In Monday’s episode of the Train Like You Listen podcast, Heather spoke with our colleague, Lauren Wescott, about her recent experiences designing games for the training room. Lauren spoke briefly about cooperative vs. competitive games, and what each type of game could bring to the training room. If you’re looking to bring a game into your next training program, here are a few things you’ll want to keep in mind:
“Games” and “Gamification” are not the same thing
Games are something you play. Gamification is an intentional design strategy. Playing Jeopardy or awarding points for correct answers doesn’t really mean you’ve “gamified” a training program.
In their book For The Win, Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter suggest that true gamification goes beyond points, badges and leaderboards and includes a variety of elements such as:
- Learner growth and development
- Elements of chance
- Competition or cooperation
- Resource acquisition
- Transactions between players
- Win, lose and draw states
- Boss fights/culminating challenges
- Collections (of badges, resources, etc)
- Content unlocking
- Social graphs
- Virtual goods
Pros and Cons of “Competitive” Games
As mentioned above, competition can be a key element in games – whether it’s a board game you play at home like Monopoly, a game played on Sundays (like football) or a game you’d play in the training room. In my experience, competitive games – a game in which there is one winner (and potentially a lot of losers) is the most common type of game used in training settings.
Competitive games offer a variety of pros, including:
- Engaging those who like to win
- Offering a sense of “play”
- An experience similar to activities (such as Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit) that learners have played before
- A goal
- Some competitive games include teamwork
- Simulating the competition that some in industries such as sales may experience in real life
- Opportunities to simulate real life challenges
Drawbacks of competitive games may include:
- Participants focusing more on the rules and winning while losing sight of the intended point of the game
- Games designed after Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit focus more on knowledge and less on the demonstration of skills learned
- Some participants may be turned off by needing to engage in competition and/or may fall so far behind in the game that they lose interest
Pros and Cons of “Cooperative” Games
I’ll admit that the genre of cooperative games is relatively new to me. It’s not uncommon for others with whom I’m talking to look puzzled and ask: “What’s a cooperative game?” when I’m speaking about different types of games, which makes me think I’m not alone in my lifelong ignorance to the existence of cooperative games.
Cooperative games, in a nut shell, are games where players work together to accomplish a common goal. “Winning” is often measured by “beating” the game. In the game Pandemic, for example, players work together to try to stop a global outbreak of diseases. Winning happens when all of the diseases have been snuffed out. Losing happens if the diseases take over the world. Win or lose, all of the players are in the experience together.
In my limited experience with these types of games, here are some of the pros I’ve found:
- Learners must stay engaged or they’ll be letting their colleagues down
- While there’s always an emphasis on winning, learners generally don’t lose sight of the point of the exercise and argue with one another over the technicality of certain rules
- De-emphasizes competition while emphasizing skills such as group decision-making, collaboration, cooperation and communication
Some of the drawbacks of cooperative games include:
- Because this genre is less common and rules of the game can sometimes be complex, learners need some time to grow comfortable with the rules and the activity… I’ve not yet seen a “short” (15-20 minute) cooperative game
- Planning and design of a cooperative game can be intensive
If you’d like to explore the genre of cooperative games in more depth, the two examples that Lauren offered during Monday’s podcast were:
A few final considerations
Games can be fun, engaging and memorable ways for learners to grasp important concepts and skills. Take great care, however, because as many people noted when I posted on LinkedIn about using games in the training setting, games can also turn many learners off. Some comments included:
“I use [games] sparingly because games for the sake of games is annoying as heck.”
“Pictionary with a group of medical assistants to practice vocabulary, always a huge hit. Build a spaghetti tower that can hold a marshmallow with a bunch of programmers.. no.”
“I tend to see games being used where there’s not really a good link to the learning, applying or recalling the actual concept that should be supported. Plus, I personally am not a game person.”
“Earning badges probably works for many people especially if there are incentives connected. But for me, not even then. It always strikes me about the same as training dogs with treats.”
As these comments show, great care should be taken when it comes to designing and incorporating games or game elements into your next training program.
If you’d like to know more about a cooperative game our organization created for training and presentation skills (called: Train the Trainer: The Game), drop me a line!
What do you think? Competitive games in the training room? Cooperative games? Stay away from games? Let’s hear some thoughts in the comment section!