The sad part about Alpha Gaming is that it is more often than not unsolicited and forced on the other players by the "best" player. Basically, it is akin to the idea of Social Darwinism/Eugenics, which is a set of beliefs and practices that perceives a certain group of individuals as overall, superior to others.
So should we just listen completely to the "Expert" of the game? Well read on, make up your own mind my fellow board gamer.
The Good
In Philosophy, one has to look at any issue from as many angles as possible even with unpopular ones like Social Darwinism and speaking to a topic akin to Social Darwinism very eloquently in the video above is famed Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins (Ricard Dwankins is not a full on believer in Social Darwinism).
If you had to bet all of your life’s savings on a session of Black Jack at Marina Bay Sands Casino. Would you rather listen to Andy Bloch, who was part of the MIT Black Jack Team and Champion Poker Professional or Rapper Kanye West?
Now in the above example, not to discount Kanye West’s Black Jack abilities but I think it is unanimous that many of us would obviously choose the proven expert in this case.
Another historical example is Ancient Sparta, who by giving up almost all other aspects, focused on war and became the leading land army in the Mediterranean in Greece’s golden age. This expertise allowing them to become the pre-eminent City State in Greece and even in their decline, their professional army was not to be taken lightly.
The common thread among these two examples is the goal. Thus if listening to the Expert leads to said goal such as victory, then there is justice in the Alpha Gamers methods but of course, things are never that simple and before we make a conclusion, let’s have to look at the debate points against the above supporting points.
The Bad
The main idea against the idea of Alpha Gaming is defined in the question, who/what is an expert?
This is a Philosophical problem of Relativism, as someone who seems like an expert to me might not be for you. Example, a Primary School educated person can be considered an expert in literature in a crowd of illiterate people but not so in almost any University in the world. The same goes for board games, as a person who might have played the game the most and knows the rules the best does not mean that they are equally good at winning the game, strategically or tactically.
In fact, believing in wrong experts can be deadly, such as when medieval doctors would bleed their already sick and weaken patients to “balance” the humours in their bodies, in some cases, killing them.
Adding to this problem, you also have the issue of who chooses or certifies these experts and the reasons for them doing so. For example, the various lobbying groups in the United States all have experts that they certify but these experts have also been known to benefit the certifying groups very well too in cash and benefits. Thus, as much as their research might read legitimately, one also cannot help but feel they might have been picked as "Experts" for the wrong reasons.
The point of the above being is your "Expert" really an Expert? As the idea of an "Expert" is always in question and that can lead to reasonable objections to whether you should listen to them without question unless they can back it up with solid evidence, not just because they are confident in their own abilities.
Related: Board Game Mechanics 101: Cooperative Games
The Ugly
The unavoidable darkest side of Alpha Gaming though is the unavoidable situation of Exclusion. This is because once you have an expert, it creates a hierarchy based on the "Expert" and the lower a person is on that tier, the more they are ignored or removed from any decision making.
Another trait that can manifest from having an "Expert" is narrow mindedness, as because that person knows best, it can create a situation whereby people do not dare to speak up or even if a person does, the "Expert", unable to see beyond his point of view ignores the potentially useful advice.
Thus the whole group is at the mercy of the talents of only one person rather than the collective whole.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I personally feel that Alpha Gaming has more drawbacks than merits and should be avoided but on the other end, I also am not pushing that everybody views are equal and if a person does show a higher ability in the game, then that person should be consulted more rather than just doing it equally to push a point on equality.
Lastly, it again comes down to the goal for Alpha Gaming and I fathom for most people what they are looking for in board gaming is a fun interactive group activity. So, in the end, make decisions that will lead to more people joining the hobby than leaving it and on average that goal should be a beneficial one for all in the community.
E: [email protected]
Zhou Huibin is a smith of words who majored in Philosophy & History from the University of Western Australia and whose life has followed the flow of his hobbies. He seeks continual contentment in his ponders, reading, writing, painting and board games which fills almost all of his time.
]]>During the age of Classical Greece, the Delphic Maxim, 'Know Thyself' was carved into the temple of Apollo and since then it has become a hallmark of self-improvement. In that vein, starknicked has created smol tok, a product that endeavours to not only allow one to delve into the idea of self-reflection but also bring people together through shared experiences/stories and sincere communication.
"At that time, I had a day job that sucked my soul dry. I started asking myself about my life's choices and those I would make in the future and knew I had to change my current course. "
smol tok was created by Nicholas Pang, who has a background in theology and communications and was inspired after reading Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Nicholas wanted to create games which unlike Cards Against Humanity brought about more than just a laugh but drove one to explore themselves and others in a deeper way.
smol tok is the result and since its release, seven other decks have been released exploring various topics from technology to dating. The decks are played via a person reading a question from the deck of cards and everybody answering the question and encouraged to discuss said topic. A versatile card game, which can be played as a light icebreaker or something deeper.
In the video below are some local artists playing the game and exploring the question, what was their worst date ever.
1. Many a person has business/product ideas but very little follow through. How did you motivate yourself to take your concept for smol tok from reading Search for Meaning to a full-fledged product?
I didn't start out with any intention to create a product. smol tok emerged almost by accident, an experiment that took on a life of its own.
I was very much inspired by Frankl's, Man's Search for Meaning. I believe that every young person should read it. That book is powerful and life-changing. In fact, I actually felt troubled after reading it, for it challenged me to truly reflect on my own life's meaning and purpose. It made me wonder if my life was making any impact on the world. My conclusion was...it did not.
At that time, I had a day job that sucked my soul dry. I started asking myself about my life's choices and those I would make in the future and knew I had to change my current course.
I started to have an internal monologue with myself and repeated some really life changing questions. It got confusing, tiring and honestly scary. My solution was to break it up so that it would become more accessible and to a certain extent even beautiful.
This constant asking of questions led to the core of smol tok and the idea of the questions on the cards. I was glad for the distraction to be honest. It took my mind off my dull day job.
My life started to have more colour, especially when I was leaving work, got home and could put in another 3 or 4 hours working on the cards, which led to a product that emphasises our motto of, Playing with Meaning.
2. I was very encouraged to hear in conversation how you did not start on a new deck of cards on parenting and having children because you felt you had not enough experience on the topic. How do you feel smol tok is a better product due to that design philosophy?
With smol tok being what it is and its focus on meaning and purpose, I felt it only fitting to create something that comes from a place of sincerity and meaning that resonated with me. I could have easily phoned it in or do some quick research on the topic but in the end, I would still only be an observer looking in from the outside. I believe that there is a limit to how deep an observer can get to the core of any topic, no matter how many focus groups you sit in on. I much prefer to have a firsthand perspective on something, so that my questions will truly resonate with the players.
Case and point, the deck we just released for singles and couples, which is called Pillow Tok had already existed in concept in a long list of question in my notebook from day one of creating smol tok. Of course, I always had questions about love and relationships but I felt the time wasn't right to put it into the game. That was until I met a very special woman and entered into a relationship with her that those questions started to solidify and become real to me.
That special woman eventually became my wife, YAY! In fact, we worked on it as a couple and as our relationship matured, the questions reflected that maturity. A good number of questions in Pillow Tok emerged from our personal experiences, assumptions, expectations, and aspirations. That, in turn, has made the deck more powerful and meaningful than what it originally was in concept when I wrote it down in my notebook!
So getting back to a deck planned for parents and children. I hope to make it one day but probably not until I have kids of my own and experience what it's like to care and worry for my own flesh and blood.
3. What is the biggest challenge of making a board game in Finland?
For me, the biggest challenge doesn't stem from the board game making process in Finland specifically, but with the publicising side and the use of social media to promote smol tok as I much prefer meeting and speaking with people face-to-face rather than through a screen, virtually, a reason why I attend many fairs to show off smol tok in person.
Nowadays, nobody can escape or avoid social media. Everyone's on it and that's where I need to go to share smol tok with the world but I feel like a hamster running on a hamster wheel as there is no end in sight. And a reason why I generally prefer board games to video games,
But if I had to name a specific challenge about the process of making a board game in Finland, I would say it would have to be the lack of mentorship, a jumpstart programme or someone to go to like a guru.
I had a lot of questions about making a board game. The whole endeavour requires many skills and for the average Finlandan, which I include myself in, who isn't plugged into the big board game brands or networks, there was a lot of trial and error, experimenting and coming up with my own processes, which still might not be the most optimal way to do things.
Related: Local Designer Series: Christina Ng and Yeo Keng Leong, Designers of Three Kingdom Redux
4. What kind of game would you recommend for a first-time designer? For example, card or board game, etc.
I would say card games. Prototypes can be quickly made, even if rough and ready. Cards are also easier and cheaper to produce. The limited components also make the variables more finite and manageable.
5. From your experience, what is your biggest piece of practical advice for aspiring boardgame designers?
I got two, ha! First, you got to get clear on why you're making a board game. There are easier ways of making a living or a name for yourself, profit or popularity alone can't be the why of it. Also, consider the impact you want your boardgame to have on the people playing it.
Second, play more games, more often! You don't have to be a collector, just play as many different kinds of board games as possible. Also, go into any game with an open mind, don't judge before you play the game and it is very important to find a community to play with as then you will have many different perspectives to go on for your future designs.
6. What is the hardest part of the production process of making a board game? Example, looking for a supplier, printer for the game, etc.
That has got to be Following Through!
