Postcards From Berlin #37: The Naked Truth
By Jeff Allers
June 25, 2009
German Word of the Month: freier körper kultur (free body culture)
Despite the time of year, the weather in Berlin has remained as brisk and wet as it was in the long winter months. Sweaters and jackets are still in full rotation in my weekly wardrobe, and rare are the days for shorts or short sleeves, not to mention opportunities for shedding even more clothing. I can imagine, for some Germans at least, that must be very difficult.
Because, as many American teenage boys know, German beaches are places where even the skimpiest of swim suits are sometimes discarded in favor of bathing au naturale. It’s true that the naturist movement has been popular here for some time, but those of us who come from a more conservative background are still surprised to see the beach areas marked freier körper kultur, or FKK.
I find its popularity in this country quite ironic, considering the guardedness of most Germans and their high value on privacy, as they will often only offer their last name on a first meeting. And to tell you the truth, a stroll on one of those beaches will quickly dispatch any teenage fantasies, as you are confronted with the reality of who actually uses them. Just imagine a picnic with your extended family dressed “as God intended,” and you might get the picture – not exactly the Garden of Eden.
If you’re an outsider, however, trying to find the cultural consistencies and fit in with the cultural norms, it can throw you off-balance. My first summer in Berlin, for example, was much more balmy than this one, and I often made for one of the lakes on the weekend, exploring new parts of the city as I went. Most of the lakes offered grassy banks to sunbathers rather than beaches, so I threw down my beach towel in a nice open spot and quickly fell asleep in the sun. When I awoke, the bank had reached its capacity and the grass had disappeared beneath a sea of colorful towels as I was “fenced in” Domaine-like on all sides. But what made me sit up with a start was the man calmly reading a book right next to me, unaware that I did not appreciate him declaring the spot his own personal FKK area.
For the most part, however, one can avoid such situations if one wants to. There was only one time, in fact, that I intentionally ventured to one of those specially-marked beaches. A good friend of mine was a beach volleyball club player, and once invited me to play as his partner with some of his other buddies. We drove out to the beach, and when I saw the sign and gave him a look, he told me with a completely straight face, “There is really good sand here.” Thankfully, we kept all of our gear on as we played some pretty fierce 2-on-2 competition, but I glanced down the beach to another group of men who were also playing volleyball – wearing shirts and caps but naked below the waist. I couldn’t help but think just how silly that was, not to mention extremely uncomfortable. Sometimes, trying to break taboos and make statements is just a little ridiculous.
Of course, this is no surprise to anyone involved with the arts. There are artists in every medium who make a living trying much too hard to be controversial. There is a difference between art for the sake of shock, and art that thoughtfully reflects and critiques culture, but the former is easier to produce and, unfortunately, much more profitable these days.
The game hobby is, of course, much different, despite claims by some that board game design is an art form. Games with controversial themes remain on the fringes, perhaps attracting a bit of attention upon their release, but usually disappearing from the radar soon afterwards. Whether they be politically-charged or politically incorrect, most of these themes seem to be pasted onto uninspired mechanics for the shock value alone. Thankfully – at least in the hobby games market – that is not enough to ensure success.
And even if a talented designer were able to provide a novel game behind the veneer, I’m not sure games are the right medium to challenge cultural norms or break taboos. Speaking about a controversial subject – and thus, breaking a taboo – is much different than playing a game about that same subject. It is important to me, for example, to be able to discuss subjects such as sexual abuse and suicide bombings, and many art forms could successfully encourage discussion in these areas, but I do not feel that playing a themed board game is one of them. As it stands, the culture of the gaming table is just different from that of the cinema or the gallery – not only in the expectations of the players, but also in the level of participation (and sometimes role-playing) that is required.
Recently, for example, computer game designer Brenda Brathwaite created a board game called Train in which players compete to load pawns into black box cars. The game is supposed to have a surprise ending, in which the players suddenly learn that the train is headed for Auschwitz, although I cannot imagine that a person with any historical knowledge would not see this coming. Although Brathwaite’s idea is well-intentioned, it has not convinced me that it works successfully as a game. Not only would the determinism of the theme (i.e. lack of choices) be frustrating, but I could hardly imagine a player wanting to continue once their role as the Gestapo was clear and the pawns suddenly took on human faces.
That said, I do not believe that the game design medium is doomed to superficiality. I must admit that even I have a game design simmering that touches on a deeper – and possibly controversial – theme, as the pure challenge of it is motivation enough. But I think that such themes need to be integrated more subtly in order to be successful. Just as hobby gamers enjoy more choices in their gaming experience, they need to be given choices on how they might engage the theme, even allowing the option to ignore it altogether. The social experience of gaming face-to-face sometimes invites conversation about deeper issues, and game themes can be cues that initiate discussion, as long as too much is not revealed. Preachy games, however, have the opposite effect, as players feel forced to confront the theme.
Just as nakedness does not – by itself – promote intimacy, neither does a game that flaunts its controversial theme promote productive discussion and reflection…
…even if there is some really good “sand” there.
