Ideology and Games

[Eric J-D]

Recently I have been thinking about whether much consideration has been given to the role that ideology might play in player satisfaction/dissatisfaction and, more generally, in issues of dysfunctional play.  Now, to be more precise, let me say that by ideology I am not talking about differences of political ideology among the players and the impact that this might make on play.  That is important stuff of course, but I think it is pretty well canvased in Ron's concept of the "social box," a box that includes everything from whether or not Joe has the hots for Steve's girlfriend and how that affects play to  things like Joe thinks Steve is a right-wing nutjob while Steve thinks Joe is a liberal wiener.  I am also not talking about an ideology that might inform a particular setting either (Ray Winninger's "Underground" springs to mind here as an example of a setting that is clearly informed by a more-or-less left-leaning ideology that could create player dissatisfaction for those who don't share its rather jaundiced view of the United States).  Again, this stuff is important and worth talking about, but it isn't what I have in mind.


This thread is not about any of those things.  I am more interested in thinking about whether or not the ideological frameworks that inform a particular game raise points of tension for players and contribute to satisfaction or dissatisfaction.  What I have in mind can perhaps best be understood as the ideology that informs some of the most basic elements of the game design.  For example, in many if not most RPGs there is some set of rules that deal with character improvement.  These rules may range of course from the highly elaborate (precise breakdowns of "experience points" and how they earned or lost and so forth) to the very basic, but I think everyone would agree that they are an RPG staple.  In many games, character improvement becomes a nearly autonomous goal of play, a goal that is buttressed, I would argue, by the rules that exist to deal with such an issue and especially so in those systems that lavish attention on the subject.

So, you're asking, "Where is the ideology at work in this example?"  The fact that this example might not strike any of us as particularly ideological is precisely the point of the example.  The ideology at work here is almost entirely invisible to us since we tend to think that it is natural for RPGs to deal with character improvement.  But if I asked, "why are there no rules in most systems for dealing with how players can make changes or improvements not in their individual characters but in the game world itself?" you would probably see more clearly the ideology that is reinforced by rules that deal with the former but neglect the latter. [Only "Underground," to my knowledge, has rules that detail how improvement points can be spent to make material changes in the game world].

Now, maybe this bothers no one but me, but it seems to me that the vast majority of RPGs--and I would really like to hear about the exceptions to this--tend to reinforce a fairly classically bourgeois-liberal ideology, one that emphasizes the primacy of the individual and his or her personal improvement.  Now that's fine and dandy for folks who have no quarrels at all with classical liberal thought, but for those who do I think it is perhaps one among many other factors that can contribute to player dissatisfaction.  If that's so, then I would be really interested in hearing what some of you think can be done about it given that it seems to be the dominant ideology of most games.

Some might argue that players make changes in the world through the character's actions (and the ripple effects that flow from these actions) during play.  But that seems unsatisfying to me for some reason.  First, any affects players make on the game world through their characters' actions can easily be reversed by simple GM fiat, leading to a distressing sense that characters are really powerless to influence much beyond themselves.  But more importantly it leaves unanswered the reason why the vast majority of RPGs formalize issues of character development (through more or less elaborate rules) but do not formalize rules for altering the game world.  Does that make sense?

I would be especially interested in hearing from game designers about this.  It seems to me that the kinds of games coming out from folks at The Forge--with their efforts to give players greater control over things in the shared imagined space other than character--might represent a real challenge to this tendency.  How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games? 

Any thoughts?

Eric

[Josh Roby]

How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games?

How conscious am I?  Some days that's almost all I think about.  I feel somewhat guilty for designing a game about imperialism that has no systemic way of expressing the damage that imperialism causes.  I'm presenty obsessed with GMless and GMful games, which is a pity since my current project isn't one, and I've no desire to overhaul the entire thing again.

There's a lot of work right now going into parcelling out "GM Power" to the other players around the table, and this is something that I'm trying to incorporate, fostering more collaboration between players, making the dispensation of credibility sharp and explicit and relatively equible.  I want to dissolve the sense that the game exists because the GM wills it to exist, and replace it with the (more accurate, in my mind) sense that the game exists as a collaboration between all players.  I feel like I'm doing this from a slightly different angle than most games that do this -- I'm not looking to liberate the players from the yoke of GM tyrrany so much as liberating the GM from the yoke of being responsible for everything in the world!

Like a lot of other games coming out right now, I have some rules on who talks when, rather than the GM droning on and merely asking the players to contribute what they'd like their characters to do.  Not only does this shift power from GM to players, but it puts it in a context of collaborating between eachother -- Player A can hand narration rights to Player B directly, rather than finishing, looking to the GM who says, "Player B, what do you do?"  And all players at the table can call for a dice check hoping to gain narration rights themselves.

Towards the end of player collaboration, I'm also trying to shoehorn in more communication between players, so that you aren't left trying to figure out what your fellow players are trying to get out of the game experience.  It's right there, on their sheet -- and now I'm even giving a mechanical benefit to players who address the things that are important to the other players.  I've also got as much advice as I can on setting up the social contract, roles and power around the table, and the like, hoping that at least pointing out the interactions will make players a little more conscious of them.

On the whole, I'm trying to shove both the power and the responsibility for creating an enjoyable experience into the hands of all the players, as well as giving them the tools with which to create it and communicate with each other while doing so.  I'll have no Cult of the GM in my game.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

And here, I saw most games as armchair Right-Wing might-makes-rightism.

There is certainly, and obviously, ideology embedded in RPG game design. The racism implied by Tolkein leaked into D&D, for instance. Twilight 2000 was about military fantasy in a Right-Libertarian, government-less anarchy. Any spy game - Top Secret or James Bond, e.g. - obviously assumed the primacy of NATO and its ideals.

When I'm designing a game, I'm thinking about ideology and morality. That's what makes it fiction, instead of a list of things that happened.

[Josh Roby]

And here, I saw most games as armchair Right-Wing might-makes-rightism.

Oh, I didn't even think of that!  This crops up in genre media (books, television, film) as often as in genre gaming, but yeah.  The government is always either (a) stupid, (b) evil, or (c) the PCs.  Anybody who is not you or your friends is wrong or at least naive, and everyone should listen to you/the PCs.  Mind, not all games are like this, but a whole bunch of games that tried to make the jump from objective-oriented design (D&D dungeoncrawl) to freeform character initiative (World of Darkness) fall into this trap.  It arises from the fact that the only route for players to affect the storyline is through character competency -- you only get to have input when you're right.

[droog]

Universalis is a Communist plot!

[timfire]

I'm sorry Eric, I'm not sure what exactly you were hoping to discuss. Do you mind condensing your idea(s)?

Thanks!

[Eric J-D]

I'm sorry Eric, I'm not sure what exactly you were hoping to discuss. Do you mind condensing your idea(s)?

Hi Tim,

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post, but in some ways I am still trying to work out exactly what I mean through writing.  Let me take another stab at it.

As my example regarding system mechanics devoted to character development suggests, I think that most RPGs contain an ideological bias towards a tenet of classical liberal thought, namely the primacy of the individual and his or her personal development/transformation.  Given that most RPGs often devote significant space to the issue of "character improvement or development" through more or less formalized and detailed system mechanics, I think that this suggests   a classically liberal ideological bias (please note "liberal" here does not mean anything like "the  opposite of conservative" since in the United States both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats subscribe to classical liberal political philosophy).  Given that virtually no games contain formalized mechanics for how play might result in a transformation of the world of the game (  "Underground's"  rules for altering parameters being an exception to this) I think this is rather telling.

So what am I hoping to discuss?  A few things which I will simply list for the ease of the reader:

1) Is the above characterization of RPGs fair?  I am very interested in hearing from others whether or not I am being unfair in accusing RPGs of being biased towards classical liberal ideology through their focus on "character transformation/development" rather than on "social transformation/development" ("social" here refering to the game world and not the social world of the players, although that would be cool to talk about too).

2) If this characterization is fair, is this simply an inherent feature of RPGs that anyone who plays them must accept?  In other words, is a restricted focus on the individual character part of what playing an RPG is inherently all about?  I don't think it has to be, but the exceptions to this trend seem rather few and far between.

3) If this characterization is fair, is this really as much a problem as I am making it out to be?  I suppose part of me wonders whether games that emphasize "character development/improvement/transformation" inculcate a classically liberal ideology that is not (in my opinion) without its problems.  I am wondering whether a new generation of games is emerging that either explicitly or implicitly is aiming to address this ideological bias of most RPGs and to rectify it.

4) Is ideology something that we (and by "we" I mean those who either play or design games, but I'm especially interested in the latter even though I am not a designer) need to be more conscious of in discussion about game design and play?

5) What alternatives could we develop to this classical liberal paradigm of most RPGs.  Here I am specifically interested in how systems mechanics might be formalized to incorporate and address different ideological aims.

I hope all or some of that makes more sense.  I realize, Tim, that this post is not much shorter than the previous one, but I hope it is at least marginally clearer.

Cheers,

Eric   

[lumpley]

And here I woulda said that Universalis is a capitalist plot! Care to back me up, Ralph?

Eric: very seriously now, here's what I recommend.

Play Primetime Adventures. Play The Mountain Witch. Play My Life with Master. Play Universalis, Under the Bed, the Big Night, Breaking the Ice, Polaris, the Imp Game, the Pool, Capes, InSpectres, and (if I may) Dogs in the Vineyard. Even play kill puppies for satan! (See my note at the bottom.)

What you'll find is that we're raising ideological questions. Intentionally, reliably - that's what we're about, examining ideology. We're making ideological decisions about our game design on purpose, in wholly examined ways, in order to confront you, the player, with an ideological problem.

Ask us to examine our ideological biases and we'll be all baffled - but not in the usual way, not in the "what ideological biases?" way you're used to. We'll be baffled in the way any artist is when you ask why she does what she does. "But..." we'll say. "But... all I do is examine my ideological biases. You want me to what now?"

So Eric, allow me to be the artist. You don't get to talk ideology with photographers without looking at their photos. You don't get to talk ideology with painters, sculptors, novelists, poets, actors without looking at or reading or going to their work.

The conversation about ideological biases you want to have, we're already having it, right here under your nose. Want to participate? Play our games.

-Vincent

Here's my note at the bottom: the games I named above are games I've personally played. The list of available interesting games is much longer. Anybody, if I left your game off my list, no offence! I just haven't played it.

[Eric J-D]

Oops, forgot to add another topic that might be of interest to some other folks.  Looking back at Ron's "simulation: The Right to Dream" essay, you might remember that the first piece of game text that he quotes (Runequest 2nd edition) says this:

"A roleplaying game is a game of character development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called 'life'"

Now that is about as ideological a statement as I could think of since it suggests that life is about "character development" (i.e. that "life" is what classical liberal political philosophy has said life is) rather than about any other number of things (i.e. care for others, the development of greater human equality and justice, etc.).

So, I guess another question to ask is whether a classical liberal ideology is more likely to be found in those games that tend to facilitate a certain kind of simulationist play or whether it is found in all three GNS modes.

More food for thought I hope.

Eric

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Given that virtually no games contain formalized mechanics for how play might result in a transformation of the world of the game (  "Underground's"  rules for altering parameters being an exception to this) I think this is rather telling.

I think this is a vestige of the myths from which early fantasy games were drawn. In Greek and Northern European myths, the Hero goes through a series of transformations before the end of the story. So it was in D&D, and so it was in the many things that copied it. Greek myths are particularly pointed on this issue: the Heroes were literally worshipped as gods, and they went to war to prove their awesomeness, not to transform society.

This gets right to the core of what I think is missing in RPG circles: science fiction. Science fiction is inherently concerned with society-wide movement and transformation. It's also an area that's been avoided by RPGs over time. The color's been used, but with the two exceptions of Paranoia and Cyberpunk, I can't think of any RPGs that have even attempted to confront society-wide criticism. That will change when Shock: Social Science Fiction comes out.

I've had a hard time convincing regular ol' gamers to ever do or say anything that matters in a game, though. So we'll see how well the game flies.

1) Is the above characterization of RPGs fair?  I am very interested in hearing from others whether or not I am being unfair in accusing RPGs of being biased towards classical liberal ideology through their focus on "character transformation/development" rather than on "social transformation/development" ("social" here refering to the game world and not the social world of the players, although that would be cool to talk about too).

