Phase 1: Initial Preparation

Basing simulations on historical situations is a common strategy (Newmann and Twigg Reference Newmann and Twigg2000), but Reacting games differ in that they are simulations of historical turning points. Before the games are played, students get a traditional mix of lectures and discussions that bring them to the brink of the actual historical situation being simulated. The game books include excerpts from standard histories of the independence movement in India and the French Revolution. The lectures, assigned classic readings, and reading test are designed to provide a broad outline of these historical events, not to provide the kind of in-depth coverage one would find in a more advanced course. Students are also responsible for reading the sections of the game book outlining the rules of the game itself. Once the reading quiz is completed and the instructor has reiterated the procedures used in the game, this phase ends with the distribution of game roles.

Roles in Reacting games reflect the goals and, in some instances, the personalities of historical figures. For instance, in the French Revolution game, most players are members of one of four factions: Jacobins, Feuillants, the nobility and clergy in the “National Assembly,” and the crowd of Paris in the “balcony.” (The crowd is seated at a table separate from the voting members of the game.) There are roles for individuals both in and out of factions; among others, Danton, the Marquis de Lafayette, and King Louis XVI are active participants. There are also a number of “indeterminates”: members of the Assembly who are not members of any faction and who by design hold the balance of the votes necessary to win as the games proceed. Each role has a set of clearly specified “victory objectives”; winning the game means achieving those objectives and winning is tied to a grading bonus. Stepping out of character or ignoring the objectives can endanger the person who does so (characters can be “killed” or “threatened” in both games) and her final grade. The character of the roles brings a level of discipline and teamwork (and attendance) to the games that far exceeds what I have found in other simulations. Further, since the roles and game strategies have been exhaustively tested and are included in the extensive instructor's manuals available for the games, a common obstacle to using simulations—the need to develop detailed role descriptions and playing rules—has been removed.

Phase 2: The Games

The second phase moves on to the simulations. In my course, each game took six 50-minute class sessions.Footnote ² The games take the form of a series of debates and votes on actual issues either considered at a hypothetical Simla Conference in 1945 or by the National Assembly during 1791.Footnote ³ Each faction member, the individual characters, and the indeterminates present speeches supporting their side of the issues debated. In both games, the speeches are supported by papers (four–five pages) due at designated sessions of the games; the first lays out initial positions, the others further explain positions in light of on-going events and respond to criticisms. There are two such papers in the India game and three in the French Revolution game. In the latter, the factions also produce three editions of a newspaper incorporating their views. Indeterminates can ally themselves with factions, but most prefer not to show their hand until later sessions when it may be easier to see who is winning. Like all Reacting games, these games have an open podium rule for all participants so that speeches can be rebutted and defended formally before the class as they are given. All players can ask questions of speakers or comment on speeches from the floor.Footnote ⁴ Students quickly begin to identify with their characters as the games progress. They also become adept at developing victory strategies, insuring teamwork (even among the indeterminates), and negotiating with other players for support. The presentations and debates also help develop leadership and public speaking skills.

The games, like history, are inherently contingent. The historical sequences in the simulations do not have to play out the same way they actually did. While the odds slightly favor the historical winners, all Reacting games are decided by a final vote on the positions of the factions. Victory is dependent on the votes of the indeterminates in the game and on the positions won in debates as the game progresses. In the India game in my class, for instance, the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress agreed on a compromise combining a new national constitution based on a very loose form of federalism, while refusing Commonwealth status for India.Footnote ⁵ Gandhi reluctantly agreed to it to avoid civil war. Gandhi's support swung the indeterminate representing the rural masses behind the constitution and insured its passage in a simulated national referendum. India cut its ties with Great Britain, Pakistan never emerged, and a weak central government hemmed in by protections for religious minorities took power.

Another aspect of the contingency built into Reacting games is the intervention of “outside elements” into game play. This can influence outcomes significantly. For instance, in the French Revolution game the crowd of Paris cannot vote on any proposals but it can denounce members of the Assembly as “enemies of the Revolution” and eliminate them (and their votes); in the India game, the Muslims and the Hindu nationalists can foment widespread disorder and the Hindu nationalists can assassinate their enemies. The effect of these interventions is determined by a roll of dice; the numbers that result are attached to particular outcomes. These “threats” raise the level of tension in the simulations and give some voice to non-voting forces. Students respond with a surprising seriousness that lends additional credence to the games.

The game format makes the theoretical underpinnings of political positions increasingly important as the situation in the games becomes more volatile. Both the papers in the games and the presentations based on them must present the ideologies of the classic writings assigned in ways that support the victory objectives of the character the student represents. For instance, all participants in the India game had to support or criticize Gandhi's ideas using readings consistent with their victory objectives. Similarly, in the French Revolution game, the various factions and characters must all either defend or refute the theories in Rousseau's The Social Contract and Burke's Reflections in their papers and in debate. This forced students back to their required readings to understand what the authors were saying and how to use their arguments effectively. Since all students know that their positions will be publicly opposed by their faction's opponents and that the grade they receive for their papers and their participation will be partly determined by their use of arguments from the classic readings, they must develop enough command of the material to stand their ground effectively on paper and in person. The level of understanding reached as a consequence is well beyond what would normally be expected of freshman students.

Finally, although the actual conduct and results of the games are in the hands of the students themselves, as “gamemasters” instructors play a vital role. Students must be kept on track and in character in order for the games to work. In my course, this took a considerable amount of email and personal contact with individual students and factions both during the game sessions and afterward, usually to remind them of their victory objectives. Further, gamemasters must intervene in some circumstances to help decide the course of the game. In keeping with the contingent elements in both games, I had to throw dice to determine the effect of uprisings by either the crowd of Paris or the Hindu nationalists and the Muslims. I also introduced documents at the end of each session in both games that influenced strategies at the next session. Occasionally, I would also have to intervene as the instructor to answer questions about game and grading procedures or, more commonly, to force an end to debate.

Phase 3: Debriefing the Games

After the last game session, the pedagogy again reverts to a more conventional framework. In Reacting games, the last assignment of the second phase is to read the sections in the game book concerning the actual outcome of the events in the simulation. This provides background for a discussion of the way the game played out and why. At this point, all students revealed their victory objectives and discussed why they had either succeeded or failed. This can be quite instructive. For example, in my class the French Revolution stalled due to the crowd heeding the advice of their factional allies, the Jacobins. The Jacobin objectives included controlling the influence of the crowd by limiting crowd assaults on the nobility and clergy. The result was that not enough inroads were made into the voting strength of the nobles. When the nobility joined the Feuillants to suppress the crowd and the Jacobins in the game's last session, the majority of the indeterminates, seeing which way the wind blew, joined them. By referring to this outcome in our class discussion, I was able to make some trenchant points referring to the opportunistic response of different Iraqi factions to the Iraqi Constitution and the difficulties of establishing sovereign governments in revolutionary situations. Similarly, the India game made the intransigence of the various ethnic groups in Iraq, despite the potential gains from cooperation, much easier for the students to understand. After all, they had been intransigent themselves in a similar situation.

Iraq and “Lessons Learned”

After the games were completed, the final section of the course involved a three-week examination of Iraq. The students read Nir Rosen's (Reference Rosen2006) In the Belly of the Green Bird as the main text and were responsible for some additional readings. A final four–five page paper on Iraq was also assigned. While this part of the course also used a lecture and discussion format, the game experience bled over into the final classes in unexpected ways. One of the discussions involved parts of the class answering questions about Iraq from the perspective of various American and Iraqi characters in Rosen's book. When the students realized that they had been divided into Iraqi and American factions, they turned the class into a shortened game! They assigned roles within the factions and came up with some basic rules for debate. I quickly abandoned my original lesson plan and reverted to being gamemaster. I have seldom been so gratified in a classroom.