Quote from: Christopher Brady;880879Wasn't Gary pestered until he allowed Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits into the game, because the crew loved Lord of The Rings and he did not?  I remember you mentioning this back on TBP...

That MAY be what Mr. Gillen is saying?  That his idea got co-opted because he got pushed in a direction he didn't want.

No, I just thought Dangerous Journeys was a bit too "kitchen sink."

JG

Quote from: Omega;880843One conversation years ago with some designers came down to this conundrum.

You do a historical game. Ok. So now what?

If you allow the PCs to interact with historical figures then very likely something is going to get altered. At which point what was the point of all that historical accuracy you demanded? Just so you can cockwave killing Sun Tsu or banging Joan of Arc? Cherish the players who are totally ok with just meeting in passing or working for such figures in some reasonable manner.

If you dont allow the PCs to interact with historical figures then you have to keep them out in the boonies or otherwise not interacting with history. At which point also what was the point in all that historical accuracy?

One trick suggested was to pick an area where alot was happening. But the details of which are nebulous at best. Drop the PCs onto the coast during the height of Viking raids or somewhere in Russia during the great bogatyr conflicts. Alexander Nevsky was just one of a number of leaders rising and falling.

Or base things in the realm of legend like Ilya Muromets where magical events still occur.

History deviating after the campaign starts is a lot easier to manage than devising an alternate timeline due to changes well before the campaign starts in my view. If the PCs do something that would change history, they might not even notice since to them it is the present (they won't necessarily see the butterfly effect that creates, to them maybe one battle goes differently or someone else ends up in power). That isn't much different from a typical campaign where a major NPC is killed or disaster is averted.

If the players go ahead and kill Sun Tsu, that is a ripple that is going to take time to play out. And in a case like that it is really easy to work around if you don't want history to change to much (it is not certain exactly when the Art of War was written for example, so he might already have penned it, or it might have been written by someone else). With a figure like him, you could easily dismiss his death by revealing he just wasn't as important to history as once believed. Joan of Arc might be harder because her life is more well documented. But even then, your just dealing with the history as the present, so any changes that do arise, are pretty easy to handle as they come.

Also I think a lot of how these things shake out will depend on what approach to history the GM takes. How important is one person to the GM? If you kill Caesar but the GM takes more of a "its about historical forces in play that allow a Caesar to emerge" approach, then he can just replace Caesar with someone else and have events leading to the Great Roman Civil War continue largely as they did. There are ways to minimize historical changes if they present too much of a problem for the GM (I personally would have Caesar's death produce changes, but I can certainly see a GM choosing to go another way there).

One of the things I really like to do, is to start a new historical based game just right after a major historical event. Some of my favorite starts for both Runequest and D&D go something like this.

It's a fine sunny morning in 117 a.d. The Picts have just completed annihilated the 9th Roman Legion. Your Legion. You and your comrades are survivors of this great debacle, and have been disgraced in Briton. The Eagle is lost. The Celts, Picts, and Britons are hunting you. There's a price on your head. You are in the highlands at least fifty leagues from your nearest base at Eboracvm (York). What do you do?

It's 70 a.d. The last stronghold of your kinfolk, Masada, has fallen after an extended siege. Titus and his army will be parading captured prisoners through the streets of Jerusalem next week, and are making ready to depart for Rome as part of his wedding Triumph. These prisoners are his wedding gift to Berenice, daughter of Herod.  Your people (Judeans) are no longer allowed to publicly carry any weapons in this city or any other Judean city or town, except for a small hunting dagger. What do you do?

It's a fine spring morning as a rider on Horseback flies through your Caravan encampment without slowing down shouting "Paris has Fallen, Paris has Fallen!".  By mid-morning, you know it's true, and the merchants in the caravan have called for a halt and a council meeting. You are about a weeks ride out from Paris in the countryside of Aquilonia, and were on your way to Paris with supplies and trade goods, intent on entering the city before the Vikings arrived to sell your goods to a local population who were busy preparing for a siege. It's the ninth of April, 845 a.d. word has just reached your trade caravan that a Viking army has just captured and sacked Paris. What do you do?

260 a.d. The Alemanni Army (your Army) is moving out. Heading South. Word has it, the Roman Legio XXI Rapax, has withdrawn from the frontier. Tomorrow morning, the plan is to attack and take Aventicum the Roman Capitol in this region. Any loot you can carry, ...you get to keep! Good Luck! What does your warband do now?

