From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Historical Camapigns, was Converting a book into a world
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:51:57 GMT

In article <moonman.722123022@camelot> 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? 
>
>	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.
>

It depends:

1) You could tell people in advance just how much or little control they
have over the historical timeline. I don't consider this railroading, if
everyone knows in advance what will happen, they have no cause to
complain later.
	(I ran a WW2 Resistance campaign using these rules. My players
knew, before they rolled up characters that the campaign was going to be
a) realistic - the SS would torture people, Jews would be deported,
combat would be bloody, characters would go nuts due to the stress of
being spies.
b) historically accurate - the characters could not affect the course of
the war. If they had done amazingly well they might have been able to
shorten the war by a few days at most or save a few hundred lives. If
they did pretty well, they would survive and possibly decorated. If they
screwed up they would be killed or compromised. 
 	As long as everyone understood the ground rules, they were
happy. I'm sure that a bunch of people who wanted to play James Bond
would have been very unhappy after their first-and last- shootout.)	
 
2) You could have the characters be subordinate to historically
important characters. The PCs could make things easier or harder for
their leader and can attempt to sway their leader, but ultimately, the
characters will be ignored, and Cassandra-like look on as their leader
goes to his doom. Once again, the characters should be informed in
advance, they should also be given opportunities to save themselves if
things get hopeless. I have noticed that players don't mind if they lose
as long as their characters survive and gain from the experience.

	(General Custer, you CAN'T go into that valley, there's more
Souix than you think! There's at least 10,000 braves! We've seen them!
	"Nonsense trooper, you're exaggerating! We'll just set up a
three-pronged attack and wipe the devils out. Bugler, sound boots and
saddles!" 
	At this point the characters will be given the opportunity to
desert, go with a section that survived the attack, or actually, somehow
survive the ensuing chaos, or go down swinging, whatever the party wants
to do.)


3) You can more or less ignore the historical timeline and let the
characters do as they will.  Then after the campaign is over, you can
compare how the characters did vs. how well their side did historically.

	(Well...Historically this is what happened at Little Big Horn
<lecture ensues>. This is how I think you guys did compared to Custer
and Reno <another lecture ensues>. Based on this here's what happens to
you characters <rattle of dice>.   
	"Custer publically praises Lt. Sturdy for saving his life and
the Lt. becomes a popular hero and is promoted to Captain. Privately,
Custer realizes that Sturdy coshed him on the head and technically led a
mutiny. Sturdy will never make it past Captain as long as Custer has
anything to say about it. Custer dies in a riding accident 5 years
later, embittered by Reno getting popular credit for destroying the
Souix nation with the help of Crooks reenforcements.
	Sgt. Harris gets the Medal of Honor and goes on to a successful
career with the 7th Cavalry. He fights in other skirmishes along the
frontier.
	ETC. <details composed at keyboard>)

	This is a lot of fun, especially the "what happens to the
character afterwards" part. This can easily be done in any historical
campaign, if you know enough history to blend the characters into it.
Roll 1d10 (or 2d6) with high being good and low being bad. Add or
subract modifiers based on how tough the situation will be.

	(Character will be promoted on 9+, add +1 if heroic, -1 if
cowardly, roll 2d6 for performance. 12 = heroic, 2 = court martial. Roll
for wounds  5+ = no wounds, 2= killed, seriously wounded, 3-4 = wounded,
etc.)

Advice to a new GM:

1) Keep it moving - worry more about plot and characters than game
mechanics, but have a good grasp game mechanics and the genre, so you
can improvise freely.

2) If the players are getting bored, skip it, gloss over it, or call it
an evening. 

3) Tell a story. Describe (briefly) the sights, smells and sounds of the
character's world. Describe things differently to different characters.
(A mage will notice magical things, a merchant or thief will notice
wealth, a fighter will notice physical prowess - usually).
	Start "in media res" = in the middle of the story. Every
successful action movie does this, so should you.

4) As for feedback at the end of the session - If the players want
something, give it do them, if they don't want something, lose it.  


Good Luck, 

Tom.