Last time, I talked about why games are fun, and why classes aren't. How can we apply the lessons learned from game design to make classes more exciting and engaging? (Presumably you already see the benefit of this, but just to spell it out for the rest of you: if students pay more attention in class, they'll learn more.)


Three ways to use games in class:

• Play games as a classroom activity. This is obvious and it's effective, but it has several limitations. Games are great at teaching concepts, especially system models, processes and cause-and-effect relationships. They're terrible at teaching content, making them unsuitable for content-heavy classes. Also, most games are made for 1 to 4 players, and don't scale well to a 25-student class. Lastly, these require a good deal of "game literacy" on the part of the teacher, making it not suitable for all teachers; most classroom games are some crude form of Jeopardy!, only because the teachers lack the game experience to go beyond.


• Discuss the games that students have played in relation to the course content. This is easy: ask "has anyone played a game that has ____?" and then compare and contrast between the content in the game versus that in the class. This also has limitations. Not all students are avid gamers, so the comparisons will only be useful to a subset of the class. It also requires game literacy on the part of the teacher, to provide examples when the students can't think of any.


• Modify your teaching style to be more game-like. Add elements to your class that make them just as engaging and interesting as a game (for the same reasons). This is the hardest way to use games, but by far the most rewarding and least limited.

Game-Like Teaching:

• Games are interactive, not passive. It is the interesting player decisions that make the game. Include interesting decisions in class. This includes classroom discussions, a choice of topics or homework problems (with varying tradeoffs so that the more interesting ones are also harder or contain other "fun" rewards), and asking the class questions (either to individuals or by having everyone "vote").


• Applying flow theory (making the content at an appropriate level of challenge) is not obvious, because different students have different skill levels. One way to do this is to include multiple layers of depth to your topics; explain first what's going on conceptually at a fundamental level, then go into the details every student needs, and then offer additional insights for the advanced students. Another great place to do this is homeworks and exams, offering a variety of basic, intermediate and advanced problems so that all students can find their own level of challenge.


• Use as many different kinds of fun as you can think of in your classes...


• Exploration fun is difficult when you're stuck in a classroom, but field trips (especially open-ended ones where students are free to explore the area rather than being herded like cattle) can tap into this. If you have computers in the classroom, you can ask students to search the Web for information relating to a topic, providing a kind of exploration as they navigate from one page to another.


• Social fun is easy: group assignments, class discussions, and other collaborative exercises.


• Collection fun is something that happens mostly at the K-6 level, where teachers hand out gold stars and stickers. If you're teaching at a more advanced educational level, you may have to be inventive.


• Physical fun: include various physical objects that can be passed around the room in your discussions. Include "eye candy" -- neat-looking photos or illustrations that you can show around. Try including some music or other interesting sounds if you can tie them to class topics. Get the senses involved! I once had a physics teacher who would bring "props" to just about every class, such as throwing around a super-bouncy-ball when talking about elastic collisions; I know another professor who would make the entire class get up and stretch when she noticed students nodding off.


• Puzzle solving fun: ask open-ended questions, especially those that students really have to think about before answering. Group discussions and case studies fit this nicely. Some classes have content that is inherently a kind of logic puzzle (especially in the maths and sciences). In these cases, it helps to approach these as puzzles or mysteries, rather than as problems or exercises. Who ever heard of having a "problem" that was fun? What percentage of your students enjoy "exercise" as a recreational activity? Why do we use such not fun words to describe a fun process?


• Character advancement fun: is automatic in any class that builds on its own content over time (the kinds of classes where the final doesn't have to be "cumulative" because you need all the previous stuff to solve the latest questions anyway). At the beginning of the class, try showing the skills and concepts as a "tech tree" -- the same as you'd see in World of Warcraft or Diablo 2 or Civilization.


• Competition fun: here's where we see the old quiz-show standby. Formal debates can trigger this kind of fun too, as can informal debates that emerge spontaneously during class discussions on controversial topics.

