I'm going to go out on a limb and make the assertion that legions of social ills would cease to be were human beings to largely go outside of themselves more. Not as one wise person put it, to think less of themselves, but rather to think of themselves less.
This is no doubt a monumentally difficult challenge in today's world, doubly so in the modern west. We live in a culture that demands at every level that we consume. It makes many fewer demands that we produce. With operant conditioning in every electronic form we are invited to consume content like corn pellets, producing selfies, and getting rewarded with likes. Like Skinner's pigeons or Pavlov's dogs.
There are a whole lot of problems to think about and write about, but I'm going to assert that there is a short list of things that are essential to a full and sane and fulfilled human life. The list is simple, but hard to accomplish. Here it is:
1) experience birth
2) grow up with your mother and father and siblings
3) graduate into adulthood - (often marked by graduating school but this has more to do with learning the basic skills needed to contribute as an adult)
4) get your first job on your own
5) get married to a person with whom you can produce a family
6) participate in the childbirth experience and practice parenting
7) let your children go
8) let your job go
9) let go of your fear of death
10) master each step and move on to the next, and do not fail to keep taking steps
I am convinced that these are all essential, and that to skip any of them is to rob ourselves of something profound and priceless, and because we do not live in a vacuum, to likewise rob others by what we fail to do.
I am convinced that each of these steps requires us to sacrifice something deeply important to us in order to take up something bigger and outside of ourselves, and the emptying of self produces giving to others as a natural consequence. The more we can empty ourselves of selfishness, the more we can hold of something greater, and the more we can give to others, so again, even if we don't take away from others per se, every bit of selfishness we hold on to is that much more that we deprive others of, which is tantamount to the same thing.
Ten seems a paradox, but I would argue that mastery of each step is a process, not a binary possession, and therefore while continuing to hone the former you can still begin the later.
I am quite convinced that many of the things that we do instead of one or another of these are nothing more than clever counterfeits, undoubtedly supported by a tapestry of sophistries to justify. Nonetheless, whether it is refusing to grow up and take up adult responsibilities, or refusing to sacrifice self to another in the full commitment of marriage, choosing a dog instead of children, or failing to let go of children and letting them live their own lives... all of these are failures to have the courage to burn your ships on the shore and go forward into a bigger, if unknown country. But that is what is demanded to grow up fully as a human being.
There may be more (undoubtedly there is) than this, but I think that is it in a nutshell... I will have to think on this and write more as I do.
24 May, 2016
Where My Worldview Peeks Out Of My Game-As-Art Thinking
I got an email the other day with an update link to the pdf for a game world for Fate that I have, as it seems in final edit they missed something. The message with the link made great apologies for the insensitivity of using hurtful language that goes against the social justice ethic of the publisher. The reason for the revision? In the description of one adversary (a specter), it notes that if attacked, it will defend lamely, as in ineffectually. The apology makes it clear that the publisher and writer does not endorse "ableism", therefore requiring a revision.
I declined to get the previous two Fate Worlds, one of which set off a firestorm on G+ over the observation by one poster that: 1) the setting is about crews in stuffy, cramped deep sea submarines with all manner of exposed pipes, conduits, and controls, and 2) one of the pre-gens is a character in a wheelchair. There is evidently no effort to reconcile how a wheelchair bound character maneuvers in the environment described, or deals with the raised hatches through compartments. The poster began a conversation stating that it broke willing suspension of disbelief, and was initially addressed by another poster who as an engineer gave some plausible reasons to accept the conditions. The firestorm quickly degenerated into a virtual lynching of the original poster for being an oppressive white male able-bodied jerk and he was banned for 30 days to suffer his guilt which led to an excessively vile post bloated with vitriolic invective against everyone else which led to the whole thread being removed.
Go, go social justice...
As I write about games as art and game design, I have always the burner to my left the awareness of "social justice" as a priority with most of the game designers in the indie sphere that interests me most. And yet, I find that I respectfully disagree with them. The fact is, that as a Christian, I too have a particular worldview that informs how I think people should be treated and what is in good or bad taste. Very often, the actions I take are the same as those of the social justice warriors of a more leftist slant. My problem is, that I think while their actions may sometimes be right, their underlying motives are based on a false worldview. They were in the instance above, willing to viciously destroy a real person online for not holding a politically correct view of white male ableist guilt because he questioned an entirely fictitious character in a situation that was certainly not described believably. They claimed that they wanted to be as inclusive as possible to everyone, but assumed guilt from the original poster without addressing his idea (beyond the engineer who initially tried). The neo-liberal worldview of intersectional political victim claiming, is something that I cannot endorse.So as I read games and design notes and designer blogs, I am constantly thinking about how to write and design games artistically, in a way that as Aristotle would describes it, represents "not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance".
Of course, sometimes a game is just a way to relax and have fun, but I do like the notion of a game being able to transcend just that, becoming in the play, an experience as well, like a novel or good movie. In thinking about ways I might explore ideas and thought experiments I am informed by my worldview. This is not to say that I am inclined to make games that are religious per se, or require them to be squeaky clean. I do want them to be true though. Life is messy, and people are messy, foolish, selfish and sinful, and in spite of that, there are moments in which people shine and are heroic. This is part of the reason that Fate as a system is so appealing to me - it makes the failures and flaws as important as the rest to the fiction. I am interested in that quality, and I simply can't find that sort of honesty in social justice political correctness that seeks to demolish the world and whitewash the pieces.
It is perhaps because I hold the Christian worldview dear that I am not disturbed to dip into Lovecraft's mythos for games and stories. His weird fiction shows his own worldview, and while I think he is dead wrong about that, that worldview does present a consistency that promotes madness for those who follow it far enough. And that mad world is indeed one that shows something terrible and destructive, and shows those who dare to try to hold it back for another day as in The Dunwich Horror. To face and fight against that seems very true to the right way to address the problem of inimical entities who assume morality is irrelevant and are bent on destruction. My worldview grounds the action in the notion that ultimate goodness is ultimately rational, and that it is appropriate to fight monsters, and disregard the nihilists who idolize them too far. After all, if interacting with and discovering the occult reality of these immensely powerful malignant alien entities drives one mad, and the mad men tell us that the world is ultimately futile and meaningless and insane, how can we trust them? Are not the thoughts of mad men and their understanding of reality suspect?
But what of things less mind-destroying and closer to home? What of social justice? I believe that what is good and right is what a Jewish carpenter said was good and right. I don't believe that people's feelings determine what is good and right. I don't believe that writing to make sure that nobody feels unrepresented in a story makes a story good. I don't believe that including a word that might make someone feel bad and "trigger" them makes a story bad. I think that a story must be taken as a whole to determine it's worth. As for a submarine with a wheelchair bound character - I would not include that without some discussion on why the wheelchair is not more of a liability than the crew can bear, and I think the engineer in the aforementioned discussion presented some thoughts that the writer of the Fate world did not. I think that hand wringing over the use of the word lame because it might somehow offend someone with a walking disability is childish and promotes a pathological and divisive mindset more than it solves one. I think that respecting human persons does not require respecting all their ideas, shortcomings, or feelings, nor is it oppression to disagree. I do think that I can appreciate and learn from designers with whom I disagree. I wonder if some of them would offer the same courtesy?
I declined to get the previous two Fate Worlds, one of which set off a firestorm on G+ over the observation by one poster that: 1) the setting is about crews in stuffy, cramped deep sea submarines with all manner of exposed pipes, conduits, and controls, and 2) one of the pre-gens is a character in a wheelchair. There is evidently no effort to reconcile how a wheelchair bound character maneuvers in the environment described, or deals with the raised hatches through compartments. The poster began a conversation stating that it broke willing suspension of disbelief, and was initially addressed by another poster who as an engineer gave some plausible reasons to accept the conditions. The firestorm quickly degenerated into a virtual lynching of the original poster for being an oppressive white male able-bodied jerk and he was banned for 30 days to suffer his guilt which led to an excessively vile post bloated with vitriolic invective against everyone else which led to the whole thread being removed.
Go, go social justice...
