I'd read about Brenda Brathwaite's Train before but, in honesty, I'd never bought any of the hype. A board game about trains with a twist ending that reveals you're actually sending your pieces to Auschwitz? Please. You're telling me that people not only break down sobbing while playing the game, but that people actually started crying during Brathwaite's talk about the game?
I mentally called shenanigans. Chalked up the overzealous reactions to the sort of artsy-fartsy desire for games to be Taken Really Seriously, without any basis in actual emotion.
After exiting Brathwaite's updated version of her talk, "
Train (or How I Dumped Electricity and Learned to Love Design)" with the unmistakable sensation of my tear duct beginning -- just beginning -- to fill, I understood just how wrong I'd been.
Hit the jump for my summary of the talk.
For a summary of what prompted Brathwaite to make a game like Train in the first place, I'd suggest reading this article from The Escapist. Brathwaite's talk this morning covered much new ground, but the basic story of why Brathwaite moved from videogames to board games hasn't changed.
What has changed has been the reaction to Train: much to her surprise, Brathwaite effectively took the game on tour over the past year, showcasing the game to the Wall Street Journal and MIT, taking note of the different reactions players have had to the game.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. All human-on-human tragedy, Brathwaite said, works by some sort of system. And if you have a system, then you can create a game.
Train is a board game that, at least initially, tasks players with getting as many yellow game pieces from one end of the game board to the other. In an average turn, the player can choose to move their train forward, put more people into the train, draw a card, or take a card. After reaching the end of the track with one train, the player draws a card revealing the destination they've arrived at.
All of the possible destinations are concentration camps. Auschwitz, Dachau. Brathwaite described the moment of realization as "a fall from a hundred feet up," once the now-victorious player realizes what he or she has just done.
This isn't the end of the game. Train's rules (typed up on a genuine Nazi typewriter) specify that "the game is over when it ends." After figuring out where the trains are going, you can choose to stop playing or, as some players did, try to actually rebel against the rules and sabotage the game by intentionally trying to draw derail cards.
When a train in the game gets derailed, two things happen: half the people go back to the beginning of the board, and the others refuse to board the train. The game pieces simply sit on the board, and can no longer be manipulated. Brathwaite intentionally refused to explain exactly what had happened to those pieces. Some players assume that the tokens are dead, some assume that they've escaped and gone to Denmark. This process of volunteering your own narrative isn't lazy design or metagaming, Brathwaite seemed to suggest, but an integral part of the game that makes the player feel complicit in what they're doing.
Brathwaite briefly relayed an anecdote wherein a player reached the end of the board, found out where she was going, and then went back and started loading another train without saying anything. When asked what she was doing, and if she understood what was going on, she responded that she did -- she just assumed that she was playing as a conductor or something, and that he probably had kids to feed, so why not just keep going?
Interestingly, Brathwaite noted that when people play Train, even when they privately realize what the game is about they never tell the other players. Brathwaite had no idea why this was (though an audience member later suggested that it might be that players simply didn't want to spoil the experience of realizing the theme for everyone else).
This, Braithwaite argued, is the sort of freedom of play you generally can't achieve in digital games. The tactile details of the game (the train openings are too small for the Jew pieces, so you've got to cram them in there, which becomes a sort of horrifying action once players realize exactly what they're doing) and the "complexity of human choice" the board game format allows simply wouldn't work in a computer.
The board itself sits on a frame filled with broken glass (presumably representing Krystallnacht). At one point when showcasing the game, a Rabbi saw the board, paused, and said that he understood what the game was about.
"I don't want to play it," he said. "You just did," Brathwaite replied.
As described by Brathwaite, the act of play didn't lead up to an ultimately bullshit "gotcha" moment like I'd assumed. The Auschwitz revelation is but one aspect of an entire experience designed to make players question the way they follow rules, and how they'll behave once they understand what's going on, and how complicit they're willing to be.
Train's spontaneous popularity resulted in a lot of backlash: people have told Brathwaite to stop making games, and that she should be punched in the face for creating Train.
Perhaps part of this reaction came from the fact that Train isn't "fun," by any stretch of the imagination. "Why do games have to be fun?", Brathwaite asked. Schindler's List isn't fun. "No other medium is like, oh, it's gotta be fun."
In creating Train, Brathwaite understood just how many design constraints she'd unthinkingly accepted during her years as a digital game designer: for instance, that games need to have concrete win/loss conditions, or strictly designer-authored meaning, or that games must be fun in some way.
Still, the act of creating Train made (as the talk's title would suggest) Brathwaite fall in love with pure game design. "
Board games," Brathwaite said, "taught me a lot of our problems have solutions, and that games are way more diverse than we give them credit for."
