Bringing History into Play

[Emily Care]

For a generic system, I'd suggest the following structure:

[*]Take a historical battle/cultural conflict.
[*]Establish who the stakeholders are (groups and individuals).
[*]Establish the stakes.
[*]Create pcs on either side in a situation that places them personally at risk, and in a position to influence the stakes of the larger events.
[*]Play out events, tieing them in to the larger goals of the groups of which they are a part.[/list:u]

Was I being unclear? I meant that the players should do this. This would encourage the kind of investment in it that Hans described in his experience.

But I may be off the beam.

Best,
Em

[Emily Care]

Ah. Thanks for the correction, Nathan. You're on the mark. The reference to HQ threw me off.

--Em

[Peter Hollinghurst]

A reward mechanic, as mentioned earlier, seems to me to be the easiest mechanic to use. As I suggested earlier, one reward is financial-we value things with 'history' in our society-so why not in an rpg settings society? I know it could be argued that changing the financial value of 'finds' in game to reflect rarity or historical significance may not sound like a mechanic-but if it has an influence on play I would suggest it is pretty damn close.
Another reward is developmental-experience based. This could also be tied to a reputation stat that affects realtionships with specialist buyers, governments and so on (depending on the nature of the setting). Players gain xp/reputation for historical finds or for learning based on history. Where dnd had xp for treasure, you could have a similiar approach that says xp only for treasure with a historical value above and beyond its material worth.

Another obvious mechanic is to use modifiers for quality of weapons in combat based on historical considerations (in a way legendary magic weapons also do this). The is done for armour. In effect most systems employ this mechanic-different types of armour and weapons do reflect historical developments, though the game systems rarely make this link explicitly.

I think the point I was trying to make earlier though is that ultimately mechanics is probably the weakest way to encourage a relationship to history in a game. The focus of setting, available background information, and adding historical flavour to such mundane game aspects as currency do it far far better. Ultimately it also depends on the game. The issue is not applicable in the same way to every game concept. It could be argued that cthulhu has a greater sense of real history ingrained in it because players actively investigate it all the time-its part of the rational of the game. Science fiction games, in contrast, rarely bother. I feel that it is the fantasy settings that suffer from the greatest poverty of history though, when ironicaly they would appear to be the best suited for it.

Of course a game could be created where a history rational is totally integral-perhaps where characters are 'possessed' by ancient souls, and then enact or unearth the past lives of those souls. At this level every part of the mecahnics could revolve around history-perhaps stats vary according to the distance into the past of the possessing soul from the host (more ancient ones being weaker)-a struggle could be enacted in the system to see who is in charge at given times (with contact with key history in game giving the relevent ancient soul a bonus to take over). Once a soul resolves its past, the player gains experience they can employ for future possessions.
Just a thought.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Peter, I don't understand why you think that mechanical approaches are the weakest way to bring history into a game. It seems like the posts on this thread have already provided some very strong ideas for counterexamples.

Could you please explain what led you to this conclusion? Specifically, what problems do you foresee in using a mechanical approach to bring history into play that the descriptive approach you describe avoids? I'm requesting that you compare the two approaches, not indict mechanical methods in isolation. Please remember that part of the goal is that all players in the hypothetical game must be the ones introducing and using these preexisting elements.

To provide this thread some direction, again: Nathan has described exactly what my goal was in starting this thread. I am not strictly interested in why my goal isn't a good idea, I want to know how it can be realized, and the implications of taking that approach.

I apologize if this post sounds very demanding. I'm getting the impression from Peter's post that there is thinking behind it that he's not elucidated for us, and I'm interested in getting at that.

[Peter Hollinghurst]

A valid point-I will try to go into more detail. Im not entirely sure I was putting my thoughts across all that clearly either ;)

First off, I think I should address your initial post in more detail:

It happens that RPG settings also tend to drip with history, but this history, in my experience, has never served an active role in play. At best, there's the occasional inn with a name like, "Waterloo" or "Cleopatra's Indiscretion".

I think that a whole lot of wasted energy is going into writing all this history bunk, just like all the wasted energy that goes into writing demographics bunk and culture bunk.

I disagree that settings drip with history-they tend to have chronologies. Real integration of history (the development of a culture, historical details, a sense of evolving fashions, lifestyles and son on that leave remnants and legacies) is almost completely absent in most games. It doesnt serve an active role because it isnt there. Even when chronologies feature they tend towards a 'battles, who ruled where and when' kind of approach. I agree about the wasted energy that does go into most histories I have seen-but not about the culture bunk. In factin your own post you decry the occasional Inn name being used as the limit of most history (implying more needed) then suggest that 'culture bunk' is a waste, when much of that is the only place in many games where even a hint of history might be found. Therefore I suggested that a sense of history is absent and not integrated into many games because it is not there in any real capacity in the setting. How can you have mechanics that acknowledge it when there virtually none elsewhere?
It is fine to talk about mechanics (and quite interesting proper to do so), but the mechanics themselves will have no context without all the 'bunk'. As I mentioned earlier, you can see a basic historical development of armour types in most fantasy rpgs-but it is rarely if ever put in that context. The developer of a system often looks at armour as basic different types-chain, plate, leather and so on and then jumbles them together with no recognition of why and when they developed. They exist purely for mechanical reasons (an armour protection value of some sort). History is occluded. Players do not get a sense of the values of particular armour to different social groups (leather to the peasentry, plate to the aristocracy), or a sense of the progression from chain to plate.
You may have a system that includes stats for protection of a suit of armour from an older period without a sense of just how archaic a character would appear if they wore it.

I would rather all this energy be channeled to some Actual Play purpose, so I'd like to discuss ways that game mechanics can incentivize the active use of historical (or cultural or whatever) facts, specifically predetermined historical facts, not ones that are retconned in order to justify various occurrences

My point here in reference to this is that there is a lot of 'actual play' history/mechanics-its just that no cultural/historical 'bunk' has been attached to them. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. My point is that only by using more 'bunk' will the existing historical mechanics make sense and evoke any real sense of history. Once the 'bunk' is there, and it is given an explict focus in the rational of a game (the reason why you do things and what you are doing) any reference to and use of mechanics can make more sense. I suggested that an incentive of increased financial reward could be one way to serve this purpose-it encourages players to move beyond a reductive approach to the physical 'objects' they relate to in the game for example. I suggested that coins could have a historical value beyond their material one because this would serve as an incentive for players to consider and integrate an understanding of their history into any 'plunder' they undertook.

I would also suggest that mechanics are actually only a part of 'actual play' in any rpg. Descriptive elements, verbal interactions and so on take up a considerably greater amount of gaming time and importance-all of which thrives on the 'bunk'. All that energy is already focused into actual play. Your own implication is that it is not, and by inference that actual play is predominantly about mechanics. I would disagree.

hanschristianandersen in his reply to your post suggested characters telling history/stories was a great method that had enriched his games with history-now thats totally dependent on the rational of the game, and on bunk. And it works.

In your reply to him:

Well, it is a blanket condemnation of setting backstory, but with special scorn applied to the irrelevance that it has in play - and I'm more concerned about that latter aspect. The fact that I think setting backstory is generally useless is exactly what drove me to start this topic - I am hoping to prove to myself that it can be rewarding and useful.

I would suggest that my own points about using history fit with both his posistion and your own in reagrds to increasing utility of existing historical contexts. By shifting the history away from simple chronology and current culture through linking them to in game 'objects' (everything from treasure to the archictectural style of an old temple) I was suggesting that you could use a primary goal of players (increasing wealth or status) as a means to encourage increased relevence. This can be gained via mechanics-talysman's approach wuld work well there-but still requires a shift in thinking about the nature and descriptive element of the game enviroment to have any meaning.

talysman suggested traits and passions involving history-yes that is dealing with aspects of mechanics-but they only work with the 'bunk' either pre-existing or player created. I think this is an excellent approach-and it would fit very nicely with the approach I was suggesting. Specific history skills that are rewarded for use in game would work well. A passion for that gives a character rational for it. Great stuff.

I would suggest that while some suggestions concerning mechanics have been made (some by me as well as others), the overall thrust of replies has been that while mechanics can be employed to this end, it is the rational behind how and why you use the bunk that is key. Ultimately it is the focus of the game and the depth of the historical material that has the effect you seem to be looking for.

Storn seems to totally refute your suggestion about mecahnics.

Michael S. Miller made a suggestion that is essentially one of rational as opposed to actual mechanics-

you can encourage GMs to craft their plots around historical details and open historical questions as listed in the history section.

the idea of recitation of history to gain xp rewards is fine-but it needs the history there to be used.

Looking at your comment:

but ideally I'd like to construct a system where there is no introduction of facts in play. In some unheard-of realm of perfection, I'd like such a system to be more or less freeform; with little preparation, it could be grafted onto any source of historical data and produce output instantly.

I do wonder if what you are after is a history improvisation system of some sort-one in which the players create freeform history together. Would I be right in that respect? In which case it is not so much a matter of the existing approach to history in games being tied into mechanics, but a whole different approach entirely.neelk's lexicon suggestion is interesting in this regard-but surely it still requires some sort of base starting point of historical background? Effectively a 'build your world as you go system'. What strikes me as a bit odd is that you say that ideally you would not any introduction of 'facts' in play-but surely once  any freeform contributions are made, do they not become 'facts' in the game? All you seem to be implying is that a real feel for history in a game should be created backwards by the players, but not pre-existent in game material. An interesting idea, but I would think it has less chance of working than the enrichment of existing material and changing its focus in game (something I would think most if not all the other posts have tended towards in one way or another, and demonstrated are effective).

This appears to me to be the thrust of Paganini's post here. It would have helped if you had made a reply to it earlier to confirm or disagree with his clarification of what he suggests you are after. I see you have now-thanks for that.
My suggestion was that mechanics often do make some sort of reference to history, but it is ill thought out and does not encourage players to interact with history-and I suggested several ways of doing it changing the focus of how material is used and presented in game. I would suggest the sort of status/financial reward focus I presented, while more about the detail of the setting and the rational of why players do things than about pure mechanics, would fit with his suggestion nicely. A change of how things are referenced is not, fundamentally, a mechanic.

So-to sum up for you. My own take on the general thrust of the thread is that while most posts (including my own) have had a go at providing a range of mecahnics that could be employed, the overall impression given is that the most succesfull methods are not predominantly mechanical but about the rational/focus, and that the mechanics that are likely to work best are merely supporting this. The change in focus has to happen first. So far as I can see all the fundamnetal issues you raised in your initial post seem to be best addressed by that change of focus in how historical/cultural material is understood and presented by the game designers and/or GMs involved, and that while mechanics can be introduced to help, they are not the overall key to effecting the change you seem to be looking for. It would be perfectly possible to produce the effect you were after without any change in mechanics at all. In fact, I would suggest that possibly one of the best examples of historical enrichment in an rpg product I have seen are the dnd forgotten realms 'volo' guides-packed full of history and atmosphere players interact with closely in those locations covered. More 'bunk' to you perhaps, but they did the job rather well.

Its not that mechanics bring any problems into play that a descriptive approach avoids, rather that the nature of history is more about flavour and focus than about systems, and works better in producing the effect. Where you state that the goal is that all players should be involved I would suggest that at some level (unless they are not in the room at the time) they always are-its a question of depth and nature of participation.

Again-I feel that perhaps you are looking for something not suggested in your original post. You say

Please remember that part of the goal is that all players in the hypothetical game must be the ones introducing and using these preexisting elements.

