Yes. It is a quick brush-off, not a considered conclusion, to think "Everything before me was all bad."If the setting's not horrible can you really call it "historical"?
While it's a good idea to avoid putting on rose colored glasses when looking towards the past, it's also a mistake to become mired in misery as well. People in the past, even those who lived through terrible conditions, managed to live full lives and accomplish great things despite the obstacles in front of them.If the setting's not horrible can you really call it "historical"?
This is the sound and uncomplicated way to deal with the issues. Talk to each other like adults, make sure everyone is on the same page. If one player isn't dis-invite them from THIS game but bring them in on one they'd like.I think it's valid for players to talk about modern values.
How much the characters apply those values in game? Your groups' mileage will vary depending on what you all agree to.
I do not think it has much to do with enlightenment values. If any one of us were transported to the past, the social injustices would slide rapidly down our list of priorities to be replaced by the lack of air conditioning/central heating.I think the last few posts about the past as horrible, etc, show the difficulty of stepping out of an enlightenment outlook!
A couple of things. The vast majority of muslims in the west denounced the 911 attacks when you got to the middle east maybe not as much although as has been mentioned in other posts my knowlege is dependent on the amount and accuracy of reporting. (what they were saying in their own communities I suspect neither of us will know).It could also be because of fear, and not just apathy and indifference. Look at things right after 9/11 happened and how few moderate Muslims stood up and denounced the terrorist actions. Many of them did not speak out because they were, and still are, legitimately afraid of the very violent minority in their religion. Or with your witchcraft example, fanaticism says that if you are sympathetic towards an oppressed group, then you must be one of them too. I don't think we will ever know the breakdown of those murdered in that purge who were directly accused vs those who just spoke out against it.
But that is the thing, it was normal back then.I just can't imagine prioritizing detailed historical accuracy in a game enough that it would be enjoyable to roleplay reprehensible "values".
Could I pretend to enjoy eating the fattiest cuts of meat, or believing that Queen Anne furniture is actually attractive? Sure. But normalizing genocide/slavery/rape? Uh....no, thanks. I game for fun.
I'm totally ok with other people running their games however they want, and prioritizing what they want, but I would quietly bow out of such a game.
But how does a group really do this? How do you really drop modern sensibilities, and know you're doing it "authentically"? How does that play out at a table?But that is the thing, it was normal back then.
You can't have a campaign set in ancient Rome without slavery as they were everywhere. And if the player are always playing the special exceptions who fight against slavery then there is exactly one type of campaign that you can run as their fight against slavery will overshadow everything else.
When you want to run a historical setting with more authenticity than a couple of college students wearing togas and drinking themself senseless then you have to deal and accept the mindset of that point in history.
But that is the thing, it was normal back then.
You can't have a campaign set in ancient Rome without slavery as they were everywhere. And if the player are always playing the special exceptions who fight against slavery then there is exactly one type of campaign that you can run as their fight against slavery will overshadow everything else.
When you want to run a historical setting with more authenticity than a couple of college students wearing togas and drinking themself senseless then you have to deal and accept the mindset of that point in history.
And how much fidelity would you be able to achieve without slaves in Rome?Surely there’s at least one gradation between 100% fidelity and “college students in togas”?
And if perfect fidelity is the goal, then I probably wouldn’t find it very interesting anyway, so I don’t really have any good ideas to contribute.
And how much defelity would you be able to achieve without slaves in Rome?
I'm in the same boat. I tend to prioritize fun rather than adhering to strict historical accuracy. I mean, you know, insofar as I can adhere to historical accuracy at all. Not even counting the bad aspects of the past, I think it can be very, very difficult for people to get into a similar mindset prevalent in the past. Years ago when watching the movie adaptation of Uberto Ecco's In the Name of the Rose, there's a scene where some monks were debating over whether or not Jesus Christ owned his own robes. To modern ears, even among religious people, this sounds ridiculous. But it as tied into 14th century thoughts on the role of clergy, the examples set by Christ, and how much wealth the Roman Catholic Church possessed at the time. Most of us just lack the frame of reference to think from that point of view.I just can't imagine prioritizing detailed historical accuracy in a game enough that it would be enjoyable to roleplay reprehensible "values".
You just do your best and to the degree at which everyone is okay with. It's not like I ever expect a game set in the past to be 100% accurate. Come to think of it, it's not like my games set in contemporary times are 100% realistic. As I've said in other threads, I'm not looking for realism so much as I'm looking for verisimilitude.But how does a group really do this? How do you really drop modern sensibilities, and know you're doing it "authentically"? How does that play out at a table?
Yes. It is a quick brush-off, not a considered conclusion, to think "Everything before me was all bad."
But that is the thing, it was normal back then.
You can't have a campaign set in ancient Rome without slavery as they were everywhere.
So what? I mean, there's probably going to be all sorts of things in the game they didn't have in the actual history - magic, monsters, and stuff, right? Few are playing games with no fantastical elements. So, the game's going to seriously deviate from history regardless.
I interpreted the thread title to refer primarily to non-fantasy settings.