PDA

View Full Version : Realistic Real World Campaign [3.5 & Derivatives]



AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 03:35 PM
Exactly What It Says On The Tin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin).

How would you go around doing this? My plan is to have a Campaign set in RL Europe sometime in the frst half of the 1st Millenium AD. This is because I love History, doesn't mean I'm very accurate though.

The first problem has to do with the inclusion of monsters and magic. However, without any monsters or magic, D&D wouldn't be D&D would it? So as far as monsters go, I figure every monster should have backing in a IRL Mythology (Greek, Nordic, Egyptian, etc.). As should religion, don't want to offend anyone, right? Magic's a little more difficult, but not much so. Simply cut everything down to E6, as to reduce the flashiness of spells. Would also need to create more "practical" spells (for lack of a better word), like, I don't know, some dumbed down version of Clairvoyance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm). But as stated, even E6 isn't capable of producing the complete effect. Next step would be E4, but I doubt that would work.

So, any suggestions lovely GITPers?

Marnath
2010-11-24, 03:37 PM
I've never played it, but it seems like d20 modern would be a lot better for this sort of thing.

If not that, then yeah E6 is a good starting point.

Spiryt
2010-11-24, 03:41 PM
Man, that's quite an ambitious project.


The truth is that 3.5 (or derivatives) aren't very good for this purpose.

Stuff like Riddle of Steel, well prepared GURPS or whatever would be much better, probably.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 03:42 PM
I've never played it either, but isn't it well, set in the present of the real world? (And get rid of Classes?)

bloodtide
2010-11-24, 03:44 PM
Well...A historical game can be fun...but maybe not the fun you want.


If you pick a year, well, not so much happens in a year. Unless you have extremely detailed history of an area. For the most part, nothing happens over a year.

The end result is not so 'historical' as it is just 'low magic and no fun'.


And unless the players care about history, they won't go along to well with a history game. The players want to have fun, not be told that 'oh you can't do that it has not been invented yet' or 'sorry, no magic'.

Feliks878
2010-11-24, 03:46 PM
Right now my girlfriend and I are running a game set in the real world as well, specifically in Paris, France in the 16th century. Obviously our game has a higher tech level then yours, so we incorporate magic, etc. by having it replace/replicate technology in many ways. It's a high magic setting that uses the real world map, but many D&D elements such a your standard Pantheon, monsters, etc.

It works, much better then I originally expected. Some of the players sometimes call foul on some historical inaccuracy (we have 3 history majors, graduated or otherwise, in our group), but we eventually made it clear that we will take some liberties either through ignorance or direct necessity in creating a story. It's been great fun so far.

If you want to avoid the High Magic setting feel, E6 is very much a strong choice. Right now our players are only at level 6 themselves, but there are some higher level NPCs running around and it can be hard to justify certain historical events when a 14th level Wizard can do so many fancy things, especially with divination.

PersonMan
2010-11-24, 03:46 PM
I've never played it either, but isn't it well, set in the present of the real world? (And get rid of Classes?)

d20 Modern has quasi-classes(strong, fast, etc.).

Other than magic and class differences, there isn't all that much different from DnD, other than it using a wealth system and class defense bonuses.

Callista
2010-11-24, 03:47 PM
Well... it's not going to be realistic.

I know, you're trying to make it realistic; and you can make it closer to real-world history, but if you include magic or monsters at all, you're going to end up changing history to the point that it does not run like the history we know and love (or just endure in the 10th grade).

Look at a very low-level spell like Cure Minor Wounds. Suddenly you have the ability to stabilize a dying man on the battlefield, risk-free. You can now stop women from hemorrhaging after childbirth. You've changed society quite a bit, and that's just if there are Adepts floating around, and very low-level ones.

A 0-level spell, Know Direction, replaces the compass, which wasn't practical until 250 years after your setting. Navigation takes a big jump; the world is mapped out much earlier.

Detect Poison is regularly cast on the food and surroundings of powerful people. Assassination strategies change, and the succession of rulers changes.

Purify Food and Drink makes food-borne illness a thing of the past, at least in the upper classes.

Comprehend Languages allows people from different areas to communicate, and diplomacy changes. Interrogation of prisoners changes from ruthless torture to a combination of Detect Thoughts, Zone of Truth, and questions that suggest the thoughts you want to pop up. Remove Disease may even stem the tide of the Black Death. And clerics that can create food and water allow long sea voyages without the risk of scurvy.

Now, yes: You can give the campaign a more realistic feel; but don't fool yourself into thinking that you can make it actually realistic, because to do that you would have to take out magic and monsters entirely.

DonEsteban
2010-11-24, 03:48 PM
Well, even with only level 3 spells magic would have to be extremely rare or you'd need another explanation why it didn't radically change society and technology (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis). Or you could just not care, of course. Maybe the best way to go.

If you do care, then yes, maybe D20 modern or GURPS or [everybody feel free to rush up to propose your favorite system] might serve you better.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 03:52 PM
Now, yes: You can give the campaign a more realistic feel; but don't fool yourself into thinking that you can make it actually realistic, because to do that you would have to take out magic and monsters entirely.
Well of course.

Can't have anything cut and pasted from the History Books can I? No, no I'm definitely going to have to fudge stuff. Can also make Spellcasters very, VERY rare. 1 per 1000 maybe? Probably less. If I do go with E4, people will only get to 2nd Leveled spells anyway.

@Feliks878: Well that sounds dandy to me. Of course, I'd be playing with people who haven't taken a High School leveled World History yet, so I guess I have more potential liberties to take.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-24, 04:20 PM
If you want a realistic game, play GURPS. DND is terrible for this, even D20 Modern.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 04:34 PM
To people advising GURPS: Thank you, but no. While it sounds interesting, I am not going out to buy new books and neither would my players.

fusilier
2010-11-24, 04:49 PM
People keep suggesting GURPS because it is very well suited for what you want to do. GURPS-lite is a basic version of the rules and is free (you can download it), and will provide you with just enough information to actually run a game. So you can at least get a feel for the system without spending any money on it.

Anyway, I've run a couple of historical GURPS campaigns without magic or advanced technology, and I haven't had much of a problem, even though most of the players were not what I would call history buffs. AD&D actually had several historical books that explained how to run non-magical campaigns as well, or how to introduce magic into a historical setting. These books might prove useful to you, for background and adaptation purposes. In my experience, what you really need is a fun plot to keep the characters engaged, not magic or technology.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 04:51 PM
People keep suggesting GURPS because it is very well suited for what you want to do. GURPS-lite is a basic version of the rules and is free (you can download it), and will provide you with just enough information to actually run a game. So you can at least get a feel for the system without spending any money on it.
I saw that, but wasn't that for 4E?

Tengu_temp
2010-11-24, 04:59 PM
I saw that, but wasn't that for 4E?

GURPS 4e. Not DND 4e.

fusilier
2010-11-24, 04:59 PM
I saw that, but wasn't that for 4E?

Do you mean 4th edition GURPS? There are GURPSlite versions for both 3rd and 4th editions, but I think it's a bit more difficult to track down the 3rd edition version. The differences between the versions in my opinion aren't that severe.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 05:38 PM
OK, so I'll check this GURPS stuff out. But by and large, I think it's more Fluff and less Crunch that I'll have trouble with, so less emphasis on System then I've been getting.

Does this make me sound like an jerk?

fusilier
2010-11-24, 06:22 PM
OK, so I'll check this GURPS stuff out. But by and large, I think it's more Fluff and less Crunch that I'll have trouble with, so less emphasis on System then I've been getting.

Does this make me sound like an jerk?

No. It's just that D&D ties its system to its fluff -- more so than a system like GURPS. That's why you are uncomfortable removing magic from D&D to run a historical campaign. There may be other options though, and there are some variants of the D20 system that might work, or can be adapted. I know that 2nd edition AD&D had historical source-books (some of them were actually very good, and I've used one for background info in my GURPS games). While I suspect you don't want to run a 2nd edition game, those books may give you inspiration on how to adapt D&D 3.5 to a historical setting.

If you want a more "fantastic" feel to your game, but still grounded in a realistic historical setting, then sticking to well known mythological monsters is a good idea. I don't know what E6 or E4 is, so I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Limiting magic, and/or making it take longer to perform, was one of the techniques used in the 2e Historical supplements to give a more historical feel to magic. (Is this the kind of feedback you were looking for?)

I would also try to nail down a specific year, so you have a reference point for research. Understanding the political situation, and some of the cultural attitudes, allows you to provide an interesting setting that many players would not have experienced before. A lot of things changed during the first half of the first millennium AD (in Europe anyway).

