This is the second article in the Playing Inside: Board Games, Video Games, and the Indoors series, which explores the ways that board games, video games, and other types of indoor play impact and guide out understanding of the environment.
For the past two years I have been developing a historical board game that explores the United States’ third and largest land run. In Land Run: 1893 players take on the role of land run participants with the goal of staking their claim to an area previously known as ‘The Cherokee Outlet’ in present-day Oklahoma. Through repeating phases that feature area control gameplay, a shared action economy, and turn order bidding,1 the game attempts to reveal the settler-colonial narratives, the countless injustices done to indigenous peoples, and not in the least, the environmental negligence that are concealed in the history of the American Land Runs.
The American Land Runs (also known as land rushes) were a series of events in the late nineteenth century organized by the US government to encourage the (re-)settlement of various parts of the ‘Indian Territory’ that were deemed underdeveloped at the time. The most popular method of allotting these lands was to allow homesteaders to make claims to plots on a first-come basis. Potential settlers would gather at specified locations on the boundaries of the territory before the land run and, with the shot of a cannon or gun, each would rush to claim a 160-acre plot of land for themselves.2
For a variety of reasons, I found it difficult to condense the various settler, indigenous, and environmental narratives of this history into a playable two-hour experience. One of my struggles was that it was not clear by what standards a historical game should be evaluated. What I needed was a guide, but it became apparent that players, educators, and game designers like myself lack a robust framework for evaluating such games. There are, however, a few things about historical board games that I learned while playtesting and revising Land Run: 1893 that could be used as a jumping off point.
I have taken the game through nearly a dozen revisions, including hundreds of changes to the game’s rules, mechanics, narrative focus, and even aesthetics. Most of these revisions were prompted by extensive playtesting, to which credit is due to many of the members of The Greenhouse Center for Environmental Humanities at the University of Stavanger. However, the current and (hopefully) final revision was prompted by the game’s submission for peer-review with Central Michigan University Press.3 Both these formal and informal processes have shaped my perception about how we should evaluate historical board games, and the process has helped me develop some general criteria for doing so.
Historical Content: How Real is Real Enough?
Unlike traditional historical narratives that are determined by what is known to have happened, the direction of history as played out in a board game is primarily determined by the choices of those playing. Games give players (or at least give players the feeling of having) agency over historical outcomes, blending the relationship between historical realism and historical fiction. This is intentional. On the one hand, if a board game were to perfectly reflect the outcomes of its historical material, it would lack the essential qualities that allow one to ‘play’ it as a game. On the other hand, if a game neglects its historical material in favor of player agency, it risks portraying abstracted and misleading histories.
This dilemma was particularly pertinent in the development of Land Run: 1893. As its development progressed, I began to understand that historical board games are a balancing act between conveying accurate historical content and allowing players to play out a variety of historical outcomes. The historical roles taken on by each player in the game have specific advantages and disadvantages that reflect the sociopolitical conditions for the respective demographics involved in the land runs. However, I learned that it is vital that the game is open for any of these roles to win. So, rather than emphasizing any specific historical outcome, a game should emphasize the conditions, processes, and motivations that contribute to such outcomes.
Game Mechanics: How is the History Made Playable?
The primary method of transforming historical material into a playable experience is by using game mechanics to express historical processes. Various forms of dice rolls might be used to elicit the risk taken by historical figures, unique movement systems can be used to show the mobility (or lack thereof) in a specific historical period, and an in-game economy can express a variety of value systems at play in a given historical context. If a game’s mechanics do not reflect relevant historical processes, players will not necessarily make connections between the choices they make in the game and the narratives that unfold during a playthrough.
I attempted to build Land Run: 1893’s mechanics around the central theme of environmental deterioration to highlight key conflicts and decision-making processes present in the historical material. Players need Farms to score points, and each plot of land on the game board has a Land Quality token that indicates how many Farms can be placed in each plot. However, at the end of each round, the Land Quality tokens are at risk of decreasing based on how many points have been scored during the game. This is meant to create a mechanical relationship between a player’s use of the land, their progress toward winning, and the land’s gradual deterioration. I found that this blending of historical material and game mechanics offers players more than a tangible version of history. It offers them insight into what was at stake for those involved in historical processes.
Learning Outcomes: How is the History Framed?
Well-crafted games raise any number of questions, observations, and feelings in players. In a classroom, these experiences can then become the foundation for thoughtful conversations about the historical material. For those who view board games as didactic tools, the evaluation of a game’s historical content and its mechanics should indicate these potential learning outcomes. However, framing is key. While encouraging players to critically engage with their own discoveries, games should also guide players toward specific intended learning outcomes.
I ran into an issue with this in the last revision of Land Run: 1893. While the game is intended to guide players toward the idea that those ‘winning’ the game should be held responsible for the sociopolitical injustices and environmental deterioration that unfold as the game progresses, players did not necessarily view the win conditions of the game as an ironic and negatively charged process. Instead, some players saw their progress and the appropriation of land as fun, rewarding, and a celebration of settlement. With the guidance of the reviewers at CMU Press, I was able to address this issue. The latest version of the game attempts to guide players toward a different narrative by adding Event Cards that explicitly describe the consequences of the players’ progress. After reaching specific milestones, the players are required to reveal and read these cards, which contain historical information regarding the deterioration of the Great Plains as well as game mechanics that mirror such events.
As I move forward into new board game projects, these are the three criteria I will use to measure the effectiveness of my own games. They may also help educators, players, and other game designers determine if or how specific historical board games should be introduced to students or playgroups. However, it is unfair to put all of the responsibility of evaluation on those who likely do not have the time or resources to critically consider every aspect of a game. There is a need for academic institutions like CMU Press and The Greenhouse that support the evaluation and creation of games. I would not have been able to take Land Run: 1893 as far as it has without their expertise. The guidance and approval from accredited institutions not only encourages developers to create more historically responsible games, but also relieves a significant amount of pressure from those searching to put authentic historical experiences on their tabletops.
[1] “Area Control Gameplay” refers to a game mechanic that has players compete to control specific spaces on a shared game board (games that use a similar mechanic include Risk and Catan). “Shared Action Economy” refers to a game mechanic that has players choose from a limited number of actions that are shared among all players (games that use a similar mechanic include Pandemic and Puerto Rico). “Turn Order Bidding” refers to a game mechanic that determines the order in which players take their turn based on a bidding system (games that use a similar mechanic include Brass: Birmingham and Twilight Imperium: 4th Edition).
[2] For a comprehensive history of the events leading up to and following the American Land Runs see Hightower, Michael J. 1889: The Boomer Movement, the Land Run, and Early Oklahoma City. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2018; Alvin O. Turner, “Order and Disorder: The Opening of the Cherokee Outlet,” The Chronicles of Oklahoma 71 (Summer 1993).
[3] “Scholarship and Lore: Games for Learning,” Center for Learning Through Games and Simulations: Central Michigan University Press. https://cmichpress.com/scholarshiplore/.
Jacob Tom
Latest posts by Jacob Tom (see all)
- History on the Tabletop: A Brief Guide for Evaluating Historical Board Games - September 25, 2025