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

[Umbran]

Dude.
I promise you, I don’t need any kind of history lesson on the revolution and it’s lead up.

You gave so severe an oversimplification, I couldn't tell. And, whether or not you needed it, other readers might well be served by the review, given the nature of the product in the OP.

Here in Massachusetts we celebrated Patriot's Day - the yearly remembrances of the first battles at Lexington and Concord - on Monday. Paul Revere (or, the re-enactment thereof) rode by my front window. I was not going to let that incomplete a picture of the situation stand as if it was sufficient. If you want to know if King George was being reasonable, the stated reason for one of many taxes doesn't cut it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You gave so severe an oversimplification, I couldn't tell. And, whether or not you needed it, other readers might well be served by the review, given the nature of the product in the OP.

Here in Massachusetts we celebrated Patriot's Day - the yearly remembrances of the first battles at Lexington and Concord - on Monday. Paul Revere (or, the re-enactment thereof) rode by my front window. I was not going to let that incomplete a picture of the situation stand as if it was sufficient. If you want to know if King George was being reasonable, the stated reason for one of many taxes doesn't cut it.

Bro it’s an example of one facet of the thing, in an exchange about the motivations of a group of oligarchs.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Why we'll probably never see a Western RPG. RPGs based on historical colonialism are...challenging to make.

There are dozens of Western rpgs out there (most by white Americans) - starting from Boot Hill (1975), multiple editions of Deadlands, Aces and Eights (which uses the Hackmaster rules), Down Dark Trails (Call of Cthulhu supplement), Werewolf: the Wild West, and many more (do a quick search for "Westerns" on DriveThruRPG.com). They all approach the issue with varying degrees of sensitivity (or insensitivity), but it's absurd to say that they're rare.

 

[MGibster]

If I buy this, I'm going to demand all my players break out into song just like in the Hamilton musical. I'll play the part of King George.

I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are dozens of Western rpgs out there (most by white Americans) - starting from Boot Hill (1975), multiple editions of Deadlands, Aces and Eights (which uses the Hackmaster rules), Down Dark Trails (Call of Cthulhu supplement), Werewolf: the Wild West, and many more (do a quick search for "Westerns" on DriveThruRPG.com). They all approach the issue with varying degrees of sensitivity (or insensitivity), but it's absurd to say that they're rare.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I was meaning a "new" Western RPG. One created in the current environment, not one created with 1970s sensibilities (or lack thereof).

 

[Neonchameleon]

You gave so severe an oversimplification, I couldn't tell. And, whether or not you needed it, other readers might well be served by the review, given the nature of the product in the OP.

Here in Massachusetts we celebrated Patriot's Day - the yearly remembrances of the first battles at Lexington and Concord - on Monday. Paul Revere (or, the re-enactment thereof) rode by my front window. I was not going to let that incomplete a picture of the situation stand as if it was sufficient. If you want to know if King George was being reasonable, the stated reason for one of many taxes doesn't cut it.

And you're oversimplifying and putting only one side of the story yourself and I'm afraid I'm not going to let the incredibly incomplete picture you paint stand. Starting with pointing out that the taxes were wanted to pay for the defence of the American settlements in what was literally a world war, kicked off by those self-same colonists, and in which they didn't even provide all the defence of their own lands or ... just about anything to prevent reinforcements - but somehow claim that despite having started a world war that having provided an incomplete contribution to their own theatre of war this should render them tax exempt from contributing to either the rest of the costs of their theatre or the rest of the war? When it comes to reasons to raise taxes "paying for defence" is one all but the most hardcore of libertarians agree with. Especially when it's "paying for the costs incurred defending you in a war you started".

It's at this point worth pointing out that the British Empire was essentially a loosely federal night watchman state. And that the laws that affected people from day to day were the laws that were almost entirely made at home. Which is a part of why, despite slavery being illegal in Britain it was legal in numerous colonies including many of the American ones. (Of course one of the reasons that was the case was that a lot of powerful British people, normally from the King down, had invested deeply in the slave trade because it was so profitable).

You say that up to about 1760 the colonists were "largely unbothered by the crown". Which is true - they were essentially freeloading, gaining significantly while being unwilling to pay upkeep on the protection they gained. But they were the ones to bother the crown when they started the whole war many leaders were refusing to pay their share of costs for in 1755. And the way the Boston Tea Party was, contrary to the propaganda, an act carried out by Boston's smugglers in response to a significant tax cut. (Largely because the tax cut would have put the smugglers out of business). And their purpose was to destroy the tea carried by the East India Company so they gained a temporary monopoly of tea.

But it wasn't just the Townshend Acts (of which I'd argue that the only genuinely cruel one was the New York Restraining Act) and the Intolerable Acts that prompted the Americans to revolt. Other causes included the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the Colonials not wanting to be restricted in their expansion and instead wishing to conquer and colonise from sea to shining sea. And Somerset v Stewart being settled in 1772 and clarifying that slavery was not and had not been legal on English soil for centuries and inspiring the rising tide of abolitionism in England. The irony of the slaveowner-led rebellion crying "no taxation without representation" otherwise appealing on the grounds of the liberty to own people as property is intense. And then writing the three fifths compromise into the Constitution? If it wasn't for George Washington having stepped down (thereby starting a tradition of orderly transitions of power) I'd have a hard time not seeing this as an outright bad guys victory.

