Which Real World Culture Needs a RuneQuest Book Next???

[Lord High Munchkin]

'Land of the Samurai' is a good example of poor magical translation.

Buddhism is a mystical belief, not theistic... so why the Divine magic?

Loz wrote it, which is strange as he also 'Dragonewts' which had a reasonably good psudo-Buddhist mystical system that could have simply been ported over—go fish!?!

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Cheers for the replies! Youre ears must have been burning!

Not at all. We just happened to be both perusing this forum at the same time.

Th republic was actually LESS adventuresome than the Empire. There was a very structured class system in place with absolutely no upward mobility. Once a lowly farmer, always a lowly farmer.

This is absolutely not true, where did you get that idea? Half of the timespan labeled as "Republic" is characterized by social struggles to grant caste mobilities - many of which succeeded. Have you ever heard of the equites class? They were the equivalent of the medieval burghers, not patricians but rich enough to overshadow patricians.

Enough apologies of Pete's book. Now there's a subject of more general interest.

Mesoamerica has possibility. It would have to be a fantasy version of it though. Theres just no point in detailing the day to day grind of subsistence. This is the problem, I think, with historical supplements. I dont find any interest in a book that describes a historical situation, there has to be some extrapolation, some integration of the cultures myths into the mechanics.

I agree wholeheartedly. But there are some that do not. Some people like to have "just historical" supplements, with magic not working. I think it depends on the setting, and how much the myths are embedded in everyday life. I think a mesoamerican supplement would be interesting in itself, but it is certainly more fun if you can actually meet a flying serpent.

Maybe this could be a good subject for another poll: do you prefer "Just history" for your historical supplement, or you want cultural magic thrown in?

I disagree concerning the freedom of the republican peasants for upward mobility. The pre-republican monchary (pre 500 BC) was a time of upheaval, but by the time the republic was established so were the powerful families, the land owners, the ruling classes. The plebians were able to force some change ('Conflict of the Orders'), but this took a full 200 years to bear fruit. Hardly an opportunistic time for social advancement...Patricians maintained their grip in the Senate. A certain amount of advancement was possible via the military, but there was a glass ceiling there too. Powerful republican families werent interested in equality or the advancement of plebs. Its naive to think that they were.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I disagree concerning the freedom of the republican peasants for upward mobility. The pre-republican monchary (pre 500 BC) was a time of upheaval, but by the time the republic was established so were the powerful families, the land owners, the ruling classes. The plebians were able to force some change ('Conflict of the Orders'), but this took a full 200 years to bear fruit. Hardly an opportunistic time for social advancement...Patricians maintained their grip in the Senate. A certain amount of advancement was possible via the military, but there was a glass ceiling there too. Powerful republican families werent interested in equality or the advancement of plebs. Its naive to think that they were.

The entire period of the Republic was a struggle to balance power between the plebeians and the patricians. You are making a mistake in assuming that upward mobility is limited to being born into or adopted by the first families, and only patricians could rule or control politics.

Although the patricians started off with a stranglehold on all magisterial and religious positions, over the Republic's first century and a half the plebeians were granted equal rights to almost all these posts (save for the flamen). In addition there were the Tribunes which could veto legislation debated in the Senate and many became demagogues who threatened to overturn the status que due to their personal power.

First plebeian tribunes - 494 BC
First plebeian aediles - 494 BC
First plebeian praetor - 337 BC
First plebeian consul - 366 BC
First plebeian censor - 351 BC
First plebeian dictator - 356 BC
First plebeian religious priesthoods - most by 300 BC

Since military office was simply a magisterial position until the Marian reforms, it means plebeians could lead armies too.

So for about two thirds of the Republic, plebeians have ample opportunity to reach the pinnacle of Roman politics... and with it rise to the top of Roman society as a whole.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I disagree concerning the freedom of the republican peasants for upward mobility. The pre-republican monchary (pre 500 BC) was a time of upheaval, but by the time the republic was established so were the powerful families, the land owners, the ruling classes. The plebians were able to force some change ('Conflict of the Orders'), but this took a full 200 years to bear fruit. Hardly an opportunistic time for social advancement...Patricians maintained their grip in the Senate. A certain amount of advancement was possible via the military, but there was a glass ceiling there too. Powerful republican families werent interested in equality or the advancement of plebs. Its naive to think that they were.

The entire period of the Republic was a struggle to balance power between the plebeians and the patricians. You are making a mistake in assuming that upward mobility is limited to being born into or adopted by the first families, and only patricians could rule or control politics.

