Quote from: Prairie Dragon;968715Excellent read.  The transition from frontier to state happened rather quickly, no doubt about it.  I credit the railroad and the increase in number of local newspapers.

Yes. The irony was that the railroad made Dodge into a wild-west boomtown (well, the railroad and the restriction on cattle drives everywhere east of Dodge), but it was also what doomed it to respectability in only a few short years.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967550And thank you for confirming that you pulled that number straight out of your brown eye.

I'm sure you have some kind of history behind this prissy little attitude of yours. Surely I said something, at some point in time, that made you awful cross at me. It was a big deal, clearly.

But here's the thing: I have no recollection what it was. That's how little you matter to me. I get that it was some kind of massive traumatic event for you, but for me it was utterly insignificant. As in, you are insignificant.

QuoteNo matter how much research your put in, historical fiction blends the real and the imaginative,

And? I get that you think you have a point there. You don't, though. I mean, you get that I wrote a little book called Dark Albion, right?
 Which is both the most historically-accurate RPG book ever written on 15th century England, and also has frogmen and dragons in it.  
This doesn't change the fact that there's still accurate historical fiction, and sloppy inaccurate historical fiction. Second-rate hacks will say bullshit like "it's all imaginative anyways" as a cover for their inadequacy.

Quoteand fictional locations in the real world in no way preclude bringing in a shitload of history.

I like to get the history 'right', but as clash already noted, it's fiction the moment the adventurers get turned loose in the setting, with all that that entails, and I'm not there to impress the players that I can read a fucking book but to run a fun game.

Congratulations on your literacy. Is it a recent accomplishment?

Anyways, over here, my  historical games are beloved and in huge demand on account of being enormously fun BECAUSE of the careful historical research.  Even the ones that have frogmen in it. Maybe especially those ones.



Oh, and before I forget, I apologize in advance for how in a couple of years' time you'll be seething about all this and I won't remember a damn thing about it, because you don't matter.

Quote from: flyingmice;967267History turns into alt.History the moment a player character's boots hit the ground.

I don't agree, that's too binary and arbitrary a definition. As far as I'm concerned, alt-history is deliberately taking a departure from whatever is known of a period/place. A game might stray into alt-history over time and if certain major events take place, but equally it might not.

My own historical game was set in a little-recorded part of the Mediterranean before the rise of Rome. Besides noting its major allegiances and the rough mix of people around it, there isn't anything recorded about the day-to-day goings on. So who knows if what the PCs were up to was really a departure from history, we don't know what it was in the first place.

Quote from: Kiero;969793I don't agree, that's too binary and arbitrary a definition. As far as I'm concerned, alt-history is deliberately taking a departure from whatever is known of a period/place. A game might stray into alt-history over time and if certain major events take place, but equally it might not.

My own historical game was set in a little-recorded part of the Mediterranean before the rise of Rome. Besides noting its major allegiances and the rough mix of people around it, there isn't anything recorded about the day-to-day goings on. So who knows if what the PCs were up to was really a departure from history, we don't know what it was in the first place.

Well, technically, I guess, you're correct.  If the players never change anything, then it kind of stays history.  But I think what Clash and others were getting at is that PCs are presumed to have the capability to change things, thus the whole setting is wide open and effectively becomes "alt-history" from the point of view of the GM because it can go anywhere, even if you look back later at the campaign and there hasn't been change enough to merit the true alt-history label.

Quote from: Kiero;969793I don't agree, that's too binary and arbitrary a definition. As far as I'm concerned, alt-history is deliberately taking a departure from whatever is known of a period/place. A game might stray into alt-history over time and if certain major events take place, but equally it might not.

My own historical game was set in a little-recorded part of the Mediterranean before the rise of Rome. Besides noting its major allegiances and the rough mix of people around it, there isn't anything recorded about the day-to-day goings on. So who knows if what the PCs were up to was really a departure from history, we don't know what it was in the first place.

But your players created their PCs, so you *know* it's not something that really happened. They aren't channeling long-dead people from that time and place. Why pretend? Why is it so important to you? What do you gain by pretending it is real history and not alt-history?

Quote from: CRKrueger;969825Well, technically, I guess, you're correct.  If the players never change anything, then it kind of stays history.  But I think what Clash and others were getting at is that PCs are presumed to have the capability to change things, thus the whole setting is wide open and effectively becomes "alt-history" from the point of view of the GM because it can go anywhere, even if you look back later at the campaign and there hasn't been change enough to merit the true alt-history label.

This is indeed the crux. My Napoleonic naval game set in the Mediterranean and Caribbean went for many years without changing history. Eventually they did something that changed history, but they knew they were already alt-history, and had been since the first session, which gave them the confidence that if they ever did attempt something really big, it wouldn't be shot down or undermined. They could reach whatever heights in the game world they were willing to push themselves to.

Quote from: flyingmice;969937This is indeed the crux. My Napoleonic naval game set in the Mediterranean and Caribbean went for many years without changing history. Eventually they did something that changed history, but they knew they were already alt-history, and had been since the first session, which gave them the confidence that if they ever did attempt something really big, it wouldn't be shot down or undermined. They could reach whatever heights in the game world they were willing to push themselves to.

And my game would, likely, drift into that territory eventually. It was looking like one of the PCs might become a ruler in the Gallic hinterland, and who knows where she might have taken it from there.

But the point is until that actually happens, you can't really call it alt-history.

But you can Kiero! You can because there are no PCs in real history. Having PCs is the same as being a little bit pregnant. But, from your answer above, I can see it is a semantic difference, not an effective one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969492I'm sure you have some kind of history behind this prissy little attitude of yours. Surely I said something, at some point in time, that made you awful cross at me. It was a big deal, clearly.

But here's the thing: I have no recollection what it was. That's how little you matter to me. I get that it was some kind of massive traumatic event for you, but for me it was utterly insignificant. As in, you are insignificant.

I know your enormous yet unistratose ego would love for that to be true, but the fact is, I bust the balls of pretty much anyone on this site who says ridiculously stupid shit, and you're no different.

Get that, Pundejo? You're not special. Not even a little bit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969492I mean, you get that I wrote a little book called Dark Albion, right?
 Which is both the most historically-accurate RPG book ever written on 15th century England . . . . Anyways, over here, my  historical games are beloved and in huge demand on account of being enormously fun BECAUSE of the careful historical research.

Real men don't do this. Because they don't need to.

Seriously, your preening narcissism is inversely matched by the profound triviality of your self-proclaimed 'accomplishments.' You're a fin-rotted betta in a muddy puddle who proclaims himself a mako. Your boasts carry the flop-sweat stink of desperation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969492This doesn't change the fact that there's still accurate historical fiction, and sloppy inaccurate historical fiction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969492Second-rate hacks will say bullshit like "it's all imaginative anyways" as a cover for their inadequacy.

Calling Clash Bowley a "second-rate hack" is one of your lowest points, Pundejo, and with so gawdamn many truly awful things you've written to choose from, that's really saying something.

But let's see if we can't salvage this into an actual gaming discussion nonetheless.

First, let's torch the strawman: no one here said, 'It's all imaginative anyways." What was said is, the actions of the player characters are inherently imaginative and that a historical roleplaying game setting blends fact and fiction, if for no other reason than those fictional player characters tromping around in it.

What was argued is, given that by its very nature historical fiction is necessarily fiction, the decision isn't between 'accurate' and 'sloppily inaccurate,' but rather how the fiction is integrated into the campaign setting and actual play. Frex, in my Flashing Blades campaign, I accept the anachronism of social clubs as depicted in the game rules, but swapped out fictional military units, knightly orders, and bureacratic offices for historical ones. I utilize many historical non-player characters, even in bit roles where the available history is terribly sparse, while integrating fictional characters from swashbuckling novels and published FB adventures. My goal is a setting which presents the period in detail while calling out the historical fiction on which the game is based.

I've also integrated imaginary locations as well - one of the projects I will eventually publish on my blog is a fictional city, a Ruritania based on one of Jordi Ballonga's treatments of the history of a place through time from pre-history to the present day. In a number of ways it's taken more work to create a credible fictional setting that ties tightly into real world history than it did to simply take an actual town and 'stat it up' for the game - dismissing something like this as 'lazy' or 'sloppy' reflects a Platte River-shallow, myopic view of creating historical fiction.

He said unistratose. I like it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969489the restriction on cattle drives everywhere east of Dodge.

Texas.  It's an excellent example of your premise.  Frontier to independent nation to a state in the union in a matter of years.  Your mention of the Native American tragedy happens literally in between Dodge and Texas.  So many fast moving parts.

No one gives a shit about your setting, Vulmea. Because you're not me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;971029Because you're not me.

Deo gratias.

Good that you acknowledge your irrelevance.

Well, pards, I get the feelin' this town ain't big enough for the two o' ya, so you'd best meet out in front of the saloon at high noon and grab iron to settle this.