Learnin

International Journal of Role-Playing - Issue 15
Learning from Ludemes: An Inventory of Common Player Actions

within Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPGs) to Inform
Principled Design of Game-Based Learning Experiences
Abstract: In this study, the authors investigate role-playing game design through the lens of instructional design prac-
tice to probe the ecosystem of tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs) and their applied use for learning. A qualitative
thematic analysis approach is used to systematically catalog and categorize all possible player actions, called ludemes,
from the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D). Through this analysis, the interplay of game mechanics, player
actions, and rules of TTRPGs are explored, unveiling their potential to stimulate various psychological, environmen-
tal, and behavioral factors that positively influence learning processes. Specifically, this study’s analysis of a game’s
ludemes (i.e., player actions) exposes the interrelationships, congruence, and combinations of actions with various
learning processes. The identified categories of ludemes in the study pave the way toward a working vocabulary and
framework for future research in the application of game-based learning and its potential to catalyze meaningful learn-
ing outcomes. From a global instructional standpoint, this study highlights the role of pedagogical affordances, such as
collaborative storytelling and problem solving skills, theorizing how TTRPGs can promote cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, social, and cultural learning. Toward these goals, the authors posit that role-playing, with its complex dynam-
ics and compelling narratives, offers a robust and natural conduit for learning.
Keywords: ludemes, Dungeons & Dragons, tabletop role-playing games, learning, education, pedagogy
Jeremy Riel Rob Monahan

University of Illinois Chicago North Carolina State University
[email protected] [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
While active learning strategies have repeatedly outperformed more traditional strategies, such as rote
memorization, effective incorporation into formal education remains challenging for educators (Hake
1998; Prince 2004; Freeman et al. 2014). One promising strategy for driving active learning into formal
learning environments is game-based learning (GBL; Plass, Mayer, and Homer 2020), particularly within
the context of tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs). The term “role-playing game” (RPG), in general,
encompasses game types that are characterized by players portraying and developing characters in an
imagined setting, governed by sets of rules (Arenas, Viduani, and Araujo 2022). TTRPGs are a type of
RPG that can be thought of more specifically as collaborative participatory narratives in which players
adopt the personas of characters within imagined settings and are guided by a game master (GM)
who orchestrates the narrative and facilitates the game mechanics (Bowman 2010; Abbott, Stauss, and
Burnett 2022).
Although the generative narrative among players in a TTRPG can be supported by summary
sheets, books, and digital tools, the game itself is not automatically narrated or scripted. Instead, it is
crafted by the players only during the act of playing together. The dynamic and emergent experiences
offered by TTRPGs promote learner engagement and facilitate collaborative learning (Barron 2003;
Zagal et al. 2006; Anderson and Dron 2011; Bowman 2010; Nicholson 2015). In TTRPGs, the
game’s continuity is driven by both the players and the GM, with the GM taking on the major role of
facilitating or “holding together” the game world and narrative and serving as referee to the players in
order to maintain narrative cohesion. Drawing from the principles of experiential learning, education
researchers increasingly understand that a person’s actions, including tasks and engagements within an
RPG experience, are pivotal drivers of their learning process (Wenger 1999).
178
The learning potential of role-playing games may be just as powerful as their entertainment
value due to their immersive, interactive, and inherently social nature. They provide a unique setting
where players can engage in simulation, which is a critical aspect of experiential learning. Experiential
learning theory, as proposed by David Kolb (1984), suggests that knowledge construction occurs through
a four-stage cycle that includes concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization,
and active experimentation (Kolb 1984). Immersive simulations, such as those found in RPGs, provide
opportunities for all stages of this learning cycle. Further, research indicates that immersive simulations
can enhance motivation, engagement, and deep learning (Dede 2009). This is because they provide
authentic, complex problem-solving scenarios that closely mirror real-world contexts, thereby increasing
the relevance and applicability of the learning.
The simulated game world in RPGs often functions as a “safe space” where players can experiment
with different identities, strategies, and scenarios without the fear of real-world consequences (Gee 2003).
This feature allows for experimentation within worlds and rehearsal of complex situations, providing
a high level of authenticity and situated cognition (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989). According to
situated cognition theories, learning happens most effectively when it is associated with social and
physical contexts that reflect how that knowledge will be used in real-life situations (Lave and Wenger
1991). While some aspects of the fantasy worlds of RPGs are outside the realm of reality, there are a
number of elements that can mimic real-world systems, such as economics, politics, or ecology.
Problem-solving scenarios native to RPGs often involve decision-making tasks that allow
advanced players to model expert processes. Some examples might include players who need to strategize
like a military commander, negotiate like a diplomat, or solve puzzles like a detective. This kind of
expert-level modeling can potentially facilitate the transfer of learning to new contexts (Bransford,
Brown, and Cocking 2000), and may allow more novice players to learn through observation. RPG
worlds and characters can reflect diverse cultures and social systems, which provides opportunities
for players to gain empathy and understanding of different perspectives (Nicholson 2015). Moreover,
players typically work together to overcome challenges, fostering valuable social skills that may also
be transferred to real-world contexts (Steinkuehler 2006).
However, despite the increasingly evident potential of role-playing games and their continuous
evolution through creative innovations by both mainstream and indie developers, a significant gap
exists in understanding the design principles that contribute to the mechanisms behind effective
learning through role-playing. Game designers with an eye toward learning are tasked with creating
engaging learning experiences by assembling a combination of activities within a game that stimulate
beneficial learning processes and outcomes. Nevertheless, in the context of role-playing design, whether
specifically geared towards learning or not, creators do not currently have a comprehensive inventory of
player actions and the expected learning outcomes these actions could generate.
In this paper, we take an instructional design perspective toward formally analyzing tabletop
role-playing games (TTRPGs) for what people do in role-playing games and how these actions
translate into learning outcomes. To accomplish this goal, the authors present a method for formally
identifying common player actions, or ludemes, in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, an example case
of TTRPGs in which players collaboratively develop narrative as a result of gameplay. As learning is
inherently a participatory process that requires actions on the part of the learner, the identification and
categorization of actions that players can take within the context of the game rules is an important tool
for employing player actions in games that have the intended educational impact. Using a qualitative
thematic approach to analyze the game’s official rules, 37 unique categories of player actions called
ludemes are categorized and aligned to the potential learning processes that can be activated as a result
of players taking various actions within the game. In addition to the identification of a taxonomy of
ludemes that are common to TTRPG play, another implication of this study includes the presentation of
179
design principles for TTRPG developers and educators toward maximizing learning opportunities via
TTRPGs and larps, as role-playing is a robust, natural, and fun way to learn.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Real Learning by Playing Pretend: Applied Role-Playing Games for Learning
Role-playing games, whether tabletop, live-action, or computer-based, have been used across various
industries, from medical fields such as nursing, surgery, and dentistry, to international relations and
history education. The power of RPGs in promoting learning emerges from their immersive, player-
driven nature and the multitude of learning affordances they offer.
RPGs have been regularly shown to stimulate cognitive processes such as strategic thinking,
problem-solving, and decision-making (Gee 2003). Moreover, RPGs foster metacognitive growth by
encouraging players to reflect on their and others’ decision-making processes to enhance their gameplay
(Zimmerman 2002). From an affective perspective, RPGs evoke a wide range of emotions, contributing
to overall player engagement and motivation (Ryan et al. 2006), as well as a sense of agency and
sense of belonging concerning the player’s characters and investment into the game (Bowman and
Schrier 2024). Adding to the affective affordances of RPGs is that they are inherently social, requiring
collaboration, communication, and negotiation between players (Vasalou et al. 2008; Woods 2016).
These social affordances can be examined by treating the game as a social network, where each player
and their decisions are considered or analyzed based on their effect on the overall gameplay and player
experience. On the social affordances spectrum, narrative components, which are critical elements in
RPGs, allow players to feed their natural affinity for learning through stories and sequences of events
involving interactions between characters (Bruner 1991; Schank 1990; Koster 2005). TTRPGs stand
out among various game types in the way they offer unique opportunities to foster emergent narratives,
and to simulate complex systems with remarkable detail. They also excel in the use of storytelling to
model fascinating game worlds, and allow the collaborative shaping of events within a well-defined
set of rules and player interactions. The fun and novelty in these experiences add to the engagement,
bolstering the relationship between learning and games (Koster 2005).
Regarding pedagogical benefits, RPGs can be designed to target specific learning outcomes
(Hammer et al. 2024). The relationship between player actions, game mechanics, and learning outcomes
in a game can be formally studied and optimized to enhance the game’s educational value (Klopfer
et al. 2009). RPGs also offer culturally relevant pedagogical exploration opportunities, providing a
platform for understanding diverse cultures, histories, and perspectives (Squire 2008). In addition
to the pedagogical benefits derived from RPGs, there are powerful affordances for broader, global
learning outcomes. These games offer a rich, dynamic environment that simulates real-world contexts
and simplifies them, reducing complexity while maintaining relevance. This parallel between the game
world and the real world provides a foundation for understanding and interacting with the complexities
of reality in a safe, manageable environment. Inherent in RPGs, simulation is instrumental in modeling
real-world phenomena, especially in the context of socially embedded phenomena and emotional
responses (Aldritch 2005; Gee 2005; Barab et al. 2010).
Role-play, a fundamental aspect of RPGs, is a natural way for learners of all ages to make
sense of their observations, integrate new information, and test out ideas in a safe, rule-defined
environment (Garris et al. 2002; Thibodeau et al. 2016). These simulated real-world actions are key for
both conventional educational paradigms and experiential learning designs, mirroring scenario-based,
case-based, problem-based, and project-based learning. RPGs offer low-risk environments that are
entertaining, engaging, and relevant, providing opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous
180
play (Hammer et al. 2024). The strong simulation component of RPGs represents a wide range of
potential character actions within the game world, setting the stage for a unique phenomenon of triple-
layered interaction. This layered phenomenon involves a first layer of participating as a player that
strategizes within the game and a second layer of acting as a character within the game world and
staying within character. This is complemented further by a third layer, a meta-level of experiencing
which goes beyond the primary table roles in the game. These immersive qualities embedded in RPGs
are central to their transformative nature, suggesting deep learning potential (Fine 1983; Bowman
2010; Bowman and Schrier 2024).
In the world of RPGs, the distinction between player actions and character actions is vital.
Character actions are bound only by players’ imaginations within the scope of the game world and
rules, and are effectively simulated actions performed by characters in a fantasy or fictional setting.
Although they are representing fictional characters, players’ in-game actions can also mirror the
cognitive strategies, skills, and knowledge that can be used in the real world (Clark and Martinez-
Garza 2012). With this in mind, it is important to recognize that the power of learning is derived
from both realms. The ability of an RPG to simulate physical and social processes combined with the
application of narrative to create engaging game worlds facilitates opportunities for co-constructing
simulated, but effective sequences for developing understanding within a well-defined rule system
(Gredler 1996). The game’s rules system constrains the game, making it manageable while allowing
for emergent gameplay that promotes active learning.
Despite the increasing popularity of RPGs and their recognized potential for learning, there
is a gap in design principles targeting the optimization of these games for learning outcomes and
processes for simulating real-world knowledge, skills, and cognitive tasks within games. This study
addresses this gap by taking an instructional design perspective, analyzing players’ actions in RPGs
and their translation into learning outcomes. This approach aims to develop a comprehensive inventory
of RPG mechanics and principles to enhance learning, providing a foundation for designing RPGs with
learning outcomes in mind.
In conclusion, role-playing games, particularly TTRPGs, offer a unique and potent blend
of learning affordances. The combination of narrative, simulation, social interaction, and active
engagement in a rule-defined yet imaginative world offers unprecedented learning opportunities. Both
a challenge and goal moving forward are to harness these affordances effectively, optimizing the design
of RPGs to maximize their potential as powerful tools for learning.
2.2 Understanding Learning through Gameplay with the Social Cognitive Theory Lens
Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1986) is a psychological framework that seeks to explain human
behavior, learning, and motivation as a complex set of factors that mutually influence each other. The
theory incorporates elements from both constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on learning to
predict changes in individual learning and behavior by considering the dynamic, reciprocal interaction
between the person, environment, and behavior within a social context. This interaction is viewed as
being both influenced by and simultaneously influencing individual learning and behavior.
SCT provides an excellent lens for considering the links between TTRPG gameplay and learning,
as it explains the mutual influences of factors on changes to the individual within rich social settings.
Depicted in Figure 1 is a modified version of Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal determinism model.
In this model, a dynamic and reciprocal interaction exists between an individual’s personal factors
(cognition, affect, biology), their environment, and their behavior. These three factors continuously
influence one another, shaping a person’s learning and development. The model also reveals the level
of complexity involved in designing and carrying out research to test the effectiveness of any learning
experience, such as using TTRPGs as learning tools.
181
Within a designed learning experience like a game, SCT highlights the importance of setting
personal goals, engaging in self-regulation, and experiencing a high degree of agency over one’s own
learning to achieve desired outcomes. Self-regulation involves self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and
self-reinforcement, allowing individuals to adjust their behavior and strategies to meet their goals. SCT
also maintains that an individual’s cognitive and affective processes play a critical role in determining
behavior. These processes include knowledge, attention, memory, motivation, and emotional regulation,
which interact with the environmental and behavioral factors to influence learning.
Directly paralleling the capabilities of TTRPGs, SCT emphasizes the importance of observing
and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others within social settings (including
experts). This includes simulated social settings like TTRPGs and other simulation games. According
to SCT, individuals can learn new behaviors and acquire new information by watching others (i.e.,
models) perform those behaviors. SCT also emphasizes the broader role of social and cultural factors
in shaping individual behavior and learning. Social norms, cultural values, and expectations can impact
an individual’s cognitive processes, motivation, and self-efficacy as much or more than observational
learning.
Figure 1. The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) Framework
Within an SCT perspective, learning is any demonstrable change in behavior, knowledge, or

