Balancing Player Agency and Social Responsibility

[Bacondoneright]

To preface this, I’m talking about more adult/young-adult focused novels, where an author can place faith in the emotional intelligence of the readers.

@AChubbyBlackCat

If a consumer can’t differentiate between what is clearly fiction and reality then that is beyond the abilities of the author to help that consumer learn that difference.

Couldn’t agree more.

I’ve noticed that a large amount of games that wind up getting hit for being “too political” attempt to push some sort of overt social message. Whether you disagree with the politics or not is irrelevant, it’s just a fact that a lot of consumers might get be annoyed by the author’s politics being forwarded.

@AAChmielewski

Tldr? You can punish the MC, NOT THE PLAYER, but do it organically to the story

Absolutely agree with this as well.

One of the pieces of writing advice I’ve gotten is that “both hands remain on keyboard”. They don’t go below the belt, that is, writing for the author’s own personal gratification (if it’s going to be published, at least), and they don’t go bashing the reader on face. Especially in IF, it’s best to keep your personal opinions to yourself, or at least out of the prose.

If the prose of the book goes “Oh wow, what terrible thing you just did. You should feel bad. You are soooo evil” I’m probably gonna roll my eyes right out of my skull and stop reading. In IF, it’s quite simple to fix this issue. Just let the player select their opinion on issues. Even if you disagree with the opinions, there’s not much of a point in not including them.

If you want there to be consequences, let them be narrative consequences. Everyone believes in different things, and in IF, they can roleplay as different characters. Still, let an NPC call the player out, but let the player respond if they want to. Let a romance interest get disturbed at the MC’s casual murder or whatever if you want to. Make their people desert or lose faith. But by God, do not attempt to finger-wag the reader and lecture them.

And to authors, if you don’t want to add evil options… then don’t. It’s your story, damn it. And there are certain evil things that even I have no intention to write.

@MeltingPenguins

fiction shrugging off or applauding bad stuff and going ‘it’s just fiction’ is a bad thing.

I respectfully disagree. Not every war novel needs to be All is Quiet on the Western Front. Not ever first person shooter needs to be Spec-ops: The Line. Not every book needs to pontificate on the mental effects of revenge or war or violence (even if I do personally enjoy works that do focus on these issues), and not every book needs to push some sort of social message.

I also kind of disagree with the title of this thread, “Social Responsibility”. Authors have no social responsibility. They are not obligated to conquer the ills of the world, condemn evil, push a social message, etc. If you want to do that, go ahead. Ultimately, write what you want. If you do want to write a social commentary, just be warned that people might disagree with you, and you should expect that.

TLDR: just use subtlety when you write

[GreekWinter]

@MeltingPenguins

I mean, it’s not as if there haven’t been dozens of studies that have shown that the more often something ethically and morally wrong is okayed if not applauded in fiction, the more numb we become to it in irl.

I shouldn’t be sticking my face in the hornets’ nest here, but I’m honestly confused by this response. (though I certainly respect your right to feel that way.)

How is this take any different from the traditionally conservative stance that videogames and tabletop roleplaying games cause real life violence? For every study dredged up that showed a correlation there have easily been 10 which show no correlation at all or even a decrease in real life violence.

Maybe I’m just getting old and out of touch, but I was under the impression that this issue was largely settled 15 years ago.

[Eiwynn]

Remember to keep the focus on the thread’s topic.

Thanks everyone.

[GreekWinter]

That article is… strange, lol.

But I suppose you’re right. Moral panics have a way of circling around and around year after year.

I guess this is why I normally try my best to stay out of politics and just write the games I want to write. I just hope that nobody who plays Werewolves 2 takes it as tacit permission to go on a killing spree.

[RedRoses]

@Bacondoneright

I also kind of disagree with the title of this thread, “Social Responsibility”. Authors have no social responsibility. They are not obligated to conquer the ills of the world, condemn evil, push a social message, etc. If you want to do that, go ahead. Ultimately, write what you want. If you do want to write a social commentary, just be warned that people might disagree with you, and you should expect that.

I agree with you, but disagree with your reasons. Authors have a social responsibility in the same sense that we all do–we all have the basic social responsibility of being somewhat decent, somewhat giving, somewhat productive, and somewhat moral. That’s not to say we have to go and save the world, just that we have a responsibility towards not contributing to the end of it. But when you have a platform, like writers do, while you don’t have to go and write a book on how to cure cancer and end racism, you do have to remember that what you write isn’t in a vacuum, people will take your works and interpret it however they want to do whatever they want. An author has to be prepared to push back against bad faith fans.

With that said, I do agree that titling this “social responsibility and player agency” is not exactly perfect. It feels to me this thread has a lot more to do with “should we glorify violence?” than it does with social responsibility for what sort of message we put out in the world.

[Phoe77]

I personally think that everyone has some degree of social responsibility, especially people who create media for others. They’re also free to disregard that responsibility if they choose to, but I think that doing so can be grounds for valid criticism.

I also don’t think the topic has anything to do with people being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. It’s naive to believe that peoples’ beliefs and perception of reality aren’t influenced by the media they consume. That’s not the same as saying that Halo causes school shootings or that a game of DnD is going to brainwash a kid into sacrificing their cat, which are the extreme claims that I associate more with the satanic panic and the demonizing of video games. The fact that people took an idea and carried it beyond the bounds of reason doesn’t mean that the fundamental idea (that media can influence the beliefs of its consumers) doesn’t have merit.

I don’t think that the answer is to just refuse to allow negative actions in games as a hard and fast policy, nor do I think that a game should break the 4th wall to tell you how horrible it is to choose a reprehensible option. I do think there should be some effort made to underscore that said reprehensible choice should not be seen as positive though, whether through plot complications or pushback from other characters within the narrative.

[MeltingPenguins]

To put it short:
Basically the notion of ‘oh they got violent because of a videogame’ is bullshit.
But the notion of ‘oh, they got violent because a lot of media reinforced an already existing idea’… that’s what these studies are about.
It’s not about ‘videogames/shows etc causing violence directly’ but about the indirect effects.

I mean, look how many people believe in negative stereotypes because that’s commonly all they see in media.

[augustus27]

I suppose I don’t really think authors have a social responsibility to begin with, or at least not any social responsibility that stems specifically from them being an author. There are certain things that I do believe everyone has a responsibility to do, namely treat others with respect, but that’s not writer/artist specific.

There are many ways to interpret a work and I firmly believe that once an author has put something out into the world, their intended meaning is no longer worth anything. Media is interpreted by the people consuming it.

Using the example of Tin Star, you could go the lawless route and kill most of the named characters in the game. These actions will have negative consequences, just not necessarily on the MC. You can certainly interpret this as an oversight on the part of the author, for letting the MC get away with making such choices. Or you can interpret it as a purposeful decision that furthers the themes of the game by showing how the most vulnerable members of society are impacted by the actions of those with power, and the means by which these powerful people escape judgement.

Giving people the option to do bad things in games is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it a bad thing for an author to choose to not punish the MC for said things. I’m not saying the MC should never be punished, I’m saying that the author has no responsibility to do so. Again, media is interpreted by the consumers. You can interpret the lack of punishment for a morally reprehensible MC as an oversight on the authors part, or even a glorification of awful actions, or you can interpret it in such a way that it ties in with the theme of the game.

To be clear, I personally do believe that an MC who does terrible things should be punished in most cases. I do not, however, believe that the author has any responsibility to punish said MC, especially not when it goes against one of the core themes of their game. The reader is free to interpret this however they wish, but the author is not obligated to do something they believe would contradict what they’re trying to get across in their work.

Edit: As for the question of whether or not the player should even be given these choices in the first places, I think they should be, if that’s what the author wants to do. Are there certain things that I would never let my MC do? Yeah. Are there certain things that, if I even read them as options, I would immediately close and delete the game? Absolutely. I do not, however, think that this means the author is under any obligation to not give the player options.

Giving players choices is, quite literally, the name of the game. If an author doesn’t want to give players the option to do bad things, that’s totally fine. But an author shouldn’t feel obligated not to.

Usually, though, these choices must serve a purpose, be it for character development, the furthering of themes, or plot development. Giving the player the option to do bad things for the sake of shock value or “just because” is boring and uninspired in my opinion. That’s not to say authors shouldn’t give players those options for shock value or “just because”. I just think it’s cheap and gross. Again, it’s all about how the person consuming the media interprets it.

[Kaelyn]

Strange thing that everyone directely refers to murder. In my opinion that is not the issue. Murder, betrayal and theft are the crimes everyone, minus really disturbed people realize are Bad, so I do not see a Problem with those.
But what about crimes not every society sees as a crime? Is it ok to write casually a player that rapes? That has a relationship with minors? Someone that is OK with beating Up minorities? That is an absolute no for me, and cases in which @MeltingPenguins Statement proves more than right. The danger of describing things that are sadly not worldwide Seen as a crime and so trivializing that is not ok for me, but I would not even give the player such a choice.

[N4MI]

@AAChmielewski

You can punish the MC, NOT THE PLAYER, but do it organically to the story.

THIS! This is what those authors need to heard!

[MeltingPenguins]

Interestingly we had games on here that did just that, and some people complained that they (not clarifying if they meant the mc or themself) were punished for it. They complained that the option shouldn’t be there if they get punished for picking it.

Rare, but those people unfortunately do exist.

But yeah, an author that mocks players for picking a reasonable, not bad option that strays from the author’s vision however… yeah, those authors ought to do some soul-searching

[AAChmielewski]

@Kaelyn

But what about crimes not every society sees as a crime? Is it ok to write casually a player that rapes? That has a relationship with minors? Someone that is OK with beating Up minorities

This probably won’t go thought the forum filters, no? And definitely won’t be published I believe. So I think the best way to deal with that kind of game, if it ever be done by someone, is to ignore it or, again, write a negative review.

[Kaelyn]

Oh my comment was more based on the General question, If an author has a social responsibility, which I think he has, but I agree with your point, that if the author gives a choice the player should not be critizied for it. If I as author do not like the choices a player takes, shouldn’t include that choices at all.
But generally I think an author is responsible for what he writes.

[Vexius_Krexius]

@anon21485497

I feel at least part of this comes from authors attempting to handle material in a way that does not glorify inflicting harm. It’s difficult to portray something like choosing pure, cold-blooded murder in a non-negative light and avoid that portrayal possibly condoning/perpetuating violence, for instance. I’d be interested in hearing yours or anyone’s thoughts on not favoritizing gaming styles but also balancing the realities of what writing can implicate, contribute to and impact because it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Games are escapist fiction. If a player cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, I propose that no such burden exists on the author to try and fight that. What would one even call that? Burden of ignorance? Burden of irresponsibility? If my game is violent, that is my artistic vision. I will not dampen it or blanket it with reassurance. There is no burden.

“Social responsibility” is a term that also irks me. My work is my work, how you see it and how your mind interprets it is entirely up to you. I am not responsible for any of that as an author. Ever. It also implies that some things that cross that line of being able to control should be excluded entirely from my game or, as I’ve said, artistic vision merely out of some misplaced sense of, again, burden on the writer.

Let’s say someone reads my horror game and dies of a heart attack from the fear it caused them. Am I really responsible for that? How? Why? Should I have made it…less scary?

A rather extreme example, I know, but it’s so easy to see my point with it. Games are stories, and an author should get to tell theirs however they please, no matter what. Telling them their boundaries or trying to force new trendy phrases on them isn’t how you fight the very rare minority of human beings who are so effected by text in an event that something happens that requires discussion. If ever.

[poison_mara]

This reminds me of the pro-censorship movement. The Washington wives started in America trying to force self-censorship and block music they deemed indecent.

Writing same like painting or music are ART They should not be forced to follow real-life constraints, and like the author, you shouldn’t be forced to do something you don’t want to do.

That includes not add choices you deemed going against your vision. Period.

But also you have to accept that readers, moreover, if pay for it, have all the right in the world to criticise your world and that they probably will end taking meaning from your artistic work that it was never intended.

You shouldn’t try to make readers apologise for the theories or meanings they pick from your work.

Of course, you can say that X was never your intention, but the view a reader gets is one of the things that makes art, art.

I recommend anyone watch this video about This creative freedom speech and morality

How Twisted Sister Outclassed Congress

[Mango_Pirate]

The author is responsible for what they write but that shouldn’t be confused with being responsible for the reader.

I think “bad” choices are presented a little simplistically in this thread. Most of the time that’s a matter of a debate - is murder still evil if you do it to liberate your people or when you’re fighting a war, or if you’re simply hungry in a setting where you’re a vampire or simply a carnivore? A setting where evil and good are obvious and easy to pick between is an immature setting (not including crack settings where you can be clownishly evil or a saint for the sake of comedy).

I don’t think only evil choices should have consequences - traditionally good choices should have consequences too, because sometimes being good is not the easiest, most rewarding path.

[Autumn19]

I definitely agree with this point, if it’s clear that this side is evil and this side is good, then in my opinion that is poor writing and storytelling, it’s black and white morality which is never really good in any setting. There needs to be nuance, to make it engaging, otherwise it’s a powertrip fantasy for the reader.
And to expand it’s more or less what you said, does the setting explain a “bad/evil” choice? Is it the best option available? Would an option that is seen as “good” result in more bad events happening in the future? Those are things that should be more present in stories, rather than a immediate reaction to a “good” or “evil” action.

If that makes sense?

[Myrtle]

Some of these threads are old, but the topic has been previously discussed in the forums:

How bad would you allow the player to be in your game?

In some games, Hosted Games and Choice of Games alike, the player character can take actions that are morally wrong (not necessarily unlawful in the game world) by our values (and sometimes morally wrong by the in-game world’s values), and get off without any punishment from the narrative. They may also choose to support value and government systems in the game world that are outdated at best in our world, and actively oppressive at worst. However, the option to do so is what I am wondering abou…

Where are the moral/ethical lines in interactive fiction?

Caveats: Yes, I know (for us) the short answer is “wherever CoG and/or HG (and Apple!) decide they are.” I used “interactive fiction” to include all stories where the reader makes choices that can impact story. I think most people take the position that simply reading about characters performing evil acts is one thing, while in interactive stories, we can allow readers to directly engage in the evil actions, which might be another thing entirely. So do people have their own personal “li…

Inappropriate Choices

I have started probably thirty different games so far and I’ve recently obtained time to focus on and finish them. I had my wife preview some of the story I’ve been working on and she had a concern that it might be a bit too morally unsound to be published. In the story, you play a sorcerer with the bloodline of a dragon who struggles to learn how to control his power while allowing it to properly manifest, all without a proper teacher. Early on in the first book a street urchin steals money f…

Are there choices that a game shouldn't give a player? (Was: Are games inherently trivializing?)

Some of the points raised on the Andrew Jackson thread about the limits of Interactive Fiction (IF) are I think worth discussing without reference to the specifics of that project, because they touch on what a lot of us are trying to do to one degree or another. I’ve got to disagree with this, as the pretentious git who’s chosen IF as the medium for my epic novel on politics, religion, and social order (plus, you know, evil blood magic fantasy empires). I don’t think games, video or otherwise…

[poison_mara]

I agree except when the clearly white and black is an artistic decision for instance a satire game or a over the top kids game. Fable is a wonderful example.

[DreamingGames]

I think people are kind of not understanding how stories influences us.

Stories influneces us. This is a fact, but it is not a one way street. What most stories does is reconfirm beliefs we already hold. This is way america history x is beloved by some nazies. And why every satirical work of art risk just reinforcing what is it satirizing. Because people will look at what they already believe and read the story from that lens of understanding.

Now that doesn´t mean that stories can´t be harmful. They can be dangerous by feeding into to biases which objectively harm people in the real world. Such as the role of woman, poc, queers and the mentally ill and reinforcing those biases. But they don´t just ping the biases into our brain from nothing.

Personally, I think that what the story assumes is good is much more dangerous than what is assumes is bad. If a story makes an evil route, it has already marked it as bad, by flagging it as evil and nothing else is really needed. If the reader play this because they want to play a villan mc then the reader have already the moral judgement.

It is what is assumed as good, funny or unremarkble which can be a problem. Why? Because it often goes unquestioned by the reader. Like all the many, many bad trans depiction which thought it a funny gag to puke at the reveal of a trans woman. This feed into a transphobic narrative that already exist about transwoman really being men.

As for social respnsobility? Well, I don´t think any author could ever live up to that. It is just not possible if you are also writing about something which touches issues, because the reader will always bring their own understanding to the table and one persons problematic is anothers lived experience. That doesn´t mean you shouldn´t think about the assumptions you are making in your writing and why you are writing what you write, just accept that you cannot predict what every reader is going to get out of it.