Ok. Well, maybe move on then if you didn't get it.
Historical periods, Problematic Elements, Gameplay, and Fun
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
If only! There's already a thread to help with that!
Unusual Sandwiches
Commercial or home-made, simple or complex, cold or hot, let's share some recipes! I just made a new one that I like: Sourdough bread Mayo Spicy Brown Mustard Genoa Salami Smoked Blue Cheese I love them, but haven't tried blue cheeses on many sandwiches. I usually eat them straight or on...
www.enworld.org
Blue Orange
Gone to Texas
It really winds up depending on the sensitivities of your table. You don't want to do anything your players will find traumatizing, but if none of them have huge problems with this you could play it as it was (or at least as far as you know the way it was, which of course is probably not accurate given the limited sources). History is quite brutal, but D&D is combat related and usually involves killing lots of monsters. If you know a player has a specific sensitivity like slavery or racism, you could avoid those subjects...or if it's European-African racism that's the problem, for example, focus on 'racism' between Goths and Romans, for example, who would be considered separate 'races' in that time; you could even invert Nazi stereotypes about German superiority for sneering Roman snobs ("blond hair and blue eyes--so ugly!"). Most of history involves large amounts of slavery and conflict between ethnic groups (and if they're not fighting over blood, they're fighting over money or religion).
You could also make a Fantasy Counterpart Culture, what with a fallen empire like the Great Kingdom of Aerdy, Netheril (this one fell literally), or Ergoth as was done in various D&D supplements. File off the serial numbers so nothing hits too close to home for anyone and you can have all the viking raids you want. Play up the social limitations of the not-Vikings--you have a clan to keep happy with your raiding, and if you don't bring back enough booty you're in trouble. The 'barbarians' had their own rules they had to live by, after all.
If nothing else it's worth remembering that our age's own values may be looked on poorly in a few hundred years. "All that sensitivity and they did nothing to stop climate change and now we're all living on canoes and raiding the ruins of the skyscrapers between floods!"
You could also make a Fantasy Counterpart Culture, what with a fallen empire like the Great Kingdom of Aerdy, Netheril (this one fell literally), or Ergoth as was done in various D&D supplements. File off the serial numbers so nothing hits too close to home for anyone and you can have all the viking raids you want. Play up the social limitations of the not-Vikings--you have a clan to keep happy with your raiding, and if you don't bring back enough booty you're in trouble. The 'barbarians' had their own rules they had to live by, after all.
If nothing else it's worth remembering that our age's own values may be looked on poorly in a few hundred years. "All that sensitivity and they did nothing to stop climate change and now we're all living on canoes and raiding the ruins of the skyscrapers between floods!"
MGibster
Legend
It really depends on the setting. If I were to run a game set in ancient Rome, wealthy characters would almost certainly own slaves, and, heck, a PC might actually be a slave. And if you don't think a slave might be fun to play, think of the character Posca from the HBO series Rome. Posca was a slave of Caesar's, but in game terms he had a lot of autonomy and was involved in various intrigues and skullduggery rather than menial servitude.
Admittedly I tend to downplay the more unpleasant aspects of historical games. When running Call of Cthulhu games set in the United States of the 1920s and 30s, I tend to downplay the racial animosity which existed. You're simply not going to hear me use certain words and I'm not going to prevent black characters from being able to participate in all aspects of the scenario for example. If I ran a game where the PCs were part of a raiding culture (Vikings, Mongolians, etc., etc.) we're not going to be dealing with sexual assault that often accompanied looting and razing.
So what I'd do is include the historical unpleasantness in the game even if I downplayed some of it for the sake of having a fun game.
You could also realize that nothing you do today has any effect on the past so depicting slavery in a historic setting does not hurt anyone. And that one of the interesting things of playing in a historic setting is immersing yourself into that historic period.
By staying true to history you might have have your players learn some history.
By staying true to history you might have have your players learn some history.