affect. The operative mechanism for promoting learning is activity or participation by the individual
182
within the learning experience (Wenger 1999). In other words, human learning can be facilitated by
doing something, in which the activity to be performed is influenced by someone’s prior knowledge,
affect, and the environment. Even if a learner is simply observing others or consuming media, these
are still actions that they are performing within the learning setting. Specifically, learning requires
continuous engagement in socially mediated experiences. This involves participating in activities,
internalizing new information, and then applying this knowledge in subsequent actions. The key driver
of learning is the act of participation: without some form of action from the learner, the learner does
not encounter new information nor attempt a change in behavior. In other words, in any situation,
learning does not just happen by itself, or information is not simply transferred. Instead, learners must
have experiences in which they are active participants (Kolb 1984).
Also within this perspective, the outcome of learning is inextricably tied to active participation
in the learning activity. This theoretical principle carries over to TTRPGs that are designed with
learning goals in mind. In TTRPGs for learning, participation in the game is the primary mechanism at
which learning happens: the game prompts a player to begin their journey or to continue their quest -- a
TTRPG cannot play itself. An expectation of participation via player action influences and is influenced
by the other factors in the SCT framework, including the social setting, a person’s knowledge and
attitudes toward participation and learning, the structure of the game, and the context in which the
game is played for learning (such as school or work).
2.3 SDT and Motivational Aspects of Gameplay
In addition to SCT, other complementary learning theories can help designers make sense of learning
interactions within games. Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985),
prioritizes three motivational needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) behind people when
they are making decisions. Based on these three needs, role-playing games may be a powerful tool
that can be used to leverage the power of intrinsic motivation in learning scenarios. Competence in
content learned from TTRPGs may then be better achieved through players overcoming challenges
and engaging in strategic collaborative problem-solving within the game’s narrative, enhancing their
sense of efficacy and self-concept. Autonomy can additionally be thought of as a built-in feature of this
genre, as TTRPGs offer significant narrative choices that impact the game’s direction, empowering
players with control over their actions and the game itself. Lastly, the concept of relatedness may be
tied to the collaborative nature of RPGs, where players, or party members, work together towards
common goals and ideally form a strong sense of belonging within the game’s social structure.
The idea behind the potential link between role-playing within TTRPGs and the activation
of intrinsic motivation stems from the degree of inherent satisfaction derived from the activity itself
(role-playing) rather than external rewards. While intrinsic motivation may act as a mediator in
achieving learning goals, RPGs also incorporate extrinsic elements such as rewards and achievements
for characters that may impact these goals. In the end, the reward structure that is or is not effective in
helping students achieve learning goals depends on the individual student.
As part of the conversation about SDT and motivation, it is also important to mention the
related concept of demotivation, which can arise when the intrinsic needs of competence, autonomy,
and relatedness are blocked or otherwise not present. In a game-playing context, overly controlling
environments, the lack of engaging content, and insufficient support for social interaction may lead to
decreased engagement for some students and hinder the learning process. The way in which TTRPGs
might be used for independent exploration and narrative development based on players interests is
therefore highly relevant to formal education settings. Allowing the game to unfold in unpredictable,
but monitored ways is important for achieving maximum learning potential.
In any designed learning environment, instructional designers seek to facilitate the desired
changes in behavior with which learners can demonstrate new knowledge and skills, and perhaps even
183
changes in attitudes and the learning environment. TTRPGs can therefore potentially activate many of
these learning possibilities by creating a malleable game environment that is constructed socially by the
players in response to the players’ interests, goals, and learning. Rules for player engagement and action
exist within TTRPGs but are flexible toward transformative play for the learner. TTRPGs can model
with a high degree of fidelity multiple domains for learning, allowing for exposure to content, skills,
and expertise simulation that are authentic toward the real-world originals. However, participation is
nonetheless required for gameplay to continue as a TTRPG cannot play itself, and participation types
and skill is expected to change and grow as a result of continued play.
2.4 Prioritizing Player Actions: The Ludeme as a Unit of Participation in Games
Designers of RPGs often intend for a variety of player actions or “moves” to build the foundation of the
mechanics that drive gameplay. These actions are essentially the decisions made by players that affect
the course of the game and co-create the game experience. They symbolize player autonomy and active
participation, which are valuable components of the learning process. In this context, the concept of
learning is participatory, extending even to observational activities, such as choosing to be present and
staying attentive.
Understanding the concept of participation and action as they apply to game settings evokes
a look into the rules of games, which govern both the game mechanics and player actions. From an
instructional designer’s perspective seeking to improve player participation in learning, it becomes
necessary to differentiate between these two terms of game mechanics and player actions. The works
of Mariais et al. (2010) and Montola (2008) provide some distinctions between these terms. First,
game mechanics are the processes that are embedded within the game rules that dictate how the game
is played, such as the game structure, pieces, equipment, logic, and automated processes that must be
done for the game to progress. Player actions, on the other hand, are the discrete points of engagement
that players have with the game, which are often known as “moves,” “turns,” “strategies,” “tactics,” or,
as we use in this paper, “ludemes.” Mariais et al. (2010) argue that the breadth and depth of embedded
game mechanics directly influences player engagement and learning outcomes, while Montola (2008)
emphasizes the emergent nature of player actions, suggesting that the depth of the learning experience in
TTRPGs is significantly shaped by the players’ choices within the game’s narrative and rule constraints.
From the standpoint of prioritizing participation in learning-intended games, the term “ludeme” in
relation to player action is especially significant, as it serves as an analyzable unit of participation in
games.
A ludeme is the basic, fundamental unit of play in a game that a player can perform (Parlett n.d.;
Stephenson et al. 2021). A game cannot exist without ludemes, just as much as it cannot exist without
its mechanics, dynamics, components, and underlying logic, structure, and rules. Ludemes represent
the individual interactions that players perform within a game environment, much like learners’ actions
do in a dedicated learning environment. If the parallels are followed, this further cements the idea
that gameplay and learning are, first and foremost, participatory activities. In social settings, these
interactions can be observed, refined, and understood, facilitating participants’ co-creation of knowledge
and understanding. According to Parlett, a particularly valuable characteristic of the ludeme is that as a
discrete unit of player action, it can typically propagate from old games into new games in similar ways,
much like a meme is shared across social media, making player actions directly comparable between
games.
In game-based learning contexts, this is valuable for generating comparable evidence of
participation across game contexts and the subsequent testing of the effects of different ludemes (i.e.,
player-learner participation patterns) on achieving learning outcomes. Reusable ludemes, such as moving,
184
capturing, reaching the finish, attacking, defending, upgrading, and collaborating often appear within
game heuristic systems that commonly appear across games and genres, likewise recycling common
types of actions or moves that players can take within games and increasing familiarity for the player.
Such heuristics can explain how many games retain similar player actions or looks, despite being
designed for separate purposes, themes, or content (Elias, Garfield, and Gutschera 2020; Engelstein
and Shalev 2022).
In a learning context, game action heuristics that players know have commonalities with
activities associated with learning. In similar ways to playing familiar games, learners typically take
repeated actions to learn content and skills in classroom settings, or they make similar “moves” while
learning new content. To harness the potential of RPGs as learning tools, it is crucial to understand
the variety of player actions and heuristics that learners hold as they relate to the design and study of
learning within these games. This invariably involves “looking under the hood” of a game’s design to
identify both its mechanics and the actions that players take to identify their similarity to the actions
that people take in learning environments. By focusing on concretely defining, applying, and testing
the game features that drive player engagement and learning, designers can create more effective and
engaging RPG experiences.
With this goal in mind, analyzing games at a ludemic level (i.e., by identifying and investigating
each ludeme) can reveal patterns of observable player behavior linked to learning outcomes. From
an educational theory perspective, participation in a game can be evidence of learning through
demonstrated mastery of the game’s activities and completing the experience. However, participation
also represents the learning process in that every new experience a person has invoked learning. The
more a person participates in a game, the more that their participation allows for changes in their
behavior to occur through practice and for mastery to be gained. Investigating a game at the ludemic
level allows capturing individual player actions. This gives researchers the ability to track and identify
the changes occurring in a person’s observed behaviors in how they play the game by using knowledge
and skills, and thus, is evidence of their learning.
2.5 Without a Table to Roll On: Toward an Inventory of Ludemes in TTRPGs for Learning
In the previous sections, we held that participation is the primary mechanism by which learning occurs
in any designed learning environment, including game-based learning. In consideration of participation,
a game typically will not play itself without interaction from players, and thus would not affect learning
if there is no participation. Therefore, we approach how role-playing games can promote learning from
an instructional design perspective based on players’ participation.
However, the current research regarding TTRPG development and the use of these games in
educational settings lacks a consistently held taxonomy of common ludemes, or the actions or rules
players follow when participating in TTRPGs. Indeed, many scholars have performed important work
to categorize TTRPGs and distinguish them from other game types based on salient features (Hitchens
and Dracher 2008; Beyers and Crocco 2016; Torner 2024; Zagal and Deterding 2024) or the learning
outcomes that can be achieved from TTRPGs (Cardwell 1995; Daniau 2016; Hammer et al. 2024).
Some studies have deeply analyzed unique individual player behaviors that emerge in TTRPGs,
such as character development and role-playing adoption (Fine 1983); collaborative storytelling and
worldbuilding (Tychsen et al. 2005); and performance and improvisation (Mackay 2001). However,
few, if any, of the definitions or studies forwarded for TTRPGs in learning contexts have prioritized
identifying and analyzing the actual ludemes that players perform as a means to play and advance the
game, although such studies have been provided in the context of computer-based RPGs (Bytheway
2015; Chen et al. 2015). Because learning is inherently participatory, well-defined dimensions of
185
learner participation are essential for investigating gameplay as a mechanism for learning (Dickey
2005; DeBoer et al. 2014).
As such, it is important to identify the existing patterns of participation and action that actually
occur within TTRPGs so that these patterns can be compared to known processes and factors of learning.
In other words, before we can speculate on how people will learn and what kind of learning outcomes
will occur, we must first reliably know what people will be actively doing via their participation in the
game. Furthermore, by establishing a taxonomy of player actions at the ludeme level as well as these
relationships between actions and learning processes, both instructional and game designers can develop
games from a common toolkit of expected player behaviors to connect how these actions are expected
to achieve desired learning outcomes. Just as a Dungeon Master or player rolls a die on a numbered
table of possible outcomes, game designers and educators need a trusted list of potential player actions
for their designs that can activate desired learning processes if implemented in a principled way. With
this in mind, we suggest that an effective initial approach to the development of a taxonomy of TTRPG
player actions is to simply investigate existing games to identify what the game rules allow, disallow, or
suggest players do in open-ended role-playing contexts.
To contribute toward identifying and categorizing common player actions in TTRPGs, we
conducted a systematic thematic analysis of the published text rules of one game with a large player
population, Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), 5th Edition (5e). In this study, we identified, categorized,
and analyzed each of the individual player actions, or ludemes, that are afforded to players by the
official game rules, as codified in the Player’s Handbook. Because of its popularity and widespread use,
D&D is often regarded as a quintessential example of TTRPGs in the genre as a representative case.
At the time of this study, the game is currently in its 5th Edition, which was released in 2014. Although
various rule systems certainly exist for tabletop role-playing, D&D is also a good case for analysis as
it is historically the first TTRPG game that was played by a large population of players and remains
the most popular TTRPG game in terms of sales and available associated products. This in turn has
influenced the design of most other TTRPG games on the market to some degree (Ewalt 2014; Peterson
2021). Due to its widespread popularity and historical significance in shaping the world of TTRPG play,
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (D&D 5e) serves as the central reference point for this study.
By analyzing D&D 5e, the authors aim to build an understanding of how the dual structured
and flexible nature of TTRPGs can facilitate diverse learning experiences. However, this does not
suggest that D&D 5e is the definitive model for all TTRPGs, but rather a starting point for exploring a
broader conversation on how different games might support varied learning objectives. We argue that
investigating the archetypal case of D&D 5e is a good starting point for identifying the congruence of
common player actions in TTRPGS and learning mechanisms that are afforded by participating in these
actions on the part of the players.
The rules of the game were systematically examined for every singular player action or ludeme
that was explicitly stated by the game rules. However, in the context of this study, only rules related
to the conduct of player-characters (PCs) were included in the analysis. The singular game facilitator,
often called the Dungeon Master (DM), is another type of player in the game but fulfills a far different
set of functions and actions than typical players do. Instead, the DM is a facilitator who conducts many
other decisions related to the conduct of the game exclusive of the players. In many educational settings
that use role-playing games, the DM or facilitator role is often played by the teacher who is not engaged
in the learning exercise (Garcia 2016). Because of this, the DM role and their tasks are not a part of this
analysis directly, but instead studied indirectly to explore players interact with a DM. This allows the
study’s scope to focus toward PCs as learners within rule-based role-playing experiences. However, due
to the complex relationship between players, DMs, and game tools and texts, future studies are merited
toward expanding the ludemic analysis of DMs or other game facilitators and facilitation tools.
186
The taxonomy of ludemes identified through our analysis of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition
is meant to serve as a critical layer in understanding the multifaceted learning dimensions present in
TTRPGs. This taxonomy, while comprehensive within the scope of essential gameplay mechanics,
represents only a portion of a potential hierarchical model of learning skills, competencies, and
capabilities facilitated by TTRPG participation. At the level being presented here, ludemes represent
core game actions and decisions, including character movement, combat mechanics, and dialogue
choices, that are all necessary for gameplay. These actions directly engage players in the game’s
flexible narrative and strategic design framework, while laying the groundwork for more complex
learning dynamics.
Beyond this foundational layer, there is potential for a mixture of more nuanced “tiers” of
ludemes that correspond to higher-order thinking, cognitive, metacognitive, and executive function
skills. Examples might include advanced problem-solving strategies; narrative analysis and creation;
and collaborative decision-making processes, which all reflect a deeper level of engagement with the
game’s content and the social interactions born out of play. These types of “advanced ludemes” would
match cognitive skills like memory and reasoning, metacognitive skills involving self-reflection and
regulation, and executive functions such as planning and flexibility to the actions in the game.
It is important to differentiate between ludemes that are necessary for the main mechanics of
gameplay and those that potentially enhance the learning experience but are not essential for game
participation. The former is sufficient to engage players in the basic interactive narrative and rule-
based structure of TTRPGs, forming the core of our current analysis. The latter representing higher-
order skills and executive functions, while valuable, fall outside the immediate scope of this paper
due to their less direct impact on essential gameplay mechanics. This distinction between necessary
and sufficient ludemes in the context of TTRPGs points to the layered complexity of game-based
learning environments. It highlights the vast potential for TTRPGs to facilitate a wide range of learning
outcomes, from basic procedural knowledge to sophisticated cognitive and social skills. To this point,
future research is merited that could further delineate these layers, exploring the interplay between
game mechanics, player actions, and the broader spectrum of learning outcomes they may activate.
We recognize that there are undoubtedly higher-order actions taken by players that are not
specified in a game’s printed rules (e.g., strategy, cognitive tasks, metacognition). However, for the
purposes of this paper, only specified player actions in the rules are captured as they appear in the
source text, and related higher-order actions are addressed as learning processes when appropriate.
Other actions and player experiences certainly exist and should be studied in future work but are
beyond the scope of this study. The rules document of any game is typically the first and sometimes
only resource that players use to familiarize themselves with a game and the rules of action. Thus,
it is a useful exercise to investigate the intended behaviors of players from the perspective of what
the design immediately affords, and this study is framed in this way. Additional higher-order actions
may certainly emerge from a game, but occur as a player completes and masters the fundamental
game actions that are prescribed in the game rules. Therefore, a productive first step in this work is to
identify the fundamental ludemes that a game affords through its design, which is codified by the rules
documentation and structure.
3. METHOD
3.1 Source Text
The entire text of the Player’s Handbook of Dungeons & Dragons, 5th Edition (Wizards of the Coast
2014) was analyzed in this study for the presence of ludemes. This text was chosen as a representative
187
case of TTRPGs in general and was assumed to contain common ludemes in TTRPG play. Any text
content appearing within the pages of this book was eligible to be coded as having the presence of a
ludeme.
Additional rules texts for the D&D 5e game exist, namely the Dungeon Master’s Guide and the
Monster Manual, along with multiple expansion sourcebooks such as Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything.
Although these texts likely contain additional basic and advanced rules for the role of “player” (and
not just the Dungeon Master), these texts were not analyzed and are outside of the scope of this
study. This was decided because many players of D&D only use the Player’s Handbook, and it can
therefore be safely assumed that most of the basic rules for play are contained solely in the Player’s
Handbook. Additionally, the qualitative analysis of only the Player’s Handbook was a sizable task for
two researchers to complete toward identifying common TTRPG ludemes, within the scope of work for
one journal article.
3.2 Procedure for Ludemic Analysis
The study followed a basic qualitative thematic analysis procedure (Thomas 2006; Merriam 2009)
that inductively identified generalizations from the data. This inductive process differs from deductive
processes like experimental design and hypothesis testing, as it allows for the deep comparison of data
points to identify similarities and differences. Similar data points are increasingly assembled to allow
the categorization of similar data and allow generalized interpretations of the data to emerge (Thomas
2006). Such “from the ground up” approaches to data analysis allow for the systematic theorization of
how the data are related without any predetermined categorization schemes (Charmaz 2006).
The procedure of identifying, categorizing, and interpreting ludemes from the game rules (i.e.,
Ludemic Analysis) consisted of the following steps: (1) the D&D 5e Player’s Handbook was coded
page by page for the presence of ludemes, resulting in coded data points of every instance of a player
action; (2) each coded data point was compared categorically based on the similarity and differences of
player actions performed; (3) common data points were assembled into categories of ludemes based on
similarity; (4) similar ludemes were collapsed into supercategories of player actions based on similarity;
and (5) the supercategories of ludemes were aligned with known educational processes and factors that
influence the achievement of learning outcomes. The full qualitative analysis procedure is depicted in
Figure 2.
Before textual coding began, operational definitions were determined for the two key constructs:
rules and ludemes. Guided by multiple useful definitions for game rules (Salen and Zimmerman 2003;
Elias, Garfield, and Gutschera 2020), we define a rule for TTRPG play as a statement in official game
rules document that dictates how a game operates, how the game is structured, and what players may or
may not do. As a type of a rule, we defined a ludeme as any command or rule in a game of what a player
should “do” to play the game.
This definition of ludeme led to multiple inclusion criteria before text coding began. An item
was considered a ludeme if it met any of the four following operational criteria: (1) any statement that
expressly uses a verb or process in reference to a player (via process coding from Saldaña 2021); (2) any
statement says something that a player potentially can or cannot “do” in the 3rd person (e.g., “players
can choose to buy starting equipment for their character”); (3) any specific direction given to a player
in the 2nd person (i.e., “roll a d20 and add your modifier”); (4) any noun in the text where a player
action is inferred, but not expressly stated (e.g., “A passive check is a special kind of ability check that
doesn’t involve any die rolls”, 5e Player’s Handbook, 175). To prevent redundancy and over-coding
for this study, exclusion criteria included any ludemes that were provided as specific examples of cases
of player-character ludemes (e.g., “swimming” and “climbing” were not included in the ludeme of
“special movement,” as they were provided in the text as examples of special movement).
188
Figure 2. Ludemic analysis procedure: qualitative coding and categorization steps
The coding unit was at the sentence level, meaning that a data point was created with the text of
the entire sentence in which a ludeme was identified. Data points were entered as rows in a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet and analyzed within the same software.
Step 1. Identified Ludemes. The first step of the analysis was to code the source text for every
ludeme present within the text. Both authors served as the researchers in the data coding and analysis
process. The researchers read the source text line by line and identified any ludeme cases in the text
based on the inclusion criteria. For ludeme cases, the researchers discussed whether to code or not
code a ludeme for inclusion in the study. When a ludeme was identified, the full text of the sentence
was captured, as well as a written memo by the researcher describing the actions that are performed
189
by the player in the text. In addition, in line with a constant comparative methodology for qualitative
analysis (Glaser and Strauss 1967), the researchers wrote additional memos on their observations that
were made about each code on how it was similar and different to other codes that were encountered in
the analysis.
As a result of the first round of coding from the source text, 379 individual ludemes were
identified. Due to copyright restrictions, the coded sentence segments of the source text are not printed
in this study, as the sentence segments consisted of a large portion of the source text.
Step 2. Compared Common Themes of Ludemes. After every ludeme was coded (n = 379),
each coded ludeme data point was analyzed for similarity with other ludemes. A constant comparative
method was used (Glaser and Strauss 1967), in which each code and any associated notes and memos
were compared with other codes based on their similarities and differences. In this step, axial coding
was employed to make formal connections between ludemes that were similar. The titles of the axial
codes represented a commonality between the ludemes in the category. Additionally, because of constant
comparison between codes, the titles of the axial coding categories were frequently revised by the
researchers to better represent the ludeme categories.
Step 3. Defined Formal Categories of Ludemes. The axial codes for each of the 379 original
ludeme codes were reviewed for consistency toward defining formal categories of ludemes based on
similarity. 37 unique axial codes were ultimately developed, which represented categories of ludemes
based on similar common player actions within that category.
Step 4. Defined Supercategories of Ludemes. After the 37 categories of ludemes were determined,
another round of axial coding was conducted to identify similarities between the categories. From this
phase of coding and refinement, 7 “supercategories” of ludemes were identified, based on common
similarities between the categories.
Step 5. Linked to Learning Factors and Processes. After the supercategories of ludemes were
defined, the researchers identified similarities between the types of ludemes engaged in by players and
known factors that influence learning from an SCT learning perspective. Finally, the authors suggested
principles for design for each supercategory based on these associations.
4. RESULTS: LUDEMES AND LEARNING IN NARRATIVE TABLETOP ROLE-PLAYING

GAMES
37 unique categories of ludemes were identified through axial coding in Steps 2 and 3 of the analysis
process. Each of these ludemes represents individual tasks, activities, or functions that players are
instructed to do in the game rules at some point during play. With TTRPGs, it is important to remember
that not every ludeme will be encountered in every session of play, and some ludemes may never
be encountered by some players depending on their style of play. Additionally, some game rules that
were coded belonged to two or more categories of ludeme, as they represented actions being taken in
combination.
Furthermore, seven supercategories of ludemes were identified during the analysis process.
Each supercategory consisted of ludemes that all had a similar, yet individually different function or
action that a player performed in the game. Within each of these “families” of ludemes represented
in the supercategories, there are associated parallel learning processes that accompany each type
of participation. From an SCT learning perspective, the players, the DM, and game designers can
190
manipulate learning factors that are aligned with the types of activity that are being performed in the
ludeme to maximize learning and achievement.
Each ludeme supercategory that was identified within the study is described in Table 1, with
examples of individual ludemes that fall within the category being provided as well. A description
of each individual ludeme (level 1) is not provided in Table 1 for brevity but are each expanded in
Appendix I with a description of the ludeme.
Table 1. Categories of Ludemes (Player Actions)
191
192
Each of the seven ludeme supercategories that were identified in the study are discussed in the
following sections. Within each supercategory, a description of the observed individual ludemes (i.e.,
player actions) is provided, the learning processes and factors that are activated by this type of ludeme
are discussed, and design principles for building TTRPGs for learning are forwarded.
4.1 Performing an in-game action (in-character)
Performing in-game actions in a TTRPG context is a process that encapsulates ludemes such as
traveling, communicating, fighting, problem-solving, and meeting game goals. This supercategory of
player action aligns well with various Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) principles.
Starting with goal setting, players engage in explicit and implicit goal setting when they
perform in-game actions (Locke and Latham 2006). Explicit goals may include completing a
quest or defeating a monster. In contrast, implicit goals may include improving character skills or
strengthening relationships with non-player characters (NPCs) or other party members. Goals may
also represent a blend of implicit and explicit motivational drivers. Goal-setting processes relate to the
activation of self-regulated learning (SRL), as players monitor progress, adjust strategies, and respond
accordingly to challenges that arise during gameplay (Zimmerman 1989). This supercategory of
ludeme in TTRPGs is a practical demonstration of the SCT concept of forethought, where individuals
anticipate outcomes and set goals accordingly (Bandura 2001).
The performance of in-game actions is also intimately related to a player’s level of self-
efficacy. Consider examples that involve negotiating a peace treaty between warring factions,
deciphering an ancient script, or successfully navigating a treacherous mountain pass. Performance
or mastery experiences (which include the successful completion of tasks) within the game serve to
boost confidence, increasing the player’s belief in their ability to tackle similar or even more complex
tasks in future gameplay (Bandura 1997). This theoretical example of improved self-efficacy may also
be compounded by experiences where players develop self-efficacy through vicarious experiences
(such as observing other players’ succeeding), verbal persuasion (encouraging words from party
members or the DM) and managing their physiological and emotional states during gameplay (Schunk
1995).
Cognitive and affective processes are also heavily engaged during in-game actions. The
ludeme of problem-solving requires players to pay attention to the details presented by the DM,
recall relevant information from their character’s prior knowledge, and devise a solution effectively
(Anderson 1995). The motivation to solve problems may stem from an innate desire for character
advancement or achieving a shared group goal.
Lastly, performing in-game actions provides a multitude of opportunities for observational
learning. Players observe the actions and strategies of others, learning new ways to approach
challenges or handle interactions (Bandura 1971). This is particularly crucial in mixed-experience
groups, where novice players can learn from experts (Vygotsky 1978). The socio-cultural context
of the game world also shapes the players’ behavior and learning (Bandura 1986). As exists in life
outside the game, there are societal norms and cultural values within any game world, especially
one that is dynamically socially constructed. These norms and values can influence how players
interact with NPCs or handle moral dilemmas. This engages players in a complex process of social
negotiation and cultural understanding, aligning with SCT’s emphasis on the social and cultural
factors influencing behavior and learning.
193
Suggested Design Principles for Learning:
● Use scaffolding to embed opportunities for varied and increasing complexity. Tasks
can allow players to start with simpler tasks to build their self-efficacy and gradually
introduce more complex tasks that push them to improve their skills and strategies.
● Include various NPC (non-player character) interactions that require different
communication strategies. An example might be negotiating with a stubborn dwarf
leader, which could require different skills than persuading a curious elf child. This
variability in social interaction would require players to learn different communication
strategies.
4.2 Role-playing (in-character)
Role-playing in character within a TTRPG can be seen as a manifestation of intrinsic motivation,

