during the study.

##### Participants

We recruited 4 groups of 3 (triads) of participants around our institution. To
avoid people feeling uncomfortable in the context of co-located, collaborative
gaming, we ensured that the participants in each triad were at least familiar
with each other and could imagine playing a board game together. This was
addressed during recruiting. 4 participants identified as women, 7 identified
as men, and one participant identified as non-binary. Their age ranged from 24
to 29 ($M=25.8$). All participants were either students or researchers and had
played board games before. In the last 6 months before the study, 6 reported
having played over 12 times, and 6 reported having played between 1 and 6
times. 6 participants reported having played purely digital board games
before, and 3 participants had played hybrid board games. 8 participants
reported having used a 3D-printer before, 4 participants had used a laser
cutter before, and only 3 participants had used a 3D-printing pen before. 4
participants had no contact with any of these devices before. 2 additional
participants had only used 3D-printers 1-2 times before. We classify these
participants with 2 or fewer exposures to 3D-printing as “novices” to digital
or personal fabrication (Hudson et al., 2016; Berman et al., 2020; Stemasov et
al., 2021), and people with more than 2 exposures to 3D-printing as “non-
novices”.

##### Procedure

Participants initially received an introduction to the study process, provided
informed consent, and filled out a first questionnaire. We started a video
recording using a camera pointed at the play area as soon as the game began to
allow for later analysis of events (Section 4.2). The three participants
played one uninterrupted game session under the supervision of a study
conductor. A game session lasted between 30-50 minutes. While there was no
time pressure, the conductor increasingly provided hints (i.e., regarding
strategy) on how to progress as time went on, to give all groups a chance to
attempt to solve the riddle and succeed in the scenario.

###  4.1. Questionnaire Data

Figure 7. Answer distributions for a) the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM); b)
Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale; and c) select, custom Likert-
Scaled questions. All plots present answers before (”pre”) and after (”post”)
the participants’ game session.

##### Standardized Questionnaires

For the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), participants were queried about their
affective state before and after the game session (Fig. 7a). An exact
Wilcoxon-Pratt signed-rank test showed that a game session of DungeonMaker
yielded no significant effect on participants’ reported valence
($Z=1.22,p=0.28,r=0.25$) between pre- ($M=4$) and post-game ($M=5$) and
dominance ($Z=-0.13,p=1,r=-0.12$) between pre- ($M=4$) and post-game ($M=4$)
using the SAM. However, the test yielded a significant difference between pre-
($M=3$) and post-exposure ($M=4$) responses for the arousal subscale of the
SAM ($Z=2.19,p=0.047,r=0.45$). For the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS)
Scale, participants were also asked to “… select the picture that best
describes your relationship with your game figure” (Fig. 7b). An exact
Wilcoxon-Pratt signed-rank test showed that a game session of DungeonMaker
yielded significant differences in the IOS-data between pre- ($M=2.5$) and
post-exposure ($M=4.5$) responses ($Z=2.41,p=0.014,r=0.49$).

##### Ratings

We further acquired general sentiments towards hardware and the notion of
personal fabrication before and after “exposure” through the game. The
statements were rated on 7-point Likert-Scales (a subset is seen in Fig. 7c).
When analyzing all 12 participants, independent of experience level with
fabrication devices, no significant differences were shown using the Exact
Wilcoxon-Pratt Signed-Rank Test, except for the statement “I can imagine DF
devices being used for tasks other than manufacturing things”
($Z=2.89,p=0.0039,r=0.59$) between pre ($M=5$) and post-game ($M=6$). When
focusing on the 6 participants that could be defined as novices (for 4 of
them, DungeonMaker was the _first and only exposure_ to personal fabrication
devices), additional trends could be observed. An Asymptotic Wilcoxon-Pratt
Signed-Rank Test indicated that there is a significant difference between pre-
and post-game sentiments towards fabrication devices for the statements “I am
willing to engage with DF devices”
($Z=2.89,p=0.083,r=0.5,M_{pre}=6,M_{post}=6.5$) “I am interested in using DF
devices” ($Z=2,p=0.045,r=0.58,M_{pre}=6,M_{post}=6.5$), and “I am curious in
using DF devices” ($Z=1.73,p=0.08,r=0.5,M_{pre}=6.5,M_{post}=7$).

##### Mementos

When asked which tangible artifacts they would want to keep after their (or
comparable) game session, 8 participants reported wanting the figure (and
their weapon), 7 would have liked to keep the key, 5 were interested in NPC
figures, 3 were specifically interested in damaged artifacts (e.g., figures),
and 2 would have liked to keep the game board, which gathered new scuffs each
play session.

##### Experience

Before experiencing DungeonMaker, participants were asked a set of Likert-
scale questions about prospects regarding the scenario. 67% expressed
reservations regarding their own figure being damaged, yet only 25% felt the
same way regarding their teammates’ figures. The laser cutter being
responsible for motion (instead of the players themselves) was appealing to
75% of the participants. After the play session, participants rated a set of
Likert-Scaled questions regarding aspects of DungeonMaker again. 75% agreed
that the potential of damage improved their experience, 92% wanted to fight
more to see damage done to the NPC figure, 83% rated the combination of board
game and laser cutter as an “improvement to the game experience”, and all
participants considered the crafting activities with the 3D-printing pen as a
similar improvement. However, several comments were raised regarding that they
would have welcomed more frequent crafting activities, which we deliberately
limited to ensure a compact study session.

###  4.2. Observations and Open Comments

Figure 8. Subset of artifacts made by the participants during their
playthroughs. 1) Crafted objects (a.: weapons; b.: riddle solutions,
top–incorrect, bottom–correct; c.: late-game state of a group, seeing a cut
process). 2) Figures as customized by participant group 3, with cutting damage
visible (d.)

We further analyzed the observation notes, collated the open comments, and
identified common motifs occurring in the video recordings. A set of crafted
artifacts from the study can be seen in Fig. 8. 3 out of 4 groups experienced
the laser cutter damaging/cutting one of the figures (cf. Fig. 8c and d).
Similarly, 3 out of 4 groups succeeded in solving the riddle and thereby won
the scenario.

##### Video Analysis Process

All game sessions were recorded for later analysis. We followed a reflexive
thematic analysis approach to understand behaviors and patterns better. The
approach can be described as _inductive_ , as we particularly focused on
player experience and how it changes through the hardware and software setup
of DungeonMaker. The audio files were first machine-transcribed on a local
system using whisper.cpp999https://github.com/ggerganov/whisper.cpp, Accessed:
28.01.2024. One of the authors then reviewed all recordings, correcting the
transcript where necessary. This was, for instance, the case when several
people were talking simultaneously. At this point, annotations for _machine
actions_ (e.g., motion, cutting, or narration elements), and crafting actions
(e.g., crafting the key) were added to the transcript. Two of the authors
then, independently of each other, watched all recordings and created separate
codebooks (21 entries and 47 entries, respectively). The two codebooks were
then merged into a single one, leaving 46 entries grouped into 8 high-level
topics. The merging process required the 2 authors to present examples and
collaboratively merge and group the entries. The merging process was also used
to sharpen individual code formulations (e.g., “Skill judgment of using
fabrication tools based on prior usage” $\mapsto$ “Craft-Self-Assessment”).
Sample quotes of the identified categories were then extracted and assigned
labels accordingly.

##### Behaviors

The overall topics from the video analysis are briefly outlined in the next
paragraphs. General Player Experience(s) consists of acts like encouraging
peers or visible enjoyment (e.g., laughter, celebration, and friendly banter
among teammates). This happened, both during crafting, but also during
gameplay itself, with each group voicing desires to keep playing beyond the
planned game duration. Solving the riddle at the end and solving individual
clues also sparked enthusiasm (e.g., “Print! Print! Print!” (P4) – when P6 was
fabricating the key).

