TheRPGSite

BUT IS IT FUN?

The game's not for everyone's style of play. The game's not about picking flowers on Venus. But I will argue with anyone till I'm blue that you can have fun playing the game.

I wrote it because I thought it would interesting to tell a slave narrative in the form of a role playing game, or play a role playing game in the style of a slave narrative. It sounded like a fun thing to me.

There's always room to clean up and tighten up. I wrote about something I found interesting, that people don't seem to role play, and whatever feelings or emotions the subject matter evokes is really on the of the players.

ISN'T IT ALL A BIT DEPRESSING?

See there are tons of popular rpgs, hippie, indie, mainstream, where the objectives are to fuck people's shit up, put on over on someone, kill, maim, hurt, win, be notorious, save yourself, your loved ones, kill your enemy, live, die, do something heroic. And this game is no different.

You do not play a "subject"! You don't play a "victim"! You play a person, for crying out loud. Slaves were people. If you play a person, you will likely strive for good things to happen to you and everyone you care about. You'll look for good things. You'll seek to love people. And you'll probably figure out real quick how to get out of bad things happening to you. You'll then create an uplifting story, because, coming out of adversity is uplifting, it's what most slave narratives are about, it's what slaves would want to do. Heck it's what many, many role playing games are about. Slave narratives are about people who happen to be slaves, but are people first. Slave narratives are about people maintaining their dignity and humanity in the face adversity. Sounds like a lot of role playing games.

I know I'm pretty clear in the text that you shouldn't play a stereotype, and that you should play a person. If you missed that, go back and read it over. And why wouldn't you play anything but a person, if I state that the game is about creating slave narratives--about people, not stereotypes.

I'M SCARED OF GETTING IT WRONG...

I don't have a special "allowed to write about black history" card by virtue of my being black. The black people I wrote about, and the white people I wrote about are dead. I have more in common with you, being a modern day, literate woman who might have gone to the same private college that your sister went to than with those people from history. (Ever read Kindred?) Put me back in the 1800's and I'd have just as difficult time fitting in as you.

So there's this common ground that I'm inviting people to stand on. I'm trying to show you that in this instance, "black history" doesn't exist. This is American history, and you have as much right to claim it, warts and all, as I do. If you don't want to stand on it that's okay. Really.

IS THERE REALLY MAGIC IN THIS GAME?

So you can have no tangible magic and play straight historical narrative, or you can make a ghost story (there are NPC ghost characters), or do something in between. Beloved is a ghost story. Kindred is more speculative fiction than slave narrative. These two books were inspirations.

We had a playtest where one of the PC's wrote as one of her attributes "I can fly." It was a one shot session at a game store, and we had players who were seasoned gamers, rusty gamers, and one woman who the store owner nabbed from a Star Wars game and said, "play this instead". I made it a ghost story. The PC who could fly was the Root Doctor, and her magical use of the herbs was serious magic. The story turned out to be more folk story than straight slave narrative. We still explored more adult themes, and I think the magical and supernatural elements diffused some of the tougher stuff. We also had a funny love story, and a bit of a power struggle between a slave midwife who knew herbs but not magic, and a mute, somewhat crazy Root Doctor who could fly and communicate with animals, and whose spells and potions worked. No one died. One PC escaped with the help of a young slave who was in love with him and the Root Doctor (who, I think didn't like the young slave). The Root Doctor worked for an undertaker. She procured a coffin, and the slave escaped in the coffin.

Great stuff, Droog.  Thanks for posting that.  It's cool to see where she's coming from.  I had some of those questions myself.

I have now discovered or re-discovered a setting where I could play a character in a game like that.

 This setting/story: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0118607/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(1997_film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Amistad

I want to play one of the slaves that fights back and takes over the ship.  Thats what I meant in the other thread - gotta be a way for a win or a victory.


- Ed C.

Steal Away Jordan looks like a game I might play, at some point, but one I'd have a tough time justifying buying. I'd play or run it once or twice, and it's sit on my shelf. I might enjoy it being there, but unless those few games were really impressive...

I'd almost consider playing the game based on those description, but my actual interactions with the author have left me with the impression that she's a stuck up, obnoxious bitch and I can't in good conscience support her game.

