I think you are also right that learning games have a head start, partially because we are often being asked to create learning experiences in these very areas around diversity, inclusion and so on – games being seen as a good way to deal with potentially ‘difficult’ issues. I think the biggest risk we face in these areas is being asked and expected to, meet statutory requirements for training quickly and cheaply – ‘can you do me some e-learning that will ‘do’ D&I for our staff in under 45 mins, please?’ when what we actually want to do is create meaningful experiences that will effect real, lasting change.

With reference to the ‘anti-PC’ worries you mention, I think recent events have shown us that loud anti-representation voices often create the impression that they are more numerous and/or important than in fact they are, just by shouting so loudly. The backlash against the gender-switching of Ghostbusters and Doctor Who are relevant here, even if not about boardgames, as is Gamergate and (again in a different sphere but with some similar audiences) the Sad Puppy debacle in fiction fandom.

I wonder if there are some creators out there who see such controversies and shy away from necessary and also profitable representation because they overestimate the power and spending power of such lobbies. But in films, fiction and games (and in most of the above specific examples), progress and profitability in increasing representation has continued despite the efforts of those against it.

Learning games may have a head start in getting past that, as they’re probably less heavily tied to a space in which a privileged traditional consumer base sees change as a threat.