Dark Ages HQ

[droog]

I've done a conversion of HQ for a quasi-historical game set in the 5th century AD, and I have some potential players that might shortly make it a reality.

The thing is that I continue to have flashes of insight into the nature of gaming, and my notions about this game are subtly changing. I would say that my original (unformulated) ideas were vaguely simulationist, ie the game would be 'about' exploring the history and folklore of the early Middle Ages (a la Pendragon). Now I'm thinking that the game might make a good backdrop for narrativism. I'm looking at certain historical novels such as Henry Treece's The Great Captains, Alfred Duggan's Conscience of the King, or Rosemary Sutcliffe's The Lantern Bearers.

So my still half-formulated question is: does a background like this lend itself to any sort of narrativism in particular, or would I be better off sticking to the familiar and possibly more widely useable (ie Glorantha)? Are there issues we could explore in this and no other setting? What might be the advantages of such a setting for narrativist play? If I did want simulationism, is Pendragon itself more suitable?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Droog,

Could you break out what you mean by "narrativism in particular"?

As for the second half of your questions, all settings (whether historical or fictional) can be mined to go in almost any direction for whatever premise (the moral, emotiona question at hand) you want.  

All the group needs to do is focus on one thing, and let other things fall by the wayside.  (Which happens naturally, of course.  There's no way to recreate everything in a setting.  That would make it, you know, life!)

For example, if the group wants to play with the idea of tensions of family, then in a middle ages story you'll focus on those strong ties of family.  If you want to play stories about intellectual curiosity vs. the needs for a stable community, some sort of magical struggle against the stability the church offered might come to mind. (Although you might have a priest PC who is the guy who wants to explore magic thinking he's doing god's work, and PC parishinors being the folks who are begging him to stop....)

(Notice that the movie "The Godfather" -- set in mid-20th century america -- is all about tensions of the family clan. One doesn't have to go to the middle ages for that.  And certainly you could run a contemporary story about the individual's need for curiosity vs. the community's need for stability -- whether that stability was religious, economic or political.)

Why pick one setting over another, then?  Simply because, for reasons I at least do not understand, people prefer some color over others. It turns them on.  And it because it turns them on it gets them to a) show up, and b) opens their hearts and minds to being excited about whatever is at hand in terms of thematic material.

The point is, what questions do you all want to explore?  What issues MATTER to you guys?  What setting turns you guys on?

Answer those questions honestly and you'll be fine.

Thanks,

Christopher

[droog]

Thanks Christopher.

What I meant was--and please excuse me if my question is naive--if Glorantha, as Ron says, lends itself to setting-based premise, what sort of premises would be particularly suited to a Dark Ages game. You've already outlined a couple. Myself, I had a notion that the theme of religious conflict might be good (eg struggles between Roman and Arian church). I suppose that the premise might be something like What will you do in support of your faith? or perhaps Is faith real or cynical?

I take your point about any setting being capable of reflecting any themes. So I was wondering about what you've pointed to: why use one setting over another? And so I wondered whether some settings were better for exploring some premises.

Glorantha says 'The old world is over and what will you do?' I suppose that the central question of late antiquity is similar. Maybe it's just redundant to put effort into developing such a game.

But as you've said, it's partly about getting people to show up and get excited. In a sense, it's a selling point. If people aren't interested in a high fantasy world, they may be interested in a gritty historical one.

[droog]

Ah, yes: the follow-up question. Is there any way I could rig the game to reinforce particular premises?

My conversion was done with an eye to simulationist colour; therefore somewhat undirected in terms of premise. How could I set up eg keywords to put the interaction of religion and Realpolitik front and centre? In a non-magical world, that is.

[James Holloway]

what sort of premises would be particularly suited to a Dark Ages game.

In Living in the 10th Century, Heinrich Fichtenau suggested that the modern idea that you have some kind of internal, separate self -- "what you're really like" -- would seem weird to the average Carolingian-era Frank. If you weren't going around telling everyone how awesome you were, it was clearly because you were insufficiently awesome. I don't know if that's a theme: "what is the relationship between deeds and nature," maybe.

