Why isn't there more historical fantasy from the Napoleonic era?

How the fuck are suppose to pull that off?

File: tumblr_o3gsby89bT1unxhweo1_500.jpg (98KB, 500x708px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x708px

>>49615721
Nobody knows French. Pic related: a French grenadier.

muskets irl have a piece of shit chance of 0.2% to hit some one inside a huge formation, not your target just anyone, at 100m

on a clear day without smoke at a range of 40m, a musket has a 60% of hitting a large formation

>>49615721
Good question. it would make a great setting. huge battles, colorful characters, interesting tactics, great uniforms. Cavalry all over the place.

I've always wanted to run a campaign where the PCs are french dragoons during the 1812 campaign. Hopefully they die at Borodino and dont have to suffer through the withdrawal/rout...

>>49615721
Because it would be boring as shit?

>Right, let's make our characters
>I'll play as the guy with the musket
>And me
>And... me
>And me
>Oh and we have swords sometimes I guess.

>>49616157
sounds like you clearly know nothing about the napoleonic times.

Play a guy on a horse with a carbine and a saber. play a horse artillery crewman.

PCs as a 4-man horse artillery crew would be pretty epic.

>>49616199
>Oh boy
>we sit around loading lead balls into a tube
>We either win by doing it or we retreat by hitching the cannon to the horse and fleeing

>Oh boy, We're on horse with a gun and sword instead of on our feet with a gun and maybe a sword

Sharpe is one of my favorite TV shows but it would be a boring as fuck game to play.

File: Soldier_firing_magic_musket_by_maximusmk1-d4h9n73.jpg (59KB, 900x454px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 900x454px

Does anyone have good /tg/ appropriate art from this era (or even a name for it)

All I've got is what scattered MaximusMk1 stuff I've been able to recover

File: sibling riflemen.jpg (155KB, 1000x728px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x728px

>>49616284

File: female french officer.jpg (65KB, 800x1046px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x1046px

>>49616313

>>49616230
it would all be down to your DM anon. being part of a horse artillery team, or a being cuirassier or dragoon during a large battle would be pretty damn exhilarating.

Horse artillery is great because its somewhat mobile, PCs could move around, set up the cannon in unexpected places, ambush enemies and relocate, defend the gun, fire with their muskets or attack with swords, fire different types of rounds from the gun. It would be fun, with plenty of options.

File: napolel_by_regourso-daamw86.jpg (129KB, 765x762px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 765x762px

>>49616330

File: Roman musketeers.jpg (115KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x684px

>>49616348

>>49616334
Not to mention the bullshit you'd have to take.

Like being having to make do if you don't get resupplied or supplies being late.

Or having to fight off animals if it's the dead of winter or something.

>>49616334
>Hey, instead of playing a game where you're adventuerers off in the wide world
>Your sat in the army
>Being a bunch of artillery monkeys
>But isn't the boring mindless drudgery of work fun!?

File: napoleonic dwarf.jpg (84KB, 478x1000px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 478x1000px

>>49616357

File: Old Guard Grenadiers.jpg (571KB, 1000x1414px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1000x1414px

>>49616373

File: 1460918783068.jpg (221KB, 762x998px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 762x998px

>>49616230
>Sharpe is one of my favorite TV shows but it would be a boring as fuck game to play.

Why? Sharpe filled books and a tv show with 'all we got is muskets' and it was really interesting.

You don't need a diverse party to have an interesting game. You don't need to have diverse equipment to have diverse characters, or put them in interesting situations.

/tg/ has been filled with stories from single-class campaigns. 'We were all vampires/men-at-arms/thieves/operators/engineers/rocketeers' etc.

>>49616370
Why can't you adventure in a Napoleonic setting?

File: orc gunner.png (540KB, 744x1074px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 744x1074px

>>49616400
This one is honestly closer to 1600s

>>49616401
Short answer, Yes you do, you are stupid.

>>49616402


Long Answer for both of you; When the entire game is solved by "I fire musket or hit with sabre" then every single encounter, without fail, will be the exact fucking same.

The Napoleonic era was the death of the traditional Warrior culture, and with the Warrior culture comes the adventurer.

Hell anything "Historical" will usually be more banal mundane shit than it is fantasy.

File: female french cavalryman.png (832KB, 813x610px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 813x610px

>>49616426

>>49615721
That'd be pretty baller.
You also get to see the new empire crush the northern jew empire.

Now why are there so few french revolution fantasy?

>>49616437
Then what about Only War? You pretty much play as the Imperial Guard doing Guard things

>>49616462
Because Only War is fucking shit.

People only ever play Only War to be the A-Team, you know, the exact opposite of doing guard things.

>>49616471
>to be the A-Team
Then why not be the Napoleonic-style A-Team? Fantasy RPGs pretty much do the same thing to pseudo-medieval Europe anyway

>>49615721
I don't think it's what you're referring to, but every now and then I ponder about an 18th century setting with standard medieval fantasy races.

The only real conclusion I have is that I like the idea of Ogre Grenadiers in an Elven-Human dominated colonial empire.

>>49616437
Sabers are cool

>>49616437
>When the entire game is solved by "I fire musket or hit with sabre" then every single encounter, without fail, will be the exact fucking same.
You sound boring, like you have boring games too.

The 'game' should resolved by things like 'sabotaging the French armoury', 'safely escorting the ambassador across the partisan filled countryside' or 'assassinating the Italian general during a diplomatic parley'. That's the game, not how your character dishes at d6s and d10s.

>>49615869
Nigga just gibe me the sauce

>>49616501
Because it's at the time when guns are not in so many different flavours of fun And the different flavours of melee weapons were phased out.

Here is a fun idea, Play Shadowrun, but everyone can ONLY EVER use a Pistol and a baseball bat, that's it.

Imagine how fun that is.

>>49616532
>It should be fun to do these inane boring Military tasks

Yeah, it's not fun.

>>49616552
>>It should be fun to do these inane boring Military tasks
>Yeah, it's not fun.
Please tell me some fun then, cause I clearly need to be educated in some good fun.

File: 1460918848465.jpg (118KB, 900x744px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 900x744px

>>49616437

> Short answer, Yes you do, you are stupid.

Yeah why treat this like an interesting discussion being two people with different viewpoints when we can just escalate it to assholery and name calling for literally no reason

> Long Answer for both of you; When the entire game is solved by "I fire musket or hit with sabre" then every single encounter, without fail, will be the exact fucking same.

Are the games you play that bereft? If the combat is sameish, you take the focus away from those mechanics.

Make it a game where you're trying to survive in hostile territory with an extremely limited supply of ammunition, with high-lethality in combat. Play deserters in Napoleon's Russian campaign just trying to get the fuck out of dodge without freezing to death.

Or take it the other way and add *more* mechanics. We've got magic ammo now and choice in the battlefield. The enemy is sometimes werewolves. Maybe the brits did a deal with Satan and are now running around with Skaven-level tech


There's probably heaps of other ways to play with it. Why dig your heels in and give up immediately?

>You will never see Elven Winged Hussars charge on their pegasi

File: 109056.png (283KB, 300x490px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 300x490px

could easily be reflavored

>>49615922
Not true at all.

>>49616157
>>49616230
>>49616334
>>49616370
>>49616401
>>49616437
>historical FANTASY

>>49616510
I've thought of the same general idea, but the problem IMO is that you end up with too much of the same thing - "Oh, the french are Elves, the Brits are humans+dwarves, the Russians are Orcs"

>>49616615
Because every scenario you just shat out is "What if you were in X boring military scenario"

See the conclusion here >>49616630

All you end up getting is a boring historical campaign doing boring semi-historical things in an era that was boring as fuck.

>>49616552
>guns are not in so many different flavours
Musketoons. Carbines. Blunderbusses. Pistols. Rifles. Muskets. Air rifles.

And it wouldn't take much to make situations where grabbing the nearest weapon available would allow players a wider variety of melee weapons. Axes, cutlasses, sabers, clubs, bats, spears, bayonets.

And if you make it PSEUDO-Napoleonic instead, you can justify a wider variety

I feel like I've argued with you before, from another thread where an anon kept going on and on why some historical setting would be boring

>>49615721
Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is pretty gud. There's also a pretty good TV adaptation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Strange_%26_Mr_Norrell

File: 1471668935090.jpg (242KB, 968x1089px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 968x1089px

>>49616552
Your GM must be shit if he can't figure out how to make military campaigns fun.

>>49616658
Nah, we just avoid boring settings.

See >>49616657

>>49616657
Just got back from watching episode 3, and I agree that it is indeed pretty gud.

>>49616646
Hey, I'm only critiquing the idea of one-race nations. I'm totally down for fantasy/napoleonic mergers.

>>49616657
Problem is that, imo, it's more of a Regency tale that happens to feature a Napoleonic cameo.

Because in an era with real nationstates and gunpowder the hero legend gets way harder to pull off.

>>49616370
sound like you lack a bit of imagination, and probably a lot of knowledge on the period. There's a LOT of interesting things you can do, even within the army in the napoleonic times. Usually adventurers like a bit of structure like an overall mission, but then like to approach it their own way. Being a dragoon or horse artillery crew would be awesome during a large battle, even just on a foraging mission or something. Plenty of intrigue - violent peasants, highwaymen, guy you thought were looters but turned out to just be from some other part of le grande armee (which in 1812 was made up of many different ethnicities and languages)

Napoleonic era would make a great setting, easily rival any standard fantasy setting. Or would you prefer to use fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard forever in a generic fantasy world with goblins and orcs?

At present in our D&D campaign we're playing in a renaissance era setting, with early muskets, and with goblins fighting as if a thirty-years-war army, with mass musket fire and cannons. makes goblins a real threat instead of just some random savages in the mountains. Taking ideas from history can really help add flavor to your settings.

If you dont like a purely historical napoleonic setting, why not add in fantasy? be a battlemage of the grande armee, casting to keep your men's morale up at they hold off wave after wave of half Russian-hald orc troops rushing the redoubt at Borodeeno.

Read 1812, great book and full of interesting and brutal information and details of the Napoleonic period.

>>49616711
Of course, there's the problem of whether we are focusing on the Napoleonic aesthetic, or on the actual time period. if it's the former, you can do it like medieval fantasy - draw inspiration from it without being completely bogged down in the actual era, drawing more on themes and imagery - while following the latter causes the 'one race, one nation' problem you mentioned

>>49616718
not at all anon. Duelists and generals were the heroes of the day. PCs play as minor generals, mounted and going around doing diplomatic shit and leading their units in battle. There's heroes in any period or setting, just need to read up a bit about it. You almost always come across stand-out figures and characters when reading about a period.

>>49616726
>There is plenty of imagination!
>You can play as either peasents with guns
>Or highwaymen with guns
>Or the Military
>All doing Mundane boring shit! How Fun!

