Re: Mechanical discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

The points given for lance charge DoS may need a cutoff, like only those for the first three tilts counts. Otherwise it's likely beneficial to go more than three tilts if you can't unhorse in round 1 or 2, can theoretically be better not to unhorse in those rounds either, if you manage to drag it out, odds are that it won't be though. Cutoff after tilt 3 ensures that the earlier you can unhorse your opponent, the better, no matter what.

As an exercise in determining who gets into the final 8, I say it should work well enough. Though since there was something like 10 KoQ's+various named notables at the Redwain tourney out of the NPC's, and this thing is bigger, I have a feeling that there'll be more than 24 guys with full plates and destriers involved in the fun that won't make it into the final eight, so I'd consider upping the average ransom a bit, and then let people roll some dice to see if they got more or less affluent competition than average.

I would also suggest to give any PC that doesn't get into the final 8 the chance to challenge an NPC that did so for the round of 16, provided that they defeated all their preliminary opponents, choice offered in order of total points scored (so it is possible that some PC's won't be allowed to do that).

[Baelon Drakeson]

The points given for lance charge DoS may need a cutoff, like only those for the first three tilts counts. Otherwise it's likely beneficial to go more than three tilts if you can't unhorse in round 1 or 2, can theoretically be better not to unhorse in those rounds either, if you manage to drag it out, odds are that it won't be though. Cutoff after tilt 3 ensures that the earlier you can unhorse your opponent, the better, no matter what.

The points for unhorsing your opponent in the first or second round was intended to account for that, though the concern is definitely valid;
that is certainly not what we want. Of course, trying to go for the long haul is risky - you lose points for each DoS you take as well, and of course you cannot effectively control when your opponent falls. Pushing it could even end up with a joust winner receiving negative points for their victory, and they run the risk of fluke dice leading to a loss. One would have to be able to consistently do more DoS than their opponent while still not doing enough to knock them out or off their horse. That kind of consistency would be difficult at best with the dice pools involved.

Still, I don't see any reason not to limit those points. As it stands now, the maximum points for a 1 round match (4 DoS dealt, 0 Received, unhorse opponent) is 14. The highest in 2 rounds is 13, though it would take some extraordinary luck to get that many (2 hits of 4 DoS , receiving none twice). At current the highest possible in 3 rounds is 12, though that is extremely unlikely - your opponent would have had to have stayed seated through 2 hits of 4 DoS (TN 18 ride checks and tons of damage) to be able to receive a third.

Perhaps limit the total number of points earned from lance work (after subtracting for DoS received) to 6? Then the max score for 1 pass is 14, 2 passes is 11, 3 or more is 6. Is that too extreme of a curve? I want to be rewarding skill more than chance.

As an exercise in determining who gets into the final 8, I say it should work well enough. Though since there was something like 10 KoQ's+various named notables at the Redwain tourney out of the NPC's, and this thing is bigger, I have a feeling that there'll be more than 24 guys with full plates and destriers involved in the fun that won't make it into the final eight, so I'd consider upping the average ransom a bit, and then let people roll some dice to see if they got more or less affluent competition than average.

As I see it, the ransom is effectively tied to the difficulty of the opponent. On one hand, a competitor in reality might face more than two knights of quality (someone had to have faced them in the first round) and thus get better ransoms. On the other hand, they would have a tougher competition. Certainly the reality of wealth-to-skill distribution would be wildly varying from one competitor to another, but I think it adds an unnecessary level of complexity. Besides, there are poor (or frugal) but highly skilled knights, too - would you want to add in the chance of lowered ransoms, too? I say leave it simple. Unnecessary complexity for questionable returns in verisimilitude (and low returns in terms of player enjoyment, I suspect) is not a great trade to my mind.

I would also suggest to give any PC that doesn't get into the final 8 the chance to challenge an NPC that did so for the round of 16, provided that they defeated all their preliminary opponents, choice offered in order of total points scored (so it is possible that some PC's won't be allowed to do that).

Hmm... maybe. really though, I was thinking only a handful of NCs would even be run through the gauntlet - those particularly noted as jousters, and maybe at . That would already skew the results in favor of PCs simply by taking out those who might be on par or even better than some of the less joust-oriented PCs. Why don't we see what the top 8 looks like, and decide then?

