Pax Emancipation

Gary Sax wrote:

Count Orlok wrote: As for this game, I would be interested if it was basically anyone other than him. However, Eklund has shown himself to be an untrustworthy and unethical researcher, and I simply can't overlook that for a game no matter how good. Someone posted a "conversation" Eklund was in concerning climate change on bgg, and his complete unwillingness to weigh or engage with evidence contrary shows a complete lack of scruples that would fail pretty much any undergraduate student research paper.

To whit:

www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/257732/p...keditems/accessories

Including such gems as:

"I believe in objective morality, see the short essay "What is Morality" on page 19 of Book II in Pax Emancipation."

"On the other hand, identity blur, overreliance on technology, suicide, hikikomori, future shock, eco-collapse, overpopulation, global warming, Y2K, grey goo, skynet, outbreaks, cancer, weaponized propaganda, clockwork orange punitive measures, subjugation of humanity to robotic masters, "excessive consumer choice", fertility crisis, predatory pricing, job taken by robotics, etc. are definitely part of the game, not so much as disasters in themselves, but as fabricated crises enabling tyrants to seize control."

Yeah, transhumanity now a skip for me. No way I'm touching Emancipation either. To each their own, of course.

That thread has been (predictably) exiled to RSP: boardgamegeek.com/thread/2038533/what-di...pia-and-non-dystopia

I've been super-slammed at work, so aside from noticing there's some activity, I haven't really been able to catch up. I'm super-skeptical just based on the defensive language like "what if the doomsayers are wrong". It's interesting to see that while the publisher is Phil, apparently most of the design is Matt Eklund.

However, this and PE might really just be the point where they've stopped weaving between lanes and just driven right off the cliff. I'll have to read on and see.

Yeah, could be. I don't have any insight into these specific games. But to me it's looking grim, probably where I'm going to have to get off the Eklund train.

OK, homework done. Going to have a hard time suspending enough disbelief here.

* Pax Porfiriana had the game play out between a collection of rough characters, none of whom were clearly on the "right side". Most of the actions there were wildly unsavory by any measure, much less Eklund's all-or-nothing views on "businessmen" versus "bureaucrats".

* Pax Ren has a clear victory condition that ought to be the correct one, but allows for a number of other places the power can slosh to.

This makes them interesting, especially since the models may or may not tell the story they're intended to.

* Pax Emancipation, there's only one desirable outcome, and you win or fail based on how closely the final VP scores match the designer's intent.

* Pax Transhumanity (from what I've seen) looks like Ray Kurzweil snorted Atlas Shrugged. Again, the game is headed towards an editorial goal, which is squarely down their worldview. There's too much there I can't get behind, especially the climate change denials.

So, I think aside from perhaps a test run on Vassal to see if I'm wrong about my impressions, I'm going to have to get off the train too. I can disagree with an author but still enjoy their games. However, when it's a game with a message that doesn't allow for the possibility that they're wrong, it's pretty much just wankery or pontification. If the VP award maps to "how much do you agree with me", I'm not inclined to score very well unless we actually agree. It's always been abundantly clear to me that I don't actually agree with Eklund's worldviews.

That's the key difference to me, and why I think I enjoy Pax Porf and Pax Ren so much, but these most recent two make me skeeved out. They seem to be presented less like "games" and more like purity tests.



(I deliberately didn't mention Pax Pamir because it's not really an Eklund design. The power struggle between dubious figures makes it fit much more squarely in the first category, though.)

That's pretty much my assessment. I've always defended the accusations against crazy Phil precisely because the games themselves didn't follow any rails. Pamir is a glaring example; it's got that essay defending colonialism in it, but the game itself is saying something completely different.

But I've got the feeling on these ones that that openness is gone.

I'm going to play High Frontier again today so I've been reading the rules. Expectedly, the "political rules" are terrible and I don't look foward to them. His politicals notes are surprisingly scarce, he drops some weirdo anti-union stuff and claims that employers have less power than employees because "they only have one lifetime" but that's it.

Gary Sax wrote: As Paul mentioned upthread, in the Pax series there's a weird disconnect between his libertarian sources and then the way the game plays out. I won't rehash it here, but Pax Ren for example plays out as a pretty straightforward, mainstream political economy story about European development that *bears almost no resemblance* to the banker/capitalist orgasm in the footnotes in the rulebook.

Eklund strikes me as a guy who would play 1830 and come out thinking that the players are the good guys. It's not so much that he misrepresents as he seems to think that the bad things he depicts in the game are actually amazing and great.

Bunch of good posts I agree with. It's weird how his games do not always play out to reflect what he/they think the games are showing if you read the manual. I've always wondered how that fit into his design sensibilities/intentions.

mc wrote: That's pretty much my assessment. I've always defended the accusations against crazy Phil precisely because the games themselves didn't follow any rails. Pamir is a glaring example; it's got that essay defending colonialism in it, but the game itself is saying something completely different.

But I've got the feeling on these ones that that openness is gone.

That difference is pretty easily explainable in Pax Pamir, since Eklund didn't design the game, but did write the add-on essay. It's more a "publisher's note" than a "designer's note". Cole Wehrle is launching a revised edition of Pamir, and when asked about it on BGG said "that essay won't be reprinted in this edition".

Porfiriana is pretty interesting in that nearly every action you can take in the game is something Eklund appears to find immoral, and all four headline win conditions are predicated by the use of military force in some fashion. I don't think there's any possible way to succeed as a "businessman" without getting your hands dirty in that game. You have to become a bureaucrat or at least a revolutionary.

Yeah, Not Sure, Pax Porfiriana is *fascinating* if you think that it's made by a Austrian libertarian designer. It is (IMHO) a wonderful and profoundly interesting exploration of a situation with very little/any state power and no public goods provision. So basically, multiplayer warlord politics. And to my mind what this game is saying is that it's SO bad not to have a strong state. Like, many factions will even want to tank the economy or throw the country into the bondage of another state simply to get a mild advantage over another internal rival! Reading between the lines (it doesn't say huge recessions are causing famine, lawlessness, etc), I read Pax as a pretty big tacit endorsement of strong states with the comparative advantage on force and the ability to control their internal rivals.

I think his counter would be something about needing a minimal state to provide property rights, and this is a situation about what happens when there are multiple claimants providing protection but no universally respect property rights.

I was discussing this with a friend earlier today and I think we're both at the conclusion where allowing Phil Eklund to inhabit some of your mental real estate just isn't worth it. The games are fine, but the rules are always such a shambolic mess that none of it sticks and we have to re-learn them over and over. And if the games blew me away, that would be one thing, but honestly the only ones I consider coming back to are Pax Porfiriana (which is the one whose rules I've internalized the most) and High Frontier, which I'd like to play again but nobody really wants to deal with. I have Pax Pamir and I've learned it several times but never enough where I feel confident jumping in again and honestly, I just don't think it's worth it.

Eklund isn't giving me experiences I can't get elsewhere, from people I don't have to philosophically "Work around". Even Porfiriana, the one I like most and can see playing more of is one that if I got rid of it I probably wouldn't miss it.

I certainly can't see buying any of his stuff in any way other than used.

Not Sure wrote:
That difference is pretty easily explainable in Pax Pamir, since Eklund didn't design the game, but did write the add-on essay. It's more a "publisher's note" than a "designer's note". Cole Wehrle is launching a revised edition of Pamir, and when asked about it on BGG said "that essay won't be reprinted in this edition".

Yes, and Wehrle is also changing some of the nomenclature too (no "nations" or "empires" any more for example). I seem to remember even a hint from him somewhere that at least one of the reasons for a 2e was to clarify the historical perspective, which appeared confused - if you look closely between the lines, any confusion was because of Eklund's touches.

Anyway I only brought it up because it kind of illustrates the extreme - that disconnect between the gameplay and eklund's views that you and Gary have articulated nicely.

I used to think Phil Eklund games were crazy and obsessive and singularly commited to their subject matter. I was willing to work through the rules and horrendous, to quote Frank Branham, “Dr. Bronner” graphic design. I’ve praised his games in the past but what I want from games is very different now. It’s like when you realize that Rush is terrible.

Now I’ve come to feel that Phil Eklund games are a catastrophic waste of time and brain power. Yes, even the beloved Pax Porfiriana. The obscure details distract from the fact that even his best games are clunky and needlessly esoteric. Like Dave says, ultimately in terms of gameplay there isn’t anything here you can’t enjoy elsewhere- and in games where the design and production are not practically defying you to have fun.

After the last time I played PP, I felt exactly like I did when I was a librarian and some unkempt old white dude would post up at the desk and try to engage us in a random, detailed conversation about whatever historical or political bullshit they wanted to expound on for that day.

Look, I appreciate that the crazy science and terrible political ideas make for an interesting design foundation for some folks. But not for me anymore. I understand why people try and try again to play High Frontier- because it’s a compelling concept. But it gets to the point where you have to struggle to enjoy it while the author is trying to essentially give you a lesson that may or may not even be predicated on anything other than his personal opinions. Which may be complete crap

I think games like Labyrinth, Navajo Wars, After Pablo, Undergrouns Railroad and so forth are much more interesting in their didacticism or historical opinion-setting because they are more playable, fun, and they don’t seem like so much the work of a madman. They also do not include manifestos.

