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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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..."

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

CULTURE

Briton
Occupations Available: Clergyman, Entertainer, Farmer, God-Talker, Healer, Housewife, Hunter, Merchant, Monk, Sailor, Thief, Warrior.
Native Abilities: Brythonic Customs, Geography of Britain, Healing Lore, Intrigue or Widerness Survival, Speak Brythonic or Speak Latin.
Men only – Sword and Shield Fighting.
Women only – Spinning and Weaving.
Typical Personality Traits: Melancholy, Hate [Saxons, Irish or Picts], Proud.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Clan, Tribe or City; to Leader.
Religion: Christian (Roman or Celtic) or Pagan.

Byzantine
Occupations Available: Cavalry Soldier, Clergyman, Entertainer, Foot Soldier, Healer, Merchant, Monk, Petty Noble, Sailor, Scholar, Thief.
Native Abilities: Byzantine Customs, Geography of the East, Debate Church Doctrine, Speak Latin, Speak Greek, Read and Write Latin, Urban Survival.
Typical Personality Traits: Argumentative, Conservative, Devious, Pious.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Political Faction, to Church; to Emperor.
Religion: Eastern Church.

Germanic
Occupations Available: Cavalry Soldier, Entertainer, Farmer, Foot Soldier, God-Talker, Healer, Housewife, Hunter, Merchant, Sailor, Spirit-Talker, Thief, Warrior.
Native Abilities: Boating or Riding, Geography of [Homeland], Germanic Customs, Large, Speak [Germanic Language].
Men only – [Weapon] Fighting.
Women only – Spinning and Weaving.
Typical Personality Traits: Fatalistic, Independent, Restless, Vengeful.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Leader.
Religion: Gods of Asgard (some Goths, and most Franks, are Christian).

Irish
Occupations Available: Clergyman, Druid, Entertainer, Farmer, Healer, Housewife, Hunter, Monk, Warrior.
Native Abilities: Geography of Ireland, Gift of the Gab, Healing Lore, Irish Customs, Obey Druid, Speak Irish.
Men only – Sword and Shield Fighting.
Women only – Spinning and Weaving.
Typical Personality Traits: Fatalistic, Melancholy, Independent.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Tuath.
Religion: Christian (Celtic) or Pagan.

Pict
Occupations Available: Clergyman, Entertainer, Farmer, Healer, Housewife, Hunter, Monk, Sailor, Spirit-Talker, Warrior.
Native Abilities: Boating, Geography of the North, Leatherworking, Pictish Customs, Speak Pictish, Spear Fighting, Wilderness Survival, Work Stone and Wood.
Typical Personality Traits: Conservative, Matriarchal, Pious, Stoic, Suspicious.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Clan
Religion: Tree of Life Tradition.

Roman
Occupations Available: Cavalry Soldier, Clergyman, Entertainer, Farmer, Foot Soldier, God-Talker, Healer, Merchant, Monk, Petty Noble, Sailor, Scholar, Thief.
Native Abilities: Geography of [Homeland], Politics, Speak Latin, Read Latin, Roman Customs, Urban Survival.
Typical Personality Traits: Conservative, Devious, Sophisticated, Pragmatic, Proud.
Typical Relationships: to Family; to Church; to Emperor.
Religion: Christian; rarely Judaic or Pagan.

RELIGION

Celtic Church
Abilities: Dance, Member of [Congregation], See Presence of God, Sing, Stories of the Saints, Worship Immanent God.
Virtues: Energetic, Generous, Independent, Love God, Merciful, Open-Minded, Responsible.

The Old Gods
Abilities: Dance, Know Local Place of Power, Member of [Circle, Coven or Community], Mythology of the Old Gods, Worship Old Gods.
Virtues: Energetic, Generous, Honest, Sensual, Proud.

The Gods of Asgard
Abilities: Germanic Mythology, Member of [Community], Perform Household Ritual, Recite Lineage, Worship Gods of Asgard.
Virtues: Bloodthirsty, Brave, Defiant, Fatalistic, Honourable, Reckless.

Judaism
Abilities: Debate, History of the Israelites, Mosaic Law, Member of [Synagogue], [Philosophy], Read Hebrew, Worship One God.
Virtues: Chaste, Energetic, Exclusive, Lawful, Temperate.