Are you American? I'll assume you are, you sound naive and stupid.

The Napoleonic era is the death of the Wilderness and the death of the local adventure.

It's the time when globalism rose it's young head and the Knight and the hero was dead and buried.

Look at all your fantastic examples, where you say the player must play a rat in a crowd at every turn.

It's a time where national armies were determined 100% by their colours and sepiatone makes everyone look the fucking same.

It's the time of factory, not the handcrafted.

>>49616769
>Rich inbreds and fat people are interesting characters.

You want to know why it's so shit? It's simple.

Because you can't stop using real-world "Oh it's X histroical but with Y fantasy trope" because it's so fucking dull.

>>49616718
>era with real nationstates and gunpowder
This didn't stop Western films. Or James Bond. Or WW2 action films like Guns of Navarone.

>>49616718
>in an era with real nationstates and gunpowder the hero legend gets way harder to pull off
Not really, no. There's plenty of political intrigue to go around for diplomatic heroism, and combat in the Napoleonic era still had room for heroic cavalry and bayonet charges, melee combat, and wooden ships and iron men on the high seas.

Even going past the Napoleonic era, there are countless examples in Hollywood, television, vidya, literature, and national medal recipient archives that disprove that claim.

>>49616726
>At present in our D&D campaign we're playing in a renaissance era setting, with early muskets, and with goblins fighting as if a thirty-years-war army, with mass musket fire and cannons. makes goblins a real threat instead of just some random savages in the mountains. Taking ideas from history can really help add flavor to your settings.

So they fight like every army in your setting? How fun and unique and interesting.

The general idea is intriguing, but it needs to be very carefully handled. For example, if you've got some sort of protection spell, is Ney still the Bravest of the Brave if he benefits from it?

Basically, magic (for historical fantasy in general and Napoleonic in particular, imo) needs to be powerful enough to alter things - no point in doing Waterloo with fire mages instead of cannons - while not removing the human elements.

In other words, the exemplary courage of the Poles means nothing if they are protected from enemy fire by magic, or conversely, if they get instantly cut down by magic. Is Napoleon still a genius if he has a scryer who can help him?

One way you can get around this, potentially, is having the sense of honour that pervaded the period sometimes cause issues; wearing your charm into battle is fair play, but you'd better take it off to fight a duel.

File: angry napoleon.png (177KB, 310x308px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 310x308px

Can we just elect to ignore that asshole?

I love the idea of 19th century Europe dealing with an alieum invasion

And don't give me the original War of the Worlds shit.

>>49616769
Yes of course I agree with you. And I'd have a blast with that. But my point is that you can't really do "One person or group of people travels the world and fights evil" as easily.

>>49616758
>themes

What ARE the themes of the Napoleonic era?

File: His-Majestys-Dragon-cover.png (1MB, 622x1014px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 622x1014px

Might I suggest this. It's got Napoleonic naval fights, poulticing, explorations, Dragons, aerial combat.

>>49616838
Why? Because I make posts like this >>49616828
The stupid shit they are?

Look at all the famous figures from the era.

Fat balding men who ran away when anyone over 5 foot 2 came near them.

>>49616845
Industrialization and the crushing of the individual in the name of the collective. Fantastic things to base an adventure on.

File: Master_and_Commander-The_Far_Side_of_the_World_poster.png (261KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 300x450px

>>49616844
>One person or group of people travels the world and fights evil
How about a raiding ship travelling the world hunting down enemy ships? Also gives the opportunity to do some land missions on the coast

>>49616726
>casting to keep your men's morale up at they hold off wave after wave of half Russian-hald orc troops rushing the redoubt at Borodeeno.

See >>49616828 which I really agree with - if the heroes have magic that makes them braver, etc. it diminishes their heroism. And the Napoleonic Wars to me are sort of the last gasp of chivalry and "casual" bravery. To us risking death for honor is dumb, for them it was every day. Not denigrating the bravery of guys going over the top in WWi or doing OIBUA in Iraq, but it's also not quite the same thing.

>>49616845
Visual Themes: Awesome uniforms. Massive armies, gunpowder and canons,lace lace and more lace,

General themes: Fighting against tyrants, grand political alliances with infighting, class struggle, Exploration of Africa and the Far East, the infancy of colonialism, Pirates and Privateers.

>>49616877
So we come to the terminus of how far we can reach.

The only way to do Napoleonic era shit in an interesting manner is being Pirates.

File: 2dEWAwX.jpg (686KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1000x800px

>>49616877
It's possible to do, just harder than in a medieval era. That's why Napoleonic era fantasy isn't that popular.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love doing Napoleonic fantasy.

File: Flintloque - Complete Rules.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49615721
It was called Flintloque and nobody but me played it.

>>49616890
So literally the antithesis of Heroism.

>>49616919
You're that anon from way back in a thread about WW1 right? The one who kept saying it'd be nothing but the Western Front?

>>49616844
>traveling the world
Travel is as easy as the GM wants it to be. If it's high fantasy, then magic makes travel easy no matter what the tech level. If it's low fantasy, then Napoleonic-era international travel is more accessible than that of earlier tech levels and harder than that of later tech levels.

>fighting evil
But the French are right fucking there.

File: youre shit.jpg (62KB, 453x351px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 453x351px

>>49616942
>But the French are right fucking there.

>>49616847
But it's really badly written.

>>49616859
You didn't even offer a rebuttal to >>49616828

>Fat balding men who ran away when anyone over 5 foot 2 came near them.
Ney, Murat, Picton, Inglis, I could list hundreds.

Now run along, you silly troll.

>>49616859
>Look at all the famous figures from the era.
>Fat balding men who ran away when anyone over 5 foot 2 came near them.

'When a friend expressed envy of his estate, Lefebvre said "Come down in the courtyard, and I'll have ten shots at you with a musket at 30 paces. If I miss, the whole estate is yours." The friend naturally declined this offer, and Lefebvre then added, "I had a thousand bullets shot at me from much closer range before I got all this."'

File: Sharpe's Gold (7) El Casco.webm (2MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x405px

>ywn rescue a sexy Irish adventuress from an evil cult of Aztec blood god worshipers during the Peninsula War

>>49616936
Actually, no.

On the inverse WW1 has an amazing scope for Fantasy because of the emergence of new technologies.

WW1 can be far more personal than Napoleonic era can be, and that's the entire point of it.

>>49616977
>A fat ugly general shoots a pistol in a duel
>WOW SO GREAT

Thank you for just making my point for me.

>>49616330

>French Officer
>Her uniform has the symbol for Avacyn's religion

but then they have tricorn hats so whateves.

Just ignore him, everyone.

>>49616630
>I've thought of the same general idea, but the problem IMO is that you end up with too much of the same thing - "Oh, the french are Elves, the Brits are humans+dwarves, the Russians are Orcs"
I'm not sure if that is a problem unique to fantasy in this time period though.

>>49617052
Why? Because I hurt your feelings?

The fact is I am right. How exactly do you form a party in the Napoleonic era without ever using the Military as an excuse?

Go ahead. Indulge me, Write me up a party of heroes in Napoleonic DnD.

>>49616990
That was easily the worst Sharpe movie.

>>49617067
>without ever using the Military as an excuse?
A private gemtleman has a treasure map leading to hidden gold stashed by pirates during the great Age of Exploration. He has hired unique individuals with specific skills to help him retrieve this gold. Problem: other private gentlemen also know the location of this treasure, including ones from enemy nations who may or may not have military backing.

The players are then given the task of finding this treasure. What they do with it in the end is up to them. They can keep it for themselves, or give it to one of the factions.

No need for them to be members of any military.

Your imagination is stunted. I bet you'd struggle to think of a WW2-era adventure without involving the conflict, while there's a whole body of pulp literature right there for you to study.

File: Sharpe's Gold (11) It's What He Does.webm (3MB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x405px

>>49617118
Oh, by far. The problem was they had used up the plot from the book in the movie version of Rifles, so they had to do something original. The original-plot movies, mainly this, Justice and Mission, are lousy compared to the ones adapted from the books.

Still, it has a great villain, and is an interesting example of how you could do a horror/fantasy-themed Napoleonic game.

>>49617143

So then tell me at what point does fantasy need to come into this then?

File: Atlantis.jpg (42KB, 730x311px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 730x311px

>>49617143
All of that is done infinitely better with WW1/WW2 era shit though.

>>49617067
>Write me up a party of heroes in Napoleonic DnD.
The rogue was a cutpurse from the roughest neighbourhood in the nation-capital, called Ogre Street. He escaped from the ship-based prison of Bilge-Mark to get his revenge on the corrupt copper that set him up. In the mean time however he needs money, and luckily there's no shortage of employers for a skilled thief.

The fighter -was- a soldier, but deserted after watching half his regiment get fed to wild-fire in the mage-wars. He's taken his skills into 'private enterprise' after changing his name, working as a mercenary in colonial adventures.

The wizard is a graduate from the mage academy of the nation's capital. A son of the nobility, he scoffed at a career in politics or the military and instead dedicated himself to unlocking the arcane arts through the prestigious Waterhull Academy. Disgraced after fighting a magical duel, and disinherited from his family, he is forced to take on work far beneath his station.

And so on and so on and so on

Use your imagination.

>>49617158
Maybe the gold is cursed or connected to some legendary city. Maybe the pirates are spooky scary skeletons. Maybe one of the PCs is a wizard. Maybe their chief rivals are a sober Russian, a lactose-intolerant Frenchman, a Prussian pacifist, and a British dentist. Figure it out for yourself.

>>49617158
Not him:

>It also can include an alternative history where the past or present has been significantly changed when an actual historical event turned out differently.[4]

>The story takes place in a secondary world with specific and recognizable parallels to a known place (or places) and a definite historical period, rather than taking the geographic and historical "mix and match" favoured by other works of secondary world fantasy.

>Historical Fantasy may also be set in a fictional world which resembles a period from history but is not that actual history.

Or it could just be a story set in Napoleonic era France minus any fantasy elements.

Take your stunted, fucking imagination; your negativity and your overall bad faith and leave the thread. You have contributed nothing of value to the conversation and have no intention of doing so.

>>49617190
>>49617198


See

>>49617172

Rather than continuing to feed the troll, how about we try to think up a system of magic that fits into a "historical" Napoleonic context?

For example, referencing a couple of comments above, improved wound care or magic that can reduce the incidence of disease could have a huge impact and it still lets everyone be big damn heroes

>>49617214
Make your fucking WW2 and leave this one. Some of us enjoy this theme and would like to discuss it in peace, among people that actually want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

>>49617158
>So then tell me at what point does fantasy need to come into this then?
Because its fun. Fantasy is not necessary for any kind of adventure, but we use it because its enjoyable.

The treasure could as easily be some kind of magic trinket as much as gold. The bad guys could be dabbling in black magic like necromancy or magical plagues in an effort for their leader to win. The nobility could be vampiric, the Napoleon stand-in could be half-demon and planning to end the world, there's a lot of ways to add fantasy tropes and make them work.

>>49617214
>>49617172
I don't think y'all realize how insignificant the individual was to the style of warfare fought in WW1/2 compared to the 1800s. Y'all are arguing from a point of bias rather than historical reality.

Also, the entrenched caste system common in Europe in the 1800s makes for better fantasy fodder than the modern age.

>>49616919
Colonialism is literally the most heroic endeavour.

>>49617237
>>49617231
>>49617215

The Entire standing point of the Napoleonic wars was that the individual was worthless and the regiment was more important.

I mean fuck me, you people missed the entire idea of Georgian era mercantilism.

maybe you American fucks should learn what the fuck era of history you're talking about before you try and lambast people for seeing it as a dullard era ever.

I mean fuck, it's right next to the Victorian era for fuck sake.

If you want Redcoats and Bluecoats firing at shit, just use the Victorian era.

File: wolfenstein 3d.jpg (201KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 640x480px

>>49617237
>how insignificant the individual was to the style of warfare fought in WW1/2 compared to the 1800s
Archive pages for the Victoria Cross and US Medal of Honor provide plenty of fodder for individual heroism. And that's before we get into all the World War vidya, literature, TV, and movies. And it's fantasy, so you have extra wiggle room for PCs to be extraordinary.

Any era can be suitable for heroism and RPG campaigns if the GM is even halfway competent.

>>49616796
>Are you American?
not even close anon

You have a very close-minded view of the napoleonic period, I would suggest reading more books on the period.

>>49616820
>So they fight like every army in your setting?
Partially, they also make use extensively of boar riders, ogres, and werid half-breen orge monstrosities so quite different to most regular armies. Also they're goblins so their pretty chaotic and unpredictable.

>>49616885
There's bravery in all periods anon. American civil war saw huge bravery, Russo-Japanese wars, WW1 (especially in places that weren't the western front and actually had maneuver warfare and lots going on), WW2, even modern times.

Any period is going to have interesting flavor, characters, bravery, equipment. You just need to learn a bit about the period and have a good DM who knows his shit.

>>49617278
Really need to work on the subtlety, man. You could have kept this going for three threads but you went way overboard.

File: NAPOOPAN.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>49617278
jesus christ

>>49617278
You seem pretty angry anon. Not everyone you disagree with is american. Might want to have a bit of a reality check there.

individuals can be as important as your DM makes them. Any setting, any period.

File: napoleon.jpg (52KB, 595x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 595x720px

>>49617278
>The Entire standing point of the Napoleonic wars was that the individual was worthless and the regiment was more important.
This is the age of the glorious hero figure i.e. Napoleon standing above all
You literally know nothing of what you're talking about, that garbage assembly of buzzwords is truly impressive

>>49617296
Right but my point is that these were men who would volunteer to lead a charge into almost certain death, or fight a duel, or any number of things, for the sake of honor, plus letting a defeated opponent go if he was brave, etc. - not things that were such a factor in wars after the ACW, which was basically the American-market remake in terms of attitude.

>>49617305
Correction, I thought you were being too obvious but then we have these guys

>>49617307
>>49617312
>>49617317

>>49617278
>the Entire standing point of the Napoleonic wars was that the individual was worthless and the regiment was more important
Not at all true. This was in many ways the last great era of Heroes, whose individual action set in motion the path of history.

>>49616370
I played an Only War campaign where that was essentially what we were doing and it was some of the most fun I've had playing traditional games

>>49616796
>>49617278
>>49617330
Anon where did Hulk Hogan touch you?

>Interesting idea for a setting thread
>autistic anon turns up

IT CAN'T BE DONE, I HAVE A VERY CLOSED MIND AND AM NOT VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE SUBJECT, I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED A GOOD QUALITY DM WHO CAN MAKE AN INTERESTING CAMPAIGN OUT OF ANY SETTING

I'm laughing, but kind of pity the poor groups out there who dont have good DMs and never stray outside of vanilla fantasy settings.

>>49617317
>A fat balding man is the symbol of that eras heroism.

Of course.

>..You all meet up in The Enchanted Guillotine..
>The party consists of a Human Hussar, an Elven Uhlan and a Dwarf Grenadier

>>49617330
>not things that were such a factor in wars after the ACW
You'd be surprised anon. Plenty of stories of people in WW1 and WW2 fighting with bravery and honor. Its more human nature than an effect of specific wartime practices. Napoleonic soldiers could be just as callous as WW2 soldiers could be chivalrous.

>>49617350
>Interesting idea for a setting thread
>Nobody actually does anything interesting and just throws up ideas better explored in other eras of history or they're just bad for roleplaying as a group.

You basically have Sharpe. That's it. Napoleonic era is basically forced to be Sharpe.

File: Napo-sama.jpg (99KB, 736x835px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 736x835px

>>49617351

>>49617386
>Nobody actually does anything interesting and just throws up ideas better explored in other eras of history or they're just bad for roleplaying as a group
>not based on anything verifiable, just because I say so

Opinions: the post

>>49617278
Why do you think we're all American? What's your beef with Americans anyway?

>>49617428
Well, half-hazardly taking an era of history and slapping bad fantasy tropes on it IS your fantasy writer's forte.

>>49616877
>Napoleonic Fantasy Naval Adventures

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it seems like naval based stuff often gets sidelined or ignored in most fantasy settings. So this might actually be a really good idea.

Though it depends just how much fantasy you want to use. Is it primarily historical with some fantasy trimming? Or is it a fantasy world based on Napoleonic Europe instead of Medieval Europe? Either one could still have that sense of heroism and exploration, sailing over the horizon into the unknown.

Though honestly, I think I'd prefer the second option. You could have humans and their sailing ships, dwarves and their tough-as-nails steamships, orc pirates and their black "ships" that somehow don't fall apart in the breeze, or necromancers and liches with their undead crews and completely impractical ships made of corpses that scream when bombarded.

Krakens, Leviathans, mermaids, and sirens all want to kill, seduce, eat your crew and drag your ship the bottom of the ocean. Someone mentioned werewolves already, what if one of the sailors is one and transforms in the night and now everyone is trapped in the middle of the ocean with it on board?

Or maybe this is all cringey, and terrible and I should just go to bed because it's fucking 3 am.

>Making breakfast one sunday
>Plan to go out for a nice run
>starts raining
I bet the americans are responsible for this

>>49617505
All of that can be done better in the Victorian period.

Which is my entire point, you get so little out of the period as a setting.

>>49617386
I love Napoleonic period and I've never even sat through all of sharpe. There's plenty of books and other things like the Waterloo film or the Duelists to give you an actual impression of the era. Books like 1812 are excellent, and I would recommend to anyone whose sole impression of the Napoleonic era is Sharpe.

>>49616630
You should check out Alternate Armies setting for their wargames; "Flintloque" and "Slaughterloo"

>>49617556
The Victorian period is very different to the Napolenonic period anon. Totally different flavors. Industrialization changes everything.

>>49617583
Because when you're making a PnP session for the party, you don't make it about large battles where the party are worthless mooks.

>>49617614
Industrialization was already under way during the Georgian period.

The difference it the Victorian Period was a period of relative peace and social reform that made the individual much more powerful.

You have the powder mage trilogy, a great fantasy set in a napoleonic era world. I see someone mentioned the Novik stuff (not too much of a fan), and 1812, which is fantastic.

Shadows of the apt crosses quite a few historical periods technology-wise, so I'm not sure if it counts.

I think a great party would be maybe an advance party for a colonising group. They go ahead and scout the land, make deals with local leaders, forage, prospect resources. My real knowledge of the era is naval warfare based, so I'm not sure if such parties were a thing regularly.

File: welcome to bad company.png (310KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 640x360px

>>49617615
Then don't make them worthless mooks. Make them mooks with objectives to accomplish and demonstrate the effects of their accomplishments as the battle progresses. Make those objectives crucial to the op or the turning point in a battle. Or play their worthlessness for laughs. It's not that hard to competently GM a military campaign.

>>49617674
So then they're playing Sharpe.

or the A-team.


Something that can be done in the Victorian period better anyway.

>>49617442
>half-hazardly

File: 1462967706835.jpg (301KB, 1188x795px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1188x795px

>>49617615
Of course not, you make it so the PCs are important individuals, and use battles as a welcome change of pace from the normal. Just like any period or setting, a good DM can make it interesting for the players.

>Campaign starts in Moscow, the entire city is on fire. You all awaken from a drunken stupor, after looting a cellar for vodka.
>one guy is a westphalian voltigeur, wearing a womens dress (to take home to his sweetheart - many men actually did this)
>one guy is a mounted dragoon - carbine and saber
>one guy is a sapper / combat engineer from the chasseurs, whose saber has become blunt from chopping wood
>one guy is a medical corpsmen, various medical instruments and saws for amputating limbs.

see? a bit of everything, a rag-tag group of adventurers who happen to be in the same place and set out to survive. Perhaps even they try to avoid the commanders, as the command will stick them back into their respective units. Should that happen, then they all become involved in a massive battle and see each other during the fighting (the DM can arrange this easily) then once the battle is over and the Grande armee is withdrawing in chaos through the frozen land, they link up again and try to survive to make it back to France, amid cries of "Cossacks!" and general panic, not to mention all the horrors and casualties they left behind on the way into Russia - They brought lots of family/attachments "cantiniers" with them, many who perished...

>>49617710
Nobody cares.

This entire thread has been people throwing their limp dicks at bad ideas and then trying to defending them.

The fact is nobody does anything useful in the Napoleonic setting that encourages the idea of exploration and adventure. So you have to settle for the most boring period of warfare history in forever.

>>49617627
>a period of relative peace
Boooooring

Either way, Victorian period suits a different style of adventuring, its more of a colonial focus, a few Englishmen in the jungle somewhere, with martini-henry rifles, plain uniforms and safari hats. Very different flavor to Napoleonic period

>>49617738
Oh yeah, because off in the jungle or out in the mountains is so much worse than being a party of expendable shitcunts like >>49617719 describes in the most stereotypical mundane shit ever.

Will our toes freeze off next session!? So exciting!

File: IMG_1526.gif (796KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 500x275px

>>49617723
Actually, you just have severe autism and don't realize that just because something doesn't sound appealing you doesn't mean it is unappealing to everyone else.

>>49617689
>X can be done better in Y setting
>That means X outside of Y setting is automatically forbidden and nobody is allowed to have fun doing X outside of Y setting
Maybe some people just have a fucking Napoleon-boner and have a specific dislike for the Victorian era. Maybe some people are ouiaboos who don't want Victorian-era shit because 99% of Victorian-era shit is rosbif-flavored. Maybe some people are tired of high fantasy and high adventure, and just want to play as a bunch of humble, expendable grunts during the Battles of Waterloo or Cape Trafalgar.

