Some thoughts on games
Posted By Marc on January 9, 2009
One of the more interesting activities that humans come up with is games (loosely construed). Back in the day, aka before the Methodist onslaught destroyed play as a serious activity in the 17th century, games and play acted as educational and/training events for people. We can see this in activities as varied as cossak (or Highland) sword dancing to “Ring Around the Rosy”. Of course, after Wesley’s spritiual descendants got finished, “games” (and play) were relegated to the realm of the “childish” unless they were “serious” and “scientific”; usually termed “simulations” or “representational modelling” rather than “games”.
Wesley and the subjugation of reality
John Wesley has a lot to answer for but his most grievous sin, in my opinion, was his lack of a sense of play. It’s not that he appears to have lacked such a sense in and of itself so much as it is that he systematically spread this psychosis to others.
Some people may feel that I am being quite unfair to Wesley in this characterization of him and there is more than a grain of truth in that. However, more than anyone else, and I include FW Taylor in that crowd, Wesley destoyed the cultural legitimacy of play and games as a serious activity and, in so doing, set up the situation we find ourselves in today where, in order to be taken seriously, “games” must follow a scientific (read “quantitative”) model.
Why? The functional purpose of games is to both train and educate people; both children and adults. Games and play in the general are, in many cultures, one of the foremost methods of communicating social knowledge while, at the same time, allowing for the exploration of alternative “solutions” to recognized problem sets that are encoded in the games themselves.
Games and reality construction
I don’t normally blog about games, but my experience over the past week has made me really want to say something about games and their realtionship to how we construct our perceptions of reality. As I mentioned in my last post, I was down in DC for most of the week presenting with my friend and colleague Rob Thornton on a truly exceptional case study that Rob spearheaded.
The purpose of the presentation was to help inform how one part of the US Army simulates current conflicts. After all, the better the simulations, and by “better” I mean “the closer that they approximate reality”, the more likely people are to plan intelligently and, hopefully, avoid stupid decisions that cost lives by either avoiding getting into wars in the first place or, if they still happen, by attempting to avoid extremely costly mistakes.
But as the session wore on, I was reminded of something that I had learned, and forgotten, back in the days when I was a game designer (a previous career incarnation): people not only use games to teach themselves about reality, they use games to select their reality. The corrolary of this is that, sometimes, people get “lost” inside the simulations they create and end up mistaking them for reality. This is a tragedy when it happens at the individual level, but it is a catastrophe when it happens at the social level.
When you sit down to design games, one of the things that you always have to be aware of is your own biases. Indeed, good game design is actually very similar to good ethnography; you need to have a “feel” for the tensions, structures and worldviews of the “sides” you are describing. This is especially true when you are dealing with multiple cultures (real or imagined) that have basic conceptual differences about “reality” - “space” and “time”, “life” and “place”, etc. – that shape how reality is connected.
I don’t mean this in any Post Modernist academic sense at all; I am talking about it game design terms. If you are building a game where magic operates (such as D & D, etc.), you need to have a coherent conceptualization of where that magic comes from, how it operates and what is necessary to use it. In a similar manner, if you are designing a simulation of irhabi insurgency and counter-insurgency, you need to understand how they conceptualize reality such that their observed actions are logically comprehensible.
One simple example illustrates this quite well: many irhabi activities in Iraq and Afghanistan are designed not to win a kinetic victory but, rather, to generate video footage that will have a global spread and influence on perception in the rest of the world. This is a basic conceptualization of “Place and Space” that is radically different from conventional Western military thinking that focuses in on a limited geographic area. For the irhabi, the Area of Operations (AO) is glocal while for much of the Western military the AO is local (i.e. geographically limited).
To my mind, it only makes sense that if we “know” that irhabi groups conceive of their action along glocal lines, then the simulations being designed to look at them make this assumption as well.
A few concluding remarks
Back when I was a game designer (1983-1987) and even before that when I was just really heavily into gaming, many of us viewed games as a way to “play” with our perceptions of reality. Playing Dungeons and Dragons (before AD&D came out!), taught many of us about history and about the effects of technology on societies and cultures. Playing games had all sorts of positive effects on the players (and still does!), but one of the ones that I noticed the most was the increased mental flexibility that came from playing all sorts of different games and, especially, from being a Games Master.
Back in the 1970′s and 1980′s, being a Games Master, especially in some of the more flexible RPG systems (that’s Role Playing Games not Rocket Propelled Grenades!), really forced you to think about things. This was especially true if you were GMing for a bunch of other GMs who would constantly challenge your interpretation of reality when they would come up with the most outlandish actions with completely logical arguments for them (if he was still alive, you could ask Gary Gygax why I was one of three people who could “legally” play a Lawful Good Assasin in AD&D).
The key behind all of this lies in the fact that we, players and designers both, were doing this for fun. While many of us made our livings at it, we knew that if we became too “serious” we would cut off the muse of creativity that powered the gaming industry. For many of us, gaming was social theatre along the lines of A Night at the Improv rather than Shakespeare.
From Car Wars and Illuminati, through dark visions like the Morrow Project and social commentary like Bunnies and Burrows, the games that came out of this effloresence of creativity allowed people to explore alternate realities and, in so doing, develop an ease with gaining an empathic understanding (verstehen) of other cultural perceptions. Today, we see the same creative efflorescence in many of the online gaming communities including that “realest” of RPGs: Second Life.
And it is this creative efflorescence that, I would submit, is so desperately needed to exorcise the pernicious ghost of John Wesley from the military simulation community. Being bright, dedicated and hard workers, Wesley’s criteria for the “Good”, are not enough when you need to understand and model the twisting, shifting and inherently anti-Wesleyan understandings of various irhabi groups. Maybe the US Army should offer an X Prize for producing the best game. If it ever does, I may well just dust off my old game design mental models and get back into the….. game.
______________________
As a footnote, just in case anyone may be interested, I used to be the main game designer for and owner of Valhalla Simulation Games (1983-1987).
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on 
Mr. Xyz on 
Marc on
If the late, great Gary Gygax thought you could pull of the LG Assassin, I may just have to fall down and kowtow to you like Garth and Wayne did Alice Cooper in Wayne’s World.
Seriously, though, back in 1982 my 6th grade teacher at Ramstein Elementary offered the more bookish of us the use of the classroom at lunchtime to get us to play D&D because she thought it taught critical thinking. It also just happened to also enhance reading skills and interest in history. These days, though, some employers look askance at people who admit to being gamers, either in the MMO or tabletop formats because they see them as immature or unstable. Is this an extension of the Wesley effect on the perception of games, or is it related to something else, like the perception that fantasy and science fiction are merely escapist literature?
To me the irhabi use of both old and new media to deliver their message, demonstrate resolve, and to show the vulnerability of their statist opponents is merely an extension of the goals and methods of Marxist and other terrorist groups operating in the 1970′s and 1980′s. Media attention and government response resulting from aircraft hijackings, car bombs, and assassinations were as important to furthering the goals of terrorists as the immediate stated goals of the actual operations. The difference is that now the means of creating and distributing the media are as much in the hands of the terrorists as they are in media organizations.
Hi Chris,
Yup…. a landmark in D&D history – 1979 CanGames, private D&D session for GMs only .
I know what you mean about employers looking at gamers askance. You, or your 6th grade teacher
, are absolutely right about it developing critical thinking, and interest in history and reading skills. Of course, and this is what some employers pick up on, “critical thinking” isn’t something that can just be turned off – it tends to apply to your employer as well as their problems.
On the media point, I tend to agree, but with a major exception – I believe that one of the key points is also recruitment. In the 1970′s and 1980′s, most of the Marxist terrorist organizations (e.g. Baader-Meinhof, etc.) didn’t have much of a potential recruitment base. Today’s irhabi, OTOH, do have a major potential recruitment base that lives in the “homeland”. This potential recruitment base is, IMHO, just one of the goals of such operations in addition to the “normal” IO/PSYOPS attack that the older, Marxist groups used.
Back to hiring gamers – one of the people I met was a gamer; did some work with AH and my impression was that he was still able to think sideways like most of us do. However, he did seem to be under a lot of pressure to conform with the OR mindset of many of his “peers”. It’s really too bad – I’ve gamed some of the stuff he did, and it was great. I hope he can withstand the groupthink that seems to be going on in his shop.