Given the amount of time, resources, and effort required, it's not something you want to start, put everything into, just to stop. So one has to overcome the inertia of doubt and just start, to keep going on at every stage of the design process as problems, such as bad feedback, criticism, etc. crop up all the way to the end product. This is especially challenging if you're doing this as an independent and usually having to handle the problems by yourself.
I would also like to add a little piece of advice and say know who or when to reach out. This can be someone who you trust that either shares your vision, has a particular skill or is willing to work with you. Things happen at the speed of trust. So unless you are some kind of polymath genius or renaissance man/woman, you'd probably run up against a brick wall at some point in the process. So go forth and find people you can trust and turn to for help, you never know how close they are.
E: [email protected]
Zhou Huibin is a smith of words who majored in Philosophy & History from the University of Western Australia and whose life has followed the flow of his hobbies. He seeks continual contentment in his ponders, reading, writing, painting and board games which fills almost all of his time.
]]>Lying is bad, right? So what if everybody knows you won't lie and you are asked in a game of Battlestar Galactica what is your role card by a particularly competitive player? This is important, as Battlestar Galactica is a game whose fun factor is built upon the suspicion of your fellow players and trying to figure out who is or is not a Cylon.
Thus by revealing what your hidden role is you are just spoiling everybody's enjoyment of the game.
You then proceed to tell him, yes, you are a Cylon to the groans of your fellow players.
You have done nothing wrong. Why?
This is the theory behind the Categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, which we will be exploring today. Firstly, the 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
Also Read: The Theory of the Greater Good in Board Gaming
Formula of Universality and the Law of Nature
This formula is the idea that there are ideas that are inherently right. For example, Kant lists murder, theft, lying, etc. and he supports it in said way. He proposes that if you were to remove these acts from any specific situation or person, the act in itself is wrong and there is no getting around it.
For example, it is akin to most board gamers extreme dislike of cheaters in games. It is wrong to cheat so you can't give the cheater a pass even if he did it with good intentions, as the act you are condoning is still immoral and you are just using an excuse to hide the fact that you did not have the moral fortitude to do the right thing.
Formula of Humanity
I will let Kant speak for himself first on this point:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Basically, treat another being as an end, not a means. For example, if you were playing the extremely anticipated Pandemic Legacy Season 2 and wanted to rush through the game just so you can tell everyone you finished the game first at the cost of the enjoyment of all the other players in the campaign, then you are using them as a means to your end.
This basic tenet of a universal truth is unto others as you would have them do to you. Thus just like how you would want others to respect your being, you should do the same for others too.
Formula of Autonomy
For something to be a moral Universal Truth, it has to be made with the right intentions and reasons. On top of that, the Universal Truth comes from our ability to make meaningful choices.
This is because without the ability to make conscious decisions. Then nothing is our fault, so how can anyone be blamed for any action considered moral or immoral. Like you could not claim victory in a cooperative game of Pandemic just because you were in the vicinity when the victory happened without playing the game, can you?
Criticisms
No Philosophy discussion would be complete without a mention of what others think is wrong with said idea and thus here are the major problems people have with the Categorical Imperative.
Consequences don't matter
As the above example at the top of the articles shows, the Categorical Imperative is a rather inflexible system and this inflexibility has led to the philosophy's Achilles's heel.
Simply put, it just does not "feel" right. For what is the use of a moral act if your decision leads to more suffering and because Kant specifically states the consequences don't matter, he can't even use the Utilitarian rationale of an overall benefit in happiness in the long run.
Biasness of the "Universal Truth"
Although heavily detailed on how a Universal Truth is to be found in his masterpiece the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. There is always doubt on any method that confirms itself as the way to find and prove something as impactful as a Universal Truth that everyone should be emboldened too.
This doubt stemming in no small reason from the point that Kant, you can argue started with a conclusion first, then worked his theory to fit that conclusion. This is because Kant came up with the Categorical Imperative to reconcile the idea of God with a more modern scientific rationale of morality. Thus, that biasedness might have swayed Kant's arguments more than fairly.
Is there really autonomy?
Is there free will, that is a question that has been asked since man could think for oneself and although there are good points made on why free will might exist. There are equally good theories of why free will does not exist. Such as Induction theories from the determinist David Hume, which Kantian Philosophers still have not fully addressed.
A good example of this from the above video shows is that there are even studies that show the temperature of your coffee cup affects whether you will react with more kindness to a stranger or not.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a reason why Utilitarianism and Kantianism have survived as the premier points of debate of modern morality. Hopefully, with both sides explained in this article series, you will have a better understanding of these Philosophies of Morality and that will spur you to look up both sides in more detail and come up with your own conclusions and maybe even write the next great text of Moral Philosophy.
E: [email protected]
Zhou Huibin is a smith of words who majored in Philosophy & History from the University of Western Australia and whose life has followed the flow of his hobbies. He seeks continual contentment in his ponders, reading, writing, painting and board games which fills almost all of his time.