I'm ok, if the story deviates from history because of the players actions. Much of the fun is in exploring the consequences of "What if". Also, If the Players add a few wrinkles, so will I. This usually makes for a pretty good game, and I don't remember any quasi-historical game that really went off on a major tangent.

Quote from: Bren;880175No. You are being obtuse. I'm saying that the photographs were fake, and fake photographs are not proof that fairies exist.

I'm not saying the Enochian workings are proof that Angels exist. But Conan Doyle really saw the faerie pictures and a bunch of things really happened as a result.  Likewise, John Dee really had the experience of the Enochian workings and a bunch of stuff really happened as a result.

In Doyle's case we know that what he believed was not what was actually going on.
We can surmise the same in Dee's.

In Doyle's case we can say what exactly was going on.
In Dee's we can't, because of a lack of information.

The big diff between the two? Most people in 1900s modern Europe didn't believe in faeries.  Most people in 1500s Europe did believe in magic, and it was something that informed the culture.

QuoteYou are being willfully obtuse. I am suggesting that the claims that Joseph Smith made about the source and content of the tablets may be false.

You're the definition of "willfully obtuse" in this thread. You are insisting that we must make declarations of faith that we all acknowledge that the medieval mindset was full of shit in order to even talk about this.
Also, a lot of historians think Smith was intentionally lying and engaging in Fraud.  No legitimate historian I know of thinks Dee's diaries were an act of fraud. You are just engaging in trying to damn Dee by really piss-poor association here.

QuoteYou are either incredibly stupid or you are intentionally reading what I wrote in bad faith.

I'm reading what you're saying here in EXACTLY the same level of faith that you're reading what I'm saying.

QuoteI am suggesting that there are other explanations for his claim that he spoke with angels besides the actual existence of supernatural entities of any sort. I'm suggesting that Dee's diary may have no more to do with angels than Doyle's photos have to do with fairies.

And NOTHING in what I'm saying demands the existence of supernatural entities. But you've been so determined in your Atheist Jihad that you can't fucking understand that.

QuoteAnd yet, you keep insisting that we should take Dee's claim that he spoke to angels at face value by saying, "Dee spoke to angels."

I insist that we should assume that Dee had a real experience, and that he and others understood it to be magic based on the paradigm they operated on. Today we might define it as 'insanity', 'psychology', 'trance', 'creative visualization' or 'unknown event', based on the paradigm we operate on. Our paradigm is better at getting reality in some respects, and far, far worse in other respects.

QuoteDee said he spoke to angels. Doyle said the fairy photos were proof of the existence of fairies. Joseph Smith said all sorts of things. The fact that those three men said something does not prove that they were right about what they said they saw or that what they said they saw has any existence outside of their imagination.

Blah blah blah Richard Dawkins blah blah blah Flying Spaghetti monster blah blah blah there is no god blah blah blah blah WHO GIVES A FUCK? No one is arguing this except you, no one is demanding that you say "angels are real" except your own inner fears.  And I don't give a twopenny fuck about how your mom forced you to read bible stories or Father Joseph touched you in the Rectory, and now you can't see how much of your material positivism is a self-restricting delusion just as entrapping to you as a 14th century peasant believing in leprechauns. It's not my problem.

QuoteMany smart people are incredibly naïve about certain things while being very skeptical of other things.

You don't say...?

QuoteStage magicians aren't smarter than scientists, but are a lot better at uncovering fake spiritualists than are physicians or scientists.

And actual magicians can almost immediately spot if someone has had a genuine esoteric experience, is posing, or is an intentional fraud.  Yet I suspect your strongly held articles of faith will make that difficult for you to get.

QuoteBut Dee being wrong about what he said he saw doesn't require that Dee had to be naïve. He may have really wanted to believe that he was talking to angels. Because he already believed in angels and magic and shit before he talked to the angels. Just like Doyle really wanted to believe in spiritualism and fairies.

Dee had spent years studying magick before running into Kelly. He had done work before that. You are conflating two different things here: the idea that Dee 'didn't actually talk to angels' and the idea that Dee was just completely hoodwinked by Kelly.  The latter is so beyond credibility because of the various details involved in both Dee and Kelly's history and in what it means Kelly would have to have been capable of, that it may as well be discarded.
The former is not really the point of the argument I was making in this thread. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in Angels, you get that right? No one cares, it's not relevant to what we're talking about. I don't believe in Angels, but I've had plenty of magical experiences that involve conversations with what medieval lingo termed 'Angels'. What you're talking to doesn't actually have to be an Angel, much less the 16th century conception of one, for the mystical experience itself to be real.

You seem so hell-bent on needing us all to strongly recite your testament of faith that the only possible answer is that nothing at all happened to Dee in the 7 fucking years of Angelic conversations, and then somehow want to tie that in as 'proof' of... what? That the medieval paradigm wasn't a real thing? That they didn't believe in it? That they did believe in it but that it is somehow not an accurate perception of reality (as if anyone here is arguing that)?
What? What's your fucking point other than "I don't like jeebus", you ass?!

QuoteYou know what your academic theory does not address? Whether the angels that Dee said he spoke with have any independent existence.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
If you talk about the history of Mormon Migration, you don't need to say "obviously Joseph Smith made it all up". If you're talking about the physics of the Big Bang you don't need to say "clearly, we must now state that there is no sign of the dead giant Ymir involved in the creation of the universe".  If you're talking about 18th century Chinese martial arts schools you don't need to say "by the way Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was totally fake".

Maybe if you have a huge personal chip on your shoulder, you might think such things are necessary. But in fact to say "Medieval and renaissance people believed that magic, angels and salvation was real and this had a profound effect on their culture", you do not need to add "BUT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS FAERIES!!"

QuotePlease point to even one statement where I have said that no one in the medieval or renaissance world believed in magic. Just one statement. If you can't do that, then please stop lying about what I have said.

If you don't, then what the fuck is your argument? If you accept that John Dee believed magic was a real force, Edward Kellly believed magic was a real force, the Angelic Conversations were an event that really happened, and had a profound effect on both men's lives, then what is your fucking point (again, other than thinking we all need to collectively say "there ain't no such thing as sasquatch!" as a magic chant to avoid the evils of pre-modern religiousity or something)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;880476The easy way to limit power in OD&D is limit gold.  Gold = XP, and monster XP is chump change.

I ran OD&D in medieval England for about three years, and used historical prices and currency.  I boosted XP considerably, but if I'd set the rate differently the PCs would have leveled up about every 15 sessions or so.

An unexpected aftereffect was that money was SO scarce that the PCs took to looting dead kobolds and goblins for their crappy knives and spears and occasional scrap of mail to sell to the local smith.  Getting three or four pence for a goblin's knife was a big deal; it meant they could eat that day.

Nowadays I'd make them travel to a big city, York or London or Greenwich, to sell the mail.  Because I'm a bastard.

To take a break from the Dawkins Mujahaddeen for a moment, in the original Dark Albion campaign I started out with XP rules establishing that 1 shilling = 1xp for advancement purposes.

This quickly turned out to be a big problem, because you had a real medieval environment, but where you found the sons of Knights or Lords looting the bodies of peasants for a couple of pennies just to gain XP. People who were not supposed to hold filthy lucre in very high regard were socially humiliating themselves to get it.

This is why, in the Appendix P rules, I changed the XP system entirely, to one that simply works on the basis of 'adventures completed' (plus 'best roleplayer' awards). I think it makes things way more authentic, because players don't have to think of what they need to do to level up, they just need to roleplay their character the way the character should be in the setting.

So to sum up: magic in a medieval culture that already believed in magic? Not a huge problem.

Using the 1gp=1xp system? Seriously harms the setting.

Quote from: Rincewind1;880803Also, holy shit, someone was taken for a ride because they didn't know Pundit believes in magic(k).

More like because they can't reconcile that with me being an historian. As though they were sure my talking about magic in history was a secret plot to trick them into saying that angels are real.

Also, Magick isn't a religion. There are of course people who 'believe' in magick, those people are useless. Real magick has nothing to do with believing in it, much less trying to get other people to 'believe' in it. It is something you do.  I gain precisely nothing from getting anyone to 'believe' in magick, on the contrary people who say they 'believe' in magick are a huge part of the problem. For that matter, it doesn't get me nothing if you actually start doing magick, either. I couldn't give a fuck.   I do this for me.

Quote from: Opaopajr;880985I usually think of this version, or Aladdin's "A Whole New World," when it comes to magic carpet rides.

Pizzicato Five — Magic Carpet Ride

But that's because I'm not old enough to remember the 60s.

You fucking heretic.

Hilariously, I also used 1 shilling =1 xp.  Deranged minds think alike.

Quote from: RPGPundit;881144You fucking heretic.

Do I get burned at the stake? I like BBQ! :cheerleader:

Quote from: RPGPundit;881137If you don't, then what the fuck is your argument?

You might know if you got off your magical soap box long enough to read what I wrote. I will try to keep this really simple so you might finally stop tilting at Richard Dawkins or whatever other windmills you have created in your own mind and read and respond to what I wrote.

Here are four sentences.

• John Dee spoke with angels.
• John Dee wrote that he spoke with angels.
• John Dee claimed that he spoke with angels.
• John Dee fraudulently claimed that he spoke with angels.

You used the first sentence to describe 500 year old events. I said, that the second sentence was preferable since it (a) accords with all the facts that are known and accepted and (b) does not require a conclusion about the reality of Dee's experience, i.e. about the existence of angels.

For some reason, you continue to insist that I said the fourth sentence and that I am claiming nobody in the Medieval or Early Modern Period believed in magic. I haven't said either. I don't know why you keep insisting that I have. I could speculate, but at this point I can't come up with any charitable explanation, so rather than list a series of uncharitable hypotheses, I'll leave that as an open question and allow you to explain why you continue to insist that I said and believe things that I did not say and do not believe.

QuoteIf you accept that...the Angelic Conversations were an event that really happened

What really happened is exactly the point at issue.

Which is why I suggested it was preferable to use a sentence that did not draw a conclusion about what really happened. We don't know what really happened. We know what Dee wrote at length about what he said he believed had happened. He attributed his experience to a series of chats with something he called Angels.

Quote from: Bren;881187You might know if you got off your magical soap box long enough to read what I wrote. I will try to keep this really simple so you might finally stop tilting at Richard Dawkins or whatever other windmills you have created in your own mind and read and respond to what I wrote.

Here are four sentences.

• John Dee spoke with angels.
• John Dee wrote that he spoke with angels.
• John Dee claimed that he spoke with angels.
• John Dee fraudulently claimed that he spoke with angels.

You used the first sentence to describe 500 year old events. I said, that the second sentence was preferable since it (a) accords with all the facts that are known and accepted and (b) does not require a conclusion about the reality of Dee's experience, i.e. about the existence of angels.

Except I've repeatedly stated that I am not commenting on the 'reality' of Dee's experience, but on the reality of his understanding of his experience.   John Dee did not just WRITE that he spoke with angels, he had an experience that he was certain was him speaking with angels, and wrote about it (as it was happening, for the most part).

Thus, MY statement is far more accurate than yours.

QuoteWhat really happened is exactly the point at issue.

Which is why I suggested it was preferable to use a sentence that did not draw a conclusion about what really happened. We don't know what really happened. We know what Dee wrote at length about what he said he believed had happened. He attributed his experience to a series of chats with something he called Angels.

We know what happened, we do not need to make any conclusions about its physical veracity.  He had an actual experience, which he attributed to speaking with angels; that much is not in question by anyone serious. The part you're obsessing over would be relevant to a meeting of the Skeptics' Society, but not to an historical analysis of renaissance-era beliefs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;881439Except I've repeatedly stated that I am not commenting on the 'reality' of Dee's experience, but on the reality of his understanding of his experience.

If you had confined yourself to commenting on Dee's understanding of angels or on Medieval beliefs in general there would be little for us to disagree about. But instead you have repeatedly mischaracterized what I said. And  you have done so at length. When challenged on this you to failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the statements and beliefs that you have falsely attributed to me. You are arguing in bad faith. If this is an example of your ability as an historian, you really shouldn't give up your job as a game designer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;881139To take a break from the Dawkins Mujahaddeen for a moment, in the original Dark Albion campaign I started out with XP rules establishing that 1 shilling = 1xp for advancement purposes.

This quickly turned out to be a big problem, because you had a real medieval environment, but where you found the sons of Knights or Lords looting the bodies of peasants for a couple of pennies just to gain XP. People who were not supposed to hold filthy lucre in very high regard were socially humiliating themselves to get it.

*SNIP*

Using the 1gp=1xp system? Seriously harms the setting.

Well, yes. I think lots of people fail to realise that at its core, in terms of its basic worldbuilding and gameplay assumptions, Gygaxian D&D is not in any way a "medieval" (or renaissance) game. Not even an ahistorical medieval one.

What it really is is a 19th century Wild West game as interpreted through the lens of a sort of idealised 20th century libertarianism. It's a game of 9th level Randian superheroes rising above the masses of 0 level social leeches by virtue of their superior abilities and ruthlessness and piss on established social structures from high on (because honestly, when was the last time a bunch of PCs paid a toll to the King's toll collector for using the King's road? - THAT would be a medieval game); where having the strength and cunning to lay your hands on a chest of gold means that from that point onwards, everybody acknowledges you as the gold's owner in every possible legal and extralegal sense of the word. Equating the PCs ability to acquire riches with their objective advancement is very much this, and very much NOT anything medieval.

Of course, the Pundit will now correct me because it's supposed to be Objectivism and not libertarianism, or somesuch.

Quote from: Premier;881513because honestly, when was the last time a bunch of PCs paid a toll to the King's toll collector for using the King's road? - THAT would be a medieval game

Ummm... in every one of my D&D games... here is an example from the toll bridge in BlackHolm, a hamlet that can be found many of my 0D&D games.

3-Quaystone Bridge 160' long, 32' wide, Stone Archway Bridge. Between Sunset and Sunrise the Quaystone bridge is closed, gated and barred at both the east and west ends. West Enders may elect to stay at the Ice Hammer Inn. Eastenders should be staying in the village as a guest, because night time patrols from Blackcrave Castle may arrest and jail any loiterers...

In the daytime, The feeb, Alain Quarterstar stands at the east end of the bridge collecting a bridge toll of 5 silver pieces for each person crossing, and 1 silver coin for each mount or pack animal that wants to cross the bridge. Alain will never fight or challenge any who cross the bridge without paying, instead reporting to His Lordship, Baron Blackcrave after sunset paying the baron directly the daily proceeds from the toll bridge while at the same time enjoying the barons' wine. Alain and the Baron are fast friends, and the Baron protects Alain, and those Alains requests protection for. The Baron keeps his Knights and Sorcerers trained by having them go after the toll scofflaws, and other outlaws in the region, as well using the garrison to kill or capture monsters, and wild animals in the region that are loose killing and maiming his taxable population.


5- Bridge Wardens Home - Alain Quarterstar Lvl-1 AC-3 Htk-10 Dmge/Attk- Staff (1d6)  Str-14 Int-7 Wis-9 Con-12 Dex-14 Chr-8 ALN: Righteous and Innocent LG. Dark Hair, Blue Eyes, Large Man - 6' 6" Alain is a simple-minded fighter who serves as the toll collector and guard in the daytime on the Quaystone Bridge. He reveres Baron Blackcrave, believing the Baron to be fair and just man. (becuase the Baron is fair and just with him!) Alain is paid 20% of whatever he takes in tolls every day on the bridge, and is often a guest for dinner with the Baron and his knights at the castle. All who know the baron really well, know that this man was the best friend of the Barons'  dead son (who was killed hunting other outlaws a few years back.). The last thing the Baron did with his son, was to promise to look after the simple-minded fighter before his son rode off and managed to die. So far, the Baron has kept that promise to his long lost son.

Alain is disfigured. He was kicked in the face by a Minotaur  when he was young, and never quite looks right anymore with a vicious scar across his face and one eye a bit lower than the other. The townsfolk treat Alain well as they know he is a favorite of the Baron. Alain wears platemail, with a tan cloak and black boots. He carries a purse with 5 gold, 42 silver, and 27 copper coins to make change for the Quaystone Bridge toll.

Soooooo... piss on the lowly bridge feeb, and don't pay the toll, and incur the wrath of a 14th level Lord with a Wizards Court, Clerics, and a large contingent of Knights...


There's plenty of lovely encounters like this in my old school games, Muuuuuhahahaha...

I agree with the broad point that D&D was not made up as some sort of feudalism simulation. The medieval-mind approach would be more tenable with Arneson's earlier method of promoting figures based on his assessments of their accomplishments.

It's first and last a game, and scoring points for treasure dovetails very well with the then-innovative dungeon expedition concept that has been so successful.

Chivalry & Sorcery and other efforts have put more emphasis on a medieval social milieu, which taken seriously tends to shift the main field of play to that and push the more typical D&D concerns out of the center.

If your aristocrats are all high-level figures, then the recommended pro-rating in OD&D/AD&D 1st should make penny-grubbing not very worthwhile. I would reckon many undertakings worth no points at all at 'name' level.

If you make largess the key, awarding points only for treasures given away, then you get a situation more like the ancient and Dark Age heroic traditions. Adding the appropriate senses of honor and glory of course goes even further.