Anti-games

[Michael S. Miller]

In a shameless plug, I just finished a Concept Game this weekend. Discernment can be found and discussed here.

[Jonathan Walton]

deconstruction: a method of literary criticism that assumes language refers only to itself rather than to an extratextual reality, that asserts multiple conflicting interpretations of a text, and that bases such interpretations on the philosophical, political, or social implications of the use of language in the text rather than on the author's intention

Emphasis added above.  I think Ron's appropriation of the term (which he might as well appropriate, since everyone else has) focuses on the second half of the meaning.

In a roleplaying context, deconstruction would be "basing interpretations of a given work its philosophical, political, or social implications, rather than solely on the author's intentions."

Of course, games that are called "deconstructionist" in and of themselves are somethng a bit different.  They are reacting to and against the deconstruction of roleplaying (i.e. RPG theory), challanging preconceptions of what roleplaying has to be about.  Given the popularity of appropriating "deconstruction" in this kind of context as it applies to books and movies (i.e. "Adaptation is a deconstruction of the film medium..."), I don't see anything wrong with using it in reference to roleplaying.

[Comte]

Before I get truly started there are a couple of things I would like to bring up.  Theser have no real bearing on my opinion just some random observations that I have been making.

First off:  Violence, if anyone has had the pleasure of reading this game I think it work as an intensly clear example of what it is Mark Johnson is talking about.  It is not a game, oh sure it has rules and whatnot, but they are more there to mock the absurdity of certain RPG's in general.  In truth that game founed my entire system og Game Mastering.  It pointed, and made clear everything I felt was wrong with other games I have been it, and shaped how I run my games.  Coincidently it made me extreamly ripe for the reception of the ideas that are presented here on this site.  

Violence works on the anti game principle because for one it quite openly hates itself, and two it explains why.  Behind the self loathing there is actualy a rather coherent game system that works fairly well.  It is an actual playable game.  However, instead of presenting us with a concept we would want to use it dose the opposite.  It takes the idea of a traditional AD&D dungeon crawl and turns it on its ear.  It uses a real world example to show the compleate ubsurdity of such endevors.

Nextly: Can a work be an anti-game/concept game without the developer's intention to make it so?

I think so.  Look at Little Fears.  Little Fears makes some fairly hardlined social comentary on the missing children problem in america.  Actually at this very moment my copy of the game is being passed around by all the social work professors.  They think it is a brilliant way to demonstrate the problem we have to day with our missing kids and are curiouse as to how to go about running a game.  Is it still a game?  Yeah a bloody good one at that but it dose much much more.

I think the intensions of the author should never be taken into consideration.  I know that sounds kinda tough but its a habit of mine.  I'm a lit major and most of the people I read about are dead.  So I can't ask them what they meant by that, and in fact many times authors themselves are the most disapointing people in the world to ask about thier stuff.  

Now then Here is My Take:  I think we are starting to wander in the wrong direction with this thread by lableing a game as a game or an anti game.  I think that all games to one level or another can be used to serve an anti game agenda.  Lets use good old AD&D2nded as an example.  It would definatly fall into category three as a metafictional construct, and essentialy it shows a way in which we can desighn, and lay out a serialized story over a course of days, months or even years.  I know a campain that starts the players off by saving famers from wolves, now they are off trying to prevent a civil war amongst the gods.  Oddly enough leading the evil side is the once nuteral wolf god that went insane, partialy due to people like the players killing the wolves.  It is a new way to spin a legendary tale on an epic level.  It is essentialy a guide book on how to write an epic in the style of Tolken.  I would be happy to expound upon this if anyone is wondering.

Of course AD&D is desighned to be played, heck it even wants to make money.  However, it can also serve our purpouses as an anti-game.

One of my ideas need explaining.  I think one of the original three points needs expaning to include that sometimes games can be used to make comentary one the real actual world around us.  So that little fears example and the AD&D example fit better into the conversation.  A think that an anti-game can comment on whatever it feels like rather than games just commenting on more games.  We can even kick FATAL around some more as an example.  If we take out the intension of the author's all the sudden we get another sparkling example as to how messed up some games/gamers can be.  Lots of people criticise FATAL but then they roll over and read thier new copy of the Book of Vile Darkness which in my opinion is even more juvenile.  If we compare the Book of Vile Darkness, Fatal, Violence, and AD&D an interesting veiw of how gamers preceive voilence in thier game worlds.  Voilence points out that a Lawful Good charecter from AD&D can commit horrible atrocities in the name of good and it is still okay, just as long as the creatures are called orcs.  I can go one for a long long time with this example so I will wrap it up.  In essence EVERY game can say something about how we play/see/write/desighn/think about games.  Some of these games can actualy be played and others just want to make thier point and get out.  I don't see a reason to point of the diffrence between the two.  Inside every game there is a sort of anti-game.  Due to this veiw I think maybe we need to come up with a diffren term cause that last sentense sounded funny.  

Maybe I am way off base, but I can't think of a game that I couldn't use as commentary on anything else.  Sure we can write games about how to play games, but I think just as powerful of an example can be made with a full game.  I think there is a place for the anti-game.  Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't come to this site, I wouldn't read other games, and I would just live in my own little world cause I don't need anyone else.  However, I do not think there is a need to lump games into any sort of categegory.  Play and use them as thy will, let that be the extent of the law.

[GB Steve]

One of my main beefs with the Forge is the proliferation of inappropriate vocabulary. It obfuscates what is being discussed and makes it harder for outsiders to understand. The worst of course is "deprotagonize", making a verb from a nonsensical noun but although I'd like not to see the same happen with "deconstruction", I doubt very much I'll be heard - especially as it has just come to mean "irony" now.

