lehrbuch wrote: Please don't be insulted by this, but I have often heard it said that some players dislike Class so much, because of their real-world national myths about the existence and desirability of "classless" societies. Is real-world ideology significant in what we find acceptable and desirable in a roleplaying game? A similar argument could be made about a player's preference for deterministic or random resolution systems, or for the sharing of narrative control amongst all players.

Ron Edwards wrote: I guess I'm puzzled by this, for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see a possible implied insult at all, and your basic question is a very good one.

Ron Edwards wrote: Second, I'm not familiar with the trend or profile you describe (regarding character class); it's totally foreign to me.

Ron Edwards wrote: Third, the topic has a lot of thread-derailing potential, so I suggest you start a new thread with it.

Interesting. So, for instance, someone with a very mechanistic, deterministic view of the world might prefer Karma systems over Fortune, an extreme democrat/anarchist/etc would dislike GM control, that kind of thing? Makes sense. It'd be easy to say that people's perceptions of the world only decide the workings of the game in Sim game design, but that seems unlikely.

This is a most interesting notion, lehrbuch. I hope it manages to stay topical--it could derail any ordinary thread, and as a thread of its own, it's certainly potentially touchy.

I get the feeling you're not in the USA, though I can't tell from your profile or other posts. I have never heard anyone get upset because they felt that class in the RPG sense somehow reinforced class in the sociopolitical sense. Explicit discussions of sociopolitical class are unusual in most gamer culture in the USA, IMO.

You are right, though, that "I should be able to do what I want" is a common retort to class systems by those who don't like them. In my own gaming group back in high school and college, this was pretty much our attitude, and we became die-hard GURPS loyalists. A while ago I did notice that the way we played tended to be a sort of low-grade "me first" anarchism or quasi-libertarianism. That is, the characters usually were well outside the system of law in whatever world we were in, were ferociously anti-authoritarian, and later, tended toward a sort of postmodernist view. (More than one campaign featured re-making the whole world with metaphysical laws that better suited our ideology.) All this free-thinking didn't extend to the rules, however, which we were pretty picky about (the exception was the magic system, which we often tweaked).

All that said, I attribute the superficiality of our political analysis (in general as well as in relation to our gaming habits) more to immaturity than to being gamers as such. I do not want anyone to misconstrue anything here to be a generalization in any way about what RPGers think politically.

Now to the present--I think that one's ideology inevitably affects game design (and play of course), though not always in an obvious fashion. A design I am currently working on (with Mike Holmes, who gets credit for the original idea) turned out to have a lot of dialectical materialism's terminology peppered throughout (probably because its heart is a conflict resolution system), and I have made a subtle joke through the whole text of slightly Marxist-sounding terms. The system also focusses very strongly on conflict with a Self trait as defining for PCs (it's the only trait all PCs have), and at some point I'm definitely going to figure a way to turn that on its head, since I'm a Buddhist and believe there isn't actually such a thing as a self. (In the sense of an object that has a lasting, permanent essence; nor do I mean to say it has no existence in any sense; nor--ah, well, if you wanna chat this kind of philosophy, take it to PM.)

That's the conscious stuff on my part, and it's (as far as I can tell) almost vanishingly subtle. The most obvious thing I can think of that's discussed publicly is newer trends in gender inclusivity, as well as some consciousness in gaming texts about race (in the sense of Black, White, Latino, etc., not in the sense of Elf, Hobbit, etc.). You do see ferocious debate about the matter of depictions in gaming texts (especially the art), but not very often have I encountered analysis that goes into the mechanics themselves.

OK, this is getting rather long-winded. I'll return again when my thoughts are better organized. In general, I think it's possible to analyze this stuff ideologically, but absent explicit statements from the authors, it's a very uncertain thing. I'm not sure how to get much value from it except as a curiosity.

--J B Bell

It's my impression that Personality reflects Games. I've been taking 'net personality tests and inflicting them on friends and relations, and noticing that RPGs tend to match the personality types. One friend's personality and my personality are very closer, and we both like the same style of RPG. Others have different personalities and like different RPGs. I haven't yet worked out what correlation there is, or even if there is one.

Hello,

Henry Fitch wrote: Interesting. So, for instance, someone with a very mechanistic, deterministic view of the world might prefer Karma systems over Fortune, an extreme democrat/anarchist/etc would dislike GM control, that kind of thing?

Henry Fitch wrote: It'd be easy to say that people's perceptions of the world only decide the workings of the game in Sim game design, but that seems unlikely.

J B Bell wrote: I have never heard anyone get upset because they felt that class in the RPG sense somehow reinforced class in the sociopolitical sense...

J B Bell wrote: ...and we became die-hard GURPS loyalists. A while ago I did notice that the way we played tended to be a sort of low-grade "me first" anarchism or quasi-libertarianism.

1 - class as a term of historical origin refers mnostly to standard of living and influence, but usually also implies something of how that living is made. The range of careers available to aristocrats was very different to the range of tasks available to the peasantry. In this sense, vertical social class does correspond to career.
2 - the Marxist sense in which class is often used today refers strictly to the relationship between the individual and the mode of production, and also implies quite a lot about what people do and why.
3 - class as a paraphrase for "category" can be used with or without such associations.

D&D only actually uses version 3. A better fantasy game, IMO, would use version 1.

I too am familiar with a sense that the class model of performance was overly restrictive, and like others, my homebrews shifted in this direction. But this does produce a far too modern approach of "anyone can do anything" which does IMO reflect a modern bourgeois ideology rather than a historical one. Needless to say, this gets my sim goat. The problem with thr former is that they try to classify by function; the problem with the latter is that it fails to classify at all.

There have been better attempts - I like HW's packages and the like. I believe you need at least two dimensions of classification - one for social rank, and another for functional role.

This post wanders around a bit through the topics in this thread. Please excuse. :)

First of all, I think Gareth has pegged it exactly right. D&D uses classes to categorize and nothing more. The reason (IME/O of course) that many people have automatic negative reactions to the word "class" is not from political or cultural reasons, but because D&D is such a high profile game that anytime the word "class" enters a discussion people automaticaly think of D&D classes - which are what the guys on the RPG-Create list call *restrictive* classes. The D&D implimentation imposes artificial restrictions to the different character types under the banner of game balance. ("What do you mean my wizard can't pick up a sword? He's got two freaking hands, doesn't he?!")

So, many people assume that the idea of "class" carries with it the undesireable qualities of the D&D class system, when this is not in fact the case. The word "template" is often used (as in the D6 system) to denote non-restrictive classes. Templates in D6 are used to categorize, but do not restrict. Rather, they're more like partially pre-generated characters.

Wandering onwards, I don't think that our world-views *necessarily* have a great impact on the games we design and play. I know my own doesn't. I like games for diversions. When I play a game, I expet things to be *different* from my real worldview. That's the main thing that makes games interesting to me.

While it would never have occurred to me before this discussion to view the word "class" as used in D&D in a Marxist sense, I do think that many of the negative reactions to class-based games--including my own--stem from the (perhaps excessively) high value placed on individuality in Western culture, and especially in the United States. The notion that one's game-world avatar should be ontologically forbidden from pursuing certain activities is not palatable to many Westerners; I would expect it to be particularly rejected by people with extensive real-world experience of marginalization and rejection (as gamers tend to be).

Paganini wrote:
Wandering onwards, I don't think that our world-views *necessarily* have a great impact on the games we design and play. I know my own doesn't. I like games for diversions. When I play a game, I expet things to be *different* from my real worldview. That's the main thing that makes games interesting to me.

Hello,

I might have another go at explaining what I mean here:

Regardless of designer intent or player acknowledgement an RPG has embedded within it assumptions about the real world and what is good and bad. Players need to accept these (even if without acknowledging them) in order to understand the game. Somewhat obviously, if the players' real world ideas align with those of the game then they will accept willingly, possibly even without realising it. If the players' real world ideas differ to the games, then they will bicker about the game, particularly the "realism" of it.

This seems, at first glance, to apply more to Simulationist games than any other. However, I think, that Simulationists can easily circumvent any argument by claiming to simulate a thing (setting/character/etc) where the assumptions of the game are "true", regardless of any real world truths. Other types of gamer may possibly argue that all this is still part of the Simulationist structure which supports their preferred mode of play, and hence use the same argument. But I'm not horribly convinced by that, as that seems to lead to "all games are simulations".

Some examples:
Class vs no Class. Which makes the assumption that either people can be grouped or they can't.

GM vs multi-narrator. Which makes the assumption that either there is a single (game) reality which only one player knows vs there is a shared (game) reality which must be negotiated between the players.

"Task" vs "Conflict" resolution systems. Which make the assumption that either events happen through statistical "cause and effect" or that events happen through dramatic imperative.

Experience Points. Personal achievment occurs in increments.

Paganini wrote:
Wandering onwards, I don't think that our world-views *necessarily* have a great impact on the games we design and play. I know my own doesn't. I like games for diversions. When I play a game, I expet things to be *different* from my real worldview. That's the main thing that makes games interesting to me.

RobMuadib wrote: I would have to largely agree with Nathan here...Other than that, I can't think of any game where world-view majorly affected the mechanics in an unreasonable or unnecessary way.

I really don't think that people who play or write GM-full games are doing so as an expression of some postmodern philosophical wankery about the nonexistence of the objective universe, and I find it hard to imagine that someone who disagreed with said wankery (i.e., the vast majority of sentient beings) would get a sense of clashing worldviews from playing such a game.

I know this isn't exactly what we're talking about, but quite a few games have views imbedded in them on a more superficial level than that. Like, Fantasy Wargaming rather clearly shows the author's religious and gender bias, unless he was being quite tongue-in-cheek. CoC and Unknown Armies have very different interpretations of mental illness. And OtE seems to have little chunks of Green rhetoric throughout.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: I really don't think that people who play or write GM-full games are doing so as an expression of some postmodern philosophical wankery about the nonexistence of the objective universe

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: ...and I find it hard to imagine that someone who disagreed with said wankery (i.e., the vast majority of sentient beings) would get a sense of clashing worldviews from playing such a game.

lehrbuch wrote: They have failed to understand the worldview of the game. I am saying this could be because it is different to their own.

I think lehrbuchs central claim is probably correct. I mean reverting to the class thing - this social mobility we experience is unusual*. If we grew up in societies in which with few and rare exceptions sons followed their fathers trade, which is most historical societies, would we REALLY have such an "instinctive" reaction against class systems in RPG? I doubt it, it would accord much more closely with our daily experience of "how the world works". In fact the modern perception is so deeply embedded that you would have to go through some effort these days to communicate to modern gamers how psychologically invasive a caste-type system can be; how it is indeed possible to construct a class which does not and never will use a sword on entirely ideological grounds - and arguments to reason and efficiency go hang.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
- from "All Things Bright And Beautiful"

* monstrous caveat - perceived social mobility.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that...

My understanding of the term "GM-full" as commonly used on the Forge is that it is a more accurate alternative to the more commonly used "GM-less," in that all of the players partake of the Directorial power often reserved for the GM, such that no GM can be distinguished; i.e., the game is full of GMs.

If I've got that backwards, someone please tell me, and I'll edit my posts.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: My understanding of the term "GM-full" as commonly used on the Forge is ... the game is full of GMs.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: my experience of GM-full games...suggests that the disorientation some players experience on first playing such games is due to overly-rigid expectations about what the social contract of a roleplaying game must be, rather than to any lack of sufficient solipsism.

I'm a little confused by your arguement Lehrbuch. It seems to me that what you're postulating is making a hypothesis out of something that's pretty much a given in the first place. I would think that ones "world view" (culture, mores, ideology, etc) subconciously colors everything that the person percieves and thinks. Being influenced by these things is the norm. Trying to keep an open mind and accept things that challenge ones ideology as being equally valid is the hard part.

So I guess my point is simply: of course real world ideology colors roleplaying, in the same manner that it colors everything that we do. So I'm somewhat unsure of what specific talking points you're desireing to target in this thread. Trying to identify manifestations of this effect in actual game mechanics might be a little like looking for a needle in a haystack because the mechanics are going to be influenced by many other considerations which are likely to seem more obvious and compelling. Further it might seem a little unreasonable to try and identify outright effects that are probably too subtle to be easily spotted.

For instance it would be rather outrageous to postulate that D&D hitpoints reflect a world view that accepts that some individuals have a greater right to live than others (i.e. the mechanic offers more protection to "high level people of certain classes" than it does to others). That's a little heavy handed and clearly impossible to support as anything more than conjecture. But I would agree with the idea that on some level (likely too subtle to identify) our game rules are colored by these types of assumptions...if only because...how could they not be.

No, but recognising that the Forgotten Realms is basically the modern west with RenFaire trappings can start you off on a road that helps you understand why you find a game satisfying or otherwise. I guess thats probably a sim concern - from the sim perspective, one of my interests is constructing games which prompt an alternate consciousness, way of looking at things. In fact I would go so far as to say this is implicit in games. The reason that this is more important than the observation that our subjective analysis is always carried with us is precisely because a game establishes a value system and a reward mechanism - it thus at least partly tends to impose its tacit ideology on the players.

Wow,

The above two posts by Ralph and Gareth, taken together, really sum up my thinking on this entire issue.

Not much more to add. Great, interesting thread though.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: ...I guess my point is simply: of course real world ideology colors roleplaying, in the same manner that it colors everything that we do. So I'm somewhat unsure of what specific talking points you're desireing to target in this thread.

Lehrbuch: What about transgressive characters? I find that some of the most interesting Exploration of Character comes from establishing a Setting with whose social constraints everyone is sufficiently familiar that they go without saying, and then creating characters who break the rules. How would that be facilitated by your strategy of representing the rigid socioeconomic constraints of Medieval Europe by means of a class system?

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: What about transgressive characters?...How would that be facilitated by your strategy of representing the rigid socioeconomic constraints of Medieval Europe by means of a class system?

What you're saying here in the last post lehr is something I wholeheartedly agree upon. Its been pretty much the corner stone of my distaste for generic systems (like the ubiquitous GURPS, but also FUDGE, et.al.) for years. If the game isn't customized to do exactly the kind of things you're talking about, its missed a HUGE opportunity.

However, I have come to amend this sentiment post GNS to include "IF your goal is Simulation" which the Pool's goal is not.

For the record, this is how I managed to make peace with the fact that Universalis attempts to be universal...something I've traditionally detested.

If we're talking simulationist games, than my top candidates for favorite systems is Pendragon and Cyberpunk, because both accomplish the goal of creating a game system that captures all of the various tropes you mention. Pendragon to the point that it is almost impossible to concieve of using the game for anything other than Arthurian adventure (with the exception of the "spin-off" Paladins of Charlemagne and Spencers Faerie Queen)

lehrbuch wrote: If you want to represent ahistorical characters then design your class system such that it is possible.

Valamir wrote: However, I have come to amend this sentiment post GNS to include "IF your goal is Simulation" which the Pool's goal is not.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: ...what you're suggesting is that the designer of a Simulationist historical RPG needs to anticipate, ...every archetypal character of the era [and] every possible variation or transcision of archetypes that could reasonably have occurred.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: And anyway, where does "ideology" enter into it?

lehrbuch wrote: when designing an RPG, where the players are likely to think differently (hold different ideologies) to the characters and to the game world in general, it is a good idea to use game mechanics to focus the players towards acting appropriately.