TheRPGSite

I've noticed that sometimes when a game like Aces & Eights gets brought up some folks here poo poo the idea of an alternate history. So I just wanted to know why that is. Personally I like Alternate histories but I do think that actual history can be fun too. Anyways I hope everyone can share their thoughts on this subject.

Never come across this. SJWs might get annoyed because a game setting still has the Confederacy or the likes. Although they also get triggered by real world history.


I am possibly biased in favour of alternative history right now because I've recently discovered Odd Soot for Mythras. Alternative 1920s with space travel and magic, which sounds like the kind of thing I normally dislike, but the way it's done is brilliant; the book oozes atmosphere.

Quote from: arcanuum on September 24, 2020, 12:45:32 AM
I've noticed that sometimes when a game like Aces & Eights gets brought up some folks her poo poo the idea of an alternate history. So I just wanted to know why that is.

Because no gender-queer fan-fiction is out for it.

I for one love uchronias and think they are just as great as multiverses but thats just me, i didnt bring this up among other players so i hope we get some viewpoints here.

Hate for alternate histories here? Where?
What more likely see are people here who dont like certain ways an alternate history is being done. Example: A few months ago there was some extensive debate here over how they were handling the Deadlands setting. And around same time some debate on the rampant mis-handling of the Call of Cthulhu RPG setting.

Generally alt history only starts catching flak if it's utterly improbable.


When I say 'improbable', I am NOT referring to Alien Space Bat interference. That comes up sometimes. What I mean is changes that stretch the credulity of the reader by positing nigh-impossible changes.


Example:
WW2 Alt History A: Hitler, despite the temptation, decides to NOT attack the Russians and break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He has his hands full with subduing Europe and opts to purge the filthy Cossacks and their Communist masters another day.


That's plausible (even if Hitler was starting to lose his marbles around this time).


WW2 Alt History B: Hitler breaks the pact and annihilates the Russian army by utilizing powerful super-soldiers to back up his conventional units.


That's kind of the plot for Kieron Gillen's series Uber. Still workable even with a dose of Alien Space Bat magic.


WW2 Alt History C: Hitler breaks the pact and annihilates the Russians in the middle of winter.


Hahah no. There's a reason General Winter is a 'thing' in Russia. The Germans simply were not going to take Russian territory when they were freezing and low on fuel for vehicles.


Does that make sense?

Yeah, I've never seen any hate for alternate histories per se. Generally they only come in for flak around here, so far as I've seen, under several conditions:

- They're boring.
- They're obviously an excuse to ride a particular political advocacy hobbyhorse (SJ causes are the most common but not the only one).
- They get something wrong in a way that catches the attention of history experts in the period.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on September 24, 2020, 11:00:32 AM
- They get something wrong in a way that catches the attention of history experts in the period.

Like a successful Operation Sealion with any Point of Departure after 1933.

Alternate History is a lot like Fan-Fiction - there's probably some that you'd like, but lots of it that just looks like trash to you.  The hard part is finding an alternate history that is compelling and broadly appealing. 


In many cases, you can avoid all of those issues by repackaging the alternate history in a totally new setting (like Old West parallels/post Civil War with Firefly). 


In many cases, players don't want to be constrained by the historical beliefs/prejudices that are appropriate in that setting.  As you make more and more changes to the history to accommodate player tastes, you have less and less that makes a historical setting useful. 

While I find some alt-history fiction interesting, I find alt-history RPG settings uninteresting.* There are scads of RPGs with fictional settings, so if I'm going to have a setting with some real history I'd far rather work with all real history** rather than set things in some alternate universe where the Persians conquered Ancient Greece or the Nazis won WWII.

* It's worse than uninteresting. Alt history means that I not only need to know some real history, but I also need to remember whatever other fake-history premises and consequences some designer thought was cool and put in their alt-history setting. So from a learning the setting perspective, I get all the disadvantages of real history along with all the disadvantages of a detailed, made-up setting. It's lose-lose for me as the GM.

** Within the limits of the history used in the setting. The setting may use real history as the backdrop, but it may not be much more real than the real history one might see in a fictional TV show or movie. (It probably will be more real than most, just because I like consistent settings and I like reading about history.) And the setting might even include unreal things like werewolves, Transylvanian vampires, Egyptian mummies, witches, or zombies...or maybe the setting just includes legends of them just like we have in the really-real world.

I think it is just like anything else in the hobby: some people like it, some people don't. There was a game that came out in the 90s called Godlike, which was alt history and I remembered quite enjoying it at the time (probably one of the only superhero games I actually liked, and it was because it drew me in with the history). I don't know if TORG counts as alt history, as the concept is so strange, but that worked for me too. And I liked Colonial Gothic (which I think billed itself more as Secret History, but still felt like alt history to me).

I did one alt-history RPG (Servants of Gaius), and a lot of people enjoyed the concept but I also heard from people who didn't like it (though usually it was framed as a moral objection to making Caligula 'good' rather than a general objection to alt history). The idea was that Caligula, who was reputed to have waged a mad battle against Neptune by sending his soldiers on the beach, then declared victory by filling chests with shells as booty, really was at war with Neptune and really was a god. For the most part though it was faithful to the history. It was just adding in an interesting spin on things Suetonius mentioned in the 12 Caesars (which were dramatized very well in I, Claudius).


Obviously one reason you might introduce alternative history is to help make the setting more readily gameable (especially if you are brining in supernatural threats). But I think it can also be to help give the setting a concept that grabs peoples interest. And that can swing two ways. You might put in superheroes to make a historical setting more palatable. But the historical aspect can also draw people into a genre they might not otherwise have an interest in (like me with the game Godlike). Personally I like having both standard history and alt history out there as options in the RPG world.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 24, 2020, 03:53:16 PM
Alternate History is a lot like Fan-Fiction - there's probably some that you'd like, but lots of it that just looks like trash to you.  The hard part is finding an alternate history that is compelling and broadly appealing. 


In many cases, you can avoid all of those issues by repackaging the alternate history in a totally new setting (like Old West parallels/post Civil War with Firefly). 


In many cases, players don't want to be constrained by the historical beliefs/prejudices that are appropriate in that setting.  As you make more and more changes to the history to accommodate player tastes, you have less and less that makes a historical setting useful.

Firefly sucks and Joss Whedon is an untalented hack but you kind of have a point

What Bren said, with one additional point.  I have on occasion forgotten that certain "facts" were alt-history rather than real history during a real life discussion.  Not a mistake I care to repeat.

Quote from: Doc Sammy on September 24, 2020, 07:07:34 PM
Firefly sucks

Motherf...
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/motherofgod.jpg)

Quote from: Doc Sammy on September 24, 2020, 07:07:34 PM
Firefly sucks and Joss Whedon is an untalented hack but you kind of have a point

I suppose that would be true...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan on September 24, 2020, 06:53:57 PMAnd I liked Colonial Gothic (which I think billed itself more as Secret History, but still felt like alt history to me).

I'm using the term alt-history for games like Aces & Eights and Deadlands and for all the various novels where that either use some fantastic premise like that crossbow bolt misses Richard the Lionheart and the Plantagenet dynasty goes on to discover, systematize, and use powerful magic during the Middle Ages, space aliens invade during WWII, a Destroyer crew is sent through a rift in time to our historical past and then things change and colonizes Nantucket Island, or  a chunk of our earth including a small town in West Virginia is transported to Europe during the Thirty Years War OR that take some point of real history and introduce a fairly minor change - Alexander the Great doesn't die in his twenties and is able to consolidate his conquests and set up a legitimate line of succession, General Grant dies during the Siege of Vicksburg and his victory and expertise are unavailable to Lincoln, or Lindbergh and the America First isolationists achieve greater prominence and Lindbergh replaces Roosevelt as President. (The latter is perhaps a bigger stretch.)

Now I haven't played Colonial Gothic, so I may be completely wrong, but I had the impression that the world outwardly seemed the same as our world - at least up to the point of time where the campaign starts - but that secretly there were things - like magic, witches, demons, & monsters - that were real. Similarly, a classic 1920s Call of Cthulhu setting presumes historical world events have transpired the same as in our world up to the point of the campaign, but after that world events may differ slightly or (if the PCs are very unsuccessful) very significantly and of course prehistory does differ. I don't think of either of those two setting as alt history.

I haven't really seen that much hate for alternative history settings, though I have seen some objections and I think that there are two factors with that.


One is that a lot of geeks like to be Mr. Smarty Pants and instead of just letting people have their fun, they like to lecture people about history and why their alternative histories are unrealistic. Well, of course they are unrealistic, history happened the way it did for a reason and most of the interesting alternatives are going to involve more unlikely alternative events.


The other factor is that some leftists get pissed off by any kind of alternative history where people who they see as the villains win, have greater success, or are depicted in any way less than total demonization.


What often happens is that we get a combination of those two things, people get nit-picky when they see alternative histories that offend their sensibilities but not otherwise. Nazis or Confederates winning are both popular alternative histories that can trigger SJW's and that are usually far fetched.

Quote from: ShieldWife on September 24, 2020, 10:00:41 PM... some leftists get pissed off by any kind of alternative history where people who they see as the villains win, have greater success, or are depicted in any way less than total demonization.

It's not exclusively leftists. One of the reasons I never got into S.M. Stirling's alternate Draka novel series history is that it's deliberately written to create the most monstrous "civilization" imaginable in the culture of the Draka and then show them winning and ruling the world, mostly by conveniently having everything that needs to go their way for this going their way.

(It might be argued that there is precedent for this -- one essay in the book What If? actually highlights no less than thirteen extremely lucky breaks for the fledging United States during the American Revolution, any one of which going wrong could have dramatically shifted history -- but that's why Mark Twain wrote, "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to stick to what you can make people believe is the truth.")

The Draka aren't exactly a fair example, though, as my issues with that world background lie less in its plausibility and more in its sheer basic repugnance; I have this crazy, old-fashioned standard that I want my entertainment to uplift me as well as entertain. But the basic reaction can be non-political.

As others have said, I have nothing against alternate history settings IN THEORY.


However, in practice I'm enough of a history buff that they tend to really grind my gears. Truth be told, a decent chunk of "historical" movies and books do the same, but with alternate history the writer is adding a whole other level of complexity by trying to add in believable changes to drastically change the course of the history... but without changing everything that makes the historical setting iconic. I can't think of a time when I've ever seen it done well.


What especially bug me are the alternate histories where the difference happened decades or even centuries before, but there is minimal differences beyond surface level stuff with the real-world equivalent. Ex: I started an urban fantasy book where magic & magical races appeared through a portal just before WWI. Yet, somehow all national borders and technology a century later were EXACTLY THE SAME as what we have now, except also with magic. >.< Not a secret thing either. Governmental agencies of magic with buildings downtown etc.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on September 24, 2020, 11:54:26 PM
As others have said, I have nothing against alternate history settings IN THEORY.


However, in practice I'm enough of a history buff that they tend to really grind my gears.

I know what you mean and the example you cite sounds ridiculous. However as I get older and I keep reading history, I see the revisionist process keep grinding on (not just politically-motivated people grievance-mongering, but serious academics re-interpreting in light of new evidence), and understandings change or even reverse completely. And the more I realise it could all have gone very, very differently (for want of a shoe etc.)


This is even more the case further back when the personalities and identities of monarchs or other powerful people mattered more. What if Queen Mary hadn't died so early? What if one or two British cabinet ministers had been more strongly opposed to the UK's entering WW1?


I don't want to disappear down the rabbit hole of discussing exactly how much difference these specific examples would have made, but I hope the point stands that you can easily think of specific events or decisions that shunted things one way or another and could easily have gone differently.

But it needs done cleverly to be interesting. Like anything I suppose...

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 09:50:44 PM
...  like that crossbow bolt misses Richard the Lionheart and the Plantagenet dynasty goes on to discover, systematize, and use powerful magic during the Middle Ages ...

I'm not a huge fan of most alt-history work, but Lord Darcy was awesome.  It really pains me that Randall Garett's written works were so few.

EDIT - I just checked his bibliography and I take back half of that.  I am deeply pained that his LORD DARCY books were so few.  On the other hand, it looks like I now have a lot of great reading ahead of me. ;D 

Aside from alternate RL history games, I find it really weird when people get all crazy about alternate histories/timelines for fictional settings. If somebody wants to run Greyhawk where Iuz won the Greyhawk wars and it feels a bit more like Midnight, sure. If someone else wants to run Buffy the Vampire Slayer but wants to edit out the "all Slayers are activated" bit, OK. If someone else wants to run Star Wars and says nothing Disney added will be included...great!

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 25, 2020, 07:03:02 AM
Aside from alternate RL history games, I find it really weird when people get all crazy about alternate histories/timelines for fictional settings. If somebody wants to run Greyhawk where Iuz won the Greyhawk wars and it feels a bit more like Midnight, sure. If someone else wants to run Buffy the Vampire Slayer but wants to edit out the "all Slayers are activated" bit, OK. If someone else wants to run Star Wars and says nothing Disney added will be included...great!

One of the reasons why is that learning about a fictional setting can be a significant investment, and changing details invalidates that effort. That's more of an issue with the expansive settings -- like the Marvel or DC universes, the Forgotten Realms, or the Star Wars EU -- but it also crops up in smaller ones. Plus, it's usually easier to learn something new from scratch than unlearn and relearn something different. That'll come up less with complete overhauls or reimaginings, or if there's a single clear change without a lot of consequences, but it's why alt-histories in the middle can be hard to keep straight. There's also the asymmetry in attention -- a GM probably cares a lot more about the tweaks than the players, who are more likely to forget.

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 09:50:44 PM

Now I haven't played Colonial Gothic, so I may be completely wrong, but I had the impression that the world outwardly seemed the same as our world - at least up to the point of time where the campaign starts - but that secretly there were things - like magic, witches, demons, & monsters - that were real.

This is basically the gist of it. In that case, I don't think it would qualify as alt history. Though in some instances it can involve impacting historical characters. For example I wrote a module called Landlord's Daughter, where the characters were investigating a plot to kill Colonel John Glover. I don't believe the core book had any changes to the actual history though (there have been different editions, sourcebooks and adventures though, so can't say with certainty).

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 04:13:50 PM
Alt history means that I not only need to know some real history

Exactly -- in order to appreciate alternative history, you have to appreciate the history that it is an alternative to. And those folks seem to gravitate more toward authentic history games, thanks to that appreciation in the first place. Alt history can be a fun "What if?" scenario, but that's rarely interesting for longer than an episode of Twilight Zone.

I have published an alternate history (and alternate geography) RPG, and am working on an expanded English edition. To me, the draws are pretty straightforward:

   
• It offers a playing ground where fiction can thrive without constantly hitting the walls of fact, and especially "fact" (geek pedantry, historical myths like the whole "dirt farmer" aesthetic).
• It clears the playing field by disregarding the "canon" of established settings - and our world is the king of all established settings! Want to become King of France? Sure, if you can get away with it.
• It allows the exploration of playful historical "what-ifs".

In summary, alt history clearly establishes the milieu as fictional, and opens it up for re-discovery and re-interpretation.

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 04:13:50 PM
While I find some alt-history fiction interesting, I find alt-history RPG settings uninteresting.* There are scads of RPGs with fictional settings, so if I'm going to have a setting with some real history I'd far rather work with all real history** rather than set things in some alternate universe where the Persians conquered Ancient Greece or the Nazis won WWII.

* It's worse than uninteresting. Alt history means that I not only need to know some real history, but I also need to remember whatever other fake-history premises and consequences some designer thought was cool and put in their alt-history setting. So from a learning the setting perspective, I get all the disadvantages of real history along with all the disadvantages of a detailed, made-up setting. It's lose-lose for me as the GM.

** Within the limits of the history used in the setting. The setting may use real history as the backdrop, but it may not be much more real than the real history one might see in a fictional TV show or movie. (It probably will be more real than most, just because I like consistent settings and I like reading about history.) And the setting might even include unreal things like werewolves, Transylvanian vampires, Egyptian mummies, witches, or zombies...or maybe the setting just includes legends of them just like we have in the really-real world.

This.  To some degree, it's the same issue I have with any other setting.  Once it gets intricate enough, I'd rather use my own--which is easier for me to remember.  Mix in what Bren already discussed above with that often the point of departure for the alt history or where it would go is not how I would have done it, even if I liked the setting idea.  Short version:  I'm fairly widely read in Ancient/Medieval history from the Western perspective at least, but most of it I don't want to run in a game, straight or altered.  The few things I do have an interest in running, such as early dark ages, I'd rather run as a fantasy spin off. 

Trying to sell me on an alternate history setting is like trying to sell a monkey a typewriter--theoretically possible, but more likely to annoy both parties.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan on September 25, 2020, 09:49:35 AMThis is basically the gist of it. In that case, I don't think it would qualify as alt history. Though in some instances it can involve impacting historical characters. For example I wrote a module called Landlord's Daughter, where the characters were investigating a plot to kill Colonel John Glover. I don't believe the core book had any changes to the actual history though (there have been different editions, sourcebooks and adventures though, so can't say with certainty).

Some designer and GM creative license with historical characters is expected - required really. I see that as being just like an author writing a novel that is Historical Fiction. The author will have to embellish (or create) the personality and motivations of historical figures to a greater or lesser extent. We just don't know enough about historical people for that not to be the case. Similarly I'd expect the author to create some number of fictional characters to fill out the cast of the novel. The ratio of history to fiction obviously will vary for RPG settings just as it does for novels.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 25, 2020, 02:06:44 PMThis.  To some degree, it's the same issue I have with any other setting.  Once it gets intricate enough, I'd rather use my own--which is easier for me to remember.

Yes. This is an important point.

There are only two or three intricate settings that someone else designed that I am willing to use. Two are Glorantha and Star Wars. It's been 25 years since I last ran Glorantha. If I did it again, I'd limit the setting to a selection of the material I already own and I'd change what I wish. For Star Wars, I limit the setting material to the original three films and whatever else I choose to include from old WEG D6 material, the Extended Universe, Rogue One, the prequel films, cartoons, etc. I'd ignore almost everything from the many video games as well as the most recent three films.

Quote from: Mishihari on September 25, 2020, 03:59:26 AMI'm not a huge fan of most alt-history work, but Lord Darcy was awesome.  It really pains me that Randall Garett's written works were so few.

It makes me happy you recognized the source. And yes, more Lord Darcy stories would have been welcome.

I think in many ways the best way to do alternate history is to begin right after the point of departure.


That gives players and GMs maximum freedum.   It's October 15 1066.  Harald Godwinson just won the battle of Hastings.  What happens next?


Of course that ony matters is you intend to run a game that gets caught up in historical events.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 24, 2020, 08:22:41 AM
Generally alt history only starts catching flak if it's utterly improbable.


When I say 'improbable', I am NOT referring to Alien Space Bat interference. That comes up sometimes. What I mean is changes that stretch the credulity of the reader by positing nigh-impossible changes.


Example:
WW2 Alt History A: Hitler, despite the temptation, decides to NOT attack the Russians and break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. He has his hands full with subduing Europe and opts to purge the filthy Cossacks and their Communist masters another day.


That's plausible (even if Hitler was starting to lose his marbles around this time).


WW2 Alt History B: Hitler breaks the pact and annihilates the Russian army by utilizing powerful super-soldiers to back up his conventional units.


That's kind of the plot for Kieron Gillen's series Uber. Still workable even with a dose of Alien Space Bat magic.


WW2 Alt History C: Hitler breaks the pact and annihilates the Russians in the middle of winter.


Hahah no. There's a reason General Winter is a 'thing' in Russia. The Germans simply were not going to take Russian territory when they were freezing and low on fuel for vehicles.


Does that make sense?

If Hitler had waited a couple of years longer and kept developing his weaponry before he started the war, had left the Jews alone, and had not attacked Russia while at the same time being at war with Western Europe; he would have fared much better in WW II.  An RPG reflecting such a story, might show a different potential outcome on world history.

Quote from: Razor 007 on September 26, 2020, 02:27:44 AM

If Hitler had waited a couple of years longer and kept developing his weaponry before he started the war, had left the Jews alone, and had not attacked Russia while at the same time being at war with Western Europe; he would have fared much better in WW II.  An RPG reflecting such a story, might show a different potential outcome on world history.

Nah. Hitler attacked the USSR precisely because he was desperate for some way to force Britain to accept a negotiated peace, because he knew the British could draw on American productive capacity (even if the US didn't actually join the war) and would be producing a massive air fleet that Germany, even with the resources of occupied Europe, could never match. Britain alone was outproducing Germany for most of the war. He also needed to get European Russia's food and oil to sustain a long war with the Allies. Unless he could do that, there was simply no way Germany could win. The economic imbalance was too great.


The weapons the Germans were developing in 1941 weren't obviously war-winning even in terms of the designs. For every Me262 there is a He177. The V2 was a design of genius and no doubt it was unpleasant to be in Antwerp or London at that time, but it cost 50% more than the Manhattan Project for rather less result. The "wonder weapon" stuff was basically cynical propaganda to try and sustain morale when the war was clearly already lost, as it was after Stalingrad.


An Axis victory scenario would have to bring in a morale collapse in some or all of Britain, the US and the USSR comparable to what happened to France. Not impossible. Probably easier to conceive for USSR because the nature of their system meant decisions by a few people at the top could have huge effects. So, Molotov and Beria arrest Stalin in July 41 and try for a negotiated peace; the Germans wouldn't be interested but the confusion on the Soviet side could cause morale to crack.

Quote from: Razor 007 on September 26, 2020, 02:27:44 AMIf Hitler had waited a couple of years longer and kept developing his weaponry before he started the war, had left the Jews alone, and had not attacked Russia while at the same time being at war with Western Europe; he would have fared much better in WW II.  An RPG reflecting such a story, might show a different potential outcome on world history.

If Hitler had left the Jews and the Bolsheviks alone he wouldn't really have been Hitler and probably wouldn't have gained power. Remember the Nazis were a minority party when Hitler was made Chancellor. They needed internal and external enemies to use as threats so they could grab power. Without attacking the Jews and the Communists, who would the Nazis' have used as scapegoats for Germany's defeat in the Great War and its current weakness?

Quote from: Bren on September 24, 2020, 09:50:44 PMI'm using the term alt-history for games like Aces & Eights and Deadlands and for all the various novels where that either use some fantastic premise like that crossbow bolt misses Richard the Lionheart and the Plantagenet dynasty goes on to discover, systematize, and use powerful magic during the Middle Ages, space aliens invade during WWII, a Destroyer crew is sent through a rift in time to our historical past and then things change and colonizes Nantucket Island, or  a chunk of our earth including a small town in West Virginia is transported to Europe during the Thirty Years War OR that take some point of real history and introduce a fairly minor change - Alexander the Great doesn't die in his twenties and is able to consolidate his conquests and set up a legitimate line of succession, General Grant dies during the Siege of Vicksburg and his victory and expertise are unavailable to Lincoln, or Lindbergh and the America First isolationists achieve greater prominence and Lindbergh replaces Roosevelt as President. (The latter is perhaps a bigger stretch.)

I'm rolling here.  Being an alt-history fan, I've read EVERY book/series that you reference above.  Too funny! (You get a silver medal to go with the gold!)

But other than the many other reasons folks have proffered for alt-history settings not being too popular, there's a basic one missing: that any given such setting is a very, very narrow genre.  Most players aren't into straight settings: to play in a Firefly campaign, for instance, you have to get players who are (a) into SF, (b) into low-tech SF, (c) able to hack the scarcity model that's the underpinning of the setting, and (d) who at the very least don't mind the specific milieu.  Now turn that into "It's Firefly, only with Cylons invading!" and you've just pissed off anyone in that small player base who wants a purist setting (whether of Firefly or of Galactica).

Quote from: Ravenswing on September 28, 2020, 07:30:22 AMI'm rolling here.  Being an alt-history fan, I've read EVERY book/series that you reference above.  Too funny! (You get a silver medal to go with the gold!)

Yay!

Germany was running out of oil, so Hitler had no choice but to start the war when he did, given that he was hell-bent on attacking Russia. He believed that Germany had to be self-sufficient with respect to resources in order to take on the United States.


He was in direct communication with Stalin and had written a letter to him explaining that he would soon be moving his eastern forces west for the war against Britain, and to be wary in the event one of his generals tried to start a war between them -- in which case Stalin was instructed to not take the bait and get in contact with him directly.


Thus, in order to achieve total surprise, he had to attack before the war with Britain was concluded.


In fact, that was the right time to attack, as Russia was in no shape to fight a war. And no, Russia was NOT planning on attacking Germany. Their military movements were the same that they had been doing for decades, and it wasn't until AFTER being red-pilled by Germany that they learned how to reorganize their military in order to fight a modern war. Russia was aiding Germany in their bombing of Britain, and Stalin lamented after the war that "together we would have been invincible."


Ultimately the failure of the initial invasion was in-fighing over whether they should go toward Moscow or the south, which diluted resources, and underestimation of Russia's ability to stay in the fight due to aid from the United States during 1942 before they could get their factories up and running again in the east, which they did in 1943.


I would guess that they should've put all their resources into taking Moscow first, and then used the rail system, which converged on Moscow, to aid in a southern invasion the following year, after supply lines between Moscow and Berlin had been hardened.


As it was, the war could have gone either way. If Germany had succeeded in cutting the Volga river by seizing Stalingrad, there is no way that Russia could have won the war, as the Volga was how they were getting the majority of food and oil, and Russian refugees were already starving to death and they were just barely holding it together in the cities.

So Aces & Eights doesn't have a realistic alternate history?

I think it depends what sort of alternate history we're talking.

Regarding Aces and Eights: Shattered Frontier, I admit upfront I haven't read it myself, but I've read a fair bit about it. It sounds like changes are there to preserve the flavour, and ease the gameplay. And it doesn't seem like anything that couldn't be easily ignored and played out as history actually stood. But then, I see a pretty big divide between a rule set and a setting guide.

On the other hand if you're talking about introducing fantasy elements, that's a hard one. I'm facing this myself, as I am writing a couple of setting guides which we eventually want to throw on Drive-thru along with a system we've developed. We're not expecting much, but I'm still holding myself to a professional standard, and trying to consider marketability (though my probable market is about 3 people).

The first game is a sword & sandal, low magic, fantasy. It's set in a 'grim-dark' fictional version of the classical world, from the point of view of European and Mediterranean cultures, around 350 BC. If that world was mapped by Eratosthenes, and then reimagined by Frank Frazetta.

Our accepted anachronisms include guidance to put aside the historical language difficulties, gender divide, and racial biases; except if portraying a locality as specifically and unusually bigoted as part of the plot.

While most equipment and weaponry is period appropriate, some later Roman armour will be listed, and there's no way I'm not giving barbarians two handed swords. Monsters of myth shall also make an appearance. By and large I wouldn't call it an "alternate history", but there is certainly a plethora of real historic people and politics that drew me to that particular time and place, so it wouldn't be totally wrong to describe it that way. It's also a great excuse to revisit my uni days studying classical history (those days seem like ancient history themselves now...).

I am, however, apprehensive about history pedants getting their knickers in a knot about Lorica Squamata appearing a few hundred years too early, alongside Cimmerian barbarians (with a totally inaccurate Howardesque flavour) surviving around the Black Sea a few hundred years too late. I know it's not technically correct, and I probably I accrued more units in classical archaeology (and working in the museum) than most of the complainers, but I refuse to let facts get in the way of fun for a roleplay game. "Inspired by", doesn't have to mean "true to". As long as the world is internally consistent, and verisimilitude is maintained, I'm happy! But I fear not everyone feels that way.

Our other, far more modern game, assumes the world took a massive turn thanks to technology recovered from a certain UFO that crashed in Roswell in 1947. The result is a variation on the two fisted pulp adventure genre. This one is so far removed from reality and real history, that I wouldn't call it an "alternate history" either; more pure sci-fi fantasy. I'm less worried about pedantic backlash on this one.




[Edited due to an excess of adverbs]

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:19:15 PMIf Hitler had left the Jews and the Bolsheviks alone he wouldn't really have been Hitler and probably wouldn't have gained power. Remember the Nazis were a minority party when Hitler was made Chancellor. They needed internal and external enemies to use as threats so they could grab power. Without attacking the Jews and the Communists, who would the Nazis' have used as scapegoats for Germany's defeat in the Great War and its current weakness?

Backtracking here -- I agree absolutely, as I generally have done with Bren's wisdom over the years -- there are a couple other considerations.

First, Hitler had been plowing the Jews under officially for nine years already by the time he pulled the switch on Russia.  The Germans were already bewildered enough over his volte face on the Communists.  Even if you posit (against the facts) that Hitler was a pure pragmatist and only served up the Jews as a scapegoat to feed the prevalent anti-Semitic zeitgeist, there were only so many 180^o turns he could pull.

Beyond that, it's not even that he needed scapegoats in 1932.  He still did in 1942.  He'd driven Germany as few civilized nations had been driven in the history of the world for nearly a decade.  Almost every resource, every element of the economy had been marshaled in support of rearmament, the state, and spectacle, and the people were just exhausted.  He needed that police state to run, needed the Enemy Within to smash.

Quote from: RollingBones on September 30, 2020, 04:49:39 AM
I am, however, apprehensive about history pedants getting their knickers in a knot about Lorica Squamata appearing a few hundred years too early, alongside Cimmerian barbarians (with a totally inaccurate Howardesque flavour) surviving around the Black Sea a few hundred years too late. I know it's not technically correct, and I probably I accrued more units in classical archaeology (and working in the museum) than most of the complainers, but I refuse to let facts get in the way of fun for a roleplay game.

Well, then, you got it made.  This is easy: say so.  Something smack dab in your intro page, or even as your advertising blurb.  "Grimdark ancient Greece?  Cimmerian barbarians?  Legionnaires in banded mail?  Frazettaesque sword-and-sandal?  Like all those things?  Then this is the game for you!"  I am one of the history pedants you reference, but eeesh, tell me up front that the milieu's a bit gonzo and I might want to check my suspension of disbelief in at the door, then I have no grounds for complaint.

Because they are seldom done well.


There are examples after examples of bad alternate history settings. So it is no wonder why people approach them with trepidation.

Quote from: Ravenswing on September 30, 2020, 10:08:58 AMBeyond that, it's not even that he needed scapegoats in 1932.  He still did in 1942.  He'd driven Germany as few civilized nations had been driven in the history of the world for nearly a decade.  Almost every resource, every element of the economy had been marshaled in support of rearmament, the state, and spectacle, and the people were just exhausted.  He needed that police state to run, needed the Enemy Within to smash.

That's a good point.

Quote from: RollingBones on September 30, 2020, 04:49:39 AMThe first game is a sword & sandal, low magic, fantasy. It's set in a 'grim-dark' fictional version of the classical world, from the point of view of European and Mediterranean cultures, around 350 BC. If that world was mapped by Eratosthenes, and then reimagined by Frank Frazetta.

If your worried about pedants, put this right up front. Once you tell me the world is one that matches Eratosthenes' map I'm primed to expect differences from real history.

QuoteOur accepted anachronisms include guidance to put aside the historical language difficulties, gender divide, and racial biases; except if portraying a locality as specifically and unusually bigoted as part of the plot.

My impression is that the Classical World wasn't racially biased, but culturally prejudiced e.g., the Greeks looked down on bar-bar barbarians, the Romans looked down on non-Romans which of course included Germans, Celts, and even those effete Greeks. The in-group for Rome expanded to include citizens (at least legally), but citizens from the provinces still faced some social prejudice and of course patricians looked down on plebes who presumably looked down on slaves even, and probably most especially, when slaves had greater wealth or power. And there was the all too typical divide between urban and rural dwellers with the usual jokes about hayseeds and city shysters.

Quote from: Bren on September 30, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
My impression is that the Classical World wasn't racially biased, but culturally prejudiced

You could almost say the same today! The obvious immediate markers of culture being clothing styles, hair styles, and racial appearance. It wouldn't have been so different then.

It's just that I hear a lot of horror stories, and I want to make it clear that, in this world, a Jastorf, Nubian, Spartan, and a Gaul, can go looking for adventure in metropolitan Carthage, without being treated as a freakshow by the Carthaginians. Of course, if the same party is dealing with a tribe of Britons in the Welsh hills, things may be a little different!

But I take your point on putting the map up front and centre.

Quote from: Ravenswing on September 30, 2020, 10:08:58 AMWell, then, you got it made.  This is easy: say so.  Something smack dab in your intro page, or even as your advertising blurb.  "Grimdark ancient Greece?  Cimmerian barbarians?  Legionnaires in banded mail?  Frazettaesque sword-and-sandal?  Like all those things?  Then this is the game for you!"  I am one of the history pedants you reference, but eeesh, tell me up front that the milieu's a bit gonzo and I might want to check my suspension of disbelief in at the door, then I have no grounds for complaint.

It's easy to take away someone's grounds for complaint, it's another thing entirely to stop them complaining. The only reason I'm even considering putting an actual date to the time period is because it gives GMs so much rich material to draw on in terms of background events and real world characters.

If, say someone managed to cajole you into playing such a game, would the deviations from real history still grind your gears? Or is it all cool right up until we use Aristotle as a quest giver? (I haven't actually done this, something about it sits wrong with me, but it's definitely possible given the setting.)

Quote from: RollingBones on September 30, 2020, 05:16:40 PMOr is it all cool right up until we use Aristotle as a quest giver? (I haven't actually done this, something about it sits wrong with me, but it's definitely possible given the setting.)

The tutor of Prince Alexander of Macedon asks you to deliver a sealed scroll to Pausanias, one of King's Philip's bodyguards. He says it is from the Prince and that he'll pay you 500 gold pieces each for the safe delivery. He warns you that another courtier, Attalus, dislikes the Prince and may try to intercept the message.

I'm fine with alternate histories except that nazis winning ww2 is a tad over-done. there was a rpg called reich star or reich space that was an alternate hitler won the war timeline that seemed alright on the surface but which became boring awful fast, it was like a mish mash abomination of what i suspect was a history buff and a sci fi nerds handiwork. it had mesherschmdt starfighters for example rather than volkswagon or boeing or honda starfighters, which seemed a shallow transition of tossing ww2 nazis largely unchanged into early space age. it would seem to me that even in such a timeline some other company would likely be producing your starfighters rather than the one that produced the ww2 fighters.

Quote from: RollingBones on September 30, 2020, 05:16:40 PMIf, say someone managed to cajole you into playing such a game, would the deviations from real history still grind your gears? Or is it all cool right up until we use Aristotle as a quest giver?

No, it wouldn't.  I've already been informed that it's a slightly gonzo campaign, and that I should have no expectation of strict temporal accuracy.  If, then, you have Sargon the Great and his Hun mercenaries riding to the relief of Masada, and the PCs are caught in the middle, my expectation level's already been established.

Quote from: Bren on September 30, 2020, 05:29:04 PM

Quote from: RollingBones on September 30, 2020, 05:16:40 PMOr is it all cool right up until we use Aristotle as a quest giver? (I haven't actually done this, something about it sits wrong with me, but it's definitely possible given the setting.)

The tutor of Prince Alexander of Macedon asks you to deliver a sealed scroll to Pausanias, one of King's Philip's bodyguards. He says it is from the Prince and that he'll pay you 500 gold pieces each for the safe delivery. He warns you that another courtier, Attalus, dislikes the Prince and may try to intercept the message.

Nice.


Beware though, as there are two people named Attalus. Keep the message from both General Attalus, and from Attalus, son of Parmenion. Ensure the message is delivered to only to Pausanius of Orestis. Be also warned that there is bad blood between General Attalus and Pausanias.


Be mindful, as many nobles have gathered in Aigai for the impending wedding of Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus...

Quote from: Ravenswing on September 30, 2020, 09:41:19 PM
No, it wouldn't.  I've already been informed that it's a slightly gonzo campaign, and that I should have no expectation of strict temporal accuracy.  If, then, you have Sargon the Great and his Hun mercenaries riding to the relief of Masada, and the PCs are caught in the middle, my expectation level's already been established.

Ha! I wouldn't go that far! Maybe with gear allowances, or squishing cultures a bit, but major personalities or events?! Nope, they can stay where they are.

Quote from: arcanuum on September 24, 2020, 12:45:32 AMI've noticed that sometimes when a game like Aces & Eights gets brought up some folks here poo poo the idea of an alternate history.

Do they? I hadn't noticed.

Arrows of Indra and Lion and Whatsit, by Pundit, are definitely Alternate History and people generally think it is OK.

Quote from: arcanuum on September 24, 2020, 12:45:32 AMSo I just wanted to know why that is. Personally I like Alternate histories but I do think that actual history can be fun too. Anyways I hope everyone can share their thoughts on this subject.

I like Mythic History and various Alternate History scenario. I have written a number of them for BRP/RQ/HQ.

Every game where the PCs can change history becomes Alternate History after a while.

I haven't noticed people hating on the concept of alternate history, though it can certainly be done poorly.
Some potential points of failure are:

1) The alternate history is poorly researched, such that players who have done even light reading reading on the subject find it to be just grossly wrong. Ideally, reading up on the subject era should pull players in deeper and inspire character concepts and adventure seeds.

2) It is unclear where the alternate history is departing from actual history. This can be because the historical period is one that players are unlikely to be familiar with, or because the author has not communicated the point of departure clearly, or because there are multiple points of departure whose effects are complicated and/or arbitrary. In all cases, the effect is that the GM frequently interrupts players with "you can't do that" or "it doesn't work that way."

3) The GM plans to use a historical event as a surprise pivotal event, and the players discover the event before it happens in game. For example, in a pirate game I ran, my players did some reading and quickly discovered that Port Royal would be hit by a massive earthquake in 1692. It wasn't a game breaker, but nobody bought a house in Port Royal. :)

4) The GM puts way too much of their own personal politics into the game, and turns it into either a screed, an indictment of the players, or a fairy tale.

5) The GM uses history, either actual or alternate, to railroad the players or push them onto the sidelines. The campaign should not end with "you all die, but at least you gave the real heroes some pluses."

In a lot of cases, just setting the rules out for the players at the start of the campaign will do a lot to avoid these problems.

For instance, when I ran my pirate game, with African-American players among the party, I knew that the issue of slavery could threaten to derail our fun on the high seas. I told the party up front that yes, historically, slavery existed, but nobody was allowed to be a slave owner, and I wasn't going to bring it up or make it a primary theme of the game. This was an acceptable compromise.