Re: Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

I'm pretty much stealing all of the above.

Had to switch up LBF II, since revised maneuver does most of that.

Now back to this bloody rapport that needs to be submitted today, blech.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Had a response mostly typed up when I accidentally closed the browser.  

I'm pretty much stealing all of the above.

Had to switch up LBF II, since revised maneuver does most of that.

Now back to this bloody rapport that needs to be submitted today, blech.

You can't steal what was freely offered.

For LBFII, the order is a bit problematic - Maneuver can put the opponent out of reach of a followup attack. I'd suggest either reversing it (if you damage with an attack, a followup maneuver does the bonus damage) or using a variation on the revised LFBII from this game (attack and maneuver as one action).

One fiddly but important detail about that (and the revised Spear Fighter II) - there are differences between a maneuver that does damage and an attack that maneuvers the target, so it's important to consider which you want.
1) For most characters, passive fighting will be significantly higher than combat defense. That means that a maneuver that does damage wont do much damage (or rather isn't likely to do damage. given plate AR). On the other hand, an attack that maneuvers the target will provide MORE movement (and be much more likely to hit the 3 DoS threshold to get the -1D).
2) There are potential interactions with other mechanics. Notably, Spear Fighter II and Agile Maneuvers (esp. considering Spear Fighter I's reach). It takes 3 benefits which is a heavy investment, but you essentially get 4 actions in a round, combined to make a very safe 1v1 combat - move in, attack+maneuver/knockdown, move out. With reach+ high movement and the opponent having impaired movement(Knockdown)/greater distance(Maneuver) it will be very difficult for a more traditional opponent to get in range to attack, even with a charge.

The easy way to deal with #1 is to specify that you use the same attack roll but compare it to the appropriate defense.
As for #2, there are a variety of things you can do - only allow the combined action to be used if you do not move, or make it a special action (not a regular attack action), and probably other things.

[Theomore Tullison]

Ah, but I added to maneuver that you can move after your opponent, so obviously LBII user must do that to follow up with an attack. I find it fitting that you could drive your opponent in front of you.

Spear Fighter II would function as you make an attack, which is resolved as normal against combat defense (but without bonus dice), and then you also use the fighting result to resolve a maneuver or knockdown attempt. As written, the former will have less chance of success than standard, while the latter probably will have higher chance (but now knockdown isn't all that powerful anymore). At least how I read (and intended) that one.

I do think agile maneuvers probably should be rewritten, possibly into giving a greater action where you can take a lesser move action and take any other lesser action at any point along your path. Or just give +2 defense if you take a move action during your turn.

A point in favor of having spear fighter be strong for what it does is that it only works while fighting on foot, it does give the spear fighter the chance to not get brutally slaughtered by the knight charging him from horseback. Likely still will be if the knight is a primary character on a superior destrier.

[Baelon Drakeson]

A point in favor of having spear fighter be strong for what it does is that it only works while fighting on foot, it does give the spear fighter the chance to not get brutally slaughtered by the knight charging him from horseback. Likely still will be if the knight is a primary character on a superior destrier.

That would apply to all of the weapon skills though - it doesn't matter how good you are with a sword or mace when you are being charged by a lance. If you have reach and initiative you can prepare a counterattack, but most of the [Weapon] Fighter X benefits wont help - most either don't apply to reach weapons or require a special non-attack action (Axe Fighter benefits with a Long Axe being a notable exception). Counterattack, as written, only allow for an attack action, not any other kind. Otherwise having Pole-Arm Fighter II and 'readying' a Pulling a Rider from a Mount (Greater) action with a Pole-Axe could be quite effective against a mounted charge...

Out of curiosity, why do the spear fighter benefits only apply to the specific Spear weapon? it doesn't seem like they would be massively more powerful with one of the other (non-lance) spear weapons.

[Theomore Tullison]

Axe Fighter and the others can be used from horseback, although charging things with war lance is probably the most effective way to kill them by far. I may make a note about it being rather silly to charge one enemy after another though, because you'll probably want to switch weapons once reaching the enemy.

