Ryan wrote:
"... However I also think it is folly to try to ignore and subvert the
natural competitive drive of anyone and instead I prefer games that teach
the ideas that the opponent is not only a competitor but a student and a
teacher. Each game then could be a wordless conversation between two
people. This whole philosophy is what specifically drew me to both Go and
Zendo. ..."
Yes, Ryan, that is a beautiful concept. It would be wiser to understand and
channel the "natural competitive drive", which is rooted in the survival and
growth command of the human animal, away from hostile confrontation to
self-improvement. In a footrace, the victory is to the genuinely fastest
runner, and not to the one who pushes a competitor off the cliff. Runners
will seek to break their own previous record, not the competitor's kneecaps.
Each runner is spurred by the desire to exceed their own previous limits as
well as the other runners' best.
The whole notion of "beating" someone else plants the seeds of hate, envy,
enmity. A higher level of thought, of mental and spiritual evolution, is
needed to see a oompetitor as a helper and partner, a "co-player" rather
than an opponent or foe. Then the dynamic opposition, as in the zen-like
"Inner Game of Tennis", can be seen as a collaboration for mutual
improvement. Each supplies a goal for the other. Each could also supply
elements the other needs, such as through trade or exchange options in the
game.
Unfortunately, that is not how most games are taught or played. And this
formulation is still a weak rationalization to make adversarial
entertainment respectable. Losers still suffer a dent in self-esteem.
Winners are celebrated as heroes. And unfortunately, the simplistic
winners/losers paradigm is deeply entrenched in our cultural meme-pool. It
excites the most primitive hormones that reinforce a liking for virtual and
eventually actual violence.
That's why games of chance are so popular, because luck is not a skill
factor, and luck cuts everyone down to the same level. Anyone can be a loser
and live to win another day. That, however, does not resolve the problem of
using games for self-improvement and growth, which, allegedly, should be
their prime function in classrooms.
There is a continuum -- from the extreme "I beat you", killing, capturing,
sabotaging themes with just one winner and all others losers -- to the other
end of the spectrum, where conflict is not between players but against an
outside obstacle, and where all players win when they work out a good
resolution collaboratively.
I invite your recommendations of games in the latter category, such as the
Lord of the Rings game, and I invite you to encourage your students to
create more such games. We will publish the best of such creations, unless
another company snaps them up first!
-- Kate