|
THE EUROPEAN FUTURES OBSERVATORY |
|
The Game Mechanism |
|
Introduction A key objective of the project is to construct a set of inductive scenarios that provide us with a number of key milestones into the future. In doing so it is necessary to undertake a simulation of how the future might develop. This can be undertaken in a variety of ways, but one of the key methods of simulating the path into the future is to use a gaming structure to create the possible future paths. The game mechanism outlines the parameters within which the simulation will run and describes the ways in which the players (who represent the main actors in the simulation) interact with each other.
Within the America 2025 game, there are three sub-games – a technology timeline trading card game, and economic development game, and a geopolitical game. We shall examine each of these games in turn, but before we do, it may be of benefit to conduct an overview of the whole game.
The basic model on which the game is based takes the view that technological development drives economic growth, and that economic might underpins political and diplomatic power. This being the case, the players need to develop their technological capability in order to generate economic growth. In turn, a growing economy will enhance the ability of a player to develop and maintain their geopolitical strength. They wish to do this in order to achieve their national game objectives, which are determined in accordance with their national briefings.
The Players Each player is not operating in isolation. Whilst one player attempts to achieve their objectives, other players may be attempting to obstruct those objectives. This reflects the view that we live in a world where resources are limited and where national interests often can be mutually exclusive. This mutual exclusivity can often lead to conflict and competition in the international arena. In a game such as this, there are no clear “winners” and “losers”. Some nations will do well in relation to their national objectives, whilst others do less well. The challenge to the players, as a group, is the degree to which as many of them can achieve the greater portion of the national objectives.
Although we shall describe the game mechanism in terms of unitary players acting to achieve national objectives, a greater degree of realism is introduced into the simulation if the actors were to be represented by a team of players. For example, if there were sufficient participants for there to be four players per national actor, then one player could operate the Technology Timeline Trading Card Game, one could operate the Economic Development Game, whilst a third player could operate the Geopolitical Game. Above all of this, a fourth player could co-ordinate and lead the team effort in the game.
Using this structure, it is also possible to introduce a dynamic that captures the difference between democratic and non-democratic regimes. For example, the EU player could be given a committee of players to undertake the Geopolitical Game, whilst China could be played by a solitary player. Interestingly enough, even within the context of a game, increasing the number of decision makers within a team does act to introduce an element of paralysis within the decision making framework. This could be taken to represent the perceived weakness of the democratic decision framework when compared with the non-democratic decision framework.
Of course, this only affects the ways in which decisions are made. The content of the decisions made depend critically upon the methods that the players employ to achieve the national objectives. In undertaking the game, it would be important for the players to keep the end in mind and not to be distracted by the ways in which the decisions are made.
The Technology Timeline Trading Card Game The intention of this game is to provide the variable generation of a technology timeline that can underpin the Economic Development Game. We fully accept that this is something of an abstraction from reality. Currently, there are two factors underpinning long term economic growth – long term demographics and technological development. In abstracting away from the element of demographics, we are tacitly assuming that they will not have too great an impact on economic development in the decades to 2025 other than as they are having at present. Whilst this assumption may not be absolutely correct – the “demographic time bomb” is likely to have a differential impact over the range of actors within the game – we do feel that it is a reasonable assumption as the economic impact of the demographic changes will not be felt until the decades after 2025. If we accept the impact of the long term demographics to be relatively constant during the period 2005-2025, then the key long term variable that impacts on economic growth will be the development of technology over that period.
In modelling the impact of technological development, we wanted to capture three elements: 1. Not all of the actors are equally liable to develop a given technology. 2. There is no degree of certainty that a given technology will be developed. 3. There is no degree of certainty to the timing of the development of a given technology. These factors have been written into the fabric of the game.
Each player is given a technology grid at the start of each game. The grid identifies the key technologies that may come to pass in the period 2005-2025. They are grouped into five streams, each of ten key technologies. Of course, it may be the case that this structure of technology could be argued in different ways. However, upon consultation, we feel that, ex ante, this is not an unreasonable view of how the development of technology may unfold.
Each player is then given a number of trading cards. At the start of each game, the players are given the following number of cards: US – 10 cards, the EU and Japan – 8 cards, India and China – 3 cards, and Russia – 2 cards. The distribution of the cards reflects the current relative levels of R&D activity within the economies of each of the players. Unless they argue otherwise, the number of cards in their hands may not exceed this number. At the start of each turn, each player may decide to play the cards in their hand, or to return some or all of their cards to the deck and blindly replace them from the deck. They may then attempt to play the cards into the grid.
