Roleplaying and politics.

[Umbran]

... it would hopefully help you better understand people in the real world.

In Theory. Theory is a very nice country to visit, but nobody ever lives there.

In my experience, playing RPGs doesn't make folks any more sensitive or forward thinking. They don't generally turn the fictional experience of walkign a mile in another man's moccasins to use in the real world. When they leave the gaming table, they leave the same people they came in, with the same old insentivities, short-sightedness, and bigotted tinking they had when they came in.

Maybe statistically RPGs do help teach some good things that stick with players. But a given politician is a single individual, not a statistic.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm with the principles of the idea.

However, I'm a big fan of real experience in a politician.

Most of my favorite politicians have done spent significant amounts of time doing something else before starting their career. I tend to find them preferable to the ones who started straight out of further education.

There are exceptions and certain ways I feel 'something else' could be time badly spent... but who'd want to get into that?


Generally, I'd go for real life experience over roleplaying... but roleplaying is probably better than nothing. And there are certain cases where it is better than the real experience.

For example, a bunch of our politicians voluntarily spent a night in jail. IMO, useful experience when it comes to passing laws and setting conditions. Preferable to having a bunch of convicted crooks running things... although my inner cynic really wants to chip in here...

 

[nothing to see here]

For what it's worth -- I work in politics -- as a speechwriter and communication advisor for the executive branch of a to-remained-unamed jurisdiction.

The observation made that supporters of different parties can be quite social with each other is quite correct. I have some good buddies who work for the 'other guys'...during the day we work to screw each other over -- we never share confidential information -- we always (unsuccessfully) try to spin each other -- yet we never take it personally and always have a good time 'after hours'.

I reminded of that old WB cartoon about the fox and the dog -- where they punch in together in the morning -- spend the whole day chasing around after each other -- and then punch out -- wishing each other a good night. It's a great analogue for anybody who works in politics.

the thing about political types -- no matter what your actual politics -- is that only the most militant partisans and idealogues paint their political differences as an attack on someone elses character. At the risk of sounding elitist -- such views are usually the sign of an amateur.

most political types -- regardless of politics -- are smart funny people who belong to a rather small social subset that the rest of society doesn't quite understand...

...sound like any other demographic you know of...?

So whether your idea of fun -- is watching gavel to gavel coverage of the Democratic (and Republican) conventions...or whether your idea of fund is meandering about the ScarredLlands...the simple fact that you engage, for pleasure, in such an activity sets you apart. Which, quite frankly, is part of the satisfaction.

...and there's the similarity for you.

 

[Whisper72]

Actually, I think REAL role-assumption would work better than simply being a gamer; the majority of RPG play emphasizes a more superficial form of role-assumption, rather than a real "get under their skin" kind of experience. The difference between RPG play and actual role-assumption exercises is more like the difference between radio dramas and stage acting.

As a result, being a gamer will promote limited understanding, but most of the time differences portrayed will be stereotyped or ignored, rather than truly dug into. It's the same reason so many players on these forums say that they as DM's won't allow people to play PC's of the opposite gender.

Erhm... so you're saying that Politicians should be LARP'ers???

 

[Maerdwyn]

Erhm... so you're saying that Politicians should be LARP'ers???

*POTUS, in a woods clearing, chasing after a guy in a really bad ogre costume, throwing sparkly dust at him, and yelling "NUCLEAR BOMB! NUCLEAR BOMB! NUCLEAR BOMB!"

 

[Funksaw]

One of the things I was thinking a d20 system or, since it wouldn't have a combat system, an OGL system would be perfect for would be a political game. (The default starting era will be 1976 - the Bicentennial Election)

It really does lend itself to the alignment/class/feats/skills system pretty well... with each "level" equalling a year in public service or your career, and good roleplaying rewarded with "bennies" - additional points in addition to your normal levels.

Alignment would probably be roughly along the following Axes:

Social: Authoritarian (Right-wing), Moderate (Center), Libertarian (Left-Wing)
Economic: Conservative, Centrist, Liberal
Legal: Idealist (Plays by the rules), Oppertunist (Ends justify the means), Slimeball (Power is it's own reward.)

So, someone like FDR might be a Moderate Liberal Idealist, Henry Wallace (unsuccessful candidate for the presidency of 1946) might be a Libertarian Liberal Idealist, Nixon would be an Authoritarian Liberal Slimeball, Reagan would be a Moderate Conservative Oppertunist, Carter, a Libertarian Conservative Idealist, Clinton would be a Moderate Centrist Oppertunist.

Classes would be something along the following lines:

Candidate (Leads to prestige class: Incumbent by winning an Election, any alignment - class abilities - may choose a "persona" alignment which may or may not reflect thier true alignment. Until they are elected to office, they may use this "persona" alignment instead of their real one for all matters.) Candidates are people like James Carter, Incumbants are represnted by Gerald Ford, in 1976. Third party candidates are also possible.

Policy Wonk - (May not be Moderate)

Aide - Must not be more than 1 alignment step away from Candidate. Can be represented by James Carville

Spin Doctor - Ever see "Wag the Dog?" Or, better yet, Karl Rove.

Lobbyist/Activist - Any special interest group has this as the go-to guy for the candidate - whether it's Big Oil or Greenpeace, PETA or National Rodeo Commission...

Press Advocate - These are your guys backing you in the papers or airwaves - Frankens and O'Reillys.

Spokesman - These are the people that will speak for you when you're not around.

Lawyer - (Can Prestige class to Judicial Appointee after winning a Confirmation) - Lawyers are simply those people who in any campaign, will work, dispassionately - for you legally. They may not even do much to support you other than fight your case in a legal battle. Every candidate needs at least one.

NPC Classes:
Voter
Non-Voter
Judge
Official
Bureaucrat

"Combat" would work like this: each state has "constituencies." Your alignment (or persona alignment) of the candidate gives you a "base" of X number of points. Your opponent ALSO has an X number of points (and you go through this twice - once in the primaries (unless you're an incumbent, in which case you usually skip it) and once in the general election. Then, for the general election, you roll for each constituency - you get bonuses based on feats and alignments for each constituency (for example, being a Practicing Catholic might get you a minor bonus with the Hispanic vote, but being Hispanic might get you a major bonus with the Hispanic vote - these would be character creation "feats" - I'm not going to make them like races.) Being a Celebrity might also be a feat, etc. You add up all your bonuses from your feats and from your campaigning, add a d20, and whoever has the highest score of you and your opponent grabs the consituency, worth X number of points. The person with the most points wins the election.

Levels:

Levels basically denote years of public service and determine what you can run for (anything over that level, and you get penalties for "inexperience - but a 3rd level candidate CAN run for president.)
They'd go roughly like this:

1-2: City Council
3-4: Mayoral Election
5-6: State Congress/State Senate/City Council of a Major City
7-8: Freshman Congress
9-10: Sophomore Congress/Mayor of a Major City
11-12: Junior Congress/Junior Senator/Governor(Flyover state)
13-14: Senior Congress/Junior Senator/Governor (Major State)
15-16: Congressional Whip/Senior Senator
17-18: Congressional Leader/Senate Leader
19-20: Presidential Contender
20+: Elder Statesman

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I Can See Them Now...

*cue sca-a-a-a-a-r-r-ry attack ad synth music, male voice over, slow motion footage of a mid-40s politician type, blue suit, grey hair*

You think Bob Johnson has been honest with you on his past, but has he been? Really? Well...here's something that Bob Johnson hasn't been clear about:

*slow-mo footage stops*

He's a munchkin.

After vowing not to buy "Skills and Powers" and "The Complete..." series of handbooks, Bob Johnson did just that.

Bob Johnson, do you know him? Really?

"Paid for by The Committee for ROLE Playing, Not ROLL Playing"


**********

*cue same exact scary synth music, this time with a picture of another middle-aged man with greying hair in a suit*

Sure, Jack Reynolds says he's a roleplayer, but his record speaks for itself:

*graphics appear on the screen*

"Supported a raise in character point-purchase pools."

"Absentee role-player: Makes frequent use of Diplomacy checks."

"Vetoed the passing of "Golden Rule of DMing" legislation."

*cue sunny day music, picture of Bob Johnson broadly smiling in casual golf clothes*

Bob Johnson supported the "Golden Rule" legislation, and furthermore, encouraged die roll mechanic simplification and new editions to smooth play! Bob Johnson: There's More to It Than Mechanics.

