Ideology and Games

[timfire]

Eric, thanks for clarifying!

I think this is a really interesting topic, but I do believe the conversion will be hindered a bit if you're unfamiliar with the games Vincent mentioned (and all the other good Forge games). All the games address different ideology questions, and you really would be interested in how they do it.

If I may use the moment for a little shameless self-promotion, I think you would find my game, The Mountain Witch, interesting in this regard. Though I would be lying if I said the game wasn't interested in the development of the individual character, the game is VERY interested in the development of the social space between characters. One of the major questions the game asks is how the group deals the sins/wrong-doings of its members.

Actually, I think about the social side of my games ALOT, and very purposely. With my next game, I'm trying to address/ask/whatever about how "the world" develops and deals with things... if that made sense.

[Eric J-D]

Hi guys,

First, let me just say thanks to everyone for reading my long threads.  You've all shown great patience with my sometimes fumbling attempts to clarify what I am saying.  Second, I really do hope that Tim is right and that people have found this thread interesting rather than something that would try the patience of a saint. 

I really think that things are moving in some good directions, but just so that we are all on the same page let me address a few comments.

For Vincent:

You say that "narrative premise" and "ideology" are the same thing, but this just shows me that I am still not being clear.  I am not talking about the ideological issues raised by a game's premise at all.  That is not what the thing under investigation here.  I am looking at both the vehicle by which play proceeds and the narrative interest in what happens to this vehicle (traditionally called "the character") as the instance of an ideological bias, one which has its roots in classical liberalism.  So James has nailed it when he asks if #1 is what I am interested in exploring (although I am also  interested in the way #2 is often folded into #1).

That's what I meant when I said that we are talking about ideology in different ways.  Your point is that when a game includes a narrative premise it is addressing issues of ideology.  In some ways you are pointing to the stuff that goes in narrativist play and saying, "See, look at all the places where this socially interesting and important premise is being addressed and look at how the design of the system encourages that to happen!  This is addressing and critically reflecting on ideology."  I am not looking at the stuff (in terms of situation based addressing of premise and the outcomes that flow from this) of play at all so much as the vehicle and asking (and I'll say this in the absolutely most flat-footed way possible to try and make the distinction between what we are talking about clear), "Why this preoccupation with 'the character' in RPGs?  Why is this focus on the character and the personal consequences for the character of particular actions the driving interest of most RPG play, whether that play be Nar or Sim?"  I am saying that the central focus on character is what is ideological.

Now, someone might say, "But isn't that just what stories are about? Isn't what we mean by 'story' a story about character(s) and the consequences that result for them from their actions?"  In one sense, yes, this is what we commonly mean by a story.  In another way, though, this is a very ideological understanding of what a story is, an understanding that is very Euro-American (although there are exceptions to this from within the European and American literary traditions of course) and that doesn't really adequately encompass everything that goes under the heading "fiction" or "literature."  For instance, there is a lot of literature from African countries that doesn't really conform to this European aesthetic preference.  Because it is built on a very different aesthetic understanding, many of these African novels have faired very poorly at the hands of western critics who tend to find fault with them for their "failure" to create "rounded" and sensuous characters or for their preoccupation with the social world of the text and not with particular characters.  What these criticisms reveal to me (and to many other people trained in literary criticism) is the presence of a nearly invisible ideological bias within western conceptions of the novel.  I would say that  this is equally true of most RPGs.

I don't want to get into debates here about whether texts that don't adhere to standard European understandings of what a story is are good or bad fiction.  That isn't the point, so let's keep the focus on RPGs.

To make this even more explicit, let's take the opening text of Sorcerer as an example.  Just to be clear, let me say that I absolutely love Sorcerer so I don't want anyone misconstruing what I am going to say as dissing the game.  That just isn't so.  Now we'll all agree that Sorcerer is Nar turned all the way up.  It has a very explicit Premise ["How far will you go to get what you want?"] and it has system mechanics that support addressing this premise through play.  Here's what Ron says about the game:

"Sorcerer concerns stories about dangerous magical acts that have explosive personal consequences" (pg.10; my emphasis).

and a little later "Sorcerer presents a metaphor for the utterly realistic, utterly relevant moral question, 'What will you do to get what you want" (pg. 10; Ron's emphasis).

Now, what I take away from this is that what we are interested in as players when we sit down to play Sorcerer is how we as players and how our various "you"s (in the form of characters) answer this question.  The stories the system and play will generate are relentlessly character focused.  This is where our interest and attention lies, says the text.

I'll say again so no one will forget it: this is one of the great things about what Sorcerer is and does.  It satisfies this goal amazingly well.  Part of that comes from the mechanics that help facilitate this goal, but part of (and Ron is absolutely right on the money here) have to do with the whole choice of the sorcerer metaphor and demons as dysfunctional relationships thing itself.  I am not knocking Sorcerer.

But you have to admit, the game has made a choice to make the "you" and "your" answer to the question built into the premise of the game the central focus of play.  Granted that it is a very common choice within the western literary tradition, but it sin't the only option available.  A game could construct its system in such a way that the goal of play is not to generate a story that focuses on the character but that focuses on some effort to make a change in the social world of the text.   I'll admit that characters are, generally and generically speaking, pretty necessary to both literature and to RPGs, but is it that case that our attention and interest (as either readers or as author/players) has to be confined to what happens to them, how they as individuals respond to moral dilemmas or premise-laden situations, etc.?  If novels can move beyond a preoccupation with character can't RPGs too?  The bigger point, however, is this: despite being full-bore Nar with Premise and all, "Sorcerer," given its central focus on the "you" of the story, is every bit as situated within the framework of classical liberalism as "Runequest" is.  I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, mind you.  It is, however, a choice that the game has made (and that many other Nar games make) and not an inevitability.  As my references to Ray Winninger's "Underground" tried to make clear, here was an older generation Sim type game that no doubt included plenty of game text that showed incoherence in the creative agenda but that also included mechanics (in the form of rules for how advancement points might be spend on altering the parameters of a society) that seemed to suggest that a point of play--and by no means the only point of play--was the alteration of the social world of the game itself.

[Please note: I don't think this was "Underground's" only or even primary source of appeal.  Exploration of Color seemed like another--and for some perhaps a more primary--point of play] 

Alright, that's enough for one day.  Thanks to everyone again for the stimulating replies.

To Tim:

I am really interested in your next game project.  This sounds like a project to watch.  I am also very interested in "The Mountain Witch" which, from the sound of it, has some very cool mechanics that build on issues of trust/mistrust within the group.  I'll no doubt be picking it up.

To glyphmonkey (sorry but I couldn't find your real name in your post:

Shock sounds like a really promising project too.  I think you are right that the sci-fi genre is frequently a place where a focus on something larger than the character occurs.  Finally thanks for the encouragement to write a game.  Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I've never thought of myself as someone who could design a game.  Perhaps I should have a go at it, but I think I need to spend a bit more time playing in some of the new games that have been suggested.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.

Eric

[Josh Roby]

Common design assumptions, which may reveal underlying ideological assumptions:

Stories are about characters. (Egotism)
Characters are people. (Anthropomorphism)
Each player plays one character. (My Guy)
Someone must be in charge of the plot -- usually the GM. (Myth of the Author)
The character is the only tool the players have to affect the story.  (mistaking the game for a reality simulation)
A player has complete control over "his" character. (Self-determinism)
Characters are outmatched by threats larger than they are, and defeat them by being clever. (The Underdog Syndrome)
Characters begin at a relatively weak power level and progress to becoming more powerful over time. (The Campbellian Confusion)
There is always a chance of success or failure in any given attempt. (Optimism, or perhaps Pessimism, depending)
All the main characters (ie, PCs) begin the story at a relatively equal power level. (Good old American Equality-or-Die).

Of course lots of these have been tested and/or broken, but the bulk of them remain unchallenged in the "mainstream" of game design.

[NN]

Eric,

What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)
How would these entities be played?

Nick

[timfire]

What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)
How would these entities be played?

It's possible role-play governments and other institutions. (You can check out [this thread], which isn't exactly on-topic, but it's the best I can come up with on short notice.) But that's really a topic for a new thread.

[lumpley]

Eric: Cool! Design that game!

-Vincent

[Judd]

A game could construct its system in such a way that the goal of play is not to generate a story that focuses on the character but that focuses on some effort to make a change in the social world of the text. 

Yes, this game needs to happen.  This is me, agreeing with Vincent (at least I think I am) and quoting the text that excites me just to make it clear. 

Take that sentence over to Indie Design Forum or just write it on a napkin for a little while and let it percolate or even better yet, take it to the 24 Hour RPG Design forum and do it to it.

[Darren Hill]

If I've understood you correctly that you're looking for games that shift the focus of player attention during play away from the character and to something else, there's at least one older game that does this with some success: Pendragon.

When you play a full Pendragon campaign, you start out identifying with your character in the usual way. By the end of the campaign, at least three new ares of focus have blossomed.
The Family: Pendragon provides mechanics to allow you to build a family over generations - you'll play descendants, make political alliances through marriage and fostering of children. Your descendants will inherit common personality traits and passions, and will develop strong passions as a result of the fate of your family and success or failure of those alliances.
The Estate: Pendragon also provides the means to invest your attention in the develop of noble estates - you can build up from a small manor to an estate stretching over several counties, and then after a few bad harvests see it all crumble, forcing you to make ethical decisions: do you sacrifice the love of the peasants in order to get the taxes you need to keep your household and army? The really clever thing: the estate becomes a character, which players lavish as much attention on as they do on their favourite characters. They'll nurture a cherished estate over generations - it becomes part of the living history of the campaign.
Furthermore, the establishment of estates and families allows players to extend their influence further into the campaign world than any individual character could achieve - you build alliances, maybe even establish or support social movements, marginalise and crush your enemies.
Finally, in this kind of campaign world, the actual Kingdom - the world - becomes a character. It's an irrestistible presence at the gaming table - forcing players to define their characters in response to the developing events of the game world. All these elements work together so that players see their characters fate as just one element in play - and for some players, it's one of the least important elements.

