Simulating complex policy interventions in a ‚simple‘ boardgame

Geertje Bekebrede

After a long history of using non-digital games for policy making, in 2000 the use of digital games became almost standard as they could provide more realistic feedback and fit with the new demand from clients. However, after a decade of experiences, we observe that digital games have their disadvantages in terms of development and added value of using realistic simulations. In this article, we show that using a simple board game can be valuable also for testing new policies and has the advantage of a short development time. The example of the game Meter for Meter shows how a board game about the introduction of removing certificates supports the development of this new policy. Based on the outcomes of the game, it was decided to delay the pilots in the cities to think about certain issues emerged in the game sessions. This case shows that it is not necessary to have a digital game to assess policy implementations and that you need to discuss before the game design, if a digital game is really necessary.

Nachdem im Bereich der Strategieentwicklung lange Zeit haptische Planspiele dominierten, wurden ab dem Jahr 2000 immer mehr digitale Simulationen zum Standard, da diese realistischeres Feedback boten und den Interessen der Nachfragenden am besten entsprachen. Nach nunmehr über zehn Jahren Erfahrung mit dem digitalen Setting, beobachten wir jedoch, dass ein solches sowohl Nachteile im Bereich der (Weiter-) Entwicklung aufweist als auch dem Mehrwert in Hinblick auf realitätsnahe Simulation. Im vorliegenden Artikel zeigen wir auf, dass ein einfaches Brettspiel genauso wertvoll sein kann, um neue Strategien zu testen und den Vorteil hat, schnell weiterentwickelbar zu sein. Das Beispiel „Meter um Meter“ (es geht darin um die Einführung von sog. „Removing Certificates“, einer Art von Immobilienentwicklungs-Genehmigungen und wurde nach einem konkreten Bedürfnis des Stadt-/ Immobilienentwicklungssektors entwickelt, Anm. d. Red.) zeigt, wie ein Brettspiel die Strategieentwicklung für ein realistisches Szenario unterstützen kann. Auf den Ergebnissen des Spiels aufbauend, wurde eine Verzögerung der Umsetzung im tatsächlichen Szenario beschlossen, um bestimmte Themen, die in den Spielrunden auftauchten, erneut zu durchdenken. Dieses Anwendungsbeispiel zeigt, dass es keines digitalen Spielsettings bedarf, um die Auswirkungen einer Strategie zu testen und besser einzuschätzen und dass es vor Planung eines Spieldesigns der Diskussion bedarf, ob ein digitales Setting wirklich geboten ist.

1. Introduction

Low-tech games already have a long history of successful use in policy making (see for example Duke, Geurts 2004). Already in 2000 a new stream of using games for serious purposes started (see Sawyer 2002). The idea of using videogames for serious purposes and the adapted idea of using videogame techniques for developing serious games entered the tradition of simulation games. In some fields, the use of digital games seems the standard as can be observed in the following quote:

It has not been particularly common to use commercial board games as serious games; digital games are by far the preferred medium. However, board games are an interesting alternative to their „digital cousins“ (Castronova, Knowles 2015, p. 2).

Furthermore, policy makers became acquainted with videogames and their possibilities for realistic feedback and 3D interfaces. They ask for a newer generation of policy games based on the experiences with the entertainment videogame industry. Game developers could fulfil these requests, because the availability of game engines and increasing programming skills made it easier and more accessible to develop these digital games.

At the same time, a change in type of questions from policy makers was observed. In the past, they would like to get in-depth insight into the complexity of the system. Today however, they would like to test and assess the consequences of new policies (see Meijer 2015). By using realistic simulation models, feedback of policy intervention could be simulated in a more realistic way and hereby fulfil this new demand.

Therefore, game developers designed more and more digital games for policy related issues during the last decade. The game SimPort-MV2 is an example of a digital game for policy support (see Bekebrede 2010, 2012). Being a successful game for learning purposes it is still played and a new version is being developed. The game concept has been strong and the level of detail has been sufficient for the purpose of the game. However, long development time (> a year) has a large impact on the usability in the decision-making process. At the moment, a client requests for a game, the decision-making process is already started and often in a deadlock. Gaming is proposed as a solution and needs to be implemented on a short notice. A year of development was too long to play a crucial role in the strategic decision making of the planning of the Port of Rotterdam.

A decade of digital game design experiences show that digital games also have their disadvantages. One disadvantage is the long development time and the resulting higher costs, even with the use of game platforms and game engines. Second, if we look at the effects of games, we observe that (learning) effects do not always improve (see Meijer 2015). Furthermore, increasing fidelity does not automatically lead to better effects (see Feinstein, Cannon 2002). Now, we can observe a tendency to be more critical about the development of digital games for policy support.

In this article, we try to answer the question if it is possible to simulate complex policy interventions in a simple board game. Therefore, we evaluate a project about testing a policy intervention in the real estate market, to learn about the effects on the market value and behavior of the stakeholders. As the time and budget for the game development were limited, a digital game was outside the scope and a board game was developed to test the new policy. The game sessions gave an enormous amount of data of and insights into the desired effects and the indirect (strategic) mechanisms. These insights could consequently be used to improve the policy prior to the implementation. We start this article with explaining the advantages of digital games and board games.

2. Comparing board games with computer games

For a couple of years, there was a growing interest in the development of digital games. However, the disadvantages of these digital games have become apparent and consequently the interest in the added value of board games and other low-tech games have increased again.

As hard and software becomes more common in daily life, clients are aware of the attractive videogames and 3D digital environments and would like to use that for their games as well. Developers are typically asked „I would like to have a computer game, where you can walk around“, instead of „I have problem X. Can you develop a simulation game to support me solving this problem?“.

Another reason to develop digital games is the possibility to take more variables into account and use sophisticated computer simulations to simulate feedback of the system caused by the actions of the participants (see Bekebrede 2010). The changes in the environment can be presented in a changing digital world, which should lead to a higher immersion in the game (see ibid.). Simultaneously quantitative data of the performance indicators are collected and can further be used for reflection and research purposes (see Meijer 2015). In board games however, performance indicators and changes in the system are presented in a more iconic way.

The major advantage of board games over digital games is the transparency of the rules of the game. All rules are visible and clear for the players, while in digital games the rules are ‘hidden’ in computer code or game script. The explicit rules assure that participants can link their actions to the feedback more easily and have the ability to see the whole board (see Castronova, Knowles 2015). Having sight on the whole board, which represent the game world, it gives the player insights about the changes on a system level.

In general, it is cheaper and less time-consuming to develop a non-digital game. Despite all game engines, digital games ask for programming and extra testing. Furthermore, board games are more flexible to adapt to specific situations by adding more roles and changing rules. It is even possible to change the rules while playing.

Table 1 shows an overview of the differences between non-digital and digital games. We observe differences and conclude that both have advantages when used in policy making processes. The aspect of realism is the major difference between nondigital and digital games.