I Am Well Acquainted With All Forms Of Misery

“Acting is not about anything romantic, not even fantasy, although you do create fantasy.“

Like am I taking crazy pills…? I thought that all of the problems were literally like right there on the tin “we are a utopia in progress! We will obtain it by any means possible even if it means being everything we say we are not/fighting against. As the player you decide what is right. How much will you ignore for someone else’s idea of utopia?” Like doesn’t it mean all the tools to actually change are there and that is the HOPE aspect of all of this?

(Sorry if this in incoherent grammar is a weak point and I pulled something in my back simply standing up. Now I am sad and crook backed in spasmodic pain)

This isn't an argument I feel super enthusiastic about stepping into, because it gets the most annoying sort of people in your mentions eager to maliciously misrepresent what you say.

However, yeah, there are some pretty terrible readings of Union floating around. I'd invoke "media literacy" because think that a lot of this comes from people not really holistically engaging with the fictional future history of Lancer, but also from a sort of dogmatic purism that requires future societies to be flawless, else they're irredeemable.

It is important to note that ThirdComm is the direct descendant of two highly imperfect societies. FirstComm was formed as a response to the Three Great Traumas of discovering the Massif Vaults (and thus that they were the inheritors of a fallen world), the wars over the Massif Vaults, and the discovery of the lost colonies, all of which collectively showed humanity how close it had come to total extinction.

FirstComm decided that it had a responsibility to ensure that humanity never risked extinction again. It manifested this by trying to colonize every habitable planet it could find, pumping out ship after ship to seed the cosmos with as much human life as it possibly could. This led to problems when it encountered civilizations like the Karrakin Federation and the Aun, who had been carrying humanity's torch just fine by themselves, thank you very much.

SecComm was an Anthrochauvinist fascist state. The book defines it thusly:

We can see a lot of Anthrochauvinist historical romanticism in the mech naming schemes of Harrison Armory, SSC and IPS-N - the fact that Harrison Armory names its mechs after great military leaders of pre-Fall Earth history, IPS-N does the same with naval figures, and SSC uses the names of Earth animals. Even the GMS Everest is named for a mountain on Earth. It's very Cradle-centric.

Anthrochauvinism was, to be clear, largely just an excuse for colonialism and hegemony. Atrocities could easily be justified under by stating that whoever they're being committed against were a threat to the Continuance of Humanity - a term that SecComm got to define.

It's also at this point that we have to zoom in from broad sociopolitical points to address one very specific piece of history: the New Prosperity Agreement. This was signed to prevent the outbreak of a Second Union-Karrakin War, and mandated that the Karrakin Houses would maintain privileged levels of autonomy within Union, and that they would be granted colonial rights to the entire Dawnline Shore. This agreement, struck in 3007u, basically defines much of the current political situation today.

ThirdComm was a final and inevitable reaction to the atrocities, abuses and excesses of SecComm. The unspeakable horrors of Hercynia were the spark, but I need to stress how little Hercynia actually mattered in the larger Revolution - at the start of NRfaW, it's explicitly stated that almost nobody in the galaxy even knows where it is, let alone what happened there. The Revolution was a generalized response to SecComm's tyranny, with no single rallying cry.

The Revolution might also have failed entirely, but for a critical error by Harrison Armory: pissing off the Karrakin Trade Baronies. After getting kicked off Cradle, the Anthrochauvinist Party organised a fleet at Ras Shamra to try and retake Cradle. Simultaneously, however, they were attempting to secure protectorate agreements to steal worlds in the Dawnline Shore out from under the KTB. Putting these two together and making five, the KTB assumed that the fleet was pointed at Karrakis, and started the First Interest War.

The First Interest War initially favoured the KTB. They smashed the fleet above Ras Shamra and simultaneously conquered the moon of Creighton in the Dawnline Shore. However, they underestimated just how ruthless Harrison I was - he "retook" Creighton by relativistic bombardment, and then conquered four of the 12 worlds of the Dawnline Shore with mechanised chassis, a technology the KTB had not adopted and had no counter for.

To prevent further loss of life, Union was eventually forced to broker a peace agreement that saw Harrison I handing himself over to Union justice in return for Harrison Armory's continued sovereignty, and the KTB joining Union as a full member state.

So, with that historical context out of the way, let me get to the second part of this absurd essay I'm writing.

Third Committee Union isn't a civilization that arose from whole cloth. It's shaped by five thousand years of Union history, six thousand years of post-Fall history, and six thousand years of pre-Fall history before that. It is, ultimately, an extremely well-thought-out and well-worldbuilt fictional polity, in that all of its imperfections come from traceable root causes in its history.

Why does ThirdComm permit the abuses of the KTB? Because to stop them, it would likely have to go to war, and such a war would butcher billions. Worse, to do so, it would probably have to ally with Harrison Armory and make horrific concessions.

Why does ThirdComm permit the expansionism and cryptochauvinism of the Armory? Because to stop them, it would likely have to go to war, and such a war would butcher billions. Worse, to do so, it would probably have to ally with the KTB and make horrific concessions.

Nobody in CentComm likes that Harrison Armory are empire-building expansionists. Nobody in CentComm likes that the KTB has a hereditary nobility and enforces blockades against planets that rebel against it. The problem is that ThirdComm is, in historical terms, still relatively new. They've been around five hundred years, and compared to the 1600 years that SecComm was around and the 2800 years FirstComm existed for, that's not very much.

you'd think that fromsoftware would eventually drop the ball on the "the ruling class will kill you and cannibalise itself in order to stay alive" considering that they're considered elite AAA devs rn, but thinking about elden ring and ac6's narratives, they've really only gotten more obvious about it - the horrors of colonialism and genocide and the sympathy given to the rage of its victims is something that's actually insane to see, to me, from such a big studio - fromsoft doesn't even attempt to be centrist about it.

for example, the frenzy flame ending. the only thing melina can tell you to dissuade you from pursuing it, ie literally destroying the world forever, is that there's still beauty in the world, apart from the suffering the golden order had caused. at no point however is the sheer despair of the people that the flame represents villanized. if anything, it's portrayed as a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is a tragedy. the only villain is the order who slaughtered all of these people, the flame of despair is something that emerged in them as they were buried alive. and the flame isn't even intended as a revenge upon the world, it's simply a means to end the pain they feel for being subjected to this.

their grief isn't something for the player to judge, it isn't something they're forced to overcome, it's simply a physical manifestation of the reality that was forced upon them. and these people, the merchants, are still kind to us, even knowing the order that we pursue. (in fact, the true, considered best ending of elden ring, is literally just sacrificing yourself in order to achieve complete anarchism. and getting a cool wife to endure the loneliness of space along the way)

in ac6 then, ayre is so terribly forgiving towards us, knowing what we are, knowing what made us, knowing what we participate in. some of this undoubtedly is because of her narrative role, she has to be a sympathetic character. but we do get to see her rage at the end, her grief for her species being seen as nothing more than a resource to be exploited or burned fully vocalized. but the RLF is sympathetic too as resistance fighters who want their home back. the only criticism the game ever leverages towards the RLF is that they're actually not radical enough in their pursuit of freedom, and that criticism is made by a villain.

Google Plus is now dead. I found my preferred roleplaying-games community there. So many friends and discussions and games. I wrote the following piece on G+ in August 2017. It is the closest I’ve ever got, before or since, to RPG “theory”.

(This particular text is actually the version I posted to Facebook, which is the social-media account closest to my meat-space civilian life – hence that little oh-what-is-an-RPG-anyway? tangent.)

+++

WHAT TORCHBEARER TAUGHT ME

Torchbearer is a roleplaying game. It taught me that I shouldn’t play human characters, in roleplaying games.

~

Preamble: for the last three years, I’ve been playing a lot of tabletop roleplaying games (RPGs) over the Internet. Basically, you know that game the boys in Stranger Things play? That, but in a video conference.

I am a Person of Colour ™, and I almost always play with white dudes.

I wish this didn’t matter. But in 2015 I played with some dudes who, after hearing me speak, started talking about how English was definitely my second language.

Ever since I’ve been hyper-aware about how I present to white dudes.

~

Anyway: Torchbearer is an RPG. Based on another game called Burning Wheel, Torchbearer’s schtick is nostalgia: it is designed to emulate perilous, early Dungeons & Dragons-style dungeon crawls.

It uses BW’s “beliefs, instincts, and traits” (BITs) mechanic - define your character’s personality and goals; get rewarded for playing accordingly.

I don’t really have an issue with BITs. “Fight for what you believe in!” Oh, my self-sacrificing dwarf gets experience points for taking a hit meant for the foolhardy wizard - ie: actually being self-sacrificing? Neat!

~

But playing according to your character’s beliefs and instincts is half of how you need to play in the Torchbearer ruleset.

At the end of every session, you also get experience points for “embodiment” - roleplaying in a “believable and entertaining manner throughout the entire session”.

Basically, this means funny accents and exaggerated manners. Which - hey: also seems to makes sense. Funny accents and exaggeration is what makes RPGs fun. I want to have fun. You’re rewarding me for having fun? Neat!

~

Thing is: embodiment can only go to everybody at the table, minus one, in any given session.

It is quite a game-designer-ly thing to think that competition is a good way to make any experience points you gain feel earned / meaningful.