which is a critical element of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci 2000). Viewed through this
lens, it can be said that players embody their characters not merely for the game’s explicit rewards but
also for the internal satisfaction derived from exploring a character’s personality and narrative. This
phenomenon can drive players to engage more deeply with their roles in the game, thereby enhancing
their learning experience (Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski 2006).
When looking at the action supercategory of role-playing through the lens of Expectancy
Value Theory (Eccles et al. 1983), the players’ expectation of success and the value they attach to the
successful portrayal of their characters can significantly influence their engagement and performance.
Players who expect to role-play their characters well and place a high value on successful role-play
are more likely to invest effort and persist in their role-play (Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Through
this dynamic, role-playing starts to benefit from the impact of embodied cognition (Wilson 2002),
where physical and emotional engagement in character portrayal could enhance cognitive processing
and learning. The emotional investment required to authentically represent a character’s feelings and
reactions could also deepen the player’s empathetic understanding and interpersonal skills (Goldstein
and Winner 2012).
● Allow space for player agency and character development so that players have the
freedom to make meaningful choices that affect their characters and the game world
itself.
● Introduce moral dilemmas or ethical choices that challenge players’ decision-making
skills and encourage reflective and reflexive thinking. Instead of having obvious
“right” or “wrong” choices, these scenarios might push players to consider various
perspectives and consequences, including those of their party members.
4.3 Receiving information and instructions (out-of-game)
As the DM describes scenarios or creates rules, players must hear and process this information and
store it in their short-term memory and determine which important elements they need to store in
their long-term memory for future retrieval. These processes are in alignment with Information
Processing Theory (Miller 1956; Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968), since players are constantly receiving,
194
encoding, storing, and retrieving information during gameplay. This active processing enhances their
understanding and retention of the game’s mechanics and narrative (Baddeley 1992).
The reception of out-of-game information and instruction also relates to the principles of
Direct Instruction (Rosenshine 1986). Explicit teaching of game mechanics, character development,
and strategies by the DM or more experienced players is something that allows players to gain a
clear understanding of the knowledge in the gameplay, often to a degree that allows the immediate
application of the new knowledge. This not only increases players’ proficiency but also supports their
self-efficacy in gameplay (Bandura 1986).
Receiving information and instruction can also be seen through the lens of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978). This concept postulates that learners
can achieve more with guidance and collaboration than they can independently. In a TTRPG setting,
receiving instructions from the DM or collaborating with other players can aid in bridging the
gap between a player’s current abilities and potential development. The presence of guidance and
instructions is also in alignment with the concept of guided discovery learning (Bruner 1961), wherein
players explore the narrative and mechanics of the game, receiving support and scaffolding from the
DM or fellow players as they go.
● Incorporate explicit and implicit instructional elements. While players of games often
learn through direct instruction (like a guide or manual), there is an additional benefit
to learning through indirect instruction (learning by doing and from the consequences
of their actions).
● Use a “learning by doing” mechanism instead of front-loading all the rules and
mechanics. As demonstrated in the taxonomical representation of player actions in this
paper, RPGs may have numerous rules and mechanisms to learn. Gradually introducing
them as players encounter relevant situations in the game requires an experienced DM,
but this approach aligns with the concept of situated learning and can enhance the
players’ deeper understanding and retention of game rules over time.
4.4 Resolving actions and uncertainty
Resolving actions and uncertainty falls under the main category of “out-of-game” player actions, but
there is a significant amount of overlap between it and performing actions in-game. For example,
the construct of self-efficacy, as highlighted by Bandura (1986), plays a significant role in this player
action supercategory. Players’ belief in their ability to successfully navigate challenges and make
effective decisions in uncertain situations is central to the gameplay. Successfully resolving actions
and uncertainty can strengthen this belief, enhancing their self-efficacy. This is particularly true when
players face challenges that require them to stretch their abilities (Schunk, 1995).
This player action supercategory also taps into specific problem-solving strategies that take
the cognitive load taken on by the player(s) into account. The nature of TTRPGs often requires
players to engage in complex problem-solving under conditions of uncertainty. In doing so, players
have to manage their cognitive resources effectively to process the information at hand and arrive at
a solution, demonstrating the principle of intrinsic cognitive load (Paas and van Merriënboer 1994;
Sweller 1988).
The process of resolving actions and uncertainty is also connected to the concept of
metacognition, or “thinking about thinking” (Flavell 1979). Players need to monitor and control their
195
cognitive processes to navigate the game world effectively. These processes require players to reflect
on their understanding, plan their actions, monitor their progress, and adjust their strategies based on
the outcomes (Brown 1987).
● Embracing uncertainty and randomness in game design can be a conscious decision.

