Players

More information will be added to this page as decisions are made.

Who can play the game?

Players will initially be sought from the playtesters and game designers I know. I then need to figure out who to open it up to.

Costs for playing are currently undecided. As it’s such an experimental game really the most I can ask for is feedback, but also I wonder if some nominal charge would ensure people make more of a conscious decision to participate, and also helps me experiment with how this might be run as a commercial entity.

If you’re interested in the idea and want to be notified, email “subscribe-wwe1 at conflict.games” and you’ll be notified when the experiment can start.

What time commitment is expected from players?

That’s currently to be determined, but I’m aiming for around one or two hours per fortnight.

If players have a specialism in a related area they can go into much more detail in their moves or research, but I want that to be optional.

Will players be known to each other?

While it’s only a little pretentious, I put together a game design manifesto to help me think around what I actually wanted to build. Especially in the field of serious games, I think players only having information on other players through the game, and not any other kind of external context, is key. It stops players “meta-gaming” by know each others’ general style of play and personality, and also any previous decisions in different games affecting the current game.

Also in this specific case, players in professional positions related to the subject matter would find playing the game especially useful, but also have the more to lose if they make mistakes, or experiment in the game with the kind of decisions or roles that they just wouldn’t have in the real world. Also those players are the more useful to the game, but the direct tie to their identity in the real world would impair their actions.

I will be working out how to have players participate in the game, while hiding their real identity, as long as they don’t take part in any real time audio or video conversations of course.

Observers

The game is designed to take a little time each turn, so that players have something to think about and consider.

Also each role in the game will be an organisation, even if it has a notable figurehead or leader, I’m imagining players as deciding what the group does as a whole, rather than having a one-to-one relationship with specific members of that group. But I need to think on that and see if it works.

If you’re interested in the game but, for whatever reason, can’t or don’t want to play, but still have expertise in the area - I’m wondering about the role of “observer”. Someone is just interested to see what decisions players make, or who could contribute expertise to discussions and adjudications without taking on a role or having to submit orders.

I have in mind the following two rules for observers:

• Make The Game Right - considering the breadth of the subject I expect there to be holes or discrepancies in the scenario. If observers discover these, rather than just highlighting them… how can you explain them? Not only will a sufficient explanation ensure that the game runs more smoothly, but it’s also a more interesting mental challenge.
• Arguments Aren’t Won - the point of the game is to explore the format, and to learn more about the effects of this kind of natural disaster - especially the second order and third order effects. If you disagree with a decision or portrayal that should be highlighted in an appropriate section, such as a “Talk” section on a wiki page.