I got asked these questions by PM on rpg.net, and thought some folk here might find the questions and my answers interesting:

Feel free to ask follow up questions as needed.

Quote1. Could you give me some basic information about your table-top role-playing history? Stuff like how long you been playing, the games you have play, and so on. You do not need to give me every detail, but I like enough to have good general idea of your hobby history.

I started playing with DnD in the early 1980s, had about a five year break in the 1990s due to a group breakup and losing touch with the ho9bby but then got back into it when I ran into some guys playing in a pub and remembered how much I used to enjoy it.

I originally played mostly DnD, Rolemaster, Traveller (classic) and Runequest plus other stuff as the mood took us.

In the 1990s, after getting back into gaming, I played almost entirely Gurps.  The system worked fine for me and the group I joined was a Gurps group, that probably played a part in my looking more at historical stuff though, as it has many supplements for it and 3rd edition Gurps (I can't speak to fourth) works pretty well for lower key historical stuff.

Nowadays I play mostly BRP variants, stuff adapted from CoC or Pendragon.

Quote2. I'm interest in why you decide to play accountants in France,  and so on ?  I'm asking because table-top roleplaying games are work. They require a significant commitment of time and energy from all involve to do the most basic of hacking and slashing. Now I'm sure playing a ordinary citizen in a historical era require much more work then hacking and slashing, so what do you get out of it?

I'm 39 years old and have been playing off and on for near 25 years.  For me, the hack and slash stuff just got dull, and for me works better in computer games.  I still can enjoy it, but it's not as rewarding for me as more social stuff which requires more thought.

The accountant is in fact the personal secretary to a nobleman, so it's about ambition, about gaining wealth and status through intrigue and corruption.  That's dramatic stuff, he's not doing tax returns for wealthy merchants, he's a social climber and ambitious as all hell.

And that's the thing, I like games in which people have real motives.  People are the thing that interests me, ambition, lust, greed, these are things I can get as reasons why people would risk their lives and do the things interesting characters do.

So, there are two things.  One is to get that feel of being in another world, be it historical France or be it Greyhawk (actually I have no interest in Greyhawk, but the point is that feel of being somewhere else).  Another part is the challenge, the challenge of surviving and thriving in that environment with the tools of that character, be those tools a greatsword or social connections.

It's not that different to any other game, that character is particularly focussed on social fu as it were, but I know a guy who plays a social fu exalted character, I'm not sure the challenges and rewards are that different.

Quote3. I'm curious about how you got involved with purely historical gaming. Did a friend in the hobby run a game, or did you decide one day to give it a try?

Partly via Gurps as said above, partly because I enjoy history and it lets me read history and prep games at the same time.  Partly because I'm interested in gaming in human issues and dilemmas and real world settings help bring those to life for me.

Quote4.How often do you run or play purely historical games? Is it something you do every once and while or is regular thing for you?

Most weeks, most games I play or run are historically based.  Not exclusively though, a player is considering running an ODnD game and his ideas sound fun.

Quote5. Have you every run a purely historical game? If you have can you take a moment to talk about some of the issues you may have had.

Tons, most of them, the key issue is no magic.  The rest of it is just setting, and like any setting you need to bring it to life for people without too much hassle.  But no magic does take relearning some GM skills as you can't rely on that easy fix, instead you need to come up with other reasons for things to happen.  Also, you need to give serious thought to healing times.

On occasion I've found people had vested ideas about a period that were just flat wrong, but that's not really any different to running a Gloranthan game and finding some people have really fixed ideas about Glorantha that are different to yours.

Quote6.  What systems do use to run historical games if you run them.  Personally I can think of several that would work for playing historical type games.   However, what I know and what you know are two different things, so I'm curious as what your tools are.

Mostly I use CoC or Pendragon, file off the setting specific bits and go with those.  Why?  I know them well and they are low key, for me it is important that a historical game engine feels somewhat down to earth, not too cinematic.  Other systems would work fine though, Gurps, NWoD would probably be ok, but I know BRP so well that it's just easier.

Quote7.   What are the best websites to do further research on historical table-top gaming? I'm going to do my own research, but it is nice to know where to look on the web for useful information.

I don't really know of any, it's a niche hobby.  That said, there is a historical gaming yahoogroup called historicalrpgs that would be worth trying.

What is a normal session like in the game you are currently playing? You, know encounters, interactions between your fellow pcs, plot/campaign outline. A little bit of detail, would be appreciated

Regards,
David R

Hm, it varies a lot game to game.  A typical session of my Vikings game is not that similar to a typical session of the game I play the accountant in.

That said, for the current game a typical session would include factfinding to discover who is secretly behind some intrigue against our interests, finding out info on an npc we want to blackmail or otherwise coopt, siccing mercenaries or thugs onto an opponent we want taken down, bickering between ourselves in character and finding opportunities to make our guys look good.

For example, we recently had a party in game.  My chap organised the theatrical entertainment, which in part was a payoff to an actress in the troupe who had helped me get material to blackmail a harbourmaster.  The noble was engaged in some (systemless) verbal duels with other nobles about the use of influence and about who could raise revenue from what.  Later acting on information received we set up an ambush for some rivals, organised mercenaries to take out the opposition on receipt of a prearranged signal and planted guys nearby to fire first from the direction of our enemies (ie to make it look like they started the battle).

So, intrigue, social fu, blackmail, sudden ambushes.  Historical games in my experience involve a lot more blackmail, intimidation and ambushes than other games mostly because combat tends to be deadlier.

In my vikings game they raided an Irish monastery, fought pirates, participated in a mass raid on England, shipped grain back to Iceland to relieve a famine, helped ensure a wedding went smoothly and will soon participate in a Thing and in a trading expedition with the Rus.

So it varies a lot, not that different I suspect to many other games save that low key or no magic tends to mean a lot more intrigue and skullduggery.  If you can't get a quick healing, may be crippled and can't be resurrected your desire to enter a stand up fight is much reduced I tend to find.  Combats still happen, but more thought goes into weighting the odds.

How much historical accuracy do you strive for?

Do real historical personages figure at all?

Do you use some faux historical settings? (which i suppose any usage of magic will require to one degree or another).

Quote from: One Horse TownHow much historical accuracy do you strive for?

Do real historical personages figure at all?

Do you use some faux historical settings? (which i suppose any usage of magic will require to one degree or another).

Reasonable, a period feel, I don't want people to sit there discussing whether a given hem length is accurate though nor do I want people having to do homework.  It's a game, history is a setting.

Sometimes, but not that often really.  After all, very few people ever meet the sort of people who make it into history books.

Sometimes sure, my Vikings game has magic.  Also, sometimes I deliberately change a few bits, mostly if I want to make sure people won't get intimidated by what actually happened.

Quote from: BalbinusSometimes, but not that often really.  After all, very few people ever meet the sort of people who make it into history books.

I think that's a trap that i would fall into. The temptation would be too great when playing in a recognisable historical setting to have the PCs be involved with people that are noted historicaly. I suppose it can forcably back up that the players are in a certain time period if everyone at the table goes "ah, Eric the Red!"...or whatever. The problem, i guess, is that those people who have made the history books are likely to be the centre of attention more than the PCs. Tricky.

Quote from: One Horse TownI think that's a trap that i would fall into. The temptation would be too great when playing in a recognisable historical setting to have the PCs be involved with people that are noted historicaly. I suppose it can forcably back up that the players are in a certain time period if everyone at the table goes "ah, Eric the Red!"...or whatever. The problem, i guess, is that those people who have made the history books are likely to more the centre of attention than the PCs. Tricky.

My reason for not using them much is partly the risk of them trumping the PCs, partly the risk of the PCs killing them and then that damaging the sense of period, partly that they are often not actually that interesting to interact with as frequently they are rulers of states and as such not chaps you'd mix with casually.

But it's the trumping issue that's key, if the PCs meet Erik the Red then there is a tendency to compare them to him, when really what we care about is what they do.

That said, if done well I can see it would really add to period feel.

Fair enough. How about events? I suppose that events come along with the personalities of those who were involved in them historically, so this is related to the historical figure question.

Actually, i suppose the thrust of all my questions thus far can be distilled down to this: Are you simply using a historical period as a general setting for the players to use as their sandbox or are they playing in the actual timeframe of the period and all that this entails re events,people etc?

What pros and cons do you think go along with those two seperate styles of historical roleplaying? I think that could be a useful thing for those wishing to give it a try.

Quote from: BalbinusSo, intrigue, social fu, blackmail, sudden ambushes.  Historical games in my experience involve a lot more blackmail, intimidation and ambushes than other games mostly because combat tends to be deadlier.

Yeah. I found this is true for realistic espionage and mystery games. I've played a few campaigns - and just started a political game - where my players were amazed at how intense the game could get, without much or any combat. IME in these kinds of games, where players have to rely on means other than just "thowing punches" things get tricky and interesting pretty fast...IME.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusMy reason for not using them much is partly the risk of them trumping the PCs, partly the risk of the PCs killing them and then that damaging the sense of period, partly that they are often not actually that interesting to interact with as frequently they are rulers of states and as such not chaps you'd mix with casually.

But it's the trumping issue that's key, if the PCs meet Erik the Red then there is a tendency to compare them to him, when really what we care about is what they do.

That said, if done well I can see it would really add to period feel.

In one of my Cold Space games, the players ran across Robert Heinlein, who never got TB and was an admiral n the Rocket Corps. Of course he never wrote SF, but he got to live it. In the setting, he wasn't famous at all.

-clash

I should add that my players seldom get to meet famous people unless they become famous themselves.

-clash

Quote from: One Horse TownFair enough. How about events? I suppose that events come along with the personalities of those who were involved in them historically, so this is related to the historical figure question.

Actually, i suppose the thrust of all my questions thus far can be distilled down to this: Are you simply using a historical period as a general setting for the players to use as their sandbox or are they playing in the actual timeframe of the period and all that this entails re events,people etc?

What pros and cons do you think go along with those two seperate styles of historical roleplaying? I think that could be a useful thing for those wishing to give it a try.

You jogged my memory, in one game the players participated in the siege of Toulouse and so met on several occasions Simon de Montfort who led that siege.

Mostly I assume that events will occur as they did unless the players somehow change things, that said most geopolitical events don't actually affect people much immediately, so in practice it tends to be a sandbox anyway.

I figure the world is a big place, the stuff we learn about in history books will happen in game, but that stuff is a tiny fraction of all the interesting stuff happening in that period.  Still, unless the PCs change things that stuff will happen and may become relevant in the game.