I just realized I didn’t answer one of your questions….
“Is this an extension of the Wesley effect on the perception of games, or is it related to something else, like the perception that fantasy and science fiction are merely escapist literature?”
I suspect that it is part of a larger, materialist reaction against those of us who have “touched” chaos. Wesley really established the anti-games / anti-play meme, but it is all part of a more general trend towards the material; a “domestication” of the spirit, creativity and self-sufficiency.
I know you have followed some of the debates I’ve had with Max Forte at OpenAnthropology [http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/]. Max and I do disagree on a lot of things, but I think we both share a serious concern about social forces and groups that are trying to stifle the human spirit. Max, I believe (and I hope he comments on this), tends to view rebellion against authority as the sine qua non of the human spirit coming forth. I tend to be more “conservative” and view individual creativity, either inside or outside, of “established authority” as the sine qua non.
Regardless of what disagreements we may have, I suspect that Max also assigns Wesley to his pet collection of demonology.
The worst of it is that Wesley had “good intentions” (and the old saw tells us where THAT leads!). He saw a lower class that was mired in drink, gaming and other “unproductive work” that destroyed them. His “Method” was designed to “free” them from the opiates which mired them in their own “filth”. But he never saw beyond the immediate. He may have “saved” them from their immediate life, but his thoughts and actions doomed generation that came afterwards to a life that was uniformly devoid of joy and creativity.
[...] 2009 by admin in COIN, Epistemology I wanted to post a quick follow-up to the example I used in my last post regarding conceptualizations of space and time. In it, I noted that “For the irhabi, the [...]
What!? Gygax is dead!? Nobody told me!
Hey Jim,
Yup, ’twas a tragedy.
The use of “gamer” seems to be an ever changing reference. 20 years ago, it referred to tabletop pen and paper type games. Today’s gamer is more online. Any thoughts on the social acceptance of today’s gamer vs that of the high point of pen & paper in the 1980s?
I would suggest that the 1980s had a better chance to extinguish the stigma associated with the term rather than today. Back then, there was a small push for RPGs to be more socially acceptable – TSR had programs to get D&D into the schools and libraries. Gaming seems happy to remain in the basement these days.
Pen & paper games allowed and rewarded sideways thinking. Their choice of options came from the domain of infinite imagination. Online gamers are limited by the choices allowed them by programmers. Although the choices are ever increasing, it still seems that a large number of gamers look for patterns to exploit (in games such as WoW) which are found by 1 creative individual then copied by many that read the instructions. Games like secondlife, may attract a new demographic (one which pen & paper may never have captured), but the benefits of playing seem questionable.
I think it is safe to say that more people play games today than ever before and that social interaction is at an all time high but the benefits such as stimulating the mind, developing critical thinking, etc are at a much reduced level from 20 years ago. It does beg the question which benefits society. Also, I don’t think the current state of gaming has contributed to removing the “childish” tag.
Now for what brought me to your blog. I was wondering if you had a list of the games that you created under Valhalla Simulation Games? I have managed to track down Outime but was wondering about the supplements produced for the game. Also I’m still looking for M’Aryanni Warrior and Wayfarer. Any chance you have some extras of these still kicking around?
Hi Mark,
Great comment!
“Any thoughts on the social acceptance of today’s gamer vs that of the high point of pen & paper in the 1980s?”
My gut guess is that while acceptance is more general, the concerns about gaming, per se, are also more general. Back in the ’80′s, we were all lumped together under that single header – “gamers” (sometimes “geeks”…). Nowadays, that’s much harder to do given the spread of online gaming, but I am also seeing more commentary about gaming addiction, etc.
I think you are spot on about the benefits from the different forms. I find most of the games today to be quite restrictive, at least in terms of handling “non-standard” concepts (this, BTW, is one of the reasons I love Red Teaming in military PBX games). I have also noticed a serious decline in the mental flexibility of people in the generic GM role as well; something that truly bothers me and is, I believe, quite reflective of the changes in effects produced by gaming.
On the VSG stuff; I only published one supplement to Outime, although I have the notes (somewhere!) for about 3 more. I can probably track down that list and, if I dig around in the basement, get copies of them for you.
It’s funny that you bring this subject up right now. The US Army has contacted me as to whether I would be interested in taking a contract as a “Dungeon-Master” for their TRADOC Capabilities Management – Gaming.
Unfortunately, I am tasked to do an even more interesting job at the moment, and have to decline their offer.
One of the things I’ve always objected to, is the dependency on computers for Army games. In reality, the computer is only really useful for generating volume of message traffic; a human DM would do a much better job adjudicating outcomes, and be faster, and cheaper, to boot.
As I’m perpetually the night shift guy, a friend and I who were both gamers once ran a quick analysis of the JANUS, the Battalion and Brigade Army training system, and decided that you could push unit markers on a table for cheaper and get better training for higher level staffs. Most of the things the computers produced had marginal utility for Battalion and above staffs.
Here’s a link to a blog, concerning the US Army Combined Arms Center’s gaming program:
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/gaming/archive/2008/06/18/army-gaming.aspx
Hi Drew,
Thanks for the link! BTW, too bad you didn’t take the DM contract – it could have been a lot of fun (evil grin).
Seriously, though, the fascination with computer vs. human gaming focus is, IMO, a mistake. Computers can only handle the tactics they have been programmed to handle and, quite frankly, I just don’t see many of those being innovative and in line with current realities.
What concerns me even more is that many of the current games only model one side, amongst many, at the tactical level. I raised this as a problematic issue at the CAA, but it was dismissed as “irrelevant”.
I’ve finally returned to the conversation.
While I agree that the Marxist terrorists of yesteryear had a very small base to recruit from compared to the irhabis we face today, the goal of pushing governments to be exactly the type of oppressive regimes that the terrorists claimed them to be. The irhabis have the advantage of operating against really repressive regimes, a distant and largely ignorant enemy in the United States, and the boogie man of Israel to use in stirring up support. The end-goals, though seem the same – to win so they can force their world view on others.
A contract to be a DM for the Army would be both instructive and fun. I also think it would frustrating to hear “the enemy wouldn’t do that!” when you do something innovative and unexpected.
As far as gaming goes, I think the nature of games and gamers has indeed changed over time. The advent of the MMORPG has brought in many new players. Being run by computers, the games are necessarily more scripted, and the scripts are not as smart (devious) or flexible as a real human DM has the potential to be. The players are not usually suited to the unusual “sideways” thinking evidenced in the really good players and GMs of the pen and paper days. These are the same people that thought “Max Headroom” was too complicated to follow when it was on the air when I was in high school.
The designs of new editions of pen and paper games reflect these changes. Take a look at the new 4th edition of D&D – it feels like playing World of Warcraft or D&D Online. The details and convoluted rules are streamlined for folks who don’t want to take a day creating a character, or figuring out how to navigate a dungeon without fighting. God forbid that people play something like Harn, in which an armored knight might be killed by two thieves in an alley, or die when a scratch got infected…
Still, the development of the virtual tabletop and inexpensive VoIP solutions does make it easier to get a group together for pen and paper gaming. This is computer-supplemented gaming, and allows for players of the old mode to do things in a better way – if you prepare in advance, you can even add encounters and maps on the fly to deal with players doing the unsuspected. The ability to control light sources and sight lines also gives an advantage over the tried and true sheet of graph paper.
If anything, I think the childish tag is enhanced by the perception that people who play games live in Mom’s basement, don’t have a social life, don’t bathe, have social skills, or don’t show up for work when a new game or patch comes out (I actually know some people who do this). The perception puts them in the same category with Trekkies and Star Trek fans who go to conventions in the eyes of the non-gaming public.
Interestingly, at the same time we have the development of employers not hiring people due to their habit of gaming, we see employers increasing hiring of graduates holding liberal arts degrees (history and philosophy, especially) despite the continuing question asked by parents and friends, “can you get a job with that degree?”
[...] departments in large organizations are de facto Luddites, why some military planners do not want to simulate reality, or why Ward Churchill had to be be defined as “not a scholar“? The answers are [...]
Just wanted to drop you a note and say I was a fan of your Outime game and the Group Mission 005 adventure. Did you ever publish any other adventures? Gave me and my friends many hours of fun. Thanks!