Although the patricians started off with a stranglehold on all magisterial and religious positions, over the Republic's first century and a half the plebeians were granted equal rights to almost all these posts (save for the flamen). In addition there were the Tribunes which could veto legislation debated in the Senate and many became demagogues who threatened to overturn the status que due to their personal power.

First plebeian tribunes - 494 BC
First plebeian aediles - 494 BC
First plebeian praetor - 337 BC
First plebeian consul - 366 BC
First plebeian censor - 351 BC
First plebeian dictator - 356 BC
First plebeian religious priesthoods - most by 300 BC

Since military office was simply a magisterial position until the Marian reforms, it means plebeians could lead armies too.

So for about two thirds of the Republic, plebeians have ample opportunity to reach the pinnacle of Roman politics... and with it rise to the top of Roman society as a whole.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have researched the period well. We are arguing about degrees, rather than the issue. The period you describe is the period of the 200 hundred years I have previously mentioned. The period may be marked by plebian struggle, but the win was incomplete and very, very arduous. Don't you agree?

I will go further and say that the day to day life of the ordinary, non-land holding peasant during this time, was a matter of subsistence and hardship. Any 'rights' they acquired were long in coming. Hardly a time of great individualistic adverture. It seems less like a period to game than other ancient periods such as the 'democracies' of Greece, (Yes, I know they were just as grim in reality), or, even, the Imperial period.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

This brings me back to my initial point. Historical supplements are pretty useless unless there is a fantasy sheen, in my opinion.

For this same reason, I would have absolutely no desire to roleplay the real medieval period. In reality, it was a grim, relentless drudge. Stick some dragons in there, gloss over the injustices and the inequalities, and youve got yourself a game. Otherwise, writing playable, historically accurate scenarios is impossible.

And what is a fantasy version of medieval Europe? Gloranthas West? Whats the point of historical supplements when you can use history to colour your fantasy inventions?

Historical supplements? Not interested, thanks.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

This brings me back to my initial point. Historical supplements are pretty useless unless there is a fantasy sheen, in my opinion.

For this same reason, I would have absolutely no desire to roleplay the real medieval period. In reality, it was a grim, relentless drudge. Stick some dragons in there, gloss over the injustices and the inequalities, and youve got yourself a game. Otherwise, writing playable, historically accurate scenarios is impossible.

I strongly disagree.

There are many historical RPGs out there that work very well indeed—off the top of my head... any one of several Western RPGs, or Historical-literary games systems such as 'Flashing Blades', or even some of the non-mythos scenarios for 'Call of Cthulhu'.

It can be done. However, it does require a good writer (and there are sadly not too many of those); it's a lot easier to revert to easy fantasy tropes—which can often hide a mass of sloppiness.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

This brings me back to my initial point. Historical supplements are pretty useless unless there is a fantasy sheen, in my opinion.

For this same reason, I would have absolutely no desire to roleplay the real medieval period. In reality, it was a grim, relentless drudge. Stick some dragons in there, gloss over the injustices and the inequalities, and youve got yourself a game. Otherwise, writing playable, historically accurate scenarios is impossible.

I strongly disagree.

There are many historical RPGs out there that work very well indeed—off the top of my head... any one of several Western RPGs, or Historical-literary games systems such as 'Flashing Blades', or even some of the non-mythos scenarios for 'Call of Cthulhu'.

It can be done. However, it does require a good writer (and there are sadly not too many of those); it's a lot easier to revert to easy fantasy tropes—which can often hide a mass of sloppiness.

Yup, good point. I suppose, to be fair, it is possible, but requires some talent, as you say. Mind you, Western rpg scenarios are easier because of their 'local' nature. A world shattering scenario taking place in the republican period, which involves the complete and utter destruction of Rome, is going to have problems with believability. Id say most historical scenarios are going to have to have a very minor scope, by their very nature.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hardly a time of great individualistic adverture. It seems less like a period to game than other ancient periods such as the 'democracies' of Greece, (Yes, I know they were just as grim in reality), or, even, the Imperial period.

I'd disagree myself. I think the anarchy of the Republic is the perfect setting for any individual to claw their way to the top, or conversely fall to the bottom. But again that is why I wrote the book. There is huge scope for scenarios, from crime filled back alleys to racing in the circus maximus. There's even gods, proper Roman magic and supernatural creatures too for those who like a bit of 'fantasy sheen' to their campaigns.

But it is obvious that the period doesn't spark your interest.

