Nothing Like a Good Fiasco! Exploring the Potential of Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TRPGs) As Literacy Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within this position paper, we describe the use of Fiasco, a tabletop role-playing game (TRPG), as it relates to the creation of literacy experiences. Fiasco is a TRPG that utilizes prompts inspired by genre fiction to collaboratively generate, establish, and resolve scenes between a varied cast of characters in several rounds improvisational roleplay. To explore the range of literacy experience opportunities, present in its play, we present our experiences designing and playing a Fiasco session and reflect upon the transformative potential of tabletop games in creating literacy experiences. The position we undertake, in favor of the considered use of TRPGs for learning through serious gaming in classrooms, is reflective of the experiences within our local gaming and learning communities. Based upon this experience and relevant literature, we contend that table-top gaming fits well within literacy pedagogy and explore how they can be used in classrooms. Therefore, our discussion is centered upon the potential of tabletop games experiences to be considered inventive, specifically in relation to the teaching and learning of literacy skills within a serious gaming framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".