Learning Science Meets Game Design

My Foolhardy and Fantastic Project Progresses

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:19:00 +0000

This is my reason for creating this blog, this project and what it can lead to in the future. A few weeks ago I posted a little about my current project and it's already out of date, because of good news. Unfortunately that same news is why I haven't posted more about my project, which is that I have more self-funding: more hours at work. That's just one part of what's happened recently.

For those wondering:
Here is the general idea for the project, in normal terms. The main goal is to create an interactive advice system that uses personality typing advice and project advice together, and use that advice to help students see the connections between their interests and learning. That learning includes, but is not limited to school, because there are other things that contribute to being successful, responsible, considerate people.

...

It's a game that advises players how to become better at using their skills and abilities to play the game, with real life applications.

...

Ya, that's a good way to describe it.

Now, here's the financial run down: more work means more money and less time, in a good way. I say that because I should be able to afford the MBTI certification training without any help. Why should you care? Well, it's more expensive, has a limited time window and is better suited to my project, especially since I can take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter Certification any time I can afford it. Technically I should be able to afford both this summer, but they are fairly similar and I've got other preparations to buy.

The second order of business today is to clear up a miscommunication that has happened repeatedly.

This is MY project, and I'm the one doing it.

I feel much better now, because I've asked to "talk" to people "about" my project and been told that they aren't interested or able to take on another project. The thing is, ... well I said it just a moment ago. This is my project, and I'm the one doing it. Seriously, if you have some good ideas or concerns, I'm open to them, but don't think this will become your project, at all. I came up with this project, and am doing it myself, because I've seen way too many such projects run into the ground in ways that seem obvious to me to let somebody else take over and do that to yet another. So, I'm willing to listen, but I'm going to make sure that I can make this work. Okay, I'll move on now.

With the good news and mild rant out of the way, here are a few of the cool things that have happened, besides the financial stuff. I've talked with Dr. Michael Bitz from the Center for Educational Pathways, been given a slightly customized version of the Individual Kit from The Comic Book Project to assist my efforts. Another guy I've been talking with about my project is Howard, a former psychiatrist with similar interests. After talking I found out he had a similar idea years ago, but didn't have the background to make it happen. Just talking with him has been very helpful. Through contact with several people I've found more books I want to buy, eventually, as well as building a list of people who would like updates on the project.

Anyways, this project is, honestly, a stepping stone for further projects and systems. While many find my ideas interesting, they don't see the entire picture. Education needs both scalability and individualized "teaching". It used to be that students had mentors, tutors and masters (when they were apprentices). Now, we are mass fed a standardized set of information to be memorized and replicated. The first is individualized, and the second is scalable to an extent. So, like many others I went looking for a good solution and think that computer technologies can help. However, that's not enough, which is why I'm using the personality typing to take the individualization it makes possible and try to create a scalable system with computers. Yes, I know there is a lot more to this than just that, so let's continue.

* Computers give scalability.

* Personality typing gives individualization.

* Media design gives presentation.

* Game design gives interactivity.

* Personal goals gives relevance.

* Together that should give engagement.

With something like twenty new books bought this year, the certification program and my background, I'm putting everything I have into covering all those points, and more. I'm even considering the possibility of creating comics, online video and a community site on top of blog posts to make this work. I do have some posts planned, and many that I've started in the past that I'd like to finish and post related to this project. Hopefully I'll get to them soon. I should have a new computer coming soon so I won't have to keep borrowing one to blog and do research.

If you are still wondering if I can do this, please consider this last point. I'm buying elbow and wrist supports so I can do better, and more, at work while increasing my ability to work on this project. I'm potentially risking tendinitis just to make this happen. I'm that determined to succeed, and now I'm finally starting to seem some return on my invested effort. At the same time, I'm getting the joint supports as a precaution against injuring myself, so I've got the ambition, determination and the foresight needed.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

An April Fool's Errand

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 06:38:00 +0000

A fool's errand is an impossible, or useless, task, and people with birthdays in April are sometimes called April Fools. I'm am such a fool and have what might be considered such a task; mixing personality typing, game/interaction design and programming skills to create an advice system. It's designed to help with problems in school, at work and any other time, based on who you are and how you do things. Some might say this is impossible, or that it's useless for me to try, but I have the will and see a way.

I think most people would agree that people problems get in our way more than any other. With that in mind, and as a game designer interested in human behavior and education/personal development, this seems like a good problem for me to tackle. Others have used a wide variety of solutions to help people with these problems, but we still face miscommunication and personality clashes constantly. So, maybe the problem right now isn't providing a single solution, but to provide people with a personally usable solution. That's where the personality typing comes into play, to describe each person in a way that a computer can understand; like a tag or category. The computer then just compares relevant rankings, like suggesting other products you might be interested in while shopping online.

Another possible reason we still have so many people problems is our reactions to the systems. We could blame the presentations or the people, but either way it's not working. Since I'm an INTJ (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/intj/), that's the part I care about; it doesn't work. As a game designer looking into both media design and cognitive science, improving the presentation is part of my plan, but the personality typing also helps here in smoothing out communication problems. Sometimes it's intentional, but sometimes we don't mean to ignore good advice, or don't see how it is good advice. Sometimes, as I have come to understand, it takes indirect methods to achieve lasting results. That's why I want to help individuals and organizations, through the people in positions of power and those within the organizations.

“It is a paradox of our time that those with power are too comfortable to notice the pain of those who suffer, and those who suffer have no power

To break out of this trap requires, as Elie Wiesel has put it, the courage to speak truth to power.”
- Daniel Goleman, “Vital Lies, Simple Truths” page 14

INTJ's, what Keirsey calls Masterminds, are logical, strategic thinkers who care more about truth than what people say and feel. Regardless of who said, suggested or supports an idea, it either works or it doesn't, it's true or it's false. (Think Batman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV3kNKWmIbs) It may depend on the circumstances, but that's life. How people feel and believe may be part of the circumstances it depends on, but it doesn't change the facts. I'm not trying to come up with an in-person solution, but rather an automated solution, a system, based on how people behave. This is one reason why an INTJ, like me, is a good fit for creating the system.

However, lately it has been like all my efforts come to naught. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unl8l8VdONw) I have plenty of contacts, but until I have something to show, there's not much for them to do to help. I've applied for fellowships and internships, but they apparently had other applicants they preferred.. After seeing the success of Gameful through Kickstarter, I really thought I could do a fund raising project through them, but they said this wasn't a good fit. What came to my rescue was getting a job several months back, which has allowed me to buy a bunch of relevant books and to save up for a personality typing certificate. It also helps that I met a guy willing to give me a helping hand in creating my own fund raising project.

My plan now is to get the Keirsey Temperament Sorter certification, combine that knowledge with my other research to create a prototype framework, offer this help to several groups of people, refine the system through iterative development and then to make the system and results available to the public. That's my plan, because that's what I can afford to do on my own. There are more certifications, trainings, books, tools and even starting up a non-profit that I would like to put money into, to help others and myself.

Here's how I decided on that plan. The most well known system in personality typing, so far as I know is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. More people know of it and respect it than any other system from what I've heard. There seems to be one opportunity that I can find for me to get certified in the MBTI, a local training at the end of July that costs $1,500. I'll have about $1,000 saved up by then, which is enough to cover the online training program for the KTS, which can be taken anytime, but not enough for the MBTI certification. Since the systems are fairly similar, compatible and complementary, I want to get them both when I have the opportunity. Honestly, this summer seems like the best time, for the project and my other education plans. So, I plan on getting the Keirsey system certification unless I can pay for the MBTI training in time, though both would still be better.

Batman is not such an awesome hero because of his training, resources or opportunities. He's a hero because he uses his abilities, stands up for what's right and never gives up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeRELF_9TVM) Albert Einstein claimed to not be particularly smart or talented, but instead to be inquisitive, and to stick with a problem longer than others did. He's thought to be an INTJ, like Batman, and myself. Isabel Briggs Myers, co-author of the MBTI, wrote a book titled “Gifts Differing”. In it she says that INTJs, “Are determined to the point of stubbornness.”, “Are stimulated by difficulties, and most ingenious in solving them.”, and “Are willing to concede that the impossible takes a little longer – but not much.”. She also says that INTJs are very innovative and independent people.

Perhaps this project looks like a fool's errand, but it's my kind of project and I'm putting everything I have into it. Almost all my disposable income and free time are going into this project. My interest and research into both logical fields, like computer science and mathematics, and more intuitive fields, like art and human behavior, lets me see many points of view, which I'm using to design this project. My “official” education is aimed at Computer Science, which is directly applicable to building the systems of this project.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Jim Groom's Edupunk Digital Storytelling Class

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:33:00 +0000

It's been a while since I posted; due to projects, school work and other things; but I break my silence to bring this message, there's plenty of posting to come via Jim Groom's Open Online Digital Storytelling Course. I'm going to try to help get it up and running as one of several who have come running at Jim's request for people who want to help run/develop the open online version of the course he's teaching in person.

As a game designer, digital storytelling is a primary part of my career direction. Audio, visual, graphical, textual, contextual and many more forms are all part of games. Games are even listed in the course syllabus and the Wikipedia page for digital storytelling.

Out of the different things that Jim requested help with, I'm planning to focus on assignment ideas. Mini-games, levels and quests are all like assignments, so I'm going to see what kind of cray ideas I can come up with for Jim's course, and I know he's okay with a little cray. He IS the Edupunk after all.

Honestly, it sounds like a fun group to work with. I think it will be interesting working with a bunch of these people Jim knows, and to see how it affects my game design ideas for educational games.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

A Method to Innovate Education Systems

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:49:00 +0000

It's probably no surprise that I am interested in innovating education systems, with the title of my blog, Learning Science Meets Game Design, but what about having a plan to get it to happen? Some people try to get it to happen inside the systems, some outside the systems and both have met up against a stout resistance to innovation and change. I think we've be going about this the wrong way. Why try to tackle something so massive and with so much momentum? We've been told repeatedly that what is needed is "proof", so why don't we give it to them? The answer, I'm guessing, is that we don't know how to give them what they want, but I think there is a way, and that's what the rest of this post will discuss.

As a game designer looking at education, I'm struck by the similarity of this problem to that of starting up a game company or hit series of games. We have a bunch of great ideas, but in the game industry those "great ideas" are considered worth less than a dime a dozen. We try to use those ideas, and they kinda work here or there with the help of designers and developers. Sometimes there is marketing and management with a lack of market research or follow through. Ya, that's about what there is in the game industry, and in education innovation. Maybe some of the lessons from the game industry innovation efforts will help education.

First is differentiate. Yes, we need some reason that our stuff is better, but we also need to know some people want that difference. This is a basic principle of selling anything. If nobody is interested in your cool variation, there will be serious problems in the future.

Second is to start small. Building up to the big, awesome, stupendous projects means you have a solid core and foundation to support that big, awesome, stupendous project. Do at a level that you can make it shine.

Third is to build on your successes, and fourth is to learn from your mistakes. If you do a project, learn from it. Analyze what went well, and what didn't go well. Take that info into consideration when designing, and doing, your next project.

Fifth is to always go for quality over quantity. What ever you do, do it well. Doing it well will bring results. Repeatable results are proof of your ability to deliver those results.

Sixth is to aim for your target demographic. If your target is to help students do better in school, target students. If you want to help the ones who don't do well in school, target them, and work with them.

There are more, but let's take a moment to consider how these first six interact. Starting small, targeting your demographic and aiming for quality over quantity means you are focusing on a manageable number of people, responsibilities and variables. Whatever your results, this will be useful to learn from. While the unique selling points of a project may be set at the start, feedback from actually testing the project will help refine, back-up and verify those points as well as possibly hint towards new points to aim for.

Seventh is to prototype early and often. The above set of interactions shows how the prototyping and testing processes can reveal many useful lessons. Some of those can save a lot of time, money and effort is learned early in the project.

Eighth is to support all people involved. This means students, teachers, policy makers and anybody else interested. Transparency and "customer service" is just a part of the mix. If the project lives or dies based on what people think of it, helping them is related to success.

Ninth is to talk about the project. Share what's going on, good and bad, and most importantly how the project reacts to the events. The growth of the project into something amazing is part of the proof that it works.

Tenth is to always consider emergent behavior possibilities. To do this you have to consider the project, the people involved, the situation and plenty more. However, this is key to really making the project shine and getting the proof needed.

Maybe these aren't written as well as they could be, and there are more lessons to be sure, but these are some we need to consider for proving these projects and ideas are worth implementing. Yet, even that isn't all there is to my "method", as all I've really shared is a list of lessons to help you understand.

The method I see as most effective for actually getting schools to implement great ideas is to do some testing without changing there official schooling. If it works well to help students achieve, then you have grounds to motivate going farther with the ideas, even if it is just the students and their parents. Summer programs, after-school programs, clubs and more could be the vehicle of such attempts. Do the studies, improve the ideas and try again.

Now, there is something we need to leave open to the students, joining. Even if it isn't any more effective, if it gets students to want to join, you have something to study. If students like it, they will talk about it. If you're tracking participation and grades, you might prove something.

Grades are not the only things to record. Get some personality, emotional stability and similar data. Maybe they are working through personal issues rather than improving their grades. Get to know the students and teachers involved, and record what you can about them to find patterns. A better way of teaching may lower grades initially as students change and get used to doing things in new ways.

Culture and views of the projects can make a big difference. What does the group of students think about the project? What do their friends think? What do other teachers and family members think? These are things to consider and shape your communications to help shift.

I'd hoped for a better post, but this is what I have for the moment. I'd love to get some feedback on these thoughts and discuss these and other views. For a look at my own project to innovate education, take a journey over to the Legacy Of Lore project blog.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Sharing the LOL Project

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 01:09:00 +0000

LOL normally means "laugh out loud", but for me it is my Legacy Of Lore project, which I think can help people laugh more, and more heartily, through better learning and problem solving. The first sub-project is a book project that covers my general approach and "framework" for learning and problem solving. I'm putting out the content in a few different ways like blogs posts, an ebook and videos. I'm still working on some of that content as of this posting. There are even magazine articles in the plans, one already drafted and sent to the editor. So, I'm looking for some interested people to take a look and help me share the book project and it's content to help more people.

First, this is an ongoing book project, so the current content is just the start, not the finished, polished version. I want to make that clear for those who might think there is little to the first book version, just because it is short and covers what some of us already know. As a student, I see others who just don't think much about their learning approach. It's not too short; it's a starting point for both the project and the reader. It's not too shallow; it's respectful of the intended audience. Please remember that.

The content consists of twelve points organized two ways. The linear organization, front to back, is for those who are getting to know the approach, while the second, non-linear, organization is for those who are more familiar with the points. That's why at the end I suggest going back and rereading the points in the second order, so the reader can get more out of the same material.

Guidelines:
Dealing with Insanity, Play & Work Mentalities, Moderation

These are basic approach guidelines to give feedback on how we try to tackle anything we do. This kind of feedback empowers us to reflect on our efforts and contemplate the ways we can improvement them.

Skill Sets:
Communication, Contemplation, Creation

These skill sets are a way of thinking about skills to organize one's efforts. It's easier, at least to me, to think of them like this, and find they change the way I think about accomplishing goals. Through the use of skills we also have the opportunity to learn.

Learning Cycles:
Theory & Practice; Motivation, Effort & Goals; Eureka

These learning cycles are a way to look at learning as a whole, without dealing with all the details of specific implementations. By cutting out the details and complications we can give ourselves a starting point for our learning.

Personality Traits:
Selflessness, Work Ethic, Open Mindedness

These personality traits are something to aim for to improve our effectiveness, and ourselves as human beings. In a way these are like a second set of guidelines, but these are as much what you do as how you express yourself through your actions.

Each of those sections has three points in a relative order to match the motto, "Be real, have fun with it and smell the roses." The first makes sure you are honest and in touch with reality. The second deals with how you can get things done in a less stressful way, thus enjoying it more. The third has to do with stepping back and taking a look around rather than continuing with your nose to the grindstone.

Using this set of points I hope to be able to help learners of all ages and walks of life to become better learners and problems solvers. One way is through the educational resource framework I've talked about, which interestingly matches well with this essay by Stephen Downes titled "Models for Sustainable Educational Resources". Another is the creation of small, local groups using the twelve points in learning, but non-class, activities, though possibly school related.

This is related to my repeated applications to The Mind Trust's Educational Entrepreneur Fellowship. Right now I'm waiting for a response to my latest application attempt, which includes the use of the book project discussed above. While I wait, I figure it's a good time to share the content and to get feedback on it.

If you are interested in the book project, there are a couple ways to show your interest. One is telling me in the comments here. Another is going to the Legacy Of Lore blog and using either the comments or contact form there. A third way is to sign up for the book interest e-mail list. For that, check out the little sign up thing below. Just to let you know, it will send you to the book project post on the LOL project blog after signing up.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

The Cost of the Freedom to Choose

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:50:00 +0000

In game design and education, there are discussions about how much freedom to give the user/player/student. Here's the catch I don't see represented in the discussions, if we don't govern ourselves, others have to for the sake of the group and organization of the whole. The phrase that comes to mind is "With great power comes great responsibility." Freedom is the power to choose and act, and so I think there is a responsibility in making any choice. That's the cost, but there is more to this than just a cost.

Leadership is a direct result of giving away responsibility. The question is, how much responsibility do you retain? Blindly following is taking no responsibility for your actions and choices. If you listen, ask questions, think about what you hear and make a choice, you keep most of the responsibility of the choice. When a group gives a person, or group, authority they are giving responsibility to make choices and take actions. In this way a good leader is a servant to those who have given them responsibility. This is also the value of a follower, especially those who keep reevaluating the worthiness of the leader and continue to follow them.

