Re: Game Discussion

[Ser Raynald Dulver]

Or Lords having bodyguards.

Actually I don't think that would count. I mean, of course that having bodyguards and killers protects you against an adversary, but the fact that the scheemer depends of a combatant for his self-defense shows his vulnerability. After all, the bodyguard can decide to kill the Lord (in fact Vary's riddles is about a sellsword that is already in the service of the three men). I think the real protections are the social ones, like the benefits of being an authority, the privilege of jury, the advantage of being the one that makes the rules.

[Loreia]

Everyone has vulnerabilities, and the vulnerability of a schemer is being a noncombatant(usually). What matters is how a schemer protects that weakness or turns it into strength. Getting loyal people to defend the schemer is one way. Intriguing a bodyguard to betray his lord can be one of the solutions, perhaps with Incite in an intrigue if you want to convince them to join you and do the dirty deed themselves, but close and trusted bodyguards are close and trusted for a reason, they won't change their minds so easily. If they're losing and their Yield has been rejected, they're likely initiate combat.

[Yoren longshore]

Everyone has vulnerabilities, and the vulnerability of a schemer is being a noncombatant(usually). What matters is how a schemer protects that weakness or turns it into strength. Getting loyal people to defend the schemer is one way. Intriguing a bodyguard to betray his lord can be one of the solutions, perhaps with Incite in an intrigue if you want to convince them to join you and do the dirty deed themselves, but close and trusted bodyguards are close and trusted for a reason, they won't change their minds so easily. If they're losing and their Yield has been rejected, they're likely initiate combat.

Or the fighter may just put cotton in his ears and shout "
NANANA"

[Baelon Drakeson]

Moving this here because it ended up being a really long post and I don't want to clutter up the event thread any more.
[url=http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?p=52553#p52553:3mm3bznk]Subject: [D3, any] The King's Justice: Warfare and Personal Combats[/url:3mm3bznk]

My last post on this as I think its resolved. Could my original post been slight better, perhaps I'm not going to pretend given enough time I could have wordsmithed something better. Reality is I posted it right before leaving work to head home on a long commute to try to get the ball rolling on conversations.

The interpretation of posts works both ways however though. For instance, those that post responses that seem a negative responding tone give of a feeling to me of possibly having their own plots,machinations going on at our expense as they doth protest too much. Again given the background and circumstances I think our request is completely reasonable and fair.

Agreed, this shall be my last post on the subject as well, and I am only posting it because I think there is an important point to be made (it requires context and thus comes late in the post, so bear with me)

I suspect part of the reaction (on my part at least, I can't speak for others) is that there was a good deal of negativity surrounding the Dulver participation in the clan war:
First, there was a misrepresentation of what troops would be provided - Dulver 'turnips' vs. Ironborn mercenaries (there was another issue regarding that, but it's irrelevant to the matter at hand)
Then, once that was resolved instead of two combat units, House Dulver supplied one unit of archers and one unit of support - noncombatants.

Finally, there may be some misrepresentation of the events of that battle - the archers were not used as bait, they may have been poorly placed, but that would be a matter of error not scheming. That misrepresentation is fine on an IC level, but OOC we should be accurate about it.

That is the point I wish to make. There needs to be a sharp line between IC conflicts and OOC posts (or to put it another way, PC vs PC conflicts are fine, player vs player are not). There should be no such thing as OOC machinations and plots. IC, absolutely. OOC, however, we should all be working together towards the common goals of enjoyment and good stories. I feel that the previous IC events led to various OOC behaviors that should not have occurred.

First, Glory is an OOC reward, and IC conflicts should not enter into it. Glory should be earned, not bartered for, especially not with IC actions being the good for exchange and the bargain being motivated by IC conflicts.

Second, OOC discussions should not be framed with IC conflicts. House Dulver looking for assurances that they will not be used as bait should not be interpreted in the light of the negativity of the previous events.

In hindsight, the Dulver demand violated the first of those two, and reactions to it (definitely mine and I suspect others, but again I can't speak for them) violated the second.
I apologize for my part in that.

[Kevan Lyras]

Mostly agree with Baelon here. There has been some confusion and I really hope we can separate between IC and OOC.
That is why I am totally fine with Luecian (IC) suspecting his archers were used as bait, as long as the Dulver players know what was going on OOC.

There is only one thing I would disagree:

First, Glory is an OOC reward, and IC conflicts should not enter into it. Glory should be earned, not bartered for, especially not with IC actions being the good for exchange and the bargain being motivated by IC conflicts.

