What if you use The Crusades as a setting for a campaign?

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 

1. It was a holy war between religions that still exist today. This makes it perilous ground. It's generally safest to have your historical games involve conflicts that no modern audience is likely to have a personal opinion about.
2. Wars in general don't make great campaign settings.

 I mentioned this in a different way already, it is audience dependent. Not everyone has these sensitivities.

 
“Sensitivities” is a lovely word, but the grammatical implication here is a nasty one - that anyone who would have an issue with the idea is “sensitive,” shifting the blame away from the DM for coming up with a minefield of an idea onto the players. I hope that is not what you meant, though it is essentially what you wrote.  

One also need not be overly “sensitive” to take issue with a conflict built upon truly staggering attempts to annihilate entire cultures and civilizations from a whole host of different actors.  Furthermore, anyone who thinks thee fact of the crusades is not continuing to shape the world in problematic ways is not paying attention.

But let us pretend anyone who thinks “maybe playing a game centered around genocidal wars with harms lasting to this day” are “sensitive” (there are, unfortunately, members of the community who believe this). It would still be a bad idea.  Folks on this thread have touched on “wait, why would they work together?” concerns as well as mechanical concerns.  Not touched upon yet is the simple knowledge disparity - more so even than in premade settings, the introduction of real world history adds an element of “who knows the most on this subject.  Moreover, this different knowledge might result in different expectations (especially for things like who the “good and bad guys are”) that can lead to disconnects at a table level, even without sensitivity.  

I have seen someone try to do almost this exact idea before, with players I know could handle problematic themes. It fell apart before it even started, as soon as folks realized what a minefield it might become, and how it would feel more like a slog than an enjoyable game.

 Don't read so much of your own interpretations into my words. I basically said: I'm not interested in some people's reaction to climb up on the soapbox and deliver their their moral social superiority(as they see it). I'm here to talk about a game where many people have a DM that explains a nat 20 on an enemy as a grisly affair. If you are easily offended, the world at large will give you infinite trigger ammo, what it won't do is conform to your narrow band of tolerance.

P.S. If you don't think the Crusades is a proper theme for a game, maybe you should close the tab instead of ""poo poo" the idea. Let those who want to discuss the game theme do so. The thread wasn't(IMO) seeking an approval rating, it was looking for constructive ideas for something that the OP already greenlit.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

“Sensitivities” is a lovely word, but the grammatical implication here is a nasty one - that anyone who would have an issue with the idea is “sensitive,” shifting the blame away from the DM for coming up with a minefield of an idea onto the players.

Um... pretty much every group has topics that they're comfortable with, and topics they aren't, and if the DM ignores what things the players are sensitive about... that's on the DM.

Quote from RolandtheCrownbreaker >>

2nd Edition had a campaign setting for this in one of the green covered guides.  There was a whole series of historical inspired ideas.

Mighty Fortress - which was inspired by the Wars of Religion in Europe, it opens with the (I think) Lutheran prayer that gave the book it's name.

A Viking inspired setting.

Charlemagne's Paladins

IIRC there was also one inspired by the Ulster Cycle, but it has been YEARS since I have looked through any 2nd edition stuff.

And yes, the Crusades.

 The timelines covered are between 1500-1650 roughly. In chapter 4 is split up into: Netherlands Revolt, French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years War and the English Civil War. Nice call out on this one!

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 

1. It was a holy war between religions that still exist today. This makes it perilous ground. It's generally safest to have your historical games involve conflicts that no modern audience is likely to have a personal opinion about.
2. Wars in general don't make great campaign settings.

 I mentioned this in a different way already, it is audience dependent. Not everyone has these sensitivities.

 
“Sensitivities” is a lovely word, but the grammatical implication here is a nasty one - that anyone who would have an issue with the idea is “sensitive,” shifting the blame away from the DM for coming up with a minefield of an idea onto the players. I hope that is not what you meant, though it is essentially what you wrote.  

One also need not be overly “sensitive” to take issue with a conflict built upon truly staggering attempts to annihilate entire cultures and civilizations from a whole host of different actors.  Furthermore, anyone who thinks thee fact of the crusades is not continuing to shape the world in problematic ways is not paying attention.

But let us pretend anyone who thinks “maybe playing a game centered around genocidal wars with harms lasting to this day” are “sensitive” (there are, unfortunately, members of the community who believe this). It would still be a bad idea.  Folks on this thread have touched on “wait, why would they work together?” concerns as well as mechanical concerns.  Not touched upon yet is the simple knowledge disparity - more so even than in premade settings, the introduction of real world history adds an element of “who knows the most on this subject.  Moreover, this different knowledge might result in different expectations (especially for things like who the “good and bad guys are”) that can lead to disconnects at a table level, even without sensitivity.  

I have seen someone try to do almost this exact idea before, with players I know could handle problematic themes. It fell apart before it even started, as soon as folks realized what a minefield it might become, and how it would feel more like a slog than an enjoyable game.

 Don't read so much of your own interpretations into my words. I basically said: I'm not interested in some people's reaction to climb up on the soapbox and deliver their their morale social superiority(as they see it). I'm here to talk about a game where many people have a DM that explains a nat 20 on an enemy as a grisly affair. If you are easily offended, the world at large will give you infinite trigger ammo, what it won't do is conform to your narrow band of tolerance.

P.S. If you don't think the Crusades is a proper theme for a game, maybe you should close the tab instead of ""poo poo" the idea. Let those who want to discuss the game theme do so. The thread wasn't(I don't feel at least) seeking an approval rating, it was looking for constructive ideas for something that the OP already greenlit.

 Yeah, it isn't a rule that only pro-concept posts are allowed.

If this HAS to be done, strip all IRL naming from it.

Because this is a subject that affects people to this day.

At least try to hide that IRL forever holy wars are being invoked for entertainment.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 

1. It was a holy war between religions that still exist today. This makes it perilous ground. It's generally safest to have your historical games involve conflicts that no modern audience is likely to have a personal opinion about.
2. Wars in general don't make great campaign settings.

 I mentioned this in a different way already, it is audience dependent. Not everyone has these sensitivities.

 
“Sensitivities” is a lovely word, but the grammatical implication here is a nasty one - that anyone who would have an issue with the idea is “sensitive,” shifting the blame away from the DM for coming up with a minefield of an idea onto the players. I hope that is not what you meant, though it is essentially what you wrote.  

One also need not be overly “sensitive” to take issue with a conflict built upon truly staggering attempts to annihilate entire cultures and civilizations from a whole host of different actors.  Furthermore, anyone who thinks thee fact of the crusades is not continuing to shape the world in problematic ways is not paying attention.

But let us pretend anyone who thinks “maybe playing a game centered around genocidal wars with harms lasting to this day” are “sensitive” (there are, unfortunately, members of the community who believe this). It would still be a bad idea.  Folks on this thread have touched on “wait, why would they work together?” concerns as well as mechanical concerns.  Not touched upon yet is the simple knowledge disparity - more so even than in premade settings, the introduction of real world history adds an element of “who knows the most on this subject.  Moreover, this different knowledge might result in different expectations (especially for things like who the “good and bad guys are”) that can lead to disconnects at a table level, even without sensitivity.  

I have seen someone try to do almost this exact idea before, with players I know could handle problematic themes. It fell apart before it even started, as soon as folks realized what a minefield it might become, and how it would feel more like a slog than an enjoyable game.

 Well, to make it less of a slog I suggested having at least one Cleric player and a Priest npc in the town. Maybe you can find some relics that act as magic weapons, hell, you can use Holy Water. It's historical fantasy you can take a few liberties.

Maybe the game starts with a siege on the city or village you've sheltered in, then after the attackers are defeated and the dust settles it's discovered that a bumbling heretic had accidentally opened multiple portals to the Abyss and the Nine Hells and it's up to your group to close the portals. You may encounter other monsters during your journey, such as cockatrices, leucrotta, manticores and giants.

What does adding a real-world backdrop to the campaign actually add to the game that using an entirely fictional setting would not?

List the pantheon of gods in your game.

You do not need every single one in D&D just enough to form two or three sides.

Its your world set it up any way you like.

Set up the Map, the nations, the pantheon, The species(you do not have to have them all). Now your very close to writing the wars outline.

Remember that at first this is a BIG war often among many nations or religions or even species since they tend to link with religions. And your little party is just a very small link in this play. As they gain reputation and fame they will have better opportunities to influence the total outcome.

Your offered scenario could be a small part in that whole war. Or the big final battle.

It doesn't have to follow real life like the Crusades,which were eventually just a small war in the scope of the whole world.

Don't get all tied up in trying to keep a "job" like scouting centered on one class. Almost anyone could do the job with good skills, feats, magic items and or spells.

Whilst I was one of the first to recommend against setting a game in the Crusades, I also want to offer a counterpoint that, provided everyone involved in the game is ok with it, and the game isn't being broadcast or televised, then the only thing that's truly important is that you and the players are all enjoying yourselves. If that means fighting demons in the backdrop of a besieged Jerusalem, then it's not really a problem. It's a fallacy to assume that every conflict in a fictional world should be just and fair, so basing one off the crusades just makes for a grittier setting than a conflict like in the lord of the rings (where Sauron genuinely wanted to subjugate the world and had to be stopped by the good guys). Some worlds benefit from the gears turning smoothly - others thrive on the grit that clogs them up.

The main thing will be checking with your players. If they all give enthusiastic agreement that it sounds awesome, then it will be awesome. If some of them are like "eeeeh, not sure about it" then that's the red flag for you that they may not enjoy the setting.

It's all about your audience, really.

Gonna make it simple. Something "inspired by the Crusades" and "The actual crusades are my setting" are very different things.

If you want a premise similar to the crusades, that is fine. If you want to do the actual crusades, then I and a lot of people are going to look at you funny for a multitude of reasons from "the implications" to "Hard corps religious people could consider this blasphemous." 

If nothing else, it’s a weird aesthetic detail to add if you’re just planning to do regular D&D stuff, and if you’re going to be tinkering with the baseline elements of D&D to make it fit your image of what the Crusades were like then you’ll want to be sure the group is forewarned of all the changes and still onboard- telling someone after they’ve started that people are gonna have dubious reactions to their elven character because the ears make them look “unnatural” or that being a caster risks accusations of witchcraft is generally not a good vibe.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

If nothing else, it’s a weird aesthetic detail to add if you’re just planning to do regular D&D stuff, and if you’re going to be tinkering with the baseline elements of D&D to make it fit your image of what the Crusades were like then you’ll want to be sure the group is forewarned of all the changes and still onboard- telling someone after they’ve started that people are gonna have dubious reactions to their elven character because the ears make them look “unnatural” or that being a caster risks accusations of witchcraft is generally not a good vibe.

 Well, since it's set on Earth during the Crusades, they're all going to be humans of course. Although there's gonna be a limited amount of classes to choose from for relative realism such as fighter (Cavalier or Purple Dragon Knight/Templar), cleric (Light Domain) and rogue (Inquisitive or Swashbuckler). I'd have to tell the players before hand so they know how to build characters within those restrictions.

So only one race option, only three classes and only five subclasses? Raises the question once again of why use a high fantasy system like D&D if you’re after something realistic? If you’re using D&D why not use all its options and move the setting from Earth to a fantasy setting with identical political tensions? One of my favourite fantasy book series, the Drenai books by David Gemmell, started as a novel about a crusader castle under siege and was changed to fantasy because that’s what the publisher thought would sell. You could do the same which then has the add on bonuses of freeing up more player options and not tying your hands if you decide you want to expand the new world you’ve created 

Yeah, being this restricted is a pretty dubious prospect for a campaign. Have you already told the group about this?

Also, I’m not entirely sure how you’re both having “realism” and a full caster as one of the very limited options.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Yeah, being this restricted is a pretty dubious prospect for a campaign. Have you already told the group about this?

Also, I’m not entirely sure how you’re both having “realism” and a full caster as one of the very limited options.

 I said relative realism.

Also, if I had a group I would definitely tell them.

I also forgot to add Scout to the list of subclasses, although I think Champion and Battle Master can work too. I just wanted to focus on historical accuracy.

Call it what you want, it’s a pretty weird choice to say all casters except one specific subclass are banned. “Historical accuracy” and “someone who can call down divine fire with a word or close wounds with a touch” are rather mutually exclusive.

Quote from Samueltheslayer >>

I also forgot to add Scout to the list of subclasses, although I think Champion and Battle Master can work too. I just wanted to focus on historical accuracy.

 Then drop cleric from the available class list; if you're going to include cleric you might as well allow every class in the game, because they all have comparable historical validity to clerics.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Samueltheslayer >>

I also forgot to add Scout to the list of subclasses, although I think Champion and Battle Master can work too. I just wanted to focus on historical accuracy.

 Then drop cleric from the available class list; if you're going to include cleric you might as well allow every class in the game, because they all have comparable historical validity to clerics.

 When were Wizards ever sanctioned by the Church? Clerics actually existed and still do to this day, although they can't actually perform miracles.

Quote from Samueltheslayer >>

 When were Wizards ever sanctioned by the Church? Clerics actually existed and still do to this day, although they can't actually perform miracles.

 What does sanctioning have to do with anything? The historical evidence for wizards who can cast spells is just as good as the evidence for clerics who can perform miracles, and a cleric who can't perform miracles doesn't have a class of Cleric, they have a class of whatever they do (mostly NPC classes, though one who marches with an army is probably a fighter).

It's supposed to be historical fiction. So, there's supposed to be some suspension of disbelief. It takes place in Earth's past but is still in the D&D multiverse.

With respect, you’re presenting two mutually incompatible positions. Setting aside the implementation of “miracles”, clergy as a martial force were never a part of the Crusades, so if you’re diverging that far from historical accuracy- despite previously citing it as a design point- it’s very arbitrary to only diverge far enough to allow one narrow slice of the fantastic in as ostensibly the only part disbelief can be suspended for. Honestly reads more than a bit like you’ve got a particular script you’re planning to run the campaign by.