Settings...Historical or Fantasy?

[UltraRob]

I was reading a review of a WuXia (Chinese Swordfighting) based RPG recently which used a setting that the reviewer (being familiar with the real thing) pointed out was in fact just a real period of Chinese history with a few name changes in important figures. And, the reviewer asked, quite reasonably, why bother to change them at all?

 

Which got me thinking (and I'm not just talking about Chinese-themed campaigns)...Which is better? To set campaigns in "real history"? To set them in "unreal history"? (real history with small modifications, like the presence of magic...) Or to set them in completely fictional fantasy worlds?

 

I used to be oriented 100% towards completely fantasy settings, after all, world building was half the fun. But, I have found myself slowly starting to see a great appeal in running in real settings. Our history is filled with so much cool stuff, and half the fun can be doing the research to make it authentic!

 

I remember a GM friend of mine told me about a campiagn he ran very much set in a real historical world...and before the game was over the players had become so engrossed in the whole thing they were checking out books on the setting from the library! To me, this is one of the benefits of using a real setting, if they want to know stuff, they can actually go look it up! (Although I find most players too lazy to do so....^_-)

 

Anyways, I was wondering what people here thought about the subject? Do you guys think it's better to go "real" or go for the full fantasy setting? (Which we all know will generally be based on elements of the real world anyways...)

 

In my own current campaign, I set it in Qing Dynasty China circa 1672, allowed for unreal/cinematic elements (it's a WuXia game after all...) and we were off and running...real maps, real setting, real culture and clothes and money...and everything I need to know I can find with some reading and researching. To say nothing of being able to use books also set in that era as supplementary materials and inspiration.

 

I'm finding it a nice change.

[austenandrews]

For my part, I like to get the details right for a historical setting. That means I do a whole lot more research than if I were running a strictly fantasy setting. For that reason I tend to run strictly fantasy, 'cause I don't have a whole lot of free time like I did in my wild youth.

 

-AA

[Captain Obvious]

I generally do a combination of the two. In general, everything is made up, but within a given area in the fantasy world, there is a strong influence from a real-world area or time period. That frees me from the constraints of history's certainty as well as the uncertain nature of a total fabrication.

[tkdguy]

I like pseudo-historical fantasy. That is, I do research on a time period and adhere to it somewhat. But I will make a few changes in history here and there. Since my world is a parallel universe/timeline, I won't sweat the details too much. Otherwise, I'd spend all my time doing research and have no time for gaming.

 

I've been on this nonmagical fantasymindset for a year now. I think my gamers would prefer a little magic, though.

[Eosin]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I generally do a combination of the two. In general, everything is made up, but within a given area in the fantasy world, there is a strong influence from a real-world area or time period. That frees me from the constraints of history's certainty as well as the uncertain nature of a total fabrication.

 

I do allot of the same. I take maps from one area, bastardize them and then take a culture from another area.

 

I spin in a little magic and whalla!

[Markdoc]

Both are good. I've run and played in a number of games set in historical settings and they have all been great fun. These have ranged from games like my Sengoku-era Japanese game, which had accurate maps and history, with a few historical personages tossed in, but also a fictional family hidden in an obscure corner of the country where most of the action took place. It also had ghosts, demons, tengu, evil sorcerors and more martial artists than you could shake a jo at, so was not precisely Takeda Shingen's Japan :-)

 

However, I also played in entirely historical games, with no magic, no sorcerors, no hidden history and that has also been great fun.

 

At the other end of the scale, I like running Fantasy games set in my own (high magic) world.

 

For there's the rub: most fantasy games, regardless of setting, have magic - and that tends to distort historical fantasy.

 

So I alternate. Historical fantasy has the appeal that I can easily throw together a game: all the backgound material is there for the pinching, and as long as I stay close to the real historical material, players can get into it easily. The drawback is that the kinds of things you can do are limited (although that's also part of the appeal!)

 

And when I've had enough I go back to my own fantasy world, or something else (next game on the slips, due to start in March, is a Gloranthan-based game using Hero system rules)

 

cheers, Mark

[UltraRob]

Originally posted by tkdguy

I like pseudo-historical fantasy. That is, I do research on a time period and adhere to it somewhat. But I will make a few changes in history here and there. Since my world is a parallel universe/timeline, I won't sweat the details too much. Otherwise, I'd spend all my time doing research and have no time for gaming.

 

I've been on this nonmagical fantasymindset for a year now. I think my gamers would prefer a little magic, though.

 

Which leads into the question of how important magic is to a fantasy RPG? Isn't what defines most fantasy worlds their magic systems or the influence of magic elements on society? If you are running nonmagical fantasy...why not just run historical games anyways?

 

Rob

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by UltraRob

Which leads into the question of how important magic is to a fantasy RPG? Isn't what defines most fantasy worlds their magic systems or the influence of magic elements on society? If you are running nonmagical fantasy...why not just run historical games anyways?

 

Rob

 

I could run a purely historical game, but there may be some elements my players and I would like to include or exclude, which would make the campaign historically inaccurate. Also, I can have a little more freedom in crafting my world if I deviate a bit from history. Perhaps my campaigns would be more properly classified as fiction rather than fantasy.

[UltraRob]

Originally posted by tkdguy

I could run a purely historical game, but there may be some elements my players and I would like to include or exclude, which would make the campaign historically inaccurate. Also, I can have a little more freedom in crafting my world if I deviate a bit from history. Perhaps my campaigns would be more properly classified as fiction rather than fantasy.

 

Seems reasonable.

 

Out of personal curiosity, why kind of non-magical fantasy game are you running?

 

Rob

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by UltraRob

Seems reasonable.

 

Out of personal curiosity, why kind of non-magical fantasy game are you running?

 

Rob

 

Something based mostly on 17th century Europe, with some Asian influences. I advertised it to my players as The Three Musketeers mixed with Enter the Dragon. Obviously combat heavy, but I intended to include politics and exploration. Unfortunately, the players didn't care for the last two.

[UltraRob]

Sounds interesting...Wasn't there a movie based on this kind of concept called "The Musketeer"? (Kind've a HK-style retelling of the The Three Musketeers, I heard.)

 

So, you made martial arts the focus of a euro-style fantasy game? Did you add more hand-to-hand styles? Or keep the focus on swordplay?

 

Oh, and how did you keep them from loading down on armour? Which limits lightswordplay and martial arts?

 

I find this idea really cool, actually.

Sorry to ask so many questions!

[Nolgroth]

I've always wanted to do a historical fantasy game. I think that's why Ars Magica always attracted me. The concept of a very realistic setting (medieval Europe) is very attractive to me. I think, if I ever had the player base, that I would set a cut off date for actual history and everything from that point would be some sort of divergant timeline.

 

The advantage is that you could do some pretty thorough research up to that point for the backstory and then let the players loose without worrying about following our own recorded history.

[Guest joen00b]

My first foray into Gaming worlds was Greyhawk, and as neat as it was, being a 14 year old boy, I did not want to read through all the manuals to know how to run the world, so I created my own.

 

Over the course of the next 19 years, people played in the world, discovered new lands, races, countries, continents; they're have been wars, an almost apocolypse, planar invaders, and a would be world conqueror or two, as well as thousands of adventures into all aspects of the world to where it is now:

 

2 3 ring binders full of names, places, descriptions, rulers, major player, maps, calender of the world, etc. The accumulation of all this in a ransacked set of folders that I'm trying to put all back together and update.

 

A daunting task.

[tkdguy]

I use lots of Eastern martial arts, but the names have been Westernized. I regret that decision because it confused my players, who are all Asian, myself included.

 

There is a lot of swordplay in the campaign, though. Since armor was no longer commonly used in the late 17th century, it is very rare. In any case, the characters are all civilians, they wouldn't normally have access to armor anyway. Perhaps a mail shirt would be worn under the clothing, but the characters can't afford it yet.

[UltraRob]

Originally posted by tkdguy

I use lots of Eastern martial arts, but the names have been Westernized. I regret that decision because it confused my players, who are all Asian, myself included.

 

There is a lot of swordplay in the campaign, though. Since armor was no longer commonly used in the late 17th century, it is very rare. In any case, the characters are all civilians, they wouldn't normally have access to armor anyway. Perhaps a mail shirt would be worn under the clothing, but the characters can't afford it yet.

 

Yeah, that does solve the armour problem.

I thought about how I'd do what you're doing, I think I'd go with the idea that a bunch of Shaolin Monks came to Europe around the 1400's and taught them Martial Arts (very plausible, but it does make it an alternate history) and then the martial arts caught on from there.

 

Rob

[tkdguy]

Sounds good, UltraRob. Thanks.