I know this may seem a little offensive to some, but most people don't want responsibilities while they want freedoms. It doesn't work. It's the same as wanting to eat your cake and still have a whole cake. A people that want freedom to do whatever they want, but don't responsibly use their freedom will over time make a government become overbearing, ineffective and/or crumble. All that comes from the request to be allowed to do whatever they want, because that requires rules be applied to everybody else, but not that person.

I don't mean to be political so much as observant of the interactions of freedoms and governance. I even have some math to back this up. If there is a group of 6 equally effective people, who spend 50% of their effort improving themselves and 50% hindering others, everybody in that group will have 5 people putting 10% into hindering them, countering the 50% they use to better themselves. Now, that is actually not fully accurate, as having 5 people trying to hinder one person, even with equal effort to improve and hinder the one, the one is out numbered and likely out resourced. That's if we try to hinder each other, but if we unintentionally hinder each other it could be more or less hindering, because we aren't paying attention to it. That's not being considerate of others or acting in a responsible way.

That example put the individual into the negative, but what if those same people tried to help instead of hinder each other? That would be acting in a socially responsible manner. My math says that 50% plus at least 50% is over 100%. So, hypothetically, the group of individuals helping each other makes each individual more effective than an individual on their own.

Yes, I know that who thing is oversimplified, but the point still stands. Networking, word of mouth, social media and other ways of a person using their contacts to help others are being recognized as a big deal, and have been for a long time. What one person can't do with all their might can many times be done with the help of one, two or more people helping with part of their strength.

So, when I look at problems of freedom and governance, I now wonder if maybe it's a matter of people shirking responsibilities. Is it because we don't want to be responsible for our emotional and mental state that we look for disorders, diseases and the medications to counter them? Is it because we want to not have to pay attention to our safety that we seek legal protection from our own stupidity?

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Magazine Articles and Initiative Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:23:00 +0000

As you might have heard, or read, I've officially started my educational initiative/project, but there is more news. There is a game industry magazine called Game Theory Magazine, that I am writing an article for on the contents of my book project. So, before finishing the first draft, and before publishing it, somebody has a serious interest in it. I'm stoked.

The editor and chief of the magazine is one of the people I asked to give pre-publishing feedback. The reason is that I'm a game designer creating a resource that I think can help people in the game industry. When I asked if there would be an interest in articles related to the content, the response was a definite yes. So, now I'll be writing an article, hopefully more, for possible inclusion in a magazine.

Yes, this is advertising for me, but it's also helping others. Game designers and developers need to be good at problem solving as much as anybody else. Playing games involves a lot of problem solving, so it's also useful to gamers. With all the content ideas I have for other aspects of my efforts, writing an article every couple of months for Game Theory Magazine shouldn't be hard. Blog posts, magazine articles and maybe another one or two things should be plenty of content creation to keep be engaged. Of course, then there is continuing the book project, as it is a project, not just a booklet.

See this is the interesting part; it's an ongoing project to create an awesome little book. The first version started as an effort to get the project organized. I had ideas, and content written, but it wasn't balanced or organized. That's when the idea to write a short blurb about all of the points, sections and so on came to mind. It's to share the approach I have recognized and use, but I had to start somewhere to get it done. Biting off more than you can chew at first can easily kill a project. Facing that fact, I cut it back to what I knew I could do, rather than let the project die. Having done it, I'm focused on the next version and creating more content for it. That's one more success to add to creating the project site, positive content reviews and the interest in articles on the content.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Starting My Learning Initiative

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:53:00 +0000

It's been about a year and a half since I started this blog with the intent of helping my learning initiative ideas. Now, after a few attempts, I've started my giant umbrella project and it's first sub-project. The name of the umbrella project, which I've had since before starting this blog, is Legacy Of Lore (LOL :P), and the starting project is a booklet on the approach to learning and problem solving. Who doesn't learn and solve problems.

First off, the book project is specifically designed to help with further education initiatives. One example is the huge resource framework idea, because it should help people deal with resources better. Another idea is that if I am helping learners in person, having a short thing for them to read that helps them understand my approach, things should go better. That's actually how it would work with the current idea I submitted in a Statement of Intent to The Mind Trust. By helping students become better learners and problem solvers they should do better in general.

With that said, the book project is just the start of a whole list of ideas I want to get going. The resource/OER collection network and framework is just one of them. Another idea if for an after school club to give people an activity to practice the learning and problem solving approach with. A couple ideas are to help writers with their stories. However, the book is the first one I'm ready to seriously start using, so I'm starting with it.

I do have a hope to create a non-profit to handle these projects. Then the finances might be a little easier to handle. By that I mean tax exemption and deductible donations. The non-profit approach appeals to me in that it's not allowed to pay absurd amounts of money to anybody without a good reason, or get penalized, even the person in charge has to stick with reasonable pay and benefits. like that because the focus is on achieving the purpose of the non-profit, not making people rich. I also don't like the growth focus of stock holders influencing the directions of the company. Sometimes a company needs to settle, or even shrink, to really improve.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Why I Don't Clean House

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:36:00 +0000

If I meant my real house I'd be in trouble, but instead I mean this blog, one of my homes on the internet. There have been several times I've thought to myself that i should delete some posts, clean up some things and so on, but in truth I just fix some typos and such and move on. While I never was sure of the reason behind my lack of motivation, I may have today. It shows the path I have walked to get where I am. That's important in and of itself, and so, it shall be kept as it is, and has been, for all to see.

This came to me while reading other blog posts, that the history, the journey, is just as important for people to be aware of as the results. Knowing about the person, or people, behind something, how they get things done, and what their views are is just as important as the things they do in public.

People don't just up and do something big one day usually. So the history also has the value of showing how others might be able to pursue their dreams. It's been a few years since my educational initiative ideas came to mind, and by sharing the hardship and journey with others I might be able to inspire people to help and persevere. That would be worth the effort of blogging.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Picking One's Battles

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:42:00 +0000

When going through life their are some times when you have to makes sacrifices and concessions. Yesterday I made one, to be able to use a free piece of hardware. With it I can do a lot more, more easily. Without it I would have to do a lot more work. The catch was installing some software that I had no intention of EVER installing. I installed the software to be able to use the hardware, because it wasn't worth the battle to find another way.

To be honest, I've never been an Apple/Mac fan, not that I'm particularly fond of Microsoft either. It's just that I've seen Apple programs try to install other programs while updating, and I don't like the closed nature of their development stuff. This goes to the point that until yesterday, I've refused to install Quicktime onto my laptop. Then, my free iPod Nano 5G arrived in the mail.

With it I can record video clips. Those I can use to make compilation videos and add audio as I choose. Those can be used as internet content. Lots of potential for using the videos on blogs, for presentations and just doing silly stuff. All that because I was willing to install iTunes and Quicktime, which I didn't want to do.

If I had balked at that, I would have a piece of hardware that others want, that I couldn't use. Doing the videos would have been a little more of a pain using a digital camera, that isn't mine, putting together the digital videos so it doesn't seem like a boring slide show and covering all the content myself, rather than getting other people's voices into the videos.

Yesterday's Lesson: Choose your battles carefully.

This lesson is brought to you today because I was too busy with my new toy to even think of this post.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

A New Start

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:04:00 +0000

First, I've been sick for almost two weeks now and still working on this new start of my initiative. It's a cool little booklet I think will be really useful in helping people, and it will be freely available. Creativity, media literacy and play are big parts of the contents of the booklet, to help people in daily life. The other big thing I think I should mention is the description of learning cycles. I'm hoping this booklet will be helpful in applying for The Mind Trust Education Entrepreneur Fellowship.

I'm writing this little booklet, changing my initial focus in my initiative and still going for the same goals. Yep, that's about it for the moment. So, why am I posting this? Well, this is a blog that was started for the sake of the initiative and effort combining learning science and game design. That's not it though.

Or, at least I hope it's not all.

I like watching the Dog Whisperer, because it says that the problem behaviors of dogs are because of the behavior of humans, and proves it. There are several behaviors that just cause problems in life that become obvious while watching the show, but something else becomes obvious too. It's not enough to just hear, listen or intellectually understand ideas. Some of the people on the show are avid fans of the show and are failing in implementation, not memorization. Cesar Millan shows, corrects and encourages these people as they confront their fears and make mistakes.

One of the things noted in my house is that the dogs are behaving better, since I have been at home sick. Consistency, preventing escalation of unwanted behavior and encouraging wanted behaviors is all that has been different in their lives, because that's what I do that some of the others don't do as much. Yet, one of the big points that Cesar brings up constantly is the mental and emotional state of the human affecting the dogs. Staying calm through it all is important for the human and the dog the have a positive experience.

I think the basic guidelines and information on the booklet will help people stay calm more of the time. The reason is dealing with stressful situations and approaches to life. If you can approach life in a way that causes less stress, and have better ways of dealing with the stressful situations, life on the whole will be less stressful.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Gaming Beyond Boudaries

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:57:00 +0000

It's times like this that I am encouraged in my efforts with game design a learning science. Over at the Lost Garden, Dan wrote about a project to use gameplay to make Microsoft Office easier to understand and use. Another article I'm just reading now is one put out by the Defense Department of the US about the benefits of gaming on observation, creativity and handling new situations.

"I think we're at the beginning of a new science of learning," he [Ray Perez, a program officer at the ONR's warfighter performance department] said, "that will be the integration of neuroscience with developmental psychology, with cognitive science, and with artificial intelligence."

I've been going on about this for about a year and a half, while others have been talking about it for longer than that. Now it seems like some of the scientific proof is coming to prove what we've been saying all along, that game design can help educational design. Yet, this shouldn't discourage us little guys from putting our best out there for the world to see. Instead, it should encourage us that there are better times ahead.

We've known for a while that the US military has it's eyes on educational and training uses for video games. Besides the training simulators and similar games, there were the Army games made to share the experience with the public. I've also heard of combat video games being used to help experienced combatants re-integrate with civilian life. Yet this is even bigger than just the potential military uses. This is the military saying that their game-based training programs have had certain types of results.

It will be interesting to what happens this year.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Rethinking the Madness to My Method

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:50:00 +0000

Originally this blog was started due to my dedication to a learning and educational initiative project idea using communities, content and tools. I've posted several times about this idea in the past, and continue to try to get this dream to come true. However, some things have changed that have my changing my plans as to how to get this project going.

First is that I have a new resource coming my way, one of the new iPod Nanos that records video. I want to use this tool to create videos to put on the internet and leverage what I've learned about communication and making things interesting to other people for a project. That project is to include local artists, including students. I have some ideas for helping fellow artists improve their methods outside of art techniques. It's also a bit of a networking effort to possibly find local artists that would be willing to work with me on my goals. If nothing else I may be able to show them how including interesting materials into their art can improve the quality of their art.

Second is that I've realized that my focus on the technology is a hindrance to my efforts right now. With that in mind I'm going to focus more on getting something small going where I can create some good resources on creativity, critical thinking and more skills that some would say are not teachable. Of course, I plan on making those resources free and open, though I do have some monitization ideas for it. Yet, those effort would not change the accessibility of the materials. Instead, they would give me more to use to improve them. Maybe it will also include the "Downes Model" for some of it, though I have no idea how I might right now.

Anyways, the big thing is that by shifting my method, I can possibly get things rolling now and get somebody to help. With this I'm hoping that I might have a better chance at things like the Education Entrepreneur Fellowship run by The Mind Trust. I've entered twice and been unable to get past the first round of the selection process twice. If I'm doing and getting results, then I figure the odds go up that others will help.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Learnings Styles, or Skills?

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:22:00 +0000

I was just reading through the last week or so of OLDaily issues when this question came to mind, "Are learning styles really skills and/or literacies?" It's just that we have media literacies, critical thinking skills and memorization skills, so is it possible that learning styles are really a combination of skill and/or literacies? From my experience it makes sense to think of them this way.

I'd really like to get a response from Stephen Downes on this question, and that's why I'm actually making this post. With this way of looking at the concept of learning styles it makes sense that somebody could become a specialist in learning based on observation skills, literacies and more. Of course, what else there is in that is another thing I'd like to hear/read his opinion on. Perhaps comprehension, critical thinking and speed compatibility should be added to the list.

Personally, while I may have style preferences, I can learn pretty well in any of the traditional methods. However, this is something I've been working on specifically as skills for most of my life. As a more logic and thinking oriented person, I seek accurate information to work with. If the information is wrong, my conclusions are likely to be as well. Audio, visual and kinesthetic modes of learning all work pretty well, but they also have their own strengths and weaknesses.

While I would like to put my thoughts on the pros and cons of each mode into words, I find that the organization really doesn't fit with my thoughts and observations. Linguistics, both audio and visual, seems to be grouped together for their benefits in communication, but lake in robustness. The color, tone and other relative aspects of the language symbols used also have their place in this.

After looking some of this up, it appears to me that the above is in line with the Fleming's VARK model, based on the Wikipedia page for Learning Styles. Since I am trying to get the attention of Stephen Downes, it seems prudent to mention this, as otherwise he's likely to do so. Another note to make about this is that it is also the one that was shared with me in school as early as fourth grade, so there may be some influence there.

Having looked into the methods of creating video games for several kinds of physical disabilities, by working with a physically disabled artist and game designer, this seems closely tied to media literacies. For instance, surround sound and conditional noises together might be too much for somebody with sight to filter through in a game. However, that may be just fine for somebody who is blind and has to rely on their hearing far more than somebody with sight. In this way it seems like physical abilities mix with media comprehension type skills to allow a person to understand their surroundings, which could include content in media. Understanding this could help in all types of media and experience design as they are all forms of communication.

So, what do you think is needed to learn?

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Questions, Creativity and Critical Thinking

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:01:00 +0000

I was just reading a book, Wake Up Your Mind 101 Ways To Develop Creativeness by Alex Osborn in 1952. Besides being a wonderful book, that you can read online or download a couple ways from that link, it reminded me of something that has always bothered me, and then connected it to being a creative and critical thinker. It's asking questions, specifically children asking questions. What hit me was that if you tell a child to stop asking questions, you are telling them that being inquisitive is bad, and should be stopped. Then it also covered how the silliness of make-believe and pretending is the same in exercising our creative and critical thinking capacities. A child told to stop asking questions and stop playing around is then like a child not allowed to physically play or exercise.

Part of the reason this really hit me is how often people get irritated with children asking questions and how often I'm thanked for patiently fielding such onslaughts. A bright, intelligent, creative mind is a beautiful thing to watch in motion, so I normally enjoy these Q&A sessions with little children. There are exceptions, mostly due to the child trying to be annoying or irritating, but that is rare I've found.

A child asking a question is asking to be taught, to be guided, yet this action is commonly condemned until the child is deemed ready for such activities. At that point the child has learned that their acceptable role is to not ask questions, accept what they are told and to not think critically for themselves. Then they(we) are punished for not being creative and thinking critically sometimes, and at other times being punished for being creative and thinking critically. I can't help but think of a line from the movie Ever After, "If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"

The innate motivation of playing games is one of the big reasons people are looking into the potential of games for learning and education. Asking questions is like playing games when it comes to motivation. The insatiable curiosity of children and their questions should be enough evidence of that.

I'm not the biggest fan of "growing up", and never really have been. See, children play and adults work. Let me rephrase that, a dolt works, or is made a dolt by the work mentality. Playing is not always fun, but it is far more enjoyable than work. Enjoying what you do, having fun with it and playing with it takes more thought. A dolt doesn't play, because even games become work for them. Playing around doesn't mean you can't be responsible, respectful and reliable. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", and both dull and dolt refer to those who are not intellectually inspiring.

Now, that may be a little biased, as I am something of a gamer. However it seems to me that the more playful a person is, the more creative and critical thinking they do. The less playful they are, the less they do such thinking.

This seems to be what has happened in education. Students are expected to work, and thus take a work mentality to the whole matter, usually. This fits the pattern of just trying to do well on tests, or in grades. The lack of enthusiasm, motivation and extra effort can be seen in work mentality work environments. This gets at the heart of what a game is, at least to me

"creative companies do often have think symbols in the work place that remind us, remind people, to be playful and that it is a permissive environment" & "we think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions, helps us do our jobs better and helps us feel better when we do them" - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html

Perhaps game design lessons can help education bring back the curiosity and questions that come with a play mentality.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

National Standardized Testing to Communism

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:17:00 +0000

So I was reading OLDaily and came across a blog post called Debunking the Case for National Standards. The parallel that came to mind was from my social studies classes, Communism. Both treat everybody the same, treat people like cogs in a machine and treat alternatives like public enemies. While not an alarmist, that is what came to mind about the idea and effects of a Nationalized, Standardized Testing system.

These three things are just thoughts to keep in mind.

Equal and Same, are not the Same

Variety is the spice of life, supposedly, and is evident in many aspects of life. One of those is teamwork. If a writer and an artist work together they can create a better comic book than two artists or two writers. Even assuming equal talent, two writers do not use the same skills in the same ways. That goes for artists, programmers, mathematicians and scientists. Equal is based on value, while the other is based on similarity.

Now, let's try jobs, where the same pattern is also in evidence. Two jobs, say writer and editor, may be equal, even though they are not the same. Two Editors, while equal in ability, may not be the same in skills or use of those skills.

Equal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal
"like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc."

Same: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/same
"identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned"

Another aspect of this is that the differences in people can cause the value to be seen only via different methods or angles. It's not that a single test can't do the job, but rather that it would have to be adaptive and relative in it's multi-faceted scoring. Then the results have to be framed as the results of a dedicated effort to measure and be measured. That kind of result is then limited in usefulness, as there are people who do worse in artificial situations than in real situations, and the other way around.

