Designing Games for Class
Listen First
Listen to all three of these before reading this module:
-
Ep. 262: Gamification, feat. Rob Biernacki (BJJ Mental Models)
Why and how gamification works in jiu jitsu. How students and coaches can gamify training.
Ep. 262: Gamification, feat. Rob Biernacki
Listen on Spotify
-
Ep. 185: F Your Jiu Jitsu, feat. Rob Biernacki (BJJ Mental Models)
The FYJJ game, self-handicapping, and how to keep training interesting across skill levels. Warning: lewd and condescending at times toward beginners, but the information is valuable.
Ep. 185: F Your Jiu Jitsu, feat. Rob Biernacki
Listen on Spotify
-
Ep. 378: Repetition and Representation, feat. Cal Jones (BJJ Mental Models)
Quality of reps over quantity, the PVCT model for layering training tasks, perception-action coupling, invariants, and designing training that transfers to competition.
Ep. 378: Repetition and Representation, feat. Cal Jones
Listen on Apple Podcasts
-
Ep. 372: Plug-and-Play Games, feat. Ryan Rich (BJJ Mental Models)
Using pre-made games as starting points, the barrier to adopting games-based learning, and why the frustration problem (beginners experiencing failure without progress feedback) is the central unsolved challenge in jiu jitsu pedagogy.
Ep. 372: Plug-and-Play Games, feat. Ryan Rich
Listen on Apple Podcasts
-
Ep. 252: Ecological Drilling for Snobs, feat. Matt Kwan (BJJ Mental Models)
The drilling vs. games false binary, solo drilling for injury recovery, and why hybrid approaches work. A nuanced take on when drilling has value and when games are better.
Ep. 252: Ecological Drilling for Snobs, feat. Matt Kwan
Listen on Apple Podcasts
How This Module Fits the Spectrum
The Training Activity Spectrum teaches the three categories: designated winner, FYJJ, and games. Controlling Resistance teaches the primary tool for adjusting difficulty. This module teaches the craft: how to design activities that actually develop skills.
The design principles below apply across the spectrum, but they work differently in each category:
- In designated winner: You're designing a movement pathway with calibrated resistance. The scope can range from a single technique (knee slice from headquarters) to open exploration of a position (passing from headquarters, any option). Either way, resistance should be smooth throughout. The "design" is choosing the right scope, the right constraints for the defender, and the right entry point for the designated winner.
- In FYJJ: The game is already designed and students self-handicap, so there's less to build from scratch. The main design question is whether to restrict to a specific position. The evergreen FYJJ games (FYJJ Pinning, FYJJ Sweeping, FYJJ Guard Retention) are generally unrestricted. Within a class topic, you might constrain FYJJ to a specific area: FYJJ sweeping from X guard only, or FYJJ mount where the top player does the least amount of work possible to prevent the escape.
- In constrained games: You're designing a symmetric game where both sides can win. This is where game design gets the most complex and the most powerful. Win conditions, constraints, and starting positions all need to work together.
Most of this module focuses on constrained games because that's where the design craft matters most. Designated winner and FYJJ are simpler to design (the spectrum page covers how they work). Constrained games require you to think about both sides of the game simultaneously, and getting the design wrong means students either default to their A-game or get stuck in positions the game wasn't meant to create.
Choosing the right mode for class
Within a class, the general direction should be up the spectrum: static drilling (only if needed) to designated winner to FYJJ to constrained games. As a segment progresses, activities should get more open and more competitive.
Constrained games should be the heart of most class segments. This is where new skill development happens. The constraints force students into specific problems instead of letting them default to what they already know.
For fundamentals, focus games on positional control, not technique transitions. Consider mount: the highest-return skill for a fundamentals student on top is learning to hold mount effectively, control it, and improve their position. The highest-return skill for the person on bottom is getting out of mount consistently and repeatedly. A constrained game built around those objectives gives both players what they actually need. An arm bar from mount, by contrast, requires a transition that creates significant space. That's a skill most students won't have for a couple of years of training. If you add it too early, you're spending class time on a low-percentage option when the fundamentals student would benefit far more from games that develop the positional control underneath it.
