Wanting to partake in history?  Cool.  Wanting to be one of the 300 Spartans?  That's fine, assuming that you don't mind it all ending in a guaranteed TPK.  Be one of the bomber crews that hit Japan shortly after Pearl Harbor?  Awesome.  But that's as far as it goes, unless you're doing a replay and that's a significantly different beast.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWanting to partake in history?  Cool.  Wanting to be one of the 300 Spartans?  That's fine, assuming that you don't mind it all ending in a guaranteed TPK.  Be one of the bomber crews that hit Japan shortly after Pearl Harbor?  Awesome.  But that's as far as it goes, unless you're doing a replay and that's a significantly different beast.

A replay is the only way I envision history gaming. Otherwise, it's just a tale you're being told, a railroad.

What is funny, is that that supposedly accurate historical game may be completely WRONG, as our knowledge of history is constantly revised (as with all sciencies).

I find the argument that "if you don't follow history in every detail, your gaming is not historical!!" absurd.

Quote from: pspahnI'd add "unless the GM chooses to make it so" to that sentence.  Otherwise, extremely well put, especially the part about instahealing.  That's always a definite eye-opener.

Pete

Very good point, David shows how you can use it well to add to the fun, my point really was that it isn't a problem.  David and you are quite right that it can be an opportunity.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWanting to partake in history?  Cool.  Wanting to be one of the 300 Spartans?  That's fine, assuming that you don't mind it all ending in a guaranteed TPK.  Be one of the bomber crews that hit Japan shortly after Pearl Harbor?  Awesome.  But that's as far as it goes, unless you're doing a replay and that's a significantly different beast.

Brand, I note your theoretical points, but put bluntly our actual play experience does not support your arguments.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd that's the other thing - in mentioning the issue of healing, Balbinus was assuming that "historical" means "realistic." It doesn't have to, just look at that rpg with the superheroes running around in WWII. flyingmice gave a fair definition when he said that if you add magic and psionics, etc, then it's "fantasy with an historical flavour" rather history itself.

But it's not either/or, there are degrees to things. You can have somesort of game mechanic to allow for luck - and that deals with your healing problem. "You thought it was a nasty wound, but it was just a minor one that hurt a lot." Done too often that's not realistic - but done occasionally, it's quite plausible. Plenty of people do very dangerous things and never get a scratch, while some other poor bastard steps off a curb and breaks his ankle.

I was assuming historical meant realistic, that's fair, and it doesn't have to be of course though generally I suspect it will be.

But yeah, this stuff isn't insurmountable, they're just problems that genuinely do need thought.  Pacing is key and deals with much of it, sometimes drama points or luck rolls can assist, games which prioritise ambushes and assassination can work well (and can feel quite realistic if everyone seeks to avoid fair fights for fear of getting hurt).

None of my listed problems lack ways of dealing with them, they're just stuff I would suggest people thought about instead of worrying about metaplot issues and killing Hitler which are more theoretical issues unlikely to actually arise.

Of course, I'm discussing for its own sake. As Balbinus has rightly pointed out, the problems with historical gaming are of a different kind.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerBut that's as far as it goes, unless you're doing a replay and that's a significantly different beast.

I think this is the problem right here. Most talk about historical games is dominated by the "replay" aspect, and the fact is, most campaigns are hardly about this at all.

Historical gaming is more, has always been more then just about history. You can have many kinds of adventures unfettered by historical meta plot (if you choose to).

For instance , after numerous pitches my crew has finally decided on my take on the Crusades where they play a retinue of Knights who plan to steal a Lord's ransom. Oh yes, blood will be spilt in His name.

Regards,
David R

There is always degrees but the lack of healing means that your game can be derailed. For instance, lets take a 1930s game. A rival gang makes a hit on the PC's gang. A player decides he is going to jump out and mow down the rivals with his Tommy gun. He gets pelted int he chest and stomach with return fire. Let's make the jump and say he lives through it. Now, the group was in the midst of the adventure, trying to find the kidnapped heiress before the kidnappers kill her. You have a time frame.

Look, in the end, yeah, if you have the time, you can heal. It was my understanding that you are saying you always have the time. I disagree. Whether you are telling a story or running mission based, you have a pace that your story is set at. You can adjust it to some extent but the say (in the above example) that the kidnappers hold of for 6-9 months just is not feasible. Are all games that tied to a time frame? No but those aren't the problem. I think it is safe to say that timing is important. Not always but if a group has month and months to just wait around the tension of the story relaxes.

Examples:
The evil lord is rising to power, gathering his armies and preparing to invade.

The evil lord is gathering his armies and you can take years to prepare.

The storm of the century is coming and will be here before you can prepare.

The storm of the century will be here precisely when you are prepared, people have been evacuated.

Now, one argument is that you can create the appearance of urgency while basically setting the time frame for when the party is ready. This is great in theory but far less common in practice. For example, if you are facing an invasion of the Huns and you need some months to heal up, no problem, they ravage a few more villages, sack a city or two but you still have your date with destiny. It is more tricky when you are in the thick of it. When you engage the Huns, are moving through their camp,  attempting to get to the bridge and destroy it before they cross it.

There are two situations I can think of,
1. In mission wounding.
2. Prolonged combat wounding.

Now, if you are talking the end of the above situations, you have time to rest up, you are good to go. If you are talking outside those situations, then when would you be wounded? Pacing is flexible sometime but often you destroy the suspense if you mess with it too much.

Bill

Edit: Another point that came to me. As mentioned, you could use magic healing. Sure, it is called drama or luck points but is essentially a "magic" healing. The difference being , and this may be all important, that it is a mechanical solution as opposed to a setting solution. I believe there are three ways to solve any problem in RPGs. First, mechanical solutions, second, setting solutions and finally, play solutions. To solve this mechanically you could use the luck/drama point solution. To solve it in setting, alter it to have rare science (drugs not commonly available) or magic. To solve it with play you could make sure the players understand that combat, any combat, could have the result of their character being out of the campaign even IF they win.

I would stress, I do not believe that lack of insta-heal invalidates a setting but it does change the type of play FAR more that historical vs fantasy. It can be dealt with (usually by adding insta-heal in some other form).

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, that's somewhat true, but perhaps could just be a development of what I already said. If it's "the middle of the adventure" - well, whether that adventure can be set aside for the healing time and taken up again later, that's the decision of the GM - pacing. So, "pacing" is not just "how fast game time passes compared to real time", but also, "how fast events happen, and do they continue even when the PCs aren't looking." Pacing of time, and pacing of events, if you like.

On the one extreme of event-pacing, you've got the computer or normal face-to-face roleplaying games where some NPC stands around waiting to talk to the PCs - if they stop in mid-conversation and come back, whether they come back two minutes or two months later makes no difference to the NPC, that NPC's conversation tree or part in the plot/adventure doesn't depend on time. Neither time pace nor events pace are an issue.

On the other extreme, things are happening in the game world according to a fixed schedule - the Uber Missile of Teutonic World Destruction will launch in seven game days - and will only change if the PCs change them. Time and events pacing are a big issue here.

Probably the first is more suitable for games which try to "tell a story", and the second for games which are mission-based - "go here, do this, then you win."

In the middle is where most GMs will pace their game, I think, which usually leads to some flexibility in healing times and so on. Most GMs will strike a balance between "there must be consequences to actions, or else risk means nothing" - that is, if the character fucks up, the player must wait a bit to fix it up - and "okay, you're better, let's move on" - keeping things moving.

I just mean to say that the lack of instant healing in historical or realistic-themed games isn't necessarily a killer, since most GMs have a style of game somewhere between mission-based and story-based, so they can control the pacing somewhat.

It also depends on what your combat system is trying to represent. If X points of damage can be healed by first aid, often the reasoning is, "well, it hurt a lot, but looked worse than it was. Now you can get up and do stuff." For example, if I'm whacked in the groin or the shin, I might be essentially crippled for several minutes at least - but I've not taken any real damage - tomorrow I'll have slight tenderness in the area at work, more often than not. So if your combat and wounding system represents this, then it's pretty easy for the GM to say, "Actually that crippling wound isn't!" Using Hero Points to say, "it was just a flesh wound" etc doesn't seem so cinematic with that perspective. But if your combat and wounding system represent actual lasting injury, it's harder to do that without things feeling quite like an action movie.

And that's the other thing - in mentioning the issue of healing, Balbinus was assuming that "historical" means "realistic." It doesn't have to, just look at that rpg with the superheroes running around in WWII. flyingmice gave a fair definition when he said that if you add magic and psionics, etc, then it's "fantasy with an historical flavour" rather history itself.

