Re: Mechanical discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

GR is not exactly thorough when it comes to their work on SIFRP. It seems rather random what they did and did not do in the GoT edition, and my money is on the playtesters attacking it like it was D&
D.

[Baelon Drakeson]

GR is not exactly thorough when it comes to their work on SIFRP. It seems rather random what they did and did not do in the GoT edition, and my money is on the playtesters attacking it like it was D&
D.

True, but I'd say that goes double for a forum post. Besides, we can either look at it as they accidentally forgot to put that text in in 3 places through multiple revisions that included the Maester update (Original edition errata, GoT edition, GoT errata, CH.5 pdf) or that the Carriker post was off-the cuff and not thoroughly thought out or playtested. Now, I can easily believe that the former happened, but the latter seems FAR more likely to me. 12+ errors vs. 1 error... much more likely to be the 1 error than the 12+.

[Theomore Tullison]

I am not in agreement with your logic there. RAW (the book) does not give a clear answer, and when RAI (Carriker) says that the benefit is not required to be head of house, then that makes it an active decision of houserule to make it otherwise in my mind.

Plenty of knightly houses that does inherit in perpetuity, plenty of knights being placed in charge of some parcel of land without this position being made hereditary, even if tradition makes the appointment pass from father to son. And it would not make sense to have the sponsor-landed benefit chain if you are the tenth generation knight of castle example, which some lord once put his seal on that your forefather and his line would hold dominion over. You'd have the head of house benefit. But you wouldn't necessarily be a lord.

[Jon Cobb]

Instead, depending on the RP conditions, a character that becomes the head of a new banner house should get either Landed or Head of House, whichever is appropriate. If the banner house is being created as the result of a Power expenditure by a house, or by Narrator fiat, the character should get the benefit for free. As I stated above, the power of these benefits is in the position, not in the benefit itself. Of course, if the banner house is being 'paid for' by DP investment, the character has already 'paid for' the benefit. Which benefit they can invest in is going to depend on RP considerations. It should be thought of as a story reward - you don't reward a player by forcing them to make a DP investment.

If, down the road, RP conditions change and a knightly house is elevated, the character can simply exchange Landed for Head of House. Again, the difference is largely a RP difference and not a mechanical one, so why levy a mechanical cost? Other than the +2 on status tests (not really worth a DP investment for), the mechanics of the two are identical... being a lord vs. a knight doesn't actually give you any mechanical benefits... you still have to get people to do what you say in the same way, with the same chance of success or failure. It is an RP difference, so I don't see why a mechanical cost should be levied in addition to the RP cost.

If a lord is demoted, they should get Landed to replace Head of House, for similar reasons. If a landed knight is stripped of their lands, they should lose Landed with no refund, similar to if a Cohort dies.

I find your reasoning a bit odd - because a benefit has negligible mechanical benefits, but instead grants real power to the PC in the setting, they should be handed out for free? Assuming for the sake of argument that Landed is meant as the mark of a landed knight, and Head of House is a full-blown lord, each of these gives your PC complete control of a noble house and all its resources. Head of House also makes you judge, jury and executioner within your domain. Allowing other PC members of the house a say in the running of the house is a polite fiction not reflected in the game world, where the lord has the final say in all matters. I would say that, if you're granted a banner house as a story award, then asking you to make the DP investment to receive this power is not much of a burden.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Apologies, double post... hit 'quote' instead of 'edit' apparently. The next post has the edit in it (in response to Jon), so ignore this.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I am not in agreement with your logic there. RAW (the book) does not give a clear answer, and when RAI (Carriker) says that the benefit is not required to be head of house, then that makes it an active decision of houserule to make it otherwise in my mind.

I would agree with you, but I dispute that RAW is unclear. Page 119 states:

Players who staked out their territory early to play scions of the house must invest their own starting Experience in Status and put Destiny Points in specific benefits to meet the requirements of their birth. (emphasis added)

The Maester benefit specifically exempts the role of Maester from this requirement;
nothing does so for Head of House, Heir, or Landed.

Plenty of knightly houses that does inherit in perpetuity, plenty of knights being placed in charge of some parcel of land without this position being made hereditary, even if tradition makes the appointment pass from father to son. And it would not make sense to have the sponsor-landed benefit chain if you are the tenth generation knight of castle example, which some lord once put his seal on that your forefather and his line would hold dominion over. You'd have the head of house benefit. But you wouldn't necessarily be a lord.

Do we have any examples of this? You are assuming that there are in-perpetuity heritable landed knights. Just because a knightly family has held a parcel of land for generations doesn't mean it is because they have a legal right of inheritance over it. It is just as likely that their liege lord simply never had reason to give it to somebody else. Doing so would be disruptive to the local economy and military leadership, and if without good reason would make other landed knights wonder if their lands were secure, weakening their loyalty. Not something to do lightly, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so if they so desire.

I find your reasoning a bit odd - because a benefit has negligible mechanical benefits, but instead grants real power to the PC in the setting, they should be handed out for free? Assuming for the sake of argument that Landed is meant as the mark of a landed knight, and Head of House is a full-blown lord, each of these gives your PC complete control of a noble house and all its resources. Head of House also makes you judge, jury and executioner within your domain. Allowing other PC members of the house a say in the running of the house is a polite fiction not reflected in the game world, where the lord has the final say in all matters. I would say that, if you're granted a banner house as a story award, then asking you to make the DP investment to receive this power is not much of a burden.

That's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that if the position is being given as a story reward, the benefit should go with it... just like if any other benefit is being given as a story reward.

It might make more sense to think of it this way: the position is conferred as a result of the benefit being granted as a story reward, not the other way around. So one person might get as a story reward the Cohort benefit, and thus get a cohort. Another might get Landed or Head of House, and thus get a house. Does that make more sense?

[Jon Cobb]

That's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that if the position is being given as a story reward, the benefit should go with it... just like if any other benefit is being given as a story reward.

It might make more sense to think of it this way: the position is conferred as a result of the benefit being granted as a story reward, not the other way around. So one person might get as a story reward the Cohort benefit, and thus get a cohort. Another might get Landed or Head of House, and thus get a house. Does that make more sense?

It makes sense, it's just that becoming lord of a house is a much bigger deal (IMO, of course) than gaining a Cohort, so I still wouldn't necessarily see it as unfair to require a player to invest his DP in Head of House if he wants full, unquestioned access to the power his position provides. Of course, this assumes that it is possible to be counted as lord of a house without the Head of House benefit in the first place. If that's not the case, then I would definitely hand it out as a story reward without requiring the DP cost to be paid as well.

[Theomore Tullison]

You know, you kids should learn to do your own research. Several examples of knightly houses that have been hereditary positions if one only cares to look for them.

Homework, find out where I have this from:

As I see it, the title "
lord"
-- when used formally, and not simply as an honorific --conveys not only prestige, but certain legal rights as well. The right of pit and gallows, as they were once called, for instance -- i.e. authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons.

A landed knight has rather less prestige -- a lord outranks a knight at feasts and tourneys, for instance -- and also somewhat lesser rights.

But certain landed knights, of ancient houses, with extensive lands, and large strong castles, may be lords in all but name. These uber-knights may actually be more powerful than many smaller lordlings, so there's an overlap. Their peculiar status if often reflected by taking a style that incorporates the name of their castle, such as the Knight of Ninestars.

Connington is a special case, and you have the essence of it. Details are made clear in FEAST FOR CROWS. When Jon Connington was defeated at the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him and stripped his House of all its lands and wealth. After the Rebellion, Robert restored the castle to a cousin of Lord Jon's... but only the castle, and some small grounds around it. The extensive Connington lands were parceled out to others, and the house's wealth remained in the treasury. Nor was Robert willing to recall Lord Jon from exile, since he had been among Prince Rhaegar's closest friends. Thus the Conningtons were once great lords... but Red Ronnet, their present head, is simply a landed knight, the Knight of Griffin's Roost.

Somewhat the same sequence is true of the Merryweathers of Longtable, by the way, though in that case Robert was prevailed upon to restore the lordship as well as the castle. Even so, the present Lord Merryweather is nowise as rich and powerful as his grandfather, the old man who served as Aerys's Hand after Lord Tywin and before Jon Connington.

Obviously, where a landed knight probably can get stripped of his lands and title by his liege lord (but like many things, that may cost a lot more than it's worth), it does look like it's the king that gives and takes away lordships, but if you can remove a landed knight from his hereditary position, you might be capable of removing a lord on some pretext if you so desire.

The problem with this line is that it is found in a chapter that only applies when you use it, only applies to PC's, and in a section of that chapter that nobody bothers to care about, meaning that primary NC lords need not have it (which is a good thing in so far that all NC lords need not be primary characters). Like the line in chapter 5 about you cannot have more drawbacks than benefits, which will make very old characters illegal unless they take feeble, and not even then for venerable ones. And only middle aged and younger can even get to have unspent destiny at all. Or the line in chapter 5 about young characters not having had the time to get benefits, while older should have more benefits. You have to take that into account that it's a system that sadly does require interpretation. And the left hand of GR never remembers what the right hand did.

[Jon Cobb]

Homework, find out where I have this from:

Sorry mate, I'm not in school any more, so I don't do homework. :;
):

If you have a point to make about the source of your information, just make it.

[Baelon Drakeson]

You know, you kids should learn to do your own research.

Ahem. Ad hominems are not appreciated. You may be older than me (I've no idea, really, and I don't care), but I am most certainly not a kid. Homework for you: Look up "
ad hominem"
.

Several examples of knightly houses that have been hereditary positions if one only cares to look for them.

A claim with no evidence carries no weight. No, what you posted below doesn't provide any evidence regarding knightly inheritance being a legal right and not just done by tradition or because the lord never decided to do something different.

Homework, find out where I have this from:

No, for several reasons.
First, it is irrelevant. Not worth the effort. Try again, if you wish.
Second, I have plenty of actual homework to do.
Third, you could have posted it yourself with ease, so you are simply choosing to impair the dialogue rather than advance it.
Fourth, you've annoyed me which makes me very less likely pay you heed.
This is a Burden of Proof fallacy.

Obviously, where a landed knight probably can get stripped of his lands and title by his liege lord (but like many things, that may cost a lot more than it's worth), it does look like it's the king that gives and takes away lordships, but if you can remove a landed knight from his hereditary position, you might be capable of removing a lord on some pretext if you so desire.

First, that quote does not address this in least. It talks about two specific cases of kings taking action, nothing in there says that others could not as well.
Second, we aren't even discussing that point anymore, old hat, move on. Reader will decide and we will act accordingly.
This is a strawman fallacy.

The problem with this line is that it is found in a chapter that only applies when you use it, only applies to PC's, and in a section of that chapter that nobody bothers to care about, meaning that primary NC lords need not have it (which is a good thing in so far that all NC lords need not be primary characters).

First, Who cares? Give it to them anyway. NCs can have as many benefits as the Narrator sees fit to give them for the sake of the story.
Second, Who cares? We are talking about PCs here, so that rule applies.
This is a red herring fallacy.

Like the line in chapter 5 about you cannot have more drawbacks than benefits, which will make very old characters illegal unless they take feeble, and not even then for venerable ones. And only middle aged and younger can even get to have unspent destiny at all. Or the line in chapter 5 about young characters not having had the time to get benefits, while older should have more benefits. You have to take that into account that it's a system that sadly does require interpretation. And the left hand of GR never remembers what the right hand did.

Yes, it does require some interpretation. Obviously, or we wouldn't need this thread. That doesn't mean we throw out the rules and just make it up if we don't need to. Whether or not those benefits are required for PCs to be Heads of house, etc. is not internally incoherent with other parts of the rule system like these things you have brought up.
This is also a red herring fallacy.

