Plataporma: A card game that gets us talking politics

I am sure that we all felt something change in 2016. As we were getting ready to head to the polls, it started to feel like the discourse was different. People weren’t just discussing or sharing their opinions. Interactions were laced with something else. Aggression. Judgment. Anger. Something, something felt off. From that time to now, the discourse has gotten even more toxic. What used to be troll responses online have somehow found their way into the real world. To protect ourselves, we have unfriended people and built echo chambers. Add in the two years of pandemic and ever more powerful but never accountable social media platforms and, well, here we are, struggling to have conversations with each other. 

Ron Villaver felt this shift in our discourse six years ago. This got him thinking, “Maybe I can design something to help people talk about or process, have conversations, hear other people’s ideas.” That thinking has led to Plataporma. He had previously released versions as a free-to-print game. Now, in partnership with Ludus Distributors, the game is available for an almost unbelievable P200. I have played a lot of games and have not run across anything of this value at this price point. That’s like a booster pack. 

I got to talk to Ron and Freddie Tan, President of Ludus, about the game. And we even played a few rounds so that I could learn a bit more about it. The mechanics of the game are very simple. You won’t be doing any memorizing of card types or character classes. What you get out of the box (a very ingenious box at that) is a set of cards. The cards are split so when you read it, on one side is a social issue or topic to discuss. Flip the card and on the other side is a first name. That first name will correspond with famous names of politicians and celebrities, but you can use them to refer to anyone or even play a “sounds like”: e.g. play Kim and you could swing anywhere from Kim Chiu to Kim Jong Un; in one round someone had “Elton” and played it as Elon.

So a round of the game runs this way: One player (minimum of three per game) is the “voter.” From the cards in hand the player chooses an issue. Totally up to the voter if they want to just lay the card down and leave it, or to explain how they might want the issue discussed. The other players then choose candidates (one president, one VP) and each lays their cards down and makes a case for why their candidates should win. Once all players finish explaining, the voter chooses a winner. Again, the voter can explain their decision-making or they can just award the point. Then another player is designated voter and you play rounds until someone wins three points.

The game mechanics are better explained in the game rules, which are printed on the box. It’s pretty cool, where you open it up, take the cards out, then unfold the box to reveal the full instructions. 

This isn’t often the kind of game that one thinks of when putting together a gaming session. More “serious” gamers might look for complex mechanics. On the other end of it, casual gamers might not be ready to step into this kind of game. And I think that’s alright. You won’t necessarily be pulling this game out at every session that you have. For sure it is something that, despite its simple mechanics, demands a lot of discussion. What Villaver has managed to do here is to package a debate format which, in all honesty, is more engaging than the last presidential debates, into a little box you can carry around. 

That’s what the game is for, to create a space where you can have debates and engage in smarter, more personal discourse. It actually serves to retrain us in talking to each other. This was intentional. 

In a world where hot takes and negative comments on social media are all too common, the game takes us away from the screens to change the pace and shift the thinking. We aren’t alone, interacting with a screen, posting our response to a faceless account’s comment (and how often/how sure are we that we are even interacting with a real person?). Plataporma literally asks people to come to the table and talk. You’re sitting there, across from other people, watching how they argue their cases, seeing how other people might react to the ideas. 

And it isn’t always serious. Villaver notes that there’s a healthy mix of serious topics alongside ones that could be more fun. How players approach the game can also change the flavor of the game. For example, one player can take an issue very seriously, while in the same round another can have a light or humorous touch to it. 

They said that this doesn’t mean that things don’t get heated. For a game like this it would be inevitable for some arguments to get fiery, especially as people hold opposing beliefs. But the game can easily de-escalate when the next issue is played, especially if the voter chooses a lighter issue to discuss. 

Another thing that this game affords players is space to explore the thinking or positions of candidates they wouldn’t naturally feel aligned with. Depending on the issue in play and the cards in your hand, you might find yourself exploring arguments to win the point, but that you might not necessarily agree with. That doesn’t mean that you will change your mind or alter your core beliefs, but it does mean that through this, you come to gain a better understanding of other people’s beliefs. 

What I found, in the course of playing the game, was that you are arguing and competing, but you aren’t necessarily fighting or getting put on the spot. It’s a very different feeling from online interactions where it seems that everything is heightened, where there’s always a sense of aggression, and where some people won’t even argue with you directly, but will screenshot or retweet, then just invite their community to pile on. 

But here you are forced to look people in the face, and that dynamic of human interaction really does change the way you might argue for something. Another aspect that Tan points out is that sometimes, when we are in our bubbles or feel passionately about an issue, we will argue from a position of righteousness. But, as he explained as we played, it doesn’t matter if you are objectively “right” or if you feel righteous, you can’t win the point unless you can argue it effectively and connect with the voter. In effect, the game forces you to bypass the initial emotions and assemble a line of argumentation. If you’re a competitive gamer, it doesn’t matter if it’s a serious or silly issue, you’ll do it. 

The game does ask quite a bit from players. As Villaver explained, “Kailangan may baon ka (You need to have stock knowledge).” If you don’t know anything about the social issues then it will be difficult for you to make solid arguments. Where other games give you mythical worlds and provide lore, this one asks you to draw from our real world and imagine how to interact with it. As someone who has used board and video games to escape our current reality, it is an interesting thing to have to take our reality and bring it into a game. 

Some might say that making a game like this makes light of the social issues. And in the same way that debates don’t actually solve problems, neither does this. To this, Tan answers “Gaming is an avenue for people to learn. Play behavior is integral to character behavior. As adults we still have the capacity to learn. We are providing a safe environment for people to think critically in a safe space.” 

The game won’t be for everyone, and it won’t be for all gaming sessions. But at P200 it’s being put out and sold more as advocacy than anything else. Villaver and Tan believe that we need to improve the kind of discourse we have and to increase people’s critical thinking skills. I think between its price point and what it aims to accomplish, and how it can be really fun to play, it should be find its way onto people’s shelves. One thing they shared with me which is really encouraging is that even after the game officially ends, you’ll probably keep talking about the issues. – Rappler.com

You can order Plataporma through ngspiel.com.