Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 05:14:19 AMHere's a classic one - the role of women. I love antiquity and sure if you only look at settled societies like the Greeks and Romans, women were sequestered and kept out of sight of men. Barring slave women or very poor ones who had to work outside their homes. But that wasn't true elsewhere, different sexual mores existed amongst "barbarian" peoples like the Celts and nomads like the Scythians. Amongst those societies women could have power and agency (in the low population densities of nomadic peoples, every adult needs to be able to usefully contribute to the group). Now that does mean in those settled realms you might be playing a character viewed as alien, but that's part of the fun.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 07:39:11 AMIf a player wants to play a woman warrior, they can do that in a historically accurate setting. They just won't be playing a Greek or Roman woman, because that stretches credulity a little too far. Sure you might say a Spartan woman learned more than just athletics because reasons, but easier to just go for an Illyrian noblewoman, or a Celt, or a Scythian horselord. On this side of things you have women like Cynane, Alexander the Great's half-sister who's mother was Audata, an Illyrian princess and general in her own right.

I agree that Greek and Roman society was much more closed to women than many of the neighboring societies. That said, as you say, there are a lot of options even in a Greek and Roman campaign.

You mention slaves in the first post, and I'd note that Roman slaves often had a surprising degree of freedom to modern readers. With a lenient owner, they could do most things that citizens could do. For example, a woman character could be a gladiatrix, a lower-class woman or slave who fights in exhibition bouts in the arena. The average gladiatrix was probably a prostitute forced into a deadly spectacle, but one could achieve some fame and fortune as male gladiators sometimes did.

In general, history has many individuals who were exceptions to the prejudices of their time.

As GM, my rule of thumb is that a player who chooses a female character doesn't have to be treated worse than other PCs. Unless the player wants to be low status, I'll arrange a suitable background such that they are treated as one of those exceptions - by circumstances like high birth, an exceptional family or patron or owner, and/or unusual fame/reputation.

In general for historical campaigns, the PCs should be unusual and/or privileged. The lives of average commoners did really suck. For the game to be fun, the PCs should be non-average.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 04:13:17 PM

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 05:14:19 AMHere's a classic one - the role of women. I love antiquity and sure if you only look at settled societies like the Greeks and Romans, women were sequestered and kept out of sight of men. Barring slave women or very poor ones who had to work outside their homes. But that wasn't true elsewhere, different sexual mores existed amongst "barbarian" peoples like the Celts and nomads like the Scythians. Amongst those societies women could have power and agency (in the low population densities of nomadic peoples, every adult needs to be able to usefully contribute to the group). Now that does mean in those settled realms you might be playing a character viewed as alien, but that's part of the fun.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 07:39:11 AMIf a player wants to play a woman warrior, they can do that in a historically accurate setting. They just won't be playing a Greek or Roman woman, because that stretches credulity a little too far. Sure you might say a Spartan woman learned more than just athletics because reasons, but easier to just go for an Illyrian noblewoman, or a Celt, or a Scythian horselord. On this side of things you have women like Cynane, Alexander the Great's half-sister who's mother was Audata, an Illyrian princess and general in her own right.

I agree that Greek and Roman society was much more closed to women than many of the neighboring societies. That said, as you say, there are a lot of options even in a Greek and Roman campaign.

You mention slaves in the first post, and I'd note that Roman slaves often had a surprising degree of freedom to modern readers. With a lenient owner, they could do most things that citizens could do. For example, a woman character could be a gladiatrix, a lower-class woman or slave who fights in exhibition bouts in the arena. The average gladiatrix was probably a prostitute forced into a deadly spectacle, but one could achieve some fame and fortune as male gladiators sometimes did.

In general, history has many individuals who were exceptions to the prejudices of their time.

As GM, my rule of thumb is that a player who chooses a female character doesn't have to be treated worse than other PCs. Unless the player wants to be low status, I'll arrange a suitable background such that they are treated as one of those exceptions - by circumstances like high birth, an exceptional family or patron or owner, and/or unusual fame/reputation.

In general for historical campaigns, the PCs should be unusual and/or privileged. The lives of average commoners did really suck. For the game to be fun, the PCs should be non-average.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Jhkim. I agree. There are always a few exceptional individuals throughout history that defied the prevailing cultural and societal norms, restrictions, and expectations.

Certainly, if a DM is setting up a strictly Historical campaign, or alternatively, even a fantasy campaign heavily *inspired* by History, a DM is well-advised to lean into the historical exceptions.

Of course, if the Players are also well-versed in History, and have a strong desire to play oppressed, mud-covered peasants, then the DM doesn't need to consider Historical exceptions, and can go whole hogg. *Laughing*

I have noticed that within the OSR there is a subset minority of Players that expect and prefer mud-covered, brutal realism. That can be fun--but for most Players I think would not enjoy that milieu very much. Much in the same manner that many Players do not enjoy or prefer crazy Gonzo fantasy milieus.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 04:13:17 PMI agree that Greek and Roman society was much more closed to women than many of the neighboring societies. That said, as you say, there are a lot of options even in a Greek and Roman campaign.

You mention slaves in the first post, and I'd note that Roman slaves often had a surprising degree of freedom to modern readers. With a lenient owner, they could do most things that citizens could do. For example, a woman character could be a gladiatrix, a lower-class woman or slave who fights in exhibition bouts in the arena. The average gladiatrix was probably a prostitute forced into a deadly spectacle, but one could achieve some fame and fortune as male gladiators sometimes did.

In general, history has many individuals who were exceptions to the prejudices of their time.

As GM, my rule of thumb is that a player who chooses a female character doesn't have to be treated worse than other PCs. Unless the player wants to be low status, I'll arrange a suitable background such that they are treated as one of those exceptions - by circumstances like high birth, an exceptional family or patron or owner, and/or unusual fame/reputation.

In general for historical campaigns, the PCs should be unusual and/or privileged. The lives of average commoners did really suck. For the game to be fun, the PCs should be non-average.

The problem with playing a slave is that their status is not a trivial consideration. They're literally third class not-even-citizens in most societies of the time (foreigners/aliens being second class). They're legally property, not people. So whilst they might have a degree of freedom in very specific contexts (like a gladiatrix), they're still tied to whoever owns them.

Far too often the constraints people think exist in a historical mileu are because they don't actually understand it as well as they think they do. My example of Illyrian nobility isn't an exceptional case where the occasional noble woman might be combat-ready, but rather Illyrian aristocrats of both sexes were noted as enjoying hunting and fighting. But I do agree that higher status almost always tends towards greater autonomy where the mores in general aren't for constraining women regardless.

And yes, PCs will tend to be the unusual ones. But there are more and less credible ways of doing that.

I'll freely admit that one of the reasons I've never gotten into straight history as an RPG setting is because, as a gamer, I loves me my Kewl Powerz. If I can't play a psychic, or a magician, or a miracleworker (save if perhaps the GM sometimes has things turn out the way my character prays they do), the game loses a lot of appeal for me.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 04:13:17 PMYou mention slaves in the first post, and I'd note that Roman slaves often had a surprising degree of freedom to modern readers. With a lenient owner, they could do most things that citizens could do.

Slavery in general is misunderstood through a modern day lens. A lot of slavery was when a person owed another money and they were forced to work for them, or punishment for a crime. The Ottoman Jannisaries were slaves who ran the country. Some interesting social dynamics going on there.
Not all slavery means chattel slavery, though that certainly existed.

Quote from: faelord on May 07, 2025, 12:38:13 PMThx! Any links or names?

The TSR Historical line was
Vikings = Vikings natch - 800-1100 AD
Charlemagne's Paladins = 700-800 AD
Celts = Celts natch - 600 - 100 BC
A Mighty Fortress = Elizabethan Era - 1500 - 1600 AD
The Glory of Rome = Rome natch - 700 BC to 500 AD
Age of Heroes = Greek myth era - 2000 BC - 200 BC
Crusades = The crusades natch - 1100 - 1200 AD
Castle's Guide also has some historical play if recall right.

Quote from: faelord on May 07, 2025, 12:38:13 PMThx! Any links or names?

The TSR Historical line was
Vikings = Vikings natch - 800-1100 AD
Charlemagne's Paladins = 700-800 AD
Celts = Celts natch - 600 - 100 BC
A Mighty Fortress = Elizabethan Era - 1500 - 1600 AD
The Glory of Rome = Rome natch - 700 BC to 500 AD
Age of Heroes = Greek myth era - 2000 BC - 200 BC
Crusades = The crusades natch - 1100 - 1200 AD
Castle's Guide also has some historical play if recall right.

Each one has its own, often HEAVY, restrictions on race and class.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 08, 2025, 07:09:13 PMI'll freely admit that one of the reasons I've never gotten into straight history as an RPG setting is because, as a gamer, I loves me my Kewl Powerz. If I can't play a psychic, or a magician, or a miracleworker (save if perhaps the GM sometimes has things turn out the way my character prays they do), the game loses a lot of appeal for me.

Yeah, the big thing in fantasy is how the introduction of any significant amount of high fantasy stuff as portrayed in even like DnD (past ADnD) is how it's invariably going to massively change the social dynamics and world beyond any easy resemblance to irl history.

Rly you need stuff like Berserk tyoe thing of ""magic/normal fantasy stuff is obscure and dangerous.""

Quote from: faelord on May 08, 2025, 10:01:37 PMRly you need stuff like Berserk tyoe thing of ""magic/normal fantasy stuff is obscure and dangerous.""

Which is another thing making "historical accuracy" hard to maintain, if you're trying to go the World of Darkness / Sorcerers Crusade route by hiding all the magical/fantastical stuff in the unobserved, unrecorded wainscots of history.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 08, 2025, 10:13:41 PM

Quote from: faelord on May 08, 2025, 10:01:37 PMYeah, the big thing in fantasy is how the introduction of any significant amount of high fantasy stuff as portrayed in even like DnD (past ADnD) is how it's invariably going to massively change the social dynamics and world beyond any easy resemblance to irl history.

Rly you need stuff like Berserk tyoe thing of ""magic/normal fantasy stuff is obscure and dangerous.""

Which is another thing making "historical accuracy" hard to maintain, if you're trying to go the World of Darkness / Sorcerers Crusade route by hiding all the magical/fantastical stuff in the unobserved, unrecorded wainscots of history.

To faelord's point... Even rare magic can easily radically change history, though. A single person who can cure lepers and feed crowds, say, could easily have a massive social impact.

Many magical effects have greater impact if they are obscure or unknown. For example, if invisibility is a known ability, then people can defend against it. If it is unknown, then an invisible assassin could kill the emperor.

On the other hand, some magical effects are less likely to change history - especially if they are close to what historical people already believed and don't change the balance of power.

---

A hidden-magic world like World of Darkness is a whole other can of worms. I'm especially doubtful about secrecy that depends on active policing, because it's impossible to keep a secret among more than a handful of people. Werewolf's Veil works better than most of the other explanations for secrecy.

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 08, 2025, 10:58:25 AMIt would be fun to create a game where the players are modern folks dumped into a previous historical period. What they know (or think they know) they know. Now survive and maybe prosper if you can use that historical and technical knowldge to advantage.

You might check this out. Not exactly what you're describing, but certainly the right system and tools to do this with.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/266664

This is kind of a weird thread for The RPGSite, given that most of Pundit's works are based on actual history.
I love historical games because the cultures make sense since they actually existed. That said, it's certainly beneficial if the myths and legends of the time are included as well. For example, if a player insist on playing a female warrior in an ancient setting, have him/her play an Amazon. Problem solved.
Slave characters aren't a problem if they happen to be a slave of one of the other PCs and the player of the slave owner doesn't abuse his character's position. Another possibility is to have a PC be the slave of a powerful patron. Declining the patron's requests (e.g. to go on a quest) wouldn't be an option. The same holds true for state-owned slaves, who, like government agents, could be sent anywhere without having the right to refuse. In sci-fi settings, you could also have this apply to robot/android PCs. They'd basically just be property.

Quote from: SHARK on May 08, 2025, 06:14:01 PMOf course, if the Players are also well-versed in History, and have a strong desire to play oppressed, mud-covered peasants, then the DM doesn't need to consider Historical exceptions, and can go whole hogg. *Laughing*

If the players are well-versed in history, they ought to at least know that peasants weren't generally covered in mud. Oppression levels varied.

I think somebody mentioned here that slavery parallels with with being indebted to someone and lots of white immigrants to America in its early days basically lived as somewhere between a slave and a citizen as well. It's ironic that simply labeling something as slavery or not suddenly forces people to see it differently.

I myself rejected a job where my boss was attempting to offer me reduced housing cost if I performed my job well and agreed to stay there. He was known to bribe the local fire station among other very questionable ordeals, being the owner of an independent living center and not wanting to provide adequate care for the people there. It begs the question: what is slavery and are forms of financial slavery still alive today, even in western nations? We see immigrants being paid less than minimum wage to produce our food and our president giving them special permission to not get deported if they continue to work at illegally-low wages. It's kind of insane that we don't label things as slavery in the modern age when people are obviously being exploited and an economy cannot seemingly even survive without it.

Peasants and slaves were freely allowed to sing and socially bond during the workday, but most American workers at minimum wage would be fired for singing, listening to music, or socializing while they work. Sure, there's no corporal punishment in the modern-day workplace but there are freedoms most working Americans will never get to experience that literal peasants had back in the day. They had families. It was affordable to have children. It was okay to be poor and hard-working.

I'm really pushing my luck on this site as of late, but I'm in a really headspace weird right now and I'm just expressing how I feel. I don't mean to be demeaning anybody or anything, I'm just very frustrated at how terminology can dictate the way we feel about something and we aren't willing to take a real look around us and actually compare living conditions with the past in an unbiased way. Conquerors write all of history, so it's bound to be tainted with half-truths and revisionism.