Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

[Desdichado]

There is and should be a distinct difference between anti-chuch/ religion and anti-Christian. IMO, the source material makes the distinction that the faith/belief is ultimately good, yet was corrupted by a few flawed people who wanted power.

That's only one example of the source material, though, and regardless of it's resemblance, Blue Rose is not equivalent to its source material, it's also it's own material.

Still, whether or not Blue Rose has an agenda against Christianity or not is not really an appropriate topic for ENWorld, despite how interesting the conversation may or may not be. Anyone up for opening a thread on rpg.net about it?

 

[Mallus]

Anyone up for opening a thread on rpg.net about it?

Would be interesting.

And Joshua, I wasn't trying to read into what you posted. I was just musing. In the wrong part of the Internet.

Personally, I've decided I'm getting Blue Rose. But only for the articles. I mean mechanics...

 

[francisca]

So you find everything from The Time Machine to The Chronicles of Narnia to Star Trek: TOS repugnant?

Oh give me a break, it's not nearly so black and white. Of course I know agendas hidden or otherwise can be found in all forms of media. I find social engineering repugnant. The question to me is: does the agenda become social engineering and get in the way of an otherwise entertaining experience? When it does, I change the channel, stop reading and put the book up on e-bay, etc... Otherwise, I continue on and enjoy the work.

I'm looking for entertainment in movies, books, and games. Having an agenda, especially when it moves a story along is OK, and I don't even have to agree with it. However, when the agenda takes over, and body of work becomes a vehicle for social engineering, I usually switch off. Certainly there are times when I go looking for such a vehicle, but RPGs are entertainment to me, not part of a movement to right social wrongs.

 

[Mallus]

Oh give me a break, it's not nearly so black and white.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but 'I find all social engineering repugnant' is a pretty bold, blanket statement...

Having an agenda, especially when it moves a story along is OK, and I don't even have to agree with it.

Same here. But this statement goes a long way toward qualifiying your original one.

However, when the agenda takes over, and body of work becomes a vehicle for social engineering, I usually switch off.

That's why I stopped reading Zimmer Bradley's Darkover. Loved the early ones, but her agenda eventually overwhelmed the rest of the narrative.

Certainly there are times when I go looking for such a vehicle, but RPGs are entertainment to me, not part of a movement to right social wrongs.

It all depends on what you consider entertaining... I'd resent being lectured to in the guise of an RPG campaign, but on the other hand, getting to play around in someone else's conception of things --with the caveat that I'm allowed to challenge it meanginfully-- is a part of the gaming experience I treasure. I can't get that level of interactivity from lit. or film...

 

[diaglo]

d02 has an agenda i don't particularly care about.

but the rest of the group likes it.

 

[francisca]

It all depends on what you consider entertaining... I'd resent being lectured to in the guise of an RPG campaign, but on the other hand, getting to play around in someone else's conception of things --with the caveat that I'm allowed to challenge it meanginfully-- is a part of the gaming experience I treasure. I can't get that level of interactivity from lit. or film...

Sounds like we're barking up, if not hiking our legs on, the same tree

 

[Mallus]

Sounds like we're barking up, if not hiking our legs on, the same tree

Sure does.

 

[nothing to see here]

Agenda reading -- a seminar

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? [END QUOTE]

That's certainly an improvement -- over assuming automatic acceptance of an implicit agenda.

I work in politics for living. Political Communications, to be exact. PArt of the job involves a heightened sensitivity for implicit agendas (not necessarily hostile ones, thought that's good to know, but for possible complimentary ones that can join the coaltions that democratic politics require). I've also given seminars delivering messages (read: agendas) through non traditional channels (an RPG would certainly qualify). As has been stated all mass communication possesses some sort of agenda.

What really hasn't yet been stated is not only the appropriateness of agenda but it's effectiveness as well.

There are mulitiple tiers of effectiveness in agenda communication. The can be divided into a matrix as follows.

The up - down axis can be read as a SUBTLE -- OVERT axis

The Left - Right axis can be read as a PARTICIPATORY -- DECLARATORY axis

The Matrix looks something like this:



O
V
E The Brochure The Manifesto
R
T

S
U
B The Menu The Textbook
T
L
E

PARTICIPATORY DECLARATORY


I could go on ad nausem about the strengths and weaknesses about each approach, except to say that the upper right hand corner (an overt declaration of truth with no room for interpretation or debate) is not only the most offensive (too many) but the least effective as only those who share your agenda will use it.

A 'naked' agenda in an RPG without disclaimer or weight to other points of view would gravitate towards the top right (as it is a non traditional forum and therefore less subject the scrutiny and debate of traditional channels)...

By acknowledging up front the placement of bias you are inviting the reader to make two seperate value judgements... 1) the politics...and 2) the material. By acknowledging and facilitating this value judgement divorcement you move towards the left significantly...and will aid your chances.

Or, you could simply "de-preach" and, recognize that the patterns of behaviour or heroes and villains will naturally gravitate towards your notions of right and wrong, and therefore decide that this is enough without hitting anybody over the head with your politics. Then you are moving yourself down on the spectrum.

Both approaches are more effective than sticking your love of oozes in people's faces. What approach works for you is a matter of strategy and taste.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope. If you read the source material, Lackey's Valdemar series, then the Church in question was headed by corrupt men who no longer received their power from god, instead they received their divine power from demons and corrupted their own church from within. Eventually, the corrupt hierarchy was overthrown by a true follower of the faith.

...

In fact, several alternate versions of that organization existed because there were good people who could not condone the corruption of their faith.

Thus, the source material was in no way anti-Christian. In fact, it was far more anti-corruption, and anti-evil.

Oh, holy crap.

If you can't see the blatant Protestant Reformation staring you in the face in what you just quoted, you're intellectually blind.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian, is this thread entirely serious?

It is a serious thread with light harded examples.