I think it is fine to IC barter for glory. I mean it was done in different occasions as well. E.g. Ser Myles made a yield offer to me during an intrigue, where he was willing to give up what I was looking for in exchange for "
benefitting from the glory the young knight earned due to his rapid increase in standing"
, or something similarly worded, mechanically, it was just the payment of 1 glory.
That is why I think IC, it is fine to barter for glory
"
We are willing to let you command our troops, but we would want our contribution to be properly recognized in making these lands more secure"

->
Mechanically: we want one of the glory coming from the battle....

[Athelstan]

I agree with Baelon, but the Longshores know that units can be lost and they were paid for. The archers of our house had a similar fate, but came back. Ooc phew we almost lost them, spend 1 glory and got them back to trained. IC we have a bit different thought but Yoren is to nice and I was not there to do somenthing about it lol.

[Luecian LongBow]

That is the point I wish to make. There needs to be a sharp line between IC conflicts and OOC posts (or to put it another way, PC vs PC conflicts are fine, player vs player are not). There should be no such thing as OOC machinations and plots. IC, absolutely. OOC, however, we should all be working together towards the common goals of enjoyment and good stories. I feel that the previous IC events led to various OOC behaviors that should not have occurred.

I agree with what I believe is the spirit and main point as well If my OOC conversation did not clearly define IC suspicions or thoughts compared to OOC words/thoughts then I apologize and will work to be clearer in the future. My IC and OOC thoughts on the clan battle is already present at the end of the battle of ringing hills.

[Septon Arlyn]

Moving this here because it ended up being a really long post and I don't want to clutter up the event thread any more.
[url=http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?p=52553#p52553:3m4lq5qe]Subject: [D3, any] The King's Justice: Warfare and Personal Combats[/url:3m4lq5qe]

My last post on this as I think its resolved. Could my original post been slight better, perhaps I'm not going to pretend given enough time I could have wordsmithed something better. Reality is I posted it right before leaving work to head home on a long commute to try to get the ball rolling on conversations.

The interpretation of posts works both ways however though. For instance, those that post responses that seem a negative responding tone give of a feeling to me of possibly having their own plots,machinations going on at our expense as they doth protest too much. Again given the background and circumstances I think our request is completely reasonable and fair.

Agreed, this shall be my last post on the subject as well, and I am only posting it because I think there is an important point to be made (it requires context and thus comes late in the post, so bear with me)

I suspect part of the reaction (on my part at least, I can't speak for others) is that there was a good deal of negativity surrounding the Dulver participation in the clan war:
First, there was a misrepresentation of what troops would be provided - Dulver 'turnips' vs. Ironborn mercenaries (there was another issue regarding that, but it's irrelevant to the matter at hand)
Then, once that was resolved instead of two combat units, House Dulver supplied one unit of archers and one unit of support - noncombatants.

Finally, there may be some misrepresentation of the events of that battle - the archers were not used as bait, they may have been poorly placed, but that would be a matter of error not scheming. That misrepresentation is fine on an IC level, but OOC we should be accurate about it.

That is the point I wish to make. There needs to be a sharp line between IC conflicts and OOC posts (or to put it another way, PC vs PC conflicts are fine, player vs player are not). There should be no such thing as OOC machinations and plots. IC, absolutely. OOC, however, we should all be working together towards the common goals of enjoyment and good stories. I feel that the previous IC events led to various OOC behaviors that should not have occurred.

First, Glory is an OOC reward, and IC conflicts should not enter into it. Glory should be earned, not bartered for, especially not with IC actions being the good for exchange and the bargain being motivated by IC conflicts.

Second, OOC discussions should not be framed with IC conflicts. House Dulver looking for assurances that they will not be used as bait should not be interpreted in the light of the negativity of the previous events.

In hindsight, the Dulver demand violated the first of those two, and reactions to it (definitely mine and I suspect others, but again I can't speak for them) violated the second.
I apologize for my part in that.

[url:3m4lq5qe]http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?f=53&
t=1047&
start=10#p23565[/url:3m4lq5qe]

House Dulver does not have a strong military presence. We sent support in addition to the archers because of an IC mistake i made in agreeing to the longshores loan, after only promising Ser Jon one combat unit (for 1 wealth I might add). It would be foolish to have sent our Garrison and archers to the clans and only left ourselves with engineering corps and support.

When we hired the coldbrook's there was the potential to lose a lot more wealth and even power for our house event if we lost the Calvary. Asking for a little assurance before hand that we will be compensated if we lose our units is not only IC (the Dulver's get there due) but also OOC concern.

