So over in the thread Anti-western, Anti-civilization, there was some debate over the importance of subtext in games.  I thought it made a more interesting topic in itself rather than Western vs anti-Western.  A brief sampling of some of the views:

Quote from: Christmas ApeNot only is it fiction, it's a goddamn role-playing game. The views expressed in this product don't fucking matter unless they promise to make playing it un-fun for you. If they do, put it down and buy a different RPG. Why not rail about the fact that the world view in Call of Cthulhu makes our science foolish, our geometry absurd, and our claims of religious understanding laughable?

Oh right. Pundit LIKES CoC, whereas White Wolf to the best of my understanding stole his car and gaming supplies, then spent the rest of the 90's sleeping with his girlfriends.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm sorry but that's absolute bullshit.  If you watch a film, read a book, go to a play, listen to some music, watch an interpretive dance recital, subtext ALWAYS matters.  In fact, in some mediums the subtext is the point of the piece in the first place.

You might be content with wandering aimlessly through life thinking that The Road Not Taken is about some bloke walking home or that Don't Look Now is about some guy being murdered by a dwarf but the rest of us aren't that shallow.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah, but the problem is that that's the very idea that I take exception to, so just asserting the negation won't get you very far.  My whole point is that RPGs DO have subtexts and DO have intellectual political leanings.

So, on the one hand, I agree with that subtext exists.  RPGs are written by people, who have views.  Those views will make a subtext of the background, characters, and rules.  They might express classical values of good and evil, or they might be revolutionary, or political satire (i.e. "commie mutant traitors").  But they are there.  

On the other hand, getting fired up about the subtext of an RPG makes it sound much more like stories rather than traditional games like Chess or Monopoly.  Does anyone get upset because of the collectivist themes of a magic deer in Talisman or the totalitarian economics of Monopoly?  

Should RPGs try not to have subtext or themes?  Or should they just not have subtext which you don't like?  

QuoteShould RPGs try not to have subtext or themes?  

The problem is the following: Games that take themselves seriously. If they try to be aimed at adults or at least politically thinking persons, than I can`t stand cheap substitutes for complex stuff like politics.

I don't think you can escape subtext in text.

But at the same time, I rarely go looking for a subtext in a game or wrestling with one.  It's a tricky issue.  One hand, it's very easy to read "kill orc, take gold" as statement about the economic basis of racism.  On the other hand I am just playing a stupid game and "beat the other team, score big points" could be just as valid a reading.

For me, it's all about subtlety.  There's always going to be subtext.  What I don't enjoy is when it becomes "Supertext", so to speak ("Hey!  YOU!  THIS IS  THE ONETRUEWAY!").

I don't have to agree with everything I read, but when that subtext gets too preachy, insistent, or absolutist, I'm out.  It's the difference between Shaw's satires and a SNL skit.

I'm with Jrients on this one. Kill the "enemy" take its stuff. If the enemy happens to look communist, capitalist, science, religion, whatever, then whoop-de-friggin-doo. If anything, that's just game designers being heavy-handed with their plot hooks by making somebody look bad. In the real world, this wouldn't fly with me. But when I wanna kill some demons I frankly don't care who gets demonized.

Quote from: jhkimShould RPGs try not to have subtext or themes?  Or should they just not have subtext which you don't like?

Hmmm.  I'm not entirely sure it's possible for RPGs to not have subtexts, and for it to not influence players.

My example is the ongoing, rabid discussion about D&D character generation: random-roll versus point-buy.  Lots of people get really excited about this topic, and I think a lot of them don't really understand why.

In my opinion, it's almost purely a subtext issue.

The subtext of random roll:  Life isn't fair.  All people are not created equal.  Some people are just flat-out better at everything than some other people.  Maybe you'll get lucky, maybe you won't; either way, you play the hand you're dealt.