So: players have to rate each other’s performances. Players compete to be entertaining.

And, in my group, embodiment effectively became the “you were the least memorable character, tonight, no XP for you” penalty.

~

I found a group to play Torchbearer with, on Roll20.

My first Torchbearer character was a not-conquistador: a cleric with light in his heart, come to bring Civilisation to savage lands.

He only ever got embodiment once, when I gave him an awful accent (his name was Ulric, so it was a German accent) as a last-ditch attempt to make myself stand out.

My second Torchbearer character was a goth-chick assassin. She spoke in a slinky voice and wore the blood of her victims as makeup. Massive OTT edge-lady.

The other dudes didn’t think much of her, either.

~

Okay, fine. I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a great role-player. Gotta try harder!

My third Torchbearer character was Slessik, the snivelling rat-man coward. Great warriors protect Slessik, yes-yes? I did the raspy voice and the hunched posture and mimed licking my whiskers and everything.

Slessik was a hit. His embodiment rate? 100%!

I had fun playing him. And, because in Torchbearer how well-liked you are basically equals how survivable your player-character is, Slessik was my longest-lasting character.

~

After Slessik, I had enough of playing an essentially non-human character. (It made my throat sore.)

My fourth Torchbearer character was an elf. He began as a slave. He was lazy, and tried stupid schemes to get out of work; this meant he got in trouble, more often than not.

He was also a massive coward. Essentially, I saw him as Slessik, in elf form, with a stammer instead of a hunch and rasp.

~

No more embodiment. Like, 0%.

My elf died pretty quick. Dead by the - second session, I think?

I sighed, and switched to a fearless, leap-into-danger mantis-man. He / it spoke in a raspy monotone, and was a ravenous predator.

One was the other dudes said:

“Yay! Slessik is back!”

~

Was it because I didn’t do a voice, with my “human” PCs?

But the other dudes didn’t do voices, either. They got their experience points.

Maybe I just didn’t play with enough colour. But - the other dudes played characters just as trope-y and textbook as my own. Proud barbarian; mysterious wizard; quiet Aragorn-type ranger. They were archetypes, they were fun, they got embodiment.

But I didn’t. Not unless I played a monster.

~

I started thinking about the other campaigns I’d played, online, with white dudes.

I realised I had a tendency to other myself. Play outsiders. Strict cannibal savage. Cyborg with binary-to-human translator. In any party of adventurers, I was usually the outlier figure.

Easier, you know? In our video conferences, I had different skin, a different speech pattern. I couldn’t understand certain references. Didn’t laugh at certain jokes. I kept quiet when the other guys talked about American-football teams.

Mirroring that dynamic in-game meant less dissonance, on the whole.

~

You know - that’s fine. I’m not about to pretend the cultural divide isn’t there. Neither am I going to make a big fuss about it.

It’s just - a thing.

~

But there’s a lesson here, for designers - of games, or otherwise:

~

Thor Olavsrud, Torchbearer’s creator, day-jobs in tech.

His collaborator, the designer of Burning Wheel, Luke Crane, works for Kickstarter.

Crane has previously said that he designs his games against social dysfunction. He believes that players will inevitably, inadvertently be anti-social fucks, so Burning Wheel (and, by extension, Torchbearer) are systems designed to make that impossible.

These are systems that handhold you to civility, making sure that there are incentives for working together, being group-oriented, entertaining your fellow players.

~

Olavsrud and Crane are liberal types. Crane has taken selfies with Anita Sarkeesian. Hearts in the right place, and all that.

But I think it is a distinctly technocratic stance to think that people are intrinsically going to be terrible.

And that the solution isn’t to be adults and talk out our problems, but build a system where bad behaviour is impossible. “Solve” the human condition through better design.

~

That doesn’t work.

Torchbearer, a game / ruleset / system Olavsrud and Crane designed, because it tries to account for and course-correct real-life-people-around-a-table social dynamics in its system design -

Is the only game I’ve ever played that, in effect:

(a) mechanically rewarded me for intentionally other-ing myself, and (b) mechanically punished me for not other-ing myself.

~

My takeaway from all this:

Don’t try to manage real-life social dynamics using rules and systems. It doesn’t work. And it will probably cause some harm.

+++

Two years on, re-reading this, I still stand by what it says, by and large. I remain skeptical of using (game) design to social-engineer a Better World. (That still belongs to real-world organising and activism. No shortcuts!)

Two things I’d do differently:

1) “Crane has previously said that he designs his games against social dysfunction.“ 

I no longer remember the source of this assertion, so as it stands now it’s a claim with no evidence. (I will argue that the design notes in the Burning Wheel rulebook support the idea, though.)

2) I’d further emphasise that there were no bad-intentioned people in the above account.