Coordination and cooperation

Author: István Scheuring

Recommended age: 8-99

Number of players: 8-40

Space needed for the game: The players can be comfortable placed

Difficulty level: 1

Playing time: 5-10 minutes

Preparation time: 2 minutes

Accessories: sheet of paper, pencil

Short description: Which hunting team should you join if you don't know what the others will decide? And, if we can somehow signal our intention to join, will the hunt be more successful?

Preparations: no specific preparations are needed

Course of the game: Players can choose between two behaviours. If there are enough people in the team choosing the same behaviour, they will be successful. An example could be cooperative hunting. Hunters can hunt either a mammoth or a woolly rhino. If there are not enough mammoth or rhino hunters in the group, they will fail. If there are N players in the game, the hunt will only be successful if at least N-2 hunters decide to join one of the hunting groups. Everyone can choose between the two groups and no one knows the choice of the others. Practically, players are asked to close their eyes and choose one strategy from the two. Let's say that on the count of 3, everyone shows their cue for that strategy. For example mammoth hunters raise their hands, woolly rhino hunters raise their hands with a pen in it. This round is played say 10 times. If there are enough applicants for one of the strategies, those who join a good team get 1 point, the others get no points. The aim of the players is to score as many points as possible. Initially, there is a high chance that there will not be enough applicants for any strategy, so nobody will win. (If we are unlucky, most people will choose one of the strategies on the first try, but the chances of that are not high, especially if there are a lot of players.) If there are enough applicants for a task, we let the players know. We don't tell them who got 1 point and who didn't, but we do write it down. It is easy to become fixated on one strategy after a few rounds, despite a series of failures, due to fluctuations. Then, with some other framework (e.g. there is a house or a bridge to be built together), we play the same game, but the strategies A and B have to be signed with some other sign. E.g. Strategy A means: fist raised, Strategy B means: open palm raised, but players still have to choose with eyes closed. (Actually, for the correct comparison we should do this version with an independent group, but that's not really possible.) But, at the same time, everyone announces what they have chosen on the count of 3. E.g. those choosing strategy A say apple, and those choosing strategy B say pear (or some other neutral word). Here we also play several rounds. If everything is right, one of the strategies is fixed very quickly, because the information you hear helps you to coordinate quickly.

Biological background: When a behavior can only be successful with others, for example, a group hunt can only be successful with enough hunters, communication, even if rudimentary, is of paramount importance. This is why many believe that cooperative hunting was essential to the evolution of human language. The game shows precisely that even a simple communication system can make coordination very effective.

References: own idea