Category: Learning By Design

If I am good enough to teach others how to make games, why do I not just make them?  I do make games; most are designed to illustrate a concept or to play with my friends.  While I do have some trepidation with sending out my work into public view, I have not really seen a lot of interest in what I have to offer from others as much from my own reticence to show my work as it is from not hearing of any real desire for work not based on someone else’s game systems.  On some level, it is also difficult to explain my own games since I developed them using the principles detailed throughout Learning by Design.  Having that academic approach bleeds into my descriptions of the game, especially in conversations or rapid social media exchanges.

Not having access to more than just ink and paper supplies, there also is not much one can move beyond the prototyping phase that will look attractive to potential players.  Packaging, advertising, and durability of components matter, especially if the game in question is meant to be replayed time and again.  Before the publishing revolution—to include 3-D printing—there were not many options available for designers without access to the assets of game companies to move to larger scales in the prototyping and beta testing processes.  I have created pieces for games when cannibalizing my own collection was not enough to capture the experience due to discrepancies in sizes, color schemes clashing, pieces not fitting due to genre, etc.  Most of these are abstracts and usually involve glue and pony beads.

Commercial game creation is expensive, prototyping is not.  It is this experience from which I drew in creating the initial program and continue to use to explore various academic facets of game design to use in teaching others how to be better designers.  When a paper prototype can all but leap off the page to show potential players how the game works and makes them want to play the game repeatedly, then the designer has learned how to create great games and demonstrates a full understanding of design principles for interactive experiences.  Like most designers, I could spend all my time on my own games, but none of those creations will help others learn how to create works that the current crop of professionals would think of because of one crucial difference between all of us: the influence of our experiences.

Previous

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 3

Next

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 5

One of the common questions that people have, and which you might also have, is if this is really about education or games.  And that is a fair question to ask.  In truth, it is a bit of both.  There is more than just a touch of the Montessori method inherent in teaching game design, but it is less a laissez faire approach than it appears on the surface.  Rather, game design teaches a disciplined approach to problem-solving experiential issues.

Games require active participation; otherwise, they are ineffective.  They have no value without engagement, and that requires incentives to keep people’s interest.  To do this, designers have to not only understand the limitations of rules, but also what makes for a meaningful experience that brings players back time and again.  This is the focus of design and the creation of an effective user interface and user experience—both of which are highly prized skills for customer-service oriented businesses.  If there is no consistency in experience and yet a touch of uniqueness to each encounter, patrons are likely to venture off for a product that can provide both without appearing to slip from the seemingly opposed values.

Yes, embedded in game design are the same basic skills used for such disciplines.  The structured play with rules and how they can interact with each other also covers the same fundamental concepts for experimentation under the scientific method and information theory.  Designers learn how to define classifications of information, organize system of thought or lenses through which to interpret data, and how seemingly dissimilar features can disappear within the context of the space created for the game’s rules.  Students learning through game design do not necessarily make these connections, but the trial-and-error method lets participants in the program see how disparate ideas can be connected and under what conditions without being given rote answers.

Previous

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 2

Next

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 4

While this is not a new concept, the approach here was designed as a library program that would move patrons from children as young as four to adults through the various facets of design at their own pace.  Since teaching through game design is not well known to the general public, work was done to include the parents of younger patrons as part of a year-long program emphasizing STEAM throughout the library as a whole.  Parents were invited to participate through understanding the key concepts that translated well outside the program and games and into skills that the children could use immediately in their classes.  None of this was mentioned to the participants as to keep their focus on creating games of their choice and introducing a new concept every session that built off the previous sessions for those ready for a new challenge.  Since the participants were not asked to learn new design techniques, the techniques were provided for those who felt comfortable moving on to the next lessons.

The program was designed to allow library staff to move from one module to the next and be able to revisit previous modules with new game mechanics drawn from the more advanced modules or reinterpretations of the common rules found in that particular class of games.  As such, the games were loosely grouped into seven modules to define certain key features that marked those games without regard to genre or complexity.  Most of the features introduced this way were listed as submodules with their own handouts and example games which the attendees would have familiarity.  Not only did this shortcut the explanatory segment for time’s sake, but it also provided reassurance that they could create similar games.

Children also learn prototyping and that very few materials are needed to make a fun game they can play with family and friends.  The low cost of the program fits library needs while also showing participants that they did not need to spend much to get started and explore design elements.  Later modules also introduce the use of office productivity software available at virtually all public libraries to move a concept from prototype to beta testing and even finished product with publishing tools and 3-D printing.  Failure is encouraged as both experimentation and fun in itself.

Previous

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 1

Next

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 3

Teaching through play seems counterintuitive.  After all, we are basically asking people to run amok, right?  Not necessarily; part of what is being urged here is for people to explore the provided space.  The age of the individual is superfluous when we ask people to play a game because the rules govern what you can and cannot do.  This is not to say that there are no inherent advantages when playing against someone with less experience, but there also is no guarantee of victory.  And that is a great equalizing factor that allows the younger generations to challenge the older ones and have a chance to teach their opponents something new.

So, why focus on game design as an approach to learning?  In part, it has to do with how we learn and what we know about how the brain works.  One of the main elements for this approach is the lessons hidden behind a façade of fun.  People like to do meaningful work and love to see the results of that work.  This is the same feeling you get when you accomplish a task or win a game against someone who is your equal or better in the skills used in that game.  There is a great deal of work involved in playing against an opponent that involves not just knowledge of a game’s rules, but also learning how your opponent thinks and what they are (or aren’t) willing to risk to win.

Game design pulls back the curtain and invites players to write up their own systems and to think about the hows and whys of the game in the making.  It touches on all the elements of STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math) and develops 21^st century job skills.  Game design has a holistic approach to many fields of knowledge and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach.  Even if a student does not intend to go into any occupation that requires that sort of training, game design and the requisite research to make a game work, gives the individual a firm grounding to draw from multiple sources and apply techniques to their designs or work that escapes the “in the box” thinking a single-discipline focus tends to create.

Game design also lets people do something humans love to do: show off what we know.  To make a game that people want to play repeatedly requires not just skill but mastery of the skill and knowledge needed to win or do well in that game.  The game designer might not be aware of how much he or she is teaching the players, but this is essentially what’s happening.  When designing a game, the core of that experience embedded in the design revolves around the skills and knowledge the designer has highlighted.  Monopoly, for example, highlights risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis (amongst others), while a game like Dungeons & Dragons emphasizes group cooperation, communication, and storytelling.  Thus, game design is about self-exploration of a subject the game’s creator has more than just passing knowledge about.

Next

Learning by Design – Introduction, Part 2