The Forge Archives

So I was talking with Emily Care over PM, and I was regretting that I hadn't waited a bit later to write Girls Don't Roleplay for my RPGnet column, because I feel (and several people mentioned this when the article came out) that I only really addressed the tip of the iceberg.  Issues of women in roleplaying inevitably relate to issues of representation in general, whether it's representation of women, minorities, other cultures, etc.  And those issues or representation go beyond roleplaying to embrace all media.

In any case, what brought these issues back to the forefront for me was Edward Said's landmark book Orientalism, which I've finally gotten around to reading.  I'm only through the introduction, but I can tell that this is one of those texts that tends to reaffirm what one always suspected.  Let me drop a few quotes, so you can see where I'm coming from:

Quote from: Edward W. SaidOrientalism is premised on exteriority, that is, on the fact that the Orientalist, poet or scholar, makes the Orient speak, describes the Orient, renders its mysteries plain for and to the West... The exteriority of the representation is always governed by some version of the truism that if the Orient could represent itself, it would; since it cannot, the representation does the job, for the West and for the poor Orient.

...The things to look at are styles, figures of speech, setting, narrative devices, historical and social circumstances, not the correctness of the representation nor its fidelity to some great original... There is no such thing as a delivered presence, but a re-presence, or a representation.  The value efficacy, strength, apparent veracity of a written statement about the Orient therefore relies very little, and cannot instrumentally depend, on the Orient as such.  On the contrary, the written statement is a presence to the reader by virtue of its having excluded, displaced, made supererogatory any such real thing as "the Orient."

Hopefully, this passage's relationship with feminism and the issue of women/minorities/cultures in roleplaying is fairly evident.  In my RPGnet article, I warned against trying to write games that were specifically "for women" for exactly the reasons listed above.  

First, you don't necessarily want to put yourself in the position of being the voice of the voiceless.  It's quite possible that the "voiceless" actually do have a lot to say and they are saying it.  The problem may just be that nobody's listening.  In seeking to represent them to the unlistening world (where we, as white males, can often find an audience that would ignore other voices) you might end up distorting their message to the degree that you're not really helping much or making things clearer.  This has traditionally been a problem in Native American Studies, East Asian Studies, and all "area studies" disciplines.

Secondly, and I think this is where the real point is, the search for some kind of accuracy in representation is problematic.  Whenever we try to discuss "feminist" game design or giving women penalties to Strength and whatnot, this is what keep sticking in my mind.  Trying to represent the "real world" is impossible.  The fact that you're creating a representation makes it inherantly inaccurate.  That's not the point.  The point is what your representation is saying, not that it reflects any sort of reality.  What your design says is "women are inherantly weaker" not "women are the way they are in real life."

I see similar issues all the time in games with Oriental settings.  Everyone wants to talk about how their martial arts mechanics are more accurate and realistic than those of another game, how really, in Chinese or Japanese or Korean, the proper term for something is X when some people say Y, how characters should be roleplayed with a strong focus on honor and family loyalty (since that's the way things really are).  They don't realize that their game (and every game, really) is a polemic, an argument for a specific worldview.  

This is the place where setting design can be just as important as system design. Setting design has, traditionally, taken a back seat at the Forge in a way that I feel is unfortunate.  This comes from the view that settings are a dime a dozen but systems are what make things really work.  I don't think this is true.  Systems without real thought put into them are just as uninspiring as run-of-the-mill setting concepts.  Personally, I find setting concepts often more exciting that system concepts.  In fact, unusual setting concepts often tend to inspire unusual mechanics that wouldn't have emerged on their own.

So I guess I have three main points here:

1. Don't Speak from the Outside. Give voice to your own ideas and beliefs, not those of someone else.  You can provide a forum for someone else to say something, but don't upstage them.

2. Your Game is a Polemic, Not a Model. Forget accuracy; argue for a specific worldview.  If people don't want to live in that world, they'll drift your game in another direction, construct their own world to live in, or play another game with another worldview.

