Deep Medieval RPGing

[tkdguy]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

"Sire, the peasants are revolting!"

 

"Yes, they're quite a disgusting lot, aren't they?"

[Theron]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

There is for the Dark Ages - Harn. But not for the middle ages AFAIK.

 

Well, the Dark Ages were largely a myth, FWIW. I put Harn largely in the early medieval period, with a brief digression into late Republican Rome, and with some early high medieval, particularly in terms of the power of the guilded classes. It's a hodge-podge to be certain, but for my money (and I spent far too many years studying medieval history), it captures the feel of the age better than most other games.

 

It was quite possible to play a straight historical version of Chivalry & Sorcery, though the game is so crunchy as to make me use the Hero System for a pillow.

 

While Pendragon focuses on the medieval romance as a default, it's quite easy to play down those aspects of a campaign.

 

I've known people who've used Ars Magica without the magic. Because of the way the game is designed, with three tiers of player characters (Mages, Companions, and the communally-played Grogs) it's not that hard to strip out the mages and have a solid medieval experience.

 

The Riddle of Steel has a default setting that's a bit more "medieval fantasy," but to be honest, the magic system is very problematic and quite easily omitted, leaving behind a solid system for exploring any medieval or renaissance setting you'd like, with an emphasis on realistic swordplay.

 

Others mentioned A Game of Thrones, which is either a d20 or Tri-Stat adaptation of George R. R. Martin's series, "A Song of Ice and Fire." The d20 rules are the best gritty d20 adaptation I've ever played and the setting (especially in the early books) is very much a low or no magic high medieval setting.

[CorPse]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Good work! You've converted your simple, poorly built farm implements to weapons! You join a local bandit brigade, and begin stealing grains and fruits from the locals who weren't smart enough to become bandits, and start poaching on your Lord's land.

 

When he promptly dispatches a small group of conscripts with a Knight and they slaughter you and your families, and put your head on pikes as a reminder to others who would poach on the King's land!

 

Would you like to play again?

 

Awesome... this is like a medieval version of Paranoia.

[GothKidSamurai]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Burning Wheel perhaps with the magic stripped out?

[Curufea]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Well' date=' the Dark Ages were largely a myth, FWIW. [/quote']

 

Um, no, not really - not if you use it to mean the period of time between the fall of Rome and 1066. Which is basically the time period of my re-enactment club. Although if there is a new politically correct term, I would find it amusing to know what it was.

[tkdguy]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Two Words: Robin Hood

There was a Robin Hood sourcebook for HERO/ICE. It's long out of print, but if you see a copy, grab it. There's a lot of useful info there.

 

Getting back to the original question, TSR did a bunch of historical sourcebooks for AD&D 2E. These included Vikings, the Carolignian era, and the Crusades.

[Theron]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Um' date=' no, not really - not if you use it to mean the period of time between the fall of Rome and 1066. Which is basically the time period of my re-enactment club. Although if there is a new politically correct term, I would find it amusing to know what it was.[/quote']

 

I understand fully the time your describing, complete with the inherent Anglo-centric perspective (1066, indeed). The original term was coined in the early 14th century by Petrarch and expressed the view of the time that man was the degenerate inheritor of a greater time (Petrarch used it to include his own time, FWIW). It's generally considered a loaded term, as it focuses nearly exclusively on Western Europe and ignores a great number of societal/technological advances that characterized the period.

 

Far better to use "Late Antiquity" or "Early Medieval" if you're going to be taken serious by historians.

 

[EDITED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY SNARK]

[Spence]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Appears that the answer to my question so far is, "no".

And if quite accurate historical wargames exist, why cant an RPG?

 

To answer the question while avoiding the peasant question, here is my take.

 

The accurate wargames are accurate because they allow people to fight out historical battles which equals fun for the wargamer. Wargamers equate wargames as fun.

 

Historical RPG's will only flourish if they are fun. and in order to be fun most players want to play a character that is at least equal in the "party". In most RPG's the "leader" of the party is actually just one of a group of equals. In how many games are half the players satisfied to be "sidekicks". Maybe for a short game or few sessions, but they will soon tire of just doing what the leader says they can.

 

Historically accurate is great....for movies, TV, books and games (non-RPG). But for an RPG a completely historically accurate RPG appeals to the handful that get to play the boss but leaves much to be desired by the other 95%. It would be like the stockmarket. There are several successful board games that center on the stock market. But I doubt a serious RPG exists or ever will.

 

So Bob, how was the game?

Great! we spent a couple exciting hours doing market research and then Jane stunned us all with bold move. She sold all of X, Y and Z, and then used it all to buy A. Wow! Next session she gets to roll on her Marketing Skill and see if she scored big or goes bankrupt.

 

Now that will keep the players coming back for more

[Curufea]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

I understand fully the time your describing, complete with the inherent Anglo-centric perspective (1066, indeed). The original term was coined in the early 14th century by Petrarch and expressed the view of the time that man was the degenerate inheritor of a greater time (Petrarch used it to include his own time, FWIW). It's generally considered a loaded term, as it focuses nearly exclusively on Western Europe and ignores a great number of societal/technological advances that characterized the period.

 

Far better to use "Late Antiquity" or "Early Medieval" if you're going to be taken serious by historians.

 

[EDITED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY SNARK]

 

Vikings, Saxons and Normans are fairly much "Western Europe". So I'll be sticking with describing AAF as a Dark Age Re-Enactment Club.

Thankyou however, for your suggestion.

[jimmyjimjam]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Although if there is a new politically correct term' date=' I would find it amusing to know what it was.[/quote']

"Politically correct"? Who would be offended, the 12th century peasants who are still banging around today? As mentioned previously, "Dark Ages" is very much unused in academic circles today. One reason might be simple confusion--to what is "Dark Ages" referring to? The Ancient Greek Dark Ages? The early medieval one?

 

Of course, you may certainly call your club whatever you may wish.

[jimmyjimjam]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Vikings' date=' Saxons and Normans are fairly much "Western Europe". [/quote']

What about (in roughly the same time period): The Jutes, Celts, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Romans, Picts, Scots, Burgundians, Basques, Arabs (invading Spain at this time), Franks, etc.?

[Curufea]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

What about (in roughly the same time period): The Jutes' date=' Celts, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Romans, Picts, Scots, Burgundians, Basques, Arabs (invading Spain at this time), Franks, etc.?[/quote']

We didn't re-enact them. Although there isn't much of a difference between Picts and Celts. Not sure what you mean by Scots though.

[Doc]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Historical RPG's will only flourish if they are fun. and in order to be fun most players want to play a character that is at least equal in the "party". In most RPG's the "leader" of the party is actually just one of a group of equals. In how many games are half the players satisfied to be "sidekicks". Maybe for a short game or few sessions' date=' but they will soon tire of just doing what the leader says they can. [/quote']

 

I don't agree. I played in some game where there were no character egal to any other. There were peasants, merchants, scholars, orphaned pickpockets, lesser knights, barons, a duchess and one pickpocket kid managed to be some lost heir and became king! We all enjoyed play those kinds of relations. You know, people weren't constantly under direct supervision, like today (or maybe, even less, as there were no cameras or other means to look at somebody who is not there... (we didn't have magic int his game). Being a peasant under a noble isn't as being a slave (at least, under most nobles, as history showed there could be really insane ones...). Lesser or country nobles probably had a relations with their peasants ressembling the one a boss can have with his employees today.

[Spence]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

I don't agree. I played in some game where there were no character egal to any other. There were peasants' date=' merchants, scholars, orphaned pickpockets, lesser knights, barons, a duchess and one pickpocket kid managed to be some lost heir and became king! We all enjoyed play those kinds of relations. You know, people weren't constantly under direct supervision, like today (or maybe, even less, as there were no cameras or other means to look at somebody who [i']is not there[/i]... (we didn't have magic int his game). Being a peasant under a noble isn't as being a slave (at least, under most nobles, as history showed there could be really insane ones...). Lesser or country nobles probably had a relations with their peasants ressembling the one a boss can have with his employees today.

 

I'm truly glad you had fun. But an exception does not disprove a basic reality. If playing a historically accurate PC was considered universally fun by roleplayers, then the current topic would be asking why people don't play fantasy with magic and stuff. Most RPG'ers are into fantastic or larger than life adventure. If someone can roleplay a peasant in a historically accurate setting and have fun more power to them. Even if the petty noble interacts with his peasants, talking about the milking or the planting or the reaping isn't exactly what I would call exciting.

 

I can remember an old group that used C&S (no magic) to play "Historically Accurate [can't remember]". They had a blast. The 4 of them. They could never recruit past the 4.

 

But the vast majority of gamers were Traveler, old D&D, Empire of the Petal Throne or Rune Quest.

 

I prefer to run Pulp era, Modern or Future. But I never run a game about accountants, or soccer moms, or the life of a 8-5 wage earner. With very minor exceptions day to day reality is boring to roleplay. So most people run the exciting exceptions or insert the fantastic. My personal favorite is supers. Either Four Color or Pulp Supers.

 

If personal interest and personal belief of "what is cool and fun" held sway, all of Hero's planned 2008 products would be Champions or Pulp Hero with the exception of Victorian Hero

 

But unfortunately for me my personal opinion doesn't really mean much in the big picture. So we will get Lucha whatever and a few other non-Champs non-Pulp related items and I have doubts I will ever see Victorian Hero.

 

I'm just saying

 

[jimmyjimjam]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Are there "basic realities" in RPGs?

[jimmyjimjam]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

We didn't re-enact them. Not sure what you mean by Scots though.

I mean the Scotti.

[Spence]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Are there "basic realities" in RPGs?

 

Ouch! I really sounded like an a$$ there didn't I.

 

Sorry Doc. Not my intent. Once again my writing fails to connect with my brain.

