Teaching about Marginalized Voters through Games: Avian City
Introduction
Background
America is composed of diverse groups of individuals who represent the true average American, not just those who are most accounted for in policies. But, in every election, we see a recurring problem of politicians disregarding and suppressing marginalized groups. These groups face different types of barriers, fed by politicians’ disregard for the value of their vote and their societal comfort, that effectively prevent them from having a voice in electoral processes. Policies are passed that include measures or have side-effects that keep otherwise eligible voters from participating in elections. Through designing a serious game, we hope to teach players about the many ways in which marginalized voters experience suppression measures in their journey to vote. From there, players can begin to empathize with these voters and understand that the unnecessary and back-breaking hoops that politicians put them through are actually intentionally crafted to filter voices and create the exact narrative that those in power envision.
Thesis
This project began as a continuation of our previous projects Voter Suppression on Marginalized Citizens and Can You Vote? to gamify the path to building empathy for marginalized voters. We wanted the players of our game to understand the difficulties that voters from marginalized groups face when they participate in the political process and to empathize with their experiences. So, we started by building a quick prototype, which we’ll discuss in detail in the Process section below, but learned that it would be much more valuable to, instead, teach players about what can be done to help marginalized voter groups. Ultimately, we want players to leave the game with the understanding that strategic policies are passed to disenfranchise specific voter groups, which then harms marginalized communities. So, we should push to see better and more effective policy-making that benefits a diverse population of voters and, thus, leads to overall increased community health.
Process
Brainstorming
We brainstormed game ideas as a team and collectively agreed that we wanted to explore creating a mobile game, because mobile games are (usually) playable by a single player and easy to distribute. We brainstormed and landed on what we thought was a promising concept: play through a narrative from the perspective of a person from a marginalized voter group. The story was grounded in real user stories collected during our P1 and P2 research phase. Through just a few playtest, we quickly learned that people found it hard to engage in the game. It wasn’t fun, because it was too real. We realized that building a mobile game that is serious, not casual, and still engaging relies heavily on high production quality, i.e. graphics and code, that would be hard to accomplish in the time we had to complete this project. This prototype game was also too similar to the Explorable Explainer we built in P1, and it had a major issue: the player empathizes with the character in the story but the outcomes end there. What now? So what? The player is left with no answers and we do not meet our learning objectives. So we pivoted, changing our format and method for a faster way to achieve both fun and our objectives.
Pivot
We decided to try building a multiplayer analog instead. The advantage of multiplayer analog games is that fun and meaning comes naturally from interactions between players, since humans are social creatures. In the same pivot, we decided to shift from a game played from the perspective of the hypothetical voter to the hypothetical policy maker. With this change, we could address the “So what?” by helping our players learn about the types of policies that affect marginalized voters and teaching our players how to make decisions about these policies that help rather than harm. We want to inspire people to think about these effects and decisions when voting on or making policies in the real world.
MDAO
We used the MDAO framework to design our game, using our thesis to inform our desired outcomes.
Mechanics
- Draw and play cards representing actions taken candidates running for local election
- Collect cards representing votes, and the player who collects the most votes wins
Aesthetics
- Bird themed abstraction on top of an election plot: represent voter groups as bird species to improve engagement and facilitate open discussion (e.g. people might not be comfortable talking honestly about low-income people but are comfortable talking about pigeons)
- Simple: Game should sound and feel be approachable — avoid complicated jargon when possible
- Realistic: keep all aspects of the game mirrored to real world electoral processes
Dynamics
- Competitive: motivate players to make strategic decisions to win
- Social: actions should affect other players or multiple players, not only the player taking an action
- Passive decision-making: make sure that players who are not actively taking a turn remain engaged in what’s happening in the game
Outcomes
- Players can thoughtfully make decisions about policies with respect to how they positively or negatively affect marginalized voter groups
- Players realize the value of investing more effect in marginalized voter groups because because it can 1.) help you win elections and 2.) improve the overall health of the community
Iterations
First Prototype
For our first prototype of Avian City, we used a total of 36 Voter Cards to represent voters. There were 6 groups of voters: 3 privileged groups and 3 marginalized groups. The privileged groups start as eligible voters (players can draw these Voter Cards) while the marginalized groups start off as ineligible voters (players cannot draw these Voter Cards). When players draw Voter Cards, the voters become their constituents, and each player can see all the other players’ constituents.
At the start of the game, one player was selected to be the Incumbent mayor by die roll. Other players play as non-incumbent candidates.
On a player’s turn, they would roll the die to determine how many Voter Cards they can take from those that are eligible. They also draw an Action Card into their hand and then play any number of Action Cards. Action Cards most often passed or revoked policies that enfranchise or disenfranchise different voter groups i.e. making certain Voter Cards eligible or ineligible to draw from, representing acts of activation or suppression. Sometimes, an Action Card would allow a player to steal voters already collected by another player, representing an act of persuasion.
Additionally, some action cards would cause City Health meters that measured the health, i.e. poverty, crime, and illiteracy, of the city to go up or down. If any of the meters maxed out, the Incumbent would lose (the Incumbent loses favor with the city and is pressured to drop out of the race). Otherwise, one player must collect more than 50% of the eligible voters (have more than 18 Voter Cards) to win.
We playtested this first prototype twice, with one group of 2 and another group of 4. The feedback was consistent across both playtests: the game was not fun because it was entirely luck-based. The number of Voter Cards you could draw depended on a die roll and Action Cards were also luck of the draw. There were no dilemmas to consider, thus no need for strategic thinking.
The learning outcomes from these playtests were halfway there. Players who did read the flavor text of the Action Cards felt like they learned some facts or confirmed facts they already knew. However, the different types of Voter Cards and different types of Action Cards felt equal weight besides the occasional effects on City Health, so our players didn’t understand why we distinguished between different types of voters and actions.
Iteration 1
Based on the feedback we received on our first prototype playtests, we made several key changes. We removed the role of the Incumbent mayor because it added complexity and no game value, so we changed the City Health meters to be a point of collaboration. If any meter maxed out, everyone loses and the game ends.
We introduced Coins and changed Action Cards to cost Coins to buy. Gaining Coins corresponded to raising campaign funds and spending Coins corresponded to effort in constituent outreach. Now, players had a decision to make each turn: would they draw a free Action Card or save up Coins to buy a more valuable Action Card?
Instead of drawing Voter Cards based on die roll, players now drew Coins. We made Action Cards that allow a player to get privileged Voter Cards free. Action Cards that allow a player to get marginalized Voter Cards cost 2 Coins to buy because we wanted players to feel that it requires more effort to help and appeal to marginalized voter groups but it’s worth it because they would gain those votes. The free Action Cards targeted the 3 privileged voter groups, reflecting the reality that these groups don’t face any barriers when it comes to political activation. The Action Cards for each marginalized voter group included content on policies a player could pass to help voters in that group vote.
Lastly, we changed the winning condition from needing 50% of votes to having the most votes at the end of ten rounds to make sure that games always end in a reasonably short amount of time (calibrated to 20–30 minutes).
We playtested Iteration 1 with a group of 4. We received similar feedback of wanting more strategy through interesting decision-making and dilemmas. Players liked taking Voter Cards because they felt powerful, but they weren’t sure if they were supposed to target a specific type of voter group. They felt that all Voter Cards were the same regardless of them being different birds representing different voter groups, so they did not think this had an effect on the game itself. Players expressed how they did not like how they gained Coins through their dice roll because it makes the game too luck-based. They communicated how they would prefer for the Action Cards to have different costs because there wasn’t much strategy to paying only 2 Coins per Action Card.
The learning outcomes from this playtest were still only partially there. Players did learn new information from the Action Cards. However, they still did not understand why the different voter groups mattered and did not think that the different communities were relevant.
Iteration 2
After the feedback we received from our playtest on Iteration 1, we made a few more key changes. We changed the dynamic of Action Cards from buying Action Cards to paying to play Action Cards. This puts more control, as well as dilemma, in the players to determine their own strategy and results, since previously, buying a card meant still taking a card at random, without knowing the effects of the card you were spending Coins on. Now, players would get to consider all Action Cards that are in their hands and only pay Coins to play those of which they desire the effects.
We also varied the cost of the Action Cards to be range from free to play to 3 Coins to play; the more Coins a player spent on an Action Card, the more they would get out of it. Again, the free or cheaper Action Cards corresponded to helping or gaining privileged voter groups and had more negative effects on City Health. Pricier Action Cards had more holistic effects and always served to make more marginalized voter groups eligible rather than disenfranchise any of them. To try to diversify strategy, we added different kind of content to the action cards. Some examples are:
- 1 Coin: “You receive campaign funds from a controversial private company. Take 2 Coins and increase Poverty by 1.”
- 2 Coins: “Your volunteer team hears of a strategy from another campaign team. Take 1 random Action Card from any player.”
