(+) Gaming in historical settings and dealing with values of the era

[MGibster]

Folks can have superstitions all the want. That's different from actually having a vampire on the Imperial Throne.

And this brings up something I'm loathed to do in a historical setting. I don't mind supernatural critters taking advantage of disasters or the evils that men inflict other others, but I don't like making them responsible for the creation of those evils.

 

[J.Quondam]

Simply put: players decide to actually role play. Either by using reference to mechanics (as in Pendragon with it's trait and passion system), or by doing a bit of study (as in historical Japan as a setting, or Europe in Ars Magica).

For many players, it's as easy as giving them a list of significant role elements for the setting. Players actually interested in historical settings also tend to do some research.

It's no different than trying to play one of the aliens from the Classic Traveller Alien Modules... the key points are elucidated, and the group interpolates from there. It may not be 100% right to the authorial intent, but it is a challenge to do, and some players thrive on that challenge.

Historical RP may not be 100% accurate, but it can create compelling stories that a modern politically corrrect setting doesn't. It can create challenges that force players outside of the modern mindset, and allows them to understand history better.

I understand that research and really thinking through the ramifications are paramount for a historical setting. But I also notice your example was neither an RPG, nor addresses the sort of distasteful topics that really form the core of this discussion.

My real question is not about curiosities like using the toilet, but rather things that go beyond mere "political incorrectness" like full-on racism, causal genocide, women as property. How does that stuff play out at the table, aside from just saying that "Yeah, that's how it is". Aside from the mechanics that facilitate "roleplay" of such historical social elements, how does it really get integrated into PCs, and what do they really add? It's one thing to role some dice to deal with some random opponent because "us versus them!" But it's quite another to really delve into the headspace of bigotry and "otherism."

I'm genuinely interested in this, because part of me wants to see real value in RPing that in a game context. But for the life of me I can't see how that even looks at a table, much less any other upside that can't be had simply by researching about.

edit: Perhaps a simpler way to ask this is along the lines of what differentiates RP of slavery, etc, in, eg, the Underdark or the Giants; from the RP of slavery, etc, in ancient Rome or antebellum Deep South US?


edit: spelling

 

[Bill Zebub]

One of the reasons Disney's Song of the South isn't shown these days is because it ignores the reality of black Americans in the South (

Not because it ignores it, but because it goes the other way and sugar coats and romanticizes it.

But, otherwise, yes.

 

[pemerton]

In the mid-90s I did a year long unit of Roman Law. The two main things I remember are (i) that one of the students turned up to the exam wearing a toga, and (ii) that the exam was just like a regular law exam except the scenario asked me to advise Cassius (? I don't remember the names anymore) as to his liability for his slave knocking over an amphora in the market place, spilling its contents and having its lid roll along and cause more loss to someone else.

I did my best to apply the law I'd learned, which included the liability of an owner for loss caused by their slave. I didn't spend any time worrying about the injustice of the Roman law of persons.

Around the same time I was GMing a Rolemaster campaign set in Greyhawk. In our game we assumed that Roman-style slavery existed in the Great Kingdom. One of the players had, as backstory for his PC, that he had been born into slavery but had subsequently been able to purchase his freedom. One of that PC's goals was to establish himself, socially, as a prominent member of society. Another was to work towards the abolition of slavery in the Great Kingdom. A different PC was an established member of the upper classes and a former senior military official. My recollection is hazy, but I know that the PC owned an out-of-town villa that was his "base", and I think we took for granted that he had servants who, presumably, were slaves. Many of the PCs in that game would clash from time to time, but I can't remember if those two PCs ever clashed over the particular issue of owning slaves.

For what it's worth, I like Finley's book Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology.

 

[Umbran]

And this brings up something I'm loathed to do in a historical setting. I don't mind supernatural critters taking advantage of disasters or the evils that men inflict other others, but I don't like making them responsible for the creation of those evils.

So, Rome had, like, 70 emperors. Pick one that wasn't otherwise noteworthy for the evils of the Empire, and make them the vampire.

 

[MGibster]

So, Rome had, like, 70 emperors. Pick one that wasn't otherwise noteworthy for the evils of the Empire, and make them the vampire.

My apologies, I wasn't picking on you or calling out your vampire example in particular. It just reminded me of some rather unfortunate games that put supernatural elements behind the reasons for some heinous behavior in the past (and present in one case).

 

[Umbran]

Yes done. You transformed a historic setting into a fantasy one by completely changing the social order, the politics of that time and removed notable characters like Spartacus.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there's still an underclass with no real socio-economic power that can revolt in this scenario. I'm just making them not legal property. Being legal property is not the only reason to revolt, you know.

But even so, I don't really care if I've gotten rid of Spartacus. While it is known he existed, clear historical information about him is hard to come by. The historical accuracy of any depiction in your game is going to be questionable. And we don't want the game to be the story of Spartacus anyway - it should be the story of the PCs, who, I presume, are not all Spartacus.

 

[Umbran]

My apologies, I wasn't picking on you or calling out your vampire example in particular. It just reminded me of some rather unfortunate games that put supernatural elements behind the reasons for some heinous behavior in the past (and present in one case).

I know some of those. I don't have a problem when some evil of the world is from supernatural elements - I mean, if there were none, then... you should probably leave the supernatural things alone, as they aren't hurting anyone, right?

When seemingly most of the evil in the world is from the supernatural, though, yeah, that's a problem.

 

[aramis erak]

Belief in a thing is not the same as that thing actually being present.

Folks can have superstitions all the want. That's different from actually having a vampire on the Imperial Throne.

It is often more likely to produce period behavior when period beliefs are at least potential encounters in setting.

I know some of those. I don't have a problem when some evil of the world is from supernatural elements - I mean, if there were none, then... you should probably leave the supernatural things alone, as they aren't hurting anyone, right?

When seemingly most of the evil in the world is from the supernatural, though, yeah, that's a problem.

Until relatively recently, most of the world blamed almost all evil on the supernatural. One of the side effects of the Reformation was a strong decrease in blaming the Devil for everything wrong within Europe, and putting an emphasis on human accountability.

That's probably the most alien part of historical and quasi-historical settings to the modern mind.

 

[Ixal]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there's still an underclass with no real socio-economic power that can revolt in this scenario. I'm just making them not legal property. Being legal property is not the only reason to revolt, you know.

But even so, I don't really care if I've gotten rid of Spartacus. While it is known he existed, clear historical information about him is hard to come by. The historical accuracy of any depiction in your game is going to be questionable. And we don't want the game to be the story of Spartacus anyway - it should be the story of the PCs, who, I presume, are not all Spartacus.

And you are ignoring that the effects of slavery goes far beyond the ability to revolt. It was a sign and source of wealth and a big drive for all the wars Rome waged.
Removing slavery from any historic setting where it was extensively practised would alter the setting so much that it would defeat the entire purpose of having a historic setting in the first place.