As a parting shot, notice that most successful games are made with the players first in mind... not the creators, and not the content. Approach your classes the same way: design your classes around the students first, not the content and certainly not the teacher!

This is a summary of my talk at Origins this year. (Okay, I'm a bit late.) This information is targeted at teachers, although students may find it interesting as well because it explains why you'd rather play World of Warcraft than do your homework.

Games are fun. Most classes are not. You may notice students sitting at the back of your lecture hall playing with their DS rather than paying attention. It's worth asking the question: what does that silly little video game have that the lecturer doesn't? After all, it's just a game, but this class is important. Why shouldn't the lecture be getting students' undivided attention? And more importantly -- is there anything we can do as educators to change that?

To answer these questions, we first start by asking what makes games fun (and what makes classes less fun).

What makes games fun?

• Well, if we knew that, we wouldn't be a "hit-driven" industry (a nice way of saying that 90% of commercial games lose money). Still, the game development community has a better understanding of this than the teaching community, and there are a few useful theories that most game designers are familiar with. What follows is a small sample of a much greater body of work.
• Csikszentmihalyi's theory of "flow": you get deeply engaged in a task (any task, including "work") when it provides a challenge in line with your skills. Too hard and it's frustrating, too easy and it's boring... but if it's just right, it's magic.
• Corollary: as you perform a task more, your skills improve. If the task stays the same, you will eventually become bored. The tasks that keep you in the flow longer are those that increase in difficulty.
• Raph Koster's Theory of Fun : Games are fun because they're really good at keeping the player in the flow. Also, flow is fun because you're learning. (You may or may not be learning useful things from playing games, but you are learning something, and the brain finds that pleasurable.)
• Noah Falstein's Natural Funativity : Learning is probably fun because it's evolutionarily beneficial. The things that helped our ancestors when they lived in caves and trees are the same kinds of things that we find "fun" today.
• LeBlanc et al's MDA Framework : The word "fun" is not terribly useful because it isn't descriptive, and doesn't suggest how you create it. There are actually many kinds of fun: exploration, physical sensation, social experience, competition, advancement, collection, puzzle solving, and many others. These are all present to greater or lesser degrees in games; we're talking about a continuum, not a binary either/or composition of fun.
• Note that all of these kinds of fun can be traced back to hunter/gatherer survival skills. Social skills are important because we can work together to hunt animals that are too large or powerful for a single one of us. Exploration is important so that we can have larger areas of territory to find food in. Collection is simply the "gatherer" half of hunter/gatherer.

If learning is the source of fun, then, it actually seems strange that classroom lectures aren't inherently engaging. I believe the reason for the disconnect is that lectures are so far removed from the kinds of "learning" that ancient humans had to do for survival, that it does not trigger our play-instinct. Our pedagogy has outpaced our biological evolution.

Now you know the basics of what fun is and where it comes from. Next time I'll talk about how to apply this knowledge directly to the classroom. In the mean time, think about it yourself...

As the board game and video game industries are inextricably linked, it's sometimes useful to compare the trends in both. Here are the recurring themes I saw this year in eurogaming:

• Pirate and superhero themes. No doubt this is to capitalize on the popularity of these themes in the movies. We often talk of the link between Hollywood and video games, but the link is very much there for board games as well.
• Animals. I found a disproportionate number of board games that featured animals, including three games with camels, three games with sheep (not including the line of Catan games), two games with cheetahs, and then the occasional monkey, giraffe, elephant, kangaroo or penguin. I have no earthly idea why the fascination with animals, or why it's so much more pronounced in non-digital games.
• Gladiator combat. If conflict is an inherent element of games, then it's no surprise that games should be particularly good at modeling a straight-up fight. Still, there haven't been many gladiator games in past years, so I'm guessing this year's rash of them is just a statistical fluke.
• Educational games. There was a game that could be described as the Periodic Table of Pokemon. Another game that taught K-6 math skills, with a superhero theme. And another that featured many historical figures, with the History Channel brand. The thing I found shocking is that these games are actually touting their educational value as their main selling point. While this may get some extra sales with teachers and parents, it probably loses just as many (if not more) sales from gamers who would play these games except that we all know how much educational games suck. I have to wonder what would happen if a company released the same game under two different names -- one with an obvious educational slant ("Numbers League: Adventures in Addiplication") and another where the education is intentionally hidden ("Stupor Heroes"). Same game, different name and box copy, in an attempt to capture both the educational and gamer markets. No one is doing this, but I think it's an opportunity just waiting to be grabbed by any or all of them.
• Shorter play times. Due I suppose to today's ADHD society, games are getting shorter. I noticed a large number of very solid, deep strategy games that were playable in 45 minutes (a couple of years ago, these kinds of games mostly took two or three times that long). I think this is great; I can play more games to a satisfying conclusion in less time. There are even some tabletop wargames that are playable in under an hour nowadays; thirty years ago, these were the kinds of games that would take an entire weekend to play.
• Longer play times. Perhaps as a backlash of the shortening trend, I also saw a number of games that take 3 to 6 hours. You can always tell these games because they come in these gigantic boxes with tons of boards and tokens and figurines, and they cost 80ドル or so. Interestingly, the video game industry followed this same trend with budgets, starting about five years ago: you have to either be a "value" (very low-budget) or "AAA" (very big-budget) game, with it becoming increasingly difficult to find funding in the middle. That trend continues in video games to this day, although it may start reversing itself with third-party Wii games.
• Reiner Knizia. Seriously, the man seemed to have at least one new game with every major publisher. I don't know if he's just morally opposed to an exclusive contract, or what.

Lewis "Lou" Pulsipher is another game-designer-turned-teacher. I seem to find more and more of us each year. He gave a session this year on game design. I was less interested in the content, more in how that content was presented (since that's the real challenge, isn't it?).

Lou is a big believer in documentation and backups. If you have an idea and don't write it down, that idea may never come to you again and it will be lost forever, so always have something nearby to record your thoughts. Regularly transcribe your ideas from the paper you wrote it down on to a computer document, and back up your hard drive regularly. Even if the idea goes nowhere right now, having it preserved lets you go back and dig up old ideas later on; they can be a source of new ideas, and you might also (years later) finally figure out how to get that old game to work. Having lost my own share of ideas over the years to lost documentation, I'm not going to disagree, and I found it interesting that he hammered on this idea quite a bit -- most game design books don't say much about it at all. I suppose this is the difference between theory and practice.


Also on the subject of documentation, Lou points out that many people don't want to read the game manual, they much prefer to have a friend show them how to play because it's easier. This is no big surprise to anyone who plays a lot of video games (nowadays it's standard for them to have an on-board tutorial that teaches you everything, so that the manual is superfluous) but the board game industry still hasn't caught on. Lou suggests that it would be very easy to audio-record a gamer explaining the rules of a board game, as if to their friends, juxtaposed with photos, diagrams or video. This provides a pretty efficient rules "document" that could either be packaged on CD with the game, or at least put on the publisher's website. Lou also mentions that this would be particularly useful for educational games; many teachers who aren't hardcore gamers would still like to integrate some games into their class, but they don't want to take the time to learn the rules.


Lastly, Lou proposes that a game can be broken down into nine atomic parts. Not all games have all these parts, but the sum of them could be used to completely describe a game His parts are:

• Theme/history/story
• Objectives or victory conditions
• Game state (he called this "data storage and information management" -- a way to record the important variables in a game such as victory points, board position, cards in hand, etc.)
• Order of play (turn-based, realtime, etc.)
• Movement and/or placement
• Information availability (that is, what information is visible or hidden from each player; this includes immediate information hiding such as a closed hand of cards or fog-of-war mechanics, but also includes unknown future information such as the outcome of a die roll)
• Interaction of game entities, including conflict resolution
• Economy: resources, the means to acquire them, and the means to exchange them
• Rules of player-player interaction outside of the game state (this includes mechanics such as trading, negotiation, auctions, and metagaming)

