BRIEF ACTION THERAPEUTIC SYSTEMS PROJECT: ARCHETYPICAL by Andrew Johnson Bachelor of Social Work, University of Northern British Columbia, 2020 PRACTICUM REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2025 © Andrew Johnson, 2025 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7 Topic Area ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Purpose of Pilot Project ........................................................................................................................... 8 Key Concepts ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Social Position ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 12 Clinical Frameworks .............................................................................................................................. 12 Clinical Applications of Tabletop Roleplaying Games ....................................................................... 15 Mental Health Crisis .............................................................................................................................. 16 Trauma: Rise and Impact ...................................................................................................................... 17 Observations of Physiological Trauma Responses .............................................................................. 18 Treatment of Trauma ............................................................................................................................ 19 Mindfulness ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Theatre .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Motivation Through Conflict and Communal Action on the Macro Level ...................................... 26 9/11 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 The Arab Spring. .................................................................................................................................... 27 The Covid-19 Pandemic. ........................................................................................................................ 28 Motivation Through Conflict and Communal Action on the Micro Level ....................................... 28 Game Theory .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Action Research ...................................................................................................................................... 29 2 Transtheoretical Model .......................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 3: Practicum Pilot Project Design ................................................................................ 32 Brief Action Therapeutic System .......................................................................................................... 33 Archetypical ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Clinical Modalities and Underpinnings ................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 4: Practicum Agency and Learning Outcomes ........................................................... 38 Practicum Placement Agency ................................................................................................................ 38 Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................................ 39 Chapter 5: Practicum Overview ................................................................................................. 41 Program evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 41 Leadership competencies ....................................................................................................................... 43 DBT group facilitation ........................................................................................................................... 48 Archetypical discussions and development .......................................................................................... 50 Archetypical presentations .................................................................................................................... 61 September 6, 2024............................................................................................................................... 61 September 12, 2024............................................................................................................................. 65 September 28, 2024............................................................................................................................. 66 Archetypical Trials ................................................................................................................................. 68 Archetypical: Trial one ...................................................................................................................... 68 Archetypical: Trial two ...................................................................................................................... 71 Archetypical: Trial three ................................................................................................................... 76 Archetypical: Additional feedback ................................................................................................... 78 3 Chapter 6: Implications of Future Practice and Conclusion .................................................... 78 Leadership ............................................................................................................................................... 79 Group facilitation ................................................................................................................................... 80 Archetypical findings ............................................................................................................................. 83 Archetypical outcomes and limitations ................................................................................................ 89 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 91 References...................................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix A: Foundry Archetypical Group Poster ................................................................. 106 Appendix B: Archetypical Presentation ................................................................................... 107 Appendix C: Session Handouts ................................................................................................. 112 Appendix D: Archetypical Participant’s Manual .................................................................... 122 Appendix E: Archetypical Session Guide’s Rulebook ............................................................ 148 Appendix F: Archetypical Facilitator’s Guides ....................................................................... 184 Appendix G: Archetypical Questionnaire ................................................................................ 221 Appendix H: Archetypical Data ................................................................................................ 223 4 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge everyone who has made this practicum report possible. To my wife, Jennifer, for putting up with the whirlwind of both the second half of my bachelor’s degree, as well as my master’s degree. To my friends Ben, Kyle, Darryl, Charla, Marina, Tim, Brian, Marci, Kirpal and Dalyce; as well as my buddy Tim. I don’t think I would have accomplished this degree without your support. My colleagues, Jody, Dustin, Julius, Natalie, Tammy, Kevin, Teal, Nola, Jennifer, Amita, Kelsey, Cherai, Cassie, Dorcas, Melanie, Ashley, Taya, Kerry, Diane, Genevieve, Linda, and the remaining Blue Pine, IPT and Acute folks who make every day navigation possible. To the amazing leadership team that I report to, Laurie, Stacie, and Lola, each of you have helped make this goal achievable. To the Foundry team, Carmen, Zita, Sandy, Moria, Jas, Lex, Jane, Lauren, Vanessa, Kristi, Brigette, Jen, Soo Yinka, Ren, Carmen Lea, Delainey, Kim, Kathleen, Kelan, Paul and Kareen. You all made my time at Foundry memorable and welcoming. And, of course, to Tammy and Indrani, as well as all the wonderful professors I have had over the years. I most certainly could not have made it this far without your support and guidance. 5 Abstract During my practicum at Foundry Prince George (September 2024–April 2025), I pursued three interconnected goals: enhancing leadership skills, co-facilitating dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) groups, and developing a brief action therapeutic system (BATS) called Archetypical. Leadership growth occurred through project development, team support, and facilitation, using relational and trauma-informed approaches. DBT group facilitation deepened my understanding of collaborative program delivery and group dynamics. Archetypical—a BATS combining elements of CBT, DBT, narrative therapy, and tabletop role-playing—showed potential in fostering emotional insight, agency, and connection, especially among neurodivergent youth and those with trauma histories. Participant feedback highlighted its accessibility and impact, though challenges in engagement, perception, and facilitation logistics emerged. Overall, this practicum strengthened my capacity for creative, collaborative, and responsive social work practice. Keywords: Brief Action Therapeutic System, BATS, Archetypical, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, DBT, Narrative Therapy, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, TTRPGs, Leadership, Group Facilitation 6 “It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this.”1 -Old Man, The Legend of Zelda (Nintendo, 1986) Chapter 1: Introduction Outlined in this practicum report are the major components of my academic learning that I implemented during my practicum. I have provided my learning goals, literature review, discussion of my practicum project, as well as my social positioning, and practicum project design. Ethical considerations, limitations, and benefits are also included in this document. Topic Area A significant amount of research over the past forty years has been dedicated to various modalities—such as, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), and narrative models—to treat trauma and other mental health issues (Burns, 1981; Linehan, 2014; White & Epston, 2024). Additionally, over the last twenty years, there has been an increased academic interest in gaming in various fields of study (Baker et. al., 2022; Ben-Ezra et al., 2018; Sung, 2021). While the intersection of these two realms may seem worlds apart, they both align to form a unique and novel brief action therapeutic system (BATS) model approach to delivering therapy, which includes a two-eyed seeing approach (Ray, 2021). In the context of my practicum setting, I was able to have the opportunity to execute the marriage of these two approaches. Current research is exploring how tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs) can have a net benefit on mental health (Baker et al., 2022; de Shazer et al., 1986). Tabletop roleplay games encompass various styles of games that involve the creation, representation, and development of characters interacting within a fictional world governed by structured rules (Arenas et al., 2022). 1 Nintendo. (1986). The Legend of Zelda (US). [video game]. 7 Frequently, the research notes a therapeutic model that utilizes the structures of TTRPGs would be a concept that academics in the helping field would like to see, but to date, such a system has not been codified (Baker et al., 2022; Sung, 2021). This practicum report highlights the importance of adding such a model into the suite of therapeutic modalities that are currently used for addressing mental health issues. For this reason, I seek to create a brief action therapeutic system (BATS) that integrates aspects of cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, and narrative therapy, alongside the structures found in tabletop role-playing games. Purpose of Pilot Project The purpose of creating and executing this modality in my practicum was to tie the concepts of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and narrative therapy, and the structures found in tabletop role-playing games together to introduce a codified therapeutic modality that may promote trauma recovery. A brief action therapeutic system (BATS) could provide another alternative for people who are younger, neurodivergent, and/or identify as a gamer. The BATS provided a set of options that allowed a person more autonomy to explore therapeutic options that work for their specific situation. This type of modality was delivered as an alternative that provided an enriching experience, which was different to the traditional talk therapy and/or a clinical group setting offered during my practicum. As such, my goal was to implement and facilitate a pilot brief action therapeutic system at Foundry in Prince George with youth who are accessing services. A foundational cornerstone of the BATS is flexibility, much like acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), developed by Steven Hayes—defined further in my literature review (Hayes et al., 2016). However, flexibility in a BATS includes aspects of delivery in both cultural and structural ways. While there are comparable resources that currently exist, such as 8 goal-setting apps and limited YouTube videos that are geared toward the gamification of life, they are not deliverable in a codified manner and often rely on individuals to understand how these processes work. In this regard, through the design of a BATS, I have bridged the knowledge gap of: What a therapeutic modality would look like if framed as a TTRPG for a wider audience, provide an alternative for people who seek more control in their therapeutic journeys, and provide various opportunities for future researchers to examine and explore the implementation and outcomes of my BATS, or one that is created in the future. Key Concepts Brief Action Therapeutic System. A flexible therapeutic modality that integrates elements of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and narrative therapy with structures present in tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs). Communal Action. Communal action is the action of multiple parties coming together to address or navigate a shared problem (van der Kolk, 2015). This can be observed on both the macro and micro levels of society. Experience (within a gaming context). A concrete representation of practice through awarded points to participant character at the end of sessions (Gygax & Arneson, 1991). Game Theory. A mathematical model in which an optimal solution can be mapped out through a game in a situation between two or more people (The Game Theorists, 2024). Motivation. “[The] energizing of behavior in pursuit of a goal, is a fundamental property of all deliberative behaviors” (Simpson & Balsam, 2016, p. 2). Non-Participant Character (NPC). A character created and used by the session guide that may or may not be specific to the scenario (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). 9 Participant. An individual participating in a scenario (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Participant Character (PC). A character created and used to participate in a scenario, like a player character (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Scenario. A collection of connected situations that PCs navigate and usually feature one or more issues. Like an adventure or campaign in other TTRPGs (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Session. Gathering of participants and SG to collaborate in a scenario (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Session Guide (SG). An individual who runs an Archetypical session through presenting scenario sections and runs issues, as well as NPCs. Comparable to a Game Master or Referee (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Table. A group of participants, including the SG, in a session (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Tabletop Roleplaying Game(s) (TTRPG/TTRPGs). “One player provides the narrative and some of the dialogue, but the other players, instead of just sitting and envisioning what's going on, actually participate” (Gygax & Arneson, 1991, p. 5). Trauma. “[Trauma] is not the story of what happened long ago; the long-term trauma is that you are robbed of feeling fully alive and in charge of yourself” (Bullard, 2014). To clarify, “[trauma] is a term used to describe the challenging emotional consequences that living through a distressing event can have for an individual” (Center for Addictions and Mental Health, 2025, para. 1). 10 Social Position My connections to tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs) can be traced back to my adolescent years. My home life for most of my adolescent years was chaotic. My father and his local siblings struggled with alcohol use disorder (AUD), while my mother did not struggle with such demons. I can recall many mornings being woken up by my parents yelling at each other, punctuated by smashing dishes. Naturally, these frequent incidents, along with my attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), led to difficulties for me at school. Throughout my elementary school years, I recall being at the principal’s office for behavioral issues more times than I was in the classroom with my peers. On one occasion I recall the vice principal handing me a copy of the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia to look through for the afternoon, which I found humorous, as the vice principal shared that the book was confiscated from an older student. During the early 1990s, Dungeons and Dragons’ novels were quite popular—the Dragonlance series and Forgotten Realms books about Drizzt Do'Urden come to mind—especially with my classmates. Yet, none of my classmates, played Dungeons and Dragons, or any other tabletop roleplaying games. It was the sharing of these books that I learned about campaigns which led to players writing down their adventures. As I had an active imagination, the idea of going on adventures and fighting monsters was appealing to me, as it would provide an escape from my chaotic home life. As a male of Norwegian/Sami descent, coupled with an Indigenous blended family, my aunties often shared aspects of Indigenous culture with me. Unconsciously this cultural sharing acted as a protective factor, as ways to process big childhood emotions that we experienced as our fathers struggled with AUD. My strong interest with co-creating story telling is largely due to my exposure to Indigenous culture. Arguably, this experience had a cultural impact in shaping 11 my worldview. I believe inadvertently when I was a young boy that the Indigenous story telling and my exposure to Dungeon and Dragons created a safe space for me to manage large childhood emotions. Subsequently, as an adult this aided in my ability to disrupt the generational cycle of addictions in my family. The cultural and familial link was incredibly appealing to me which blends nicely with the components of co-creating story telling and the traits of two-eyed seeing (Ray, 2021; Wright et al., 2019). Chapter 2: Literature Review Clinical Frameworks Clinical frameworks are used as a tool to create therapeutic alliance and to structure sessions that best support client goals and progression (Harms & Pierce, 2020). Identifying the use of the most effective clinical framework is crucial for a mental health clinician as it helps guide the assessment, diagnosis, and targeted intervention of the client’s current situation. The most common and applicable clinical frameworks used in practice include Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, (DBT) and Narrative Therapy (Harms & Pierce, 2020). These clinical models will be explored below in further detail. One of the pioneers that strengthened Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was David Burns (1981) where he used the therapeutic model to address mood disorders (Harms & Pierce, 2020). The early CBT model focused on creating change in one of the three domains—thoughts, emotions, or behaviours (Burns, 1981; Kaur & Whalley, 2020). Recently, the CBT model has introduced the additional domain of physical sensations as a self-monitoring tool, while simultaneously providing an opportunity to change the affected domain (Burns, 1981; Kaur & Whalley, 2020; Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020). Like the self-regulation model in mindfulness, TTRPGs has its own model of three domains to provide a strong basis for an engine of 12 engagement for participants within this practicum project, which will be further elaborated below (Baker et al., 2022; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Kaur & Whalley, 2020; Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020). Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) was developed by Marsha Linehan (2014) in the late 1970s to incorporate mindfulness into psychotherapy. Dialectical Behavior Therapy focuses on an individual’s ability to build mindfulness, emotional regulation, interpersonal effectiveness and distress tolerance through a variety of exercises that creates ongoing dialogue between participant and clinician (Harms & Pierce, 2020; Linehan, 2014). Typically, ongoing dialectics are supplemented with exercises intended to build an individual’s distress tolerance and interpersonal effectiveness within communication (Harms & Pierce, 2020, p. 32; Linehan, 2014; Tanner et al., 2022). During my practicum, I had the opportunity to cofacilitate a DBT group alongside my BATS group. Indigenous traditional knowledge aligns well with DBT, as the focus of DBT can be observed within Indigenous academic articles that highlight the importance of creating and maintaining a dialectic relationship with participants (Begay et al., 2007; Saulis, 2003; Tanner et al., 2022; Wesley-Esquimaux & Calliou, 2010). By incorporating DBT as a model of engagement, participants will be able to provide valuable feedback to be examined for emergent patterns present within their experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Harms & Pierce, 2020; Linehan, 2014; Tanner et al., 2022; Wesley-Esquimaux & Calliou, 2010; Wright et al., 2019). Narrative therapy was developed by Michael White and David Epston (2024; Parry & Doan, 1994). White and Epston’s embracement of post-modernism—specifically poststructuralism—led to the concepts of many selves and therapeutic letter writing being put into practice (Parry & Doan, 1994). White and Epston’s (2024) synthesis of both concepts formalized 13 narrative therapy to provide insight into the client’s unique worldview. In practice, it is through the dominant narratives of the client, the service provider parses out large themes to externalize. A collaborative revision—much like writing—is made to change the story the client exists within to provide an alternative and empowering narrative (Combs & Freedman, 2012; Parry & Doan, 1994; Harms & Pierce, 2020). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) was developed by Steven C. Hayes (Hayes et al., 2016). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is a therapeutic modality that supports individuals to accept lived experiences the way they occurred (Hayes et al., 2016). Unlike narrative therapy, the goal is not for an individual to examine a given experience from differing perspectives, but rather, to accept the experience without change (Hayes et al., 2016). Harris (2007) breaks down the six core principles that guide ACT: Acceptance, cognitive defusion, being present, self as context, values, and committed action. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, in practice, is often delivered in an eight-week program that allows for flexible delivery, as the focus and the goal is for individuals to become more present and mindful (Harris, 2007; Hayes et al., 2016). Strengths-Based, Solution-Focused and Task-Centred Therapies are often considered cornerstones of various therapeutic modalities mentioned in my literature review. StrengthsBased Therapy has been used in various situations to empower individuals to enhance protective factors. For example, Clifton (2010) noted that “individuals can achieve far more when efforts are spent on reinforcing their greatest strengths, rather than on highlighting their weaknesses” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Yuen et al., 2020). Solution-focused therapy is a modality that was a collaborative development by Steve de Shazer (1986), Kim Berg (1986) along with their colleagues at the Milwaukee Brief Family Therapy Centre (de Shazer et al., 1986). Solution- 14 focused therapy is a brief action therapy that focuses on goal-oriented outcomes, rather than presenting problems (de Shazer et al., 1986). Task-centred therapy was concretized by Anne Fortune (2011) and William James Reid (2011) in 1974. Task-centred therapy, much like solution-focused therapy, is goal-oriented, however, in the task-centred modality, goals are taskbased rather than outcome-based (Fortune & Reid, 2011). Clinical Applications of Tabletop Roleplaying Games Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, employed, licensed social workers who were also Master of Social Work (MSW) students were studied regarding their knowledge and perspectives on tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs) (Ben-Ezra et al., 2018). Ben-Ezra et al (2018) found that social workers often have less exposure to science fiction, or fantasy, and typically have limited, to no knowledge, of TTRPGs. Yet, Ben-Ezra et al (2018) also report that social workers who “associate playing [TT]RPGs with psychopathology are more likely to think it is important to learn about RPGs” (p.5). Ben-Ezra et al (2018) indicates that further research is required to challenge harmful stereotypes and see an improvement of mental health; specifically, in the areas of depression, anxiety, social anxiety and ADHD. Interest in the mental health benefits of TTRPGs from the general public appears to have grown over recent years, as the Covid-19 pandemic has largely been credited for a sharp boost of interest in TTRPGs (Allison, 2021; Walker, 2021). Primarily, what made TTRPGs enticing was the social engagement aspect, which Allison asserts, “form of collaborative storytelling, whose roots extend far deeper than the creation of Dungeons & Dragons” (2021, para.1). Additionally, the internet has helped foster social engagement between people with a shared interest in TTRPGs, yet, did not reside with people who shared their interest, or lived alone (Walker, 2021). 15 Baker et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive review of research conducted in the intersection of using RPGs in clinical settings, as well as, exploring impacts of using RPGs therapeutically to measure impacts on mental health. Baker et al. (2022) found that further data is required to fully understand the impacts of RPGs on mental health, similar to that of the 2018 study performed by Ben-Ezra et al. (pp. 3-4). Furthermore, the use of TTRPGs in a clinical setting demonstrates that “[drama] therapy has more of an emphasis on spontaneity and creativity and employs playful approaches,” while outside a clinical setting, real world needs were met through in-game interactions (pp. 4-5; Bormann, 1972) (Bormann, 1972, pp. 4-5). Finally, Baker et al. (2022) provide suggestions for further studies, specifically: 1. Experiential learning and interaction through the structured medium of TTRPGs; 2. Exploration of identity expression using archetypes; 3. TTRPGs used as an intervention-based approach to improving mental health (p. 6). Mental Health Crisis Significant mental health impacts have gradually gained attention on a global scale for the past twenty years. Despite low-cost solutions being available to support individuals living with mental health issues, the mental health crisis continues to be neglected (World Health Organization, 2022). The detriments of mental health are viewed through the “complex interplay” of an individual’s “spheres of influence,” specifically, through the intersection of individual levels of stressors and levels of vulnerability (World Health Organization, 2022, pp. 19-20). While the field of mental health is vast and features a variety of conditions, I will be focusing on trauma due to the numerous presenting symptoms that may surface in many domains of an individual’s life. 16 Trauma: Rise and Impact Trauma, occurring as a single or multiple exposure(s) to overwhelming conditions or events that trigger neurophysiological stress responses, has increased globally over the past twenty years (Oakley et al., 2021). The Center for Addictions and Mental Health (2025) defines trauma as “challenging emotional consequences” an individual experiences through living through “distressing situations” (2025, para. 1). As such, many professionals in the human and service sector have been providing an array of services to address the multitude of issues related to trauma experiences. In fact, Singer et al. (2020) provide a compelling illustration of how social workers, specifically in child welfare practice, are often first to respond to potentially unsafe or threatening situations pertaining to abuse and/or neglect. Additionally, social workers are frequently immersed in their clients’ retelling of their harrowing experiences, often in detail (p. 623). Singer et al. (2020) continues to express the burden that unresolved trauma places on the healthcare system both directly (medical expenses, therapeutic interventions) and indirectly (increase of sick days, low productivity at employment) (McGowan, 2019; Oakley et al., 2021). While the evidence that instances of trauma are increasing, some research queries why trauma is increasing. Mills et al. (2011) explore whether the increase of trauma has occurred due to how the different editions of the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5-TR (DSM-5-TR) have conceptualized what a potentially traumatic event (PTE) is and how a PTE has been operationalized over time (pp. 407-8). Mills et al. combed through National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB) for the years 1997 and 2007 and found that the prevalence of trauma was higher, specifically among women (pp. 410-11). Furthermore, the possibility of “conceptual bracket creep” is currently contentious, but in the realm of possibility (p. 412). 17 Another branch of research implicitly queries whether self-proclaimed practitioners of trauma informed care (TIC) cause more trauma, rather than genuinely implementing TIC (Isobel, 2021). Isobel (2021) observes that despite growing awareness, training opportunities, and organizational commitments to integrating TIC policies and practices, there is little consideration to the concept of “trauma” itself, or the implications stemming from this lack of clarity (p. 604). Like Mills et al. (2011), considerations are focused on how conceptualizations and interpretations of trauma may lead to unfavorable and, ultimately, unhelpful client outcomes; specifically, through generalizing events, reinforcing experienced harms, or the client being pathologized (Isobel, 2021, p. 604). A significant point of contention stems from the lack of professional reflection throughout the process of diagnosis to treatment of trauma, which frequently ignores discussing experiences, reduces agency of the client, and relies significantly on professional decision-making throughout the course of treatment (pp. 605-6). From this brief literature review, it is uncertain—and contentious—as to why trauma has had an increase in prevalence over the last twenty years, but there certainly is a prevalence in trauma related incidences (McGowan, 2019; Oakley et al., 2021). While exploring why trauma experiences have spiked would be helpful in developing a meaningful solution, mental health professionals are stuck with the unenviable task of navigating trauma prevalence with criteria that may or may not be appropriate and cause more harm than good. Observations of Physiological Trauma Responses To expand on my conceptualization of trauma, the event or events that lead to an individual becoming completely overwhelmed are subjective, and behavioral patterns associated with the term overwhelmed may or may not be observed. For instance, PTSD, in a western context, is primarily viewed through the biomedical model, specifically, and relates to physiological 18 responses to acute and/or chronic traumas that cascade throughout the central nervous system, autonomic, neuroendocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems, even without a triggering stimulus (Braganza et. al., 2018; Krantz1 et. al., 2022). According to recent research, the more specific symptoms of PSTD—sympathetic activation, inflammation, sleep disorders and hypertension—are less reported than negative impacts on mood and cognition, such as, depression, anger and hostility (Krantz1 et al., 2022, Kildahl et al., 2020). While PTSD in the west typically follows the medical model of addressing physiological symptoms, addressing underlying mental health causes as treatment are now widely accepted within clinical settings. For instance, the onset of significant and prolonged mental health issues associated with extreme emotional and distress responses (PTSD) can “initiate physiological, behavioural, and emotional” disturbances that are linked to symptoms of cardiovascular disease (Krantz1 et. al., 2022). In essence, the body keeps the score (van der Kolk, 2015). Treatment of Trauma Another observable impact of trauma is how well an individual can cope with daily life. Jenson (2023) describes the impact of trauma as “an aching irony of trauma that the body's very attempt to cope can become more problematic than the traumatic event itself” (p. 6). Jenson (2023) asserts that because the body keeps the score of trauma, the body requires a metaphorical resurrection (van der Kolk, 2014). According to Jenson (2023), the impacts of trauma on an individual’s sense of self and an individual’s experience of time limit the body’s ability to undergo this metaphorical resurrection in an individual’s healing journey. Using the story of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, Jenson (2023) explores how trauma impacts a sense of self and experience of time through Thomas Aquinas’ (2006) reflections on the use of metaphor within holy scriptures (ST 1.1.9 Abbreviation). Jenson (2023) concludes that the exploration of 19 metaphorical resurrection begins in the questioning of the individual’s final state and their telos (purpose). In other words, the successful treatment of trauma begins with both a desired outcome and a sense of meaning from within an individual. Margolin and Sen (2022) assert that the “processes of narrative reconstruction” is a wholistic self-assessment routed in spirituality to support both the abilities to survive and thrive throughout “the recovery process” (p. 154). Several additional aspects of successful therapeutic treatments for trauma rely on a practitioner’s willingness and flexibility to find and implement a modality that works for the person accessing services (van der Kolk, 2015). Van der Kolk (2015) observes further that overcoming trauma typically involves: (1) finding a way to become calm and focused, (2) learning to maintain that calm in response to images, thoughts, sounds, or physical sensations that remind you of the past, (3) finding a way to be fully alive in the present and engage with the people around you, (4) not having to keep secrets from yourself, including secrets about the ways that you have managed to survive. (p. 228) From the turn of the 19th century to the current day, traditional talk therapy—as defined within the realm of psychoanalysis, popularized by Sigmund Freud—was considered to be the gold standard of therapeutic intervention (Parry & Doan, 1994). Through incremental developments of Nathan Ackerman, Murray Bowen and Virginia Satir, atheroetical approaches emerged (Parry & Doan, 1994). Atheroetical approaches were supplanted through George Bateson’s cybernetic retooling of understanding schizophrenia that focused on family communications (Parry & Doan, 1994). Bateson’s retooling was then systematized by the Palo Alto group during the late 1960s (Parry & Doan, 1994). Through the 1970s, the theoretical 20 background of the Palo Alto group’s systemization then underwent a modernist retooling (Parry & Doan, 1994). The Milan group’s modernist interpretation of practice through objectivity faced epistemological challenges present in modernist literature; it “assumed an attitude of suspensive irony, in which judgement is withheld” (Parry & Doan, 1994). Suspensive irony within practice, during this timeframe, maintained that a service provider held a metaposition to a family in therapy sessions; thus, the service provider, forming no opinion about a family, can hold the truth (Parry & Doan, 1994). During the 1980s, Humberto “Maturana’s concepts of “structural coupling” and “structural determinism” led to the conclusion that no living system can take a metaposition to another” (Parry & Doan, 1994). Currently, the first allopathic line of treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is pharmacotherapy; specifically, “[antipsychotics], anticonvulsants, and tranquilizers have been widely used to improve the QoL of PTSD patients over the past few decades” (Ho, Chan, Luk & Tang, 2021). However, van der Kolk, van der Hart and Burbridge (2014) contest that: Since the core problem in PTSD consists of a failure to integrate an upsetting experience into autobiographical memory, the goal of treatment is [to] find a way in which people can acknowledge the reality of what has happened without having to re-experience the trauma all over again. (p. 24) This is demonstrated through alternative forms of therapy, typically referred to as general integrative practice, which have been adapted to specifically treat trauma by combining cognitive behavioral therapy with mindfulness (Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020). Two general integrative practices that have specific relevance to my practicum project include mindfulness and theatre. 21 Mindfulness Schuman-Olivier et al. (2020) observe that mindfulness is typically defined as being nonjudgemental and present in each moment. Furthermore, Schuman-Olivier et al. (2020) claim the terms mindfulness and meditation as being one and the same, as meditation is a practice of selfregulation to become mindful. However, meditation and mindfulness are not interchangeable terms, as the purpose of mindfulness is to become wholistically mindful of thoughts, actions, sensations, and emotions (Margolin, Madanayake & Jones, 2025; I. Margolin, personal communication, January 15, 2025). Margolin, Madanayake and Jones (2025) observe that mindfulness is “part of many meditation practices,” such as mindfulness being the “second step in the four steps of Mahavkyam Meditation” (p. 9; I. Margolin, personal communication, January 15, 2025). Despite this, Schuman-Olivier et al. (2020) assert that mindfulness is obtained through self-regulating practices (such as dance, meditation or theatre) that are intended to support a participant’s behavioral change. Margolin (2014) observes the practice of becoming wholistically mindful as the framework of open-monitoring. This framework serves the purpose of assisting a practitioner with detachment and widening of perspectives (Margolin, 2014). Margolin (2014) further reports that mindfulness meditation, has been linked to reductions of anxiety and depression symptoms, and other researched benefits on mental health. However, mindfulness does have the potential to “exacerbate trauma symptoms,” rather than relieve the trauma symptoms and suffering the intervention is meant to alleviate because a diffused open attention to accept whatever thoughts arise can invite trauma memories to surface to conscious awareness. It is extremely difficult for survivors to detach and remain nonjudgemental because a major effect of trauma is the loss of ability to concentrate. Thus, in these instances, rumination on the negative affect and, 22 retraumatization occurs. This is why a meditation that offers sound, word, and/or image can greatly assist trauma survivors to create and dwell in an expansive idea of self or tranquil vibration and feeling, and simultaneously allows the mind to surrender and consciousness to do the work of integrating the unresolved trauma memories in the background (I. Margolin, personal communication, January 15, 2025). The mechanisms of self-regulation include “emotion regulation,” “self-related processes,” “attentional/cognitive control,” as well as “motivation and learning” (Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020, pp. 372-3). From this perspective, the mechanisms of self-regulation present as the basis for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). These mechanisms are observed through research in the field of general integrative practices. One clear example of the mechanisms of self-regulation in practice can be seen in Margolin’s (2014) research article linking dance and spirituality to mindfulness. Margolin (2014) asserts that the body and self are inextricably linked, setting the stage for the mechanisms of selfregulation as a wholistic process. Emotion regulation in Margolin (2014) is observed through the combination of authentic movement and creative movement. This “dyad” is bringing self-related processes together with attentional/cognitive control (Margolin, 2014, p. 147; Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020). This is further observed by Margolin (2014) later in the article through the following passage: Over time, my dance mentor’s accepting presence provided openness for me to drop into my body self. This was a potent elixir to shed concern about how I am perceived in my moving body. Simultaneously, I was leading/watching girls in creative movement for my research. I felt deeply intertwined in the transformative process, both by seeing others and by being seen. Authentic Movement, as a framework, along with other dance writers, authenticates the events that transpired for me and in my research. (p. 150) 23 Margolin (2014) explores the mechanism of self-related processes when discussing authentic movement. The basis of authentic movement is based on the concepts of “self” and “Self,” as well as “active imagination” (Margolin, 2014, pp. 145-6). These concepts can be considered self-related processes, as they occur internally. As Margolin (2014) observes, Jung (1959) defined ‘self’ as ego, while ‘Self’ resides “within and between the personal and collective unconscious” (p. 145; Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020). Margolin (2014) expands on this observation, “Active imagination involves two processes: (1) encouraging the unconscious to express itself while the conscious ego observes and cooperates through creative means; and (2) the conscious ego makes meaning of the experience” (Chodorow 1991; Whitehouse 1999 as cited in Margolin, 2014) (p. 146). With the mechanism of attentional/cognitive control, Margolin (2014) observes that creative movement is intentional, yet free flowing (Schuman-Olivier et al. 2020). This link is demonstrated through the passage, “At the heart of this dance philosophy—Creative Movement—is caring for the body and trusting the self as an authority to guide movement” (Margolin, 2014, p. 145). Intention, by its very nature, requires attention and cognitive control as intention is linked to goal setting and using behaviors to achieve a goal (Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020). Motivation and learning are mechanisms for self-regulation as demonstrated in Margolin (2014) through participant passages. The motivation for the participants came from learning how to dance which created the space for, “immediacy and ease with which the body and soul can align when open-hearted consciousness toward somatic presence is practiced,” (Margolin, 2014, p. 157). 24 Theatre van der Kolk (2015), much like Margolin (2014) and Schuman-Olivier et al. (2020), outlines much of the same mechanisms of self-regulation using various techniques. While van der Kolk (2015) does not go into detail regarding mechanisms of self-regulation, he does explore theatre as a form of addressing stored trauma. van der Kolk (2015) observes, “Despite their differences, all of these programs share a common foundation: confrontation of the painful realities of life and symbolic transformation through communal action” (p. 253). The obvious implication of this observation is that there is strength in numbers when navigating the healing process of trauma (Baker et al., 2022; Ray, 2021; Sung, 2021). van der Kolk (2015) shares that while working at a trauma centre in 2005, common trauma themes began to emerge among the children and youth that the team worked closely with. This led to the development of an “intensive program that focused on team building and emotionregulation exercises, using youth’s own scripts that dealt directly with the kinds of violence these kids experienced” (van der Kolk, 2015, p. 256). In 2010, the program was then reworked to be more theatrical in nature and was targeted at foster youth to address/navigate challenging feelings of abandonment and engaging in healthy relationship building (van der Kolk, 2015). The reworked program added the elements of narrative therapy—externalizing problems to examine from different perspectives—and introduced dialectical components typical in dialect behavioral therapy (DBT) exercises (Linehan, 2014; White & Epston, 2024; van der Kolk, 2015). van der Kolk (2015) illustrates, “Youth were asked, “If you could write a musical or play, what would you put in it? Punishment? Revenge? Betrayal? Loss? This is your show to write” (van der Kolk, 2015, p. 258). All the youth’s statements were documented—some youth even chose to write their own thoughts down—and scripts of relatable experiences emerged (van der Kolk, 25 2015). Although not explicitly stated, the description of the process demonstrates three requirements of youth to address/navigate the impacts of trauma: 1) Communal action. 2) Mechanisms of self-regulation. 3) Motivation. Motivation Through Conflict and Communal Action on the Macro Level Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1998) popularized conflict theory in the Communist Manifesto. In this manifesto, Marx and Engels (1998) correctly identify that social conflict leads to social change. However, Marx and Engels (1998) are incorrect in their assessment that all social conflicts arise from competition for resources that lead to revolution. As Niccolo Machiavelli (2005) observed in the 1500s, [the] problem is that people willingly change their ruler, believing that it will be for the better; and they take up arms against him. But they are mistaken, and they soon find out in practice that they have only made things worse […] you cannot satisfy their aspirations as they thought you would. (p. 483) The juxtaposition of these two works demonstrates that social conflict is not solely caused by one factor, but rather several factors. However, both Marx and Engels (1998), as well as Machiavelli (2005) illustrate that social conflict leads to social change, which inevitably drives motivation via communal action. Many historical examples of social conflict on the macro level, which have ignited social change, spring to mind, yet I shall narrow it down to three; 9/11, the Arab Spring, and the Covid19 pandemic. Each conflict listed has its own unique set of circumstances, however, all have led to significant changes in history. These three conflicts provide an opportunity to explore how conflict acts as a driving force toward motivating change. To demonstrate the role conflict and 26 communal action play in motivating change, I will provide a brief overview of communal action in several world events from the past twenty-two years. 9/11 The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 left 79.5 million viewers of broadcast and cable media stations to review the recorded footage, and process the day’s events (Althaus 2002; Bucy, 2003). The events of a Boeing 747 slamming into the side of World Trade Centre 2 (WTC 2), and the subsequent collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were harrowing; punctuated by the initial silence from President George W. Bush (2003). While it would be easy enough to state the obvious conflict that directly resulted (the war on terror) the more subtle—and arguably more fascinating—conflict occurred through President Bush’s display of silence. Rather than conveying the shock and awe President Bush most likely was experiencing, the silence sent a message of uncertainty among many Americans (Bucy, 2000; 2003). The Arab Spring. In December of 2010, Arab citizens transmitted their political grievances via the use of social media platforms (Wolfsfeld, Segev, and Sheafer, 2013, p. 117). Wolsfeld, Segev, and Sheafer observe that one reason political grievances occur is due to autocracies not being able to adjust Governmental policies quick enough to match demands by the people (2013; Gates et al. 2006; Hegre et al. 2001; Huntington 1968; Jaggers and Gurr1995; King and Zeng 2001). While there initially appears to be significant support of this emergent pattern, the authors also offer a secondary approach that highlights the cultural incongruence hypothesis. In this hypothesis, instability is measured through observing how large the gap between citizens’ desired levels of democratic values and the country’s accurate level of democracy (Almond et al. 2000; Inglehart and Welzel 2005). 