The overall player experience is connected to notions of Collaboration present
in DungeonMaker. All participants engaged in pointing and deixis for
collaboration and planning. Most pointed at figures and the board themselves,
while P8 leveraged the projection to precisely point using their finger’s
shadow. Players kept strategizing together and acting as a team to move
towards their common goal, and engaged in task division on the game board
(e.g., players with more movement range being delegated to opening all chests,
and players with more attack power doing combat) but also outside of it (e.g.,
people waiting for their turn trying to solve the riddle, while others
gathered additional clues).

Gameplay aspects included players trying out individual features (e.g.,
motion, tokens) or complaints about rewards or randomness (P8, P9, P11)
Participants also referred to other games to reason about how DungeonMaker may
behave (e.g., whether running away allows NPCs to still hit one’s figure –
P1). This is linked to participants trying to manage their expectations
towards DungeonMaker. For instance, this includes participants expecting the
spider to drop loot to improve their equipment: “drops […] poison or something
that you could use on an enemy” (P12), “Poison arrows! [referring to P12
carrying a bow]” (P10).

The aforementioned facets of gameplay connect to aspects of Narrative, Story,
and Immersion, where participants engaged in roleplaying and voiced
expectations of the game world and logic. DungeonMaker already provides some
degree of narration to set the stage, but participants tried to weave their
own stories during gameplay, as is usual in tabletop RPGs (White, 2014): “I’d
like to escape … but everyone’s in my way” (P2), “Excuse me? I’m fighting
heroically here” (P3). Then again, there were also breakdowns: “He [the
jailer] is totally in my way […] he’s a ghost, why can’t I move through him?”
(P1), where the absence of a physical NPC (cf. Fig. 6) and their suboptimal
digital representation (i.e., a ghost-like sprite on the board) lead to
incorrect expectations.

Regarding Hardware, various enthusiastic reactions to robotic motion were
present across all participants. Statements like “He’ll get it [the figure].
Yeah, whoo” (P2) highlight not only a degree of acceptance of re-assigned
roles (cf. Section 3.1.1), but also users enjoying the robotic motion
(“(cutter moves) […] magic! (laughter)” (P10). This also applied to technical
details, like the gripping system’s correcting motions after recognizing the
marker (“(laser corrects and grips) […] Wonderful!” (P4). This also includes
humming an ominous melody101010In the case of one participant, this was the
Imperial March from Star Wars. when the laser cutter made its move, talking to
the fabrication devices (P8, P12), or imitating their sounds (P3, P7). As with
aspects of world-building mentioned earlier, participants repeatedly voiced
questions regarding rules, gameplay, or hardware. For example, P8 wanted to
ensure that their 4 movement tokens
($\uparrow,\rightarrow,\downarrow,\downarrow$) translate to the right path
around a wall: “Does it ”get” their order? (points to input and movement
tokens)” (P8).

Crafting and Equipment are crucial elements of DungeonMaker, given that
outcomes of the crafting activity _influence gameplay_ and are not only
cosmetic. This led players to self-assess their skills or to assess others’
skills through the lens of DungeonMaker’s ratings or alter their strategy
accordingly (e.g., people with a movement bonus focusing on exploring the
map).

Damage and Combat was another core aspect of DungeonMaker. Here, participants
embraced this notion and either _avoided_ combat (“[…] (Points on Map) should
I really go past the dragon?” (P11)), _provoked_ it (“Don’t go to the exit
just yet, I want to beat him [the dragon] up.” (P12 to P10)), or considered it
an intriguing experience (“(to the instructor) can you do it again?” (P9,
after seeing damage happen)). This is linked to groups coordinating their
efforts based on equipment (which influenced stats like attack power, but also
movement range).

##### Open Comments

Participants were also asked to leave comments in the questionnaire regarding
their experience, which were collated by the authors.

When asked about positive aspects of their experience with DungeonMaker,
participants highlighted their enjoyment (6 mentions out of 12 – 6x), the
crafting activities (8x), the aspects of collaboration (3x), novel technical
aspects (e.g., machine-driven motion, 8x) and DungeonMaker’s narration (2x).
Participants also appreciated the prospect of “real consequences”, both with
respect to destruction/damage, but also with respect to the machine moving
tangible elements of a game or the crafted weapons having an impact on the
game (e.g., depending on their rating).

Participants were asked to describe potential improvements about the system
and their experience. A recurring topic was the pace of the game, as giving
motion commands was perceived as slow, and so was the execution of the motion
commands by the laser cutter. Gameplay-wise, players mentioned potential
improvements regarding the balancing choices (e.g., chest contents) or lower
randomness during the “combats” with the jailer. Players also mentioned other
considerations, such as the volume of the laser cutter when thinking about
home use (1x), occlusion of the projection (1x), and the aspect that
fabrication/craft activities were too rare (1x).

When asked to describe their experience in general, participants repeated
previous notions of enjoyment and fun (9x), voiced wishes to re-play the same
scenario (1x), highlighted the positive effects of the narration (1x), and
mentioned a potential for long-term motivation (1x). 4 participants further
mentioned the social, collaborative nature of the game as a positive and
engaging factor.

##  5\. Discussion

The following sections first discuss the study results and then consolidate
them—together with insights from the design and development process of
DungeonMaker—into a set of design considerations for fabrication-augmented
hybrid board games.

###  5.1. User Study

Through the user study, we uncovered several aspects that not only confirm the
functionality of DungeonMaker as a hybrid game but also aspects that indicate
feasibility and value beyond the specific game that was implemented.

##### Avatar Customization:

A session of DungeonMaker increased the players’ connection with their
figures, as measured through the IOS questionnaire. Notably, players could
only personalize their characters through crafted equipment, and not by
altering the figures themselves due to time constraints in the study. Despite
this, participants enjoyed self-expression by crafting the weapons for their
figures themselves. In comments, they described this self-expression, which
had functional effects on the game, as fun and exciting. Players also grew
attached to these artifacts, not wanting to lose them during the game (“Noo,
don’t kill my weapon” (P9)111111in response to the laser head accidentally
catching on their figure, toppling it), but also expressing interest in
keeping them beyond the session as mementos (cf. Section 4.1). This notion can
undoubtedly be pushed further (e.g., customizing the avatar itself,
potentially with tools other than the 3D-printing pen), and explored through
lenses of user representation (Seinfeld et al., 2021) and identification
(Buruk et al., 2017b; Kao and Harrell, 2018). Yet, this already highlights the
potential of fabrication to strengthen the players’ connection with their
figures by replicating customization concepts known from digital games
(Cuthbert et al., 2020; Turkay and Adinolf, 2015) in the physical domain.

##### Player Experience:

Overall, DungeonMaker provided a positive experience for the players.
Considering valence and dominance, the responses increased, but without a
significant effect. Given the high responses before play and our low sample
size, we cannot draw clear-cut conclusions but see trends of a positive player
experience that require further work to confirm effects. However, participants
mentioned various reasons for positive valence (e.g., winning, collaboration,
novel experiences) and despite DungeonMaker taking a core mechanic (i.e.,
moving) away from the users, and deciding their order of actions, participants
did not report a lower dominance after the play. Regarding arousal, players
showed an increase after the experience, highlighting the engaging nature of
play. The differences in arousal may also indicate a positive game experience
(if not aimed at relaxation), i.e., an exciting experience that could be
associated with a state of flow (Nacke and Lindley, 2008). This is also
evident in the open comments, where participants described the game as “fun
and immersive”, “a fun group experience”, or that it was “fun to design
weapons and interact with the environment through the system”, for example.
Players specifically positively mentioned experiences of uncertainty (e.g.,
regarding weapon ratings and NPC behavior), curiosity (e.g., regarding the
technology and scenario progression), and autonomy (e.g., strategizing
together), concepts that have been shown as essential for engaging play
(Costikyan, 2013; Power et al., 2019; To et al., 2016).