She once attacked a game idea I had for being offensive solely because it referenced the "jungle queen" motif.  She backed up her argument by incorrectly citing Tarzan, displaying a complete ignorance of the history of feral child mythology -- She claimed Tarzan was the first example of a hero raised by animals after I corrected her mistaken claim that Tarzan was raised by Africans.  When I demonstrated that she knew absolutely nothing about the genre she was attacking as inherently racist, she changed tactics and accused me of being offensive on the grounds of sexism -- my game was about survivors in a lost world competing against each other to be amongst those that will be saved by the Jungle Queen, and featured all of the characters as subordinate to a powerful feminine hero.  Yet it was sexist.  Before I could refute that charge, she had her buddy Andy K. ban me from the board.

At the same time her best friend Vincent Baker (they're like neighbors or something) is selling a game that presents Native Americans as agents of the devil, but  hey, it's okay if he's offensive, he's being transgressive.

So yeah, fuck Julia Ellingboe.  She's a stupid cunt.  Fuck her whole circle of friends to.  They're all stupid cunts as well.

I saw that interaction. Yes, Julia reacted from the gut instead of the brain, but you escalated pretty quick. You called her a 'self-righteous busybody' straight away. Her comment could have been handled a lot more diplomatically when you consider who you're dealing with (and I suggest that offline you might have cut her a lot more slack, because you seem to have an awareness of how a black woman might possibly find such things to have a tinge of exoticism and imperialism about them).

I'm not a friend of Julia's. I don't even live on the same continent and I'm unlikely ever to meet her. I know her, in fact, roughly to the same extent I know you. And I've seen you lose it a lot more than her.

If I was making a game with that subject, I'd probably make the default campaign be that you're part of the Underground Railroad.

The potentially dodgy thing would be that your race would have a big effect on what 'skills' you'd have: an escaped slave and a white person would have very different social abilities purely by virtue of their race.

Somewhere along the line, once again, someone passed off the idea that you can call a politically correct improv-scene generator a "game", despite it having no real game qualities at all. Certainly there is "story-telling" involved. But that's it. You roll a dice and then go straight into the hammy untalented performance art.

I can't recall which podcast it was, but it's a Vincent Baker interview where he is asked if the bar has been set higher or lower with regard to "independent game design". He replies (amazingly) that he got his friend to wrote Steal Away Jordan despite having zero background in gaming, so independent gaming must be alive and well.

Now, he meant to say one thing there, but I think he told us another, there. He let it slip-right there if nowhere else-- that this shit ain't gaming at all.

Hey Koltar, you can revolt; you can escape.  Both are strong urges, and the rules are set up to accommodate them.  If you want to play a guy who going to start a slave revolt and go down swinging, that is strictly awesome.

@Jason:
Why can´t I just use GURPS to do such a scenario?
Why a different game?

Please elaborate!

Quote from: Settembrini;244140@Jason:
Why can´t I just use GURPS to do such a scenario?
Why a different game?

Please elaborate!

Of course you can. Or you can use D&D or Traveller or DSA or or or.
Each of these has a different result because of the different mechanics involved. I suppose steal away jordan is trying to take a different approach than those games already mentioned. Mechanics are a fundamental part of setting the tone and mood of a session.
But you knew that already, as you knew already that neither GURPS nor Traveller nor D&D or DSA do anything for the genre as outlined in droogs posts.
So why post?
Please elaborate!

Saphim's right!  You could play GURPS: Slavery.  Maybe there's already a disadvantage to cover it.

Here are two of the things that Steal Away Jordan does that I think are unique and brilliant, and - because they mess with some core assumptions - probably a direct result of Julia Ellingboe not having a long history with roleplaying:

1.  Players don't name their own characters, the GM does.  It's a simple thing but, from the start, it absolutely sets the tone.  There are aspects of your character over which you have no control, no autonomy, no authority.  

2.  The GM is not privy to the players plans.  The GM leaves the room while the players articulate their goals.  This is essentially point one, in reverse - aspirations and dreams are the only autonomy the characters have, and they are carefully guarded and can't be taken away.

So yeah, you could tweak GURPS to include stuff like this, but Steal Away Jordan isn't about anything else.  It's just focused on this one thing.  That's either really interesting to you or it really isn't.  Julia's very nice and easy to track down if you have questions about the game.

Quote from: Settembrini;244140@Jason:
Why can´t I just use GURPS to do such a scenario?
Why a different game?

Please elaborate!

'Cos GURPS hit points aren't called Worth! Roleplaying your loss of worth must surely make it all - ahem, worthwhile.

Quote from: the authourSee there are tons of popular rpgs, hippie, indie, mainstream, where the objectives are to fuck people's shit up, put on over on someone, kill, maim, hurt, win, be notorious, save yourself, your loved ones, kill your enemy, live, die, do something heroic. And this game is no different.

From the sounds of it, not exactly. The most popular rpgs are those which allow for a variety of playstyles, in a variety of settings.  Apparently this just does the African-American slave narrative. That's not wrong or anything, it's just that in its focus on one particular kind of thing, it's different from other rpgs. So this game is different. Narrower.

Quote from: the authourSlave narratives are about people who happen to be slaves, but are people first.

And stories of abused wives and children, child soldiers, widows of Srebenica victims, heroin addicts - these are all stories about people who happen to be those suffering sorts of people, but are people first.

Doesn't make 'em fun subjects for a game, though.

Quote from: the authourSo there's this common ground that I'm inviting people to stand on. I'm trying to show you that in this instance, "black history" doesn't exist. This is American history, and you have as much right to claim it, warts and all, as I do.

I take two things from this.

The first is that your aim is to educate us. Judging from the current state of the USA, there can be no doubt that more education about the history of slavery, and probably more importantly, the history of black-white relations after slavery - segregation took another hundred years to end, after all, and even today blacks are prevented from voting by various means - there's no doubt that education about these things is good.

But is an rpg the best way to do it? Is it any good as a way at all? If as is being reported here, Baker's words that you've never gamed before are true, then you may be unaware of the culture of roleplaying games and gamers, and the way game sessions go. Just as books and novels have their limits as media, so too do roleplaying game sessions. I recommend playing some games to learn a bit more about the limits of them.

The second is that you seem to be assuming that all your readers and players are American. Broadening your own view to take in the world outside the US could be useful even for this game. For example, you could have it set in earlier periods in history, or let people play through the scenario of being kidnapped by Africans of different tribes and taken onto ships.

Addressed as it is to an American audience, it holds no real interest for me, or for 95.5% of the world.

Edit: I should add that it appears Jackalope was insufferably rude. He has problems with women, pay him no mind.

Quote from: droog;244002I'm trying to show you that in this instance, "black history" doesn't exist. This is American history, and you have as much right to claim it, warts and all, as I do.

It's lines like this that make me glad to be part of the RPG community, cat-fighting and all.

-=Grim=-

The setting is generalizable, to a point.  She discusses various alternate settings in the text, including the West Indies and contemporary West African cocoa plantations.

You're Australian, right?  Can you think of any period in your own nation's history that might be remotely applicable?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;244134...that this shit ain't gaming at all.

Uh. How is it not?

(1) Do you take the role of an imaginary character? Check.

(2) Is there task resolution through mechanics using dice, cards, coins, etc.? Check.

(3) Is there one person at the table weaving the world for the imaginary characters to interact with (not mandatory)? Check.

(4) Character advancement and development? Check.

Yep, it's gaming. The topic might be one you disagree with, but it's gaming.

-=Grim=-

P.S. I'd probably do it with Savage Worlds. ;)

Kyle, 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?

On the rest of it, I for one wash my hands. Perhaps you're hoping that Julia will magically appear if you put these questions, but I think the answers are implicit in what I already posted.

Honestly, man, your comfort zone is about 2mm wide.

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?

There isn't anything that has quite the resonance of the American slave trade. Part of that is the difference in scale. There were so many slaves shipped to America that they could have their own society. Aborigines were enslaved, but not so blatantly and not in such large numbers. The Pacific Islanders shipped in to Queensland are a possibility, but again, it's a much smaller phenomenon.

Maybe a convict game.

And 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.

A more old-school example is that while I never bought the boxed set Monster Coliseum for RQ3 (deeming it unnecessary tripe), I used the idea to run part of a campaign with the players as gladiator slaves.

I don't think I would be able to play SAJ, personally. My white guilt would get the best of me, I'm sure. Part of that has to do with being a member of the profession that was at one time steeped in the worst kinds of "Race Science." We're well past it now, it would seem, but still... However, it does sound like a pretty cool premise for a campaign, especially with the magic thrown in.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;244147Saphim's right!  You could play GURPS: Slavery.  Maybe there's already a disadvantage to cover it.

Here are two of the things that Steal Away Jordan does that I think are unique and brilliant, and - because they mess with some core assumptions - probably a direct result of Julia Ellingboe not having a long history with roleplaying:

1.  Players don't name their own characters, the GM does.  It's a simple thing but, from the start, it absolutely sets the tone.  There are aspects of your character over which you have no control, no autonomy, no authority.  

2.  The GM is not privy to the players plans.  The GM leaves the room while the players articulate their goals.  This is essentially point one, in reverse - aspirations and dreams are the only autonomy the characters have, and they are carefully guarded and can't be taken away.

Thanks for making all the points I ever wanted to make.

Quote from: Aos;244208I don't think I would be able to play SAJ, personally. My white guilt would get the best of me, I'm sure. Part of that has to do with being a member of the profession that was at one time steeped in the worst kinds of "Race Science." We're well past it now, it would seem, but still... However, it does sound like a pretty cool premise for a campaign, especially with the magic thrown in.

Honestly Aos, I don't mean to be rude or anything but I think you're overthinking this. I think the designer has done the hard work by contextualizing the subject matter into something resembling a game. Now it's up to the individual to make something of it (anything) around the gaming table. I hope I'm making sense.

Regards,
David R

No, I get you David. I over think everything, really. It is one of my many, many flaws.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;2441472.  The GM is not privy to the players plans.  The GM leaves the room while the players articulate their goals.  This is essentially point one, in reverse - aspirations and dreams are the only autonomy the characters have, and they are carefully guarded and can't be taken away.

Outside of Burning Wheel, is there a game where PCs typically tell DMs their plans? I'll occasionally mention a long-term goal to the DM that my character is going to pursue, but my group tends to keep that stuff to ourselves outside of in-character explanations to other PCs and NPCs.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;244334Outside of Burning Wheel, is there a game where PCs typically tell DMs their plans? I'll occasionally mention a long-term goal to the DM that my character is going to pursue, but my group tends to keep that stuff to ourselves outside of in-character explanations to other PCs and NPCs.

I know that players typically discuss their immediate short range plans (i.e. tactics) in front of the GM.

I don't really understand how a game would work if the GM leaves the room while the players discuss their plans.  Doesn't that force the players to discuss their plans while blind to the world?  Without the GM there to answer questions about the world around them, it would seem impossible to make plans.  Unless players can just make up elements of the world necessary to their plans.  But that introduces a host of problems in of itself.

Since the author is unfamiliar with gaming culture, with things like optimizers, power-gamers, twinks, and pros-from-dover, the game will be easily broken by any player who doesn't conform to the very, very limited range of play styles the game supports.  That's where the swinishness comes in: the game isn't limited, other play styles are just inferior and don't need to be addressed.

It's really not a game.  It's a teaching tool disguised as a game.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;244334Outside of Burning Wheel, is there a game where PCs typically tell DMs their plans? I'll occasionally mention a long-term goal to the DM that my character is going to pursue, but my group tends to keep that stuff to ourselves outside of in-character explanations to other PCs and NPCs.

What 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.

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

Quote from: droog;244767The 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.

See, this is where my head starts to hurt when it comes to "indie" games. They have such a narrow and adversarial view of what the GM's role is: the players are the slaves and the GM is the slave-owner and they are somehow pitted against each other. I find it funny that one of the key aspects of games like D&D which gets criticised in those circles is that games are all about the DM devising death traps and dungeons to kill off his players - when in fact most indie games are way more adversarial than that. There's no sense of the GM as fair and independent arbitrator (which would necessitate him or her being in the room).

I also can't imagine how it works in practice. So the GM goes out of the room. Meanwhile the players decide, "Let's try to dig a tunnel." The GM comes back into the room. The players tell him, "We're going to try to dig a tunnel."

I'm not trying to be facetious, it just sounds like a gimmick. Has anyone played the game? Can you enlighten?

Quote from: noisms;244866I'm not trying to be facetious, it just sounds like a gimmick. Has anyone played the game? Can you enlighten?

I'm going to run and I'll let you know. Honestly though it will probably turn out like any other rpg session - which is not a criticism btw - which is how most of these indie games eventually play out despite the best hype of their designers....(IMO, IME ect)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: noisms;244866I also can't imagine how it works in practice. So the GM goes out of the room. Meanwhile the players decide, "Let's try to dig a tunnel." The GM comes back into the room. The players tell him, "We're going to try to dig a tunnel."

When you make a chr, you list several goals, along with associated tasks you need to pull off in order to achieve them. You as the player can't rely on the GM to introduce stuff for you to do towards your goals, so you have to make things happen for you. Otherwise I think it works pretty much as normal.

Quote from: droog;244892When you make a chr, you list several goals, along with associated tasks you need to pull off in order to achieve them. You as the player can't rely on the GM to introduce stuff for you to do towards your goals, so you have to make things happen for you. Otherwise I think it works pretty much as normal.

Ah, I see. Okay, that makes more sense. It's actually something that might be cool to try with a sandbox-y, old school game. For example, you could create a character whose goal is to exact revenge on the Duke of Dunderheadshire or somesuch, and work towards that aim without telling the DM.

Quote from: David R;244810I have to ask estar....why "snowflake"....

I think it was half because the character was a white haired elf and the other half because of the way word sounded when my co-DM used it.

Quote from: noisms;244922Ah, I see. Okay, that makes more sense. It's actually something that might be cool to try with a sandbox-y, old school game. For example, you could create a character whose goal is to exact revenge on the Duke of Dunderheadshire or somesuch, and work towards that aim without telling the DM.

It is kinda of hard for the player to get away with NOT telling the DM even if they actively tried. Hiding only works for short term tactical scenarios. In the long term the DM is refereeing the entire world. Either the players do enough things for the DM to figure out the plan despite the overseer or master still not knowing or the player will interact with potential allies thus spilling the plan anyway.

Quote from: estar;244958It is kinda of hard for the player to get away with NOT telling the DM even if they actively tried. Hiding only works for short term tactical scenarios. In the long term the DM is refereeing the entire world. Either the players do enough things for the DM to figure out the plan despite the overseer or master still not knowing or the player will interact with potential allies thus spilling the plan anyway.

I see your point, but I still think it could work if the players are cunning about concealing what they are trying to do. Of course it would become very "gamey" in that the players would be pulling out all kinds of tricks to throw the DM off the scent. But I'd like to give it a try.

So, the more I think about it, the more appealing the game seems given the ideas and themes people wrote about. Maybe I'll give it a try sometime when I've got some spare dough. Another game to add to the list?

I've run this game. It is tightly focussed and enjoyable, and the mechanics do bring out the theme. The players work out their characters goals without the GM being present, and when I GM'ed I simply did not concern myself with the motives of the PCs, nor did I have to listen to the players whine about their inner lives. I could just concentrate on the motives and goals of the NPCs. Other mechanics support play, too. There is a die, the skull die, which any player can roll if he or she thinks that it's worth substantially risking their character's life over something; playing card are used for magic and the dice mechanic (the GM sets your worth in dice) for example. It really encouraged good roleplaying amongst the players.

The only problem with our session was due to some spectacularly bad rolling on my part, the slaves did rather better than perhaps they should have done.

There were lots of good scenes but one favourite was the death of the overseer, and how the other slaves helped the root doctor cause his downfall. The house slave leant a few dice by polishing the stairs extra shiny, another slave made sure the overseer was in his cups, and the instigator came round late at night mock him. The overseer tumbled down the stairs drunk and smashed his head on the balustrade.

It's far less preachy (if preachy at all) than I thought it would be, and I'd happily play it again.

Quote from: Pelgrane;245635I've run this game. It is tightly focussed and enjoyable, and the mechanics do bring out the theme. The players work out their characters goals without the GM being present, and when I GM'ed I simply did not concern myself with the motives of the PCs...

So wait, do they just secretly check off lines on this list and then proclaim "Eureka!" when they get to the last one, informing the GM that they've done what they set out to do? an you elaborate on how this works, cuz it sounds like it could either be really, really cool or really, really mind-numbingly retarded.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;245753So wait, do they just secretly check off lines on this list and then proclaim "Eureka!" when they get to the last one, informing the GM that they've done what they set out to do? an you elaborate on how this works, cuz it sounds like it could either be really, really cool or really, really mind-numbingly retarded.

-=Grim=-

You choose goals during character creation. Each goal has associated motives, and each motive suggests a task. Some goals are major, and are less likely to be achievable, others are minor and short term. You add a die to your worth when you complete a task. The GM simply doesn't concern himself with these, and the players don't discuss them with the GM.

You can replace, change, or delete goals, motives and tasks as the circumstances in the game change.

As GM, it was impossible not to guess some of the characters' goals, but many of them came as a surprise - they were pretty subtle about their task choices. Most players revealed their goals only at the end of the game, although one triumphantly exclaimed that they had completed a goal during the session.

One very disconcerting thing I noticed was that all the players refused to meet my gaze when they were playing slaves, and I an overseer.

Quote from: Pelgrane;245992One very disconcerting thing I noticed was that all the players refused to meet my gaze when they were playing slaves, and I an overseer.

That's kinda cool but kinda fucked up. Heh.

I think I like that "Objective" thingy. I wonder if it'd be easy to do something like this for Savage Worlds characters, but instead of gaining dice you gain a Benny. The objectives would be set at the beginning of each session, since Bennies gained are lost at the end of the night.

-=Grim=-