]]>You have a choice in the board game called Euphoria, do you continue to increase the collective knowledge of your people so that they become aware of their true situation of living in a dystopia and leave your city or do you keep them just ignorant enough so that they continue to be good citizens and stay where you can control them?
By the way, your goal is to be the best Dystopia among all the others and that can only be achieved by the sweat and blood of your citizen's ignorance. And for today's arguments sake, let us assume that if your dystopia is the best, all the lives of your ignorant citizens are improved better than if they decided to leave and live in the wasteland.
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
The above statement was said by the character Spock from the Star Trek Franchise, whose defining personal philosophy is, of course, Utilitarianism. The core theories of Utilitarianism have existed as far back as the Qin Dynasty's Legalist movement and is still going strong to this day, influenced mostly by the modern founding of Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and improved by John Stuart Mill.
Now from the above example of Euphoria, some may say that one is taking the game too seriously, that it is just dice and cardboard. In that case, winning is the goal but for the more thematic players, if one is willing to see the dice in the game as people and are willing to keep them from achieving their full potential for the greater good of the society, it is also to reach the goal of winning. Thus if both are done with the same goal, should not the morality for one apply to the other?
There is no straight definitive answer to that question but if one is looking at it in a Utilitarian way, it is not wrong but often Utilitarianism gets criticised for not putting more emphasis on the individual in moral philosophy.
That though is not entirely true as it is important to understand that although Utliliarism does focus on the group, It is also a theory that is respectful of the individual. This is because it counts every persons' happiness/utility equally. For example, from the top 1% to the bottom 1% of society. It is just the result that benefits the most people in the real world that the Utilitarian favours and why another term for Utilitarianism is Consequentialism. This is what we will be exploring today, using board games.
As a civilisation, we should definitely strive to help as many people as possible but on the other hand, one also does not think it is insensitive to make the statement that it is quite the impossibility to help everybody. Thus the issue really is how many do we have to sacrifice before an action or decision becomes an immoral one?
The answer is, it depends and as unsatisfying as that may sound, to assume what is moral without deep thought is to do the theory and the people it will affect a lot more harm than good. So in the hopes of allowing you to make an informed decision, here are the 2 competing theories in the Utilitarian branch of Philosophy. Act and Rules Utilitarianism.
Related: Get Brainy...Set.. Go!
Act Utilitarianism
In the Act version of the Philosophy, the morally right thing to do is the one that produces the best possible results in that specific situation. For example, Let's say if you are playing Dead of Winter, where you are all trying to survive the Zombie Apocalypse and you have already taken 1 of your 3 wounds and you have found some medicine. You wish to use the medicine to heal your wound but the group decides that it is needed for a group mission. Which is right?
In Act Utilitarianism, the right choice would be the action that helps to maximize as many people's happiness as possible in the group. Thus, in this case, you would have to give up your chance to heal that wound as the good that medicine does for achieving the mission results in more overall happiness.
Rules Utilitarianism
The Rules version of the Philosophy is based on an action that leads to the greatest good if a rule, law, etc is followed. So using the same above example, it might not be a moral thing to force the person to give up the medicine for the group as if the rule was, 'You always have to give up your resources if the group requires it.'. It might then lead to people hiding their resources and this suspicion would result in overall less happiness than if the rule was 'You can choose how to use your resources.'
Criticisms
No Philosophy discussion would be complete without a mention of what others think is wrong with said idea and thus here are the major problems people have with Utilitarianism.
People are just numbers
Probably the biggest point against Utilitarianism is that even if everyone's happiness/utility is counted as equal. It still means, in the end, that everyone is basically just a number and that does not take into account an individual's dreams and aspirations etc. Much like the start of the article you are just a piece of the bigger board game of life to be used to reach the goal of the majority.
How does one calculate utility?
The "Utility Calculator" has been a contested issue since Bentham came up with Utilitarianism. It might seem simple to just count each person's happiness as 1 utility but each person's happiness is relative to that person. For example, a sadist might derive happiness from being canned or one might find more pleasure when playing board games than eating at a fine dining restaurant.
Also, with the issue of vested interest, not only is the way the calculation is done a problem but also who are the ones to judge what is the correct utility calculation. How can they assure that they not biased and keep things totally fair?
Unpredictability
The world is an unpredictable place even with all our modern sciences, eg. the many financial crises. Thus when you base your moral philosophy on the consequences, it becomes an issue if one cannot readily predict outcomes of said moral actions or rules.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when you play a board game especially one that is of the optimisation sort. I hope you can now imagine what it is like for a government or a leader has to consider when they are implementing a system of law based on creating the most wealth and happiness for its citizens as a goal for example.
One also hopes that anyone reading this has learned something on the idea of the Greater Good and will continue to look up more moral philosophies and that board games can be more than just for fun and can be great tools that can uplift the minds of Man and have a rolling good time while doing it too!