I just want to make sure this is properly highlighted:

in what ways are civilizations barbarous, and in what ways are barbarity civilized?

That's not only the fundamental theme of Conan, but, when you remove the tawdry baggage, is a really interesting theme.

I think that the naked slave girl is perfect for her place in the list, because of the figure of power that a naked slave girl is. Look at the other items on the treasure list: how many of them, for instance, can you really own? How many of them instead command your respect, or your wariness, or even come to own you? Even if you treat her without humanity, she's “treasure” to be reckoned with.

I don't know how On Mighty Thews treats characters, but my guess is that, if you're using this in D&D, where it's most likely to be used in this brochurely form, it will be technically difficult to make her a character, a person. Were I to make a game about slaves, and I've always wanted to, I'd have some basic stuff that all characters needed, slave or otherwise: family, possessions, objectives, friends and allies. Without those things, she's an object of desire (she is, after all, Treasure) to be stolen by and/or from the PCs, or a quivering victim, or whatever. Without pre-designing her humanity, character sheet and all, she's nothing more than a probably spontaneously derived number of hit points designed to evoke sympathy.

Remember why players don't take sidekicks in D&D or GURPS (where they're a Disadvantage): they are a point of vulnerability for the PCs.

I think that you're obviously poking some fun with the "racist stereotype" thing. You're calling it out. I'm assuming that people are going to look at that and say, "Oh. Um. Maybe I'll do something else." Of course they're the one element you'd never choose to use. It's commentary as easter egg.

Are you rehabilitating the Skraelings by making them elves, or what? If so, how come you aren't also rehabilitating the Khitani, the Kushites, the Picts, the Shemites, the Stygians…?

I don't remember most of these people (other than the Stygians), so I don't have any attachment to their presence or absence, but I have to point out that Simon's already pushing up pretty hard against his margins. If these are important, other stuff is going to have to go, and this list is pretty darn cool.

On the other hand, if those other folks are as atrociously rendered as the Stygians, it might be worth it to consider how they fit into this.

We're thinking of the same thing when we think of Skraelings, right?

These guys?

I was thinking "It would be cool if instead of elves you had members of a vast and foreign culture, barely understood by regular folk, who have wildly different technology and association with their land."

Or something like that.

It's kind of skirting on something I'm a little uncomfortable with though. I think it'd be weird to write "Native Americans" instead, even though it's essentially the same thing. Maybe something about how "Skraelings" is about the Viking's perception of native Americans, while just writing "Native Americans" is something about who native americans really are?

Also, Vincent, your opinion of naked slave girls is only slightly nutso. I agree with you like, 70%. Here's my caveat: It's really problematic to have women and sexuality, and especially women's power and sexual power constantly conflated.

Leech-women. Yeah. Wow. I guess that I wrote that hoping that someone would use them, and then all the weird implications and such would just reveal themselves in play.

I think basically my goal with this thing was to make sure that people who wanted to use this pamphlet to recreate the more troubling parts of the genre didn't get an easy ride. I don't know how successful I've been. Counterculture always seems to eventually end up supporting the status quo, and people's ability to see their own prejudices reflected in the material they read is pretty powerful.

Basically I'm like "yup".

Like I think I said earlier in this thread, the original entry for the "racist caricatures" was just "black people", which I think is more effective in evoking what's problematic while inviting people to deal with those problems in their own games, maybe? I guess I chickened out on that one though, because I don't want people to think I'm seriously suggesting that black people would make a great substitute for orcs, unexamined, in your game.

I think sometimes you've gotta be sensitive to how people are going to read your stuff. My intent isn't as important as what the reader takes away from it, and I guess I didn't want to take that risk.

A friend once said to me that if he's not feeling uncomfortable and slightly offended, then he figures he's not challenging his assumtions enough. I think that's smart.

Fire away!

Those are good thoughts! You're dead right about the animal people.

I will think about how to incorporate these into the document. It might be challenging, but I think it will ultimately improve it.

I still think the ad needs to be clearer about "On Mighty Thews" being a complete game that's distinct from this pamphlet. Maybe you could change the "available now" to something that indicates that, along the lines of "Get the full game at".

Maybe a minor point, but your opening text promises a two-column format, but one of the first pages the reader will see on opening the pamphlet (if I understand the fold pattern properly) is the "Names for People" page, which is a one-column page. Have you considered swapping the order of the "Names for People" page with the ad? (putting the ad inside might also help with the "this looks like a cover" thing).

Right now your name is kind of hidden in the credits box. Both from a branding POV and in terms of building a personal connection with your customers that seems like a mistake to me. Should your name at least be in the ad somewhere?