The south of the North. (Campaign Log)

[Paedrig]

Beside such common wise words (by the way i thought the moto was "...professionals study logistic" ) you should remember that the local troops might know the terrain as well.
And a bandit leader might be (or might be not) able in tactics but hardly an strategic genius...
At least what i have read about this "hatchetman" before do not really indicates superior warfare abilities...

And this is no foreign army invading the unknown wilderness or operating against battle hardened guerillas. Bandits might not seek any confrontation with regular troops without a real good cause (f. e. a lot of money or if the must fight their way out of a trap) - what would they gain? In the end the other side did certainly have the longer arm, stamina and better arms and armours...

Trained (or so) criminals/ raiders might be not an easy opponent but are clearly not as well protected as infantery (if not upgraded) and limited in their possibilities (no shieldwall f. e.).

And if the bandits are not much more than 100 men i know were i would set my money... If the army leader is not totally incompetent...

[DaimosofRedstone]

Beside such common wise words (by the way i thought the moto was "...professionals study logistic" ) you should remember that the local troops might know the terrain as well.

First part:
Yes, it is 'logistics', but in a medieval setting where you plunder all your supplies strategy takes the place of logistics and tactics take that of strategy (the orignal quote being: Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics). For the second part there is a difference between knowing the terrain as in living there fultime (the bandits) and having a more or less accurate childhood recollection of it (soldiers).

And a bandit leader might be (or might be not) able in tactics but hardly an strategic genius...

He is an outdoorsman, most likely, and a hunter. And if he understands a hunt, he is already halfway to a decent commander, because there, as well as in battle, the ability of individual small groups of hunters is not as important as the 'big picture', the teamwork and the coordination of all parts of the hunt.

At least what i have read about this "hatchetman" before do not really indicates superior warfare abilities...

Nor does it indicate inferior abilities, which would leave him at a skill of 2 at the very least. Plenty to hammer infantry on ones own terrain.

And this is no foreign army invading the unknown wilderness or operating against battle hardened guerillas. Bandits might not seek any confrontation with regular troops without a real good cause (f. e. a lot of money or if the must fight their way out of a trap) - what would they gain? In the end the other side did certainly have the longer arm, stamina and better arms and armours...

I do not argue the likeliness of whether or not bandit forces would seek battle or what circumstances would force them to one.
I argue whether they could win if there were, for some reason, a battle.

Trained (or so) criminals/ raiders might be not an easy opponent but are clearly not as well protected as infantery (if not upgraded) and limited in their possibilities (no shieldwall f. e.).

First of they could also be scouts (for me the quintessential woodsmen and hunters), archers, raiders or indeed infantry or mercs (indicating out of work forces-for-hire.
And criminals would indeed only be a match under a command managing to either hide them (in ambush) or command them (so warfare 4 or more).
But all the others have capabilities to seriously harm infantry even in the open.
As for shieldwall:
All you need for that is shields, and whether your troops carry them is up to you (except for archer units).

And if the bandits are not much more than 100 men i know were i would set my money... If the army leader is not totally incompetent...

So you would not put money on an outnumbered enemy?
You don't say?!

[Paedrig]

I understand your words that it MIGHT be that that Hatchetman has in fact any significant abilities in Warfare (this is still unknown beside that he certainly did no have a flaw or so) and it MIGHT be that the bandits did know the terrain better than the troops (who by the way i. m. o. certainly did not sit all the time in their barracks having only childhood rememberence about the terrain).
A little bit thin to count on - at least as long as the creator of the adventure did not make a statement.

Plus the fact that it would be i. m. o. easy for the troops to get some experts for tracking and hunting the bandits (remember - NO occupation army - they know who they can ask or mobilize for such tasks). So even IF (nad this is still not clear) they have no knowledge about the area they come from and they should protect and overlook...

<<if he understands a hunt, he is already halfway to a decent commander<<
This might be your idea but a real battle between against some hundred men (Eisen mentioned a propable "pitched battle") is something different i think.

<<As for shieldwall:
All you need for that is shields, and whether your troops carry them is up to you<<
I only followed the rules (and the Erata) for this moment. It was said that normaly only infantery, mercs, personal guards and riders carry shields (o. K. i never would allow a cavalry unit to form a testudo ).
Of course it is possible to change the rules but this would be home rules...
Plus the question if mere criminals - and this ARE only criminals following the story - are disciplined enough (and have the training) to built effective formations beside a crude battle formation, a mob etc.
But a shield wall, a phallanxe, a testudo?! This needs real training...
The occasion when this bandits show up they certainly did not make the impression of the Viet Cong or (for elaborated formations) the citizen soldiers of Rome or Athen...

<<So you would not put money on an outnumbered enemy?
You don't say?!<<
An outnumbered enemy who has (at least as i see it) no real benefit concerning the knowledge of the battle field, with no real indication of superior morale and superior leading qualities...
If their enemy has a good opportunity to get scouts and the outnumbered enemy also did not pay much attention to the "winning the hearts and minds of the people" as far as i know...
An outnumbered enemy who MIGHT have (if you are right) some longe range weapons (or might have not if they are criminals as they are) while their stronger enemy did have certainly some (a archer unit)...
Yes, i think i say so...
At least as long i did not get more information by the writer of the story which contradict this...

[Carriker]

This is, of course, a lot of conjecture.

I will say that most of the assumptions of military forces in the setting are based on yeomen, rather than a full-time standing military who sit around in a barracks and do nothing else. Yeomen are still tenant farmers, except instead of their time being dedicated to working the lord's demesne, they train in arms and are ready to be called up at a moment's notice.

As such, they are - to my mind - likelier to know the land, and have an investment in protecting it. And most bandits, while they live in wilder areas, are not from the area that they plague. Most bandits are from elsewhere, and have generally fled the law or bad situations in other places and found their way into a bandit band as part of that flight.

Again, though, all of this is conjecture - there are too many assumptions that would have to be made about this kind of an encounter to really argue fruitfully about it. Assumptions which can, in this instance, only really be answered by the Narrator of the game.

[Paedrig]

Hey, i would agree with you all the way...
Perhaps the Narrator could enlighten us all. Then we will see.

[DaimosofRedstone]

@Yeoman:
I don't think we are even clear on definitions here.
Are we talking free peasants with a highly militarized background (which Westeros due to weak central control and rule of law is unlikely to sustain) or a kind of (very) low military nobility or semi-independent members of a household provide with a piece of land to feed them but who are also supplied with a stipend in money (since actually working a farm is more then enough work for a man and his family is unlikely to leave any time for qualified training)?

As such, they are - to my mind - likelier to know the land, and have an investment in protecting it. And most bandits, while they live in wilder areas, are not from the area that they plague. Most bandits are from elsewhere, and have generally fled the law or bad situations in other places and found their way into a bandit band as part of that flight.

If we assume a low law score to be the source of banditry and a low law score not only indicating lawlessness but also injustice then we might look at the very same yeoman as bandits living 'independent' from noble authority.
I think it is also important that if one lives on a strip of land, no matter where ones born, you come to know it. This is for the bandits further enhance by the fact that it is unlikely that they will be able to steal sufficient amounts of food and will since be forced to hunt and forage in the woods (or whatever thinly inhabitated piece of land of little economic value they choose to lurk on) which allows them to acquaint themselves even more intimately with the area of their choosing, while commoners and normal folk is quite unlikely to take a walk in land that is know or even rumoured to house bandits.


@Assumptions:
Of course, but if we do not argue how are we supposed to learn from each others thoughts?

[Carriker]

@Yeoman:
I don't think we are even clear on definitions here.

You're right. My apologies. In Saxon England, it referred to a commoner tenant farmer who rendered up military service rather than work in the lord's fields. Tenant farmers owed their lord a certain amount of work every day, based on their acreage, in addition to rents paid. A man who was fit and capable at fighting might instead render that work up as military service, training with the lord's forces. It's reason why so many wars were fought in summer and summer alone - winter was too miserable to fight, spring was planting season and autumn was harvest, and the majority of the non-mercenary militaries were made up of such men.

As for assuming that one's smallfolk are also the bandits preying on one's smallfolk, which a low Law rating indicates, I suppose that's one interpretation of it, but I wouldn't call it a common or obvious one.

[Eisen]

Hoo boy. Didn't mean for this to generate quite this level of debate. I'll try to provide what insight I can.

The total number of bandits are unknown but estimated to be quite numerous, perhaps in the several hundreds range

The Black Headsman's skills are completly unknown other then that he is an amazing close combat fighter.

The Flint's military position is quite percarious. They have 5 units but only 1 is trained, the rest are green. They have to be very picky in what conflicts they engage in. They do well enough defending the castle but haven't been tested in a real battle just yet.

The bandits have at least enough warfare knowlede to realize it's a dumb move to storm the castle. They stick mostly to 'soft' targets. Farmsteads, caravans, merchants, idiotic visiting nobles, ect. Though they might be able to go toe to toe with some of the Flint military units, they understand they risk to reward ratio is not in their favor. Why risk heavy casulities when there are much richer targets to be found?

Hope this helps. On a side note the next update might be delayed awhile. Symon seems to have fallen into a black hole that resembles the new Star Wars MMO >.<

[Paedrig]

Thanks for the information.
Concerning the numbers this is certainly different from what i have thought. Didn't thought that they are such a force. I had assumed not more than 100, propably less.
Some hundred men under the commando of one man...this goes certainly beyond the "common thugs" along the Kings Road or so...
It is a force perhaps bigger than many ironman raids in the old times - and most raids of the clans or wildlings 'at this time' (meaning short before/ after the beginning of the books) i think.

I did even not know if the legendary and infamous "band of the Kingswood" was as big...
(By the way - perhaps as a inspiration for the fight against them - in the end Ser Arthur Dayne and his compatriots used the "winning the hearts and minds" against them; helping the peasents, gaining their trust, adressing their needs and by this reducing the backing for the bandits).

The Hatchetman really has a force that could act (and perhaps SHOULD act) as a real player/ quasi house in the 'game of thrones' of the area - most houses nearby might not have much more men and a normal landed knight might have certainly less bigger forces...

Hey, perhaps the Hatchetmen is quiet a better potentiel groom for one of the Flint sisters th It is a forcean Symon or his brother (at least concerning the military forces)...



And if you mean the Star Wars MMO that is based on "Knights of the Old Republic" (and the game is as good as KOTOR I and II) Symons preocupation is understandable.
I loved the games (i. m. o. much better than Ep I-III )

[DaimosofRedstone]

Given that the Kingswood approximates a size of more than 75*75 leagues (measured in relation to the gifts, 225*225 miles=50625 square miles) it is roughly the size of Iowa (slighty larger) or Ohio (slightly smaller).
So for a force to control this area or its presence at least felt over the whole area, you need quite a few men.

[Paedrig]

It was said that it worked (not my idea) but as it was shown in the books...did not sound like great numbers of men was used.
Plus we did not know how many villages actually existed in this area. So if Dayne concentrated on this 'hot spots" (plus again - their enemies were mostly bandits not guerillas with a common cause etc.)...

[DaimosofRedstone]

I wasn't even arguing.
I was only speaky about the size of the 'Brotherhood', or rather what that size would have to be if they were truly 'of the (whole) Kingswood'.

[Paedrig]

Misunderstood you. I thought you talked about the troops Ser Dayne might have need...

And come on...if you call someone (or some band) "...of xy" it certainly must not mean that thus band really cover the whole area.
I thought it was common to name real (and imaginated) outlaws and their bands after the area of their operations (Remember Robin Hood of Sherwood). But i think this does not mean that they cover the whole area.

But it would be a little bit funny (and not so catchy) to call them "The band of the southern stripp of the Kingswood up to this little river they never had passed until now" or so...

P.S.: And given the fact that Martin (and other writers of adventures) seemed sometimes a little bit uncertain (or in the seccond case even unaware) about the size of Westeros and the intime distances...
Just as an afterthought.

[pouncingpanda]

Sorry to hear that you had a slow session, Eisen.

Anybody who has GM'ed a campaign knows the feeling - you do all that preperation and things just fizzle. I'm sure it's just a one-off and the story will get back on track.

Rather than debating the relative strengths of the bandit and Flint armies, it might be good to talk about how your players approached the session and the system in general.

You say that they fluffed a few intrigues. Is this because of lousy rolls, a lack of relevant abilities (Persuade, Deception...) or because they just didn't feel like doing any intruiging that day?

The intrigue system - "social combat" - is one of the things that makes SIFRP unique IMO. Even other social-heavy games like Vampire often decide important social exchanges with a single roll. But, to me having just picked up the book, it is quite complex and involved.

[Eisen]

It wasn't so much bad rolls, just the players comming at it with poor additudes. "I'm not built for intrigue and this guy is winning" and so on. Of all the players Krugan took it more like a man then any of the others

They were pissy in general about the mechanics being able to 'force' a PC to do something. I tried to remind them that there are always options; frustration, walking away ect. Lord help them if they ever encounter a low level wizard with access to charm spells in D&D

[Carriker]

Just remind them that they're already used to another mechanic that forces them to do something - that is, not play. It's called death of the character.

One way to tend to this is to give the player his choice in how to execute the victory condition that's been imposed on him. Don't take away all freedom, but instead give a directive and let the player interpret how that should play out for the character.

A character who is Seduced successfully might not fall head-over-heels. He may hate himself and the seductress for what they're doing, or feel so much shame that he might try and avoid her entirely because of it. A Convinced character will probably accomplish what is being asked of him, but may put his own personal spin on things - "Get me out of here" may result in him helping you to escape, only to deliver you to someone else, for instance.

The system of social combat is part of an unspoken social contract among the players. Encourage them to think of ways to accomodate what has just happened without being spoilsports about it, particularly if the intrigue is between player characters. When someone creates a character who doesn't stand a fair chance in an intrigue, ask the player to figure out how that character handles being constantly manipulated by the people around him. Make sure he works that into his background.

The problem with a lot of the dislike of the social system, I've found, is that players often build characters who are tough in other ways, subconsciously envisioning their characters as relentless and willful, but they don't make their stats reflect that. The dissatisfaction comes when the mechanics and his character image suddenly clash, and it feels wrong. So, make sure to address the fact that a given character is likely to fall victim to intriguers. Ask him how he envisions his character reacting to being convinced to do something, to liking someone, to being seduced or intimidated (it's this last one that a lot of players really dislike).

Overall, figure out what is necessary to let everyone enjoy it.

[DaimosofRedstone]

. Ask him how he envisions his character reacting to being convinced to do something, to liking someone, to being seduced or intimidated (it's this last one that a lot of players really dislike).

Overall, figure out what is necessary to let everyone enjoy it.

Yep, the 'pissing your pants'-part is really not very popular.
Our group has rewired that a bit by interpreting that not as being induced with gut-wrenching fear but as suddenly seeing a lot of negative effects of ones plan and generally uncertainty whether ones abilities are up to the job.
And of course the occasional 'I decided i really do not want to mess with that guy'-feeling, neatly rationalized as something completly different (as far as our group goes players are free to repackaged and relabel as much as they want as long as the path stays clear).
For as that helped a lot with the intimidation problem.

[pouncingpanda]

I like Carriker's point about constructively narrating failure. Many story games allow players to narrate their own failure, that it may better feed the story.

They might be better built for Intrigue than they think. Status counts for a lot in Intrigue defense. Symon amd Gavin must have OK status.

When I have a slow sesh, I usually start the next one by asking my players what their characyers want in the mid-term. As long as they aren't totally at odds, I can drive the story and the conflict that way.

I look forward to hearing more from House Milo in 2012!

[Carriker]

Overall, figure out what is necessary to let everyone enjoy it.

Yep, the 'pissing your pants'-part is really not very popular.
Our group has rewired that a bit by interpreting that not as being induced with gut-wrenching fear but as suddenly seeing a lot of negative effects of ones plan and generally uncertainty whether ones abilities are up to the job. [/quote]

You've pretty much perfectly described being intimidated. Intimidation isn't total fear, save in very rare cases. It's uncertainty. It's creating enough doubt in the other guy that he's not sure what your true capabilities are, so that he backs down, or does what you want, because human beings are wired to go with the outcome that we know (even if it sucks) over ones that are total mysteries.

Sounds like a good call to me.

[Canarr]

That was a really enjoyable read so far; very cool makings for a campaign!

Though I'll assume you never continued beyond the events described here?

[AGlumSon]

Eisen, you mentioned the possibility of running into the events of Game of Thrones in your game. How common is this? Is that what other folks usually do? I warned my players that, depending on what happens in this game, there were no guarantees of the events in the books even necessarily happening in my game - I may just decide to do something else entirely with the setting.

Our campaign is also set one year before the beginning of the books. Perhaps not a real coincidence since a year seems to give enough leeway to give the House a story of its own before events that happened in the book might possibly happen.

What I do is get them into contact with some of the world and events as they are described in the books: letting them visit "minor" locations like inns and river crossings, giving them news from tourneys at Kingslanding through travellers, letting them interact with their liege lord that is a part of the books, et cetera. The intent is that for players who know a great deal of the books, this will hopefully provide a sense of foreshadowing but not a "show and tell". For people who are into the setting but have not read/seen (all of) the books/series this provides a good way to present the distinct perspective that there is a whole vibrant world out there that they could potentially interact with but which does not depend on the actions of the PC's and their House.

So, mostly I leave my players completely in the dark about the canon or non-canon nature of the setting. I have made it clear that if they expect to play part by part through the narrative in the books that this is not going to happen. It happens that this is actually how all of us like it to be. As much as most of us love the books/series, the idea of having our own story unfold in the Seven Kingdoms around the time of the books is much more attractive.

P.S. Sorry to de-rail the topic once again, Eisen. Seems like you have a good set-up for a campaign and enthusiastic group of players that do wish to envelop themselves in the story of the books.Will be following the campaign log with great interest.

[Eisen]

Sorry guys but this campagin has been dead for a long time. One of the Milo brothers ran off never to be seen again.

[Canarr]

*sigh* I was afraid you'd say that. Too bad...