Run: Game of Thrones

Play: War of the Roses

Quote from: RPGPundit;465460...a "Game of Thrones" campaign, or a "War of the Roses" campaign? And why?

For the purposes of the thread, we are ignoring the question of what system would be used, or the quality of the person GMing; assume that these points are completely equal for the purposes of this thread: the real question here is whether you would be more interested in playing a (richly-detailed) fantasy-version of the War of the Roses set in a world that is not earth, or playing a historical campaign set in the REAL War of the Roses, on our earth?

Finally, would it make a difference in your answer if the latter campaign (the War of the Roses) was set in England, but a "fantasy" England with low-levels of magic and the supernatural roughly on par with the levels found in aGoT?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;465473Song of Ice and Fire for me, because my players would know more about it than War of the Roses. I like well-informed players.

My exact answer for the exact same reasons. My crew are all big AGoT enthusiasts.

Both sound about the same to me, I'd rather drink rat poison.

Quote from: JDCorley;465686Both sound about the same to me, I'd rather drink rat poison.

Medieval Campaigns was one reason why I once turned down the opportunity to write a supplement for Chivalry and Sorcery. How many Critical Infection & Death tables can you have in one supplement?

Best,
D.

Running: Neither/Both

I wouldn't be interested in running a game where the PCs were the henchmen of either the Yorkists or the Starks and participate in the unfolding of a (relatively) well known saga. Rather, I have run—and would run again—a game where the PCs start as the leaders of a noble house in a kingdom teetering on civil war with a murky succession. Whether they and their family manage to secure the throne or even survive the coming chaos and intrigue would be the campaign.

While I could run such a game as an alternative history and really hew closely to the realities of late medieval England, I think it would be easier for me, and my players, to set it in a low magic fantasy setting.

Playing: Either

As long as we don't spend most of the game standing around watching signature characters/historical figures enact their famous deeds.

I think that my answer, which probably won't surprise many hear, is the War of the Roses.  Its what served as (one of) Martin's inspiration; but  more importantly, so long as you don't run it as a strictly historical campaign, its far less "closed off" than AGOT.  The latter suffers (in gaming terms) from the fact that all the characters who are really important are already around, they are the ones who would be the NPCs, and it would be very hard to create characters that could really end up having an impact on the story, without just plain deviating into something totally different.

The War of the Roses, on the other hand, has a broader playing field, a wider range of players, and a lot of room for different things to happen.  Maybe its from playing all that "Kingmaker" and "Richard III", but I would not feel nearly so constrained to "stick to the story".   Given that the war lasted about 30 years, and had long periods of low-boil skirmishing and intrigue, there's also shitloads of room for adventuring to go on that isn't just epic battles.

RPGPundit

I'd go War of the Roses with low-level fantasy. Mostly because I think this would give greater freedom. Inserting anything in a GoT game that isn't canon might lead to player dissatisfaction, whereas WoR plus fantasy is already clearly adding in stuff straight out of my head (or more probably my arse).

That would be the big issue of debate for me.. whether I'd go for a straightforward "real world" campaign, or one that was fantasied-up, for the War of the Roses.

RPGPundit