Why aren't historical time periods used more as settings within RPGs

[Ninjerk]

That's Smejki.

yup

Hey bro.

 

[Abelian]

The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes.

Not necessarily, as evidenced by the Gladiator example that was mentioned earlier. Of course, there are going to be some constraints, but it hasn't prevented Hollywood from presenting its own version of history (not that it's a good thing when audiences start believing it for historical fact).

On another note, I've seen the term Tolkein fantasy bandied about a number of time in this thread, where I think "high fantasy" or "D&D fantasy" would be more apt. I would personally welcome a Tolkein-inspired video game that includes an early medieval setting, relatively low magic, and focus on world-building, while eschewing trappings such as gnomish inventors, plate-armored paladins, Scottish dwarves, evil dark elves, and Ancient Greek mythological creatures.

 

[Ninjerk]

The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes.

Not necessarily, as evidenced by the Gladiator example that was mentioned earlier. Of course, there are going to be some constraints, but it hasn't prevented Hollywood from presenting its own version of history (not that it's a good thing when audiences start believing it for historical fact).

On another note, I've seen the term Tolkein fantasy bandied about a number of time in this thread, where I think "high fantasy" or "D&D fantasy" would be more apt. I would personally welcome a Tolkein-inspired video game that includes an early medieval setting, relatively low magic, and focus on world-building, while eschewing trappings such as gnomish inventors, plate-armored paladins, Scottish dwarves, evil dark elves, and Ancient Greek mythological creatures.

Hey, if it's good enough for Sir Walter Scott...

 

[Arkadin]

Don't you guys forget that thinking about the MIddle Ages as an age of ignorance and darkness was something brought by XIX century libruls.

Hey good ol' Petrarca already brought hatin' on the medievals into style in the 1300s...bring on the Protestant Rerformation, rationalism, etc. and the poor Middle Ages had no chance in the popular consciousness. Luckily historians have gotten much better at writing about the era.

I think since Paradox and many others working in other genres than RPGs have shown well how fun and interesting historical settings can be, there's no reason it can't be done here. Different levels of realism / accuracy are possible, and of course when it comes to what we don't know, there's plenty of room for speculation. Just as history is no mere chronicling of events but an interpretation of meaning and the mechanisms at play, there's no reason that you can't have multiple games on the same events/era/people that have differing interpretations of the causes, the personalities, etc.

We developed a tabletop game set in the late Middle Ages that had a health/food/status effects system based on the four humors. That's a little too much "magical realism" for some folks, and you can certainly work without such lore-based mechanics. But my point being, if you're curious about the topic and creative, these kinds of settings are no more limiting in game and story design than, say, fantasy tropes, quite to the contrary

 

[Ninjerk]

Don't you guys forget that thinking about the MIddle Ages as an age of ignorance and darkness was something brought by XIX century libruls.

Hey good ol' Petrarca already brought hatin' on the medievals into style in the 1300s...bring on the Protestant Rerformation, rationalism, etc. and the poor Middle Ages had no chance in the popular consciousness. Luckily historians have gotten much better at writing about the era.

I think since Paradox and many others working in other genres than RPGs have shown well how fun and interesting historical settings can be, there's no reason it can't be done here. Different levels of realism / accuracy are possible, and of course when it comes to what we don't know, there's plenty of room for speculation. Just as history is no mere chronicling of events but an interpretation of meaning and the mechanisms at play, there's no reason that you can't have multiple games on the same events/era/people that have differing interpretations of the causes, the personalities, etc.

We developed a tabletop game set in the late Middle Ages that had a health/food/status effects system based on the four humors. That's a little too much "magical realism" for some folks, and you can certainly work without such lore-based mechanics. But my point being, if you're curious about the topic and creative, these kinds of settings are no more limiting in game and story design than, say, fantasy tropes, quite to the contrary

You could make a Rashomon-esque series of historical RPGs (kind of how certain CK2 eras have their own proprietary mechanics like decadence or w/e for akbars).

