Replied to under AC1 (sorry)

We are grateful to Dr. Den Haan for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, and for engaging with our manuscript. Below, we respond to each of the four points raised, and we hope that our clarifications and planned revisions address the concerns and suggestions provided.

1. Thank you for your comment. We agree that the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the paper’s aim and orientation. To clarify: this is primarily a pedagogical contribution, rather than a research study. As such, the paper does not present a formal research aim, question, or hypothesis. Instead, our goal is to describe Thirsty Earth, a new educational tool developed to address a specific gap in teaching about the design of solutions to common pool resource challenges, using irrigation as a key example. The focus is on the design rationale of the game and its potential use in interdisciplinary learning contexts. As you helpfully point out, game-focused papers can emphasize different aspects (such as design, use, or evaluation) and our intention is to contribute primarily along the first two lines. We will revise the introduction to make this focus more explicit at the onset and to clarify that the paper does not aim to test a research hypothesis but rather to document and share a new teaching tool that responds to a specific educational need.
2. Thank you for this helpful observation. We intentionally included the informal insights from student gameplay and reflections in the conclusion to signal clearly that these are not presented as formal research findings, but rather as anecdotal observations that emerged during the implementation of the game in teaching settings. Our aim was to avoid creating the impression that the paper is based on a structured research design or testing a formal hypothesis. That said, we agree with both your comment and Wim Douven’s suggestion that adding more qualitative detail could enrich the paper and provide valuable context for readers interested in how the game has been used in practice. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate additional qualitative examples of student feedback and gameplay experiences, which will still be discussed in Section 6. We will also clarify in the introduction that these are shared as illustrative outcomes rather than as part of a systematic evaluation. This should help align expectations and make the pedagogical intent of the paper more transparent from the outset.
3. Thank you for your comment. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more detail on how the game is actually played in practice (beyond the core mechanics and curricular integration) and will add a “Game Logistics” subsection to Section 5 (Teaching Applications) to address this. In response to your specific points: the shift to a web-based format was primarily driven by the transition to remote teaching during the pandemic. We initially created a simple Google Sheets-based version (v0) and later developed a dedicated web-based version (v1) to offer a more playful interface and expanded functionality, including multiple water sources inspired by Seibert’s Irrigania game. Regarding communication: while the reference to a “single-shot game with no communication” critiques the limitations of traditional theoretical models, Thirsty Earth is intentionally designed to foster communication and institutional design. In the full version (v1), this is supported by a built-in chat interface that allows players to communicate within their village group or across the entire class. In the simpler version (v0), communication takes place via parallel Zoom breakout rooms. The game can also be played in face-to-face settings, where each student accesses the platform on a laptop or smartphone. In-person interaction can enhance the social dynamics but also introduces new forms of coordination that students must navigate. To maintain some realism and allow freeriding behavior to emerge, we typically seat students from different villages apart during gameplay and bring them together during the institutional design phase. We will include these details in the revised manuscript to give readers a clearer sense of how the game is meant to be played and adapted to different teaching environments.
4. Thank you for this helpful comment. You are right that the distinction between accessibility and playabilitycould be more clearly articulated, especially since we present this as a key contribution of Thirsty Earth over existing tools. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify that the full version of the game (v1) emphasizes playability, while the light version (v0) emphasizes accessibility. By playability, we refer to the user experience during gameplay—specifically, the ease with which players can engage with the game mechanics, receive real-time feedback, and interact with others. The full version of Thirsty Earth is built using a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io), which supports smoother game flow, interactive 2D graphics, and automated management of rounds and player interactions. This contrasts with earlier games like Irrigania or the Groundwater Game, which use custom-built servers with more text-based or numerical interfaces, and with the River Basin Game, which is played physically using paper-based prompts and tokens rather than a digital multiplayer environment. By accessibility, we refer to the ease of adoption by instructors and the minimal technical barriers for both facilitators and players. The light version (v0) is fully implemented using Google Sheets and Forms, which requires no installation or technical setup. The game framework is openly available and can be copied, modified, and shared freely. This stands in contrast to the three comparison games, which typically require access codes or private distribution channels, and often involve steeper learning curves for facilitators unfamiliar with their platforms.

We will revise the referenced sentences to:

“The two versions of Thirsty Earth respectively emphasize playability and accessibility. The full version (v1) of the game prioritizes playability by leveraging a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io) that supports interactive 2D graphics, real-time player coordination, and automated game flow, while the light version (v0), implemented entirely in Google Sheets and Forms, emphasizes accessibility by requiring no installation, login, or technical setup, making it easy for instructors to adopt and share."