Resources 

• Anticipate Activity: New York City before Robert Moses 
• Robert Moses Game 
  • Power Tracker 
  • Teacher Guide 
  • Timer 
  • Coin to flip 
• Robert Moses Narrative 

• Immoderation (Extremism): Acting in excess or to an extreme. Lacking restraint 

Facilitation Notes 

In this civic game, students take on roles in a fictional city where a visionary unelected leader proposes major public works and accumulates power by bypassing traditional democratic processes. Students act as a Visionary Leader, City Council Members, Citizens, or Watchdogs (Media) trying to influence or resist these proposals. The game reveals how systems can be manipulated—even under the guise of being for the public good. The goal is not to “win” but to analyze how power operates—and whether it can be checked. 

This lesson draws inspiration from the award-winning game, Regime, from the Government and Politics: Civics for the American Experiment curriculum.

Anticipate 

• Begin with students reading the description and analyzing the photographs of New York City before Robert Moses began his work.  
• Transition: “Looking at New York before Moses raises a big question: how should a city grow, and who gets to decide? This game lets you explore those power struggles firsthand.” 

Engage

Game Positioning

• Duration of Round or Game: 10 minutes to 30 minutes
• Number of Players: 4-10 Player
• Interaction: 1 vs 1
• Complexity to Play and Facilitate: Medium
• Notable Mechanics (game elements): Collection, Negotiation, Presentation, Voting
• Notable Dynamics (skills required): Application, Communication, Credibility, Decision Making, Delegation, Leadership, Persuasion, Strategy Development

Play Components

• 48 resource cards (3 types; 16 each)
• 4-10 role cards depending on number of players (1 Visionary Leader; 2 City Council Members; 2 Watchdog/Media; and 5 Citizens)
• 3 public works cards

Game Set-Up

• Distribute role cards. The game needs at least one of each role in the deck assigned to a player.
• Shuffle public works cards and put them face-down in the center of play.
• Shuffle and deal five resource cards to each player. Place the remaining cards face-down in the center of play.
• Set up the Power Tracker. Use a simple horizontal scale on the board or Power Scale handout. Update the tracker after each round based on players’ actions.
  • One side = Leader Control
  • Other side = Citizen Power

Gameplay and Objective

• Prepare students to play the game by going over the rules and role cards.
• Overview of rules:
  • Each round has 3 phases. You can run 2–3 rounds of the game depending on time.
    • Facilitation Note: If short on time,
      • Do 1 full round only
      • Skip resource cards and just focus on decisions & discussion
      • Use small groups with a student leader while teacher floats
    • Community phase: Players discuss the project proposal on the public works card and raise concerns.
    • Governance phase: The Visionary Leader rewards allies and punishes critics.
    • Change phase: Players decide whether to challenge or keep the system in place.
  • Overview of roles:
    • Distribute role cards. Players act in-character, guided by their role card goals.
    • 1 Visionary Leader that controls the flow of the game and proposes projects.
    • 1-2 City Council Members who are elected officials representing different parts of the city.
      • Facilitation note:For another layer of game play, assign council members a district or identity for variety.
        • Represents a working-class district near the proposed project.
        • Represents a wealthy area unaffected by the project
        • Facing re-election next year and needs public support
      • 1-2 Watchdogs who are the media and investigative journalists who may uncover harm.
      • Citizens are the remaining players who represent everyday residents affected by projects and decisions.
    • Overview of public works cards:
      • Give the public works deck to the Visionary Leader.
      • Public works cards represent major public works proposals such as highways, housing, and parks. Each card gives students a concrete scenario to debate, with built-in tradeoffs, hidden consequences, and a dilemma the players must resolve.
    • Overview of resource cards
      • Each student begins with 5 resource cards, randomly drawn or selected by the teacher. Cards are used once per round, and players draw one new card at the end of each round (if you choose to allow replenishment). The 3 types are:
        • Ballots: Represent public voice and can be used to call for reform or protest during the game.
        • Influence: Represents systemic tools of control or resistance—such as access to planning boards, prestige, legal authority, media reach, or political capital.
          Influence is used differently by each role:
          • Visionary Leaders may play Influence to block investigations, shape public narratives, or suppress opposition.
          • Citizens, Council Members, or Watchdogs may play Influence to resist silencing, organize collective action, or gain institutional leverage.
        • Public Trust: Represents credibility, transparency, and civic legitimacy.
          • Used by Watchdogs to investigate project proposals. If a Watchdog successfully flips a coin (or rolls a die) while holding a Public Trust card, they may reveal hidden harms in a project.

 Phase 1: Community Phase

• The Visionary Leader draws and reads aloud the summary and claimed benefits from a public works card. Do not read the dilemma or hidden consequences at this time.
• Council Members debate how the project affects neighborhoods, cost equality, or fairness.
• Citizens react by asking questions, protesting, and suggesting alternatives. The citizens may unite or divide into factions.
• Watchdogs may investigate the project by flipping a coin (heads = success). If successful and holding a Public Trust card, they may reveal hidden harms.
• Facilitator Note:encourage dialogue by asking questions like the following:
  • “Are elected officials being heard—or ignored?”
  • “Does this proposal allow for deliberation—or is it being rushed through the process?”
  • “Whose viewpoints are missing from this conversation?”

Phase 2: Governance Phase

• Each player may use one of their resource cards during this phase. This phase simulates how power is used to maintain control—or challenge it.
• The Visionary Leader’s potential actions:
  • May confiscate 1 Ballot from any player who opposed the project in Phase 1. This removes that player’s vote in Phase 3. Leader justifies this as “keeping order.”
  • Uses a ballot card to call for a “yes/no” vote on a proposal early to preempt dissent. May only be used once per game.
    • Whole group raises their hand for a “yes” vote. Majority wins.
  • Uses a public trust care to give to a Watchdog or Council Member who supported the plan. This may protect them from investigation or shift their public alignment.
  • Uses influence to block the Watchdog from investigating this round.
  • Uses influence to suppress public dissent (move Tracker +1 Leader Power). Justify as “controlling the message.”
• City Council Member’s potential actions:
  • 2 or more Council Members may play their ballot cards to issue a joint statement. This raises Citizen Power by 1.
  • Use a public trust card to partner with Watchdog (play Trust cards together) to back investigation. If Watchdog flips successfully, Tracker +2 toward Citizen Power.
  • Use an influence card to stop the leader from confiscating their ballot card. Must announce your intent.
• Watchdog’s potential actions
  • Play a public trust card to flip a coin. If heads, they expose a hidden harm from the public works card. Reveal it to the class.
  • Use an influence card to prevent the Leader from dismissing your report. Also allows for a second investigation flip if the first fails.
• Citizens’ Potential Actions:
  • 2+ Citizens play ballot cards in the same round and roleplay a protest, move Tracker +1 Citizen Power.
  • Give a public trust card to the Watchdog to improve investigation odds (only valid if Watchdog flips a heads or rolls success).
  • Use an influence card to hold a community meeting that raises awareness. +1 Citizen Power.
  • If the Leader tries to take your Ballot, you may block that action with an influence card.
• Use these actions to increase or decrease “Leader Power” or “Citizen Power” on the tracker.
• Facilitator Note: encourage dialogue by asking questions like the following:
  • “Is the Leader showing signs of limited government—or overreach?”
  • “What happens when decisions are made without checks or input from others?”

Phase 3: Change Phase (5 min)

• Call for Change: Ask, “Do any players want to challenge the Visionary Leader’s power?”
• Starting a challenge
  • A challenge begins if at least 3 players agree, and at least one must be a Watchdog or Council Member.
  • They must play at least 3 total resource cards, including 2 types (Ballot, Trust, Influence).
• If the challenge is successful:
  • Move the tracker +1 Citizen Power
  • Visionary Leader reveals any hidden project information that has not been shared.
  • If Tracker already at 4–5 → Leader loses control and resigns
• If the challenge fails:
  • Leader may play 1 Influence on block challenge
  • Move the tracker +1 Leader Power
  • Leader gives final defense of their actions

Ending the Game

• At the end of the final round (after Phase 3: Change), the game concludes not with a traditional winner, but with a group evaluation of how power was used or challenged during the game.
• Use the Power Tracker and player actions to interpret the ending.
• Use the table below to interpret the results.

Power Tracker Level	Interpretation
0–1 (Leader Control)	The Visionary Leader maintained power. Public works were completed, but public input was limited or ignored. Civic voices were weakened.
2–3 (Balance of Power)	There was push and pull between the Leader and the People. Some resistance, but no major power shift.
4–5 (Citizen Power)	Citizens and Watchdogs successfully challenged the Leader’s authority. New reform pathways emerged.

• Transition to the reflection by asking:
  • What moments stood out to you during the game?
  • Were you ever in power during a round?
    • How did you choose to wield your power?
  • How did you build trust or alliances with other players to achieve your goals?
  • When did conflicts arise, and how were they resolved?
  • When did collaboration lead to better outcomes? What about competition?
  • How did the governing rules impact your decision-making and strategies?
  • Did the rules make it easier or harder to balance power between players?
  • What lessons can we learn about leadership, popular consent, and civic responsibility?

Explore

After gameplay, instruct students to read the narrative on Robert Moses. Use the following questions to guide your discussion.

• Were the public works in the game beneficial? How does that compare to Moses’ projects—what was positive for the city, and what was controversial?
• How did the game’s Visionary Leader maintain control? What strategies or tactics did they use? How does this mirror Moses’ methods?
• In what ways did the game show the effects of unelected officials bypassing democratic accountability? How does this connect to Moses’ influence over New York City?
• How does limiting citizen input affect the ability of a city to govern itself? How do Moses’ projects illustrate this tension?

Reflection

• Use the civic vice definitions of immoderation to reflect on the experience.
  • Immoderation: Acting to excess or to an extreme. Lacking restraint.
• Instruct students to write a short response using the civic vices of immoderation to reflect on their experience during the game. Their responses should demonstrate their understanding of how unchecked power can undermine democracy and how civic virtues could prevent it.
  • What are examples of immoderation that you saw in the game? What were the consequences?
  • Compare your experience to the real story of Robert Moses. Where do you see similar patterns?
  • What civic virtues were missing in the game? How might people exercising civic virtue in the game change the outcome?