By Alice Wooddisse, Honey West, Rachel Dyar, Toby Woodward and Mia Ryan

Catanphropy is a board game adapted from the play style of Catan and rethought to suit the complex understanding of philanthropy. You play as one of four characters, generating resources, trading resources and building structures. Each character has a unique starting point; to represent the inequality they may face in real life. The game invites players to interact with building physical structures tensions inherent in humanitarianism, in the real world, who controls resource, who dictates distribution and whose interests ultimately determine those decisions. Catanphropy takes inspiration from modern understanding of philanthropy, such as Kenworthy (2018) and Eyre (2021). Their take on philanthropy shows that it is rarely an equal act of generosity, but instead is made up of power structures, self interest and competing ethical frameworks. Catanphropy adapts these critiques into gameplay, showcasing the trade-offs Eyre talks about how some philanthropic processes monitor and keep record of how the money is used such as “drone philanthropy” introduced by Kenworthy (show cased through story cards). By placing abstract philanthropic theoretical ideas into an interactive boardgame, our activity shows that philanthropy is more than resources distribution and focuses on the structural inequality and moral authority. Placing these ideas in a boardgame allow them to be immersive as well as critically reflected on.

Our game uses similar mechanics to the board game Catan. However, we have changed the starting conditions to reflect innate power imbalances found in philanthropic systems. Unlike a standard game where players begin as equals, our version has been intentionally rigged to show that players, such as ‘Philanthropist’ and ‘Governance’ start with significantly more capital and infrastructure, and thus a chance at winning, than the ‘Aid Recipient’. The game begins with resource disparity: ‘Philanthropist’ starts with six ‘money’ cards, whereas the Aid Recipient has zero capital, holding only ‘local knowledge’ and a ‘story’. This represents how philanthropic recipients often lack finances and are forced to rely on their personal experiences as a form of currency. Additionally, there is a ‘bureaucracy tax’, where players cannot build a supply chain or shelter without paying an extra resource of the ‘Governance’ player’s choice, illustrating how the state functions as a gatekeeper that profits from the development of others. The transactional nature of aid is also included, displaying how aid is not ‘free’: an ‘Aid Recipient’ or ‘NGO’ player must give up a ‘story’ card every time they receive a ‘gift’ from the ‘Philanthropist’. Finally, unlike the original Catan, there is disparity between players in the conditions needed to win. For example, the ‘State’ must have twenty ‘tax’ cards, compared to the ‘Aid Recipient’s goal of survival (one ‘shelter’ resource’ and one ‘ knowledge’ resource).  

Our board game is showing the player the considerations that need to be taken in philanthropic endeavours. This is based in real life examples given in ethnographies that we have read in this module. Philanthropy is defined as “the desire to promote the welfare of others, normally through the generous donation of money to good causes” (Charities Aid Foundation). Ethnographies are helpful for us to understand the realities of philanthropic endeavours, which our board game aims to show in a fun and interactive way. One ethnography that shows this is Theodossopoulos’s (2016) accounts of humanitarianism in crisis-afflicted Greece. The people of Patras were affected by austerity, and municipal authorities and humanitarian institutions had to tackle “bureaucratic rules that constrained the activities” (2026, p. 174) when trying to give aid. This ethnography follows the grass roots organisations that citizens on Patras had to organise to demand help from philanthropic authorities aiming to provide aid and equally shows how individuals aiming to give aid in austerity ridden areas have to face questions of solidarity vs philanthropy. Our board game will help our experience the choices that an individual aiming to provide philanthropic aid, and the questions, sacrifices and compromises they have to make along the way to help those in need.

Furthermore, in both the game and in real life, actors such as NGOs, the state, philanthropists, and aid recipients must compete and cooperate to gain resources, build relationships, and maintain influence. Theodossopoulos (2020) argues, philanthropy can reinforce existing power imbalances, producing dependency rather than “solidarity” (Theodossopoulos 2020, p.167). The game demonstrates that success depends not only on helping those in need but on strategic positioning. The exchange of “story” cards for resources reflects how narratives of suffering are used to gain donations and visibility. Kenworthy (2018) shows that organisations must compete for funding and support, meaning effectiveness often depends on navigating these systems (Kenworthy, 2018). Humanitarian action therefore becomes competitive, as actors must contend with institutional regulations and donors. Furthermore, crises can create opportunities for expansion. The loss or limitation of a player, such as through “bureaucracy” or the removal of shelters, allows others to progress, reflecting what Adams (2013) calls an “affect economy” (Adams, 2013,p.153), where “ongoing need becomes a marketing tool” (Adams, 2013, p.174). From an anthropological perspective, this shows that humanitarianism is shaped by broader political and economic structures, where those who are perceived as in need is socially constructed and unevenly dealt. Ultimately, this comparison suggests that humanitarianism not only addresses suffering but can contribute to inequality through structures shaped by economic gain, strategy and competition.

Ultimately, our board game aims to present philanthropy through its endeavours to provide aid, whilst also presenting the instability of distributing fair treatment. The idea of players beginning the game with varied backgrounds gives the presentation of philanthropy a deeper understanding through an immersive characterisation of such relationships within this sector. Whilst creating out board game, we were inspired by anthropological ideas from Theodossopoulous (2020), Kenworthy (2018) and Adams (2013) ethnographies that highlight the difficulties in philanthropic ventures.

Bibliography

Adams, V. (2013). ‘Charity, Philanthrocapitalism, and The Effect Economy’, in Adams, V. (Eds) Markets of Sorrow, Labors of Faith: New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, pp. 153-175.

Charities Aid Foundation (2026). What is Philanthropy? Available at: https://www.cafonline.org/personal–giving/resources/what–is–philanthropy (Accessed: 18 April 2026).  

Eyre, B. (2021). ‘Effective or Expedient: Market Devices and Philanthropic Techniques’, Economic Anthropology, 8 (2), pp. 234–46.

Kenworthy, N. (2018). ‘Drone philanthropy? Global health crowdfunding and the anxious futures of partnership’, Medicine Anthropology Theory, 5(2), pp. 168-187.

Theodossopoulos, D. (2016). ‘Philanthropy or solidarity? Ethical dilemmas about humanitarianism in crisis-afflicted Greece’, Social Anthropology, 24 (1), pp. 167–184.

Related