Quote from: RPGPundit;876350Right... because obviously the highly-educated elite were far more superstitious than the notoriously hard-atheist dawkins-reading peasantry. That happens in all societies. :rolleyes:

That's not what I said or implied. But you'd know that already if you stopped rolling your eyes long enough to read what I actually wrote.

QuoteAnd ironically to your point, the Church was frequently one of the most carefully skeptical examiners of supernatural claims and phenomena...

I am already well aware of that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;876352No, I'm not. If anything, I'm saying that ALL paradigms (including our own culture's) are equally INVALID. They are all socially/collectively-constructed projections of artificial reality that distorts reality as it actually is.

Your language does the opposite. Well we've had that discussion and you made it clear you seem unwilling to use precise language that would actually support this point instead of treating paradigms as reality.

QuoteWhich, by the way, is very much in line with true occult teaching (as opposed to the medieval paradigm of belief about magic).

No doubt. True occult teaching is undoubtedly remarkably similar to true Scotsmen.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876448I'm not talking about real life magic, in historical gaming, and all it entails.  I'm talking D&D style magic in historical gaming, which simply has never worked in my experience.

If by magic you mean wizards tossing fireballs in public to obliterate entire companies of pikemen, I don't think anyone is arguing that would integrate well with our history.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;876448I'm not talking about real life magic, in historical gaming, and all it entails.  I'm talking D&D style magic in historical gaming, which simply has never worked in my experience.

Everyone here though seems to mean highly customized D&D magic or a system tailored to fit the assumptions of the period.

Quote from: Phillip;876310Restating what I think are the main points:
A) Adding the fantasy elements makes a departure already to another world.
B) You avoid pedantic quibbles.

But for the downside of invented fantasy worlds, you give up familiarity (assuming the players actually are familiar with history; those who aren't and don't really care could be added as point C to your list), you forego a large supply of source material, and you lose the potential of "truth is stranger than (plausible) fiction": knowing that something actually happened in history might forestall losing suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;876450Everyone here though seems to mean highly customized D&D magic or a system tailored to fit the assumptions of the period.

Yeah, but that doesn't seem much like D&D to me, and apparently not to other people in this thread. What OSR/OGL means is a lot less certain, but I expect a lot of it still includes stuff being common like fireballs and raise dead and teleport and commune and dragons and undead and so forth, if not actual wishes being granted, even if Dark Albion and other games don't.

The weird thing about this thread is that Bren hasn't been jumping up and down shrieking "argumentum ad fireballum!" all the times someone suggested that powerful magic would change history. :idunno:

Quote from: rawma;876543Yeah, but that doesn't seem much like D&D to me, and apparently not to other people in this thread. What OSR/OGL means is a lot less certain, but I expect a lot of it still includes stuff being common like fireballs and raise dead and teleport and commune and dragons and undead and so forth, if not actual wishes being granted, even if Dark Albion and other games don't.

:

I think OSR/OGL is flexible enough that you can really tweak the magic system to fit the setting if you want. But even if one doesn't I am not particularly troubled by straight D&D transported into history. Yes it requires some imaginative suspension of disbelief, but I think there is a lot of fun to be had with history as a campaign setting even if you don't worry about the changes something like Fireball or Raise Dead might introduce. It is a game of imagination and fantasy. I'm fine with the GM cranking up the fantasy elements as much as he or she wants in a historical or vaguely historical setting. If I weren't I probably wouldn't enjoy games like Call of Cthulu or movies like Excalibur and Dragonlslayer (the latter of which invents a kingdom whole cloth as I recall). And pretty much all I read is history books. It just doesn't bother me.

I do think using historical Europe does introduce challenges that fantasy analogy europe won't (because it is easier take and remove aspects you like or don't without explanation). And also if your players are sticklers for real world history, fantasy analogs can avoid those issues. For me as a GM,the main reason I would opt for an analog is so I don't end up bogging myself down in research for every inch of adventure. But I think part of that is because I am overly pedantic when I run that sort of setting, and my players really could care less (something I observed when I've run Doctor Who and, because of its very open nature, had to run a lot of times and places on the fly----so end up using a lot of my assumptions and hollywood stuff as crutches....players really didn't seem to mind or enjoy the game less than when I put in hours of researching key details). Granted it is Doctor Who, so it has a lighter tone than some other campaigns might. But it did show me you can free yourself up a bit.

You can do stuff to graft D&D as is onto a historical setting: all the dungeon crawls take place deep beneath ordinary cities (like urban fantasy) or all the magical wars are fought out of sight of most people (like supernatural horror) or whatever, but then you're not really playing IN that history, you're playing next to it -- the important stuff is all in the secret world where the adventuring happens.

