Quote from: Psikerlord;983913I'd use Low Fantasy Gaming RPG but remove the magic user class, making it a GM/NPC special only. Of course I'm highly biased.

:D

I agree with making the MU an NPC or GM special.

I like your rule-set. I was tempted to do an LFG Tekumel campaign a while back, but at the time the group decided to stick with our default EPT/AD&D mash-up. If I ever find another group of players in my area who want to adventure on Tekumel (unlikely) I may look at it again.

There's a /World hack out there for GoT with specific moves to fit. Can't recall the name, though, sorry.

Quote from: GameDaddy;983779D&D works. It did for George R. Martin's first Westeros campaign.

You could also use Green Ronin's "A Song of Fire & Ice".

I thought Martin was a RQ guy.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983842If you take out the unnecessary sex and tone the excessive level of gore down you still have a decent alt-universe medieval show. I like it a lot, it's the first time a fantasy show has been given decent production value.

Oddly enough, I happen to like sex, what I remember of it. It would be easy to reach the level of gore in the show and the books by using my Glory Road Roleplay system. The system relies heavily on healing being powerful and available and there doesn't seem to be much beneficial magic in the world. My friend Andy runs a campaign with little healing and kills a ton of characters. None of the nonhuman peoples would be used, except for the People of the Forest, who would require a new design. I haven't run a mass battle in years and when I did we used modified War Games Research Group rules, which are terrific. It would be very difficult to make the Dothraki anywhere near as formidable as Martin and the show runners have characters say they are. They are light cavalry whose basic tactic is a hair on fire charge/

-------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;984056Oddly enough, I happen to like sex, what I remember of it. It would be easy to reach the level of gore in the show and the books by using my Glory Road Roleplay system. The system relies heavily on healing being powerful and available and there doesn't seem to be much beneficial magic in the world. My friend Andy runs a campaign with little healing and kills a ton of characters. None of the nonhuman peoples would be used, except for the People of the Forest, who would require a new design. I haven't run a mass battle in years and when I did we used modified War Games Research Group rules, which are terrific. It would be very difficult to make the Dothraki anywhere near as formidable as Martin and the show runners have characters say they are. They are light cavalry whose basic tactic is a hair on fire charge/

-------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

It's not the sex itself it's the quantity. Sometimes it's clearly in there just for the sake if it, although that has dropped off.

Quote from: Voros;984036I thought Martin was a RQ guy.

He's a GURPS guy.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/692901/bubonicon-43-george-rr-martin-talks-gurps.jhtml#id=1670123

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;983910I didn't know that, but I am not surprised. The first time I read one of his books, the first thing that popped into my head was that this had to be based on a D&D game (like Feist's Magician series).
Do you have any more information on his Westeros campaign?

I've read and seen him in interviews mention that it came from his GURPS campaign and that he is still a GURPS gamer.

Quote from: cranebump;984031There's a /World hack out there for GoT with specific moves to fit. Can't recall the name, though, sorry.

The Crown, the Sword and the Unspeakable Power was recently Kickstarted and is heavily inspired by GoT. Don't know it's specifics though. I imagine it's on the PvP side with a focus on Bonds/Strings/etc like Urban Shadows/Monsterhearts, with some House creation and interactions rules, but I'm just speculating here.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983705What system and if necessary supplements would you use to get a game of thrones game going.

Mongoose Traveller, using some barbarian noble career templates.

Quote from: Antiquation!;983796It's probably bad form to follow you into every thread only to lazily 'second' your posts, but I suppose I'll do it anyway.

Hopefully you'll arrive first sometimes and I'll get to second yours. ;-)

Quote from: Antiquation!;983796As an aside, have you had the opportunity to try the Pyramid rules for converting Mass Combat into a more traditional wargame? I'm curious about how well those work in actual practice.

No, I remember hearing there was one, but haven't read it. Which Pyramid is that in?

I think the Mass Combat rules are ok if the level of detail and the mode of it is satisfying enough for the players. I know many/most GMs who have a large battle tend to mainly just use GM discretion and not even use an abstract system. I think it does do a good job of having PCs and what they do have an input, take many details into account, have a range of outcomes, etc. But there are too many things that bother my wargaming tastes, especially for the amount of work to detail the troop types & rosters.

