Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff

[bored]

I've been wanting to do a pirate-age thing for quite a bit, and had been considering 7th Sea when the new edition was still on the horizon, although what we got turned out to be fairly unsuited to MUing.

So I'm a little torn on the whole thing. It gets the setting perfect but the old rules seemed too obscure/complicated. I suppose I could use a generic system but using a different system for a game that has a system always also seems weird to me.

I've had a few different L&L ideas as well, where it wouldn't feel quite as odd using say FS3 (or the new version, tweaked for fairer chargen vs. XP), but the various historical roadblocks are always looming large in my mind.

[BetterJudgment]

@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@Lithium said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

Doing a 'historical' game based only on information one can get from Wikipedia is... not a good idea imho.

Basing it on opinionated historians, when one can find historians that support the extreme opposites as well, is just as not good of an idea either.

If you think that all historians offer is opinion rather than inference based on evidence and reason, then another problem with this idea may be that you don't really understand history, either.

Here's a proposal: set it later, make the PCs all Muslims, Jews, or Mozarabs, and have any forces of the Reconquista be mooks. That will give you a setting with lots of "exotic color" (exotic, at least, for many of the players), opportunity for intra- and inter-group conflict, and the religious-based conflict people will expect without PC-driven religious conflict that is going to spill over into OOC arguments on channels, etc. I'd think that, if no one can play a Christian crusader and any Christians in the game are going to be culturally Arabic, then anyone arguing Christian vs. Muslim on a channel would be clearly outside of what the game is about and easier to identify as an asshat picking a fight.

[Lotherio]

@BetterJudgment said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@Lithium said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

Doing a 'historical' game based only on information one can get from Wikipedia is... not a good idea imho.

Basing it on opinionated historians, when one can find historians that support the extreme opposites as well, is just as not good of an idea either.

If you think that all historians offer is opinion rather than inference based on evidence and reason, then another problem with this idea may be that you don't really understand history, either.

Here's a proposal: set it later, make the PCs all Muslims, Jews, or Mozarabs, and have any forces of the Reconquista be mooks. That will give you a setting with lots of "exotic color" (exotic, at least, for many of the players), opportunity for intra- and inter-group conflict, and the religious-based conflict people will expect without PC-driven religious conflict that is going to spill over into OOC arguments on channels, etc. I'd think that, if no one can play a Christian crusader and any Christians in the game are going to be culturally Arabic, then anyone arguing Christian vs. Muslim on a channel would be clearly outside of what the game is about and easier to identify as an asshat picking a fight.

I say opinion, you say reason. A slight view that took hold is La Convivencia, do I believe this is in part more ideological myth, yes, but it offered some sound reason. Modern historians offer a challenge to this. Do I believe in part it was less coexistence and there were honest travesties and atrocities, yes, but not to the extreme. I imagine it is somewhere in the middle. There are historians that are on either side of this coin, they do not agree. So in a matter, yes, it is the opinions of historians on whether it was coexistence or not. I believe no one really understands history, none of us were there truthfully. And reason can lead us to easily say opine one way or the other and there are historians arguing both sides of this coin. Everyone is going with it was major religious conflict, I lean middle ground were it was less religion. I also believe in part propaganda was much larger in influence how history was written and yes, there are historians that make this very point.

We can find scholarly articles and contemporary historians that make case for either side. I do think their reasoning is opinionated, to support their take on history. They all have access to the same empirical evidence and they can't always agree on the truth of the mater from 1300 years ago.

That said, your idea sounds interesting. I would be worried at one point, would it come down to me trying to 'teach' some other viewpoint or educate in some way? I'm not trying too. I'm looking at the forming of the northern kingdoms and the various alliances that are made and broke and the infighting amongst themselves between the likes of Asturias, Galicia, Basque, Vascones. Evidence points to alliances across or beyond faith. Even the Battle of Covadonga where Pelagius starts the Asturias movement, the Qadi was supported by the Bishop of Seville to broker with Pelagius (example of interfaith for one cause, the Umayyad Caliphate).

We've pulled in a few individuals from this thread already as staff, some with ungergrad and grad work in history. We are looking at adapting some of La Convivencia with the faiths working towards tolerance, and as mentioned, intolerances may abound idly (just not justified rape/murder/genocide in the name of a religion), but the faith reaction on either side to radical ideals could be in the name of heresy and quelling this internally too.

[BetterJudgment]

@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
I believe no one really understands history, none of us were there truthfully.

Christ. I spend weeks trying to pound this block-headed antiquarianism out of my students. They, too, think that because no golden tablets and spectacles are presented to them, then everything is just opinion. So be it.

I know that, over time, I have come to realize that I have no desire to dedicate my playtime to practicing history, but more power to you if you do. I hope you're not too disappointed when, assuming your L&L game opens, you realize that all anybody wants from your game's backstory is that it's not painfully inconsistent and that they get to be special in it. The rest of it likely will be cheerfully ignored, which is what most history deserves, anyway.

