Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1089063All I can say is Rob was a master GM in both cases, and I would not ignore Rob's gaming advice, even in cases where I don't agree with him. Everything he says I've seen work out at the table with him running a game.

Emphasis mine. This is the acid test - does it play well at the table? Which is why One Right Way doesn't exist, and many Wrong Ways do.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1089063All I can say is Rob was a master GM in both cases, and I would not ignore Rob's gaming advice, even in cases where I don't agree with him. Everything he says I've seen work out at the table with him running a game.

Thanks!

Quote from: RandyB;1089070Emphasis mine. This is the acid test - does it play well at the table? Which is why One Right Way doesn't exist, and many Wrong Ways do.

My view it more important use a set of techniques that works the way you think. That you need to be self aware enough to think honestly about how your campaign is going and modify your techniques accordingly. For many it leads to a way of running campaigns that different then how I do it. Which is fine and how it should be. The only absolute is the cycle of Write, play, evaluate, write again, and play again.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1089062The inverse is also vast oversimplification though. There may be more forces as work than single great individuals. But there are also times and moments when individuals can make choices that affect the course of history. Caesar may have been a product of lots of things, but unless historical analysis demands that we all be determinists, he still had choices along the way. He could have presumably made the choice not cross the Rubicon for example and instead face his fate in Rome. True, that might not have settled the underlying issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. But history still could have played out very differently.

I suppose that is also true.

And if you went back through his family tree to find a farmer in the middle of nowhere and then traveled back in time to kill that farmer, Caesar would never exist.

Every single person alive contributes to history as a result of the so-called "butterfly effect." The only difference is how long it takes for the consequences to appear.

Alternate history writers love this sort of stuff. If one measly messenger had been late or lost, then the Confederacy might have won the civil war regardless of the efforts of the "great men" overseeing said war. http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=428

Another, perhaps more important, reason I dislike the great men theory is because morons use it as a justification for single foot soldiers or psychotic teenagers to control the outcomes of galactic wars. In Mass Effect, Shepard is magically able to control the course of galactic affairs in a way that simply couldn't happen in a realistic universe, simply by performing generic RPG quests. In Starcraft, a psychotic teenage girl named Kerry magically controls a swarm of trillions of intelligent planet-eating bugs and uses them to do whatever crazy nonsensical thing she wants at that moment like committing galactic scale genocide or attacking space satan. In Star Wars, Luke magically defeats the evil empire by assassinating their emperor, because that clearly worked every time it happened in reality (not). In Lord of the Rings, the armies and infrastructure of Mordor immediately collapse after the One Ring is destroyed, because everyone knows that Japan would've defeated the USA if not for those pesky nukes.

I give LotR and SW a pass because they're fairytales and thus don't give a damn about logistics, but it pisses me off when that shows up in dark gritty fare. If I sound bitter, then that is because I am.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1089099In Star Wars, Luke magically defeats the evil empire by assassinating their emperor, because that clearly worked every time it happened in reality (not). In Lord of the Rings, the armies and infrastructure of Mordor immediately collapse after the One Ring is destroyed, because everyone knows that Japan would've defeated the USA if not for those pesky nukes.

To be fair, the follow-on material for the current Star Wars canon (as well as the old Legends canon) makes it clear that Endor was NOT the actual defeat of the Empire, but it was the equivalent of the Battle of Midway. It wasn't even the Emperor's death that was considered the critical blow, it was the loss of men and material associated with the second Death Star and, even more, the experienced officer corps that went down with the Executor. After that debacle the Empire never recovered and was stuck on defense for the next five years until what was left of their leadership finally sued for peace after losing the Battle of Jakku. Even then the peace treaty didn't END the Empire, it just restricted it to territory they still controlled as of the signing of a peace treaty. Luke's involvement is actually barely mentioned since the general presumption was that the Emperor and Vader died when the Death Star exploded.

THAT feels more like real history to me.

Likewise, based on the movie, Sauron was a load bearing villain... as soon as he was destroyed by destroying the ring, the entire kingdom of Mordor literally collapsed... as in the ground opened up and swallowed it and all the evil creatures in it. Further, in the actual novels the defeat of Sauron isn't the end of the story either, Sarumon and some of his forces took over the Shire and so there was a second campaign involving clearing them out of the Shire after the One Ring was destroyed.

I haven't watched a single episode of Game of Thrones.

(Gasp)

But I have watched a few short clips of their dragons; just to see how they looked.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1089099I suppose that is also true.

And if you went back through his family tree to find a farmer in the middle of nowhere and then traveled back in time to kill that farmer, Caesar would never exist.

Every single person alive contributes to history as a result of the so-called "butterfly effect." The only difference is how long it takes for the consequences to appear.

Alternate history writers love this sort of stuff. If one measly messenger had been late or lost, then the Confederacy might have won the civil war regardless of the efforts of the "great men" overseeing said war. http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=428

Another, perhaps more important, reason I dislike the great men theory is because morons use it as a justification for single foot soldiers or psychotic teenagers to control the outcomes of galactic wars. In Mass Effect, Shepard is magically able to control the course of galactic affairs in a way that simply couldn't happen in a realistic universe, simply by performing generic RPG quests. In Starcraft, a psychotic teenage girl named Kerry magically controls a swarm of trillions of intelligent planet-eating bugs and uses them to do whatever crazy nonsensical thing she wants at that moment like committing galactic scale genocide or attacking space satan. In Star Wars, Luke magically defeats the evil empire by assassinating their emperor, because that clearly worked every time it happened in reality (not). In Lord of the Rings, the armies and infrastructure of Mordor immediately collapse after the One Ring is destroyed, because everyone knows that Japan would've defeated the USA if not for those pesky nukes.

I give LotR and SW a pass because they're fairytales and thus don't give a damn about logistics, but it pisses me off when that shows up in dark gritty fare. If I sound bitter, then that is because I am.

Starcraft and Mass Effect are pretty far from "Dark, gritty fare".

Quote from: Chris24601;1089112Likewise, based on the movie, Sauron was a load bearing villain... as soon as he was destroyed by destroying the ring, the entire kingdom of Mordor literally collapsed... as in the ground opened up and swallowed it and all the evil creatures in it. Further, in the actual novels the defeat of Sauron isn't the end of the story either, Sarumon and some of his forces took over the Shire and so there was a second campaign involving clearing them out of the Shire after the One Ring was destroyed.

It should have been. One thing Peter Jackson did right was to not include Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire in the movies.

Quote from: estar;1089047What one does while pretending to be a character is a personal preference. Combat is not an requirement nor it is always desired. One can enjoy roleplaying playing a basket weaver as they could Conan.

"...generally..."

Quote from: estar;1089047You stated numerous times you want to emulation literature and film.

That is the subject of the thread. To be precise: emulation of a particular piece of fiction ("early GoT") through skillful gamemastering and/or scenario design (as opposed system design). I didn't make this thread, I just objected to the assertions made in Pundit's video.

Quote from: estar;1089047Fine do that. Do as much metagaming you need to make something that is fun and interesting in pursuit of making something that feels like you are in a novel about X.

But realize your goal is not the same thing as what Pundit, I, and others do. Nor the material you produce in pursuit of that goal is likely going to be useful to those who run campaigns this way. What interesting to me are descriptions of how and why characters behave. Descriptions of locales, and the environment. How the physics of the setting works and so on.

Well, now we're on a system level and I think that leads us away from the thread subject. I said above all I needed to say about it: "I can't play early GoT Sandor Clegane or Bronn if I constantly need healing potions or a cleric to recover my lost hitpoints. I'm no longer self-reliant." As such, it's more precise to state that I am aiming at emulating genre by means of emulating genre worlds.

As for the GMing/scenario design side, my point was that I think the RPGPundit mistakenly overemphasizes emergent gameplay (aka history, not story). While this is normally largely a matter of taste, I have some concerns specifically about capturing early GoT this way, as outlined further above.

Quote from: Aglondir;1089132It should have been. One thing Peter Jackson did right was to not include Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire in the movies.

I don't disagree; as fiction it was absolutely the right choice. One of my favorite sayings is... "Life dangles. Fiction shouldn't."

