TheRPGSite

Normal person blogging about Steal Away Jordan (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/08/of-follow-the-north-star-and-steal-away-jordan-would-you-play-a-roleplaying-game-set-during-slavery-in-the-antebellum-south/).

Misery tourism, then, is complete bullshit as a design principle.

That was interesting.  I'm curious as to who buys these games anyway (assuming anyone does).  As you so aptly noted, misery tourism doesn't go very far.

I've known hundreds of gamers over the years I've been playing rpg's and I can honestly think of one of them who would buy this or even play in it....unless maybe you get to kill the slaveowners and take their stuff, but even then I doubt it.

I can maybe see someone playing a game like this once just so they can feel all enlightened and whatnot but I'm skeptical.  It is just a shame that people associate these "games" with rpg's at all, as the author of the blog did (although he did contrast them to his (her?) credit).

It was interesting, I agree. Thanks for the link, SB.

Someone posts this on storygames, now? :D

Finally the sweet validation of random blogger guy.

No, but seriously, that game looks godawful. Would not play.

Also, white kid plays an RPG about being a slave and from this he learns that slavery isn't so bad, and you can still achieve if you just don't let society get you down? Am I reading this right? What the fuck.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;403732Also, white kid plays an RPG about being a slave and from this he learns that slavery isn't so bad, and you can still achieve if you just don't let society get you down? Am I reading this right? What the fuck.

"Make melonade out of your watermelons, brother!"

What the fuck indeed...

Quote from: Grimjack;403718That was interesting.  I'm curious as to who buys these games anyway (assuming anyone does).  As you so aptly noted, misery tourism doesn't go very far.

I've known hundreds of gamers over the years I've been playing rpg's and I can honestly think of one of them who would buy this or even play in it....unless maybe you get to kill the slaveowners and take their stuff, but even then I doubt it.

I can maybe see someone playing a game like this once just so they can feel all enlightened and whatnot but I'm skeptical.  It is just a shame that people associate these "games" with rpg's at all, as the author of the blog did (although he did contrast them to his (her?) credit).

It sounded like the author has a fair bit of RPG experience, so I would assume they weren't associating them with RPGs in general, but I agree that a casual reader might make that assumption.  I think the blog minimized the connection to a degree, although the 'this is what RPGs have come to' can be read between the lines.

Quote from: Benoist;403719It was interesting, I agree. Thanks for the link, SB.

Someone posts this on storygames, now? :D

I think their brains might explode.  :)

If all indie games were equal, I would give a shit.

*edit*

To clarify, I avoid misery tourism, but not indie games, the same with trad games, too.  There's just some subject matter out there I don't find to be very fun or very game-able, regardless of who published it.  Even WH40k can get un-fun at times if you're in a group who takes the fluff too seriously.

Actually, go to the link from the blogger's article, it links to the original "white guy" article on the Forge here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24603.0).  The guy was saying he used to think that way, but now that he said "Yes massah" it's all become clear and he is rethinking the black experience.

On the plus side, he's apparently a child abuse survivor who didn't mind minor physical contact during the game, so I guess Misery Tourism can be used as a type of psychotherapy.

Back to the blogger...Man, what I wouldn't have given to have played in the blogger's Star Wars campaign, from the description, it sounded awesome.

If he really wanted to say "yes, massah" - then he should have found a willing partner instead of a lame excuse for a role playing game.

Bad 'game'.

 Bad idea all around.


- Ed C.

"Yes, it is terrible, this idea." - Samir Nagheenanajar

Also: why the fuck do people do this?  I - and everyone, literally each and every person I have ever met who plays RPGs and games that are sort of like RPGs (historical skirmish games, etc.), and games that sort of came before RPGs and so bear lineage to them games as entertainment for some escapism.

I swear to god if we'd had to put up with these idiots in the Avalon Hill heydays they'd have been pressing ziplock bags of homemade paper chits and mimeographed rules into our hands for games like RISING SUN: ACCURSED GAIJIN - Experience the metaphysical thrill of plotting your Kamikaze assault on the hated white-faces as they come to destroy 2000 years of culture!  Extra action points awarded if you can muster tears if you lose an aircraft carrier.  (Special rule for Nippon player: you win even if in the last round all units are placed with "Destroyed" side up, should the white barbarian mention Nanking, you slap the board to the ground and stomp away angrily.)

Sheesh.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;403750I swear to god if we'd had to put up with these idiots in the Avalon Hill heydays they'd have been pressing ziplock bags of homemade paper chits and mimeographed rules into our hands for games like RISING SUN: ACCURSED GAIJIN - Experience the metaphysical thrill of plotting your Kamikaze assault on the hated white-faces as they come to destroy 2000 years of culture!  Extra action points awarded if you can muster tears if you lose an aircraft carrier.  (Special rule for Nippon player: you win even if in the last round all units are placed with "Destroyed" side up, should the white barbarian mention Nanking, you slap the board to the ground and stomp away angrily.)

Sheesh.

I'm sure some guy somewhere at the Forge would think of this as an Excellent Idea™. :D

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;403732Also, white kid plays an RPG about being a slave and from this he learns that slavery isn't so bad, and you can still achieve if you just don't let society get you down? Am I reading this right? What the fuck.

Understanding failed me as well.

I just don't get an rpg about being a slave in the real historical deep south.

You angry and/or confused guys should listen to the interview linked from the article. Julia's pretty articulate about her design goals and didn't create the game in a vacuum. And it's not like she lives on the moon; you can ask her questions directly (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?page_id=21). She's very nice and I'm sure she'd address your concerns thoughtfully.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403783You angry and/or confused guys should listen to the interview linked from the article. Julia's pretty articulate about her design goals and didn't create the game in a vacuum. And it's not like she lives on the moon; you can ask her questions directly (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?page_id=21). She's very nice and I'm sure she'd address your concerns thoughtfully.

I'm sure she is. The game is emphatically not my thing, but I have nothing against the designer. I was more bewildered by the actual play report than anything.

(Love Fiasco, by the way.)

While it may seem that RPGs are a poor medium for imparting seemingly obvious lessons, I have used AD&D for this purpose. I taught my players that 1) Slavery is bad. 2) If you don't want to break rocks for kobolds, you should probably take some hirelings into their lair with you next time. ;)

Actually I played this game once, but my style didn't mesh with the GMs. I'm old school so I played as if it were a sandbox but he kept underground railroading us...

My blog entry for today is about it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CRKrueger;403742Back to the blogger...Man, what I wouldn't have given to have played in the blogger's Star Wars campaign, from the description, it sounded awesome.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403783You angry and/or confused guys should listen to the interview linked from the article. Julia's pretty articulate about her design goals and didn't create the game in a vacuum. And it's not like she lives on the moon; you can ask her questions directly (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?page_id=21). She's very nice and I'm sure she'd address your concerns thoughtfully.

You obviously listened to the interview, what were the design goals of this game?

Here's a link to the interview (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2008/03/23/show031-interview-with-julia-bond-ellingboe/). Julia's contact information is linked above. She's the person to talk to about her game. Find out what's up, express your concern, learn about the game, have a dialogue.

sigh... so one person on the internet found Steal Away Jordan a tad disturbing, and all of sudden it's an example of how the indie movement is affecting our hobby, ruining it for everybody and demanding for the crusade.

I'm not into story gaming at all, but I actually met Julia Bond and some of my friends enjoys her games a lot, and branding Steal Away Jordan under the Swine-badbadbad-umbrella like pundit does on the blog based on this one "regular guys" post ("writing this often-offensive garbage. Many of them include sexual perversion or radical politics into the games under the guise of "dealing with mature themes") would be like me concluding something about the relationships of rpgsite-members based on that guy who had to mention his two wifes and several girlfriends in every post.

Quote from: CRKrueger;403814You obviously listened to the interview, what were the design goals of this game?

Don't bother, you should know the Forge's game by now.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;403825("writing this often-offensive garbage. Many of them include sexual perversion or radical politics into the games under the guise of "dealing with mature themes")

It's a recurring theme with some of the fuckers, though. Shock-jocks rely on the outrage of the many and the phony hipsters who jump onboard to cover up for their lack of talent.

I find Hot Chicks far more disturbing and (teehee) masturbatory.

For what it's worth, I've tried to run Steal Away Jordan at several of the last few indie gamer gatherings that I've been at.  However, I've never been able to get players.  So it doesn't seem to be a popularly played game.  

I am somewhat skeptical about some of the acclaim that the game originally received - along with Montsegur 1244 and Kagematsu.  It seems to me that they have gotten credit more for their topic rather than their actual game design.  

On the other hand, I don't think that the setting is uniquely off-limits.  I've played a number of historical scenarios which are about times that were quite miserable and/or lethal for the PCs.  Indeed, gamers constantly play WWII scenarios without being considered disrespectful for those who actually suffered and died in WWII, for example.

I remember Modern Warfare 2 catching a lot of flak for the opening sequence, where an undercover operative is put in a position where you can mow down tons of unarmed civilians (women, children, the whole bit) in an airport.

I also remember a mother recently appearing on TV speaking out against such games as being "disrespectful" towards soldiers and victims involved in current wars, and questioning how we "entertain" ourselves, because it treats situations that have destroyed lives and families as game-able subject matter.

I then remember soldiers commenting on the news article telling the bitch to fuck off, because they liked those games.

Now, I don't find playing a slave fun because that's my preference, but, yeah.  Maybe it could move someone else in a positive way, but it doesn't really sit well with me personally. Doesn't mean I should go on a tirade against it.

Quote from: jhkim;403857On the other hand, I don't think that the setting is uniquely off-limits.  I've played a number of historical scenarios which are about times that were quite miserable and/or lethal for the PCs.  

Absolutely. Then again, systems used for these games don't have hit points (or facsimiles of) called Worth. When you tie the offensive stuff to system they become a wholly different animal.

Quote from: One Horse Town;403863Absolutely. Then again, systems used for these games don't have hit points (or facsimiles of) called Worth. When you tie the offensive stuff to system they become a wholly different animal.

OK, so I get that you're offended by the game - but I'm not quite sure I get what it is that is offending.  If I could, I have a few questions for you or others - especially since I've been trying to find players for the game.  

First, are you saying that you would be fine with play slaves in antebellum America if I were using something like GURPS or Savage Worlds?  

Second, would it be just as offensive if it were a variant of the same system in a different setting - like playing slaves in ancient Rome such as Spartacus?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;403825sigh... so one person on the internet found Steal Away Jordan a tad disturbing, and all of sudden it's an example of how the indie movement is affecting our hobby, ruining it for everybody and demanding for the crusade.

Yeah, a regular guy thinks an indie games suck.

So what? If we find a regular guy that played Dogs in the Vineyard and has a blast, does that means that indie games are rad? What a silly argument.

I'm not interested at all in this game, and the premise of it puts me to sleep, but I don't see nothing special about it.

Quote from: jhkim;403857I am somewhat skeptical about some of the acclaim that the game originally received - along with Montsegur 1244 and Kagematsu.  It seems to me that they have gotten credit more for their topic rather than their actual game design.

I concur.  

QuoteOn the other hand, I don't think that the setting is uniquely off-limits.  I've played a number of historical scenarios which are about times that were quite miserable and/or lethal for the PCs.  Indeed, gamers constantly play WWII scenarios without being considered disrespectful for those who actually suffered and died in WWII, for example.

This, and a thousand times this.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403783You angry and/or confused guys should listen to the interview linked from the article. Julia's pretty articulate about her design goals and didn't create the game in a vacuum. And it's not like she lives on the moon; you can ask her questions directly (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?page_id=21). She's very nice and I'm sure she'd address your concerns thoughtfully.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume she's inarticulate, stupid or insane. I just don't think anyone thinks it's a very good idea. I absolutely do not see the attraction of playing this game in anyway shape or form. Just because it's an rpg and just because you can write an rpg about being a slave in america doesn't mean it's a good idea. Nor does that mean i'm ignorant to civil rights.

Quote from: Imperator;403908So what? If we find a regular guy that played Dogs in the Vineyard and has a blast, does that means that indie games are rad?

Clearly that guy is not regular by definition, since enjoying a roleplaying game of any sort = not ordinary person.

Huh, I read the article referred to in the OP twice, and didn't find one mention of the term indie.

You know what I think is in bad taste? A legitimate article about trivializing racial issues being leveraged and misrepresented in a trivial war against indie games. Really.

As a bit of a tangent, I was forced to participate in a similar game without my consent when I was in grade school thanks to a self righteous black teacher. Soon after I came to the conclusion that the worst bullies justify their abuse based on the victims of the past (and sometimes the color of their skin), and that the people in the same situation you are will do more to hold you back than your oppressors. Also, I was getting enough crap for simply being in the 'special education' class. Last thing I needed was a lesson on oppression.

There's an interview with Julia here (http://www.pelgranepress.com/seepagexx/April2008-Julia.html) about the game, with a link to a lengthy actual play session and presentation in an educational situation.

Quote from: jhkim;403901OK, so I get that you're offended by the game - but I'm not quite sure I get what it is that is offending.  If I could, I have a few questions for you or others - especially since I've been trying to find players for the game.  

First, are you saying that you would be fine with play slaves in antebellum America if I were using something like GURPS or Savage Worlds?  

Second, would it be just as offensive if it were a variant of the same system in a different setting - like playing slaves in ancient Rome such as Spartacus?

Did I miss the answers to these?

John, Steal Away Jordan doesn't need to be played as straight-up history. You can easily run it like a Charles W. Chesnutt story, with magic and fantastic elements. I know Julia's done this at conventions with more success than a straight historical setting. Adding a little distance might encourage people to try it out.

From that article, the author says.

QuoteI gave a short dress rehearsal presentation and demo in a Computer Science seminar class on operating systems. I opened by asking, "When you think of slave narratives, what comes to mind." A young man, a Morehouse student, sheepishly raised his hand. "Suffering, punishment, pain�." He said. Another student offered similarly dismal words.

"No one thinks, 'hero'?" I asked. The students replied with blank stares. I'll show 'em! I thought.

Yeah, I don't think hero either. Slavery was a monstrous system, and we are still dealing with the repercussions here in America today. Folks my age are but one generation removed from people who lived through segregation. Look at the nasty things people say about Obama. There just isn't enough distance from the past to make this era into an adventure game.

Look, I can see how some folks might play this and think they are gaining some insight into being a slave. It sounds rightfully presumptious to most of us, though. Is the GM going to use racial slurs when playing NPC's? To do the era justice he would have to, I mean if you want to portray the institution of slavery as it actually was. That would only be slightly dehumanising. And really it's such a small thing compared to the imaginary whippings and hobblings the PCs could recieve. Oh and having their dependant NPC's sold off. Sorry Johnny, your daughter got sold, you'll have to buy that disad off with XP...

Slavery in ancient Rome as a campaign premise? Sure. If theres gladitorial fights, I'm in. The difference is I don't know anyone whose parents or grandparents had a firehose turned on them by Romans for eating at the wrong restaurant. Context is everything.

And in truth, I'm not particularly offended by this game. But I think it is quite pretentious, and somewhat in bad taste. If you can't see why this game might be offensive to some, then I don't think playing it is really going to help you understand slavery in America much less the black experience.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;403919I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume she's inarticulate, stupid or insane. I just don't think anyone thinks it's a very good idea. I absolutely do not see the attraction of playing this game in anyway shape or form. Just because it's an rpg and just because you can write an rpg about being a slave in america doesn't mean it's a good idea. Nor does that mean i'm ignorant to civil rights.

I'm with GW on this one. I don't even care that a "normal guy" didn't like it. I just know I think it sounds mind-numbingly boring and perhaps even irritating. Don't know about anyone else, but I know I don't need somebody preaching at me in some game... well, about anything really. I'm perfectly capable of learning anything I want to know about slavery or any other historical topic by researching and reading about it.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;403961Yeah, I don't think hero either. Slavery was a monstrous system, and we are still dealing with the repercussions here in America today. Folks my age are but one generation removed from people who lived through segregation. Look at the nasty things people say about Obama. There just isn't enough distance from the past to make this era into an adventure game.

Look, I can see how some folks might play this and think they are gaining some insight into being a slave. It sounds rightfully presumptious to most of us, though. Is the GM going to use racial slurs when playing NPC's? To do the era justice he would have to, I mean if you want to portray the institution of slavery as it actually was. That would only be slightly dehumanising. And really it's such a small thing compared to the imaginary whippings and hobblings the PCs could recieve. Oh and having their dependant NPC's sold off. Sorry Johnny, your daughter got sold, you'll have to buy that disad off with XP...

Slavery in ancient Rome as a campaign premise? Sure. If theres gladitorial fights, I'm in. The difference is I don't know anyone whose parents or grandparents had a firehose turned on them by Romans for eating at the wrong restaurant. Context is everything.

And in truth, I'm not particularly offended by this game. But I think it is quite pretentious, and somewhat in bad taste. If you can't see why this game might be offensive to some, then I don't think playing it is really going to help you understand slavery in America much less the black experience.

Great post.  :hatsoff:

Quote from: jhkim;403901OK, so I get that you're offended by the game

I'm not particularly offended by the game, i'm offended by the choices behind its design. Come on John, i haven't been shy in coming forward about what i think of certain Forge system matters proponents (this answer can go for Jason too).

Quote- but I'm not quite sure I get what it is that is offending.

What else can you run using this game? Anything other than slavery campaigns, where things such as Worth are relevant to your feelings of wretchedness? Thought not.

QuoteFirst, are you saying that you would be fine with play slaves in antebellum America if I were using something like GURPS or Savage Worlds?  

Knock yourself out if that's your thing. Then again those systems can be used for a million different things.

QuoteSecond, would it be just as offensive if it were a variant of the same system in a different setting - like playing slaves in ancient Rome such as Spartacus?

If you want misery tourism, it doesn't matter what clothes you dress it in.

Hey, I have an anecdote as possibly the only person who has read Steal Away Jordan in this thread and certainly the only person who has played it.

I feel like I've got a good handle on American slavery as a social and economic system, I've read and appreciated slave narratives and abolitionist writings and Shelby Foote and Charles Chesnutt. One time I had a conversation about the Klan with Morrris Dees. I'm an educated guy with a strong interest in history.

So I sit down to play, and we're making characters. I decide I'll play a slave. "My guy's name is Bill..." I say, and the GM interrupts me.

"That's not how it works," he says, "you don't pick a name. I do. Your guy's name is Caesar."

This is, like, the first rule in the game, the first really basic lesson in institutional slavery. It was actively dehumanizing, and I felt it like a kick in the ribs. On an intellectual level I knew that's how it worked, of course I'd read all about it, but this wasn't reading, and in that moment everything I'd read and thought about slavery took on a different color.

So that was cool.

Right, but is it fun, or something you would consider a "game", because it seems more like an educational tool or a performance-based exercise.

I'm honestly curious.  I carry no judgments about the game other than I don't think it interests me much, or would be something I would enjoy.

I don't get what's fun about it, honestly.

That was beautiful. *sniffle*

Are you lost, Jason?

Yeah, I hear you guys. Fun is a loaded term. It's like "indie game" in that way - it means eight different things and is prone to semantic misundertandings.

I think a lot of the rage about "misery tourism" stems from conflicting definitions of fun.

1. Kicking a mutant's ass and acquiring a black ray pistol is definitely one kind of fun, and I fully support it.

2. Creating a beautiful story that feels tragic and real is another kind of fun, and I am also all over that.

So when I say Grey Ranks is fun, anybody using definition one becomes enraged and anybody using definition two is like, "right on". This is why I avoid that word unless the context is crystal clear.

You'd think Steal Away Jordan was all definition two fun, but when I played it there was a good dose of definition one as well. The game has a brilliant adversarial component where the players develop an agenda of their own in secret, and the GM is not privy to it. Our agenda was to ruin a particularly cruel overseer, and we engineered not only his downfall, but a proper ass-beating for him as well. We were lucky and took a lot of dreadful risks but we made it happen, and I think as players we were really glad to have a little wish-fulfillment revenge in our story.

EDIT: One Horse Town, you really need to spell it out for me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403980EDIT: One Horse Town, you really need to spell it out for me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

This isn't storygames or the forge, mate.

Now, don't get me wrong, without dissenting views things turn into a circlejerk (like you find at storygames and the forge), but you do know why this board was set up don't you? It was set up to be somewhere away from forge and theory evangelising that seemed to have taken over nearly every other board out there. Pundit's few rules mean that anyone can come here and say what they want (unlike storygames and the forge), but really, i wonder why folk continue to come here from the less free (storygames and the forge) sites when they know full well what the purpose of this board is and the main slant of the participants.

Dunno what my point is now i've written that out, except it would be nice to have one place where we can talk about the shit we want to talk about without true-believers coming out of the woodwork to tell us we're wrong.


 :idunno:

I'm not strongly invested in the controversy about this particular game.

However, I do want to clear up what is behind "misery tourism" as a concept, at least for me. And from reading Chauncy DeVega's post about this, I think he and I have a similar intellectual perspective on this.

It's not a question of defining fun. It's not even a question of defining "entertainment". It's a matter of the pretentious, self-indulgent, and voyeuristic quality of seeking to "experience" pain and suffering by inflicting it on yourself. The questionable element of "misery tourism" in games is that, in Mr. DeVega's words, you're "reducing hallowed ground to a tourism destination" (http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/2010/08/slave-cabin-tourism-honoring-african.html). That's a human and spiritual offense.

On top of that, and probably of far less concern to people in general, is the aesthetic offense of exploitation: appropriating tragedy for your own profit (social or monetary, it doesn't matter), and using high-minded impulses to fortify bad art against criticism. When writers do this, it's bad enough; when RPG designers do it, it's even worse, because the nature of the activity is such as to co-opt the participant-actors, making it even harder for them to critique what's going on.

Quote from: One Horse Town;403982Dunno what my point is now i've written that out, except it would be nice to have one place where we can talk about the shit we want to talk about without true-believers coming out of the woodwork to tell us we're wrong.

Your point is that cute rhetorical games and ideological cant aren't shielded by rules of politeness or heavy-handed moderation.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;403989Your point is that cute rhetorical games and ideological cant aren't shielded by rules of politeness or heavy-handed moderation.

That's certainly part of it. The other is that the proponents of said rhetorical games and idealogical cant don't seem to be able to resist the lure of a place that doesn't prescribe to their newsletter.

Quote from: Drohem;403965Great post.  :hatsoff:

Hey,thanks!

Thanks for the explanation, One Horse Town. I hope I'm not being inappropriate or offensive. I see people in this thread reflexively vilifying a game I know pretty well and know to be worthwhile, so I'm offering a different perspective than "bad game. Shouldn't be written." Other people seem genuinely perplexed, and with them I can have a conversation informed by my experience.

Eliot, that position has been articulated before and there's not much to say. My play has never felt exploitative, something I'm very sensitive to, and that's the only measure I have. Well, I guess in my case as a designer I also have the blessing and approval of the Warsaw Uprising Museum, who reviewed and liked Grey Ranks.

Quote from: One Horse Town;403982Now, don't get me wrong, without dissenting views things turn into a circlejerk

Quote from: One Horse Town;403982Dunno what my point is now i've written that out, except it would be nice to have one place where we can talk about the shit we want to talk about without true-believers coming out of the woodwork to tell us we're wrong.

Quote from: One Horse Town;403991That's certainly part of it. The other is that the proponents of said rhetorical games and idealogical cant don't seem to be able to resist the lure of a place that doesn't prescribe to their newsletter.

So what are you really saying? You've been writing very different things all along this thread.

Is therpgsite open for debates or not? Are people who enjoy story-games welcome to join the debate or not? You can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. You can't have the PundUtopia of freedom of speech and at the same time be protected from people telling you stuff you don't want to hear.

FYI story-games (the board) isn't better or worse than therpgsite when it comes to censorship. Both place have internalized rules of conduct and appropriate speech. In both place divergent speech is either ignored or suppressed. I don't know what facts make you feel like therpgsite is better about censorship. You can discuss aspects of D&D there, while here a forge game thread will be labeled "non-rpg". To sum it up: you're quite full of shit.

"I'll show 'em! I thought. "

This is it.

This game offends because it was not designed to be fun but to further a social/historical agenda. Thank you very much but I do have an education and I do know about the period in question. What I don't need is someone trying to hijack the hobby as a way of showing me, or anyone else for that matter. There are plenty of avenues for social discourse in our society but Role-Playing Games are not one of them, nor should they be.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403980Our agenda was to ruin a particularly cruel overseer, and we engineered not only his downfall, but a proper ass-beating for him as well. We were lucky and took a lot of dreadful risks but we made it happen, and I think as players we were really glad to have a little wish-fulfillment revenge in our story.

So did the GM use the N-word at the table? Were there consequences to your actions? It took the GM naming your character to really let the reality of Black opression sink in? I mean, my parents picked my name for me and I don't feel that I have any greater understanding of being property because of it...

It just seems like self-indulgent appropriation of another culture's suffering for entertainment. Particularly since the scenario sounds more like blaxploitation than a slave narrative.

What's really baffling is not that you guys enjoy this sort of thing, but that you don't understand why anyone else would have a problem with this.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403973This is, like, the first rule in the game, the first really basic lesson in institutional slavery. It was actively dehumanizing, and I felt it like a kick in the ribs. On an intellectual level I knew that's how it worked, of course I'd read all about it, but this wasn't reading, and in that moment everything I'd read and thought about slavery took on a different color.

That is sad on a level that approaches pathetic, really.  Maybe you can put a few skill points into something the rest of use fairly regularly.  It's called 'empathy', wherein one does not have to be the direct recipient of an experience to have feelings about it.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;403994Thanks for the explanation, One Horse Town. I hope I'm not being inappropriate or offensive. I see people in this thread reflexively vilifying a game I know pretty well and know to be worthwhile, so I'm offering a different perspective than "bad game. Shouldn't be written." Other people seem genuinely perplexed, and with them I can have a conversation informed by my experience.

No, not at all, but this place is rowdy.

 You can in short be offensive and inappropriate to a point. Very few people pushed the boundaries too far.

Yet this place is also very anti-story game, which I think is what he was getting at in time, that you'll find very little fertile ground for your counter-arguments. No matter how well reasoned.

Quote from: Silverlion;404004Yet this place is also very anti-story game, which I think is what he was getting at in time, that you'll find very little fertile ground for your counter-arguments. No matter how well reasoned.

I could be wrong, but I think this is less a story game issue than a subject matter issue. It would be as bad if it were a GURPS worldbook.

And if it were a supplement for 4E? The internetz would break...

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;403961From that article, the author says.

Yeah, I don't think hero either. Slavery was a monstrous system, and we are still dealing with the repercussions here in America today. Folks my age are but one generation removed from people who lived through segregation. Look at the nasty things people say about Obama. There just isn't enough distance from the past to make this era into an adventure game.

And yet the rpg and board game hobbies have had games about the Vietnam experience on the market for decades, and I don't see a lot of threads talking about how inappropriate Advanced Recon is.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404001So did the GM use the N-word at the table? Were there consequences to your actions? It took the GM naming your character to really let the reality of Black opression sink in?

We discussed it before we played and none of us were comfortable with it, so no racial epithets were used, Sergeant Space Wizard. The naming thing really affected me, and I thought it was a good example of a game's potential to show the institution of slavery in a different way than a text. Worked for me and honestly took me by surprise.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404001What's really baffling is not that you guys enjoy this sort of thing, but that you don't understand why anyone else would have a problem with this.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm pretty sure I know why informed people have a problem with it. I can't argue against a position like Eliot's, which is founded on subjective personal beliefs and is well articulated, and I wouldn't try.

Oh! And the blaxploitation comment is sorta true. The game has a pretty wide dial, and none of us were really into complete, ugly, brutal reality, because we were all outside our comfort zone to begin with. If that is a 10 and total conjure woman magical fantasy is a 1, we played a 6 or 7.

Quote from: Patrick Y.;404006And yet the rpg and board game hobbies have had games about the Vietnam experience on the market for decades, and I don't see a lot of threads talking about how inappropriate Advanced Recon is.

Well White Dwarf did run a scathing review of Advanced Recon back in the day saying it was a way for Americans to "relive the lie they won the Vietnam war". So maybe you might see threads about it if it hadn't been close to 30 years since that game came out.

However this is comparing apples to oranges IMO. We played "war" as children, we didn't play "slave". Also no one plays Recon as an educational experience to get inside the heads of the people at Mai Lai to my knowledge. If they did, that would be misguided too.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404005I could be wrong, but I think this is less a story game issue than a subject matter issue. It would be as bad if it were a GURPS worldbook.

Yesh, thats because I'm fairly sure SJ Games has the common sense not to do such a thing.


- Ed C.

This is something that's been bugging me for a while, and not with this game -- this has been on my mind for the past week or so, after reading through some indie game descriptions and previews.

I like lots of indie games.  BW is cool, Sorcerer is cool, 3:16, Dogs, etc.  But for some reason the idea of roleplaying some indie games (Poison'd, Steal Away Jordan, Bliss Stage, etc.) makes me uncomfortable.  

One game that I've been tossing around in my head is Bliss Stage, especially since finding it came right on the heels of defending Evangelion when I was in a debate with a friend over "enjoyable" movies/TV shows.  Put short, Evangelion is one of the first anime I watched, and had a really profound effect on me.  Some of the quality of execution and art direction were iffy due to budget problems, but there were still ideas in there that really struck a chord in a way that nothing had prior in my childhood.

Now, a friend of mine made a statement along the lines that depressing films/tv series aren't "enjoyable", and I disagreed because the purpose of art is to move someone, not necessarily by instilling feelings of joy or happiness.  But for some reason I don't find myself defending games like Bliss Stage in the same way.  For some reason, watching a finished piece of art is ok, but the act of trying to execute something deep and moving with amateurs and an impromptu setup would just seem to make for really awkward situations and perhaps even end up with a bad taste in some of the players mouths.

I'm not sure.  Maybe I don't like games that strike too close to home.  Maybe as a video-gamer I'm used to fun gamey bits and perhaps some exploration of a "cool" setting.  But I don't see myself playing some of these games.  Not because I have some dislike for the designers -- they seem to be nice enough people, but because I personally have trouble figuring out how to derive enjoyment from using these systems when they're tied to certain subject matter.

Sorry.  I don't know.  That's how I feel, and it's hard for me to qualify any of it into logical reasoning other than certain stuff makes me feel uncomfortable, and I prefer creating more positive experiences, even if I may enjoy darker or more difficult subject matter when presented as a finished work.  Degrees of separation from normal people and the real world also allow me an easier time of getting into a game.

I think you raise a good point, Ed, and it gets to the root of the problem for some people I bet.

There are GURPS books that matter-of-factly address human sacrifice and cannibalism and give you the tools you need to play German soldiers in the Second World War. I am guessing that's OK with you because it's just information. How a captor should behave when his prisoner of war is ritually slaughtered, that sort of thing. And that's fine, that leaves it up to the group to work out what it means. If you want to play Einsatzgruppen, it is no skin off Steve Jackson's nose.

A game like Steal Away Jordan has some ideas about what it means, and those ideas are mechanically reinforced. It has a point of view, it is not just information. Another game that does this is Dungeons and Dragons, which mechanically reinforces the tropes of heroic fantasy. Some people really, really don't like this. I'm obviously OK with it.

Peregrin, that's a great post.

Your thoughts on the line between creating and consuming seem key to me. Creating requires vulnerability and risk. Trust is involved. With roleplaying you are asked to have this collaborative experience as a default, and the more extreme the content the more trust you need.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404007We discussed it before we played and none of us were comfortable with it, so no racial epithets were used, Sergeant Space Wizard. The naming thing really affected me, and I thought it was a good example of a game's potential to show the institution of slavery in a different way than a text. Worked for me and honestly took me by surprise.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm pretty sure I know why informed people have a problem with it. I can't argue against a position like Eliot's, which is founded on subjective personal beliefs and is well articulated, and I wouldn't try.

Oh! And the blaxploitation comment is sorta true. The game has a pretty wide dial, and none of us were really into complete, ugly, brutal reality, because we were all outside our comfort zone to begin with. If that is a 10 and total conjure woman magical fantasy is a 1, we played a 6 or 7.

Well, that you can understand why people might have a problem with it is something I will give you credit for. You guys obviously didn't want to take it all the way because of comfort levels which is perfectly understandable.

But what I guess I don't get is why play such a game at all? On the one hand playing with the dial up to 10 seems self indulgent and masochistic, yet dialing it back is not treating the subject with the gravity it deserves. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Again, I am not personally offended, and could imagine playing a game set in America before abolition. But playing "Roots: the RPG" just feels kinda wrong to me.

Quote from: Koltar;404009Yesh, thats because I'm fairly sure SJ Games has the common sense not to do such a thing.


- Ed C.

Don't be so sure. After all they did put out that instruction manual for computer crime called GURPS Cyberpunk. That's how me and all my friends learned how to hack the internetz... ;)

Quote from: Patrick Y.;404006And yet the rpg and board game hobbies have had games about the Vietnam experience on the market for decades, and I don't see a lot of threads talking about how inappropriate Advanced Recon is.

False equivalence is false.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404023But what I guess I don't get is why play such a game at all? On the one hand playing with the dial up to 10 seems self indulgent and masochistic, yet dialing it back is not treating the subject with the gravity it deserves. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I see your point, for sure. Having that dial to set meant I got to play it, and by playing it I learned something and also had a great experience and made some friends. We tempered the experience to our comfort level so it wasn't 100% hardcore emo authentic slave narrative, and that was the right choice. I think "100%" the wrong goal anyway, for many of the reasons Eliot espouses - you're never going to achieve perfect empathy or verisimilitude. You can honor the ground truth while accepting that you are creating derivative fiction, and pushing too hard beyond that is going to be, to borrow a phrase, pretentious. Find a middle ground, be respectful to the source material, play.

It was challenging and a little uncomfortable, given the subject matter, and I had to trust some guys I didn't know very well to be awesome, which they were. We had a good session and it was mostly the second sort of fun (by my definition up-thread) and overall a really rewarding time. I went into it expecting that, and that's why I played.

So it works for me, and really, this is one of those games that either speaks to you or it doesn't, and that's cool.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404013I think you raise a good point, Ed, and it gets to the root of the problem for some people I bet.

There are GURPS books that matter-of-factly address human sacrifice and cannibalism and give you the tools you need to play German soldiers in the Second World War. I am guessing that's OK with you because it's just information. How a captor should behave when his prisoner of war is ritually slaughtered, that sort of thing. And that's fine, that leaves it up to the group to work out what it means. If you want to play Einsatzgruppen, it is no skin off Steve Jackson's nose.

..................

Jason ,
 You're full of shit on this.

By-the-way - did you recognize me at Gen Con this year?
 Pretty sure I saw you in mid-conversation with someone. There was no reason for me to interrupt you. (Then again maybe I should have if you were recruiting them to play bin a misery tourism game.....)


- Ed C.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404023Well, that you can understand why people might have a problem with it is something I will give you credit for. You guys obviously didn't want to take it all the way because of comfort levels which is perfectly understandable.

But what I guess I don't get is why play such a game at all? On the one hand playing with the dial up to 10 seems self indulgent and masochistic, yet dialing it back is not treating the subject with the gravity it deserves. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Again, I am not personally offended, and could imagine playing a game set in America before abolition. But playing "Roots: the RPG" just feels kinda wrong to me.

I understand on some sort of visceral level that you feel it is wrong - but I have trouble making logical sense of it to me.  

That's why I asked earlier how people would feel about a Spartacus RPG - even if it had similar mechanics.  I haven't seen any answers about that.  

I haven't yet run Steal Away Jordan, but I ran a mini-campaign set in the Normandy invasion of WWII.  Over half a million people died in Operation Overlord, which makes it pretty damn serious - and I certainly didn't play it off as trivial.  Yet I felt like, while serious, it wasn't either self-indulgent or masochistic.  

What I find also curious is that many posters on Story Games reacted badly to D20 Afghanistan, voicing objections that it was inherently disrespectful.  So it seems to me that there is an element of just projecting biases about what games one likes.  Having read (but not played) both Steal Away Jordan and D20 Afghanistan, I think they both seem potentially fun without being disrespectful.

Quote from: Koltar;404074Jason ,
 You're full of shit on this.

Could you explain this statement a little?

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404005I could be wrong, but I think this is less a story game issue than a subject matter issue. It would be as bad if it were a GURPS worldbook.

And if it were a supplement for 4E? The internetz would break...

Well you may be correct. However it points to story games in this thread--and not to games about slavery and racism.

I think the thread would make more sense if the story game bias were jettisoned and arguments focused on the misery tourism/slavery negative aspects instead. I doubt it will happen but it would make more sense.

I find my arguments better put forth in the forward of Providence by Lucian Soulban:
Our lives are filled with enough negative messages. when did gaming stop being escapism and start being an affirmation of our worst qualities?
When did we stop becoming heroes?

The whole prologue is pointed at those two lines and is a powerful message to my thoughts.

Pretty much that has been my focus as a game designer. The message I create in games may spread beyond me, may touch lives outside my circle of friends, or touch lives long after I am dead. What message that is, in the end for me is "I believe in heroes."

It is not just enough to write a game or story and accept that it creates "mere" entertainment. Entertainment like all other creations we touch carry a message, a moment of learning, and one hopes, understanding.

One needs to ask: Does this game create a positive moment of understanding for those who play it? Or is it just a negative affirmation of our worst qualities?

That's what matters.

Quote from: boulet;403996Is therpgsite open for debates or not? Are people who enjoy story-games welcome to join the debate or not?

Yes it is and yes they are. There are many here with dissenting views and visit other sites, including storygames.

However, Mr. Morningstar is heavily invested in the Forge model. I might disagree with people like yourself, Peregrine and others here over these types of game, but you aren't a C list Forge celebrity. I trust your motives are honest - i have trouble believing an invested person such as Jason can debate in good faith in these matters.

YMMV.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404122Yes it is and yes they are. There are many here with dissenting views and visit other sites, including storygames.

However, Mr. Morningstar is heavily invested in the Forge model. I might disagree with people like yourself, Peregrine and others here over these types of game, but you aren't a C list Forge celebrity. I trust your motives are honest - i have trouble believing an invested person such as Jason can debate in good faith in these matters.

YMMV.

But you believe pundit can debate in good faith when it comes to Forge games!?!

What could Jason do, other than what he's doing? I haven't seen him calling other games inferior around here or calling D&D players retarted. Jason is here, under his own name, discussing games he likes, not trying to convert people or ridicule other games, that seems pretty fair and honest to me.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;404123not trying to convert people

I admire your optimism.

Quote from: Axiomatic;403920Clearly that guy is not regular by definition, since enjoying a roleplaying game of any sort = not ordinary person.

So all those people playing at murder mystery parties through the years were not normal?

I know of parents who loathed and railed against their kids D&D and "role playing games from the devil", but went to murder mystery parties, and didn't recognize their hypocrisy.

I'm curious, One Horse Town - what is it about my actions here or elsewhere that prompts you to reflexively distrust my motives?

What "matters" am I incapable of discussing reasonably, and how have I demonstrated that?

Not "The Forge", but me. Show me my bad faith, because I can't assuage your paranoia if I don't understand it. And right now I totally don't, so help me out.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404131I'm curious, One Horse Town - what is it about my actions here or elsewhere that prompts you to reflexively distrust my motives?

What "matters" am I incapable of discussing reasonably, and how have I demonstrated that?

Not "The Forge", but me. Show me my bad faith, because I can't assuage your paranoia if I don't understand it. And right now I totally don't, so help me out.

You can't assuage the Forge paranoia around here for the most part.  It's like going to a Tea Party website and claiming to be liberal or a progressive.  It doesn't matter what your point or your ideas are, the label is all that matters to some.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;404133You can't assuage the Forge paranoia around here for the most part.

Not all of us are paranoid. Some of us just like the windmills for the scenery.

Seanchai

Quote from: Silverlion;404111Pretty much that has been my focus as a game designer. The message I create in games may spread beyond me, may touch lives outside my circle of friends, or touch lives long after I am dead. What message that is, in the end for me is "I believe in heroes."

It is not just enough to write a game or story and accept that it creates "mere" entertainment. Entertainment like all other creations we touch carry a message, a moment of learning, and one hopes, understanding.

One needs to ask: Does this game create a positive moment of understanding for those who play it? Or is it just a negative affirmation of our worst qualities?

That's what matters.

I don't think that's the one true way of role-playing, since I love Paranoia and lots of other games that don't fit this mold.  However, it does sound like a fine way to run games.  

Based on my reading, though, what you write about is exactly what I would hope for in running Steal Away Jordan.  I would want the heroism of the PCs to shine through, as the author wrote about intending.  Things will be very difficult for them, and I would hope that their heroism shines all the brighter in the face of adversity.  

Particularly in fantasy gaming, there are two meanings of "heroic" that unfortunately get conflated.  Sometimes, "heroic" means having unusual talents, training, and/or position making one powerful beyond most people.  And sometimes "heroic" means someone whose striving to do good is to be admired.  I suspect you mean the latter, and personally I think it's important to have heroes that are the latter and not the former - i.e. PCs who are heroic without being high-born and/or magically or otherwise unusually talented.

Yeah, for what it is worth, Steal Away Jordan explicitly casts its protagonists in a heroic light, by John's second definition.

Having played it, I'm comfortable saying it is much more than a negative affirmation of our worst qualities, Silverlion.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404016Peregrin, that's a great post.

Your thoughts on the line between creating and consuming seem key to me. Creating requires vulnerability and risk. Trust is involved. With roleplaying you are asked to have this collaborative experience as a default, and the more extreme the content the more trust you need.

Being responsible for creating certain content is definitely part of it.

But you also mention that you were a tad uncomfortable at times, too.  While the overall experience may have been rewarding for you, I personally try to avoid uncomfortable situations in my leisure/gaming time.

Sure, Peregrin, and the vast majority of gamers would agree with you. That's cool.

Quote from: jhkim;404157Particularly in fantasy gaming, there are two meanings of "heroic" that unfortunately get conflated.  Sometimes, "heroic" means having unusual talents, training, and/or position making one powerful beyond most people. And sometimes "heroic" means someone whose striving to do good is to be admired. I suspect you mean the latter, and personally I think it's important to have heroes that are the latter and not the former - i.e. PCs who are heroic without being high-born and/or magically or otherwise unusually talented.

Yeah, I don't think the latter is in anyway my definition of heroic. That's pretty much the "Classical" heroism, but I prefer the more modern ideal. How does "Steal Away Jordan," create heroism of the latter kind?

People in a desperate and terrible situation acting with courage, dignity and tenacity? That can be all kinds of heroic.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404131I'm curious, One Horse Town - what is it about my actions here or elsewhere that prompts you to reflexively distrust my motives?

Talk about traditional games as well whilst you're here. That'll be a start.

I think the idea that a game about slaves can ONLY be miserable should be re-examined. There are plenty of stories with slaves as heroes and protagonists that are not merely about wallowing in sorrow.

There's a great series (well, only two book so far) called The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing, Traitor to the Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Life_of_Octavian_Nothing,_Traitor_to_the_Nation,_Volume_I:_The_Pox_Party) about a young slave in colonial America, and it is as adventuresome and weird and action-packed as you could possibly want, while still being entirely molded by the fact that the hero is a slave.

Thanks for replying, One Horse Town. I talk about what interests me, which seems like a reasonable thing. I'm not seeing the connection between my personal trustworthiness and the topics I engage with. Perhaps you could clarify.

If people here said "Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a bad game and shouldn't have been written", I'd probably jump in that conversation, too, because I'm playing it with my Monday night group and, like Steal Away Jordan, it is very good.

What about these other questions?

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404131What "matters" am I incapable of discussing reasonably, and how have I demonstrated that?

Not "The Forge", but me. Show me my bad faith, because I can't assuage your paranoia if I don't understand it. And right now I totally don't, so help me out.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;404133You can't assuage the Forge paranoia around here for the most part.  It's like going to a Tea Party website and claiming to be liberal or a progressive.  It doesn't matter what your point or your ideas are, the label is all that matters to some.

No Forge paranoia. I have read enough forgie/indie/however-you-call-it bullshit to know what they are like. I'm fine with their games, if anybody plays them and have fun, they must be doing something right, and if they don't have fun, I don't give a damn, but whenever I hear about narrative agendas I want to reach for a gun.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404268What about these other questions?

As someone who has suggested that the storygames/forge community needs to get ENnies judges voted in who "get" your games, your protestations of innocence are odd.

We're gamers. Why should we give a fuck what ordinary people think about gaming?

Of course I want ENnies judges who understand and appreciate the games I'm into. I want the games I'm into to win ENnies awards.

OK, so let's see if I can break it down:

I talk about and advocate for games that I like.

As far as I can tell, these are the reasons you've given that you distrust me and dismiss my contributions. Is that accurate? I mean, if it is that's fine, let's just get it out in the open.

Quote from: Claudius;404333No Forge paranoia. I have read enough forgie/indie/however-you-call-it bullshit to know what they are like. I'm fine with their games, if anybody plays them and have fun, they must be doing something right, and if they don't have fun, I don't give a damn, but whenever I hear about narrative agendas I want to reach for a gun.

Then it's not you I was referring to with my "some" comment.

It's the folks who take Pundit's "Swine war" seriously.

Quote from: jhkim;404095I understand on some sort of visceral level that you feel it is wrong - but I have trouble making logical sense of it to me.  

That's why I asked earlier how people would feel about a Spartacus RPG - even if it had similar mechanics.  I haven't seen any answers about that.  

I haven't yet run Steal Away Jordan, but I ran a mini-campaign set in the Normandy invasion of WWII.  Over half a million people died in Operation Overlord, which makes it pretty damn serious - and I certainly didn't play it off as trivial.  Yet I felt like, while serious, it wasn't either self-indulgent or masochistic.  

What I find also curious is that many posters on Story Games reacted badly to D20 Afghanistan, voicing objections that it was inherently disrespectful.  So it seems to me that there is an element of just projecting biases about what games one likes.  Having read (but not played) both Steal Away Jordan and D20 Afghanistan, I think they both seem potentially fun without being disrespectful.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see certain topics in RPGs I cringe, not because the subject matter is -- as you've framed it here -- "inherently disrespectful" but because I believe inviting people (via publishing a DIY narrative project) to indulge in fantasy about /any/ topic trivializes it.

Let me be clear: any given group may well be capable of treating any subject matter with the gravity, sensitivity, and insight that it deserves -- that's why roleplaying is often used in therapeutic or educational settings -- but one can assume that most groups aren't really qualified to do that.

Which means that most of the people playing any given game (especially one not marketed primarily or exclusively to professional educators) will be trivializing (probably grossly trivializing) the material.

I'm okay with killing orks being trivialized. I'm okay with depictions of ancient and vanished cultures (e.g. Rome) being trivialized. But I would think very poorly of anyone who chooses to trivialize tragic and relatively recent situations (on-going wars, for instance, or slavery, which is chronologically not that far away, and whose impacts are clearly still being felt on a daily basis).

This gets more disrespectful when the game invites people who are -- essentially -- outsiders to fantasize about being an oppressed minority (again, in the context of a game, not an educational or therapeutic setting). See, basically, most of the people playing the game won't really be qualified (by virtue of the nature of the game and how it's used) to conduct that fantasy in a respectful way.

In WWII terms, asking someone to pretend to be a soldier is very different from inviting them to be pretend to be a captive in a concentration camp -- the Soldier Experience isn't associated with being an oppressed minority. I wouldn't have a significant concerns seeing a group of black people playing Steal Away Joradan. But if you have Scandinavians writing Holocaust games or a bunch of white guys playing black slaves, I'm going to statistically bet we're not seeing a quality, nuanced treatment of the material.

Doing art around controversial or sensitive subject matters is -- and should be -- something a high-wire act. If you do it poorly you're being insulting (probably not intentionally). A bad movie or a lousy book is just crap -- but if the author chooses to make it about something with a current emotional charge, then he'd better make sure he's up to the task or not care that he's repulsed and offended a lot of people. With published works (movies, books), this is kind of self correcting, but with an RPG it's likely that the game is being played in little echo chambers where everyone's patting each other on the back for being so empathetic and insightful.

Finally, I doubt that most people are qualified to know if what they're producing (in terms of game content) is high-quality or not. The nature of RPGs makes critical analysis nearly impossible -- so when people tell me (as some Indie authors have) that *their* game was nuanced, mature, psychologically deep and sophisticated -- a high quality work of art -- I don't find that entirely credible; I can't know (I wasn't there) but I don't think anyone who was involved was actually able to judge.

tl;dr: RPGs inherently trivialize their subject matter. They do so, especially, if the players lack a real-world relationship to the material. Games about sensitive topics are essentially an open invitation to have people trivialize that material in their game rooms and basements for their amusement (if anyone tells you they did it as an enriching experience -- to learn something -- and they didn't have a qualified educator there to moderate, I'm going to be doubtful. The X-Files might have had a few things to teach me about human nature, but calling it educational isn't credible).

While I don't find myself outraged over Jordan (or that Holocaust game awhile back), I find these projects cringeworthy and I feel they reflect poorly on the hobby -- they suggest either a kind of uncaring blindness ("Who cares if we trivialize slavery!") or arrogance on the part of the players.

Cheers,
-E.

Generally I have a dislike or low opinion of Forge and Story game things. Most people on here know this.

Lets flip it a little....

Since Jason brought up GURPS: world War II in a somewhat sideways and inappropriate way it led to me a new angle on this.

What if the movie "InGlorious Basterds" wasn't a movie but a roleplaying scenario with pre-generated characters with the same basic situation. The polayers are all American Soldiers who are Jewish and get to kill as many Nazis as possible and encouraged to get scalps.

What if the scenario is designed by an Italian American and his players are Jewish?

Is the flip side of misery tourism possibly revenge fantasy?

- Ed C.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404339OK, so let's see if I can break it down:

I talk about and advocate for games that I like.

As far as I can tell, these are the reasons you've given that you distrust me and dismiss my contributions. Is that accurate? I mean, if it is that's fine, let's just get it out in the open.

I'm saying that you have an agenda. Which is no biggie - a lot of people do, and invariably turn up here ;). But let's not sugar coat it. You can choose to hang out at a site where your agenda is in the minority all you like. As i pointed out up-thread, you don't tend to get the reverse happening at storygames and/or the forge IE died-in-the-wool traditional gamers hanging out there and only talking about trad games.  

Anyone who does that in either direction are evangelising to some degree, even if they think they are not.

The way to dismiss such charges is to participate more fully to the board's primary function. In the case of this board, traditional games.

Thanks, One  Horse Town.

Ed, I also gave a shout-out to GURPS Aztecs (my favorite GURPS book), which matter-of-factly discusses ritual sacrifice and cannibalism without a hint of judgment or word of advice on how to address these topics on a social level.

So while that's one valid approach, Steal Away Tenochtitlan would have rules that directly addressed that stuff, as would Dungeons and Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli.

My point was that people who want the former sometimes get really wound up about the latter, that's all.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404122i have trouble believing an invested person such as Jason can debate in good faith in these matters.

YMMV.

That makes the Pundit opinions untrustworthy, as well.

Quote from: Imperator;404355That makes the Pundit opinions untrustworthy, as well.

Last time i looked, he doesn't post to storygames or the forge.

I play RPGs as an escape from things.  The world is shit, I see misery piped in on every front every day.  Why in god's name would I want to experience it, to, in effect "play it out" in my own life?  I know slavery was horrible.  I know the price we as a society paid for it.  

This is like insisting that someone who enjoys model trains also build a model Dachau that their train goes to and unloads little HO Scale holocaust victims every go 'round the track.  It's not necessary.

Quote from: Cylonophile;404338We're gamers. Why should we give a fuck what ordinary people think about gaming?

Because none of us were born gamers and the survival of the hobby depends on bringing "normal people" into it?

I think the gamers vs. normal people dichotomy is mostly a false one anyway.

Quote from: -E.;404345tl;dr: RPGs inherently trivialize their subject matter. They do so, especially, if the players lack a real-world relationship to the material. Games about sensitive topics are essentially an open invitation to have people trivialize that material in their game rooms and basements for their amusement (if anyone tells you they did it as an enriching experience -- to learn something -- and they didn't have a qualified educator there to moderate, I'm going to be doubtful. The X-Files might have had a few things to teach me about human nature, but calling it educational isn't credible).

While I don't find myself outraged over Jordan (or that Holocaust game awhile back), I find these projects cringeworthy and I feel they reflect poorly on the hobby -- they suggest either a kind of uncaring blindness ("Who cares if we trivialize slavery!") or arrogance on the part of the players.

Thanks, E, for the detailed reply.  I'd agree that RPGs tends to trivialize - but only in the sense that they reflect what the participants are actually thinking.  That is, if I go and watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers with a bunch of people, there may be the illusion of there being great depth because the film-makers spent a lot of time studying WWII and what soldiers went through in it.  If I play a WWII mini-campaign with my friends (which I did), then on the surface it may seem more trivial because it is less well researched, and there is a more casual atmosphere that comes from playing a game as a social event.  

However, I think that is an illusion.  Most people's understandings are indeed trivial - and it can sometimes be cringe-worthy to see people's triviality exposed. The alternative, though, isn't being deep - it's simply hiding the triviality by not thinking or not doing.  

Basically:  People often have trivial understandings.  Playing a game may expose those, but IMO exposing them isn't any worse than hiding them.  

Quote from: -E.;404345In WWII terms, asking someone to pretend to be a soldier is very different from inviting them to be pretend to be a captive in a concentration camp -- the Soldier Experience isn't associated with being an oppressed minority. I wouldn't have a significant concerns seeing a group of black people playing Steal Away Joradan. But if you have Scandinavians writing Holocaust games or a bunch of white guys playing black slaves, I'm going to statistically bet we're not seeing a quality, nuanced treatment of the material.

You're asserting something here, but you don't give a clear reason.  Soldiers who fought and died for a cause are a different though overlapping set from oppressed minorities.  However, is there some reason why it is OK to disrespect soldiers but not OK to disrespect oppressed minorities?  Out of curiosity, what would you think about role-playing one of the segregated black units in WWII, like the 761st Tank Battalion - or a fighting group of Jews like the Bielski partisans?  

While I realize that this is not what you intend, it seems like this approach means that games won't have any oppressed minorities as heroes.  It seems to me that doing so isn't inherently more respectful of oppressed minorities.

I can understand that some people want to do artistic stuff with RPGs. And by this I mean, inject meaning into it that they see as important or relevant as a form of expression for some reason or another. A game that is a memorial to some event, a supplement that is honoring the dead of world war I, or God knows what else.

I can understand that: I've played in games like this where the lines between entertainment and emotionally meaningful content were blurred, and really, there's a lot of good things to say about that (I played a kid who had Down syndrome in a 1920s CoC game for instance).

Now that said, I wouldn't do this all the time. I would not run entire campaigns loaded with these kinds of things either. I think that once in a while it can be fantastic, but any more than this, and it ceases to be a strong emotional experience. It becomes to trivialized whatever it is you are talking about for game after game after game.

So fundamentally, write a sourcebook explaining how to get one shots off the ground talking about WWI or the Holocaust like White Wolf did? I'm not opposed to it. Some people will not like these sorts of products, and I'd totally expect it. Write entire games about such topics, however, is just inviting misery tourism to set in. I'm not supporting that notion.

Quote from: Benoist;404386So fundamentally, write a sourcebook explaining how to get one shots off the ground talking about WWI or the Holocaust like White Wolf did? I'm not opposed to it. Some people will not like these sorts of products, and I'd totally expect it. Write entire games about such topics, however, is just inviting misery tourism to set in. I'm not supporting that notion.

A great many story games - including Steal Away Jordan - are intended to be played as one-shots or short (2-5 session) mini-campaigns.  Steal Away Jordan is 45 pages and smaller than digest sized, while, say, White Wolf's Charnel Houses of Europe was 125 pages letter-sized.  So basically, I don't think the above comparison really reflects how the games actually work.

Quote from: jhkim;404395A great many story games - including Steal Away Jordan - are intended to be played as one-shots or short (2-5 session) mini-campaigns.  Steal Away Jordan is 45 pages and smaller than digest sized, while, say, White Wolf's Charnel Houses of Europe was 125 pages letter-sized.  So basically, I don't think the above comparison really reflects how the games actually work.

OK that's fine. Honestly, I don't give much of a shit about these games, because when I set up these sort of things in my games, they're never the point of the game itself, and I specifically tailor the game experience to the players I have at my game table.

Personally, I may buy a supplement like Charnel Houses of Europe (which I actually did) and see some value there to add color to a wider game, but I won't buy a game that is specifically designed to go on the Magical Misery Tour.

Quote from: Benoist;404397but I won't buy a game that is specifically designed to go on the Magical Misery Tour.

Benny, you dog. I think you've just provided my new signature.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;404370I play RPGs as an escape from things.  The world is shit, I see misery piped in on every front every day.  Why in god's name would I want to experience it, to, in effect "play it out" in my own life?  I know slavery was horrible.  I know the price we as a society paid for it.  

This is like insisting that someone who enjoys model trains also build a model Dachau that their train goes to and unloads little HO Scale holocaust victims every go 'round the track.  It's not necessary.

/signed, /applaud, /newsletter

Quote from: jhkim;404383Thanks, E, for the detailed reply.  I'd agree that RPGs tends to trivialize - but only in the sense that they reflect what the participants are actually thinking.  That is, if I go and watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers with a bunch of people, there may be the illusion of there being great depth because the film-makers spent a lot of time studying WWII and what soldiers went through in it.  If I play a WWII mini-campaign with my friends (which I did), then on the surface it may seem more trivial because it is less well researched, and there is a more casual atmosphere that comes from playing a game as a social event.  

However, I think that is an illusion.  Most people's understandings are indeed trivial - and it can sometimes be cringe-worthy to see people's triviality exposed. The alternative, though, isn't being deep - it's simply hiding the triviality by not thinking or not doing.  

Basically:  People often have trivial understandings.  Playing a game may expose those, but IMO exposing them isn't any worse than hiding them.  

You're asserting something here, but you don't give a clear reason.  Soldiers who fought and died for a cause are a different though overlapping set from oppressed minorities.  However, is there some reason why it is OK to disrespect soldiers but not OK to disrespect oppressed minorities?  Out of curiosity, what would you think about role-playing one of the segregated black units in WWII, like the 761st Tank Battalion - or a fighting group of Jews like the Bielski partisans?  

While I realize that this is not what you intend, it seems like this approach means that games won't have any oppressed minorities as heroes.  It seems to me that doing so isn't inherently more respectful of oppressed minorities.

1) You say, "Basically:  People often have trivial understandings.  Playing a game may expose those, but IMO exposing them isn't any worse than hiding them."

The choice to indulge in a trivializing fantasy of a real and tragic event suggests a (mild) character flaw. Ignorance is no character flaw, and taking action to correct ignorance is admirable -- but selecting someone else's tragedy is as one's setting for trivializing entertainment is... I would say, distasteful.

We're not talking about being a horrible person because someone chose to play this game, but no one should be surprised if people think less of them for taking inherently serious subject material and using it for a light-weight project (e.g. a game).

To put it shortly: I don't cringe when I see ignorance of complex and multivariant topics like the experiences of slaves -- I expect it, and I'd be the first to admit I'm far from adequately educated in those areas.

I cringe when I see someone choose use that material for an entertainment project despite their ignorance (or, some cases, in a disturbing lack of awareness of their ignorance).

2) You ask about disrespecting soliders (e.g. trivializing their experiences through a game) v. trivializing the experience of an oppressed minority. You also ask a hypothetical about a game that covers an intersection of the two.

One answer is that certain treatments of WWII could be more about trivializing the fictional genre of WWII-stories than about the war and the people who fought in it, but I assume you're looking at a less cinematic treatment.

In that case, the key principle here is that trivializing the experiences of a /profession/ is, in my view, very different from trivializing the personal experiences of bigotry.

Soldier, cop, spy, adventurer are all fair game so long as you stay away for specific (and usually tragic or atrocious) real-life events. Playing a soldier is okay. Playing a solider in the Bataan Death March (a real-life atrocity) isn't. To be safe, I'd stick with settings and scenarios that aren't viewed as tragic.

So to your example -- when the game requires that I play a character defined by race in a real-life setting with evident and relevant bigotry, I see a likelihood of trouble.

3) Finally you suggest my approach would have fewer heros from minority cultures, races, or religions.

My answer is, maybe it would -- but look closely at what I'm saying:

a) Don't make a game or design a scenario where you force the players to be Big Damn Heroes from .

I stand by this. I think casting minorities as heroes is a bad stereotype and not the sort of thing I recommend encouraging. The Magic Negro RPG doesn't appeal to me, and if anyone thinks it's a good idea, I recommend they have their head examined.

But this doesn't -- at all -- prohibit people around the table from choosing to play a minority. I'll address that in point #2

b) If you choose to play a character from a real-life minority you're obligated to do a decent, nuanced, educated, and sensitive job of it -- or expect people to think less of you.

In practice, I usually see this with irritatingly stereotypical characters which reveal a bit too much about the player's own prejudices. I wouldn't rate this sin anywhere up with publishing a game that invites people to indulge in this sort of thing, but no adult should be surprised if demonstrating prejudice and ignorance (even when no harm is meant) draws a bad reaction

Finally,

4) If you're willing to take the risks and you've done the research, I say go for it (in your local gaming group).

Contrary to what it looks like above, I'm actually *not* a fan of everyone playing characters just like themselves and taking no risks. I also don't have a particularly high standard for what people do in their game room. And I've run stereotypical NPCs of the sort I'm condemning above (the Vermont Nationalists in my current game, for example).

I recognize, though, that I'm risking making an ass of myself in front of my friends, and if I were posting my games online, I'd hardly be surprised if people called me on my use of deeply-held beliefs for comedy relief.

But I don't think the scenario I'm thinking of is fit for public consumption and I certainly wouldn't tell people proudly what I "learned" from it. Yes, I read up on a movement I've never heard of. Yes, I got a perspective that was different from mine. But no, I didn't "learn" anything. In the end, it was an interesting game and that was that.

Quote from: Benoist;404386I can understand that some people want to do artistic stuff with RPGs. And by this I mean, inject meaning into it that they see as important or relevant as a form of expression for some reason or another. A game that is a memorial to some event, a supplement that is honoring the dead of world war I, or God knows what else.

I can understand that: I've played in games like this where the lines between entertainment and emotionally meaningful content were blurred, and really, there's a lot of good things to say about that (I played a kid who had Down syndrome in a 1920s CoC game for instance).

Now that said, I wouldn't do this all the time. I would not run entire campaigns loaded with these kinds of things either. I think that once in a while it can be fantastic, but any more than this, and it ceases to be a strong emotional experience. It becomes to trivialized whatever it is you are talking about for game after game after game.

So fundamentally, write a sourcebook explaining how to get one shots off the ground talking about WWI or the Holocaust like White Wolf did? I'm not opposed to it. Some people will not like these sorts of products, and I'd totally expect it. Write entire games about such topics, however, is just inviting misery tourism to set in. I'm not supporting that notion.

I think there's a big difference between a *scenario* that's meaningful to me and addresses issues I think are important and interesting in as deep and thoughtful a way I can, and *writing* a game that invites others to swim in the shallow end of the pool.

Taking on meaningful stuff in a game is risky and likely to fail. Taking that risk yourself... no problem. Inviting others to take that risk (through the publication of a game or scenario that forces a focus on those subject areas) is distasteful -- it's either oblivious to the bad-taste issues of the likely games or it's encouraging the arrogance of people who think, "Yeah, but a cool, insightful cat like myself can play this stuff no problem!"

In other words: If you played a Down's Syndrome character and it worked for you and your group, then you clearly met the standard they required for dealing with the material, so that's cool.

If you decided to publish a game based on that, which forced people to play special-needs characters, I'd recommend against that.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404398Benny, you dog. I think you've just provided my new signature.

LOL I live to serve. ;)

Quote from: -E.;404411In other words: If you played a Down's Syndrome character and it worked for you and your group, then you clearly met the standard they required for dealing with the material, so that's cool.

If you decided to publish a game based on that, which forced people to play special-needs characters, I'd recommend against that.

Cheers,
-E.

Yeah, I can totally understand that. *nod*

Quote from: jhkim;404395A great many story games - including Steal Away Jordan - are intended to be played as one-shots or short (2-5 session) mini-campaigns.  Steal Away Jordan is 45 pages and smaller than digest sized, while, say, White Wolf's Charnel Houses of Europe was 125 pages letter-sized.  So basically, I don't think the above comparison really reflects how the games actually work.

But that is all the game does, John.  There is no other purpose in playing Steal Away Jordan except to play in this exact scenario.  GURPS or BRP or pretty much any other system is designed to have a wide variety of game play experiences.  Stating that Steal Away Jordan is supposed to be played out in five sessions or less doesn't change the fact that there is no other use for the game.  Love or hate GURPS, the fact still remains that you can play anything with it.  D&D might set your teeth on edge, but just about any fantasy milieu is possible.  The same goes with all the rest, even White Wolf; a large number of different horror genres are possible.

I am sure this has been said before, but to echo -E's thoughts, if this were a third party supplement to GURPS, I doubt many people would have as much of a problem with it.  The subject matter is certainly questionable, and the fact that its defenders find it nearly impossible to understand that everyday people might have a problem with it is bizarre.  But aside from that, treating what should be a supplement at best - or a module, at least - as a game in and of itself triggers my inner game designer to speak up.  The most this could really be called is an 'exercise'.

I think that's where RPGs need to distance themselves from psychiatric role playing, actually.

Sometimes playing a character and being really into the game, you'll know moments akin to that "being in someone else's shoes" perspective. I did with the Down Syndrome character. But RPGs as entertainment are simply NOT psychiatry, because first RPG authors are not professionals in the field, so could spoonfeed you with all sorts of completely innacurate, wrong, or even harmful ideas under the guise of a role playing game, and second because the participants to the actual game are not themselves professionals in the field, which will lead to all sorts of fumbles in the application of the game itself.

So at best, it's a flawed perspective.
At worst, it may be very harmful to people weak of mind, or searching for meaning in their lives.
It might be dangerous to play with people's minds. When you take the bus to the Magical Misery Tour, that's basically what you get.

Benoist,

 Can I ask you a question ?

When you played a character with Down's Syndrome was it because the GM or scenario forced or steered you into it? Or was it because you wanted a role playing challenge?

Reason I'm asking is because "THE STAND" (both book and TV miniseries) has a character with either Down's or similiar condition - but he is portrayted as heroic and also is a key figure in helping the good guys acheive victory.

I don't see Down's Syndrome for a particular player character as comparable to misery tourism.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;404423Benoist,

 Can I ask you a question ?

When you played a character with Down's Syndrome was it because the GM or scenario forced or steered you into it? Or was it because you wanted a role playing challenge?

Reason I'm asking is because "THE STAND" (both book and TV miniseries) has a character with either Down's or similiar condition - but he is portrayted as heroic and also is a key figure in helping the good guys acheive victory.

I don't see Down's Syndrome for a particular player character as comparable to misery tourism.
- Ed C.

I think Tom Cullen is closer to Autistic than Downs.

It was my choice. It actually came from experiences I had with kids with Down Syndrome when my mom was a nurse working with them. Anecdote. I would leave school for lunch and wait for her while she finished her work. So one day I was sitting there with a can of coke waiting for her. Then a kid with Down Syndrome sat in front of me. Now I hadn't really interacted with any of the kids there at that point, so I didn't know how to look at him, how to behave, kind of not wanting to make eye contact... you see what I mean. He was sitting right there in front of me.

Then, suddenly, he banged his fist on the table and yelled at me: "Hey! HEYYY!!!"

I look at him. "What?"

"I SEE THE WAY YOU LOOK AT ME. I'M NOT STOOPID."

That's it. End of my story. The point? Indeed kids with Down Syndrome are not stupid. They're just not seeing the world the same way people without Down Syndrome do. He was keenly aware of my wariness to even make eye contact with him, for instance. More aware than anyone else would have been, I'm guessing.

Anyway.

Yeah. It was my choice. I wanted to have a character that would go against the "librarian with 20% in Cthulhu Mythos" drill, and wanted to experience some genuine differences between now and the 1920s game. Playing a mentally challenged character seemed interesting in that regard, since the social stigma associated with such conditions was much greater at the time. And indeed, the character was not a pain in terms of adventuring. He was part of the team, along with his caregiver who was interested in occult spiritism and that kind of thing. He was just... different. The way he would look at cthulhoid horrors would be interesting sometimes, either scared by some things other characters wouldn't even care for (the way the old man looks at them, rather than the rotten meat he's cooking on his stove), or not scared by say the Mi Go because they're basically big bugs, and he loves big bugs. Stuff like that.

It was great.

Quote from: -E.;4044111) You say, "Basically:  People often have trivial understandings.  Playing a game may expose those, but IMO exposing them isn't any worse than hiding them."

The choice to indulge in a trivializing fantasy of a real and tragic event suggests a (mild) character flaw. Ignorance is no character flaw, and taking action to correct ignorance is admirable -- but selecting someone else's tragedy is as one's setting for trivializing entertainment is... I would say, distasteful.

We're not talking about being a horrible person because someone chose to play this game, but no one should be surprised if people think less of them for taking inherently serious subject material and using it for a light-weight project (e.g. a game).

Quote from: -E.;404411If you're willing to take the risks and you've done the research, I say go for it (in your local gaming group).

Contrary to what it looks like above, I'm actually *not* a fan of everyone playing characters just like themselves and taking no risks. I also don't have a particularly high standard for what people do in their game room. And I've run stereotypical NPCs of the sort I'm condemning above (the Vermont Nationalists in my current game, for example).

I recognize, though, that I'm risking making an ass of myself in front of my friends, and if I were posting my games online, I'd hardly be surprised if people called me on my use of deeply-held beliefs for comedy relief.

But I don't think the scenario I'm thinking of is fit for public consumption and I certainly wouldn't tell people proudly what I "learned" from it. Yes, I read up on a movement I've never heard of. Yes, I got a perspective that was different from mine. But no, I didn't "learn" anything. In the end, it was an interesting game and that was that.

Thanks for the detailed reply.  The way your post went, though, I'm not quite sure how we disagree.  In particular, I'm not clear based on this if you think that I'm displaying a character flaw (1) when I ran my mini-campaign set in the Normandy invasion; or (2) if I ran a game in the future where the PCs are slaves in the antebellum South.  I can't tell if they would fall under your "go for it" suggestion or under your suggestion that it shows a character flaw.  

Obviously, a game shouldn't be made out to be something other than what it is - the same with reading a book or watching a movie.  Just because I watched the movie Amistad doesn't mean that I know what slaves really felt like, and similarly, playing a game doesn't mean that I would really understand anything.  

Basically, just anything that I play I consider fit for public consumption - I'll post just about any of my notes or material on my website, limited mainly by just my effort in putting it up rather than editorial on my part.  I don't consider this arrogance because I make clear that what I post is just my thoughts.

Quote from: jhkim;404472Thanks for the detailed reply.  The way your post went, though, I'm not quite sure how we disagree.  In particular, I'm not clear based on this if you think that I'm displaying a character flaw (1) when I ran my mini-campaign set in the Normandy invasion; or (2) if I ran a game in the future where the PCs are slaves in the antebellum South.  I can't tell if they would fall under your "go for it" suggestion or under your suggestion that it shows a character flaw.  

Obviously, a game shouldn't be made out to be something other than what it is - the same with reading a book or watching a movie.  Just because I watched the movie Amistad doesn't mean that I know what slaves really felt like, and similarly, playing a game doesn't mean that I would really understand anything.  

Basically, just anything that I play I consider fit for public consumption - I'll post just about any of my notes or material on my website, limited mainly by just my effort in putting it up rather than editorial on my part.  I don't consider this arrogance because I make clear that what I post is just my thoughts.

1) I don't think the Normandy game would problematic or indicate anything that would make me think less of you in some way. According to my principle, games focusing on professions (in this case, "Soldier") aren't likely to be an issue so long as they stay away from specific material such as real-life tragedies, atrocities, etc.

2) If you wanted to run a game for your local group where everyone played slaves in the Deep South, I'd generally assume you and your group are comfortable with that, and I wouldn't suggest you not do that if it would be fun for you...

I'm in no way suggesting that anyone should decide what they do in their rec room or basement based on what folks not-there might think about it. All my advice is based on how I (and I think others) in a /public space/ are likely to react to seeing serious stuff in a game.

So --

3) If you ran your game and then posted about it, I'd recommend that you expect people reading about your scenario to find your use of that material in an entertainment context to be disrespectful and potentially tasteless unless (and this is key), your description of the game made it clear the material was handled in a way that was nuanced, serious, insightful, and sensitive.

In other words, if you posted material that seemed light-weight and pedestrian, and then reported that everyone had a "great time" and you felt like you gained deep insight into what actual slaves experienced, I'd find that to be trivializing of the material and distasteful.

If you played with African Americans and / or people with qualifications that suggested they had actual insight -- or if the material you posted demonstrated (to my inexpert eye) that your game was, in fact, a high-quality treatment of the subject matter, then I'd commend you on not just having a cool game but achieving an intellectual / artistic bar.

I'll note that I generally find you to be a thoughtful and considered writer with, perhaps, a deeper-than-average appreciation for civil-rights issues. A game you ran in this space and/or your description of it might not come across as a poor / disrespectful treatment of this stuff.

Also, to state the obvious, it doesn't really matter what I think -- I'm one guy and I'm the sort of prude who found the throat-raping in the Poison'd game distasteful - it made me think less of everyone involved, so my framework is just one data point... but I suspect "regular people" as we call them in this thread are probably likely to be (if anything) less apt than I am to see the potential for serious and respectful treatment of this kind of subject matter in table-top RPGs and are more likely to assume the worst.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;404439I think Tom Cullen is closer to Autistic than Downs.

EDWARD Cullen might be Downs though.

Quote from: -E.;4044911) I don't think the Normandy game would problematic or indicate anything that would make me think less of you in some way. According to my principle, games focusing on professions (in this case, "Soldier") aren't likely to be an issue so long as they stay away from specific material such as real-life tragedies, atrocities, etc.

This confuses me.  My Normandy game was based very specifically on paratroopers in the invasion of Normandy, which was a recent real-life event where over 500,000 people died.  So it was very specific material - down to the particular events they were a part of, starting with Operation Tonga near Caen.  I expect that when I run Steal Away Jordan, it will be rather less specific in historical detail, given that I have less specific sources.  Is it that you think that WWII wasn't tragic?  Given the millions who died overall, that seems hard to justify.  

Quote from: -E.;404491If you ran your game and then posted about it, I'd recommend that you expect people reading about your scenario to find your use of that material in an entertainment context to be disrespectful and potentially tasteless unless (and this is key), your description of the game made it clear the material was handled in a way that was nuanced, serious, insightful, and sensitive.

In other words, if you posted material that seemed light-weight and pedestrian, and then reported that everyone had a "great time" and you felt like you gained deep insight into what actual slaves experienced, I'd find that to be trivializing of the material and distasteful.

It seems to me like you're contrasting two positions, but there are many other possibilities.  A likely third possibility is that the game wasn't a ground-breaking piece of art with new insight, but we did take is seriously without making it out to be more than it was.  i.e. We serious and sensitive, but not necessarily nuanced and/or insightful.  

That, to me, is the key.  Someone making light of slavery is indeed distasteful to me.  Someone who tries but doesn't do a great job of portraying a slave has nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm thinking that all I really need to know is that Steal Away Jordan is a game that apparently is meant to create an experience that somehow approximates or conveys in some way a sense of what being a black slave in early America was like. This alone seems enough to me to approach it with some skepticism and maybe a little contempt. To me it sounds as silly as someone writing a rpg about being an addict. I am a recovering addict. I know what that's like. I know that no rpg (or any other kind of game for that matter) could possible impart even the tiniest sense of what actually being an addict is like. In the same way, I seriously doubt that this "slave" game can in any way impart any kind of sense what actually being a slave in early America was like. I also question why anyone feels the need to try to understand what it felt like. If we understand it's (it being slavery) wrong, my opinion is that's all we need to understand. Given that I don't feel a need to "feel" like a slave, and I have serious, and I'd bet money correct, doubts about the game providing any level of authentic experience relating to the stated subject matter, I don't feel any need to gain any more familiarity with the game to form my opinion on it. However, since folks seem to like to completely discount other folk's opinions on a game they haven't fully read, perhaps one of ya'all supporters of it can explain how the game goes about mechanically creating this slave-like experience that has people suddenly knowing how it must have felt to be a slave. I ain't talking about the name bullshit either. I've had pregens in games who's names I didn't get to choose. I've taken over characters for folks and not gotten to choose even the class/race let alone name. It wasn't not getting to choose a name that had ya'all "feeling" something, it was the GM telling you that you couldn't choose a name because slaves weren't allowed. If you honestly think that what you felt after that was anything like how the slaves of early America felt, then we probably can't discuss this further.

Quote from: Sigmund;404529I'm thinking that all I really need to know is that Steal Away Jordan is a game that apparently is meant to create an experience that somehow approximates or conveys in some way a sense of what being a black slave in early America was like. This alone seems enough to me to approach it with some skepticism and maybe a little contempt. To me it sounds as silly as someone writing a rpg about being an addict. I am a recovering addict. I know what that's like. I know that no rpg (or any other kind of game for that matter) could possible impart even the tiniest sense of what actually being an addict is like. In the same way, I seriously doubt that this "slave" game can in any way impart any kind of sense what actually being a slave in early America was like. I also question why anyone feels the need to try to understand what it felt like. If we understand it's (it being slavery) wrong, my opinion is that's all we need to understand. Given that I don't feel a need to "feel" like a slave, and I have serious, and I'd bet money correct, doubts about the game providing any level of authentic experience relating to the stated subject matter, I don't feel any need to gain any more familiarity with the game to form my opinion on it. However, since folks seem to like to completely discount other folk's opinions on a game they haven't fully read, perhaps one of ya'all supporters of it can explain how the game goes about mechanically creating this slave-like experience that has people suddenly knowing how it must have felt to be a slave. I ain't talking about the name bullshit either. I've had pregens in games who's names I didn't get to choose. I've taken over characters for folks and not gotten to choose even the class/race let alone name. It wasn't not getting to choose a name that had ya'all "feeling" something, it was the GM telling you that you couldn't choose a name because slaves weren't allowed. If you honestly think that what you felt after that was anything like how the slaves of early America felt, then we probably can't discuss this further.

Spot on.

Quote from: Sigmund;404529However, since folks seem to like to completely discount other folk's opinions on a game they haven't fully read

As far as I know exactly two people in this thread have read this game, and I'm the only guy who has played it.

Quote from: Sigmund;404529perhaps one of ya'all supporters of it can explain how the game goes about mechanically creating this slave-like experience that has people suddenly knowing how it must have felt to be a slave.

It doesn't. What it does do pretty well is establish the parameters of oppression and provide consequences for pushing those boundaries. So if you're playing a slave (which isn't required), every choice you make is freighted with danger, sometimes even choices that have nothing to do with resistance. Steal Away Jordan does a lot of cool things to reinforce the slavery dynamic. Players collectively have an agenda that they keep secret from the GM, for example. There's a amazingly simple mechanic called the skull die, which anyone can roll at any time to get a little extra mojo. The odds in conflicts invariably make it tempting, but if you roll it, there's a one in six change your character will die. Arbitrary, brutal, stupid death, no saving throw.

If you really want to get into the how and why of the game, you should definitely contact Julia.

Quote from: jhkim;404505This confuses me.  My Normandy game was based very specifically on paratroopers in the invasion of Normandy, which was a recent real-life event where over 500,000 people died.  So it was very specific material - down to the particular events they were a part of, starting with Operation Tonga near Caen.  I expect that when I run Steal Away Jordan, it will be rather less specific in historical detail, given that I have less specific sources.  Is it that you think that WWII wasn't tragic?  Given the millions who died overall, that seems hard to justify.  

It seems to me like you're contrasting two positions, but there are many other possibilities.  A likely third possibility is that the game wasn't a ground-breaking piece of art with new insight, but we did take is seriously without making it out to be more than it was.  i.e. We serious and sensitive, but not necessarily nuanced and/or insightful.  

That, to me, is the key.  Someone making light of slavery is indeed distasteful to me.  Someone who tries but doesn't do a great job of portraying a slave has nothing to be ashamed of.

1) You're confused about why Normandy would be safer than slavery.

WW II and the institution of slavery play very different roles in our culture, but since you're set on finding principles to apply, I'll try clarifying again:

I recommended staying away from tragedy and atrocity, yes? That's the main principle. I think you got confused because I recommended (as a general rule) that staying away from real-life military operations was safer than using real ones -- but you can drop that guidance if it's difficult to apply.

Just use the tragedy / atrocity rule. The institution of slavery in the US was an atrocity. Operation Tonga, was neither a tragedy or an atrocity. Yes, a lot of people died -- but they died in the service of a critical and successful operation that ended a war. Surely you're aware that in the US slavery is considered an atrocity and the invasion of Normandy isn't.

2) You suggest using a spectrum of quality to judge games and point out that an actual game may be somewhere in the middle.

That's true, but it just means that the level of quality each critic holds the game to is subjective. Reading the blog post in the OP, it looks like the blogger was rather disturbed to see slavery as RPG material. In this case it's hard to know what standard the author was applying, but I'd guess that reaction would be a fairly common one and much more likely than the standard you apply which is that any level of ignorance is okay so long as  there was no intent to be offensive.

Since everyone is welcome to judge by whatever standard they feel like, I've got no problem with that, but surely you can see how not everyone would choose to apply the standard you're using, yes? To the extent that the act of individual games and gamers reflect the hobby at-large, I'm going to be cringing at trivializing treatment of culturally sensitive issues.

You won't be -- which is completely cool -- so long as there's no malice involved. I was wondering if there any level of well-intentioned trivialization of slavery you'd find distasteful? If a gaming group chose to play out a parade of stereotypes out of basic ignorance rather than malice, would that reflect well on them, in your eyes? If the game was run to re-enforce those stereotypes would /that/ be problematic?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;4045931) You're confused about why Normandy would be safer than slavery.

WW II and the institution of slavery play very different roles in our culture, but since you're set on finding principles to apply, I'll try clarifying again:

I recommended staying away from tragedy and atrocity, yes? That's the main principle. I think you got confused because I recommended (as a general rule) that staying away from real-life military operations was safer than using real ones -- but you can drop that guidance if it's difficult to apply.

Just use the tragedy / atrocity rule. The institution of slavery in the US was an atrocity. Operation Tonga, was neither a tragedy or an atrocity. Yes, a lot of people died -- but they died in the service of a critical and successful operation that ended a war. Surely you're aware that in the US slavery is considered an atrocity and the invasion of Normandy isn't.

I understand that you have decided this for yourself, but what I don't understand is why you think it is OK to disrespect and/or trivialize the people who fought and died in WWII.  For me, I think both slavery and WWII are serious subjects.  I don't see the logic of splitting whether a war that killed over 70 million people was a "tragedy" or just tragic.  Regardless of such split hairs, I feel that it is a serious subject, and that it is not OK to disrespect or trivialize those who died in it - any more than it is OK to disrespect or trivialize slavery.  

Quote from: -E.;4045932) You suggest using a spectrum of quality to judge games and point out that an actual game may be somewhere in the middle.

That's true, but it just means that the level of quality each critic holds the game to is subjective. Reading the blog post in the OP, it looks like the blogger was rather disturbed to see slavery as RPG material. In this case it's hard to know what standard the author was applying, but I'd guess that reaction would be a fairly common one and much more likely than the standard you apply which is that any level of ignorance is okay so long as  there was no intent to be offensive.
...
I was wondering if there any level of well-intentioned trivialization of slavery you'd find distasteful? If a gaming group chose to play out a parade of stereotypes out of basic ignorance rather than malice, would that reflect well on them, in your eyes? If the game was run to re-enforce those stereotypes would /that/ be problematic?

I think that ignorance can be very cringe-worthy and in some cases offensive.  However, I think that ignorance is offensive whether it is voiced or not.  If someone is full of racist beliefs, I don't think that they are somehow better if they avoid exposing them.  i.e. If some people play the game and trivialize slavery - say by the acting out their belief that slaves just didn't try hard to be free - then that would be offensive to me.  However, the problem isn't that they played the game.  The problem is that they had those beliefs in the first place.  It's not like the same people would somehow be better if they had never played the game.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404581As far as I know exactly two people in this thread have read this game, and I'm the only guy who has played it.

What's your point? How familiar does one need to get with a game before one is permitted to have an opinion on it?

QuoteIt doesn't. What it does do pretty well is establish the parameters of oppression and provide consequences for pushing those boundaries. So if you're playing a slave (which isn't required), every choice you make is freighted with danger, sometimes even choices that have nothing to do with resistance. Steal Away Jordan does a lot of cool things to reinforce the slavery dynamic. Players collectively have an agenda that they keep secret from the GM, for example. There's a amazingly simple mechanic called the skull die, which anyone can roll at any time to get a little extra mojo. The odds in conflicts invariably make it tempting, but if you roll it, there's a one in six change your character will die. Arbitrary, brutal, stupid death, no saving throw.

If you really want to get into the how and why of the game, you should definitely contact Julia.

So, what you're telling me is that the game does not attempt to impart any kind of sense of what being  a slave in early America was like? How, exactly, does it "establish the parameters of oppression"? How are your choices "freighted with danger"? What are these "cool things" that "reinforce the slavery dynamic"? I take it by your statement about players hiding things from the GM that the GM is not meant to be an impartial referee of the game like in traditional games then, is that correct? What is "mojo" and how is it used?

I have no interest in contacting Julia, thanks.

"Steal Away Jordan does a lot of cool things to reinforce the slavery dynamic."

Yeah. Very cool... I know this is taken out of context and all, but the sentence alone, man. Just look at it dude. For God's sakes.
That just rubs me the wrong way.

Quote from: Benoist;404680"Steal Away Jordan does a lot of cool things to reinforce the slavery dynamic."

Yeah. Very cool... I know this is taken out of context and all, but the sentence alone, man. Just look at it dude. For God's sakes.
That just rubs me the wrong way.

Honestly, I'm totally with ya, but I certainly want to allow Jason the opportunity to clarify. I am working to keep an open mind and the willingness to be convinced.

Sigmund, if you really are trying to be objective and want to learn about Steal Away Jordan, I'd encourage you to track down a copy of the game and check it out. If you want to understand the game's design sensibilities and point of view, I'd encourage you to talk to the author. For good or ill, you do seem very interested, and I cannot fathom why you wouldn't want to learn more about it from the best possible source.

Benoist, I'm a game designer. When I see a particularly elegant game mechanic I admire it. You can take that out of context pretty easily, as you admit.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404693Sigmund, if you really are trying to be objective and want to learn about Steal Away Jordan, I'd encourage you to track down a copy of the game and check it out. If you want to understand the game's design sensibilities and point of view, I'd encourage you to talk to the author. For good or ill, you do seem very interested, and I cannot fathom why you wouldn't want to learn more about it from the best possible source.

I'm not going to buy something I have serious doubts about whether I'd even enjoy reading it let alone playing it. I'm mainly talking to ya'all because you're here and already discussing it. I'm not interested in talking with the author at this time. Perhaps that will change, but until then I'd love it if you could address my questions, since you have a copy of the game and can easily provide the information I've requested.

Quote from: jhkim;404633I understand that you have decided this for yourself, but what I don't understand is why you think it is OK to disrespect and/or trivialize the people who fought and died in WWII.  For me, I think both slavery and WWII are serious subjects.  I don't see the logic of splitting whether a war that killed over 70 million people was a "tragedy" or just tragic.  Regardless of such split hairs, I feel that it is a serious subject, and that it is not OK to disrespect or trivialize those who died in it - any more than it is OK to disrespect or trivialize slavery.

I find it difficult to believe that you don't see the difference. I bet everyone here has played with toy soldiers and no one has played with toy slaves. Playing at war perhaps romanticises soldiers and combat, but it is qualitatively different from disrespect. War can bring out the best and worst in human beings. Being a soldier has been considered a noble and brave calling since before the Iliad.

Whereas with slavery, (and to be perfectly clear, we are talking about slavery in America specifically) no one, except perhaps the author of this game and white sheet enthusiasts, romanticises this era. We are talking about a race of people who were property for 200 years and then were segregated for another 100 or so. That's 3 centuries of baggage to bring to the table. There are people in my group who were chldren when MLK was killed.

So yeah, the idea of a bunch of white folks getting together to pretend to be black slaves makes people uncomfortable. If you play it historically accurate, it is pure misery tourism. If you dial it back, it borders on Blaxploitation. If you fail to understand why an American in the 21st century would find this game to be in bad taste, then I doubt you could understand an African American in the 19th century.

OK, I'll answer your questions. Here you go:

Quote from: Sigmund;404678What's your point? How familiar does one need to get with a game before one is permitted to have an opinion on it?

I don't know, a little?

QuoteSo, what you're telling me is that the game does not attempt to impart any kind of sense of what being  a slave in early America was like?

Well, no. You said "perhaps one of ya'all supporters of it can explain how the game goes about mechanically creating this slave-like experience that has people suddenly knowing how it must have felt to be a slave." It doesn't do that. It definitely attempts to impart a sense of what being a slave in early America was like.

QuoteHow, exactly, does it "establish the parameters of oppression"?

I gave two examples in my previous post.

QuoteHow are your choices "freighted with danger"?

Failure has harsh in-game consequences. Failure is also a likely outcome if you don't take risks, which in turn amplify the consequences.

QuoteWhat are these "cool things" that "reinforce the slavery dynamic"?

Two examples, previous post.

QuoteI take it by your statement about players hiding things from the GM that the GM is not meant to be an impartial referee of the game like in traditional games then, is that correct?

I'm pretty sure impartiality is a comforting illusion, but yeah, the GM role does not map 1:1 with OD&D.

QuoteWhat is "mojo" and how is it used?

I was referring to resources for effectiveness in conflicts. Substitute power, awesome sauce, etc.

I hope that helps!

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404703(and to be perfectly clear, we are talking about slavery in America specifically)

There's nothing in the game that mandates an antebellum American setting. There are suggestions for playing in the Caribbean or even in contemporary cocoa plantations in West Africa.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404704OK, I'll answer your questions. Here you go:


I don't know, a little?

A little could be just the title and subject matter, or a rule or two, or just chargen, etc. Not really a very helpful guideline for when I'm allowed to form an opinion.

QuoteWell, no. You said "perhaps one of ya'all supporters of it can explain how the game goes about mechanically creating this slave-like experience that has people suddenly knowing how it must have felt to be a slave." It doesn't do that. It definitely attempts to impart a sense of what being a slave in early America was like.

So by this I can only conclude that it does not attempt to create a slave-like experience through mechanical (rules) means. I'm confused. I thought you said that the first rule in the game is that players can't choose names for their characters. Did you mean something different than game rule when you wrote "rule"? To ask a related question, why do you wish to gain some sort of empathic understanding of what it was like to be a black slave? You already understood that slavery is a bad thing before ever seeing this game did you not? I'm not understanding the motivation. I'm perfectly willing to accept it's a personal taste thing, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to discuss these sorts of things.

QuoteI gave two examples in my previous post.

So keeping secrets from the GM, and the "mojo" die are two ways this game attempts to "establish the parameters of oppression"? Are there any others you're willing to mention? And these rules are not meant to impart some sort of slave-like experience? If not, what are they meant to accomplish?

QuoteFailure has harsh in-game consequences. Failure is also a likely outcome if you don't take risks, which in turn amplify the consequences.

As far as I can tell, this feature is common to almost all games, including rpgs. Does this game accomplish this in some kind of special way?

QuoteTwo examples, previous post.

So the same two rules that "establish the parameters of oppression" also are "cool things" that "reinforce the slavery dynamic"? Are there any others?

QuoteI'm pretty sure impartiality is a comforting illusion, but yeah, the GM role does not map 1:1 with OD&D.

All of "reality" is a comforting illusion, but I think in this context it is safe to say that one can find GMs that are able to approaching the running of rpgs with a fairly high degree of impartiality. I have had the fortune to game with quite a few, and have been fairly impartial myself when running rpgs, I'd say. So, how does the role of GM differ in this game than in others, namely some flavor of DnD, for example? That is, other than the game encouraging the players to keep things relating to the game secret from the GM, I'm interested in hearing about some other ways this game differs.

QuoteI was referring to resources for effectiveness in conflicts. Substitute power, awesome sauce, etc.

I hope that helps!

So by this I gather that "mojo" is some sort of hit points, or action points, or fatigue points? How are they used?

Sigmund, this really feels like a reductio ad absurdum cross examination. I will respectfully disengage. If I've read you wrong, my apologies, and good luck finding the answers elsewhere. Talking to the designer is your best bet, followed by the linked audio interview as a good starting point.

I can see why people wouldn't want to play Steal Away Jordan. It's a heavy concept. I myself have never played it for that reason; I think it takes a specific kind of group to be down with a game like that, and get enthused to play it.

While I genuinely admire people who write and play games like Steal Away Jordan, or Jason Morningstar's Grey Ranks (because the idea that RPGs can ONLY be about swords and elves and guns and never engage with serious themes is dumb to me), I don't often want to play those games myself.

So I get not being into this game.

What I don't get is objecting about the EXISTENCE of it. (Without having ever read it, no less). As gamers, we should be proud that our hobby includes games like this, games that attempt to engage with the serious themes. Because role-playing games can be about lots of different things.

If you play RPGs as escapism, that is totally fine. But why object to others play them for different reasons sometimes? That is baffling to me.

Quote from: Sigmund;404529I also question why anyone feels the need to try to understand what it felt like. If we understand it's (it being slavery) wrong, my opinion is that's all we need to understand.

I think your opinion is seriously lacking, then.

Merely agreeing that something was wrong is not the same as understanding it.

The way to understand something (slavery, World War II, the Alaskan gold rush, the life of Roman gladiators, etc) is to learn about it and think about it in different ways. An RPG can be part of that, if you want.

Quote from: BWA;404717The way to understand something (slavery, World War II, the Alaskan gold rush, the life of Roman gladiators, etc) is to learn about it and think about it in different ways. An RPG can be part of that, if you want.

Ok, so what is the 'different way' to think about with slavery?

Quote from: BWA;404717But why object to others play them for different reasons sometimes? That is baffling to me.

The problem comes when people seek validation from the mainstream - say wanting judges on a mainstream awards panel who "get" these games.

They are not mainstream games and the subject matter is neither mainstream nor representative of the hobby as a whole. They are fringe games representative of story games.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404703I find it difficult to believe that you don't see the difference. I bet everyone here has played with toy soldiers and no one has played with toy slaves. Playing at war perhaps romanticises soldiers and combat, but it is qualitatively different from disrespect. War can bring out the best and worst in human beings. Being a soldier has been considered a noble and brave calling since before the Iliad.

Whereas with slavery, (and to be perfectly clear, we are talking about slavery in America specifically) no one, except perhaps the author of this game and white sheet enthusiasts, romanticises this era. We are talking about a race of people who were property for 200 years and then were segregated for another 100 or so. That's 3 centuries of baggage to bring to the table. There are people in my group who were chldren when MLK was killed.

So yeah, the idea of a bunch of white folks getting together to pretend to be black slaves makes people uncomfortable. If you play it historically accurate, it is pure misery tourism. If you dial it back, it borders on Blaxploitation. If you fail to understand why an American in the 21st century would find this game to be in bad taste, then I doubt you could understand an African American in the 19th century.

Being at home now, I've just walked a few steps into my son's room and pulled out his graphic novel biography of Harriet Tubman (http://www.amazon.com/Harriet-Underground-Railroad-Graphic-History/dp/073685245X).  Your claim suggests that this is the work of white supremacists for romanticizing the era, or perhaps misery tourism, or blaxploitation.  

I suggest that it is none of these.  It is a tale about a heroic person who saved lives in a dark time.  It most certainly romanticizes Tubman's exploits, which is not the same thing as romanticizing the horrors of slavery as a good thing.  I think that people young and old should hear about such heroic tales.  While it is perhaps a high standard to reach for, I feel that Steal Away Jordan games are fully capable of reaching the intellectual standards of this comic.  

I can see a few options here for disagreement:

1) The comic book is blaxploitation trash.  

2) A Steal Away Jordan game by people who aren't professionals in the field couldn't possibly match the nuance and sensitivity represented by this comic book.  

or possibly something else that I'm missing.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404715Sigmund, this really feels like a reductio ad absurdum cross examination. I will respectfully disengage. If I've read you wrong, my apologies, and good luck finding the answers elsewhere. Talking to the designer is your best bet, followed by the linked audio interview as a good starting point.

I'm sorry you find simple questions easily answered by simply looking in the book and then paraphrasing what it says somehow leading to some absurd conclusion.  I'm simply trying to clarify your self-contradictory statements. You started out in this thread defending this game from it's detractors, yet when questioned about it can only repeat some mantra about asking the designer. Am I sceptical of whether anything you tell me about it is going to change my opinion? Of course, but then I have been open about that from the beginning. I wanted to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong, however. I'm not interested in expending the time and effort to contact the designer of a roleplaying game which I presently find to be ridiculous. If I'm truly forming my current opinion on faulty information, and she has any interest in setting the record straight, she's welcome to register on this site and correct this if she can. Unfortunately, nothing you or anyone else has contributed has in any way refuted what Chauncey DeVega wrote, or what was written in a follow up article. The game comes across to me and many others as a bad idea with an impossible goal. I find the fact that ya'all seem to think you have somehow gained any kind of insight at all into what being a slave was like to be almost laughable, if it wasn't so disturbing and perhaps even kind of sad. If you truly can't understand why gaming about WWII (or even Vietnam) is different than gaming about black slavery in early America (from the point of view of, and with the goal of empathising with the slaves) to many Americans then I'm not sure I can help you understand. What I'd ask then is that you simply accept our assertion and move on, just as I'm accepting that while I think the game is horrible on many levels, you seem to like and enjoy it and that'll just have to be ok.

Quote from: jhkim;404720I can see a few options here for disagreement:

1) The comic book is blaxploitation trash.  

2) A Steal Away Jordan game by people who aren't professionals in the field couldn't possibly match the nuance and sensitivity represented by this comic book.  

or possibly something else that I'm missing.

I'm guessing that the authors of the graphic novel did magnitudes of order more research just coming up with the title than the designer(s) of Steal Away Jordan did for the whole game.

Also, like all literature, the graphic novel is telling a story, not asking the reader to pretend they are a slave.

Quote from: BWA;404717I think your opinion is seriously lacking, then.