 

[JarlFrank]

The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes. And disallowing the player from affecting major events is a major turnoff.

Well, so do strategy games. If you play the Germans in a WW2 strategy game and win, the war takes an ahistorical outcome. If you play as Venice in Europy Universalis and colonize the Americas, it is ahistorical. If you play a historical battle in a TW game and win as the historically losing side/lose as the historically winning side, the outcome is ahistorical.

In strategy games, everyone accepts that once the player is involved, the game will not end up as real history did, because the player might make different decisions to what historical leaders did. Why should that be a problem in RPGs? Let the player take sides and influence the outcome, maybe even just very slightly in some detils, or majorly if your story allows for it. Give Arcanum-style ending slides on what happened. When there's an ending slide saying "your involvement led to Napoleon winning against Russia" or "you helped the Emperor defend Constantinople and the Turks were beaten, the Empire continued to exist for another century", you know that this isn't how things really happened, but it's fucking awesome to know that your actions changed history to such an extent.

 

[Johannes]

Hey, I just remembered that Expeditions: Conquistador exists. I haven't played it (though I own it, actually...), does it include supernatural elements in it? Or is it a more "realistic" take on the era?

 

[JarlFrank]

Hey, I just remembered that Expeditions: Conquistador exists. I haven't played it (though I own it, actually...), does it include supernatural elements in it? Or is it a more "realistic" take on the era?

There are some supernatural elements (I remember a part with a Mayan death god or something) and there are things such as curses that actually work, but overall it's comparatively subtle and mostly realistic.

It also allows for the player to make choices and influence the ending of the game.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Even Before CK2 there were games like RTW when you RP as faction and lead it into quite unorthodox outcomes and to be honest going non PC and trolling SJW would give game only free publicity; don't forget hole SJW is not that common nor popular among upper middle class youths and Anglo-Scandinavian countries. Going that direction would require much skill yes but already AoD could be done in let say IV-VII century dark age Jewrope with very little changes for example classic Roman I century AD look would have to changed to this though:

(this is how Cyrodil in Oblivion and Imperial legion in Skyrim should like BTW.)

And for magic there was so many saints, witches and supernatural occurrences during ancient times you don't need faggot elf with fireball to make it fun... as You could use Greek Fire instead.

 

[mondblut]

The Holy Roman Empire. The Kingdom of Prussia. The German Empire. Any German setting, really. I'm starving for it.

Warhammer much?

The only non-strategy game I've ever played that takes place in a somewhat authentic German setting is Gabriel Knight 2, and that was nearly 20 years ago.

This person apparently has never heard of Darklands. Unleash the dogs.

 

[mondblut]

Africa has a lot of potential:

To play as a white colonizator, yes.

 

[Akratus]

Oh god. Go and look what videos Josh "liked". This man reeks of utter boredom, just watching a few of those vids gave me suicidal thoughts. No wonder his books are exactly like that.

He liked this:


Lol.

• possibly lack of magic

That depends of what you see as "magic". You could create groups of charlatans that try to sell "magic" shit to ignorant peasants. Or, think about Kalkstein in Twitcher, he never really does magic but there's this interesting element about him that you could take in this direction. Medieval people had a really wild imagination, just check Marco Polo's book.

If anything, we'd see lots of faggots complaining about not being able to have swords, which were almost exclusively used by professional armies (something more common in the late middle ages) and the nobility, since they were both a symbol or a certain social position and something very expensive to have and maintain.

INB4 Pseudo Warfare experts come in and start talking about this crap..

INB4 Fucking Katana > Broad Sword Bullshittery.

That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Bastard Sword” bullshit that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that’s about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don’t you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

 

[Ludo Lense]

When you introduce elements that are of the supernatural kind you also shape the player's expectations and make him/her more willing to accept absurd things (like a direct sword hit not lobbing off your arm, only taking hp).