But in the sense of the "feels like history" comment I was replying to, the Scouring of the Shire in the books keeps the ending from being the clean ending you typically see in fiction.

On topic, my way of going down the middle of completely emergent and scripted that I've been using for years in my games is to work out a list of "This is what will happen in the world if the PCs do nothing." Basically, create a timeline for each of the various plots (rise of a conqueror, assassination plot, civil war, etc.) and let them run as written right up to whenever the PCs become involved.

If the PCs don't investigate the rumors of a meteor strike in the mountains, then Warlord X gets the rare magical metal of the meteor. If they don't investigate when stories surface that the best weaponsmith in the kingdom has been kidnapped then Warlord X starts manufacturing powerful star metal weapons for his armies. If they don't get involved when they hear that Warlord X's armies with their powerful magic weapons are marching on Kingdom Y, then Kingdom Y falls and Kingdom Z goes on high alert. Etc.

Once the PCs do get involved you still have the map of what Warlord X wants to make happen so as the PCs interfere, it's easier to figure out what Warlord X's next move is going to be to his long term goals on track and what that will cost him to do it.

The PCs got the magic meteor? Well, he'll either try to find another, possibly inferior, source, use middle men to buy some or all of the meteor off the PCs or try to steal it from the PCs or whoever they sell it to.

The PCs rescue the greatest weaponsmith in the kingdom? Would the second best do?

Etc. etc.

This lets you have the benefits of foreshadowing while still maintaining a general sandbox world. It's just not a static sandbox anymore.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089146I said above all I needed to say about it: "I can't play early GoT Sandor Clegane or Bronn if I constantly need healing potions or a cleric to recover my lost hitpoints. I'm no longer self-reliant." As such, it's more precise to state that I am aiming at emulating genre by means of emulating genre worlds.

Yeah, traditional D&D (O-3e; 5e to a lesser extent) is actually pretty awful at emulating anything but D&D precisely because of the niche protection they created with divine magic and healing.

Prior to 4E every non-magic setting (ex. Dragon Magazine articles on running a Robin Hood style campaign) had to kludge the healing system, allow magic afterall (suggesting that Friar Tuck was a spellcasting cleric) or outright admit that PCs would be spending a lot of time resting on their asses to get their 1-2 hp/day back.

The brunt of the blame comes down to war game healing elements meant to reflect realistic non-lethal casualties in war for what amounts to "mooks" being carried over to PCs that are heroic fantasy characters where they come through the average fight with some minor cuts and bruises and even wounds that would normally be quite serious are shrugged off after a day or two of bed rest.

The easiest older early D&D fixes are the first HD worth of hit points are physical and recover at 1-2 per day (depending on light activity or complete bed rest). Everything after that is fatigue and luck and comes back at say 1/level per hour of rest.

But that's just a kludge (like the ones I mentioned above). Attempting to model anything but D&D with any D&D (except 4E; which is better at non-D&D fantasy emulation, but has its own issues) is always going to be fighting the system rather than working with it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1089161The brunt of the blame comes down to war game healing elements meant to reflect realistic non-lethal casualties in war for what amounts to "mooks" being carried over to PCs that are heroic fantasy characters where they come through the average fight with some minor cuts and bruises and even wounds that would normally be quite serious are shrugged off after a day or two of bed rest.

That not how the hit point mechanic developed or why. It was a result of the decision that in Chainmail a hero was worth 4 ordinary troop both in terms of the damage dealt and the damage that it could take.

Everything else follows from that decision.

Quote from: Chris24601;1089159On topic, my way of going down the middle of completely emergent and scripted that I've been using for years in my games is to work out a list of "This is what will happen in the world if the PCs do nothing." Basically, create a timeline for each of the various plots (rise of a conqueror, assassination plot, civil war, etc.) and let them run as written right up to whenever the PCs become involved.

Mine is to approach setting up scenarios as "This is what's likely to happen". But I'm fully aware that players can and will go off the path. Hell, sometimes I put myself in the role of obstinate player, in order to look critically at my GMing.

Quote from: estar;1089162That not how the hit point mechanic developed or why. It was a result of the decision that in Chainmail a hero was worth 4 ordinary troop both in terms of the damage dealt and the damage that it could take.