Cogs don't Think Critically

A cog in a machine is supposed to do it's one job, and nothing else. It's another cog's job to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. It's another cog's job to suggest a solution. As a cog who is not designated to do either of those things, doing them takes away from the current job, whatever that may be. As a student in a test score oriented education system, the job is to do well on tests, not learn.

Please don't get me wrong. Effort and being rewarded for that is good, as is being able to focus, but this is going overboard. Takes Japan's education system for example. There are some aspects I really, truly love about it, and others I detest. A student is expected to be a student, supported as a student and their teachers are respected for their roles in the lives of the students. However, you have to test into even your junior high and high schools. Being segregated (Remember that word from American history?) by your test scores is not something I like about the system. There are after-school schools specifically for test-prep, nothing else. There's a special name for the university entrance exams, "Exam Hell".

Students are humans, not cogs. There are generally two types of motivation in life, survival and desire. Survival is an externally triggered motivation, while desire is internally motivated. In a test driven education system, the student is trying to survive the experience with their goals intact. They don't study because they desire to learn, but rather to survive the tests. Depending on survival motivation can lead to a culture of fear.

No Alternatives means No Freedom, or Innovation

Innovation needs some pressure most of the time, but there should also be hope mixed in. If there is no hope, there is little motivation, except being cornered, to innovate. Since there is an upper limit to all our system designs, it makes sense that the designs will need to be redone eventually. That usually comes from innovation.

So long as there is a way to do-it-yourself, there is the freedom to innovate. This is both inside and outside the system. If a teacher is not allowed to alter the curriculum for the benefit of their class, they lack the freedom needed to do their job well, let alone implement something new. If a student has only one way to get recognized for their skills and knowledge (two different things), they are stuck.

Now this brings up the problem of technically functional solutions, emphasis on "technically". See, if you can test out of course, but it costs the same as normally taking the course, why would you risk taking the test instead of just taking the course? I just see when the test is better than the course for you. That doesn't seem like most people, so it seems that while the option is technically available, it isn't really helpful. If you have to do well on a test, but the test doesn't reflect your true capabilities in a real life application of the curriculum, you're stuck hoping for an alternative or aiming for the test. The test technically is measuring your abilities, just not in a helpful way. This is just the start of the problem.

When there are no options, humans will eventually make an option, or endure. If it's bad enough to warrant making another option, but there is a technically functional solution in place, there is a problem. Some will point at the solution they think works and say there isn't a need. Some will say that the effort should go through the solution that is already available. Some will say that you are being selfish and rebellious for not being willing to work within the system. These take the steam out of innovative efforts just as much as having many secret supporters and nobody to back you in public. Sometimes having no alternatives is disguised so it looks like there are alternatives, and more in the works, with nothing that will help and some that will harm.

Like I said, I'm not an alarmist, but this does seem like something to keep in mind. History tells us that humans don't do well when treated like nameless, faceless numbers in the system. They don't think critically or creatively, for the most part, under those conditions. To me, this seems to indicate that we should allow for some, I repeat, SOME, individuality in how students are treated, what they learn and how they get things done. I'm neither a robot, nor a clone, nor somebody who wishes to cause chaos, so why should I, as a student, be treated like that? Like I said, it's just something to think on, and remember.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Education, Star Trek Style

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:08:00 +0000

Yesterday I saw the new Star Trek movie, and besides enjoying the movie I was inspired to think about a test scene, and why it was lacking. While I won't give away the good parts, there are a couple points to make note of in the earlier plot. First, James T. Kirk passes a supposedly unpassable test. Second, Spock and Kirk have a debate about the whole situation. That's what got me thinking about the test, and how I would have redesigned it to be more effective.

A while back I made a post, "Edupunk, Star Trek Style". It included a funny little scene that popped into my head that seemed to sum up a fair bit of the Edupunk concept. In much the same way an idea popped into my head and I see parallels that I want to share. Okay, so last time I wanted to share the funny little scene, but that's not important.

The test set-up looked to be a star ship bridge simulator running a scenario designed to make people face their fears. However, such a test seems ineffective to me, considering the goal. Here's why, nobody ever beat the simulation, so few ever expect to "win", and there results of such a "loss" were negligible in every way. It wasn't about winning or losing; it was about how you performed during the test. However, if the people taking the test do not live in the fake reality for that time, they are not going to behave the same as they would in real life, and would have the same fears to face. See the problem?

So, I got to thinking about the problem, and tried to come up with a different design that would work. After some thought, a couple changes came to mind. First, make the loss more significant. This is because without significance, the loss means little to those taking the test and thus has less effect on their behaviors. Second is to make the situation more real in general to the test taker. The fake bridge sounds good, but if it doesn't get dirty, explode and support the simulated experience it will be a constant reminder that the whole thing is staged, pretend.

How to make the loss more meaningful and the experience more real then became my goal. Without the chance to win, you will always lose, and that makes losing normal, average and expected. If there is a chance to win, you may not lose. While that doesn't make losing less normal all by itself, it does give an opportunity to make it less normal. That's why it seemed like doing the same type of task on a regular basis to reflect the rolls the star fleet cadets are training for would be best. Most of the time they won't be doing anything too complicated or difficult. That means success becomes a regular situation, assuming the participants can perform at the required difficulty level. Then when the crazy tasks come out of the blue, like in real life, they are taken by surprise. That makes situation more realistic and a loss more meaningful, because if you "killed" your crew in the simulation, you probably would have got them killed in real life.

The general idea seems transferable to non-Star Fleet training to me. It is just applying a few general patterns to the "test" to make the "test" more effective. Last time I checked there are still lots of tests in school and education, so maybe applying these patterns to testing in schools would make them more effective too.

1) Real Application
If I'm using the same skills being taught, but with meaning, purpose and a connection to real life, I'm more likely to care about my performance. This is because I can see how my performance in the now reflects my chances in "real life". So, it makes sense to make the application of skills be real life applications instead of memorization verification questions.

2) Regular Application
If it is realistic, there are likely to be few killer problems to face, but there will be plenty to do. This is your practice for mastery, and a chance for exploration of possibilities. This also sets up a reliable, consistent aspect that can be depended on.

3) Random Application
If everything is standardized in obvious ways, the entire process becomes sterile and clean. The value of testing somebody in a non-realistic way is little. The value of repeated, predictable homework is little. Without variety, the mind doesn't engage as much. That means there is less thought, less critical thought.

4) Relevant Application
If it means nothing to me, why should I care? If it's all for the grade, why should I care about anything else? In the Star Trek concept, it was easy, because the people are being trained for positions in a military organization. In our schools, we have more possibilities to contend with. Instead of the old approach of just learning what you are going to be using at work, I think we should be exploring and learning a wide variety of possibilities.

That last one points to a part of the problem of self-discovery, as does the second. It also reminds me of a quote. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein If we keep looking over the same information, keep reliving the same experiences, how are we to find out anything new, when we haven't the last 40 times? If there are several ways to approach a math problem, and you try them, you can find out which makes the most sense to you and what they work best for. You can learn the reliable behaviors. The same can be applied to the way people learn. In one math class I found that doing the homework normally didn't work well for me, so I talked with the teacher to adjust the method to better fit me. In the end it worked out well. As a side note, that quote fits perfectly with the scientific method It seems we could use more of this in the schools.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Voluntary Learning

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:53:00 +0000

Continuing in the vein of thought from my, "What is a Game?" post, it's been going through my head about the play aspect of games when it comes to education.

"if its purpose is more important than the act doing it, it probably isn't play" - http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html

Just today I came across an essay at the Lost Garden that says games should grant the freedom to leave and the freedom to participate. With that being the case we have to look more at motivation and keeping people involved. It also seems to mean that games for serious learning goals need to be a part of personal, unofficial learning, rather than an official part of education.

People have been talking about the motivation that is a natural part of games, but that is mostly for those who choose to play them repeatedly. Your standard game is like most of today's toys and tools; single purpose. This means that they are made to do one thing, and if that one thing doesn't interest you, the game won't interest you.

Now, with that line of logic is makes sense to aim for multiple purposes. However, with multiple purposes you sacrifice some of your time and effort from your main purpose to devote to the other purposes. So, those only interested in one thing will go buy the single purpose games they're interested in, and have been trained to look for.

At this point it may look a little bleak, but there is hope. For instance, learning just about anything can be improved when you use high quality teaching methods, but what are they? Sure, a person needs the info to do things, but memorizing facts is not going to make a person proficient in a skill. Yet, it seems really hard to properly quantify a quality. That's where games can come in, as pleasant practice.

If you ask a student today whether they would rather do pages of math & science problems or play a good game that includes that helps just as much, there may be a chance for multi-purpose games. See, up till now they normally aim at competing with for fun games when they are made for more than fun. That is likely the wrong demographic. Aiming for those who want to learn more with less time, effort and pain could do a lot more, if you get the learning methods of good game design to apply to the topic.