These elements can increase player engagement by adding unpredictability and
excitement to the game.
● Integrating probabilistic elements into gameplay is an additional way to teach players
about risk and reward. For example, a certain action might have a high potential
reward but also a high risk of failure. Players will need to do an internal calculation
in order to weigh these factors and make informed decisions as the results will impact
both them and their party members.
4.5 Realizing a character
The supercategory “realizing a character” within a TTRPG context provides an array of opportunities
for players to engage in learning processes. Starting with learner agency and self-efficacy, the act of
realizing a character involves player decisions in regard to all aspects of the character’s development,
which can range from deciding on a character’s appearance and attributes to determining the
backstory and setting goals for the character. This process actively engages the learner’s sense of
agency, as they have control and ownership over their character (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). It also
promotes self-efficacy as players see the outcomes of their decisions reflected in their character’s
abilities and growth (Bandura 1997).
Motivational theory also plays a significant role in this process. Creating and developing a
character is an inherently motivating task when players are driven by the desire to create a unique
and capable character. In accordance with Expectancy-Value Theory, which posits that individuals
are motivated to engage in tasks that they value and expect to be successful at (Wigfield and Eccles
2000), players are likely to value the task of character realization due to its immediate impact on their
game experience and the expected success of creating a character that can effectively navigate the
game world.
One of the most significant contributions of character realization to improving the climate of
education environments is the ways in which it intersects with the development of identity and a sense
of belonging. Through game characters, players explore different aspects of identity, such as race,
gender, profession, and personality. They can also use this game feature to express their creativity
and personal interests, fostering a sense of individuality and belonging within the game world (Gee
2003). This exploration of identity can also have positive implications for the players’ real-world self-
concept and identity formation, particularly for younger players (Subrahmanyam and Smahel 2011).
By creating, developing, and refining their characters over time, players also engage in a
process of self-exploration and self-realization (Maslow 1968). This process can also facilitate
the development of skills related to self-regulation and metacognition, as players reflect on their
characters’ growth and make decisions about future development (Zimmerman 2002).
196
● Encouraging character customization and development with meaningful impact on