[Doc]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

I'm truly glad you had fun. But an exception does not disprove a basic reality. If playing a historically accurate PC was considered universally fun by roleplayers, then the current topic would be asking why people don't play fantasy with magic and stuff. Most RPG'ers are into fantastic or larger than life adventure. If someone can roleplay a peasant in a historically accurate setting and have fun more power to them. Even if the petty noble interacts with his peasants, talking about the milking or the planting or the reaping isn't exactly what I would call exciting.

 

 

I agree when you say most players are in fantasy and that most people mix adventure and excitement with fantasy. I still don't agree, though, saying it's the only way to get it. For exemple, in the game I talked about, peasants and lesser nobles didn't talk about sowing or milking. There were a war going on and it affected every people in some way and every character took a heroic part in it. There is realism and realism. Having a complexe social and political, realist, background doesn't mean characters can't do anything. The part that is fun with a character is that you don't really care for him to survive as much as you care for your own survival. I mean you can take risks with a character trying to do things totally nut (or heroic, dependin...) without really worrying to lose your house or to go to jail or to be killed... There is adventure and excitement in a realist background; you just have to thonk about it and do some research, just like you have to to get a realist background anyway...

 

I don't pretend that a realist medieval background is a moral necessity for rpging; you just do what you want to. I just don't understand people saying that there CAN'T be any adventure in a realist way. Moreover, just to finish this, I also played a gamje where characters were all normal present people. It was a christmas special zombie game where we all had to survive with 75 points characters in the streets of Montréal now full with zombies! Very fun. Funny (because of the theme), but still very enjoyable and playable.

 

Anyway, I'm tired and I'm going to bed, nah.

[Spence]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

I agree when you say most players are in fantasy and that most people mix adventure and excitement with fantasy. I still don't agree, though, saying it's the only way to get it. For exemple, in the game I talked about, peasants and lesser nobles didn't talk about sowing or milking. There were a war going on and it affected every people in some way and every character took a heroic part in it. There is realism and realism. Having a complexe social and political, realist, background doesn't mean characters can't do anything. The part that is fun with a character is that you don't really care for him to survive as much as you care for your own survival. I mean you can take risks with a character trying to do things totally nut (or heroic, dependin...) without really worrying to lose your house or to go to jail or to be killed... There is adventure and excitement in a realist background; you just have to thonk about it and do some research, just like you have to to get a realist background anyway...

 

I don't pretend that a realist medieval background is a moral necessity for rpging; you just do what you want to. I just don't understand people saying that there CAN'T be any adventure in a realist way. Moreover, just to finish this, I also played a gamje where characters were all normal present people. It was a christmas special zombie game where we all had to survive with 75 points characters in the streets of Montréal now full with zombies! Very fun. Funny (because of the theme), but still very enjoyable and playable.

 

Anyway, I'm tired and I'm going to bed, nah.

 

All granted. Just to be clear though. I didn't mean to be one of those who says there can't be any. I was just (at least I thought I was) saying that it was the exception rather than rule.

 

Anyway, have a good one.

[Inu]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

I get why people don't want to play through the day job of medieval peasants. Do we play through the day job of most characters in modern-day roleplaying? 'You went to the farm today. That evening...' Or even skip whole years. Or even, god forbid, play someone OTHER than peasants. Don't even have to play nobles. City people exist in the middle ages, after all. And of course, 'historically accurate' doesn't have to mean 100% absolutely historically accurate; and even then, even in historical periods, there were people who broke out of the mold. And in games, much like TV series, a lot more exciting things happen to PCs than to most people. Just like Lenny Briscoe was the busiest homicide cop EVER, the PCs run into more interesting stuff than anyone else in town.

 

That said, I wouldn't want to RP in something that tried to be 100% accurate, because half the sessions would be arguments about what's accurate. Hence, varying degrees of dramatic accuracy are my cup of tea, getting all the way to 'drawing heavily from reality, but still gamey enough to not be worrying constantly about whether I'm getting it right.'

[Vestnik]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

Um' date=' no, not really - not if you use it to mean the period of time between the fall of Rome and 1066. Which is basically the time period of my re-enactment club. Although if there is a new politically correct term, I would find it amusing to know what it was.[/quote']

 

The PC term for "Dark Ages" is "Ages of Color."

[jimmyjimjam]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

And the PC term for the Industrial Age is "The White Ages

"

[CTaylor]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

There was a great old computer game in about 1990 that came from Germany, it was hard core medieval role playing stuff, with really cool alchemy rules and so on. They were going to do expansions for more areas and content but it never came out and the game just went away. I can't remember the name but it was a terrific product.

[Curufea]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

There was a great old computer game in about 1990 that came from Germany' date=' it was hard core medieval role playing stuff, with really cool alchemy rules and so on. They were going to do expansions for more areas and content but it never came out and the game just went away. I can't remember the name but it was a terrific product.[/quote']

 

Gothic 3?

 

Actually it may be another game beginning with "D" I vaguely recall...

[L. Marcus]

Re: Deep Medieval RPGing

 

No no --I think I remember that game, the clerk in our platoon played it . . . There was a subplot on satan-worshipping Knights Templars, or something . . . This was back in '95 . . .