Is there any Veeky Forums rpg game or board game that emulates perfectly a medieval world, economy...

GURPS is shit and every dickhead who brings it up is a peanut in the GURPS turd.

Done.

Hes right tho.

>Harnmaster

This nigga knows what's up.

Can you actually rec some sourcebooks instead of just memeing?

See

>instead of just memeing?
There's a pot calling the kettle black.

Reign has Company rules that could be kingdoms, but it's pretty abstract if I'm remembering it correctly (and I might not be, I've never had a chance to play Reign, I just read it years ago).

That was my first post itt. I don't see how calling out stale memes is a meme.

ACKS is the closest I've seen, particularly in politics and economics. It has some pretty elegant mechanics for vassal loyalty that scale up naturally from henchmen rules, and an economic system that doesn't break if you move from OSR-style adventuring to merchant-ing or running a fiefdom.

If you have the patience for it, you could go down into absolutely ludicrous detail use it make a whole world and its political/economic system from the ground up. Literally, including stuff like the base value of each piece of land, how many peasant families live there, how much does each peasant family produce in a year, how satisfied the people are with their leadership, what goods are available in town, what goods are in-demand, trade routes between settlements, how much a ruler can demand in taxes, how much their churches might demand in tithes, how much the ruler can afford to spend on stuff (i.e. military forces, infrastructure improvements, festivals, opulence, etc), the exact composition of the lord's army (and rules for engaging it in battle), price tables for exotic mercenaries like wolf-riding goblins, and so on and so forth.

I find that if something you care about isn't in the books yet, you can typically get a good answer from the developer, assuming he hasn't already spoken about it.

GURPS has absolutely nothing like Crusader Kings 2 or any simulation you dumbass.

Realistic Medieval times? Maybe, sure.
Simulated Europe by county at the same time with each noble from a Count of Fuckitall to the Emperor of Everything having a complex and recorded family tree with complex family inheritance systems that vary based on which exact Ducky or County you're in? With legal bindings based on faints, and random events hidden from everyone playing that could significantly affect the way your hundreds of years turns out?

Christ you GURPSfags can be stupid as all hell sometes.

Also no, nothing perfectly captures anything in a game. Close enough is so complex you need a computer to get it even halfway simulationy, but you'll lose a lot of the heart and story tabletop games give. In case you were led astray, GURPS is just an okay tabletop RPG with some extra crunch. Various anons recommend it for literally everything, possibly so they'll find at least one thing it's actually great at.

people have run games of nation wars at myth weavers, which 'simulate' fantasy medieval (and in one game fantasy tribal) kingdoms. I'm currently trying to demystify the game so that prospective GM's can pick up and run the system

Ars Magica does a medieval setting pretty well. The writers for it are even, near-universally, history majors, who put a painstaking amount of effort into getting things as correct as they can.

Granted, the game has magic, and Mythic Europe(the default setting) has some very minor shifts from what real world medieval Europe was probably like, as a result.

I wish I could find a group willing to play it, it looks like a beautiful system.

for double awesome, you take harnmaster as system and plug in ars magica as magic system (requires extensive houseruling though). best of both worlds.

>There is some question as to whether feudalism as traditionally described ever actually existed historically.
No, there isn't. I understand that it's very fashionable these days to make shocking contrarian statements about history but there is a limit to this.

One a similar vein is there any RPGs that focus heavily on, or do horse mounted combat well?

define the criterias for well in this context

Just play Basic D&D or whatever and actually learn about daily life in medieval times.

bump

Not that poster, but allow me to toss in my two cents. Feudalism, as we know it in political and historical theory, is a mode of production--the technology and process of production, but also the way in which production is organized socially and politically--based around land tenure to fiefs. There are, however, several questions we must ask regarding how this theoretical abstraction applies to the mass of empirical facts that we are attempting to analyze with it. Here are a few:

>1. Are the types of land property we are analyzing similar enough to all be called "feudal"?
In certain parts of the world in certain periods of time, land was very rarely legally owned outright, and instead existed under a multitude of different tenure obligations, incl. military service, rent-in-kind, rent-in-cash, labor service, etc; there were also differences in rights to that land, to whether land was held communally or individually, and to whom tenures were owed.

>2. Are the ways of organizing labor similar enough to all be called feudal?
Villeinage, where it existed, was a kind of land bondage; the travel of villeins was heavily restricted in order to extract from them, at predictable times, labor and possibly military service. But villeinage also coexisted beside other forms of labor such as outright slavery, or freeholding, or even some non-tenured forms such as unlanded wage labor, and these forms were varyingly dominant in different places and times.

3. Are the political structures similar enough to all be called feudal?
The so-called feudal system is one in which vassal lords receive and govern a fief from a liege lord who holds ultimate or allodial title, and then themselves parcel out fiefs to their vassals and tenants, in personal rule, often by arms. But it also coexisted in places and times with many local structures of political autonomy and formal political process: the urban towns or burghs, guilds, lands owned by religious entities, etc.

(cont.)

You'll notice that I used the phrasing "place and time" extensively. "Feudalism" has been applied to time periods spanning centuries to analyze societies as far apart as England and Japan. What these questions ask is whether the model of feudalism usefully allows us to analyze these societies despite differences in place and time, or whether our models must be more constrained chronologically and regionally.

It might be a simple problem of scope. If we take "feudalism" to mean only the relationships between monarchs, their vassal lords, and their vassals--leaving out the serfs, church, and other political institutions that existed--then you might have a coherent concept to understand that particular section of society across time, if not a whole society writ large; and, indeed, this is how many scholars who wish to constrain the overuse of "feudalism" do it.

But we see that constraining the term also constrains the kind of analysis we might want to do. I, for what it's worth, do think that the term "feudalism" has use, but contra to the above I do not think it is very useful to apply it to the personal relations of the aristocracy; rather, its use lies in the way that it can describe how most people lived and organized their livelihoods. It is useful to try to coherently analyze how agricultural labor was organized into work and how the political and legal institutions of the time kept them working. It is not meant to be a term that describes society in total; no concept can do so without being extremely specific in time and place, and loses analytical power outside of that. For example, for our living in what is described as capitalist society, there are people who live outside capitalism proper, and there are non-capitalistic relations between those who do live in capitalism, and any theory that tries to theorize everything quickly loses both abstraction and its ability to analyze what sets capitalism apart from previous societies.

This thread has very useful suggestions. I like the idea of adventuring knight errant style blending into fief management with a more or less consistent set of rules.

As in, its not just "its normal combat but you go faster but you got some penalties too.", but instead has its own mechanics like couched lances, and getting knocked from your saddle and such

good lord, did GURPS kill your mother and rape your father?

I like GURPS for the thigns it does, but I like D&D and fate and all that other shit for the stuff it does.

Long story short, though, perfect emulation of anything in an rpg sense would require a very specific set of players and GM who are interested and detail oriented enough to do that shit. Even then, it's hard to imagine the nitty gritty of it could be terribly fun for anyone who isn't a hardcore history kinda person, but for those who are almost any system could do it.

Again, with the right group.

Hârnmaster 3E has 8 pages dedicated to mounted combat. That should be a good basis to start with.

HOUSERULED AS FUCK FATAL

SocEng, Middle Ages 1, and Low-Tech + its Companions.