Grade Level: 4 - 12
The Road Game is about competition and cooperation, teamwork and chaos, perception and misperception, communication and conflict resolution. It is a game about the many ways that people interact when they are members of teams and when they have a job to do.
In The Road Game, four groups interact by drawing "roads" from one area of a map to another. The groups choose leaders who negotiate with each other to build roads and resolve conflicts, first through bargaining or direct action and later through a judicial procedure. The game has analogies to the behavior of nations, and it can also illuminate group and individual functioning in a community.
The Road Game requires about an hour and a half to play, divided more or less equally into initial road building, judicial review, and overall debriefing and discussion. The contrast between the sometimes chaotic road-building negotiations and the orderly judicial process, as well as the political interaction throughout, provides rich experimental data for the debriefing which completes the learning experience. The game is designed to be open ended and amenable to many interpretations, depending upon the interests and needs of both teacher and students. It has been used successfully with students from 4th grade through college, as well as with adult education classes. The emphasis and depth of the abstract analysis of the experience differ with maturity, but it is surprising how often children reach some of the same insights into the group process that graduate students do. The emotional impact is also often similar.
People interested in international affairs feel that this game brings out several important principles of intergroup behavior, especially in relation to war and peace or diplomacy. People interested in the principles of perception or projection of meaning see those as paramount. Some see moral education as the major use for The Road Game. The classic question of whether man is by nature competitive or cooperative can also be the key issue. In fact, all these elements are present in this group experience.
Games are for fun. They are also "behavioral metaphors" in that the meaning is conveyed rather indirectly, much as it is carried by myths, rituals, or even works of art. Abstract analysis helps us understand the parts of an experience, but the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. Just being "in it together" is one aspect of that greater whole. So, take the experience apart after the game, and find out what it means to you and the students. But, if you don't hit every single point in your debriefing session, do what you can and trust that time will take care of many of the other points later.
Since people seem to learn more when they are emotionally involved and enjoying themselves, let yourself go too. This is a new and different way to think about teaching and learning, and is often difficult to switch to at first; probably because so much of the emphasis in traditional education was concentrated upon content that was supposed to be put into the students' heads. Old training and habits are hard to drop. This time, you aren't responsible for putting in at all. You don't have to be. Just help the students put it into their own heads-or rather, take it all in as a part of their whole selves.
This version of the game is designed for students from about 4th grade through high school. It can be played by classes of 32 or less, divided into 4 teams; but it works best for groups of 16-24 people.
Students will be able to:
If paint and paper all over the floor are impossible where you are, try spreading the four squares of colored paper on a large table. You could use one huge spread of newsprint, if necessary, marked into the four squares. A table confines this game a little, but not as much as expected-especially if the class is small.
Put the paint jars at the ready just beyond the edge of the game board, but on the newsprint. Match up blue paint with blue paper, red paint with red paper, etc.
Be sure you have at least 6' of open space all around the game board, for people to move about in.
Clutch the paint brushes firmly in a death-like grip and do NOT hand them out until you are ready to begin.
As with most simulations, The Road Game is most effective if played and debriefed immediately-a process that usually takes about 1 1/2 hours. However, it can be spread over two or three class periods if necessary, as follows:
Period 1 Introduce the game, make up groups, hand out materials, and play the game (roughly 20 minutes). Don't hold the hearing or the discussion.
Period 2 Do the hearing about who got how many roads, and who cheated as well as who "won." Do the preliminary discussion on one or two points.
Period 3 No holds barred. Complete the debriefing and relate to other school work; especially to experiences outside the classroom.
Tell your students that this is a game about territory. Explain that the main business in this game is building roads from each team's own territory, through other territories, to the perimeter of the map. Each team will decide where they want to build their roads and how to negotiate with the diplomats or leaders from the other sovereign "countries" for permission to cross their land.
