The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – Introduction

我是 2019 年開始在推特 / itch.io 的英語獨立 TRPG 圈子發布自己的作品；2021 年因為寫了一個讓我朋友想自殺的遊戲與圈子隔離，只跟少數人繼續聯絡，最後完全斷絕所有關係。

2019 was when I started publishing my work in the anglophone Twitter / itch.io indie TTRPG scene; because of writing a game that made my friend want to commit suicide, I started isolating myself from the scene in 2021, only continuing to interact with a few people, until eventually cutting off contact from everybody in 2022.

因此，我的政治遊戲設計也反映了這樣的發展。還在圈子裡的時候，我還是很關心如何迎合圈內大部分算是激進自由主義者的人—其實那時候我也算是激進份子。那時候，除了模糊的「左派」，我還是不敢利用其他更詳細的詞來形容自己的政治思想，因為我怕很多東西：怕選錯了主義、怕不懂主義冒充主義者的身分、怕選的主義會造成的分歧。忘了哪時候改變，但我知道到了 2021 年離開圈子之前，我堅定地形容自己是無治主義者；再到了 2023 年底才換到目前的極左派者。我的政治思想變得越明確，遊戲的政治要旨也變得更公然；我變得越孤立，遊戲的設計也越獨斷專行。

Accordingly, my political game design has reflected this development. When I was still in the scene, I was still very concerned with appealing to other insiders who were mostly radlibs—and actually at that time I was a radlib too. Back then, besides the nebulous label of “leftist,” I still didn't dare to use any more descriptive term to describe my political thinking, because I was afraid of many things: afraid of choosing the wrong ideology, afraid of falsely claiming to be the follower of an ideology I didn't understand, afraid of disagreements caused by my chosen ideology. I don't remember when this changed, but I know that by 2021 before leaving the scene, I firmly described myself as an anarchist; it wasn't 'til the end of 2023 that I changed again to the present ultraleftist. As my political thinking became more certain, the political messages of my games became more overt; as I became more isolated, the design of my games became more autocratic.

過去幾年，我學到了很多東西。然而，如果你問今天的我自己的政治遊戲設計綱領是什麼，我並無法回答—而且我也不確定需要回答。拋棄了 TRPG 的共同體之後，我常常覺得寫 TRPG 最後只是自己在跟自己講話。我可以再次創造新的綱領，但是誰能給我綱領效力的肯定？我是唯一能問責自己的人。在這種情況之下，我覺得綱領頂多是個自己拿來鼓勵自己的東西。我沒興趣這樣做。對我有興趣的是搞懂自己到底做過了什麼事，明白哪些門路是死路。迄今為止，這是我最詳盡的努力。

Over the past few years, I've learned a lot of things. Even so, if you asked me today what my program for political game design is, I wouldn't have an answer—and I'm not even sure I'd need an answer. After giving up TRPG communities, I've often felt that writing TRPGs just ends up being an exercise in talking to myself. I can come up with new programs again, but who can affirm their efficacy? I'm the only one who can hold myself accountable. In this kind of circumstance, I feel like a program at most is just something I can use to congratulate myself. I have no interest in doing so. What I am interested in is figuring out exactly what I have done so far, and understanding what doorways lead to dead ends. To date, this is my most comprehensive attempt.

The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – FOOL ZERO GAMES ERA (2019-2021), First Half

1. System Shatters 《系統破滅》(v1 2020, v2 2021, 翻譯 transl. 2023)
2. Five Blue Dragons 《五龍分魂》(2020, 無翻譯 no transl.)
3. Phantom Island 《幽靈島》(v1 2020, v2 2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
4. Smelltracks 《味道》(v1 2021, v2 2021, v3 2022)

《系統破滅》是我最早的無治遊，雖然創的時候沒有故意要做成那樣。第一版本其實叫《System Matters》（中文：系統有關），是在笑話英語獨立 TRPG 圈子話語中常出現的句子。「System matters」這句話的意思就是說：玩家選的遊戲系統會影響遊玩的經驗，因此玩家該選設計最能創造想要的經驗的系統（相反的立場就是系統無關，因為玩家可以隨便選哪些規則要用，也可以創特定規，所以任何系統都能用來創造想要的經驗）。

System Shatters was my earliest anarchist game, even though when I created it I didn't intentionally make it that way. The first version was actually called System Matters, poking fun at a phrase that commonly appeared in discourse within the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene. The phrase “system matters” meant that the system chosen by the players would influence the experience of their game, and so players should choose the system with a design that can best create the experience they desire (the opposing stance was that system didn't matter, because players could freely choose whatever rules they wanted to use, as well as make house rules, so any system could be used to create a desired experience).

我的《系統有關》是個自雜（英文：zine），邀請玩家來利用「唱反系統」的「反規」（英文：antirules）來攻擊存在系統中不利於實現自由的規則；目的是在唱反系統遊玩的過程中把遊戲系統的辜負聯繫到現實系統的辜負，把遊玩中反規追求自由態度帶回日常生活。在第二版，我把遊戲的政治要旨寫得更明確，把「反規」改成「破壞」，把遊戲名稱的圈內笑話擱在一邊，改成現在的《系統破滅》。雖然據我所知這個作品沒有影響任何人的政治思想或日常生活—而且我現在該說，我幾乎所有的作品都是這樣—我在《系統破滅》的發展之中發現了自己寫含政治要旨的作品的時候總是有個要旨肯定會被聽到的態度，無論聽眾或同志到底有沒有出現。溫柔地說，這現象我稱「想像的同寅」（跟班納迪克·安德森想像的共同體概念類似）；狠心地說，這叫魔法思維。

My System Matters was a zine that invited players to use the “antirules” of an “antisystem” to attack rules that failed to facilitate liberation in a system that currently existed; the goal was, through the course of antisystemic play, to connect the failures of the game system to the failures of real systems, to bring the pursuit of freedom against rules from play back to everyday life. In the second version, I made the game's political message more explicit, changing “antirule” to “sabotage,” setting aside the inside joke of the game title to turn it into the System Shatters of today. Even though to my knowledge this work never influenced anybody's political thinking or everyday life—and I should say now that almost all of my works are like this—in my development of System Shatters I discovered that whenever I write things with a political message, I always seem to have the attitude that my message would be heard, regardless of whether or not listeners or comrades would appear. Generously speaking, this phenomenon I call “imagined affinity” (like Benedict Anderson's concept of imagined community); callously speaking, I call it magical thinking.

列表中第二個遊戲，《五龍分魂》，才是我第一次故意試圖設計政治遊戲的努力。我恨這個遊戲恨到死，恨到連放在 itch.io 網頁都沒再放，也從來不想做翻譯。已經過了四年了，但連想到就感到厭惡，甚至連在這個貼文中寫都不想寫。可是我必須要誠實。我容許認可當時的自己有了足夠的自明，在現已刪除的 itch.io 上 po 了一個譴責遊戲的開發日誌；我在這裡複製：

The second game on the list, Five Blue Dragons, was my actual first attempt at intentionally designing a political game. I hate this game to death, to the point where I stopped including it on my itch.io page early on and have never even bothered to translate it. It's been 4 years, but even thinking about the game makes me disgusted, to the point where I didn't even want to include it in this post. But I must be honest. I'm willing to give myself at that time credit for having enough self-awareness to post a devlog on my now-deleted itch.io denouncing the game; I now reproduce it here:

I started feeling uncomfortable about having created this game after I realized that its most vocal lovers were all white.

當我發現這遊戲的熱愛者都是白人，我開始對這遊戲的創造感到不自在。

打斷一下—我想更加說明熱愛的程度。《五龍分魂》是個《Wretched & Alone》（中文：孤單受苦）系統的改版，也是為了《Wretched & Alone》系統的設計師們舉行的遊戲製作營才創了這個遊戲（設計師為了自己新設計的系統舉系統行遊戲製作營是在圈子中很常見的社交宣傳策略；設計師們常利用製作營的平台推銷參加者利用他們系統做的作品，在產生知名度的方面互相支持）。在寫這開發日誌之前，其中一位 W&A 的設計師，Chris Bissette，有在推特上送我私訊問我要不要上他的 podcast 談一談《五龍分魂》的設計。我因為在這開發日誌中描述的原因而拒絕。那次是唯一有人對我的遊戲興趣足夠到想邀請我來做採訪的一次。我認為這也不是偶然，是反映當時圈子的政治觀。

Interrupting for a moment—I want to elaborate on the extent of this vocal love. Five Blue Dragons was a Wretched & Alone hack, and was also made only because of the Wretched & Alone jam hosted by the system's designers (designers hosting game jams for new systems they made was a common social-promotional tactic in the scene; designers often used the jam's platform to promote works that the participants made using their system, creating a mutual reputation boost). Before writing this devlog, one of the W&A designers, Chris Bissette, DM'd me on Twitter to ask if I wanted to go on his podcast to talk about the design of Five Blue Dragons. Because of the reasons illustrated in this devlog, I said no. That was the only time anyone was interested enough in my games to ask me to do an interview. I believe this isn't a coincidence, but a reflection of the scene's politics at the time.

To be clear—I'm not writing this devlog to subtweet white people who have enjoyed Five Blue Dragons. I'm writing this as a self-reflection and self-criticism, especially after a period of intensive political self-education that made me reevaluate the kinds of narratives my game was promoting.

該說清楚—寫這個開發日誌的目的不是為了要不點名推文喜歡《五龍分魂》的白人。寫的目的是為了自我反省和自我批評，特別是因為我經過一段密集的自我教育，讓我重新評估遊戲促進的敘事。

In Five Blue Dragons, you play as a colonizer who goes on a spiritual journey to sever their spiritual attachments to colonialism as a system. The game requires you to respond, using the format of writing down journal entries, to prompts that interrogate you about the “how” and “why” behind your colonialist mentalities and practices. Some of these prompts ask you to imagine scenarios where you confront spiritual representations of people you have been complicit in oppressing, or other colonizers who want to manipulate you into abandoning your renunciation of colonialism. These are prompts that, on the surface level of content, do not grant you a clean and easy break from a position of violent dominance—but I believe that beyond the surface, they actually achieve the opposite.

在《五龍分魂》之中，你扮演的是一個為了要斷自己對殖民系統的執受而開始心靈旅程的殖民者。遊戲規定你必須利用寫日記項目的方式來回答審問你「如何」和「為什麼」有殖民性想法和行為的寫題。有些寫題要你想像心靈代表情形，面對被你串通壓迫的人，或著是其他想操縱你放棄脫離殖民主義的殖民者。在內容的表面上，這些寫題並不讓你從暴力性支配地位得到完全和簡單的絕裂—可是在表面下，我認為其實效果是相反。

Five Blue Dragons is a solo game—which means that it is a game that privileges a solo imaginary. In this case, it is a game that privileges the solo imaginary of the colonizer. It is a game where the colonizer can play at staging confrontations against those they've attempted to colonize, and those who want them to continue colonizing, all in the safety of their own head, progressing at the quiet leisure of their journaling pace, with no one to speak back to them except for the game's text as written. This is a game that allows white people to threaten their own whiteness safely, which is to say that this game is not threatening at all.

《五龍分魂》是個單人遊—也就是個優待單人想像力的遊戲。在這個情況之下，這就是個優待殖民者單人想像力的遊戲。這就是個殖民者能玩玩跟被他試圖作為殖民目標的人，以及希望他繼續進行殖民任務的人，創造對抗場面的遊戲，一切都在自己腦海的安全之中，按照平靜休閒的日記節奏進展，除了遊戲上寫的字沒人能跟他提出反對。這是個能讓白人安全地危害自己白狀的遊戲，也就是說這遊戲一點都不危害。

Why should this game have been more threatening? As I wrote in my Designer Notes, “I created this game to explore the concept of a colonizer abandoning hope for moral redemption in pursuit of moral accountability.” Moral accountability, of course, to those they attempted to colonize. As Paulo Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “To affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce” (50). And this game, in focusing entirely on the colonizer's psychological patterns of failure to reach that affirmation, fails to acknowledge, let alone challenge the farce. And so I hesitate, now, to even call this a game about the colonizer's pursuit of moral accountability. I believe this is a game about the colonizer's pursuit of escape from their fear of having to face moral accountability, which is a very different thing.

為什麼這遊戲該更加危害？就跟我在〈設計思想〉中寫說的一樣：「我創造這遊戲是為了要探索殖民者放棄道德上救贖的希望，改追求道德上問責的概念。」當然，道德上的問責是指被他試圖作為殖民目標的人。就跟保羅·弗萊雷在《被壓迫者教育學》中寫說的一樣：「要肯定男人和女人都是人，而作為人就應該是自由的，但卻不做任何實質性的事情來使這一肯定成為現實，這實在是滑稽之舉。」而這個遊戲，因為完全都在關注殖民者失敗得到那肯定的心理模式，連要承認那滑稽之舉都失敗了，更不用說去挑戰的解果。所以現在，我連說這個遊戲在描述殖民者道德上問責的追求都不想說。我認為這是個描述殖民者要逃避面對道德上問責的恐懼的遊戲，是個完全不同的東西。

Given that I consider this game complicit with upholding a political farce that protects the very system of oppression it intends to criticize, I no longer feel comfortable giving or receiving endorsement for this game. I will be demonetizing it immediately after the posting of this devlog, and linking back to this devlog in future instances if people bring this game up in praise again.

鑒於我認為這遊戲串通支持了一個政治滑稽之舉，反而保護了本來要批評的壓迫制度，我不再願意為這個遊戲要求或接受認可。我將會在 po 完這開發日誌後馬上禁止接受此遊戲的付款，而且以後如果再有人稱讚這遊戲的話，我會連回這開發日誌。

這個開發日誌很受歡迎；據我所知 po 了之後也沒有人再提出《五龍分魂》這個遊戲的話了。

This devlog was well received, and to my knowledge, after posting it, no one brought up Five Blue Dragons ever again.

《幽靈島》是我第二有意設計的政治遊。這個遊戲進化了很多次—本來計畫是想做個普世革命的遊戲（真傻），而且是想做個動作遊戲（ㄘㄟˊ），利用地下城的探索來代表政治性鬥爭的感覺。本來是想用別人的系統來做，即 Chris McDowall 的《Into the Odd》（中文：進入異常）和 Ajey Pandey 的《BOLT》（中文：閃電））。不確定是不是因為想支持 Ajey 所以從 ItO 換到《BOLT》，可是我記得不再用《BOLT》的原因是因為 Swordsfall 在推特上說 Ajey 送他的 email 有種族歧視；我在 Discord 發私訊問 Ajey 他要怎麼辦，他說因為怕那時候《BOLT》的 Kickstarter 會少錢，什麼話都不想說，所以我就跟他斷絕。然後因為想不出系統該是什麼，我去參考了一大堆政治媒體（書、文章、TRPG）來幫忙找出答案。在這段研究期之中，我第一次接觸到後來會影響我很大的情境思想。

Phantom Island was my second intentionally political game. This game had many evolutions—originally my plan was to make a game about universal revolution (how ridiculous), and I wanted to make it an action game (of course), using dungeon crawls to represent the feeling of political struggle. Originally I wanted to use other people's systems, namely Chris McDowall's Into the Odd and Ajey Pandey's BOLT. I'm not sure if I switched from ItO to BOLT because I wanted to support Ajey, but I remember the reason I stopped using BOLT was because Swordsfall said on Twitter that Ajey had sent him a racist email; I had PM'd Ajey on Discord asking him what he was going to do, and he said because he was afraid of losing money on the BOLT Kickstarter at the time, he wasn't going to say anything, so I cut contact with him. And then because I couldn't figure out what system to use, I went to consult a bunch of political media (books, articles, tabletop games) to help me find the answer. In this research period I first encountered situationist ideas that would later become a greater influence on me.

我開始把 TRPG 想成創造情境的辦法，雖然回頭看我覺得這樣理解太簡單化（那時候我不知道「情境」其實是個術語，以為意思跟普遍的用處一樣，也還沒讀過范內格姆在《日常生活的革命》之中對扮演角色的批評）。反正我的目標變了—我受到 Alejandro de Acosta 在〈進出情境迷宮〉寫的這幾句話的影響：「要來建造自由，就來建造情境：微界、暫行微社，同時轉化障礙和受阻物。」這就是我理想的遊戲經驗—如果遊戲是障礙而玩家是遊戲的受阻物，那我希望遊玩能同時轉化遊戲和玩家自己。

I started thinking of tabletop games as ways to create situations, although in retrospect I feel this was an oversimplified understanding (at that time I didn't know “situation” referred to a specific term, and thought that it was being used in a general way, and I hadn't read Vaneigem's critique against playing roles in The Revolution of Everyday Life). In any case my goal had changed—I was influenced by what Alejandro de Acosta had written in “Ways In and Ways Out of the Situationist Labyrinth”: “To construct freedom, construct situations: micro-worlds, provisional micro-societies, in which the obstacle and what it blocks are simultaneously transformed.” This was my dream game experience—if the game was an obstacle and the player was what it blocked, then I hoped that play would simultaneously transform the game and its players.

因此，《幽靈島》變成了一個抒情似的遊戲，設計是故意模糊玩家跟玩家角色的界線。玩家扮演的是被國家試圖清除記憶的囚犯，同時也扮演清不掉記憶的「幽影眾」。在遊戲過程中，玩家們會互相分享自己真正體驗過社會安排的無義的記憶，但不能在分享中說出對別人記憶的感想—只能在分享完之後才能說，而且限制只能說一個字。遊戲再規定這些感想必須組成一張單字表；蹊蹺是遊戲也規定必須要隔一段時間才能把感想記錄下來，強迫玩家接受忘記感想的體驗。遊戲的單字表規定必須要記錄每個人的感想字，如果記不得的話必須用遊戲預先設定的單字表來補。

And so, Phantom Island became a lyric-like game, with the design purposely blurring the lines between player and player character. You played as a prisoner whose memories the state attempted to erase, while simultaneously playing “The Phantom Collective” of inerasable memories. During the course of the game, players would go around sharing real memories of experiences injustice due to the world's social organization, though nobody could express reactions while anybody else shared their memories—only after all memories were shared, and only restricted to one word of reaction. The game then required that these reactions must be compiled into a table of words, the catch was that the game also required that the players must wait a period of time before recording their reactions, forcing them to accept the experience of forgetting. The game's table required that everyone's reaction word must be recorded, and if you couldn't remember the word, you had to use the game's predefined table of words to fill in the blank.

在《幽靈島》的第一版本，遊戲的預先設定的單字表是從我另一個遊戲《死貓兒頭》來的。《死貓兒頭》是個佛教遊（我信佛，但是信得很荒誕），遊戲利用冒險家不知道為什麼被怪物殺死的情形來要求玩家想像如何脫離導致這解果的遊戲系統。在第二版本，單字表是個人性，是從我在遊戲中新加的詩來的，玩家會在這時刻集體地朗讀。這首詩其實是為了一位獨立 TRPG 設計師同事寫的—我不想說出這個人的名字，因為接下來的故事被傳出去之後我知道只會被用來傷害他的聲明，不會有問責；關於我在這故事中犯的錯，我當時有試圖問這設計師問責是什麼，可是他不想回答。另外一方面是，這是好幾年發生過的故事，先後順序肯定有參差不齊—但是我盡力說出真實。

In the first version of Phantom Island, the predefined table came from another one of games, Head of a Dead Cat. Head of a Dead Cat was a Buddhist game (I am Buddhist, but in an absurd way) that used a monster's senseless murder of an adventurer to ask the player how to escape the game system that produced this result. In the second version, the table was personal, derived from a new poem I added for players to read aloud at this point in the game. This poem was actually written for a fellow indie TTRPG designer—I don't want to say this person's name, because I know the following story, if circulated, will only be used to damage their reputation, and not create accountability; as for the wrongs I've done in this story, I asked the designer at the time what accountability would look like, but they refused to give me an answer. The other side is, this is a story that happened several years ago, and there are definitely discrepancies in the timeline—but I'm strived to express the truth.

故事是這樣：我在推特上看到這設計師在批評圈子的殖民主義時候，認為他批評中有說了一些種組歧視的意見。我很不該的在私訊臭罵他如果要為了得到一種正義而支持另外一種壓迫，那他就沒資格談正義—說完後我就封鎖了他的帳戶。我那時候很蠢地認為這樣為了指出不公正提嗓罵人是該做的事；我現在知道不對，而且不注意的話還有可能越過界線變成言語虐待。

The story went something like this: I saw this designer say something I believed was racist in a criticism against colonialism in the scene on Twitter. I shouldn't but did send them a private message fiercely yelling at them, saying that if they sought one kind of justice at the expense of upholding another kind of oppression, then they had no right to speak of justice—and then I blocked their account. At the time I foolishly believed that raising your voice like this to yell at someone for the sake of pointing out injustice was something you ought to do; now I know that's not right, and also if you're not careful it's possible to cross the line and end up causing verbal abuse.

後來我看到了互相跟髓者明顯在不點名推文批評我對那設計師私下說的話，批評我這樣在這殖民主義的批評之中亂罵人家種組歧視才是在支持壓迫，而且如果我相信那殖民主義的批評之中真的有種組歧視的話，請不要在跟他們圈子那部分的人交往。同時，我也發現我在推特的跟隨者突然失去了很多。有這麼生氣的反應，因為我認為真實的程度與說話者的憤怒程度是正比（這也不對），那時候的我馬上認為自己才是錯的，開始做更多政治研究去改善我的想法。研究完之後，我解除那設計師的封鎖，試圖在私訊中道歉，說我原本的種組歧視的批評不太對。他完全不回，反而在不點名推文中罵我說我的行為像施虐者一樣，說我這樣不算是真正的道歉。所以我再次送個私訊問他說真正的道歉倒底是什麼，他也不回。我是在這沒救的時刻寫了那首詩，放在我推特封面圖上，希望這樣能重新開始對話：

Later I saw a mutual in an obvious subtweet criticizing what I had said to that designer in private, criticizing that me falsely accusing people of racism in this context of criticizing colonialism was the real upholding of oppression, and that if I believed that their criticism of colonialism had racist opinions in it, to please stop associating with their part of the scene. At the same time, I also noticed I had suddenly lost a lot of followers. With such an angry response, because I was convinced that the degree of truth is proportional to the anger with which it is spoken (this was also incorrect), the me at the time immediately became convinced I was in the wrong, and started to do more political research to reform my mind. After the research, I unblocked that designer and attempted to apologize in PMs, saying that my initial criticism of racism was not entirely correct. They refused to respond, and instead subtweeted me for acting like an abuser, saying that this was not a real apology. So I sent them another PM asking them what a proper apology would be, to which they also didn't respond. It was in this moment of hopelessness that I wrote the poem, putting it in my Twitter header, hoping this would reopen conversation:

and I am interested in cruelty / but probably not / in the way that you're thinking of. / I'm interested in what we do / under the shadows of the lines we draw / called necessity, those shadows / under which choice goes to die / and there are some of us / who can draw their lines without shadows / who can kill choice in broad daylight / and I am not one of them / not because I am afraid of the killing / but because I am ashamed / there are so many of us / who draw no lines / who still cross our lines / and call that keeping choice alive

而我的興趣是殘忍 / 但因該不是 / 跟你想像中㇐樣。 / 我的興趣是我們 / 在畫分線之下的陰影 / 當作是必要的事，那些陰影 / 之下是選擇去死 / 而我們之間某些人 / 能畫出無影的分線 / 能在大白天之下把選擇殺死 / 而我屬不虞他們 / 不是因為我怕殺 / 是因為我感到慚愧 / 我們有那麼多人 / 連線都不畫 / 連分都還過 / 還當作是選擇在求生

沒用。我最後只能遵守那互相跟髓者的命令，禁止自己跟那圈子的部分交往（除了一個知道這件是跟我說可以繼續交往的人）。你問現在的我對這件事的評估怎樣，我會說我有可能真的有言語虐待這個設計師—我沒有私訊所以不能核實。無論如何，為了這個原因那設計師跟他圈子的部分完全有理對我有這樣的反應。可是在政治方面，現在的我認為那設計師的反殖民主義批評是陣營主義性的，我不同意。可是不管那設計師、那圈子部份的人和圈子全體對我的負面看法，自己因為虐待有 PTSD 的我認為我的行為觸發了那設計師，他這樣為了一個私訊召集了一大堆人反對我以及一直用不點名推文來跟我溝通都是受過精神創傷的行為，該慈悲地對待。________，如果你正在讀這些話，對不起，我不該那樣罵你，而且一開始就是該道這個歉—但是我也該誠實地說我不能為自己有你反對的政治意見而道歉。

It didn't. In the end I could only obey that mutual's command, banning myself from further interactions with that part of the scene (with the exception of one person who knew what happened and let me continue relations). If you asked me what I think about the incident today, I would say that there was a possibility I actually was verbally abusive towards that designer—I don't have the PMs anymore so I can't check. Regardless, I believe that designer and their part of the scene had perfect sense in reacting to me like this for that reason. But on a political level, the present me believes that that designer's anticolonial criticism was campist, and I don't agree. But regardless of how that designer, that part of the scene, or the scene in general views me negatively, as someone who has PTSD due to abuse, I believe that my behaviors triggered that designer, and that them rallying so many people to act against me in response to one private message and them refusing to communicate with anything but subtweets was all traumatized behavior, and should be treated with compassion. ________, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have yelled at you like that, and that's what I should have apologized for at the start—however I must also say with honesty that I cannot apologize for having political opinions that you oppose.

我花那麼多時間談《幽靈島》中的詩的故事背景是因為跟從詩組成的單字表設計功能有關。功能是阻止玩家的表達。填完單字表之後，玩家們會再次分享之前的記憶，但這次只能用單字表的字來說話；這次大家能隨意說出感想，但分享記憶的人還是只能用單字表回答。分享完後，隔一段規定的時間，單字表再重組—但是這次忘記的單字留個空行。然後，玩家們又再次朗讀那首詩，但這次詩的結尾有改變：

My reason for spending so much time to talk about the backstory behind the poem in Phantom Island is because it's related to the function of the table of words derived from it. That function is to block players from expressing themselves. After completing the table of words, players would again share the same memories from before, but this time only using words from the table to speak; this time everyone could freely express reactions, but the person sharing the memory still could only use words from the table to respond. After sharing and waiting for a mandated period of time, players would compose the table again—but this time forgotten words would be left as blank lines. And then, the players would collectively read aloud that poem again, but with a changed ending:

and there are some of us / who can draw their lines without shadows / who can kill choice in broad daylight / and I am not one of them / not because I am afraid of our silences / but because I wonder / why so many of us / are afraid of what happens / when we speak, and find our choices / still, and painfully / alive

而我們之間某些人 / 能畫出無影的分線 / 能在大白天之下把選擇殺死 / 而我屬不虞他們 / 不是因為怕我們之間的安靜 / 是因為我覺得奇怪 / 為什麼有那麼多人 / 害怕在話之中 / 發現我們的選擇 / 痛苦地還是 / 在求生

大家再最後一次分享同樣的記憶，這次暢所欲言地說出自己的故事和感想。分享完後，大家再最後一次說出一個感想字，這次不放回單字表，反而一起呼應彼此的字，再集體決定如何處理創造的回聲。

Finally everyone would share the same memories one last time, speaking freely in both storytelling and reactions. After sharing, everyone would say a reaction word one last time, but this time instead of putting it back into a table, they would echo each other's words, then collectively decide what to do with their echoes.

如果我能利用一個感想字來形容《幽靈島》，那就是「收回」。這是個關於收回自己的記憶、自己的話、自己跟別人的關係、自己跟世界的關係的遊戲。是個關於克服系統性異化的遊戲，但克服的方法不是靠冷酷的理論，而是分享被壓抑的感情—有令人不快地人道和自由主義—也不是在說冷酷理論是革命性政治的標記。反正我不再為這個遊戲設定革命性政治的目標，但最後的政治目標也沒想得很清楚—可是這思想模糊的狀況反映了我當時個人的糊塗，尤其是我跟圈子中其他設計師政治性衝突造成的糊塗。我想找出擺脫糊塗的逃路。呼應 Wendy Trevino 的話，這遊戲是來處理我自己的問題，但我也知道問題不能完全被遊戲處理。

If I could use one reaction word to describe Phantom Island, it would be “reclaim.” This is a game about reclaiming your memories, your words, your connections to other people, and your connection to the world. It's a game about overcoming systematic alienation, not through cold hard theory, but sharing repressed emotions—which makes it painfully humanitarian and liberal—not that cold hard theory is the mark of revolutionary politics either. In any case, I had given up on the original goal of making the game about revolutionary politics, but I didn't think through the final political goal of the game very well either—but this condition of muddled thinking reflected my own confusion at the time, especially the confusion caused by my political conflicts with other designers in the scene. I wanted a way out of the confusion. To echo Wendy Trevino, this game was to sort out my own issues, but I knew that the issues couldn't be completely sorted out by the game.

列表第四個遊戲，《味道》，我本來不確定該不該列入，因為回頭看它的政治目標很低。《味道》原本是為了亞裔創作者的電馭叛客製作營寫的—因此，我開頭的設計目標不是要反映某種政治思想，而是要雙面反映賽博龐克類型跟亞裔身分。寫完這句話，發覺現在的自己好像是把太接近自由主義的思想歸於「不算是政治思想」的類別，因為我把革命性思想作為「真正的政治思想」的標準（這樣有點精英）。革命價值放在一邊，《味道》還是個政治遊戲，只是現在的我看不起。

The fourth game on the list, Smelltracks, I initially wasn't sure whether to include, because in retrospect its political goals were very low. Smelltracks was originally written for the Cyberpunk by Asian Creators Game Jam—accordingly, my starting design goal for it wasn't to reflect some type of political thinking, but to reflect both sides of the cyberpunk genre and Asian identity. After writing this sentence, I realize that the present me seems to think that any thinking that's too close to liberalism should be put into the “doesn't count as political thinking” category, because I've set revolutionary thinking as the standard for “real political thinking” (which is kind of elitist). Setting revolutionary merits aside, Smelltracks was still a political game, albeit one that the present me looks down upon.

不管版本，《味道》的基本前提是把遊戲作為散發宣言的媒介。所謂的宣言是描述身為台美人的我當「種族賽博格」有個「隱喻的私生子」的感覺，認為關注的不該是了解種族身份，而是了解做種族分配的壓迫性起源。這宣言非常被 Wendy Trevino 的《Cruel Fiction》（中文：殘忍的幻想）影響，特別是〈Brazilian Is Not a Race〉（中文：巴西人不是人種）的部分。廣廣來說，Trevino 的詩和推文（沒錯，我說推文）大量影響了我 2020 到 2021 年的政治思想發展；我也覺得很榮幸在刪除推特帳號之前能跟她是互相跟隨者。她從來沒理過我關於遊戲在 po 的事，可是這我不計較。

Regardless of version, the basic premise of Smelltracks was to make the game into a vehicle for spreading a manifesto. The manifesto in question described how, as a Taiwanese American “ethnic cyborg,” I felt like a “metaphorical bastard” who was convinced that the focus shouldn't be on understanding ethnic identity, but on understanding the oppressive origins of ethnic divisions. This manifesto was heavily influenced by Wendy Trevino's Cruel Fiction, especially the section of “Brazilian Is Not A Race.” Broadly speaking, Trevino's poems and tweets (yes, I said tweets) were huge influences on the development of my political thinking from 2020 to 2021; I also felt very honored that before deleting my Twitter account we had been mutuals. She never bothered to interact with anything I posted on games, but that I'm not bothered with.

《味道》的故事內容在不同版本之間也沒有太多變化。玩家扮演的是 24 小時全年無休電話服務中心的服務人員，為了準時睡覺和上班被公司規定要吃特別的安眠藥，吃了會體驗公司設計的夢。大逆轉是一個華裔賽博格龐克侵入公司的夢，利用夢的空間來散發宣言，就跟我利用遊戲做一樣。後來的變體目標也就是想出如何增強宣言的散發。最有創意的是第二版的《#SMELLTRACKS》：遊戲的結局邀請玩家到我改成部分機器人的推特帳號，把每幾小時自動 po 出 280 字長度的隨機宣言段按照順序排好。很多人對這些宣言段推文很有興趣，可是興趣的不是宣言段的政治要旨，而是宣言段描述的私人心情，像我跟我父親的關係的內容。這失敗的經驗使我放棄第二版的推特模式，在第三版本的設計者評論之中我冒著犬儒態度地說自己只是在「鑽景觀制度的空子」。

The story of Smelltracks also didn't really change much between versions. You played as a customer service agent at a 24/7 call enter, required by your company to take sleeping pills for the sake of making sure you sleep and clock in on time; these sleeping pills would also make you experience company-programmed dreams. The plot twist was that a Sino cyborg punk would hack into the company dream, using the space of the dream to distribute the manifesto, like me using the game to do the same. Later versions of Smelltracks aimed to figure out how to enhance this distribution. The most creative version was the second version #SMELLTRACKS: the end of the game invited players to visit my partially-converted-to-bot twitter account and put the random 280-character-long manifesto fragments posted every couple hours in order. Many people were interested in these manifesto fragment tweets, but instead of being interested in the political message of the fragments, they were more interested in the personal feelings, like content about the relationship between me and my father. The experience of this failure led me to abandon the Twitter format of v2, which I cynically described in the designer commentary of v3 as nothing but “gaming the spectacle.”