In summary, your post was an ad hominem fallacy, an unsupported premise, a burden of proof fallacy, a strawman fallacy, and two red herring fallacies.

[Reader]

Everyone, play nice please.

I've had a busy weekend and want this game to be something fun that I can use to unwind!

1. Heir/head of house - need the benefit. Secondary characters can have qualities (p215 of GoT edition notes that "
most secondary characters do not have benefits or flaws..."
- some do!). Most lords in my game are intended to be primary characters, even if you lot don't deal with them much.
2. Everything is effectively non-hereditary (as someone bigger and meaner can strip you of it). Landed Houses can be effectively hereditary (I see the modern, recent House Clegane as such) - Ser Gregor is just a knight, and effectively inherited his father's lands (could have been gifted to another, but if a lord starts doing that his subjects get uppity).
3. Head of House is generally for lords, but open to special situations where it wouldn't be.
4. Kings (and maybe lords?) can screw about with titles

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Everyone, play nice please.

I've had a busy weekend and want this game to be something fun that I can use to unwind!

1. Heir/head of house - need the benefit. Secondary characters can have qualities (p215 of GoT edition notes that "
most secondary characters do not have benefits or flaws..."
- some do!). Most lords in my game are intended to be primary characters, even if you lot don't deal with them much.
2. Everything is effectively non-hereditary (as someone bigger and meaner can strip you of it). Landed Houses can be effectively hereditary (I see the modern, recent House Clegane as such) - Ser Gregor is just a knight, and effectively inherited his father's lands (could have been gifted to another, but if a lord starts doing that his subjects get uppity).
3. Head of House is generally for lords, but open to special situations where it wouldn't be.
4. Kings (and maybe lords?) can screw about with titles

Reader, a side question on Head of House, as the book is unclear. When can I switch my Heir Quality to the Head of House Quality? Does that take effect now that Corrine has taken over, or will it be part of the upkeep for the abstract house time? And am I right in thinking it's a +2 Status increase?

[Reader]

+2 bonus to status tests (note the difference between +2 to status ability!).

Will happens as soon as this story ends - you'll trade in Heir and replace it with Head of House.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

+2 bonus to status tests (note the difference between +2 to status ability!).

Will happens as soon as this story ends - you'll trade in Heir and replace it with Head of House.

Okedokes! I did think +2 Status seemed like a massive hile, but I wouldn't have complained! But now I understand. Thank you!

[Septon Arlyn]

So what should the mechanical benefits of trade be?

[Jon Cobb]

So what should the mechanical benefits of trade be?

I assume you're not talking about the Trade benefit, since that's clearly spelled out in Chapter 5 already?

[Septon Arlyn]

No, I'm talking about commerce / trade between realms

[Athelstan]

That would be a Marketplace improvement called Trade Routes. One House gives 5 wealth and receive +5 from a Resource that House has, like lumber, or iron.

[Septon Arlyn]

would that come out of, from peace prosperity PDF?

[Athelstan]

Out of Strife, Prosperity book. Look for the Market improvements, that is the closest thing I can think that you are looking for.

[Reader]

So what should the mechanical benefits of trade be?

No benefits to trade, as David Hume &
David Ricardo haven't been born.

Plus comparative advantage doesn't work with mobile capital. :;
):

More seriously, what the other guys suggested.

Happy to here tweak suggestions if the core rules don't do what you guys need for the story.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Just a thought, if it is not a recurring trade relationship but rather a one-time exchange of goods, it would probably just be an exchange of one resource (say, wealth) for another (say, defense for something like buying stone for castle improvements or law if you are hiring a house to hunt bandits for you).

[Dunstan Tullison]

Does Dunstan and Theo start out with castle forged steel?

Since we have the Artisan holding

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Artisan allows us access to castle steel, but we do still have to pay for it

[Theomore Tullison]

Sadly, no.

Because reader is mean.

[Sponsored content]