I find it interesting to compare this to the list of formal elements from Game Design Workshop:

• Players
• Objectives/Goals
• Procedures (I found this confusing in the text, but it essentially means the UI -- the actions available to the player allowed by the rules)
• Rules
• Resources
• Conflict
• Boundaries (that is, where does the game end and the Real World begin; includes physical boundaries such as a proscribed area of play, and conceptual boundaries that let the players know who "is playing" and who is not in the absence of physical boundaries)
• Outcome
• Dramatic elements (this includes story and narrative, but also the aesthetics created by the dynamics of the game itself, such as rising tension in a well-paced game)

There are similar elements on both lists, so it may be useful to combine them the next time I teach a theory-of-game-design class.

Last year at Origins, most of the sessions I went to seemed a bit... sponsored. As in, "Hi, I'm a representative from a boardgame publisher, and I'd like to tell you why you should use our games in your classroom. By the way, I have no experience in education, and I have no lesson plans, but don't let that stop you from buying lots of stuff."

This year was much improved. Publishers who were pushing their own agenda at least brought a good assortment of lesson plans and were presented by someone who'd been teaching for twenty years. Others, even if presented by someone who worked at a publisher, concentrated on practical content. And then there were the independents like me, just out to spread the word about whatever we had experience in.

Mark O'Bannon gave a primer on good storytelling practice. Since this was at a game convention, the subject was approached mostly from the perspective of "how to become a better GM by understanding what makes a good story", although the basic principles are the same whether you're writing a book, a screenplay, the plot of a video game or a tabletop RPG adventure. It occurs to me that "write a two-hour game session and then run it with fellow students in a group" would be an interesting assignment for a creative writing class.

The session was pretty basic, so there weren't many surprises for me: most of the content was taken from the holy trinity of Aristotle, Campbell and McKee. Two other books were mentioned as being useful in the context of game writing: "Characters and Viewpoint" by Orson Scott Card, and "How to Write Science Fiction" (someone said at the session this was written by Ben Bova, but a search through Amazon suggests this was Card also). I'll evaluate these later this Summer if I have time.

There were a couple gems in the session I hadn't encountered before:

• When creating a setting, build what O'Bannon referred to as a "community of opposites": character rivalries, feuding factions, environmental hazards, etc. -- things that exist as sources of conflict in the setting itself.
• On the subject of showing character, a useful way to think of this is to have two emotions fighting against each other. When one emotion wins, that's when you see a person's true character. (Example: pride vs. fear. Put a proud character in a dangerous situation and see whether they fight or flee.)
• McKee especially talks a lot about how the main character should change during a story, but O'Bannon points out that this doesn't have to be the case; it's possible for the main character to be more of a catalyst, someone who causes change in all that he touches, without actually changing himself. An example would be Kwai Chang Caine.

This post is already getting pretty long, so I'll summarize the other sessions later.

As promised earlier, here are the details of my speaking engagement:

I'll be speaking twice, once on Thursday July 5 at 9am, and again on Friday July 6 at 3pm.


The title of the talk is "Why use games in a classroom?" but that's actually not the best title. Presumably everyone attending Origins already understands the positive effects of gaming, and anyone attending a session for teachers is already on board with the whole games-for-learning thing. I'll actually be talking about some basic game design theory (i.e. "What Makes Games Fun") and then applying that to education, to make the class time more engaging for students.


If you're in the area, drop by and say hi!

In the board game industry, there are two major public-facing events in the US (similar to what E3 used to be for video games). One of them, Origins, takes place pretty close to where I live... and as if that weren't enough incentive to attend, teachers get in free.

Part of this education track involves access to a set of lectures and workshops about using games in the classroom. Most attendees teach something non-game-related, and many teach at the K-12 level.

I'll be speaking there for an hour on Friday morning (with a repeat on Saturday afternoon) on some theory of game design -- specifically, what makes students prefer games over classes -- and then how to incorporate that into the classroom to make it more engaging.

I'll post more details as they become available.