Recently I have been thinking about whether much consideration has been given to the role that ideology might play in player satisfaction/dissatisfaction and, more generally, in issues of dysfunctional play.  Now, to be more precise, let me say that by ideology I am not talking about differences of political ideology among the players and the impact that this might make on play.  That is important stuff of course, but I think it is pretty well canvased in Ron's concept of the "social box," a box that includes everything from whether or not Joe has the hots for Steve's girlfriend and how that affects play to  things like Joe thinks Steve is a right-wing nutjob while Steve thinks Joe is a liberal wiener.  I am also not talking about an ideology that might inform a particular setting either (Ray Winninger's "Underground" springs to mind here as an example of a setting that is clearly informed by a more-or-less left-leaning ideology that could create player dissatisfaction for those who don't share its rather jaundiced view of the United States).  Again, this stuff is important and worth talking about, but it isn't what I have in mind.

This thread is not about any of those things.  I am more interested in thinking about whether or not the ideological frameworks that inform a particular game raise points of tension for players and contribute to satisfaction or dissatisfaction.  What I have in mind can perhaps best be understood as the ideology that informs some of the most basic elements of the game design.  For example, in many if not most RPGs there is some set of rules that deal with character improvement.  These rules may range of course from the highly elaborate (precise breakdowns of "experience points" and how they earned or lost and so forth) to the very basic, but I think everyone would agree that they are an RPG staple.  In many games, character improvement becomes a nearly autonomous goal of play, a goal that is buttressed, I would argue, by the rules that exist to deal with such an issue and especially so in those systems that lavish attention on the subject.

So, you're asking, "Where is the ideology at work in this example?"  The fact that this example might not strike any of us as particularly ideological is precisely the point of the example.  The ideology at work here is almost entirely invisible to us since we tend to think that it is natural for RPGs to deal with character improvement.  But if I asked, "why are there no rules in most systems for dealing with how players can make changes or improvements not in their individual characters but in the game world itself?" you would probably see more clearly the ideology that is reinforced by rules that deal with the former but neglect the latter. [Only "Underground," to my knowledge, has rules that detail how improvement points can be spent to make material changes in the game world].

Now, maybe this bothers no one but me, but it seems to me that the vast majority of RPGs--and I would really like to hear about the exceptions to this--tend to reinforce a fairly classically bourgeois-liberal ideology, one that emphasizes the primacy of the individual and his or her personal improvement.  Now that's fine and dandy for folks who have no quarrels at all with classical liberal thought, but for those who do I think it is perhaps one among many other factors that can contribute to player dissatisfaction.  If that's so, then I would be really interested in hearing what some of you think can be done about it given that it seems to be the dominant ideology of most games.

Some might argue that players make changes in the world through the character's actions (and the ripple effects that flow from these actions) during play.  But that seems unsatisfying to me for some reason.  First, any affects players make on the game world through their characters' actions can easily be reversed by simple GM fiat, leading to a distressing sense that characters are really powerless to influence much beyond themselves.  But more importantly it leaves unanswered the reason why the vast majority of RPGs formalize issues of character development (through more or less elaborate rules) but do not formalize rules for altering the game world.  Does that make sense?

I would be especially interested in hearing from game designers about this.  It seems to me that the kinds of games coming out from folks at The Forge--with their efforts to give players greater control over things in the shared imagined space other than character--might represent a real challenge to this tendency.  How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games? 

Any thoughts?

Eric

Eric wrote: How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games?

And here, I saw most games as armchair Right-Wing might-makes-rightism.

There is certainly, and obviously, ideology embedded in RPG game design. The racism implied by Tolkein leaked into D&D, for instance. Twilight 2000 was about military fantasy in a Right-Libertarian, government-less anarchy. Any spy game - Top Secret or James Bond, e.g. - obviously assumed the primacy of NATO and its ideals.

When I'm designing a game, I'm thinking about ideology and morality. That's what makes it fiction, instead of a list of things that happened.

glyphmonkey wrote: And here, I saw most games as armchair Right-Wing might-makes-rightism.

Universalis is a Communist plot!

I'm sorry Eric, I'm not sure what exactly you were hoping to discuss. Do you mind condensing your idea(s)?

Thanks!

I'm sorry Eric, I'm not sure what exactly you were hoping to discuss. Do you mind condensing your idea(s)?

