The alt history threads are mildly interesting, but when I read them I just keep thinking that real history is much more interesting than speculation. With the sort of fundamental changes being discussed (which make the historical setting almost unrecognisable), I'd rather just go the whole hog and play fantasy.

The draw of history for me is the real weight of things that happened.

Discuss....

I largely agree. Alt-history can never be a serious intellectual exercise; there are too many philosophical problems. I'd rather just go "what if...?" and have the freedom to be as gonzo as I like, or keep to real history.

good gaming to you,
TheShadow

for me, history is fun to read.  to see how things transpired, from what causes and effects, and then throw in the further development from these events is an amazing progression.  and then to postulate on past trends to imagine where things can go is a great thought exercise.

but alt history is like a combination of the two i've mentioned above.  you have to examine how things were, change one thing, and then try to figure the most probable development.  stuff like that makes for good gaming.  play an adventure set around a past event.  let their characters influence said event (better if they only have an inkling of its importance).  then let the campaign continue, fleshing out how things have changed or will change.  ah, to have the time to try such a thing.  time, and like-minded players. . . .

I agree.

I'd like to see a French Revolution RPG. Strictly historical, no gizmos of any kind.

(No, GURPS Scarlet Pimpernel is not it. It's the anti-Revolution RPG. I don't want to "outwit the Committee on Public Welfare," citizen. I want to be on it.)

I wouldn't really be all that into an alt-history game either; though for a historical game, I'd want to steer clear of putting the PCs into a position where they have to interact strongly with the historical timeline. Otherwise history becomes a sort of metaplot.

The alt history threads suffer from being posted in terms of "what if X [which we know happened] didn't happen?" Of course there are all sorts of things that didn't happen which could have happened. Like when I wrote that Byzantium would have remained the center of the western world if it weren't for the Islamic conquests: it's not to say that something else might not have had a similar effect, we just don't know what.

The other thing as a friend of mine points out is that nearly all alt history questions are posed in terms of preserving some anachronism of interest. Nobody asks "What if the North had won the First Battle of Bull Run?" Instead it's, "What if the South had AK-47's?"

Quote from: droogThe alt history threads are mildly interesting, but when I read them I just keep thinking that real history is much more interesting than speculation. With the sort of fundamental changes being discussed (which make the historical setting almost unrecognisable), I'd rather just go the whole hog and play fantasy.
 
The draw of history for me is the real weight of things that happened.
 
Discuss....

Where do you draw the line between pure fantasy and altered history?  To give you an example, is steam punk a pure fantasy setting?  Or just a form of altered history?
 
I agree that real history makes for a fascinating setting.  But it also very, very challenging to run.

I like both historical games and alt-history. To me, they are very closely related. That said, I despise playing in and will never play a historical setting with another history major. To the last one, it has been a painful and disruptive experience. I think it has to do with the "I must know more than you" vibe to the profession. I have played with a range of historians, from field archaeologists to museum curators to historical librarians to just guys with their history degree and now work in IT. Every last one of them had to expound on their knowledge of the period we played in to the detriment of the game. Painful.

With that in mind, I have had great deals of fun with Respublica and Imperius, my historic Roman settings. Mostly with non-history major folk. I find it a lot more fun because they get excited and 9 times out of 10 they run off to research the period and we share great info. Often, it just comes down to good story and not getting hung up on "historical veracity".

As to alt-history, it is my bread and butter. It pays the bills although Squirrels are getting closer to filling that niche. So, I am probably biased but I find it works just fine as escapism. Sometimes it loosens up folks who know something of the period and others it turns them off. I can understand folks who want nothing to do with alt-history but I really cannot sympathize since I find it a lot of fun.

Of course, YMMV,
Bill

I think I just like real history settings in a "backdrop" sort of way. This Roman one I'm running is the first where the PCs can really make their own history. Still not sure how it'll turn out, only one player has an ambitious character, which puts more work on me!

But as setting, as something to be part of, real history's great.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWhere do you draw the line between pure fantasy and altered history?  To give you an example, is steam punk a pure fantasy setting?  Or just a form of altered history?
 
I agree that real history makes for a fascinating setting.  But it also very, very challenging to run.

Steampunk is a pretty loose category. Steampunk Star Wars=fantasy. Steampunk Roman Empire=alt history. Very loosely.

It's at the point where you say "It's the Romans--but with guns!" that I tend to lose interest. I'd rather just have the Romans.

I actually prefer alt-history.  With alt history the GM gets the same sense of exploration as the pc's, and the moment the PCs do anything noteworthy it becomes alt history of a sort.

I'm of the opinion that all real-world campaigns are alt.history to an extent. It's just a question of degrees.

Given the number of non-alternate Historical campaigns that I've run or am currently running, I would have to agree. You don't need history to be "alternate" for it to be interesting, you just have to know enough about the history you're running to be able to make it a good experience for the players.

Most of the times, the stories behind what REALLY happened are much more interesting than any "variant" you could dream up.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: DrewI'm of the opinion that all real-world campaigns are alt.history to an extent. It's just a question of degrees.

Well yes, for two reasons.

First, all History as an academic discipline is actually engaging in "alternate history".  Its impossible to utterly divorce ourselves from the distorting optics of our own ideas and opinions and the lens of the present.

Second, any history campaign where you add the player characters will immediately become a kind of "alt.history", just by virtue of the PCs being free agents.  Unless you limit your players so much that they literally can do nothing other than be spectators.

That said; there's the "titus pullo and lucius voreno" kind of "alternate history" and the "Romans with Laser Guns" or "Christianity never existed" kind of alternate history.  That's quite the spectrum...

RPGPundit

You mean like the "war" in pre-Revolutionary War colonial America that started over a man's ear?

This happened in Florida general area.


That kind of thing?


- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, any history campaign where you add the player characters will immediately become a kind of "alt.history", just by virtue of the PCs being free agents.  Unless you limit your players so much that they literally can do nothing other than be spectators.

Yes & no. I think it just takes a different perspective. Would a 1920's gangsters or occult game be alt-history just because the players aren't operating on a scale that's likely to let them cash in on the stock market before the crash, or prevent WWII? It's a matter of using a period of history as a setting rather than making the timeline the focus of play.