You know, every so often someone says to me, "I want to run a game like Lord of the Rings," and proceeds to insert large, unpleasant battle scenes into his game for no discernible purpose.

Now, as I see it, old JRR had this burgeoning interest in history, and it was history that drove a lot of the events in his trilogy. 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 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 (While this is a rich and powerful approach, I'd like to exclude it from this discussion because I don't think it bears usefully on the point).

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.

Now, as I see it, old JRR had this burgeoning interest in history, and it was history that drove a lot of the events in his trilogy.

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 (While this is a rich and powerful approach, I'd like to exclude it from this discussion because I don't think it bears usefully on the point).

hanschristianandersen wrote: Are you really interested in mechanics that incentivize use of established facts, or do you want to create actual play that conveys a sense of the power and relevence of history that is similar to what Tolkein produced?

The two are not necessarily the same thing.

hanschristianandersen wrote:

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.

Wow. Harsh. Is this a blanket condemnation of detailed game setting backstory? Or are you reserving special scorn for detailed backstory that ends up having no relevance on actual play? Or did I completely misinterpret you?

Are you really interested in mechanics that incentivize use of established facts, or do you want to create actual play that conveys a sense of the power and relevence of history that is similar to what Tolkein produced?

Setting aside the most obvious challenge that comes to mind (namely getting all the players sufficiently up to speed w.r.t. the history)...

Why can't you apply something like the InSpectres confessional, but instead of using it to invent new details, you use it as part of the scene framing, to draw attention to some specific relevant historical details, and then grant mechanical bonuses to the players when they interact with the confessional-spotlighted historical elements?

An example of how this might work in play: The characters are examining the loot from a troll's lair. "These are swords crafted in Gondolin for the Goblin-wars!" exclaims Thorin; Thorin's player uses his Confessional to recall the history of Gondolin and the Goblin Wars. Note that Thorin's player isn't inventing that history; rather, he's recalling the history, and in doing so inventing a relevance to the current context. (i.e. the newly found swords.) Ergo, next time the party is bashing Goblins, they derive a bonus.

A less director-stance-heavy example: The characters are entering Rome, during Rome's decline. A player uses his Confessional to recall how Rome was "Once fair, but after disastrous Nero's rule, is now but a shadow of its former glory, filled with desperate thieves and ruffians. We had best keep one hand on our weapons, and the other on our purses." Ergo, the party gets bonuses to detect or avoid thieves, pickpockets, and ruffians, above and beyond any bonuses from simply being cautious, by virtue of invoking history. Again, the key is invoking history rather than inventing it.

Y'know, the whole "players establish historical facts through an Inspectres-style confessional" thing (besides being really neat in and of itself) could be a lot of fun for a TIME TRAVEL game, where you establish a "future" and then retcon the past....

I've got this on the brain because of Nathan P.'s time travel game being discussed in Indie Game Design (over here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11169).

I increasingly found the treatment of history in dnd odd-all that exploring of ancient buildings/dungeons from lost empires with little or no real sense of why 'x' empires dungeon was different to 'y's. They almost had a go with some of the books for Forgotten Realms but made all the key info current rather historical-the Netheril stuff could have made a great historical basis for dungeons though (and I used it as such-never actually as a current campaign setting).
I guess that because I am interested in history and archaeology, I find the idea of fleshing out those pesky dungeons with a rich historical texture compelling-so you find 1000gp-but how many are coins from the reign of Emperor Impeltrix III? Cause those are rare and collectors pay more for them-after all his reign obly lasted for four weeks before he was assinated. Oh my gosh-theres an adventure in that-what else might be in that horde from his reign? A clue to how and why he died? All those historians sponsoring the players dungeon exploits would just love to know-at last the mystery can be solved, etc, etc.

Its all in the details-little things adventurers might come across that give the historical flavour and context-what armour is that? Pre-dynamist mage armour? Cool, but not very good. Ah! A Mulong dynasty vase-thats nice, I'll put that in my trophy room. I did a long exploration of a Mulong trap tomb last year-dangerous, but the burial chamber was so beautifull and I came out with the long lost jade dragon of Emperor Fu-loong-tek. That sort of thing. Tomb raider/relic hunters meets dnd.

The same sort of approach can easily fit elsewhere. I think people tend to forget history in many creative works-they think 'current' in whatever time period/setting they use when it comes to how things look and feel. How often do you see someone in a costume drama on TV that is old and wearing the fashions of their youth? Hardly ever-because the costume department is fixed in its vision on the period of the setting and has forgotten that some people never move well with the times. Even though it says a bundle about the character that they haven't...

Most rpgs confine history to a chronology and leave it at that.
A pity-because to my mind atmosphere and depth often come by going deeper into it.

Dunno about the lead statement. My campaign drips with history.

I've got 13th Tribe Elves (think jewish drow crossed with orc mongols) who were exiled, returning. I've got the legacy of a mad god, who died 700 yrs ago, keep popping up. I've got RIGHT now a campaign to rebuild a fallen "shining city on the hill". I have 3 countries dealing with a slave revolt, based on centuries of slave economy. I have a PC who was put into suspended animation (now awoken) to secure his peoples homeland when it was safe. Historical events impact and keep impacting current storylines.

All of these subplots are feeding what information I give to the players and gives the players a chance to react to history of the world through their characters.

I have two actual classcial trained historians in my game. One is a professor of medieval history. They are engaged. They like the amount of backstory that has evolved. I've got a couple of other players, who may not be historians, but have a historically minded bent. All I can say, is that it works for us.

What happens when I'm not sure as a GM what is historical flavor SHOULD be, I simply ask the opinion of my players. I don't feel the need for a mechanic. I am quite willing to hear players opinion and flavor insertion... subject to clarification and modification at times.

We had a great discussion on whether or not a PC Baron could take a bunch of cows from a subject in order to feed a flock of gryphons. Not that he was going to... he was going to pay for the cattle... but the player was interested in IF he could do it, so he had an understanding of how progressive he might be pushing the Baron. (the Baron is part of a silver rush/ trade crossroads province, he could afford it) The professor actually had considerable info to add, since land and power in medieval Europe is one of his specialties.

You're very lucky to have historians in your play group, Storn.

So, how can groups not like yours use mechanics to get the same historical consciousness in their games?

Shreyas Sampat wrote: So, how can groups not like yours use mechanics to get the same historical consciousness in their games?

Hi, Shreyas. Cool question.

I'm recalling the magic rules in Orkworld, where each magic item has an associated story--its own personal history--and the events that imbued the item with magic dictate what sort of magic it has. I think Wick assumes that the GM is the one to come up with these stories, but he doesn't specify how the players are supposed to become aware of them. I'll have to reread that section (I'd better, as I'm runnin the game @ Origins!)

Here's an idea I had that I don't really like, but someone else might. This borrows from Continuum. The advancement mechanic relies on real-world requirements of the players. They have to memorize and recite a set of in-game rules verbatim before their character's Span stat can increase. To move this to history, you could require players to recite some portion of the written history before their characters enter a city or some-such. But that relies more on the stick than on the carrot.

Using the carrot, I have another idea. In LotR, Aragorn's always making these speeches about being Isildiur's Heir and all that. Well, similar to the role-playing bonus in Sorcerer, give folks a bonus for incorporating setting history into their play.

Additionally, if you have one of those big thick game books that has pages and pages of history (I'm thinking of games like Earthdawn or Fading Suns here), then you can encourage GMs to craft their plots around historical details and open historical questions as listed in the history section. Once one of the players decides they're going to research the roots of the problem, the GM hands them the game book and says "Page 55, third paragraph." If you do this, the player is reading through books just like his character! Life imitating art.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: You're very lucky to have historians in your play group, Storn.

So, how can groups not like yours use mechanics to get the same historical consciousness in their games?

specifically predetermined historical facts

Shreyas Sampat wrote: John, if I understand you correctly you're saying that you could effectively use established setting facts as a frame for sub-facts that are created in play, and these sub-facts contribute to play in some mechanical manner (like Confessional-derived traits). I think that partly addresses the issue, 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.

Guys, this is not what Shreyas is asking. Emily, he knows how to mine history for ideas to use in game.

Let me break it down like this:

Most established commercial games come with a setting in which to play. Often the setting has a lot of detailed background information - history in other words. Think like V:TM; you know how the first couple of chapters have a whole lot of info about what the vampires have been doing for the last couple of thousand years?

Same goes for D&D and GURPS, and so on, even though these games tend to have plug-in-able modular settings.

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.

I think. Right Shreyas? :)

Paganini wrote:
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.

Emily Care wrote: 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.

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

--Em

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Peter Hollinghurst wrote: 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?

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.

Shreyas Sampat wrote:
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.

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?

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.)

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.

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 seems to totally refute your suggestion about mecahnics.

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?

Paganini wrote: 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.