Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

[arwink]

DnD has an agenda if you look closely enough - you kill things, take their stuff, and become increasingly more wealthy, powerful and important within the context of the game. Now take that model and apply it to a capitalist society...

On a more serious note, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with having an agenda. RPG's, like any other form of art and entertainment, has the space to promote agendas without being blatent about it. Like any other form of entertainment, it needs to approach the concepts with delicacy and subtlety to be most effective.

And like any form of entertainment, a worldview starts to get promoted whether the writers wants it there or not. Even if the agenda is as simple as "good triumphs over evil", that's still something that's being promoted by the game.

 

[eyebeams]

One of the truisms in the study of art and culture is that everything has a political and social message, because people will reflexively frame things according to their political and social biases. So basically, all an agenda does is make this conscious, instead of unconscious or unacknowledged.

I think it's better to write gaming material in a conscious frame of mind for one important reason: You can us that to harness other people's persectives. For instance, I'm strongly anti-capital punishment, but I have written an account of a fictional group who were strong for it. I think it ended up being effective because I wrote thinking of what I might reflexively say, then I went, "OK, let's see how *these* guys go at it."

Political thopught also lets you rethink assumptions about a game. In my own fantasy setting, for instance, I've gradually moved away from standard orcs and goblins in favour of a species with a psychology and political mindset that naturally puts them in conflict with humans (and leads them to follow gods that are evil by human standards).

Plus, there are some ideological assumptions in games that can be played with, such as the idea that all achievement is individual (XP per character), that there are objective forces of good and evil (Jonothan Tweet came up with some excellent variations on this himself), or that, say, traditional capitalism and nation-states will always be there (something I'm playing with in my Terminal Identity work).

Otherwise, writing to send a message about something is fine, too. In my experience, you gain about as much audience as you lose. White Wolf gained a whole bunch of new fans just by acknowledging that non-heterosexuals exist and by playing up environmental and political themes. Ultimately, though, thise stuff is a springboard for satisfying gaming.

 

[Turjan]

Ummm, SF literature has been doing that sort of thing thoughout its entire history (consider H.G. Wells).

Heck, by the 60's that kind of SF was on network TV (consider Trek).

Of course, you are right, but maybe I should have phrased this differently . In the 70's and 80's, you could not turn around without hitting SF books dealing with some social agenda in a very 'fist in face' manner. Before that, you had lots of very non-pc SF books (or TV series like 'Space Patrol'), and in the 90's, this kind of agendas was often handled in a more subtle way.

 

[Faraer]

But the broadly left-wing perspectives of the 1960s and 1970s New Wave are not more overt or unsubtle than the broadly right-wing and libertarian perspectives of 1940s and 1950s Campbellian SF.

Different things appear controversial to different people. If the welfare of oozes is to me an a priori good, then portraying ooze-harmers as bad may seem self-evident rather than any kind of agenda.

 

[Crothian]

Different things appear controversial to different people. If the welfare of oozes is to me an a priori good, then portraying ooze-harmers as bad may seem self-evident rather than any kind of agenda.

What if the book had a forward that stated part of the inspiration for the book was to my love of oozes and I wanted to create a world that could serve as my platform for expressing this support of all ooze kind. Basically using the forward to admit to the world my agenda up front. Does that make it better or worse then a book that seems to have an agenda but doesn't actually say so anywhere?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Since I have yet to see an agenda game that's well written, I really have no basis for compairsm. I don't hate the agenda, I hate the game. The agenda is just kind of a "whatever" at that point.

Well, you could argue 2nd edition Paranoia had an agenda, but personally I think it had about a dozen and they often conflicted so no one noticed.

Blue Planet was rather pro-environment, but since I got first edition Blue Planet with the absolutely stupid cyberware rules and no way for dolphin PCs to interact with the rest of the group, I didn't care.

I haven't picked up Blue Rose, but that isn't my kind of game in the first place. I mean, I also didn't get C&C and C&C probably has about as much of an agenda as a bucket of squid.

 

[Turjan]

But the broadly left-wing perspectives of the 1960s and 1970s New Wave are not more overt or unsubtle than the broadly right-wing and libertarian perspectives of 1940s and 1950s Campbellian SF.

Okay, let me rephrase once again. From Crothian's first post, I assumed that he referred to a specific kind of agenda, an agenda promoting "political correctness". Otherwise we are on arwink's ground here, where we can attribute an agenda to nearly everything, and I'm not sure whether this was Crothian's point.

 

[Mallus]

In the 70's and 80's, you could not turn around without hitting SF books dealing with some social agenda in a very 'fist in face' manner. Before that, you had lots of very non-pc SF books (or TV series like 'Space Patrol'), and in the 90's, this kind of agendas was often handled in a more subtle way.

OK, though I'd say it started a little earlier, with the New Wave SF of the 60's.

And some of the highly politcal SF writers of the 70's were capable of subtly, like my personal fave, Samuel R. Delany.

And some of the early stuff could be plenty crude, like good old H.G. I mean, he has the British upper class devolve into edible twits, and the working class into the monsters that eat them...

 

[Crothian]

Okay, let me rephrase once again. From Crothian's first post, I assumed that he referred to a specific kind of agenda, an agenda promoting "political correctness". Otherwise we are on arwink's ground here, where we can attribute an agenda to nearly everything, and I'm not sure whether this was Crothian's point.

Well, this has to be kept very general or we are going to run afoul of the EN World rule of no Political discussions. So, while I'm talking about agndas, any agendas...they would be presented in a way inside the book that made it 100% clear this books is about Agenda X. More then likey the Agenda is one of a serious nature and not just saying red M&Ms are better then the Blue ones.

the books would have to be well written, it about if agendas alone are enough to make you turn away from the game.

 

[Turjan]

Well, this has to be kept very general or we are going to run afoul of the EN World rule of no Political discussions. So, while I'm talking about agndas, any agendas...they would be presented in a way inside the book that made it 100% clear this books is about Agenda X. More then likey the Agenda is one of a serious nature and not just saying red M&Ms are better then the Blue ones.

the books would have to be well written, it about if agendas alone are enough to make you turn away from the game.

Oh, I'm definitely not discussing the merits of any "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideas, so we should stay on safe ground here . If you get to general, then we will be left discussing the agenda of LotR - I'm not sure whether this is what you want.

OK, though I'd say it started a little earlier, with the New Wave SF of the 60's.

That's okay. I got the translated versions, which always took a few years. But to give examples for what I mean, I'd like to mention the works of Ursula K. LeGuin or John Brunner.