Yup, good point. I suppose, to be fair, it is possible, but requires some talent, as you say. Mind you, Western rpg scenarios are easier because of their 'local' nature. A world shattering scenario taking place in the republican period, which involves the complete and utter destruction of Rome, is going to have problems with believability. Id say most historical scenarios are going to have to have a very minor scope, by their very nature.

Now there I'm going to have to say you're lacking a bit in the imagination department. What do you think the Romans were thinking when Brennus sacked their city, or Hannibal destroyed the legions at Cannae, or Caesar marched across the Rubicon - these were just a few of the times when Rome was either destroyed or believed to be facing destruction, and would be perfect cataclysmic scenarios of uttermost world-shattering importance to a Roman.

You don't need Sauron to make a good setting or campaign. Just a plot which has importance to the PCs and some roleplaying. :wink:

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Hardly a time of great individualistic adverture. It seems less like a period to game than other ancient periods such as the 'democracies' of Greece, (Yes, I know they were just as grim in reality), or, even, the Imperial period.

I'd disagree myself. I think the anarchy of the Republic is the perfect setting for any individual to claw their way to the top, or conversely fall to the bottom. But again that is why I wrote the book. There is huge scope for scenarios, from crime filled back alleys to racing in the circus maximus. There's even gods, proper Roman magic and supernatural creatures too for those who like a bit of 'fantasy sheen' to their campaigns.

But it is obvious that the period doesn't spark your interest.

Yup, good point. I suppose, to be fair, it is possible, but requires some talent, as you say. Mind you, Western rpg scenarios are easier because of their 'local' nature. A world shattering scenario taking place in the republican period, which involves the complete and utter destruction of Rome, is going to have problems with believability. Id say most historical scenarios are going to have to have a very minor scope, by their very nature.

Now there I'm going to have to say you're lacking a bit in the imagination department. What do you think the Romans were thinking when Brennus sacked their city, or Hannibal destroyed the legions at Cannae, or Caesar marched across the Rubicon - these were just a few of the times when Rome was either destroyed or believed to be facing destruction, and would be perfect cataclysmic scenarios of uttermost world-shattering importance to a Roman.

You don't need Sauron to make a good setting or campaign. Just a plot which has importance to the PCs and some roleplaying. :wink:

Hah! We're going to have to disagree again!

Lets not minimise the fantastic in our minds. Historical gaming may have a kind of respectability that fantasy lacks in the outside world, but I dont put a lot of store in that. You talk about Sauron as if he isnt one of the greatest fictional creations of the modern era. The utter apocalyptic capabilities of a character such as Sauron in an rpg is enough to encourage epic story telling and 'roleplaying'.

Its not that history doesnt spark my interest, its historical roleplaying which is the issue.

The problem with historical gaming is that, no matter who or what the PCs are, no matter what they do, they are mere side players in the stories of real historical figures such as Caesar, Pompey, Hannibal and Hasdrubal. Its not a lack of imagination thats the issue. If the historical timeline is deviated from substantially, youre not gaming historically anymore, are you?

Now, you mention Cannae as being of world shattering imporatnce to the average Roman. Do you know that, inside Rome, land which was occupied by Hannibal's armies was being bought and sold for normal market prices at the time? No, the Romans didnt consider this to be 'world-shattering', they considered Hannibal to be a problematic issue to be dealt with in a prosaic fashion. Not through the efforts of the individual hero, but through the dogged, determined unassailable will of the population. Rome isnt about individual heroes and stories, its about the surrendering of this individuality to the greater glory of Rome.

Scenarios involving back allyways and the Circus Maximus? Well, whatever floats the boat, I suppose. Even then, you are having to stretch realism to almost breaking point to accommodate these localised scenarios.

Compare these ideas to Fantasy Flights 'Midnight', or the Hyborian Age, or Glorantha, Tekumel, Middle-earth, the Young Kingdoms, Tragic Europe, Corums world, Harn, the Spinward Marches, Slaines Tir Nan Og, Mega City One, Alpha Complex, etc., etc., etc..

Historical roleplaying? Phah!

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Ah well, that's your opinion.

I suspect many will disagree with your views though.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

The problem with historical gaming is that, no matter who or what the PCs are, no matter what they do, they are mere side players in the stories of real historical figures such as Caesar, Pompey, Hannibal and Hasdrubal. Its not a lack of imagination thats the issue. If the historical timeline is deviated from substantially, youre not gaming historically anymore, are you?

Why not? You are playing in a historical setting. There is no reason why you cannot change history if you want to. Historical roleplaying is about adventuring within or fighting against the cultural and social constraints of the time - not necessarily sticking precisely to history... Although you can have fun with adventures where the PC's are the cause of famous events.

I once ran a game where my players were hoodwinked into a moral dilemma on whether to trigger the Charge of the Light Brigade. They had the possibility to prevent it from happening, but decided to go for it anyway, and half of them died. But they came out of the game bursting with awe and excitement. Yes they replayed history (their decision), but they really enjoyed doing it.

Now, you mention Cannae as being of world shattering imporatnce to the average Roman. Do you know that, inside Rome, land which was occupied by Hannibal's armies was being bought and sold for normal market prices at the time? No, the Romans didnt consider this to be 'world-shattering', they considered Hannibal to be a problematic issue to be dealt with in a prosaic fashion.

Really? Perhaps a couple of quotes from Republican historians themselves might be educational...

"As for the Romans, after this defeat they gave up all hope of maintaining their supremacy over the Italians, and began to fear for their native soil, and indeed for their very existence, since they expected Hannibal to appear at any moment." - Polybius (Book III.118)

"Never, without an enemy actually within the gates, had there been such terror and confusion within the city." - Livy (XXII.54)

Not through the efforts of the individual hero, but through the dogged, determined unassailable will of the population. Rome isnt about individual heroes and stories, its about the surrendering of this individuality to the greater glory of Rome.

You should read up on the early annalists. Many of the conflicts of the early Republic were settled by individual acts of heroism, men who were praised and well rewarded for their courage or self sacrifice. Here's one of countless examples for you...

"There was no singing of war-songs, no prancing about, no silly brandishing of weapons. With a breast full of courage and silent wrath Manlius reserved all his ferocity for the actual moment of conflict. When
they had taken their stand between the two armies, while so many hearts around them were in suspense between hope and fear, the Gaul, like a great overhanging mass, held out his shield on his left arm to meet his adversary’s blows and aimed a tremendous cut downwards with his sword. The Roman evaded the blow, and pushing aside the bottom of the Gaul’s shield with his own, he slipped under it close up to the Gaul, too near for him to get at him with his sword. Then turning the point of his blade upwards, he gave two rapid thrusts in succession and stabbed the Gaul in the belly and the groin, laying his enemy prostrate over a large extent of ground. He left the body of his fallen foe undespoiled with the exception of his chain, which though smeared with blood he placed round his own neck. Astonishment and fear kept the Gauls motionless; the Romans ran eagerly forward from their lines to meet their warrior, and amidst cheers and congratulations they conducted him to the Dictator. In the doggerel verses which they extemporised in his honour they called him Torquatus (“adorned with a chain”), and this soubriquet became for his posterity a proud family name. The Dictator gave him a golden crown, and before the whole army alluded to his victory in terms of the highest praise.” - Livy

Scenarios involving back allyways and the Circus Maximus? Well, whatever floats the boat, I suppose. Even then, you are having to stretch realism to almost breaking point to accommodate these localised scenarios.

Stretching what? There's dozens of scenarios you could run using the Roman criminal underworld, or chariot racing and gladiatorial displays - and they can be done with people of any class, even slaves! Watch HBOs Rome (concerning the Aventine gang), or Spartacus, or Ben Hur. Each one is a fully fledged campaign just begging to be run!

Do you think that just because it lacks demons, or lightning bolt throwing priests or an apocalyptic conclusion, that these campaigns wouldn't be great fun? If you need a dramatic 'world-shattering' conclusion, then how about an Imperial Roman campaign which ends up in a showdown at Pompeii, just as Vesuvius blows its top.

Compare these ideas to Fantasy Flights 'Midnight', or the Hyborian Age, or Glorantha, Tekumel, Middle-earth, the Young Kingdoms, Tragic Europe, Corums world, Harn, the Spinward Marches, Slaines Tir Nan Og, Mega City One, Alpha Complex, etc., etc., etc..

Are not the same difficulties with timelines and major heroes/leaders still present in some fantasy settings? Will not your PCs always be mere-insects to Elric, Gandalf, Dredd or Conan? Do you let your players overturn the doom filled fate of Moorcock's worlds or steal the One Ring? When it comes to cultural restrictions what difference is there between Rome and Tekumel, or even Glorantha in its latest versions?

When you get down to the grass roots, there's no difference between fantasy and historical roleplaying save that there is more overt magic and monsters. The storylines are still controlled by the ubiquitous themes of friendship, revenge, greed, fear, invasion, destruction, and so on.

Historical roleplaying? Phah!

If you need pure fantasy to make your scenarios interesting then I think there's something sadly lacking in the GM... Its like going to a play and criticising its scenery, rather than focusing on the acting!

Give me a scenario set during the Zulu attack on Rorke's Drift, or planning a revolt and assassinating Hitler, or escaping (or not) the sinking of the Titanic, or being a poor farmer robbing a tomb in ancient Egypt... and I'll have just as much fun as being an incarnation of the Eternal Champion.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

The problem with historical gaming is that, no matter who or what the PCs are, no matter what they do, they are mere side players in the stories of real historical figures such as Caesar, Pompey, Hannibal and Hasdrubal. Its not a lack of imagination thats the issue. If the historical timeline is deviated from substantially, youre not gaming historically anymore, are you?

Why not? You are playing in a historical setting. There is no reason why you cannot change history if you want to. Historical roleplaying is about adventuring within or fighting against the cultural and social constraints of the time - not necessarily sticking precisely to history... Although you can have fun with adventures where the PC's are the cause of famous events.

I once ran a game where my players were hoodwinked into a moral dilemma on whether to trigger the Charge of the Light Brigade. They had the possibility to prevent it from happening, but decided to go for it anyway, and half of them died. But they came out of the game bursting with awe and excitement. Yes they replayed history (their decision), but they really enjoyed doing it.

Now, you mention Cannae as being of world shattering imporatnce to the average Roman. Do you know that, inside Rome, land which was occupied by Hannibal's armies was being bought and sold for normal market prices at the time? No, the Romans didnt consider this to be 'world-shattering', they considered Hannibal to be a problematic issue to be dealt with in a prosaic fashion.

Really? Perhaps a couple of quotes from Republican historians themselves might be educational...

"As for the Romans, after this defeat they gave up all hope of maintaining their supremacy over the Italians, and began to fear for their native soil, and indeed for their very existence, since they expected Hannibal to appear at any moment." - Polybius (Book III.118)

"Never, without an enemy actually within the gates, had there been such terror and confusion within the city." - Livy (XXII.54)

Not through the efforts of the individual hero, but through the dogged, determined unassailable will of the population. Rome isnt about individual heroes and stories, its about the surrendering of this individuality to the greater glory of Rome.

You should read up on the early annalists. Many of the conflicts of the early Republic were settled by individual acts of heroism, men who were praised and well rewarded for their courage or self sacrifice. Here's one of countless examples for you...

"There was no singing of war-songs, no prancing about, no silly brandishing of weapons. With a breast full of courage and silent wrath Manlius reserved all his ferocity for the actual moment of conflict. When
they had taken their stand between the two armies, while so many hearts around them were in suspense between hope and fear, the Gaul, like a great overhanging mass, held out his shield on his left arm to meet his adversary’s blows and aimed a tremendous cut downwards with his sword. The Roman evaded the blow, and pushing aside the bottom of the Gaul’s shield with his own, he slipped under it close up to the Gaul, too near for him to get at him with his sword. Then turning the point of his blade upwards, he gave two rapid thrusts in succession and stabbed the Gaul in the belly and the groin, laying his enemy prostrate over a large extent of ground. He left the body of his fallen foe undespoiled with the exception of his chain, which though smeared with blood he placed round his own neck. Astonishment and fear kept the Gauls motionless; the Romans ran eagerly forward from their lines to meet their warrior, and amidst cheers and congratulations they conducted him to the Dictator. In the doggerel verses which they extemporised in his honour they called him Torquatus (“adorned with a chain”), and this soubriquet became for his posterity a proud family name. The Dictator gave him a golden crown, and before the whole army alluded to his victory in terms of the highest praise.” - Livy

Scenarios involving back allyways and the Circus Maximus? Well, whatever floats the boat, I suppose. Even then, you are having to stretch realism to almost breaking point to accommodate these localised scenarios.

Stretching what? There's dozens of scenarios you could run using the Roman criminal underworld, or chariot racing and gladiatorial displays - and they can be done with people of any class, even slaves! Watch HBOs Rome (concerning the Aventine gang), or Spartacus, or Ben Hur. Each one is a fully fledged campaign just begging to be run!

Do you think that just because it lacks demons, or lightning bolt throwing priests or an apocalyptic conclusion, that these campaigns wouldn't be great fun? If you need a dramatic 'world-shattering' conclusion, then how about an Imperial Roman campaign which ends up in a showdown at Pompeii, just as Vesuvius blows its top.

Compare these ideas to Fantasy Flights 'Midnight', or the Hyborian Age, or Glorantha, Tekumel, Middle-earth, the Young Kingdoms, Tragic Europe, Corums world, Harn, the Spinward Marches, Slaines Tir Nan Og, Mega City One, Alpha Complex, etc., etc., etc..

Are not the same difficulties with timelines and major heroes/leaders still present in some fantasy settings? Will not your PCs always be mere-insects to Elric, Gandalf, Dredd or Conan? Do you let your players overturn the doom filled fate of Moorcock's worlds or steal the One Ring? When it comes to cultural restrictions what difference is there between Rome and Tekumel, or even Glorantha in its latest versions?

When you get down to the grass roots, there's no difference between fantasy and historical roleplaying save that there is more overt magic and monsters. The storylines are still controlled by the ubiquitous themes of friendship, revenge, greed, fear, invasion, destruction, and so on.

Historical roleplaying? Phah!

If you need pure fantasy to make your scenarios interesting then I think there's something sadly lacking in the GM... Its like going to a play and criticising its scenery, rather than focusing on the acting!

Give me a scenario set during the Zulu attack on Rorke's Drift, or planning a revolt and assassinating Hitler, or escaping (or not) the sinking of the Titanic, or being a poor farmer robbing a tomb in ancient Egypt... and I'll have just as much fun as being an incarnation of the Eternal Champion.

Hmm. As Ive said, I havent read the Rome supplement. Im giving my opinion about historical roleplaying, and explaining why I find it unsatisfactory. You seem to think theres something wrong with this. I dont see why. You can dismiss fantasy roleplaying as 'lightening bolts' and 'demons' if you wish. Thats your opinion. Dont say there is something lacking in a person if he prefers one or the other.

You can quote Polybius and Livy all day. Polybius was Greek! And Livy, well, he knew absolutely nothing about military matters, and he wasnt even born at the time! You dismiss fantasy and quote Livy?! Come on. It was a fact that the land which Hannibal was camped upon was sold in Rome at the very time Hannibal was occupying it.

From Cary and Scullard...

'In the event Cannae proved one of the most indecisive of the world's great battles. It gave Hannibal a secure foothold in Southern Italy...but it failed to relieve him of the handicap of inferior numbers'

I hated HBOs Rome series. It was the most uninspired piece of popularist tedious drivel Ive ever seen.

The more you know about historical events, the less fun it is, IMO, to play out alternatives. So youre involved in a scenario which involves saving someone from the docks after Vesuvius erupts? Yeah, thrilling. Got Hitlers stats for an assassination plot? What is he?, like, STR 10? INT 10? POW? Zip? CHA? 10? Meh.

Rorkes Drift? What possible enjoyment can be gained from replaying it? Shooting a few Zulus? Ignoring the imperative politics of the situation for a bit of vicarious visceral RPG killing? Not interested. And I refuse to accept my lack of interest comes from being 'unimaginitive', or 'something sadly lacking', or a dislike of historical facts.

Quite the opposite, I think.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

A poor farmer robbing an ancient Egyptian tomb?

Yes, I can see it now. The guy breaks his leg, suffers a bronchial complaint from the airborne bacteria and gets his Muslim hand chopped off for theft. Lots of adventure possibilities there.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

And yes, by your standards of roleplaying, we could simulate the incursion of Sharia Law into Western cultures. That would be historical roleplaying. It only takes a bit of imagination.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Ding-ding! End of round! Break! Please back to your corners, enter the seconds!

The utter apocalyptic capabilities of a character such as Sauron in an rpg is enough to encourage epic story telling and 'roleplaying'.

Its not that history doesnt spark my interest, its historical roleplaying which is the issue.

The problem with historical gaming is that, no matter who or what the PCs are, no matter what they do, they are mere side players in the stories of real historical figures such as Caesar, Pompey, Hannibal and Hasdrubal.

I hope that you will find my Crusaders of the Amber Coast campaign earth-shattering enough for your tastes. And it does not alter history, it just gives an alternate explanation for why it went the way it did. Of course you can alter history in it, if you wish. I confess I used a lot of magic for it, though.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Ding-ding! End of round! Break! Please back to your corners, enter the seconds!

The utter apocalyptic capabilities of a character such as Sauron in an rpg is enough to encourage epic story telling and 'roleplaying'.

Its not that history doesnt spark my interest, its historical roleplaying which is the issue.

The problem with historical gaming is that, no matter who or what the PCs are, no matter what they do, they are mere side players in the stories of real historical figures such as Caesar, Pompey, Hannibal and Hasdrubal.

I hope that you will find my Crusaders of the Amber Coast campaign earth-shattering enough for your tastes. And it does not alter history, it just gives an alternate explanation for why it went the way it did. Of course you can alter history in it, if you wish. I confess I used a lot of magic for it, though.

Sounds good!

I dont have a problem with games inspired by historical events. Im merely saying that I think there is limited interest in a purely historical setting. You might as well wargame. The roleplaying possibilities are certainly stunted. The problem being that a lot of historical RPG supplements just prosaicaly relate the facts, are low on invention, and expect the GM to inject the creativity. That, I think, is the main problem.

 

[soltakss]

This brings me back to my initial point. Historical supplements are pretty useless unless there is a fantasy sheen, in my opinion.

Some people like the fantasy element, some do not. I know people who don't use magic in some RQ games because magic isn't real.

Personally, I prefer a magic-rich or magic-enabled setting.

For this same reason, I would have absolutely no desire to roleplay the real medieval period. In reality, it was a grim, relentless drudge. Stick some dragons in there, gloss over the injustices and the inequalities, and youve got yourself a game. Otherwise, writing playable, historically accurate scenarios is impossible.

Merrie England is more of a Mythic Europe rather than the gritty medieval one. Yes, you can play things straight without magic, but where's the fun in that?

Look at Folk Tales/Fairy Tales/Folk Songs - they have dragons and fairies, wizards and witches, talking animals, magic and so on. That's the kind of Alternate Earth that I want to play in.

Mythic Russia was a good example of that kind of setting. It was anchored in reality but also had a massive fantastical/mythic layer that could be used or ignored.

Merrie England does something similar using RQ. It has Fair Elf Land, magic, golems, demons, genies, sorcerers and magic. It also has Robin Hood and a realistic (ish) character generation that allows you to play in that setting. A future supplement will allow you to interact directly with Heaven and Hell, and you don't get much more fantasy than that.

And what is a fantasy version of medieval Europe? Gloranthas West? Whats the point of historical supplements when you can use history to colour your fantasy inventions?

Glorantha's West is not really a fantasy version of medieval Europe. D&D covers that to a large extent.

Historical supplements? Not interested, thanks.

Then don't buy them. If you have enough time on your hands to be able to research and develop different historical settings then fair enough. Most people don't, and historical supplements are for them, probably not for you.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hmm. As Ive said, I havent read the Rome supplement. Im giving my opinion about historical roleplaying, and explaining why I find it unsatisfactory. You seem to think theres something wrong with this. I dont see why. You can dismiss fantasy roleplaying as 'lightening bolts' and 'demons' if you wish. Thats your opinion. Dont say there is something lacking in a person if he prefers one or the other.

Oh dear, I seem to have riled you.

I have no problem with fantasy roleplaying. I run and play as many Glorantha/Elric games as I do historical ones. I was simply trying to encourage you to give historical settings another consideration, since most players I know find them just as fun.

However, I do find your strident statements that historical roleplaying cannot be done enjoyably or realistically, somewhat irksome. If you wish to continue believing this is so, then I shall withdraw gracefully. However, I felt the subject should be defended so that others can have the opportunity to make their own minds up. After all, isn't this thread about encouraging the production and enjoyment of further historical settings?

You can quote Polybius and Livy all day. Polybius was Greek! And Livy, well, he knew absolutely nothing about military matters, and he wasnt even born at the time! You dismiss fantasy and quote Livy?! Come on. It was a fact that the land which Hannibal was camped upon was sold in Rome at the very time Hannibal was occupying it.

Yes I can quote them all day. Polybius may have been born Greek, but he was a hostage who lived in Rome for 17 years, a close friend of Scipio, and wrote his history at a time where he still had direct access to first hand witnesses who lived through the 2nd Punic War and the civic documentation. Since he is the primary source of information about that period, I think I'll trust his view on the feelings of the general populace of Rome. :wink:

The more you know about historical events, the less fun it is, IMO, to play out alternatives. So youre involved in a scenario which involves saving someone from the docks after Vesuvius erupts? Yeah, thrilling. Got Hitlers stats for an assassination plot? What is he?, like, STR 10? INT 10? POW? Zip? CHA? 10? Meh.

Rorkes Drift? What possible enjoyment can be gained from replaying it? Shooting a few Zulus? Ignoring the imperative politics of the situation for a bit of vicarious visceral RPG killing? Not interested. And I refuse to accept my lack of interest comes from being 'unimaginitive', or 'something sadly lacking', or a dislike of historical facts.

Well, as you say - you are indeed entitled to your opinion.

In the meantime I'll continue to cater for those roleplayers who can see the fun to be had in such ideas, by writing more supplements and adventures for them...

 

[RosenMcStern]

By the way, many people replied to my poll on rpg.net, and the vast majority preferred little or no magic in their historical settings. I.E. the way Pete did it in Rome.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Hmm. As Ive said, I havent read the Rome supplement. Im giving my opinion about historical roleplaying, and explaining why I find it unsatisfactory. You seem to think theres something wrong with this. I dont see why. You can dismiss fantasy roleplaying as 'lightening bolts' and 'demons' if you wish. Thats your opinion. Dont say there is something lacking in a person if he prefers one or the other.

Oh dear, I seem to have riled you.

I have no problem with fantasy roleplaying. I run and play as many Glorantha/Elric games as I do historical ones. I was simply trying to encourage you to give historical settings another consideration, since most players I know find them just as fun.

However, I do find your strident statements that historical roleplaying cannot be done enjoyably or realistically, somewhat irksome. If you wish to continue believing this is so, then I shall withdraw gracefully. However, I felt the subject should be defended so that others can have the opportunity to make their own minds up. After all, isn't this thread about encouraging the production and enjoyment of further historical settings?

You can quote Polybius and Livy all day. Polybius was Greek! And Livy, well, he knew absolutely nothing about military matters, and he wasnt even born at the time! You dismiss fantasy and quote Livy?! Come on. It was a fact that the land which Hannibal was camped upon was sold in Rome at the very time Hannibal was occupying it.

Yes I can quote them all day. Polybius may have been born Greek, but he was a hostage who lived in Rome for 17 years, a close friend of Scipio, and wrote his history at a time where he still had direct access to first hand witnesses who lived through the 2nd Punic War and the civic documentation. Since he is the primary source of information about that period, I think I'll trust his view on the feelings of the general populace of Rome. :wink:

The more you know about historical events, the less fun it is, IMO, to play out alternatives. So youre involved in a scenario which involves saving someone from the docks after Vesuvius erupts? Yeah, thrilling. Got Hitlers stats for an assassination plot? What is he?, like, STR 10? INT 10? POW? Zip? CHA? 10? Meh.

Rorkes Drift? What possible enjoyment can be gained from replaying it? Shooting a few Zulus? Ignoring the imperative politics of the situation for a bit of vicarious visceral RPG killing? Not interested. And I refuse to accept my lack of interest comes from being 'unimaginitive', or 'something sadly lacking', or a dislike of historical facts.

Well, as you say - you are indeed entitled to your opinion.

In the meantime I'll continue to cater for those roleplayers who can see the fun to be had in such ideas, by writing more supplements and adventures for them...

You havent riled me, but your assumption that you are better qualified to talk about this subject is a bit irksome! :lol:

Yes, we know that Polybius lived in Rome. Yes, we know he was pro-Republic. But, so what? Your point was that the Romans thought the war with Hannibal to be somewhat apocalyptic. This isnt bourne out by the facts, no matter how much you wish it. No matter how much Livy you quote. Carthage just didnt have the resources or the friends to overthrow Rome. Even in its infancy.

This may be a thread about encouraging enjoyment of historical settings, but if you actually look at the poll, you will see that these suggestions are ENTIRELY fantasy based campaign ideas. NOT supplements that merely describe how many private dwellings there were in Rome at the time, or which legions were under-powered. It is about taking historical settings and using them, in an interesting way, as inspiration for gaming. Its NOT about historical gaming. It remains that Runequest/BRP is PRIMARILY a fantasy system. Yes, you can use it for other things such as roleplaying a Roman farmer or an Egyptian tomb robber. The point is, you will not use Runequest in its entirity to do so. You are using aspects of it.

My point remains. I am disappointed, often, with historical supplements for games such as Runequest/BRP, because the author often thinks that to recite FACTS, and to insert a copyright free map is enough. It is not, in my opinion. It often seems that historical supplements have been phoned in.

Anyone writing a historical based supplement for any fantasy game could do well to look at books such as Mythic Greece by ICE, because the book concentrates upon the GAMING aspects of the period. NOT what the author may know about this or that. I am not interested in the slightest what sources the author can quote. I can quite easily research any period I wish with a minimum of effort. The point is an RPG book should be innovative, informative and entertaining. It should be full of gaming ideas and have playable scenarios, whether it is a 'historical' supplement or a fantasy supplement. It shouldnt be that, just because it is a historical book, the author, somehow, renounces all responsibility to be entertaining and original.

Im tired of seeing supplements that are dull, uninteresting and lazy. Yours may not be, but so far, I havent been convinced to shell out 30 quid on a book which could possibly be entirely composed of duplicated facts from my library.

Convince me otherwise. You havent done so far.