RPGing via Billy Bragg?

[niklinna]

What is missing from your list, and is (I think) important for social realist RPGing - and it's the same thing as I've been getting at with references to ideology and trade-offs - is an account of the groups' interests. Those figure in your list only if we equate a group's interests with what it wants - but part of the point of social realist media is to refute that equation (as we see with Billy Bragg - wants divorced from interests is what leads to a British solder being shot at by a fascist equipped with a rifle made in Birmingham).

Apart from that, though, what do you think of @DrunkonDuty's list? A lot of it matches what I've seen in the faction game of Blades in the Dark, plus some interesting things I haven't seen there, or things that are left implicit or unspecified as "obvious" uses of existing game mechanics (long-term projects with clocks, etc.).

 

[pemerton]

Apart from that, though, what do you think of @DrunkonDuty's list? A lot of it matches what I've seen in the faction game of Blades in the Dark, plus some interesting things I haven't seen there, or things that are left implicit or unspecified as "obvious" uses of existing game mechanics (long-term projects with clocks, etc.).

I think it's interesting. I also think it reflects a certain approach to thinking about groups. For instance, imagine if instead of leadership we had governance structure - democratic voting, members-as-management (eg like some coops), plural voting of various forms (eg most for-profit corporations), autocratic (many organisations can look like this).

Another example: in our design of these rules, do we assume that leaders control groups, or groups control leaders?

I guess what I'm saying is that different sorts of group attributes reflect different approaches to the sociology of organisations/groups, and so a game might take different approaches depending on what it wants to say.

To come at the same idea from a slightly different angle: when we think about PC stats there's no "best list" - compare the well-known D&D list, to the slightly different Traveller list (no WIS or CHA, instead EDUcation and SOCial standing) or the very different In A Wicked Age list (For myself, For others, Direct, Covert, With violence, With love).

Just as changing the game attributes for an individual reflects a particular conception of how this game conceives of people and what matters about them, I think the same is true of organisations/groups.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Just as changing the game attributes for an individual reflects a particular conception of how this game conceives of people and what matters about them, I think the same is true of organisations/groups.

Oh absolutely. I picked the things I picked, and framed them as I did, because I was envisioning groups in a particular way. To be accurate, I was envisioning portraying groups in a game in a particular way. Although doubtless informed by my own bias/beliefs about groups and society I was aiming for mechanical options that would allow players to game them rather than "realistic" modelling. And always with eye toward drama.


Another thing that has occurred to me is who gets to define (however one wants to do that) a group and when? Player? GM? Group Consensus? Are they defined before game start? Can they be defined during play by player activity?

Ideally I would want a session 0 where all players to sit down and throw ideas into the ring which are then chosen by group consensus. Then, during play, players could define new groups as they wish and as allowed by the games mechanical options.

Example: At the start of play Battleship Potemkin includes 3 groups* - the working class, the aristocratic class, and the military. The Potemkin has on board of it members of all 3 groups. Early in the play, in reaction to something that happens,* a player decides that the crew of the ship should be made into a group. The player/PC takes actions to create/activate the crew; perhaps they make an oratory skill roll, perhaps they spend a plot point, maybe it's a play in their playbook. The Crew of the Battleship Potemkin is now defined as a group and can be utilised in play as a game resource.

How the player defines it leads to different ways for telling the story and the mechanics for same. So, if the player's original definition of The Crew of the Battleship Potemkin includes "all sailors aboard the ship, including aristo officers" is it more difficult/cost more game resources to activate the group than if they just included the working class sailors? I think most of us would say "yes" to that because for the aristo officers to be included they (the officers) would have to be convinced to work against something that is an interest of their first group, the aristocracy. Alternatively the player may decide to exclude the officers, making it easier to create The Crew of the Battleship Potemkin but leading to the question - what to do with the officers? Do the sailors throw them overboard? Do the officers simply flee?* And where in the game play does one include the purging of the crew? Is it simply an included part of the creation process, hand-waved away with a brief description, or do we focus the play on the specifics of the mutiny with all the sneaking, the quiet violence, the reprisals, of removing the officers? You get very different stories depending on what you choose. (IIRC the movie opted for the hand wave, it wasn't telling a story of cloak and dagger but of class unity.*)

As complex as my example is so far I'd like to bring in another dimension: the military. At start of play each individual aboard the Potemkin is a member of 2 groups, their class and the military. The Crew of the Battleship Potemkin mutiny against the military. ie. they leave that group. What does this entail in game terms? Is there a Group Cohesion stat that the player must overcome to break the crew away? If not what other issues might there be to make this dramatic? Maybe they don't break away from the military. Maybe they continue to think of themselves as proud Russian Navy sailors, loyal to the Motherland. They act as they do in order to protect Russian people (and the Russian People) being more loyal to that interest than that of following orders.

I'm reminded of the Spithead Mutiny, a naval mutiny among the British navy during the Napoleonic Wars. The mutineers were demanding better pay and conditions. They kicked the officers off the ships and refused to sail. BUT the mutineers guaranteed that, if the French fleet were to set sail, that they would sail in defence of Britain. These mutineers had goals, better pay and conditions, and interests, national defence that were at odds. A gamified definition of this might be that the Spithead Mutineers were activated as a group that was still contained within the larger group, the British Navy.

BTW. I'm not suggesting absolutes, just options that can be considered. To repeat what I said in my previous post, how far down do you want to dig? How much detail do you want? How much do you want intersectionality to play a part?


* I haven't seen the movie in decades, details are fuzzy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's just occurred to me that Classic Traveller should be another fertile opportunity for social realist RPGing.

Here's something I posted some years ago now:
The social context implicit in Traveller is ripe for a social realist approach. And the spirit of Traveller - with simple yet far-reaching systems for handling world generation, law enforcement, trade and commerce, etc - seems highly conducive.

It's the only system I know of which permits, from its game rules (namely, for starship mortgages and Travellers' Aid Society memberships), the derivation of the prevailing interest rate (in the neighbourhood of 5%).

What would hold Traveller back, I think, is that it has no system for economic influence or economic development. This goes back to my observation, in the self-quote, that it relies D&D-style on actually keeping accounts of credits, rather than a more abstract wealth system such as is found in Burning Wheel and Torchbearer.

Nevertheless, I will try and think more about this.

Doesn't the Merchant supplement have some systems for building a pretty significant trading organization? I mean, you could CERTAINLY build such a thing simply by extrapolating the style of rules systems that are already present. I seem to recall a campaign I ran where the PCs became a small mercantile empire of their own, and then various knock-on effects eventually caused it to crash and burn. A lot of that was sheer RP and whatnot, but I distinctly recall that a lot of the business part of it was constructed basically on knowing how such things function as parts of society, and imagining a model of how the society in that campaign organized its economy/finance/business.

 

[pemerton]

Doesn't the Merchant supplement have some systems for building a pretty significant trading organization?

Not Book 7. Maybe something from JTAS?

I distinctly recall that a lot of the business part of it was constructed basically on knowing how such things function as parts of society, and imagining a model of how the society in that campaign organized its economy/finance/business.

Well, of course, this is where social realism might want to apply some pressure!

 

[innerdude]

@pemerton --- I haven't read the whole thread, so if it's been mentioned forgive me, but if I may, I would highly suggest checking out the computer RPG Disco Elysium to give you an idea of how it might be done.

That was literally the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP.

 

[innerdude]

To continue, Disco Elysium will challenge your conception of what it means to play an RPG, how to approach an RPG's protagonism, and more.

And I say that owning the game, but having not really played it end-to-end, and at times not even particularly caring for some of its procedures, while being immensely awed at what it's trying to do and how it tries to do it.

Like, even trying to describe the basic character . . . generation? Stat sheet? . . . to someone who hasn't played it would be difficult for me. To say nothing of what you encounter in terms of the game's thematic material.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I'll second @innerdude, Disco Elysium engages with this stuff brilliantly.

I'm yet to play it, as I've never been able to find a group for it, but what about FreeMarket? It probably has some of the same issues as Over the Edge and then some (given its setting), but it always read as dystopian to me. And the mechanical emphasis on the status of your character and the MRCZ, as well as the systems for social currency, could lend itself to some interesting play around social questions. I suppose at the same time, a lot of cyberpunk and cyberpunk-adjacent games might be useful for this, too, but it would depend on how the systems back up play and whether it's really possible to do social realism in a setting that to some degree already has already asked and answered the questions.

 

[niklinna]

To continue, Disco Elysium will challenge your conception of what it means to play an RPG, how to approach an RPG's protagonism, and more.

And I say that owning the game, but having not really played it end-to-end, and at times not even particularly caring for some of its procedures, while being immensely awed at what it's trying to do and how it tries to do it.

Like, even trying to describe the basic character . . . generation? Stat sheet? . . . to someone who hasn't played it would be difficult for me. To say nothing of what you encounter in terms of the game's thematic material.

You are almost making me want to pick the game up again. I gave up after finding out I had to root through trash cans to pay for my trashed hotel room every night. Plenty enough people where I live actually have to do that, so simulating it really put me off.

The occasional dialogue menu that forces you to unequivocally state a political allegiance is also kind of annoying.

But yeah, the character system is pretty cool.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

You are almost making me want to pick the game up again. I gave up after finding out I had to root through trash cans to pay for my trashed hotel room every night. Plenty enough people where I live actually have to do that, so simulating it really put me off.

This is a great point. The game does have some issues with how it sets the protagonist up in contrast with Martinaise and Revachol. There's some element of misery tourism in it that isn't quite fully considered and can be awkward if you're paying attention.