|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 7, 2015 11:54:28 GMT -8
Unsheath your GM sword only when you're ready to use it = Don't be #RPGs impotent. #Impudency! GMs Need To Get It Up, and Keep It Up! Hell Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Mar 7, 2015 13:20:27 GMT -8
On killing PCs:
I've seen rules in a few places about PCs just not dying from unimportant actions. They might be hurt, have equipment damaged, or otherwise suffer a setback, but not die. You don't want the 1/2 HD Kobold Straggler killing you with a lucky crit before you even get to the front door of the dungeon. I believe Other Worlds specifically uses this. John Wick describes this as the "Dire Peril" rule in Play Dirty (2?).
Something I threw out in the chat room was the idea of Agony Points. If something happens that would kill you, you instead survive, but gain an Agony Point. The GM can spend these in the future to have Fate balance the scales with you at a future time. For example, you just barely made that jump instead of falling to your death. Later, the GM spends your Agony Point to have bad guys waiting in your apartment for you, since you dropped your wallet and they knew where to find you.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Mar 7, 2015 13:22:22 GMT -8
And while I'm thinking about it, I'd really love to get away from all sides fighting to the death. We need to make surrender/ransom/etc an acceptable thing for PCs. I never get to run the cool escape scenario because my players refuse to allow their characters to be captured under any conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 8, 2015 4:53:53 GMT -8
Unnecessary Character death is, most probably, the prime reason to have a GM screen - and not having a 1/2HD Kobold crit a PC is vote in favour of GM's fudging die rolls . . . It's interesting the interconnectedness of it all, have we reached the point where we can no longer address topics in isolation to afford the luxury of avoiding the 'hard' (ie: left unresolved) topics? . . . Not all combat has to be to the death. In my TOEE campaign Kelgrim, the Dwarf Fighter, faced off one to one against a pursuing (evil) Cavalier - first one to 'drop to zero' and that side would conceded defeat. Kelgrim managed to drop the Cavalier to 'zero' first and true to her word/honour (as a cavalier) she and her personal entourage withdrew from the battlefield. This left the other minions (not part of her personal retinue) effectively leaderless which meant a morale check - those that failed fled only those that passed fought on, noting that without effective an command structure they had no real strategy or tactics and were subject to increasingly frequent morale checks as the battle progressed . . . (NB I award full XP for those that flee/retreat in those circumstances as,in my mind, that counts as defeated/overcome) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 8, 2015 6:09:40 GMT -8
Unnecessary Character death is, most probably, the prime reason to have a GM screen - and not having a 1/2HD Kobold crit a PC is vote in favour of GM's fudging die rolls . . . Now flavourfully describe a sniper rifle in the hands of this 1/2HD Cabold. Does that change the situation? Really it all depends upon the GM ("game authority"). Every table is unique. Some "game authority" reports back to the story (i.e. "unnecessary death" meaning the character's story arc is not somehow complete - like don't kill Superman in his own comicbook unless he comes back); another "game authority" runs a system without fudging wherein death by Kobold or Lich is equally gritty and possible (because that is the game); and yet another "game authority" feels it is okay to subject all players to RAW wandering damage without much independent thought. And there are as many variations on that **CENSORED** as there are GMs. [And I am not judging, honest; but I strongly emphasize players open their minds when meeting a new GM, and to listen to and to engage with this person when the GM describes the type of play/system he or she seeks to "administer" at his or her table - rather than take assumptions directly from brand names and box tops to the host's table.]My own opinion of what prime reason the GM's screen has to exist - it's biggest use - is to keep the rulebooks off the table. To keep charts and visuals useful to the continued play of the game in front of the players. The biggest drawback to the GM Screen is the fact it is a physical barrier between players despite the fact the GM needs some privacy, which makes a screen a necessary evil. I hate PC generation. It is a meta game time sunk halting of play. I hate TPKs. They end the campaign I had wanted to play with the other players; But, sometimes by the luck of the die and the respect it commands, it is best not to mess with that Kobold.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Mar 9, 2015 5:15:38 GMT -8
On medieval societies and spreading of information:
Most peasants will be bound to the ground they're working on. Either its their own and they can't actually afford to leave it or it's some lord's and they're not actually legally allowed to leave. So most commoners will never go farther than to the next market as long as they live.
They're also unlikely to to be able to read, never mind write (unless setting says so), so your characters should be able to travel for a day and (basically) be in another world, unless they're really effing (in)famous.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 9, 2015 6:26:14 GMT -8
That’s too blanket a statement to be accepted at every table guitarspider; though at your table it might well be the story world/your understanding and that’s the way it should be. I am currently researching this period (in Europe – your continent may vary as it should do) and people would get word from other places as far as China. Look at travel from the Norse perspective: trading as far away as the Asian continent for crucible steel, from which they made their Ulfberht sword (eh hum, the late Dark Ages). Their ships were capable of handling rivers as well as oceans. The Norse were also trading (stories too) with Europeans and not just sacking Lindisfarne. They were Varangian guards and even Templar knights. People knew about the curve of the earth before Columbus, even from first hand accounts of settlers in Vinland! (7 hours west by aeroplane from Poland.) The Dark Age Celts had likewise been trading with Rome since the Iron Age and used extensive pre-Roman Celtic (wooden) roads. The Celtic tribes were known for their metallurgy and traded in the Mediterranean for wine. They moved with their families from oppida to oppida across Europe. So there are great examples for the movement of people and information even before the period in question, historically speaking - but not to overrule an individual GM’s world. English Feudalism, imported from France and perfected in Britain after 1066, did not mean news of the day sat at home – or could not travel in a fantasy game featuring free roaming and armed tourists if it did in real life…. It did historically travel fast though. Oceanic trade between England, Norway, Spain, the Mediterranean and so forth brought news of such things as The Golden Horde and The Black Death years before they would impact the locality. That’s not even to mention the more mundane town markets, local tourneys, and religious holi-days, when agrarian people from hundreds of miles around would gather – some of whom might be honoured guests of the local lord or bishopric. In 1381 England, the High Middle Ages, the Peasants Revolt was a direct response to The Crown’s miscalculation of tax revenue. With the many deaths visited upon the populace by Plague, manors lacked the necessary villiens to effectively operate. The Crown pushed for taxes that the people simply could not provide. Also, the death rate pushed the demand for labour, making it possible for villiens to work for higher pay and started the free movement of serf from Lord to Lord (again, Lords under the tax pressure of the vassalage system they could not meet with fallow fields). This is the birth of a true middle class; a status once only given to tradesmen and merchants. But the interesting revelation the Peasants Revolt makes clear was how literate the rabble actually was. Many of these Peasants were the actual managers of the Lord under whom they served, much like supervisors today in business. They knew Latin as well as their local tongue – though English spelling was a bastard until Chaucer’s time. They knew math – not “Einstein math” but the math of the period. The yardstick has to be firmly planted in period soil here. My general rule, YMMV, is that coins automatically make widespread diffusion of knowledge explicit. Anyway. Lots of assumption just should not occur at the GM’s table about diffusion of knowledge even if the assumptions are based on historical fact. Get to know the GM and what his or her views are on the world he or she has created around the characters. It's not a chess match. It's not all coming from some sourcebook or a university course for invigilation at the table. Have an ongoing discussion. Observe. Engage. And enjoy - you might be surprised. And don’t forget the Angry Villager Rule (page 24, OD&D): players (and their proxy characters in-game) who are terrorizing the local population are not immune to being stomped on and outright killed without a save by the local group.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Mar 9, 2015 8:22:40 GMT -8
All of that is fine CreativeCowboy, but it doesn't mean what I said is wrong. Neither do I want to press people into playing it only a single way, and obviously setting and GM decisions negate all of that. But as a baseline to understanding how medieval communication works it is absolutely true and I wrote about it because Stu mentioned people writing to each other. What I said is a blanket statement, yes. But it's still true for 90-95% of the population. Long-distance trade is very expensive and potentially ruinous. Not something normal people engange in, you need property to back you up. It's an elite activity. The Celts and the tribes in Gaul did trade wine with the Romans in exchange for slaves, but wine was likewise an elite drink in these regions. Same for news. For whom does news travel fast? For the elite, who have their networks set up. No normal peasant has access to a network like it, and although there surely were rumors of news from the court/local center of power which eventually filtered down to the peasantry over multiple stations, that can hardly be compared to a reliable or regular habit of news consumption. So yes, you will find people who did get around, but ask yourself where you find them. In the centers of trade, sure. On the flat land? Not very likely. You may have a preacher in a village who knows more than the average peasant, but he won't know much more. As I said, the vast majority of the population is legally bound to their fields, so they cannot leave. Those who own their own ground are certainly not going to give it up just to see the world, they're busy eking out a living. What kind of news matters to these people? That some group of fighting men did x or y to piss off someone in that town you may have heard of? Or that George has had an accident and Martha seems to be pregnant and she's not married? The use of the term middle-class for a medieval group of people is anachronistic and not helpful, because people at that time did not think in limits in which the term "middle class" makes sense. The supervisors you cite do not count for the group I am talking about, average peasantry. Supervisors like that are part of the elite, and many did in fact ascend to a sort of knighthood. Whenever you read about someone knowing Latin, you can immediately tell they are not normal people.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 9, 2015 9:36:07 GMT -8
Much news travelled as colourful stories or myths - they were rarely reliable sources of information and more entertainment. Being entertainment meant the truth was often embellished - be it by the wandering merchants and troubadours or the crier/herald employed by the establishment. Fame was also a function of deeds and class - a transgressor of the upper class was more likely to be known of than a lowly serf*. So it is that a serf could 'escape' to another county - as often happened in England BUT then social structures would work against you ie: in the UK a person can LITERALLY be identified to within streets of their place of origin simply by turn of phrase (this fact contributed to the apprehension of The Yorkshire Ripper). So a lower class criminal escaping justice "fum o'er thar" could except he'd be identifiably different from the locals and that, in and of itself, would raise questions. Forgetting the medieval and advancing time to the likes of the 16th and 17th Century in the UK many career criminals escaped justice, for a considerable time, simply by changing name and relocating a short distance. There is a grave in Heptonstall (near to me) belonging to an infamous coin clipper - he would have got away with it had he not kept doing what he was incriminated for in the first place. Dick Turpin allegedly rode from London to York (not feasible on a single horse in a single night as legend claims) to escape the law, after murdering a man - by virtue of hoping that no one would know him by sight and assuming an alternate identity. Again this would have worked had he not been arrested as, his new identity, 'John Palmer' for horse theft. The distance between communities and the differences between communities is also a function of the environment as well as societal structures. In an island nation, like the UK, very short distances can lead to huge differences . . . especially as one goes further North and into the more rugged parts of the Pennine Hills and Foothills. Given that a distance of 5miles 'as the crow flies' might actually be 10-15miles via the most accessible route. *even in myths this is true, as the legend of Robin Hood grew he went from being a Yeoman to an Earl. Aaron
|
|
nanoboy
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 142
|
Post by nanoboy on Mar 9, 2015 10:07:30 GMT -8
Regarding the 7-star system of Firefly: I have not picked up the game or seen much beyond the television show and movie, but of all of the physics-breaking problems of the property, having a 7-star system with planets is not that unrealistic. Most stars in our galaxy exist in binary or trinary systems (with more complex ones existing as well.) We have observed planets orbiting stars in these systems as well. The thing to remember is that the stars are very far apart, think a light-year or so. Still, they orbit each other and have planets. If you are on a planet of one star, the other one will look like a big star, not another sun, as it is fairly distant.
Now, Firefly's problem becomes travel within reasonable periods of time. If another star in the system is a light-year away, travel time is in years and decades, at least for the outside observer. If you're going fast enough to get there in a lifetime, you're traveling at relativistic speeds, and time passes more slowly for you than outsider observers. You may leave one planet, experience 1 year of travel, and arrive at your destination 2 years after departure. General relativity is weird like that.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 9, 2015 12:27:48 GMT -8
All of that is fine CreativeCowboy, but it doesn't mean what I said is wrong. Neither do I want to press people into playing it only a single way, and obviously setting and GM decisions negate all of that. You are absolutely correct. I sit at your table and I play inside your made up world, you are 100% correct. I would be a douchebag for calling you on it. That is the respect of **CENSORED**. But as a baseline to understanding how medieval communication works it is absolutely true and I wrote about it because Stu mentioned people writing to each other. I do not recollect Stu Venable's specific comment about writing but, as I say it is important to be planting the yardstick firmly in the period, there was no mail delivery system for the masses. No post office. No courier. Mail wasn't a thing the exchequer spent money on - especially in the pre-wireless world when letters and a visit were one and the same thing. In fact, the most important thing about any communication wasn't what was written but whose seal was used - and if that seal had been broken. Thus the letter carrier was as good as the letter itself for communication (which meant travel in them days BTW). And people did travel, not all of them elites and not all of them on business. So yes, you will find people who did get around, but ask yourself where you find them. Were I to go back historically rather than in a game world where I might suppose to find such informants as wizard hirelings, carrier-Raven caretaker NPCs, thieves guilds and Ye olde adventurers' rumour mill, I would look for such historical persons as: - bachelor (unlanded) knights - basically mounted thugs,
- peasants/fyrdsmen returning to their fyrd having served their lord's obligation (and war was a constant elite hobby),
- chamber maids,
- extended family living "far" away,
- foresters,
- friends returning from pilgrimage/travel
- marshals and stablemen,
- public houses,
- sailors,
- stevedores,
- stone masons (and the other kind too),
- tax collectors,
- templar men-at-arms (Note: not the socially superior sergeant-at-arms),
- whores,
And that rather poor list is off the top of my head. If a GM gave me a "No" to all this when I searched for information I would begin to feel like I were being railroaded. One of the problems with System Know It Alls (geeks/nerds), as I have observed over 4 years with a mixed group of system experienced players (geeks/nerds) and new-to-the-hobby players (newb/casuals), is that the average person starts to feel inferior to the Know-It-Alls. It is a form of hobby endorsed bullying I reject with **CENSORED**. So I will re-type out a few passages from a historical research book examining the 1300s: Knowledge of the Wider World - pg 68 - 74 Being tied to the land did not mean all villeins were slaves. They paid for their use of the land by working a percentage of it for their landlord. Like landlords today, the lords of the day had a contract with the leaseholder. And this idea is further expounded upon in this book I am quoting from. It was possible for villeins in the 14th century to improve their lot, albeit not with the yardstick of opportunities that exist in today’s mindset. This is not discussing major cities, like capitals, which draw information like a pub draws an adventurer’s draught. And this is to recall that families were large back then. And we can recall that a church was like television was in the 1950s, or radio in the 30s, or the water cooler in the 70s – a concept of communication well and done lost to our days of Youtube and me in Poland and you wherever. We exchange on a forum and neither one of us is accorded the respect of an authority, even if we are one. In the Medieval period the clergy spoke, and people are ready to go off to war without even the provision of food guaranteed. And those that did not have to concern themselves with food were concerned about papal indulgences. As much as I would like to quote all 6 pages (and also quote from other respected historians, in print as well as in documentaries) I just do not have the gas to do it. I’d rather be gaming with my leisure time to tell the truth….. But you get my point: You are historically wrong. You imagine each and every villein reporting directly to the manor lord in one flat hierarchical line rather than the historically accurate administrative hierarchy that existed, pointing to villeins existing with some education and worldly knowledge, who, maybe, tries to impress everyone at the local whorehouses how big his job is with his knowledge, like a munchkin at a gaming table. You are building aeroplane fleets with a remark about costly expense of trade while historical records describe Viking longships and shanghaied crews of peasants, maybe themselves running from some common medieval period trouble. You’re describing a very static 2-dimensional world where nothing moves while history maneuvers 15,000 strong peasant levies armed with agricultural tools and longbows across