3. Setting Can Be As or More Important Than System. This is especially try in rules-lite, high-trust, and freeform games, but goes for all others as well.  The Forge should be more open to addressing issues of setting and the complexities of transmitting a polemical worldview to players of your game.

Hey,

I found your article interesting, and this post too. One thing though, while, I was reading that article and this post, something seemed to tug at me. It was this:

Quote#1 -- Hands-Off: Group X knows their own tastes. Let them write their own games, based on what they want to play.
#2 -- Hands-On: Everyone has complex tastes. Write your own games, based on what you want to play.

...and it made me think... about girls making games for girls, and/or lack of this happening.

I mean, regarding #1, to my mind, if girls don't like the current state of games... then I say "make your own then". Hell, that's what I do. And I think, that's what most people here do. They say to themselves "You know, there's nothing out there right now that will give me X exactly as I want it, so I'm gonna make a game that gives me X just the way I like it".

I think #2 is simply #1 from an external perspective. So it follows that what works for #1, works for #2 and vice-versa. I think they both work simultaneously: If YOU want a game that doesn't exist, go make it (#2), and if I want a game that doesn't exist I'll make it myself (#1).

I'll warn you, I'm going to say something that will probably piss some people off now. I think girls should start making their own games and stop expecting men to make them for them, or else stop complaining. I read some of those forums on RPG.net and all I see is a bunch of people wanting the industry to change for them. Shit doesn't work like that. If you want a change, make that change yourself. Now I know that there have been a few games made by girls, and some of these have been successful. Great! Now make more! We do.

Because here's the perfect solution. It's perfect because it's exactly how the whole hobby started in the first place. If girls make games that appeal to girls, more girls would play. Thus more girls would be available to make more games that appeal to more girls... and so on. So girls simply need to start making the games that they want to play, and stop waiting for someone else to make them instead. This is the only way to remove the male dominance in gaming.

QuoteThe exteriority of the representation is always governed by some version of the truism that if the Orient could represent itself, it would; since it cannot, the representation does the job, for the West and for the poor Orient.

I like this sentence. Because it makes you think... why aren't girls representing themselves in game design?

QuoteIt's quite possible that the "voiceless" actually do have a lot to say and they are saying it. The problem may just be that nobody's listening.

I don't think this is the case. Girls, just like guys, have just as much oppurtunity to have their voice heard, in the many online forums for games and game design. If they talk, obviously, people listen. Hell, this topic and your article are testament to that. But the problem is, as I see it, that there is talking and listening going on, but no doing. And as you've noted, guys can't be the ones to do the doing when it comes to designing games for girls. As noted here:

Quote1. Don't Speak from the Outside. Give voice to your own ideas and beliefs, not those of someone else. You can provide a forum for someone else to say something, but don't upstage them.

Agreed completely. However, this is arguably the exact reason why gaming is male dominated: because males have been doing this, and as a consequence, have been appealing to more males, because they are more likely to share the same ideas and beliefs.

Quote2. Your Game is a Polemic, Not a Model. Forget accuracy; argue for a specific worldview. If people don't want to live in that world, they'll drift your game in another direction, construct their own world to live in, or play another game with another worldview.

I wouldn't say to forget accuracy. The more a game accurately reflects us, the more we can identify with our characters and the world. We might have great intellectual imaginations, but our emotional imaginations are pretty stunted comparatively (Try imagining a non-human sense, and now try imagining a non-human emotion. The first is really hard, the second is impossible).

Quote3. Setting Can Be As or More Important Than System. This is especially try in rules-lite, high-trust, and freeform games, but goes for all others as well. The Forge should be more open to addressing issues of setting and the complexities of transmitting a polemical worldview to players of your game.

"As", probably. "More", unlikely. Both are essential for playing to occur, but setting is far easier to generate on-the-fly than system, and so system is more valuable. Also, I'd argue that system is far more important in transmitting a polemic worldview than setting. Setting merely identifies it, system makes it able to be experienced and understood.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents for now.

