This is the third in a series of guest posts by Martha Attridge Bufton, member of the Reacting Consortium Board and author of "Do We Take Shelter? Evaluating 'High Stakes' Information." 

By Martha Attridge Bufton, MA, MLIS

Round 3: Be Strategic; Use An Existing Game Structure

I had designed some educational games before I started working on Do We Take Shelter? Evaluating “High Stakes” Information (DWTS). With colleagues from the Carleton University Library, I co-designed Sources, an information literacy print and Twine card game design to teach students to define and evaluate sources (e.g., “What is a peer-reviewed journal article?).

The other two designers were keen gamers and very comfortable debating the relative merits of various game mechanics, a term that was new and bewildering to me. However, these conversations taught me an invaluable lesson: mechanics matter, so play other games and identify rules, systems, actions that personally make sense and could be adapted for one’s own games.

As a result, when I played Nick Proctor’s Making History in my colleague Pamela Walker’s fourth-year history course, I immediately recognized a game structure that might work for a Reacting-inspired information literacy game. FYI, information literacy can be broadly defined as the skills and knowledge needed to identify an information need, then find, access, and ethically use relevant sources.

The inspiration: Making History
The mentors: Nick Proctor, Bill Offutt, Pamela Walker
The design task: Choose a game structure and some mechanics

Step 1: Define learning outcomes

I knew what I wanted to teach and why. Broadly, I had two goals. One, to the teach university students what Carol C. Kuhlthau defines as the information search process (ISP). Two, to introduce students to one of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education threshold concepts (frames)  “authority is constructed and contextual.”

I support programs in Carleton’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) and typically students in FASS programs (e.g., history) engaging in the information search process when they find sources (secondary and primary), evaluate them, and then choose those that are credible and relevant for their research. When they evaluate sources, they use criteria (consciously or not) such as authority to make their final choices. Authority is a complex idea and, when I teach in other instructors’ classes, I do not necessarily have the time to explore this idea as thoroughly as I would like.

Carol Kuhlthau’s information search process. Found in Information Search Process, as posted on the Rutgers-New Brunswick School of Communication and Information website: https://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/information-search-process/

A Short Game could be an opportunity for students to achieve the following learning outcomes:

• Identify the formats of available information sources.
• Evaluate information sources using the criteria of authority, currency, and bias.
• Match an information need with an information source.

Having specific pedagogical goals would make my game “serious,” as defined by Clark Abt (1970): “these games have an explicit and carefully thought out educational purpose and are not intended to be played primarily for amusement” (p. 9).

Step 2: Find a Game Structure That Makes Sense

From my initial experience at the 2017 Summer Institute, I speculated about writing a Reacting, or Reacting-inspired game. Initially, I talked with Pamela about moments in Canadian history that could be the basis for a long game: the October Crisis, the Winnipeg General Strike, or even the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

I’m not ashamed to admit, however, that the prospect of writing a Standard Game was intimidating. Maybe a Short Game would be more feasible and an easier strategy for learning how to design games? Something that I could play either in my regular information literacy sessions in various undergraduate arts and social sciences classes at Carleton or even in the new first-year research foundations seminar I was designing with colleagues?

Then, I again collaborated with my colleague Pamela Walker in one of her undergraduate history courses. In this course, we played the Making History Microgame in early 2021 and I knew immediately that this game provided a basic game structure that could work well for teaching students how to evaluate and use primary (and even secondary) sources. Plus, I felt more confident about writing a Microgame rather than a full-length game.

Making History is a Reacting Microgame designed to introduce students to the basic processes of finding historical sources relevant to answering a research question: in this case, why did two friends break up? In a series of rounds, students receive information, which they evaluate and then use to create a timeline of events as well as a plausible explanation for the breakup that has occurred. Each round introduces additional information that can be used to answer the historical question.

As an academic librarian, this information seeking process is essentially what I teach students, so the premise of the game aligns with my teaching and learning goals. Plus, the round structure seemed as if it could be relatively easy to run and I could choose the number of rounds that could be completed in the time that I might have to teach.

My intention wasn’t to write a serious historical game. I wanted to write a serious game that would teach students about authority, i.e., the idea that in any given situation, we accept and use the information created and shared by influencers, which is people or institutions we trust.

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education identifies “authority is constructed and contextual” as one of six threshold concepts that students should learn to be able to build a good relationship with information—both academically and in other contexts.

Step 3: Consult the game designer

The next step in my process was to reach out to Nick Proctor to ask if I could adapt Making History for use in a new game.

