fr0id posted:

Going on what others have said, it seems like there’s a chunk of folks who flat out equate the 50s aesthetic with oppression.

Kai Tave posted:

Like, there's a reason you often see this sort of period aesthetic used to portray things which have a veneer of creepy pleasantness masking deeper troubles underneath.

Kai Tave posted:

For the record I pledged to Americana and Sandy Pug's handled things well for my own personal tastes but at the same time I also think it's perfectly fine for someone else to decide that they aren't interested in a game of idealized 1950s Americana, even with elves and orcs, because it's something that's been irrevocably soured for them (and I acknowledge that I'm someone for whom it hasn't been).

Mugaaz posted:

I'm ok if someone doesn't like a thing because it brings up negative feelings for them. Cannot grok the concept of fantasy authors having a moral obligation to address the horror of the time period they are fantasizing.

Kai Tave posted:

I mean a lot of RPGs have been pretty bad about even attempting to address stuff like this in historical-adjacent settings in the past. Deadlands is the classic example of a game that wants to plunk its setting smack down in the middle of a supernaturally-extended American Civil War and wild west extravaganza, while pretty much just sort of shrugging its shoulders when the issue of slavery arises which seems like it might be kind of a big deal to just be glossing over, to put it mildly.

Mugaaz posted:

I don't know that game, but why is is that a big deal though?

NGDBSS posted:

Was Deadlands among the collection that dredged up lurking Lost Cause narratives, like "the South wasn't so bad" and "we would have freed the slaves anyway"? Or did they just play into the Noble Savage archetype?

Kai Tave posted:

Deadlands, at least its original incarnation, pretty much just goes "yeah the Confederacy frees all their slaves because the British gave them a bunch of money and promises of support or something" and just kind of shoves it in a corner out of sight.

quote:

Before starting to create your characters, you and the gamemaster (GM) should address the kinds of things that the players want to see in the game and the things they don’t want to see. You’ll already have agreed on the overall tone you want the game to have, but it’s important to know what narrative elements might upset players so the group can avoid them. Doing so will make the game more enjoyable for everyone. To start this process, the GM will ask whether the players would like to discuss these boundaries or simply give the GM lists.

If players agree to have a discussion, everyone will talk about what they’re okay with and what they want to avoid. During this discussion, don’t ask others to explain why they don’t want certain elements in the game; take their requests at face value and respect them. However, do feel free to ask for clarification.

If players would rather give the GM lists, they’ll each write down the topics they’d like to avoid, and the GM will compile that list anonymously. As with the other method, there shouldn’t be discussion of why players don’t want to address certain topics.

In addition to the group’s comfort, another factor to consider while establishing boundaries is where you’re playing the game. If you’re playing in the privacy of your own home or in a conference room at a convention, you only need to consider the players’ preferences.

However, if you’re in a public place, if you’re around younger people, or if there are other factors beyond the preferences of the group, you should consider them when establishing boundaries. In general, you should be playing the game in a way that will be comfortable for everyone who may hear it. For example, your group may be comfortable addressing issues of race in ’50s suburbia — but if you’re in public, everyone who overhears you might not be. Try to keep this in mind and be respectful to anyone who might overhear your game.

If, during the game, someone accidentally brings up one of the topics that should be avoided — or if anything that is part of the story is making you uncomfortable — simply knock quickly and lightly on the table. Whoever is currently narrating should simply rewind and proceed down a different path. There is no need to discuss your request to go in a different direction; the group will just move on with the story in another direction.

Ratoslov posted:

Also, the absolute first thing that comes to mind when you bring up a situation with both pleasant 1950's Americana and a dead high-schooler that you slowly learn about their secrets is Twin Peaks. And David Lynch was hip-deep in the '50s Americana being a veneer over oppressive and repressive troubles.

Loomer posted:

Basically give me Time-Travelling Murder-Historian, the Game, where you just go around shooting the people responsible for Bad History in the face.

Jedit posted:

The first thing that comes to my mind when you bring up idealisation of 50s America is Fallout.

NTRabbit posted:

Mirage posted:

This would make for a fascinating alternate campaign in Time Master (an RPG which, as far as I know, I'm the only person who has even thought about in 30 years), a rogue group of travelers who don't give a poo poo about the Time War and just want to fix history even if it destroys the world they came from.

Evil Mastermind posted:

I know it's not super-popular around here, but a new edition of Savage Worlds is being kickstarted. Sadly, it looks like they're not doing the $10 price point anymore.

Wolfsbane posted:

Badgers and Burrows is a medieval fantasy wargame with anthropomorphic animals. The main draw for me is the miniatures. I'm not sure I'll ever play the game, but I really want to paint those badgers.



From a previous round of kickstarter, squirrel knight is cute as hell.

Jimbozig posted:

The amount of defensive vitriol people who want to play in the sanitized versions have for the people who are put off by them or who prefer the versions that keep the bad stuff intact is weird to me. It's okay if someone doesn't like the same game as you! It's even okay if they have a good reason for it! It doesn't make you a bad person to like a piece of media that other people find problematic.

quote:

So, like, if you can enjoy playing in Ersatz Leave It To Beaver Land without it always reminding you of the bad poo poo, more power to you, I guess?

djfooboo posted:

I guess I'll go all in on Double Dragon the boardgame...(Street Masters)

Wolfsbane posted:

Chronicles of Run is a bunch of miniatures with a terrible name and some sort of weird hex-based card game that doesn't even use the miniatures. Said miniatures seem to be a goblin, three burly men with beards and 256183 women with their tits out.


Combat bikinis

Tekopo posted:

I’m pretty sure that, proportionally, the historical figures that were actually part of the Night Witches night bombing squadron, which mostly launched nuisance raids which had almost negligible impact in antequated biplanes with relatively tiny payloads, and were mostly used for the psychologogical impact of keeping nazis awake at night, did not participate in any meaningful capacity in what could be called “war crimes” when taking into consideration everything the Nazis did, actions by soviet front line soldiers once they got to Germany, the Allied bombing of Germany, unrestricted submarine campaigns on both sides, he firebombing of Japan or the dropping of the nukes, to just give some other examples.

quote:

I can understand not wanting to take part in games in wargames at all for the reasons you have given, and I don’t think personal reasons such as those can be dismissed, and it is a valid complaint when taking the subject of games that have a theme of a real life war, but to say that, specifically the night witches are to be condemned for war crimes seem weird to me.

Jimbozig posted:

Another personal example: in Night Witches, the game talks about how to handle racism and sexism and stuff because those were obviously present and important in that time period. But it says nothing about how to handle the fact that you are committing war crimes basically for the whole game. As someone whose great-uncle died when allies on the eastern front bombed a hospital, that is something I am sensitive to. I don't think I would be able to engage in the game in the way it was intended (I'm pretty sure that bringing up the babies you are killing is not what is intended).

bbcisdabomb posted:

Wow, that's a lot of stretch goals.

Jimbozig posted:

I'm not an expert by any means, but the missions in the book have you bombing villages at night. Presumably, some of those bombs are falling on civilians. I absolutely believe the facts that the Night Witches were mostly ineffective and that there were many far worse war crimes. But it's still distasteful to put myself in the head of someone dropping bombs on babies, even amid all the far greater horror of that war and that front.

quote:

Actually, for whatever reason wargames are totally fine. Pushing plastic tanks around a map is very abstracted from the horrors of war. Roleplaying is a different story for me. It's certainly not limited to Night Witches specifically. I'd feel that way about roleplaying any bomber on any side of that war, or a concentration camp guard, or a Japanese soldier in Nanjing, or etc etc. I just mentioned it as an example. I haven't seen any roleplaying games about those other things.

Antivehicular posted:

I don't know a lot about WWII gaming because it doesn't really interest me that much, but surely there have to be other games that let you play bomber crews, right?

Tekopo posted:

I think actually that wargames are more troubling, because they are much more insidious in their glorification of war precisely because you don't have to worry about the human aspect, and hence they lead to a glorification of war by the very same players that play them. It's something that I've personally had to struggle with and something that can be an issue within the wargaming community.

Jimbozig posted:

Yeah, 100%. What makes them more insidious is exactly the same thing that makes them less troubling on a gut level.

As for the other stuff you said, thanks for the info. The fact that many of the civilians would be gone does help a bit. The fact that the bombings occurred in Russian territory doesn't make any difference in and of itself - it's not like I value Russian civilians any less than Polish ones or whoever. It's not just babies I care about either - bombing hospitals is pretty awful even if some of the people in the hospital are Nazis and deserve it. And there were certainly hospitals very close to the front, including in those villages mostly full of Wehrmacht, no? But really, it's more of a gut revulsion than anything I can logically talk myself out of.

Antivehicular posted:

I don't know a lot about WWII gaming because it doesn't really interest me that much, but surely there have to be other games that let you play bomber crews, right?

Lemon-Lime posted:

If you have an objection (which you're totally entitled to have) to playing people in biplanes hand-dropping bombs onto railways and munitions factories, I don't think playing a game where you fly a B-17 over Dresden is going to be less morally objectionable.

Antivehicular posted:

Oh, sure, I think that's a reasonable objection to have. My post was more "wait, is Night Witches really the first/only game in this position? This seems like it'd have to have been done before. Huh."

On that subject, and getting back on topic, does anyone have any info on Flying Circus? I know backer emails have indicated it's still in the works and being refined, but I recall some people being more in the loop on the dev process. That game seems like it's likely to succeed in ways Night Witches failed.