Serious Games for Climate Action: Designing Analog Engagement Tools for Citizen Participation

This study presents the development of three analogue games as engagement tools for citizen participation in climate action. Our serious games (purpose beyond entertainment) were designed to communicate the intricate parts of climate adaptation and society, where negotiation and mechanisms play a role. We applied modern board game mechanisms (e.g., set collection, action points, etc.) that synthesised the Minecraft-like mechanics of moving and transforming resources over an orthogonal/voxel grid system. Our design approach connected analogue to digital games, preparing for hybrid approaches and delivering flexible game-based solutions like print & play versions that are easy to produce and adapt for different uses. The games require printing coloured A4 sheets of paper, 1cmx1cm coloured cubes, dice (D6), and one timer (e.g., smartphone).  The three games work as steps of a collaborative planning process. The first game (G1) delivers an ice-breaking exercise based on frenetic negotiations (Happy Village), the second game (G2) challenges the players to establish collaborative decision-making (Flooding game), the third game (G3) introduces the concept of semi-cooperation since each player as a hidden goal (Craft my Agenda). The games’ sequence optimises the learning process of the rules since each game departs from the previous one.  Happy Village (G1) is a competitive card game where negotiation is the core mechanic. Players must exchange cards among themselves to have options that allow them to deal with the flooding risk in their villages. The Flooding game (G2) is a fully cooperative board game where players collaborate to manage and allocate actions to change the coastal occupation and build flooding defences. Craft-my-Agenda (G3) is a semi-cooperative board game where each player has a secret agenda/role. Players can only achieve their goals by negotiating and collaborating with other players to design a climate action plan for a coastal area. We tested the game prototypes with different audiences (children and adults of different backgrounds, including teachers) and observed the results. Participants grasped G1 almost immediately, requiring 5 minutes to learn the rules. After playing the G1, players came up with several strategies that were possible despite the first perspective that water was a negative resource. G1 gameplay promoted bursts of excitement during the negotiation dynamics. In G2 and G3, excitement was noticed in specific moments of uncertainty. G2 was more complex and strategic because it requires a plan to deal with the increasing impact of flood. The collaboration was transversal to all playtesting groups. Players discussed their decisions, considering overall strategies before making any moves. Other groups discussed decisions while playing. Although the game was more complex, the repetition of turns and the challenge progression reduced the playability difficulty. In G2 and G3, the role of the game facilitator was crucial to support the gameplay. The flooding and uncertainty stress engaged the players. G3 was the game that confused the players more because of the hidden information and the competition. Players could not help each other directly and clearly. Despite this difficulty, participants considered G3 as that better simulated the political dimensions.