Icelandic Saga based campaign

[Poenz]

On the question of Runes on Swords:

Being a rampant lurker, I was reluctant to chime in, but I love this topic and I wanted to contribute, if only to the academic side of the question posed.

I've been dabbling in my own studies of European or Western Martial Arts during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, particularly as it pertains to the sword.  As you might imagine, there is a great deal of misinformation out there on the web, but the folks I'm going to refer you to take great pains to document their sources, and to keep their conjectures nice n' scholarly.  

Now to quote:

"Pattern-welded blades continued to be made at least into the early 10th century, however, over the course of the 9th century, twisted iron inlays forming letters, symbols and geometric designs came to predominate. Lang and Ager's survey of the British material failed to disclose swords with both a pattern welded structure and iron inlays, however such swords are not uncommon in the continental material."*

*(emphasis mine)

The full article is here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html

And from there you should be able to easily make your way back to all you might ever want to know concerning swords of the so-called "viking" era.  If you do want to seek out more, I suggest inquiring at the forums at NetSword or Sword Forum International.

Oh, and please update this post, or start a new one when you figure out what system you'll be using.  I found this forum following links from the intriguing sounding tRoS system, and I'll be interested to hear if you go with it, and how well it works.

Sorry if this was to far afield topic-wise; just wanted to help.

--Po

[Chris]

Not far afield at all - I was happy to see this thread jump to life again.  I've been busy lately (and will be until mid-june; I teach High School, and spring fever is kicking in big time), so I haven't had any time to add any new thoughts - not that I've thought any.

Since I've had little time for serious thought, I've been using my M.A. classtime to sketch out some family trees for the major European families - I'm basing them somewhat around actual sagas, but am mainly going for feel rather than accuracy.  I want to combine various eras and families - I'm not going for historical, so I can have King Haralds conquest of Norway run about the same time as the Battle of Hastings, the vikings rulling Northumbria; with a Valkyrie queen in Germany (re: Hrolfs Saga Kraki), pict and celt kingdoms at the edges of the Brittish isles, etc.  I feel sort of like a cheat not using actual family trees, but in order to conflate all of the various sources into one coherant whole, going with a tone rather than fact seems the best way to go.

Oh, and please update this post, or start a new one when you figure out what system you'll be using. I found this forum following links from the intriguing sounding tRoS system, and I'll be interested to hear if you go with it, and how well it works.

I'm about 90% certain I'm using tRoS for the game - I'll have notes once I actually run a game.  I've only read the rules, rolled up a character or two, but so far it seems fantastic, just the mood I'm going for.  

Anyway, I hope to get some more ideas up soon.

[James Holloway]

I want to combine various eras and families - I'm not going for historical, so I can have King Haralds conquest of Norway run about the same time as the Battle of Hastings, the vikings rulling Northumbria;

But if... Vikings in Northumbria... where does ruling Anglo-Danish family come from...? What about... Stamford Bridge/ Fulford? Does... not... compute!

Man, this here is why I am a bad historical-game GM. I'm running a game set in 1950s LA, and I'm worrying if the telephone area codes I give the characters map correctly to their street addresses. I could never jettison the history like that. I'm not criticising this approach, it's just that it throws my style into stark relief by being almost impossible for me to fathom.

Weird.

[Chris]

Um. . .but Vikings WERE in Northumbria.  The Anglo-Dane line comes fromt the Danes that ruled out of York, who were . . . Vikings.  "Viking" is really loose, and constitutes all the scandinavians who looted, pillaged, and eventually settled the Atlantic Coast of Europe (though once they settled, I suppose, the term Viking became less applicable).  Beowulf is the great "English" epic, but it is about a Geat (southern Sweden) traveling to Denmark.   So I was just saying that I was rolling a whole bunch of history that was spread over a few hundred years into a few decades.  

I understand the completely anal historicism - I have spent hours getting London bus-routes correct, finding the birth and deaths dates of victorian scholars, etc.  The things is that were my campaign to follow, say, Saxo Grammaticus's history of Denmark, the dates and names would conflict with the Landnomabok, which would contradict Heimskringla, which wouldn't match up to Old English Anals or the Domsday book.  To say nothing of the sagas themselves, which twisted history and family trees out of ignorance and/or propaganda (my seior thesis was that the author of Volsunga Saga and Ragnars Saga was using the epic to create a family tree that connected King Harold to the Volsungs, thus legitimizing his claim to the throne).

Which is why scholars study the sagas seperately, and not try to make a campaign world out of them.  Only those of us foolish and brave enough . . .

[James Holloway]

Um. . .but Vikings WERE in Northumbria.  .

Yes, but not contemporary with the battle of Hastings they weren't. So if there are Vikings in Northumbria, is there a battle of Fulford Gate? If so, why? It can't be because Harald Hardraada has a claim to the throne, because clearly Knut was never king of England in this timeline. And what's William the Bastard's claim to the throne? Does this mean that Harold Godwineson is only king of Wessex?

And so on and so on.

Believe me, I know there Vikings in Northumbria. I live in what used to be Northumbria.

[James Holloway]

Um. . .but Vikings WERE in Northumbria.  .

Yes, but not contemporary with the battle of Hastings they weren't. So if there are Vikings in Northumbria, is there a battle of Fulford Gate? If so, why? It can't be because Harald Hardraada has a claim to the throne, because clearly Knut was never king of England in this timeline. And what's William the Bastard's claim to the throne? Does this mean that Harold Godwineson is only king of Wessex?

And so on and so on.

Believe me, I know there Vikings in Northumbria. I live in what used to be Northumbria.

D'oh! Doing it again! That post had sod all to do with gaming.

OK, here's one: to what extent do / will your players care about this stuff? I mean, I would be the worst possible player for a game like that, because I'd always be going "but who is this Earl Tostig, and why does he have these Flemish mercenaries?" I just can't get my head out of "explain to me the politics of the setting," and when the politics/geography of the setting don't make sense, I quickly lose interest. I guess that's what you'd call Sim/Setting as a priority, with a really strong emphasis on "realism" (which is why I enjoy games set in the real world a lot).

Now, I can run that kind of game myself without any kind of preparation, because I know enough history to file the serial numbers off. ("But why does the King hate the Archbishop?" "Well, they're sons of rival noble families. The Archbishop's uncle is the duke who was executed.") It sounds like you're going for something verrrry different.

Now, the sagas are written deliberately within a historical framework, even though in a lot of places the history is all wrong. But you're expected to know who, say, Svein Forkbeard is, if only in a kind off "Good Queen Bess / Bad King John" kind of way. How much do your players know about the background?