>>49617747
Both people you quoted were me.

Any setting can be belittled or embellished as you choose. Napoleonic period can be made to seem very boring, or very exciting, same with Victorian era.

Settings are what you make of them. With a little knowledge on the period, and some creativity, a good DM can turn any setting into an engaging and fun to play campaign.

>>49617771
These people are fucking morons then.

>>49617689
>Something that can be done in the Victorian period better anyway.
The Victorian era lacked a major impactful global conflict, unlike the Napoleonic era. Conflict and adventure go hand-in-hand.

>>49617376
It's not that it didn't happen, it's just not the zeitgeist of the time.

Another good example is the practice of parole.

File: ThousandNames.jpg (68KB, 314x475px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 314x475px

I suggest reading the follow. Sequels are Shadow Throne, Price of Valor and Guns of the Empire.

>>49617848
Yeah

>>49617719

Sounds like a real fun adventure.

Oh wait, it sounds like a fucking footslog.

>>49617793
Fun is the primary goal of a tabletop RPG. If the group has more fun with the Napoleonic era, then the perceived "stupidity" of their choice is irrelevant.

I had a game set during the Penisular war once. It wasn't really realistic or reasonable, but I had sort of stolen inspiration from Sharpe and so on to do it.

The players were various flavors of mercenary, expert or criminal who had just been contacted by an international smuggler ( actually French Intelligence). It was sometime in 1809 and the French had just found out that after Barcelona had been captured a year earlier, a conspiring merchant had managed to smuggle out a large amount of gold.

They even knew where he kept it! Unfortunately, the Coruna Campaign had just started and a large contigent of British soldiers had arrived to bolster the Spanish forces - and they had buried the gold within the marching bath of the British reinforcements. The French couldn't very well go and get it themselves - they'd be found instantly - but a group of people who didn't look or seem French could, then bring it back in Grande Armee's hands where it could be used as opposed to being stolen by the British or the Spanish.

So followed a three-week rump across the Spanish country-side, dodging three seperate armies, guerilla fighters and various other mercanaries when information about the location of the gold leaked. It was fun. Worked pretty well.

>>49617866
>sounds like a fucking footslog.
no more than any standard D&D campaign. usually there's only 1 guy mounted, if that. Depends wildly on your group, but from my experience D&D is usually on foot. We did do an arabic-style campaign set in the desert once where most of us were mounted either on horse or camel, but from my experience most of the actual adventuring in a regular fantasy setting is done on foot. A good DM can make even a completely-on-foot party still a lot of fun, and move around a lot.

File: AMemeADay.jpg (19KB, 321x326px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 321x326px

>>49617386
>interesting idea for a setting thread
>Nobody actually does anything and just throws up ideas better explored in other eras of history or they're just bad for roleplaying as a group.

You basically have Arthurian Knight's tales. That's it. Medieval era is basically forced to be Arthurian.

>>49616667
Christ. You're the exact opposite of a smart person.

And an asshole to boot, a potent combination.

>>49615721
What, like Temeraire?

>>49615721
The napoleonic era is born from the revolution so here my idea:
>God use avatar to interact with mortal
>The god are dick by causing a famine in not!france who are a nation with a majority of half-elve.
>The not!france say fuck it and go against the avatar.
>They depose their king because fuck the divine right.
>The god say fuck you and rain of calamity.
>Not!french made a giant fuck you anti magic shield against the god and guillotine the avatar.
>The god made a big coalition of every nation against the not!France.
>Not!France use heavy anti-magic zone and use of black-powder artillery to win.
>God loose their shit and winter half of not!Europe to stop not!French.
>Not!French use it to consolidate their new land and choose a new Emperor not!Napoleon.
>The group of not!French and their "Republic soeur" and the group of the coalition use spy and aventurer to cross the winter belt and fuck with each other in anyway they can.

Here you aventure.

Also: Not!england and not!Scandinavia are full human; The Russian are orc; the german are half-orc-Human-Elve who can't choose who they are:(Blessed human elvish Imperium); And the Roman were ancient elve who ot breeded out by human, they let shinny ruin everywhere for dongeoning. Also Not!Spain and not!Italia are half-elve;Not-balkan are half-elve half-orc, Ottoman are Black Orc, and berber are drow.

>>49617689
Given that Sharpe is literally set in the Napoleonic wars I'm not really sure how you could do Sharpe 'better' by not setting it in that period.

File: 1447798549025.jpg (53KB, 685x567px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 685x567px

>>49615721
>basically no armor
>weaponry that is only useable in huge battle lines effectively instead of smaller parties
>distinctive but limited array of styles that would make every race just look as an unoriginal derrivate of historical predecessors 'Prussian orcs'! , 'British Dwarves!', French with long ears = how interesting
>the complete lack of originality on your side by just copypasting fantasy tropes into another era

All in all it's just not such a great idea, fempai. These threads are frequent and the posters always seem to be very enthusiastic and proud of their ideas of turning elves into Aztecs or something like that...but it just feels a bit contrived and like you wanna break the tropes just for the sake of it, without actually adding many own ideas. Just a reskin.

>>49618720
OP didn't actually specify how he would handle such a setting. Personally I dont think it needs to be "fantasy" a standard Napoleonic setting is lush with interest and interesting equipment and tactics, and would serve as a fine campaign setting, provided the DM knows a little about the period.
Add in magic or some kind of supernatural happenings and you would have a killer setting to rival any generic fantasy setting.

>>49615721
Apparently because of people like a lot of the mundane asshats in this thread.

As for books and the lot set in a fantastical psuedo-napoleonic era, there's the Powder Mage trilogy by Brian McClellan. It's a bit more American Revolution/French Revolution, though. However it has mages that use gunpowder to do magic. Can set off enemy charges or drain the energy from an enemy shot. Snort powder for magical heightening. Cool stuff. Has the horses and musket lines and whatnot, still. Good example of how you can still have a fun setting in that sort of time period.

>>49618796
Yeah, this is the approach I favor, "historical fantasy" I guess, where things are largely the same (i.e. you have France and Germany and the Catholic church and muskets instead of Frallian elves, Swabish dwarves, deathwands, and a pantheon, and also dragons and shit too for kicks)

A great example is the Spirit Ring - set in Italy, with modest amounts of magic, a Catholic church, and no fantasy races. Well, there are some earth spirits, but they're another species of animal, essentially.

Ok, uh, how does everyone feel about The Irong Kingsdoms setting then if you don't like to see industrialization in a Fantasy Setting?

It isn't even very funny how so many people here are uncreative
>napoleonic era means you've gotta be a foot soldier
>not a Haitian guerilla warrior fighting against the invading French
>not a Polish conspirator planning another uprising
>not a Spanish colonist on his way to Brazil
>not adding a bit of folklore, giving Haitians voodoo magic, making Poles trying to get from Jews their secrets of making golems, inhabitating Brazil with all kinds of beasts
Every goddamn period can be made interesting with just some creativity.

>>49615721
Because Lord of the rings didn't take place in an alagory for that time period.

>>49618960
Sadly /tg/ has a lot of people who only really know D&D, and have never read a decent history book. But yeah a lot of these people are just assuming they know what the Napoleonic period is like, and have very little natural creativity.

Read books people! dont judge a period until you actually know something about it.

File: Curro-Jimenez-cartel.jpg (307KB, 500x712px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 500x712px

>You can't have adventures in the Napoleonic Wars, my autism says so!
Do pic related, but with with frogmen instead of french soldiers.

I wonder more about why there is even less fantasy of colonization of Americas even though that period (conquistadors in new world, pirates etc.) would make perfect setting for murderhobo adventures.

>>49619103
Because Anglo-saxon world can't let die the Tolkien masturbation, knowing the LOTR(the film) is what put a lot of people in fantasy and that DnD take a large market part and the cultural dominance of USA, you're not going to leave it for a long time.

>Stand still
>Take aim
>Get head shot by cannon
That's why.

>>49619150
Victorian fantasy (aka steampunk) is wildly popular these days though, but it's relatively easy to mix that with Tolkien like Arcanum did.

How many people play the big army battles in DnD? Not many I figure.

And y'all are overestimating how 'inaccurate' 19th century rifled muskets were.

>>49619171
>Stand still
>Take aim
>Get hit with a Disintegrate Spell

It works in any setting anon. DMs dont usually throw endless disintegrate spells at you, neither would they throw endless cannonballs at you in a Napoleonic campaign.

File: 1458432297009.jpg (131KB, 608x832px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 608x832px

>>49617347
RIGHT IN THE GAWKER

Not the Napoleonic Era, but my new B/X campaign setting draws heavily on the Thirty Years war (so a couple-hundred years shy of Napoleonics). The war has just really kicked off in the campaign, and the party is wobbling between "We army now!" and "We army now?!" but good times so far.

>>49619400
Doesn't stop the fact that most combat is "Stand Still take aim"

>>49615922
Yes, thats why every nation included skirmishers that were supposed to aim at officers in their armies, because such skirmishers wouldn't be able to hit anything accuratly!

>>49616437
>The Napoleonic era was the death of the traditional Warrior culture, and with the Warrior culture comes the adventurer.

I think that would be the mass warfare of the renaissance, Pike blocks and musket lines are not that great for individual prowess.

>>49620229
You mean the same pike blocks that often had soldiers paid more and dressed gaudy because they were the better fighters carrying rare equipment?

Or the ones where Small numbers of Gallant Knights swept armies before them due to courage alone?

>>49619540
WHEN IT COMES CRASHING DOWN
AND IT HURTS INSIDE

>>49619052
So let's break down the grand designs of the napoleonic era.

>uprising of a downtrodden populace

>Political intrigue with fops

>Sharpe

Fantastic choices, things that are not at all unique to the Napoleonic era and are actually quite famously BLAND in the Napoleonic era.

The Napoleonic era was one of stagnation in both the scientific sense and the political sense and is pretty much regarded as a mini dark dark sat between the Renaissance and the Victorian.

>>49619540
Rip'n'tear dis shit, Hulkster

>>49616547
http://67.media.tumblr.com/48250a1198346d2312d44cd161a1b895/tumblr_nyqj78QVwH1t61robo1_1280.jpg

>>49620288
>The Napoleonic era was one of stagnation in both the scientific sense and the political sense and is pretty much regarded as a mini dark dark sat between the Renaissance and the Victorian.
Wat? In most ways it wasn't.
It brought a new wave of innovation to continental europe.
A unified measurment system, the abolishment of feudalistic systems, new fields of knowledge, the fucking code civil which is the foundation of most european states.

The stagnant time was after Napoleon was defeated and the established powers tried to turn back the clocks.

File: 1402785096625.jpg (15KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x200px

>>49620288
>one of stagnation in both the scientific sense and the political sense and is pretty much regarded as a mini dark dark sat between the Renaissance and the Victorian.

>>49620465
>>49620522

>After the napoleonic era is the Victorian period
>Literally the industrial revolution.

>>49620246
>Gaudy uniforms
Napoleonic age had those on a much larger scale

>Small group of gallant knights
Charge of the scots greys at Waterloo, Charge of the Polish lancers at Albuerra, Lasalle at Stettin or any number of other examples?


Point still stands though.

>>49620229
Except that "Renaissance" era soldiers were literally adventurers. They expected to loot and plunder and switched sides when it suited them.

>>49620532
Great advancements came right after it (according to you, according to me they allready started 40 years earlier with the rise of steam engines) but that does not make the Napoleonic era a dark age.

>>49620151
>"Stand Still take aim"
That's like saying that playing an archer in fantasy is "stand still take aim" or that playing an infantryman with a sword is "stand still swing sword." You just lack creativity.

Maneuvering is crucial in warfare no matter what the tech level is. Cavalry, flanking, and bayonet charges are still a thing. Any competent GM can figure out a way to keep combat from getting static.

>>49620564
You know why Moscow was set on fire? To stop the French from looting it's riches. Sacking was still pretty normal, as was plundering.

Soldiers switching sides wasn't as common as you think in the 80 years war or the other wars of religion as you think or as uncommon in the Napoleonic age as you think (Bernadotte, the Bavarian's, The Spanish a whole couple of times. After the march on Russia all kinds of troops started switching sides immidiatly)

But are plundering, sacking and switching sides the true characteristics of individual warfare?

>>49620683
You just bring up the entire point.

Individual warfare.

Individual. Something the Napoleonic war was totally not about.

Every single point in this thread talks about how Napleonic war "Still had" things from before, but the point is it had so much less of anything heroic.

No Warrior kings. No amazing bards, no fantastical tales of mystery.

The era is devoid of any mystery and that's what makes it so much of a bore.

The Napoleonic era sucks as a fantasy setting because it was the death of fantasy.

Who said you had to limit yourself to play in the military in mass battle? Not that you couldn't do different campaign with that already but there are other possibilities.
You can play small scale party doing political campaigns or small scale missions as some sort of more recent mousquetaires for example.
> Tense diplomatic mission in not-Russia (stop them from casting winter magic!)
> or in the Sultanate (are the not Tuareg rebels up to something? or is it the Sultan?)
> Tracking down an dangerous old enemy of the emperor down to not-Corsica maquis (is there a secret to the emperor power hidden there?)
> Getting your hands on a new magitech from the new world
> A mysterious but important cargo must be brought from (or to?) some colony to the capital (start as The Ghost and the Darkness with maybe some local shaman magic, session on a colonial port against spies and saboteurs, reverse Master and Commander chase sessions...)

>>49620944
So everything that can be done better with more depth in the Victorian setting.

>>49620792
>No Warrior kings.
>Entire time period named after a general and emperor

>No amazing bards
Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, etc. were all alive and working during this time period.

>No fantastical tales of mystery
There are plenty of works of fiction that take place in the early 1800s. I'm sure at least one of them is full of pulp and mystery.

Wikipedia alone also has dozens of pages for notable military officers and leaders from the time period. Famous commanders like Arthur Wellesley, Horatio Nelson, and Gebhard Lebrecht von Blucher are still fondly remembered in their homelands. And that's before we get into famous individuals who weren't soldiers, too--Charles Babbage, William Wordsworth, Michael Faraday, Edward Jenner, William Wilberforce, etc.

>>49620972
>Commanders and no nothing generals

Yeah, because when people think of Warrior kings, they think of a constipated Italian fat man who never swung a sabre in his life.

The Napoleonic war was the apex of the Rich Affluent aristocracy bring lazy inbred shits doing nothing but playing war with the working class.

>>49620151
Look at the picture in
>>49617719

They're moving and firing at the same time.

You could probably even move and reload at the same time if you weren't a total musket noob.

Plenty of movement in Napoleonic warfare, I'd suggest learning a bit about it before making broad generalizations about what it was or wasn't.

>>49620288
You forget the military element, where combined arms tactics were mastered. The pinnacle of horse, musket, cannon, infantry, skirmishers, formations, drills. Many many different types of units and different nations with different characteristics and styles. The period is a wealth of interest, you just have to know even a little bit about it.

>>49620792
Not him but a good DM can make individuals important in any setting. in large scale combats of any period, from ancients to medieval times, to the world wars, individuals weren't the focus.

We've already given examples of the kind of individuals you could take in a napoleonic campaign. You clearly dont know much about the period and aren't very creative.

If you want a period that is the "death of fantasy" its gotta be WW1, which would still make an excellent campaign setting.

Please people, do some research before thinking you know what a period was like. One television series as reference is not enough. Pretty much any period in history would make a great campaign setting, they're all full of fascinating detail and characters, you just have to learn about them to find out the details, and have some basic creativity.

>>49621036
>B-but what about large scale combat

Large Scale combat is literally the antithesis of the individual you fucking moron.

Let me put this simply for you.

You don't see all fantasy games entirely based only around the hundred years war do you?

That's the Napoleonic war in scope.

>>49621016
The Napoleonic Wars were an extension of the French Revolution, and began the enfranchisement of the common man, the spread of democratic ideals throughout Europe, and the growth of the middle class.

It was the end of the aristocracy in many countries.

>>49621036
>Please people, do some research before thinking you know what a period was like. One television series as reference is not enough. Pretty much any period in history would make a great campaign setting, they're all full of fascinating detail and characters, you just have to learn about them to find out the details, and have some basic creativity.

It's funny how much of an oxymoron this entire premise.

>Oh, do some research so you can have the exact same historical details play out in your tabletop, but we'll just throw elves and shit in like slapdashed shit.

>>49621077
>French generals were all just a new era of Aristocracy

So you're just a ouiaboo who thinks the French Revolution solved anything.

>>49620962
>So everything that can be done better with more depth in the Victorian setting.
Why? You keep saying that with nothing to back it up. Or maybe you just have a fetish for English or/and hate French?
Hell, why the point of doing a Victorian setting, it can be done better with more depth in the Star Wars setting!

>>49620792
>Individual warfare.
Was never a thing in the history of Man. Fantasy never existed you know? it's fantasy. We ADD it to things.

>>49616426
>Ottoman Orcs
How would this work out? I actually have semi-Nomadic orcs in my setting. How do I make them more Turkish?

>>49621016
Well, problem fucking solved, then. Give every PC an officer rank and have them play general or shipmaster while acting obnoxiously rich. It's like Rogue Trader minus space. There's also nothing stopping PCs from leading from the front, engaging in boarding action melees, or participating in close-range naval combat. At Trafalgar, Nelson's own flagship was boarded. If that man can get pulled into the shit, so can the PCs. The weaponry and doctrine of the era meant that no field officer could ever truly be safe or detached from the front line.

>muh Victorian era
Nobody gives a shit about the Victorian era.

Why would you want to play in an 11th century campaign? Fighting in a shield wall is boring, its literally standing in a line all day.

>>49621066
Large scale combat can still be used in fantasy games, we've had campaigns that featured huge battles, its do-able with a good DM.

large battles wouldn't likely be the focus of a Napoleonic campaign, you use them to spice things up every now and then, the same way you would in a fantasy campaign. You build up to them.

The chaos of a napoleonic battle would actually make an excellent place for individuals to be displaying bravery and diversity or skills. 4 guys separated from their units, or not even part of the combatants, happen to be in the midst of some raging battle, desperately trying to make it out alive. it would make a great campaign starting, or a great high point of a campaign.

Its all down to your DM. as we've stated many times, a good DM can make any setting great gun to play. Try to use your imagination. There's no need to call people fucking morons. Name calling isn't a very mature discussion technique, and doesn't support your point of view.

I would recommend reading a bit about the period. Its fine if you dont like anything thats not generic fantasy, but at least give other settings a chance and expand your horizons every now and then. History is a wealth of great ideas, and the basis of most fantasy settings.

>>49621105
It's simple really.

>Victorian era is the industrial revolution.
>Large period of exploration of foreign lands and cultures
>Resurgence in the knowledge of the past
>Wealthy noblemen getting high off of opium and dabbling in occult ideas.

>>49621126
If you think Nelson did anything other than cower in his captain's quarters then you're sadly mistaken, and congrats, let's remove all development of the PCs by making them rich and pointless from the getgo.

>>49621139
I know more about the period than all the Wikipedia warriors here, it's why it's a fucking shit setting.

Nobody here must be a good DM because all the ideas are rancid vomit.

File: 1419423785210.jpg (81KB, 500x614px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x614px

>>49621089
>French generals were all just a new era of Aristocracy
You know commoner and aristocrat served side by side in Napoleonic France, right? Grouchy was of an old aristocratic genus, but someone like Murat was the son of a farmer and an innkeeper.

That's the entire point of the Napoleonic age: birth meant nothing, merit meant everything, every soldier carried a marshall's baton in his backpack and a commoner and nobleman could be of the same rank.

>So you're just a ouiaboo who thinks the French Revolution solved anything.
It did solve anything you triple nigger. Even in the face of Napoleon's final defeat, the Bourbon monarchs were forced to accept the 1814 Charter (which guaranteed close to all liberal reforms on the condition of the return of the Bourbons). Charles X tried to repeal those and was damn near killed for it. Then Louis-Philippe tried repealing them and now there are no Bourbons in France.

>>49621166
The Victorian era is just a shit-tier Age of Exploration. Try harder pleb.

>>49620962
Oh, and I forgot: no, mousquetaires can't "be done better with more depth in the Victorian setting". You could at least read what I wrote and said it could be done better in a ... Richelieu setting?

File: hY-COdtofvQ.jpg (93KB, 736x522px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 736x522px

Not a lot of "standing still" in this image.

a good battle scene any hardened fantasy adventurer would be proud to be part of

>>49621185
>Whoever sucked the Italian Emperor's dick the most got the most money
>It solved everything, except crippling France so hard it could be taken over by an Italian.

So you're just a Ouiaboo then.

>>49621203
Part of a French death squad murdering civilians?

>>49621192
>Musketeers

You mean that thing done during the Age of Exploration.

>>49621187
>Calls people Pleb
>Masturbates to the most pointless era in human history.

File: hE3x4IX[1].jpg (139KB, 2048x1228px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 2048x1228px

>>49621208
>France had a leader, therefore it wasn't meritocratic
You know that "sucking the Italian* Emperor's dick" equates roughly to "pushing Austria's shit in and looking dandy as fuck while doing it", right?

*Truly, Napoleon is an impressive man. Despite being born in French territory, he managed to be Italian! Before Italy or the idea of an Italian identity even existed!

