RpgPundit's post about how easy or hard it is to "change history" spun me off to thinking about the forces of history in fantasy gaming. His post is here : ( http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/728143571/item/ ) - The approach Pundit describes got me thinking in this direction since he starts by drawing the comparison with fantasy gaming, because the "balance point" you subscribe to about the weight of history is a middle ground I rarely see in fantasy gaming at all. Fantasy settings sometimes do have a huge historical record, but, rather than history as a force, Destiny is in more currency from my gaming experience. That's almost like a reverse history.

   Destiny or history, usually I see one of two polar approaches - you've got the Grand Epic Campaign model where the PCs adventure along the course of this destiny, with a given PC's name filling in the blank as the obligatory hero (or worse, as having lent a hand to the NPC hero). At its worst it feels like you're playing Final Fantasy and you can pretend as hard as you want, but naming your guy "Scipio" or so on only points out how much the story needs you to be Tidus.

   The other model I know best is where the PCs (thankfully) have agency, but it has the particular weirdness where the high-level D&D fighter can control the world like a Civilization II player by showing up and killing the NPC in charge of the aspect of the world the PC wants to control. Among the player's I've played with for years, this is one of the most common metagame jokes, no one fails to point out how the indisputable agent of temporal power is the natural 20 on the great axe + 3 attack roll.

   There's a personality trait of "frontiersman individualist" that's common in a lot of gamers, especially the players traditional D&D-and-relatives, so maybe that's part of model 2, where personal excellence and self-determination always are going to approach being all-powerful on a given scale, or maybe it's just that enough D&D playing leads you to think of famous historical figures as RPG characters - that fundamentally, the fall of Rome involved Alaric the Visigoth getting boxcars on his great sword damage, taking the Emperor straight to -10 and looting some really choice bronze plate mail. Of course, violent coups do happen all the time - the first elected president of Burundi ended his term of office when guys drove a tank through his wall and stabbed him, a scenario that I have certainly seen at a gaming table. But once the first gaming session starts, death by party of ideologically unrelated mercenary warriors is the #1 method of social change in many fantasy games, where before this watershed event, NPC authority figures regardless of their game statistics usually have come into power through less gladiatorial processes.

   Or, boiled down : Destiny controls PCs vs. PCs control destiny. What is common in both is there's not much sense of the immense power of the total actions of all the people in the world who haven't been written up as NPCs. I don't like to run world-shaker campaigns, but I've played some of them. If we take D&D at an example, the Dark Lord gets killed off at 20th level, retirement time for the PCs. Anybody out there ever played in a game where the "Lord of the Rings" campaign arc ends at about level 8 or 9, in D&D terms and the "Endgame" or stronghold building begins?

   I have played in games where the world's big threat gets killed, and then the party "Graduates" to extraplanar adventures so that they can start fighting demons or cthulhoid creatures as "space orcs," recapitulating the first stage of the game until a more metaphysically conceived "space Sauron" gets killed too, while the world they started off in is assumed to take care of itself on autopilot. I think it would be interesting to bring the world to the brink of its destruction, deal with what natural 20 attack rolls can deal with around "mid level", and as opposed to going cosmic, to turn to less cosmic and use the confidence and durability of that immense personal power to take on the adventures of popes and kings. I loved this aspect of "Companion" Mentzer D&D, but the published adventures pushed it more toward the background as a stepping stone to fighting space Sauron.

   Maybe you would want to switch over to a system that wasn't D&D, but it would be cool to colonize the new world in a fantasy game, or to found a polytheistic campaign world's answer to the Catholic Church. Or to keep it cosmic, instead of going to the Nine Hells and killing Asmodeus, could Hell be colonized? The empire struggles under a brash new king, but could the economy flourish once its armies sacked the vaults of Mammon? If the PC who has become the Patriarch of his own religion understands the layered scope of reality, perhaps it would be crucial to him to convert the souls of the already blessed dead.

   Most games as written run into walls with this because of the immense scaling of combat power - 4E D&D makes it really explicit with the epic level minions and so on, but many fantasy games make armies basically worthless by making the gap between the human and the monstrous gigantic, keeping the model of the adventure really similar at all levels, adding flying and teleportation to the same skirmish encounters, the kind of abilities that often discourage "historical scale" adventuring because then you just can't avoid digging into the frustrating logical extension of some of fantasy gaming's superpowers and their huge implications. As written, I think fantasy games (anything with magic and dramatic improvement in combat power, generally speaking, though especially later D&D) just make it tempting less of a headache to transition over from the world where most people live into the "secret world" of superhero fights and magic item economies where concepts like nations, religions, and temporal power become irrelevant compared to the explicit pursuit of individual combat power for its own sake.

   Any of you guys have thoughts on how to get fantasy game rolling into the "historical scope" of adventure, opening up the scale of the adventure to the larger world where standard campaigns start leaving the concerns of the larger world behind?

History is implemented as culture, a set of ideas, rules, and customs that define a society. Individual personality are variations of this. History are the broad reasons why you see people acting the way they do.  Which is the product of many choices by many people.

The future is defined by the choices of those living now. Since most people in a culture share similar values there are broad themes that will be hard for the players to deflect. But given the right circumstance, some reputation and charisma the players can be one of the Great Men of history influencing thousands to their choices.

Quote from: estar;385708History is implemented as culture, a set of ideas, rules, and customs that define a society. Individual personality are variations of this. History are the broad reasons why you see people acting the way they do.  Which is the product of many choices by many people.

That's basically how an historical era translates as an RPG setting to me as well.

The problem any GM is going to run into, sooner or later, is the issue of immersion and consistency within a given historical context. Imagine for instance that you see a Female knight while playing a game set in the Magical Medieval France. Some players will react with disbelief. "Women can't be knights!". Other people at the game table will take it as something perfectly ok. "What about Jeanne d'Arc? How about the Chevalier d'Eon (for the XVIIIth century)?"

What I'm trying to say is that how the historical setting clashes with the players' expectations depends entirely on how loose they are willing to interpret such a setting. There is an unhealthy tendency in academia to assert general statements in history based on circumstancial evidence only (the actual means by which one gets funding for research being an inherent part of the problem, here). Finding some edicts engraved on the wall of some tomb in Egypt must mean that whatever the edicts described was widely known and acknowledged by the Egyptian society at large, right? If monasteries kept manuscripts away from laymen during the Middle-ages, this must mean that nobody besides monks and nobles could possibly know how to read and write, right? It'd be like saying about today, from 500 years in the future, that everybody ate McDonalds, and whatever was aired on C-SPAN must have been widely known by the public.

But actual historical accuracy isn't my point, here, as it relates to our RPG context. What the participants in the game, the actual players and GM around the table, understand collectively AND individually as "believable" or "authentic" enough about the time period is all that really matters. Morality? Try to be consistent according to the players' and your own expectations. Anything beyond that is either icing on the cake, or counter-productive wankery.

Expanding my answer a bit

In the beginning ... hmm... perhaps not that far back. I got started on my history kick after reading the appendixes to the Return the King. In addition I had a big three inch thick book called the Timeline of World History. Many of my friends were bored to tears by the format but I could see the ebb and flow as I read the various timelines and king's list. When I starting writing setting background I naturally made my own timelines and kings list.

And my friend were still bored to tears by it all although they like playing in my campaigns.

As time went by my GMing and writing improved and what I realized that it isn't about history but about the people who make up history and the more importantly the people in the "present" where the adventuring is at.

The choices people make now are made in the context that is created by the choices of people in the past. Because it is impossible to detail every person's past for a game I instead focus on the cultures. Then make each NPC a variation on that culture. So the histories I write today are the history of the cultures that make up the Majestic Wilderlands.

The reason for each aspect of a culture can be found in it's history.  Much of this will be pure color but here and there are nuggets that can be exploited for adventures in the present.  And it serves as a good guideline for creating NPCs of that culture.