And here I woulda said that Universalis is a capitalist plot! Care to back me up, Ralph?

Eric: very seriously now, here's what I recommend.

Play Primetime Adventures. Play The Mountain Witch. Play My Life with Master. Play Universalis, Under the Bed, the Big Night, Breaking the Ice, Polaris, the Imp Game, the Pool, Capes, InSpectres, and (if I may) Dogs in the Vineyard. Even play kill puppies for satan! (See my note at the bottom.)

What you'll find is that we're raising ideological questions. Intentionally, reliably - that's what we're about, examining ideology. We're making ideological decisions about our game design on purpose, in wholly examined ways, in order to confront you, the player, with an ideological problem.

Ask us to examine our ideological biases and we'll be all baffled - but not in the usual way, not in the "what ideological biases?" way you're used to. We'll be baffled in the way any artist is when you ask why she does what she does. "But..." we'll say. "But... all I do is examine my ideological biases. You want me to what now?"

So Eric, allow me to be the artist. You don't get to talk ideology with photographers without looking at their photos. You don't get to talk ideology with painters, sculptors, novelists, poets, actors without looking at or reading or going to their work.

The conversation about ideological biases you want to have, we're already having it, right here under your nose. Want to participate? Play our games.

-Vincent

Here's my note at the bottom: the games I named above are games I've personally played. The list of available interesting games is much longer. Anybody, if I left your game off my list, no offence! I just haven't played it.

Oops, forgot to add another topic that might be of interest to some other folks.  Looking back at Ron's "simulation: The Right to Dream" essay, you might remember that the first piece of game text that he quotes (Runequest 2nd edition) says this:

"A roleplaying game is a game of character development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called 'life'"

Now that is about as ideological a statement as I could think of since it suggests that life is about "character development" (i.e. that "life" is what classical liberal political philosophy has said life is) rather than about any other number of things (i.e. care for others, the development of greater human equality and justice, etc.).

So, I guess another question to ask is whether a classical liberal ideology is more likely to be found in those games that tend to facilitate a certain kind of simulationist play or whether it is found in all three GNS modes.

More food for thought I hope.

Eric

Eric wrote: Given that virtually no games contain formalized mechanics for how play might result in a transformation of the world of the game (  "Underground's"  rules for altering parameters being an exception to this) I think this is rather telling.

1) Is the above characterization of RPGs fair?  I am very interested in hearing from others whether or not I am being unfair in accusing RPGs of being biased towards classical liberal ideology through their focus on "character transformation/development" rather than on "social transformation/development" ("social" here refering to the game world and not the social world of the players, although that would be cool to talk about too).

2) If this characterization is fair, is this simply an inherent feature of RPGs that anyone who plays them must accept?  In other words, is a restricted focus on the individual character part of what playing an RPG is inherently all about?  I don't think it has to be, but the exceptions to this trend seem rather few and far between.

4) Is ideology something that we (and by "we" I mean those who either play or design games, but I'm especially interested in the latter even though I am not a designer) need to be more conscious of in discussion about game design and play?

5) What alternatives could we develop to this classical liberal paradigm of most RPGs.  Here I am specifically interested in how systems mechanics might be formalized to incorporate and address different ideological aims.

Shit.  I just finished a reply to Vincent and Joshua and then got told I got timed out.  Words, words, words.  Gone, gone, gone.

Oh well.  Vincent and Joshua, thanks for your recent posts.  I will certainly try to get my hands on some of the games you suggested.

However, after reading your post, Vincent, I think we mean different things by reflecting on ideology.  You say in your post that the designers at the Forge are "raising ideological questions" and that your games are doing so "intentionally, reliably...in order to confront you, the player, with an ideological problem."  From this I take you to mean "my game  Dogs in the Vineyard presents the players with ideological problems by having play address some of the following questions: 'Doe the sinner deserve mercy?' Do the wicked deserve judgment?'"

Now that sounds like a great game with an interesting narrative premise, but it isn't what I am talking about at all when I ask about whether there are games that reflect on the ideology built into their systems.  I know that there are plenty of games being produced by people at the Forge that address a premise and that have as their goal the collaborative creation of stories that explore and address this premise.  This is all to the good.  I certainly prefer games that facillitate Narrativist play over the many more mainstream alternatives or that encourage default Sim mode.

