On Tabletop Neoliberalism

Recently I’ve been thinking about how neoliberalism, the laissez-faire economic philosophy which has dominated global markets for fifty years, is sneakily present in strategy board games. The thinking behind neoliberalism is that the efficient accumulation of wealth is desirable, and that markets effectively regulate themselves. Within the “magic circle” of the game, these gains have no real cost and are regulated such that the player is challenged just the right amount.

In real life, however, unregulated economic growth has consequences. Whether it’s poor labor standards, environmental harm, or the resulting wealth and income inequality, neoliberal economics slowly sap the roots of the welfare state — if a nation shouldn’t regulate its own economy, then why should it provide health care, good public education or social security?

Many tabletop games (I’m mainly thinking of strategic, ‘engine-building’ games here, though it may apply more broadly) are neoliberal sandboxes because they put players in friendly competition to become the most efficient at accruing resources without accounting for the side effects of that endeavor. In this context, rules and restrictions exist not to make the player consider, for example, the global warming impacts of their coal mines in Brass: Birmingham; rather, players are merely asked to exploit the mine.

Players rarely question this perfected space; in fact, they seek it out and come to expect it. To be more specific, players expect fairness, agency, and rewards based on skill. Neoliberalism provides the agency and the potential for rewards, but fairness is only an illusion. Games simplify even further the neoliberal efficiency craze (but without most of the tangible impacts).

---

Thanks as always for reading. I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this idea, as well as any examples of games which push back against this notion of efficiency over everything.

Happy gaming,

Matt