Of course, if you ask those same students if they would rather play an enjoyable game that could replace their reading and practice homework, I'd guess you'd have a higher percentage wanting to play the game. Textbooks are one of the aspects of schooling that really don't hold the interest of most students, and reading doesn't have a statistically high retention rate compared to reading and immediately using. This is how the games should be framed for the students, as either an alternative to the normal methods, or as extracurricular activities.

Personally, I'd love to have been able to play a game and get extra credit, or replace assignments with gameplay. Some assignments really don't work so well for this, but repetitive work like math problems, science questions and so on are perfect for game alternatives. Part of this is that you are giving the work a direct, related value for being done.

Another aspect of this is that it can answer the real live usage question and cover some cross-topic aspects of learning. By having the problems wrapped in a relevant setting with realistic results, such as a business accountant for a small business doing different levels of difficulty of math, people can understand the connection to money matters, running a business and some economics in a single game, or game series.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Work Ethic and Play

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:44:00 +0000

It may seem like a strange combination, but this whole concept is based off of the quote, "if its purpose is more important than the act doing it, it probably isn't play" ( http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html ). The idea is that if the quote is true, which I think it generally is, then work ethic is key to making more of life possible play situations. Why, because work ethic is caring for how well you do the work.

If asked about the purpose of work, many would say that it's to get paid, to pay the bills or both. Those focused on the long term goal loose track of the short term goal of getting the job done, but even focusing on the short term goal isn't enough for this relationship. See, it's still about the purpose, not the doing.

As much as this may irritate people, life isn't linear. Working towards a single goal, long term or short term, can cause problems. How? Let's say you make bagels. (Why bagels, because that's what came to mind first.) In making bagels there are several processes that happen in the kitchen, several business and selling processes as well. Now, if your focus is to do well financially, you will likely start valuing money more than product quality, employees and so on. Putting bagels on tables becomes more important than the bagels on the tables.

This is where the work ethic concept comes into play. If you care more about the doing than the purpose, the bagels rather than making money, you are more satisfied with the customer reactions and being able to continue doing the job, even when things get tight. The money and the quality of the effort are indirectly connected to the pay received to a person with high work ethic. The pay, the goal, the purpose is less important to them than the act of doing it, and doing it well.

It reminds me of the work places where people do what they love. They joke with each other and with the customers. So long as they can continue doing the job, they are happy to continue. How could this help you have a happier work experience?

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

What is a Game?

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:45:00 +0000

This is a question that has given rise to thousands of hours of thought, discourse and more. Today I'll add my views to the many out there, and maybe it will add something of value to the ongoing discussions.

So, what is a game?

What defines a game?

What are the defining traits of a game?

...

Gameplay.

So, what is "gameplay"?

"Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does". Arising alongside game development in the 1980s, gameplay was used solely within the context of video or computer games, though now its popularity has begun to see use in the description of other, more traditional, game forms. Generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like challenges and movement. The term game mechanics refers to sets of rules in a game that are intended to produce an enjoyable gaming experience." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay

Alright, playing with a game = gameplay. That just brings up more questions. What are game mechanics, play and what's the deference between a toy and a game?

A game mechanic is easy. "A game mechanics is a construct of rules intended to produce an enjoyable game or gameplay." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanic

Let's try play. I've done a bit of looking into the subject and found that it's covered pretty well in some TED talks and blog posts. In the end it seems to be a different way of approaching a situation, with the possible opposite being "work". That doesn't seem to be very helpful either, as anything can then be play or work.

"if its purpose is more important than the act doing it, it probably isn't play" - http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html

"creative companies do often have think symbols in the work place that remind us, remind people, to be playful and that it is a permissive environment" & "we think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions, helps us do our jobs better and helps us feel better when we do them" & "Kids are more engaged with open possibilities. Now, they'll certainly, when they come across something new, they'll certainly ask, 'what is it?'. Of course they will, but they'll also ask, 'what can I do with it?'" - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html

"What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original." - http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

"it is obvious to me that there are a plethora of skills that are just waiting to be turned into games" - http://lostgarden.com/2008/06/what-actitivies-that-can-be-turned-into.html

So, that leaves us with the difference between a toy and a game. You play a game and play with a toy. A game is an activity, while a toy is a thing used in an activity. Activities have rules. Some, such as most game mechanics, are built into the functions of a toy used to play the game. Others are agreed on and enforced by those playing the game. So, to play the game is to be playing in accordance to the rules that govern the gameplay.

I am left with a semi-vague, but far more useful definition than I've come across so far. A game is an activity with an agreed upon set of rules, that participating individuals act in accordance to, while in a state of play. More over, I find there is significant opportunity to improve the world through learning science and game design lessons being implemented in games and learning environments.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Valuenomics

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000

Yes, it is another something-"nomics" word, but I think the ideas I'm about to post should have a lot of value to just about everybody who wants to have sustainable growth in value.

In traditional economics it is said that the price to sell at is where the supply and demand lines cross. This means that the price and number of things match for both the buyer and seller. I'm not so sure about this, and haven't been since going over it in a college microeconomics class. Something just seems off to me.

That where I come to the growth aspect of my thoughts. Sure, meeting the demand of the consumers and making money is good, but it all is too abstract to be applied too strictly. Also, it's way too narrow for my tastes. Instead, look at the value of the thing to be sold from both the buyer and seller's points of view.

If the buyer values the thing more than the seller, we have the setting for a win-win situation. Sell someplace in the middle and everybody gains. The seller is getting more than they need to continue, and the buyer is getting a bargain. Both have their limits for the deal. This is the best situation.

If they value the thing equally, there is still value to be gained. In a situation like this the value comes from being able to continue doing what you need/want to do. Workers need to eat, and farmers need workers, so they find a suitable arrangement of equal value and continue to live comfortably. This is what traditional economics says to aim for.

Obviously, if there is no value on the thing that both are willing to agree on, then there is no deal. So, let's get back to the two situations described above.

Let's compare the situations of equal and unequal, but overlapping. Farmer 1 and farmer 2 both sell apples for $5 per unit, however much that is. Farmer 1 values the unit at $5 and so do his customers. Everybody gets the items at what they value them. Farmer 2 values his apples at $4, and his customers value them at $6, meaning they all get more value return than what they gave. Get what you give and get more than what you give, not much of a comparison.

Being this is posted on a blog about game design and learning science, you might be wondering why I'm posting about economics. After all, this isn't a blog on money. However, this is a blog that covers motivation, which is where topic is heading.

See, the buyer and seller are motivated to make a deal. However, greed and "business" have pushed this to the point that the markets are in bad shape. Business to a craftsman is to sell enough at a high enough price that he can continue living, working and providing any dependents. Business to a businessman is a craft. That's fine, because the craftsman works to work some more. The money isn't important compared to the craft. However those who do a craft, rather than being a craftsman may be doing it merely as a way to make money.

Those non-craftsmen walk a dangerous path, because they seek money. That's their focus. When you seek money, it can become more important than the craft. The things money can bring can become more important than the one's duties as a craftsman. Gaining can become more important than giving.

One person is not very effective at gaining value, but can be extremely effective at giving it. Remember the situation mentioned above with both sides gaining rather than making an exchange? It's the same thing. In a video game, one might have put out 100 points of effort value and gained 15 to 20 points of currency value. Or, one could have gained 7 - 10 in currency value and 20 - 50 in reputation and other forms of value by putting half into helping others. Being helped can then increase the value gained with and without effort on your part. This is in part how social marketing works, by the assistance of others.

In an educational setting we can apply the same situation rules with levels of buy in. The student who highly values the offered education will put in more effort than those who do not. How they assign value to the offered education is not within the scope of this post, but the implications are. There is more to this than just valuing the education, because of the value of the grade.

Here we get into multiple values for the same thing. This becomes very complex ,very quickly. Reality does that. For both the education and the grade there is value, effort and return. So a student who doesn't value the education, but does value the grade, will just do what they think will help them get the grade. Another student may not value the grade, but value the education, and thus focus on learning, not passing the class. Then there are those who value them about the same and go for both equally. On top of that, there are different levels of return on the effort applied. Merely applying oneself isn't enough. It has to be applied in the right ways.

Though I wonder about some parts of this. See, if we teach people the value of work by extrinsic motivators like our work being valued by others we then try to do things that others value giving them control over what we do.

...

If we teach it though enjoying what you do people then try to find things they like to do, without necessarily giving activities that aren't immediately, and always, fun a chance.

...

If we try to go the middle road we then have to leave it up to the people to choose which out of the three options they will take.

In the end this third option seems like the best route to me. With roll models taking the working for stability and to be able to work some more route, we have social proof of the craftsman life. Interdisciplinary teams working on projects in learning environments could then work as testing grounds. Through such experiences and educating them on the value of working together, and not just for yourself, there might be some hope.

Now I guess the questions are "what do we need to share with people" and "how do we create interdisciplinary projects for them?"

