The SCA is not the most diverse group out there by a long shot, no.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Friday Musing: What If It Wasn't War Games
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
The SCA is not the most diverse group out there by a long shot, no.
Depends on the size of your table.
All joking aside, it has the major problem that, in order to play like you are an awesome fighter, you actually personally have to be an awesome fighter. It presents barriers to play left, right, and center.
dragoner
KosmicRPG.com
If we are speaking towards capitalism, it is their companies that created RPG's, I mean I played Battle of the Five Armies by TSR, and Imperium by GDW before playing Dungeons and Dragons or Traveller. War game crowds can be a chore vs RPG'ers as it has a higher amount of wehraboos and such. One reason doing some design, I did "The Great Patriotic War" campaign, with help of other Slavs, and using the scene intro's and AAR's from Vasily Grossman: "This is the cauldron where the revenge was carried out..." Just to spit in their eye.
Though to be honest, the problem with the RPG and war game crowds are more societal, than endemic to the scenes themselves.
Though to be honest, the problem with the RPG and war game crowds are more societal, than endemic to the scenes themselves.
Jay Murphy1
Meterion, Mastermind of Time !
Who is in the space shapes the ideas, for sure. If you stray from the wargaming table you stray from the ideas being discussed which would lead to ttrpg. How is characters in a historical context more welcoming to LGBTQ+ folks than say characters in a-historical context, like a character or creature of fiction? I'm not seeing this connection.
It's not the historical context, it's the play context. People playing dress up and pretending to be princesses (I DO NOT mean this pejoratively; I was and am one of those people) are, in my experience, much more welcoming of LGBTQ+ folks than most. That's just my experience, and it's possible it is not representative, but I don't think so.
Jay Murphy1
Meterion, Mastermind of Time !
Good point, the play context. Highlights why the wargame scene was the place for ttrpg's to get created. The play context was practically screaming you need to try out this ttrpg idea. SCA and historical reenactment scenes lacked the play context for such an idea to take root and flower. But say it was like the theory of relativity and was hatched from within a patent office (unlikely play context) and took root in historical reenactment. The people hot on the idea would need to move out of the patent office and find places willing to try out their game ideas. And probably would end up at wargaming tables trying to get their involvement. Because they would be one of the few places you would find people willing to play test your ideas.
The initial response to D&D and even Chainmail was that it was too fanciful and not serious enough. It wasn't until it reached past the "historical realism" grognards that ruled the wargame scene that it got traction.
Jay Murphy1
Meterion, Mastermind of Time !
I was thinking more of practicality, people actually sitting at a table playing games, all in the same room. And when enough people who got it were available it moved into a more private laboratory. But once Arneson and Gygax were happy with the "final" product, and correct me if I'm wrong this is pure assumption, wouldn't they have turned around and pitched it right back at this same crowd? Sure, the general consensus in the wargaming scene may have thought this ttrpg thing was never going to fly, or was poor entertainment, but enough people in that crowd (and sci-fi fans and SCA fans, etc.) got it as soon as they were shown the game and made it a thing. I like to keep in mind the game wasn't found in the books people were writing, but people actually at the table playing the damn thing. And that takes people getting exposed to the experience and being able to replicate it with a new group of people. So ttrpg's pull interested people like a magnet pulls metal filings out of a pile of sawdust into its orbit from all sorts of places and backgrounds. I don't think there was an outside public clamoring to get in so much as the weird lights in the windows got curious people to step into the store.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Moving to a different past instead of a wargame past would have likely had two major changes (at least).
I don't think there would have been the intense granularity zoom on combat - that's definitely a build on how wargames were played and the types of tactical decisions the players were used to making.
And the exercise of those heavily focused rules likely encouraged places to use them heavily, like dungeon exploration. Remember that skills - a resolution mechanism that applies outside of combat - didn't really exist as a general rule in the early D&D editions.
Now, to explore some possibilities of these changes.
So, once we've zoomed out of combat as mechanically heavy, we no longer have a requirement that all characters much be able to contribute in combat because it is a long process. Everyone being able to contribute in combat is just so players are engaged, and an outgrowth of wargaming interests. There is no general push that all characters must be able to contribute mechanically the same amount (if in different ways) as all other characters across other pillars of play. We're fine with an outdoorsman tracking, the wizard deciphering arcane runes, and so on - every contributing across the scope of the game, but not needing to contribute equally mechanically to every scene.
Another aspect if with less time focused on combat, it may be that other pillars of play might get more mechanical expression. I'm not saying any of them would become "the new combat" level of granularity, but all of them having more similar levels of mechanical support might come about. Say a reputation and a morale subsystem (which we did have), but not a whole social combat system that zooms in like D&D combat.
Again, which group popularized it would have a big effect on what aspects they want to see in play/emulate in rules. Reenactment might have kept the focus on combat. Parlor games might have included more puzzles, riddles and drama with mechanics for crossing between player ability and character ability, much like D&D combat is character mechanics and player tactics.
Considering the worlds of some of Appendix N -- which still would likely have been some influence -- mayhaps exploration would have a a big deal, with overland travel and sandbox style hexcrawls, or even more of a travelogue of exploring known lands as a focus.
I don't think there would have been the intense granularity zoom on combat - that's definitely a build on how wargames were played and the types of tactical decisions the players were used to making.
And the exercise of those heavily focused rules likely encouraged places to use them heavily, like dungeon exploration. Remember that skills - a resolution mechanism that applies outside of combat - didn't really exist as a general rule in the early D&D editions.
Now, to explore some possibilities of these changes.
So, once we've zoomed out of combat as mechanically heavy, we no longer have a requirement that all characters much be able to contribute in combat because it is a long process. Everyone being able to contribute in combat is just so players are engaged, and an outgrowth of wargaming interests. There is no general push that all characters must be able to contribute mechanically the same amount (if in different ways) as all other characters across other pillars of play. We're fine with an outdoorsman tracking, the wizard deciphering arcane runes, and so on - every contributing across the scope of the game, but not needing to contribute equally mechanically to every scene.
Another aspect if with less time focused on combat, it may be that other pillars of play might get more mechanical expression. I'm not saying any of them would become "the new combat" level of granularity, but all of them having more similar levels of mechanical support might come about. Say a reputation and a morale subsystem (which we did have), but not a whole social combat system that zooms in like D&D combat.
Again, which group popularized it would have a big effect on what aspects they want to see in play/emulate in rules. Reenactment might have kept the focus on combat. Parlor games might have included more puzzles, riddles and drama with mechanics for crossing between player ability and character ability, much like D&D combat is character mechanics and player tactics.
Considering the worlds of some of Appendix N -- which still would likely have been some influence -- mayhaps exploration would have a a big deal, with overland travel and sandbox style hexcrawls, or even more of a travelogue of exploring known lands as a focus.
Jay Murphy1
Meterion, Mastermind of Time !
Roleplaying games were developed so you could play a character in a living, fictitious world. The creators were a fan of fantasy fiction and violent action is pretty central to popular fantasy fiction. Combat was an important consideration because many people looking to play a fantasy fiction game would expect it, want it, and would be disappointed if the game didn't include it. There isn't detailed combat rules in ttrpg's because that is what wargames simulate, but because fans of the fiction being played would want it, demand it and expect it.
Similar Threads
