Making It Interesting

My reading on Rhodesia is kind of in conflict with what I want to do.

I want to make a gaming scenario.

I want the players to be vested in their characters and the situation.

Unfortunately that basically requires that they read up on Rhodesia and know something about the situation.  This is something players are loath to do.

I've experienced it before.

My military based rpg scenarios are popular with the players, and they ask for more.  But they cannot be troubled to do anything away from the table, wasting everyone's time.

"WW2 is cool!  Run that Thag!"  What do you know about World War Two?  "We've all seen "Saving Private Ryan!"

"Enemy At The Gates was neat, do something in Stalingrad!"  OK.  "This sucks, why can't we have any of the cool stuff?"  Didn't read the handout, did you?

I will admit to forcing the players into SEALs in Vietnam.  Those same players did better with a 1969 re-imagining of "Tears of the Sun".  Especially since the scenario from Tears of the Sun fits better during the Biafra/Nigerian Civil War.

Twilight 2000 often ran better because there wasn't much history to learn when I ran it heavily in the 90's.  If I were to run it today I'd have to explain to the younger players what that whole Cold War thing was and how this ancient future history has become an alt.

If the players don't do their homework, too much time is spent overriding their actions where they go off and do things someone FROM the world wouldn't do.

The no research player is not quite as bad as the too much research player.  Almost by definition an RPG scenario has to be an idealized hollywoodesque version to make it playable.  Additionally, most of the time I am running alternate histories or even weird histories where things like magic exist.  Demons pouring through the rift near a concentration camp will definitely change the course of history and make some of the cultural norms shift a standard deviation or two.

Occasionally the too much research leads to accurate but inappropriate actions on the character's part.  And sometimes this even works out!  One memorable event along these lines was a player whose 2nd lieutenant joined the established group and gave everyone a stern lecture on weapons maintenance, including generous use of oily lubricants; in North Africa.  Wrong lecture, since we'd already played the problem of steadily worsening malf numbers and learned that you used a dry lube like graphite.  The players did well here.  Every third word was "sir" and they gave an excellent explanation why they weren't going to do what Lootenant Butterbar demanded.  Eric, if I didn't give you ten eeps for your accidental portrayal of a green LT, I should have.

So what I need is for the players to know enough about Rhodesia that I don't have to hand hold them through their character creation and actions.  Whites will have a culturally ingrained attitude about blacks, or a damn good explanation about how they didn't acquire it.  Nobody born in Rhodesia will feel that what they are doing to defend it from ZANLA or ZIRPA is wrong; even the blacks!  Learning the cultural norms requires the players learn on their own or they'll get MY prejudices applied to them.

Readers who may play in the this scenario, take heed.