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.