Current social issues in RPGs

[dewey]

It's a split from the topic Feminist Game Design gone more generalized.

While a movie/tv show/broadway musical/book/comic book/rock song/whatever may be a more powerful tool for conveying an idea to the masses, that doesn't mean that less powerful tools should be completely ignored in favor of the more powerful one. It doesn't follow that a less effective means of communication implies an empty gesture.

Not everybody can make a movie. Not everyone can write a novel. But some of those people who can't make movies can write RPGs.

That's true, however...


I'll start with a simplified example:

If a multi-millionaire gives 10 cents to a hospital to save people, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE (s)he has much more resources and that 10 cents won't really help.

Similarly, if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

So, what do you say?

[Callan S.]

I'm reminded of the old story of a man walking along a beach, throwing star fish back into the water. Someone comes up to him as he throws another one back in.

"You can't really make a difference, you know"
"I certainly made a difference to that starfish."

[M. J. Young]

Callan's right.

Maybe twenty or so years back I knew some people who were very concerned about abortion. They decided to start a Crisis Pregnancy Center, to make it possible for women and girls who found themselves unexpectedly pregnant to get the resources they needed to deliver the child, and to intelligently decide whether to keep it or put it up for adoption, and to find the resources necessary for whichever of those choices they made.

I don't know how many girls they helped. They were in a small town in a sparsely populated county in a small state. I doubt their efforts reached more than a thousand people, and they didn't save all the babies. They didn't last forever, either. The unborn death toll continues to rise; even the number of deaths of mothers from "safe legal" abortion procedures is staggering. They didn't change the world.

Yet I don't think anyone involved in that effort thinks they were wasting their time.

I write web pages; some of my personal pages get over a thousand viewers a month, and some of my articles are on sites that have higher traffic volumes than I can imagine. On the other hand, I also reply to e-mail I receive, knowing full well that what I write to an individual will probably never go beyond that individual. I don't consider that time wasted.

I had an impact on a few people through personal relationships when I was in high school. One of those is now a very effective and influential pastor in his denomination, making a difference in many ways in his state. He has said that my impact on his life was instrumental in getting him there, more than once in his life.

A game or supplement I write might only reach a slice of a segment of a niche; but if it impacts those people in a positive way, who knows where that might lead? I have no illusions that I will ever be President of the United States or Senator from the State of New Jersey, or that I'll sit on the Supreme Court. I won't ever be someone who is a world leader in any context. However, that doesn't mean that my game won't be played by someone who is or will be such a person.

Let's look at this a different way though. You suggest that writing a game to address a social issue is a very poor way to address the social issue. Let's turn it around. If it's given that I'm going to write a game anyway, because I like to write games or I make my living at it, is there any reason why the games I write shouldn't attempt along the way to address a social issue now and then? People wrote songs in the forties and fifties that were rather shallow little things about love and heartaches and stuff. Those were fine songs, and they were popular. Why should anyone in the fifties and sixties have bothered to write songs about war and prejudice and shallow societal values? They did, and those songs made a difference to some people. Probably if everyone who wrote songs at that time had continued to write the same sort of shallow ditties that preceded them, music would have continued to be played. Probably the civil rights movement would have happened anyway, without the soundtrack. We can't judge how much difference the songs made; they did make a difference. We can't judge how much difference it might make for our games to deal with serious issues; but given that someone is going to create games and some people are going to play them, is there any reason not to include a few that deal with such issues?

--M. J. Young

[Erick Wujcik]

If a multi-millionaire gives 10 cents to a hospital to save people, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE (s)he has much more resources and that 10 cents won't really help.

If an homeless vagrant gives 10 bucks to a hospital, 10 bucks that otherwise might be used to buy a bed for the night, or food for a day, then it's a magnificent gesture.

Most of us are neither multi-millionaires nor homeless vagrants, so these examples aren't as relevant as they might be.

On the other hand, most of us have the opportunity to donate blood (I know; not all, just most). Giving blood is an absolute social good, and on the level of the receiver both the multi-millionaire and the homeless vagrant are equally good.

