Since this umbrella category is defined not in terms of goals (e.g. special education) or subject (e.g. STEM education), but in terms of a tool, it includes several already recognized or emerging forms. Some of the main types, without being exhaustive, are:

• Simulations (including military exercises, mock trials, business or medical simulations, etc.)
• Dramatic methods originating from Jacob L. Moreno (in particular: sociodrama, bibliodrama, playback theatre)
• Applied drama/theater methods (e.g. Drama in Education, process drama, improv-based education, Rainbow of Desire, Rollenspielpädagogik, etc.)
• Various role-playing exercises in corporate training
• Various initiatives arising from hobby/leisure games (e.g. edularp, educational tabletop role-playing, some serious games, some gamified classroom, etc.)

The Rainbow of Desire by Auguste Boal is available on Amazon

The pedagogical benefits of role-playing can be summarised as the following: Role-playing persons are acting and learning as a more open, more persistent, more courageous, and more experimental version of themselves.

Role-playing sensitizes you!

One of the most researched psychological features of role-playing is its sensitizing effect. The phenomenon known as the “role-play effect” in psychology shows that role-playing can lead to a more significant attitude change than simply communicating information. Role-playing leads to a change of perspective: We take on a specific point of view and become more sensitive and empathetic as a result.

Related research has also shown that we are more likely to embrace opposing views if we act them out and then become informed about them than if we do the reverse. This is utilized mostly by placing a role-playing exercise in the middle of a longer learning activity, between the briefing and debriefing phases. Role-playing is an ideal tool for eliminating preconceptions, processing vaguely familiar but complex information, and laying the foundations for further reflection.

Role-play empowers you!

In studying the effect of self-distancing, researchers have found that children are more persistent in repetitive tasks when they think of themselves in the third person E/3 (“Is Matt working hard?”) rather than in the first person (“How am I doing?”), and even more so when they identify themselves with a role model in the third person. In other words, children were found to be more focused and efficient when they approached tasks like “What would Batman do in this situation?” – hence the term “the Batman effect”.

Other researchers have found that forty percent of those who were treated as real pilots and asked to fly a military aircraft simulator experienced vision improvement, while none of those who were asked to pretend to be pilots and act out the task had improved vision. Recent research therefore suggests that immersion in ideal and positive roles can greatly enhance an individual’s performance, in contrast with simple pretend play.

Role-play enriches you!

Role-playing provides a strong alibi for experimentation and to break old patterns. It makes leaving one’s comfort zone easier, as it protects the self from shame. Many role-players feel empowered to behave in radically different ways, by using roles as a kind of mask to conceal that it is they who actually behave differently.

It is worth pointing out that the goal of many role-playing activities is not winning or being successful. As a result, it is optimal to experience tense situations, ethical dilemmas, and despised or seemingly suboptimal strategies without any real disadvantages or repercussions. In role-playing, we are free to theorize about encountered situations and to test our assumptions by trying out new behaviors. Experimentation with roles expands our role repertoire and develops players’ agency, personal versatility, and resilience. Role-playing also provides a method to explore and understand social structures or dynamic systems in the first-person mode, as a personal experience.

This is not to say, of course,  that role-playing is a cure-all. Nor does it mean that it is the best education tool – if it were, hopefully, everyone would be using it by now. Some of its long-established educational forms, such as Drama in Education, are proven to be effective in developing several key Lisbon competencies*, while more recent ones, such as the increasingly popular edularp movement, are currently building up evidence on their validity and reliability.

It will be exciting to see what the future brings in this field.

*The Lisbon Competencies are a set of skills and knowledge areas identified as essential for lifelong learning and personal development. They include: communication, information literacy, problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. These competencies are intended to help individuals adapt to an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world.

The post Role-play-based education first appeared on Ludogogy.

In early 2022, I was asked by various municipalities in Korea to advise on metaverse development. They wanted to make an impression by being at the forefront of the 4^th industrial revolution. Their main question to the advisory board was ‘What is most important to consider in building the metaverse?” My answer was very simple. It’s the establishment of the basic concept that, ‘The Metaverse is the Game’.

However, they wanted to promote ‘usefulness’ by utilizing the metaverse for educational content. They wanted citizens attending classes in virtual classrooms, as avatars, to get the benefits of social education, recruitment and hobby learning. But most educational facilities already provided online lectures during COVID-19 period. Providing educational services through the metaverse maybe shows a lack of understanding of how the metaverse works.

Also, they already provided various services on their webpages, but they expected a metaverse presence to behave like a virtual reception for citizens to visit and interact with, via their metaverse personas.

The elected mayor wanted to give the impression that he had a deep interest in high-tech and AI, and to reflect that in the administration of the municipality – all with an eye on the next election. In the year 2022, ‘high tech’ related to the 4^th industrial revolution, was all about blockchain-based NFT and the metaverse. As I think about the last year, business proposals just didn’t progress unless they mentioned NFT or the metaverse – in both the public or private sectors.