But if you take a minute to think about the kinds of stories whose production even Narrativist oriented games tend to facillitate you will see that they aren't all that far from their more mainstream alternatives in one crucial respect: both types of games see the focus of play as the individual human subject.  In games that facilliatate Narrativist play, this takes the form of player generation of stories that explore the consequences that a character's ethical actions have on  him or her self.  They do this through play that encourages the players to throw characters into premise-laden situations and then to see what falls out from such a crucible.  But as you can see, this fits very nicely within the paradigm of classical liberal ideology since it emphasizes the primacy of the individual and his/her development/transformation.  In other words, what play is about is, at least in one respect, exactly what it is about in the Runequest text Ron quotes in his "Simulation" essay.  It is about the centering of the human individual.  Now, it is obviously quite different in that it doesn't aim to simulate something but rather to address some important question (as defined by the premise), but it is still about the character.

My point is that to the extent that RPGs have maintained a focus on the human individual as the point of play--whether this be in the form of generating stories about the moral/ethical consequences of an individual's choices or in straight-up Sim style exploration--they have not broken with a major tenet of classical liberalism, namely the primacy of the individual.

Now, perhaps the games you mentioned actually do break with this rather entrenched ideological bias of most RPGs, but I am not sure.  I don't think this can really be addressed though simply by saying that a game addresses an important social question.  Even if it does (and I know of plenty of games that do), if its primary interest is still the generation of stories about the effects of ethical decisions on an individual then it is still (from my perspective) firmly within the classical liberal ideological framework no matter how cool its premise might be.

Does that make more sense?  Please don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to diss your game or any of the other really great Narrativist games that have been created here at the Forge.  I am a hardcore narrativist myself.  I am simply trying to say that in their preoccupation with the human individual there still seems to be a way in which RPGs are still not free from the ideological bias of classical liberalism, and this seems to hold for Narrativist as well as Simulationist facilitating games.

What I am wondering is whether there is any effort being made to break free of this grip, whether this is simply an inherent feature of RPGs that we cannot transcend, and whether or not this is even such a bad thing?  Joshua's comments regarding the way RPGs seem still to be caught in a mythic mode with their focus on the hero and his or her transformation encourages me to believe that I am not utterly failing to communicate this idea, so I hope dialogue on this can continue. 

Hope this helps.

eric

Vincent was offering Dogs in the Vineyard as a game that poses ideological questions, not necessarily as one that poses the ones you're interested in. You should probably read and play it to see how it poses those questions.

Eric, you need to start writing this game. You'll probably be interested in Shock as playtests go by and the game becomes more concrete, too.

But you need to digest Universalis by Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes - a game in which, unless otherwise agreed upon, no one owns a particular character. The same is true, I believe, of Capes, by TonyLB.

I think you've made your point (or at least I already agreed with it): there are few games that have the perspective you want. Now it's time to take action! Write the game! Playtest it and post Actual Play for feedback!

Can anyone else add to this bibliography? Dogs, Universalis, and Capes is a slim list.

Eric: I understand.

I think you'll be surprised, when you actually play some of the games I mentioned, or some of the other games around here. I think you'll find that "narrative premise" and "ideology" are the same thing.

I think you'll be surprised by the breaks you find from the primacy of the individual's moral development. Not in every game, of course, but in many, and in some you wouldn't expect.

Look: if you're serious, grab a couple friends, take a couple hours, and play Universalis. Or the Pool - it's free, even. Play and mean it. Then come back and post in Actual Play. Write about the ideological underpinnings of the game's mechanics versus the ideology that you and your friends brought to the game. That's how this conversation works.

-Vincent

Eric wrote:
I would be especially interested in hearing from game designers about this.  It seems to me that the kinds of games coming out from folks at The Forge--with their efforts to give players greater control over things in the shared imagined space other than character--might represent a real challenge to this tendency.  How conscious are you of the ideolgical underpinnings of your system when you are designing a game?  Are there certain ideological convictions that  you seek to incorporate in your games? 

Eric, I'm coming away with two different reads of what you're saying.  Could you let me know which (if either) is what you're presenting?

Most role-playing games use the individual character as the vehicle of change and the focus of play.  This is representative of a classically liberal ideological bias.

- Or -

Most role-playing games focus on change/progression of the individual character.  This is representative of a classically liberal ideological bias.

