The late Roman Empire / Byzantine Empire and Sasanian Persia were the main opponents in the Middle-East for a long time. You had the Romans/Greeks who had now become dedicated Christians vs a similar doubling down by Zorastrian priests among Persians (think fire temples etc). Both of them thought the other was adhering to demonic forces. Persia expanded greatly in the earliest 600s AD and they even invaded much of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The Byzantine counterattack was aimed at not only retaking land, but also retrieving the True Cross (this has even been called "the first true crusade" by some historians). Meanwhile, if this is loosely set in the early 600s AD, a new and aggressive cult is rapidly emerging and becoming a major religion, spreading from the Arabian Peninsula.

Isn't this period under-utilized in general? A border town could be an interesting setting to explore. (alternatively one could look at the earlier period of e.g. the 200s AD, when Sasanian Persia is relatively new, and the Roman Empire is still mostly pagan. Dura Europos was an actual border town in this period)

I think all of it is horribly under-used. Obviously think of all the other Bronze, Iron, Medieval (High/Mid/Low) age cultures.

The problem is most players are historically ignorant of these cultures (which is fine) - as GM's we need to create content to sneak it into the Ren-Faire "D&D Fantasy" and spoon-feed it to them.

It's one of the things about kitchen-sink settings where you can take players and their PC's out of their comfort zones. It's a much harder sell (initially) to tell everyone "This is Fantasy Byzantium" and expect them to know what kinds of characters they can make. I've found it much easier to slip it into the game by retooling "pseudo" analog cultures in established settings have more "authentic stuff" - then hit them with the hardcore shit later.

But I'm with you - these cultures are totally undersold (if at all) for gaming purposes in general.

Quote from: tenbones on August 22, 2024, 02:59:33 PMI think all of it is horribly under-used. Obviously think of all the other Bronze, Iron, Medieval (High/Mid/Low) age cultures.

The problem is most players are historically ignorant of these cultures (which is fine) - as GM's we need to create content to sneak it into the Ren-Faire "D&D Fantasy" and spoon-feed it to them.

It's one of the things about kitchen-sink settings where you can take players and their PC's out of their comfort zones. It's a much harder sell (initially) to tell everyone "This is Fantasy Byzantium" and expect them to know what kinds of characters they can make. I've found it much easier to slip it into the game by retooling "pseudo" analog cultures in established settings have more "authentic stuff" - then hit them with the hardcore shit later.

But I'm with you - these cultures are totally undersold (if at all) for gaming purposes in general.

Having said all that, even good ol' Classical Greece vs Persia is rather under-utilized (to my knowledge, if we go for pseudo-history rather than just mythical), even though it's probably easer to sell to players.

I'd go so far as to say everything from the Bronze Age and earlier is underused and post the Bronze Age everything from the Balkans to the Mekong River is, mostly for the reasons tenbones cites.

Off the top of my head I know of one Trojan War game/supplement and two for the Old Testament Levant. While a few fantasy Sumerias are out there and Palladium of all people did an Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt game back in the day that's about it for the entire region. I know of one India inspired setting that isn't by our esteemed host. Arrows of Indra is how I first got interested in Pundit's work because of its uniqueness.

It's not just the period and place that makes it a hard sell.  It's the kind of game you are likely to have.  This is a setting ripe for intrigue, since a big part of what is keeping Byzantium and Persia held back are the shifting alliance, betrayals, etc. from all the smaller principalities and even divisions within.  That's an immensely appealing game for someone wanting to embrace that kind of play.  It would kind of suck if you just wanted to "adventure" with a backdrop of the powers that be.

I may be wrong, but isnt the Auran Empire from ACKS based kn Byzantium? I havent actually used the setting but I remember hearing that somewhere.

Yeah, the whole near-east/eastern Mediterranean era between the fall of Rome and the Islamic Golden Age gets short shrift in media, and even post-Islam, not that much gets made covering the period from there to the 19th Century.

I believe that Mount & Blade: Bannerlord is based on Eastern Europe and the Near East in the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods. I haven't played it yet, but from what I've seen the aesthetics seem to fit the bill.



EDIT: Also, I think there is an RPG setting based on this period, but I'm blanking on the name right now. I'll try to think of it.

EDIT EDIT: Zenobia! that's what I was thinking of. The pdf says it's based on the East circa around 260 AD, so the time period is wrong, but it is based on the area around the Roman-Persian border, so still kind of on topic. https://www.paulelliottbooks.com/free-rpgs.html

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 22, 2024, 06:02:33 PMYeah, the whole near-east/eastern Mediterranean era between the fall of Rome and the Islamic Golden Age gets short shrift in media, and even post-Islam, not that much gets made covering the period from there to the 19th Century.

I believe that Mount & Blade: Bannerlord is based on Eastern Europe and the Near East in the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods. I haven't played it yet, but from what I've seen the aesthetics seem to fit the bill.



EDIT: Also, I think there is an RPG setting based on this period, but I'm blanking on the name right now. I'll try to think of it.

EDIT EDIT: Zenobia! that's what I was thinking of. The pdf says it's based on the East circa around 260 AD, so the time period is wrong, but it is based on the area around the Roman-Persian border, so still kind of on topic. https://www.paulelliottbooks.com/free-rpgs.html

Zenobia sounds pretty close in some ways. It's set in the time of the early Sasanian kings, but I don't know if they are important in the Zenobia setting. Rome had a growing number of Christians but they were still occasionally persecuted.

The early Sasanians vs Roman period (basically 200s AD) was what gave rise to monuments such as this one (Persian King Shapur commemorates his capture of Roman emperor Valerian). I can totally see that Zenobia would be caught in the middle of these conflicts.

I agree that this era, and as others have said region across the various eras, is hugely underused. And yes that is sad.

I have kicked around an idea on playing Mythras/RuneQuest in a mythical realistic early bronze age / pre-biblical history Mesopotania . The game fell through (my daughters voted for Traveller instead), but doing the background work on it was interesting and I still think it would have been a great setting/

As for the specific Byzantium v Sassanian , YES that is a great era and would be rife with opertunities for adventures.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 22, 2024, 03:30:20 PMIt's not just the period and place that makes it a hard sell.  It's the kind of game you are likely to have.  This is a setting ripe for intrigue, since a big part of what is keeping Byzantium and Persia held back are the shifting alliance, betrayals, etc. from all the smaller principalities and even divisions within.  That's an immensely appealing game for someone wanting to embrace that kind of play.  It would kind of suck if you just wanted to "adventure" with a backdrop of the powers that be.

Rgr that. I would say there are would be plenty of 'normal adventures' in the setting, but also the intrigue and NPC interactions role playing type games.

I would say, similarly, that the Trans-Oxina setting is also underused and a setting I would love to run/play in. Yes there is the Silk Road here, but that is focused on Crusades. I would LOVE to see it in as early as Hellenistic Greek, Persia, and the Steepe invasion of it into E Europe.

This also boils down to the normal person today has so little of history that they would never get a game based on any of these ideas because they wouldn't understand the premise or know the historic reference.

Yeah, it would be a cool era to explore. It is contemporary with the alleged timeframe of Arthurian lore, so I've thought for a while were I ever to run a "historical" Arthurian game that the "crusades" or "Saracens" mentioned in the medieval romances would be re-contextualized as Sassanids and knights of the Round Table going to help the Byzantines.

Contemporary with Arthur, huh I didn't even think about that!
Anyway here's a reconstruction of Constantinople.



And a Sasanian city and palace

Quote from: Lurker on August 22, 2024, 07:33:57 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 22, 2024, 03:30:20 PMIt's not just the period and place that makes it a hard sell.  It's the kind of game you are likely to have.  This is a setting ripe for intrigue, since a big part of what is keeping Byzantium and Persia held back are the shifting alliance, betrayals, etc. from all the smaller principalities and even divisions within.  That's an immensely appealing game for someone wanting to embrace that kind of play.  It would kind of suck if you just wanted to "adventure" with a backdrop of the powers that be.

Rgr that. I would say there are would be plenty of 'normal adventures' in the setting, but also the intrigue and NPC interactions role playing type games.

I think it's a big question about what sort of adventuring party there is, and what sort of adventures they go on. I think all sorts of historical settings are potentially cool, but it isn't a game unless there is a clear pattern of adventurers and adventuring. I don't know offhand what early 600s Byzantine/Sasanian campaign would look like.

A key part of the Zenobia RPG (that ForgottenF recommended) is the ten-page "Adventure Seeds" section from pages 188 to 199 and the "Campaigns" section starting from page 200. I'd recommend it again.

https://www.paulelliottbooks.com/free-rpgs.html

Even those are a little vague, though. I think the real pitch for a game is an outline of a sample PC party and a more complete outline of several adventures.

The only adventures I've had close to that period was in an episodic game of adventures scattered non-linearly in history, where the PCs were immortal beings who would meet up every few decades. But that was pretty experimental.

If I was running a more standard RPG campaign, I'm not sure what it would be. Historical summaries often focus on rulers and wars - but I find that wars aren't actually good RPG settings, because they center on masses of armies, and a handful of independent operators aren't either welcome or relevant.

Quote from: jhkim on August 23, 2024, 09:21:10 PM

Quote from: Lurker on August 22, 2024, 07:33:57 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 22, 2024, 03:30:20 PMIt's not just the period and place that makes it a hard sell.  It's the kind of game you are likely to have.  This is a setting ripe for intrigue, since a big part of what is keeping Byzantium and Persia held back are the shifting alliance, betrayals, etc. from all the smaller principalities and even divisions within.  That's an immensely appealing game for someone wanting to embrace that kind of play.  It would kind of suck if you just wanted to "adventure" with a backdrop of the powers that be.

Rgr that. I would say there are would be plenty of 'normal adventures' in the setting, but also the intrigue and NPC interactions role playing type games.

I think it's a big question about what sort of adventuring party there is, and what sort of adventures they go on. I think all sorts of historical settings are potentially cool, but it isn't a game unless there is a clear pattern of adventurers and adventuring. I don't know offhand what early 600s Byzantine/Sasanian campaign would look like.

A key part of the Zenobia RPG (that ForgottenF recommended) is the ten-page "Adventure Seeds" section from pages 188 to 199 and the "Campaigns" section starting from page 200. I'd recommend it again.

https://www.paulelliottbooks.com/free-rpgs.html

Even those are a little vague, though. I think the real pitch for a game is an outline of a sample PC party and a more complete outline of several adventures.

The only adventures I've had close to that period was in an episodic game of adventures scattered non-linearly in history, where the PCs were immortal beings who would meet up every few decades. But that was pretty experimental.

If I was running a more standard RPG campaign, I'm not sure what it would be. Historical summaries often focus on rulers and wars - but I find that wars aren't actually good RPG settings, because they center on masses of armies, and a handful of independent operators aren't either welcome or relevant.

I agree, there needs to be some more specific adventure seeds (see also my Bronze Age setting).
One thing I was thinking about here was that the Persians captured the "true cross". The Byzantines sure would be happy to get that back. The only problem is that the Persian Magi left a simurgh to watch over their loot (obviously).