* I don't like the mathematical mulching of troop type and quality into combat factors - I think they're ok in some cases but not right in others, and so the amount of math seems like a lot and not accurate.

* I don't like the versions I've seen of the effects to PCs. I wouldn't want abstract rolls to result in direct damage, and the system seems really fudge-y given that you've got full stats for the PCs. I would at least substitute a situation that gets played out for abstract hazard rolls and damage assessment.

* I want there to be a tactical map with explicit time/distance scales, terrain and unit positions, as that seems fundamental to making sense of what happens, and for translating what happens in the battle to what the PCs have to face.


If the Pyramid article does add solid rules for using a map, I imagine I could be be happy with that, if I also vetted/replaced the combat rules/numbers, and played out the hazard situations for the PCs.

I've got the Green Ronin ASoIaF rpg, and really like some of the concepts, but I don't get the feeling it would work as written. Both the House rules and mass combat (the two reasons I bought it) feel like they don't scale well, and work more as background than a fully-functioning subsystem/minigame.

I am a fan of the social conflict rules, at least in principle. The idea that your character can be seduced/persuaded/etc by a more clever NPC into doing something the player doesn't really want appeals to me, and is very appropriate to the setting. Drives some players crazy, I know ("but muh agency!"), but GoT is all about people getting convinced to do things that result in doom. Most players I know are so flippin' paranoid that it would shut all of that down, or require a high level of DM dickery. Either wouldn't be fun for my group.

Some of my group wants me to run a Game of Thrones campaign (as opposed to my B/X D&D game, which might as well be GoT), but I am inclined to use Savage Worlds with the social conflict hack I found to get the above results.

Quote from: Skarg;984222No, I remember hearing there was one, but haven't read it. Which Pyramid is that in?

Pyramid 3/44, Alternate GURPS II. 'Tactical Mass Combat' begins on page 24; I've skimmed it and the rules seem usable at the very least. They appear to be fairly easily tweaked depending on your taste in wargames as well, although they still utilize TS calculation (amalgamation?) which is of course one of the abstractions you mentioned disliking. They do a little more work distinguishing the utility of given unit types, however.

I agree on those weaknesses of Mass Combat you specified. Fortunately my group and I are not terribly discerning when it comes to those abstractions and a few "fuzzy" bits, so it hasn't bothered us when it comes to mechanical resolution (I've actually gotten a complaint that it was too 'specific' and concrete, strangely enough); particularly as none of us have strategic smarts or logistics experience, the "gloss" factor is probably helpful for us. The idea of turning it into a more tactical wargame experience greatly appeals to me though, as someone who used to play more of those but doesn't engage in wargaming at all anymore.

Your complaint about PC treatment in particular resonates with me. I usually nix those effects completely for PC's (I still use them for significant NPC's) and do what you mentioned; that is, breaking out significant events (positive or negative) into 'flashpoints' to be gamed out at zoomed-in scale, with those resulting outcomes resonating back up to 'battle scale'. I strongly feel that this makes for more memorable opportunities and events during battle, in addition to nixing the 'fudge factor' and fickle abstractions during important events that the PC's are risking themselves directly to take part in. You might even describe it as 'player agency enforcement', although I just call it 'fair play'.

I've heard some fascinating suggestions for, and examples of, using Mass Combat to abstract away squad/small unit tactical battles as well (down to a handful of individual combatants per side); apparently the math holds up well even down to pretty tiny scales. Not quite to my tastes, but it's an interesting tool nonetheless.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;984238I am a fan of the social conflict rules, at least in principle. The idea that your character can be seduced/persuaded/etc by a more clever NPC into doing something the player doesn't really want appeals to me, and is very appropriate to the setting. Drives some players crazy, I know ("but muh agency!"), but GoT is all about people getting convinced to do things that result in doom. Most players I know are so flippin' paranoid that it would shut all of that down, or require a high level of DM dickery.

I dunno, SOME of it is about people being seduced/coerced... but hardly all of it. Most of the main characters seem passionate but constrained by family and tradition and political necessities... setting stuff I don't require specific rules for.
I think it would be more important to have Players focused on that milieu than to try to recreate it mechanically. Like I can't see your stereotypical min/max Player behaving anything like Lady Brienne (sp?)... or enjoying being forced to by the rules.

