The Enlightenment 1690-1750

[Astromancer]

It occures to me that the sixity years between the Glorious Revolution and the end of the Dutch Trade Supremacy would make a grand setting for Runequest. The main thing is that all of the Earth's cultures were in contact with each other but there was the maximum of Terra Incognita!

When large sections of the map, whole quadrants of the globe, are blank, and you can go to the blank areas and be the first from your area of the globe to fill that blank in, that's Adventure; high adventure. Magic, alchemy, spirits, they can all fit into this setting perfectly well. Either as hidden lore or an alternate science. Read Newton's Cannon to see one take on this.

In Adventures in Unhistory Avram Davidson tells of a Great White Sea Ape, that washed up on the shore of an Indonesian Sultanate. When twentith century scientists came to see the bones of the creature, that was kept chained in the Sultan's garden for fifty years. They found human bones. The cage were the "Ape" was chained had writting on the wals in twelve languages. None of which the natives knew or recognised as human. If that doesn't give you a hint of the terror, danger, and wonder of this setting, I don't knw what would.

 

[Astromancer]

Added note on this period, Witches and Pirates.

Yes, this period sees the end of the Golden Age of Piracy! This is also the period in which both Mother Goose and the classic fairy tale witch are set (you knew Mother Goose was a witch, right? Old Mother Goose lived in the woods/And an Owl in the tree as her sentinel stood.) Fairy Tale witches with their tall pointed caps are modeled after elderly country women of this period.

Belief in Fairies is still common in England in this period, though mocked by the upper classes and the learned. There seems to be evidence that the working class and poor populations of London believed in fairies, and that con men still used this fact to there advantage. Some gangs also seem to have claimed links to the fay, much like some modern day gangs claim occult links today.

This is a grand period for magic, grand or subtle, adventure, exploration, and everything else that you want in a RuneQuest game!

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's tricky to pinpoint the era precisely. Philosophically, I'd say that the Enlightenment started with people like Descartes, Hume and Kant - although that accounts for quite a timespan!

There is the upcoming Clockwork & Chivalry setting coming up:

http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?trk=cubicle7&showtopic=1364

...set during the English Civil War (17th Century), but if I was going to take a military leader I'd most associate with The Enlightenment as a cause, it'd probably be Napoleon (who of course wasn't forthcoming till the early 19th century!).

Anyway, when are we going to get Blackadder: The RPG?

 

[Astromancer]

It's tricky to pinpoint the era precisely. Philosophically, I'd say that the Enlightenment started with people like Descartes, Hume and Kant - although that accounts for quite a timespan!

There is the upcoming Clockwork & Chivalry setting coming up:

http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?trk=cubicle7&showtopic=1364

...set during the English Civil War (17th Century), but if I was going to take a military leader I'd most associate with The Enlightenment as a cause, it'd probably be Napoleon (who of course wasn't forthcoming till the early 19th century!).

Anyway, when are we going to get Blackadder: The RPG?

I did my Masters on the Early Modern Period, so I'm aware of the problems of defining periods. However I was trying to come up with a narrow period with maximum adventure possibilities. Really the whole 1500-1939 period is great for adventure gaming. I choose 1690-1750 to put the widest variety of adventure in as narrow yet coherent a framework.

I can easily see moving back into the 17th century for more Pirates and German professors searching Russia for Unicorns (really!) or forward for the early 19th century rediscovery of the Classical East and the pre-Classical past. But I was trying to get maximum wonder into minimum time.

 

[Taavi]

Have you read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? It seems pretty close to what you're aiming at here.

 

[Astromancer]

Have you read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? It seems pretty close to what you're aiming at here.

I managed to pick it up recently in hardback on a remainder table. I got the set for less than ten dollars (five pounds I think). Haven't got a chance to read it yet.

However, as it would be a RuneQuest setting, you'd want to throw in magic. And with different cultures, you could do distinctive magics and different sets of Runes.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

And with different cultures, you could do distinctive magics and different sets of Runes.

Why bother with runes?

Surely Folk Magic (as in MRQ1 'The Player's Guide to Glorantha') and Scientific Magic (from the MRQ1 'Hawkmoon' line) would be a better fit?

 

[klingsor]

Surely the real world is interesting and weird enough that you do not need magic as well? Of course many people believe in it, the same way people believe in astrology and other nonsense today but you do not actually need it to be real in a game.

Admittedly though when running a historical game I do find myself automatically turning to supernatural plot elements and then having to discard or adapt them (for example it is not a werewolf but an escaped baboon) so it can be hard not to use the supernatural. Laziness and bad habits on my part at least.

