Alternate Endings: What Gaming Taught Me about Building Rapport

         Learning about new societies and cultures is exciting; I don't know about you, but I sometimes get the urge to just dive in and immerse myself. Yet no one should just jump into any culture without proper tools, least of which is the ability to build rapport.

Building rapport is to build trust. Trust is what creates lasting bonds, without which nothing would get accomplished: friendships, romantic relationships, collegiate or business partnerships, etc. Some people are naturally gifted with the golden tongue, knowing all the right things to say to get what they want; some people come off as too brash or too forward, leaving little room for mutual respect and cooperation.

Hopping back on the "golden tongue" part for a minute, one might misconstrue this as straight-up knowing-how-to-manipulate-someone-for-personal-gain. While this unfortunately does happen, rapport-building in general is not inherently malicious. I'll use anthropologists as an example, as we are known for such studies. Anthropologists who do not build rapport with key informants in their field of interest don't collect strong data, and certainly don't collect truly representative data.

Okay, I know anthropological terms sound a bit dry, so let me put it this way: If you aren't reliable when your friends ask you for reasonable favors, they likely won't do favors or reward you for your efforts. If you don't take the time to learn what your potential partner likes for date nights, you might ruin your chances of hitting it off and be rewarded with returned affections.

See a pattern here?

If you fail to follow up on/carry out X favor for someone, negative reaction Y will likely happen and you won't get Z reward.

Where in the hell does gaming fit in? ..Isn't it obvious?

Gaming fits in everywhere.

Adventure games – especially in the golden age of ye olde point-and-click adventures – embody excellent examples of rapport-building in order to obtain some sort of positive outcome. Older adventure games often have dialogue prompts with two to three different outcomes: Success, fail, and sometimes inability to continue (we’ll call it “trapped” for the sake of this discussion; for example, you forego a particular item that you now can’t go back and get to proceed). Nowadays, most adventure games include alternate story endings or entirely different stories to pursue.

First, we’ll discuss the older games. Sierra games, such as Space Quest and King’s Quest, are particularly good examples of utilizing the 2-3 outcomes rule; other games could include the Monkey Island series, the Syberia series, Nancy Drew series, and Grim Fandango. Though the mechanic of rapport-building with non-playable characters (NPCs) is not yet refined to ‘feel’ exactly like real-world bonding, there are nonetheless options that you – the main character – must consider when talking to them. The idea behind games like these is that in order to proceed with the main storyline (usually the one and only storyline), you must select the right questions, responses, objects or a combination of these three things to obtain information to solve a puzzle or access to a new area in the game.

The rapport-building mechanism in older games like these is a good introduction to the real-life skill, but by no means a superb resource: The old mechanism operates under the idea that people are robotic and predictable – which, some folks are I suppose, but definitely not the majority – and there will always be a “correct” answer and a personal reward. Though building rapport with people does reap benefits, particularly in the form of access to information, objects, affections and status, ye olde adventure games fall short by creating the expectation that a quick switch in dialogue or action is all that is needed. If applied to real-world interaction, once someone has presumably chosen the ‘fail’ option there is little to no good recovery to the ‘success’ one; at best, one could try shooting for ‘trapped,’ but the ‘success’ option will be perma-mitigated unless the “main character” can either come up with a genuine attempt at reparation or erase history.

…And I don’t need to tell you which is impossible.

Yes, I know: The vast amount of us humans are not so simple to believe that these older mechanics actually apply – but impressionable minds do exist. No, this is not some obscure link to “video games cause violence,” because they don’t: People do. People with impressionable minds do. At the end of the day, rapport-building skills take time and practice to develop, and as social animals it is up to all of us to ensure no one is being taken advantage of.

Cited: Grim Fandango (LucasArts, 1998)

Now we’ll cover newer games. Bethesda games, such as The Elder Scrolls and Fall Out series, as well as The Walking Dead by Telltale – even House Party by Eek! Games LLC, an “adventure” of a different kind – are all good examples. These adventure games are built to be more open-ended with the story, with ‘side quests/missions,’ exploration of a more expansive world in general, and absolutely more human-like interaction with NPCs..

