Re: Game Discussion

[Baelon Drakeson]

Remember that only Great Bastards and Heads of House (most of whom aren't really PC-ideal) can get Status 5, so the vast majority of people can only get 2B Reputation.  And only them and Heirs (who are more usable, but not that numerous) can get the +1 from Lordly.
Further, note that Chivalry-adding benefits are often not the most powerful/optimal choices for a particular character - taking all 4 +Chivalry benefits (your proposed Journeyman build) is *very* restrictive.
(Also, I'm fairly sure Drawbacks can push the Starting Chivalry well below 0).

That's what I was thinking at first too, but according to the "Concerning Status" post:

While a character are in no way required to assign XP to status, their birth/position imposes a limit upon how many ranks they may purchase with XP, however, any character may buy up to one rank above this limit. However, for every rank above their current limit, characters suffers -1D to status tests (it is also possible that high status as afforded by a position on the small council is much lower than what is allowed if one ceases to hold it, thus imposing multiple penalty dice).

Relevant part bolded. That means landed knights, immediate families of lords, and members of lesser branches of great houses can buy up to Status 5 to get the 3b in Reputation. Also, 3b in tournaments, which makes Tourney Knight a better option. The biggest limiter is the cost of Status 5 - for most it's simply not worth it. However, a young up-and-coming jouster, talented but inexperienced... yeah I could see that. Animal Handling 4 and Fighting 4 with +3 from TK to back it up, you could do quite well in the lists, though not likely champion-tier.

Also I ignored drawbacks because there are so many that don't lower Chivalry that it would pretty much be an intentional choice to take one that did. I shouldn't have aid 'all', but rather 'all who care about not having negative chivalry'.

From my experience making characters, 3-4 is most common (when I'm not designing a character specifically for low or high Chivalry).  Counter-intuitively, the Apprentices tended towards 4, while Masters tended more towards 3 (not exclusively by any means, the highest chivalry I got with an actually playable character was a Master with 6, but they were specifically designed for high Chivalry).  But as an Apprentice, 2B Reputation +2 from XP really was 'minimal investment'.  But most Masters still could only get 2B in Reputation, meaning to even get 3 (if they're not a GB, lord, or heir) requires one of their oh-so-precious Benefit slots.

Most of my character ideas have been journeyman/masters (youth wise beyond his years or lord's trusted confidant) and they've typically had chivalry in the 4-5 range. Basically, I think the chivalry benefits are better than you are giving them credit for. Read Target helps offset having lower Persuasion/Deception, and between the +5 ID from RT and another +5 from Annointed, you basically get a round where you are quite hard to influence, mitigating much of the potential risk of using RT instead of Influence in the first turn.Similarly, DR is hard to come by, so Dutiful and Respected can be quite handy - particularly Dutiful as Incite and Seduce are the two techniques most likely to get you embroiled in a scandal. Finally, Tourney Knight is a must for anyone who wants to have a decent performance in the lists and can only afford Fighting 4. Best of all is that it 'ages' well, just gettign that much more powerful if you later invest in Fighting 5. 2-3 benefits out of your 4-5 is a hefty investment, but if those benefits actually help your character succeed in the areas they want to succeed in, they are totally worth it. Really, the Chivalry bonus is icing to those characters.

While you may be right about the ease of keeping positive (hard to know until the game starts - depends largely on how harsh penalties are and how liberally they're applied), I do feel like the C/V system encourages character assassination (verbally, I mean), and this system is all about how you are *perceived*.  A couple of ugly-enough rumours could be all it takes to dip someone into negatives (at least until they manage to clear their name), even if they are entirely blameless.

A fair point and all the more reason to have good chivalry to start.

I don't think chivalry/virtue score (aside from having a positive one) will be that of a big deal if it's a flat default +2 for everyone to need that any compensation is necessary. Though just axing the bonus for reputation dice should work, too. Journeymen and Masters have more XP (and benefit slots) to spread around on the the things where you get to add chivalry/virtue in the first place.

See, section 2 of the "general considerations" post makes it seem much more important than that.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

That's what I was thinking at first too, but according to the "Concerning Status" post:[...]

Good point, I had completely missed that.

The biggest limiter is the cost of Status 5 - for most it's simply not worth it.

I do agree with this, though.

Read Target helps offset having lower Persuasion/Deception, and between the +5 ID from RT and another +5 from Annointed, you basically get a round where you are quite hard to influence

I'm sorry, what? Is that a thing they added in the GoT edition of the rules? I've just double-checked, and it's not in my core rules, and I can't see it in the GB House Rules.

[Theomore Tullison]

I'd say that Fighting 5 would be a better investment than status 5 for extra tourney knight bonus as far as jousting goes.

But it will give lordly chivalry bonuses, which may make it a worthwhile for the intrigue bonuses it then would unlock.

Will make a note about the general considerations thing.

It's hardly wrong with a high chivalry/virtue score, I don't think I'd allow the rumor system result in negative/positive mechanical effects for PC's, but slamming NPC scores into the negatives to weaken them before intrigue, or just hurt their effectiveness when it comes to scheming in general sounds fun. If someone were to get mud on a PC to stick in the rumor mill, it shouldn't be ignored IC though.

Something to consider is to install a cap on the default score based on martial ability, like 2 being the initial maximum, +1 for each rank beyond chivalry requirements in AH, Athletics, Agility, Endurance, Fighting and Warfare.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I don't think I'd allow the rumor system result in negative/positive mechanical effects for PC's, but slamming NPC scores into the negatives to weaken them before intrigue, or just hurt their effectiveness when it comes to scheming in general sounds fun.

