This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Why the hate for alternate history settings?  (Read 4971 times)

Ravenswing

  • Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2393
  • Iconoclast
    • Apotheosis of the Invisible City
Re: Why the hate for alternate history settings?
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2020, 09:41:19 PM »
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?

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.

This was a cool site, until it became an echo chamber for whiners screeching about how the "Evul SJWs are TAKING OVAH!!!" every time any RPG book included a non-"traditional" NPC or concept, or their MAGA peeners got in a twist. You're in luck, drama queens: the Taliban is hiring.

RollingBones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • R
  • Posts: 39
Re: Why the hate for alternate history settings?
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2020, 05:00:41 AM »
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.)
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...

RollingBones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • R
  • Posts: 39
Re: Why the hate for alternate history settings?
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2020, 05:05:25 AM »
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.

soltakss

  • RQ Fogey
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1433
    • http://www.soltakss.com/index.html
Re: Why the hate for alternate history settings?
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2020, 01:55:14 PM »
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.

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.

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.

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.
Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism  since 1982.

http://www.soltakss.com/index.html
Merrie England (Medieval RPG): http://merrieengland.soltakss.com/index.html
Alternate Earth: http://alternateearthrq.soltakss.com/index.html

Lurkndog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
Re: Why the hate for alternate history settings?
« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2020, 03:16:14 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2020, 03:30:18 PM by Lurkndog »