One year Level 30 ECTS Creating a Game to Initiate Dialogue CLASSROOM GAME DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUSION IN THE DIVERSITY

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE

GAME DEVELOPMENT

CLASSROOM

Creating a Game to Initiate Dialogue

Master Degree Project in Media, Aesthetics and

Narration A1E

One year Level 30 ECTS

Spring term 2020

Tom Yngvesson

Maria Levander

Abstract

This study examines the possibility of creating a roleplaying game as a tool for starting conversation about diversity and inclusion in games, specifically for the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde. First it is examined why it is needed, how other games have been used for educational purposes, what to think about when creating spaces of dialogue, and what it is like to teach the topics in game education. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the testing of the game was limited. The project uses three different ways of evaluation; interviews with faculty members at the University, feedback on a design document and an online playtest. The results suggest that the game could potentially be used to gamify some aspects of dialogue about diversity and inclusion within the curriculums of the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde, as a compliment alongside pre-existing lectures and seminars.

Table of Contents

1

Introduction ... 1

2

Background ... 2

2.1 Developers and Audience ... 2

2.2 Using Games in the Classroom... 4

2.3 Dialogue in class ... 5

2.4 Teaching within Game Development Programs ... 6

2.5 Interviews with faculty at the University of Skövde ... 7

2.5.1 Program Directors ... 8 2.5.2 Coordinator of DONNA ... 10 2.5.3 Assistant Professor ... 10

3

Problem ... 13

4

The Artefact ... 18

5

Analysis ... 24

5.1.1 Feedback from Faculty Interviews ... 24

5.1.2 First Changes ... 25

5.2 Second iteration ... 25

5.2.1 Feedback from Faculty on Design Document ... 26

5.2.2 Further Changes ... 27

5.3 Third Iteration ... 29

5.3.1 Feedback from Playtesting ... 29

5.3.2 Observations while playing ... 30

5.3.3 Final Changes ... 30

5.3.4 Complications ... 31

6

The Final Prototype ... 32

6.1 Background and Story ... 32

6.2 Creating a character ... 32

6.3 How to play ... 37

6.4 Event Cards and Why Card Examples ... 39

6.4.1 Event Cards ... 39

6.4.2 Why Cards ... 42

6.5 Incorporating the game into the classroom ... 42

1

1

Introduction

This study aims to create a prototype for a card-based roleplaying game to be used in game education, due to the issues of lacking diversity and inclusion in games themselves as well as in the games industry, with focus on the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde. While it is debatable whether or not an individual deems it to be important or not, it is undeniable that there are considerable consequences for the structure in society if several groups of people fail to be represented in media, since the presence validates their existence (Shaw, 2014; Gerbner et al., 1986). The education within game development struggles with including more diverse material which the students would take interest in into the curriculum, as many students consider games to be purely entertainment rather than having an impact on society and therefore thinking that these topics are unnecessary for their education (Rouse & Corron, 2020; Zagal & Bruckman, 2008). As this study focuses on a specific University, interviews were conducted with faculty in the corresponding department at said University regarding in what way diversity and inclusion are present in the education.

In this paper it is proposed that using a card-based roleplaying game in the education, regarding representation and diversity, could help both students and teachers start conversations about these subjects which might otherwise be difficult to approach. Even though the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde deals with the issues through lectures and seminars, it might not be enough for students who do not find it to be important, or seek it out willingly, to truly embrace it. The students could possibly profit from a more concrete context as well as more strategic follow-up for the topics, which the game created in this project could provide them with.

A prototype of the game was created as this projects’ artefact through three steps of iteration and evaluation based on interviews with faculty at the University of Skövde, feedback on a design document from one of the members as well as a small playtest. Through this, the artefact will be examined to determine what would be required of it in order to be successful in the context of teaching students within the Game Development programs the importance and impact of diversity and inclusion in video games. The interviews and feedback will assess the educational aspects of the game while the playtest will assess the playability of the artefact, as well as the game’s ability to start conversations, in order to answer the research question; How can one gamify the inclusion

2

2

Background

The aim of this study is to provide faculty with a way to teach students about representation and diversity, and encourage them to engage in dialogue about sensitive subjects. The artefact that has been produced within this study is a game that is meant to function as a conversation-starter where students in a brave space, rather than safe space, have open dialogues about their decisions. Before delving deeper into the game itself, one must examine the background to why this project is needed, focusing on Game Development department at the University of Skövde. First, the issue with the games industry and its lack of representation is examined. Related to what is included in games are the people making them, the developers, who likely has had some education in game development. Secondly, the previous use of educational games is explored, before moving on to how dialogue could and should be used in education. Lastly, studies within game development are examined and difficulties that may come with teaching diversity and inclusion to students who struggle to view games as anything but entertainment is examined. Interviews with faculty at the University of Skövde are incorporated in this segment, giving a more specific insight in the matter.

2.1 Developers and Audience

Games that rarely include diverse characters continue to be an issue, even if someone plays a lot of video games their knowledge about representation might not be very wide, since they only view a specific group of characters. This becomes a bigger issue once the audience wants to become developers themselves, as they might have developed the notion that marginalised characters do not belong in games (Gerbner et al., 1986) and that the concept is so foreign that they continue to only include the types of narratives they have seen so many times before (University of Michigan, 2017).

As stated in an article by Fron, Fullerton, Ford Morie and Pearce (2007), the game industry consists mostly of one kind of individual; the straight, white, cis-man. The employees in the industry in their turn produce games for the perceived main demographic, the straight, white, cis-man. This leaves little to no room for minorities to be the centre of or even included in games. While the article nowadays is not the newest contribution, the issue of underrepresentation, both in games as well as the industry, still stands. In a survey by IGDA, International Game Developers Association, it showed that the majority of the respondents working with video games, 71 percent, identified as male, and 24 percent as female (Weststar et al., 2019). As a whole, the researchers note an increase in the perceived need for diversity both in games and in the games industry. Yet the majority of developers in the industry, as stated previously, are still men.

According to Muriel and Crawford (2018), 60% of the audience for video games are male, and 40% of the audience are female. This shows that even though the industry has been marketing games as a hobby solely for males, women and others are still intrigued by these games, and enjoy them. One might wonder, as games are enjoyed by all genders, why the most common main character of a game is a white, cis man? Jenelius has written an article with advice on what to consider when wanting to include more diverse characters, putting aside the stereotype, and writes; “Sometimes,

I don’t think we even do it on purpose - we are just so used to a white, straight cis man being the default.” (2016).

