I use templates for a lot of instructional design and elearning work, including design documents, storyboards, Storyline layouts and interactions. But I don’t use templates for branching scenarios, especially not for writing the scenarios and mapping out the branching structure. In fact, I don’t even create a traditional storyboard in Word or PowerPoint to draft my branching scenarios. I do create and use templates for development sometimes once I’ve written the scenario, but that’s after I’ve already built out the structure and written all the text.

I understand the desire to use a template for branching scenarios, especially when you’re first learning how to create them. However, I don’t recommend using templates for drafting scenarios. If we’re using branching scenarios to practice and assess complex skills, then the branching structure has to have a certain amount of complexity to be realistic.

Templates can limit the branching structure

When you use a template to draft it, it can force you to write the narrative to fit that template structure instead of making the structure fit the content.

Time cave template structure

For example, I recently reviewed the branching scenario options in a tool that provides a template with the structure shown below.

• The first decision point has three choices.
• The other two decision points have two choices.
• The path is three choices long no matter what you select.
• Although the path is fairly short for the learners, there are 12 ending slides.

This branching structure where each choice leads to more choices is known as a “time cave” (after The Cave of Time, the first Choose Your Own Adventure book). This is a traditional structure for branching stories, and it works in CYOA books to provide lots of alternative endings to enjoy as you reread the book.

However, it’s not a very practical structure for branching scenarios for training. This example has 22 slides, but a learner will only see 4 of those on any single path. That’s a lot of building and development for slides people probably won’t see.

This specific example also has variable numbers of choices. The first decision point has three choices, which is what I typically do for most decision points. The remaining decision points all have two choices, probably to limit the size of the scenario. Using two options isn’t necessarily bad, but it typically reduces the scenario to choosing between a clear good and bad option. If you have clear black and white decisions, a branching scenario probably isn’t the right approach for practicing the skill. This template leads you to use a less ideal structure.

Gauntlet or constrained branching scenario template

Another common structure for scenarios doesn’t really have much branching at all. The gauntlet or constrained branching structure has a series of choices that provide feedback for each choice. After the feedback, the learner is forced right back to the main path, regardless of what they previously picked. This provides the illusion of choice, but it’s fundamentally a linear scenario. Cathy Moore calls this a “control freak” scenario because, “No one may advance without first making the correct choice, and then all people must advance as one obedient mass to the same scene.” There are no long-term consequences for your choices; you get the next choice no matter what.

The time cave and gauntlet structures are the two most common ones provided in branching scenario templates, but they often aren’t the most useful or effective structures.

Templates waste writing and development time

Templates are supposed to save you time and make you more efficient. However, branching scenario templates can end up wasting your time. For example, in a time cave structure, the choices and slides increase exponentially for each decision in the path. The structure gets large and unwieldy very quickly. You spend a lot of time building out the wrong paths that most users probably won’t ever see unless they replay the scenario multiple times, deliberately making bad choices.

In the time cave template above, it’s possible to adjust the structure. You could start with that template and expand the choices. You could reuse some options to reduce the complexity and development needed. However, in practice, I find that that kind of editing pretty frustrating. Most of the time, it would have been faster for me to build it from scratch myself with the structure I wanted.

Align the branching structure to your content

Rather than starting with a template that boxes you into a particular structure, it’s better to align the branching structure to your content. Different structures fit different situations better. More flexible branching structures are generally more useful for creating realistic decision-making practice for complex skills.

Use a time cave structure rarely

By necessity, a time cave is generally limited to a maximum of 3 decisions in each path. It’s broad, giving you lots of alternative endings, but it’s not very deep. It doesn’t do well for showing a longer process or change in a character.

Although this is the structure many people think of when they envision a branching scenario, it’s not very useful for online training because of it’s complexity. The only time I recommend using this structure is for a short process with a maximum of 3 steps. Even then, you probably want to look for ways to shorten some of the paths or collapse certain options together to reduce the number of passages or slides needed.

Use a gauntlet structure for teaching

In a gauntlet branching structure, you can get the wrong answer every single time, and the scenario still propels you forward. That can be helpful for teaching skills to less experienced learners, where you’re mostly using the scenario for instruction rather than decision-making practice.