If you're setting the game in the 5th century, you've got not only the conflict between Catholicism and Arianism but, in some parts of the former Empire, pagan peoples converting to Christianity, at least in part (well, by the 5th century, most of that stuff would be over except where it hadn't  really begun, like in Britain). So there's a whole question there, pitting the religion keyword against the homeland one. How the heck did I end up with ratings in both "Proud" and "Humble?"

In fact, in a lot of ways that comes with a key conflict of the period, something about local autonomy and the development of royal authority in the context of the Imperial system. Check out the coinage of most of the post-Roman western kingdoms; up until the 7th century or so, a lot of them are still minting their gold currency in the name of the eastern emperor. Why is that? To what do we owe our loyalty -- to our "people" (whatever that means -- what's the difference between a Lombard and a Gepid anyway? I don't know) or to some cross-cultural concept like the Church or the Empire?

I don't know who the PCs are going to be, but basically it looks like the two big questions are:

- what is the value of the international community of the empire? and
- how can the martial virtues be reconciled with the Christian virtues?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Droog,

It sounds like your on your way on this matter.  But I want to emphasise one question:

Are you turned on by these questions about faith and religion.  If not, stop.  To go the Narrativism route (if that's what you want), you can't make this an intellectual exercise.  "Well, this was happening in the 5th century, so it makes sense this would be a thematic issue... blah, blah, blah..."

I'm not saying that's what you're doing.  I'm asking, are you really behind this, do you really have questions about your place in religious community and faith, or is it something "logica" to explore given the nature of the setting.  Cause, honestly, to simplify, the one with the real concern your part is going to be Nar, and the one that introduces these ideas because they "make sense" given the setting is going to be Sim. You can do it either way. You can have fun either way.  But the fun is going to be a different kind of fun depending on which one you choose, and I want you to be aware of the choice.

Another way of looking at it is: What matters to you? What question or questions about life, about how to live well, actaully trouble you?  What issues do you keep private that you really don't talk to other people about?  What's the subject that, after two drinks at a party, you know you better stay away from cause you're gonna start really ripping into somebody if they start taking the subject too lightly or take a stand you completely disagree with.

Now, match that up with a setting you're crazy about and all the setting and Premise material will flow like water from a fountain.

That's how you work toward Narrativist play.

Christopher

PS I'm not trying to speak for Ron here... But when he says Glorantha is great for setting based premise, let's keep in mind it's not just the "setting."  It's the situation.  Glorantha is on the cusp of everything falling apart -- again.  What was KNOWN is no longer certain, what was TRUE is heading toward being a lie.  All this STUFF is what makes the setting premise rich.  It's not just the maps and races and cultures.  It's the crisis that determines the Glorantha's terrain.

So, what CONFLICT in the 5th century really turns you on.  Not what's there that makes sense.  What conflict -- of any kind or intimate or political or religious scope, touches on the answers to the questions I asked above?

Answer all these questions, really feel it out, and you'll be well on your way.

[Valamir]

Are you turned on by these questions about faith and religion. If not, stop. To go the Narrativism route (if that's what you want), you can't make this an intellectual exercise. "Well, this was happening in the 5th century, so it makes sense this would be a thematic issue... blah, blah, blah..."

I'm going to put a slightly different spin on it.  I think you DO have to start with what was happening in the 5th century or there's no reason to use the 5th century as your setting.  If non of the thematic changes that were going on in that period push your buttons than you either find some other period that does and do narrativism there, or else stick to the setting and don't worry about being Nar.

I suspect that if there's something about the 5th Century that appealed to you to do a quasi historical setting to begin with, however, there are probably ample themes that are exciting.

If we look at the 5th Century we see one major overrideing theme.  Sweeping Change.  Not incremental year by year change...but complete out with the old in with the new change.  The European world in 500 is almost completely different than Europe in 400.

We start the century with the Visigoths sacking Rome.  One could argue that this was one of the single most important events in all of European history because it symbolized exactly how hollow the Empire had become.  When even Rome itself is not safe, the lie is given to all Roman pretensions elsewhere.

In the middle of the century we see the Anglo-Saxons overcoming the Britons, replacing the Romanized Celtic way of life with a Germanic one.  We see Attilla the Hun sweep through Eastern Europe and Rome sacked again by the Vandals.