Spear exclusivity is more of a flavor thing than based on game mechanics. In my head, doing the sort of fancy tricks with the other one's just doesn't feel right.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I note that LBF 1 has 'Requires: Fighting 4 (Long Blades 2b)', LBF 3 has 'Requires: Long Blade fighter 2, Fighting 6 (long blades 3b)', but LBF 2 only has 'Requires: Long Blade Fighter 1'. Was it a deliberate choice to not have it require Fighting 5?

I did a bit of calculating - 6d6k4 and 8d6k5 mirror matches, Maneuver has a 50% chance of success, give or take a percent or two. In neither case is 3 DoS for -1D possible (can't hit 28 on 4D, or 33 on 5D). So, the only reason to do a Maneuver is for the 50% chance to get +4/+5 damage, roughly equivalent to 1 extra DoS for most longswords. (Unless they have Talented:Fighting - given that the target is at the very top of the Bell curve, even just the +1 actually makes Maneuver significantly more reliable, to about 62%, even before the re-roll - if that gives even just another +1, you're into the 72-73% range).
Conclusions:
(A) without Talented, you're better off saving 2 Benefits, and just aiming for +1B and hoping for an additional DoS. With Talented, it could work well, but you've sunk 3 Benefits into it, so it better.
(B) LBF 2 is significantly weaker for Greatsword wielders - the damage bonus will be noticeably less than +1 DoS which aim might get them for no benefit investment at all.
(C) Someone with 8d6k5 has only a 5.5% chance of getting the 3DoS required for -1D on Maneuver vs someone with 6d6k4. With those probabilities, it is worth asking if it's worth having the mechanic in there to begin with, given how rarely it will come up.

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).

This needs cleaning up. It's unclear if you take 1 fatigue each time you wish to do the movement, 1 fatigue at the start of combat if you wish to 'unlock' the movement throughout the combat, or 1 fatigue on first use to 'unlock' the movement for the rest of the combat.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Axe Fighter and the others can be used from horseback, although charging things with war lance is probably the most effective way to kill them by far. I may make a note about it being rather silly to charge one enemy after another though, because you'll probably want to switch weapons once reaching the enemy.

I've often felt that charging should have a minimum distance (perhaps at least 1 move action's worth of distance, or something like that). Otherwise war lances are just too good - even if you only have 3 Animal Handling that's 9-12 damage per DoS (depending on mount type) - that's crazy good for negligible XP cost and only one handed. To get the same with a ball and chain (arguably the strongest 1h weapon other than the War Lance) you would need Athletics 5 and at least 2b Str (and still charging of course), which is a hefty 90xp more investment. Sure, you get the -1D for charging, but with all the extra dice for being mounted that's not too bad - even getting 2 DoS is going to be enough to get more than half an opponents health in a single attack... and if you do get 3 DoS it's pretty much an automatic wound. If you can do that every round... why wouldn't you? Sure, Impale might slow you down a little, but having already gotten a 3 DoS hit you've got a solid lead on the fight.

Spear exclusivity is more of a flavor thing than based on game mechanics. In my head, doing the sort of fancy tricks with the other one's just doesn't feel right.

I can see that with a pike, but the Set for Charge restriction on it already enforces a lot of that (and getting reach on a pike means it can actually work). Eh, considering that the spears are the weakest weapon group (excluding brawling and thrown, of course) in general I feel they could use the love.

I did a bit of calculating - 6d6k4 and 8d6k5 mirror matches, Maneuver has a 50% chance of success, give or take a percent or two.  In neither case is 3 DoS for -1D possible (can't hit 28 on 4D, or 33 on 5D).  So, the only reason to do a Maneuver is for the 50% chance to get +4/+5 damage, roughly equivalent to 1 extra DoS for most longswords.  (Unless they have Talented:Fighting - given that the target is at the very top of the Bell curve, even just the +1 actually makes Maneuver significantly more reliable, to about 62%, even before the re-roll - if that gives even just another +1, you're into the 72-73% range).
Conclusions:
(A) without Talented, you're better off saving 2 Benefits, and just aiming for +1B and hoping for an additional DoS.  With Talented, it could work well, but you've sunk 3 Benefits into it, so it better.
(B) LBF 2 is significantly weaker for Greatsword wielders - the damage bonus will be noticeably less than +1 DoS which aim might get them for no benefit investment at all.
(C) Someone with 8d6k5 has only a 5.5% chance of getting the 3DoS required for -1D on Maneuver vs someone with 6d6k4.  With those probabilities, it is worth asking if it's worth having the mechanic in there to begin with, given how rarely it will come up.

Hmm. I only ran the basic success numbers, so I knew about the ~50%, but i didn't run the numbers for the -1D. It should be hard, but not impossible (I ran mirror matches for all legal fighting/skill combos from 3 Fighting to 5, only 5 Fighting 0 bonus dice could hit 3 DoS, and that at a 0.01% chance  ). Now, in some ways Maneuver has always been a bit of a 'bully' action in that mirror matches have low to no effect but in mismatched fights the better fighter can make the weaker fighter even weaker... not great, I think.
Now, the whole point of revising maneuver is that the primary goal is moving the opponent and the -1D is a secondary benefit for good rolls... but I ran the numbers for mismatched combatants (weaker combatant having 1 less Fighting and 0-1 less bonus dice), and getting 3 DoS was STILL negligibly possible - 0.46%-6.28%.

Dropping the requirement to 2 DoS gives mirror matches the single digit odds and mismatched fights range from 22.15%-51.51%. Those numbers seem better to me. So I would suggest using this for Maneuver (changes in bold):

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

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).

This needs cleaning up.  It's unclear if you take 1 fatigue each time you wish to do the movement, 1 fatigue at the start of combat if you wish to 'unlock' the movement throughout the combat, or 1 fatigue on first use to 'unlock' the movement for the rest of the combat.

My intent was 1 fatigue when you take the action and you get the benefit throughout. The idea is that (a) you don't have to decide in between the announcement of the action and the resolution of it - it's known in advance, making it easier to resolve in PbP. By having to take the fatigue in advance it is a bit of a risk (you might get nothing for it), but also possibly gets a significant effect (considering that it will only come up in group fights there could be a number of attacks that would get the effect).

[Theomore Tullison]

In my head, boar spear is specifically made for hunting boar, although some of it's properties could be transferred to hunting humans. Pike really is something you use in formation, regular spear is mostly a cheap weapon, frog spear isn't really that good in war, same with trident.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I suppose. Still, if fighting techniques for axes can be applied to things such as a woodsman's axe or a mattock, and pole-arm techniques can be used with spades and hoes (peasant tool), it doesn't seem that big of a stretch that spear techniques could be used with the other kinds of spears. I mean, its nothing major, it just seems odd to me.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

I just want to add: Doom.

[Theomore Tullison]

upon all the world?

[Theomore Tullison]

Revised rumor system:

Haven't gotten around to the parts about using deception for disguise and misdirection, investigating the source of a rumor and how it fits into Fire and Blood, though the latter part I'm mostly thinking will basically be that you designate a rumor as a Blood and Fire rumor and otherwise go for any of the other options as you please.

Also finished up images and short descriptions to all the NPC's that are (potentially) important to the plot in some way, there's a few there, like the king, hand and grand maester because I started with the Targaryen list and expanded on it. Arguably, the king is rather important to the plot even though he is not coming to Highgarden. The Grand Maester I can probably leave out though. I think Butterwell is the only other one not attending, but he is hand of the king and thus interesting enough I guess.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

The standard mechanic for putting out a rumor into the grapevine is that of a simple intrigue of TN 9

Might be worth clarifying about specialties - defaults of, what? Incite for negative ones, but what for positive ones? Charm? Convince? (Along with a note that other specialties can be used should alternative methods be used?)

You may, at your option, add your status rank to your simple intrigue result, but doing so will attribute the rumor to a very specific statement made by you, everyone will know that you said this and consider you to be the source of the rumor. Potentially painting a target on your back.

I do like this, a lot.

Once that number has been accumulated, that character may treat their score as one higher until the end of the present chronicle or until such a time as they gain or loose in score through other means (not cumulative).

Should be 'lose', and I don't think the 'in' should be there.

In neither event may you add your status rank to the test, and a critical failure are likely to have the opposite effect.

Should be 'is'. Also, you should probably make clear if the critical failure applies vs the difficulty to get the rumour out there (9), or vs the difficulty to affect reputation (9+Rep). I assume the latter, but it is ambiguous.

You may also speak ill of other characters, the defense against this is the chivalry or virtue score, requiring a number of DoS equal to one more than the target present score to influence opinion.

I suggest:
'You may also speak ill of other characters so as to influence public opinion. The defense against this is their chivalry or virtue score. Therefore, you require a number of cumulative DoS equal to one more than the target's present c/v score.'
YMMV, but it flows better to me.

Out of curiosity, what if you want to trash-talk a maester? Or a non-chivalrous lord? Presumably that just uses the basic, non-mechanical rumour system?

Only one rumor per day counts(the one scoring the highest number of DoS)

To clarify: this is one rumour per day against a particular target? What about per type? So, if a character gets a 1DoS positive rumour and a 2DoS negative rumour, is the positive rumour ignored entirely?

These two effects does not directly counter each other, as neither results in any actual gains or losses, but they both influence the number of accumulated DoS needed for rumors to take effect.

Am I understanding this correctly that positive DoS and negative DoS don't subtract from each other, but, when they reach a threshold and actually impact the (effective) c/v score, that then modifies the DoS the distaff side requires?

Also, am I understanding correctly that positive rumours are non-cumulative, but negative ones accumulate? So, when enough DoS accumulate for a positive increase, are the DoS reset? Including any 'overflow'?

Critical failures tends to make people think that the rumors are false, possibly undoing all previous work and making further efforts more difficult.

Am I the only person who immediately thought of finding the most socially incompetent PC I can, and hiring them to defame me? Also, what happens if this isn't the only rumour of that type that day? It does say that 'only one rumour per day counts'.

Those are the points that jump out at me, anyway.

[Theomore Tullison]

Second Draft:

Does that answer your questions?

Although looking at it, I'm sort of seeing everyone wanting to get that freebie-ish positive point, so maybe it should only help defend against negative rumors?

[Baelon Drakeson]

I just want to add: Doom.

The Doom?

...I could see a Zealot-type character utterly convinced that the impure Valyrians (ALL of them, but esp the Targs) were corrupting Andal culture and rouse the ire of the Seven leading to a second Doom.

You know, if someone wanted to play an 'end is nigh' raving lunatic.

Second Draft

Some thoughts:
1) On the whole it seems a bit complicated for something that I presume is intended as a side mechanic. Conceptually it makes a lot of sense, but I think at this level it runs the risk of, for some players, becoming a game about rumor-mongering... and I don't think that's what you intend. Perhaps just a simple test to start a rumor, and then judge the effect of the rumor on NPCs on a case-by-case basis, based on their disposition towards the target?

1a) Side thought - having rumors affect C/V score brings up a bit of an ambiguity about whether the C/V score represents actual chivalrousness/virtuousness, or perceived chivalrousness/virtuousness. The former means that secret events could affect your score and that there is some sort of metaphysical reality to it (in the way that public perceptions don't), while the latter means that the score is some sort of aggregate of many people's opinions, which seems a bit odd - and more so that an aggregate score would affect the reactions of individuals rather than their individual perceptions. Both have some oddities, but treating it inconsistently between the two would create even more oddities.

2) Do the IC posts have to be public? That opens up the doors to metagame issues/warp the experience of seeking out the source of the rumors.

3) In the same vein, I understand why you would not want to be responsible for writing the player generated rumors (just writing the NPC rumors can be a lot more work than it seems), on the other hand I could sometimes tell who wrote the rumors/"anonymous" posts (like the Anvil Gloom Knight) in this game by their writing style (but that could just be me - I have been trained in textual analysis).

4) Having only the highest DoS result count leads to a plethora of ties and thus needing a tiebreaker, which would probably be used more often than not. Might be easier just to cut to the chase and say that only test that exceeds it's target by the highest margin counts.

5) I agree with Daveth about the public rumor-making adding status bit. Makes sense and a simple & clean mechanic.

6) I like the metagame comment. It might not be a bad idea to rephrase it a little more generally, though - negative rumors about a player house/major NPC of a player house could have similar problems, though perhaps not as severe.

Although looking at it, I'm sort of seeing everyone wanting to get that freebie-ish positive point, so maybe it should only help defend against negative rumors?

So you mean wealthy people might want to hire mummers or other artisans to create works that put them in a positive light, or hire people to tell flattering lies about them?
PR/propaganda, medieval style.

On a more serious note, Daveth's idea hiring an incompetent person to tell blatantly false lies about you in hopes of a crit failure would be blatant metagaming and justifiably subject to narrator smiting, so I'm not too worried about that. Now, starting a rumor about someone else making scandalous remarks about you (or a third party) in order make said other person look bad... that's a classic (flashback to the brief aftermath of our BITW interaction).

[Daveth Coldbrook]

You know, if someone wanted to play an 'end is nigh' raving lunatic.

Isn't that Septon Abelar?
(Okay, he may not be exactly 'end is nigh', but still...)

1a) Side thought - having rumors affect C/V score brings up a bit of an ambiguity about whether the C/V score represents actual chivalrousness/virtuousness, or perceived chivalrousness/virtuousness.

FWIW, I always saw it as representing perceived c/v.  I mean, take chivalry: based on *reputation* (edit: not any more I see!), boosted by things like having been anointed by a big cheese or being particularly good at jousting.  None of these things affect personal actions, only the perception of the character.

4) Having only the highest DoS result count leads to a plethora of ties and thus needing a tiebreaker, which would probably be used more often than not.

I don't see how this is an issue.  Only one can have a *mechanical* effect, but the effect for identical DoS is identical, so it doesn't matter which takes effect.  It says that 'multiple rumors will be allowed into the daily summary', so presumably all tied results will be present.

On a more serious note, Daveth's idea hiring an incompetent person to tell blatantly false lies about you in hopes of a crit failure would be blatant metagaming and justifiably subject to narrator smiting

Well, yes.  I wasn't actually seriously suggesting it actually be done in-game.

Once that number has been accumulated, that character may treat their score as being one higher until the end of the present chronicle, any DoS scored beyond this amount carries no additional effect. Should you gain a point, the accumulated DoS are halved (round down), and should you lose a point, all accumulated DoS are lost.

Although looking at it, I'm sort of seeing everyone wanting to get that freebie-ish positive point, so maybe it should only help defend against negative rumors?

To my mind, that largely depends on how frequent c/v shifts are likely to be.  If it happens every second day, that's a pretty constant struggle.  If it only happens one or twice a chronicle, then it could be pretty easy to get & keep.

Characters without a chivalry or virtue score are treated as having 0, and they do not get any direct benefit from positive rumors (aside from some defense against negative ones), but they suffer a penalty to dispositions and on tests that are modified by chivalry and virtue.

Wait...

The default dispositions towards characters with a negative score is reduced by one step for each negative point

(Also: wow.  You made that a *lot* harsher since the last time I looked.)
These seem to contradict each other.

Also, while I'm on that page:

Maesters, Septons and Septa's does not have Chivalry and Virtue scores, neither does squires at age of 18 or lower

Should be:
'Maesters, Septons and Septas do not have Chivalry and Virtue scores, neither do squires at age of 18 or lower'

Also, I see you did away with Breeding/Reputation giving C/V points, as well as the +1 from Lordly chivalry.  Meaning the pre-Benefit scores fall in the 0-2 range.  Unless you're explicitly trying to encourage taking +C/V benefits (and I strongly feel there should be more of them if that's the case, to avoid too many characters being near-copies of each other), Romantic should have its threshold lowered again.  The only way a Master-xp knight can get to 3 Chivalry I can see is for 3 out of their 5 benefits to be taken from the same pool of 4 Benefits.  It is literally impossible for a Master-xp lady to get to 3 Virtue as far as I can see.

[Theomore Tullison]

It is relatively easy to gain chivalry/virtue through events, but the 1,3,6-effect diminishes that, so tentatively just doing default of 2 regardless of experience.

Could maybe remove the part about effects, and have something like:
TN 9 to get rumors into the daily grind.
TN equal to intrigue defense to influence a specific character with rumors.
TN equal to intrigue defense+reputation+chivalry/virtue to influence opinion about a character.
Other uses up to the narrator to set a difficulty.

Standard effect could be one step disposition for a number of days equal to DoS, or a number of steps equal to DoS fading by one step a day. (And maybe some stacking rules).

Not quite sure how to tie it into chivalry/virtue, unless such effects are allowed to modify tests also modified by the c/v score.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

So, quick question about the new implementation: how would you do Ser Robyn? By my understanding of the character, he's looked down on as being unchivalrous due to being lowborn. In the old implementation, you could represent this by giving him only 0-1 Reputation. But now, he starts with 2 Chivalry, same as everyone else. And there's no drawback for being lowborn. You could make him Threatening or whatever, but then *that*'s the reason why he's seen as unchivalrous, rather than his common birth. Maybe add in a chivalry-reducing 'Lowborn' drawback? Perhaps -2 Chivalry, with a penalty to Status checks as well to balance it with the -3 Chivalry of Ignoble?

[Theomore Tullison]

The sample stats for him doesn't have the specialties needed to qualify for chivalry is how I dealt with.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Fair enough. One more question, as it occurs to me:

Overall, most knights, lords and ladies are touchy about insults, slander and attacks upon their "good name". In our modern world, we often find people that lash out against the slightest little critical news headline to be rather ridiculous [...]. In Westeros, one can expect most nobles to be like that.

Vindictive
When presented with an opportunity to repay a slight (challenging to a duel is not uncommon), you must succeed on a Will(dedication) test to avoid taking it. Usually TN 9, but if there is little risk involved, it increases to 12.

I'm unclear, given the above, on the dividing line between the 'cultural norm' and actually 'being Vindictive'? Could you clarify, please?

[Theomore Tullison]

Vindictive probably should imply that you carry grudges, whereas an insult would provoke an immediate result and usually be dealt with promptly and that's that. A vindictive character would keep repaying at every opportunity long after anyone else would consider themselves satisfied.

[Baelon Drakeson]

1a) Side thought - having rumors affect C/V score brings up a bit of an ambiguity about whether the C/V score represents actual chivalrousness/virtuousness, or perceived chivalrousness/virtuousness.

FWIW, I always saw it as representing perceived c/v.  I mean, take chivalry: based on *reputation* (edit: not any more I see!), boosted by things like having been anointed by a big cheese or being particularly good at jousting.  None of these things affect personal actions, only the perception of the character.

True. Of course, that also means that only publicly known actions would affect the score, so a chivalrous knight (or virtuous lady, for that matter) could be secretly a mass-murdering cannibal and suffer no c/v repercussions (so long as they are not caught). That's all well and good, if it's what is intended. On the flip side, it would also mean that particularly well believed rumors truly could destroy a person... and we're back to the rumor mechanics discussion. Actually, that gives me an idea... but it'll make more sense in reply to something else.

On a more serious note, Daveth's idea hiring an incompetent person to tell blatantly false lies about you in hopes of a crit failure would be blatant metagaming and justifiably subject to narrator smiting

Well, yes.  I wasn't actually seriously suggesting it actually be done in-game.

Well, I know you weren't saying you would do it, but it was an exploitable loophole.

Could maybe remove the part about effects, and have something like:
TN 9 to get rumors into the daily grind.
TN equal to intrigue defense to influence a specific character with rumors.
TN equal to intrigue defense+reputation+chivalry/virtue to influence opinion about a character.
Other uses up to the narrator to set a difficulty.

Standard effect could be one step disposition for a number of days equal to DoS, or a number of steps equal to DoS fading by one step a day. (And maybe some stacking rules).

Not quite sure how to tie it into chivalry/virtue, unless such effects are allowed to modify tests also modified by the c/v score.

I like this a lot better, mostly because it is nice and simple. I would say that the TN to influence a single character with rumors needs to be higher - otherwise it's an anonymous simple intrigue, which is a much better option in many ways than engaging in a full, face-to-face intrigue.

Here's the idea I had before - if a particular rumor is repeated enough to get cumulative DoS equal to double (triple?) the target's c/v, then the rumor monger (or any rumor monger pushing that rumor) may BURN a DP to inflict a drawback (of narrator's choice, based on the content of the rumor) on the target. of course, the target can burn a DP to cancel the effect, as normal (or to remove the drawback, for that matter). First off, that really limits it to PCs and Major NPCs (notably Nemesis and perhaps Vindictive primary NPCs)

Also, I've always found the 1/3/6 progression a but odd... for one, it's very easy to get the initial effect (positive or negative). For another, it's ever so slightly non-linear (that would be 1/3/5 [half round up] or 1/4/7 [one-third round up]). I feel like if it's that easy to get even a temporary +1 then c/v is pretty cheap (and thus not worth investing benefits in), and on the other hand if it's that easy to get even a temporary -1 that it is awfully fickle, and being at the threshold (1 c/v) is rather risky. I would think that something like 2/4/6 (half round down) or 3/6/9 (one-third round down) would make the base c/v score more significant while still having temporary modifiers something to seek/be wary of.

