Secret Hitler, the party game!(?)
December 27, 2015 12:36 PM Subscribe
At The Awl, Rob Dubbin describes a sincere unease about a new Kickstarter card game smash hit, "Secret Hitler".
Nor at Tech Times.
Maybe a little, at Mashable, where the game's title is described as "potentially offensive" but overall considers the game a good history lesson.
From the Kickstarter description:
...it’s also a laudable goal to want to make people sensitive to fascism, and the dynamics that can help it along. Here are a few to watch out for. One is desensitizing people to fascism’s consequences. Another is to reframe its historic perpetrators as little more than mascots and thematic bunting. A third way to make fascism seem appealing is to demonstrate its remarkable ability to move units. As a game, Secret Hitler claims to be about subverting the mechanisms of tyranny. As a marketing campaign, it seems to rely on emulating them.When described at The Verge, in a story about the creators' physical work space, no such misgivings are in evidence.
Nor at Tech Times.
Maybe a little, at Mashable, where the game's title is described as "potentially offensive" but overall considers the game a good history lesson.
From the Kickstarter description:
We set out to make a game to help us reflect on the ways that others - good, bad, indifferent - were complicit in Hitler's rise to power. Our game doesn't model the specifics of German parliamentary politics. Instead, we try to model the paranoia and distrust he exploited, the opportunism that his rivals failed to account for, and the disastrous temptation to solve systemic problems by giving more power to the "right people."
So, the first thing I read about this game was the main article I linked. And I agreed with everything the writer wrote. But then as I read through other articles about the game, I was struck by the fact that none of the other writers chose to mention the potential outrage. Does that mean there isn't much?
I was raised Jewish but like many of us, do not practice. Am I oversensitive, to agree with the original article? I don't think so. Like Dubbin, I don't think the game should be banned or that people should not be allowed to play. I guess I just wish... I don't even know. That the creative energy that made this game would have been spent on a more positive experience? But many people will play this game and actually learn about history. Many people will not come away thinking Hitler was actually a great guy. And yet.
I guess the worst thing, is that I imagine groups of Holocaust deniers joyfully sitting around a table playing this thing. Hitler appeals to some people. Seemingly a lot of people. I just don't know. I had a strong reaction to the article and felt it worth posting.
posted by Glinn at 1:04 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
I was raised Jewish but like many of us, do not practice. Am I oversensitive, to agree with the original article? I don't think so. Like Dubbin, I don't think the game should be banned or that people should not be allowed to play. I guess I just wish... I don't even know. That the creative energy that made this game would have been spent on a more positive experience? But many people will play this game and actually learn about history. Many people will not come away thinking Hitler was actually a great guy. And yet.
I guess the worst thing, is that I imagine groups of Holocaust deniers joyfully sitting around a table playing this thing. Hitler appeals to some people. Seemingly a lot of people. I just don't know. I had a strong reaction to the article and felt it worth posting.
posted by Glinn at 1:04 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
There are interesting discussions to be had about branding and totalitarianism, but the writer's focus on the typeface angle is a bit odd, or perhaps felt incomplete. Fraktur type was in prominent use during Nazi-era Germany, sure, but it was in use in Germany before that part of its history, and after, and I also wonder if the writer would criticize the styling of games like id's Wolfenstein 3D for similar reasons.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:09 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:09 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't think the game should be banned. I just think we should have a society where there's no demand for it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:12 PM on December 27, 2015 [52 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:12 PM on December 27, 2015 [52 favorites]
It isn't per se bad As such, it's just normalising something terrible in a way that's pretty gross.
Also, Hitler targeted more than just Jews. Is it also queer people's birthright to do with his image as they will? Roma people's? Do any of the groups he targeted also have a birthright to object? Whose right trumps whose?
Or is the whole birthright thing really just a complete nonsense? (Yes.)
posted by Dysk at 1:13 PM on December 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
Also, Hitler targeted more than just Jews. Is it also queer people's birthright to do with his image as they will? Roma people's? Do any of the groups he targeted also have a birthright to object? Whose right trumps whose?
Or is the whole birthright thing really just a complete nonsense? (Yes.)
posted by Dysk at 1:13 PM on December 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
A friend of mine adapted the game and it became The Phantom Menace where the Chancellor has to turn the "Secret Anakin" into a new Sith Lord.
But it would not be controversial enough for the creators of Cards against Humanity.
posted by Phersu at 1:19 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
But it would not be controversial enough for the creators of Cards against Humanity.
posted by Phersu at 1:19 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Is it titillating because the subject matter, i.e. Hitler and Nazism, is still kinda forbidden and merely verbalizing your interest in the topic can cause discomfort? Or maybe it's just lazy intellectual non-conformism where you get to display how cool you are by embracing something offensive?
Dunno. All I know is that every time the Cards Against Humanity people are mentioned, they come off as contrarian cynics making bank on controversy and outrage. Nothing evil about that but it makes me question their motives for this game.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [15 favorites]
Dunno. All I know is that every time the Cards Against Humanity people are mentioned, they come off as contrarian cynics making bank on controversy and outrage. Nothing evil about that but it makes me question their motives for this game.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [15 favorites]
There are a few different strands to their argument, some more interesting than others. The objection to profiting off of Hitler's name is, I guess, as strong as it ever was, but with every other movie for the last couple of decades set in WW2, well, as they say, you can't put that toothpaste back in the barn.
The objection that's more intriguing, and more specifc to this game, is that there's something worrying about you, the party attendee, pretending to be a Nazi for fun. I'd be curious to hear what people think about that.
posted by Beardman at 1:22 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
The objection that's more intriguing, and more specifc to this game, is that there's something worrying about you, the party attendee, pretending to be a Nazi for fun. I'd be curious to hear what people think about that.
posted by Beardman at 1:22 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was struck by the fact that none of the other writers chose to mention the potential outrage. Does that mean there isn't much?
I wouldn't say there isn't much outrage, but I would say that the boardgame community is pretty hit-or-miss when it comes to having any kind of understanding of or sympathy for the concerns of the historically marginalized. It is hard to overstate how very white and male the hobby tends to be. Unsurprisingly, that means that when someone asks even moderately probing questions about the appropriateness of a thematic choice in a game, those questions are either ignored or pushed back upon ferociously as being the intrusions of non-gaming "PC crusader" / SJW types.
For example, earlier this year there was a big blow-up about the game Five Tribes. The short version is that the game evokes the 1,001 Arabian Nights as a theme, but doesn't really use the theme much mechanically (it was chosen late in development, and isn't tied directly to game actions intrinsically). They needed a bunch of types of resources, and among the many nouns they chose from within the theme, they decided that slaves should be a resource that is gained and expended.
Some people were not happy about this, as you might imagine. But, when that was brought up, there was a lot of pushback from people claiming that it's just PC nonsense by interlopers who want to ruin games. Nevermind that games like Freedom: The Underground Railroad are widely lauded, because they include slavery but in a way that actually makes the game about slavery, about how terrible it was, and about actual historical implications of it, as opposed to just using it as set dressing.
Eventually, the publisher actually changed the cards for future print runs to be Fakirs (which isn't entirely unproblematic on its own). As you might imagine, there are people still whining about this today, and who cannot see how this is any different from the aforementioned Freedom.
Anyways, this is a roundabout way of saying: I think these kinds of conversations are important, but they are tough ones to manage in the boardgame community currently.
posted by tocts at 1:29 PM on December 27, 2015 [27 favorites]
I wouldn't say there isn't much outrage, but I would say that the boardgame community is pretty hit-or-miss when it comes to having any kind of understanding of or sympathy for the concerns of the historically marginalized. It is hard to overstate how very white and male the hobby tends to be. Unsurprisingly, that means that when someone asks even moderately probing questions about the appropriateness of a thematic choice in a game, those questions are either ignored or pushed back upon ferociously as being the intrusions of non-gaming "PC crusader" / SJW types.
For example, earlier this year there was a big blow-up about the game Five Tribes. The short version is that the game evokes the 1,001 Arabian Nights as a theme, but doesn't really use the theme much mechanically (it was chosen late in development, and isn't tied directly to game actions intrinsically). They needed a bunch of types of resources, and among the many nouns they chose from within the theme, they decided that slaves should be a resource that is gained and expended.
Some people were not happy about this, as you might imagine. But, when that was brought up, there was a lot of pushback from people claiming that it's just PC nonsense by interlopers who want to ruin games. Nevermind that games like Freedom: The Underground Railroad are widely lauded, because they include slavery but in a way that actually makes the game about slavery, about how terrible it was, and about actual historical implications of it, as opposed to just using it as set dressing.
Eventually, the publisher actually changed the cards for future print runs to be Fakirs (which isn't entirely unproblematic on its own). As you might imagine, there are people still whining about this today, and who cannot see how this is any different from the aforementioned Freedom.
Anyways, this is a roundabout way of saying: I think these kinds of conversations are important, but they are tough ones to manage in the boardgame community currently.
posted by tocts at 1:29 PM on December 27, 2015 [27 favorites]
Whose right trumps whose?
Given where we're standing, specifically Donald Trump is still in the running to be the next US President, an educational game that shows Hitler's rise to power as "thing that could totally still happen today" might be a good object lesson. (That said, I have no idea how the game actually plays outside what's documented in the links above.)
posted by fragmede at 1:31 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Given where we're standing, specifically Donald Trump is still in the running to be the next US President, an educational game that shows Hitler's rise to power as "thing that could totally still happen today" might be a good object lesson. (That said, I have no idea how the game actually plays outside what's documented in the links above.)
posted by fragmede at 1:31 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lines like "I’ve never been particularly comfortable getting into the mindset of a secret gangster or werewolf" are hand-wringy to the point of parody.
Lines like "'Fuck yeah, Secret Hitler, I know exactly what we’re doing on Ryan’s bachelor weekend now.'" muddy the waters with the old "I don't like Cards Against Humanity and the people who play it.'" argument.
I'm extremely unequipped to wade into this debate but there seems to be a counterintuitive struggle at the heart of it: Nazis and Hitler are cultural shorthand for unequivocal evil. They are universally agreed upon (well, unfortunately, almost universally) to be THE bad guys in your story to be THE bad guys and if you need THE bad guys you can call upon the Nazi aesthetic (Star Wars and countless others) or actual Nazis (Indiana Jones and countless others). The argument of this article, and elsewhere, agrees with the universal acceptance of Nazis/Hitler as evil but comes to the opposite conclusion that they should never be called upon in these fictional contexts, especially for something as frivolous as a party game.
It seems to me that the most effective cultural reminder that the Nazis are THE bad guys is the frivolous stuff that doesn't require you to completely interface with the sheer immensity of who they were and what they did. If all we had was the holocaust museum and various documentaries on the subject matter, how many people would even have passing knowledge of this stuff? If you ask 100 people about the Rwandan genocide, how many could give you even 1/10th of the information they could probably give you about the Holocaust/Nazis/Hitler? How many of them got their information from pop culture?
posted by unsupervised at 1:43 PM on December 27, 2015 [18 favorites]
Lines like "'Fuck yeah, Secret Hitler, I know exactly what we’re doing on Ryan’s bachelor weekend now.'" muddy the waters with the old "I don't like Cards Against Humanity and the people who play it.'" argument.
I'm extremely unequipped to wade into this debate but there seems to be a counterintuitive struggle at the heart of it: Nazis and Hitler are cultural shorthand for unequivocal evil. They are universally agreed upon (well, unfortunately, almost universally) to be THE bad guys in your story to be THE bad guys and if you need THE bad guys you can call upon the Nazi aesthetic (Star Wars and countless others) or actual Nazis (Indiana Jones and countless others). The argument of this article, and elsewhere, agrees with the universal acceptance of Nazis/Hitler as evil but comes to the opposite conclusion that they should never be called upon in these fictional contexts, especially for something as frivolous as a party game.
It seems to me that the most effective cultural reminder that the Nazis are THE bad guys is the frivolous stuff that doesn't require you to completely interface with the sheer immensity of who they were and what they did. If all we had was the holocaust museum and various documentaries on the subject matter, how many people would even have passing knowledge of this stuff? If you ask 100 people about the Rwandan genocide, how many could give you even 1/10th of the information they could probably give you about the Holocaust/Nazis/Hitler? How many of them got their information from pop culture?
posted by unsupervised at 1:43 PM on December 27, 2015 [18 favorites]
the fear that elements of fascism are going to be back in vogue due to a board game seems kind of overblown. the current era of debt crises seems to indicate that the phenomenon named 'fascism' (focus on military, nationalism, race politics, scapegoating, sexism, religious intrusion on political spaces, etc) sort of just naturally occurs anytime you live in a modern nation state going through an economic contraction/has a restless population and strong religious/military institutions. I don't think a boardgame is going to leave much of an impact overall
the criticism that this crosses the line of taste is probably valid but not a universal thing in the same way that tastes are not. I want everyone to share my tastes. they don't. a universally recognize faux pas that does not make. I do think it's valid to say that the thematic content of the game is edgy in perhaps not the most thoughtful or careful way. the title uses a a childish construction of language and sticks a bogeyman into it. it's not elegant. it's not thoughtful. but it seems to be par for the course for people who like pop-culture mashups on their t-shirts and have seen Inception a billion times and those are the people who love to fund Kickstarters
I mean, I think it's invalid to say that the game itself is reductive without having played it because, well, all games that seek to coyly model history are. I mean, there's a continuum between this and, say, Twilight Struggle. I think if you want to judge the game on its reductiveness then you have to play it (maybe not in good faith but at least not super dismissively) and figure out if the atmosphere created by the gameplay is as thoughtless and banal as the name of the game indicates that it will be. well, at least if you intend to pen a public article about it. I'm probably not going to waste much of my time or money on it
posted by runt at 1:46 PM on December 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
the criticism that this crosses the line of taste is probably valid but not a universal thing in the same way that tastes are not. I want everyone to share my tastes. they don't. a universally recognize faux pas that does not make. I do think it's valid to say that the thematic content of the game is edgy in perhaps not the most thoughtful or careful way. the title uses a a childish construction of language and sticks a bogeyman into it. it's not elegant. it's not thoughtful. but it seems to be par for the course for people who like pop-culture mashups on their t-shirts and have seen Inception a billion times and those are the people who love to fund Kickstarters
I mean, I think it's invalid to say that the game itself is reductive without having played it because, well, all games that seek to coyly model history are. I mean, there's a continuum between this and, say, Twilight Struggle. I think if you want to judge the game on its reductiveness then you have to play it (maybe not in good faith but at least not super dismissively) and figure out if the atmosphere created by the gameplay is as thoughtless and banal as the name of the game indicates that it will be. well, at least if you intend to pen a public article about it. I'm probably not going to waste much of my time or money on it
posted by runt at 1:46 PM on December 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
If you ask 100 people about the Rwandan genocide, how many could give you even 1/10th of the information they could probably give you about the Holocaust/Nazis/Hitler?
How many celebrate it 'ironically' or for the lulz? How many revel in the detail without much thought to its meaning or implication? How many use it as lazy shorthand for what we ought to do to certain groups in society, or have 'edgy' opinions about those groups precisely because of what it signifies culturally with no thought to how it affects those actual people belonging to that group?
The knife cuts both ways.
posted by Dysk at 1:50 PM on December 27, 2015 [13 favorites]
How many celebrate it 'ironically' or for the lulz? How many revel in the detail without much thought to its meaning or implication? How many use it as lazy shorthand for what we ought to do to certain groups in society, or have 'edgy' opinions about those groups precisely because of what it signifies culturally with no thought to how it affects those actual people belonging to that group?
The knife cuts both ways.
posted by Dysk at 1:50 PM on December 27, 2015 [13 favorites]
Also, Hitler targeted more than just Jews. Is it also queer people's birthright to do with his image as they will? Roma people's? Do any of the groups he targeted also have a birthright to object? Whose right trumps whose?
Or is the whole birthright thing really just a complete nonsense? (Yes.)
Could not disagree with this more. Descendants of queer people, Roma, handicapped people, etc who were targeted by Hitler absolutely share in a 'birthright' to be able to mock their oppressor in ways that, say, German protestants or Alabama skinheads do not. If you want to make people uncomfortable about history, and you're coming at it from a perspective of suffering, that is a very different thing than having no skin in the game and doing it to mess around. And I would also argue that all the groups mentioned should also get a certain extra weight when they argue against it. Saying that victims trump non-victims shouldn't be an issue, and when they disagree with one another, that is a valuable conversation to pay attention to.
I don't know enough about the game to do more than share the main FPP writer's unease, but I would definitely say that if the creators are doing this out of a thought-through reaction to genocide against their ethnicity or group -- whatever their ethnicity or group -- they have the right to do so, and our reaction to it should be studied, and nuanced, and taking it seriously, rather than outright rejection - which seems to be what is happening.
The word "birthright" is often a loaded one when applied to Jews, and I can see how it might rub someone the wrong way (especially someone looking to read it as "Jews believe they own the Holocaust to the exclusion of all others," which any trip to a Holocaust memorial would prove otherwise), but that doesn't make it nonsense. He wasn't talking about Jewish exclusivity. He was trying to have the same conversation we are still working towards with regards to cultural appropriation. Sometimes, some voices have the right to be louder than others. When it comes to Hitler, someone Jewish, someone queer, someone disabled (or heaven forbid, someone who is all three) ought to have that that louder voice.
But that doesn't mean that everyone has to or will agree with it.
posted by Mchelly at 2:12 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Or is the whole birthright thing really just a complete nonsense? (Yes.)
Could not disagree with this more. Descendants of queer people, Roma, handicapped people, etc who were targeted by Hitler absolutely share in a 'birthright' to be able to mock their oppressor in ways that, say, German protestants or Alabama skinheads do not. If you want to make people uncomfortable about history, and you're coming at it from a perspective of suffering, that is a very different thing than having no skin in the game and doing it to mess around. And I would also argue that all the groups mentioned should also get a certain extra weight when they argue against it. Saying that victims trump non-victims shouldn't be an issue, and when they disagree with one another, that is a valuable conversation to pay attention to.
I don't know enough about the game to do more than share the main FPP writer's unease, but I would definitely say that if the creators are doing this out of a thought-through reaction to genocide against their ethnicity or group -- whatever their ethnicity or group -- they have the right to do so, and our reaction to it should be studied, and nuanced, and taking it seriously, rather than outright rejection - which seems to be what is happening.
The word "birthright" is often a loaded one when applied to Jews, and I can see how it might rub someone the wrong way (especially someone looking to read it as "Jews believe they own the Holocaust to the exclusion of all others," which any trip to a Holocaust memorial would prove otherwise), but that doesn't make it nonsense. He wasn't talking about Jewish exclusivity. He was trying to have the same conversation we are still working towards with regards to cultural appropriation. Sometimes, some voices have the right to be louder than others. When it comes to Hitler, someone Jewish, someone queer, someone disabled (or heaven forbid, someone who is all three) ought to have that that louder voice.
But that doesn't mean that everyone has to or will agree with it.
posted by Mchelly at 2:12 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
The thing is, it's asking us to shut up and listen because someone comes from an affected group. It doesn't allow for dissent, even from within those groups.
posted by Dysk at 2:18 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 2:18 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
How is this different than Inglorious Bastards? Danger 5? etc? The game depicts fascists literally as lizard people, so I don't it's message is that fascism is awesome. There's not even a swastika in sight. Besides, I'm saving my outrage for the actual fascists running for President.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:26 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:26 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
runt: " I don't think a boardgame is going to leave much of an impact overall"
One could hope it might be educational.
posted by Mitheral at 2:29 PM on December 27, 2015
One could hope it might be educational.
posted by Mitheral at 2:29 PM on December 27, 2015
Is he? To me the writer is essentially saying, I dissent. He's just trying to find a way to do so that still allows the game makers their right to make their case, too. But that doesn't make his opinion the last word.
I don't think anything in mass media horrified me more than this scene from the movie Borat. Once it was clear that the song was advocating a pogrom, and the people there were still enthusiastically singing along after they got over some initial squeamishness - where do you go with that? I think the scene needed to stay in the movie to show just how easily outright hate speech can be embraced by normal, presumably decent people. And yet the song is just catchy enough that it gives another tool to the arsenal of people who agree with it.
I do think there's a level of "what's the big deal" metacommentary that can actually diminish things that need to be big deals. And I think it's worth exploring. But I don't have anything resembling an answer.
posted by Mchelly at 2:32 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think anything in mass media horrified me more than this scene from the movie Borat. Once it was clear that the song was advocating a pogrom, and the people there were still enthusiastically singing along after they got over some initial squeamishness - where do you go with that? I think the scene needed to stay in the movie to show just how easily outright hate speech can be embraced by normal, presumably decent people. And yet the song is just catchy enough that it gives another tool to the arsenal of people who agree with it.
I do think there's a level of "what's the big deal" metacommentary that can actually diminish things that need to be big deals. And I think it's worth exploring. But I don't have anything resembling an answer.
posted by Mchelly at 2:32 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Imagining the worst person interfacing with the worst aspect of this piece of culture in a celebratory way" that is brought up in the article and by Glinn and Dysk above is an argument that I see a ton when it comes to these things.
I think it's an understandable fear of democratizing offense. I've joked that no white person has ever followed up "It's just like Chris Rock says..." with anything but virulent racism. Dave Chappelle left behind his wildly popular show after seeing the wrong people use his material in exactly the opposite way he intended. I tend to believe, perhaps naively, that the vast majority of people are able to take this work in the manner intended and worrying about the minority who don't is a fool's errand. They would have found other outlets for their toxicity.
And the number of people that celebrate it "for the lulz" is directly proportional to the cultural impact the thing has and, ironically, the taboo placed against using it "for the lulz".
I struggle with this a lot. I saw a movie this past week that has a ton of unequivocal bad guys at the center, all of which have fairly extreme violence enacted upon them. One of these bad guys was a woman. The violence against her was uncomfortable in ways that the same violence on one of the male characters would not evoke as strong a reaction (perhaps this says more about me being desensitized to violence but let's put that aside.) The woman meets a grisly end in much the same way as her male counterparts and again, way more uncomfortable. It made me think a lot about how the movie didn't seem to take into account the cultural difference about violence of men against women vs. men against men, that it was in fact making a statement about it, taking a stance that it could write a female villain that could be treated the same as a male villain in a bold (if not entirely successful) way.
Then I got home and read the most popular review of the film on the site Letterboxd (this is it in its entirety): "If there's one thing a bunch of racists and murderers can agree on, it's that you can't trust a bitch."
It's hard not to let this get to me. 112 people favorited this review, a lot more than the next most popular. But if I'm to judge a piece of culture by the worst fans of that culture, I think I'm doing myself a disservice.
As I said above, I feel extremely unequipped to make these arguments and the only reason I'm writing as much as I am is because I struggle with it a lot. I'm a New York Italian, and if I let the absolute, mind-bogglingly interpretations of The Sopranos, Goodfellas, The Godfather by Italian and non-Italian alike hold a disproportionate sway over my opinions of these things, I'd be lesser for it. We can talk about how Goodfellas is a collection of great scenes adding up to a not very good film and NOT have to talk about the people who use it to celebrate and reinforce their vitriolic hatred of women because that's their fault. Kind of like how I'm glad I was able to come to Monty Python and The Big Lebowski before encountering the more...vocal...portions of their fanbase to lessen my opinions of the things.
posted by unsupervised at 2:36 PM on December 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think it's an understandable fear of democratizing offense. I've joked that no white person has ever followed up "It's just like Chris Rock says..." with anything but virulent racism. Dave Chappelle left behind his wildly popular show after seeing the wrong people use his material in exactly the opposite way he intended. I tend to believe, perhaps naively, that the vast majority of people are able to take this work in the manner intended and worrying about the minority who don't is a fool's errand. They would have found other outlets for their toxicity.
And the number of people that celebrate it "for the lulz" is directly proportional to the cultural impact the thing has and, ironically, the taboo placed against using it "for the lulz".
I struggle with this a lot. I saw a movie this past week that has a ton of unequivocal bad guys at the center, all of which have fairly extreme violence enacted upon them. One of these bad guys was a woman. The violence against her was uncomfortable in ways that the same violence on one of the male characters would not evoke as strong a reaction (perhaps this says more about me being desensitized to violence but let's put that aside.) The woman meets a grisly end in much the same way as her male counterparts and again, way more uncomfortable. It made me think a lot about how the movie didn't seem to take into account the cultural difference about violence of men against women vs. men against men, that it was in fact making a statement about it, taking a stance that it could write a female villain that could be treated the same as a male villain in a bold (if not entirely successful) way.
Then I got home and read the most popular review of the film on the site Letterboxd (this is it in its entirety): "If there's one thing a bunch of racists and murderers can agree on, it's that you can't trust a bitch."
It's hard not to let this get to me. 112 people favorited this review, a lot more than the next most popular. But if I'm to judge a piece of culture by the worst fans of that culture, I think I'm doing myself a disservice.
As I said above, I feel extremely unequipped to make these arguments and the only reason I'm writing as much as I am is because I struggle with it a lot. I'm a New York Italian, and if I let the absolute, mind-bogglingly interpretations of The Sopranos, Goodfellas, The Godfather by Italian and non-Italian alike hold a disproportionate sway over my opinions of these things, I'd be lesser for it. We can talk about how Goodfellas is a collection of great scenes adding up to a not very good film and NOT have to talk about the people who use it to celebrate and reinforce their vitriolic hatred of women because that's their fault. Kind of like how I'm glad I was able to come to Monty Python and The Big Lebowski before encountering the more...vocal...portions of their fanbase to lessen my opinions of the things.
posted by unsupervised at 2:36 PM on December 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
But if I'm to judge a piece of culture by the worst fans of that culture, I think I'm doing myself a disservice.
I personally think it's one thing to consider, amongst many others. For me, the balance of 'lol Hitler' to genuine worth in Secret Hitler is... not good, to an extent not true of the other things you mention.
posted by Dysk at 2:44 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I personally think it's one thing to consider, amongst many others. For me, the balance of 'lol Hitler' to genuine worth in Secret Hitler is... not good, to an extent not true of the other things you mention.
posted by Dysk at 2:44 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've joked that no white person has ever followed up "It's just like Chris Rock says..." with anything but virulent racism.
Excuse me. On more than one occasion I've said "It's just like Chris Rock says: No one goes to Hooters for wings."
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:51 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Excuse me. On more than one occasion I've said "It's just like Chris Rock says: No one goes to Hooters for wings."
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:51 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
The game depicts fascists literally as lizard people, so I don't it's message is that fascism is awesome. There's not even a swastika in sight.
Which did make me wonder why they called it "Secret Hitler." I guess it's easy shorthand for "the Big Bad" in a way that "Secret Chief of the Lizard People" isn't. "Manchurian Candidate" might work, since that's actually closer to the gameplay, but it's still not as widely recognized (and doesn't come with the built-in marketing of being objectionable.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:53 PM on December 27, 2015
Which did make me wonder why they called it "Secret Hitler." I guess it's easy shorthand for "the Big Bad" in a way that "Secret Chief of the Lizard People" isn't. "Manchurian Candidate" might work, since that's actually closer to the gameplay, but it's still not as widely recognized (and doesn't come with the built-in marketing of being objectionable.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:53 PM on December 27, 2015
If you're worried this makes light of Nazis, you could follow a round or two of the game with Son of Saul (trailer, fleeting moments of nudity), a movie about "the norm of the Holocaust," about the 2 of every 3 that died, not just those who survived.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:55 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by filthy light thief at 2:55 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I doubt the gameplay will be 1/10th as offensive as Cards Against Humanity gameplay tends to be (even among otherwise wonderful human beings).
I can understand how someone can be upset about the game though.
That being said, I'm glad I got in the kickstarter - the game sounds like a lot of fun.
posted by el io at 2:55 PM on December 27, 2015
I can understand how someone can be upset about the game though.
That being said, I'm glad I got in the kickstarter - the game sounds like a lot of fun.
posted by el io at 2:55 PM on December 27, 2015
I'm irritated about this for an unrelated reason - the continued demonization of lizard people. Name one bit of media where they're ever the good guys.
The title seems just there to court controversy as free dickish publicity in exactly the way it's doing now. It seems to have enough going for it mechanically that I wish they didn't feel compelled to name it as such.
posted by solarion at 3:01 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
The title seems just there to court controversy as free dickish publicity in exactly the way it's doing now. It seems to have enough going for it mechanically that I wish they didn't feel compelled to name it as such.
posted by solarion at 3:01 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Everybody's new favorite game seems to be coming up with elaborate contrived scenarios that if taken at face value, according to the narrowly defined rules of the scenario, allow people to feel justified (if not even righteous) for doing cruel or immoral things. Another variant on the idea is the "would you kill baby Hitler?" thought exercise. The question frames killing a baby as potentially morally laudable in the case of Hitler while ignoring the obviously more ethical option of intervening in baby Hitler's life in some way to prevent him ever having grown up to become a murderous authoritarian, even though that possibility is no less fantastical than the possibility of time travel.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:25 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 3:25 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Fascists and "liberals"? Aside from everything else that's fucked up about this game, naming one of the two sides "liberals" makes me think they didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article about the Weimar Republic. Heck, that there were just two sides is a stupid idea to begin with. I don't know if board games will bring back fascism, but false history sure will help.
posted by Kattullus at 3:27 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 3:27 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Which did make me wonder why they called it "Secret Hitler." I guess it's easy shorthand for "the Big Bad" in a way that "Secret Chief of the Lizard People" isn't. "Manchurian Candidate" might work, since that's actually closer to the gameplay, but it's still not as widely recognized (and doesn't come with the built-in marketing of being objectionable.)I'm not sure The Manchurian Candidate is really an accurate analogy? It's a modified Werewolf sort of mechanic, but if I understand correctly the conceit is that some members of the group are tasked with advancing fascist policies and ultimately getting "Their Man" into power without liberal members of the political system blocking them. I'm not particularly comfortable being the defender of the game, but it seems like a timely take on the nature of fascism.
I'm curious if perceptions of the game are "pre-poisoned" by past conversations about Cards Against Humanity.
posted by verb at 3:43 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
The board game Monopoly was also meant to be a warning, but has mostly generated normativity.
posted by clew at 3:57 PM on December 27, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by clew at 3:57 PM on December 27, 2015 [27 favorites]
Unsurprisingly, that means that when someone asks even moderately probing questions about the appropriateness of a thematic choice in a game, those questions are either ignored or pushed back upon ferociously as being the intrusions of non-gaming "PC crusader" / SJW types.
Another example: this 100 comment thread about sexualized artwork in an otherwise fairly abstract game that somewhat mixes Go with Magic: The Gathering is slightly unusual because the designer responds in the thread. He says:
There's a sort of puritanical undercurrent in the community, almost like Mormons invented boardgames as a substitute for booze. Maybe they're just the fraction of the community with a wife and children?
posted by pwnguin at 4:23 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another example: this 100 comment thread about sexualized artwork in an otherwise fairly abstract game that somewhat mixes Go with Magic: The Gathering is slightly unusual because the designer responds in the thread. He says:
I said to the artist: Stress the female aspect in Sylvan deck. Stress the male aspect in the Highland deck. And make them equal in the Empire deck. That seemed okay to me. For me, respecting genders does not mean ignoring them.
The artist then was working with archetypes and with what I said about the inspiration for the particular cards and about their powers. He did pretty good job, in my opinion, and each deck gives different mood and feeling. When he showed us Naiad, we knew it is close to the line, but we decided it is not crossing it and approved it
There's a sort of puritanical undercurrent in the community, almost like Mormons invented boardgames as a substitute for booze. Maybe they're just the fraction of the community with a wife and children?
posted by pwnguin at 4:23 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm irritated about this for an unrelated reason - the continued demonization of lizard people. Name one bit of media where they're ever the good guys.Dr Who
posted by Leon at 4:27 PM on December 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
I've actually played Secret Hitler a few times while it was in testing. My takeaway is that it does a surprisingly good job of simulating how hard it is to keep a Hitler from consolidating power in an environment of distrust and secrecy. It's obviously no substitute for a civics lesson but the sessions I participated in certainly got us talking.
posted by eamondaly at 4:30 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by eamondaly at 4:30 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
My problem with the Awl article is that it told me nothing about the game. It's concern seemed to be that any trivialization of Hitler was intrinsically problematic. I think Mel Brooks showed this to be false. It's certainly true that this could be problematic, but based on the descriptions of people who actually played the game, I'd be willing to give it a chance. I think it should be judged on its merits, not its associations.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:54 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:54 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
The thing is, it's asking us to shut up and listen because someone comes from an affected group. It doesn't allow for dissent, even from within those groups.
Yes. Sometimes I need to people to tell me to shut up and listen, because sometimes I need to shut up and listen, because sometimes what I'm saying doesn't carry the same warrant of what some one else needs to say and have heard.
posted by otherchaz at 4:56 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Something just occurred to me, and I think it's worth laying out the facts here.
Some people are upset that Secret Hitler, a card game that arguably glorifies Hitler, raised $1.4 million. Despite being of Jewish descent, I don't find the subject matter problematic, and in fact I backed it and look forward to playing it.
A few months previously, another card game called Exploding Kittens raised $8.7 million, more than six times as much as Secret Hitler. I did not back that game, and I don't want to play it, because I find even the suggestion of violence against animals (especially kittens) to be utterly appalling. And yet I haven't seen any hand-wringing articles about that game. Have you?
Maybe everybody just needs to acknowledge that different people draw the line of acceptability in different places, and that some folks think that blowing up kittens, in the context of a casual party game, is literally worse than Hitler.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:08 PM on December 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
Some people are upset that Secret Hitler, a card game that arguably glorifies Hitler, raised $1.4 million. Despite being of Jewish descent, I don't find the subject matter problematic, and in fact I backed it and look forward to playing it.
A few months previously, another card game called Exploding Kittens raised $8.7 million, more than six times as much as Secret Hitler. I did not back that game, and I don't want to play it, because I find even the suggestion of violence against animals (especially kittens) to be utterly appalling. And yet I haven't seen any hand-wringing articles about that game. Have you?
Maybe everybody just needs to acknowledge that different people draw the line of acceptability in different places, and that some folks think that blowing up kittens, in the context of a casual party game, is literally worse than Hitler.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:08 PM on December 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
Yes. Sometimes I need to people to tell me to shut up and listen, because sometimes I need to shut up and listen, because sometimes what I'm saying doesn't carry the same warrant of what some one else needs to say and have heard.
Sometimes those of us who are also affected being told to shut up and listen by people riding roughshod over us is a fucking problem, regardless of who the people doing the riding are.
posted by Dysk at 5:26 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sometimes those of us who are also affected being told to shut up and listen by people riding roughshod over us is a fucking problem, regardless of who the people doing the riding are.
posted by Dysk at 5:26 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I quite simply don't understand the hand-wringing over this. Then again, I didn't understand the hand-wringing in the various CAH threads, either.
There are such things as irony, black humor, and recontextualization of symbols (even ones with dark associations). Some people enjoy these forms of art and expression; some do not. If you don't, then you're not obliged to participate.
I mean...I'm literally at a loss to comprehend what the objection is. Do people assume that the creators of the game have racist intent? That the potential audience for the game are racists? That people will become racist by playing this game? That people are going to base their historical understanding of the Nazis on a card game?
Because none of that makes any sense. I see nothing to suggest that the game presents Hitler or Nazism with anything that could be mistaken for sincere reverence. Hitler has become a symbol of absolute evil. That symbol—that caricature, that cartoon, that video game boss—is the Hitler they're evoking here.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong—I haven't played the game—but people seem determined to ignore any kind of context, and condemn the thing on principle because OMG Hitler.
There are mountains of pop-culture artifacts which deal with the Nazis in unserious and even farcical ways. I'd wager that many people reading this have consumed that media themselves, and have not turned into goose-stepping fascists because of it.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:29 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
There are such things as irony, black humor, and recontextualization of symbols (even ones with dark associations). Some people enjoy these forms of art and expression; some do not. If you don't, then you're not obliged to participate.
I mean...I'm literally at a loss to comprehend what the objection is. Do people assume that the creators of the game have racist intent? That the potential audience for the game are racists? That people will become racist by playing this game? That people are going to base their historical understanding of the Nazis on a card game?
Because none of that makes any sense. I see nothing to suggest that the game presents Hitler or Nazism with anything that could be mistaken for sincere reverence. Hitler has become a symbol of absolute evil. That symbol—that caricature, that cartoon, that video game boss—is the Hitler they're evoking here.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong—I haven't played the game—but people seem determined to ignore any kind of context, and condemn the thing on principle because OMG Hitler.
There are mountains of pop-culture artifacts which deal with the Nazis in unserious and even farcical ways. I'd wager that many people reading this have consumed that media themselves, and have not turned into goose-stepping fascists because of it.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:29 PM on December 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Sometimes those of us who are also affected
If I may ask, how are you affected by this? Because the group artwork that is a MeFi comment thread needs the unique voices, i.e. yours
posted by otherchaz at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2015
If I may ask, how are you affected by this? Because the group artwork that is a MeFi comment thread needs the unique voices, i.e. yours
posted by otherchaz at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2015
people seem determined to ignore any kind of context, and condemn the thing on principle because OMG Hitler
I don't think that's the reaction people are having. I do think people are expressing their negative feelings about the game (or the idea of the game), but they aren't trying to censor it. I don't think this game is going to turn people into fascists. But how about things like "desensitizing people to fascism’s consequences"? Young people, impressionable people. Maybe not you. But I think it's worth considering.
I wouldn't play Exploding Kittens and I am sorry but not surprised to know it exists. I would say that's an accurate representation of my feeling about both games.
posted by Glinn at 5:51 PM on December 27, 2015
I don't think that's the reaction people are having. I do think people are expressing their negative feelings about the game (or the idea of the game), but they aren't trying to censor it. I don't think this game is going to turn people into fascists. But how about things like "desensitizing people to fascism’s consequences"? Young people, impressionable people. Maybe not you. But I think it's worth considering.
I wouldn't play Exploding Kittens and I am sorry but not surprised to know it exists. I would say that's an accurate representation of my feeling about both games.
posted by Glinn at 5:51 PM on December 27, 2015
This does nothing to allay my suspicion that Max Temkin is an algorithm designed to test the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable to 21st century nerd culture.
I mean...I'm literally at a loss to comprehend what the objection is. Do people assume that the creators of the game have racist intent? That the potential audience for the game are racists? That people will become racist by playing this game? That people are going to base their historical understanding of the Nazis on a card game?
I think reading the article is a good place to start on this:
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:57 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean...I'm literally at a loss to comprehend what the objection is. Do people assume that the creators of the game have racist intent? That the potential audience for the game are racists? That people will become racist by playing this game? That people are going to base their historical understanding of the Nazis on a card game?
I think reading the article is a good place to start on this:
The people who made Secret Hitler advertise it as a playable psychological model of how totalitarianism takes root. Their sales pitch also reassures that the game “doesn’t model the specifics of German parliamentary politics.” Which makes sense: just as all art must draw some line around reality, so did Secret Hitler’s designers pick and choose from the horrific totality of actual-Hitler’s work, isolating just the right parts to weave into their party game. You don’t want to bum people out with this stuff.Is that a valid critique? Probably a matter for the individual. But it is not a particularly deeply hidden one.
Of course, it’s also a laudable goal to want to make people sensitive to fascism, and the dynamics that can help it along. Here are a few to watch out for. One is desensitizing people to fascism’s consequences. Another is to reframe its historic perpetrators as little more than mascots and thematic bunting. A third way to make fascism seem appealing is to demonstrate its remarkable ability to move units. As a game, Secret Hitler claims to be about subverting the mechanisms of tyranny. As a marketing campaign, it seems to rely on emulating them.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:57 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Based on skimming the description / rules (which seem pretty standard for this kind of game) the argument this teaches you something about the rise of fascists is rather lame. Fascists didn't win because "liberals" didn't know who was on which team; they won because non-fascists all had different goals and were often more willing to work with fascists than compromise with their rivals. It's not that the designers don't have the specifics in there, it's that the game is based on other games and not on the 1930s.
You could design a game that lets players learn the game theory explanation for how it all went to shit back then in an avoidable way. I probably still wouldn't want to play it unless it were Mordor themed or something. But I find my attitude like the author at the Awl--the inspiration seems not to be edifying but to try and find a spin on the genre of games that's "edgy" and to enjoy the press. (FWIW I like Cards Against Humanity.)
I find even the suggestion of violence against animals (especially kittens) to be utterly appalling.
Not that I'd recommend it for you, but it's actually violence by animals, specifically kittens.
posted by mark k at 6:02 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
You could design a game that lets players learn the game theory explanation for how it all went to shit back then in an avoidable way. I probably still wouldn't want to play it unless it were Mordor themed or something. But I find my attitude like the author at the Awl--the inspiration seems not to be edifying but to try and find a spin on the genre of games that's "edgy" and to enjoy the press. (FWIW I like Cards Against Humanity.)
I find even the suggestion of violence against animals (especially kittens) to be utterly appalling.
Not that I'd recommend it for you, but it's actually violence by animals, specifically kittens.
posted by mark k at 6:02 PM on December 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Hitler has become a symbol of absolute evil. That symbol—that caricature, that cartoon, that video game boss—is the Hitler they're evoking here.
Sure, which is what's bothering people. Do we really want to be approaching events that actually happened in the spirit with which we'd discuss a video game boss?
I don't have a strong opinion on this game, but would I play a similar game based on the Rwandan genocide? No fucking way. Because the phrase "the Rwandan genocide" doesn't have some kind of symbolic value that overrides its historic value; it's just a term that describes a period of time in which members of one group of people killed a million or so members of another group in horrible ways.*
Though I'm not necessarily 100% on board with trying to think of Hitler in that same way, not just because the cat is pretty thoroughly out of the bag but because the ironic distancing at play also produced "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" and similar works of genius.
* Also, I guess, partly because I'm white and there's something particularly gross about white people treating bad things that happen to black people as super hilarious.
posted by ostro at 6:10 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sure, which is what's bothering people. Do we really want to be approaching events that actually happened in the spirit with which we'd discuss a video game boss?
I don't have a strong opinion on this game, but would I play a similar game based on the Rwandan genocide? No fucking way. Because the phrase "the Rwandan genocide" doesn't have some kind of symbolic value that overrides its historic value; it's just a term that describes a period of time in which members of one group of people killed a million or so members of another group in horrible ways.*
Though I'm not necessarily 100% on board with trying to think of Hitler in that same way, not just because the cat is pretty thoroughly out of the bag but because the ironic distancing at play also produced "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" and similar works of genius.
* Also, I guess, partly because I'm white and there's something particularly gross about white people treating bad things that happen to black people as super hilarious.
posted by ostro at 6:10 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's also the weirdness of requiring people to role-play fascists. Even games with a lot of Nazi imagery (e.g., Wolfenstein) don't usually do this.
Of course, the counter is that most people don't have a problem with Mafia, which was a direct inspiration for this game.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:19 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Of course, the counter is that most people don't have a problem with Mafia, which was a direct inspiration for this game.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:19 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think reading the article is a good place to start on this:
I did read the article, thanks.
Is that a valid critique?
It's clearly meant as a critique—but like I said, it just reads as kind of incoherent to me. I mean, so, what—I shouldn't be able to play and enjoy this game just because there might be other people in the world who are incapable of putting a parodic card game in the appropriate mental context vis-à-vis the historical Hitler?
(Not that I particularly want to play this game; it doesn't seem particuarly interesting to me.)
What is the guiding principle here? That nothing should be published which some portion of the audience might misinterpret?
If someone can't muster the modicum of critical thought and historical awareness needed to separate a card game from reality, then I'm prepared to put the blame for that on them. It seems like a lot of people in this thread would rather blame the makers of the game, as if the onus is on them to shepherd the dimwitted masses away from intellectual knife drawers and light sockets.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 6:35 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I did read the article, thanks.
Is that a valid critique?
It's clearly meant as a critique—but like I said, it just reads as kind of incoherent to me. I mean, so, what—I shouldn't be able to play and enjoy this game just because there might be other people in the world who are incapable of putting a parodic card game in the appropriate mental context vis-à-vis the historical Hitler?
(Not that I particularly want to play this game; it doesn't seem particuarly interesting to me.)
What is the guiding principle here? That nothing should be published which some portion of the audience might misinterpret?
If someone can't muster the modicum of critical thought and historical awareness needed to separate a card game from reality, then I'm prepared to put the blame for that on them. It seems like a lot of people in this thread would rather blame the makers of the game, as if the onus is on them to shepherd the dimwitted masses away from intellectual knife drawers and light sockets.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 6:35 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
There are mountains of pop-culture artifacts which deal with the Nazis in unserious and even farcical ways. I'd wager that many people reading this have consumed that media themselves, and have not turned into goose-stepping fascists because of it.
I don't necessarily think many people are suggesting that this will cause fascism, per se - I'm certainly not. I see this more as symptomatic of (and participating in) the conversion of certain forms of fascism to 'normal' (the Danish word 'stuerent' - 'living room clean' literally or 'suitable for polite company', kind of is probably closer to what I mean which makes it probably more effect than cause. Like 24's celebration of torture isn't going to cause government agencies to torture people, it glorifies it in a way that is still at the very least unseemly, and at worst makes it more palatable and acceptable for the people who were going to do it anyway to do so with less opposition.
If I may ask, how are you affected by this? Because the group artwork that is a MeFi comment thread needs the unique voices, i.e. yours
Being attacked by a bunch of disaffected youth (think roaming gang of leather-jacket clad meatheads) who self-describe as literal neo-nazis. I don't get the impression that they'd thought frightfully hard about the politics or read Mein Kampf or anything, just picked a suitably outsider tough-guy thing to represent themselves and give some simple targets, some slogans and symbols to spray-paint about town - pretty close to "lol Hitler" really, though with a lot less "lol" for anyone Jewish, Roma, disabled, or queer. Pretty soured on "lol Hitler" regardless of context as a result.
Of course, the counter is that most people don't have a problem with Mafia, which was a direct inspiration for this game.
...and which nobody is profiting off in a similarly trolly way.
posted by Dysk at 6:37 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't necessarily think many people are suggesting that this will cause fascism, per se - I'm certainly not. I see this more as symptomatic of (and participating in) the conversion of certain forms of fascism to 'normal' (the Danish word 'stuerent' - 'living room clean' literally or 'suitable for polite company', kind of is probably closer to what I mean which makes it probably more effect than cause. Like 24's celebration of torture isn't going to cause government agencies to torture people, it glorifies it in a way that is still at the very least unseemly, and at worst makes it more palatable and acceptable for the people who were going to do it anyway to do so with less opposition.
If I may ask, how are you affected by this? Because the group artwork that is a MeFi comment thread needs the unique voices, i.e. yours
Being attacked by a bunch of disaffected youth (think roaming gang of leather-jacket clad meatheads) who self-describe as literal neo-nazis. I don't get the impression that they'd thought frightfully hard about the politics or read Mein Kampf or anything, just picked a suitably outsider tough-guy thing to represent themselves and give some simple targets, some slogans and symbols to spray-paint about town - pretty close to "lol Hitler" really, though with a lot less "lol" for anyone Jewish, Roma, disabled, or queer. Pretty soured on "lol Hitler" regardless of context as a result.
Of course, the counter is that most people don't have a problem with Mafia, which was a direct inspiration for this game.
...and which nobody is profiting off in a similarly trolly way.
posted by Dysk at 6:37 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
> You could design a game that lets players learn the game theory explanation for how it all went to shit back then in an avoidable way.
Interestingly, this - a rules-heavy simulation of the fall of the Weimar Republic - is a game that I sort of assumed would exist but doesn't seem to. Possibly it's simply something that most people wouldn't want to play, in the same way that historical reenactment societies covering World War II often have trouble finding people to play the German forces.
(In fact, historical reenactment societies often specifically veto SS uniforms, on the grounds that i) it isn't fair to ask people to wear them to make up the numbers and ii) the people who actively want to wear them are often not people you want in your historical reenactment society.)
By the same token, lots of games, board and video, give you the opportunity to play an abstract supreme commander of the German military machine in WW2, but I can't think of any in which you play, e.g. a concentration camp guard, or indeed Hitler - although I am sure some exist somewhere out there.
> Sure, which is what's bothering people. Do we really want to be approaching events that actually happened in the spirit with which we'd discuss a video game boss?
This is a really interesting question, and of course Hitler is a video game boss: he's the final boss in Wolfenstein 3D, Bionic Commando (although this is edited out of the Western version of the game) and Time Gentlemen, Please!, just from memory. One big difference there is that you, the player, are not playing Hitler, but rather defeating him, and that the context in which you are defeating him is clearly and totally fantastical. That feels precisely relevant to the idea of "that Hitler - that caricature, that cartoon, that video game boss".
I think there is a difference, in terms of how consumers of culture respond, between, for want of a better set of terms, Historical Hitler and Pop Culture Hitler. Something which I think is causing static for people looking at Secret Hitler is that it's simultaneously appealing to the idea of being a historically relevant experience - one that makes historically supported points about the rise of fascism - while also invoking the Pop Culture Hitler clause that permits a far wider range of representations.
Mel Brooks crops up a lot in this kind of discussion, as someone who both writes jokes about Hitler and who has played him on a number of occasions, but Brooks' attitude to Hitler - as you might expect of an American Jew who fought in World War 2 - is significantly more complex than the positions often defended with his example. There's a really interesting interview with Brooks in Der Spiegel from 2006, when he excoriates La Vida e Bella and praises Downfall - which does not seek to undermine Hitler with comedy, but rather looks unblinkingly at the historical Hitler in a dramatic context. His own project is somewhat different:
And, you know what? That wince is not a huge threat to anyone's freedom of speech, or way of life. It doesn't require accusations of censorship or hand-wringing. It's part of a dialog about how we deal with historical enormity as lived experience of it becomes more rare. There is value in that dialog, even if not every contribution to it reaches our personal quality bar.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
Interestingly, this - a rules-heavy simulation of the fall of the Weimar Republic - is a game that I sort of assumed would exist but doesn't seem to. Possibly it's simply something that most people wouldn't want to play, in the same way that historical reenactment societies covering World War II often have trouble finding people to play the German forces.
(In fact, historical reenactment societies often specifically veto SS uniforms, on the grounds that i) it isn't fair to ask people to wear them to make up the numbers and ii) the people who actively want to wear them are often not people you want in your historical reenactment society.)
By the same token, lots of games, board and video, give you the opportunity to play an abstract supreme commander of the German military machine in WW2, but I can't think of any in which you play, e.g. a concentration camp guard, or indeed Hitler - although I am sure some exist somewhere out there.
> Sure, which is what's bothering people. Do we really want to be approaching events that actually happened in the spirit with which we'd discuss a video game boss?
This is a really interesting question, and of course Hitler is a video game boss: he's the final boss in Wolfenstein 3D, Bionic Commando (although this is edited out of the Western version of the game) and Time Gentlemen, Please!, just from memory. One big difference there is that you, the player, are not playing Hitler, but rather defeating him, and that the context in which you are defeating him is clearly and totally fantastical. That feels precisely relevant to the idea of "that Hitler - that caricature, that cartoon, that video game boss".
I think there is a difference, in terms of how consumers of culture respond, between, for want of a better set of terms, Historical Hitler and Pop Culture Hitler. Something which I think is causing static for people looking at Secret Hitler is that it's simultaneously appealing to the idea of being a historically relevant experience - one that makes historically supported points about the rise of fascism - while also invoking the Pop Culture Hitler clause that permits a far wider range of representations.
Mel Brooks crops up a lot in this kind of discussion, as someone who both writes jokes about Hitler and who has played him on a number of occasions, but Brooks' attitude to Hitler - as you might expect of an American Jew who fought in World War 2 - is significantly more complex than the positions often defended with his example. There's a really interesting interview with Brooks in Der Spiegel from 2006, when he excoriates La Vida e Bella and praises Downfall - which does not seek to undermine Hitler with comedy, but rather looks unblinkingly at the historical Hitler in a dramatic context. His own project is somewhat different:
Of course it is impossible to take revenge for 6 million murdered Jews. But by using the medium of comedy, we can try to rob Hitler of his posthumous power and mythsIt's worth keeping in mind that what Mel Brooks does is really difficult - and it doesn't always work. The whole central conceit of The Producers is that it's hard to know what is going to cause outrage and what is going to be (mis)understood as comedy. It's a project that requires a lot of care about what is and is not included - from the same interview, on responses to The Producers when it came out in 1967:
The Jews were horrified. I received resentful letters of protest, saying things like: “How can you make jokes about Hitler? The man murdered 6 million Jews." But "The Producers" doesn’t concern a concentration camp or the Holocaust.So, again, yanking this back on topic, it feels like that same static may be coming from the dissonance of the medium (a fun game in the style of Werewolf) and the subject matter. Something that caught my eye is that Kickstarter backers will get, alongside this game, a "fascism pack" of cards to add into their Cards Against Humanity deck. From a marketing perspective, that makes perfect sense - Cards Against Humanity is super popular, and people like adding things to it. But I can also see why people might wince at that when juxtaposed with the stated aim of creating in Secret Hitler a game that will make people "reflect on the ways that others - good, bad, indifferent - were complicit in Hitler's rise to power".
And, you know what? That wince is not a huge threat to anyone's freedom of speech, or way of life. It doesn't require accusations of censorship or hand-wringing. It's part of a dialog about how we deal with historical enormity as lived experience of it becomes more rare. There is value in that dialog, even if not every contribution to it reaches our personal quality bar.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
It's concern seemed to be that any trivialization of Hitler was intrinsically problematic. I think Mel Brooks showed this to be false.
Here's the thing. No one disputes that Hitler was a bad person, who did incredibly evil things. However, because of an accident of historical timing, we [Americans] live in a world where it's okay to make fun of Hitler/Nazis in a specific way. It started off with The Great Dictator, it continued with To Be or Not To Be, and then it goes all the way down to The Producers. Basically, people [Americans] started to make fun of Hitler around the time we entered the war, but before two things happened: the first, the rise of--I will call it political-sensitivity culture rather than political-correctness culture, because I don't know how to otherwise describe it and I don't want to say "oh people who object to this are just being "politically correct""; the second, the greater cultural realization of the Holocaust that happened in the 60s-70s--(not that Americans did not realize what had happened before, but that it was more talked about).
With people like Mel Brooks, we actually had a positive reason for making fun of Hitler and the Nazis--not a negative one such as "Well, it wasn't so bad what Hitler did, that's why it's okay to joke about it". The positive reason was about poking holes in, and deflating, the image of "super serious Nazi Supermen of Solemn Evil". The idea of making jokes about Hitler and Nazis was seen as a stroke against Hitler and the Nazis.
So when the Awl writer says: "I’m not a prude about using Hitler’s name. I believe it should be known. But I also believe his name has power", there is an American tradition saying "No! Hitler's name does not have power! We are going to take this power away by making jokes about it!"
One can argue that there is no positive reason for making fun or making light of Hitler/Nazis; or one can argue that this doesn't meet those criteria; or one can say that we shouldn't have this cultural idea and it should be phased out, but right now I think this is going to keep on being a part of American culture.
posted by Hypatia at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing. No one disputes that Hitler was a bad person, who did incredibly evil things. However, because of an accident of historical timing, we [Americans] live in a world where it's okay to make fun of Hitler/Nazis in a specific way. It started off with The Great Dictator, it continued with To Be or Not To Be, and then it goes all the way down to The Producers. Basically, people [Americans] started to make fun of Hitler around the time we entered the war, but before two things happened: the first, the rise of--I will call it political-sensitivity culture rather than political-correctness culture, because I don't know how to otherwise describe it and I don't want to say "oh people who object to this are just being "politically correct""; the second, the greater cultural realization of the Holocaust that happened in the 60s-70s--(not that Americans did not realize what had happened before, but that it was more talked about).
With people like Mel Brooks, we actually had a positive reason for making fun of Hitler and the Nazis--not a negative one such as "Well, it wasn't so bad what Hitler did, that's why it's okay to joke about it". The positive reason was about poking holes in, and deflating, the image of "super serious Nazi Supermen of Solemn Evil". The idea of making jokes about Hitler and Nazis was seen as a stroke against Hitler and the Nazis.
So when the Awl writer says: "I’m not a prude about using Hitler’s name. I believe it should be known. But I also believe his name has power", there is an American tradition saying "No! Hitler's name does not have power! We are going to take this power away by making jokes about it!"
One can argue that there is no positive reason for making fun or making light of Hitler/Nazis; or one can argue that this doesn't meet those criteria; or one can say that we shouldn't have this cultural idea and it should be phased out, but right now I think this is going to keep on being a part of American culture.
posted by Hypatia at 7:15 PM on December 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
I feel like people don't understand post-Shoah Jewish humor. (And no, Jews don't completely own the Holocaust, but there's such a thing as a majority share.) If you can't make fun of Hitler after he killed six million of your co-religionists, then comedy is just impossible. Since comedy appears to still be possible, it follows that Hitler is okay to joke about. (It helps if you make fun of yourself a bit, too.) I heard this joke recently, it seems fitting:
Two Jews are about to be executed by one of the Einsatzgruppen. An officer asks Sol if he would like anything before dying. A blindfold? A cigarrette? A final prayer? Sol replies, "I spit in your face, Nazi pig!" His pal, Abbie, grabs his arm and says, "Sol, why look for trouble?"
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
Two Jews are about to be executed by one of the Einsatzgruppen. An officer asks Sol if he would like anything before dying. A blindfold? A cigarrette? A final prayer? Sol replies, "I spit in your face, Nazi pig!" His pal, Abbie, grabs his arm and says, "Sol, why look for trouble?"
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
Possibly it's simply something that most people wouldn't want to play, in the same way that historical reenactment societies covering World War II often have trouble finding people to play the German forces.
If only! Nearly everyone wants to play the bad guys.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
If only! Nearly everyone wants to play the bad guys.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
What is the guiding principle here? That nothing should be published which some portion of the audience might misinterpret?
Well, one option might be to discuss these issues critically in public so that hopefully more people go into the experience of the game being self-reflective enough not to misinterpret it or unconsciously take the wrong things from the experience.
Not every act of critical discussion is raising an objection: sometimes the point of criticism isn't simply to object or approve, but to contextualize and promulgate cultural ideas that help make and clarify meaning.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:30 PM on December 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Well, one option might be to discuss these issues critically in public so that hopefully more people go into the experience of the game being self-reflective enough not to misinterpret it or unconsciously take the wrong things from the experience.
Not every act of critical discussion is raising an objection: sometimes the point of criticism isn't simply to object or approve, but to contextualize and promulgate cultural ideas that help make and clarify meaning.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:30 PM on December 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh wow, that Verge headline. "With Secret Hitler, Cards Against Humanity's co-working space becomes an idea machine"
What a splendid idea machine. I mean, it takes a lot of vision to come up with these ideas:
* Let's take Apples to Apples and make it edgy.
* Let's take Werewolf and make it edgy.
I cannot wait to see what these idea incubators come up with next.
posted by defenestration at 7:36 PM on December 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
What a splendid idea machine. I mean, it takes a lot of vision to come up with these ideas:
* Let's take Apples to Apples and make it edgy.
* Let's take Werewolf and make it edgy.
I cannot wait to see what these idea incubators come up with next.
posted by defenestration at 7:36 PM on December 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
LP Hatecraft - yeah, that documentary led to something of a change of mood in the UK about SS uniforms at reenactments - but you're always going to get people looking for reasons to dress up as Waffen-SS officers. I think it's much more common in the US reenactment scene nowadays, though - but my knowledge is limited.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:49 PM on December 27, 2015
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:49 PM on December 27, 2015
Then I got home and read the most popular review of the film on the site Letterboxd (this is it in its entirety): "If there's one thing a bunch of racists and murderers can agree on, it's that you can't trust a bitch."
It's hard not to let this get to me. 112 people favorited this review, a lot more than the next most popular. But if I'm to judge a piece of culture by the worst fans of that culture, I think I'm doing myself a disservice.
The Letterboxd review you're quoting is an attempt to get at what's going on in the film. Matt believes Tarantino is showing that misogyny is even more deeply ingrained in the American male psyche than racism and general murderousness.
He's not "one of the worst fans" of the film. Like you, he's trying to figure out what Tarantino's getting at by foregrounding the casual misogyny of reprehensible characters. It's maybe a flip way to make the point, but it's in keeping with Tarantino's similarly glib use of inflammatory language and I don't think it's that hard to parse unless you're predisposed to expect the worst of people.
posted by Mothlight at 8:18 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's hard not to let this get to me. 112 people favorited this review, a lot more than the next most popular. But if I'm to judge a piece of culture by the worst fans of that culture, I think I'm doing myself a disservice.
The Letterboxd review you're quoting is an attempt to get at what's going on in the film. Matt believes Tarantino is showing that misogyny is even more deeply ingrained in the American male psyche than racism and general murderousness.
He's not "one of the worst fans" of the film. Like you, he's trying to figure out what Tarantino's getting at by foregrounding the casual misogyny of reprehensible characters. It's maybe a flip way to make the point, but it's in keeping with Tarantino's similarly glib use of inflammatory language and I don't think it's that hard to parse unless you're predisposed to expect the worst of people.
posted by Mothlight at 8:18 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
yeah, that documentary led to something of a change of mood in the UK about SS uniforms at reenactments - but you're always going to get people looking for reasons to dress up as Waffen-SS officers.
This isn't exactly new, yeah. I mean, Games Workshop is a UK institution that makes a whole lot of bank on games that feature some pretty seriously SS-inspired miniatures (uniforms, tanks, etc). They're technically Not Really Nazis (there's a whole future-fictional lore to them), but some people paint them to match historical regiments (though they usually stop at the Iron Cross, and leave the actual swastikas off).
Meanwhile:
What is the guiding principle here? That nothing should be published which some portion of the audience might misinterpret?
I find it interesting that those who react most vociferously to any and all critique of games that pays any attention to the cultural context within they exist are almost always focused on (usually false) claims that people just want to ban things. It's almost as if those who react thus know, deep down, that the critique has validity, and are angry that they're being made to consider that maybe they have been unthinkingly having been insensitive jerks about some topics, so now they have to immediately act like they're the ones being oppressed.
posted by tocts at 8:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
This isn't exactly new, yeah. I mean, Games Workshop is a UK institution that makes a whole lot of bank on games that feature some pretty seriously SS-inspired miniatures (uniforms, tanks, etc). They're technically Not Really Nazis (there's a whole future-fictional lore to them), but some people paint them to match historical regiments (though they usually stop at the Iron Cross, and leave the actual swastikas off).
Meanwhile:
What is the guiding principle here? That nothing should be published which some portion of the audience might misinterpret?
I find it interesting that those who react most vociferously to any and all critique of games that pays any attention to the cultural context within they exist are almost always focused on (usually false) claims that people just want to ban things. It's almost as if those who react thus know, deep down, that the critique has validity, and are angry that they're being made to consider that maybe they have been unthinkingly having been insensitive jerks about some topics, so now they have to immediately act like they're the ones being oppressed.
posted by tocts at 8:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I (also of Jewish ancestry) don't have the slightest problem with making light of the Nazis in the way you are describing, anotherpanacea. It's notable though the way they have become such an easy and cartoonish shorthand for "the bad guys." Like, both your joke and The Producers rely on some dissonance with the reality of the history and that reality of that reality (if you will) is fading for a lot of people I think. This game seems tasteless at worst but also tasteless at best.
posted by atoxyl at 8:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 8:20 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a sort of puritanical undercurrent in the community,
I'm pretty heavily involved in the community, and the ratio of swingers in it I know to people I'd describe as puritanical is at least 10:1.
I try to avoid games that try to be edgy or offensive because those games tend to terrible games. Exploding Kittens is just a dull press your luck card drawing game that wouldn't have sold were it not packaged as a novelty item. Good games tend to be sold on their own merits.
posted by Candleman at 8:22 PM on December 27, 2015
I'm pretty heavily involved in the community, and the ratio of swingers in it I know to people I'd describe as puritanical is at least 10:1.
I try to avoid games that try to be edgy or offensive because those games tend to terrible games. Exploding Kittens is just a dull press your luck card drawing game that wouldn't have sold were it not packaged as a novelty item. Good games tend to be sold on their own merits.
posted by Candleman at 8:22 PM on December 27, 2015
I liked Inception.
posted by booooooze at 8:24 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by booooooze at 8:24 PM on December 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or rather your joke is gallows humor, and Mel Brooks was writing around the notion that a musical about Hitler would obvious *be* offensive in reality. But the shock value of nazis is kind of worn out these days and I'm not actually completely sure what the joke is in this game though perhaps I don't know enough about it.
posted by atoxyl at 8:26 PM on December 27, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 8:26 PM on December 27, 2015
I cannot wait to see what these idea incubators come up with next.
One Night Ultimate Kristallnacht?
posted by pwnguin at 8:46 PM on December 27, 2015
One Night Ultimate Kristallnacht?
posted by pwnguin at 8:46 PM on December 27, 2015
Faint of Butt: "I've joked that no white person has ever followed up "It's just like Chris Rock says..." with anything but virulent racism.
Excuse me. On more than one occasion I've said "It's just like Chris Rock says: No one goes to Hooters for wings.""
You know, it's just like Chris Rock says - "Stop misquoting me, especially out of context!"
Also, you know who used to play card games in Fraktur?
posted by Samizdata at 11:28 PM on December 27, 2015
Excuse me. On more than one occasion I've said "It's just like Chris Rock says: No one goes to Hooters for wings.""
You know, it's just like Chris Rock says - "Stop misquoting me, especially out of context!"
Also, you know who used to play card games in Fraktur?
posted by Samizdata at 11:28 PM on December 27, 2015
* Let's take Werewolf and make it edgy.
I certainly got the impression that there were significant improvements to the gameplay that were made. That is the appeal of this game (the endorsements certainly made me believe the gameplay was great). I don't play 'love letters' because of the setting of the game, I play it because the gameplay makes it enjoyable.
posted by el io at 11:31 PM on December 27, 2015
I certainly got the impression that there were significant improvements to the gameplay that were made. That is the appeal of this game (the endorsements certainly made me believe the gameplay was great). I don't play 'love letters' because of the setting of the game, I play it because the gameplay makes it enjoyable.
posted by el io at 11:31 PM on December 27, 2015
Okay, reading the rules, can't you just prevent Hitler from rising to power by never getting a majority vote to form a government? I mean, sure, the Liberals don't win, but I say any scenario where Hitler never rises to power is a win for humanity.
I don't know if this loophole means the game is broken, or meant to be a comment on modern gridlock in legislative bodies.
posted by FJT at 2:32 AM on December 28, 2015
I don't know if this loophole means the game is broken, or meant to be a comment on modern gridlock in legislative bodies.
posted by FJT at 2:32 AM on December 28, 2015
I'm pretty heavily involved in the community, and the ratio of swingers in it I know to people I'd describe as puritanical is at least 10:1.
There are lots of kinds of Puritanism, not just those concerned with bodily purity. In fact, I'd argue there's a kind of hedonistic Puritanism that can be just as ugly and anti-humanistic as any form of extreme asceticism.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:00 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are lots of kinds of Puritanism, not just those concerned with bodily purity. In fact, I'd argue there's a kind of hedonistic Puritanism that can be just as ugly and anti-humanistic as any form of extreme asceticism.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:00 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
...the continued demonization of lizard people. Name one bit of media where they're ever the good guys.http://v.wikia.com/wiki/Willie
posted by blueberry at 5:09 AM on December 28, 2015
Okay, reading the rules, can't you just prevent Hitler from rising to power by never getting a majority vote to form a government? I mean, sure, the Liberals don't win, but I say any scenario where Hitler never rises to power is a win for humanity.
Basically, no. If three sequential President/Chancellor pairings are rejected "a frustrated populace takes matters into their own hands", and the top policy in the deck is enacted. Since there are nearly twice as many fascist policies as there are liberal policies in the policy deck, that means that governmental gridlock is likely to produce a slide into fascism - the liberals need to enact five out of 6 liberal policies, whereas the fascists only need to enact six out of 11, so randomness favors fascism. And once three fascist policies are implemented the liberals are at a huge disadvantage if they start voting "ja" to try to recover the situation, because electing Hitler as Chancellor at that point ends the game immediately with a fascist win.
So, it isn't in the liberals' interest to keep gridlocking, and the liberals start the game with a voting majority.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:35 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
Basically, no. If three sequential President/Chancellor pairings are rejected "a frustrated populace takes matters into their own hands", and the top policy in the deck is enacted. Since there are nearly twice as many fascist policies as there are liberal policies in the policy deck, that means that governmental gridlock is likely to produce a slide into fascism - the liberals need to enact five out of 6 liberal policies, whereas the fascists only need to enact six out of 11, so randomness favors fascism. And once three fascist policies are implemented the liberals are at a huge disadvantage if they start voting "ja" to try to recover the situation, because electing Hitler as Chancellor at that point ends the game immediately with a fascist win.
So, it isn't in the liberals' interest to keep gridlocking, and the liberals start the game with a voting majority.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:35 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
There are lots of kinds of Puritanism
Given that my comment was in regards to someone saying that the Mormons were going to take the bewbs and offensive games away from the gaming community, I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
This is one of the cards in question that was being discussed, and frankly I do think it's a little over the top in a way that adds nothing to the game but could lead to problems. I ran a college board gaming group for many years and fought hard to keep it inclusive and I could easily see the immature reaction to cards like that (huh huh, I have wood for sheep) creating a situation where women felt uncomfortable.
I could also see even liberal parents not wanting to play a game with that image with kids going through puberty.
As to the rest of it, given that you have only the barest of a data point on my friends, perhaps you should keep your derail to yourself?
posted by Candleman at 6:00 AM on December 28, 2015
Given that my comment was in regards to someone saying that the Mormons were going to take the bewbs and offensive games away from the gaming community, I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
This is one of the cards in question that was being discussed, and frankly I do think it's a little over the top in a way that adds nothing to the game but could lead to problems. I ran a college board gaming group for many years and fought hard to keep it inclusive and I could easily see the immature reaction to cards like that (huh huh, I have wood for sheep) creating a situation where women felt uncomfortable.
I could also see even liberal parents not wanting to play a game with that image with kids going through puberty.
As to the rest of it, given that you have only the barest of a data point on my friends, perhaps you should keep your derail to yourself?
posted by Candleman at 6:00 AM on December 28, 2015
Ouch. Touchy subject, eh? No derail intended; just an observational aside. It only has to be a derail if you or somebody else wants to get hung up on the point. It seemed a germane rejoinder to the original comment to me.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:05 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by saulgoodman at 6:05 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or rather your joke is gallows humor, and Mel Brooks was writing around the notion that a musical about Hitler would obvious *be* offensive in reality. But the shock value of nazis is kind of worn out these days and I'm not actually completely sure what the joke is in this game though perhaps I don't know enough about it.
Reducing Nazis and Hitler to the butt of every joke is a kind of survivor's revenge. Hitler wanted to be remembered forever, and wanted Jews to be forgotten by history. ("Who remembers the Armenians?") We can't and won't and shouldn't erase him from memory, but I'm totally fine with him being the butt of every joke, no matter how dirty, stupid, pointless, or shallow.
My sense from reading reviews is that this is ultimately a game about the ways that democracy turns into fascism. And I happen to believe that that's a pretty important thing to think about, both seriously and in play. And I also happen to believe that a lot of play can be very serious, or can be playfully serious, if we let the play come first: there can be a gap between the moods of the players and goals of the game, in fact that gap is often deliberate and useful. Every day can't be a visit to the Holocaust Museum, people just shut down.
Calling it "Save Democracy!" or "Secret Dictator" or whatever isn't enough: you can convince hardcore gamers to play a serious, mostly unfun game like Grey Ranks but for most people the fun is a prerequisite for play. It's okay to pretend to be Hitler for a while if that means that a bunch of people are thinking *joyfully* about how to prevent democracy from becoming fascism, about how to make "Never Again" a reality.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:23 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Reducing Nazis and Hitler to the butt of every joke is a kind of survivor's revenge. Hitler wanted to be remembered forever, and wanted Jews to be forgotten by history. ("Who remembers the Armenians?") We can't and won't and shouldn't erase him from memory, but I'm totally fine with him being the butt of every joke, no matter how dirty, stupid, pointless, or shallow.
My sense from reading reviews is that this is ultimately a game about the ways that democracy turns into fascism. And I happen to believe that that's a pretty important thing to think about, both seriously and in play. And I also happen to believe that a lot of play can be very serious, or can be playfully serious, if we let the play come first: there can be a gap between the moods of the players and goals of the game, in fact that gap is often deliberate and useful. Every day can't be a visit to the Holocaust Museum, people just shut down.
Calling it "Save Democracy!" or "Secret Dictator" or whatever isn't enough: you can convince hardcore gamers to play a serious, mostly unfun game like Grey Ranks but for most people the fun is a prerequisite for play. It's okay to pretend to be Hitler for a while if that means that a bunch of people are thinking *joyfully* about how to prevent democracy from becoming fascism, about how to make "Never Again" a reality.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:23 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Calling it "Save Democracy!" or "Secret Dictator" or whatever isn't enough: you can convince hardcore gamers to play a serious, mostly unfun game like Grey Ranks but for most people the fun is a prerequisite for play.
I guess the tricky part there for a lot of people is the idea that pretending to be Hitler is necessary for this to be fun. In the specific sense, apart from anything else, that it is taking most of its game mechanics from games which are fun despite nobody pretending to be Hitler - the "close your eyes/open your eyes/Hitler, extend your arm with your thumb raised and your eyes closed" stuff is pure Werewolf, and the policies mechanic is closely related to the mission structure in The Resistance. Hitler certainly adds something, but I don't think present-Hitler is sufficient or necessary for a fun game.
Also, back to the Mel Brooks thing, I think there is a difference between Hitler (eminently lampoonable), the Nazis (eminently lampoonable) and the history of Nazi Germany (generally less funny). So, we have Mel Brooks, who regularly lampoons Hitler and the Nazis in his work, furious with La Vida e Bella for its implication that one can laugh one's way through a death camp. Also, although not written by Mel Brooks, the remake of To Be Or Not To Be he produced and starred in features a lot of farce at the expense of the Nazis (and Brooks' character imitating Hitler), but the atmosphere of light comedy is broken when the flamboyant and perfectly attired dresser Sasha is hunted, dishevelled and terrified, by Nazis who are rounding up wearers of the pink triangle. Like I said, it's a tough balance to strike.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:00 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
I guess the tricky part there for a lot of people is the idea that pretending to be Hitler is necessary for this to be fun. In the specific sense, apart from anything else, that it is taking most of its game mechanics from games which are fun despite nobody pretending to be Hitler - the "close your eyes/open your eyes/Hitler, extend your arm with your thumb raised and your eyes closed" stuff is pure Werewolf, and the policies mechanic is closely related to the mission structure in The Resistance. Hitler certainly adds something, but I don't think present-Hitler is sufficient or necessary for a fun game.
Also, back to the Mel Brooks thing, I think there is a difference between Hitler (eminently lampoonable), the Nazis (eminently lampoonable) and the history of Nazi Germany (generally less funny). So, we have Mel Brooks, who regularly lampoons Hitler and the Nazis in his work, furious with La Vida e Bella for its implication that one can laugh one's way through a death camp. Also, although not written by Mel Brooks, the remake of To Be Or Not To Be he produced and starred in features a lot of farce at the expense of the Nazis (and Brooks' character imitating Hitler), but the atmosphere of light comedy is broken when the flamboyant and perfectly attired dresser Sasha is hunted, dishevelled and terrified, by Nazis who are rounding up wearers of the pink triangle. Like I said, it's a tough balance to strike.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:00 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Here is the same guy suggesting that the Luftwaffe aesthetic of the zany 2-d shoot-em-up Luftrausers is somehow on par with the Holocaust:
Here we are. Here we are. We thought it was corny to recite "never again" about the Holocaust, but, Here we are. The emergence of a silly little arcade shooter where the menu screen has a cartoon Nazi lookalike just shows it could happen here.
This self-serious sanctimonious .
posted by grobstein at 8:10 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
so luftrausers: as a jew, what offends me is the aesthetic. as a game designer, what offends me is the absence of critical distance from it.
most jews of my generation grew up hearing “never again” from their relatives and hebrew schools. easy to dismiss as pablum, but here we are
Here we are. Here we are. We thought it was corny to recite "never again" about the Holocaust, but, Here we are. The emergence of a silly little arcade shooter where the menu screen has a cartoon Nazi lookalike just shows it could happen here.
This self-serious sanctimonious .
posted by grobstein at 8:10 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess the tricky part there for a lot of people is the idea that pretending to be Hitler is necessary for this to be fun.
I'm not saying that Hitler is a prerequisite for fun. I'm saying that fun is a prerequisite for making popular games about preventing fascism. The game may well fail, of course, either as a game or as a meditation on fascist impulses in democracy. But it's worth trying to do.
For what it's worth, I don't think we have a clear sense of how to prevent fascism, or else we wouldn't be seeing the rise of populist nationalism in the US Republican primary or the French Front National's gains in recent months. But I'm in favor of games and play as a serious piece of brainstorming a solution. (For what it's worth, I am supposed to be running a civic LARP jam at the next Dreamation, so I'm partly just trying to psych myself up for it.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:32 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying that Hitler is a prerequisite for fun. I'm saying that fun is a prerequisite for making popular games about preventing fascism. The game may well fail, of course, either as a game or as a meditation on fascist impulses in democracy. But it's worth trying to do.
For what it's worth, I don't think we have a clear sense of how to prevent fascism, or else we wouldn't be seeing the rise of populist nationalism in the US Republican primary or the French Front National's gains in recent months. But I'm in favor of games and play as a serious piece of brainstorming a solution. (For what it's worth, I am supposed to be running a civic LARP jam at the next Dreamation, so I'm partly just trying to psych myself up for it.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:32 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm saying that fun is a prerequisite for making popular games about preventing fascism.
Absolutely agreed - and indeed for making popular games in general. Although it's worth noting that this is not exactly a game about preventing fascism. It's a game in which players are randomly assigned a goal which may either be to prevent fascism (or, more accurately, Nazism), or to bring it about - and thus is quite different from e.g. Grey Ranks, in which the macro historical picture cannot be changed, and only provides a backdrop for role-playing rather than a changeable or winnable/loseable challenge. Secret Hitler may be a way of helping or encouraging people to think about how fascism takes power, but if it worked as a brainstorming tool to find ways to prevent fascist governments (which I don't think it's intended to function as - it's basically a modification of Werewolf) then it would also work as a brainstorming tool to enact them.
Regarding Luftrausers: a more complete account of Rob Dubbin's Twitter posts about Luftrausers - and the specific tweet by Elizabeth Simins that Dubbin was responding to - is summarised here - potentially of interest. Relevant:
Again, to move somewhat back ontopic, there's an interesting example of these kinds of differences of opinion, and of the tensions around them, in a Max Temkin (co-creator of both Cards Against Humanity and Secret Hitler) blog post about one of Penny Arcade's brushes with controversy (previously):
As an intresting side note, that PAX - 2013 - saw the launch of the the "bigger, blacker box" - a storage case for expanded Cards Against Humanity packs - and a giant replica of that box placed outside the convention center.
That title is a riff on a number of cards against humanity cards (one of which is hidden inside the structure of the box itself, for those who like achievement hunting) which themselves riff on the otherness/othering of black men, and/or the ways they are othered by white society. Which level of abstraction you want to apply to that is probably a matter for the individual, but there's something very Cards Against Humanity about putting a safe space sign on your booth and a giant reference to racist jokes/myths right outside the front door of the event.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:07 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Absolutely agreed - and indeed for making popular games in general. Although it's worth noting that this is not exactly a game about preventing fascism. It's a game in which players are randomly assigned a goal which may either be to prevent fascism (or, more accurately, Nazism), or to bring it about - and thus is quite different from e.g. Grey Ranks, in which the macro historical picture cannot be changed, and only provides a backdrop for role-playing rather than a changeable or winnable/loseable challenge. Secret Hitler may be a way of helping or encouraging people to think about how fascism takes power, but if it worked as a brainstorming tool to find ways to prevent fascist governments (which I don't think it's intended to function as - it's basically a modification of Werewolf) then it would also work as a brainstorming tool to enact them.
Regarding Luftrausers: a more complete account of Rob Dubbin's Twitter posts about Luftrausers - and the specific tweet by Elizabeth Simins that Dubbin was responding to - is summarised here - potentially of interest. Relevant:
don’t believe vlambeer are nazi sympathizers or anything vile like that. seems more to me like *fascination*. which is its own problem.Also potentially of interest, Vlambeer's response:
more broadly, it’s all of our problem that it’s only coming up now + normalized to where “nazi stuff” is at worst a “con” in a review
Each interpretation of a cultural artefact is a reflection of not only the creator, but also of what the user cares about, what they find important and what shaped them. We wouldn’t dare to fault people for finding the atrocities of the Second World War important. It is important. We agree it’s important, and there are important lessons for us in what happened. We need to remember what happened, we need to commemorate the victims and we need to ensure nothing even remotely like it occurs ever again.The lesson here being, arguably, that it's OK not to behave like people who don't think the same way as you do are describing a video game as "on par" with the murder of six million of their co-religionists. It's not compulsory, but it is permissibe.
Having been born and raised in the Netherlands, we are extremely aware of the awful things that happened, and we want to apologise to anybody who, through our game, is reminded of the cruelties that occurred during the war.
Again, to move somewhat back ontopic, there's an interesting example of these kinds of differences of opinion, and of the tensions around them, in a Max Temkin (co-creator of both Cards Against Humanity and Secret Hitler) blog post about one of Penny Arcade's brushes with controversy (previously):
This year we put a “Safe Space” banner outside the entrance to our booth to indicate that we wouldn’t tolerate discrimination or harassment. Nobody came in to our booth wearing a dickwolves t-shirt, but if they did, we would have asked them to leave. If you’ve got a booth at PAX, I encourage you adopt a similar policy and make it known.This seems to me wholly laudable.
As an intresting side note, that PAX - 2013 - saw the launch of the the "bigger, blacker box" - a storage case for expanded Cards Against Humanity packs - and a giant replica of that box placed outside the convention center.
That title is a riff on a number of cards against humanity cards (one of which is hidden inside the structure of the box itself, for those who like achievement hunting) which themselves riff on the otherness/othering of black men, and/or the ways they are othered by white society. Which level of abstraction you want to apply to that is probably a matter for the individual, but there's something very Cards Against Humanity about putting a safe space sign on your booth and a giant reference to racist jokes/myths right outside the front door of the event.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:07 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
(Oh, and the comparison of Secret Hitler to Civic LARP - and indeed Civic LARP to things like Operation Dark Winter or Operation Millennium Challenge - is absolutely fascinating, but I think the differences between the specific and purposive role-playing inside a tight rule set that characterises games like Werewolf, The Resistance or Coup and the broader role-playing of an agent in a more or less open-ended simulation are so huge as to be essentially two different things with similar names. But good luck with the jam at Dreamation, anotherpanacea - that sounds very cool indeed!)
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:20 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:20 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Secret Hitler may be a way of helping or encouraging people to think about how fascism takes power, but if it worked as a brainstorming tool to find ways to prevent fascist governments (which I don't think it's intended to function as - it's basically a modification of Werewolf) then it would also work as a brainstorming tool to enact them.
Yes of course that's right, and here I don't have vocabulary in gamemaking to address the real importance of that fact. So let me just put it the way Foucault did, riffing on Hölderlin's “But where the danger is, also grows the saving power:"
And I get that this is only a little bit about the Cards Against Humanity folk any more, but my point is just that we shouldn't side with the predictors, the ones who want to stage-manage the action before the events occur. We should side with the hyper-pessismistic-activists, knowing that all we can say in advance is that the action here is risky and dangerous and very very likely to open us up to criticism and accusation. Probably Secret Hitler does just this, and the CaH folks are generally taking the wrong kinds of risks, it seems to me. But I want to encourage risk-taking and recognize that we can't say in advance whether a Hitler reference or a sly meta-reference to a racist joke is going to be dangerous and useful or dangerous and harmful.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:26 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes of course that's right, and here I don't have vocabulary in gamemaking to address the real importance of that fact. So let me just put it the way Foucault did, riffing on Hölderlin's “But where the danger is, also grows the saving power:"
"My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic- activism."That's the kind of danger that fascism and efforts to prevent fascism lead to. That's the kind of danger that I take political gamemaking (and any activism worthy of the name, like #blacklivesmatter) to entail: the possibility that we won't be able to say in advance that a thing will be used for good or ill. That's what I take to be the current state-of-the-art of democratic political theory's reflections on how to deal with the anti-democratic risks that seem to be built into democracy. Fascism is all about trying to say in advance how the political order will go: it's about making the trains run on time and guaranteeing a millennium of stable fascist government and using eugenics to predict the future health of the master race and historical materialism to predict the future triumph of the exploited worker.
And I get that this is only a little bit about the Cards Against Humanity folk any more, but my point is just that we shouldn't side with the predictors, the ones who want to stage-manage the action before the events occur. We should side with the hyper-pessismistic-activists, knowing that all we can say in advance is that the action here is risky and dangerous and very very likely to open us up to criticism and accusation. Probably Secret Hitler does just this, and the CaH folks are generally taking the wrong kinds of risks, it seems to me. But I want to encourage risk-taking and recognize that we can't say in advance whether a Hitler reference or a sly meta-reference to a racist joke is going to be dangerous and useful or dangerous and harmful.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:26 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess the tricky part there for a lot of people is the idea that pretending to be Hitler is necessary for this to be fun.
I think people are misinterpreting the rules of the game a bit. Similar to Werewolf and Mafia, you don't want anyone to know your role. If you're Hitler in this game, you are going to pretend to be just another member of the populace. The game requires zero role-playing, and if any role-playing occurs, it's going to be as a lizard person doing their damnedest to appear human. Not as Hitler.
posted by explosion at 10:07 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think people are misinterpreting the rules of the game a bit. Similar to Werewolf and Mafia, you don't want anyone to know your role. If you're Hitler in this game, you are going to pretend to be just another member of the populace. The game requires zero role-playing, and if any role-playing occurs, it's going to be as a lizard person doing their damnedest to appear human. Not as Hitler.
posted by explosion at 10:07 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, hmm. There is a card called "Hitler", with the word "Hitler" written on it. Every game of Secret Hitler involves someone holding that card. That person has to conceal the fact that they are Hitler from the Liberal faction, while the Fascist faction attempt to get the person holding the Hitler card elected as Chancellor because they are Hitler.
The person with the Hitler card is roleplaying, in the way that people with Werewolf cards in social deception cards like Werewolf are roleplaying. That is, they are acting as if they were not holding the card which makes their killing a win condition for the opposite team. They are not, certainly, being called on to act out Hitler's speeches, or make statements supportive of his ideology - to do so would be a very dangerous strategy, since they are Hitler, and the rules of the game demand that they conceal this from the Liberals.
Obviously, this is a major departure from the historical record, where Hitler did not conceal his identity, nor pretend to be a Liberal (a key skill for the player carrying the Hitler card in Secret Hitler). That's because this is a game, and "Hitler" is a character type in that game, like "Werewolf" - the person holding that card can provide an instant win for their team (by being elected Chancellor after three fascist laws have been passed) or an instant win for the opposite team (if they successfully identify and execute the card holder).
pace anotherpanacea, I'd probably suspect that this makes Secret Hitler less useful as an anti-Fascist trainer, because it suggests that there is one person who can bring about a Fascist state, and removing that one person - the "Hitler" - from the political equation prevents it. That's probably not true of the game's setting (Germany in the 1930s) - Kurt von Schleicher, most obviously, would if Hitler had been assassinated in 1930 have continued to undermine the Weimar government and agitated for a dissolved Reichstag and a semi-military bloodless coup with the connivance of a Chancellor appointed by Hindenburg - and is also not true now. It's an abstraction created by the need to have a win state, and born from the game's origins in Werewolf.
All of this seems sort of self-evident. At the risk of sounding like Zoolander and Hansel, I don't think anyone is saying that you become literally Hitler while carrying the Hitler card. However, if we take the creator's word for it that they set out to create an abstract, game-based version of German politics in the 1930s, we can probably also take their word for it that the card with "Hitler" written on it represents the person who we most closely associate with the creation and leadership of a fascist state in Germany in the 1930s, id est Hitler. Inside the game world, the card represents Hitler. Outside the game world, the "Hitler" card identifies you as the game's MVP (or, put another way, the ball which either team can use to score the winning goal).
But I want to encourage risk-taking and recognize that we can't say in advance whether a Hitler reference or a sly meta-reference to a racist joke is going to be dangerous and useful or dangerous and harmful.
Or, perhaps, dangerous in specific contexts but harmless to most of the people who play the game? I kind of tend to put Cards Against Humanity in about the same set as Family Guy or late-season South Park - comedy of transgression which effectively compliments you for your fortitude in not being upset by it, or not being the one who "breaks" and complains if you are. However, I am also aware that there are many people who would disagree, or who play it in particular ways, with house rules or custom decks or a specific set of very close friends etc...
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
The person with the Hitler card is roleplaying, in the way that people with Werewolf cards in social deception cards like Werewolf are roleplaying. That is, they are acting as if they were not holding the card which makes their killing a win condition for the opposite team. They are not, certainly, being called on to act out Hitler's speeches, or make statements supportive of his ideology - to do so would be a very dangerous strategy, since they are Hitler, and the rules of the game demand that they conceal this from the Liberals.
Obviously, this is a major departure from the historical record, where Hitler did not conceal his identity, nor pretend to be a Liberal (a key skill for the player carrying the Hitler card in Secret Hitler). That's because this is a game, and "Hitler" is a character type in that game, like "Werewolf" - the person holding that card can provide an instant win for their team (by being elected Chancellor after three fascist laws have been passed) or an instant win for the opposite team (if they successfully identify and execute the card holder).
pace anotherpanacea, I'd probably suspect that this makes Secret Hitler less useful as an anti-Fascist trainer, because it suggests that there is one person who can bring about a Fascist state, and removing that one person - the "Hitler" - from the political equation prevents it. That's probably not true of the game's setting (Germany in the 1930s) - Kurt von Schleicher, most obviously, would if Hitler had been assassinated in 1930 have continued to undermine the Weimar government and agitated for a dissolved Reichstag and a semi-military bloodless coup with the connivance of a Chancellor appointed by Hindenburg - and is also not true now. It's an abstraction created by the need to have a win state, and born from the game's origins in Werewolf.
All of this seems sort of self-evident. At the risk of sounding like Zoolander and Hansel, I don't think anyone is saying that you become literally Hitler while carrying the Hitler card. However, if we take the creator's word for it that they set out to create an abstract, game-based version of German politics in the 1930s, we can probably also take their word for it that the card with "Hitler" written on it represents the person who we most closely associate with the creation and leadership of a fascist state in Germany in the 1930s, id est Hitler. Inside the game world, the card represents Hitler. Outside the game world, the "Hitler" card identifies you as the game's MVP (or, put another way, the ball which either team can use to score the winning goal).
But I want to encourage risk-taking and recognize that we can't say in advance whether a Hitler reference or a sly meta-reference to a racist joke is going to be dangerous and useful or dangerous and harmful.
Or, perhaps, dangerous in specific contexts but harmless to most of the people who play the game? I kind of tend to put Cards Against Humanity in about the same set as Family Guy or late-season South Park - comedy of transgression which effectively compliments you for your fortitude in not being upset by it, or not being the one who "breaks" and complains if you are. However, I am also aware that there are many people who would disagree, or who play it in particular ways, with house rules or custom decks or a specific set of very close friends etc...
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Playing a role" in a game is not the same as "role-playing," as is commonly understood. In Monopoly, you play the role of an oligarch. In Magic: the Gathering, you play the role of a powerful wizard. Neither of these games have a "role-playing element."
If you're playing D&D, and you're a paladin, your character will act and make different game decisions than if you're a warrior, even if they both swing a sword and hold a shield. If you're playing "Secret Hitler" and change it to "Secret Trump," there is literally no change to the game.
posted by explosion at 11:03 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you're playing D&D, and you're a paladin, your character will act and make different game decisions than if you're a warrior, even if they both swing a sword and hold a shield. If you're playing "Secret Hitler" and change it to "Secret Trump," there is literally no change to the game.
posted by explosion at 11:03 AM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
* Let's take Werewolf and make it edgy.
I certainly got the impression that there were significant improvements to the gameplay that were made. That is the appeal of this game (the endorsements certainly made me believe the gameplay was great). I don't play 'love letters' because of the setting of the game, I play it because the gameplay makes it enjoyable.
I see those as implementation details. The same way that having an idea for a movie, or tv show, or app is a dime a dozen. Actually being able to implement your idea is the difficult work. Not to mention manufacturing it and selling it.
And when the idea is taking a popular game that already exists and tweaking it, there's less of that work needed. I wonder if these CAH folks will ever release a game that isn't just a tweak of a popular game that already exists. And if they do, will it be successful?
It's a very obvious trend with them:
1) Take an existing game
2) Make it edgy
3) Crowdfund it
4) Keep people talking about it with gimmicky marketing
posted by defenestration at 11:16 AM on December 28, 2015
I certainly got the impression that there were significant improvements to the gameplay that were made. That is the appeal of this game (the endorsements certainly made me believe the gameplay was great). I don't play 'love letters' because of the setting of the game, I play it because the gameplay makes it enjoyable.
I see those as implementation details. The same way that having an idea for a movie, or tv show, or app is a dime a dozen. Actually being able to implement your idea is the difficult work. Not to mention manufacturing it and selling it.
And when the idea is taking a popular game that already exists and tweaking it, there's less of that work needed. I wonder if these CAH folks will ever release a game that isn't just a tweak of a popular game that already exists. And if they do, will it be successful?
It's a very obvious trend with them:
1) Take an existing game
2) Make it edgy
3) Crowdfund it
4) Keep people talking about it with gimmicky marketing
posted by defenestration at 11:16 AM on December 28, 2015
It's not to say that these games aren't enjoyable to people. They obviously are. (I haven't played them, so I couldn't say.) I definitely think the tastelessness of Secret Hitler is not worth the gameplay and experience it provides. And I definitely think the "educational" aspect they are marketing it with is total bullshit. That's what really gets me about this.
It's a matter of where you draw the line. I can imagine many other "educational" games they could make that would be similarly awful in my opinion. Considering the other things they could come up with and market and make boatloads of money selling—while calling it educational—is an interesting thought experiment.
I also agree that they are the Family Guy/South Park of game design.
posted by defenestration at 11:23 AM on December 28, 2015
It's a matter of where you draw the line. I can imagine many other "educational" games they could make that would be similarly awful in my opinion. Considering the other things they could come up with and market and make boatloads of money selling—while calling it educational—is an interesting thought experiment.
I also agree that they are the Family Guy/South Park of game design.
posted by defenestration at 11:23 AM on December 28, 2015
I wonder if these CAH folks will ever release a game that isn't just a tweak of a popular game that already exists.
Well, they also run Tabletop Deathmatch and help new game designers put their games into production. Not sure if it counts and I'm certainly no board game expert, but the 2015 winner Bad Detectives is unlike anything I've ever played.
I wonder if part of the perception problem is only the games with the "gimmicky" marketing get the wider press, so CAH's other efforts are not known. It also only leaves you with a sample size of 2 which doesn't fit my definition of "obvious trend" but YMMV.
posted by misskaz at 11:29 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, they also run Tabletop Deathmatch and help new game designers put their games into production. Not sure if it counts and I'm certainly no board game expert, but the 2015 winner Bad Detectives is unlike anything I've ever played.
I wonder if part of the perception problem is only the games with the "gimmicky" marketing get the wider press, so CAH's other efforts are not known. It also only leaves you with a sample size of 2 which doesn't fit my definition of "obvious trend" but YMMV.
posted by misskaz at 11:29 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's a good point, misskaz. Two games can't really be a trend, I guess. But it still seems to be their MO, at least with games they come up with themselves. I'm glad to hear they help put out other, more original (and less overly edgy) games. I will check out Tabletop Deathmatch.
posted by defenestration at 11:35 AM on December 28, 2015
posted by defenestration at 11:35 AM on December 28, 2015
Pick the games you thought were coolest from 2015, and I can break them down into their constituent mechanical parts which are all borrowed or adapted from elsewhere.
The idea that what we fundamentally want is NEW GAME FORMS is a little weird. Almost every good game is a tweak of existing game forms. Very few game designers like to actually create from scratch, and when you do, it's usually guaranteed to fail because experimenting with form makes it harder to experiment with content! (I'm looking at you, Clay That Woke!) The people doing that work, experimenting with both form and content at the same time, are all doing game design as a hobby because there's no market for that much innovation, players don't know what to make of it. So sure, you'll get a breakout like The Quiet Year every so often but it's still only enough to find beer money for a couple of micro-celebrities. (And even there the mechanics are actually pretty reliant on Jeep Form and improv theater games and drawing games and cooperative play games like Pandemic.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:38 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
The idea that what we fundamentally want is NEW GAME FORMS is a little weird. Almost every good game is a tweak of existing game forms. Very few game designers like to actually create from scratch, and when you do, it's usually guaranteed to fail because experimenting with form makes it harder to experiment with content! (I'm looking at you, Clay That Woke!) The people doing that work, experimenting with both form and content at the same time, are all doing game design as a hobby because there's no market for that much innovation, players don't know what to make of it. So sure, you'll get a breakout like The Quiet Year every so often but it's still only enough to find beer money for a couple of micro-celebrities. (And even there the mechanics are actually pretty reliant on Jeep Form and improv theater games and drawing games and cooperative play games like Pandemic.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:38 AM on December 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's a very good point too. I think I was being more judgmental because the hook, from the outside at least, seems to be the shocking/edgy aspect—it turns me off and keeps me from wanting to check it out/give it a fair shot. And really that's not as much the case with CAH, I guess, but definitely the case with Secret Hitler. Seeing that I haven't played them, I can't really comment on the gameplay derived from their tweaks/content.
With that said, I am glad people are experimenting with new game forms, and I hope they find support and funding too.
posted by defenestration at 11:45 AM on December 28, 2015
With that said, I am glad people are experimenting with new game forms, and I hope they find support and funding too.
posted by defenestration at 11:45 AM on December 28, 2015
"Playing a role" in a game is not the same as "role-playing," as is commonly understood.
Yeah, I get that. In fact, I specifically distinguished "the specific and purposive role-playing inside a tight rule set that characterises games like Werewolf, The Resistance or Coup" from the kind of character-driven role-playing in a game like Grey Ranks.
We can plate some beans on terminology, but someone holding a werewolf card and pretending to be someone not holding a werewolf card is one thing, and making up a personality and backstory for that werewolf and then trying to behave accordingly is a different thing, and appropriate to a different kind of game. Big games of werewolf can get pretty LARPy, but it doesn't affect the mechanics of the game - it's just fun for some people to get into their character - whether that is "Villager" or "Werewolf pretending to be Villager".
This does actually lead to a whole bunch of interesting stuff about what it is to play a role and how mechanics and setting interact, which is all pretty relevant. Cf Brenda Brathwaite's Train, where the players take on the role of "people responsible for getting as many of these units onto trains to this location", and the nature of the units and the location is only revealed at the end of the game. However, if we agree that the person holding the game card that says Hitler is, for the purposes of the game world, Hitler, and it's OK in common usage to describe the person holding that card as "Hitler" for the purposes of the game, as one would say "you are a werewolf", I think that weld will hold.
If you're playing "Secret Hitler" and change it to "Secret Trump," there is literally no change to the game.
What I think you mean is that there is mechanically no change to the game. Which is true, of course - you could make this game about the Republican Presidential Race pretty easily by changing the in-game terminology and printing out different pieces.
Conveniently, we actually have the creator's Word of God on this one:
However, it also raises the interesting question "why not make it Secret Trump or Secret Dictator or Secret Alien or, indeed, Secret Werewolf Wait Have We Not Already Done That One?" The creators clearly think that the setting (1930s Germany) and the identity of the MVP/puck character (Hitler) makes it a _better game_ than it would otherwise be. What "better" means here - more in touch with their vision, more impactful, more thematically congruent, more marketable - is yet another interesting question, of course...
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:56 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I get that. In fact, I specifically distinguished "the specific and purposive role-playing inside a tight rule set that characterises games like Werewolf, The Resistance or Coup" from the kind of character-driven role-playing in a game like Grey Ranks.
We can plate some beans on terminology, but someone holding a werewolf card and pretending to be someone not holding a werewolf card is one thing, and making up a personality and backstory for that werewolf and then trying to behave accordingly is a different thing, and appropriate to a different kind of game. Big games of werewolf can get pretty LARPy, but it doesn't affect the mechanics of the game - it's just fun for some people to get into their character - whether that is "Villager" or "Werewolf pretending to be Villager".
This does actually lead to a whole bunch of interesting stuff about what it is to play a role and how mechanics and setting interact, which is all pretty relevant. Cf Brenda Brathwaite's Train, where the players take on the role of "people responsible for getting as many of these units onto trains to this location", and the nature of the units and the location is only revealed at the end of the game. However, if we agree that the person holding the game card that says Hitler is, for the purposes of the game world, Hitler, and it's OK in common usage to describe the person holding that card as "Hitler" for the purposes of the game, as one would say "you are a werewolf", I think that weld will hold.
If you're playing "Secret Hitler" and change it to "Secret Trump," there is literally no change to the game.
What I think you mean is that there is mechanically no change to the game. Which is true, of course - you could make this game about the Republican Presidential Race pretty easily by changing the in-game terminology and printing out different pieces.
Conveniently, we actually have the creator's Word of God on this one:
Over the course of working on Secret Hitler, we've received countless suggestions on the theme of the game. Some people have been offended by a reference to Hitler in a game, and wanted us to change the theme. Other people felt that we didn't go far enough with the WWII theme, and wanted us to add even more. Still more people have asked us to insert contemporary figures like Donald Trump in the game.So, the word of God is that there is indeed there is no mechanical difference between "Secret Hitler" and "Secret [noun]". However, it is also clear that if you don't want to play it with historical figure Adolf Hitler front and center, you are on a non-mechanical level not playing the game in the way the designers expect (and respect). Which again leads to all sorts of interesting questions about intent and house rules etc.
Game design is a form of art, and like all art, the goal is to please everybody all of the time. Today we are thrilled to announce that every single copy of Secret Hitler will ship with a sticker pack that you can use to dress up the cards to your liking.
Perhaps you want to pretend that historical figure Adolf Hitler didn't exist. Simply cover him up with the included Secret Santa stickers to change the game to a delightful holiday treat for all ages.
Perhaps you want to replace a broad historical theme with a fleeting meme from a contemporary echo chamber you find more comforting.
[...]
We guarantee that these stickers will have no impact on gameplay whatsoever. Those of you who want the unadulterated "Secret Hitler" experience that we carefully designed and playtested can throw away the sticker pack! But those of you who have loudly complained that that game is not exactly to your liking can now cover it in stickers to your heart's content.
However, it also raises the interesting question "why not make it Secret Trump or Secret Dictator or Secret Alien or, indeed, Secret Werewolf Wait Have We Not Already Done That One?" The creators clearly think that the setting (1930s Germany) and the identity of the MVP/puck character (Hitler) makes it a _better game_ than it would otherwise be. What "better" means here - more in touch with their vision, more impactful, more thematically congruent, more marketable - is yet another interesting question, of course...
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:56 AM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
And really that's not as much the case with CAH, I guess, but definitely the case with Secret Hitler.
Just to be clear, you're not wrong that the edginess is a big hook for CAH.
At its best, CAH can be a slightly funnier version of what people were doing years prior with Apples to Apples (e.g. aiming for answers that lean towards funny/seemingly inappropriate versus accurate). Achieving this almost requires pruning some of the answer cards from the deck, though.
More commonly, it ends up being funny only insofar as people haven't seen the answer cards, and once you've seen e.g. "a big black dick", "coathanger abortions", etc, three or four times, it stops being funny.
At its worst, CAH turns into a bunch of white dudes making racist/sexist/misogynistic jokes for a couple of hours straight, but it's not their fault because they're just playing a game and it's not really them saying it, and anyone who has a problem with that is OMG so uptight amirite?
For a lot of people, that safe space for being a complete "edgy" dick is the appeal.
posted by tocts at 12:01 PM on December 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
Just to be clear, you're not wrong that the edginess is a big hook for CAH.
At its best, CAH can be a slightly funnier version of what people were doing years prior with Apples to Apples (e.g. aiming for answers that lean towards funny/seemingly inappropriate versus accurate). Achieving this almost requires pruning some of the answer cards from the deck, though.
More commonly, it ends up being funny only insofar as people haven't seen the answer cards, and once you've seen e.g. "a big black dick", "coathanger abortions", etc, three or four times, it stops being funny.
At its worst, CAH turns into a bunch of white dudes making racist/sexist/misogynistic jokes for a couple of hours straight, but it's not their fault because they're just playing a game and it's not really them saying it, and anyone who has a problem with that is OMG so uptight amirite?
For a lot of people, that safe space for being a complete "edgy" dick is the appeal.
posted by tocts at 12:01 PM on December 28, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think I was being more judgmental because the hook, from the outside at least, seems to be the shocking/edgy aspect—it turns me off and keeps me from wanting to check it out/give it a fair shot.
Yeah, that's fine. But if I were designing Secret Hitler from scratch, here's how it would go:
1. So, let's take some dynamics from Werewolf/Mafia and add them to a miniaturized, domestic policy version of Diplomacy!
2. Also, let's make it about the threat of populist nationalism. A lot of people are saying that Trump is the next Hitler, and increasingly I'm feeling like there's a deep problem with American democracy turning anti-democratic, you get the government you deserve good and hard....
3. So, like, let's add some of the paradox of self-amendment stuff that shows up in Nomic, but with a finite scope....
4. Okay, but now it's way to complicated. This game would take all day to play, it's a Cones of Dunshire all to itself. No one will buy it! (Unless we've just re-invented Illuminati but without the jokes.)
5. How about we strip out a lot of of the complications, make it a simple Werewolf game with some rule-changes throughout play. Less Nomic, more Mao.
6. Why would anyone buy a game with that tells most us we're ruining democracy? Hmm... maybe it's like about Hitler and not democracy as such. People like to hate Hitler, and there's already Mao as a precedent.....
I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm saying that that's how it would have happened if I was involved.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:04 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's fine. But if I were designing Secret Hitler from scratch, here's how it would go:
1. So, let's take some dynamics from Werewolf/Mafia and add them to a miniaturized, domestic policy version of Diplomacy!
2. Also, let's make it about the threat of populist nationalism. A lot of people are saying that Trump is the next Hitler, and increasingly I'm feeling like there's a deep problem with American democracy turning anti-democratic, you get the government you deserve good and hard....
3. So, like, let's add some of the paradox of self-amendment stuff that shows up in Nomic, but with a finite scope....
4. Okay, but now it's way to complicated. This game would take all day to play, it's a Cones of Dunshire all to itself. No one will buy it! (Unless we've just re-invented Illuminati but without the jokes.)
5. How about we strip out a lot of of the complications, make it a simple Werewolf game with some rule-changes throughout play. Less Nomic, more Mao.
6. Why would anyone buy a game with that tells most us we're ruining democracy? Hmm... maybe it's like about Hitler and not democracy as such. People like to hate Hitler, and there's already Mao as a precedent.....
I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm saying that that's how it would have happened if I was involved.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:04 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, the word of God is that there is indeed there is no mechanical difference between "Secret Hitler" and "Secret [noun]". However, it is also clear that if you don't want to play it with historical figure Adolf Hitler front and center, you are on a non-mechanical level not playing the game in the way the designers expect (and respect).
Pretty sure blog posts like these are at least partially manufactured (like the game's topic) to just get people talking and have a continuous wave of free advertising. FYI there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, they are running a business.
Also, I sense a lot of the article author's (and others') frustration with this game is how successful it (and CAH) is despite being a "copied" game from their point of view. I think there's a lot of sour grapes that games like this and Exploding Kittens raise millions of dollars.
posted by bittermensch at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2015
Pretty sure blog posts like these are at least partially manufactured (like the game's topic) to just get people talking and have a continuous wave of free advertising. FYI there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, they are running a business.
Also, I sense a lot of the article author's (and others') frustration with this game is how successful it (and CAH) is despite being a "copied" game from their point of view. I think there's a lot of sour grapes that games like this and Exploding Kittens raise millions of dollars.
posted by bittermensch at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2015
I'm not saying that's how it happened, I'm saying that that's how it would have happened if I was involved.
Again, we've got at least some Word of God on that... it's explained as a love letter to Werewolf/Mafia, but intended to address mechanical deficiencies perceived in those games: the need for a moderator, the fact that early player elimination meant that a player could sit out for a long time while the game continued, and a perceived imbalance in the relationship of card-counting/deduction and guessing/interrogation. So, in effect, a search for a different but valid answer to the same questions answered in different ways by Coup and One Night Ultimate Werewolf, among others.
So, at least according to the creators, the goal was to iterate on Werewolf/Mafia, rather than to build Werewolf/Mafia elements into a Diplomacy-style game. However, a political setting fitted the mechanics of the game and the genre they were aiming to iterate on:
Contrariwise, it makes sense that people who are primarily interested in pick-up-and-play, short-round social card games would start from Werewolf (and One Night Ultimate Werewolf, Coup and a few others), and look to iterate towards something between the two in game length and complexity.
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:41 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again, we've got at least some Word of God on that... it's explained as a love letter to Werewolf/Mafia, but intended to address mechanical deficiencies perceived in those games: the need for a moderator, the fact that early player elimination meant that a player could sit out for a long time while the game continued, and a perceived imbalance in the relationship of card-counting/deduction and guessing/interrogation. So, in effect, a search for a different but valid answer to the same questions answered in different ways by Coup and One Night Ultimate Werewolf, among others.
So, at least according to the creators, the goal was to iterate on Werewolf/Mafia, rather than to build Werewolf/Mafia elements into a Diplomacy-style game. However, a political setting fitted the mechanics of the game and the genre they were aiming to iterate on:
Social Deduction games are about a well-coordinated minority trying to convince a confused majority to vote against its interests. It's an inherently political genre.i think this is interesting though - you're interested in Civil LARPs, and in the role of games in teaching/advancing democracy. So, your hypothetical creative process has, high up in the process, the goal of teaching a lesson about the dangers of demagoguery, and the game Diplomacy.
Contrariwise, it makes sense that people who are primarily interested in pick-up-and-play, short-round social card games would start from Werewolf (and One Night Ultimate Werewolf, Coup and a few others), and look to iterate towards something between the two in game length and complexity.
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:41 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
the goal was to iterate on Werewolf/Mafia, rather than to build Werewolf/Mafia elements into a Diplomacy-style game.
Diplomacy already is a social deduction game, since it's a semi-cooperative game throughout most of the rounds but becomes purely competitive at some point before the nd. Obvously, though, no professional designer ever thinks of Diplomacy in their actual design process since that's basically asking for a commercial failure. What I really like about Secret Hitler is the random policy dynamic, since it introduces new opportunities for bluffing, but most importantly leads to often unwilling and random changes in the rules of play. That randomness makes perfect chess-like prediction (or even card counting and odds-running) much more difficult, which means coordination obstacles are truer to life.
i think this is interesting though - you're interested in Civil LARPs, and in the role of games in teaching/advancing democracy. So, your hypothetical creative process has, high up in the process, the goal of teaching a lesson about the dangers of demagoguery, and the game Diplomacy.
Thanks for this and your other kind words on our efforts! I'm definitely hoping that game design will help us make democracy work like it should, because I think that there's a lot of things in common between what citizens need to know and learn to do and what game designers can teach. The indie gaming community is this amazingly welcoming, supportive subculture where almost every player sees game play and game design as inextricable: they're already good citizens of that subculture, but often cut off from the larger kinds of mobilization that citizenship in the modern world seems to require.
Just look at all the Apocalypse World hacks: my favorite game in the last few years is Sagas of the Icelanders. Great, great stuff being written and printed for a minuscule audience of players who want to roleplay as dirt-poor farmers and colonists in ninth century Iceland. Sure, there are vikings, sort of... but it's more fun to play the viking's mother or the village midwife.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:15 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Diplomacy already is a social deduction game, since it's a semi-cooperative game throughout most of the rounds but becomes purely competitive at some point before the nd. Obvously, though, no professional designer ever thinks of Diplomacy in their actual design process since that's basically asking for a commercial failure. What I really like about Secret Hitler is the random policy dynamic, since it introduces new opportunities for bluffing, but most importantly leads to often unwilling and random changes in the rules of play. That randomness makes perfect chess-like prediction (or even card counting and odds-running) much more difficult, which means coordination obstacles are truer to life.
i think this is interesting though - you're interested in Civil LARPs, and in the role of games in teaching/advancing democracy. So, your hypothetical creative process has, high up in the process, the goal of teaching a lesson about the dangers of demagoguery, and the game Diplomacy.
Thanks for this and your other kind words on our efforts! I'm definitely hoping that game design will help us make democracy work like it should, because I think that there's a lot of things in common between what citizens need to know and learn to do and what game designers can teach. The indie gaming community is this amazingly welcoming, supportive subculture where almost every player sees game play and game design as inextricable: they're already good citizens of that subculture, but often cut off from the larger kinds of mobilization that citizenship in the modern world seems to require.
Just look at all the Apocalypse World hacks: my favorite game in the last few years is Sagas of the Icelanders. Great, great stuff being written and printed for a minuscule audience of players who want to roleplay as dirt-poor farmers and colonists in ninth century Iceland. Sure, there are vikings, sort of... but it's more fun to play the viking's mother or the village midwife.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:15 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
my favorite game in the last few years is Sagas of the Icelanders
This is relevant to my interests.
Can you point me to a good review of the game? Preferably by someone who knows the subject well. The ones I find are interesting, but are very much from the point of someone not steeped in the sagas and the history of the period.
posted by Kattullus at 2:23 PM on December 28, 2015
This is relevant to my interests.
Can you point me to a good review of the game? Preferably by someone who knows the subject well. The ones I find are interesting, but are very much from the point of someone not steeped in the sagas and the history of the period.
posted by Kattullus at 2:23 PM on December 28, 2015
We had a Sagas campaign for about a year and a half (maybe two full years, now I think about it.) My last character in the campaign was loosely based on Olaf the Peacock from the Laxdæla saga, though in the campaign his name was Valtýr Óðinsson - The Wanderer.
Here's his character description/history:
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:41 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's his character description/history:
Red bearded, tense-faced, and muscular Valtýr is a traveler who turns up one day as a guest of Gudrun.I spent most of the campaign trying to ally myself with one of two feuding goði, so that one of them would support my viking party to Ireland.
The son of an Irish thrall can never fully flee his heritage, even if he’s only half-Irish. Valtýr grew up with his slave mother in Norway. Valtýr’s father, Óðin, purchased Melkorka, who he believed to be a mute thrall-woman, from a Rus' merchant on Vestfirðir while on a trading expedition to Iceland, and made her his concubine while away from his wife. Valtyr was a precocious child, and could speak and walk perfectly by the age of two. One day Óðin discovered Valtýr’s mother speaking to her son; she was not, in fact, mute. When he confronted her she told him that she was an Irish princess named Melkorka carried off in a viking raid, and that her father was an Irish king named Myrkjartan. Shortly thereafter squabbling between Óðin’s wife and Melkorka forced Óðin to move his concubine and his son by her to a different farm in Norway.
Recently, Valtýr, at Melkorka's urging, decided to go abroad to seek his fortune. Melkorka taught Valtýr Irish Gaelic and urged him to visit her family. Óðin was opposed to the expedition and would not provide trade wares. In part to arrange financing for his expedition, his mother Melkorka married a farmer who had previously assisted her in the management of the farm.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:41 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing. No one disputes that Hitler was a bad person, who did incredibly evil things
If only that were true.
posted by Dysk at 4:38 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
If only that were true.
posted by Dysk at 4:38 PM on December 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I haven't tried it, but I know someone who backed Secret Hitler, so I probably will once these things are shipped. But so all this is base on second-hand impressions.
There is a black humour element to a lot of board games where you pretend to do something horrible. The criticism of Cards Against Humanity at least feels a little more on-point because to simulate Saying Offensive Things you actually Say Offensive Things. To simulate Secret Hitler seems much more that it is only a simulation.
The idea that it's educational I'm skeptical. Mechanically it seems to imply the way to stop a bad dictator is with a benign dictator. I guess there's some potential with the fascist vs. liberal policies to highlight what policies have been used by fascists, but if you're in a position where you're relying on someone not being a Secret Hitler, shouldn't the real-life solution be to avoid giving any single person too much power? Is that itself the lesson? I guess the Landlord's Game didn't give you the option of starting a housing co-op.
posted by RobotHero at 8:58 PM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
There is a black humour element to a lot of board games where you pretend to do something horrible. The criticism of Cards Against Humanity at least feels a little more on-point because to simulate Saying Offensive Things you actually Say Offensive Things. To simulate Secret Hitler seems much more that it is only a simulation.
The idea that it's educational I'm skeptical. Mechanically it seems to imply the way to stop a bad dictator is with a benign dictator. I guess there's some potential with the fascist vs. liberal policies to highlight what policies have been used by fascists, but if you're in a position where you're relying on someone not being a Secret Hitler, shouldn't the real-life solution be to avoid giving any single person too much power? Is that itself the lesson? I guess the Landlord's Game didn't give you the option of starting a housing co-op.
posted by RobotHero at 8:58 PM on December 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
The idea that it's educational I'm skeptical.
The game is about someone who is secretly Hitler. As opposed to in real life, where he tried to overthrow the government, and was subsequently arrested and sentenced for treason after failing said attempt. 10 years before he was appointed Chancellor.
The game also presents a strange idea: the majority of Fascists / conservatives would not seize power given the chance, and it takes special kind of person to abuse the Article 48 emergency powers. Though I would think that trying to overthrow the government would be a hint as to who shouldn't be on given the temptation.
posted by pwnguin at 12:36 AM on December 29, 2015
The game is about someone who is secretly Hitler. As opposed to in real life, where he tried to overthrow the government, and was subsequently arrested and sentenced for treason after failing said attempt. 10 years before he was appointed Chancellor.
The game also presents a strange idea: the majority of Fascists / conservatives would not seize power given the chance, and it takes special kind of person to abuse the Article 48 emergency powers. Though I would think that trying to overthrow the government would be a hint as to who shouldn't be on given the temptation.
posted by pwnguin at 12:36 AM on December 29, 2015
The idea that it's educational I'm skeptical.
Yeah, I don't think the game teaches you how to avoid Hitler. I do *want* the game (or some other game) to teach us about how democracy turns into tyranny so easily. This goes back to Plato's Republic and the general problem of demagoguery. For it to work the way I really want it to, though, there'd be a. some policies that would advance both liberal and fascist interests, and b. some sort of external pressures to choose fascist policies.
But a thing can be educational just in the sense that it encourages thoughtfulness about these issues.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:48 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't think the game teaches you how to avoid Hitler. I do *want* the game (or some other game) to teach us about how democracy turns into tyranny so easily. This goes back to Plato's Republic and the general problem of demagoguery. For it to work the way I really want it to, though, there'd be a. some policies that would advance both liberal and fascist interests, and b. some sort of external pressures to choose fascist policies.
But a thing can be educational just in the sense that it encourages thoughtfulness about these issues.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:48 AM on December 29, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a very obvious trend with them:
1) Take an existing game
2) Make it edgy
3) Crowdfund it
4) Keep people talking about it with gimmicky marketing
"Guys! ... This thread is playing right into their master plan"
posted by theorique at 5:25 AM on January 8, 2016
1) Take an existing game
2) Make it edgy
3) Crowdfund it
4) Keep people talking about it with gimmicky marketing
"Guys! ... This thread is playing right into their master plan"
posted by theorique at 5:25 AM on January 8, 2016
« Older The Normalization of Deviance | “I told them I would not change a word,” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Highly offensive whatever the supposed motivation and kind of outrage-filter imho
posted by AGameOfMoans at 12:51 PM on December 27, 2015 [2 favorites]