aramis erak
Legend
I run historicals only when the historical is going to be part of play.This question was inspired by @Enevhar Aldarion's post in another thread, which was much more general in scope.
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.
I expect players to discuss in setup the level of enforcement of historicity, from a minimum of "some" to a max of "as historical as we can".
My default mode is letting players buck the social trends via competence, not unlike Catherine the Great, Elizabeth Tudor, Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart...
T2K, I ignored for this campaign the still technically in force in 1997 gender restrictions, and that is relevant since it takes 3+ years to make captain.... because it's not worth the hassle to make it part of the storyline. OTOH, a dead sniper with a bag of feminine hygiene supplys was a seemingly appreciated GM move...