27 The Covid-19 Pandemic. The Covid-19 pandemic, and the subsequent mandate and passport responses created both intrapersonal and interpersonal division among people. The division experienced was driven on the macro, mezzo, and micro levels. On the macro level, politicians using divisive language and implementation of vaccination enforcement created division in parliament. On the mezzo level, supply chain disruptions that have led to massive supply shortages created further economic division. On the micro level, people’s fear prevented many from being able to have meaningful values, views, and conversations for the last half of 2021. Motivation Through Conflict and Communal Action on the Micro Level Often, the most observable mechanisms of change include some element of trauma (Streeck-Fischer & van der Kolk, 2000). As Streeck-Fisher and van der Kolk observe: Children who have experienced violence have problems managing in social settings. They tend to be withdrawn, or to bully other children. Unable to regulate their affects, they tend to scare other children away and lack reliable playmates. (pp. 905-6) The motivation to create change typically occurs through an individual’s conflicting perspectives on a given situation that leads to communal action. Communal action is the act of carrying out some form of change as a group (van der Kolk, 2015). For instance, becoming so mentally overwhelmed with a messy room that cleaning begins without dwelling on thinking about changing the situation. In my illustration, the engine of motivation is driven by a change in one or more realms of emotions, sensations, thoughts, and/or actions; in simpler terms, motivation is acted upon once a mechanism of change can be observed by the individual. When motivation ignites, an individual experiences empowerment to enact their agency, moving from a passive 28 metaposition to an active metaposition. Often, mechanisms of change begin occurring during moments of conflict or competition. Game Theory John von Neumann (1928) produced an economic theorem titled game theory. In this theory, Neumann observed that in zero-sum games, such as chess or capitalism, a player’s success is dependent on another player’s strategy (Axelrod, 1984; The Game Theorists, 2024; von Neumann, 1928; von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2004). In the 1970s, Axelrod (1984) ran five hundred trials via computer simulation to determine the most optimal strategy for success using strategic choice (The Game Theorists, 2024). Axelrod (1984) found four components that comprise the most optimal strategy for success are “Lead with trust, do not be a push over, be forgiving, be honest” (Axelrod, 1984; The Game Theorists, 2024). Within an economic context, game theory mathematically demonstrates that the optimal strategy for success is to cooperate and warns about treating the market as if it is a zero-sum game (Axelrod, 1984; The Game Theorists, 2024; von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2004). Currently, corporations, such as Wizards of the Coast and Disney, treat consumers as if they are competing for market shares in entertainment, rather than understanding consumers are part of the markets’ ecosystem. Unsurprisingly, the corporate attitude of engaging the consumer in competition has spurred on the very conflict that these corporations attempted to crush. The rise of independent creators becoming successful through cooperation with the consumer. As John F. Kennedy (1963) said in Heber Springs, Arkansas, “A rising tide raises all ships.” Action Research While I did not conduct formal research, I used the framework of action research as a in my practicum pilot project (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The purpose of including a methodology 29 into my practicum was to have a structure to scaffold off of for program development, implementation, and evaluation. Action research is the “systematic collection and analysis of data for the purpose of taking action and making change,” that focuses on producing applied knowledge (Gillis & Jackson, 2002, p.264). Through Gillis and Jackson’s (2002) statement, the skeletal form of action research can be observed as four phases: Planning, action, analysis and conclusion. While I have not conducted research, I did follow these steps of action research in the development and evaluation of the brief action therapeutic system program that I focused on throughout my practicum. The planning phase of my practicum project involved developing a brief action therapeutic system for use at my practicum site, developing the structure and delivery schedule for each session, developing considerations of risk and participant safety, and careful consideration of what internal/external motivating factors (such as gift cards) would be used (Kelly, 2005; MacDonald, 2012). The action phase of AR—like all action phases in AR—was the most unpredictable, as I focused on observations, examinations, and documentation (Levin & Martin, 2007; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). I performed ongoing analysis by utilizing the integrated theory and practice (ITP) loop to integrate theory and practice in order to be interpret characteristics, patterns, attributes, and meanings in field learning to inform best practice throughout my practicum (Drolet, Clark & Allen, 2012; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). The conclusion I have generated in this report demonstrates both my commitment to academic rigor, as well as my demonstration of knowledge I have gain throughout my practicum, which illustrates my understanding of internal/external influences, practice improvements and impacts (MacDonald, 2012; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). Transtheoretical Model 30 The transtheoretical model (TTM) is a framework to quantify stages of change in human behavior (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). Prochaska and Velicer (1997) observe that, “Processes of change provide important guides for intervention programs, since the processes are like the independent variables that people need to apply to move from stage to stage” (p. 39). There are seven stages outlined in the change model: Pre-contemplative, contemplative, preparation, action, maintenance, termination and relapse (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). TTM is utilized to benefit individuals in “Consciousness Raising” of consequence to action, “Self-reevaluation” of environmental and self-image factors and “Social Liberation” to provide opportunities to collectively examine stages of change (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997, pp. 39-40; van der Kolk, 2000). Collectively, the steps in TTM provide markers that can be scaffolded for evaluation of individual progress within my practicum pilot project. The rationale for selecting this specific combination of methodology and theoretical framework in my practicum pilot project is that they align with the fundamental principles present within TTRPGs (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). The use of AR steps and TTM evaluation markers in my practicum project allows for the most participant autonomy in reporting during experiences, rather than attempting to control and predict a given outcome (Streubert & Carpenter, 1995). Furthermore, through the tools AR and TTM provide, a robust and immersive understanding about the factors leading to motivational change, while simultaneously providing a holistic and quantifiable measurement of change (Lincoln, 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). By pursuing my practicum project that scaffolds the steps of AR and evaluation markers of TTM, I will be embodying Wuest’s (1995) assertion that “there are no 31 single, objective reality, there are multiple realities based on subjective experience and circumstance” (p.30; Creswell & Poth, 2018). Chapter 3: Practicum Pilot Project Design Tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs), as with all games, require rules that engage players to maintain investment. While most TTRPGs have significantly different rule sets, typically, the types of rules and structures present within rule sets are relatively consistent. For instance, TTRPGs often require players to utilize character sheets to track key information—such as, abilities, progression and traits—to provide players with an internal consistency of the character they have created (Consorte, 2009; Crawford et al., 2014; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016; Wyatt et al., 2014). Despite the similarity of structures, there are significant structural differences. A character sheet for one TTRPG cannot simply be used within the rule set of another TTRPG. The importance placed on what is tracked on a character sheet depends on the focus of the TTRPG. Dungeons & Dragons focus on characters becoming more powerful, while Unknown Armies focus on working toward completing a shared objective (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). For this reason, Dungeons & Dragons tracks abilities, stats, equipment and wealth, while Unknown Armies tracks trauma sustained by characters (Gygax & Arneson, 1991, pp. 2-8; Stolze & Tynes, 2016, pp. 25-29; Wyatt et al., 2014, pp. 143179). The most important structure present within TTRPGs is the engagement engine consisting of three aspects: Exploration, problem-solving, and combat (Crawford et al., 2014; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). All three aspects are intended to work in tandem to engage players and provide all players an opportunity to stand out during a session, thus, building table rapport, investment in the game and engagement of the imagination—also known 32 as, the theatre of the mind (Baker et al., 2022; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Sargent, 2014; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). From the game master’s (GM) perspective, the engagement engine provides a structure to meet players at their comfort and enjoyment level to provide and maintain session engagement (Gygax & Arneson, 1991). The relationship between players and the GM is intended to be symbiotic (Baker et al., 2022; Crawford et al., 2014; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). The GM’s role is to provide scenarios that players interact with and make rulings regarding outcomes of interactions; like a mental health clinician or counselor guiding a clinical session. The role of the players is to interact with scenarios and co-operatively work together to navigate scenarios (Baker et al., 2022; Sung, 2021; Harms & Pierce, 2020). Brief Action Therapeutic System How I personally conceptualize utilizing a brief action therapeutic system (BATS) model is through aspects of western therapeutic models couched within a tabletop roleplaying game (TTRPG) framework. However, while the models are western in conceptualization, much of the holistic and practical application of the BATS model sits within the work of Indigenous academics. For instance, the four unique motivational quadrants of the BATS model— organization, exemption, connection, and actualization—which could be viewed as an expansion of a familiar touchstone among some communities who use the medicine wheel as a holistic wellness model (Abosolon, 2010; Tanner et al., 2022). Additionally, the familiar elements of oral traditions can be found in tabletop role-playing games, such as Coyote & Crow, Dungeons & Dragons and Unknown Armies. Archetypical Archetypical is a concrete example of a brief action therapeutic system (BATS). Archetypical—as per the criteria of a BATS—blends elements of cognitive behavioral therapy 33 (CBT), dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), and narrative therapy modalities with the structures and concepts present within tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs). The main hope of applying a therapeutic model such as Archetypical is to have participants be able to engage in a low-cost therapeutic model; where the construction of meaning is used to parse out emergent patterns that focus on “co-learning, knowledge scrutinization, knowledge validation, and knowledge gardening” present in the TTRPG framework (Baker et al., 2022; Shazer et al., 1986; Ray, 2021). In order to gain a richer understanding of Archetypical, I must first discuss the structures present in TTRPGs, the bridge between traditional roles and concepts present in counselling and TTRPGs, as well as the environments necessary to facilitate therapeutic intervention and gaming. The underpinnings of what draws individuals to TTRPGs is well laid out on the YouTube channel Better Than Yesterday (2020). In the video, I increased my productivity 10x - by turning my life into a game, the creator breaks down RPGs as “a dopamine trail” that continuously leads players from smaller to larger goals (2020). The creator asserts that the “dopamine trail” consists of five key factors: 1. A clear objective that creates meaning; 2. Goal progression must be visible; 3. Rewards that encourage further goal progression; 4. Variety and novelty in routine; 5. Challenges must match current skill level (Better Than Yesterday, 2020). Now that I have outlined the motivational underpinnings that attract people to TTRPGs, I will now move on to the parallels in roles between counselling and TTRPGs. TTRPGs have one player who referees the game—known as the game master (GM)—for the remaining players that create their own characters—known as player characters (PCs). Yet, PCs are not playing against the GM; rather, the GM guides PCs to situations and referees the outcomes of the PCs choices (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). In other words, 34 all players around the table are working together to overcome obstacles within the game environment, rather than engaging in an adversarial competition of PCs versus the GM. Through understanding the various roles of TTRPGs, emergent roles of traditional group therapy can be seen. The practitioner fills the GM’s role, while participants fill the roles of the players. The practitioner and the participants then engage in a therapeutic alliance of collaboration of education and practice. As Gygax and Arneson (1991) assert, “Role-playing games are [. . .] interactive. One player provides the narrative [. . .] [e]ach player controls the actions of a character in the story” (p. 1). However, this collaboration can only take place if the physical and social environment is welcoming and comfortable for all parties. The physical and social environments required for both a game or therapeutic session also appear to parallel each other. I find that the physical environment is intended to be safe and comfortable for both participants and practitioners. I often have easily identifiable pop culture knick-knacks in my office to humanize the space, start a conversation with, or even to use as an intervention for particularly intense sessions. Frequently, I am told by clients that they feel my office is comforting and welcoming, while still being a clinical setting that they can get work done in. The social environment also requires consideration for the safety of all parties (Stolze & Tynes, 2016,). Table safety has become prevalent in the TTRPG community and most TTRPGs have sections dedicated within rules books that outline the dos and do nots to create a safe and engaging space (Stolze & Tynes, 2016, pp. 10-11). Likewise, I find that a therapeutic session’s environment is set by the practitioner and is intended to be safe for a client to share, vent, and process difficult situations and/or emotions that a client might be experiencing. 35 One of the more unique tabletop roleplaying games that Archetypical is structured after in terms of content is Unknown Armies. In Unknown Armies, characters often deal with trauma and find empowerment in the connection with other characters in their cabal (Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Players may encounter or may have to stop an archetype while dealing with an addiction or grief and loss (Stolze & Tynes, 2016). However, structurally, Archetypical sessions follow the Dungeons & Dragons structure of social encounters, conflict encounters, and problem-solving encounters (Gygax & Arneson, 1991). While understanding the underpinnings, roles, and environments are important, an equal understanding must also be given to interaction and delivery. The interactivity and delivery come in the structure of merging a TTRPG and group session together. Specifically, the creation of a check in character sheet that participants use to address various problems that require a solutionsfocused, task-centered, or strengths-based approach as the archetype they most identify with (Harms & Pierce, 2020; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). By modelling this therapeutic system in the structure of tabletop roleplaying games, participants will be able to examine scenarios through the space provided by an archetype, rather than confronting an overwhelming scenario within a traditional talk therapy. All the while, participants gain experience to level up their coping skills. By utilizing these structures in this practicum project, I had hoped to empower participants by motivating beneficial pro-social behaviors that allow them to overcome experienced trauma (Aguiar & Halseth, 2015; Baker et al., 2022; Carter, 2007; Wright, 2019). Clinical Modalities and Underpinnings Elements of clinical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectic behavioral therapy (DBT) and narrative therapy modalities can be identified in a brief action therapeutic system 36 (BATS) by a versed mental health clinician, while familiar touchstones can be cultural identified by Elders and community members. It is important to note that the familiar touchstones, while culturally recognizable, were not taken from any community or cultural knowledge. This point is significant as these touchstones were incorporated from the structures of tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs). The guiding principle underpinning engagement with participants throughout implementing my practicum project was to create and maintain a dialectic relationship with participants (Begay et al., 2007; Lineman, 2014; Saulis, 2003; Wesley-Esquimaux & Calliou, 2010). By using a dialectic model of engagement, participants were able to create a sense of shared storytelling to better inform and promote self-empowerment when facing comparable situations in daily life (Artist, personal communication, October 19, 2025; Saulis, 2003; WesleyEsquimaux & Calliou, 2010). Furthermore, the utilization of dialectic engagement also parallels a TTRPG’s group exploration of character identities and interactions within a therapeutic setting by mirroring the complex elements of narrative structures created by playing a TTRPG (Clements, 2019; Consorte, 2009; Sargent, 2014). From a clinical modality perspective, the goal of CBT is behavioral modification within the BATS to explore self-reflection and decision making about chosen behaviors (Burns, 1981). By developing self-awareness around behavioral impacts on self and those around them, participants are again provided the opportunity to safely explore behaviors that could be more beneficial, rather than detrimental (Baker et al., 2022; Ben-Ezra et al., 2018; Sung, 2021). The incorporation of elements of CBT also provides a way for participants to examine their emotions, thoughts and physical sensations to support a beneficial self-inventory to determine their level of arousal (Burns, 1981; Kaur & Whalley, 2020). Additionally, the CBT model provides a bio- 37 psycho-social sensory feedback loop that informs motivation in any given moment (Burns, 1981; Drolet et. al., 2012; Kaur & Whalley, 2020). The inclusion of narrative therapy elements is intended to provide participants with two strategies—externalization and reauthoring—to navigate potentially difficult topics that may come up during a session (White & Epston, 2024; Parry & Doan, 1994). Externalization allows participants to externalize a presenting issue and examine the issue from multiple perspectives (Harms & Pierce, 2020; White & Epston, 2024; Parry & Doan, 1994). Reauthoring allows participants the safety of exploring a presenting issue from a distance, especially if a participant has encountered a similar issue in real life, and reauthor the presenting issue into a narrative that empowers the participant to make changes in life (Harms & Pierce, 2020; White & Epston, 2024; Parry & Doan, 1994). Chapter 4: Practicum Agency and Learning Outcomes Practicum Placement Agency I created a practicum pilot modality—referred to as a brief action therapeutic system (BATS)—where I secured a community resource to host and provide a trial opportunity for my project that may benefit participants in creating meaning and structure in their lives. As such, I made connections with community partners regarding the idea of completing a Master of Social Work practicum that would support the space to present my modality in a group setting. On February 14, 2024, I had a conversation with Carmen De Menech, the manager of Foundry in Prince George, BC. The meeting focused on the possibility of implementing a Brief Action Therapeutic System—Archetypical—to engage youth who access Foundry’s mental health services. 38 Foundry was “co-created by a diverse group of youth, families, caregivers, staff and service providers across the province” of British Columbia (Foundry, 2024). Primarily, Foundry was created to fill the gaps and serve the needs of children and youth between the ages of 12 and 24 who require “integrated youth services” (Foundry, 2024). The Foundry centres across British Columbia provides services to children and youth related to primary care, mental health, substance use support, and social services in their respective communities (Foundry, 2024). Additionally, each Foundry Centre is overseen by an existing community resource such as the health authority, or the YMCA, as is the case for the Foundry Centre in Prince George. Learning Outcomes One of my major learning objectives was to implement and facilitate my pilot brief action therapeutic system—Archetypical at Foundry in Prince George. This objective included the introduction and facilitation of the therapeutic system on an ongoing basis. My intent was to gather feedback that may have potential for future research. Throughout my practicum, I was able to deliver and facilitate the pilot project, and seek feedback and input from group members (parent/guardian, participants, and professionals) that informed an ongoing evaluation regarding the service delivery of the Archetypical. All revisions suggested to Archetypical were made in collaboration with the group members who have had the ability to assess what aspects are effective, what can be refined and what materials needed to be added or removed. Through this process, I have gained a stronger understanding of the development and implementation of this modality as a potential future therapeutic approach. I have record experiences by keeping a limited journal of session notes and collected feedback throughout the process that has been included in my final report. 39 I have developed a stronger understanding of all the stages required to implement a brief action therapeutic program, as well as facilitated three trails during of my practicum. The implementation, program delivery, and evaluation were key phases involved to making meaningful adjustments to program materials and delivery. Having experienced the process of developing and delivering a program first hand, I have a better understanding of the process that has provided me with the foundational and secondary skills necessary to design future programs that are built efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, I have gained additional practical group facilitation skills in co-facilitating Foundry’s Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) group, that strengthened my ability to facilitate my brief action therapeutic group within the clinical setting of Foundry. I also had the opportunity to discuss clinical planning, engagement, and continuing support with Foundry’s Concurrent Disorders Clinician. I have also expanded my skillset in the program development process by learning valuable leadership skills. Throughout my learning in this process, I have been able to hone various essential skills, including enhanced facilitation, improved verbal and non-verbal communication in group settings, developed advanced creative problem solving-techniques to address complex interpersonal issues, and taking on greater responsibility and accountability for the brief action program that I developed and implemented. Additionally, I have deepened my understanding of the importance of program evaluation. Together, these skills will equip me for an advanced level professional position, ultimately enabling me to contribute to meaningful large-scale system changes that positively impact community members. I have also gained valuable insight into Foundry’s policies and procedures that have provided a structured framework for my practicum. While I have clinical experience from my role as a social worker at the Blue Pine Clinic, I often do not serve clients in the age range that 40 Foundry serves. Having learned more about the context of which the policies and procedures support clients between the ages of 12 to 24, I have gained a robust understanding of the interplay between community agencies that provide comparable levels of primary care to different populations. Chapter 5: Practicum Overview Practicum began on Tuesday, September 3, 2024. The first few days focused on the standard orientation to the agency’s policies and procedures, as well as meeting team members. This provided me an opportunity to assess how best to integrate into the culture and structure of Foundry. As Drolet et al. (2012) observe, professional conduct in the workplace comprises of “values and purpose” unique to employees, students, and employers (p. 60-1). During the beginning of practicum, I integrated with the team at Foundry through our shared values and purpose of providing client centred service that led to evidence-based outcomes (Mental health huddle, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Program evaluation My experience entering Foundry felt unique, as I had a strong understanding of interprofessional team work in a clinical setting due to my role as a registered social worker (RSW) at the Blue Pine Clinic. Yet, I still experienced culture shock due to the differences in workload, as well as the services and programs offered to accessing children and youth. Most notable, I recognized the stark differences in how information is collected through frontloaded surveys rather than documentation of encounters. Foundry collects participant feedback in both direct and indirect ways, specifically for the purpose of program evaluation. Specifically, through “a tablet-based set of surveys and clinical tools used by young people as well as care providers” (Foundry, 2024). While clinical encounter 41 documentation does occur for the purpose of supplementing collateral during program evaluation, the primary method used in program evaluation comes from participant feedback reviewed by professionals to support ongoing care planning of client care. In my previous experiences running groups in Northern Health programs, such as the Adult Addictions Day Treatment Program (AADTP), documentation of participant feedback was the primary way information was collected for the purpose of program evaluation. Through professionals’ documentation of intakes and encounters with clients, programs can be evaluated through searching key terms that are linked to effective/ineffective outcomes. As the Northern Health Information Privacy Office (n.d.) reports, “Each time you receive care from one of our healthcare team members, information from that contact with you is recorded in your health record” (p. 3). The purpose for Foundry to collect data in a broader, yet streamlined way to support youth in finding “youth-friendly, welcoming and appropriate services” (Foundry, 2024). This also provides a more subtle approach to assessing and prioritizing services, service delivery and programs relevant to youth demographics in each town or city that has a Foundry Centre. This ensures that Foundry “truly [meets] the needs of young people coming into Foundry Centres” (Foundry, 2024). McNiff and Whitehead (2006) observe that when developing an action research plan, there are drawbacks that can be avoided when engaging in “feasibility planning” (p. 79). During my practicum, I have learned that data collection was essential, as my focus was on program development and implementation of Archetypical. Understanding how and why data is collected provided me a foundational knowledge base to structure assessment of participant engagement 42 with Archetypical, as well as collect data for future researchers to analyze and critique the effectiveness of the program (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). There are limitations to the data that has been collected for future research. Specifically, I have focused data collection on elements of Archetypical engagement and feedback of experiences. An important note is that I was unable to gain the amount of participant feedback I wanted due to participants either requesting not to engage further or contact information needed to be updated. However, the participant feedback I have been able to gain a better understanding of has been noted as such. Leadership competencies At the core of my practicum objectives, I wanted to develop and strengthen my leadership skillsets. During my practicum, I had many opportunities to engage with, reflect on, and implement leadership skills to learn and reinforce the skills I have developed through my learning feedback loop (Drolet et al., 2012). The specific opportunities were in the development and implementation of my Archetypical pilot project, co-facilitation of the ongoing Dialectic Behavioral Therapy (DBT) group, providing social work support for youth and families, and running the mental health huddles on an ongoing basis. The skills that I have been able to develop and enhance included collaboration on projects, interpersonal communications, managing timelines and people, mentoring, planning, and providing direction within a “Daring Leadership” framework (Brown, 2018). In Dare to Lead, Brené Brown (2018) describes two types of leadership, “armored leadership” and “daring leadership” (pp. 78-113). Brown (2018) breaks down armored leadership into 16 examples of leadership that operate from a power over structure that which is often delivered from avoidance of discomfort, control, insecurity and self-protection. Meanwhile, 43 daring leadership focuses on accepting and embracing discomfort, cultivating creativity, decentralizing power, and team-based support (Brown, 2018). Throughout my work experience, I often encountered the exact examples of armored leadership Brown (2018) describes and very rarely encountered daring leadership. As I go into the details of Archetypical and DBT group, I use this section to discuss my experiences with social work-based needs and the mental health huddles. The social work-based needs of Foundry are different than what I typically encounter at my place of employment at the Blue Pine Clinic, due to the age demographics being much younger. However, there are similarities around the type of requests asked by children and youth accessing services through Foundry, which often required a gentler handling of uncomfortable conversations (Brown, 2018). One such uncomfortable conversation occurred late into my practicum and perfectly summarizes my learning leadership in a social work-based context. As practicum continued, I found that politically, some of my values did not align with a lot of team members (Mental health huddle, personal communication, February 7, 2025). Specifically, many of the teams’ strong liberal-based political values alignment. This was a huge learning opportunity, as I do believe that people can fundamentally get along regardless of political alignment. I frequently question authority, appreciate when politicians represent the will of the people, and do not hold any specific political party values. I examine political platforms as to whether they align with my values that political parties are intended to represent the values of the people to build a strong sense of cohesive purpose; regardless of moral justifications (Mental health huddle, personal communication, February 28, 2025). I used these moments of values incompatibility as opportunities to learn how to mitigate potential conflicts through using the ITP 44 loop to reflect on theory integration of Brené Brown’s (2018) book Dare to Lead into my practice (Drolet et al., 2012). For context, Foundry Prince George does not have a social worker on staff, so a lot of knowledge that a social worker brings is not typically available. A youth had been attending Foundry’s primary care to receive support to complete a person with disability (PWD) application, as they were denied by the Ministry for Social Development and Poverty Reduction (MSDPR) (personal communication, March 17, 2025). The youth had proposed to discuss the appeal process of MSDPR’s decision. Lauren, then registered nurse at Foundry, had asked me for support regarding how best to navigate the conversation. Initially, I provided Lauren with the information to provide the youth, however, it dawned on me that this would be an opportunity to lead the conversation to role model the steps to take in assessing what can be done, the information to be provided, and possible solutions that could be provided (Brown, 2018). Lauren was agreeable to have me lead and we attended the appointment together (personal communication, March 17, 2025). Lauren introduced me and guided the youth’s attention toward me (personal communication, March 17, 2025). I read the youth’s denial letter and MSDPR made the denial very clear that the youth can function in completing all activities of daily living (personal communication, March 17, 2025). However, the youth did present with barriers and would meet criteria for MSDPR’s person with persistent and multiple barriers program (Government of British Columbia, 2025; personal communication, March 17, 2025). Gently, I laid out the pieces for the youth that the youth did not qualify for PWD, with Lauren’s support of providing messaging that the youth understood (Brown, 2018; personal communication, March 17, 2025). I then offered applying for persons 45 with persistent and multiple barriers (PPMB) as an alternative option that would meet the youth’s need better (personal communication, March 17, 2025). This led to Carmen and I discussing why this encounter was impactful (personal communication, March 20, 2025). Carmen shared that often providers and clinicians are unaware that they can say no to certain asks due to not knowing about alternative options that can be offered. This resulted in Carmen and I having a discussion to implement a service flowchart, as well as a social work binder to support providers and clinicians when unsure of a direction to take (personal communication, March 20, 2025). What I learned from this experience is that opportunities to lead will always present themselves, even when I know what and why actions need to be taken (Brown, 2018). Leading the mental health huddles presented many opportunities to acknowledge concerns and uncertainty, cultivate team-based belonging and commitment, and express gratitude (Brown, 2018). Foundry’s mental health huddles set the tone of the meeting, as well as the tone for the remainder of the day and week, as they are equally about checking in with team members, as well as planning how best to clinically support the children and youth who access services. A great example of team-based support was a presentation provided by one of the clinician’s, Jane, about different zones that a team can be in—enmeshed, zone of fabulousness, and distanced (personal communication, March 20, 2025; Reynolds, 2019). Jane explained that a team strives to be in the zone of fabulousness, the zone in which team members feel supported and safe (personal communication, March 20, 2025; Reynolds, 2019). However, members can drift into the zones of enmeshment and distant. In the zone of enmeshment, team members take on too much and burn out, while in the zone of distant, the team member isolates and connects very little with the team (personal communication, March 46 20, 2025; Reynolds, 2019). This is reminiscent of when der Kolk (2015) discusses childhood attachment. van der Kolk (2015) observes that children who lack “physical attunement are vulnerable to shutting down direct feedback from their bodies” (p.116). Brown (2018) observes similar impacts on teams who embrace armored leadership styles, which often leads to absenteeism, lower productivity and burnout. One of the broader contexts rarely discussed are system barriers that limit client care. Through ongoing discussions with Sandy Galletti, Concurrent Disorders Clinician, during my practicum, I was able to gain insight into system barriers that often limit clients from accessing care (S. Galletti, personal communication, February 2, 2025). Often, our discussions occurred after facilitating the DBT group. Several system barriers that stood out to me included the use of corporate language to obscure public understanding of presenting system limitations (for instance, limited beds to indicate staff shortages), service mismanagement due to reallocation of funds (often done to cover funding deficits), and significantly narrow program criteria that excludes a large majority of people who require specific services the most (primarily found in specialized programs, such as the Community Acute Stabilization Team (CAST) and Community Outreach and Assertive Services Team (COAST)) (S. Galletti, personal communication, November 10, 2024; S. Galletti, personal communication, January 20, 2024; S. Galletti, personal communication, February 9, 2024). While these system barriers are intended to increase public trust of the medical system, ensure community programs are still able to run, and provide frameworks that target specific demographics, these system barriers often work against both the medical system and people attempting to access care. While some of these concepts I was aware of due to team building activities we engage in at Blue Pine, I have been able to reframe the concept of connection and collaboration from a 47 broader perspective. Specifically, when checking in with the Foundry team. As this is an election year, many people present at the mental health huddle presented with concerns and uncertainty about funding and stability (Brown, 2018). I was able to approach acknowledging these concerns and the uncertainty by acknowledging the fear and concerns that people have, approach discussions from a place of curiosity, present clear information regarding opposing political platforms that align with the team’s values, and use humor to break tension (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). I was also able to cultivate team-based belonging and commitment, as well as express gratitude during check ins through the support of team members. Specifically, if there was an activity I presented to the team and someone offered an alternative to do in lieu of my activity, or suggested a different activity for next huddle, I would choose the alternative and support the suggestion (Brown, 2018). By taking this action, team members feel valued while simultaneously telegraphing to the rest of the team that their input matters, which further builds team cohesion and a sense of belonging (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). DBT group facilitation Throughout my practicum, I was able to run one and a half cycles of the Dialectic Behavioral Therapy (DBT) group for Foundry youths. The DBT group ran for 12 sessions on Monday evenings (Foundry, 2024). Each session lasted for 1.5 hours and followed well outlined weekly session goals and psychoeducation (Foundry, 2024). As I have prior experience with group facilitation, I approached my role with cofacilitation from the perspective of leadership. Specifically, I looked for ways to scaffold development and implementation of Archetypical, as well as seek to understand how to present information that will stick with participants (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). During my time at the Adult Addictions Day Treatment Program (AADTP), I learned how to facilitate groups and 48 present information. However, due to team dynamics—specifically, a power over dynamic, I was never able to learn the nuts and bolts of implementing meaningful changes and program evaluation (Brown, 2018). Thankfully, when I started my practicum, the DBT program was being evaluated and changed. The key takeaway for me from viewing the evaluation and change implantation process is that successful programs change with every facilitator (Brown, 2018; Moria Trahan, personal communication, February 17, 2025). Implementing program change accomplishes two things simultaneously: 1) The change keeps material fresh for repeat users. 2) The change allows for the facilitators to make meaningful contributions to the program that support a facilitator’s confidence in presenting the material and create an avenue for meaningful exploration for both participants and facilitators (Brown, 2018). Co-facilitating DBT group was always engaging. Typically, each session had three to four participants in attendance. I found that the DBT group functioned at its best with two or three facilitators, along with three to five participants (Brown, 2018). This mix of facilitators and participants created a relaxed, but engaged group dynamic that was cohesive and shared a common purpose (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). Primarily, this came from the facilitators working together to use a “power with” approach that invited participants to be curious and be aware of their actions, emotions, thoughts, and sensations (Brown, 2018; Linehan, 2014; Margolin, 2014). In addition to gaining a deeper understanding of the nuts and bolts of program evaluation and change implementation, as well as developing secondary skills to group facilitation, I also learned about the value of structure (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). During my time at AADTP, I became bored quickly with presenting the same material the same way for the same set amount of time and never really understood the importance of facilitator guides. Both Block (2009) and Brown (2018) address my previous mindset when discussing the power of structure in both 49 community building and in organizational counselling. Block (2009) asserts that, “Transformation occurs when leaders focus on the structure of how we gather and the context in which the gathering takes place” (p. 179). Brown (2018) appears to observe the same phenomenon when leadership shifts from a “Power over” to a “Power with,” “Power to,” and “Power within” approach, leadership then transforms to a more collaborative approach that acknowledges the context in which productivity can take place (pp. 96-7). These points were reinforced in a conversation with Moria Trahan, another grad student in practicum at Foundry (personal communication, February 17, 2025). Moria shared that facilitator guides are like lesson plans, and while they will change based on who is facilitating, they provide a road map of where a facilitator can take a session (personal communication, February 17, 2025). Archetypical discussions and development I have chosen to provide the specific details of the development of a BATS—that I have titled Archetypical—and provide analysis of the key sections of the BATS within the development process. The purpose of providing professional key informant identifying information is critical in demonstrating oversight and supervision of colleagues and peers. Most of whom have played a role shaping how this BATS has been researched and created via academic, evidence-based and peer review (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This process of knowledge sharing of my idea and feedback of pointing me in the correct direction of relevant academic inquiry has been invaluable (Chang, 2009; Creswell & Poth, 2018; von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2004). Additionally, it has provided a unique opportunity to connect with colleagues and peers that I may not have otherwise had. Additionally, through providing this identifying information, it demonstrates game theory’s optimal strategy for success by crediting 50 the contributions made by key informants (Chang, 2009; Creswell & Poth, 2018; von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2004). In 2017, I was working with youth in care at Eagle Nest Community and Aboriginal Services (ENCAAS). During my time working at this organization, I had multiple conversations with other staff members who shared my interest in tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs). Often, these conversations shifted to brainstorming what a therapeutic intervention set up like a roleplaying game would look like, however, no concrete ideas were ever formed. One staff member, Co-Worker2 (2017), even stated that creating a therapeutic system like this would be a waste of time prior to securing funding. I fundamentally disagreed with Brown’s statement then, and I still disagree with it now. Additionally, at this time, I was completing the pre-requisites to get into the University of Northern British Columbia’s (UNBC) bachelor of Social Work program. In May 2020, approximately two months into the Covid-19 pandemic, I graduated with my Bachelor of Social Work from UNBC, and by June 22, 2020, I had started my career with the Northern Health Authority (NHA). My first line was a seven-month relief line working with youth in a locked unit3. In this line, I revisited the idea of a therapeutic intervention that was set up like a TTRPG. What I had observed is that the youth that I had been facilitating groups for presented as more open to reflecting and implementing information regarding structure and transferrable skills when they were set up in a way that provided choices and a mechanism of motivation. While groups often occurred after breakfast and before lunch, often the youth reported motivation being linked to snacks and meals (Youths, personal communication, October 6, 2020). When the youth would report this, I often felt that the groups I was facilitating were 2 3 First/last name and credentials redacted upon request of key informant. unit name redacted to reduce identifiable information regarding Team Lead, at Team Lead’s request. 51 eliciting external motivation which is often an indication that motivation is not invested in personal growth, but rather on receiving a reward (Turning Points, n.d.). In a similar vein, Morschheuser & Hamari (2018) explore gamification within the context of work and crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing—in the context work—is defined as the application of using ‘the crowd’ (an array of diverse internet users) to outsource workloads to solve complex problems, rather than using employees or suppliers (Morschheuser & Hamari, 2018). Morschheuser & Hamari (2018) observe that: crowdsourcing systems are one of the largest domains employing gamification (Koivisto & Hamari, 2017; Morschheuser, Hamari, Koivisto, & Maedche, 2017), that is, organizations seek to make the crowdsourced work activity more like playing a game (Vesa, Hamari, Harviainen, & Warmelink, 2017) to provide other motives for working than just monetary compensation (Colbert, Yee, & George, 2016). (p. 145) I brought up my concern regarding youth expressing externally motivated by meals with the locked unit’s Team Lead4, who inquired what I would propose to do to address my concern (Team Lead, personal communication, October 8, 2020). I initially presented the Team Lead with research regarding TTRPGs as a therapeutic intervention, and suggested running a TTRPG for the youth on the locked unit to better engage youth and facilitate group discussions regarding choice and consequence. Additionally, I could also indirectly teach the routine and structure required to maintain consistency on the locked unit. The Team Lead (personal communication, November 9, 2020) disagreed and dismissed the idea as being “far too radical” for NHA. To clarify, Team Lead did not reject my idea/solution based on any bias against me; rather, this rejection came from a large organizational system’s perspective of risk management. 