This issue might stem from dominant narratives, “an explanation or story that is told in service

of the dominant social group’s interests and ideologies” (University of Michigan). Dominant

3

the dominant culture (Wikipedia, 2020). The people grouped in the A-categories are individuals belonging to the dominant group in different aspects of life, such as people who are white, men, cisgendered, young, able bodied, heterosexual, have a stable economy and people who have clear citizenship. The dominant narrative differs from region to region around the world but it is always in line with the dominant culture in that region (Wikipedia, 2020).

When creating a dominant narrative these characteristics are often used as they build upon and give credibility and status to one another. The dominant narrative is often discussed in history where the risk of following the dominant group’s narrative might lead to ignoring the marginalised group’s narrative, the so-called counter-narrative (Wikipedia, 2020). The dominant narrative is often repeated by authoritarian speakers from the dominant group and is often viewed as objective and apolitical, while neglecting groups that are not dominant (University of Michigan, 2017). The dominant narrative is often seen in video games as most characters and plots follow the path of the A-categories of the western world, by having a white man as the protagonist, as demonstrated by a list of the best selling video games from 1995 to 2017 in the United States of America (MatPiscatella, 2018), a list which in the last 9 years is dominated by Call of Duty (2003-) games. According to the NPD Group, the top selling game of 2018 (Piscatella, 2019) was Red Dead

Redemption 2 (2018), and 2019 (Piscatella, 2020) it was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019

(2019). This leaves little room for counter-narratives, such as for example having a lesbian, polyamorous woman of colour as the protagonist.

Whether or not repetitive character creation is made on purpose or not, the importance of representation and identification is still a relevant topic. Adrienne Shaw has written a book on the subject (2014), concluding that even though the value of seeing oneself in media is individual, it matters to marginalised groups at large. A reason as to why it may not be important to some individuals is that they never really find a character that truly represents them, and so they do not believe it has greater value. When developing games the fact that an individual holds more than one identity seems to be forgotten, and when including diversity its representation is often one-dimensional by allowing the character only one attribute that could be considered to break away from the "norm". Being so used to not having proper representation seems to influence the way in which marginalised groups feel about the topic, leaving them rather hopeless about the future. Shaw argues that; “Groups are representable only insofar as they are marketable. Marginalized

groups are excluded until they are profitable audiences or if their representation can draw other audiences.” (Shaw 2014, p. 18). The games industry and its developers seek to make the most

profitable game and therefore continues to produce games made for white, heterosexual, cis-men, since that is an audience they know will sell well.

The consequences that may come from not including diversity in media involve for example the outcomes of cultivation theory (Gerbner et al., 1986); the notion that if only one “version” of a group represented in media it will lead the audience to believe that that is the only version that exists. This gives the society a biased and one-sided view of the group in question and enforce stereotypes and prejudice. Furthermore, failing to represent a group entirely enables the experience of symbolic annihilation (Shaw, 2014); the feeling that you do not have a right to exist the way you are. In other words, representation matters for the individuals in marginalised groups but also for the broader audience as the media subconsciously shapes their perceptions of people different from them.

4

“propaganda”, is a product of the cultivation present in games. Some “gamers” also claim that these diverse characters are either used to “force an agenda” (Council of Geeks, 2019) onto the audience or that it should revert back to the “normal” since it’s “irrelevant” and “doesn’t matter”. For this study, some online forums were searched through and examined to see what the general attitude towards LGBTQ+ representation in video games looks like. On the subforum r/truegaming on Reddit there is a discussion titled “how do you feel about LGBT representation in video games?” posted by Gamefreac (2019). Reddit user Anzeigenblatt (2019) shows that even today some “gamers” oppose bringing characters who fall beyond the “default” characteristics of the white, heterosexual cis man into video games. Following are the quotes from user Anzeigenblatt.

“[...] A character being trans shouldn't realistically come up in a game, nor would even them being bi matter much - in your headcanon any character can be trans or bi, really.“

“[...] Because how is it ever relevant to the story? Unless my trans character's dilation is relevant to the story somehow, why should it come up? Maybe Links' trans, maybe Krato is, who gives a shit. Bisexuality - pretty much the same. The character can love either gender, why should it ever come up as a point of discussion?”

This wish to exclude people who aren’t like themselves could contribute to the symbolic annihilation of minorities (Shaw, 2014), not only within the realm of play and the game's community, but also as it stretches out into the real world in the form of racism, homophobia, ableism or transphobia.

2.2 Using Games in the Classroom

While trying to change the views of a whole community of players all over the world would be difficult, to say the least, one could try to influence the future game developers. As there are some Game Development programs in the world, this would be a place to start. One way of introducing the issues of lacking diversity and inclusion to the students could be by including such subjects in a game, as having games be a part of teaching allows the students to engage with different subjects in a more innovative way. Using it in higher education has shown indications of supporting collaboration, problem-solving, communication, role of play, and exploration of identities (Johnson et al. 2011).

Peter Wonica (2017) held a workshop in which he and a group developed a game dealing with the subject of domestic abuse. Wonica argues that “by presenting the material in the form of a game, the conversation became more accessible and engaged a wider array of participants”. While he explains that the game itself hasn’t been used widely as a means of education, he claims that in creating the game the workshop participants were dealt a great deal of insight in the topic and with each iteration it got closer to resemble a real-life situation. Related to this, Hullett, Kurniawan & Wardrip-Fruin (2009) had students in a game study course play board games as a way to see if their understanding about game mechanics were improved at the end, which the results indicated. This shows that using board games in education can prove useful in the students understanding of the subject at hand.

Gut Check, a game made by Coil, Ettinger & Eisen (2017), was created to help students learn about

5

actually works in practice and which elements and aspects might need redesigning. They encourage using both experienced “gamers” as well as individuals without much experience in playing games, to see what would be functional for both parts.

At the University of Skövde Susi, Torstensson and Wilhelmsson wrote a paper about and developed the game Parkgömmet or Hidden in the Park (2019) to help children, through game-based learning, to become aware of sexual grooming online. They created the game using AR technology by incorporating an iPad since it is a device that their target audience is familiar with and interested in. It also ties into the theme well since many children nowadays use iPads to access the internet, where most of the sexual grooming occurs. In the paper it is stated that while developing Parkgömmet (2019) iteration and testing was a big part of creating a game which worked for their cause. The game is based on patterns of sexual grooming from real cases accessed through chat logs, these patterns were in turn developed into game mechanics. They tested the game on the intended audience; children age 8-10 and iterated it based on feedback from each play session. The game comes with “pedagogical guiding material” for “post-play discussion” (Susi et al., 2019).