The complexity comes from the fact in real life people are not of "one" cultures. Instead a multitude make up the context in which a person makes their choices. Social, Religious, Nationality, etc.

To me the best use of writing histories is to explain why the people of your setting are the way they are. The NPCs won't know everything you now. Some facts will be lost despite being part of the chain that leads to the present. Doing this will help make your setting come alive and that the people have their own lives and agendas that didn't come out of nowhere. By having a history the player can discover what underlies the people of the lands in which they travel and use that knowledge for weal or woe.

Absolutely. There are two crucial points here:

• What matters is the now of the time period and it is "now", not "the past". However you choose to describe this now, through presentations of cultures, factions, leaders, influential NPCs etc. That's what really makes or breaks the game. Stuff that sees actual screen time, so to speak, and that is therefore relevant to the PCs in one way or another.
• History, or the chronological events that preceed the time period that is "now" for the game, matters as far as the present is concerned: why things are the way they are, why these nations are friends, or these religions enemies. Beyond that, it's just footnotes that sure can add a little something to the handout you give the players during the game, but it isn't a primary focus as far as the settings, and the PCs' interactions with it, are concerned*.

* Though of course, there are ways in which that could matter if some mission or mystery revolved around specific historical events. But then again, this confirms the point: that history matters as far as 'screen time' is concerned.

( W00T! 5,000 posts on the board! )

You guys need to read beyond the first two paragraphs, now go answer the rest of the OP.

To answer the OP, I've never managed to get a High Fantasy based game like AD&D to the world-level you're talking about.  The personal power level of the PCs does make it hard to deal with things on a macro level, when, as you alluded to, a micro-level surgical strike by an adventuring party will solve almost any problem.

Really the only way I've ever come close to reaching that macro level is by an example from our history, the Cold War.  The US and USSR didn't go to war, because that would lead to Mutually Assured Destruction, so they were forced to deal with things the old fashioned way, through a cold war of politics and brinkmanship and a shadow war of espionage.

Doing this in a fantasy campaign requires that the Bad Guys have anti-heros who can fuck up good countries just as easily as the PCs can fuck up evil countries.  No one wants to be the one that starts the Battle Royale that ends up in Ragnarok, so the super-powers chill and work conventionally as much as possible.  I've managed to get there somewhat, at least with the most powerful wizards, but it was a bitch.

Quote from: CRKrueger;385763You guys need to read beyond the first two paragraphs, now go answer the rest of the OP.

Quote from: Cole;385707Any of you guys have thoughts on how to get fantasy game rolling into the "historical scope" of adventure, opening up the scale of the adventure to the larger world where standard campaigns start leaving the concerns of the larger world behind?

I did, to paraphrase, by writing a history you help define the personalities of your NPCs by define the context in which their cultures exist. By roleplaying your NPCs this way leads the players to realize there is something more going on. The adds to the sense of historical verisimilitude in your game.

In the late campaign the players get enough experience with all that that they start connecting dots which leads to further adventures. Since they are more experienced they probably will go after the lucrative (and dangerous) leads.

Plus if you are doing an endgame based on founding and/or running a realm then history will offer clues to the players for resolving the conflicts of the cultures (religious, social, etc) they come into contact with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;385763You guys need to read beyond the first two paragraphs, now go answer the rest of the OP.

Fine!

Tell us if we bore you, heh?

Quote from: Cole;385707Most games as written run into walls with this because of the immense scaling of combat power - 4E D&D makes it really explicit with the epic level minions and so on, but many fantasy games make armies basically worthless by making the gap between the human and the monstrous gigantic, keeping the model of the adventure really similar at all levels, adding flying and teleportation to the same skirmish encounters, the kind of abilities that often discourage "historical scale" adventuring because then you just can't avoid digging into the frustrating logical extension of some of fantasy gaming's superpowers and their huge implications. As written, I think fantasy games (anything with magic and dramatic improvement in combat power, generally speaking, though especially later D&D) just make it tempting less of a headache to transition over from the world where most people live into the “secret world” of superhero fights and magic item economies where concepts like nations, religions, and temporal power become irrelevant compared to the explicit pursuit of individual combat power for its own sake.

   Any of you guys have thoughts on how to get fantasy game rolling into the “historical scope” of adventure, opening up the scale of the adventure to the larger world where standard campaigns start leaving the concerns of the larger world behind?

Okay. So first I must make sure I understand the question. In the first paragraph you are basically putting two different play styles in opposition: the games where your character grows to create his stronghold, manage a fief and an army, and be part of the world in an meaningful way, i.e. what you call the "historical scope", versus the "secret world approach", where PCs basically level up to the next round of monsters, open the gate to the planes, and still play in essense the same game, killing space orcs instead of 'normal world' orcs.

What you like is the former, as is implied by a BECMI-style D&D game.

Now, I'm not sure I perfectly understand the question/second paragraph. You seem to be asking how to best make the "historical scope" style of play work at an actual game table. If so, I'll answer from the angle I've been taking for the last while: play OD&D, use Chainmail, and try to understand the Wargame mindset.

This is where the BECMI approach basically comes from. The original game did present rules (in the form of lists of prices and upkeeps) to build your own castle. The 1E DMG greatly details henchmen, hiring mercenaries, and all these things. The original idea there as I see it was to link the D&D game with the wider wargaming hobby, by basically having the PCs fully take charge of their roles of Heroes and Superheroes (sic) of the world in vast armies at their command, using the Chainmail rules.

There are other ways now to achieve this sort of thing, like for instance picking up the AD&D2 setting Birthright, which basically start with characters at this level of responsibility right off the bat. It's the actual *point* of the whole setting. Very cool stuff, albeit different than the original game where you get to adventure and then, gradually transition to the role of Lord, Archmage or Archbishop of the surrounding lands.

I will add managing campaigns the way I do with the emphasis on building a legacy makes combat power differences largely irrelevant. The problems the PCs have to solve can't be resolved by killing alone. Much like Pundit said that killing Hitler in the 30's will not likely stop Germany from going hard right or fascist.

Quote from: estar;385807I will add managing campaigns the way I do with the emphasis on building a legacy makes combat power differences largely irrelevant. The problems the PCs have to solve can't be resolved by killing alone. Much like Pundit said that killing Hitler in the 30's will not likely stop Germany from going hard right or fascist.

This is the kind of thing I'm looking at.

At your table, how do you emphasize the building of legacy? And what are some of the problems you have PCs address?

Quote from: Benoist;385789Fine!
Okay. So first I must make sure I understand the question. .

It sounds like you do. I wasn't asking a specific question as much as putting out my thoughts and seeing where discussion might go, but, I think you're on about the same page as I am.

One issue I have with the Mentzer, or OD&D + Chainmail, approaches is that I think it builds up to a lot of "out of character" bookkeeping about your realm, punctuated with minis battle scenarios - you know how in something like D&D 3rd edition, you have all this "leveling up" and item management? The BECMI realm stuff reminds me as much of that than the RPG table experience - your PC is the king, but in playing him on a realm scale, the King ends up doing all his own quartermastering.

The Gygax DMG certainly has intricate tables of hireling wages and so on; AD&D also features tracking encumbrance to the effective weight of the individual coin. There are advantages to that - it's an old debate. But Older D&D mostly gives you the "encumbrance rules."

I will have to revisit Birthright. I got the box when it came out, but the setting turned out not to interest me that much and so I didn't spend a lot of time with it - as far as adventure models, I'm sure there is good material I have overlooked.

Ok, cool. The bookkeeping aspect is an issue. Alright.

You might still want to have a look to Birthright, though there is some bookkeeping going on there as well. Check it out anyway, to make sure whether that fits your tastes or not.

As to the way you build legacies and have the characters become part of the world at large, it's a matter first of having the right players, and setting up the right expectations. If the players don't know you like this aspect of the game that's going to be played, and would like to explore a bit more, you might not get the success you expect. Make sure the players know what they're getting into. It's not to everyone's tastes, particularly if we speak of games like D&D, where there are strong sets of expectations on the players part, especially if they played the game with other DMs before.

Second, it's a matter of just that: allowing the characters to become part of the world. This means for them to make friends and foes as the campaign unfolds. To have people remember who they are, and develop a reputation, one way or another, in the surrounding area, villages, or in certain parts of the population (if the PCs for instance get rid of the goblins plaguing the old mines of the area, maybe a craftsman or blacksmith later on in the campaign will know them by reputation, just having received ore from the newly reopened mines).

Give them opportunities to become allies and foes of important people in the world. Allow them to become vassals of a local Lord, or pretenders to the throne. Give them factions to choose from, conflicts to deal with and be part of.

As you play the game, the characters might develop debts towards an NPC, or the other way around. Maybe they gain the ownership of holdings and properties lost somewhere in the wilderness. Maybe they get to meet people they want to protect. Even marry, have children. Or already have families to take care of when the game starts?

It's about creating ties with the world, and developing these relationships as the characters grow in reknown and power. Ultimately, as the campaign unfold, they will have to take care of their own lives, responsibilities, fiefs, apprentices and all that. They might still answer the calls for aids coming from a liege lord, like the local King or Duke, but they have their own business to attend to, also. Stuff that's been built directly through play, as the characters evolved, if done right.

See what I mean?

Quote from: Benoist;385825Ok, cool. The bookkeeping aspect is an issue. Alright.

You might still want to have a look to Birthright, though there is some bookkeeping going on there as well. Check it out anyway, to make sure whether that fits your tastes or not.

As to the way you build legacies and have the characters become part of the world at large, it's a matter first of having the right players, and setting up the right expectations. If the players don't know you like this aspect of the game that's going to be played, and would like to explore a bit more, you might not get the success you expect. Make sure the players know what they're getting into. It's not to everyone's tastes, particularly if we speak of games like D&D, where there are strong sets of expectations on the players part, especially if they played the game with other DMs before.

Second, it's a matter of just that: allowing the characters to become part of the world. This means for them to make friends and foes as the campaign unfolds. To have people remember who they are, and develop a reputation, one way or another, in the surrounding area, villages, or in certain parts of the population (if the PCs for instance get rid of the goblins plaguing the old mines of the area, maybe a craftsman or blacksmith later on in the campaign will know them by reputation, just having received ore from the newly reopened mines).

Give them opportunities to become allies and foes of important people in the world. Allow them to become vassals of a local Lord, or pretenders to the throne. Give them factions to choose from, conflicts to deal with and be part of.

As you play the game, the characters might develop debts towards an NPC, or the other way around. Maybe they gain the ownership of holdings and properties lost somewhere in the wilderness. Maybe they get to meet people they want to protect. Even marry, have children. Or already have families to take care of when the game starts?

It's about creating ties with the world, and developing these relationships as the characters grow in reknown and power. Ultimately, as the campaign unfold, they will have to take care of their own lives, responsibilities, fiefs, apprentices and all that. They might still answer the calls for aids coming from a liege lord, like the local King or Duke, but they have their own business to attend to, also. Stuff that's been built directly through play, as the characters evolved, if done right.

See what I mean?

Well put. For example I could see there being one of those "campaign rumors" about a presumed deceased heir being reported as alive in a given location; whatever the truth, you're pointing out that there's a niche there for a challenger, whether he's a real lost prince or Perkin Warbeck. Or a PC could be hired to impersonate someone long term. That's a tense relationship with a patron; if the truth is in his documents, just killing him isn't necessarily a fix.

The bookkeeping exists because players want to know how much gold they have and secondarily how many men they have to get that gold. And god forbid you should short them them a single gold piece.

Quote from: estar;385832The bookkeeping exists because players want to know how much gold they have and secondarily how many men they have to get that gold. And god forbid you should short them them a single gold piece.

Your point is a good one but I still hate the bookkeeping.

I am as much or more of a player as I am a GM, incidentally.