Now, I'm not to hip to industry personalities or how they think, so I'm probably the last person who should be posting something like this. But, really I don't think I would really have a problem, with designers incorporating their world view into their games.

Now, I'm not saying that I have not come across, elements in a game, which I have had trouble subscribing to -which is not to say that the designers subscribe to these elements either - but, I'm not really too concerned with the notion of designers incorporating their personal beliefs in a game. I'll just discard those parts that I'm uncomfortable with and use those I'm okay with.

Which is not to say, that a game should lecture. Some, do, although I'm hard pressed to name one off hand - I never understood what the big deal was with Blue Rose - I liked the system, but the setting did not do anything for me or the rest of my gaming group. It just seemd so bland.

What about you folks, are there any games or the work of designers you wouldn't touch, because said designers may have incorporated some of their own views in their games?


Regards,
David R

I'm with you I think. There are game settings that contain ideas I don't agree with (Blue Rose is an excellent example), but I've found them to almost always be simple to alter to suit my tastes better.

No, don't mind.  Heck, I'm not even opposed to playing in a setting that I disagree with some of its moral assumptions.  It's a fictional world and it might be fun to play there, even if I wouldn't accept its judgements in the real world.

There is one bias most any designer brings to his design. That being, whatever he finds repulsive the people of the world he creates will find repulsive as well.

The big deal is whether a game comes out as sounding like cheap moralizing, or being fashionably controversial or whatever, or whether its a game that has issues (including issues that are of importance to a GM) but are presented in a balanced, playable way.

When a game designer's values are presented as absolute good, and the opposite of his values as absolute evil, I find that whether or not they agree with me its likely to be a pretty useless game.  I can stand games with a philosophical stance that's different than mine so long as there is depth to the presentation.

RPGPundit

I instinctively bristle at the idea of having a game's moral universe dictated to me.  At the same time, I understand that not every game will use the Blue Rose cudgel (as I understand it from what I've read.)

If I find a game mostly interesting with one glaring element that I find insulting or disgusting in the extreme, I'll excise the bad bits and roll with what's left.  I've yet to find the game that has me shrieking and running through the streets, so I can't really be sure, though.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe big deal is whether a game comes out as sounding like cheap moralizing, or being fashionably controversial or whatever, or whether its a game that has issues (including issues that are of importance to a GM) but are presented in a balanced, playable way.
 
When a game designer's values are presented as absolute good, and the opposite of his values as absolute evil, I find that whether or not they agree with me its likely to be a pretty useless game. I can stand games with a philosophical stance that's different than mine so long as there is depth to the presentation.
 
RPGPundit

This sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.

Just to add to my original post. I think I'd appreciate a good polemic over a bland setting , but since I've yet to come across something like this in RPGs (from what I've played/read) this is one of those untested statements.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJust to add to my original post. I think I'd appreciate a good polemic over a bland setting , but since I've yet to come across something like this in RPGs (from what I've played/read) this is one of those untested statements.
 
Regards,
David R

I'm not sure--a lot of game designers/writers don't exactly seem to grasp the concept of subtlety overly well.

Thinking about it further, I once wanted to run a game set in an unnamed multi ethnic city in the near future where strict Christian doctrine was imposed. The pcs would play  genetically enhanced "morality police" based on the emotion police of Equilibrium enforcing morality on the sometimes reluctant denizens.

I never did manage to run it for various reasons, the most important of which I could not figure out what I was trying to accomplish. Were the pcs supposed to undergo a kind of ideological "conversion"? - a cop out according to some of my players. Figuring out the antagonist was complex, simply because I didn't want to have an overly simpistic view of those whose beliefs differed from the mainstream dogma of the setting.

Now this was my own little crappy setting, what more if it was a published setting, and the designers views were so overt, that it drowned out everything else - so maybe I'm not so appreciative of a polemic after all - but then again a chance to steal cool elements trumps whatever distaste I may have for the politics involved

Regards,
David R

Personally, I'd prefer something morally neutral. It doesn't really belong in gaming.

Most of the game designers I've seen who try to push morality in their games come off somewhere between the usual ham-handed leftwing extremist and the smug college kid who took a philosophy course once.

I like it when games have strong socio-political elements in them, which probably comes through in my own writing.  Even if you don't agree with the author's PoV it makes things more interesting.  That goes for novels too.  Peter F Hamilton is quite right wing in his personal views yet I find his books entertaining, in part because his convictions come through, conversely China Mieville's books wouldn't be half as interesting without his leftist views and his historical knowledge of the labour movement.

When it comes to games I have liked Victoriana, SLA Industries, Cyberpunk and Paranoia as much for their subversive themes as their overt ones.

I don't think it's avoidable

Any non-trivial piece of writing is going to be influenced by the prejudices of the author

If they say that there is only one particular "right" way to play the game then this is a problem.  Some might use "Blue Rose" as an iconic example of this, but I can't because I haven't read the game

If a writer is aware of when they are putting their prejudices into the writing, understands why he or she is doing it and believes that this is the right thing to do then I don't see the problem

I'm going to use my own writing as an example.  Both Tim and I believe that we are living in a decadent and vunerable society and that most citizens just don't realise just how unprepared they are for a natural or man-made disaster (physically, mentally and morally).  This is reflected in our work on "Year of the Zombie"

There's a particular paragraph in Havens where I'm taking a contraversial stance on a highly emotive subject and presenting my view as if it was a fact.  I probably shouldn't do it, but it's something that I feel so strongly about that to give an opposing viewpoint would mean compromising myself

I don't see how games can be morally neutral unless they simply say nothing about the world and characters in it.  

If I've got a world with absolute good and evil, well then I'm taking a moral stand about what absolute good looks like.  The only way I can avoid it is to say nothing about what the good guys are like or how they behave.  

But even if there are shades of gray, I'm still tinging everything by my view.

Quote from: jhkimI don't see how games can be morally neutral unless they simply say nothing about the world and characters in it.  

If I've got a world with absolute good and evil, well then I'm taking a moral stand about what absolute good looks like.  The only way I can avoid it is to say nothing about what the good guys are like or how they behave.  

But even if there are shades of gray, I'm still tinging everything by my view.

I think two definitions of "incorporating their world view" are in use here. As jhkim says, it's impossible for any writer not to portray a world view tinged by his personal feelings - that's one definition. It is also very possible to write in such a way that the writer's opinions are not forced down the reader's throat - that's the second. There are an infinite number of possibilities in between, and the reader's personal line between "tinged by world view" and "shoved down throat" varies enormously.

-clash