Gamification is essential to build the metaverse successfully 

The Metaverse should be pitched as providing an online gamified playground for users. I want to take an example of a city simulation game and relate it to the municipality use case. City simulation games are already available and well-known like the ‘SimCity’ series developed by Electronic Arts. In this game, players create and develop the city, through a high-level simulation. If the city doesn’t operate well, the (virtual) citizens raise complaints, and even riot, leading to the mayor being kicked out. If an administrator in the role of mayor doesn’t deal well, it’s game-over.

SimCity is a game, but its tasks needs to be managed well, including city administration, welfare, safety, job creation, and environmental issues. If that is done, the city will be eco-friendly and all will be well. The purpose of this game is to make a livable city, increase the population, and manage the balance between development and welfare based on budget, finally working your way up to a large metropolis. The game is deployed in virtual space, but it looks real.

If the municipality develops its own twin in the metaverse, people can participate in city simulation games, which they will find out about through public announcements. The well-developed virtual city has real citizens residing in it as avatars. In the virtual city, avatars can rent a shopping space like in the real world to make commercial transactions. In the cinema or theatre, people can enjoy content through videos. I think that this is the ideal way to use the metaverse. Municipalities can apply the best of the virtual city to the administration of the real city. It’s a positive synergy because citizens can directly participate in city administration.

Our advanced technologies were already experienced at Cyworld, one of the oldest social platforms, about 20 years ago. It’s just a difference of expression. Now the trial period is over, and it’s subject to a fee. In the past, almost all online contents were free. Now, we are gradually paying fees for everything. Billing in chat GPT is the beginning of online billing. And to drive the interest that will encourage users to pay, good gamification is going to be essential.  

The post The Metaverse is the Game first appeared on Ludogogy.

Games and simulations are two things that seem talked about in the same circles. Sometimes they even get misinterpreted for one another. They do share some of the same characteristics; but games and simulations are different from one another.

Before we jump into what those differences are, let’s first define what we mean by games.

What are games?

Games are activities that have an explicit goal. There is a clear structure that guides players’ choices and experiences. Games allow players to interact with the environment, other players, or both. Finally, games have feedback mechanisms that provide players with a gauge for how their interaction affects their play.

One reason why players find games so engaging and addictive is because they create an emotional reaction in players.  This visceral sense of accomplishment, triumph, or fiero, that players get when they play great games is what keeps them coming back for more.

, that players get when they play great games is what keeps them coming back for more.

What are simulations?

So how do simulations compare to games? Simulations can also be games. Games such as The Sims or Sim City even have simulation in the title.  Simulations can also be serious games. Serious games are games that have been designed from the ground up for learning.

So what are some examples of simulations? Microsoft Flight Simulator qualifies for its ability to accurately recreate how one would operate an aircraft.  Cytosis is a serious game in its ability to teach players cell biology. Chess is a serious game based on its ability to show insights on how strategies might play out on a battlefield.

Simulations – unlike games – are supposed to be representative. They are supposed to be replications of what can be or has been.  If you’ve ever seen Civil War reenactors, played the Stock Market Game in your high school economics class, or participated in a case study, then you know what simulations can be used for.

Simulations, unlike games, are based on the recreation of a situation. Those can be historical or theoretical situations.  But all simulations require the player to problem solve and make decisions that one might make in the real world. Debate Club, Mock Trial Team, and Model United Nations are all examples of how simulations have been applied for co-curricular learning.

Simulations are often engaging forms of experiential learning because they provide a means for players to practice. Simulations give participants a safe means for them to play, experiment, and experience what this would be like in a real world situation.  Flight simulators or historical reenactments provides a way for players to experience something that would be too costly, dangerous, or otherwise impossible.

Returning to simulations versus games

So how are simulations like games? Many gamers can see that simulations share some characteristics in common like a scaled difficulty level that progresses with players. Flight simulators can be as graphically rich as the latest PC games.  Both games and simulations also provide rich feedback for the player in the form of engagements, interactions, and unfolding consequences as a result of players’ decisions.

Unlike games, simulations don’t have a specific win/loss state. Games contain structures of specific conditions where the game ends. Typically this results in unequal outcomes for players. “I win and you lose” conditions for war games, “We both earned points, but I earned more points than you” in board games, or “I finished the race the fastest” in sports or athletics contests.

Simulations don’t have a typical win/loss state. They continue to exist after players have left and can continue to be played over time. Simulations, like their real world experiences, continue to be. They are an unending interpretation of a state of affairs from which players played a small role.

Closing thoughts

Now you should be able to tell the differences and similarities between games and simulations. Both can be used to meet your learning, education, and training needs. Though they both provide different outcomes for your students based on what you want them to learn and takeaway.

