Games Provide Safe-To-Fail Environments

 “You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call ‘failure’ is not the falling down, but the staying down.”

— Mary Pickford

Games offer “safe-to-fail” environments where winning and losing have few serious, real-world ramifications other than enjoyment, learning, and social fulfillment (among many others). Meaningful play can help us explore outcomes and provide material for further discussion, reflection, and growth. I recently had an awkward experience that reminded me how safe-to-fail environments remain important to learning and encouragement...and how they’re extremely rare in our capitalist society that prioritizes productivity, accomplishment, and monetary value. However we come to the table for the game or competition, we can still make an effort at a meaningful experience and, succeeding or failing, learn how we might better face such challenges, and others, as we reflect, change, and grow.

I’m a volunteer judge for my son’s high school debate team. A few times each season they attend a regional tournament covering various debate styles. Teams must bring a certain number of judges based on the number of their students competing in each category or pay a fine to the league. So I volunteered after doing some research online and familiarizing myself with the Lincoln-Douglas debate format through the National Speech & Debate Association and our local league website (which offers more specific criteria for judging). I’m not terribly experienced, having judged at only two tournaments, but I’m slated for future events the rest of the season. At the last tournament I had two experiences emphasizing the safe-to-fail nature of the debate tournament and the importance of reflection, learning, and encouragement...much as we find in meaningful gameplay.

Nixon and Kennedy at their
third debate, Oct. 13, 1960.

The last tournament I judged two Lincoln-Douglas debates. The format’s rather rigid, with participants speaking and formulating counter-arguments within set time limits for or against a particular moral question. Afterwards the judge decides which argument “won” and awards points for each speaker, both necessary for ranking participants within their format and scoring teams overall. But the most important part — and the most rewarding to me as a judge — comes in the text notes I write to participants on their performance. Both debaters receive my explanation for my decision on which perspective won. Each debater receives an individualized evaluation of their performance from me. Having offered authors constructive criticism for years as a roleplaying game editor, I have a little helpful experience here. No matter how poorly they performed, they receive words of praise and encouragement, whether they gave a stellar performance or conceded after a few minutes because they weren’t prepared. Assuming I have time at the tournament, I try offering several paragraphs worth of feedback in the spirit of guiding and encouraging them regardless of their success or failure.

As Johan Huizinga might have argued, the tournament debate structure reflects the nature of competition we find throughout various societal institutions. The debate process echoes how games offer similar safe-to-fail environments where we can learn and encourage each other. I’ve come to see the high school debate environment offering a similar safe-to-fail structure as adventure games. Both still include a possibly awkward moment of winning or losing: even in this there’s something to learn about how we handle success or failure (a subject I’ve discussed before). But overall the consequences remain secondary to what participants can learn from the experience. We don’t learn much when we win all the time; we learn from our mistakes. And if we have no or only a little stigma about failing, we can afford to make those mistakes, try new strategies, manage complications, and learn from different outcomes. Just as I offer my written comments about participants’ performances after a debate, so too do we talk about our performance in the after-game discussion. Maybe it’s the friendly time we spend after a casual game night reliving the action, considering what we might have done differently, analyzing how game mechanics affected our decisions and outcomes. It might occur in discussions built into experiential game activities in a classroom, with more focused talk about players interacting with a game simulation.

Dr. Jeremiah McCall's Cycle of
Gameplay and Analysis.

Just like the competition, whether debate or game, these after-action talks offer us a chance to show others our character. Our expertise, personalities, attitudes, and our sense of fair play emerge through the competition. They can also inform how we approach post-game discussion, whether in casual banter or more rigorous analysis. How we offer compliments and criticism, whether we provide encouragement or disapproval, shapes how and what we learn from the experience. I try very hard to remain positive when interacting with others, especially when I’m asked to comment on their success or failure, accomplishments or shortcomings. Even in failure there is always something to praise, if only the effort and courage someone displays in simply having the courage to make an effort. For much of my life I’ve seen others put people down for various reasons; lifting someone up, even with a short, encouraging comment, can make all the difference...especially when recovering from failure.

Safe-to-fail learning experiences like debates and games remain important because our society does not readily tolerate failure. People and institutions constantly judge everyone, often without taking into account a host of factors, only relying on the most basic quantitative criteria; all too often numbers, and primarily money. American capitalist society insists that nearly everything we do must be productive, must in some way make money (or train us to make money), must produce measurable value. Safe-to-fail environments remain rare in a corporate-driven world where many fear one unintentional mistake can (and often does) cost them their job or even their career. With few exceptions, capitalism is primarily unforgiving once we enter the workforce.

Learning from our mistakes remains relegated to our upbringing, our formative school years, even college...and even then we are still primarily judged by quantitative grades. Working toward good grades remains a primary function of schooling, more so in America’s age of “teaching to the test” with Standards of Learning and other generic benchmarks focused more on measuring institutional success rather than individual students’ ability to synthesize information and think for themselves. Activities like playing games and engaging in debate competition don’t garner as much recognition in and of themselves: at best they boost one’s profile when applying to colleges, careers, and other endeavors ultimately leading to monetarily fulfilling work. School relies on encouraging and insightful teachers to help us learn when unsatisfactory grades punish our official performance; such safe-to-fail activities as games inhabit the fringes of what teachers can cram into an already overburdened curriculum.

The emphasis of serving as productive members of capitalism creates a stigma about unproductive time, especially regarding games and play. I’ve lost count of the number of dubious glances and disparaging comments I’ve witnessed when I mention I worked in the game design and publishing industry; even working on games does not merit society’s acknowledgment as a viable profession. The general public too often dismisses games (and their production) as play activities with little value without acknowledging their application in helping us learn and grow.

I find encouragement that elements of our 21st century society have become more aware of games and their impact beyond simple entertainment, Games are emerging beyond the realm of occasional entertainment to receive recognition as tools for learning or analysis. Academia and even corporate culture is slowly recognizing their value in making the workforce more innovative and productive. Games find their way into high school and college courses, into military and political simulation, even into corporate team-building and training. All these applications and others rely on the safe-to-fail environment to help participants explore outcomes, examining challenges outside the box, and gain insights into the experiences modeled on the tabletop. Our society might not always acknowledges it, but life-long learning is a virtue; and that learning includes both succeeding and failing and reflecting on and growing from the experience.

I enjoy talking with my son about his debate team experiences as much as I do discussion our gaming experiences. In both cases he’s learned to take risks and try new approaches...primarily because he knows he won’t suffer serious consequences. He looks forward to learning from reflecting on and discussing his performance afterwards. I contrast this with his experience in some of his high school courses, in which he proves what he learned in tests which rarely offer feedback beyond what he got right and wrong. I realize we can’t reshape our educational system around game experiences; but I wish our society were more forgiving of failure and more eager to nurture, guide, and encourage us when we fail.

“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Public Service Announcement

School debate teams and leagues frequently need more judges for events. Please consider volunteering with and supporting a debate team in your community. The National Speech & Debate Association provides guidance; many regional leagues also offer specifics about judging and tournaments on their own websites. It’s a great chance to help students learn and grow in a safe-to-fail environment.