Those of you suffering from an unexpected rift in conversation, please see the split thread:
(If you feel a post in either thread should belong in the opposite, please let me know)
1 Like
See below- the ramblings of an uneducated person:
I think there’s a fence I’d like to straddle here. Where Benkyo uses the term “argument” (which I think is valid and I can certainly see his position), I would use the term “statement”.
For every article of art, I think there is a statement intrinsic to that article. If that statement is perceived to be in conflict (with itself, the viewer, its environment, and/or other articles of art), then this is where Benkyo’s perspective really shines through for me.
When I say, “in conflict”, I do not mean, necessarily, violence - merely that the statement I perceive one thing to make is incongruous with the conflicting statement - this forms an “argument” to use Benkyo’s term (though probably not in the way Benkyo would use it).
In visual art, I enjoy contrast – bright colors set against dark colors; these then show that the statement made by art can be in conflict with itself.
3 Likes
To have two statements be in conflict, they have to be about the same thing. The statements “Kansas is a civilized country” and “Peacocks are sacred to Juno” aren’t in conflict because they’re about different things. The common topic is the theme of a literary work; and making different statements about that topic is the exploration of that theme. It’s not “argument” in the technical logical sense, though it might be “dialectic” if it explores the logical and evidential grounds for the different statements (that is, the possible arguments for them).
But this can be tricky. Arguments presented by the characters in a story or play are the arguments of those characters; they may not be the arguments of the author. And even if they are, they’re being made because it suits the needs of the plot or characterization to have those particular people present those arguments in that way at that time. They may or may not be elements in a logical argument presented by the author, and the author may or may not even have an argument to present.
1 Like
While a statement in conflict with something is the most obvious form of argument, if I refer back to the article and talk in terms of framing, most games do nothing to conflict with well-worn and well-established norms, and this framing is in itself an argument of sorts (this is the end of my “reply” to pillbox, the rest is something I was going to post anyway).
Go and Chess have been analysed extensively in terms of their contrast. Although both are 1v1 competitive games, and that’s important framing right there, Chess has differences in piece “rank”, with the goal to capture the king of your opponent. Pieces are expendable to reach that goal, and the game establishes battle lines and lines of attack. In contrast, there are no differences between pieces in Go, and a piece is only as strong as its support network. Sometimes you will make sacrificial moves, but generally you build up lines of support. There’s no well-defined battle line, and you can play anywhere on the board, leading to very fluid and complex game states. You don’t take individual pieces, but can encircle groups to remove them from the game. The winner is the player who controls more territory at the end, so your goal is to get just a little more than your opponent instead of the binary capture or be captured of chess.
Sorry for rehashing all that old ground, but I think it is a good way to ground the discussion in how even such “simple” games are tightly linked to cultural backgrounds and how they frame conflict.
Extend such analysis to modern games, and you can get an analysis of Pax Pamir 1e vs Pax Pamir 2e such as the one in Dan Thurot’s article. You can look at games in this way, and I think it is interesting to do so, quite independently of their aesthetic value.
5 Likes
I do not disagree with this in any way. It seems to me as if it would be a valid and productive way to study games, and in fact I’ve thought about chess versus go along somewhat the same lines. That I’m not knowledgeable enough about contemporary games to take part in a discussion of them doesn’t mean I regard such discussion as unjustified.
2 Likes
I think you’re spot on. I can say that I don’t feel like I’ve played many games that have been very deliberate or intentional with making specific statements through their framing (there are still a whoooooole lot of games that I want to play). I think Twilight Struggle and Watergate fit that bill (maaaaybe Fog of Love?). There are more I’m wanting to experience, but my still novice knowledge in the hobby has me in the position of feeling that most of those are heavier games (read “longer”), and I unfortunately don’t have enough time to get into most of the ones I would like to. I’m curious what other games you think use their frame to assert a statement/position/argument (so I can play them/get sad that I don’t have time to play them).
1 Like
Would love to hear your opinion on Twilight Struggle and Fog of Love.
I get TS has a lot to say, but I’m not confident enough in my own thoughts to commit them to words.
Fog of Love, I’ve played but haven’t given enough though to (outside of “how does this work?” And “is my wife having fun?”)
1 Like
Twilight Struggle is an interesting one. I don’t think it is trying to simulate the Cold War, it’s simulating two American strategists simulating the Cold War, where both of them agree on the domino theory of the time.
The decision to have the triggering of Defcon 1 as a loss condition is an interesting one, and very deliberate. I’m not sure if viewing everything through an American lens is deliberate, or an artefact of the designers’ biases.
4 Likes
I haven’t played it often or frequently enough to internalize all of the elements, but I think it’s a fantastic game. Benkyo’s take on it is way more informed and it’s accurate with what I get from it. I’d like to dig into it more at some point to get more from it. I do think it digs in very well to the paranoia of domino theory and there seems to be some commentary on the absurdity of it in the way things can play out (but this is probably because I am BAD at it).
As for FOL, I think it’s fantastic. I’m a therapist, so I’m incredibly interested in relationships and anything that effectively explores their dynamics. FOL does a great job of exploring motivations and I think it can really develop some reflection in people who are primed for it. I honestly feel like it could be a great tool in couples therapy to understand what drives someone relationally and how those drives might play out. I think it does this through having determine whether your decisions are being based on your emotional motivations or your character’s motivations, whether you’re looking to “win” and make yourself happy, or whether you’re open to compromise on some real areas of contention. I am incredibly excited and anxiously waiting for Jacob Jaskov’s next game.
3 Likes
I forgot to mention it just now, but although Snobbydolphin specifically asked about deliberate and intentional arguments through framing, and I think it is interesting to look specifically at such games and why and how their designers/developers made them intending to convey such arguments, I don’t see the distinction of “deliberate and intentional” as being an important one in general. Taking Twilight Struggle as my example again, I think the framing of everything through an American lens is just as interesting or moreso than the way the designers made Defcon work. Whether or not that framing was deliberate or accidental I do not know, but the framing is there nonetheless.
Framing is the entire reason why Cards Against Humanity isn’t just ‘edgy’, it’s actively bigoted. (Beyond all the issues that are coming to light now that somehow nobody saw coming.)
CaH gives players a bunch of tools to make jokes with. You can be whity, you can be clever, you can also just put “A big black dick” as a non sequitur. The game at no point offers players the opportunity to forgo the problematic jokes. It doesn’t even attempts to say “Some of the stuff in this game might make you uncomfortable”. You press go and you’re presented with the opportunity to be transphobic.
The framing of the game is “Anything can be funny”, the materials within that frame are problematic statements.
This framing says to the player “This is okay”. The inclusion of these things is the argument that problematic jokes are okay.
2 Likes
I could definitely see it being modified to be a therapy tool fairly easily. Interestingly, when I played I really struggling between roleplaying a character and trying desperately to follow the path to victory. Made me very aware of how easily or automatically I work towards goals without thinking about the goal itself.
I’m really keen to play some of the expansions. I think there’s a sci fi themed one? Sounds amazing.
Ohh boy, apparently I need my water wings cause I’m out of my depth. I thought you’d typoed ‘dominant theory’ until I googled it to check. A lot more of the mechanics make sense now.
Also, Defcon 1 as a loss condition as written made such perfect sense to me I hadn’t even considered there would be an alternative, but now… You could choose if you fire or not at the start of the game / turn and when triggered different combinations would mean different things.
I would guess the American lens is the designers bias. Except that’s based on my bias, so who knows. I clearly need to study some more history as it appears there’s a lot I’m missing.
Curious the two games I was drawn to in this topic have unusual ‘win’ conditions. Fog of Loves winning in relationships, and TS victory in nuclear winter.
1 Like
I played Cards against Humanity not long after it first came out. I have to say it left me with a mental bad taste: It was a game of humor, but the humor was that of making denigratory statements about various people and things, and getting to be outrageous because it was “only a joke.” And that really wasn’t a frame of mind I wanted to cultivate in myself, so I’ve never played it again. I think this wasn’t quite the same as your concern: It wasn’t specifically that there were problematic jokes, but that the spirit of the whole thing was one of contempt and sarcasm, and of licensing oneself to display them, and I find that uncomfortable no matter who’s the target.
2 Likes
My historical knowledge is not that great: domino theory and the reasoning behind Defcon 1 as a loss condition are both mentioned in the rule book!
On the other hand, the point about the US-centric viewpoint is my personal observation. For example, in a very general sense, it appears to me that a lot of the US events are things the US or US-based organisations did, while a lot of the USSR events are things that happened (with the casual agents more complex, or unknown, or US influence).
1 Like
Anyone who hasn’t read Paul’s review of CAH probably should. It certainly says everything I have to say about it.
1 Like
This line from the Twilight Struggle rulebook struck me as particularly significant (so much so that I remembered it well enough from years ago to be able to find it very easily now):
Wherever there were compromises to make between realism and playability, we sided with playability. We want to evoke the feel of the Cold War, we hope people get a few insights they didn’t possess, but we have no pretensions that a game of this scope or length could pretend to be a simulation.
The designers are upfront about the fact that they are prioritising making a good game, and I think they achieved that. I think that if the game were made by Russians it might well come out differently, but still be a great game.
My personal view is that Cole Wehrle has achieved more as a game designer than as a historian, which is perhaps why I don’t take his history essays (and the one that started this thread which was about one of his games) quite as seriously as I take his game designs. That said, I’m interested in the subject, and I think the framing of a game, whether conscious or unconscious, tells us something.
2 Likes
Back when I played it, at one point, one of the players put down a second white card that referred to the same person—I no longer remember who, but someone who would have been considered “right wing.” (It wasn’t Donald Trump, who wasn’t on the political radar that early.) And I said, “Well, you can tell what the designers’ political agenda is.” Now that I describe it, that’s rather like what @benkyo has been saying about “framing,” isn’t it?
1 Like
There’s been discussion of this in the World’s Worst Kickstarter thread on BGG - the kind of political “satire” that regards just mentioning someone’s name as a joke in itself seems often not to be done by people with a particular agenda, because quite often they’re kickstarting the “left-wing” and “right-wing” versions of the game at the same time. I’ve not played enough CAH to say, but I suspect they just threw in everything that they thought would get a strong reaction.
If it had occurred once I wouldn’t have said anything. Having it come up a second time—not the general “right wing” trope, but the very same political figure—seemed a bit tendentious. It isn’t as if there were any shortage of right-wing politicians to include!