那第三版又有什麼問題？在第三版，我第一次試圖合併亞裔音樂家的配音和遊戲的文字；這配音我在第一版時候就編輯好了，只是到第三版為止都只放在一邊當外加內容。配音中精選的歌詞的確是增強了宣言和遊戲故事的要旨，可是這不是我唯一的改變。在視覺方面，我還有利用文字對齊方式來代表故事中的情緒發展。我對這些改變的批評就是：為了要增強要旨的效果，我同時增強了玩家的被動觀眾角色。這批評其實可以廣廣說《味道》這整個遊戲的發展，也就是為什麼我在政治方面上很討厭這個遊戲。遊戲的設計該在遊戲中讓玩家呈現更主動的角色，不是要玩家乖乖當宣傳鼓動的接受者。

And what were the problems with the third version? In the third version, I attempted for the first time to integrate a soundtrack of Asian musicians with the text of the game; this soundtrack I had already finished compiling in v1, but up until v3 it had just been sitting to the side as extra content. The featured soundtrack lyrics absolutely enhanced the messages of the manifesto and the story of the game, but this wasn't the only change I made. On a visual level, I also used text alignment to represent emotional developments in the story. My criticism of all these changes is: for the sake of enhancing the effect of my messages, I simultaneously enhanced the role of the player as a passive spectator. This criticism actually extends to the entire development of Smelltracks as a game, which is why I really hate it on a political level. The design of a game should let the player take on a more active role during the game, not demand that the player obediently serve as an agitprop receiver.

The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – FOOL ZERO GAMES ERA (2019-2021), Second Half

1. “The Dragon in the Mirror” 〈映像之龍〉 (2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
2. You Provide the Paint for the Picture-Perfect Masterpiece That You Will Paint on the Insides of Your Eyelids 《你提供的油漆是為了要十分完美的傑作被你將畫在自己眼皮裡面》(2021, 翻譯 transl. 2022)
3. 《天丑！》 Fools of Heaven! (2021)
4. Underscore the Crowd / 下划众 / 下標眾 (2021)

第五項目，〈映像之龍〉，不是遊戲而是關於我帶團經驗失敗的文章。在這個文章之中，我重新評估了《五龍分魂》開發日誌的結論，意識到多人遊玩的模式不會改掉單人遊的問題，反而會相乘—玩家會互相要求保護彼此的政治滑稽之舉。我又回到《系統破滅》把遊玩中追求的自由帶回日常生活的夢想，更堅定地確認遊戲不能類比真正的解放，只能類比在現實中解放的限制。這新的結論後來變解性遊的核心，從接下來的最後兩個遊戲開始：《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》。

The fifth item, “The Dragon in the Mirror,” was not a game but an essay about my failure to GM a game. In this essay, I reevaluated the conclusion of Five Blue Dragons' devlog, realizing that a multiplayer format wouldn't solve the problems of solo play, but instead multiply them—players would mutually ask each other to protect their own political farces. I returned once again to System Shatters' dream of bringing the pursuit of freedom from play back to everyday life, more staunchly affirming that games could not simulate real liberation, only simulate the limits of liberation in reality. This new conclusion eventually became the core of agonist play, starting with the last two subsequent games: You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven!.

什麼是解性遊？我直到開始與圈子隔離之後才寫了一個文章開始回答這個問題。在文章的開始，我把解性遊定義為「要結束英雄的遊玩」—但到了文章的結尾，我加上了新的「更挑釁的定義」：是「想徹底革命的遊玩」。要了解我是怎麼跳到這種結論，必須在我的政治遊發展歷史背景之下理解解性遊的發展。最明顯的是《幽靈島》，但《#SMELLTRACKS》跟〈映像之龍〉的發展之中也可以看得出來我跟英語獨立 TRPG 圈子的關係開始變得越來越有對抗性。我開始認為在遊戲的背景之中，自己的政治思想佔的是被敵視的位置，因此作為遊戲設計師的我開始扮演被敵視的角色。

What is agonist play? This is question I didn't start to answer in formal writing until after I started distancing myself from the scene. In the start of the essay, I defined agonist play as “play that seeks to end Heroes”—but by the end of the essay, I had added a new “more provocative definition” of “play that seeks total revolution.” To understand how I made this logical leap, you have to understand the development of agonist play in the context of my history of political game development. It's most obvious in Phantom Island, but in #SMELLTRACKS and “The Dragon in the Mirror's” developments too you can see how my relationship with the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene was starting to become more and more antagonistic. I started to believe that in the context of games, my own political views occupied a position of being viewed as the enemy, and so as a game designer I started playing the role of being villainously seen.

《你提供的油漆》是個「對抗性的世界建構遊戲」，說自己的設計目標是「反映玩家面在對彼此之中的遊戲行為顯示他們遊戲之外現實道致壓迫性等級制度的經驗」（也就是我在〈映像之龍〉中描述的問題）。玩家扮演的是不同虛構政治派的部隊，在遊戲強迫它們彼此殘殺的系統之中互相鬥爭，最侯要結束遊戲的話只有三個選擇：解罪（大家集體自殺）、革命（大家集體拒絕殘殺，瞬間創造系統規則失敗處理的新狀態）、競爭（大家拒絕組織，維持現狀）。有人看完這遊戲之後在 itch.io 上問我能不能把解罪的結局改得宣洩一點。這種屁話就是我必須在圈子之中忍受的事。我清清楚楚地說我的設計關注的是政治系統，為什麼你就是要我管你的個人情緒？簡直就是在重複《#SMELLTRACKS》的情形。

You Provide the Paint was an “adversarial worldbuilding game” that said its design goal was to “mirror the experience of players confronting each other about how their fictional conduct is reflecting their real complicities in upholding oppressive hierarchies outside the fiction” (just as I described in “The Dragon in the Mirror”). You played as forces of different fictional political factions, struggling against each other in the system of a game that forced you to mutually kill each other, having only 3 options to end the game: absolution (everyone collectively kills themselves), revolution (everyone collectively refuses to kill, instantly creating a new condition that the rules of the system have failed to cover), or competition (everyone refuses to organize, maintaining the status quo). After seeing this game someone on itch.io asked me if I couldn't make the ending for absolution more cathartic. This kind of bullshit was what I had to put up with in the scene. I clearly said that my design was focused on political systems, why must you insist that I care about your personal feelings? It was like what happened with #SMELLTRACKS all over again.

《天丑！》的設計風格跟《你提供的油漆》很像，又冒著對抗性的作者語氣和基於理論分析虛構政治情況的玩法。不同的是《天丑！》試圖合併我的政治信仰跟華裔文化中「俠」的概念。靈感來源於 J.Y. 的《天下江湖》為「俠」做的無治主義定義：

The design style for Fools of Heaven! was very similar to that of You Provide the Paint, once again featuring an adversarial authorial tone and gameplay based in theoretical analysis of fictional political conditions. The difference was that Fools of Heaven! attempted to integrate my political beliefs and Sino culture's concept of “俠 xia” (sometimes translated as “heroes,” but my preferred rendering is “justice.”). The inspiration came from the anarchist definition of 俠 in J.Y.'s Under Heaven, Underworld:

All heroes are criminals. To put it as delicately as possible, the function of a society is to protect and provide [for] a certain class of people. In the present day, oftimes members of this group is a particular combination of ethnicity, sexuality, ideology, and social standing. But at the same, certain outliers and nonconformists are tolerated and allowed provisional status within the group for as long as they are valued. As such, no one is safe. Anyone can find their fortunes reversed, cast from polite society for something done out of recklessness, desperation, or fear. An underworlder knows this, for they have always been outcasts. The poor, adherents of non-state-sanctioned faiths, outlaws, those of non-conforming sexualities, political dissidents; they are not wanted by any save themselves. They must protect and provide for themselves, and society often punishes them for doing so.

所有的俠都是罪犯。盡量謹慎地說，社會的作用就是為了要保護和養活某個階級的人。當今，這群人常常有特別種族、性傾向、主義和社會地位的組合。同時，某些異常者和不落俗套者只要繼續有用就會被容忍和允許佔群中的臨時地位。因為如此，沒人安全。任何人都有可能發現自己運氣倒轉，為了在魯莽、情急或害怕之下做的事而被禮貌社會驅逐。江湖人知道這件事，因為他們歷來都是棄兒。窮人、非國家認可宗教的信徒、不法者、有不落俗套性傾向的人、持不同政見者；這些人除了自己之外都沒人要。他們必須保護和養活自己，社會也常因為這樣要他們被處罰。

Heroes understand, in their bones, that the calling of morality is higher than the word of legality. The law – as an instrument of the state – only has moral content coincidental to its creation. Not merely how a law is written, but how it is interpreted, tolerated, and enforced. Some laws are known to be immoral, but kept to punish those who cannot be punished by other means, amidst false promises to not do so. Other laws are enforced brutally for one group and not at all for another. This happens in both our own world and the world of Under Heaven, Underworld, every day.

俠知道，直覺知道，道德的責任比法律的命令還高。法律 – 作為國家的手段 – 的道德內容只有跟它的創造有碰巧。不只是法規的寫法，也包括理解、允許、實行。有些法規被認為是沒有道德，但被留著來處罰無法利用別的方式處罰的人，在答應不會的虛偽之下。其他的法規會針對一群人殘酷地實行，完全不管另一群人。這些事在我們跟《天下江湖》的世界中，天天都在發生。

雖然這個定義當時讓我感到同志情誼，現在的我對混合政治跟道德與正義（我為「俠」最常利用的英文譯）的唯心主義有了犬儒的態度。我現在認為道德跟正義這兩個概念頂多是用來規訓別人的工具，不該是追求解放的核心。可是這種想法我過很久才會找到。你將會觀賞到唯心主義的陷阱如何導致解性遊的壯觀失敗。

Even though this definition at the time evoked feelings of camaraderie, the present me now has a cynical attitude towards mixing politics with morality and justice (my chosen English term for translating 俠). Now I believe that the two concepts of morality and justice tools used at most for disciplining others, and that they shouldn't be at the core of pursuing liberation. But arriving at this view would take me a long time. You will soon see how the trap of idealism led to the spectacular failure of agonist play.

在《天丑！》之中，我再次回到龐克的類型，自己創了「俠 punk」的新詞：

俠 PUNK?!

就是指: 反抗自高自大的人所給我們造出的面子。反抗到極端: 拒絕面子的正當性，因為它和所有社會規範都一樣，只是等級制度的面具。拆穿所有代表等級的面具。為了拆穿你，我們便拆穿自己。

Means: A revolt against shame cast by those seeking to hold themselves above all others. Pushing our revolt to the limit: rejecting the legitimacy of shame because it is a mask of hierarchy, like all so-called norms. Unmasking all expressions of hierarchy. Unmasking ourselves to unmask you.

回頭看，俠 punk 的定義也跟犬儒看法有雷同，雖然寫的時候我的政治思想還沒被犬儒影響。俠 punk 反面子的正當性、為了要暴露代表等級制度再反所有社會規範、引誘大家互相暴露的希望—這都是在尋找煙霧（羅馬化希臘語：typhos）的擺脫，是在呼籲大家來過犬生（羅馬化希臘語：kynizein）。犬儒開始影響我政治思想是因為另一個影響我很大的作者，在《幽影島》發展中找到的 Alejandro de Acosta，在一篇文章中做了犬儒跟無治主義的聯繫； de Acosta 論證犬儒把個人生活作為優異的標準的態度能幫助對政治有類似看法的無治者。然而，我背離 de Acosta 之後參考利己主義的結論。如果你問當時的我如何合併犬儒和我的無治思想，我會說，如果個人生活必須是標準，那每個人的個人生活必須忠誠地代表事業—而代表事業就是我唯一存在的目的。借用後來在《血光俠》同人小說中寫的話，我把自己想像為「有用的屍體」（跟有用的白痴一樣），一生只能被事業領導。我也希望我的同志們都是這樣，一起過著屍生。

In retrospect, the definition of 俠 punk had a lot in common with cynic ideas, although at the time of writing my political thinking had not yet been influenced by the Cynics. 俠 punk's revolt against the legitimacy of shame, and subsequent revolt against all social norms for the sake of exposing hierarchy, and desire to lure everyone into mutually exposing each other—all this was in search of freedom from typhos, a call for everyone to turn dog (Romanized Greek: kynizein). The reason the Cynics started to influence my political thinking was because another writer who greatly influenced me, Alejandro de Acosta, whom I found during the development of Phantom Island, wrote an essay connecting the Cynics to anarchism; de Acosta argued that the Cynics' attitude of making personal life their criterion for excellence could help anarchists who looked at politics in a similar way. However, I depart from de Acosta's later conclusion to consult egoism. If you had asked the past me how to integrate the Cynics and my anarchist thinking, I would have said, if personal life must be the criterion, then everyone's personal life must faithfully represent the cause—and representing the cause would be the only cause for my existence. To borrow from what I later said in the fanfiction Blood Lanterns, I thought of myself as a “useful corpse” (like a useful idiot), with my whole life being entirely led by the cause. I had also hoped that my comrades would also be like this, like turned corpses.

因此不死的主題在《天丑！》跟後來的解性遊之中一直重複出現。在此文章一開始形容《天丑！》的設計之中，你可能注意到我第一次無意似的說出「政治信仰」這句話，與之前的「政治思想」相反。這不是意外。之前我也說過我信佛；向我介紹俠義的 J.Y. 也信佛—而在《天丑！》的發展之中我也合併了宗教上虔誠的態度。《天丑！》的季節因依法謀殺的其中一個烈士而得名，但烈士是因中國神話中的四象得名。利用擲骰參考節氣神諭的玩法也有靈性感。在這史詩性的背景之中，玩家扮演的「可能在戰爭中失去的人」也就是可能因為死亡被傳奇化的人。此外，描述角色的唯一能力值是暴力等級—也就是說能體驗到傳奇化死亡的等級。等級中文名稱的「無明」和「越戒」也是從佛教來的（雖然第一等及的「進學」比較中性，全體分析有修行的內涵）。雖然在表面上名稱在利用佛教在傳統上視為有害的東西，在我個人瘋狗性的佛教思想之中，這是革命性的方便，是在利用一切必要的手段追求政治正覺。

And thus undeath became a recurring motif in Fools of Heaven! and the agonist games that followed. At the start of describing the design of Fools of Heaven! in this essay, you may have noticed that I first slipped into saying “political beliefs” as opposed to “political thinking.” This was not an accident. Earlier I mentioned that I was Buddhist; J.Y. who introduced me to 俠 righteousness was also Buddhist—and in development I also integrated religiousness into Fools of Heaven!. The seasons in Fools of Heaven! were named after martyrs murdered by the law, but the martyrs were named after the Four Symbols in Chinese mythology. The gameplay of rolling dice and consulting an oracle of seasonal terms also carried spiritual meaning. In this epic context, the “someone with the potential to become lost in conflict” you played as was also someone who could be become legendary through death. Furthermore, the only stats defining the player character was levels of violence—in other words levels of experiencing legendary death. The Mandarin names for the levels of “lightless” (無明, avidya) and “limits” (越戒, violating precepts) also came from Buddhism (even though the first level's “learning” (進學) is more neutral, analyzed collectively it has the connotation of undergoing spiritual refinement). Even though on the surface these names used concepts that Buddhism traditionally views as harmful, in my own mad dog Buddhism, this is revolutionary upaya, the pursuit of political enlightenment by any means necessary.

最重要的是，《天丑！》沒分玩家和非玩家角色—所有的角色都能作為瘋狗神風的革命家。《天丑！》的「天」是指天命；遊戲之中的角色是在反上天與帝王設計的世界—我是在描寫全球對宇宙起源發動的戰爭，在實現當時《幽靈島》寫不出來的普世革命夢想。

Most importantly, Fools of Heaven! does not make a divide between player and non-player characters—all characters can be kamikaze mad dog revolutionaries. The “Heaven” in Fools of Heaven! referred to divine fate itself; the game's characters were opposing a world designed by God and emperors—I was describing a war waged by all the world's people against cosmology, realizing the dream of universal revolution that I couldn't create in Phantom Island.

那時候，我覺得自己好像是在創造力的巔峰。就是在這個時期之中，我開始我跟 Nimona 註定毀滅的友誼。 Nimona 就是因為我的遊戲想自殺那個朋友的名字。她跟我一樣是台灣人，可是是在台灣長大居住的台灣人。除了我跟沒特別有交往的 Sen H.H.S.，我在英語獨立 TRPG 設計圈子中從來沒見過其他的台灣人設計師，所以我很興奮地想結識她。回頭看，當初未診斷待分類人格障礙的我和有診斷邊緣人格的她之間的互動就是不正常；我認為她是從最喜歡的人的角度來看我，也認為我有自戀似地鼓勵這種看法。

At that time, I felt like I was at the height of my creative power. It was during this time I began my doomed friendship with Nimona. Nimona was the name of the friend who wanted to kill themselves because of my game. Like me xe was Taiwanese, but one who had grown up and lived in Taiwan. Besides me and Sen H.H.S., whom I never interacted much with, I had never met any other Taiwanese designers in the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene, so I was very eager to make xer acquaintance. In retrospect, the yet to be diagnosed with Unspecified Personality Disorder past me and the already diagnosed with Borderline xem had a dysfunctional dynamic right from the start; I believe xe viewed me as a favorite person, and that I narcissistically encouraged this view.