The cards are played into the grid sequentially. The element of uncertainty is resolved within the game through the use of a six-sided dice (a D6) to determine whether or not a card may be played. Each card contains the following three pieces of information: 1. The “gatekeeper nations”. Those gatekeeper nations wishing to play the particular card may do so without further resolution. Those nations wishing to play the card who are not gatekeeper nations need to have argued previously that they become gatekeeper nations in the preceding turn of the economic development game. 2. A series of dates and die rolls. These chart the dates from which the technology will be available, and the dice roll required to realise that technology by placing it on the grid. 3. Details of any pre-conditional technologies. In order to create a cumulative feel to the development of technology, we have set a number of technologies as pre-conditional to the development of further technologies. A player may not play a given technology unless a pre-conditional technology has been played onto the grid. Although these are the base rules of the game, it is entirely possible for the players to change the rules of the game from within the game framework.
The rules to the technology timeline game can be changed by arguing for the change in the preceding turns of the economic development game. For example, a player may argue that they have more cards in successive turns, or that some or all of the other players have fewer cards in successive turns. Alternatively, a player may argue that they have access to a specific card within the framework, or that they become gatekeeper nations to some or all of the cards in successive turns. However, in making these arguments, players need to bear in mind that they will only have a maximum of five arguments within the game, and that technological development might not be the only subject for which they might argue in the Economic Development Game. The arguments are a very scarce resource that needs to be spent wisely.
The Economic Development Game The Economic Development Game occupies a pivotal place within the game structure. It links the Technology Timeline Game with the Geopolitical Game. The role of the game is to provide the resources to conduct the Geopolitical Game by harnessing the technologies that become available in the Technology Timeline game.
The mechanism of the game is the argument. Each argument contains three elements: 1. The outcome. This is the desired culmination of the trend upon which the argument is focussed. For example, the outcome might be that a specific technology card is enabled in subsequent rounds. Alternatively, the outcome might be to mitigate an adverse outcome of a previous round. Within this game, each outcome argued will come to pass, but with varying degrees of success. A poorly supported outcome may come to pass, but in an entirely harmful way. 2. Three supporting factors. These are three reasons, from within the context of the game, as to why the outcome should come to pass. Three very good reasons will give rise to a very favourable outcome. Three poor reasons will give rise to an outcome that is only moderately beneficial. Less than three reasons will give rise to an outcome that does more harm than good. 3. Harmful effects. These are identified by the umpires and are incorporated into the game by the players. They may be minimised by three strong supporting factors. Weak supporting factors will heighten the impact of the harmful effects.
The resolution of the outcomes and the identification of the harmful effects are determined by the umpires. As each turn is set to cover a four year period, players are encouraged to think in terms of a succession of medium term trends. The Economic Development Game is best used as a vehicle to increase the resources available to the Geopolitical Game, or to deploy those resources in a more focussed and specific way. However, care must be taken, as the enhancement of economic resources can, on occasion, act contrary to the long term national interests of a nation. It is up to the players to resolve these dilemmas.
The Geopolitical Game. The focus of the Geopolitical Game is the grand strategic level. Just like the Economic Development Game, the Geopolitical Game is an umpire determined game where the key action mechanism is the argument framework. To move on their position, each player needs to deploy an outcome, supported by three arguments, and vulnerable to umpire determined harmful effects.
The focus of this game is a path by which the players might achieve their national objectives. Once again, the players might wish to think in terms of a succession of medium term trends that lead to the achievement of those national objectives. However, in this game there is far more chance of the national objectives of one actor impacting at variance to the national objectives of other actors. The game is designed to produce situations of conflict. A key point of interest in the game is to see where these points of conflict might arise and to examine the methods by which the actors resolve these conflicts.
At the end of each iteration of the game, the final outcome of the game is the scenario that we have generated. We will then collect the scenarios generated from a number of iterations of the game to look for common themes and points of conflict. These will then provide us with a number of key milestones into the future.
Conclusion In constructing a set of inductive scenarios, it is important to develop a game mechanism that works to enhance the development of the scenarios. It needs to be relatively simple to operate and easy to understand, whilst adequately capturing the subtleties and nuances of the situation that is being modelled. In producing the game structure, we have sought to achieve these ends. In doing so, we have had to abstract away from reality to a certain degree. However, in doing so, we feel that we can still capture the essence of the subject. None of us knows for certain how events will develop in the years to 2025. The best that we can hope to undertake is to identify a number of key milestones along that path that help us to understand events as they unfold.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan stephena@eufo.org
|
|
© EUFO Limited 2005
EUFO Limited is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, incorporated in England.
Reg Number 4947883.
Registered office; 6 Greenways Close, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 3RB, United Kingdom.
All rights reserved. |