Callista
2010-11-24, 06:56 PM
Well of course.

Can't have anything cut and pasted from the History Books can I? No, no I'm definitely going to have to fudge stuff. Can also make Spellcasters very, VERY rare. 1 per 1000 maybe? Probably less. If I do go with E4, people will only get to 2nd Leveled spells anyway.Most of the spells that will change the world do tend to be 2nd level or lower (all the things I mentioned are very low levels). 1:1000 can make a pretty big difference; for example, in the USA, about 1:1000 people are doctors.

But I am glad you aren't going to try to make it strictly historical; I think it will be an interesting challenge to get the flavor right. Not letting people get past 2nd level spells means, I assume, that you will be banning magic-users? Do make sure your players are OK with that. (And make the non-magic-using variants of the ranger and paladin available.)

Have you considered what you're going to do with prestige classes? It seems like many of the PrCs, even Core PrCs, just wouldn't fit in very well; but some of the martial ones could be re-flavored as members of fighting organizations...

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-24, 08:16 PM
No. It's just that D&D ties its system to its fluff -- more so than a system like GURPS. That's why you are uncomfortable removing magic from D&D to run a historical campaign. There may be other options though, and there are some variants of the D20 system that might work, or can be adapted. I know that 2nd edition AD&D had historical source-books (some of them were actually very good, and I've used one for background info in my GURPS games). While I suspect you don't want to run a 2nd edition game, those books may give you inspiration on how to adapt D&D 3.5 to a historical setting.

Does this book have a name?

If you want a more "fantastic" feel to your game, but still grounded in a realistic historical setting, then sticking to well known mythological monsters is a good idea. I don't know what E6 or E4 is, so I'm not sure what you are referring to there. Limiting magic, and/or making it take longer to perform, was one of the techniques used in the 2e Historical supplements to give a more historical feel to magic. (Is this the kind of feedback you were looking for?)

E6 means that characters don't grow past leavel 6. Likewise, E4 would mean that characters wouldn't advane past 4th level.

And yes, it is thank you.

I would also try to nail down a specific year, so you have a reference point for research. Understanding the political situation, and some of the cultural attitudes, allows you to provide an interesting setting that many players would not have experienced before. A lot of things changed during the first half of the first millennium AD (in Europe anyway).

As mention earlier, a year in particualr could be boring. I think a decade might be best ... More room for different things to happen. But yes, I agree that a definitive date is a must



Most of the spells that will change the world do tend to be 2nd level or lower (all the things I mentioned are very low levels). 1:1000 can make a pretty big difference; for example, in the USA, about 1:1000 people are doctors.

Good point. As I said, that numbers a starting point. Also, theirs nothing stopping me from revising the spell list a bit. As much of a pain as that would be. :smallsigh:

But I am glad you aren't going to try to make it strictly historical; I think it will be an interesting challenge to get the flavor right. Not letting people get past 2nd level spells means, I assume, that you will be banning magic-users? Do make sure your players are OK with that. (And make the non-magic-using variants of the ranger and paladin available.)

Well. I'm not sure. My players prefer martial classes, but theirs always 1 one who likes being a magic-user. So we'll see what happens about that. But I would certainly be using the magic-less Paladin and Ranger. Though I may just substitute the Paladin with the Knight.

Have you considered what you're going to do with prestige classes? It seems like many of the PrCs, even Core PrCs, just wouldn't fit in very well; but some of the martial ones could be re-flavored as members of fighting organizations...

Well if I do use E6 their are very few Prestige Classes available. Even if you do use the Cap-Stone feats.

Responses in BOLD

doc*sk
2010-11-24, 10:16 PM
It sounds like you are set on using d20, buy you might want to look at Savage Worlds. It would take the purchase of a book, but you can get the Explorer's Edition for $10 (http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Worlds-Explorers-S2P10010-Staff/dp/0979245567/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290654917&sr=8-1).

It's a fun game and you can ignore all the rules on magic and such.

Aux-Ash
2010-11-24, 10:30 PM
This is an interesting question and even if I am not a D&D player, let's see if I can provide some useful suggestions.