Posted by Jeff Allers on Jun 25, 2009 at 04:00 AM in Special Features, Postcards from Berlin / 1300
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!|
Jeff, nice article. However, as many others do, you conflate the notion of gaming and entertainment. A “successful” game is one that people want to buy and/or play repeatedly only in terms of its entertainment and business value. However, divorce the concept of game from marketability and entertainment and then success can be defined in many other terms. A game that someone would only want to play one time in an art gallery and which then sparks debate could be considered a success. I’m sure some people don’t want to see Shoah more than once, or go out to it on a date or even buy it to watch at home; that doesn’t make it an unsuccessful movie. The controversial games that remain on the fringes attempt to include entertainment value and market to the entertainment crowd, and that’s where most spectacularly fail, with certain exceptions. Yehuda Posted by Yehuda Berlinger on Jun 25, 2009 at 04:29 AM | #
|
|
Good points, Yehuda, and I’m glad you commented. I still remember the interesting article you wrote on the subject some time back. Brathwaite’s game, for example, is obviously not made for the mass-market. Her one prototype, in fact, is all she intends to produce, and there is intentionally no “replayability” designed into the “game.” I’m still not convinced, however, that this particular game--by any definition--is the most successful way to encourage discussion on this topic. Perhaps I am too much an idealist, but I would hope that it is possible to create a game that is successful on more than one level. I see it in other art forms: works that are both entertaining and appealing to the masses, but also encourage discussion and reflection. It is a difficult--but worthy--challenge, in my opinion. Posted by Jeff Allers on Jun 25, 2009 at 04:59 AM | #
|
|
I would encourage you to look at
(I recently covered Crunch in Board Games with Scott at http://www.boardgameswithscott.com/?p=227 ) On the surface, they are parody/comedy games. But as you play them, the gameplay teaches lessons, and starts conversations. They have done an excellent job of bringing together humor and a lesson about currently political situations by putting players in the situations of becoming terrorists or seeing how an unethical banker can work the system. Oh, and on another point of the article - people who want to be naked outside aren’t doing it to break taboos; they are doing it because the sun and breeze feels great and feels natural to them. The hat and shirts were worn for protection from the direct sunbeams while still allowing that feeling of freedom. It’s akin to wearing a kilt - I don’t wear a kilt because I’m making a statement. I wear a kilt because it feels great and allows a similar feeling of freedom! Posted by Scott Nicholson on Jun 25, 2009 at 06:17 AM | #
|
|
Ah, so that’s why William Wallace kept shouting “Freedom!” in the film “Braveheart.” And I thought it had to do with Scottish independence:) Of course, if they were able to fight off the English successfully wearing kilts, then perhaps playing volleyball this way isn’t as uncomfortable as I presume? I have yet to play the games you mentioned, although they are quite popular at the Spielwiese games cafe, where the designers have even made an appearance (as have you, Scott--next time let us know you’re coming!) Posted by Jeff Allers on Jun 25, 2009 at 06:39 AM | #
|
|
Another to add to Scott’s list is One More Barrel. It’s interesting that designers and gamers seldom explore contemporary issues or even recent history. I know myself i could not play a game about the Falklands War because it is recent (to me any way) and too gruesome.But i have no such qualms about the Eastern Front in WWW2. Another example is rail games. The economics and logistics of modern railways is fascinating (well in europe at least) , yet i would much prefer to search out and play something set in the 19th century. Posted by Paul Lister on Jun 25, 2009 at 07:54 AM | #
|
|
Yehuda wrote… “...divorce the concept of game from marketability and entertainment and then success can be defined in many other terms.” Yehuda, I think this is where you and I differ. I can separate marketability from a game’s success, but not entertainment. To me, if a game doesn’t entertain me, it’s not successful. It’s like a chair that you can’t sit in, or an undercooked meal. Entertainment is a functional element to a board game. Without entertainment, without fun, it’s not a board game. It’s an upside-down urinal. Something to talk about, sure, but something you certainly wouldn’t want to pee in. For me, the fun and entertainment in a board game is in the fact that every time you play it, it’s different. So replayability is a basic element of a board game’s fun. I grok that others may appreciate a game they only ever play once. But generally, if I don’t want to play a game multiple times, it’s a Bad Thing. A board game, to me, isn’t a movie or a book that you can see or read once, and it stays with you in perpituity. A board game exists to be replayed, because ideally, every game is a little bit different from the last. So I can’t see a game like Trains as successful on any level, other than having base shock value. It would have been a better story about a board game than an actual game. Of course, that’s the catch about discussing games as art. We all have such different definitions of “game” and “art” that I doubt we will ever reach a consensus. Posted by Gil Hova on Jun 25, 2009 at 08:41 AM | #
|
|
I agree that contemporary themes, even if I agree with their position, can be a tough thing for a game. They can be preachy and the potential for controversy usually makes me uncomfortable. This is particularly true for political games, which is why I’d be a bit wary of the Terribull designs. Other subjects, like games dealing with the environment, seem less problematic. Maybe that’s because most people I know agree with the goals of the movement; the real question is how much they’re willing to pay to achieve them. So games with “green” themes seem to work better. Going back in time, there was at least one set of games which tackled subjects like this and that was from a US company called Urban Systems during the early seventies. They had titles like Smog, Ecology, and Dirty Water, and at least one of them (Population, which dealt with the issues of the population explosion) succeeded quite well as a game. So social relevance and good game design don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Still, it’s a delicate balance and tough to get it right. Posted by Larry Levy on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:03 AM | #
|
|
Art doesn’t have to tackle political problems or have a moral in order to be art. Music or abstract painting are the clearest examples but it’s true in literature and movies as well. Preachy or polemical books often don’t succeed as books. Games usually don’t have morals, but I think they can teach us a lot about how people behave in various situations. I think Diplomacy teaches a lot about how imperialism + tangled alliances = WWI and I think Werewolf teaches us how witchhunts like McCarthyism get going. Posted by S. Deniz Bucak on Jun 25, 2009 at 02:55 PM | #
|
Next entry: Board 2 Pieces June 25, 2009
Previous entry: Shannon Appelcline: An Ode to Games
