Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8245134" data-attributes="member: 85555">This is well outside my area of interest (I've read a few books on WWI, and taken a survey course, but this isn't something I've developed a lot of deep knowledge of). But that said, I think in cases like this, it is really hard to say because our knowledge of how things played out makes it pretty impossible to know how well one would predict perfectly what unfolded. And I can't therefore say what my extrapolation would be. I imagine someone with good knowledge of the various treaties and alliances, and the politics of the time, might be able to determine that this act would result in a more expansive conflict. But some events are obviously unique or firsts of their kind so it is going to be hard. It is like the saying, history doesn't repeat so much as rhyme. But this is the point of counterfactuals. Counterfactual was always looked down upon when I was a student (like biography). But I always enjoyed the thought exercise of counterfactual and the way biography personalizes history. I think with a game world it is more about using those kinds of historical patterns to figure out what you think is the likely course of events. On the macro scale I think this is sufficient. On the micro scale I think things are much easier because you are thinking about things like how NPCs you created would react to something like an assassination. With the macro level 'assassination of the duke', there are going to be a lot of unknowns as well so there is wiggle room for the GM saying okay these factors all point to this happening, but I think this X factor is going to shake things up. That is all fair. No one is saying the GM can't actively create in this process, the GM should be doing that, but if your goal is a living world, you are generally applying your best logic (and really since you are the source of the model, your best logic is all that is needed: the players will come to understand generally the rhythm and pattern of your choices I think---i.e. "in Brendan's world we can expect during farming offseason, especially one with a famine like this, that many of the local farmers will resort to banditry, now may be the ideal time for us to recruit men to build an army and attack the duke's forces". That sort of thinking is based on real world history, but it recurs enough in campaigns that it is a pattern the players can see (and it was a pattern that people living in history discerned in the real world). What you can do in a game setting is use an event like this as a model (I draw on historical analogues all the time when I am trying to reason through how something will pan out: i.e. well when the Romans experienced a devastating plague it eventually led to the decline of the western empire). And if you are dealing with something like a political assassination, you do know things about your setting that will help guide you into dealing with the outcome. For example if you understand the political structure and who has executive control in that region, what law enforcement mechanisms are in place (i.e. is this a matter the sheriff and his constables handle, or is this for the patrolling inspector, or is it for the local general and his army to handle), etc you can determine things fairly logical, perhaps with some rolls to reflect unknowns.</blockquote>

Verification