4 First/last name and credentials redacted at request of key informant. 52 I then shared my idea of creating a therapeutic intervention in the style of a TTRPG that would be flexible enough for youth of various levels of cognitive understanding to engage with, but would also be demystified and lack any references to imaginary creatures, magic or the occult. Team Lead (personal communication, December 22, 2020) was agreeable to review what I came up with. Within a month, I created a rudimentary character sheet for check in and a list of existing therapeutic interventions that youth on the locked unit could refer to and level up in the safety of the locked unit. Team Lead (personal communication, January 19, 2021) did not approve the use of my purposed intervention—that would eventually become the BATS presented in the appendices of this practicum report. Soon after this review and denial, my relief line soon ended with the return of the incumbent who owned the line. I then obtained a twomonth relief line with the social work team at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia (UHNBC), followed by a one-month term at the Acquired Brain Injury Program (ABIP). During this three-month period, no meaningful progress was made on the BATS. In April 2021, I began working with the Adult Addictions Day Treatment Program (AADTP) in Prince George. During my time in this program, I was able to learn about program development in addition to networking with team members in the Community Acute Stabilization Team (CAST). This phase of my early career was probably the most valuable in terms of learning about program development and evaluation, as well as the research and development of a BATS prototype. Primarily, through the facilitation of AADTP materials and daily check ins via scaling questions to evaluate the educational value of AADTP materials, as well as conversations with CAST team members who understand the structural concepts of both therapeutic programs and TTRPGs. 53 During a lunch hour, while playing a board game with two CAST Clinicians, Darryl Anderson, M.Ed., B.Sc., R.C.C. and Marina Ursa, M.Ed., B.Sc., R.C.C., I shared my idea for a BATS and inquired about their input from a counseling perspective. Anderson and Ursa (personal communication, June 11, 2021) both expressed excitement about the idea I pitched. Anderson and Ursa (personal communication, June 11, 2021) further share that a modality that ties multiple therapeutic interventions with the inherent structures present in roleplaying games could possibly benefit neurodivergent, youth and gamer demographics. Our conversation then shifted to specific interventions that could be explored in my proposed modality. Specifically, the concept of ‘Second Self” as a way for a potential client to build resilience and confidence during the early stages of clinical intervention to promote self-transformation (Academy of Ideas, 2020; D. Anderson & M. Ursa, personal communication, June 11, 2021). The second intervention was visualization, specifically, through the question, “If you were going on a trip, what would you take?” (D. Anderson & M. Ursa, personal communication, June 11, 2021; Schroeder, 2021). After this discussion, I began to examine journal articles about archetypes, logotherapy, narrative therapy and studies about roleplaying games being used as a therapeutic alliance. YouTube videos about game theory, applications of awarding experience when accomplishing a goal and game design. I also read the founding books of CBT, DBT and narrative therapy, as well as the rules sets of Dungeons & Dragons (2014), Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia (1991), Unknown Armies (2017). In short, my hyperfocus was engaged! Once I had filled my mind with knowledge, it was time to digest and allow my creative problem-solving organize this information into a structured TTRPG-esque therapeutic intervention tool kit. 54 I met with Damen DeLeenheer, RN (personal communication, March 9, 2022), RN for supervision. At the time, DeLeenheer was working as a Clinical Nurse Educator and has since begun a new position as Manager of Flow and Capacity. Near the end of this supervision meeting, I brought up integrating therapeutic interventions with structures present in TTRPGs. DeLeenheer (personal communication, March 9, 2022) expressed belief that a modality, such as the one that I proposed, that this would present neurodivergent and gamer demographics with a therapeutic modality that they could engage with. DeLeenheer (personal communication, March 9, 2022) then encouraged me to book a follow up meeting once I have a concrete version of this abstract modality. For the next few weeks, my hyperfocus kicked in and I created a barebones version of Archetypical. This version presented the twelve archetypes, four motivational themes and twelve specific motivations, anxiety/depression issues, a random coping table and a character check in sheet. All of which are still present in the final versions of Archetypical. While working on this version, I had the goals of making this tool kit flexible for participants, adaptable to different cultures and be able to be ran/used by anyone to build their own useful structures. I decided to incorporate archetypes into the prototype as a way for participants to quickly identify with recognizable themes occurring in their lives. Utilizing archetypes also provides participants space to either depersonalize an issue enough to be able to talk about the impacts the issue has in life and/or view an issue from different points of life that a participant may recognize. While externalization and depersonalization are common practices in narrative therapy, therapeutic focus often relies on client introspection (Combs & Freedman, 2012; Harms & Pierce, 2020; White & Epston, 2024). Furthermore, archetypes are transient and can be culturally adapted to be applicable to any given region (Jung, 2009). 55 I believe that conflict and kinetic action are practically applied by participants in a therapeutic context through the exploration of personal mythology. In short, personal mythology is the complete narrative that we assign to our lives. While narratives is a more generally accepted term, I personally prefer the term mythology, as people often use language akin to mythological language when sharing details about their lives. Julie Beck (2015) describes personal mythology as, “the way a person integrates those facts and events [that occur over a life time] internally.” For Beck (2015), how facts and events are organized within our lives determines how we respond to the perceived narrative conflict within the progression of a given ‘arc’ that occurs in one’s life story. In my experience, individuals living with challenges such as addiction or trauma often lack a coherent narrative about their life. Their personal mythologies are frequently fragmented— sometimes progressing in a non-linear fashion, and other times halting abruptly without resolution. This disconnection often reminds me of Jung’s (1971) concept of archetypes arriving and departing. Specifically, as Raya Jones (2003) observes, Jung’s (1971) concept of collective: [T]wo different meanings of ‘collective’ are applicable to his thesis: (a) something that is created collectively, like a language; or (b) something that normally everyone has, like the capacity for language. Whereas meaning (a) invites descriptions of how societies intersubjectively construct symbolic representations of typical situations, meaning (b) prompts the assumption of brain structures that mediate those productions. (p. 654) On Earth Day, I met with DeLeenheer (personal communication, April 22, 2022) again for a follow up meeting. This time, I presented what I had developed so far. DeLeenheer was impressed with this initial version. The BATS prototype demonstrated—at least at an introductory level—all the modalities previously discussed, and added the dimension of 56 ‘gamification’ to the mix. DeLeenheer was able to accurately parse out the pieces of CBT, DBT and narrative therapy while discussing the elements of brief action planning and motivational interviewing that also weaved their way into this therapeutic tool kit. Then, DeLeenheer hit me with a question that caught me off guard. “Have you applied for your master’s yet?” At this point, I had not considered applying at this point in my career, which I shared as my answer. “Well, you should think about it. You have a strong idea here.” DeLeenheer (personal communication, April 22, 2022) checked his watch and ended the meeting. I reflected on DeLeenheer’s question in addition to bouncing the idea of returning to school to complete a master’s degree with colleagues and peers who have also returned to school. Mulling this over for a couple of months. Then, I took the plunge and applied. Initially, I was waitlisted. However, by July, I was in. Set to return to UNBC in the coming September. Then, in late July, I landed my current position as social worker with the Blue Pine Primary Health Care Clinic. This presented another opportunity to connect with another two professional community contacts, Laurie Zoppi, MSW, RSW (Executive Director for the Division of Family Practice) and Andrea Allen, RN (Clinical Programs Lead for the Division of Family Practice). Between September 2022 to October 2023, my focus had primarily been on completing course work. Throughout this period, I made incremental progress on the BATS. Most notably, during the 2023 intersession semester, I revamped the prototype into a quick start version and began expanding the BATS concept into two booklets—the participants’ manual and the session guide’s handbook—reflecting the basic rules set of Dungeons & Dragons (Gygax & Arneson, 1991). I also began talking more with my professional key informants to expand on my initial concept and soundboard ideas that I had or how some ideas could be implemented into a therapeutic setting. The two most frequently talked to professional key informants were Darryl 57 Anderson, M.Ed., B.Sc., R.C.C. and Tim Lentz, M.Ed., B.Sc. (hons.), A.A., R.C.C.—a Mental Health Clinician for Interprofessional Team (IPT) 4. In addition to being a practicing, registered counsellor, Anderson (personal communication, October 14, 2022) has a strong understanding of TTRPGs, their mechanics and how these games function. Like me, Anderson became interested in the TRPG hobby at a formative age. Unlike me, Anderson has had many opportunities to play TTRPGs with many diverse groups of people. Anderson and I discussed effective layouts of TRPG rules and what core concepts are typically front-loaded for players in TRPG rule books. Anderson (personal communication, October 14, 2022) observes that players are typically informed about the premise of the TRPG, table expectations, dice and mechanics present in the TRPG, before wading into character creation, skills and powers and equipment. Later in the day (October 14, 2022), I flipped through the Player’s Handbook (Wyatt et al., 2014), Book One: Play (Stolze & Tynes, 2016) and the Rules Cyclopedia (Gygax & Arneson, 1991) and found that this was indeed the case. While there were one or two minor differences in the ordering of some items, for the most part, this formatting structure appears to have been fairly standard in TTRPGs since at least 1991. I would go back look at physical copies of older editions, however, now, the market for some of the older editions of Dungeons & Dragons are going for thousands of dollars and I have not been able to locate older editions of Unknown Armies. If you are curious as to why I would want to examine physical copies of these titles, rather than digital copies, it is because digital copies typically have some alterations, whether to wording, layout or general tone that older physical copies would not have. For the next few weeks afterwards, I reflected on my conversation with Anderson (personal communication, October 14, 2022). During this time, the idea to divide the 58 Archetypical skills section into grounding, coping and problem-solving came to me at this time. While having a dedicated section of therapeutic interventions was always going to be included in Archetypical, grouping existing therapeutic interventions into gradually more complicated skills was not a thought that occurred to me. By organizing the skills in this way, it provides a stepping stone structure for individuals to build upon. Primarily, through self-evaluation of what dimensions of wellness is being influenced by using a particular skill, and what are the energy, compassion and resilience costs to using a particular skill (Stoewen, 2017). Between August 2023 and September 2023, I worked on writing the brief descriptions of the different skills and structuring the skills section of the Participant’s Manual. I structured this section to incorporate elements of cost/benefit analysis, scaling questions and body scanning (Harms & Peirce, 2020; Scott, E., 2024; SMART Recovery, 2021). Once I had completed writing the descriptions and formatting the skills, I began grouping the therapeutic interventions into the levels of grounding (simple), coping (medium complexity) and problem-solving (difficult). After I completed grouping the skills into these categories, I reviewed each therapeutic intervention to vet for whether the skill was either a, or a combination of, solutionsfocused, strengths-based and/or task-centered (Erford, 2015; Harms & Peirce, 2020). While all the skills did meet one or more of the previously mentioned criteria set by me, I had a total of seventy-five skills between all three categories—thirty-seven in grounding skills, twenty in coping skills and eighteen in problem-solving skills. While more skills would typically be preferable, limiting the number of options often inspires more creative approaches by individuals (Kalaf, 2023; Harms & Pierce, 2020; Plato, 2013). By utilizing this knowledge, I was able to reflect on the question, could this grounding skill be able to be implemented and completed by an average person who is experiencing an issue— 59 such as anxiety—that temporarily limits decision-making capability? By reflecting on this question, in addition to my criteria of organizing skills as building blocks, I was able to remove seventeen grounding skills, six coping skills and four from problem-solving skills (Chang, 2009). I removed these items as they would not hold the attention of a participant, as they were too complex or did not contain enough foundational skills that could lead to other complex skills (Erford, 2015; Harms & Pierce, 2020). Once the elimination process was completed, I was able to include twenty grounding skills, fourteen coping skills and ten problem-solving skills in this BATS. Currently, all the skills included in Archetypical incorporate skill sets that build upon each other. I met with Darryl Anderson, M.Ed., B.Sc., R.C.C. (personal communication, October 24, 2023) once more, this time to discuss mechanics combinations. Specifically, dice mechanics and what dice would be most effective to use. Anderson reported that it depends on the intended outcomes, such as an emotions table would be best suited as a d20 or d100. Approximately a month later, Tim Lentz, M.Ed., B.Sc. (hons.), A.A., R.C.C. (personal communication, November 22, 2023) emailed me a newly published article titled Gamification: How game design and narrative therapy can work together, by Luke Kalaf. These interactions combined inspired me to work toward completing the first drafts of Archetypical. I completed the first drafts of the BATS on December 5, 2023. As I am a practicing Social Worker with Interprofessional Team 7, a position that is embedded at the Blue Pine Primary Health Care Clinic, I presented my drafts to Laurie Zoppi and Andera Allen. Both have noted that the novel premise of creating such a therapeutic tool kit may appeal to neurodivergent, youth and potentially gamer demographics (Zoppi & Allen, personal communication, December 8, 2023). Allen (personal communication, December 13, 2023) had also inquired whether she could 60 send a copy of the draft to a contact close of Allen to provide feedback. I agreed, as receiving feedback would allow me to make quality improvements to the drafts of the brief action therapeutic system. Allen provided me with the following feedback from her contact, “It was a lot of information, at first, but once I began looking through the manual, I started to see how this [BATS] could be helpful for those who know tabletop gaming” (A. Allen, personal communication, December 13, 2023). I connected with Carmen De Menech (personal communication, February 14, 2024)— Centre Manager of Foundry Prince George—regarding the possibility of Foundry using Archetypical to engage with youth accessing Foundry’s mental health services. This led to discussion and planning for my practicum placement. Throughout several months, duration and organizational details of my practicum placement were arranged (C. De Menech, personal communication, February 14, 2024). Archetypical presentations In planning the implementation of Archetypical, I designed a presentation to introduce the concept of a brief action therapeutic system to peers, professionals and participants (Appendix B). The feedback provided during the three presentations I gave was used to frontload the action phase of developing a delivery format of a psychodrama gaming group and a more traditional psychoeducational group (Kelly, 2005; MacDonald, 2012). The intended purpose of these action oriented designed groups was ultimately to be able to better navigate unforeseen circumstances that could occur in practice (Kelly, 2005; MacDonald, 2012). September 6, 2024 I attend Foundry after work to present the concept of Archetypical to peers and professionals (Appendix B). Although, I felt nervous, my previous experience facilitating group 61 sessions in the Adult Addictions Day Treatment Program (AADTP) helped conceal my anxiety. As I presented Archetypical to peers and professionals (two M. Ed. Practicum students and three regular employees), I began the two-hour session with an overview of what Archetypical is and how it can be used. I included the key elements that make up the core process of my brief action therapeutic system, as well as the three core clinical modalities that function within Archetypical (Appendix B). The feedback I received regarding my presentation was that a more concise presentation outlining the therapeutic benefits to participants would provide opportunities to weave in psychoeducational learning with Archetypical (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). A lot of optimistic focus was given to using a brief action therapeutic system as a process to promote decision-making; even if the decision would be to discontinue participation. Further feedback included was that the information was laid out in a way that was easy to follow and provides several opportunities to engage with participant questions (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). One opportunity for improvement that peer participants provided was to cut the information regarding clinical modalities for participants (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). The peers and professionals present felt that the clinical information will not be as engaging for participants; however, information regarding clinical modalities should be retained when engaging peers and professionals. After my presentation, the group engaged in a ten-minute break for peer and professional participants to decompress and get food that Carmen De Menech was gracious enough to provide for the initial group. After the break, I offered several minutes for peer and professional participants to ask questions that they may have. No questions were presented at this time, so I encouraged 62 participants to ask questions they may have when they come up (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). Participants were agreeable to this format. Resuming the presentation, I provided education around safety planning in a “session zero,” and provided suggestions, such as X cards and listing off-limit topics, to create a safe and welcoming therapeutic environment (Appendix F, pp. 1458). I also expressed the importance of focusing in on one overarching issue that is shared by group members, such as identity or anxiety, as this will create group cohesion and trust that is vitally important to any therapeutic group. At this point, the question of the absolute minimum and maximum group members was asked, which I answered “between one and six” (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). This led to a brief discussion regarding key differences of service delivery for one participant versus service delivery for two to six participants. At this point, conversation shifted from Archetypical to more social conversations. Rather than redirect the group back to Archetypical, I simply observed the group engaging in the unfolding prosocial activity (Brown, 2018). Around the ten-minute mark, I segued back to Archetypical and transitioned into guiding participants through archetype creation (Brown, 2018). The scenario I chose to use was the scenario that I created for the Participant’s Manual (Appendix D). Several errors were caught during this phase, which include mental is not a wellness dimension listed on the character sheet, social is a wellness dimension not listed in the scenario, “how to” is typed twice in a row. The guided scenario for character creation continued to the end of session (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). 