As I write about games as art and game design, I have always the burner to my left the awareness of "social justice" as a priority with most of the game designers in the indie sphere that interests me most. And yet, I find that I respectfully disagree with them. The fact is, that as a Christian, I too have a particular worldview that informs how I think people should be treated and what is in good or bad taste. Very often, the actions I take are the same as those of the social justice warriors of a more leftist slant. My problem is, that I think while their actions may sometimes be right, their underlying motives are based on a false worldview. They were in the instance above, willing to viciously destroy a real person online for not holding a politically correct view of white male ableist guilt because he questioned an entirely fictitious character in a situation that was certainly not described believably. They claimed that they wanted to be as inclusive as possible to everyone, but assumed guilt from the original poster without addressing his idea (beyond the engineer who initially tried). The neo-liberal worldview of intersectional political victim claiming, is something that I cannot endorse.So as I read games and design notes and designer blogs, I am constantly thinking about how to write and design games artistically, in a way that as Aristotle would describes it, represents "not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance".
Of course, sometimes a game is just a way to relax and have fun, but I do like the notion of a game being able to transcend just that, becoming in the play, an experience as well, like a novel or good movie. In thinking about ways I might explore ideas and thought experiments I am informed by my worldview. This is not to say that I am inclined to make games that are religious per se, or require them to be squeaky clean. I do want them to be true though. Life is messy, and people are messy, foolish, selfish and sinful, and in spite of that, there are moments in which people shine and are heroic. This is part of the reason that Fate as a system is so appealing to me - it makes the failures and flaws as important as the rest to the fiction. I am interested in that quality, and I simply can't find that sort of honesty in social justice political correctness that seeks to demolish the world and whitewash the pieces.
It is perhaps because I hold the Christian worldview dear that I am not disturbed to dip into Lovecraft's mythos for games and stories. His weird fiction shows his own worldview, and while I think he is dead wrong about that, that worldview does present a consistency that promotes madness for those who follow it far enough. And that mad world is indeed one that shows something terrible and destructive, and shows those who dare to try to hold it back for another day as in The Dunwich Horror. To face and fight against that seems very true to the right way to address the problem of inimical entities who assume morality is irrelevant and are bent on destruction. My worldview grounds the action in the notion that ultimate goodness is ultimately rational, and that it is appropriate to fight monsters, and disregard the nihilists who idolize them too far. After all, if interacting with and discovering the occult reality of these immensely powerful malignant alien entities drives one mad, and the mad men tell us that the world is ultimately futile and meaningless and insane, how can we trust them? Are not the thoughts of mad men and their understanding of reality suspect?
But what of things less mind-destroying and closer to home? What of social justice? I believe that what is good and right is what a Jewish carpenter said was good and right. I don't believe that people's feelings determine what is good and right. I don't believe that writing to make sure that nobody feels unrepresented in a story makes a story good. I don't believe that including a word that might make someone feel bad and "trigger" them makes a story bad. I think that a story must be taken as a whole to determine it's worth. As for a submarine with a wheelchair bound character - I would not include that without some discussion on why the wheelchair is not more of a liability than the crew can bear, and I think the engineer in the aforementioned discussion presented some thoughts that the writer of the Fate world did not. I think that hand wringing over the use of the word lame because it might somehow offend someone with a walking disability is childish and promotes a pathological and divisive mindset more than it solves one. I think that respecting human persons does not require respecting all their ideas, shortcomings, or feelings, nor is it oppression to disagree. I do think that I can appreciate and learn from designers with whom I disagree. I wonder if some of them would offer the same courtesy?
20 May, 2016
Handy Lists of Emotions and Virtues
06 May, 2016
Pollyanna Gets Medieval
I have a mini game that came to me a little while back that I figured I would go ahead and write up finally.
The 200 Word RPG challenge was a good spur to writing it seems... wish I'd submitted this one.
* * *
Once upon a time, there was a pleasant young girl named Pollyanna. She found herself in an orphanage one Christmas, and she was the last one to get a gift out of the charity barrel. Though she was hoping for a beautiful doll like the one she'd seen in the shop window, all she actually found was a pair of crutches. She was at first sad, because what did she need crutches for? But then she remembered what her wonderful Dad had taught her... always find something good about every situation you are in. Then she cheered up, because the crutches reminded her how glad she was that she didn't need them.
And then the goblins came to burn down the orphanage...
*
Each round, one player will take a turn playing Pollyanna, while the rest play the goblins.
Everyone will determine together what Pollyanna's goal is, and then play begins with the happiest player as Pollyanna and proceeds clockwise. EDIT: The player to the first Pollyanna's right will declare the major problem for Pollyanna, e.g. "rescue the other orphans from the burning house".