I was introduced to Making History during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, when we were all teaching and playing games online. For better or for worse, this meant that the Reacting community was frequently hosting online sessions, so it was relatively easy for me to attend a Zoom game that Nick was running and make my pitch re: adapting his round structure and potentially other mechanics for my game.

Not unexpectedly, Nick was generous and gave me permission to use the basic game structure as long as I included proper attribution in my game materials (gotta cite your sources!). Plus, he encouraged me to share an initial draft with him for feedback.

The opportunity to reach out directly to a game designer at the beginning of the design process is invaluable. Fortunately, one of the hallmarks of membership in the Reacting community is a willingness to share ideas and provide advice on game design. Reacting members recognize that game design is a demanding process and that authors benefit from encouragement as well as relatively open access to ideas and advice.

Step 4: Write a First Draft and Get Feedback

Once I had a story and a potential structure, I was in a position to do some historical research, do some writing, and produce a first draft.

Of course, none of this work happened quickly or overnight. Although I had the round structure to work with and an historical premise, I still had a lot of thinking to do about how to incorporate other core Reacting elements into the game. This phase of the project took over a year. I had to do the usual work required to write a good history:

• Research the period and find primary as well as secondary sources, a process which includes consulting with experts as well as those with lived experience
• Narrowing the scope of the topic
• Identifying a potential question

Plus, I had to make core Reacting game design decisions, such as how many characters would I have, would I have factions and determinants, and what issues or debates would be central to gameplay.

A deadline is a necessity that can be the mother of invention. In the fall of 2023, a fellow librarian and I were teaching a new first-year seminar entitled Critical Foundations in Undergraduate Research. I thought, “What could be more foundational than playing a game about using primary sources?” and pushed forward with writing the game, in the hopes that I could play it for the first time in this class.

I sent Nick my first draft. He provided targeted feedback, such as “There has to be tension between players and no obvious foregone conclusions.” Plus, he recommended that I share the draft with Bill Offutt, who manages  Reacting Short Games. Bill was also encouraging with his feedback, including the advice to consider playtesting the game with the Reacting community–either at the Sumner Institute or the Game Development Conference.

I was nervous as I continued to develop the game because, by this time, it was clear that even a microgame can have more moving pieces than initially anticipated. Plus, I wanted to write a game that honored Gertrude and Velyien and was historically well written.

However, having started with a structure that was “tried and true” and having access to useful feedback, I was able to write the “first edition” of the game and play it with first-year students in the fall of 2023.

Do we take shelter? Evaluating “high stakes” information gamer handbook
by Martha Attridge Bufton. Graphic design by Alesya Moschenskaya

Three Design Takeaways

Was the first draft perfect? Of course not. Did the overall design process work? Yep, it did. I had the bones of a game that I knew students enjoyed playing. Was I confident that I could write a game that worked? Sort of. I already knew that playing games could a more engaging and meaningful way to teach students about information seeking and evaluating sources than my traditional strategies, such as finding a diary in the library collection. But…designing an effective game is complex and, frankly, I still felt out of my depth, trying something new with no guarantee of success.

Here are my three takeaways from this stage of the process:

Find a familiar and workable game structure. By structure, I mean mechanics. Familiarity with a mechanic (e.g., rolling dice) is helpful because your learning curve is not as steep or anxiety-driven. Learning is inherently emotional, especially at the beginning when we feel uncertain about the outcome of our endeavors. American library and information science scholar Carol Kuhlthau has written extensively about the emotional dimensions of the information search process and argues that we need to acknowledge that the beginning of a new project is stressful, due to this outcome uncertainty. And designing a new game is an information search process. Familiarity is not enough, however. We also benefit from choosing a game structure that we know basically works–the “cringe” factor is low, we feel more confident, and the outcome is a bit more certain.

Tell a plausible story with a plot that engages players. Ultimately, my game is an information literacy game wrapped in an historical covering. Although games (and other “lesson plans”) typically involve players working with sources, I needed a story that focused on how people manage the flow (or lack of flow) of information as well as the role that “authority” (social influence) plays in determining which sources people trust in which circumstances. The story of friends buying and sharing newspapers presented a historically plausible story that could achieve my learning outcomes.

Work with your community of practice to get feedback and build your confidence. Creating a game is complex, so having access to colleagues who are knowledgeable and supportive is beneficial. I have received helpful feedback from the beginning, feedback that teaches me about design as well as pinpoints the good, the bad, and the ugly about the game in its current state. Plus, when the feedback comes from trusted colleagues, chances are we might feel better about hearing that elements need to change or be fixed. And feeling positive about change is a good thing.

Next round: Playtest in Safe Spaces