From real-world governance to playable action: translating three environmental cases into game mechanics in Eco Stewards

Environmental problems often take a long time to deal with, but a turn in a board game is short. When real problems are put into a game, some details have to be left out. Can players still understand why the actions are needed? This paper discusses this question through three cases in Eco Stewards: the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, methylmercury pollution in Minamata Bay, and soil erosion on China's Loess Plateau. I compare environmental sources with the nine action stages, interface, and upgrade rules in the SDG v2 version. The game text keeps some important reasons. After removing rubbish, we still need to reduce new rubbish. After stopping discharge, we still need to deal with pollution left behind. When restoring vegetation, we need to check whether there is enough water locally. However, the three cases have very similar upgrades. Players pay and immediately receive fixed positive rewards. Some difficulties mentioned in the text do not affect the upgrade. I suggest adding a short question before some choices so that players explain the reason for the action. The game should also explain that reaching the last level does not mean the real problem is solved. These ideas have not been tested with players, and this paper cannot show that the game has already produced learning results.