INTRODUCTION: PLAYING THE GAME

In life, most people are assigned multiple roles. We “perform” as students, parents, spouses, employees, voters, etc., without being fully conscious of our goals, or, more precisely, without understanding how one role may affect our performance of another. (One example: bosses may script a role that requires our total commitment to work and offer us abundant and tangible rewards for a good performance; yet we may sometimes reject this role because our friends or family demand a very different performance.)  No one knows for certain his or her own ultimate goals; people who presume to know that information about themselves or others are mistaken.

For this reason, and for some practical ones as well, students should not assume that their initial, printed “game objectives” are “permanent.” Opinions change, as do objectives. The fates (or the Gamemaster) may alter students’ objectives, perhaps informing them so by e-mail. Sometimes students will be enjoined to secrecy. Again, as in life, never assume that your knowledge is complete or perfect.

Other Players “In” Role or “Out” of It?

“Reacting” games often acquire considerable intensity. Sometimes debates continue in dining halls and dorm rooms. Sometimes factions will meet on weekends. Sometimes roommates find themselves on different factions. Students should remind themselves that they and their “opponents” are performing roles and playing a game. When a player criticizes a classmate’s speech or argument, she is not criticizing the student as a person; she is criticizing the role and ideas to which her classmate was assigned. Nevertheless, players will often identify to some extent with their roles; once someone attacks their roles, they may perceive it as a personal attack. 

One way to help reinforce the point that “it’s all a game” is to be sure that students identify themselves by their game roles (and names), and, when addressing others, refer to them by their game names. Consider the difference between the following:  “Your argument, Laura, is ridiculous” and “Your argument, Mr. Oligarch, is ridiculous.”

In some games, a student’s game name is explicit: she has been assigned the role of Thrasybulus in ancient Athens, John Cotton in Puritan New England, or Jawaharlal Nehru in India, 1945. Often, however, students will be “generic” members of a faction. In that case, the Gamemaster may assign students game names or suggest that they provide ones for the Gamemaster to approve. When students cannot remember a classmate’s game name, they can usually think of a generic appellation:  “Athenian,” or “Citizen” (revolutionary France), or “Professor.” When students post papers on a website, they must use their game names; insofar as written work is graded not by the Gamemaster but by the instructor, students should put their real names in parenthesis on copies that are to be graded.

Those students who are assigned roles where they preside over sessions should distribute name cards with each student’s game name, and the presiders should remind students not to refer to their classmates as “Laura” or “Bob.” Student leaders should politely interject: “I assume, fellow Athenian, that you are referring to Red-Headed Oligarch,” or “I assume, Mr. Azad, that you are referring to Mr. Nehru.”

Students should also use their game names when they are in “game mode” out of class. Say, for example, that in the dining hall a student spots an indeterminate in the French revolution game and wants to persuade her to join the radical faction. That student might signal that she is in “game mode” by approaching the indeterminate in this way: “Hello, Citizen of France.” 

Even when a student is talking to someone she knows well—perhaps even her roommate—she should use game names whenever she is playing the game. This repeatedly affirms that what transpires is not meant personally, and that she is only “playing the game.”  Students should never allow someone to confuse their game identity with their personal identity. If, for example, another player says: “Please vote with me on this issue. After all, I’m your friend / roommate / etc.,” one should reply:  “If we are in Ming China, you are not my roommate. You are a fellow scholar.”

When a student makes a personal appeal, he or she is not only violating the spirit of the game, but also unfairly transforming a game into something that is personal. Again, the best reply is to insist on a clarification of identities. If the issue pertains to what is transpiring in a game, students and instructors should insist on being addressed by their game names; and refer to their fellow players by their game names. A fair appeal, outside of class, can be as follows: “Citizen: please vote with me on this issue. The fate of France depends on it.” If the other decides not to do so, then neither student will be likely to take it personally.

Instructor versus Gamemaster

The instructor for this course has two somewhat different roles. On the one hand, she will grade oral and written work much like an instructor in other courses. During the introductory classes for each game, moreover, she will lecture or lead discussions in the conventional manner. But the instructor is also responsible for running games and advising students on matters of strategy and rhetoric. Her main goal in running the games is to ensure, as best she can, that the game be a fulfilling and historically credible experience. Thus she cannot disclose to a member of Faction A the strategy of someone in Faction B. Nor can she reveal some of the elements of game design that were hidden from the actual historical figures. Part of the game experience is the unfolding of these elements. 

Thus, in running the game, the instructor will not tell students everything she knows. So that students can distinguish between when the instructor is behaving in the conventional manner and when she is acting in proprietary fashion as Gamemaster, she may so identify herself. That is to say, if the instructor identifies herself, in class or in e-mails as “Gamemaster,” she is functioning in that special role. When she identifies herself as “instructor,” she is acting as a “normal” teacher. Or, if the instructor addresses a student by her game name (“Mr. De Lancey, I do not think that your speech about X is consistent with your goals”), then the student knows that she is functioning as Gamemaster. If the instructor uses the student’s own name, she is functioning as Instructor. If a student is not sure which hat the instructor is wearing, she should simply ask.

Decorum, Leadership, & Time Commitment

We are taught to be polite to and considerate of others. Such behavior is good and has been praised by moral philosophers (and parents) for millennia. A genial manner is also a wise rhetorical strategy: it helps win people over to one’s views; sarcasm, on the other hand, is dangerous because it often alienates undecided listeners. Sometimes, however, students will be obliged to disagree with others and muster up all possible rhetorical power to refute them. If you’re obliged to defend Socrates, can you smilingly let stand an argument that digs his grave?   "Reacting” students should remember that what players say and do is part of their role, not an expression of their personal feelings. All should remember, too, that bitter foes in one game will likely be staunch allies in the next.

Those students who are assigned leadership roles, or who are elected to them, will generally have a heavier workload. They may organize after-class strategy sessions for their faction, cajole dilatory essayists, and take the lead in class debates. But to equalize the burden, the instructor will try to avoid having the leaders in one game repeat as leaders in subsequent games.

If a student has a special activity during part of the semester that will restrict their time, she should advise the instructor before the distribution of roles. That student might be given a “lighter” role for the month. Sometimes the major roles—the central figures in any game—are not explicitly defined as leadership roles. Often students with seemingly “minor” roles emerge as the critical figures in the game—and in history.

Reacting Fellows/Preceptors

In some Reacting classes, veteran students of Reacting are hired to serve as “preceptors.” Preceptors are to provide suggestions and guidance to students:  1) on the structure and workings of each game; 2) on possible paper topics and writing strategies; 3) on approaches to oral presentation and rhetorical speaking more generally; 4) on how to make papers clearer and more persuasive; and 5) on group dynamics such as functioning as a leader, working within a team, coping with adversity, etc. Reacting preceptors are to help make the Reacting experience more fulfilling. Students should not hesitate to ask questions or raise problems with their preceptor, who have no function in assessment or grading. Preceptors are a resource; students are not obliged to consult with them.

Preceptors will not work with factions, become involved in the dynamics of any game, reveal anything about one student’s work or plans to any other student, or proofread papers for errors.  Preceptors work under the direction of the Instructor for the course. They do not supersede the instructor. Students should not hesitate to consult with the instructor, either by e-mail. Students should also meet with their instructor, or send him an e-mail query, at least once during the first two weeks of a game.