Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2011, 06:11 PM   #101
Hans Rancke-Madsen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
I find that it's difficult to convince people that the history books got the outcome of the Battle of the Bulge wrong.
I find that my players are perfectly capable of grasping the concept of alternate history.



Hans
Hans Rancke-Madsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:11 PM   #102
Mark Skarr
Forum Pervert
(If you have to ask . . .)
 
Mark Skarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere high up.
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyratejohn View Post
I find there's enough haziness in "pure" history, enough wiggle room, that this sort of thing can be done without calling it "alternate." Dig around for awhile and "conflicting" histories are bound to turn up. And some stuff, even in the modern era (the last 300 years or so), just wasn't written down.
I find that it's difficult to convince people that the history books got the outcome of the Battle of the Bulge wrong.
Exactly. Sure, there may be skirmishes that were never even documented during the BoB, or any historical battle. However, if the events of one can cascade out to change the outcome of the entire historical battle, then, congratulations, it IS an alternate history.

Anything pivitoal, even if the details aren't, the outcome will be documented. Usually quite heavily. And researchers go in and find more information. If you want your Pure Historical Game to have a lasting effect on the world, you're playing the people who made the change. And, in my opinion, that's even less fun to play. I'll read a book about it.
Mark Skarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:12 PM   #103
pyratejohn
 
pyratejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
I find that it's difficult to convince people that the history books got the outcome of the Battle of the Bulge wrong.
You are obviously missing my point.
__________________
Happily RPGing since 1976.
My Gaming and Reenacting Site (under construction)
pyratejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:14 PM   #104
trooper6
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

It seems to me that "pure" historical is being used in this thread in two different ways.

1) Historical--you can not alter the course of events.
2) Historical--no magic powers or vampires or zombies or other things to make it more fancy.

I think most of us (including the OP) are talking about version 2.

But that said...even if you can't change history, there are still really amazing stories to be told. Heck, there have been a gazillion interesting World War 2 films that haven't changed history and are still full of interesting stories.

But then, I am interested in people...and as the opening of Dragnet used to say, "There are 1000 stories in the city..." Micro history. The story of this particular group of people and their relationships to each other and their experiences in the war.

And then also, I was in the military and wasn't special forces and did lots of interesting things and made interesting choices...so I can see lots of interesting possibilities for exciting games even as a regular joe.
trooper6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:15 PM   #105
Mark Skarr
Forum Pervert
(If you have to ask . . .)
 
Mark Skarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere high up.
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen View Post
I find that my players are perfectly capable of grasping the concept of alternate history.
Which I would have no problem with. If I know it's an alternate history, then that's all good. But, when it's Pure Historical, that means that history, as we know it, has to be accurate. The Battle of the Bulge was not won by a single squad of soldiers with a tank doing the impossible. That would be more fun, but it's not Pure Historical.
Mark Skarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:16 PM   #106
pyratejohn
 
pyratejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Skarr View Post
Anything pivitoal, even if the details aren't, the outcome will be documented. Usually quite heavily. And researchers go in and find more information.
And sometimes that information changes history. And sometimes that change gets argued about or reinterpreted based on other information. Or archaeology. So in some respects history is fluid. True, some facts can't be argued. What I'm suggesting, to those who are interested in a historical game, is to avoid those facts that are set in stone and concentrate on things less well known.
__________________
Happily RPGing since 1976.
My Gaming and Reenacting Site (under construction)
pyratejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:19 PM   #107
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyratejohn View Post
You are obviously missing my point.
That could be true, possibly as a result of unclear antecedents. I have no way of knowing what you meant by "this sort of thing" if you weren't referring to what I was talking about (the outcome of major historical battles).
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:24 PM   #108
pyratejohn
 
pyratejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
That could be true, possibly as a result of unclear antecedents. I have no way of knowing what you meant by "this sort of thing" if you weren't referring to what I was talking about (the outcome of major historical battles).
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I wasn't dealing so much with the "Battle X Won on Day Y by Force Z" as I was "there were a group of guys in Force Z that did something vaguely hinted at by the history books." This sort of thing crops up all the time in pirate history. There are things that are known, and things that are assumed or theorized. I'd roleplay the latter.
__________________
Happily RPGing since 1976.
My Gaming and Reenacting Site (under construction)
pyratejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:30 PM   #109
pyratejohn
 
pyratejohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Columbia, Maryland
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trooper6 View Post
It seems to me that "pure" historical is being used in this thread in two different ways.

1) Historical--you can not alter the course of events.
2) Historical--no magic powers or vampires or zombies or other things to make it more fancy.

I think most of us (including the OP) are talking about version 2.
My GURPS High Weirdness game had 2. There were plenty of things that the players thought were inexplicable, magical, vampiric, etc., but they all had some sort of logical explanation.
__________________
Happily RPGing since 1976.
My Gaming and Reenacting Site (under construction)
pyratejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:38 PM   #110
Mark Skarr
Forum Pervert
(If you have to ask . . .)
 
Mark Skarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere high up.
Default Re: "Pure" historical roleplaying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trooper6 View Post
But that said...even if you can't change history, there are still really amazing stories to be told. Heck, there have been a gazillion interesting World War 2 films that haven't changed history and are still full of interesting stories.
But, by necessity, those are small stories, about small people, doing small things. Otherwise, it's an alternate history.

But, even so, even with your type 2, which I still find boring, though less so than your type 1, that drastically limits what you can do.

A WWII, type 2 story, still would be more of examining the events of the war and the individual toll it exacted on the soldiers fighting it and less about them saving the world. Sure, they'd be killing Germans and Nazis, and maybe even have some casualties themselves. But, the outcome of the war wouldn't be in jeopardy in the player's minds.

I wouldn't mind a film on the soldier's survival, but, to me, it would be a boring game.

And, PyrateJohn, I understand what you're saying. But, for me, there is no grab. And that's the discussion. I've run scenarios where the players know that, by the end of the scenario, all the characters will be dead. But, the challenge is seeing how long they can stay alive, and what they can do before the end. (I usually run something like that when the players encounter a video file or something that has information they need.)

My example before, with the two games, cites exactly my problem. Even making things up, but putting them against a backdrop of something real, minimizes the character's actions. And thus, makes it less interesting for me.
Mark Skarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fantasy, historical

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.