Quote from: Blood Axe;1088889Im a big fan of Lion & Dragon and Dark Albion in general.  Good stuff. Gritty, dark medieval game.  You wont be throwing magic missiles around.  Has a much different feel to it.

Thanks!

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089146Well, 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.

I'm not sure what makes you think this is a big revelation. Look at Lion & Dragon.

Picking out a work of fiction and then thinking "how can we emulate this" is usually the wrong approach.

First you actually have to decide what elements of things you want to emulate and then think about the constraints of changing between mediums (or maybe the other way around).

In Game of Thrones John Snow is clearly a plot protected hero - is this what you want to emulate?  If so there's probably plenty of systems that do this fairly well already.  If you want you main characters to be like John Snow and survive lots of conflict without being permanently maimed and even raised from the dead when they die - well WOTC era D&D can do that already.  

Or do you want to emulate the fact that in the later series John Snow and Tyrion actually achieve almost nothing they set out to do but the plot keeps being propelled forward anyway with them at the centre of it - perhaps you want a system that has "Fail Forward" as a central concept.

Or do you want the sense that anyone can die and that setting elements feel like they are built on shifting sands?  In this case you want a system with rules for hideous maiming and disfigurement and perhaps some random ways of determining major political events.  In this take on the setting it should be possible for a PC to have revenge as a major goal, only to have their particular object of vengeance die of an infected wound acquired in completely unrelated circumstances before they effectively act on their goal.  In this take your PCs would be individuals who have to adjust to likely being completely left completely unmoored in the world due to the randomly changing and chaotic nature of the setting.

Or in other words rpgs can't really emulate works of fiction - but they can be inspired by them.

Quote from: Chris24601;1089176Friar 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.

In Lion & Dragon, presuming that level 8 Robin Hood has a +0 CON modifier, he would need two nights and one full day of rest to recover to full strength. Or just one full day and night if Friar Tuck had the Medicine Lore skill. No magic needed.

Of course, if Robin got an infection from his wound, that could have a chance of killing him, assuming you're using infection rules.

Quote from: TJS;1089502Or do you want the sense that anyone can die and that setting elements feel like they are built on shifting sands?  In this case you want a system with rules for hideous maiming and disfigurement and perhaps some random ways of determining major political events.  In this take on the setting it should be possible for a PC to have revenge as a major goal, only to have their particular object of vengeance die of an infected wound acquired in completely unrelated circumstances before they effectively act on their goal.  In this take your PCs would be individuals who have to adjust to likely being completely left completely unmoored in the world due to the randomly changing and chaotic nature of the setting.

Or in other words rpgs can't really emulate works of fiction - but they can be inspired by them.

Oh, right, because in GoT Arya ends up getting to personally murder everyone on her list, right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1089504Oh, right, because in GoT Arya ends up getting to personally murder everyone on her list, right?

Is this (rather incongruous response) supposed to be making some kind of point?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1089418Bracers of Defense (Important to Plot) AC -10

Being reliant on an implausible, purposefully construed magic item isn't very badass and stretches belief. If you were to extend it to an entire party, it would most certainly break.

Quote from: Shasarak;1089497That kind of sounds like they were using DnD Hit Points, characters that dont get detectable penalities on their performance.

Not really because smaller scratches and bruises never kill (other than Carl Drogo's infection). Only serious wounds do - there is very rarely a death of a 1,000 cuts. And for those who can withstand more than one serious wound, they tend to operate at a penalty after the first.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1089501I'm not sure what makes you think this is a big revelation. Look at Lion & Dragon.

Well, my perception that fantasy role-playing is still widely afflicted with healer dependency does. Either by that or by Wolverina Arya-like recovery rates.

Quote from: TJS;1089502Or in other words rpgs can't really emulate works of fiction - but they can be inspired by them.

Now we're entering the realm of semantics. RPGs certainly aspire after fictional works. And RPGs can recreate all of the things you mentioned - from an epic level 1 to level 20 campaign to very dark, gritty and lethal campaigns.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1089503In Lion & Dragon, presuming that level 8 Robin Hood has a +0 CON modifier, he would need two nights and one full day of rest to recover to full strength. Or just one full day and night if Friar Tuck had the Medicine Lore skill. No magic needed.

That sounds more like Wolverine Arya aka late GoT.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089550Not really because smaller scratches and bruises never kill (other than Carl Drogo's infection). Only serious wounds do - there is very rarely a death of a 1,000 cuts. And for those who can withstand more than one serious wound, they tend to operate at a penalty after the first.

I have never seen a DnD character die of scratches and bruises either only serious wounds.

So how is it different again?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089550Now we're entering the realm of semantics. RPGs certainly aspire after fictional works. And RPGs can recreate all of the things you mentioned - from an epic level 1 to level 20 campaign to very dark, gritty and lethal campaigns.

It's a good thing then that the comment you quote came at the end of a much longer post which tried to examine the distinction then isn't it?

Although as we'll see below it's unlikely that you actually read it.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089550RPGs can recreate all of the things you mentioned - from an epic level 1 to level 20 campaign to very dark, gritty and lethal campaigns.

I swear I don't know why people insist on doing this.  Quoting a poster to tell them something that was in the very content of the original post which they left out when they quoted.

Not only did I say rpgs could do both these things I gave fucking examples!

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089550Being reliant on an implausible, purposefully construed magic item isn't very badass and stretches belief. If you were to extend it to an entire party, it would most certainly break.

In GoT there is no adventuring party, at best there are some pairs of major characters.

As DMs have been explaining since 1972, D&D isn't designed to be a fantasy novel. "Story" is an emergent property which does not always emerge. You do not survive because you are the hero, you are the hero because you survive.

