Risk and the Real World

I think that while diplomatic Risk ignores a great many aspects of the real world, such as economic relations, nuances in alliances, and the internal actions of a state that may change its goals, the ones it does address are often quite like international relations in the real world. In diplomatic risk, every team has a specific agenda, a specific relationship with each of the other teams, a set of abilities, resources, and armies, and uses all of these in order to achieve their goals. Every action a team takes is in the interest of these goals ultimately. Sometimes the connection between an action and a goal is rather indirect -- for example, one team may do something that will help an ally because said ally is a stronger enemy of the team that is at war with the first team. However, in the world of Risk and the rules that apply in that world, the only reason for a team to act is to achieve a goal. This might seem a little out of sync with the way real world IR happens, but in the short run, this is a reality for many states. Sometimes, the only way for a state to survive is to achieve a very specific goal, such as the ones given to the Risk players.

For example, a state may be hell-bent for getting access to a certain resource in another state, because the first state has run out and completely depends on that resource to sustain their economy. Or a state may have decided that the only way to survive is to have control of territory on the border of an enemy state. Or a state may have a policy of opposing anyone who fulfills a certain criteria, like the US in the war on terrorism. We only see part of the picture in a Risk game, but the bottom line is very similar to real life.

IR theory also came up in diplomatic risk. There was obvious realism, as every state’s first priority was to achieve their goal by any means. There was also liberalism in the diplomatic part of the game, where the different state diplomats allied with one another for mutual benefit, or when various members of the state leadership held conferences with members of other teams on the costs and benefits of a particular action, so that they would help each other to both get individual benefit. Constructivism showed up as well -- instead of every team just trying to conquer the world, each team had a described identity that included, but was not limited to, a goal. They also all had a unique set of special powers. I think that the liberal influence on the game was the most obvious, at least in this version of Risk, as each state found that working together was very beneficial to getting things moving in their preferred direction.