2.3 Dialogue in class

Since the kind of game aimed to be produced in this study is a conversational game, it is important to differentiate different ways of communicating. Specifically dialogue, which this project focuses on, as opposed to discussion. In a discussion, one attempts to find the right answer and convince others that your opinion is correct. Feelings and conflicts are avoided and considered irrelevant, for the main focus is to find solutions and answers. Contrary to discussions, dialogues aim to share thoughts and feelings, to try to understand others’ and broaden one's own perspective. Rather than looking for answers or solutions, dialogue seeks shared meaning and listen to what others have experienced, without judgement (Kachwaha, 2002).

Fisher and Petryk (2017) created a guideline for the University of Michigan containing advice and information about how one should go about forming a space where students and faculty alike feel comfortable with engaging in such dialogues. They express the importance in the conversation being mutually vulnerable and equally risk-taking, meaning that a participant should not ask another participant questions they would not want to be asked themselves, or expect others to share more than they themselves are willing to. For the dialogue to flow all participants need to participate and contribute to the conversation. All in all, dialogue should be carried out on common grounds, where no group or person has more power or authority and where no group or person feels uncomfortable or pressured to partake. In order for dialogue to be effective, all participation needs to be equal.

Similarly to these guides, Whittenburg Ozment (2018) states that taking risks and allowing each other to be vulnerable in conversations that may be difficult helps students open up and partake in dialogue. Furthermore, the author argues that safe spaces may not be the most effective environment for students to learn in, contrariety; “To a certain degree, it is freedom from safety

that enables this learning strategy to work.” (Whittenburg Ozment 2018, p.153). The referred to

6

Trying to design a safe space is once again deemed ineffective by Kay (2018), who claims that always opting for safe spaces only benefits those who are already eager to speak their minds, while it undermines those who feel uncomfortable in doing so. Kay continues to discourage the phrasing by arguing that it rather “burdens” the students with responsibility over their fellow classmates. It is not enough to state that a space is safe, one has to foster it into becoming a place where each individual feels heard, where everyone listens. In order to make everyone feel heard, Kay notes that teachers and peers, when or if they feel interrupted or personally attacked, need to express that in a way that does not appear to be degrading. This means that even if you yourself do not feel heard, it is important that the feeling is expressed in a way that does not discourage another to speak, but rather informs them on their behaviour. These suggestions or injunctions are meant as a guide for creating and nurturing comfortable environments in the classroom over time, as they do not magically appear.

2.4 Teaching within Game Development Programs

It is not unusual that many of the students in game educations are interested in games and play quite a lot themselves. One might believe that this gives them an advantage in learning about the different subjects, which may be true in some instances. However, Zagal and Bruckman (2008) found that teachers within game studies find this pre-knowledge to be hindrance rather than a foundation to build upon. The teachers in the study express concerns about how the students are often confident that the knowledge they have previously obtained about games is the only correct way to view them, and that they seem to get upset or frustrated when teachers attempt to shift their perspective from games being solely for fun, to being cultural, political and artistic means of expression that have an impact on the society. Students in the study, when met with knowledge that did not fit their vision of games, questioned the teachers’ ability and expertise in the subject. Despite how many games the students may have played, teachers in the study note that the games they have played are often recent, within the same genre and generally similar to each other. This is thought to be one of the reasons as to why the students, despite having played many games, have limited knowledge in games. They possess information about games within a certain genre or type and know so much about them that other forms of games are difficult for them to comprehend the meaning of (Zagal & Bruckman, 2008).

7

take the step into the industry might lead to even less diverse developer teams, as students may socialise only with people who agree with them when it comes to what games “are” - a cultural media for expression, or simply apolitical fun.

Similar to the previously mentioned study (Zagal & Bruckman, 2008), students can get agitated when what is taught in a course changes to include more cultural meaning and diversity, as was the case for Rebecca Rouse. The course she was to teach did not, prior to her modification, touch upon the cultural aspects of games, and sensitive subjects that come with creating them, for example racism or misogyny. Instead, it mostly focused around building technical skills and improving on how to make entertaining games, and rather than seeing games “in” culture only viewed it “as culture”. That mindset made it easier to not take responsibility for the content found in games and claim that games are “apolitical”. The changes she made were at first met with anger and frustration from the students, who thought it unnecessary for game design students to learn about feminist theory. After this the curriculum was re-revised, this time by both Rouse and Amy Corron. They incorporated more dialogue into the classroom and encouraged students to speak their mind and share their thoughts on varying subjects regarding games. The result of the change led to an open sharing-space where students eventually felt safe to commence conversations about subjects they did not always agree on. Though the students often spoke with kindness, the most enlightening and educative sessions were those where they had their differences and truly exposed their emotions. This meant that the students stepped out into the brave space, dared to share their opinions, and left the safe space behind. Through these dialogues, Rouse and Corron had successfully created a course that encouraged students to think about games as related to culture, and to make games that through deeper meaning serves a greater purpose (Rouse & Corron, 2020).

2.5 Interviews with faculty at the University of Skövde

To further narrow the study and enrich the background, interviews were conducted with faculty within the Game Development department at the University of Skövde. The answers have been compiled in order to give an accessible overview. The questions asked during the interviews varied slightly depending on who, as the respondents have varying roles, and how many were interviewed at the same time.

Firstly, interviews were held with program directors to find out how they work with diversity and inclusion in their programs. Three interviews were held at the University and one was held through a video call. Transcripts are attached in the appendix, both in Swedish and a roughly translated English version (see Appendix D-I). For all program directors the following types of questions are to be asked: “How are you working with diversity and inclusion in different courses and the entire program?”, “Are there any gradable aspects regarding the topics?”, and “Are the students choosing research areas and searching for information about the topics by own will?”. In the interview including several program directors the following question was added: “What is the collaboration like between the programs?”.

8

Lastly, an associate professor of the Game Development department who has some insight in what it is like to teach game development students about diversity and inclusion, amongst other things, was interviewed. The meeting was held over the phone. The transcript is attached in the appendix (see Appendix L). The associate professor was asked questions more related to what it is like to teach these subjects to students within Game Development programs, such as in which courses they teach, the format of which they are teaching in and their experiences with the students.

2.5.1 Program Directors

Similarly, throughout all programs the subjects of diversity and inclusion are mostly handled during the general joint courses, such as the Spelprojekt 1 and Spelprojekt 2 (Game Project 1 and Game Project 2), Spelanalys (Game Analysis) and Teoretiska och Samhälleliga Perspektiv på Spel (Theoretical and Societal Perspectives on Games), as stated by all interviewees. Some of them explain that in Spelanalys there is a lecture about gender with follow-up seminars. During the first Game Project, one lecture brings up different terms and norms, such as the hetero norm, the whiteness norm, the gender norm and the norm of monogamy. There are also seminars about society and ethics where the students, in groups, discuss these questions in relation to their own projects as well as their project groups.

When the interviews with these faculty members were conducted the respondents expressed shared will of students realising the importance of diversity and inclusion in games. While they all thought it is an important topic they also expressed the difficulties they faced when trying to teach these things, as the students decide for themselves if they want to look further into the topics or stay at the level the University provides them with through lectures, reading material and seminars.

Regarding the Game Writing program one faculty member said that they use literature from female and other marginalised authors to give the students other perspectives than those from the typical straight, white man who may be in charge of the writing for most games in the western world. They also said that while they deem it very important to bring up these topics, of inclusiveness, representation and diversity, it can be hard to convey and get through to the students just how important it is.

Another faculty member, while discussing the Design program, agrees that the topics are important and that many think designing games is only about level design and numbers and balancing the game, while in reality you design an experience for other people to enjoy. That may very well be done by creating a narrative or design which present other people than just your typical male audience.

Another faculty member problematised the way students may find their inspiration or sources of information when they want to create diverse worlds or characters and how that may impact the finished product and how those people or cultures are being represented. They bring up what may happen when you create music for a specific group or place as an example; “[...] what we might

9

They explain that this is something they talk about in the Music and Sound programs, to be critical about information and make sure they go to the source of the thing they want to interpret, otherwise it may become more and more diluted as it moves further away from the original source. One faculty member pressed on the matter that they would need more in-depth dialogues about the topics with the students, to talk not only about what representation is but how it affects people. They also said that while it is important there may, as of the time the interviews were conducted, not be enough knowledge within the faculty to bring up all aspects of representation, diversity and inclusiveness which covers everything in a correct way.

As it was discovered that information about these topics and work conducted around it is mostly brought up by students who already have taken an interest to it, the members were asked if these topics are anything the students are being graded on during their three years at the University. One of the members said that there is a requirement to discuss societal and ethical aspects in some reports they write, however it is still up to the student to decide if these societal and ethical aspects are regarding topics such as diversity and inclusiveness or if they would rather focus on other topics, for example group dynamics or work conditions in the industry. Though there are indications throughout the courses that diversity and inclusion is important to think about, there are no criteria for examination, no gradable aspects, explicitly stated within the curriculums. Another member points out that having those topics as a requirement could do more harm than good; “[...] there is a certain issue with having too explicit criteria for examination because, then

it becomes directorial, and then you only do what it says in the criteria of examination without at all reflecting, when it might really be the reflection and motivation that is important.”. Even

if there is no criteria in the program to reflect upon diversity and representation, many of the faculty members pointed out that they do try to make the students think about it by presenting the majority of the material for the societal and ethical aspect in the curriculum to include these topics. Though only a few percent of the game developers are other than men, as suggested by previously mentioned studies, the faculty members have noticed changes in the students enrolled at the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde in the past years; “[...] many of these guys

remove this boy-ish shallow side and dare to talk about these things and actually dare to do things differently. I see that as a good development too”.

Overall, the faculty members seem to believe the University is heading in the right direction when it comes to achieving a more even distribution between the students, at least when it comes to gender. A member talks about the importance of heterogeneous groups within the education, how it may help both creativity, since many different experiences are shared through the students, but also how they have seen the students perform better in the courses if the student group is not homogeneous. One faculty member discussed the importance of the University working with its openness, and stated;

“I’m pretty proud of that part when it comes to Game Writing as we often, gender wise speaking, have about a 45-55, 40-60 distribution of the students. It’s generally a few more guys but it’s still a pretty good distribution, while other programs might have a larger part of guys. Then we also have a pretty large portion of nonbinary and trans people within the game education, there’s a, what we can see, a pretty big representation.

10

an open mind, to keep fighting to make sure everyone feels welcome here and that everyone feels like they have a place in the industry, even if it’s not like that, we know the industry has a lot of issues, we want to believe that you can start the change from the bottom up. Education wise I think it’s crucial to have these things in mind”.

2.5.2 Coordinator of DONNA

The interview with a coordinator of DONNA started with them talking about what DONNA is. They explained that the affinity group's main goal is to create a gender equal games industry and work with recruitment, retention and life after University through different activities. For example, being present at exhibitions and fairs, arranging workshops, having the students create their own events for members to partake in, arranging the DONNA-day and speaking to the local Game Incubator. Since the organisation started in 2011, they have noticed a big change in the distribution of girls and boys in the programs, where the ratio of girls attending now, compared to the approximate 10-11 percent at the beginning, has increased to about 30 percent. They continue by describing the different events that have occurred over the years, such as GamerGate, 1ReasonWhy, #MeToo, ViSpelarInteMed, and how they have had an effect on the outcome. The respondent believes all of these events made the industry aware that things had to change; “in the

end the result was good, it was almost as if we needed such an extreme thing to happen for the industry to start acting”. Integrated into the work of DONNA is intersectionality, the interviewee

states; “you can’t really dismiss or ignore intersectionality when you work with gender equality”. The affinity group has chosen not to state explicitly who are welcome to join the organisation, since they could risk leaving some aspects out without knowing. They are instead approaching the matter in a way that welcomes anyone who wishes to be part of it.

