Would this he unforgiveable?

Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
75
Points
18
The story I'm writing is a LitRPG set in 380 B.C. in Roman-controlled Britain. So, Britannia, not Britain. The System stuff doesn't come immediately however. I spend the entire first volume setting up the politics, the factions, etc and some plot points and character progression etc. Probably 80k words at most. The system arrives at the dead end of volume one and thus becomes set in story at beginning of volume 2.

I love history. So I want to explore my own interpretations as well as invest into it for system stuff. Will be using real life people from timeline plus a few others who were either dead before then or were too young to matter. Plus some of the real world conflicts and controversies that were raging on back then.

Anyone see this being an issue?
 

Draconite

New member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
8
Points
3
Nah politic is good and all but don't forget about the training montage and also try to get some techniques like swordmanship or something else before the system arrives after all there are too many swordsman.
 

Sabruness

Cultured Yuri Connoisseur
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
159
Points
43
If it was an issues, all of the subsets of alter-history fiction (you know, what if history and such) wouldnt exist. As long as you dont try to glorify and praise fcuked up shit like nazism, rape and stuff then you're all good.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2019
Messages
20
Points
13
It's your creation and your design, it's yours to do as done by, very interesting idea, might read it sometime.
 

TrashyHuman

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
72
Points
18
The story I'm writing is a LitRPG set in 380 B.C. in Roman-controlled Britain. So, Britannia, not Britain. The System stuff doesn't come immediately however. I spend the entire first volume setting up the politics, the factions, etc and some plot points and character progression etc. Probably 80k words at most. The system arrives at the dead end of volume one and thus becomes set in story at beginning of volume 2.

I love history. So I want to explore my own interpretations as well as invest into it for system stuff. Will be using real life people from timeline plus a few others who were either dead before then or were too young to matter. Plus some of the real world conflicts and controversies that were raging on back then.

Anyone see this being an issue?
Ubisoft does it all the time, why can't you
 

Jemini

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
170
Points
43
In terms of the system, as everyone else is saying, sounds fine.

My self being a bit of a combat historian, that's the actual area that peaks my attention more. If you are dealing with real world history with liteRPG mechanics, it sounds like an excellent area to bring up historical combat tactics, but in the same vein it also creates the risky fine line where it's very easy to mess up by, say, over-emphisising swords too much (as most people are wont to do.)

So, what you've said tells me you are pretty up on political history, but where are you in the area of warfare history? Weapon and combat tactics in particular. If you are not well versed in this area, I would recommend getting well versed in it if you are going to go down this road.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
75
Points
18
In terms of the system, as everyone else is saying, sounds fine.

My self being a bit of a combat historian, that's the actual area that peaks my attention more. If you are dealing with real world history with liteRPG mechanics, it sounds like an excellent area to bring up historical combat tactics, but in the same vein it also creates the risky fine line where it's very easy to mess up by, say, over-emphisising swords too much (as most people are wont to do.)

So, what you've said tells me you are pretty up on political history, but where are you in the area of warfare history? Weapon and combat tactics in particular. If you are not well versed in this area, I would recommend getting well versed in it if you are going to go down this road.
Dunno if I would call myself a major in it. I have degrees in ancient and medieval chinese history as well as medieval European history. Ive read a lot on weapons and warfare tactics though. I'm also one of those nerds who has a copy of Sun Tzus Art of War on my shelf. My favorite period of all time to study though since it has the least amount of literature is from the years 300 to around 1000 A.D, European. Gotta love barbarians smashing western rome and making a shit ton of their own kingdoms.

But at any rate, I made a mistake. I meant 380 A.D., not B.C. My bad. Julius didn't invade Britannia until the 55 B.C.

Anyway, I'm bringing the system in, this with all the powers that brings meaning conventional warfare of the era will change as magic, super strength, and various monsters become involved. Peasants become warlords as well, and of course, all of the religious turmoil that would be sparked since Christianity was in its beginning expansions and other more traditional beliefs of that time were fading.

Imagine the chaos!
 
Last edited:

Jemini

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
170
Points
43
Dunno if I would call myself a major in it. I have degrees in ancient and medieval chinese history as well as medieval European history. Ive read a lot on weapons and warfare tactics though. I'm also one of those nerds who has a copy of Sun Tzus Art of War on my shelf. My favorite period of all time to study though since it has the least amount of literature is from the years 300 to around 1000 A.D, European. Gotta love barbarians smashing western rome and making a shit ton of their own kingdoms.
Sounds neat. If that's how it is, I might recommend looking into some people in the Medieval martial arts community. That whole community dedicates a lot to researching and recreating the martial practices of the time period. The Youtubers Shadiversity and Skalagrim are excellent resources for self study, with Skalagrim being more focused toward weapons in particular and Shad having a more well-rounded approach toward Medieval combat in general.

Of course, one thing to know is how spears and other pole-arms were the actual significant weapon of the day with a sword mostly being a back-up side-arm. But, there's something else that not so many people know about. That is the use of shields. In particular is the question of why the Japanese armies didn't use shields. This is because shields are actually only beneficial for a military formation if you have more than a certain number of troops in the formation. If the army is too small, well, the shield will not be a detriment but it will add nothing to the formation's effectiveness in combat and thus is just unneeded extra effort to lug it around. They help a bit in 1 v. 1, but really don't help in combat formations unless you have a large formation like the Roman Legions. The primary use of the shield though is to protect against arrow fire, the Roman Legions' use of the shield for melee formations by their utilization of the gladiolus was a little bit of an exception rather than the rule. (Having to engeneer a special sword to be used in the shield formation actually makes it more of an exception that proves the rule.)

Of course, combat evolves over time, as well as according to the funding and backing that the army has. The early Isrealite mixed formation of heavy and light infantry eventually gave way to the Greek and Romans' all heavy-infantry formations, but the only reason the Greeks and Romans were able to field entirely heavy infantry formations was because they actually had the funding to outfit an all heavy infantry army.

(I'm sure I don't need to go into armor standards of the period, you probably know more about that than I do anyway.)
 
Last edited:
Top