-Ben

Hi Jonathan,

Excellent subject.  

A major point of roleplaying is identification with the character.  It IS noticed when characters you identify with are absent or represented according to someone else's strange ideas of them.  

I have been fortunate to play mostly with groups of color, either as the majority or as the whole.  And universally, no matter the set of players, either ethnic groups were added to a setting, the ones available were defined if they had no real definition before, or the definition was completely reworked to something folks felt more comfortable with.  

A notable difference is that when playing groups not ethnically dominant, arguments would crop up similar to the Sim/Nar debate about samurai, except replace samurai with asian, black, latino, etc.  "That's not how asian people are!"  "Um, not all asian people are the same...", etc.

I suspect it can only be similar for women in regards to gender.

Unfortunately, I don't have any solid advice to give to designers in regards to representation of race or gender.  Leaving folks absent is wack, misrepresenting them according to a shallow viewpoint is wack, and giving folks a brief 2 sentence description that boils down to, "Oh, yeah, and the Asian people live on THIS continent" is wack as well.  So far, the best answer to date is to acknowledge folks existance, but not to overdefine them, that has been our personal take on it.

Chris

Quote from: RavienI think girls should start making their own games and stop expecting men to make them for them, or else stop complaining. I read some of those forums on RPG.net and all I see is a bunch of people wanting the industry to change for them. ...If girls make games that appeal to girls, more girls would play.

Ben, I think you're drifting off into dangerous territory here (though the rest of your comments are on the mark, I think).  There are two sides to this issue: 1) there aren't as many female/minority designers, 2) many male designers write games that are actively repugnant to potential female/minority players.  In this case, I think there is some cause for complaint and wanting other people to change, though I agree that creating new, attractive content is a far more powerful statement.

Also, I was trying really hard to get away from the "appealing to girls" language.  What you mean, I think, is that female designers are less likely to make games that are actively repugnant to potential female players (which is probably true, unless they have really bizarre tastes).  There's no guarantee that female players will like a game just because it has a female designer.  After all, there are plenty of male designers whose games I can't stand.

QuoteIf they talk, obviously, people listen.

Whoa.  Where did that come from?  Do you really think that's true?  You never find that people ignore you, even when you have something valuable to say?  Man, you must be really lucky.

QuoteI wouldn't say to forget accuracy. The more a game accurately reflects us, the more we can identify with our characters and the world.

I don't think you're quite getting what I mean here.  I'm saying that accuracy is subjective, based on how you view the world.  Ex: I think swords are lame.  You think swords are cool.  In your game, you have cool swords and call it more accurate.  I call it more lame.  Your game isn't consistent with the real world (i.e. "accurate") because it has cool swords.  You game is just more consistent with the worldview you're trying to articulate.

Quote...but setting is far easier to generate on-the-fly than system, and so system is more valuable.

Really?  I think this is a YMMV issue.  I find it really easy to say, "Roll a d6 and try to get over a target number" or even to just freeform it.  I don't think setting is necessarily more easily improvized at all.

Hey Jonathan,

Very interesting post. (And great, thought-provoking quotes from Said.)

2. Your Game is a Polemic, Not a Model. Forget accuracy; argue for a specific worldview. If people don't want to live in that world, they'll drift your game in another direction, construct their own world to live in, or play another game with another worldview.

Do you think My Life with Master is a polemic? My http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=102595">advice to James West regarding his game, The Stranger, was:

Narrativist games aren't about what you can learn from the designer, or from the system, but what you can learn from each other. Create a conversation, and you might end up advancing an agenda. Focus on advancing an agenda, and you fail to create a conversation.[/list:u]And I think this describes My Life with Master. Definitely the game scopes the conversation...but the polemics are delivered by the participants during play.

