Great Captains of War

Development and Playtest ACKS Domains at War Playtest
5

 "This leaves us with but a bare handful, of which I suppose Alexander might have been one, but the odds of such a person being born into circumstances which were ripe for building an empire seem poor."

I think the answer there is that  people in history (or in game) get their ability scores from a combination of genetics, environment, and development, not from dice. The resulting range of abilities makes up a 3d6-like bell curve (normal distribution), so we as gamers use dice as a prescriptive means of assuring that our in-game characters get ability scores. 

But with ability scores actuallly coming from genes, environment, and personal development, we should expect to see higher INT and CHA among the well-fed, well-educated, groomed-from-birth nobility, higher STR, DEX, and CON in a well-fed warrior nobility, and so on. Moreover I'd reckon Darwinian factors were probably much more strongly at work in the ancient world.

As a side note: This conversation is making me feel really bad for Alexander the Great. I mean, what the heck does a man have to do to justify 4 18s? Conquer the known world? Become worshipped as god in his own lifetime? Go undefeated on field of battle? Establish himself as the standard by which all later emperors judged themselves? Serve as the source for the Romance which becomes the most read book until printing of the Bible? Found the greatest city of the next two hundred years? "Nah, I don't think he's all that." JEEEZ you guys are harsh.

 

6

Broader note first: Interesting idea. It will certainly be fodder for armchair arguments ;-).

Score distribution: One in 2,176,782,336 will have four 18s. At smaller values, we tend to round to 0.5%, but the actual chance is closer to 0.46% which adds up fast when you start stacking them. When you further stack the 37.5% chance of a 12+ and the 16% chance of a 14+, you end up with about one in 36 billion.

Some reasonable math indicates that about 100 billion people have ever lived, which gives us 2–3 people in history with stats like those.

If probable outcomes are important, that means that—at most—one or two other people in the entire history of the world have ever been Alexander the Great’s equal.

Of course, there are a lot of ways to “fix” that, and CON and DEX are only one of them. How likely is it, for example, that Alexander was as intelligent as Leonardo?

For the rest of it, I don’t think I’ll convince you :-).

You say CON, I say high fighter level and halfway good hit points. You say Olympic level athlete, and I say he was a master of propaganda who never actually competed (his battlefield performance, and thus presumed AC, is a much better argument for high DEX, of course, since DEX actually affects that in the game).

On the horse thing:

Really, I just don’t understand any of what you are saying, which is usually a good sign that we’re on completely different pages where the ability score definitions are concerned. I don’t think I would let a PC replace their CHA reaction roll with an INT-based reaction roll, unless they had special knowledge of some sort, and that knowledge made any kind of sense.

I might allow WIS (based on the Perceive Intentions custom power), if the fear of shadows was true. But then why would he want a warhorse who spooks at its own shadow?

So I’m inclined to believe that the explanation of the horse being afraid of its own shadow was a convenient lie; and that the method used to tame the horse was a CHA-based reaction roll, which he totally owned.

7

Then just give him all 18s and say he was, as his propaganda implied, demi-divine.

ACKS spends a great deal of energy on the idea that one can accomplish great things without idealized ability scores, after all, and it is not like the scores will materially affect the character build as much as the proficiency selection will.

For myself, I aim conservatively: the biography gives evidence for a score of “at least X,” so I give the person X. And with masters of propaganda like Alexander, even more so ;-).

Which is why I said “I am unconvinced” rather than “you are wrong.” To me, Alexander’s accomplishments can be explained with lower DEX and CON scores, so I would give him those lower scores. His CHA is the only thing I think is inarguable, although the INT comes close.

8

“ACKS spends a great deal of energy on the idea that one can accomplish great things without idealized ability scores”

This. There’s no heroism in conquering the world with stats like those; to do any less is a disappointment :stuck_out_tongue: I’d rather reduce the scores a little, give him the benefit of the doubt on some lucky rolls throughout his career, and be able to say to my players “You don’t need quadruple 18s to conquer the world. Just look at this guy!” But that’s preferential on my end.

