Formal Activity Analysis of Different Role-Playing Games, Including Different D&D Versions.

by Hawke Robinson published 2019/05/07 14:52:00 GMT-7, last modified 2019-05-07T15:09:48-07:00
Starting with each of the different Dungeons & Dragons versions back to Original D&D.

In the field of Recreational Therapy, activity analysis is s standard part of the assessment process for Therapeutic Recreation Specialist professionals. We have used these techniques for years to best match activities to clients' needs as effectively as possible.

Regarding the different versions of D&D and other role-playing games pros and cons, we are sharing with the public during our regularly scheduled streaming broadcasts of RPG Theory on Sundays & Mondays., detailed Activity Analysis of each of the D&D versions, from OD&D through 5e.

Last week we performed an initial introduction to the topics of Activity Analysis, Task Analysis, etc., including caveats about any validity and reliability issues with these assessment tools.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/26510182

These videos are broadcast live to the public, and then the recorded versions are made available to our "Hero Level" Patreon supporters as a thank you for supporting the 501(c)3 non-profit RPG Research, and then released to the general public 4+ weeks after.

Next week we'll start with OD&D & BECMI, and then in subsequent weeks the other versions. 

https://www.youtube.com/rpgresearch

Over time we will share the same with many other role-playing games as well.

http://www.rpgresearch.com

Document Actions

Jonathan Hook
Jonathan Hook says:
Jun 04, 2019 10:58 AM
Hawke, This looks fairly close to the gaming-side of analysis, but not the other pieces...

"An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis
and conceptual design."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.ed[…]8&rep=rep1&type=pdf
David Jeffs
David Jeffs says:
Jun 07, 2019 05:08 PM
That paper is an incredible find Jonathan! I like how it nicely ties together the different goals of the facilitator and the participant. You have significantly grown my reading list. i agree with you that Activity Theory is that it is rather restrictive in what it defines as the activity. By this I mean that anything not fitting into the boxes of community, rules, subject etc. tends to get passed over. The addition of behavioural change through learning is an excellent addition that the paper has presented an excellent argument for, but definitely needs other considerations to be included...

This book chapter is focused on Occupational Therapy so a fair bit I feel might not be relevant, however it provides awareness on some key considerations that are taken in OT https://bit.ly/31jo2e8
Hawke Robinson
Hawke Robinson says:
Jun 09, 2019 04:43 PM
I had a bit of a clarity moment last week: I am thinking as far as cross disciplinary standardization that the AA form should be based on WHO ICF codes, including the 0-4 ratings and definitions. That way anyone can look up the examples as needed to improve the inter-rater reliability.
David Jeffs
David Jeffs says:
Jun 10, 2019 06:52 PM
Hawke. Is this question (D3.1 of WHODAS 2.0) kinda of what you are thinking?

"How much difficulty did you have in washing your whole body?"

1: None
2: Mild
3: Moderate
4: Severe
5: Extreme or cannot do

But for us to flip this around so it would read "How much skill is required for washing a body?" ..or for RPG is could be "What hand small motor skills are required?"

1: None
2: Mild
3: Moderate
4: Severe
5: Must use hands to participate
Hawke Robinson
Hawke Robinson says:
Jun 10, 2019 10:56 PM
Yes, as I was discussing this past Sunday's meeting, I'm suggesting we use WHO, ICF/ICD codes to improve the AA. What you posted is along those lines. What is mild/moderate/severe, etc. is still somewhat subjective based on experience, but if using the ICF descriptions to back it up, I think we'll have better consistency in general.
David Jeffs
David Jeffs says:
Jun 25, 2019 05:59 PM
The WHO codes are a very good find to use.
Just as a side consideration for another possibility is researching some more into competitive analysis. Some versions of this within the UX can be used to examine the strengths and weaknesses of various websites (or other tech). They are usually conducted with little thought to the inter-rater reliability however (there is well known curve within UX that address that :p ).

Whilst basic, I think the rubric shown in this page (http://danforth.co/[…]/) has similarities to the WHO. The benefit of WHO is the standardised understanding, whereas the benefits of the rubric above is the possibility to further explain for a layperson.
This paper (http://mpiua.invid.udl.cat/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DEFINITIU-achi_2014_2_10_20126.pdf) presents a basic table that shows a few possibilities:
 - it briefly explains how to evaluate each heuristic
 - questions follow the SMART goal format
 - it has a link to the academic article explaining why that heuristic is important

Not sure if these will assist or not ...