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Pride Inhibits Learning

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:40:00 +0000

One must yield to learn. In another post I have partially done I'm likely to touch on this, but this is a good point on it's own. One must yield to the reality of the situation, to whatever and/or whoever is teaching, to accept one's own limitations to surpass them. In essence, to learn, one must be willing to say I can't do it, yet.

Another way to put is, if you're right, you're not wrong. Simple, but profound when applied to ones approach to life. I assume that as a finite being with finite understanding that part of everything I do is wrong. This means that there is always room to improve.

In first grade I new a kid who said he knew everything. He sat in a corner working at the only computer in the room. His math book was huge and I don't doubt that he knew more complex math than I did at the time. That's not to say I wouldn't have been able to understand it. You see, after boasting that he knew everything I asked him why he was there. That confused him. So, I explained that obviously a person who knows everything has no reason to be in school learning anything, as they already know everything. He wasn't pleased with me.

In that situation he yields to the teacher, but was not willing to yield to other students. He assumed the teachers knew more than him and that the other students couldn't measure up. Thus, anything on school subjects had to come from a teacher, not another student. When this belief was confronted in some way, he got mad, rather than concede the point, yield. Later he may have yielded to the reality of the situation, but not to the student who pointed it out.

That may not be the best example, but if you think back on how you were thinking when you made progress learning you should see the pattern. There is overcoming an obstacle in which you yield to the problem and the reality of the situation that how you were doing things was in some way lacking, motivating you to try harder, or try something new. There is also yielding to an instructor or adviser who you think might have something useful to say. If you won't listen, their words aren't as effective.

Sometimes there will be improvement in spite of unyielding pride. That's why the title says pride "inhibits" learning, because that's what it does. Belief in yourself can bolster you hope, and thus your motivation and effort. Refusal to stop trying and putting out effort to improve is dedication. Both are confused as part of pride, since they come in groups sometimes. However, pride says, "I'm better than you/them." This means not accepting help, guidance, advice or reminders. This means you are more likely to make mistakes. Learning from your own mistakes is good, but learning the mistakes of others is better. However if you are prideful you might refuse to implement something because somebody told you to do it.

All in all it is better to be humble and value the work above your pride. That's what I've found.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Acceptance and Tolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:12:00 +0000

I would like to share with everybody a comparison of the terms "accept" and "tolerate". It has come up in a game design discussion on Twitter that certain words, acceptance and tolerance, are generally misunderstood, or used, when it comes to the behaviors of others. This started with a tweet saying that somebody had asked their class if they would play a game with a homosexual male hero rather than a heterosexual male hero, and that nobody said they would. Immediately after that came a tweet that called such people "pathetic" for not wanting to play a game with that content as though they were condemning others for their choices by not being willing to act out those choices in a game. Acceptance gets thrown around in these situations, but accepting an idea for yourself isn't the same as accepting the views of another. The latter is tolerance if you don't agree.

So, let's start off with some definitions to give a common ground.

Accept Definition | Definition of Accept at Dictionary.com

"ac⋅cept
–verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.
6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.
7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.
8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.
9. to receive as to meaning; understand.
10. Commerce. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.
11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action: The report of the committee was accepted.
12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.): This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.
13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction. Compare reject (def. 7).
–verb (used without object)
14. to accept an invitation, gift, position, etc. (sometimes fol. by of)."

If you look, most of that is using the word as positive affirmation of some sort, agreeing with the views stated. However, the big difference between accept like that and accepting the views or choices of another is in what you are saying is true, right, okay and so on. If accept that the sky is blue, that means I now think the sky is blue. If I accept that you think the sky is green with brown spots, that means I now think you think the sky is green with browns spots. It does not mean I agree that the sky is green with brown spots. Why is this important? Well, to say they mean the same is to say that "yes" is the same as "no", which obviously makes it inaccurate in normal uses.

Tolerate Definition | Definition of Tolerate at Dictionary.com

"tol⋅er⋅ate
–verb (used with object), -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.
3. Medicine/Medical. to endure or resist the action of (a drug, poison, etc.).
4. Obsolete. to experience, undergo, or sustain, as pain or hardship."

So, to tolerate does not mean to agree with or to help, but rather not to take action deliberately against whatever is being tolerated. It's like patriotism. Being a patriot doesn't mean you are against the other groups, but rather that you are for your own group. Put that into views and opinions and you get tolerance of other views and opinions. As an American this hits close to home, as one of the big topics of American history is tolerance of religious, social and other beliefs that don't take away the rights of others. In essence, tolerance means taking a neutral stance of taking no specific effort to help or hinder with no mention of your own beliefs, though the assumed would be that you disagree.

So, the discussion and those words apply to both education and game design via human interaction. Let's look at the conversation as it happened.

Person A: Asked my class if they'd play a game in which a male hero saves a male love interest rather than a female one. No one said yes.

Person B: realy? there are people that pathetic still around these days? depressing

Myself: A lack of interest in playing a particular style of game design or story doesn't make one "pathetic".

Person C: Not particular style, supposedly in modern culture we should be able to accept the difference with a blink of the eye

Another person joined the discussion, while persons A and B did not join the discourse that arose out of their comments. Two ideas seemed hard to get through in it, that one's choice in games to play doesn't necessarily mean anything more than personal preference of games to play and that one can "accept the difference" without agreeing. To the credit of Person C, who with myself did most of the discussing, they considered the ideas rather than just dismissing them. Plenty of people get into the polarized debate mentality which segregates people into allies and enemies. Many people take it a step farther and assume the if you agree with them you are right and if you disagree you are close minded, wrong and possibly stupid. It only gets worse with sensitive topics. That's why I said that it was to the credit of Person C that they didn't close their mind to the possibilities.

Besides the obvious uses in a classroom and game to shape the experience, their is another possibility to use this to help people think in a more open minded and humane way. Each individual has at least one motivation for any particular action. To dismiss that thought, reasoning and views behind another's actions is to think of the person as sub-human. In learning about the views and reasons behind the actions of others, one can come to terms with the idea of tolerating, because that is agreeing to disagree. Doing that requires acceptance of the other person's humanity, intelligence and worth as a human; unless you are thinking of the person as a thing.

That's easily understood as being applied to the "audience", students or players. In the classroom some students need help to understand what comes easily to others, be that extra time from the teacher or something to overcome a disability. The same goes for players. I've worked on a User Interface with Rob Florio and had classes with a person who in high school and college who was barely able to hear and speak. I've also done tutoring since middle school, so my personal view is that everybody has both strengths and weaknesses, but some are more obvious than others. Each person is a human, and individual, with emotions, beliefs, thoughts, reasoning, dreams and motivation.

However, that is the application that shapes the experience while the other application is putting people into situations that challenge how we view life. A great example are the stories where it seems that one of the villains is cruel and ruthless beyond redemption till it becomes known that the person has been having ethical dilemmas the whole way and was misinformed. Would you have been wrong in their shoes? This can also be seen in the stories where you gain understanding as to why the overly-strict teacher, or supervisor, is so strict. Maybe they have their own problems that have mentally and emotionally scarred them. It's also possible they are handling way more than you know or they can easily handle. Maybe they were right to be that strict. History for instance isn't just a bunch of facts and dates, it's the stories of every individual interwoven into a single tapestry. Those who find history most interesting seem to be interested in either the things of the time period or the people.

The two applications have a real effect on our daily lives. Those who do not consider the views of others limit themselves. What would happen if a popular socialite and a tech savvy nerd/geek were to work together and help each other? The one is better with people while the other is better with technology. Those two could easily be the ones behind some awesome events as the tech and social engineering aspects of the events are both taken care of, repeatedly. That's just the start.

When dealing with conflicts, remembering to tolerate people having bad days, misunderstandings and so on will do wonders for you. As a person used to internet forums, I've had discussions that were arguments to the other person, or where they were just having a bad day and I was the final straw. One of my favorite sayings is, "life happens" and the reason is that bad days will come. We should be willing to assume the person was pushed to, and beyond, their limit.

I've been told repeatedly that life is not black and white. Patience, consideration and benefit of the doubt are good things to me, "white" if you will. Jumping to conclusions, not listening and reacting without care are not good things to me, "black" if you will. Together these pieces make a mural of varying shades of gray. There is selfishness in every action we make and some good in them too. The reason is that no person is wholly one or the other. This is part of humanity that we need to remember if we are to be tolerant, and to truly understand tolerance. It's also easily forgotten.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Tools, Tune-ups and Testing

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:11:00 +0000

As typical for an INTJ, I like to make my processes more efficient. To be honest, I'll redesign the process before working on the project. Why, because the process affects the project. The less time focused on the tools and process problems means less wasted time and more focus on the project goals. This is true for both education and games.

Most of today I've been going over the possibility of making Fire Fox act like Flock. There is a lot I like about Flock, but some things I miss about Fire Fox. So, I looked at my tools, started doing some tune-up work and now am testing some of that work. For this post I am using Scribefire like I used Flock to post Social Gaming and Learning. Honestly, I like Scribefire more than Flock's blogging tool, though neither seems to have a way to create and save blog post templates. However, Scribefire has a "notes" feature that could be used to save the template.

