A conversation with Fabienne Goux-Baudiment and Tamas Gaspar about their Great Transition Game and the experiences they have had with developing a serious game that is engaging to a variety of audiences and cultures.
Interviewed by: Peter Hayward
References
Journal Article - Navigating the Great Transition
Audio Transcript
Peter Hayward: We are excited by Foresight, we are enegised by it and its ideas. But not everyone finds it so exciting, so approachable. Can we introduce people to foresight such that they enjoy learning and using those ideas?
Fabienne Goux Baudiment: It has been a long time that I thought that I should find something more adapted to the new kind of mindset that the next generation is having now I saw that my students were just, I wouldn't say unable but, so bored by having to read a full book, an essay about foresight, for example, from the first page to the three hundreds.
So I needed To find a new tool for them. And then the Covid came and thanks to it, I found time to design with two coauthors Matthieu Denoual and Kathryn McGlone a game aiming to help people to understand what foresight is without talking a foresight course.
Tamas Gaspar: I have a course for Master's students. It's a course in English for international Master's student entitled World Economic Theories. It is basically a macro history, so a foresight approach that explains how the transitions in the history appeared. The great transitions from one system to another system. And since it is a foresight based the idea is to give a taste of the foresight. With seminars for 70, 80 students in a semester, to play the game in small groups and to taste it basically. And it's quite easy to run the whole course after that because I don't have to explain in detail what it is all about and in a boring way.
Peter Hayward: Those are my guests today. Two previous guests on FuturePod, Fabienne Goux-Baudiment and Tamas Gaspar returning to talk about a game they developed that does just that. Welcome back to Future Pod, Fabienne and Tamas.
Tamas Gaspar: Hi to all of you.
Peter Hayward: You two have been busy. Fabienne, you and your colleagues have invented a game, you've run it all around the world, Tamas and you've presented it at the Federation Anniversary Conference in Paris, and now it’s a journal article. You’ve even dragged me into some of that. But yes, you’ve been busy—congratulations on everything you've done with The Great Transition Game.
Tamas Gaspar: Thank you.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment: Thank you.
Peter Hayward: So let’s talk about it. It’s now a publication by you two, but it’s also a game that listeners might be interested in running themselves. Fabienne, do you want to start by telling us where the game came from and how you designed it?
Fabienne Goux Baudiment: For a long time, I felt the need to find something more adapted to the new mindset of the next generation. I noticed that my students weren’t exactly unable, but they were clearly bored by the idea of having to read an entire book or essay on foresight—say, from the first page to page 300. It was just too difficult and disengaging for them.
I realized I couldn’t keep confronting this issue, so I decided to find a new tool for them. I had tried different tools before this one, like cartoons, popular movies, science-fiction novels. Then the COVID pandemic came, and thanks to it—strangely enough—I found the time to work on designing something new, along with two co-authors: Matthieu DENOUAL and Kathryn McGlone.
Our aim was to help people understand what foresight is—without actually talking about foresight.
Peter Hayward: Yep.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment: That was the challenge. We wanted people to experience the game and, by doing so, come to understand the intellectual and mental work of a futurist.
So, we made it very simple. First, because foresight isn’t simple. And second, because if you want to make a game about foresight, you need a theme.
We chose The Great Transition as the theme because it has been my main research focus for the last ten years. I was fully immersed in it and knew the subject deeply. I tried to explain it simply, with megatrends and emergencies.
Megatrends mostly come from an old world, which is in decline. Emergencies represent a new world, which is emerging and superseding the old one. In between these two worlds, there are many resistances to change, and also drivers of change.
To simplify this—because resistance and drivers of change can be complicated—we reframed them as actions and obstacles. Resistance to change became ‘obstacles’; drivers for change became ‘actions’. Very simple.
So, in the game, you have cards: megatrend cards, emergency cards, action cards, and obstacle cards. It’s a simple setup.
Then we needed to create a game mechanic, because every game has two parts. One is what we call the “skin”—the theme of the game and everything related to it. The second is the “mechanics”—how the game is played.