I disagree with this argument completely. People have no trouble separating things that pertain to the purely mechanical aspect of the game with things that pertain to its narrative. Those are completely separate issues. When more realism is introduced in the game at a mechanical level, more realism is also required in the representation of whatever supernatural element was implemented in the game's narrative. If a sword hit is programmed to lob off limbs from enemies, nobody would take issue with the presence of magical fireballs in and of themselves, but they might ask why casting a fireball against a tree does not set the tree on fire, even though "realistically" speaking, it should.

The things a player is willing to accept from a narrative stand point are completely different from the things he has learned to accept due to the obvious limits of computer technology.

I have a feeling this will quickly descend into the false ludology vs. narratology debate but I think this issue is more generally tied into player categories rather than set-in-stone rules. The fact that gameplay and context have been separated for a long time due to technical issues and lack of creative vision doesn't mean that it's the "right" way to do things.

I should also note that, in this context, realism doesn't mean simulation. To draw parallels from cinema, "Ladri di biciclette" belongs to Realism and is not a documentary. Realism, as a visual artistic current, generally means using banal and a common frame of references to craft a work of fiction (keep in mind that works of art rarely fit in fully into a single current, it's pointless to try and say "This belongs 100% in this current").

Coming back to video games, the closer you get to "serious" themes the bigger the discrepancy between the context and the gameplay. Everybody jumped on Bioshock:Infinite because it had very high goals and wanted to be about something, but 90% of the time you spent killing magical space racists in a floating city in the sky, the cutscenes with Elizabeth where were the human part of the game resided. Far Cry 4 on the other hand had very low goals, its a game about emergent gun play in a Himalayan setting, people brush off and don't get angry at the whole drug trade/fertile land moral choice because it doesn't matter if it's stupid, that's not the focus of the game.

 

[DeepOcean]

By pricks, I mean that people always follow their self interest

Not always, and not all people.

Seems to me you are both trying to apply your own moderntarded prejudices to history. "Everything was bling and bitches trololo". Right. I am in awe at the deeyp historical insight.

Wot? "Everything was bling and bitches trololo"? Man, you have problems of reading comprehension to reach this brillant conclusion. So, okay... let's say society believed slavery is okay, a guy is owner of a slave and he believes slavery is okay, he act on his self interest and what he believes and not on the interest of the slave. You are born protestant after the reformation and its middle of the 30 year war, so it is kinda hard to be objective and don't see all the catholics as enemies as many tried to blow your head off on a daily bases and vice versa. People were biased on their own interpretations of what happened, who was guilt of what, who was the enemy, if something was right or wrong based on their own views and interests that was influenced by their culture.

That is why you can't take the account of Julius Ceasar of the conquest of the gaul as completely accurate as he was one of the parts interested and had his own self interest on the issue as you can't take the speeches of Abraham Lincoln as a completely accurate depiction of the "evil" south people that likes slavery when he had his own self interest to remain the president of the union, something that wouldn't happen if half of it seceded. I don't get where you got history is "gaem of thrones", maybe because I commented on the extreme cases like people like Attila that was a monster for the roman empire but a hero for his people and in reality probably both and he was just the product of the historical forces at the time. Self interest is not the same thing as you being a sadist lunatic, for fuck sake.

 

[Sranchammer]

The history of our world shits on any fiction ever imagined

Also, the Byzantine historian Michael Psellus was bemoaning the lack of scientific inquiry centuries before any western barbaric pigdogs

 

[Shadenuat]

My answer to the question would be that most people don't really know history.

 

[Sranchammer]

My answer to the question would be that most people don't really know history.

MLK freed da slaves doe

 

[Smejki]

I liked Sawyer's video more than i liked that Kingdom (when the fuck is it gonna) Come dev response, which is troubling, because it is the Kingdom Come guys who are making an historical video game

Remember I'm answering why other devs don't want to make historical games, why it's easy to turn away from that idea in a minute and stay conventional, not why our historical game will be shit because these troubles are actual for us. They are not. Mostly. Yes, we're limited but also have some new possibillities open. Yes, we have to pay extra attention to some aspects and we got used to it pretty quickly. Yes, a bunch of people expect something different (Mount and Blade-ish power fantasy), despite being clear about our intentions. That is I think the biggest trouble exclusively tied to our game being historical.

 

[Smejki]

The chief problem with a historical setting is that player interactivity intrudes on historic outcomes. And disallowing the player from affecting major events is a major turnoff.

Prequels have the same trouble yet they seem to be popular.
And it's not necessary. You can allow player to alter history, you are limited only by your creative intentions. Or you allow him to change minor yet still significant stuff. This is still enjoyable given you don't give the player the illusion or even expressive promise he can change big things. And since a whole bunch of important details of major historical events got lost never got recorded your playground is pretty vast.

 

[Lyric Suite]

By pricks, I mean that people always follow their self interest

Not always, and not all people.

Seems to me you are both trying to apply your own moderntarded prejudices to history. "Everything was bling and bitches trololo". Right. I am in awe at the deeyp historical insight.

Wot? "Everything was bling and bitches trololo"? Man, you have problems of reading comprehension to reach this brillant conclusion. So, okay... let's say society believed slavery is okay, a guy is owner of a slave and he believes slavery is okay, he act on his self interest and what he believes and not on the interest of the slave. You are born protestant after the reformation and its middle of the 30 year war, so it is kinda hard to be objective and don't see all the catholics as enemies as many tried to blow your head off on a daily bases and vice versa. People were biased on their own interpretations of what happened, who was guilt of what, who was the enemy, if something was right or wrong based on their own views and interests that was influenced by their culture.

That is why you can't take the account of Julius Ceasar of the conquest of the gaul as completely accurate as he was one of the parts interested and had his own self interest on the issue as you can't take the speeches of Abraham Lincoln as a completely accurate depiction of the "evil" south people that likes slavery when he had his own self interest to remain the president of the union, something that wouldn't happen if half of it seceded. I don't get where you got history is "gaem of thrones", maybe because I commented on the extreme cases like people like Attila that was a monster for the roman empire but a hero for his people and in reality probably both and he was just the product of the historical forces at the time. Self interest is not the same thing as you being a sadist lunatic, for fuck sake.

The fallacy with your argument is that you seem to think "self interest" is the only driving force of all human actions and you seem to believe all history ought to be interpreted according to this childish idea, and if the facts of history seem to say otherwise, it means those facts "cannot be completely accurate", because they happen to contradict this premise of yours.

Apparently, your answer to people who want a "sanitized" version of history is to offer them one that is stained in shit and grime instead. I don't see how that is that big of an improvement.

 

[Immortal]

I liked Sawyer's video more than i liked that Kingdom (when the fuck is it gonna) Come dev response, which is troubling, because it is the Kingdom Come guys who are making an historical video game

Remember I'm answering why other devs don't want to make historical games, why it's easy to turn away from that idea in a minute and stay conventional, not why our historical game will be shit because these troubles are actual for us. They are not. Mostly. Yes, we're limited but also have some new possibillities open. Yes, we have to pay extra attention to some aspects and we got used to it pretty quickly. Yes, a bunch of people expect something different (Mount and Blade-ish power fantasy), despite being clear about our intentions. That is I think the biggest trouble exclusively tied to our game being historical.

So what is your game? It's not a Mount and Blade Power Fantasy.. It's a semi open sandbox world taking place in generic potato land where some king is kidnapped but your a piece of shit peasant who doesn't really care and will stay a piece of shit peasant because realism?

I am all for realistic setting, realistic combat ect.. but If you guys are making a smaller scale Skyrim without magic or dragons or any power fantasy you have just made a more boring setting.
Can you give me a link or video explaining what your game is?

