During revolutions, strategic interactions among civilian policy makers, armed forces, and opposition groups shape political outcomes—most important, whether a regime stands or falls. Students from advanced industrial democracies frequently find these dynamics counterintuitive, even after completing readings and engaging in traditional instruction methods. We therefore sought to improve pedagogical outcomes by designing a simulation based on scenarios similar to those witnessed during the Arab Spring and Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution. We divided students into four teams representing the regime, the armed forces, and two distinct groups of anti-regime dissidents. Rules were designed to incorporate the best recent scholarship on each category of actors’ behavior, such as the probability of military units defecting to protesters and the ability of riot police to repress urban uprisings. By forcing student teams to make decisions under time pressure, we obliged them to wrestle with the uncertainties and fears of betrayal inherent in complex civil–military emergencies.

This article examines the chief characteristics that make for good or great teaching. A combination of professional, disciplinary, and key interpersonal factors is required to advance from good to great. The alchemic process of learning—especially “how” we learn—also is explored.

This article describes a project-based course titled “International Relations and Games” in which students were required to create game rules and scenarios using IR concepts, theories, approaches, and topics. Although students learned through participation in games and simulations in previous classes, they acquired further knowledge by developing their own games—a case of “learning by creating.” The course was designed with expectations that (1) game-creation activities would facilitate peer-based and self-directed learning; (2) it would help improve students’ creativity; and (3) it would enable students to understand the importance and utility of discipline in the world beyond their classroom. Students conducted three game-creation projects in the semester. Based on the instructor’s observations, student surveys, and personal-interview results, it is concluded that all three expectations were met—especially that students felt as if they were leading the class.

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote that “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains.” Whereas the former claim of the quote is contestable and gendered, the latter part is empirically true from slavery to economic exploitation and widespread oppression that occurs to this day. Nevertheless, history shows that rarely will people take up weapons and rebel against the powerful. We have found that students often do not understand why this should be the case, given the rights that all people deserve. We use the Peasant Game exercise in class to shine a light on why most people, most of the time, endure repression and choose not to rebel. The game is played in turns with some students as lords, who decide how “food” will be apportioned, and other students as peasants, who produce the food. We discuss how power differentials occur and the difference they make. Students who play the game come away with a better understanding of why many people decide not to fight back against oppression—even if it is the right thing to do.