D&D 5E Nations and Cannons: The American Crisis for DND 5E

[Weiley31]

by throwing his tea

Go ahead and throw that tea!

I am, however, FASCINATED by the flintlock fantasy idea. A pointcrawl where you roam the New England wilderness helping defend small settlements (native and colonial alike) from the resurgent threat of D&D magic and monsters would be quite compelling. The Patriot meets the Witcher, essentially.

Just gives me an excuse to make my character a Teamancer.

You heard me!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey, all the 2.5 million people living in the colonies wanted was a little representation in Parliament. Tax them, sure, but shouldn't they have a say in how they're governed? Isn't that fair?

Sure, like I said upthread, the populace and most of the leadership were not, by my read, working from the same perspective or motivations.
A lot of these guys just wanted to be the oligarchs, not to abolish oligarchy.

With the American Civil War, we have ample evidence that slavery was the reason the South attempted to secede but we don't have that same evidence for the Revolutionary War. The truth is, like many people in the North who were disgusted by slavery, the British were more than happy to do business with slavers both before and after the war.

Talk is one thing, legislation is another. Great Britain abolished slavery and outlawed the trade of slaves without a war, in like 1810-1820 (at work, hard to check).

 

[Weiley31]

So, I will admit I am a bit "confused" on something here:
On their main website, they seem to have the Core Rules(Revised!) for Nations and Cannons that you can purchase. And the price isn't really that bad.

Digital Download: Core Rules — Nations & Cannons

Fully compatible with the fifth edition of the world’s most popular roleplaying game, the Nations & Cannons campaign setting has everything you need to run adventures during the American Revolutionary war.

www.nationsandcannons.com

But then, they have this:

Flintlocks and Fulminates: Historical Firearm Rules for Nations and Cannons - Flagbearer Games | Nations & Cannons | DriveThruRPG.com

So, are they supposed to complement each other, does one supersede the other or what?

 

[Tonguez]

So, I will admit I am a bit "confused" on something here:
On their main website, they seem to have the Core Rules(Revised!) for Nations and Cannons that you can purchase. And the price isn't really that bad.

Digital Download: Core Rules — Nations & Cannons

Fully compatible with the fifth edition of the world’s most popular roleplaying game, the Nations & Cannons campaign setting has everything you need to run adventures during the American Revolutionary war.

www.nationsandcannons.com

But then, they have this:
View attachment 282459
Flintlocks and Fulminates: Historical Firearm Rules for Nations and Cannons - Flagbearer Games | Nations & Cannons | DriveThruRPG.com

So, are they supposed to complement each other, does one supersede the other or what?

Have a look at the kickstarter page
Flintlocks and Fulminates appears to be a supplement to the core rules focussing on different blackpowder weapons. They also have a full Campaign Guide (The American Crisis) and an Almanac with rules for weather effects and exploration, plus a few period-theme maps.

Its an impressive looking package they’ve come up with, quite an investment and I’d think quite a risk…

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Years ago I tried my hand at a western fantasy rpg, and while I tried to be sensitive for the obvious things, I kept running into problems with the not-so-obvious things, like a big theme of what westerns are in general (expansion and taming the wilds, AKA colonial expansionism). I eventually shelved it because as I learned more from indigenous people, I didn't like how it turned out. It takes a lot more work then being inclusive on cover art (see below) or avoiding blatant stereotypes. That era was a giant onion, each layer a problem area.

View attachment 282451

Yeah I mean, the main thing is that it basically can’t be fully historical, and it sure as hell can’t be popular western movie based.

I’ve got a couple ideas I think could work.

1. The proximity of these peoples is not voluntary from any direction. The Europeans are refugees, or lost a war, and the West is a better prospect than back East.

2. White settlements are trade towns connecting a sort of western Silk Road between the East Coast and the West Coast, and are there by treaty, and bound by treaty to stay with certain boundaries.

In either case, it might help to imagine a lot more Native folk survived European diseases, and Europe was never able to just steamroll over them.

But even then, it’s dicey. Easier is to create a whole new setting.

 

[Umbran]

and Spanish explored arrived before in too many zones of the current USA.

And the Native Americans beat the Spanish here by ten thousand years and more.

So, really, let's stop taking quite so much pride in arrival times.

 

[Tonguez]

Years ago I tried my hand at a western fantasy rpg, and while I tried to be sensitive for the obvious things, I kept running into problems with the not-so-obvious things, like a big theme of what westerns are in general (expansion and taming the wilds, AKA colonial expansionism). I eventually shelved it because as I learned more from indigenous people, I didn't like how it turned out. It takes a lot more work then being inclusive on cover art (see below) or avoiding blatant stereotypes. That era was a giant onion, each layer a problem area.

View attachment 282451

is that Afro straight out of the 70s? No asians and a somewhat stereotypical native. I dont think that cover art is particularly inclusive

 

[MGibster]

Years ago I tried my hand at a western fantasy rpg, and while I tried to be sensitive for the obvious things, I kept running into problems with the not-so-obvious things, like a big theme of what westerns are in general (expansion and taming the wilds, AKA colonial expansionism).

It's perfectly okay if you didn't want to deal with those issues for whatever reason. But I think at some point we have to simply acknolwedge that there are problematic aspects to life and it's probably best if we just figure out a good way to deal with them. In John Ford's Fort Apache (1948), the Native Americans were treated in a sympathetic light being portrayed as driven to fight by both a corrupt Bureau of Indian Affairs and a military officer who refused to treat them with respect. Even in The Searchers (1956), it's acknowledged that the Commanche are getting a raw deal which it what led to their attack on the Edwards homestead in the first place. By the late 1960s, treating Native Americans in the western with some degree of sympathy and respect was the norm. (The less we talk about Adam Sandler's The Ridiculous Six the better.)

I joke about Nations & Cannons, but I do think revolution era America is rife with opportunities to tell compelling stories.

 

[MGibster]

is that Afro straight out of the 70s? No asians and a somewhat stereotypical native. I dont think that cover art is particularly inclusive

Are you joking with this?

 

[GuyBoy]

Was he? Demanding the colonies actually pay for the expense of keeping them from being taken by France (and being sacked sucks no matter who it is) seems pretty reasonable, and I dare say his views on slavery were far from tyrannical, and certainly couldn’t have made the southern colonies comfortable as British citizens.

This…egregiously understates the bold-faced, blood-boiling, hypocrisy involve in the writing of that document.

Look, I love my country, but let’s not revise history to make our founders look good where they absolutely do not deserve it.

Fair enough.
I absolutely agree that the "founding fathers" were appalling hypocrites and pretty terrible people. I do think, though, that the Declaration, followed by the whole Federalist Papers debate and the Constitution was an improvement on the near-absolute monarchies prevalent in Europe at the time. They also gave some impetus for positive changes, reflected in 1789 and in the political movements of the C19th, such as Chartism and Trades Unions.
But we agree that the founders were bad people. The British Empire was (overall) worse.