DONNA started as part of the Game Development department of the University and is an integrated part there. Only teachers and students from the programs at the Game Development department are involved and use DONNA as a foundation to make sure that all teachers work with the topics of diversity and inclusion. While not all teachers within the department represent DONNA, the interviewee states that they have a positive attitude towards the work, support the work and include the topics in their courses. Though these issues are not yet explicitly visible in the curriculums, they are considering the possibility of including it. The organisation has affected the education within the department through for example recruitment and the education. An example of this is that they noticed a lack of female students within the Game Writing and Design Programs and found that the criteria for admission regarding the level of math was unreasonably high considering what was included in the education. By lowering the criteria the programs levelled out the gender distribution, as more women who, before the change, didn't have the required grades in math now could apply. The coordinator explains that this is because most women who are interested in math are usually pushed to pursue other educations which may be perceived as more prestigious compared to game development. As the situation is now, the coordinator of DONNA notes that it seems the students feel comfortable in being open with who they are at the University, regardless of their gender or sexuality; “I think that’s the highest grade

our education can get”.

2.5.3 Assistant Professor

11

perspectives on games in the education, rather than production, and give lectures in some of the bigger, general courses during the education such as the Spelanalys course. Further on, the interviewee mentions they believe Spelanalys is an important course due to it being held during the first semester and therefore sets the tone for the students’ critical perspective on the issues. They clarify by stating that it can be difficult for students to really think about games, not just how to make them.

The lectures they are responsible for are generally held for about an hour and 45 minutes to two hours and that the students could have lectures with the interviewee for about 4 hours. During these lectures the interviewee starts by speaking widely about what it means to talk about gender perspectives and gender studies in media, how and why one can be critical of games in terms of advertising, film and books etcetera. They explain potential risks of the students rolling their eyes on the subjects if they right away are thrown into the deep end of games and gender, that they have to understand that there are actual critical fields researching the issues and that the teacher is not simply giving their personal opinions. Later on, the teacher gradually talks about diversity from a more intersectional perspective.

When asked how they perceive lectures as a forum for teaching about diversity and inclusion they answer; “Oh I think they’re surprisingly effective. I don’t think they should be the only thing

though and that’s my criticism of it”. They explain that while you can give a good lecture, there

needs to be some kind of follow-up, a more strategic approach. The interviewee mentions that the Spelanalys course divides the students into smaller groups after such lectures and have seminars where they discuss what has been said during the lecture. While the respondent believes this is good, they problematise the fact that the person giving the lecture is rarely the one who is running the seminars. Instead, other teachers are in charge of the seminars. This means that one cannot assume that the other teachers hold the same information or that they themselves were present during the lecture. Further on they argue that during the lectures, the students should get the opportunity to speak, that the lectures need to be somewhat conversational.

The interviewee believes that the impact a lecture could have on the students varies, and depends on the individual. Some will take it in and then tuck it away, some learn something new and think more about it, while others are just not interested and might not think of it as any different than the more practical information they are taught in other courses. Though the impact varies, the respondent perceives that the interest in diversity and inclusion has grown and that the students engage more in subjects related to the topics, such as ideas, projects and that the students want to talk about it; “[...] I think, you know, post gamergate and just in general I can feel the students,

you know, really changing, I think there’s a much more mature perspective and thinking about that and understanding the importance of it in a way that I don’t have to open anyone’s eyes to it [...]”.

Similar to the impact of the lectures on each student varies, the interviewee would receive different reactions from the students during and after the lecture, but the reactions are rarely neutral; “[...]

it’s never “oh okay thanks”, you know and then people just wander away. It’s always touchy in some way, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a kind of contentious way”. Overall, the

12

away. Despite this, they explain that there have been some situations where students tried to challenge the teacher and got argumentative, both during lectures and after.

13

3

Problem

The existing games industry, though slowly improving, seems to be fixated on the idea that the target audience they should focus on is the straight, white man (Fron et al., 2007). This creates problems as video games are becoming a large part of the culture people partake in and is therefore just as liable for cultivation theory or symbolic annihilation as any other media. However, trying to change an entire established industry might not be the most effective or easy way to go about the issue. The approach chosen in this study, to change the audience perception, is to address it before people make it into the industry.

One way to find people who will eventually join the industry in developing games is through Game Development programs at University. As stated before, some game development students approach the programs with the idea that they already know what games “are” and only need to attend courses to polish their technical skills. In order to “re-teach” these students, who are often reluctant to learn things which are not in alignment to what they know (Zagal & Bruckman, 2008), conversation and dialogue may be one way to tackle the issue (Rouse & Corron, 2020).

The main focus of this study, regarding the issue of misrepresentation or exclusion, lies on the knowledge future developers gather during their education. More specifically, at the University of Skövde there are eight different programs within game studies; 2D graphics, 3D graphics, Animation, Game Writing, Game Design, Programming, Sound and Music. During the three year programs the students are met with some lectures regarding diversity and inclusion within the joint courses for all programs, and some courses have follow-up seminars afterwards according to the program directors. It might still be difficult for students who are not interested, or find it unnecessary, to truly take in what is being said during the lectures. An associate professor at the University explains that whether or not the lectures have an impact on the students depends on the interest the students have themselves, whether they care about the matter or not. So how do you go about to make as many students as possible open to consider a new perspective?

In this study the benefits of fusing dialogue and educational games is explored and it is proposed that having the students play a card-based roleplaying game about diversity and inclusion together could be an effective way to spark conversations about the subject, without feeling that the dialogue is being forced. The game should instead work as a tool or means to approach subjects the students or faculty may find sensitive or difficult. Rather than having the students discuss or debate over the importance, or non-importance, of diversity and representation in games, they will hopefully share meaningful dialogues where they share their feelings and thoughts in a brave space.

The research question formulated to try and solve this problem reads;

14

3.1 Method

3.1.1 Artefact

Based on previous research it is believed in this study that a tabletop game could be a suitable way of gamifying the Game Development programs’ curriculums. Rather than using an existing game, and trying to fit that into conversations, a prototype for a new one will be produced as an artefact in this project.

Creating the artefact started by drafting a loose concept and exploring potential ideas before turning it into a concrete idea. The game has a setting, mechanics and characters which could fit into the education of the Game Development programs at the University of Skövde. An initial design document was made and the artefact was then iterated throughout the project through three ways of evaluation. Possible changes came from the feedback received from faculty members at the University of Skövde, in various stages, as well as a playtest with three players during the course of an hour. Concepts for card layouts and drafts of events were developed in line with the various iterations.

