Digital Democracy

Gaming that which shouldn't be gamed has always been an interesting concept for me and my friends. We're wargamers, so we tend to focus on cataclysmic events in human history as examples of man's best traits, as well as man's worst failings. As I read about the kinds of historiographical games and how they each portray different, often highly controversial, views of the progression of human events, it became clear that the procedures in place in these games, such as 9/11 Survivor, Kuma/War, or Waco Revisited are designed to do exactly what I and my friends want to do: make people think about the most unthinkable moments in human history, and then force them to make choices about how they would address those circumstances.

For example, in JFK Reloaded, the player is forced to consider many different approaches to shooting President Kennedy. The physics engine allows for inertia, so shooting the driver is a valid option. Shooting the President directly is also an option, but it is very difficult to reproduce the Warren Commission's three shots as exactly as Oswald was supposed to have done.

In my friends' game design, players are given a set of models and rules to apply to any given situation. Our first example, which we hope to playtest in the next few months, is the Flight 93 scenario. By providing our players with models of the passengers and terrorists, as well as procedures for accounting for passenger fear and terrorist aggression, we hope to demonstrate the kinds of emotions and combat conditions both the terrorists and the passengers faced in their respective roles. As gamers, this appeals to our senses of historical accuracy as well as a kind of voyeurism. We will never know what went through the minds of those passengers and terrorists, but we can approximate it. These procedural choices will hopefully allow players to gain some insight into those high-tension conditions.

The Dean for Iowa Game serves as an example of procedures serving a different purpose. By focusing on the actions of a campaign worker, which is a very difficult task under the best circumstances, the game demonstrates the kinds of outreach activities available to the modern political organizer. I don't think that it's necessarily a bad game, but I do think, as Trundle writes, that the game should have focused more on Dean's positions rather than the difficulty of handing out pamphlets. This game is an example of concept defeating a good game design. This contrasts the games produced by the RNC to support their candidates: While the game design and procedures may seem simple, they at least include information about their campaign's political ideals and approaches.