Walking the line between historical and fantasy

[Dauntless]

One of my settings covers what I call a pseudo-historical pas asian world.  Originally I had intended it to be a alternate history setting detailing most of asia including the Native American indians roughly in the 1860-1910 time frame (to cover everything from the Sepoy Rebellion through the Filipino Insurrection and Boxer Rebellion).  But I also wanted a slightly mystical feeling to my game, not overtly so, just a dash of it.

The game world focuses on the philosophical and fighting orders of asia.  However, unlike many games I'm trying to do justice to the philosophical elements of martial arts.  Much like The Riddle of Steel's, well.....Riddle of Steel....I want one of the higher goals of the characters be to reach their own inner peace.  Virtually every martial art master I've ever done any research on has always espoused that the truest goal of martial arts is to learn to defend, not attack (with a few notable exceptions, such as Morihei Ueshiba's own sensei Sokaku Takeda who was known to be a very violent man who seemed to take no remorse for taking another's life....and he was the only man known to have beaten Ueshiba, though admittedly when Ueshiba was younger).  I want to capture this flavor by actually rewarding not fighting or by not killing your opponent.

Where my dilemma lay is in figuring out how much pseudo and how much historical I should create this world.  The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking about making this not an alternate history but rather an alternate world, similar to Earth but with its own countries, religions, etc.  The reason I'm thinking of moving in this direction was after a long discussion on rpg.net about why History games don't sell.  I'm quite fond of history, at least to introduce certain issues and atmosphere.  However, I'm also acutely aware of something Randall Wallce (the writer of Braveheart) said: "Never let the facts get in the way of the truth" (which is something I've also kept to heart despite what many may feel is my devotion to hard science and facts when coming up with some of my other game rules).

Unfortunately, there are quite a few gamers who see history as something inviolate, to alter any part of it is to destroy the very notion of history.  Another faction feels that history itself is simply boring, akin to going to history class in school.  Finally, another faction of gamers are the "anal-retentive grognards" who insist that if the slightest detail is missing, it's all become fantasy, and their whole enjoyment of the game is ruined because they wanted to play history, but now they're playing fantasy because the GM described a British Foot infantry soldier as having 10 buttons on his coat instead of 9.

By moving to alternate history, some of this problem is alleviated, but it still can affect the above gamers in much the same way.  I tried to get some players into Ars Magica, but they couldn't get past the notion that it was still Earth circa 1100AD, but with everything that was considered mythical as being true.  There's also the problem of people bickering, "yeah, but that's not the way it would have happened".

The other route is to forget any semblance of history and create a new world that in some way mirrors our own history and cultures.  But this in turn has its own problems.  For example, I've seen many people not take too much of an interest in the World of Weyrth (The Riddle of Steel) because it's too much of a clone of Earth (you've got your Celts, your Germans, your Scandinavians, your Slavs, your Normans, etc etc).  And I personally think Weyrth is pretty much fantasy.

Given that I want a setting that feels real to draw the player's in through its immersion, what's the best route to take?  Go the Middle Earth route and create situations that only remotely resemble our own history, go the Weyrth route that is pretty obvious where the similarities lie but still diverge on some counts, or go the alternate history route where pretty much everything is the same?

[Mike Holmes]

I think that you've presented three viable options. That is, there are games that do all three that are all played. You're focusing on the objections to each of the three, and not looking at what people like about each of the three (lots of people play in Wyerth, but you're listening to those who don't). Basically, there will be people who like each of the three, and people who dislike each.

Moreover, there's no data about which is, overall, liked more. I mean, if you go by games that are played currently, then you'd want to go fantasy to emulate D&D. But that's a terrible tactic, as people who are satisified with D&D are the toughest market in the world to reach. It's easier to get a game to be played by non-roleplayers than to convert the D&D players. There is no demographic out there waiting to be catered to more than another in terms of this breakdown.

So the point is that you shouldn't worry about the "problems" with any of the types in question. Instead, pick the version that you are most excited about, and create that. Because that will turn out to be the best game you can create, which, in the end, will have more effect on salability than will the choice of which of the three routs you decide to take.

To be clear, you just can't please everyone here, so don't try to. Pick an avenue and go with it.

Mike

[John Kim]

Given that I want a setting that feels real to draw the player's in through its immersion, what's the best route to take?  Go the Middle Earth route and create situations that only remotely resemble our own history, go the Weyrth route that is pretty obvious where the similarities lie but still diverge on some counts, or go the alternate history route where pretty much everything is the same?

Well, I personally prefer the alternate history route because it offers the richest source material.  i.e. You can include illustrations, books, and many other bits verbatim from real-world history to be used as source material for your game.  This was the approach taken by Deadlands, for example, so I don't think it is unworkably commercially.  

Fantasy approaches require far more work to achieve even a fraction of the level of detail which you get from having an alternate-historical work.  On the other hand, having said this, I am one of those people who generally likes detail.  I've never really felt that detail is restrictive and detracting.  I know there are people who do, but I can't say much for their point of view.

[Dauntless]

Well, I'm leaning towards the alternate history or pseudo-Earth versions right now.

The alternate-history setting means that I'll have to do more research with a little room for dramatic license.  The upshot is that the world will feel more real because it's based on something that's real.  Now it's not going to be an exact duplicate of Earth circa 1860-1910, but rather it would take many similar elements of that time frame and mix and match them.  But you would still have a Japan, a China an India and the European nations as well as America and the "Wild West".  But there would be some slight differences...enough to evoke a slightly different flavor.

The pseudo-Earth version would be something akin to Riddle of Steel's Weyrth or Legend of the Five Ring's Rokugan (without the magical fantasy part).  It would seem very similar to earth nations and culture, but it wouldn't be Earth per se.  It would have nations that seemed very similar to Japan and China and India, etc etc, but they wouldn't even be called Japan or China, etc.  The advantage here is that I won't have to do as much rigorous research.  Another advantage is that the metaphor will still be inplace even though the reality may not be the same.  What I mean by metaphor is that the world will introduce in its context the situations and events that the people of our real Earth had to face within the timeframe of 1860-1910.  The disadvantage is that there won't be as much detail to drawn on, and there will still be a certain leap of faith required to cross the chasm of disbelief.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards the pseudo-Earth version.  I can still research Earth history very well, but couch the details and setting in a "fantasy" world.  I'd sort of be "changing the names to protect the innocent".  This will please the people who dread anything resembling history, and may provide a smirk to the history buffs that know what I'm trying to turn into a parable.  It will also provide me a way to slip in elements that didn't happen in real history since it's a "fantasy" world, and the anal-retentive historians won't be able to complain that I'm not following history correctly.  I could be criticized for aping history and having no imagination, but hopefully there will be enough divergent elements and a specific focus that I won't be criticized of that.

[Michael S. Miller]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards the pseudo-Earth version.  I can still research Earth history very well, but couch the details and setting in a "fantasy" world.  I'd sort of be "changing the names to protect the innocent".  This will please the people who dread anything resembling history, and may provide a smirk to the history buffs that know what I'm trying to turn into a parable.  It will also provide me a way to slip in elements that didn't happen in real history since it's a "fantasy" world, and the anal-retentive historians won't be able to complain that I'm not following history correctly.  I could be criticized for aping history and having no imagination, but hopefully there will be enough divergent elements and a specific focus that I won't be criticized of that.

Hi, Dauntless.

I think you've missed Mike Holmes' point entirely. If your goal is to avoid criticism, you've set yourself up for disappointment. Remember this: no matter what you do, people will criticize it. I don't say that to discourage you, but to let you know that if you have some kind of idea that "doing it this way will please everybody," you're in for a nasty suprise.

Mike's point was: Please yourself first. What kind of game do YOU most want to run, to play, to write? Of all possible games you could write, the one that has YOUR passion behind it is the best one you could possibly write, not one that's calculated to be criticism-proof.

Why please yourself first instead of trying to please the potential customer? For one thing, you don't know what a potential customer wants. You may know what they say that they want, you may know what they've historically wanted, but you don't know what they actually want. If that were a knowable quality, folks who spent millions on market research--like Hollywood--would never fail. But they do. You can't know what the customer wants.

For another thing, there are a lot of people out there that want what YOU want. More than you could imagine. So if you write what pleases you, you'll be writing what's pleasing them, as well. And because it's genuine enthusiasm on your part, they'll be more excited about it as well. Ron discusses this phenomenon in The Forge as a community (Thread #5 of 5), one of the "Infamous Five" threads.

Someone--I don't remember who--once said "True genius is knowing that what is true for you is true for all mankind." So, be a genius, and go with your own personal vision.


[Edited to fix Typo]

[Dauntless]

Oh no, I understand totally.

I'm debating with myself as to what method of game world set up will best allow me to create the environment that I want to give to players.  Either approach will please me, but I also want to be able to draw the players in as well.

In the gamedev.net forum which is intended for computer game making, I've often said that a designer should create games that he himself is passionate about rather than try to guess what the market wants and pander to it.  Many have tried to do this, and they usually fail.  One of the best examples I can give is the mid 90's bankruptcy of Marvel comics.  When Marvel went public, the "suits" decided that they knew what the audience wanted so they forced this down the editors throats who in turn shoved it down the writers and artists throats.  The result were comics that no one really wanted because Marvel had lost the claim to fame of it's own nickname ("The house of ideas").

Instead, I wholeheartedly believe that one should create worlds and stories which are fascinating to yourself, and this enthusiasm will rub off on the audience.

My dillema is not trying to avoid criticism.  I've already dealt enough with that in regards to my game system itself even when people hardly know anything about it :)  Rather, I'm trying to figure out which world setting modelling will be able to get across the central theme and premise of the world.  And that premise is about a way of life....a way of life about honor, about respect, about duty, about self-knowledge, about committment to the group without forgetting the self and about total sincerity....all in the face of an onslaught of another way of life that stresses that the self is above all, that industry and mechanization is the progress and panacea for all the world's ills, and that the external is more important than the internal.  Each side has its dark side and its light side, and through the clash of these cultures, hopefully they can learn from one another.

My first inspiration came from the American Civil War.  I am in many ways fascinated by how history has manifested itself in this country about this time period.  Many believe that it was a war about slavery, and that the North fought the South in order to abolish this great evil.  And yet few ever know that Jefferson Davis had written letters to his brother trying to come up with plans to end slavery, for Davis knew that slavery's time was coming to an end.  Few know that 3% of the white southern population owned over 80% of the slaves, and so they do not question why so many southerners would fight to uphold an institution that in no way benefited them.  Few question how the wealth of the North was made not through slave owning, but by slave trading, and indeed, many Northern states continued the practice up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

What I found interesting was that truly, the victor had written history.  What happened was that the true raison de guerre was that the Northern states had in mind a way of life and government far different from that of the Southern perspective.  In many ways the ACW was a continuation of the fight between the English (in the North) and the Celts (in the South) and their way of life.  The North wanted a strong central government whereas the South preferred a more rural, agrarian and idyllic lifestyle.  What the North saw as laziness and unambition, the South would have seen as more of a respect for the natural way of things.  The North's belief in industry also went counter to the agrarian life of the South.  As author James Kennedy said, at first, industry was meant as way to produce goods to live, but now we live to produce goods.

What does this have to do with an eastern setting?  Because I saw parallels with how the Unionist government treated the Confederates, and later the American Indians and I saw how this idea paralleled Europe's apetite to carve up Asia.  I find it ironic that during the Spanish American War, at first, the Filipinos rejoiced when the Americans came, because the Filipinos had already been fighting a revolt against the Spaniards for nearly 10 years.  So they saw the Americans as allies.  But when America let go of several other former Spanish colonies but not the Phillipines (as McKinley put it, the US was there to eduate their little brown brothers). the Filipinos fought back against the Americans (and to put things in perspective, the Filipino Insurrection lasted 2 years, in which 120,000 US Troops served and more than 4,000 died....roughly the same that are currently serving in Iraq, and with more than 2 times the casualties in the same time frame).  Of course, this in itself was pretense, as America wanted a door to the rest of Asia.

As Americans, we grow up cherishing the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and we believe that it is our destiny and birthright for the individual to pursue these rights.  We also grow up cherishing progress, believing that through technology, commerce, and industry, that all people will be free from the tyranny of povery while through freedom and liberty shall be free from the tyranny of oppression.  So we seek ever more material goods not just to shelter us from the tyranny of poverty and great armies to protect us from the threat of loss of freedom, but our very sense of worth, and moral value comes from these ideas.  And although I'm part asian and have been exposed to some of eastern values first hand, the more I learned about eastern ideas and concepts, the more fascinated I became about the many seeming opposite views they hold.  Indeed, in many ways, it my own mixed heritage that makes me passionate about this setting.  

As I read history...of our own country and of others, I began to question.  And it is this exposure that I want to get across.  Players can draw their own conclusions and ask their own questions, but it is the clash of these values and cultural ideas that I want to get across.

My question is what method of storytelling would seem more appropriate or better able to get these ideas across?  I would be happy with either approach.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Dauntless.

Sorry for misinterpreting you, but the reasons listed in your earlier post were all about the potential reception of your game by outsiders.

Progress v. Traditionalism. Wow. Cool conflict. Now you've got me excited about this game.

I can't really advise you on which way (fantasy v. quasi-historical) will involve "the players" more. I can only advise on some pros and cons I see for each.

FANTASY
Pro: You can ignore any issues or details that distract from your central theme (like the slavery issue you mentioned) and infuse your entire setting with this conflict.

Con: The setting, being fictional, will lack some emotional punch. It's easier for people, I think, to distance themselves from the troubling issues raised and think "Oh, he just made that up."

QUASI-HISTORICAL
Pro: Actual history has a lot of emotional resonance with a lot of people. Even people who don't know the details of what has gone on in the past have often, without realizing it, soaked up references and opinions about the past. For example, if someone were to write an RPG in which the Holocaust didn't really happen, but was actually a hoax--as far too many fringe theorists claim--people would feel strongly about this game.