This disturbs players because a character is commonly a Mary Sue by design, but the DM and the dice do not always allow the full expression of Mary Sue. But you cannot have a whole party of Mary Sues. Not even GRRM would write that.

Quote from: Shasarak;1089554I have never seen a DnD character die of scratches and bruises either only serious wounds.

So how is it different again?

I will answer that as soon you provide a consistent definition of how much damage inflicted in D&D rules corresponds to which wound severity in the fiction. Because it seems to me like there is no such consistent correlation in most D&D games and that instead the GM has to "creatively interpret" the mechanic in a given situation for it to work and make sense. And if that's the case ("wound severity is whatever I, the GM, say it is"), then there is no meaningful answer to your question. It'a a trap.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1089560In GoT there is no adventuring party, at best there are some pairs of major characters.

In late GoT, at least, there most certainly is.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1089560"Story" is an emergent property which does not always emerge. You do not survive because you are the hero, you are the hero because you survive.

Have you ever watched Critical Role? The PCs survive because they are the heroes, encounters are designed so that they are overcome.
As for story, a story that you can share with your buddies always emerges. Whether it's a particularly entertaining one is a different question.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1089560This disturbs players because a character is commonly a Mary Sue by design, but the DM and the dice do not always allow the full expression of Mary Sue. But you cannot have a whole party of Mary Sues. Not even GRRM would write that.

The fellowship of the Ring (except Boromir) survived - and some survived incredible dangers. This has been the model for most fantasy role-playing ever since: the PCs are meant to survive but an occasional, rare death is possible. As I understand it, Critical Role follows that formula still in 2019.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1089560Not even GRRM would write that.

And yet, (Final Episode Spoilers)

Spoiler

every last viewpoint character except for Edd and Cat (see below on that) and Dany LIVES and gets something resembling a happy-ish ending. Bran, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Tyrion... even second book viewpoint characters like Brienne, Davos and Sam get happy endings.

And the show producers have said their ending lines up with the ending GRRM gave them.

I don't know why GRRM has this rep for being an "anyone can die" writer. Every last major character dies at a dramatically appropriate point. Everyone else? Well, What measure is a Mook? (to reference the TVTropes page).

Once you see the narrative sleight of hand, you can never un-see that Ned was no more the protagonist than Obi-Wan was in ANH (or Boromir in LotR... also played by Sean Bean for extra irony). Similarly, Cat and Robb (the latter of who wasn't even important enough to ever get a viewpoint chapter) were just the Biggs Darklighter to the main protagonist's Luke... another twist of the knife for the actual the main characters.

In Martin's released novels, Ned and Cat; the parents; are the only two viewpoint characters from the first book to have actually perished. In other words the dead are all supporting cast (i.e. NPCs in RPG terms) to the actual PCs (i.e. the first book viewpoint characters (Bran, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Tyrion and Dany).

TL;DR... actually GRRM wrote exactly that.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089608I will answer that as soon you provide a consistent definition of how much damage inflicted in D&D rules corresponds to which wound severity in the fiction. Because it seems to me like there is no such consistent correlation in most D&D games and that instead the GM has to "creatively interpret" the mechanic in a given situation for it to work and make sense. And if that's the case ("wound severity is whatever I, the GM, say it is"), then there is no meaningful answer to your question. It'a a trap.

If you have two different characters, one with 7hp and one with 70hp, then why would you describe a 7hp wound the same for both characters.  One of them has taken a potentially mortal wound and one of them has been barely scratched.

Quote from: Chris24601;1089613And yet, (Final Episode Spoilers)

Spoiler

every last viewpoint character except for Edd and Cat (see below on that) and Dany LIVES and gets something resembling a happy-ish ending. Bran, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Tyrion... even second book viewpoint characters like Brienne, Davos and Sam get happy endings.

And the show producers have said their ending lines up with the ending GRRM gave them.

I don't know why GRRM has this rep for being an "anyone can die" writer. Every last major character dies at a dramatically appropriate point. Everyone else? Well, What measure is a Mook? (to reference the TVTropes page).

Once you see the narrative sleight of hand, you can never un-see that Ned was no more the protagonist than Obi-Wan was in ANH (or Boromir in LotR... also played by Sean Bean for extra irony). Similarly, Cat and Robb (the latter of who wasn't even important enough to ever get a viewpoint chapter) were just the Biggs Darklighter to the main protagonist's Luke... another twist of the knife for the actual the main characters.

In Martin's released novels, Ned and Cat; the parents; are the only two viewpoint characters from the first book to have actually perished. In other words the dead are all supporting cast (i.e. NPCs in RPG terms) to the actual PCs (i.e. the first book viewpoint characters (Bran, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Tyrion and Dany).

TL;DR... actually GRRM wrote exactly that.

GRRM's sleight of hand was to conceal who were the protagonists until the 'end'.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1089550Now we're entering the realm of semantics. RPGs certainly aspire after fictional works. And RPGs can recreate all of the things you mentioned - from an epic level 1 to level 20 campaign to very dark, gritty and lethal campaigns.

Not at all. It's an important distinction to make.

Emulation comes from the verb "emulate," which means to imitate or reproduce. Now, rpgs are completely unable to reproduce (say) a novel, because a novel has one author, and a linear plot. (Even if after the fact) Novels do not change between readings.
If I tried to emulate GOT in an RPG, I'd have to force the players to make the exact decisions as the characters in the novel. Not very much fun.
But an RPG can take inspiration from fiction. Like putting dwarves in a setting, or having a dragon in a mountain lair. Even to details like putting a bunch of feuding houses in a kingdom that has years long seasons, and a terrible threat looming during the winter season.
Seperating emulation from inspiration, I think, leads to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of RPGs compared to non-interactive fiction.