This mechanics needed to be appealing and interesting—something that makes you want to dive in.
That’s where Matthieu came in. He wasn’t a futurist—he was a young gamer. Not just a gamer, but someone doing a master’s degree in gamification at the Gamix Lab in Paris, which is well known in the field of game design.
Matthieu was fantastic at devising the game mechanics. Kathryn and I are futurists—we know content—but we didn’t have the skills to build the mechanics. He did, and we worked together to refine it.
The entire process began before COVID. For the first two years, we couldn’t quite get it right. Then came 2020 and 2021—during the COVID lockdowns—we refined it and started playing it. As soon as people could gather again, we tested the game in person.
And Tamas was wonderful—he accepted the idea of testing the game with his students. By that time, I had already resigned from my university position, so we needed a new setting to try it out. Tamas was truly generous. He played the game with his students and helped us understand how it worked in practice.
Tamas Gaspar: The other side of the story, just to follow Fabienne’s idea, is that I have an English-language course for Master's students, entitled World Economic Theories.
But it’s basically a kind of macro-history course—a foresight approach, looking at how transitions in history have appeared. The great transitions from one system to another. And since it is foresight-based, the idea of giving a taste of foresight—of what transition means—was an excellent idea.
So I started using the game in my courses, and I’ve continued to do so every year. I use it in seminars with around 70 to 80 students per semester, playing the game in small groups, so they can get a sense of it—basically to taste it. It’s actually quite easy to run the whole course after that because I don’t have to explain everything in detail in a boring way. They have their own experience.
And at the same time, when discussing it with Fabienne, it seemed like an excellent idea—and it proved to be one. It was also a good way to gain more experience with the game itself and to conduct research on it.
That is, to understand how students react to the game, what they can learn from it, what kinds of discussions we can have around it, and what kind of diversity shows up—because it's an international group, from Asia to Latin America.
So we could explore whether there’s any cultural diversity in how people engage with the game. It was fun, and it was a good experience.
Peter Hayward: Can you also explain that the game has a number of ways it can be played? You don’t have to play it the same way every time. There are at least three distinct modes, or ways of operating. Can you explain those for the listeners?
Fabienne Goux Baudiment: Yes, sure. Actually, we have four. Just to be clear about the gaming terminology—
We use the word version to refer to different language versions of the game: English version, French version, and now we're about to have a Spanish version as well. So version refers to the linguistic differences.
To refer to different ways to play the same game, we use edition.
The original game, as designed for the 1st time, is now the Familial Edition. It’s designed for families, and we tested it with people ranging from 12 to 80 years old. It quickly became obvious that it was too complicated for people over 70. It was difficult for them to grasp the complexity of the world, and it was intellectually tiring. So I would only recommend it up to around 70 years old.
And for the younger ones—12 years old—they didn’t have enough knowledge or information to deal with concepts like “emergence,” “action,” or “obstacle.” It was more difficult for them to understand.
So we designed specific challenges for young people. These were created by three young people themselves, around 15 and 16 years old. We now have 12 challenges that are specifically made for younger players in the familial edition.
But mostly, I would recommend the game for people aged 16 to 70. It's a good fit. This familial edition is easy to play and can be a lot of fun. Some people really enjoy it in a casual, playful way.
The second edition is called Fast Forward.
Fast Forward is what we would call in French an apéritif game—a kind of game you can play easily with friends, in a short period of time, like during drinks.
This is the most evolved version, and it’s the one we play with most of our clients. I believe it's also the one that Tamas uses in his courses.
This edition can be played in about 45 minutes—one hour at most—but it can be even quicker.
It really depends on the age and experience of the players. People who are not used to playing games may need more time to get into it, understand the rules, and start playing. For them, I’d say around one hour.
But with young people who are used to playing and pitching ideas—they are so quick—sometimes they can play it in 30 to 35 minutes. They grasp the game very easily.
