That'll be an issue. It needn't stop you doing it, but that'll raise hackles, especially across the pond.

If you do this (and I think you should, because it's interesting), be aware that there'll be people who don't like it. There probably will be accusations of racism.

That said, causing a bit of a stir is no bad thing. Controversy does wonders with getting people talking about your game.

I think you should be absolutely clear why you're doing this. Are you doing this because you're depicting fictional versions of these nationalities, as they were seen in those days? If so, cool, and I think you should say so.

I'd be tempted to change the African speciality from Scavenging: just because that's one you should be really careful about. Take one of the positive stereotypes: Strength, maybe. Hardiness. Actually, to be honest, I'd be tempted to leave out African altogether, just because that will cause shit, whatever you put.

Similarly, I might change the Irish one from Larceny, just because it's definitely criminal. How would you feel about Blarney instead?

Graham

Well first off, absolutely, I'm doing it because it represents the 'reality' of the fiction and the time. Almost every Irishman in Sharpe is seen as, or is in fact, an outrageous scoundrel and rogue. The Scots are fearsome warriors who terrfiy their enemies. The French are educated fops etc. This should be emphasised in the text - it is said already, but it could do with some more.

I'm not going to deny the existence of Africans. Or Indians. Or Jews. I see that sort of exclusion as being far more discriminatory than playing to a literary stereotype in a game with its roots in literature. To be honest, I don't even want to call them 'Africans' - I would be much happier with 'Negros' in order to take in the inhabitants of the West Indies as well but ... I can only imagine the outcry. My work keeps me abridged of modern PC stuff but I have never been sure how that interfaces with historical representation of terms?

One option would be to offer a second skill, so its the choice of two Measures and the choice of two skills? At least that allows for some variation within the theme?

As for Larceny and the Irish, there is only one Irishman I have ever seen in a Sharpe story that isn't a rogue and thats Wellington!! Larceny is a catch-all skill for 'thieves stuff' but the criminal connotations of the word have been mentioned before. Any suggestions for a 11th hour change of term?

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Neil,

Some Americans will whine, as Graham points out. Opinions on American morality aside, there were threads on Story Games a while ago screaming that referring to the people you game with as "My Players" was bad, possessive and wrong. So putting racial (or really, cultural upbringing) bonuses into a game is going to make some people bleat.

I'd suggest (FWIW) making it an optional "Stereotype Bonus" or something might help. Want to play the literary stereotype of the negro soldier fighting the white man's war? Here, have this small bonus for doing so. Or just include core nationalities which it's OK to make fun of (English, Scottish, French, basically rich countries nobody sees as victims) and then suggest that people come up with their own bonuses for other countries as they see fit and agree with their group. I mean, if some bloke wants to give all Jewish troops in his game +1 in Accounting, Influence and Discipline, I'm not going to get upset (but it does seem a bit unoriginal).

It's certainly worthy of a boxout or sidebar at the start to explain why you've made the choices you have.

Mark Galeotti has a whole aside for how to approach the Teutonic Knights in the game, because they are a very maligned group because of their pagan bashing activities in the middle ages and the fact that Hitler appropriated their image for propaganda purposes.

From a GM's point of view its very useful since, it warns you before hand of potential problems and lets you make a reasoned decision about how you present them in game. Personally I made great use of this since we ran a game based upon the Teutons, where the players where a mix of amateur and professional historians + unfamiliar people.

Regards

;O)Newt
D101games -An Imaginary Company

I was talking to my wife about this last night and she suggested that one way around it would be, as I thought, to offer a selection of skills to choose from. She also said that 'Scavenge' is a rather negative term and wouldn't good old 'Survival' work just as well. And she's right! Similarly Larceny could change to something like 'Skullduggery' and lose the criminal overtones. She also suggested that I have a 'bad' stereotype and a 'good' stereotype.

So for Irish I could have Skullduggery and Romance. For French I could have The Arts and Riding. For African/Negro (jury is still out on that one) I could have Survival and Awareness.

Its a definite possibility. Thanks for the input so far everyone.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I personally think this is a very loaded subject that you should tread carefully with. No matter what the fiction, or the history, is like, the fact is you are a real person writing a book in 2008 and any text you write will have your voice ascribed to it, whether you like it or not.

The N-word in particular has 200+ years of hate behind it that no matter how you phrase it is still very real for some potential readers. Frankly, most of us aren't the folks to be asking about whether it'll offend.

On a pure design level. Why are the stereotypes important to chargen or resolution? By including them you're saying they are, and that they're set in stone, outside of the players control. There are ways to reward playing to and against type outside of setting the stats.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

I wholeheartedly agree Matt. I have never once had a question asked about the validity of this part of the rules by any playtesters. Its only been my caution with regard to expanding the list that has lead to this query. I could quite easily simply omit African and Indian from that list and I doubt anyone would have even noticed. I still might actually as I am increasingly becoming uncomfortable.

From a design point of view, it's definitely an attempt to model the stereotypes and prejudices of the time. It may not be the most elegant, but its about the only thing that can be done within the mechanics of the game. There is an 'out' which I have used with regard to implicit wealth through social status (ie. allowing someone to play a poor noble, by trading wealth for skill points) which I could do here. In fact I could bump the skills at this stage to 2 and give you the option of trading them out for any other skill at 1 (so you lose a point if you play against the stereotype)

I guess what I am painfully aware of is that I will HAVE to deal with the African/Black/Negro question at some point in time. And Oriential as well. The two are fundamental parts of HoO. I guess I'm trying not to design myself into a corner and thinking ahead.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I think we had a conversation about this very topic a few months back, so it's good to see some public debate about it as well. It is certainly an area of D&H that could be open to attack, derision or outright hostility.

The religious affiliations were something that gave me pause for thought. I could see the game being attacked because of the stereotyping of, for example, those who are Jewish. I would give very serious consideration to this part of the game. I know the text is pretty far progressed, but this is one area that need careful consideration.

However, it seems you are approaching this question with an open mind and looking at the possibility of hostility, which is good. Understanding that these things could provoke negative reactions is a valuable thing.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

Neil,

Also bear in mind that much of your target market will be in the States. They love historical stuff over there.

With this rule, you stand a chance of alienating them, and making them judge your game on this rule alone: rather than "The game about Napoleonic stories" it'll be "The game where you get extra thieving points if you're Irish".

Again, this might be a good thing. Controversy isn't always bad. But do bear it in mind and be ready do defend it.

Sorry if I seem to be making a big thing out of nothing, but I think it will be a big thing to our friends across the pond.

Graham

So, I was in my teaching class last night, doing a presentation about diversity and all I had on my mind was this. I'm sort of decided what I am going to do, but I really need to get off my chest my feelings about some of the stuff and what has changed my mind.

One of my favourite quotes is

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. "

I think it serves me in so many facets of life, as an embodiment of both social and historical responsibility and a dictum for lifelong pursuit of knowledge. I, personally, believe that we cannot shy away from the bad things that have happened in the past in order to create a more comfortable world for some in the present. If we fail to inform our children of things such as slavery, the Holocaust, religious and national persecutions, revolutions and other such happenings, and place them in a context of the present day, we run the risk of losing those facts to the people who would tell us that they never happened, that it wasn't as bad, that televisual depictions crafted for the US networks are reality - and history changes.

Therefore, in a game set in the early 1800s it would be remiss of me not to allude in some way to slavery, the different logics behind the French and English attitudes to the war, the persecution of catholics, the mistrust of jews, the oppression of the Irish etc etc.

Well I would, if I had decided to make a highly sim game of the period, which I decided against a long time ago. So I have to revisit three things. (1) Does it fit with the genre within the sources I am drawing from, (2) does ir actually DO that informing and (3) Does it actually work as a mechanic.

(1) The generic stereotyping is accurate to the genre, but there are exceptions. Not a lot. Very few in fact, but they are there. Thats something to take into consideration.

(2) No. It doesn't. Well it does in my head but it doesn't explicit on the page.

(3) No, it doesn't work as a mechanic. Wellington is Irish. If I was to stat Wellington, he would have +1 Larceny. (or Skullduggery, which it might change to). That can't be right?

So I should really consider dropping the mechanic, but I still want to put down a marker for the historical side of things, to salve my conscience.

So, heres what I am going to do! The mechanical side of Nationality and Religion will be dropped. You make a choice for each and with each I will include guidance notes on the stereotypes and prejudices that 'wider society' holds regarding your choices.

So, for example

IRISH:
Stereotype: The vision of an Irish soldier is a untrustworthy ruffian who isn't above thieving and pillaging. They are however, hardy and viscious fighters, fiercly proud of their regiments.
Prejudices: "The Irish are rebels to the core and they will stab you in the back for their blessed independence as soon as you let your guard down. Light fingered, insubordinate, ill-educated and foul-mouthed, they are, with a scant few expection such as His Grace, an unreliable and dangerous lot. Bog-trotters, the lot of them!" Major Henry Grace, 6th Kings Hussars.

I can actually do with trimming out the chargen points that are lost (3 in total) as the game could do with a little down-tuning on some of the skills etc.

I think thats a fair compromise. I get to put on paper in a more effective manner the social problems of the day and I let the players decide, through roleplay, whether they play to or against stereotype.

I think that addresses the concerns - which I think are wholly valid - and lets me sleep soundly at night in a way thats actually 100 times better than the original

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Good call Neil, for my money.

I didn't have any issue with reflecting the prejudices of the fiction. That should be in the game. I did have some issue with you conflating Cornwell's Sharpe and history, and coming to the earlier points solution. They aren't the same thing at all, of course. I think saying "In Sharpe nationalities are cliched, and this game reflects that" flies just fine.

Appearing to say "In the olden days black people were theives, as shown by me giving them thieving points" is really dubious, and would be rightly seen as actual (albeit unintentional) prejudice on your part. Mixing up ideas about genre emulation and accurately depicting history weren't necessarily helping clear the waters on your intentions.

Sharpe is shallow to a degree because of the form. History is as deep as you care to study, right? You can find all kinds of stereotype breaking characters. And hey, limiting the Scots to just being thugs is just wildy inaccurate for the Scotland of the time. Generalisations necessitate a shallow approach, which I think could hurt the play value.

It seems to me an excellent solution to show that characters have prejudices in their perceptions, rather than make those prejudicial perceptions "real" with mechanics. That honours the bigot because he's merely responding correctly to the reality of the game - black people and Irish ARE thieves if they get bonuses for it. Rather than merely thought of as thieves. Playing out the stereotypes at the table seems to me to be the ideal solution. That way groups decide for themselves, and you cannot be held culpable for some idiot racist using your text to affirm their moronic beliefs. Plus it adds play value right there.

Nice one!

Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com

There are some incredibly sensitive issues here and I think this thread is a really useful one.

I've just re-read this entire thread and well ... in some ways it makes me look like a bit of a silly prick! Especially considering where I work, what I do and what I have done in the past as employment! Its a definite case of not being able to see the wood for the trees and a testament to the power of using people to work through ideas. And indeed, the power of sharing an issue that might be sitting there that you might be a little curious about but not 100% sure of.

Cheers everyone for helping me avoid this little potential visit from Captain Cock-up.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

I think you just manfully wrestled a thorny beast of an issue. In public, which is of benefit to all. A gentleman and a scholar.

Dunno why I'm being so nice this morning. But hey! Take it where you can find it I always say. :)

Jon Hodgson
www.jonhodgson.com