Re: Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

Romantic and Naive would stack where applicable, given that there's a few perceptive NPC schemers around, I wouldn't recommend the combo.

Those drawbacks not applying to simple intrigue, well it is much easier to succeed at in the first place and lesser in scope, so I don't see a big need for any changes there.

The way I read simple intrigues in the book (which is also how it has been handled in Dragonsdance and the other games I've been in) is that character A initiates simple intrigue against character B. A makes a persuasion/deception test against B, and that's it. The examples given of seducing a girl attracted to you, bluffing your way past a guard etc supports that interpretation. At any rate, that's how GB does it.

Frustration, I'm thinking maybe that frustration should work as it does in the book, but penalizes intrigue defense and/or DR. That gets the clock ticking towards defeat, but still leaves your offense intact to have a fighting chance.

[Theomore Tullison]

As things stands, I'm looking at launching next week, which means most bugs preferably should have been caught and smacked by then. For sake of momentum, I don't think I'd want to wait more than one or two weeks before getting the IC going (though possibly do "day 0" scenes which mostly would be free-form, and maybe start day 1 early with a relatively long period before day 2 starts to pick up stragglers), during which period I might tweak and change stuff at whim, I imagine that once I see actual submissions with stats I'll be getting a clearer idea about how clever my ability packages really are. Once PC stats are "locked in", changes probably shouldn't be made to the mechanics unless we discover through play that they really should be.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

As things stands, I'm looking at launching next week, which means most bugs preferably should have been caught and smacked by then.

Hint taken.  Alright, then!

I don't have permission to access the Pavilions?

Tourney grounds: for the sake of coherent narrative, maybe elaborate on what conditions the non-'privileged few hundred' sit in?

Notable Jousters: to save having to look up the information elsewhere (because we all enjoy that in the core rulebook), where the jouster doesn't have their house's surname (e.g. Ser Rennifer Waters), perhaps mention that in brackets afterwards?  Along with if they're a Great Bastard?

The Great Hall: ' the maesters believe that the Great Hall was built after the sacking of Highgarden under King Garth X Gardener'.  Without looking up the wiki entry, it's unclear if it's the building or the sacking which happened under Garth's rule.  

Courtyards and Gardens: Is the 'curse of the old gods' infertility?  It's implied from the text, but I can't find reference to it.

Beta phase discussion: 'Currently there's four player houses, and that number will stay, there are also three characters for each, in some cases it's left deliberately open-ended whether some of them is the firstborn son and thus heir.'  (1) There are now five for each.  (2) All four houses have a defined heir.
'I'm debating whether I should take some "out of circulation" and keep them NPC only, though mostly because the strings attached to them kinda demand a very specific path.' You seem to have decided against this?

House Blackbriar: 'Lord Jon is a man of peace and quiet favoring Blood, others believes that true faith demands proactivity against the godless and those having lost their way, some advocating by violence if necessary. But there are many conservative men at Gyldenhall, fearful of the change that King Daeron brings, many of them knights, those might well favor the seven's cleansing Fire.'  I think that need rephrasing somewhat.  Particularly that bit in the middle.  Summarised: 'Lord Jon favours Blood, others demand proactivity, but many conservative men favour Fire.'  So, what side are the proactives on?  

Lord Jon Blackbriar: 'he is much too tolerant to the barbs directed his way from Lady Shiera'.  So, lore question: what can a male do to respond to an insult from a female?  If they were male, a challenge to defend their honour is obvious.  With a woman, is he still supposed to challenge her, and fight her champion (assuming she can find one)?  Challenge her husband/father/brother for not keeping her in-line enough?  In the case of a Lord, can he just declare her guilty of defamation and have her flogged, or something?