To clarify, I saw it as being a PC-on-PC thing, or PC-on-NPC thing, rather than an NPC-on-PC thing. Encouraging non-lethal PVP activities kind of an idea.

Something to consider is to install a cap on the default score based on martial ability, like 2 being the initial maximum, +1 for each rank beyond chivalry requirements in AH, Athletics, Agility, Endurance, Fighting and Warfare.

This would have a rather strange side-effect, where those who qualify for Lordly Chivalry, having needed to spend so much extra XP on non-martial stuff to qualify, would have a very low Chivalry cap, which seems backwards.

[Theomore Tullison]

Could compensate by giving +1 cap for lordly chivalry.

NPC's might spread rumors about PC's, but they won't influence fire&blood directly, though home house NPC's might if the PC's does not. If rumors can give or take chivalry/virtue, then that must be done carefully, I like the idea, just not all the potential consequences.

As far as fire&blood mechanics goes, I sort of view that as a meter to track the effect that PC's have on the struggle, because Bittersteel and some other types will pretty much spend their entire waking hours of the tournament doing that sort of stuff. However, there's some pivotal figures that could be killed off using F&B.

All that being said, character assassination through rumors being a thing actually sounds like a fun feature. Although I think a TN 9 is too easy.

Did axe the +1 chivalry for lords jut now, they don't need it.

[Theomore Tullison]

Since it's relevant to the discussion, I have these things put into a day 1 event, which is my version of early birds. There is one part which is event specific but then there's the optional part which as per my current thinking can be used daily:

If you do any of the following tests, you may attempt a Deception(Disguise) TN 12 test to conceal your identity (possibly higher if you want to do some serious shenanigans)

Optional (As many as you like):

Spreading gossip:
Deception(Bluff) Special TN* to put out false rumors.
Persuasion(Incite or convince) Special TN* to put out truths (as you perceive them) into the daily gossip.

*TN here is 3*Status+chivalry/virtue of whoever you target with such rumors.
Note that while the Fire and Blood mechanics also involves a separate way of creating rumors, this will just create flavorful things that will be talked about by NPC's and may sway the reactions of individuals, whereas the Fire and Blood Mechanic involves swaying the general opinion of a large number of people one way or the other.

Obtaining information by one of the following methods:
Knowledge(Streetwise) TN 9
Stealth (Any) TN 9
Thievery (Any) TN 9, you may also use Thievery to obtain 1GD worth of valuables and coin per DoS.

These TN's are for learning/gaining random bits of information, trying to gain specific information may carry higher TN's and possibly more complex mechanics. It is also possible to investigate the source of nature of any of the rumors released at the start of the day.

Critical failures carries unpleasant consequences.

The optional tests may each be undertaken once per day.

Character assassination probably would work better to be incorporated into these rules, but might want to lift this out of the event and basically have one rumor mechanic, with fire&blood manipulation following the same structure, but with the added effects of DoS counting towards that metric also.

Off the top of my head, TN 9 should be the baseline for influencing Fire&Blood, while character assassination probably should carry a separate difficulty, and possibly requiring a number of DoS equal to chivalry/virtue to actually work (which might mean that multiple rumors needs to be put into circulation before people start to believe Honorable McHonorableson really is having babies for lunch).

Maybe something like an outcome where each DoS after a number of DoS equal to the score has been achieved, target suffers -1 score (fading by 1 per day, also observing the rule of diminishing effect of gaining/losing points), maybe only allow the strongest negative rumor per day to count. Needs some way to allow for defending, however, may be sufficient to let narrator judge. Counter-rumors to discredit the source would be fun, but otherwise I wouldn't use direct rumoring in general for defense.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

If rumors can give or take chivalry/virtue, then that must be done carefully, I like the idea, just not all the potential consequences.

Wise.

Off the top of my head, TN 9 should be the baseline for influencing Fire&Blood, while character assassination probably should carry a separate difficulty, and possibly requiring a number of DoS equal to chivalry/virtue to actually work (which might mean that multiple rumors needs to be put into circulation before people start to believe Honorable McHonorableson really is having babies for lunch).

As far as I can tell, you've done a good job preventing a more-populated house from dominating the F&B rolls, and agree that something similar would be required.
With regards to difficulty, 12 + (3 * Difference in Status)? With your idea of needing C/V DoS total to have an impact? The idea being that people with higher Status are inherently more credible/listened to, and harder to credibly malign. Given that most PCs will have 3-4 Status, that results in a 9-15 spread. Upping it to 12-18 (i.e. 15 + (3 * Difference in Status)) is entirely possible, instead. The issue there is that if it deducts by 1/day, only pure intrigue characters (or high status ones, if you go for my idea) are likely to get anything to stick, since they'd need to reliably hit 2DoS. On the other hand, maybe that's a good thing, means it requires multiple people to ally together to sully a reputation, encouraging characters to find strange bedfellows through mutual enemies.

On the other hand, maybe this is a complication too far. There's already a load of other unique mechanics going on, and we do want it to be relatively comprehensible by people who haven't used the system before. We do run the risk of making it so complex that you can't get the player numbers you really need for a game like this. Having it be a part of specific events would keep the complexity down. Not sure, swings and roundabouts each way.

[Theomore Tullison]

An easier alternative could simply be a TN 9 baseline, and require an accumulated DoS equal to status+chivalry/virtue before anything sticks. Perhaps granting bonus from having high status because then you're more credible.

