"will you stay or will you go?" Topic

A possible reaction test for a slave approached by raiders who offer freedom. Roll a d6:

1. You identify strongly with Master and will loyally fight for him

2. You will obey Master but not take any risks for him.

3. You are immobilized by fear, confusion, ignorance, or apathy; you will hide, or flee, or just stand there.

4. or 5. Freedom sounds too good to be true, and you don't trust these guys, but you will go with them until something scary happens, when you will revert to #3.

6. You hate Master, hate your condition, and will enthusiastically join the raiders.

Modifiers:

-1 you are old, feeble, or a mother with young children

-1 you are a house or body servant (i.e. a relatively privileged position)

Comments? For slaves in a particularly privileged or close relationship with the master -- the butler, say, or a body servant who grew up with young master in a classic feudal situation -- maybe another -1? or even exemption from the test and an automatic 1? And a scenario might well include a Nat Turner type who is automatic 6. But for most people roll on the table. For convenience, could roll for a family group as a single unit.

Can we think of other factors that might affect the die roll? Charisma of the raider promising freedom, or of Master, might apply. Is the plantation run like a family, or an impersonal workplace, or a concentration camp? (-1, 0, +2 perhaps)

I'm envisioning a game in which 20 or 30 raiders off a privateer (on the river that is one side of the table) penetrate onto a large plantation with a big house and a bunch of slaves quarters, maybe an overseer's house, and maybe a couple of white small farmers on the outskirts. Not many defenders at first, but militia will respond at some point after the alarm is given. Lots of slaves (as many as I have figures for, which is a couple of dozen) whose reactions will be crucial and unknown to either side until each is confronted with or offered the choice.

It's a trap. They are just going to sell you down the river

Gozerius, yes, a real concern, and sadly what happened too often,

As a matter of game design, could use a d10 or d12 and weight the reactions differently. I suspect that #3 freeze or hide or run would be more often what happened, and might be weighted accordingly.

or roll 2d6, with the FREEZE option at rolls of 6, 7, and 8.

I'd consider an overall result per plantation, not known in advance to either side--and then a roll for exceptions. Such as they are, the slave quarters are a community, and the only one they have. There would be a tendency to stick together.

+1 if the raiders include former slaves. Raise to +2 if the former slave is someone known and trusted in the slave quarters.

Might take a look at Barbara Hambly's "Benjamin January" novels. Escape is often a background theme and one involves an uprising and the different responses of different plantations. Hambly's a good trained historian and she's been working this for decades now.

robert, thanks, I shall take a look at Hamblys work.

I agree about the community, and might do a BIG map (my largest table is 5' by 12') with several plantations which would indeed be of various character.

Iirc Harriet Tubman encountered resistance from some slaves and indeed carried her revolver for that reason.

And John Brown's raiders were certainly not overwhelmed by slave enthusiasm -- they could see it was folly, I suppose.

This whole thing seems like a marvelous excuse for a nice Bolt Action game.

Maybe flip 1 and 2.

That way fanatical devotion is random even with modifiers.

I agree that hiding or fleeing is the most likely (and probably wisest) outcome.

Am I the only person thinking this seems… wrong? Take the distributions and descriptions. Only one in six hate 'Master' (capitalised? Really?)? The same number as love them? And thats for plantation slaves – house slaves will never hate their owners.
To me, the whole thing smacks of white saviour syndrome: the slaves are just pawns for both sides.

Can you suggest a different weighting of what docmb suggested? Never heard of white saviour syndrome---do you mean the whole US Civil War, where mostly white men died to free enslaved black men and women?

As I indicated, using different dice (a d10, or 2d6) gives a wider range of alternatives and allows different weighting. If someone (Advocate) wants something different, well, it is your game, so just change it to suit.

Or, you know, pick another fight.

What advocate said. Of course everyone else will pile on him without sanction, but that's what you get for going against the consensus views.

If we used 2d6, then the fight with Master might be 1-3, the obey but dont take risks 4 and 5, the freeze or run 6, 7, 8 (so heavily weighted to that), the runaway but dont fight be 9 and 10, and the join the raiders be 11 and 12+.

I want to do a series of games, from 1776 through 1781, and several factors will vary from year to year. The slaves may be more prone to escape in 1776 than in later years. The militia will be more poorly armed as the war progresses. And the question of early warning (from lookouts posted on the rivers) becomes more significant. There's also the Va State Navy.

Lots of variables for a campaign game. And of course if a slave does join the raiders, that same individual, on a later raid, would indeed influence others to escape.

Btw, we have John Brown's plan (as recounted by Fred Douglass) to raid the western Va plantations in this way -- the plan he abandoned and went to HF instead.

I was thinking of ancient slaves. (Not that that makes it any better.)

That said. As distasteful as slavery is (including wage slavery imo), this is for a game that tries to simulate something that actually existed.

Douglass speech, 1860: Slaveholders sleep more uneasily than they used to. They are more careful to know that the doors are locked than they formerly were. They are more careful to know that their bowie-knives are sharp; they are more careful to know that their pistols are loaded. This element will play its part in the abolition of slavery. I know that all hope of a general insurrection is vain. We do not need a general insurrection to bring about this result. We only need the fact to be known in the Southern States generally, that there is liberty in yonder mountains, planted by John Brown. (Cheers.) The slaveholders have but to know, and they do now know, but will be made to know it even more certainly before long- that from the Alleghanies, from the State of Pennsylvania, there is a vast broken country extending clear down into the heart of Alabama–mountains where there are rocks, and ravines, and fastnesses, dens and caves, ten thousand Sebastopols piled up by the hand of the living God, where one man for defense will be as good as a hundred for attack. There let them learn that there are men hid in those fastnesses, who will sally out upon them and conduct their slaves from the chains and fetters in which they are now bound, to breathe the free air of liberty upon those mountains. Let, I say, only a thousand men be scattered in those hills, and slavery is dead. It cannot live in the presence of such a danger. Such a state of things would put an end to planting cotton; it would put an end not only to planting cotton, but to planting anything in that region.

This is what FD WANTED JB to do, instead of raiding HF.

And as far as I know, nobody makes a John Brown figure based on the marvelous mural in the Kanas capitol.

Years ago, when Splintered light did its 15mm Robin Hood line, I did a scenario based on the SONG OF BLADES AND HEROES system (still excellent skirmish rules) of Robin and a few followers raiding a village while the tax collectors and Sheriff's men are there. I had a variation of this table to determine how villagers behaved. It gave Maid Marion something to do, trying to influence them to run and join Robin in the forest.

To Advocate and Wicked: if a good many slaves had been burning for freedom to the point of violent resistance, surely that would have shown up during 1861-65. Most white men were away with the army, and there was the prospect of help from northern troops, and after Emancipation the guarantee of legal support. (Remember that the Underground railroad had to go all the way to Canada because of the Fugitive Slave Act.) Sometimes the best evidence is what did NOT happen.

Of course the slaves welcomed freedom when it arrived, and no doubt many yearned for it throughout their lives; that is expressed powerfully in the spirituals. But there were very few Robert Smalls.

Just an unappealing topic for a scenario for me. I'll stick to the fighting between the uniformed armies. There's more than enough material there to keep me busy for the rest of my days.

Blackhorse, yes, matters are much simpler when each side IS its own side. Unfortunately at least two of our (American) conflicts were civil wars in which individuals had to decide for themselves. And gaming such is as messy as the reality.

doc,

Agreed, but seeing as I "wargame" for fun, I steer clear of such topics. Accordingly, I won't ever be "wargaming" a scenario involving, for instance, the 1960's Civil Rights marches, the 2020 "Summer of Love" or the Law Enforcement hunt for Ted Bundy, which I imagine could all be turned into a "game".

I leave all the moral quandaries at the door on wargaming day. Lord knows there's enough requirement to grapple with them during the rest of the week. Just a simple contest of strategy and tactics between historical military forces is sufficient for me. Like sports for many, wargaming for me is a simple, pleasant distraction from reality for a few hours.

And just for the record, this is not a criticism aimed at anyone who holds a contrary view. Just my two cents.

This OP cunningly presents political talking points as a game-related question.

Really, OC? Then why don't you explain how and why Tubman came to carry her gun? She's one of my heroes, because it was NOT an easy task to persuade slaves that they were better off running. And some tried to stop her.

Or explain the absence of slave revolts during the Civil War, which is maybe the only time they could have succeeded.

