Creating Political Game

As far as using politics as a theme goes, I suspect there is a feeling amongst publishers in both the mass and hobby markets that it can be a turn-off for many customers, as it is widely percieved to be very boring.

Personally, I think there are some superb themes and mechanics for games, and would probably find contemporary politics to be one of the most engaging themes. However, I suspect many games with political mechanics often get a historical theme, as the Reinaissance or medieval gloss has been going down well in the German industry for so long (although probably now near-exhausted!).

I'm working on one game at the moment with a Tammanay Hall theme. I've also been playing with two different ideas- a Presidential election-themed game and, more unusually, a game revolving around log-rolling and deal-making in congress (or a legislative assembly of your choice!).

The idea of the latter is that 4,6 or 8 players are equally divided into parties, but each have their own stance on issues. Thus, those who represent the moderate wing of their party on Tax will want to work with the opposition to prevent more radical voices in their own party willing the day. Obviously, such a game is very different from German-style games, which the other two designs I've mentioned are. But playing games with Diplomacy players, as I do, I thought something new in the negotiations line might be fun. It's obviously a legislating game, in terms of the 3 categories Peter suggested as convenient divisions.

On the topic of games modelling Presidential Elections in the United States, I think the electoral college makes things awkward for any designer. While I'd enjoy playing something that made it work, I would think anything that kept all the states, with their voting strengths, would have trouble making a balanced game. In game terms, surely you should just work on bidding for California, Flordia, Illinois, etc. for those with teens and better. It would be hard to simulate the fact that, in real life, such blatant electioneering would be frowned upon, and candidates are expected to make a nod towards appealling to and courting the whole country. I just fear anything with 50+ areas in is too cluttered and awkward. I've tried abstracting the Presidential race in my game, with a map representing six regions (meaning you can emphasise on the South, mid-West or whatever) and also a track mapping national perceptions on issues. The victory points therefore act as an abstraction of some of the factors in an election race-- you get some support for demonstrating local affinity, and other support from demonstrating the superiority of your platform on the national stage.

My favourite politicall-themed game is definitel Election (sometimes called "Election X") by Intellect Games, which Peter mentioned in his summary. It has a few difficulties, as discussed at length elsewhere, but it does a smashing job of simulating locality and social groups (indeed- I guess it is a pretty distinctly 1970's British, or perhaps generally European, way to think of the electorate: in terms of classes) in a game.

Obviously one of such games' difficulties will always be including multiple players on an equal footing. In Britain and the United States, certainly, there have rarely been more than 2 parties with a realistic chance of winning. Indeed, since Election was designed and published, British politics has become even more dual-partisan than it was then. I've been wondering if I can include an Independent candidate in a US election game, with semi-realistic problems, but whose victory criterion is only to perform well *relatively* to their start position. (i.e. it is surely a relative win for Nader when he is in a position to have decided the 2000, and perhaps 2004, elections).

Richard Huzzey.

Uh, which elections are you talking about? Every presidential candidate knows where his bread and butter states are at and, while they may "nod" at the other states, they spend their resources to win the states that will win them the election (or at least get them a tie where they can get the supreme court to help them out. :wink: ) Why shouldn't you make the game to reflect this fact? Yes, the game would boil down to a few key "battleground states" but that happens in the real world too. Elections don't hinge on if the candidate can win Maine or Rhode Island or Hawaii, they are elected if they can win in California and Texas and New York.

I'm not argueing that the game shouldn't be balanced, and if you could create a game about a presidential election that was balanced then I think we should let the politicians know so we can fix the real system!

Nah - on second thought, they'd just mess it up too. :D

Just my two pence.
- Geoff

Garret,

Where to begin...

1. Narrow your scope as much as possible. What elements of politics do you want to simulate in your game?
2. Research the real world facts surrounding the limited scope you've chosen.
3. Look for the game in it all. What is the goal? What are the key decisions? What makes the decision making process interesting?
4. Start to envision the core of game inside your head. It's easier to work out the kinks in your head than it will be after hours of creating your prototype. Once you've got something that works for you...
5. Create a prototype.
6. Get some playtesters and start playing the prototype.
7. If there are game play issues, modify the design to overcome them and go back to step 6.

Lastly, you might want to buy/play a few of the noteworthy political games. Nothing will stimulate your creative juices as much as experience. Play lots and lots of designer games (whether or not they relate to your proposed theme).

Sorry for not posting early but my internet has been down and I had to wait for the service call to go through. Anyway, I should probably thank everyone for the input on this topic.

I recently bought an ideology textbook to read since I was low on reading material and it has set many new ideas in my head, and I think a game with ideologies would be enjoyable. I recently found some time to look at other board games that tried to take this approach and they usually deal with political mechanics, war, negotiation, etc. Now I’m kind of moving away from my original theme politics but that’s sometimes a part of planning. Now, what do I have on the table so far? So far the game is based off ideologies so each player will appoint an ideology to play. The players will now need to compete to convince certain “groups” of people in society e.g. intellects, conservatives, liberals, hippies, etc. Each ideology will either favor a group or not favor a group. To allow for groups to have mixed moods towards ideologies they would need to be considered variables where they can change moods each turn. The change would be based on the actions applied to society e.g. society government approves nuclear bomb testing, thus the hippies are against ideologies that approve advances in science, and approve of the players with environmental ideologies. The society changes would be determined by the draw of event cards. I’m going to stop here but I think this gives people something to work off. Moreover, I think the toughest part is that the ideologies would have to very balanced to ensure a balanced game. Anyway, I hope you can supply me with more ideas and I will also try to formulate more information to work off.

Regards,
Garret Kinjerski