Thinking over the years...I’m not sure I can count how many times a Phil Eklund game was on my table that either didn’t get finished or was swept from the table (Lords of the Spanish Main, good god)...other than PP, which is really just a jumped up tableau builder with more direct interaction than usual.

Gary Sax wrote: Yeah, Not Sure, Pax Porfiriana is *fascinating* if you think that it's made by a Austrian libertarian designer. It is (IMHO) a wonderful and profoundly interesting exploration of a situation with very little/any state power and no public goods provision. So basically, multiplayer warlord politics. And to my mind what this game is saying is that it's SO bad not to have a strong state. Like, many factions will even want to tank the economy or throw the country into the bondage of another state simply to get a mild advantage over another internal rival! Reading between the lines (it doesn't say huge recessions are causing famine, lawlessness, etc), I read Pax as a pretty big tacit endorsement of strong states with the comparative advantage on force and the ability to control their internal rivals.

I think his counter would be something about needing a minimal state to provide property rights, and this is a situation about what happens when there are multiple claimants providing protection but no universally respect property rights.

The fact that a game like Pax Porfiriana generates a comment like that sort of refutes the idea that I'm getting the same experiences elsewhere.

"My space monster beats up your space monster" only goes so far, and I do have that game. A lot of times over.

I'm mostly lamenting that it appears to me he's putting his thumb on the scales of the models he's building now, and that makes them much less interesting. It's still more interesting than 99% of the 5000 games being published this year in that he's trying to say something, though. It's just a damn shame to me that he's basically off in conspiracy-theory land while doing it.

If he starts saying some truly hateful shit I might have to reconsider that further, but at the moment I'm still comfortable separating the art from the views of the artist. Doesn't mean I'll be buying this batch of games, because they seem pretty dubious to me. I also skipped Greenland and Neanderthal because I wasn't too keen on the interpretations of science that was underpinning those games.

I will say that Eklund (and now Wehrle) are better at something than most other designers, such that I do get something relatively unique from them. I think the Pax games (and now John Company to a lesser extent) are some of the best designs at getting that X number of players competing against each other not by attacking each other, but by manipulating the game state and table itself in a very aggressive, non-bland euro way. I love that mechanic. It's like a vastly shorter, more political, less economic version of what people love 18XX games for, IMHO.

But yeah, agree to disagree w/Barnes and Lego and to be clear I DEFINITELY understand Dave's position about only buying used. My hope is that Wehrle moves beyond his start with Eklund and keeps honing his skills, less troubling student becoming the master and such.

Also, I don't know this for a fact but I have a strong suspicion re: Eklund's "in-depth research". It reminds me of how people talk about how well sourced Alan Moore's comic about Jack the Ripper, 'From Hell' is. It's true, the book has copious notes and a bibliography. But I know from reading about conspiracy theories and fortean phenomena and other kook-adjacent stuff that it is super easy to refer to a large number of books that just refer to each other and make it look like you're hitting a broad area when in fact you're just zeroing in on a single point of view. That's how it is with 'From Hell', but that hasn't changed the perception that it's somehow more than just a fictionalized account of one particular JTR theory.

I know I don't need to be writing this, but here goes:

There's a reason why the whole world hasn't caught on to the "self-evident" benefits of libertarianism. Conditions for it first require decades, if not centuries, of publicly funded but privately owned infrastructure; a smattering of fully public infrastructure to keep it all running; violent and artificial suppression of worker's rights; an ideology which doesn't view police as an instrument of that suppression, but as a divine physical manifestation of the aging ruling class's flagging manhood; an educational system which emphasizes bulk literacy but not a critical engagement with ideas, in order to produce workers who are themselves publicly funded but privately owned; and, finally, enough of these contradictions to make the system appear so shaky as to require a huge carceral state in which to house the the vast sea of losers. In other words, a big hothouse of explicit unfreedom and horrific rationale not different from the ideologically embedded prevarications which rationalized slavery.

Eventually within this hothouse you grow a few trembling white orchids--the type of dude who loves to call himself an asshole on public forums, but who pisses his pants if anyone else calls him one. The weakest, the most reliant, type of human being ever generated by human meddling. You show him the big world outside of the hothouse, shave off a bit of the previous generation's hoarded equity and press it into his fat white palm. Finally, you whisper into his ear: "this is all for you, l'il buddy. You made all of this. Now why don't you go get yourself a business or a STEM degree?"

I'm failing to imagine an intellect for which I have less respect than Phil Eckland's, or one less suited to treat seriously the issue of human slavery. I do, however, sort of like Pax Porfiriana.
.
.
.

PS I think it would be fun to repost this on BGG and set myself up for probably my eighth banning.