GangBusters RPG (TSR) Historical Gaming Discussion

[Silver Moon]

It was part of the EBay auction. It was their first published GangBusters module. I wish it was online as I wouldn't mind an electronic version of the map to share with my future players (and post in the Story Hour) as I plan to run this as a Play-by-Post game.

I've also now started a thread over on the ENWorld D20 Modern forum regarding this potential campaign. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=167448

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

An old system is brand new to someone who's never played it. The Interweb makes it possible to find gamers literally around the world who share an interest in pretty much any roleplaying game system or genre. Homebrewers seem to manage well enough. And good games don't have a shelf life.

I agree. As a gamer, I don't worry too much whether a game is going to be big in "the market." It's just not an important factor in whether I have fun with the game or not.

I never played Gangbusters, but wouldn't mind giving it a try. I enjoy 1920s and 1930s Call of Cthulhu (including the odd gangster-themed, rather than mythos-themed, adventure).

 

[Hussar]

It's a little strange though. One of the most consistent complaints I hear about DnD is how hard it is to DM. It's too much work, there's too many details, etc. etc.

OTOH, there seems to be a claim here that historical games are every bit as fun BECAUSE you have to do so much more work. A game in which I have to go through more than thirty texts in order to develop a campaign setting for is not one I have much interest in. Mostly because I have nowhere near that amount of time to devote to a game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It's a little strange though. One of the most consistent complaints I hear about DnD is how hard it is to DM. It's too much work, there's too many details, etc. etc.

OTOH, there seems to be a claim here that historical games are every bit as fun BECAUSE you have to do so much more work. A game in which I have to go through more than thirty texts in order to develop a campaign setting for is not one I have much interest in. Mostly because I have nowhere near that amount of time to devote to a game.

Ha! That's a very good point.

I've been known to bitch and moan about the length of time preparation takes, but I'm also one of those guys who'll get sidetracked into reading multiple historical texts while preparing an ancient Greece one-shot.

I guess it's a question of fun vs. non-fun preparation. The historical research and reading is interesting to me, so I enjoy it (in fact, I probably get as much enjoyment from that as from playing the scenario I -- eventually -- produce). OTOH, number crunching and rules prep is not something I particularly enjoy.

For my main (weekly) game, I prefer systems that are prep-easy. For one-shots and mini-campaigns, I don't mind heavier systems. I'm using C&C for my main game, right now, but I've got some historical mini-campaigns on the back burner -- I'm using True20 for those.

 

[Just_Hal]

Don't remember much, played it, liked it some, just like boot hill and remember dying a lot, and yes the tommy guns rocked.

My youth was primarily D&D and Top Secret (thanks Merle Rasmussen).

 

[The Shaman]

It's a little strange though. One of the most consistent complaints I hear about DnD is how hard it is to DM. It's too much work, there's too many details, etc. etc.

OTOH, there seems to be a claim here that historical games are every bit as fun BECAUSE you have to do so much more work. A game in which I have to go through more than thirty texts in order to develop a campaign setting for is not one I have much interest in. Mostly because I have nowhere near that amount of time to devote to a game.

You're comparing a fish to a bicycle, or more specifically, time spent managing rules crunch versus time spent on developing an immersive game environment.

I use a whopping total of three rule books in our Modern military game, but (as noted above) I've read the better part of thirty different books and probably three times that many websites to get the period details right. It also helps that I have an interest in the history that underlies the game, and that it was in part a subject I studied at university.

As Umbran notes, no-FX historical gaming is down the list a-ways in terms of popularity among gamers. Gamers with a predisposition toward studying history are most likely to invest the time to create an historical setting. That makes the time spent on setting development a pleasureable activity for gamers so inclined.

That doesn't mean a gamer who enjoys putting that amount of time into the setting is equally inclined to put the same amount of time into managing the rules system, however. I considered and rejected some additional rules supplements for my game, because I felt that I could get the effects I wanted without them and because I didn't want the added complexity. This was a completely different consideration, on a totally different subject, than the amount of reading and writing that I was willing (and in fact eager) to do to bring the setting to life for the players.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. If you enjoy the work, then more power to you. The recognition should be made though that historical settings are a heck of a lot more work than fantasy ones.

 

[Silver Moon]

True, but it can be a labor of love. I have no problem with historical research, in fact I enjoy it, and using the Internet with a mastery in the fine art of Google-Fu helps. But I also prefer to run role-playing-intense but rules-light campaigns. For me a perfect combination is a basic system (D&D for my Western with fantasy elements; D20Modern for the roaring 1920's) combined with an excellent period source module (Boot Hill's BH3 "Ballots & Bullets for the Western; GangBuster's GB1 "Trouble Brewing" for the 1920's).

 

[green slime]

I agree with Umbran.

Umbran never said you couldn't have a blast playing the game. Just that as a historical game, it has limits. These limits come from, amongst other things, player and GM knowledge and expectations.

As a case in point, a friend of mine, whilst an avid table top wargamer, and designer of scenarios for tournaments, never created scenarios for well known historical conflicts, because he didn't want to spend time explaining, and arguing references to where certain units were located at some particular point in time. There will always be someone who "knows" more, and is willing and has the energy to argue their case. Arguments are never fun.

 

[The Shaman]

As a case in point, a friend of mine, whilst an avid table top wargamer, and designer of scenarios for tournaments, never created scenarios for well known historical conflicts, because he didn't want to spend time explaining, and arguing references to where certain units were located at some particular point in time. There will always be someone who "knows" more, and is willing and has the energy to argue their case. Arguments are never fun.

Arguments in this case are also a sign of immaturity, IMX.

Here's the disclaimer I included in the recruiting notice for our Modern military game:

Historical accuracy: While I will introduce a fair amount of historical detail for purposes of campaign flavor, Wing and Sword is not a strictly historical campaign – rather, the adventures are “inspired” by the events of the Algerian War. Players looking for a simulation or scenarios of actual events may want to consider looking elsewhere.

Problem solved.