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

[Eltab]

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.

Black Death engulfs Medieval Europe, the PCs are in its path, and that section of the 1e DMG gets some actual use.

(That kind of campaign ceased being interesting to me ... just under two years ago now. We have to IRL a distorted variant.)

 

[dragoner]

Don't forget the oh so succulent "arguing historical minutiae" that can derail whole sessions, isn't that great?

 

[pemerton]

Removing slavery from any historic setting where it was extensively practised would alter the setting so much that it would defeat the entire purpose of having a historic setting in the first place.

What is the reason for using a historical setting?

Very few historical settings sourcebooks that I have read engage in any sophisticated fashion with the social and economic dynamics of the period they are concerned with. I can't imagine that a sourcebook for ancient Rome would really explain why Rome became a slave society of the sort that it did. So the reason for using that setting typically won't be to try and model the social processes that produce mass slavery.

The following counterfactual is probably true, though also a bit vacuous: Rome would have been different from how it was had it not been a slave society. True, because being a slave society is a key feature of the actual social and economic reality of Rome; a bit vacuous, because if we think away such core elements of the society, in what sense are we really thinking about ancient Rome at all?

But who is qualified to assess in what way Rome would have been different? Only a handful of professional historians, and they don't all agree. (As I said, I like Finley's book. But presumably the targets of his criticism don't like it as much as I do!)

If someone wants to play an "ancient Roman" RPG, and what they're really interested in is the politics between Emperors and generals, or whether an infantry-based empire can resist the incursions of horse-mounted nomads, then I don't think backgrounding the issue of slavery is going to distort their game, or render it "pointless", in any obvious fashion.

 

[MGibster]

Don't forget the oh so succulent "arguing historical minutiae" that can derail whole sessions, isn't that great?

This is also a problem in settings with tons of fans and a lot of material. Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, BattleTech, etc., etc. I tend to roll with it and just let the GM take us wherever we need to go.

 

[dragoner]

This is also a problem in settings with tons of fans and a lot of material. Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, BattleTech, etc., etc. I tend to roll with it and just let the GM take us wherever we need to go.

Yes, it is, and I have had that happen also, people wanting to argue a bit of lore, usually in a rules lawyer-ish fashion to get away with something. As a player I'll let it slide as well, though as a GM, or watching other players, it is also hot dogging, trying to grab the limelight, and be some center of attention, which is another way to derail the game.

 

[MGibster]

Very few historical settings sourcebooks that I have read engage in any sophisticated fashion with the social and economic dynamics of the period they are concerned with. I can't imagine that a sourcebook for ancient Rome would really explain why Rome became a slave society of the sort that it did. So the reason for using that setting typically won't be to try and model the social processes that produce mass slavery.

I'm not sure many role playing games engage anything in a sophisticated fashion. That never stopped me from dealing with serious subjects from time to time though.

If someone wants to play an "ancient Roman" RPG, and what they're really interested in is the politics between Emperors and generals, or whether an infantry-based empire can resist the incursions of horse-mounted nomads, then I don't think backgrounding the issue of slavery is going to distort their game, or render it "pointless", in any obvious fashion.

You use the word backgrounding here but you're replying to someone who specifically said:

Removing slavery from any historic setting where it was extensively practised would alter the setting so much that it would defeat the entire purpose of having a historic setting in the first place.

I would say that removing is a little different from backgrounding. If I were running a campaign in ancient Rome, slavery would be in the background in that I typically wouldn't focus on it. But if they're at a market, I might mention that they see citizens, foreigners, and slaves. I'd probably have slaves as NPCs they could interact with. I might even have a PC who is a slave as I have a few players who I think would be down with such a thing.

 

[Umbran]

It is often more likely to produce period behavior when period beliefs are at least potential encounters in setting.

Yeah, well, I was making the point that believing that Poseidon controls the ocean is rather different from there being an actual Poseidon who actually controls the oceans.

But, to take your point - if you are more likely to produce "period behavior", then you want to consider what period behavior you want to encourage in the PCs. That rather loops back to the issues the OP raises.

 

[Umbran]

I would say that removing is a little different from backgrounding. If I were running a campaign in ancient Rome, slavery would be in the background in that I typically wouldn't focus on it.

You have just re-invented "lines and veils".

 

[Bill Zebub]

By the way, I'll add that I wouldn't personally mind the inclusion of historically accurate slavery in a Roman-era RPG. But if doing so would lessen the fun for somebody in my group, I'd be just as happy without it.

 

[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.

True. But making the worlds non-horrible mandates certain additional fantastical or anachronistic elements. Most of the societal horrors and abuses of the past weren't arbitrary, they served some purpose and disappeared when technology made them redundant. If meat is ever phased out of the average person's diet it won't be because of animal rights activists, it'll be because of Impossible Foods. And it's possible that decades or centuries down the line automation and AI will make all labor unnecessary, and I guarantee you that after that day comes people will look back on the 40 hour work week with the same disgust with which we view serfdom.

An ancient people or country that didn't make moral compromises would, in the absence of some magical or technological workaround, be at a significant disadvantage against rivals who were willing to embrace the power of the dark side, and might not even be able to handle their own internal issues.

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?

It'e Call of Cthulhu in this scenario. If you're grappling with a Great Old One you've already lost. Grappling with their cult, however, is a place where considerations such as this could conceivably come up.