##### Jealousy and Benevolence:

Craft and subsequent machine-driven assessment of it lead to reactions from
teammates. We generally observed positive reactions between players, who
seemed to emphasize the collaboration aspect of the game. For example, in
response to P10 crafting a weapon: “oooh, a rare bow!” (P11), “Now you’re
competing with me!” (P12), “Now the party is all geared up.” (P11). Praising
teammates’ craft skills, as rated through DungeonMaker, was also done
regularly, and participants with imperfect outcomes even attempted to defer
activities to more “skilled” teammates: “Can I have [P7] build a weapon for
me?” (P8). These aspects highlight how craft, followed by machine-driven
assessment, may affect and influence players, their perceived proficiency, and
game strategies. Granted, this notion is particularly dependent on the
players’ personal relationships and individual characters, which manifest as
player types.

##### Idleness and Waiting:

In its current implementation, DungeonMaker is arguably a slower experience,
as actions like motion are mediated through the machine for safety reasons.
Despite this slow turn-taking, no signs of impatience were seen. Damaging was
particularly slow, yet players’ curiosity outweighed this downside. This can
be linked to the work of Tanenbaum (Tanenbaum et al., 2017), who outline
_idleness_ as a design element. Using faster (i.e., laser-cutters (Heller et
al., 2018)) or less precise (i.e., 3D printing pens (Takahashi and Kim, 2019))
accommodates for slowness, but does not remove it entirely. For DungeonMaker,
we noticed that there was either excited observation of machine action, or,
alternatively, participants strategizing in parallel.

##### Stances towards Fabrication Hardware:

Apart from acknowledging that fabrication hardware could be employed for tasks
other than explicit fabrication, there were no significant differences
regarding our single-item questions. Arguably, our sample contained a higher-
than-average amount of users experienced with fabrication devices. When
zooming in, trends among novices became visible: novices did–albeit
slightly–report a more positive stance (i.e., interest, curiosity) toward such
devices. While DungeonMaker does not aspire to be an explicit teaching and
learning tool or environment, it still managed to spark joy across all players
and curiosity across the players new to personal/digital fabrication. Notably,
it did so without requiring users to “learn” or “design” or “iterate”, but
instead letting them express themselves through the lens of a hybrid board
game that engages not only additive and subtractive manufacturing but also
robotic motion (i.e., CNC, as used in pick-and-place machines). We believe
that this indicates a new way to make “first contact” with the technology,
preceding explicit learning activities while being an enjoyable way to engage
with devices. This approach is promising, but needs more thorough exploration
through studies.

###  5.2. Design Considerations

The following sections outline a set of design considerations that we have
derived based on the design and development process of DungeonMaker, our
formative survey, playtesting, and the user study we conducted. See Table 1
for an overview.

Table 1. Overview of the design considerations based on the design and
development of DungeonMaker and the conducted studies.

|  Design Consideration
---|---
DC1 |  Foster Player Agency through Physical Expression
DC2 |  Balance Risk and Reward
DC3 |  Embrace Continuity in Hybrid Board Games
DC4 |  Consider Sustainability when Damage Becomes a Design Element
DC5 |  Leverage System Transparency vs. Opaqueness
DC6 |  Facilitate Playful Engagement with Fabrication Devices

##### Foster Player Agency through Physical Expression:

Agency perceived by the players is a crucial aspect of any game experience.
DungeonMaker added a new aspect of control and self-expression: namely, the
crafting of tangible artifacts that have a meaningful (i.e., gameplay-
relevant) influence over the game progression. For DungeonMaker, we had to
balance these aspects with users’ desires to engage in a board game experience
they might be more familiar with: one where they have full control over logic,
narration, and physical elements. The slowness and occasional unreliability of
motion further drew attention to the notion of agency and control.
DungeonMaker added and provided novel elements for a hybrid board game
experience, but also took away elements that are an integral part of board
games (e.g., moving figures, in our case, for safety and technical reasons).
We argue that such tradeoffs in re-shuffling chores (Xu et al., 2011) or even
fundamental interactions like figure movement can be worthwhile, if _agency is
fostered through other means_ , such as physical creation mechanics.

##### Balance Risk and Reward:

The notion of risk and risk-taking behavior is already present in most games.
However, their consequences differ in severity: they may apply to a single
turn, a game session, or, in more extreme cases, the loss of characters in
which players have invested months or years of their lives (Abraham, 2013;
West et al., 2022). This behavior is likely altered further when consequences
are physical and tangible. In our study, we observed both combat-avoidant
behavior and combat-provoking behaviors, depending on the equipment players
possessed,their stance towards loss (cf., loss aversion in games (Bandeira
Romão Tomé et al., 2020)), or their curiosity to _see_ a previously unseen and
unkown (To et al., 2016) event. In the case of DungeonMaker, the rewards,
beyond the experience of combat itself, were unclear. This was indicated by
participant comments, calling for more _tangible rewards_ of combats while the
rewards in DungeonMaker were immaterial (i.e., hints to solve riddles or
_digital_ boons like healing). We argue that material risk may need a material
reward, which happens to be well within the realm of fabrication-augmented
hybrid board games. It is unlikely that figures with financial values found in
“Warhammer” would even be used in scenarios where destruction is an option.
Similarly, the _absence_ of material risks on persistently used figures may
not yield altered gameplay strategies, as observed in our study.

##### Embrace Continuity in Hybrid Board Games:

Games like Dungeons and Dragons and Legacy games (Reiber, 2021) (introduced
with “Risk Legacy” risklegacy) embrace continuity that carries over several
game-sessions, where players develop backstories and increasingly improve
their characters (Arnaudo, 2018); where new rules are introduced, or game
boards change dynamically. With approaches like DungeonMaker, owning a figure
for board games may become even more relevant: players may re-use the same
figure (i.e., their avatar), or re-use a game board, physically marked with
traces of previous adventures or encounters, building a collaborative,
tangible memento (Turakhia et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2023), which may have a
rich, gameplay-affecting (digital) component. In turn, the gradient between
physical alteration, damage, and destruction has to be considered carefully
during game design to balance risk and meaningful physical continuity, as
mentioned in the previous point.

##### Consider Sustainability when Damage Becomes a Design Element:

In continuation of the two previous points, this gradient between physical
“alteration”, “damage”, and “destruction” also has to be carefully considered
with respect to material use and sustainability. This consideration can be
woven into aspects like material choice (Rivera et al., 2023; Vasquez and
Vega, 2019; Stemasov et al., 2022a), but we argue–grounded in our own design
process–that it can not be omitted from game design itself, considering it
upfront and not as an “afterthought” (Stemasov et al., 2022a). A middle ground
has to be found, where actual “destruction” is rare, while retaining risk yet
demonstrating it through visible, tangible damage. This echoes notions and
design considerations around “permadeath” in digital games (Carter and
Allison, 2017). The consideration of sustainability can also manifest in re-
usable figure designs, as done with DungeonMaker, to minimize damage, or embed
_repair_ (Jones and Girouard, 2021) in the fabrication-gameplay. For instance,
we see the damaged (not broken) figure in Fig. 8.4 to be one that players
could mend with a 3D-printing pen and keep using it as a “battle-tested”
character, specifically _because_ of the visible, repaired damage. In the
study, such damage was labeled by the participant to be a “[…] Hero’s scar”
(P12).