the European continent. You imagine serfs and their alewives oppressed without any time away from fieldwork for their lord, lucky to have a fire to sleep their exhaustion away from eeking out a living; while history records these people attending fairs, socializing, spending some modest coin and even practicing archery every Sunday. History evidences peasants literate enough to administer their local parishes and decipher and burn their tax files and census records; and to make demand from a king and his armoured elites across the Thames River. Surely not all “peasants” were foolish or illiterate assembly line workers with an Archie Bunker worldview, no broader than a manorial field; same as medieval medicine cannot be categorized as a bunch of superstitious hokum. either. That knowledge, in and of itself, is enough to give a PC (and his or her player) pause at a game table where a historical Europe of the “Dark” or Middle Ages is the backdrop. And what question are we trading thoughts on? Is the in-game rumour mill that works perfectly fine for players on a DC skill check for PCs who stand apart from the typical society they are immersed in, but, the same mechanic which is broken for NPCs who are interwoven within the society of the world, fair? 1 - News about a group of murder hobos beating on the peasantry? The peasantry will be interested in this news because the lord won’t be typically – unless it is to protect his investment. And the PC’s reputation will precede them, certainly if they travel no faster than a messenger local. 2 - News about a group of murder hobos beating on the nobility? The nobility will be interested to protect their reputation and may offer rewards to the peasantry to garner their interest as well. PCs may find themselves in a heap of political and military trouble in this scenario – including the PC’s family. And if they beat on the wrong manor’s peasants, this may be the default answer to the first situation. == == == == As for further distances, where myths return with a kernel of truth to them, the research also has something to say about that too. But I believe murder hobos who survive a bad reputation in their starting locality to continent hop is beyond the scope of this question; though the GM is certainly within his or her right [**CENSORED**] to call upon interesting times for the entire party of gwai lo or gaijin and not just for the offenders. It is times like these when I wish I could annotate and bibliography every last word I have written but, alas, I cannot without expending the tremendous effort that drove me away from the gaming table in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 9, 2015 13:11:14 GMT -8
Stu mentioned people writing to each other. Stu Venable, did you mean the illiterate peasants get pissed off and go to their Reeve and he writes a letter (maybe a wanted poster) on their behalf?
|
|
|
Post by Fiona on Mar 9, 2015 13:51:28 GMT -8
Angry GM, in the event that you see this: Re: Golgo13 I totally got the reference and I thank you for it.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Mar 9, 2015 15:21:54 GMT -8
But you get my point: You are historically wrong. I'm going to step your toes a bit, as a history stundent. It's great that you have an interest in history, but the way you read your book is... problematic. Which makes it all the more funny that you are talking down to me as if I were an ignorant child. And you know what I think too! It's amazing. Justifiably, books like that try to show a more varied perspective on medieval life. But you take what I say and turn it into absolutes, but when your book confirms that most land-locked peasants did not travel more than a few miles, you choose to look at the minority again instead of taking "most" seriously. You quote a case about a prosperous family. Not what I am talking about. At different times and depending on the heritage customs, just being a second son of a peasant meant you'd be working your whole life as a farm hand and never be allowed to marry. Never mind finding socially appropriate partners for all of your seven children and maintaining a family network. Same with your other networks. Not the people I am talking about. And quite honestly? The rest of your post is just insulting, so I'm not going to bother with it or this particular topic any further.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 9, 2015 16:39:24 GMT -8
And quite honestly? The rest of your post is just insulting, so I'm not going to bother with it or this particular topic any further. As friendly word of advice - do exactly that! or you'll find yourself repeatedly harangued with the label munchkin or troll for daring to disagree. On your point of communication, bearing in mind I have only seen your half of the 'discussion' I can say that the local history here in the UK bears out your observations. Communities were isolated, especially in the Dark Ages and both deliberate and accidental misinformation was responsible for many a peculiar 'turn of events' - the strange case of The Pendle Witches being one such, in which it only now appears that it was innocents that they hung in Lancaster on that day, guilty of being no more than poorly educated and ignorant. Many battles across the local landscape here were won or lost because of poor communication - entire armies could totally miss engaging with each other and be none the wiser until well after the non-event. Many didn't know the Vikings were real, or knew of their existence as invaders, until it was too late . . . Aaron
|
|