Nimona 當時在自己現已刪除的 itch.io 網頁上說自己是個機會均等的冒犯者。她說她不知道正義是什麼，但她支持報仇的實踐，認為是在「balancing the scales」（讓天平變平衡）。我常常在推特上看她臭罵別的她認為有做錯事的人，罵得兇到有時讓我覺得很害怕。但為了要保持關係，我一直告訴自己這是她為了政治正覺的的佛教似方便，是所謂「利用一切必要的手段」的表明。在政治主義上，我不記得她有沒有直接說過自己是無治主義者，可是我記得她有說在無治思想的方面上，她比較偏利己主義—現在的我因為跟她的聯繫對利己主義有反感。

At the time, Nimona described xerself on xer now-deleted itch.io page as someone who was an equal opportunity offender. Xe said xe didn't know what justice was, but that xe supported a praxis of revenge, believing that it was “balancing the scales.” On Twitter I often saw xem verbally lashing out against those whom xe believed had done wrong, to extents that sometimes made me disturbed. But because I wanted to maintain our relationship, I kept telling myself that this was xer Buddhist-like upaya for the sake of political enlightment, a manifestation of “by any means necessary.” On a level of political ideology, I don't remember if xe had ever directly said that xe was an anarchist, but I remember xe had said that with respect to anarchist thinking, xe was more on the egoist side—and now because of this association with xer egoism turns me off.

雖然有這麼多的危險信號，我那時候堅持要把 Nimona 視為同志。我邀請了她跟 J.Y. 跟我一起組成一個同寅似組織叫下划众 / 下標眾，目的是要批評英語獨立 TRPG 圈子中的反激進主義和給其他跟我們一樣沒有名的創作者一個自己的平台，尤其是有色人，因為圈子中最受歡迎的大多都是白人。事實上，大部份是因為幾個禮拜之後我跟 Nimona 的關係就垮了，下划众 / 下標眾沒有做出什麼事—頂多在推特上 po 了一些幾乎都沒有人理的東西（而且有理的人是白人盟友）。

Even though there were so many red flags, at that time I insisted on viewing Nimona as a comrade. I invited xem and J.Y. to form an affinity-like group called Underscore the Crowd, with the goal of criticizing the anglosphere indie TTRPG scene's antiradicalism and platforming other creators like us who were not renowned, especially people of color, because the most popular people in the scene were mostly all white. In reality, mostly because me and Nimona's relationship collapsed a couple weeks later, Underscore the Crowd never really did anything—at most we posted a couple things on Twitter that people ignored (and the people who didn't ignore it were white allies).

不過，在我們做的小事之中，把我對 Nimona 的個人行為和政治思想的問題擱在一邊，我還是很喜歡她為了我們寫的〈 FUCK YOU 〉反調。這反調正確地批評了圈子中大部分只希望在 TRPG 行業或業餘中作為多元的代表人，不是希望推翻造成他們邊緣化的系統，而是希望跟系統融合。在這些年來我就是在跟這種政治狀態爭鬥，終於能聽到別人的同意讓我覺得圈子的未來有了改變的潛力。

Nevertheless, among these little things we did, setting my problems with Nimona's personal conduct and political thinking aside, I still really like the “FUCK YOU” polemic xe wrote for us. This polemic correctly criticized the majority of people in the scene who just wanted to serve as representatives of diversity in the industry or hobby, who didn't want to overthrow the systems that created their marginalization, but to be included within those systems. In these past few years this was the political condition I had been fighting against, and to finally hear someone else agree with the fight made me feel that the future of the scene had the potential to change.

當然，事情不是那樣的發生。我在這文章的開始已經有連到別的說過我跟 Nimona 之間最後發生的事的文章；這些細節我不會再重複說。要加的是一點背景—如果你當時在推特跟隨我的話，接下來的事是舊新聞，因為我有利用私訊截圖公開分享這些事。 Nimona 跟我斷絕的原因是因為我跟她說我認為她的政治思想有些是反動性，而且不以真實的組織經驗為基礎。她罵我說台灣跟美國不一樣沒有所謂真正的政治反抗，愛管什麼是真實的基礎就回去秘密握手的小社團繼續過分自省。

Of course, things did not happen that way. At the start of this essay I already linked to another essay that described what ultimately happened between me and Nimona; these details I won't repeat again. What I will add is some more context—if you followed me on Twitter at the time, the following is old news, because I had shared this publicly with screenshots of DMs. The reason Nimona cut off contact with me was because I told xem that I believed some of xer political thinking was reactionary, and that it wasn't grounded in any real organizing experience. Xe yelled at me saying that unlike the U.S. Taiwan had no real political resistance, and that if I wanted to be obsessed with so-called real grounding I should go back to navel-gazing in my little secret handshake clubs.

回頭看，她跟我的斷絕和我跟 ______ 的斷絕有相似之處；跟對 _____ 一樣，我也是為被我傷害的 Nimona 寫了跟詩一樣的東西，雖然這次沒有要重新開始對話的意圖（然而還是被視為規避封鎖）。 Nimona 能從我寫的字得到我要她自殺的恐怖結論完全破壞了我對自己創作力的信心。她的自殺企圖那時候不知道為什麼有觸發我的 PTSD，後來回去看心理醫生才知道是因為小時候我虐待兒童的母親常在我不乖的時候在我面前試圖自殺。

In retrospect, Nimona cutting off contact with me had parallels with me cutting off contact with ______; just as with ______, I had written something like a poem for Nimona who I harmed, even though this time there was no intention to reopen conversation (nevertheless it was still perceived as block evading). That Nimona could draw the horrific conclusion of me wanting xer to go kill xemself from my words completely shattered my faith in my own creative power. At the time I didn't know why xer suicide attempted triggered my PTSD, only finding out later in therapy that it was because my abusive mother often tried to kill herself in front of me whenever I misbehaved.

我跟 Nimona 之間的衝突不是個黑白事件，但是我知道 Nimona 就是把我分裂成黑，感受就是覺得自己是個不乖到害母親想自殺的不孝孩子—也知道圈子對待人被傷害的情況習慣就是要有人當好人，有人當壞人。我說這些話的目的不是要為了洗脫罪名，而是要用這件事的結果做出政治方面的自我批評。解性遊的敵人立場和對死亡的頌揚就是我自己對極端黑白思想的吸引而產生出來的。對的人該活，錯的人該死—這是法西斯主義的想法，不管你多麼想浪漫化為了要解構對和錯而接受自殺命令的人。可是當時這不是我的結論。不，我的結論是如果必須有壞人該死，那就讓我當那個壞人，讓我當普世的替罪羊。我就是按照這樣的態度把自己從圈子中趕出去。

The conflict between me and Nimona was not a black-and-white incident, but I know Nimona split black on me, and I felt like an unfilial child whose misbehavior had caused my mother to want to kill herself—and I also knew that the scene's habit in addressing cases of people being harmed was to have someone be the good guy and someone be the bad guy. The goal of me saying all this isn't to clear my name, but to use the results of this incident to do some political self-crit. The antagonistic standpoint of agonist play and its glorification of death was produced by my own attraction to extreme black-and-white thinking. Right people should live, wrong people should die—this is fascist thought, no matter how much you want to romanticize those who accept the imperative to kill themselves for the sake of deconstructing right and wrong. But at that time that wasn't my conclusion. No, my conclusion was that if there must be a bad guy who dies, let me be the bad guy, let me be the universal scapegoat. And thus with this attitude I kicked myself out of the scene.

The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – AGONIST PLAY ERA (2021-2022)

1. 〈什麼是破壞遊？〉 “What Is a Sabotour?” (2021)
2. 〈什麼是解性遊？〉 “What Is Agonist Play?” (2022)
3. 《降天下世》 Felling Heaven, Felling World (2022)
4. 《下世萬敵》 Future Only Enemies (2022)

看看這些死項目名。我就告訴你會有壯觀的失敗。

Look at these fucking titles. I told you there would be spectacular failure.

Nimona 自殺企圖之後我不再利用 itch.io 的平台發布遊戲了。雖然 itch.io 本來就是有很多不同的社群用，我還是認為 itch.io 屬於獨立 TRPG 圈子的平台。身為被視為完全是錯的傷害者的人就不該污染那空間，不管這樣多麼簡化。話說清楚一點：我承認我有傷害人—別人說我有傷害就表示我有傷害，就是這樣—可是我不認為完全是我在錯。如果你認為害 = 錯 = 罪，認為傷害者不願意當罪人就表示傷害者不承認自己有造害，抱歉，我無話可說。我無法在你的問責系統之中負責。請隨心隨意地處理我。

After Nimona's suicide attempt I stopped using itch.io as a platform to release my games. Even though itch.io has always been used by many different groups, I still believe that itch.io is a platform that belongs to the indie TTRPG scene. As someone who's regarded as a harmdoer completely in the wrong, I shouldn't pollute that space, no matter how reductive that is. Allow me to be claer—I admit that I caused harm—if someone else says I caused harm that means I caused harm, period—but I am not convinced that I was completely in the wrong. If you believe that harm = wrong = crime or sin, that if a harmdoer is unwilling to act like they've sinned then it means they're unwilling to admit the harm they caused, then sorry, I have nothing else to say. I cannot be accountable in your system for accountability. Please dispose of me as you wish.

但是你必須知道我是直到現在很堅持地拒絕做出這種結論。Nimona 自殺企圖之後我有一段很長的時間認為自己永遠不能再寫新的 TRPG。每次想到設計時，我就只能想到自己的謀殺力量。我對自己有偏執，覺得每個寫下的字都有可能背叛我—但也覺得在某些情況之下，我就是該被背叛。因此我接下來的遊戲內容被這種感覺冤纏。

But you must know that up until now I have insisted on refusing to have this conclusion. After Nimona's suicide attempt there was a long period of time where I was convinced that I would never write another TTRPG again. Every time I thought about design, I could only think of my own murderous power. I started becoming paranoid towards myself, feeling that every word I wrote could betray me—while also feeling that in some cases, I deserved to be betrayed. And so my following game content was haunted by this feeling.

過了一段時間，「我製造遊戲就是在殺人」的想法漸漸離開。我願意把遊戲移到新的部落格，重新開始。那部落格的名稱就是可惡的「解性遊」。之前我說過解性遊有一種浪漫化為了明白對和錯而自殺的實踐；為了 Nimona 對自己進行報仇便社交自殺，也之前為了 _____ 做出同樣的事的我，希望在解性遊中尋找慰藉並不奇怪。

After a period of time, the thought of “me making games is murder” gradually subsided. I was willing to start again, by moving my games to a new blog. That blog's name was the vile Agonist Play. Earlier I had said that agonist play had a praxis of romanticizing suicide for the sake of understanding right and wrong; having carried out revenge against myself with social suicide for Nimona, and having done the same for _____ in the past, it was no wonder that I had wanted to find comfort in agonist play.

第一個任務就是要讓剩下願意跟我互動的人知道我是多麼有問題的遊戲設計師。〈什麼是破壞遊？〉就是這樣的努力。雖然破壞遊不是純粹的政治遊戲設計技術，因為它有情境者思想異軌技術的由來，也因為我不當地利用了它來造成我前同志想自殺的企圖，我把它的定義文章列入項目。很短，所以我在這裡重貼：

My first task was to let the remaining people who were willing to interact with me know how problematic of a game designer I was. “What Is a Sabotour?” was one of these attempts. Even though sabotourism was not a purely political game design technique, because it had origins in the situationist technique of détournement, and because I improperly used it to cause my former comrade to want to kill xemself, I've included its definitional essay in my list of items. It's short, so I'll repost it here:

A sabotour is an act of disrespect. 破壞遊是種無禮的行為。

It is to rip apart someone else's creation, and rearrange the pieces according to your own designs. 是把別人的作品毀裂，把碎片重新按照自己的意圖來排列。

It is to spit on someone else's designs and say, “I can do better than you.” 是唾棄別人的意圖，並且說: 「我能比你做得更好。」

Sabotourism is not an ideology, but a method for attacking other people's designs with creative violence. 破壞旅遊不是主義，而是利用創造性的暴力來攻擊別人意圖的做法。

Not all designs should be yours for sabotouring. 並不是所有的意圖都該給你拿去玩破壞。

And no matter what, a sabotourist must be responsible for where their sabotours ultimately take them. 而且無論如何的是，一個破壞遊客必須負擔他跟破懷遊玩到的最終地點。

可以看出來破壞遊首先是個藝術技巧。因此在〈什麼是破壞遊？〉之中我隱藏了它被情境者們的影響，他們的名字連提都沒提。當時的我直覺地覺得我好像把濫用了他們的異軌概念，有希望疏遠聯繫。跟對待獨立 TRPG 一樣，我又是不希望自己的錯誤污染他們的思想空間。

You can tell that sabotourism first and foremost was an art technique. That's why in “What Is a Sabotour?” I hid the fact that it was influenced by the Situationists, not even mentioning their name. At the time I intuitively felt that I had misappropriated their concept of détournement, and had the wish to distance myself from the connection. Like with indie TTRPG, I was trying to avoid polluting their space.

當然我對破壞遊有更多想說批評，但我要之後再處理。目前我想限制討論這概念如何反映我當時的政治遊戲設計思想。首先，我相指出這定義中跟解性遊設計同樣的對抗性作者態度。跟《系統破滅》、《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》一樣，它認為接受開始的對抗是為了更高的事業，為了在互相鬥爭之中得到政治正覺。然而，在結尾中你可以意識到我對這態度的自我懷疑。我最有政治性的有意破壞遊造成極端無明的結果。我必須承認自己當過政治騙子，承認破懷遊的技巧可能最後只是能用來執行對人民的背叛。

Of course I have more criticisms to say about sabotourism, but I want to save that for later. Right now I want to restrict myself to discussing how this concept reflected my understanding of political game design at the time. First of all, I want to point out how this definitional essay and agonist game design share the same kind of antagonistic authorial attitude. Like System Shatters, You Provide the Paint, and Fools of Heaven!, it believes that accepting initial antagonism is for the sake of a higher cause, for the sake of achieving political enlightenment through mutual struggle. However, you can see my self-doubt towards this attitude in the ending. My most political intentional sabotour created such an extremely unenlightened result. I had to admit that I had been a political fraud, admit that the technique of sabotourism might ultimately only be used to betray the people.

追溯性地說，我有舊的遊戲能歸於破壞遊的種類。可以說《系統破滅》是個 DIY 破壞遊的自雜，也可以說《幽靈島》是個破壞自己的破壞遊。這新的體系能創造什麼新的意義？對於《系統破滅》，我認為加了一種免責聲明，一種警告—小心是哪些創作者被你敵視作為設計攻擊的目標，小心你在現實認為是在「限制自由」的任何東西都有可能是別人有理的對抗。但是要重新分析《幽靈島》，恐怕不是那麼的簡單。

Retroactively speaking, I had old games that I could place into the category of sabotour. You could say that System Shatters was a DIY sabotour zine, and you could also say the Phantom Island was a sabotour of itself. What new meaning does this new framework create? With regards to System Shatters, I think it adds a kind of disclaimer, a kind of warning—be careful what creators you view as enemies to target for attacking design, be careful that anything you think of as “restricting your freedom” in reality could be legitimate resistance from other people. But to reanalyze Phantom Island, unfortunately, is not as simple and easy.

