Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

[Crothian]

In away, every game has "agendas" built in to them. Evil is bad, evil doers should be punished, right wrongs, seek justice, protect the helpless, etc. etc. The PCs are HEROES, and heroes NEED agendas in order to be productive, to have something to be heroic about. The CHOICE of the agenda is up to the GM/players, and is typically transient and flexible in many ways (our work here is done, on to the next crisis!), but there is always one there.

Without an agenda, RPG heroes would be little more than common thugs beating people up and taking their stuff.

-Reddist

Sure, if you look at it in the right light at the right time of day I'm sure we can see agendas in whatever we what. But they are subtle and hidden at best. I'm talking about something way more obvious and not done for the games sake, but becasue the writer wants to include it in his game. I'm pretty sure the guys are Wizards aren't trying to get us to be heroes in own lives when they write about the heros and the possiblities in the game.

 

[Turjan]

Sure, if you look at it in the right light at the right time of day I'm sure we can see agendas in whatever we what. But they are subtle and hidden at best. I'm talking about something way more obvious and not done for the games sake, but becasue the writer wants to include it in his game. I'm pretty sure the guys are Wizards aren't trying to get us to be heroes in own lives when they write about the heros and the possiblities in the game.

Well, I suppose it's really hard to discuss this without any examples. If I had to decide on my own, I'd probably go with one agenda and completely reject the next one. Whether all of the players are okay with the agenda is a different question.

Wasn't there a roleplaying product that fell through because the author included some political statement in the introduction that did not have anything to do with the RPG product at all? In this case, I'd probably ignore that rant if the rest of the product was okay.

 

[Gnarlo]

I would expect that most games with agendas would be about as successful at presenting them and as appealing to play as the moral lessons of an after school special. I'd probably avoid them like the plague, whether the agenda matched my personal beliefs or not; one of the reasons I roleplay is to explore things I don't normally do in society (fight dragons and liches, rescue damsels, etc.; I kill things and take their stuff all the time ).

And as far as your setting is concerned, the only good ooze is a dead ooze.

 

[Crothian]

Well, I suppose it's really hard to discuss this without any examples..

I know, but I'm staying away from examples because that could easily lead to thread closure.

 

[Turjan]

I know, but I'm staying away from examples because that could easily lead to thread closure.

You could always shift the discussion to rpg.net then. I think they see religion and politics as part of many RPGs there and seem to be fine with it.

 

[Orius]

I don't like games or anything else for that matter that are little more than thinly veiled political or social activism And that goes for whether I agree with the view or not. I don't like people shoving their concerns down my throat, and often this stuff gets patronizingly preachy. I find patronizing tones to be fairly offensive.

 

[fusangite]

Okay -- so what's the RPG.net thread that's being satirized here? I couldn't immediately see it and it sounds like it would be a most entertaining read. Could you provide the link.

Not to disrupt the deadpan delivery any further but, I have to say, I fell off my chair, absolutely convulsed reading this.

 

[arwink]

For me it depends on the game. I'm not going to play a "Slaves of Gor" game because a sexist agenda isn't something I want to roleplay.

Seconded. But if someone makes a game out of Houseplants of Gor, I'd buy it in a second.

 

[Silver Moon]

Is it wrong for a game to have an agenda?

If instead of "Agenda" we say "Theme" I believe more people would agree completely.

I recently completed a Western module titled "Revenge, Renewal and the Promise of a New Year". The game had a major theme to it, spelled out in the title. The module was set it a wild west town with cattle rustlers, outlaws, semi-corrupt lawmen and a war about to start with the Apache, which made for a great juxtaposition for the theme or "hope and renewal". By the end of the module all of the playing characters' lives and outlooks had changed for the better, the leader and several members of the outlaw gang were dead and peace had been negotiated with the Apache. In broad terms I guess you could say that the "agenda" was to turn bad into good, and that was accomplished.

 

[Trickstergod]

It all depends on how two-dimensional it is and how blatant.

For example, Psion mentioned having a problem with an "all religions are evil" game. Personally, I think something like that is exceedingly easy to make into a playable game. It's already integrated into some settings, such as the Defiers of Planescape. I'm sure any number of people would hop on-board a game where the game centered around the Defiers and readily go along with the all religions are evil plot the DM set-up. They might not even realize what the DM was getting at regardless of how blatant it was. Heck, considering how Planescape decided good doesn't necessarily mean good, anyway (witness the Harmonium), certain things could conceivably be stretched quite a bit.

Of course, Planescape has the distinguishing mark of not necessarily supporting that agenda. The Defiers are just one of many Factions, after all. So the setting doesn't have an agenda, per se, even though an individual DM might.

Similarly, many of the World of Darkness games can be considered to have their own agenda. Just on a fairly inoffensive issue, there's a strong, anti-technology thread that winds its way through Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Mage: the Ascension, and Changeling: the Dreaming.

One thing that I think is important is that, even if a game does have an agenda, it needs to show that those who serve whatever the antagonist happens to be aren't necessarily bad folk. Or, at least, have believable characteristics to them.

Perhaps in the "Ooze uber alles" example, it might be that some ooze-hunter happened to have had his father killed by an ooze. Or perhaps he just has a family that he loves and cherishes. Or whatever. Or perhaps it just has some ooze that really needs to be locked up. Or whatever.

The point is, an agenda can be fine so long as that it's willing to concede some flaws in its self or some merits in whatever it's opposed to. That, while over-all said agenda might be dandy, it's not perfect and it's opposite isn't completely worthless.

Even then, it can be obnoxious. But I think that's a matter of how much you agree or disagree with something.

And, all told, I think it's rare to find anything without some form of an agenda to it, even if it isn't necessarily a conscious one. A writer of such and such a religious, political and social mindset is likely to have protagonists that reflect those viewpoints and antagonists that reflect their opposites.

Is it wrong to put an agenda in, though? Deliberately, at least? Hmmm...no, I don't think so. But it needs to fulfill those two things I mentioned: it can't be two-dimensional and it can't be blatant. Otherwise, it becomes preachy, even if I happen to agree with whatever the point is. Too many written works have an agenda for me to really say that it's a bad thing.