##### Leverage System Transparency vs. Opaqueness:

In the case of DungeonMaker, players were not always content with how their
weapons were rated, given that little explanation was provided. However, at
the same time, this unpredictability of DungeonMaker was appreciated and
valued, as it seemed to be “truly impartial”, akin to a genuinely experienced
and competent game- or dungeon-master in pen-and-paper roleplaying games. This
echoes notions of uncertainty in game experiences (Costikyan, 2013; To et al.,
2016) and can be further augmented with uncertainty in creation (e.g., quality
assessment) and loss (e.g., degree of damage). While opaqueness is generally
not ideal in game design, a Dungeon Master’s plans for a campaign are part of
a positive experience (Acharya et al., 2021) – DungeonMaker tries to embody
this by controlling NPCs, or evaluating crafted artifacts. In contrast,
participants complaining about randomness (e.g., “It doesn’t matter at all
which number you get, it’s all completely random […]” (P8)121212This referred
to the combat, which for both NPCs and players is based on random dice throws)
could be traced back to an excess of opaqueness in system-controlled moves.
Showing random values of digital dice throws (e.g., as done by the NPCs) would
have prevented frustration.

##### Facilitate Playful Engagement with Fabrication Devices:

Personal fabrication machinery is generally complex and has sparked a variety
of attempts to make it more accessible (e.g., (Baudisch et al., 2019; Mueller
et al., 2013)) and widely adopted (e.g., (Stemasov et al., 2021; Follmer et
al., 2010; Tian et al., 2018)). Usually, “first contact” happens through
established design processes (i.e., solving a mechanical problem or designing
something appealing (Li et al., 2012)). We argue that this approach may be
changed by _remixing the way we use and engage with these devices_ : by
omitting the notion of design and providing a playful, immersive engagement
with the technology instead of focusing on problem-solving upfront (Stemasov,
2021). The potential for this lens is indicated by the responses given by
novices in our study, but also in related works (Lafreniere and Grossman,
2018; Follmer and Ishii, 2012), especially ones that explore the use of
fabrication technology _for_ board games (Bhaduri et al., 2017; Tanenbaum et
al., 2017).

###  5.3. Emergent Design Elements Beyond DungeonMaker

DungeonMaker leverages a unique hardware setup to provide an engaging
experience while addressing the design goals presented in section 3.1.2.
However, the fundamental concepts likewise apply to alternative game genres
and alternative hardware setups. By combining the individual components of
DungeonMaker (cf. Fig. 1), namely creation, input+assessment, motion,
destruction, output+narration, a _rich space of altered, augmented, or re-
assigned roles_ and mechanics in hybrid board games emerges. We considered
these combinations of emergent design elements to be a design exercise, akin
to a morphological analysis (Zwicky, 1967) to describe and outline the
potential of comparable setups through the lens of existing board games. These
combinations may exhibit effects in terms of technological possibilities
(_enabling_ interactions), but also _alter_ underlying relationships between
users, game artifacts, the game, and devices involved (Devendorf and Ryokai,
2015). The following examples, in no particular order, touch upon existing
traditional and hybrid board games but could potentially be used to generate
novel game designs and platform configurations. We consider these brief
examples to highlight the richness of the space we probed with DungeonMaker,
and consider the exploration of this space to be a highly promising direction
for future work.

##### Creation + Sensing

Combining creation and sensing enables assessing player-crafted artifacts and
assigning game-relevant stats, potentially facilitating agency, attachment,
and value-creation. This considers the opposite direction of FabO (Turakhia et
al., 2021) by weaving analog craft into digital parts of gameplay while also
_assessing_ it for the game environment and its narrative. A tighter coupling
between physical and digital elements in hybrid board games is enabled by such
connections (physical $\longrightarrow$ digital). For instance, an intricate
hotel in “Monopoly” monopoly may yield extra income, or a particularly well-
painted miniature figure used in “When Darkness Comes” whendarknesscomes
receiving a bonus to their charisma value.

##### Motion + Sensing

Motion and sensing enable the detection and movement of figures or other
elements on the board. This enables digital game logic to have effects on
tangible components (digital $\longrightarrow$ physical), but also allows the
game to enact players’ motion commands (as done in DungeonMaker), or acquire
and react to player-initiated state changes on the board (physical
$\longrightarrow$ digital). In turn, this may enable tangible remote play
(Maurer and Fuchsberger, 2019; Mills et al., 2021, 2023; Sparrow and Rogerson,
2023), as demonstrated by commercial projects like Phantom
Chess131313https://www.phantomchessboard.com/, Accessed 25.01.2024.

##### Creation + Destruction

Allowing creation in conjunction with the risk of destruction adds the
potential for permanent alteration and loss of self-crafted objects, which, in
turn, adds risk and altered risk-taking behavior. This further goes beyond the
destruction of “owned” objects (Eickhoff et al., 2016), towards self-crafted,
and likely valued, ones (Rossmy et al., 2023). For miniature wargames like
“Warhammer” warhammerthirdedition, this may mean that players’ self-painted
figurines weather over time (e.g., from combat or environmental effects), or
that particularly risky decisions may have lasting consequences to artifacts
players have grown attached to. This bridges decisions that may emerge from
in-game calculations to physical outcomes (digital $\longrightarrow$
physical).

##### Sensing + Destruction

Combining sensing and destruction allows digital components of the game to
detect player-made damage or react to inputs with damage to physical
components (e.g., after a loss in combat). This may also allow iterative
sensing after destruction to meaningfully assess the damage and understand the
random effects of these actions (e.g., whether the laser was focused enough to
damage a figure or not). In the study, there was an instance of the cut
stopping too early, which made for an instance of _damage_ over _destruction_
, which could have nuanced effects on gameplay (physical $\longrightarrow$
digital $\longrightarrow$ physical). For single-use games like Exit
exitthegamethesecretlab, a system may sense whether players are about to enact
the “correct” destruction of physical game materials, or embed the sensing and
verification of destroyed elements into the gameplay.

##### Sensing + Output

Diegetic feedback for crafted artifacts is enabled by combining sensing and
output. Then, real craft translates to in-game forging mechanics (physical
$\longrightarrow$ digital), as presented with DungeonMaker. In games like
“Catan” thesettlersofcatan, player-crafted tiles could be automatically
assigned a resource type (forest, hill). Furthermore, this covers the
automation of _any_ translation of physical elements to digital ones. Users
are then freed from–often manually–keeping a digital representation of a game
in sync with the physical one.

##### Motion + Output

Motion coupled with output allows for narrations and explanations of NPC
actions, further supporting an immersive experience in narrative-driven board
games (e.g., for alien non-player characters in “XCOM the Board Game”
xcomtheboardgame). This can serve as a narrative bridge (physical
$\longleftrightarrow$ digital) that provides explanations of actions in the
physical space, both for NPC actions, but also to narrate and enrich players’
actions, serving as a game master, as demonstrated with DungeonMaker.

This subset of design element pairings already outlines a highly intriguing
potential for altered and enhanced player experiences. However, they are
certainly incomplete and may develop different dynamics depending on the
specific game and hardware platform they are applied to.

##  6\. Limitations and Future Work

The following paragraphs outline the limitations we see with the current
implementation and evaluation of DungeonMaker, followed by what we consider
meaningful avenues for future research.

##### Limitations

While we gained highly valuable insights with our user study, the effects of a
time-constrained play session might not mirror everyday board game
experiences. Furthermore, we consider the sample to be rather small and biased
toward users with a higher affinity for technology. Similarly, half of the
participants can be considered experienced with digital fabrication, skewing
the sample further. DungeonMaker hands control over physical space to a hybrid
board game, but did not enable full control and bi-directionality between
digital and physical representations. For instance, customizing a figure did
not have an effect on the digital avatar displayed on the game UI. As a
system, DungeonMaker is currently tied to a very specific hardware setup
(especially the laser cutter) and a specific game. Making it generic for any
and all hardware combinations, while similarly making it generically
applicable to any type of game is likely to be a challenge. While some of
these aspects limit the space we were able to explore with DungeonMaker, we
argue that it is an incredibly rich one, full of potential for hardware,
software, and game-experience advances.

