Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

[Crothian]

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.

thus we have the plight of oozes and the agneda for making sure they are treated well and respected. it was a simple and sort of funny agenda example that served that basic needs of this exercise.

 

[francisca]

I'm not terribly idealistic, and preachiness really annoys the hell out of me, especially when coupled with a smarmy attitude. So yeah, an agenda written into a ruleset would be a problem for me, even if it were an agenda that I happen to agree with.

Now, NPCs and characters running around with an agenda, not much of a problem with that, unless the result is that all others lose out on the fun due to one or more players pushing an agenda. I once played with a person who had a particular agenda in RL, and pushed it in-game, in-character. It got to the point where the DM told him to GTFO, and never come back.

 

[Psion]

Dare I link to a link that would demonstrate the type of game that would bug me?

Nah. Those interested, google 'RPGnet "A day at the racists" Ab3'

 

[Turjan]

thus we have the plight of oozes and the agneda for making sure they are treated well and respected. it was a simple and sort of funny agenda example that served that basic needs of this exercise.

Okay, let's just ignore the point that this is a "left-wing" example (because it's not important), and let's get back to the beginning .

As I said, it's always a matter, how the examples come across. There are quite a lot of examples of this kind of modules and settings out there. We have Eberron wth its Warforged situation or lots of modules dealing with "good" monster races. There are good ways to deal with this, and there are bad ways. I'm really against modules that ask the GM to punish the players if they don't act in accord with the agenda; I don't like this. If the players killed a group of oozes that were supposed to present the epitome of good in this area, I won't hand out XP penalties. They might face ingame penalties, if these oozes were protected by the law of the land in question, but that's about it. They are roleplaying, and I will not force them into one direction or the other. Given the composition of my group, they would argue about it, anyway .

 

[Turjan]

Dare I link to a link that would demonstrate the type of game that would bug me?

Nah. Those interested, google 'RPGnet "A day at the racists" Ab3'

"Death is fleeting, only trauma and humiliation endure."

Sums it up nicely.

 

[Victim]

If you are going to have an agenda, I think it's better to be upfront about so people who are upset by it know to avoid your game.

 

[FireLance]

Like Arwink said, it is practically impossible to have a game system without an agenda. The minute the designer of a game or a module places an objective or a goal before the PCs, he promotes certain ends as desirable. If he further makes it easier to achieve the objectives through certain means rather than others, consciously or unconsciously, through the setting or the mechanics, he promotes certain means as superior.

The ends and means can be as uncontroversial as saving the princess by defeating the Black Knight in honorable combat, but the promotion of certain ends and means still occurs.

For my part, whether or not a game promotes a particular agenda is only one factor that determines whether or not I will enjoy the game, but if the agenda is something I agree with, it is naturally more likely that I will do so. Given that the agenda will also determine the mechanics of the game, it will also likely determine how much of the mechanics i will use. For example, if I do not agree that oozes need to be given any additional advantages, I will probably not have any use for feats, spells and prestige classes that grant extra powers to oozes.

 

[Glyfair]

. We have Eberron wth its Warforged situation or lots of modules dealing with "good" monster races.

Actually, Eberron I think is an example of a campaign setting that could have been designed as an agenda setting. There are very strong discrimination issues with all of the Eberron specific races. There are also many, many possiblities for political agendas with the history of the setting. All that would have been needed was some focus on those issues, in a fashion that supports your "agenda."

Indeed, I think Eberron is probably a great setting if someone wanted to run a campaign that explored certain agenda's.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Indeed, I think Eberron is probably a great setting if someone wanted to run a campaign that explored certain agenda's.

I agree.

Especially as Eberron was deliberately created to imitate the "pulp" serials of the 20s and 30s. There's a lot of post-WW1 in that book.

 

[Benben]

This is difficult, because I am very much pro-Ooze and waiting with bated breath for the 3.5 revision of the Oozemaster.

Most games have some sort of agenda. This is usually the theme of the game in question, although that isn't always the case. Avalanche's early historical release had saucy tarts on the cover, tarts who had very little in question of what was good historical research. Their pro-tart cover agenda sure made a large ruckus in the various fora.

Generally high agenda games will alienate part of the gaming market, and as a niche market this isn't super wise. That being said agenda games can also appeal to wider groups than traditional gamers. White Wolf's Vampire certainly crept into the Goth scene. It's a risky business move.

As a consumer I have very little right to get upset. Somebody promoting their agenda or the agenda of a genre isn't victimizing me. I don't need to go on to the company's website and post inflammatory remarks because I disagree with a paragraph of flavour setting and a sidebar.