Quote from: HinterWeltI like to shoot for modeling some tricky stuff in historical games. The success I have seen on this front is when you forget about it being historical and realize you are playing a game, not giving a history lecture. You do not need a group of historians to enjoy a historical setting as long as you do ot make the session about history.

Bill

I agree that you don't. I also think that part of the appeal of a historical campaign IS the history, though I don't think you were meaning to deny that at all.

Anyways, right now I'm running a very successful pair of historical campaigns, the Three Kingdoms game and the Roman game.  These will soon be joined by a wild west game and a Great Pendragon campaign (though the latter can only be considered pseudo-historical, the campaign itself is still done in an historical style).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree that you don't. I also think that part of the appeal of a historical campaign IS the history, though I don't think you were meaning to deny that at all.

RPGPundit

Correct. My meaning was that the historical elements should be there but players should not require a degree in history to appreciate them.

Bill

Right. IMO, an Historical game, like any other RP game, should be about the characters.

-clash

To Anemone's point:

If I like history a little bit, but I'm not married to it, I'll have the Romans riding the Elephants. That might bother somebody in the group who wants to remain closer to the real history. But then, aren't I and my compatriots on a big railroad that limits my choices based in the real history (I'm not saying it's true, I'm just putting it out there as a question to confront).

Likewise, if I'm a history buff about, or just very interested in, the period in which the game is taking place, do I make a decision that goes against history? I know in war games, that was, to a large extent, the point of the excercise. But how much knowledge is guilty knowledge? Do I play the character not knowing the elephants are crossing the Alps? Do change the real history? How far do I go?

I generally don't play historical games, but it's interesting to me to look at it from these perspectives. It's almost another layer of compatibility you have to assure at the table.  So it's not have too much or too little knowledge of the historical period.  It's have a consistent one at the table so that people will not push against the boundaries of others.

Or I could be completely wrong...

Quote from: James J SkachTo Anemone's point:

If I like history a little bit, but I'm not married to it, I'll have the Romans riding the Elephants. That might bother somebody in the group who wants to remain closer to the real history. But then, aren't I and my compatriots on a big railroad that limits my choices based in the real history (I'm not saying it's true, I'm just putting it out there as a question to confront).

If you're on a railroad, of any kind, I suggest you get off if you don't like the ride. It doesn't matter whether it's an historical railroad or Joe's Homebrew Setting. A railroad is a railroad and should be trated as such.

Quote from: James J SkachLikewise, if I'm a history buff about, or just very interested in, the period in which the game is taking place, do I make a decision that goes against history? I know in war games, that was, to a large extent, the point of the excercise. But how much knowledge is guilty knowledge? Do I play the character not knowing the elephants are crossing the Alps? Do change the real history? How far do I go?

I'm a history buff. I write in my historical games that the moment a PC sets foot in the setting, it becomes alt history. There are ways to limit this if you want to, like keeping PCs to fringe areas, but the things in this game never happened, no matter where they take place. If you want to see what actually happened, read a history book. If you want to ask "what if" a historical game is the best way to do it.

Quote from: James J SkachI generally don't play historical games, but it's interesting to me to look at it from these perspectives. It's almost another layer of compatibility you have to assure at the table.  So it's not have too much or too little knowledge of the historical period.  It's have a consistent one at the table so that people will not push against the boundaries of others.

Or I could be completely wrong...

I still don't understand why you have to worry about it. It isn't there. There is no spoon. Take the things that have happened in the real world up to the point of your game starting as if it were the setting for any RPG, and go from there. Don't worry about the Guy who says "It didn't happen quite that way - Romans didn't ride elephants!" Tell him "This is historical gaming, not a history lesson. We're playing 'What if Romans rode elephants,' and we'll go from there."

-clash

Like I said, I have no experience in that realm, so I was really just trying to get my mind around what might be the logical extension of Anemone's point.

I agree - my response would be "everything happened up to the point you got into your character's head..."

But it seems not everyone feels that way (by a response on this very board about Nazi's and Finland, if I read that post right).

I'm asking so many questions because I honestly don't know how these things play out, having never played in an historical game before.  So please take nothing as an assertion of things I think are important. Just questions I might have before getting into an historical game.

Quote from: James J SkachLike I said, I have no experience in that realm, so I was really just trying to get my mind around what might be the logical extension of Anemone's point.

I agree - my response would be "everything happened up to the point you got into your character's head..."

But it seems not everyone feels that way (by a response on this very board about Nazi's and Finland, if I read that post right).

I'm asking so many questions because I honestly don't know how these things play out, having never played in an historical game before.  So please take nothing as an assertion of things I think are important. Just questions I might have before getting into an historical game.

I have played the full gambit from exacting and extremely slow moving historical exactness with history majors in a Three Kingdoms game to people who (honestly) thought there were machine guns in the medieval ages. The trick is to pull the adventure out, keep the history as correct as is true to the setting and the desire of the players and make sure people focus on thier characters. So, in my medieval Germanic campaign, I politely told the player that guns had not been invented then and he should choose from the list of weapons provided.

As Clash mentioned, it is more about characters and playing group dynamics than who died when. That said, historic gaming seems plagued with perfectionists who want to show you how much they know. That could be one of the bigger elements that would hold the genre back. No one wants to feel a member of the group is belittling the rest.

Just my take on it.
Bill

Quote from: James J SkachLike I said, I have no experience in that realm, so I was really just trying to get my mind around what might be the logical extension of Anemone's point.

I agree - my response would be "everything happened up to the point you got into your character's head..."

But it seems not everyone feels that way (by a response on this very board about Nazi's and Finland, if I read that post right).

I'm asking so many questions because I honestly don't know how these things play out, having never played in an historical game before.  So please take nothing as an assertion of things I think are important. Just questions I might have before getting into an historical game.

If I'm joining a game that has Finns hunting Nazis in 1941-ish, I know very well it's not an actual historical setting and I'll treat it as alt history. It's certainly no less historical than Forgotten Realms or World of Darkness. Doesn't mean I won't have a fine time playing it, either. All historical games are - to some degree - alt history. It goes with the territory.

If you have Romans riding elephants, then it's alt history before you start the game. Otherwise it's al history after you start. If you keep your changes to things that could have happened given different decisions or people involved, then it stays historical. If you make changes to the fundamental laws of physics, it slides into fantasy. David's IHW game with female sailing navy captains is historical. If he added dragons a la Temeraire, it's no longer historical and has become fantasy. Doesn't mean it's any less fun to play in, it's just that the label 'historical' is no longer appropriate. Not a problem.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltit is more about characters and playing group dynamics

This actually was my badly expressed point when I said:

Quote from: James J. SkachIt's almost another layer of compatibility you have to assure at the table. So it's not have too much or too little knowledge of the historical period. It's have a consistent one at the table so that people will not push against the boundaries of others.

My examples and questions leading up to it might have been off base, but that's where I was going.  It really doesn't matter where you play on the spectrum, as long as everyone's on the same page. I suppose it's no different than people who play fantasy setttings and the spectrum of "canon."

Quote from: HinterWeltThat said, historic gaming seems plagued with perfectionists who want to show you how much they know.

On the half-full side of things, there are also the players who honestly get really, really excited over some bit of minutia that becomes pivotal to their character concept or setting, then find themselves disappointed (or indignant) when the other players are unaware of it or simply indifferent.  To which, of course, the only appropriate response is, "Oh, well -- suck it up and roll with it."

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you have Romans riding elephants, then it's alt history before you start the game.

Now, you see, the sad thing is that the Romans were positioned in North Africa and everything.  The lazy fucks could've pulled it off. No God damned ambition, I say.

!i!

Quote from: HinterWeltAs Clash mentioned, it is more about characters and playing group dynamics than who died when. That said, historic gaming seems plagued with perfectionists who want to show you how much they know. That could be one of the bigger elements that would hold the genre back. No one wants to feel a member of the group is belittling the rest.

Just my take on it.
Bill

I treat them exactly as I would any other disruptive player in any other game.

-clash

I don't think any of my players in my historical games feel particularly "belittled". If they did, I doubt the campaigns would be so popular.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachIt's almost another layer of compatibility you have to assure at the table.  So it's not have too much or too little knowledge of the historical period.  It's have a consistent one at the table so that people will not push against the boundaries of others.

Exactly!  I don't think there is anything wrong with any given level of detail preference; but it's important to have a little discussion with the group at the start of the game to establish common expectations.  In a way, it's no different from having different genre expectations (what is pulp? what is noir? etc.) but there is the added risk of massive amounts of documentation available, so that if players start to argue, they have monstrous amounts of "ammo" to make their point.  Much better to negotiate a treaty before the war begins...  :keke:

Now, in the example of the Godlike game that was to be set in Finland, the discussion had been (and I didn't explain this very well in my earlier post) about a gritty, "realistic" and historical feel to the story.  The problem was not that the GM chose to alter history -- it was that he hadn't bothered to check history.  It's difficult to establish common ground in those circumstances.  

I am certainly not a history buff, but if the game is advertised as historical, I will expect the GM to have at least read the three-paragraph intro on Wikipedia or Encarta...  

Quote from: AnemoneExactly!  I don't think there is anything wrong with any given level of detail preference; but it's important to have a little discussion with the group at the start of the game to establish common expectations.  In a way, it's no different from having different genre expectations (what is pulp? what is noir? etc.) but there is the added risk of massive amounts of documentation available, so that if players start to argue, they have monstrous amounts of "ammo" to make their point.  Much better to negotiate a treaty before the war begins...  :keke:

Careful people, we might be on to some systematic way of listing and addressing these kinds of variables and providing a foundation for hashing them out before play starts.  And that sounds like theory to me...

Quote from: James J SkachCareful people, we might be on to some systematic way of listing and addressing these kinds of variables and providing a foundation for hashing them out before play starts.  And that sounds like theory to me...

No!  No theory!