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.