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

[Umbran]

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

If you are one of the few who are doing that, playing a strictly historical game with no fantastic elements, my comments may not apply. I'm okay with that.

 

[MGibster]

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

I have to agree with Umbran here, very few games are played that do not feature fantastical elements such as magic, super science, or something like that. There are a variety of Call of Cthulhu settings including the 1920s, 1890s, 2020s, Rome, the Middle Ages, etc., etc. but while they all have fantastical elements none of them are fantasy settings.

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.

Verisimilitude. Most of us don't think about disease so we don't miss it when it's not there. I could certainly have a not-Rome setting without slavery but I don't think I could set a Call of Cthulhu campaign in Rome circa 32 CE and just say there's no such things as slaves. It would take me right out of the setting. We might as well go play D&D at that point.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Simply put: players decide to actually role play. Either by using reference to mechanics (as in Pendragon with it's trait and passion system), or by doing a bit of study (as in historical Japan as a setting, or Europe in Ars Magica).

For many players, it's as easy as giving them a list of significant role elements for the setting. Players actually interested in historical settings also tend to do some research.

It's no different than trying to play one of the aliens from the Classic Traveller Alien Modules... the key points are elucidated, and the group interpolates from there. It may not be 100% right to the authorial intent, but it is a challenge to do, and some players thrive on that challenge.

Historical RP may not be 100% accurate, but it can create compelling stories that a modern politically corrrect setting doesn't. It can create challenges that force players outside of the modern mindset, and allows them to understand history better.

I'll take an example I used to use in the classroom:
Lay out the tables in the shape of a longship. Students then crowd in. List what they have - their seax, shield, armor, a couple tunics and trousers, an axe or longsword, a blanket and/or cloak, maybe a lantern, maybe a game, maybe some crafting tools. Then ask them to think of spending the next two weeks in this space. Invariably, someone asks about the bathroom... have them figure it out. Most very quickly come to the idea of "hanging the booty over the side!" (D, grade 5)...
Provide the circumstances, and the kids will come up with what are often the correct historical solutions. Questions like cooking, fresh water, sleeping, even problems in the crew, and entertainment.
When they come up with a non-period solution, explain the tech limit and/or social limit, and see if they can work around that...
It's a form of role play, but not a roleplaying game, but it's the same kind of issue. A well read GM and a curious group of players or students, and one can come to understand a lot more of the past.

 

[pemerton]

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.

There's a respectable position in the history of ideas that regards that debate - instigated by the Franciscans - as the origin of modern legal notions of rights.

 

[aramis erak]

If you are one of the few who are doing that, playing a strictly historical game with no fantastic elements, my comments may not apply. I'm okay with that.

In most historical periods, the denizens beliefs included the real presence of the supernatural. Not having it present in setting can be just as wrong as adding it.

 

[Umbran]

Verisimilitude. Most of us don't think about disease so we don't miss it when it's not there. I could certainly have a not-Rome setting without slavery but I don't think I could set a Call of Cthulhu campaign in Rome circa 32 CE and just say there's no such things as slaves. It would take me right out of the setting. We might as well go play D&D at that point.

So, you lay the core of it there - most of us don't think about disease.

If the setting element is not going to be a focus of play, then you can probably remove it, and nobody will think about it, because it isn't relevant. If none of the PCs are slaves, or own slaves, then you could play an entire game in Rome simply referring to "servants" without referencing the legal status of those individuals, and most folks probably wouldn't think twice about it.

While grappling with a Great Old One, you should be thoroughly distracted from the legal status of the handmaids of the Senator's wife. If you aren't, maybe there's something else wrong, hey what?

 

[billd91]

Verisimilitude. Most of us don't think about disease so we don't miss it when it's not there. I could certainly have a not-Rome setting without slavery but I don't think I could set a Call of Cthulhu campaign in Rome circa 32 CE and just say there's no such things as slaves. It would take me right out of the setting. We might as well go play D&D at that point.

On the subject of disease, there are definitely time periods and settings that, if I were basing a campaign in them, I'd be including notable disease events. I'm not entirely sure I'd trot out the 1e DMG's disease/parasitic infection checks... but you never know.

 

[Umbran]

In most historical periods, the denizens beliefs included the real presence of the supernatural. Not having it present in setting can be just as wrong as adding it.

Belief in a thing is not the same as that thing actually being present.

Folks can have superstitions all the want. That's different from actually having a vampire on the Imperial Throne.

 

[MGibster]

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

I saw an interview with Larry Hama, who is best known as the primary writer on Marvel's GI Joe line of comics in the 1980s and created the biographical sketches for characters that found their ways into the file cards on the backs of the action figures sold by Hasbro, where he referred to the cartoon series as "morally bankrupt." His problem was that the cartoon series depicted violence where nobody really got hurt. Pilots ejected just before enemy missiles hit their aircraft, instead of firing bullets all firearms shot laser beams, and ultimately nobody really got hurt. Contrast that with the comic book where people died and sometimes important people died. I still remember the death of Kwinn the Eskimo and the funeral Snake Eyes' funeral for his friend in a subsequent issue.

From my perspective, flat out ignoring slavery, sexism, racism, etc., etc. in historical settings is morally bankrupt. One of the reasons Disney's Song of the South isn't shown these days is because it ignores the reality of black Americans in the South (there are other reasons of course). And the time period is a bit ambiguous in regards to whether this was the Antebellum South or Reconstruction era. Like I said earlier in this thread, I do tend to tone down the racism and many other isms when I run a Call of Cthulhu game sent in the 1930s to make sure the game is fun. There's language I just don't use and I don't bludgeon PCs over the head with barriers that making the game not-so-fun. But I can't bring myself to ignore in its entirety the bigotry that existed at the time.

 

[Ixal]

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.

Yes done. You transformed a historic setting into a fantasy one by completely changing the social order, the politics of that time and removed notable characters like Spartacus.