So this IAP, there’s a session about creating an educational board game about global warming. I don’t really know what that means, and I probably won’t be able to find out, because the sessions are 2-5 during the day; right when I work. Nevertheless, I love board games and couldn’t help but start to think about how to turn the game-theory aspects of the global warming problem into a fun board game (because if I’m not in the class, why worry about educational when it could be just fun?).
1. In real life, the winner is the country with the best economy/happiest citizens, not the one who prevents global warming, so that’s how the game must work, too.
2. Global warming requires cooperation, but per point 1, everyone also has to compete.
3. Preventing global warming presents a cost, and if it is prevented, the benefit is constant to all players. Thus, it’s best to be a free-rider on any solution.
4. Global warming won’t happen for certain. Even if it does happen, we have no idea when it will occur or what the impact will be. This means we need a mechanism to randomly decide each turn if global warming occurs, how severe the impact is, and a time limit on the game, so that it maybe doesn’t happen.
5. There has to be a way for all people to lose. Otherwise, no one would ever try to prevent global warming; they’ll just try to be the best after it does occur. This competes against the free-rider problem.
6. I think this game needs a victory point system. Victory points can be spent on something that prevents global warming (enviro-chips?). Every turn, players tell the other players how many enviro-chips they have; however, they don’t need to tell the truth (these are governments releasing figures on pollution). Victory points can also be spent on things that get more victory points (industry; maybe R&D as well?), but may produce more pollution (or maybe just the fact that you’re not buying enviro-chips is enough “pollution”).
7. Global warming takes a bunch of VPs (half?) from everyone and makes it harder to get more.
8. There’s a minimum number of VPs required to win and a limited number of turns (also random?).
9. If global warming is prevented (determined by counting total enviro-chips at the time of global warming and comparing them to the number required to prevent global warming, which is determined by a severity roll, also at the time of global warming), instead of losing VPs, everyone gets some small number (same to everyone, though)
10. Trade needs to be a part of the game, which helps you get VPs. This is so that players can punish someone who is not going along with saving the planet (or the other way around). Table talk is encouraged, so that people can come up with a plan/convince others to finance more of global warming.
11. The minimum severity of global warming must be big enough that it’s not realistic for a single player to prevent it (or maybe if it is possible, that player has no chance of winning)
—————–
Well, I know it’s not very organized, but those are a few thoughts I had. Maybe I’ll actually try to flesh it out a bit more, since I think this sounds like it could actually be a really good game. Anyone else have any ideas?
