Quote from: ClaudiusI think that kind of thinking is sick. Me, I'm a perfect example of a historical character in XXIth 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.

Too fucking bad.  That's history.  It is fixed; it's the ultimate metaplot.  If you can change it, it ain't history anymore- it's fantasy.  Bullshit Sophistry about your present condition doesn't mean shit.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerToo fucking bad.  That's history.  It is fixed; it's the ultimate metaplot.  If you can change it, it ain't history anymore- it's fantasy.  Bullshit Sophistry about your present condition doesn't mean shit.

Another case of your world and miine not intersecting, Bradford.

-clash

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerToo fucking bad.  That's history.  It is fixed; it's the ultimate metaplot.  If you can change it, it ain't history anymore- it's fantasy.  Bullshit Sophistry about your present condition doesn't mean shit.

History is fixed for us, the XXIst century players. What's history to us, is the present for the characters. Once you start to play with a character, everything can happen.

Heck, according to your vision of history, the PCs shouldn't even exist (nor be played), for we haven't got any proof that they lived then. They'd be ahistorical.

Isn't all of this absurd?

How did this thread suddenly turn into an argument?  Oh, yeah.  Bradford playing the pedant.

!i!

I've learned that history is fixed, but our understanding of what actually happened, is vague, shrouded and foggy. Often, historians have an axe to grind or a blind spot to ignore or an uncomfortable bit of fact to paper over. The press have not been much better, maybe even worse. This leaves history as a thing to be discovered like the bones of an ancient animal. Depending on the scope of your adventure there could be LOTS of room for things to be different than what is understood.

Ignoring Bradford's fallacy of the excluded middle, as I posted elsewhere in a similar thread:

Often in these discussions I see people getting hung up on really abstract issues that just aren't a problem in play. What if a character wants to become King? What of it? What if that happens in any other game? Does it ever happen? It's never come up in my games in around 25 years. What if the characters want to assassinate Hitler? Do they? Is that what the game is about? Is that something remotely likely to arise in game? Oh no, the characters aren't presidents and kings, where's the protagonism? Protagonism isn't about those things. If the players want to be presidents and kings then play that game, but in the vast majority of games historical or otherwise the players aren't looking to be world leaders, they want to be the centre of their story quite rightly but that doesn't mean they always want to be the centre of the world's story (whatever that is).

There are real issues with historical gaming, but in these discussions I can usually tell who hasn't actually tried it because the issues they come up with tend not to be the real ones. Real issues tend to be stuff like crappy travelling times, restrictions on weapons, more efficient law enforcement than most gamers are used to and above all else the absence of instahealing. The history as metaplot issue comes up a lot in online discussions, but hardly ever in actual play.

It's just another setting, setting your game in 17th Century France is no different to setting it in Glorantha or the Imperium or whatever. The problems are practical ones, not theoretical.

Most of the issues here don't actually arise, the problem with becoming King in a medieval game isn't the terrible historical metaplot, it's that unless your character has royal blood it's not going to happen regardless of history.  The same holds true in most fantasy settings.  Plus I have never once in any historical game had a player suddenly decide they wanted to be king, it's a total red herring.

Otherwise, history is not actually that well documented for the most part.  In most historical games the odds on the players doing anything to change history are actually quite low, and if they do what of it?  You don't go straight into fantasy by going into an alt history, the odds are any ramifications will not be noticeable until years after the period in which the game is set, you still have a real feeling of historicity.

In my crusades game the PCs did change history, one of the few times it's arisen in one of my games, they made a difference that led to half of Toulouse falling in 1218 (it had a wall dividing the city in two making a half capture feasible).  That didn't happen historically, they made a difference.  The game continued and I did not feel a need to introduce fireballs because it was all fantasy now anyway.  The PCs went on their way, history continued much as it was anyway, it just wasn't a big deal.

And that's true for most stuff in this thread, theoretical objections that don't come out of actual play.  I notice that those of us who actually run historical games don't seem nearly as bothered by these issues as those who don't.

Travel, weapons restrictions, law enforcement, healing, those are real issues.  Historical metaplot really isn't.

Quote from: BalbinusTravel, weapons restrictions, law enforcement, healing, those are real issues.  Historical metaplot really isn't.

Actually Balbinus I think metaplot is a very real issue. For instance my IHW game is based on Napoleon's "adventure" in Egpyt :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_I_of_France#Egyptian_expedition_of_1798-99

The campaign ends with The British Navy under Nelson defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Nile. I've also managed to intergrate as a major subplot in the campaign - I would say the main plot actually - Description de l'Égypte* by introducing a defecting artist/scientist who the pcs are now escorting to Nelson's fleet. There's a lot of  "historical" stuff going on.

The problem I think is that sometimes folks don't know how to use metaplot without bending it out of shape. Historical gaming has a "flavour" which is distinct IMO from other types of games... the manipulation of metaplot is something of a draw for me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_de_l'Egypte_(1809)
 

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusHistorical metaplot really isn't.

I'd add "unless the GM chooses to make it so" to that sentence.  Otherwise, extremely well put, especially the part about instahealing.  That's always a definite eye-opener.

Pete

Quote from: David RActually Balbinus I think metaplot is a very real issue. For instance my IHW game is based on Napoleon's "adventure" in Egpyt :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_I_of_France#Egyptian_expedition_of_1798-99

The campaign ends with The British Navy under Nelson defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Nile. I've also managed to intergrate as a major subplot in the campaign - I would say the main plot actually - Description de l'Égypte* by introducing a defecting artist/scientist who the pcs are now escorting to Nelson's fleet. There's a lot of  "historical" stuff going on.

The problem I think is that sometimes folks don't know how to use metaplot without bending it out of shape. Historical gaming has a "flavour" which is distinct IMO from other types of games... the manipulation of metaplot is something of a draw for me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_de_l'Egypte_(1809)
 

Regards,
David R

Actually, most times, the PCs leave the basic flow of history intact, changing only details. In one of my IHW games, though, the PCs made major changes in history because of what they did. I leave that up to the PCs. If they attempt something major and succeed, then something major happens.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceActually, most times, the PCs leave the basic flow of history intact, changing only details.

Yeah, I guess my point is, that part of the "thrill" of historical RPGs is participating in history, which does not necessarily mean changing it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, I guess my point is, that part of the "thrill" of historical RPGs is participating in history, which does not necessarily mean changing it.

Regards,
David R

Right David. My point isn't "Change history right and left! It's the R0XX0RZ!" It's more like "Any historical game is going to change history, even if by the smallest bit, so don't be afraid to let the degree of change get a bit larger, if that's what seems right. Don't let history be a railroad that screws the players." If the players are comfortable working within existing history, then there's no problem.

The vast majority of my historical games worked entirely within the broad strokes of written history, but n one IHW campaign, when the players were contemplating a radical action, I warned them that if they pulled this off, then it would not fit within the broad strokes of history, and this action would have continuing ramifications. They decided to go for it and succeeded. It was a blast, it was still historical, but the alteration of history was large enough that Jefferson was never elected President, and Adams' extra term was followed by Monroe, not Madison. To the PCs, of course, that's the way things should go. They feel no different. The times feel no different. The situation has, however, changed.

-clash

Quote from: BalbinusReal issues tend to be stuff like crappy travelling times, restrictions on weapons, more efficient law enforcement than most gamers are used to and above all else the absence of instahealing. The history as metaplot issue comes up a lot in online discussions, but hardly ever in actual play.

This is what I've found, also. I've previously on this forum talked about the problems of even slightly efficient law enforcement agencies with a group of PCs I had.

Healing is an issue depending on the pace of the game. That's because players don't care how long it takes for their characters to wait to heal, they care how long the players have to wait.  "Okay, six weeks pass, you're better," is for the players the same as "okay, the wizard gives you a potion and you're better." If I as a player have to wait two hours for the party to finish exploring the dungeon so they can buy my character the potion to make him be able to walk again, for me it's the same as if I had to wait two hours while my character went through six months of surgery and physiotherapy. So the problem of no instahealing in an historical campaign is one of pacing more than the setting itself.

Weapon restrictions, funnily enough I've not found them a problem in modern campaigns - I guess since I usually play with fellow Australians, they're used to not having access to automatic weapons, etc. What I have found a problem is the medieval sorts of restrictions, "what do you mean my farmer can't have a sword? He can afford it!" I don't know why the modern weapons aren't a problem but the medieval are, but there you go

And yeah, "what if they kill Hitler?" or whatever - this sort of thing has just never come up. I have a fw times proposed to my players a time-travelling campaign where their whole purpose would be to run around changing history, but no-one was keen...

Clash, you do realize it's no fun if we agree, right?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzHealing is an issue depending on the pace of the game. That's because players don't care how long it takes for their characters to wait to heal, they care how long the players have to wait.  "Okay, six weeks pass, you're better," is for the players the same as "okay, the wizard gives you a potion and you're better." If I as a player have to wait two hours for the party to finish exploring the dungeon so they can buy my character the potion to make him be able to walk again, for me it's the same as if I had to wait two hours while my character went through six months of surgery and physiotherapy. So the problem of no instahealing in an historical campaign is one of pacing more than the setting itself.

Hmm, this does not seem to be the problem. If you have time, you can heal, yeah, no problem. The problem comes up when you are wounded in the midst of the adventure. Assuming you do not die from gangrene, you may be laid up for a long time. You could always dump the character for another so you can keep in the game but that isn;t much fun after crafting your character.

This has been an issue that has come up in a lot of Shades of Earth (ala 1930s) games where we drop the supernatural elements. I have tried character swapping but it is very unwieldy. Just fast forwarding time is just not possible sometimes. Usually, I just leave out the chance of crippling wounds, infection, no physical therapy and a slew of other things that would kill a PC in certain ages.

I think this is a tougher one than just fast forwarding time.

Bill

Well, that's somewhat true, but perhaps could just be a development of what I already said. If it's "the middle of the adventure" - well, whether that adventure can be set aside for the healing time and taken up again later, that's the decision of the GM - pacing. So, "pacing" is not just "how fast game time passes compared to real time", but also, "how fast events happen, and do they continue even when the PCs aren't looking." Pacing of time, and pacing of events, if you like.

On the one extreme of event-pacing, you've got the computer or normal face-to-face roleplaying games where some NPC stands around waiting to talk to the PCs - if they stop in mid-conversation and come back, whether they come back two minutes or two months later makes no difference to the NPC, that NPC's conversation tree or part in the plot/adventure doesn't depend on time. Neither time pace nor events pace are an issue.

On the other extreme, things are happening in the game world according to a fixed schedule - the Uber Missile of Teutonic World Destruction will launch in seven game days - and will only change if the PCs change them. Time and events pacing are a big issue here.

Probably the first is more suitable for games which try to "tell a story", and the second for games which are mission-based - "go here, do this, then you win."

In the middle is where most GMs will pace their game, I think, which usually leads to some flexibility in healing times and so on. Most GMs will strike a balance between "there must be consequences to actions, or else risk means nothing" - that is, if the character fucks up, the player must wait a bit to fix it up - and "okay, you're better, let's move on" - keeping things moving.

I just mean to say that the lack of instant healing in historical or realistic-themed games isn't necessarily a killer, since most GMs have a style of game somewhere between mission-based and story-based, so they can control the pacing somewhat.

It also depends on what your combat system is trying to represent. If X points of damage can be healed by first aid, often the reasoning is, "well, it hurt a lot, but looked worse than it was. Now you can get up and do stuff." For example, if I'm whacked in the groin or the shin, I might be essentially crippled for several minutes at least - but I've not taken any real damage - tomorrow I'll have slight tenderness in the area at work, more often than not. So if your combat and wounding system represents this, then it's pretty easy for the GM to say, "Actually that crippling wound isn't!" Using Hero Points to say, "it was just a flesh wound" etc doesn't seem so cinematic with that perspective. But if your combat and wounding system represent actual lasting injury, it's harder to do that without things feeling quite like an action movie.

And that's the other thing - in mentioning the issue of healing, Balbinus was assuming that "historical" means "realistic." It doesn't have to, just look at that rpg with the superheroes running around in WWII. flyingmice gave a fair definition when he said that if you add magic and psionics, etc, then it's "fantasy with an historical flavour" rather history itself.

But it's not either/or, there are degrees to things. You can have somesort of game mechanic to allow for luck - and that deals with your healing problem. "You thought it was a nasty wound, but it was just a minor one that hurt a lot." Done too often that's not realistic - but done occasionally, it's quite plausible. Plenty of people do very dangerous things and never get a scratch, while some other poor bastard steps off a curb and breaks his ankle.