apotemska's blog

Card from the game

Feedback collection form

https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?AnalyzerToken=zaOCZZJPaY7TqFCslyrhaFVQg8O1jZya&id=r0Rp-nzM2EyRVMARMnmJEBC05BZ3X0JAv0i5Zh0LQOFURFZBNlVSWkhMQUQ1SU9USkhBMlNOSEhEUy4u

https://forms.office.com/Pages/AnalysisPage.aspx?AnalyzerToken=SErncYZkY5tkrwbvNAk0jZx3k2AUEZsi&id=r0Rp-nzM2EyRVMARMnmJEBC05BZ3X0JAv0i5Zh0LQOFUMTk5QjhNRUhPTFBOVUhWWEJVWkVVMU8zTC4u

Feeling of reward through learning 

Authors tried to identify to what extend the enjoyment can be present in such a challenging game. As participants were reflecting, the enjoyment and engagement came from feeling rewarded that they learned something new. 

Additionally, playing the characters and imitating someone for the first time can be an engaging and fun.

Main considerations:

• Enjoyment came from the reward of gaining new knowledge, rather than traditional “fun.”

• Participants valued the satisfaction of learning in a challenging context.
  
• However, across multiple playthroughs, the atmosphere sometimes remained fun and even entertaining, while still allowing space for reflection on deep and difficult topics.

Illustrations

Creating bespoke visuals elevated a new experience.

In the scenario “Place to Sleep” with a 20 y.o. character who needs to decide whether she should take the offer to stay in a spare apartment from an older guy who has a romantic interest in her — trust issues depend on the way we present the character.

We had an understanding that the age, outfit, and even skin colour would matter for the character in the decision-making process.

Zero days living as me — references, in coordination with the respondent from the story. Since the story is about a trans person, we were discussing that it’s important to remain the feminine perception of the character and not move it to the masculine part, as the character is just before coming out and everyone perceives them as a girl.

Findings:

Glossary: Why not a refugee, but people with refugee experience 

During the gameplay and the description of the game, we met a challenge of using in short word refugee; however, within playing as characters and building a connection to them, it feld uncomfortable to keep using the shortain version. Additionally, there are concerns behind using world “refugee” directly naming the character or people we interviewed. 

There are three main factors to consider.

1. Stigma 

The word refugee carries stigma and negative connotations; we use the formulation “people with refugee experience” which is slightly softer. Those people did not choose it and want to be perceived through lens of their achievements during the live, including status, possessions, and social capital. All of it is typically can be taking away and cause deep cognitive dissonance, and only remaining with intelligence, education and achieved skillset.

2. Human-first approach, acknowledges past trauma, but doesn’t define people by it.

It’s important to center human before circumstance and acknowledges that being a refugee is an experience, not an identity. Additionaly, many people might move fact to the further stages with moving on with work and studies and remaining under label “refugee” might create the victimasing perception of them, rather supporting their force to move forward.

3. Legal status. 

It’s important to acknowledge that “a refugee” is also is a legal immigration status. 

Under international and European law, Ukrainian nationals fleeing the 2022 invasion are not admitted en masse as “refugees” under the 1951 Convention, nor do they receive something called “Special Protection.” Instead, they benefit from a form of temporary protection and tailored national schemes. 

Ukrainians, however, in a legal sense are not assigned to this status in Europe and the UK. European Union offers temporary protection under Directive 2001/55/EC which is not individual refugee status. Similarly, the UK grants humanitarian leave to remain under Ukrainian Sponsorship and Family scheme, which are referred to the guests and not a refugee status neither and which is it totally different from asylum seeker status. 

Links:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI%282024%29762373 

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/ukrainian-migration-to-the-uk/

Feedback form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeggB2nSViHYx8XIF6sX_r5F3ckDMt-wFLjJpdEOKTkzX_tJQ/viewform?pli=1

In Our Shoes: Biographical Micro-Larp Playtest 5.1

Thank you for participating in the playtest today! We would appreciate your thoughts/reflections to help in developing this method forward.

Name 

Email

Which character did you play?

Your over all experience

1-10

What are you thoughts/reactions to the game?

What would you change about your experience today if you could?

How this experience felt connected to the real world experience?

Did you experience any surprises during the game? Did you learn something new?

How did the other people during the playtest change your experience?

What kinds of feelings did you have during the game?

Any other thoughts

 Forms

Playtesting informed research with a lot of data.