Customs and Traditions: 'the godless Dornish'.  I thought the Dornish followed the Seven?  Is this prejudice that they're not really 'godly' due to their reputation, or is the adoption of the Seven by the Dornish something that's yet to happen?
'A sizable feast without at least three duels (with blunted swords) in the morning is considered a rather sordid affair.'  Sordid: 'involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives; arousing moral distaste and contempt.'  Is that really the right word?
I note that you never put in the extra detail as to what behaviours are expected of a Proper Lady.

Recent History: 'In what is assumed to be in spite of the growing opposition from his son and heir, Daeron, he allowed rumors to circulate that he was the son of Prince Aemond the Dragonknight rather than himself'.  In spite of: 'without being affected by the particular factor mentioned. see also: despite'.  I think you mean 'In what is assumed to be a spiteful reaction to the growing opposition...'.  Additionally, you may wish to add clarity by changing to '..that Daeron was the son of Prince Aemond...', to cut down on the different 'he's' in the sentence.

General considerations for Character Concept: I've not bothered to point out most typos, but this in particular bugs me, so: '10. What is your opinion and treatment of your lessers (smallfolk)? Alternatively your betters (if you are not noble).'

Benefits: for the sake of clarity, with stuff like 'Artist', where it mentions '+1 Virtue', you should perhaps add '(where relevant)', to make explicit that you still need the prerequisites.
I have a suspicion I've mention this before, but just in case I haven't:
'Charismatic: Once per day, during intrigue, you may add +3 to the result of any persuasion or deception test you have just made.'
'Blood of the Andals: Once per day, add 2 to the result of any one test you have just made. As well, choose one ability in which you have 3 or more ranks. Whenever you test this ability, you may reroll a single die. You must take the result of the second roll, even if it’s worse than the first.'
Comparing these two benefits, BotA loses +1 in bonuses in exchange for flexibility in application (doesn't have to be in intrigue), as well as a re-roll on *every* roll of a particular skill.   That doesn't seem like a particularly fair exchange, BotA is flat-out better.  I'd suggest nerfing BotA, but maybe buffing Charismatic (by giving it a secondary power, like BotA has) would also work?
Fury: Is it the weapon *base* damage or *total* damage which is modified?  I'd presume base, but elsewhere it's made explicit.

Drawbacks: With DR-reducing drawbacks (like Avaricious), it's worth clarifying if they can reduce DR below 0 (i.e. actually add to the Influence done).

Base mechanics: 'if however, you have the expertise (long blades) quality, you have (5+1=6)D, which would allow you to roll 6D+6B.'  Interesting example, given that Expertise has been removed.

Intrigue: The 'scene' paragraph made me raise my eyebrows somewhat.  At the very least, a concrete process should be stated - e.g. 'if a bonus to ID is desired, make an argument to the GM, who will make a ruling in the thread.  All rulings are final, appeals will be ignored.'  Still, I'm a bit reluctant to attach mechanical results to how convincing a player is OOC.
Perhaps clarify when you can take the first type of frustration - namely confirming that you may take it as a reaction to Influence taken, preventing you from being taken out.

...Aaaand that's all I picked up on a full pass, with the time I had available.

[Baelon Drakeson]

With the revised Maneuver action, Long Blade Fighter 2 is impossible to trigger.

Relevant Rule Text:

If you successfully use maneuver, the opponent will no longer be in range to immediately follow up with an attack action. My suggestion would be flip around the order, but still make the bonus damage contingent on a successful maneuver.

Long Blade Fighter 2
Requires: Long Blade Fighter 1

If you deal damage to an opponent with a long blade and immediately follow up with a maneuver action against that opponent, on a success your maneuver deals an amount of damage equal to your fighting rank (ignores armor) in addition to the normal effects of the maneuver action.

This is actually a slight weakening, as the attack has to exceed AR without the bonus damage, whereas previously the bonus damage would be added in prior to AR, so might have made the difference between a success with no damage and a few points getting past AR. The alternative would be to allow the effect to be triggered by a successful attack, but that would make it WAY too good at dealing with armor, in my opinion. A compromise would be to lower the damage dealt with the maneuver.

