Imaginary Worlds
On Politics In Narrative, Author Tracts, And Deserving A Better Class Of Polemicist.
I am truly sorry to inform you, but Games Are Political. If you need to take a moment to compose yourself, that’s alright. We can resume when ready.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seriously though, games are very clearly political, we just use a stupid and amorphous definition to say either “no they aren’t because I like them and I don’t like politics (people who are different than me)” or “politics in media should be a lecture series rather than how people actually hold political views”.
“Politics” is not some scary word, it just means “how we think the world should work”. Our politics are based in “what we believe about the world”, in other words our Worldview.
So “Politics in Media” just means that the work is made from a particular worldview and with particular assumptions about the things it portrays. No more. No less.
Some works will be more intended to bring the audience around to the same worldview (up to and including blatant propaganda). Others try to create a robust narrative with multiple worldviews represented* (*with varying level of success depending on how well the author is able to handle their own beliefs about said worldviews). Yet others just go ‘fuck it’ and don’t think about it at all, letting their worldview imprint itself on the work without reflection or modification.
None of these are inherently bad or tactless, just different approaches with their own pitfalls.
It’s really a matter of what you want your game to get players thinking about and if you’re actively trying to convey worldviews (yours and others) or just passively writing from yours (it takes a massive amount of work to even try to remove your own worldview from your work and it’s deeply questionable whether or not it’s possible or even desirable to do so).
As I mentioned last time, you have to treat your players like thinking people. Engage them in good faith and don’t assume that you can just pour your ideas into their heads without their input.
“But what if I’m not trying to pour my ideas into someone’s head at all?” Well, that’s kind of how communication works and all media is about communication. I doubt that you’re really looking to create something that conveys no information whatsoever.
“Pondering? I’ll have to think on that.”
See, the reason all of this is important is worldviews are what makes characters and themes compelling. They deepen narratives by giving them real things to talk about, principles, contradictions, issues to mull over. These are the things that make characters memorable and concepts thought-provoking.
People remember games that made them think about it, that made them do more than just assume “X is right because it’s right, Y is wrong because it’s wrong”.
Give them reasons to arrive at their conclusions, even if you don’t give them reasons to doubt them.
These also spill over into gameplay, an old-school RPG made with the thought that you can always talk through your problems with someone is going to look very different than one that is certain that irreconcilable differences exist.
(Just imagine what Doom would look like if Romero thought brutal violence was inherently morally bad? You shudder to think of it.)
Characters and mechanics that have no underlying premises (insofar as they exist) are bland and lifeless. Your villain being the villain because they’re the villain isn’t particularly interesting, especially since the option of villainy being a job would be bringing up a premise! What does gunplay look like from a completely neutral perspective? Likely something reminiscent of the lowest of effort asset flips from a decade ago!
Depiction without Perspective means you’re not showing anyone anything and you can’t have a Perspective without Premises.
However your premises aren’t everything.
Tub-thumping your way through building a narrative just leads to weak narratives and annoyed and/or contemptuous players. Making an argument is one thing, gnawing the player’s ears off until they agree with you is very much another.
“It’s a 6! No, it’s a 9! That’s a 4, what the hell are you two talking about?”
One of the reasons that people react to the idea of Politics in Media with something ranging from mild disgust to “deep-fryer meets ice bucket” is due to what’s commonly referred to as an Author Tract.
Author Tracts, or just tracts, are when someone uses a work as a way to inform (read: harangue) their audience about their personal beliefs.
Now, as I have clearly shown, I don’t think having one’s principles front and center is inherently a problem, it’s your work and you’re talking about what you believe in to some extent whether you like it or not.
But a tract is not that.
A tract is not a statement of beliefs or a presentation of premises, it is in essence propaganda but for one person. It does not brook dissent nor does it consider alternate views as anything more than anathema. A good example of these are Chick Tracts, made by the eponymous Jack Chick (may he rest in a hole). Aside from the questionable lucidity of any of these works, they also aggressively strawman their subjects to make Jack’s position the only one ‘reasonable’ (any comparisons to my rhetorical style will be punished by me crying).
“Ok, hold on a sec. What in the good goddamn does this have to do with making games?”
Tracts are what you have to avoid when engaging with your underlying premises, they’re deeply annoying and very very easy to make fun of. You’ll gut whatever you’re trying to achieve with your work and relegate it to the kind of baffling garbage that launches Youtube channels into stardom.
Now, if you want to avoid this dreaded fate (or, horrors, make something actually sincere and mature), you’ll need to pay attention to what you are putting forward. Being self-aware about what premises you’re working off of and how they are manifesting in the work is essential, even if you’re just making something silly and fun (no one wants to be reminded of the Oncoming Posadist Rapture while playing a kart racer).
“My Magnum Opus is complete. You just scribbled dicks on every page of a history textbook”
So, we’ve covered why worldviews in a work are important/unavoidable.
We’ve covered what to avoid doing when working with worldviews in a work.
Now we need to cover how to actually approach them.
Easy, you’re already doing it! Essay over, please give me money!
Seriously though, you’re already part of the way there naturally, like I mentioned before. But putting more conscious effort, or at least acknowledgement, will help you build on your ideas and premises more and sand off the more obnoxious edges. Asking yourself if you’re accidentally putting a premise into something and why you did so is a good idea, you might find an opportunity to give it more depth than if you had just ignored it or even removed it. Just because a theme or a concept (because that’s what premises are when put into something) is connected to a real thing you believe as a person, doesn’t mean it’s in any way lesser or bad that you put it there. Though there’s always a word of caution when dealing with things that are painful or very personal: you will make yourself cry. However, you might make your player cry with you. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, after all.
We’re making things because we believe in them, in ways both big and small. That must be treated with respect. My work will have the fingerprints of my worldview, yours will have your fingerprints too, that’s not something to be afraid of or ignored but it also cannot overtake the work itself. And with that in mind, you can feel confidant that the little piece of yourself in your work is comfortable nestled in there.