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

In historical setting, when values are different from our own

  • I expect the players to adhere to it and actively engage in the behavior of the period

    Votes: 11 15.1%
  • I expect the players to adhere to it "superficially" and try to keep it in the background

    Votes: 30 41.1%
  • I expect the players to ignore it and kill things and take their stuff anyway

    Votes: 11 15.1%
  • I make possible for the players to fight it and stand up for their values

    Votes: 44 60.3%
  • I will integrate these values in the campaign as part of the narrative

    Votes: 28 38.4%
  • I will have PCs face social consequences when they deviate from era behaviour in public

    Votes: 32 43.8%
  • I will try to keep it in the background even when NPCs are concerned

    Votes: 13 17.8%
  • I will ignore it totally

    Votes: 16 21.9%

Argyle King

Legend
If you are one of the few who are doing that, playing a strictly historical game with no fantastic elements, my comments may not apply. I'm okay with that.

That's [strictly historical] what I understood the thread title to mean as well.

If some fantasy elements are added, I believe that touches of reality and verisimilitude are still important in a fantasy setting. However, what exactly the setting looks like will highly vary depending upon how much it deviates from the baseline history.

Obviously, if you're using an alternate version of history for a setting, the social norms of that setting needn't be historically accurate.

Personally, I think it would make for a more interesting setting to explore how introduction of an a-historical element might interact with the historical setting.

What's the world like if Carthage defeats Rome? Does "western" culture have more of an African influence rather than a Greco-Roman one? Do the countries of England, France, and Spain still evolve or would other powers emerge to make the process of sailing west to America occur much differently?

What's World War II like if (similar to Hellboy) magic and supernatural elements are introduced?

How do the dynamics of slavery change in a world with multiple sapient species of humanoids? How does that then change the American Civil War?

By all means, each table can -and should- make choices for what game/setting/campaign to play based upon what's comfortable for the group at said table. In no way would I ever expect someone to spend (what should be) their leisure time sitting at table at which they feel uncomfortable, offended, or in some other way morally maligned.

At the same time, I do not see anything inherently wrong in exploring the potential social warts of a setting as a source for adventure rather than ignoring that the warts exist.

Sometimes, even with magic, wizards, and dragons; a few touches of reality can enhance the fantasy experience.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Every period of history has horrible things going on, to include our own. If you were running a modern-day gritty campaign in a major city, would you excise all references to homelessness, drug addiction, gang violence, etc?

The tribulations of a historical period and its social flaws are, IMO, useful plot devices and challenges. After all, purely fantasy settings general have the threat of war or actual war, banditry, raiding, piracy, terrorist-like plotting of cults and deranged wizards (or even things like the Ruinous Powers in WH or the Shadow of the Demon Prince), and so forth.
 


pemerton

Legend
Some of the discussion in this thread seems to rest on a premise that the contemporary world is "non-horrible". I think the first step to serious historical RPGing is to put that premise under scrutiny.

Conversely, if people are working with a partial or even mythical version of the contemporary world, what is the objection to doing so in a game set in other eras?
 

Some of the discussion in this thread seems to rest on a premise that the contemporary world is "non-horrible".

Contemporary America anyway, and not counting the [date redacted] incident at the beginning of the year.

And like I said, history will eventually sing a different tune years to decades from now when Impossible Burger style foods replace meat, and then an even more different tune decades to centuries from now when technology makes the need for work obsolete.
 

pemerton

Legend
Contemporary America anyway
Where are most garments purchased in the US manufactured?

In the same way that someone might play a RPG set in the US without addressing that question, so it seems to me that someone might play an Ancient Roman RPG without delving very far into the details of the Roman processes of production (including slavery).
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Every period of history has horrible things going on, to include our own. If you were running a modern-day gritty campaign in a major city, would you excise all references to homelessness, drug addiction, gang violence, etc?

I think this question carries a heavy assumption, based in the word "excise".

Did Ford Motor Company excise all reference to microwave ovens in their pickup truck ads? No, because they never made such reference in the first place! Similarly, if you never happen to mention a drug-addicted person, because no such person was relevant to play, you aren't "excising" them, because they haven't existed in your fiction.

The world is a very, very large place. There is no way that one GM is going to directly mention everything that exists. Even the most floridly speaking GMs will draw at best a minimal sketch of the fullness of a world. Some things will be left out.

So, we are quibbling over which cherry-picking to do.

The tribulations of a historical period and its social flaws are, IMO, useful plot devices and challenges. After all, purely fantasy settings general have the threat of war or actual war, banditry, raiding, piracy, terrorist-like plotting of cults and deranged wizards (or even things like the Ruinous Powers in WH or the Shadow of the Demon Prince), and so forth.

Sure. And maybe you're thinking that we are talking about making worlds sweetness and light. I don't think that's an accurate view. We are, I think, talking about avoiding gratuitous inclusion of such flaws. We are talkign about making what is inluded a considered choice for specific reasons and goals.

If you really want to use an element, make it a theme, a central element of your game's resulting story, that's fine. But if you don't, you have a choice - include it, or not reference it.

Like, you're running a historical game in Rome. You want to include slaves? Okay. And prostitution? Sure, prostitution existed, so, it is there, right?

But are you going to specifically raise the point that much or most prostitution in Ancient Rome wasn't consensual? That, sex-slaves were common, and in some periods women who were found guilty of adultery could be forced into prostitution? Or do you figure your players are going to not want to engage with sex slavery, and not want that particular tidbit shoved in their faces when they joke about their characters going to a brothel in your gritty game? Note that going to brothels was a normal thing, expected behavior, if not done too often. Highly placed Romans* didn't think twice about it.

But will your players actually play that, knowing that every act of going to a brothel in game includes committing rape? Is it really a good thing if they do?

Our tables are not full of detailed historians aware of this. They won't know unless we tell them. So, we have a choice, tell them, or not. If not... well, now we are away from all-or-nothing discussion. We are admitting that there are some lines we won't cross, and we are merely quibbling over where we draw lines, and why.

For those of you who are tempted to say you don't draw lines, let me tell you about some larpers I know, from the "Nordic schools". These folks play by what they call a "two-week rule" - any harm done to another player that heals in two weeks is okay. That's PLAYER, not character. To them, it is okay to give another player a bloody nose, or a black eye, or bash heads against walls, so long as you don't give the a concussion or break the bone. Wounds that don't need stitches are okay, too. Broken furniture is fine. If your characters fight, the players fight and punch each other, and none of it "light contact sparring" stuff. Just don't send anyone to the hospital. All in the name of "verisimilitude", "being real", "gritty", "emotional truth", and all that. Same reasons folks are talking about here.

But, I doubt most of you are saying, "Well, actual injuries are historical, so..." Instead, you draw a line, and aren't having your players actually fight in your game rooms.





*I specify "highly placed Romans" as a bit of a pushback on the "this was the accepted norm of society" fiction. It was the accepted norm of people who made the laws. Slavery was not accepted by the slaves, or you'd not have had Spartacus with an army of 100K people at his back. Forced prostitution was not okay to those who were the prostitutes - only the customers.
 
Last edited:



J.Quondam

CR 1/8
What's the perceived benefit of playing in a historical setting which doesn't use anything from the chosen time period versus playing in a fantasy/fictional setting?
Wouldn't a better/fairer a better question, "What's the perceived benefit of playing in a historical setting which doesn't use select elements from the chosen time period versus playing in a fantasy/fictional setting?"
 

Remove ads

Top