《幽靈島》所謂算是「自己」的破壞目標其實有包刮兩方：我加上玩家。一方面，遊戲破壞的是在第一版的《死貓兒頭》或在第二版的詩，因為我把這些東西給玩家毀裂成單字表用來遊玩。另一方面，遊戲破壞的是玩家的記憶敘述，因為它規定玩家必續利用我的單字表來毀裂自己想說的話。也需要考慮單字表在第一版有佛教和西方奇幻的內容，在第二版有我跟 ______ 在 TRPG 圈子中互相政治對抗的內容。全體分析，我覺得《幽靈島》是在利用破懷遊的方式來探索各種不一致的敵視角度問題，在表現敵視跟社會控制的作用如何有相似之處。目標是輪迴似痛苦循環的解脫、拘押中心監牢似遊戲（或許也包刮遊戲圈子）的解脫、世界現狀的解脫—這最後一項目標不就是跟解性遊徹底革命遊玩的目標一樣嗎？在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我說：

The “self” targeted for sabotour in Phantom Island actually includes two parties: me in addition to the players. On one hand, the game sabotours Head of a Dead Cat in the first version or my poem in the second, because I give these things to the players to rip apart into a table of words to play with. On the other hand, the game sabotours the players' narratives of memory, because it makes players use my table of words to rip apart what they wish to say. We also have to consider that in the first version the table of words contained content about Buddhism and Western fantasy, while in the second version the content was about me and _____'s mutual political struggle against each other in the TTRPG scene. Taken altogether, I think that Phantom Island used the method of the sabotour to explore the problematics of different angles of villainization in contradiction, expressing how villainization shared parallels in function with social control. The goal was to escape samsara-like cycles of suffering, escape the detention-center-prison-like game (and perhaps also the game scene), escape the current state of the world—and wasn't this last goal the same as the goal of agonist play's play to seek total revolution? In “What is Agonist Play?,” I had said:

The ultimate stage of agonist play is quitting the game to realize that play's completion. The fictional world is but a playground where we can imagine total control over our own realities. The horizon of the real world is actually the truest baseline where the uprooting of hierarchies for total revolution must begin.

解性遊的最終階段就是退出遊戲來實現玩到底的結果。虛構世界只不過是想像能完全控制我們現實的遊樂園。現實世界的天際才是徹底革命根除等級制度的最真底線。

這是情境者邏輯的稀奇顛倒—我是想利用遊戲創造自我批評再自我毀滅的玩家微界和微社，因為遊戲永遠實現不了革命。玩家必須退出玩家的角色，回到真正的政治世界去。如果這是在諷刺左派自我吞食的話，那還可以說是好笑。可是我是在認真的。我也沒意識到這顛倒邏輯的憂慮是關於認為自己的革命家或革命家似的問題，與革命的問題相反。我之後會再來談。

This was a curious inversion of situationist logic—I wanted to use games to create self-criticizing and then self-destructing micro-worlds and micro-societies of players, because the game would always fail to realize revolution. The players had to quit their role as players, and return to the real political world. This would have been funnier as satire about how the left eats itself. But I was being serious. I also was not aware that the concerns behind this inverted logic were about problems of people who thought of themselves as revolutionaries or revolutionary-like, as opposed to problems of revolution. I will discuss this later.

我們來回去討論〈什麼是解性遊？〉。這個定義文章我已經講了蠻多；講過的東西不會再提。我該說的是，寫這個定義文章之前，我還沒開始把自己的遊戲想說是解性遊—對，連建立概念的《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》也沒。因為是這樣，或許可能該對自己的政治遊戲設計寬容一點—我是在一邊做一邊想辦法的。但你知道我很喜歡跟自己有仇，很喜歡浪漫化自己的冤纏。

Let's return to discussing “What Is Agonist Play?” This definitional essay I've already said a lot about; the things I've already said I won't repeat. What I should say is that prior to writing this definitional essay, I still hadn't started thinking about my games as agonist games—yes, not even the concept-establishing games of You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven! Because of this, perhaps I should be more forgiving towards my own political game design—I was figuring things out as I went along. But you know how I love to hold grudges against myself, how I love to romanticize my own haunting.

在〈什麼是解性遊？〉之中，我討論了在《你提供的油漆》和《天丑！》中出現的虛構政治派，明確地說這些虛構的政治派在反映我個人在美國的現實中遇到的政治派：

In “What Is Agonist Play?,” I discussed the fictional political factions that appeared in You Provide the Paint and Fools of Heaven!, explicitly stating that these fictional factions reflected political factions I had encountered in my personal U.S. reality:

• 堅性者 Survivalists: 大部分的人 Most people
• 勇性者 Heroists: 自由主義者 Liberals
• 化性者 Agonists: 同志 Comrades*
• 歉性者 Apologists: 非政治的人 Apolitical people
• 霸性者 Hegemonists: 保守主義者 Conservatives
• 血性者 Sacrifists: 法西斯主義者 Fascists

*People who take risks together to destroy the current social order and create future collective liberation. 一起承擔風險毀滅當前社會秩序和創造未來團體自由的人。

之前，我沒有特別為任何派寫政治遊戲，頂多在某些遊戲（像《幽影島》）前面說一下大該不會喜歡那遊戲的人。可是在開始利用解性遊這概念之後，我改成為理想的同志寫遊戲—而且是第一次有意的包括 TRPG 圈外的同志。

Before, I hadn't particularly written games for any political faction, at most only stating at the start of some games (like Phantom Island) what type of people wouldn't like that game. But after starting to use the concept of agonist play, I switched to writing games for the comrades of my ideals—intentionally including for the first time comrades outside the TTRPG scene.

《降天下世》就是我第一個有意的解性遊。是個異軌《降世神通: 最後的氣宗》系列的遊戲，描寫為了革命被詛咒重複轉生的殭湖革命家。扮演這些革命家的玩家便利用代表政治對抗各種元素的「運素」（意思是移動根源）來互相決鬥，試圖改變彼此之間的現實。遊戲系統是 J.Y.《天下江湖》的改版—我不知道是不是只有我做過那遊戲的改版，可是我知道那時候 J.Y. 看到我的設計很興奮。

Felling Heaven, Felling World was my first intentionally agonist game. It was a game that détourned the Avatar: The Last Airbender series, depicting Jyanghu (a pun on jianghu, the wuxia underworld, and literally translated as “corpse water”) revolutionaries cursed to reincarnate for revolution. As these revolutionaries, players would use “yunsu” (meaning moving roots) that represented different elements of political resistance to decisively struggle against each other, attempting to change each other's realities. The game system was a hack of J.Y.'s Under Heaven, Underworld—I don't know if I was the only one ever make a hack of that game, but I know at the time J.Y. was very excited about my designs.

《降天下世》跟《天丑！》很像，又是華裔文化、佛教跟無治主義的合併—所以跟《天丑！》的問題也一樣，也又是在鼓勵敵人立場、頌揚死亡和浪漫化不死狀態。它是個深深對革命事業虔誠的遊戲，也是個極端渴望虔誠同志的遊戲，設計充滿了想像的同寅。能作為這些毛病的典型就是殭湖角色創作的機制。所謂的殭湖就是遊戲的虛構世界，創造過程規定一個玩家必須犧牲自己之前已經創造完的玩家角色，接受 GM 的角色，再破壞遊似地毀裂犧牲角色的卡用來新創虛構世界的角色。 GM 的角色就是有用的屍體。關於這遊戲設計實踐，我說：

Felling Heaven, Felling World was very similar to Fools of Heaven!, once again integrating Sino culture, Buddhism, and anarchism—and therefore it and Fools of Heaven! also share the same problems of encouraging antagonist standpoints, glorifying death, and romanticizing being undead. It's a deeply pious game devoted to the cause of revolution, and also a game that yearns for pious comrades to the extreme, designs filled with imagined affinity. What exemplifies all these issues is the mechanics for jyanghu character creation. The jyanghu is the fictional world in the game, with a creation process that requires one player to sacrifice a character they have already created, to accept the role of GM, and then sabotouristically rip apart their sacrificed character's sheet to newly create the character of the world. The GM's character was a useful corpse. Regarding this praxis of game design, I said:

…當我們打倒承載世界的等級制度，我們也會把世界載到制度的遺址。歷史上制度根深柢固損害未來的地景，而我們種植的新根會繼承到制度的髒土。革除天命的問題就是不能逃避我們總會被分解，總會與土合一的塵世宿命。

...when we bring down the hierarchies that hold up the world, we also bring the world down to their ruins. Their historical entrenchment compromises the landscape of the future, and the new roots we plant inherit their soil. The problem of overturning heaven is that we cannot escape our mortal destiny to become decomposed, to become one with the soil.

所以這現世的道理就是解自分的作用。就是解自己是怎樣損害未來的地景、怎樣會留傳髒土、怎樣會被革除。就是解不只是你，而是這世界上每一個人都在這因果循環中，無論他們是解或不解。

And so the principle of this present is to comprehend the purpose of your own destruction. It is to understand how you compromise the landscape of the future, how your soil will get passed down, how you will be overturned. It is to understand that not just you, but every individual on earth is in this cycle of causality, whether they comprehend it or not.

這是在勸大家了解自己的政治果報—寫是因為自己的過去強迫我必須加了解自己的果報。做出「必須通過自殺才能了解自己」的論點其實是在自己說服自己。我是在投射。我理想中的同志不是群眾的同志，而是我神經過敏的同志—我個人的同志。

This was a call for everyone to understand their own political karma—a call I wrote because my past obligated me to better understand my own karma. Saying “we must kill ourselves to understand ourselves” was really me trying to convince myself of my own argument. I was projecting. The comrades of my ideals were not comrades to the masses, but comrades to my neuroses—comrades to me.

接下來的《下世萬敵》把這樣的想法發展到恐怖的極端。《下世萬敵》是《降天下世》的改版，這次異軌的是《龍與地下城》類似的西方奇幻 TRPG。玩家扮演的是因為殖民主義強迫變成似人怪物的萬敵俠（英文譯 agonist，跟解性遊的英文譯一模一樣），利用「陣屬」（陣營 + 屬性）來創造有革命性正義的新世界。《下世萬敵》也把傳統的 RPG 職業換成因萬敵俠烈士而得名的衣缽（有佛教內涵）。這些烈士跟《天丑！》中季節的四象烈士一模一樣。另外，衣缽不只是普通職業的再膚，有必要「繼承」前革命家思想和手段的定義，孝順革命家的暗指。從這裡開始只會變得越來越糟。

The subsequent Future Only Enemies developed this way of thinking to the extreme. FOE was a hack of Felling Heaven, Felling World, this time détourning Western fantasy tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons. You played as agonists forced to become humanoid monsters due to colonialism, using “aligned attributes” (alignments + attributes) to create a new world of revolutionary justice. FOE also turned conventional RPG classes into mantles (the Mandarin version of the name, 衣缽 , has Buddhist connotations) named after agonist martyrs. These martyrs were the same as the Four Symbols martyrs from Fools of Heaven!. Moreover, mantles weren't just reskins of of normal classes, but were defined by the requirement to “inherit” past revolutionaries' thinking and methods, an implication to have filial piety towards them. And it only gets worse from here.

《下世萬敵》把《降天下世》的決鬥系統作為核心。兩個遊戲都把決鬥定義為「任何無法和解的衝突」，唯一只能利用搏鬥來解決。雖然如此，兩個遊戲處理決鬥結果的方式完全不同。《降天下世》試圖和諧地處理：決鬥結束之後，勝者得利失害、敗者得利得害或失利失害、喪者得害失利—但全都有權力為自己做出利和害的定義。《下世萬敵》是殘忍版：決鬥結束之後，勝者必須決定如何為剩下的人直接造出損害，而剩下的人要反對只能再次開始新的決鬥。為何那麼暴虐地改變？

FOE used the decisive struggle system from Felling Heaven, Felling World as its core. Both games defined decisive struggle as “any conflict with no possible compromise” that could only be resolved with struggle. Even so, the way both games handled the results of decisive struggle were entirely different. Felling Heaven, Felling World tried to resolve things harmoniously: at the end of a decisive struggle, victors attract gain and avoid loss, yielders attract gain with loss or avoid loss without gain, and sufferers attract loss and avoid gain—but all had the power to define gain and loss for themselves. FOE was cruel: the victors must decide how to directly harm everyone else, and everyone else who opposes this can only start a new decisive struggle. Why such a tyrannical change?

我陷入了一種充滿對政敵的無名怨憤和對同志的狂熱崇拜的思想狀態。不只是因為在 TRPG 圈子中發生的事。也是因為當時在我城市中組織的發展。我見識到好戰的必要，在起義之中得到「這就是戰爭」的結論。就是我們同志在跟世界在對抗。就是「我們會保護自己」。就是除了我們自己，沒人要。就是按照這樣的態度，我完成了《下世萬敵》：

I had fallen into a state of thinking that was full of ressentiment towards political enemies and fanatic devotion towards comrades. It wasn't just because of what had happened in the TTRPG scene. It was also because of what was happening with organizing in my city at the time. I had seen the need for militancy, arriving in a conclusion at an insurrection that “this was war.” It was us comrades against the world. It was “we protect us.” It was nobody wanting us save for ourselves. It was with this attitude I ended FOE:

如果你相信有無害勝利的存在，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你因為害怕革命選擇和解，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到無治和共產而想到是混亂和獨裁，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到自由而想到是民主，這就不是你的遊戲。如果警察沒向你開過槍，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你沒見過自殺的同志，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你聽到同志並以為我意思是左派的朋友，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你覺得我是自以為是，這就不是你的遊戲。如果你讀完這些字覺得我是瘋子的話，這就不是你的遊戲。這就不是你的遊戲。這也不是我的遊戲。這是屬於「我們」的遊戲。想比屬於要得更多的「我們」。想被解放的「我們」。看到血不眨眼的「我們」。聽到正常想到暴力的我們。聽到暴力想到這裡和現在的「我們」。將過去、現代、和未來視為相互聯繫一瞬間的「我們」。看到遊戲想到監牢的「我們」。想廢除法律的「我們」。不想廢除「自己」的「我們」。不放棄決鬥的「我們」，下世萬敵。

If you believe in harmless victories, this game is not for you. If you choose compromise because you are afraid of revolution, this game is not for you. If you hear anarchy and communism and think chaos and dictatorship, this game is not for you. If you hear freedom and think democracy, this game is not for you. If you have never been shot at by the police, this game is not for you. If you have never known a comrade who committed suicide, this game is not for you. If you hear comrade and assume I mean leftist friend, this game is not for you. If you think I need to get off my high horse, this game is not for you. If you read this and think I'm insane, this game is not for you. This game is not for you. This game is not for me. This game belongs to “us.” “We” who desire more than inclusion. “We” who desire liberation. “We” who see blood and don't blink. “We” who hear normal and think violence. “We” who hear violence and think here and now. “We” who see past, present, and future as one instant moment of interconnection. “We” who see game and think prison. “We” who wish to abolish law. “We” who do not wish to abolish “us.” “We” who refuse to give up decisive struggle, “our” future only enemies.

革命就是我的涅槃，就是我完美的否定—解放就是敵人的完美否定，同時也是個人在同志團體之中的完美否定。在琴·威爾英文翻譯的《武裝的歡樂》之中，阿爾弗雷多·博納諾寫說：「革命家是虔誠的人。革命不是虔誠的事件。」這我早就知道。這知識應該激起我尋找更接近現實的想法，可是反而引起我更死死地抱住我的信仰。我還只是在開始學會放手。

Revolution was my nirvana, my perfect negation—liberation was the perfect negation of enemies, and also the perfect negation of self in the collective of comrades. In “Armed Joy” translated by Jean Weir, Alfredo Bonanno writes: “Revolutionaries are pious folk. The revolution is not a pious event.” This I knew a long time ago. This knowledge should have pushed me to search for ways of thinking closer to reality, but instead caused me to cling to my faith with a vice grip. I am only just beginning to let go.

我刪除「解性遊」的部落格原因是因為認為 Blogger 的平台要審查我的內容。當時 Blogger 規定你必須利用 Google 帳號登入，所以我特別為了這個部落格創了新的 Gmail。在部落格存在的短期之中，我一直重複收到這些很奇怪的 Google email：

The reason I deleted the Agonist Play blog was because I suspected its platform, Blogger, wanted to censor my content. At the time Blogger required you to log in with a Google account, so I specifically created a new Gmail for the sake of the blog. During the short lifespan of the blog's existence, I repeatedly received these strange emails from Google:

其中一個 email 的截圖，是我 Google 帳號遭到停用的通知 A screenshot of one of those emails, which is a notification about my Google account being disabled

一開始我想說不理，因為每次點 email 中的連接還原帳戶都沒事。可是收到那麼多次決定還是該離開 Blogger 比較保險。我認為這些帳號停用通知一定是跟我 po 的遊戲內容有關，尤其是我的解性遊。如果你查查看 Google 有可能停用帳號的原因，其中一個原因是跟所謂的「恐怖主義」有關，說不準 po 「煽動暴力的內容」。另外的是違反產品政策；自 2024 年起—不知道當時 2022 年的是不是同一樣—Blogger 的 內容政策在暴力組織與活動的部份說：

At the beginning I wanted to just ignore them, since every time I clicked the link in the email to restore my account, everything was normal. But after getting so many I felt that leaving Blogger was the safer thing to do. I believe that these account disabled notifications had to do with the game content I was posting, especially my agonist games. If you look up Google's reasons for potentially disabling an account, one of those reasons is “terrorism,” with the statement that you're not supposed to post content that will “incite violence.” The other reason is breaking product policies; as of 2024—not sure if it was different in 2022—Blogger's Content Policy says in its section on Violent Organizations and Movements:

Known violent non-state organizations and movements are not permitted to use this product for any purpose. Do not distribute content that facilitates or promotes the activities of these groups, such as recruiting, coordinating online or offline activities, sharing manuals or other materials that could facilitate harm, promoting ideologies of violent non-state organizations, promoting terrorist acts, inciting violence, or celebrating attacks by violent non-state organizations. Depending upon the content, we may also take action against the user. Content related to violent non-state organizations may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand the context.

