Re: Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

That's awesome work. Adding specialties to the list of things that needs review.

I think my new and updated head of house should be worth it's DP and then some, didn't do anything with maester so that could be worth a look, might cook something up for septon (would need a gender-neutral title), too.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

Nice idea, but it seems like a lot of reading. Will look into it whenever get a chance.

[Baelon Drakeson]

That's awesome work. Adding specialties to the list of things that needs review.

Thanks, and thats probably a good idea. In general you seem to want to encourage diversification, and the best way to do that is a steeper cost curve for increasing ranks. Maybe something like having the cost per rank double at each rank, rather than increase linearly. Ok, crunching it out that's probably a bit too severe of a curve... it makes getting 5b in a specialty more expensive than getting 5 in an attribute... but then again, considering what 5b in Strength can do with a Powerful weapon, maybe that's not such a bad thing. The costs for 1b and 2b are the same, and 3b is reasonable. Of course, even 3b in Strength can be quite significant.

Cost Scheme |	0b to 1b (total cost for 1b) |	1b to 2b (total cost for 2b) |	2b to 3b (total cost for 3b) |	3b to 4b (total cost for 4b) |	4b to 5b (total cost for 5b) |
Rulebook	5 (total 5)	5 (total 10)	5 (total 15)	5 (total 20)	5 (total 25)
GB Current	5 (total 5)	10 (total 15)	15 (total 30)	20 (total 50)	25 (total 75)
Doubling	5 (total 5)	10 (total 15)	20 (total 35)	40 (total 95)	80 (total 175)

Alternately, instead of increasing the COST of high specialty ranks, you could lower the maximum that can be taken. Perhaps make max specialty ranks = half attribute (round down) instead of full attribute; so if you have a 2 or 3 you are limited to 1b and a 4 or 5 is limited to 2b. Maximum bonus dice on a roll wouldn't be adjusted, so bonus dice from Benefits would still be useful (and arguably more useful). Of course, there would still be little reason NOT to put a few dice into Run, Strength, Ride, and anything else that nets you passive effects, which could have a distorting effect on various mechanics.

I think my new and updated head of house should be worth it's DP and then some, didn't do anything with maester so that could be worth a look, might cook something up for septon (would need a gender-neutral title), too.

That wasn't really my point... but if you think about it, Benefits will always have varying 'values'. For instance if Head of House is balanced to 1 DP and Head of House grants a greater effect than Heir, then Heir is a 'weak' benefit. Now, I put 'value' and 'weak' in quotes intentionally - the 'value' of a benefit and whether or not it is 'strong' or 'weak' will often depend on the specific character mechanics.

Just a side thought for balancing those two benefits specifically, it seems like a lord's reputation/chivalry score could be affected by the actions of a subordinate, as it may be suspected that the head of house ordered the subordinate's actions... like how Ser Gregor's actions in the Sack of King's Landing and later in the Riverlands during the War of Five Kings reflected poorly on Tywin Lannister... not that it hurt him much. Actually, that might be a good offset to the benefits of Lordly Virtue in general.

[Theomore Tullison]

Interesting, idea.

I'm doing something along that path with influence, as that's mainly something wielded by the head of the house, but what his subordinates are up to are much more likely to gain or loose influence through events as whatever he does. Though that's not quite the same, them acting out of whack limits the available influence to spend during intrigues for him. Adding a line about tolerating dishonor of those under one's charge (and acts of dishonor in general) under things that reduces chivalry sounds like something that should be there anyway.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I don't have it in me to do the full in-depth analysis Baelon has, but I had a few more small thoughts:

1) I note you have now included a maester with conflicting loyalties as a suggested PC, which I like.

2) The 'Furious' drawback is, I feel, a little anaemic - Taunt is such a rarely-useful ability since it directs their ire towards you. Personally, I recommend having it impact both Taunt and Incite, because the latter is still based on making someone angry, but it directs that anger elsewhere, making it, in my view, more useful.

3) If your intention is to increase diversification, I frown somewhat at your Chivalry/Virtue requirements for specialities. For abilities, it still works - you pay 40xp for your first point in C/V (2->4), then 50xp for your second (4->5), but for specialties, you pay 30xp for your first point (0->3) and only 20 for your second (3->4) - though this is ignoring the decreasing other returns - personally, I like the 'capped by ability' idea proposed above. While I don't recommend it, you could, in my view, legitimately charge 15xp for the first point, 10xp for the second, and 5xp for every point afterwards, as that would more accurately correlate cost with worth (though, of course, that wouldn't increase diversification). This would make Benefits like 'Favoured of Nobles/Smallfolk' actually useful, as suddenly a conditional +1B to all Persuasion rolls saves a *lot* of xp. But anyway, that was just an idle thought I thought to share.

4) Chivalry/Virtue again: Blood of the Andals gives a point, but Blood of Valyria doesn't? Also, Favoured of Nobles doesn't? (Maybe even Favoured of Smallfolk for Chivalry? And Artist for Virtue?) How about Inspiring and Leader of Men for Chivalry? Just throwing them out there.

5) Random observation to end: I made a few characters for fun (like Davain, it's something I enjoy). None of them were Apprentices. Character concepts which were predominantly defined by their strengths I went with Journeyman. Character concepts which predominantly were defined by their weaknesses, I went with Master.

