[Beloved] In a dream ... II (split)

[Matthew V]

I'm quite happily married and have no qualms about this game. As others have mentioned, it seems riskily shallow or even rediculous on the surface, but when I poked a bit at the metaphor behind it, I found that there was a surprising amount of depth in this as a relationship game. As written, this is a game about making a choice; do you choose endless struggle and possibly pain to improve your understanding of your partner (in my case, I chose to begin with a version of my wife), OR do you choose to stop and "settle" with one particular version. I also had no issue imagining a beloved that would let me play the game while being honest about it; my perfect beloved is one who will always push and challenge me. Now for a couple of design points ...

Is this game intentionally a trap?
Right now I struggle with even the idea of stopping play. I'm only 2 monsters deep, but I think I've figured out how to smash them, but I fear if I do I'll have to choose between stopping and settling with an incomplete picture of my beloved, all the while knowing that if I forge onward I will face a greater challenge, but also a greater reward (improved knowledge and understanding of my beloved). Stopping would feel like giving up on my Beloved, and since I chose to picture my wife, I have a real negative and visceral reaction to doing that. I can't give up on her; I love her. I also can't give up on improving my understanding of her; that's what I see relationships as being about (see point 2 below). But these issues make the game itself feel like a trap laid by the designer (is it?), and I wonder if that's a desirable feeling to shoot for from a development perspective, when so much of the rest of the game's "action" seems to be about positive improvement. Just a thought.

What if I play this game already?
Now, to some degree I feel like I play this game every time I make a choice to face something difficult in my actual relationship and work at it. That said, I feel like I'm viewing the "monsters" as metaphors for difficulties in my actual relationship (though I know this is nowhere in the rules, but that's the thinking playing has lead to). Is this your intention? Do you want this game to bring people who are in relationships and take their "Beloved" as a version of their partner around to eventually facing deeper problems? Are the monsters not intended to lead to this kind of metaphorical thinking?

[Callan S.]

Think about how it is undefeatable, exactly. Fold up the piece of paper and carry it in your pocket, but continue to think about it. Play out your battles in your mind, over and over, trying new devices and strategies.

At some point, you will discover a way that the monster can be defeated. Don't cheat and think of this ahead of time! Make the monster as unbeatable as you can.

Wow, a game that pretty much explicityly references confirmation bias?

"The monster cannot be defeated as long as 2+2=4! 2+2 must equal 5 to defeat the monster....at some point you will discover 2+2=5!"

It's like it pinpoints the exact reason why I think any games who's outcome hinges entirely(vital qualifier) on someones imagination is utterly bogus? Because you'll always find a way - no matter how many annurisms it takes...so there is no uncertainty in the outcome. Here's a design that relies on that!

"But it isn't her!"
And just as I was getting that boulder to the top of the hill, the damn thing rolls down again...or for newer generations "Thank you Mario, but the princess is in the other castle!"

I don't really know what post modernism is, but to me where you make moral choices based on what is actually a non imagined world convention (ie, it'll never be her simply because the text says it'll never be her - make a moral choice based on a writing convention!), I kind of think that's post modern. And that's from me who argued vehemently "diary of a skull soldier" doesn't contain some pomo element, so I'm a little tender about the idea of anything being post modern.

[Callan S.]

Here's a design that relies on that!

Sorry, just want to clarify that. I mean here's a design that doesn't pretend whether you'll beat the monster is up in the air and all uncertain and stuff - it's designed knowing that you will make up some sort of solution because that's how these processes turn out. The design does not perpetuate some illusion of uncertainty and indeed banks on the certainty of that outcome. And I was surprised at that! It might have sounded like I was saying the opposite!

[Ron Edwards]

The above were split from [Beloved] [Solo RPG] In a dream .... No big deal, carry on with the discussion.

Best, Ron

[Matthew V]

It's like it pinpoints the exact reason why I think any games who's outcome hinges entirely(vital qualifier) on someones imagination is utterly bogus? Because you'll always find a way - no matter how many annurisms it takes...so there is no uncertainty in the outcome. Here's a design that relies on that!

That'd be my take as well. This response is part of what motivates my "isn't this kind of a trap" question for Ben - it's a super cool concept, but I wonder if calling it a "game" in the usual sense is really helpful. It's like Beloved is wearing the skin of an RPG ("look 'monsters' and a 'princess!' Defeat one, save the other, then do it again!"), but is really an exercise in psychology.

[Ben Lehman]

The game is not intentionally impossible. The monster fights pit your current imagination vs. your past imagination ... because your past imagination is fixed, at some point, your current imagination will win. (although ask me how I won the last round ... kinda embarrassing.) Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships, but that's a good thing.

As for the "what if I play this game already?" well, yes. I don't think of the monsters as necessarily 1-1 to relationship problems but they are definitely metaphors for the ways that relationships force us to deal with seemingly impossible conundra.

yrs--
--Ben

[Callan S.]

It's like it pinpoints the exact reason why I think any games who's outcome hinges entirely(vital qualifier) on someones imagination is utterly bogus? Because you'll always find a way - no matter how many annurisms it takes...so there is no uncertainty in the outcome. Here's a design that relies on that!

That'd be my take as well. This response is part of what motivates my "isn't this kind of a trap" question for Ben - it's a super cool concept, but I wonder if calling it a "game" in the usual sense is really helpful. It's like Beloved is wearing the skin of an RPG ("look 'monsters' and a 'princess!' Defeat one, save the other, then do it again!"), but is really an exercise in psychology.

Well actually my point is to question how all those other traditional RPG's (D&D, Rifts, shadowrun, etc) call themselves games when really, because their outcome so heavily hinges on someones imagination (and imagination being so fluid and without solid principles that it can do 2+2=5/the undefeatable defeated) that traditional roleplay 'game's are simply exercises in psychology/confirmation bias. It's just here in the Beloved text (in terms of 'beating' monsters) that is made obvious and explicit - no ones fooling themselves anymore. And fair enough if you like that, cool. But there is no denial, pretending there is uncertainty yet using a mechanic which ensures a fixed outcome. Or heck, even worse - not even denial at all - people genuinely believing they are dealing with an uncertain outcome when it's anything but. And man, those people who genuinely believe can type for hours about it! Ironically because of confirmation bias!

Anyway, my point in terms of beating monsters is, it's not that Beloved alone is wearing a false RPG skin, but instead it is wearing the same false RPG skin a whole bunch of other traditional texts that call themselves RPG's are wearing! Yes, D&D, Rifts, warhammer, whatever trad text! Except Beloved is wearing it obviously and enjoying it "Weee, look at my false skin!", and so to me becomes honest about that and no one can pretend it's something it's not. And if anyone wants to enjoy that process as what it definately is, cool!

BUT, moving on to another subject, same game, you can't genuinely finish this game without going with the other girl. Sure you can give up, quit mid play, but that's not finishing. And the only way to finish is with the chick who is not the beloved. I mean

Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships

It doesn't involve a willingness - it demands it! It's a fixed outcome! Being able to quit the game doesn't make a second outcome to the game! BUT, this is a second subject, not to be blurred into the one I wrote about above, which is about supposed resolution processes.

[Matthew V]

As for the "what if I play this game already?" well, yes. I don't think of the monsters as necessarily 1-1 to relationship problems but they are definitely metaphors for the ways that relationships force us to deal with seemingly impossible conundra.

This is really, really, cool. Efforts like this that move a game from "same old RPG," to something that challenges your usual way of perceiving your relationship (or any part of your life, really) are really enjoyable since I frequently find myself teaching myself something I didn't know, or being forced into realizations I might not have arrived at so easily. If this is your intention, even partially, I think it's successful in the sense of being the sort of game that eventually leads you back to reality in a positive, healthy way.

The game is not intentionally impossible. The monster fights pit your current imagination vs. your past imagination ... because your past imagination is fixed, at some point, your current imagination will win. (although ask me how I won the last round ... kinda embarrassing.) Several people have successfully disengaged from play; doing so involves a willingness to settle in your relationships, but that's a good thing.

Let me clarify; I think that as an activity, the endless nature of it is neat in a "endless concentric circles to reach nirvana" kind of way. I'm just questioning whether the "no way out" issue is going to produce satisfaction in average gamers. But since the only outcome of the game appears to be to "bail out into real life," I suspect this will cause a lot of people to react negatively, e.g. saying something like "I'm not sure these resolution mechanics work" or "the game lacks a clear end." If that bothers you, it might be useful to add some kind of statement that the game is intended to make the player reexamine not just the imaginary world they create, but themselves ... or some other "deep" statement that gets at "Hey, it's a game, but it's also about self-reflection." Does that make sense?