Is it possible to have an exciting and long-lasting campaign in a historical setting?

[Templeton580]

*

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Ars Magica is set in historical Europe, and it's one of the best game settings I've seen.

The Medieval Player's Manual from Green Ronin, written by David Chart (who also works on Ars Magica), is a great resource for playing in that era. I also enjoy Necromancer's Mesopotamia book. I liked the old AD&D Historical references, and was disappointed they never dealt with China or Japan in that series.

Anyway, I think playing in a historical era would be interesting. I don't think that I'd personally enjoy playing in one if magic or monsters weren't included, though.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I've played in several historically based campaigns, and enjoyed all of them immensely. Few of them were truly "historically accurate."

One was a game set in the 11th century, in Germany, with frequent side treks to Faerie. Another two have been set in Victorian England, the first in 1875, and the second which is on-going is set in 1888 England, and I've been writing it up as a Story Hour: The Golden Key.

All three are "alternate history" games. One great aspect of running an historical game is that the characters can be incredibly detailed, because our own world's history is so varied and detailed. So much research can be done that makes the characters really stand out.

I'm a big fan.

 

[was]

Yes, I've played in two. One set in England, one in post-roman empire Rome. They're near the top of my favorites list.

 

[shaylon]

I think the idea has definite possibilities, it really depends on how you DM and what your players are looking for in a game.

-Shay

 

[fusangite]

From what I have read here and there, a majority of gamers think that playing in a historical setting is boring, or at least much less exciting than a true fantasy world.

I think it is more difficult to run an enjoyable game in an historical setting but that's not the same as such settings being of lower quality. In my view, also, the historicity of a setting is not a yes-no thing but a spectrum of how much and in which ways real world history has inspired the setting. In my view, highly ahistorical settings, like highly historical settings are tougher to make work; it's those settings in the middle, like Robert E Howard worlds that are easiest.

I don't know myself what to think. Long ago (AD&D 2e) I did run several adventures in a pseudo-historical setting, where the party was essentially a group of vikings in their drakkar, during the 9th century Europe, and having adventures along the way. For example, they once found a settlement of dwarves, but those were of the evil kind and feared by humans. In fact, this was great, but low magic and we hardly got past 9th level. But today, if I were to do it again, I fear that realism would really restrict myself and induce a boring campaign.

Here, I think you have a strong point. The way advancement and magic work in D&D can actually break a lot of perfectly good settings, as can people's expectations of geometric power increases as their character progresses.

-- Why historical or pseudo-historical campaigns are boring?

I don't find them boring at all. Of course, I'm prepared to read for a game and I expect my GM to do likewise. If people don't want to have to know anything about a setting to play in it, I guess they could find that boring.

-- Or does it provide cool opportunities on the contrary?
-- Tell us of your experiences in such a type of setting?

I have too much to say to respond right now. I'll come back to this thread and complete my response later.

-- What supernatural stuff could be added that wouldn't break the suspension of disbelief for play in a pseudo-mythical Europe of the Dark Ages?

The way I run historical early medieval Europe is that in my games, what is true is what people believed was true at the time. Ninth century Europe should be full of miracles, magic, demons, dog-headed men, etc. Anything you can read about people at the time having experienced only reinforces suspension of disbelief.

 

[WayneLigon]

-- Why historical or pseudo-historical campaigns are boring?

Very seldom have I ever seen anyone even attempt a historical campaign. For me, personally, I would be very hesitant to play in one and I would never try to run one. There are several reasons for this:

1. No-one can agree on what history is. I can find one source that says X happened. Someone else can find an equally credible source that says, no, Y actually happened and that X is just a fabrication. Another source will say that Z happened. The very few people I know who have any interest in real history will argue a minor point with greater fervor than they do over religon, politics or BBQ sauce. It's just not worth the headaches.

2. I have very little interest in actual history past the 'cool points' level. I can't even imagine a GM that could make a historical game interesting to me but it could happen. I'm of the opinion you can't really enjoy a genre unless you know something about it and I know only the smallest gloss of history. Most often it would come down to studynig about that period to know what made it an interesting time to live in. I finished school 20 years ago and I'm not going back, so to take up what little free time I have reading a historical text.. the payoff would have to be pretty amazing.

