Game of Thrones

[Inu]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

It sounds to me like GRRM set out not to tell a story' date=' but to skewer fantasy. He would have been better off writing an obviously snide parody so that those who don't want to read a book of skewers wouldn't have bothered.[/quote']

He set out to tell a story. HE also wanted to tell a different story, and one of the methods he uses to create drama and involvement is to deny normal expectations. So if he is skewering fantasy, it's not ALL he's doing. So no, he wouldn't be better off doing a straight-up parody. There's a lot more to his books.

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

He set out to tell a story. HE also wanted to tell a different story' date=' and one of the methods he uses to create drama and involvement is to deny normal expectations. So if he is skewering fantasy, it's not ALL he's doing. So no, he wouldn't be better off doing a straight-up parody. There's a lot more to his books.[/quote']

 

I personally would find that highly debatable. However as I couldn't debate that and adhere to forum rules (what can I say, the books -really- annoyed me) I'll leave it alone.

[Cargus10]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I have to agree with Inu.

[Markdoc]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I have to agree with Inu.

 

You're not alone. I agree too (though that doesn't count for much) but the series is one of the (if not THE) most popular fantasy series being published right now. The last one - A Feast for Crows - went straight to the top of the New York Times bestseller list the week of its release and the next one, Dances with Dragons is in the top 5 bestselling fantasy novels at Amazon right now .... despite the fact that it hasn't even been released yet and probably won't be for months.

 

So, obviously, lots of people like the series. Not everyone does, but that's cool. Often I start books recommended in glowing terms by other people and when I'm finished (it takes a really, really dreadful tale to actually stop me partway through) I think "God, that was a waste of paper".

 

Different tastes and all. However, I'm buying each book as it comes out and I doubt that'll change

 

cheers, Mark

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Didn't Eragon make the Bestseller List at one point as well Markdoc?

[Nolgroth]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I think my complaint about the series is that it is not larger than life. If I wanted "realistic" I'd read the papers or watch the news. Plenty of people getting killed for no reason there.

 

The really frustrating part is that I like GRRM's writing style. He really drew me into the story and if it weren't for the fact that I felt really let down when Eddard Stark received his "justice," I would have loved the first book. That is a hallmark of a good author. I just don't like the grit in his books. I look to fantasy to escape reality, not have it strike down the characters I read about.

 

I am half expecting to read one day (probably here on the HERO boards) that the series ends with the Others descending upon the weakened and divided peoples of Westros and slaying them all in an orgy of nihilistic irony. That would be delicious in a sad sort of way.

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I think my complaint about the series is that it is not larger than life. If I wanted "realistic" I'd read the papers or watch the news. Plenty of people getting killed for no reason there.

 

The really frustrating part is that I like GRRM's writing style. He really drew me into the story and if it weren't for the fact that I felt really let down when Eddard Stark received his "justice," I would have loved the first book. That is a hallmark of a good author. I just don't like the grit in his books. I look to fantasy to escape reality, not have it strike down the characters I read about.

 

I am half expecting to read one day (probably here on the HERO boards) that the series ends with the Others descending upon the weakened and divided peoples of Westros and slaying them all in an orgy of nihilistic irony. That would be delicious in a sad sort of way.

 

One could almost say they deserve it, though I would be sad to see Bran Stark and Jon Snow die as a result. Of course as those are the only two likable characters left in the book more or less, but there I go with that rant again.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

My personal thoery is that the Others will generally start kicking the Westros's asses, and will finally be stopped by Jon, Danerys, Bran and her dragons.

 

Remember, you heard it here first.

[Markdoc]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Didn't Eragon make the Bestseller List at one point as well Markdoc?

 

Yeah, it did, which kind of makes my point: not everyone likes the same books. I don't care for Eragon - but I like a Song of Ice and Fire. Other people probably feel the exact opposite. It doesn't bother me - nor does it make me enjoy reading what I like any less. Martin's gritty (you could say relentless) style turns some readers off: but he has a huge devoted following - probably in large part precisely because of that style.

 

cheers, Mark

[Maur]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

And there are the few that like both My book collection runs a wide gamut of SciFi/Fantasy, Mystery, Technothrillers, etc... as well as a huge collection of non-fiction books on math, physics, biology, history, etc...

[Inu]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I think my complaint about the series is that it is not larger than life. If I wanted "realistic" I'd read the papers or watch the news. Plenty of people getting killed for no reason there.

I like a range of writing, myself. =) I like pure escapism, I like grittiness, I like anything, really. Well, I like good writing, good stories, good characters, good setting. I don't really care about tone, genre or style.

 

I usually say that one of the big reasons I read, or watch movies, is for the human experience. There usually has to be some element of it for me to enjoy something, unless the craziness factor is big enough to make up for it. The human experience encompasses fun, happiness, love, fear, tension, sadness, death. Vicarious experience of any of those gives me satisfaction (though I do like a mix). Unrealistically bad or good endings leave me cold. I hate seeing everything twisted around to give an ending that simply doesn't belong, regardless of how much I want that ending.

[Old Man]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

I have to admit that ASoIaF is really grim and bleak, and at times that's hard to take. But I also really like the unpredictability of the story, and the believability of the characters.

[Kristopher]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

He set out to tell a story. HE also wanted to tell a different story' date=' and one of the methods he uses to create drama and involvement is to deny normal expectations. So if he is skewering fantasy, it's not ALL he's doing. So no, he wouldn't be better off doing a straight-up parody. There's a lot more to his books.[/quote']

 

So the characters are dying and suffering because it's unexpected?

 

IMO, that's metafiction, in a bad way.

[Alibear]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Bad things happen to good people all the time, not much we can do sometimes but get on with it. I really like his gritty almost realistic style and love the way magic has crypt in and now is real and a big sub-plot. The priest with the fiery sword (name forgotten right now)is a particular favourite as is the the way the drowned men initiate priests.

 

I also really like how knights are basically hired swords for wealthy landowners. That strikes me as being very realistic but bursts the heroic ideal of chivalric knights somewhat.

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

It doesn't seem that realistic to me. The idea of 'realism' kind of flew out the window when he had several characters talk about how the Lannisters were in such a weak position throughout the second book, then proceeded to have nobody take advantage of it despite knowing about those weaknesses. Oh and the way everybody opposing his precious Lannisters tends to get handed the idiot ball, or some associate of those opposing Lannisters will be handed the villain ball.

 

Anyhow, if I wanted realism in a medival type setting I'd read a history book.

[Cargus10]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

The Red Priest is Thoros of Myr.

 

I like the books, others don't. Eh, that's why we're all different. You like what you like, I like what I like. It's all good. But...can't we all agree to dislike Uwe Boll?

[Inu]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

So the characters are dying and suffering because it's unexpected?

 

IMO, that's metafiction, in a bad way.

They're dying because it fits the story. It's shocking because it denies expectations. There's a certain amount of meta in ANY writing. Even histories and biographies. Certain things happen because it's expected. In Martin, sometimes things happen because it's unexpected... but it's always supported by the story. No foul.

 

From your previous post, I take it you haven't read the books? Take it from me; they're complete stories that make sense internally and externally.

[Inu]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

It doesn't seem that realistic to me. The idea of 'realism' kind of flew out the window when he had several characters talk about how the Lannisters were in such a weak position throughout the second book, then proceeded to have nobody take advantage of it despite knowing about those weaknesses. Oh and the way everybody opposing his precious Lannisters tends to get handed the idiot ball, or some associate of those opposing Lannisters will be handed the villain ball.

 

Anyhow, if I wanted realism in a medival type setting I'd read a history book.

The previous couple of decades were a period of stability. Baratheon moved against anyone who disrupted this stability; he wanted a united kingdom. The Lannisters were, IIRC, also feigning some level of the listlessness, preparing for a takeover bid. They'd been planning this for a long, long time. The 'idiot ball' is a subjective thing; I didn't feel anyone was done over.

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Not terribly subjective at all in this case. All his advisors tell Stannis that if he sails into Kings Landing he will take the place with ease. The Lannisters say that if Stannis sails into Kings Landing he will take the place with ease. Clearly the intelligent maneuver here is for Stannis to sail into King's Landing. So instead he rides off to deal with a matter that's comparatively unimportant.

 

Or how about that nice instant kill power that his mage/priestess/whatever she is chick has? Pity she never actually used that during the Seige of Kings Landing where such an ability might've been y'know, useful.