[Theomore Tullison]

Because Valyrians are incestuous

[Theomore Tullison]

First impressions when tinkering with making NPC stats for some of the sample characters being that the ability XP allotment and cost is relatively close to where I'd want it, possibly nudge the XP granted for abilities upwards by 30 or 50 for all categories. The value of DP may need an upwards adjustment to make apprentices more attractive as is, some events have more powerful effects for DP usage, might for example bake in that DP's as a rule affects all three rolls in a three-test format. Either that or drawbacks needs to be made something that will sting, I'm contemplating having the rule that I will only put on final stamp of approval on characters where I see each of their drawbacks going to noticeable hurt them or I can think of ways to make it so.

Specialties seems to have a bit too steep a rise in costs, so a 10-15-20 progression rather than 5-10-15 might be better (accompanied with +50% more XP for specialties). Not unsurprising overall seeing that I'm quite used to the 10-30-30 progression of abilities and 10-30-50 is just a tweak, while 10-10-10 to 5-10-15 is a much more drastic shift. Probably will do stats for the rest of the sample characters, then experimenting with different rates.

Chivalry/Virtue, first impression is that reducing to every specialty rank above 1 may be prudent. And maybe lower the specialty rank requirements from 2 to 1 where applicable. Willem Starling got 8 chivalry which sounds a bit high (though he should be among those with the highest rating in the universe), Lysette got 4 virtue, 2 of which comes from being virginal, which doesn't seem all that bad. Need to stat out more knights and ladies to see what sort of ranges I get. In my mind when I set up events, I generally assume a virtue/chivalry score of an average character to be 3, usually by upping the TN of any tests where you get to add it as a bonus by 3 above what it otherwise would have been. That should work as long as scores above 5 aren't too common. It may be an idea to drop the point scoring system based on abilities/specialties and simply have standard rank be half status, then adding bonuses/penalties for applicable qualities and let the story do the rest. In general, I think higher chivalry scores will be less of an issue than virtue.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Personal thoughts, based just on my generation of a number of characters:

possibly nudge the XP granted for abilities upwards by 30 or 50 for all categories.

I'd suggest 30. I quite often found myself cutting my concepts down, then wishing I had just 30xp more. With 50, I'd be more relaxed. ... Of course, the more you increase it, the greater attraction Apprentice has, since you have enough points to reach the necessary level of competence for more concepts. For example, a (to my mind) bog-standard intriguer with 4 in each intrigue-relevant stat, and a 3 in Language (for literacy) cannot be accomplished with an Apprentice at the moment (10xp short), and that's without anything in Knowledge, Healing, or anything incidental like that. With 30xp extra, you can create a decent all-round Apprentice intriguer.

some events have more powerful effects for DP usage, might for example bake in that DP's as a rule affects all three rolls in a three-test format.

I like that. Most importantly, it means that an Apprentice can feel 'safe' actually using their DP for 'fun' stuff like increasing disposition (which, to me, is a key strength of the Apprentice), rather than hoarding them all for events, to give them the chance of reaching parity with others rolling more dice.

I'm contemplating having the rule that I will only put on final stamp of approval on characters where I see each of their drawbacks going to noticeable hurt them or I can think of ways to make it so.

This, to me, also makes sense. I can't remember the game which said it in such words (possibly more than one), but it said something like 'A disadvantage that doesn't actually disadvantage the character is no such thing'.

Specialties seems to have a bit too steep a rise in costs

I did note that I had to be a *lot* harsher in cutting down on Specialties from my 'ideal' than I did with Abilities. Though I did typically burn a lot of points reaching rank 3 in a single specialty for the +1 C/V. Interested to see how your new method will work out.

Willem Starling got 8 chivalry which sounds a bit high (though he should be among those with the highest rating in the universe)

I made Ser Honourable Honourableson, True Knight of the Realm (at Journeyman level), focused entirely on raising Chivalry as high as I could. I managed to hit 10. They actually weren't a particularly skilled fighter, but they were a surprisingly competent intriguer (Persuasion 4, and 5 Influence with most things, thanks to Eloquence and Chivalry (which naturally only works if the bonuses are applied in that order, but they were just made for fun - still you may want to consider making a ruling on the validity of that), only really let down by a Deception of 2 making them too easy to read). Despite making them as an experiment, I think they could actually be a pretty fun character.

In general, I think higher chivalry scores will be less of an issue than virtue.

Really? Chivalry has Anointed giving +2 and True Knight giving +3. While I never made Virtue Virtuesdottir, the highest any of my female characters would hit, even if they were 18-year-old uncontested virgins, was 6. One year and one nasty rumour campaign later and she's down to 3. I'm not sure if the 'years unwed' penalty goes or remains after marriage? So, say a woman married at 20, with a -2 penalty to her Virtue. Does she keep the -2 penalty indefinitely, for marrying late, or does it reset to 0 for 'okay, you're married now, it's cool'?

Side-thought about virtue, since we're discussing it. I can't help but wonder if perhaps women should gain virtue for bearing healthy male heirs for their husband? (Up to +2, one each for the heir and spare). While I can't be sure of any canon instances, it would seem apt that women who have popped out the 2 requisite males are admired more than one who only pops out relatively useless females (totally unfair, of course, but that's kind of the point).

[Baelon Drakeson]

Specialties seems to have a bit too steep a rise in costs, so a 10-15-20 progression rather than 5-10-15 might be better (accompanied with +50% more XP for specialties). Not unsurprising overall seeing that I'm quite used to the 10-30-30 progression of abilities and 10-30-50 is just a tweak, while 10-10-10 to 5-10-15 is a much more drastic shift. Probably will do stats for the rest of the sample characters, then experimenting with different rates.

I am still concerned about the relative ease of high specialties. Here's an example character.

Ser Bronn the Brawny (Master):

On the whole, the character's strengths are ridiculously good (non-jousting combat) and weaknesses (intrigue) are still playable. Some of that is perhaps that the revised Tough is too strong, but there are plenty of other ways to abuse high specialties without using any of the new or revised mechanics.

[Loreia]

For PCs beginning play, maximum of half Ability for a character with Fighting 4-5 means negating half or all of the bonus dice when using a weapon with training requirements. Considering the idea on its own apart from specialty cost, for some wiggle room, I'd make it half rounded down plus one die, for those who want to use dice for training penalties. with this change, a PC with Fighting 5 can choose to roll really well with 5D and 4B, or roll almost as well with a weapon that requires training, with 5D and 2-3B by spending more for the extra bonus die. I will grant that it wouldn't affect Intrigue PCs much, if at all.

GB Abilities for a PC I created, converted for the following rules on specialty costs for comparison.
Apprentice, young woman, age 16-18
Qualities: Attractive, Courteous, Water Dancer 1 (no relevant Flaws).

Abilities (current GB rules):

Specialties:

Virtue 4 (GB), 5 (Rulebook), 4 (Doubling), 3 (10-15-20)
Virginity is questionable.

I imagine her getting involved in combat as conflict mounts in a game, and having to 1v1-2 on a few occasions either defensively or offensively in a war, but certainly not join battles, and definitely not enter duels with armored knights(at least until she becomes Syrio Forel).

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I am still concerned about the relative ease of high specialties.

Is that really a problem in itself, though? Or is it a problem with the Powerful trait? If, hypothetically, Tough had its 'max absorb half damage' tested *after* armour deductions (so, you have AR 10, you take 12 damage, you may only absorb 1 out of the 2 left over), and Powerful only gave +1 damage per 2 ranks in Strength, would you see it as a problem still? This isn't rhetorical - I'm not sure why you have Shields 4B, in my (outdated) book, Shield Mastery gives a flat +1 bonus to defence and a Tower Shield has 2B training and +6 bonus, so I'm not sure where your +8 total comes from, so you're clearly doing stuff that going over my head.

[Theomore Tullison]

Updated Shield Mastery gives +1 CD per specialty rank.

Some of the excesses can be handled by gentle narrator nudging.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I am still concerned about the relative ease of high specialties.

Is that really a problem in itself, though?  Or is it a problem with the Powerful trait?  If, hypothetically, Tough had its 'max absorb half damage' tested *after* armour deductions (so, you have AR 10, you take 12 damage, you may only absorb 1 out of the 2 left over), and Powerful only gave +1 damage per 2 ranks in Strength, would you see it as a problem still?  This isn't rhetorical - I'm not sure why you have Shields 4B, in my (outdated) book, Shield Mastery gives a flat +1 bonus to defence and a Tower Shield has 2B training and +6 bonus, so I'm not sure where your +8 total comes from, so you're clearly doing stuff that going over my head.

An excellent question. I built a combat specialist because I wanted to test out how much intrigue benefit you could get from just Chivalry/True Knight. However, there are a lot of per-specialty-die effects, mostly from benefits but a few others.

Shield Mastery was revised (in the revised Ch.5 document) to give +1 CD per bonus die in shields, up to double the shield's normal value. A large shield is Defensive 4, so with SM and 4b in shields you get a total of +8.

A jousting master might want a lot of Ride dice for passive AR - the difference going from 5AH 2 Ride to 5AH 4 ride is huge, as your passive ride goes up to 24, meaning you can joust defensive for a 26... meaning a 4 fighting opponent needs to joust Aggressive or High in the Saddle AND get a perfect roll to even get a single DoS. They could also get great value out of Tourney Knight by putting many ranks into Status(Tournaments). Or do both to be even more ridiculous.

An intrigue master might want to abuse the new Famous to get a similar effect as the old Eloquent - even a Status 3 character could take 3b in Reputation to be rolling 6d6 Reputation. As a bonus, Shield of Reputation has a very high chance of success. Or they might want to be totally inscrutable and put a bunch of points into Bluff to be nigh-immune to Read Target.

Many of the weapon benefits let you sacrifice bonus dice for significant effects, having more to sacrifice (or enough to sacrifice a few and still have some left) can be very powerful.

Acrobatic Defense is twice as effective as shield mastery (+2 CD per Dodge specialty), but with hefty costs (no bulk from armor, takes a lesser action).

Even the 'reroll 1s' type of benefits are often capped based on specialty dice.

EDIT:

Some of the excesses can be handled by gentle narrator nudging.

True, but why put a burden on yourself if not necessary? If it is unspecified then it may be subject to power creep (as happened in this game), if it is built into the rules then it is much harder to abuse (intentionally or otherwise).

[Theomore Tullison]

Exams getting close means this gets the backburner-treatment, mostly having fun with events atm, did some tinkering with chivalry/virtue (though not touched qualities after I added the part where the qualities themselves will note whether they affect chivalry/virtue or not to the amended draft).

By the looks of it, the score will come up in so many events that it should offer sufficient discrimination against the rabble, the unladylike and the non-gallant to do what I want it to do.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I realise that putting it on the back burner means this is probably wasted, but I have opinions I thought I'd share, take them for what they're worth.

The first subject is the defined NPCs, and what I call the 'and what?' problem.  This is a test I put all my generated characters through, but it's a bit hard to define (and undeniably subjective), so I'll mention what attracted me to playing Daveth - there were a few things, but the biggest was the conflict with his brother over the inheritance.  I doubt many remember, but to start, Daveth's brother was a PC (IIRC, he posted exactly 100 times, then left without a word).  There was conflict there, classic conflict - but with a twist, subverting expectations (both wanted the *other* to inherit).  So, to define (starting) Daveth in a line, I'd say something like 'A bookish, non-martial young man, and he wants to use his talents to give the House's succession crisis the best result for the house, rather than for himself personally'.  There was some *conflict* embedded in the character, some drama, some 'hook' to drive the action.  This, to me, is the key strength of 'pre-defined' PCs.  Without that, the player might as well make up a character themselves.  Having said all that, I'd like to quickly go over the defined (potential) PCs.  Please don't take any of this personally, I'm trying to be constructive.

Lord Willem Starling
A chivalrous lord.  The main 'conflict' I can see is that of his daughter's marriage.  He is unlikely to want to accept someone not of martial skill.  Great.  To me, he comes across more as a McGuffin than a PC - his favour is something various people around him wish to gain, with various agendas, but he himself lacks ... drive?  Maybe once PCs are defined, he can be in favour of one candidate, but his daughter favours another, so you have a clash of wills within the household there?  Or of course, with these highly chivalrous types, there's the classic 'if only he would just...' - there's a problem, maybe with some of his knights, and if he would be willing to bend his honour *just this once*, he could fix it relatively quickly, but so far, he's resisted any temptation to do so, and firmly forbidden others from doing it either, insisting on solving the matter honourably, even if that doesn't seem to be working.

Lady Lysette Starling
No problems here - she's at the centre of a conflict, the premise hints she has an agenda, but doesn't define what it is.  Drama, and hooks, but not in a straitjacket.  5/5.

Septa Marei
Not much here, beyond her tie to Lysette.  She has a highborn upbringing, implying that maybe she may carry an agenda from her old house ... if she hadn't been around so long that it would strain credulity far beyond breaking point.  Aside from maybe acting as a sounding board for Lysette, what is this character going to *do*, exactly?  What does she have that a player saying "I want to play a Septa for .... let's say House Starling!" wouldn't?

Maester Marlon
Well, bias here, as I'm pretty sure I inspired this guy, but another good one in my book - he has suspected biases (which other characters would know about), regardless of whether or not he actually has them.  He's got a great neon sign over his head of 'engage with me if you want to do X', provoking drama, conflict and suspicions.  A bit reliant on others actually doing so, but given that it's the key conflict of the setting, it seems likely.


Lord Alliser Levalle
Great - his house provokes lots of drama and conflict simply through trying to survive now the new monarch is ruling.  With so many 'troublesome' figures within the house, attempting to navigate gaining enough power to survive without gaining enough (additional) notoriety to provoke a strong response would be an interesting challenge.  Without a doubt, the best Lord to be a PC in my view.

Ser Imry Levalle
Another great one - it's right there what his drive is - simple and relatable.  Rash people wanting to prove themselves are a *great* source of drama.

Lady Lyanna Levalle
Okay, so she (maybe) doesn't like her husband.  And?  Is she particularly honourable, getting her into conflict with the rest of her new family?  Has her loneliness made her reach out to people who maybe she shouldn't?  She needs *something* more, in my eyes, else she's just 'unhappy Westeros wife #7942'.

Ser Robyn
Brave man.  Another one I like - he can't get respect, due to his background, despite being a knight.  I really, really like that it's not defined what he's like as a person, morality-wise: he's uncouth and his fighting is brutal, because of his background, but there's nothing to say that he doesn't behave as a knight should.  He could be a noble knight, but the elitist attitudes of the culture work against him ever being accepted.  Or he could be a brutal street tough, using the ill-gotten knighthood to shield himself from the just consequences of his actions - either concept is possible, and both are interesting (to me, anyway).


Lord Ulbert Starkwood
Another super-honourable Lord.  And?  One issue that this brings is if he's already committed to one side, and his history says he will not ever, ever break his word, no matter the cost ... why play him?  His house isn't involved in any particular obvious drama, aside from the main one (which, as I said, he's already committed in).  He's not even interested in fighting in tournaments.  So, what exactly do you expect him to be *doing* should a PC take him?

Ser Symon Starkwood
So, he squired at Highgarden, and is more personable and warm than his father.  And?  I'm not even sure if he's the heir.  If he is, and Highgarden is leaning towards Fire (at least the elements he was associating with, at the moment are), I can see conflict there between him and his father, but that's pure speculation.  Personally, I see nothing there that would attract someone to take him, as opposed to making their own knight.

Lady Ashara Starkwood
Or 'Lady Rorschach' as I think of her.  There's definitely hints that she has a definite agenda (and she seems to be wearing armour in her profile pic, and her hair does seem *remarkably* pale considering her father's shade, but that's probably reaching), though there's not really any hints as to what it is.  I mean, given that she's described as 'A pale haunting beauty ... [unable] to really catch the eye', I'm not even sure if she's supposed to have 'Attractive' or not.  I feel like she could do with a bit more 'filling in', but maybe she's good 'as is', in a 'bring your own agenda' kind of way?  (Though there's little enough here that I feel like her concept could be transported to any of the other houses without issue).


Lord Jon Blackbriar
The house most explicitly in 'civil war' over the future, with a lord considered just and kind and impartial in his rulings.  There's potential there, but I do feel like he falls into the same trap as Lord Willem Starling, where he's more of an object other people with agendas revolve around, rather than someone with a strong agenda himself.

Septon Abelar
A pious man, wielding the smallfolk as a weapon to push his fanatical agenda.  This works, for me.  It doesn't define what that agenda is, but it's there, it's (probably) sincerely held, and he is dangerous enough to push for it, regardless of consequences.  I think it would require a skilled player to avoid him coming across as too one-note, but there's definite potential for a memorable character there.

Lady Erena Blackbriar
She's a dutiful wife, perhaps overly attached to her son.  And?  Is there some conflict that maybe her son isn't seen as martially suitable, but she's pushing for him to be so, as she really, really doesn't want him to be a Septon?  What makes her distinct from the 800 other dutifully-married women of Westeros?


Now, like I said, this wasn't intended as an attack, rather as some constructive criticism (I've been reading up on characters and narrative a lot recently, in preparation for a face-to-face game of my own).  We had defined potential PCs in this game, and only a few were taken (Yoren, Dunstan, Arlyn, Walton, Davain, Fendrel (briefly), Ayleth, Corrine, Gwyneth, and myself) (apologies if I missed any, I deliberately ignored those who only played very, very briefly) (although now I list them out, it seems to be more than I felt it was, but still, I think the point holds).  I feel like providing a 'hook' for the player to be all 'Yes, *this* is the kind of story I want to be involved with!' would help with them being chosen over 'all new' PCs.  


Secondly, why would anyone take 'Charismatic'?  1/day +3 to result of Intrigue.  Compare with Talented (Persuasion): +1 to *every* roll with an ability, with a re-roll every time you roll.


Finally, Chivalry/Virtue:
Maybe give a guide for what ages are 'appropriate' for Apprentice/Journeyman/Master women, given that you're tying it to 'desirable' ages?  Obviously, these would be somewhat flexible, but if you're saying you'd expect Masters to be at least 35 years old, then the player knows it's a significant discrepancy if they want their Master character to be 22.

I find it significant that there seems to be no real emphasis on 'marrying well'.  Take a young unwed lady, Apprentice of good standing, Status 3, no Reputation.  She currently has 4 Virtue.  She makes a big step up in the world, and marries a well-respected Lord - a highly desirable match.  Let's say he's Status 5, Reputation 3 (and hence, Chivalry 4, 7 if he qualifies for Lordly Chivalry).  What happens to the Virtue of this lucky lady?  Well, it drops from 4 to 1. (3/2, round down).  That ... doesn't sound right.  
Second example, a female Great Bastard (Status 5, Reputation 1), getting over the hill a bit (Master), of ... questionable purity (so, Virtue 0), decides to tie the knot before her beauty fades entirely.  While there's no stated penalty should she marry one of the smallfolk, let's assume that falls under the 'well, duh' category and keep it vaguely reasonable - with her reputation, it turns out the only person she can marry is ... well, let's say Ser Robyn of House Levalle is the lucky guy.  Status 3 (probably with a Flaw).  And because of that, her Virtue goes up from 0 to 3?  Again, doesn't sound quite right.
Maybe have the wife use her husband's Chivalry base as her Virtue base?  And the husband takes a -1 penalty to that base number if his Wife's Status is lower than his?  (And maybe a +1 bonus if it's higher?)  (I imagine it's harder for women to have Reputation, so I'm ignoring that part).

The final point I'd like to note is that you've removed the social bonuses for high Chivalry.  Fair enough, but that was *a* solution to a notable issue with this system - that knights tend to get pushed around socially by women a lot, since noblewomen don't have a vast amount of areas to put xp in, apart from Intrigue, while Knights have all the combat stats (and it's even worse for Lords).  While the numbers are completely made up, I can see a good argument for giving characters who qualify for knightly Chivlary (say) 100/40 extra xp, and those who qualify for Lordly Chivalry get 150/60 extra xp.  (Maybe with limits on how they may be spent.)

While I do like that the new virtue system encourages 'lower xp' builds for unwed women, the difference is still nowhere near enough, in my view.  This is more of a 'discussion starter' than a fully fleshed-out idea, so don't take it as anything more.

[Theomore Tullison]

Hmm, flat intrigue bonuses for having positive chivalry score might be a solution without leaving the system vulnerable for honorable honorableson. Not very appealing with direct XP grants however, bonuses to some intrigue related tests seems appropriate.

For sample characters, yeah, there's a few of them that aren't really PC material, Lyanna mostly is there to make things darker and edgier as an NPC in a way that I do not think will work at all if she's a PC, Symon being heir or not is left ambiguous so that a player might choose to play him as an heir, or not, or make another PC to be the heir instead. Although I think Starkwoods needs some with ambitions to add to the mix, the intent is to come up with five characters for each home house, trying to offer a mixture of boring stalwarts, incorrigible schemers, knightly knights. The main challenge with the lords is that their NPC version's needs to keep a relatively low profile politically to let other PC's gets to shine and pursue their own agendas without too much conflict, with Alliser Levalle there's a good reason as to why he acts that way, while at the same time, he very much does engage in politics. Willem is a good fit for someone wanting to play a tourney knight that would prefer not to play politics but gets dragged into it all the same, the closest dragonsdance parallel would be Dunstan in terms of appeal, so I think some players might find him interesting while others wants something else. The other two? A bit more work is needed methinks. Starkwoods in particular needs someone with a greater inclination to play politics than the present cast.

One difference between chronicle starter where the characters are fully fleshed out and my approach is that I try to leave as much as I can to be a blank canvas, what goes into the public description of those characters is in my head set in stone (though public perceptions need not be accurate), while the rest is for players to figure out if they want to play him/her. I have some ideas about the rest, Ser Robyn's morality is defined in my notes, but my notes are just for me to have an idea of how NPC's will behave.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Just  a quick note that the below is just stream-of-consciousness, I haven't crunched any numbers or thought too deep about the suggestions.

The final point I'd like to note is that you've removed the social bonuses for high Chivalry.  Fair enough, but that was *a* solution to a notable issue with this system - that knights tend to get pushed around socially by women a lot, since noblewomen don't have a vast amount of areas to put xp in, apart from Intrigue, while Knights have all the combat stats (and it's even worse for Lords).

You know, I've been thinking about this for completely other reasons. Now, I haven't read the revised chivalry/virtue mechanics, but I think this is a larger issue so the point should still stand.

I think that to a large extent, the problem is that there is little difference in the system between winning an intrigue and not losing it. That is, excepting the vaguely consequence-laden 'quit' option, the only way to not lose is to win completely (this is of course setting aside all notions of a negotiated yield). That doesn't seem quite right. I can recall many circumstances where person A has an agenda and thus starts an intrigue, but person B's only goal is to not be influenced by person A. having no agenda of their own, person B should not need to win an intrigue so much as withstand it. Even with a decent ID and Compusure, if the knight only has a 2 persuasion/deception they will be unable to win against a dedicated schemer - the schemer will eventually wear them down - 'offensive' intrigue stats are necessary to win. The problem being that anything that helps a non-specialist win makes a specialist even better at winning. However, the same is not true for not losing.

On one hand the Quit action fills this gap. So long as you can leave the scene you can not lose without also winning. On the other hand, the vague 'consequences' for doing so are problematic. Perhaps all that is needed is a clarification of those consequences and perhaps a way to avoid them. Now, with no consequences at all, one could simply take the Quit action in the first round - making intrigue against an unwilling partner impossible. That's too far.

I would suggest something like 4-[difference in Status] rounds. So a schemer of Status 2 targeting a Status 3 knight would have to win in 4-[3-2] = 3 rounds or their target can Quit without consequences. On the other hand, a status 5 schemer would have a much easier time against that status 3 knight, 4-[2-5] = 7 rounds. Perhaps some other conditions like: you can only quit consequence-free if you did not initiate the intrigue, if you did not use various actions (influence, assist, manipulate, etc), and/or the quitter's chivalry/virtue would be damaged by doing what the other person wants.

What the consequences are should be clarified as well. I'm thinking that a mandatory loss of disposition by both parties AND a rumor that the two parties are at odds over something (with no details). This hurts both individuals (putting some risk on starting an intrigue), but in general the more skilled schemer should have an easier time manipulating the rumors or convincing people that the disagreement was due to a breach of conduct by the early quitter. Alternately, it could also automatically convert the intrigue into a complex intrigue and grant a victory point towards completing it - meaning that eventually the early quitter will be forced to stay the course or lose anyway.

With that sort of 'escape mechanism' available, chivalry and virtue could simply give bonus defensive stats to make it easier to get to the 'consequence free' Quit. Honor McHonorson might then be fairly impervious to seduction or otherwise being convinced to do something dishonorable, but they would not be able to use that to get others to do things.

[Theomore Tullison]

I did write a little bit about that in the intrigue section, quitting the intrigue won't force you to leave the scene when I'm in charge of things and the consequences of doing that may or may not affect the opinions of you in the eyes of witnesses. More lenience is shown to people clearly out-manned/outgunned than those using quit to avoid taking defeat in a relatively even match, IC, that probably will come off as rude.

Important part there in my mind is that the player is always the final arbiter of what their character might be talked into doing, in the extreme case, that could imply that the schemer can win the intrigue, yet achieves nothing. Hopefully there's a middle road between those places.

Some mechanism to aim for honorable draw or settle for partial victory is an idea worth exploring. Not quite sure how to play it, maybe an influence action where instead of dealing composure, count total DoS and when hitting will rank, the intrigue ends or something along those lines.

[Theomore Tullison]

Trying to spice up the gallery a bit.

Jon Blackbriar and the addition of his brother in particular, but Willem and Marei got a little bit extra, too. Didn't do anything with Erena, but updated husband and brother-in-law could shake things up for her. I'm thinking that adding a wife to Donnel that poses a more apparent potential threat to the peace and quiet sounds like what just what the Blackbriars needs to be interesting enough.

Starkwoods I'm out of ideas for atm.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I did write a little bit about that in the intrigue section, quitting the intrigue won't force you to leave the scene when I'm in charge of things and the consequences of doing that may or may not affect the opinions of you in the eyes of witnesses. More lenience is shown to people clearly out-manned/outgunned than those using quit to avoid taking defeat in a relatively even match, IC, that probably will come off as rude.

Important part there in my mind is that the player is always the final arbiter of what their character might be talked into doing, in the extreme case, that could imply that the schemer can win the intrigue, yet achieves nothing. Hopefully there's a middle road between those places.

Some mechanism to aim for honorable draw or settle for partial victory is an idea worth exploring. Not quite sure how to play it, maybe an influence action where instead of dealing composure, count total DoS and when hitting will rank, the intrigue ends or something along those lines.

I read what you have the Intrigue section and I don't think that it suggests that losing/quitting an intrigue is risk free. That's good. However, I still think that a mechanical system of some sort has significant benefits - it takes a lot of the grey area out of interpreting what it means to lose an intrigue with an unreasonable objective (e.g. seducing Honor McHonorson).

Honestly, it's not that hard to avoid such a scenario, unless you accept an intrigue without knowing the opponent's objective ahead of time. however, unless Honor McHonorson has an IC reason to avoid Seducey McSeductress it is metagaming. Further, 'unreasonable' intrigues can lead to some really interesting roleplay and character/plot development... so I think it should be encouraged for such situations to occur without necessitating that the loser either act out of character or ignore the outcome of the intrigue altogether.

Knowing that winning the intrigue will (probably) not provide instant results means that Seducey McSeductress is more likely to engage an IC appropriate 'target' without having to worry about it being completely ignored, and will make Honor McHonorson's player less likely to avoid intrigues like the plague. Afterwards though, knowing that Seducey McSeductress has a point towards a complex intrigue to seduce Honor McHonorson means Honor McHonorson will likely avoid Seducey if he can... but now there is an in character reason instead of a purely metagame one (and the avoidance can be the subject of rumors, possibly getting other players involved), plus the characters got to have an interesting scene they would not have otherwise... and if Honor McHonorson gets cornered again, maybe Seducey McSeductress can get yet another point, raising tensions even higher.

I mean, I look at Arianne Martell and Ser Arys Oakheart. Ser Arys may not be as extreme as Honor McHonorson, but I can't imagine that - if played as a PC - the player would (initially) be open to breaking his kingsguard vows. Does that mean that PC-Arianne just has to give up on it? Or does the pursuit become a story unto itself, no matter what the ultimate outcome is? In the books it takes Arianne six months to seduce him - certainly not a single-intrigue event.

Trying to spice up the gallery a bit.

Jon Blackbriar and the addition of his brother in particular, but Willem and Marei got a little bit extra, too. Didn't do anything with Erena, but updated husband and brother-in-law could shake things up for her. I'm thinking that adding a wife to Donnel that poses a more apparent potential threat to the peace and quiet sounds like what just what the Blackbriars needs to be interesting enough.

Starkwoods I'm out of ideas for atm.

I had a potential character & cohort idea along those lines; I thought a Macbeth/Lady Mac pair would be interesting for House Starling (if Lord Willem dies prior to Lysette being wed, a younger brother would inherit instead). It seems we were thinking in similar ways if about different houses, particularly if you give Ser Donnel a Lady Mac with strong ties to the Fire faction, and maybe give him Fire leanings as well.

As for the Starkwoods... perhaps some hints that Ser Symon may not be as devoted to keeping his grandfather's promise as his father is, again combined with some ties to the Fire faction. Perhaps a knight that squired at Highgarden with him, a close friend... maybe a little too close for some people's comfort, with rumors (true or not) that the other knight is a bit more than a friend? Perhaps Ser Symon has pushed for said friend to be wed to his sister, even though the friend is from a lesser house? It's a bit Loras/Renly/Margaery, but without as much political ambition involved.

Another possibility is that Lord Ulbert has another child, from an earlier marriage... pulling a page from Robb Stark, Lord Ulbert mayhaps was wounded in Dorne (perhaps saving the life of a high-ranking Lord in the process), and while recovering fell in love with a Dornish woman that was tending to him. Perhaps his own father had just passed (in the fighting, perhaps) so he had no Lord Father to tell him no? Anyway, long story short, said Dornish Bride dies (in childbirth?) leaving him with a half-Dornish child that is not quite accepted by the Reach nobbles... not that anyone would say anything... could have it be a daughter to keep the line of inheritance squarely with Ser Symon (backing a half-Dornish would be bad enough, but suggesting that the Blacks had the right of it in the Dance? No way....).

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Trying to spice up the gallery a bit. [...]

Just to note that I do like the changes you've made, and I like the way you're thinking about Donnel's wife - marrying into a family doesn't immediately imprint that family's beliefs and mores onto the new arrival, so I consider a wife a great way to introduce atypical-for-the-house stresses (be that good or bad).

