It's a split from the topic Feminist Game Design gone more generalized.

AnyaTheBlue wrote: While a movie/tv show/broadway musical/book/comic book/rock song/whatever may be a more powerful tool for conveying an idea to the masses, that doesn't mean that less powerful tools should be completely ignored in favor of the more powerful one. It doesn't follow that a less effective means of communication implies an empty gesture.

Not everybody can make a movie. Not everyone can write a novel. But some of those people who can't make movies can write RPGs.

I'm reminded of the old story of a man walking along a beach, throwing star fish back into the water. Someone comes up to him as he throws another one back in.

"You can't really make a difference, you know"
"I certainly made a difference to that starfish."

Callan's right.

Maybe twenty or so years back I knew some people who were very concerned about abortion. They decided to start a Crisis Pregnancy Center, to make it possible for women and girls who found themselves unexpectedly pregnant to get the resources they needed to deliver the child, and to intelligently decide whether to keep it or put it up for adoption, and to find the resources necessary for whichever of those choices they made.

I don't know how many girls they helped. They were in a small town in a sparsely populated county in a small state. I doubt their efforts reached more than a thousand people, and they didn't save all the babies. They didn't last forever, either. The unborn death toll continues to rise; even the number of deaths of mothers from "safe legal" abortion procedures is staggering. They didn't change the world.

Yet I don't think anyone involved in that effort thinks they were wasting their time.

I write web pages; some of my personal pages get over a thousand viewers a month, and some of my articles are on sites that have higher traffic volumes than I can imagine. On the other hand, I also reply to e-mail I receive, knowing full well that what I write to an individual will probably never go beyond that individual. I don't consider that time wasted.

I had an impact on a few people through personal relationships when I was in high school. One of those is now a very effective and influential pastor in his denomination, making a difference in many ways in his state. He has said that my impact on his life was instrumental in getting him there, more than once in his life.

A game or supplement I write might only reach a slice of a segment of a niche; but if it impacts those people in a positive way, who knows where that might lead? I have no illusions that I will ever be President of the United States or Senator from the State of New Jersey, or that I'll sit on the Supreme Court. I won't ever be someone who is a world leader in any context. However, that doesn't mean that my game won't be played by someone who is or will be such a person.

Let's look at this a different way though. You suggest that writing a game to address a social issue is a very poor way to address the social issue. Let's turn it around. If it's given that I'm going to write a game anyway, because I like to write games or I make my living at it, is there any reason why the games I write shouldn't attempt along the way to address a social issue now and then? People wrote songs in the forties and fifties that were rather shallow little things about love and heartaches and stuff. Those were fine songs, and they were popular. Why should anyone in the fifties and sixties have bothered to write songs about war and prejudice and shallow societal values? They did, and those songs made a difference to some people. Probably if everyone who wrote songs at that time had continued to write the same sort of shallow ditties that preceded them, music would have continued to be played. Probably the civil rights movement would have happened anyway, without the soundtrack. We can't judge how much difference the songs made; they did make a difference. We can't judge how much difference it might make for our games to deal with serious issues; but given that someone is going to create games and some people are going to play them, is there any reason not to include a few that deal with such issues?

--M. J. Young

dewey wrote: If a multi-millionaire gives 10 cents to a hospital to save people, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE (s)he has much more resources and that 10 cents won't really help.

dewey wrote: ...if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

Well put, Erick!

I once thought that writing larps or tabletop scenarios was inferior to writing theatre or literature, because of the smaller audience. If I write a socially aware children's play, it is seen by thousands of kids and potentially has some influence on them all. But if I write and run a socially aware larp, it's played by maybe fifty people, and thus has much less influence. (And by this standard, television and film are much better than theatre or literature.)

But! There is a huge difference between the kinds of things roleplaying can tell you and the kinds of things the passive media (theatre, books, films...) can tell you. Seeing a movie can change your life, but the chances for that are much bigger if you're there living the events, making the choices, experiencing everything first hand. Like, say, in roleplaying games.

I've written a number of plays, which have been well liked, but noone has ever told me how they really view any issue differently after seeing one of my plays. But many people have told me how they have reached some profound understanding by playing in a larp I've run. And I'm much more changed by some of the larps I've played in than any of the movies I've seen.

So yes, dammit, roleplaying games can make a difference!


Mike

Hmm, I am having problems getting my point accross.

Let's take Sorcerer as an example (hope it is alright Ron). It is a fun game, which creates great stories and wonderful time for all participants. In the progress the players are confronted with the question "how far would they go, for power".
Now, Ron may bang my head here, but I am quite sure that Sorcerer was not created with idea in mind that "a game is needed to face people with the question of power". I think it was the need for a good Sorcerer game, in which power is not for free.
So it would not be valid to say that Sorcerer is primarly about power and corruption. Sorcerer is about having a good story, having fun and tackling with interesting question.

Erick Wujcik wrote: On the other hand, most of us have the opportunity to donate blood (I know; not all, just most). Giving blood is an absolute social good, and on the level of the receiver both the multi-millionaire and the homeless vagrant are equally good.

Erick Wujcik wrote:
First, because that implies that role-playing is trivial, and that role-playing can't affect the hearts and minds of the participants.

Erick Wujcik wrote: Second, because it devalues the work of we who make role-playing games and systems and scenarios and components.

Erick Wujcik wrote: Third, because it misses the point of all social change, which based on informing and enlightening the minds of people.

Erick Wujcik wrote: Fourth, because it ignores the fact that individuals and small groups can make a profound difference in society.

Erick Wujcik wrote: Fifth, because it represents an cynical point of view to which I do not subcribe, in which the world can only be changed by the grand or the powerful or the influential.

M. J. Young wrote:
They decided to start a Crisis Pregnancy Center, to make it possible for women and girls who found themselves unexpectedly pregnant to get the resources they needed to deliver the child, and to intelligently decide whether to keep it or put it up for adoption, and to find the resources necessary for whichever of those choices they made.

I don't know how many girls they helped. They were in a small town in a sparsely populated county in a small state. I doubt their efforts reached more than a thousand people, and they didn't save all the babies. They didn't last forever, either. The unborn death toll continues to rise; even the number of deaths of mothers from "safe legal" abortion procedures is staggering. They didn't change the world.

Yet I don't think anyone involved in that effort thinks they were wasting their time.

Hi Dewey,

dewey wrote: Similarly, if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

Akos Szederjei wrote:
You are right, absolutly. But you do not write a RPG about giving blood, but you walk up to the hospital and give blood. You could incorporate the question of giving blood as a central theme (premise) in an RPG, but it would be more efficient to give blood in the hospital.

contracycle wrote:
Why should they be mutually exclusive? That is, what is it about the fact that actually going and giving blood would be more useful than writing a game that renders writing such a game useless?

Akos Szederjei wrote: I did not say mutually exclusive. I said more efficient.

Akos Szederjei wrote: ...I did not say it wrong, bad or useless. I said, it is not efficient.

I strongly agree with Eric here. Remember that roleplaying games are come in a larger variety than we often recognize. For example, when I was learning German, we did some roleplay, which is a common technique in many language courses. Some of those roleplays dealt with enviormental issues.
Ever since, I've stopped using plastic bags.

On the issue of efficiency, it's certainly hard to argue that designing an RPG about the heroic Red Cross blood workers is more effective than organizing a million-man march to the same purpose. And to be honest, I think that for such a concrete purpose (you should go give blood), writing an RPG isn't terribly useful. I'm going to set aside for the moment the alternative perspective, which is that every little bit counts.

But this all began with a discussion of feminist gaming, of RPGs in which issues and problems of gender and sex would be central. This is quite a different matter, and one to which RPGs are rather better-suited.

Big rallies and the like often need to compress their message to a soundbite; activist groups work hard to devise effective slogans. But this requires that there be a specific message. "Don't discriminate against women," for example. But what exactly does that mean? Are we talking about something obvious like salary disparities, or something subtle like the intricacies of the culture industry? If you focus on the big, overt things, slogans work well. If you're interested in subtleties, you need to think it all through slowly.

One of the cool things about RPGs for such a purpose is that not only do the participants think through the issues at stake, but they actually experience the situation and its effects. For men, this might be quite revelatory, in the sense that they have to live with a situation alien to their own experience. But even women will experience their characters' lives as different from their own -- the goal isn't simply to reproduce one's own experiences.

As a particularly brutal example, consider rape for a minute. It's easy enough to soundbite, to denounce rape, rapists, and laws that may appear to take this crime non-seriously. You can similarly sloganize about how rape is a crime of violence and not of sex, or whatever. But what is very difficult to do through ordinary political means is to make people experience clearly the larger social and psychological effects of rape.

Imagine you did this in an RPG. Start with the aggressor: what do you have to do to get yourself into his mindset? How do you justify your action to yourself? Now how does doing that to yourself make you feel about rape crisis groups and activists? I would hope you feel a little more inclined not only to be sympathetic but actually to get involved.

From the perspective of the victim, what are the long-term implications for your life? How does that color your experience, your relationships with friends and coworkers of both sexes? What other problems haunt you? What have you discovered about yourself that you didn't know, and quite possibly didn't want to know? How has this horrible experience altered the course of your life? Again, does this make you a little more inclined to donate some funds to rape activist groups?

And, of course, rape is an extreme case. When the issues are more subtle, having to do with things like self-image, and especially when they are not so clearly divided into good and bad, it's experiencing things emotionally and intellectually that can change people's minds.

To take a slightly more complicated example, I talk to my students about the theory of practice (a la Bourdieu) by referring to the recent fashion of wearing low-riding pants and a midriff-baring shirt with a high-riding thong, the point being that everyone can see your thong. So what does dressing like this say, and to whom? What does it mean to choose to dress this way? What does it mean not to choose to dress so? This isn't a question of good or bad; you can argue perfectly accurately that a woman who dresses so expresses that she is comfortable about her body, that she feels sexy, that she doesn't feel oppressed or inhibited, and also that she associates a positive appearance with sexuality (implying that she is only pretty if she mimics sexual availability), that she feels forced to ape the clothing-styles of models and pop stars who probably have personal trainers, that she would rather be thought a slut than challenge the styles of a narrow would-be peer-group. And I could go on, ad infinitum.

So how can you think all this through? You can do a lot of reading and sit down and think it out, which is the academic's approach. But you could also try doing it in the context of an RPG, which is about as easy a pill to swallow as it gets.

They used to say that activism begins with awareness, with consciousness-raising. Especially when we're talking about subtle, complex social issues, RPGs can do a fine job of raising consciousness, because players experience it all from the inside.

dewey wrote: Similarly, if someone makes an RPG about a current social issue which is really important in the day-to-day life of those involved, I think it's an empty gesture, BECAUSE there are many ways to really make a difference, but making an RPG about that issue won't really help.

So, what do you say?

Jack Aidley wrote: I think you've created a false dichotomy here. There's no reason you can't create an RPG on an issue and do those other things

I think we should also consider what the person who wishes to make the socially conscious RPG can otherwise do. I mean, what if that person isn't a playwrite, isn't good at organizing, freezes when speaking publicly, etc., etc. If the person is simply ineffective at being socially conscious as a writer, speaker or organizer -- well, yeah, then it makes sense if they're a game designer or game master that their social consciousness might express itself in the medium that they can work in.

Not to mention, IME with activists, its hard to be an activist. Oh, its easy to show up and wave signs a few times a year. But to really get involved with it requires a lot of skills, as well as . . . uh, some selling out in order to be effective. And to get a politically charged document published also requires, basically, knowing the right people and saying the right things. I know that for my own part, without skills at organization on one hand and unable to choose between the lesser of two evils politically, that activism is something I find almost impossible to do. Not because I don't want to. But because changing the system shoves roughly as much bullshit down a person's throat as living with it; less, even. You can avoid the system, usually.

So I can fully see how a person might want to express their social consciousness through role-playing, a medium where they have a lot more control over their own words, thoughts and actions. Where they are habituated to how the system works. Where they feel strong and effective.

Erick Wujcik wrote:
you are saying that attempting to use role-playing as a agent of social change is inefficient

Akos Szederjei wrote: Now, if you say, you create a RPG to combat feminism, I think that is very good. You give a tool for psychologists, human resources managers, etc. These are the examples which you mentioned, just with different goals (i.e. not feminism).
But this is not a game, for me at least. If these are games, I have revise all my past statements.
But if you say you make RPG about feminism, for me it is inefficient, because the moral dilemma/task/lesson will always be less important as the enjoyment of the game.

Akos Szederjei wrote:
The reason why BP was a great tool to protect the seas, becasue a certain portion of the profit went to the "Costeau Society".

