Don't Play the Game

 

There's a phrase in the fighting game community I like: "Don't let them play their game". The idea is that each character in a fighting game interacts with the mechanics of the game in a unique way, and thus have their own way of playing the game, and their strategy is to find a way to play their form of the game. The basics of any fighting game are to deny the opponent their form of the game, while getting to maximize your own time playing your game.  

So, for instance, these are the shenanigans that my favorite character Sub-Zero can get up to, should he put you into the corner:

Now, why am I pointing this out?

Because, as a geek, I've noticed that this logic is pretty damn near universal, especially when it comes to debate. I've never, not even once, seen this not be an issue. If you share assumptions then certain logical outcomes are certain. Sorry, there's only so many ways to skin the rabbit in a way that works with power. And yes, trying to keep power/politics out of the situation is naive. Power is a magnet: if you're set up to be in agreement with its assumptions you will, eventually, go to where the power is. It's a matter of time. Power, whether it be military, cultural, personal, will always win if you give it an inch.

I disagree with where society is going, and always have. Hell, I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any society at any point in time. That may be because of the sheer number of times I've seen groupthink be harmful. So I acknowledge there may be an irrational impetus in there. But, looking the rage, distrust, and outright incoherence of where we're at I don't think I'm entirely off the track. So I don't want to be like what the society around us wants. That means my assumptions are different, and if they aren't different I must make them different, to avoid the pull of power. And so, if I wish to maintain what I think is a good outlook on life, my assumptions must be radically different from what society assumes. They can't play their game, not even for a moment.

Here's some of the assumptions I keep running into with our society that I think aren't just wrong but are obviously wrong. And by assumptions I mean things that you can more or less ascertain if you just a take second and actually look at the world and how it operates.

1. People are, by nature, good and if we could just get the bad programming out it would be fine.

Nope. I've never agreed with this, because it's just manifestly and obviously untrue.  Everyone, from every culture, has a degree of brutality and evil to them, and you can't not pass it on. The attempts to "reboot" have always been disastrous, and there's so much blood in just the French Revolution (which implemented 10 day weeks, temple prostitutes to Reason, and a generous severance package from life if you disagreed with them), nevermind the Nazis (who adapted Marxist principles to the scale of nations, that's literally what nationalism is), and definitely the Bolsheviks (whose attempts to rewrite human nature resulted in a black market that choked out the "legit" one).... people are social animals. They're immediately imprinted upon, from the moment they come into existence. There are no blank slates.

And even then, humans are programmed to follow the path of least resistance, which leads to entropy and death. Social programming is there to stop us from killing ourselves due to sheer indolence. You need people around to tell you how to fight against your own ennui. Which is everywhere in you, all the time.

You. Need. People. That's HUMAN 101 folks. 

So no, the programming is not the problem, on principle. People just do bad things with the programming they're given, and the best human programming attempts to make it as difficult as possible to subvert it.

2. Categorical imperatives are the key to morality.

I've written about this before. If such and such was applied universally would it be right? That's the categorical imperative. It assumes that humans can figure crap out. Again, that's manifestly untrue. If you think religion is the problem with that please, explain the 20th century, which implemented the openly atheistic principles of the Enlightenment, like the categorical imperative... to absolutely disastrous effect. Anyone who wants to defend the categorical imperative has to explain why it didn't impact the bloodshed of the 20th century, an act suspiciously like trying to deny the nose on your face. Somehow you'd have to go through the works of the Marxists, Communists, and Nazis, and prove they didn't have the categorical imperative behind them.

Good luck.

3. The key to a good life is minimizing pain while maximizing pleasure.

That's called hedonism, specifically epicureanism.

And that's, again, obviously wrong. 

Most of the things I've found worth doing in my life have not just been horrifically hard, but painful beyond cruelty. But if I hadn't have done those things I would have become less, lost my peace, which is not the same as being happy. To quote George Lucas "Happiness is only for a moment". You can't control whether or not you're happy, but you can control whether or not you're at peace.

Yes, that means learning to sit in the midst of the inferno as it rages around you and accepting it. Or, as St. Silouan puts it: "Keep thy mind in Hell and despair not". Yes, it means that you have to let go of the idea of happiness as an end point, or even as something worth thinking about at all.

The modern world only makes sense if you accept its assumptions. Assumptions are either correct or they're not.  If you accept the assumption you accept the logic founded upon it. The only way out is to reject the assumptions. You either look at the world around you and go "Yup, that tracks" or you don't.

And honestly? I don't. And haven't. And never will.

Enclave

 

I have a hatred for shills disguised as reviews. You know the ones I'm talking about, where there's nothing wrong with the game, it’s obviously perfection, and it's within their best interest for them to say so. I also have a hatred for "reviews" that do not reflect table experience. A read-through of a game is not the same as a review, and frankly most "reviews" of RPGs are outright fraudulent.

This is not a review.

So to get it out of the way: I am not an objective source. I love this game. Robby, the designer, has helped me with mine own baby, Crescendo, which has a similar vibe. Robby’s opinions on things aren’t exactly my own, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I look up to and respect his opinions more than I normally would, even if I don’t completely agree with him on implementation. You are not reading someone who can be objective.  I’ll tell you what I’m looking for when I look at the industry and why I love this game so much, and you can make up your own mind.

So, here's my concerns. Most RPGs do not teach good table talk. Modern Dungeons and Dragons destroys most good habits people could have built for RPGs, takes a dump on the wreckage, and then salts the earth so that way its shit JUST stinks and can’t compost. Most people who get away from the game Ron Edwards generously said caused  “brain damage” in its players find it takes years, sometimes a decade or more, to undo the damage wrought by WOTC’s trainwreck. All RPGs have to contend with The Great DnDisaster in their texts, either leaning into the brain damage, or fighting against it constantly on every page. Heck, some games go so hard against the DnDisaster they actually create entirely new problems of their own! All in an effort to help people heal from the damage!

But then there’s my least favorite part of the industry: the “rules-lite” garbage. Masquerading as “getting out of the way”, the lite-reactionaries throw out most of the supportive structure that’s actually good to have in the mistaken belief that most of us will go looking for supporting products or want to make up whole swaths of the game at once. Sorry, I’m a parent, not an unpaid designer.

That’s technically true because someone paid ten bucks for Apex. Once. So I am a paid designer! Hooray!!!

Point is, it’s usually not rules-lite, but rules-anemic. It’s infuriating. 

For those who are curious: yes the above is my nice opinion about the state of the industry; I’m not naming names, nor am I speaking my very pointed opinions on the “solutions” to the DnDisaster. The above is simply what’s going on, stated strongly so that the actual shitshow that is modern RPGs can be looked at with accuracy.

What in the everloving fuck does this have to do with Enclave, you may ask?

Simple.

Enclave is one of the best introductions to RPGs ever made, easily rivaling the classic Tenra Bansho Zero. This anorexically thin book is what I’d honestly throw at anyone who’s recovering from the DnDisaster AND total noobies, at the same time. This game is a gold standard for what RPG rules should be like.

How? Why?

By hyper focusing on merging mechanics with the conversation as tightly as possible. See, the DnDisaster can rightfully be called “brain damage” because it puts the two key aspects of an RPG, conversation and rules, in as acrimonious a rivalry as possible. Spoiler alert, but power gaming and taking advantage of a metagame shouldn’t be a dirty word. If you flinched at that congrats: your own sense of playing games itself has been turned on you. Hence why it’s called “brain damage”. And why I continue to use the term unironically. 

Enclave melds these two elements so tightly that it drops dice altogether. For some that is going to be a huge no-no;  rocks or nothing! And that would be sad, because the one thing I have found while playing Enclave is that it helped me remember how much fun just making shit up can really be… except there’s a short but robust system of rules in place to help keep things easy and fair. 

Part of this has to do with the book itself. At “typical” RPG size and 60 pages, Enclave simply isn’t what I like holding in my hands. It feels flimsy to hold. I don’t like that. But the fact that I’ve never had an issue looking up a rule in this “FEED ME A BURGER PLEASE”-sized book is something I must begrudgingly acknowledge. Some of this is definitely because the book’s organization is very clear. But the utility of a thinner rule book was honestly lost on me until this game, where the rules actually do matter in running the game, so that’s what I’m talking about now.

The gameplay itself is, as Martha remarked of Crescendo, “rules invisible”: all the rules faithfully respond to narration already going on, or are so intuitive that all it takes is a moment’s glance to understand the rule. So it’s not that you forget the rules, but that they encourage you to do what you already wanted to do to begin with. It’s not often you find a ruleset that’s so dedicated to legitimately getting out of the way, while providing support by giving you mechanics in spots where there would be questions as to how to handle things, like Rally. 

Of more questionable worth is the apparent hatred of numbers, while still using the concept. Is ++ really different from 2? Functionally? No. I get where Robby is coming from, and I applaud the attempt to keep the game as grounded in the conversation as possible, but I personally think the game goes too far, taking out useful trackers like HP and DCs simply because numbers are bad. But, and take notes here kiddos, the systems that replace the numbers are functional and more than satisfactory. Assigning color levels to stuff looks weird till ya do it, and then it makes sense. Now, I'm not new to RPGs, so I can't speak to whether or not it's better than numbers, but criminy it does work. Could it have stayed similar to previous  systems? Yes. Does it work anyways? Also yes.

There are very games on the market today that actualy focus on the conversation that aren't incredibly reductive, aka PBTA. Enclave isn't reductive, but focused. There's a mechanical variety to Enclave that's really subtle, quiet, but there. Sometimes the best things in life are the really quiet ones, which give just the right nudges, at the right time. And Enclave is exactly that.

Orthodox Game Design: A World of Subjects

 

“The life of the eternal subjectivity is an infinite reference to its subjectivity contemplated within another “I” so as to be truly love… In any other circumstances, eternity would be either an unbearable boredom… or else an absurdity.”

St. Dimitru Staniloae 

The Experience of God

Let’s break that down, shall we? What the hell does that gobbledygook mean?

Simply: true joy and peace is to experience yourself in the context of someone else. Anyone who has ever stared into the eyes of a beloved knows exactly this feeling; parents experience  this in the eyes of their children. Without this experience of self being experienced by another self we wither and die inside. “It is not good for man to be alone” is said after Adam names all the animals; it is not until man realized nothing else in the world will do that God gives man that most ferocious of creatures, woman. 

It is essential to understand one of the primary truths of Christianity: all are subjects, all is community with the goal of “union in perfect love”, as Staniloea also says. That first statement is a bit difficult to parse, and the second statement is even harder to understand without the first. So first off we'll need to break down what the hell I mean by that and then break down what that means for game design, particularly TTRPGs, coz that's what I know.

So, what do I mean by "all are subjects"? I mean that historical Christianity, Catholic and Orthodox alike, regard all of creation as alive and sentient. It's not like us and our version of it, but the universe is alive. God loves it  and cares for it, even if we're supposed to care for it. The Golden Legend, has this to say about how active and aware the universe really is:

"The third accuser will be the whole world. Hear Gregory: "If you ask who will accuse you, I say, 'The whole world. When the Creator is offended the entire creatoin is offended.'" Chrysostom comments on Matthew: "There will be nothing we can say in response on that day when heaven and earth, the waters, the sun and the moon, night and day and the whole world will oppose us before God, testifying to our sins; and if all were silent, our very thoughts and especially our works will against us before God, forcefully accusing us."

The phrase "The blood of thy brother has found a voice that cries out to me from the ground" isn't meant to be figurative, it's literal. The Biblical world is not silent, not at all. We're just deaf and stupid in our fallenness. 

More than that, however, is there is a point to creation. The Orthodox theologian Staniloae states that creation, including time and space, were given to us, so that we could carry on a conversatoin with God. God, in His mercy, knew that we would not be able to talk to Him as creatures. God is so far removed from us by just the definition of what He is and what we are not that we wouldn't be able to focus on Him to be able to talk, not directly. The world exists specifically so we can have something to attach our minds to, so that God may babble with us about these little created things that we have cooperated with Him to refine and put the way we like them, together. And if we screw this up the world, which must be multiple myriads of consciousnesses because God is a community of persons. Even celibates, those monks who sit around and don't seem to do much, are with us, becaus they've discovered that God is as much a medium for transmission as He is person; by being in union with God directly, they are in union with all, in their own way.

So all of life is communion, even if you don't understand how all the things that can see and hear you do.

If you're wondering where I'm going with this: game design's central point should be to help you relate better. By designing artificial environments that are different from your usual you give each other a place to do the most worthwhile action of all: investing yourself into something beyond yourself, to BELIEVE again.

It is here I draw my first line in the sand: a good game helps you trust yourself to others more, possibly helping you restore yourself, possibly healing emotional and spiritual wounds in the process. Games reward investment of self (which us Christians call kenosis) by creating a framework of rules that reward certain actions while punishing others. You are expected to let go of your notion of what is real and consequential and engage with this new construct, this new environment. By doing so you imbue it with meaning, replicating the human action: to give meaning to the universe. Really good game design will bleed your experiences back over to the real world. And it should. It’s why the USA loves sports so much!

Good game design has a few factors: it encourages and requires particular actions while punishing others, while providing a sense of progression towards a goal, with usually some form of going out of yourself as the endpoint (also known as ecstasy). No, this isn’t exhaustive, no I do not have all the answers, I’m just an obnoxious loudmouth with the determination to write his silly thoughts down (mostly on a phone) in the ridiculous expectation that others may get something out of what I’m saying. No, I won't elaborate on those here. Honestly I need to think on them more.

Now, it should be obvious why general disinterest is a bad thing for a game. You get bored, you withdraw, because your attempt to invest is actively thwarted. 

I’m breaking the next line into its own paragraph, because you need to actually read it. 

YOU NOT LIKING A GAME IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS BAD DESIGN.

This is where it gets tricky and actually requires adult conversation and that really gray thing called discernment, wisdom. A good game can ask for a type of investment that you may not want to give. And I know all about that one! I’m designing tabletop role playing games! That aren’t Dungeons and Dragons! I’m in niches that are so pathetically small that subatomic particles are calling their exterminators because holy crap I thought we got rid of all the freaking subatomic roaches.

So not wanting to invest doesn’t make a game bad. It’s a game; by its very nature not liking or even loving a game isn’t a grave matter. But bad design does exist. It is a thing. Bad design can hurt you. Bad game design specifically uses your dopamine receptors against you while providing nothing in response. Instead of you playing the game, the game takes you over and plays you. You're not trying to interact with an object on its terms, you're just wasting time as your dopamine gets upped.

Or, y'know, in the case of Dungeons and Dragons or Magic you're just putting up with it because you genuinely don't know better stuff exists.

Please stop giving the supervillain money. Thank you.

Speaking of DnD, there’s another bad form of game design, one which people are more attached to, because its allure is so strong: having a ton of complexity that doesn’t really fit in with the game’s stated goals, or obfuscates the core loop of the game. This has the knock-on effect of making a second game that’s effectively divorced from the supposed real game. All modern DnD games fall into this trap, even my beloved 4e, where the option bloat invites one to tinker and tinker and tinker… to no actual difference. I’m not talking against games that have builds being a part of the loop; I may not like Pathfinder, but I’ll be the first to admit it doesn’t hide its core loop with its options. Even games with core loops I don’t like, like Marvel Champions and Arkham Horror the LCG, are games that use its “build” mechanics well. But building for its own sake, where the engine you’re supposed to be building for gets left behind, is bad design. If this is done well it’s an opportunity to give greater meaning to your experience. If it’s done poorly it’s modern Scholasticism.

Seriously, the difference between modern scholastics and build whores in games is nil.

The point is: bad design actually hijacks you against yourself, removing you from relating to others and plays your own brain against itself. A lot of mobile games are built this way, weaponizing your dopamine receptors against themselves. You can also design a game that can not support a player well enough in the design goals. This is a much harder one to identify, and is much more subject to taste than we'd all like to admit... but clunky designs do exist. I mean, c'mon folks, SpiderMan 3 the video game exists. We all know there's such a thing as designs that don't live up to their potential. These designs prevent you from giving  subjectivity, and thus relationship, to the design. Without gifting meaning to the design you are stuck in a series of meaningless actions, isolated and stuck within your own subjectivity. It's doomscrolling on your phone, but with an object that was actually supposed to help you practice your primary function as a human being: giving meaning.

Yeah, we got a word for that: Hell.

I think that's what I got for the moment. Good game design is meant to be a function of you giving meaning to the world and those around you. Great design makes that central human function easy and enjoyable, sublime. Bad design frustrates this ability. Horrible design will make you forget it's your job to give meaning entirely, either because the base engine is bad or because the game distracts you from its core too much.

OKAY, SO THIS IS THE SHILL TIME. If you go away after this point that's fine! Really!

If you like what I've written and want to see it in action, go over to my Itch, and pick up my game Apex, which is a single-page game that packs a lot of punch to it. It's way better than any one-page RPG has any right to be and it's really easy to play.

If you like what I'm saying and want to see what I'm up, design-wise, I update my two games on my Discord on an-almost weekly basis. If you want to see the drafts, go on over to Discord and take a look!

Oh, what am I working on, in general? Glad you asked! I'm working on three games: Dragons and Planets, The Truth Found in Death and Crescendo.

Dragons and Planets is a one-shot space fantasy game for two to six people, in the tone and tradition of Star Wars, Pacific Rim, and the Matrix. Gameplay is fast, frenetic, and extremely collaborative, while being surprisingly relaxing. Oh, and it's diceless and uses your favorite book. From character and world creation to the end it takes about two hours.

The Truth Found in Death is a game for two to six people, emulating the blood-punting pulp of Robert E. Howard. Yes, that includes Kull. Game sessions feature an original D6 dice pool system, with lots of risk, reward, and blood. Each game sesssion takes between two to four hours, character creation included.

Crescendo is a long-form fantasy game of character development for two to four people. Innovative journaling with easy-but-deep storytelling mechanics, Crescendo is an intensely rewarding time for those who really want to sink their teeth into their characters and the setting.

You can find the most recent drafts for both games on the Discord.

You Can’t Thank a Machine

 

"There is something ambiguous about time... We have to launch ourselves out, relinquishing a state threatened by death, in the sure faith we will discover fullness."

St. Dimutru Staniloae, The Experience of God

The last two weeks I chimed in my very short opinions on the conservative and progressive viewpoints. A few people have commented to me on other platforms that they enjoyed reading my posts, but told me I was far too kind to my won former camp of conservativism. They were right, of course: it can be very difficult to critique what you came from honestly, and to be totally blunt neither post was very fun to write. This is because, even though I did my level best to write against ideologies, and not people, the simple fact of the matter is that people I love, care for, and respect ascribe to points of view I think are inherently and inordinately destructive to them. I take no joy in pointing at things that have given people I love meaning and screaming "ACTUALLY IT'S KILLING YOU PLEASE STOP." 

However, they are only the wings on the bird, halves of a whole. Yes, they are a whole. And the whole problem is secularism, which is practical and political atheism. I was going to write a post on the subject, detailing how popular atheism is actually a pretty recent thing, how it’s eerily linked to the loss of true astrology, and a lot of other esoteric nonsense. I would have felt very smart, people who know more about the subjects I would have mentioned would have rolled their eyes, and people who didn’t wouldn’t have really benefited. Instead, I’m going to try something else, something about time.

I’ve been going through a personal process of change lately. It’s been complicated and I may not write about it for a few years, but rest assured it’s happening. A lot of really intense healing work is being done, and rapidly. A logic in the story of my life is beginning to appear as I work through the difficulties of my existence. As I remember more and more a narrative emerges. And as I work through this stuff I’ve found myself becoming grateful for this very next moment.

And this one.

This one too.

Yup.

Just keep going!

It’s not this overwhelming “OOH LIFE IS HUNKY DORY HOORAY” or any smarmy bullshit. It’s a small, quiet realization the moment has been given to me. I didn’t have to have it. There is nothing stopping me from winking out the next second. 

But I don’t. And neither did you.

The older I get the more I realize it’s a gift. Me. My existence. There’s no inherent right I have to any of it. I’m a small, fragile existence, who shouldn’t have any right to decide anything. But I can. Against all odds and decent guesses, I am alive. Husband. Father. Somehow, despite every bit of exertion in the universe, I chose those things. Somehow I was conscious a better choice existed and gave everything I didn’t think I had to make those choices. It was harder than I could ever tell you, to continue making that choice, over and over and over. Decisions are not one-time events, but a resolution made over time, repeatedly, and they have to be made in faith that that resolution is going to be worthwhile.

Faith.

As in, a deep and constant trust, even without sufficient evidence. Sorry, but the past is not sufficient evidence for moving forward, not ever. 

Over-reliance upon the past is pathologically bad for you. All the ancient spiritualities say it. I've spent the last seven years in therapy working through just how true that statement is, so obviously modern psychology agrees with this timeless statement. Learning to stay in the present, taking the past in advisement while not being enslaved to it and heading into the unknown of the future... that's a type of death. 