Cons: This emotional resonance isn't something you can control. People may be so invested in one side of the conflict that they can't see the other side with enough understanding to play it.

Also, there's the "historical noise" thing mentioned above. The importance of your conflict can end up getting hidden by actual historical detail.


So, both roads have their pitfalls and their straightaways. I'm sure there are more that I've overlooked. The choice is yours. I do suggest that whichever way you go, you keep your eye on that central conflict: Progress v. Traditionalism. Write it on a big sign and post it by your workspace. Write up quotes that resonate with you and hang them next to the sign. (hey, that's a good idea. I'm going to do that for my own game right now!)

I'd suggest working the conflict right into the game mechanics, but that's just me. If it's in the mechanics, the players can't miss it. They have to look at that conflict every time they pick up the dice. That's what System Does Matter is about.

Good Luck!

[Tobias]

Hello All.

First post (well, actually, second post, but I must've hit the wrong button), so if any more introductions are needed, I will gladly put them somewhere at your direction.

On topic: you could also consider the 'opening up' of Japan - which would have the additional benefits that it might still be somewhere in the collective memories of people due to the recent 'The Last Samurai' or things such as 'Pacific Overtures'.

But your ACW thing sounds at least as intriguing - I'm hooked.

--
Tobias
Working on: Your Gods are Dead

[Dauntless]

M. Miller and Tobias-
Thanks for the comments.  The progress vs. traditionalism theme is just one part of the overall theme that I'm trying to get across.  There are many others, including internal vs. external values. and the idea of self in relation to the whole.

In my original alternate history framework, I wanted to cover events from 1858 up through about 1905 in order to include the following pivotal events:

The Sepoy Rebellion (India vs. England) 1858
THe French Indochina War (France&Spain vs. Siam, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) 1858-1863
The American Civil War (Union vs. Confederates) 1860-1865
The Meiji Restoration-Satsuma Rebellion (Emperor vs. Dissident Buke) 1868-1877
The Frontier Wars (US vs. the Lakotas/Sioux/Cheyenne/Arapaho/Apache/Commanche/Nez Perce/Crow/et al) 1860-1890
The Sino-Japanese War (China vs. Japan) 1894
The Filipino Insurrection (US vs. Phillipines) 1899-1902
The Boxer Rebellion (Boxers vs. Western Occupation Forces) 1900
The Russo Japanese War (Russia vs. Japan) 1904-1905

Doubtless, there are many more important historical events in these time frames, but these were the ones I wanted to explore first.  I wanted to get a sense of time expanse that led America from the war torn period of the American Civil War, up through its emergence as a great power just before WWI (by 1917, we were already outproducing England, Germany and France combined).  I also wanted to get across the feel of the loss of a way of life that demanded simplicity but total responsibility for one's life and actions as well as the welfare of the group that was represented by the Asian (and Mative American ) cultures.

There was a very interesting scene in the movie The Last Samurai that got deleted but was available on the DVD.  In the scene, Katsumoto was talking with Captain Algren, and although Algren marveled at the Samurai's prowess in battle, he remarked how easily all of them could be killed with a single howitzer round.  Katsumoto remarked that it didn't take courage to kill your enemy from afar, to which Algren replied that it didn't matter, they'd be dead all the same.  So the discussion turned to honor, and Katsumoto revealed that this was the one of the most important things a Samurai had....his life was not his own, it was only given by his lord...but Honor was personal.  Algren couldn't understand, and seemed to imply that the samurai had no respect for human life, and that honor was a lost concept....the South thought it had it and was defeated, and the Indians with all their "savage nobility" lost too.

I wondered why they deleted the scene because it really summed up a lot of what the whole movie was about, and it also gets across many of the issues I'd like to explore as well.  While The Last Samurai isn't entirely historically accurate, I believe it is a more powerful movie knowing that it is based upon real events, and that our present course was shaped by these pivotal events.  I find it ironic that it was Commodore Perry's forcible opening of Japan up to trade with the US that in many ways directly led to Japan having to go to war with the US some 88 years later.  But then again, had he not, Japan very likely would have suffered the same fate as China had being divied up between the Western powers (and the Europeans discovered Japan had teeth to fight with after the Russo Japanese War).  It is this historical context which provides for thought provoking introspection that pseudo-fantasy worlds have great difficulty in achieving.

So I think I will go down the alternate history route, but diverge things a somewhat fiar amount.  The major events still take place, but I'll add some elements to make the game world seem a bit more interesting.

[Tobias]

Whoa. That's a LOT of stuff to cover...

I will admit (but that's personal taste), that I was more hooked by your 'little known facts about the ACW' than by your last list of events to explore - but that might be in the presentation.

As far as Last Samurai not being entirely historically accurate - hell, the entire samurai army's got their swords in their belts upside-down. :)