Every mechanic in these games was chosen to mask an educational load. The adolescents who co-designed them told us plainly what they would tolerate — fast, competitive, social, physical — and the nutrition content had to fit inside those constraints rather than the other way around.
Design constraints
The design pillars we got out of the co-creation workshops
Game 01
Named for the shared platter of many small dishes. Three levels, played in sequence as students' competence grew — the loudest game in the set, and the highest-energy.
The blind-cohort test recorded a specific gain: a marked improvement in identifying grains and white roots, the group students were least sure about at baseline.
Game 02
The game that carries the project's name, and the only one built around a physical act. Slower and more deliberate than Beyaynetu — it depends entirely on players talking to each other.
The passing rule is why the game exists. Co-designers kept asking for a physical, social action — and handing food to someone is what the word means. It forces the team to negotiate rather than each player optimising alone.
Blind testers said the rules felt confusing for the first few minutes and became intuitive the moment play started — and reported high replay value, saying repeat plays would teach them more.
Game 03
The most ambitious game in the portfolio and the hardest to get right. It moves attention outward — from what you eat to where it came from, and what that costs you.
This game drew the strongest emotions of the intervention. Real frustration at losing points to event cards — which the team read as high motivation, not a problem.
It also gave the clearest single proof of learning. At School 2, players began avoiding street-food locations to dodge penalties — meaning the underlying logic had been internalised.
Print & play
The print-and-play pack: rules, food-group cards and assembly notes for all games. Enter your email and our team will be in touch.