The alt history threads are mildly interesting, but when I read them I just keep thinking that real history is much more interesting than speculation. With the sort of fundamental changes being discussed (which make the historical setting almost unrecognisable), I'd rather just go the whole hog and play fantasy.
The draw of history for me is the real weight of things that happened.
Discuss....
I largely agree. Alt-history can never be a serious intellectual exercise; there are too many philosophical problems. I'd rather just go "what if...?" and have the freedom to be as gonzo as I like, or keep to real history.
good gaming to you,
TheShadow
for me, history is fun to read. to see how things transpired, from what causes and effects, and then throw in the further development from these events is an amazing progression. and then to postulate on past trends to imagine where things can go is a great thought exercise.
but alt history is like a combination of the two i've mentioned above. you have to examine how things were, change one thing, and then try to figure the most probable development. stuff like that makes for good gaming. play an adventure set around a past event. let their characters influence said event (better if they only have an inkling of its importance). then let the campaign continue, fleshing out how things have changed or will change. ah, to have the time to try such a thing. time, and like-minded players. . . .
I agree.
I'd like to see a French Revolution RPG. Strictly historical, no gizmos of any kind.
(No, GURPS Scarlet Pimpernel is not it. It's the anti-Revolution RPG. I don't want to "outwit the Committee on Public Welfare," citizen. I want to be on it.)
I wouldn't really be all that into an alt-history game either; though for a historical game, I'd want to steer clear of putting the PCs into a position where they have to interact strongly with the historical timeline. Otherwise history becomes a sort of metaplot.
The alt history threads suffer from being posted in terms of "what if X [which we know happened] didn't happen?" Of course there are all sorts of things that didn't happen which could have happened. Like when I wrote that Byzantium would have remained the center of the western world if it weren't for the Islamic conquests: it's not to say that something else might not have had a similar effect, we just don't know what.
The other thing as a friend of mine points out is that nearly all alt history questions are posed in terms of preserving some anachronism of interest. Nobody asks "What if the North had won the First Battle of Bull Run?" Instead it's, "What if the South had AK-47's?"
Quote from: droogThe alt history threads are mildly interesting, but when I read them I just keep thinking that real history is much more interesting than speculation. With the sort of fundamental changes being discussed (which make the historical setting almost unrecognisable), I'd rather just go the whole hog and play fantasy.
The draw of history for me is the real weight of things that happened.
Discuss....
Where do you draw the line between pure fantasy and altered history? To give you an example, is steam punk a pure fantasy setting? Or just a form of altered history?
I agree that real history makes for a fascinating setting. But it also very, very challenging to run.
I like both historical games and alt-history. To me, they are very closely related. That said, I despise playing in and will never play a historical setting with another history major. To the last one, it has been a painful and disruptive experience. I think it has to do with the "I must know more than you" vibe to the profession. I have played with a range of historians, from field archaeologists to museum curators to historical librarians to just guys with their history degree and now work in IT. Every last one of them had to expound on their knowledge of the period we played in to the detriment of the game. Painful.
With that in mind, I have had great deals of fun with Respublica and Imperius, my historic Roman settings. Mostly with non-history major folk. I find it a lot more fun because they get excited and 9 times out of 10 they run off to research the period and we share great info. Often, it just comes down to good story and not getting hung up on "historical veracity".
As to alt-history, it is my bread and butter. It pays the bills although Squirrels are getting closer to filling that niche. So, I am probably biased but I find it works just fine as escapism. Sometimes it loosens up folks who know something of the period and others it turns them off. I can understand folks who want nothing to do with alt-history but I really cannot sympathize since I find it a lot of fun.
Of course, YMMV,
Bill
I think I just like real history settings in a "backdrop" sort of way. This Roman one I'm running is the first where the PCs can really make their own history. Still not sure how it'll turn out, only one player has an ambitious character, which puts more work on me!
But as setting, as something to be part of, real history's great.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkWhere do you draw the line between pure fantasy and altered history? To give you an example, is steam punk a pure fantasy setting? Or just a form of altered history?