Pollyanna will begin by declaring a simple, concrete action in pursuit of the goal. There are as many steps to achieve the goal as players, and these should be noted in simple, concise terms. EDIT: For example, in a four player game, Pollyanna might declare the steps to be: 1) get into the house, 2) get up the stairs, 3) make a rope of bed sheets to climb down, 4) get everyone out the window. These are the goals that must be met in order to win.
The goblin to Pollyanna's left will then lay down a token and declare a simple, concrete obstacle EDIT: to Pollyanna's goal. At the time that the goblin declares the obstacle, the goblin to his left EDIT: another player (but only one more) may also add a token and declare one way in which things get worse. Pollyanna gets the token(s) if she can declare how that thing actually works in her favor.
EDIT: Pollyanna gets to keep all the tokens for which she can declare a benefit. She can spend any tokens she has to declare a new detail to overcome or cancel a challenge on a one for one basis.
EDIT: Pollyanna gets to keep all the tokens for which she can declare a benefit. She can spend any tokens she has to declare a new detail to overcome or cancel a challenge on a one for one basis.
After Pollyanna overcomes that obstacle the role of Pollyanna proceeds to the next player.
EDIT: The previous Pollyanna player passes all remaining Pollyanna tokens to the next Pollyanna player, and takes one new token for themselves after passing the role on. They may now act as a goblin.
EDIT: The previous Pollyanna player passes all remaining Pollyanna tokens to the next Pollyanna player, and takes one new token for themselves after passing the role on. They may now act as a goblin.
At any time, Pollyanna may spend a single token to declare a new detail not previously introduced which either helps her or hinders the goblins. The last player to be Pollyanna may spend all remaining tokens to get medieval on the goblins, and finish the story with why everything worked out better than she could have possibly imagined.
* * *
OK, this is somewhere closer to 350 words, but without the flavor text at the top, it is close to 200. But that is the game. Short, quick, pickup RPG.
05 May, 2016
Problems with Liberal Politics in Game Design
In the indie game design space, as well as outward from that, there is a great deal of discussion about the importance of "diversity" in gaming and game design. I agree, so long as diversity means diverse, which by definition ignores such notions as pathologies of privilege from white / male / heterosexual / able / western / Christians, and actually is agnostic of who a game design comes from. The idea counts... not the identity of the designer. Furthermore, if a game forum claims to stand against "discrimination" while shaming people for not checking their privilege in discussions, is problematic; when discrimination is based on identity while celebrating every kind of "transgressive" idea the discrimination is both actually being practiced (sometimes very aggressively) and not applied to the right thing (the thinking). Again, it is ideas that should matter in games, not the identity of the designer.
Case in point... there is a game that is in my top shelf list of indie games called The Quiet Year. The idea is that a society in the ruins of some previous society, has a year - four seasons - to confront their situation, face the challenges, and see what they can build before a bad thing happens at the end of the year (when the game ends). This is, I think a clever and universal concept piece, both timeless and applicable to potentially any human society. Furthermore, the game is elegantly simple in the mechanics, played essentially with nothing more than a deck of cards and a shared map that continues to be elaborated on collectively as play proceeds. The cards represent different kinds of events based on suit and number, and the map provides an artifact of play.
There is a followup called The Deep Forest. This one is not so well made, and the further I read, the less I liked it. It takes the same basic framework, but makes the characters all monsters who are rebuilding a tolerant society and the bad thing that is coming, is humans. The further it goes, the sillier it gets with sentimental goblins, victimized ogres, and monsters that are anything but as they prepare for the diabolic threat of humans! This is all fine and good, if subverting the trope is done for laughs as it plays with the collision of the unexpected and the unacceptable. Only, it turns out that the author, who wrote the original The Quiet Year, is now not who he says he is as he is now a she, and as explained in "her" essay at the end of The Deep Forest is his metaphor for the plight of the "Other" who is unfairly demonized by the wicked privilege and oppression of the establishment. The game is meant to be taken seriously, not humorously, and as a social activist piece it seems.
But wait! you say... what about, for example, virtually all of White Wolf's games, which put you in the skin of the monster? Why do those get a pass? Why take those seriously?
Those games (I can't speak about the latest editions), DO address the idea of being a monster, and DO address being an outsider and a sort of other... but at the end of the day, the vampires are only as monstrous as their lack of humanity, the werewolves only as monstrous as their lack of control over the beast. Humanity is not the problem... it is the cure, or at least the stabilizing treatment for the problem which is embracing the monster too far. There is in whatever imperfect fashion, the notion that there is some transcendent right and wrong that has little to do with how the monster feels about who they are. Accelerate culture through two generations of post-modern liberal education and we find designers making games that celebrate the monster because of their feelings of victimization and revile humanity in general as the wicked oppressor because they don't feel the same.
The value of monsters in stories is to show what is... well, monstrous. The mythic function of the monster is to put a shape and a skin on the things that are (and should be) harmful, fearful, loathsome, and reprehensible to humanity. It is not about how the monster feels - that is a different kind of story. Beauty and the Beast, and Bearskin are not primarily monster stories, but rather perception stories. Postmodern political thinking has made legions unable to distinguish the difference.
Now I don't argue that games can, as an art form, provide a way to play with serious ideas at a remove that allows them to be dealt with as ideas rather than unpleasant experiences. I think that the designer of The Quiet Year is in general a good designer - I have a couple of his games in my top shelf file (The Quiet Year and Perfect). Others, not so much (Monster Hearts and The Deep Forest). I dig his designer mission statement HERE. But bad politics based on bad philosophy is likely to corrupt good game design. This is a problem with so many of the small games out in indie space, the primary goal of which is to be a communication vehicle for social justice activism. The only game that I think pulls off the feat of making a smart conversation piece for more liberal political thought is one that is at least as much classical liberalism (unwittingly I suspect) as neo-liberalism. That one is Dog Eat Dog, which is about the consequences of colonialism. Now I don't agree with the fullness of designer Liam Burke's conclusions in the essay afterward, but I think the game is both elegantly designed and has an interesting high concept.
I think the biggest problem in the indie game space is not, as so often asserted, the lack of diversity or the problem of privilege, but rather that so many of the designers are consumed with intersectional political theory which assumes that unquestioningly assumes that:
1) a matrix of oppression is institutionalized in society (especially western societies)
2) the oppression is roughly defined by the dichotomies of who is privileged and who is oppressed in any given interaction
3) only the oppressed class possesses the wisdom, character, and experience to understand the
problem
4) the privileged class is inherently incapable of understanding and thus commenting on, questioning, or critiquing the theory as that would either display ignorance or oppressive behavior
5) the nature of the oppression is to shame, demean, deprive, bully, and silence the oppressed class
6) being oppressed justifies and excuses the exact same behaviors if they are committed against the privileged class
So, Power = Privilege = Oppression = Bad
and, Oppressed = Bad = Enlightened = Justified
and thus, Oppressed = Justified in taking Power to overturn the Privileged = Good
But somehow the naked greed and envy and pride in collecting more and more victim cred to justify using power to oppress is not hypocrisy?... Haven't we seen this in France in 1789, and Russia in 1917, and Germany in 1933, and China in 1958, and on and on?... only the labels change.
(Ooops... no questions allowed here... this is a safe space from microaggressions!)
That this comes out of marxist political theory, and has been shaped by the Orwellian distopian strategies of double-speak, lies and propaganda is not surprising. It feels just like it could have been elucidated by the conspirators on Animal Farm. I'm not really of the belief that many of the bright young designers in the indie game space mean to do harm - quite the opposite. I just think they don't really get the problems of the worldview that they are endorsing, and when it comes out in their designs, it really stinks. The fact that the bloodbath is merely verbal in the social media commons does not prevent it from being repellant.
Wouldn't it be better, if indie game designers were more concerned with interesting ideas than with the phantom privilege in gaming? Like Downfall, by Caroline Hobbs. She is a great game designer, and Downfall is a really cool idea game, malleable to many many kinds of stories. I don't know what her political views are marxist, or anti-marxist, or anarchist or otherwise. But she is a cool game maker. Do I care that Caroline is in the "oppressed" class? Nope, not a whit, because I am concerned with the fact that she has a great idea. If I knew her personally and was seeking hypothetically to date her, then it would matter a lot that she was a woman. But as a thinking human who designs games, she is much cooler as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe there is a good game hack in all this... an inversion of Dog Eat Dog maybe?...
Case in point... there is a game that is in my top shelf list of indie games called The Quiet Year. The idea is that a society in the ruins of some previous society, has a year - four seasons - to confront their situation, face the challenges, and see what they can build before a bad thing happens at the end of the year (when the game ends). This is, I think a clever and universal concept piece, both timeless and applicable to potentially any human society. Furthermore, the game is elegantly simple in the mechanics, played essentially with nothing more than a deck of cards and a shared map that continues to be elaborated on collectively as play proceeds. The cards represent different kinds of events based on suit and number, and the map provides an artifact of play.
There is a followup called The Deep Forest. This one is not so well made, and the further I read, the less I liked it. It takes the same basic framework, but makes the characters all monsters who are rebuilding a tolerant society and the bad thing that is coming, is humans. The further it goes, the sillier it gets with sentimental goblins, victimized ogres, and monsters that are anything but as they prepare for the diabolic threat of humans! This is all fine and good, if subverting the trope is done for laughs as it plays with the collision of the unexpected and the unacceptable. Only, it turns out that the author, who wrote the original The Quiet Year, is now not who he says he is as he is now a she, and as explained in "her" essay at the end of The Deep Forest is his metaphor for the plight of the "Other" who is unfairly demonized by the wicked privilege and oppression of the establishment. The game is meant to be taken seriously, not humorously, and as a social activist piece it seems.
But wait! you say... what about, for example, virtually all of White Wolf's games, which put you in the skin of the monster? Why do those get a pass? Why take those seriously?
Those games (I can't speak about the latest editions), DO address the idea of being a monster, and DO address being an outsider and a sort of other... but at the end of the day, the vampires are only as monstrous as their lack of humanity, the werewolves only as monstrous as their lack of control over the beast. Humanity is not the problem... it is the cure, or at least the stabilizing treatment for the problem which is embracing the monster too far. There is in whatever imperfect fashion, the notion that there is some transcendent right and wrong that has little to do with how the monster feels about who they are. Accelerate culture through two generations of post-modern liberal education and we find designers making games that celebrate the monster because of their feelings of victimization and revile humanity in general as the wicked oppressor because they don't feel the same.
The value of monsters in stories is to show what is... well, monstrous. The mythic function of the monster is to put a shape and a skin on the things that are (and should be) harmful, fearful, loathsome, and reprehensible to humanity. It is not about how the monster feels - that is a different kind of story. Beauty and the Beast, and Bearskin are not primarily monster stories, but rather perception stories. Postmodern political thinking has made legions unable to distinguish the difference.
Now I don't argue that games can, as an art form, provide a way to play with serious ideas at a remove that allows them to be dealt with as ideas rather than unpleasant experiences. I think that the designer of The Quiet Year is in general a good designer - I have a couple of his games in my top shelf file (The Quiet Year and Perfect). Others, not so much (Monster Hearts and The Deep Forest). I dig his designer mission statement HERE. But bad politics based on bad philosophy is likely to corrupt good game design. This is a problem with so many of the small games out in indie space, the primary goal of which is to be a communication vehicle for social justice activism. The only game that I think pulls off the feat of making a smart conversation piece for more liberal political thought is one that is at least as much classical liberalism (unwittingly I suspect) as neo-liberalism. That one is Dog Eat Dog, which is about the consequences of colonialism. Now I don't agree with the fullness of designer Liam Burke's conclusions in the essay afterward, but I think the game is both elegantly designed and has an interesting high concept.
I think the biggest problem in the indie game space is not, as so often asserted, the lack of diversity or the problem of privilege, but rather that so many of the designers are consumed with intersectional political theory which assumes that unquestioningly assumes that:
1) a matrix of oppression is institutionalized in society (especially western societies)
2) the oppression is roughly defined by the dichotomies of who is privileged and who is oppressed in any given interaction
3) only the oppressed class possesses the wisdom, character, and experience to understand the
problem
4) the privileged class is inherently incapable of understanding and thus commenting on, questioning, or critiquing the theory as that would either display ignorance or oppressive behavior
5) the nature of the oppression is to shame, demean, deprive, bully, and silence the oppressed class
6) being oppressed justifies and excuses the exact same behaviors if they are committed against the privileged class
So, Power = Privilege = Oppression = Bad
and, Oppressed = Bad = Enlightened = Justified
and thus, Oppressed = Justified in taking Power to overturn the Privileged = Good
But somehow the naked greed and envy and pride in collecting more and more victim cred to justify using power to oppress is not hypocrisy?... Haven't we seen this in France in 1789, and Russia in 1917, and Germany in 1933, and China in 1958, and on and on?... only the labels change.
(Ooops... no questions allowed here... this is a safe space from microaggressions!)
That this comes out of marxist political theory, and has been shaped by the Orwellian distopian strategies of double-speak, lies and propaganda is not surprising. It feels just like it could have been elucidated by the conspirators on Animal Farm. I'm not really of the belief that many of the bright young designers in the indie game space mean to do harm - quite the opposite. I just think they don't really get the problems of the worldview that they are endorsing, and when it comes out in their designs, it really stinks. The fact that the bloodbath is merely verbal in the social media commons does not prevent it from being repellant.
Wouldn't it be better, if indie game designers were more concerned with interesting ideas than with the phantom privilege in gaming? Like Downfall, by Caroline Hobbs. She is a great game designer, and Downfall is a really cool idea game, malleable to many many kinds of stories. I don't know what her political views are marxist, or anti-marxist, or anarchist or otherwise. But she is a cool game maker. Do I care that Caroline is in the "oppressed" class? Nope, not a whit, because I am concerned with the fact that she has a great idea. If I knew her personally and was seeking hypothetically to date her, then it would matter a lot that she was a woman. But as a thinking human who designs games, she is much cooler as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe there is a good game hack in all this... an inversion of Dog Eat Dog maybe?...
02 May, 2016
Snakes and Ladders (or The Golden Cobra Challenge)
I'm looking at the Golden Cobra Challenge entries for 2014 and 2015.
This is an indi, freeform game contest that is very broad in the games included. "Freeform" is a pretty broad category, and pretty mushy as definitions and boundaries go. But as a creative space, it is I think worth looking at as useful learning can come of good and... not so good examples.
The criteria for 2014 required entries:
1. Be playable from start to finish in two hours or less.
2. Be playable by a variable but small number of participants, ideally a wide range like 2-8.
3. Be playable in a public space, like an open lounge in a busy hallway.
4. Optionally, use the ingredients Chord, Light, Solution, Bear and Minute.
Golden Cobras were awarded in four categories: Most Convention-Ready (Group Date, page 290), Most Appealing to Newcomers (Unheroes, page 551), Cleverest Design (Glitch Iteration, page 248) and Game We’re Most Eager to Play (Still Life, page 507).
The 2015 criteria required entries:
1. Be a new, unpublished freeform larp. It is neither a tabletop roleplaying game or a video game, although it may approach or incorporate either.
2. Your name can only appear on one entry but teams are welcome.
3. Submit your game by 30 October in .pdf format and in English to submissions@goldencobra.org. Parallel versions in other languages or other formats are encouraged.
4. Present your game in a playable format. If it needs handouts, they must be included.
5. Games playable in public will earn the warm regard of the judges but are not required.
6. Games with zero players must abide by the contest rules.
7. You retain all rights to your work but grant the judges permission to print out and play the game you submit, and for it to be included in a free anthology after the contest.
THE GOAL OF THE 2015 CONTEST WAS TO GENERATE SMALL, INTENSE, PERSONAL GAMES. GOLDEN COBRAS WERE AWARDED IN SIX CATEGORIES:
• Best use of themes/techniques for evoking empathy (Just Lunch, page 338) • Best incorporation of perspectives of unheard or marginalized people or groups (Too Much Slap On The Ecaf, page 485) • Best incorporation of touch (A Crow Funeral, page 100) • Game we’re most excited about (This Folks At The Dining Room, page 442) • Most polished and ready-to-play game (Her Inner Dead Ends (Hide), page 226) • Cobra Crew Pick (The Lofty Beacons, page 349)
* * *
All in all, looking over these games, I see very few that I actually would play or want to play. They are rife with some things that seem to be at odds; on the one hand, there are many that are interested in exploring "transgressive" ideas and themes, some with an almost fetishistic vigor. And yet on the other, with an almost neurotic fragility, is the constant requirement to have "safe spaces" and "boundaries" and "x-cards". It seems to me that many of them are about fairly post-modern liberal efforts to affirm personal guilt, subvert it as something to be celebrated, and then put blame on the benighted traditionalists for not being accepting.
Sigh...
I did like A Crow Funeral though.
I think the most valuable thing about looking at these, is the creativity of making a game rather than the banality of so many of the themes. Using different kinds of touch as mechanics for resolution, or rules on when and how different players can speak, or relative positions (e.g. sitting, standing, reclining) as an indicator of role, or movement in a play-space and non-player intrusion as a randomizer. These are the things that make it interesting as a read for learning. If you take the card game "Mao" and take away the cards, and then find another mechanic for interacting you get an idea of the kind of creativity that can be used to make a freeform game.
This is an indi, freeform game contest that is very broad in the games included. "Freeform" is a pretty broad category, and pretty mushy as definitions and boundaries go. But as a creative space, it is I think worth looking at as useful learning can come of good and... not so good examples.
The criteria for 2014 required entries:
1. Be playable from start to finish in two hours or less.
2. Be playable by a variable but small number of participants, ideally a wide range like 2-8.
3. Be playable in a public space, like an open lounge in a busy hallway.
4. Optionally, use the ingredients Chord, Light, Solution, Bear and Minute.
Golden Cobras were awarded in four categories: Most Convention-Ready (Group Date, page 290), Most Appealing to Newcomers (Unheroes, page 551), Cleverest Design (Glitch Iteration, page 248) and Game We’re Most Eager to Play (Still Life, page 507).
The 2015 criteria required entries:
1. Be a new, unpublished freeform larp. It is neither a tabletop roleplaying game or a video game, although it may approach or incorporate either.
2. Your name can only appear on one entry but teams are welcome.
3. Submit your game by 30 October in .pdf format and in English to submissions@goldencobra.org. Parallel versions in other languages or other formats are encouraged.
4. Present your game in a playable format. If it needs handouts, they must be included.
5. Games playable in public will earn the warm regard of the judges but are not required.
6. Games with zero players must abide by the contest rules.
7. You retain all rights to your work but grant the judges permission to print out and play the game you submit, and for it to be included in a free anthology after the contest.
THE GOAL OF THE 2015 CONTEST WAS TO GENERATE SMALL, INTENSE, PERSONAL GAMES. GOLDEN COBRAS WERE AWARDED IN SIX CATEGORIES:
• Best use of themes/techniques for evoking empathy (Just Lunch, page 338) • Best incorporation of perspectives of unheard or marginalized people or groups (Too Much Slap On The Ecaf, page 485) • Best incorporation of touch (A Crow Funeral, page 100) • Game we’re most excited about (This Folks At The Dining Room, page 442) • Most polished and ready-to-play game (Her Inner Dead Ends (Hide), page 226) • Cobra Crew Pick (The Lofty Beacons, page 349)
* * *
All in all, looking over these games, I see very few that I actually would play or want to play. They are rife with some things that seem to be at odds; on the one hand, there are many that are interested in exploring "transgressive" ideas and themes, some with an almost fetishistic vigor. And yet on the other, with an almost neurotic fragility, is the constant requirement to have "safe spaces" and "boundaries" and "x-cards". It seems to me that many of them are about fairly post-modern liberal efforts to affirm personal guilt, subvert it as something to be celebrated, and then put blame on the benighted traditionalists for not being accepting.
Sigh...
I did like A Crow Funeral though.
I think the most valuable thing about looking at these, is the creativity of making a game rather than the banality of so many of the themes. Using different kinds of touch as mechanics for resolution, or rules on when and how different players can speak, or relative positions (e.g. sitting, standing, reclining) as an indicator of role, or movement in a play-space and non-player intrusion as a randomizer. These are the things that make it interesting as a read for learning. If you take the card game "Mao" and take away the cards, and then find another mechanic for interacting you get an idea of the kind of creativity that can be used to make a freeform game.
01 May, 2016
RPG Blog Carnival
Found something else interesting.
So this is basically a coalition of bloggers who share hosting duties for a topic of the month. Anyone can participate, and link to and get a link back to their own blog.
There are a lot of established blogs out there with lots of content.
Which makes one hesitant to jump in with a blog that is neither long established, nor chock full of content.
On the other hand, I suppose the primary reason to blog, is to try to create a forum for communicating... a way to reach out to others with ideas about a shared interest. It may serve as a repository of ideas that you are playing with as well, but that can be done in your own journal. A blog is not quite complete without a reader.
HERE is the link to the host and theme for May. I will have to give this some thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)