##### Future Work

DungeonMaker can be improved from a technical perspective by adding additional
sensing modules or fabrication capabilities (Vasquez et al., 2020). The laser
cutter could also be used for engraving onto players and the board, to create
yet another tangible memento from a memorable game session. The narration and
game master aspects of DungeonMaker can also be enhanced through intelligence
and adaptivity (Triyason, 2023; Ang et al., 2023). The gameplay of
DungeonMaker can also be improved further. In particular, we would like to
further balance the game itself (or allow for balancing on-the-fly (Rogers et
al., 2018)). We further aim to facilitate more figure customization, which,
ideally, is both precise and visually appealing, while also being done by the
users themselves (i.e., not using pre-made designs as in many board games,
e.g., kingdomdeathmonster,warhammerthirdedition,gloomhaven,frosthaven). All
aforementioned points are particularly relevant to enable longer scenarios or
entire campaigns and increase the complexity of the game. We are further
interested in larger-scale studies using DungeonMaker. In particular, the
ratio of “fabrication-experienced” to “fabrication-novice” participants was
not representative of a broader population (Stemasov, 2021). This is crucial
to consider when treating DungeonMaker as an implicit learning system, and not
exclusively a game system (Turakhia et al., 2022a). We currently do not see
DungeonMaker as an environment for explicit knowledge acquisition yet, but see
a potential to embed and gamify this notion (Lafreniere and Grossman, 2018; Li
et al., 2012). This would need more explicit aspects of feedback that may
generalize to acquiring knowledge of digital fabrication processes (Turakhia
et al., 2022a; Kafai and Vasudevan, 2015; Pearce et al., 2016).

##  7\. Conclusion

We presented DungeonMaker, a hybrid board game infused with and augmented
through fabrication abilities to enable a tighter coupling between the
physical and digital environment. DungeonMaker augments hybrid board games
with the ability of machine-driven manipulation, destruction, and
computational assessment of player-crafted artifacts. This allows a hybrid
board game to actively perceive and influence the physical play space,
potentially leading to a stronger relationship between player and game
experience, leveraging physical expression and creation and, similarly, the
potential of physical loss and damage.

In a user study, we evaluated DungeonMaker, confirming that it provides a
highly engaging and enjoyable experience and that components like crafting,
machine-driven motion, and potential destruction contribute positively to the
overall experience. We further found that manually crafting equipment for
one’s figures may increase players’ attachment to them, akin to
personalization approaches in digital games.

Our approach presents an alternative vision of how personal fabrication
devices might become everyday appliances. Instead of being general-purpose
tools for solving mechanical problems, they become augmentations to existing
concepts like board games, allowing them to mirror digital actions onto the
physical environment and vice-versa. We consider approaches like DungeonMaker
to open up a rich and highly promising space for both (hybrid) board game
design, and personal fabrication technologies alike.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank our survey and study participants, the reviewers of the manuscript,
and the contributors to the Printrun software ecosystem. We further thank
Regan Mandryk for providing feedback on the concept.
This research was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG, German Research Foundation) through the project “Democratic and
Sustainable Personal Design and Fabrication through In-situ Co-Design and
Previsualization” (Project number: 525038300).
This work has been co-funded by the LOEWE initiative (Hesse, Germany) within
the emergenCITY center.

## References

  * (1)
  * Abeele et al. (2020) Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin Gerling. 2020.  Development and Validation of the Player Experience Inventory: A Scale to Measure Player Experiences at the Level of Functional and Psychosocial Consequences.  _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_ 135 (March 2020), 102370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370
  * Abraham (2013) Benjamin Abraham. 2013\.  Imposed Rules and ‘Expansive Gameplay’: A Close Reading of the Far Cry 2 Permadeath Experiment. In _Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference_. Digital Games Research Association DiGRA, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1–2.
  * Acharya et al. (2021) Devi Acharya, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2021\.  Interviews Towards Designing Support Tools for TTRPG Game Masters. In _Interactive Storytelling_ _(Lecture Notes in Computer Science)_ , Alex Mitchell and Mirjam Vosmeer (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 283–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92300-6_26
  * Albaugh et al. (2016) Lea Albaugh, April Grow, Chenxi Liu, James McCann, Gillian Smith, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2016\.  Threadsteading: Playful Interaction for Textile Fabrication Devices. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 285–288.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2889466
  * Allison et al. (2015) Fraser Allison, Marcus Carter, and Martin Gibbs. 2015\.  Good Frustrations: The Paradoxical Pleasure of Fearing Death in DayZ. In _Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction_ _(OzCHI ’15)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838810
  * Ang et al. (2023) Charlene Ang, Lorraine Renee Cortel, Carlo Luis Santos, and Ethel Ong. 2023.  Fable Reborn: Investigating Gameplay Experience between a Human Player and a Virtual Dungeon Master. In _Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585793
  * Arjoranta et al. (2016) Jonne Arjoranta, Ville Kankainen, and Timo Nummenmaa. 2016\.  Blending in Hybrid Games: Understanding Hybrid Games Through Experience. In _Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology_ _(ACE ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3001773.3001798
  * Arnaudo (2018) Marco Arnaudo. 2018\.  _Storytelling in the Modern Board Game - Narrative Trends from the Late 1960s to Today_.  McFarland, Jefferson, NC, USA.  https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/storytelling-in-the-modern-board-game/
  * Aron et al. (1992) Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992\.  Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness.  _Journal of personality and social psychology_ 63, 4 (1992), 596.
  * Aron et al. (1991) Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, Michael Tudor, and Greg Nelson. 1991\.  Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self.  _Journal of personality and social psychology_ 60, 2 (1991), 241.
  * Bandeira Romão Tomé et al. (2020) Natanael Bandeira Romão Tomé, Madison Klarkowski, Carl Gutwin, Cody Phillips, Regan L. Mandryk, and Andy Cockburn. 2020.  Risking Treasure: Testing Loss Aversion in an Adventure Game. In _Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_ _(CHI PLAY ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 306–320.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414250
  * Baudisch and Mueller (2017) Patrick Baudisch and Stefanie Mueller. 2017.  Personal Fabrication.  _Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction_ 10, 3–4 (May 2017), 165–293.  https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000055
  * Baudisch et al. (2019) Patrick Baudisch, Arthur Silber, Yannis Kommana, Milan Gruner, Ludwig Wall, Kevin Reuss, Lukas Heilman, Robert Kovacs, Daniel Rechlitz, and Thijs Roumen. 2019\.  Kyub: A 3D Editor for Modeling Sturdy Laser-Cut Objects. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’19)_. Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300796
  * Berman et al. (2020) Alexander Berman, Francis Quek, Robert Woodward, Osazuwa Okundaye, and Jeeeun Kim. 2020.  ’Anyone Can Print’: Supporting Collaborations with 3D Printing Services to Empower Broader Participation in Personal Fabrication. In _Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society_ _(NordiCHI ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420068
  * Bhaduri et al. (2017) Srinjita Bhaduri, Jesús G. Ortiz Tovar, and Shaun K. Kane. 2017.  Fabrication Games: Using 3D Printers to Explore New Interactions for Tabletop Games. In _Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition_ _(C &C ’17)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51–62.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059463
  * Bimber and Raskar (2005) Oliver Bimber and Ramesh Raskar. 2005.  _Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds_.  A. K. Peters, Ltd., USA.
  * Birk et al. (2016) Max V. Birk, Cheralyn Atkins, Jason T. Bowey, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2016.  Fostering Intrinsic Motivation through Avatar Identification in Digital Games. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM, San Jose, CA, USA, 2982–2995.
  * Bradley and Lang (1994) Margaret M Bradley and Peter J Lang. 1994.  Measuring Emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential.  _Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry_ 25, 1 (1994), 49–59.
  * Buruk et al. (2017a) Oğuz Turan Buruk, Ismet Melih Özbeyli, and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2017a.  Augmented Table-Top Role-Playing Game with Movement-Based Gameplay and Arm-Worn Devices. In _Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems_ _(DIS ’17 Companion)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 289–292.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3079176
  * Buruk et al. (2017b) Oğuz Turan Buruk, Ismet Melih Özbeyli, and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2017b.  WEARPG: Movement-Based Tabletop Role-Playing Game with Arm-Worn Devices and an Augmented Die. In _Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_ _(CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 639–646.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3130868
  * Carter and Allison (2017) Marcus Carter and Fraser Allison. 2017.  Fear, Loss and Meaningful Play: Permadeath in DayZ.  _Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds_ 9, 2 (June 2017), 143–158.  https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.9.2.143_1
  * Carter et al. (2014) Marcus Carter, Martin Gibbs, and Mitchell Harrop. 2014\.  Drafting an Army: The Playful Pastime of Warhammer 40,000.  _Games and Culture_ 9, 2 (March 2014), 122–147.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013513349
  * Cavicchini and Mariani (2019) Saverio Cavicchini and Ilaria Mariani. 2019.  Hybrid Board Game: Possibilities and Implications from an Interaction Design Perspective. In _GHItaly19: 3rd Workshop on Games-Human Interaction_. Padova, Italy, 6.
  * Costikyan (2013) Greg Costikyan. 2013\.  _Uncertainty in Games_.  Mit Press.
  * Cuthbert et al. (2020) Robert Cuthbert, Selen Turkay, and Ross Brown. 2020\.  The Effects of Customisation on Player Experiences and Motivation in a Virtual Reality Game. In _Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction_ _(OZCHI’19)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 221–232.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3369457.3369475
  * Devendorf et al. (2016) Laura Devendorf, Abigail De Kosnik, Kate Mattingly, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2016.  Probing the Potential of Post-Anthropocentric 3D Printing. In _Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems_ _(DIS ’16)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 170–181.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901879
  * Devendorf and Rosner (2015) Laura Devendorf and Daniela K. Rosner. 2015.  Reimagining Digital Fabrication As Performance Art. In _Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’15)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 555–566.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732507
  * Devendorf and Ryokai (2015) Laura Devendorf and Kimiko Ryokai. 2015.  Being the Machine: Reconfiguring Agency and Control in Hybrid Fabrication. In _Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’15)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2477–2486.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702547
  * Eickhoff et al. (2016) David Eickhoff, Stefanie Mueller, and Patrick Baudisch. 2016\.  Destructive Games: Creating Value by Destroying Valuable Physical Objects. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3970–3974.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858113
  * Engelstein and Shalev (2022) Geoffrey Engelstein and Isaac Shalev. 2022.  _Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An Encyclopedia of Mechanisms_.  CRC Press.
  * Follmer et al. (2010) Sean Follmer, David Carr, Emily Lovell, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2010\.  CopyCAD: Remixing Physical Objects with Copy and Paste from the Real World. In _Adjunct Proceedings of the 23Nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’10)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 381–382.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1866218.1866230
  * Follmer and Ishii (2012) Sean Follmer and Hiroshi Ishii. 2012.  KidCAD: Digitally Remixing Toys through Tangible Tools. In _Proceedings of the 2012 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM, New York, NY, 2401–2410.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208403
  * Garrido-Jurado et al. (2014) S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Muñoz-Salinas, F. J. Madrid-Cuevas, and M. J. Marín-Jiménez. 2014\.  Automatic Generation and Detection of Highly Reliable Fiducial Markers under Occlusion.  _Pattern Recognition_ 47, 6 (June 2014), 2280–2292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2014.01.005
  * Gómez-Maureira et al. (2020) Marcello A. Gómez-Maureira, Giulio Barbero, Maria Freese, and Mike Preuss. 2020.  Towards a Taxonomy of AI in Hybrid Board Games. In _International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games_ _(FDG ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3402942.3409607
  * Grasse et al. (2021) Katelyn M. Grasse, Marjorie Ann M. Cuerdo, and Edward F. Melcer. 2021.  Mad Mixologist: Exploring How Object Placement in Tangible Play Spaces Affects Collaborative Interaction Strategies. In _2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG)_. 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG52621.2021.9619086
