Nobody's Place or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Grok Equipment Lists and Setting Lore in TRPGs

最近我讀了 Phil A. Neel 跟 Nick Chavez 寫的〈森林和工廠：共產的科學與幻想〉；此中他們批評一種對想像未來烏托邦似的傾向。因為它拒絕考慮現存的物質限制，這烏托邦似的傾向不只失敗脫離資本主義的現狀，反而導致了現狀的接受和延續。在剩下的文章之間，他們試圖認真考慮那些物質限制，包括基本生活需要的工業基礎建設以及維修那基礎建設的需要，探索共產的世界到底需要什麼樣的生產系統改變。他們的評論完全轉換了我對 TRPG 設計的處理方式，尤其是關於裝備單跟世界設定背景的用處。

Recently I finished reading “Forest and Factory: The Science and the Fiction of Communism” by Phil A. Neel and Nick Chavez, in which they criticize a utopian tendency towards imagining the future. Because it refuses to consider existent material limits, this utopian tendency not only fails to break away from the capitalist status quo, but leads to the status quo's acceptance and continuation. In the rest of the essay, they attempt to seriously consider those material limits, including the industrial infrastructure needed for basic life needs and the needs to maintain that infrastructure, exploring how systems of production need to change in a communist world. Their observations completely transformed my approach towards TRPG design, particularly with regards to the usefulness of equipment lists and setting lore.

至今，我是完全拒絕在自己設計中利用裝備單或超越最低限度的世界設定背景，因為我在自己的跑團經驗中學到玩家就是不想管那些事。玩家寧願臨時想要有什麼就擲個骰子或花個點數去取，寧願完全按照自己的希望臆造世界。除了自己想像力的限制，玩家什麼限制都不想有—不想有物質限制、不想有歷史限制、不想有社會限制、什麼都不想有。換言之，玩家就是烏托邦似的—我也是。因為遊戲世界中的現實就是我們完全能控制的領域。在遊戲的現實之中，我們就是完全不必需要管真正世界會需要我們管的限制，因為我們可以直接用想像力廢除那些限制。在遊戲的現實之中，什麼願望決都能實現。烏托邦不是「沒有的地方」，而是「除了我們沒有任何人控制的地方」。

Until today, I was completely against using equipment lists or setting lore beyond the minimum amount, because my experience in running games taught me that players just don't want to care about those things. Players wanted to just roll some dice or spend some points to get something whenever they needed it in the moment, to construct the world completely according to their own wishes. Besides the limits of their own imaginations, players wanted to have no limits at all—no material limits, no historical limits, no social limits, nothing. In other words, players were utopian—and I was too. Because the reality of the game world was completely under our control. In the reality of a game, we didn't need to consider any limits we'd have to consider in the real world, because we could just immediately abolish those limits with our imagination. In the reality of a game, all wishes could come true. Utopia wasn't “no place,” but “nobody's place but ours.”

正如我在〈映像之龍〉中做的評論，這種烏托邦的存在需要遊戲團在政治方面的同質。這是個保守的同質，為了保存團內人的政治理解問題化任何對那些想法的激進或革命性挑戰。沒錯，什麼願望決都能實現，只要是剩下團內的人能接受你的願望。沒錯，什麼限制都能廢除，只要是你認為該廢除或不廢除的東西跟其他人一模一樣。

As I observed in “The Dragon in the Mirror,” this kind of utopia required the political homogeneity of the playgroup in order to exist. This is a conservative homogeneity that, for the sake of conserving the political understanding of people within the group, problematizes any radical or revolutionary challenges to those ways of thought. That's right, all wishes could come true, as long as your wish was accepted by the rest of the group. That's right, all limits could be abolished, as long as the things you wanted or didn't want to be abolished were the same as that of everyone else.

對烏托邦似的玩家來說，一切妨礙自我表現，從個人情緒到政治看法，都是該廢除的限制。遊戲的正文是個限制。GM 是個限制。其他的玩家也是限制。或許烏托邦似的遊戲設計師就是試圖為了一切的廢除鋪平場地的人，包括自己的廢除。可是這種一切的廢除不是共產對現存狀況的廢除，因為它跟為了結束資本主義異化的現實共產運動並沒有關係。相反，這只是個人或少數人為了自己娛樂的主觀主義行動。它和資本系統的無干涉主義更有雷同。

To the utopian player, all that stands in the way of self-expression, from personal feelings to political views, are limits that should be abolished. The game's text is a limit. The GM is a limit. Other players are also limits. Perhaps a utopian game designer is one who sets the stage for the abolition of everything, including the abolition of themselves. But this abolition is not communism's abolition of the current state of things, because it has nothing to do with a real communist movement to end capitalist alienation. On the contrary, it's the subjectivist endeavor of one person or a few for personal entertainment. It has more affinity with capitalist laissez-faireism.

