This is the OOC thread.

In regards to rules, I have a few questions for you:
* How often are you comfortable with posting to a game here at Rpol?
* What style do you want posts made in? I am generally used to third person, past tense. Some have chosen to post what their character is thinking, others not. But I have made a short experiment with posts in the present tense.
* Standard or mature?

I'm comfortable posting every other day. I'd prefer third person, past-tense, but if everyone else is more comfortable with a different format I can adjust, as long as everyone is writing the same way. I'd prefer Mature over Standard, as GoT had more than it's fair share of sex & violence, including many things that would violate rpol's terms of service (which obviously we won't be tossing into our own stories).

You may have noted that I did not include the option of making this an Adult game, I would not be comfortable GMing or playing in such a game.

I did see that; I'm fine with Mature.

And that I can do, if that is what the group prefers.

While I can post every day, I am more comfortable saying 3-4 times a week.

Third person past, but can be flexible.

I prefer mature.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:57, Mon 08 June 2020.

Post-frequency: I'm comfortable with a requirement for 2-3 times a week possibly every other day.

Tense: Third person past, depending I may have internal thoughts, I will need to find the voice for the character.

Rating: Mature is probably preferred due to the source material but I'm not against standard. I've got particular triggers that would be affected by text forms.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:51, Mon 08 June 2020.

What sourcebooks are you pulling from for character options?
Only ASoIaF books, or are you using the chronicle system books like "Chronicles of Sorcery"

I do not have any of the chronicle system books. Let me look at those.


GoT doesn't have much magic, or rather not many characters know how to use magic, is magic something we want in our game?

Open to it, but I understand if others are not.

I will be getting the Out of Strife, Prosperity volume that adds additional Wealth holdings to the house creation system. So we will get into those a little later.

Hello everyone!
I’m okay with third person past, and posting every 2-3 days sounds great.
I know that the world of Ice and Fire is deadly and doesn’t care about people but could we reduce violence against younger people to a minimum/ fading into black?
I’ve played (other systems) where some ppl seem to enjoy this stuff way too much.

(Strangely I don’t care so much about what happens to older people)

I can post reasonably often. I would prefer third-person past tense and mature.

Hi all.
I am looking forward to this game.

I prefer third person past tense.

Things get pretty grim in Westeros so I think mature would best. We don’t need to describe some really explicit acts in detail. I still have to look away from screen when The Mountain ends lives in the show.

I am gearing towards the mature, because it seems that this reflects grim and violent world of the ASOIAF best. I guess no adult themes means Bolton storyline happens off screen, huh.

I can post daily or every two/three days if I am in a lurch. And yes, I am fine with keeping violence directed towards children to a minimum, except of course heinous acts that are canon in the books. It would make no sense to make world of ASOIAF less cruel than it is.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to gaming with everyone.

I am fine with mature.

Third person past is what I am most familiar with, but am used to some people posting present tense for games.

A post every other day or so is good for me.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 10):

One of my favorite thing about the books is that magic is slowly coming back into the world when the comet is in the sky. All of the religions have their own magic that is starting to work again.

Are we using the mythos from the books or the show (for setting purposes)?

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 2):

Post: every other day

Tense: I would prefer third person present tense as it might allow for more dialogue and internal monologue in character
Perhaps with [OOC asides, like scenery descriptions, in brackets] ... (internal monologue in parentheses) ... and “spoken aloud by the character would be in quotations”
Would internal monologue and dialogue be in first person, or still third person? Or just not encouraged?
I’ve done lots of online gaming, but they have all been in real time. It seems that in this format, tense consistency and use of other grammatical devices would be more important.

Rating: mature
This message was last edited by the player at 14:02, Tue 09 June 2020.

My familiarity is with the TV show, I haven't read the books.

We talked about magic earlier and I'll add your voice as pro magic. Any other comments on that subject?
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:58, Tue 09 June 2020.

I'd be happy to see the inclusion of magic if it can be arranged.