Simulations are based on a re-creation of scenarios and require problem solving from players for them to succeed in surmounting them. Games on the other hand don’t necessarily rely on problem solving for players to engage and finish them. Rather, they can use feedback mechanisms that incentivize them to continue playing.

Both simulations and games provide experiences for your players and learners to engage with material that you have created. You can consider simulations and games both vehicles for bringing your audience where you intend for them to go.

__________________________________________________

If you have enjoyed this article – consider getting yourself lifetime access to his 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 Simulations vs Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

The earliest simulations with a focus on learning and improvement were wargames, and it could be argued that modern learning simulations, or even games-based learning as a field, has grown out the need for combatants to understand past strategies, and to develop and test new ones.

The term ‘simulation’ is also used to describe a subset of learning tools which enable ‘learning through doing’ in the sense of practising skills – including flight simulators, patient simulators, and the like. These will not be considered in this article, mainly because realism, which is considered below, is a requirement for these tools, not a question for consideration.

What is a Simulation?

In the context of learning games, a simulation is designed to replicate situations that occur in real life for the purposes of analysis, planning or experimenting with options. Common examples include business simulations, resource management simulations and role-playing.

An air of respectability

Given the definition above, it could be argued that games incorporating role-play or games that have a ‘real-life’ theme, could be called ‘simulation’. Indeed, in the earlier days of games-based learning, it was a common strategy to call a game a ‘simulation’ to mitigate any potential objection from clients about games being ‘childish’ or trivial, or not being appropriate in a professional learning setting.

‘Simulation’, it was believed, had an air of respectability, that ‘game’ did not. Something that was actually little more than a marketing strategy has coloured how games for learning are not only seen, but also how they are designed, to this day. Where other types of games are used, but are called ‘simulations’, this only muddies the waters about how games work as an effective pedagogy, about the mechanisms that are actually in play, and how they link to the construction of knowledge by learners.

It also means that simulations become a ‘preferred’ genre where other game or play experiences might be more appropriate in a specific learning setting or in the context of particular desired outcomes.

The Benefits of Simulation-based learning…

In some situations, of course, a simulation is the best solution to a learning challenge. Some of the best-known benefits of games-based experiential learning include:

• Trying and failing safely
• Compressing time in the decision – action – outcome cycle
• Encountering situations that are unusual in real-life
• Cost (and time) effective exposure to situations that are infrequent or hard to organise in real life

And these are all aspects in which simulations perform particularly well.

If the learning you are trying to facilitate is congruent with the above, then a simulation may very well be the way to go. So, what should be included in your design to ensure that your learners can take full advantage?

Failure is a great teacher, and the conditions can be optimised for learning by providing timely and comprehensive feedback on in-game decisions and actions. One really effective way to learn from failure is to be able to try again, and experiment with new decisions and actions. The greatest flexibility for learners is facilitated where the game allows a total ‘wind-back’ to the starting position, as well as the capability to build on previous round on round decisions.

There should be a balance between complexity (and realism) and the time required to create meaningful experiences through the game. It is not necessary that all situations encountered in the game should be modelled with the same degree of realism. Those with mostly thematic value can be simplified to allow extra time for those which are actually the focus of the learning outcomes. For example, a game designed to create learning on making decisions with limited information uses financial results as a measure of ‘success’, but should not necessarily require the players/learners to dwell on ‘real’ financial documents (Profit and loss, balance sheet), unless reading and interpreting financial documents is actually a focus of the learning.

Be clear on what situations need to be simulated in your game and what do not, and be informed in that by direct reference to learning outcomes. A modular design which allows for the inclusion and exclusion of different simulated aspects, or which allows the use of different scenarios with a vanilla ‘engine’ is the ideal way to create a product which can be widely implemented with a variety of learning settings and outcomes. This is also, potentially, the most cost effective model for both learning provider and client.

…and the Drawbacks

Compared to other types of game experiences, simulations can be expensive. Even a simple representation of ‘reality’ requires several parameters and with each added parameter the complexity of interactions between all the moving parts increases exponentially. For example, if we were to simulate a predator/prey interaction (e.g. fox and rabbits), modelling the rate of (rabbit) population would decline over a single generation, requires only starting population of both species and a predation rate. Even very simple realism, requires that you add some sort of ‘fox starvation’ mechanism, and adding more generations needs birth and (non-predation) death rates of both species. Our model still only assumes that foxes need a food source, and so we then need to implement grass… and so on. All this complexity eats up design and development time.

Pushback on realism and ‘correctness’

Simulations, wherever they sit on the continuum between simple and complex (or abstraction and realism) do intend to replicate some aspects of real life. This incurs a risk in relation to the perception of learners. If a learner is very familiar with the simulated situations and they perceive them to be ‘lacking’ in some way, either because they are not ‘accurate’ enough or that they lack proper detail, this may have an adverse impact on how receptive they are to the outcomes from the simulation, and any learning they might derive.