Positional sparring should not appear in fundamentals or kids classes. Positional sparring is for polishing existing skills, not developing new ones. Because the constraints are so loose, students default to whatever they're already good at. In fundamentals and kids, students don't have enough existing skill to polish, so positional sparring just becomes aimless. It's much more valuable in an advanced program, especially later in a block after students have done significant new skill development through constrained games. Even in advanced classes, if you're running out of time, cutting positional sparring is almost always the right call. Constrained games are more valuable per minute. Positional sparring is also great after class during open mat time.
Encourage students to play positional rounds and constrained games after class instead of only doing live sparring. One of the most useful things you can do is teach students that their after-class training time is more productive with positional rounds and variations of games than with endless live sparring. Live sparring is fun and that's reason enough to do it, but students who mix in positional rounds and constrained games during open mat will develop faster. The students who improve the fastest are the ones who pick a project and actually work on it for a sustained period, anywhere from six weeks to six months. They use their after-class time to play rounds focused on that project in addition to live sparring, and the difference in their rate of improvement is dramatic.
Designing Constrained Games
Why win conditions matter
We design games with specific goals. Instead of asking students to have the self-discipline to work on unfamiliar skills, we take away their comfortable options and force them to develop new ones.
For example, if we're working half guard passing, a game might look like:
Start in clamp half guard with the top player having double underhooks. Top player wins by freeing their knee line from half guard without allowing a knee shield. Bottom player wins by getting both feet inside into a butterfly variation, both feet outside to any closed guard variation, getting a knee shield, or getting an underhook.
Why those win conditions? We know that passing percentage from half guard drops significantly once the bottom player gets an underhook compared to playing with double underhooks. By making the underhook a win condition for the bottom player at any point, the top player has to balance freeing their knee line with awareness around the upper body. We also know that once the bottom player gets a knee shield frame, passing becomes much less viable from that position. So rather than just saying the top player wins from passing, we force them to focus on the small battles: not allowing a knee shield and not allowing an underhook.
If we just said the top player wins from passing and they prefer loose passing, they'll often just let go, make space, and try to get into an open guard situation to pass with something like a torreando. By forcing them to stay in half guard, we make sure they develop skills in one of the strongest passing positions in jiu jitsu, despite it sometimes having a steep learning curve for beginners.
The win conditions do the work that self-discipline can't.
How to tell if a game is working
Designing the game is half the job. The other half is evaluating it in real time while students play.
The diagnostic question from Lemov: how many genuine decisions per player per minute? A well-designed constrained game forces students into decisions they'd otherwise never make. A badly designed game (or one where the constraints are too loose) produces physical activity with low cognitive engagement. Students move, but their next action is obvious every time.
Watch for these signals:
The game is working when students are making genuine decisions and some of those decisions surprise you. Both players are actively problem-solving. You see experimentation, adaptation, and variety in how different pairs approach the same constraint.
The game needs tighter constraints when every student's next move is obvious, when one strategy dominates and nobody tries anything else, or when students are physically active but mentally coasting.
The game needs looser constraints when students are stuck and frustrated, when the constraint is so tight that only one solution exists and nobody can find it, or when pairs keep resetting because neither player can make progress.
Communicating Rules for a Game
This is a learned skill. When telling students the rules, you need to cover six things succinctly and without ambiguity:
- Where on the spectrum are we? Designated winner, FYJJ, or game. Name it explicitly so both partners know their role.
- Where do players start? The starting position.
- What are the players' objectives? What should they be trying to do and looking for.
- What are the constraints? What they can and can't do.
- What are the win conditions for each player? Concrete, measurable goals.
- How do players switch sides? By time, by win, etc.
One of the biggest hurdles I've seen with new coaches running game-based classes is forgetting one of these, or leaving ambiguity in the win conditions.
We need to avoid ambiguity. If they win from a "guard pass," what counts as a guard pass? Give concrete, measurable goals: connecting your chest to their chest, or connecting your chest to their back.
If they win from "escaping" back control, does that mean getting rid of hooks? Getting to mount? Give them something concrete: you win if you turn your chest to face their torso.
Win conditions should be understandable to someone on their very first day. If goals aren't concrete, students spend brainpower on confusion instead of playing the game.
If you give multiple win conditions, make sure they're distinct situations.
Perception Cues in Our Game Library
Every game in our library has four sections per player: Starting Position, Objective, Constraints, and Win Condition.
The "Objective" section has cues that guide athletes' perception of their environment. For example, in the game "Leg Spaghetti," the attacking player's objectives are:
- Control the knee line
- Control the secondary leg
- Expose the heel
The win condition is getting a submission, but those three cues tell the athlete how to win. They increase control when they manage the secondary leg. They lose the position if they lose the knee line. They get submission threats by exposing the heel.
Perception cues bridge the gap between "here's a technique" and "figure it out yourself." They guide attention toward what matters in the environment without prescribing specific movements. The athlete develops their own solutions from there.
If you find other cues that work while coaching, take notes and share them. We always want to improve our content.
The Drill-to-Game Pattern
Constrained games are the core of every class, but designated winner drilling has a specific role: introducing movement pathways that students need before they can play a game productively.
If a game starts from a single leg and a student has never shot a single leg, they won't learn much by getting stuffed every round. A few minutes of designated winner drilling on the entrance gives them a movement pathway they can connect to the game. Once they have that pathway, more drilling doesn't help. Playing does.
The pattern: brief designated winner practice of an entrance or movement (two to four minutes), then immediately into a game where that movement is the starting point. The drill gives students a stable waypoint. The game develops everything else.
Why the direction matters
The order is always designated winner first, then game. Never game first, then designated winner.
This isn't just about what you tell students to do. If you introduce a new or complicated movement pathway after they've been playing a game, they will downshift regardless of what you say. Even if you tell them "this is a game, no designated winner, keep the intensity up," what you'll actually see is static drilling. For example, if students have been playing a mount game focused on bringing elbows above the shoulder line, and you stop to show them an arm bar option from that position, the room will immediately start repping the arm bar at zero resistance. They can't help it. The new movement is unfamiliar and they need to figure out how their body does it before they can play with it.
The fix isn't telling them harder. The fix is sequencing: introduce new movement pathways before the game, not during. Once games are running, your coaching between rounds should focus on concepts, not novel movements. Going from designated winner to game is a natural upshift. Students practice the movement at low intensity, then the game gives them a reason to use it against a resisting partner. The energy builds instead of fading.
Progressing from stable to unstable
You can also use the drill-to-game pattern to control how much chaos students face. Start the game from a later, more stable position, then move the starting point earlier and less stable as students improve.
For example, say you're teaching a shin-to-shin entry into single leg X into a sweep. Students drill the full sequence as designated winner for about four minutes. Then you turn it into a game, but you don't start the game from the entry. You start it from the outcome of the sweep: the top player's butt hits the mat, and the game is live. Whoever ends up on top and stays there for three Mississippi wins. This lets them practice the most important part first: finishing on top after the sweep lands.
After they've played that for a while, you move the starting point earlier. Now the game starts from the single leg X entry itself: once the guard player's foot touches the defender's hip, the game is live. The top player wins by freeing themselves from guard completely or passing. The bottom player wins by hitting the sweep and getting on top. Now they're learning that they need to go for the sweep immediately as their foot touches the hip, because it's much harder to sweep once the top player settles in and gets a hand on the foot.
Each version of the game adds more chaos and more decision-making. The first game builds the connection between the sweep and the outcome. The second game teaches urgency and timing on the entry. This progression from stable to unstable is how we move students through blocked, serial, and randomized practice within a single class. With relatively athletic students, you can often skip the designated winner drill and drop them straight into a game. With less athletic students or complex movements, the drill-to-game bridge matters more. Read the room and adjust.
More in Coaches Guide