I am having a dilema.

I am writing a game, and I am not sure just how "preachy" I want it to be. There are aspects of theme that I feel deserve special consideration (anti-establishmentism, government responsability, different-can-be-good, with-great-power-comes-a-great-destiny), but I do not want to come off as though I think everyone should embrace those ideas. I want people to explore them in their games, to try and understand them from multiple viewpoints, but without resorting to evangelical persuasion, I can't seem to find a voice that adequately portrays any of those themes in the writing of the game itself.

Some back information:

In the late seventies and early eighties, a spike in the number of children born with the ability to learn psychic abilities occured. While the event drew some public attention, and metaphysicists, parapsychologists and other paranormal activists were quite excited about the idea. All information relating to this spike was quickly quashed by the government, and for many years, no one heard another thing about them.

Children began to disappear in much more startling numbers in the mid-eighties. Most of the disappearances have been left unsolved.

In the early nineties another spike, this one much larger in population, though less prominent in power-level, occured. Given the advancements in censorship, however, very little public attention was drawn. The only people with information on these naturally psychic children were those who had been interested in the original spike; now their interest had been doubled, and the freedom of communication now available to them in the form of the Internet strengthened their resolve to learn everything that could be learned about these remarkable children.

In the mid-eighties, more and more children found themselves diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and put on Ritalin, a drug known to lessen symptoms of Attention Deficit.

With the late nineties came a revelation. The first wave of children born during the Spike began to develop some of their abilities, and the results were incredible. Many of them were verifiable accounts of psychic phenomenon. Mixed with incredible intelligence, more physically adept bodies and spiritual awareness previously unseen in most teenagers, the potential of these children was undeniable.

Power often comes with a dark side. Most of those children, nicknamed Obsidian Children by metaphysicists, displayed anti-social, anti-establishment behavior, a lack of concentration, constant fidgetting and many other symtpoms of Attention Deficit Disorder. It was also discovered (quite by accident) that Ritalin has psionic-debilitating properties, and that many of the missing children from the mid-eighties were born within the 'spike.'

Still, the public knew almost nothing. The professionals in the field knew better than to bring their discoveries into the light, given the way previous attempts had been handled. Rather, they turned to the children themselves, asking them for guidance, seeking a purpose for these Obsidian Children.

The answer, quite simply, is: To pave the way.

The children of the second spike, known as Indigo Children, are predestined to rule the world in an even-handed, fair way that will be prosperous and supportive of all. However, one cannot build new ideas while the old establishments are still in power. The Obsidian Children are there to ensure that the Old Ways are torn down so that the New Order can build on its remains.

The game would focus on the player characters playing Obsidian Children, Indigo Children or a paranormal researcher (parapsychologist, metaphysicist, psychic researcher, etc.), trying to find a way to cope with the fact that, in order to do what they know is right, they will have to rock the boat, they will have to fight, they will have to leave loved ones and perhaps even watch them die. These are normal people with gifts, struggling against predestination, while struggling against the government, while struggling against the social bonds that bind them.

What do you think? Can it be done without preaching? Or is preaching what I need to do? And how much, either way? Should I hit players over the head with what I want out of the game (*cough* WhiteWolf *cough*) or just let folks play it the way they want to play it (Witchcraft)? How much moral should really go into role-playing? Should it be like classic storytelling, or more like today's movie industry (I read a great review of Shrek that said it would have been a great movie if they hadn't wrapped it around a moral. Why do so many movies have to have morals. I laughed muchly.)?

Kris
"That SlurpeeMoney guy... Just writes and writes and writes..."

SlurpeeMoney wrote: I am writing a game, and I am not sure just how "preachy" I want it to be. There are aspects of theme that I feel deserve special consideration (anti-establishmentism, government responsability, different-can-be-good, with-great-power-comes-a-great-destiny), but I do not want to come off as though I think everyone should embrace those ideas.