Then we have another edition, which is designed for adults—usually working adults. This one is about designing a roadmap.
After players find solutions to major challenges, they then design a roadmap to reach those solutions.
The name of this edition is Back to the Present, because you come back from the future to the present, and design the roadmap to reach that future.
And finally, we have an ultimate version called Serious Gaming.
This is only for executive boards or committees brought together into a strategic meeting —what we call Comex in French companies.
You bring the executives together, but with only one challenge. They don’t choose it during the game—it’s chosen beforehand, usually by the HR or strategy director.
This helps the executive team address a specific issue—one that may have created tensions among them.
It allows them to approach the issue in an indirect way—not face-to-face—but rather through the structure of the game, which helps them find a common solution.
So, those are the four editions of the game.
Peter Hayward:
So, the very small contribution I made was what I call, going back to one of my heroes, Buckminster Fuller, the idea of serious gaming. Of course, there are games we use for learning and many other purposes, but serious gaming, as Buckminster described it, was about developing a global systemic perspective and working collaboratively to address the issues at hand.
This is not about a smart person with smart ideas; it’s about creating conversation and shared understandings, while also aiming to gain a global systemic understanding. That was the foundation of Buckminster’s World Game. And I think that also connects to what you do with the serious edition of the game.
Tamas Gaspar:
Anyway, Peter, it wasn’t just a small contribution, what you did. I really wonder about your understanding or reading of this experience we had, especially since you have quite a strong background in gaming—serious gaming. So, what was your take on the experience?
Peter Hayward:
Again, I think—people who are interested should definitely have a look at the article and try to track the game down. As I said, one of the really clever game mechanics that I thought was fantastic was the idea of using plate tectonics to explain the great transition.
I thought that was a very clever approach. You’re not simplifying the concept, but you are helping people understand the possible ways change, obstacles, and disruptions—like eruptions and earthquakes—happen in the world, through this metaphor of the old world and the new world rubbing up against one another.
From a game design perspective, I thought that was a brilliant idea. I’ll leave that for you to elaborate on.
But the second point I’d like us to talk more about is what you, Tamas, mentioned—engaging with different cultural understandings of gaming, and how people respond to the use of games, the learning they derive from games, and also how they perceive the appropriate ways we should respond to challenges like the great transition.
I think that aspect is really fascinating, and I’d like you to expand on it. So those are my two thoughts: first, I think the plate tectonics idea was outstanding; and second, I’d love to hear more about your experiences working with different cultural groups and different age groups on these big, systemic global challenges.
Tamas Gaspar:
Let me just add that I also think the tectonic metaphor is an excellent and brilliant idea—not only from a global or macro point of view, where old systems and new systems meet and problems emerge from that—but also from an individual point of view.
I’m not a psychologist, but it was remarkable to see how these tectonic “bombs,” eruptions, and tensions appeared within the participants themselves. When they experienced that their regular mindset—the old tectonic model, so to speak—was challenged by an emerging, unexpected new way of thinking, it became a deeply emotional experience.
These eruptions and tensions don’t just occur in the macro-economy; they manifest at the individual level as well.
Fabienne Goux-Baudiment:
I think you can apply the Theory U from Otto SCHARMER, and you see how it really fits. I’ve been working with this metaphor of plate tectonics for almost 20 years now. When I give my conferences, I can tell—just by looking at people's eyes—whether they understand what I’m saying or not.
From the very beginning, I noticed people looking at me with wide eyes, as if to say, What is she talking about? This whole process of the great transition—and especially its dynamic aspect—is difficult to grasp. That’s the main challenge: it’s not static; it’s a movement. I absolutely had to find a way to show them what it was, and what it still is.
That’s when I found this metaphor of the great transition, and it’s the best way for me to provide content without having to explain every detail in the picture. And it works. Nowadays, I see people looking at my illustrations during presentations, and they no longer have those confused expressions. Instead, they respond immediately: Oh yes, this is it. Oh yes, this is exactly it. Oh yes—disruptors, drivers, resistance to change—yes, this makes sense.
It perfectly fits what they already had in their minds, that’s what makes it extremely useful—and I would say, pedagogical. It really helps people understand what we’re talking about, and why we are where we are—right in between the two worlds. The fact that this transition has/will last(ed) for centuries also helps them come to terms with the reality that it won’t be resolved within their lifetime, this is not just a crisis but something really structural.
This means they must learn to cope with it. It’s not like COVID, where something comes and then goes. No, this is something deeper. They will never see the end of the great transition in their lifetime.
So, as Tamas was saying, this is the beginning of the transformative journey—one that foresight helps initiate. It’s about understanding that you are moving from one state to another, and there’s no going back.
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes, yes.
Fabienne Goux-Baudiment:
That’s why I think it’s such a powerful metaphor. It truly is.
Peter Hayward:
I also just want to throw this one to Tamas, because I think there's another important aspect here. You have the learning that comes through playing the game—and that’s obviously significant—but I think you also guide people through processing how they responded to the game.
It’s almost like double-loop learning. There’s the initial experience of playing the game and what they learn about the transition, the drivers, and all of that. That’s important. But then, you take them further—through a reflection on their own responses to the experience. And that leads to another layer of learning, beyond just the game itself.
In the paper, there's a very interesting table called “First Impressions.” You show a spectrum of responses—people’s first impressions of the game. I’ll just quickly outline the spectrum: it starts with Confusing, then moves to Challenging, then Unexpected, followed by Hopeful, and finally Exciting.
So, there's a full range of reactions, from confusion all the way to excitement. Could you talk a bit about that—what that was, and what people were learning about their own responses?
Tamas Gaspar:
Thank you for raising this issue, because I felt it was one of the most important outcomes of playing the game—especially, as Fabienne mentioned, from a pedagogical perspective.
I think it highlights several very important points. First, as Fabienne said, it's a revealing game. It serves as a powerful means of revealing one's understanding of the future and how foresight actually works. But at the same time, this kind of revelation is not homogenous. There’s a great deal of diversity in how people respond.
So, when you mentioned the wide range of emotional reactions, that really spoke to the fact that the transition is not just about exploring alternatives—it’s also about coping with the challenges that come with it. And that coping process is not easy.
In this broad emotional spectrum you identified, many people found the experience to be neutral—interesting, unexpected—but others described it as exciting, creative, even mind-blowing. That’s excellent, because that’s exactly what we aim to achieve with this foresight game.
However, I also had to realize that there were many who felt frustrated. Some said they were stressed, worried, even terrified. Entering the unexpected, stepping into the unknown, and coping with it is not something we can take lightly.
This is especially important for us as educators, facilitators, or anyone running the game. We must pay attention to the emotions and ideas that emerge, because they’re not always easy to process. That’s why I often say: playing is not a plaything. We have to take it seriously, because games can surface issues that require support and guidance.
In other words, the end of the game is not really the end. There must always be a follow-up—attention to what happens to participants afterward.
Another interesting point, as you mentioned, is the cultural difference in how people approach this. For many—particularly those from Asia or Central Europe, where people are more engaged with structured planning systems or have inherited more state-centered frameworks—the responses were quite diverse. Many felt safer avoiding the "empty space" of the unknown future. For them, stability felt more secure.
I also noticed something curious about how gaming is perceived in professional contexts. While gamification is a great tool and many people enjoy it, in corporate or organizational life—at least here in Hungary, and perhaps elsewhere—it’s not necessarily taken for granted. There’s a growing tendency to gamify everything, and as a result, participants and companies are starting to feel fatigued—especially with constant team-building activities.
More importantly, for many, gaming and professional life are still seen as two separate spheres. So, in my trainings or university courses, I often avoid calling it a "game." Instead, I say we are doing an “exercise” or “experience,” because otherwise, I get negative reactions simply due to the word "game."
That has been a very interesting learning for me.
Fabienne Goux-Baudiment:
Yes, and maybe we also need to mention that there are games and games. With the rise of gamification, you see many so-called games that aren’t really games in the proper sense. Often, the mechanics are not complex enough, and you can't truly replay them.
In our case, for example, we have 200 cards. Each time, you pick five cards, which—if you do the factorial math—results in an enormous number of possible combinations. It’s practically impossible to draw the same combination twice. So, each time you play, you have to create something new, something different.
We also have 40 different challenges. Again, you pick just one at a time, so it’s very rare to encounter the same challenge again.
Peter Hayward:
Keep going.
Fabienne Goux-Baudiment:
Just to add that—
Tamas Gaspar:
Sorry, I lost the thread. Let me just highlight something you haven’t mentioned yet—the end of the game, which includes the Win Cards. I’m not sure if you wanted to talk about that?
Fabienne Goux-Baudiment:
Yes, I will talk about that in a moment. But thank you, Tamas
In France, for example, we have a game designed to teach about climate change. But it only offers one correct answer per question. So, you play it once, and that's it—your answer is either right or wrong. But if you memorize the answers, then when you play it a second time, you just go through it answering everything correctly. That’s why I say there are games—and then there are games.
Tamas is absolutely right. Most of what we call games today in pedagogy are actually just exercises—icebreakers, or tools to get people thinking. They help to warm up your mind, but they don’t truly function as games in the full sense.
To develop a real game—with a strong, well-designed internal logic and mechanics, and a deeply researched and tested foundation—is actually quite rare. It requires a significant investment of time, resources, energy, and, in many cases, money. So I think we really need to make a distinction.
Peter Hayward:
I think, for me, the thing that I see in serious games—and I believe this is a serious game—is that we try to help people appreciate a broad, systemic understanding of the situation. We're taking simplistic understandings and actually showing interrelationships, feedback loops, and that kind of thing. We're also shifting perspectives from the local to the global.
For many people, this is challenging and even confusing, because they're being asked to think about the world in far more complex ways. But what's also interesting is that, as people begin to understand this complexity, it starts to affect their own personal sense of agency—their ability to do something about it.
As you expand people's understanding of the world, it doesn't necessarily mean they feel more empowered. In fact, they might feel less agency in the face of such complex issues. That’s where I think a third element comes in: the ability to work not only with emotions—as Tam mentioned—but also with people who are like you and people who are not like you. The key question becomes: can we collectively find agency?
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes, I completely agree. One of the main lessons from playing the game with the students was that collaborative learning is truly the way to detect what is coming. They themselves articulated this—empathy, taking other perspectives—which is often considered common sense, but when they actually experienced it, they really highlighted that collaborative learning is the way forward.
The other key insight is that belief in agency is one of the core challenges when dealing with the future. It also became clear from the game that one of the weakest points of foresight is that people often don’t believe they can understand the future, let alone shape it. That was a shocking realization for me as well.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment:
I absolutely agree with you, Tam. Regarding agency, we realized this very clearly when we started playing the game. We've now had more than a thousand people play it in very different places—across Europe and Latin America as well. Through that, we understood that we needed to go deeper.
So, with another colleague, Christopher CORDEY, we created another game. It uses the same foundation and almost the same mechanics—not exactly the same—but with the same cards. The difference is that the new theme is‘polycrisis’. Because within this process of great transition, when you're right in the middle of it, there's what we call an apex—a point of maximum tension. You can callthis tipping point a crisis, a "black swan," or whatever, but clearly it marks a time ofpolycrisis.
We decided to adapt the Great Transition game slightly and add these crisis cards. Once again, Tam was our first field of experimentation. What struck me was that some students said, “At the very beginning, I was terrified.” But then they added, “I realized I was terrified just by the word ‘polycrisis’ itself. Once I understood what it actually meant, I felt I could have better agency.”
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment:
That, for me, was really powerful. We initially created this game simply to help people understand what a polycrisis is and how to develop systemic thinking about it. Again, it was meant as a tool for use, but then this emotional and agency aspects emerged so strongly.
I think the students were really talking about gaining a stronger sense of agency—because we included strategies in the game. You have to choose how to respond to a polycrisis. And the fact that each player holds three different strategies in their hand becomes a way to empower them. It gives them tools to confront the polycrisis.
This experience isn’t in the paper yet—because Tam is still writing it—but clearly, it was a very significant finding.
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes, and just to add one more thought on this topic of agency—what we also did with PhD and Master’s students was to explore the future through foresight in extreme circumstances. The Polycrisis game is different from the Great Transition game in that it places the challenges into very intense and demanding scenarios. These kinds of crises are truly frustrating, which makes them even more difficult to process and deal with.
But, as you mentioned, Fabienne, with this sense of agency—being able to say, “I can cope with this”—I believe the students began to grasp the true essence of foresight. They understood that dealing with the future is not the final objective—it's the means, the tool, for coping.
The real goal is agency: the ability to say, “No matter what happens in the future, I’m ready to face it.” That’s the point. And that’s what foresight is all about.
Peter Hayward:
Yeah. I think that's a really important point. I mean, for us as foresight professionals, it's a good reminder—we can get excited by the tools: the forward view, the horizon scanning, the emerging issues. And we can start to think that's the point. But that’s not the point.
Those are merely preparation. What we’re really doing is creating the conditions for people to discover actions they can take.
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes.
Peter Hayward:
And those actions can be taken at many levels—individually, as a group, in families, within organizations, nationally, globally. Always. You're right.
Our work is to prepare the ground for people to find their agency—both individually and collectively.
Tamas Gaspar:
Exactly, exactly. And on that point, let me just ask a question. Peter, you mentioned the term “serious games,” which we often find in the literature, as a way to differentiate them from other kinds of games. It makes sense why that distinction is made. But I find something interesting in the language aspect.
I don’t know how it is in French, but in Hungarian, we use the same word for both “play” and “game.” It’s just one word. Of course, we differentiate between the noun and the verb forms, but the core word is the same.
That gives the word a broader meaning. Because “play” isn’t just an activity for amusement—it can also refer to a theater play, or playing a musical instrument. And if you look back to the origins of the word in Hungarian, the deeper meaning of “play” is actually “to narrate,” to unfold something.
So the original sense of the word was to become engaged—to become involved in something. And that’s what playing really means: getting to know something from the inside.
That, to me, is exactly what foresight is about. That’s why we take people on a journey into the future—so they can experience something from the inside out.
So in a way, gaming the future isn’t some side method—it’s actually at the heart of foresight. It’s about empathy. It’s about stepping into another time, another world, another set of possibilities—and experiencing ourselves within it.
That’s the essence of foresight: to engage, to empathize, to understand. And that’s what true “play” is all about.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment:
In French, as in Hungarian, there is only one word for both concepts: the verb jouer and the noun jeu.
The Latin origin is jocus/jocari, which simply means ‘to have fun’, itself derivated from ‘ludere’ which means not only to have fun but also ‘to play a game (of skill, chance), to engage in physical exercise, to play a role’.
Tamas Gaspar:
That’s what “game” originally meant. But Peter, you should clarify something. I looked up the etymology of the word “game” because I was interested. It comes from Old English or Saxon—gamen or gamenian. The prefix ga- implies something collective, and -men refers to man, or person. So essentially, “game” means people together. Gaming means participation. I don’t know if that’s completely correct, but—
Peter Hayward:
No, that’s very true. The first games were played by groups of people. You didn’t play games alone; you played with others.
It’s interesting, Tamas, that you bring up empathy. That’s something I’ve explored with people, especially those I’m introducing to futures thinking. I use a small exercise I call the "time travel game," where I ask someone to recall a point in their life when they had to make an important decision. Now, they're sitting in the future of that decision.
Often, I do this with young adults in prison. They had a choice in the past, and now they live with the consequences. I use what I call the "empty chair game." I have them sit in a chair and remember the moment they made that decision. Then I ask them to stand up and look back at the empty chair, imagining their past self sitting there, struggling with that choice. I ask, “What emotions do you feel for that younger version of yourself?”
Most of them have never really thought about themselves in the past that way. But when they do, they often feel forgiveness. They don’t blame their younger self. They don’t say, “That person was stupid.” They say, “That person just didn’t know what to do.” “They didn’t have the information.” “They were confused.” So they actually feel kinder toward their past self, even if they’re now in a future they don’t want.
Then I flip the direction of the game. I ask them, “What does your future self wish for you now?” That moment of reflection helps them develop empathy—not just for the person they were, but for the person they’re becoming.
Peter Hayward:
People find agency in kindness. They find agency in being generous, in being forgiving. There is actually agency in the virtues.
Tamas Gaspar:
Excellent. I also do this kind of game, but not focused on the past—rather, on the future. It’s to let students experience that their own self in the far future is the same self they are now. When they try to envision themselves in 10 years or even 100 years, they can imagine that future self, but they feel no connection to it.
That’s the point: to try to feel empathy toward that person. And once you can do that, then you can do something in the present. You become an agent who can act for that future self. I think it’s a very important point concerning the future.
Excellent. And maybe another point, just to follow your sequence of ideas—you mentioned that playing the game is powerful in so many variations, as Fabienne calculated with the factorial. There is no game that’s ever the same as another.
It’s a kind of simulation of the future, but without the responsibility of having to live that future. Just like with the people in prison: they made a mistake in the past, and now they can rethink it. They can simulate different futures.
I think one of the most important pedagogical goals of the game—or of games in general—is to teach that it’s allowed to make mistakes. There’s not just one way to the future. You're allowed to make mistakes—partly because you can learn from them, but also because there’s always a second attempt, a second chance, for every exam in life.
Peter Hayward:
The second point too, Tamas, is that sometimes when you talk to people about things that happened to them—experiences that were awful to go through—from the future, they can look back through the awfulness and feel grateful for having had that experience, for what it taught them about where they are now.
So yes, while we wish to avoid living through difficult situations, you can meet people who have been through them—who’ve made bad decisions or were just in the wrong place at the wrong time—but they can still look back from the present and say, “I learned so much. I found myself. I found agency.” While they wouldn’t wish to go through it again, they’re grateful that they did because of what it gave them now.
Tamas Gaspar:
Yes, this is what my grandmother always said: you never know why something happens to you or what you’re supposed to learn from it. But you will learn it in the future. You’ll realize it—you’ll become aware of why it happened.
Peter Hayward:
Just to wrap this up for the people listening to the podcast—and we’ll have these references on your page—what can people do to find out more about this game, the polycrisis game, and related materials?
Fabienne Goux Baudiment:
We’ve developed a website called Gaming the Future World. We also have a showcase page on LinkedIn, and there’s my personal profile as well. So those are the two main ways we’re communicating about the game.
Tamas Gaspar:
Good. And I keep repeating the games every year with my students. We’re collecting more information and data for ongoing research.
Peter Hayward:
And of course, just as Fabienne was inspired to create her games,others can be inspired to create games themselves. There's a lot to learn from existing games about how to make your own. So yes, get the game, play the game, learn from the game, read the article. But also, if you feel inspired, have a go at creating your own game.
And if you do—tell us about it!
Again, to both of you, congratulations for all your hard work. Thanks for adding this game to the futures and foresight gaming library, and thanks for taking the time to come back on the podcast.
Fabienne Goux Baudiment:
It was a pleasure, as always. Thank you, Peter.
Tamas Gaspar:
Thanks again for inviting us.
Peter Hayward: I hope you enjoyed the conversation with Tamas and Fabienne and that you will check out the article. Future Pod is a not-for-profit venture. We exist through the generosity of our supporters. If you would like to support the pod, then please check out the Patreon link on our website.I'm Peter Hayward. Thanks for joining me today. Till next time.