 

Of course I suppose some of this is partially explained by the Lannisters being handed every advantage in the story.

[Markdoc]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Not terribly subjective at all in this case. All his advisors tell Stannis that if he sails into Kings Landing he will take the place with ease. The Lannisters say that if Stannis sails into Kings Landing he will take the place with ease. Clearly the intelligent maneuver here is for Stannis to sail into King's Landing. So instead he rides off to deal with a matter that's comparatively unimportant.

 

Unimportant like .... ensuring his legitimacy to rule, without which he probably could not have held King's Landing, even if he took it? Unimportant like increasing his army by 400%?

 

That's even assuming he could take King's landing with only 5000 men, which is made clear was highly unlikely: Cersei had 5000 Goldcloaks alone. He needed his brother's 20,000 men (almost all of whom he got by going to Storm’s End, which was after all, the point).

 

Or how about that nice instant kill power that his mage/priestess/whatever she is chick has? Pity she never actually used that during the Seige of Kings Landing where such an ability might've been y'know' date=' useful.[/quote']

 

She uses it to kill specific individuals when there is great need, since it appears to be both time-consuming and personally draining. I assume by "siege of king's landing" you mean the Battle of the Blackwater - there is no siege of Kings Landing in the books. But not only is it hard to identify who she could have usefully used the power on (Joffrey? Tyrion? Cersei? All very satisfying, but hardly like to change the outcome of the battle) but it's also not clear she even had the time required.

 

Of course I suppose some of this is partially explained by the Lannisters being handed every advantage in the story.

 

Hardly: their plan to put Joffrey on the throne is in ruins, their enemies gathering, their allies unreliable to say the least and half the major Lannisters are already dead or traitors. All in all, it looks like the Lannisters succeeded initially by being better organised and more ruthless than their foes - but they over-reached, and now their power is tottering. They've had some lucky breaks, but they've had some bad ones too - like everyone else in the series.

 

And that's what makes it interesting. You can't assume the bad guys will lose simply because they are the bad guys and you can't assume the good guys will triumph largely unscathed because they are the good guys. And there's a fair number of characters who are nether good guys nor bad guys.

 

cheers, Mark

[Twilight]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Feh. Interesting is not the word I'd use. Now I could sit here and argue that increasing his army by 400% actually did him very little good because achieving it actually caused him to throw away the only advantage he had in the attack, as evidenced by him actually losing, whereas a quick assault on King's Landing could've allowed him to destroy the navy there and allowed him to remove Joffry from the throne. Even if he couldn't hold Kings Landing taking a few important prisoners (Cersei Lannister for example) and actually killing the king would improve his chances at becoming king.

 

However, arguing about this series annoys me more then actually reading it in the first place so I'm just going to stop doing both and hope this overrated series fades into the obscurity it deserves.

[Alibear]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Obscurity it deserves? It's one of the best fantasy epics I've read in many a year. Obviously it's not to your taste but it is to many tastes, including mine.

 

Any why do knights attacking their masters enemies in battle or raising the countryside not seem realistic? Is that not what they did in our own history? I can see that as being realistic rather than knights saving maidens and righting wrongs.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Not to break up the "SoFaI sucks! No it doesn't! Yes it does! No it doesn't!" argument, but I think that a Fantasy Political Intrigue HERO article would be useful. I honestly try to think about how to run one and the whole thought process ends up with a huge Null.

 

Armies, not swords, are the primary weapons of politics. I noticed in Game of Thrones that individuals could be skillful with a blade, tough as nails or whatever, and still basically be meat if they were confronted by even slightly superior numbers. In that regard it is very realistic. Hence, you don't get heroes making great strides as individuals. The "heroes" are those that can lead armies.

 

From a gaming standpoint, it seems to me that there is little place for the "band of adventurers" in such a setting. It almost seems like a wargame with some elements of roleplaying built in. I would certainly suggest that anybody trying such a campaign, brush up on the Mass Combat rules.

[Maur]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Well, the hard part of things like court politics and creating intrigue is the fact that subtle things are what drive it. Who knows what about whom. Who owes whom favors and at what strength vs their own convictions. What subtle slights has one person given another (even as subtle as where one sat at an event). Hell, people can hold grudges for quite some time and just be waiting to repay a slight in spades when a good opportunity arises (Catelyn Stark and her eldest son for his marrying a lesser girl when he had made a promise of marrying another families daughter as the price of their support).

[Markdoc]

Re: Game of Thrones

 

Not to break up the "SoFaI sucks! No it doesn't! Yes it does! No it doesn't!" argument' date=' but I think that a Fantasy Political Intrigue HERO article would be useful. I honestly try to think about how to run one and the whole thought process ends up with a huge Null.[/quote']

 

I like games with a fair deal of intrigue. Both my current FH game and the last one (which was set in a fantasy medieval japan) had a significant amount of it. It's not hard to do.

 

Armies' date=' not swords, are the primary weapons of politics. I noticed in [i']Game of Thrones[/i] that individuals could be skillful with a blade, tough as nails or whatever, and still basically be meat if they were confronted by even slightly superior numbers. In that regard it is very realistic. Hence, you don't get heroes making great strides as individuals. The "heroes" are those that can lead armies.

 

Any major character can lead an army - a Hero leads it from the front In addition, heroes can undertake tasks that a normal person cannot. In a Game of Thrones, you could cite Arya Stark, or Melisandre, who haven't led any armies, but have already had an effect on the outcome of the war, or Daenerys Targaryen, who has led armies but also done other "Heroic" things: like hatching three dragons

 

From a gaming standpoint' date=' it seems to me that there is little place for the "band of adventurers" in such a setting. It almost seems like a wargame with some elements of roleplaying built in. I would certainly suggest that anybody trying such a campaign, brush up on the Mass Combat rules.[/quote']

 

You could certainly play a band of adventurers in such a setting. But the object of such a game is unlikely to be "kill the monsters and take their stuff". Just off the top of my head, you could run a fine game where the players are a squad of the Night's Watch, tasked with defending a section of the wall, launching raids against the wildings, creeping into the wild to spy out their plans, and trying to find a secret they could use against the Others. Or, you could play a band of loyal knights and their lord, following any one of the various great lords, attempting to defend their own territory, attack the lord's enemies, occasionally fighting on their own, occasionally fighting as part of a large army, with the goal of expanding the power of the lord and thus their own power. You could play a band of free swords, selling their services to one lord or another, chasing riches and maybe a chance to become nobles in their own right - or a band like the Brotherhood Without Banners, fighting a guerilla war against the conquering enemy forces, or a band of spies, fighters and assassins working for Varys, the master of whisperers or ....

 

There's lots of possibilities. As for the one you mentioned, playing nobles and lords involved in large scale combat and intrigue, that's not too hard. I played in an excellent game set during the First Crusade, where we did exactly that: a mixture of roleplaying and wargaming, in effect. Not only did we have to contend with battles, treachery and politics but also mundane questions like "Where can I recruit new settlers for my recently conquered lands?" and "I need a stablemaster to care for our horses - we're losing too many to illness" and so on.

 

The last game I ran, the players were minor retainers for a samurai clan, who over the course of two+ years of weekly play undertook many missions for the lord, eventually rising to command his armies and form his council of trusted advisers. There were conventional adventures setting the players against small groups of foes, intrigue - for example, persuade a member of the imperial court to help their lord (without actually being allowed to talk to anyone of the court) - and battles involving hundreds of samurai where the players participated first as a single squad of soldiers and in the end as generals and officers.

 

All you need for a game like this is a plot, a good cast of NPCs, some idea of how the NPCs interact and what their goals are - and a setting in which it all takes place. A SoFaI would be ideal for this: you already have a big cast of NPCs, and you know what their motivations are. You could even do this if your players have read the books: by changing names and locations and so on. Since the players don't get the overview afforded by the books, they could be kept from seeing the whole picture for a long, long time, even as they hear rumours of far-off battles, treacheries and sackings.

 

For example: you tell your players you are going to setting your game in an alternate fantasy Europe. King's Landing becomes Constantinople. After the death of the Emperor, the various nobles maneuver to play one of their own on the throne, while in Anatolia, brave armies try to hold back the fierce Turkish hordes (who, it turns out are being driven westwards by a race of terrible djinni) and an exiled member of the old imperial family - thought dead by most people - hatches a dragon in far-off trackless Russia and raises an army of fierce Rus Barbarians, eager to take Constantinople, the fabled city of gold.

 

cheers, Mark