Or you can change the magic to fit; all I'm saying on that is that it doesn't feel like D&D to me, and not OSR/OGL to the extent that those should also feel like D&D to me, and apparently I'm not completely alone in that opinion.

Doctor Who brings up another potential problem with a historical setting; players who want to engage in some sort of tourism or pranks that are meaningless within the historical setting, like Rose trying to get Queen Victoria to say "We are not amused". It might be fun to hide in a tree and drop every kind of fruit except an apple on Isaac Newton's head, but only because of the perspective of our time.

Quote from: rawma;876543But for the downside of invented fantasy worlds, you give up familiarity (assuming the players actually are familiar with history; those who aren't and don't really care could be added as point C to your list)...

Familiarity with what? Even a game of Waterloo is interesting as a game precisely because of what we don't know about the history we shall make through our actions, as opposed to following a script from books.

We cannot be familiar with a historical world in which a charmed dragon turtle helps win the battle of Lepanto for the Ottomans, because there is no such.

The "what if" contrast can indeed be fun, as can a game in which Frodo kept the Ring and Middle-Earth is over the thumbs of heinous Hobbits. To me, though, the conceit wears thin pretty quickly.

Quote... you forego a large supply of source material, and you lose the potential of "truth is stranger than (plausible) fiction": knowing that something actually happened in history might forestall losing suspension of disbelief.

I can use all the source material, only it is just the start rather than the end! Knowing that something actually happened in history, and regarding it as plausible also in a world in which giant killer frogs stalk owlbears in Hyde Park, how is it suddenly implausible just because this is another park in another kingdom?

Quote from: rawma;876711Doctor Who brings up another potential problem with a historical setting; players who want to engage in some sort of tourism or pranks that are meaningless within the historical setting, like Rose trying to get Queen Victoria to say "We are not amused". It might be fun to hide in a tree and drop every kind of fruit except an apple on Isaac Newton's head, but only because of the perspective of our time.

That is only as much of an issue as the players make it, or make out of it.If that bugs people, the GM can have NPCs react appropriately or have consequences for that sort of behavior. But if it is a light enough game and people aren't bothered by it, it isn't an issue. This isn't a problem I've ever encountered as most groups I've been in have been on the same page with the campaign's tone.

Quote from: rawma;876711You can do stuff to graft D&D as is onto a historical setting: all the dungeon crawls take place deep beneath ordinary cities (like urban fantasy) or all the magical wars are fought out of sight of most people (like supernatural horror) or whatever, but then you're not really playing IN that history, you're playing next to it -- the important stuff is all in the secret world where the adventuring happens.

This would really depend on the campaign. But both are still using the history. You are still operating in a historical setting (even if you doing things like adding a bunch of monsters and dungeons). You've just greatly expanded it, that is all. But the historical stuff is still there for you to chew on and you might have a campaign that focuses entirely on the historical aspects, despite bringing the D&D system largely unchanged. I'd agree it isn't historical realism, it is more like using history as a canvas. If you want a realistic, historical campaign, then you can do the things people have been suggesting (tweaking the system, particularly magic and monsters, to reflect the real world beliefs of people at the time).

QuoteOr you can change the magic to fit; all I'm saying on that is that it doesn't feel like D&D to me, and not OSR/OGL to the extent that those should also feel like D&D to me, and apparently I'm not completely alone in that opinion.

.

I guess I don't really understand what people want when they say on the one hand, too much D&D makes it not history anymore, so there is no point in setting it in real world Europe, but if you change it to fit real world Europe, it isn't D&D enough. If it is that much of an issue, you can use another system to do it (though I really don't see anything out of the ordinary using d20 if one likes that system, since it has been used for just about every genre at this point). Or if the issue is the person just doesn't want to play in a historical setting, then they can forgo doing a historical one for that reason and just play in a fantasy setting. But then if that's the case, the person never really had any interest in a historical setting anyways and the whole OGL/OSR/D&D argument is besides the point.

Keep in mind, early in this discussion I was pointing out some of the advantages of using a fantasy analog. I don't think it is a bad choice. I do it myself most of the time. I understand there are reasons why a GM would go that direction. But I also think using history is perfectly workable and has its own advantages.  

I get that some people might consider those changes not D&D anymore. That is fine if you feel that way, but the OGL (which is part of the title) is pretty broad and encompasses things like D20 Cthulu and d20 Modern (which is pretty far from standard D&D). And even OSR stuff has games that make plenty of changes to the spell system (how far you can go is up for debate but I don't think everyone agrees it has to be a copy of D&D in order to be OSR). Some people might take that to mean something that is basically D&D with few changes. Others might be more open to customization. I think one of the strengths (not the only strength but one of them) of the OSR its being able to take that familiar and workable D&D structure and build it into whatever kind of campaign you want to run. Part of the point OSR people are making is the system is flexible enough if you want to be, to accommodate lots of different options.

That said, I've said already, the more ideal approach is probably to build a system from the ground up around the concept because then you don't have to make any compromises. But that has down sides too (like you actually have to build the system, and it may be harder to recruit players). You could use another system that feels more built for medieval supernatural, and I think there are a lot of good options there, but again you may run into the issue of recruitment (which isn't a small problem for a lot of people). Plus you may have to teach players a new system (which for some is no big deal, but it is a sticking point for others). So the big advantage of going with an OGL/OSR/D&D version is the familiarity the players will have with it, and the ease of recruitment.

Quote from: Bren;876449Your language does the opposite. Well we've had that discussion and you made it clear you seem unwilling to use precise language that would actually support this point instead of treating paradigms as reality.

Paradigms are a reality, inasmuch as they're a way of expressing the set of cultural beliefs that define how an entire society understands reality.   If you think that idea is invalid, then you're operating completely contrary to historical sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;877143Paradigms are a reality, inasmuch as they're a way of expressing the set of cultural beliefs that define how an entire society understands reality.   If you think that idea is invalid, then you're operating completely contrary to historical sense.

I misspoke.

The problem isn't that you use language that treats the idea of a paradigm as real - a paradigm is an intellectual construct. It is no more nor less real than any other intellectual construct e.g. Plato's forms or his "Allegory of the Cave". The problem is that your language treats the belief that is part of the paradigm as real. In direct contrast to your claim that you are saying is that all paradigms (presumably including your own paradigm) are equally invalid your language supports those beliefs by leaving the reports of them unquestioned and unqualified.

Elsewhere you said:

QuoteBut in 15th century Europe, people mostly didn't pay lip-service or pretend or struggle to be convinced of these things, they were assumptions as entirely and definitely real to them as the laws of gravity are to us.

But 15th century assumptions about witchcraft, magic, astrology, and magic, are different than Newton's law of universal gravitation. Gravity affects all of us (scientists and Luddites alike) regardless of what paradigm we hold or what we believe about how the world actually works. If you disagree that is the case, by all means stand on the nearest chair and jump off. If you are anywhere on earth when you perform this little experiment your resulting motion will demonstrate the utility of Newton's Law.



The problem is that you use language that treats the beliefs that are part of and shaped by the paradigm as real in contrast to language that does not make that assumption.

Compare the following:

• "Martin Luther fought with demons sent to assail him" vs. Martin Luther reported that he fought with demons sent to assail him.
  
• "John Dee spoke with angels" vs. John Dee said that he spoke with angels.
  
• People saw witches fornicating with the devil vs. People sometimes reported seeing witches fornicating with the devil.
  
• "magic was already absolutely real" vs. People believed in magic and that it was absolutely real.
  

Quote from: Bren;877150I misspoke.

The problem isn't that you use language that treats the idea of a paradigm as real - a paradigm is an intellectual construct. It is no more nor less real than any other intellectual construct e.g. Plato's forms or his "Allegory of the Cave". The problem is that your language treats the belief that is part of the paradigm as real. In direct contrast to your claim that you are saying is that all paradigms (presumably including your own paradigm) are equally invalid your language supports those beliefs by leaving the reports of them unquestioned and unqualified.

Elsewhere you said:

But 15th century assumptions about witchcraft, magic, astrology, and magic, are different than Newton's law of universal gravitation. Gravity affects all of us (scientists and Luddites alike) regardless of what paradigm we hold or what we believe about how the world actually works. If you disagree that is the case, by all means stand on the nearest chair and jump off. If you are anywhere on earth when you perform this little experiment your resulting motion will demonstrate the utility of Newton's Law.



The problem is that you use language that treats the beliefs that are part of and shaped by the paradigm as real in contrast to language that does not make that assumption.

Compare the following:

• "Martin Luther fought with demons sent to assail him" vs. Martin Luther reported that he fought with demons sent to assail him.
  
• "John Dee spoke with angels" vs. John Dee said that he spoke with angels.
  
• People saw witches fornicating with the devil vs. People sometimes reported seeing witches fornicating with the devil.
  
• "magic was already absolutely real" vs. People believed in magic and that it was absolutely real.
  

We've understood gravity in a number of different ways over the centuries. For a long time, it was just "stuff falls down".  Newton did a lot to explain more of that; but Quantum Physics changed that understanding (added to, you could say, since it didn't exactly over-rule Newtonian Physics, only revealed that the rules as we understood it breaks down at a certain point).

When I said that the belief of medieval people in magic was like our belief in gravity, that's just what I meant.  I wasn't really commenting on gravity itself, but on just how much of a certainty it is in our understanding of the world today.  In the medieval period, magic and monsters were just as much of a certainty.

I'm not saying 'everything we know about gravity is wrong'; but if as an intellectual exercise we imagined it was. Conceive of a theoretical scenario where in fact because of some kind of fundamentally wrong assumption, we've created a set of mechanics that explain gravity that appear to be correct but are in fact fundamentally wrong in some sense.
IF that was true, it wouldn't actually change anything about our culture or how we live or what we do, until such time as someone both found out that this was the case and managed to conclusively convince enough important people that this was in fact the case. Until then, NOTHING would change.

As to your final examples; I was using that language very intentionally. Because as soon as we say "John Dee SAID that he spoke with angels" we're approaching history from our own paradigm, and that affects the entire way we examine it.  It alters our perspective and acts as a barrier to our ability to get into the heads of the people and events.

Quote from: RPGPundit;877780I'm not saying 'everything we know about gravity is wrong'; but if as an intellectual exercise we imagined it was. Conceive of a theoretical scenario where in fact because of some kind of fundamentally wrong assumption, we've created a set of mechanics that explain gravity that appear to be correct but are in fact fundamentally wrong in some sense.
IF that was true, it wouldn't actually change anything about our culture or how we live or what we do, until such time as someone both found out that this was the case and managed to conclusively convince enough important people that this was in fact the case. Until then, NOTHING would change.

Gravity is part of the structure of scientific theory that is used to effectively explain and predict. If our theory of gravity was significantly incorrect in a way that would effect our lives our predictions based on it would be wrong. And we wouldn't be able to send men to the moon, among other things. Magic, on the other hand, has demonstrated no effective ability to predict and explain. Witness the ineffectiveness in killing witches or using magic to end plagues.

QuoteAs to your final examples; I was using that language very intentionally. Because as soon as we say "John Dee SAID that he spoke with angels" we're approaching history from our own paradigm, and that affects the entire way we examine it.  It alters our perspective and acts as a barrier to our ability to get into the heads of the people and events.

Surely you aren't claiming that "John Dee said that he spoke with angels" is not a true statement?

Dee did say that, did he not? (Or if he didn't say it he wrote it.) So what is the problem with language that describes what is (to the best of our knowledge) actually known?

It doesn't presume one way or another what it was that John Dee saw. Which to me is reasonable since we don't know what John Dee saw. We only know what he said he saw...or wrote about what he saw...or what someone else wrote about what they said, John Dee said, about what John Dee saw.

It's true that historians often are imprecise in their language and draw conclusions about the likelihood of what someone said they witnessed and allow that to influence their grammar. If those reports accord with what else is known from other, independent sources, historians will often use the simpler grammar of saying "Sir Francis Drake saw the Queen of England" rather than saying that Sir so-and-so wrote in his journal on page 12 "that Sir Francis Drake saw the Queen of England." In part they do this because using more precise grammar is cumbersome. And in part, perhaps because they are lazy.

Your insistence on using less precise language when more precise language is available because "paradigm" is like the insistence of social justice warriors that we must accept without question reports of discrimination, misogyny, racism, etc. at face value and as facts. That we may not question the accuser because that somehow invalidates their truth, their being, or, yes, their paradigm. Which is exactly where we end up when beliefs based solely on paradigms are treated, without question, as the truth.

And of course...
What if John Dee did actually communicate with angels, or some nonhuman intelligence he described and interpreted as angels?

Why is it that you (seem to) think he even could not have communicated with angels?


The sources in this particular case seem unreliable to you? Dee seems not to be credible?

Quote from: Gormenghast;877815And of course...
What if John Dee did actually communicate with angels, or some nonhuman intelligence he described and interpreted as angels?

What if he did? It would still be correct to say "John Dee said he communicated with angels." Because he did say (or write) exactly that.

QuoteWhy is it that you (seem to) think he even could not have communicated with angels?

What I am saying is that reporting he communicated with angels presumes angels exist. Just like reporting that someone is a murderer instead of a suspect in a murder presumes they are guilty.

QuoteThe sources in this particular case seem unreliable to you? Dee seems not to be credible?

See previous answer.

Quote from: Bren;877820What if he did? It would still be correct to say "John Dee said he communicated with angels." Because he did say (or write) exactly that.

What I am saying is that reporting he communicated with angels presumes angels exist. Just like reporting that someone is a murderer instead of a suspect in a murder presumes they are guilty.


See previous answer.

Do you apply this to all historical sources?
All sources beyond your personal experience?

I mean, do you actually write " reading or listening to the source offers this information" or something like that every single time you refer to anything whatever you did not personally witness?
I confess I had not noticed that you habitually write in that style. As you note, it would be very cumbersome, if technically correct.



And if you single out angelic visitations for a qualifier like this, does that not suggest that you are assuming angels do not exist?