Real World Ideology reflected in Games

[lehrbuch]

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that...

I'll answer you in a bit, but first, by "GM-full game" do you mean:

a) a "traditional" RPG where there is one GM, and many subordinate players.

b) a game where each player shares some responsibility for "GM" duties.

c) something else.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

My understanding of the term "GM-full" as commonly used on the Forge is that it is a more accurate alternative to the more commonly used "GM-less," in that all of the players partake of the Directorial power often reserved for the GM, such that no GM can be distinguished; i.e., the game is full of GMs.

If I've got that backwards, someone please tell me, and I'll edit my posts.

[lehrbuch]

My understanding of the term "GM-full" as commonly used on the Forge is ... the game is full of GMs.

OK, fair enough.

First, this [worldview effecting acceptance of single or multi-GM play] is only a (possibly badly chosen) example of what I mean.  Do you agree or disagree that worldview could affect acceptance of RPG mechanisms and assumptions, in general?

Second, I think you are still hung up on the idea that the player's have to acknowledge, that their acceptance is to do with worldview.  I am not suggesting that the players are going to sit around loudly exclaiming "Oh my, I now understand this multi-GM style of play.  It's all about a shared perception of a negotiated reality."  No.  

I am saying that the most basic assumption of multi-GM style of play is that the players negotiate between themselves a shared *game* reality.  Or, perhaps, it is clearer to look at traditional single-GM style, where the assumption is that a single GM knows the "true" *game* reality and the other players have to interrogate them to discover it.  Do you disagree with these descriptions?
 
The next thing that I am saying (this is the important and general bit) is that if the player's perception of the real world, that is their "worldview", happens to align with either of those descriptions, then they will find less problems accepting similar assumptions in a game.

my experience of GM-full games...suggests that the disorientation some players experience on first playing such games is due to overly-rigid expectations about what the social contract of a roleplaying game must be, rather than to any lack of sufficient solipsism.

OK, as you are, I think, speaking about players who are not new to roleplaying the situation is complicated, because their worldview also contains assumptions about what a roleplaying game is.

Perhaps, it is better to think of the experiences of first time roleplayers or the decisions of a roleplaying designer who is thinking about what mechanisms to include in a game.

For example, in my experience: first time roleplayers tend to adopt neither single nor multi-GM play naturally, instead they adopt the idea that situations in the game are analogous to situations in the real world, they then *tell* the other players what happens when they are familiar with the real world analogy and *ask* what happens when they are not.  Which, I guess, is Simulationist play with real world validation by the most qualified player.

[Valamir]

I'm a little confused by your arguement Lehrbuch.  It seems to me that what you're postulating is making a hypothesis out of something that's pretty much a given in the first place.  I would think that ones "world view" (culture, mores, ideology, etc) subconciously colors everything that the person percieves and thinks.  Being influenced by these things is the norm.  Trying to keep an open mind and accept things that challenge ones ideology as being equally valid is the hard part.

So I guess my point is simply: of course real world ideology colors roleplaying, in the same manner that it colors everything that we do.  So I'm somewhat unsure of what specific talking points you're desireing to target in this thread.  Trying to identify manifestations of this effect in actual game mechanics might be a little like looking for a needle in a haystack because the mechanics are going to be influenced by many other considerations which are likely to seem more obvious and compelling.  Further it might seem a little unreasonable to try and identify outright effects that are probably too subtle to be easily spotted.

For instance it would be rather outrageous to postulate that D&D hitpoints reflect a world view that accepts that some individuals have a greater right to live than others (i.e. the mechanic offers more protection to "high level people of certain classes" than it does to others).  That's a little heavy handed and clearly impossible to support as anything more than conjecture.  But I would agree with the idea that on some level (likely too subtle to identify) our game rules are colored by these types of assumptions...if only because...how could they not be.

[contracycle]

No, but recognising that the Forgotten Realms is basically the modern west with RenFaire trappings can start you off on a road that helps you understand why you find a game satisfying or otherwise.   I guess thats probably a sim concern - from the sim perspective, one of my interests is constructing games which prompt an alternate consciousness, way of looking at things.  In fact I would go so far as to say this is implicit in games.  The reason that this is more important than the observation that our subjective analysis is always carried with us is precisely because a game establishes a value system and a reward mechanism - it thus at least partly tends to impose its tacit ideology on the players.

[Ron Edwards]

Wow,

The above two posts by Ralph and Gareth, taken together, really sum up my thinking on this entire issue.

Not much more to add. Great, interesting thread though.

Best,
Ron

[lehrbuch]

...I guess my point is simply: of course real world ideology colors roleplaying, in the same manner that it colors everything that we do.  So I'm somewhat unsure of what specific talking points you're desireing to target in this thread.

I agree that it is obvious that real world ideology colours roleplaying.  However the next step, that may not be obvious, is to deliberately use this fact in game design.

Using the idea to retrospectively try and guess the ideological concerns of a game designer is probably not very useful, except as an exercise in learning how ideology *might* affect a game design.  Although, as contracycle suggests it might be a tool (amongst others) that can be used towards gaining an understanding of why a game is or is not satisfying.  

What is more interesting is me is to use the idea to analyse our own game designs (as they are formed) to determine whether the ideology of the game is consistent.  For example: if I was to design a game set in mediaeval Europe, then I would include a class system (obviously implemented differently to, for example, D&D)- because it is consistent with the ideology of the setting.  I would have to think about whether to have a single or multi-GM system of narration, as single GM is more consistent with the ideology of the setting, but multi-GM might promote a style of narrativism that I want.