I think basing all monsters in folklore is a good idea. If you want to be really creative I suggest giving them more traditional weaknesses too. That trolls turn to stone permanentaly in sunlight, that goblins (svartalfar that is) cannot bear the touch of iron, that evil cannot cross salt, that garlic over the door repels monsters. Stuff like that.
Coupled with them being rare it could neatly explain why monsters have such a low impact on society. Because people know how to ward their homes from them.

Magic does seem to be the biggest problem to making it realistic. But I think there's two ways to make that less of a problem.
First, the spellweavers themselves, beyond making them very rare change their role from the pseudo-scientist/action-hero to something else suitable: namely cultists (real ones), members of esoteric societies, hermits. The kind of people that secludes themselves in small groups of likeminded individuals and are too busy with finding their own enlightenment than with the rest of the world.
Sure, they might have the power to defeat armies on their own (or so they claim)... but finding that arcane enlightenment is more important to them and requires their full focus ("No, I'm busy. Come back in 20 years").
For the mages that you do put in normal civilisation, use them like you would court-astrologers, mediums, the local wise woman. You know, scary/weird people you only got to when you feel you have to.

Second thing is remove or change all magic that would seriously change fundamental principles of the world. For instance, exploding fireballs aren't that different from catapults throwing greek fire so it's not a big issue. It's probably outranged anyways so it can remain unchanged.
Any form of teleportation or flight however, changes the fundamental principle that distances are vast and travel dangerous. So you'd have to change them or remove them. Perhaps you can only teleport to locations you know intimately and have a connection to, like your current home, your childhood home or the place where your love lie buried but not the local post office or a place you've never been to.
Flight could have the limitation that when flying you are subject to the winds and touching anything groundbound cancels the spell. Making it actually rather difficult and unpractical to spend much time flying (not to mention: "Curses! A storm!").
Anything that cures diseases just like that should be removed (if you ask me such spells shouldn't exist in the first place). Diseases that eases symptoms, helps people recover and/or makes them feel better is fine, but not outright removing the disease (what I mean with this is: you can go to your patient and remove their symptoms for a day, but unless they recover the symptoms will always come back).
Physical healing should be fine, if limited in scope. That should be neatly handled if the people capable of it are rare. If one person in a city can heal physical injuries, then he's going to either have lots of patients every day or be kept by the local ruler for his own purposes.
Divination should be difficult to read and never set in stone (something all decent divinators keep secret). The future (and the present and the past) should always be very uncertain and murky.

Oh and of course. What is dead should remain dead. No ressurections (barring extraordinary circumstances). Undeath is fine though.

I'd suggest that all magic that would cause a major effect either requires a sacrefice of some sort or have a chance of failing (what I mean with that is that the mage cast the spell, but it is up to his/her skill to make use of it. The spell only activates the tools for them to do so).
Combat spells are often very insignificant in the grand scheme and can be allowed to be used "trivially". But more fundamental things should not.

Ultimately, use magic, monsters, gods and heroes as flavouring but not determinators.
The army with the better mages on their side should have an advantage, but not a guaranteed victory. It's still the quality of the leadership and the blood, sweat and tears of the men that remain the final determinator (oh and luck, lots and lots of luck).
The emperor doesn't rule because he's a mage, but because he's a strong, skilled and ruthless leader who happens to know some magic.
Gaius Julius Ceasar might have been blessed by the gods, but it was his leadership, his ingenuity, his officers and his character that made him into the conqueror he was.

fusilier
2010-11-25, 04:37 AM
The series of books are called "Historical Reference" Sourcebooks. The one I actually own is called "A Mighty Fortress" (HR4) -- I think it was the best one out of the series, but it deals with the 1550-1650 time frame.

For your time period, either HR5 - The Glory of Rome, or HR2 Charlemagne's Paladins, would probably be good.

HR5's focus is probably going to be on the height of the empire and not it's fall (although the history section does cover that), and therefore may be a bit early for your campaign. On the other hand HR2 may be a bit later.

Psyx
2010-11-25, 06:22 AM
'Realistic' and '3.5' should never appear in close proximity.

First piece of advice would be that if you want a realistic game and game-world, use a more realistic system. 3.5 is dreadful, and dragging it down to E4 levels just gives you a hamstrung dreadful system. The system drives the game, and 3.5 drives high-fantasy game worlds.


"The end result is not so 'historical' as it is just 'low magic and no fun'."