The subtext of point-buy:  Life is fair.  No one is good at everything.  People who are really smart are clumsy, or weak, or unhealthy, or unwise, or ugly, or all of the above.

And that's just the subtext for one little subsystem in a much larger game.

Another example: consider all the words written about various RPGs and the degree to which they are 'gritty'.  I'd suggest that 'grittiness' is almost purely a subtext issue.

Quote from: jhkimDoes anyone get upset because of ... the totalitarian economics of Monopoly?

Consider this article on how and why almost everyone plays Monopoly wrong:
http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue10/CampaignRealMonopoly1.html

It's not quite as clear to me that this is also a subtext issue, but I think it's not totally divorced from it, either.


Cheers,
Roger

As sort of a side-illustration, let me bring up some of the ways certain comic book companies introduce gay characters.  Very rarely do they say, "Oh, hey, here's Captain Excellence, he's a total badass who can set shit on fire with his mind, he totally rocks", and we only incidentally find out he's gay in issue #12.

No, they like to have press releases to the effect of "ZOMG!!!!  WE HAVE A GAY CHARACTER!!  We feel this is a progressive move that shows our attention and care for real-life issues!!!" and make hellaciously certain that every goddamn issue will have a reference to the remade Captain Excellence's sexual orentation (but what was his power again?).

There's a difference between an evil conquering overlord named Beorgegush who rules as a priest-king by help of his demon Crony, Rovar, and characters being caught in the middle of a war that through experience, they learn was more nuanced and complicated than they originally thought.

Many game publishers wear their pet causes/beliefs on their sleeves, too, never realizing that hitting folks over the head with something, no matter how progressive or right you feel you are, is not the best way to garner popularity for you or your work.

Monopoly is junk, even with the auction rules. Played it last year that way, it`s faster, but still a bad game.

If I wore my political feelings on my sleeve, most people would run and hide. I try my best not to let any of it show.

-clash

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI don't have to agree with everything I read, but when that subtext gets too preachy, insistent, or absolutist, I'm out.  It's the difference between Shaw's satires and a SNL skit.

  I really don't see why this is a problem.  This relativistic bullshit utterly infests RPG discussion forums.  In fact, if there's a reason why I respect The Forge it's for having the balls to say "Actually, I think you'd have more fun if you played this way".

  I have no problem with people arguing with me or disagreeing with me on what the fact of the matter is about different things, but I can't stand the fact that whenever you want to talk about anything that isn't subjective everyone assumes the recovery position and calls for their parents to come pick them up.

  Obviously you can't force people to play the way you do or read the kinds of books you do or watch the kinds of films you do but I really think that if you're not willing to stand up and say "You'd be better off doing what I do" and then explain why it is you're right and others are wrong then I seriously question your commitment and your passion for anything.

  Seriously, only gamers suffer from this.  If I go onto a comedy forum and say "Black Books is the greatest comedy series of all time" I can have an argument about it with people who will come back with the fact that I'm wrong and that it's clearly Monty Python's Flying Circus.  If I go on a sci-fi list I can argue that Stephen Baxter is a better writer than Arthur C Clarke and we can have an argument about it.  On a number of occasions, I've even been convinced that someone else's One True Way was correct and I was wrong.

  RPGs should be "about" something.  Whether it's a one off con game or a the first in a series of rulebooks.  You walk into writing something with a load of intellectual baggage with you, you should know where those pieces of baggage show up and know how to manipulate and exploit them.

  Warhammer is a Great Game because, post enemy within, it is about the realities of living in that period.  It is interesting because up until that point, nobody had looked at that side of things.

  Paranoia is a Great Game because it is all about mankind's tolerance for brutality and his tendency to enforce and encourage that brutality when it's to his advantage.  How else do you think that the Computer survives?

  Call of Cthulhu is a Great Game because while your character might well acheive some stuff and learn a little bit about the mythos, in the long run he's going to wiond up dead or crazy and that's what life is.