Long Blade Fighter 2
Requires: Long Blade Fighter 1

If you successfully attack an opponent with a long blade and immediately follow up with a maneuver action against that opponent, on a success your maneuver deals 1 damage per DoS (ignores armor) in addition to the normal effects of the maneuver action.

On average the damage done is reduced, but is applied more consistently.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

With the revised Maneuver action, Long Blade Fighter 2 is impossible to trigger.

Maneuver (Lesser): By pressing the attack, you can force an opponent into a disadvantageous position. Make a Fighting test (weapon skill applies) against a target in reach vs the opponent's passive Fighting (Weapons Skill applies). On a success, you force your opponent to move up to one yard per DoS in any direction, but not through obstacles. With 2 or more DoS, you also apply a -1D penalty to all tests for one round. If a maneuver would force a target into a lethal situation (into a roaring fire, off a cliff or parapet, into the tentacles of a kraken), your opponent is entitled to a routine (6) Awareness test to notice the danger and instead move into the closest space that is not immediately lethal. You may also chose to move after your opponent to the closest adjacent space limited by how far you ordinarily may move with a lesser action.

If you successfully use maneuver, the opponent will no longer be in range to immediately follow up with an attack action.

Emphasis mine.  It seems to contradict your claim?

Also, typo: 'chose' in the bolded part should be 'choose'.

[Baelon Drakeson]

*facepalm*

I even copied and pasted it in my post.

[Baelon Drakeson]

The customs post seems to deviate from the Customs entry on A Wiki of Ice and Fire on a few matters (such as the typical age of knighting and marriage, and the fostering of girls).

Some of that might be the deviation of 'standard practice' from 'tradition' - politics and house fortunes take precedence over tradition quite a bit - maybe not 'more often than not' but probably 'more often than people care to admit'.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Who is Ser Normyn Flowers?

There is an inconsistency in Ser Norman's description. He is described as being the son of Lord Ilyn's aunt, making him the cousin of Ilyn and Roland... but also he "... is everything his natural brother is not." First off, natural in that sense would mean his sibling was the bastard, not him, so that's wrong. Second, he cannot be brother if born to an aunt.

Also, "He earned his spurs at the Battle of the Prince's Pass", which was at the start of the Conquest of Dorne, in the reign of Daeron I, PRIOR to Baelor's reign. In fact, Aegon IV was 22 at the time of that battle, so if Ser Normyn was 16, his father conceived him at 6.... even for Aegon the Unworthy that's a bit young.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Graceful
You may add your breeding rank to tests involving charm, and +1D to any test involving dancing. In addition, you gain +1 virtue.

Clarification: is that the Charm *Technique*, or the Charm *Specialty*?  Relevant when you're charming someone deceptively, rolling Persuade (Act) using the GB house rules. Technique makes more sense to me narratively, fwiw.

[Theomore Tullison]

The curse of the old gods...well, it's kinda like, everyone agrees that whoever bathes there becomes cursed, there's multiple versions as to the exact nature of the curse, and none of the locals ever bathe there or can recall that anyone did so, and why should they? The only reason to go there for bathing is that you'll most likely be undisturbed if you do.

Beta phase discussion thread was intended to discuss things there, since that happened here instead, it's a leftover..bye bye thread.

Blackbriar and Shiera...hmmm, I think I need to revise that first bit, I'm trying to give people some ideas about where the house is likely to lean in the black&Fire thing, and also about what players of that house can expect to find among the NPC's, the Blackbriars also have this religious element (or maybe just one turbulent priest) which in and of itself doesn't necessarily favor either side. As to Shiera's barbs, one he is the lord of the house and thus (in theory) could take steps to show his displeasure. Right now, I'm thinking that if a lady throws too many insults at a knight/lord (or his son/squire/something), then he could confront her husband/father and demand that he sees to it that she is properly disciplined, if husband/father concedes, then it's shame on him if he fails, if he decides to stand up, there's duel time. Father/husband would do it on behalf of an insulted lady. Picture being muddled by her husband being Jon's brother. Whatever the case, him appearing to not do anything about it doesn't exactly do wonders for his reputation.

