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.