If you want to know whether the revolutionaries were being reasonable focusing only on one narrow aspect or for that matter focusing only on the acts of the other side doesn't cut it. For that matter if you want to know whether King George was being reasonable you need to look at the information he was receiving.

Of course any discussions about the American Revolution are limited without putting it into the context of who was funding it. The French, who literally bankrupted themselves trying to stir up enough support to run an additional theatre of war against Britain as part of a world war that took place across multiple continents.

Oh, and a reenactment of the actual Paul Revere's ride or Longfellow's poetry based loosely on it?

 

[orangefruitbat]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I was meaning a "new" Western RPG. One created in the current environment, not one created with 1970s sensibilities (or lack thereof).

I don't think the current times have quelled the appetite for Western RPGs, although the zeitgeist certainly affects the presentation of materials.

For example, Deadlands: Weird West came out in 2021. While older versions date back to the 90s, DL:WW featured substantial changes to the setting (now with 100% less post-Civil War Confederacy). Down Darker Trails, which hews much closer to real-life history than DL came out in 2018 (basically our world, plus Cthulhu), and was an ENnie-award winner.

 

[CleverNickName]

It does sound like they are taking the right approach to the history. Or at least trying to do so.

From their Mission Statement page:

Anyone can start a war; it takes a hero to end one.​

Our mission at Flagbearer games is to explore civics-based education from an inclusive and welcoming standpoint. Using a cast of historical, well-researched characters, our goal is to highlight the contributions of the women, people of color, and indigenous Americans that are often left out of the narrative of the American Revolution.

We believe that games like this one can be used to teach history through immersive learning experiences, including not only roleplaying with games such as these, but building characters and organizing campaigns. We are working to accurately portray 18th century events and concepts from the perspective of the many different individuals who were living through them, and allowing players to take on this perspective through roleplay. This includes a focus on pivotal topics from the period such as colonialism, Manifest Destiny, the legacy of enslavement, and the meaning of “All men are created equal.”

Our goal is to explore these topics through the lens of history while taking care to preserve player agency throughout. However, it is important to remember that many people did not have the same agency during this time period. Some of the material present in Nations & Cannons involves historic injustices and systems that were, and in some cases still are, used to justify and perpetrate systemic violence. It is first and foremost important to us that living players around the table are not able to harm each other while playing. Thus, many of these systems of injustice are not built mechanically into our setting. However, we must not pretend that these atrocities never happened, nor imply that their effects are not still relevant today. We have developed this game with the help of a sensitivity reader in order to present these topics with the care they require, and will continue to consult with sensitivity readers as we develop our historical content.

We encourage the use of safety tools when running Nations & Cannons games. Flagbearer Games uses a variety of tools, including the Lines and Veils system (first appeared in Ron Edwards' Sex and Sorcery supplement for RPG Sorcerer, described here), when running games ourselves. We are also committed to listening to what our players need in order to have a safe gaming experience with difficult material, without whitewashing history.

[Link]

 

[Umbran]

And you're oversimplifying and putting only one side of the story yourself and I'm afraid I'm not going to let the incredibly incomplete picture you paint stand.

Sure, we can have that discussion.

Starting with pointing out that the taxes were wanted to pay for the defence of the American settlements in what was literally a world war, kicked off by those self-same colonists

This view requires that French and British Territorial Governors, who ordered the actions that led to the war, be primarily considered "colonists" instead of primarily viewed as agents of their respective crowns. I reject that characterization.

The colonists themselves were not under significant threat, and did not need protection - the French were not invading, so claiming that this was about protecting the colonies is a weak assertion. The French and Indian War was primarily a conflict between France and England over who controlled what territory in North America, and who had what relationship with the Native Americans in those territories. That war was carried out by the militaries and proxies of France and England.

That this expanded into the Seven Years War between European powers was a choice made by governments in which the colonists, again, had no representation or input. France and England had beef and territorial desires - that was hardly the colonists' fault.

...and in which they didn't even provide all the defence of their own lands or

Again, their own lands were not under significant threat that they needed defense. The war started, effectively, over fur traders going into the Ohio Territory. While Britain claimed that territory, as a practical matter it was not significantly settled by colonists at the time, nor was there effective colonial governance over the area, whose primary inhabitants were Native Americans that didn't recognize colonial rule.

 

[MGibster]

The colonists themselves were not under significant threat, and did not need protection - the French were not invading, so claiming that this was about protecting the colonies is a weak assertion. The French and Indian War was primarily a conflict between France and England over who controlled what territory in North America, and who had what relationship with the Native Americans in those territories. That war was carried out by the militaries and proxies of France and England.

Mullet Eagle agrees. The French/Indian War was about two European powers trying to establish dominance in North America. Great Britain wanted to be an imperial power and this is just the cost of business. And if Great Britain wanted the colonies to pay taxes, perhaps they should have let the colonist participate in government?

Mullet Eagle, Professor Emeritus American History, University of Freedom