You gotta go play Dogs in the Vineyard. It's about the players' judgement about violence and its effect on both their society and themselves. And it's not a liberal, bourgeois society.

2) If this characterization is fair, is this simply an inherent feature of RPGs that anyone who plays them must accept?  In other words, is a restricted focus on the individual character part of what playing an RPG is inherently all about?  I don't think it has to be, but the exceptions to this trend seem rather few and far between.

It might be fair, but the best way to find out is to write a game that challenges the notions you perceive. Play some Forge games - Vincent recommended some very good ones - then write a game that does what you want.

4) Is ideology something that we (and by "we" I mean those who either play or design games, but I'm especially interested in the latter even though I am not a designer) need to be more conscious of in discussion about game design and play?

I can't think of any game designer I know who doesn't think about the ideology of their games. They couldn't make games if they didn't. This is the Forge, where people design games. You're here. You have something you want to say. Get crackin'!

5) What alternatives could we develop to this classical liberal paradigm of most RPGs.  Here I am specifically interested in how systems mechanics might be formalized to incorporate and address different ideological aims.

It can be done, but not until the questions are specific. We all need you to write this game. Otherwise, we're dancing about architecture.

[Eric J-D]

Shit.  I just finished a reply to Vincent and Joshua and then got told I got timed out.  Words, words, words.  Gone, gone, gone.

Oh well.  Vincent and Joshua, thanks for your recent posts.  I will certainly try to get my hands on some of the games you suggested.

However, after reading your post, Vincent, I think we mean different things by reflecting on ideology.  You say in your post that the designers at the Forge are "raising ideological questions" and that your games are doing so "intentionally, reliably...in order to confront you, the player, with an ideological problem."  From this I take you to mean "my game   Dogs in the Vineyard presents the players with ideological problems by having play address some of the following questions: 'Doe the sinner deserve mercy?' Do the wicked deserve judgment?'"

Now that sounds like a great game with an interesting narrative premise, but it isn't what I am talking about at all when I ask about whether there are games that reflect on the ideology built into their systems.  I know that there are plenty of games being produced by people at the Forge that address a premise and that have as their goal the collaborative creation of stories that explore and address this premise.  This is all to the good.  I certainly prefer games that facillitate Narrativist play over the many more mainstream alternatives or that encourage default Sim mode.

But if you take a minute to think about the kinds of stories whose production even Narrativist oriented games tend to facillitate you will see that they aren't all that far from their more mainstream alternatives in one crucial respect: both types of games see the focus of play as the individual human subject.  In games that facilliatate Narrativist play, this takes the form of player generation of stories that explore the consequences that a character's ethical actions have on   him or her self.  They do this through play that encourages the players to throw characters into premise-laden situations and then to see what falls out from such a crucible.  But as you can see, this fits very nicely within the paradigm of classical liberal ideology since it emphasizes the primacy of the individual and his/her development/transformation.  In other words, what play is about is, at least in one respect, exactly what it is about in the Runequest text Ron quotes in his "Simulation" essay.  It is about the centering of the human individual.  Now, it is obviously quite different in that it doesn't aim to simulate something but rather to address some important question (as defined by the premise), but it is still about the character.

My point is that to the extent that RPGs have maintained a focus on the human individual as the point of play--whether this be in the form of generating stories about the moral/ethical consequences of an individual's choices or in straight-up Sim style exploration--they have not broken with a major tenet of classical liberalism, namely the primacy of the individual.

Now, perhaps the games you mentioned actually do break with this rather entrenched ideological bias of most RPGs, but I am not sure.  I don't think this can really be addressed though simply by saying that a game addresses an important social question.  Even if it does (and I know of plenty of games that do), if its primary interest is still the generation of stories about the effects of ethical decisions on an individual then it is still (from my perspective) firmly within the classical liberal ideological framework no matter how cool its premise might be.

Does that make more sense?  Please don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to diss your game or any of the other really great Narrativist games that have been created here at the Forge.  I am a hardcore narrativist myself.  I am simply trying to say that in their preoccupation with the human individual there still seems to be a way in which RPGs are still not free from the ideological bias of classical liberalism, and this seems to hold for Narrativist as well as Simulationist facilitating games.

What I am wondering is whether there is any effort being made to break free of this grip, whether this is simply an inherent feature of RPGs that we cannot transcend, and whether or not this is even such a bad thing?  Joshua's comments regarding the way RPGs seem still to be caught in a mythic mode with their focus on the hero and his or her transformation encourages me to believe that I am not utterly failing to communicate this idea, so I hope dialogue on this can continue. 

Hope this helps.

eric

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Vincent was offering Dogs in the Vineyard as a game that poses ideological questions, not necessarily as one that poses the ones you're interested in. You should probably read and play it to see how it poses those questions.

Eric, you need to start writing this game. You'll probably be interested in Shock as playtests go by and the game becomes more concrete, too.

But you need to digest Universalis by Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes - a game in which, unless otherwise agreed upon, no one owns a particular character. The same is true, I believe, of Capes, by TonyLB.

I think you've made your point (or at least I already agreed with it): there are few games that have the perspective you want. Now it's time to take action! Write the game! Playtest it and post Actual Play for feedback!

Can anyone else add to this bibliography? Dogs, Universalis, and Capes is a slim list.

[lumpley]

Eric: I understand.

I think you'll be surprised, when you actually play some of the games I mentioned, or some of the other games around here. I think you'll find that "narrative premise" and "ideology" are the same thing.

I think you'll be surprised by the breaks you find from the primacy of the individual's moral development. Not in every game, of course, but in many, and in some you wouldn't expect.

Look: if you're serious, grab a couple friends, take a couple hours, and play Universalis. Or the Pool - it's free, even. Play and mean it. Then come back and post in Actual Play. Write about the ideological underpinnings of the game's mechanics versus the ideology that you and your friends brought to the game. That's how this conversation works.

-Vincent

[MatrixGamer]

I would be especially interested in hearing from game designers about this.  It seems to me that the kinds of games coming out from folks at The Forge--with their efforts to give players greater control over things in the shared imagined space other than character--might represent a real challenge to this tendency.  How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games? 

Am I aware of the philosophical/ideological underpinnings of my rules - OH YES!

I suspect that most indie game designers do a lot of thinking about rules and ideas. If it was just for moeny we'd slap a chain mail bikini on a cumly lass and have done with it.

I started my Engle Matrix Game project with a basic question "Can games be run using words rather than numbers to store information." In the late 80's RPGs, though they used role playing, were really dominated by "Who has the bigger number." I'd tried that approach out and reached a point where the numbers seemed to lose focus and become meaningless. Words seemed like they would keep their contextual meaning better. So how does one do this?

I turned to Emile Durkheim for structure of societies, William James for psychology and pragmatism, Hegel for the dialectic and Kant - well just because I like structure. All thse suggest that my ideology was pretty rigid and that the game would be rigid. Yet it hasn't worked out that way.

Through a process of actual play over many years, I found I could let go of more and more of the structure I started with. I saw how structure naturally asserts itself with limited input for the rules. I tried to mold the rules to follow what people seemed to be doing anyway. At a basic level - while I like structure (to help reduce uncertainty and anxiety) I trust people to do good. Trusting players allows one to have fewer rules. Not trusting players leads to more rules.

Now I hope that people will play Matrix Games and see that they can look for possibilities in their lives rather than just looking at probabilities.It is essentially optomistic.

Chris Engle

[Blankshield]

Eric, I'm coming away with two different reads of what you're saying.  Could you let me know which (if either) is what you're presenting?

Most role-playing games use the individual character as the vehicle of change and the focus of play.  This is representative of a classically liberal ideological bias.

- Or -

Most role-playing games focus on change/progression of the individual character.  This is representative of a classically liberal ideological bias.

(Just trying to wrap my head around your premise.  I think most of the games mentioned above break the mold if you're talking about #2.  I think they don't if you're talking about #1.  Universalis and The Pool break the mold either way.  Blood and Bronze does as well, but it's more of a boardgame than an RPG.)

I think that one of the things that may have people talking across each other is that there is a huge gap between a game having "X" within it (say, mechanics for character advancement) and having "X" as the focus of play.  Dogs is a good example.  Yes, characters advance through play.  No, that ain't what the game is about.


James