'please remember'-but what is there to remember? You never actually stated that this was your goal, or the purpose of this thread. Your own stated goal seems tohave shifted, or was never made clear at the outset. Could you clarify EXACTLY what it is you are after? I agree that perhaps we should not look at the 'why' of it now (my own take is that your presentation as to that was rather weak and obtainable better by other means, but if what you want is a discussion of something like history creation mechanics for use by players I think that is a fantastic idea and well worth discussing)
Are you wanting suggestions of a freeform game system for players to create history? If so Im sure it has both its weaknesses and its strengths. It is certainly very interesting-a 'cool' idea even. That certainly was not the impression your initial post made though (you mention using 'specifically predetermined historical facts' then). Later you seem to further confuse the issue.
I based much of my replies on the case you were presenting against existing systems, not what you are looking for in any alternative largely because you had not made this clear. I still dont think (even after you say Nathan got it exactly) that it is entirely clear.
I hope I have gone through the main points of where I have been coming from so far-and it seems tha much of it may have been from misunderstanding what your goal was. But as I said, so far as I can see you never made your goal clear. I hope my own reply here does clarify my thinking a bit and if I have totally misunderstood will make where and how more obvious, and I also apologise for the length and curtness of it-its hard fitting a lot of thinking based on a series of posts into a small space!
I am actually very keen to hear your ideas, because I too am getting the impression that there is thinking that has not been elucidated for us by you-and I suspect that it is fascinating and of great value. I also suspect that it would be best served by simply abandoning all the 'existing games dont do history well aspect' and start by proposing your concept in isolation as something new rather than a response to something else that I and other s have demonstrated here is perhaps misleading and inaccurate?

[Shreyas Sampat]

Thanks for your detailed reply, Peter. I think you've helped reveal some unstated assumptions on my part as well.

I disagree that settings drip with history - they tend to have chronologies. Real integration of history (the development of a culture, historical details, a sense of evolving fashions, lifestyles and son on that leave remnants and legacies) is almost completely absent in most games. It doesn't serve an active role because it isn't there. Even when chronologies feature they tend towards a 'battles, who ruled where and when' kind of approach. I agree about the wasted energy that does go into most histories I have seen - but not about the culture bunk. In fact, in your own post you decry the occasional Inn name being used as the limit of most history (implying more needed) then suggest that 'culture bunk' is a waste, when much of that is the only place in many games where even a hint of history might be found. Therefore I suggested that a sense of history is absent and not integrated into many games because it is not there in any real capacity in the setting. How can you have mechanics that acknowledge it when there virtually none elsewhere?

This only tells me that you disagree with my terminology. Let me try to be perfectly clear: All this material that I have condemned in my first post, which I think is a huge mess of wasted energy, that is the stuff that I'm talking about. I'm discussing ways that players can be mechanically encouraged to actively use that stuff. (I'm going to call it that stuff so that I don't load the term with any unwanted interpretations.) I don't care what that stuff's failings are (here). That's a completely different issue and it needs its own thread, because it's interesting in its own right.

To sum up: "I feel that a lot of stuff gets written about settings, but there is no inventive to use that stuff in play; it will only come into play when a group chooses to focus their game on it consciously and deliberately. I would like to talk about mechanics that can accomplish several tasks: Bring focus to this stuff by incentivizing its use. Allow different players to have different amounts of focus on stuff. Allow stuff to have some continuing benefit once it is brought to the table." (I realize that it's unlikely that anyone will play a stuff-incentivizing game if they didn't focus on stuff before, but that's a separate issue.)

Now, a lot of the remainder of your post seems to be saying, "This bunk needs to be there for your idea to work", which I had thought was explicit in my first post - I'm trying to talk about a mechanical incentive to use that stuff, which has to be there already.

So-to sum up for you. My own take on the general thrust of the thread is that while most posts (including my own) have had a go at providing a range of mecahnics that could be employed, the overall impression given is that the most succesfull methods are not predominantly mechanical but about the rational/focus, and that the mechanics that are likely to work best are merely supporting this. The change in focus has to happen first. So far as I can see all the fundamnetal issues you raised in your initial post seem to be best addressed by that change of focus in how historical/cultural material is understood and presented by the game designers and/or GMs involved, and that while mechanics can be introduced to help, they are not the overall key to effecting the change you seem to be looking for. It would be perfectly possible to produce the effect you were after without any change in mechanics at all. In fact, I would suggest that possibly one of the best examples of historical enrichment in an rpg product I have seen are the dnd forgotten realms 'volo' guides-packed full of history and atmosphere players interact with closely in those locations covered. More 'bunk' to you perhaps, but they did the job rather well.