 

[Astromancer]

And with different cultures, you could do distinctive magics and different sets of Runes.

Why bother with runes?

Surely Folk Magic (as in MRQ1 'The Player's Guide to Glorantha') and Scientific Magic (from the MRQ1 'Hawkmoon' line) would be a better fit?

True, very true. However, Gods and Runes would fit too. Afterall, Hieroglyphs are assumed to be Rune-like magic code writting throughout this period. (The scholars of the 16th century had recorded the Coptic language, but until Campolion, no one knew it was the key to the hieroglphs).

 

[Astromancer]

Surely the real world is interesting and weird enough that you do not need magic as well? Of course many people believe in it, the same way people believe in astrology and other nonsense today but you do not actually need it to be real in a game.

Admittedly though when running a historical game I do find myself automatically turning to supernatural plot elements and then having to discard or adapt them (for example it is not a werewolf but an escaped baboon) so it can be hard not to use the supernatural. Laziness and bad habits on my part at least.

Explaining the option to go with Rare Magic, Secret Magic, or No Magic, styles of play, would fit the setting. But most players would want the magic.

 

[Astromancer]

Having looked at Clockwork and Chivalry I can't say that I think it comes close to what I'm talking about.


First, it assumes that the Royalists are moral equals of the Purtitans, bunk! Charles I wanted to be an absolute monarch, contemporary English people called England a Commonweal. I did my Masters on this stuff. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth descriped England as "Res Publica Anglia" in their formal letters. Elizabeth rewarded with honnors a Cambridge professor who called England a Republic in a book on the English Government he gave to Elizabeth. (and we know she read it because she quoted it in some of her letters!) Charles wanted to stuff radical changes in the government and church of England down the throats of people who knew he wasn't an absolute monarch!

Second, the Royalists rejected Alchemy before the ECW. If any side would use alchemy and Magic it would be the Puritans! Remember they ended all restriction on printing and distribution of Occult materials.

Even as historical fantasy, Clockwork and Chivalry is laughably third rate in its reaserch and history. And that's clear in the ads.

 

[carandol]

First, it assumes that the Royalists are moral equals of the Purtitans, bunk!

It’s interesting that who had the moral high ground in the English Civil War still raises such strong reactions! It must have seemed less clear-cut at the time or no-one would have kicked up such a fuss when the King was beheaded. We certainly haven’t made any value-judgments about which faction was in the right – players can have Adventurers from a whole variety of factions. Personally, I think both sides were as bad as one another; certainly Cromwell’s power grab was just as dubious as the king’s. I'd probably have been with the Diggers

Charles I wanted to be an absolute monarch, contemporary English people called England a Commonweal. I did my Masters on this stuff. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth descriped England as "Res Publica Anglia" in their formal letters. Elizabeth rewarded with honnors a Cambridge professor who called England a Republic in a book on the English Government he gave to Elizabeth. (and we know she read it because she quoted it in some of her letters!) Charles wanted to stuff radical changes in the government and church of England down the throats of people who knew he wasn't an absolute monarch!

Hmm, not quite sure how we failed you there. Perhaps we didn’t read enough Whig history.

Second, the Royalists rejected Alchemy before the ECW. If any side would use alchemy and Magic it would be the Puritans! Remember they ended all restriction on printing and distribution of Occult materials.

The ban on censorship had nothing to do with promoting occult materials, except in as much as it led to sensational accounts of Witchcraft and witch trials and the like being sold in penny pamphlets. It had a lot more to do with the breakdown in centralised autocratic authority and the unpopularity of Laud etc. But it’s all a matter of interpretation. However, none of the extensive list of books in our bibliography seem to interpret the proliferation of printing with a Puritanical soft spot for the occult.

As for the Royalists rejecting magic, in our alternate world the universe has been found to be as Aristotle and Ptolemy described – Copernicus is wrong, Galileo has seen the crystal spheres through his telescope, and so alchemy, far from being rejected, is being embraced by the establishment.

In reality, there were plenty of people on both sides still practising alchemy at the time – I did my own dissertation on Sir Kenelm Digby, a Catholic Royalist and friend of King Charles who was allowed to set up his own alchemy lab while imprisoned by Parliament.

Even as historical fantasy, Clockwork and Chivalry is laughably third rate in its reaserch and history. And that's clear in the ads.

Well. I'm not sure if we have hit a nerve, or if you have rolled a fumble on your righteousness test, but we are not forcing you to buy it. The fact we have a preview I hope shows we are proud of our game. We hope that people will enjoy playing Adventurers in the rich setting the English civil war provides and we hope that the fantasy element will appeal as well. I am a bit shocked at the level of criticism however - I have usually found the gaming community to be supportive as well as constructively critical. Certainly our intention is to add to that community not detract from it. I am guessing you will not be buying it, that's fine, but I am saddened that you would want to be so critical - others who have seen the preview have said they rather liked it and the play-testing has been brilliant. Once again, not sure how we have created such a hostile reaction, but there you go!

