Re: General OOC Chatter Thread

[Baelon Drakeson]

An in-game example might be Nathan trying to Intrigue Baelon to kill his Father in hopes of preventing a war.

Complex Intrigue... absolutely.

However if Baelon wanted a ID modifier as well, I think, as a reasonable player, I would have to agree.

I just don't just see it as necessary. No matter how persuasive Nathan is, Baelon would use the Quit or Switch to Combat option long before you got the necessary VP. Now, if neither of those were an option... Baelon would be this game's Theon... and rather than prevent it from happening, I'd have reader take him over as an NC (or you take him as a cohort) and create a new PC.

Theoretically, you can get someone to commit suicide with an Intrigue (there are people on the Internet that actually do try to do this and sometimes even succeed), but I think you might have a tough time even with a Complex Intrigue unless the person is mentally unbalanced or deeply depressed.

Getting Baelon to kill himself would probably be extremely difficult. Getting Lady Blackwood to throw herself off a parapet would probably be considerably easier.

Complex intrigues have no definitive time frame. They are really more a sequence of standard intrigues than a new type altogether.
Yes, though, it would be easier to convince Lady Blackwood - she is less likely to throw you off the tower in the process... and for that matter, that can be represented easier with Reader setting a higher VP target.

The issue I have with objective-specific modifiers is that it means that objectives have to be public, which I have already argued against. Location modifiers work because you can't keep the relevant location factors secret - even if you blindfold someone, that lack of sight becomes the relevant 'location'.

[Nathaniel Mason]

The issue I have with objective-specific modifiers is that it means that objectives have to be public, which I have already argued against. Location modifiers work because you can't keep the relevant location factors secret - even if you blindfold someone, that lack of sight becomes the relevant 'location'.

Well, the objective should be stated at the outset or be readily apparent by the roleplay. At the very least, if you are going to use ???? as your starting objective, a PM should be sent to Reader prior to the Intrigue to prevent fudging (not that I am suggesting anyone here would do that. I would certainly hope not.)

If you are going to convince (or seduce, or intimidate, etc.) someone into doing something, you have to tell them what you want. It is extremely popular for people to Charm hammer their opponents through the Intrigue, only to switch to Convince at the very last second (usually because their Charm is much stronger mechanically and often used as a finishing blow to prevent quitting if the objective is allowed to be hidden.) It's perfectly within the rules, and (IMO) a very cheap ass maneuver. Doubly so if their objective has been hidden all this time.

I am strongly against hidden objectives, and will not engage in them. On this aspect, we will have to disagree.

[Athelstan]

I agree with Nathan that at least Reader should know the objective if it's secret, but don't expect much cooperation the moment you show up popping that ???? even for NPC's

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

I would be inclined to agree that secret objectives shouldn't be used, or at the very least should be sent to Reader, with a justification for why it should be secret.

[Yoren longshore]

It should be easy to see what someone's objective is through roleplay. If I ask you to pour me a cup of tea it's because I want you to do that particular thing.

[Baelon Drakeson]

The issue I have with objective-specific modifiers is that it means that objectives have to be public, which I have already argued against. Location modifiers work because you can't keep the relevant location factors secret - even if you blindfold someone, that lack of sight becomes the relevant 'location'.

Well, the objective should be stated at the outset or be readily apparent by the roleplay. At the very least, if you are going to use ???? as your starting objective, a PM should be sent to Reader prior to the Intrigue to prevent fudging (not that I am suggesting anyone here would do that. I would certainly hope not.)

I have no problem with this, though rather than PMing reader (and clogging his PM box) posting it in one's personal forum should be sufficient - and less likely to get lost. However, there should be room for misinterpretation and misrepresentation - again, my intrigue with Ben was over a relatively trivial objective - but for totally correct IC reasons he took it to be something else - that could not have happened if my objective was explicitly stated.

