Posted by Athena Scalzi

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/09/10/the-big-idea-t-a-chan/

https://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=57230

All is fair in love and war. But what if instead of a bloody battle, wars were games to be played? Author T. A. Chan brings us a near future world in which violent wars are a thing of the past, and games usher in a new strategy of fighting each other. Follow along in the Big Idea for her newest novel, One Last Game, to see how the cards play out.

T. A. CHAN:
Big Idea: Must there be consequences?
My 21st Century Anxiety-induced Roman Empire has consisted of two things the past couple years: 1) Knowing Earth is a ticking time bomb from irreversible climate disaster at the rate things are going and 2) The ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza and other international conflicts.
One Last Game was my attempt of channeling those dreads into a more hopeful future where the climate disaster has been resolved and international conflicts are settled in a non-violent play-by-the-rulebook sort of way. Despite my attempts of creating a grounded utopia, I have somehow ended up with a world that is both so much better (yay for eco-friendly civilization practices!) and also so much worse (nay for lethal board games!) than today’s state of affairs. And it all started with how “ethical warfare” might look like in the future…So welcome, and enjoy the ride!
Why are we so predictable? And I don’t mean “we” as in you and me and them on an individual level, but rather “we” as a collective human society and our habit of settling major conflict via some sort of warfare, whether that be of the economic, psychological, or conventional variety just to name a few. It’s almost like there has to be consequences for anything to be taken seriously.
For the purpose of this Big Idea, let’s focus on conventional warfare.

What makes war bad?
I mean, obviously the list is loooongggg — from destroyed infrastructure to loss of lives, from environmental damage to the trauma imparted on whole generations. And yet even over the course of thousands of years, we haven’t been able to escape using “war” as a way to resolve conflict between tribes/kingdoms/nations/etc when verbal communication fails.
In a perfect world, all global disagreements could be resolved with talking and votes and things of that nature.
But if history is anything like a crystal ball, a war only ends when the cost to continue the engagement can no longer be afforded and/or justified.

But what if we minimize the cost and harm of war?
Imagine this: The year is 2145. Through the desperate will to survive, humanity has painstakingly implemented eco-conscious measures over the course of decades and restored Earth back to its healthy, environmental glory. Having barely escaped extinction of the human species, there’s a very strong consensus that minimizing environmental damage and protecting existing resources is Good.
Thus, bombs are banned, chemical warfare is banned, scorched-earth policy is banned, hell anything that leaves a scratch on a tree is banned. Human-on-human interactions have been tempered as conventional warfare is done away. Debilitating injuries, famine, home displacement, and painful deaths are relics of a bygone era.
The outcomes of international conflicts are settled simply: with a gameboard and players representing their respective countries.

What’s stopping countries from disregarding the outcome of a silly boardgame?
Yeah, I get it. Letting a game of chess determine who gets territorial claim over a highly contested shipping route does seem rather ludicrous.
Even nowadays, international agreements and treatises are broken with the implication–and occasionally, execution–of consequences ranging from economic sanctions to retaliatory acts. See Exhibit A: Paris Accord and Geneva Convention.

And so, herein lies the heart of the Big Idea: Must there be consequences for anything to matter?
I’m inclined to say yes, particularly with a grounded spec-fic set in the near future. And the consequences must be universal enough that it carries weight, no matter what culture or class you come from. In the particular case of One Last Game, this translates to human lives. After all, human conflicts should only affect humans, right? And death is ubiquitous and serious enough that no entity would want to wage needless war when there are less drastic methods of reaching an agreement between states.
Imagine this: It’s the year 2145 and you’re surveying the aftermath of a battlefield that took place in a city. All the skyscrapers gleam under the sunlight, unscathed and standing proud. Verdant leaves unfurl from oak trees in the parks while squirrels argue with pigeons over a slice of cheesy bread that missed the compost bin. It’s quiet, but you know by the end of the week, the streets will once again be bustling with civilians going about their day. On the news broadcast, a reporter discusses how Country A has formally ceded control over shipping routes to Country B after its latest game loss–along with the lives of citizens unlucky enough to be in the randomly selected city.
Their deaths were quick and painless.
Just like falling asleep.

But is it ethical? Is this the best we can do? Must there be consequences?
In conclusion, I don’t have a conclusion to the question of “is there an ethical way to conduct warfare?” But I know we can do better.
Humans are messy and so the solution will be messy. And I have hope that the collective we will strive to understand and recognize an individual’s humanity in all its messy glory, and find a better way forward.

One Last Game: Amazon|Barnes & Noble|Bookshop|Powell’s

Author socials: Website|Instagram|Bluesky

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/09/10/the-big-idea-t-a-chan/

https://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=57230