那麼，把烏托邦派在遊戲中對現實的廢除改變成共產現實運動對現存狀況的廢除倒底需要什麼？我們必須重新評估彼此廢除限制的目的，按照更嚴謹的政治標準來做出決定。直接想像出反資本主義的世界是不夠的事。我們必須在遊戲的細節之中搞清楚虛構跟現實世界的物質生產差別如何能導致我們想像出來的反資本主義社會。我們必須把這些差別的設計視為攻擊現存狀況的機會，暴露實現共產的可能性的機會。

So what would it take to transform the utopians' abolition of reality in games to the communist real movement's abolition of the current state of things? We must reevaluate the purpose behind each other's abolition of limits, and make decisions according to more rigorous political standards. It is not enough to simply imagine anticapitalist worlds. We must make it clear in the details of the game how differences between material production in the fictional versus real world can lead to the anticapitalist societies we've imagined. We must see the design of these differences as an opportunity to attack the current state of things, an opportunity to expose the possibility of communism being realized.

從這個角度來看，裝備單跟世界設定背景變成革命性的武器。他們不再是純粹妨礙反抗現狀的限制，而是透過玩家角色的工具跟虛構的歷史了解一個遊戲世界中物質跟社會再生產的圖例。正如 Ignatius 所寫的話：「所有的工具在生產的起點都有預期的用途。所有的工具被用在世界之中的時候都有被實現的用途。所有的工具都會影響我們如何跟世界建立關係，就算是效果不大。無法把一個工具跟它產生的關係分開，也沒有『中立』的關係這回事。」在裝備單上的每一個物品不只代表遊戲角色跟遊戲世界的一種關係，也同時代表遊戲設計師希望產生的玩家跟遊戲關係。世界設定背景通常會更詳細地解釋這些關係的特性和發展，提供豐富的異軌資料。

From this angle, equipment lists and setting lore become revolutionary weapons. They are no longer purely limits that obstruct rebellion against reality, but keys to understanding a game world's material and social reproductions through the player characters' tools and fictional history. As Ignatius writes: “All tools have some intended use at the point of their production. All tools have realized uses once they are employed in the world. All tools affect the ways we relate to the world around us, even if their effects are small. There is no separating a tool from the relations it engenders, and there is no such thing as a 'neutral' relation.” Every item on an equipment list not only represents a relation between an in-game character and the in-game world, but also the relation that the game designer hopes to engender between the player and the game. Setting lore often elaborates on the nature and development of these relations in greater detail, providing rich material for détournement.

最後，我想提出一些協助為了廢除現存狀況的遊戲分析、遊玩與設計的問題。這些問題的目的是闡釋遊戲的「基礎」（設計、虛構世界的物質生產系統）如何影響「上層建築」（遊玩風格、虛構角色的社會關係）。

In closing, I'd like to suggest a couple questions to aid in the analysis, playing, and design of games for the purpose of abolishing the current state of things. The purpose of these questions to clarify how the game's “base” (design, systems of material production in the fictional world) impacts the “superstructure” (playing style, social relations among fictional characters).

• 哪些資源最重要（描述更多、種類更多、在背景或機構中有特別的角色）？哪些最不重要？這對玩家角色跟遊戲世界的關係有什麼樣的意味？那種關係又對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？對玩家該如何使用遊戲的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• What resources are most important in the game (more description, more varieties, special roles in lore or mechanics)? The least important? What does this imply about the relationship between the player character and the game's world? What does that relationship imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? About how the player should be using the game? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 玩家角色如何獲取生存需要的資源？那些資源跟獲取方式跟非玩家角色的差別多大？有某些非玩家角色的情況比其他人的更好嗎？為什麼？這對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• How are resources the player character needs for survival sourced in the game? How different are those resources and the sourcing process from that of non-player characters? Do some non-player characters have it easier than others? Why? What does that imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 角色在遊戲中能使用的物品是如何被生產的？那生產系統是如何地被維修或持續？玩家角色跟那生產系統有什麼樣的關係？非玩家角色呢？有沒有誰剝削或是被剝削？這對遊戲世界在社會和經濟方面的組織方式有什麼樣的意味？玩這個遊戲時會在現實中再生產什麼樣的社會關係？

• How are items usable by characters in the game produced? How is that system of production maintained or perpetuated? What is the relationship of player characters to that system of production? Of non-player characters? Is there anyone who expropriates or is expropriated? What does that imply about how the game's world is socially and economically organized? What social relations are reproduced when the game is played?

• 遊戲中有錢這回事嗎？有的話，你會如何廢除（在虛構世界中有什麼物質和社會關係需要改變，而且你會如何想像這些改變的發展）？

• Does money exist in the game? If it does, how would you abolish it (what material and social relations in the fictional world would need to change, and how would you imagine those changes developing)?