 |
| "Man Writing" by Oliver Ray |
Today I continue the series on responsible content consumption. Last time, I looked at fantasy. Today I focus on tabletop games. Games differ from other content we consume (books, movies, etc.) in two main ways:
1) we are active participants in a game, making decisions that determine the outcome, and
2) games may not have a theme or story, meaning they may not contain messages (truth or wisdom) like other types of content. They serve a different purpose.
We'll look at these things (and more) below.
Defining Games
What is a game? I look at this in a previous post. There, I suggest:
A game is a competitive activity whereby participants engage a closed, formal system to overcome a challenge using skill and/or luck.
It is important to understand the concept of a "closed, formal system."
- Formal means that games are governed by rules, included in the game, that spell out the goal of the game, turn structure, win conditions, possible actions, and other formal elements. Like fantasy, rules are created by an author and not necessarily aligned with rules (or values) in the real world: it may be possible to do something in a game that is impossible, illegal, immoral, or unwise in the real world.
- Closed means the real world is unaffected by our actions in the game. Doing something in a game is not the same as doing so in real life, nor does it imply that you approve of such action in real life. That property you buy (in Monopoly) is not happening in real life, invading Russia (in Risk) is not invading Russia in real life, etc. Theme can matter- see below- but like fiction/fantasy, we are invited to enter an imaginary world when we play a game. We may do something in a game we would/could never do (or advocate) in the real world.
Why We Play
We play games for many reasons. I cover some in this post and on my games overview page. But overall, most people play for mental exercise, social interaction, and entertainment:
- mental exercise: games work our mind, teaching us the basics of strategy, decision making, proper planning, and more
- social interaction: games enable gathering, teamwork, and quality time with friends and family; gaming buddies have a special place in my heart.
- entertainment: because it is a closed system (which enables the impossible or the unwise), hilarious things can happen in games. The closed system enables us to do things and explore areas we wouldn't (and shouldn't) in the real world.
We've been playing games for centuries; there is a lot of good in games, and they have exploded in popularity in recent years because of their value. The important thing here is to understand that the goal (or message) of most games is not to convey truth or wisdom, but to enable mental exercise, social interaction, and entertainment.
Themes and Stories in Games
Most (but not all) games have a theme or 'conceit.' Abstract games have none (think tic-tac-toe or checkers), but most others have some degree of thematic elements. Sometimes, the theme is just 'pasted on'- an obvious afterthought that has no bearing on gameplay. Other times, the theme is more intricately tied to the rules, trying to represent or even simulate something in real life. To measure how realistic a game is, we turn to game theory.
The field of game theory is young, but Characteristics of Games (by Elias, Garfield, and Gutschera: hereafter EGG) proposes a spectrum with ten possible levels of abstraction (or "Scale of Intensity for Conceits," as they put it). I won't reproduce their entire chart here (see page 215), but we can group their ten levels into four. They argue that games range from purely abstract to full-on simulation:
1. Purely abstract2. Theme only ('pasted on'; no bearing on gameplay)3.-5. Various degrees of conceit (the theme is somewhat tied to gameplay, but not realistic)6.-10. Various levels of simulation (the theme is very tied to gameplay, attempting realism)
When playing a game, having a general idea of where the game falls on the above scale is helpful. And it is often pretty obvious. Generally, tabletop games fall into the level 1-5 range, meaning they are not realistic and we do not expect them to be. Levels 6-10 are more often seen in video games because a computer is recommended (or required) to model the complexity a realistic simulation demands. The realism in those games can require (in my opinion) special scrutiny. We're focused on tabletop today, though, so back to them.
Most tabletop games have themes 1) to give them flavor- to make it more than an abstract experience- or 2) make them easier to learn and play. The latter is important. Chess (towards the abstract side) still has names like King and Queen, Knight and Pawn, pointing back to the origin (and theme) of the game. We could easily give them names unassociated with royalty or Medieval roles, or anything in the real world, but it is simpler to identify them using words we already know. "Note that very generic conceits, ones that are in the public domain or are at least well known to the players, provide to the players a lot of information about how to play the game." (EGG) If we have a game that features dragons and goblins, we would expect the former to be stronger, for example. Neither are real, but we know from common stories what to expect in a general sense. They go on to say that "abstract games need to have very simple rules [to be successful]," for the very reason that we better grasp concrete examples.
Similar to theme is story. Most tabletop games do not have them, for the very reason that we are active participants in the game, and thus affect the outcome. Video games are more likely to shepherd you through their experience with cut scenes and other elements that convey you are part of a story. Tabletop games, on the other hand, may have a cursory nod to an overall narrative, but it is rarely essential and often omitted entirely.
My point here is that many tabletop games are not trying to push anything with their theme- no message conveying truth/etc. That said, it is never bad to check: consider the theme of a game and look for anything beyond flavor. Is the author of the game trying to push a story, message, or agenda of some sort?
Win Conditions in Games
We strive to win the games we play. Though games may not have messages inherent in their theme or story, they may be present in the win conditions, which can mirror a culture's values. A few examples:
- Monopoly. Here, you are land owners managing properties. That game originated as a way to teach people about the evils of monopolies. The problem is that you win the game by creating a monopoly. Here, the win condition sends the message at odds with the author's intent- "succeed by monopolizing resources." (And, as an aside, reveals exactly why monopolies exist in the real world- because people profit from them.)
- The Game of Life. From an earlier post, the Game of Life started in the 1860s "as a highly moral game . . . that encourages children to lead exemplary lives." In today’s iteration, the person with the most money (assets) wins.
- The Acts. A Christian boardgame, the point is to grow the church in maturity and numbers as quickly as possible.
Even if the themes are fine in themselves, the win conditions of a game may send a message. In the game world, there are broad categories that are insightful of the cultures that produce them: "American"-style games are dog-eat-dog, where one wins by destroying others. In "Eurogames," on the other hand, players win through efficient resource management. So consider if a message is in the win condition, and if that message is intentional or unconciously representative of our culture.
Politics & Psychology in Games
There is also a political/psychological component to games- the way players engage the game, and others players in it, can reveal our hearts. This is especially true in multiplayer games, where alliances can be made (and broken), and different roles arise as games progress (like "kingmaker," where a player may not be in position to win but decides who does). Not inherently good or bad, it is nevertheless insightful, and one way games can be valuable. How we play can show what we value.
Taking Sides
Sometimes a game's theme will mean there is a 'bad guy' side or role. If you're playing Axis & Allies, someone has to be the Axis powers. And some multiplayer games require a player take on a bad guy role- a robber, traitor, monster, or the like. In all cases, I hope it is obvious that the player who plays the bad guy side or role is not inherently (say) a Nazi sympathizer, robber, traitor, or monster in real life.
This points back to the fact that 1) games are a closed system and 2) people play for mental exercise, social interaction, and entertainment- not to proclaim or deny a given truth. Sometimes, a person has to play the bad guy for a game to happen.
Our basic questions do not change for tabletop games; we still ask is it true, is it good, is it edifying? Just remember that:
- games are closed systems; taking actions in a game is not the same as doing that action (or condoning it) in real life. And someone has to be the bad guy.
- we play games for mental exercise, social interaction, and entertainment. As such, we should focus on the 'is it edifying' question.
- the theme of a game is probably not intended to be taken seriously (as a simulation of something in reality). The themes in most games are there for flavor or to aid comprehension. And there is seldom story in a game. These two attributes mean there may not be a message in the game- truth or wisdom. That said, there may be messages in the win conditions.
- multiplayer games in particular have a political/psychological component that can reveal our hearts.
As always, we need humility, wisdom, and discernment as we approach things.
Next week, I plan to conclude this series by tying this all together and looking at examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment