Quote from: Trond;909124In general; for a more or less historical game I think I would choose the 1600s myself, but it seems that many others prefer the 1700s?

Most centuries have their pros. I'm doing the 1620s myself. But don't forget the 1500s. For English speakers, the Elizabethan period has a lot of information available and for sea battles you have the English Sea Dogs like Drake and Grenville, the Spanish Armada, and the Battle of Lepanto and you are still in the age of exploration so a sand box style game with exploration is interesting and feasible.

And if you go late 1700s early 1800s the Napoleonic period has Nelson, Hornblower, Aubrey & Maturin, etc.

Quote from: Trond;905826The 7th sea thread made me wonder about this. With or without magic are both ok in this thread but not space pirates (it has to have, say, a 16-18th century feel)

Twin Crowns d20 is still my game of choice for pirate age-of-sale based games. This is 0e/3e DnD compatible  If I wasn't able to run that, I'd also endorse Iron Crown Enterprises Run Out the Guns as it is a very very robust and detailed Age-of-Sail based game. This was the RoleMaster version of a Pirates game in the 90's, and is very good.

Seven pages and narry a mention of FGU's Skull & Crossbones?  OK, it wasn't that great, and I do like Pirates & Dragons better, but it had a nice map of the Spanish Main. And a proper war gamey map & counters sea battle system.

Quote from: Bren;909134Most centuries have their pros. I'm doing the 1620s myself. But don't forget the 1500s. For English speakers, the Elizabethan period has a lot of information available and for sea battles you have the English Sea Dogs like Drake and Grenville, the Spanish Armada, and the Battle of Lepanto and you are still in the age of exploration so a sand box style game with exploration is interesting and feasible.

And if you go late 1700s early 1800s the Napoleonic period has Nelson, Hornblower, Aubrey & Maturin, etc.

Yeah, I agree, the 1500s are often under-appreciated as a pirate setting, although it should be excellent. The action could be set in either the Mediterranean or Carribbean, or elsewhere.I once made a lot of notes for a BRP game set in 1500s Venice, though not very focused on pirates per se. Venice was still a force to be reckoned with in the Mediterrenean, and the Ottomans too. Portugal was also a powerful entity in the seven seas, rivaling Spain until the union in 1580 etc etc.

1500s inspirational illustration

Quote from: Trond;909124Sounds good!
So there seems to be several obscure but great pirate games out there.

In general; for a more or less historical game I think I would choose the 1600s myself, but it seems that many others prefer the 1700s?

Quote from: Bren;909134Most centuries have their pros. I'm doing the 1620s myself. But don't forget the 1500s. For English speakers, the Elizabethan period has a lot of information available and for sea battles you have the English Sea Dogs like Drake and Grenville, the Spanish Armada, and the Battle of Lepanto and you are still in the age of exploration so a sand box style game with exploration is interesting and feasible.

And if you go late 1700s early 1800s the Napoleonic period has Nelson, Hornblower, Aubrey & Maturin, etc.

The reason I like Pirates of The Spanish Main by PEG, is because they don't actually settle on a year or period but hover around '16-1700' in terms of feel and prefer using fictional characters.

Found this interesting image online, apparently showing Havana in the late 1600s.

That tower is wild. It has a very fantasy look...or did the Moors actually beat the Spanish to the New World.

1. Take your favorite RPG
2. Add pirates
3.
4. Profit

On a more serious note, the one swashbuckling game I've run in the past used Savage Worlds (yeah, I know. Gets the job done) but I'd love to try Flashing Blades, Honor & Intrigue and (why not) Runequest.

Quote from: Trond;909124Sounds good!
So there seems to be several obscure but great pirate games out there.

In general; for a more or less historical game I think I would choose the 1600s myself, but it seems that many others prefer the 1700s?

Quote from: The Butcher;9098821. Take your favorite RPG
2. Add pirates
3.
4. Profit

On a more serious note, the one swashbuckling game I've run in the past used Savage Worlds (yeah, I know. Gets the job done) but I'd love to try Flashing Blades, Honor & Intrigue and (why not) Runequest.

That doesn't work with D&D without massive houseruling with certain editions, simply because armour is your dodge, and the more you have, the more nimble in combat you are.

But for the most part, I agree with you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;909901That doesn't work with D&D without massive houseruling with certain editions, simply because armour is your dodge, and the more you have, the more nimble in combat you are.

WTF?

D&D Armor Class is an abstract measure of how hard it is to hit a given target for damage. Part of this is difficulty to hit the target e.g. DEX bonus to AC and Bracers of Protection and part of it is difficulty to penetrate or avoid the armor e.g. plate armor vs leather armor.

Unlike D&D, games like Runequest/BRP, GURPS, D6 games, and Barbarians of Lemuria/Honor+Intrigue armor separate difficulty to hit and difficulty to damage once a hit is made. In those systems armor is a measure of how hard it is to damage someone once they are hit. While, dodge, defense, and often active/reactive parries are measures of how difficult it is to hit someone in the first place. Once they are hit, one looks to see if the armor is overcome (which may mean penetrating the armor or just hitting where the armor wasn't). That's why dodge or defense often are penalized in those kinds of systems when wearing heavier armor.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;909901That doesn't work with D&D without massive houseruling with certain editions, simply because armour is your dodge, and the more you have, the more nimble in combat you are.

But for the most part, I agree with you.

Yes, it makes for low ACs and more hits. But what it really needs is for the DM to adjudicate when combatants are likely to go overboard, keeping the fear of drowning alive in PCs' armor-loving hearts lest every boarding becomes a skirmish between heavily armored fighters. I wouldn't call that "massive" but YMMV.

In any case I, too, would go with a somewhat less abstract combat system, if only to skip the "OMG it's D&D I need heavy armor" knee-jerk reaction from players;

Quote from: Bren;909914WTF?

D&D Armor Class is an abstract measure of how hard it is to hit a given target for damage. Part of this is difficulty to hit the target e.g. DEX bonus to AC and Bracers of Protection and part of it is difficulty to penetrate or avoid the armor e.g. plate armor vs leather armor.

That's all crap.  It's a bunch of wag to deflect the fact that the more AC you have the more likely your not going to take damage.  It's a binary thing.  Either you're hit or not.  A dodge mechanic, avoidance.  And unlike armour whjch does scale as long as you get magical versions of whatever set you can use, a character will never gain any skill at avoiding blows when out of it.

It's why a lot of people walk around towns fully geared, because if they get into trouble, it doesn't matter how much they have in terms of hit points, they're as easy to hit as a level 1 character outside their gear.

Hence, why Pirate games don't really work well in D&D, because at it's very basic core, AC relies entirely on armour for the older editions.

Quote from: Bren;909914Unlike D&D, games like Runequest/BRP, GURPS, D6 games, and Barbarians of Lemuria/Honor+Intrigue armor separate difficulty to hit and difficulty to damage once a hit is made. In those systems armor is a measure of how hard it is to damage someone once they are hit. While, dodge, defense, and often active/reactive parries are measures of how difficult it is to hit someone in the first place. Once they are hit, one looks to see if the armor is overcome (which may mean penetrating the armor or just hitting where the armor wasn't). That's why dodge or defense often are penalized in those kinds of systems when wearing heavier armor.

In those other games, armour is damage reduction which is actually closer to how real life does armour. Yes, deflection plays a part in it, but most suits of armour is designed to absorb as much impact as it can, if it can't deflect it completely.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;909945That's all crap.  It's a bunch of wag to deflect the fact that the more AC you have the more likely your not going to take damage.  It's a binary thing.  Either you're hit or not.

Uh....you do know that binary means two things, not three things, right?

Either you are hit or your not is two things. You got that right. But the rest of what you wrote is...well wrong actually.

Once you are hit, i.e. touched, then either you are damaged or you are not damaged, so that gives us a total of three things, not two.

• Not touched.
• Touched but not damaged.
• Touched, i.e. hit and damaged.

Moreover, damage in D&D and any other game with hit points, isn't binary. You might be damaged for 1 pt, 2pts, 3pts, etc. So very much not binary. So three basic states and then lots of minor versions of the taking damage state. Really, really not two things.

QuoteIt's why a lot of people walk around towns fully geared, because if they get into trouble, it doesn't matter how much they have in terms of hit points, they're as easy to hit as a level 1 character outside their gear.

You really don't understand hit points or armor class at all, do you?

I don't particularly like increasing hit points and D&D armor classes. It's one of the reasons I haven't played much D&D or games of that sort since 1980. But understanding how they work and what they represent in melee combat isn't too difficult. I thought you played D&D. So what's your excuse for totally misunderstanding the system you use?

QuoteHence, why Pirate games don't really work well in D&D, because at it's very basic core, AC relies entirely on armour for the older editions.

Entirely...Oh, except for increasing hit points by level that means higher level characters can fight longer than lower level characters, like Errol Flynn in a pirate movie. Mustn't forget that, so there's just that one thing...and DEX bonuses to AC, good dexterity is probably at a premium for folks who climb rigging for a living and swing between ships on ropes and fight without a lot of armor in every boarding action. OK so two things...oh hang on a minute, we are talking about D&D where magic is often common. So there are Bracers of Protection, Rings of Protection, Cloaks of Protection, and Displacer Cloaks those all decrease the amount of damage one will take regardless of armor. So three things....and spells. Spells like Mirror Image and whatever that Clerically thing that gives a bonus (Stoneflesh or whatever it's called came later). So four things. But except for those four things pirates totally don't work in D&D. :rolleyes:

That's why all the characters in my old D&D world ran about at all times in plate armor...oh wait. Everyone except almost all of the NPCs who mostly didn't wear armor heavier than chainmail.* And almost all the PCs who also mostly didn't wear armor heavier than chainmail. But other than most of the NPCs and most of the PCs, yeah sure everyone was in plate armor all the time. :rolleyes:


* For various reasons, e.g. they wanted to be able to swim or climb well, or to outrun other people in plate armor and some of the  monsters, or they couldn't afford plate armor, or plate armor wasn't readily available in the place they were living, or wearing plate armor was socially frowned upon in polite society and well ordered cities for people who weren't actually at war or employed by the authorities who regulated society, or they were quirky SOBs and DOBs who wanted to wear something other than plate for reasons of comfort and style.

QuoteIn those other games, armour is damage reduction which is actually closer to how real life does armour.

D&D combines not being touched by an opponent and being touched and not damaged because your armor deflected or absorbed the blow as the same thing. Not being hit for damage. I don't like it. You may not like it. But it does what it is intended to do. If you don't like what it does, there are lots of games that don't combine those three things into two things. Check one out.

Quote from: The Butcher;909936Yes, it makes for low ACs and more hits. But what it really needs is for the DM to adjudicate when combatants are likely to go overboard, keeping the fear of drowning alive in PCs' armor-loving hearts lest every boarding becomes a skirmish between heavily armored fighters.

In the Captain Alatriste series, Perez-Reverte describes Iñigo, one of the characters, wearing a breastplate specifically designed to be easy and fast to remove in the event he went overboard. I thought that was sensible. Given the author's attention to the details of Spain's Golden Age, I suspect it is also historical.