Paul

Paul,

Very interesting point.  Especially considering something that came to me the other day.  I was telling a buddy about the 24 Hour RPG Challenge and he asked "So you have to design a System and a Setting in 24 hours?"  My answer was "There are two ways to design an RPG: 1. A System and a Setting.  2. A System and a Premise."  I didn't think anything of it at the time, but now that i've sat back it's an interesting dichotemy (and probably merits discussion in its own thread.

Most Narrativist games present a Premise instead of a Setting as far as i can tell.  I would say that every Premise is a Polemic.  Basicly stating a Premise is a statement that that Premise is interesting and/or important to address.  That is a worldview that you are presenting.

However, you bring up a really interesting point that playing a game (especially a game designed to address a Premise) generates even greater polemics because the players further define their Worldview to each other.  The fact that they are all playing is (hopefully) an indicator that they agree with the basic statement "This Premise is worth our time to address."  In actually addressing said Premise they argue for, or against, the Worldviews that they present to one another.

I think that makes sense...  However, i'm pretty well known for incoherent babbling so i may not be making any sense...

Thomas

Paul, I think MLwM is certainly polemical in the way I mean here, which is: "this is the way this game is supposed to be played."  I keep thinking back to GM section, where you specifically describe the kind of pacing and aggressive scene framing that you want.  I was originally talking about polemics and worldviews mostly to refer to settings, but in MLWM the setting and system are so tightly intertwined that I don't think you can really seperate them.  You couldn't use MLwM to explore different kinds of relationships; it's all about a twisted master-servant relationship; that's what the system is built to do.  And you certainly seem to have very clear ideas about how to structure and explore that relationship.

I think the conversational aspect that you're talking about comes from an openness to new ideas and trying new things.  I play MLwM and, over the course of play, I'm reponding to the polemic that you put forth in the game.  You say "frame scenes aggressively" and I try to figure out how to do that, even if I'm unfamiliar with it.  I already feel like I'm in conversation with Vincent's "Dogs in the Vineyard" and I haven't even played it.  I just keep interacting with various components in my head and mentally responding to what Vincent is arguing for.

In fact, come to think of it, the people to whose work I respond the strongest are those who have a very clear idea of what their game is supposed to do and argue for it all the way through the game, in system, setting, writing, pictures, graphic design, whatever.  Because they're clear about what they want, I can be clear in my response to it.  Now, I certainly wouldn't ever have created anything like MLwM or Doggies, but that's the great part.  I get to play inside other people's twisted worldviews!  But that's only possible if they argue them for me and show me how they make sense, to them.

I also agree with LordSmurf that the magnifying glass effect of "see this here? play a game about that!" is quite polemical in and of itself, which is why broad, diverse, unfocused games aren't nearly as polemical.  D&D and Exalted certainly say some things about how they should be played and what their worldview is, but it's often a mixed message sent by scores of authors and pages and pages of mixed material.

I never get what these sort of posts are about. They usually try to be tread carefully in so many areas I can't see the goal for the PC.

Is it about getting bums on seats? Personally I see the female demographic as a great untapped resource.

Or is it about man-woman respect and politics and how we can cover that?

"Oh no, its a bit of both"

Oh man, I think any attempt to cover both at the same time is like trying to swollow a spring bock whole. Unless your head can dislocate into eighteen seperate pieces like a anaconda, your not going to manage it. (God I loved using that wacked analogy there!)

Personally as a male I'd like to concentrate on what I estimate would get those bums on seats. Of course anything I say would have some girl or even guy come in and say 'that's not true', never mind the fact that one can't really say anything about guys, as a man, and be true either.

Callan,

I like your analogy, and I think you're 100% right about one thing – we need to make sure we're clear on what this thread is about, otherwise it could very, very quickly splinter and get way off track.

But I think the whole "PC" thing a) dismissive and b) a red herring.

a) It's a way of saying, "I can't be bothered to listen to what you're saying and take it seriously. With one swift acronym I can pack it up and sweep it away." I'd submit that once it gets brought out, it adds nothing to the quality of a discussion.

And b) it's particularly unhelpful here. While Jonathan's post is framed by "women in gaming," I think he did himself a bit of a disfavor by using it to frame his post. Because I don't think it's really the main point of this thread, but I do think it's most likely to be the thing people latch onto to jockey for political cache about. (Jonathan, let me know if I'm reading you incorrectly here, and you really do mean to focus on that issue.) I think it's just an example, a concrete starting point, a frame for introducing and getting at the main point, which Ben gets to at the end of his post and which Chris, Paul, and Thomas have all replied to directly. And that point is summed up at the end of the first post:

QuoteSo I guess I have three main points here:

1. Don't Speak from the Outside. Give voice to your own ideas and beliefs, not those of someone else. You can provide a forum for someone else to say something, but don't upstage them.

2. Your Game is a Polemic, Not a Model. Forget accuracy; argue for a specific worldview. If people don't want to live in that world, they'll drift your game in another direction, construct their own world to live in, or play another game with another worldview.

3. Setting Can Be As or More Important Than System. This is especially try in rules-lite, high-trust, and freeform games, but goes for all others as well. The Forge should be more open to addressing issues of setting and the complexities of transmitting a polemical worldview to players of your game.

You may agree or disagree with these, or even that they're compatible with each other (1 and 2 are in an interesting tension, which I think can be resolved without them fully being labeled as contradictions, for example, but maybe I'm wrong, and regardless, I have to think about it more.)

At the moment, I'm most interested in Chris' last paragraph because it brings to the forefront the catch-22 of representation.

QuoteLeaving folks absent is wack, misrepresenting them according to a shallow viewpoint is wack, and giving folks a brief 2 sentence description that boils down to, "Oh, yeah, and the Asian people live on THIS continent" is wack as well. So far, the best answer to date is to acknowledge folks existance, but not to overdefine them, that has been our personal take on it.

I think Jonathon's 1st point is one proposal for how to deal with this, but of course it brings up the question, "How do you let other groups speak through your game?" I mean, practically speaking. I'm probably not going to answer that question right now. Jonathan, tag, you're it.

Hm. Ok, if I explore this whole question of representations a bit, the first idea that comes to mind is when representing a group, do it that way because that's the representation you want to achieve. Also, in representing groups, a) recognize that you're fallible. That is, that you have a limited view. Sure, we have some good science especially of physical systems, but a lot of people like to pretend that we're more sure about all kinds of things than the experts themselves generally claim to be. So let's face it, we're fallible. We don't see the whole picture. And in game design, that's not even really the point. Jonathon seems to be saying that since we have a limited view, and we're designing games, we might as well at least recognize that we're dealing with gross abstractions that prioritize what we want to claim is important. I've seen Ralph make the point over and over and over again that RPG's are abstractions, and since we're abstracting so much anyway, we might as well do it intentionally and with a clear, focused goal in mind. Jonathon is saying this when he says all RPGs are polemics, really. And he's saying that setting is important to this too. Now my b) idea in response to Chris's point was going to be "get educated," because it helps reduce the likelihood of too shallow a misrepresentation. But even then it has to be taken with a good dose of a), reworded: even though you read all about it, or you have a gay friend, or you talked to a woman, or whatever, you're still fallible, and you're still bringing your specific viewpoint to bear on the game design.

It comes down to this, for me – you're arguing for some kind of world view in your game. Stop pretending to be neutral. You're not. So why not make everything you put in your game intentionally meaningful? Put it in because that's what you want to say about the world. It doesn't have to represent some kind of political philosophy, or be some kind of ideologically charged manifesto. I'm talking about just straight up, this is how the world is gonna be in my game kinds of stuff, including MLwM's approach of saying "This is what this game is about, and you have to deal with it if you're playing this game. And let's not waste our time on the stuff that doesn't support what this game is about." In a sense, it's another way of saying "System does matter," and it matters about this too. Jonathan has added, "And setting, don't forget setting!"

Reflect, I guess, is the word here. Reflect and focus. I'm not going to get into the system/setting debate at the moment, but I'm sure other folks will cover that ground.  

Rich

I think you have admirably stated what i was thinking Rich.

I would further add that i read Jonathan as saying "First, recognize that RPGs are abstractions and that they can never be 'objective' because (just as in news) you spin all information to fit your worldview.  Second, since everything in your design will be biased, recognize and accept that bias is okay and unavoidable.  Third, since bias is okay and will be there anyway you should use it intentionally, figure out what polemic view you are putting forward in your game and then make everything support that polemic."

I could be off base, but that's what i'm seeing here.  Essentially, designing a System that supports a polemic view (like: Swords are really cool) and failing to design a Setting or Premise that also supports that same polemic results in a game that could be much better than you've made it.  As much as possible, every mechanic and setting vignette should reinforce the polemic position of the game.

I'm sure Jonathan will let me know if i'm misunderstading him.

Thomas

Thanks for keeping us on-track, Rich.  I think you and Thomas both nailed what I was trying to say about polemics.  It's interesting too that point #3 is basically "Setting Does Matter" :)  I hadn't noticed that before...

Quote from: Rich Forest"How do you let other groups speak through your game?" I mean, practically speaking. I'm probably not going to answer that question right now. Jonathan, tag, you're it.

Hmm.  You're right that there is some tension with #2 (polemics).  If you're arguing for a specific worldview, you're inevitably going to end up representing other people and, in effect, speaking for them.  That's the thorny issue that Chris was getting at.  Still I don't think creating a forum for other people is impossible.  After all, roleplaying game texts are really just forums for players.  You set up a space in which people that you don't even know can imagine things together, so, from the very beginning, you're letting other people speak through your game.

The real problems occur when both the design and players are representing other people.  Say I write a game where you play Chinese rock musicians (which I've wanted to do for a while).  I'm not a Chinese rock musician.  Most likely, the people who would play the game aren't going to be Chinese or rock musicians, much less both.  But #1 says that we shouldn't speak for Chinese rock musicians in the course of playing the game.

Well, answering this, #2 says, fine, don't speak for them; represent them.  Argue for a specific take on them that fits with what you want the game to be about, but don't pretend that this is an accurant depiction of how they really are.  Acknowledge that what you're putting forth is a polemic, and then people can decide for themselves what they think of the representation.

Recently, this was the take that Kevin Siembedia tried to take in the introduction to Rifts China (co-written by him and Erick Wujcik), but he was very wishy-washy about it and seemed to want to have things both ways.  It was the "we've done a lot of reading and tried to make this as accurate as possible, but there's also a lot of stuff that we just made up" approach, which is problematic because you don't know what things they're claiming are "accurate" and what things are "made up."  Better, I think, to not try for accuracy at all.

Hi Jonathan,

After some digestion and thought, here's some more things that had occured to me;

"Hokey for hokey is ok"

If I play Ninja Burger, then I understand that it in no way represents asian people in a real sense.  Likewise with Feng Shui.  Both games make it abundantly clear that they are not to be construed as "realistic" or "meaningful" in any sense.  Although it is interesting to note that the only game I've seen apply stereotypes for pulp/humor factor universally is octaNe.  It's interesting to note that these games generally poke fun at the stereotypes, but are not really opening the conversation to more meaningful discussion about them(and that's fine, given the sorts of games they are).

"The law of...close enough..."

Other games attempt to grab real world cultures and slap them into fantasy settings.  When doing this, they tend to claim immunity from misrepresentation by "Oh, but this isn't Earth!", though everyone knows that the game is about Samurais, Aztecs, Babylonians, or what have you.  This is often a fine line to walk where the cultures can be close enough to open an interesting sort of discussion through play about what each culture may be or not be, but it can just as easily slide into "No, that's how these people ARE..." issues as well.

Prime example being Heroquest's Glorantha, although stuff like Legend of the 5 Rings also sits here too.

Here's some ideas to consider:

•Directed Reference

Instead of "summarising" a culture or group, try referring folks to the actual culture(and general history time) itself.  "Check out 14th century China, you can read these books and here's some webpages..."

•Dispelling myths

Often the two biggest myths I personally have seen in play are "Everyone in a culture is like THIS", and "Women are abused at every turn of the way".  The first one is sort of a simple minded offshoot of "racial alignments" and other such things, while the second is what happens when people get less than a smidgen of knowledge and construct a whole worldview on it.  Both often need clear text explaining the variability of circumstances, and exactly what's going on in terms of society in Setting.  Fulminata does a pretty good job of explaining women's roles in this regard.

ªWhy are we doing this again?

Most people decide they want to include other cultures mostly out of "cool factor", not any actual reason. "Of course we have to have an East, otherwise where will the ninjas come from?  And the katanas that cut everything in half?"... "Yeah, there should be a jungle full of 'natives' who summon things and do weird voodoo", etc.  

It's also pretty telling that women are never addressed for "cool factor" but normally left completely out of the limelight, except the one or two cultures that are typically created to be the amazon/matriarchial society to contrast to the rest.

Most of the games I'm very cool with are very clear from the start what they're including and WHY, not simply a fanboy potpourri of "oooo! Cool!".  I suppose this is right in with Setting supporting CA instead of detracting from it.  

Chris

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonIt was the "we've done a lot of reading and tried to make this as accurate as possible, but there's also a lot of stuff that we just made up" approach, which is problematic because you don't know what things they're claiming are "accurate" and what things are "made up."  Better, I think, to not try for accuracy at all.

This seems misleading to me.  Striving for "accuracy" is fine, and probably a good thing.  I think that what's really important is realizing that even your "accuracy" is polemic.  Let's design a hypothetical Fantasy Heartbreaker.  I'm the lead designer, and i think that swords are really cool, and that plated mail armor is interesting.  Therefore i do a lot of research regarding these two things.  However, due to the fact that i'm starting with the pre-concieved idea that "swords are cool" any time i find conflicting views and/or evaluations regarding the usefulness of swords i'm going to lean toward the one that agrees with me.  Same with plated mail armor.

Essentially i'm saying that RPG design is polemic in the same way that literature is.  I can write a piece of fantasy fiction in which everything is entirely made up, and that is clearly polemic.  However, i can also write a carefully researched biography that, due to the things i include or don't include, is also polemic.  You can't write things that are not polemic.  That doesn't mean you can't strive for "accuracy".  Just make sure that you realize that you aren't actually being accurate.

Of course that doesn't answer the question "Should we strive for 'accuracy'?"  That one's a bit tougher i think, and just like in writing i think it depends on the goal.

Relaying abstract concepts and propogating worldviews is probably going to be easier if done through a system that is intentionally biased towards presenting them.

Trying to raise social awareness or encourage understanding of more concrete ideas is probably more akin to a well researched biography.  It is something that you want to get as "accurate" as you possibly can.  This means interviews and research, lots of interviews and research.

Continuing the literature analogy allows me to point out that it takes less effort (in regards to gathering information and checking facts) to write a wholly fictional piece than to write a biographical one.  In my estimation (which has been known to be horribly wrong) most RPGs are written as works of fiction.  Little if any research is done regarding the source material (and in many cases like magic and elves, such research can not be done since any inspiration is highly polemic as well).

The exception to this would be autobiographical work, which seems to be indicated in Jonathan's #1.  Women don't have to do too much research to know what issues they think are important and how they should be addressed.  Chinese immigrants don't really have to do interviews to know how they feel about things.

I guess what i'm getting at is: If you really want to address a social issue, make sure you do your research.  Do research as if you were going to write a book or a published academic paper.  If you fail to do this then you are merely presenting the issue as you see it.  Not that that is a bad thing so much as it is limited.  Your game may teach people what you think about it, but awareness of your view is not awareness of the issue itself.

So, feel free to write about whatever you want, but realize that to some greater or lesser degree you are presenting a game that is subjective.

Thomas

EDIT: Crossposted.

I agree with point 3, I think that for most gamers setting's a far better way of "saying something" than system which I think is haphazard in its effectiveness.  Indeed, if you look at french RPGs traditionally rules have taken a seat signficantly further behind setting on the flight to publication.  The result is great themed games like INS/MV.

However, I have a real issue with your first two points...


"Don't Speak From the Outside" - Why not?  authors frequently write books about viewpoints other than their own, examining and evaluating other groups either directly or indirectly.   Your approach, if I'm reading you correctly, would not allow for people writing games about belief systems other than their own... so In Nomine's satirical take on catholicism and fascism (and the links therebetween) would be undoable for you unless it's written by a catholic. The perspective of an outsider can be equally valid.  I also think that this creates tensions with your second point...

"Your Game is a Polemic not a Model" - Again... why not?  your argument is that models are inherrently inaccurate so there's no point in attempting to model.  Well glossing over the fact that models in physics allow accuracy down to 10 decimal places and modelling gave you the computer you're reading this on I don't see why this should be the case.

Consider games like GURPS Ice Age or the fictional game discussed in Cryptonomicon where the point of the game is to try and simulate primitive human existence.  By modelling certain aspects, especially imperfectly, you're saying things and expressing ideas.  In fact, I'd say that by arguing for a certain worldview you are in fact making certain claims to accuracy.  You're saying THIS is how these societies functionned, THIS is what was important to these types of people, THIS is what life was like for them, THIS is a basic fact about human nature/politics/metaphysics.

Charitably viewed I'm not sure where a polemic stops and a model begins and uncharitably viewed I think you're wrong as models still have value in this hobby... even if its just models of TV and literary genres like pulp or 80's cartoons.


So if you're interested in games that express ideas, whether they're feminist or orientalist or whatever, I don't really agree with your conclusions.

Rich,

Oooh, I don't think I ment that by PC. To the original poster I meant 'my filter is overloaded and I haven't sifted what you want out from all the careful wording I'm wading through' and I also meant that in terms of anything I contribute that someone else can come and sweep my words away because bang, I said something about a demographic I'm not part of.

So is it about getting more chixxors into gaming or about not being polemic in general? Scuse the mildly inflammatory word (if it is inflammatory for you or any other reader)

As for this whole polemic thing, isn't that the default? I mean, no one works with some hive mind consensus...weve all got some rough estimate of how everyone else does things and what everyone else believes. But we don't actually work from some shared file.

The thing is, that isn't a general wisdom. It reminds me of an anecdote my partner said. She said that once she found out that school reports were the subjective product of each teacher, she was shocked.

People do this polemic thing mostly because they, in so many words, believe in one true source for all school reports/whatever their talking about. That martial arts thing the first poster mentions is a really good example. You get the students just idolising their teacher and never thinking that he's just a man who's formulated what he says from his experiences, rather than from some central core of truth. And on top of that, if the teachers words are fairly reliable (ie, they are quite practical), the person repeating them may have selective memory of what was said, but thinks they got it all perfectly.

I run into guys like this fairly regularly on other forums, who post on how this just isn't done right. You try to suggest that hey, maybe just adopt that game worlds way of doing it for awhile as your own idea of what is right is just as subjective. And they completely don't get it, moving on to explain in detail how they are right/what they know is the true source and thus the source you use.

Asking for less polemic writing is good, IMO. But I believe you'd need to explain why it's a good idea...and many would be so shocked at the idea that they just wont absorb it.

Not to mention the ironic fact that it's a good thing not to do, because of people believing in core truths and thus seeing something polemic as a source of agitation. So, because many people believe in a core truth on a subject, you need the person who's interested in writing on the topic, the writer, not believing in any core truth on this topic he's passionate about enough to write about.