任何已知的非政府暴力組織和活動不得基於任何目的使用這項產品。請勿散布煽動或鼓吹這類組織活動的內容，例如招募、籌辦線上或線下活動、分享可能助長傷害行為的手冊或其他資料、宣傳非政府暴力組織的意識形態和恐怖行動、引發暴力行為，或是讚揚非政府暴力組織的攻擊事件。視內容性質而定，我們也可能對使用者採取行動。我們允許具有教育、紀實、科學或藝術性質的非政府暴力組織相關內容，但前提是必須提供充分資訊，協助使用者瞭解內容背景。

哇。那好吧，再見！

Oops. Oh well, goodbye!

The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – 3416 ERA (2022-2023)

1. NS 3416 (v0 2022, v1 2023, v2 2023, v3 2023)
2. “Revisiting The Sabotour” 〈回顧破壞遊〉 (2022)
3. Chipped Paint 《落漆》 (2022)
4. 《受死令》 Soulslinger (v1 2021, v2 2023) 〈死令系統 SRD〉 “Death Mark SRD” (2023)
5. 〈下世輪〉 “The Wheel of Felling” (2023)
6. 《冥咒島》 The Hellsealed Isles (2023)
7. 《血光俠：先鋒主義者的幻想》 Blood Lanterns: A Vanguardist's Fantasy (2022, 2023)

Blogger 跟 Google 政治審查之後，我再次需要考慮該把遊戲搬到哪裡。就在那時，我靈機一動—為何不把自己的遊戲作為遊戲的平台？我決定要創個 Twine 的遊戲來提供我 TRPG 的支援，再把那 Twine 的遊戲上傳到 Neocities。選 Neocities 的原因跟原本選 Blogger 的原因一模一樣—因為在圈子中有同事用過，有熟。

After Blogger and Google's political censorship, I once again had to consider where to move my games. That's when I thought—why not make my own games a platform for themselves? I decided to make a Twine game to host all my TTRPGs, and then upload my Twine game to Neocities. The reason I chose Neocities was the same reason I initially chose Blogger—because colleagues in the scene had used it before, and it was familiar.

在這 Twine 的遊戲的發展之中，我也又再次需要考慮如何為自己和自己的遊戲做出正當的介紹。因為 Neocities 又離獨立 TRPG 圈子的關係更遠，我對逃避問責的指控有偏執。為了彌補自己在隱藏自己的污染的感覺，我開始在社交網站上封鎖全部見到 TRPG 帳戶，完全禁止自己跟任何 TRPG 社群接觸。我需要保護別人免受我通過關係的污染。再說清楚，沒有人讓我覺得必須這樣做—這是我完全在自主。

In the process of developing this Twine game, I also once again had to consider how to properly introduce myself and my games. Because Neocities was even more distanced in relation to the indie TTRPG scene, I started feeling paranoid about accusations of dodging accountability. To compensate the feeling that I was hiding my own pollution, I started blocking every TTRPG account I saw on social media, completely banning myself from any contact with other TTRPG communities. I had to protect other people from being polluted through their connection to me. Again, nobody made me feel like I had to do this—I did this entirely on my own.

「解決了」這個問題之後，我把注意力轉移設計 Twine 遊戲的內容。我想在虛構上聯繫迄今為止所有自己覺得是最重要的遊戲，創個敘述擬真守則。當然，那時我還是覺得自己最重要的遊戲還就是解性遊，因此選擇利用了《天丑！》跟《下世萬敵》之中的四象烈士萬敵俠來作為我遊戲設計的代表。

Having “solved” the problem, I turned my attention to designing the content of the Twine game. I wanted to fictionally connect what I felt were all my most important games up until now, make a narrative kayfabe. Of course, at the time I still thought my most important games were agonist games, so I chose to use the Four Symbols agonist martyrs from Fools of Heaven! and FOE as the representatives for my game design.

分享一個新的沒公開說過的趣聞—除了青魔的金針刺之外，所有的四象烈士都是從我在〈映像之龍〉帶的團中非玩家角色而來的。 Twine 遊戲《NS 3416》這個名字也是從我帶那團的歷史而來的。 NS 是英文「nullspace」（中文譯：零空）的縮寫，這概念是在跑團中創造出來的。 3416 的數字是在指團中虛構世界的一種關於自我自我概念的宇宙天規，規名叫「生死一流」：規定每個角色必須要有其中三個體形、有其中四個流利、被一個天柱支撐、在其中六個平界出生。我把烈士們演變成似玩家冒險團的幽影眾—就跟《幽靈島》的幽靈眾一樣—祂們是穿越時空的鬼時空游擊者，「堅持要冤纏每一時空，直到每一法西斯現實的倒敗。」祂們的幽影眾就叫做「死象」（英文名 The Four Deaths 有天啟四騎士的內涵）。

I'll share a fun fact I've never mentioned publicly before—except for the Azure Witch Jin Jentzyh, all the Four Symbols martyrs came from the game I GM'd in “The Dragon in the Mirror.” The Twine game's name of NS 3416 also came from that history. The numbers 3416 refer to a cosmological law in the playgroup's fictional universe called 生死一流 (literally translated as Life Death One Flow, with the sound of the words in Mandarin sounding similar to the numbers 3416): the law required each character to have one of 3 forms, one of 4 fluencies, be supported by 1 Pillar, and be born on one of 6 Planes. I transformed the martyrs into a player-like adventure party called a phantom collective—just like the Phantom Collective from Phantom Island—they were ghost chronoguerrillas crossing through spacetime, “insist[ing] on haunting every time and space until the collapse of every fascist reality.” Their phantom collective's name was The Four Deaths (reminiscent of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse).

跟這崇高事業的故事背景相比的就是我自己個人的故事背景。在《NS 3416》之中，我要把崇高事業的故事做成囚禁自己的陷阱。遊戲將會成為我的滌罪所，玩家扮演的就是舊身份的我，蠢謳迷，被自己的作品、角色和政治主義冤纏。遊戲會有四個結局，四個關於我自己的結論：

In tension with this backstory of lofty causes was my own backstory as an individual. In NS 3416, I wanted to use this story of a lofty cause as a trap to imprison myself. The game would become my purgatory, with you playing as the old version of me, omi the fool, haunted by your own work, characters, and political ideologies. The game would have four endings, four conclusions about myself:

1. 因為只有你想像的人才會歡迎你 BECAUSE ONLY THOSE IMAGINED BY YOU WOULD WELCOME YOU: 你跟我的虛構角色交朋友，快樂地逃避現實。 You befriend my fictional character, happily pursuing escapism.
2. 假想緣 IMAGINED DESTINY: 我認為創作跟生活一樣不需要有原因，因為兩個都是力量。雖然我利用力量傷害過人，故事結局不需要我自殺。我們可以一起利用創造力活下去。 I believe that creating, like living, doesn't need a reason, because both are forms of power. Even though I have used my power to harm people, the story doesn't have to end with me killing myself. Instead we can both use creativity to stay alive together.
3. 因為在這裡你能想像出自己的出口 BECAUSE HERE YOU CAN IMAGINE YOUR OWN WAY OUT: 你孤單地做在《味道》的捷運車廂裡面，怨恨自己最後只能在逃避現實。 You sit alone in the subway car from Smelltracks, resenting yourself for pursuing escapism.
4. 真相結局 TRUE END: 我奪走虛構世界的角色，強迫你回去面對現實。 I take the fictional characters away from you, forcing you to go back and face reality.

除了真相結局之外，剩下的結局都是在連接到我 TRPG 的雲端硬碟之後的正接著的 Twine 段之中。我是故意讓玩家需要花力氣找出我的 TRPG，因為當時認為自己的作品失去可見的資格。

Except for the true end, the rest of the endings are in the Twine passages immediately following the link to the cloud drive with my TTRPGs. I purposely made the player have to make effort to find my TTRPGs, because I felt at the time that my works had lost the right to being visibly seen.

《NS 3416》的結構直到目前第三版改變自己是罪人的想法之後才變。我毀裂及毀滅舊的虛構世界，除掉死象，自己做自己的代表，讓你扮演你。我的 TRPG 一進去就能看到；要找到我也並不困難。另外，現在有了新的「異軌與地下城」部落格，《NS 3416》變成了舊的遊戲的檔案館。我希望以後不會再需要大度的改變。

The structure of NS 3416 remained the same until the third version when I stopped seeing myself as a sinful person. I ripped apart and destroyed the old fictional world, getting rid of The Four Deaths, making myself serve as my own representative, and letting you be you. You can see my tabletop games as soon as you enter; finding me is not difficult either. Moreover, now that I have the new blog of Dungeons & Détournement, NS 3416 has become an archive for my old games. I hope that in the future I won't have to make any more drastic changes.

寫〈回顧破壞遊〉大部分是為了要針對自己跟 Nimona 的事為破壞遊做個正式評論。一如所料，當時的我又再浪漫化比喻性的自殺，說所有的玩家就是應該跟 Nimona 一樣隨心隨意地毀裂我字中的意義，因為我要作為利於他們自由有用的屍體。這也不是破壞遊另外一個政治根源，Marie Isidine 的創造性的暴力，的意思。這樣只是在對自己有創造性的暴力。這就是我之前想對破壞遊說出來的批評—我想指出它是種被扭曲的互助論和利用一切必要的手段邏輯，是跟解性遊有相似之處。解性遊要大家利用互相鬥爭來找出政治正覺；破壞遊要大家利用互相失敗來開始新的鬥爭。鬥爭、鬥爭、鬥爭。鬥爭到死。那就是我唯一會做的事。

The reason for writing “Revisiting The Sabotour” was mostly because I wanted to address what happened between me and Nimona formally in a critique of the sabotour. As expected, past me romanticized metaphorical suicide again, saying that all players should be like Nimona ripping apart the meanings in my words to their heart's content, because I wanted to be a useful corpse for their freedom. This was also not the meaning of sabotourism's other political root, Marie Isidine's idea of creative violence. This was just doing creative violence to yourself. This is the critique that I wanted to say earlier about sabotourism—I wanted to point out that it was a twisted idea of mutual aid and by any means necessary, a parallel to agonist play. Agonist play wanted everyone to use mutual struggle to find political enlightenment; sabotourism wanted everyone to use mutual failure to start new struggles. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Struggle to death. That was the only thing I knew how to do.

《落漆》本來不是個遊戲，是在 MSPFA （MSPA 的粉絲）網站上 2022 Flipjam （中文譯：翻滾製作營）寫的粉絲冒險故事（英文：fanventure），後來才重歸於抒情遊。《落漆》是個虛構化自傳宣傳鼓動遊戲，利用在大白天補畫塗鴉的事件來比喻攫回國家法規強迫我們放棄的日常生活自主。寫的時候我是希望利用製作營的平台來散播無治思想，以及利用製作營的機會來找出同志。沒用。說實在我對它的評論跟《味道》一樣—我又只是在鑽景觀制度的空子。

Chipped Paint was originally not a game, but a fanventure written for MSPFA (the MSPA fan) site's 2022 Flipjam that I later recategorized as a lyric game. Chipped Paint was a fictionalized autobiographical agitprop game, using the act of revitalizing graffiti in broad daylight as a metaphor for seizing back the autonomy in everyday life that laws of the state have forced us to surrender. At the time of writing I had hoped to use the jam's platform to spread anarchist ideas, as well as use the jam's opportunity to find comrades. No use. Honestly my evaluation of it is the same as for Smelltracks—I was just gaming the spectacle again.

《受死令》回到我的創作根源，是蠢零遊時代後期寫的破壞遊的演變。之前說過破壞遊首先是個跟它的政治根源有隔離的藝術技巧；怪不得第一版的《Fool's Charge》（中文譯：蠢衝） 利用 René-Pier Deshaies 「free, open, and generic」（中文譯：免費（有自由的內涵）、開放、泛用）的《Charge》系統來寫反資本主義鬥爭沒被 R.P. 視為破壞，反而只視為有普通創意的改版而已—R.P. 那時還因為看到這個改版請我來為《Charge》寫官方的額外機制（英文：Extra）。破壞遊沒引誘目標來跟我對抗鬥爭，甚至還引起目標要我跟他們的系統融合，那就是在政治方面大大的失敗—是在把破壞遊政治毛病擱在一邊地說。

Soulslinger returned to my creative roots, being an evolution of a sabotour written in the late period of Fool Zero Games. Earlier I had said that sabotourism first and foremost is an art technique distanced from its political roots; it was no wonder that when the first edition's Fool's Charge used René-Pier Deshaies “free, open, and generic” Charge system to write about anticapitalist struggle, it wasn't seen as sabotage, merely another creative hack—at the time, because of seeing this game, R.P. even invited me to write an official Charge Extra. A sabotour that failed to goad the target into struggling against me, that even led to the target wanting to integrate me into their system, was a complete and utter failure on a political level—setting the problematics of sabotourism's politics aside.

除了 R.P. 之外，我記得當時也有不少人對《蠢衝》有興趣，可是跟《味道》一樣，興趣是在藝術方面；令我沮喪的是，這藝術方面的興趣沒有轉化成政治內容的興趣。我不知道為什麼老是以為大家都跟我一樣愛把藝術興趣轉化成政治興趣。又是想像的同寅，又是在想說如果我只要有足夠的希望，我們就能互相一起在政治的方面學習。

Besides R.P., I also remember a couple others being interested in Fool's Charge, but like with Smelltracks, the interest was on an artistic level; what dismayed me was that this interest on the artistic level didn't translate into interest in the political content. I don't know why I've always assume everyone else translates artistic interest into political interest like me. It was another case of imagined affinity, of thinking that as long as I had enough desire, we could mutually learn from each other on a political level.

總之，這些情況，加上自我強制自己跟 TRPG 社群接觸的禁止，導致我放棄了《蠢衝》的發展—雖然回頭看，我無意地把衝量軌道（英文：momentum track）的機制演變成《降天下世》跟《下世萬敵》解性遊的決鬥機制。覺得可惜的是放棄我為了《蠢衝》創造的虛構世界和混合英語、國語、台語、海陸腔客家話的人造語，迎吞。通常我利用「中文」（中國質跟白人質一樣，都是構建）寫 TRPG 的時候，別的華人沒有特別的反應，頂多跟 Samuel Clarice Mui 一樣跟我說「喔，對嗎，你就是用中文寫作的那個人」。我利用中文寫作的原因跟利用 TRPG 寫政治論一樣—都是為了借用媒介尋找同樣的人。《蠢衝》的迎吞第一次在純粹語言方面成功達到這個目標，讓我認識到一位香港人。雖然我們聯絡很少，少到連名字現在都不確定記不記得對（好像在 Discord 叫 beeptest？他沒有推特，在 itch.io 上也只有社群非創作者的個人檔案，可是現在查這個名字沒有），我們除了遊戲是有談到政治，甚至還自在地聯絡他幫忙找突然失蹤可能要自殺的香港獨立運動家。

In any case, these circumstances, on top of my self-enforced ban from all contact with TTRPG communities, led to me to give up on the development of Fool's Charge—although in retrospect, I unintentionally transformed the momentum track mechanic into the decisive struggle mechanic for the agonist games Felling Heaven, Felling World and Future Only Enemies. What I felt was a pity to let go was the fictional world I had created for Fool's Charge, along with the conlang of Common Twun, which was a mix of English, Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hailu Hakka. Usually when I used “Chinese” (Chineseness, like whiteness, is a construct) to write TTRPGs, other Sino people didn't really have a reaction, at most telling me “Oh yeah, you're the one who writes in Chinese” like Samuel Clarice Mui did. The reason I used Chinese to write was the same reason I used TTRPGs to write political theory—to use the medium to find others like me. The Common Twun of Fool's Charge was the first time I succeeded at the level of pure language, getting the attention of a Hong Konger. Even though we interacted very little—little to the point that I'm not sure if I've correctly remembered his name (I think on Discord it was beeptest? He wasn't on Twitter, and only had a community, not creator profile on itch.io), besides games we did talk about politics, and I even felt comfortable enough to contact him to help find a Hong Kong independence activist who had suddenly gone missing with the possible intent of suicide.

