Flow is a really sought after experience in game design. It’s really engaging and enthralling because players lose a sense of time and space when they are in the flow state. They become lost and completely enveloped in the game world.

But designing a game to engage players’ flow states is not an easy feat to accomplish. So, just how do you design games to that take advantage of this flow state?

This article outlines and describes the flow state in the player experience. It’ll also explain the most important and influential reasons for designing for flow. Flow state is comprised of a balance of goals and feedback and how both are reflected and influenced by perceptual control. So, this article will examine how these disparate elements work together to help players engage in that state.

Difficulty modulation is an important aspect to flow state in players. Games can’t be so easy so that players just fly by on autopilot. Likewise, they can’t be so hard that they become discouraged and lose the motivation to play them. Therefore, balancing the difficulty of a game is a critical part of designing for the flow state.

However, competitive orthogames introduce another factor in designing for the flow state: other players’ actions and abilities. Therefore, this article will examine how pre-developed knowledge from players influences how they play, act, and interact with other players in these competitive orthogames.

Finally, this article closes on the applied flow state in its use in games as well as the most critical considerations for game design and the application of games-based learning.

Flow Described

So what exactly is the flow state? It’s often a very beguiling and seductive experience. Flow state often occurs in game play when the player’s attention is a completely captured by the game and they lose all sense of time and space. However, the flow state is not just limited to games. Instead, creatives such as artists, musicians, and writers often experience the flow state when they are completely engrossed with their work.

In addition, talented athletes also experience the flow state when they are tasked with performing at the peak of their abilities.  Students can also experience the flow state when they are studying or pursuing subjects that they are naturally interested in and are intrinsically motivated to pursue.

While flow state can occur for many different people through many different activities; the effect remains the same. Someone in the flow state is completely absorbed in the task and are wholly focused on the activity. They are not distracted by music, conversation, or even digital notifications.

So flow state can occur in individuals others than gamers. But gaming is one of the most common elements that engages players so wholly and fully in this feeling. That’s because really great, challenging, and engaging games require players to think and concentrate on a task or activity. Such is the critical elements for the flow state and why it’s such as sought after outcome for game designers.

Why Design for Flow?

So what would even be the purpose of designing a game for the flow state if it’s something that’s only achieved on the player’s end? It’s because, as the designer,  it’s your responsibility to provide a structure for interaction so that players can more easily enter a flow state.

In addition, players who enter the flow state demonstrate a higher level of game performance that also translates over to increased academic performance. As a result, players undertake more challenges as well as become more immersed in the interactivity of games: both of which result in more positive outcomes with games-based learning.

This immersion that is a byproduct of flow state is also closely tied with the development of a playful learning experience. Especially one that provides players agency in determining how they want to play, interact, and learn.

Of course, player agency is an integral part of successful games. But how exactly do other formal game elements influence and affect players’ development of flow state in games?

Goals, Feedback, and Flow

One of the main formal elements of helping players enter a state of flow is to design and structure clear goals for players. These goals should be clear as well as convey relevant meaning to players when they appear in the game. Sometimes these goals are dependent on one another: such as attaining a specific sword for a player in an RPG in order to slay a specific creature. In this way, the sword represents a clear goal in a linear path towards achieving the goal (slaying the creature).

Players should also be provided feedback in their pursuit of these goals. This feedback should be immediate and appropriate for players in order to help them more easily enter the flow state. This is especially relevant for digital games as even a minuscule amount of lag between player actions and results could break a player’s sense of immersion.

This represents an area where serious games, learning games, and educational games can close the gap with commercially available entertainment games. By providing an individual feedback that is related (but not completely connected to learning outcomes); players can more easily enter the flow state that supports their continued engagement. Such continued play should then link other formal game elements such as game mechanics and dynamics to the ultimate learning outcome for players.

Likewise, the game doesn’t need to be the only vehicle for feedback. Getting feedback from other learners and players provides yet another dimension for individuals to learn and adjust. This feedback can come from competitive play with other players; cooperative collaboration; or through comparison of individual results. In addition, instructors and facilitators can also change game settings, rules, and structures in order to better accommodate players’ performance and overall activity within the game.

Perceptual Control

One of the most critical parts of developing a flow state for players is making sure that they have both the agency and the ability to control the outcome of their circumstances via the formal elements of the game. This perceptual control refers to the actual systems that players use to affect these outcomes. This form of control is what makes games much different from watching a movie, reading a book, or other forms of narratives. Perpetual control gives players the ability to affect and change outcomes.

However, this control is not monolithic. Instead, designers should set elements and structures through which players can exact that control in the game. This makes it so that while players may attain “mastery” of the controls in the game, it may not always indicate mastery of the game. An example of this are games may have very rudimentary controls (i.e. Guitar Hero). But the use of those controls, and how they are combined with other game dynamics, make it so that there exists an opportunity for players to enter a flow state through the use of more challenging formats to augment those controls though more difficult songs, challenges, and changing rhythms.

The development of player controls is perhaps the most difficult and critical for designers for helping players enter a flow state. That’s because really intuitive controls can make it so that the players become more easily engrossed in the game versus ineffective control schemes which cause players to lose interest in the game.

Player interest can be increased even more when player’s decisions cause different outcomes and impacts in the game based on their selections. As such, the game becomes more repayable as specific outcomes based on specific player controls are not guaranteed. This can come about through game design (i.e. rougelike games with procedurally generated levels) or it can come about through competitive games such as playing against opponents whose actions may not be as predicable.

Difficulty Modulation

Opposing players actions and reactions to others in the game represents one facet of difficulty modulation. This is because not all players have the same level of skills and interest in the game and therefore react differently according to game conditions. For designers this means creating games that have a “sweet spot” in its difficulty that doesn’t make the game too hard (or too easy) to master. Such pinpointing is part of designing games for players to more easily enter the flow state.

This represents a main challenge for designers of single player digital games. That’s because these games must change dynamically accordingly to the player in order to keep them engaged in this “sweet spot” of difficulty modulation. The same can be said for games-based learning as games that are too easy also don’t represent an adequate challenge for the player. They therefore risk falling into boredom. Likewise, games that are too hard make it so that they may stop playing the game out of frustration.

This doesn’t mean that players enter games at the sweet spot of difficulty modulation. On the contrary, players must start out at a level that is easy for them to adapt to the mechanics and dynamics of the game and then ease into more difficult challenges that further engage them in play. Specifically in instructor lead games-based learning; individuals can dynamically change the difficulty of a game in order to provide a negative feedback loop where the experience will adjust according to the performance of the learner.

Pre-Developed Knowledge and Flow

Sometimes players pre-developed or pre-achieved knowledge will be useful or important for determining if they enter a flow state when playing a game. While subjective experience with other games or other experiences can be helpful, knowing how one’s actions affect and influence the outcome of game play is also important to know.

This can be particularly impactful for games that require a high degree of coordination and difficult learning curve to perform well. These occur frequently in MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arena) which is a type of video game where two teams compete against one another to achieve in-game objectives. Games like DOTA require a significant amount of foreknowledge in order for participants to play and compete effectively. This high requirement can often be a barrier to players from entering the flow state; but can produce an experience of flow akin to what high performance athletes experience when they are performing at the top of their abilities.

The amount of foreknowledge can change considerably based on the application of games. For educational, learning, and serious games, this amount of pre-development knowledge should only minimally affect game play as learning the mechanics and dynamics of the game often go hand in hand with the learning outcomes of its design. However, care should be taken that if a when a flow state is entered by students in serious game design; that it serve the greater purpose and learning outcomes intended by instructors.

Competitive Experience and Flow

While games like DOTA and other MOBAs often require a high degree of pre-developed knowledge; the same cannot be said for other directly competitive games. Some specific abstract games require only knowledge of the game’s formal structures; while others require this as well as some advanced knowledge on tactics and strategy in order to be successful.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider when applying competitive games for teaching and learning is to pair players together of equal or similar skill level. Doing so ensures that players are provided with the correct degree of difficulty and are augmenting the game so that it is not too easy nor is it too difficult for players. The result of which is structure in which the flow state can be more easily entered for individuals.

This ranking and matchmaking should ideally change and increase to provide more competitive and able players more difficult opponents and challenges to attempt. This makes it so that the difficulty is increased relative to players abilities and the abilities of their competitors.

Unlike single player or campaign games, competitive games rely on the experience and interaction with a player with like or similar skill levels. This also relates and is connected to the social nature of games and how play provides a structure of interaction with other students, learners, and gamers.

Applied Flow

The use and value of flow in games was previously covered. But, how is flow applied in game design? The formal elements of games include mechanics, dynamics, components, aesthetics, and to some extent story and technology. Flow as a result is an outcome gained by players based on a careful construction of these formal elements that provides excellent feedback through difficulty modulation and goals through player control.

Flow is an important process to design and uphold in games, because it can often mean the difference between a widely successful commercial game and a mildly successful one. Ultimately, flow state is in the hands of players. They can achieve this through thoughtful game design and is something that is sought after by players: even though they may not be that explicit about it.

Likewise, more hobbyist and enthusiastic gamers may embark on their own mission to achieve flow state. This can come about through their review and study of games, game elements, and game situations. Professional poker players and others who make their living playing and competing with games often necessitate this.  However, the individual student and learner may not be prepared to make this kind of commitment.

Despite this, serious game designers can merge the applicable and relatively addictive nature of commercial games with the learning outcomes and educational achievements that serious games have to offer.

Flow Design Considerations

Ultimately games-based learning is about using games as a medium for teaching and learning. Games-based learning is based on experiential learning which focuses on learning as the transformation of experience into knowledge. The purpose of designing for flow is to give a player a good gaming experience: specifically one that they can use to meet an expected educational outcome.

Therefore, when designing for flow, designers should consider how potential changes to game components, mechanics, and formal structures may or may not take a player out of a state of flow. This balanced approach to game design also includes providing a wide variety of activities and difficulties for players to engage and experience the game. These don’t have to be unique opportunities; as common game mechanics and structures can be used regularly and applied in different contexts to provide unique game dynamics to players.

Therefore, when designing for flow, creators target three levels of player patterns: feeling the aesthetics for the game; examining and discerning the game’s dynamics; and finally mastering the game’s mechanics and dynamics. Following this, the best designed games also augment and adjust their tolerances for players’ interactions in order to make the game relatively challenging for the individual.

Games-Based Learning and Flow

Flow is an outcome from the most successful and addictive commercial games. It’s something that can also be designed for with educational, learning, and serious games. When using games-based learning, flow can be utilized as a way for learners to become deeply engaged in the learning process. Likewise, flow can also be accomplished in other mediums such as traditional college and university classes when examining curriculum from a game designer’s perspective.

Instructors, teachers, and professors educating in a more orthodox environment will highly prize the state of flow engaged by students as they become more deeply engaged with the learning material and the intended outcomes. However, like games designers, flow is achieved from two different perspectives: from players and learners engagement in the game and designers and instructors preparation of the game and learning materials.

Part of the way that educators can approach teaching and learning like a game designer is to focus on the experience of learning and game play. Specifically, they should focus on applications of learning outcomes outside of the classroom and game: thus providing learners with a wider perspective of what and how they can apply their newfound knowledge.

This is often best accomplished with serious games that are designed from the ground up with a learning outcome in mind. The closer that educators and designers can get to connecting cognitive activities in the game with both intended learning outcomes and practical applications; the better they can more wholly educate students while also emphasizing a prioritization of flow in game play.

Takeaways

This article covered how to design games for the flow state. Flow was described and defined in relation to game design. Specific reasons were offered for designing games for players’ flow states. The formal elements of games were identified: specifically goals, feedback, and perceptual player control as it relates to the development of the flow state.

Perceptual control was related to difficulty modulations and how changing challenges that adjust to player competency and efficacy help continue to engage players in the game and maintain their flow state. This was further complicated by games that require some kind of pre-developed knowledge in order to play more advanced games. Those advanced games also included competitive games where prior game knowledge is often necessary to compete and play at a higher level.

Finally, this article ended on applied flow for games as well as design considerations for integrating flow into game play. Lastly, the flow state in games-based learning was addressed in applications for educators and instructors.

This article was about designing games for flow state.   To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post How do you Design Games for Flow State first appeared on Ludogogy.

Accessibility is a concept that is often talked about in game design. Specifically when it comes to making games more accessible to a wider audience. But what does accessibility mean and what does it entail when designing games for entertainment, learning, or personal development?

This article will address how accessibility affects the player experience. We’ll dive deeply into why accessibility challenges make them the “wrong” kind of difficulty for players. This article will address accessibility as design considerations for the widest and most diverse audience. We’ll first cover designing with accessibility in mind from the start and then cover types of accessibility changes made in game design. Those changes include accessibility addressing motor movement; cognition; vision; hearing; and economics. This article will close on how designers can use accessibility to continually improve their practice and design.

The “wrong” kind of difficult

So what do we mean by accessibility? Accessibility generally means making something easy for other to use; engage; or understand. That’s already a broad definition; so for this article as it relates to game design, let’s tackle accessibility as a means of making a game available and playable to the widest possible audience. Preventing this kind of accessibility makes games the “wrong” kind of difficult.

Often designers think this means making something color blind friendly or translating a rule book into other languages. But accessibility means more than just that. Accessibility also means making games that players can play who have slower motor functions from being older.  Or emphasize another sense than just relying on vision.

Really, accessibility boils down to making sure that agency remains in the hands of the person most important to game design: the player. Making sure that the player can access and engage with a game on all levels regardless of their background makes them as accessible as possible. When they are not accessible; players often have to rely on other players to act or make decisions for them. That reduces their agency – and their decision making capabilities.

The widest possible audience

Accessibility means making games available for the widest possible audience. Of course this affects some types of games more than others. Video games that require sensitive motor input (think of a game like Overwatch) is probably not that accessible to someone with poor motor controls. Conversely; board games can address this through house rules or other player made changes to the game. But often these may not reflect the direction of the designer and can detract from the experience.

To truly make a game available for others, a designer has to think as the player. They must avoid approaching design decisions with specific pre-conceived notions of who their players will be. Instead, they have to concentrate on who their players are and design with their needs in mind.

Of course a game’s player base can be really diverse. As consequence, that means that accessibility design options can be as equally diverse.

Diversity and accessibility

Sometimes designers get hung up on accessibility meaning diversity and vice versa. While they reflect one another they are often a function from one to the other. Meaning that accessible games have the power to draw more diverse audiences. Likewise, diverse audiences are drawn to more accessible games.

That means that diverse audiences could also include those with different play styles. This is particularly prevalent in current board game designs where modes are created for players in mind. They could include a typical competitive “orthogame” mode where players compete against each other; a cooperative mode where players team up against the game; or even a solo mode.

Likewise table top games can include functions or features that make the game harder or easier according to players’ desires. Doing so ensure that the game remains fun – but accessible – for novice and experience players alike. Hanabi does this well with the introduction of the ”rainbow” cards in the deck. These make the game more challenging  – but also more satisfying to play for more experienced players.

Hanabi is available on Amazon

Accessibility from the start

Accessibility is also often something that is tacked on at the very end of the core game design and development process. But it doesn’t have to be? A designer who is accessibility minded will always look at a game and a design form the player’s perspective. They are always asking themselves how players with these abilities or these backgrounds can access and play the game.

Starting with accessibility in mind from the start makes accessibility a core function – and a feature – of a game. Rather than just a last minute design consideration.

That means that when designers start with accessibility in mind from the beginning they can integrate it into other areas of the design process. This could include art development; art direction; core loop development; and even how playtesting is conducted.

Types of accessibility changes

With accessibility consideration comes accessibility changes that can be implemented and adapted for the game. These range from the very basic; to intermediate changes; to more advanced changes.

Basic changes are easy to implement and are wide reaching. They apply to almost all game mechanics.  These can often be implemented at the end of the design process. This is compared to intermediate changes which require some planning and effort to be considered. More often than not these principles of good game design. When designers center on these, they can make accessibility a core feature of their game.

Advanced changes are implemented for players that may have profound impairments or may require specific niche mechanics. These advanced changes could require designers to make larges and more significant changes to the entire design process.

Motor movement

We often don’t think about motor movement when thinking about table top games. But often, motor movement – specifically as we pick and manipulate pieces of a table top game – are fundamental aspects of why we play. That means that motor movement encompasses how users will interact and engage with the physical elements of the game.

This is also relevant rearranging board elements to be accessible and readable for players. Perhaps one of the most common concerns in table top design is the creation of the common board with text that can only be read for one angle. Compare this to more accessible table top games like Dead Man’s Cabal which has modular common board elements that can be re-arranged and moved around at will. 

Tactility also comes into play when addressing players’ motor movements.  You can see this with the modern chess set where each pieces feels unique to the touch. This makes easier to distinguish between a bishop and a knight.

These tactile sensations become even more important for vision impaired players. Particularly when dealing with paper money in games. While the number of modern board games that use paper money is now becoming fewer and far between; tactility could still remain a challenge. That can be addressed by using card board chits of different sizes that indicate different denominations.

The layout of cards also affects motor movement for those that may not be able to grasp or fan out a hand of cards. This is particularly relevant for card games that have important information on all different areas of a card. That means that a motor impaired player who cannot easily shuffle or manipulate cards makes the game harder and less accessible for these players.

Well designed cards on the other hand have all pertinent info near opposite corners of the card. This makes it easier for cards to be fanned and the content more accessible for players. Think about a standard deck of playing cards and where card information lies there.

Cognitive: thinking & perceiving

Cognition is another accessibility aspect that often gets overlooked but is incredibly important. Cognition is about how your players think and perceive your game through the functions that you’ve laid out for it. In table top games we are usually introduced to it via the printed rulebook – but this could be challenging to read for those who are dyslexic.

That means that both a game manual and a quick start guide could help make your game more accessible for players.  Quick start guides are becoming more present for games that often have many moving parts. Root is a good example of a game with both a rules manual for reference as a well as a guide for play. Both address issues that players with ADD or ADHD may have consuming large amounts of text.

Root is available on Amazon

Of course game rules and how to play videos are now becoming more prevalent. These address some of these challenges. Though for both video and printed media, it’s important to use simple and clear language to remain accessible. For manuals it is best to use simple and clear formatting for references and rules explanation to aid readability.  

To further aid readability, it’s also important to make sure that text is provided on a high contrast background – rather than on top of other illustrations where it might not be easily read. It’s also best to highlight important key words, phrases, or glossary items in your game that are referred to often.

It also helps for players to determine which elements of the game are interactive or variable based on different game conditions.  One of the games in my collection The Godfather: Corleone’s Empire does this well in indicating what spaces are available for players to place pieces given different player counts. This isn’t the only game that includes this but these types of indexes in design help to make the game more accessible.

The Godfather: Corleone’s Empire is available on Amazon

Other additional touches that help smooth the player experience is to ensure that player aids are inclusive of different components in a game. This is especially helpful for games that have asymmetric player starting abilities. A cheat sheet that summarizes others’ abilities is incredibly useful. You can even go one step further and use necessary game components like player screens in Roll for the Galaxy and Keyflower to double as these player aids.

Roll for the Galaxy is available on Amazon

Keyflower is available on Amazon

Vision and sight

Vision is perhaps one of the most talked about accessibility items by table top designers. Though, it’s important to note that vision isn’t totally binary. Someone could have poor or limited eye sight which limits their interaction. This could come from players with cataracts, glaucoma, or other issues affecting their sight.

Of course visually based games won’t be totally 100% compatible to the visually impaired. Though this limitation could be played with. Games like Nyctophobia play with this aspect of sight and how players engage with the game.

Nyctophobia is available on Amazon

Though for most games with visual elements it often is the best case to provide all relevant and critical information on cards and components in as large as font as possible.  This can often be combined with specific symbols that differentiate player elements that are not just based on color.

While sighted players don’t often think about color accessibility; it’s often best practice to concentrate on how other color blind players may see the game. Relying on color alone might be easier in the meantime. But making sure that there are considerations made for how players will visually perceive the game are necessary measures to take.

Hearing and speech

Hearing is one way that information is communicated to players. Mostly this makes sense in video and digital games. But has applications in table top gaming as well. Consider high player interaction games such as Cosmic Encounter and Empires where table talk, negotiation, and communication are important. How are considerations made for players who have hearing and speech difficulties. Is there another way for them to interact?

Cosmic Encounter is available on Amazon

In addition, hearing and speech can influence design choices the same way that Nyctophobia does with vision and sight. Perhaps game designs can take into account certain players must communicate via speech and others via writing to pass along information. These changes provides accessibility consideration for players as well as a wider choice on difficulty levels.

Empires is available on Amazon

Economic accessibility

Economic accessibility is one of those considerations that may not often be included in concerns. After all, some games don’t even have a large enough margin to make their publishers or designers much money. But there is a concern with over producing games with miniatures, metal coins, and neoprene mats that may address these economically accessible concerns.

For many, board gaming is a luxury hobby. Players treat their games as such. But when addressing economic accessibility; designers and publishers must also think about price as a discriminating factor. How does the pricing of their game and the production of their components affect the player experience and influence accessibility to a wider audience?

Continual improvement

Designing accessibility within games is a continuous and ever evolving dialogue. It’s something that doesn’t need to be addressed with just the designer; but can be brought up with players, publishers, graphic artists, and manufacturers as well.

Perhaps one of the most critical places to address player accessibility is with play testers. Here is where these main concerns can be brought up with actual consumers of the medium. It’s here where the designer and the player can have the most open dialogue in order to answer the most important accessibility question:  how can I play this game?

Takeaways

This article addressed how accessibility affects the player experience. We dove deeply into why accessibility challenges make some games the “wrong” kind of difficult for players. This article addressed accessibility as design considerations for the widest and most diverse audience. The article covered designing with accessibility in mind from the start as well as different types of accessibility changes made in game design. Those changes include accessibility addressing motor movement; cognition; vision; hearing; and economics. The article closed on how designers can use accessibility to continually improve their practice and design.

This article was about accesibility in games.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post Accessibility in Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

Most people have played games at some point in their lives. They can be table top games, card games, board games, playground games, video games, console games, or computer games. Most people have likely played hard games, easy games, social games, or abstract games. Mostly we’ve played fun games. But we’ve probably also played lousy games.

Some of us may have played small games, micro games, or pocket games. But, what about big games? How about Megagames? Megagames are one of the most interesting types of games around. They are part role-playing, part simulation, and part social game.

This article will review megagames. It’ll define what megagames are as well as the history of megagames. The structure of megagames will be explained as well as how role-playing and engagement occurs within the game. Player hierarchies are an interesting component of megagame structure and will be explored in greater depth. Megagames are administered by a certain group of people called “control.” Their engagement greatly impacts the player experience. Design aspects of megagames will be covered as well as how megagames can be used for games-based learning.

What is a Megagame?

A megagame is an interesting combination of different game elements encountered in other places. They involve role-playing, simulation, and social interactions.

Megagames combine all of this and on a large scale and introduce aspects of economics and politics into play. This is often represented in megagame components such as maps, charts, interlocking games, and overarching stories that join together to create a larger narrative. Players often take a large role in shaping the megagame experience through live action role-playing. As such the structure of the game is similar from play to play. But each new group of players bring a new narrative.

A megagame is a large scale game that contains different elements found in other games. Those elements include (but are not limited to) role-playing, simulations, social interaction, economics, and politics, which are combined into an overarching narrative. This combination takes place through other, smaller, interlocking games that occur concurrently within the megagame.

History of Megagames

If you haven’t heard of megagames before, then you might think that they’re a relatively new trend. But they aren’t and have been around since the 1970’s. Megagames trace their roots back to the British designer Jim Wallman and his connection to war games.

The first such megagame implementation was to expand wargaming to a larger scale. It was called “Memphis Manger” a Vietnam war game played in April of 1982.  The game accommodated about 30 players including designer Paddy Griffith.

The megagame idea began to grow from that point and future designers began to draw inspiration from other games. Not just game mechanics and structure; but rather theory; mathematical concepts; psychology; and sociology of game play.

However, the earliest megagames relied heavily on the conventions of war gaming and included miniatures, maps, and components representing units. Despite this, the development and structure of megagames has since expanded from that point into a more robust and developed structure.

Megagame Structure

Megagames adapt some concepts and structures from other games. Some of those include decision space of players as well as areas of agency. In megagames these become “private play areas.” Players use them to interact with other players and the game in order to achieve their own goals. In addition, there are public areas used to coordinate between these private play areas. This is where these seemingly disparate spaces of the megagame connect with one another.

For example a megagame could have a “private play area” called the high table. Players there are engaged in a hidden role negotiation game. In this game, the players must all come to a consensus as to who the “traitor” is. If players can select the traitor within three turns then all players (except the traitor) earn 1,000 money.  If the traitor escapes without being detected after 3 turns then the traitor earn 5,000 money and everyone else earns nothing. All players receive “hints” as to who the traitor is from players at another table called the “map room.”

This “map room” is another separate private play area that focuses on players engaged in an area control game. This area is called the “map room.”  In this game, players take turns rolling dice in order to determine if “armies” from one section of the map are able to defeat armies in neighboring sections. Armies are lost every turn. The only way to buy more armies is to purchase them… using the money earned by the players at the high table.

These games are connected through two resources: money and hints.  This represents just one small connection between these two private play areas in megagames. Structures such as these are seen in many different games. Megagames utilize some of these structures and use them as a framework. Through this, players can see how their actions affect outcomes in both their private play area as well as through the megagame at large.

Megagames also usually require a large amount of space. That space can be setup in a number of different ways. This includes gathering in a large central room with many tables to several smaller rooms where walls divide player groups.

In addition to space, megagames require a larger time investment than other gaming activities. Some board games can take 1-2 hours to play. Whereas megagames take between a few hours to a whole day to explain, play, and complete.

Role-playing in Megagames

The structure of megagames alone doesn’t define them. The players do. Every megagame will result in different outcomes based on player experiences, behaviors, actions, and motivations. As such, megagame players often role-play through their game play.

This is most often compared to LARPS – or live action role playing. Role-playing exists in megagames as a way for players to interact; communicate; and collaborate with one another in the game within its theme.

A specific distinction between megagame role-playing and LARPS is that megagames can be considered orthogames in their ability to create separate and unequal outcomes for teams and players. This means that there can be clear and decisive winners in the megagame. Whereas LARPS are more about the emergent narrative rather than the game.

This makes megagames more abstracted compared to LARPS. The theme in megagames is connected to their structure as well as through player roles. Players in megagames take on specific roles that can range from national governments, corporate entities, journalists, politicians, and military personnel. In these roles players act as their respective group through their interactions with others.

Player Structure & Engagement

Many games focus on some kind and degree of player engagement throughout play. Megagames are no different. Here players have to do more than compete with one another. Teammates must also communicate with one another; share information; broker deals, and make challenging decisions. 

The amount and type of player engagement is highly dependent on players and what they want to get out of the experience. This is also dependent on the scenario and the game being played.

Like its name, megagames require a large number of players. Few megagames require less than 25 participants. Some games require 25-80 players for a full experience. However, other megagames can have participants running into the hundreds.

Player interaction is an integral part of the megagame experience. This means that there needs to be enough action, agency, and options for games with these high player counts. That means that opportunities are necessary to keep players engaged throughout with meaningful contributions to game play.

Player Hierarchies

This player experience builds off the hierarchy of player interaction throughout the game. Some games will consist of several factions playing against each other. In turn each faction has a team of players with different roles, responsibilities, and decision making abilities.

This model of hierarchy makes it so that there are optimal zones of player interaction and agency at each step of the way. Creating a game so that one player is responsible for too many areas can be cumbersome, bothersome, and un-fun. By creating a hierarchy of responsibilities on a team’s roster, these activities can be subdivided and delegated. Players are able to exercise agency within the game that has a broad impact through this method. At the same time, they can make meaningful contributions to their team: fueling the social connections that players create through megagame play.

“Control” and the Megagame

A megagame naturally has many moving parts. Most board games can get away without the need for an impartial third party. More complicated games require more human input to support its structure.  Of course casino games have dealers, pit bosses, and floor supervisors. Even the original Kriegspiel had umpires. Of course professional sports have referees. Debates have moderators. As a result, megagames have “control.”

Control is a team of game masters and moderators that control the flow, structure, and engagement of play for players. They are responsible for managing operations of the game which includes (but is not always limited to) explaining rules, addressing situations, monitoring the game, and (even) making up some rules on the fly.

Some of the first controllers for megagames are their own designers. These individuals spend countless hours designing and printing maps; creating cards; making counters; and assembling them at the megagame site.

Having a “controller” is critical to megagame success. However, due to the structure of megagames, it is often necessary to break apart “control” into different sub-teams that manage different and specific areas within the game.

The need for this structure; impartial third party; and overall game master is crucial for overall success; engagement; and managing “last turn madness” that often accompanies megagame play.

Megagame Player Experience

Megagames are huge. They are designed in such a way that much of the player experience hinges on the social relationships and networks formed between players. Social networking happens in every megagame – it’s inevitable. New relationships are formed throughout play. No matter if that play is with, for, and against other players.

Megagames bring people together. They give players the unique ability to role-play in a setting bigger than a table top RPG. It provides them with the opportunity to solve some puzzles; cooperate with other teammates; and create an experience like no other.

The social relationships formed with and among players are often replicated by control members. Most of the time players are not aware of the schemes and storylines that are created behind the scenes of the control team and how their actions will affect game play overall.

However, the very social nature of megagames can be a source of challenge. Sometimes, language barriers; players abilities; and other accessibility concerns hider players’ abilities to participate fully within the game.

Despite this, players continue to return to play megagames for the player experience as this is not something that can be easily replicated elsewhere. Megagames tend to become a “destination” gaming event where people go to have a great experience.

That’s because megagames ride a level of player energy that incorporates aspects of table top games; war games; simulations; live action role-playing; and escape rooms in a unique and interesting combination. All of this is implemented by a unique team of controllers who play a significant role in shaping and crafting the game’s overall narrative.

Designing Megagames

Designing megagames is a challenging experience. The biggest challenge is creating something bespoke and customized for the experience the designer wants the players to have. In addition, designers don’t want to “overdesign” the experience by creating elaborate rules that would result in complex administration of the game for the control team.

Additionally, taking structures and mechanics from existing games could be a promising path for developing a new megagame. However, the process of integrating all of it under one title can be daunting and time consuming.

That means that creating megagames from the ground up can be easier and more straightforward than adapting existing games for a megagame format.  Existing games that were never intended to be megagames can difficult to transition into a modality in which player experience is prized over everything else.

Megagames for Games-Based Learning

Megagames are ripe for application of games-based learning. Megagames are a unique experience that encompass many different applications of simulations; role-playing; and social connection. All of which are great applications of experiential learning using games.

We may not think about megagames as applications of games-based learning. But the prominent use of student organizations like the Model United Nations or the Model European Union are ripe with examples and applications often found in other megagames. These include role-playing as different countries with different motivations and priorities as well as simulating different experiences, events, and incidents. These in turn require the competition and the cooperation between individuals and teams.

Additionally, military academics have used historical simulations and war games as a way to train and educate officers and leaders. The application of which requires the use of military tactics as well as politics, negotiation, and cooperation in order to influence the outcome.

Takeaways

This article reviewed megagames. It defined megagames as well as elaborated on their history and development. The structure of megagames were explained as well as how role-playing and engagement occurs within the game. Player hierarchies serve an interesting component of megagame structure and were covered in depth.  The “control” team of megagames were detailed in addition to how the expectations of megagames influence the player experience. Finally, design aspects of megagames were discussed in addition to how megagames are used for games-based learning.

This article was about megagames.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post What are Megagames? first appeared on Ludogogy.

Serious games are games created from the ground up for teaching and learning. These also include games created for a social purpose outside of the traditional executions of games for entertainment.

Serious games can be incredible tools for teaching, learning, and education. They help players learn experientially though play in order to put concepts into use. Serious games provide learners with the opportunities to transform experience into knowledge.

So how should educators use serious games for teaching and learning? What are some serious games that exist now? How can educators integrate serious games into their curriculum, syllabi, and lesson plans?

This article will review and define serious games. A brief history of serious games will be shared along with some of the best reasons for using serious games in teaching and learning. The impact and ramifications of using serious games in the classroom will be discussed as well as the role that educators play in integrating serious games in their practice.

Several historical serious games will be discussed in detail and include war games and the Kriegsspiel; business simulations; and other aspects of gamification; games-based learning and applied games. Serious game play constitutes experiential learning. Therefore, active debriefing will be discussed in depth and a detailed approach will be shared for how educators can and should integrate these games into their teaching practice.

What are serious games?

Simply put serious games are games that are created for purposes other than entertainment. We may have first discovered gaming from the fun and excitement that we derive from it. Serious games take these outcomes and pairs it with learning outcomes in order to help the player and learner achieve a specific educational outcome. Therefore, serious games’ primary objective is not to entertain the player but rather to help them achieve a specific learning outcome.

In more granular terms, serious games are meant to promote some sort of behavior change from their learning outcomes. This change can come about through applications of learning that arise from play. Otherwise it could arise from players’ empathetic perspectives of others’ simulated through game play. In any case, serious games ultimately improve players, learners, and users through play.

Current applied serious games are used and implemented through an applied curricular methodology. This means that serious games aren’t played in a vacuum. Rather, serious games are used in tandem with play, review, discussion, and debriefing in order to help players achieve their learning outcomes.

How were serious games created?

Games have been around for thousands of years. Serious games came about from the development of using games as teaching and learning tools. Serious games go back hundreds of centuries prior to the more popular use of games-based learning for teaching, training, and education.

Some of the earliest games like chess were often relied upon in order to teach principles of warfare.  We see more contemporary applications of this with games like America’s Army which served as both an abstraction of infantry warfare as well as a marketing and recruitment tool.

But why were games first relied upon as tools for teaching and learning? It’s because games states are more easily provide an overview and abstraction of different simulations and scenarios. Reality possesses many details and fine distinctions that may be irrelevant to the situation at hand. However, the player experience of games provides a specific, detailed, and nuanced approach to teaching and learning through different activities, challenges, tasks, and assignments often under the guise of game terms like missions, scenes, and levels.

This specific approach – combined with a more accessible appeal of games – made them excellent tools for teaching and learning. Especially since games could be as an experiential form of education since knowledge is created from game play rather than shared didactically through lectures, seminars, or videos.

Why use serious games?

Games, game design, and game development have a storied and intertwined history with serious games. However, serious games also excel with catering to the player experience. That’s because these games are experienced at a pace and involvement at the discretion of the player.

All of this is due to player interaction, feedback, the feedback loop, and intrinsic motivation. The combination of these factors entice, empower, and enable students to continue playing, engaging, and experimenting with games in an experiential feedback loop. Such an engagement makes games an evolving and customizable tool for player learning.

Lastly, a serious game doesn’t always need to be played seriously. Serious games can still elicit fun and enjoyment from players. Doing so ensures that the player experience is a positive one, which supports and enables future play.

Serious games’ impact on learning

Additionally, serious games’ have a positive impact on learning, motivation, and learning motivation when applied by educators to learners.  They are able to more fully and immersively demonstrate concepts and applications in ways that traditional didactic education cannot.

This is often most realized in cognitive and affective learning outcomes. These are often most closely related to traditional educational learning outcomes that change attitudes, motivation, and values of students. However, serious games can also teach behavioral competencies. The results of which also change learners’ behaviors when using serious games for teaching and learning.

There are downsides to using serious games in the classroom. Often, students who are accustomed to playing many games for entertainment will focus more on game play and game elements rather than the outcomes that such game play provides.  However, educators can use player involvement as a way to continue to spur interest and intrinsic motivation for learners to engage and play.

Ultimately, serious games represent another tool for educators to use and adapt for the classroom. The results of which emphasize the development and more widespread use of gaming for teaching and learning.

Teaching with serious games

Often, one of the more salient aspects to teaching with serious games is that they break the traditional rigid teaching structure of didactic education.   This is where educators present information for students to consume and ultimately develop understanding.  We see this most frequently in a lecture based classroom.

Serious games approach teaching and learning outside of a didactic approach, and instead encourages learners and players to experiment and play. This results in a process where players develop the necessary skills in order to progress in the game and ultimately achieve the designer’s and educators’ outcomes.

Serious games achieve this by combining learning strategies, curricular structures, and formal game elements in order to teach specific skills for players to create their own knowledge. Here, serious games represent conceptual and mechanical relationships within a dynamic environment that can be changed and augmented by the player thorough their own agency. The results of which end when players achieve stated learning outcomes.

Serious games can and do incorporate a wide spectrum of abstraction versus fidelity. However, some of the most popular serious games rely heavily on content developed from realistic situations. This is due to the need for learners to more easily identify and apply outcomes to necessary applications.

Despite this, all great games and serious games encourage and influence the development of cognitive flow for learners. The creation of this flow state is a result of the observation and keen development of relational awareness between game elements and their outcomes. Those relationships can be highly representative of their real world counterparts. However, with serious games they never explicitly have to be.

Ultimately serious games are meant to elicit a change in learners’ perceptions, applications, and outcomes of their learning. Therefore, it’s important that serious games actively include and represent the learners themselves in an identifiable form (or avatar) so that the relationship between themselves and their expected outcomes and applications are more clearly defined.

Wargames and Kriegsspiel

One of the earliest and most widespread applications of serious games for teaching and learning was the Kriegspeil (or “wargame” in German). With a storied history, the Kriegsspiel was used to teach military leaders tactics and strategies by representing armies and military units in scaled miniature on a physical table top. Its military applications goes beyond what can be contained in this article; however its use of abstraction and simulation is what cemented its future use for teaching and learning.

It’s success was great enough that officer training often involved frequent use of the Kriegsspiel for teaching and learning military and combat doctrine in the 19th century. Despite this, the Kriegsspiel was not run the same way we think about other table top games and educational games that we know and use today. Rather, players’ actions were arbitrated by a referee, umpire, or judge who collected and collated player actions in order to resolve them within the game. This role is most similarly seen with the “dungeon master” of table top role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons.

Fidelity was on the side of Kriegsspiel, as further iterations of the game took into account other actions and activities which could befall military leaders in actual live conflict. Those included surprise attacks, supporting lines, and point defense.

The Kriegsspiel has gone onto spur multiple successors for other table top war games such as Warhammer 40k, Star Wars Imperial Assault, and Star Trek Attack Wing to name a few. Likewise, the use of an impartial third party to moderate and referee games can be seen in many iterations of modern live role-playing games.

This war gaming simulation’s humble beginnings has indeed grown and evolved past its original intent for training military leaders for the conflicts they are yet to fight. However, the focus on simulation and fidelity is one that we see in other aspects of serious games such as business simulations.

Business simulations

Businesses often rely on simulations for teaching and learning because of its high fidelity to real world and application and problem solving. Simulations represent the closet possible thing to reality without the loss or risk of actually carrying out business actions.

Therefore, these business simulations exist within the realm of active and experiential learning like other forms of games-based learning. As such, participants in business simulations are both behaviorally and cognitively active as they play and experiment with the simulation in order to test and attempt to accomplish different outcomes.

Perhaps one of the most common business simulations is that of the Stock Market Game which many high school students participate in while learning about economics. The Stock Market Game makes it so that individual students can try their hand at investing in different publicly traded companies in order to determine if their predictions about future business success pan out.

As such, simulations such as these can be highly effective at engaging and motivating students due to their high touch and experiential approach. Here, students experience an active and closely tied feedback loop to their initial input and investments in order to see the ultimate effect on their portfolios.

Business simulations grow and evolve from the fidelity provided in the Kriegsspiel as a way for learners to experience different problems and scenarios in which they must apply decision making and problem solving methodology to overcome the challenge. The results of which encompass specified learning outcomes established by the instructor in order for students to achieve these goals.

Gamification, games-based learning, and applied games

While the Kriegsspiel represents one of earliest uses of simulation for teaching and training; and business simulations represent commercial applications of the same for business outcomes; the breadth and scope of games for learning is much wider than these two applications.

Games-based learning includes using established games for teaching and learning as well as the use; creation; and implementation of serious games for education and development. These applications don’t need to be narrowly applied such as with war games and business case studies. Rather, aspects of gamification and games-based learning can apply the use of these practices in other venues.

Such is the case with serious games that were created with outcomes other than entertainment in mind. There have been many cases of such games; but perhaps the most popular and successful of which include the following.

Darfur is Dying was first released in April 2006 and represented the journalistic spirit of exposing the truth behind the humanitarian crisis of the war in Darfur. The game provided a platform that reached over 800,000 players in five months and approaches social change through the medium of games.

Likewise the game World without Oil’s tagline: “Play it – before you live it” provided a simulation of how a future oil crisis might affect individuals by representing changes that may occur in their area. This was an alternate reality game (ARG) that lasted for 32 days between April and June 2007. It provided the very real social impact of helping individual players anticipate problems of a world without oil.

Lastly, the game Superbetter was the brainchild of Jane McGonigal. After suffering a concussion in 2009, she experienced the negative consequences of depression and suicidal thoughts. While recovering, McGonigal created the game “Jane the Concussion Slayer” which she designed to help treat her condition (as well as help keep her occupied). Building off of the success of this game she renamed it Superbetter and applied it to help other people achieve their own goals and overcome obstacles.

Active debriefing

Educators are free to choose how they use games, gamification, serious games, learning games, or games-based learning. However, the application of any of these approaches requires learning through experience or experiential learning. As such, educators should implement a practice of active debriefing no matter which method they choose to pursue. The results of active debriefing enables participants and players to connect activities and lessons they learned through game play with opportunities in the outside world.

Active debriefing is important because it requires individuals to focus on their own beliefs, assumptions, and values that arose from their experiences playing the game. It also requires individuals to manage how they may defensively react when re-examining and re-evaluating their own belief and value systems in order to make sense of these new experiences.

Ultimately the goal of instructor lead active debriefing is meant to ensure that learning is happening at an individual level. Specifically that experience is transformed into knowledge that can be shared and built upon. Therefore, active debriefing is best implemented at the end of an activity or experiences such as game play or games-based learning activities.

While more adult learners might be empowered to lead active debriefing sessions on their own; instructors may choose to rely on the following questions to help structure and guide their own active debriefing activities. Those sample questions include:

-What happened?

-Does what happened matter?

-How did you feel?

-Does this remind you of anything else you’ve experienced? If so, what and why?

-What have you learned?

-What will you do with what you’ve learned?

Takeaways

This article covered how to use serious games for teaching, learning, education, and development. It began with an overview of what serious games are as well as a short history of how they have been used in the past for teaching and learning.

The merits of using serious games for teaching were provided as well as the kind of impact that they can have on learners and instructors alike. Specific steps for teaching with serious games were discussed as well as some detailed historical examples. Those included war games and the Kriegsspiel, business simulations, and various applications of games-based learning and applied games.

This article closed on the process of active debriefing and how instructors should use it when paired with serious games for teaching and learning. Games-based learning is an experiential form of learning. Therefore, the active debriefing cycle is paramount in helping students make sense of their experience a well as connect specific game outcomes with targeted learning outcomes.

This article was about playing serious games.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post Learning by Playing Serious Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

Rulebooks are one of the first things that players turn to after they’ve decided to play your game.  Players turn to this as the guide; the rules; and the structure that will shape their experience.

Often designers think about rulebooks at the very end of their design process. However the ability to write clear, concise, and actionable rules is more challenging than you may think.

This article will review game rulebooks in depth. It will cover the purpose of your rulebook; striking a balance in your structure; and the process of writing and revising the rulebook. The structure of the rulebook will be covered from different sections including statistical information, components, theme, overview, setup, core loop, and game end.

The way that you organize the contents of this rulebook is important for shaping the player experience. Your voice in how you write your rulebook is as important as testing it out with your players. Finally, edge cases; applications of rule books in games based learning; and action steps for writing your rulebook will be covered in detail.

Purpose of the rulebook

Rulebooks are where your players begin. Someone has decided to play your game. So they turn to your rulebook as their starting point.  It’s important to remember that your player wants to play your game; they are not interested in reading your rulebook.  The rulebook is just a necessary step in order for them to achieve their end goal.

Unfortunately, this means that often your rulebook has to serve different purposes. For new players it has to explain everything about your game and how to begin playing it. For advanced players it needs to remind them how to play your game or at least how your game plays similar to others in its genre.

Game designers can be notorious for writing less than stellar rulebooks; particularly if when they get completely engrossed in the project. This means that they can no longer look at the game objectively as the project that has changed and evolved over time.

However, the rulebook is important. It’s perhaps the most important in getting players over the hurdle of playing their first game.  A badly written; incorrectly worded; or poorly organized rulebook might force some players to put the game right back on the shelf.

This is all the more important when a game hasn’t even been published yet. Your rulebook should walk even the most seasoned gamer through the steps necessary to setup and begin playing your game. This is especially critical when pitching your game to publishers. That’s because your rulebook represents how your game works in your absence.

Balance in the rulebook

Creating a great rulebook is a true balancing act. You have to provide all of the information that is necessary for a player to pickup and begin playing your game. Yet, you also can’t throw everything about the game in any order.

This is the point where designers will often get caught up. They are unsure when or if to provide information in a particular order for the player. Usually valuable time is spent nitpicking the details of just a few examples in the rulebook. Instead, designers should spend their time addressing larger systemic issues regarding the rulebook contents and organization.

Designers must also approach the rulebook as a work in progress – even after it has been published. Getting feedback from consumers, players, publishers, and other designers is critical. This feedback helps you re-write and recreate the structure of the rulebook to best serve the end user: the players.

While your rulebook may already be in the hands of players, it’s still possible to publish digital addendums, edits, and updates that originate from your gaming community.

Writing and revising the rulebook

Writing a rulebook is hard. You’ll never get it right the first time. Because of that, it’s important that you keep writing, changing, revising, and re-organizing your rulebook throughout your design process.

A good starting point is assuming the player knows nothing about your game. However, it is good to assume that players have played OTHER games before; just not necessarily your game.

This reinforces the fact that your players will need to be able to easily pickup and begin setting up and playing your game. Your rules therefore need to be understandable and organized. However, you don’t want your rulebook to be too long as it could provide the player with too much information without the correct context. Likewise, you also want to avoid a rulebook that is too short and doesn’t address the most common player questions.

Writing the rulebook also means organizing as you go. This requires you to chunk and compartmentalize information for players when they need to know it – and in the recommended dose.  For instance, it’s good to have a section in a rulebook for different actions a player can take during a turn. A sub-section could address movement and then the types of movement that a player can perform.

Additionally, you want to include consistent and defined language throughout your rulebook. If you identify goods as commodities in the game; don’t call them “products” later on. Developing a vocabulary for game terms is important for rulebooks because each time you pick one up it’s like learning a language for the first time. You may already know the difference between nouns and verbs from another language; but you need to learn how to recognize nouns and verbs in THIS language.

Rulebook Structure Overview

Rulebooks are important for conveying the most relevant information to your player in the correct order, quantity, and context. In order to do this the following areas of rulebook organization are presented in the order in which they should be provided to players: statistical information, components, theme, brief overview, setup, core loop, and game end.

These individual sections will be provided in order with descriptions for what should be included.

Structure – Statistical Information

Statistical information is some of the most basic but often missing information from the first few pages of a rulebook.  Sure, the information is often printed on the side of the box. However, it’s best to also list this info on the inside of the rulebook as some of the first information that a player will see.

The most important information to list here are the title, designer, number of players, suggest age, and average length of a game. It’s important to list this information here, because players may review a rulebook without the rest of the game components present. So, it’s useful to provide information redundancy here.

In addition, potential publishers may request a review of your rulebook prior to seeing your game. Providing this statistical information here is important in that context.

Structure – Components

Components are the physical assets included in table top games. They can include decks of cards, tokens, pawns, boards, and dice. Components should be listed next, ideally with pictures of what the finished components look like in the game as well as the quantity provided in the box.

This list is important for setting the vocabulary and terms for your game. If you call a piece a “meeple” in the rulebook but the game calls them “soldiers” then you already have a disconnect between the components the players see and how they will be referenced later on.

One my favorite games that makes mention of all of this and more at the very beginning is Montana.

Structure – Theme

Next you should dive very briefly into the theme of your game. Are we medieval knights? Are we pirates of the Caribbean? Are we searching for lost treasures under the ocean or perhaps exploring planets in outer space? Answering these questions provides very brief insight into what the game is about and who the players are from a thematic standpoint.

While not known for its theme, Azul does provide some insight in the very first paragraph of the rulebook. This informs players who they are and what they are accomplishing through game play.

Azul is available on Amazon

Structure – Brief Overview

The rulebook should then include a brief overview of what the game play is and what players do to succeed and win. This could be different if you are playing a competitive orthogame versus a cooperative idiogame. Regardless of the type of game, this section provides great insight and connection between the theme and the setup for the game.

For competitive games: the designer should identify what is necessary to end the game and win. This could be the first to reach a certain number of points, the first to finish a specific track, being the last player left standing, or having the most number of resources after a set amount of time. No Thanks is a game that provides this information right at the beginning.

No Thanks is available on Amazon

For cooperative games: the designer should identify what players need to do in order to succeed against the game. Whether that is to achieve a specific objective in a set amount of time, reduce the hit points of a non-player character (NPC) to zero, or resolve a scenario. Pandemic provides this information in its’ brief overview.

Pandemic is available on Amazon

Structure – Setup

The setup of the game should be covered next in the rulebook. This includes identifying which components need to come out first and in what order. Many rulebooks already include identifying the game board and placing it in the center of the table so that all players can see it.

It’s also important to note which components need to go where and in which order. Specific resources that aren’t used later in the game can be left until later. Other, components (like money or player pieces) should be identified first if they will be used throughout the duration of the game.

Ideally designers should include a visual reminder and layout of the setup of the game with references to specific steps and text in your description. Doing this provides an overall complete picture of what a setup game should look like for players. It also provides a quick visual reference that everything is exactly where it’s supposed to be.

Gùgōng provides an excellent example of this visual setup process and accounting of common and player components throughout the setup.

Structure – Core Loop

The core loop of the game is what gives provides players feedback during game play. The core loop is what players will do repeatedly and concurrently as they play your game.

These are the different actions that players can do or take each turn, round, phase, or stage of your game. The core loop is the main formal structure of your game and what players do at each one of those stages.

It’s helpful to demonstrate and show players how these structures are formatted. For example, many games include a “turn” structure in which each player take turns in clockwise order. Once all players have taken their turn a new “round” begins. Once three rounds have been completed then a stage is over. Once you have played two stages one phase is over. Once you have completed two phases then the game is over and you score everyone’s points.

Assuming that your players will understand how these structures work is a simple mistake that can be avoided by explaining how these are nested and formatted in your game.

Endeavor: Age of Sail does a great job at describing and breaking down what players do on each one of their turns and identifies what happens at the completion of a phase.

Structure – Game End

All games must come to an end. This is the section that includes how your game ends. This could be after a set number of turns, rounds, stages, or phases. It could also end with one player left alive. It could be a race to a certain number of points. Games could also end when one or several players achieve a particular objective.

Identifying HOW your game ends is one part of this section. Another part is identifying how players score or tally their points, objectives, money, resources etc… at the end. Explaining how different achievements translate into points is important for determining a winner of the game.

Kingdomino takes this scoring into account at the appropriate section of its rulebook.

In addition, explaining how particular scenarios are decided is important. The most common scenario is how ties are broken and resolved. Make sure those procedures are outlined in this section.

Kingdomino is available on Amazon

Organizing your rulebook’s contents

Rulebooks must serve many different purposes. In addition, they must be accessible, searchable, and readable by players. That’s why it’s important to organize, divide, and categorize your content accordingly. This will help your players better understand and play your game.

This can be most easily achieved with the table of contents. A table of contents provides a quick overview of the game and keeps the most important content organized for easy reference.

Additionally, it is important to bold and identify key terms and phrases within your rulebook. If this game identifies “money” as gold then you should indicate that in the section when you talk about game resources. If your game’s scoring rubric exchanges money at a 1:1 ratio at the end of the game for victory points, then you should identify that information as well.

Providing these insightful reminders throughout your rulebook in “callout” boxes helps to highlight specific information for your players. This is particularly important for returning players who need a quick reference for the game in order to remember how to play.

In the Year of the Dragon does this well by providing a quick summaries through each stage of the rules explanation.

In the Year of the Dragon is available on Amazon

This is also important for cross-referencing information about your game. If players’ movement around the board is influenced by how much money or victory points they currently have, then it’s important to point players towards the information on “Player Movement” when talking about money or victory points.

Finally, new games are beginning to part out sections of the rulebook for players in order to get them playing quickly.  Root does a great job at this by including a “quick start” guide in addition to their full rulebook for the game. The quick start guide includes basic information in order to begin playing the game immediately. Whereas rules questions for specific cases with more robust descriptions are left to the full rulebook.

Root is available on Amazon

Player experience

Ultimately a rulebook is supposed to serve as an agent of the player experience. Players will come to your game to play it. Not to read the rules. Of course there are a subset of players that will come to games and happily dive into rulebooks for their description and structure.

However, most players will pick up the rulebook to learn how to play the game and nothing more. Whereas other players will skim the rulebook for reminders and refreshers if a significant amount of time has passed since their last session.

The goal as the designer is to find a style that works for the majority of your players and stick to that style. This is mostly informed by the type of game that you have. Is it a light party game? You want your rulebook to be clean, simple, and straight forward. Heavy euro? Then you can afford to dive into the nuances of the player roles, abilities, and actions. Many games will find a home in between those two extremes.  Because of this, it helps to know that there are generally three “player” types who will read your rules.

First time players may be first time board gamers or first time players of your game. In either case you want your rules to be thorough, clean, and approachable. These players need to learn from the ground up how to play your game (even if they may not have played other games like it before).

The intermediate player on the other hand wants to read your rules as a reference point for how your game plays and operates. These are players who may have already played your game (or others like it) before and need a summary for how your game is similar and how it is different from what they remember or expect.

Lastly, there are the expert players. These are players with a very diversified pallet of games. They have read and played a wide swath of different games and may even be designers themselves. These players will carefully review the rulebook looking for typos, loopholes, or otherwise edge cases that the previous two kinds of players may have missed.

Voice when writing the rulebook

Regardless of the type of player you are writing for; it’s helpful to always write your rules in the most simple, clear, and concise way you can. You can always expand on certain rules and specific cases in other parts of your rulebook. However, remember that ultimately your rules are there to serve the player.

To do this it helps to write with simple descriptions in active voice. This method conveys information easily and quickly. For example, instead saying “the player takes the board out of the box” say “take the board out of the box.”

In addition, write in short sentences with straightforward language. This especially helps if the instructions are read aloud to a group of players. It is also useful to define how terms are used within your rulebook.

“May” and “must” have different meanings in rules compared to everyday language. “May” provides the option for players to take an action whereas “must” requires players to do something. Innocent words can have different interpretations depending on your readers. Likewise phrase like “either or” should be more properly defined in order to avoid confusion. One of the easiest ways to do this is to state “player MUST take only ONE of the following two actions.” This is a more straightforward way of conveying an “either or statement” using simpler language.

Following these steps provides you with a rulebook that is easy to use for new players while answering the questions decisively for intermediate and advanced players.

Testing your rulebook

Just like your game, your rulebook should be tested. Often this is done at the latest stages of playtesting when players are given rulebooks and allowed to teach and play the game without any help from the designer.

In addition, you may also ask someone else to read your rules and explain them back to you in order to confirm that the correct outcome has been achieved.  Observing how other readers and players interpret and take action based on your words is irreplaceable. The more input that you can get from others the better.

Ideally your players should be able to play your game right after reading the rulebook. A quick and clean start from the end of the rules demonstrates that players were able to interpret and act on your instructions.

Edge cases in the rulebook

The rulebook is supposed to serve the widest possible audience. A consequence of that means that you’ll often have to overlook certain “edge cases” that may not come about too often through game play.

A common mistake with taking into account these edge cases is “bikeshedding” or spending an inordinate amount of time to wrestle with small details that won’t affect the majority of players’ game play.

This doesn’t mean that you should ignore edge cases. Rather, these should be collected in the appendix or other area at the end of your rulebook for reference if they are needed. Taking game testing notes accommodates for these edge cases that might come up during game play.

For example, a rulebook could include information on how players can move their player pieces in your game. There could be many ways that a player can LEGALLY move their piece. As such, you should spend time explaining how that can be done and leave other “edge cases” or infrequent occurrences to your appendix.

Some game designers try to create rules with the minimal amount of these edge cases or scenarios. This is a challenging design practice. However, many game rules are often written in tension. This means that they may contradict each other or require a specific state in the game in order for those rules to apply.

If these rules come up often, then it’s okay to include them in your basic rulebook. However, if there are only certain situations that arise on a regular basis, then you should list these in the appendix of your rules.

In the occurrence that a rule is so specific to an uncommon scenario that it requires its own dedicated section then consider getting rid of it. The requirement of dedicating so much of your precious rulebook space to accommodating this very infrequent scenario means that eliminating the circumstances in which it may arise may be the best move to make.

Games-based learning and rulebooks

We often think of rulebooks for just table top games. But, rulebooks also serve a wider purpose of educating our players for how to play our game to the best of their abilities.

Games-based learning is using existing games to help students achieve their educational goals.  Rulebooks have the educational goal of bringing players up to speed on how to play the game as quickly, easily, and painlessly as possible.

Because of this, it’s best to turn to other educators, teachers, instructors, and professors for the best way to lay out your rulebook content. They often have incisive advice on how to provide information with the right context, brevity, and scope to help your readers.

Remember: rule books are instructional materials first and foremost. They are there to serve and instruct your players. Do them service by using your rulebook as a gateway to learning.

Action steps

Here are some specific action steps that you can take in order to make sure that your rulebook is the best it can be to serve your players.

Use board game specific terminology whenever possible. This includes commonly understood phrases like “boards” and “cards.” You can also include more industry specific terms like “meeples” or “chits.” However, when identifying these terms, make sure that you clearly associate the component with what they look like in the game.

Avoid using unspecific pronouns when referring to players. Past rulebooks commonly referred to players in the masculine third person (i.e. he/him/his). Rulebooks should strive to use more inclusive pronouns as well as more gender neutral pronouns. It’s best to use the terms (they/them) when identifying players in the game in order to satisfy the widest possible audience.

Make sure that you adhere to appropriate tone during your rules explanation. Third person active voice is the best form to use. This means that you should use explanations that begin with “Each player takes their individual player boards.” Instead of: “The starting player will take one player board for all players playing the game. The starting player will then distribute all player boards to all players.”

Make sure that your rulebook is formatted consistently. Using appropriate headings sizes, fonts, bold, italics, underline, and color goes a long way towards making a block of text more easily readable.

For quality assurance make sure that you print out your rulebook and read it aloud. I’ve spent years writing and often think that I can complete all of my edits on my computer screen. However, nothing really beats a final edit on printed paper being read aloud. Typos, voice, and punctuation mistakes often come to light when reviewing your work this way. For a more sustainable approach to editing, consider formatting your document as a PDF and using an app like Goodnotes to review your rulebook on a tablet to replicate that paper feel.

Its best practice to list critical information redundantly throughout your rulebook. If your game has phases or stages that are broken down even further with individual turns, then identify the phase names, stage names throughout your rules explanation. This is especially important if scenarios in your game have to be resolved in a particular order.

Finally, take into account the reader’s experience reviewing you rulebook. Paragraphs in the middle of your rules are more likely to be skimmed over compared to paragraphs’ at the beginning or end. That means that the most critical information should be stated at the beginning and end of your rules. Striving to get the most vital rules into these locations is the practice.

Takeaways

This article reviewed game rulebooks in depth. It covered the purpose of your rulebook; striking a balance; and the process of writing and revising. The structure of the rulebook was covered from different sections including statistical information, components, theme, overview, setup, core loop, and game end.

Remember: the way that you organize the contents of your rulebook is important for informing the player experience. Your voice in how you write your rulebook is as important as testing it out with your players. Finally, edge cases; applications of rule books for games-based learning; and action steps for writing your rulebook were covered in detail.

I hope that you found this article helpful. If you’d like a sample template for your rulebook in addition to information on how to explain theme; glossary of terms; and an anatomy of game components then click here.

This article was about what makes a great rulebook.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post What Makes a Good Rulebook? first appeared on Ludogogy.

Most people know games as vehicles for fun, entertainment and socialization. Elements of games – through :gamification – can also be used to augment, change, and influence individuals behaviors. Those behaviors can affect the way that they interact, shop, and travel.

Games-based learning is the use and adaptation of games as a medium for learning. As such, educators are often called upon to adapt existing games as vehicles for teaching and learning.

But how do educators start with games? How can they approach the adaptation of games for teaching and learning?

This article will address the steps necessary for adapting games for learning. It’ll cover why educators should first adapt games for games-based learning. Challenges that educators often face with adaptation will be addressed as well as how a strategy can be outlined for game adaptation.

There are specific considerations to take into account prior to adapting a game for learning. Those will be outlined as well as how different approaches can be undertaken in order to smooth out challenges in the process.  Examples of game adaptations will be discussed as well as well as how learning can be supported in game adaptation through the use of assessments.

Why Adapt Games for Games-Based Learning?

Many games are fun. It’s the primary reason why people play them. Educators can use and capitalize on that fun through the adoption of games-based learning. Games can be used as an experiential framework in order to help learners achieve multiple different outcomes including the promotion of teamwork and the application of new concepts in practice.

Therefore, it is important to note that games-based learning often begins with a game adaptation as a medium for teaching and learning. Specifically, games are not meant as temporary adoptions; but rather as part of a more holistic pedagogical approach to teaching and learning.

This pedagogical approach in games-based learning is focused on learning through experience or experiential learning. Though game play, learners can apply concepts to practice in an environment where failure can be tolerated, scaffolded, and corrected. Likewise, this is done in an environment where, engagement, play, and interaction are achieved in a way that makes the activity intrinsically motivating and fun.

In addition, games can be applied in multiple different formats. Those include a solo approach to games that often includes puzzles and scenarios. Games can be also be applied in a socialized environment with other learners and/or the instructor. Such group efforts can be undertaken as either a cooperative or a competitive format in which the interaction with others can help reinforce learning outcomes or demonstrate difficult concepts.

Challenges with Adaptation

Any educator who is interested in adapting games for teaching and learning through games-based learning will run into challenges with the adaptation process. One of which is qualifying the game selected to make sure that it aligns with the desired learning outcome. Such a process can be difficult when examining games that are appropriate for specific learners as well as considering the time commitment and modality of the educational environment.

An additional challenge is managing and meeting pre-conceived notions of applied games. Learners may come to expect something from a game dependent on their backgrounds and experiences despite the fact that educators are not prepared to deliver.  Likewise; educators can also be challenged by their expectations of games-based learning that doesn’t meet the outcomes achieved by peers and other colleagues.

Often the case for adaptation of existing games is such that it’s easier and more focused to create a new game from scratch that better meets the needs of the educator and learners. However, this process can be expensive, time consuming, and involved.  Despite those shortcomings; often that route is more preferable than adapting an existing game for educational purposes due to the limitations included with commercially available games.

These challenges can be further exacerbated by teachers in the elementary, intermediate, and secondary schools as logistical problems ranging from limited classroom lectures, facility access, and overall lack of time pose real and present challenges to adapting existing games for teaching and learning. This is further compounded by the additional role that educators must play in supervising and monitoring play: activities that they may not be comfortable implementing and adhering to in addition to other educational responsibilities.

Finally, one of the most challenging aspects due to games adaptation is the requirement that both educators and learners remain flexible throughout the process. Games are not linear tools for teaching and education. Rather, games provide an open ended process through which students create meaning through interaction, experimentation, and engagement. As such, flexibility could be required from all parties at times when patience or resources are in short supply.

Strategy for Adaptation

Despite these challenges, there remain some viable strategies for adapting games for games-based learning. One of which is to curate and select games that are appropriate from a mechanical and emotional standpoint for the learners served.  This has more to do with the individual educator who can best interpret and judge the needs and capabilities of their students and select games that serve, and don’t undermine or exceed their means or capabilities.

Likewise, educators can also use games as means to augment traditional forms of instruction and to break up and punctuate existing lesson plans. Primary and intermediate school educators may choose to use more physical, visual, or kinesthetic games that better impact and serve younger learners. This is compared to those learning and development professionals working in adult learning environments where application of abstract and theoretical concepts to practice are much more welcome and  relevant use of applied games.

Furthermore, educators can adapt and apply games in concert with different pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning. Exploratory learning focuses on learning where individuals learns by exploring environments. These can be physical as well as virtual environments that are experienced with peers as either a competitive or cooperative activity. Many massive multiplayer online games (MMOs) fulfill this type of approach. However, certain and specific table top game such as role-playing games can be applied to meet this end.

Additionally, specific game dynamics such as competition and cooperation can provide an engaging classroom experience that changes and augments the relationships between learners, the content, and instructor. Such change could be jarring for some learners who are used to and have only experienced orthodox approaches to teaching and learning.  However, this can be mitigated through low-stakes activities which explore the modality of games-based learning in greater depth prior to attempting more challenging activities.

Educators can better integrate their application of games for their learning environments through the use of story and narrative which links game activities to learning outcomes and course structure. Such an approach provides a different – albeit familiar – aspect of communication and education through allegory.

No matter how educators adapt games for teaching and learning, they should continually rely on the malleability of games for their purposes. Games used in this respect do not need to necessarily entertain individuals. Rather, different forms and aspects of applied games can be used in concert with more traditional teaching practices that best meets the outcomes of learners. Such adaptation of games for these purposes ensures that the outcomes of play align with the learning outcomes defined by the educator.

Adaptation Considerations

There are certain factors to take into consideration when examining games for learning. One of the most important things to note is that games alone cannot completely replace traditional learning. Of course, there are some outcomes in which games are used to augment more orthodox approaches for learning. However, games by themselves (without structural learning support and scaffolding) are poor replacements for entire learning programs.

Furthermore, the use of games doesn’t necessarily entail better outcomes for learners. This is particularly true if learner populations aren’t ready or don’t see the use and benefit of applied games for learning.  Fun, enjoyment, and entertainment are positive benefits for using games for learner interaction – but alone they do not constitute a learning program.

Additionally, educators should consider the drawbacks of poor game adaptation. Specifically negative impacts could be encountered if adaptation activities for different educational outcomes, linguistic considerations, language, cultural, and societal aspects aren’t taken into account.

Furthermore, educators can often overextend themselves with their adaptation procedures. Often, a common mistake made is adapting the entirely of a class, course, or program to games-based learning. A more approachable strategy would be to start small and incrementally convert learning content, structure, and materials to games-based learning.

These small steps for adaptation should first consider how games, game elements, game :dynamics, and game mechanics can serve as complementary aspects to different learns and learning models.  Such an approach prioritizes the learner’s experience as part of the holistic outcome of their education and engagement.

Learner engagement should take a priority in this process as examining how individuals receive, interpret, and act within a games-based learning environment could provide insightful advice on how an educator should proceed with an adaptation initiative. An example of this is how primary, intermediate, and secondary school educators can use games as means of breaking up a static lesson plan with different games and activities which require involvement through different modalities. Some of which can involve physical movement while others require more cognitive applications.

Adaptation Approaches

Game adaptations are often undertaken from an educator’s standpoint. That individual could be someone who has both much game playing and teaching experience whereas others could be attempting an adaptation for the first time. Despite this, individual educators should note that players require a reflective period in concert with game play in order to gain the most from the experience.

This reflection period serves two purposes. The first is to reinforce and promote metacognitive behaviors in experiential and games-based learning. The second one is for the educator to evaluate the scale, scope, and impact of the games-based learning application and determine how it be changed, augmented, or adjusted to better fit their outcomes and goals.

This is perhaps an area were games-based learning has an advantage over digitally applied and experienced gamification. Such gamified applications can be inflexible with their use and application for learner populations. Conversely, analog applications and adaptations of table top games and other non-digital games provide the educator with agency, malleability, and the ability to personalize the experience to fit the needs of their learners.

While gamification alone relies on the implementation of individual elements of games in non-game settings; games-based learning and applied games utilize the entirety of the game for the purposes of teaching and learning. In this vein, educators can more wholly apply games for their long term educational outcomes rather than short term entertainment and engagement of learners.

Examples of Adaptations

The number of games that educators can adapt for teaching and learning are only limited by the number of games that are published and available. Despite this, it’s often easiest to approach games-based learning adaptation through familiar game :mechanics that players might already know. For early childhood education using games with familiar themes such as  Go Fish and memory components can be easiest to adapt.

Likewise, most players can identify with the visceral and excitement involved with randomization and rolling dice. Therefore, games that include some sort of entropy with physical components such as dice and cubes could serve as attractive components for learners.  In this vein, digital games such as Minecraft capitalize on the sourcing and building aspect of games that empower players to construct n various environments.

Game adaptation often revolves around familiarity with game structures, components and aesthetics. This can make adaptation for complicated, lengthy, or complex games more difficult compared to simpler ones. Therefore, common components such as playing cards can be introduced to learners as an application of both a game component and a :mechanic. This is because they can serve as both components to store information as well as serve as a means to randomize it.

However, not all games require components for implementation. Argumentation, debate, or negotiation games can be implemented in the classroom with minimal investment into physical components. Such applications of games with structures like FunEmployed, Taboo, and Bohnanza, capitalize on these mechanics with a minimum number of physical components.

