From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Historical Camapigns, was Converting a book into a world
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<1992Nov18.205701.26844@ncar.ucar.edu> <moonman.722123022@camelot>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:05:44 GMT

moonman@camelot.bradley.edu (Craig Levin) writes:
>
>	With respect to the thread, I'd like to ask a related
>question: What do you think is the proper way to design a good
>historical campaign? 

I *love* historical roleplaying - it's one of my two favorite genres,
easily - provided the guns aren't very good yet (I don't care to game
in settings with effecient guns).

>	One of the risks I'm afraid of running is "railroading" the
>characters too much. I'm a student of history, and I know the time
>period that I'm putting the characters into very well. In fact, it's
>the time period that is the subject of my senior paper. I have a good
>idea of what risks and adversities that the characters will be exposed
>to, but I am worried that I'll expect them to literally follow the
>historical pattern, when I know the players are a bit cleverer (if
>not more) than the historical personages.

Don't be afraid to change history, but unless you're into "alternate
timeline gaming" (and there's nothing wrong with that!), don't change
things grossly.  I wrote a sidebar on this in GURPS Swashbucklers,
using Queen Elizabeth I and Port Royal as examples.

Port Royal was destroyed by an earthquake on June 7, 1692.  If your
players happen to know that, they won't go anywhere *near* Port Royal
on that date.  But that's letting them use anachronistic knowledge, and
isn't right.  Therefore, don't be afraid to let the earthquake happen
in May or July, or even 1691 or 1693.  Keep 'em guessing.  While it may
not be historically accurate in one way (that's not the actual date the
earthquake occured), it'll actually be accurate in another way: the
players will be playing characters who have no foreknowledge of
earthquakes, just like real people . . .

On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth I was the target of many
assassination attempts.  The PCs may become involved in one of these,
on one side or the other.  However, if Liz is assassinated, at least
before 1595 or so, history is radically changed.  So, unless you don't
mind great changes, you really shouldn't allow any of the plots to
succeed.

But for anything less than that - such as the date of an earthquake -
change whatever you need to to keep the players guessing, and let them
change history themselves!  They'll have more fun, you'll have more
fun, and you won't railroad them.  After all, the greatest work of
historical fiction I know, _The Three Musketeers_, altered quite a bit
of history.  For one thing, D'Artagnan was *not* active in 1627 - he
wasn't even born then!  Still a great book - and you'll have a great
game if you don't try to stick too closely to what really happened.

To be honest, running an historical game calls on far more social
history skills than political or military history.  If you can convey
the flavor of the era, you'll run a great game.  Brush up on social
history, and let the rest go.  What did the people dress like?  What
was the relationship between different social strata?  What did the
average house look like inside?  If you rifled a closet, what would you
find?  How do men relate to publicly-active women?  What's
transportation like?  And so on . . .

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc