Quote from: Jason Morningstar;244160You're Australian, right?  Can you think of any period in your own nation's history that might be remotely applicable?

Not really. We've had and still have oppression of dark-skinned people by whites of European origin, but in our case the dark-skinned people were native to the country. So in terms of the racial issues, imagine like the US is with Amerindians and African-Americans, those issues rolled together - but without slavery - or rather there was slavery but not in the same way as in the US or on the same scale.

What you're suggesting, though, would be like taking (say) a game about the Konfrontarsi (Indonesia-Malaysia conflict over Borneo) and adapting it to deal with the Troubles in Ireland. They're entirely different issues, to even suggest that they're similar shows an ignorance of both of them. You wouldn't adapt some other narrowly-focused game, you'd just make up your own.

In any case, if you look back over the things I've said in the past, I'm against running rpg sessions for the purpose of "educating" the players. It's presumptuous of the GM, pretentious, and almost invariably wrong-headed, giving a very poor picture of things. If an rpg session can teach you something which is for you significant about history and the experiences of others, then you must be very ignorant about that issue.

I'm quite willing to believe that Americans are that ignorant about racial issues and history in the US - after all, Australians generally are about our racial issues and history.

Quote from: droogKyle, among the very earliest RPGs are Bunnies and Burrows, En Garde, and Superhero 2044. Can you explain how SAJ is more tightly focused than these?

I didn't say they weren't. I said, "The most popular rpgs are those which allow for a variety of playstyles, in a variety of settings." Your quotes of the authour had her saying that her rpg was "no different" from any others. I was pointing out that it is different, in that it's more narrowly focused than most.

This thing of the players not naming their characters, and the GM having to go out of the room while they're making their plans - it sounds rather adversarial, in the context of this particular game it could be more so. Hong Kong Action Theatre! calls the GM a "Director", I think Top Secret called the GM a "Mission Director" - does Steal Away Jordan call the GM the "Slave Master"? If not, it seems pretty close to doing so. If as droog says you bond together against The Man, it's likely the players will see the GM as The Man... that's not a good way for a game group to go.

It's starting to remind me of that famous classroom exercise with the blue-eyed and brown-eyed kids...

Maybe I'll run a kind of Candyman origin story with this game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droog;244362What both of those devices do, I think (the secrets and the names), is to encourage a sense of bonding together against the Man. It's explicit that (a) you don't talk to the GM and it's implicit that (b) you do talk to the other players.

I could see it being effective as a solidarity-forming device. The secrecy we maintain does so.

I just do not see the appeal. I want to game, I want to play something escapist and thus deliberately unreal. Something fantastique. To me this is no more interesting than playing Real Life RPG.

Quote from: Jackalope;244361It's really not a game.  It's a teaching tool disguised as a game.

I kind of have to agree.

When I was about 14 I had to do this project on slavery for my school history class, where I had to imagine what it would have been like to be on a slave ship and write a little short story about what I would have felt. As soon as I read the blurb for Steal Away Jordan that's what leaped to mind.

Of course, some people enjoy stuff like that.

That isn't to say it isn't a game, or you can't do gamey stuff with it. Just that its starting premise sounds more like "let's learn what slavery was really like" than "let's play a game". And I think I already know what slavery was like: really really bad, so bad we aren't ever going to do it again. I mean, what's next? Gas Chamber: The Game, where we can learn all about how terrible genocide is?

Quote from: noisms;244609what's next? Gas Chamber: The Game, where we can learn all about how terrible genocide is?

That actually exists.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;244592I just do not see the appeal. I want to game, I want to play something escapist and thus deliberately unreal. Something fantastique. To me this is no more interesting than playing Real Life RPG.

So other people are not allowed to find the game fun or what are you trying to say?

Quote from: Saphim;244620So other people are not allowed to find the game fun or what are you trying to say?

It's kinda obvious what he's trying to say: he doesn't get the appeal and it ain't for him. He never said anything about other people, unless I missed something.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;244632It's kinda obvious what he's trying to say: he doesn't get the appeal and it ain't for him. He never said anything about other people, unless I missed something.

-=Grim=-

No, you didn't miss anything.

Well, again, here's a case where actually reading the game would correct some misapprehensions.  You can play non-slaves, for example.  

And Kyle, I was thinking of lags parceled out to work for free settlers.  It's a game about the institution of slavery, not race.  Of course it doesn't map one to one with the guy transported for life, but it would work.  The game wouldn't break.

sounds less like a game and more like therapy.

Quote from: droog;244205And for the trifecta:
I think it would be cool if people got the idea to do such a game in GURPS (or other system of choice), if they've never done so before. I haven't yet played SAJ, so I can't speak to how it does at reinforcing its subject matter as a game.

I am not saying that system doesn't matter. But it basically comes down to GM talent and attitude at protraying the situation. In the mid 90s I ran a game where the players were bagged by slavers and made into rowers on a slave gallery. I had a co-DM at the same and he and I made up this little society that existed on the gallery. Drawing on history, movies (Ben-hur anybody?) as well as our imagination.

One of the touches we did was give player new names along with other little "bits" that give the sense to the player that they were indeed slaves on a slave gallery. The "out" was that the players could lead a revolt. We made sure the guards were sloppy enough so that their were opportunities to organize, plan and stage a revolt.

It took about  three session. The first one was a bit rocky the players feeling that we royally screwed them over. However by the 2nd session they were into and were able to start dealing with the situation. The 3rd session ended with the successful revolt.

It helped to have a good co-DM (Tim) to help with the plotting along with doing outstanding job of roleplaying some of the key NPCs. One of the players still cringes when he hears "Snowflake".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;244407I could see it being effective as a solidarity-forming device. The secrecy we maintain does so.

The other thing it does is to make sure that the GM knows nothing about the plans of any particular PC. Like the slave-owning class, he's largely blind to what the slaves really want and does nothing, except by chance, to help or hinder them.

Quote from: estar;244661I am not saying that system doesn't matter. But it basically comes down to GM talent and attitude at protraying the situation. In the mid 90s I ran a game where the players were bagged by slavers and made into rowers on a slave gallery. I had a co-DM at the same and he and I made up this little society that existed on the gallery. Drawing on history, movies (Ben-hur anybody?) as well as our imagination.

Heh heh, Snowflake....

I nearly went for the galley, but I did gladiators instead. I stretched that out for at least half a dozen sessions. I think the players were starting to wonder if they ever would get out.

I have to ask estar....why "snowflake"....

Regards,
David R