Anyways, the point is that wonderful tools in a general sense can be horrible tools in the personal sense. I've blogged about Iteration and Prototyping, and linked to articles that touch on using the right tools. Well, this post is specifically aimed at using the right tools.

While looking for add-ons to Fire Fox I installed and uninstalled some multiple times. The initial settings are always something to look at when picking up a new tool, or add-on in this case. What I found was that some of the add-ons were not well suited to me without customizing the settings. One color codes the tabs, but starts out as just randomly coloring, rather than site based color coding. A little customizing and I now have URL based color coded tabs. That customizing process is akin to an initial tune-up, but that doesn't mean it will always be working great for you. That's when more tune-ups can help. Organization systems are prone to this. In programming there is even a name for it, refactoring. Tools also have this problem, as they commonly have settings and options to customize them to you. Thus, as you change over time, the settings may need to change to better fit you.

The way to figure out when, and what kind of, tune-ups are needed is testing. That's what I'm doing with this post, to test the the new tool I've installed. At this point it seems to be doing fairly well, and like I said, I like it more than the blogging tool in Flock. I'm a little curious about what will happen when I try to publish this, but till I try I won't know. My guess is that it will work, since the preview function said it published, and deleted, a version of this post to set up the preview function for this blog. If it does work, I think I'll pester some people like Jim Groom, Stephen Downes and others working with interesting tools for educational blogging, as Scribefire would work well for research paper type blog posts. This may become a favorite tool of mine for just that kind of posting.

Some of you might notice how this parallels iterative design practices. Seems to me that it's an iterative process refining your tools, their uses and their settings. That's just fine for me. I like experimenting with ideas that might improve how I do things, though one should be careful of volatile situations, for obvious reasons.

After all that, yes I know it's not much, I will point out one of the most important parts of dealing with your tools; take the time to give them tests and tune-ups. It seems obvious now, but when you are done with a project, or starting one, you should take some time for this. After a project is done you should have information from the project, and hopefully more coming in as user feedback, to work with. At the start of a project you should make sure your tools will be able to do the basics of what you want, and should be easy enough to create a mock-up with. If you can find somebody who knows what they are doing, and are willing to help, it would likely help your project to have them advise you on how to improve your process. Sometimes it is a little change, with no math based proof, that will improve team moral and the quality of the project.

One aspect that shouldn't be overlooked is user participation in the process. User feedback is better than technician, designer and developer feedback. Having real users try your project results will give you the most relevant testing results. They may not be very clear, but they will be relevant. This is especially important in the game and education fields, as user perceptions and results are the main focus.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

The Candle Problem Of Pen And Paper

noreply@blogger.com (Steven Egan) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:20:00 +0000

Levels and experience are possibly one of the worst things for creative play. If you haven't watched the TED Talk by Dan Pink on motivation, you should, or this post will not make as much sense.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

For a while now I have been playing with some concepts for tabletop game designs for play and to help writers. This was inspired by the help of random content generators. If random content could help with the blank canvas problem, maybe there was more that could be done. The content generators weren't up to the idea I had as is, but a flexible framework for exploring possibilities based on die rolls, now that had possibilities to me. So, I started looking into the changes needed to create a tabletop role-playing game for writers.

I mention this because there are times where I had to completely redesign the basic direction of the systems. This was centered on motivators without the intention. As I watched the TED Talk for the second time I realized the connection between my design efforts and the results of the Candle Problem. Motivation was a part of it, but I had yet to see the scope of it.

To pull this together, let's look at the reason I dropped levels, experience and "balance". Levels and balance are like the box and holding the tacks. Experience points are the rewards that push functional fixedness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness ). Most of the skills, feats, abilities and other things are combat rules. That means the presented function is combat. The rewards come from combat for the most part in most games with levels. So, to encourage a more varied type of gameplay, levels, experience and such were dropped for a more realistic modeling style. You want it, build it. Sometimes there is a master and an apprentice working together, which might throw off the balance. The result is the stereo-typical D&D/d20 style games has a group of similar level, mostly same level, characters as a group that focus on fights.

Don't get me wrong here. I like a good fight in a game, but that style of fight is only sometimes good. Since I like to play odd characters, like a defensive swordsman/diplomat/medic, I've come across the limitation of most well known systems. What did he do in a fight? Attack, defend, move? He was careful and used his brain. This kind of character pushes for a more interesting and creative experience. He doesn't blindly walk into the traps, enrage NPCs without forethought and so on. Such characters are also a PAIN to create using standard rules, unless they are specialists or stereo-tpes. That particular example actually require GM approved alteration and almost excessive use of house rules to create. Simply put, they don't fit well with the levels and balance of the game.

While it is entirely possible to create an amazing, interesting and deep gameplay with the combat focused rules, that doesn't mean the system encourages that kind of play. The different systems each have their own flavor. Some are amazingly versatile and some are niche games. So, how you present the system, how the system works, what's defined by the system and so on affect how the players and GMs deal with your game. It's just like the two versions of the Candle Problem shown in the TED Talk. When all the pieces are laid out and it's a very mechanical problem, incentives and rewards work well, but when the cognitive and creative aspects are the more important the incentives are likely to be a hindrance.

System Does Matter: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
Deliberation and Intuition: http://socialbrain.rsablogs.org.uk/tag/candle-problem/

There is a type of tabletop games, sometimes called story games, where the focus in on the interactions of the play with combat merely being another form of interaction. Fudge, FATE, PDQ, Travellers and probably HERO are such games. FATE has "aspects" of the character that have both positive and negative effect throughout gameplay, and are the main way to earn FATE points. Those points are used to do really cool stuff in the game. PDQ has "upshifts" which boils down to a roll bonus for "graphic, flavorful, and entertaining" description of an action. Both can be used in and out of combat. HERO actually covers contacts as a part of the system. Thus, the gameplay adapts to the individual game, and encourages immersion.

The other part is that the players play the way they do for the love of the game, story and characters more than anything else. Sure, some of the specifics may be due to the rules, but they normally don't get in the way of story so much as tweak it. Maybe your character costs too much for the HERO game, or the "aspects" don't quite work out for the FATE game, but those normally aren't horrible problems as much as changing a couple things. Perhaps your character just needs to be younger or less trained to fit. None of these are giant problems or fixes. Besides a character "fitting" the game, there is just taking the game through its natural course. Sometimes it's fighting, sometimes it's dialogue and sometimes it's something else entirely. Since there isn't a "fight to get experience" style to the games, the players are looking for fights when they want to get into fights. If they want their character to progress, this style gives fewer restrictions and rewards creativity.

This difference may not seem like much, but let's consider the way a person might attack another person in a fight. The combat oriented way a person moves into range and says they are attacking with a certain weapon, or other means of attack. The attack resolves and the game continues. It's not till you get creative that it becomes a lot of fun. Somebody using telekinesis to counter a rocket with say, a rock, now that's interesting. A medic who is trained in close quarters combat using the tools of their trade to face the opposition, that's interesting. Then there is the combat that is generated when combat isn't all about attacking the enemy directly. Hand to hand combat that goes beyond simple rule usage because you are trained in a particular fighting style adds flavor and alters the results.

Another thing is that if you really want experience points, it should be a reward for what you want to encourage in a way that makes sense. Say an archer is facing a dragon, with the aid of his/her party. The archer shoots a single explosive arrow into the dragon's mouth and blows out the dragons throat. How much experience is that worth? Seems like that should get a reward for creativity, but maybe that reward should be mostly gold, items and reputation. Maybe the experience should be earned for pulling that to save the party? Maybe there should be more experience for the grueling adventures and situation? Personally, I don't like the linear growth systems that are linked to game balance, because they do so many things badly. Who you are, and how you think affects how you grow, and how much, so personalities and approaches make a big difference.

Personality types have come up in my design attempts, but the reason I bring them up here is because of a question, "Does it work?" It's not in reference to personality types and profiling, but it's also a question constantly asked by the personality type I seem to be. Lateral thinking, creative solutions and such are commonplace for the personality type, by what I've read, and so there might be something to the personality type's approach to problems that could help everybody.

"INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake."
- http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/psychology/alt.psychology.personality/profiles/intj.html

The following three articles are wonderful at describing how to apply the concept. First is an article covering some common problems in Flash games. The second is about a project where game prototypes were created in under 7 days most of the time. The third is a Gamasutra article called "Practical Tips for Independent Game Developers". In all of them there is a sense of asking, "Does it work?" about each piece of the process and product.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GregMcClanahan/20090723/2561/Fatal_Flaws_in_Flash_Game_Design_and_Development.php

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051026/gabler_01.shtml

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/business/features/indieTips/page4.asp

More can be found in this direction in a couple posts I've made about Iterative Design.
http://blog.igenoukan.com/2009/07/parallel-prototype-iteration.html

http://blog.igenoukan.com/2008/10/iteration-and-prototyping.html

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan