Executive Decision Corebook.pdf

EXECUTIVE

DECISION

A WHITE-KNUCKLE GAME OF

REAL-TIME POLITICAL CRISIS.

GREG STOLZE

Rules Greg Stolze

Have you ever found yourself thinking, “I could do

better than those fat cats in Washington?” With this

game, you have the chance to prove it.

Crises D. Vincent Baker

Executive Decision is a game for three to six players. It

has no dice, no board and no cards: Instead, the board is

your imagination. Instead of relying on random chance,

you’ll have to achieve victory with your brains, your

wits and – most important – your ability to convince.

Dennis Detwiller

Ron Edwards

Greg Stolze

Chad Underkofﬂer

Executive Decision is played in real time. Each game

lasts exactly one or two hours, depending on which

scenario you’re playing. When your time is up, the

President must decide how the U.S. is reacting to a

crisis – a crisis that has only come to your attention

within 60 or 120 minutes.

Layout Daniel Solis

Playtesters Jeff Mikoni

To make his decision, of course, the Chief Executive

needs input from his loyal staff (that is, the other players).

They, in turn, have goals of their own – goals that place

them in conﬂict with each other.

Russell Bailey

Ed Heil

Matt Snyder

Can you ﬁgure out how best to fulﬁll your agenda? Can

you persuade the President to follow your advice? If so,

you can gain enough political clout to win the game.

How to Play

Each position brings with it certain associated agendas. All

positions carry with them the opportunity to secretly align

with other agendas as well. Once you know your position,

write it down along with your agendas (public and secret).

Depending on the results of the executive decision (results

neither the President nor the other players know ahead of

time), the advisors’ agendas get closer or farther from comple-

tion. Their ﬁnal score is based on how well their agenda (or

agendas) got advanced. See Agendas for more information.

Agendas

In addition to the agendas assigned by position, players can

pick up to three more agendas, which they may share openly

or keep secret. These must be written down in advance,

however – you can’t add an agenda in the middle of a crisis.

Some groups may want to assign a few agendas randomly,

so that every agenda is given to one player or another. The

players then have the opportunity to decide if they’re for or

against. This is not mandatory, though having more than one

agenda is a good idea.

Setup

Before the actual nitty-gritty debate begins, decide which

player is the President. (One obvious way to do this is by

election, with the person who bought the game casting

a tie-breaking vote if necessary.) The President’s role is to

moderate the discussion, weigh the arguments presented by

the other players, and ultimately decide what action to take.

The President’s ﬁnal score is determined by whether his

decision is seen to ultimately harm or beneﬁt the country.

The other players get appointed positions on the Cabinet

by the President. The available Cabinet positions, and their

default agendas, are as follows:

Secretary of Defense – Pro Military, unsurprisingly.

Secretary of Commerce – Development leads to happy

businessmen, which leads to political support. Thus the

Commerce Secretary pursues economic development.

Secretary of Agriculture – This is the one post without a set

agenda. Pick a couple and try to fake people out!

Balanced Budget – Balanced Budget! Yeah! There’s an issue

to get the voters stoked. Even though there’s no particular

mental image that springs to mind, unlike the dramatic visuals

of tanks and planes for the military, and acres of forest for

conservation, and bravely optimistic bedridden children for

healthcare. Still. Every thinking person realizes the beneﬁts

of a balanced budget, except for the thinking people who

are busy thinking about all the great stuff they could buy on

credit. The Secretary of the Treasury always wants a balanced

budget.

Attorney General – Law enforcement is everyone’s business,

so the Attorney General supports political centrism, or at

least its appearance.

Secretary of the Interior – Some noteworthy historical excep-

tions aside, the Secretary of the Interior can typically be

counted on to favor conservation.

Secretary of Labor – Health coverage is a major issue in labor

relations, so the Secretary of Labor generally supports a

federal agenda that encourages healthcare spending.

Conservation – If you like the idea of unspoiled acres of virgin

timber stretching from sea to shining sea, like it enough to

do something about it, you’re in favor of conservation. If you

see America’s bounty as a resource to be exploited for gain

or ﬁnancial independence, you might take a stand against

conservation. The Secretary of the Interior is always pro

conservation.

Secretary of State – International prestige is the Secretary of

State’s concern, almost by deﬁnition. Even maverick White

Houses privately recognize that it’s easier to get things done

if the neighbors like you.

Secretary of the Treasury – Everyone wants a balanced budget,

but they typically want it balanced by goring the other guy’s

cow. The Treasury Secretary is typically the one who’s least

inclined to sacriﬁce it to other priorities.

Centrism – In the past, there was a pretense that the business

of government was to ﬁnd the best solution to problems and

implement the will of the people. If you still believe that,

you are probably in favor of centrism. If you are a staunch

partisan who realizes that no one who plays to the center has

ever shifted anything to his side, you may be against centrism.

Since compromise breeds cooperation, the Attorney General

has an interest in supporting centrism.

Vice President – The VP has a lot to gain from tax revenue.

Usually gearing up to be a candidate, he knows the current

President will take the heat for the taxes, but the party reaps

the beneﬁts of spreading the wealth to supporters.

Chief of Staff – As the most political advisor, the Chief of

Staff is the most concerned with voter satisfaction.

Development – The Secretary of Commerce is always in

favor of economic development. In theory, everyone should

be. However, there are those who believe that some devel-

opment strategies are more harmful than helpful, and that

therefore these plans should be cautiously examined before

implementation. Given the huge pressure to develop at any

cost, many who don’t want “development at any cost” have

a knee-jerk reaction against any proposed stimulus.

Play Begins

Once the players have been assigned their positions and have

chosen their private agendas, it’s time to start the clock. The

President picks a scenario out of those presented in this book.

(You should never play through a scenario more than once

because, after all, it’s no fun if you know in advance how it’s

going to end.)

The scenarios are printed backwards, so they can only be

read in a mirror. The President looks in the mirror and reads

the “Start” section of the scenario aloud. This initial situation

brieﬁng sets the stage and introduces the crisis. Once that’s

done, the advisors and the President discuss the issue. The

debate is free, unstructured and “in character” – that is, you

don’t speak as Martha the suburban professional, you speak

as Martha the Secretary of Defense.

Military – Got enough guns, bombs and tanks? If you do, are

they the right kind of bombs, guns and tanks? Can you get

them where they need to go and keep them working once

they get there? If you like the idea of solving problems with

military intervention, you’re probably for defense spending.

If all you’re saying is “Give peace a chance” (or “No blood

for oil!”) then you’re probably against defense spending. The

Secretary of Defense is always in favor of military funding.

As part of the debate, advisors may make “assertions” –

basically, you bet your credibility on some element of the

issue. If your assertions play into the scenario, you gain

points. If the scenario later contradicts your assertions, you

lose points.

International Prestige - If you care what the French, Chinese

and Russians are saying about you behind your back in the

UN, you’re probably for building foreign esteem by looking

like a friendly, reasonable, Global Good Neighbor. If you’re

an isolationist, or just don’t care what the rest of the world

thinks, you’re probably against (or just indifferent). The

Secretary of State always wants higher international prestige.

This conversation continues until it’s time for the next part

of the scenario to get read. (The President should be sure to

note when the next development occurs. Setting a timer is a

good idea.) Some groups may run out of things to say before

the next development. If that happens and everyone agrees

to skip ahead, you can read the next development early.

Voter Satisfaction - In the end, the central tenet of democ-

racy is that your audience is also your boss. Keeping the

voters satisﬁed is, arguably, the job of the politician. Or so

say those who constantly check opinion polls. There are

few who directly oppose voter satisfaction, but there are a

few who believe the White House should lead and do the

right thing, no matter how unpopular that is. Regardless, the

Chief of Staff is always in favor of high voter satisfaction.

The second part of the scenario presents more information,

developing the scenario further. It may be the last dose of

data before the decision, or there may be more develop-

ments, depending on how complex the situation is and how

long the President has to consider.

Tax Revenue - The Vice President can always earn promises

of future support by earmarking some tax dollars. Anyone

can ﬁnd a way to spend money, so many people are in favor

of a robust revenue stream. On the other hand, many politi-

cians gain wide support by promising to cut taxes, and some

even think it’s the right thing to do.

When the time runs out, the President considers the

arguments and decides.

How to be Presidential

The rules of “Executive Decision” are very simple. There is

no element of luck, the way there is when you’re shooting

craps or playing poker. There isn’t a concrete, hard-edged

strategy like chess. It’s all based on verbal persuasion, cajoling,

debating, and screaming.

Health - The Secretary of Labor has an interest in health,

to support the workforce. In fact, everyone has an interest

in “health” and it’s very easy to say you’re “pro health”. On

the other hand, some question how useful it is to have the

federal government pursue health care reform for a vast and

diverse country where the dollar buys you a lot more (or

less) depending on your zip code. Those who are “against

health” are actually “against blue sky federal spending that

will probably turn into a somebody’s porkbarrel.”

This means that the game stagnates if you all get along.

Disagreement is the lifeblood of “Executive Decision.” While

we’ve tried to keep things lively, so that people incline towards

disagreement and discussion, there will be a few times when

things get quiet. Often the debate dies out just in time for

the next page to get revealed, but sometimes you’re faced

with a long stretch with nothing to talk about.

At this point, it’s your presidential duty to make your cabinet

ﬁght. If they all agree with you, change your mind suddenly.

Play devil’s advocate. Get contrary. Start fretting out loud

about all the terrible things that could go wrong with the

planned course of action. Do what it takes to get discussion

started again.

While I’m encouraging you to pour gasoline on any

smoldering disagreements, I also urge you to never make a

courageous stand based on principle. Always listen to your

cabinet, and if they all agree that X is the best course of action,

you should probably pick X when the hour of decision is

at hand. Otherwise, your friends the players will be terribly

disappointed and always wonder what would have happened

if only that bonehead chief executive had listened. If they

don’t all agree, you can pick and choose among their advice,

but you should always make a decision that at least one cabinet

member supports. If you have no other reason, do it because

it encourages them to play the game again.

You’re the president in the game, but you’re also the host of

the game. That means it’s your responsibility to make sure

a good time is had by all. If this means playing along with

the one dissenter so she won’t feel left out, do it. If it means

arguing against all of them so that they’ll have something to

do, do it. For you, good sportsmanship is more important than

ﬁnding out what would have happened if you’d picked the

outcome you wanted.

(Besides, you can always peek after they go home.)

The Winner

The winner is the person who gets the most points. You get

one point for accomplishing each of the following:

• The outcome reads “up” for an agenda you favor.

• The outcome reads “down” for an agenda you oppose.

• One of your assertions of fact is supported by the printed

outcome.

You lose one point every time one of the following things

happen:

• The outcome reads “down” for an agenda you favor.

• The outcome reads “up” for an agenda you oppose.

• One of your assertions of fact is contradicted by the

printed outcome.

If there’s a tie, the President decides. After all, he should get to

break ties because he can’t win.

Presidential decision.

Health: up

of funding if you do or do not sign it. The world awaits your

Voter Satisfaction: down Tax Revenue: nil

promising dire consequences at the voting booth and in terms

Military: up International Prestige: nil

sending emails full of overblown and hysterical rhetoric,

Development: nil Balanced Budget: nil

groups on both the pro-choice and pro-life fringes are already

The rider stayed and the bill’s on its way. The most extreme

Conservation: nil Centrism: down

research oncologists.

fence. But the veterans are happy, as are a couple well-funded

mainstream, if you catch a lucky break with celebrity news.

to do the right thing – that won’t bring any swing votes off the

or veto it. It might still be possible to minimize its impact on the

off doing the right thing, by complaining about being forced

single-issue abortion voters in both parties, whether you pass it

other side feels you whined and tried to turn a political proﬁt

sketchier. Certainly this bill is going to swing a big stick with

4) Sign With Visible Regret: Your people feel you sold out. The

The bloggers have caught it from C-SPAN, so option #1 looks

Health: down

cater to the most extreme elements of their base.

Voter Satisfaction: down Tax Revenue: nil

urgently needed and that the other party risked in order to

Military: down International Prestige: nil

and to fund more treatment for meth babies – funding that’s

Development: nil Balanced Budget: nil

sure the public knows you’re doing this for cancer research

4) Sign With Visible Regret: Sign the bill under protest, making

Conservation: nil Centrism: down

out stinking worse than you do.

those meth babies. Surprisingly, the voters blame you both.

veto the bill, and use your bully pulpit to ensure that they come

the other for politicizing the issue and failing to take care of

3) Veto With Mutual Anger: Let them turn this into a big stink,

a great deal of mud winds up on everyone. Each of you blames

3) Veto With Mutual Anger: With both sides spinning furiously,

partisan issue.

delaying the health care of all Americans by turning it into a

then veto it anyway with huge fanfare and chastise them for

Health: down

2) Veto Ambush: Make the deal for the concessions and silence,

Voter Satisfaction: up Tax Revenue: nil

quiet one, and you at least regain lost territory elsewhere.

Military: down International Prestige: nil

sions and agree not to brag about it afterwards. It’s a loss, but a

Development: nil Balanced Budget: nil

you sign it without a fuss if they provide some other conces-

1) Quiet Acquiescence: Make a compact with the other side that

Conservation: nil Centrism: down

are blaming the other party.

becoming increasingly clear.

again. But the important thing is that the uninsured veterans

haunt the party, your rivals aren’t budging. The options are

issue played your way. Of course, now they’ll never trust you

heavy arm twisting and some offers that could come back to

surprise you seized the spin initiative and made sure the whole

The Senate’s crackling, but the lines are getting drawn. Despite

it that you spat in the other side’s eye, and by taking them by

2) Veto Ambush: Give ‘em hell, Mr. President! The voters like

it or veto it.

you’ll get the bill with the rider intact and either need to sign

Health: up

party is debating vigorously now, but it’s quite possible that

Voter Satisfaction: down Tax Revenue: nil

positions you consider matters of personal conscience. Your

about abortion, this rider regulates health-care providers on

Military: up International Prestige: nil

rider, and it’s poison. Where the bill they got was pretty neutral

Development: nil Balanced Budget: nil

Senate, however, the committee has attached an eleventh hour

Conservation: nil Centrism: up

ments in veteran beneﬁts, which was one of your issues. In the

you stumped for, but it was good enough. It included improve-

your principles without even a ﬁght.

in the other party’s states and some lean funding for priorities

outcry from your own constituency, who feel you betrayed

able health omnibus bill, with a little more pork than you’d like

your compromise, but they’re overwhelmed by the deafening

1) Quiet Acquiescence: The silent moderates respect you for

It’s a surprise move from Congress. The House passed an accept-

Those Fat Cats in Congress

Outcomes

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: