Store and flux – it’s a game

Summary notes for Abertay students – January 2024

The scope of the game was discussed at Abertay University on 11 Dec 2023 at a round-table meeting attended by SEDA Land (Gail Halvorsen, Lorna Dawson, Geoff Squire), and five students and their supervisor from Abertay.

First draft of the report by Geoff Squire, 21 Dec 2023. Revised draft with added diagram taking in comments by Gail Halvorsen and Lorna Dawson, 3 January 2024.. Further small amendments after final review by SEDA Land (GH, LD, GS and Pete Iannetta), 8 January 2024

The following is a copy the report sent to Abertay University on 9 January 2024.

SEDA Land Abertay University game on land use and food security

This document, based on discussion at Abertay University on 11 December 2023, sets out guidance for construction of the game. The text below explores some general issues. The diagram (Fig. 1) indicates the direction and sequence in which construction (in the ideation phase) would be undertaken, i.e., definition of 1) lose and win states, 2) products from the land and needs of the people, 3) the physical nature of the landscape, 4) the biological processes that determine ‘store’ and ‘flux’, and 5) management that sustains or degrades land. Further options include external threats that can impact on any of the above 5 and passage through time zones including mythical ones which allow various beasts to enter the game for good or ill.

Role of the game player

In options considered so far, the game player is part of the game’s world (immersive game), acts in the landscape, and interacts with people in the world. The player might be an ‘official’ whose role is to plan for a sustainable future, devise strategies for regeneration, and encourage people to cooperate. Or they might be a ‘saviour’, who organises the distribution of aid and knowledge and brings people together to fight degradation and danger. 

Spatial platform – landscape with units – islands

The game will have a spatial base such as a landscape which is divided into units such as fields, wood lots, open moorland, water bodies, etc. This landscape could be typical of a region such as NE Scotland.

The landscape is not necessarily continuous but may be divided into ‘islands’ which have their own characteristics and human communities; the space between the islands may be water or other forms of land. For example, the main use on one island might be growing food, on another it might be timber or power or livestock or housing.

The islands are not readily accessible to each other – there may be physical, social, economic or political barriers between them. Some of the islands might not want to work in concert, but a main aim of the game is to get them to cooperate so that they will all continue to exist.

Cooperation between islands can be facilitated by the game player who will try to get the various spatial elements to work together in order to counter the threats posed by internal misuse and external calamity (see later).

Time and the veil

The setting could be the present, some future state or even a past state. Any of these could aim to represent reality or could be a fiction, a mythical or supernatural state.

The landscape might have been irreversibly changed by a catastrophic event – for example, a great rise is sea level could have created islands separated by water. The game would then be about existing in a post-apocalyptic world.

There could be places in the landscape where the ‘veil’ is thin, where it is possible by chance or through knowledge to pass from one time to another. To give local context – in the north-east for example, a recumbent stone might well be the gateway. (Recumbent stone circles are concentrated in this area and very rare outside it).

The game player, though resident in the current landscape, might move between worlds to connect the inhabitants, or they might get others to experience the transit, but a basic scenario is that people have lost their collective memory of how things used to be, so the player must resurrect that lost knowledge.

Figure 1. Proposed content of the game following meeting and subsequent discussion in January 2024.

Internal production and threats

The landscape in principle provides for the various needs of the people but is under continuous threat of degradation through mismanagement. The landscape has to provide some or all of the needs depending on the connections with the outside world (see later). Given there are many possible uses of land, the game developers will need to define the actual number of uses (food, leisure, energy, forestry, hunting, etc.) or else offer options to gamers (e.g. increase in complexity with learning). 

The landscape and its units must be managed in a realistic way that can be manipulated by the game player or the people they influence. Each type of product (agriculture, water, housing, power) has defined limits in which it can operate, and if the landscape or units move outside these limits, then the activity slows and ultimately fails (as does the gamer).

Setting the limits is key to the game – they should not be so complex in terms of economic and biophysical processes that they turn people off, but they should have enough detail to get over the message. For example, continued food production relies on ecologically healthy soil and water, which in turn rely on a host of living organisms (in agriculture we call this B for A or Biodiversity for Agriculture). The community has to know about and to manage these living things so that food and timber production continue. The game should be explicit about these living organisms – bacteria, fungi, invertebrates, plants – but the degree of detail to be introduced here needs more discussion.

Limits can be defined in terms of ‘store’ and ‘flux’. In the case of crop production, for example, stores could be quantified in terms of carbon in soil and vegetation, while fluxes include sunlight, water, CO2 and mineral particles moving through the soil-plant system. In the case of energy, stores would be ‘batteries’ or a distribution grid while flux would be the power generated by wind and water. 

The communities should have the capacity to change land use or invent new uses – for example, cultivating seaweed, making grass edible to humans, tidal power, etc. 

Tension may be created by one or other of the ‘islands’ wanting to keep its produce for itself. If one island keeps all the food to itself, another might deny it power, in which case the people suffer and die in a bitter winter (as has happened). The gamer must convince them that the islands are inter-dependent, and should seek to re-form the ‘glue’ that binds people and communities.

A game of this type can accommodate a lot of complexity and interrelatedness between different elements. SEDA Land will provide a detailed representation of such complexity to aid construction of the game (e.g., by early February 2024).

External connexions and threats

A major part of the game is for the player and the communities to recognise external threats, be prepared for them and to respond to them. External threats include ash from volcanic eruption in another country, nuclear fall-out, war and blockade, major climatic events, alien invasion and mass migration due to catastrophe outside the game area.

An important starting condition is the degree to which the landscape is connected to the outside world. The degree of connectedness would influence the impact that an external threat would pose by reducing or severing the connection.

Connection might be through trade, especially in food and timber. These commodities would be brought to the landscape in exchange for exports of something else – power, industrial product, spirits, beef, etc.

This part of the game is crucial if it is to demonstrate the fragility of current supplies of food and timber. If external connections are severed, the community must rearrange its activity to supply its needs from the local landscape. If it cannot, or if internal degradation worsened, then the needs of the communities would not be met and the game player would fail.

Aliens and fabulous beasts

Scotland as a whole has a rich folklore, expressed in song and art. The game could be enlivened not so much by alien hordes but by the return of local fantastical beasts. For example, Kelpies were mentioned at the Abertay meeting, then there are Selkies (human-seal) plus a range of fantastic animals in Celtic, or more specifically Pictish art that could be brought to life in the game. An example is the Pictish Beast, which occurs in rock art all over Pictland and is unlike any known animal (but which some say resembles a dolphin).

The Pictish Beast, Two-headed Dog, Kelpie, Selkie or whatever could be called into the game by the player to help the community achieve their needs, or they could appear themselves either to help the humans or to annoy or punish them. Pictish art is very under-rated and unknown to many, yet at its height (e.g., carved stones on the Tarbat peninsular) is classic and deserves to be widely appreciated.

There was some unresolved discussion about such beasts possibly representing threats such as a disease affecting crops, or pesticides that are harmful to the ecosystem.

The entry of these beasts into the game would be triggered by something, perhaps a game player who had worked out the key to the ‘other side’, or as judgement for human mismanagement of the environment. Sounds fun!

The various beasts could also be affected by the environment. Perhaps Kelpies are generally good, like fresh clean water and clean air, but turn crazy if the water becomes polluted? Or perhaps Pictish Beasts like healthy soil and get really fuming if flux grossly exceeds store? Maybe the two headed dog wreaks terminal carnage if the ecosystem is overly mismanaged.

Music and sound in the game could be provided from the rich history of folk music, played and sung by local performers. Characters from the old ballads might even return to help or hinder (e.g., Bonny Earl O’Moray, Mill O’ Tifty’s Annie, Bogie’s Bonny Belle).

Opening scenarios

The game could offer several opening scenarios – possibly differing in the current state of the ecosystems (e.g. healthy vs already badly degraded) and hence in the difficulty of regenerating them.

Options defined in each case would include: definition of win and lose states, space and time states, production needs (food, timber, power, water, etc.), ecosystem functions that can be manipulated (including important biodiversity), human communities, external connections, catastrophe (type, probability of happening) and the land management options open to the gamer.

Lose and win – duration – who plays

Each scenario chosen at the start of the game would have clear win and lose states. Lose states might be where the people run out of food and starve, ecosystems degrade and get polluted to where they no longer support production, or a treasured life form becomes extinct. Win states might be achieving a defined balance between the various islands and units across the landscape, achieving coexistence with other life forms, placating the fantastical beasts or dispatching nasty creatures back to their own world.

There was little discussion of the duration of the game. For the purpose of demonstration at a gathering, a few minutes might be enough. 

Experienced gamers and game developments would need to advise on more general usage. The game would have different levels with each one lasting no more than five (?) minutes. Further discussion is needed on options to move to higher levels of complexity.

Who is it aimed at – perhaps three broad categories: 1) individual gamers, 2) school-group classes and 3) display at scientific conferences, exhibitions, etc. The game will be playable on PCs and an android phone. It will be downloadable from a website, free of charge.

*****