I agree that real history makes for a fascinating setting. But it also very, very challenging to run.
Steampunk is a pretty loose category. Steampunk Star Wars=fantasy. Steampunk Roman Empire=alt history. Very loosely.
It's at the point where you say "It's the Romans--but with guns!" that I tend to lose interest. I'd rather just have the Romans.
I actually prefer alt-history. With alt history the GM gets the same sense of exploration as the pc's, and the moment the PCs do anything noteworthy it becomes alt history of a sort.
I'm of the opinion that all real-world campaigns are alt.history to an extent. It's just a question of degrees.
Given the number of non-alternate Historical campaigns that I've run or am currently running, I would have to agree. You don't need history to be "alternate" for it to be interesting, you just have to know enough about the history you're running to be able to make it a good experience for the players.
Most of the times, the stories behind what REALLY happened are much more interesting than any "variant" you could dream up.
RPGPundit
Quote from: DrewI'm of the opinion that all real-world campaigns are alt.history to an extent. It's just a question of degrees.
Well yes, for two reasons.
First, all History as an academic discipline is actually engaging in "alternate history". Its impossible to utterly divorce ourselves from the distorting optics of our own ideas and opinions and the lens of the present.
Second, any history campaign where you add the player characters will immediately become a kind of "alt.history", just by virtue of the PCs being free agents. Unless you limit your players so much that they literally can do nothing other than be spectators.
That said; there's the "titus pullo and lucius voreno" kind of "alternate history" and the "Romans with Laser Guns" or "Christianity never existed" kind of alternate history. That's quite the spectrum...
RPGPundit
You 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.
Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, any history campaign where you add the player characters will immediately become a kind of "alt.history", just by virtue of the PCs being free agents. Unless you limit your players so much that they literally can do nothing other than be spectators.
Yes & 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.
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?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_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.
Alt-history earns a bit of cred with me due to the fact that, when playing an historical RPG campaign, every moment is a jumping-off point into alt-history. You could start off being completely historical, but the second the GM and players start mucking about, it's alt.
Historical roleplaying, if it is not completely restricted to re-enactment, is destined to be alt-history to some degree or another.
!i!
Quote from: droogWhen 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.
What I gave was the abridged version. We actually went on for several sessions and this was a background issue until he began organizing peasants for a revolution against the nobles to demand democracy. At that point, despite long discussions on both character lack of knowledge and general social stimulus for such a government, he could not be ignored as a loon in the setting since he was taking arms against the king.
So, this would have been a case of knowingly deviating from the historical premise.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltSo, this would have been a case of knowingly deviating from the historical premise.
Sounds more like that guy being a dumbarse, if you ask me. But peasant revolts are okay as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: droogSounds more like that guy being a dumbarse, if you ask me. But peasant revolts are okay as far as I'm concerned.
Well, again, he does the same things in fantasy settings. Does it matter as much? No, because, hey, its fantasy and there might be some sort of bizarro nation that has the concepts of due process under the law, egalitarian punitive sentencing and equal voting rights for all members of society. In medieval France, no so much.
Again, I can go into a long drawn out explanation but the point is not in the details but in the idea that with historical campaigns, you cannot bring your pet beliefs or indulgences but must adhere to the setting or it becomes alt history.
BTW- He made arguments for introducing democracy and by extension all the modern legal rights of the US by basing it on his character knowing of the Roman Republic and Greek democracy.
Bill
did his character have the requisite education to make those conclusions? if not, then no deal, illegal knowledge, experience penalty. i've shut a few situations down in that manner. works pretty effectively too.
but it's better when you don't have to. but disruptive players come along all the time, and as mentioned before, historical gaming tends to bring out more anachronistic fiddling.
Quote from: HinterWeltI 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.
It might happen whenever
you run a historical campaign, but it doesn't happen with me: I tend to play with players who are willing to not be disruptive.
Quote from: WarthurIt might happen whenever you run a historical campaign, but it doesn't happen with me: I tend to play with players who are willing to not be disruptive.
Ah, I apologize. You are indeed correct. It is just me.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Bill
Quote from: The_ShadowI largely agree. Alt-history can never be a serious intellectual exercise; there are too many philosophical problems. I'd rather just go "what if...?" and have the freedom to be as gonzo as I like, or keep to real history.
good gaming to you,
TheShadow
Actually Alternate History is a serious intellectual exercise. It is becoming quite popular in academia and numerous historians have written scholarly papers and books on the subject (in academia AH is usually called Counter-Factual). There are even a number of high-school and college level text books with AH as the premise.
it's a serious exercise as long as you don't get silly, e.g. let's bring AK-47's to the south in the civil war. . . . :rolleyes:
kept within the proper confines of normality, it's an amazing thought experiment. :keke:
Quote from: beeberit's a serious exercise as long as you don't get silly, e.g. let's bring AK-47's to the south in the civil war. . . . :rolleyes:
kept within the proper confines of normality, it's an amazing thought experiment. :keke:
No argument, that kind of thing puts it in the time/dimensional travel or ASB category (like Turtledove's
Guns of the South, Flint's
1632 and so on series, or Stirling's
Island in the Sea of Time series) which is not strict AH.
But I will say that the cover for
Guns of the South is fantastic with Lee standing there with said AK-47. I remember when the book first came out I hadn't heard anything about it and was just walking down the aisle of a large bookstore. They had their copies of
GOTS in an endcap display by the history section. I walked by, gave it a glance and continued down the aisle. I got about 6 steps before it sank in that yes, what I had really seen Lee with an AK-47 on the cover of that book. I did buy a copy.:hehe:
Quote from: HInterweltAgain, I can go into a long drawn out explanation but the point is not in the details but in the idea that with historical campaigns, you cannot bring your pet beliefs or indulgences but must adhere to the setting or it becomes alt history.
BTW- He made arguments for introducing democracy and by extension all the modern legal rights of the US by basing it on his character knowing of the Roman Republic and Greek democracy.
I would have made him write his manifesto without any reference books.
But that's not really what I'm talking about when I talk about alt history. If that player could concoct a suitably medieval interpretation of democracy, it seems okay to me.
Quote from: HinterWelt2. 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.
Hahaha. That's beautiful.
I tend to run historical games like clash does, on a smaller scale. So far I haven't had any problems, but I don't run them that often and when I do they tend to be Old West and WWII with a more cinematic edge--the PCs are more bent on hanging horse thieves and shooting Nazis to really fudge up the big picture.
I think the problem with alt. history RPGs is that not all designers like to do the excellent research that you (Bill) and Clash do for your games. They tend to fixate on a cool "what if" idea, but don't take the time logically consider how the "what if" could have occurred and what happens after, even when that's a major part of their game. So, they might say, "wouldn't it be cool if the Nazis took over Europe?" And from there, they design a setting where everything just fell into place for Germany and no country ever had a chance, and the characters are thrust into this world to see what they do.
I don;t really know if I'm being clear here, but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind alt history if it's plausible, but it really bugs me when no real thought is put into exactly why events happened like they did. This requires real research and part of the reason I think some people (not everyone!) design alt. history games is to avoid all that research.
Pete
the cure for anachronistic interference by players? good enemies! if they're too busy hangin' horse thieves or shootin' nazis (thanks, pete!), they'll be less likely to screw things up.
Quote from: beeberthe cure for anachronistic interference by players? good enemies! if they're too busy hangin' horse thieves or shootin' nazis (thanks, pete!), they'll be less likely to screw things up.
:) It's worked for me so far, but again, I don't run historical games very often.
Quote from: pspahnI don;t really know if I'm being clear here, but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't mind alt history if it's plausible, but it really bugs me when no real thought is put into exactly why events happened like they did.
In case I haven't totally killed this thread yet, RPGPundit just outlined a much better example of what I'm talking about here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=127138#post127138).
Quote from: pspahnIn case I haven't totally killed this thread yet. . . .
nah, i think the alt hist theme is running out of steam, with the exception of some great posts by the classicists on the board.