Thomas Fennewald

Background. Simulations of complex systems have a long history of use for the study and promotion of systems thinking , yet more can be done in identifying games that promote development of systems thinking . Aim. This study is an exploration of the hypothesis that FATE OF THE WORLD, a challenging and complex climate change simulation , can promote systems thinking about climate change. Questions. This article analyzes players’ engagement with FATE OF THE WORLD using three key questions : 1. In what ways does the game support thinking about climate change as a complex system? 2. Does the game correspond to players’ a priori model of climate change? 3. How do players relate to FATE as an artifact they embrace, critique, and tinker with? Method. 33 participants were matched into control and test groups , and experimental participants were assigned to play a full game scenario of FATE OF THE WORLD. Experimental and control groups were compared using pre-and-post intervention concept maps . Post interviews were conducted with the test group. Results. Concept maps revealed statistically significant differences between the control and test groups. Interviews revealed diversity in learning outcomes and the ways in which acceptance of the game’s model of climate change influenced learning. Conclusions. FATE serves as proof-of-concept for the power of complex simulations to promote systems thinking as well as in-depth reflection on key social challenges . However, simulations like FATE are unlikely to serve well as stand-alone educational tools, which highlights the importance of effective teaching to accompany the game.

This article explores the role of interplayer moral conversation in multiplayer games with three subquestions: how to design and use games for morality research, how advances in moral theory can inform game-based research into morals, and how game-based research can inform moral theory. A long tradition has investigated morals using games such as Ultimatum and Dictator; however, this research often omits interplayer moral dialogue. Further, when moral foundations theory is accounted for, analysis of these games seems to investigate a narrow range of moral reasoning. In this methodological critique, we draw upon data from gameplay of a simulation of climate change debate and find a wide range of moral foundations through analysis of dialogue. Our analysis suggests that in-game player dialogue is a source of rich moral deliberation and potential for using simulation games as grounds for discovering new moral foundations.

The topic of climate change offers unique challenges to simulation game designers largely because standard game mechanics fail to capture the complexity of this real-world problem. Climate change dynamics are characterized by the second-order delayed effects of carbon emissions on global temperatures and by political actors, who often have unique individual goals and asymmetrical abilities. However, many climate change games exhibit mechanics such as immediate and first-order delayed effects, zero-sum collaborative play, zero-sum competitive play, and players with symmetrical abilities and goals. By examining variants of an asymmetrical three-player common pool resource game, this research illustrates how inclusion or omission of mechanics found in real-life climate change impact the outcome of simulations and gameplay.