Having said all that, Pendragon is a very easy game to railroad, but as a game which in theory encourages players to look beyond their personal and focus their attention on other aspects of game play, I haven't seen another game which does so much.

[Josh Roby]

What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)

As a minor point of clarification, players will always play characters.  The characters just don't necessarily have to be people.  All of your suggestions could work, as could settings, social movements, corporations, perhaps even memes.  But as has been said, that's another thread.

Eric, I heartily agree that there are a ton of assumptions that betray and reinforce an ideological basis nascent in roleplaying games.  My little list is an attempt to give some more examples.  The best way to explore what that means, however, is as Vincent suggests -- make a game that tests those boundaries.  We can jabber about what might be true and what might be possible all day long.  It's only when somebody puts pen to paper that we start actually doing something real and getting real information about the situation.

*prod* Start writing!

[Bandari]

Hey... this thread locks right into a line of thought I've been pursuing for the last three months or more.

Yes games are ideological and yes the ideology is present in the basic make up of the games (of course it is, hard to get past that).

And YES, I'd love to see a game that rips away from the individual character to the entire society. A game that doesn't become a boardgame, which essentially locks player creativity into a tactical-strategic framework...

And NO, I still have no idea how to get it together... I'd love to help knock brains and maybe storm something out.

(I'd really need a cheesy green thumbs up emotikon right now)

[RedWick]

I once played in a one-shot diceless game at a convention wherein all the players (seven in total, plus the GM) created Gods and role-played through the creation of the world.  From the seperation of *something* from the void, to the eventual creation of the human race, and all of the crazy-weird creatures and such that was created in the interim.  There was a mechanic in the game by which we could send prophecies and portents to our followers using magnetic poetry (Shakespearian text, iirc). 

The actual gameplay involved each player narrating what their God was doing, with the GM stepping in to change or adjust what was happening.  Another player could pipe up during the course of the narration and change what was happening further still.

Admitedly, the game in question was only a one shot and only lasted for about 4-5 hours, so the focus wasn't on character development so much as on the interplay and interaction between the Gods, their powers and their followers.  Still, it was a wholly unique experience for myself and one that I keep trying to find a group to try it again with.

[Josh Roby]

RedWick, I'm treading dangerously tangential, here, but that would make a really neat prelude to the 'rest' of the game where you played the people and things that you just created!

[Emily Care]

Yay! Down with single-character-centrism. : )

Aria was a stab at playing whole civilizations or segments of them.  Following this lead, the image that comes to mind for me is the time-line of history overseen by the Foundation in Azimov's series.  There's no limit to the scale at which a story can take place: personal, family, community, nation, solar system. & that's just looking at human communities.  As long as you can come up with compelling situations & give the players a position from which to create and affect it, you're good. 

I'd love to see a game that took a compelling situation and allowed you to enter into various different parts of the set up: say, a swat team entering a barricaded apartment. You can affect what's happening by narrating the tear gas filling the hallways, or the Mayor's office being bombarded with flack for the invasion of personal rights, or the prime minister's office looking at this in the larger scheme of subverting *insert threat of the week* terror etc.  Just like descriptions of details fleshing out the experience of a setting via color, quick shots of characters could be used to spotlight the pathos of a scene or the injustices being wrought.  Or take it beyond the human personal. What's that video game where you start out as a single-celled organism?   

It's like looking at characters as components like anything else.  Oh, yeah! Universalis has what you need to start, no doubt. Pendragon sounds like an excellent example too. But there's a lot of ground to be covered to specifically support this kind of play. Rich new ground. Awesome.

best,
Emily

[Eric J-D]

Thanks for all the interest and encouragement everyone.  As I said in an earlier post, I really have never thought of myself as someone who could design a game but perhaps I should give it a whirl.

I think Judd has hit on what I need to do (that is, what I need to do outside of playing some of the great games that have been coming out of the Forge): take the most interesting ideas of the post and let them percolate a bit. 

The trouble with doing the other thing (namely, playing some of these great new games) is that you all are like fucking rabbits.  Everytime you turn around someone else has popped out another baby that you want to give your attention to.  I mean, Jesus, how much time and expendable cash do you think I have. ;-)

Eric

P.S. Oh yeah, one other thing.  Judd, if I have to start working on this game you have to finish Mu's Bed and make it available as a mini-supplement.

[ScottM]

Speaking of Aria, I remembered a game called Fudgified Interactive History-- it's a Fudge Mod where you play societies instead of characters.  A few campaigns (that ran for years) were among the nations of various continents in Elyria.

The older Elyria game seems to have almost disappeared from the internet-- the turn archives should be useful to you.  Here are some societies that players created and ran. Qaiyore was a different take on the same subject.

It was an interesting game; hopefully it has good nuggets to mine for your design.
--Scott