----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen J. Cravens" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: GM: So not only are we having badwrongfun...


> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, T. M. Neeck wrote:
>
> TMN>Am I the only one having difficulties distinguishing between this 
> "game
> TMN>design" debate and a poli-sci thread?  It's very enlightening to 
> switch out
>
> Well, yeah.  Probably because I haven't seen any poli-sci threads, though.
>
> TMN>a few terms here and there and see how closely this mirrors political 
> theory
> TMN>arguments...so much so that I'd love to see how positions on the one 
> map
> TMN>with positions on the other.  Though honestly, I suspect I already 
> know how
> TMN>it would turn out...
>
> I don't, and it sounds fun.  Give us the layman's version, please?

One of the best descriptions I've heard of the distinction between liberal 
and conservative viewpoints is...wait for it...systems.  (This will sound 
familiar in a hurry.)  The liberal viewpoint believes that it is possible to 
create a political/ethical/whatever system, by means of which human behavior 
can be moderated for the general welfare of all.  (Thus the "Government is 
Good" approach so commonly associated with that viewpoint.)  By contrast, 
the general conservative position holds that there is no "perfect system", 
and that any system is only as good as those operating within it, and 
therefore such a system should be unobtrusive, with a focus on allowing the 
individual as much control as is feasible.  (Thus placing the onus for a 
functional society on private entities, be they citizens or corporations.)

The idea that a "perfect system" can overcome all human flaws, as a citizen 
or player of games, versus the emphasis on a compromise system acting as a 
neccesary referee between autonomous actors, be they...well, I think you can 
see how this can all look damnedably similar after a while.  (It even comes 
with the usual levels of mutual contempt between camps, at no extra charge. 
Bonus points if you can map attitudes towards GMs and religion--trust me, 
this works better than one would like to think...)

[Side point:  Why yes...it IS hard to tell which US political party is which 
philosophy these days!  No wonder I get migraines every four years...]

Note that I'm not saying that, for example, "Dogs in the Vineyard" = 
"Communism" or "HERO System" = "Constitutional Democracy", or any moral 
points in that area.  But I can't help but note, when game designers talk 
about a collective effort where no individual has final control over even 
his or her own role...or even HAS a role that is their own, fully ...well, 
you can't blame a fella for thinking he's heard this somewhere before...

I'm certain I've oversimplified or misstated something somewhere, but 
hopefully you get the gist.  Bottom line:  Philosophies in game design say a 
lot more about overall personal philosophy than one might think on 
surface...

        T. M. Neeck
                (ALMOST a Poli-Sci major, a looooooong time ago...)

"We now return you to your regularly scheduled game design debate, already 
in progress..." 

----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/