  * Grasse and Melcer (2020) Katelyn M. Grasse and Edward F. Melcer. 2020.  Generation: A Novel Fabrication Game for Simulating Evolution and Natural Selection. In _Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_ _(CHI PLAY ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 38–42.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3383668.3419859
  * Harrop et al. (2013) Mitchell Harrop, Martin Gibbs, and Marcus Carter. 2013\.  Everyone’s a Winner at Warhammer 40K (or, at Least Not a Loser).  _Proceedings of DiGRA 2013 Conference: DeFragging Game Studies._ (2013).
  * Heller et al. (2018) Florian Heller, Jan Thar, Dennis Lewandowski, Mirko Hartmann, Pierre Schoonbrood, Sophy Stönner, Simon Voelker, and Jan Borchers. 2018\.  CutCAD - An Open-source Tool to Design 3D Objects in 2D. In _Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ _(DIS ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1135–1139.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196800
  * Hudson et al. (2016) Nathaniel Hudson, Celena Alcock, and Parmit K. Chilana. 2016\.  Understanding Newcomers to 3D Printing: Motivations, Workflows, and Barriers of Casual Makers. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’16)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 384–396.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858266
  * Jarvis (2022) Matt Jarvis. 2022\.  Digital without Losing the Physical, Teburu Is a Promising next Step for Hybrid Board Games.  https://www.dicebreaker.com/topics/teburu/feature/teburu-hybrid-board-gaming
  * Jensen et al. (2020) Walther Jensen, Thomas Streubel Kristensen, Christoffer Sand Kirk, Hassan Abdul Hameed, Daniel Bergmann Villadsen, and Markus Löchtefeld. 2020\.  Hybrid Settlers - Integrating Dynamic Tiles into a Physical Board Game Using Electrochromic Displays. In _Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382857
  * Jones and Girouard (2021) Lee Jones and Audrey Girouard. 2021.  Patching Textiles: Insights from Visible Mending Educators on Wearability, Extending the Life of Our Clothes, and Teaching Tangible Crafts. In _Creativity and Cognition_. ACM, Virtual Event Italy, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465265
  * Jones et al. (2023) Lee Jones, Greta Grip, and Sara Nabil. 2023.  Wear Your Heart on Your Sleeve: Using Digital Knitting Machines to Craft Wearable Biodata Portraits. In _Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ _(DIS ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 547–563.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596007
  * Kafai and Vasudevan (2015) Yasmin Kafai and Veena Vasudevan. 2015.  Hi-Lo Tech Games: Crafting, Coding and Collaboration of Augmented Board Games by High School Youth. In _Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children_ _(IDC ’15)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 130–139.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771853
  * Kaimoto et al. (2022) Hiroki Kaimoto, Kyzyl Monteiro, Mehrad Faridan, Jiatong Li, Samin Farajian, Yasuaki Kakehi, Ken Nakagaki, and Ryo Suzuki. 2022\.  Sketched Reality: Sketching Bi-Directional Interactions Between Virtual and Physical Worlds with AR and Actuated Tangible UI. In _Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’22)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545626
  * Kankainen (2016) Ville Kankainen. 2016\.  The Interplay of Two Worlds in Blood Bowl: Implications for Hybrid Board Game Design. In _Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology_ _(ACE ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3001773.3001796
  * Kankainen (2019) Ville Kankainen. 2019\.  Hybrid Board Game Design Guidelines.  _Proceedings of DiGRA 2019_ (2019), 22.
  * Kao and Harrell (2018) Dominic Kao and D. Fox Harrell. 2018.  The Effects of Badges and Avatar Identification on Play and Making in Educational Games. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174174
  * Katakura et al. (2019) Shohei Katakura, Yuto Kuroki, and Keita Watanabe. 2019\.  A 3D Printer Head as a Robotic Manipulator. In _Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’19)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 535–548.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347885
  * Koulouris et al. (2020) Jordan Koulouris, Zoe Jeffery, James Best, Eamonn O’neill, and Christof Lutteroth. 2020.  Me vs. Super (Wo) Man: Effects of Customization and Identification in a VR Exergame. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. 1–17.
  * Lafreniere and Grossman (2018) Ben Lafreniere and Tovi Grossman. 2018.  Blocks-to-CAD: A Cross-Application Bridge from Minecraft to 3D Modeling. In _Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 637–648.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3242587.3242602
  * Lee and Albaugh (2021) Yi-Chin Lee and Lea Albaugh. 2021.  Hybrid Embroidery Games: Playing with Materials, Machines, and People. In _Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021_ _(DIS ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 749–762.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462019
  * Li et al. (2012) Wei Li, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2012.  GamiCAD: A Gamified Tutorial System for First Time Autocad Users. In _Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’12)_. Association for Computing Machinery, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2380116.2380131
  * Ludwig et al. (2019) Thomas Ludwig, Michael Döll, and Christoph Kotthaus. 2019\.  ”The Printer Is Telling Me About Itself”: Supporting the Appropriation of Hardware by Using Projection Mapping. In _Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ _(DIS ’19)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 331–344.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322342
  * Mandryk et al. (2002) Regan L. Mandryk, Diego S. Maranan, and Kori M. Inkpen. 2002\.  False Prophets: Exploring Hybrid Board/Video Games. In _CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’02)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 640–641.  https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506523
  * Maurer and Fuchsberger (2019) Bernhard Maurer and Verena Fuchsberger. 2019.  Dislocated Boardgames: Design Potentials for Remote Tangible Play.  _Multimodal Technologies and Interaction_ 3, 4 (Dec. 2019), 72.  https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3040072
  * Mills et al. (2023) Chelsea Mills, Denise Y. Geiskkovitch, Carman Neustaedter, William Odom, and Benett Axtell. 2023\.  Remote Wavelength: Design and Evaluation of a System for Social Connectedness Through Distributed Tabletop Gameplay. In _Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581142
  * Mills et al. (2021) Chelsea Mills, Carman Neustaedter, and William Odom. 2021\.  Distributed Letter Jam: Designing Distributed Board Game Play for Social Connection. In _Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing_ _(CSCW ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 135–139.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3462204.3481753
  * Mota (2011) Catarina Mota. 2011\.  The Rise of Personal Fabrication. In _Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition_ _(C &C ’11)_. Association for Computing Machinery, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 279–288.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069665
  * Mueller et al. (2015) Stefanie Mueller, Martin Fritzsche, Jan Kossmann, Maximilian Schneider, Jonathan Striebel, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015.  Scotty: Relocating Physical Objects across Distances Using Destructive Scanning, Encryption, and 3D Printing. In _Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction_. 233–240.
  * Mueller et al. (2013) Stefanie Mueller, Pedro Lopes, Konstantin Kaefer, Bastian Kruck, and Patrick Baudisch. 2013.  Constructable: Interactive Construction of Functional Mechanical Devices. In _ACM SIGGRAPH 2013 Talks_ _(SIGGRAPH ’13)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39:1–39:1.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2504459.2504508
  * Nacke and Lindley (2008) Lennart Nacke and Craig A. Lindley. 2008.  Flow and Immersion in First-Person Shooters: Measuring the Player’s Gameplay Experience. In _Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share_ _(Future Play ’08)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1496984.1496998
  * Nisser et al. (2021) Martin Nisser, Christina Chen Liao, Yuchen Chai, Aradhana Adhikari, Steve Hodges, and Stefanie Mueller. 2021.  LaserFactory: A Laser Cutter-based Electromechanical Assembly and Fabrication Platform to Make Functional Devices & Robots. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445692
  * Nummenmaa and Kankainen (2019) Timo Nummenmaa and Ville Kankainen. 2019.  Social Features in Hybrid Board Game Marketing Material. In _Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games_ _(FDG ’19)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3341864
  * O’Brien (2017) Amber G. O’Brien. 2017\.  The Pantheon of Dream: Playing with Emergent and Embedded Narratives to Increase Player Immersion. In _Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_ _(CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 607–613.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3130863
  * Olwal et al. (2008) Alex Olwal, Jonny Gustafsson, and Christoffer Lindfors. 2008\.  Spatial Augmented Reality on Industrial CNC-machines. In _The Engineering Reality of Virtual Reality 2008_ , Vol. 6804. SPIE, 70–78.
  * Pearce et al. (2016) Celia Pearce, Gillian Smith, Jeanie Choi, and Isabella Carlsson. 2016.  eBee: Merging Quilting, Electronics & Board Game Design. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI EA ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3877–3880.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2891099
  * Power et al. (2019) Christopher Power, Paul Cairns, Alena Denisova, Themis Papaioannou, and Ruth Gultom. 2019\.  Lost at the Edge of Uncertainty: Measuring Player Uncertainty in Digital Games.  _International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction_ 35, 12 (July 2019), 1033–1045.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1507161
  * Qi et al. (2021) Jie Qi, Natalie Freed, Tiffany Tseng, Fay Shaw, Barbara Liedahl, Becca Rose Glowacki, and Yoshihiro Kawahara. 2021.  Exquisite Circuits: Collaborative Electronics Design through Drawing Games. In _Creativity and Cognition_ _(C &C ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3466776
