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.