- 3 Coins: “You learn to speak the Parrot’s native language fluently and gain extreme popularity. Take all Parrots from another player.”
Through these new action cards, players can now better interact with one another either by taking and/or trading action/voter cards from one another. From the playtest feedback, players did not really understand the purpose of the city health since there was a lack of action cards that increased the meters so the city never truly risked “dying”. Therefore, we added more content where the player would receive some benefit but it would increase a meter.
We also made several changes to our voter cards. We consolidated the 6 voter groups to 4 (reduced the privileged voter groups from 3 to 1) to have a more realistic population of 75% marginalized and 25% privileged. From the playtest feedback, players did not understand why the different voter groups mattered. Therefore, we assigned voter effects to each voter card group to add more strategy. Now, players can benefit from each voter group:
- For every Flamingo you have on your turn, take 1 extra coin (i.e. if you have 3 Flamingos, take 3 extra Coins, etc).
- For every Pigeon you have on your turn, you can hold 1 extra Action Card in your hand (i.e. if you have 3 Pigeons, you can hold 3 more Action Cards + the Hand Limit).
- For every Pelican you have on your turn, you can draw 1 extra Action Card in your turn (i.e. if you have 3 Pelicans, you can draw 3 extra Action Cards) .
- For every Parrot you have on your turn, take 1 extra Parrot (i.e. if you have 3 Parrots on your turn, take 3 extra Parrots, etc).
Since players were not reading the description of each voter card, we removed that text and added the new corresponding effect. We created a game board to place the voter cards and we added an election rounds tracker.
We playtested Iteration 2 with 2 players. We received great feedback from this playtest! Both suggested improvements on game mechanics. Since for every Pigeon a player had on their turn, they can take an extra pigeon, this created an exponential growth of taking Pigeon cards every turn, so the Parrot voter cards quickly ran out and one person had most of them. The voter effect of the Flamingo had a similar problem. One player began with 6 Flamingos on the first turn, so they quickly acquired a lot of Coins and could afford to play more action cards every turn. Both players had a lot of fun competing with one another.
The learning outcomes from this playtest were met! Both players were taking their time in thinking of how playing different action cards would affect how many voters of each group they would receive. They both tried to invest in specific marginalized voter groups since they would benefit from doing so. They did not question the purpose of the different voter groups like previous playtesters had.
Final Tweaks
Based on the suggestions provided by the players of our last playtest, we decided it would be best to make some final changes to our game play to make it more enjoyable and fair. To dampen the exponential growth of players collecting Flamingo and Parrot voter cards, we changed the effects given of those voter cards:
- For every 3 Flamingos you have, collect an extra Coin per turn.
- For every 3 Parrots you have, gain a Parrot per turn.
Outcomes
We hosted our final playtest of the game in class on December 5, 2019, with 4 players. Our final playtesters had a lot of fun. One of them even came up to us afterwards, unsolicited, to elaborate on how much they enjoyed it. Another playtester excitedly described Avian City as a great family game because “it is easy to play and can teach concepts even young kids can understand.”
It was also rewarding to see our players learning. During gameplay, players commented on feeling “guilty” when they could only afford to play a cheaper Action Card that negatively impacted the City Health meters. They remarked that the gameplay was really realistic, translating well from the reality of elections.
We also received feedback that the collaborative aspect of City Health was well balanced with the individual incentives to win. At different points in the game, one of 3 different players of the 4 playing the game was in the lead. And this time, the Parrots still ended up growing exponentially and was ultimately the deciding factor of who won, but later in the game than the previous iteration.
People felt attached to the bird theme and felt like it made the game less serious but more easy to invest in. All of these observed outcomes validated our numerous directional changes and last tweaks.
Future Steps
Although we changed the effects on some of the voter cards to eliminate the exponential growth, we still saw the amount of Parrot voter cards growing too rapidly, thus unintentionally making them one of the most important voters cards. If we were implementing another iteration of Avian City, we would want to change this effect again such that “For every 5 Parrots you have, take 1 extra Parrot”. This will help keep the game as fair as possible, ensuring that it is always anyone’s game. We would also like to make even more action cards, specifically ones that include more extreme interactions with players that can quickly change the course of the game, such as the Action Card that allows a player to steal all of the Parrot voter cards from another player. With these extra changes coupled with more playtests and even more suggestions and iterations, we see Avian City progressing further than we could have ever imagined from the beginning and hopefully becoming a real, productionable game! Stay tuned, you may see Avian City in a store near you…
