Mentioned In Dispatches S16 E11 – The Politics of Play with Aggie Hirst

4 thoughts on “Mentioned In Dispatches S16 E11 – The Politics of Play with Aggie Hirst”

1. Guys I know it is Connections soon but there does seem to be a preponderance of podcasts about the professional side of gaming whether it be about connections, games theory, how to get in to the tabletop business etc.

   Can we have some more of the light banter about wargaming generally or sections on actual gaming etc. I know it is ‘horse’s for courses’ and all that but I really look forward to the podcast each week and my heart sort of sinks when I see it is yet another professionally focused episode.

   Sorry to be negative, and I will of course still listen but ease up on the professional focus a little.

   Cheers
   Andy B

   Reply

   1. No problem! Next week’s finale should be a little more to your liking 🤠

      Each season we pick a bit of a ‘theme’ that we use when putting together episodes, and while it’s not 12 eps of a single theme, it’ll usually account for 30% (ish) of that season.

      S15 was more designers than usual
      S14 we focused on ‘series’ of games like BoAR, Total War, and OCS

      We’re still workshopping what we’re going to do for S17

      Thanks for the feedback and we do appreciate you listening!

      Reply

   2. “Guys I know it is Connections soon but there does seem to be a preponderance of podcasts about the professional side of gaming whether it be about connections, games theory, how to get in to the tabletop business etc.”

      The Deep State Military Industrial Complex stops at nothing to promote the militarist mentality and world view, including within this so-called hobby. I say “so-called hobby” because, as you point out, there has been an increasing frequency as well as intensity of promoting that overall mentality, which goes far beyond simply playing games of historical battles – it’s straight out propaganda to mold peoples minds and opinions in regard to world events that might be current.
      This promotion of a militarist world view typically increases whenever some events around the world seem to revolve around military matters. Constantly promoted is a simplistic “us versus them” mentality. Every foreign leader that does not kowtow to the so-called “Western” (Banking) interests is branded as a new Hitler – be it Putin, Kadaffi, Slobodan Milosevic, Bashar Al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro, Kim Jong Un, the Iranian mullahs and who knows who else.
      For example, no sooner did the Russian Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine start, in February 2022, that a couple of militarist zealots on the BoardGameGeek wargaming forum start designing a game ostensibly covering that conflict.
      And, frankly, it always seems to be the same circles within this hobby that promote these extreme points of view, wherein everything happening in the world has to be militarily “gamed”. Look at where these people work at their day jobs, or from where they retired – they’re practically all military related ex-government.

      The people in this hobby are especially susceptible to militarist propaganda, due to their inherent interest in history and all things military. They are pretty much ready-made militarists. A few months ago I complained in these comments about the use of the term “After Action Report” in describing a gaming session. In every other board gaming genre it would just be called a Session Report, but in the wargaming genre it’s called an After Action Report. This simply came about gradually over the years because some people probably thought it sounded cool and emphasized the supposed seriousness of their games, but in hindsight it’s borderline screwball.

      There are a lot of people in this so-called hobby that need to take a few steps back and come to the realization that their hobby simply comes down to playing with glorified plastic army men, and grow up.

      Reply

2. I greatly enjoyed this episode. It reminded me when I was active in educational gaming in 1978–81. While the lessons are old I think they may still hold. My professors were concerned about measuring benefits of gaming and never felt satisfied about measuring it. But as Alan Feldt (father of Community Land Use Game CLUG) the most important part of a session was the discussion afterwards, that the game provided a shared experience for the players. The “debriefing” should go in 3 stages:

   1. Letting go of emotions. A good game will immerse people and they need let out their feelings. Sometimes there is anger and frustration. As a person facilitating the game at times I was afraid I would be punched but the people most critical are often the ones who are mostly likely to like the game.

   2. Discussion of the game itself. People will discuss the game and how it reflects on reality.

   3. Discussion of real world issues, the reason why people got together to play the game. While the game is a shared experience people might criticize it, talk about what it doesn’t cover, but focus on the real issue. Which might be land use, challenges to people with disability, or if doctors should worry if their hemophiliac patients can afford medications.

   I remember a roommate after playing the last session of a SRA international relations game. He was real angry, there was no discussion afterwards. After investing hours over many days playing it the person running it just told them what happened and none of the players were able to express how they felt or thought about the game.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.