gameplay (e.g., character traits, abilities, and stats that affect game outcomes) is a
design feature that may enhance a player’s sense of agency, belonging, and identity
within the game.
● Implementing a detailed character progression system where players can see the direct
impact of their actions and decisions on their character’s skills and abilities would be a
complicated but valuable design element. This system should allow diverse character
paths to unfold, catering to different play styles and learning preferences.
4.6 Table talking
In the context of SCT, table talking involves a significant amount of social, collaborative learning. As
players discuss game events, mechanics, and strategies, which are all forms of collaborative learning,
they exchange ideas, learn from each other, and collaboratively problem-solve, aligning with the
SCT principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura 1986). These interactions also contribute to the
development of collective efficacy, where the belief in the collective’s ability to accomplish tasks is
cultivated (Bandura 2000).
Table talking also provides opportunities for players to reflect on game experiences and
may aid in the transfer of that learning to other contexts. For example, when players discuss real-
life topics, they could be making connections between the game and their real-life experiences.
This aligns with the SCT’s emphasis on the role of cognitive processes in learning and the idea that
learning is not only behavioral but also involves deeper processes of understanding and application
(Bandura 1986).
The collective decision-making inherent in table talk involves negotiation, perspective-taking,
and consensus-building. These skills are valuable life skills as well as holding value in the game.
● Foster collaboration and communication in the game environment. This would

