You would
think that, given the opportunity, the majority of people would try to improve
life – at least to the best of their ability. However, for some reason this
doesn’t appear to be the case. There is an element to this related to the fact
that those with the ability to bring about change don’t see the need for it,
while those who want change the most lack the means. But, if this is the case,
why do we see the same thing reflected in our fiction?
With few
(at least, comparatively few) exceptions, our fictional worlds tend to function
remarkably similarly to ours. Oh, the names of everything changes, but there’s
almost always some form of monetary system and a hierarchy of who is in charge –
be it a democracy, meritocracy, theocracy, monarchy, or one of any number of
other types, there is the familiar leadership structure.
Now, there are reasons for doing this. Familiarity is
important to help people be engaged with the content. If it isn’t an integral
part of the story, having a consumer learn and figure out a whole new structure
for a society is tedious and unnecessary. So, what people already know is what
gets the most representation, which is fair – but I’ve noticed something else,
as well: if people are given the option in a factional setting to make things
different, they still choose to go with the familiar.
The first
example I have of this is the Dungeons & Dragons campaign I’m running. It’s
set in a world I created with the specific intention of allowing the players to
have a lot of control over how their society would develop. They were put in a
situation where they were building up a civilization, where they were some of
the most influential people around, and where there was no monetary system
because everyone was struggling to survive. Did they try to influence their government
into taking a new, potentially better structure? No. Did they try to create a
new system of bartering? No – in fact, they specifically wanted the familiar monetary
system and, through actions based on assuming it would resurface, accidentally
caused it to re-emerge.
Now I’m seeing
the same thing again in Chronicles of Elyria. This is a game designed to be
almost entirely within the control of the players – they run the governments
and control the economies, laws, and the research. It is perfectly set up for
people to test new ways of doing things, and yet... All these people who are
setting up governments are setting up the familiar governing systems (to be
fair, these are partially built into the game’s feudal system), planning for
the same familiar capitalistic monetary systems, and planning on law systems
that reflect our own.
I don’t
fault them for any of this – it’s all very practical – but I can’t help seeing
these scenarios and thinking, why are we just doing the same things over again?
Why are we reusing material that, while it works, we know it doesn’t work well?
In the real world, I understand – change takes a lot of time, investment, and
risk in the real world. On the other hand, in a game, when given this much
ability to build and design how the world will function, there is far less
risk. Why do we fall back on the same old dysfunctional systems?
Familiarity
is the key, I believe. It’s familiar, comfortable, and easy, so that’s how we
choose to do things. We know it isn’t perfect, but at least we know what to
expect. It’s all very sensible, of course, but we’re missing out on trying to
find a better way of doing things. If we can’t be bothered to find a better way
in our fiction, how can we expect to find a better way in our reality?
Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.
Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.
If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment