technsolution

Resourcer

Resourcer was designed by Dana Montello

Resourcer will begin the game without explaining long term directions but rather point out possibilities organically. Each game is played with 10 players online and will have four rounds of play called "generations". Each round will last five minutes.

Characters will appear in the game at generation 1 with in a maze. Each character will start at a house zone where their money will be stored. At the start of generation 1, there will be a list of entirely randomized traits where every character will receive 4. The traits are as follows:
1) Color
2) Health
3) Property
4) Starting Cash
Throughout the maze you can find jobs that produce cash, but you'll have to beat other characters to finding them. You may also make money buy purchasing real estate around the maze. You can purchase your own house zone (eliminating your fee) or others' houses (you get their fee). There's no limit to the amount of property you can buy given the money. Every minute you'll also pay taxes based on income, debt, and the laws passed. You can propose a system of taxation: flat taxes, progressive taxation, or general sales tax. You'll also have the ability to pay for insurance, which will cost a certain amount, but protect you from contracting the "injured" trait during the generation.

While you're running around the maze, you can propose resolutions to alter the market. For example, you can give cash additions to certain colors or health levels. You can pass universal healthcare, which costs all players, but players no longer pay individually. You can pass restrictions on property ownership. And of course, you can pass different taxation schemes, some that will favor higher earners and other that favor lower earners.

At the end of five minutes, a new generation will start. Some characteristics will randomize again, but the amount of money made during the last generation will carry over to the current one. The game ends after four generations.

After the game ends, it will present two methods of winning.
  1. Rank players by earnings where the player that has the most money at the end wins.
  2. A cooperative winning where the average player will have to have at least 100,000 bills in assets at the end. Either all players win or all players lose.
Both tracks will be presented side-by-side. In addition will run hypothetical where it would show how the character's final assets would be different if they possessed different starting traits. For example: "If you were blue, your final value would be $78,000 instead." It then calculates how much of your value is derived from different sources. For example:
35% of your value was generated due to your maze abilities.
24% of your value was generated due to your health and color status.
21% of your value was generated due to favorable taxation policies.
20% of your value was generated due to luck (no unfortunate events like injuries throughout the game).

Would you like to play again?
This game works by using some impulses in games that can be detrimental in society (hoarding, winning at the cost of others) and pit them against one of the better impulses (desire for fair play, constant rules, and understandable format). By having two different aspects of winning, it questions what winning means in this sense. Amassing all money? Out-competing others? Working cooperatively within a system to get everyone to win by the end? In the end, who is the enemy: your fellow player or the system itself? What type of winning condition also depends on your starting traits. Starting with debt, lower earnings, and injuries will make out ranking other players seem less and less feasible (though still possible). These challenge our sense of fairness as we expect that a game (and life) is inherently fair. Of course, players can pass resolutions to make the game more fair, but they don't have to. This draws attention to fairness as something that is not innate in the system and that has to be created. Some players won't care either way, but the desire for fairness is pretty deep in gaming with other players.

The final screen also allows us to see how much of a player's success is owed to them and how much was due to circumstances beyond their control or the environment they're in. The purpose is to break through the sense we all have that our successes are our own and our failures are others. By giving hypotheticals, players can see that their massive win by buying up all other players' houses was only possible because of the starting cash or because of other players traits with inhibited their income generation. It draws attention to how choice is a factor in success but often not even the dominant factor.

The game is played over several generations to show that even "new starts" aren't really that new and that previous resources still carry over.

This page has paths: