The three musketeers (which would be in imo the middle cround between the deadly serios realistic approach of master and commander and the silly supernatural approach of Pirates)!


I am a pulp GM all the way. I've tried to change, but I just don't have it in me. I inevitably lose control and the crazy action starts. I would say thought that I'm far more interested in emulating the head long drive of Robert E. Howard at his best (People of the Black Circle), than i am in simulating "cinematic" action.

Quote from: AosThe three musketeers (which would be in imo the middle cround between the deadly serios realistic approach of master and commander and the silly supernatural approach of Pirates)!


I am a pulp GM all the way. I've tried to change, but I just don't have it in me. I inevitably lose control and the crazy action starts. I would say thought that I'm far more interested in emulating the head long drive of Robert E. Howard at his best (People of the Black Circle), than i am in simulating "cinematic" action.

Dumas and Robert E Howard in the same post.  I bow before you.  Possibly the best two literary sources for how I like rpgs to feel that were ever made.

And Dumas, despite tons of great swashbuckling action, is also full of great passion, despair, disapointment and characters who do not win every encounter but routinely have setbacks and failures, but who have them with style.

Quote from: SettembriniIt was a not-all-too-earnest atttempt to home in unto something I#ve experienced a lot of times:

Some people want "cinematic" action and drama (wherein coolness of ideas and pacing rule supreme), and some people want "realistic" action and drama (wherein reasoning and effort are the paradigm for success).

See, that's where I was going with my wondering. For while I didn't so much care for M&C, some of my games are cast in sort of a detail rich mode that you might associated with M&C.

Quote from: BalbinusAnd Dumas, despite tons of great swashbuckling action, is also full of great passion, despair, disapointment and characters who do not win every encounter but routinely have setbacks and failures, but who have them with style.

AND Dumas also had a flair for the comic - his valets are some of my all-time favorite characters.  

I guess that's my difficulty fitting myself  into the thread's two stated poles.  With regard to play style, I lean towards Master and Commander, which was a great flick, but it was just so be-damned earnest.  Don't get me wrong, moments of high drama or true sorrow are fantastic when you come upon them in a game, but not when everyone in the group is pushing for them 24/7.

Earnest, serious, focused gaming makes my eyes itch.

Quote from: SettembriniIt was a not-all-too-earnest atttempt to home in unto something I#ve experienced a lot of times:

Some people want "cinematic" action and drama (wherein coolness of ideas and pacing rule supreme), and some people want "realistic" action and drama (wherein reasoning and effort are the paradigm for success).

Reasoning, planning, skilled play. That is what I want to encourage,

I can't stomach a game where the notion of cultivating skilled play as a means to success isn't present or where "rewarding skilled play" is defined as "give extra XPs to the guy who does the best method acting." :rolleyes:

This is why I've never got into White Wolf's games. From Vampire to Exalted, they are all style, no substance. Hollow stuff.

Quote from: ReimdallAND Dumas also had a flair for the comic - his valets are some of my all-time favorite characters.  

I guess that's my difficulty fitting myself  into the thread's two stated poles.  With regard to play style, I lean towards Master and Commander, which was a great flick, but it was just so be-damned earnest.  Don't get me wrong, moments of high drama or true sorrow are fantastic when you come upon them in a game, but not when everyone in the group is pushing for them 24/7.

Earnest, serious, focused gaming makes my eyes itch.

Fair enough, given a choice between movie M&C I would pick Dumas, but then given a choice between literary M&C and movie M&C I would pick literary.  The movie lost the humour that is there in the books.

Any novel with the line "Jack, you have debauched my sloth" is not free from humour.  The movie sadly lost that side of things.

Quotes from the novels that I just found online:  

"Must I put on silk stockings?"
  "Certainly you must put on silk stockings. And do show a leg, my dear chap: we shall be late, without you spread a little more canvas."
  "You are always in such a hurry," said Stephen peevishly, groping among his possessions. A Montpellier snake glided out with a dry rustling sound and traversed the room in a series of extraordinarily elegant curves, its head held up some eighteen inches above the ground.
  "Oh, oh, oh," cried Jack, leaping on to a chair. "A snake!"
  "Will these do?" asked Stephen. "They have a hole in them."
  "Is it poisonous?"
  "Extremely so. I dare say it will attack you, directly. I have very little doubt of it. Was I to put the silk stockings over my worsted stockings, sure the hole would not show: but then, I should stifle with heat. Do you not find it uncommonly hot?"
  "Oh, it must be two fathoms long. Tell me, is it really poisonous? On your oath now?"
  "If you thrust your hand down its throat as far as its back teeth you may meet a little venom; but not otherwise..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "The weather had freshened almost to coldness, for the wind was coming more easterly, from the chilly currents between Tristan and the Cape; the sloth was amazed by the change; it shunned the deck and spent its time below. Jack was in his cabin, pricking the charat with less satisfaction than he could have wished: progress, slow, serious trouble with the mainmast - unaccountable headwinds by night - and sipping a glass of grog; Stephen was in the mizentop, teaching Bonden to write and scanning the sea for his first albatross. The sloth sneezed, and looking up, Jack caught its gaze fixed upon him; its inverted face had an expression of anxiety and concern. "Try a piece of this, old cock," he said, dipping his cake in the grog and proffering the sop. "It ight put a little heart into you." The sloth sighed, closed its eyes, but gently absorbed the piece, and sighed again.
  Some minutes later he felt the touch on his knee: the sloth had silently climbed down and it was standing there, its beady eyes looking up into his face, bright with expectation. More cake, more grog: growing confidence and esteem. After this, as soon as the drum had beat the retreat, the sloth would meet him, hurrying towards the door on its uneven legs: it was given its own bowl, and it would grip it with its claws, lowering its round face into it and pursing its lips to drink (its tongue was too short to lap). Sometimes it went to sleep in this position, bowed over the emptiness.

"In this bucket," said Stephen, walking into the cabin, "in this small half-bucket, now, I have the population of Dublin, London and Paris combined: these animalculae - what is the matter with the sloth?" It was curled on Jack's knee, breathing heavily: its bowl and Jack's glass stood empty on the table. Stephen picked it up, peered into its affable, bleary face, shoot it, and hung it upon its rope. It seized hold with one fore and one hind foot, letting the others dangle limp, and went to sleep.
  Stephen looked sharply round, saw the decanter, smelt to the sloth, and cried, "Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

Quote from: BalbinusAny novel with the line "Jack, you have debauched my sloth" is not free from humour.  The movie sadly lost that side of things.

Oh, yeah, absolutely - I'll take O'Brien's Jack and Stephen over Bruckheimer's Captain Jack uh, oh, never mind.

EDIT: Just saw your accompanyhing post.  I bow down.

O'Brien is seriously good writing IMO, and for the record much as I love genre fiction at times too, I do not mean he's seriously good genre writing.

Some authors IMO transcend their genre.  Philip K Dick, Raymond Chandler, Patrick O'Brien, serious writers who wrote within the constraints of a genre.

And that's not knocking genre writers, I loves me some Hammet and Spillane too.

Quote from: BalbinusSome authors IMO transcend their genre.  

Absolutely.  It's tempting to put George R. R. Martin in that company, but there may be anguished shouts from all corners, and I would have to agree that he's not O'Brien or Dick-esque, yet.  Maybe it's just about time.

Anyway, to tie this into the thread, I far prefer my gaming to be George R. R. Martin, rather than Robert A. Salvatore.

Quote from: ReimdallAnyway, to tie this into the thread, I far prefer my gaming to be George R. R. Martin, rather than Robert A. Salvatore.

I'm with you on that one.  Hail Brienne of Tarth and The Imp! (the two best characters in the whole damn businness, IMO, with Jaime making a late bid to move up).

Quote from: ReimdallAbsolutely.  It's tempting to put George R. R. Martin in that company, but there may be anguished shouts from all corners, and I would have to agree that he's not O'Brien or Dick-esque, yet.  Maybe it's just about time.

Anyway, to tie this into the thread, I far prefer my gaming to be George R. R. Martin, rather than Robert A. Salvatore.

My only real problem with Martin is that he is over reliant on child endangerment as a dramtic device. The over usage of it leaves me cold. There is always some kid getting raped, about to get raped, or recovering from a rape as they stumble towards their next rape*. Oh, and I'm fairly certain that Queen Cerci is evil.

* please forgive my exageration, and my off topic ramble.

Caveat: no rapes in my gaming.

Quote from: ReimdallCaveat: no rapes in my gaming.

My mom once asked a visiting speaker at church what he thought about rpg's, (I can't remember what he had said that had brought it up) he said that he didn't play them himself as he was a wargamer, but that he didn't see anything inherantly wrong with them.  He related that he had overheard a D&D game going and some players talking about raping a female captive, at which point the DM informed them in rather a cold tone that yes they could do that, but that he would make sure that none of thier chars left his dungeon alive. (that's the part of the conversation that I remember, but the gist in general was that the game was only as bad as the DM allowed it to be)  I'm not sure how many dm's/groups could maturly handle the topic of rape in thier games. (just like I'm not sure how many groups could handle the book of erotic fantasy without it turning uber-juvinile. and no, I don't own a copy of the book)

as far as the original post, I might enjoy playing PotC, but I don't know that I'd ever be able to run a game like that, I don't have the witty banter for the npc's amoung other things. I enjoyed both movies, but I think if I could pick only one to get sequels, I'd have to pick M&C. (though if Kiera Knightly got a part on M&C it would help make the choice easier.... )

I choose On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers.  I have a great fondness for the first Pirates of the Caribbean--Depp's performance as Captain Jack Swann is a classic case of scenery-chewing done right, the swashbuckling swordplay (especially the battle in the forge) was spot on, and Keira Knightley was both a spunky heroine and a more than acceptable damsel in distress.

   It is just that Powers' book did the entire supernatural-buccaneers much much better and hmmmm with more than a glancing similarity in terms of plot to the later-produced Disney movie.  Also, the main villain was Blackbeard.  In terms of sheer real-life badassitude, no fictional pirate can out-evil Blackbeard.  Nothing says "dark side of the force" better than a grinning man with a cutlass and slow-match dreadlocks.