The artefact is similar to a TTRPG (tabletop role-playing game), taking inspiration from games such as Dungeons and Dragons (1974), Escape the Dark Castle (2017) and Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading

Card Game (1996). The idea is that a group of students, about 3-5, attempt to complete a quest

while consistently being asked to answer questions about the choices they make. The game will be played out using different sets of cards; Character Class Cards, Attribute Cards, Event Cards and Why Cards. The Attribute Cards are used to create the characters and will consist of categories regarding social identity from Jenelius article on creating diverse characters (2016); Age, Gender, Sexuality, Nationality, Physical ability, Mental ability and Belief/Religion.

The dialogue is incorporated through Event Cards and Why Cards. The Event Cards will provide the players with situations to handle, where they make choices that affects the gameplay by sharing their thoughts on what they should do and making decisions together. Connected to certain events there is a prompt to draw a Why Card, which is meant to make the players think about the choices they make and to have a conversation about them, why they did what they did and what consequences may come from it. The conversations strive towards a brave space as discussed in the background (Kay, 2018; Whittenburg Ozment, 2018; Rouse & Corron, 2020), to try to make it clear that no people in the group of players are at a disadvantage and that everyone’s opinion is as just and important as any other. While the goal of the game is to handle different scenarios, there is no right or wrong way to do so. The focus lies on the story and the journey, why certain choices were made and the dialogue the players engage in along the way.

3.1.2 Execution

Due to the pandemic of Covid-19, the artefact could not be evaluated the way that was first intended. The original idea was to have students from the University of Skövde play the game in person within a classroom at the University, but as the University was closed during the time of conducting this study, it was not an option. Instead, interviews were conducted with program directors within the Game Development department at the University of Skövde, some feedback was given on the Design Document from two faculty members, and a remote playtest was performed.

follow-15

up questions (Williamson, 2002). The members participating in interviews are program directors, in charge of the programs within the Games Department, an associate professor within the department who has experience in teaching representation to the students, and a coordinator from DONNA. For the execution and to use these interviews when iterating the artefact, two specific questions regarding the possibility or limitation of having a game lite the artefact be a part of their education; “Do you have any thoughts on whether such a game could fit into the education?” and “Is there anything you would have taken into consideration, be it design, mechanics etcetera, to include in a game for it to fit better?”. The interviewees were also briefed with the general idea for the artefact, as it had not been elaborately designed at the time, as well as some information regarding how to play and what it was for, to give context to the questions. Though all interviewees received the same questions, the information about the game varied slightly as the artefact was further developed in between interviews. However, no major changes were made in the design at this stage and they all received roughly the same information.

All interviewees present in this study gave their consent to use the information as well as incorporating the transcripts in the appendices. One of the respondents, present in an interview with several people, did not wish to be part of the study later on, their responses have therefore been redacted and are instead marked with a hyphen where their responses would have been. They gave their permission to use the rest of the interview as is.

After the game had been designed, two faculty members from the Game Development department read the design document for the game. Reading only the document, they gave their feedback regarding potential improvement suggestions, the game’s compatibility with the education, or what they perceived is further needed in order for it to be a functioning part of the education. Their responses were given via email.

Alongside the faculty input, there was some playtesting of the game. Although the game could not be played as was originally intended, with all players and the Game Master and Moderator all in the same room, a modification of how the game is played was made so that it could be tested remotely via a group phone call. One group consisting of three people played the game and gave some feedback about their experience afterwards. Other than some technical and practical difficulties faced during this session, potentially having effects on the outcome, it is important to address the participants. The three people who participated in the playtest were chosen via non-probability, as they were chosen based on their will to be a part of the test (Williamson 2002). Messages were sent to friend groups asking if anyone was willing to participate. Three people from one of the groups gave a positive response and were therefore included. The participants are therefore not only friends with the authors of this study, but friends with each other as well. As the game being made relies on dialogue between the players, non-acquaintances, acquaintances or friends, this has a big impact in the evaluation of the outcome. These participants had some interest in games and game development, one of them is currently studying in a Game Development program at the University of Skövde, one has finished their studies within a Game Development program at the University of Skövde, and one has had an interest in applying to a Game Development program at the University of Skövde.

16

drawing cards themselves from a pile, while still having control over the randomness so that they could not change any attributes by what they wanted. By having them be a part of the generating of their characters the idea was that they might feel more included in the process, rather than receiving a premade character. After having received all the information about their character they were sent a PDF of the rules for the game (see Appendix B). This gave the players about a day to get to know their character and research attributes if needed.

When starting the playtest the players were briefed with the purpose of the test and that they would be anonymous in the report, followed by a conversation about the rules and if they understand how to play. After this they shared information about their characters before starting the game. The two researchers writing this report acted as Game Master and Moderator during the test. When the game session ended, after the set time of 60 minutes, the participants received a link to a Google Form. They were asked to answer the questions truthfully and after doing so the test had been completed. Though one might have preferred to have interviews with the participants, there was not time to set up meetings and transcribe each interview. Having them write down their answers allowed for a quicker data gathering process and analysis.

3.1.3 Evaluation

To evaluate whether or not the artefact made in this study could be used to gamify the inclusion and diversity aspects of the curriculums in Game Development programs, and to shape the final prototype, the three aforementioned methods were used. Each method is used to answer different aspects of the research question. The interviews and the feedback from two faculty members evaluate the compatibility of the artefact and the education at the University of Skövde. The playtest evaluates the game’s ability to start conversations about the topics.

The interviews used during the first iteration focuses more on the artefact being made in this study and what the faculty members thought would be appropriate, or inappropriate, to include in such a game. Aspects regarding design, practicalities, mechanics and characters are some examples to what could be mentioned, it depends on the respondents’ thoughts and what they deem to be important. As the artefact that has been made is meant to be played within courses of Game Development programs, this information helps in understanding key points in such a game. It will also be investigated whether they believe the education could have use for a similar game. If they do not believe that this kind of game could work together with the education the design of the game would have to change.

17

18

4

The Artefact

Based on the background it was decided that the artefact that would be produced in this study should be a card-based roleplaying game that draws attention to, and starts dialogue about, diversity and stereotypes of characters in games. It is based on cooperation amongst the players. Throughout this segment the general idea of the game is presented. Later on, in section 5 Analysis, the iteration process of the artefact presents the changes that were made to shape the final prototype (see section 6 The Final Prototype).

The artefact should be played by 3-5 players, as there needs to be more than two to have the players make decisions, but few enough for everyone to be heard without feeling as though nothing happens in the game. The game also requires a Game Master to guide the players through their journey, and a Moderator to help mediate the conversation and make sure the players were sharing a dialogue, not having a discussion or debate (Kachwaha 2002). The Game Master’s task is that of a regular TTRPG Game Master; tell the story of what unfolds in the game and control NPCs. The Moderator’s task is to make sure every player in the conversation is heard and have their opinions respected, even if problematised during the session. It was decided that the Game Master and Moderator would be two separate people in case the workload and responsibility would be too much for just one individual.

The story of the game takes place in a dystopian future where witches are being hunted by non-witches. The players take on the role as a party of witches and their goal is to reach The Blue Haven, a sanctuary where witches can live freely without being hunted. The story was created like this as to not be too realistic, and to have the players cooperate throughout the game. At this stage the artefact was meant to use a board to indicate the players progress in reaching the end goal, and the game would end once the players had reached the end of the board and thus completed the goal of getting the Party to The Blue Haven.

Though the artefact is created to be used in education, some more commercial aspects were included to have the game feel less academic and solely focused on serious topics. According to Ruberg (2019), certain games are grouped together under the name of so-called “empathy” games. These are usually small scale games by independent creators, for example Mainichi (2012) by Mattie Brice, but also more known titles such as Gone Home (2013). Their common denominator is that they, in the eyes of people in the industry and game journalists, are meant to evoke feelings other than “happiness” or “fun” as “traditional” video games would and possibly instead make the players think about and experience difficult topics (Ruberg, 2019). The premise for the game therefore focused on fun, with battles for the players to play through and different events for them to handle. The empathy part of the game is more tied to the dialogue and educational aspects, such as the players making decisions and sharing their thoughts with one another. Also related to this is the incorporation of Why Cards. Why Cards hold questions regarding the players choices, tying back to their roles as future game developers. It is primarily through the Why Cards that the dialogue is meant to flourish. The questions the players are asked to think and talk about through the Why Cards could be, for example, “What made you choose that/those specific character/s?” or “Imagine that this is a commercial game and that the decisions you make are taking place in

that game. Could your choice have an impact on those players?” Questions like these are meant

19

As for creating a brave space, as mentioned in the background (Fisher & Petryk, 2017; Whittenburg Ozment, 2018; Kay, 2018) for all students to feel comfortable in speaking in, this would require more time and potentially an entire course to teach the students about dialogue and speaking their minds. This study does not set out to change an entire classroom environment, as the scope is too big for this project, but seeks to create a way for teachers and students to have conversations about sensitive subjects without it becoming forced or troublesome. These areas were therefore not tested or examined further, though as discussed further in section 7.2, creating such spaces is relevant when including dialogue in any way into the classroom. For this project these thoughts were taken into consideration when designing the game, which is why dialogue was used as a means for conversation as opposed to discussion.

Each turn would start by the players drawing an Event Card. When an Event has played out the next player draws a new card, and so on. Event Cards determine what happens in the game and could be sorted into two categories; Main Events and Side Events. Main Events focused on the “main story” of the game, to reach The Blue Haven, in which the party had to overcome obstacles in order to move forward on the board. Failing the Main Event Card meant that the Party did not progress on the board and could possibly result in negative effects on the Party, for example that someone got hurt. Side Events could not fail as they focused on personal relationships and character development rather than the “main story”, and would always have the Party moving forward on the board. Some Event Cards have predetermined consequences where the outcome was based on the alternatives the Party chose. Other Event Cards such as battles, however, are determined by how the players use their characters’ skills and luck.

Along the way the players would come across potential threats, Enemies, which the Party has to battle. There are Hunters who are encountered one at a time and who has a wide variety of attacks, they were handpicked from specialised Task Forces to hunt down witches and would follow the Party if they picked up their trail. These Enemies are the most challenging threats. Furthermore, there are Task Forces, groups of specially trained soldiers. Unlike the Hunters, they do not track the Party, but could be encountered randomly, for example on the road or in different towns. Lastly there are Scared Townsfolk. They would not battle the Party per say, but could however turn the Party in to the authorities. How the Scared Townsfolk would react is pre-determined by Event Cards or based on the Party’s decisions.

20

Thereafter the players Class would either be drawn on random, such as the attributes. These classes determine what sort of magic the character can use and what stats the character has. Each Class has their own Special Abilities, reflecting their magic. The first draft for the Classes abilities and stats are presented below.

The Shield:

Their magic is purely supportive, they use their magic to keep the rest of the party safe by healing magic or by creating shield-like force fields around the target. Their magic can deal no damage to neither friend nor foe.

Magic: 1 Defence: 5 HP: 14

Special

Force Field: Magic + Defence + 1D6. Defence is reduced by -1 for next turn. Healing: Healing is equivalent to 1D6 per turn. Cannot be used on self.

The Rot:

Their magic is meant for close combat, they use their magic as a cloak around them and everything they touch while in this state will start to decompose.

Magic: 3 Defence: 2 Hp: 18

Special

21

The Storm:

Their magic is good for attacking multiple targets at once by conjuring electricity and sending it through the enemies.

Magic: 3 Defence: 3 HP: 18

Special

Closed Circuit: When enemies are more than one, add +1 to Magic per enemy. When enemy is “Townsfolk”, add +2 to Magic.

The Illusion:

Their magic is used mainly for stealth and sneak attacks as it aids them to get close to their target without being noticed.

Magic: 3 Defence: 2 HP: 14

Special

22

The Symbiosis:

Their magic may be used to deal damage or constrict their target. They harness the magical powers around them to create more powerful magics, therefore their magic is more

effective when close to their party.

Magic: 1 Defence: 3 HP: 14

Special

Unity: For each party member other than yourself, add +1 to Magic.

Bind: Magic + 1D6 - Target cannot attack or defend for one turn. Cannot be used on Townsfolk.

The Black Hole:

Their pressure-based magic is heavily damaging to everyone around the witch, friend and foe. The magic pierces the targets and crushes them slowly from the inside.

Magic: 5 Defence: 4 HP: 14

Special

23

The Chronos:

Their magic is used to slow down time. As they use their powers they cannot move and rely on others to do damage. Their magic is supportive and using it to damage will cause harm on themselves as well.

Magic: 5 Defence: 2 HP: 12

Special

Stop Time: Magic + 1D6 - targets one enemy, if successful enemy can’t attack or defend for one turn.