I would use my upcoming Lion & Dragon rules. They'd be perfect for an OSR "Game of Thrones" campaign.

Quote from: Antiquation!;984249Pyramid 3/44, Alternate GURPS II. 'Tactical Mass Combat' begins on page 24; I've skimmed it and the rules seem usable at the very least. They appear to be fairly easily tweaked depending on your taste in wargames as well, although they still utilize TS calculation (amalgamation?) which is of course one of the abstractions you mentioned disliking. They do a little more work distinguishing the utility of given unit types, however.

I agree on those weaknesses of Mass Combat you specified. Fortunately my group and I are not terribly discerning when it comes to those abstractions and a few "fuzzy" bits, so it hasn't bothered us when it comes to mechanical resolution (I've actually gotten a complaint that it was too 'specific' and concrete, strangely enough); particularly as none of us have strategic smarts or logistics experience, the "gloss" factor is probably helpful for us. The idea of turning it into a more tactical wargame experience greatly appeals to me though, as someone who used to play more of those but doesn't engage in wargaming at all anymore.

Your complaint about PC treatment in particular resonates with me. I usually nix those effects completely for PC's (I still use them for significant NPC's) and do what you mentioned; that is, breaking out significant events (positive or negative) into 'flashpoints' to be gamed out at zoomed-in scale, with those resulting outcomes resonating back up to 'battle scale'. I strongly feel that this makes for more memorable opportunities and events during battle, in addition to nixing the 'fudge factor' and fickle abstractions during important events that the PC's are risking themselves directly to take part in. You might even describe it as 'player agency enforcement', although I just call it 'fair play'.

I've heard some fascinating suggestions for, and examples of, using Mass Combat to abstract away squad/small unit tactical battles as well (down to a handful of individual combatants per side); apparently the math holds up well even down to pretty tiny scales. Not quite to my tastes, but it's an interesting tool nonetheless.

I just noticed this reply.

Thanks for the reference and informations. I'll check it out at some point. Sounds like we're of similar opinions.

I have heard others complain of too much specific detail in wargaming and I somewhat agree, unless it's just being done for fun or some reason other than accuracy. The arguments I see against too much specific detail include that a simulation is only really as accurate as its weakest points, and so taking into account minute details can be both distracting work and failing to add anything unless the calculations are really good and the detail is evenly applied to everything. In particular, considering some details may be a mistake if you don't take other details into account. A wargame designer friend of mine's frequent example is taking into account individual heavy equipment - if you don't have rules that take into account the various details of moving, supplying and maintaining that equipment, then counting the number and type of it isn't accurate without taking into account that you can't really move it through certain terrain, or retreat with it, or whatever, so you get a game with details that don't really make sense, yet may end up being about those details, so you're doing a bunch of work and modeling details that wouldn't make sense and would require silly amounts of rules and random effects to really try to track. So, the argument goes, you may as well use a much higher level of abstraction. And indeed, this is the problem I find with GURPS Mass Combat TS and combat resolution calculations - they don't match my experience of playing out combat using the full single-man rules very well at all, nor do the various historical versions seem to match my experience of playing tactical wargames in those eras. Fudging it all into one number, I don't think the numbers they use would be how I would calculate unit strength or combat results, and so I may as well just use a much more abstract set of unit stats that does match my idea of how strong the units should be, without trying to come up with complex formulas that somehow ought to always work out based on counting men and so on. Seems like a lot of accounting work to not get an answer I believe in. Particularly because it's also a "total strength" calculation where strength is proportional to numbers, where that seems like a fundamental error placing great weight on the least interesting aspect of an engagement. Battles are interesting when they are about the details about what happens where, when, and why, no "I had a bigger army so it was stronger so it tended to win".

It is an interesting idea trying to adapt it to small unit engagements and resolving those individually. Again though, I'd want to tweak the system details till I was satisfied it matched the outcomes I expect better than it seems to. I could imagine making a squad-level system that could be pretty interesting, especially if it offered a way to convert between scales to/from individuals, so you could track a bunch of groups moving around a large-scale map, one or more of which has PCs, where you play out their combats at the personal level.