If you are psychologically healthy you are constantly facing the death of the past and the present. I am learning to do that in faith that the next moment will not only come, but it is a deliberate gift, and that I should be grateful for it.  But here's the thing: you can't thank a machine for doing its job because to be thankful requires someone on the distant end to say "You're welcome". This is such an obvious point that it's very easy to overlook and thus argue the point, but I do not know of a single person alive capable of maintaining a grateful mindset without relationship, true and genuine. Theism at that point isn't a nice option, but a requirement. If you say "thank you" into the universe and you feel "you're welcome" back, by definition that means there's something on the other end saying it back. Now, the more I lean into this way of being thankful, the more I feel myself detaching from whether or not the success or failure of my actions matters. I am not in control of the next moment. The only thing I am in control of is how I respond. To have the next moment at all is such an earth-shattering gift that I frankly don't have time to go "Oh fuck that didn't work! Why????" It's a waste of time, as I will never get that answer, or if I do it will either be on an impractical timeline or just... I mean has anyone ever gotten an answer to that question and found it helpful?? I sure haven't met anyone who could claim that.

Now I am very aware that there's another way to face the death of your present moment as it becomes the past, the one of endurance. You face the death of the present as someone on the wall of a city facing a siege, awaiting the end. Change has come, and frankly it's a really messed up game of Russian Roulette as to whether or not it's something that'll take you out or not. Now, one can make the case that they can definitely believe in a God while believing that the next moment is actually Russian Roulette. But I'm not talking about what's in your head, I'm talking about what's in your nervous system. 

I will say it again, coz someone is going to go "No I don't think that and I'm an atheist or I don't think the way you think I do!"

I didn't say you thought it. 

It's not a thought.

It's not something that pops up in your head.

It's an expectation in perception. It is the lens you use to determine how to look at reality, which then dictates your thoughts. 

Now, someone can tell me "But there isn't anything out there, or God is continuously after me and you can't fucking convince me otherwise, because saying there's something out there that's benevolent is an irrational fairytale." And sure, I can't convine you otherwise. My entire life, existence, is a testatement to otherwise, but sure, I can't actually convince you.

But I can say, emphatically, that whether or not it's a childish fairytale is irrelevant: being continuously thankful (which requires two subjects) is a lot more healthy than constantly bracing yourself for the next impact. No, I'm not claiming that one is constantly anxiously awaiting the future. It is possible to harden yourself against the moment of death, to make your expectation of enduring. I mean, that's stoicism. You can go do that. It takes years and years and years, and there's some really good guidance on how to do that. But it's you against the universe, which is much much bigger than you. 

I shouldn't have to say which one has less mental and physiological overhead; it takes less muscles to smile than frown.

Why am I bringing this up? Because secularism  is based off this automatic response. Conservativsm looks to the past to endure the present moment of death, knowing that it's all been done before and hoping to find a solution to endure the new now. Progressivism looks beyond the next moment, in an absurd hope that somehow, some way, someone will figure out something new. And, even though my disgust for progressivism's... hope isn't the right word, but that's the word they'd use, even though it isn't.. is obvious and I have a lot of vitriol for such adolescent silliness, the simple fact of the matter is that conservatism is trying to deal with the same existential problem. The issue is that this attitude has some really serious and obvious side effects, leading to... well... do you remember any mention of death camps killing tens of millions of people before the 20th century, when the Enlightenment really came to roost?

You don't either?

Huh. 

Odd.

I sure don't.

Now, some smartass will attempt to state that the colonialism of Western Europe counts, despite the glaringly obvious lack of it before the Enlightenment era. And honestly, all it takes is a quick survey of any of the Enlightenment-era writers to see they are specifically trying to undo spiritual experience as the primary aspect of life and to put the mind first, even going so far as to deny the nous, not to mention the silly notion that secular humanity would be gentler than religious humanity...

Yeah. Sure. That aged well.

The problem, the real problem, is that one cannot endure the present moment without becoming more hardened and destructive than we already are. Hardening may help you get through the next moment, but it doesn't have a great historical track record, best I can ascertain.

Oh, wait, you wanted something that didn't result in humans being massive assholes? You wanted all war to be gone and for people to miraculously start getting along? You wanted to maintain the nice cuddly myth that things were worse in the past than they are now, and that all ideas before just led to bigotry, oppression, and superstition?

You are aware that superstitious occult practices skyrocketed during the Enlightenment, right?

Now who's talking unrealistic fairy tales?

You can either be thankful for the opportunity to be in the next moment, or harden yourself because you don't know what's coming. 

All you can really do is pick one. And embrace that your choice brings consequences, and that by making the choice you choose the consequences, good and bad.