Theme

Discussions of "Theme" was one of the first things I encountered when I joined Board Game Geek and became seriously interested in board games. Video game people don't really talk about theme -- not in the same way the board gamers do. Theme, which is to say, "the game's setting", is important to board gamers. Sure there are plenty of fans of abstract games like "Go" or the "gipf" games, but most of the big time boardgame fans have a thing or two to say about the theme of their games.

The prevailing wisdom is that games that have "a lot of theme", suffer in terms of mechanics and games whose focus is on elegant or clever mechanics tend to have dry or shallow themes. The argument goes that a highly developed theme requires extra rules, extra bits, and extra book keeping throughout the game in order to support the subject matter, while games that have compact and elegant rule-sets must necessarily abstract a lot of the "cool stuff" that goes into making a great theme. All sides acknowledge that there are are games that manage to somehow break this rule and do both or maybe just fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. These are the games that many people hold up as "great".

I've always found something missing in this conversation. Many of the games detracted for having shallow or dry themes, seemed very intriguing to me, while other games that were supposedly rich and detailed in their setting ended up failing to capture my imagination.

Recently the guys over at the "Boardgames to go" podcast had a discussion on theme that introduced me to some cool concepts about theme that are worth exploring. You can listen to the conversation here: [link] and I recommend that you do. The ideas put forth by Greg Pettit and Mark Johnson have real potential but at times the discussion lacks focus. After thinking more on the subject I think I know what's missing.

The basic idea put forth (Primarily by Greg) is that what gamers understand as "Theme" is really an amalgam of two separate qualities. These are "Narrative" and "Metaphor" and they are independent of one another. A game could therefore score strong in narrative and weak in metaphor, or strong in both, or weak in both, or anywhere in between. In the most general sense, metaphor is there to help make the game easier to understand and narrative is there to help make the game fun.

Greg is very clear as to what "Metaphor as theme" means: Metaphor is a measure of whether or not the rules or mechanics in a game make thematic sense. He is less clear about what "Narrative" theme is. Throughout the podcast Pettit seems to say that Narrative theme is basically the game's setting. It's the flavor text -- the writing on the back of the box.

This definition is incomplete, especially if these two categories are to be judged independent of one another. In order to figure out what is missing from this definition, I'll take a well known game and break it down in terms of narrative and metaphor.

For this example I'll take the well known board game "Monopoly". What aspects of Monopoly could be described as theme as metaphor?

In Monopoly the players represent real estate tycoons. Throughout the game they acquire property. If someone spends time on your property, you charge them rent. Charging someone for the time spent on your property scores high on theme as metaphor. If you spend more money on your property in order to upgrade it, you get to charge more rent. This also scores high on theme as metaphor. The movement around the board (which traditionally represents Atlantic City) scores low on metaphor, since your movement is dictated entirely by chance ("I'm sorry Mr. Trump, I know you were interested in Park Place but you rolled an 11 so you'll have to take a look at Baltic Avenue instead").

The narrative theme of Monopoly is: "A game of Real Estate investment where players are trying to make the most money and avoid going bankrupt." The first question to ask is "How do we evaluate the strength of Monopoly's narrative theme?". Metaphorical themes are easy to evaluate, either a rule makes thematic sense or it doesn't (It makes sense that I - as a Real Estate Tycoon - make money off of people staying at my hotels).

One might suggest that the strength of the narrative theme is measured by how engaging or appealing an idea it is. While this is certainly an important thing to consider, it is also entirely too subjective to be reliable. The only thing we are left with as a way to evaluate the Narrative strength of this game's theme is based on how it "feels" at the end of the game. Did I "feel" like a Real Estate Tycoon?

If this is our only method of judging a game's Narrative, than it's hard to imagine a case where the metaphoric theme is weak, while the narrative theme is strong. Imagine that we change the rules to Monopoly. In this alternate version, players who land on an opponents property are required to sing a song. Players can upgrade their properties but only after being sent to jail and the game ends when one person lands on free parking. The metaphors are so weak in this example and it's hard to imagine that this game would "feel" true it's intended setting.

If Pettit's theory is to remain useful it needs further clarification. The narrative theme is ultimately the game's story and a story is based on the actions of it's characters. The narrative theme is not only the game's setting, but it's the actions afforded to the players within the course of play. If we accept that that narrative theme is not only "what this game is about" but also "what the players can do", we have a much more concrete way evaluating it, AND it can remain independent of metaphorical theme. It becomes a more powerful tool for evaluation.

Continuing the Monopoly example with this enhanced understanding of narrative, one asks, "What can I do in a game of Monopoly?". The answer being something like, "You can buy, auction, and trade properties. You can charge rent. You can upgrade your properties. You might go to jail. You might go bankrupt." Notice we are not examining the actual rules or mechanics (which is the realm of metaphor). With this model we can easily separate metaphor and narrative. It basically becomes a question of "what can you do?" and "how do you do it?".

"What can you do?" also gives us a more concrete way to evaluate narrative theme that is less subjective. Ra (as an example) is a game that always struck me as a little dry. The box says that it's a game about expanding power and influence in ancient Egypt, but all that you do in the game is participate in auctions. When you ask, "What do you do in Ra?" and answer "You participate in auctions", you can almost definitively respond with "That has a weak narrative theme".

-ER