The graphics look amazing but I have no idea what your game is trying to be.

 

[Commissar Draco]

The way we progress from being just pesant to Man at Arms Sargent in prologue I think we can expact being knighted and given some small castle as feudal holding at the end of the game; or maybe even more if game won't be 100% realistic.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Another example of how moderntards fail to understand medieval society. For them, everything is about class, which fails to explain how somebody could be born a peasant and still become a renowned scholar and eventually even Pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II

 

[Smejki]

It's a semi open sandbox world

Story driven open world semi-sandbox RPG

taking place in generic potato land

Nope

where some king is kidnapped but your a piece of shit peasant who doesn't really care and will stay a piece of shit peasant because realism?

That's not realism. That's presumption based on lack of information. I don't blame you, the story ain't out yet.

Can you give me a link or video explaining what your game is?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1294225970/kingdom-come-deliverance/description
First paragraph contains all the crucial info. And sets context for any additional details - if you hear "multiple castles and battles" you are not supposed to jump "ZOMFG M&B with gafiks!!" all over your room because we take only the pure grounded medieval setting of M&B, not its mechanics or anything else, which is explicitly stated at the beginning..

 

[Immortal]

It's a semi open sandbox world

Story driven open world semi-sandbox RPG

taking place in generic potato land

Nope

where some king is kidnapped but your a piece of shit peasant who doesn't really care and will stay a piece of shit peasant because realism?

That's not realism. That's presumption based on lack of information. I don't blame you, the story ain't out yet.

Can you give me a link or video explaining what your game is?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1294225970/kingdom-come-deliverance/description
First paragraph contains all the crucial info. And sets context for any additional details - if you hear "multiple castles and battles" you are not supposed to jump "ZOMFG M&B with gafiks!!" all over your room because we take only the pure grounded medieval setting of M&B, not its mechanics or anything else, which is explicitly stated at the beginning..

I read the introduction and it seemed exciting. Then I read the bullet point features:

• Non-linear story lets you choose between being a villain or a savior. Every quest can be solved in multiple ways.
• A revolutionary combat system based on inverse kinematics, the only one of its kind to offer a rich, authentic yet easy-to-control, first-person melee experience. Based on actual 15th century fighting techniques and designed in cooperation with medieval martial arts experts.
• Improve your character. Different play styles - warrior, rogue or bard - can be mixed and matched as you see fit. You can develop your skills, earn new perks, and fine-tune your equipment.
• Large realistic, medieval-themed, open world landscape covering 3.5 square miles and 30 hours of gameplay (in first act, out of 3 total).
• Lead the charge in enormous, open field battles and sieges. You are no superhero. If you’re going to take on an army of enemies, you better find one of your own to back you up.
• Take a trip through the Middle Ages: Traverse sprawling cities, magnificent castles, towering, dark forests, and muck-strewn villages.
• Discover this huge world from horseback or on foot. If you can see it, you can visit it.
• A dynamic world comes alive. Every inhabitant plays a role in their communities, and as night follows day, you can watch people work, help them when needed, or try to interfere in their routine and see what happens.
• Build relationships with characters, become a criminal or a local hero, seduce local women, threaten your enemies or pardon vanquished opponents.
• Create your own weapons, cook, brew up potions, or dig around for silver. All crafting occurs in-game, using clever mini-games, rather than boring, soulless menus.

At first these points all seem great.. but then I realized that almost all these points could be said about Dragon Age Inquistion or Skyrim.. depending on the Cognitive Dissonance of the PR team..

I still don't know what your game is going to be.. What do I do besides killing bandits and cooking potions?
The game is story driven? What does that mean?

Will there be invisible walls that open up as I complete quests? Do I get a castle and army and I have to manage them? Do I run around with a bard lute beating peasents?

Huge potential but I still don't get what the goal is.. why is this game gonna be better then the schlock we see every year?

Also more importantly.. will there be boobs?