Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

[francisca]

But does that always have to indicate an agenda?

Nope.

Can't you have a RPG based off something just for the fun of it and not have the intention to be to reform people?

Yep.

Just because my book is based off of the ancient writing of on the True Ooze, does it mean that I automatically have an agenda to bring peeople to the ancient slimey words?

Nope. But see, I draw a distinction between being influenced by particular train of thought or cause, and outright social engineering/propoganda. It's all in the implementation and subsequent interpretaion of each player/reader. You'll find groups of people who agree on what is too far, and what is not, but you're unlikely to ever get a consensus, as some people won't accept an ooze in any form, and others are intent on making others accept an ooze. Most of the population is caught in the middle.

 

[Desdichado]

But see, I draw a distinction between being influenced by particular train of thought or cause, and outright social engineering/propoganda. It's all in the implementation and subsequent interpretaion of each player/reader.

So, whether or not it's influence vs. social engineering is based on the interpretation of the reader?

I don't know how you can make a claim about any work of literature or game in that case, as there's apparently no real distinction between the two categories; one you don't mind and one that you hate. What am I missing?

 

[francisca]

So, whether or not it's influence vs. social engineering is based on the interpretation of the reader?

I don't know how you can make a claim about any work of literature or game in that case, as there's apparently no real distinction between the two categories; one you don't mind and one that you hate. What am I missing?

Some people have extreme negative reactions when certain agendas are presented. Others read their pet agenda into everything. Most people fall somewhere in between and likely don't care. Those on the opposite poles will crusade for/against these thing at the drop of a hat.

But even at that, taking personal stance out of the picture, you and I may read the same work, and come to different conclusions about whether the author was trying to effect change in society or just letting some influence show through. This will most likely be colored by our particular stance on an issue, but I think one could set their opinion aside and objectively arrive at a conclusion about influence vs. engineering.

There probably is a point where most of the people in the middle will say, "Oh yeah, that's an attempt at social engineering." You'll probably also get one of the extremeist is favor of the agenda saying, "oh no, that just influence showing", but they are probably being dishonest.

Does that help?

 

[Nisarg]

Well,

I think having an "agenda" (and by agenda I assume you mean a socio-political agenda, not a gaming philosophy agenda) in a game, and whether or not its offensive, depends on two factors:

1. How "extreme" the agenda is.

2. How the agenda is built into the game's premise/setting.

In response to 1., sure, if the premise of a game is "Nazi supermen are our superiors", I won't much care for it.
Anything much short of that will depend very much on the nature of the agenda itself, and ESPECIALLY point #2.

In response to 2.: If an agenda, even one I don't personally buy into, is built into the setting or premise of the game in a clever way, I think that makes it playable and enjoyable by most people. Most Superhero games have an essential premise of absolutes between good and evil, so do some supernatural games. Of course, these aren't usually real beliefs held by the game designers, but they are pretty vital for the game's setting.
Likewise, early edition Werewolf had a strong environmentalist agenda, one I presume belonged to the authors of the game as well. Some people were annoyed by this.
I was annoyed by a lot of things about Werewolf and its parent company, but that wasn't one of the things that annoyed me. I thought the idea of incorporating an environmentalist theme to the setting was pretty clever.

On the other hand, if a game throws out a political view with no real reason, or one that doesn't fit the premise, that is most uncomfortable.
for example, I personally am in favour of multiculturalism, equal rights, and against slavery. However, the way Deadlands as an RPG made a point of these themes, in a setting that should have actually been reflective of the 19th century values that generally held the opposing view on all three, was so jarring it kind of killed the setting for me.
Not only that, it actually kind of felt like it was whitewashing historical injustices ("Now you too can play in the cool Confederacy, while pretending they weren't racist slaveowning misogynists!")
That and their gratuitous anti-masonry statements pretty much made sure to kill my interest.

Now, as for Blue Rose, is there any real evidence that they are going to be a heavily pro-feminist or anti-male setting? Not all "romantic" fantasy needs to take this perspective...

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

P.S. I would add that I generally find GMs with an Agenda to be far more annoying than RPGs with an agenda.. you generally know that Werewolf or dark sun is environmentalist, and if you don't care for that you won't play it. But when some GM you're playing with unexpectedly transforms your game of Elric or Forgotten Realms into a diatribe against corporate culture or global warming, or rap music, or whatever, then it takes you by surprise and wastes your time.

Its fine though, if the GM makes a certain agenda clear at the START of a campaign.

Nisarg

 

[eyebeams]

P.S. I would add that I generally find GMs with an Agenda to be far more annoying than RPGs with an agenda.. you generally know that Werewolf or dark sun is environmentalist, and if you don't care for that you won't play it. But when some GM you're playing with unexpectedly transforms your game of Elric or Forgotten Realms into a diatribe against corporate culture or global warming, or rap music, or whatever, then it takes you by surprise and wastes your time.

Its fine though, if the GM makes a certain agenda clear at the START of a campaign.

Nisarg

Why would it take me by surprise? I game with my friends, not some stranger who's liable to annoy me without warning. If games don't have the basic cohesiveness that a group of friends brings to the table, the problems have little do do with an agenda, really.

 

[painandgreed]

This is about Blue Rose, in'it?

No, it's about Arcana Unearthed and how all the anthromoporphic character races cater to the furry agenda.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

No, it's about Arcana Unearthed and how all the anthromoporphic character races cater to the furry agenda.

I have two responses to that:

Eww.

And, ewww.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm disinclined to purchase a game with a strong agenda, assuming of course that I disagree with that agenda. Often, I find the agendas in RPGs more laughable than offensive, but neither reaction inspires me to pick up the product.

If a game trumpets an agenda that I find not just absurd but downright revolting, I wouldn't buy it even if it had mechanics I'd want to crib. Most such games tend to be lame across the board, though - the previously mentioned Nazi game comes to mind.

Offhand, I can't think of a game with a strong agenda I actually agreed with, so I couldn't tell you how I would react to that.

The central point, though, is that I'm very strongly disinclined to GM a setting if its agenda is basically the whole point.

I never ran Dark Sun, but it had enough variety and interesting material to cover without buying in to the metaplot's themes. If I'd gotten a group together for Dark Sun, it would have been morally ambiguous sword and sorcery, not superficially gritty eco-fable.

I would have then, and would today, enjoy running a morally ambiguous sword and sorcery tale set on Athas. That tale would involve the setting, with its defiling wizards and corrupt templars (though I would probably drop the preservers) but it would simply accept their existence. The templars run the cities, magic takes its toll - what of it? "Athas?" If something as big as a planet can't take care of itself, what do you care? You care about your own sand-blasted mercenary hide and you draw steel (if you can get it) and psionics to protect same!

If the agenda is so ingrained in the setting, and the setting so otherwise bereft of interest, that I couldn't run a game set there without stripping all thematic elements from the adventure, I would have no interest in it. Dark Sun makes for a very cool post-apocalyptic fantasy world without environmentalism being central to the metaplot. Many agenda-based settings do not.

So, in the case of the euphemistic "Tolerance for Oozes," it would boil down to two things:
1. Do I find tolerance for oozes a laughable, overrated, shortsighted or otherwise bad idea (if not downright offensive - for example, if dwarves, my favorite standard fantasy race, are depicted as being cruelly, exceptionally intolerant to oozes)?
2. Is there enough to the setting that I would have reason to run a campaign there, or at least have a spelljamming shipload of PCs pay it a visit, with tolerance for oozes essentially excised from the material?

 

[scourger]

...Blue Rose...anti-Christian.

A bad agenda to me.