Everything else follows from that decision.

Sometimes I feel like we're speaking two different languages because you keep taking the exact wrong point out of anything I say.

I said nothing about the development of hit points. I am well aware of the origin of hit points and the 4 HD Hero and 8 HD Superhero.

What I said... again... is that the mechanics suck at emulating heroic fantasy because (capitalized for emphasis) RECOVERY RATE OF HIT POINTS in early editions of D&D were based entirely on the ordinary troops and didn't scale for the heroes and superheroes.

Heroes may be able to dish out and take four times the punishment of an ordinary troop in a single battle, but they recover to full strength four times slower between battles and THAT is the problem.

Regaining 1 hp/day of light activity or 2/day of bed rest works for figuring out how long your army of 1 HD troops needs to regain its fighting strength (those dropped to 0 hp, even if they were still alive, would be too injured to return to fighting for the rest of the season if ever).

It utterly fails if you're trying to emulate the activities of a Jon Snow or Bronn of the Blackwater or Sandor Clegane. Who can get battered left and right, beat their opponent and be back up at full strength minus a cosmetic injury or two in a day or two, often even in a matter of hours.

At the very least to emulate the non-magical healing heroic fantasy you need 3e's change in recovery rate of 1-2 hp per level/day to keep the healing for heroes/PCs proportional to the ordinary troops.

To better emulate general fantasy even more accurately though, everything past the first hit die on a human or demi-human (and whatever threshold is determined for other creatures) should probably recover more like 1/level per hour to reflect that heroic stamina and luck recovers more quickly and only when they get battered down to practically nothing (their last hit die worth of hit points) are they going to needs days to recover from the ordeal, just like an ordinary troop who takes that level of punishment.

But instead of actually fixing this legit problem in implementation where a hero needs four times longer to recover from the same proportionate injury as a ordinary troop, they offloaded the problem onto clerical healing and magic potions and had it pick up the slack... then added niche protection and made an institution out of it on top so that divine magic became the only way for a party to quickly regain its fighting strength... despite an utter lack of divine healing magic in the source material it was drawing from in moving from wargame to fantasy role-playing game.

Friar Tuck shouldn't have to be a spellcasting cleric just to make your Robin Hood campaign work when Level 8 Robin Hood loses half his 44 hit points in a fight and now needs 11 days of complete bed rest to recover to full strength while the 1 HD Merry Man who fought beside Robin in the same fight and lost half his hit points will be back at full strength with one good day's bed rest.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1089062The inverse is also vast oversimplification though. There may be more forces as work than single great individuals. But there are also times and moments when individuals can make choices that affect the course of history. Caesar may have been a product of lots of things, but unless historical analysis demands that we all be determinists, he still had choices along the way. He could have presumably made the choice not cross the Rubicon for example and instead face his fate in Rome. True, that might not have settled the underlying issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. But history still could have played out very differently.

One example that too few people would bring up in this specific context is Hitler (because he was a great disaster rather than simply "great"). I would argue that while Fascism was very much in vogue at the time, the specific horror of Nazism was, to a great degree, because it was essentially "Hitlerism". People like Goebbels and Himmler were almost completely under his spell. There were Nazis who recoiled from certain sadistic acts, only to be convinced by Hitler and his most trusted men that it was the right thing to do. WW2 would have been completely different (and maybe not occurred at all) if Hitler didn't exist.

Quote from: Trond;1089191One example that too few people would bring up in this specific context is Hitler (because he was a great disaster rather than simply "great"). I would argue that while Fascism was very much in vogue at the time, the specific horror of Nazism was, to a great degree, because it was essentially "Hitlerism". People like Goebbels and Himmler were almost completely under his spell. There were Nazis who recoiled from certain sadistic acts, only to be convinced by Hitler and his most trusted men that it was the right thing to do. WW2 would have been completely different (and maybe not occurred at all) if Hitler didn't exist.

Perhaps that specific example. But we have plenty of examples of people going along with terrible ideologies and committing atrocities. I think it did take a Hitler to galvanize Germany, but I also think that many people could have taken that role.

And that brings up ordinary people who resisted the German ideology, and were a single person making a historial difference.