[Lotherio]

@BetterJudgment said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

All right, real quick

Christ. I spend weeks trying to pound this block-headed antiquarianism out of my students. They, too, think that because no golden tablets and spectacles are presented to them, then everything is just opinion. So be it.

Guilt by association. This inadvertently implies I am a blockhead. So lets look at the claim you believe I have made to see where you think I agree with your students:

@BetterJudgment said:

If you think that all historians offer is opinion

Emphasis mine. Argument from fallacy.

I never said all historians offer opinion, I never said all history is opinion. Never. Did I say historians are opinionated, yes. Do they deal in a lot of empirical evidence and fact as well, yes.

What did I say in response:

@Lotherio said:

They all have access to the same empirical evidence and they can't always agree on the truth of the mater from 1300 years ago.

I presented a historical period, beginning of Reconquista, others state this is charged with religious tension, I counter saying historically religious evolvement as any sort of cause doesn't enter doctrine until centuries later and can be viewed as propaganda by some historians; never an assertion all historians on in agreement. Likewise there is just as much evidence to suggest that tolerance was practiced, including Christians incorporated into Umayyad administration, members of the Caliphs family marrying Christians, and doctrine of treaty signed between both faiths to allow multiple faiths to coexist (never an assertion that everyone in the entirety of the societies we're talking about actually practiced this).

I agree there is a lot of empirical evidence to support history, the area of modern Spain is invaded by multiple groups, including Arians, Visigoths, Berbers and then the Umayyad Caliphate. They did not get along, primarily as conquering forces vs native. Not unlike any other conquering force in history. Did part of the division exist because difference of faith, yes. Was it much different than other faiths, no. More evidence of the 8th century suggests the 'faiths' did not get along internally. Northern Spain is occupied with succession from Visigoth kingdoms and a number rise and fall in this period, from Galicia, Asturias, Leon, Basqua, Cantabri, and Vascones. Souther Spain is more embroiled in internal struggles as well, coupled with failed conquest north towards Gaul and the Franks. But they are more focused on the Berber Revolt and the Second Civil war of the Umayyad Caliphate.

The only thing I am saying in this thread, which was the discussion or disagreement to begin with, was that it wasn't as Religious at this point as some folks are being lead to believe. And I am agreeing, OOCly because of modern misconceptions and opinions on religion, there is likely to be inappropriate, wrongful, and hurtful things said on the pub channel, not unlike some comments hinted at in this thread. I have countered for everyone who suggests the 8th Century begins as some religious conflict that religion doesn't become a part of this until later centuries and is possibly (not is, but possibly - that is reason or opinion, take your pick) more related to propaganda. Even the concept of reconquest as a term or ideal doesn't come into play until the middle of the 9th Century.

I know that, over time, I have come to realize that I have no desire to dedicate my playtime to practicing history, but more power to you if you do. I hope you're not too disappointed when, assuming your L&L game opens, you realize that all anybody wants from your game's backstory is that it's not painfully inconsistent and that they get to be special in it. The rest of it likely will be cheerfully ignored, which is what most history deserves, anyway.

I am not disappointed if it turns out this way, we are specifically aiming an L&L game where everyone thinks they are special. Realms offered a truer look at the enfeoffed experience, and many people did not like this, playing dirt toiling lords/ladies at the bottom of the nobility ladder, the entry rung, who would have to climb up to become something more special.

And the last statement is any game really, not only the one I am looking to make (and why I stared this thread) It is not relative to whether it is historically based or not. A lot of people cheerfully ignore theme, regardless if its historical, modern, alt-earth, original fantasy, space, etc.

[tek]

Hold up. Historian here.

The art of studying history isn't about empiricism. It's about interpretation and being able to draw from the sources to support your interpretation.

[Lotherio]

@tek said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

Hold up. Historian here.

The art of studying history isn't about empiricism. It's about interpretation and being able to draw from the sources to support your interpretation.

I stand corrected. Just meant I never implied history was all opinion or all made up. Sorry @tek.

[BetterJudgment]

@tek said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

Hold up. Historian here.

The art of studying history isn't about empiricism. It's about interpretation and being able to draw from the sources to support your interpretation.

I'd say simultaneously drawing from the sources you select and letting those sources shape your interpretation, but otherwise I agree completely. You also have to convince others (and yourself) why your interpretation of a particular part of history matters--what one of my mentors always calls the "So what?" question. Given how little historical research is actually read, that's probably the harder part.

Anyway. Anything that gives a game a lively setting is probably good, but I'm probably not a good judge of what is lively. I loved the "1001 Nights" game I briefly played on and couldn't imagine a more fun and interesting alt-history setting, but that game was essentially stillborn. I don't know what people want.

[Surasanji]

I'd be interested in playing any such themed game. I'd be glad to offer a sounding board, as well- but would prefer not to be any kind of staffer.

[Lotherio]

@Surasanji said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:

I'd be interested in playing any such themed game. I'd be glad to offer a sounding board, as well- but would prefer not to be any kind of staffer.

Sounding boards certainly welcome, anyone interested in contributing even as a sounding board is just as welcome. I'll send the addie and wiki stuff to those interesting in contributing constructively.