Playtesting 28 FEb 2025-14 October 2025

• Playtest 0.1 Tampere, Finland, 28 February 2025, Tampere University, 6 participants, 5 scenarios, 3h playtest
• Playtest 1.0 + Workshop, Tampere, Finland, 3 April 2025, Tampere University,14 participants, 5 scenarios, 5h playtest and
• Playtest 1.1, London, UK, May 2025, Independent playtest 3 participants, 1 scenario (Cake the Cat), 25 min
• Playtest 2.0, Florence, Italy, 23 June 2025, European University Institute, 30 participants 1 scenario (Birthday Desition) x 5 teams, 45 min
• Playtest 3.1, London, UK, 6 July 2025, Independent playtest, 5 participants, 1 scenario (Birthday Desition), 25 min
• Playtesting 4.1, RIT, MAGIC Spell Studio, USA, 4 September 2025, ROC Playtesting Night, 2 participants, 1 scenario (The Caretakers), 20 min
• Playtesting 4.2, RIT, MAGIC Spell Studio, USA, 5 September 2025, Sound Mixer Video, 3 participants, 1 scenario (Cake the Cat), 20 min
• Playtest 5.1 + Workshop, Bournemouth, UK, May 2025, Arts University Bournemouth, 5 scenarios (Cake the Cat), 1,5h

The powerful effect of the Playtest 1.0 was expressed in participant’s comment: “That felt very intense. I never had anything as challenging to decide in my life”. Their reflection on intensity of the experience people who forced to flee are going though.

During the Playtest 1.0, player playing mother character who had to decide they take their 18-th year old daughter away from her study plans and relationships said: “You’ll hate me forever, but I have to make this decision…”

“I felt responsible for the whole family,” Mother character ended up deciding for everyone, as they had the agenda in the card — to keep the family together.

Some people had challenges identifying with either different age and gender group — the male character refused to use first-person language while playing grandmother character. Or if that would not reflect political beliefs — “I hate playing this conservative person”.

This little challenges might push a limits of conform zone and can be associated with a discomfort, but the feeling of relief and stepping towards understanding those people can bring feeling of reward.

Other aspect of building empathy was depicted in the playtest 2.0, where 1 scenario was played in 5 groups. Players were asked to make a decision if to stay in Ukraine where is ongoing war or to leave abroad. Out of 5 groups, decision was made:

• 2 groups decided to stay in Ukraine 
• 1 group decided to leave to Country X and review decision after 1 year, considering the older daughter wanted to stay
• 2 groups could not agree on a decition.

This data is echoing somehow the actual situation of forced migration. Some families decide to stay, some go out of their home county and come back later and some have reasons to stay in the ongoing war environment. 

Understanding the complexity of the circumstances and nuanced life situations leads to refraining from judgmental statements like: “Kids must be safe and not be taking away from bombing”. That can be considered as a universal rule, however, it dosent take in consideration that if there are circumstances of having family separated for 3,5h year, peace of having both parents together might overcome the fear of potential risk during the bombing. Playing those characters and understanding the dilemmas people are facing develops understanding that most people who havent experienced war might not reflect of the complexity of the decisions. Players from playtest 1.0 were sharing: “Those life situations — such a tough situation!”, “That was so hard!”, “Terrible decision I had to make. I’ll be responsible for it my whole life.”

While the original research project In Our Shoes focuses on refugee experiences, this specific intervention does not directly address that subject matter. Instead, it draws on the project’s methodological approach, using narrative, fictional spaces, and game-based structures to support empathetic engagement and reflection.

The primary aim of the intervention is to create a safe and trusting environment in which students may, if they choose, share complex life situations and decision-making experiences that can impact their studies. Recognising the deeply personal and sometimes sensitive nature of such narratives, ethical care is central to the design and facilitation of the activity.

This work is grounded in Narrative Inquiry (Leavy, 2020; Clandinin & Caine, 2013) and research-through-design methodologies (Gaver, 2012), acknowledging storytelling as both a legitimate form of knowledge production and an integral part of human experience.

1. Anonymity

All participant identities will be fully protected. No real names, identifiable personal details, or contextual markers that could reveal an individual’s identity will be used in discussion, documentation, reflection, or dissemination. Any examples, narratives, or artefacts referenced for research or pedagogical purposes will be anonymised or fictionalised, in alignment with the principles of Ludic Inquiry and narrative abstraction.

2. Confidentiality

Participants’ stories and contributions will be treated as confidential. Narratives shared within the intervention space will not be disclosed beyond the group or used for research outputs without explicit, informed consent. This applies to verbal discussions, written materials, creative outputs, and reflective documentation. Confidentiality will be clearly communicated as a shared responsibility among all participants.

3. Emotional Safety

The intervention acknowledges that storytelling, even within fictional or ludic frameworks, may evoke emotional responses. Participation is voluntary, and students are encouraged to share only what they feel comfortable disclosing. Fictionalisation and narrative distancing are explicitly supported as ethical tools, allowing participants to explore experiences without direct self-exposure. Participants may pause, withdraw, or opt out at any point without explanation or negative consequence.

4. Boundaries, Respect, and Care

A non-judgmental, empathetic, and supportive environment will be actively facilitated. All participants are expected to engage with sensitivity and respect for diverse lived experiences. There is no expectation to justify personal narratives or decisions. Judgmental language, pressure to disclose, or dismissive responses are not acceptable. Clear boundaries will be maintained between educational inquiry and therapeutic practice.

By leveraging fictional spaces and game-based narrative structures, this intervention aligns with established research demonstrating the power of games and narrative to foster empathy, emotional engagement, and social understanding (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). The ethical framework supports the development and testing of Ludic Inquiry as a novel methodology that enables meaningful engagement with sensitive life experiences while prioritising participant well-being, autonomy, and dignity.