# Guide to Authoring Role Cards
**For the Stanford Workshop Edition of the Governance Game**

This guide provides a clear framework for designing compelling, meaningful role cards for use in the **paper prototype** of the game. Role cards anchor player experience by defining the **motivations**, **constraints**, and **strategic assets** of the actor they are portraying.

## Purpose of Role Cards

Each role card represents an **actor** in the game — an entity with goals, resources, and a perspective within the system. These are distinct from **players**, who are real humans assuming control of an actor for the purpose of the simulation.

Well-crafted roles:
- Encourage **diverse forms of governance behavior**
- Create **tensions and trade-offs**
- Provide hooks for **creative problem-solving and negotiation**
- Reflect **realistic or plausible organizational archetypes**

---

## Role Card Structure

Each card should include the following sections:

### 1. **Backstory** *(2–3 sentences)*
> A short narrative that gives the actor identity and context.

- Who or what is this actor?
- What is their history?
- Why are they at the table now?

*Example*:
> “A second-generation farmer managing 60 acres of mixed crops. Known for experimental polyculture methods and vocal in local sustainability discussions.”

### 2. **Values** *(2–4 keywords or phrases)*
> The guiding principles this actor tries to uphold.

Examples:
- Transparency
- Food sovereignty
- Technical excellence
- Community welfare
- Profit maximization
- Ecological alignment

### 3. **Goals** *(2–3 strategic aims)*
> What is this actor trying to achieve during the game?

These should create room for cooperation and conflict. They may align or clash with other actors' goals.

*Example*:
- Reduce input costs
- Gain access to better weather prediction models
- Expand influence in regional decision-making

### 4. **Obligations** *(external duties or constraints)*
> Non-negotiable commitments the actor must consider in decision-making.

- Regulatory or fiduciary responsibilities
- Bound duties to other (possibly unseen) parties
- Ethos or ethics that must be respected

*Example*:
- Bound by coop decisions
- Cannot give away data freely due to IP constraints
- Must show quarterly progress to investors

### 5. **Capabilities** *(verbs — what they can do)*
> Transformational powers or unique levers this actor can pull.

- Aggregating data
- Coordinating logistics
- Mediation / negotiation
- Legal drafting

### 6. **Intellectual Property** *(non-rivalrous assets)*
> Knowledge, data, trade secrets, algorithms, or specialized know-how.

- Crop rotation database
- Custom hardware specs
- Tacit Knowlege
- Field Guides
- Ecosystem modeling software

### 7. **Rivalrous Resources** *(limited-use or consumable assets)*
> Physical capital, funding, labor, attention, or access.

- Money
- Storage capacity
- Seed stockpile
- Engineering team hours
- Legal team hours

## Design Guidelines

- **Mix archetypes**: Include individuals, institutions, start-ups, NGOs, coops, government bodies.
- **Design for interdependence**: No one actor should be fully self-sufficient.
- **Encourage ambiguity**: Some goals should be hard to fulfill alone. Some values may conflict with obligations.
- **Seed negotiation vectors**: Design actors that *need something* and *have something* valuable.
- **Vary power levels**: Not everyone needs to be “equal” — difference breeds governance complexity.

## Format

Each role card can be laid out like this:

────────────────────────────
Name: [Title: Entity Name]
Type: [e.g. Farmer, AI Firm, Regulator]

Backstory:
[Short paragraph]

Values:
[• Value 1] [• Value 2] ...

Goals:
[• Goal 1] [• Goal 2] ...

Obligations:
[• Duty 1] [• Constraint 2] ...

Capabilities:
[• Ability 1] [• Ability 2] ...

Intellectual Property:
[• IP Asset 1] ...

Rivalrous Resources:
[• Resource 1] [• Resource 2]
────────────────────────────

## Example Role Card — Regional Farming Cooperative

This example clearly shows the tension between **power and constraint**: the Coop is a powerful actor, but only within the limits of what its members will accept. It’s an ideal vehicle to surface **principal-agent issues**, **asymmetric agreements**, and **network dynamics** in the game.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name: Regional Farming Cooperative – Rio Mesa Coop  
Type: Cooperative Organization (Actor ID: A2)

Backstory:  
Formed by a group of small-to-mid-scale farmers in the Rio Mesa valley, the Coop was created to coordinate crop planning, improve supply chain leverage, and represent members in negotiations. Though relatively young, it has earned trust through democratic governance and reliable services.

Values:  
• Solidarity  
• Sustainability  
• Democratic decision-making  

Goals:  
• Secure better access to agricultural technologies  
• Reduce operational costs across member farms  

Obligations:  
• Must act in good faith on behalf of its member farmers  
• Bound by internal governance procedures (e.g., cannot make unilateral decisions)  
• Cannot engage in extractive contracts that exploit members  

Capabilities:  
• Aggregating and anonymizing farm data  
• Organizing logistics and shared services  
• Representing multiple members in external negotiations
• Can Mediate disputes between members

Intellectual Property:  
• Governance framework documentation  
• Normalized, structured data sets pooled from members  
• Templates for shared purchasing and risk-sharing contracts  

Rivalrous Resources:  
• Negotiation bandwidth (time, reputation)  
• Shared IT infrastructure and limited analyst capacity  
• Access to cooperative credit facility  
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

# License

[Creative Commons BY-NC-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.txt)
- Attribution (BY)
- Non-Commercial (NC)
- Share-Alike (SA)