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

[Jfdlsjfd]

This question was inspired by @Enevhar Aldarion's post in another thread, which was much more general in scope.

I would not care how non-racist a person may actually be in real life, if they choose to play a racist character, I will be very not cool with that and likely not continue in that game. Even if it is with non-human races. The old tropes of the elf-hating dwarf and dwarf-hating elf got really old 30-40 years ago and there is no room for that beyond the obvious meta-jokes making fun of those old tropes. And with the reforming of various evil non-human species, it is probably time for the old tropes of the orc-hating dwarf, etc to be retired.

The OP was about importing tropes into fantasy settings, but sometimes it's not a choice, like in historical settings.

I'd like to know how do you deal with the difference in values between the group's social consensus and the real values of the setting or, at least, the perceived values of the setting (as seen through the lens of the group's knowledge of the era) when it comes to gaming gaming in historical settings or quasi historical settings (generally "historical X, plus a slight dose of magic"). [note that if the inclusion of a slight modification to an historical settting changes the way you deal with it, I'd be glad to hear about it as well.

Part of the appeal to me of historical settings is trying to get a "feel" of a period. And I think we can agree that not all places and times shared modern values on political, social and religious questions and so on, all divisive topics. This is a + thread because I'd like it not to devolve on whether behavior X or Y is bad. For example, discussing how to deal with the nice questgiver who happen to be an official from a real-life culture whose job involve doing human sacrifices is good, but discussion whether human sacrifices is justified or not isn't in the scope of this thread.

I am afraid of providing more examples but I hope it will be clear enough without them. I am interested in how everyone is dealing with it at their tables.

[For me, if everyone is agreeing on an historical setting, reading will be required from all and NPCs will expect people to behave appropriately in the context of the setting. It can be "faded to black" if particularly gross, though]. In term of the PC opposing anything, they can, they are PC (much like a fantasy Hermione can oppose house elves mistreatment), but it might not be easier than any other endeaviour.

 

[aco175]

I'm not seeing this thread going much better than other others, even with the +.

If I have a historical game, it is likely historical fantasy. There may be groups that trade and own slaves, but it would generally be portrayed in a negative way. The modern views of slavery slant the story and actions of the players to the PCs. So it would not be the norm and more something the bad guys engage in. Thus opening them up to the murder-hobos.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I'd say it depends on the specific issue and how much it affects the players. Say, if it's slavery or human sacrifice, then you could reasonably keep it as an element if none of the PCs or related NPCs are slaves/sacrifices themselves, it's just a part of the setting that they can choose to engage with or not.

Compared to, say, racism against the Orc player or sexism against the female character, those things will shape the player's relationships a lot, so I wouldn't go for it unless the player wants to explore that kind of thing.

I'd definitely let them fight against it either way, maybe work with them as to why they'd be against it when it's a socially acceptable thing in general.

 

[Cadence]

I expect things we view as bad today to not be held up as being good. So if the characters do them they shouldn't portray it as good. If they do it a lot happily they shouldn't portray themselves as good.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'd bring it up with the players prior to the game starting. Like in the planning stage; there's no point planning a game around features X, Y, and Z if the players do no want to engage with X, Y, Z. Even if features X, Y, and Z are historically accurate, even if the PCs would get to oppose X, Y, and Z, if any players are "nope, I get too much of that *!#$ in real life, not having it my happy fantasy game" then X, Y, and Z will not happen.

The feel of a period can frequently be invoked by simple, surface things like clothes, available tech, visuals. Zeppelins and biplanes over a steam-punk London says a lot about a setting. Sometimes all we want is veneer of other times over our modern world.

For myself: I don't mind bringing up historical wrongs in my games, but I will present them as wrong as a DM and oppose them as a PC.

 

[Argyle King]

I think it's important to mention that something being a norm of a time period doesn't mean that everyone during that time period was accepting of it or happy about it.

In terms of how the PCs react it it?

That's up to the player to decide how their character feels about it -the same as any other dilemma or conflict that a character might encounter.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

My answers will differ widely depending on the direction and themes of the game, as set out in discussion with my group in Session Zero.

For example, Beyond the Fence, Below the Grave has several scenarios that involve slaves in Norse society. If the players I have available aren't interested in engaging with this kind of matter, I'll run something else for them.

 

[dragoner]

I ignore it totally, because even back in those times, people broke the mold, and went against common behavior. Players can do what they like.

 

[J.Quondam]

I used to feel that a historical setting should be played straight, warts and all; and that players should try to stick to that. I thought that was an avenue to some sort of deep insight into... stuff and things. Or something.

Eventually, though, I asked myself "Why?" and I couldn't really figure out what exactly I hoped to gain by playing out racism or human sacrifice or whatever. And the fact that those topics are so distasteful to me means that even pretending to be legitimately "learning" about them in the game ends up being a chore for the soul, not entertainment. But I game for enjoyment, not self-flagellation, so again that question: "Why?"

So now I aim to keep those things in the background. And if/when they do come up, they're presented as the evils that they are, societal diseases to be actively fought and fixed, not simply acknowledged as "that's just how the history was."

If I really want to explore those topics, imo, it's much more effective and honest to just read the history or historical fiction by a qualified author. Someone with a lived experience or other genuine insight is a far better teacher for me on those topics than a table of random D&D gamers.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

@Galandris To add to the original thoughts, In game systems that have an Alignment, I never play "Evil" characters and I do not play in groups that do Evil-themed campaigns, nor do I allow Evil-aligned PCs in games I run, so a lot of historic stuff would end up being just in the background and ignored or actively fought against by the PC party.