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, a KoQ has 12 Health and 10 AR, and a guy with AH 3, does 32 damage on 4 DoS, forcing three injuries and thus making the stay in saddle test unbeatable, but it is theoretically possible for a KoQ to stay in saddle through 3 consecutive 3 DoS hits. So the theoretical maximum for a KoQ is 14, 12, 9, averages are probably more along the lines of 13, 9, 6. Odds are that you'd have to be Theo or Baelon to reliably score more DoS against a KoQ, but given Theo's TK benefit, he would have an incentive to go defensive from round 3 and out if he can't take them down rounds 1 or 2, although roleplay wise, that might just be him bracing for a contest of attrition. It may be that only is Theo affected in such a way though.

My way of thinking with the challenge system is that it guarantees all PC's who makes it past the KoQ a shot at the final eight, while allowing the NPC's that are a step above KoQ in ability to make it hard on him. If Rhaenyra shows up, we're probably looking at 6+ NPC's who'd be ranked higher than most PC's.

*Based on reader comments
**If taking part

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Attendance could be determined by Status roll, perhaps? It was suggested before.

[Reader]

I say see what the Top 8 looks like and then throw in an extra match v an NPC qualifier if necessary. I'm all about PCs getting a shot at things and jousts are quick to resolve.

Don't want people to miss out.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

well, what are rules for mounted vs unmounted fighting rules, except:

- Use the mount’s Movement in place of your own.
- Gain +1B on Fighting tests made to attack non-mounted opponents.
- When riding a steed trained for war, you gain the following benefits:
If your mount doesn’t move during your turn, increase your damage BBon a successful Fighting test by +2.

Also with war lance mounted charge vs readied greatsword unmounted fighter. With readied attack against charge, does unmounted fighter get +2 bonus to damage with any fighting weapon or only one with 'Set for charge' quality?

[Reader]

well, what are rules for mounted vs unmounted fighting rules, except:

- Use the mount’s Movement in place of your own.
- Gain +1B on Fighting tests made to attack non-mounted opponents.
- When riding a steed trained for war, you gain the following benefits:
If your mount doesn’t move during your turn, increase your damage BBon a successful Fighting test by +2.

Also with war lance mounted charge vs readied greatsword unmounted fighter. With readied attack against charge, does unmounted fighter get +2 bonus to damage with any fighting weapon or only one with 'Set for charge' quality?

Mounted fighter gets animal handling as bonus dice too.

Reads like any weapon can set for a charge.

[Theomore Tullison]

With updated version of sinister, it's +2 to CD rather than -1D on opponent, as a note.

Set for charge quality (for a weapon) means that it's useless for anything else than setting for charge. The +2 to damage thing basically kicks in IF opponent charges you and you have readied. If he doesn't charge, you still get to hit him with your sword, just not with +2 damage. Technically, the action is called counterattack, not ready, but there's never been any confusion as to what people mean by "
ready attack"
.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

With updated version of sinister, it's +2 to CD rather than -1D on opponent, as a note.

Set for charge quality (for a weapon) means that it's useless for anything else than setting for charge. The +2 to damage thing basically kicks in IF opponent charges you and you have readied. If he doesn't charge, you still get to hit him with your sword, just not with +2 damage. Technically, the action is called counterattack, not ready, but there's never been any confusion as to what people mean by "
ready attack"
.

well, that made my confused. My intention was to make an attack at the same time as charging opponent (I already made standard attack roll, just waiting for opponent's post).

With updated Sinister trait, I never saw that. Well, it changes a lot about trait's power :/ You mean CD+2 for first round only, right? Hm, for this fight I hope to don't have major complications, but that may be something to consider for future.

[Theomore Tullison]

By taking the counterattack action, you basically get to make your attack the moment your opponent gets within reach, which means your attack is resolved before whatever action he wants to do is resolved. If he also charges, your attack happens first, but with +2 damage.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

By taking the counterattack action, you basically get to make your attack the moment your opponent gets within reach, which means your attack is resolved before whatever action he wants to do is resolved. If he also charges, your attack happens first, but with +2 damage.

I got information from Reader, that attacks will happen in the same moment. We don't use advanced combat rules to apply weapon range, but if opponent is going to use war lance, even with readied two-handed weapon like greatsword, I can agree that attacks should happen at least in the same moment. Even if basic rules and counterattack would favor my case :;
):

[Reader]

By taking the counterattack action, you basically get to make your attack the moment your opponent gets within reach, which means your attack is resolved before whatever action he wants to do is resolved. If he also charges, your attack happens first, but with +2 damage.

I got information from Reader, that attacks will happen in the same moment. We don't use advanced combat rules to apply weapon range, but if opponent is going to use war lance, even with readied two-handed weapon like greatsword, I can agree that attacks should happen at least in the same moment. Even if basic rules and counterattack would favor my case :;
):

Yeah, the alternative is too offensive to verisimilitude. Clear from the advanced reach rules that war lances are longer, but getting in to nitty gritty of this would slow things and be fiddly. Feel this is a reasonable compromise.

[Theomore Tullison]

Except the advanced reach rules are a load of garbage.....

Me? I say stick with RAW unless RAW is stupid or tweaking makes things more fun. Not making sense does not necessarily count as stupid. Too many things in that book doesn't really make sense if you think too hard about it.

[Reader]

Except the advanced reach rules are a load of garbage.....

Me? I say stick with RAW unless RAW is stupid or tweaking makes things more fun. Not making sense does not necessarily count as stupid. Too many things in that book doesn't really make sense if you think too hard about it.

RAW is stupid here - can as easily counterattack cavalry with a gauntlet or knife as a spear according to core rules. Common sense ruling to maintain verisimilitude.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Never bring a knife to a horsefight.

[Reader]

Never bring a knife to a horsefight.

As Ser Florian himself says!

[Reader]

Tentative rules for new characters to balance things out

- 1 Destiny Point for a full background and back-filling at least 50% of the previous story's official events and build some history. 10xp for doing half the events, another 10xp for 80% of the events.
- Opportunity to back-fill the most recent offseason for bonus XP and build some history
viewtopic.php?f=213&
t=2637
- Double XP for their first story.

Hope this strikes the right balance between rewarding old players and helping new characters get up to speed (and give them an incentive to build some IC history and use my event library!).

I keep a pretty tight control of balance and most PC growth has been guided by me and rounded characters out rather than going for Marksmanship 7 etc.

[Theomore Tullison]

First impression:

I know some new PC's may want to make a backstory not including previous chapters (and events that are "
one character per house"
should be excluded from the count at any rate), so I wouldn't tie any XP to completing those (aside from whatever might be gained from taking part in the specific event) for the sake of not incentivizing a specific backstory path.

I also think we can easily be more generous without creating the feeling among older players that they did all their hard work for nothing.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Good points, Theo. I would certainly favour it being explicit that new players can't change past events, though they could perhaps be present in a more background capacity?

[Loreia]

All for it, myself.

[Darron Greyjoy]

Yep as one of these new players I wouldn't want to ruin what you guys have already done and role played. I would be perfectly fine with doing background things while that was going on. Currently working with reader about what to do during season 2.

[Reader]

First impression:

I know some new PC's may want to make a backstory not including previous chapters (and events that are "
one character per house"
should be excluded from the count at any rate), so I wouldn't tie any XP to completing those (aside from whatever might be gained from taking part in the specific event) for the sake of not incentivizing a specific backstory path.

I also think we can easily be more generous without creating the feeling among older players that they did all their hard work for nothing.

People can reflavour existing mechanics if they want to reuse old challenges. I'll note this.

Easier to give out more later if I feel it isn't generous enough, harder to take things away.

Good points, Theo. I would certainly favour it being explicit that new players can't change past events, though they could perhaps be present in a more background capacity?

New players's can't change history/deny previous players there wins. I'll add a note to this effect too.

[Reader]

Yep as one of these new players I wouldn't want to ruin what you guys have already done and role played. I would be perfectly fine with doing background things while that was going on. Currently working with reader about what to do during season 2.

You're a good example, as we've managed to make your nemesis a character with some presence in the Narrative already.

Creates a rival existing characters are familiar with.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Yep as one of these new players I wouldn't want to ruin what you guys have already done and role played. I would be perfectly fine with doing background things while that was going on. Currently working with reader about what to do during season 2.

You're a good example, as we've managed to make your nemesis a character with some presence in the Narrative already.

Creates a rival existing characters are familiar with.

Now I want to know whom!

[Reader]

I'll let Darron do the honours, but he was reasonably prominent in Story 2.

[Sponsored content]