[Theomore Tullison]

So I am thinking:

TN 9 for spreading rumors in general. Probably not simple intrigue, but plain persuasion/deception.
For Fire&Blood, you don't need to spread any specific rumors unless the score increases because of your efforts, as in, rumor for the start of the day update is only required if score is changed.
Rumors you want into the circulation must of course be written, they can be about a specific person or something else.
A rumor need not be part of the Fire&Blood mechanic, but it could be.
Unless otherwise specified, a rumor is not intended to influence Fire&Blood and will simply be for flavor.
It is possible to use rumors for character assassination, this can be intentional or not from an IC perspective. Only the highest scoring rumor per day counts for character assassination.
The "defense" against character assassination is status rank+chivalry/virtue score, this determines the number of DoS from negative rumors that you can sustain before suffering actual consequences. Each DoS beyond this number makes you suffer -1 chivalry/virtue.
Aside from perhaps discrediting the source, the rumor system is not really suited to defend against slander and hearsay.
There are however multiple ways to make the penalty from negative rumors go away, such as duels of honor, it all depends on the nature of the rumor.

[Theomore Tullison]

Also, me working on NPC's, if there's anything that catches your fancy, could be an NPC version of a dragonsdance PC, one of reader's NPC's you really liked or some book character or whatever. It could be useful inspiration for me when designing the fun stuff.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Still ruminating on the rumour system, but had an idea with regards to NPCs: I think it could be interesting to have a (Dornish?) warrior woman, and set up a 'plot and counter-plot' for PCs to engage with - one side seeking to disgrace/kill her, to protect their image of chivalry (despite their knightly oath), the other seeking to protect her, in accordance with their knightly oath (despite her violation of their image of chivalry). Objective being to get PCs to debate with each other what they value higher.

Perhaps similarly, a Northern Warrior who's a devout follower of the Old gods, who carries a grudge against the Seven (maybe a Blackwood of some stripe?), but behaves (at least publicly) in a chivalrous manner. Again, there's the conflict - behaves appropriately, but attacks the faith at the heart of the chivalric tradition. How do you react to that?

Lady Ysilla Flowers, great bastard and twin of Ser Farman, a stunning young beauty, but with a strong will of her own and relishing the freedom her parentage grants her.

You know what that makes me wonder? I wonder how her (hypothetical) non-Great Bastard half-sister feels about that - they probably grew up together in the household, but she would have much less freedoms. There's a masculine equivalent, roughly, among the Starkwoods, but again, I wonder how people would react to Lady Ysilla's half-sister attempting to grasp the same freedoms her half-sister has.

Finally, I was trying to think of a good book character to use in this context. Someone like Tyrion would work a lot better as a PC, but one character who could work well would be someone like The Hound. By which I mean someone unchivalric, who hates the hypocrisy of the knights, and who views themselves as simply a strong sword-arm for their lord, being willing to confront and expose the lies and hypocrisies of others. Urgh. Not sure, maybe that would only really work as a PC.

Anyway, those are just a few ideas off the top of my head. To my mind, good PCs have internal conflict. Good NPCs are ones who place strain on those internal conflicts.

[Theomore Tullison]

Hmm, a Dornish lady deliberately trolling prickly Reachmen I can see. The only full-blood Dornish lady of the cast is strong, but in a ladylike way. Could also throw in an Ironborn for similar purposes.

But, Dornish or not, if a woman disguises up for the jousting and gets unmasked, then we'll get much of the same controversy, especially if she unhorses a knight or two first. Could actually be more fun if such a woman is not Dornish.

In terms of books, one is directly based on a character in the Bernard Cornwell novel I read this Christmas. I probably have more direct inspiration from this game and it's predecessors than the books in terms of NPC's actually.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Read Target helps offset having lower Persuasion/Deception, and between the +5 ID from RT and another +5 from Annointed, you basically get a round where you are quite hard to influence

I'm sorry, what?  Is that a thing they added in the GoT edition of the rules?  I've just double-checked, and it's not in my core rules, and I can't see it in the GB House Rules.  

I could have sworn it was on the GB intrigue page as a revised action... well, I was pretty darn sick the past two days so maybe it was a creation of my fever addled brain. That or it got taken out and I didn't notice - I know I have not fully kept up with the changes on the GB site.

Either way, without that it makes Anointed an even better choice - it offers protection against RT's biggest risk: falling behind in the Influence race.

I'd say that Fighting 5 would be a better investment than status 5 for extra tourney knight bonus as far as jousting goes.

Oh, of course. I just meant that someone who wanted Status 5 for it's other benefits (lordly chivalry, Intrigue Defence, etc.) would be able to put it to good use for jousting as well by taking Tourney Knight.

Something to consider is to install a cap on the default score based on martial ability, like 2 being the initial maximum, +1 for each rank beyond chivalry requirements in AH, Athletics, Agility, Endurance, Fighting and Warfare.

Hmm. Not sure I like this.  For one it adds complication, and for another it puts additional pressure to invest in those 6 attributes - great if you were going for that kind of character already, but not so great otherwise.

Lets take step back on the whole mechanic to try and get a holistic view, see where that takes us.
Purpose: To give mechanical impact to social reputation.
This is a good thing; social reputation is a significant part of the setting and frankly somewhat lacking in the original system (it is somewhat encapsulated by Status and Reputation, the starting disposition chart, and Glory.... but none of them quite hits the nail on the head).

Mechanical Effects:
A) "A character's score is added to all status(reputation) tests to seek an audience with NPC's"
Considering Chivalry is based on Reputation this seems redundant.

B) "it is also added as a modifier to many event specific tests. This becomes a penalty if negative."
The key word "many" here gives the indication that Chivalry/Virtue will be a frequent modifier, and it the mechanic itself clearly needs some sort of limiter.

C) "A character with a positive chivalry score receives +2 to intrigue defense, influence tests and composure. For a character with lordly chivalry, these bonuses are +3."

Hmm. Initial thought is that this makes it easier for male characters to be hybrid warrior/intriguers. 2nd thought: making Chivalry based on those 6 martial attributes means martial specialists will have fewer penalties for specializing. Meanwhile, female characters get... nothing. now, i get that this is supposed to be a reflection of the setting, but taking a step back, why would being better at martial tasks make you better at intrigue? I mean, I can't see an Olenna or a Hound being swayed by the things that improve Chivalry - really, only the Sansa-type romantics buy into it in the books. It's not really a huge power boost, but it does seem a bit out of place. Instead, it seems like the culture would preclude persuasion rather than augment it - in case of conflict and all else being equal, the higher chivalry is believed. Of course, that's less mechanical than it is narrator discretion over NPC attitudes.

Suggestions:
1) Instead of being based on and augmenting reputation, have chivalry/virtue replace reputation. That is, Reputation bonus dice are not bought with XP but rather equal to chivalry/virtue, subject to the normal limits on bonus dice - so if you have Status 4 and 4 Chivalry, You still only get 2b Reputation and add +2 to those special events, etc. You would need to adjust the values given 'for free', 4/3/2 would be the obvious equivalent to the current system, though as it is less XP based now a flat 2 to everyone wouldn't be all bad.
2) Drop the Intrigue bonuses for positive intrigue - Reputation plays a large role in intrigue (initiative is huge, and the Shield of Reputation action), so if poor chivalry/virtue penalizes Reputation then that is a pretty significant effect on intrigue anyway. Perhaps also have chivalry/virtue directly impact default disposition, which seems like a natural connection given that they both represent societal attitudes toward the character.

It is possible to use rumors for character assassination, this can be intentional or not from an IC perspective. Only the highest scoring rumor per day counts for character assassination.
The "defense" against character assassination is status rank+chivalry/virtue score, this determines the number of DoS from negative rumors that you can sustain before suffering actual consequences. Each DoS beyond this number makes you suffer -1 chivalry/virtue.

If I'm reading this right most characters will be immune to character assassination. Only the highest roll counting means only a maximum of 4 DoS. Most characters will likely have Status 3+ and at least 1 Chivalry/Virtue, meaning they can take the full 4 DoS with no consequences. Unless of course the Character Assassination DoS don't clear daily, in which case high Chivalry/Virtue is suddenly very, very important - it's not all that hard to get 4 DoS on a TN 9, so depending on how much competition there is on any given day... but if that is the primary limiter than the game could very quickly turn into A Game of Rumors... like a bad high school teen drama show. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of character assassination is good, just that depending on the specific implementation it could range from nigh-pointless to the dominant factor in the game (particularly if one house has the best -and/or most vicious- rumormongers).

Also, me working on NPC's, if there's anything that catches your fancy, could be an NPC version of a dragonsdance PC, one of reader's NPC's you really liked or some book character or whatever. It could be useful inspiration for me when designing the fun stuff.

I've actually been thinking that a Daveth-esque character could be interesting - an only heir that for one reason or another was just not up to the martial standards of his family or the reach in general. A strong martial house would naturally tend towards Fire, but the Daveth-esque character would have more in common with the Blood faction... and a strong military house would be a powerful acquisition for either side. Does the character choose the faction that would be more likely to accept him personally, thought it might cause a revolt internally? Or secure the loyalty of his vassals by embracing a cause which champions a culture that rejects him?
Could make for an interesting NPC for players to seek alliances with or attempt to bring to one faction or another.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I could have sworn it was on the GB intrigue page as a revised action.

Most likely I think you confused it with the (GB) Benefit that gives you +5 ID when you do the Consider action.  On that note, a proposal: remove the Benefit (or buff it so it gives +1D+1B instead to the next roll or something useful like that), have Consider give +5 ID by default.  Reason being that an Intrigue is a race, and I can't think of *any* circumstance where gaining a 1-off +2B is worth losing a round of Influence.  But if it buffs your defence, suddenly it becomes a hybrid offence/defence move which might actually see use occasionally.  Anyway, thoughts?

C) "A character with a positive chivalry score receives +2 to intrigue defense, influence tests and composure. For a character with lordly chivalry, these bonuses are +3."

Hmm. Initial thought is that this makes it easier for male characters to be hybrid warrior/intriguers. [...] Meanwhile, female characters get... nothing.

It's worth pointing out that (IIRC) the reason for this is out-of-universe.  Most ladies don't have much to invest XP in other than intrigue stats (and Intrigue-related Benefits), while most lords/knights are expected to be martially capable.  Without this mechanic, women rule Westeros as they trivially convert any lord or knight near them to drooling sycophants, easily convinced to do anything the woman wants.  While this discussion was initially going on, I believe I suggested simply giving those who qualified for chivalry more XP (or reducing XP for those who don't), but this was the preferred solution.

1) Instead of being based on and augmenting reputation, have chivalry/virtue replace reputation. That is, Reputation bonus dice are not bought with XP but rather equal to chivalry/virtue, subject to the normal limits on bonus dice

This will result in the vast majority of Chivalries being 1-2, which doesn't leave much differentiation (and if you're already at the cap, reduces the drive to chivalric acts to increase your score).  I'm not sure if the Low-XP bonuses are suggested to 'break' the cap, but I'm not sure that wouldn't create more problems.

Reputation plays a large role in intrigue (initiative is huge, and the Shield of Reputation action), so if poor chivalry/virtue penalizes Reputation then that is a pretty significant effect on intrigue anyway.

Unless it's changed recently, negative C/V doesn't affect Reputation except when seeking an audience, so Initiative is unaffected.  The only effect it has is reducing starting disposition by 1.  Also, don't forget that SoR only has a permanent effect when the result of the intrigue doesn't impact disposition any other way (which off-hand I think means it only applies to Bargain or Convince - useful, but not ubiquitous.  The alternative use is to eke out a benefit from a lost intrigue where you can't get what you want, but can use SoR to get a disposition raise from it as consolation).

I've actually been thinking that a Daveth-esque character could be interesting[...] Could make for an interesting NPC for players to seek alliances with or attempt to bring to one faction or another.

While the idea you propose is interesting, it does have one flaw - the focus of the attention is on the NPC, rather than on gathering support for/against the NPC from other PCs.  Not that is automatically a deal-breaker, but Theo will have to consider if the extra PC-NPC intrigues he'll have to manage will be worthwhile. (Why I thought the Hound idea would only work as a PC - too much narrator input required as an NPC)

[Theomore Tullison]

Yeah, that's one reason as to why I'm inclined to not have reputation ranks give chivalry (and breeding for them ladies).

Haven't gotten around to break the system yet, but I'm guessing the true test of how the bonuses works out is how a chivalrous knight/lord focused on intrigue compares to a run-of-the-mill lady and a lady who's solely focused on intrigue.

Could potentially have a tiered system where basic chivalry just gives +1, lordly gives +1 and then knights with heavy martial focus gets another +1 (cumulative).

[Baelon Drakeson]

On that note, a proposal: remove the Benefit (or buff it so it gives +1D+1B instead to the next roll or something useful like that), have Consider give +5 ID by default.  Reason being that an Intrigue is a race, and I can't think of *any* circumstance where gaining a 1-off +2B is worth losing a round of Influence.  But if it buffs your defence, suddenly it becomes a hybrid offence/defence move which might actually see use occasionally.  Anyway, thoughts?

I think it's a good idea for the same reason I thought that the apparently non-existent +5 on Read Target was a good idea - as you said intrigue is a race, so the risk of getting behind by performing an action other than Influence needs to be offset either by the gains from the other action, or by a combination of gains and defense to mitigate the opponents Influence in the same round.

I once long ago said that if I were to rework the intrigue system the first thing I would do would be to have lesser and greater actions, just like combat. Then you could Read Target (akin to knockdown), Consider (akin to aim), and so on while Influencing, just like you can attack while doing those other combat actions. Of course, that could introduce a whole host of other complications (should there be an equivalent to standing up?), and I honestly never revisited the idea.... but you know, if I ever get around to making a comprehensive SIFRPG 2.0...

C) "A character with a positive chivalry score receives +2 to intrigue defense, influence tests and composure. For a character with lordly chivalry, these bonuses are +3."

Hmm. Initial thought is that this makes it easier for male characters to be hybrid warrior/intriguers. [...] Meanwhile, female characters get... nothing.

It's worth pointing out that (IIRC) the reason for this is out-of-universe.  Most ladies don't have much to invest XP in other than intrigue stats (and Intrigue-related Benefits), while most lords/knights are expected to be martially capable.  Without this mechanic, women rule Westeros as they trivially convert any lord or knight near them to drooling sycophants, easily convinced to do anything the woman wants.  While this discussion was initially going on, I believe I suggested simply giving those who qualified for chivalry more XP (or reducing XP for those who don't), but this was the preferred solution.

I think you are underestimating the option to Quit (or in the case of King Robert and other horrible people, Switch to Combat). Whether it's a gracious "Pardon me m'lady, I have matters of import to attend to" or a far from gracious "Get out of my way, harlot", or even an "I am insulted that your lord would think so little of me not to negotiate in person." In other words, the in-setting misogyny need not be inserted into the mechanics in order to keep male characters from being 'drooling sycophants' to female characters. basically so long as you do not lose initiative and get defeated in the first action, you can

Something to be careful of is not making it seem as though players must adopt the callous ways of the setting in order to succeed. Consider that most if not all of the main characters in the books are violators of these norms - bastards (Jon Snow), warrior women (Arya, Brienne), women leaders (Daeny, Olenna), dwarves (Tyrion), cripples (Bran, Jaime), eunuchs (Varys), the list goes on and on. Sure, not everyone is going to want to play a character like that, but many will.

1) Instead of being based on and augmenting reputation, have chivalry/virtue replace reputation. That is, Reputation bonus dice are not bought with XP but rather equal to chivalry/virtue, subject to the normal limits on bonus dice

This will result in the vast majority of Chivalries being 1-2, which doesn't leave much differentiation (and if you're already at the cap, reduces the drive to chivalric acts to increase your score).  I'm not sure if the Low-XP bonuses are suggested to 'break' the cap, but I'm not sure that wouldn't create more problems.

Well, the bonuses from chivalry (i.e. reputation dice) would be largely capped at 2, much like the capping system Theo proposed. A character COULD have the 9 Chivalry build, but wouldn't get much out of it (they would be capped at 3b Reputation, just like anyone else with a 5 status and 3+ chivalry). I honestly don't like the low-XP bonuses because chivalry score is not very XP dependent anymore, and would be less so if my suggestion were taken. Instead everyone that qualifies would start with a certain baseline Chivalry/Virtue Score (1 or 2, probably) which would be modified up or down as normal.

