Translating vs. Adapting an RPG

[juhanaonparas]

I’m doing an English translation of a roleplaying game I originally published in Finnish. The new version will be called Chernobyl, Mon Amour and it’s about love and radioactivity. (And after a successful crowdfunding campaign its now late…)

My automatic instinct was that I should revise it instead of just publishing a translation. I figured that since it would reach new audiences, it should be done with them in mind.

This has been the approach of many other translated games as well. In Nomine, Engel and Maid come to mind, whatever the motivations in each case.

What struck me suddenly was that this is a very different approach than what we take with translation a novel, for example. With a novel, we assume that the work has an integrity that needs to be preserved. That new audiences deserve to get something reflecting the original work.

When my game will come out, it’s going to be pretty close to the original. But not exactly. This means that an original version will remain out of reach to English-speaking audiences. In my case, I don’t think this is a big deal, but when I read that Engel had card-based mechanics in the German original and D20 in English I did feel a sense of loss. Should have studied German in school…

As a bonus note, pretty much every game that I’ve seen translated into Finnish (my native language) has been done very faithfully, with no adaptation. Why the different approaches in terms of translating to English and from English, I have no clue.

So, I guess the question I’m wondering about is:

Do roleplaying games have an integrity like a novel has, something that should be preserved across languages?

Personally, I’m not at all sure what’s the right answer! Or if there is one…

[Luiz]

I’m a professional translator, and I’d say RPGs have more of a necessity for faithfulness than novels do. I find it unthinkable to change mechanics based on the target market, especially when it comes to English, since it’s the default language most RPGers from around the world play in. It betrays the players, bars them access to the game as it was written, and depending on the changes, might even reinforce stagnant design principles of the English market.

I’d say keep the mechanics 100% faithful and adjust fluff as needed as in usual translation

[Joshua_G]

I’ll very much agree with Luiz, only exception being if you’re the author and you really want to change something - that’s your work and your choice, of course.

Also, I find it fascinating that even if you do the MOST faithful translation possible, the work will still not be the same in one language as in another. But perhaps that’s a different topic.

[Jmstar]

While our translation partners (for Bully Pulpit Games) have been faithful to the source, one place where each Fiasco edition diverges is the choice of playsets to be showcased. The four core playsets in the English-language version are very, very American, and occasionally don’t play well elsewhere. Our partners in Studio 101, for instance, wrote some new playsets to appeal specifically to a Russian audience. We encourage this.

[juhanaonparas]

One could make the case that the co-creative nature of roleplaying games changes the equation: Since the player is supposed to be able to read a book and then play the game, adapting the material to the proposed audience makes sense. For example, perhaps different game cultures find different things to be self-evident, or problematic, and to be useful a book has to adapt to this.

This is pretty much what I was thinking when I decided to make some changes to my game.

However, that doesn’t negate the issue that an adapted translation makes it impossible for the new audience to then access the original substance of the work. For example, following Jason’s Fiasco example, let’s imagine a Russian player who desperately wishes to specifically engage with American playsets. They’d be shit out of luck. (No criticism to the choices Studio 101 made here btw, would probably have made the same call myself.)

I guess my position is that I’m still kinda on the side of adaptation, but I’ve grown more suspicious of it.

[Von_Bednar]

Why do you feel you should adapt the game in the first place? For me, seeing how games from other places around the world differ from what I am used to, is the biggest part of why I would check out a translated game in first place.

I think that adapting the system will make the game lose some of it’s charm. I am ok with adapting fluff when it is very specific to the original culture, but I don’t see a point in adapting mechanics.

Also, if the game would not interest someone based on its premise, setting or fluff in the first place, changing the system or location will not make someone buy it. On the other hand, if someone was interested in the game before it was translated, adapting the game makes them feel like they are not getting the real thing.

So yes, I believe the games have integrity just like novels do. If I picked up a book and found out the setting was changed to something I am familiar with (because market research said so), I would feel cheated from the original experience.

[Luiz]

I second @Von_Bednar’s points, especially about the crunch x fluff.

This feels like a hard topic to comment on without knowing exactly what part of the game would be changed. @juhanaonparas could you give us an example on what you mean to change (if it’s okay)?

[juhanaonparas]

I was more looking for broader thinking about the question! Only mentioned my own game as an example. The main things I’m adapting are safety stuff and something more about the assumptions on where and in what circumstances this game should be played. I also have to change a few minor things to reflect the way Chernobyl and the Ukraine have changed since I originally wrote this game.

But concerning the theoretical question, I think other examples are more interesting than my game. I realize that a big part of my own attitude depends on whether I take the position of the designer or the reader:

As a designer, I’m concerned whether the game works, whether people are able to access it. So I adapt.

As a reader, I’m annoyed that I can’t get to the original work, especially if it feels like there’s some sort of censorship / mildening motive to the adaptation, as I’ve seen claimed was the case with In Nomine. (I have both English and French editions but don’t know enough language to compare.)

[Stentor_Danielson]

I think the difference between games and novels is that with games, you have the question both of the integrity of the game (in the sense of the materials and mechanics employed in play) and the integrity of the game text (the way those materials and mechanics are described in the book). I think the former would be much more important than the latter, and I can even imagine situations where maintaining the integrity of the game text would compromise the integrity of the game itself.

That being said, I’m not convinced that integrity is such an important value. If I’m putting out a game, I want to to be the best game it can be. If I know there are problems (with the game or the text) I would want to take the opportunity to fix them. Honestly, I’d worry less about the readers of the translated game feeling like they didn’t get the true original text, and more about the readers of the original game missing out on the improvements made for the translated version.

[juhanaonparas]

I actually do feel a little guilty about the fact that there’s some cool stuff in the English version of my game that wasn’t in the Finnish original. There’s a bunch of illustrations that I couldn’t originally include because of production scheduling issues but now can.

However, designer intent is not the only reason for adaptation. I can think of at least:

• Commercial reasons. (“Let’s make it D20 so it sells”)
• Values reasons (removing nudity, language that’s problematic for one reason or another, etc.)
• Production reasons (“We lost the rights to the illustrations so we need new ones.”)
• More nebulous reasons of adapting to a new culture (“Our new audience won’t get these references so we’ll remove them.”)

I think in these cases, the case for integrity of the work as a value in itself grows stronger. Maybe?

[Gerrit]

I’d agree with @Stentor_Danielson and would see a very different type of integrity in action for RPGs than with novels.

For sure, the original author’s intentions should be respected if we are not talking about a revision (or even a remake like with so many TV shows reproduced for the US market) of the game in itself.

But for example the German translation of Dungeon World took benefit of the 5 (at least) years of a lively community discussing and improving some core understandings of the game which even the authors acknowledged.

Why should a translation ignore this and give higher value to the integrity of the text than towards the consensus of the community around the game?

(to clarify: the German Dungeon World has the same mechanics but the rulebook has been restructured and the most useful guideline which was written for it has been integrated into the core book)

[SabineV5]

I have many thoughts!

First, I think the German Engel game came with a choice between d20 and the card thing - but leaving it out isn’t ideal.

Second, I thought the In Nomine translation into English was very tame, compared to the rather anarchic,violently satirical German translation.

Third, and coming to the meat of the topic: I believe a translation should stay faithful to the original. But that should include localizations - as jmstar mentions, the Fiasco playsets are very much keyed towards an US American audience, and while that was fine with the German translation (we watch sooo many US TV series over here), not everything was immediately understandable and had to be adapted to something more familiar.
Besides localization, sometimes there is unclear phrasing or contradictory content. Today, in the days of the interwebs, I believe a conscientious translator might reach out to the original writer for clarification and then include this into their translation.

[Gustavo_Campanelli]

If there’s a need to adapt something, preserve also the original as option. When you adapt for a market, you disregard everybody else that consumes from the market but doesn’t share the same frame of mind. So it’s better to preserve the original than to adapt, but if you MUST adapt, then also preserve.

[Christo]

There are definite cultural differences that might need to be explained/adapted in a translation for playability and sensitivity (yes, I did a stint as a translator or contracts/ads/etc. from Russian to English). In translating a game from Russian to English, I would expect that there would need to be translator’s annotations to clarify some references of Russian culture, for instance.

Also, what do you do if you get handed something to translate that has content/attitudes that just aren’t appropriate in the target culture? Wouldn’t adapting be the way to go, presumably after getting the author’s permission?

[juhanaonparas]

Appropriateness for target culture is a super complicated question!

I haven’t really had a situation where I’ve had to consider that with trpgs but in larp, there’s one incident. I was making a larp in St Petersburg in Russia as part of our Baltic Warriors larp tour. Our local Russian producer told us that our larp contained LGBT+ elements and was open to minors. Because of this, we were breaking the Russian law which forbids homosexual propaganda aimed at children.

She said that she was willing to break the law and run the larp unchanged, but wanted us to be aware of the possible complications. We decided to run the larp as it was, and break the law in doing so.

Was this inappropriate in the target culture? According to Russian law, yes. According to our Russian producer, no. In a situation like this, the question of what’s appropriate can depend on who you’re listening to, which can make it quite complex.

[Luiz]

If a law outright persecutes a certain cultural aspect that we know to be fundamentally right, that’s all the more reason to make sure it’s present in the game. If you’re going to release a game with aspects of female empowerment in a country that lawfully oppresses women, and you adapt it by removing it, you’re reinforcing a negative situation. We as creators have the chance, and the responsibility, of promoting positive cultural change, not play into the established flaws of certain cultures

[Jmstar]

We had a similar problem with the Russian language version of Night Witches, specifically about the illustration on page 8, which Studio 101 was very uncomfortable publishing, because, again, it technically broke the law.

Our solution was to remove the image and explain that it had been redacted, and point readers to a URL that displayed the image beyond the reach of the Russian government. But the book itself was censored. We worked with our partner, but ultimately left the solution up to them, since they were the ones who might get arrested or fined.

They – and we – have gotten some aggressive pushback and threats from Russian nationalists who don’t like the game’s content or take on the war. We’ve roundly ignored this.

[juhanaonparas]

It’s wonderful to see so many concrete examples of what we’re talking about in this discussion! It helps to illuminate the issue for me too.

I’m starting to think that a roleplaying game should have the same kind of right to creative integrity as a novel, but the specifics of what that integrity mandates are different.

Maybe it depends on the goals of adapting the work? In the case of the German edition of Dungeon World cited above, it sounded like the essential integrity of the game was maintained despite it being adapted. The same in the case of the Russian edition of Fiasco, I think, although that case is more complicated.

To me, In Nomine stands as the case where the creative integrity of the original was not respected. Based on comments from others, I get the impression that the English version was nerfed in a way that watered down the game.

Of course, this kind of a conclusion is difficult because it means that the question of translation vs. adaptation is answered with a …it depends.

[Stentor_Danielson]

I get the impression that the English version was nerfed in a way that watered down the game.

But would you say the same thing if the English version improved an aspect of the game? Otherwise the problem isn’t disrespecting the integrity of the original, it’s just that the translation was a worse game.

[William_Nichols]

This reminds me of the time I read Les Mis. This was in college.

I had bought a translation that came out in the early twentieth century, and was a word for word translation. It was grueling, and made me sad. I could read maybe a page at a time.

This went on for months. Then a friend brought me a different translation, and I devoured 300 pages that night. It was so good I didn’t sleep or go to class until I was done.

That translation was done to preserve the poetry and intention of the original.

All of which is to say: this matters more than is obvious.