The tabletop hobby has grown significantly in recent years. Not just in terms of the number of players or games available, but in ideas and innovation too. We are living through a golden age of board games, with new and exciting ideas seeming to appear every week.
But in this hobby sometimes the tried and tested themes remain throughout the constant change and innovation we see. Although they may have faded in popularity games themed around colonial conquest and/or expansion have been a staple of board gaming for years. In any given board gaming shop you can find dozens of examples that follow similar ideas of explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.
Whether it’s in straightforward historical settings or alternate universes the idea of players competing to carve up and dominate a shared map is common in tabletop gaming. In many cases this is part of a harmless setting that doesn’t present any issues – but often too games can require players to engage with real-world historical violence as a gameplay mechanic.
In hugely popular games like Puerto Rico, Age Of Empires or Imperial Settlers players are actively encouraged in taking actions that in reality equated to the displacement and murder of native groups and the exploitation of slave labour. The way in which games like these treat historic injustices is arguably problematic. However, many who love these games can defend their themes by claiming that fun is most important – and that critiquing complex sociohistorical problems in the world is not the job of a board game designer.
Understanding our shared history is important; especially so when it comes to issues like colonialism that have had such a powerful impact on our world. Engaging with history in various ways, even through board games, can be an incredibly valuable way of understanding this impact. However, the way in which board games fail to be critical of certain aspects of history, definitely paints colonialism in an unjustly positive light. (In the previously mentioned games there are no alternatives – if you fail or refuse to engage then you simply lose the game).
Critiquing the outdated ideas and ideologies of colonialism should be done whenever it is suitable. In our daily lives we often strive to criticise the hurtful and damaging ideas of things such as these. However, this still raises the argument of how this could, or should, look in the board gaming world.
The board game community is filled with incredibly smart and well-informed people. Unlike any other hobbyist community the ability to ability to be self-critical is common among fans and designers alike. But with this being said, there is still much uncertainty over what this means for designers and the themes of colonialism. Should designers be responsible for critiquing these ideas, or should players be left with a historically accurate setting and left to draw their own conclusions?
Like with TV, film and all other forms of art and media – the argument that something doesn’t need to be critical, simply fun, is quickly fading. Board gaming needs to be accessible for all people – including those who may find the notion of their ancestors being treated as passive game mechanics unsavoury or offensive. But for now, how exactly game designers can address these issues while keeping fun at the center of their work, is an ongoing struggle.
A short essay on a very similar topic, trying to describe but also to explain the issue :
http://faidutti.com/blog/?p=3780
(Scroll down for english version)
Great post. It draws to mind for me three games that have an “evolutionary acceptance” of territorial conquest: Britannia, History of the World and Smallworld. Each has the mechanism of make the most of what you’ve got, and because you play different ‘tribes’ in subsequent turns you may find yourself “cannibalising” your own earlier pieces to expand. People new to these games feel the pain and confusion at having to “lose” their own “forces”. This, in a small way, brings home the zero sum elements of colonial expansion. What might be an interesting challenge would be to create a non-zero sum colonial expansion game dynamic whereby moving in becomes mutually beneficial. This can happen in reality (if not typically), so it could be modelled.
I think that there are many great games that follow colonial or imperial tendencies. You mention some, but even games like Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne mirror expansionist tendencies.
Do I criticise them as I play them? Definitely not. Am I worried after I’ve played them? Also definitely not!
Should I worry about them? Personally, I think not, because I have thought hard about certain aspects of British and other imperial histories, and recognise both good and bad in much of them.
There are many grey areas as well, where perhaps one idigenous group or culture benefitted whilst another suffered within a single colony.
The appropriateness of the balance becomes a philosophical debate depending on the balance of values.
Does the benefit to the many outweigh the benefit to the few?
That certainly can lead to interesting debate.
As to the role of board games in highlighting the plight of those suffering from colonialism or imperialism: as long as I find the game fun to play, then I’m happy about it either way, although I do believe that everyone should understand the potential and strive to prevent it happening again.
If there’s an educational element in a game, then I’m fine in principle with that.
My concern wold be that we could be heading for a “game” version of history which could be just as bad as the “Hollywood” history that is one of the legacies of the film industry.
The resposibility would be with the game designer to ensure that education was given in a balanced manner in spite of their own political and philosophical standpoints.
I question whether anyone with a strong leaning towards one position could do that.
It is a great question, though, and has caused me to think deeply about the issues; what I’ve written above is my first inkling, and I’m happy for others to disagree with me.
This looks as if it could be a great thread to follow 🙂
Good post.
I think however that this is only one of many aspects that boardgames don’t deal with well. The ‘history’ in boardgames often just reflects the partial view of history that Western cultures have established. There are massive omissions of relevant culture and perspective. And that’s without considerations of race, religion, gender … I don’t want to turn every boardgame into an issue of political correctness; and I do *love* historical games; I just hope that in the same way that many RPGs have evolved their sense of identity and acknowledged many sources of inspiration that boardgames do more of the same.
I think the game Colonialism handles it well. While the “natives” and troops on the board are abstracted, the art on the card pulls no punches about the sorts of evils you are carrying out. One card for instance depicts a fat businessman (ie you) next to a set of scales, one side holds coins, the other has skulls. It does not revel in this, and the art style makes you think of wartime propaganda only that you, the player, is the evil enemy it portrays. It is certainly dark, and there is always talk after the end of the game about what the game means and what it means in historical and contemporary conflicts. The game is clear, you are the evil in this world and look at what you had to do to ‘win’.