encourage players to discuss, negotiate, and make decisions as a group and would
enhance the social and collaborative learning experience.
● Encourage cooperative problem-solving by designing challenges that require the
unique abilities of multiple characters. This is often a hallmark of RPGs, and it
encourages players to communicate, strategize together, and appreciate the diverse
strengths of their team.
4.7 Serving as DM
Serving as the Dungeon Master (DM) is a unique role in D&D common to many TTRPGs that
warrants distinct analysis in future work, but largely falls outside of the scope of this study due to
the present focus only on player characters’ actions. The DM, sometimes known as a game master
or facilitator, holds a pivotal position in the game, acting as the game world’s creator, non-player
character narrator, rule interpreter, and facilitator of the game world’s interactions. Although player-
characters do not play the DM role or take any DM actions from a ludeme perspective, it is important
to recognize that this role does exist in many TTRPGs and constitutes its own set of ludemes due
197
to the complex interplay of actions between player-characters, the DM, and the game rules, and
supporting materials. In this study, ludeme references to the DM role and their actions in the Player’s
Handbook source text were captured and categorized for posterity. However, the Player’s Handbook
does not describe DM roles in detail. Instead, these rules mostly appear in the complementary source
book The Dungeon Master’s Guide, 5e, which was not analyzed in this study as it was out of scope of
investigating player character actions.
From a learning perspective, the DM role provides an array of opportunities for learners.
Firstly, it involves a high level of metacognitive activity, as the DM must understand the game’s
mechanics in-depth, anticipate player actions, manage the game world’s complexity, and adjust
scenarios in real time based on player decisions. This necessitates a deep understanding of the game
rules, player motivations, and narrative design, fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and
decision-making skills.
From a game design standpoint, the DM role impacts the game’s structure and progression.
A skilled DM can adapt the game to suit the players’ skill levels, interests, and learning objectives,
providing a tailored gaming experience. They can modify game rules or scenarios, create custom
content, and introduce novel challenges or rewards, making the game a dynamic, living system that
evolves with player interaction.
While this study by design does not delve deeply into the DM’s facilitative role, it is evident
that this role provides distinct learning opportunities and unique challenges for game design. Future
research might further explore the potential of the DM role and actions that they take in promoting
learning in RPGs.
Suggested Design Principle for Learning:
• To maintain flexible and improvisational play opportunities, include a game master or arbiter
to resolve potential in-game actions, to provide descriptive narration of the game world, and to
promote continued engagement with play (i.e., reminding players to take action).
• Provide substantial onboarding and game master support, when possible (it’s a challenging
job!)
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we identified and categorized a taxonomy of the unique ludemes, or individual player
actions that could be performed in a game, that were present in an archetypal TTRPG, the 5th Edition
of Dungeons & Dragons. Where most categorization schemes of RPGs are focused on structural
features and descriptions of what defines an RPG, a rigorous investigation from an instructional
standpoint requires the prioritization of player actions to understand how and why learning occurs.
The game’s potential as an educational tool is realized when the player engages with the game
and adheres to its rules. Ludemes, or player actions, are pivotal markers in the learning trajectory
associated with TTRPGs. These discrete gameplay elements can help educators track the evolution
of a student’s problem solving strategies, collaborative skills, and creative thinking. As such, our
analytic tools and vocabulary in the field must support such an investigation. By investigating
TTRPGs at the ludeme level, the authors forwarded a method for analyzing game rules to identify
a player’s possible actions in relation to the possible learning processes that are activated during
participation. The definition of ludemes subsequently allows for hypothesis testing of whether
learning has occurred as a result of this activity, as well as comparison across games through robust
198
definitions. In effect, learning occurs as a result of continual play and changing the ways one performs
their player actions.
Furthermore, we suggest possible factors and processes of learning that are linked to each
ludeme. However, it is important to remember that these connections remain simply hypothesized
by the authors, as no empirical study was conducted with players in actual game settings. In fact,
the field of educational research in general, continues to suffer from a lack of direct evidence that
links the specific elements of a designed learning experience to the theoretical underpinnings that
promote achievement (Cook et al. 2003; Wayne et al. 2008). Instead, drawing from our background as
instructional designers, our review suggested connections between the empirically observed TTRPG
ludemes within the study that are afforded to players by the game rules and the possible factors and
processes that are known to facilitate learning.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition was intentionally chosen as the focus of the analysis in
the paper due to its broad use as well as its long-standing inspiration for the role-playing design
community. Although this study represents only one specific game, we are confident that the
player actions outlined in the rules of D&D 5e is likely representative of many common rules that
span the diversity of TTRPG types and designs. In addition to the sizable task of two researchers
systematically extracting ludemes from a large source text like the D&D 5e Player’s Handbook,
choosing just one game also intentionally gave the study a narrower focus, which allowed for
modeling the analytic method (Ludemic Analysis) and testing out its results. In other words, it was
simply as good a place as any from a place of familiarity to the researchers to start toward formally
analyzing the player’s role in a TTRPG game in relation to learning! In addition, it allowed us to
refine a method for formal TTRPG analysis that can allow researchers to clearly define the specific
game actions that are expected of players, which is especially useful when testing hypotheses of
whether people learned from games as a result of their use of ludemes, or a unique combination of
playstyle.
By forwarding a taxonomy of ludemes for TTRPGs, we hope that both game designers and
educational researchers use this as a framework for testing the links between ludemes and learning in
TTRPG play. Instead of viewing games as a singular experience, games can instead be investigated at
the ludeme level to see how and why learning occurs when specific actions and their combinations are
performed by the players. Empirical work that tests and establishes these links is worth all the gold
pieces in the realm!
This study suggests significant future work in the field. Primarily, similar analyses on ludemes
and their links to learning processes and outcomes should be conducted on an expanded list of
TTRPG games. Furthermore, the Dungeon Master role was not thoroughly explored in this analysis,
as the focus remained on the player characters and analysis of only the Player’s Handbook among the
game’s library of texts. The role of the DM is a complex one, which merits its own additional study
on the complex interplay of actions related to game facilitation and the players’ ludemic activities.
Additionally, future work could identify similarities between ludemes across games, as Parlett (n.d.)
suggests that ludemes can easily be adopted from older games into newer games. If this is indeed
the case, the field needs to continually grow its evidence base on the effectiveness of educational
TTRPGs by empirically testing how and with what effect people learn from ludemes in varied game
contexts, themes, and content. Although the analysis in this study was singly centered on D&D 5e,
the field would also benefit from additional ludeme-level analysis of TTRPGs and larps that are
expressly designed for learning will be particularly valuable for the field. Finally, it will also become
increasingly important to establish programs of research that investigate emergent player actions and
behaviors that are outside of the ludemes specifically outlined in TTRPG game rules, such as higher-
order strategies and play styles that are assumed by players.
199
The primary job of an instructional designer is to match the planned actions of learners to the
intended learning outcomes. For this to occur, there must be at least a hypothesized or theoretical link
between the actions that will occur within the designed experience and the learning that will occur.
To date, TTRPGs have shown great promise in facilitating learning, but designers have lacked a
robust collection of evidence-based design principles for how to craft TTRPG games for learning. By
investigating the player actions of the “world’s most popular role-playing game,” we hope to promote
the further development of an inventory of research-based ludemes for fostering player achievement.
In turn, we hope that these ludemes can be implemented and subsequently tested for learning and
achievement when they are used in the service of learning.
Ultimately, this work pushes the field toward more evidence-based design principles for
effective TTRPG designs for learning in all contexts (formal, informal, professional), as well as
rigorous methods for formal game analysis and testing for learning contexts. The promise of role-
playing games toward learning achievement is at an all-time high, but researchers and designers alike
need to push the field’s knowledge base past anecdotal accounts of play into more evidence-based and
systematic design. This is critical for TTRPGs and role-playing methodology, in general, to be more
widely accepted in both formal and informal educational settings. Designs must be testable, designed
based on known learning principles, and demonstrably beneficial for learning.
This paper contributes an additional step toward this work of developing a framework of
TTRPG player actions that activate learning processes; and presents a new method for formal ludeme-
level analysis of complex role-playing games. It also advances principles for the design of effective
learning experiences using TTRPGs. After the completion of this study, we are extremely excited
about the future that gamers, designers, and educators can craft together using flexible and high-
resolution role-playing methods that simulate scenarios and processes for learning!
6. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.
REFERENCES
Abbott, Matthew S., Kimberly A. Stauss, and Allen F. Burnett. 2022. “Tabletop Role-playing Games
as a Therapeutic Intervention with Adults to Increase Social Connectedness.” Social Work with
Groups 45, no. 1: 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2021.1932014
Aldritch, Clark. 2005. Learning by Doing, A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games,
and Pedagogy in e-Learning and other Educational Experiences. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Anderson, John R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Anderson, Terry, and Jon Dron. “Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy.” International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12, no. 3 (2011): 80-97.
Arenas, Daniel Luccas, Anna Viduani, and Renata Brasil Araujo. 2022. “Therapeutic Use of Role-
Playing Game (RPG) in Mental Health: A Scoping Review.” Simulation & Gaming 15, no. 3:
285-311.
200
Atkinson, R.C., and R. M. Shiffrin. 1968. “Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control
Processes.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Volume 2), edited by Kenneth W.
Spence and Janet Taylor Spence, 89-195. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Baddeley, Alan. “Working Memory.” Science 255, no. 5044 (1992): 556-559.
Bandura, Albert. 1971. Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
———. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Hoboken, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
———. 1991. “Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50, no. 2: 248-287.
———. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
———. 2000. “Exercise of Human Agency through Collective Efficacy.” Current Directions in
Psychological Science 9, no. 3: 75-78.
———. 2001. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 52,
no. 1: 1-26.
Barab, Sasha A., Melissa Gresalfi, and Adam Ingram-Goble. 2010. “Transformational Play: Using
Games to Position Person, Content, and Context.” Educational Researcher 39, no. 7: 525–536.
https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.3102/0013189X10386593
Barron, Brigid. “When Smart Groups Fail.” Journal of The Learning Sciences 12, no. 3 (2003): 307-
359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Beyers, Andrew, & Francesco Crocco. 2016. “Introduction.” In The Role-Playing Society: Essays
on The Cultural Influence of RPGs, edited by Andrew Byers and Francesco Crocco, 1-19.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Bowman, Sarah Lynne. 2010. The Functions of Role-Playing Games: How Participants Create
Community, Solve Problems and Explore Identity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Bowman, Sarah Lynne, and Karen Schrier. 2024. “Players and Their Characters in Role-playing
Games.” In The Routledge Handbook of Role-playing Game Studies, edited by José P. Zagal
and Sebastian Deterding. London: Routledge.
Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown., and Rodney R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, Ann L. 1987. “Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation, and Other More
Mysterious Mechanisms.” In Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, edited by F. E.
Weinert & R. H. Kluwe, 65–116. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
201
Brown, John Seely, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning.” Educational Researcher 18, no. 1 (1989): 32-42.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1961. “The Act of Discovery.” Harvard Educational Review 31, no. 1: 21-32.
———. 1991. “The Narrative Construction of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 1: 1–21.
Cardwell, Paul. “Role-playing Games and the Gifted Student,” Gifted Education 11, no. 1 (1995): 39-
46.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, Douglas Burton, & Mario Martinez-Garza. 2012. “Prediction and Explanation as Design
Mechanics in Conceptually Integrated Digital Games to Help Players Articulate the Tacit
Understandings They Build through Game Play.” In Games, Learning, and Society: Learning
and Meaning in the Digital Age, edited by Constance Steinkuehler, Kurt Squire, and Sasha
Barab, 279-305. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Allan, John Seely Brown, and Susan E. Newman. 1989. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching
the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.” In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction:
Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, edited by Lauren B. Resnick, 453-494. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, David A., Stanley J. Hamstra, Ryan Brydges, Benjamin Zendejas, Jason H. Szostek, Amy T.
Wang, Patricia J. Erwin, and Rose Hatala. “Comparative Effectiveness of Instructional Design
Features in Simulation-Based Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Medical
Teacher 35, no. 1 (2013): e867-e898.
Davis, Mark H. “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional

Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, no. 1 (1983): 113–126.
DeBoer, Jennifer, Andrew D. Ho, Glenda S. Stump, and Lori Breslow. “Changing ‘Course:’
Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses.” Educational
Researcher 43, no. 2 (2014): 74-84.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dede, Chris. “Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning.” Science 323, no. 5910 (2009): 66-
69.
Eccles, Jacquelynne. 1983. “Expectancies, Values and Academic Behaviors.” In Achievement and
Achievement Motives, edited by Janet T. Spence, 75-146. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Elias, George Skaff, Richard Garfield, and K. Robert Gutschera. 2020. Characteristics of Games.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
202
Engelstein, Geoffrey, and Isaac Shalev. 2022. Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An
Encyclopedia of Mechanisms. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ewalt, David. M. 2014. Of Dice and Men: The Story of Dungeons & Dragons and the People Who
Play It. New York: Scribner.
Flavell, John H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–Developmental

Inquiry.” American Psychologist 34, no. 10 (1979): 906-911.
Freeman, Scott, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah
Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in
Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111, no. 23: 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Garris, Rosemary & Ahlers, Robert & Driskell, James. “Games, Motivation, and Learning: A
Research and Practice Model.” Simulation & Gaming 33, no. 4 (2002): 441-467. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1046878102238607.
Gee, James Paul. 2003. “What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy.”
Computers in Entertainment 1, no. 1: 1-20.
———. 2002. “Learning by Design: Good Video Games as Learning Machines.” E-Learning and
Digital Media 2, no. 1: 5–16.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Mills Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Goldstein, Thalia R., and Ellen Winner. “Enhancing Empathy and Theory of Mind.” Journal of
Cognition and Development 13, no. 1 (2012): 19-37.
Gredler, Margaret E. 1996. “Educational Games and Simulations: A Technology in Search of a

(Research) Paradigm.” In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and
Technology, edited by David. H. Jonassen, 521–539. New York, NY: MacMillian Library
Reference
Hake, Richard R. “Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student

Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses.” American Journal of
Physics 66, no. 1 (1998): 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809.
Hammer, Jessica, Alexandra To, Kat Schrier, Sarah Lynne Bowman, and Geoff Kaufman. 2018.
“Learning and Role-Playing Games.” In Role-Playing Game Studies: A Transmedia Approach,
edited by José P. Zagal & Sebastian Deterding, 283-299. New York: Routledge.
———. 2024. “Learning and Role-Playing Games.” In The Routledge Handbook of Role-playing
Game Studies, edited by José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding. London: Routledge.
203
Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., Ravit Golan Duncan, and Clark A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and
Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark (2006).” Educational Psychologist 42, no. 2: 99-107.
Klopfer, Eric, Scot Osterweil, Jennifer S. Groff, and Jason Haas. 2009. Using The Technology
of Today, in The Classroom Today: The Instructional Power of Digital Games, Social
Networking, Simulations and How Teachers Can Leverage Them. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - The Education Arcade.
Knowles, Malcolm S. 1973. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Company.
Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development
(Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Koster, Raph. 2005. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Sebastopol, CA: Paraglyph Press.
Lave, Jean, and Eitenne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham. 2006. “New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory.” Current
Directions in Psychological Science 15, no. 5: 265-268.
Mackay, Daniel. 2001. The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Mariais, Christelle, Florence Michau, and Jean-Philippe Pernin. 2010. “The Use of Game Principles
in the Design of Learning Role-Playing Game Scenarios.” Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Games Based Learning, 462-471.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50, no. 4: 370-
396.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being. Washington, DC: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Merriam, Sharan B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Miller, George A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our
Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 63, no. 2: 81-97.
Montola, Marcus. 2008. “The Invisible Rules of Role-Playing The Social Framework of Role-Playing
Process.” International Journal of Role-Playing 1: 22–36. https://doi.org/10.33063/ijrp.
vi1.184
Nicholson, Scott. 2015. “A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification.” In Gamification in Education and
Business, edited by Torsten Reiners and Lincoln C. Wood, 1-20. New York: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1.
204
Paas, Fred GWC, and Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 1994. “Variability of Worked Examples and
Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 86, no. 1: 122-133.
Parlett, Dave. N.d. “What’s A Ludeme? And Who Really Invented It?” Parlett Games.
Peterson, Jon. 2021. Game Wizards: The Epic Battle for Dungeons & Dragons. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Plass, Jan L., Richard E. Mayer, and Bruce D. Homer. 2020. Handbook of Game-Based Learning.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prince, Michael. 2004. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of
Engineering Education 93, no. 3: 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.
tb00809.x
Rosenshine, Barak. 1986. “Synthesis of Research on Explicit Teaching.” Educational Leadership 43,
no. 7: 60-69.
Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55, no. 1:
68-78.
Ryan, Richard M., C. Scott Rigby, and Andrew Przybylski. 2006. “The Motivational Pull of Video
Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach.” Motivation and Emotion 30, no. 4: 344-360.
Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. 2003. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Schank, Roger. 1990. Tell Me a Story: Narrative and Intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Schunk, Dale. H. 1995. “Self-Efficacy, Motivation, and Performance.” Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology 7, no. 2: 112-137.
Squire, Kurt. 2006. “From Content to Context: Videogames as Designed Experience.” Educational
Researcher 35, no. 8: 19-29.
———. 2008. “Open-Ended Video Games: A Model for Developing Learning for the Interactive
Age.” In The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, edited by Katie
Salen., 167-198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Steinkuehler, Constance. 2006. “Massively Multiplayer Online Videogaming as Participation in a

Discourse.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 13, no. 1: 38-52.
Stephenson, Matthew, Dennis J. N. J. Soemers., Eric Piette, & Cameron Browne. 2021. “General
Game Heuristic Prediction Based on Ludeme Descriptions.” In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE
Conference on Games (CoG). New York: IEEE.
205
Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, and David Smahel. 2011. Digital Youth: The Role of Media in Development.
New York: Springer.
Sweller, John. 1988. “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive
Science 12, no. 2: 257-285.
Thibodeau, Rachel B., Ansley T. Gilpin, Melissa M. Brown, and Brooke A. Meyer. 2016. “The Effects
of Fantastical Pretend-Play on the Development of Executive Functions: An Intervention
Study.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 145: 120–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2016.01.001
Thomas, David R. 2006. “A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.”
American Journal of Evaluation 27, no. 2: 237-246.
Torner, Evan. 2024. “RPG Theorizing by Designers and Players.” In The Routledge Handbook
of Role-playing Game Studies, edited by José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding. London:
Routledge.
Vasalou, Asimina, Adam Joinson, Tanja Bänziger, Peter Goldie, and Jeremy Pitt. 2008. “Avatars
in Social Media: Balancing Accuracy, Playfulness and Embodied Messages. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, no. 11: 801-811.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wayne, Andrew J., Kwang Suk Yoon, Pei Zhu, Stephanie Cronen, and Michael S. Garet. 2008.
“Experimenting with Teacher Professional Development: Motives and Methods.” Educational
Researcher 37, no. 8: 469-479.
Wenger, Eitenne. 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wigfield, Allan, and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement

Motivation.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, no. 1: 68-81.
Wizards of the Coast. 2014. D&D Player’s Handbook, 5th Edition. Renton, WA: Wizards of the
Coast.
Woods, Timm. 2016. “Raiding the Last Frontier: Overcoming the Language Barrier in the ESL
Classroom.” In The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs, edited by
Andrew Byers & Francesco Crocco, 98-121. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Zagal, José P., and Sebastian Deterding. 2024. “Definitions of ‘Role-Playing Games.’” In The
Routledge Handbook of Role-playing Game Studies, edited by José P. Zagal and Sebastian
Deterding. London: Routledge.
206
Zagal, José P., Jochen Rick, and Idris Hsi. 2006. “Collaborative Games: Lessons Learned from
Board Games.” Simulation & Gaming 37, no. 1: 24–40. https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.
edu/10.1177/1046878105282279
Zimmerman, Barry J. 1989. “A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning.”

Journal of Educational Psychology 81, no. 3: 329-339.
———. 2002. “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview.” Theory into Practice 41, no. 2:
64-70.
APPENDIX I: DESCRIPTIONS OF OBSERVED INDIVIDUAL LUDEMES
207
208
209
Jeremy Riel, Ph.D., is Visiting Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of
Illinois Chicago. His research is at the intersection of educational technology, learning sciences, and
productive play. His work focuses on research and development of educational technologies and
learning experiences in play-based and scenario-based settings, with a particular focus on emerging
technologies, such as educational simulations and digital games, asynchronous and distributed
online learning, AI, digital communications and media, and immersive sensory technologies.
Rob Monahan was a NYC Pre-K - 5th-grade science teacher for 13 years, creating and piloting
new programs for public schools, including the city’s first explicit K-5 critical thinking course. He
started his private education consulting business, STEM Passport, about 12 years ago and currently
works with students internationally and across the US. Monahan’s primary area of expertise is
using commercial games and gamification as teaching, learning, and motivational tools. As of the
publication date, he is starting the dissertation phase of a Ph.D. program in Teacher Education and
Learning Science at NC State.
210

Learnin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learnin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learnin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Role-Playing - Issue 15

Learning from Ludemes: An Inventory of Common Player Actions

Jeremy Riel Rob Monahan

Figure 1. The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) Framework

Within an SCT perspective, learning is any demonstrable change in behavior, knowledge, or

2.3 SDT and Motivational Aspects of Gameplay

2.4 Prioritizing Player Actions: The Ludeme as a Unit of Participation in Games

3.1 Source Text

3.2 Procedure for Ludemic Analysis

Figure 2. Ludemic analysis procedure: qualitative coding and categorization steps

4. RESULTS: LUDEMES AND LEARNING IN NARRATIVE TABLETOP ROLE-PLAYING

Table 1. Categories of Ludemes (Player Actions)

4.1 Performing an in-game action (in-character)

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

4.2 Role-playing (in-character)

Role-playing in character within a TTRPG can be seen as a manifestation of intrinsic motivation,

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

4.3 Receiving information and instructions (out-of-game)

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

4.4 Resolving actions and uncertainty

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

● Embracing uncertainty and randomness in game design can be a conscious decision.

4.5 Realizing a character

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

● Encouraging character customization and development with meaningful impact on

4.6 Table talking

Suggested Design Principles for Learning:

● Foster collaboration and communication in the game environment. This would

Suggested Design Principle for Learning:

Davis, Mark H. “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional

Flavell, John H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–Developmental

Gredler, Margaret E. 1996. “Educational Games and Simulations: A Technology in Search of a

Hake, Richard R. “Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student

Steinkuehler, Constance. 2006. “Massively Multiplayer Online Videogaming as Participation in a

Wigfield, Allan, and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement

Zimmerman, Barry J. 1989. “A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning.”

APPENDIX I: DESCRIPTIONS OF OBSERVED INDIVIDUAL LUDEMES

You might also like