[Theomore Tullison]

A different take on that could be to have Ulbert marry that Dornishwoman out of duty and honor (or love), making all his children half-Dornish, will probably have to review their profiles in that case, and will just push them even more firmly on the side of blood, might be better to tone down the first-men ties and such if going down that path to not isolate them entirely.

General precedence for Starling inheritance is that it goes through Willem's line first, there's an example of Rohanne Webber risking to loose the inheritance of Coldmoat to her cousin if she did not marry before age of 25, but I can't really see Willem stipulate that Lysette has to marry before he dies in order to inherit, though he might threaten to do something like that if she won't marry according to his wishes. It would fall to Lord Tyrell to find her a husband should Willem die before she marries, although the general expectations would be that an uncle would assume regency (because female lords? Nuh-uh), and Lord Tyrell would typically leave it to said uncle to find a suitable husband for Highgarden to approve of, some might argue that with an uncle regent, Lord Tyrell doesn't get a say, which is technically not the case, but it's generally wiser of the liege lord not to exercise the right unless he catches wind of the uncle being an ass about it.

I think that's too many variables involved to work that in as a potential element of tension, it would also primarily be an issue for Lysette, and she should have enough hooks as is.

[Baelon Drakeson]

A different take on that could be to have Ulbert marry that Dornishwoman out of duty and honor (or love), making all his children half-Dornish, will probably have to review their profiles in that case, and will just push them even more firmly on the side of blood, might be better to tone down the first-men ties and such if going down that path to not isolate them entirely.

To be honest, I liked the other two ideas (Ser Symon leaning Fire and/or having a knightly lover) more than the Dornish daughter idea. The Dornish daughter shows that Ser Ulbert is more than just a stick-in-the-mud blind loyalist, but other than that introduces a whole extra character for little reason. I think making the whole family half-Dornish wildly affects their social identity, so may be a much bigger change than you really want. Either of the Ser Symon ideas creates room for in-House tensions and politicking, without fundamentally changing the identity of the house.

General precedence for Starling inheritance is that it goes through Willem's line first, there's an example of Rohanne Webber risking to loose the inheritance of Coldmoat to her cousin if she did not marry before age of 25, but I can't really see Willem stipulate that Lysette has to marry before he dies in order to inherit, though he might threaten to do something like that if she won't marry according to his wishes. It would fall to Lord Tyrell to find her a husband should Willem die before she marries, although the general expectations would be that an uncle would assume regency (because female lords? Nuh-uh), and Lord Tyrell would typically leave it to said uncle to find a suitable husband for Highgarden to approve of, some might argue that with an uncle regent, Lord Tyrell doesn't get a say, which is technically not the case, but it's generally wiser of the liege lord not to exercise the right unless he catches wind of the uncle being an ass about it.

I think that's too many variables involved to work that in as a potential element of tension, it would also primarily be an issue for Lysette, and she should have enough hooks as is.

Oh, I completely agree that it's too much for an NPC in House Starling - that idea had been for a PC/Cohort pair, I was just amused by the similarities between that idea and what you had said about Ser Donnel and his wife. For a PC, those complications and ambiguities can be interesting challenges to deal with, but for an NPC it is just an unnecessary mess for the narrator.

Also, I would think that absolutely Lord Tyrell would have a say - I think he'd have a say even if Willem were alive, but a wise lord knows not to interfere in matters of banner lord's families without strong cause... heck, theoretically, even the King has a say, though it is unlikely that the crown would take enough of an interest to interfere. Feudalism has an interesting balance of power - theoretically lords have absolute power over their subjects, but the majority of the the military might to back up that power is in the hands of those same subjects. At the end of the day, power is just what others let you do, so abusing power is a great way to incite a revolt... Robert may not have thought of his rebellion that way, but I doubt he'd have had many followers if the Mad King weren't so abusive of his power.

[Theomore Tullison]

Power resides where men believe it resides

I'll have to tinker some more, current draft I went with all of Ulbert's kids being half-dornish, which I think works for Symon and Ashara, maybe doesn't do all that much for Ulbert's appeal, but loosened up a bit on him not fighting in tourneys, still doesn't appear to like them though. I think a straightforward respectable knight needs to be added to the mix.

There's still a need to fill out the home house roster, though most events are actually done, still scratching my head around how to pull off a seven sided melee, or how a seven sided melee is supposed to work on account of Martin only passingly having mentioned that there was one at Harrenhaal. May opt for a more "boring" two-sided affair for the same reason as to why I'm looking at a single elimination jousting format, but with the option to issue challenges and manipulate the draw by building up popular demand for specific duels (or bribing the tourney master).

Plus a slew of NPC's, though I'm guessing that most of them doesn't get more than a line or two of description and stats from sample templates.

[Theomore Tullison]

Having another burst of creativity going, so may have hopes for Christmas release, or not. There's no momentum around to maintain, so I see no need to rush.

Some major revisions to the Starkwoods, played around with the Dornish girl, went through a few editions, added ancestral terible sycophant lord and that sort of defined the rest.

Lyanna Levalle removed from featured special characters (I may need to clean up my terms) and relegated into Imry's description because her planned role means she shouldn't have PC stats like the other ones will.

I'm getting there with events. Still need to work with the non-house NPC's, and should add one featured character to Starkwood and Starling each, at the top of my head, a maester for the former and a relatively unseasoned knight for the latter would complement the lineup best in terms of the archetypes already there.

[Sponsored content]