Hmmm.

On the idea that RPGs are inefficient as social change compared to movies, novels or other venues. I'm willing to consider it, but I don't consider this obvious. I think that it is important to keep this all in perspective. You cannot compare a small-press independent RPG to a full-scale Hollywood movie, because the inputs are totally incomparable.

In practical terms, if I spend the time necessary to write a feature-length film script with a strong social message, the chances are overwhelming that it will never get produced. So that time that I spent on input got me absolutely zero output in terms of social change. For the same effort that might go into such a script, I could potentially write a role-playing game which dealt with the issues. Now, this would only reach a few hundred people at best -- but that has to be compared with how much good I would do solely from the screenplay. Bear in mind that to actually produce even a low-budget movie will require hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man-hours of labor, and even then movies (especially art movies) often end up with no distribution.

So while it is possible, I'm not going to accept without question the idea that making an RPG is inefficient compared to other means of social change. So again, the proper question is: If I spend X hours trying to write a role-playing game vs X hours trying to write a novel or screenplay, which one will result in more social change? I don't consider the answer to be obvious, though of course it's impossible to get a real answer to this question.

Further, I don't think that small gestures are a bad thing. In fact, I consider it poisonous to suggest that you shouldn't do small things for a cause unless you have seriously devoted your life to it. For example, I have a friend who is a low-budget film writer/director. He is not a crusader for feminist causes in most of his life. He has never volunteered for a women's shelter or any such. However, he makes a conscious effort to have strong, non-stereotyped female roles in his films. Personally, I applaud and commend him for this -- and I consider it stupid for anyone to deride it as a token or empty gesture. He's doing his small part. That's how society changes -- through millions and millions of "empty" gestures.

Everyone who doesn't agree with my initial opinion:
I proposed that making an RPG to help a current social issue is an empty gesture, as a person can do much more than that in everyday life.
In the middle of the first page Jack Aidley pointed out that I didn't take into account the case that someone might has done that much more about an issue and make an RPG about that issue, too.
I said that's right, and revised my opinion. Since no-one's arguing for the original opinion, I see no point in arguing against it, either.

So, my opinion v2.0:

on Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:28 pm dewey wrote: If someone hasn't done everything in everyday life (work, family, friends, whatever) to help a current social issue, then making an RPG about that issue is just an empty gesture.

I forgot to highlight an important thing:

IN EVERYDAY LIFE. Because everyone can do that, to pay attention and act consciously to help.

dewey wrote:

Then, I'll revise my opinion:
If someone hasn't done everything in everyday life (work, family, friends, whatever) to help a current social issue, then making an RPG about that issue is just an empty gesture.

What do you people think about it now?

Well, saying that attempts to address contemporary issues in RPG's are futile in respects to changing the world outside of the game implies a number of things, one of which is that changing the world is the only reason we should put these issues into games.

Putting my narrative hat on, it's because these issues are problematic that they make for grippping, dramatic situations to play through, to explore. In GNS terms, they form a valuable, possibly fundamental, set of premises to address.

The implication is that we shouldn't base games around addressing these issues because they are real and problematic. I say, if only from an artistic standpoint, that is precisely why they should be available.

Drama isn't, and never has been, purely about the happy fun part of entertainment. What's been grist for every other medium for the last 3000+ years should surely be grist for this one.

A top case is nicotine girls, which on first glance is a satire of working class youth, but reveals itself as a framework for small, affecting tragedies.

One more thing (channeling Jackie Chan's uncle): the personal is political, as us old liberals used to say. Any game session is potentially politically or philosophically challenging, as they hinge to a great extent on personal conflicts, and human choices and values. Putting a ring fence around gender issues, reproductive issues, class issues, whatever, because we should be "making a difference" about these things instead of playing games about them speaks to a liberal guilt about enjoying yourself rather than fighting the power. Don't go to Fahrenheit 911, go to your local democrat, or green, or independent office and do some volunteer lobbying instead.

Screw that. I'm living political, and that means work and play, and I'm doing it by living personally, thoughtfully and responsibly and not fighting shy of issues in gaming, writing, singing, whatever, just because I've not given my last penny to The Cause

dewey wrote: A person belonging to an ethnic group is beaten up in a dark alley. A passer-by decides to make an rpg to fight racism. However, as everyone can intervene, or call the police, or wait out the fight and then call ER, not doing any of these things but making an rpg, is just an empty gesture.

What do you think?

dewey wrote: So, my opinion v2.0:

on Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:28 pm dewey wrote: If someone hasn't done everything in everyday life (work, family, friends, whatever) to help a current social issue, then making an RPG about that issue is just an empty gesture.

My old example:
A person belonging to an ethnic group is beaten up in a dark alley. A passer-by decides to make an rpg to fight racism.
However, as everyone can intervene, or call the police, or wait out the fight and then call ER, not doing any of these things but making an rpg, is just an empty gesture.

What do you think?

All very hypothetical, which is just as "safe." I think that it would be absurd to disagree with that supposition, Dr. Xero. So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

It's very easy to attack "those people" who may or may not exist. We'll all join you in condemning them. Now, is there really a problem that needs to be addressed in terms of people making issue based RPGs but doing so to avoid having to deal with the problem in other ways?

Mike

Xero,

If you are reading dewey correctly, the main problem with that is that still doesn't answer why an RPG about a social issue would be valueless. As I mentioned in my post above, all such a situation says is that the author is (perhaps) a hypocrite -- it says nothing about the actual worth of such a product on its own merits. It certainly doesn't answer the question of "Why create an RPG about feminism?" even in the negative sense. You can't use it to critique the product itself.

Consider, dewey has stated that film and literature is better suited to such issues than RPGs; in this case, as I asked above, is the positive movie about women's issues created by the writer who doesn't do anything about those problems otherwise an empty gesture? That is, is the making of the flim, and thus the film, without value? "Why create a movie about women's issues?"

Dewey asked, "Why create an RPG about feminism?"
And then answered his own question by judging everyone who did, whether he meant to or not, "I think you should not, because if you do, you're just making an empty gesture to feel good about yourself."

But that's not really an answer to the question. All it does is judge the author, "You created an RPG about feminist issues, you must be a poser activist, and your game is an empty gesture." Whether or not it is an empty gesture from the author, whether the author is active in political or social events in his community, is not an issue for the Forge, and it doesn't answer why or why not to create a game, because the answer given presumes a hell of a lot about the author.

It says, "Why shouldn't you? Because you're avoiding doing things to improve the world."

Mike Holmes wrote: So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

greyorm wrote: it says nothing about the actual worth of such a product on its own merits. It certainly doesn't answer the question of "Why create an RPG about feminism?" even in the negative sense.

Doctor Xero wrote: Tell me if I understand you aright :
People who write RPGs about social issues instead of doing anything else about that social issue on a personal and/or political level, especially those who write RPGs about social issues either specifically because it's easier OR specifically to feel good about themselves without having to take any actual Real World risks, are making empty gestures rather than actually doing anything to make the world a better place.

Mike Holmes wrote: So the next question is whether or not Dewy thinks that the people in the other thread are actually avoiding doing something for the issues at hand. Dewey? Do you think that they're being disingenuous?

Doctor Xero wrote: Beyond that, however, an RPG which intelligently addresses or brings to light a social issue is useful regardless of whether the game designer is involved in other activities. Yes, it may be an empty gesture in terms of the moral or ethical worth of the game designer, and yes, it may be the sum of his or her activism, but neither of those points negate the possible positive impact said game may have. Even if it's not much, it's something, and neither censoring it nor censuring it is likely to cause the game designer to contribute any additional efforts.

dewey wrote:

Doctor Xero wrote: Beyond that, however, an RPG which intelligently addresses or brings to light a social issue is useful regardless of whether the game designer is involved in other activities. Yes, it may be an empty gesture in terms of the moral or ethical worth of the game designer, and yes, it may be the sum of his or her activism, but neither of those points negate the possible positive impact said game may have. Even if it's not much, it's something, and neither censoring it nor censuring it is likely to cause the game designer to contribute any additional efforts.

Yes, yes. In my first feeble example (about the multi-millionaire donating 10 cents to a hospital) those 10 cents certainly help the hospital a little.

dewey wrote: I'll revise my opinion:
If someone hasn't done everything in everyday life (work, family, friends, whatever) to help a current social issue, then making an RPG about that issue is just an empty gesture.

What do you people think about it now?