I don't think it's wrong to make your views known clearly in the text. I do think it will limit your audience, and may get you slapped around by the critics for doing so.

However, it strikes me that preaching might be exactly what you want--not as the game designer preaching to the reader, but as a way of focusing the issues. You might consider flavor text through which various personae each argue a side of one of the issues. Juxtapose the efficacy of strong centralized government in one sermon against the importance of individual freedom in another, and so on.

This can help create the impression of a strongly polarized setting, and give players some of the tools to take sides on the issues and work them through.

--M. J. Young

First, this game sounds awesome. I'm thinking that Douglas Coupland and Stephen King had a pool party at your house.

I think you can do this without preaching, actually. By taking a stand, as the Doctor mentioned, on major issues, and then phrasing the rest in a way that's slightly biased towards saving the world, you can make the game about that while letting players explore the darker sides of their character.

My biggest suggestion is to read the text of Sorcerer, a game that could have gotten preachy real fast. It's not, but there's morals buried in there.

Wow,

Doctor Xero nailed it for me. "What he said."

Best,
Ron

One thing I have learned about preachiness that I will impart here, although you seem to have a grip on it already, I think.

A good line was in the movie Quills. Paraphrasing "Are your views so weak that they cannot withstand mine? For shame!"

When setting up one point of view, it is best to allow the opposing view to make it's case and thus you're viewpoint will be all the stronger because it met an opposing viewpoint and won.

This, however, applies easier to fiction that to RPG design. Might be one of the philisophical breaks I have with typical RPG design.

SlurpeeMoney wrote: What do you think? Can it be done without preaching? Or is preaching what I need to do? And how much, either way? Should I hit players over the head with what I want out of the game (*cough* WhiteWolf *cough*) or just let folks play it the way they want to play it (Witchcraft)? How much moral should really go into role-playing?

John Kim wrote: when PCs take the morally "right" action (as the GM views it), then things go well -- but when they take the morally "wrong" action (as the GM views it), then everything comes out badly. In the case of the hypothetical PC above, the GM might keep arranging for more and more horrible things to happen to convince my PC that he has to take charge of normal human affairs. Without even realizing it, it is very easy for a GM to slip into effectively punishing actions which she disagrees with.

The general question has been addressed very well, I'd like to focus on the specific game concept in question.

SlurpeeMoney wrote: The children of the second spike, known as Indigo Children, are predestined to rule the world in an even-handed, fair way that will be prosperous and supportive of all. However, one cannot build new ideas while the old establishments are still in power. The Obsidian Children are there to ensure that the Old Ways are torn down so that the New Order can build on its remains.

The game would focus on the player characters playing Obsidian Children, Indigo Children or a paranormal researcher (parapsychologist, metaphysicist, psychic researcher, etc.), trying to find a way to cope with the fact that, in order to do what they know is right, they will have to rock the boat,...

An integral part of the setting, particularly on the side of the Obsidians and the Indigos, are the Prophets. I had an idea while living in Calgary about a homeless prophet living at the Rundle Station, near where I lived, and a group of homeless (and not-so-homeless) followers that had taken to worshipping him. I've expanded on that a bit to make the Prophets a sort of driving force for the Obsidians/Indigos. So perhaps they don't _know_ that the path they've been shown is the right one; that's rather up to the players. The majority of Obsidians/Indigos are quite willing to accept the Prophets' views on their purpose in life, though. These kids are outcasts, geeks, gangsters, hippies, activists, and the like: to them, the chance to influence the world in a big way, to gain the recognition and the understanding they're yearned for, for so long, is quite a driving inspiration.

So definately, not everyone is going to be tickled pink about the idea of some psychic-powered revolutionary war, but they are subject to the peer pressures of their friends and others "like them;" it would be an interesting line to explore in-game. I shall have to write on it.

I find two comparisons in the previous posts worth note. The most important to me, personally, is the insinuation that my idea is on-par with those of Stephen King (Thank you! Woohoo!). The other is the comparison with the Communist revolution. The former deserves note only because it makes me incredibly proud of myself. The later, however, requires a bit more exploration in my writing, not because it is communist (I'm a Socialist, myself), but because I'm really not sure what the Indigos are going to replace the Established Order with. I mean, how does one invent a social system that is intrinsically better than that of the current day? If we already knew one was better, we'd be using it, and not touting Democracy as the know-all-end-all of political systems.

*Sigh.* Niggly little problems.

Kris
"Stephen King comparison! Woohoo!"

Democracy? Where? Do you mean capitalism? Or republicanism?

But seriously, maybe you could make that a challenge for the game? Like give the players the premise "what would you make of the world if you had the power, how would you make it better?". Then you could deal with the repurcussions of their choices, and let them see how successful/problematic their solutions are. Really give them the power and responsibility of shaping the world.

Just a thought.

-Ben

Dammit. My response got eaten by gremlins. Anyway, I had two points:

1) This background is really similar to the book "Blue Light" by Walter Mosley. http://www.twbookmark.com/features/waltermosley/bluelight_rgg.html
That isn't bad, just FYI. It might also be something to read for ideas.

2) I think the game would be much more interesting if you didn't force your PCs to be on the one side. What about playing the government agents? Or a paranormal kid who DOESN'T agree with the rest of them? Or one of the guys "in the way" that needs "replacing"?

I think you can make this very interesting. From the one perspective, you've got a group of clearly superior beings sincerely trying to make a big world omelette. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. That's just the way it goes. And the people in the way are obviously, well, in the way. Preventing the world from being a better place and such.

On the other hand, you've got some eggs who are quite happy with things the way they are. And a group of people with strange powers are terrorizing them. Think about it from your RL perspective: a group of people assassinate the president. Are they good guys?

So who is the bad guy? Who is the good guy? I think the whole thing becomes much more interesting if you make it more ambigious. By concentrating on only the one side you have decided who the heroes are and which side is "right".

This is where the question of preaching comes into play again. I know, to me, which of the groups in question is the good guys. I know that the Obsidians/Indigos are going to make the world a better place, and that, sure, there are going to be problems along the way. Having the opportunity to look at this from the other point of view, in-character, takes away from the message that I want to send: If you don't like the way things are, you CAN change them. You have a democratic right to change them through voting, and if that isn't enough, you have a revolutionary right to change them in more drastic ways. Working against the establishment helps us to define what it is we like about it, and helps to change the things we dislike. Without this, I think a lot of the power behind the concept is lost.

Just some random thoughts, though, and I'm quite caffiene high at the moment (some twelve cups of coffee, a slurpee and some chocolate are all wreaking havoc upon my poor body; I'm so mean to me). If none of this makes any sense at all, feel free to blame it on poor dietary habits.

Kris
"Mmmmm. Slurpee."

If you want your game to reflect society and government then some elements of it should be quite preachy. Who says that a bunch of supernatural superintelligent kids are the guardians of the future? This morale stance can create tyrants and monsters (Dune). The government is a problem because it thinks it knows best for you and will enforce it. Will these kids go down the same path?

How overt will the action be? One ESP talent infiltrating a political structure can do wonders, mainly bad but also some good. Politicians preach all the time, what about a deeply religious psi talent? How will they feel when they accidently read the bishops non-belief in the faith?

I actually think that preachy elements are an incredibly strong part of this story. I would think it was a prfect opportunity for the players to have a preach through their characters, especially if you can get them to play against real-life type.

Why were the 80s obsidian children so anti-social? Was it because, as a whole, humanity was darker and more brooding, the Cold War was still on, populations were coming to terms with mass media and the information rush bringing forth new attrocities every month, was it the spectre of the AIDS epidemic or the Ebola Virus concept? Are they a bit mad because humanity was a bit mad at that time? Are the 90s children a bit more stable and sane because world events settled down? What will happen in 2000?

If the Indigos are the good guys just how far will they go to achieve their ends? Does the ends justify the means? You set up a classic comic book preach scenario here - thou shalt not kill or we become no better than those we are opposing.

I really like the idea and think it is a fantastic concept. Interested to see how you develop it.

Cheers
Pigfrenzy

SlurpeeMoney wrote: This is where the question of preaching comes into play again. I know, to me, which of the groups in question is the good guys. I know that the Obsidians/Indigos are going to make the world a better place, and that, sure, there are going to be problems along the way. Having the opportunity to look at this from the other point of view, in-character, takes away from the message that I want to send: If you don't like the way things are, you CAN change them. You have a democratic right to change them through voting, and if that isn't enough, you have a revolutionary right to change them in more drastic ways. Working against the establishment helps us to define what it is we like about it, and helps to change the things we dislike. Without this, I think a lot of the power behind the concept is lost.

Yeah I'm definitely liking the idea of being able to choose exactly how the NWO will work, and seeing the consequences of the choices played out before me. I think that instead of telling players exaclty what the ideal NWO will be (which will most likely not be universally agreed upon by players), you might want to focus some mechanics that handle implementation of new systems of government, and the potential results. This would be, IMHO, a much more fun game to play, and also give some serious longevity to it (what with all the tweaking to get the ideal government, and the endless potential for various combinations). OTOH, it may be quote a large task to pull off (but here, abstract concepts might become your best friend). You could also do some nifty things with the reactions of the public in a given pre-existing society to a new society order. For example, maybe capitalists won't like a NWO that minimises upward mobility in favour of material equality, whilst socialists might react conversely. So the previous government would interact with the new government, and you could also add all sorts of mad in-between mediating effects, like propoganda to minimise the impact, or simply killing all who oppose to start with a "clean slate".

Lot's of things you could do with that that you wouldn't necessarily be able to do with an immutable timeline of what will happen and what is best.

Just a thought and a friendly suggestion.

-Ben

Killer Concept. This can move in a lot of different directions. I'm seeing Clancyesque scenarios where these kids are hunted by government alphabet-agencies and recruited to work against each other. Personally, I'm not sure the eighties-babies would be so altruistic. I like the scenario where these jaded adults are hired to "neutralize" the emerging generation of psi-talents. The kids are confused about their new powers and hunted down by people who know more about them than they know about themselves. From an anuthor's perspective, this adds particular resonance to the tired old "coming of age" theme.

That's right Billy, your parents don't understand you, but the man in the black helicopter does...and he wants to help.

But that's from an author's perspective, where you're god, everyone does what you want (unless you've got a barn-burner on your hands, then you just write what the story tells you to) and it ends exactly how you want it to end.

From a roleplaying perspective, it's different. Your characters aren't yours You're still god, and you control the entire world, but the people in it do what they please, usually without a thought to the plan you had.

Hmmm, now I see why god is so angry all the time.

I'm reading a little bit of subtext in your question, but maybe I'm off. The subtext seems to be "How do I get the ending I want from the story I've written?" It's a valid question, from an author's perspective.

Unfortunatley, you can't. Your players will have different world views than you will. Your game deals with childhood and politics and no two people view those two things the same. People usually don't "share" those ideals either. My democracy is different than yours. His socialist models is different from hers. If you think politics is a hot button, start devling into the jungle of adolescence. If your role-players are any good, your Ritalin-kids will be a handfull on their own.

Really the best you can do is present the game lore (yeah, I know it's a fantasy term, but it fits) as best as you can. Preferably, present it even-handedly and allow players to agree with what they agree with. This will ultimately make for a more intense game experience (because, given the subject matter, you have to embrace 'intense' rather than try to pacify it) but it will be more honest as players both pursue their character's individual game goals, and the larger goals of whatever socio-political entity they decide to inhabit.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: My biggest suggestion is to read the text of Sorcerer, a game that could have gotten preachy real fast. It's not, but there's morals buried in there.