That's not true at all. Historical games are excellent if run right. You need to play a little fast-and-loose with dates, in order to make sure that the PCs are involved in various 'exciting' things, but if you find a span of 1-20 years where there's a lot happening, you can easily do that with just a little bit of fudging.
As for magic... just play it as everything that superstition dictates is 'real' is. There really IS a troll in the woods. The village witch CAN hex you, etc.

A -say- Dark ages Viking game is quite flexible as due to the lack of written records, you can pretty much make up minor events, and some fairly major ones without contradicting history at all. Just keep most of the monsters away from settled areas so that creatures are things of superstition, rather than an everyday event.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-25, 08:00 AM
This is an interesting question and even if I am not a D&D player, let's see if I can provide some useful suggestions.

Thank you :)

I think basing all monsters in folklore is a good idea. If you want to be really creative I suggest giving them more traditional weaknesses too. That trolls turn to stone permanentaly in sunlight, that goblins (svartalfar that is) cannot bear the touch of iron, that evil cannot cross salt, that garlic over the door repels monsters. Stuff like that.

I did this with an Elf already. Strictly based in Germanic folklore. (Or I'd like to think so.) Sound advice.

Coupled with them being rare it could neatly explain why monsters have such a low impact on society. Because people know how to ward their homes from them.

Yep, yep.

Magic does seem to be the biggest problem to making it realistic. But I think there's two ways to make that less of a problem.
First, the spellweavers themselves, beyond making them very rare change their role from the pseudo-scientist/action-hero to something else suitable: namely cultists (real ones), members of esoteric societies, hermits. The kind of people that secludes themselves in small groups of likeminded individuals and are too busy with finding their own enlightenment than with the rest of the world.
Sure, they might have the power to defeat armies on their own (or so they claim)... but finding that arcane enlightenment is more important to them and requires their full focus ("No, I'm busy. Come back in 20 years").
For the mages that you do put in normal civilisation, use them like you would court-astrologers, mediums, the local wise woman. You know, scary/weird people you only got to when you feel you have to.

Sounds good to me. I'd avoid a Cleric of Hades most of the time. And the cult things is a good idea. Could also use it for Druids. (Celtic, not D&D.)

Second thing is remove or change all magic that would seriously change fundamental principles of the world. For instance, exploding fireballs aren't that different from catapults throwing greek fire so it's not a big issue. It's probably outranged anyways so it can remain unchanged.
Any form of teleportation or flight however, changes the fundamental principle that distances are vast and travel dangerous. So you'd have to change them or remove them. Perhaps you can only teleport to locations you know intimately and have a connection to, like your current home, your childhood home or the place where your love lie buried but not the local post office or a place you've never been to.
Flight could have the limitation that when flying you are subject to the winds and touching anything groundbound cancels the spell. Making it actually rather difficult and unpractical to spend much time flying (not to mention: "Curses! A storm!").
Anything that cures diseases just like that should be removed (if you ask me such spells shouldn't exist in the first place). Diseases that eases symptoms, helps people recover and/or makes them feel better is fine, but not outright removing the disease (what I mean with this is: you can go to your patient and remove their symptoms for a day, but unless they recover the symptoms will always come back).
Physical healing should be fine, if limited in scope. That should be neatly handled if the people capable of it are rare. If one person in a city can heal physical injuries, then he's going to either have lots of patients every day or be kept by the local ruler for his own purposes.

E6 takes care of most of these, but thanks anyway.

Divination should be difficult to read and never set in stone (something all decent divinators keep secret). The future (and the present and the past) should always be very uncertain and murky.

I agree. Make prophecies open ended. Good idea.

Oh and of course. What is dead should remain dead. No ressurections (barring extraordinary circumstances). Undeath is fine though.

Yeah. Those are rare even in Myths.

I'd suggest that all magic that would cause a major effect either requires a sacrefice of some sort or have a chance of failing (what I mean with that is that the mage cast the spell, but it is up to his/her skill to make use of it. The spell only activates the tools for them to do so).
Combat spells are often very insignificant in the grand scheme and can be allowed to be used "trivially". But more fundamental things should not.
Ultimately, use magic, monsters, gods and heroes as flavouring but not determinators.
The army with the better mages on their side should have an advantage, but not a guaranteed victory. It's still the quality of the leadership and the blood, sweat and tears of the men that remain the final determinator (oh and luck, lots and lots of luck).
The emperor doesn't rule because he's a mage, but because he's a strong, skilled and ruthless leader who happens to know some magic.
Gaius Julius Ceasar might have been blessed by the gods, but it was his leadership, his ingenuity, his officers and his character that made him into the conqueror he was.

