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.