Anemone, James:

I agree entirely - these are things that should be talked about before play begins. It's all about the group dynamics.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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

Do you belittle them? I assume not if they wish to return and continue to play.

That, of course, is the root of what I was trying to say. You can be a perfectionist where history is concerned, the trick is not belittling your players/co-players/GM while adding to the campaign. You would be surprised how many folks have a problem controlling that urge.

Bill

Quote from: AnemoneI 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...  

Oh, to be sure. There is a very big difference between boring the pants off everyone at the table with your mastery of history and having common ground. Heck, I do not think it is bad in the least to help out. Again, this comes down to how you say something as opposed to what you say. You can tell a GM, in front of everybody, what a stupid shit he is and how he screws poodles, oh, and by the way, you don't know shit about history.

OR

You can say something more like "No biggie but Finland was on Germany's side in the war". If he asks for more, help him out.

Please note, I am not calling you out on this. I have no idea how it went down with your group. I am just siting a factor of what I think goes wrong in these exchanges, often to the detriment of group and campaign.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAgain, this comes down to how you say something as opposed to what you say. You can tell a GM, in front of everybody, what a stupid shit he is and how he screws poodles, oh, and by the way, you don't know shit about history.

OR

You can say something more like "No biggie but Finland was on Germany's side in the war". If he asks for more, help him out.

Absolutely.  I've met pedants that actually got sighs of boredom out of history PhDs, and ignoramuses that could start a fist-fight arguing over something they had never read (like the rules, but that's another story...)

...But, going back to my first comment, that's why I think having options for smaller groups can be a good idea in a historic RPG system: "who's history?" is one more item to get table agreement over, and a relatively arcane topic.

Quote from: James J SkachOr I could be completely wrong...

Actually you're right. One of the problems IME of running historical games is there's no "divide". Okay what do I mean by "divide". History is all about "this is what happened" and the other side, the "this is what could happen" normally found in non-historical -scifi and fantasy games, is missing.

Sure there are various interpretations, but it's not like in other games where the possibilities are limitless and players can sort of butt heads untill all are comfortable with what they want. I'm not sayin' they can't do this with historical games. They can, but wander too far off the reservation and it ceases to be a historical game and you may as well be playing a "normal" rpg.

And I think what appeals to folks who play historical rpgs is that they are "staying" in the reservation, so to speak. Hope this makes sense.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Anemone...But, going back to my first comment, that's why I think having options for smaller groups can be a good idea in a historic RPG system: "who's history?" is one more item to get table agreement over, and a relatively arcane topic.

See, I worry that it would affect the growth of the RPG. One of the big problems an RPG faces is the requirement of having a GM. Having small groups means more GMs required to grow the game. I do believe it should be scalable like most RPGs. I can play a game with 1 player and me as the GM or I can feasibly run up to 12-14 if I am the only GM. Scalability is a lot more about the GM than the system. The GM needs to understand threat levels and how to work the system for the number of players.

Of course, that is just my take on it.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI can play a game with 1 player and me as the GM or I can feasibly run up to 12-14 if I am the only GM. Scalability is a lot more about the GM than the system.

Am I totally weird when I say that I never imagine a game catering to more than six players (1 GM and 5 PCs)?  I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with designing a RPG limited to a certain capped number of players if an excessive number ends up diluting the play of the game.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAm I totally weird when I say that I never imagine a game catering to more than six players (1 GM and 5 PCs)?  I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with designing a RPG limited to a certain capped number of players if an excessive number ends up diluting the play of the game.

!i!

Let me stress that I am not saying any group should have a certain number of players (large or small) but that I believe a game system should handle a number of players determined by the GM and players.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltLet me stress that I am not saying any group should have a certain number of players (large or small) but that I believe a game system should handle a number of players determined by the GM and players.

Which is why I was saying, in my first post on the thread:

Quote from: AnemoneFor this reason, I think the most promising historical RPGs will be the ones that are either created for very small groups (say, GM plus 1 to 3 players) or provide options and advice for this type of micro-campaign.

(Emphasis added.)

I'm very fond of toolbox-style RPGs and GM advice.  So if someone writes an historical RPG, I'd recommend playtesting it with different size groups and giving some thought about what to tweak to accomodate very small groups.  (Come to think of it, that's probably a good idea for any game designer, given that the average RPG group may be shrinking.)

Quote from: AnemoneFor this reason, I think the most promising historical RPGs will be the ones that are either created for very small groups (say, GM plus 1 to 3 players) or provide options and advice for this type of micro-campaign.

I was addressing the first part of the statement.

Bill

Quote from: RoninYou know what point in history I think is neglected by RPG's. The 1950's. Theres one or two out there. But they are mostly about atomic monsters and other B-movie fare. While I like that sort of thing. I think that straight historical advetures would be great. One of the military roleplaying opportunities missed is the Korea War. Be it in the trenches facing the North Koreans and Chinese. Or fighting Russian piloted MiG's in the air. Then there the general intrigue of the cold war. Spy's and skirmishes between the super powers and proxies. Not to mention stuff in the US. Such as the House Committee on Un-American Activities. With senator Joeseph McCarthy at the helm of the communist witch hunt. Or Noir style detective and crime dramas. Like the movies The Asphalt Jungle, D.O.A., The Big Heat, or Touch of evil.

A similar theme: Ever seen "Blood: the Last Vampire" anime?  Takes place days before the Vietnam War, if I remember correctly, and on an US army base in Japan.  That always appealed to me as a good setting.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAm I totally weird when I say that I never imagine a game catering to more than six players (1 GM and 5 PCs)?  I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with designing a RPG limited to a certain capped number of players if an excessive number ends up diluting the play of the game.

!i!

I don't know. I once ran a campaign with thirteen players. Mind you, I think 5-6 players is optimal.

Quote from: flyingmiceI don't know. I once ran a campaign with thirteen players. Mind you, I think 5-6 players is optimal.

Honestly, I think it is entirely personal preference. Me, I like 4 players and a GM. Five is o.k. and I have run as high as 20 with another GM (15 solo). However, I would say such games are not as much fun for players as GMs and I would even question GM enjoyment.

Bill

Quote from: David RActually you're right. One of the problems IME of running historical games is there's no "divide". Okay what do I mean by "divide". History is all about "this is what happened" and the other side, the "this is what could happen" normally found in non-historical -scifi and fantasy games, is missing.

Sure there are various interpretations, but it's not like in other games where the possibilities are limitless and players can sort of butt heads untill all are comfortable with what they want. I'm not sayin' they can't do this with historical games. They can, but wander too far off the reservation and it ceases to be a historical game and you may as well be playing a "normal" rpg.

And I think what appeals to folks who play historical rpgs is that they are "staying" in the reservation, so to speak. Hope this makes sense.

Regards,
David R

I just wanted to thank you for that observation, David.  I think that you summed up a tension that I have had with strictly historical gaming.  It can be safely said that I am a history nut, but I have had my best luck running and playing in games that are "heavily inspired" by history rather than strict period pieces.  I think that Pulp adventures in the 1920s and 30s fit this model perfectly.  Sure, the history of the period adds a lot of neat detail (like pulling out your handy 1927 Sears catalog to see what the state of the art in camping equipment is), but you also have a lot of leeway to add your own fantastical touches.

I still want to take a crack at running a strictly historical game, but your post gives me something to think about.  How does one allow for the players to feel like the world is their own to explore?  I suppose that the same problem can be found in running any game with strong expectations about the world, for example any of the licensed settings with strong followings like Star Wars.


TGA