Quote from: HinterWeltHonestly, I think it is entirely personal preference. Me, I like 4 players and a GM. Five is o.k. and I have run as high as 20 with another GM (15 solo). However, I would say such games are not as much fun for players as GMs and I would even question GM enjoyment.

Bill

Like I said, it's not deal, but it can be done. I wouldn't want to try it again.

-clash

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI just wanted to thank you for that observation, David.  I think that you summed up a tension that I have had with strictly historical gaming.  It can be safely said that I am a history nut, but I have had my best luck running and playing in games that are "heavily inspired" by history rather than strict period pieces.  I think that Pulp adventures in the 1920s and 30s fit this model perfectly.  Sure, the history of the period adds a lot of neat detail (like pulling out your handy 1927 Sears catalog to see what the state of the art in camping equipment is), but you also have a lot of leeway to add your own fantastical touches.

I still want to take a crack at running a strictly historical game, but your post gives me something to think about.  How does one allow for the players to feel like the world is their own to explore?  I suppose that the same problem can be found in running any game with strong expectations about the world, for example any of the licensed settings with strong followings like Star Wars.


TGA

I still maintain that this is a false distinction. There are no strictly historical games. All historical games are alt history from the get go. It's just a matter of degree, not of dividing lines. Once I got that attitude in my head, the problems went away.

-clash

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI just wanted to thank you for that observation, David.  I think that you summed up a tension that I have had with strictly historical gaming.  It can be safely said that I am a history nut, but I have had my best luck running and playing in games that are "heavily inspired" by history rather than strict period pieces.  I think that Pulp adventures in the 1920s and 30s fit this model perfectly.  Sure, the history of the period adds a lot of neat detail (like pulling out your handy 1927 Sears catalog to see what the state of the art in camping equipment is), but you also have a lot of leeway to add your own fantastical touches.

I still want to take a crack at running a strictly historical game, but your post gives me something to think about.  How does one allow for the players to feel like the world is their own to explore?  I suppose that the same problem can be found in running any game with strong expectations about the world, for example any of the licensed settings with strong followings like Star Wars.


TGA

See, and I think we are approaching one of the unquantifiable issues with Historical Gaming with this line of reasoning. Is it that hard to imagine that many players have no problem with "history inspired" games but feel boxed in over strict historical settings? Not saying that historical settings are horrible or anything, I like them, but I immediately wander (i.e. state upfront) that the game will be alt-history. Sometimes I go way far (Roma Imperious) and other times I stick on target (Respublica).

In the end, I think we are talking about something (historical gaming) a lot of gamers would try, but would not continue or spend money on. That is why you do not see more companies producing strict historical settings.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceI still maintain that this is a false distinction. There are no strictly historical games. All historical games are alt history from the get go. It's just a matter of degree, not of dividing lines. Once I got that attitude in my head, the problems went away.

-clash

Good point, Clash.  I think that I just take my games too seriously sometimes and I should just relax...


TGA

Any time the two of you start talking, I end up wanting to play one of your games...with you...

curse you, dammit...

Quote from: James J SkachAny time the two of you start talking, I end up wanting to play one of your games...with you...

curse you, dammit...

How far is Games Plus from your home? I am thinking about starting up a Roma (Iridium) campaign. Something like once or twice a month.

I hope to corner Clash for a game at Gen Con if not then just to talk shop.

Bill

Hi James!

One of these Gen Cons, we'll all be there together! Until then, Next year in Indy!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI still maintain that this is a false distinction. There are no strictly historical games. All historical games are alt history from the get go. It's just a matter of degree, not of dividing lines. Once I got that attitude in my head, the problems went away.

-clash

Clash I'm having trouble following you. All historical games are alt history from the get go? Because I'm thinking that yeah sure history is open to interpretation and this is reflected in the campaign, but surely there's a line where historical becomes alt history or fantasy.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RClash I'm having trouble following you. All historical games are alt history from the get go? Because I'm thinking that yeah sure history is open to interpretation and this is reflected in the campaign, but surely there's a line where historical becomes alt history or fantasy.

Regards,
David R

Hi David!

Your PCs are not real people who existed. Once a PC sets foot in history it becomes alt history, by definition. There's no wat to run a truly historical game. It's like lightspeed. You can get arbitrarily closer, but you can't reach it, and at a certain point it isn't worth the bother hrtting any closer.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHi David!

Your PCs are not real people who existed. Once a PC sets foot in history it becomes alt history, by definition. There's no wat to run a truly historical game. It's like lightspeed. You can get arbitrarily closer, but you can't reach it, and at a certain point it isn't worth the bother hrtting any closer.

-clash

You know what I think the problem is for some folks - and I'm one of them - the issue of verisimilitude becomes vitally important when we run historical games. So I get what you're sayin, but for many of us, what defines "historical" is the limitations that are placed on characters because of historical context...am making sense here or did I just lose the plot ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou know what I think the problem is for some folks - and I'm one of them - the issue of verisimilitude becomes vitally important when we run historical games. So I get what you're sayin, but for many of us, what defines "historical" is the limitations that are placed on characters because of historical context...am making sense here or did I just lose the plot ?

Regards,
David R

Yep! You're making perfect sense, but verisimilitude is not reality. Verisimilitude is making it feel real, and you don't need to follow history strictly for that. Heck, you can get verisimilitude in any game - and I know you do. As long as what happened could really have happened in a historical context, your game is as historical as it's going to get.

Let me take another tack - hstorical WWII war games don't end with the allies winning and Nagasaki and Hiroshima hit with atom bombs every time - actually I've never played a war game that ended the same way twice - but given the historically correct starting setup, it proceeds each time within a historical context. It could have happened that way. That's the fun of historical gaming.

That's what I mean by there is no spoon. You can't have a game without making the history into alt history, so being totally anal about it following history closely is worthless. Relax and enjoy what happens with your players. If your players have bought into it, there won't be a problem - it'll be close enough - and if they don't it's not the history that's the problem.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceYep! You're making perfect sense, but verisimilitude is not reality. Verisimilitude is making it feel real, and you don't need to follow history strictly for that. Heck, you can get verisimilitude in any game - and I know you do. As long as what happened could really have happened in a historical context, your game is as historical as it's going to get.

Let me take another tack - hstorical WWII war games don't end with the allies winning and Nagasaki and Hiroshima hit with atom bombs every time - actually I've never played a war game that ended the same way twice - but given the historically correct starting setup, it proceeds each time within a historical context. It could have happened that way. That's the fun of historical gaming.

That's what I mean by there is no spoon. You can't have a game without making the history into alt history, so being totally anal about it following history closely is worthless. Relax and enjoy what happens with your players. If your players have bought into it, there won't be a problem - it'll be close enough - and if they don't it's not the history that's the problem.

-clash

I know this is not going to be a popular view of it but I always look at it like a period piece movie. Some people can go to Gladiator and love it to pieces while others can do nothing but pick it apart historically. Enjoyment, as Clash mentioned, is about making sure everyone has the same expectations. If you go to a movie expecting a documentary and get Gladiator, it does not mean Gladiator was a bad movie, it means you expected something else and it did not deliver.

Emulating a historic period is much more important than versimilitude IMO.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceThat's what I mean by there is no spoon. You can't have a game without making the history into alt history, so being totally anal about it following history closely is worthless. Relax and enjoy what happens with your players. If your players have bought into it, there won't be a problem - it'll be close enough - and if they don't it's not the history that's the problem.

Um?  I'm not generally strict about my historical games (I usually start with a divergence in the first place), but the logic of this argument is bankrupt.  "You can't be perfect, so somehow that means you shouldn't try at all??"  

The game should be as historical as your group enjoys doing things.  Obviously, if players don't enjoy historical detail, then don't be anal about following history or perhaps don't run a historical campaign at all.  However, if players do enjoy history, then they may enjoy the attention to detail.  There's no magical line between what is right and what is "anal" -- it's a matter of taste.  

For example, my players cited the historical detail as one of the things they liked about a recent Victorian Call of Cthulhu campaign that I GMed.

A historical game is a game with an iron-clad, unchangeable canon.  You can't fuck with what really happened and have it be history; you can't whack Hitler, you can't stop Julius from crossing the Rubicon, you can't stop the judicial murder of Socrates and you can't be the 301st Spartan at Thermopalye.  That's the bitch of it, folks, and it's what you've got to work around to make the damn thing functional--let alone enjoyable--for otherwise you're just playing a fantasy game in drag.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerA historical game is a game with an iron-clad, unchangeable canon.  You can't fuck with what really happened and have it be history; you can't whack Hitler, you can't stop Julius from crossing the Rubicon, you can't stop the judicial murder of Socrates and you can't be the 301st Spartan at Thermopalye.  That's the bitch of it, folks, and it's what you've got to work around to make the damn thing functional--let alone enjoyable--for otherwise you're just playing a fantasy game in drag.

I think that kind of thinking is sick. Me, I'm a perfect example of a historical character in XXIst century. Does that mean I can't whack the president of the USA? Maybe, maybe not. That's the point. The past is fixed, but the future is not. Once you play a character in a historical campaign, the future is open for him, as it is for me.

This is the equivalent of metaplots a la White Wolf and AEG. Fuck them.

Edit: Correcting grammar.