This structure also works OK if your scenario is a series of independent decisions rather than multiple decisions in a single large scenario. If you’re teaching a process with multiple steps, where each step is contingent on the previous step, this method doesn’t create as realistic of an assessment or practice.

Sometimes, you might use this structure because you’re short on time and resources, and this is faster to build. In fact, I use a simple gauntlet scenario as one of the samples on my blog. It’s a short, simple scenario, so I can quickly rebuild it in multiple tools for comparison.

This structure is an OK one to use when you’re first learning, especially if you’re learning on your own. Just don’t keep using it as your only structure forever once you get some practice building branching scenarios.

Use a branch and bottleneck structure for most branching scenarios

Most of my branching scenarios use some form of a branch and bottleneck structure. In a branch and bottleneck structure, you branch into different options for a while, but then all paths return to a single bottleneck. The bottleneck is an event or choice that happens the same in every path. In the example below, there are 39 screens. Most paths have 6 decisions (plus two bottlenecks), although a few shorter paths end in failure.

Branch and bottleneck is a good structure if you have two options that could be done in either order (where you then backtrack to the other branch after completing one). It’s also good if certain key events will drive the plot forward regardless of prior decisions, or if there’s a particular point you have to reach in order to continue.

Branch and bottleneck can be very effective in scenarios designed to teach new skills and information, rather than to practice or assess existing skills. It gives you a little more complexity than a limited branching or gauntlet scenario, but it’s still manageable.

Use flexible branching structures to align to the content

My branching scenarios never look as “clean” as the branch and bottleneck flowchart above. My actual structures are much more flexible. For example, here’s the structure for my project management scenario. The bottlenecks are highlighted. This is a branch and bottleneck structure, it’s just not as neat as the diagram.

In this scenario, I aligned the branching structure to the content. The objective of this scenario is to show the tradeoffs in time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction by making different choices as a project manager. Some of the paths lead to separate branches and additional parts of the story. I knew that I wanted certain events to happen in the scenario regardless of which choices the user makes:

• The client makes a new request for an additional feature.
• The lead developer gets sick

As I wrote the scenario, I also decided to add another bottleneck near the end to create a closing scene.

What to do instead of templates: Use Twine

Instead of using templates, I find that it’s faster to plan and write branching scenarios in Twine. I’ve tried lots of different methods and tools over the years, but nothing is as efficient as Twine. That’s because Twine is built specifically for nonlinear, interactive stories like branching scenarios. With Twine, creating links is as simple as typing. Watch how fast it is in this demo where I create a 7-passage interactive prototype in less than 90 seconds. I sped up my typing in the video, but everything else is shown at the actual speed in Twine.

If the video isn’t embedded above, you can watch it on YouTube.

If you’re interested in an easier way to create branching scenarios, check out my step-by-step directions for getting started in Twine. I also have other posts on using Twine for building chat simulations, providing conditional feedback, and customizing the look and feel of your scenario.

Upcoming events

Gathering SME Stories to Craft Relevant and Engaging Scenarios. Tuesday, October 22, 3:00 PM ET.

This webinar will focus on a common sticking point in creating scenario-based learning: working with SMEs. In it, you’ll learn how to ask focused questions and techniques to probe SMEs for additional details such as mistakes and consequences. You’ll learn ways for getting “unstuck” while working with SMEs, and why it’s better to interview SMEs rather than have them write scenarios themselves. You’ll leave this session with tactics to help you get the concrete examples and stories you need from SMEs. Register for this free webinar through Training Mag Network.

BYOD: Mini Is More: Create One-Question Scenarios for Better Assessment. Thursday, November 7, 3:00 PM PST. In this hands-on session, you’ll learn how to create mini-scenarios with just one question. These mini scenarios can be used for more effective, higher-level assessment than traditional multiple-choice questions. One-question mini-scenarios can provide relevant context and measure decision-making rather than simply recall. Plus, they don’t require much additional time, effort, or resources once you learn how to write them. DevLearn, November 6-8, MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas.

Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Email
• More

• Reddit
• Pinterest
• Pocket

Related