Ridere, ludere, hoc est vivere.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

WBC: "Ethics in Gaming" revisited

At WBC on Thursday last week, Joel Tamburo hosted his annual seminar on Ethics in Gaming.  This was my second opportunity to attend.

I arrived a little late and found myself in the middle of a conversation on the interpretation of rules
Signing of the Constitution of the United States
U.S. Government.  Public domain
ambiguities.  Not entirely a matter of ethics, the question on the floor seemed to center around whether an unaddressed action in the rules should be allowed (because the rules don't prevent it) or prohibited (because the rules don't allow it or provide for it).  Peter, an attorney, likened the question to that of Constitutional interpretation, whereby some people hold that rulings on Constitutionality ought to depend on the intent of the founders at the time that they wrote it, as best we can determine from other writings at the time.  Others hold that interpretation of the Constitution necessarily changes with the times, and so it is with game rules:  It doesn't matter how the game designer wanted you to play the game; what matters is how the players want to play.  So, then, the question became, does the designer's intent matter?

(c) Rio Grande Games
Used by permission
I raised a specific question as a case study, based on a thread I'd seen on boardgamegeek.com:  If the rules don't specifically require money to be "open" (i.e. visible to other players) nor specifically allow players to hide it, what is the default interpretation?  Can I hide my money, or must I divulge my cash balance to any other player who asks?  My own default position is that money is visible unless the rules provide for hiding it (as in St. Petersburg).  But a poll of the twelve people present in the seminar revealed that only three of us held that position; most felt that money could be hidden unless the rules explicitly require players to expose it.  Peter specifically felt that even in games where every transaction is visible (i.e. information is "complete"), part of the skill in playing a game comes from paying attention and remembering how much money people have (or which cards).

I wanted to disagree, but on the other hand, I remembered that part of the challenge in Acquire is exactly that kind of "mindfulness of the game state."  Some felt that requiring people to reveal what others should keep track of amounted to dumbing the game down.  My position was that it all came down to what the group as a whole around the table at the time thought was more fun - the ease of play from not having to remember, or the challenge of keeping track and outwitting each other.  Out of fairness, the consensus needs to be settled explicitly before the game begins.

Another question emerged regarding the giving of advice at the game table.  Some felt that solicited advice was okay, but unsolicited advice was rude.  I felt more that in a multi-player game, one player giving a second player advice was unfair to the third player by negating an advantage he might wish to exploit.  The question also came up whether it was unethical to give deliberately bad or misleading advice in the interest of winning.  I certainly felt that misleading an inexperienced player for the sake of winning a game bordered on unethical play.  But in the general case, there is no harm in trying to convince another player to do something to one's own advantage and a mutual opponent's disadvantage.

We discussed at length the difference between negotiation, in which players try to convince each other to take a specific action, and advice, in which players share the benefit of experience so that others can enjoy the game more or stay competitive in its outcome.  But with the negotiation topic came a few other questions, like whether it was okay to engage in a "psychological metagame" to manipulate an opponent.  Most of the participants in this seminar were men, and the question came up whether it was fair or not for a woman to enter a tournament dressed in a way that might be distracting to male competitors.  (None asked the counter-question - whether it was fair for a man to do the same - largely because it seemed so implausible in the context of the people present and the make-up of the general WBC population.)  I don't think we reached a consensus on this point.

I described a kind of psychological posturing that I experienced in a high school chess match.  My opponent would capture a piece with an aggressive sweep of his capturing piece, which he would bang loudly on the board where my piece had been, and then slam my piece on the table next to the board.  It was a gesture of great assertiveness and, I thought, hostility.  At first I got angry, which distracted me from my game, but later I just considered it immature.  When I was able to gain a piece advantage by laying a trap for him, his demeanor became a lot more cautious for the remainder of the game.

A very interesting question came up that reflected a real dilemma I've faced in a few tournament games, particularly with a less-experienced opponent.  To what extent is a player obliged to correct an opponent's apparent mis-interpretation of the rules - or, put another way, may a player remain silent when an opponent wrongly interprets a rule to one's own advantage?  An example might be an opponent who fails to take into account a bonus to which he might be entitled when calculating the outcome of combat.  We considered this topic a tricky area.  We agreed that it is not necessary or ethically compelling to point out when an opponent mistakenly believes that he does not have a certain option - say, for example, thinking that he may not attack when in fact he may.  On the other hand, if an opponent does not claim a die roll bonus to which he is entitled by the rules, one that would have changed the die roll outcome if it had been invoked, then some of us felt that it was ethically necessary to playing the rules as written that a player call attention to the mistake and calculate the correct bonus result.

I was reminded of an article I read some time ago about a player who won several DBA tournaments using loaded dice for combat.  The community was generally shocked.

A question came up regarding political correctness vs. respect for historical significance:  There is apparently some discussion on consimworld that a game whose German SS playing pieces are printed black with white writing glorifies Naziism.  This notion was new to me.  I was aware of a certain inadvertent slight to Japanese in the original printing of Midway whose American search counters said, "Jap CV," "Jap BB," etc.  The term "Jap" was of course a pejorative nickname for the Japanese among Americans during and after World War II.  Intent notwithstanding, Avalon Hill agreed that it might seem insensitive, and recommend players add a period after "Jap" to change it to an abbreviation for "Japanese."  In any case, someone in Thursday's seminar hypothesized how people would react to a World War II game in which German counters were printed in pink and yellow.  Functionally, the game would play exactly the same, but we agreed that most wargamers would have a hard time with it.

Toward the end, we revisited the question of theme that came up last year - whether games can be inappropriate depending on the topic that they "represent."  Joel brought up the art project / psychology test Train, in which players are trying to ship cargo to its destination but only gradually come to realize that the cargo are human beings and the destination is a concentration camp.  He also mentioned Letters from Whitechapel, the game in which one player as Jack the Ripper attempts to conduct serial killings and escape capture.  Somebody brought up Guillotine, in which players execute French nobles during the revolution, but I remarked on the difference between the box art on Letters from Whitechapel, which is very dark and foreboding, vs. the very light, comical art and tone of Guillotine, which would be very hard to take seriously.

All in all it was another fun conversation, a session of challenging assumptions and raising those not-so-hypothetical questions that emerge around a game table from time to time at the most unexpected moments.

14 comments:

  1. Got a big LOL at "None asked the counter-question - whether it was fair for a man to do the same - largely because it seemed so implausible in the context of the people present and the make-up of the general WBC population."

    I did see one young lady, who I've seen before at WBC and Prezcon wearing a very low cut shirt one night, while playing a game that made her continuously lean/reach far across the table. My thought was that it was no coincidence...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I know the one you mean. I seem to remember Brian G. struggling to concentrate at PrezCon during a game of ... funny, I can't seem to remember what they were playing ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, this is Joel the "presenter" of Ethics in Gaming.

    As Paul indicated, the seminar is really more of a roundtable discussion. This year we got a bit more into the mechanics of game situational ethical decisions which was a good thing. And Paul is right that I have been trying to gently steer discussion towards the question of whether some games are in and of themselves unethical.

    My personal thinking on that question is that while some games are offensive and I will not play them (like Letters from Whitechapel), a game is an inanimate object and as such cannot be unethical because Ethics are a property of decision making, and decision making requires sentience (I hope I did not garble that).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm... if I ever come back to WBC, I'll certainly try and get there for this panel. It sounds like it's right up my ally. Nice work Paul. Thanks for the recap!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have been meaning to get to this seminar at WBC for years, but my work in the Junior's room always seems to get in the way. I enjoyed your recount of it, Paul, and I will really try to get to the session next year. I agree that there is a fine line between when/if you correct another player on missing a rule or misinterpreting a rule. My rule of thumb for all of this is that I tell the person, as I would like to know I am winning the game outright, not through a technicality of the other player missing something. I treat the other players I am with the same way I would expect to be treated. If that means I am told about a rule I forgot, then great. But if someone tells me after the fact, and I know it would have changed the game, it sometimes makes me feel like that person is not a good sport and only focuses on the winning. I realize there are many types of gamers out there, and MANY of them only care about winning, but I prefer to enjoy the game and play by the correct rules. Win or lose, I enjoy gaming for the experiences with fellow friends.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joel, you make an interesting point about the distinction between games - as inanimate objects that can not be inherently ethical or unethical - and game play, which as a human activity can have ethical ramifications. I think that's worth exploring in next year's seminar. (Seems a shame to have to wait that long. It's like we just got started!)

    John, I would definitely recommend you join us next year if you can make it. It's a very thoughtful discussion that goes beyond the normal design and strategy considerations.

