Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 8422819" data-attributes="member: 463">I don't disagree, but the less they are the focus of play, the more they can be adequately resolved by declaring some odds and rolling a d6. Eg from Churchill's point of view in Downing Street, what happens in 1940s France often seems essentially random, so the GM can adequately resolve it with a d6.I'm not sure this is relevant, but I did once see (in my 4e/5e Wilderlands) a PC unite a confederation of disparate tribal & settled elements (in a sort of post-Roman Dark Ages; in-game post Nerath) into an alliance that formed the foundation of a powerful empire. There were not rules for this, as such. There were a lot of NPCs with their own hopes and dreams and fears. I tend to identify strongly with my NPCs, and have a very good sense of their internal aspect - in the moment, they feel like real people. We played through a lot of social interaction, a lot of combat, and saw things take shape over months & years of play. I felt I learned a lot from that about how early feudalism and rule through personal allegiance actually works,  which I would not have done if there had been rules to resolve it mechanically.Edit: The player & PC did a brilliant job forging his empire, defeating his enemies and becoming emperor. As soon as he was officially in charge he seemed to forget everything he knew and started giving commands with the expectation they'd be obeyed, as if he was in charge of a modern (or Roman) State bureaucracy, not a bunch of warlords with their own agendas. He then got increasingly angry. In the end he was as big a failure as emperor as he had been a success at empire-building.</blockquote>

Verification