  As a text, Mage is clearly about the fact that science is an oppressive force that stops people from having whatever half-baked opinion they feel like having.  If it had the balls to stick to this subtext then it would undeniably be a great game... I mean how many RPGs explore philosophical concepts?  But with lashings of in-game rationalisations, it hamstrings itself... it allows you to play "nice" scientists and makes it clear that not all scientists are evil even though it cites, at great length, a passage from a Robert Persig book that suggests that the laws of physics are no more real than the ghosts that American Indians believe in.

Quote from: jrientsI don't think you can escape subtext in text.

I don't think you can escape people reading in subtext into text.

Reminds me of the name of Willie Loman from Death of a Salesman.  In my Grade 12 English class that name was held up as an example of a literary device. It was a stock answer expected to be given for a question on the offical government final exams for crying out loud.  That it was ment that Willie was a "low man" in society.

But I later read an interview with Arthur Miller where he said that it wasn't that at all. It was just the name of a bit character from an old film he had seen. The film was set in Paris, IIRC. Officer Loman was a beat cop that was frantically trying to call in to HQ from a payphone and he turned to look at his attacker bearing down on him (the camera was from the attacker POV) he looked into the camera with a facial expression of hopeless horror that really stuck with Miller.

So here was all this academic perpondering and conjecture about where the name came from. But apparently none of them bothered to actually ask the author?

Quote from: blakkieSo here was all this academic perpondering and conjecture about where the name came from. But apparently none of them bothered to actually ask the author?

Pomo analysis generally holds author intent as irrelevant, or in any event the author's interpretation as no more valid than anyone else's.

So no, I doubt they would ask the author.  What would he know about it after all?

Ah, new criticism anyone?

Quote from: BalbinusPomo analysis generally holds author intent as irrelevant, or in any event the author's interpretation as no more valid than anyone else's.

So no, I doubt they would ask the author.  What would he know about it after all?

Which is where they take leave of reality and weld shut the doors to their ivory towers. As criticism, it makes nice fertilizer.

-clash

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI really don't see why this is a problem.  This relativistic bullshit utterly infests RPG discussion forums.  In fact, if there's a reason why I respect The Forge it's for having the balls to say "Actually, I think you'd have more fun if you played this way".

Hey guy, I don't see anything wrong with saying I don't want subtext to be laid on so thick I can chew it.  Hell, I didn't say games shouldn't have any or that it should only align with my beliefs, just it's my preference that it shouldn't be clumsy and overpower the rest of the game.

QuoteI have no problem with people arguing with me or disagreeing with me on what the fact of the matter is about different things, but I can't stand the fact that whenever you want to talk about anything that isn't subjective everyone assumes the recovery position and calls for their parents to come pick them up.

Hell, we can argue.  But that doesn't mean I want you following me home from work saying the same thing over and over again.  So it goes with my gaming--if you're stomping up and down in your text repeatedly that _______ is ______, I'm going to likely be turned off by that.  What the hell is wrong with wanting a little subtlety?

QuoteObviously you can't force people to play the way you do or read the kinds of books you do or watch the kinds of films you do but I really think that if you're not willing to stand up and say "You'd be better off doing what I do" and then explain why it is you're right and others are wrong then I seriously question your commitment and your passion for anything.

Hey, you want to make a statement with your game, awesome.  Hell, tell everyone of how they should appreciate loons more, how the USA is an evil empire, or how furries are (sort of) people, too.  I think games have the power to let us explore all sorts of topics.  Just make sure the statement doesn't come across as onetruewayist, a ranting political manifesto, or "people who believe X are right, all others can suck donkey balls".  I wouldn't enjoy reading a novel that was that transparent, and I sure as hell wouldn't like it in a game.  If a writer can't express an idea without bludgeoning someone to death with it, chances are I'm not going to enjoy his writing much.  Relativism and that nonsense doesn't enter into it.  I just want my subtext to remain "sub", as it were.