Violence is an ironic non-game, more of a commentary. It doesn't set out to highlight multiple and contradictory interpretations, nor does it particularly address theory. The purpose of Violence is to highlight the preponderence of Cartoon Violence in RPGs, especially in games where consequences are not followed through to their logical ends - to with the part on what happens to bullets that miss their intended targets.

I suppose you might argue that Violence opposed the enjoyment derived from RPGs with real-life violence but that's still not deconstruction. Something based around Greg Costikyan's comments on the idea that RPGs are based around cooperative resolution of conflict might be.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

If "deconstruction" doesn't work for the stated purpose, then let's not use the term. (Shock! Could it be that easy, Steve?)

Comte's point is important, though. I too would have pegged Violence as exactly the sort of game (text) that Mark J is talking about it, much more so than, say, Mongrel. But Comte is also right, or at least very convincing to me, that the dangers of projection while labeling are very high.

I think we're all agreed, without any difficulty, that "intent of the designer" is a false variable, and that we've all avoided it so far. So let's let that stand. Just me, the reader, and the game book.

It seems to me that if the speaker acknowledges that saying "this is an X-game" (where "X" is neither "anti-" nor "deconstructionist" but rather whatever word turns out to be acceptable for what Mark means) is limited to his or her own interaction with the text, then we're cool.

Of course, we're also individually solipsistic at that point, but modern criticism seems to be going in that direction anyway ... is there any way to take this position into useful discourse at the group level?

Best,
Ron

[simon_hibbs]

One of my main beefs with the Forge is the proliferation of inappropriate vocabulary.

Plus principles that are actualy definitions, etc. It's just one of the trials that come with being brits in a community largely made up of americans, it's just the same here at work.

Don't worry Steve, from the look of the demographic trend they'll all be speaking Spanish in a few generations anyway ;)


Si

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think we're all agreed, without any difficulty, that "intent of the designer" is a false variable, and that we've all avoided it so far. So let's let that stand. Just me, the reader, and the game book.

I disagree.  This becomes a false variable with the prolifferation of people attempting to make the next D&D, and that's all they're saying or are capable at the time of saying. But to say that only the book and the reader matter is very much like saying that for GNS all that matters is the essay itself and all of those people who read and misunderstood it.

This isn't the case, nor do I think it is here. Just because in too many cases it doesn't mean much does not mean it means nothing is all cases. There is what the designer intended, what they made, and the reader then interprets it. It's like that game Telephone were a simple statements gets mangles being whispered down the line.

[GB Steve]

This isn't the case, nor do I think it is here. Just because in too many cases it doesn't mean much does not mean it means nothing is all cases. There is what the designer intended, what they made, and the reader then interprets it. It's like that game Telephone were a simple statements gets mangles being whispered down the line.

I'm with Jack. I see the intent of the designer as being very important. C'mon Ron, there's a load of that kind of stuff in Sorcerer, too much to back down now!

Obviously betwixt cup and lip etc, but certainly with Statement Games, the statement is almost what is most important. It's not like Violence was actually designed to be played. It was even designed to make it hard to play.

Of course, we're also individually solipsistic at that point, but modern criticism seems to be going in that direction anyway ... is there any way to take this position into useful discourse at the group level?

Do you mean subjective rather than solipsistic? I'm not denying the point of view of others, in fact what I want, in my games, is all the povs to come togther and create one glorious living synthesis.

[Ben Lehman]

May I propose a term, which I've actually been using for some time:

Gedankengame  (This can also be expanded into Gedankensystem and Gedankensetting.)

This has its roots in the history of science -- in particular, "Gedakenexperiment" was Einstein's term for the visualizations that were absolutely necessary for the development of relativity and quantum theory, but are totally impractical for actual experimentation.  The most famous Gedankenexperiment is Schrodinger's Cat, but there are some really great ones from Einstein involving falling balls in glass trains moving at near the speed of light.

I think that this term pretty much sums up both the nature and goals of the sort of game that is being talked about in this thread.

yrs--
--Ben

[Jonathan Walton]

So what does "Gedanken" mean?  Sure "kindergarten" and "zietgeist" got adopted from German piecemeal, but I don't think that kind of thing would really work here.

[Ben Lehman]

So what does "Gedanken" mean?  Sure "kindergarten" and "zietgeist" got adopted from German piecemeal, but I don't think that kind of thing would really work here.

BL>  "Gedanken" means "thought" or "inside your head."

"Gedankenexperiment" gets translated into English as "thought experiment" (though most people just use the original German.)

I've found that I can use "Gedankenexperiment" around a lot of people and have them recognize it.  But I do hang out with a lot of geeks.

yrs--
--Ben

[GB Steve]

So what does "Gedanken" mean?  Sure "kindergarten" and "zietgeist" got adopted from German piecemeal, but I don't think that kind of thing would really work here.

It means a thought experiment, which is OK up to a point, but not when you might actually play the game. As opposed to poisoning the cat, which is definitely not on.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

"Gedankenexperiment" gets translated into English as "thought experiment" (though most people just use the original German.)

Um....no Most people don't even know what a thought experiment is, much less the original German. :)

"Thought game" is fairly close to "concept game." Is there a reason why "concept game" doesn't work?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Steve, why not Statement Game? Works for me. Mark, what do you think?

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

At this rate, we might as well invent a term, like "Floobie Game".