Imperial Settlers: Empire State of Mind

[conrad503]

While I appreciate the creativity and strategy that go into many board games, I find myself troubled by the tone and framing of this one. The language of “discovering new lands,” “expanding empire,” and “crushing everyone” evokes the history—and ongoing reality—of settler colonialism and violence against Indigenous peoples.

Even when presented playfully, these narratives can unintentionally normalize or trivialize the suffering and displacement that empire-building has caused and continues to cause, from the Americas to Israel's genocide in Gaza today. I believe our hobby can be both imaginative and responsible—celebrating clever design while remaining sensitive to the stories we tell and the histories we echo.

I don’t mean this as an attack on the designer or publisher, but as an invitation for reflection about the messages we celebrate in our gaming culture, and how we might reimagine such themes in ways that acknowledge or subvert those harmful legacies.

This is a joke post, right?

[conrad503]

While I appreciate the creativity and strategy that go into many board games, I find myself troubled by the tone and framing of this one. The language of “discovering new lands,” “expanding empire,” and “crushing everyone” evokes the history—and ongoing reality—of settler colonialism and violence against Indigenous peoples.

Even when presented playfully, these narratives can unintentionally normalize or trivialize the suffering and displacement that empire-building has caused and continues to cause, from the Americas to Israel's genocide in Gaza today. I believe our hobby can be both imaginative and responsible—celebrating clever design while remaining sensitive to the stories we tell and the histories we echo.

I don’t mean this as an attack on the designer or publisher, but as an invitation for reflection about the messages we celebrate in our gaming culture, and how we might reimagine such themes in ways that acknowledge or subvert those harmful legacies.

Agreed- this is gross and honestly seeing it on the BGA homepage makes me want to cancel my subscription.

It's bad enough that the colonial mindset is almost everywhere in boardgames (as Yaiir and JohnnyCyclops mentioned) - from Puerto Rico to the settlers of Catan, to the galactic colonization projects of Race for the Galaxy or The Crew. But the presentation of this game really takes it a step further, not just placing the player in a colonial role but explicitly glorifying the imperial project. There is real, deep violence not only in the project of sending colonial soldiers to peaceful lands, not only in defining all "others" as "enemies" because "the land is too small" (and you only think it's small because of all your mining and plantations to extract "precious resources"), but especially in universalizing the impulse of imperial expansion. Who are the "barbarians" that are trying to build an empire??? The native peoples of lands colonized by Europeans (or the Egyptians, for that matter) did not have the same imperial desires as the Ancient Romans or feudal, early modern Japan (or modern, industrial Japan). Acting like everyone is just naturally a ravenous conqueror is a way of granting innocence to people who historically and currently assault diverse lands and cultures. The insult added to injury is the cartoon lettering and jolly colonist superimposed on a bucolic colonial town, erasing the people and ecosystems that have been and continue to be attacked by colonialism today. Like I said, gross.

yada yada yada Nice to see that someone found a use for all the jargon they learned to regurgitate and repeatedly parrot in one essay after another, perhaps while earning an otherwise worthless sociology degree.

[Sosolagagne]

*moderators have removed the post for aggression

[MasterMystery]

instead of focusing on the core about the game, people complain about wordings of an already published game its not like new.


anyhow, i am rather surprised that it left beta with still bugs and missing rules parts, though i had done my best to play a lot to find them

[Castanova]

Let's consider banning Chess, as well, since it glorifies strategic warfare.

[Trogodo]

Let's consider banning Chess, as well, since it glorifies strategic warfare.

Great answer!

[Trogodo]

For those who find the themes of this game challenging or offensive, I offer a simple recommendation: instead of attempting to lobby the BGA platform to remove it—based on anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, or historical grievances—I urge you to simply choose not to play it.

Personally, I believe this is a fun and engaging game. The effort KuWizard has put into adapting it, and Portal Games’ collaboration with BGA to bring this experience to us, is highly commendable. We should celebrate the hard work of developers and publishers who expand our options.

I understand the desire to pursue a morally virtuous position by imposing a lofty view of history and reality. However, reality is complex enough that these small moments of playing with others around the world should be seen as opportunities for connection, not conflict.

My experience has been the opposite of what some critics fear. Through playing games like these on BGA (and even historical wargames, which some might consider the epitome of bad taste), I’ve met people from other countries and have had genuinely interesting conversations about their life experiences, national histories, and perspectives—often vastly different from what I was taught in school.

The purpose of these games isn't to glorify history; it's to provide an engaging and abstracted experience. They can, inadvertently, become icebreakers for real-world dialogue, indeed.

My greatest concern is the precedent set by demanding the suppression or censorship of content—whether it's a game, a book, or a film—simply because its themes do not align with current prevailing political or social ideologies.

Suppressing creative works based on contemporary ideological litmus tests is unhealthy for any platform and for the community as a whole. It stifles the diversity of games available and risks creating an environment where developers must self-censor.

I would deeply regret it if BGA were to cease producing or developing this or any other game because some individuals might be offended by the subject matter, the language used, or even the nationality of their fellow players. Freedom of choice and the diversity of expression are values worth protecting in our global gaming community.

[Josiah Taylor]

While I appreciate the creativity and strategy that go into many board games, I find myself troubled by the tone and framing of this one. The language of “discovering new lands,” “expanding empire,” and “crushing everyone” evokes the history—and ongoing reality—of settler colonialism and violence against Indigenous peoples.

Even when presented playfully, these narratives can unintentionally normalize or trivialize the suffering and displacement that empire-building has caused and continues to cause, from the Americas to Israel's genocide in Gaza today. I believe our hobby can be both imaginative and responsible—celebrating clever design while remaining sensitive to the stories we tell and the histories we echo.

I don’t mean this as an attack on the designer or publisher, but as an invitation for reflection about the messages we celebrate in our gaming culture, and how we might reimagine such themes in ways that acknowledge or subvert those harmful legacies.

I am ready *!
*.

*moderator removed comment for being inappropriate.

[yfimc]

For those who find the themes of this game challenging or offensive, I offer a simple recommendation: instead of attempting to lobby the BGA platform to remove it—based on anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, or historical grievances—I urge you to simply choose not to play it.

Personally, I believe this is a fun and engaging game. The effort KuWizard has put into adapting it, and Portal Games’ collaboration with BGA to bring this experience to us, is highly commendable. We should celebrate the hard work of developers and publishers who expand our options.

I understand the desire to pursue a morally virtuous position by imposing a lofty view of history and reality. However, reality is complex enough that these small moments of playing with others around the world should be seen as opportunities for connection, not conflict.

My experience has been the opposite of what some critics fear. Through playing games like these on BGA (and even historical wargames, which some might consider the epitome of bad taste), I’ve met people from other countries and have had genuinely interesting conversations about their life experiences, national histories, and perspectives—often vastly different from what I was taught in school.

The purpose of these games isn't to glorify history; it's to provide an engaging and abstracted experience. They can, inadvertently, become icebreakers for real-world dialogue, indeed.

My greatest concern is the precedent set by demanding the suppression or censorship of content—whether it's a game, a book, or a film—simply because its themes do not align with current prevailing political or social ideologies.

Suppressing creative works based on contemporary ideological litmus tests is unhealthy for any platform and for the community as a whole. It stifles the diversity of games available and risks creating an environment where developers must self-censor.

I would deeply regret it if BGA were to cease producing or developing this or any other game because some individuals might be offended by the subject matter, the language used, or even the nationality of their fellow players. Freedom of choice and the diversity of expression are values worth protecting in our global gaming community.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate you engaging on the substance of the issue. I'd like to respond to a few of your points, because I think we might be talking past each other on some key issues, and the official announcement for Imperial Settlers: Empire State of Mind provides a useful example.

You write: "For those who find the themes of this game challenging or offensive, I offer a simple recommendation: instead of attempting to lobby the BGA platform to remove it... I urge you to simply choose not to play it."

This is a crucial point of divergence. My critique, and that of others, was not primarily about the existence of the game on BGA, nor was it a call for its removal (though others are free to express that view). The critique was about the tone and framing set by BGA itself. Let's look at the official announcement:
It begins with settlers "venturing to newly discovered lands." The history of "discovery" is one of erasure. Lands are "discovered" only from the perspective of the colonizer; for the people already there, it was an invasion.
It cheerfully states the settlers will "build barracks and training grounds to train soldiers" because the land is "far too small for everybody." The solution? "And then the battle begins..."
It concludes by joking that the objective is "crush everyone and rule the world! Scratch that sorry… to score victory points."

This isn't a neutral description of mechanics. This is a celebratory narrative of settler-colonialism: arrive on "discovered" land, militarize because coexistence is framed as impossible, and battle for dominance. The "scratch that" joke acknowledges the uncomfortable truth even as it tries to laugh it off.

The issue isn't personal choice not to play; it's about the public environment this language creates. When the platform's official communication frames this narrative as a fun adventure, it normalizes it. It invites the kind of forum comments we saw celebrating "Manifest Destiny." This creates a space that can feel hostile to those for whom this isn't a fun abstraction, but a historical reality of displacement and violence.

You also say: "The purpose of these games isn't to glorify history; it's to provide an engaging and abstracted experience."

This is the core of the disconnect. You are describing the mechanics. Others are responding to the theme and its presentation. The game may be an abstract engine-builder to you, but its title, its faction choices (Barbarians, Egyptians, Japanese, Romans), and the language used to promote it are not abstract. They are loaded with historical and cultural meaning. The problem is the uncritical, adventure-story presentation of a process that, in reality, was catastrophic for countless peoples. Abstraction that erases violence is a form of glorification by omission.

Your personal experience of using such games as an "icebreaker" for meaningful dialogue is commendable. However, that is a privileged position. It presupposes that all parties at the table feel safe and equal in that conversation. For someone whose cultural history is being used as a faction in a game about "crushing everyone," being asked to treat that as a fun, abstract mechanic in a space where the narrative is celebratory can feel less like an icebreaker and more like a reinforcement of historical caricatures.

Finally, you express concern about censorship and ideological litmus tests. I share a concern for censorship. But we must ask: Censorship of whom? The current moderation standard, as stated publicly by a moderator, is: "It is fine to question themes, but please do not use triggering language and examples while doing so." This is, itself, a form of censorship. It censors the historical facts that give the critique its weight, while allowing the celebratory fantasy of the announcement and similar user comments to stand unchallenged. It protects one narrative (that this history can be discussed only as harmless fun) and suppresses another (that it should be acknowledged as violent and traumatic).

My request is not for the suppression of the game, but for more thoughtful platform stewardship. This could mean:

• Announcements that, even in their excitement, avoid framing historical processes of conquest as cheerful adventures of "discovery" and inevitable battle.

• Moderation that understands that glorifying this narrative (e.g., "Manifest destiny is back baby") can create a hostile environment, and applies rules against discriminatory speech consistently.

• Fostering discussions that allow for the full, factual context, not just the sanitized version required by the current moderation note.

This isn't about removing choices. It's about asking BGA to ensure that in providing a diverse library, it doesn't allow its official voice and its forums to normalize a one-sided, celebratory view of historical empire-building. It's about recognizing that for a global community, our shared space should be mindful of the many histories it evokes.

Thank you again for the civil discussion.

[FDHenneberg]

I think that it’s a good thing that newer games with a (in this case: loosely) historic topic do a better job at recognizing that many things that happened weren’t glorious, but rather abominable. I don’t mean things like war in general (so the chess reference didn’t make any sense to me) but viewing history from the standpoint of colonialists, ignoring the standpoint of the oppressed, and the views of modern historians. At the same time, I think it’s too much to ban older games that do not adhere to these standards. You now clarified that your critique wasn’t so much aimed at the game or BGA adapting the game but at BGA (and/or the publisher, so whoever agreed on that text) aggravating the problem through their choice of words. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Edit: I hope we can all agree that there are periods in history which shouldn’t be subject of game, let alone a game where you play someone that is responsible for what happened in that period and place. I’m not going into detail as I guess that is something I’d get moderated for because of triggering examples. All I want to say is that I hope all we differ on is to where to draw the line.