Fair enough.  One more question, as it occurs to me:

Overall, most knights, lords and ladies are touchy about insults, slander and attacks upon their "good name". In our modern world, we often find people that lash out against the slightest little critical news headline to be rather ridiculous [...]. In Westeros, one can expect most nobles to be like that.

Vindictive
When presented with an opportunity to repay a slight (challenging to a duel is not uncommon), you must succeed on a Will(dedication) test to avoid taking it. Usually TN 9, but if there is little risk involved, it increases to 12.

I'm unclear, given the above, on the dividing line between the 'cultural norm' and actually 'being Vindictive'?  Could you clarify, please?

I expect its similar to bound to the bottle - pretty much everyone drinks, but some can't help themselves. In situations where drinking excessively is problematic, the BttB character could be in real trouble. Same thing with Vindictive. Most may react poorly to social slights, but can restrain themselves where it could cause problems, like during Mushroom's antics in this game. Or if the worlds best swordsman insults you, challenging him to a duel will probably only make things worse... but the Vindictive person just can't stop themselves. I think that would be a good candidate for a negative c/v point too - the result of repeatedly having made a fool of themselves in the past. Especially considering that TN 9 isn't all that hard to beat, given that most will likely have the 3+ Will - for 3 will that's a 74% success rate. For 4 will it's a 94.6% success rate...

I don't know though. On one hand the penalties for having negative c/v are so harsh I doubt many would want to take a drawback that gives negative c/v. -1 maybe, but -3 for ignoble? Probably not. Remember that's not just the penalties for having low chivalry,  it's also being denied the benefits of positive chivalry.

[Theomore Tullison]

I think Vindictive is strong enough as is without needing any further c/v directly, but it could definitely force you into doing stuff which inflicts negative points.

Ignoble was very harsh when it gave -1D on both status and persuasion, but I can see the point. A -2 wouldn't lock you out of the benefits assuming nothing else lowers the score. -3 forces you to take a +1 benefit.

A -1 shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as you stay in the positive.

The 1,3,6 line is basically a 1, 2, 3 progression, you need 1 point for the first, then 2 more points for the second and so on.

As for rumors influencing specific persons, the effect would be more limited than a face to face simple intrigue, as it's rumors that provokes their reaction. Easy way to make them challenge you in the joust for example, or make a father confront someone reported to have taken an interest in his daughter.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I note you've added in 'Proper Lady', and missed out the name of the benefit.

Graceful is interesting. Assuming there's not going to be too many dance-offs, it's like Compelling (Charm), but substituting in +1 virtue instead of +1 Influence (assuming they're status 3-4, at least). This does mean that someone could get a +5 bonus to Charm (Graceful, Compelling & Talented), which is near base-game 'Famous' levels of OP (though it does take 3 benefits, rather than 1, so I'm not too concerned). Still, I like it, and it seems reasonably well-balanced.

Proper Lady though does feel like it's missing something. Probably because it's a direct equivalent to True Knight, but doesn't have the same amount of 'stuff'. Even if it's a mostly-flavour thing, like Graceful's +1D to Dancing, I feel like it lacks *something*.

But that leads on to another point. Most people have a pretty good idea what Chivalry involves, and there's the knight's oath to guide them. I'm less clear on what Virtue dictates in terms of mandated behaviour - I'm pretty clear on a few things it forbids - sleeping around, mostly; martial acts, disobeying your lord/father. But beyond that, what *are* the 'true ideals of Andal propriety'? Be good at sewing? Getting married at an appropriate age to an appropriate man? Perhaps a small section clarifying this should be in the Customs post?

[Theomore Tullison]

Status(Breeding) is a lot more useful than Will(courage), so I reasoned that difference should make up for less stuff.

Although maybe I should let courage be useful in intrigue?

I'll have to read up on a bit more material for the virtue part.

[Sponsored content]