(Just trying to wrap my head around your premise.  I think most of the games mentioned above break the mold if you're talking about #2.  I think they don't if you're talking about #1.  Universalis and The Pool break the mold either way.  Blood and Bronze does as well, but it's more of a boardgame than an RPG.)

I think that one of the things that may have people talking across each other is that there is a huge gap between a game having "X" within it (say, mechanics for character advancement) and having "X" as the focus of play.  Dogs is a good example.  Yes, characters advance through play.  No, that ain't what the game is about.

James

Eric, thanks for clarifying!

I think this is a really interesting topic, but I do believe the conversion will be hindered a bit if you're unfamiliar with the games Vincent mentioned (and all the other good Forge games). All the games address different ideology questions, and you really would be interested in how they do it.

If I may use the moment for a little shameless self-promotion, I think you would find my game, The Mountain Witch, interesting in this regard. Though I would be lying if I said the game wasn't interested in the development of the individual character, the game is VERY interested in the development of the social space between characters. One of the major questions the game asks is how the group deals the sins/wrong-doings of its members.

Actually, I think about the social side of my games ALOT, and very purposely. With my next game, I'm trying to address/ask/whatever about how "the world" develops and deals with things... if that made sense.

Hi guys,

First, let me just say thanks to everyone for reading my long threads.  You've all shown great patience with my sometimes fumbling attempts to clarify what I am saying.  Second, I really do hope that Tim is right and that people have found this thread interesting rather than something that would try the patience of a saint. 

I really think that things are moving in some good directions, but just so that we are all on the same page let me address a few comments.

For Vincent:

You say that "narrative premise" and "ideology" are the same thing, but this just shows me that I am still not being clear.  I am not talking about the ideological issues raised by a game's premise at all.  That is not what the thing under investigation here.  I am looking at both the vehicle by which play proceeds and the narrative interest in what happens to this vehicle (traditionally called "the character") as the instance of an ideological bias, one which has its roots in classical liberalism.  So James has nailed it when he asks if #1 is what I am interested in exploring (although I am also  interested in the way #2 is often folded into #1).

That's what I meant when I said that we are talking about ideology in different ways.  Your point is that when a game includes a narrative premise it is addressing issues of ideology.  In some ways you are pointing to the stuff that goes in narrativist play and saying, "See, look at all the places where this socially interesting and important premise is being addressed and look at how the design of the system encourages that to happen!  This is addressing and critically reflecting on ideology."  I am not looking at the stuff (in terms of situation based addressing of premise and the outcomes that flow from this) of play at all so much as the vehicle and asking (and I'll say this in the absolutely most flat-footed way possible to try and make the distinction between what we are talking about clear), "Why this preoccupation with 'the character' in RPGs?  Why is this focus on the character and the personal consequences for the character of particular actions the driving interest of most RPG play, whether that play be Nar or Sim?"  I am saying that the central focus on character is what is ideological.

Now, someone might say, "But isn't that just what stories are about? Isn't what we mean by 'story' a story about character(s) and the consequences that result for them from their actions?"  In one sense, yes, this is what we commonly mean by a story.  In another way, though, this is a very ideological understanding of what a story is, an understanding that is very Euro-American (although there are exceptions to this from within the European and American literary traditions of course) and that doesn't really adequately encompass everything that goes under the heading "fiction" or "literature."  For instance, there is a lot of literature from African countries that doesn't really conform to this European aesthetic preference.  Because it is built on a very different aesthetic understanding, many of these African novels have faired very poorly at the hands of western critics who tend to find fault with them for their "failure" to create "rounded" and sensuous characters or for their preoccupation with the social world of the text and not with particular characters.  What these criticisms reveal to me (and to many other people trained in literary criticism) is the presence of a nearly invisible ideological bias within western conceptions of the novel.  I would say that  this is equally true of most RPGs.

I don't want to get into debates here about whether texts that don't adhere to standard European understandings of what a story is are good or bad fiction.  That isn't the point, so let's keep the focus on RPGs.

