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.

Christines Game: Bad Advice

1. The most frustrating aspect was trying to decipher some of the rules and how to win the game. I think the rules just needed a bit more tweaking and edits to make things it a little more clear.
2. The most fun part is seeing the bad advice cards and so I think that tends to be the biggest incentive to keep playing the game.
3. magic wand
4. Mental health and how much bad advice may be reaching you based off media, social media, friends or family.
5. A little confused but it was also fun and has a lot of potential but it could be sending mixed signals since the more fun aspect is to give the bad advice and see it read out.
6. Bad health advice.

Andrew’s Game (War)

1. The most frustrating aspect was only being able to move 1 space at a time I think. I think only having one dice for movement direction was limiting. if you had one for movement direction and then one for the amount of spaces that could make it a bit better.
2. I definitely wanted to be able to be able to move more than 1 spot at a time, and I was a little confused about the direction I was able to move in once you maybe shifted direction once or being able to move diagonally one would also be nice
3. I would add a bigger board but with less restricted movement, and differing obstacles that affected movement in different ways.
4. It felt a little like chess or stratego so maybe like strategical thinking and something to do with conflict but to be totally honest I don’t think the message was super clear.
5. A little frustrated since i couldn’t move that much.
6. Limited chess game.

(I was in a younger kid game headspace when thinking of these after the questions)

Kids take care of a virtual neighborhood by recycling, saving water, and planting trees. The world visibly changes based on their choices, teaching cause-and-effect and basic environmental responsibility.

Players run a small shop where they buy and sell simple items using coins, making change, and solving basic addition/subtraction problems to “help customers.” It builds math fluency through role-play.

Kids help care for injured or lost animals, learning what different species eat, where they live, and how to safely help them recover. It introduces basic biology and environmental stewardship ( I was a big Vet Emergency player as a kid)

Kids explore islands where each area focuses on a different math skill counting, patterns, simple multiplication, or measurement, solving puzzles to unlock new places.

Kids solve simple “what happened here?” mysteries using clues from different time periods. They piece together events by analyzing artifacts, helping them understand cause and effect in history.

I definitely remember playing The Incredible Machine game when I was younger, that was fun. Buckman has that labeled as constructivism. I also played a bit of Tonka as kid which maybe would be constructionism? But I don’t know if I’m taking that too literally as a category. I’m big puzzle person now so I think maybe the Incredible Machine had more of a lasting effect on me.

Ian Bogosts argues that gamification is mostly “bullshit” because it takes superficial elements of games like points, badges, and leaderboards and applies them to non-game contexts without actually making those experiences more meaningful or engaging. He believes this reduces games to manipulative reward systems used to influence behavior, rather than embracing what makes games expressive, creative, or culturally valuable. In his view, gamification often masks weak design or corporate goals rather than improving the experience itself. I don’t know if i believe gamification itself is actual bullshit, I do think the need to turn lots of life and self-care things into games is maybe an indication of a larger societal issue that should be looked at but I think it can be useful. I have experienced gamification outside of the classroom with like Duolingo, RunZombies!, or Finch. As someone with ADHD I think I tend to follow along with apps like that for a limited time but if i get too busy or distracted I can fall off the game wagon very easily.

A serious game is a game designed primarily for a purpose other than entertainment like education, training, health, or social awareness while still using real game mechanics to keep players engaged and learning through play. They aren’t “chocolate covered broccoli” because, as Farber explains, they aren’t supposed to hide boring content under a layer of fun; instead, good serious games should integrate learning and gameplay together so the experience itself is actually engaging. The idea is that if the design is done well, you don’t feel like you’re being “forced” to learn something.