Professor Murder
Hero
You would be hard pressed to find any period of history in which bigotry, cruelty and oppression are not normalized towards some segment of the population. You can certainly feel free to downplay or ignore these elements if that is what will make your table comfortable. A frank discussion during campaign planning is a good idea. I don't think it is all or nothing. GMs should be mindful that what they may be comfortable with may not be the case for everyone.
However, most important to make clear is this: Unless this is a class exercise, you have no moral obligation to maintain historical accuracy. Your moral obligation is for everyone at the table to act with mutual respect for each other, full stop.
However, most important to make clear is this: Unless this is a class exercise, you have no moral obligation to maintain historical accuracy. Your moral obligation is for everyone at the table to act with mutual respect for each other, full stop.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
I like reading history and I like seeing dramatic series and films about it. Most my gaming is in places that never existed. Sure, they will pull from places that did exist to make their fantastic future. I guess its contextual in why im going somewhere or doing something. I know the folks at HBO were going to do a series about a fictional universe where the South won the American Civil war. While im sure it would have ben an interesting thought exercise, they decided it was better to not do it. So, like HBO, im going to think about what im setting out to do and if human sacrifice and slavery are completely necessary, I'll have to decide if thats something I have to do or not. Nice thing about fictional made up places is I don't have to go there to make them interesting if I dont want to.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
My take is that if I want historical accuracy, I'm going to read a history book. If I want to have fun playing a game, I don't need to have problematic elements to experience immersion in the setting. Just like I didn't need the 1e Parasitic Infection Table to feel like I was in a quasi-medieval setting.
Committed Hero
Adventurer
Harlem Unbound addresses this issue better than I would have thought it could be answered. Horror games may actually use quotidian evils to their advantage.
If you play regularly with the kinds of people who have pedantic issues with the shortcuts taken to emulate history, make them write a sourcebook.
We? Who is this "we"?
For a game at your table, with your friends, the only "we" that matters are those people. The folks out here on EN World, or the gaming community at large, aren't an issue. You don't need our approval.
Have a talk with your players, find out what themes they are comfortable with, and how they would like potentially problematic issues dealt with, and go with that.
I'm not sure what contextually suggested I was asking for advice rather than opening a discussion.
You explicitly asked, and I quote, "What are we to do with that?"
I answered that question - replace "you (Reynard)" with "you (generic)" and that likely becomes more obvious.
MGibster
Legend
I'm going to start by saying that I agree with @Umbran in that you talk to your players about what they're comfortable with in their games. I happen to be a person who is comfortable with a very wide range of "problematic" aspects, but there are things even I don't want to deal with. As a Keeper in Call of Cthulhu, I would not have a good time accurately depicting how many whites typically treated African Americans during the 1920s and neither would the Investigators. But I'm not quite comfortable ignoring (white washing) the unpleasant aspects either. So I try to strike a balance with a mind towards playability being the ultimate goal. Accuracy isn't really my goal so much as versimilitude is. Does this seem like 1930s New York? Then mission accomplished.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Ultimately, yeah, it's about what does and doesn't work for the group. Respect for each other and the subject matter is important.
It's totally possible to evoke a time and place without relying on the horribleness. One of the things I like about the Americana RPG (Essentially Stand By Me with fantasy elements) is that early on it says that though the game is set in the 50s, it acknowledges that that time period was not great for a lot of people, and that this is an alternate universe, inclusive vision of it (because you're already adding elves, dwarves, and skeleton-people!).
It's totally possible to evoke a time and place without relying on the horribleness. One of the things I like about the Americana RPG (Essentially Stand By Me with fantasy elements) is that early on it says that though the game is set in the 50s, it acknowledges that that time period was not great for a lot of people, and that this is an alternate universe, inclusive vision of it (because you're already adding elves, dwarves, and skeleton-people!).
beancounter
(I/Me/Mine)
Build the world and run the game you want. Tell the players at session zero what it's about, and let them know of any potential issues.
Those who don't show up for session 1 had a problem with it. Those who do show up don't.
Then sit back and enjoy running the game without worrying about offending anyone.
Those who don't show up for session 1 had a problem with it. Those who do show up don't.
