Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2514788" data-attributes="member: 7240"><p>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. 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.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.I have too much to say to respond right now. I'll come back to this thread and complete my response later.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.</p></blockquote><p></p>