As a footnote to the concept games thread and the games as serious art thread, I'd like to note something that's going on in video games, in at least in one corner of the Internet:

http://www.newsgaming.com/

Interesting concept, tho I think the implementation is a touch crass.

Which leads me to another thing: For all the "deep" content/potential in RPGs, there doesn't seems to be a whole lot of modern politics in RPGs... I wonder why that is?

Well, IMO, becuase to do so broders on the use of games for propagandist purposes. Guiven that a game contains a mutually reinforcing set of rules, if it is to be a coherent and functional entity, there is already a necessary bias in its reflection of the authors analysis of sociaety and reality. Making a game that overtly attempted to assert a polemical point - and no point that it claimed could fail to be polemical through such a demonstrative medium - would essentially replictae many of the worst fears of RPG as espoused by Jack Chick and his ilk.

As I mentioned in the magic thread, I think the purpose of the pseudo-historical setting and the appearnce of in-yer-face kewl powers allows the clear signposting of the fact that this is NOT meant to be a real depiction of society or reality, and this distance allows us to engage with modes of behavious we would probably personally find abhorrent. Real politics is paid lip service in much the same way religion is.

I thought the implementation was quite clever. Elegant in its simplicity.

xiombarg wrote: Interesting concept, tho I think the implementation is a touch crass.

Which leads me to another thing: For all the "deep" content/potential in RPGs, there doesn't seems to be a whole lot of modern politics in RPGs... I wonder why that is?

Hey Guys,

The 'game' referenced above is IMO making a pretty pointed statement. Are we talking about RPGs (or the lack thereof) which are designed explicitly to make a political statement? I see this somewhat seperately from the issue of politics as a science in RPGs.

I definately think that RPGs have been mostly bereft of system support of political goals up 'til this point. This fits though given what the intent was in design. No one's really decided to make (or I have yet to find) a "Run your political party" game. I can see a pretty fun InSpectres variant doing that pretty well though. I guess I don't see a real issue with why these sorts of games haven't been created, and I fully expect to see them as the medium broadens out.

If however we're talking about RPGs specifically designed to make some statement, that's a different animal. Generally when it comes to making a statement you're attempting to do so in a way that reaches the mainstream in a tangible way. RPGs don't have the cachet at the moment to be a ready target for such a statement.

-Tim

John, its not that I don't like politics in games - quite the opposite. I merely see very little politics in games and I think the reason for it is the fear of lecturing the audience. I mean its quite startling, IMO, to see the absence of political commentary in the Cyberpunk genre, which prima facie would be a superb arena for it. I'm not sure that the little moral homilys sprinkled in Buffy are a good example of anything much, and in fact I find this sort of micro-lecture rather patronising.

Tim, I'm not sure you can avoid making a statement. As soon as someone says or speculates about or makes a rule referencing "human nature", that perception of human nature will alsmot always exist in a political ideology somewhere and be identifiable. Or, to take an example from the faux-medieval default setting, a good case can be made for, as one writer put it, Norman castles "rivetting" their (Norman) state on top of the English peasantry willy nilly. Arguably, castles are more purposefully aimed at protecting the lords from the peasants much more than protectiong the lords from each other. But instead, almost every game produces a kinda sense of modern nationalism in which everyone identifies with their national terrain, state, what have you. Whichever stance you take implies a political perspective.

I''d like to see more complexity and more atention paid to such settings, so that the experience of the game is more "simmy" - IMO, of course. I don;t think just having political events as part of the movement of the plat is sufficient to say that politics appears in the game, it will only be significant if ther players are willing and able to enagage with it through their characters and exercise discretion and decision for political purposes. But the vast majority of games only investigate small-scale and personal interests that do not address the bigger picture - or if they do, they do so through the device of personal relations, thus obviating the political dimension.

Roleplaying games often do feature political conflicts, but not centred around real world political issues. In Traveller we have the ideological clashes between the Imperium and the racial supremicist Solomani on the othe hand and the repressive/utopian Zhodani on the other. Vampire prominently features political power struggles within the Camarilla. In Glorantha we have the liberation ideology of the opressive Lunar empire pitted against the hevaily traditionalist yet freedom loving barbarians. Paradoxical? Yes, but real politics often is too.

Real world politics rarely features though. I hesitate to suggest that this might be because people like to keep their gaming escapist and therefore prefer imagined conflicts to real world ones, for fear of drawing flak from another thread!


Simon Hibbs

contracycle wrote: Well, IMO, becuase to do so broders on the use of games for propagandist purposes.

The original French version of In Nomine was rather political in that it satirized institutions like the Church, Government, and the like. When SJGames translated it into English, they got rid of most of that, make it more "serious," and also made it very liberal in nature (gay-friendly angels, eventually moving to harmony among the Judeo-Christian-Islamic factions of Heaven, non-gendered angels, no Jesus, no active God, likable demons, etc.). I think the idea was that a less judgmental and political game would be friendlier to the gaming population of the US, which is pretty touchy about religion in general, and therefor be more popular.

Tim, I'm not sure you can avoid making a statement. As soon as someone says or speculates about or makes a rule referencing "human nature", that perception of human nature will alsmot always exist in a political ideology somewhere and be identifiable.

Or, to take an example from the faux-medieval default setting, a good case can be made for, as one writer put it, Norman castles "rivetting" their (Norman) state on top of the English peasantry willy nilly. Arguably, castles are more purposefully aimed at protecting the lords from the peasants much more than protectiong the lords from each other. But instead, almost every game produces a kinda sense of modern nationalism in which everyone identifies with their national terrain, state, what have you. Whichever stance you take implies a political perspective.

But the vast majority of games only investigate small-scale and personal interests that do not address the bigger picture - or if they do, they do so through the device of personal relations, thus obviating the political dimension.

Tomas HVM wrote: To stamp any use of RPGs to communicate meanings/insights on the world as "propaganda" smells like some kind of rigid flexibility (aggressive freedom) to me. I do not consider it to be a constructive stance, nor healthy. ...

Given that controversy often equals sales, I am suprised that the concept/anti-game hasn't been used more often. Take for example the recent controversy over the board game Ghettopoly. Observers have brought up the question of intent: is the game cultural criticism or simply racist? One wonders if there are those already working on there Pimps & Playas RPG hoping to genrate similar controversy (and sales).

I do see political issues arising in fan-created Multiverser worlds. Although it's not strictly so, it shows itself glaringly in alternate history settings. More often than not, someone creating an alternate history setting will make assumptions about what would work and how people would react which are based on their own narrow political views, and to which others take objection. I recall one occasion in which a conservative American writer in creating his world assumed that under the circumstances he'd created the U.S. could easily annex Canada, as the Canadians would all prefer to be Americans anyway; a moderate Canadian said that was completely unbelievable and showed no understanding at all of Canadian thought or attitudes. Similarly, one writer suggested a scenario in which Nixon defeated Kennedy in '60, sending Jack back to the Senate, and going on to be one of the best two-term presidents we ever had. I'll agree that Nixon was smart and capable, but even I (moderately conservative) felt that the author's biases in this area were--well, I was going to say showing, but plastered on billboards is really more the feeling I had.

As soon as you bring a political issue into play, it is extremely difficult to avoid taking sides on it as a writer. That means you have three choices.

• Take the bull by the horns and accept that you're going to be making a statement, so do so solidly such that this is becomes the game focus. My Post-Sympathetic Man does this, redefining all of society on a survival of the fittest model, and starting from the premise that if that were fully embraced as the truth about the world, human culture would be harshly competitive, so here's the world I envision--what would you do in it?• Go entirely non-committal, presenting the issue as part of the background of the world but trying to play both sides of it. My Orc Rising is more on this order. The issue there is slavery, colonialism, and the oppression of a race which is perceived as inferior. A great deal of effort goes into showing that the oppressors/slavers/conquerors are not villains, but good people with high ideals and good motives whose understanding of the situation causes them to do things which we, from our very different perspective, find unacceptable. It is almost impossible to do this about live issues without bias showing somewhere. Let the player decide the answers to the issues; just give him as balanced a view on it as you can.• Avoid such issues entirely. The vast majority of role playing games do it this way. It prevents you from driving your players away from the table. If they want to deal with such issues, they can set up their own opportunities to do so. If you set those opportunities up for them, at least some will take offense, and you lose part of your already small target audience.


So I think most designers avoid such things because they're afraid of offending some of their audience, and so limiting their appeal.

Of course, not everyone is focused on that, so there may be more of such games and scenarios out there than I know.

--M. J. Young

Hi, all. Very interesting discussion!

I like M.J.'s rundown of the options (make a clear statement, go noncommittal, avoid the issue), but I think there is a fourth option available in an RPG (particularly a RPG designed for Narrativist play) that's not available to writers of, say, a book or movie. That is to make the Premise (in the Narrativist sense) a political question, but to let that question be answered in play. Maybe this is what M.J. is describing in #2, but I wouldn't see the political question as "background" but rather the very point of play.

Alas, I haven't gotten to run it, but the Sorcerer game I brought up a while back, Sorcerer Incorporated, was intended to be a political game. The definition of Demons as corporations and Humanity as "life outside the influence of the Market" was intended to create a game around questions of morality, the free market, co-optation, complicity and so on. My hope was (and is, since I'd still like to run this) that the game wouldn't be a didactic "corporations are bad, m'kay?" exercise, but rather a real investigation into how invested we all are in 21st century capitalism and how one works within or against the system: profoundly political questions, if you ask me. But the key would be not to determine the moral ahead of time, rather to set up the conflicts and then let the meaty, meaning-generating choices be made by the players, a la any good Sorcerer play.

cheers,
Rob

[edited because I apparently can't spell Narrativist]

Very interesting discussion, guys. I don't have much to add, but as we truck along I wanted to clarify my intent with the thread.

Tim Alexander wrote: The 'game' referenced above is IMO making a pretty pointed statement. Are we talking about RPGs (or the lack thereof) which are designed explicitly to make a political statement? I see this somewhat seperately from the issue of politics as a science in RPGs.

Mark Johnson wrote: Given that controversy often equals sales, I am suprised that the concept/anti-game hasn't been used more often.

Mike Holmes wrote: Consider the flap over gaming as Satanic. Which threatened in some areas of the US to wipe out RPGs entirely. I think that since then that games have been quite conservative in what they present.

OTOH, I think that this has just become traditional. In recent years things have become a lot more lax, and I think that you'll see some titles that are seemingly controversial. But probably too late to actually be controversial.

I think politics have been incorporated into RPGs for good long time. Dealing with the king (honest or ursurper) is a time-tested plot device, and most of the "biggies" (Vampire, for example) have all sorts of internal politics built into the game.

Now, if you mean, why are there no games about Republicans - it seems to me to be rather dull. I wouldn't play it. I wouldn't play a game about Liberals or the Green Party either - it's just not exciting to me, and judging by the scarcity of such tropes, I have to think it would be pretty boring to others too. I think most people have a good idea of how boring the minutiae of politics can be, and even the really "exciting" moments don't hold a candle to, say, a good car-chase scene.

That said, Crux incorporates politics in two ways. There are essentially political factions in the otherworld, called Rades, and all sorts of magical and mundane intrigue that will directly affect the PCs. On the other side, political factions actually have agendas that incorporate knowledge of the otherworld. The Green Party is actually out to destroy humanity, secretly controlled and manipulated by a Rade in the Plasm. Meanwhile, the Democrats are working with another Rade, the Republicans want nothing to do with any of the otherworld, and are a bit paranoid about it (some recent money dumped into Iraq is "actually" going to fund the war in the Plasm, for example), and Libertarians want to be generally left alone, and do what they can to harmonize the two worlds so they can have that peace. Not proactively, mind you, however.

Aidan

System hiccup - sorry!

Simon Hibbs wrote: It all depends how it is presented and handled within the game. A referee who is dogmatic and preachy would be a pain, but it doesn't have to be that way.

John Kim wrote: However, games have avoided political controversy. I'm not sure what this says. It could be that having ventured into religious controversy, it seemed easier to confront that -- but difficult to court new controversy. This suggests that new controversy just really needs the ground to be broken.

taalyn wrote: I think politics have been incorporated into RPGs for good long time. Dealing with the king (honest or ursurper) is a time-tested plot device, and most of the "biggies" (Vampire, for example) have all sorts of internal politics built into the game.

Now, if you mean, why are there no games about Republicans - it seems to me to be rather dull. I wouldn't play it. I wouldn't play a game about Liberals or the Green Party either - it's just not exciting to me, and judging by the scarcity of such tropes, I have to think it would be pretty boring to others too. I think most people have a good idea of how boring the minutiae of politics can be, and even the really "exciting" moments don't hold a candle to, say, a good car-chase scene.

I think some are mistaking "factional politics" with the original intent of this thread which is more making sociopolitical commentary.

I do think that RPGs have a significant unrealized capacity for sociopolitical commentary. My guess is that it is simply not an agenda with most designers. Satire has always been one of the strongest forms of political commentary. But except for inward directed genre parody and vaguely postmodern self-reference, few games actually tried political commentary, satirical or otherwise. Even the target of Paranoia's satire was past its sell-by date when it debuted.

One need only look online to see possible models for a satirical game making comment on sociopolitics. Here is a gedankengame to illustrate might point:

Warning: possibly offensive wrote: "The Book Of Races"

This supplement gives the player a full plethora of real world races to use in your modern or historical D20 game! Tired of Dwarves and Elves? Play Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, even Jews! All the races detailed get appropriate bonuses and penalties to skills, attributes, saving throws as well as circumstance modifiers. Don't worry, White characters aren't cheated either! All starting Whites get a free feat and bonus skills to start with. This makes them the most versatile race in the entire game. This tome also includes special race-only feats and prestige classes. The Racial Preferences Table makes inter-race conflict fast and easy. While the extensive rules for half-breeds and the miscegenation table will add drama to your game from years to come.