Fact is, our society depends on everyone pitching in and making a difference. Not just the rich, and not just the powerful.

At one point in my China travels I was walking through a particularly poor section of Nanjing, in the company of one of Nanjing University's English students. When we stopped in at a small post office, I asked about a box filled with money.

"That is a collection for the hungry, to help the people in Africa."

See, these Chinese people, destitute by the standards of Americans (many working people earn less than $100/month), know that they live in a rich country, know that others are less fortunate, and give what they can, when they can. They don't go hungry, but they'll give up a little comfort to help those less fortunate.

...if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

I couldn't disagree more.

First, because that implies that role-playing is trivial, and that role-playing can't affect the hearts and minds of the participants.

Second, because it devalues the work of we who make role-playing games and systems and scenarios and components.

Third, because it misses the point of all social change, which based on informing and enlightening the minds of people.

Fourth, because it ignores the fact that individuals and small groups can make a profound difference in society.

Fifth, because it represents an cynical point of view to which I do not subcribe, in which the world can only be changed by the grand or the powerful or the influential.

Erick

[Revontuli]

Well put, Erick!

I once thought that writing larps or tabletop scenarios was inferior to writing theatre or literature, because of the smaller audience. If I write a socially aware children's play, it is seen by thousands of kids and potentially has some influence on them all. But if I write and run a socially aware larp, it's played by maybe fifty people, and thus has much less influence. (And by this standard, television and film are much better than theatre or literature.)

But! There is a huge difference between the kinds of things roleplaying can tell you and the kinds of things the passive media (theatre, books, films...) can tell you. Seeing a movie can change your life, but the chances for that are much bigger if you're there living the events, making the choices, experiencing everything first hand. Like, say, in roleplaying games.

I've written a number of plays, which have been well liked, but noone has ever told me how they really view any issue differently after seeing one of my plays. But many people have told me how they have reached some profound understanding by playing in a larp I've run. And I'm much more changed by some of the larps I've played in than any of the movies I've seen.

So yes, dammit, roleplaying games can make a difference!


Mike

[Akos Szederjei]

Hmm, I am having problems getting my point accross.

Let's take Sorcerer as an example (hope it is alright Ron). It is a fun game, which creates great stories and wonderful time for all participants. In the progress the players are confronted with the question "how far would they go, for power".
Now, Ron may bang my head here, but I am quite sure that Sorcerer was not created with idea in mind that "a game is needed to face people with the question of power". I think it was the need for a good Sorcerer game, in which power is not for free.
So it would not be valid to say that Sorcerer is primarly about power and corruption. Sorcerer is about having a good story, having fun and tackling with interesting question.

On the other hand, most of us have the opportunity to donate blood (I know; not all, just most). Giving blood is an absolute social good, and on the level of the receiver both the multi-millionaire and the homeless vagrant are equally good.

You are right, absolutly. But you do not write a RPG about giving blood, but you walk up to the hospital and give blood. You could incorporate the question of giving blood as a central theme (premise) in an RPG, but it would be more efficient to give blood in the hospital.

First, because that implies that role-playing is trivial, and that role-playing can't affect the hearts and minds of the participants.

This was never disputed. It is not the most efficient form, considering the time and energy needed to create a good RPG about any topic.

Second, because it devalues the work of we who make role-playing games and systems and scenarios and components.

Again, if RPGs main aim is moralist play then, yes, it does.

Third, because it misses the point of all social change, which based on informing and enlightening the minds of people.

Efficiency, see one.

Fourth, because it ignores the fact that individuals and small groups can make a profound difference in society.

Of course they can! Absolutly, but I do not think best way to do is to make an RPG about a problem. It is nice to have it included, but nothing more.

Fifth, because it represents an cynical point of view to which I do not subcribe, in which the world can only be changed by the grand or the powerful or the influential.

This is your personal view (which I agree with), , but it will not make the RPGs more efficient at tackling social problems.

They decided to start a Crisis Pregnancy Center, to make it possible for women and girls who found themselves unexpectedly pregnant to get the resources they needed to deliver the child, and to intelligently decide whether to keep it or put it up for adoption, and to find the resources necessary for whichever of those choices they made.

I don't know how many girls they helped. They were in a small town in a sparsely populated county in a small state. I doubt their efforts reached more than a thousand people, and they didn't save all the babies. They didn't last forever, either. The unborn death toll continues to rise; even the number of deaths of mothers from "safe legal" abortion procedures is staggering. They didn't change the world.

Yet I don't think anyone involved in that effort thinks they were wasting their time.

Absolutly, not. It was a great idea and most certainly it was not wasted time. But they created a Crisis Pregnancy Center and did not wrote a RPG about Pregnancy and Abortion issues. In aother words RPG is primarly a game, while Crisis Pregnancy Center is primarly about Pregnancy and Abortion issues.

OK, that's my 2 EuroCents.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Dewey,

Similarly, if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

I think you've created a false dichotomy here. There's no reason you can't create an RPG on an issue and do those other things. Plus the audience you reach is likely to be different.

[contracycle]

You are right, absolutly. But you do not write a RPG about giving blood, but you walk up to the hospital and give blood. You could incorporate the question of giving blood as a central theme (premise) in an RPG, but it would be more efficient to give blood in the hospital.

Why should they be mutually exclusive?  That is, what is it about the fact that actually going and giving blood would be more useful than writing a game that renders writing such a game useless?

Sure, if it were a substigtute for real aciton, then it might be a concern.  But if that is not the case, I cannot see what there is to lose.

And there is a second issue that many people think that much of default RPG contains within it some sexist tropes that are too frequently simply duplicated; a conscious design that does NOT do so can be a good thing.

[Akos Szederjei]

Why should they be mutually exclusive? That is, what is it about the fact that actually going and giving blood would be more useful than writing a game that renders writing such a game useless?

I did not say mutually exclusive. I  said more efficient.

Basically it boils down to this (for me at least): RPGs are primarily games, and whatever issue they handle beyond that fact is nice, but secondary. So to write an RPG about a social issue is not the most time and energy efficient solution. For me claiming that RPGs are mainly moral tools to improve society and people is simple exaggeration.

Again, I did not say it wrong, bad or useless. I said, it is not efficient. On the other hand everyone uses his own time and energy as he wants.

Akos

[Revontuli]

I did not say mutually exclusive. I  said more efficient.

Why? If you donate blood as often as you can, you end up giving 1-3 times a year if you're a healthy woman, 3-4 times a year if you're a healthy man. Let's say every donator gives three times a year.

Now, if in addition to this you write and publish a roleplaying game called The War for Blood where you highlight the social issue of donating blood. It's evil vampires fighting heroic Red Cross workers who try to get blood from clinics to hospitals. Or whatever.

And let's say you make a free PDF of this game, and a thousand people download it, and a hundred people read it and ten people choose to run it. Let's say that in those ten gaming groups there is one (1) player who gets the point and understands that, hey, the blood is really needed out there, and he can make a difference today by donating some of his at a nearby clinic.

You have now changed the world. In a way you're giving blood six times a year.

I've crossly underestimated all the numbers above. In the best case, everyone who downoads the game reads it, and everyone who reads it runs it, and everyone who plays in it, will get the point and want to go donate blood, AND will take their non-roleplayer friends, AND will make media products of their own about donating blood. Now you're giving blood thousands of times more than you otherwise would've.

The real numbers are somewhere in between, of course. But everything seems to point out that the ratio of "read a game -> be influenced by it" is way, way bigger than the ratio of "watch a film -> be influenced by it". And that is why roleplaying games matter, even though the audience is usually smaller.


Mike

[Erick Wujcik]

...I did not say it wrong, bad or useless. I said, it is not efficient.

Of the many definitions that I found on-line for 'efficient,' I believe that both of us could agree to the following: "Efficient: Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input."

In other words, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that attempting to use role-playing as a agent of social change is inefficient. Moreover, your argument rests primarily on the ratio above, wherein the creation and implementation of role-play, intended for social change is not efficient because a relatively high ratio of effort (input: in terms of the time required for design, for Game Mastering, etc.), can only result in a relatively low ration of result (output: in terms of the number of people affected, and how deeply they are affected).

Assuming this is the case, I would counter as follows:

1. You are quite correct in terms of the ratio of RPG input (work) to RPG output (results). All other things being equal, it would seem that RPG methods of social change (a) require massive effort, and (b) affect a relatively few people in relation to the effort.

1a. As it happens, 'All other things being equal' is incorrect. The interactivity of a face-to-face role-playing experience is not equal to that of more passive media. Sometimes role-playing is more effective, sometime exponentionally more effective.

1b. The equation in 1., while correct, leaves out one of the most powerful elements, namely the 'meme' factor (definition: a 'meme' is a self-replicator, like a 'gene,' but instead of using chemicals as a means of expression, a 'meme' uses ideas. Originator: Richard Dawkins). In other words, a powerful role-playing experience can spawn replicants. And, each person exposed to a powerful role-playing experience has the potential to pass that experience on to others.

For example, in 1986 I ran a play-test of "Amber Diceless" at Gencon, prior to publication. By the following year there were dozens of Game Masters running "Amber Diceless" all over North America. By 1991, when the "Amber Diceless" rulebook was released, there were many hundreds already playing the system. A classic case of a complex 'meme.'

2. The power of a role-playing event can have profound effects on the participants (see Mike's post, above).

2a. If the participants are selected (or self-selected) decision makers, or those with the power to affect social circumstances, the number of those affected becomes less important than the value of each participant.

For example, Professor Richard D. Duke of University of Michigan designed a series of 'Policy Exercises' (actually games, with heavy role-playing components). Implemented an African nations, the policy makers themselves (representatives from government agencies, the military, farmers and businessmen) were co-opted as participants. After the success of the first game, Dr. Duke was invited to country after country, since each implementation demonstrated how different water policies could benefit each country's varying circumstances.

2b. If the participants professional expertise, and if their field is rarified (i.e.: there are relatively few people who are acquainted with quantum field reactions, or with badger genomes, or with polyurethane foam chemistry), then role-playing with even a tiny number of people can have a profound impact.

For example, from 1990 to 1994 I ran a role-playing event, "NanoTech" (as popularized in Drexler's "Engines of Creation" and elsewhere), where I deliberately attempted to recuit specialists who were at the cutting edge of the relevant technologies. While not universally successful as an tool for enlightenment (although every group, regardless of their technical background, had a lot of fun!), the feedback from those who were in the field was pretty encouraging; "Wow! Even though I've been working on this stuff for years, I never saw this particular vector, or the consequences of certain basic assumptions." Again, I was able to transmit a 'Meme,' which has since spread, if not widely, at least deeply, into the NanoTech community.

Bottom line, role-playing can be either a toy or a tool. Just because it is overwhelmingly used for trivial purposes (nothing wrong with having fun!), don't assume that it lacks power. As a tool, if used properly and with forethought, role-playing can reach into minds, create 'Memes,' and change the world.

Erick

[Elkin]

I strongly agree with Eric here. Remember that roleplaying games are come in a larger variety than we often recognize. For example, when I was learning German, we did some roleplay, which is a common technique in many language courses. Some of those roleplays dealt with enviormental issues.
Ever since, I've stopped using plastic bags.

[clehrich]

On the issue of efficiency, it's certainly hard to argue that designing an RPG about the heroic Red Cross blood workers is more effective than organizing a million-man march to the same purpose.  And to be honest, I think that for such a concrete purpose (you should go give blood), writing an RPG isn't terribly useful.  I'm going to set aside for the moment the alternative perspective, which is that every little bit counts.

But this all began with a discussion of feminist gaming, of RPGs in which issues and problems of gender and sex would be central.  This is quite a different matter, and one to which RPGs are rather better-suited.

Big rallies and the like often need to compress their message to a soundbite; activist groups work hard to devise effective slogans.  But this requires that there be a specific message.  "Don't discriminate against women," for example.  But what exactly does that mean?  Are we talking about something obvious like salary disparities, or something subtle like the intricacies of the culture industry?  If you focus on the big, overt things, slogans work well.  If you're interested in subtleties, you need to think it all through slowly.

One of the cool things about RPGs for such a purpose is that not only do the participants think through the issues at stake, but they actually experience the situation and its effects.  For men, this might be quite revelatory, in the sense that they have to live with a situation alien to their own experience.  But even women will experience their characters' lives as different from their own -- the goal isn't simply to reproduce one's own experiences.

As a particularly brutal example, consider rape for a minute.  It's easy enough to soundbite, to denounce rape, rapists, and laws that may appear to take this crime non-seriously.  You can similarly sloganize about how rape is a crime of violence and not of sex, or whatever.  But what is very difficult to do through ordinary political means is to make people experience clearly the larger social and psychological effects of rape.

Imagine you did this in an RPG.  Start with the aggressor: what do you have to do to get yourself into his mindset?  How do you justify your action to yourself?  Now how does doing that to yourself make you feel about rape crisis groups and activists?  I would hope you feel a little more inclined not only to be sympathetic but actually to get involved.

From the perspective of the victim, what are the long-term implications for your life?  How does that color your experience, your relationships with friends and coworkers of both sexes?  What other problems haunt you?  What have you discovered about yourself that you didn't know, and quite possibly didn't want to know?  How has this horrible experience altered the course of your life?  Again, does this make you a little more inclined to donate some funds to rape activist groups?

And, of course, rape is an extreme case.  When the issues are more subtle, having to do with things like self-image, and especially when they are not so clearly divided into good and bad, it's experiencing things emotionally and intellectually that can change people's minds.

To take a slightly more complicated example, I talk to my students about the theory of practice (a la Bourdieu) by referring to the recent fashion of wearing low-riding pants and a midriff-baring shirt with a high-riding thong, the point being that everyone can see your thong.  So what does dressing like this say, and to whom?  What does it mean to choose to dress this way?  What does it mean not to choose to dress so?  This isn't a question of good or bad; you can argue perfectly accurately that a woman who dresses so expresses that she is comfortable about her body, that she feels sexy, that she doesn't feel oppressed or inhibited, and also that she associates a positive appearance with sexuality (implying that she is only pretty if she mimics sexual availability), that she feels forced to ape the clothing-styles of models and pop stars who probably have personal trainers, that she would rather be thought a slut than challenge the styles of a narrow would-be peer-group.  And I could go on, ad infinitum.  

So how can you think all this through?  You can do a lot of reading and sit down and think it out, which is the academic's approach.  But you could also try doing it in the context of an RPG, which is about as easy a pill to swallow as it gets.

They used to say that activism begins with awareness, with consciousness-raising.  Especially when we're talking about subtle, complex social issues, RPGs can do a fine job of raising consciousness, because players experience it all from the inside.

[Walt Freitag]

Similarly, if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

So, what do you say?

Suppose I accept your argument in full. To wit: making an RPG about a social issue is an empty gesture. It does nothing to help anyone who might be currently victimized by current behavior related to the social issue.

Hence, the only result of making a social issue the subject of the game would be that doing so makes the game more interesting to design, and/or more interesting or enjoyable for the intended players.

Even granting all that, I don't see a problem.

If it is someone's judgment that I've wasted my time by designing a game instead of volunteering at a soup kitchen or looking for a cure for cancer, they're free to make that judgment. And I'm free to tell them to mind their own business.

Likewise, if someone else thinks I've done a social good by communicating certain ideas through a game, I'm free to agree or disagree with them as I see fit.

So, where's the problem? What needs further discussion?

- Walt

[dewey]

I think you've created a false dichotomy here. There's no reason you can't create an RPG on an issue and do those other things

Well, that's true. I didn't take that into account.

Then, I'll revise my opinion:
If someone hasn't done everything in everyday life (work, family, friends, whatever) to help a current social issue, then making an RPG about that issue is just an empty gesture.

What do you people think about it now?