Merely agreeing that something was wrong is not the same as understanding it.

The way to understand something (slavery, World War II, the Alaskan gold rush, the life of Roman gladiators, etc) is to learn about it and think about it in different ways. An RPG can be part of that, if you want.

I think your thinking is seriously lacking then. Neither you nor I are capable of understanding it in the way an actual slave did. Nobody alive today can understand how being a black slave in early America felt. We can understand that it was tragic and unpleasant. We can understand that it was wrong to treat people that way. We can not understand how it felt. The author of the game can't understand how it felt. No matter how old she is, she couldn't possibly be old enough to have been a slave herself. If she can't truly know what it was like, do you honestly think she could design a game that could simulate the feeling in any kind of meaningful way? If she was in fact a slave, do you truly believe it's possible for a tabletop pen and paper game to provide an experience even remotely approximating the reality of living life as a black slave in early America? Do you think that playing an rpg about WWII actually allows you to experience what that war was like from the point of view of a soldier who actually fought in it? One can learn facts about things like Roman gladiatorial combat, and can engage in vague and inaccurate mental simulations of Roman gladiatorial combat using a rpg, but there's no way we can know what it was like. The vast majority of rpgs don't even try to approximate a true experience of these things, they instead bask in the romanticized and watered-down version such as authors and Hollywood types have created. This rpg, however, is seeming to claim something different, and therefore is flawed from it's very foundations.

Honestly, it has nothing to do with it being "heavy". It's simply a ridiculous assertion that any kind of rpg can impart any kind of true sense of the experience it's abstracting. When I play a jet fighter pilot in an rpg, I in no way consider myself gaining any kind of insight into how flying a jet fighter feels. To suggest such would be absurd and folks around here would rightly ridicule me for saying it.

Ya know, in a very small way, I'm actually wrong. If one were to approach an rpg with the goal of learning how it feels to play an rpg, then an rpg could provide an authentic experience. Otherwise, forget about it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404719They are not mainstream games and the subject matter is neither mainstream nor representative of the hobby as a whole. They are fringe games representative of story games.

Okay, sure, agreed!

Steal Away Jordan is definitely not a mainstream game, nor a popular one. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good game, or an interesting game, or a valuable game.

If every single game must be "representative of the hobby" to be credible or worthwhile, we'd have a pretty stagnant hobby.

Quote from: StormBringer;404722I'm guessing that the authors of the graphic novel did magnitudes of order more research just coming up with the title than the designer(s) of Steal Away Jordan did for the whole game.

I'm not sure how you know that, if you've never read the game.

But, even if that were true, this makes it sound like your objection is to some specific amount of historical research that must be done to make a game acceptable. If the author of Steal Away Jordan told you she'd spent a year researching the game, would that change things? What's the number of research hours required to confer credibility?

Sorry. I don't mean to be argumentative, but the goalposts for objecting to this one little game keep shifting wildly all over the place.

It's like no one can say *why* they don't like it, they just know in their hearts it must be bad.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404719The problem comes when people seek validation from the mainstream - say wanting judges on a mainstream awards panel who "get" these games.

They are not mainstream games and the subject matter is neither mainstream nor representative of the hobby as a whole. They are fringe games representative of story games.

You entrenched, codified, regimented, polemical motherfuckers are the fringe.

Steal Away Jordan may be the biggest piece of shit game ever to be put down on paper and it may offend women, children, and men of faint constitutions all over the world, but this attitude that our hobby is rightfully limited and restricted to the parameters of a handful of games published between 1976 and 1989 (or whenever) is what is truly offensive.

I'll likely never play Steal Away Jordan or ANY of the more thematic games of that sort, because I'm not interested in the subject and I like a bit of crunch in my system. No, those sorts of games will never sell tens of thousands of copies, but so fucking what? I'm just glad someone is out there pushing at the boundaries and definitions of what an RPG can be.

It's research, development, and artistic expression, not some sort of assault on decency.

Quote from: jhkim;404720I can see a few options here for disagreement:

1) The comic book is blaxploitation trash.  

2) A Steal Away Jordan game by people who aren't professionals in the field couldn't possibly match the nuance and sensitivity represented by this comic book.  

or possibly something else that I'm missing.

Possibly that a comic book, as fixed media, with distinct roles of creator and audience, is fundamentally different from an RPG.

Quote from: BWA;404725Okay, sure, agreed!

Steal Away Jordan is definitely not a mainstream game, nor a popular one. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good game, or an interesting game, or a valuable game.

If every single game must be "representative of the hobby" to be credible or worthwhile, we'd have a pretty stagnant hobby.

and i'm saying that games like this one are an offshoot of RPGs, shit, someone even came up with a name for them - storygames.

Now, if you're (not you, general you) then pressing for mainstream recognition for games like this one, then you are engaged in evangelising, missionary activity, call it what you like. You are trying to change the definition of what has traditionally been called a roleplaying game.

I actually typed that tripe...

I don't actually care who calls what what and who plays what where.

However, if you put even a smidgeon of it in the public domain, whether forum, pdf or whatever, then you better expect some backlash if it's dodgy and let's face it, many of the storygames/forge darlings' (bar Luke Crane) releases have been dodgy.

They aren't "edgy", they're not "hip", they aren't "groundbreaking" it's same shit, different day, except with added tentacle rape and misery.

Quote from: Tim;404726You entrenched, codified, regimented, polemical motherfuckers are the fringe.

Well, that's obviously wrong.

Quote from: Tim;404726You entrenched, codified, regimented, polemical motherfuckers are the fringe.

Steal Away Jordan may be the biggest piece of shit game ever to be put down on paper and it may offend women, children, and men of faint constitutions all over the world, but this attitude that our hobby is rightfully limited and restricted to the parameters of a handful of games published between 1976 and 1989 (or whenever) is what is truly offensive.

I'll likely never play Steal Away Jordan or ANY of the more thematic games of that sort, because I'm not interested in the subject and I like a bit of crunch in my system. No, those sorts of games will never sell tens of thousands of copies, but so fucking what? I'm just glad someone is out there pushing at the boundaries and definitions of what an RPG can be.

It's research, development, and artistic expression, not some sort of assault on decency.

Lighten up Francis.

Way to refute an argument that wasn't even made. That straw man is feelin it for sure.

Quote from: StormBringer;404722I'm guessing that the authors of the graphic novel did magnitudes of order more research just coming up with the title than the designer(s) of Steal Away Jordan did for the whole game.

Also, like all literature, the graphic novel is telling a story, not asking the reader to pretend they are a slave.

I don't have any information on how many hours of research either author did.  I do note that Julia gives acknowledgment to her mother's help and support - and her mother is the Director of the African and African-American Studies Program at University of Memphis.  I take that as a favorable sign from an expert in the field.  I don't know anything about Michael Martin other than his publishing credits (http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Martin/e/B001IYXEIW/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1).  From those, I can see the list of the eight other books he published in 2006 along with the Harriet Tubman graphic novel:  Gladiators; Alien Abductions; ESP: Extrasensory Perception; Apartheid in South Africa; Modern Mummies: 20th-Century Wonders and Beyond; Skateboarding History: From the Backyard to the Big Time; The World's Deadliest Snakes; and The World's Fastest Cars.  Based on these and having read both books, I can't make any definite conclusions, but my opinion the amount of research for each was comparable.  

As for the pretending as opposed to reading, I understand that you consider it important, but lacking a coherent argument, I don't agree.  For example, a bunch of 5th graders wrote and performed a  play about slavery (http://www.pb5th.com/cwplay.htm) - which I take it you regard as offensive.

In the spirit of compromise, I googled and gandered at the Stone Baby Games website blurb for Steal Away Jordan....

QuoteSteal Away Jordan is a vehicle for players to tell a collective story of the lives of people who live inthe shadow of slavery. The emphasis here is on the people, not the place or time. The institution affects everyone, from the child born into bondage to the man who owns him. Steal Away Jordan is a role playing game written in the spirit of neo slave narratives like Margaret Walker's Jubilee, Toni Morrison's Beloved, and Octavia Butler's Kindred. Like these fictional accounts of slave life, players explore the social and psychological implications of life in a society where people can be property. Ultimately, players consider slavery's long-term impact on a society and on the descendants of slaves and slave owners.

This at least doesn't sound as extreme as some of the other folks who claim to have gained some insight into what being a slave was like have made it sound, but I'd still question whether this game can even come close to approximating it's goal. Even the neo slave narratives it's claiming to be inspired by are fictional stories informed by hearsay that while imparting a small measure of how horrible slavery must have been, in no way claim to provide a true sense of what it was like. I think that if the players and supporters of this game wish to avoid creating negative reactions, they should refrain from claiming any kind of high-minded or empathic revelations from playing them. I still don't even see how it would be entertaining to play this game, and if I want to be educated (more than I already am), I'm confident there are superior avenues I could pursue.

In the end, I'm left paraphrasing the same question Chauncey DeVega did in relation to the Follow the North Star game in the article linked by the OP... I wonder if players can be whipped, branded, physically disfigured, manacled, or raped and defiled to complete the "historical" experience? Is it extreme? Yes, but without it how could anyone possibly understand what the experience was like?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;404727Possibly that a comic book, as fixed media, with distinct roles of creator and audience, is fundamentally different from an RPG.

Can you give a reason why this is relevant?  

Why would it be OK for me to write about a character who is a slave, and not OK for me to role-play a slave?

Quote from: jhkim;404720Being at home now, I've just walked a few steps into my son's room and pulled out his graphic novel biography of Harriet Tubman (http://www.amazon.com/Harriet-Underground-Railroad-Graphic-History/dp/073685245X).  Your claim suggests that this is the work of white supremacists for romanticizing the era, or perhaps misery tourism, or blaxploitation.  

I suggest that it is none of these.  It is a tale about a heroic person who saved lives in a dark time.  It most certainly romanticizes Tubman's exploits, which is not the same thing as romanticizing the horrors of slavery as a good thing.  I think that people young and old should hear about such heroic tales.  While it is perhaps a high standard to reach for, I feel that Steal Away Jordan games are fully capable of reaching the intellectual standards of this comic.  

I can see a few options here for disagreement:

1) The comic book is blaxploitation trash.  

2) A Steal Away Jordan game by people who aren't professionals in the field couldn't possibly match the nuance and sensitivity represented by this comic book.  

or possibly something else that I'm missing.

The something else you are missing, is that we are talking about an RPG. Not a textbook. Not a movie. The medium makes a big difference. I think slavery trading cards would be crass and exploitative too. The thing is, most people play games to have fun. No one goes bowling to learn about physics. Making as "unfun" a topic as slavery in colonial America into something "fun" doesn't sit well with most people. The idea of a bunch of white guys sitting around in metaphorical blackface and claiming to have an educational experience from it sounds incredibley pretentious, if not entirely offensive.

Quote from: jhkim;404736As for the pretending as opposed to reading, I understand that you consider it important, but lacking a coherent argument, I don't agree.  For example, a bunch of 5th graders wrote and performed a  play about slavery (http://www.pb5th.com/cwplay.htm) - which I take it you regard as offensive.

The question is, did the 5th graders then feel like they knew what it felt like to be slaves in Antebellum America, or were they simply acknowledging their realization of the wrongness of slavery while telling a story involving a famous personage of that era? I don't think anyone is saying that the subject can never be explored artistically, just that we're dubious that rpgs are the proper medium. Especially when it seems rpgs attempting to be artistic usually fail at attaining their goal. These are games, played by the vast majority of us for the purposes of entertainment and escape. Computer games are similar in that respect, and I certainly wouldn't play GTA: San Andreas and expect to gain insight into what it must be like to grow up in Compton.

Quote from: jhkim;404738Can you give a reason why this is relevant?  

Why would it be OK for me to write about a character who is a slave, and not OK for me to role-play a slave?

How would you know what you were doing? If your goal is to just play what your idea of a slave is like, without seeking to gain some insight into what black slaves in America felt like, then you can do that with any game. If, however, you go into this game with the expectation that the game is going to somehow grant you insight into how a black slave must have felt, then you're wrong. When you read a book, you're (hopefully) reading a story written by someone who knows what they are talking about, having done extensive research on the topic they're writing about. That way you're at least getting accurate flavor and information, even if you can't truly know what it was really like. You can feel some sort of empathy (that once again is hopefully based on non-fictional information). Unless every player of the game is going to engage in the same level of research and commitment, how could the two activities possibly approach any kind of equivalency? If you were to do that level of research, what would you need the game for?

Quote from: Sigmund;404743How would you know what you were doing? If your goal is to just play what your idea of a slave is like, without seeking to gain some insight into what black slaves in America felt like, then you can do that with any game. If, however, you go into this game with the expectation that the game is going to somehow grant you insight into how a black slave must have felt, then you're wrong. When you read a book, you're (hopefully) reading a story written by someone who knows what they are talking about, having done extensive research on the topic they're writing about. That way you're at least getting accurate flavor and information, even if you can't truly know what it was really like. You can feel some sort of empathy (that once again is hopefully based on non-fictional information). Unless every player of the game is going to engage in the same level of research and commitment, how could the two activities possibly approach any kind of equivalency? If you were to do that level of research, what would you need the game for?

Exactly.  The game is used as some sort of 'shortcut' to the colonial black experience of being a slave, then pointed to as authentic research or something.

It's preposterous.  Even moreso is the inability of people to see that RPGs and literature are different media.

Quote from: StormBringer;404746It's preposterous.  Even moreso is the inability of people to see that RPGs and literature are different media.

It's a common defence of these types of games. Next up someone will say that this stuff can happen in d&d.

Wait a minute!...

It's a double for John.

Quote from: StormBringer;404722Also, like all literature, the graphic novel is telling a story, not asking the reader to pretend they are a slave.

This, is the point you should respond to, John.
You know.
 The part you actually didn't quote.

Quote from: Benoist;404751This, is the point you should respond to, John.
You know.
 The part you actually didn't quote.

WTF?  I did quote that.  

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=404736&postcount=146

Edit to add:  I posted quickly because this pissed me off.  It feels like you're attacking me personally over this.  I'll give a longer response in a bit after I cool off.

Heh. My mistake. I actually had not see that post.

"As for the pretending as opposed to reading, I understand that you consider it important, but lacking a coherent argument, I don't agree. For example, a bunch of 5th graders wrote and performed a play about slavery - which I take it you regard as offensive."

OK. That's weak sauce, though.

Quote from: jhkim;404738Can you give a reason why this is relevant?

None that I haven't given several times before, some even in this thread. You're welcome to ponder the answer for yourself, since I'm uninterested in "debating" this issue.

QuoteWhy would it be OK for me to write about a character who is a slave, and not OK for me to role-play a slave?

Roleplaying a slave is fine by me. Roleplaying in a context designed to elicit a particular reaction from the participant, followed by self-accolades for working yourself into that emotional state, is pretentious self-indulgence, though, and that is offensive when it's used in conjunction with the exploitation of human tragedy.

I think I went into this before, most likely in the thread "When is a Game Misery Tourism?" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=15035)

By the way, doesn't this thread belong where all the other indie game threads are put? If this one stays here, then the policy of shunting them off into some other forum ought to be re-examined; it doesn't seem fair to allow only critical threads to stay in the main forum.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404728They aren't "edgy", they're not "hip", they aren't "groundbreaking" it's same shit, different day, except with added tentacle rape and misery.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;404769Roleplaying in a context designed to elicit a particular reaction from the participant, followed by self-accolades for working yourself into that emotional state, is pretentious self-indulgence, though, and that is offensive when it's used in conjunction with the exploitation of human tragedy.

Many posters in this thread are objecting strongly to this game, on many different, shifting grounds.

But a theme that keeps coming up - in this thread and many many more - is  this idea that someone, somewhere is being "pretentious".

Maybe someone is! Somewhere. But as near as I can tell, no one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that playing this game is "hip", or that they are being "edgy" by doing so. No one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that they are deserving of "accolades" for playing it.*

I know this is the internet, and inventing something purely in order to enjoy the sensation of outrage that it brings, is the thing. We all enjoy that. But please be aware that some of you are objecting to the mere *existence* of a unique, interesting game because of things that YOU MADE UP.

* And geez, even if they were, that wouldn't have anything to do with the game itself.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;404777By the way, doesn't this thread belong where all the other indie game threads are put? If this one stays here, then the policy of shunting them off into some other forum ought to be re-examined; it doesn't seem fair to allow only critical threads to stay in the main forum.

I don't think "all other indie games" is right, Elliot, unless you are using indie in the Forge sense of the word.

I have thought about it, but didn't as i've been quite active in the thread and i seem to be all alone (sigh!).

If any of the other mods/admins choose to do so, then great. However, i'm not doing it.

Quote from: BWA;404778No one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that they are deserving of "accolades" for playing it.*

Didn't you read Jason's post earlier about how he got an insight into the slave's condition through playing the game?

Sounds like self-accolade to me.

Quote from: BWA;404778Maybe someone is! Somewhere. But as near as I can tell, no one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that playing this game is "hip", or that they are being "edgy" by doing so. No one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that they are deserving of "accolades" for playing it.*

Yes, they are.  By going public with the play reports and such, they are inviting comment.  Typically, people don't do that seeking negative comments.  Factor in how the proponents keep pushing how 'cool' the game is, and how much they 'learned' from the 'experience of being a slave', and you have a potent concoction: public displays of pretension.  The very foundational principle is that they are so post-modern, they alone are capable of delivering and consuming this kind of 'edgy' content without complaint, while the rest of the 'prudes' are out there wallowing in their seriously un-hip morality.

I assume you will now ask for specific quotes.  There aren't any, naturally, but that is because the rest of us already know the rhetoric, and how it is couched in posts that sound reasonable on the surface.  Which, I am guess, you are already aware of; you likely wouldn't present a challenge for actual quotes if you weren't.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404779If any of the other mods/admins choose to do so, then great. However, i'm not doing it.

I don't have a problem if someone decides to move it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404779I don't think "all other indie games" is right, Elliot, unless you are using indie in the Forge sense of the word.

I have thought about it, but didn't as i've been quite active in the thread and i seem to be all alone (sigh!).

If any of the other mods/admins choose to do so, then great. However, i'm not doing it.

Yes, I meant in the Forge sense of the word. The sense under which certain threads have been moved into Other Games.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;404783Yes, I meant in the Forge sense of the word. The sense under which certain threads have been moved into Other Games.

Don't shoot the messenger! :pundit:

Quote from: BWA;404778Maybe someone is! Somewhere. But as near as I can tell, no one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that playing this game is "hip", or that they are being "edgy" by doing so. No one in this thread, or any AP I've read about this game, has claimed that they are deserving of "accolades" for playing it.*

I know this is the internet, and inventing something purely in order to enjoy the sensation of outrage that it brings, is the thing. We all enjoy that. But please be aware that some of you are objecting to the mere *existence* of a unique, interesting game because of things that YOU MADE UP.

* And geez, even if they were, that wouldn't have anything to do with the game itself.

Be careful about saying that people made things up please.  Let's try not to get personal about it.  

For example, I think some people are reacting to the actual play post linked in the original article, which is here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24603.0

The poster here, Clyde, does make claims about getting insight from his play of the game.  Though I suspect one issue is that the OP article by Chauncy DeVega quotes Clyde's statement starting with: "This experience has always made me not accept the 400 years of oppression argument."  From the positioning, one can easily interpret the "this experience" Clyde is talking about his game of Steal Away Jordan, when he is actually talking about his childhood.

Fuck it, Elliot's right. Moved.

Quote from: One Horse Town;404780Didn't you read Jason's post earlier about how he got an insight into the slave's condition through playing the game? Sounds like self-accolade to me.

Quote from: StormBringer;404781Factor in how the proponents keep pushing how 'cool' the game is, and how much they 'learned' from the 'experience of being a slave', and you have a potent concoction: public displays of pretension.

Someone said he got "insight" into a facet of history by playing this game. Someone else said the game was "cool". That is people commenting on a game that they liked, sharing their actual experiences with it.

These are straightforward comments. But you guys seem to be objecting to something else - to insulting allegations of superiority that you feel are hidden within these comments.

But - as near as I can tell - no one is saying those things. Seriously. Or, if anyone is, they are not posting in this thread or the blog posts that are informing it.

Quote from: StormBringer;404781Which, I am guess, you are already aware of; you likely wouldn't present a challenge for actual quotes if you weren't.

No challenge. I don't want to do that thing where we focus narrowly in "winning the thread" by minutely parsing one another's comments for points of attack.

I'm just saying that I think the things you're objecting to aren't actually there, and maybe you're reading something into things that isn't warranted.

Or, if you really are seeing these kinds of remarks posted somewhere, or have heard them, share them if you want to, and then I'll see exactly what it is that you're objecting to. (That's not a challenge - it's easy to respond to one conversation online and have other ones inform your thinking. I do it all the time.)

Quote from: jhkim;404787Be careful about saying that people made things up please.  Let's try not to get personal about it.  

Good point, and thank you! I was being needlessly combative, and I'm not a regular poster here. My apologies.

Quote from: BWA;404789Someone said he got "insight" into a facet of history by playing this game. Someone else said the game was "cool". That is people commenting on a game that they liked, sharing their actual experiences with it.

These are straightforward comments. But you guys seem to be objecting to something else - to insulting allegations of superiority that you feel are hidden within these comments.

But - as near as I can tell - no one is saying those things. Seriously. Or, if anyone is, they are not posting in this thread or the blog posts that are informing it.

It's actually wrapped up fairly neatly in the one post:

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;404581It doesn't. What it does do pretty well  is establish the parameters of oppression and provide consequences for  pushing those boundaries.

Four or five people sitting around a table with Cheetos and Mt Dew cannot possibly in any way 'establish parameters of oppression' nor 'provide consequences for pushing boundaries' in any realistic sense.  Unless one of them was restrained in some manner, and the rest of them had cattle prods, baseball bats, and other devices for inflicting pain.  Perhaps a demonstrated ability to have their family or other loved ones tortured and killed with a phone call.  But it is pretty much impossible for a slim game book and a group of people in the 21st century sitting around a table in comfortable chairs to accomplish anything like the above.  Hence, pretentious.

QuoteSo if you're playing a slave (which isn't  required), every choice you make is freighted with danger, sometimes  even choices that have nothing to do with resistance.

Freighted with danger?  Like actually being killed or having your wife or daughter raped?  Getting beaten on a daily basis, burned, mutilated, and any number of other inhumanities?  That kind of danger?

QuoteSteal Away Jordan does  a lot of cool things to reinforce the slavery dynamic. Players  collectively have an agenda that they keep secret from the GM, for  example.

I will refer to the above paragraph on 'freighted with danger'.  And in what way does keeping secrets from the GM even remotely re-inforce this?  It is SOP in most of my games.  The players don't feel like slaves because of it.

 

QuoteThere's a amazingly simple mechanic called the skull die, which  anyone can roll at any time to get a little extra mojo. The odds in  conflicts invariably make it tempting, but if you roll it, there's a one  in six change your character will die. Arbitrary, brutal, stupid death, no saving throw.

In other words, better than those stupid fantasy games.

Hence, loads of pretentiousness, with a liberal sprinkling of 'borderline offensive trivializing'

QuoteGood point, and thank you! I was being needlessly combative, and I'm not a regular poster here. My apologies.

Don't let that stop you.  Despite the sometimes contradictory tone, merit is much more valued around here than seniority.

For fucks sake can we stop moving threads about indie games into this forum. It's ridiculous, counter productive and it's the sort of stupid shit i'd expect from the twats that run rpg.net.

StormBringer, I still think you're seeing something that isn't there. Although probably further argument is futile.

So, someone says all this stuff about Steal Away Jordan. It's awesome, it's enlightening, the dice mechanics are great, yadda yadda yadda.

Then you come along, and you read these comments.

Two things:

1. You haven't played or read the game. So your opinion is not really about the game at all, right?. It's about some stuff you read online that some dude said. That's what I think we're talking about at this point.

2. Maybe those things aren't in the game. Maybe that internet dude is totally wrong on all counts. Or, since these things are subjective, maybe the game is fun and enlightening to him, but wouldn't be to you. Who knows?

But whatever the answer ... where does "pretension" come into it?

For THAT to be the case, you have to believe that person commenting (Jason M in this case, but it could be anyone) didn't really experience that stuff, and is making it all up in order to impress you.

Does that seem logical?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

Quote from: BWA;404910StormBringer,
....blah, blah..........yadda, yadda, yadda...............

1. You haven't played or read the game. So your opinion is not really about the game at all, right?. It's about some stuff you read online that some dude said. That's what I think we're talking about at this point.

Why the hell would Stormbringer WANT to play that game? You have a choice between playing a possibly heroic adventurer or playing a pretentious designed scenario thing where you are supposed to be an oppressed slave to learn that slavery was bad?.

Its a bullshit game that starts from a bullshit assumption.

Games like that are designed by people that assume lessons must be taught and the rest of us are somehow stupiod and won't 'get it' unless we play their psycho-drama piece of crap mind fuck experiment.
They are the same sort of people that beg for more government regulatiuon so us peons will eat the right foods and possibly be punished because we ordered french fried instead of apples for lunch.

Fuck that shit.

We don't psycho-drama bullshit exercises that pretend to be role playing games.

- Ed C.

Quote from: StormBringer;404781Yes, they are.  By going public with the play reports and such, they are inviting comment.  Typically, people don't do that seeking negative comments.  Factor in how the proponents keep pushing how 'cool' the game is, and how much they 'learned' from the 'experience of being a slave', and you have a potent concoction: public displays of pretension.  The very foundational principle is that they are so post-modern, they alone are capable of delivering and consuming this kind of 'edgy' content without complaint, while the rest of the 'prudes' are out there wallowing in their seriously un-hip morality.

I assume you will now ask for specific quotes.  There aren't any, naturally, but that is because the rest of us already know the rhetoric, and how it is couched in posts that sound reasonable on the surface.  Which, I am guess, you are already aware of; you likely wouldn't present a challenge for actual quotes if you weren't.

Perhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit.  So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever.  It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.  

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.  

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books.  Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.  

So, if someone plays a Spartacus RPG and says they learned something about Roman history, I think that is a reasonable statement.  Similarly, if someone plays Steal Away Jordan and says that they learned something about slavery, that is also a reasonable statement - presuming that it does not imply #1.  

You may judge that people who play Steal Away Jordan are necessarily engaging in #1 and #2 - and I don't think I agree, but we could at least agree that these are bad.  

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;404739The something else you are missing, is that we are talking about an RPG. Not a textbook. Not a movie. The medium makes a big difference. I think slavery trading cards would be crass and exploitative too. The thing is, most people play games to have fun. No one goes bowling to learn about physics. Making as "unfun" a topic as slavery in colonial America into something "fun" doesn't sit well with most people. The idea of a bunch of white guys sitting around in metaphorical blackface and claiming to have an educational experience from it sounds incredibley pretentious, if not entirely offensive.

So here is the Harriet Tubman trading card (http://www.theheroesclub.org/harriet_tubman.php#trading_card) from the Real American Heroes Collectible Set.  I don't find the trading card offensive at all.  It's celebrating the heroism of people like Tubman who struggled against an evil system.

Quote from: jhkim;404933Perhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit.  So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever.  It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.  

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.  

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books.  Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.

I actually agree with all three of these points.  I certainly don't fault the designer for making the game.  Hell, I would love to design a game so more power to her for actually doing it.  The only issue for me is that I don't understand who would buy this game and/or play it more than once.  Role playing a slave doesn't rank really high in my book as "fun" and I doubt it does with too many other people.  This seems to be more of a "lesson plan" for educating people that slavery was bad.  That is fine, but is any fucktard who doesn't think slavery was bad really going to play this game anyway.  I can't see this game getting a lot of play on Saturday nights at the old KKK lodge.

So to your points, I don't look down on anyone playing this game to have fun, I just question whether anyone really does have fun playing it or just pretends they learned something to fake enlightenment.  And I suppose there is no way to actually know that.

Oh, and I particularly like your point #2.  I was in a conference in a Judge's chamber when one of the other attorneys present mentioned how realistic and cool he thought "Call of Duty" was and then shared his "combat" anecdotes.  The Judge, a very even-tempered and decorated Vietnam combat vet about handed him his ass for that statement.  No video game or rpg can ever really substitute for the real experience after all.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;404903For fucks sake can we stop moving threads about indie games into this forum. It's ridiculous, counter productive and it's the sort of stupid shit i'd expect from the twats that run rpg.net.

If I may give you the advice, use the New Posts button. This way, the threads will appear no matter which forum they are.

Also, an email subscription can solve this.

Quote from: Koltar;404915Games like that are designed by people that assume lessons must be taught and the rest of us are somehow stupiod and won't 'get it' unless we play their psycho-drama piece of crap mind fuck experiment.
They are the same sort of people that beg for more government regulatiuon so us peons will eat the right foods and possibly be punished because we ordered french fried instead of apples for lunch.

I love it when people tries to psychoanalize other persons they don't know, through their works that they haven't read. It's one of our assigments at college "Annalyze a personality through third hand reports on Internet.

Also, I understand that exposing yourself to new experiences is unwholesome and probably un-American to you, Ed, but seriously, your analysis is way off. No one is saying that you should play the game to be a better person or whatnot, so your tirade about government regulations makes no sense. No one has said or implied that this or other games should be mandatory. The only thing that has been said is that someone played it and enjoyed it.

I find the premise of the game boring, uninteresting and a bit silly, so I won't play it. Said that, I like that there is such variety and that people finds games that they like.

Your position could be perfectly applied to you when you talk about GURPS, which is another kind of game I don't give a shit about. If I behaved like you, I should be yelling at yoyu that you are a pretentious fucktard for the very same reasons you cite, and because accountability and number crunching is an unheroic as it gets. Well, to be honest, to be like you I should be critizicing GURPS without having more than third hand accounts of the game.

But I don't do so because it is a silly thing to do.

QuoteWe don't psycho-drama bullshit exercises that pretend to be role playing games.

You don't do them, and it is fine. I don't because I do enough of that at my practice. But some people do that, they enjoy it, and that doesn't impact your gaming a bit.

Also, I fully endorse jhkim's post below:

Quote from: jhkim;404933Perhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit.  So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever.  It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.  

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.  

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books.  Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.  

So, if someone plays a Spartacus RPG and says they learned something about Roman history, I think that is a reasonable statement.  Similarly, if someone plays Steal Away Jordan and says that they learned something about slavery, that is also a reasonable statement - presuming that it does not imply #1.  

You may judge that people who play Steal Away Jordan are necessarily engaging in #1 and #2 - and I don't think I agree, but we could at least agree that these are bad.  


So here is the Harriet Tubman trading card (http://www.theheroesclub.org/harriet_tubman.php#trading_card) from the Real American Heroes Collectible Set.  I don't find the trading card offensive at all.  It's celebrating the heroism of people like Tubman who struggled against an evil system.

Quote from: StormBringer;404781By going public with the play reports and such, they are inviting comment.  Typically, people don't do that seeking negative comments.  Factor in how the proponents keep pushing how 'cool' the game is, and how much they 'learned' from the 'experience of being a slave', and you have a potent concoction: public displays of pretension.

By "proponents" I assume you mean "me" in this case. I've participated in this thread to present information (rather than hearsay) and answer questions (rather than engage in identity politics). I was asked to describe the experience of play, several times, and I did. If that constitutes advocacy, well, OK. Steal Away Jordan is a good game, I advocate that you try it. Pretense is obviously a subjective quality, but your bar is set pretty low and you are uncharitably presuming an agenda I don't share.

QuoteThe very foundational principle is that they are so post-modern, they alone are capable of delivering and consuming this kind of 'edgy' content without complaint, while the rest of the 'prudes' are out there wallowing in their seriously un-hip morality.

If this mysterious cabal includes me, your paranoia is demonstrably off base.

Quote from: jhkim;404933Perhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit.  So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever.  It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.  

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.  

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books.  Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.  

So, if someone plays a Spartacus RPG and says they learned something about Roman history, I think that is a reasonable statement.  Similarly, if someone plays Steal Away Jordan and says that they learned something about slavery, that is also a reasonable statement - presuming that it does not imply #1.  

You may judge that people who play Steal Away Jordan are necessarily engaging in #1 and #2 - and I don't think I agree, but we could at least agree that these are bad.  


So here is the Harriet Tubman trading card (http://www.theheroesclub.org/harriet_tubman.php#trading_card) from the Real American Heroes Collectible Set.  I don't find the trading card offensive at all.  It's celebrating the heroism of people like Tubman who struggled against an evil system.

I would agree that Steal Away Jordan might be able to teach a player about the history of slavery in America, but that's not the same as what was claimed by folks who have played it, including the player referenced in the article in the OP.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;405033By "proponents" I assume you mean "me" in this case. I've participated in this thread to present information (rather than hearsay) and answer questions (rather than engage in identity politics). I was asked to describe the experience of play, several times, and I did. If that constitutes advocacy, well, OK. Steal Away Jordan is a good game, I advocate that you try it. Pretense is obviously a subjective quality, but your bar is set pretty low and you are uncharitably presuming an agenda I don't share.

Unfortunately, when I have asked you specific questions about the game, you have answered in only the sparsest and most vague way possible, urging me instead to talk to the designer. So, the information you have presented so far has not been very helpful in getting a view of this game that apparently is so wonderful despite how it appears on the surface. I remain willing to be convinced, but I also remain extremely sceptical. You have not actually described the experience of play, only your opinion of play, which really are not the same. How many dice do you roll, and when? What kinds of attributes are the characters created with? How are tasks and conflicts resolved? In what other ways besides having secrets of some kind kept from them are GMs "limited" in this game? What does the game say it's purpose is? If we're truly operating from assumptions that are not true, and our ignorance is causing us to form opinions about the game with no basis in the reality of it, then I would think ya'all would be happy to provide answers to these questions and more. I wait patiently for that to occur.

Quote from: BWA;4049101. You haven't played or read the game. So your opinion is not really about the game at all, right?. It's about some stuff you read online that some dude said. That's what I think we're talking about at this point.

I also haven't stabbed myself in the face with a red-hot icepick.  There are valid methods of gathering information and making assessments outside of 'direct experience'.  

For your point to be valid, everyone who talks about the game would have to be lying.  Or I would have to assume they are.  In either case, that means there is no possibility of accumulating valid data from any source other than myself.  I don't make that assumption.  I assume they are presenting their honest opinion.  It may be completely ill-formed and wholly incorrect, but a good-faith conversation isn't possible if I were to automatically assume everyone is presenting an opinion they don't actually hold (until proven otherwise, of course)

Quote2. Maybe those things aren't in the game. Maybe that internet dude is totally wrong on all counts. Or, since these things are subjective, maybe the game is fun and enlightening to him, but wouldn't be to you. Who knows?

See above.  A person can be completely wrong on all counts, whereupon it can be pointed out that their opinion was formed in error.  But that has to be demonstrated, not assumed.

And since everything is subjective to a certain extent, why discuss anything?  Why not just stay off the internet and claim that flat-earthers have their 'opinion' and leave it at that?  Why not let creationists into the classroom?  How about we go back and take a hard look at the 'humours' version of disease?

No, you can't just dismiss any argument that becomes uncomfortable or untenable with a wave of the 'subjective' wand.  Opinions are not sacrosanct.  They can be challenged, and in many cases, they should be challenged.

QuoteBut whatever the answer ... where does "pretension" come into it?

I showed that already.  We aren't going to start discussing the definition of 'pretention' nor are we going to start discussing every possible denotation of the word in relation to the quotes I have already provided.

QuoteFor THAT to be the case, you have to believe that person commenting (Jason M in this case, but it could be anyone) didn't really experience that stuff, and is making it all up in order to impress you.

But that is exactly what you are recommending I do several paragraphs up.

Quote from: jhkim;404933Perhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit.  So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever.  It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.  

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.  

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books.  Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.  

So, if someone plays a Spartacus RPG and says they learned something about Roman history, I think that is a reasonable statement.  Similarly, if someone plays Steal Away Jordan and says that they learned something about slavery, that is also a reasonable statement - presuming that it does not imply #1.  

You may judge that people who play Steal Away Jordan are necessarily engaging in #1 and #2 - and I don't think I agree, but we could at least agree that these are bad.

We are in complete agreement in regards to your above statements.  I see the people talking about Steal Away Jordan as heavily engaged in #1 and #2.  But we can certainly agree to disagree on that point.

Things have come full circle, I see.

Some of you guys (StormBringer, Koltar, Grimjack, etc.) are so heavily invested in this idea that SOMEONE THINKS HE IS BETTER THAN ME that there doesn't seem to be any value in trying to discuss specifics with you.

There is a lot of muttering condemnation of what the game's author, or the people who have played it really secretly meant when they said otherwise straightforward, positive things on the internet.

If someone said some shit to you like that, or you read it somewhere, then I can certainly see being irritated. But, as near as I can tell, no one did.

Quote from: BWA;405133Some of you guys (StormBringer, Koltar, Grimjack, etc.) are so heavily invested in this idea that SOMEONE THINKS HE IS BETTER THAN ME that there doesn't seem to be any value in trying to discuss specifics with you.

That is so devoid of merit, it does not require consideration.  As a counter-claim, I would say you are so heavily invested in the idea that THIS GAME CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE FLAWS that there doesn't seem to be any value in discussing specifics with yout.

QuoteThere is a lot of muttering condemnation of what the game's author, or the people who have played it really secretly meant when they said otherwise straightforward, positive things on the internet.

Then is should be pretty easy to demonstrate what part of this game is 'freighted with danger'.

QuoteIf someone said some shit to you like that, or you read it somewhere, then I can certainly see being irritated. But, as near as I can tell, no one did.

That is because you are wilfully ignoring it, at this point.  Tell me how a game can 'pretty well establish the parameters of slavery'.

Quote from: StormBringer;405111

Quote from: jhkimPerhaps we can agree on principles, and agree to disagree on whether the people or game in question fit. So my thoughts:

1) No one should think they're better than other gamers for playing a particular game - regardless of how tactically deep, or profoundly dramatic, or whatever. It's the same as being pretentious over what books you read or what movies you watch - it's not a real-world accomplishment.

2) No one playing a soldier in an RPG should think they know what being a soldier really feels like, and no one playing a slave in an RPG should think they know what being a slave really feels like.

3) Nevertheless, you can learn things from playing games, watching movies, or reading books. Many wargames will help you learn a little tactics; many historical RPGs will help you learn a little history.

So, if someone plays a Spartacus RPG and says they learned something about Roman history, I think that is a reasonable statement. Similarly, if someone plays Steal Away Jordan and says that they learned something about slavery, that is also a reasonable statement - presuming that it does not imply #1.

You may judge that people who play Steal Away Jordan are necessarily engaging in #1 and #2 - and I don't think I agree, but we could at least agree that these are bad.

We are in complete agreement in regards to your above statements.  I see the people talking about Steal Away Jordan as heavily engaged in #1 and #2.  But we can certainly agree to disagree on that point.

Fair enough.  Let's agree to disagree about that.  

I will reply to some others people about other things - like what I might find interesting or enjoyable about a game where I played a slave, but not about people's claims like #1 or #2.

Quote from: jhkim;405149Fair enough.  Let's agree to disagree about that.  

I will reply to some others people about other things - like what I might find interesting or enjoyable about a game where I played a slave, but not about people's claims like #1 or #2.

Excellent.

For what it is worth, I would like to hear your thoughts about the game in general.

Quote from: BWA;405133Some of you guys (StormBringer, Koltar, Grimjack, etc.) are so heavily invested in this idea that SOMEONE THINKS HE IS BETTER THAN ME that there doesn't seem to be any value in trying to discuss specifics with you.

There is a lot of muttering condemnation of what the game's author, or the people who have played it really secretly meant when they said otherwise straightforward, positive things on the internet.

If someone said some shit to you like that, or you read it somewhere, then I can certainly see being irritated. But, as near as I can tell, no one did.

Where did that come from?  I guess my post was too long because you didn't read it.  If I'm going to condemn something I'm not going mutter it.  I don't know what people who play this game think, that was my question, why would anyone want to play the game more than once and do they play it as a game or to learn about slavery?  I agree with Stormbringer, I would like to hear real play examples because I personally just can see playing this game as being enjoyable and would like to hear from those who do.

Quote from: StormBringer;405157Excellent.

For what it is worth, I would like to hear your thoughts about the game in general.

Well, it is well-written enough for me to be interested in running it - but there is the big caveat that I have not actually played it yet.  Jason's already mentioned the skull die mechanic, which makes the system very lethal.  

After several attempts to run it where no players signed up (even at story gamer gatherings), I'm thinking that the next time I would use the same mechanics to run a Spartacus game about Roman slaves.  Technically this is within the scope of the game, but a lot of the game text is written assuming an American setting.  The tricky part would be adapting the Root Doctor.  I'm sure that there is a Roman-era conjurer that would play roughly that part - but I'd have to think about how it should change to be most appropriate.  

There's a number of dice mechanics on a fairly simple base - in particular the way that you can get luck that adds to your next roll.  I'm a little skeptical about the play value of these, but I'd be interested enough to try it.  

While it's true that things are tough for a character who is a slave, I don't feel that either the Spartacus game or an American slave game has to be miserable for the players.  Yes, you're playing characters in desperate circumstances - and the game shouldn't be light fun - but for me at least, a game can be serious and still be enjoyable.

Quote from: jhkim;405173Well, it is well-written enough for me to be interested in running it - but there is the big caveat that I have not actually played it yet.  Jason's already mentioned the skull die mechanic, which makes the system very lethal.

I had considered a 'gamble' die mechanic like that at one point, only not so lethal.  My original idea involved wagering hit points in combat, but the idea of adding an extra die of some kind with moderate to severe penalties for failure intrigues me as well.

QuoteAfter several attempts to run it where no players signed up (even at story gamer gatherings), I'm thinking that the next time I would use the same mechanics to run a Spartacus game about Roman slaves.  Technically this is within the scope of the game, but a lot of the game text is written assuming an American setting.  The tricky part would be adapting the Root Doctor.  I'm sure that there is a Roman-era conjurer that would play roughly that part - but I'd have to think about how it should change to be most appropriate.  

I assume this Root Doctor is roughly analogous to a 'witch doctor', 'medicine man' or some kind of herbal 'wise woman' from earlier times.  The practice of medicine would have been much the same with Roman surgeons, who were often no more than slaves themselves anyway.

Of course, 'conjurer' strikes me as someone else, in which case any number of priests that worship various gods should work just fine.

QuoteThere's a number of dice mechanics on a fairly simple base - in particular the way that you can get luck that adds to your next roll.  I'm a little skeptical about the play value of these, but I'd be interested enough to try it.  

I am particularly interested in your experiences with this.

QuoteWhile it's true that things are tough for a character who is a slave, I don't feel that either the Spartacus game or an American slave game has to be miserable for the players.  Yes, you're playing characters in desperate circumstances - and the game shouldn't be light fun - but for me at least, a game can be serious and still be enjoyable.

Serious, yes.  Not depressing, though.  :)

StormBringer, I think you're confusing me with Jason Morningstar. Or maybe someone else, in a different part of the internet. I didn't say any of that stuff.

Quote from: jhkim;405173While it's true that things are tough for a character who is a slave, I don't feel that either the Spartacus game or an American slave game has to be miserable for the players.  Yes, you're playing characters in desperate circumstances - and the game shouldn't be light fun - but for me at least, a game can be serious and still be enjoyable.

Yeah, I can't imagine anyone enjoying a game where the POINT was to go on and on about the misery of your character's life.

There are lots of games that benefit from being treated seriously instead of lightly, and there are lots of games where the subject matter is serious, real-world stuff that should be handled carefully and respectfully. That doesn't mean these games should be denounced (unread and unplayed) simply because they're not GURPS.

I can see why you've had trouble getting a game of this going though. If you're like me, gaming time is at a premium, and it can be hard to find a group who wants to play something they're not sure they will enjoy.

Hey, if you're in the DC area - or anyone else in this thread - let me know and we'll get a game going.

Quote from: jhkim;405173After several attempts to run it where no players signed up (even at story gamer gatherings), I'm thinking that the next time I would use the same mechanics to run a Spartacus game about Roman slaves.

Watch Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum and see if that makes you think twice about using Spartacus.

QuoteTechnically this is within the scope of the game, but a lot of the game text is written assuming an American setting.  The tricky part would be adapting the Root Doctor.  I'm sure that there is a Roman-era conjurer that would play roughly that part - but I'd have to think about how it should change to be most appropriate.

I don't know how Root Doctor is presented in the game, but on a guess, I'd leave it out entirely. It sounds like a product of a uniquely American opposition between slave-spirituality and white Christian "science". If it's impossible to leave out, you should still question whether the mechanic embodies an opposition that's simply inappropriate, and see if it can be modified in some way. The Romans had many Greek slaves, for example, for whom the dynamic would be completely off; I doubt that even peoples from other cultures would have had that dynamic.

Another important difference that might or might not be a factor was that a lot of Roman slaves could look forward to becoming freedmen by legal means (manumission), after which their children would be fully free. While this also happened in America, I suspect that prospects varied depending on the exact time period--possibly getting worse the further into the 19th century you go.

Quote from: BWA;405181StormBringer, I think you're confusing me with Jason Morningstar. Or maybe someone else, in a different part of the internet. I didn't say any of that stuff.

No, but you are claiming it was never said to begin with, which is wilful ignorance or intentional misrepresentation.  Either way, you didn't enter this conversation in good faith, so your further claim at being slighted is obviously a tactic.  You virtually demand an explanation, but refuse to address it when given.  I have not mistaken you for anyone, but you are cut from the same proselytising cloth.

Return to the Forge, or Storygames, or wherever you wandered over from and report your 'victory' as you planned from the start.  But don't expect anything like honest engagement from this quarter.  In fact, I wouldn't get my hopes up for polite engagement, if I were you.

Julia Ellingboe's response to the original article that spawned this thread (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?p=128).

Quote from: StormBringer;405221I have not mistaken you for anyone, but you are cut from the same proselytising cloth...Return to the Forge, or Storygames, or wherever you wandered over from and report your 'victory' as you planned from the start.  But don't expect anything like honest engagement from this quarter.  In fact, I wouldn't get my hopes up for polite engagement, if I were you.

Nothing to add, just calling out the persecutory delusion in case anybody missed it.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;405281Nothing to add, just calling out the persecutory delusion in case anybody missed it.

I don't think anyone missed it, it's just that no one cares about your whiny bullshit.

Quote from: StormBringer;405318I don't think anyone missed it, it's just that no one cares about your whiny bullshit.

I don't think that was for our benifit, mate. It was for the lurking peanut gallery.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;405274Julia Ellingboe's response to the original article that spawned this thread (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?p=128).

Thanks for that link!

I'm sorry I posted that. It didn't add anything to the conversation and your comments didn't need elaboration, Stormbringer, so I apologize.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;405274Julia Ellingboe's response to the original article that spawned this thread (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?p=128).

She sounds very reasonable, and honestly sounds like she didn't design the game to try and provide some sort of way that folks can "connect" with the suffering of slaves and empathise with them somehow. It really sounds like she meant it more as a way to connect to the history (rather than the actual experience). Unfortunately, once the game is out of her hands her intentions are irrelevant. The problem is, based on their statements, other people seem to somehow think they are in some way empathising with the plight of slaves, which really is bullshit. Her goals might have been reasonable, but in the end, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. It seems some folks are completely misunderstanding the entire point of the game, and when ya get down to it, what's really important is not why she did it, but how the rest of us will take it and what we'll do with it. Without knowing the details of the actual game, only the subject with which it deals, I still can only conclude it was a bad idea.

I would ask the same questions as "Chauncey DeVega" in the comments section of the article in the OP...

"What would the adventure be? I want my fun to be separate from life and death. That is a personal choice. How do you balance good taste and respect for the lived experiences that are behind such a broad label/descriptor as "slavery" or "genocide" in translating that into a "roleplaying" experience?"

The person on the other side of this discussion says, "The rules let the characters get a tiny inkling of what it's like to live at someone else's mercy, under someone who can end your life or take away anything you make. For comfortable westerners, this is a point that is difficult to grasp from mere passive reception of stories or reports, but, with the means of using audience co-creation to get people to invest themselves, and then feel the logic of the rules in play, you get understanding of the subject by a great short cut." It's with this that I strenuously disagree and is my main objection with the game. There is absolutely no way that sitting around a table in the 21st century eating snacks and rolling dice can impart ANY sense at all of what it was like to be a slave. Not even a little bit. You might learn some facts about slavery and even facts about the lives and daily struggles of slaves, but in no way can one get even "a tiny inkling of what it's like to live at someone else's mercy, under someone who can end your life or take away anything you make". The entire idea is not only ludicrous, it's disrespectful and repellent.

Quote from: One Horse Town;405330I don't think that was for our benifit, mate. It was for the lurking peanut gallery.

Good point.  I don't think they care either.  :)

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;405338I'm sorry I posted that. It didn't add anything to the conversation and your comments didn't need elaboration, Stormbringer, so I apologize.

I appreciate your concern, but an apology really isn't necessary.  You are more than welcome to think me a complete douchebag.  I'm a big boy, I can take it.  Just make sure you can point out where I was being a douchebag.  ;)

In return, I will also extend my apology for replying in a harsh manner.

QuoteAnother popular and "transformative experience" at this university is called "Faces of Homlessness", where students can go and hang out with the local homeless folks (while they gear up in 'homeless costumery') and return with horrific stories from the field (mostly placing themselves in the center of the experience). These students often come away from these experiences thinking they 'know' or 'can relate' to the developing country woman or the homeless man. That is a concern.

It's all nicely packaged, all very safe. All just for them (which "them"?) On the other hand, one of my students was recently kicked out of a nightclub by the club's owner who had called the police on him for dancing with a white girl (he's African). That got him booted. I'm pretty sure he's not going to need an RPG to figure out what racism feels like. How much of this actually lends to experiential learning and how much is a thinly veiled program - the experience being people who are tickled by the voyeurism they've participated in and who come away with a nice little narrative about how enlightened they've become?

This quote from another of the commentators in the OP article describes my own concerns fairly well.

QuoteWhile it's true that there's always going to be privileged-ass people who don't get it ( http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/figments-of-the-imagination/ ), it's still important for creators of color to make media, games, etc. for folks of color without having to self-silence for fear of what the white folks will do with it - after all, you can't even be a president without people acting foolish these days.

Then again, this quote provides a counterpoint that makes sense as well, to be honest.

Quote from: Sigmund;405359Then again, this quote provides a counterpoint that makes sense as well, to be honest.

And what do we have as the reply for the first comment?

QuoteThat’s why it’s everything wrong with the whole fucking gaming culture, right there.

Good job on proving Pundit right, folks.  Now the idea is spreading that RPGs are all about misery porn these days.

EDIT:  Sorry, I didn't address your actual point there.  As the blogger notes, if this was a jumping off point to actually reading a book, I would be behind it 100%.  It positions itself as wholly self-contained, however, and even when (as the blogger notes) the opportunity to do some genuine research into the topic to gain insight presents itself, it is ignored in favour of posting to the discussion forums.  Which can be reasonably viewed as more like attention-seeking than actual information gathering.

Quote from: StormBringer;405366And what do we have as the reply for the first comment?
Good job on proving Pundit right, folks.  Now the idea is spreading that RPGs are all about misery porn these days.

EDIT:  Sorry, I didn't address your actual point there.  As the blogger notes, if this was a jumping off point to actually reading a book, I would be behind it 100%.  It positions itself as wholly self-contained, however, and even when (as the blogger notes) the opportunity to do some genuine research into the topic to gain insight presents itself, it is ignored in favour of posting to the discussion forums.  Which can be reasonably viewed as more like attention-seeking than actual information gathering.

You're right. Honestly, given the context, that was disgusting.

Quote from: Sigmund;405346She sounds very reasonable, and honestly sounds like she didn't design the game to try and provide some sort of way that folks can "connect" with the suffering of slaves and empathise with them somehow. It really sounds like she meant it more as a way to connect to the history (rather than the actual experience).

I think this conversation (here and elsewhere) is actually having a positive outcome, despite a lot of teeth-gnashing.

Consider! At the beginning of this thread, most of the scorn and opprobrium was about the game itself.

To pick a random assortment of commentary from this thread, the game itself was "pretentious", "complete bullshit", a "bad idea", "in bad taste", generally offensive, and "not designed to be fun".

But we seem to have moved on (somewhat) to a hazier and more diffuse criticism of the social motives of the people who play the game.

For anyone who didn't read the the game designer's post linked upthread (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?p=128), here's a relevant comment about some of the issues being discussed here:

Quote from: Slave narratives to me are not stories where black folks are victims. They’re about survivors and heroes who beat the odds to attain simple pleasures, to stay alive, to protect their families and themselves. Most role playing games are also about heroes and survivors who beat the odds to attain their goals.

Quote from: BWA;405381I think this conversation (here and elsewhere) is actually having a positive outcome, despite a lot of teeth-gnashing.

Consider! At the beginning of this thread, most of the scorn and opprobrium was about the game itself.

To pick a random assortment of commentary from this thread, the game itself was "pretentious", "complete bullshit", a "bad idea", "in bad taste", generally offensive, and "not designed to be fun".

But we seem to have moved on (somewhat) to a hazier and more diffuse criticism of the social motives of the people who play the game.

For anyone who didn't read the the game designer's post linked upthread (http://www.stone-baby.com/wordpress/?p=128), here's a relevant comment about some of the issues being discussed here:

In a way you are right, but speaking for myself, I still think the game is a bad idea. I think the author is indulging her vanity by writing it, and failed to consider whether it was a good idea or not. Regardless of any of that, I also think it doesn't sound even a little entertaining. While I agree that a great deal of heroism was displayed during that era, I feel trivializing it by making a game out of it is in poor taste. Ya'all can pile on all the justifications and good intentions ya want, but it's not changing that for me at all. I and anyone else interested in doing so can learn all we need to learn about the subject in other ways, and probably more accurately and completely as well. If the author wanted to tell stories she would perhaps be better served by simply writing a book. I'll stop contributing to her free PR now, thanks for the discussion.

I'm really torn about this kind of thing.

I know gaming in general is a really light-hearted, fun time thing, and most games follow suit, but making an extremely dramatic game (such as Steal Away Jordan) isn't verboten, nor should it be.

I can definitely see why some people take this as blaxplotation or misery tourism, but I think that comes down to the intent behind the creation of the game itself (the author seems sincere), and how the game is actually played.

Sure, most games and gamers I know gravitate toward action-comedy at the table but that's not the only source to draw from. Just like there are all kinds of genres of movies and books, I think there can be all kinds of genres of games.

It's not a game you would play? Sure, totally your call as a gamer. But to say something like this shouldn't exist because it's not your cup of tea. That's going to far in my mind.

I know this is an escapist hobby (no kick backs yet, come on guys), but the push-back on any game that isn't some variant of action-comedy is bordering on the neurotic.

I'm not really into story-games style games, but I can accept that people are and they enjoy them. And to be perfectly honest, I would really kill for some in-depth characterization, high drama, and involved storytelling at this point in my life in the hobby.

Popcorn flicks can only do so much, and popcorns games aren't much better.

You call them popcorn games.

I play games for the purpose of entertainment. I don't play monopoly to learn about the social inequality of life in London. I play it because I enjjoy the systems involved and thinking strategically.

Roleplaying games that are fun for me are those where I can engage in scenes of fantasy and adventure. You can shoehorn themes into those, but to play an ordinary black guy living in ordiarny deep south american during slavery has no appeal to me on any level whatsoever, and I already know slavery is wrong so I don't see the appeal on any level for this game. If others enjoy it, well that's their prerogative. For me it just hasn't got any value at all. It's not what gaming is about for me.

Quote from: Grognard;406323I'm really torn about this kind of thing.

If the rest of your post is anything to go by, "really torn" means "not at all torn", wouldn't you say?

QuoteI know this is an escapist hobby (no kick backs yet, come on guys), but the push-back on any game that isn't some variant of action-comedy is bordering on the neurotic.

Isn't that just hyperbole?

I am new to this site, but already, I'm sure I've seen evidence of gaming other than action-comedy (or "some variant") being perfectly acceptable here.

Quote from: Caleph Asante;406334I am new to this site

Welcome, dude. :)

Quote from: Caleph Asante;406334If the rest of your post is anything to go by, "really torn" means "not at all torn", wouldn't you say?

Isn't that just hyperbole?

I am new to this site, but already, I'm sure I've seen evidence of gaming other than action-comedy (or "some variant") being perfectly acceptable here.

Lol. Sorry. Posted that way too late for my sleep schedule.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;406326You call them popcorn games.

I play games for the purpose of entertainment. I don't play monopoly to learn about the social inequality of life in London. I play it because I enjjoy the systems involved and thinking strategically.

Roleplaying games that are fun for me are those where I can engage in scenes of fantasy and adventure. You can shoehorn themes into those, but to play an ordinary black guy living in ordiarny deep south american during slavery has no appeal to me on any level whatsoever, and I already know slavery is wrong so I don't see the appeal on any level for this game. If others enjoy it, well that's their prerogative. For me it just hasn't got any value at all. It's not what gaming is about for me.

Grognard, you may not have intended it this way, but calling them "popcorn games" sounds like a put-down, and thus borders on the principal #2 that I disagree with (from my earlier post) - i.e. thinking that there's something better about playing serious and/or dramatic games.  

To StormBringer, from earlier:

Quote from: StormBringer;405366As the blogger notes, if this was a jumping off point to actually reading a book, I would be behind it 100%.  It positions itself as wholly self-contained, however, and even when (as the blogger notes) the opportunity to do some genuine research into the topic to gain insight presents itself, it is ignored in favour of posting to the discussion forums.  Which can be reasonably viewed as more like attention-seeking than actual information gathering.

I don't see any basis for this.  Steal Away Jordan has a fine bibliography and frequently references literature on the topic - especially Margaret Walker’s Jubilee, Toni Morrison’s Beloved, and Octavia Butler’s Kindred.  For that matter, you seem to assume that if anyone posts on a discussion forum, that they haven't read anything.  I am quite capable of both reading and posting, thanks.  (For that matter, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.)  

Steal Away Jordan got me to read Butler's Kindred (http://www.amazon.com/Kindred-Octavia-E-Butler/dp/0807083100/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285097090&sr=1-1) as well as various writing from an Anthology of American Negro Literature (http://www.amazon.com/Anthology-American-Negro-Literature-Calverton/dp/0394601491).  It's not like it's special in this - I usually read or watch material related to games that I am going to run or play in.  

However, I don't think there's any principle that I should have to read or the game is a bad thing.  Sure, reading is great and we should encourage it in general.  However, there are many positive things to read besides American slave narratives.  Like most games, I think Steal Away Jordan is improved if people have read the material it is based on - but I don't think it is a serious problem if they don't.

Well, I find that Hot Chicks is really disturbing and masturbatory.

Quote from: Benoist;406354Welcome, dude. :)

Thanks. I think I like it here. Stepping into a "warzone" might have been an iffy first move, but I'll get the hang of things.

This has been a very interesting read, though. Steal Away Jordan is not a game I will ever buy. It's not even the kind of game I would want to play. But it's fascinating what's being published these days, under the TTRPG banner.


Grognard,

I feel a bit silly now, for pulling you up on, what, tiredness? Please, pay it no mind.