But please, don't do drive-by comments.

from the Tubman wiki:

She carried a revolver as protection from slave catchers and their dogs. Tubman also threatened to shoot anyone who tried to turn back since that would risk the safety of the remaining group, as well as anyone who helped them on the way.[88][89] Tubman spoke of one man who insisted he was going to go back to the plantation. She pointed the gun at his head and said, "Go on or die."[90] Several days later, the man who wavered crossed into Canada with the rest of the group.[85]

Jean Jaques Rousseau was a brilliant thinker, and often brilliantly WRONG. But he was on to something when he stated, in THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, that "men must be forced to be free." Moses would agree with that.

"Most white men were away with the army, and there was the prospect of help from northern troops, and after Emancipation the guarantee of legal support."

Overseers were exempted from the draft. There were planned slave revolts but were discovered before they took place with terrible repercussions. Most slaves kept quiet, waiting until the Union Army was nearby to make their escape.

The CSA was more fearful of slave revolts than they were of the Union Army. Another Santo Domingo is what they feared. The Federal government played into those fears by arming black soldiers.

OC, yes. So, HOW and WHY were slave revolts detected? Would that be because some among the slave population ratted them out?

So what "political talking points" do you think I have "cunningly" presented?

We are about to attempt a game. Players are away, communicating by email. Only I can see the table.

This is the raiders' briefing, in part:
(Caesar is a former slave who escaped this plantation a year ago,)

One of the Ethiopians is Caesar, who escaped from the Allgood Plantation. You are wary of trusting him, but he is your only source of information.

REFEREE NOTE: what follows is MOSTLY accurate, but there are minor errors and at least one large one.

About twenty or thirty people live on the plantation. About half are slaves. The slave men mostly work as lumberjacks, clearing woods for tobacco and providing raw material for the cooper.

A keg of tobacco would be worth a lot. But there are many empty kegs.

There are pigs, not sure where the pen is,

Someone on or near the plantation is a gunsmith.

There is a lot of silver plate and crosses and such in the church.

The butler's name is Pompey. He is devoted to the master, and Caesar hates him.

There are a good many dogs; almost every house has one.

There are TWO paths up from the river. One ends near the big house, the other near the slave quarters. You can take both if you wish to divide your force, but Caesar cannot be two places at once.

Caesar cautions that once a dog starts barking, ALL the dogs may take it up. At that point stealth is impossible and speed becomes the key thing.

The raiders will have about 24 men, 2/3 Ethiopians and 1/3 sailors. They will substantially outnumber the plantation's inhabitants, but once the alarm is given local militia will begin to arrive.

The raiders' first big choice will be whether to raid in daylight or darkness.

The plantation people do not know they are coming, but the local militia has SOPs for raids -- which that player is now writing.

If the raid is in daylight, the raiders will be able to select objectives and move to them before the defense gets organized. However, defenders will be able to fire on the raiding party. If at night, there will be lots of confusion on both sides.

I find this in bad taste.

dapaters, explain why. Do we study only pleasant topics in history?

We have an Osprey prominently featuring a member of this very unusual unit. We have at least two manufacturers (Perry and Brigade) making excellent castings of them. It is, perhaps, an under-studied aspect of our Revolution, and certainly filled wit ironies and complexities and moral dilemmas.

So do you want us to ignore it? I suspect not. HOW, then, would YOU play a game of this topic?

I have no idea whether or not anyone has done an RPG built around the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, but when they do, how will it handle the range of attitudes and reactions that ANY group of people have to drastic changes in their situation -- and accompanying risk?

Or just, you know, hold your nose and go read some other thread.

The raiders' plan is to infiltrate after dark. They will send Caesar and a small party of mixed sailors and Ethiopians, well armed, to the slave quarters (good move, in the referee's mind, as that is the only time the slaves are (mostly) all together in one place) to try to persuade a mass escape.

Meanwhile the larger body will go to the big house, partly with the idea of interfering with any plan of resistance, and also to reach out to the house servants.

We shall see.

The dog on the front porch of the big house has alerted the other dogs, and everyone on the plantation is waking up. The smaller party, led by Caesar, is almost to the slave quarters; the larger party is just outside the big house. The raiders have one move before the plantation people get their pants on.

The raiders' plan was a good one, but an alert was inevitable given the dogs. What the raiders do next is likely to determine success and the flow of the game.

IF the raiders can keep the plantation's leadership penned inside the big house, and IF they can persuade the slaves to escape, the raid will be quite successful.

The raiders' rush for the front door encounters Thor the hound, who gets a series of good rolls versus bad rolls and dodges bayonets and pikes and savages one raider and knocks down another. (Remember it is DARK.) A voice from inside recalls Thor to the porch, growling. The raiders and the defenders are now deciding on next moves.

Meanwhile the negotiations at the slave quarters are underway.

The first raid ended with four slaves (a married couple plus a young man and a young woman) leaving with the raiders. The only casualties were two raiders with dog bites, who will recover. The only effective plantation defense was the dog. The raiders had surprise and a massive advantage in combat power but the dark unknown intimidated them and they withdrew when there were substantial advantages still to be gained.

The next game will be on a larger table, with three plantations, set in 1780, with militia outposts but also a shortage of weapons for the militia. Two sets of raiders, coming from opposite directions (as the tidewater was typically between two parallel rivers). The slaves will be less inclined to go willingly, as many will fear a new enslavement in the West Indies. (British privateers regarded slaves as the best loot, self-mobile and bringing a good price in the Caribbean.)

I have to paint more militia cavalry and more privateers, who will include the ex-Ethiopians. Time to pull out some pirates!

This is not only in bad taste, it is absolutely offensive.

Hmmm not my cup of tea!
But would there be the same reaction if this was a naval action involving HMS Black Joke* and the west Africa squadron engaging slave ships to free slaves? If so tell that to 150.000 slaves that were freed by the squadron metporcaly of course.
Let's face it so much of the historical part of our hobby involves the exploits of mass murdering slave owning rapeist bastards. Viking's all of the above,ancient Greeks all of the above, Roman's all the above plus fascist's I could go on.

*Black Joke refers to a whight woman with a very dirty vulva and comes from a song that was popular at the time link

Well, Rev, perhaps you can explain the offense, as I surely do not mean to give any. EXPLAIN, not just tell me how you feel.

I find it extremely racist.

Not just racist but EXTREMELY racist! Why? Do you think a game of trying to liberate slaves is inherently racist? Surely not, as the slaves could as easily be Roman and the raider Spartacus' men.

Or is it that American slavery was racially based? That is a fact, and perhaps makes slavery in the US even more evil than slavery in general. But in that case wouldn't trying to liberate be even more laudable?

Or do you object to the FACT that slaves often declined to participate in attempts at escape or (even more) rebellion? That is a universal HUMAN condition, as the Book of Exodus suggests. (And the fact that the slaves' spirituals so often evoked Moses MAY have influenced them to be more prone to endure than to resist?)

We KNOW that Harriet Tubman was armed not only against slave masters, but also because she had directly experienced resistance to liberation from even her own family. Would a game of Tubman, or black agents of a John Brown fighting a guerilla campaign from the mountains (as he originally proposed doing) be racist? WHY? And if it included the possibility -- the LIKELIHOOD -- that some among the slaves might decline to go, or even resist, or even betray the liberators. is THAT "racist"? If you think so, explain.

You use that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Rev Zoom +1

WHY, OC? EXPLAIN.

Btw, I HAVE read some of Barbara Hambly's fantasy. Judging by her photo at Amazon she is white. And has written a dozen or more novels of "Benjamin January", a free man of color in antebellum New Orleans. Judging by the book reviews and descriptions her hero encounters frustration and resistance from within the black community? I shall read some looking for scenarios.

How about a game of Robert Small's escape form Charleston? Would THAT be racist? Why or why not, in comparison to a Tubman game? in comparison to my game?

Come on, guys, I'm not getting any ANALYSIS or LOGIC, just a bad word.

Just for the record, I consider racism to be a very bad thing, and racist behavior to be reprehensible. If I AM engaged in it, and am persuaded of that, I will certainly repent and change. But a reasoned argument is necessary.

"You use that word but I do not think it means what you think it means."

Disparage me all you like. I find it racist and I do not need to explain myself to you, regardless of your demand. But just for a moment consider the political and racial climate of our country over the last couple years. A subject such as yours cannot help but inflame the passions of others.

That is the extent of what I have to say on this. Do as you will, I am done with topic and you.

So much for rational discussion.

Last I checked
Racism ment discrimination, physical or verbal abuse based on the belief that ones race is superior to the race of the victim.

Something like that who knows what it mean's now since it has so universaly misused without challenge or correction.

I think I may have broached the subject without being political.

While I don't think this is a racist game i feel tempted to play devils advocate.
I think the lack of engagement speaks volumes.
However it could be that they don't wish to break the forum rules involving political dilog(unless your on the modern boards where its okay)