Current social issues in RPGs

[CPXB]

I think we should also consider what the person who wishes to make the socially conscious RPG can otherwise do.  I mean, what if that person isn't a playwrite, isn't good at organizing, freezes when speaking publicly, etc., etc.  If the person is simply ineffective at being socially conscious as a writer, speaker or organizer -- well, yeah, then it makes sense if they're a game designer or game master that their social consciousness might express itself in the medium that they can work in.

Not to mention, IME with activists, its hard to be an activist.  Oh, its easy to show up and wave signs a few times a year.  But to really get involved with it requires a lot of skills, as well as . . . uh, some selling out in order to be effective.  And to get a politically charged document published also requires, basically, knowing the right people and saying the right things.  I know that for my own part, without skills at organization on one hand and unable to choose between the lesser of two evils politically, that activism is something I find almost impossible to do.  Not because I don't want to.  But because changing the system shoves roughly as much bullshit down a person's throat as living with it; less, even.  You can avoid the system, usually.

So I can fully see how a person might want to express their social consciousness through role-playing, a medium where they have a lot more control over their own words, thoughts and actions.  Where they are habituated to how the system works.  Where they feel strong and effective.

[Akos Szederjei]

you are saying that attempting to use role-playing as a agent of social change is inefficient

You, in this case my person.

Well, I would formulate it rather like this: "attempting to use role-playing as a agent of social change is not the most efficient"

My knowledge of "meme" theory is limited, but the theories in quality management support your statement. Yes, I do agree that RPG can be powerful tool to introduce new ideas or change present ideas.

I have a simple question: what kind of RPG are we talking about: commercial game or a purpose designed group activity with a very concise goal.

I think we are talking about the same thing, just our definitions are different.
For me, your examples: the play-test of "Amber Diceless",  'Policy Exercises' and the  "NanoTech" are concrete (no pun intended) examples, very much like donating money, blood, organising groups, etc. You, or the professor, did it because it wa his/your job or you wanted to change achieve a change. These are, either way high quality activities, but, if you allow me to say, without degrading this activities, that this were role-plays (without game). Not because of the lack of enjoyment, but because the main purpose was not to game or have fun, but the above mentioned change.
In my understanding this need to change an idea or thinking is not that profound role-playnig  games. There may present, especially in the Indie RPGs, but they aim is not to achieve change but to create a game of enjoyment.

Now, if you say, you create a RPG to combat feminism, I think that is very good. You give a tool for psychologists, human resources managers, etc. These are the examples which you mentioned, just with different goals (i.e. not feminism).
But this is not a game, for me at least. If these are games, I have revise all my past statements.
But if you say you make RPG about feminism, for me it is inefficient, because the moral dilemma/task/lesson will always be less important as the enjoyment of the game.

Let me illustrate my ideas by an example.
Lets call the social issue (the meme): the protection of the ocean and the whales.
Let's take a role-playing  game. There is even one on the market: Blue Planet. If we examine the setting, we will see it does raise the awareness (it did for me at least) of whales and the ocean. But if you examine it in detail, there is not much about environment (there was a great plague, many animals died, nearly nothing about avoidance, etc.)
It is about adventuring, skills, XP, combat...short having a great time in a Hollywoodesque world.
The reason why BP was a great tool to protect the seas, becasue a certain portion of the profit went to the "Costeau Society".
A role-play would when the players were whales and had to face the concrete actions of the modern mane. What do you do as whale in an oil spill, etc. But these wouldn't be games anymore.

So if the gentleman meant to write a tool to combat feminism I agree with it. If he meant to put feminism between a Dungeon and Dragon or a Blaster and Spaceship I disagree.

I hope my ideas are more understandable now. Feel free to whack my definitions, but please offer something instead which I can work on instead.

Erick:
I think, we have more or less the same position, just the above distinctions of categories differ.

[clehrich]

Now, if you say, you create a RPG to combat feminism, I think that is very good. You give a tool for psychologists, human resources managers, etc. These are the examples which you mentioned, just with different goals (i.e. not feminism).
But this is not a game, for me at least. If these are games, I have revise all my past statements.
But if you say you make RPG about feminism, for me it is inefficient, because the moral dilemma/task/lesson will always be less important as the enjoyment of the game.

I don't agree, I'm afraid.  For me, this was one of the revelations of my first reading of Ron's stuff on GNS, particularly about Narrativism: Nar games depend on Premise, which is to say a "moral dilemma/task/lesson," as you put it.  If the goal is to get some "right answer," that's not much as a game, but if the point is to address the Premise and think and play it through, you indeed have a game, and enjoyment, and the moral issue.

This is one of the cool things about RPGs for social-activist purposes.  The players aren't expected to come up with the right answer, or produce some known result as in a lab assignment in a science class.  They're just supposed to use the available tools to interact with and think about the Premise.  This requires them to think about all the implications of that Premise, and develop their own thoughts about it.

This is, in fact, what is sometimes called the Socratic method: you force people to think through a problem themselves, so that whatever results they come up with are deeply convincing for them, as opposed to simply telling them the answer and expecting them to believe it.

[contracycle]

The reason why BP was a great tool to protect the seas, becasue a certain portion of the profit went to the "Costeau Society".

Well I'm skeptical about the real impact of such arrangements myself; for one thing it smacks of 'environmental consumerism', that is, I don't need to engage with the problem, I'll just pay some people to do it for me, and then I can feel content and virtuous and go back to enjoying my SUV.  I would in fact prefer products that made the argument, and thereby potentially produced more actual engaged activists, then merely providing a channel for charity, not change.

[John Kim]

Hmmm.  

On the idea that RPGs are inefficient as social change compared to movies, novels or other venues.  I'm willing to consider it, but I don't consider this obvious.  I think that it is important to keep this all in perspective.  You cannot compare a small-press independent RPG to a full-scale Hollywood movie, because the inputs are totally incomparable.  

In practical terms, if I spend the time necessary to write a feature-length film script with a strong social message, the chances are overwhelming that it will never get produced.  So that time that I spent on input got me absolutely zero output in terms of social change.  For the same effort that might go into such a script, I could potentially write a role-playing game which dealt with the issues.  Now, this would only reach a few hundred people at best -- but that has to be compared with how much good I would do solely from the screenplay.  Bear in mind that to actually produce even a low-budget movie will require hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man-hours of labor, and even then movies (especially art movies) often end up with no distribution.  

So while it is possible, I'm not going to accept without question the idea that making an RPG is inefficient compared to other means of social change.  So again, the proper question is: If I spend X hours trying to write a role-playing game vs X hours trying to write a novel or screenplay, which one will result in more social change?  I don't consider the answer to be obvious, though of course it's impossible to get a real answer to this question.  

Further, I don't think that small gestures are a bad thing.  In fact, I consider it poisonous to suggest that you shouldn't do small things for a cause unless you have seriously devoted your life to it.  For example, I have a friend who is a low-budget film writer/director.  He is not a crusader for feminist causes in most of his life.  He has never volunteered for a women's shelter or any such.  However, he makes a conscious effort to have strong, non-stereotyped female roles in his films.  Personally, I applaud and commend him for this -- and I consider it stupid for anyone to deride it as a token or empty gesture.  He's doing his small part.  That's how society changes -- through millions and millions of "empty" gestures.

[dewey]

Everyone who doesn't agree with my initial opinion:
I proposed that making an RPG to help a current social issue is an empty gesture, as a person can do much more than that in everyday life.
In the middle of the first page Jack Aidley pointed out that I didn't take into account the case that someone might has done that much more about an issue and make an RPG about that issue, too.
I said that's right, and revised my opinion. Since no-one's arguing for the original opinion, I see no point in arguing against it, either.

So, my opinion v2.0:

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.

My old example:
A person belonging to an ethnic group is beaten up in a dark alley. A passer-by decides to make an rpg to fight racism.
However, as everyone can intervene, or call the police, or wait out the fight and then call ER, not doing any of these things but making an rpg, is just an empty gesture.

What do you think?

[dewey]

I forgot to highlight an important thing:

IN EVERYDAY LIFE. Because everyone can do that, to pay attention and act consciously to help.

[ADGBoss]

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?

Well I think the point is that making an RPG about Social Issues IS doing something to help the current social issue.  You cannot force people to be politically or socially relecant in certian ways because that can cause resentment.  Case in point, and no offense to MADD, but I know several mothers who are very much proponents of stricter Drunk Driving Laws, who hang up when MADD calls on the phone asking for money because they perceive it's motives not to be pure anymore and are tired of being pressured.  (I cannot say for sure, I am not involved in MADD this is just anecdotal evidence.)

One person reaching out their hand one time is socially relevant.  I would say the same with an RPG.  Ok perhaps it is not reaching millions but it is reaching someone and in that case it is very worthwhile.

Most contributions to social change are or begin small.  


Sean

[pete_darby]

Well, saying that attempts to address contemporary issues in RPG's are futile in respects to changing the world outside of the game implies a number of things, one of which is that changing the world is the only reason we should put these issues into games.

Putting my narrative hat on, it's because these issues are problematic that they make for grippping, dramatic situations to play through, to explore. In GNS terms, they form a valuable, possibly fundamental, set of premises to address.

The implication is that we shouldn't base games around addressing these issues because they are real and problematic. I say, if only from an artistic standpoint, that is precisely why they should be available.

Drama isn't, and never has been, purely about the happy fun part of entertainment. What's been grist for every other medium for the last 3000+ years should surely be grist for this one.

A top case is nicotine girls, which on first glance is a satire of working class youth, but reveals itself as a framework for small, affecting tragedies.

One more thing (channeling Jackie Chan's uncle): the personal is political, as us old liberals used to say. Any game session is potentially politically or philosophically challenging, as they hinge to a great extent on personal conflicts, and human choices and values. Putting a ring fence around gender issues, reproductive issues, class issues, whatever, because we should be "making a difference" about these things instead of playing games about them speaks to a liberal guilt about enjoying yourself rather than fighting the power. Don't go to Fahrenheit 911, go to your local democrat, or green, or independent office and do some volunteer lobbying instead.

Screw that. I'm living political, and that means work and play, and I'm doing it by living personally, thoughtfully and responsibly and not fighting shy of issues in gaming, writing, singing, whatever, just because I've not given my last penny to The Cause

[greyorm]

A person belonging to an ethnic group is beaten up in a dark alley. A passer-by decides to make an rpg to fight racism. However, as everyone can intervene, or call the police, or wait out the fight and then call ER, not doing any of these things but making an rpg, is just an empty gesture.

What do you think?

I personally don't believe the example is very relevant. Ignoring a hate crime as it is occuring has nothing to do with whether or not an RPG about the issue is empty or relevant. By using this to argue that RPGs are empty gestures because there's other things a person could do, you're infering that anyone who writes an RPG about a social issue is somehow a hypocrite: that they would walk past a hate crime and do nothing. That's disingenious (and insulting).

So, suppose I stop and help the victim of the attack, and then go home and write an RPG about it. Is the RPG still an empty gesture? In that case, why is writing a movie about racism not an equally empty gesture? (ie: I watch an ethnic person get beat up in an alley, then go home and write a screenplay about it?)

Earlier, you stated because many more people would see a movie, movies were not empty gestures; yet racists are not going to go see the latest movie about the evils of racism, nor are they going to read the latest books about it, so such endeavors in the entertainment industry are often very much a preaching to the choir, and must be (by the logic you've presented regarding RPGs) useless because they are arguably ineffective as agents of social change.

It seems you're somehow conflating the worth of an action with the extent to which it reaches. That because someone didn't change the world or raise consciousness with their action, that action is empty of merit or utility. Is that what you are claiming?

Let's say I give blood once per year: is that suddenly an empty gesture because I could do it many more times per year than that? AND I could run blood drives, hand out literature, and give extra funds from my paycheck to the Red Cross for purposes of funding their blood drives.

Are you claiming that because I'm not out every day walking the streets and preaching the word, suddenly anything I might do to improve the issue is just an empty gesture?

Let's say I tell my son that judging people based on the color of their skin is wrong. Is that an empty gesture because I'm not also giving money to the NAACP, and running a series of lectures on racism and it's impact on society at local schools, or running a citizen's watch-dog group down at the local police station making sure that racial profiling isn't occuring?

Is it an empty gesture because it's impact is small and localized, rather than grand and world-changing? (a response here might be: it's empty if you don't practice what you preach. But we aren't talking about what else I do -- that's the same problem as above, regarding the game worth vs. watching a crime: judging the worth of one behavior with the worth of a different behavior).

[Doctor Xero]

So, my opinion v2.0:

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.

My old example:
A person belonging to an ethnic group is beaten up in a dark alley. A passer-by decides to make an rpg to fight racism.
However, as everyone can intervene, or call the police, or wait out the fight and then call ER, not doing any of these things but making an rpg, is just an empty gesture.

What do you think?

At the risk of going against the crowd, I would have to agree with you on this one if you are stating what I think you are stating.

Tell me if I understand you aright :
People who write RPGs about social issues instead of doing anything else about that social issue on a personal and/or political level, especially those who write RPGs about social issues either specifically because it's easier OR specifically to feel good about themselves without having to take any actual Real World risks, are making empty gestures rather than actually doing anything to make the world a better place.

If that is what you are claiming, I agree with you completely.

There is a saying in the gay community : "If I see a person wearing an AIDS ribbon, I know there's a good chance that person has done nothing more to fight AIDS except put out the money to buy an AIDS ribbon (and thereby look good to others)."  In other words -- the poser activist.  While there are of course many exceptions to that saying, the point it makes runs true -- that too many people restrict their activism to easy public gestures and "fun" projects only.  (One of the difficulties in modern activism is that too many alleged activists actually want only to be entertained, not to be asked to put forth any efforts beyond the "fun" ones.)

In the same way, writing a "socially conscious" RPG simply so that one can pat oneself on the back with a risk-free, "fun" expression of alleged activism would also be an empty gesture.

Have I understood your claim, dewey?

Doctor Xero

[Mike Holmes]

All very hypothetical, which is just as "safe." I think that it would be absurd to disagree with that supposition, Dr. Xero. So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

It's very easy to attack "those people" who may or may not exist. We'll all join you in condemning them. Now, is there really a problem that needs to be addressed in terms of people making issue based RPGs but doing so to avoid having to deal with the problem in other ways?

Mike

[greyorm]

Xero,

If you are reading dewey correctly, the main problem with that is that still doesn't answer why an RPG about a social issue would be valueless. As I mentioned in my post above, all such a situation says is that the author is (perhaps) a hypocrite -- it says nothing about the actual worth of such a product on its own merits. It certainly doesn't answer the question of "Why create an RPG about feminism?" even in the negative sense. You can't use it to critique the product itself.

Consider, dewey has stated that film and literature is better suited to such issues than RPGs; in this case, as I asked above, is the positive movie about women's issues created by the writer who doesn't do anything about those problems otherwise an empty gesture? That is, is the making of the flim, and thus the film, without value? "Why create a movie about women's issues?"

Dewey asked, "Why create an RPG about feminism?"
And then answered his own question by judging everyone who did, whether he meant to or not, "I think you should not, because if you do, you're just making an empty gesture to feel good about yourself."

But that's not really an answer to the question. All it does is judge the author, "You created an RPG about feminist issues, you must be a poser activist, and your game is an empty gesture." Whether or not it is an empty gesture from the author, whether the author is active in political or social events in his community, is not an issue for the Forge, and it doesn't answer why or why not to create a game, because the answer given presumes a hell of a lot about the author.

It says, "Why shouldn't you? Because you're avoiding doing things to improve the world."

[Doctor Xero]

So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

Good question.

it says nothing about the actual worth of such a product on its own merits. It certainly doesn't answer the question of "Why create an RPG about feminism?" even in the negative sense.

True enough.  But before I can further address the point about which he started this thread, I need to make certain I understand what his point is, or rather the revision he has made in recognition of posts made throughout this thread.

My own take :

I agree that it's a good idea to point out that merely designing a socially conscious game is insufficient if one wants to be an activist.  Beyond that, however, an RPG which intelligently addresses or brings to light a social issue is useful regardless of whether the game designer is involved in other activities.  Yes, it may be an empty gesture in terms of the moral or ethical worth of the game designer, and yes, it may be the sum of his or her activism, but neither of those points negate the possible positive impact said game may have.  Even if it's not much, it's something, and neither censoring it nor censuring it is likely to cause the game designer to contribute any additional efforts.

Overuse of shaming closes ears ; it doesn't open minds.

The activism value of the game and the ethical worth of the game designer are two different things.  I can urge the game designer to do more, but ultimately that is her or his personal decision, not mine.

Doctor Xero

[dewey]

Tell me if I understand you aright :
People who write RPGs about social issues instead of doing anything else about that social issue on a personal and/or political level, especially those who write RPGs about social issues either specifically because it's easier OR specifically to feel good about themselves without having to take any actual Real World risks, are making empty gestures rather than actually doing anything to make the world a better place.

That's what I had in my mind, and finally managed to communicate. However, I would emphasize the personal level in everyday life, because that's where everyone can do something.

So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

NO. I'm extremely sensitive about assumptions, including myself making assumptions about others. I prefer to stick to facts and logic. If what I've written sounded so, I apologize. If not, I don't.