Sue,
I will 100% agree the issues are larger than we give them credit for. I guess LOTR never bothered me at all and I considered it part of this non-confrontational game style due to it's theme. It is almost religious in it's mythos of good triumphing over evil and the evil in LOTR is pure evil. It's not a bad human it's pure evil. I do however recognize that my adult understanding of the novels and the world that was designed behind the novels heavily colors my perception of the series.
I do however feel that it would be a losing battle to get kids to enjoy a game where there is no competition nor sense of struggle against a greater "enemy." It seems like it would go against our very biological drive territoriality and competition. I think this is especially dangerous when looking at games for young men. The competitive drive is so strong and if the only outlet is in the physical realm (how we deify our athletes for example) we do limit ourselves to a very confrontational warlike culture. Once again I go back to my example of Go. If a player sets his sights at destroying all the opponent's pieces they will lose. You can never eliminate your opponent in the game - instead you have to struggle to divide the board and territory between the two of you hopefully in a manner that is beneficial. Yes, I can see how one would perceive the game as teaching the players to take advantage of their opponent's weaknesses and capitalize upon them but instead the focus can be shifted on the sharing of the space. This alone runs contrary to much of our culture and is anathema to the very basis of our sports consumed by the general public.
I also don't want anyone to think I'm this gun-toting warmonger. I am a pacifist and a complete hippy. My natural urge to compete and react forcefully to things in an almost feudal fashion is something I have struggled with all my life. Years of martial arts taught me to respect other people as well as the damage that can be done when violence rears its head. I think if someone had tried to hook me into a non-competitive game where the whole party won or lost together and there wasn't an "enemy" being confronted they would have failed. Even now, I'm not sure I could be too convinced to dedicate much time to such an endeavor due to it feeling like it goes so very against my nature and sense of what is fun.
So what I focus on in my game club is getting the kids to understand that losing is not something to fear and hate but instead should be embraced as an opportunity to improve. Winning does not make you better than your opponent, instead it means you need to figure out how to handicap yourself in the future until you eventually achieve a situation where each player wins half the time - this increases the opportunity to learn as well as the challenge. I also pretty closely monitor trash talk and nip that in the bud. If one kid appears to be picked on a little bit within the context of one game then I will speak with the group as a whole (a reminder of the respect we show one another within the club) and then do something in the future to make that child a star. I might print up the rules to some game that uses pyramids and teach it to that individual child. She then will becomes the "expert" in that game and be responsible for teaching others. Their name also goes up on my board under a particular game as one of the kids designated a teacher of that game.
So far I have only had a couple problem behaviors to be addressed. They did arise though when playing Bang! which is probably one of the more competitive games. Oddly enough during Hex Hex (which is very stab-your-friend-in-the-back) everyone behaved like ladies and gentleman. Most likely because there are so many opportunities to reduce someone's score they played it very carefully. Perhaps it was the 1950's principle of MAD in action.
-Ryan
On 4/5/07, Smithhemb@xxxxxxx <
Smithhemb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
There's the rub. I don't see how a cooperative game that designates
all of the players as "good" and urges them to work together to triumph over an
unembodied evil does anything to dismantle our war culture. It's an
us-against-them with "them" logic in which "they" lack humanity and "we" must
suppress internal divisions and urge self-sacrifice. Sounds like the stuff
wars are made of.
As for games in which all players win or lose, an 8 year old friend of mine
had a really interesting perspective: "I don't care if I win," she
said. "It's fun for me when my friends win. But why play a game
where no one will win?" After which she refused to play Break the Safe a
game whose cooperative (beat-the-clock) mechanism I've often seen bring out real
bossiness and power struggles among young players. Once everything you do
affects whether or not I succeed, the logic goes, I have a
legitimate interest (and should have a say) in what you do and I want to
make sure you don't screw up. This logic can involve identifying the
presumed weakest link and bullying that person into following the will of the
majority and/or designating a leader who calls the shots.
In short, I think these issues are much more complicated than we're giving
them credit for.
Sue Hemberger
Washington, DC
--
Ora, lege, lege, lege, relege, labora et invenies.