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

[J.Quondam]

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 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?
It's easy enough to say "Yeah, slavery exists" or "Yeah, people are racist", but then just sort of gloss over it except in special circumstances like when the barkeep says "We don't serve their kind here" or whatever. How does that get truly integrated into PCs' worldviews so it's a part of the game? I mean, beyond the handwavy stuff we already tend to do in a fantasy game?

And if a table is not really doing it "authentically", then what exactly are they doing, and why?

edit for grammar.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

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.

 

[Ixal]

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 fidelity would you be able to achieve without slaves in Rome?

 

[Bill Zebub]

And how much defelity would you be able to achieve without slaves in Rome?

Even there you have gradations between eliminating slavery completely and treating it with "realistic" attitudes of that era.

 

[MGibster]

I just can't imagine prioritizing detailed historical accuracy in a game enough that it would be enjoyable to roleplay reprehensible "values".

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.

And to be fair (♪to be fair♪), I find many players have trouble getting into a decidedly non-modern mindset even in games with fictional settings. In D&D, we're pretty much encouraged to keep our modern notions of right and wrong when playing our characters. That's probably one of the reasons why D&D is so successful.

 

[MGibster]

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?

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.

 

[Bohandas]

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

Who said anything about "before"?

When I was born there were still [redacted due to Dannyalcatraz' warning to stop discussing politics]

And that's not even getting in to how primitive the technology was.

 

[Umbran]

But that is the thing, it was normal back then.

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.

And there's plenty of stuff in ancient worlds we don't bother putting in our games, but that shaped the histories in question - like disease! Smallpox caused such devastation in Imperial Rome that they had to change the laws to adjust for population loss.

You can't have a campaign set in ancient Rome without slavery as they were everywhere.

You totally can. All those slaves are now... low-wage menial workers. Barely earning enough to get by, they cannot put together a stake large enough to change their lot in life. Poof, you're done.

There's an illogic to saying "you can't have this game without X" while at the same time ignoring formative elements Y and Z, and adding A, B, and C, which are thoroughly ahistorical, but somehow have no impact on the setting. It is fine to cherry-pick the elements you do and don't want in a game. Embrace doing so, but admit that's what you are doing. You can't cogently use, "But history!" as a justification if the rest of your game has major ahistorical characteristics.

 

[Bohandas]

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I interpreted the thread title to refer primarily to non-fantasy settings.

But that's what Umbran is saying: if you ARE going to add in fantasy elements it undermines the argument that "It wouldn't be historically accurate to exclude X". As soon as you add any fantasy (magic, monsters, gods) elements, it's no longer historically accurate.

So the argument, "It would ruin verisimilitude to leave out X" just means "I really want X".

I suppose the exception would be a game in which you don't introduce anything historically inaccurate, and you're playing a kind of simulation to see how history might have turned out differently if people had made different decisions. Or even just to roleplay being in the world at that time, without actually altering the larger history.

If that's the kind of "roleplaying game" being discussed then, yeah, I suppose you want as much historical accuracy as possible, especially the kind that impacts society/economics/etc.