"Paid for by People For DMs' Perogative"


*************

*T.V. News Broadcast*

And in the upcoming presidential race, tireless consumer advocate Richard Parsons, famous for his quote "Unplayable, in any edition," announced his candidacy for President:

*cue Richard Parsons, again, mid-40s but with dyed hair standing behind a podium*

"...Bob Johnson, Jack Reynolds, they're just two sides of the same coin! Endless reiteration of broken systems, no real mechanic evolution, endless rulebooks! As President, I would push through a bill making diceless roleplaying a fundamental subject for our children, teaching them the necessary skills to game in the 21st Century. I will reduce our dependence on dice and paper and encourage a more open, more friendly style of role-playing, just like America used to be."

*applause from his supporters*

"And I know this...we can't go it alone. That's why I advocate actually reaching out to the Storyteller System, reaching out to the d6 system and saying 'Hey! Let's game!"

*thunderous applause*

 

[Dogbrain]

most political types -- regardless of politics -- are smart funny people who belong to a rather small social subset that the rest of society doesn't quite understand...

The worst possible and worst imaginable situation for any country that runs itself along any sort of democratic principles.

 

[woodelf]

I know, I know. This thread is so gonna get closed. But I wanted to discuss whether you think roleplaying might aid a potential politician in understanding the goals and desires of others. If you play a character markedly different from yourself, or better yet, run a game where you have to imagine the different goals and beliefs of many characters, it would hopefully help you better understand people in the real world.

Right?

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, or some such colloquiallism. That is, you don't need to play an RPG to get into someone else's head--and in token play, which is fairly common, you don't do so anyway. Rather, if you are good at getting into someone else's head, you'll probably enjoy RPGs. Not that RPGs can't be a tool for developing this, but i think you have to have the desire, if not the ability, first, and an RPG isn'tgoing to force you to develop the ability if you don't have the desire.

And there're several things working against this. First, we have a winner-takes-all system at most levels of government, so there is no need to build consensus (as there often is in a proportional system)--you either have a majority, and can do what you want, or you don't and can't. Second, compromise is a dirty word in modern US culture--think of the colloquiallism "compromise means we both lose". Third, there's no such thing as becoming better-informed or more educated on a topic--once you have an opinion on a matter, it is virtuous to stick with it, and "flip-flopping" to change your opinion to accomodate new facts. Fourth, which ties in to the previous two, politicians get votes for sticking to their guns, regardless of validity of viewpoint, and lose votes for constantly evolving their stance in response to new information. And, fifth, seeing the other guy's POV is explicitly seen as being co-opted or betraying your constituency. We have an adversarial, rather than cooperative, style of gov't, where each representative is expected to fight for what is best for the specific people that voted for them, even if it's bad for all the rest of the people in the country. Thus the proliferation of porkbarrel, bizarre regional subsidies, and the like. If we did what was best for everybody, as a whole, we wouldn't simultaneously pay subsidies for rice fields in the South to be left fallow and for irrigation for rice fields in parts of CA that are technically desert (to borrow just one example). But we don't. We divide the whole contury up into little us-and-thems, and everybody fights.

So, yes, i think that any sort of RPing, or even just empathy, would make a politician a better representative of the people. But, sadly, in the current system it'd probably make them a poorer politician. That is, they'd fall into the same sort of situation as Carter, where the ideals are so much at odds with the reality that the idealist actually does less good than the enlightened pragmatist.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

It is worth noting that few fantasy settings feature nations governed by democracies that are anything like those employed in the 21st century of the real world.

Most fantasy world nations are governed by monarchies, theocracies or tyrannies.

It is difficult to imagine any one, on the left or right of politics, wanting to embrace or encourage such a government.

As such, role-playing games only have the slightest bearing or resemblance to real world political situations.

So it is unlikely any kind or color of politics can draw anything useful from role-playing games because – even tabling magic, elves and so forth – there is nothing in the games that can have any useful social, economic, moral, ethical or philosophical applicability to real life.

If a person changes their perspective on a subject it is unlikely role-playing had anything to do with it. It is more likely they chose to change their perspective based on their life and social interaction. At which point any life experience can stand in for role-playing.