  * Reiber (2021) Frederick Reiber. 2021\.  Major Developments in the Evolution of Tabletop Game Design. In _2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG)_. 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG52621.2021.9619158
  * Rivera et al. (2023) Michael L. Rivera, S. Sandra Bae, and Scott E. Hudson. 2023\.  Designing a Sustainable Material for 3D Printing with Spent Coffee Grounds. In _Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference_. ACM, Pittsburgh PA USA, 294–311.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3595983
  * Rogers et al. (2018) Katja Rogers, Mark Colley, David Lehr, Julian Frommel, Marcel Walch, Lennart E. Nacke, and Michael Weber. 2018.  KickAR: Exploring Game Balancing Through Boosts and Handicaps in Augmented Reality Table Football. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173740
  * Rogerson et al. (2021a) Melissa J. Rogerson, Lucy A. Sparrow, and Martin R. Gibbs. 2021a.  Unpacking “Boardgames with Apps”: The Hybrid Digital Boardgame Model. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445077
  * Rogerson and Gibbs (2020) Melissa J Rogerson and Martin Gibbs. 2020.  The Precursors to Modern Hybrid Boardgames.  _Proceedings of DiGRA Australia 2020_ (2020).
  * Rogerson et al. (2015) Melissa J Rogerson, Martin Gibbs, and Wally Smith. 2015\.  Digitising Boardgames: Issues and Tensions.  _Proceedings of DiGRA 2015: Diversity of play: Games – Cultures – Identities_ (2015).
  * Rogerson et al. (2016) Melissa J. Rogerson, Martin Gibbs, and Wally Smith. 2016\.  ”I Love All the Bits”: The Materiality of Boardgames. In _Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’16)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3956–3969.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858433
  * Rogerson et al. (2021b) Melissa J Rogerson, Lucy A Sparrow, and Martin R Gibbs. 2021b.  Capturing Hybridity: A Comparative Analysis of Three Hybrid Digital Boardgames.  _Proceedings of DiGRA Australia 2021_ (2021).
  * Rogerson et al. (2021c) Melissa J. Rogerson, Lucy A. Sparrow, and Martin R. Gibbs. 2021c.  More Than a Gimmick - Digital Tools for Boardgame Play.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 5, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2021), 261:1–261:23.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3474688
  * Rossmy et al. (2023) Beat Rossmy, Nađa Terzimehić, Tanja Döring, Daniel Buschek, and Alexander Wiethoff. 2023\.  Point of No Undo: Irreversible Interactions as a Design Strategy. In _Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581433
  * Rossmy et al. (2020) Beat Rossmy, Sarah Theres Völkel, Elias Naphausen, Patricia Kimm, Alexander Wiethoff, and Andreas Muxel. 2020.  Punishable AI: Examining Users’ Attitude Towards Robot Punishment. In _Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference_ _(DIS ’20)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 179–191.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395542
  * Seinfeld et al. (2021) Sofia Seinfeld, Tiare Feuchtner, Antonella Maselli, and Jörg Müller. 2021.  User Representations in Human-Computer Interaction.  _Human–Computer Interaction_ 36, 5-6 (Oct. 2021), 400–438.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1724790
  * Sibilla and Mancini (2018) Federica Sibilla and Tiziana Mancini. 2018.  I Am (Not) My Avatar: A Review of the User-Avatar Relationships in Massively Multiplayer Online Worlds.  _Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace_ 12, 3 (2018).
  * Song and Paulos (2021) Katherine W Song and Eric Paulos. 2021.  Unmaking: Enabling and Celebrating the Creative Material of Failure, Destruction, Decay, and Deformation. In _Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445529
  * Sousa and Bernardo (2019) Micael Sousa and Edgar Bernardo. 2019.  Back in the Game: Modern Board Games. In _Videogame Sciences and Arts: 11th International Conference, VJ 2019, Aveiro, Portugal, November 27–29, 2019, Proceedings 11_. Springer, 72–85.
  * Sparrow and Rogerson (2023) Lucy A. Sparrow and Melissa J. Rogerson. 2023.  Lessons from Homebrewed Hybridity: Designing Hybrid Digital Boardgames for Distanced Play.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 7, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2023), 376:45–376:72.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3611022
  * Stemasov (2021) Evgeny Stemasov. 2021\.  Enabling Ubiquitous Personal Fabrication by Deconstructing Established Notions of Artifact Modeling. In _The Adjunct Publication of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’21)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 166–170.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3474349.3477589
  * Stemasov et al. (2022a) Evgeny Stemasov, Alexander Botner, Enrico Rukzio, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2022a.  Ephemeral Fabrication: Exploring a Ubiquitous Fabrication Scenario of Low-Effort, In-Situ Creation of Short-Lived Physical Artifacts. In _Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction_ _(TEI ’22)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501331
  * Stemasov et al. (2023) Evgeny Stemasov, Jessica Hohn, Maurice Cordts, Anja Schikorr, Enrico Rukzio, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2023\.  BrickStARt: Enabling In-situ Design and Tangible Exploration for Personal Fabrication Using Mixed Reality.  _Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction_ 7, ISS (Nov. 2023), 429:64–429:92.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3626465
  * Stemasov et al. (2021) Evgeny Stemasov, Enrico Rukzio, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2021\.  The Road to Ubiquitous Personal Fabrication: Modeling-Free Instead of Increasingly Simple.  _IEEE Pervasive Computing_ 20, 1 (2021), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2020.3029650
  * Stemasov et al. (2020) Evgeny Stemasov, Tobias Wagner, Jan Gugenheimer, and Enrico Rukzio. 2020.  Mix&Match: Towards Omitting Modelling Through In-situ Remixing of Model Repository Artifacts in Mixed Reality. In _Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’20)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376839
  * Stemasov et al. (2022b) Evgeny Stemasov, Tobias Wagner, Jan Gugenheimer, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022b.  ShapeFindAR: Exploring In-Situ Spatial Search for Physical Artifact Retrieval Using Mixed Reality. In _Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’22)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517682
  * Sullivan et al. (2018) Anne Sullivan, Joshua Allen McCoy, Sarah Hendricks, and Brittany Williams. 2018.  Loominary: Crafting Tangible Artifacts from Player Narrative. In _Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction_ _(TEI ’18)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 443–450.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173249
  * Sullivan and Salter (2017) Anne Sullivan and Anastasia Salter. 2017.  A Taxonomy of Narrative-Centric Board and Card Games. In _Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games_ _(FDG ’17)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3102071.3102100
  * Sullivan and Smith (2016) Anne Sullivan and Gillian Smith. 2016.  Designing Craft Games.  _Interactions_ 24, 1 (Dec. 2016), 38–41.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3019004
  * Takahashi and Kim (2019) Haruki Takahashi and Jeeeun Kim. 2019.  3D Pen + 3D Printer: Exploring the Role of Humans and Fabrication Machines in Creative Making. In _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’19)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295:1–295:12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300525
  * Tanenbaum et al. (2017) Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, Karen Tanenbaum, and Michael Cowling. 2017\.  Designing Hybrid Games for Playful Fabrication: Augmentation, Accumulation & Idleness. In _Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play_. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands, 413–419.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3131334
  * Tchernavskij et al. (2022) Philip Tchernavskij, Andrew M. Webb, Hayden Gemeinhardt, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2022.  Readymades & Repertoires: Artifact-Mediated Improvisation in Tabletop Role-Playing Games. In _Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition_ _(C &C ’22)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 298–311.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3527927.3532798
  * Teibrich et al. (2015) Alexander Teibrich, Stefanie Mueller, François Guimbretière, Robert Kovacs, Stefan Neubert, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015\.  Patching Physical Objects. In _Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology_ _(UIST ’15)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807467
  * Thompson et al. (1998) Suzanne C. Thompson, Wade Armstrong, and Craig Thomas. 1998\.  Illusions of Control, Underestimations, and Accuracy: A Control Heuristic Explanation.  _Psychological bulletin_ 123, 2 (1998), 143\.
  * Thue et al. (2010) David Thue, Vadim Bulitko, Marcia Spetch, and Trevon Romanuik. 2010.  Player Agency and the Relevance of Decisions. In _Interactive Storytelling: Third Joint Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2010, Edinburgh, UK, November 1-3, 2010. Proceedings 3_. Springer, 210–215.
  * Tian et al. (2018) Rundong Tian, Sarah Sterman, Ethan Chiou, Jeremy Warner, and Eric Paulos. 2018.  MatchSticks: Woodworking Through Improvisational Digital Fabrication. In _Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ _(CHI ’18)_. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 149:1–149:12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173723
  * To et al. (2016) Alexandra To, Safinah Ali, Geoff Kaufman, and Jessica Hammer. 2016.  Integrating Curiosity and Uncertainty in Game Design.  _Digra/fdg_ (2016).
  * Triyason (2023) Tuul Triyason. 2023\.  Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT as a Dungeon Master in Dungeons & Dragons Tabletop Game. In _Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology_ _(IAIT ’23)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3628454.3628457
  * Turakhia et al. (2022a) Dishita Turakhia, Peiling Jiang, Brent Liu, Mackenzie Leake, and Stefanie Mueller. 2022a.  The Reflective Maker: Using Reflection to Support Skill-learning in Makerspaces. In _The Adjunct Publication of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology_ _(UIST ’22 Adjunct)_. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3526114.3558716