作者：Justin Marquis

根据游戏设计师Jesse Schell的说法，在游戏中添加所有必要元素还不足以使之获得成功，你还必须实现这些元素间的艺术化平衡。实现必要成分间的融合可以使用多种方法。在他所著书籍《The Art of Game Design》（游戏邦注：出版于2008年）中，Schell列举了实现游戏机制平衡的最常用策略。以下便是他列举的12项策略，我简要概述了如何将这些策略运用到在线课程设计中：

game-mechanics(from onlineuniversities)

1、公平：据Schell所述，在游戏设计中，公平概念的利用可以通过两种基本战略：对称和不对称。对称设计游戏使得游戏参与者间是平等的，这往往出现在多数传统的运动游戏中。不对称设计使用的是游戏中玩家与玩家间或玩家与角色间的不同，以营造出更具挑战性的动态效果。在学习设计中，你可以根据课程资源的分配方式来执行这两种战略。在学习中构建不公平的情况能够给你的学习者营造出挑战，模拟可能遇到的现实世界挑战可以激发学习行为。但是应当注意的是，如果不谨慎使用这种战略，为还未准备好或不擅长于面对挑战的学生营造不公平的学习环境会令他们感到失望甚至丧失信心。

2、挑战 VS 成功：成功游戏往往都是平衡的，所呈现的挑战既不会过于容易，也不会难到让玩家无法成功完成。无论偏向哪个极端都会导致玩家产生挫败感并最终放弃游戏。同样的原则也适用于学习。Vygotsky首次提出一种想法，通过一系列挑战性逐步提升的学习目标来缓慢地提升学生的技能。你可以在在线教学中创建一种规则，学生会因克服挑战获得成功而受到奖励，这能够激发学习动力，使课程自然进展。

3、有意义的选择：Schell断言，最优秀的游戏会让玩家做出有意义的选择，这些选择会对游戏的结果产生影响。在课程设计中，这个想法同围绕学生来设计学习的概念相似，学生不仅要选择学习的内容，而且还要脱离教师进行学习。在课程中设计选择内容，允许学生选择项目的话题或者合作决定课程内容、目标和评价，这能够让学生产生课程的荣辱感，使学生觉得自己是成功的。

4、技能 VS 运气：对于课程设计来说，成功是基于技能还是基于运气，这两者间的平衡性的用处可能是最小的。在游戏中，多数情况下这只是玩家的个人偏好问题（游戏邦注：偏好技能性游戏或机会性游戏），而且很难达到受用户广泛认同的平衡。你可以在课程中整合些许机会性元素，但是不要让他们觉得课程中的成功与否取决于自己的运气。如此看来，让学生意识到是他们的技能获得提升，他们的成功是他们自我提升的结果，这似乎是更为稳妥的做法。

5、动脑 VS 动手：这代表游戏中肢体灵敏度和智能两个方面。许多动作游戏将这两种元素无缝地融合起来，玩家必须对熟悉和掌握游戏的控制方式，才能够成功地战胜游戏中的智利挑战。教育是种智力追求，因而这个概念或许看上去与我们的目标不符，但事实情况或许并非如此。在上篇文章中我提到过，作为设计师，你能够控制学习设计中的空间和目标。在课程中包含需要学生发展与课程内容相关的具体技能和能力的元素，这能够提升学习者的身体和思维能力。基于项目或基于问题的学习便是在在线课程中实现动脑和动手平衡的做法。

6、竞争 VS 协作：游戏中包含有探索这两种基本人类愿望的社交空间。在课程中设计这两种元素，让学生体验当他们踏入工作领域后很可能体验到的紧张感。商业、工业甚至学习中都包含着激烈的竞争，但同时需要协作和团队行为。无论是通过课程小版块间的直接竞争，还是通过基于团队的竞争，将这两种元素整合到教学中，能够使其成为学习经历的重要部分。在学习环境中引入角色扮演游戏或MMO，这是将这种紧张感带入在线课堂的直接方法。

7、短期 VS 长期：游戏设计师必须在设计中决定游戏可玩性的持续时间，包括整体游戏时间和单个挑战两个层面。这种平衡也可以通过合理的课程构建运用到在线课堂中，不断实现无数个轻易实现的项目或结果导致整个长期课程项目的完成。

8、奖励：这是中最为普遍使用的游戏机制，可通过许多种类的系统整合到游戏背景中，比如赞扬、分数、延长时间、提供新体验入口、壮观景象、表达、力量、资源以及游戏的完成。在整个教育史中，奖励本身已被广泛地使用。我们最为熟悉的奖励内容是成绩单和毕业。在线课堂中的成功奖励过程不需要如此正式或面向最终目标。可以考虑通过某些方式来认可学生所获得的成功，比如徽章、讨论板上的表扬、在学习中分配特殊的角色或解锁下个等级的课程分配，这些都算是对学生所取得成功的认可。

