User:CBennett

Reflective Practice Analysis

War as a political construct and philosophical debate has been generally accredited to Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu and his opus magnum ‘Art of War’, still considered a defining piece of literature on the topic of military theory. Games such as chess and the Japanese Go have existed throughout history in one form or another, representing both the battlefield and military strategy. Archaeologists have even discovered miniature infantry figurines symbolising Ancient Egypt and Sumerian armies. As a philosophical text Tzu sought to remover the element of chance from warfare; through a realist paradigm this decision appears rational, as chance is based on several internal and external factors outside of the soldier or player’s reach. In doing so, a greater emphasis is placed on military prowess becoming a defining characteristic. For example, in the game of chess it is not the ‘capturing’ of the most pieces that defines the victor, but the one capable of out-manoeuvring the other.

French Marxist theorist and founding member of the ‘Situationalist International’, Guy Debord, created the Game of War as a representation of the works of Prussian military general Carl von Clausewitz. Debord’s fascination with Clausewitz was based on the inexplicable military aptitude of the significantly smaller Prussian army and how, through Clausewitz utilisation of military strategy, was able to defeat the French revolutionary during the Rhine campaign of 1793-1794 and later, Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812. From this point onwards however, we see a departure from Clausewitz’s principles outlined in On War. Whilst Debord attempted to capture the realism of the battlefield on the game board by constructing an artificial reality, this had the opposite effect of limiting the player’s sense of self. Clausewitz had intended to reveal the humanity expressed during war, ‘War, and the form which we give it, proceeds from ideas, feelings, and circumstances’. This being said however, The Game of War still requires players to adopt specific skills intrinsic to military thinking e.g.: evaluating their own abilities and potential in order to out-play their opponent and their forces. Of this, Debord Situationist International refers to the four objectives hoped to be explored whilst in ‘battle’: Provocation, Psychogeography, Détourment and the individual’s participatory creativity; of these it is détourment that represents the conflict against a capitalistic society.

The détourment defined by Debord and the Situationist International was perceived as a multitude of subversive pranks; otherwise considered a form of recuperation, it constituted forms of a capitalist system against itself. This concept had previously been exhibited by both the Surrealist movement with Rene Magritte’s poster ‘C’eci n’est pas une pipe’, an example of rejection towards the rationalisation and homogenisation of society. In addition the Surrealism was the priori movement known as Dadaism, where by creating anti-art cultural works they sought to mock the transient meaninglessness of capitalism and the war needed to perpetuate the system. The abstraction of détourment can be witnessed in the game of war through the player’s analysis of strengths and weaknesses of variously positioned pieces; be they structure, infantry or Calvary by devising strategies and employing decoys over coming the opponent, the victor hopes to achieve their objective. Further examples of military chess such as Christopher Weikhmann’s Koenigspiel are thought to have adapted chess whilst incorporating the philosophical teachings of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. Although Weikhmann claimed that his game ‘was not designed to serve merely as a pastime but that it would furnish anyone who studied I properly a compendium of the most useful military and political principles’, he was not without scornful critics. Of this, war gaming culture as represented by Weikhmann, as an adequate adaptation to realism fails to convey what more could be gained ‘than basic terminology and principles of warfare’, than knowledge that could be learnt through military literature. As a tool to understanding the individual’s potential by subverting the norms of society, Guy Debord’s Game of War can be judged a success. Nonetheless, in regards to Clausewitz On War it can be said that although military chess attempted to capture the realism of actual warfare, it only succeeded in resembling it rather than simulating conflict. It is peculiar then for the player to see this game as a reversal of the original meaning. In reference to the genre of war-games, this awkward relationship was succinctly described by McHugh whom noted ‘In some ways it might be considered as having the same relationship to later war games as the game of Monopoly bears to current business games’

The game of Monopoly was intended to illustrate the negative consequences of concentrating land into the hands of the independent few. Elizabeth J. Maggie Phillips created the game hoping it would help explain the Georgist pre-eminent theory held by Henry George. George’s economic ideology and philosophy resulting in his ‘single tax’ theory held that the individual’s right to their intellectual property was without exception, but everything that exists within nature, with particular emphasis on land, was of communal property. This being the case it is clear to see how Phillips had hoped to expand on this throughout Monopoly. Furthermore, the tax gained from landing on the property of another, according to Georgist economic theorists transposes the suggested ‘single tax’ of land into the game-playing realm.

Originally patented as ‘The Landlord’s Game’, the social implication of the game was to show that the concept of rent bettered the proprietor whilst depriving the tenant; causing a monopoly of resources. One of the many reasons Monopoly is considered a gaming success, is in part thanks to the organic development over the years. After the game’s formal publication in 1906 it entered academic circles, used as a teaching tool by Professor Scott Nearing, who taught in the finance department of the University of Pennsylvania. Over the years various additions had been made to the game, mainly by Phillips after renewing her patent, to include: a change of street-names, symbolising the transferable qualities of the game; the inclusion of a ‘Monopoly’ card, allowing the user to charge a higher rent on the basis of wealth accrued; and counters indicating the degree of improvements. Nonetheless, it wasn’t until Charles Darrow that Monopoly began receiving widespread popularity. Although this is not to suggest that Monopoly became an instantaneous success.

According to Salen the fundamental problem with many fledgling games is identifying the elusive ‘sweet spot’, which is described as when the player stops thinking of the mechanics of the game, due to a loss of self-consciousness. In understanding the mechanics of a game one can play the game. This analysis draws a distinction between ‘playing’ and ‘enjoying’, labelling them as different on the basis understanding. Herein lays the critical criticism on Monopoly. Arguably an enjoyable game to the many socio-political theorists, Georgist economists and students whom aided in its initial development, Parker Brothers failed to see its mass-market appeal stating it was ‘too complicated, too technical…took too long to play’, as well as listing ‘52 fundamental playing errors’. Despite the fact that one might claim the rules are overly complex, the sweet spot is achieved through the game’s mechanics. Whilst cooperative games have there place in society by engendering a sense of mutual partnership and community, it could be asserted that in a Pluralist society cooperation of resources would result in opposition groups, cooperating to achieve a monopoly. In regards to opposition and competition, a key aspect to all versions of Monopoly is the struggle. In a two-player game such as chess, the game is direct competition. In the case of Monopoly which allows up to four-players, this introduces an element of diplomacy. Though Salen claims that Monopoly does not result in ‘combining against a mutual foe’ as there is ‘no effective way to either help or hinder anyone else’, it is through idiosyncratic game-play where non-regulatory rules become established norms. If we are to accept this, then diplomacy becomes a turn-by-turn tool used and denied when seen fit, further adding to a sense of realism attributed to property realty. The terminology of ‘kingmaker’ finds its origins during the War of the Roses, set in England (1455-1487) and was used to describe the qualities of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick. The term itself has entered mainstream culture to mean ‘a person or group with such influence to decide royal or political succession’; it can therefore be suggested that the value of said kingmaker initially outweighs that of any potential successor. This does not mean that said individual can gain a political or royal hegemony, their power is only realised when transferred to an adequate candidate.

Andrew McNeil’s Kingmaker allows the player to build and control the military might of various noble families; this establishes a fair playing ground as both Houses have an alternating quantity of resources readily available. Whilst a hierarchy of power resulted in few direct royal conflicts, warring Barons and knights was an accepted norm in the distribution of land. However as Huizinga notes, each player would mutually respect the other as their equal regardless of royal affiliation ‘We can only speak of war as a cultural function so long as it is waged within a sphere whose members regard each other as equals or antagonist with equal rights…’. This recognition lf equality is paralleled in Kingmaker through McNeil’s adherence to the characters central to the War of the Roses, e.g.: Nobles such as Neville, Beaufort and Percy; historically established titles, Earl of Essex and Duke of Exeter; and essential ecclesiastical offices, Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London. In reference to the king making process McNeil’s game-play explanation turns the game into a pedagogical tool allowing the players to gain a basic understanding of English geography, medieval history and the medieval hierarchical system. In addition to this, if not more importantly, it causes the user to comprehend the military strategies possible based on terrain and alliances, as well as accepting their own military limitations.

Unlike the contemporary definition of a kingmaker where the individual decides the victor based in their preference, certain requirements must be achieved in order to win the game. Although the game states that an Archbishop can decide ordain a king by divine decree, should a player be lacking, two Bishops at Westminster Abbey will suffice. This rule is a slight detraction from an accurate re-telling of the war. When Edward of March reached London one Bishop of London, Thomas Kempe, unofficially ordained him King at Westminster Abbey. Despite the lack of dice, supposedly removing the element of chance in the game, the use of random events cards surely re-introduces luck to the game. Events such as Serf uprising, Tempest as sea or the Bubonic plague would have been considered a blessing or curse depending on the individual location, as Huizinga believed ‘the fall of the dice may signify and determine the divine workings; by it we may move the gods as efficiently as by any other form of contest’. With this in mind, the winner is often defined by the player’s use of diplomacy. Should a certain character become too strong or hostile weaker players tend to form alliances of mutual understanding; nonetheless, the pretence of diplomacy will only exist for as long as it holds value.

It remains crucial for the player to perceive games not only within a sphere of strategic possibilities ‘but are also spaces of representation of things both real and make-believe’; in this way the player can gain a greater understanding of the representative world created through game-play. Anders Fager’s Comrade Koba card based strategy game reworks the Soviet Purges of Josef Stalin, becoming a turn based game of chance and misdirection. Whilst a system of representations – based on gender, sexuality, race or class – enables an alternative imaginative discourse to exist, such a Chess or Monopoly, the fundamental structure of Comrade Koba does not allow for multiple interpretations. This can bed considered the main downfall or criticism for games following the rigid formation of history; the use of external prior knowledge, assumptions and expectation fail to alter the historical background. The reality from which the game is abstracted remains unchanged.

The basis of the game follows ‘Koba’, one of Stalin’s many nicknames, and an era of Soviet history known as the Great Terror. At a time of suspicion, internal conflict and betrayal each player represents a member of Stalin’s political cabinet. Vying to prove their loyalty by accusing others, players move one to two character cards closer or further away from Koba. The purpose of this lateral movement is representative of the supposed randomness of the Purges, where at times a Politburo member’s survival was defined by the proximity. It therefore becomes vital for the individual to be aware of other players’ movement; questioning the motives as genuine, a bluff or a double-bluff. On this, Roger Caillois emphasises, in regards to more cerebral gaming, ‘…the risk for the player of missing his stroke, at the threat of defeat’. As each character receives three character cards it heightens their chance of survival, at the same time minimising it due to the increased probability of ‘accusation’. Comrade Koba remedies this by selection on the basis of misinterpreted game-play and plays on the individual’s belief of a higher knowledge; doubt therefore must remain a certainty in order to maximise enjoyment. In the case that the end result comes in advance to either the individual or all involved, the purpose of the game is lost.

Bibliography

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Palgrave, MacMillan. 2006

Evans, David. Appropriation. Massachusetts. MIT Press. 2009

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens. Routledge.2002

Perla, Peter P. The Art of Wargaming. Annapolis, Maryland. Naval Institute Press 1990

Salen, Katie; Zimmerman, Eric. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. Massachusetts. MIT Press.2006

Website

The Guardian. “Hard times turn to gaming, but not everyone will be a winner”  Accessed: 01/04/2011