>>49621166
>did anything other than cower in his captain's quarters
The man was out and about. Records of his death indicate that he was on the deck, walking around and directing the battle, when he was fatally shot. So no, he wasn't being useless or faffing about.

>remove all development
>Eager aristocrats facing cannon fire, snipers, boarding actions, patrol duty, Russian scorched earth tactics, ambushes, and rebellious commoners can't develop
>Forgetting the Napoleonic era officers who were killed because they were on the front lines or personally leading patrols into enemy territory

>>49621250
>>49621249

>T-The Napoleonic era is rife with heroes and bravery though
>A bunch of rich fops dying to ambushes or cowarding in corners

And there we have the mighty best of the Napoleonic era.

The fact that you can't even detract anything without it involving the French or fighting the French shows how utterly bland the setting is

>Here is our game lads
>We sit around and fire muskets at people, maybe use our sabres
>That is it entirely
>We do it in different flavours like sometimes defending or attacking or escorting
>But that is literally it
>Sometimes we may have a horse.

>>49621166
>>Victorian era is the industrial revolution.
Napoleonic times are also an age of technical progress. The base of the industrial revolution were forming after all.
>>Large period of exploration of foreign lands and cultures
Was a thing since the age of exploration, never really stopped until... well during the Victorian era actually. Though the time of its end is arguable, the Napoleonic era had explorations and new cultures.
>>Resurgence in the knowledge of the past
So what? Beside, Napoleon era was the beginning of Egyptology, and archaeology in general.
>>Wealthy noblemen getting high off of opium and dabbling in occult ideas.
So? There are plenty of noblemen and high ranking people under (or against) Napoleon. I don't know what they smoked at the time but I have no doubt they were high on something and there are dumb weird ideas in every age, Egypt made quite a lot of people into esotericism.

File: 1468180093723.jpg (20KB, 420x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 420x300px

>>49618960
Nah, there's just one guy who completely lacks any imagination and lacks any comprehension that a time period might have interesting elements for game play.

Or he's Shitposting.

I'm gonna bet he's shitposting.

>>49621288
>The fact that you can't even detract anything without it involving the French or fighting the French
The term "Napoleonic era" specifically refers to Europe during the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon's reign. Thus, the scope of this argument is primarily restricted to Europe. If you want stuff other than the French, the early 1800s still have fuckloads of stuff to do that have no relation to Napoleon or fighting the frogs. The Louisiana Purchase gives American campaigns plenty of shit to work with. Joint-stock companies, African exploration, and trade with Asia leave room for players to travel the world.

>The Aristocrats!
>Not reading anything other people have posted
>Officers KIA while leading their men
>Officers from a variety of backgrounds and social classes
>Officers actually in the thick of fighting or doing shit with their men other than standing still and firing muskets
>Officers actually doing their goddamn jobs instead of cowering away from the fight, despite how much you want the latter to be true

File: somethin aint right sarge....jpg (40KB, 960x953px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 960x953px

>>49621288
Please read some books before judging a period. we're all laughing at you. you've already been BTFO, but it seems like you dont want to listen.

>>49621224
>You mean that thing done during the Age of Exploration.
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, but apparently you don't read posts you respond to and said it would be done better during the Victorian era.

>>49621288
> War is a boring thing to have in a game.
No wait, you're actually arguing worst than that:
> Wars are a boring inspiration source for games
This is were your blind hatred of French led you...

>>49621321
>>49621359
>>49621383


Well, let's get this thing quite sorted out.

There is no Napoleonic era because its a grand total of what? 15 years?

Like I said above, it's like making an entire setting out of the hundred years war.

Pointless.

At the end of it all, it's a bunch of Ouiaboos trying their hardest to make the setting sound like not total shit, when in reality they have literally gotten nowhere with it the entire thread. You constantly say "Ignore him, he's just shitposting" yet when I stop posting, nothing happens.

No ideas outside of blatantly copying history

No ideas outside of the tripe "What if the elves were the french"

Sure, if you want to play a stone cold Historical game, go right ahead, nothing wrong there.

But it's a shit setting for fantasy. You have all proven it yourselves.

>>49621359
Yeah, the difference being there is quite a bit of difference between the lesser officers leading their regiments and the general sat in a tent a mile away getting all the recognition.

>>49621395
Your arguments are

>Musketeers can't be done during the victorian period

They can't be done during the Napoleonic wars either because they were killed off.

>>49621398
>it's like making an entire setting out of the hundred years war. Pointless.
Generic fantasy is essentially based on the hundred years war. Proof that any setting can be made colorful with some imagination. At least its been fun schooling you on Napoleonic history and the wealth of interest it holds.

File: 1462972334750.jpg (4MB, 5001x2967px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5001x2967px

>Anti-napoleonic anon is this retarded

Its pretty entertaining to be honest

>>49621445
Oh yes, you schooled me, you did so really hard with the way you made a fantasy setting set in the Napoleonic era without just listing off real world events you just transplant fantasy races in.

Oh... wait.

Also, Generic fantasy is based on a fuck ton of different time periods roughly relateable because they all used melee weapons to end each other with.

The Battle for Minas Tirith isn't just the battle of hastings rewritten by adding orcs.

>>49621398
>15 years can't make a setting
People have made plenty of works of fiction out of less. Writers, filmmakers, and game developers are still milking the World Wars for fiction and historical fantasy despite them lasting less than 15 years, and people still manage to have fun with those.

>>49621421
>a mile away getting all the recognition
And some of those generals still somehow found ways to end up on the front lines, join the fight, and get KIA.

First of all, what the fuck is wrong with just going fantasy sharpe? Lots of post by that one faggot going "and then you have fantasy sharpe and that's it" as if that's an argument.

Second of all, since when do RPGs have to be original? We're not writing a book, we're playing a game. Do you refuse to have the princess being kidnapped (if medieval setting) or have a bank robbery (if modern setting) because those things are cliche?


>>49621421
>general sat in a tent a mile away getting all the recognition.

Who do you think actually planned and organized the army, anon? Who decided the strategy?

>>49621479
I have yet to see a single solid idea in this thread beyond "Pirates"

>>49621520
Oh, some guy wrote shit down on a map, how brave of him to send people to their deaths while ensuring his own comfort!

Oh wait, I'd just play a Wargame if I wanted to roleplay THAT.

>>49621524
Why the fuck do you think your opinion matters at all? If you have no interest in the setting you can just leave, we're not here to force you to like things you don't like.

>>49621557
>Oh, some guy wrote shit down on a map
So you have no idea what a general does huh?

>>49621559
If I left, you think the thread would start spouting amazing ideas and a magical setting is born?

>>49621573
Something far less heroic than the frontline soldiers.

>>49616437
>The Napoleonic era was the death of the traditional Warrior culture,
That not the Great war anon, romantisme and hero cult was still alive, see Ney, Nappy, Wellington.

>>49621581
>If I left, you think the thread would start spouting amazing ideas and a magical setting is born?
Again, what you think is good or bad doesn't matter. The world does not revolve around you. I have no idea why napoleon and frenchfags seem to make you so butt-flustered but it's time to let go anon.

>>49621622
General Worship =/= Warrior culture.

When an uneven stool could probably best the greatest most lauded people in the battles, then it's time to admit your making fat weaklings something they're not.

>>49621557
OP didn't even specifically mention an RPG, just a setting. Poof, early 1800s tech wargame. Throw in some fictional named characters as HQ units or unit leaders with inflated stats to stroke your obesssion with "MUH HEROISM."

>>49621520
>First of all, what the fuck is wrong with just going fantasy sharpe?
Was just about gonna suggest that.
>Sharpe took down an aztec god of death cult in Spain.
>Disguised himself and reenlisted as a soldier to exposed corruption in officer corp.
>Hunted down a cunning and deceitful french intelligence officer.

It seems most faggots in this thread just wants to push the "it wouldn't work" agenda rather than use their brains to make it work. Its fiction people, come on.

>>49621633
>napoleon and frenchfags seem to make you so butt-flustered
He's probably a britbong.

>>49621633
Because bad ideas disgust me. Ideas so half baked and stupid that people can't even get beyond the "Insert fantasy directly into history" people need to learn there is a reason why OP posted exactly what he did.

Because people play settings with decent scope and imagination, not play by numbers shit that becomes a boring chore.

And seeing as you people don't move your own arses it Seems I need to motivate you morons to do it through negative-stimuli.

I mean for fuck sake, none of you even suggested a call of Cthulu-like Campaign that pits people from all walks of life and countries against the paranormal.

Start fucking trying.

>>49621642
You seem to have an unresolved anger against generals. You also don't seem to know what "strategy" and "tactics" mean. When people praise rommel, or Hannibal do you think they mean they were great at punching people?

>>49621698
>When people praise rommel, or Hannibal do you think they mean they were great at punching people

Well, which one would win in a fight?

>>49621687
>Because bad ideas disgust me
And?
Do you have legit autism? Seriously, you think that everything should be made to fit your tastes, and cannot comprehend how other people might like what you don't like.

Those are legit signs of autism.

>>49621016
> they think of a constipated Italian fat man who never swung a sabre in his life.

Holy shit Anon, Napoleone was a pretty artillery officier in the french army before the Revolution. He litteraly permit the birth of the modern state in france then spread it to Europe.

>Rich Affluent aristocracy bring lazy inbred shits doing nothing but playing war with the working class.
You mean the anglo "I pay seven coalition against the french"?
Or you mean the french"I rape all the great power(except the england) of the time into submission time and time again"
For fuck sake the revolution see the end of feodalism in europe.
Also please remember that the napoleonic era give birth to the romantism.

File: 07ef0c60d354fa54786d2cdcb61cb7ab[1].jpg (99KB, 588x839px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 588x839px

>>49621642
>When an uneven stool could probably best the greatest most lauded people in the battles
Bitch, have you EVER heard of the Old Guard? These were motherfucker who had to be at least 1.80m tall (huge at the time, which is probably what contributed to the manlet myth: Napoleon was constantly surrounded by giants) and were the biggest, thoughest and strongest motherfuckers in the French army. And it mattered, because for all the musket warfare Napoleon was a big fan of glorious bayonet charges that broke the enemy's spine.

They become a lot less impressive when you realize they'd charge into the enemy ranks while singing about onions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE70jrhOrjk

>>49621712
Anon, the kid is a troll, stop feeding him.

>>49615922
The graz armory in Austria literally took a bunch of century old muskets and fired them at a human sized target.

At 100 meters 50% of bullets hit their mark. Shit is scarily accurate if you got a good aim, not that line infantry was drilled for that.

>>49615721
People know the era to well to make up fantasy shit.

>>49621732
No shit I am a troll. Otherwise you get shit like

>>49621715
Chortling rousbeef and wanking of Napoleon instead of bothering about anything else in the setting.

You people are very good at spouting Napeolonic facts, but I see fuck all worldbuilding or ideas thrown about at all.

>>49621686
>calls people he doesn't like Americans
>bootyblasted at a period named after a Frenchman
>says Victorian era is better
I wouldn't be surprised

>>49621759
Not him, but I'll bite. It's more about the setting or the feeling. A new age of new weapons, an age of social upheaval etc. You can build your own world around that setting, and it'd be easy to do, just like how medieval fantasy is simply based on the concepts, ideas, ranks and weapons of medieval Europe.

Unless you want to play a game in actual Napoleonic Europe, in which case all the worldbuilding has already been done. But for fantasy it's more fun to play around with, you know, fantasy and not worry about minute historical details.

So basically
>Take your average campaign
>Remove the knights, spears and axes
>Add muskets, bayonets and grenades
Hell, you could even go as far as to make magic something aristocratic, leading between an uneasy balance between the Estates where the Third Estate wants to get rid of the nobility but at the same time realizes how useful they are.

>>49621687
>Seems I need to motivate you morons to do it through negative-stimuli.
No thanks no one wants help from a retard.
>Cthulu-like Campaign
And your ideas are as dull as your argument.
Not all people are as mentally defunct as you that gives up on an idea just because you can't use your brain to make something of it and moves on the closest thing with prettier colors like a child with downs.

>>49621398
>But it's a shit setting for fantasy
Maybe have noble bloodlines magic and popular fuelled magic, like the classic "believers create gods" except with nations and ideologies. Bloodline magic is exclusive, controlled, refined spells and rituals while popular is rash, uncontrollable mass buff/debuff.

The not-French Revolution was a case of popular magic going out of control.
Now not-Napoleon is trying the dangerous game of using both (other) bloodlines magic and popular magic while most Kingdoms and Empires are too afraid of popular magic to try to make use of it.

Characters can be nobles (or partially nobles) using noble magic, some sort of revolutionary demagogues using knowingly or not popular magic, or maybe even using various older traditional forms of magic pre-dating the age of kings.

>>49621828
>>49621802

Now we're talking. It only took forever for people to drop posting wikipedia facts and start working on how to blend fantasy and Napoleonic philosophy and ideals.

>>49621642
>Fat weaklings
>Numerous historical accounts of infantry officers rucking gear, going on patrol, and fighting at the front
>Numerous figures made famous for their grasp of tactics and strategy
>Naval combat in an age where boarding actions and close-range cannon barrages are still very real dangers
>Rise of standardized national militaries, which undoubtedly have PT standards and officer schools
>Lots of notable military figures coming from lowborn backgrounds that imply physical labor

Are you just an embittered enlistedfag?

If you really want to stroke your dick about limp-dick fatass officers, then fine, throw in a change to one aspect of the setting's technology/doctrine. Have one faction experience a massive breakthrough in communications tech/magic that allows officers to command from the safety of their NEET bunkers. And even then, you'd still have officers who want to get out in the field and fight with their men.

I've been noticing this for a while now, and I've been wondering: Since when did /tg/ turn into a toxic shithole? Every thread derails into shitposting and arguments in two posts or less, and every other post seems to be a personal insult towards someone.

Is it just a few toxic people? Am I just unlucky with what threads I visit? Were quest-posters the only people keeping this place civil?

>>49621642
A lot of very famous warriors died from stool-problems (read dysentery).

>>49621708
I vote Hannibal, I don't know really know why.

>>49621885
Because I have been in plenty of worldbuilding threads or "Why no X Fantasy" threads and Those with historical tints usually fall into /int/ posting.

The OP was "Why no Napoleonic Fantasy" not "Why no Napoleonic games"

So excuse me when I want to stay on topic, because despite my shitposting, I think you can do something amazing with Napoleonic era.

>>49621479
> Someone saved my shit.
I'm touched.

>>49621909
I dunno, Rommel was a cunning fellow.

ITT: Op ask for a napoleonic fantasy setting, only this guy give a proper an answer.
>>49618644
How /tg/ fail this low?

>>49621909
I would bet on Rommel because he was probably larger, stronger, and healthier due to being raised in a modern society.

>>49621925
In a fistfight, I'd place my bets on the guy closer to hand-to-hand combat.

>>49621885
>Since when did /tg/ turn into a toxic shithole?
Nah, it's just the subject matter in my experience. You get the exact same shit on /pol/, /int/, /his/ and even /a/ and /b/ when the subjec tof Napoleon is touched.

It's a combination of the following:
>Brits being overrepresented on 4chan
>Most 4chan posters being anti-social shut-ins with low self-esteem in general
>Nationalist /pol/ spillover on all boards (which is enforced by the former point: it creates a "group" these shut-ins can feel part of. Especially on boards with flags based on the users current location)
Put these three together, and any prominent Frenchman is fair game for wanton shitposting. That's why /pol/ can in the same breath ridicule Napoleon and claim Hitler was a genius (even though, if taken seriously, the Alt-Right's ideas are probably more in line with those of Napoleon than Hitler. The problem is that the Alt-Right is ruined by association with the extreme right.)

File: 787f612bfecb.jpg (277KB, 800x586px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 800x586px

The number of replies to this thread are a good indicator of just how good a napoleonic fantasy setting would be, and I've got a lot of ideas from it.

I think I would go more of a supernatural route rather than trying to port regular fantasy races or magic over. Having a strong religious element with perhaps devils and apparitions playing a part would give it something extra, not that it really needs it, but it would set it apart from a regular historical setting. And pretty much everyone back then was religious in some way so it would make sense that what they believe in actually manifests in real life.

This thread is proof that Napoleonics would make a great setting, fantasy or not. I would love to write an(other) RPG set in the period.

>>49621941
You missed about 5 posts right above you, which only illustrates the failure of /tg/ even more, because you are part of it/

File: VC1 Art.jpg (650KB, 3600x1542px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 3600x1542px

>>49621828
>>49621802

A way to look at it is "How fantastic are we going?"

And how Puritan are we sticking to Napoleonic era weaponry.

We can sort of look at it a bit like Valkyria Chronicles, based on WW1/WW2 but totally a fantasy setting with it's own rules and ideas.

How does the Fantasy effect the Napoleonic part?

Do we have Fantasy Muskets able to fire accurately?

Does the curiass stay in style because magical armor is good at stopping shot?

Are the Old Guard Half-Orcs wearing full runic armour forged by Norman-Dwarves?

>>49621946
True true

>>49621971
Shitposter here.

Exactly my point.

>>49621941
These guys also had great ideas:

>>49616084
>>49616334
>>49616615
>>49616652
>>49616726
>>49616828
>>49617190
>>49617505
>>49617719
>>49617921
>>49621185
>>49621802
>>49621828

>>49622000
Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy isnt it? Saying /tg/ is shit because you are shitposting on it?

>>49621721
> Spoiler
Depend, I think hearing those dudes singing something that random in the middle of battle would be weirdly terrifying. Like if to them charging an enemy position was something as benign as mushroom hunting.
I guess it would make me cry.

>>49622052
Gotta be cruel to be kind.

Nobody started even attempting what OP said until just recently.

File: Dunning-Kruger.jpg (56KB, 800x670px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x670px

>>49621885
Pretty sure its just one anon who doesn't know much about the Napoleonic period, but thinks he's an authority on the subject. Its pretty much him vs all the anons who think the period is full of interest, intrigue and color and would make a great setting, fantasy or not.

>>49622086
Temeraire was poster quite early on in the thread, that is pretty much what OP want's if he wants Historical fantasy.

>>49615721
Because other than a few officer uniforms most of the uniforms and general dress of the time looked gay as all fuck. White pants up to your ribs, inumerable silly hats, powdered wigs.

>>49620194
What are hard to produce rifles?

I've never gotten the argument that muskets ruin fantasy settings myself.

When you get down to the most basic mechanics, there's not any real difference between rolling a d20 to hit with a longbow, or to hit with a musket.

In the end you're still playing a mutual game of pretend with friends.

>>49622112
No, it's me trying to get the experts to put that knowledge to use making a Fantasy Napoleonic thread instead of just a Napoleonic thread.

>>49622122
I'm trying to avoid it just becoming /his/ posting too.

>>49621885

>Toxic
back2reddit

>>49622146
Bows require strength and skill far beyond that of a musket.

They are a much more "Individualist" weapon really because they rely on the person far more than a rifle.

>>49622146
You can do trick arrows and trick shots with a Bow far more reasonably than you can with a musket.

File: 1464282198553.jpg (305KB, 850x1133px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 850x1133px

>>49622146
The way I see it, you could even play around with muskets and magic. Muskets themselves can be enhanced with magic, but have you considered magical rounds? Something like a frost round that you fire at the feet of enemy cavalry to quite literally freeze them in place, or a sonic round that you use to knock over a tree near an enemy formation. Even if such rounds were highly rare and limited to only the most elite units (like PCs), they'd have one hell of an impact on the field of battle.

And don't even get me started on magical cannon rounds.

>>49622146
Yeah we always use muskets in fantasy settings. its more fun when you're using a ranged weapon that makes a lot of noise, and has a chance of blowing up in your face (for early muskets at least - not so much Napoleonic period) early firearms are just cool, and fit perfectly in standard fantasy settings. my guess is ignorance anon disagrees

>>49622147
>No, it's me trying to get the experts to put that knowledge to use making a Fantasy Napoleonic thread instead of just a Napoleonic thread.
Well if you were the guy saying that the Napoleonic era is boring and shit this entire time then you didn't help. All the guys who could've been working on ideas just argued with you instead.

>>49616230
Sharpe would be balls out best, do some of his smaller scale adventures, where its just him and his squad of riflemen, like breaking in to take a fort or reconnoitering with some distant outpost/monastery.

The knack would be to make actual battles dangerous and horrifying, but elute them to make them fast vignettes rather than actually acting out the whole battle.

>>49616718
The Battle of Balaclava (1854, so a little later than strictly Napoleonic) gave rise to two heroic stories, the Thin Red Line and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Personally, I think fantasy RPGs are better off with the players in charge of themselves, and a strict chain of command outside the players control is usually a bad way to do things.
If you want to go the adventure route, have the area they players are in have bandit trouble, or have Barbary slave raiders (the real ones stopped in like the 1830s) show up. Any number of stock fantasy plots can still work with the progress of time.

>>49621968
>And pretty much everyone back then was religious
Erh...
> in some way
Oh, ok then. Just remember that it was also the age of rationalism and "superstitions" could be looked down upon pretty hard, depending on class and country. As >>49621828 I could see popular magic traditionally creating religious or folklore creatures or events (with or without necessarily implying that it's all there is to it).
So depending on country it could go more "revolutionary spirit" or "supernatural spirits".

>>49622219
They should have argued it better then, I argued it's a shit setting for Fantasy and they replied back "Nuh uh it's full of interesting shit" Well no shit it is, but you didn't display it in a fantasy setting at all did we?

I mean fuck, didn't even bring in the rise of Nationalism. Where Countries were formed by the identity of the people and not just the monarch or Emperor.

You could translate that as to each nation having a literal spirit that grows in power.

Imagine the Not-Napoleons fighting through the Magical Blizzards of Not-Russia only to have the Spirit of Rus himself rise up and lead a spirit-host cavalry charge into the bewildered French forces.

There is tons of shit people can do with the Napoleonic setting, but like the experts in this thread, they'd be to busy slapping balls against their history boners than doing anything.

File: 1409768628079.gif (600KB, 1130x1600px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1130x1600px

>>49622274
>so a little later than strictly Napoleonic
It's technically Napoleonic... the best kind of Napoleonic!

>Charge of the Light Brigade
>Heroic
Wasn't the entire point that it was a suicide mission that came into being due to shit communication between the common soldiers and their noble generals, leading them through a narrow position right in the visors of Russian artillery with no real purpose or chance of success? I'd call that shameful rather than heroic.

File: Avisa_a_Curro_Jimenez-775547898-large.jpg (44KB, 445x627px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 445x627px

This is how I Napoleonic campaign

>>49622312
You just said it was a shit setting period, that's why people got mad.

>>49621759
do you actually want them to succeed at world building? What proactive suggestions can you offer besides getting anal enraged?

>>49622312
>People actually bringing up fighting tyranny, changing up political systems, exploring the world, using magic to do shit, etc.
>Proceeds to say that those ideas are shit and better done in MUH VICTORIAN ERA
>Complaining that anons aren't talking about said things that were shot down because MUH VICTORIAN ERA

>>49622029
Taking note for my next game, question, did the war see colonial troop like WW1(indian, canadian, australian and other non-Europan) taking par in Europe? See yes, how?

>>49622448
Well, I mentioned a little here >>49622312

That people reflect, as well as the Popularism magic the anon above posted is very good.

Things that use the Spirit of the Napoleonic era and not just "It's the napoleonic era with napoleonic stuff"

>>49622334
> That pic related
> "I'm totally as badass as Napoleon!"
> "But I'm totally not going to take power by force like him, honest!"

>>49616995
>A fat ugly
Nice projection
>general shoots a pistol in a duel
>>WOW SO GREAT
Perhaps you should learn to fucking read.

>>49622550
why get so angry if they dont use the SPIRIT? Do you get angry at every medieval mish mash setting that has meritocratic republics and magocracies instead of just grinding feudal misery? Why can't they just have a setting with elves and bayonets? When did the litmus test for historical fantasy become replicating the zeitgeist rather than using it for the purposes of storytelling?

Here's a suggestion: just give productive suggestions that you think would redirect the conversation in directions that you view positive, rather than making 90% of your posts whiny bitching.

>>49622632

Know what? Shitposter-Kun will drop his ideas for a basic Napoleonic setting, as a few anons have gotten the same ideas I had.

Magic works on popularism, the more something is believed in, the more powerful and magical it gets. Kings and Emperors are important figures because they hold literal power, a good king is a boon to their country, a bad king is a fierce tyrant. However, the same works for folklore and tradition.Spirits and witches haunt woodlands and moors. Brave soldiers march under enchanted banners, praising their regimental founders as Quasi-saints, appeasing them by keeping their banners high and the traditional songs of the regiment sung even in the heart of battle. For the Banner to fall is for the literal spirit of the Regiment to falter. Ancient Kings are invoked in great prayers so their power can be given to their decedents.

You could have the Not-France despose of their inept useless magical king and leave a power vacuum with their Spiritual head gone, Que Not-Napoleon. He rallies the spirit of his people and becomes an Emperor of truly divine strength. He wishes to become the literal Spirit of the not-French people, an immortal emblem of their country the likes they have not seen in an age.

The other countries of Not-Europe are aghast by this emergent power and looks to their own spiritual/historical well to muster the courage to repel him.

Of course, this has already been posted in this thread in some form of another, but I personally like it alot.

>>49622666
So, it sort of opens up many things.

>Not-Irish Soldiers needing to quell Banshee and Witch attacks.

>Glorious Imperial Frenchmen bolstering their emergence identity by fighting off the ancient spirits of the other nations

>Magical occultism tapping into forbidden knowledge needing to be Quelled with Fire, Steel and Faith

>All with banners flying and War-songs singing.

Just make the pcs the leaders of a large mercenary band

Then the adventure really picks up as the party and their men decide what to do with the money they make or what countries they support

Huh, how weird. I've been on a Napoleonic Wars binge these last few days, and then I see this thread.

Anyways, you guys shoudl read Death To The French; it gives some great ideas for a campaign set in that era.

File: 1409768420158.jpg (340KB, 600x779px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 600x779px

>>49622594
To be fair, he did implement universal suffrage and he was incredibly popular even as late as 1870. The problem (and why he didn't last after the Franco-Prussian War) is that his Republican enemies were at their strongest in Paris while the pro-Bonapartist majority mostly lived on the countryside.

All in all, Napoleon III is a horribly underrated ruler. Not brilliant, but nowhere near as shit as his enemies *cough*victorhugo*cough* tried to make him look.

>>49623076
>universal sufferage
>good

>>49623367
>Not this shit again.

>>49623422
>Give women/minority's rights
>They turn your country into a mug feelings welfare state
>Import millions of 3rd world rapists

File: Yinglets at Waterloo.png (1MB, 1300x728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1300x728px

dunno

File: anon dislikes bait but can't stop taking it.png (397KB, 468x854px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 468x854px

>>49623422
Just stop responding man

>>49623076
His domestic policy was basically: "Don't make anything explode on your face". So the old aristocracy could be comfortable, but not get its old privileges. The bourgeoisie was given a lot of opportunity to get rich, but Bonaparte had to throw a bone to the workers from time to time. Never fed up anyone to the point they would fuck shit up.

Napoleon the first could make his coup because almost everyone thought he would be working in their own interest, Napoleon the third could make his because no one thought he would work against their own interest.

You could actually call him a mediocre ruler if you really wanted, but only in the sense of "unremarkable". All in all, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

That being said, the Franco-Prussian War was made precisely because the equilibrium he built was starting to totter. Nothing better that a easy victorious war to strengthen the regime, am I right?
To be fair, it wasn't his idea and he wasn't really into it.

>>49622139
Something that wasn't used by the french, who also applied such skirmishers

>>49623502
Jokes on you, I'm dutch, we starting doing welfare state shit long even before all males could vote.

>>49622666
>Que Not-Napoleon
The point could be that with the not-revolution, people started believing in ideals more than actual men, so an army thought to be fighting "Pour la liberté!" would be strengthened as a whole more than its general having literal make-believe-muscles. Hence why the kings of old could be badass while with the emergence of states the magic is still there but is more diffused.

In universe, people don't really understand how it works. Not-Napoleon "genius" could be that he somehow understood or learned it, and went meta with his knowledge.
He is however playing a dangerous game: losing his image could mean losing control of the power he unleashed.

This is gonna sound like a troll question, but can someone summarize the appeal of Napoleonics? Is that just your favorite era of history? Why so?

>>49624334
Exactly.

Hell the literal history of the setting could be a DnD style old times but like you said, the magic diffuses into states nations and ideals instead of centred on kings.

Napoleonic fantasy implies you aren't just regular dildos with muskets.
>Magic might be a thing
>Obscure technolgies like the puckle gun, that austrian rapid fire air gun, and the Ferguson rifle are widespread
>Opportunities for adventuring (as opposed to just being regular soldiers) exist

You could be a wizard, dragoon with a ferguson rifle, a grenadier of the Imperial Guard built like a tank compared to everyone else, a goliath with a man portable puckle gun, etc.

>>49621166
>If you think Nelson did anything other than cower in his captain's quarters then you're sadly mistake
I can't believe I got through all your bullshit knowing that you must be trolling and this low blow is still what gets me mad.

Nelson joined Jervis's fleet off Cape St Vincent, and reported the Spanish movements.[100] Jervis decided to give battle and the two fleets met on 14 February. Nelson found himself towards the rear of the British line and realised that it would be a long time before he could bring Captain into action.[100] Instead of continuing to follow the line, Nelson disobeyed orders and wore ship, breaking from the line and heading to engage the Spanish van, which consisted of the 112-gun San Josef, the 80-gun San Nicolas and the 130-gun Santísima Trinidad. Captain engaged all three, assisted by HMS Culloden which had come to Nelson's aid. After an hour of exchanging broadsides which left both Captain and Culloden badly damaged, Nelson found himself alongside San Nicolas. He led a boarding party across, crying "Westminster Abbey!" or, "glorious victory!" and forced her to surrender.[101] San Josef attempted to come to the San Nicolas’s aid, but became entangled with her compatriot and was left immobile. Nelson led his party from the deck of San Nicolas onto San Josef and captured her as well.[100] As night fell, the Spanish fleet broke off and sailed for Cadiz. Four ships had surrendered to the British and two of them were Nelson's.[102]

>>49621166
>If you think Nelson did anything other than cower in his captain's quarters then you're sadly mistaken
Because arms just fall off, eyes just fall out, and healthy people randomly drop dead in battle from nothing. Nelson was a goddamn cripple from his injuries in battles.

>>49622147
No fuck you, you made this thread worse not better.

You're not some "necessary evil" you're just a cunt who wouldn't stop de-railing (and yes you were de-railing by making it all about you) the thread.

So fuck you for acting all smug like the or were just proving a point and you're oh so clever that you can read the temper of /tg/'s heart. You just kept filling the space with negativity and calling it critique.

Cunt.

>>49621288
>Here is our game lads
>We sit around and fire arrows at people, maybe use our swords
>That is it entirely
>We do it in different flavours like sometimes defending or attacking or escorting
>But that is literally it
>Sometimes we may have a horse.
So it is literally identical to all medieval fantasy.

>>49615922
niggah, I love that game and all, but you need to get your historical facts from something other than Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars.

Stop feeding the fucking troll, morons. FFS.

>>49615922
Are you literally retarded or just trolling?

File: Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.jpg (320KB, 1280x757px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1280x757px

>been playing Cossacks: Back to War for the last week
Fucking yes, Napoleonic supersoldier squad campaign is a go
>capture those guns
>hold this keep
>raid these supply lines
>burn that harbour
>don't forget your muskets and scrolls of fireball

File: 461054.jpg (604KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 2560x1600px

>>49616619

FUCK, I've been LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOREVER

Also it's not hard. And no reason that the adventurers of the setting can wield bows and arrows and crossbows while also wielding muskets, rifles and carbines. If it's a fantasy setting, then anything goes really.

>>49621733
>century old
those were probably barreled, minié muskets not smooth bore