Good ideas all around. The powerful magic could be handled as rituals. Take days to complete with 12 different spell-casters. I like it.


The series of books are called "Historical Reference" Sourcebooks. The one I actually own is called "A Mighty Fortress" (HR4) -- I think it was the best one out of the series, but it deals with the 1550-1650 time frame.

For your time period, either HR5 - The Glory of Rome, or HR2 Charlemagne's Paladins, would probably be good.

HR5's focus is probably going to be on the height of the empire and not it's fall (although the history section does cover that), and therefore may be a bit early for your campaign. On the other hand HR2 may be a bit later.

I'll have to look in to that.


'Realistic' and '3.5' should never appear in close proximity.

First piece of advice would be that if you want a realistic game and game-world, use a more realistic system. 3.5 is dreadful, and dragging it down to E4 levels just gives you a hamstrung dreadful system. The system drives the game, and 3.5 drives high-fantasy game worlds.

What about E6? Is that lively enough?

"The end result is not so 'historical' as it is just 'low magic and no fun'."

That's not true at all. Historical games are excellent if run right. You need to play a little fast-and-loose with dates, in order to make sure that the PCs are involved in various 'exciting' things, but if you find a span of 1-20 years where there's a lot happening, you can easily do that with just a little bit of fudging.
As for magic... just play it as everything that superstition dictates is 'real' is. There really IS a troll in the woods. The village witch CAN hex you, etc.

I agree.

A -say- Dark ages Viking game is quite flexible as due to the lack of written records, you can pretty much make up minor events, and some fairly major ones without contradicting history at all. Just keep most of the monsters away from settled areas so that creatures are things of superstition, rather than an everyday event.

Yes. Ever playe Age of Mythology? They did a pretty good job mixing things up.

Callista
2010-11-25, 11:13 AM
Yeah... you probably will have to remove magic, I'm sad to say. It's just too versatile. Of course you could go Core-only and remove all the spells that would make life easier for the common people.

On the other hand: Have you considered starting out as Commoners? I know, I know, sounds horrible, right; but if you start out as commoners, you can get that "it's a rough world" flavor without having to remove magic altogether--once you get to 3rd level, multiclass. (And remove the multiclassing penalty, obviously. Or just replace those first 2 levels with a level in a PC class. Or something.) I dunno... seems like it might have the right kind of vibe for your game. But it would really have to be something the players would think was fun.

Psyx
2010-11-25, 11:35 AM
"What about E6? Is that lively enough?"

I don't consider it so. More of an attempt at making an high-fantasy system into a low fantasy system and ending up with a compromise. It still has a flawed combat system, no wound system of note, and a very poor skill system. You can either try to turn a donkey into a racehorse or buy a racehorse in my opinion. One of these solutions will stand a chance of winning a race.


"Yes. Ever playe Age of Mythology? They did a pretty good job mixing things up."

No. But we play a lot of historical fantasy games. I've just run 5 years of weekly games in Sengoku period Japan, and a friend is currently running a Viking campaign. We also do a contemporary Miami mercenaries game [nothing much like Burn Notice...honest!]. All using a homebrew rule system, because off-the-shelf stuff just didn't feel right or work. My playgroup enjoys the grittiness, the ease of imagining the scenes, the fact that a troll could be ANYTHING and is genuinely a scary prospect, and the fact that they sometimes learn something new about history. I'm particularly proud of the guy whose now been doing kendo for four years because he wanted to understand the in-game combat to a higher degree!

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-25, 01:31 PM
"Yes. Ever playe Age of Mythology? They did a pretty good job mixing things up."

No. But we play a lot of historical fantasy games. I've just run 5 years of weekly games in Sengoku period Japan, and a friend is currently running a Viking campaign. We also do a contemporary Miami mercenaries game [nothing much like Burn Notice...honest!]. All using a homebrew rule system, because off-the-shelf stuff just didn't feel right or work. My playgroup enjoys the grittiness, the ease of imagining the scenes, the fact that a troll could be ANYTHING and is genuinely a scary prospect, and the fact that they sometimes learn something new about history. I'm particularly proud of the guy whose now been doing kendo for four years because he wanted to understand the in-game combat to a higher degree!
Homebrew of d20, yes? Then what makes you think this will be impossible?

Psyx
2010-11-25, 01:56 PM
No: NOT d20 homebrew. A completely scratch-built system.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-11-25, 02:11 PM
No: NOT d20 homebrew. A completely scratch-built system.
Ohhhh. Care to explain it?

nedz
2010-11-25, 02:30 PM
There was a [very old now] computer game I played once which was called Darklands. The idea that they used was that the world worked the way people in the 15th centuary believed that it worked.

Thus you had Alchemists who would blow up inns make potions (the former was actually quite common :smallbiggrin:), Monks (the other kind) who would pray to Saints for miricles, Witches covens, and various other creatures from folk tales.

The game had problems, but the concept and the flavour was excellent.

To do this well would require that you had a good knowledge of the mythology of the period in question. This could, argueably, be very realistic from a cultural-historical perspective.

As for system, well you seem to have decided on D&D.
This should work so long as you keep it at a low level, even if you don't go for E4/E6 formally.

fusilier
2010-11-26, 03:09 AM
I forgot about Vikings (HR1) -- you might just want to take a look at the entire Historical Reference series.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 07:32 AM
Ohhhh. Care to explain it?

Not in less than 500 words, with any detail. It's umm... different. I'll give it a go:

System is not level based and uses XP to improve everything from stats, to skills and combat dice.

Character classes don't restrict skill purchases: They simply offer different initial stat bonuses, specific bonuses on some selected skills, and sometimes some unique abilities (Scouts for example can reduce overland travel times by a flat rate. Nobles can have a steady income). Character classes also set maximum limits on combat skills as well as the costs for buying them.

10 stats ranging 1-20, based on 3d6 rolls.

Skills go from 1-5 dice with an escalating cost. Skill rolls are made on a number of d20 equalling the skill level, with a bonus on the dice roll based on the relevant stats. Only the highest roll counts. Unskilled rolls use a single d12. I think there's about 30 skills, such as First aid, Dodge, Courage, Alchemy, Horsemanship, Stealth, Notice and Tracking.

Any hobby/background/niche skill that's essentially pretty minor and not worth making players make rolls for (eg carpentry, armour repair, dancing) has a flat XP cost. Pay the cost and you can do the skill, without rolling.

All combat is simultaneous - there's no initiative.
Weapon skills are rated as a number of dice (d20). Players split these between offence and defence. If you're facing multiple foes, you have to split defence dice between them. Again, only the highest dice roll in each pool counts. So if you're outnumbered and have only three combat dice, best to go fully defensive and pray you can hold them off until someone else can lend you a hand!

Damage against PCs is locational (as is their armour: Never leave home without a helmet on...), with each penetrating 'point' of damage doing causing HP loss and potentially causing impairing wounds or bleeding ones.

Damage against mooks is simplified and streamlined and doesn't require me to write anything down.

Healing is SLOW unless the character has a reasonable stamina and there's a competent doctor in the party to do first aid. Even then, a bad wound can hamper a character for weeks.

'luck points' are quite prevalent and used heavily. They're based on morale, so resting up somewhere nice or having a good time and succeeding in goals grants more. Three days camped in a room in a dungeon will result on loosing luck points. Failed Courage checks means you can't use luck in the fight.

Shticks are bought to spice combat up. Stuff like 'disarm' and 'battlecry' and 'mighty blow' give extra combat options, or just add to damage and stuff. Often they require luck points to fuel.

Combat is dangerous, and deadly without armour. An unskilled swordsman will take 65% of a player's hits if he lands a blow. Get hit by a skilled swordsman where you have no armour, and the PC is probably out of the fight.

It's easy to be dropped in combat, but harder to actually die, as the bleeding out rules are fairly generous. PCs aren't superheroes, although they eventually become frighteningly good swordsman.

awa
2010-11-26, 10:55 AM
age of mythology is not historical in any way those factions were thousands of years apart time wise and they trampled many of the myths Prometheus rampaging around destroying cities that's like the opposite of his personality.

saskganesh
2010-11-26, 11:21 AM
one option you may want to explore is having a "realistic" i.e. historical campaign background but have the campaign itself dealing with the introduction of magic to the historical context.

So it's like "what if (D&D type) magic was introduced to Europe in 732?"

you'll still have to think about the implications, but the back end of history is still as we understand it.