Its not that mechanics bring any problems into play that a descriptive approach avoids, rather that the nature of history is more about flavour and focus than about systems, and works better in producing the effect. Where you state that the goal is that all players should be involved I would suggest that at some level (unless they are not in the room at the time) they always are-its a question of depth and nature of participation.

You say that these methods that other posters have suggested are about rationale and focus. Well, good! Mechanics indicate and create rationale and focus. Isn't there a quiet murmur always running in Indie Game Design, "If you have a combat system, it will lend focus to combat"? The entire assumption that I have been building this thread on is that a system can be used to control the focus of a game, a concept that you seem to disagree with - "The change in focus has to happen first...it would be perfectly possible to produce the effect you were after without any change in mechanics at all." I interpret that as saying you feel my task is a fool's errand.

[Michael S. Miller]

The entire assumption that I have been building this thread on is that a system can be used to control the focus of a game, a concept that you seem to disagree with - "The change in focus has to happen first...it would be perfectly possible to produce the effect you were after without any change in mechanics at all." I interpret that as saying you feel my task is a fool's errand.

I think part of the problem is two different notions of what constitutes a "mechanic." If I'm reading Peter correctly, he's advocating--for example--that coins with Nero's picture on them be worth more in the game world than similar coins with Augustus's picture on them. But he then claims that doing something like this will "produce the effect you were after without any change in mechanics at all." Where this breaks down is that by tying Reward (in-game monetary value) to the historical significance of the object, he's created a mechanic.

Peter, am I understanding you correctly? If so, why don't you consider your historical-valuation-of-treasure to be a mechanic?

Shreyas, have you found anyone's suggestions in this thread to be helpful?

Whether you have or haven't, here's another one: Character Creation systems can be steeped in history. )See Pendragon for the best examples of this--heck, for some of the best examples of integrating history into gameplay generally.) When we were putting together FVLMINATA, we considered a sort of list that would list relatively recent (last 75 years or so) happenings of historical import. Players would have been encouraged to add these to their characters' backgrounds: "I was at the battle of X," "I was a loyal client of Senator Y, who nearly became Emperor 5 years ago, but was executed for treason instead." That kind of thing. These could then be used like Kickers to wrap the whole story in a mantle of history. The idea never made it to the finished game, due to time constraints. But it's another way to work the stuff into actual play.

That doesn't even touch on LifePath-style systems (which I'm less familiar with).

[Peter Hollinghurst]

Thanks-thats helped me somewhat in understanding at least where any communication difficulties exist between us (always handy to clear them up). Im actually not trying to suggest this is a fools errand at all-in fact, as I have said before, the concept of mechanics that encourage play focusing on history is a valid and interesting one. Perhaps the term 'bunk' did load my interpretation of your view of the historical background material somewhat. Certainly where I come from 'Bunk' is taken as a short form of 'bunkum' meaning bombastic rubbish, which did sugget to me that you were dismissing the use of such material.  

I still feel that the problem you identified with such material being ultimately wasted and underused is one that can be addressed most effectively by changing the nature of that material and its focus towards one that integrates with its use in play-but, please note, I agree completely that it is usually underused and often wasted. Certainly system mechanics are also going to be a productive and rewarding way to address the issue-I merely stated that I did not feel it was the most effective way-its merely one of many. I am a firm believer that mechanics should integrate with setting at all levels possible, so I do believe that it is of great importance to address the issue of how you can use them to promote it. I would not have suggested some possible approaches if I did not believe this.

My suggestion centered around looking at mechanics that tie into the key motivations of players in a game-for example if you have a game that encourages plunder and tomb raiding, the mechanics of such should reward players for focusing on these aspects by providing them rewards in experience, status and wealth. Combat mechanics would have little relevence in that scenario. In contrast, a combat heavy game would need to focus on the role of history within combat, the values and origins of weapons and armour would have to be encouraged not on how much damage they absorb/do, but on cultural factors as well-concepts such as reaction modifiers of NPCs might come into play if someone used outdated or inappropriate forms, despite their effectiveness. I believe that to some extent existing games have attempted to address some of these issues, but in a half hearted way-I suspect that if you went through some of the old dnd books and simply changed the wording or added a few bits of text on why certain game modifiers exist that you would start to get some of the response from players you are looking for.

I think I overstressed my feelings that changing the focus of historical backgrounds would be more productive though, and should have stuck more to the mechanics issues themselves, because it has elicited a reaction from you I did not intend to invoke. In responding to that you seem to have missed my other points that supported your interest in the mechanics issue. My tendency to make long posts with multiple points can be rather counter-productive sometimes-sorry about that!
Just because I feel that there are other ways to produce the effect you are after does not in any way make a focus on the mechanics themselves a fools errand. That is a bit like saying that just because you can drive somewhere means its stupid to ever walk anywhere-they are different activities with different benefits and drawbacks, both valid in their own way. I think that evolving mechanics to address the issue is a valuable way of  doing so, but not the only way, nor the most immediately effctive way. The mechanics are important because every aspect of a game should ideally be in harmony with its overall objectives and rationale. If it isnt, I would certainly agree that it can and often does produce unwanted affects and wasteage of other material. I feel that White Wolf fell headlong into that issue with vampire for example, in that on one hand they put an emphasis on storytelling methods, and then they orientated their mechanics in such a way that they failed to fully support it.

Mechanics must be addressed. With that in mind I shall confine any future replies purely to mechanics to save on any distraction from them as an essential issue.

One question remains unanswered for me however-how extensive a look at mechanics are you after here? Small 'tweaks' to common approaches, or radical all embracing approaches to an entire game concept and its supporting systems?

[Shreyas Sampat]

I cannot reply in serious depth to this topic for a couple of days, but I wanted to address two points in particular:

Michael, yes, I think that the ideas in this thread have been great, and once I return I will offer some of my own thoughts as well.

Peter, in response to how specific an approach I'm thinking about - I'm curious to see approaches of all kinds. (Being a big proponent of Integrated Design, I think that the radical all-embracing approach is the ideal one, but that's not useful for people who are looking for stuff support in an existing game, say.)

[Peter Hollinghurst]

Michael-that was very helpful-thank you.

Yes, I agree that some of the conflict of interpretation may revolve around such issues. I would tend towards an approach that there are actual mechanics (the reward system itself) and contextual uses of those mechanics (the descriptive text used to describe the mechanic). I would place my coin suggestion as a contextual use of a mechanic, rather than a mechanic in itself. Thus I was suggesting that existing mechanics could be made more effective in producing the desired goal by changing their contextual usage rather than building completing completely new mechanics. A change of focus as opposed to a complete new start. I would suggest that its the focus on an existing mechanic that my coin suggestion changed, not that it was a new one. However, I really see no problem with defining it either way if it does the job intended. The semantics are not as important as the object of it all. Though I must admit that differences in usage of terms does tend toward creating communication difficulties! I have no real fundamental problem with my coin suggestion being called a new mechanic if it helps. Im quite happy to accept specific terms being used in ways I would otherwise dispute for a given discussion. Defining their usage helps greatly, and I think you have done this well here. Thank you.

You have mentioned two games that I agree are highly relevent here-Pendragon and FVLMINATA-both games I think are utterly brilliant by the way (I got my copy of FVLMINATA fairly recently abnd havent played it yet, but it looks like a highly rewarding game to game). Both certainly have approaches that do integrate a sense of history with the mechanics used in play. As such they would, I think, be excellent examples of the sort of practical mechanics that are relevent here. The passions system in Pendragon always proved incredibly effective at this when I played it.

[ScottM]

Perhaps specific examples would be useful?  I know you're fishing for mechanics, but perhaps by commenting on some, we can select a narrower focus.

Background history (in the rulebook): The Duchy of Karlaff was conquered by the Yall empire 127 years ago. For fifty years prior to that it had been weakly aligned with the Falpian States, a loose confederation similar to the (real life) Hanestic League. The Dutchy is filled with happy peasants-- though they had no unique products, the grain they produce is nearly immune to blight. The last famine happened 107 years ago when the province was stripped of its grain by the empire in retaliation for an uprising against its rule.

The PCs are from one of the cities that used to be a part of the Falpian states. Let's say they're a group of Merchant Adventurers, and that they're entering the Duchy of Karlaff.  Boris is the chief merchant and leader of the group of PCs. Clive is a spy posing as one of Boris's guards.

Mechanic Example 1: Boris sips his tea over the evening fire.  "We'll have to be doubly alert tonight; the Yall empire is strict about bandits, but they merely exile them.  They hover about the fringes of the empire, preying on commerce going in and out."  (Assume this is all paraphrase from the rulebook history.)  [Can Boris and his companions get an alertness bump or something similar?]

Mechanic Example 2: The next evening Boris tells his men, "I know that the language is strange, but they've been a part of the Empire for only a hundred or so years. If you listen carefully, you can make out the Falpian roots of the language." [If this is not in the rulebook, does the player have the authority to say this? Does the party get a bonus to language checks, or perhaps less of a penalty to their trade skills? Is it disallowed because it's extrapolation?]

Mechanic Example 3: After a frustrating day where their foreign language has put them at a disadvantage, Boris suggests that they should ride to the next village.  His player suggests that smaller towns are often slow to change, so there be more Falpian dialect left.  [Perhaps he pays some currency, like a pip of temporary history, to make it true? If so, how much does he have to rely on his analogy to 'real small towns'?]

Mechanic Example 4: Clive sneaks off to talk with the Duke of Karlaff.  The discussion goes badly (perhaps the Duke mentions the brutal oppression that followed their last revolt).  Clive wants to find a different ally, so he suggests, "I'll look for a young radical; its been 107 years since the last crackdown, so there should be plenty of dreamers and no one who directly remembers the events to cool his ardor."  [Does he get a mechanical bonus to contacts roll find his radical? Is this an informal suggestion to the GM (who traditionally has the NPC generation portfolio)?]

I hope that these examples provide something of a springboard.
--Scott Martin

[Edit: while I wrote this, the last three or so messages trickled out. They're still here if necessary, but Shreyas' call makes it sound like specific mechanics (more specific than I've sketched above) are desired now.]

[Storn]

Storn seems to totally refute your suggestion about mecahnics.

Wow.  That seems to be overly strong.  "totally refute?"  When I actually talked myself into accepting the reward mechanic idea?  Geez, I think I've been misinterperted.

No, what I'm saying about mechanics via History That Is To Be Used In Play By Players is that it is damn tough to come up with them.

ScottM examples show a nice reward ideal.    But in actual gameplay?  I, as a GM who plays with a lot  of history, does not want to think of the bonuses folks should get for actions.  It isn't that bonuses shouldn't be granted... I love bonuses for good ideas.  But the fact that I have to weight and balance the gradation of bonuses... Is the Clive the Spy's historical argeument worth more bonus than Boris's call for alertness?

In a very political game like mine, Knowledge IS Power.  In fact, I half heartedly joke that my fantasy game combat and adventure sessions are the result of policy being carried out.  In a game of Thrones, Knowledge has its own rewards:  Power, Understanding, Initiative.  Knowing the History, or maybe the TRUE history of things is very, very important to the PCs.  They listen, they contribute and they act upon history.

But that comes from a Plot driven place and the role playing ... not mechanics.  

I'm not against the idea of exploring this thru mechanics... but I haven't seen much of an idea that I would want to implement that doesn't feel kludgy... and I hate kludgy mechanics.

