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.