Heroscape: Age of Annihilation is here! Back it on Haslab!

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by AMIS

You may be right...I still think of it as a game for younger folks but if it's going through a kick starter (Haslabs) then only adults can really pick it up.

Craig is a big proponent of tandem play. He used to call it “Father Son Games”. The intent is that an adult and a child could both play the game and find joy. Sure the parents purchase the game, but part of the purchase incentive is to have that bonding experience.

[foofoofun]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

I absolutely disagree. Everything is NOT political. The definition of political is: relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

Discussing a game’s terminology, which is how this has even popped up in this thread, is not indicative of any political position or political party affiliation, nor is discussing the merits of various names a form of virtue positioning.

Although I find your post compelling, you must be operating under some other definition of “political”.

My definition of political is anything that derives from a choice made or not made, by a person. The key factor is that we live in a heavily connected world where any decision no matter how small affects people whether it’s meant to or not.

So lets consider choosing names for games. So for example lets say that we’re designing a brand new game, and you have a field zone and a graveyard. Now graveyard implies death for whatever is in the graveyard. You can change the name of the graveyard to just about anything to imply different meanings to the same mechanic.
If we go over a few options we can see how this choice can have many implications.
Let’s say you call it the retirement zone. Your implying with this decision that death is too harsh for you, that you believe value is gained by the censorship of violence.
Let’s say you call it the hellzone. Your implying that not only do your characters die they go to some version of hell. This change implies that you are drawing on the common associations of hell in yourself and your audience. Depending on the rest of the terms you use this could imply a pro or anti religious stance. You can get similar results by calling the graveyard heaven.

Now let’s say that you decide to just leave it as graveyard. You may think you’re not taking a stance, but actually you are. You’re choosing to not censor it to retirement nor are you choosing a more vivid approach. You’re choosing to not make a choice.

Where this fully becomes political is that assumedly your planning on selling your new game. Those choices you made are going to be presented to the public for them to interact with. This is where your choices will impact people and it’s also where people can make the choice to buy and support your game and consequently your decisions when making that game. Any choice you made will be judged and reflected on by other people, and their choice to buy or influence others to buy your game is also how people will express support of your choices.

It’s the combination of choices and living in a connected world where things get political. It’s unavoidable.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by foofoofun

My definition of political is anything that derives from a choice made or not made, by a person. The key factor is that we live in a heavily connected world where any decision no matter how small affects people whether it’s meant to or not.

So lets consider choosing names for games. So for example lets say that we’re designing a brand new game, and you have a field zone and a graveyard. Now graveyard implies death for whatever is in the graveyard. You can change the name of the graveyard to just about anything to imply different meanings to the same mechanic.
If we go over a few options we can see how this choice can have many implications.
Let’s say you call it the retirement zone. Your implying with this decision that death is too harsh for you, that you believe value is gained by the censorship of violence.
Let’s say you call it the hellzone. Your implying that not only do your characters die they go to some version of hell. This change implies that you are drawing on the common associations of hell in yourself and your audience. Depending on the rest of the terms you use this could imply a pro or anti religious stance. You can get similar results by calling the graveyard heaven.

Now let’s say that you decide to just leave it as graveyard. You may think you’re not taking a stance, but actually you are. You’re choosing to not censor it to retirement nor are you choosing a more vivid approach. You’re choosing to not make a choice.

Where this fully becomes political is that assumedly your planning on selling your new game. Those choices you made are going to be presented to the public for them to interact with. This is where your choices will impact people and it’s also where people can make the choice to buy and support your game and consequently your decisions when making that game. Any choice you made will be judged and reflected on by other people, and their choice to buy or influence others to buy your game is also how people will express support of your choices.

It’s the combination of choices and living in a connected world where things get political. It’s unavoidable.

That’s not political. You can call it that if you want, but it’s not political. When I choose my words, whether in a conversation or as part of product terminology, it’s not political, it’s being considerate (or not), it’s being thoughtful (or not), it’s being smart (or not).

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by foofoofun

My definition of political is anything that derives from a choice made or not made, by a person.

That definition is broad to the point of being meaningless. That’s like defining religious as “pertaining to God or anything God created.”

So everything is political, everything is religious, and neither word has any use in a conversation.

[foofoofun]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

That definition is broad to the point of being meaningless. That’s like defining religious as “pertaining to God or anything God created.”

So everything is political, everything is religious, and neither word has any use in a conversation.

Actually that definition of religion is used constantly, especially when referring to Abrahamic religions where there’s a singular god who is in control of everything. If you’re an atheist you might argue against god on the basis that if god is real that makes god responsible for the deaths of children. It’s an argument you can only make because both the atheist and the implied theist agree that god is responsible for literally everything (outside of free will).

I believe what you’re talking about is probably about how can you separate church and state if everything is technically religiously related. I would argue the answer is that it’s less about separating religion as a concept but rather making sure that no religion has preference over another. It’s why schools can have a class that teaches about a bunch of religions but can’t have a class that exclusively teaches about one religion and no others.

Politics are similar in that if you want to talk about politics as a whole you have to be willing to look at everything. You can be more specific if you want to talk about specific political issues or parties, but ultimately you miss a lot of the issues when you don’t view everything as having at least some minimal political value.

Like if you want to talk about police in America there’s a ton of impactful topics that are not directly about the police. You have to talk about redlining in cities or how funding is distributed to government institutions like schools. You have to talk about how the police is portrayed in media. And when it comes down to it you have to talk about how you as an individual talk about the police in your day to day life.

There’s heavy political meaning gained from someone as individual only talking about the police as people who hand out tickets vs someone who is worried they’ll be shot by said police. You can say that you don’t have a stance on the police, but given the larger context that’s the same as saying that you are fine with things as they are.

And if we want to get meta I just made a series of political decisions within this thread. I avoided direct political references earlier but have now chosen to add in recognizable political issues that I expect that people might have strong feelings on. I also made a political choice to talk about a specific issue within a ton of issues that would have a similar effect. Why did I choose the police over say abortion, universal heath care, guns in America, or education? Why did I feel comfortable with giving a religious example?

Now perhaps people are getting confused on how important all of this stuff is. Just because something is political doesn’t mean it’s important or necessary to look at every little detail. It’s not necessary to think of everything that everyone says as having meaningful value, but it is important to recognize that it can.

Everyone is connected. By me making this post here I am at least attempting to influence what other people think and believe. I’m talking a stance, just as all of you are by discussing our views. We’re trying to influence each other in many small ways.

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

The definition of political is: relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.

Although I find your post compelling, you must be operating under some other definition of “political”.

In an ideal world, you'd be correct. In the world we currently find ourselves in, there are a great many people fighting what they perceive as a culture war and using politics to do it. Perhaps what you would prefer for the sake of accuracy is "everything is sociopolitical."

Originally Posted by foofoofun

It’s not necessary to think of everything that everyone says as having meaningful value, but it is important to recognize that it can.

That's a good summation of your point. Or, put another way, "words matter."

[IAmBatman]

There’s a giant gulf between being able to apply political or religious thinking to something (you can do this with literally anything) and that thing being inherently political or religious. And if there isn’t, there’s no point in calling something political or religious because the description has no meaning. If everything is the same shade of blue, sorting things by color provides no useful information.

[Blue Trails]

Originally Posted by AMIS

As much as I hate to agree with Politically Correct stances because I tend to think of a game as ... a game instead of the obvious political motivations behind major societal reforms within a democratic society ... I still think a name change is in order.

This is mostly to challenge the amazing designers because I'm curious what they may come up with.

I would also suggest that it not be called the Burning Forge as that name was taken by a group of axe wielding vertically challenged rough loud musiced maniacs a little while ago.

For more on the Halloween style of figures being introduced.. @chas has started a thread on it (it I knew how to link a thread I would). It's called "Heroscape 2.0 and Halloween: On Gaming Moral Sensibilities" and is very thought provoking.

I think this is more of a matter of knowing one's audience than of practicing political correctness. We're discussing a huge expansion to a game intended for children and adults alike, and said game's returning adult fans might now play with their own children. In this context, a word that fits both definitions of the word "profanity" might not be the most appropriate choice for a character's name.

Anyway, you've piqued my interest by mentioning that thread. I'll have to check it out.

[Master Roshi]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

There’s a giant gulf between being able to apply political or religious thinking to something (you can do this with literally anything) and that thing being inherently political or religious. And if there isn’t, there’s no point in calling something political or religious because the description has no meaning. If everything is the same shade of blue, sorting things by color provides no useful information.

I agree with this, I think it's important to distinguish between someone finding a political aspect intrinsically within something, and someone projecting a political tone onto it

[Dad_Scaper]

I do not want a game that I am helping to design to cause someone to feel pain or discomfort. I was never comfortable, as a teenager, playing the Germans in Axis & Allies, and I would never ever wish that same kind of discomfort on someone else. Certainly not when it is within my power to do something about it.

I also do not wish to sit in judgment on whether or not someone else's pain or discomfort is somehow "justified." If it's sincere, I don't want to judge it.

I'm working on making a game, and I don't want the people who might enjoy it to be uncomfortable because of something I did. It's not about being "politically correct," and (from my perspective) it's not a cynical business decision. It's about caring.

As always, I speak only for myself here.

[Master Roshi]

Everything can be interpreted in any way given what the interpreter brings into the encounter; however, I think it's important to take note of the creators intent.

The word 'Hell' has negative associations, which is why it is being used in the context of the character in order to give it an intimidating persona. Nonetheless, the creators mean no harm, are not using the game as a tool to send their own political message, and are not harming anyone through the choices they've made so far. Any association to religious themes of punishment is going to be both flimsy and unintended.
Including the word Hell in a character name, especially one that's presented as more villainous rather than heroic, is very tame. I don't think it's inclusion is causing anyone any suffering, nor creating any practical problem in the world and thus removing it wouldn't alleviate anyone's suffering nor solve any practical problem. I don't think a child being exposed to the word in the context it is currently presented is going to be harmful to them or lead them down a path of degeneracy.
I understand and agree with avoiding some topics that might be distasteful but this one seems to really be a bit contrived.

[Taeblewalker]

Originally Posted by Master Roshi

Everything can be interpreted in any way given what the interpreter brings into the encounter; however, I think it's important to take note of the creators intent.

The word 'Hell' has negative associations, which is why it is being used in the context of the character in order to give it an intimidating persona. Nonetheless, the creators mean no harm, are not using the game as a tool to send their own political message, and are not harming anyone through the choices they've made so far. Any association to religious themes of punishment is going to be both flimsy and unintended.
Including the word Hell in a character name, especially one that's presented as more villainous rather than heroic, is very tame. I don't think it's inclusion is causing anyone any suffering, nor creating any practical problem in the world and thus removing it wouldn't alleviate anyone's suffering nor solve any practical problem. I don't think a child being exposed to the word in the context it is currently presented is going to be harmful to them or lead them down a path of degeneracy.
I understand and agree with avoiding some topics that might be distasteful but this one seems to really be a bit contrived.

Agreed. And