I’m working on an alternate reality game that has 9 people designing an experience for 2 players. But that’s not precisely what I’m thinking about at the moment. Tonight we were talking about how such a game, with it’s intimately designed experiences, has a good chance of being life altering, in much the same way that a good book can cause a permanent shift in perspective. We all agree on that, theoretically anyway, but then someone tossed out the notion of designing such things for the wealthy and powerful as a way to influence the world on a grander scale. This quickly became a conversation about whether attacking an issue from the top down would work, or whether all change had to come from the pressure of the masses. My gut was saying that it could work either way, but some people were adamantly opposed to the notion that changing the minds of the people at the top would ever change things for the folks on the ground. They insisted that politics and markets would make certain that the folks at the top would always act in their best interests, and that included keeping things as they were unless their place at the top was threatened.

Fair enough. I hardly ever argue with markets. But tonight I sat down to figure out why my instinct told me that games were different than any other media in this respect, and actually had a shot at convincing powerful entities to recognize the impact of their actions on the folks below them. I’m not sure I buy any of it, but I wrote it down, so I might as well throw it out there. It came out as humanism in the end, but it started with Kristina Niedderer and mindfulness:

“Mindfulness as a state of awareness or consciousness implies my presence to the moment, where I look at my experience, rather than through it. Depending on the context, I can be conscious of my surroundings or myself, or of something or someone. Mindfulness in the sense of attentiveness usually occurs in the context of social interaction, where it is associated with caring attention towards a person. This shows that mindfulness has two components: one is that of awareness or consciousness per se. The other is that of awareness or attentiveness “of something,” (i.e., the phenomenal content). One is the frame of mind, while the other is its content.”

I just read this article, so it was fresh in my mind, but it’s that central notion of homo sapien sapien - humans are the only species (as far as we can tell) who know that we know. We have the ability to be conscious of our own consciousness. Except that it’s easy to forget that in everyday life. So I guess I’m saying that games are particularly good at making us aware of what we’re doing as we’re doing it, because part of playing is figuring out the system. If the game also involves other players, then we’re forced to evaluate not only how our actions in the system will affect us, but the other players as well. Because it’s abstracted into a game system with limited factors and possible outcomes, it becomes easier to assess the situation objectively and make a decision based on what I predict their next action will be. Prejudices may come into play at first, but they will quickly be confirmed or debunked by my observations of how the other players behave within the system. In other words, in a game of chess it doesn’t matter if I’m rich and you’re poor, if you’re a better player, then I’m going to have to work harder to compete. As long as I don’t leave the game, I’m at a disadvantage. And because it’s a game, I’ll be forced to confront that notion head on.

In terms of something like our ARG, the simple idea of putting powerful people in a situation in which they don’t have complete control can accomplish a lot, I think. Not for everyone, maybe, but for people who used to have to work things out for themselves but have simply forgotten because they haven’t been in that situation for a long time. And then there’s mindfulness, again. I can’t say for sure, but I’m betting that Sergey Brin and Larry Paige aren’t, on average, any more mindful than the rest of us. Creating a situation for them to be conscious of how they think as well as what they think for an extended period of time would jumpstart that type of meta-cognition even after the game has ended. This type of thinking is intrinsic for engineers and artists, but not necessarily for managers. (See Paul Graham’s Hackers and Painters. I’m not saying it’s not important for managers - good managers will be very conscious of their thought process.) And it’s what allows us to be constantly aware of the motivation and impact of our actions. Acting, in other words, instead of reacting.

So I’m saying games promote self awareness of thought, which can lead to a deep responsibility for one’s actions, which leads to more mindful actions in the first place. And I guess I’m disagreeing that we can’t change anything by aiming for the top of the pyramid. I think it’s just as likely to work as to try to build a revolution every time you need something to change. But that’s a different argument entirely, worth having, but not now.

Putting the impact on the extremely rich and powerful aside for a moment, imagine these same conditions for everyday people. That’s the impact our ARG will have for our two players. Action, agency, mindfulness. And that’s the promise of games as a whole, for me - it doesn’t have to take immersion and a dedicated team of designers that outnumber the players. Maybe it won’t work on the top of the pyramid, but instead it will be a way for the bottom of the pyramid to break into action. Either way is fine with me, so let’s try both.