If you are going to convince (or seduce, or intimidate, etc.) someone into doing something, you have to tell them what you want. It is extremely popular for people to Charm hammer their opponents through the Intrigue, only to switch to Convince at the very last second (usually because their Charm is much stronger mechanically and often used as a finishing blow to prevent quitting if the objective is allowed to be hidden.) It's perfectly within the rules, and (IMO) a very cheap ass maneuver. Doubly so if their objective has been hidden all this time.

I completely agree here. Part of the problem is that the connection between technique and outcome is odd - either your technique should be determined by your objective, or the technique should have less to do with outcome. I think the creators wanted there to be flexibility in what techniques you could use for certain outcomes (iirc the example intrigue uses seduce to try to get her target to do something for her)... yet they then put defined outcomes based on what technique you used. Kind of bizarre, really.

I am strongly against hidden objectives, and will not engage in them. On this aspect, we will have to disagree.

I'm not telling you that yo have to conceal yours... I have neither any authority to do that nor any means of enforcing it. However, I will continue to use them - even if I end up in an intrigue with Nathan.
I will start posting the objectives to my private forum, and if Reader feels that my RP does not match my objective, he can smack me down for it.

[Yoren longshore]

I'm not telling you that yo have to conceal yours... I have neither any authority to do that nor any means of enforcing it. However, I will continue to use them - even if I end up in an intrigue with Nathan.
I will start posting the objectives to my private forum, and if Reader feels that my RP does not match my objective, he can smack me down for it.

I think he simply stated that he would simply exit intrigues if you did that, I don't think anyone wishes to ban it, simply stating that they won't deal in intrigues with it.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I think he simply stated that he would simply exit intrigues if you did that, I don't think anyone wishes to ban it, simply stating that they won't deal in intrigues with it.

Exactly.

Reader has used ???? against me numerous times, and I have no issue with that. He is the GM. If I did have an issue with that, I would not be playing. I trust his judgement, and I have expectations of fairness and objectivity from him.

I cannot say the same for every player that has played, is playing, or will play DD.

Aside from the potential manipulations of mechanics from players, I also firmly believe that the expectations of Intrigues between PCs should be open and transparent (OOC). So, no-one should be surprised if I quit an Intrigue or refuse to engage in an Intrigue if they choose to hide their objective from me... and I will never hide my objective from them.

Edit: And please, no-one try to charm hammer me in Intrigue. I cannot put into words how much that ticks me off (and I am reasonably competent at words).

[Yoren longshore]

Whats charmhammer? Sounds interesting

[Loreia]

I can agree with what you guys are saying. I would try to participate in intrigues, but the way I've built my character, I'd be walking into a yield at best. I created her to be able to resist persuasion, not to be persuasive, and I didn't like getting destroyed in my few intrigues with PCs.

[Septon Arlyn]

Also for those of you that are not the greatest at intrigue's I would suggest bringing along a friend who is. Just like in my combat scene I had another player character there to help me out in a situation where I am clearly outmatched. Combat monsters could do the same thing only adding in assists into the intrigue. I personally really like the intrigue combat mechanisms due to the fact that it stimulates better the complexities of a negotiations then other RP games.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Whilst House Coldbrook is renowned for being easier touches in intrigues, obviously that shouldn't exempt us from PCs trying to intrigue us. Of course, like any intrigue, it may not have the outcome you were expecting.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

What does charm hammer mean?

[Ser Jorah Holt]

hammering your opponent with charm technique

[Septon Arlyn]

I think what he means is charm is influence generation is based off of persuasion. So people with persuasion 5 deal 5 'damage' per dos where other techniques (bargain and convince) work off secondary abilities (cunning and will). So you can switch techniques in an intrigue. So you start of hitting hard with charm to lower compose down quickly and force them to take frustrations. Then you finish them off with convince or seduce or bargin to get what you want from them. Essentially you competent then on their hair children whatever then right when they are about to relent you smack them with give me a good deal on these horses or whatever you are trying to convince them to do.

[Loreia]

They're talking about you, Corrine! Aren't you flattered?

[Athelstan]

I'm so miserable against charmhammer, I proly just cry if someone started one with me lol.

[Septon Arlyn]

I would be calling the kettle black if I did not take credit for the same thing. It is effective because it works well. But I think that such shanigans should be saved for PC vs NC, if we are going PC v PC then I think you should play out the RP with it and if you choose to switch techniques have an IC reason to do so. Like when I made up the RP for my PC vs Jason lannister I made sure that my RP showed (or at least attempted to show) how I was flattering/ then convincing. That's the way I do it in my face to face game as well. I have them tell me the technique they want to use then I RP it with them. If they diverge off the track. (Say they want to "
convince"
a prisoner to reveal where their comrades are at, then proceed to threaten to cut off their ear) then I change their technique to intimidate.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

They're talking about you, Corrine! Aren't you flattered?

Not really, since they seem to be implying I don't play fair because I use my best skill.

If I have made anyone unhappy with my tp or intrigue, I'm sorry. I was not aware of any 'hammering' on my part.

[Loreia]

Hey it's alright, I don't even know who's been doing that.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

amusingly Ser Jorah doesn't have favoured technique, so charmhammer isn't an issue for him

Of course, he's only faced one complex intrigue and he lost that one.

nathaniel of course loves using seduce :;
):

[Reader]

- I like the idea of sending me a PM for any intrigue objective stated as ???.

- Try to match your RP/objective to your technique, or feel my wrath.

Will be around more over the weekend now that I'm back from holiday and Chinese oil majors have reported Q3 results! Have a few scenes to wrap-up and Day 2 to set in motion, but this should be reasonably smooth as clues are already written and event mechanics for D2 developed. Do want to personalise some greetings for D1 Bread &
Salt and put in place D1 rumours. Rumours will be linked to general knowledge (Streetwise) rumours for those who want to investigate their truth or minor issues related to the investigations (big clues generally linked to investigations, but this will let you ferret out background info on people).

[Septon Arlyn]

They're talking about you, Corrine! Aren't you flattered?

Not really, since they seem to be implying I don't play fair because I use my best skill.

If I have made anyone unhappy with my tp or intrigue, I'm sorry. I was not aware of any 'hammering' on my part.

Anyone who would be upset Would probably be people who are specialists in their own right. (I mean nearly every combat Character has fight 5, we do not complain because they can swing a hunk of metal really well, why would they complain because we are able to talk them into doing things.)

[Reader]

More thoughts:

- Some crunchier rules on NPC use, aiming to strike a balance between realism (you're important people with competent servants/vassals!), using your investments (lots of points invested in expert maesters, masters at arms and you should get to use them) and balance. Essentially, you'll largely be allowed to nominate a cohort or two from your investments to aid investigations. Bartheld/Kytley will remain an exception as the only have one PC.

- Cohorts: from Day 2, firmer rules on this. People can't pick and choose who rolls what in events where it doesn't make sense. Bread &
Salt is an obvious example - one character should roll both checks.
- I'll also be reviewing some cohort stats as I was maybe too lenient on some compared to PCs.
- I'm also expecting more from a roleplay point of view: these should feel like separate characters, not an extra set of stats. Ellie and Raff have been fine examples of good behaviour (ahem, from a roleplay point of view. Your narrator in no way condones Raff's antics).

Much of the above is solely my fault - I should have been clearer with expectations/rules.

[Reader]

Anyone who would be upset Would probably be people who are specialists in their own right. (I mean nearly every combat Character has fight 5, we do not complain because they can swing a hunk of metal really well, why would they complain because we are able to talk them into doing things.)

A good point, but I should also add that our runner up in the melee didn't have fighting 5.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pleased we've seen a diverse range of character builds succeed.

[Sponsored content]