"Topics exist that can't be responsibly covered by the game medium."
Tagging... 

*PART TWO*

I'm going to step back somewhat from my earlier statement. After some serious meditation, and discussion with a number of insightful folks, my new thesis is, "Topics exist that can't responsibly covered in game activity."

Earlier I said that doing a non-real activity for purposes of entertainment makes it a game, but I realize that's beside the point; the _instance of play is not the medium._ I stand by my revised thesis, but with an important caveat:

A game object — the rules of a storytelling game, or the rules and objects of chess, for example (I want to elide the rigor that would be needed to define operationally, for brevity's sake) — is not the same as an instance of play, and it is possible for a game object to cover a topic responsibly.

Two examples that came up in conversation were Liam's _Dog Eat Dog_ and Nathan's _carry._ Both of these games do something very significant. Instead of feeding you a number of tropes, they lay out a description of the incentive structure that exists in the situation. In DED, that incentive structure induces the Occupation to enact oppressive social engineering, and directs the Natives in a more complex way, but it doesn't say a lot about the imaginary content of the game. That makes it very flexible over a number of problematic authority-structure situations.

_carry._ is by its nature less flexible, because it's explicitly about Vietnam, but it also expresses its understanding of the world by laying out an incentive structure IIRC, it is a very demanding one that calls on you to make absolutely heartwrenching decisions.

This is effective because it gives the players _agency and awareness._ You are explicitly given a choice between several options that represent the range of ways that you can be oppressive in the situation at hand, and you have the opportunity to evaluate these decisions.

By contrast, let's take the Barbarian from D&D3e;. It's built-into the Barbarian that he's illiterate, from an uncivilized society (in the "rude" sense rather than the "not dwelling in cities" sense), and has magic powers that are activated by his getting angry and regressing into a state of violent, self-endangering hostility — basically the Barbarian has the ability to enter late-stage rabies at will.

This is a _really unfavorable comparison,_ but let's make it all the same.

The Barbarian gives us a deeply troubling image of what the society that birthed him is like, and simultaneously, it _takes away awareness and agency._ If you decide that you want to play an uncivilized "not a city dweller" character, you are pushed toward becoming an uncivilized "rude, primitive" character just by the words chosen to describe them. The game explicitly paints a picture of a culture that has, inexplicably, failed to acquire literacy in what comes across as a highly academical setting (and doesn't have a functionally equivalent replacement technology!), enshrines and enables dangerous persons with anger issues, and _doesn't give you a choice about them._ Barbarians without rage powers just don't exist.

This approach isn't just problematic on one level, it's problematic on many levels. We as humans are easily influenced by fiction, and when a fictional story sells us the 'rage-powered barbarian idiot warrior' story, it's easy for us to internalize it without even being consciously aware that we've done so. The same is true of just about any problematic narrative that exists in fiction, from the blood-drinking snake cultists of Indiana Jones to the invisible Chinese in Firefly or the flamboyant sexism in just about any superhero movie you care to name. We see these things, we get used to them and we stop noticing. We start enacting those narratives in our lives.

Imaginary behavior reinforcing real, problematic social norms can happen in games like DED too, but because that game and games like it specifically highlight and examine the behavior patterns in question and _make them into deliberate choices,_ it is possible for them to make us make conscious decisions about those behaviors in real life, in just the same way.

But when we do this, when we're making these tough decisions about the shitty social structures that exist in the world, I believe that that moment of play, that instance of play, is not accurately labeled "game" by the definition I set out earlier. It's hard. Playing DED is a harrowing experience, and even when we make light of it with on-the-surface humorous setting color, it becomes tough and intense when you get to those moments of judgement, and when you take actions that are shaped and constrained by the incentive structure. It is for me, anyway. I think it's probably possible for those moments to _be_ played for the lulz, and that is what I would describe as irresponsible.

I also think it's dangerous, and possibly irresponsible, to distance one's game from the historical subject matter it's discussing, or to remove agency and awareness from the players in other ways. Maybe more about that later, this wall of text is long enough already.