By R. Garry Shirts
Reprinted by permission of Society for Academic Gaming and
Simulation in Education and Training Journal, October, 1975
If someone were to ask me to
identify the mistakes most often made by game designers, including
myself, I would, after assuring myself that the questioner understands
that game design is a very personal activity and that there are
no right answers, reply in the following dogmatic manner:
1. Taking a Linear Approach to Game Design.
Most articles and books on simulation design suggest that
one should follow a logical sequence of development: first
define
your objectives, then identify the actors and so on. Such prescriptions
are accurate post-facto descriptions of what emerges from
the
game design process but are not, for the most part, accurate
descriptions of that process. I suppose that one can design
simulations in this manner, but such an approach defines the
important parameters of the game before one starts and precludes
an imaginative solution.
The designing process, in my experience, is not sequential
at all—new idea "F" requires an adjustment or rethinking
of ideas "A" "B" "C" and "D". And such adjustments in turn may
suggest changes in idea "F". One moves back and forth among
the ideas and parts of the game much as the performer who keeps
a dozen or so plates of china spinning simultaneously on tall
slender polls.
2. Trying to Work with Non-Simpatico Personalities
It isn’t always possible to choose one’s game designing
mates, but if given a choice, they should be selected carefully.
Especially for the beginning stages when ideas are being generated.
One negative person can stifle the creativity of thousands.
Many different skills are required to develop educational simulations.
The person who may be very creative at thinking up alternatives
may not be able to write, follow the game through to completion,
or honestly evaluate the impact of the game. And the person
whose influence hangs over the group like a deadly smog may
be just the person to cut and polish the rough stone into a
beautiful gem.
3. Premature Closure.
Let’s get going. There’s a job to do, let’s
do it. Work, work, work, that’s the only way to get anything
done in this world. When I start on a project, I have to restrain
those driving forces for a while and say to myself, "Wait, there’s
probably a hundred ways of solving this problem and you’ve
only discovered ten. Give yourself some overnight think time.
Ask yourself some more dumb questions. How would a child look
at the problem? A person from another planet or culture? If
this situation were boiled for an hour and a half what would
be left after draining off the juices? What if you had designed
the game with colored buttons and drawing pins?"
Debono is his book "New Think" points out that once a person
starts digging a mental hole, there is a tendency to preserve,
to keep digging, to take satisfaction in perfecting the shape
and size of the hole without considering whether it is in the
right place. To increase the probability of digging the hole
in the right place, one should dig many shallow holes all over
the area before selecting one to develop. In the beginning stages
of game design, one must resist the temptation to accept the
first idea with merit as the final idea. Dig more holes.
4. Establishing Precise Education Objectives before Designing
the Game or Simulation.
I suppose there are people who can design imaginative games
and simulation with precise educational objectives in mind,
but I’m not one of them and I’ve not met others who
can. Not that there is anything wrong with educational objectives
per se, it’s just that once they are articulated they become
a powerful force that kills ideas in the fetal stage with their
unarticulated but ever present question: "But does it meet our
objectives?"
An idea may not meet any of the proposed objectives when
it first emerges. However, if allowed to grow and change it
might
lead to another idea which does meet the objectives. If
the first gardener had killed all of the ugly insects, there
would be no butterflies today. It’s quite possible that
an idea might develop which does not meet the objective but
is so valuable that it is worth changing the objectives to
fit the idea.
I’m overstating the case, of course. It is very important
that there be an understanding of the general intent and purpose
of the proposed game. The trick is to define the purpose in
such a way that it helps focus the problem without restricting
all creative movement.
I like to believe that there are games and simulations which
exist in perfect form independent of human needs and expectations
and that the designer’s task is to listen to the muse who
is trying to communicate the details of these perfect forms
to the designer. The muse must communicate through the limited
experience of the designer so he or she is greatly limited which
puts the burden on the designer to listen. The notion of perfect
forms and the muse are fictions, of course, but very useful.
This approach puts the designer in the correct frame for developing
creative games and simulations. The muse may be the designer’s
unconscious that is working on the problem overnight and gives
the designer the answer in the morning. If the designer is not
in the correct listening mode, he or she may miss the communication.
What frequently happens is that a designer will start out
in one direction and then be influenced by the process of
designing
the game and change course. And when the game is finished,
the designer locates his or her position on the map and says, "That’s
where I was intending to go all along." Objectives for some
of the best games have been written after the author discovered
what objectives the game met.
In some games, serendipity is such an important element that
it is not possible to determine what objectives have been
met until
the experience is over.
5. Accepting the Criteria of the Sponsor.
Generally one is able to establish one’s own criteria
for a game or simulation. When working with a corporation, a
school district, government institution, or publisher, however,
they might be unreasonable and insist on specifying just what
they want the experience to be about and what goals are to be
accomplished by it. Such criteria should be examined very carefully
if developed by persons who have had no experience with simulations
and games. Generally what they want is a game that will be remembered
by participants for the rest of their lives, require no more
than two minutes of preparation by the facilitator with each
participant emerging from the experience with a completely new
paradigm of the topic under consideration, and a new set of
behaviors that they will follow for the rest of their lives.
What one must do in such circumstances is work out reasonable
expectations, before beginning work on the project.
6. Being "Straightjacketed" by Reality.
Just as precise and well-defined educational objectives can
limit one’s imagination, so can the notion of reality.
But, one might ask, isn’t one trying to model reality in
a simulation? Yes, but as Cathy Greenblatt has pointed out in
the Simulation and Games Journal (March, 1974), there is not
"a reality" but multiple realities. Which of the many realities
is to be simulated at which level of abstraction and detail?
And whose reality? The economist’s? The psychologist’s?
The person from Ireland?
Even suppose there were an agreed upon reality. The designer
might want to exaggerate, simplify, limit, distort, and redefine
it in order to create an experience which teaches what he or
she wants to teach.
7. Trying to Design Simulations Which are Good for Both Research
and Training and Education.
The validity of an educational or training simulation is
determined by how one answers the question, "Does the simulation
teach the
ideas, values, facts which were intended by the game designer
or the sponsor?" The validity of the research simulation is
determined
by the question, "How well does this simulation duplicate or
predict reality?". These are quite different questions and
most always lead to quite different experiences. And while
the simulation
which inaccurately predicts reality may also be an effective
teaching device, the chances are that it won’t. And
the effective teaching device is not likely to an effective
research
instrument. In designing a teaching experience, there are many
constraints imposed by the management requirements of the
teaching
situation, ability of the students, and the amount of preparation
the teacher is willing to undertake. Persons trying to develop
a simulation for both research and education will find themselves
constantly having to choose between the rigorous demands
of
accuracy and detail required by the research criteria and the
constraints imposed by the educational and managerial needs
of the teacher and the students. Few people are able to satisfy
the demands of both.
8. Inappropriate Use of Chance.
When you can’t figure out how to simulate a process,
have them draw a card, roll the dice and advance three spaces
or flip the spinner. No. No. No. It is certainly appropriate
to use chance to determine whether a player has been hit by
lightening, suffered crop damage from a violent storm or been
born into a family of poverty and disease. These can be considered
chance events. But there are hundreds of games, mostly variations
of monopoly, which use chance to determine everything from
the
winning of an election to the determination of the right answer
on an addition problem -- and I hate them all. I’ll concede
that in certain instances a person might be able to develop
a creative solution in which chance might be appropriately
used to determine non-chance events, but generally it indicates
a
lack of imagination and greatly reduces the instructional and
emotional impact of the game.
9. Failure to Establish Ownership.
What one wants, generally, is for the participants to take
responsibility for his or her actions in the game. Ownership
gives the game or simulation process power. Avoid: (a) using
dice to determine non-chance consequences, as was discussed
in eight (b) assigning attitudes and values along with the
role, for example, "You are a public official; you should
make decisions as you would if you were actually in office" is
preferred to "You are a conservative public official who
dislikes welfare".
With the latter assignment the participant can avoid ownership
of a tough decision on welfare by saying, "But my role card
said I was a conservative who didn’t like welfare".
Much of game design is trying to eliminate the possible
excuses which people might use to evade responsibility for
their decision.
(c) determining consequences with a model which the participant
feels is inappropriate or inaccurate; for example, in a
stock
market game if the bottom falls out of the market because there
are only ten minutes left in the class period rather than
a rush
of panic selling by the "stockholders", a player who saves
his or her fortune by selling before the crash because he
or she
is pretty sure the instructor will cause a crash before the
end of the period, can take little satisfaction in his or
her
success in the stock market. (d) making the choices obvious
so the consequences have little meaning. Try to put the participant
in the double bind position of choosing between two "bads" or
two "goods", or one in which knowledge and skill are important.
10. Failure to Follow Through to an Appropriate Level of
Completion.
There are hundreds of games and simulations tucked away in
desk drawers and file cabinets which work when the designer
is present to explain the model, answer questions, and patch
up unforeseen problems. Such experiences are appropriately completed.
In fact, it could well be argued that all games and simulations
should be of this nature as the presence of the designer can
greatly increase the richness and flexibility of experience.
However, such experiences are not complete if they are to
be used by a stranger without the designer’s presence.
In order to pass "The Stranger Test" another level or effort
is required which demands a perseverance few people seem to
possess.