Reputation plays a large role in intrigue (initiative is huge, and the Shield of Reputation action), so if poor chivalry/virtue penalizes Reputation then that is a pretty significant effect on intrigue anyway.

Unless it's changed recently, negative C/V doesn't affect Reputation except when seeking an audience, so Initiative is unaffected.  The only effect it has is reducing starting disposition by 1.  Also, don't forget that SoR only has a permanent effect when the result of the intrigue doesn't impact disposition any other way (which off-hand I think means it only applies to Bargain or Convince - useful, but not ubiquitous.  The alternative use is to eke out a benefit from a lost intrigue where you can't get what you want, but can use SoR to get a disposition raise from it as consolation).

The part you quote here was a continuation on of the idea of having chivlary/virtue determine your Reputation dice rather than the other way around.. so getting a negative chivalry/virtue would be major hindrance in winning initiative even if you are equal or slightly higher Status. Initiative isn't everything in intrigue, but it's quite helpful.

Don't forget that SoR can have a pretty useful effect IN the intrigue, lowering your opponents DR. Though actually given the new step vs rating system it seems largely useless... maybe make it a purely temporary effect but a full rating increase? Otherwise its just a waste of an action in the Influence race.

I've actually been thinking that a Daveth-esque character could be interesting[...] Could make for an interesting NPC for players to seek alliances with or attempt to bring to one faction or another.

While the idea you propose is interesting, it does have one flaw - the focus of the attention is on the NPC, rather than on gathering support for/against the NPC from other PCs.  Not that is automatically a deal-breaker, but Theo will have to consider if the extra PC-NPC intrigues he'll have to manage will be worthwhile.  (Why I thought the Hound idea would only work as a PC - too much narrator input required as an NPC)

This is true. Of course, that's the catch-22 for any NPC, right? If they are interesting enough for players to interact with, they require narrator input.

[Theomore Tullison]

To a certain extent, the ideal NPC is one that does something which invites PC's to react to it and give role-playing opportunities to act out according to the opinions of their PC's, then the NPC can fade away to maybe re-appear later. And preferably I find them fun to write about.

I'm going to have some event-like scenes, but for the most part without any event mechanics. The one fleshed out enough that I know it will happen is a knighting ceremony, I don't think I have any plans right now to use the NPC's taking part in that one for anything else, the septon might be used for septon stuff and some of the knights involved could show up in the jousting and such. Apart from that, the idea of that scene is to just show a bit of the world and give a place for PC's to congregate.

I've got a couple of such scenes in mind which will be much more interesting than just some guy getting knighted.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I think you have two "Maester Ronnel" characters.... the Maester of Starkwood and from the cast of thousands page:

"Grand Maester Alford
... his assistant, Maester Ronnel..."

I mean, with Maesters and Septons using only their given name I'm sure it's not unheard of for two Maesters or two Septons to have the same name... but on the off chance that Alford's assistant ever comes up on game it could be confusing.

I note that you have a deceased Lord Arlyn Blackbriar and also a Septon Arlan of Kingsbridge (House Starling), but I don't think that's as big of a deal (of course a reference to this game).

Hmm. Ser Roland Cordwayner (a nod to Reader's character in BITW?) has a Lady Maegelle in his description and there;s a serving girl in his House named Megelle. Could be confusing.

[Theomore Tullison]

I'll switch up Ronnel, because both maesters are going to be present at Highgarden, quite possibly in the same scene. The others I think can safely stay as they are.

The portrait is definitely a nod, though I am not sure if the sample character fitting that archetype having the same name is a coincidence or not.

[Theomore Tullison]

Quick analysis of the balance issue with chivalry bonuses. Only evaluating the intrigue bonuses:

It requires 90 ability XP of martial stuff for the +2 bonuses, specialties are negligible in terms of costs for the evaluation. The lordly +1 comes pretty cheap if you can get it at status 4. If going status 5 route, that extra bonus isn't all that cheap. Comparing a pure intrigue specialist against a chivalrous knight, the former gets 6 intrigue abilities at 4, and the latter gets 3. At apprentice level, mind. 8 vs 5 at master level is less lopsided. Some secondary abilities can be cannibalized for another 4 if one doesn't go for lordly chivalry.

At a glance, I'd say that the 3 extra 4's most likely are slightly more valuable in a one on one intrigue than a +2/+3 bonus to various things, plus it translates into better dice pools for various events. So the knight/lord only taking exactly the ranks needed to get chivalry bonuses and invests everything else in intrigue should mostly be able to keep up with the man who invests everything in social ability and takes the disposition hit, but not match his overall versatility. A virtuous lady would avoid the disposition hit and get some mileage about having virtue score to add here and there, but otherwise be on par with the scheming man.

Preliminary conclusion: The intrigue bonuses gained for qualifying for chivalry roughly does what I want them to do. It probably won't be an issue if one gains +1 to the bonuses if one adds, say 80XP worth of martial ranks either.

However, the bonus to influence tests -which in standard intrigue will be countered by the pure schemer dealing more influence per DoS overall- can tilt the tables in simple intrigue. I'm not sure if that is a bad thing given that the setting of mine is supposed to favor knights. Although it is something that ought to be communicated.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of character assassination is good, just that depending on the specific implementation it could range from nigh-pointless to the dominant factor in the game (particularly if one house has the best -and/or most vicious- rumormongers).

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm not sure there is an implementation that actually works properly. Unfortunately, all I can really contribute is 'good luck, Theo'.