Also, it would be wise to consider whether the ideology of a potential game design is consistent with what you perceive the ideology of your players to be.  If you can identify the likely points of difference, then you can either a) change the game design to align more closely with your player's ideology, or b) explain to the players how and why the differences exist.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Lehrbuch: What about transgressive characters? I find that some of the most interesting Exploration of Character comes from establishing a Setting with whose social constraints everyone is sufficiently familiar that they go without saying, and then creating characters who break the rules. How would that be facilitated by your strategy of representing the rigid socioeconomic constraints of Medieval Europe by means of a class system?

[lehrbuch]

What about transgressive characters?...How would that be facilitated by your strategy of representing the rigid socioeconomic constraints of Medieval Europe by means of a class system?

If you want to represent ahistorical characters then design your class system such that it is possible.  It is just an implementation problem.  However, *if* you want to maintain some sort of medieval "authenticity" and *if* you want to encourage your players to adopt (or think about) a medieval worldview (during the game) then it is undesirable for players to have ahistorical characters and should be difficult.  At the very least, there should be severe in-game consequences for breaking societies rules.  It seems elegant for this to be reinforced by game mechanics.

Also, I doubt everyone *is* familiar with the social constraints of the medieval world.  Or if they are, pretend we are discussing some weird SF setting that nobody knows about.  The idea is to establish and reinforce the setting (or the characters or the Premise) with the game mechanics.  The important bits to establish and reinforce are the bits that are different from the experience of the players.

Take, for example, the "Wuthering Heights" RPG it uses game mechanics to establish and reinforce Character and Setting.  Or "Bushido" used class to establish worldview and setting.  Or "Ars Magica" uses amongst other mechanisms the Magi/Companion/Grog class system to establish something similar (but, yes, different) to a medieval worldview.  Or "Vampire" attempts to use mechanics like Humanity to establish and reinforce something like a Premise.

Compare this to say, "The Pool" where the mechanics, while they do encourage a particular narrative style, do not help much with the establishment of a particular Setting or a particular Premise.  The same thing with "GURPS", the mechanics encourage a particular style of play, that is often inconsistent with the settings that people try to use it for.

In some respects this is an argument that System does matter and at a very deep level, because it moderates the interaction between the players' worldview and the worldview of the game.

[Valamir]

What you're saying here in the last post lehr is something I wholeheartedly agree upon.  Its been pretty much the corner stone of my distaste for generic systems (like the ubiquitous GURPS, but also FUDGE, et.al.) for years.  If the game isn't customized to do exactly the kind of things you're talking about, its missed a HUGE opportunity.  

However, I have come to amend this sentiment post GNS to include "IF your goal is Simulation" which the Pool's goal is not.

For the record, this is how I managed to make peace with the fact that Universalis attempts to be universal...something I've traditionally detested.

If we're talking simulationist games, than my top candidates for favorite systems is Pendragon and Cyberpunk, because both accomplish the goal of creating a game system that captures all of the various tropes you mention.  Pendragon to the point that it is almost impossible to concieve of using the game for anything other than Arthurian adventure (with the exception of the "spin-off" Paladins of Charlemagne and Spencers Faerie Queen)

[Seth L. Blumberg]

If you want to represent ahistorical characters then design your class system such that it is possible.

Then what's the point of using a class system to represent historical social categories?

Basically, what you're suggesting is that the designer of a Simulationist historical RPG needs to anticipate, not only every archetypal character of the era, but every possible variation or transcision of archetypes that could reasonably have occurred, before he can design his class system.  That is going to be one monstro-huge, unwieldy mother of a class system.

And anyway, where does "ideology" enter into it?

[lehrbuch]

However, I have come to amend this sentiment post GNS to include "IF your goal is Simulation" which the Pool's goal is not.

OK.  Forgive me if I'm mistaken, "The Pool's" "goal" appears to be to promote a narrativist style of play.  However, I think, it would be a better game if it not only promoted narrativist play in general, but also had a specific Premise in mind, and the game mechanics were used to concentrate the focus of the game on that particular Premise.  

I don't believe it is only Simulation games that can suffer from a lack of focus on something.

...what you're suggesting is that the designer of a Simulationist historical RPG needs to anticipate, ...every archetypal character of the era [and] every possible variation or transcision of archetypes that could reasonably have occurred.

Um...No.  A better implementation would be to have a limited number of "historical" classes, and then use the game mechanics to penalise (not necessarily prevent) characters who break the class boundaries.  

For example, in (current) "D&D" a player may purchase skills for their character outside of their class designated skills at a penalised rate (called cross-class skills in the game).  Note: I'm neither suggesting that "D&D" classes are remotely historical nor that its class system is a particularly good implementation, in general.  This bit of it is OK though.  Another example is in "Vampire" where there is a penalty rate for purchasing out-of-clan disciplines.

And anyway, where does "ideology" enter into it?

Two places:  First, my original idea was that the argument that "classes" are always bad in an RPG is reflective of an ideological rejection of classes as an idea.  I think, a similar argument could be applied to (some) other mechanics.

The second, more useful, idea whose gradual articulation can probably be seen in this thread, is: when designing an RPG, where the players are likely to think differently (hold different ideologies) to the characters and to the game world in general, it is a good idea to use game mechanics to focus the players towards acting appropriately.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

when designing an RPG, where the players are likely to think differently (hold different ideologies) to the characters and to the game world in general, it is a good idea to use game mechanics to focus the players towards acting appropriately.

Can't argue with that.