Steal Away Jordan is a role-playing game about slavery. As such, it's received some attention for tackling a serious subject in a medium usually used for lighter entertainment. Many people have a lot to say about that. So I think I should state my views up front.
First of all: I strongly believe that role-playing can handle just about any subject that literature or film can handle. There's nothing in the form itself that limits it to only one genre, or one type of story. I completely support the creation of a role-playing game about slavery.
Second: That doesn't mean I actually think everything can or should be the subject of a commercial role-playing game. Without having specific examples in mind, I think there are places psychological or educational role-playing can go where commercial role-playing can't, or shouldn't. However, with people making tons of money on books and movies about slavery, genocide and war, it would be pointless to say that role-playing publishers shouldn't make money from the same thing.
Third: When dealing with the subject of human suffering in a role-playing game, I think it's important to tread with extra respect, both in presentation and in system design, if you want to avoid creating (or helping to create) distasteful play. This is no easy task, and I'll come back to that later.
Fifth, and perhaps the most controversial: The reception of any cultural product will be influenced by the identity of the creator. In working on my interactive piece on the Holocaust, I have been criticized for doing such a thing while not being Jewish. This game is written by an African-American woman. If you find yourself saying "It doesn't matter who wrote it", would you say the same if it had been written by, say, a white male from a country with no history of slavery? Or by someone who's currently a slave? Or a slave owner? (Me, I'm a white European male from a country with a forgotten history of profiting from the slave trade).
The book
This book is as indie as they come. Copied at something called CopyCat, with layout and design by the writer, this small 47-page book isn't something you'd buy for its production values. The images chosen appear to be in the public domain; they're appropriate, mostly posters or illustrations of the life of slaves. The layout is spartan and amateurish; it's hard to see what chapter you're in, text goes entirely to the edge of boxes, and font choice and use doesn't seem well thought-through. However, it's all entirely readable (none of the all-too-commonly-seen-in-RPGs text on textured backgrounds, for example).
The text is good when describing events, background and setting – which is sparse; players are encouraged to choose their own setting, though a one-page sample setting is provided. Rules, however, are not always presented with the emphasis on major points. I would have liked a more general introduction, saying how the game is meant to be played. As it is, there's no clear scene structure (as far as I've seen), nor does the author specify who says what when – when someone wins a conflict, who narrates what? Who starts scenes (after the first), and how? And, most importantly: What should a good scene contain? During play, we defaulted to the indie/story game standards – the GM frames scenes, pushes hard on relationships, creates dynamic situations; whoever wins a die roll narrates.
At points, the text is unclear. "NPC root doctors start at 1 die experience", for example – the term "experience" hasn't been defined in the text. However, it's easy to understand from the context what is meant, and we were always able to figure things out somehow.
I was surprised to see how much space is given to the supernatural – I hadn't gathered that from the cover or presentation of the game. One of the characters has to be a root doctor, with access to spells, which is a whole separate sub-system. When characters die, they can come back as haints (ghosts) and play on. And the GM is free to use good and evil spirits as NPCs. In play, we aimed for a realistic feel; we used the root doctor, but no haints and spirits. That worked well – it didn't break the mood for us.
The appendixes in the back of the book provide short, concise rules summaries. They proved very useful during play; I recommend copying them and giving one to each player.
The rules
The central conflict rules in Steal Away Jordan work as follows:
* Each character has a Worth measured in dice, based on his/her worth as a slave.
* In major conflicts and bargains, a slave rolls all his/her Worth dice vs the opponent's Worth. Lucky sevens (2+5 or 3+4) count as one success. Ones take away a success. Other dice are re-rolled once. Highest number of successes wins.
* However, much of the game is about building up a pool of Lucky Dice for use in the major conflicts. These dice are mostly gained from minor conflicts and bargains. This means it's a good idea to have several lesser conflicts/bargains before going into a big one.
Now, there are a few important additional points. First of all, the use of the Skull Die – a d6 with a skull instead of the number 1. This die can be used in four situations: When losing a conflict, a player can push his/her luck by rolling; when receiving punishment, a player has to roll; when there's a tie in a major conflict or bargain, both sides have to roll; and players can roll it whenever they want to. In other words, it can come up fairly often. And... if you roll a 1, your character dies. (Or, in a very few instances, is only severely punished). In play, we used this die surprisingly often – I think it was rolled five or six times in two hours of actual play. Nobody died, though.
Second, and my absolutely favorite part of the game: All characters have a set of Tasks they can fulfil, which will increase their Worth – and those tasks are kept secret from the GM until they're fulfilled. Tasks are connected to Motives (feelings and drives), which again are connected to Goals. (In play, there's no mechanical reward for reaching Goals).
Example of goals, motives and tasks:
Goal: Escape
Motive #1: I want to raise a family in peace
Related task: Marry Ginny
Motive #2: This is beneath me
Related task: Kill someone
However, keeping Tasks (and Goals) secret from the GM caused one of our biggest problem when we played: While the rules speficy that the GM controls all NPCs, and it's fairly clear that the game isn't about empowering the players (or their characters), the players ended up creating a secret plot involving the slave owners, where one of the slaves had made the owner's 16-year-old daughter pregnant. When this was revealed halfway into the game, and was tied strongly into the goals of two of the characters, I (the GM) decided to accept the plot, but it didn't feel right for the game: In order to create the sense of the characters' "being owned", I felt it was necessary that the GM have control over the NPC's major actions.
The rules for Root Doctors let them use spells, and sell their spells to other characters (PCs and NPCs). Each spell is represented by a card, drawn from the deck and put face down on the table. In a conflict, after dice are rolled, those who have spells can reveal them, and see if they gain a bonus or penalty to their roll. This is pretty much a 50/50 thing, with some little extra rules (if you draw the Queen of Hearts, you get nothing, but can choose if you want to draw again, for example). It's not entirely clear what advantage is actually gained from using spells, except in desperate circumstances where one can only win by the use of a spell – but this might be intentional.
In general, the author is fond of dice, and of having special rules for special cases. When you roll a tie here, add a die there; when two dice show this, and the third that, do this thing; this die means different things in different circumstances, etc. It makes for a fun and interesting game, where you never know exactly what might happen. I can't see it appealing to tactical players, or those who like tight control over their choices; however, for those who like to roll and see what happens, and don't mind a bit of waiting while all the dice are counted and someone checks a table or rule, it's fine.
This, though, brings me to my major problem with this game, and others of its school. It is a matter of taste, but I feel that in an intense and immersive game, having to count up dice and lucky sevens and checking for special cases can break up the experience it there's too much of it. For many people the game part of role-playing or story games is a main point; for me, it's strictly a means to an end – the emerging story, and how the system helps the players tell that story, is what I play for. In my opinion, there are other traditions of play and design that support such experiences better than the Story Games or Forge traditions.
An observation from play
The power structure of the game works. There are some very well-designed parts of the system that support it. For one, players don't get to decide their characters' names – the slave owner does. Another thing is that when choosing friends and enemies, players aren't allowed to choose the slave owner as their enemy. The major thing, though, is the ability of the slave owners to make slaves do their bidding, and punish them when they don't.
The slaves in our game plotted and lived their lives; some tried to make problems for their enemies, others fought over love, others again tried to console their dying friends. However, at any point, an owner could enter the scene and make demands. "You must be punished". "You must drive me to town". "You must make babies with another slave". This, the hammer coming down, was what made the game work for us. Without it, it could – and would – have ended up as a game of "naughty plotting servants"; now, whenever things were astray, there was a chance that an owner would strike down hard and make it stop.
Make the fun stop.
And in this game, I think you sometimes have to do that.
All in all
Steal Away Jordan, as a product for sale, is unfinished. It needs graphic redesign, external editing and cleaning up. Additional setting material would be helpful. I must say the book leaves me wanting a revised edition
The game as played is fun and interesting with an experienced group that can fill in the blanks where the rules don't tell them what to do. However, it isn't necessarily dark and intense – while the setting, and the power structure reflected in some mechanics, support an atmosphere of disempowerment and suppression, other mechanics – goals, tasks, relationships – give the players a lot to play on right under the masters' noses, and even the chance to rebel.
I believe the game is probably best suited for a short campaign – three to five sessions. As a one-shot it needs tight focus and control from the GM to make it work.
Review Summary