Mercing is expensive because war is dangerous with a risk of losing units and power which are difficult to regain.

Now sometimes words and nuances are lost online but OOC I do not appreciate you saying that I, the player of Septon Arlyn, was trying to pull a fast one by the loan being repaid with long shore men fulfilling the contract to baratheld's. The way the loan was written house dulver would have gained nothing from it because it would have been repaid at cost (5 wealth) and I would have received 1 additional wealth from the baratheld's. The only change is that house solvers
Dulver's troops (which you clearly think of as inferior baelon) would have stayed home while the longshores (which most likely have the strongest or second strongest military in the game) would have given there troops.

Basically I lost the intrigue against Yoren and signed up for a bunk loan contact.

If you look at the conversation in the thread you can see that I was about to quit the intrigue a number of times because Yoren wanted what I felt where too little for what we were offering

[url:3m4lq5qe]http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?f=55&
t=1093&
start=10#p26017[/url:3m4lq5qe]

[Loreia]

House Longshore were given 1 Glory from House Marsten for participating in the battle. How they choose to spend it and whether they walk way with a net positive increase to Glory shouldn't undermine that. That Glory could have easily been spent on something else.

[Athelstan]

No one is complaining for the Glory OOC we were happy our troops survived and a successful campaign, IC it was fishy how mercenaries were protected and the archers were hang out to dry, was it on purpose or not? something different

Don't confuse ooc with IC, and Glory was spent to maintain the archers at training instead of green since they downgraded from that event.

Athelstan just has no idea of that, an Yoren was happy with the result so Athelstan is happy.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Now sometimes words and nuances are lost online but OOC I do not appreciate you saying that I, the player of Septon Arlyn, was trying to pull a fast one by the loan being repaid with long shore men fulfilling the contract to baratheld's.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was talking about an IC perception of events - which is not necessarily representative of/accurate to your IC motivations, even less so your OOC motivations. Whatever your motivations as a player or Arlyn's motivations as a character, the events were perceived by other characters as a bait-and-switch. That perception, correct or otherwise, is what I was talking about, not what you as a player were trying to do.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

sad we do't have 2 weeks for Day 3, as only struggle for commanding the troops would fill few days of good IC narration xD have in head picture of Robb Stark's men going to war, when they were yelling on each other about what positions their house should get, etc... ehhh

[Reader]

sad we do't have 2 weeks for Day 3, as only struggle for commanding the troops would fill few days of good IC narration xD have in head picture of Robb Stark's men going to war, when they were yelling on each other about what positions their house should get, etc... ehhh

See the logistics thread - making this day 2 weeks long. It's mainly fighting, which you lot can sort out for me while I do job travel stuff!

Roleplay around the command dispute sounds good too! Chances for rivalries to blossom.

[Yoren longshore]

sad we do't have 2 weeks for Day 3, as only struggle for commanding the troops would fill few days of good IC narration xD have in head picture of Robb Stark's men going to war, when they were yelling on each other about what positions their house should get, etc... ehhh

Lord Jon Umber for supreme commander!!!!! That's a fact, thats not debatable....

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Hmmm... Theo kills Daveth's brother at a tourney, then mortally wounds Ser Rickard Thorne at another tourney. Coincidence?

[Theomore Tullison]

Actually, no, Theo didn't mortally wound Richard Thorne.

He's counting on Hugo not knowing this, however.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Actually, no, Theo didn't mortally wound Richard Thorne.

He's counting on Hugo not knowing this, however.

Oh, so was that a bluff of sorts?

[Theomore Tullison]

Theomore bluffing? No virtous and honorable knight would ever do such a thing :;
):

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Theomore bluffing?

NEVER!

[Reader]

Delighted to see Dunstan pick up the baton and get some IC conflict going and Kevan responding in the right spirit!

viewtopic.php?f=175&
t=1647&
start=40

Hopefully you both win your duels and can compete over who defeated the stronger foe or have a joust/arm wrestle at some point. Lots of good non lethal ways to settle things in westeosi style!

[Athelstan]

Do bonus dice in strenght count towards knockdown?

[Yoren longshore]

Do bonus dice in strenght count towards knockdown?

Yes.

[Reader]

I can't see that in my rulebook under knockdown or strength? Sorry of I missed it.

[Athelstan]

Me also, but ive seen people roll 5d6k4 for it so I wondered, and I might just die lol

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

It would be a very easy thing to not die though.

[Sponsored content]