The question of slavery is excellent to point out the bias that is in a setting.

QuoteIf I write a campaign that portrays slavery as an ethically acceptable, economically viable condition that props up various nation states

If you did that, it´s not about you promoting slavery. But it is about you, setting the values slavery has to be compared to!
For example, in Greyhawk, slavery is economically worthwhile, thusly there are  nations, like the Scarlet Brotherhood, who engage in Slavery.

So the real political message is not: "Slavery is good"
but rather:

"Human societies have economic goals, and it´s okay to rationalize their decisions with economic goals."

You could have other explanation models for slavery, like:

"All Suel/Slavers are dastardly evil bastards, who enslave other people for the feeling of superiority and power."

But your example didn´t do that, you named economics as one explanatory factor.

This is a political message!

Quote from: SettembriniThe question of slavery is excellent to point out the bias that is in a setting.



If you did that, it´s not about you promoting slavery. But it is about you, setting the values slavery has to be compared to!
For example, in Greyhawk, slavery is economically worthwhile, thusly there are  nations, like the Scarlet Brotherhood, who engage in Slavery.

So the real political message is not: "Slavery is good"
but rather:

"Human societies have economic goals, and it´s okay to rationalize their decisions with economic goals."

You could have other explanation models for slavery, like:

"All Suel/Slavers are dastardly evil bastards, who enslave other people for the feeling of superiority and power."

But your example didn´t do that, you named economics as one explanatory factor.

This is a political message!

Yet I may not believe any of that. I may just be including slavery (and it's in-setting justifications) as a bit of setting detail that provides decent hooks for adventure.

I think the political message, unless overt, is something that the reader is more inclined to detect based on their own set of assumptions.

It doesn´t matter what you actually believe. The game world is built upon assumptions, and these assumptions are inherently political.

Now I´d say it would be insanely difficult to seperate the authors beliefs from the assumptions made, but technically it doesn´t matter.

Even moreso, if you create a world, that is built upon other assumptions (evil guys are evil because they are inherently evil and think of themselves as evil),
you are creating fiction with a statement again.

Elemental Evil is a strong political message, whether you actually believe in it, or you are "just" postulating what elemental evil would be like, if it existed. It´s assumptions and statements either way, you can´t escape.

Assumptions I can live with. Whether or not these assumptions are inherently political is another matter entirely. It's like saying that all human endeavour is inherently neurological-- if you play the reductionist card long enough then many things inherently fit the criteria that your assumptions are looking for.  

Statements? Outside of "this is what I think will make an exciting setting" then I'm not so sure. Again, if one is looking for a statement then I'm sure one will naturally emerge. If the author intended to promote an ideology or behaviour as being a worthwile pursuit then I'm pretty sure that would be self evident, too.

Besides which, I'm unsure what any of this really has to do with the promotion of an agenda. I'll leave the thread now, like I said I think all that's really being discussed is semantics, and can gradually feel myself getting sucked in...:eek:

Well, I just was backing up my statement.
I wouldn´t use the word agenda myself.

But if you accept that everything´s inherintly political, you can discuss and dissect the way these political assumptions are handled in different gameworlds and in different playstyles.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut yes, to me at least in the most general sense every RPG will be affected by the ideas of their authors.  That's one reason why the matter of who wrote an RPG is information worth knowing.

I agree and was wondering where people thought the best place to try and put this information? Icar definitely has an agenda, or series of philosophies and if I can make it more accessible by clearly stating the motivations (or roots) for them, it might help.

Quote from: SettembriniBut if you accept that everything´s inherintly political, you can discuss and dissect the way these political assumptions are handled in different gameworlds and in different playstyles.

Now, that's almost worth its own forum.

(Bags Pierce starts)

Can we drop this talk of "agendas" and "biases"? It's tediously naive. We in the humanities got rid of it decades ago. It assumes that politics is something that's wrapped around this innocent cultural product, and if only we cut off the bandages the world is pure again.

Every single cultural product has an "agenda," that's not a problem, nor is it "trivial."

Politics of Entertainment 101. Dr. Inverarity. Today's topic: "Pirates of the Caribbean". Reading for this week: Roland Barthes, Mythologies.

Why do people watch Pirates? What is its politics? That it promotes an anarchic politics of "lawlesseness," maybe? Of course not, silly. That's as naive as saying Greyhawk "makes you think about" slavery.

Hawtness of the actors aside, Pirates appeals because of a) the CGI ("great value for money," "look, honey, what technology can do today": two political statements right there);

b) Johnny Depp (caricature of Stanislawski method acting, to wit: a tacky middle-class approach to theater for which St. was kicked out of the Soviet Union but with which, for obvious reasons, he struck it big in the West; "quirky = deep" -> role model for deep-immersion Forge gamers; cf. Forgites taking improv classes these days).

Quote from: Rob LangI agree and was wondering where people thought the best place to try and put this information? Icar definitely has an agenda, or series of philosophies and if I can make it more accessible by clearly stating the motivations (or roots) for them, it might help.

I would set it up in a Designer's Notes section along with other things you want to say about Icar.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAssumptions are agendas.

No, they're not.

Quote from: SettembriniIt doesn't matter what you actually believe. The game world is built upon assumptions, and these assumptions are inherently political.

No, they're not.



*sigh*

Normally I expect to hear this kind of thing from Christians who think that the folks who write science textbooks are out to undermine Creationism. And that's not even art.

Art is a funny thing. What art says has more to do with who's experiencing it than with who created it, despite how much the artist may bitch about being misunderstood.

The problem with RPGs is that the conflicts they present are based on CHARACTERS with agendas. You cannot set up this kind of conflict, or for that matter create any kind of dramatic narrative AT ALL, without presenting two or more fundamentally opposing points of view. Do this however, and it will appear to some that the game is trying to say something beyond presenting a situation on which dramatic conflict can take place.

It doesn't matter if most of the players are there for the killing of things and the taking of stuff, there's still a premise in the game those acts are justified with, even if it is for the most part ignored (which I've found is usually the case).

This is why I find those 'agenda' based games boring. As long as you follow the specific doctrine presented as 'good' in the game, you'll always win, because to present the other point of view as successful implies that it has at least some merit. People with agendas beyond creating an RPG with dramatic conflicts don't like to do this, and most of the time I can spot them instantly.

Does every game that presents a specific point of view as having mechanical significance have an agenda?

What do RPGs have to do with art?

-clash

QuoteThe problem with RPGs is that the conflicts they present are based on CHARACTERS with agendas. You cannot set up this kind of conflict, or for that matter create any kind of dramatic narrative AT ALL, without presenting two or more fundamentally opposing points of view.

Ahem. Dramatic narrative? You aren´t talking about adventure RPGs any more, I assume?
Dramatic narrative, those are fighting words. Please keep the discussion grounded in the realms of ARPGs. there are other forae for other hobbies for your ilk.

If people don't mind, I could post here what are logically the next ten responses re. Art vs. ARS, no pun intended. Or we could just assume the debate happened and carry on.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat do RPGs have to do with art?

Broadly, "art" as in "artifice" -- something made or contrived through the ingenuity of man, especially for less-than-practical purposes.  Not "High Art", no, but I think we can allow this definition within reason.

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniAhem. Dramatic narrative? You aren´t talking about adventure RPGs any more, I assume?
Dramatic narrative, those are fighting words. Please keep the discussion grounded in the realms of ARPGs. there are other forae for other hobbies for your ilk.

Not everyone feels the same way you do about that.