..Well, as “human” as a game is allowed before it’s no longer considered “fun.”

Both the older and newer adventure games come with a sense of a ‘success’ answer for every NPC interaction that must take place. However, the difference is that in newer games the stakes feel higher: There are still – if not more – ‘trapped’ options, which nowadays can have built-in workarounds if one is savvy. However, the ‘success’ and ‘fail’ responses now tend to be multiple and accumulative: the NPCs “remember” your choices and, based on their personality designs, will respond to your requests and comments as such, affecting your desired storyline’s course and alternate ending. Your actions and dialogue selections can even affect other NPCs in the vicinity. Furthermore, ‘success’ options do not always yield desirable or relevant rewards per the opinion of you the player.

Sound confusing? It should – it’s much more akin to real-life rapport-building than ever before.

When building rapport with others, you often desire a positive reward: Friendship, love, services, etc. In order to earn rewards, you need to interact accordingly: via multiple conversations, with layered dialogue and in-depth discussions, shared interests, and providing genuine proof of having payed attention to details. Not complying with these parameters quickly leads to ‘fail’ outcomes; only meeting half-way with someone can lead to ‘trapped’ outcomes. With modern programming technology, players can now feel more enmeshed in the game’s world, feel more weight behind each interaction, and feel more responsible for their choices.

Cited: The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim (Bethesda, 2011)

IN CONCLUSION…

...Every game is a product of its time, this is very true – it could very well be that today’s Skyrim was 1998’s vision for Grim Fandango, if only the technology was there. As well, the undeniable truth with adventure games is that every NPC is coded in specific ways, to react to specific prompts, which makes them, well, predictable – this is true no matter how old or new the game is. There are a couple take-aways here that I want to make clear:

1) Video games are not substitutions for real-life lessons in human interactions and rapport-building; but

2) They can be incredibly useful tools to practice with before going on any “quest,” such as getting a job, finding a partner, or starting a business partnership… or studying a whole different culture.

Again, take anthropologists for example: They go into each field of inquiry with some idea in mind of what lies ahead, but not knowing everything – they need navigators, key informants, to get around and get help and information from. How do anthropologists move about the field? By talking to those embedded in it: Building rapport. Friendships, even small ones, can be achieved by doing reasonable favors, bringing small gifts, being polite and respectful, remaining curious and asking thoughtful questions.

Everything I just wrote can be applied to anyone: All of us who enter new or different spaces ought to have the wherewithal to build rapport with those within them. It helps mitigate misunderstandings (though never completely), opens doors to new information and spaces, and in the process, we grow and expand as people. While games teach us a great deal of useful things, just remember…

…In life, there are no save files – only alternate endings. It is up to you to choose how your adventure plays out.

Cited: King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder! (Sierra, 1990)

WWYD?

   Typically I am pragmatic with my wont of helping others: Consider the ethics of the situation, don't put myself in danger, or bite off more than I can chew. These are not unreasonable things. There are, however, situations where pragmatism takes a back-seat.. or does it? The all-important question of "what should I do?"

Returning from my apartment's main office, having searched in vain for a package that ought to have arrived, a car pulled up beside me slowly.

"Excuse me," came a woman's voice; thinking she was looking for directions, I stopped. Then came, "I need someone's help with getting my laundry, and am willing to pay $20.00."

My heart stopped. Visions came to me as a kid saying "Don't talk to strangers in strange cars," like it was supposed to mean something to me as an adult. She was in no position to hurt or kidnap me, and obviously I would not let her if she was. The following was not conducive to my heart jumpstarting:

"I am a nurse, and just got out of the hospital. I was sick, but I'm not.. positive, anymore," she nodded knowingly, as if I already knew what she was insinuating--which I did, how could I not in these times?

She continued, "I'm in my 60's, and I have trouble breathing climbing stairs. My laundry's in sealed green trash bags. I just need someone to grab it and get it into my car, so I can drop it off somewhere to be cleaned."

Uneasily, I answered, "I can help, but I have to get my mask--"

"--Oh, I have one here. It has never been used," the woman said as she grabbed the mask dangling from her rear-view mirror. She picked another one out of her passenger seat. "I have a couple unused ones."

I shook my head with a low "nuh-uh."  "I need mine," I answered, trying not to sound suspicious and afraid--but, as any wise person could tell you, the more you try to play something off, the more you end up coming off as the thing you wish to nullify. Case in point.

"I live just around the corner of this building, let me go in and get my mask," I said. "You can just pull up here." She thanked me and pulled up as indicated. I was passing by a side door to my building and thought Oh heck, I can just go in this way, but this must have made me look worse. You will see what I mean..

Heading inside, I asked my boyfriend Tim if I could use one of his masks and told him what transpired. He was very suspicious--and afraid, as he had a right to be: He is high-risk due to his asthma. In my head, I was rapid-firing a plan of action: Get this woman her laundry, dispose of the mask and wash my hands promptly.. the $20 could matter less, as long as I could keep Tim safe.. Yet the worried look on his face made me feel utterly stupid.

On the one hand, I earnestly wanted to help this woman; on the other, I was risking my loved one's health. I caught what I can only say is a glimpse of the stressful, incredibly difficult dilemma that medical personnel, supermarket workers and mail carriers (just to name a few) must have when they need to choose between keeping their jobs (and their loved ones fed, housed and healthy), even if that means they have to quarantine themselves away later.. or not work and be forced to potentially run out of income, having to fight with unemployment for their benefits.

"..Okay, I'll just tell her that I can't risk your health," I said to him, heading out the door. I halted for a moment before heading out of the building, just wondering if I was still doing the 'right thing.' Maybe this woman did not have anyone else who desired to help; maybe she exhausted her efforts on other passers-by. She was willing to approach a complete stranger to handle her laundry, and pay them.. It all felt so wrong. I headed out the door, preparing for her to be disappointed..

..but she was gone. I took too long; probably thinks I ditched her.. sonnuvabitch.. I was angry at myself, at my lack of better judgement; my lack of wisdom, even though it's impossible to gain wisdom if one does not experience things. Full disclaimer: I am not fair to myself, often. This is a bad habit I am trying to break and, as all bad habits go, it's hard.

I came back inside, annoyed, and sat down to writing this.

Less than a month ago, I wrote about how I feared I was Othering based on seeing folks out in public wearing masks. (This was written somewhere else entirely; this was also long before the CDC advised masks worn by everyone rather than just those who feel sick.) Othering is when you view someone/another group of people as fundamentally different from yourself, in essence vilifying them based on factors you don't understand (whether you meant to or not; e.g. class, gender, skin color).

So was I Othering this woman? Or was I just looking out for myself and--especially--for Tim? Was I being self-serving or pragmatic?

I will never know for sure if she really needed someone's help or if she somehow had malicious intentions..  but, inversely, I will never know if I could have gotten me or Tim ill. "Better to be safe than sorry," go the most basic of wise words. One likes to imagine that they will know what to do in situations like these, but it is rare to execute the plan perfectly. Socially-speaking, we all learn on our feet; we are all actors. We do not always do or say the best things in the worst scenarios, but most of us try..

..What would you do?

"Essential" and Examples of Classism

Early March was the starting point for many of us, as far as quarantine goes. Many of us were ordered to work from home until further notice; many of us still had to venture out to work, as supermarket and pharmacy workers, small-businesses who could not afford to close, mail carriers, doctors, nurses, geriatric care-givers; Door Dash, InstaCart, Amazon.. the list goes on.

In Massachusetts (which my observations take place) on March 23rd, Gov. Charlie Baker's administration put out an order regarding gatherings and defined "essential services." You can read it here, but to give you an idea, the table of contents includes:

Health Care/Public Health/Human Services
Law Enforcement, Public Safety, First Responders
Food and Agriculture
Energy
Water and Wastewater
Transportation and Logistics
Public Works & Infrastructure Support Services
Communications and Information Technology
Other Community-, Education-, or Government-Based Operations and Essential Functions
Critical Manufacturing

A fairly extensive list already--and the details therein these contents only makes them broader.