However, there is something I can contribute: proofreading! All from the updated Benefits page:
From Ally: 'For most characters, this means that allies is primarily useful for their abilities.' Should be 'are'.

'Brother's in arms' should be 'Brothers in arms'. Also, '(hereby referred to as comrade)' Should probably be '(hereby referred to as their comrade)'. Final point, a balance question: 'You may also, when adjacent to your comrade, as a free action outside your turn, declare that an attack against him instead will target you, this must be declared before you know the test result of the attack action.' Say one comrade has a large shield, and limits themselves to cautious attacks, they could intercept every attack with little damage, leaving their comrade free to do consequence-free Reckless Attacks with 2-handed weapons. That seems very, very powerful to me. Very specific circumstances, true, but still. I feel that match-up almost requires LBF2, just so you can actually move them apart.

From Sponsor: 'Work with the narrator to designate an NPC who's power and influence'. Should be 'whose'. Also: 'Although repeatedly asking for favors is likely going to start asking for things that starts to cost them a bit in accumulation.' I get what you *mean*, but that last sentence is rather garbled towards the end.

[Theomore Tullison]

Who needs chrome spell-checking (which failed at that part anyhow) when one has bookish Daveth Coldbrook

Changed Brothers in Arms up a bit, and introduced the shield other option in combat. Throwing yourself in front of an ally is very much appropriate spending of a DP though.

Current creative writer's block is to come up with a reason why lady X really dislikes the Queen. Also reading up on how to make PC's hate specific NPC's. Although I'm pretty sure I'll manage to pull that part off, the one I've got specific plans for now would invoke "even Theo has standards". And doing some spreadsheet-fu to determine if I want to tweak jousting rules and in what direction if so. Current idea is to just slap on a straight up TN 12 for 0 DoS result (broken lance, but no unhorsing potential, extra DoS doesn't matter) and an optional increase in stay in saddle TN's for higher Animal Handling (increase would apply equally), wouldn't do much about changing the odds, but would at least make unhorsing happen for high AH and allow outclassed jousters to at least be able to break lances.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Changed Brothers in Arms up a bit, and introduced the shield other option in combat. Throwing yourself in front of an ally is very much appropriate spending of a DP though.

Looking better, although you still have an erroneous apostrophe in 'Brother's in arms'.  But still, let's break it down:
+2 to combat defense
+2 to any passive test results to resist combat actions
+2 to any test against any adjacent opponent that was targeted by the comrade on the comrade's last turn in the same combat.
If you use shield other re-actively to protect your comrade, it does not cost any fatigue.

Looking at the relevant bit:
'You may also do this out of turn by expending a point of fatigue, the defensive bonus then only applies to that one attack (it's use must be declared before you know the result of the attack), and you loose the defensive benefits until the start of the attacker's next turn.'
Firstly, that should be 'lose'.  Secondly, let's assume they both have Large Shields (+4 defensive), and aren't outnumbered (so it's 2-on-2) - we'll call the opponents Buddies 1 and 2.  Whichever Comrade Buddy 1 attacks, the other Comrade can shield them for free, giving them a total of +6 to  their defence for that attack (+2 benefit, +4 from shield) (+10 if you include their own shield).  For the sake of this example, we'll call the one they attacked Comrade 1.  If Buddy 2 then attacks Comrade 1, he still has his normal defence.  If he attacks Comrade 2, Comrade 1 can Shield Other, and he still has his standard defence.  So long as the comrades aren't outnumbered, they can always have their normal defence (+2 from the benefit), and 50% of the time, they can have an additional +4.  It's not as OP as the previous draft was, but it's still pretty powerful given how those bonuses stack - personally, I'd drop the +2 to Combat defence, and have the 'free' shield other be the defensive benefit.

Current creative writer's block is to come up with a reason why lady X really dislikes the Queen.

Random ideas:
She hates the Dornish (obvious, but worth listing) - maybe she lost a relative to them?
She believes the Queen was either promiscuous before marriage, or unfaithful during.  Maybe even with her husband (if married)?
Lady X organised/hosted/somethinged what was to her a major event, with major players attending, but the queen was a no-show, and Lady X felt it was a deliberate slight.
One of Lady X's relatives was heading towards an advantageous marriage, and the Queen but her weight behind the proposed partner marrying someone else - again, taken as a slight.
The Queen stopped for a night at the castle where Lady X lives while travelling - with Lady X stressed over preparing for the arrival, and the Queen grumpy over a day's travel, unintended insult was given.
Lady X commissioned a new dress from a prestigious tailor, in time for a major event.  The Queen needed something last-minute, and used her influence to jump to the front of the queue, making Lady X's dress not be ready in time, forcing her to re-wear an old dress.

Those are just off the top of my head.  I may edit in some more later, should I think of them.

Also reading up on how to make PC's hate specific NPC's.

It is, I believe, worth keeping clear what kind of 'hate' you want.  To my mind, there are two main kinds: 'Love to Hate' and 'Hate to See'.  The former is the realm of magnificent bastards and other charismatic sorts - the 'viewer' enjoys seeing them 'on-stage', but wants to see them ultimately fail (think Joker from The Dark Knight).  With the latter case, the 'viewer' just wants them gone, ASAP, not enjoying their presence 'on-stage' (think Ruby Rhod from 5th Element).  Now, with TV and movies, you definitely want to have the former and avoid the latter, but it's a curious case with RPG games, as the 'viewers' have agency.  If you want to motivate them to get rid of the guy ASAP, the latter kind might actually be better, since with the former, they may want him to stick around, just to see what he does.  On the other hand, if you want players to engage with them in order to defeat them, the former is probably better.  So, I think either can work, if done carefully, but just keep in mind what you're aiming for, as hybrids just don't work (IMO).

[Theomore Tullison]

More of a case of enjoyable to read about, but would be truly enjoyable to see brought low. They should be rather despicable individuals, nowhere near magnificent bastard territory, though some of them might fancy themselves as such.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of character assassination is good, just that depending on the specific implementation it could range from nigh-pointless to the dominant factor in the game (particularly if one house has the best -and/or most vicious- rumormongers).

I've been pondering this for a while, and I'm not sure there is an implementation that actually works properly.  Unfortunately, all I can really contribute is 'good luck, Theo'.

My initial thought is that no (IC) action that provides benefit should come without risk - perhaps put in place a mechanic that the source of the rumor can be made public - and of course, spreading rumors is not very chivalrous/virtuous so it could cause a negative, not to mention the possibilities of being challenged to an honor duel or more underhanded retribution.

---

Following up on Daveth's comments on Brothers in Arms...

Shield Other: You may at the end of your turn transfer the bonus from any defensive qualities to the combat defense of an adjacent ally until the start of your next turn. You may also do this out of turn by expending a point of fatigue, the defensive bonus then only applies to that one attack (it's use must be declared before you know the result of the attack), and you loose the defensive benefits until the start of the attacker's next turn.

I see what you are going for here, and I like it - it always bugged me that there was no way to protect someone else, especially in the event of an ambush. However, I think this implementation has some problems.
In order from least to most significant (in my opinion anyway)
1) It seems odd to have this be a free action - there are not too many of those in the combat system and I see little reason why this should be.
2) I think this applies only to the Defensive qualities of weapons (primarily shields), but the wording is ambiguous because the term 'qualities' is also used to refer to benefits & drawbacks, so as written bonuses from something like Blood of the Rhoyne could be transferred.
3) The off-turn use is a great idea for a tabletop game, but it won't work in PbP - the declaration of the attack and the result of the attack are usually in the same post, so there is no way to declare you are using it without knowing the result.

On a similar note, while I think that Daveth has a point that taking hits for someone else being potentially very powerful, I actually really like the idea, with two caveats:
1) Like what you have done with Shield Other, anyone can do it. A benefit might improve it, but not be a prerequisite (I'm thinking of Cat interposing herself between the catspaw and the unconscious Bran in the first book - I doubt a Catelyn-type character would be taking a combat benefit).
2) The Maneuver action needs to be fixed. As it stands, it has way too low of a success rate to be an effective counter to this strategy... and powerful strategies need to have reasonably effective counters. Daveth mentioned LBF2 in that regard, but this needs to be something that anyone can do with a reasonable chance of success, not just advanced Long Blade users. Fighting 5 vs Fighting 5 has only a 30.52% chance of success - that is MUCH too low. Also Spear Fighter 2 (essentially allowing Maneuver to do damage) is mostly useless - needing a second degree (to get past AR) drops the chance of success to 3.24%. I understand not wanting the -1D penalty to be too easy, though, as that is a significant effect. However, it can be redone to make the movement easy and the penalty difficult.

Here's my suggestions:

Interpose (Greater): You may throw yourself between attackers and an ally. Designate an adjacent character to protect. While the protected character is adjacent to you, all attacks against them that could target you target you instead. However, as you are actively putting yourself in the way of the attack you not only lose your Agility to your Combat Defense, but also take an additional -3 penalty to your Combat Defense.

Shield Other (Lesser): You may defend another at the cost of lowering your own defense. Until the start of your next turn, reduce your combat defense by 3 and designate an adjacent character to protect. While adjacent to you, the protected character has +3 Combat Defense against any attack that could have targeted you instead.

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. With 3 or more DoS, you may sacrifice 2 yards of the movement to instead apply a -1D penalty to all actions for one round.

Bodyguard
You are well practiced at protecting your charges. When rolling initiative in a combat, you may also designate an ally as your charge. When used to protect your charge, the Interpose action is only a lesser action for you. Additionally, you do not take the -3 penalty to your Combat Defense when using the Interpose action. Finally, while using either the Interpose or Shield Other actions to protect your charge, you may take a fatigue. If you do so, then any time your charge is attacked you may move as a free action up to one half your movement (round down) if doing so would apply the protections of your action against an attack that would otherwise be ineligible (because your charge is not adjacent or because you are not in the attacker's reach).

Brothers in Arms
Either collaborate with a fellow PC or work with the narrator to designate an NPC. To receive the benefits of this quality, two characters must both select it and designate each other (hereby referred to as their comrade). When the comrades are adjacent to each other in combat, they gain +2 to combat defense and any passive test results to resist combat actions, as well as +2 to any test against any adjacent opponent that was targeted by the comrade on the comrade's last turn in the same combat.

The general idea is to make these actions useful but a trade-off (both in terms of action economy and personal risk) and able to be overcome with good tactics (Maneuver or moving to attack from the 'blind spot' of the protector). The Bodyguard benefit is not really necessary, but seems to me to fill a niche in putting mechanics to a character concept. Brothers in Arms is unchanged except without the specific bonus to Shield Other - it's already a quite powerful benefit that mitigates much of the risk of Shield Other. You can still get an awfully powerful combo with Brothers in Arms, Bodyguard, Shield Mastery, etc, but honestly at that point it just is your character's thing and I'm okay with that - especially because it still has quite a bit of limitations (like being rather useless if you are fighting 1v1).

[Sponsored content]