By the last quarter of the century we see Romulus Augustus, the last Roman Emperor of Roman heritage usurped by the Germanic Odoacer who in turn was ousted by the Ostrogoth Theodoric.   By the end of the century the hollow Roman Empire was completely gone.

But it wasn't just the Romans who changed.  The "barbarians" were changing also...to the point that one can't really say that that barbarians won...the way of life of a Goth or German in 500 wouldn't have been recognizeable to a Goth or German from 400 either.  The Goths in particular became civilized, and under Theodoric were heavily Romanized.  The various Germanic Tribes went from victorious usurpers of Roman Power to defeated sattelites of the Huns to rebellious champions of civilization against a people even more "barbaric" than they.

No one and nothing made it through the century without being completely overthrown.

To me THAT'S the only theme worth exploring in the 5th Century.


Now what spin you put on that...whether you examine the effects of this change on the family by focusing on a single small town or village being buffeted by these forces...or whether you go more epic in scale leaves a wide range of possibilities.

But in many ways, the themes of 5th Century Europe ARE the themes of Glorantha proper...just the roles are reversed.

[Bryan_T]

On the theme front, I'd add one more possibility or slant on the possibilities: who are we as a people?  Note that the various law codes that the the western successor states started issuing over the next couple of centuries often distinguished still between "our" people and romans.  That is, free "romans" still existed and were governed by distinct, nominally roman, law, within a lot of the "barbarian" states.  At the same time, some peoples still formally considered themselves part of the roman empire while others didn't.  And some had sort of shifted that allegiance to the roman church.  

So if you are a Visigoth or frank or whatever, brought up ruling from a roman villa over the descendants of roman slaves, preached to by roman clergy, possibly educated by a "roman" tutor....what exactly are you?

--Bryan

[droog]

Thanks for the answers. They've all helped, whether in understanding how to approach narrativism, articulating the themes to be found in (or imposed upon) the 5th century, or clarifying for myself which of those themes I find personally absorbing and for what reason.


There's an essay somewhere, of which I can't remember the writer, that discusses two sorts of historical novel. In one, the background exists only as a set across which a story is told that could be told in any era. Historical characters always appear in important roles in the story, as their function is to remind you that you are in this particular period.

In the second sort of historical novel, the historical background exists to lend some point to the story; to give some point weight or illustrate some aspect of the human condition. Genuinely historical characters may never appear.

Obviously, I'd like to try for the second sort. I want to make the action fit the setting--which is something I can do on my head as Sim, but need to think about as Nar.

HQ did help here. When I made up keywords, it automatically raised the question of clashing culture and religion (no 'Homeland' keyword because of all the movement). It forced me to decide just what a sub-Roman was and how Roman culture was distinct between east and west. And things like that. I'm very much looking forward to running some.

[Mike Holmes]

if Glorantha, as Ron says, lends itself to setting-based premise,

Ron says nothing of the sort. Ron says that Hero Quest, the game system, lends itself to setting-based premise.

So if you change the setting? Nothing changes about what HQ supports. It still supports setting-based premises.

Now, that said, "setting-based" premises is a pretty broad category. Many of which have been hit on here. Here's the thing, nobody goes into playing Glorantha thinking, "Gee, let's have a game about the meaning of Rape in Glorantha" they just end up doing it by creating characters that are about the goddess of Rape (I'm refering to Rons' game of Hero Wars here).

So don't worry about it. You've got your keywords, now just make characters. The premises will emerge pretty much automatically from these, and you'll have a premise like one of Ralph's in no time.

Mike

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

This may or may not matter to anyone but me, but I'm going to take some of these last few posts and use them to clarify my original point:

No one can know the Premise of the 5th century. I mean, if we travelled back in time and polled a 14 year old boy and a widowed mother and successful warrior/bandit what issues were most pressing on them at the time, I'm sure we'd find three different answers.

However, anyone today looking into the 5th century is going to find those subjects, ideas, images, conflicts and whatnot that turns them on.

So, yes, the specific time and place is going to be a specific time and place and offer unique thematic grist.  But its still up to anyone rooting about (whether they're doing it consciously or not), to make their choices about what matters about that setting.

So, I'm in agreement with Ralph. Choosing the 5th century matters. If it doesn't, why choose it.

BUT -- Mike points out its the Keywords that make the setting playable and useful.  Essentially, you can't play a setting.  That would be, you know, life.

But the group can choose Keywords about a setting.  And as soon as they start doing that, they begin defining those elements (all chosen from what's available in the specific setting) that turn them on.  And that's what the story is going to come from, that's what the Premise material is going to be focused on, that's what the characters are going to be about.

So, when you ask, "Does a background like this lend itself to any sort of narrativism in particular?" the answer is, "Yes --as long as it's got issues that turn you on."

Translate theses "issues" into Keywords (in one form or another), and that will be the "particular" narrativist slant your game will take on.

So:

1) Choose the setting, in one form or another that turns you on
2) Root about for those specific setting elements that turn you on (and they'll be there or you wouldn't have been drawn to the setting)
3) Translate into Keywords (in one form or another), and now the setting is playable as Narrativism.

We've seen this happen a dozen or more times around here with people using the HQ rules for pre-established RPG settings.

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

Yep.

The person who designs the keywords has some say in how the setting is going to play out, but the real question is how the players select them and tailor them. Is their relationship to their village, Honored Defender of Village, or Pariah of Village? Once you have the characters made up, the premises will be clear.

Can you discuss premise before that? I suppose. You should definitely discuss characters and perhaps where the action will occur - synergies will happen in that. But I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't overthink these things with HQ, and just let the premises emerge from the characters as they hit play.

Interestingly, with HQ using the DIP method, all these selections can occur during play. I still want to play a game where I require all characters to be made completely on the fly, starting with species keyword when they walk through the door in the first scene. :-)

Mike

[droog]

Mike – I'm the sort of person who intellectualises everything up to and including my own paternal feelings, so I hear you on overthinking. It's not always easy for me to sort out the line between an intellectual interest and a more visceral one.

My keywords probably do reflect the way I see the period: I have Occupation, Culture and Religion. It should be able to produce eg a Roman Pagan, an Arab Christian, a Persian Jew. But I made them up almost reflexively, because that's sort of what's in HQ. After reading many threads on conversions, I started to think about whether this was really the most suitable way to proceed. I think this thread has helped me understand that if this is the way I see the period, this will be the richest vein to mine for premise.

So: trust my instincts, trust the game system.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Droog, you wouldn't have culture and religion keywords written out that you care to post here, by any chance? I'd love to see what you've done.

[droog]

Show my work?!?! But then you can see my failings and omissions!

Okay....

OCCUPATION: Cavalry Soldier, Clergyman, Druid, Entertainer, Farmer, Foot Soldier, God-Talker, Healer, Housewife, Hunter, Merchant, Monk, Petty Noble, Sailor, Scholar, Spirit-Talker, Thief, Warrior.

Everything pretty much as in HQ, Thunder Rebels etc. I added:



Monk
These are the solitary, cave- or hut-dwelling monks of Ireland and the East. They live harsh lives alone or alongside other monks in collections of huts.

Appropriate Culture: Briton, Byzantine, Irish, Pict, Roman.
Abilities: Endure Hardship, Pray for Hours, Read Latin, Write Latin, Self-Mortification, Tend Garden, Work Hard.
Typical Personality Traits: Ascetic, Charitable, Patient, Pious.
Typical Relationships: to Local or Monastic Community.
Typical Followers: May have a novice monk.
Standard of Living: : Minimal.
Typical Equipment: Dwelling, crude tools, writing equipment.



Druid
The druids oversee the rituals and ceremonies to which all Irish look for their strength and safety. They wield power over kings and warlords, with the ability to place geasa on nobility and halt battles. They direct and administer Celtic culture--without them it would not exist.

Appropriate Culture: Irish.
Abilities: Astrology, Charismatic Presence, Geomancy, Herbalist, Impose Geas, Lead Sacrifice, Read Entrails, Recite Oral Tradition.
Typical Personality Traits: Ascetic, Fey, Inscrutable, Just, Pious.
Typical Relationships: to Local Community, to Allied Druid.
Typical Followers: Servant or apprentice.
Standard of Living: : Minimal to Prosperous.
Typical Equipment: Dwelling, ritual tools and regalia.