Fixed parenthood contradiction of Ser Normyn Flowers. The Battle of The Prince's Pass refers to the one major battle in Aegon IV's quickly aborted Dornish campaign. There must have been battles there during Daeron's campaign, though in 194, everyone understands that phrase to refer to the last battle that happened there.

Other stuff will have to wait, need to recover from mental drain of exams.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Question regarding the penalties on horses bearing armored riders.

Each three points of (pre-benefit) AR of the armor worn by the rider exceeding the combined Athletics and Strength ranks of a mount slows it's movement by 1 and imposes -1 on any fighting test when charging.

Is it -1 per FULL 3, or for each partial? In other words, Full Plate on a Courser (4 Athletics 1b Str) exceeds by 5; is that a -1 or a -2?

Also, this is going to make it very hard for even-stat opponents to hit at all, never mind get multiple DoS.
Consider Fighting 4 Lances 2b trying to hit against Animal Handling 4 Ride 2b. Benefits, and maneuvers can provide the same benefits to either side, so they can be ignored.
With charge, the attacker is keeping 3 dice for a maximum of 18, no matter how many bonus dice they have. Throw in a simple -1 and they are at a max of 17. The defender has a passive ride of... 18. So at best the attacker outright misses. Now, I suppose you could drop down to lighter armor, but choosing lighter armor in a joust when you can afford better just seems... wrong.

Even if you were to drop the new charge penalties altogether, the attacker is limited to at best 1 DoS, which is unlikely to lead to an unhorsing in 3 passes. 4+1+1+2 = 8 damage, even if they are only wearing Brignadine that would be fully shrugged off, and even if in Splint it wouldn't likely be enough to cause defeat (even if no injuries are taken). With no injury penalties, it's a straight up 6d6k4 against a TN 9 to stay in the saddle.... which has a less than half percent chance of failure. Fighting 4 can beat AH 3 and Fighting 5 can beat AH 4, but if the numbers are even, it's going to come down to swords every time (barring significant difference is benefits or foul play, of course).

Fixed parenthood contradiction of Ser Normyn Flowers. The Battle of The Prince's Pass refers to the one major battle in Aegon IV's quickly aborted Dornish campaign. There must have been battles there during Daeron's campaign, though in 194, everyone understands that phrase to refer to the last battle that happened there.

Ah, I was unaware of such battle. I knew Aegon IV had tried to invade by fleet in 174 (the fleet was largely destroyed by a storm on the way) and later (somewhere between 181 and his death in 184) had pyromancers build him wildfire-spitting "dragons" which burned up in the kingswood on their way to the Boneway...

I am considering signing up for Ser Roland, and was trying to get a grip on his age - lord Ilyn has to be at least in his mid thirties, as Ser Quentyn is presumably at least 16. That gives an upper bound for Ser Roland's age, and depending on the birth order of the three, Normyn's age could serve as either a lower bound or at least guidepost.

For a completely different experience, i am also considering Lady Ashara Starkwood...

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Iconic equipment grants the following additional bonuses:
Valyrian Blades (Long Blade or Dagger): Gain piercing +2, visibly carrying a Valyrian Dagger provides bonuses for lordly chivalry as if your score was three higher (but it does not counter penalties for a negative score). Being the wielder of a Valyrian Long Blade and considered worthy of that honor (Chivalry score 4+ and Fighting 5, Long Blades 3B or better) increases chivalry bonuses by +1

I believe the bolded bit needs to be revised.

Also:

need to recover from mental drain of exams.

Congratulations on completing them.

[Theomore Tullison]

The Battle of The Prince's Pass is made up by me, it's in the recent history post. Most plausible scenario being that a Reacher host under Lord Tyrell attacked through the Prince's Pass as Aegon launched his fleet, retreating when word of the fleet being lost reached them.

Ilyn and Normyn should both be in their late thirties, and there probably isn't a sibling in between. In my head Roland is low-mid twenties, and the circumstances of Normyn's birth might have made a second wife for their father more likely. But all of that are details I've left vague in case a player picks up Roland and wants the blanks filled out in a certain way, they also probably won't matter if Roland is an NPC.

It's for every full 3 AR, also revising to just make it work like extra bulk. Less speed should be balanced by the extra weight as far as a head-on charge goes.

Jousting/opposed charge, maybe throw in +1D to both if both have AH/Fighting at X/X (4/4, 5/5 or whatever...well nobody in the world has 6/6)?

Added some stuff to the the revision list.

[Baelon Drakeson]

The Battle of The Prince's Pass is made up by me, it's in the recent history post. Most plausible scenario being that a Reacher host under Lord Tyrell attacked through the Prince's Pass as Aegon launched his fleet, retreating when word of the fleet being lost reached them.

Ah, I missed that. I had not realized that you had added non-canon material in there, so I did not read it closely - my error. Perhaps add a line at the top:
"Note: some of the information below has been added to canon lore for the purposes of this game. Where there is a conflict between this post and canon sources, this post takes precedence."
Or something like that.

Ilyn and Normyn should both be in their late thirties, and there probably isn't a sibling in between. In my head Roland is low-mid twenties, and the circumstances of Normyn's birth might have made a second wife for their father more likely. But all of that are details I've left vague in case a player picks up Roland and wants the blanks filled out in a certain way, they also probably won't matter if Roland is an NPC.

Fair enough, and gives plenty of material to work with.

It's for every full 3 AR, also revising to just make it work like extra bulk. Less speed should be balanced by the extra weight as far as a head-on charge goes.

That should fix the issues, as long as the extra bulk doesn't make a warhorse slower than a dismounted knight (a real possibility when you add in barding). I do like the idea behind it, it adds value beyond 'status symbol' to the more expensive horses, and puts real meaning to the description of sand steeds not being able to bear heavily armored riders.

Jousting/opposed charge, maybe throw in +1D to both if both have AH/Fighting at X/X (4/4, 5/5 or whatever...well nobody in the world has 6/6)?

Judging by the sample characters and Ch.11 knights, I don't think the designers ever considered an Animal Handling above 3; I'm guessing jousting was always seen as a secondary concern.

Having a bonus only in certain circumstances seems both odd and somewhat awkward to use.

Another option would be to change the way AH ranks add to attacks while mounted. Instead of adding bonus dice, they add a flat modifier.  So instead of 8d6k3 for a 4/4 knight with 1b Lances, it would be 5d6k3+4. It raises both the average and maximum result but also raises the deviation... in my opinion, those are all good things. It also gives value to having multiple Lance ranks, which there isn't much of otherwise.

[Theomore Tullison]

Interesting idea, it does look promising at first glance. Certainly an improvement for jousting where characters have fighting 4, but it could widen the gap between Fighting 4 and 5 further, DP dirty tricks and benefits like BoA and Pious (which aren't directly affecting jousting, Tourney Knight is kinda like "pseudo-ranks") can presently narrow that gap, so will need to consider how that would play out. It generally raises fighting results, which may be problematic outside the joust, which could be handled by only having that rule applying to jousts.

Replacing the AH goes to bonus dice with some other effect is probably on the right track though.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Interesting idea, it does look promising at first glance. Certainly an improvement for jousting where characters have fighting 4, but it could widen the gap between Fighting 4 and 5 further,

Actually, it narrows it slightly, for two reasons.
1) Bonus dice add more benefit for the more dice being kept, so adding bonus dice gives a greater effect to Fighting 5 than 4. A flat +X is the same for both.
2) Fighting 4 characters have a lower cap on bonus dice than Fighting 5 characters, so are more likely to 'lose' some of the benefit. This wouldn't be capped, so both woud recieve the same benefit.

DP dirty tricks and benefits like BoA and Pious (which aren't directly affecting jousting, Tourney Knight is kinda like "pseudo-ranks") can presently narrow that gap, so will need to consider how that would play out.

I ignored those previously because they can be used offensively or defensively, though it is harder to add to Passive Ride than it is to the Attack roll. Still, one shouldn't NEED those to achieve consistent decent results when you have good stats.

To my mind, Fighting 4 should be good enough to consistently hit AH 4, though not necessarily with more than 1 DoS. 2 DoS should be possible, with a reasonable chance of 2 DoS. Fighting 5 vs Fighting 4 should be getting at least 1 DoS and have a good chance of 2, and maybe a slim chance of 3. The same relation should be there for Fighting 3/4 vs AH 3. Dirty tricks and benefits should then improve on that baseline.

Let's do a quick rundown of combinations. I'm assuming the attacker has AH 4 and enough Lance dice to max his bonus dice, and that the defender has max ride dice.
I've also assumed that a tourney lance still has a 1b training penalty, as it's not explicitly removed on the Various House Rules page.
I only included Fighting 4 and 5, as Fighting 3 would not qualify for knightly chivalry.. and had laughable results under both systems.
First % is for 1 DoS, 2nd is for 2, etc.; other than 1st DoS I excluded 0% results.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Book % per DoS . . . .	Proposed % per DoS
Fighting 5 vs AH 5	19%	95%, 19%
Fighting 5 vs AH 4	88%, 19%	100%, 95%, 19%
Fighting 5 vs AH 3	99%, 80%, 7%	100%, 100%, 89%
-	-	-
Fighting 4 vs AH 5	0%	0%
Fighting 4 vs AH 4	13%	76%
Fighting 4 vs AH 3	83%	98, 62%

AH 5 still breaks jousting, but at least an equally skilled attacker can land some hits. If anything, it maybe doesn't go far enough to help Fighting 4 be viable.

It generally raises fighting results, which may be problematic outside the joust, which could be handled by only having that rule applying to jousts.

By the book, CDs are typically lower than Passive Rides, but getting past heavy armors is more of a problem. with your revision, that is significantly mitigated by increased damage while mounted. More number crunching is needed, but one possible correction would be to eliminate the damage for not moving while mounted - I know, it's supposed to represent the warhorse attacking too, but I don't mind seeing that go in the name of balance (if needed of course). It's also one less contingent modifier to have to track.

[Theomore Tullison]

And it's on, now comes the recruitment phase.

Strong showing in the various OOC threads welcome, since it can't hurt if other people snooping around is seeing activity.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Hurm. I'll check it out.

Lysette Starling could be interesting. Or one of the Levalle twins...

[Theomore Tullison]

Now also with link: http://greatbastards.boards.net/

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Thanks for the link!

Would it be possible to list each NPC's Status in their description? Both for gameplay purposes and for the purpose of evaluating them as possible PCs?

[Theomore Tullison]

You mean the home house characters?

Easier to just make a master list, which I would if someone asked on the Great Bastards forum to keep the information there.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

However you want to do it, sure.

[Baelon Drakeson]

....and for the purpose of evaluating them as possible PCs?

Keep in mind that you can have a Status score below your maximum and up to 1 above (albeit with diminished effectiveness). As the immediate family of a lord, all 3 of the characters you mentioned previously (Lysette and the Levalle twins) would likely have a max status of 4, so you could have a status anywhere from 2-5.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

True true...though having good Status is wise in Intrigue, I imagine. And none of the above would be swinging swords around to solve disputes.

A good point though that Status for a PC is not a preordained number. Thanks!

[Sponsored content]