HISTORICAL CAMPAIGNS

[Tristissima]

I have long wanted to run Deadlands in the 1960s and 70s. Images of hopeful hippies battling Reckoner-backed false flower children, mad science flourishing in the days of wild innovation at the height of the cold war, surf culture burgeoning in the Great Maze, aging beatniks doing that vice magic from Deadlands Noir, and rock musicians taking the place of tale-tellers. If the group felt safe to do so (i.e., there was enthusiastic and affirmative consent stated by all parties), I'd probably keep the original timeline (adjusted to leave the idea of a non-racist Confederacy in the dustbin where it belongs) with the CSA and feature the Civil Rights War which finally forces them to abolish slavery.

And, of course, as a Sumerian religionist, I'd love to play something in ol' Mesopotamia.

Finally, ANYTHING even semi-Mesoamerican that didn't automatically assume the cultures present must be evil for practicing human sacrifice. It would be a breath of fresh air to find an RPG that portrayed the Nahua (particularly) as a nuanced and complex society that actually knew something about how the cosmos worked and was capable of both good and evil.

 

[Eltab]

When Dragons Conquered America was a game discussed on EnWorld a year or so before the software changeover. Fantasy-enhanced (both sides) MesoAmericans meet Spaniards. I lost track of it after a while but from memory it might be something up your alley.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

MASHED lets you play in one of the M*A*S*H units of the Korean War. Bonus fun if you like the tv show/movie.

 

[D1Tremere]

I don't run historical campaigns for a few reasons: 1) Racism and Sexism aren't fun 2) Disease and infection are often too lethal for combat to be run 3) History is like a campaign guide that is much too large for me to ever know. Even a small part of a specific point in time and space is incredibly deep and nuanced 4) Players cannot help but approach historic settings with modern knowledge and culture baked in.

I do however sometimes run games that are set in a flavor of history. I may, for example, run Cthulhu set in a 1920s themed setting. Tech and style of the 1920s but without real world events from the time period. It becomes just an aesthetic for the adventure.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't run historical campaigns for a few reasons: 1) Racism and Sexism aren't fun 2) Disease and infection are often too lethal for combat to be run 3) History is like a campaign guide that is much too large for me to ever know. Even a small part of a specific point in time and space is incredibly deep and nuanced 4) Players cannot help but approach historic settings with modern knowledge and culture baked in.

I do however sometimes run games that are set in a flavor of history. I may, for example, run Cthulhu set in a 1920s themed setting. Tech and style of the 1920s but without real world events from the time period. It becomes just an aesthetic for the adventure.

I like to call what I do a-historical games. In that they are based on real events, and take place in history, but resemble the real world history about as good as Hollywood movies that are based on real events. Sometimes very closely, sometimes not closely at all.

 

[Zsong]

I don't run historical campaigns for a few reasons: 1) Racism and Sexism aren't fun 2) Disease and infection are often too lethal for combat to be run 3) History is like a campaign guide that is much too large for me to ever know. Even a small part of a specific point in time and space is incredibly deep and nuanced 4) Players cannot help but approach historic settings with modern knowledge and culture baked in.

I do however sometimes run games that are set in a flavor of history. I may, for example, run Cthulhu set in a 1920s themed setting. Tech and style of the 1920s but without real world events from the time period. It becomes just an aesthetic for the adventure.

I have played historical campaigns where 1 and 2 weren’t even topics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't run historical campaigns for a few reasons: 1) Racism and Sexism aren't fun 2) Disease and infection are often too lethal for combat to be run 3) History is like a campaign guide that is much too large for me to ever know.

1&2 (and even 3) I think is easy to hand wave with a more anachronistic approach (for example running something in the past but essentially using modern culture for the most part and modern ways of speaking----kind of how Hercules and Xena did in the 90s). You can also specifically ignore those things (obviously different eras make this harder). But for example if you set your game in the Ancient world, in Rome, race isn't as important as culture and citizenship (and while there is slavery, it isn't tied to race and it isn't necessarily a permanent condition). I think this is something best handled within the group through because some people don't want to ignore that stuff, feeling it is elephant in the room and needs to be addressed. In terms of history being too big, that is one of the major hurdles. I think it is unfortunate that we sometimes are overly judgemental about accuracy in games and this may cause people who are curious but not experts, to hesitate. I think it would be healthier overall if, while we left plenty of room for accuracy and authenticity in historical games because those are great, we also had a much more live and let live attitude towards people using history for fun (who may have big gaps in their knowledge about history and need to fill those gaps with modern assumptions). This concern about the size of history as a setting, is the single biggest issue I keep seeing mentioned when I talk to people about running and playing historical games

 

[Zsong]

1&2 (and even 3) I think is easy to hand wave with a more anachronistic approach (for example running something in the past but essentially using modern culture for the most part and modern ways of speaking----kind of how Hercules and Xena did in the 90s). You can also specifically ignore those things (obviously different eras make this harder). But for example if you set your game in the Ancient world, in Rome, race isn't as important as culture and citizenship (and while there is slavery, it isn't tied to race and it isn't necessarily a permanent condition). I think this is something best handled within the group through because some people don't want to ignore that stuff, feeling it is elephant in the room and needs to be addressed. In terms of history being too big, that is one of the major hurdles. I think it is unfortunate that we sometimes are overly judgemental about accuracy in games and this may cause people who are curious but not experts, to hesitate. I think it would be healthier overall if, while we left plenty of room for accuracy and authenticity in historical games because those are great, we also had a much more live and let live attitude towards people using history for fun (who may have big gaps in their knowledge about history and need to fill those gaps with modern assumptions). This concern about the size of history as a setting, is the single biggest issue I keep seeing mentioned when I talk to people about running and playing historical games

these are really only problems I have seen online.

 

[D1Tremere]

I have played historical campaigns where 1 and 2 weren’t even topics.

Which is fine, but they aren't really historical campaigns once you cut out all of the elements that led to daily conflict for every civilization at that point. That was my point. Once I remove all of those aspects I am left with an aesthetic as opposed to historical campaign, something that is fun to play because it has some of the styles or trends of the era without really being historical in any meaningful way. I can play Call of Cthulhu with 1920s gangsters and Jazz while not including how African American's were treated in the real historical period or how much more lethal combat was prior to Penicillin. It isn't really a historical campaign, as ignoring 90% of the issues driving social change at the time isn't really representative of anything. It is just a style that I can use.

 

[TheSword]

Which is fine, but they aren't really historical campaigns once you cut out all of the elements that led to daily conflict for every civilization at that point. That was my point. Once I remove all of those aspects I am left with an aesthetic as opposed to historical campaign, something that is fun to play because it has some of the styles or trends of the era without really being historical in any meaningful way. I can play Call of Cthulhu with 1920s gangsters and Jazz while not including how African American's were treated in the real historical period or how much more lethal combat was prior to Penicillin. It isn't really a historical campaign, as ignoring 90% of the issues driving social change at the time isn't really representative of anything. It is just a style that I can use.

There is a difference between recognizing a periods limitations and idiosyncrasies to make a campaign more realistic and courting current controversy. Limitations that are indiscriminate like lack of penicillin or reliable communication generally don’t cause offense. They fall evenly and don’t lead to a genera feeling of grievance now.

On the other hand if you’re including racism in an rpg game I have to question why? IF these things act as a backdrop and they’re events you’re hearing about then I can see it being relevant to place the campaign in time. However is your character reacting to these events? Commenting on them as a citizen of those times would have commented? Or are they acting them out? Insisting the driver stops the bus because a black woman is sitting in the wrong seat... because that’s what their character would have done? It’s a minefield.

Now in the privacy of a person’s basement they can say what they like to who they like. However on a public forum I’m not interested in people justifying how they like acting out racist fantasies because it’s accurate. That included listening to the DM describe how they act them out to players who are pretending to oppressed. It’s not cool to get your Thursday night kicks acting out the scenario of three locals beating up a young man because he whistled at a woman. Even if the PC is that young man. It is deeply distasteful.

There is so much history that is fascinating and challenging, it mystifies me why people would want to act out the very worst elements of human nature. There are far more interesting tension... war vs peace, technology vs agriculture, urban vs rural, changes in transport, discovery, meeting new cultures (on an equal footing), history of law, history of medicine, development of archeology, development of anthropology, the age of sail, piracy, founding of democracy. Etc etc. I’m pretty sure leaning into 1900’s racism is fairly unnecessary for a historical game.