Complexity

As the rabbit/fox example illustrates designing for learning through a simulation can get very complex, very quickly, and depending on your desired outcome, that can include designing in complexity (with its associated overhead) that is not actually needed to meet your outcomes. Thematic authenticity can do this. For example, a simulation which is supposed to support outcomes around  dealing with a VUCA world uses ‘running a utilities business’ as a thematic setting, and requires that aspects of that theme are simulated, even when learners have no need to learn anything about that.

Hard to isolate from wider context

A related problem, which may actually be the cause for unneeded complexity is the difficulty in isolating the required learning experiences from wider context when you are using simulation as the medium. Generally speaking, the more call that there is for demonstrating and practising context specific skills and behaviours during a learning programme, the more likely it is that a relatively authentic simulation would be suitable.

As an example, if a specific learning programme focused on leadership competencies, within the context of a retail environment, it would make sense to simulate much of the retail environment, because learning would be achieved by enacting relevant behaviours. If, instead, the focus was on leadership mindset (learning in the affective domain rather than skills domain), context would be less important, as it would also be if the focus was on generally applicable, rather than context specific, competencies.

The Case for Realism

The decision to use a simulation to support a particular set of learning outcomes implies that there is some advantage to be had, in including some level of ‘realism’ in the experience. If that is not there, it might be wise to reconsider why you should use a simulation over some other form of game.

The questions to ask would be:

• Is there advantage in situating the learning in a specific context (type of business, set of specific activities)?
• Are there aspects of the real setting that can be excluded while still satisfying the learning requirement?
• Can the resultant experience be made sufficiently ‘accurate’ that it will not distract/alienate learners?

The Case for Abstraction

Abstraction – removing specificity, or even setting the simulation in a completely non-realistic setting can be helpful in many circumstances:

• It can be a cheaper option to reduce specificity because it reduces the overhead of complexity.
• It is hard for learners to be distracted / alienated by ‘lack of accuracy’ if the simulation is set in a fictional Martian colony, for example.
• Less specific, abstracted simulations can be suited to a much broader set of learning applications.

Simulations provide us with a useful set of tools for modelling behaviours, practising skills and experimenting with scenarios, but they are by no means the only option, and we should be cautious of relying on the ‘respectability’ of the genre, when in many cases, simpler, cheaper and more generic solutions can provide us with outcomes which are just as effective.

The post Why, and Why Not to use Simulations in Learning first appeared on Ludogogy.

This particular instance of the game was based in the oil and gas sector, which caused some level of controversy in the group, but the game is fully customisable to your own needs to provide a tailored experience – including translation into English. You can contact Youssef at youssefk.jbel@gmail.com or connect with him on LinkedIn

If you would like more of a ‘demo’ and spoken intro to the game, you can just watch the first third or so of the video. In the middle, you will be able to see a team playing the game, while the end shows debrief and the group’s  feedback on the game experience.

If you would like to run your own live play session for your game with Ludogogy, get in touch at info@ludogogy.co.uk . The Ludogogy community is composed of keen and knowledgable people who really know their games-based learning, so you can look forward to getting some useful and actionable feedback, as well as having a recording of your game in action which you can refer to. See recordings of other live play sessions through the Live Sessions category link.

The post StratEdge Strategy Simulation – Live Play Session first appeared on Ludogogy.

The attractiveness of the Strategy game

Various game genres have been continuously mixed and newly derived throughout a long history. It no longer makes much sense to talk about recently released games in terms of genre. There are so many and they merge and mingle. Now, it’s the time for the fusion and expansion of platforms such as PC, console, mobile, virtual reality, metaverse, etc. Gamers also don’t talk much about game genres anymore. The single game genre is ‘Fun’.

Although the border between genre and platform has gradually decreased, there are some games that have focused on only one kind of experience. Strategy games have remained consistently popular with gamers for decades.

There are notable strategy simulation games like the “System Soft ‘Daisenryaku’ series”, “Sid Meier’s Civilization series”, “Heroes of Might and Magic series, HoMM”, “BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment Inc. Super Robot Wars series”, “KOEI TECMO GAMES CO., LTD. Romance of The Three Kingdoms series”, and these are recognized as representative of the work of the companies that produced them. Although many games have been changed over time, these games haven’t changed much at all, and tend towards tradition rather than the change. Why are people so consistently and continuously attracted to these strategy simulation games?

Push and Pull

‘Push and Pull’ is important between lovers. It’s the same in strategy simulation games. ‘Push and Pull’ is required between the game and the player(s). The reason why this genre has been attractive is that at its core there is considerable ‘Push and Pull’.