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I really liked the preview, but have another issue... hats in the illustrations.

No one but poor mad folk went outside without a head covering (and many wore them at all times, even inside at home)—so if in doubt stick a hat or head-cloth on any body depicted in the drawings.

It'll help keep the vapours out, and prevent lunacy.

 

[carandol]

I really liked the preview, but have another issue... hats in the illustrations.

No one but poor mad folk went outside without a head covering (and many wore them at all times, even inside at home)—so if in doubt stick a hat or head-cloth on any body depicted in the drawings.

It'll help keep the vapours out, and prevent lunacy.

We shall take our artist outside and behead him immediately. That doesn't do much to keep the vapours out, but certainly prevents lunacy. :shock:

But no... wait... it's an alternate history and... er... Thomas Hobbes started a trend for going bare-headed which quickly spread throughout the country. (Note to self, add that to the culture chapter, quick!)

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

We shall take our artist outside and behead him immediately. That doesn't do much to keep the vapours out, but certainly prevents lunacy. :shock:

But no... wait... it's an alternate history and... er... Thomas Hobbes started a trend for going bare-headed which quickly spread throughout the country. (Note to self, add that to the culture chapter, quick!)

A sound birching will do... as long as it is accompanied by a lengthy sermon on the dangers of playing with Hell-fire.

The Devil's ways are subtle to the unwary....

 

[carandol]

A sound birching will do... as long as it is accompanied by a lengthy sermon on the dangers of playing with Hell-fire.

The Devil's ways are subtle to the unwary....

I'll get Mr Cakebread to administer that -- he does a very good Puritan rant. (I can't speak for his birchings).

 

[carandol]

Mr Cakebread refuses to administer a birching on the grounds that our artist asked his subjects to remove their hats before he drew them -- a common custom in portraiture at the time, as a Google Image search for "17th Century Portraits" will quickly show!

 

[Astromancer]

Personally, I think both sides were as bad as one another; certainly Cromwell’s power grab was just as dubious as the king’s.

The king caused the trouble, Cromwell was trying to fix the mess. He failed badly (as an American of Irish Catholic ancestry, I'd say very badly).
But, in the end Charles was the foe of any religious freedom and an advocate of Absolute Monarchy. Cromwell, like Milton, was an advocate, however flawed, of religious freedom and constitutional government.

I'd probably have been with the Diggers

Only 'cause you're smart ;-)

Hmm, not quite sure how we failed you there. Perhaps we didn’t read enough Whig history.

Actualy the Whigs didn't like that sort of thing. Read Christopher Hill.

Well. We hope that people will enjoy playing Adventurers in the rich setting the English civil war provides and we hope that the fantasy element will appeal as well. I am a bit shocked at the level of criticism however - I have usually found the gaming community to be supportive as well as constructively critical. Certainly our intention is to add to that community not detract from it. I am guessing you will not be buying it, that's fine, but I am saddened that you would want to be so critical - others who have seen the preview have said they rather liked it and the play-testing has been brilliant. Once again, not sure how we have created such a hostile reaction, but there you go!

Frankly, I'm an American who has been sneered at by a fairly large number of Brits for being from a nation "Founded by Puritans" who is shocked that the Brits A) know nothing of how the Puritans fought for the freedoms the British enjoy, and B) know nothing of the facts of how much of both the positive sides of America and the Enlightenment come from the Puritans. The whole image of Puritans or even Calvinists as dour reactionaries in the 17th century is wildly ahistorical and deeply right-wing. Meanwhile, I read The New Statesman and every Hollywood film is attacked as right-wing propoganda.

You folks in Britain hold us Americans to inhuman standards. Why can't we ask humanly high standards of you?

If this seems to harsh, sorry. But the question stands.

As for 17th and 18th century Adventury setting. Cool periods, with so many great adventure options.

 

[Rurik]

I think you both are confused. Everyone knows the Civil War was American's fighting Americans. If there are Brits in the war you guys are talking about it must be the Revolution, or maybe the War of 1812.

(This interlude is solely for enterainmental purposes - mainly my own, and is not supposed to reflect on how stupid I may really be).

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Cromwell was trying to fix the mess. He failed badly (as an American of Irish Catholic ancestry, I'd say very badly).

At least he "fixed" the Dutch (for a while at least)—and everyone can agree on a lovely foreign war!