FunEmployed is available on Amazon

Taboo is available on Amazon

Bohnanza is available on Amazon

Following this, reenactments, role-playing, and other forms of situational narratives could be used with minimal components in order to better connect learning content with students’ own interoperations and applications. These can be further developed into other learning activities such as reflection exercises or writing prompts such as StorySlam which give students a means for further exploring content more viscerally.

Word games such as Boggle and Scrabble embody some of the most well known properties in gaming. As such, word games make students’ inclusion, adaptation, and utilization of letters, words, and vocabularies more engaging. Put out the Fire is such a game where teams of students work with each other to name something within different categories based on the same letter.

While many of the games discussed here can only be implemented in a traditional and physical classroom environment due to their component limitations; there often exists digital adaptations of them that can be used in a distributed and online environment.  Such applications of games like Just One, Codenames, and Wordle make it so that these games can transcend the digital boundaries included by hosting classes via web conferencing.

JustOne is available on Amazon

Codenames is available on Amazon

Lastly, there also exist specific platforms aimed at digital student engagement both online and in person via different devices. Kahoot!, Quizizz, Quizlet Live, Gimkit, and Blooket, exist to provide educators with different gamified applications of quizzing and assessment that can be applied in different modalities.

Supporting Learning in Game Adaptations

An emphasis always has to be placed on learning, no matter what games educators choose to use and adapt for their students. This support can come in multiple different formats. The most common of which is the use of debriefing and reflection of learning activities. Games don’t need to be the only activity in which metacognition is emphasized; but they are a very powerful medium for examining the “learning of learning.”

Additionally, the use and application of simulations for teaching and learning have the added benefit of utilizing theme to connect learning content to specific learning outcomes. The Model United Nations makes it so that students embody the politics, motivations, goals, and collective needs of the planet in a microcosm of the actual organization. As such, learners can more viscerally empathize with nation states as they act and interact with classmates who serve as their counterparts.

Finally, educators can best support learners engaging in games-based learning by helping utilize and apply their agency within the game in their pursuit of different actions and strategies. Such options don’t necessarily exist with more traditional forms of learning through orthodox means.  Therefore it’s most useful for educators to prioritize and emphasize the unique approach that games offer.

Incorporating Assessment into Game Adaptations

Possibly one of the most important and critical things to incorporate into the application and adaptation of games for games-based learning are assessments. These assessments can be summative or formative. No matter what the educator chooses to use, it’s critical to make sure that the game is applied to ensure that learners are meeting the desired outcomes.

Such assessments should be implemented in order to meet the needs of both the educator and learners. Some assessments are easier to implement compared to others. This includes smaller more traditional ones such as test and quizzes which challenges learners to apply their learned skills in practice. Other content areas may require students to pass “quests” or “challenges” that are in line with the game’s theme that require learners to apply their new knowledge. No matter how these assessments are implemented, educators should examine how learners are making cognitive sense of their new learner behaviors. This metacognition (learning about learning) helps individuals  shift their own behaviors and adapt to change from games-based learning.

Games-based learning is more challenging to implement assessments because the educator must usually adapt a commercially available game for teaching and learning. Games are usually excellent at challenging players throughout play with different objectives, missions, and “boss fights” which demand players to put their skills to the test. However, educators using games-based learning must take appropriate and incisive measures in order to relate game content to their own learning objectives.

Educator intervention is especially important when it comes to supporting learners’ overall engagement and progression. That’s because it can very easy (especially for younger learners) to become despondent and demoralized from difficult game progression – especially as it relates to their own realization of self-determination and competency. This could be realized when a player gets “stuck” at a certain point in the game and is unsure how to progress or how the activity relates to a particular outcome.

Instructors can make use of these teachable moments in order to connect game content and activities with the specific learning outcomes from the material. Ideally, such connections encourage the player to apply different approaches with the objective of learning from their own shortcomings and failures. Such behavioral changes stem from the experiential learning cycle applied in games-based learning and the effect that active experimentation has on developing new approaches and strategies.

Lastly, the future of serious games and educational learning game development centers on the dynamic adaptation and change of the game to meet the learners’ needs and shortcomings. This is most likely achieved through the use of digital games-based learning which can detect and adapt to players’ behaviors and match their skill level with appropriate challenges to that helps them maximize learning while also assessing their outcomes.

Takeaways

This article covered the adaptation of games for games-based learning. It began with determining the reasoning behind the adaptation of games. Challenges with game adaptation were discussed as well as strategies that educators can undertake in order to help them with their process.

Specific game adaptation considerations were explained as well as some strategies that could be adopted when selecting and adapting games for teaching and learning. Special considerations for adaptations were covered as well as how educators can approach the game adaptation process. Finally, this article closed with examples of game adaptations as well how the adaptive practice can be accomplished in ways that best support student learning and assessment.

This article was about how to adapt games for learning.  To learn more about

gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post How do I Adapt Games for Learning? first appeared on Ludogogy.

Games are capable of helping students learn any number of different skills. Likewise, simulations can be used to help students from one discipline learning something more intuitively than they would from traditional classroom instruction.

One of the most general outcomes for games-based learning is the development of student’s soft skills. These are skills that can be used across a number of different areas, industries, and outlets.

So what soft skills can games be used for? How are games used for soft skills development?

This article will cover the different areas that games-based learning can be used for addressing soft skills development. This article will cover cognitive internal development; relational development; as well as how games can be used to develop students’ communication and creativity. This article will close with actionable items for using games-based learning to achieve these skill competencies.

Cognitive internal development

Digital games often don’t provide any wait time for players. Individuals take single actions and then are immediately awarded. This helps with the feedback loop of players in traditional game design. However, table top games offer a different perspective for players. They often require players take actions now that won’t produce any measurable effects until much further along in the game. In this way, table top games reward students’ patience for continued and engaging play.

Likewise, table top games also test students’ applications of logic and strategy. I recently spent this holiday playing a large and diverse array of table top games with family my same age as well as much younger cousins. Despite the age difference, I saw many applications of logic and strategy in games as simple as Doce and as complex as The Manhattan Project. Each one was challenging in their own right; but the amount of effort needed to excel at both was considerable.

The Manhattan Project is available on Amazon

Lastly, games also facilitate students’ critical thinking and problem solving by posing the most basic question in most scenarios: what moves can I make to help me win the game? These can be as simple as just continuing to survive in endless running games like Temple Run or in heavier games like FTL: Faster than Light. In both scenarios, players must problem solve on the fly and think critically about how decisions they take now will affect their player later on throughout the game.

Relational development

Games do not exclusively help students develop their own internal cognitive development. They can also facilitate their relational development: specifically how their actions affect the state of the game as well as their relationships with other players.

One of the most common types of relational development is through spatial reasoning:

the capacity to think about objects occupying a space and then draw conclusions about how those objects fit in relation to one another.  One of my all-time favorite games Blokus is the king of this genre as players are challenged to get all of their pieces on the board to score the most points. Though other games like Patchwork and Convert also test players’ spatial reasoning capacity.

Blokus is available on Amazon, as is Patchwork

In addition, games can test and reinforce players’ collaborative skills as they work with and for other players in order to achieve their goals.  One of the best table top examples of this is the Matt Leacock line of collaborative games like Pandemic, Forbidden Island, Forbidden Desert, and Forbidden Sky. Each one tests players’ abilities to collaborate and cooperate with one another in order to achieve a common goal. More serious players might consider games such as Mage Knight, Gloomhaven, and Spirit Island as options that further push the limits of what is possible from table top cooperating gaming.

Pandemic, Forbidden Island, and Forbidden Desert are all available on Amazon, as are Mage Knight, Gloomhaven and Spirit Island.

Lastly, games test players’ abilities to manage limited resources to achieve their game goals. This is most prominent in modern euro games where any number of player actions are disguised as different things that players can do that turn one thing into another thing which turns into victory points. While that description alone doesn’t sound that enticing, there are entire communities of players who are enthralled by it. Modern classics such as Agricola and Settlers of Catan rely heavily on resource management as a way for players to excel and win the game.

Agricola is available on Amazon, and so is Settlers of Catan.

Communication and creativity

Perhaps one of the most salient aspects of games-based learning supporting soft skills growth is in players’ development of communication and creativity. Both of which come through more highly social and creative games.

Returning to one of my old standby games Balderdash reminded me of the kind of creativity needed to not only think of definitions to obscure words; but to write them in a such a way where other players would vote for them. Likewise, new entrants to the field like Just One require that players take the simple action of selecting just one clue to reveal to a teammate. But the commonality and creativity of that clue is what helps set players apart from one another.

Balderdash is available on Amazon and so is Just One.

Creativity alone doesn’t have to be about creating made up definitions. Working in uncertain conditions where negotiation and interaction are prioritized definitely fall within the domain of games. A favorite large group game of mine Empires relies on the negotiation aspect in order to move play along. The Sheriff of Nottingham emphasizes this even more where interaction and negotiation form the hallmark of the game’s core loop.

Empires is available on Amazon and so is Sheriff of Nottingham.

Communication and creativity seem to be one of the most promoted ways of utilizing games-based learning as games are seen as a way to replace traditional media like lectures, audio, and video. This is particularly relevant when using something like roleplaying and simulations. Both of these represent real life scenarios where students will need to put their learned skills into practice.

While many games can be re-purposed for games-based learning; almost all table top games can be used in one fashion or another to promote communication skills between players. Effective communication is perhaps one of the most important soft skills to develop. And if you ever need a forum to practice it: try explaining 4-5 different board games a week to different players on a regular basis.

Actionable items

Games can be used to meet a great many learning outcomes for educators. The most salient of which is to address communication barriers between students and players. Playing games provides a structure from which educators can scaffold the interactions between players.  Games’ involved formal elements and structures already form the method where individual players can interact with one another.

In addition, educators can praise students’ agency, efficacy, and perseverance in a games-based learning environment. Of course players will want to win; but in most circumstances winning will not be the most important outcome. Therefore, equal focus on making sure that players continue to play and engage is just as important.

Takeaways

This article covered the different areas that games-based learning can be used to address soft skills development. The article covered cognitive internal development; relational development; as well as how games can be used to for students to develop better communication and creativity. This article was about using games for soft-skill development. To learn more about soft-skill development in gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post Building Soft Skills in Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

The core loop is what most players engage with and remember when they are playing your game. The core loop is the most engaging and active element of your design. The core loop matters whether creating the next great video game; table top game; or games-based learning application.  You’ll need to carefully examine how the core loop attracts and engages your player in order to keep bringing them back to the game.

But what is the core loop? How do you design around it? What are some key mistakes to avoid?

This article outlines what a core loop is as well as provides direction in its design.  Examples of core loops are provided as well as some fatal mistakes to avoid in the design process.

What is the core loop?

The core loop is the primary game system or mechanic which defines your game. This is the element of the game that players remember most frequently or engage with most often. You can think about this as the “engine” for your game and what empowers individual players to keep playing.

The core loop comprises the most basic kinds of actions that players can take. Whether that is moving around the map in League of Legends; drafting cards in Splendor; or platforming across the screen in Super Mario Bros. The genre of your game doesn’t matter. What does matter is making sure that your players continue to engage over time through a well structured core loop.

Splendor is available on Amazon

You can think about your core loop as the lowest level activity that players engage with during your game. In rouge-like learning; you can define these basic actions as something that players engage with and develop over the course of a run. Educators can also use the core loop to develop core competencies for their students. These are competencies that students will return to time and time again during your class in order to progress further in the course.

Design direction with the core loop

The core loop is both a simple design as well as a complex one. But it’s something that many designers struggle with. Especially when establishing a core loop and then designing a game around it.  It’s also important to ask yourself “what kind of experience do I want my player to have?”  That player experience is essential to define in order to convey its essence through your game’s core activities.

A well designed core loop can create a myriad of senses for your players. It can help them feel attached, engaged, or accomplished. Keeping your players challenged through similar activities in your core loop is important to retaining them in your game.

Think about some of the most enjoyable and memorable mobile games you’ve played. They are most likely built around some enjoyable repetitive actions that trigger rewards (feedback loop) for you before you are presented with a new challenge.  That feedback is another loop which forms the larger framework within your game. Those other loops work in tandem, parallel, and in a hierarchy to create larger dynamics in game play.

The development and showcase of your core loop to both players and students is important. Their first interaction with your game is often through the demonstration of your core loop. So if their first impression is not a good one; it may also be their last.

So what makes a good core loop?

In the end your game could have incredible graphics; great table presence; fantastic components; deep mechanics; and a satisfying narrative. But if the core loop is not fun and engaging, then your players will eventually lose interest.

When developing your core loop, you must define a clear goal; keep it short; and connect it well to the theme of your game.

Having a clear goal is paramount to making sure that the loop is a tight one.  Players must relate and equate their actions in the game world and how it affects their status; ranking; and progression.

You can do this best by making sure that your loop is a short one. Have your player take action ‘A’ to get rewards ‘Z.’ That’s it. That’s the only benefit that you need to show players in the meantime. Now building off that loop and reward structure is what will continue to keep players engaged over time.

Best of all: if you can create a clear goal that is connected to a short loop that is ALSO thematic then you have the foundation for a great game on your hands.

One of my favorite gaming memories is playing Super Punchout. It’s a game that doesn’t <ahem> pull any punches. Because it’s a boxing game: it’s about punching your opponent. Everything that the player does in the game goes back to the core loop of the player punching opponents until they win or lose. Everything else is built around the punching core loop. 

Designing around the core loop

Now that you know what makes a good core loop, it’s time to design around it. Those steps revolve around picking an idea that has potential (your mechanic or theme); creating a prototype; and then testing and evaluating it.

The first thing you will want to do is pick out an idea that has potential. That could be a thematic choice or a mechanical element. I’ll use a game that I’m developing right now called Shelf-Life that’s about buying and selling groceries at the super market (exciting right!)  That’s the theme I want to use.  I want this game to be a tableau builder with items going into a common “store” shelf from players’ individual storage shelves. Moving goods from their personal shelves to the store shelf is the main mechanic.

I’ve built my prototype using paper and cardboard components and tested it out with friends and colleagues to determine if this core loop (moving items from personal shelves onto the store shelf to score points) is a solid one. I’ve justified the theme of players taking this action because they all play super market stockers.  Their job it is to keep the shelves stocked as shoppers make their purchases.

After a few play tests I’ve gotten some information about the core loop and its effects on players. They seem pretty engaged with it so far; but sometimes it’s not as simple as I would like it to be. So I’m currently working on changing it up so that there is a stronger connection between player actions and the feedback they receive from it.

Other examples of core loops

There are as many examples of core loops as there are games. So it’s important to play as many different and varied types of games as possible.  This will help acclimatize yourself to the different possibilities and varieties of core loops available.

You don’t even have to play “traditional” video games and table top games. Take classic sports such as soccer, hockey, and basketball. The core loop of those games is to get the ball or the puck into the opponent’s net to score points. Baseball’s core loop is similar in that all plays originate from the batter hitting the ball. That simple element brings much strategic depth to the game given teams, players, and specific scenarios.

Even simple games like Tic-Tac-Toe have a core loop of placing your symbol in one of the starting nine squares. You continue to place your symbol in one of the available squares until one player has achieved three in a row. At its face value it’s a simple core loop of placing your symbol and then evaluating the game state. But you can create and build a game off of this same core loop. Think about Scrabble.  You have a hand of several symbols (letters) that you must place on the board (in a specific order) to get a result (points from words created).

Fatal mistakes to avoid

Now that you know what a core loop is, as well what makes one great and engaging, it’s necessary to review some mistakes to avoid in your design process.

One of those mistakes is forgetting to include a core loop. Rather, some designers collect a series of disparate and unrelated “activities” that don’t keep a user engaged while demonstrating progress. If you can’t demonstrate to players why they are playing and why should continue playing with the core loop; then you may already have lost them.

However, if you are going to keep players around, you also have to reward (or reinforce them) for their activity. The core loop should end with a pleasurable experience. A player should get something; improve their position; or otherwise advance the game state to where they can see their own progress through their actions.

It’s the lack of evidence of progress that dooms many other games in general. A game can have a significant core loop; but without a demonstration that they’re making some headway they can quickly become disengaged.  A classic educational example of this is not returning students’ work in class with substantive feedback in the form of notes or a grade. Without that kind of feedback; students don’t know where to go next; what to prioritize; or how to improve their position in the game (i.e. your class).

Takeaways

Excellent core loops make it a priority to entice and engage players more and more so that they continue to play and stay involved.  Understanding the core loop is a critical part of designing your game. Having a core loop as the base of your game makes it so that all actions; activities; rewards; and outcomes originate from the same place.

This article outlined a core loop is as well as provided direction in its design.  Examples of core loops were provided as well as some fatal mistakes to avoid in the design process.

To learn more about core loops in gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post Core Loops in Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

Sometimes you’ll play a competitive game where you realize that you can’t win anymore. It’s kind of depressing to think about. However, there are things that you can do and actions that you can take that will help someone else win. This scenario is called “kingmaking.”

This article will define and outline what a kingmaking scenario is. A history of kingmaking will be discussed as well as reasons that it may arise in different situations. Kingmaking as a spoiling tactic in game mechanics will also be covered. Kingmaking in tournament situations and table top games will be included. Finally, kingmaking can have an adverse impact on both player agency and the player experience. Both areas will be discussed in addition to how kingmaking takes effect in scenarios outside of games.

What is a kingmaking scenario?

Kingmaking is often described as a negative effect in game play. However, the definition includes someone who can still wield their own power, agency, and influence. They just cannot do so in order to win the game. Instead, the best that they can do is help (or hurt) someone else’s chances of winning and being picked as “king.”

Kingmaking in game theory surrounds the end game scenario where a player has the ability to make a winning move for another player.  This is often seen as a negative effect of game design due to limited player agency. While the player does still have the capability of making a choice; they cannot make a choice that secures their own victory.

This can also be referred to as a “lame-duck” situation where someone can take actions that doesn’t have any positive beneficial effect for themselves or their interests. This is often a terrible situation to be in because the player often realizes that they cannot win.

This gives rise to certain options that the kingmaker has. Do they keep playing to maximize their score and improve their position despite their inability to win? Should they ignore other players and make the best “sound” move?

All of these are considerations for what players can or should do in the game. However, knowing some history about kingmaking and how it has become part of the common game vocabulary is worth noting.

History of kingmaking

Kingmaking was first identified as an English term by Richard Neville who served as the 16th Earl of Warwick. In his position, Richard played an instrumental role in the deposition of Henry VI during the War of the Roses, which lead to his replacement by Edward IV. This later resulted in Warwick turning against Edward and restoring Henry to the throne.

It’s from this historical interaction that we identify kingmaking. Richard Neville was able to exact agency and power in the political affairs of the country. However, it was not enough in order to secure the throne for himself. Instead, he could only choose the next successor to the throne.

This represents the English origin of the term “kingmaker” in 1599. However, it would take some time before the term became common usage in scenarios other than the original historical one.

The more common and modern applications of the term are still used to identify specific political situations. However, it now encompasses scenarios and situations in games and game theory as well.

Reasons behind kingmaking

Sometimes kingmaking is done purposefully; sometimes it’s done out of spite; or sometimes it is done out of ignorance or lack of acknowledgement of the other players. Yes, kingmaking makes is so that players don’t have much recourse given the set of actions presented to them. However, the act of kingmaking has its biggest impact when it’s done out of spite.

That’s because spiteful activities don’t really adhere to the playfulness and magic circle of games. Spiteful activity subverts the acknowledgement of why players play to begin with. However, when in a kingmaking situation, there are a few options that players have at their disposal.

The first option is usually to make the best scoring play possible. This may leave the game open for other players to make an even bigger scoring playing; however that is not up to you. This entails making the best possible move given your circumstance to win the game (even if it is likely that you will not).

Another option for players is to play for “justice.” That is to reward players that might have had a hand in helping you through the game. This could be from another player who gave you’re a resource; a hand of cards; or didn’t select an option that would have negatively affected you.

However, these options do seem to skirt on the edge of the magic circle. By agreeing to play a game; we’ve agreed to adhere to the rules and spirit of the game. This sometimes means that more experienced players could be the target of “reductive play” that might reduce their ability to win.

This can expand into more experienced or regular players who often engage with one another. In those circumstances; players that seem to win more frequently than others may become the target of these “reductive plays” and may not benefit from positive kingmaking activities.

Kingmaking as spoiling

Kingmaking (when taking into account actions outside of the magic circle of games) can be seen as spoiling the game. Returning to the origin of kingmaking with Richard Neville, this activity can be interpreted as spoiling an experience that should rightfully be won by other players based on merit.

This is perhaps the reason why kingmaking negatively affects the player experience: because it is considered an undesirable resolution to the activity of the game. Since a player cannot win; their only options are to take actions that can only result in other players winning.

Therefore, one player’s strategy in kingmaking is when they take an action which directly benefits another player (direct action). Otherwise, the kingmaker could take an action which helps another player while also affecting their own final ranking in the game (indirect action).

These are actions that can be taken by kingmakers near the close of the game or during endgame phases. However, kingmaking could also be interpreted as a series of activities that progressively helps another player benefit unfairly – not just at the end. This can happen in poker when players “play softly” against a specific opponent in order to setup them for other hands as the game (or tournament) progresses.

This kind of player behavior skews into areas of collusion where individual players or teams fail to play at the best of their ability in pursuit of the common goal of the game. This can occur in sports when “running down the clock” or otherwise using delaying tactics that are outside the scope of more traditional play activities.

Kingmaking in game mechanics

Design of game mechanics can go a long way in mitigating these kingmaking scenarios. However, these situations cannot always be avoided in more advanced and complex games. Despite this, there are considerations that game designers can undertake that would aid them in mitigating these types of scenarios.

One of the most common design choices is to obscure victory points or progress towards victory conditions. Not possessing perfect information about the game state can help players retain agency while also preserving the feeling of the ability to win despite their current situation.

A hybrid situation can also be implemented in game design. This can take the form of a score track that is public knowledge while players hold onto a hand of cards that is private knowledge. The value of the hidden hands of cards is then revealed at the end of the game to indicate the final score. Ticket to Ride implements this practice in its design.

Ticket to Ride is available on Amazon

Kingmaking in tournaments

There is one instance in which kingmaking in gaming can have an inexorable impact on the validity of a fair contest. That’s when kingmaking scenarios occur in tournaments. This is because tournaments often provide scenarios where contestants are already guaranteed placement in the next round of play. However; they may use their future play to influence which other contestants make it to the next round.

This gives rise to tournament strategies that use kingmaking to their advantage. This is because it is often strategically important to help weaker contestants proceed to future rounds of play. This makes the playing field for the kingmaker as easy as possible.

Kingmaking in these tournament scenarios and more competitive games is where the phenomenon becomes annoying for players and tournament officials alike. While rules can be created by game makers and referees; it appears that kingmaking cannot always be totally eliminated in these circumstances. Instead, its effects can only be reduced or mitigated.

Kingmaking in tournaments is particularly harmful because contestants caught in such scenarios could be accused of cheating or collusion. Perhaps one of the applicable ways of addressing this is asking contestants to conceded tournament games in which their win has no effect on their progress within the event.

Kingmaking in table top games

Kingmaking can occur in many different types of games: especially table top games. Kingmaking has a particularly influential effect in games with high degrees of player interaction such as Diplomacy; The Godfather; or Survive: Escape from Atlantis.

Diplomacy is available on Amazon

One of the aforementioned ways of dealing with kingmaking in games is to hide the victory point track. Puerto Rico does this in order to conceal which player is in the lead. The introduction of this hidden element supports the ability for all players to believe that they have a chance of winning through the end of the game.

However, kingmaking can and does still occur in other games. Kingdomino for instance provides opportunities at the end game for players to draft tiles that may only help them a little; but hurt the winning chances for the remaining players.

Kingdomino is available on Amazon

Likewise, Viticulture players could fulfill an order during the end game to ensure that they finish second. Whereas another player could have used the space to potentially win.

Viticulture is available on Amazon

Despite this, there are instances in games where players can determine that they are not in a position to win and therefore have no more agency to affect the outcome. This can occur in Dominion when players discover that there are no longer enough VP cards left in order to stage a comeback.

Dominion is available on Amazon

No more is kingmaking more frustrating then when it is informed by metagaming experiences. This can occur when players work with each other to stop a more experienced player from winning in spite of negatively affecting their own play.

Survive: Escape from Atlantis is available on Amazon

However, kingmaking does have its place in some games: especially those games that involve much negotiation and interaction between players. Games such as Cosmic Encounter; The Sheriff of Nottingham; and Empires involve much interaction and negotiation. Thus kingmaking might even be a thematic and welcoming player interaction within the game.

Cosmic Encounter is available on Amazon

Kingmaking and player agency and experience

Perhaps one of the most negative aspects of kingmaking is removing the agency of players and thus affecting the player experience. That’s because in these scenarios players can no longer play for themselves. Instead their actions (at best) can only affect other players.

The Sheriff of Nottingham is available on Amazon

Thus, making moves that might otherwise negatively impact the game experience for other players could be seen as unsportsmanlike and not adhering to the rules of the magic circle. This could take place by players intentionally slowing the game down or otherwise taking illogical moves.

Empires is available on Amazon

Despite this, players always have the option for finishing better than their peers through the remaining actions that they take. While they might not be able to win; they could potentially still do relatively better than the rest of their competition.

Kingmaking has a potentially disastrous impact on casual games when players realize that they can no longer win and must still continue to play the game through its conclusion.  Such a position is not enviable for anyone and overall negatively impacts the player experience.

Kingmaking outside of games

Kingmaking originated outside of games. Its basis was a political move by actors who could only make the decision to decide the next king. For applications in modern democracies; kingmaking could be considered antithetical. This is again because it provides the choice to choose a leader without having the ability to nominate oneself.

Finally, kingmaking could even be seen as a benefit in certain scenarios. One of them is the TV series Survivor where the last seven to ten contestants who have been voted out form a jury that chooses a winner from the last two contestants. In this situation, kingmaking can be a dramatic addition to the reality show game.

Takeaways

This article addressed the kingmaking scenario in games as well as its historical origins.  Reasons behind kingmaking were discussed as well as how this effect is interpreted as a spoiling activity in game play.  Kingmaking in game mechanics were covered in addition to how kingmaking can adversely affect tournament scenarios.

Finally, kingmaking in table top games were discussed and how its effects and influences both player agency and the player experience. Kingmaking outside of games were discussed in relation to politics and reality television.

This article was about the kingmaking in games.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post What is Kingmaking? first appeared on Ludogogy.

We may play games for various reasons. One of the reasons why we play games is often to escape. We escape to a faraway place that is as different and distinct from the place that we call reality. That type of escape is into the “magic circle” of games.  The magic circle is a place where different rules that govern our existence, actions, and consequences apply.

But what is this “magic circle?” Where does it exist? Are players always in the magic circle? What do they do within the circle? How do players create meaning inside the magic circle? Most importantly: how can we use the magic circle in games-based learning?

This article will answer the question “What is the magic circle?” In addition, it’ll address the magic circle as the “separate and special place” in gaming. Characteristics and locations of the magic circle will be discussed as well as how players cross into the magic circle. Players’ rules and roles within the circle as well as their return to “reality” are covered in this article. Finally, this article closes on using the magic circle in games-based learning as well as some criticisms around its use.

What is the Magic Circle?

So what is the “magic circle” really? The idea and concept of the magic circle is a relatively straight forward and simple idea. The “Magic Circle” is when and where games are being played and new meaning is generated.

The magic circle is the place that we enter when we begin playing games. It’s a unique space. Sometimes it’s cooperative, competitive, or both. Sometimes there are “correct” ways to play in the magic circle. Other times the magic circle exists only to provide a boundary between the real and imagined worlds.