Was it designed to be broad? Of course. However, I know first-hand that some people did not realize they were considered "essential:" I worked for a billing and financing company that processed purchase orders and vendor invoices for sales associates. The associates were not selling T-shirts, coozies and tote bags lately, however--they were selling hand sanitizer, face masks, head coverings, gloves.. Anything that could contribute to public health safety equipment demand. Suddenly, I was "essential."

[I say "was" because I got terminated earlier this month.. and by "terminated" I mean laid off, without much hope of return, due to COVID-19.]

Getting back to the realization of what "essential" suddenly meant for us, allow me to now launch into the unsurprising (but still maddening) reality-laid-bare: Some of us thought we were above others all along. Put another way: Open-air classism. You have surely seen examples of this: Anti-quarantine protesters. None of the following images are mine, and can be easily Googled (sources cited in captions):

Source: CNBC.com

Source: Vox.com

Source: The Milwaukee Independent

Source: ABC News

Source: MSN.com

"Freedom trumps safety and communism?"
"Isolation of the healthy is tyranny?"
..."I want a haircut?"..

These statements are ignorant at best; classist at worst.

Those of us who are fortunate to still have employment, but are not considered essential (or possibly a health risk, such is the case with someone I know), may be on paid leave right now. Those of us who are able to work from home will at least still have an income, but nowhere to go with non-essential businesses being closed (e.g., salons/beauty parlors, dine-in restaurants, theaters). Even if one is essential and physically heading into work, there is no guarantee that one is being paid more for their services.

Understandably, the topic of income inequality is a complex one, as classism rewards those with the unwritten code of conduct, inherent wealth and high-brow tastes--in short, cultural capital--the tangible and symbolic safety nets and status; upper-classmanship. Maybe in another entry I'll lapse into Weberian and Marxist theories about how upper-class status is achieved.

Bearing this in mind, it's worth reminding that everyone is capable of classism. For the sake of this entry, it is the degree of separation from reality that matters here.

Many of us choose to cope with the lack of haircut through social media memes and TikToks, sometimes making light out of a dark situation; other times making satire out of such protesters as the above. The protester, however, is not placing themselves in a satirical or otherwise jesting position. Even in cases where these protesters are working-poor, those who "want their haircut," or think "isolation of the healthy is tyranny," are displaying that they think quarantine is for someone beneath them.

That, somehow, a haircut is more important to their immediate needs than the safety of the hair-dresser. This could be applied to other non-essential desires: "I want to go to the movies;" "I want to meet up with friends at the bar;" "I want to go to the mall."

All of which is saying:  "I want you to submit to me, such as the way it always was."

"Return us to normal."

Here are some questions to ask one's self:

1.) Is it "tyrannical" or "communist" to want all people--including those who appear to believe they are better than others--to not fall ill, or pass it onto their loved ones? Loved ones who may be immunocompromised or have pre-existing conditions?

2.) To strongly advise hand-washing not just for this pandemic, but for generally-good hygienic practices that generally keep us safe?

3.) To keep non-essential business closed and people home so as to slow the spread of a virus we are still learning about every day?

..True, there are small businesses (especially minority-/women-owned) that are hurting. This is a cause for alarm, especially there was already discrimination against these and interesectional people (the history of our racial wealth gap comes to mind, but one recent example can be read about here). Let us imagine that some of these protesters had these small businesses in mind..

..Yes, we are in part flying by the seats of our collective pants to staunch the bleeding that the lack of reliable, trustworthy information is causing. However, ill-advised demanding of businesses large and small to be reopened is not going to help anyone overcome a pandemic. The "normal" these protesters sorely want is not--clearly never was--a healthy "normal."

More questions:

4.) What do we define as a baseline "normal?"

5.) Does this "normal" include treating customer service, retail and other "essential" service workers with disrespect or misdirected anger when something doesn't go your way? Does it include said-workers continuing to be underpaid and with fewer benefits? Does it include unquestioned service under the notion of "the customer's always right?"

6.) Does it include leaving in place the systemic problems that keep women-owned, minority-, even LGBTQ- and intersectional-owned businesses placed on lower, less-prioritize rungs in our competitive, hyper-capitalistic and upper-class affirmative markets?