The key to the strategy simulation game is to figure out and analyze given information. Gamers gain satisfaction from their efforts to make the best choices. The game continuously asks ‘Are you sure about your choice or decision?  What are you supposed to do in the specified case?’. The game player quickly gets bored in case of easily expected situations.

These are the three key characteristics in the strategy simulation game. These are just the basics; there are much more complex game mechanisms in real games.

 1. Small, but (sometimes) many

The strategy simulation game sets the limit on the information which gamers can use. Gamers must make decisions with limited information. Unclear information means that game players do not always decide well. In the early stages, a dim fog appears. The player experiences uncertainty, including the apprehension that he or she doesn’t know what will pop up in the fog.

If it pulls, it pushes. Sometimes, there is a lot of information provided. This makes it hard to categorize the information. Or sometimes the information includes a mix of meaningless, false or useless signals – ‘red herrings’. This also introduces doubt or even makes the player think ‘Why does the game treat me like this?’.

Throughout the process, players are continuously thinking about their best choices or wrong ones.

2. The best choices starts from doubt.

The strategy simulation pushes the player towards doubt and deep thought. Players unwittingly get immersed in this process. They gain experience and knowledge regardless of the outcomes. Feedback from this process provides the basis to make choices in the future.

The results of choices cannot be always right, or enjoyable. So, almost all strategy simulation games allow a lot of opportunities for saving and reloading. There are various reasons why the strategy fails. Players didn’t look at the information carefully, or didn’t understand the overall context, or they didn’t have much ability to handle it well, or there can even be a element of luck involved. The strategy simulation game continuously delivers positive or negative experiences to the player.

3. There aren’t any definite correct answers.

Except the traditional tabletop games such Chess or Baduk (Go), almost all strategy simulations contain story and quest. Despite several failures by players, the overall process continuously flows.

The core of strategy simulation games is that the choice can be the best right now, but it can be either the best or worst later. The wrong choice can be fixed, and a good choice can lead to bad results at any time.

This is why gamers love this genre for a long time. Players overcome the worst choice, and try to make efforts for the best results. They want to prove that their strategy is correct in this process. They feel more fun in harder and more difficult situations. They gain experience through failure in many situations, but they are building their ‘big picture’ by overcoming these.

It looks like a failure, but it can be a foundation of success later. In addition, it seems to be a success, but can contain the seeds of later failure. The strategy simulation game pulls and pushes the players without stopping.

Strategy simulation is everywhere

The challenge that the organization or team encounter is like a game quest. The characteristics of strategy simulation games can be found in the real world. Processes such as information collection & categorization, expectation about possible variables, planning solutions, and gaining knowledge through failure applies similarly in the game world and the real world.

In other words, corporate work can be approached as a sort of strategy simulation or from a game perspective. Through the fun in the strategy simulation game, participants can actively participate in, get motivation, and enhance their ability to work.

Games with titles like ‘Factory’, ‘Management’, ‘Tycoon’ can be hardly considered as work from players’ perspective. The reason why these games are attractive is that realistic work is changed into various game mechanisms.

The attempt to transform the ‘strategic’ approach to work into a game is done in various ways. For example, narrative themes such as handling customers’ complaints, human resource allocation and utilization by management, or figuring out possible variables related to changes in advance are continuously occurring.

The strategy simulation game is often a single-player experience, but various opinions can be collected by gamification. If the organizational ‘Strategists’ can share their opinions with each other, they can get a higher probability to make better choices than being alone.

Gamification doesn’t just focus on simple ‘fun’ and ‘performance’ alone. The purpose of the game can be a quest or stage of a project, but the purpose of the gamification is performance enhancement and improvement. Therefore, through the process of endless push and pull, and choices, strategy simulation games provide a good model for ability enhancement.

One usual meaning of ‘Strategy’ is planning for the future, through a process of analyzing past results and learning from them. The process of deriving individual or organizational strategies is similar in both the game and real world. Understanding overall organizational structure and capacity, and getting the strategy to work are not a simple accomplishment of purpose, but a process of continuous maintenance. Organizations which clearly understand their capacities, which gain experience from failures and develop strategies to handle them are not affected by small failures. They have the power to fix wrong choices. It’s like strategy simulation games with long traditions. Perhaps, readers might have experience similar characteristics of this genre without knowing. Shall we find this?

The post The Push and Pull of Strategy Games first appeared on Ludogogy.

At the end of that period, 3 things brought my attention back to games, although from a different perspective: the concept of gamification (which I became familiar with from my previous work),  the rediscovery of storytelling tabletop Role Playing Games (especially Wraith: The Oblivion) and finding out about the indie developer community.

I wondered for a while why I had got tired of video games in the first place, and why I got somehow interested in them again. Had games changed? I didn’t come to any definitive answer. But I quite like a philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein, and an example he used in his book Philosophical Investigations came to mind. That was going to free me from my conception of what games ought to be.

68. How is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word “game”.)

(…)

101. The idea now absorbs us, that the ideal [i.e. the essence of a game] ‘must’ be found in reality. Meanwhile we do not as yet see how it occurs there, nor do we understand the nature of this “must”. We think it must be in reality; for we think we already see it there [when we are able to talk about ‘games’, and readily intuitively classify something as ‘a game’ or ‘not a game’]. 

As could not be otherwise, my notion of video game was totally conditioned by the video games I had played, or had seen, or had read about. But none of them could really be thought of as paradigmatic, simply because that ideal does not exist by itself: we put it together. That undeclared ideal is created and nourished based on our previous experiences, the instances of what has been shown to us labelled as games. And this is done subconsciously by both players and developers.

If you think about it, the genres and subgenres that have come to define the different possible categories of video games just happen to be there by natural selection. At some moment, a game mechanic was compelling enough for the players so that designers decided to reincorporate it (and refine it) in later video games. Other developers decided to imitate them, and that was it. The same goes for narrative and visual aesthetics. Although this of course is something to be expected from a business point of view, this persistence of genres, mechanics and narratives have reinforced the stereotypes and expectations that are held about video games, both by players and non-players. That was precisely what had happened to me at 17: I had got tired of some specific (though certainly prevailing) game design decisions, and applied that judgement to every possible game. Simply put, I had developed a prejudice.

All this motivated me to delve into the technical and conceptual tools on which game design is based, and I got decisively convinced that the potential of these tools went far beyond their conventional use and implementation. Above all, what fascinated me most was the possibility of hybridizing apparently disparate disciplines that interested me, through game design.

Soon after in 2019, I found out about the International Prize for Cultural Innovation organized by the CCCB (Centre of Contemporary Culture of Barcelona).  which set out to incentivise dialogue, reflection and creativity related to the Internet, promoting innovative projects that help to empower citizens and improve the Net. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to put this game design philosophy to the test, so I gathered a team, and we submitted our proposal: World Wild Web.

World Wild Web is a collaboratively designed non-profit video game where players will realize the power of digital persuasion, its economic, political and social influence and its ubiquitous weight on social media. At World Wild Web, you will be part of a team of professional commentators at FloKs, a social network whose business model focuses on an under-exploited digital market: authoritarian regimes. Under the slogan “Your Sovereign Internet”, FloKs offers its clients (the governments of these regimes) a modern and personalized social platform that allows them to integrate their methods of social control in a discreet way. As a FloKs commentator, you will have to participate in the disinformation and astroturfing campaigns of one of these governments in the midst of different crises. Impersonating multiple ordinary users, you will intervene in various FloKs discussions with the aim of mitigating social discontent. To do this, you will make use of logical fallacies, SPAM, fake news and selective censorship to shape the public opinion of Internet users.

We were extremely lucky and our idea was awarded the first prize, which allowed us to finance the development of the video game. At the moment, the code programming is practically finished. We are now incorporating the narrative and defining the different missions that will make up the game. We are inviting various groups of people, both experts and ordinary citizens, to help us include the most relevant themes into the story, so that the game will reflect some of the real challenges that we face in this era of disinformation.

To conclude, I would like to encourage everyone (players and non-players) to constantly unlearn what games are, or should be… Let the indefiniteness of play surprise you. You cannot possibly imagine what you might discover.

The post Unlearn what play should be first appeared on Ludogogy.

In 2019 I had the exiting opportunity to be part of UEK’s programme The Future of GBS (Global Business Services). Students who signed for, and completed this specialisation, had the chance to learn from industry professionals. Myself and five other professionals from Krakow were trusted with teaching project management.

We were all excited and ready to start cooperating with the minds of the future. We were fortunate in many respects, one of such lucky situations was the ability to create the curricula for this course from scratch. I felt so strongly about this activity that I volunteered to teach four subjects. One more aspect of this collaboration that was particularly exciting, and unexpected for me, was the opportunity to teach my subjects via serious games. I designed, developed and played four games – one for each subject I taught. All the games were simulations of real world scenarios where the students had to form teams and collaborate in order to solve a problem. When explaining these games to the lead lecturer of project management at UEK I referred to these activities as RPS (role playing simulations).

Perhaps now is a good time for me to explain why I believe that games are an excellent teaching resource. Long story short, I profoundly dislike ‘traditional’ formal-education. The reasons for this will become clear the more you read my articles, or watch my YouTube videos, but for now it suffices to say that learning disabilities, mixed with an standardise and inflexible education system, cooked at 250 degrees in a third-world oven, is not the ideal recipe for creativity and development. Jim Gee summarises some of my feelings about traditional formal-education when he said “in traditional formal-education settings, collaboration is called cheating. And in the real world, trying to solve complex problems by yourself is not a desirable skill”.