You can assign personalities to each team, and you can have the students invent their own national history, flag, climate, topography, major products, and even their own national literature and arts. They could develop" their nation, building cities and roads within their own country before the game itself starts. If you try this, count on at least one extra class session, and probably more, with extra planning time outside of class. This is often a great deal of fun and adds a lot to the game.
You could also emphasize ecological issues or some other topic that interests you and your students, or leave out all pre-game preparation and just see what happens.
When you and the students are ready, and the game board is all arranged, it's time to start:
Additional Optional Rules
A. All roads must be neat in order to count. (Note: Enforcement and the definition of "neat" are up to the class during the hearing.)
B. Choose one of the following:
You can move the excitement along by pretending a dramatic final countdown: "Two minutes, one minute, 30 seconds, STOP!" This ploy is useful to get to final closure or when becoming tired, as well as when time is really running out. It works very well, and helps people move to a feeling of ending or completion.
Be sure you read the rules the second time, answer the four questions, pass out the paint brushes to the leaders, and then start the game off at a full gallop. Announce loudly "OK, BEGIN!" or the equivalent, so that in the scramble, no more discussion can take place.
Unless you have used the suggestion about adding the element of competition to win, you have not said anything directly about that at all. You have commented about which roads count, and so on, but you haven't openly urged frantic competition to win. Whether competition develops, or not, will depend upon the group's perception of what you said. The omission of a direct order to complete was intentional-or else your inclusion of that element was intensional
The rules may seem very involved. They were deliberately designed to be that way. There is bound to be confusion and varying interpretations of the rules, creating problems the students will have to resolve during the game. The communication channels are deliberately limited and confused. We do have a confusing world of mixed-up signals, with little chance to get through easily to each other. We are beset by all kinds of gremlins and faceless, but demanding, bureaucracies. Meanwhile, we as individuals have to learn to live-and live with others. Why not study how it all works?
It may be valuable to have a record of the comments and behavior of the students as they play the game. These can be useful during the discussion later. Since you can hardly do everything at once, and since it might be enlightening for the students to have a hand in it anyway, ask one or two students (if you have enough people to spare) to observe each team. Tell them to record their findings. A videotape is also good-but the act of writing down observations can be most instructive for those students, even if you have videotape.
Draw up and duplicate a simple chart which the student observers can use to record the behavior they notice during the game.
| Date | Subject | Subject | Subject | Subject | Subject |
| Time | Observer | . | . | . | . |
| . | . | . | . | . | . |
| . | . | . | . | . | . |
You might prefer to adapt the chart to your own purposes. Try to keep it simple so that the observers can quickly mark data about "Who did what to whom and how?" You might want to cover one or more of the following questions or categories:
When the game is finished, ask the students to sit around the game board. Have each group count the number of roads to the perimeter of the map that it claims, and put the number on the chalkboard. Tell the students that this is the unofficial count and that the official count will be arrived at after a hearing. You do this count even if you did NOT insert the direction about "winning."
The hearing is literally that. Each group may voice any complaints it has concerning the actions of another group during the game.
Begin by asking if any group has any complaints to lodge against another group. Insist that the complaint must be about one or more specific roads. Make sure they are heard and then allow the accused team to present a defense. Any member of a group may speak for the group during this period. Insist that the complaints and the defense be brief and specific. (They may not be brief, anyway.) These impassioned attacks and defense can also be subjects for discussion during the debriefing later. Why are they so steamed up about a "game?"
As soon as the defense is completed, call for a vote by the two groups NOT involved in the dispute to decide whether a challenged road is to be counted or not. In case of a tie, you could cast the deciding vote or not, as you prefer. (If it's a tie, it could remain a tie. You really don't have to settle the vote!) You might tell the students at this point that we are not so much interested in the "truth" as in the majority decision. This should supply a note of political realism to the hearing.
Some interesting political logrolling may result, especially if you stay out of the role of tie-breaker. You may find that as soon as one group wins a vote on some road, it will move to consolidate its position as part of the majority that has formed on that particular item. Suddenly, the losing team may find itself a minority on other questions. The wheeling and dealing can become most interesting at times-especially if you happen to have some neophyte politicians in your class. If this happens, or if anything happens, it becomes grist for the discussion mill.