《受死令》跟《幽靈島》一樣，一開始的設計計畫是動作遊戲，依《蠢衝》描述邪教犧牲儀式的倖存俠。另外的是，因為原本的遊戲類型是科幻和詭野西部，我希望利用新的系統來針對這些類型來設計。可是我發覺回答模仿類型的問題比回答遊戲內容的問題更不重要。《受死令》的俠到底該有什麼我還沒寫過的作用？迄今為止關於俠的遊戲—《天丑！》、《降天下世》、《下世萬敵》—都把俠置於集體的背景之中。《天丑！》的俠一直在找出死路跟門路之間的非阻擋性同志、《降天下世》的俠有自己的殭湖、《下世萬敵》的俠把自己視為萬敵運動之中的份子。可是在《蠢衝》之中，俠是回不了自己家跟共同體的人—俠是背對或被集體拋棄的人物。差異並不奇怪，反而是預言—那是我快要離開 TRPG 圈子的時候寫的遊戲。

Soulslinger started out like Phantom Island, with the plan to design an action game, continuing from Fool's Charge the depiction of justices who survived a cult sacrifice ritual. Because the original game genre was sci-fi and Weird West, I wanted to design a new system specifically meant for use with these genres. But I discovered that answering the question of emulating genre was far less important than answering the question of what content to put in the game. What function should the justices of Soulslinger have that I hadn't already written about? Up until now, the games about justices—Fools of Heaven!, Felling Heaven, Felling World, and FOE—have all placed 俠 into the context of the collective. The 俠 of Fools of Heaven! are constantly searching for nonobstructive comrades in between doorways and dead ends, the 俠 of Felling Heaven, Felling World have their own jyanghu, the 俠 of FOE think of themselves as members of an agonist movement. But in Fool's Charge, 俠 are people who can't return to their home and community—俠 are people who have turned their backs on or been abandoned by the collective. The discrepancy is not surprising, but prophetic—I had written that game right before I was going to leave the TTRPG scene.

因此，我把探索這樣的隔離作為目標。同時，跟政治思想無關，我那時候有個想創造自我遊玩系統的遊戲。一部分是關於自己身心障礙有關—常想玩 TPRG 的時候沒力氣臨時創造新點子。另一部分是因為規定自己不能跟任何 TRPG 社群接觸之後，就只能跟自己玩 TRPG；遊玩方式只能聽自己的想法來辦很無聊，希望能有似別人的東西跟我對話。

Thus, I made exploring this kind of isolation my goal. At the same time, unrelated to political thinking, at the time I also wanted to create a system for a game that could play itself. Part of it was due to my own disability—often when I wanted to play TTRPGs I didn't have the energy to improvise new ideas. The other part was because after requiring myself to stop all contact with TTRPG communities, I could only play TTRPGs with myself; only being able to listen to my own ideas for play was boring, and I wished for something like another person to be able to talk to me.

那就是為什麼《受死令》是個賽博格似的超桌角色扮演遊戲（HTRPG）。在驗屍，我把 HTRPG 定義為「機制修改成完全利用數位遊玩的 TRPG，也同時是機制能被修改成完全利用類比遊玩的互動式小說」。《受死令》的死令系統是單人神諭日記的格式，利用實體或電腦隨機的撲克牌卡來產生寫作題目。在《受死令》之中，玩家沒有必要在每個題目的框格中填字；然而，依我對自己身心障礙的看法跟過去的宣傳鼓動遊戲發展經驗為主，我也不讓玩家輕輕鬆鬆地被動體驗故事。相反，《受死令》會把空白存在筆記中，沒寫出自己回答的題目只有個撲克牌花色和數字，目的是要強調玩家被系統規定要多產的異化。

That is why Soulslinger is a cyborg-like hypertext tabletop roleplaying game (HTRPG). In its post-mortem, I defined the HTRPG as “a TTRPG mechanically adapted for pure digital play, and a piece of interactive fiction mechanically adaptable for pure analog play.” The Death Mark system of Soulslinger had a solo oracular journaling form, using physical or computer-randomized poker cards to generate writing prompts. In Soulslinger, players are not required to fill in the blank space at the end of every prompt; however, based on my views towards my own disability and past experience developing agitprop games, I don't let the player just passively experience the story. In contrast, Soulslinger saves the blank spaces, and if you don't write anything it just records the suit and number of the poker card, with the goal of highlighting how the system alienates the player by requiring the player to be productive.

ㄟˊ，可是《天丑！》也是在用神諭啊，為什麼當時沒有變成《天丑！》的改版？我在《受死令》的驗屍中有暗示，是因為《受死令》不是純粹的解性遊。它關注的不是鬥爭能改變的未來，而是過去改不了的冤纏。雖然你的玩家角色能利用自己痛苦而來的力量來「拒絕」記憶，所謂的拒絕本質不明確—你是在壓制自己的負面記憶還是在真的在把歷史改變？改變的是原來的歷史還是只是在創造架空時間線？該如何解釋在多次遊玩之中重複碰到之前已經順利除掉的記憶？在這樣穿越的過程之中有很多的認知失調。有點是《NS 3416》之中幽影故事的反敘述，解構時空游擊戰的虛構實踐。

Wait, but Fools of Heaven! also uses an oracle, why didn't I just make a hack of it instead? The post-mortem for Soulslinger already implied this, but it was because Soulslinger was not a purely agonist game. What it was focused on wasn't struggle to change the future, but being haunted by the unchangeable past. Even though your character can use the power of their own suffering to “reject” memories, the nature of this rejection is unclear—are you repressing your own negative memories or really changing history? Are you changing the original history or just creating an alternate timeline? How do you explain repeatedly encountering memories in multiple playthroughs that you had previously and successfully gotten rid of? In this process of crossing through spacetime, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance. In a way, it's like a counternarrative to the phantom shades of NS 3416, deconstructing the fictional praxis of chronoguerilla warfare.

如果《幽靈島》是我在生死一流時代寫的遊戲，我想它的格式應該就是會跟《受死令》很象。雖然如此，兩個遊戲其實在政治尋問上有很大的差異。再說一次，《幽靈島》是個關於團結的遊戲，目標是克服系統跟心理上異化導致的隔離。《受死令》是個很虛無的遊戲，結論是有可能最後就只有異化跟隔離，只有團結的假像，就在你自己創造的虛構之中。

If I had written Phantom Island during my 3416 era, I think that it would've looked a lot like Soulslinger in form. Even so, the two games have really huge discrepancies in terms of political inquiry. Again, Phantom Island is a game about coming together, with the goal of overcoming the isolation caused by systematic and psychological alienation. Soulslinger is a very nihilistic game, with the conclusion that perhaps in the end there is only alienation and isolation, only the illusion of coming together, created by your own fiction.

在驗屍的結尾，我也對俠義的概念開始展現虛無的態度：

At the end of the post-mortem, you can also see me starting to reveal a nihilistic attitude towards the justice of 俠:

我只確定自己辜負了很多人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是逞英雄的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是狠狠報仇的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是完全和平的人。我辜負了所有希望正義就是完全作戰的人。我辜負了所有認為正義根本就不存在，根本就得不到的人。我辜負了所有希望我告訴他們正義是什麼和描寫如何能得到的人。當然，我也辜負了所有認為我連正義都沒資格談的人。

And all I am sure of is that I have failed some people. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means flaunting heroics. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means ruthless revenge. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means total peace. I have failed everyone who hopes for a justice that means total conflict. I have failed everyone who thinks that justice simply does not exist, that it simply cannot be achieved. I have failed everyone who hoped that I'd give them an answer on what justice is and how to achieve it. And of course, I have failed everyone who thinks I have no right to speak on justice at all.

這還是〈回顧破懷遊〉「請過來殺我」的語氣，還沒完全推翻視角。一如所料，驗屍最後幾句話就是：「作者是個體驗過必須決定自己的敘述該怎麼辦的人。我只不過是被他冤纏的寄託者。」我還是在當有用的屍體，雖然是在對自己有用。

This is still the “please come and kill me” manner of speaking from “Revisiting The Sabotour,” still not a total reversal of perspective. As expected, the closing lines of the post-mortem say this game “was written by someone who had to figure out what to do with their own narrative. I am but their vessel, haunted.” I was still being a useful corpse, albeit to myself.

〈下世輪〉的世界架空工具是從我自己解性遊的經驗創造出來的。最早的版本是從《天丑！》來的：在其中一場遊戲之中我利用它的四季六節來做出列表，按照 24 種不同組合的涵義創造虛構組織把列表布滿。後來這演變成《降天下世》的殭湖角色卡，改變的是列出來的人物和組織數有按照玩家數的限制—而且限制規定必須要消滅在存的人物或組織才能創新的。〈下世輪〉又是殭湖角色卡的演變，這次跟《下世萬敵》做個合併，把從《降世神通》異軌的元素換成自己原創的陣因（避開版權訴訟萬歲！）（雖然陣因也是《龍與地下城》的陣營異軌出來的，在對付法律問題上改變得比較足夠）。〈下世輪〉同樣有必須消滅存在人物或組織的限制，雖然這次給了一些迴旋餘地，可以跟別的人物或組織調換位置。

“The Wheel of Felling” was a worldbuilding tool that I created through my own experiences of agonist play. The earliest version came from Fools of Heaven!: in one game I had used its 4 seasons and 6 terms to make a list, populating it with fictional organizations created according to the connotative meanings of the 24 different combinations. This evolved into the jyanghu character sheet of Felling Heaven, Felling World, with the difference of having a limit on how many characters and organizations could be on the list, based on player number—and this limit was enforced by requiring you to eliminate an existing character or organization to make new ones. Then “The Wheel of Felling” evolved the jyanghu character sheet, integrating it with FOE, swapping out the elements détourned from Avatar with my own original alignment origins (hooray, avoiding copyright lawsuits!) (even though alignment origins were also détourned from Dungeons & Dragons alignments, with regards to dealing with legal issues the changes were more complete). “The Wheel of Felling” also had a limit that required you to eliminate existing characters or organizations, although this time it gave you some wiggle room by letting you swap the positions of existing people or organizations.

比較大的改變是在列表之中，每個人物或組織都有關於陣因循環的傾向：順向（避前尋後）或逆向（避後尋前）。雖然是佛教輪迴似的循環，這些傾向沒分黑白的好壞—最支持解放的傾向有時是順，有時是逆—而且陣因只是預設的循環部分。工具是鼓勵玩家創造自己的循環，自己的傾向背景。這是個希望人家能按照分析的態度來創造人物和組織的工具，不是依賴決定論。以那目標來說，〈下世輪〉跟《天丑！》的分析性戰爭機制有雷同；該機制要玩家利用別人的媒介來三角測量自己跟世界的關係。

The larger change was that in the list, every character or organization had an orientation with regard to the cycle of alignment origins: with flow (avoiding what came before and seeking what comes after) or against flow (avoiding what comes after and seeking what came before). Even though the cycle is samsara-like, these orientations are not divided into black-and-white good and evil—the orientations that most support liberation are sometimes with flow, and other times against flow—and the alignment origins are just the default cycle parts. The tool encourages players to create their own cycles, their own context for orientation. This is a tool that wants people to adopt an analytical approach to creating characters and organizations, not rely on determinism. In that manner, “The Wheel of Felling” is similar to the analytical conflict mechanics in Fools of Heaven!, which ask players to use others as an intermediary to triangulate their relationship with the world.

《冥咒島》也是解性遊創造出來的作品，由來是《鹽沼幽魂》（英文：Ghosts of Saltmarsh）的異軌。我有考慮世界設定的故事背景該寫多少，可是我很早就對故事背景有犬儒的態度—在《降天下世》中我寫說：

The Hellsealed Isles was another work created from agonist play, originating of a détournement of Ghosts of Saltmarsh. I had debated how much lore to write for the setting, but I already had a cynical attitude towards lore from early on—in Felling Heaven, Felling World, I had written:

跑團的道理就是把非自創的名字完全當耳邊風，即使是自創有時也認不了。[GM]，知這：你的玩家永遠不會感覺到歷史的沉重，除非是自己經驗的歷史。在那歷史當中，他們會為了現在方便能忘就忘，為了現在方便能記就記。你也會。你也會。

The principle of playgroups is to completely ignore all names they did not create, if they even recognize the names that they do. [GM], know this—your players will never feel the weight of any history except the history they have personally experienced. Of that history, they will forget what is presently convenient for them to forget, and remember what is presently convenient for them to remember. You too. You too.

因此，我雄心地試圖創造完全沒有故事背景的世界設定入門書。我不要跟我熱愛的《Electric Bastionland》（中文譯：電動堡壘地）或《UVG》一樣有百頁多到頭痛的隨機表—我要用自己的方法來做，按照自己的極簡似詩風格。

And so, I ambitiously set out to create a setting primer with absolutely no lore. I didn't want to have hundreds of pages of tables like my beloved Electric Bastionland and UVG—I wanted to do it my way, according to my own minimalistic poetic style.

問題是，迄今為止所有的解性遊世界設定都是很重重依賴故事背景運作。在完全不利用故事背景的設計限制之下，解性遊的技巧突然變得完全沒用。所以我求助於非靠故事遊玩的 OSR。我發覺 OSR 的玩法跟馬克思主義一樣很在意唯物主義，要玩家分析角色面前的物質世界，便利用物質的手段來解決問題。因此我決定利用世界設定的物質狀態來發展政治狀態。寫完之後，我開玩笑地宣布寫出來的是反殖民主義的 Minecraft。

The problem was, up until now all the settings in agonist games and play all heavily relied on lore to function. Under the restriction of having no lore at all, agonist play suddenly became a useless technique. So I turned to the non-story-dependent play of OSR . I realized that OSR play, like Marxism, was very concerned about materialism, asking players to analyze the material world before their characters and use material methods to solve their problems. And so I decided to use the setting's material conditions to develop its political conditions. After finishing, I jokingly announced that what I had written was anticolonial Minecraft.

《冥咒島》開頭就有暗示這馬克思主義的影響，說明玩家扮演的是「冥咒島事實的創造者；島嶼及島嶼上的人民只是反映你的現實的工具」（雖然按照個人圈子經驗，大部分的人看到這句話會開始想如何反映自己在情緒上的現實，不是去想政治）。接下來入門書介紹的就是冥咒島的生態狀態—最特別的是生態域列表第八項目的墓城。

The Hellsealed Isles hints at this Marxist influence in the beginning, explaining that you “play as the creator of truth in The Hellsealed Isles; the isles and their people are merely tools that you use to reflect your own reality” (even though according to my experience in the scene, most people would see this and start thinking about how to reflect their own emotional reality, and not thinking about politics). Next the primer introduces the ecological conditions of The Hellsealed Isles—the most unique of which is the eighth listed biome of the necropolis.

到了這段落，玩家有下列的選擇：一，跳到墓城那段搶先看，或二，繼續按照順序讀（還有三，把檔案關掉）。如果選一的話，《冥咒島》的政治目標馬上變得很清楚；如果選二的話，政治目標會像在跟大逆轉一樣碰到。我認為因為墓城的新奇，大部分的人會選一—可是入門書的結構是針對選二的人設計，因為對我來說大逆轉比較好玩。

At this point, the player has the following choices: one, jump ahead to the section on necropolis, or two, keep reading things in order (and three, close the document). If they choose one, then the political goal of The Hellsealed Isles becomes immediately obvious; if they choose two, the political goal will hit them like a plot twist. Because of the necropolis' novelty, I believe that most people will pick one—but the primer's structure is designed for people who choose two, because I think plot twists are more fun.

所以這新奇的墓城到底是什麼？「墓城是堆在破壞生態域上的城市；因為自己沒有資源，所以從別的生態域榨取。」決定完墓城的大小之後，入門書再規定你從在存的生態域中按照墓城的大小來選比例被剝削的生態域目標；不夠的話，必需創新的。開始有解性遊風格的話就從這裡開始：

So what's this new and exciting necropolis all about? “A necropolis is city built on top of a ruined biome; because it lacks resources of its own, it exploits other biomes to acquire them.” After determining the size of the necropolis, the primer then requires you to choose in proportion to the necropolis' size a number of biomes to be targeted for exploitation from among those that already exist; if there aren't enough, you must create more. This is where it starts to get agonist in style:

當某個生態域被作為墓城的剝削目標，那生態域之中全部的資源都可被榨取。因此，當地依賴那些資源生活的人民會有動機反抗墓城人民試圖進行的剝削。

When a biome is targeted for exploitation by the necropolis, all resources in that biome also become fair game for exploitation. Thus, the people in that biome who rely on the resources will be motivated to resist the exploitation that the people from the necropolis attempt to carry out.

反這種殖民主義性的剝削就是冥咒島的主要衝突，遊戲故事的起因事件。

Opposing this kind of colonial exploitation is the central conflict of The Hellsealed Isles, the inciting incident of stories in the game.

的確，在開頭我說你是冥咒島事實的創造者—所以我為你寫下這種命令很奇怪。

It's true, at the start I said that you were the creator of truth in The Hellsealed Isles—and so it's strange that I would write you such an imperative.

但我也是事實的創造者之一。

But I too am a creator of truth.

要覆蓋我的現實，知道是你的選擇和你的負擔。

If you wish to overwrite my reality, know that it is your choice and your responsibility.

剩下的生態域的創造在政治方面沒什麼特別—甚至還能說根本跟政治無關。它們的政治性本質是完全從墓城的關係而來—就像是沒有資本主義的話，無產者就只會是人。這不是我第一次在虛構利用死亡來寫政治論，可是這次是我第一次認真地在政治方面把死亡問題化，與為革命的頌揚跟浪漫化相反。入門書的最後幾句，對抗讀者要像破壞遊似地為了反共產或非政治毀裂《冥咒島》來去玩資產階級主觀主義的遊戲，也是新的自我保護性的反破壞遊論。第一次，我開始有要活的實踐。

There is nothing notable about the rest of the biomes on a political level—you can even say that they have nothing to do with politics at all. Their political nature entirely comes from their relationship with the necropolis—just as how if there were no capitalism, proletarians would just be people. This isn't the first time I've used death in fiction to write about politics, but this is the first time I've seriously problematized death on a political level, as opposed to glorifying and romanticizing it for the revolution. The last few sentences of the primer, opposing the anticommunist or apolitical reader sabotouristically ripping apart The Hellsealed Isles to go play bourgeois subjectivist games, is also a new self-protective anti-sabotourism line of thinking. For the first time, I started having a praxis to live.

最後一個項目，很久之前提過的《血光俠》，是個同人小說，但是我一直都是把它視為解性遊的故事。《血光俠》是描述非玩家角色在反玩家革命的後革命時期跟彼此之間遇到的衝突。故事大部分都是臨時創出來的，所以內容跟 TRPG 之中常有的遊玩範例很像，假如那些 TRPG 是解性來說。另外，《血光俠》也不跟普通的同人小說一樣，是利用異軌的態度來對待跨界原作《Homestuck》跟《紅燈俠》的正典。

The last item, the Blood Lanterns I brought up very long ago, was a piece of fanfiction, but I had always thought of it as an agonist game story. Blood Lanterns was about non-player characters having conflicts with each other in the post-revolution period after an anti-player revolt. Most of the story was improvised, and its content reads like common examples of play in TRPGs, if those TRPGs had been agonist. Moreover, Blood Lanterns was different from usual fanfiction in that it used an approach of détournement towards the canon of original works used in the crossover, Homestuck and Red Lanterns.

我是因為想更加了解 Nimona 的原因開始讀紅燈軍團的漫畫。紅燈軍團的中心思想跟她一樣—就是報仇。我希望在寫《血光俠》的過程之中為報仇作為實踐的問題開始做個處理。故事中可以看出來我跟 TRPG 圈子歷史的反映，尤其是同類相食村子中大眾跟血光俠公社的對比。在語言方面，利用中文我分清了大眾跟無治跟共產常提到的群眾：在政治方面，大眾是圈內人，不是真正的群眾—頂多是先鋒主義似地冒充是群眾的代表。雖然如此，血光俠也不是什麼完美的組織—他們跟我一樣愛扭曲利用一切必要的手段邏輯，故意互相傷害，認為不願意為了保護革命狀態接受這種傷害就不算俠。故事在一個角色罵血光俠是不為人知的法西斯主義者之後間斷，斷了一年—因為我想不出來故事接下來該往哪裡發展。

I started reading the Red Lantern Corps comics because I wanted to better understand Nimona. The core principle of the Red Lantern Corps was the same as xers—revenge. I had hoped in the process of writing Blood Lanterns to start sorting out the issues of revenge as praxis. The story clearly reflects my history in the TTRPG scene, especially the contrast between the cannibalistic village's Community and the Blood Lanterns' commune. At the level of language, using Mandarin I distinguished between The Community (大眾) and the masses (群眾) often referred to in anarchy and communism: The Community is made up of insiders to a scene, not the true masses—at most they are those who pretend to be representatives of the masses like vanguards. At the same time, it wasn't like the Blood Lanterns were a perfect organization either—like me they loved to use a twisted logic of by any means necessary, purposely hurting each other, believing that those who refused to accept this harm for the sake of protecting revolutionary conditions were not justices at all. After a character accused a Blood Lantern of being a closet fascist, the story went on a hiatus that lasted a whole year—because I couldn't figure out where to take the story next.

作者註跟結局的第一幕已經為了《血光俠》跟解性遊做了很充分的自我批評，所以我不會在這裡重複。想指出來的是政治思想的新發展：我開始把我的政治思想跟道德的關係隔離，道德利用虛無的態度來對待。我也照樣利用虛無的態度來對待同志跟解放的概念。然後我第一次問題化作者在政治方面的角色：

The author notes and concluding Act 1 already do a very thorough self-crit of Blood Lanterns and agonist play, so I will not repeat that here. What I want to point out were new developments in my political thinking: I started distancing my political thought from morality, treating morality with a nihilistic approach. I also took a nihilistic approach towards comrades and liberation. And then for the first time I problematized the role of the author on a political level:

但創造虛構世界的任何作者永遠無法擺脫的缺點就是：作者就是虛構世界的現實。

But the flaw that any author creating a fictional world will never be free from is this: the author is the reality of the fictional world.

在個虛構世界之中，個人和群眾永遠不可能有自治，因為他們永遠無法擺脫作者的控制。

In a fictional world, individuals and the masses will never have autonomy, because they will never be free from the author's control.

共同撰寫也不會解決這個問題，只是會在虛構世界中加上更多的控制者。

Co-authoring will not solve this problem, only add more controllers to the fictional world.

這對遊戲設計跟遊玩有重大的影響。情況比《五龍分魂》的開發日誌和〈映像之龍〉想得更糟。沒有自由，只有自立！

This has major implications for game design and play. The scenario was worse than what the Five Blue Dragons devlog and “The Dragon in the Mirror” had thought. No autonomy, only autarchy!

但「推翻視角就是不再利用共同體、思想主義、家庭、別人的眼光來看。就是堅決地掌握自己，把自己作為起點和中心。」這是拉烏爾．范內格姆在《日常生活的革命》之中通過唐納．尼克遜-史密斯翻譯寫的話。因此我在《血光俠》的結局說：「我們來拒絕聲稱自己的作品能有能力革除自己之外的天命。如果我們自己的迴圈運動能相遇到彼此的軌道，那就好。」這跟原來要實現崇高事業的夢想完全不同。這是在接受的自己有限，發展當時在解性遊時代沒發展的更接近現實想法。

But “[t]o reverse perspective is to stop seeing things through the eyes of the community, of ideology, of the family, of other people. To grasp hold of oneself as something solid, to take oneself as starting-point and centre.” This is what Raoul Vaneigem, through translation by Donald Nicholson-Smith, says in The Revolution of Everyday Life. Thus in the end of Blood Lanterns I wrote: “Let us refuse to claim that our work will have the power to revolutionize any life besides our own. If our own revolutions will be able to cross the paths of each other's orbits, that will be good.” This was so different from the original dream to realize the great cause. This was accepting my own limits, developing the ways of thinking closer to reality that I had failed to develop during the Agonist Play era.

The Horizon I Couldn't Reach: A History of My Political Game Design – Conclusion

我沒興趣把解性遊跟破壞遊作為有用的屍體。我也沒興趣創造另外大統一的更有解放性遊戲設計理論。為何？遊戲是遊戲，不是革命的表演。那是我過去試圖做的事。也沒有必要繼續鑽自己的空子。

I have no interested in turning agonist play and sabotourism into useful corpses. I also have no interested in creating another grand unifying theory of more liberatory game design. What for? Games are games, not the spectacular representation of revolution. That's what I tried to do in the past. And there is no need to keep gaming myself.

做完了最後這四年的評論之後，我覺得更了解自己遊戲設計和政治思想的軌道，認為花費了那麼多力氣寫那麼長的文章有值得的結果。本來沒有故意要談到獨立圈子中那麼多的個人衝突故事，可是發覺那些事深深影響了遊戲和政治的發展。我永遠不會忘記圈子的教訓，希望從來不會再陷入同樣的陷阱。

After finishing this critical review of the last four years, I feel like I better understand my own trajectory of game design and political thinking, feeling like spending so much energy to write such a long essay had worthwhile results. Originally I didn't intend to get into so much detail about my personal conflicts in the indie scene, but I realized that those things deeply influenced the development of my games and politics. I will never forget the lessons I learned from the scene, and hope to never again fall into similar traps.

我會分享一篇磨利了我的文章來結束。這個文章就是 ziq 的〈鬥爭的無用〉，是我讀的第一個針對鬥爭的批評。在文章之中，ziq 說自己唯一能確定的就是自己面前能控制的事。對於遊戲設計的政治效果，我也是有同樣的態度。我們不須要追求遊戲實現某種崇高事業，不需要強迫自己當事業的烈士救星—需要的是誠實地面對自己的自己手段的限度，搞懂在限度中擁有的發展前途，帶著遊玩的臨時創造態度繼續走下去。

I want to end by sharing an essay that sharpened me. This essay is ziq's “The Futility of Struggle,” and it's the first critique about struggle that I ever read. In the essay, ziq says that the only thing they're sure of is what they can control in front of themself. With regards to the political effects of game design, I have the same attitude. We don't need our games to pursue the realization of some great cause, we don't need to make ourselves be the cause's martyring messiahs—what we need is to honestly face the limits of ourselves and our own methods, understand what paths for development are within our limits, and bring the improvisation of play with us as we keep moving down those paths.

(這裡免費遊玩 play for free here)

這遊戲的靈感來源是我在象站上看到的 Dungeons 機器人帳號，它利用投票的方式來進行隨機創造的冒險。我看到其中一個在冒險開始的投票可以投「退休」，覺得如果大家一起在每個冒險開始的時候都投「退休」會很好笑，而且因為阻止了冒險同時也能讓每個冒險家完全避免死亡。因此我被《躺平與地下城》這點子引誘，雖然那不是我想為遊戲取的名字。

The inspiration for this game came from a bot account I saw on Mastodon called Dungeons, which used polls to advance randomly generated adventures. When I saw that you could vote to “retire” at the start of an adventure, I thought that it would be funny if everyone banded together to vote “retire” at the start of every adventure, and also let every adventurer completely avoid death by preventing adventure in the first place. So I was hooked by the idea of doing a game of Dungeons & Dropouts, although that wasn't what I wanted to name the game.

《歸真之旅》這遊戲名是《歸家之旅》的異軌，該烏托邦似的遊戲描述在擺脫暴力的戰後世界中的共同旅行。相反，《歸真之旅》是個反烏托邦似的遊戲，描述在資本主義和殖民主義製造的世界之中無法逃離的暴力和異化。《歸家之旅》是創造共同體的遊戲。《歸真之旅》是創造階級意識的遊戲。共產，依 prole.info 的辯論，其實需要克服共同體的鬥爭—需要克服分開或否認無產階級的資產階級共同體。《歸真之旅》是個除了在廢除被剝奪財產階級之中創造的共同體之外，什麼共同體都不承認的遊戲。此外，《歸真之旅》疑問在時空被工作和國界殖民化的世界裡為什麼要把共同旅行作為烏托邦。在遷移本質上就是被殖民力生產的情況之下，為何把暴力的擺脫處於移動的自由？

The title of Wanderhell is a détournement of Wanderhome, which is a utopian game about communal journeys in a post-war world free from violence. In contrast, Wanderhell is a dystopian game about the inescapability from violence and alienation in a world created by capitalism and colonialism. Wanderhome is a game of creating community. Wanderhell is a game of creating class consciousness. Communism, prole.info argues, actually requires a struggle of overcoming community—the bourgeois community that divides or denies the proletarian class. Wanderhell is a game that refuses to recognize any community except the community created by abolishing the dispossessed class. In addition, Wanderhell questions the utopianism of communal journeys in a world of time and space colonized by work and borders. When migration is inherently produced by colonial forces, why locate freedom from violence in freedom of mobility?

因此，移動的自由在《歸真之旅》之中具有暴力的功能。你扮演的是聲名狼藉的遊盪怪獸，就是在傳統 TRPG 中冒險家隨機能碰到的怪獸。在遊戲設計方面，遊蕩怪獸的目的通常就是要讓玩家感覺到冒險自然的危險，或是讓隨機的骰數創造新奇的遊戲狀況。總之，怪獸遊蕩的原因就是為了遊戲團扮演的冒險家的獨佔利益。

Hence, freedom of mobility in Wanderhell serves a violent function. You play as an infamous wandering monster, a monster that adventurers randomly encounter in traditional TRPGs. In terms of game design, the purpose of wandering monsters is often to let players feel the danger of adventuring in a natural way, or to let the randomness of dice create new and interesting game conditions. In short, the monster only wanders for the exclusive benefit of the adventurers played by the group.

這獨佔利益體現於《歸真之旅》地下城的經濟功能。你扮演的遊盪怪獸是黑耀公司的僱工；黑耀是我在《下世萬敵》之中創造的人類殖民地開拓者的重生點。黑耀公司創造的地下城不只是你的工作地，也是人類的殖民地—而且這次被殖民的不一定是非人的怪獸，可能是通過非人化被視為是怪獸的人。地下城是某個被指定剝削的地區—地下城化也就是與工業化和無產階級化相似。在地下城的怪獸就是為了玩家、冒險家、至上主義種族及帝國的獨佔利益而多層被剝奪財產的人。

This exclusive benefit is embodied in the economic function of dungeons in Wanderhell. You play as a wandering monster who is the employee of the Blackbright Company; Blackbright is the spawn point for human colonizers I created in Future Only Enemies. The dungeon created by Blackbright Company is not only your worksite, but a site of human colonization—and this time the colonized may not necessarily be nonhuman monsters, but humans regarded as monsters through dehumanization. A dungeon is an area designated for exploitation—dungeonization is meant to parallel industrialization and proletarianization. A monster in a dungeon is one who is multiply dispossessed for the exclusive benefit of players, adventurers, supremacist races, and empire.

《歸真之旅》之中的遊蕩不是在體現移動的自由，而是在體現這些宰制與剝削造成的移動強迫。遊蕩這行業處於的零工經濟以自由移動的幻想為前提。就跟 Uber 一樣，黑耀吹捧控制自己為工作在時空移動的自由，把自由定義為自我管理的殖民化。在你遊蕩的每一階段，你意識到這宣傳的真面目、意識到靠工作生存的意義—就是必須再生產殖民化才能繼續活下去。在這個系統當中，任何關於工作自由的選擇—無論是工作時間、地點或職業—都只是剝削方式的選擇，都是暴力的自由。

Wandering in Wanderhell does not embody freedom of mobility, but the mobility forced by these dominations and exploitations. The industry of wandering is situated in a gig economy premised on the illusion of free mobility. Just like Uber, Blackbright touts your freedom to control your movement through time and space for work, defining freedom as self-managed colonization. At every stage of wandering, you realize the true nature of this propaganda, realize the meaning of relying on work to survive—it is being required to reproduce colonization in order to continue to survive. In this system, any choice regarding the freedom of work—whether it's in time, place, or profession—is only a choice in method of exploitation, is only a violent freedom.

《歸真之旅》的目的不是要單獨挑出《歸家之旅》來做批評，反而是要批評《歸家之旅》體現的一種逃避現實的烏托邦主義。我知道《歸家之旅》的設計家不是什麼沒體驗過資本主義壓迫的人，知道那設計家其實有當過無房可歸的人、知道設計家是有受到順性別加異性戀主義以及能者宰制壓迫的酷兒殘疾人。我也知道很多跟那設計家一樣被剝削的人是真的能在現實中的逃避找到痛苦解脫的感覺。但我就是不能。對我來說，唯一的解脫就是破壞和重新創造社會。對我來說，《歸家之旅》對社會的破壞實在是不夠。它本來就不是要這麼做。但《歸真之旅》就是。我也是。

The purpose of Wanderhell isn't to single out Wanderhome for criticism, but to criticize a certain type of utopianism embodied by Wanderhome. I know the designer of Wanderhome isn't somebody who has never experienced the oppression of capitalism, know that that designer has been unhoused, know that that designer is a queer disabled person who has been oppressed by cisheterosexism and ableism. I also know that many others exploited like that designer truly do find a sense of relief from suffering through escape from reality. But I can't. To me, the only relief comes from destroying and making society anew. Wanderhome does not destroy enough of society for me. It wasn't meant to. But Wanderhell was. And I am.

延伸閱讀 Further Reading

• 〈躺平主义者宣言〉“The Tangpingist Manifesto”
• 〈解放人民，而不是領土：採訪烏克蘭流亡者〉 “Liberating people, not territories: Interview with a Ukrainian exile
• 〈這位特立獨行的送貨員希望您擺脫這些應用程式〉 “This Maverick Delivery Person Wants You to Break Free of the Apps”
• 〈女人為了逃避付出雙倍的代價〉“When someone can no longer go forward, you carry them.” (Original title: “Women pay double for fleeing”)