Through studying serious games and game design at EdX’s MIT courses I had a priceless opportunity to learn about the history and psychology of education, and the many challenges faced by those who throughout recent history have tried to change this system. And now I had a chance to use my own serious games to join the fight. I set out to find out, first hand, if students learned more in an active learning setting than simply by passively listening to the teacher talk, memorising facts and answers to existing problems, and then doing the best they could to regurgitate all these data over a standardise test.

One of the classes I taught was Communicating Across Multicultural and Diverse Teams. For this I designed a scenario with low-tech game elements in which the students were randomly assigned to four different teams that represented separate branches of a service centre spread across the globe.

The teams had to hold a project status meeting via a conference call. Online meeting technology and/or etiquette was not one of the main learning outcomes, but I guess we all agreed it should have been. Perhaps from the Time of Corona onwards, Zoom and Microsoft Teams’ technology will be included in all project management training courses -I know, I just couldn’t finish this article without mentioning the “C” word.

The game went on and the players, the students, covered the three scenarios prepared for them. The teams also had some predefined scripts that guided their position in the meeting. For instance, the IT team was sharp, on time and only focused on data numeric figures. The Finance team was bored with the meeting and just wanted to get back to their daily tasks. The HR team joined the meeting slightly late, but they were understanding of both sides of the situation and did the best they could to avoid unnecessary arguments over the conf-call – I know, I was playing with stereotypes, something perhaps a little dangerous, but the rationale for this will be explained in later paragraphs of this article.

The online meeting was interrupted at various stages by background noises such as a dog barking, a doorbell ringing, one team getting disconnected (then trying to reconnect: ‘can you her us? Hello, is the line working now?’ ), and a toilet flushing (the project manager was working from home and forgot to put the telephone on mute while going to the loo). The students laugh at some of the situations and some became slightly uncomfortable with the loo sound.

The core part of the learning activity, as I designed it, was the reflection, or retrospective,  part. Here students were given the opportunity to discuss the characteristics (stereotypes) of the teams in the game, the role of culture in communications, country vs organisation culture, the role of the project manager, among other learning outcomes. I must say, it wasn’t easy getting feedback from the students. Of course, there is the language issue, these young Polish women and men were taking this specialisation, learning material, and playing games in English. Yet, in my opinion the use of English language wasn’t the main issue. The main issue has been documented in academic research on the use of games for teaching. In some cases, students themselves reject games as they want to be told (in written or oral form) what they need to memorise in order to pass the test. And this was one of the questions the students asked me at the end of the retrospective session ‘will it be on the exam?’

I was slightly disappointed. Not at the students, but at the education system. Alas, it’s slightly changing every day a little more. Proof? I’m using my games to teach university students. I’m also learning while teaching and running my games. For instance, one thing that stuck with me after this particular game session was the students’ belief that corporations possessed, and utilise on daily basis, advance technologies to complete each and every job task. ‘For sure these problems do not happen in real conf-calls’ I was told during the retrospective.

Collaboration and teamwork are essential 21st Century skills. And Serious Games and simulations are an excellent way to teach students (at all levels of their education journey) these skills. In the book chapter Why I Love Bees: A Case Study in Collective Intelligence Gaming Jane McGonigal meticulously describes how large and distributed teams can tackle gigantic and unprecedented problems. “No one knows everything, everyone knows something” (p. 201). This line stuck with me forever after reading her text.

Jim Gee discusses this concept a step in his chapter entitled Distributed Intelligence and Cross-Functional Teams. People can become smarter when distributing knowledge not only across team members, the author argues, but across technology and humans (p. 32). Workplace researchers are investing time and effort to identify the many ways in which groups that maximise distributed intelligence produce better results than individuals working separately. This intersection between human and technology collaboration has been defined as the socio-technical-system in the M.Sc. In Managing Risk and System Change delivered online by Trinity College Dublin.

All the serious games I have so far designed, developed and facilitated use team work as a guiding game mechanic. I encourage game developers to keep up this principle when designing games for learning and development. Equally so, I push myself, and encourage others, to always keep an eye on what’s to come. Designing games that exploit the benefits of human-machine cooperation could very well be the next big thing.

The post The next big thing: paper planes and bits first appeared on Ludogogy.

I’m a Co-Director of a small company in the Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance space. My firm recently helped to design and execute a series of simulations for a local government in Sub-Saharan Africa to help refine local emergency management capabilities. There were no sophisticated computer-based audio-visuals. There were no LCD screens, and certainly no Virtual Reality headsets. In fact we didn’t even have dice or board games—our mechanics were only playing cards, flip charts, paper and Excel.

But we did something quite unique. Instead of a standard flooding scenario, we modeled something not seen in the area in at least 70 years…maybe ever. A catastrophic cyclone—a worst in the history of the southern hemisphere-type cyclone—bringing cataclysmic devastation, winds, rain, and storm surge. The meteorologists in the room agreed—it could happen in the climate-catalyzed threat environment of the future. Our simulation was intended break business processes apart, and the thinking behind “putting Humpty Dumpty back together again” strengthened Emergency Plans and Standard Operating Procedures.

It was an honor to be part of the process. But going forward it’s not enough to model climate in such a simple manner.

Our climate-catalyzed scenario was elementary. It merely extended a storm track zone in the Indian Ocean several hundred kilometers to the North. In essence, we dialed up the level of destruction in our baseline scenario and injects with an imaginary edit to the meteorological map of the era we just left—the Holocene.

In fact, we now live in a volatile new era, called the Anthropocene. An era driven by C02 increase levels and methane levels not seen since….the dawn of in human history…since our primate ancestor Australopithecus was around…since the only 9 million years after an asteroid killed the dinosaurs….recent news stories provide a large array of “not since XX in Earth history” analogues!

It seems as climatology and paleoclimatology rapidly advance, our current plight of the Anthropocene—our very future–is ironically mirroring a deeper and deeper look backwards into geologic time. And here, in the newest cutting-edge science, and in the space of climatology and anthropology, we find a potential Brave New World of rich scenarios to draw from. In fact, we must draw from them.

During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) some 56 million years ago, the Earth warmed at an astonishing rate—perhaps 13 degrees in a time span ranging from decades to 5,000 years or so. It was a warmer world to begin with, but in a blink of geologic time, crocodiles and palm trees spread north into the Arctic, the mid-latitudes were sultry and lush forests, and the area around the equator may have been largely uninhabitable. In fact, our primate ancestors may have been born in the lush Arctic rainforests of Greenland, Canada, and Siberia. The rate of rise in C02 and methane loads hasn’t been seen since that time.

While we now live in a warm period between Ice Ages, our Anthropocene plight can draw on quite a few PETM-inspired scenarios. We can imagine the tropics, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East so searing that there is a catastrophic mass migration to the north. We can also imagine a rapidly-created ice-free Arctic, with jet streams that are irregular, or even non-existent. The PETM-inspired analogue for humanitarian simulations is a relevant, yet bleak one.

There are other episodes in Earth history worth noting. During the more recent Eemian Period about 127,000 years ago, which had similar carbon load to our current Anthropocene atmosphere, and sea levels were about 6 to 9 meters higher than today. The Eemian-inspired analogues for humanitarian simulations foretell catastrophic Sea Level Rise around the globe, swamping cities from New York to Dar es Salaam, triggering mass migration in South Asia, and extinguishing nation-states throughout Oceania.

As paleoclimatology advances, we are learning so much more about deep Earth history. This ranges from erratic and dramatic warming and cooling episodes (years to decades) as the Earth sputtered into and out of Ice Ages, to the time it may have rained nonstop on Earth (after the Permian Period 252 million years ago)…for 2 million years.

Not all of these are perfect analogues for the climate-catalyzed Anthropocene simulations. The continents are now in different locations, biomes are vastly different, and things have changed quite a bit over billions of years of evolution.

Yet what is also a key development to is the increasing granularity being published in the climatology space. For example, certain hotspots in the Arctic for sea ice melt may trigger very specific changes in El Nino episodes. That type of climatological driver can inform a specific scenario where pockets of Arctic “blue ocean” are exacerbating a dangerous El Nino season—and driving catastrophic on-the-ground fires in Australia or flooding in Houston, Texas USA.

Another potential granularity is the very specific “locking pattern” the Anthropocene jet stream can become stuck in, leading to exacerbated periods of droughts and floods. Think of the severe droughts and impact on wheat yields in Russia and China that preceded the food price shock which, in turn, was an underpinning of the Arab Spring movement of 2012. A jet stream locking-based scenario could drive complex humanitarian gameplay encompassing all of Eurasia.

In the end, there is a role in the wargaming and decision support community for the disaster management, humanitarian, and civil protection space. Within this space, there is a niche for climate change-catalyzed scenarios. And for those scenarios, aligning with the most exciting new developments in climatology and paleoclimatology can inspire serious gameplay with circumstances we have only begun to imagine.

In the end, there is a role in the wargaming and decision support community for the disaster management, humanitarian, and civil protection space. Within this space, there is a niche for climate change-catalyzed scenarios. And for those scenarios, aligning with the most exciting new developments in climatology and paleoclimatology can inspire serious gameplay with circumstances we have only begun to imagine. Serious game designers will greatly benefit from partnering with experts in the climatology and paleoclimatology fields and curating these dynamic climate landscapes into the canvas of today’s humanitarian scenarios.

The post Climate Change-Catalyzed Simulations in the Anthropocene – Going Back to the Future with Jurassic Park? first appeared on Ludogogy.