Do not permit a group to voice complaints or challenge roads after you have moved on to another group's complaints. Groups may wish to do this to punish those who vote against them
Be firm, and even cruel if necessary. Be sure you stay out of it and don't get trapped into being a judge now unless you mean to prove something by it. Be prepared for flack if you do serve as judge. The main idea is to know why you are doing whatever it is you are doing with the rules. The results become something worth discussing-no matter what. It's another bit of human behavior for study.
When all the groups have had an opportunity to challenge the questionable behavior of the other groups, the official road count is determined. The group with the greatest number of roads to the perimeter may not necessarily have the most after the hearing. This hearing can lead to a great deal of discussion about alliances and treaties, coalitions, "under the table" agreements between groups, and the whole question of power.
If you did not originally make an issue of the competitive or aggressive element, you may find that some impassioned city planners or determined cooperative types will express outrage and grief at your "deceit" in now looking for the "winner." This is possible. The strange thing is that it rarely happens! Even if you do not expressly promote aggression, almost all groups who play the game will move into competition anyway, and counting "who wins" becomes the logical next step. The territorial imperative does seem to assert itself in all groups to varying degrees. This again can become an item for discussion later. Why did you do it this way?
The hearing provided some opportunity for players to explore "who did what to whom?" Now it is helpful for the players to analyze their behavior in order to move on to broader issues. The observers' notes or the videotape are useful here again. The discussion gives students some important lessons in human relations as they explore their own reactions to competition, authority, leadership, moral law, political power, and conflict-or lack of it-and the whole problem of communication and perception. However, it is important that such a discussion not hurt any particular individual. This is not a serious problem and seldom occurs, if ever. However, if the conversation seems to be going beyond friendly rivalry, just ask a question about something else, or ask the students why they are so excited over a silly game. If certain people have acted especially aggressively, you can point out that this happens with most groups who play The Road Game, and then you can go on to ask what it was about the structure of the game-or people in general-that makes them behave that way.
The point is that you have helped your students generate some behavior-their own-that can lead to some very fruitful discussion and insights about the nature of man. Instead of using pigeons, they have used themselves-and have a wealth of material to draw upon. You needn't dwell upon negative points. What about the people who helped each other!
The discussion can cover a number of disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, government, international relations, law, and ecology, as well as ethics. One way to start, which cuts across several disciplines and gets to the heart of what The Road Game teaches, is to approach the game from the perspective of conflict.
Before you go any further, try asking them: Now that you have been competing so strenuously, find a way to cooperate! You'll probably find a lot of blank stares.
Press them, if you like, to go back into their teams and figure out, with the other teams, some way of resolving the conflict. What would you cooperate about? How would you do it? What for? Would you change something? How? You will probably get a lot of "cheap" answers at first. After that, if you're lucky, you might hear versions of two ideas:
Whatever you get, keep asking questions until the students have exhausted their ideas, or actually go ahead and try cooperation. If they do try it, keeping notes on how the solution goes could be most instructive. They often slide back into competition again.
There are other questions or subject areas that you can use for the discussion that follows. You'll never have time to use them all, so choose the ones you want to emphasize, and work from them. Keep your ears open for what seems to be the overriding interest of the group. Follow up any leads by asking: Why? How come? What makes you think so? How do you know? How does that relate to_____ ? Well, if so, then how about_____ ? and so on.
And then, when you are all quite tired of the whole problem, remember that mankind hasn't solved the puzzle of man's behavior yet. Why should you be the first? Man's Journey to Himself is taking a long, long time.
Adapted by Barbara Ellis Long with the assistance of Robert E. Freeman and Patricia A. Nyhan. Intercom #107, Simulations for a Global Perspective. Global Perspectives in Education, New York, NY, 1985.
Return to the American Forum's Materials Index.
