Why are there so few stories that take advantage of Colonial times as a setting? It seems like you could add magic and fantasy and make something out of that, but I can't think of any attempts.
There is an RPG in that era called Colonial Gothic. I haven't played it myself, so I have no idea if its any good.
>>45941220
Nobody cares
>>45941220
Because muskets make for slow, uneventful combat
>>45941285
I guess you could always go for the assassin's creed route when handling firearms
>>45941285
Haven't you seen the Revenant?
7th Sea
>>45941285
If you're not fighting in large battles, that's not an issue.
Keep the combat focused around small skirmishes and adventures, and you don't have to worry about it.
>>45941220
I've been trying to run a combat-lite game in the early days of America, were combat is fast, small, and brutal
>>45941254
>There is an RPG in that era called Colonial Gothic.
Came in here to post this.
There are two versions, the original that uses a d12 mechanic, and a d20 clone.
>>45941359
Played a one-shot of the 2nd edition last weekend. Can heartily recommend.
>>45941220
This movie is basically already colonial american magic fantasy, right down to textbook evil English people.
>>45941395
>>45942399
Would I be right to guess that you'd have a lot of combats where two small groups take a few shots with firearms and then close into a chaotic melee?
>>45947113
Pretty much. Reading accounts of civilian fighting in the period, such as highwaymen and so forth it tends to be a short exchange of fire followed by one side surrendering/dying or one side fleeing or getting stuck in with knives, swords, clubs, etc.
Actually, the slow rate of fire of firearms was one reason why bows stayed in vogue in the Border region between England and Scotland and the Reiver clans in both countries into the 18th century; rate of fire was higher.
>>45946686
Mel Gibson really hates history and the English.
He's done it three times now and has pretty much managed to fuck over relationships between the English and Americans (who while always cocky about it weren't so 'FUCK THE BRITS' as they are now), Australians (the modern Gallipoli myths are entrenched by that film of the same name even though far more English/British soldiers died in the campaign then Australians) and Scots (Braveheart pretty much created the modern drive for independence rather than just supporting Labour).
>>45947437
I like it.
Now imagining a weird fantasy setting where firearm technology was partially lost, and most folks use something like Daneguns turned out by crafty blacksmiths.
Lots of ambushes, and when combats are toe-to-toe they often end with one side fleeing to regroup at first blood.
>>45947559
I had an idea for a fantasy Meiji Restoration. Armor can withstand pistols and matchlocks, but when it comes to western firearms armor is only useful for turning fatalities into treatable casualties. Western-inclined players would have the strategic advantage, less weight burdening them means more mobility and ambush potential, but once the gunsmoke settles the traditionalist troops would likely mop up what remained. I'm still trying to figure out how to balance bows against the unarmored. Bring padded jacks/buff coats back into vogue?.
>>45947472
The thing that pisses me off about Gallipolli is all the bullshit about a military clusterfuck being unironically celebrated as when "we became a nation".
For fucks sake more Aussies died in the western front in WW1 than the entirety of WW2. There's a fucking town in France named Anzac that took up Aussie Rules due to their presence. The Kokoda campaign led the Japanese to believe they were dealing with three times the amount Australians that were actually there.
There's also some of the irritating ignorance of some of our non-military clusterfuck/sport/stolen movie actors achievements. It was Sir Howard Florey who administered the first clinical trials and mass production of penicillin, and instead we take pride in 'discovering' ABBA.
>>45941220
Ok, lets take this as you mean specifically in the Americas. This is literally my professional jam, yo.
First, "colonial times" is a big span of time, but we can really break it down into two halves for the sake of gaming. Even if you're not focusing on real history, it really helps figure out the feel of the game
The first half is 1500s-1600s. Think Conquistadors, Solomon Kane, Jamestown, the Salem trials etc. Armour is still used, as are cut and thrust swords, shields, halberds, pikes, bows etc, all along with muskets and pistols.
The second half is through the 1700s where you start losing armour, ditching the pikes, and focus on gentlemanly warfare with massed musket lines, hanger swords, bayonets etc. Think American revolution.
Both give you incredibly different feels. I highly suggest the earlier feel. Go watch the TV show "Salem", and the movies "The Witch", "Solomon Kane" and "A field in england". Old world evils and new world threats in an unexplored wilderness.
>>45941220
Because Ubisoft ruined it forever.
>>45947472
Braveheart was the movie he made about the Revolutionary War before he could find an American historical personage to completely misrepresent.
>>45948778
>Salem
>Solomon Kane
>The Witch
>A Field in England
Confirmed for good taste.
You bring up s good point about the time and technology too. By the 1700s the American colonies are a lot more established and there are major travel routes. Earlier lets you have armored fighters and keeps the wilderness unknown.
>>45948916
Stirling BRIDGE. He had to go out of his way to fuck that up.