“I fell in love with the potential power of the medium, and saw mechanics as more powerful than paint,” Brathwaite said.
"I don't want to play it," he said. "You just did," Brathwaite replied.
Other than that, this sounds very interesting.
What the fuck, dude? How about a post saying, "Hey, there's this really cool board game you should check out. By the way, if you've played it, here's a spoiler-filled article you'd enjoy!"
It's literally impossible to "check out" Train. Only one board exists, and Brathwaite carts it from place to place. It's also impossible to talk about the game without talking about its subject matter.
Only about a hundred rounds of Train have been played *in the world*, so the spoiler idea really doesn't apply here.
I see. Could be why my quick Amazon search turned up nothing, but I figured I could still find it on the internet somewhere (and planned to do so).
Sorry about that, then - but it's a shame that such an apparently compelling game cannot really be played.
I think I understand why you don't like that, but I don't believe she meant by that sentence what you think she meant.
The purpose of the game, the reason you play, is to have that revelation the rabbi had. He is, in a sense 'done' playing. Anything that happens after the revelation is choice. Stop, sabotage, whatever.
Very, VERY neat, but again, probably only a few thousand people will ever hear about this, which is a shame.
Games are games, so they should be fun. Other media are not games.
Just the first few definitions:
ame
1 /geɪm/ Show Spelled [geym] Show IPA noun, adjective,gam·er, gam·est, verb,gamed, gam·ing.
–noun
1.
an amusement or pastime: children's games.
2.
the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.
3.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
Great summary.
Nowhere in there does it say "fun".
Would you say Chess is fun? Chess is an enjoyable and amusing game but it's hard for me to call chess fun in the classic context. I don't have a huge smile on my face sitting at the edge of my seat for the next move. Games don't have to be fun to be good, and the sure as heck don't need to be fun to be interesting or thought provoking.
Is amusement not a synonym of fun?
The meaning of words changes over time based on their usage...why're we clinging to the old definition of "game" that makes "fun" an essential component?
"Games ate games, so they should be fun."
I disagree.
lol
I think it's brilliant, as it forces the "player" to examine their motivations for playing the game. Do you keep playing to "win"? Do you defy the rules? Keep playing and sacrifice a "win" for a personal moral victory? Do you say "It's just a game" and walk away unaffected?
Like any analogy, there are weaknesses, and I don't think that's lost on the designer. And just like any good art, there are strengths in the subtleties of the medium and especially audience reactions that can tell us something about ourselves and our views of the world.
Thanks for the article, Anthony.
The person states they carried on as the conductor because they 'probably had kids to feed', and that is basically what actually happened in the death trains, the engineers/conductors manned the trains because they had to, less they wanted to risk the lives of their family by refusing. The majority of people in that situation would not risk their own families lives to try and make a stand only the very brave did.
The person understood the meaning behind the game but also understood that in the real life, as it happened, someone drove it and had to carry on doing so for the safety of their family, they chose to express that in their action to carry on playing the game.
It made me think.
"a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion by a specially designed camera (motion-picture camera) and thrown on a screen by a projector (motion-picture projector) in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement. "
Is that all they are? It says everything about the technicality of movies, but nothing of the soul of the thing. The fact of the matter is, definitions should be constantly challenged and made to evolve. It is honestly refreshing and inspiring to see someone who takes that very concept to heart. I'd love to "play" it with somebody who doesn't know anything about it, and see what happens.
Thanks for the food for thought, Rev. It is greatly appreciated.
Hey I have a great idea, let's became a board game where you shuffle Jews on a train to a concentration camp? Like seriously how the hell does this shit pop into someone's mind.
The part with the Rabbi pissed me off though and I'm not even Jewish. It's designed more for the designer's enjoyment in than anybody elses.
Also, be prepared to become mighty unpopular when you start hosting Train parties when the home version comes out.
Games don't have to be fun, they have to provide an experience. I think the more people that come to this sort of understanding, the better off we'll be as a medium.
Personally, I love board games, I have a large collection of them (Bruno Faidutti is one of my favorite developers), and it's because I find the tactile interaction so important. It's something a controller or Natal or a waggle can't duplicate (not yet, anyway). This, however, is completely unexpected. So often touch is just a part of playing a boardgame. You don't think about it too much. Moving you piece, drawing cards, spinning dials. To actually make it a major emotional focus, predicated upon how much you know, or how heavily you are willing to weigh it . . . I am stunned. The implications contained herein have the depth and breadth of ages, and a large measure of humanity.
And a game did it.
even though I believe this would be a cool little indie pc game
this would totally sell on the indie space on xbl
"even though I believe this would be a cool little indie pc game this would totally sell on the indie space on xbl"
Hmm, if it were released there I could see 4chan having large scale contests to see who could send the trains to the camps fastest...