    Laurie, your thoughts on how to treat each other in a game - especially when there is a misunderstanding about a rule - are very much like mine. Part of enjoying the game is the good sportsmanship and courtesy of playing with other people, not taking advantage of them for the sake of winning over losing. I hope you can make it to the seminar next time, too.

    Thanks for all the great comments!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can someone not be focused on winning and still be a good sport? I frequently point missed strategic options out to opponents after a game is over. I don't do so during the game itself in a tournament setting because I signed up to play against you, not to play against the tag team of you and I. But then I don't view winning via the other player making a mistake as a technicality... Part of being good at a game is limiting mistakes.

    Now, if they're cheating to their own detriment by failing to add a bonus they're obligated to take I definitely do point it out. All your plays need to be legal. They don't have to be sound strategically but they need to be legal. (Nevermind the fact that a play that looks strategically unsound to me might actually be very good!)

    If it isn't a tournament setting I will also point out strategic options people may be missing. The reason there is two-fold: It may help them learn which will result in better played games going forward and I may be missing something and their response could well help me get better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nick, I think you and I make the same distinction between remaining mute during a tournament when a player makes (what we think is) a mistake and speaking up when a player fails to observe a rule that is to their advantage.

    In a friendly game, I understand about pointing out options that an opponent may have missed. But there was an interesting line of discussion during the ethics seminar in which some people felt that it is actually rude to give unsolicited advice during the game.

    Do you think there's a difference between pointing out an option and advising an opponent? Can I say, "it looks like your light horse could outflank my peltasts," but not, "you should use the light horse to outflank the peltasts"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think there's a difference between those two. Pointing the option out at all, no matter the phrasing, is getting the job done. If someone doesn't want advice then they'll be bothered either way.

    Unsolicited advice could be seen as bad in a multi-player game I guess, but I don't see how it could be rude in a 2 player game. Worst case you just ask the other person to stop. In multi-player you're not giving advice to help the other player but because your suggested move is better for you relative to the other players. I can certainly see that as potentially being rude.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An interesting Twitter conversation emerged about the appropriateness of depicting kamikazes in a game:

    Van Ryder Games @VanRyderGames
    Question: Is a game about Japanese Kamikazes pretty much off limits aka distasteful or insulting?

    Grant Rodiek @HerrohGrant
    Not to mention, many of your customers' grandfathers may have been victims of such attacks.

    Van Ryder Games @VanRyderGames
    yeah this is a big concern. Even those who were just alive were impacted.

    Chad Oatman @conchad
    GMT is also just published Bomber Command, about Bombing raids where civilian targets are readily possible.

    Dey Ett Brett @brettspiel
    you couldn’t do a WWII Pacific Theater naval game and not include Kamikaze…

    Grant Rodiek @HerrohGrant
    AJ noted it as a Kamikaze game. Not a Pacific Theater naval game. That is why I answered as I did.

    Van Ryder Games @VanRyderGames
    this is correct

    Chad Oatman @conchad
    Wait, I somehow managed to splinter this thread. What is correct AJ?

    Van Ryder Games @VanRyderGames
    side controlling kamikaze planes and the other defending warships/battleships through card play

    Chad Oatman @conchad
    Hmmm, this does sound like a problem. There were not that many Kamikazes.

    Chad Oatman @conchad
    Most of them would only dive on ships after they had been hit and were going down already.

    Dey Ett Brett @brettspiel
    and the Japanese built fleets of specially designed kamikaze planes. Check Wikipedia.

    Van Ryder Games @VanRyderGames
    I think in conclusion if game is historic depiction: ok. If it is only used for suicide attacks: no.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm amused. Do players have two different sets of ethics? One for tournaments and one for non-tournaments?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think "different sets of ethics" isn't quite right, but there are certainly certain protocols that apply during a tournament that don't necessarily apply in friendly play.

    ReplyDelete
  13. [protocols that apply during a tournament that don't necessarily apply in friendly play] might be a good topic for a future blog.

    Reading through a couple years of your excellent blog, I note the ethics discussions generate the most comment, FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The protocols topic is a good idea.

    I think I get the most comments on the ethics topics because (1) they get visibility on the WBC publicity page and (2) it's definitely a topic that lends itself to thoughtful discussion (as opposed to, say, game accounts or design progress).

    ReplyDelete