24

5

Analysis

The artefact was iterated from feedback received by faculty members and play testing. Below, the various stages that the artefact went through are presented in chronological order.

5.1 First iteration

The first iteration is based on parts of the interviews held with faculty of the University of Skövde. During the interviews the faculty were asked questions about whether a game like the one being made in this study could have a place in the Game Development programs, and what they themselves would look for in such a game for it to fit in better. They were briefed shortly about the general idea of the game, such as that it is a roleplaying game intended to start conversations about diversity and inclusion, before being asked the questions. Their responses are used to design the first iteration of the artefact. Transcripts for these interviews are found in Appendix D-L.

5.1.1 Feedback from Faculty Interviews

All interviewees indicated that the game, especially if incorporated early on, for example in relation to Spelprojekt 1 or Spelprojekt 2 or Spelanalys courses, could function within the Game Development programs at the University. One of them stated that the system they have now, with seminars and lectures, works, but believes that there should be other activities for the students to partake in throughout the education. They claim that having only a lecture, without any follow-up, could go unnoticed by the students and instead turn it into a “token lecture”. The information given would then possibly risk not being received.

During the interviews a practical problem regarding the time the game would take to play was brought up. Some of the interviewees expressed the need for a time limit in order to have the game work in their education, as they needed to be able to round things up during that session, not leaving the game unfinished.

Many of the faculty members who were interviewed agreed that it is important for the students to learn about other people’s experiences and how they differ from themselves, to learn directly from an original source instead of through, for example, a western lens which may be diluted and stereotypical. They also explained how a game like this could be used to deconstruct characters and show the players that a character can come from many different backgrounds as well as being intersectional. Furthermore, they thought that breaking down the construction of a character could show students that how you design a character has an impact on the outcome.

They all shared the opinion that the game would need a framework for questions which the players could talk about, both during and after the session, and that the dialogue should be in focus for the game. In relation to this, it was mentioned that there needs to be room for the students to reflect, either within the game or as a framework for questions to be talked about after playing. The member clarified by stating “[...] you don’t wanna just design the game, you have to design

the experience”. One of the faculty members explained how it would be positive for the students

25

One of the interviewees said that while it is important to problematize the players thoughts and opinions on the topics the game brings up, you have to make sure that you do not start off by telling people what to think or how to feel about it. In order for everyone to feel comfortable in participating and feel like it is rewarding in some way you have to make sure that everyone feels heard and respected. On the issue of comfort, some of the faculty members expressed concern about students who may not feel comfortable in playing this kind of game but who still want to be a part of the conversation in some way. They thought it might be relevant to have some way of including other people in the gameplay, without having them play themselves.

5.1.2 First Changes

Based on the faculty members’ responses collected during the interview some changes were made to the initial design of the game. It was decided to limit each session to 60 minutes so that it would fit into a setting similar to a seminar, as this was a clear request from some of the interviewees. Having this time limit could also allow time for a post-game group dialogue, depending on the amount of time the students would have scheduled, as this was mentioned as well. Limiting the time meant that the length of the game would have to be controllable, something that with the initial design of the game was difficult. Bearing this in mind, it seemed impractical to have the players use a board, as first was considered, to track their progress of the game since this would imply that they would need to reach the end of the board to complete the game session. The board was therefore removed and replaced with only Event Cards to track the players’ progress. This meant that players would play only a section of the characters’ journey to The Blue Haven, and not complete the journey themselves, something that was written into the rules as well so that players would be prepared to have the game cut after an hour and that reaching The Blue Haven would not be achievable.

As some of the respondents expressed a potential need, or at least a suggestion, to have a framework of questions they could address after the game session, it was taken into consideration how this may be needed if the game was to be produced in full. The same went for the suggestion that there could be a way for students who do not want to play the game directly, but still want to be a part of the conversation, to have a place in the design. Though not further explored, it was included as a possibility in the design document, to have some students play the game while others listen to the dialogue.

The idea of having characters be deconstructed and then assembled in ways that might not be common had already been integrated into the design, but validated the character creation as relevant to the game. Some of the feedback was not concrete and acted more like information one should have in mind when designing a game for education. For example, that all players should feel respected and not feel as though opinions are being forced upon them. These comments are kept as guidance, but have not been explicitly addressed in the design. Using these changes, a design document was created.

5.2 Second iteration

26

to complete a play session, as well as if they suspected the information in the document would suffice for the students to be able to start a conversation. The feedback could regard whatever the respondent had thoughts about, for example the number of players, mechanics, the theme etcetera. They sent their feedback via email.

5.2.1 Feedback from Faculty on Design Document

The first feedback from one of the respondents regarded how the game was described, as it seemed to be more like a TTRPG rather than a card game as it was described in the beginning of the document. Moving on they both had some thoughts about what it is the Game Master does more specifically and had a request for guidelines for this role and the Moderator since, for example if mishandled, they could undermine the purpose of the game. Related to this they problematized that if teachers are meant to take on the roles of Moderator and Game Master, the resource of teachers within the department could be too small. Furthermore, one questioned the choice of having the events being drawn at random instead of designing the whole scenario, as drawing them at random could potentially make the players’ decisions feel meaningless since it does not directly affect the progression of the plot. One of the respondents continued by stating that having choices and Events that feel meaningful to the players could help in activating their opinions about society.

The respondents brought up some potential risks and questions about the character creation, specifically the number of attributes that the characters would be given. They wondered whether having a large amount of attributes to keep track of and understand would cause problems if the players are not familiar with the terminology, and what consequences that might have on the dialogue in the game. They felt it seemed like a lot of information for the players to research before playing, having the characters be “too” complex and proposed lowering the number of attributes to make the dialogue more focused. One of them added the risk of the players not having the “correct” information about all the attributes even after having done research in case they did not have time to look at all eight attributes, potentially making the inclusion of all eight attributes counterproductive.

As a result of the interviews held for the first iteration the possibility of having some students play while others observe and listen was added. This due to a respondent’s concern regarding the students’ will to engage in the game, as some might want to be a part of the experience without having to be part of the dialogue. The feedback received from one of the faculty members on the design document expressed doubts about this addition, as they explained it would not work for educational purposes due to, amongst other reasons, it not being fair according to the respondent. The other faculty member brought up the issue as well but said that roleplaying overall can be excluding, more so than regular conversations in groups, especially when you play with people you do not know.