Thanks to Paul for the pointer to this video presentation by Jane McGonigal at the New Yorker's Stories from the Near Future conference.

I'd like to discuss some of the things Jane says, if anyone is up for that. She is talking about Alternate Reality Games specifically, but most of it is relevant to analogue games like story gamjes as well.

I noted down what she said about immersion: "Gameplay is about immmersion [but] it's not about immersing yourself in a story or character or graphics or fantasy, it's actually about immersing yourself in an interactive system and your engagement with that system, and your engagement with other people playing games, that's the core focus of gameplay."

About games in general: "Games can be a contructive response to social problems - we could create games that try to address a social problem."

And lastly: "We play them because when we play we are not suffering."

Now, the marxist deeply embedded in my mind is slightly wary of the last quote - this means games are a potential suppressive method, but perhaps that's over-reacting.

Comments are welcome, also examples of story games that actually address social problems and how (Steal Away Jordan and Shock springs immediately to mind).

Perfect RPG is about society becoming more important than the individual, and what happens to those who don't fit the plan. I've not played the game, but everything I've read and heard about it sounds fascinating.

carry also could be seen as that kind of game, about people struggling the keep identity during a time of war and incredible stress and inhumanity.

ME

Okay, I hate to be a wet blanket, but ... reality check here.

Playing games doesn't save the world from anything except lack of games.

If playing games helps you to build skills that you then transfer into other parts of your life, and that helps you take actions to save the world ... well then, great! But it's the actions you took, not the games.

With that in mind, I actually think that a lot of games teach skills that you can use to make your life and the lives of those around you better. For instance, most games can help you to learn how to fully and passionately engage in conflict with another person, without demonizing them or hating them at the end. That's a skill in short supply.

Before we all collectively jump the wrong cliff - "Saving the world through game design" was the title of the presentation, not an opinion of mine. FWIW I don't think the world needs to be saved.

I was interested in the bit about being able to address social issues in games, how we can do it and if it has any validity at all - should we do it, can it be done, or is escapism the true purpose f.ex.

Besides, I thought Jane's take on immersion made sense to me, at least it made me understand why I don't have a clue when people talk about immersing in a character and don't fx. want to engage with a game's mechanics because they [insert own words of choice here].

Bear also in mind that I quoted bits and pieces out of context (I'm a journalist, that's what we do), if you are interested in the world-saving aspects I guess you'll have to watch the video.

Posted By: TonyLB
Playing games doesn't save the world from anything except lack of games.

I was about to post the same. The best way to save the world through game design is to design a game, sell it, and give all profits to an organization which is actually saving the world (United Way, NPOs, etc).

But then:

Posted By: Per FischerBefore we all collectively jump the wrong cliff - "Saving the world through game design" was the title of the presentation, not an opinion of mine. FWIW I don't think the world needs to be saved.

I was interested in the bit about being able to address social issues in games, how we can do it and if it has any validity at all - should we do it, can it be done, or is escapism the true purpose f.ex.

Ah, ok. Sorry about that. However, based on the pullquotes/ideas from the lecture, I'm still nor sure that people are going to help make meaningful changes in anyone other than the small group of gamers (3-4 other people) who are playing the game... and those are the people who are going to be the most receptive to that change, anyway. Otherwise they probably wouldn't be your friends.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? That the problem isn't the people receptive to that sort of change, but the ones who absolutely won't change (racists, facists, sexual deviants, misogynists, etc)... You won't be able to change them through a game, will you? If anything, it's not going to be through a tabletop game (maybe a console game, or something?). I don't play with racists, womanizers, bigots etc (well, one dude in one of my groups is bigoted against organized religion, but that's a minor thing IMO), so if I bring them a "social/life-changing game", they're going to be receptive to it, because they're already going to be receptive to that sort of thing. It's not going to be a "jump" in behavior, more like a shuffle one foot to the left.

It's the people NOT receptive to positive change that we have to worry about:anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever-we-don't-like-these-days, etc. And I don't think putting carry or Steal Away Jordan into game stores is going to change, or even have any opportunity to reach, some racist fuck in the Ozarks, or some frustrated young Palestinian in the Gaza Strip.

EDIT: Ultimately, I believe (and this is my own opinion, mind) "gaming"/"game design" won't have any more social/life changing effects that we wouldn't also see in other idle passtimes like:
Scrapbooking
Knitting
Surfing
Chainsaw cutting competitions
Mah Jongg

Posted By: Per FischerNow, the marxist deeply embedded in my mind is slightly wary of the last quote - this means games are a potential suppressive method, but perhaps that's over-reacting.

That's what they are. The cold glass of vodka for the tired day-laborer after being in the factory working his body all day, has been replaced with the light-hearted session of roleplaying (or console gaming, which is far more pervasive, but it's the same effect) for the white-collar worker after using her brain all day. It's not a "tool of control" or anything like that, though.

-Andy

Michael, you are right - adressing issues not necessarily solving them, and I did ask for game examples and got a handful of good ones, cheers :)

So, Andy, games can be a replacement for religion as "opium for the masses" - that's possibly the exact opposite as being able to raise people's awareness. I guess they can be both, depending on the game and what you want from it.

Posted By: Andy

Posted By: merb101"Games can be a contructive response to social problems - we could create games that try to address a social problem."

Doesn't "address" = "solve/work towards solving" in these dialogues?

-Andy

Hey, I don't think I typed that.

ME

I think you can quite easily take real world issues and explore them around a gaming table - I'm mulling over a series of ideas for Malcolm Craig's upcoming 'Hot War' using the current farce in Zimbabwe as an 'inspiration' (although there is nothing inspiring about it). I think historical games can be used to put history (and therefore attitudes and politics) into a context that might be at odds with the received wisdom of the event. The ability of games to zoom in on a situation, place you in the middle and then say 'what would you do?' is a very powerful tool.

Of course, one of the problems that you might face is that the player isn't the one facing the situation, rather than the character they are playing. Its almost like you need a suspension of the suspension of disbelief. For example, in my Hot War game all three players descended into quite right-wing totalitarian mindsets from the off. At least two of the three are very liberal in their views (and the third is a tory, so for the Americans in the audience, thats still left wing, right? *wink*). The characters they were playing were divorced from their own views and therefore I can see how that distance can take the impact off the personal explorative part of the game. If you play a game like this thinking 'It doesn't matter what I do, its only a game...' then you will have that disconnect from the 'learning'

And thats a very easy mindset to slot into - after all, how many times have we resorted in games to 'invade the homes of sentient beings, massacre them, steal their belongings and then return home to triumph!'?

As for games, in their wider context, being used as a soporific tool to becalm the population .. you never know, you might be right? I remember being told by one of my trot college friends that he could never like football, because the popularity of the game amongst the working classes in the 1920s and 30s was cited as one of the main reasons that there was never a socialist revolution in the UK. Throughout history people have sought distractions to take their minds off the shit that is presented before them - games, especially console games - could just be this generations overwhelming 'hit' when it comes to that distraction.

Neil

I have not saved the world through my game design yet, but will try. Will try!

Eh, I'm at a loss how, though, so I will have to think about it.

Looks funny, or what? Well, I'm still in earnest, and at the same time I smile at my vain ambition. I will certainly do my best to be a positive force in our lives, through my game design (in other respects too, of course, but my games are a way to reach more people ...). I found the talk by Jane McGonigal to be very inspiring, and very much a pointer toward games for change, aside with other phenomenons surfacing nowadays, especially among Norwegian designers. There is a surge of new, serious design, both interesting and promising. I believe RPGs are on the brink of a development-leap, actually.

And I want to be among the first leaping off the cliff! It has to be a leap of faith, of course, as there is nothing out there to land on, yet ... ;-)

Thinking aloud here:

Games are generally perceived to be for fun. This may have to do with us letting go in a game, immersing ourselves in an interactive system. It is conceivable that such an interactive system may be made to empower us. So games made for fun, may be made for change at the same time. It may be perceived as great fun to immerse yourself in real world politics, within the frames of a "game".

"Game": if we are gaming real world politics; is it still a game? Does it matter? (would not thinking of it a game, reduce the fun in it?)

Why would we like to make real world politics into fun gaming? Wouldn't that be stupid or laughable? Well, it may be conceived that way, but consider; fun is linked to the brain-centers producing our happiness-stuff. Things are "fun" due to the fact that they produce happiness. Happiness is a state with its own qualities. It makes for infectious enthusiasm (useful), more energy (useful), better social-skills (useful) and improved empathy (useful). These qualities may be decisive in relation to the solution of political problems in a positive way. Politics are very much about relations and communications, when you boil it down. So that is one reason to pruport the use of gaming techniques for political change.

Another reason we may want to make politics into fun gaming, or make use of gaming techniques to engage people in politics, is indeed the lack of engagement in lots of people, when it comes to politics. The lack of engagement in politics is so severe today, that it threatens the foundations of democracy; the electoral process. If the ruling organs are elected by a minority, they lose authority. Still, more than this; the lack of engagement and lack of will to do anything with problems plaguing us or our neighbors, are as big a threat. People have a mounting feeling of being powerless in relation to both small and big issues of today. It is conceivable that we need a lot of "happiness-energy" to make a difference on war in the middle east, famine spreading in the world, pollution destroying our weather-systems, the pestilence of aids rampaging many Arfrican countries.

That's all fine, but how do we make games to change this? What gaming techniques may we use to empower ourselves? How do we relate to real world problems through a game? For sure; we must make "games" of a very different kind than we are used to. We need to change our thinking as game-designers to do that. I believe we need to make some kind of "agenda-games". And these "agenda-games" need to empower the players, not make them follow any premade idea of what politics they shall make. The game must let them make the politics.

"Agenda-games": games with an agenda, made to address some issue, and to make players use their energy finding solutions (or investigating alternative takes on the issue).

That's enough for now. Hope this all makes sense.

Thomas, those are ambitious goals for your games - I like it!

Luke, I agree, but am wondering whether our sub-sub culture of artistically charged story games (let's face it, they are a teeny weeny corner within an already small community compared to the number of people playing video games fx) can muster any impact worth mentioning. I guess it can.

You are also right regarding people. When I said the world didn't need saving, I also meant that I think humans DO need 'saving', or changing. But people have to change themselves, they cannot be changed by force. When we engage with art, or express ourselves artistically, we change, or may change. But not everyone plays games with that in mind or with that preference. For me personally, it's essential.

Apologies for the high rambling factor.

Of course games can address social problems. Games can also be conduits through which we can express and articulate our beliefs around social problems. To toot my own horn, Full Light, Full Steam exists as a means to address modern social issues through a "safe" fantastic setting (which just happens to involve imperialism, crushing class and economic distinctions, conflicts between duty, honor, and pragmatism, and the ever-present "Woman Question"). Sons of Liberty allows players to play with historical figures and events, and the resulting games are full of interesting interactions that only happen because it's "just a game." Conquer the Horizon has never resulted in a game that didn't hit social issues fast and hard, and Agora goes full steam into that brick wall.

In fact, I can't see how games can avoid addressing social issues, especially if you consider complete escapism (this subject is distressing, let's elide it) to be a telling response.