Ames' syllabi

The main challenge is balancing three things: making the game scientifically accurate, educationally effective, and actually fun to play. These goals often conflict because what works as a game mechanic can oversimplify or distort the learning content, while strong educational structure can make the game feel less engaging. Teams constantly have to compromise between learning and gameplay.

Each role was focused on a different priority. The scientist cared about accuracy and didn’t want content to be misrepresented. The pedagogy expert focused on whether the game actually supported learning and wasn’t too confusing or overwhelming. The designer prioritized engagement and fun, and rejected ideas that felt too rigid or too educational to function as a game.

They learned that a lot of what makes sense in design discussions doesn’t always work when real players interact with it. Players often misunderstood rules or didn’t engage with the intended learning moments. Playtesting showed that the game needed constant tweaking to improve clarity, pacing, and the balance between fun and learning.

Playtesting helps settle disagreements by giving the team real evidence instead of opinions. Instead of arguing over whose idea is better, they can see what actually works when players use the game. It becomes a shared reference point that helps the scientist, educator, and designer adjust their ideas based on player behavior.

I though the whole experience was fun, this was really my first time attempting any sort of DnD play (I checked out BG3 for like 25 minutes) but this definitely made me want to try it out more.

Well we had a mission or end goal to achieve and also picked multiple other tasks throughout the duration of the game so that was pretty motivating.


The second mini campaign we played was persuasive I would say since it was kind of exploring xenophobia, discrimination, and racism.

The game is used as an analytical tool or allegorical framework to explore real-life concepts.

The game made me feel fun, and creative, and like the world is my oyster to attempt new things and see how they worked out.

The second campaign made you feel empathy for a human warlock who was being discriminated against but as a whole larger picture was attempting to get you to think about discriminated groups and stereotypes.

A bit, I think. Open-mindedness and critical thinking.

A small adventuring party is tasked with driving a human warlock out of a town, simply for the crime of being human. The party must confront how rumors, bias, and scapegoating shape the town’s treatment of the warlock, who is treated as dangerous regardless of zero evidence. The campaign challenges the party to decide whether to uphold the town’s judgment or defend someone who is being condemned because of who they are rather than what they’ve done.

Players experience the immigration process from multiple perspectives: applicant, officer, and advocate and deal with paperwork, bias, and shifting policies.

Manage unpaid or underrecognized labor such as childcare, elder care, emotional labor, and household tasks. The game would show how essential work often goes unseen but sustains societies.

Players would coordinate response teams during natural disasters or crises, allocating limited resources under time pressure. Emphasizing communication, prioritization, and human impact.

Players take on roles like commander, engineer, communications officer, and scientist inside a live space mission. They must troubleshoot system failures, manage limited oxygen/fuel, and coordinate decisions under time pressure using only role-specific information. (like a virtual Challenger Center, something else I did several times in middle school and high school, super fun!)

Run a conservation sanctuary where animals are rescued, rehabilitated, and either kept in care or released into the wild. The game would explore ethical decisions about captivity, intervention, and human responsibility.