Then sit back and enjoy running the game without worrying about offending anyone.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
I will literally never in a million years play a game focusing on racism. I bought the book. I've read it. It's an amazing resource, but I'm not RPing racists. And pointing to an RPG book that says it's okay and I have permission, yeah...that doesn't matter. I'm happy to support the project by purchasing the book, but I'm not intentionally stepping on that landmine.
No, that's the point. I don't play with those people. They show up and reveal themselves and I boot them. I don't have time for that nonsense.
I'd say "Do what you want" because that's what I do. If your campaign includes certain elements, because you feel they are conveying the imagery of the world you want your compaign to be in, include them. Be sure to mention them to the players beforehand to make sure they won't be miserable because you want to play a very realistic game set in 1950's America and they want to shoot lasers with their eyes (and, as with the Black Samurai, there will always be one player to find an example of a guy who actually shot lasers with his eyes in 1950's America just to prove it's totally OK). But in that case "wanting to shoot lasers with their eyes" is the same as "wanting to play a hardcore communist". So, unless they are ready to attract McCarthy's attention, they must understand that every character concept isn't fitting and the background events could include, well, McCarthyism. There is nothing wrong with wanting some elements as theme in your campaign, even controversial ones, and if your vision of the 1950's American YOU want to GM doesn't include 100% of the population openly denouncing McCarthy and putting political freedom first, you should do that. If it is really a terrible idea, the worst that can happen is that you'll find no player. But it's not "worse" than fiding no player to play Fate when everyone around you prefers D&D. If some are really wanting to play in a historic setting WITHOUT a specific elements, assess if you can have it glossed over in the background. If your players have really a hard time enjoying a game where the common folk isn't allowed to own a dove house, you MIGHT be able to run a whole campaign without ever encountering a dove house. If they can't stand social inequalities enforced by discriminatory laws, removing nobles and clergy from your campaign set at Louis XIV's court will be more difficult than removing dove houses. Sure, social inequalities are problematic, yet many people accept them within the context of the game and don't try to make any campaign about removing nobles from power and turning churches' riches into national assets. As long as your players are informed about the content and theme you'll have in your game, there is no problem.
My players know that my Eberron is bleaker than another DM's from my group's Eberron. They are called sinister Eberron and rosy Eberron. They love both. Sure, there is a much bigger chance to encounter dirt-poor, Dickensish orphans in my game than in rosy Eberron where apparently, 100% of the population is adult and well-fed. I am pretty sure noone around the table actually supports continent-decimating wars, yet they all feel at ease playing with both worlds, having different focusses. Historical games are certainly more prone to include elements that will bother SOME people but they are not necessarily the one that will play in the game, and the players are the only one that actually matter.
Since you asked how I'd do it, if I wanted to run an historical-based campaign, it would include the historical elements. If the player visit Germany in 1938, there will be Nazis. Even if Nazis are problematic, replacing the German government with a wise entity concerned with human rights wouldn't be something I'd like to play in as part of a "historical campaign". So I'd keep the Nazis. If all players objected to encountering Nazis in Germany, I'd drop the campaign idea.
My players know that my Eberron is bleaker than another DM's from my group's Eberron. They are called sinister Eberron and rosy Eberron. They love both. Sure, there is a much bigger chance to encounter dirt-poor, Dickensish orphans in my game than in rosy Eberron where apparently, 100% of the population is adult and well-fed. I am pretty sure noone around the table actually supports continent-decimating wars, yet they all feel at ease playing with both worlds, having different focusses. Historical games are certainly more prone to include elements that will bother SOME people but they are not necessarily the one that will play in the game, and the players are the only one that actually matter.
Since you asked how I'd do it, if I wanted to run an historical-based campaign, it would include the historical elements. If the player visit Germany in 1938, there will be Nazis. Even if Nazis are problematic, replacing the German government with a wise entity concerned with human rights wouldn't be something I'd like to play in as part of a "historical campaign". So I'd keep the Nazis. If all players objected to encountering Nazis in Germany, I'd drop the campaign idea.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