[ShelleyCM]

I enjoy running in historical settings -- early 17th century, late 18th century, early 19th century, but I've never felt compelled to make it absolutely 100% accurate. My last campaign was straight-up historical (GURPS 1793) with dashes of the Scarlet Pimpernet ("could have been" history). I found myself wishing for magic and/or psionics by about the 10th game, though.

 

-Shelley

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by UltraRob

Which leads into the question of how important magic is to a fantasy RPG? Isn't what defines most fantasy worlds their magic systems or the influence of magic elements on society? If you are running nonmagical fantasy...why not just run historical games anyways?

 

Depends on the players, usually. I don't need it at all, but many fantasy fans feel cheated without it.

 

I see three main benefits to running in a fantasy world, even if there's no magic. One is simply that you don't have to be beholden to historical reality in any fashion. That makes things much easier, in reduced research time if nothing else. A more important benefit is that it allows you as a GM to set up situations that never happened, but would be fun -- juxtaposing different time periods, different societies, etc. But for me the biggest gain is that it allows you to make a world the way you want it to be. Worldbuilding is one of my favorite aspects of being a GM.

 

-AA

[tkdguy]

Originally posted by ShelleyCM

I enjoy running in historical settings -- early 17th century, late 18th century, early 19th century, but I've never felt compelled to make it absolutely 100% accurate. My last campaign was straight-up historical (GURPS 1793) with dashes of the Scarlet Pimpernet ("could have been" history). I found myself wishing for magic and/or psionics by about the 10th game, though.

 

-Shelley

 

You could, if you wish, introduce some low-powered magic in an otherwise historical campaign. Frankly, I enjoy being able to do stuff without magic. I remember wanting to do that since I played AD&D 2nd Edition. The rest of my group didn't like the idea.

 

I think we share similar tastes on the genres we play. I only wish you were one of my players in my Castle Falkenstein game. Everyone else tried to turn it postmodern. I could have used someone to show everyone how to play it properly.

[ShelleyCM]

Originally posted by tkdguy

You could, if you wish, introduce some low-powered magic in an otherwise historical campaign. Frankly, I enjoy being able to do stuff without magic. I remember wanting to do that since I played AD&D 2nd Edition. The rest of my group didn't like the idea.

 

I think we share similar tastes on the genres we play. I only wish you were one of my players in my Castle Falkenstein game. Everyone else tried to turn it postmodern. I could have used someone to show everyone how to play it properly.

 

I wish you were here to run it! I have the original books. I have the GURPS CF books. I want to play it so badly!

 

Since working on Regency HERO, I started planning on a new, playtest campaign (I'm working on the character creation part now.) For the test campaign, I think I'm going to include low-level psionics as a possibility, possibly alchemy as well.

 

I felt bound by my no-magic no-psionics guidelines, because I was pretty firm when I started the 1793 game. (My husband gets annoyed when magic shows up in a no-magic game!)

 

-Shelley

[tkdguy]

Have you checked out the Enlightenment Fantasy thread on the Other Genres forum? There were some good ideas there from a bunch of players. I even thought of some minor magical items for the genre.

 

I still can't believe one of my players wanted to develop technology to the point that there would be mecha by 1940! As if I would have let him.

[ShelleyCM]

No, cool! I'll go look. This is the first day I've posted here (or really looked) in ages.

 

-Shelley

[Markdoc]

Inspired by Shelley's comment, one of the most fun evenings I had as a GM was through my Sengoku era Japanese campaign. Magic was not an option for starting players and the first 10 adventures (about 6 months play time) was resolutely non-magic. There were a couple of "early X-files2 adventures, where there was a dragon (which turned out to be some guys with a parade costume) and a goblin (which turned out to be a weedy guy with a bad complexion and an attitude problem).

 

Then in adventure 10, the supposedly haunted temple turned out to to be a REAL haunted temple with a real ghost (actually a bunch of real ghosts). The expression of panic on the players' faces as they realized

a) they were faced with a real ghost, not some ninja plot, and

swords don't cut ghosts and all of their vaunted martial arts were of little use, and

C) who knew what ghosts could do?

was just priceless.

 

Of course having opened the magic box a little at that point I allowed the players to add magical abilities if they wanted, though no-one really bothered. But that one adventure's play was worth the price of admission for me!

 

cheers, Mark

[UltraRob]

Hahaha Sounds like it was indeed worth it.

 

Shocking players is half the fun of being a GM!

 

Rob