News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

RPG Theory from the Educative Viewpoint

Started by Bifi, March 24, 2004, 07:02:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bifi

Quote from: BifiActually, let's say that for an example we have a game of relations between three empires. It could be played using all three modes. Gamism would mean competition - gaining influence, power, wealth etc., while hindering others doing so. The educative goal could be fulfilled via color, or system, but probably mainly through situation or setting. Sim (let's say) stresses realism of the decision-making situation for the representants of these empires. For the purposes of education this is quite clear and actually widely used, the other modes are the ones not recognized. And I'm having problems with Nar here.

I actually didn't express myself clear. This was not thought as one game facilitating all modes, but rather examples of three distinct games all using the same setting/color. I'm not trying to develop these games, I just wanted to show that setting (used loosely) doesn't restrict modes of play, as Ron has shown in one of his essays using the example of Vampire:tM. But yeah, your example helps, I have had similar experiences.

Thanks,
Michal
To see hell through lifeless eyes
Shadowy forms in gaslight bleed
Broken glass in absinthe dreams
Swirling down on wings of pain
To where emotions wounded lay
Crouching, crippled, tattered, bare

Rob Carriere

I think the problem with the example was that the teacher was asking the wrong kind of question with the game. Since any game, and certainly any game simple enough that you can explain it quickly, is an approximation to reality, it is risky to assume that game play will necessarily lead to the same action as happened historically. See all the people reporting that they can reliably win WW2 as the axis in game X for multiple X.

Unless the teacher is a genius game designer, she will need participationism from the players in order to achieve the overt goal (reproduce historical events). As M.J. showed, a non-participationist player can undermine this, exactly like we're used to. And as M.J. argues, his style of play was legitimate, because participationism was not demanded in the social contract.

Even worse, if participationism had been demanded, the overt goal might have been accomplished, but the implicit goal of convincing the students that the historical events were inevitable, or at least natural, would have been undermined.

Saying all the above more briefly: teachers using role playing games or simulations should not attempt The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

Now, if the question had been `let's investigate what can happen in these situations', all would have been fine, especially if she had run the game multiple times. After all, M.J. strategy is essentially a sucker punch, the other teams will understand that little trick the second time around.

SR
--