If the same in-game events are arrayed in different sequences, players may find some sequences to be more attractive, exciting, engaging, or intriguing than others. But how can such sequences be explained, understood, planned, compared, or rated? Do models exist that analytically describe various sequences? To address this question, this study seeks to identify conceptual models for the strategic ordering of game play events. Such models can describe, for instance, a pattern of increasing difficulty, a mix of positive and negative events, or phases of intense action broken up by pauses. The study identifies relevant exemplary contributions in the discourses of game design, design patterns, Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, tabletop roleplay, literary drama, Flow theory, and Operant Conditioning theory. It is found that surprisingly few models exist. The predominant model appears to be repeated variations of rather simple experiential sequences of tension and relaxation on an overall increasing level, similar to the dramatic arc. The study’s main contribution to the narratology discourse is to show how the dramatic arc as a powerful conceptual model can inform the understanding of the strategic ordering of game play events.

The use of simulations in higher education teaching is burgeoning in political science curricula, particularly in international relations and European Union studies. This article contends that most simulations suffer from complexity bias and put too much emphasis on substantive knowledge. Drawing on the author’s experience, two ideal types of simulations are developed. ‘Complex’ simulations focusing on negotiating content and ‘simple’ simulations focusing on negotiating dynamics. It is argued that the transmission of transferable skills is facilitated by multiple repetitions of similar negotiating contexts within the same module. This suggests that instructors face a trade-off between teaching transferable skills and substantive knowledge and should locate their simulations at either end of this continuum. Where students are not native speakers, not yet familiar with specialised terminology or simply unversed in negotiating dynamics, there is a particularly strong argument to make for carrying out simple simulations first, followed by complex simulations later in the curriculum. Finally, opportunities for collaborative research are highlighted. Gathering and pooling data from simple simulations bridges pedagogy and research at minimal additional cost.

The use of simulations in European Studies is becoming more widespread, given the possibilities of immersing students in complex issues and building substantive knowledge and affective understanding. We identify a number of barriers to the full realisation of this potential. Drawing on observations from various games, it is suggested that for a successful simulation there must be: learning objectives clear to all participants; alignment between those objectives, game play and assessment; and a meaningful feedback process.

In recent years, we have observed an increased interest within the field of design research in both the concept of conviviality and playful approaches as a pathway to co-design and participation. While play is often associated with freedom of expression and creativity, the implication of rules and mechanics in games poses questions regarding the tension between player agency and designed gameplay. This paper aims to provide reflection on these topics through a lens of ‘critical play’ and presents a model to explore games’ potential as convivial tools for imagining collective futures.

Although individual cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is a recommended treatment in the UK, studies evaluating participant experiences are limited, particularly in high-security (HS) conditions. Traditional methods of participant evaluation disadvantage HS patients. Individual chief-complaint orientated CBTp (C-Co CBTp), a variant of CBTp, is offered in a HS setting. The paper aimed first, to evaluate participant experiences of individual C-Co CBTp within HS conditions, and second, to evaluate collaborative group game design as a means of evaluating participants’ experiences. Collaborative group game design was used as a novel method of participatory action research to evaluate patient and practitioner experiences of C-Co CBTp. Fifteen participants (10 inpatients, five staff) developed a life-size game representing their experiences of C-Co CBTp and offered feedback on the process. The game comprised of 24 squares, each depicting and describing a therapy experience, and a set of game-play cards. Collaborative group game design is a viable means of evaluating participant experiences. Findings corroborate and add to the current evaluation literature. Participants placed particular emphasis on collaboration, the therapeutic relationship, therapy as a nonlinear process and vulnerability and hope.