To make this even more explicit, let's take the opening text of Sorcerer as an example.  Just to be clear, let me say that I absolutely love Sorcerer so I don't want anyone misconstruing what I am going to say as dissing the game.  That just isn't so.  Now we'll all agree that Sorcerer is Nar turned all the way up.  It has a very explicit Premise ["How far will you go to get what you want?"] and it has system mechanics that support addressing this premise through play.  Here's what Ron says about the game:

"Sorcerer concerns stories about dangerous magical acts that have explosive personal consequences" (pg.10; my emphasis).

and a little later "Sorcerer presents a metaphor for the utterly realistic, utterly relevant moral question, 'What will you do to get what you want" (pg. 10; Ron's emphasis).

Now, what I take away from this is that what we are interested in as players when we sit down to play Sorcerer is how we as players and how our various "you"s (in the form of characters) answer this question.  The stories the system and play will generate are relentlessly character focused.  This is where our interest and attention lies, says the text.

I'll say again so no one will forget it: this is one of the great things about what Sorcerer is and does.  It satisfies this goal amazingly well.  Part of that comes from the mechanics that help facilitate this goal, but part of (and Ron is absolutely right on the money here) have to do with the whole choice of the sorcerer metaphor and demons as dysfunctional relationships thing itself.  I am not knocking Sorcerer.

But you have to admit, the game has made a choice to make the "you" and "your" answer to the question built into the premise of the game the central focus of play.  Granted that it is a very common choice within the western literary tradition, but it sin't the only option available.  A game could construct its system in such a way that the goal of play is not to generate a story that focuses on the character but that focuses on some effort to make a change in the social world of the text.  I'll admit that characters are, generally and generically speaking, pretty necessary to both literature and to RPGs, but is it that case that our attention and interest (as either readers or as author/players) has to be confined to what happens to them, how they as individuals respond to moral dilemmas or premise-laden situations, etc.?  If novels can move beyond a preoccupation with character can't RPGs too?  The bigger point, however, is this: despite being full-bore Nar with Premise and all, "Sorcerer," given its central focus on the "you" of the story, is every bit as situated within the framework of classical liberalism as "Runequest" is.  I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, mind you.  It is, however, a choice that the game has made (and that many other Nar games make) and not an inevitability.  As my references to Ray Winninger's "Underground" tried to make clear, here was an older generation Sim type game that no doubt included plenty of game text that showed incoherence in the creative agenda but that also included mechanics (in the form of rules for how advancement points might be spend on altering the parameters of a society) that seemed to suggest that a point of play--and by no means the only point of play--was the alteration of the social world of the game itself.

[Please note: I don't think this was "Underground's" only or even primary source of appeal.  Exploration of Color seemed like another--and for some perhaps a more primary--point of play] 

Alright, that's enough for one day.  Thanks to everyone again for the stimulating replies.

To Tim:

I am really interested in your next game project.  This sounds like a project to watch.  I am also very interested in "The Mountain Witch" which, from the sound of it, has some very cool mechanics that build on issues of trust/mistrust within the group.  I'll no doubt be picking it up.

To glyphmonkey (sorry but I couldn't find your real name in your post:

Shock sounds like a really promising project too.  I think you are right that the sci-fi genre is frequently a place where a focus on something larger than the character occurs.  Finally thanks for the encouragement to write a game.  Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I've never thought of myself as someone who could design a game.  Perhaps I should have a go at it, but I think I need to spend a bit more time playing in some of the new games that have been suggested.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.

Eric

Common design assumptions, which may reveal underlying ideological assumptions:

Stories are about characters. (Egotism)
Characters are people. (Anthropomorphism)
Each player plays one character. (My Guy)
Someone must be in charge of the plot -- usually the GM. (Myth of the Author)
The character is the only tool the players have to affect the story.  (mistaking the game for a reality simulation)
A player has complete control over "his" character. (Self-determinism)
Characters are outmatched by threats larger than they are, and defeat them by being clever. (The Underdog Syndrome)
Characters begin at a relatively weak power level and progress to becoming more powerful over time. (The Campbellian Confusion)
There is always a chance of success or failure in any given attempt. (Optimism, or perhaps Pessimism, depending)
All the main characters (ie, PCs) begin the story at a relatively equal power level. (Good old American Equality-or-Die).

Of course lots of these have been tested and/or broken, but the bulk of them remain unchallenged in the "mainstream" of game design.

Eric,

What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)
How would these entities be played?

Nick

NN wrote:
What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)
How would these entities be played?

Eric: Cool! Design that game!

-Vincent

Eric wrote:
A game could construct its system in such a way that the goal of play is not to generate a story that focuses on the character but that focuses on some effort to make a change in the social world of the text. 

If I've understood you correctly that you're looking for games that shift the focus of player attention during play away from the character and to something else, there's at least one older game that does this with some success: Pendragon.

When you play a full Pendragon campaign, you start out identifying with your character in the usual way. By the end of the campaign, at least three new ares of focus have blossomed.
The Family: Pendragon provides mechanics to allow you to build a family over generations - you'll play descendants, make political alliances through marriage and fostering of children. Your descendants will inherit common personality traits and passions, and will develop strong passions as a result of the fate of your family and success or failure of those alliances.
The Estate: Pendragon also provides the means to invest your attention in the develop of noble estates - you can build up from a small manor to an estate stretching over several counties, and then after a few bad harvests see it all crumble, forcing you to make ethical decisions: do you sacrifice the love of the peasants in order to get the taxes you need to keep your household and army? The really clever thing: the estate becomes a character, which players lavish as much attention on as they do on their favourite characters. They'll nurture a cherished estate over generations - it becomes part of the living history of the campaign.
Furthermore, the establishment of estates and families allows players to extend their influence further into the campaign world than any individual character could achieve - you build alliances, maybe even establish or support social movements, marginalise and crush your enemies.
Finally, in this kind of campaign world, the actual Kingdom - the world - becomes a character. It's an irrestistible presence at the gaming table - forcing players to define their characters in response to the developing events of the game world. All these elements work together so that players see their characters fate as just one element in play - and for some players, it's one of the least important elements.

Having said all that, Pendragon is a very easy game to railroad, but as a game which in theory encourages players to look beyond their personal and focus their attention on other aspects of game play, I haven't seen another game which does so much.

NN wrote: What would the players play if they didnt play characters? (Parties? Factions? Religions? Species!?....)

Hey... this thread locks right into a line of thought I've been pursuing for the last three months or more.

Yes games are ideological and yes the ideology is present in the basic make up of the games (of course it is, hard to get past that).

And YES, I'd love to see a game that rips away from the individual character to the entire society. A game that doesn't become a boardgame, which essentially locks player creativity into a tactical-strategic framework...

And NO, I still have no idea how to get it together... I'd love to help knock brains and maybe storm something out.

(I'd really need a cheesy green thumbs up emotikon right now)

I once played in a one-shot diceless game at a convention wherein all the players (seven in total, plus the GM) created Gods and role-played through the creation of the world.  From the seperation of *something* from the void, to the eventual creation of the human race, and all of the crazy-weird creatures and such that was created in the interim.  There was a mechanic in the game by which we could send prophecies and portents to our followers using magnetic poetry (Shakespearian text, iirc). 

The actual gameplay involved each player narrating what their God was doing, with the GM stepping in to change or adjust what was happening.  Another player could pipe up during the course of the narration and change what was happening further still.

Admitedly, the game in question was only a one shot and only lasted for about 4-5 hours, so the focus wasn't on character development so much as on the interplay and interaction between the Gods, their powers and their followers.  Still, it was a wholly unique experience for myself and one that I keep trying to find a group to try it again with.

RedWick, I'm treading dangerously tangential, here, but that would make a really neat prelude to the 'rest' of the game where you played the people and things that you just created!

Yay! Down with single-character-centrism. : )

Aria was a stab at playing whole civilizations or segments of them.  Following this lead, the image that comes to mind for me is the time-line of history overseen by the Foundation in Azimov's series.  There's no limit to the scale at which a story can take place: personal, family, community, nation, solar system. & that's just looking at human communities.  As long as you can come up with compelling situations & give the players a position from which to create and affect it, you're good. 

I'd love to see a game that took a compelling situation and allowed you to enter into various different parts of the set up: say, a swat team entering a barricaded apartment. You can affect what's happening by narrating the tear gas filling the hallways, or the Mayor's office being bombarded with flack for the invasion of personal rights, or the prime minister's office looking at this in the larger scheme of subverting *insert threat of the week* terror etc.  Just like descriptions of details fleshing out the experience of a setting via color, quick shots of characters could be used to spotlight the pathos of a scene or the injustices being wrought.  Or take it beyond the human personal. What's that video game where you start out as a single-celled organism?   

It's like looking at characters as components like anything else.  Oh, yeah! Universalis has what you need to start, no doubt. Pendragon sounds like an excellent example too. But there's a lot of ground to be covered to specifically support this kind of play. Rich new ground. Awesome.

best,
Emily

Thanks for all the interest and encouragement everyone.  As I said in an earlier post, I really have never thought of myself as someone who could design a game but perhaps I should give it a whirl.

I think Judd has hit on what I need to do (that is, what I need to do outside of playing some of the great games that have been coming out of the Forge): take the most interesting ideas of the post and let them percolate a bit. 

The trouble with doing the other thing (namely, playing some of these great new games) is that you all are like fucking rabbits.  Everytime you turn around someone else has popped out another baby that you want to give your attention to.  I mean, Jesus, how much time and expendable cash do you think I have. ;-)

Eric

P.S. Oh yeah, one other thing.  Judd, if I have to start working on this game you have to finish Mu's Bed and make it available as a mini-supplement.

Speaking of Aria, I remembered a game called Fudgified Interactive History-- it's a Fudge Mod where you play societies instead of characters.  A few campaigns (that ran for years) were among the nations of various continents in Elyria.

The older Elyria game seems to have almost disappeared from the internet-- the turn archives should be useful to you.  Here are some societies that players created and ran. Qaiyore was a different take on the same subject.

It was an interesting game; hopefully it has good nuggets to mine for your design.
--Scott

I'm coming in a little late here, but Eric, I understand exactly what you're talking about, and it's ben on my mind a lot with my more recent design projects. For me, it mostly comes from an interest in anthropology (specifically ethnography I suppose) which can demonstrate so clearly why our (western) way is not the only one. The individual/society dichotomy is a good one. Others that I've spent more time thinking about are:

- Selection of character stats. Frex, you might look to "big 5" personality tests, or Freudian psychology, or more recent evolutionayr psychology as a basis for your stats, but each choice requires trust a particular theory of mind and probably science in general. (Of course, you could have a game about Freud and thereby justify "id" and "superego" stats, but that's not what I'm talking about.)

- More generally, the urge to quantify characters at all. We have a collective kind of obsession with finding the "best," most descriptive stats stats, or at least the most useful ones for our particular game. But no matter what system we use, we're presupposing the utility of stats, specifically numerical stats, above some of method. To non-western people, using numbers to represent discreet human traits, and having discreet human traits at all, might seem very strange.

Other underlying "ideologies" might be

- Self-determination
- Linearity of time
- What kinds of story "arcs" are desirable or even possible, I guess including character growth, but more broadly as well

Good topic.

I can't tell you how pleased it is that people are asking these questions as Shock: is taking form.

Where the first thing you do is define the society in which the story takes place.
Where the defining features of the society are the impact of radical change on the players' social issues.
Where stats have to do with the ways the society feels are appropriate to deal with problems.
Where the characters are there to show things about the society, not vice-versa.
Where, when a character dies, the issues of the society are still open for exploration by a new character.

I'll post back in this thread when there's an alpha for public consumption.

Eric wrote:
it seems to me that the vast majority of RPGs--and I would really like to hear about the exceptions to this--tend to reinforce a fairly classically bourgeois-liberal ideology, one that emphasizes the primacy of the individual and his or her personal improvement.

Oh, man, Tyger^2, do I want to get in a game with you. Preferably a game of PTA (which, while totally, totally character-centric, is all about confronting issues).

Race issues are the kind of thing that RPG designers have been consistently cowardly about.

Jasper wrote:
Other underlying "ideologies" might be

- Self-determination
- Linearity of time

glyp wrote:
Race issues are the kind of thing that RPG designers have been consistently cowardly about.

What are you working on right now, tygertyger?  Anything we can glean from your design choices about how ideology might intentionally be embedded in game design?

Joshua wrote:
Anything we can glean from your design choices about how ideology might intentionally be embedded in game design?

tygertyger wrote:
I've also brought a vampire larp to a complete standstill by bringing up this kind of issue.  <snip>"I think you can see why I wouldn't like anything that looked like slavery."  Jaws dropped all over the room -- out of character.  None of the other players present -- and there were more than 30 -- had ever thought of the blood bond in those terms before -- and no published WW material, before or since, has ever talked about it in those terms, at least not with an eye toward race politics.

Darren wrote:
That's pretty startling. I can't imagine how anyone would approach the concept of bloodbond without thinking about slavery.