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

[Bohandas]

If the setting's not horrible can you really call it "historical"?

 

[Eltab]

If the setting's not horrible can you really call it "historical"?

Yes. It is a quick brush-off, not a considered conclusion, to think "Everything before me was all bad."

You (as DM or as player or as group) can choose to emphasize the awful, or choose to emphasize the hopeful, or a mixture of both.

Indeed, based on historical examples, if you want to change the sociological norms, it is better to pick one cause to devote effort into, rather than dabble in many but accomplish little in any.

 

[MGibster]

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.

 

[pemerton]

I think the last few posts about the past as horrible, etc, show the difficulty of stepping out of an enlightenment outlook!

 

[Ace]

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.

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.

This is basic GM leadership stuff I honestly thought everyone knew.

And note not inviting a person to a game is not exclusionary or bad. Gaming is meant to be fun and if the person is a bad fit with your group don't game with them . If they are a good fit but not with this game bring them in. We've all been that guy at times and its fine.

As a personnel example I had two guys married into the same family who could not and would not game together. Both of them made it clear that it wasn't going to happen so we said "cool." got to know preferences and invited the guy that had time or fit best

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think the last few posts about the past as horrible, etc, show the difficulty of stepping out of an enlightenment outlook!

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.

Running water, safe water, bland food because: a lot of what we are used to is not available in the local markets for love nor money. As it cannot be transported in a consumable state.

What could be prepared to our liking required too much time and effort in pre-mechanical kitchens and so is only feast/party food. A lot of what we can get is of very variable quality due to quality of ingredients and lack of precise control of hob and oven temperatures.

All this before one gets in to infectious diseases and the dangers of horses, not to mention the locals.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

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.

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).
this does not necessarily disagree with what you said as you didn't specify but I thought it worth clarifying
In terms of reason I don't think you got it exactly right. Although fear is a part of it. it was more complicated than that, you do touch on this in your witchcraft example so again this isnt a disagreement as much as a clarification.
There was of course a famous declaration of "you're either with us or against us" from the POTUS at the time and of course radical terrorist groups are hardly interested in moderate debates critcal of both sides.
It meant those who were genuinely appalled by the terrorists but who also genuinely upset by the death meeted out to their compatriots often by western backed regimes with western supplied weapons get stuck with no recourse. Try to bring up the muslims who are suffering and you're labelled a sympathiser with terrorists. Support the western military response uncritically and you're saying the lives of people like you don't matter.
Better to hunker down and say nothing publically because you can't win.

This isn't a anti western diatribe the terrorists deliberately used real issues to try to legitimise their murder it wasn't all one way. There were people dying on both sides who didn't deserve to but each side was only interested in their own people to fit into their own narrative and didn't want any muddying of the waters.

If you look at the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland you see exactly the same pattern. If you're not 100% supporting us you're with the enemy. And there, there was a much more real threat of some friendly neighbours in balaclavas coming to have a word with your kneecaps about "loyalty".

On witchcraft the funny thing is it came almost entirely from the people. Where there was strong authority the reaction to "she's a witch!" was "No she isn't now get back to the fields before we stab you." it was usually where there was weak or insecure government, often where there were rival authorities or overlapping boundaries where you got a populist race to the bottom to indulge the masses. "we are tougher on witches than that other lot!" kind of thing. No all badness comes from evil authorities ordinary people can be sh*ts too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

We’ve probably gone as far down the road of discussing RW political dynamics as is safe.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

 

[Ixal]

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 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.