9

I think Alexander qualifies as much as anyone who is real for those kind of scores. How many other figures in history accomplished so much that even now we see the effects they had on the world?

I think the problem is what you touched on. Attributes in reality aren’t random but are the result of training, genetics and nutrition. They also aren’t frozen like they are in early D&D. People change and improve which isn’t reflected well in level systems (except for someone’s killing ability).

So yeah my reaction at first was too high, in retrospect I think I’m good with it.

10

Oh I meant to say…I think this is a cool idea and look forward to the others.

11

Two thumbs up!! I would like to see more. (Genghis Khan is a personal favorite.)

You might mix in some Not-so-great Captains of War, and/or the Captains that faced one another, such as:

Publius Quinctilius Varus vs Arminius

12

And I would like to see Richard the Lion Hearted :slight_smile:

13

Here's a list of some ancient and medieval great captains. Personal inclination and knowledge leads me towards antiquity primarily:

Great Captains:
Attila
Belisarius
Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca
Julius Caesar
Marius
Richard the Lion-Hearted
Saladin
Sulla

Runners Up: Agrippa, Leonidas, Pompey, Pyrrhus, Sargon, Spartacus, Thutmose

Other sugestions?

14

I would be interested in Cyrus the Great.

I would also be interested in seeing at least a few women on that list. While there are no world-conquering women in antiquity that I am familiar with (Fu Hao, maybe? That was mostly to retain an existing empire, though . . .), not everyone on the list above were, either.

Sadly, I’m not knowledgeable enough about history to make very many suggestions: most of what I know is from very casual reading to establish flavor for this or that campaign setting ;-).

15

There were a few good female leaders mentioned in Civilization V: Theodora of the Byzantine Empire and Boudica of the Celts. Of course, I don’t know enough about history to know much about them.

16

There have been some strong female leaders in history (Elizabeth I, for example), but most  have not generally been "great captains" in the sense of battlefield commanders. Theodora, a formidable woman by any measure, was Emperor Justinian's wife, and Justinian himself retained Belisarius as his battlefield commander. 

Perhaps Joan of Arc.

 

 

17

I think that if Joan is the main one you feel you have enough information to provide canon stats for (which is understandable and perfectly reasonable), that it would be better to leave the women out entirely.

I can use the examples you provide as a baseline for comparison, and there won’t be any Amelia Earhart* issues with my players.

And sorry: I didn’t mean to start a discussion down this path, and I’m bailing out now ;-).

18

Man, Boudicca would make a wicked bladedancer…

Welp. There’s my new campaign idea.

(I second Genghis, Boudicca)

19

Yeah... There were competent female battlefield commanders from time to time, but none have become as famous as, e.g., Hannibal, Julius Caesar, or Genghis. Joan of Arc is quite famous, but mostly for her religious zealotry and sad death. I doubt many people could even say what war she fought in or name a battle she won! The only others that immediately come to mind are: Boudica, Margaret of Anjou, and Zenobia of Palmyra. 

I personally am fascinated by the confrontation of Aurelian and Zenobia, but neither of them is well known outside of narrow circles. Boudica might actually be the best choice as I think she's someone who I could say an ACKS player rolling up.

 

 

 

20

It seems as though the odds are stacked against women in history. We’re looking specifically at warrior-captains, for which many of these eras would be actively discouraging female participation, and even those women who could gain a little infamy would have had to contend with male history writers. Unfortunately I’m not enough of a history buff to list off any possible candidates.

wikipedia seems to offer a few examples that haven’t been named yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior Nusaybah, Artemisia, Rani Lakshmibai all sound neat.

21

King David.

22

Boudica definitely. That’d be awesome.

23

Ooh, give us Zenobia!

24

Another one… Ramesses the Great… or another famous Egyptian Pharaoh.