But it's not either/or, there are degrees to things. You can have somesort of game mechanic to allow for luck - and that deals with your healing problem. "You thought it was a nasty wound, but it was just a minor one that hurt a lot." Done too often that's not realistic - but done occasionally, it's quite plausible. Plenty of people do very dangerous things and never get a scratch, while some other poor bastard steps off a curb and breaks his ankle.

Here's some examples from my current Aces in Spades campaign. In one, PC A had to land his DH2 without empennage (landing wheels) which he had lost in a glancing collision with a Fokker Eindecker's prop, windscreen, and pilot's head. PC A had to make a belly landing, but made terrible damage rolls, totalling the DH2 and leaving him severely wounded. The player and I agreed he'd broken some ribs and a leg. Another PC was shot down in flames and died in the same action, and a third was wounded, and landed his DH2, but the mechanics had to scrap it because of the amount of damage it had absorbed. Since the flight was grounded anyway - three out of four of the planes were gone and had to be replaced - PC A was able to take enough time off to partially heal, and with the help of a leg brace was able to fly when the replacement planes and pilot came in. In other words, I was able to vary the pacing so that there was no down time.

In the second example, PC B - who was the replacement pilot for the guy shot down in flames in the first example - was shot up and made a terrrible landing, hitting a pot hole and smashing his DH 2 to bits. The fuel tank caught fire, and - in addition to the damage sustained in the landing, he had substantial burn damage. I could have taken this two ways - I could have decided that the burns were superficial and brought him back quickly, or I could have decided that the burns were deep and he needed months of hospitalization. If you go by the rulebook - which I wrote - the first option is the only one supported, but I was running a grittier game than the rulebook, and after talking it over with the player, opted for the second. This allowed the player to get back in play faster, as he could be running a replacement pilot right away, rather than waiting a week or so to heal. The player may or may not opt for the first pilot to return when his burns are healed.

Both methods of dealing with these situations worked to get play going again fast. Neither was excessively unrealistic. This, of course, doesn't help a situation where a party couldn't return to base for downtime, but it does show some options the GM has available.

BTW - the first example was the result of a balloon busting expedition - probably the most dangerous of all missions.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's some examples from my current Aces in Spades campaign. In one, PC A had to land his DH2 without empennage (landing wheels) which he had lost in a glancing collision with a Fokker Eindecker's prop, windscreen, and pilot's head. PC A had to make a belly landing, but made terrible damage rolls, totalling the DH2 and leaving him severely wounded. The player and I agreed he'd broken some ribs and a leg. Another PC was shot down in flames and died in the same action, and a third was wounded, and landed his DH2, but the mechanics had to scrap it because of the amount of damage it had absorbed. Since the flight was grounded anyway - three out of four of the planes were gone and had to be replaced - PC A was able to take enough time off to partially heal, and with the help of a leg brace was able to fly when the replacement planes and pilot came in. In other words, I was able to vary the pacing so that there was no down time.

In the second example, PC B - who was the replacement pilot for the guy shot down in flames in the first example - was shot up and made a terrrible landing, hitting a pot hole and smashing his DH 2 to bits. The fuel tank caught fire, and - in addition to the damage sustained in the landing, he had substantial burn damage. I could have taken this two ways - I could have decided that the burns were superficial and brought him back quickly, or I could have decided that the burns were deep and he needed months of hospitalization. If you go by the rulebook - which I wrote - the first option is the only one supported, but I was running a grittier game than the rulebook, and after talking it over with the player, opted for the second. This allowed the player to get back in play faster, as he could be running a replacement pilot right away, rather than waiting a week or so to heal. The player may or may not opt for the first pilot to return when his burns are healed.

Both methods of dealing with these situations worked to get play going again fast. Neither was excessively unrealistic. This, of course, doesn't help a situation where a party couldn't return to base for downtime, but it does show some options the GM has available.

BTW - the first example was the result of a balloon busting expedition - probably the most dangerous of all missions.

-clash

And you hit on it Clash, you have discrete missions ending either in death or return to base (or possibly being shot down). You have a ntural break. In both your examples it is well within the plot to say "Oh, you rest up and go out with your flight when you are better." Twist your examples so that only one out of your group is wounded badly. Yeah, as I have said before, play trumps rules and your play solution can be to more or less ignore damage (that is what you are doing). However, you need to ask how that affects play. The answer could be as simple as "It doesn't". No problem then. It has been my experience, exercised too often, you end up with a loss of suspense and risk.

Now, what it boils down to is plot and splitting the party. If one gets wounded then the others can go on but that is boring for the wounded. Say one of your pilots got shot down then you can deal with it one of the ways I mentioned, character replacement. Works best with flat systems (no or little advancement) but it can be a solution. Similarly, a mechanical solution of dropping damage or lightening it. Whichever one you choose, the other usually suffers for it.

Now, my play style, I detest dumping rules or plot for a problem in the setting. I usually mitigate this with a lot of "Are you sure you want to do that?" and pre-warning the players about the lethality of the setting. In addition, I am a fan of limited-resource healing. So, you might have a rare plant brought back from Africa by the commander of your flight. He knows it has healing properties and has shared it with his surgeon for use on the most dire cases. This is not all that out side the genre. Basically, this gives the player a do-over. He can;t rely every time on that but if bad luck happens he can get a quick fix..once.

I am not saying it invalidates the genre but it makes it very difficult for a lot of GMs out there. They have to rely on something outside the system (healing rules) to resolve it. They need to use their judgment on what is too much use of the "Oh, it wasn't that bad". Of course, a lot of it depends on the group too. Play always trumps rules. If they are easy going about it, no prob. Some of the players I have run for would take it as precedent and you would rapidly have them trying to use it to walk away from exploded planes.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd you hit on it Clash, you have discrete missions ending either in death or return to base (or possibly being shot down). You have a ntural break. In both your examples it is well within the plot to say "Oh, you rest up and go out with your flight when you are better." Twist your examples so that only one out of your group is wounded badly. Yeah, as I have said before, play trumps rules and your play solution can be to more or less ignore damage (that is what you are doing). However, you need to ask how that affects play. The answer could be as simple as "It doesn't". No problem then. It has been my experience, exercised too often, you end up with a loss of suspense and risk.

I see I didn't mention this, but I didn't skip until the first guy was healed, Bill. We actually had a couple sessions while he was recuperating, but since the whole Flight was down, they spent it together on the ground. The character still has a brace on, and very limited mobility, as he chose to be able to fly sooner and not be able to walk well. In the second example, the PC was the only one of his flight badly injured.

Usually wounds aren't this severe - the pilots just always choose to go up while recuperating and pay the penalty - minus 20% on all actions at Hindered wound level - rather than miss a flight. That actually tracks with what really happened in the Great War. Pilots never malingered, and flew with very borderline injuries. Von Richthofen was recovering from a severe head wound when he was shot down, for example.

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, what it boils down to is plot and splitting the party. If one gets wounded then the others can go on but that is boring for the wounded. Say one of your pilots got shot down then you can deal with it one of the ways I mentioned, character replacement. Works best with flat systems (no or little advancement) but it can be a solution. Similarly, a mechanical solution of dropping damage or lightening it. Whichever one you choose, the other usually suffers for it.

The advancement in the SC system is fairly flat. The replacement in the second example was not as good as the original PCs, but was good enough to survive.

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, my play style, I detest dumping rules or plot for a problem in the setting. I usually mitigate this with a lot of "Are you sure you want to do that?" and pre-warning the players about the lethality of the setting. In addition, I am a fan of limited-resource healing. So, you might have a rare plant brought back from Africa by the commander of your flight. He knows it has healing properties and has shared it with his surgeon for use on the most dire cases. This is not all that out side the genre. Basically, this gives the player a do-over. He can;t rely every time on that but if bad luck happens he can get a quick fix..once.

I am not saying it invalidates the genre but it makes it very difficult for a lot of GMs out there. They have to rely on something outside the system (healing rules) to resolve it. They need to use their judgment on what is too much use of the "Oh, it wasn't that bad". Of course, a lot of it depends on the group too. Play always trumps rules. If they are easy going about it, no prob. Some of the players I have run for would take it as precedent and you would rapidly have them trying to use it to walk away from exploded planes.

Bill

I find a buy-in from the players helps that a lot. If the players know the setting is difficult this way before they choose to play, they won't take advantage in my experience. Of course, I do have exceptional players...

-clasg

Quote from: HinterWeltThere is always degrees but the lack of healing means that your game can be derailed. For instance, lets take a 1930s game. A rival gang makes a hit on the PC's gang. A player decides he is going to jump out and mow down the rivals with his Tommy gun. He gets pelted int he chest and stomach with return fire. Let's make the jump and say he lives through it.

I think you're confusing historical with pulp.  In a historical 1930s game you don't jump out and try to mow people down with a tommy gun because you might get shot and one shot might kill you or at least complicate things all to hell.  You would hide behind a wall or inside a building and shoot at them from cover, just like you would in real life (assuming you ever wanted to mow down a gang with a tommy gun).  Your GM should know this and try not to include a lot of straight up fights.  

Now, in a pulp game, you _would_ jump out and open up with the Tommy gun and to blazes if you were hit.  As long as you survived, you'd be ready for the next scene.  And if you're playing a pulp game that doesn't encourage that kind of overthe top action, then you probably should switch to another game.  It's not so much instaheal as it is sticking to genre.  

Me, I like historical pulp.  Doesn't matter if it's WWII, Old West, 1980s, or Medieval, I want my guys to be able to get in fights and not have to worry about healing times or going into shock or septic necrosis.  But, that's just me.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnI think you're confusing historical with pulp.  In a historical 1930s game you don't jump out and try to mow people down with a tommy gun because you might get shot and one shot might kill you or at least complicate things all to hell.  You would hide behind a wall or inside a building and shoot at them from cover, just like you would in real life (assuming you ever wanted to mow down a gang with a tommy gun).  Your GM should know this and try not to include a lot of straight up fights.  

Now, in a pulp game, you _would_ jump out and open up with the Tommy gun and to blazes if you were hit.  As long as you survived, you'd be ready for the next scene.  And if you're playing a pulp game that doesn't encourage that kind of overthe top action, then you probably should switch to another game.  It's not so much instaheal as it is sticking to genre.  

Me, I like historical pulp.  Doesn't matter if it's WWII, Old West, 1980s, or Medieval, I want my guys to be able to get in fights and not have to worry about healing times or going into shock or septic necrosis.  But, that's just me.  

Pete

I understand this. You understand this. The question is, would a popular majority understand this, enough to make a historical game popular. Maybe, but I think in most cases, considering they were most likely initiated to gaming via insta-heal epic style fantasy gaming, the popular majority would not. Yeah, it sounds like common sense but unless you have a GM with a firm grasp of the genre and system, you will have players trying stuff like this.

Can it be mitigated with a GM or players who are aware of the limitation? Yes, I said as much. Play always trumps system or setting for that matter. The problem comes up with familiarity of the setting. Even then, combat is likely to happen. Caveat: with the "right" group you can avoid combat to the climax but I believe this would be special conditions. When combat happens, or for that matter anything that would wound the character (car chase, foot chase across roofs, poisoning, etc) you have the problem rise again.

As I have also said before, it is not insurmountable. It is part of the genre and an experienced player and GM can get around it but it is not just a story, RPGs are different in that the hero does not always win. A number of the plot paths are determined by random means and that can introduce difficulties that historical emulation complicates. Most times these complications can be avoided by addition of elements like magic, rare medicines, or meta-rules. However, I do believe they are real and one of the elements holding historical gaming back.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI understand this. You understand this. The question is, would a popular majority understand this, enough to make a historical game popular.

No, straight historical will never be popular.  I think that's pretty clear.  Clash said in the OP that it was a niche and I think that's probably what it will always be (as opposed to historical horror/supernatural/etc.).  But the fact that there is a niche means there's a market for it, however small.  I was just making the point that if players sit down to a historical game, they generally expect it to be gritty and lethal so they don't take a lot of unnecessary chances.  At least, that's been my experience.  

And just to be clear, I unsubscribed from this thread a while back and am not up on everything that's been discussed, so I apologize if my comments are a repeat of another post.  

I'm currently working on a series of (pulpish) historical niche games, so I'm finding this thread useful.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnNo, straight historical will never be popular.  I think that's pretty clear.  Clash said in the OP that it was a niche and I think that's probably what it will always be (as opposed to historical horror/supernatural/etc.).  But the fact that there is a niche means there's a market for it, however small.  I was just making the point that if players sit down to a historical game, they generally expect it to be gritty and lethal so they don't take a lot of unnecessary chances.  At least, that's been my experience.  

And just to be clear, I unsubscribed from this thread a while back and am not up on everything that's been discussed, so I apologize if my comments are a repeat of another post.  

I'm currently working on a series of (pulpish) historical niche games, so I'm finding this thread useful.  

Pete

No harm done, I was just referencing myself.

I wont argue that the right group will understand the nature and keep their heads down but I also think it is a bit much to hope for that you will never have one of the party harmed and the others o.k.

Again, not impossible. I mean, honestly, I may not produce straight historical games but I am aware of the periods my books deal with.

Bill