If you want PCs to contribute, then you have to accept the possibility of RetroConning of the info.  I have NO problem with that, this happens almost every time a new PC is introduced.  Or a player introduces an aspect of the PC's backstory to fit in nicely with the current storyline.  Happens all the time.

But somewhere, you said you were not interested in Retcon.  

To ME, this is what this thread sounds like:

I want Players to pay attention to the history of the world.  I want them to contribute.  And I want to have a govenoring mechanic to regulate just how much is contributed and what is contributed.

I'm not against that idea... I just htink it is really tough to come up with a mechanic besides Rewards (bonuses, extra xp, in-plot develpments).

Okay, I might have talked myself into an idea....

How about this?

Twice a session (or once), each player may make up one historical "fact" and bring it into play (ie, the PC must speak of this historical fact in context).  Some of these might not fit the GM's vision or counter subplots that the Player simply doesn't know of.  But for each one "accepted", the PC gets a +1 bonus (or bennie or Power Pointor Luck chit) to be used at a later date.  They can save these up as much as they want.

It is a Reward mechanic, but it moves away from ScottM's approach of tying the Bonus to the immediate action.. which will speed up gameplay as the GM doesn't have to fumble for regulating that bonus.

The problem with this idea is that certain players are simply more imaginative than others... or more talkative.  They will get more rewards than the quieter, along-for-the ride (or casual gamers in Robin Laws speak) folk.

[Peter Hollinghurst]

My apologies Storn.



Regarding the whole aspect of players bringing in historical details I must admit it does seem hard without retcon. Maybe it comes down to the feel of how and why it is integrated into a game in play-as a mechanical requirement for players it does feel rather odd to make a specific point of introducing ' a detail a game' and so on, which would be one answer but perhaps skew gameplay somewhat oddly. Im not sure on that. The whole issue of gameplay and such approaches is crucial, and important to raise.

Your suggested solution of players bringing in a detail to each game has a strong similiarity to some of the concepts I have been working on with my own game design where players construct montages that affect play (I guess thats what happens when freaky artists design games...). They bring in images they have constructed and feed them into a collectively constructed game world. It works fine conceptually in that game world because it is a 'dream world' and formed by such creative inputs in the first place. I guess my question is to what extent created history bought in by players could be actually integrated into a game?

I rather liked the confessional idea, and also the lexicon principal mentioned earlier. Another possible approach would be to think of the mechanic of how an adventure in a game is actually 'told' , perhaps a sort of hybrid GM/GMless approach where players can tell a tale from the past that relates to the present situation somehow. I am thinking here of a 'Canterbury Tales' sort of approach (Dan Simmons book 'Hyperion' has a fantastic take on this)-the adventure itself is seen as a GM created core story/adventure explored by every player, but the pacing of games allows for relevent, short, interjections by a player to contribute their own tale. On a quest to kill a corporate mogul in his skyscaper offices, a player might tell a tale of a seige of castle in the ancient past, and the terrible death that awaited the commander of the attacking army when reinforcements arrived.
Would it need an actual in game reward? Maybe, though in theory if it became an accepted playing style in a game perhaps not. A reward like the plus points for later use could be integrated very easily though. Players could then link their stories into parts of the established lexicon of history as a requirement of contributing it, so retcon would be minimised, and since the gaol would be to use the past to comment on the present or future, perhaps it would be less likely in conjunction with a lexicon to upset any of the established setting background?

[contracycle]

Now, these same games also have a mechanical component that does not reference the accompanying historical material in any way whatsoever. What Shreyas wants is a game that mechanically encourages the players to do the data mining you describe. Instead of just having a game and a bunch of setting crap to go with it, the game needs to mechanically encourage the players to reference the included setting material.

Put it on props, in front of their faces.

Magic:TG's little collection of pseudo-anecdotes has almost become standardised for CCG's.  The combination of bright cards and evocatiove text is IMO excellent for bringing these issues into the foreground.