63 During the entire process of character creation, I used “we” language and only used openended questions when addressing participants both as the group and individually (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024; Brown, 2018). Specifically, what participants think of each section of character creation and what the archetypes that were chosen would think of each section of character creation. The common theme that emerged throughout this process was that participants were unanimously able to identify when answers to self-reflective questions were fully from an archetype and did not represent participant perspectives. However, participants often expressed difficulties discerning whether they were thinking about the different sections of character creation from their perspective or the perspective of an archetype through a hypothetical participant, and then subsequently reported feeling like they were viewing the process of character creation from their own perspective, rather than their chosen archetype. One participant reported thinking about the process as a game and reflexively was asking themselves how the character would think about the sections of character creation. In both instances, participants appeared to have come to the same conclusion of reflection being a key take away from all sections of character creation (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). This theme led to multiple discussions regarding how archetypes are applied in “game” compared to life day-to-day life and to larger life themes (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). I guided these discussions through the fact that archetypes are fluid rather than consistent. I then validated participants’ experiences that experiencing transient and/or discordant reflection is understandable and is natural to experience during this process. Feedback that I received was to encourage participants to rate the wellness stats based on the specific archetype to reduce the number of times that transient and/or 64 discordant experiences occur (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). Once the character creation scenario was complete, I offered the final five minutes for peers and professionals to ask questions. I also provided participants with a random self-care table to encourage self-care once participants leave the group session (Appendix F; Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). No questions at this time were raised, however, multiple participants did report feeling tired after session, but that several Foundry clients would really resonate with a brief action therapeutic system modality (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). September 12, 2024 I present Archetypical to the second group of peers and professionals. Attendees were far less engaging during this session, however, the feedback provided did add valuable insight into the implementation process of Archetypical (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Most of the positive feedback again focused on the novelty of a brief action therapeutic system and using this system as a process to promote decision-making. Primarily, the attendees who were the most engaged had experience with tabletop gaming, while the participants who had limited engagement came from clinical backgrounds. The only archetype to be brought up during this session was the explorer (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Explorer (2024) enquires, “do you think this will reduce the amount of door knobbing at the end of sessions” (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024)? When asked to elaborate, Explorer (2024) explains that door knobbing occurs when a participant does not share what they need to share until the final minutes of a session when no 65 meaningful progress can be made (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024; Explorer, 2024). I had not considered a reduction in door knobbing and stated as much in response to the participant’s question. The Explorer (2024) shares further insight that this modality probably would reduce the amount of door knobbing in sessions as participants will feel more comfortable in sharing information incrementally, rather than when asked directly (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Overlapping feedback provided includes experiencing transient and/or discordant reflection of scaling questions for wellness stats, feelings of viewing the process of character creation as if the attendee was the character, and that Foundry clients would benefit from engaging with a brief action therapeutic system modality (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Furthermore, attendees of the second presentation also expressed appreciation for breaking down character / archetype creation into sections, rather than attempting to have people create an archetype without and structure to follow. Additional feedback provided included adding the explorer archetype to the dream section and to include page numbers for participants to locate information quickly (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). September 28, 2024 I presented the final presentation to introduce Archetypical as a brief action therapeutic system. This presentation only had two participants in attendance—a parent and younger adolescent. I informed the parent that the parent is welcome to stay for the session; which the parent was agreeable (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). I provided a ten-minute window for any additional participants to arrive before I officially 66 started the group (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024; Brown, 2018). Both participants report not being aware of what roleplaying games are or how they are played (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). I provided both participants with assurance that while learning the structure of this brief action therapeutic system might be a bit more difficult, a foundational knowledge of tabletop roleplaying games is not necessary (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024; Brown, 2018). Both participants expressed being open to experiencing Archetypical (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). Throughout the presentation, I incorporated the feedback provided during the first two presentations, much like running an organization in a building that is still being constructed (MacDonald, 2012; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). I also encourage both participants to ask any and all questions that they may have, as well as provide encouragement to provide me with any feedback that they may have (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). Furthermore, by incorporating the previously received feedback, there was a notable reduction in transient/discordant experiences when scaling questions were asked for wellness stats, spatial awareness between self and archetypes were observed by participants, and participants identified the potential to experience a situation from a differing perspective as a potential benefit from engaging with Archetypical (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). Participants of the final presentation provided feedback that was centred on chunking down the completion of the strengths, values, goals, skills and hobbies sections into three distinct sections. The participants suggest that chucks be categorized as: 1) Strengths and values. 2) 67 Skills and hobbies. 3) Goals. Further feedback was that providing tips, such as reviewing the wellness stats, strengths and values, as well as skills and hobbies to look for and inform achievable goals, would be extremely helpful for new participants. Additionally, the sample character sheets were helpful in providing concrete examples of what a completed character sheet looks like and how to describe emotions, thoughts, sensations and behaviors (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 28, 2024). Archetypical Trials Throughout practicum, I ran three trials of Archetypical, two were ran as a psychodrama gaming group and one was run as a traditional psychoeducational group (MacDonald, 2012; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; van der Kolk, 2015). The intended purpose of running three trails was to analyze the flexibility of the service delivery while generating data on running a brief action therapeutic system (Levin & Martin, 2007; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). Furthermore, the action-oriented design of running three trials also provided opportunities to practice integration as a leader, rather than “being a knower and being right” (Brown, 2018, p. 91; Levin & Martin, 2007). Archetypical: Trial one Trial one ran for one session with two participants—Lover and Ruler—who requested to understand more about how Archetypical would be ran. Both staff members reported the experience as being overall good (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Feedback from the participants included being unclear of when to roll dice, and whether their archetype was a character or themselves. Furthermore, both staff members reported feeling lighter and appreciated how much they both laughed and considered the choices that they were making in session (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). The following 68 narrative documents this session’s outcomes of Lover and Ruler’s choices and imaginary world as they participated in an Archetypical session. Lover and Ruler had several hard weeks at work (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). They planned to go hiking Friday evening after work. They prepared what they were going to take earlier in the week. While heading to the trail that they planned to hike, Ruler’s car got a flat tire. They were able to get the tire repaired and made it to the trail head around 7:00 P.M., promptly set up camp and went to bed. The next morning, Lover and Ruler hiked around the trail. They passed a cliff face with a rickety, old wooden ladder and chose not to go up it. Ruler shares that going up the ladder may not be the best choice and encourages Lover to make the safest choice (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). A while later, they came across another ladder leading up another cliff face (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). The ladder was rope and looked to be in much better repair than the previous ladder. Lover climbed up and thought that camping on the top of the cliff would make a great campsite. After some encouragement from Lover, Ruler joined Lover on the plateau. Ruler agreed and planned with Lover to return to the plateau when it was time to set up camp. They both climbed back down and continued hiking (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Deciding to go left at a fork in the trail, Lover and Ruler came across a waterfall pouring into a pool (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Ruler observed a possible object of interest in the pool and decided to wade in to investigate further. As it turns out, it was a large chuck of amber. Ruler decided to keep the chunk of amber. Lover and Ruler then have lunch and return to the fork in the road, this time heading left (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). 69 A few meters down the trail, Lover steps on a leather-bound journal that seemed to detail the final days of someone in the woods (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Lover puts the journal into a sealable bag. Lover and Ruler decide to go set up camp on the plateau. After several hours, they have dinner and some hot chocolate and tea while watching a beautiful sunset, before turning in for the night (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). At some point in the night, Lover awakes to multiple people yelling and banging metal against metal from below the plateau (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Lover tries to wake up Ruler multiple times, but is unsuccessful. Lover decides to call out to the voices below. The voices respond and inform Lover that they are shooting a movie. The crew also inform Lover that they are missing a journal that was a prop that they had planted for this night’s scene. Lover reports finding the journal and returns it. Lover is then invited to join the filming as an extra. The film crew also pays Lover $87.00 for returning the journal (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). As day light begins to peak through the twilight, Lover returns to camp and is nearly asleep when Ruler wakes up (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Lover recounts the events of the previous night over coffee that Ruler made. Ruler offers a choice to Lover to either make breakfast at camp, or hike the few hours back to the car and get McDonald’s. Lover choses the later, so they pack up camp and hike back to the car and make their way home, where they enjoyed the remainder of Sunday (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). 70 Archetypical: Trial two Earlier, I discuss presenting Archetypical, and mentioned that groups should have a focus on one overarching issue, such as anxiety or identity (Archetypical presentation group, personal communication, September 6, 2024). During trial two, I found that focusing on one overarching issue did not support the creation of group cohesion and failed to engage participants in scenarios and situations that I presented (Archetypical group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). I did observe that participant engagement increased when multiple issues were presented in scenarios and situations (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). This trail was initially intended to run for six sessions, however, only four sessions were run before participants completely stopped attending. During this trial, each session lasted two hours on Saturday afternoons (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). The first two sessions had three participants; one parent/guardian (Artist), one participant between the ages of 12-24 (Ruler), and one professional (Artist). The third session had one parent/guardian (Explorer), three participant between the ages of 12-24 (Outlaw, Ruler, Trickster), and one professional (Artist). The fourth session had one parent/guardian (Artist), two youths (Ruler and Trickster), and two professionals (Artist, Lover). This trial had a total of five participants, two parent guardians, and three professionals attend four sessions (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 71 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). At the beginning of every session, I reviewed group guidelines and provided an opportunity for participants to ask any questions that they may have had (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Typically, questions revolved around what could be done in the session and when dice were required to be rolled. This led to me to developing a handout regarding how dice can be used in session (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024; Appendix C). The first session was used as a session zero to provide participants the concepts of Archetypical that will be explored. This was done by reviewing archetypes, motivations, the eight dimensions of wellness, strengths and values, goals, coping abilities and hobbies, as well as CBT body scans present on the archetype sheet. Moreover, the group agreed on a safety tool to be used if an offlimit topic were to be mentioned (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2024; Appendix E). The following sessions were spent running Archetypical sessions akin to how one would expect a typical tabletop roleplaying game to run (Crawford et al., 2014; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Stolze & Tynes, 2016). Throughout the final three sessions, parent/guardians, participants, and professionals explored decision-making and consequences through the lens of high school characters (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, 72 personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). The group was presented with the choice to complete their homework and chores before enjoying the remainder of the weekend, or put off doing their homework and chores to enjoy the weekend. Three participants and one professional chose to complete their homework and chores to enjoy the remainder of the weekend, one professional and one participant chose to put off homework and chores until Saturday morning, and two parent/guardians, one participant, and one professional chose to put off homework and chores for the entire weekend (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Reflecting on running these sessions in a similar vein to running a typical TTRPG, I would describe the facilitation experience as facilitating an extended guided meditation plus agency (Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Margolin, Madanayake & Jones, 2025; van der Kolk, 2015). In the theatre of the mind, some group members experienced a mindful trail ride on their bicycles, while a few group members chose to hangout around their homes—content to spend time alone with their thoughts, or with family (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Some group members went to the mall and encountered a bully, while some group members impulsively purchased unneeded or wanted items. One group member ignored all the danger signs of a stray dog and ended up going to the hospital, and one group member was punched by a bully at a party—the bully did get forcefully removed by the 73 party’s host. One group member ended up punching another group member for being increasingly mean spirited—which was sorted out, with kindness, post-conflict (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). While several of these situations may come across as intense when out of context, the agreed upon safety tool was not used by any group member, despite reminders prior to session starting (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). When debriefing with group members after session, reports of situations involving violence were reported as “intense, but manageable” by Artist (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024), and “things worked out for the best” by Outlaw (personal communication, November 2, 2024). During one session, I coupled Lover (a professional) with Ruler (a participant) to create group narrative cohesion between the two diverging narratives that began to emerge (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Understandably, the professional reported, “having another participant play the role of partner without it being discussed” as least helpful feedback (Lover, personal communication, November 16, 2025). I connected with the professional the next week to provide the context of wanting to join the two narratives and apologized for the discomfort that was caused from my decision. Lover reported that my decision made sense for the moment and accepted my apology, Lover requested that I try and provide a signal next time. Lover and I then discuss using the agreed upon safety tool in the 74 future so that a decision can be reframed and/or reauthored to connect after session to discuss and support, as needed (Lover, personal communication, November 21, 2024). Overall feedback I received during this trial included nine instances of group members reporting some variation of group connection, collaboration and agency being the most helpful things from each session (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Meanwhile, six instances of some variation of tabletop roleplay mechanics, roleplaying in general, and archetype generation being reported as the least helpful things from each session. Group members self-reported twelve instances of feeling better after session, while four instances of no change were self-reported. Additionally, one instance of feeling between two numbers was self-reported firmly as the higher number, and one instance of feeling worst after session was self-reported. For the duration of trial one and trial two, the archetypes selected were: Artist 3, Caregiver 0, Explorer 1, Hero 0, Innocent 0, Lover 1, Magician 0, Outlaw 1, Pedestrian 0, Redeemer 0, Ruler 2, Trickster 2. Areas most noticed after session were: Behaviors/Actions 0, Emotions/Feelings 5, Thoughts 10, Sensations 1, Two Areas Reported (Actions/Feelings) 3, Three Areas Reported, Four Areas Reported, Unreported 1. Pronouns reported were: She/Her 3, He/Him 1, They/Them 0, They/She 1, They/He 1, Unreported 3 (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). 75 Archetypical: Trial three For the third trial of Archetypical, I collaborated with a fellow Foundry practicum student, Moria Trahan5, to provide feedback of how to develop Archetypical into a more psychoeducational group. My intention for this was to provide facilitators unfamiliar with tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPG) more comfort and confidence to deliver them. Moria was also agreeable to join the psychoeducational based Archetypical group as a cofacilitator to become more familiar with Archetypical and how it could be delivered. During our planning phase, we did agree upon supplementing the Archetypical psychoeducational group with a game group to encourage prosocial engagement with peers. We agreed that Archetypical would run the first and third Saturdays of each month, while our game group would be the second and fourth Saturdays of each month. For the first session of the psychoeducational based Archetypical group, we introduced Archetypical and guided the two participants (two Rulers) in archetype creation. Both Rulers reported interest in Archetypical as a system (Rulers, personal communication, January 18, 2025). Both Rulers engaged in discussion about archetypes, the positive and negative aspects of archetypes and the usefulness of archetypes in daily life (Rulers, personal communication, January 18, 2025). After discussion, Ruler 1 left session, while Ruler 2 remained in group. Ruler 2 reported finding the experience of creating an archetype as challenging but good. No questionnaires were provided due to questionnaires that I created were specifically geared toward sessions ran as a TTRPG. Moria’s feedback regarding the first session was to breakdown each session into specific topics and include multiple ways for participants to engage with and absorb information (M. 5 Moria was a Master of Education: Counselling student and the alternative education teacher for Youth Around Prince George (YAP). 76 Trahan, personal communication, January 18, 2025). Several suggestions that Moria provided were incorporating videos, slides, and opportunities to practice skills related to the topics. Moria was also agreeable to review the revised facilitators’ session templates to offer feedback about how to incorporate different modalities of learning (Moria Trahan, personal communication, January 18, 2025). The Archetypical psychoeducational group had no participants attend for the February 1, 2025 and February 15, 2025 sessions. An important note for these dates is that Prince George was experiencing a several weeks long cold snap during this time, which could have been a significant contributing factor, as even our supplementary game group only had one participant on the February 8, 2025 session. I did receive feedback from the lone participant regarding Archetypical as a system. The youth reports believing that Archetypical would work well on an ongoing basis on one’s own, among peers, or with families, as the process is ongoing and people may not be comfortable engaging in a group of strangers (Youth, personal communication, February 8, 2025). This feedback echoes a consideration that I had during the development of the both the Participant’s Guide and Session Guide’s Rulebook. Primarily, that Archetypical can provide a low-barrier, low-cost mental health support that can be run without a professional (personal communication, February 1, 2025; personal communication, February 15, 2025). Our session on March 1, 2025 also did not have any participants, neither did our March 15, 2025 session. However, I did facilitate the March 15, 2025 session for Moria and peer support (Archetypical psychoeducational group, personal communication, March 15, 2025). Feedback provided primarily revolved around a video about hobbies as judgemental, and the cultural context of productivity. Both the peer support and Moria observe that the concept of productivity is dominant in Caucasian cultures and actively opposes the paradigm that people do not always 77 need to be productive. The peer support reports that there is a militaristic drive for productivity that is present specifically in western culture that is not present most eastern cultures. This discussion was engaging, as I viewed the concept of productivity in hobbies as an investment in the self and not intended to be productive in an occupational sense. As a group, we explored the concept further, and I was able to conceptualize the peer support and Moria’s perspective when productivity was put in the context of being defined by productivity (Archetypical psychoeducational group, personal communication, March 15, 2025). Archetypical: Additional feedback Independent of the three trials, I had a discussion with Cassie Dussault, NP(f) regarding Archetypical. One of the aspects that Dussault reports was finding it easy and useful to roll a die in the morning to provide a base stat6 for the day (C. Dussault, personal communication, April 10, 2025). Dussault has been rolling for a base stat for a few months and has observed that those around must also have base stats. Depending on how another person’s base stat is rolled, it could result in positive or negative outcomes (C. Dussault, personal communication, April 10, 2025). Chapter 6: Implications of Future Practice and Conclusion Throughout my practicum, I had three interlocking goals that I worked on to build upon my existing social work knowledge base. 1) To develop and build upon existing leadership skillsets. 2) Co-Facilitate the Foundry Dialectic Behavioral therapy (DBT) group. 3) Develop and implement a brief action therapeutic modality (Archetypical program). I have been successful in meeting all three of these goals. In this section, I will be providing summaries of my learning, and the future implications and limitations of my learning. 6 The lowest numeric representation of an individual ability or skill that can be modified to gain a preferable outcome. 78 Leadership While I had some leadership experience prior to my practicum at Foundry, the placement allowed me to further enhance my skills and identify new opportunities to lead (Brown, 2018). Primarily, I have met this goal through the following four outlets: Developing and implementing the Archetypical pilot project, co-facilitation of the DBT group, providing social work support, and leading the mental health huddles. During practicum, I used Drolet et al.’s (2012) integrated theory and practice loop to strengthen and build my leadership abilities. By applying the principles of daring leadership presented by Brené Brown (2018), I was able to pivot away from armored leadership. Doing so provided me with opportunities of observe my social work practice from a frontline perspective to a leadership perspective (Brown, 2018). This reframe helped me support Foundry team members, such as Lauren, to guide decisionmaking from a systems navigation lens (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). By embracing vulnerability, and utilizing a “Power with” approach in reframing my social work practice, I have also been able to extend my learning to structural supports for Foundry (Brown, 2018, p. 97). Specifically, through creating a resource binder for provider/clinician reference, as well as to discuss service flow of person with disabilities (PWD) and person with persistent and multiple barriers (PPMB) applications with Carmen (Brown, 2018). Through my practicum experiences, I have been able to demonstrate that I can recognize and address structural and team-based needs as they arise. During my time leading the mental health huddles, I have been able to role-model empathy, curiosity and appreciation for team members (Brown, 2018; Reynolds, 2019). While my leadership style is not always formal, I use strategies of adaptability, humor and inclusivity to navigate times of uncertainty—such as, election years—to maintain my position in the zone of fabulousness. These leadership abilities foster team belonging and psychological safety, as well 79 as draw upon evidence-based practice. My practicum experiences will serve my future practice well, as I have been able to reframe leadership as a relational, ground and flexible practice that is built upon connection, collaboration and agency (Brown, 2018; Reynolds, 2019). Throughout my work history, I often start in an entry level position and work my way up into supervising positions. While these experiences taught me a lot about creative problemsolving and interpersonal communication, they never provided me with a better understanding of an organizations bigger objectives and how to guide people toward the shared vision. Throughout my practicum, I was able to learn about how an organization’s bigger picture can simultaneously work for and against leadership. Often, the back and forth of an organization’s vision results in difficult choices for leadership on when to pivot away from or to a particular objective in the bigger picture. From my practicum experiences, I have a better understanding of how I could live within my values in a leadership role so that I could navigate the often-turbulent waters of an organization’s bigger picture. Group facilitation Throughout my practicum, I was able to co-facilitate one and half 12-week cycles of the Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) group at Foundry. Unlike previous power over dynamics that I experienced co-facilitating the Adult Addictions Day Treatment Program (AADTP), I was able to experience a collaborative learning environment that broadened my perspective of facilitation (Brown, 2018). By exploring, experiencing and enhancing my understanding of program development and delivery, I was able to learn to scaffold and apply my learning to the development and implementation of Archetypical (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). I was able to observe how effective programs evolve with each facilitator so that the material feels fresh and each facilitator feels empowered to make meaningful changes to 80 programs (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). Through using a power with approach, the DBT group fostered connection, collaboration and agency among facilitators and participants (Brown, 2018). I was able to reframe the group cohesion and structure that I had previously found unimportant in AADTP to a framework which supports creativity, consistency, and transformation in group settings (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). During my group facilitation experiences at Foundry, I was able to learn that group facilitation is not required to be rigid and always delivered in the same manner—as was my previous experience in the adult addictions day treatment program (AADTP). The most engaging moments for both facilitators and participants came from moments that were tangentially related to the content being presented. One such moment came from when I realized that I was presenting a lot of close-ended and semi-closed ended questions and began getting frustrated that things were not progressing in the session (Archetypical group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). While I was describing the little input the group provided, I realized that I was engaging the group from what made sense to me, rather than how engagement made sense for the participants. Once I adjusted to more open-ended questions, the participants began engaging more with the material that I was presenting (Archetypical group, personal communication, September 12, 2024). Through my group facilitator experience at Foundry, I have come to the realization that I often feel at odds with the rigidity of some guidelines/policies, and the porous nature of other guidelines/policies in the field of social work. As a practitioner, I found that I fell back a lot on the British Columbia College of Social Workers’ (BCCSW) code of ethics and standards of practice during moments when I recognized that I was being too rigid, or too porous as a group facilitator (BCCSW, 2009). By referring to the BCCSW code of ethics and standards of practice, 81 I was able to once more incorporate the ITP loop into practice to incorporate knowledge with practice—a practice that often falls to the wayside due to the volume and intensity of human service work (BCCSW, 2009; Drolet et al., 2012). The significant impacts of trauma and poor mental health outcomes have been increasing steadily over time, without an adequate reason as to why (McGowan, 2019; Oakley et al., 2021). Current speculation is that the conceptualization of trauma and concurrent mental health issues have played a role in the significant increase of trauma and the impact on mental wellness (Isobel, 2021, p. 604; Mills et al., 2011). Throughout my practicum, I have introduced a novel and brief action therapeutic system (BATS) modality that utilizes elements of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) and narrative therapy using the structures and execution of tabletop roleplaying games (Kaur & Whalley, 2020; Gygax & Arneson, 1991; Linehan, 2014; White & Epston, 2024). I ran my pilot project for three trials during my practicum at Foundry Prince George between September 2024 to April 2025 to assess the development, implementation and outcomes of a BATS (Foundry, 2024). Through the process of implementing Archetypical during my practicum, I have gained a better understanding of the impacts of anxiety, identity exploration, and social isolation on mental health of children and youth (ages 12 to 24), as well as the understanding the role that a BATS modality can play in effective treatment (Beck, J., 2015; Jones, R. A., 2003; Jung, 1921/1971; van der Kolk, 2014). The contributing factors of impacts due to anxiety, identity exploration, and social isolation that participants would state led to traumatic impacts on mental health were often around limited peer interactions, the Covid-19 pandemic, comparisons of own lived experiences with perceived experiences of other people shown on social media, and, though presented positively by participants, TikTok (Archetypical 82 group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). The implementation of the BATS model has demonstrated that a BATS could be used to support trauma treatment as an alternative to traditional talk therapy (Baker et al., 2022; Shazer et al., 1986; Ray, 2021). As an already practicing community medical social worker within a primary care clinic setting, I do not often work with young people between the ages of 12-18. When I can, it is often through the lens of applications for services (housing/persons with disabilities), referrals to community resources (food banks/therapeutic groups), and supporting systems navigations (for example, suggesting specific questions to ask an agency). Through my experience of being a group facilitator, I was able to hear stories from children and youth (ages 12-24) regarding their unique journeys and how they solve problems. I was reminded that children and youth, while resistant to change, are far more likely to consider and reflect on conversations than adults. I then came to the realization that many adults I have worked with still embody far younger behaviors and logical reasoning then their chronological age. By recognizing the stunting effect some adults have experienced and live with, I can be more patient and better prepared to meet people where they are at. Archetypical findings The feedback received from group members throughout trials one and two demonstrates that there is an interest a brief action therapeutic system being used in some therapeutic environments (personal communication, October 12, 2025; personal communication, October 19, 2024; personal communication, November 2, 2024; personal communication, November 16, 2024). All group members self-reported having at least one experience that the member 83 considered traumatic prior to participation in the Archetypical group, despite never being asked. Group members reported 9 instances of connection and collaboration, in combination with their own agency as the most helpful takeaways from sessions (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Out of the four sessions ran, group members reported 10 instances of noticing their thoughts after session, and 5 instances of noticing their emotions/feelings (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Group members only reported 1 instance of noticing sensations, yet 3 instances of noticing both actions and feelings were reported. No group member reported noticing their behaviors/actions, or three or more areas at one (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). van der Kolk (2015) observes that, “[imitation] is our most fundamental social skill,” which, I directly observed in group members during sessions (p. 114). The feedback that was provided was consistent with Crawford, Perkins, and Wyatt’s (2014) assertion that the key to running a successful tabletop roleplaying game is to know and engage the people present at the table through exploration, problem-solving and combat. Furthermore, this finding is consistent with Arneson and Gygax’s (1991) assertion that a dungeon master and the players share in the 84 creation of a collaborative story where players are active participates, rather than passive observers. Despite the 9 instances of connection, collaboration and agency reported, all group members demonstrated these 3 traits during sessions when presented with concrete or abstract conflicts (Brown, 2018; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, Archetypical group, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Archetype choice presented several findings of interest throughout all three trails of Archetypical (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024; Archetypical psychoeducational group, personal communication, January 18, 2025). First, group members with previous tabletop roleplaying game experience presented as more exploratory and were willing to take more risks in session. For instance, an Artist chose to approach a stray dog that clearly demonstrated behaviors that indicated the dog was dangerous (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024). Additionally, Lover and Ruler were more willing to explore and interact with environment of a hiking trail (Lover & Ruler, personal communication, October 10, 2024). Next, parent/guardians who attended presented as more open to explore different archetypes that they strongly identified with (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal 85 communication, November 16, 2024). This was observed when parent/guardians engaged with their archetypes as peers with the participants, rather than as parent/guardian figures in the lives of participants. A clear illustration of this was parent/guardians using the random tables for reactions and emotions/feelings thematically to simulate being a peer to the participants at the table (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Thirdly, 3 participants between the ages of 12 and 24 self-reported either having a confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis, or suspected having ASD chose the ruler archetype throughout all three trails (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024; Archetypical psychoeducational group, personal communication, January 18, 2025). These 3 participants shared common traits of little to no eye contact, difficulty with abstraction (specifically, around questions of emotions/sensations/thoughts and things that the participant noticed), requests of specific and concrete information/details, and limited physical/vocal expressions of emotions/feelings (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024; Archetypical psychoeducational group, personal communication, January 18, 2025). The use of scaling questions was used to gather data regarding participant self-assessment of feeling between 1 (terrible) and 10 (excellent) (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal 86 communication, November 16, 2024). Both scaling self-assessment questions were asked at the end of session. Group members reported 12 instances of feeling better after the session, while 4 instances of no change were self-reported. Moreover, 1 instance firmly identified their experience as the higher number when feeling in-between two ratings, and 1 instance of feeling worse after the session was reported. The group members who reported experiencing the greatest benefits from attending sessions were attendees that attended more than one session (Archetypical group, personal communication, October 12, 2025; Archetypical group, personal communication, October 19, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Benefits that were reported during session debriefs included practicing the ability to pause before reacting, an increase in language around thoughts, emotions and feelings, considering alternative perspectives in situations that would typically result in distress, and being able to provide space for group members to consider how their reaction would author their narrative (Kaur & Whalley, 2020; Linehan, 2014; White & Epston, 2024; van der Kolk, 2015). Two instances of violence occurred during the second trial of Archetypical (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). The first instance occurred when a bully was introduced to group members at a park (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024). The bully attempted to cause disruption and distress to the group members; however, the group members collaborated to deal with the bully effectively through non-violent means. Later, the group members encountered the bully at a party. This time, the bully did succeed in causing disruption and distress in the group members. When Trickster attempted to stand up to bully, bully punched Trickster—this was a random roll and not a pre-determined decision on my part. 87 The bully was then forcefully removed by the party’s host (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 2, 2024). The second instance of violence occurred between Lover and Trickster (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). This was an intentional call on part, as Trickster would continuously target Lover with increasingly mean-spirited taunts and pranks (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Lover was experiencing an emotionally distressing situation regarding their partner not wanting to talk with them after inviting them over. Lover and Artist ran into each other and encountered Trickster. Trickster by this point had left unwanted gifts for Lover and attempted several times to scare Lover. During the encounter, Artist was supporting Lover in navigating their feelings when Trickster came up to them and began taunting Lover. The group members in control of Artist and Lover made multiple non-violent attempts to redirect the group member who was controlling Trickster. The group member controlling Trickster did not appear to understand the redirection and continued to taunt Lover. I took control of Lover and punched Trickster. This instance of violence resulted in Trickster redirecting behavior at the table and resulted in Artist and Lover apologizing for the violent response and inviting Trickster over to watch a movie (Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). A person facilitating a tabletop roleplaying game would not typically take control of group member’s character, however, in this situation, I took this action to preserve group cohesion and safety, as the group members who were most impacted physically appeared to become frustrated and began disengaging in session (Crawford, Perkins & Wyatt, 2014; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024; van der Kolk, 2015). 88 In both instances, violence was handled far more realistically, rather than cinematically (Crawford, Perkins & Wyatt, 2014; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). By this, I mean that the violent actions taken were quick and summarized within one sentence, rather than being handled in a cinematic manner that is typically found in tabletop roleplaying games. Group members during debrief, in both instances, reported disliking how violence was handled, yet no group members were observed to use the agreed upon safety tool to reframe or retcon either instance of violence (Crawford, Perkins & Wyatt, 2014; Archetypical group, personal communication, November 16, 2024). Archetypical outcomes and limitations The key outcomes that I can conclude from running Archetypical is that a brief action therapeutic system (BATS) can effectively support the collaborative exploration of agency, group connection, and trauma through a flexible service delivery. Throughout the initial trails of Archetypical, several patterns emerged that support the use of a BATS in further research efforts. Specifically, in the following areas: 1. Encouragement of self-reflection and emotional growth. 2. Adaptability across populations and facilitator experience levels. 3. Demonstrated potential as a low barrier mental health support tool—especially for people with neurodivergent traits. During the process of developing and implementing a brief action therapeutic system (BATS), the following limitations emerged: 1. BATS are often labelled as games, rather than recognized as therapeutic interventions. Through my observations, children and youth simply view BATS as 89 another game to compete for their attention. Due to this, the momentum and interest of a BATS diminishes. 2. The interest in a BATS among children and youth outweigh the buy-in. One way this could be addressed is running an adult focused group to study buy-in rates from children and youth. Alternatively, a BATS could be run and natural interest from children and youth would develop over time. 3. Facilitation challenges in future BATS studies may present in reading and writing requirements. Depending on how future BATS are delivered, work arounds, such as a digital application, might be an effective solution. Although, the introduction of a digital application will present its own unique set of issues. 4. The effectiveness of BATS with external motivation is unclear. All the trials of Archetypical were run without external motivating factors, such as gift cards. Even when gift cards and food items were offered, no increase of motivation was observed. Primarily, this limitation was created by me and the reluctance to introduce external motivating factors to the introduction of a BATS modality. 5. Competing external factors, such as limited in-person social abilities. Participants frequently engaged with their smart phones, despite having a very clear guideline of no smart phones to be used during sessions. It is unclear whether the engagement with smart phones was due to feelings of boredom, discomfort with strangers, or additional unaccounted for external factors. These identified limitations could be of benefit for future research in the field of the BATS and the effectiveness of utilizing a BATS within a therapeutic environment. 90 Conclusion My practicum experience at Foundry has been dynamic and robust. From September 2024 until April 2025, I have been able to develop and build upon my leadership skillsets by seeking opportunities (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018). Through seeking these opportunities for growth in the field of leadership, I have been able to gain a deeper understanding of social work practice in meaningful and transformative ways (Brown, 2018; Margolin, Madanayake & Jones, 2025). Through reconnecting with group facilitation, I was able to enhance and reframe my appreciation for program development and evaluation to shift away from a top-down approach toward one centered in empathy and connection (Brown, 2018). Finally, I was able to apply my experience and learning to the development and implementation of Archetypical; which demonstrated strong potential in promoting emotional reflection, interpersonal connection, and a sense of agency— especially among neurodivergent participants and those with lived experiences of trauma (Block, 2009; Brown, 2018; Margolin, Madanayake & Jones, 2025; van der Kolk, 2015). Furthermore, my experience with developing and implementing a brief action therapeutic system (BATS) has opened additional research avenues. For instance, studies focused on lasting beneficial effectiveness of the BATS modality in participants, optimal cohort engagement strategies of the BATS modality, and reducing competing limiting factors when using the BATS modality. 91 References Abosolon, K. (2010). Indigenous Wholistic Theory: A Knowledge Set for Practice. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 5(2), 74-87. Academy of Ideas. (March 10, 2020). Using a Second Self to Promote Self-Transformation [Video]. YouTube. https://academyofideas.com/2020/03/using-a-second-self-to-promoteself-transformation/ Aguiar, W., & Halseth, R. (2015). Aboriginal peoples and historical trauma: The processes of intergenerational transmission. Prince George; National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Allison, P. R., (2021, April 23). Tabletop roleplaying has given players comfort, connection and control in a world that’s taken them away. Dicebreaker. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/feature/tabletop-roleplayingcomfort-connection-control-covid-19 Almond, G. A., Powell, G. B., Karre Strom, K., & Dalton, R. J. (2000). Comparative politics today: A world review. New York: Longman. Althaus, S. L. (2002). American news consumption during times of national crisis. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(3), 517-21. Aquinas, T. (2006). Summa theologica. (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Micro Book Studio. https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/12251274,_Thomas_Aquinas,_Summa_Theologiae_%5B1%5D,_EN.pdf. (Original work published 1265-1274) Arenas, D. L., Viduani, A., & Araujo, R. B. (2022). Therapeutic use of role-playing game (RPG) in mental health: A scoping review. Simulation & Gaming, 53(3), 285-311. 92 Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-00564-0 Baker, I. S., Turner, I. J., & Kotera, Y. (2022). Role-play games (RPGs) for mental health (why not?): Roll for initiative. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11;1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-022-00832-y Beck, J. (2015, August 10). How you arrange the plot points of your life into a narrative can shape who you are—and is a fundamental part of being human. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/08/life-stories-narrative-psychologyredemption-mental-health/400796/ Begay, M.A., Cornell, S., Jorgensen, M, & N. Pryor (2007). Chapter 11: Rebuilding Native Nations: What Do Leaders Do? In Jorgensen, M. (ed). Rebuilding Native Nations: Strategies for Governance and Development. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. 275295. Ben-Ezra, M., Lis, E. Błachnio, A., Ring, L., Lavenda, O., & Mahat-Shamir, M. (2018). Social workers’ perceptions of the association between role playing games and psychopathology. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(1), 213-218. DOI:10.1007/s11126-017-9526-7 [Better Than Yesterday]. (2020, November 30). I increased my productivity 10x - by turning my life into a game [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6tLGo9yij0 Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396–407. Braganza, B., McKinley, G. P., & Sibbald, S. L. (2018). The construction of "trauma" in Canadian residential school survivors and impacts on healing interventions and reconciliation initiatives. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 38(1), 1-18. ISSN: 07153244 93 British Columbia College of Social Workers. (2009) Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. https://bccsw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BCCSWCodeOfEthicsStandardsApprvd. pdf Block, P. (2009). Community: The structure of belonging. Berrett-Koehler. Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead. Random House. Brown, J., Sorrell, J. H., McClaren, J. & Creswell, J. W. (2006). Waiting for a liver transplant. Qualitative Health Research, 16(1), 119-136. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305284011 Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths: How to Build Your Strengths and the strengths of every person in your organization. The Free Press. Bucy, E. P. 2000. Emotional and evaluative consequences of inappropriate leader displays. Communication Research, 27(2), 194-226. Bucy, E. P. (2003). Emotion, presidential communication and traumatic news: Processing the world trade center attacks. Press/Politics, 8(4), 76-96. DOI: 10.1177/1081180X03256801 Burns, D. D. (1981). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books. Bullard, D. (2014). Bessel van der Kolk on trauma, development and healing. Psychtherapy.net. https://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/bessel-van-der-kolk-trauma Center for Addictions and Mental Health. (2025). Trauma. Overview. https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/trauma Chang, H. (2009). Autoethnography as method. Routledge. Chodorow, J. (1991). Dance therapy and depth psychology: The moving imagination. New York, NY: Routledge. Clements, P. J. (2019). Dungeons & discourse: Intersectional identities in Dungeons & Dragons (105) [Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University]. ScholarWorks at BGSU. 94 Clifton, O. C. & Nelson, P. (2010). Soar with your strengths: A simple yet revolutionary philosophy of business and management. Bantam Books. Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 731-739. Combs, G., & Freedman, J. (2012). Narrative, poststructuralism, and social justice. The Counselling Psychologist, 40(7), 1033-1060. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/0011000012460662 Consorte, C. R. (2009). Character development of Dungeons and Dragons and episodic television (3703) [Master’s thesis, San Jose State University]. SJSU ScholarWorks. Co-Worker, personal communication, August 12, 2017. Crawford, J., Perkins, C., & Wyatt, J. (2014). Dungeon master’s guide. Wizards of the Coast. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing between five approaches. Sage Publishing. de Shazer, S., Berg, I.K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W. & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2): 207-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00207.x. PMID: 3732502. Drolet, J., Clark, N. & Allen, H. (2012). Integration of Theory and Practice (ITP) Loop. Shifting Sites of Practice Field Education in Canada. Pearson Canada. 11-15. Toronto: Ontario. Elfil, M. & Negida, A. (2017). Sampling methods in clinical research; an educational review. Emergency, 5(1), 1-3. Erford, B. T. (2015). 40 techniques every counsellor should know. 2nd ed. Pearson. 95 Fortune, A. E. & Reid, W. J. (2011). Task-centered social work. In F. Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (5th ed.), (pp. 513-532). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Foundry. (2024, September 12). Who we are. Foundry BC. foundrybc.ca Gates, S., Hegre, H., Jones, M. P., & Strand, H. (2006). Institutional inconsistency and political instability: Polity duration, 1800–2000. American journal of political science, 50(4), 893– 908. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00222.x Gibson, N., Gibson, G. & MacAulay, A. C. (2001). Community-based research. In J. Morse, J. Swanson & A. Kuzel (Eds). The Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp.161-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillis, A., & Jackson, W. (2002). Research methods for nurses: Methods and interpretation. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company. Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ginter, A. AC. (2005). Violence in the family: Social work readings and research from northern and rural Canada: Client confidentiality, anonymity, facilitator credibility and contamination in rural family violence self-help groups (Brownlee, K., & Graham, J. R., Ed.). Canadian Scholars Press. Government of British Columbia. (2025). Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/policies-for-government/bcea-policyand-procedure-manual/eppe/persons-with-persistent-multiple-barriers Gygax, G. & Arneson, D. (1991). Rules cyclopedia. TSR, Inc. 96 Harms, L. & Pierce, J. (2020). Working with people: Communication skills for reflective practice (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2016). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd edition). The Guilford Press. Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry research into the human condition. London: Sage. Hegre, H., Ellingsen, T., Gates, S., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 33–48. Ho, J. M. C., Chan, A. S. W., Luk, C. Y., & Tang, P. M. K. (2021). Book review: The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Front Psychol. 12:704974. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704974 Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Isobel, S. (2021). The ‘trauma’ of trauma-informed care. Australasian Psychiatry. 29(6), 604– 606. DOI: 10.1177/10398562211022756 Jaggers, K., & Gurr, T. R. (1995). Tracking democracy’s third wave with the polity III data. Journal of Peace Research, 32(4), 469–82. DOI: 10.1177/0022343395032004007 Jenson, M. (2023). Does the Body Keep the Score After the Game Is Over? Personal Identity and Perfection in the Resurrected Body. Pro Ecclesia, 32(1-2), 4-23. https://doiorg.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1177/10638512231205187 Jones, R. A. (2003). Mixed metaphors and narrative shifts. Sage Publications. 13(5), 651–672. 97 Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 6). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1921.) Jung, C. G. (2009). The red book liber novus: A reader’s edition. Sonu Shamdasani (Ed.). (M. Kyburz, J. Peck, & S. Shamdasani, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company. Kalaf, L. (2023). Gamification: How game design and narrative therapy can work together. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, (1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.4320/FWJY1582 Kaur, H. & Whalley, M. (2020). How to use your CBT skills to conceptualize relationship and interpersonal problems: Two new formulations to integrate into your practice. Psychology Tools. Retrieved November 17, 2022. https://www.psychologytools.com/articles/how-touse-your-cbt-skills-to-conceptualize-relationship-and-interpersonal-problems-two-newformulations-to-integrate-into-your-practice/ Kennedy, J. F., (1963, October 03). Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the dedication of Greers Ferry Dam. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-heber-springsarkansas-the-dedication-greers-ferry-dam King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001). Improving forecasts of state failure. World Politics, 53(4), 623–58. Kumar, M., & Tjepkema, M. (2019). Suicide among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (20112016): Findings from the 2011 Canadian census health and environment cohort. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/99-011-x/99-011-x2019001eng.pdf?st=1XK6AgDy 98 Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013 Krantz1, D. S., Shank, L. M., & Goodie, J. L. (2022). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a systemic disorder: Pathways to cardiovascular disease. Health Psychology, 41(10), 651– 662. DOI 10.1037/hea0001127 Lincoln, Y. S. (1992). Sympathetic connections between qualitative methods and health research. Qualitative Health Research, 2(4), 375-391. Linehan, M.M. (2014). DBT skills training manual. Guilford Publications. Levin, M., & Martin, A. W. (2007). The praxis of educating action researchers: The possibilities and obstacles in higher education. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 5(3): 219–229. DOI: 10.1177/1476750307081014 MacDonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37 Machiavelli, N. (2005). The prince. Classics of Moral and Political Theory (Michael L. Morgan, Ed., 4th Ed.). 482-526. Hackett Publishing. Margolin, I. (2014). Bodyself: Linking dance and spirituality. Dance, Movement & Spiritualities. 1(1), 143–162. DOI: 10.1386/dmas.1.1.143_1 Margolin, I. & Sen, T. (2022). Posttraumatic growth: Discovery of identity and deep-driving desire with Mahavakyam meditation in clinical social work. Trauma, spirituality, and posttraumatic growth in clinical social work practice (J.-A. Vis & H. M. Boynton, Eds.). University of Toronto Press. 99 Margolin, I., Madanayake, V., & Jones, A. (2025). Mahavakyam Meditation: a trauma-informed practice to cultivate wellness & resilience with social work students in the classroom and beyond. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15426432.2025.2467127 Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1998). The communist manifesto. 1st Signet Classic print. New York, NY, Signet Classic. McGowan, I. W. (2019). The economic burden of PTSD: A brief review of salient literature. International Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health. 1, 20-26. https://www.raftpubs.com/ijpmhpsychiatry-and-mental-health/articles/ijpmh_raft1003.php McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mills, K. L., McFarlane, A. C., Slade, T., Creamer, M., Silove, D., Teesson, M., & Bryant, R. (2011). Assessing the prevalence of trauma exposure in epidemiological surveys. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 45, 407 – 415. DOI: 10.3109/00048674.2010.543654 Morschheuser, B. & Hamari, J. (2018). The gamification of work: Lessons from crowdsourcing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 145 –148. Morschheuser, B., Riar, M., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A. (2017). How games induce cooperation? A study on the relationship between game features and we-intentions in an augmented reality game. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 169-183. National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Ethical principles. Code of Ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English 100 Nicholson, S. (2011). Problem of woman as hero in the work of Joseph Campbell. Feminist Theology, 19(2), 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0966735010384331 Nintendo. (1986). The Legend of Zelda (US). [video game]. Oakley, L. D., Kuo, W., Kowalkowski, J. A., & Wanju Park, W. (2021). Meta-analysis of cultural influences in trauma exposure and PTSD. Prevalence Rates Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 32(4), 412–424. DOI: 10.1177/1043659621993909 Parry, A., & Doan, R. (1994). Story re-visions. The Guilford Press. Plato. (2013). Republic. [Volume 1, Book 1-5]. (C. Emlyn-Jones & W. Preddy, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prochaska, J.O. & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38-48. DOI: 10.4278/0890-117112.1.38 Ray, L. (2021). Decolonizing action research through two-eyed seeing: The Indigenous quality assurance project. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 21(3), 95-114. DOI: 10.33524/cjar.v21i3.510 Reynolds, V. (2019). The zone of fabulousness: Resisting vicarious trauma with connection, collective care and justice-doing in the ways that centre the people we work alongside. Context. 164, 36-8. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://vikkire ynolds.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-context-uk-zone-of-fabulousnessreynolds.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjWgKCVldqMAxWiIjQIHT_qNX0QFnoECAwQAQ&usg= AOvVaw0R9F9XAyI7oMK1ttEH2OqJ 101 Sargent, M. S. (2014). Exploring mental dungeons and slaying psychic dragons: An exploratory study (837) [Master’s thesis, Smith College]. Smith ScholarWorks. Saulis, M. (2003). Program and policy development from a holistic Aboriginal perspective. In A. Westhues (ed.) Canadian social policy issues and perspectives. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier Press. Schroeder, W. (Ed.). (2021). Counselling activities workbook: Handouts and exercises for working with people. Crisis & Trauma Resource Institute. Schuman-Olivier, Z., Trombka, M., Lovas, D. A., Judson A. Brewer, J. A., Vago, D. R., Gawande, R., Dunne, J. P., Lazar, S. W., Loucks, E. B. & Fulwiler, C. (2020). Mindfulness and Behavior Change. Harvard Review Psychiatry. 28(6): 371–394. DOI: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000277 Scott, E. (2024). What is body scan meditation? Release tension with this targeted meditation technique. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/body-scan-meditation-whyand-how-3144782 Simpson, E. H., & Balsam, P. D. (2016). The behavioral neuroscience of motivation: An overview of concepts, measures, and translational applications. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 27, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_402 SMART Recovery. (2021, March 10). Cost benefit analysis. SMART Recovery. https://smartrecovery.org/cost-benefit-analysis Smetanin, P., Stiff, D., Briante, C., Adair, C.E., Ahmad, S., & Khan, M. (2011). The life and economic impact of major mental illnesses in Canada: 2011-2041. Mental Health Commission. https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wpcontent/uploads/drupal/MHCC_Report_Base_Case_FINAL_ENG_0_0.pdf 102 Stoewen, D. L. (2017). Dimensions of wellness: Change your habits, change your life. PubMed Central, 58(8), 861–862. Stolze, G. & Tynes, J. (2016). Unknown armies book one: Play. Atlas Games, 18-56. Stolze, G. & Tynes, J. (2016). Unknown armies book one: Play. Atlas Games, 92-124. Stolze, G. & Tynes, J. (2016). Unknown armies book two: Run. Atlas Games, 25-35. Streeck-Fischer A. & van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). Down will Come Baby, Cradle and All: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Implications of Chronic Trauma on Child Development. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(6), 903-918. https://doiorg.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1080/000486700265 Streubert, H. J. & Carpenter, D. R. (1995). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Sung, C. (2021). Therapeutic applications of tabletop role-playing games (1658) [Master’s Thesis, City University of Seattle]. Library and LRC City University of Seattle. Tanner, B., Plain, S., George, T., George, J., Mushquash C. J., Bernards, S., Ninomiya, M. M., & Wells, S. (2022). Understanding social determinants of first nations health using a fourdomain model of health and wellness based on the medicine wheel: Findings from a community survey in one first nation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2836-2846. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052836Turning Points. (n.d.). Internal vs. External Motivation. Ohio University. The Game Theorists. (2024, March 9). MatPat’s FINAL Theory! [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgxPlUgIqSA Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J. T., & Warmelink, H. (2017). Computer games and organization studies. Organization Studies, 38, 273-284. 103 Vijayasingham, L. (2018). Work right to right work: An automythology of chronic illness and work. Chronic Illness, 14(1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395317699450 van der Kolk, B. A. (2015). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Penguin Books. van der Kolk, B. A., van der Hart, O. & Burbridge, J. (2014). Approaches to the treatment of PTSD. Simple and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 23-45. Routledge. von Neumann, J. (1928). Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen. 100, 295–300. DOI: 10.1007/bf01448847 von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (2004). Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691130613 Walker, J. (2021, October 26). How covid helped tabletop RPGs go mainstream. Games Hub. https://www.gameshub.com/news/features/how-covid-helped-tabletop-rpgs-gomainstream-6028/ Weinstein, E. (2018). Social media see-saw: Positive and negative influences on adolescents’ affective well-being. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3597-3623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818755634 Wesley-Esquimaux, C., & Calliou, B. (2010). Best practices in Aboriginal community development: A literature review and wise practices approach. Retrieved November 18, 2022. https://communities4families.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AboriginalCommunity-Development.pdf White, M., & Epston, D. (2024). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. WW Norton & Company. 104 Whitehouse, M. S. (1999). ‘C.G. Jung and dance therapy: Two major principles’, in P. Pallaro (ed.), Authentic movement: Essays by Mary Starks Whitehouse, Janet Adler, and Joan Chodorow. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 73–101. Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social media and the Arab Spring: Politics comes first. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137. DOI: 10.1177/1940161212471716 World Health Organization. (2022). World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. ISBN: 978-92-4-004933-8 Wright, A. L., Gabel, C., Bomberry R. & Wahoush, O. (2019). An application of two-eyed seeing to community-engaged research with Indigenous mothers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1–7 DOI: 10.1177/1609406919866565 Wuest, J. (1995). Breaking the barriers to nursing research. The Canadian Nurse, 91(4), 29-33. DOI: 10.1097/01.NCQ.0000336675.48466.37 Wyatt, J., Schwalb, R. J., & Cordell, B. R. (2014). Player’s handbook. Wizards of the Coast. Yuen, E., Julie Sadhu, J., Pfeffer, C., Sarvet, B., Daily, R. S., Dowben, J., Jackson, K., Schowalter, J., Shapiro, T., Stubbe, D., & Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) Child Committee. (2020). Accentuate the positive: Strengths-based therapy for adolescents. Adolescent Psychiatry, 10(3): 166–171. DOI: 10.2174/2210676610666200225105529 Zapf, M. K. (2009). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. 105 Appendix A: Foundry Archetypical Group Poster 106 Appendix B: Archetypical Presentation 107 108 109 110 111 Appendix C: Session Handouts 112 113 114 115 116 117 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 118 119 120 121 Appendix D: Archetypical Participant’s Manual 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Appendix E: Archetypical Session Guide’s Rulebook 148 149 • • • • • • • • • 150 • • • 151 152 153 154 155 • 156 • • • 157 158 • 159 • • 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 Appendix F: Archetypical Facilitator’s Guides • • • • • • • • 184 • • • • 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 • • • • • • • • • 206 • • • • • • • • 207 208 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 209 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 210 211 212 • • • • • • • • • • • 213 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 214 215 216 • • • • • • • • • • • • 217 • • • • • • • • • • • 218 219 220 Appendix G: Archetypical Questionnaire 1. What is your name? This data is being requested and collected solely for connection with this group. 2. What is your birthdate? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding age demographics accessing group delivery. 3. How do you identify your gender? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding gender demographics accessing group delivery. 4. How do you identify your sexual orientation? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding sexual orientation demographics accessing group delivery. 5. What ethnicity do you identify with? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding ethnic demographics accessing group delivery and provide opportunities to reflect on appropriateness of services. 6. How did you hear about this group? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding how participants are connecting to access group delivery. 7. How many sessions have you attended? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of longitude (how long) group delivery has been accessed. 8. Are you a: Participant Parent/Guardian Professional Peer (12-24)? (25+)? (Any Age)? (Any Age)? This data is being requested and collected for the purpose of understanding participant status demographics accessing group delivery. 9. Which archetype in the brief action therapeutic system do you most resonate with today? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of data analysis of emergent themes present in group delivery. 221 Artist Hero Magician Redeemer Caregiver Innocent Outlaw Ruler Explorer Lover Pedestrian Trickster 10. What are you noticing most about yourself right now? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of data analysis of emergent themes present in group delivery. Behavior Emotion Thoughts Sensation 11. On a scale of 1 (Terrible) to 10 (Excellent), how did you feel before today’s session? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of progress measurement from group delivery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. On a scale of 1 (Terrible) to 10 (Excellent), how do you feel after today’s session? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of progress measurement from group delivery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13. What did you find most helpful from today’s session? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of program evaluation and improvement. 14. What did you find least helpful from today’s session? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of program evaluation and improvement. 15. What did you find least helpful from today’s session? This information is being requested and collected for the purpose of program evaluation and improvement. 222 Appendix H: Archetypical Data PRONOUNS SHE/HER 3 HE/HIM 1 THEY/THEM THEY/SHE 1 THEY/HE 1 UNREPORTED 3 ENGAGED PARTIES PARTICIPANT (12-24) 5 PARENT/GUARDIAN (25+) 2 PROFESSIONAL (ANY AGE) 4 UNREPORTED 0 SESSIONS ATTENDED ARTIST 4, 4, 1 ARCHETYPE ARTIST 3 AREA NOTICED AFTER SESSION BEHAVIORS/ACTIONS 0 CAREGIVER CAREGIVER 0 EMOTIONS/FEELINGS 5 EXPLORER 1 HERO 0 INNOCENT 0 LOVER 2 MAGICIAN 0 OUTLAW 1 PEDESTRIAN 0 REDEEMER 0 RULER 4, 2 TRICKSTER 1, 1, 1 UNREPORTED 0 EXPLORER 1 HERO 0 INNOCENT 0 LOVER 1 MAGICIAN 0 OUTLAW 1 PEDESTRIAN 0 REDEEMER 0 RULER 2 TRICKSTER 2 UNREPORTED 0 THOUGHTS 10 SENSATIONS 1 UNREPORTED 1 TWO AREAS REPORTED 3 THREE AREAS REPORTED 0 FOUR AREAS REPORTED 0 223 SCALE OF 1 (TERRIBLE) TO 10 (EXCELLENT) BEFORE SESSION 7 2 6 5 8 7 6 10 7 5 5 5 9 or 10 7 7 5 4 7 SCALE OF 1 (TERRIBLE) TO 10 (EXCELLENT) AFTER SESSION 9 4 7 7 10 7 6 9 8 8 8 8 10 9 7 6 4 10 224 FROM SESSION "Fun and lots of laughs" "The ability to relate and have fun :)" Unreported (Question reported as too difficult) "Mindful and grounding" "The music" "Role Playing" "N/A" "I liked the scenario (The laughter :)" "The different archetypes" "the people andthe comfot" "Fun Something to do i feel Better After" "It was helpful to experience thoughts and emotions different from my normal." "I liked the sinarios & having freedom to do/choose our own way. Also enjoyed roling for feelings & stuff." it was Fun Collaborating with others for a positive outcome. facilitation. Connecting with others having fun and joyful times LEAST HELPFUL FROM SESSION FROM SESSION "I was feeling a little lost" (when to roll dice) "I had to redo my character sheet (I lost it)" Unreported (Question reported as too difficult) "it was a challenge to open up and share feelings." "The dice not rolling on the #'s." "Waiting for others to finish character sheets" Unreported "0" "How long we took before we started. But it was worth it" "me nothing it wasrilly fun" Unreported "Still learning the way roleplay games work." "X" there isent Anything It was more challenging to navigate with a trickster in the mix! behavior of grandson. having another participant play the role of partner without it being discussed. nothing 225