Purpose: The purpose of this paper reporting an exploratory pilot study is to examine how participant engagement in design thinking varies when playing and fixing (playfixing) three partially complete games (broken games). Design/methodology/approach: The data for this study consist of transcripts of five playfixing sessions with a total of 16 participants. Each session focused on one of three games. The authors used Winn's (2009) design-play-experience framework to analyze features of each game that might relate to differences in design thinking. Next, the authors coded each playfixing session's transcript to identify patterns of design thinking. Finally, these findings were used to make conjectures about how design features and flaws might encourage particular forms of design thinking. Findings: The findings indicate how playfixing tabletop games with varied levels of complexity, playability and rule definition lead to different patterns of design thinking. Originality/value: This is a first step toward understanding how the constraints associated with various elements of broken games might direct participants toward desired modes of design thinking and more broadly, contributes to the literature on the educational uses of game making.