It's a virtual world (?)

[marct]

Hi Billy,

Excellent points.

On your first one, I think we need to draw a spectrum from in-class, face-to-face with a facilitator all the way through to an individual downloading their own. The trick, to my mind, is how we can leverage technologies to mitigate the distance from the f2f + facilitator. Could we use online forums? Could we use real-time gaming? Honestly, this is an issue that goes well beyond the military and has some pretty serious implications for any form of education. BTW, any ideas you have would be appreciated - especially since I know where you work and what you're studying !

The second point is more tricky. The "final product" I would like to see would be a full blown, highly interactive virtual world type scenario - sort of like the gaming machines in Melissa Scott's The Game Beyond if you ever read it. We're not there yet, but what I saw was certainly impressive within its limits. As with most changes in teaching technology, i think it would be useful to start with the version they have now and gradually introduce more interaction and possibilities.

The problem with introducing radical changes in teaching technology is that you have to teach both the teachers how to use it and the students how to learn from it. The version they have now is a straight exaptation of older case study methods that they use right now, so there's not much of a learning curve. However, the more flexibility that's added into the system, the steeper the learning curve (especially for the teachers!).

On your last couple of points, and I think they are all related, let me just say that I selected WoW mainly because it is full of real people. The best "map" of a person is a person, so ideally, you would end up not using AIs at all - just people. That was one of the big strengths of D&D when you get right down to it. As long as you had a good DM, you could have a great game.

Cheers,

Marc

[Ron Humphrey]

Would be to coordinate with various institutions internationally and using the basic premise behind the training tool stuff have real live people actually make a living doing exactly that in a 3d environment of some sort.

WoW and other simply serve as proof of principle for can it be done. The trick would be buy-in from those you'd require to actually make it happen.

[John T. Fishel]

Case Method and Case Studies. The latter are research tools that take a particular case from its beginning to its end. Case Method teaching, by contrast, takes the case from its start point to the point of decision and demands that the students make that decision. Typically, it then provides data on what was actually done and the consequences of the action taken.
Frankly, a good asynchronous discussion lends itself well to Case method teaching. The instructor in such a situation is really quite naturally in a facilitator role. I can also see it being used relatively easily in a synchronous mode. And, setteing the stage by downloading some sort of video presentation would be an easy fit. So, all in all, I see it as a promising tool with all the usual caveats about doing it well.

Cheers

JohnT

[Steve Blair]

On your last couple of points, and I think they are all related, let me just say that I selected WoW mainly because it is full of real people. The best "map" of a person is a person, so ideally, you would end up not using AIs at all - just people. That was one of the big strengths of D&D when you get right down to it. As long as you had a good DM, you could have a great game.

Cheers,

Marc

Quite so, especially the table top RPG comment. I tend to prefer the idea of free play, moderated techniques...with the additional variation that actions by the players can modify their environment (within limits). That's why I always preferred the MUD/MUSH or tabletop setting to a WoW-type setting. Tabletop is of course the easiest to modify on the go, while a MUD can shift quickly due to its text-based nature. But once the engine becomes the end and not the means (which is sort of how I see things like WoW), you lose that flexibility.

[Rex Brynen]

Quite so, especially the table top RPG comment. I tend to prefer the idea of free play, moderated techniques...with the additional variation that actions by the players can modify their environment (within limits). That's why I always preferred the MUD/MUSH or tabletop setting to a WoW-type setting. Tabletop is of course the easiest to modify on the go, while a MUD can shift quickly due to its text-based nature. But once the engine becomes the end and not the means (which is sort of how I see things like WoW), you lose that flexibility.

I'm also a big fan of human-moderated RPG approaches to training, whether pencil-and-paper or computer-facilitated. However, the challenge from a training perspective is developing a skilled cadre of moderators, and then getting them to where the folks who need training are. You can't cut corners on this, or the process might be worse than useless--as anyone who has ever played D&D with a lame DM can attest.

By contrast, a software package offers the attraction of something that can be implemented in many places at the same time, therefore providing standardized training in volume. The problem is what you then lose in the process (the flexibility and inventiveness of a human moderator, and the danger of building unseen assumptions into the software that players can't challenge, and may even not be aware of.)

[Steve Blair]

I'm also a big fan of human-moderated RPG approaches to training, whether pencil-and-paper or computer-facilitated. However, the challenge from a training perspective is developing a skilled cadre of moderators, and then getting them to where the folks who need training are. You can't cut corners on this, or the process might be worse than useless--as anyone who has ever played D&D with a lame DM can attest.

By contrast, a software package offers the attraction of something that can be implemented in many places at the same time, therefore providing standardized training in volume. The problem is what you then lose in the process (the flexibility and inventiveness of a human moderator, and the danger of building unseen assumptions into the software that players can't challenge, and may even not be aware of.)

I understand that completely. Seen many lame DMs in my day, but also fallen victim to many lame software packages with good graphics. That's why I think the best compromise might be a software package (similar to the MUSH/MUD style) that allows a good core of skilled moderators to reach a large number of trainees. That way you can tweek the mechanics but still keep the human core and variable in place that's really needed (IMO) for this stuff to be of lasting value.

[marct]

Hi Guys,

By contrast, a software package offers the attraction of something that can be implemented in many places at the same time, therefore providing standardized training in volume. The problem is what you then lose in the process (the flexibility and inventiveness of a human moderator, and the danger of building unseen assumptions into the software that players can't challenge, and may even not be aware of.)

I understand that completely. Seen many lame DMs in my day, but also fallen victim to many lame software packages with good graphics. That's why I think the best compromise might be a software package (similar to the MUSH/MUD style) that allows a good core of skilled moderators to reach a large number of trainees. That way you can tweek the mechanics but still keep the human core and variable in place that's really needed (IMO) for this stuff to be of lasting value.

I just finished looking over a rather good example of what Steve calls a "lame software package with good graphics" that was supposed to be used as a training package (sorry Nichols ). Yes, they are certainly out there as are really bad DMs out there in Military training exercises (I'm sure GEN Van Ripper could point to some...).

Having said that, from a "training perspective" (and you guys don't know how much I HATE using that phrase!), you can (re)train people, but you can't (re)train and environment (modify it, yes). So, to my mind, it makes the most sense to create as open, realistic and flexible environment for training that will actually show up any problems with humans. This is why I like the idea of a WoW or Second Life type of environment with real people "DMs" and avatars playing the support cast.

Of course, the quality of your DMs has to be really good, and the criteria for "good" in this case is a perception / skill set that isn't selected for in many training organizations (actually, it's often selected against in these types of organizations!). Within the US military, I suspect that some of your best DM candidates would come from special forces and the Marines. Outside of the military, look for smart ass 12-20 year olds who are making a name for themselves in gaming circles (BTW, I remember going to Origins in 1982 and watch a 12 year old beat the snot out of an Armour CPT in a Microarmor game). If you can find any of them (okay, "us", and now I'm showing my age....), see if you can recruit any of the first generation of DMs from the early 1970's.

[Steve Blair]

If you can find any of them (okay, "us", and now I'm showing my age....), see if you can recruit any of the first generation of DMs from the early 1970's.

I'd add in the second wave from the 1980s as well, mainly because games had really expanded from the fantasy settings by that time. I ran a number of espionage-based games, as well as stuff set in the Old West and a 1920s Chicago-type setting.

I'd prefer a Second Life-type setting to WoW, simply because SL is customizeable and WoW doesn't seem to be. But yeah, you HAVE to have the human element in as both DMs and players. If you take that element out, it's shorted.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I'd add in the second wave from the 1980s as well, mainly because games had really expanded from the fantasy settings by that time. I ran a number of espionage-based games, as well as stuff set in the Old West and a 1920s Chicago-type setting.

I started DMing back in '74 and running tournaments in '75, so I got to see both the first wave and the second (and 3rd) wave crowd. The first tended to be pretty good, while the second had some great people and some hacks. The third wave didn't impress me at all.

The key difference always seemed to be in how much "support" (read "control") the games tried to establish to "help" the GM. The key variable, at least from what I saw, was the ability to use an active imagination and, if a GM had it, then the rule conventions would be used as mere background mechanics while, if they didn't have it, they became a strangle hold on the players.

I'd prefer a Second Life-type setting to WoW, simply because SL is customizeable and WoW doesn't seem to be. But yeah, you HAVE to have the human element in as both DMs and players. If you take that element out, it's shorted.

I'd prefer SL myself, but I'd like to use a modified VR sensory input with something like a Wii controller.