Quote from: Elliot WilenYes & no. I think it just takes a different perspective. Would a 1920's gangsters or occult game be alt-history just because the players aren't operating on a scale that's likely to let them cash in on the stock market before the crash, or prevent WWII? It's a matter of using a period of history as a setting rather than making the timeline the focus of play.

The problem is one of intent on the part of the GM - if the PCs are to be let free enough to do whatever they want in an historical setting, the GM must consider the setting as alt.history before they even begin. Otherwise, the GM must restrain the players as to their potential impact to keep it historical. PCs don't want to learn history or live history, they want to make history.

-clash

Sorry, double post.

-clash

Quote from: KoltarYou mean like the "war" in pre-Revolutionary War colonial America that started over a man's ear?

This happened in Florida general area.


That kind of thing?


- Ed C.

The War of Jenkins' Ear?

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes & no. I think it just takes a different perspective. Would a 1920's gangsters or occult game be alt-history just because the players aren't operating on a scale that's likely to let them cash in on the stock market before the crash, or prevent WWII? It's a matter of using a period of history as a setting rather than making the timeline the focus of play.

If we accept history as a field defined by the convergence of evidence and academic consenus of a given epoch then anything-- whether it be Ancinet Sumerians washing up on the coast of North America or the mere existence of the player characters in 1890's London --effectively introduces a speculative dimension that alters the established interpretation.

As such, it presents an alternative. It's no biggie, but there it is.

Drew & Clash: yes. All I'm saying is that, between the GM and the players, it's possible to focus on something other than the large-scale (or even small-scale) events of the history books, and avoid both the "scripted" problem of actual history and the speculative problem of alt-history.

E.g., The Count of Monte Cristo, as received by a modern audience: history or alt-history? Unforgiven? Tom Jones?

Quote from: Elliot WilenDrew & Clash: yes. All I'm saying is that, between the GM and the players, it's possible to focus on something other than the large-scale (or even small-scale) events of the history books, and avoid both the "scripted" problem of actual history and the speculative problem of alt-history.

E.g., The Count of Monte Cristo, as received by a modern audience: history or alt-history? Unforgiven? Tom Jones?

And what I have said agrees with this. In order to preserve the historicity, you must limit the players - "focus on something other than the large-scale (or even small-scale) events of the history books" - so that the alt.history they create is something which so localized in effect that history would have ignored if it had actually happened.There's nothing wrong with this if that's what your group is aiming for.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenDrew & Clash: yes. All I'm saying is that, between the GM and the players, it's possible to focus on something other than the large-scale (or even small-scale) events of the history books, and avoid both the "scripted" problem of actual history and the speculative problem of alt-history.

E.g., The Count of Monte Cristo, as received by a modern audience: history or alt-history? Unforgiven? Tom Jones?

This is where definitions fall away in favour of terms like 'Historical Drama' and 'Speculative Fiction,' which to my mind are far more appropriate when running games that hew closely to established facts.

The TV series Rome is a perfect example of this sort of thing, with the two protagonists wandering in and out of historical events, sometimes changing them, sometimes inspiring them. The fact that Pullo and Vorenus both make superb high level fighters only adds further resonance. I can almost see their stats in play.

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd what I have said agrees with this. In order to preserve the historicity, you must limit the players - "focus on something other than the large-scale (or even small-scale) events of the history books" - so that the alt.history they create is something which so localized in effect that history would have ignored if it had actually happened.There's nothing wrong with this if that's what your group is aiming for.

-clash

The problem occurs that a single player can derail that approach though. Or, should they wish, the players most definitely can take your localized adventure and "upgrade" it. And yes, you can say "You can have disruptive players in any game" but historical settings give a much higher opportunity and temptation to players. Personally, I am of the opinion that, unless you are doing the equivalent of reenactment or a scripted play, you are playing alt-history.

There are two sides to it also, the characters effect on the setting (history) and the players knowledge of the era. Both are factors that interact with each other. Some players just cannot resist the "I want to kill Hitler". Others knowledge of the 1930's will make sure their character has no lack of resources. All this is not the end of the world (although I did have one guy who was bound and determined to give the A-Bomb to the Japanese) but it creates unique challenges. Ones that, if you are not hung up on playing a "historical" game can be fun.

That is just my take though.

Bill

Personally, my solution to this is to make two rulings, from the very beginning:

- The campaign can diverge from "real" history as soon as the game starts - after all, the addition of the PCs to the historical situation is "alternate" in itself, unless the PCs are playing historical characters making the exact same decisions that were historically made at the time. Which is fair enough for re-enactment but rubbish for an RPG.

- Players are honour-bound to avoid ahistorical attitudes on the part of their PCs. Sure, play a heretic in the Middle Ages who wants to abolish private property, plenty of them existed, but don't have him invent Marxism - the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism (namely, Hegel and Kant) don't exist yet. Similarly, just because you know how to make a steam engine with medieval technology doesn't mean I'm going to let your character do it.

I completely agree that history with PCs introduced is in a sense an alternative history. If you want to get picky, any GM is bound to make decisions without supporting evidence or out of pure ignorance that effectively make the setting alternative history. That said, intention, scale and scope make a difference.

If the players change things in the setting, I personally feel that's another matter, and in any case less likely to change the course of history as drastically as musketeer centurions.

Quote from: WarthurSimilarly, just because you know how to make a steam engine with medieval technology doesn't mean I'm going to let your character do it.

And see, to me, that is where you run into problems for two reasons.

1. You restrict play in what seems an artificial way to me.

2. Players are seriously tempted to introduce anachronisms. I had one guy who did much the same sort of thing with what you mention. He insisted on pushing US style laws, rights and democracy on medieval France. It did not take long before he was burned at the stake. It just comes down to either a high level of anachronisms either through design or ignorance.

I will admit that the above example is extreme but it happens in lesser degrees whenever you run a historical campaign. It is inevitable but if you are flexible you can work it into a fun game.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd see, to me, that is where you run into problems for two reasons.

1. You restrict play in what seems an artificial way to me.

2. Players are seriously tempted to introduce anachronisms. I had one guy who did much the same sort of thing with what you mention. He insisted on pushing US style laws, rights and democracy on medieval France. It did not take long before he was burned at the stake. It just comes down to either a high level of anachronisms either through design or ignorance.

When you burnt the guy's character at the stake, though, didn't you restrict his play? I think a dialogue about exactly how mankind arrived at the US political culture would have been my preferred method.

In point of fact, I think there may have been working steam engines in the Middle Ages, though obviously not trains.

Quote from: flyingmiceAnd what I have said agrees with this. In order to preserve the historicity, you must limit the players

A matter of perspective; no real argument here, I just think that (a) it's better conceived as a two-way street, with neither the GM using history as a script that straightjackets the players, nor the players deliberately trying to profit from knowledge of history or trying to change it. And (b) within that general philosophy, it's not much different from running a game "set in the modern world" which doesn't concern itself with any of the big events in the news. Again, to draw from fiction, while the Clancy/Jack Ryan stuff is instant alt-history, that's not the case (or not as strongly) with Silence of the Lambs or "Dallas". Somewhere in between might be "24" or "The West Wing", which take place "today" but not in a continuity that ever diverges meaningfully from the "history of the present", as it were.

Quote from: HinterWeltThe problem occurs that a single player can derail that approach though. Or, should they wish, the players most definitely can take your localized adventure and "upgrade" it. And yes, you can say "You can have disruptive players in any game" but historical settings give a much higher opportunity and temptation to players. Personally, I am of the opinion that, unless you are doing the equivalent of reenactment or a scripted play, you are playing alt-history.

There are two sides to it also, the characters effect on the setting (history) and the players knowledge of the era. Both are factors that interact with each other. Some players just cannot resist the "I want to kill Hitler". Others knowledge of the 1930's will make sure their character has no lack of resources. All this is not the end of the world (although I did have one guy who was bound and determined to give the A-Bomb to the Japanese) but it creates unique challenges. Ones that, if you are not hung up on playing a "historical" game can be fun.

That is just my take though.

Bill

Truth, Bill. Successfully playing a circumscribed 'historical' game requires complete, voluntary, and honest buy-in from the players not to tread beyond the bounds laid out. That is why I said it needs to be determined before the game starts whether it is to be historical or alt.historical.

-clash

Like, here's a GM using history badly: a 1940's scenario where the PCs must sabotage the German nuclear program. Or any scenario where the PCs are cast in the role of defending the historical outcome. Either

a) the GM is prepared to move into alt.history,
b) the outcome is predetermined, or
c) the objective is really a Macguffin; if the party fails, some other means will be found to keep history on track. IMO this would take a steady hand to maintain interest; you'd probably have to lose any focus on setting-development (unlike pure fantasy) and clearly focus on the characters only.