3. Alternte history is even worse. The only way you can really have an appreciation for alternate history is to know the actual history. See #2 above, for me. That would also mean I know have to keep in mind two timelines to appreciate it. This is the main reason I don't like Alternate History books beyond a certain level. Very quickly it goes from 'cool concept': (The South Wins the War) to 'Concept that only a history buff will understand' (What if Madison had become Secretarty of Agriculture Instead of President!).

4. There is no Cool Stuff. A strictly historical campaign will have no Cool Stuff because it doesn't exist in the real world. No magic, no swords that can cut through trees, nothing. Even a Secret Cool Stuff campaign has this flaw since to keep a sense of reality to it, the Cool Stuff has to be really, really spread out and rare.

A good GM can make any game interesting, but he'd have to be damned good.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

1. No-one can agree on what history is.

This is why alternate history works well - you can argue who started War X in real life, but in alternate Earth, it doesn't have to be that way.

2. I have very little interest in actual history past the 'cool points' level.

Then concentrate on the cool points. In the games I've been involved with, we've dealt with relatively few major historical events, it's been more interaction with the world in general.

3. Alternte history is even worse. The only way you can really have an appreciation for alternate history is to know the actual history.

If you keep the history general, this isn't so bad. Everyone knows Napoleon, or Jack the Ripper, or the Civil War. Going back, if you're PC's are involved in the Norman Invasion of 1066 and the Battle of Hastings, you don't really need to go much beyond this. Keeping it simple from a historical point of view is a good idea. Don't expect everyone to do research, certainly. Just let the world progress the way seems sensible.

4. There is no Cool Stuff. A strictly historical campaign will have no Cool Stuff because it doesn't exist in the real world. No magic, no swords that can cut through trees, nothing.

The Spear of Longinus, Leonardo DaVinci's unproduced mechanical designs, the sword of Roland, Excalibur - the possibilities are endless if you're taking a mystical tack. Ifyou're playing more pure history, then you've got a point, but that's not a deal-breaker for everyone.

 

[the Jester]

Shrug. Could be fun.

The reason I wouldn't run a historical game at this point is that, though I'm fairly well-learned re: history (or at least European and American history), inevitably one of my players would end up knowing more than me about something plot-vital and would catch me in a terrible mistake or misrepresentation. :\

That's also one of the main reasons I don't much do published settings, actually...

 

[Yair]

I never played in a long-term historical campaign, but I did in a few short ones.

I think to enjoy an historical campaign you need to approach it from the right angle, and have your expectations set on "low". Personally, I'm no historian and my games are riddled with anachronisms, mistakes, and so on (as a player or DM). Don't sweat it - be resigned to include just enough pseudo-history to have fun, NOT to recreate history, which is impossible anyways.

I also would join in with the others who prompt picking up the Mythic version of history rather than the bland one. Instead of sticking to history, try being inspired by myths, legends, tales, beliefs, legends, stories, and so on from the period (or around); this material is well suited to fantasy roleplaying and does not lack in magic. It also makes it easier to make things up and step all-over real history without giving you pause.

Well, that's my opinion anyways.

BTW, Ars Magica 5th Edition has some considerable advice on how to add history, what choices to make for your campaign, and some history-bits that can be added. For example...

One question that is not decided by the core rules of Ars Magica is whether magic is sinful in itself. It is clear that it can be used for sinful purposes... but it can also be used to good ends...

The historical Church's position on magic in the middle ages was usually that it was fraud, or so I'm told (even if the powers were real, I think the position would be that satan is making it work as a demonic deceit; wizards were fooled by satan, they did not worship him). In my AM campaigns magic was always neutral, not inherently good or evil but rather a human ability that can be used for either, just like physical strength or a sharp wit.

The Church's and commoner's attitude towards magic cannot be neglected in any half-decent imitation of medieval society with D&D rules.