The most important thing to consider with games in the magic circle is that actions within the circle create a different kind of meaning for players. Game actions taken in the magic circle have a different meaning and impact inside the game. In games our health become quantified into “hit points” (HP). In games, our characters progress up skill trees. In games, we represent battles via avatars on a game board.

These new meanings are created. They are created by players, with players, and within the game. They are created because game rules dictate what we can and cannot do as well as what is supported and endorsed by other players.

This means that playing within the magic circle creates a temporary and provisional dimension. We create a time and place where the “world’s rules” are now the “game’s rules.”

“A separate and special place”

When we enter the magic circle we undoubtedly enter a separate, special, and magical place. For gamers this could be gathering around a table with friends; online with their guild; or even on the baseball diamond or football field.

That’s because the magic circle represents this boundary. It’s the idea that this location becomes a dimension in space and time where the imagined becomes real and where new rules apply for new circumstances. Magic circles have rules. Interestingly, these rules are also not limited to only games. The magic circle can be observed in court houses, religious spaces, and even special events like weddings. In these places we’re called to act and perform differently according to a new set of rules.

In games we see the magic circle as a structure of formalized rules, norms, and excepted behaviors. We accept the magic circle of games as being completely separate from real life. In the magic circle we can also see the clear differences between what is a part of the game and what is not part of it. Sports fields have boundaries. Tables have edges. Our computer screens and VR headsets only extend so far.

Inside the magic circle we become a different person, acting a different role, with others in the same context. In the magic circle real-world expectations and consequences may no longer have meaning. The magic circle IS magic. Like dreams, games are often a place where we can actualize our fantasies.

Characteristics of the Magic Circle

The magic circle is sometimes seen as a “physical space.” It’s a place where it’s supposed to be easy to tell if someone is playing a game and when they aren’t. However, it’s often not that simple. That’s because the magic circle can be elastic. It can stretch to encompass players within in its borders. Most importantly: the magic circle is transformative. Entering it turns players into… something else.

Players are changed and augmented due to the magic circle’s transformative nature. Players bring meaning and experience with them whenever they leave. That experience is something transformative and unique to each player because they’ve all experienced the same game environment from their own personal perspective.  Playing and being in the magic circle means that players are in the here and now.

That makes the magic circle transformative and immediate. We only “play” games when we’ve made the decision to enter the circle.  As such, we need to be present. We need to be “there” in order to really be playing. This sense of innate game connection and infatuation is often referred to as the flow state.

Games can be incredibly complicated. But, when we understand them; when we play with the; and when we fulfilled by them; they become infinitely more simple than the world around us. In order for us to reach this level of enlightenment we need also need to suspend our own level of disbelief. The magic circle requires us to think differently about how the game operates and what we accept as self-evident. This means that  game worlds can be as expansive as any movie, film, comic, or television show.

However, what creates great immersion for players is the level of fidelity, abstraction, and meaning that we gain from games by being entranced by its magic circle. That level of narrative connection makes the game so enchanting to us.

But there is a disconnect whenever that narrative connection is broken. Whenever something doesn’t make sense – it pushes us a little bit further outside of the magic circle. The reality of the world created around us begins to crumble. As a result, we begin to lift our suspension of disbelief.

Locations of the Magic Circle

The magic circle is something that most easily understood when its location based. When we think about modern sports as games we think about the playing surface. We think about the court, the field, the baseball diamond, and the pitch. We think about the place where the game is “played.” That location represents a conceptual boundary where there is a “game” and where there isn’t.

However, we can extend that boundary and definition a little further.  Can we also include the arena where the sport is being played? How about the card table where we play poker against friends? Following this, we could assume that there are other locations that include “playful activity” where other social norms, rules, and expectations are suspended. A common location where this happens is the public playground.

Going further we can view the magic circle as something that transcends a physical space and one that occupies more of a player mindset. The professional athlete on the basketball court is in a magic circle. The same can be said for a kid jumping in puddles on a rainy street. Both are playing. But the professional player has a physical space that defines the boundaries of the circle. Whereas the kid only has their imagination to separate the actual world from the world of play.

We can go even one step further with digital games, augmented reality, and virtual reality. In these domains we only need our devices and our attention to enter the magic circle. Our screen become the windows from which we can view far away and imaginary worlds. Our headsets become glasses which we can observe something spectacular and unimaginable. Similarly, augmented reality combines and blurs the boundaries between what we see, feel, and perceive in the physical world from what we can create in the digital one.

Crossing the Boundary

It’s definitely easier to think about the magic circle as a physical boundary. It’s faster and more convenient to think “when I pick up my device I am playing.” Or when I step onto the field I become the quarterback. But the magic circle doesn’t even need that level of cognition to cross it.

Player enter the magic circle when they make the conscious decision to play. Other players can choose to join them and enter the magic circle as well. But they also need to make the same conscious and active choice.

It’s difficult to think that we can enter the magic circle so easily. Especially when we examine games as a composite of formal game structures with rules, loops, objectives, and goals. However, crossing the boundary still requires the same active and conscious choice to each player: to play.

This quick decision making makes it so that the boundary between those not playing and those who are playing very porous and transferrable. Players can easily slip into and out of character during role-playing games. Though, care needs to be taken as players need consistent support within the circle. Especially if they are engaging in simulations, role-plays, or other applications of games-based learning.

This is evident in learning games where traversing the boundary inside and outside of the circle can compromise learning goals and outcomes for students and players alike. Simulations exist in order to re-create the scenarios that students will encounter outside the circle. Compromising the simulation doesn’t help students achieve learning outcomes the instructor has created for them.

Rules in the Magic Circle

The magic circle includes this boundary that players cross over when they decide to play. But what are the rules of the magic circle? How do players know what they are and how do they adhere to them?

The rules of the magic circle vary from game to game and from activity to activity. But these rules are specific by ordering players into different roles; the different steps to take; and a timetable when those steps should be taken.  They can be as generic as a physical boundary like a soccer pitch or they can be more social based such as staying in character for a role-playing game.

Different types of games also have different types of rules for players in the magic circle. More defined games like sports have clear rules, boundaries, and structures for dictating what players can do and where and when they can do it. Whereas other, idiomatic games can be more subjective with their rules. Role-playing games often require players to define their own relationships and connections with other players.  Because of this, players often create their own societal norms and expectations within the game and rules within their own specific and unique magic circle.

Of course, these rules are often one of the most defining characteristics of games. The rules are in place in order to structure the activity so that play can occur between players and the environment. In some sense, the rules make up the experience of the game. However, players can also look at the rules and make the first conscious choice of game play: deciding to play. By deciding to enter the magic circle, players have made that instinctual choice. They have indicated their interest and their adherence to the rule set. They have decided to play.

These rules are only one form of the formal structures that make up games. But players, designers, and instructors alike view them as one of the founding characteristics’ that create the game experience. So much so, that rules that are not completely precise and comprehensive are often thought of as “broken games.”

Whereas a complete rule set is often necessary for the most ardent and dedicated gamer; sometimes a simple rule set that allow for interpretation and adaptation provide some malleability with the player experience. We see this most frequently in “house rules” for games that take into account our own preferences and experiences.

Roles in the Magic Circle

Rules create the structure for which players may choose to enter and adhered to in their decision to play the game. However, their roles within the game affect what they do and how they act within the circle.

Role-playing games make this evident because the decision to play and adhere to the rules within the game indicate that participants are willing to suspend disbelief. They are willing to become characters other than themselves. Other games don’t require as much dedication or connection to the game. Outside the game your are just… you. But inside the game you can be a warrior, mage, bard, or space marine.

Often these roles provide their own sets of rules and expectations for players to fulfill in relation to their peers. Players can inform other players of this; but sometimes the roles themselves provide enough contextual information for others to determine the actions they should take to interact with the game world.

Those actions could include competition against one another; cooperation with the group; or even actions against the game environment itself.  No matter what roles players take on within the game – and within the circle – they must know that the rules that previously bound them outside the circle no longer apply. Once players choose a role they are further embedded within the game.

Players in the Magic Circle

Players are the main entities in the magic circle. The game doesn’t exist for them until they’ve decided to play it. Meaning that players who enter the magic circle have agreed to the special rules and conventions of being present in it.  They understand that they are held to different social standards for playing the game.

This social understanding requires players to evaluate what it takes to keep playing the game with other players in the circle. This could make it challenging for some players to be introduced to and join the game. Perhaps players on the outside don’t exactly look like the players in the game. Perhaps they don’t look interested. Perhaps they don’t even look like players.

These pre-conceived notions can affect players’ abilities and desires to invite others outside of the game to join them inside the game. Likewise it also affects players on the outside who want to play – but may not believe that they can uphold or support the necessary expectations of play.

Because of this, games can be considered open forms of invitation for others to play; but closed system of operation. Once players cross the boundary of the magic circle in game play, they have made the conscious choice to adhere and follow the rules of the game.

Transition into the Magic Circle

Crossing into the magic circle as a player is a transition more than a journey. As a player makes the transition into the game and into the circle they agree to the rules of the game. The player agrees to follow the social conventions, expectations, and structures given and supported by the game.

That transition into the circle indicates that “play” has begun for that player. It’s a boundary that doesn’t always have a very defining line. It’s a space where players can determine that they want to play by simply joining.

This could include stepping out onto the baseball diamond; walking onto stage; or taking a seat at the table.  The magic circle becomes a boundary that is crossed once that player takes that decisive action.

However, this is skewed with digital games. How do players playing on their consoles, computers, laptops, and handheld devices agree to play? How do we know as designers once they’ve made the decision to transition into the magic circle? Some of it could be physical: once we pickup the device or start the game. Some of it could be aesthetic. Once players dim the lights or close the door. Designers try to make the game as experiential as possible by clearly setting boundaries for when you are in the game and when you are not. Designers try to make beginning in the game as appealing as possible.

From a player perspective that includes seeing the experience that other people are having.  It’s part of the reason why streaming sites such as Twitch.tv make it so appealing to watch other people play. We can see what they’re doing. We can see that they’re having fun. We want to have fun with them.

However, sometimes we are not in a position to cross that boundary. So, instead we watch and observe. That boundary might be frightening and challenging for us to negotiate. We might feel self-conscious; nervous; or anxious about playing. So by watching someone else stream we have one foot in the world of the game and one foot on the outside. Instead of becoming willing participants; we become observers and voyeurs. We don’t have to play the role of ourselves, and we don’t have to play the role of the gamer.

But by choosing to jump into the magic circle and by choosing to fully embrace play we can become more. We become psychologically more part of the game and the world that it’s created.  We become active participants of the lived experience of playing the game as designed with others who have also agreed to step inside with us.

We create a rhythm when we make the full transition into the magic circle and then out again.  That rhythm creates expectations for other player behaviors, interactions, focus, and strategies. It’s here on the boundary where the meta-game emerges and players begin to take real world actions that have an in-game impact (and vice versa).

This can come from the poker player who goes on tilt against someone who’s wronged them outside the casino. This could be the player who rage quits after being talked down to. This could also be amateur chess players who live with and compete against each other taking actions not based on strategy – but based on experiences of the opponents themselves. This meta-game that emerges becomes a doorway for how the game has stretched beyond the bounds of the magic circle and defined a way that the game interacts with our real lives.

Magic Circle for Learning

The magic circle has been discussed as the boundary where the players make the explicit choice to “play” and become part of the game. Role-playing games have a distinct magic circle where players take on different characters and play different roles throughout the game. This makes RPG’s an excellent platform and implementation of games-based learning for experiential learning.

An instructor using RPG’s for games-based learning could have students assigned to different roles within a specific class, course, or program. Here, students “play the part” and the different roles and responsibilities and characters of their choice. They can use this approach as an opportunity to learn within the circle – and a way for them to comfortably make mistakes within the learning environment.

This application of the magic circle for games-based learning has been problematic in the past as it can sometimes be difficult to apply learning achieved in games to applications outside of them. Role-playing games have mitigated this by allowing the instructor to more closely define the roles and responsibilities of players within the game.

In addition, the instructor should take time to review, discuss, and debrief the activities within the game; the role-play; and the world built within it as an opportunity to develop and refine the experiences of players. Such activities aid in the comprehension and meaning making of players throughout the game.

Additional intricacies of the games’ world, expectations, mechanics, and dynamics can further be discussed in the debrief as ways to emphasize collective understanding of the framework of the world. Through this format, the instructor can help students achieve both understanding and application of skills and competencies learned in the game to applications outside of the magic circle.

Criticisms of the Magic Circle

There have been some criticisms of the magic circle despite the meaning that players can create by crossing it. Digital games make it easier than ever for players to enter the magic circle and play a game. It’s often as easy as picking up your phone. We can enter and exit the circle at will; quickly; and without any specific or measurable change

Others have indicated that the magic circle has more to do with the formal elements and rules of games rather than the sociological  rules and agreements we make when playing. This means that rules dictate more than anything else when we are in the circle and when we’re not. If the rules of a game closely mimic the rules of everyday life then is there really a need to recognize the magic circle as a specific and separate place?

Most infamously, the magic circle has been included in debates about violent games and the effects on real world participants. However, the creation of the magic circle is one where players are insulated and separated from the actions and impact of their everyday world. As such, the magic circle forms this buffer that seperates what is part of the game for the player and what is not.

Takeaways

This article provided an answer to the question “What is the magic circle?” In addition, it addressed the magic circle as a “separate and special place” in gaming. Characteristics and locations of the magic circle were discussed as well as how players cross into the magic circle. Players’ rules and roles within the circle as well as their return to “reality” were covered in this article. Finally, the article closed on using the magic circle in games-based learning as well as some criticisms around its use.

This article was about the magic circle in games-based learning.  To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to Dave’s Games-Based Learning Digital Library containing all of the content from the past two Games-Based Learning Virtual Conferences; past webinars and courses he’s created; as well as his complete back catalogue of articles; podcast episodes; and videos. And more content is being added all the time.

Readers of Ludogogy can get a $50 discount on this valuable resource by using this link.

The post What is the Magic Circle? first appeared on Ludogogy.