Tree of Life Tradition
Abilities: Tree of Life Tradition Knowledge, Ecstatic Dancing, Know Local Nature Spirits, Member of [Spiritist Community], Worship the Tree of Life.
Virtues: Dutiful, Harmonious, Honest, Proud, Wise.

Roman Church
Abilities: Member of [Congregation], Recite Prayer, Roman CHurch Doctrine, Sing Hymn, Understand Symbol, Worship Holy Trinity.
Virtues: Chaste, Fear God, Forgiving, Humble, Merciful, Obedient, Temperate.






As you can see, it's all slanted heavily towards Britain. So, of course, the first player is making up a Persian noble.

As you can see, it's all slanted heavily towards Britain. So, of course, the first player is making up a Persian noble.

Mike's post makes me think - A big theme around that time, and also with the colonization of the Americas, was syncretism. This is what I would have as the basis for a game if I set it somewhere brand new. If you do have animism and theism, say, you can have a whole load of things going on there. Not sure how the Persian fits in, mind. Zoroastrian is he?

Sam.

Syncretism is something near and dear to me with this. There seems to be a few ways of handling this.

I think that what the rules are intended to support - and I've put some substantial effort into trying to figure this out - is that syncretism is found in terms of specific religions. That is, you don't take B magic keyword from X religion, and B keyword from Religion Y. At least not often (experimental Hero Quests might allow this). Instead, the religion is already extant, the syncretism has already happened, and it offers you the magic keywords from what were previously different religions.

So, for the classic (though somewhat OT) example of religion in England at the time of Robin Hood, the Christianity of the time was apparently forced to accept certain of the pagan Celtic beliefs as part of the religion. The two had melded into one at the time, and the pagan beliefs were slowly on their way out.

Now, what about a country truely in the throws of two competing religions? Well, what I'd suggest is that the "reality" of the gods and such is that they are mutually exclusive, and you can't get magic from both. You can pretend to be in another religion, but you can only "really" be in one. Again, in this case if you want the religion to be truely syncretic, then you'll have to be the one to do the Hero Quests to meld the myths to make it one religion.

Mike

Mike:

Now, what about a country truely in the throws of two competing religions? Well, what I'd suggest is that the "reality" of the gods and such is that they are mutually exclusive, and you can't get magic from both. You can pretend to be in another religion, but you can only "really" be in one. Again, in this case if you want the religion to be truely syncretic, then you'll have to be the one to do the Hero Quests to meld the myths to make it one religion.

Mike Holmes wrote:

As you can see, it's all slanted heavily towards Britain. So, of course, the first player is making up a Persian noble.

Druids as an occupation? I would have thought them just practitioners of a Celtic animist tradition (they even have the personality trait of "fey"). Spirit-Talkers, essentially, if they were occupationally involved. Is the "Celtic Church" animist? Certainly doesn't look that way. Or do the Druids worship the "tree of life" (is it an oak)?

Obviously Judaism, and the Roman church are Wizardry (with Islam coming soon to an Arabian nation near you!). The Old Gods are a pantheon, I take it? Of beings that predate the Germanic Gods? Hmm. Were these actually sacrificed to? Or were these beings worshipped with ecstatic ritual?

Mandacaru wrote: Not sure how the Persian fits in, mind. Zoroastrian is he?

First, after doing some reading, I withdraw my objection to having Druids as an occupation. They are, essentially priests, but different enough in small ways from the listed priest occupation (for example, in terms of class, and their oral traditions), that it probably merits a new keyword.

The Celtic Church is basically the insular British christianity, heavily influenced by paganism and Pelagianism. During this time it was still in conflict with the Roman church over basic points of doctrine.

The Old Gods are my name for 'paganism' in general. This includes the ancient Celtic gods as well as imported cults like Isis or Mithras. You raise an interesting point about these deities predating the Asgardian gods--perhaps some are survivals of the most ancient European (pre-Indo-European?) religions. The druids, then, are the administrators of sacrifices and keepers of law (god-talkers for a specific religion).

The Tree of Life is the Pictish animist tradition (direct steal from Beyond the Wall. Yes, it's an oak. I'm trying to suggest some sort of deep, half-remembered connections between this most ancient tradition, the later pagan gods, and the Celtic church.

On the question of magic, my default position was that there is no overt magic. I think that the religious keywords will still have significance due to relationships and attitudes. People will still be able to augment with eg Worship in appropriate circumstances. Maybe they can ask for Divine Aid.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I get what you're saying. It's the period before Rome put their foot down with Augustine, where things were really mixed up. The thing is that even after Augustine, pagan beliefs would continue to be a part of things until (as I mentioned) the legends surrounding Robin Hood in the 13th century - and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. They may have lasted later.

If you want something really subjective, then take all magic as "passive" and only allow it to augment. At which point the question becomes, "is it real, or is it just the character's belief propelling them on like any other personality trait?"

Mike Holmes wrote: Hmm. Interesting. Basically you don't want flashy Gloranthan magic? Is that it? Because I'm sure that the druids thought that they were doing magic. That is, there are two reasons for keeping magic in the game. First, even if magic isn't real, people think it is. That's a powerful force. Second, maybe magic is real (we can debate this elsewhere if you like). In either case, the best way to simulate this is to allow magic to functionally exist in the world in question. Whether or not it's actually magical is a subjective question that doesn't have to be answered.

droog wrote: I just wanted to note that I'm on the same page here. That is, if people believe, it is as powerful as if magic objectively exists. Whether it is, in fact, 'really real' is possibly not debatable. Possibly....

I want a sense of mystery about it, is the thing. I want that question to be possible, rather than: 'Oh sure, magic exists--watch this!' So I do think I need a subtlety to the way it works. Probably this can just come through the narration--do you think?

droog wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: But I get what you're saying. It's the period before Rome put their foot down with Augustine, where things were really mixed up. The thing is that even after Augustine, pagan beliefs would continue to be a part of things until (as I mentioned) the legends surrounding Robin Hood in the 13th century - and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. They may have lasted later.

Well, radical Protestants such as Pentecostalists still accuse Catholics of being idol-worshippers.... Personally I think the pagan elements are still there plainly to be seen. After all, we celebrate Yule and the spring festival of Eostre.

Mandacaru wrote: Those are just my impressions. never done it myself.
Sam.

Mike Holmes wrote:

droog wrote: More telling about the long-lasting effects of syncretism, however, are the places where power comes from. To make the HQ parallel, which is easy since wizardry is pretty much based off of generic catholicism (but I repeat myself), some of the catholic saints are possibly based on legendary figures from other myths. Hard to say, since most records kept are from Catholic sources, which will claim that the individual actually lived, and was not created from another religion's myth.

Eg, St Brigid?

I think we see a long-term evolution here.
1. Religions end up together in the same area. One can worship one or the other.
2. Religions start to co-opt beings, one from the other. It starts to be true that you can worship in a religion that has some beings that were formerly of the other religion.
3. The weaker religion is eliminated, as all of the beings are now co-opted, but the influence remains strong in that the mythic natures (otherworlds) of many beings are still considered.
4. The religion turns all of the beings into the primary sort, in order to maintain a consistency of belief. This may result in misapplied worship, or in "conversion" of the beings in question (or creation of new mythic beings that form "converted.")

How's that? Sounds like you're working from 1 to 2 in your game as regards the Christian church and the previous religions of the British Isles.

Mike

That sounds about right. And we're getting back to my original questions, are we not? There seems to be an underlying premise, or perhaps a group of premises, I can't quite articulate. Something about how people react to these sorts of changes, or perhaps how belief follows circumstances. Henry Treece's books The Golden Strangers and The Great Captains have something like this in them.

droog wrote:

Mandacaru wrote: Those are just my impressions. never done it myself.
Sam.

Thanks, Sam--a ton of useful ideas, very much in tune with what I'd like to do. Pity we can't get together and play.

That sounds about right. And we're getting back to my original questions, are we not? There seems to be an underlying premise, or perhaps a group of premises, I can't quite articulate.

Mike Holmes wrote: Hard to say, since most records kept are from Catholic sources, which will claim that the individual actually lived, and was not created from another religion's myth.