9、惩罚：奖励的反面自然是惩罚，在游戏中这是种很有效的工具，可以增加内容的挑战性从而提升玩家的成就感。惩罚在课堂上的作用并不明显，通常会产生适得其反的效果，所以我们不使用此战略改善在线课堂。但是，制定课堂记录与惩罚学生并不相同。

10、自由  VS  控制体验：回顾前面提到的有意义选择概念，在游戏设计中决定赋予玩法多少自由和选择权是至关重要的层面。如果自由度过多，结果就像是玩家在设计游戏而不是玩游戏。如果自由度过少，学生或玩家会觉得自己所追求的只是固定的结局。在课程设计中，你必须平衡这两个方面，既让学生可以控制课程的内容和方向，又不能损害到你在课堂上的权威。为学生清晰设定其能够进行控制的参数，这是种实现这两个元素间平衡的方法。

11、简单 VS 复杂：游戏不能过于简单或过于复杂，必须实现简单性和丰富性的平衡。在课程设计中，这个方面可以通过学习者控制（游戏邦注：也就是自由选择）和在设计课程前预先了解用户来实现。新手测试、特定组面试和可用性测试可以寻找出让大部分学习者实现目标的最有效方法，实现有效平衡。

12、细节 VS  想象：游戏设计师必须决定，游戏应当提供多少细节，要留给玩家多少想象的空间。这个方面与课程设计差异不大，教师必须提供足够足够的指导来帮助学习者完成任务，但是不能提供过多，否则他们就会简单地按提示步骤实现，完全不用自行思考。对于在线教师来说，实现这组平衡是极具挑战性的，尤其当课程学生存在技术缺陷或缺乏自信时。学生自认为凭自己的能力无法学习新的技术或工具，所以才寻求指导和帮助。教师要做的就是决定要向学生提供多少指导才足够，这样他们才能最终成功地自学。

就整体开发过程而言，游戏设计和课程设计是有许多共同点的复杂过程。研究成功游戏设计中采用的元素和战略能够指导在线课程开发者创造出丰富、有吸引力、令人兴奋、富有挑战性和奖励性的学习环境，这样学生不仅会学习，而且还会学会自学。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2012年2月23日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Game Design Strategies for Balancing the Online Classroom

Justin Marquis

Yesterday’s post, Utilizing Game Mechanics in Online Learning, contained an overview of game mechanics and the ways in which these broad concepts can inform online course design in order to make virtual learning more interactive and engaging. Today I examine some specific strategies for fine-tuning the balance of the various game mechanics in order to create a learning experience that has the right blend of space, objects, actions, rules, skill, and chance.

According to game designer Jesse Schell it is not enough to have all of the necessary elements in a game in order to make it successful – you must also strike an artful balance between them (2008). There are a variety of ways to achieve the necessary blend of components. In his book The Art of Game Design (2008), Schell outlines the most common strategies for achieving balance in game mechanics. Here are his 12 strategies and a brief overview of how each can be applied to online course design:

Fairness – According to Schell there are two basic strategies for utilizing the concept of fairness in game design: symmetrical and asymmetrical (p. 172-173). Symmetrically designed games are created so that the playing field is level between all those participating in the game – this is the case for most traditional sports games. Asymmetrical design uses a disparity between players or players and characters in the game in order to create a more challenging dynamic. In learning design you can implement either strategy based on how you allocate course resources. Building unfairness into the class in order to create a challenge for your learners and to simulate the real world obstacles they may face can be extremely motivational. Be warned though, if not done carefully, creating an unfair learning environment for students who are not ready for it or up to the challenge can be discouraging and demoralizing.

Challenge vs. Success – Successful games strike a balance between making challenges too easy and making them too hard for players to complete successfully. Straying too far to either side will cause frustration and eventual abandonment of the game (p. 177). A similar principle applies in learning. First proposed by Vygotsky, the idea is to create a series of increasingly challenging learning objectives that will gradually raise students’ skill level in small, satisfying steps. Creating a structure in your online classroom where students are rewarded for their incremental successes, which come as the result of overcoming challenges, provides motivation and a natural flow for the course.

Meaningful Choices – Schell asserts that the best games present the player with meaningful choices to make that have a real impact on how the game turns out (p. 179). In course design, this idea is a direct analog to the concept of student-centered learning, where the student is responsible not only for choosing what they will learn, but also for doing the learning independent of the instructor. Designing choices into your curriculum by allowing students to choose the topics of projects or even collaboratively determining portions of the course content, objectives, and assessments can create deep buy-in into the course and make students feel both successful and empowered.

Skill vs. Chance – The balance between success based on skill or due to chance is probably the least useful tension for course design. In gaming, this is largely an individual preference for the type of game (a game of skill or a game of chance) and is difficult to balance in a way that will be universally appealing (p. 183). Incorporating some elements that seem to be chance occurrences can be exciting for students, but you do not want them to feel as if successes in the course have happened by chance. In this case, designing so that students realize that their skills have increased and their successes have come as a result of their personal advancement is almost always the safer bet (see Challenge and Success, above).

Head vs. Hands – This is the tension between manual dexterity and intellectual ability in games. Many action games blend these two elements seamlessly as players must physically master the game controls in order to successfully negotiate the intellectual challenges of the game (p. 184). This concept may seem counterintuitive to education (an intellectual pursuit), but does not need to be. Returning to the previous post, you as the designer, have control of the space and objects in your learning design. Including elements which require your students to develop concrete skills and abilities relating to the course content is an excellent way to build both the physical and intellectual capacity of your learners. Project-based or problem-based learning is one example of how the head vs. hands balance can be reached in online courses.

Competition vs. Cooperation – Games provide a socially safe space in which to explore these very basic human urges (p. 185). Designing both elements into your classes allows students to experience a tension that is likely to be very real when they enter the work world. Business, industry, and even education can be intensely competitive while simultaneously demanding cooperative, team behavior. Incorporating both of these into your class, either through direct competition over small sections of the course, or through team-based competition, provides exposure to an important part of the learning experience. Introducing role playing games or MMOGs into the learning environment is one very straightforward way to bring this tension into the online classroom.

Short vs. Long – The game designer must determine the duration of game play in their design, both for the overall game and individual challenges (p. 188). Striking this balance in the online classroom can be accomplished by constructing the course so that a series of shorter, easily attainable projects or outcomes lead to the completion of a longer course project or assignment.

Rewards – This is the most commonly used game mechanic that finds its way into other contexts through a variety of systems such as: praise, points, prolonged play, gateways to new experiences, spectacle, expression, powers, resources, completion of the game (p. 189-190). Rewards themselves have been used in education throughout the formal history of the institution. We most commonly know them as grades, report cards, and graduation. The reward process does not need to be nearly as formal or final objective oriented as these in order to be successful in the online classroom. Consider smaller acknowledgements of student success such as badges, enrichment activities, kudos on a discussion board, assignment of special roles within the class, or unlocking the next level of course assignment as ways of acknowledging incremental successes on the part of students.

Punishment – Of course the flipside of reward is punishment, which in games can be an effective tool for increasing the challenge for players and increasing their sense of achievement (p. 192). Punishment does not work particularly well in the classroom and is generally frowned upon by the administration, so we’ll just ignore this particular strategy for creating excitement in the online classroom. Having discipline in a class is not the same as punishing students for failing to reach a learning objective.

Freedom vs. Controlled Experience – Relating back to the concept of meaningful choices, determining how much freedom and choice to give to players is a critical tension in game design (p 195). Too much and they are designing the game rather than playing it. Too little freedom and students or players will feel locked into an inevitable outcome. In course design you must walk the line between allowing your students to be in control of the content and direction of the course and undermining your own authority in the classroom. Setting clear parameters within which students can exercise their control is one method of achieving a balance between these two elements.

Simple vs. Complex – This is the “three bears” paradox in game design – the game can’t be overly simple (boring) or too complex (confusing), but rather must strike a balance between elegance (simplicity) and richness (complexity) (p. 195). In course design this tension can be addresses partially by allowing for learner control (freedom) and by knowing the audience in advance of designing the class. Pilot testing, focus group interviewing, and usability testing, as well as working backwards from your course objectives to determine the most effective ways to reach those objectives for the largest group of prospective learners is one way of addressing this dynamic.

Detail vs. Imagination – The game designer must decide how much detail should be provided in the game and how much should be left up to the player’s imagination (p. 199). This tension is slightly different in course design, as the instructor must provide sufficient guidance to allow the learners to complete tasks, while not providing so much that they can simply follow a step-by-step procedure without thinking for themselves. This is a particularly challenging variable to balance for the online instructor, especially if the students in a particular course are not extremely technologically proficient or confident. Students who do not feel confident in their own ability to learn new skills or tools want concrete guidance and hand-holding. It is up to the instructor to determine how much guidance is enough to get students started so that they can eventually take over and become self-directed learners.

Game design and course design are complex processes with a lot of overlap in regards to the sophistication of the overall development process. Looking closely at the elements and strategies employed in successful game design can guide the online course developer in creating a rich, engaging, exciting, challenging, and rewarding learning environment that will challenge students to not only learn, but to take responsibility for their own learning. (Source: Online University)