tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post3305626639115639731..comments2023-12-24T09:37:17.116-05:00Comments on Man OverBoard: Ethics in gaming: Reflections on the WBC seminarPaul Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02260814589584723033noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-10827891169077855312011-09-14T23:41:28.044-04:002011-09-14T23:41:28.044-04:00Keith, you make an interesting point. For wargame...Keith, you make an interesting point. For wargames in general, I think the distinction is that the focus is on the strategy and tactics, rather than the killing <i>per se</i>. Also, the situation is usually one of killing soldiers who are trying to kill "you" or "your countrymen." In <i>Letters from Whitechappel</i>, Jack the Ripper seeks to kill innocent victims (who represent actual victims). So it's easy for me to distinguish an historical battlefield from an historical serial killing spree.<br /><br />The point about current-day combat, though, is very true. I actually have a rule in my house that my kids are not to play modern-day first-person-shooter video games for the same reason. I generally don't even have as much of an issue with the WW2 setting of <i>Call of Duty</i> (although I can't say I'm crazy about FPS games generally). Science fiction FPS games like <i>Metroid</i> or <i>Star Wars Battlefront</i> are even less objectionable. But as you say, when there are real people in Afghanistan fighting insurgents, it's just disrespectful to make a game of it.<br /><br />Now, for all of that, I do have a copy of the boardgame <i>Boots on the Ground</i> (designer Sean Cooke, publisher Worthington), which is a one-man/one-counter wargame of hypothetical scenarios pitting one or two squads of "allies" against randomly appearing insurgents in an unnamed city, complete with car bombs, IEDs, and insurgents disguised as civilians. <i>BotG</i> goes right to the scale question that you raise, too. Each counter represents a human being. That game might cross the line, although I find it so "abstracted" that I don't connect it as directly to what people are doing in Kabul.Paul Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02260814589584723033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-52967366255452107802011-09-14T00:37:43.164-04:002011-09-14T00:37:43.164-04:00Paul - I'm late to the game on this blog post,...Paul - I'm late to the game on this blog post, but I thought I'd jump int. You mention how the Jack the Ripper game crossed a certain line due to Jack the Ripper being a real serial killer, and his victims being real women.<br /><br />How about war games, particularly miniatures? Many of them simulate real battles in which real men died horrible deaths. I myself had never though too much of recreating battles from Roman times, medieval Europe, ACW or even WWII. However, last year at Fall-In, I walked into a room where a miniatures game was being played that simulated U.S. forces fighting insurgents in Iraq (or maybe Afghanistan...I don't recall). What I do remember is that I had an immediate visceral reaction of "how can you be making a GAME of something that's happening right now, and real people are dying!" I didn't say that out loud...but I immediately left the room.<br /><br />So...I'm not sure what the correlation is here. Time? If it's "history" even though real people died, does that make it more palatable? Clearly not for you, with "WhiteChappel". Is it scale? Fighting large scale battles on the tabletop make it hard to individualize a specific soldier. <br /><br />I dunno...but an interesting topic.Keith Fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11448281228327616030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-22236332713821747042011-08-18T21:32:14.200-04:002011-08-18T21:32:14.200-04:00Thanks, Joel! I can't wait 'til next year...Thanks, Joel! I can't wait 'til next year. Great topic.Paul Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02260814589584723033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-45998895147610920082011-08-17T01:55:09.268-04:002011-08-17T01:55:09.268-04:00Hello,
Speaking as the seminar presenter (I'm...Hello,<br /><br />Speaking as the seminar presenter (I'm Joel), I enjoyed the ability to hold a discussion on a topic not often considered by boardgamers. And Paul made good contributions to the discussion as well. <br /><br />One thing I should add here is a touch more specificity regarding Cosmic Encounter. The "stealing" situation in the game is with regard to one of the aliens a player can portray in the game - the Filch. What I have observed is that players who find the Filch's "theft" power distasteful typically exclude that alien from use in their games. <br /><br />In any event, we've been have the Ethics seminar (more like a round table discussion) for four years now, and the supply of topics and aspects to discuss seems never to wane. We'll be holding it again next year, so feel free to drop in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-43003756479356017452011-08-16T23:18:55.780-04:002011-08-16T23:18:55.780-04:00Patrick, I used to run D&D campaigns myself qu...Patrick, I used to run D&D campaigns myself quite a bit (when I was much younger - when D&D was a three-volume boxed set of pamphlets). I have to say that I like having that kind of policy in place. I never had a real "chaotic rogue" who tried to undermine the group, I think because most of the people who played in my dungeon were intimidated and felt that there was safety in numbers. <br /><br />But I remember witnessing at least one game where a player got out of hand, and it took a while for the DM to regain control of the game and keep it enjoyable for the rest of the group. I agree with you that RPGs are, in a manner of speaking, "co-op" games, best played when each character plays to his or her strength to the common success of the group.<br /><br />Not everyone would agree, though. Some players I knew felt that "chaotic" meant "chaotic," and they would feel free to be disruptive and unpredictable. Seldom, though, would characters actively turn on one another. They might compete for a treasure or perhaps keep secrets from one another out of greed, but they wouldn't throw another character under the troll bridge, so to speak. <br /><br />Ultimately, I think what you're getting at is that a "lone wolf" can take the fun out of the game. As I mentioned, to me, a game is a social experience, and the intent is to have fun. So someone who takes the fun out of the game - or whose idea of fun is at the expense of everyone else's - defeats the purpose of playing. So I think that's a good policy and a great "internal ethical standard" for RPGs.<br /><br />Oh, and as for making our eight-year-old cry: I actually posted this story on boardgamegeek.com under the GeekList, "That's Just Wrong." (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/64232/item/1573310#item1573310) Here's what happened: <br /><br />My wife and I were teaching our kids to play Settlers of Catan. My eight-year-old son was eager to build a city, so on my turn I was trading him ore for this, ore for that, all the ore you want. He was so pleased ... until I played "Monopoly" and made him give all the ore back. The crushed look on his face was heart-wrenching. My wife really let me have it. "I can't believe you did that to your eight-year-old son!" So I had to promise him that I would never, ever do that to him again.<br /><br />For the record, I didn't promise that I wouldn't do it to anyone else ever again...<br /><br />This, by the way, was one of my "two episodes in which perfectly legitimate moves in games actually hurt people's feelings - people very close to me - and led me to adjust the way that I play to accommodate the relationships that I have with the other players."Paul Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02260814589584723033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-20530059374396410112011-08-15T22:14:11.589-04:002011-08-15T22:14:11.589-04:00Tell them about the time you almost made our 8-yr-...Tell them about the time you almost made our 8-yr-old cry.K.B. Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09510886155613873085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4535367891237919312.post-69604109104224783692011-08-15T01:35:16.476-04:002011-08-15T01:35:16.476-04:00This is an interesting concept, actually, and I...This is an interesting concept, actually, and I'd like to raise my own topic. I often am the game master of various RPGs, from D&D to Shadowrun to World of Darkness. I enjoy exploring themes of all types between these games, but I have a single hard and fast rule that I've never even attempted to bend on.<br /><br />In RPG games I run, I will not allow a 'lone wolf' or actively antagonistic character from one of the players. Most RPGs expect some level of camaraderie among the players, and trying to put a character who works against, or ignores, this element often proves unacceptable in game play. I also find that the people who enjoy playing these character types are often less than savory people to befriend away from the table.<br /><br />What are your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com