Disasters (Natural and Fabricated) in table top gaming.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I was looking at a time-line of a specific year to get a feel for the events that took place as a sort of preparation for storytelling a game set during that time period. One of the things that caught my eye were several disasters that took place in that year. What would you say is the etiquette concerning using real life disasters in a game? Does it change of the disaster is a recent one or one that no one alive could have lived through? How much history can be blended into fiction before it's too real?

I realize the answer to all of these questions is different for everyone but I am curious about the general consensus on the subject.

[Baelon]

Disasters, I think, can give the sense of a living world. But, with some groups, it can lead to players assuming that it's something they have to stop or prevent or avenge. Some players assume that, if it's mentioned, it's plot relevant. If it happens on screen, it has direct relevance to their ongoing narrative. Even--heck, especially--when it's not.

I like throwing the effects of disasters at players. I think it's an interesting background element. But it has to be used appropriately. A session set during a hurricane (to create a sort of imposed bottle episode) can be interesting. Tornadoes are fun, too, for similar reasons. Earthquakes as background effects to signal omens of evil are pretty solid. Blizzards are useful in some instances and are good obstacles for travel.

It doesn't have to serve narrative purpose, but it helps.

[Knaight]

Natural disasters are fine, other disasters (e.g. industrial, transportation, etc.) are also fine, and it's fine to use real life ones if you're using a setting. With that said, there's a lot more leeway in the context of how you represent the ones that aren't in living memory of the people at the table. As for the game becoming too real, a straight historical game is just fine, as is a straight modern game that has history up to the modern day.

[GungHo]

You probably need to check the temperature of the folks you game with rather than strangers on the internet. Natural disasters are fine, as are man-made disasters, and I've lived through both. Some folks may be annoyed/offended, though, if it looks like you're making light of the Challenger disaster or the Kennedy assassination (either one) by saying a time travelling wizard really did it.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I'm aware that my players will have an opinion of their own, but as I stated in my opening post I am curious what others think. I'd like to have a discussion about the topic in general.

The examples of the challenger explosion and the Kennedy assassinations are exactly the sort of thing I am referring to. I know my players would be ok with a fantastical version of these events but other people might not.

[GungHo]

The examples of the challenger explosion and the Kennedy assassinations are exactly the sort of thing I am referring to. I know my players would be ok with a fantastical version of these events but other people might not.

You might have to consider some element of taste, as well. Again, it's one thing to kill a political leader (even a beloved one) and infer conspiracy (i.e. filing off the serial numbers), but the more contemporary and more heinous the situation, the more careful you'd need to be. If you wanted to do Fantasy Charles Manson, I probably wouldn't notice unless you noted that the draconic writing translated into "Helter Skelter". Fantasy Cleveland Kidnappings, though, is beyond the pale for me.

There are also elements of focus. Focusing on the radiation from Fukushima and saying it birthed Godzilla is probably okay. However, focusing on the horror of some guy who went mad because he was never able to find his wife and son, again, is probably too much. You've gone from setting the stage to getting entertainment out of people's real, personal misery.