Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags
(1 edit)

This looks like a fun alternative to classroom debates about whose intuitions are more justifiable (not that there's anything wrong with such debates!). I especially appreciate how the "character roll" to some extent gamifies Rawls' veil of ignorance. The explicit association of game characters with different theories (Nozick's, Parfit's, etc.) in your background document was also helpful. 

Beyond Rawls' veil of ignorance and initial premises, are you generally able to pair this game with an additional discussion of the more specific political implications Rawls draws and the practical conclusions he arrives at? I would be curious to see whether playing the game might influence students to agree or disagree with Rawls' inferences.

(+1)

Thank you for the kind words! I implemented the "character roll" as a recurring feature (it only happened once in the first version of the game) after I had some colleagues read the instruction manual and give me feedback. So, admittedly I cannot take full credit for that improvement :) 

The game was played after the students have had two lectures on distributive justice, the first one on Rawls and Nozick and the second one on desert, luck egalitarianism and the value of equality. By that time, I think the students were quite indecisive on which theory they sympathized with, so I thought it would be a good idea for them to test the theories "in practice" to help them get, if not a better then a different, understanding of the implications of the distributional patterns / procedures of the theories presented to them.

My impression is that most students in Sweden are quite sympathetic to Rawls' theory since the Swedish "distributional model" is quite similar to many ideas presented in ToJ. However, to my surprise, as soon as the students played the game, most of them seemed to be more desertist or Nozickean in their thinking.