‘“Losing is Fun”: Asymmetric Rules and Play for Teaching and Research’

https://twitter.com/MidAgesModGames/status/1278347096597422080

1 #MAMG20 - Games are almost always about winning. Reaching the goal first. Defeating the other team. Cooperating against the game or AI. This is an effective way of engaging players (and spectators) with the game, but is of limited use in representing history.

2 #MAMG20 - A few historical events map onto the typical all or nothing competition model of games. The struggle for England in 1066 is a good example. The players (William, Harold, Harald, or maybe Sweyn II of Denmark) all aim to secure the crown of England. Only one can win.

3 #MAMG20 - But this binary win/lose is hugely limiting. In reality, William clearly won in 1066 while Harold and Harald both definitively lost. But Sweyn is harder to place. He didn’t take England, but he kept control of Denmark (and didn’t die). 4 #MAMG20 - Complex situations don’t fit into all or nothing victory mechanics. A good example of this is the Investiture Contest, normally presented as a binary rivalry between popes (esp. Gregory VII) and emperors (esp. Henry IV) c.1073-1122 over selecting (investing) bishops.

5 #MAMG20 - Various subordinate figures are typically presented as loyal members of either side. The Antipope Guibert of Ravenna on the imperial side and Matilda of Canossa with the papacy for example. This fits neatly with a traditional game model: two sides, only one can win.

6 #MAMG20 - I use this model of pope vs emperor in a basic teaching game to introduce students to the Investiture Contest. 3 players a side, simple mechanics, the goal is to have more influence in northern Italy than your opponents. It helps with places and characters.

7 #MAMG20 - But in reality, each of these figures had their own agendas. Guibert preferred imperial investiture, but had his own ideas for Church reform. Matilda was close to Gregory, but had her own territorial problems. Their relationships with each other were complex.

8 #MAMG20 - These goals often coincided with those of the pope/emperor, but this wasn’t always the case. Guibert had a tense relationship with Henry. Matilda effectively abandoned the papacy towards the end of the contest. And these individuals' goals weren’t mutually exclusive. 9 #MAMG20 - To present this nuance, we need a different approach to goals. I’ve done this with the advanced version of my Investiture Contest game. Each player has their own sequential objectives to complete. Initially most of these are compatible with those of other players.

10 #MAMG20 - But players get drawn into conflict with each other over the course of game as their objectives become more tangled. Initial allies may become rivals as the game progresses. Ultimately, the goal is to complete as many objectives as possible.

11 #MAMG20 - But there is no winner. Each player is only in competition with themself. There’s no all or nothing victory condition which fits much better with this more complex view of the Investiture Contest. It’s not about ‘winning’, it’s about doing well. 12 #MAMG20 - This more nuanced approach can be modded by students or academics and can form an important step forward in the development of games for teaching and for research. More generally, moving away from game conventions can open up new possibilities for exploring history.