So far White, Brown, and Blue have expressed ProMagic views.

Red was the first to bring up magic, but has not revealed their position on the matter.

No other player has expressed their views on the matter.

A little magic, well applied could be interesting.

Magic adds complexity but I approve of its use, within setting for this time period your likely looking at: red priest, maester (Valyrian steel and black links)

Spoiler from preview chapter from winds of winter

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Asshai: Moqorro’s blood magic, on the silence Cthulhu stuff

---

Warg and greenseers are in the base book.
If a house had a character With any magic I’d suggest a cost of house resources and  limit the number of characters to whatever the gym is comfortable with (like a maester)

Sorry for typos, on my phone.

In reply to Red (msg # 25):

As I understand it, the other resource books (Chronicles of Sorcery) have ‘magic’ type of effects. Like divination (Used by Maggie the Frog and Melessandra very differently). Ritual magic, blood magic, sympathetic magic, trance, purification, etc. Not all of them are traditionally RPG magic like we would think about it. Some are just abilities that can grow over time (but that don’t necessarily grow).
Take the warg and greenseer powers ...

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Bran, Arya and John all have Stark blood and all have the ability to Warg into animals. Bran is the only one who expands on that original power by being able to warg into Hodor. Jogen and Bran are both greenseers, but Bran becomes the three eyed ravin.

---

There are many levels to how far down the rabbit hole someone wants to go. I agree with limiting the magic users in a house, but if someone wants to have one power like

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Arya, John, or Jojen

---

  that should be less restrictive vs. someone like

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Bran

---

who has more than one power and “levels them up.” I would want to limit someone that powerful to one in our house.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:57, Tue 09 June 2020.

Well met, everyone.

I guess I should weigh in on all this stuff too.

* How often are you comfortable with posting to a game here at Rpol?
 Every other day probably, maybe a couple times a week. I've got stuff I deal with that might make it hard to post super frequently.

* What style do you want posts made in?
  Third person, past tense is my preferred method as well.

* Standard or mature?
  As many others have said, mature definitely fits the setting more.


And as far as magic, I am actually kind of appreciate the magic-lite nature of Westeros at the point in the timeline you said you wanted to start. A lot of fantasy settings become so over-saturated with magic.

Also, WOW, we've got 11 players?  Are we all going to belong to a single house are we going to split into multiple houses?

We discussed the pros and cons of multiple houses in the other thread, and ended up going with a single house.

Frequency: Every other day or 3 days per week. I'm not arround on Sundays so those end up being the same thing. Some say they can post more often, but at least we have a baseline.
Style: Third person, past tense.
Rating: Mature


On these forums, I have been trained to use [OOC: in brackets]. "Spoken words should obviously be in quotations." And some use color to make it even clearer what they are saying. I do not, but feel free to do that if you like. I would expect characters to speak in first person like people normally do.

I don't recall having seen anyone indicate an internal monologue by parenthesis, but those that use color to indicate what they say, don't use color for their internal monologue. As for using first or third person, that is up to you, it's in YOUR head!

And as pointed out by Brown earlier, having a common format is beneficial to the flow of things on the forums.


Some are familiar with the rules, some have the core rules, others may not be so familiar.

We have different levels of familiarity with the setting from the books and/or the TV show.

So please keep this a friendly learning environment for all. As I think I've mentioned to everyone, I do have the core rules, but I'm not familiar with them.



In regards to magic, Blue, Brown, Purple, Red, and White have expressed ProMagic views. While Gray wants to keep things magic lite.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:24, Tue 09 June 2020.

So...has anyone started thinking about what types of character they might like to play?

I am still running a number of ideas through my head.  Just thought I'd see what others might be thinking.

Three ideas, I'll pick one according to the preferences of others:

1.Daughter and possibly only heir to the House, who is also slightly mentally unstable.

2.Maester or ambitious Septon

3.Knight sworn to Head of the House. I might even make her female and Dornish (not knight but a competent warrior in that case)

I figured I would wait and see the state of our House first and what sort of events led to its founding before figuring out what kind of character to make.

In reply to Gray (msg # 33):

I am kind of doing the same.  I have some general thoughts...just nothing really firm.

Loosely related, are we using the on-site character sheet section or should we just keep track of our sheets however works best for us?  I know some GMs like being able to review sheets on the site while figuring out posts.

Thank you for bringing that up Orange. Just because the House is located in the Vale doesn't mean that all characters have to be from the Vale. They can be from as far as Dorne or even from Essos.

Good question Gray. We will most definitely use the in game character sheet area once the characters have been created. I prefer completing the creation process in a PM thread so that I can see how the character evolves.


Are there any good character sheet templates that we can use?

Message 95 in this thread has one.

link to a message in another game

How elaborate do you like the sheets to be?

I'm usually pretty bare bones. But I liked the one Blue suggested.

In reply to White (msg # 31):

If possible, I would like to be ‘the Maggie the Frog of The Vale.’ Perhaps as a part of the court as an eccentricity (not necessarily a part of the family by blood... if anything through marriage). One trick pony kind of divination ‘magic’ but with a heavy sprinkling of theatricality to really sell the fake stuff when she is inevitably asked to perform and is unable to. That is IF we are even having magic. Without the magic she would just be like an ‘Old Nann of the Vale.’ I haven’t looked at the mechanics of character creation yet, but that is my concept so far.

Who is Maggie the Frog? I think that is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen the reference on here.

In reply to Gray (msg # 41):

In the show, she is the one who predicts Cerci’s future.

Maggy the Frog was a fortune teller from Lannisport who dealt in cures and love potions. Her true name has been forgotten, while "Maggy" was likely a bastardization of the word "maegi".[1] In the television adaptation Game of Thrones she is portrayed by Jodhi May.

In reply to Brown (msg # 40):

My mentally unstable heiress might have some interesting past with the Vale witch.

In reply to Orange (msg # 32):

Usually I play a daughter, kind of a Sansa-type. Although I have a couple of situational other ideas if someone is wedded to that concept

I'm thinking Scout/Warg. Since this is my first time trying to create a character, I recognize I may need to build up to things, but ultimately I want to go the Skinchanger route. Probably shadowcat, but I haven't decided yet.

I think I would like to play a schemer type. Possibly heir or ward. I want to gain all the leverage, favor, and power for the a House that I can manage. If this won’t work, perhaps a scheming maester or some other character build will benefit the House as well.

If you want a Maester in the House, you will have to invest 10 of your currently 22 Wealth Resource.

The events of our founding will adjust our current stats, won't they?

Once we get to the actual character creation process, I am willing(if the gm is ok) to answer questions and help if people need it.

In reply to Orange (msg # 44):

In GoT, the only way for a woman to be the ‘heir’ is if she is from Dorne (which is why it was my top pick for locations). Shereen (Stanis’ daughter) is the only exception to this in the books or TV show

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
and she was eventually used for kindling.

---

Are we being faithful to the culture of the books and TV show in this aspect?

I assumed we would, but I also love the idea of a Westeros with greater gender equality.

I am torn on this.  Part of me says, "well, we are just rp'ing in a fantasy world so who cares." The other part says, "well, we are rp'ing in a fleshed out fantasy world and perhaps we should try to reflect the culture we are playing."

But, I don't have strong enough feelings either way.

In reply to Brown (msg # 51):

... and if Head of House has no male sons. According to books, Cat was groomed as heir before Edmure was born.

In reply to Orange (msg # 54):

Then that limits the family to having only one child, or only daughters. Which doesn’t mess with my character idea, but it does limit what everyone else chooses. (Unless we throw bastards into the mix.)

If someone else decides to play legitimate heir, I will modify background. Although I could claim the right of first dibs :).

In reply to Orange (msg # 56):

:-D
This message was last edited by the player at 21:55, Tue 09 June 2020.

Gray, both the house's history, including founding, and the 1d6 each player gets will change the House's stats.

White, feel free to help the other players with any rules questions they might have in regards to character creation. If we interpret the rules differently, we'll talk about it at the time. We will be talking about character backgrounds and roles and such towards the end of the House Building process. That doesn't mean we will bring up all of their background.

Brown, we are being faithful to the culture of the setting. So unfortunately, there are no female heirs in the House.

Orange, I haven't read the books so I cannot say what they say on the subject. But the core rules are clear on the subject. The first son is worth more than the first daughter outside of Dorne. In regards to the needed investment of resources.


I have another question to you all. What is your view on player vs. character knowledge? Would you be fine with your character sheet and backstory being public to the players? The benefit of this would be that it would be easier for the other characters to know what you are good at and what you are not good at. You are a House and would likely know such things. The other side of the coin is do you trust the other players not to let what they know, but their character doesn't influence how they act.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 58):

I prefer using our descriptions as a way to let others know what they might know about us.  This game is set up for many possible avenues, and, while we all may be in the same house(and all may, to a point, like each other), it doesn't mean we all have the same exact goal.

I like keeping the sheets private between player and GM, especially in this setting.

I am thinking of being a bastard born, with some interesting side hooks I hope if I can design him right.

You have good points. Let's keep them between the player and the GM.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 58):

I prefer my character sheet be open to the group for efficiency, but keeping it private doesn’t bother me.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:14, Tue 09 June 2020.

I've never kept then open between playes before and I recently saw another game doing that for that very reason, so I wanted to see if that was something we wanted to try here.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:14, Tue 09 June 2020.

  Do we really need to worry about efficiency? We aren't some party of adventurers.

Throwing my hat in for creating a steward.
But I will want status 3 at least.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 58):

You should they are good. But that is basically what I said. My character being heir is good only as long as there are no male children. For now, nobody had shown the intention of playing legitimate son.

The household is Step 6 of the House Building process, so I wouldn't expect anything firm from anyone until then.

I can make a male heir if needed for the House otherwise will make a bastard born military trained guy.

In reply to Black (msg # 69):

What your own blood can't bring you, spilling enough of someone else's might?  heheh

I guess we are not deciding upon who plays the heir until we reach step 6.

Feel free to discuss your character ideas though. But everyone isn't online so everyone may not give any input on the matter until step 6.

In reply to Brown (msg # 55):

I just wanted to answer you but got distracted. While it might at first seem that me choosing to play a female apparent heir might be limiting to other players, many other options are limiting as well: if I pick maester, for instance it might limit someone else who plays that, there can be only one head of the house etc.

I have been discussing a concept with the GM. I don't have it fully fleshed out, but, it involves a forward thinking mountain clan becoming a banner house to the main house. Two ways for that to happen are for us to start with a banner house (which can be expensive but easier) or, I take the sponsor quality and later take landed.

There are more to my thoughts, but finishing up at work. :-)

I will be campaigning to be the male head of house.

Orange, I do like your idea of a Dornish warrior sworn to the House. If you think a schemer type role is more along your forte, then I suggest that you campaign for those roles.

I really like the idea of teamwork for the House and want everyone in their favored roles as well as what benefits the House the most.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:56, Tue 09 June 2020.

In reply to Purple (msg # 75):

Whichever of the three concepts I decide upon in the end, I intend to make my character socially strong because I like playing such characters.

And this game will have more social encounters than standard adventuring encounters. Though I don't know what type of encounter will take longer to resolve.

What do you mean by "campaigning" for roles, Purple?

I am new to the mechanics, but like putting elements together.

I envision a House of networks where each player is the lead or a strong component of their chosen network (or specialty). Some I’ll see the greatest advantage to House growth as Merchant Ventures. Some will see it as Military Might. Some will say that Diplomacy allows the greatest advancement. Some may express a need to grow and diversify our Land Holdings.

I hope I am picturing this right.

In reply to Gray (msg # 78):

Like Heir, there may be a role that more than one player is interested in. For example, only 1 person can be the military leader of the household. In those cases, I think the players should “campaign” for the roles by putting forth their concepts and letting the other players decide their preference.

In cases where there are no contenders for a spot, their would need not be any campaigning. But likewise, people with multiple concepts can put forth their ideas for the other players to suggest which role they prefer.

I think I follow...

It seems a lot more hierarchical and regimented than I am used to seeing character creation go. We are characters in the house, sometimes we are Eddard Stark, sometimes we are old Nan.  Not everyone needs to be a shot caller.

Agreed. And no role needs to be considered less important either.

Everyone's equally unimportant to the king. (except the royal cup bearer, long may he live)
I would also like to campaign for heir of the house, if not then perhaps the second born.

How about everyone states 2 concepts they'd like to play:

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)

Just copy this and add your own ideas

In reply to Gray (msg # 65):

Efficiency of communication OOC.

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)
3. Scout/Warg (Blue)
If this is problematic with another character I can consider something else, but this is what I want to play and would rather not add to a list just to add to a list.

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)
3. Scout/Warg (Blue)
4.Daughter and possibly only heir to the House, who is also slightly mentally unstable. (Orange)
5.Maester (Orange)
6.Female Dornish sworn sword of the noble birth(Orange)

Being a warg, will they have traveled to our lands from the North or would they just have enough blood of the First Men to have the gift?

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)
3. Scout/Warg (Blue)
4.Daughter and possibly only heir to the House, who is also slightly mentally unstable. (Orange)
5.Maester (Orange)
6.Female Dornish sworn sword of the noble birth(Orange)
7. Bastard son/military?? rapid response force for Bandits etc.

In reply to Gray (msg # 81):

Seconded... old nan ... makin’ money the fly way ( man, there’s got to be a better way, a better way, better way yeeaaahhh)

Sorry, “shot caller“ got that song stuck in my head.

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)
3. Scout/Warg (Blue)
4.Daughter and possibly only heir to the House, who is also slightly mentally unstable. (Orange)
5.Maester (Orange)
6.Female Dornish sworn sword of the noble birth(Orange)
7. Bastard son/military?? rapid response force for Bandits etc.
8. (WHITE)Heir to a mountain clan/bamnerhouse. Good with dogs, fairly well-rounded.  <-- prefer this, but can fill a role if needed.

I was always under the impression that the leaders of the Mountain Clans were just whoever managed to kill the previous leader?  I didn't think they cared about bloodlines or anything like that.

The Warg and Warg Dreams qualities in the rules doesn't mention a northerner requirement.

Apologies, they are tied to the Children of the Forest, not the North specifically.

Technically, most of the mountain clans don't have leaders per se. Each man/woman is allowed to speak in council basically.

The clan I have been working on is a little more forward thinking and through a friendship they accepted a leader and banner house status or, if we don't start with a banner house, they are open to becoming one.

Hard typing all of this on the phone. Hope it makes sense.

Of course, I was just making a rules observation. And the rules doesn't specify any particular  "ethnicity" to have that quality.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 96):

Books mention a skin changer from The Reach even, so I don't believe its tied to the region.

I wasn't talking about the rules either, just looking at the lore. If you've got other explanations that's cool too.

1. Heir of the house (Gold)
2. Second born of the house (Gold)
3. Scout/Warg (Blue)
4.Daughter and possibly only heir to the House, who is also slightly mentally unstable. (Orange)
5.Maester (Orange)
6.Female Dornish sworn sword of the noble birth(Orange)
7. Bastard son/military?? rapid response force for Bandits etc.
8. (WHITE)Heir to a mountain clan/bamnerhouse. Good with dogs, fairly well-rounded.  <-- prefer this, but can fill a role if needed.
9. Daughter, gentle and socially talented (Green)


Failing that, I've been in a campaign where I played the young newlywed Lady of the house, that could work, and I have another concept that depends on their being a Knight in the group.

I'm not sure how this would be seen in the world... I guess it would be possible for your house to have been formed from a mountain clan that supported the Andals and later were accepted as a banner house. Though you'd still be more civilized than the mountain clans. (As your family would have been a banner house for several generations

I know you were talking about the lore Gray, I wasn't. I was talking about the rules.

Logging out for the night. I'll catch up on anything I missed tomorrow. This is getting exciting!

Maybe Blue’s 6 was properly labeled and it was my 3 that was not labeled.
Darn! I will have to roll again. ;)

That would have been awesome if that was the case, but unfortunately you used the note realm modifier, so the 3 stays.

Fortunately, Blue didn't use a note when he rolled his 2. So he gets another chance.
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:45, Wed 10 June 2020.

I’d be happy to take the roll of 7. As in the bastard son.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:02, Wed 10 June 2020.

Black is wanting 7 also, but no reason we cant have 2 units

Old guy was friendly...and busy.

Just thinking out loud. What if the great ancestor found a silver mine and used some of the silver to trick enemy soldiers? This ploy was so successful that after the war he was granted the mine and the nearby lands. As the House grew, a small town grew up to work the mine and support the miners. The House used the wealth to fortify their position but are in need of expanding their lands.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:20, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to Purple (msg # 108):

There are silver mines in The Reach and gold mines in The Westerlands ... I would want precious gems! It’s different, and we aren’t in competition with one of the other great houses for a market share (unless I just forgot something from the books). Plus, they’re pretty!

  Alas, we dont control enough lands to support a small town and a mine. A hamlet, perhaps though.

What do we have to “buy” for our land investments?

I thought our size indicated a small town or village. That could be a hamlet I guess but we can brag that it is a town. Wouldn’t we just need to pay 10 for the mine? Is there something else we would need when starting off?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:41, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to Purple (msg # 111):

Take a look at the Land section of the base book. It shows you what you can spend the land points on (I believe it is on page 107-108).

10 Wealth does cover the mine, but we would also have to have a domain with hills or mountainous terrain (7 or 9 Land, respectively). A hamlet added to the domain would be 10 Land, a small town, unfortunately, is 20.

In reply to Purple (msg # 108):

I think if we have a Superior Castle it should be storied, and involved in our backstory

Brown if you wanted to go with bastard son.  I could be a ward from another kingdom.  Either Riverlands or Stormlands.

Land

Mountain 9
Hamlet 10
Light Woods 3
Stream or Grassland 1

Edit: Also, https://s3.amazonaws.com/brpce...91e1479f1d93b8a5.png
This message was last edited by the player at 03:05, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to White (msg # 116):

That looks promising.

Sounds good silver I will be a bastard and you a ward  may we be brother in arms  none the less.

We could also have an iron mine, perhaps it is of higher quality "cleaner" which gives us the edge over other iron mines.

If we had precious gems I feel that we should be richer...

With the wealth, could we have more than one mine or does that take a separate land location? Can a house have more than one Maester?

In reply to Purple (msg # 120):

I'm not sure if the GM would allow a second mine but there can always be only one Maester

Character concept: Steward retainer - goldsmith by trade, dedicated to the fortunes of this house.

I like the castle, though how about this:

Land

Mountain 9
Hamlet 10
Coast 3
Stream 1

We could be located on the eastern side of the Vale and those players that wanted to command their own ship could still have the chance.

The only reason I was suggesting a silver mine was because I was also going to suggest:

House Name - Silverswift
Motto - Born To Soar
Sigil - A silver martlet (Swift) volant (in flight)

I am open to much better ideas, hahaha.

In reply to Silver (msg # 115):

My character concept is the Maggie the Frog of The Vale, but with the relationship to the family of our house that Old Nan occupies in relationship to the Starks. I’ll be playing a female character, if that wasn’t already clear.

Shouldn't this house stuff be in the other thread so we've got it all in one place?

In reply to White (msg # 116):

I like it. I would choose stream over grassland, and I would go with a ruin instead of woods (they both cost 3).

In reply to Gray (msg # 126):

I will repost it there if needed, or requested. Just putting around here with ideas.

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-...vironment-obj/590558

A castle, a little patch of land, mountains. :)

If we wanted, we could also go with a castle and tower instead of just a superior castle, and maybe tie the ruins feature into part of the tower somehow.  Like some remnant from the days of the Andal Invasion or something that is still usable as a defensive structure, even if what lays around it may be a mess.

Do we have anyone wanting magic? A Place of Power costs 1 land and 4 wealth and can augment ritual casting.

I thought we were just using the core book?

In reply to Gray (msg # 131):

GM has said we are using Out of Strife, Prosperity and has not finalized if Chronicle of Sorcery will be used.

In reply to White (msg # 130):

I would like magic... looking at the system, Red told me that Maggie the Frog was most likely a greenseer. Would that need to be used to augment the greenseeing power?

In reply to Brown (msg # 133):

I don't believe so. The book covers sorcery and ritualistic casting. I had thought about using it at one time, but didn't feel like reading through it at this time

In reply to Purple (msg # 124):

Ooh, I like that


And the idea of a castle and a tower is interesting, although I also like the idea of a single storied fortress; it could explain our high influence

I'm just checking out "Out of Strife" and it looks interesting... I didn't know they had this.

Edit: After reading through it, I'm still not absolutely convinced that we should use all of it but we can use it as inspiration or perhaps to add our own ideas.

It would be cool to have our holding to be known for its specially trained hounds or its wool. Plus it would explain where our people get their food from.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:12, Wed 10 June 2020.

Looks interesting but I will likely leave the magic usage to you more mystical types.

Got another idea: what do you think about having a mine of mercury? It's rare, kinda unique and it probably get used by the Citadel a lot. Even more interesting, it ties in with the madness angle- some of the lands that provides food too the castle is just above the mine and soil is full of mercury.

Also, lets us still use Silverswift, because it reminds of quicksilver, which is old name for mercury.

You have a very interesting idea there. I like it.

Personally I don’t really like it but I guess we can go with that.

Yeah, I'm not sold on that either. Though I do not have any alternative suggestions yet.

Iron, bronze, tin we could have a quarry instead and “mine” stones suitable for castles and stuff.

In reply to Gold (msg # 143):

Why go with unique when you can do boring, right? :p

Gold, now I know what happens here when you sleep.

The Castle of the Kite looks a little small to me. If it's supposed to be a Superior Castle.

I was planning on only using the core book, but what I read about the wealth holdings book looked interesting and it was cheap. So...

We’ve been doing our homework to make things easier. :)

Is the idea of a mercury mine feasible?

Let me look into the mercury thing. As for the quicksilver reference, mercury is still called that in some languages.

In reply to Orange (msg # 144):

I guess mercury is too unstable for my taste... though we might be able to convince the DM to give us an extra unit of fanatics every year due to mercury poisoning...

Making a quick search, I found no mercury connection to A Song of Ice and Fire and the only quicksilver connection I found was to a dragon or a ship. So unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a need for it.

If it works, here are my thoughts. The mercury didn’t effect the food supply, but it did have an effect on House history.

Our ancestor was a lascivious man and in order to maintain his prowess, he regularly consumed mandrake root. But one such patch of mandrake did get tainted by the mercury and caused him to lose his mind. Thus the Madness Event in our history.

And that lascivious must have gotten passed down at least once, because there is a current bastard in our family.

And the mercury being unique and in special demand with the Citadel, opens up the possibility for our House to gain a Maester.

Just brainstorming.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:50, Wed 10 June 2020.

Why is there demand for mercury in the Citadel? I haven't found any such demand in my quick search of the Internet.

In reply to Purple (msg # 150):

Of course there is need for mercury. They have gilded stuff in Westeros and IRL mercury had plenty of uses in antiquity, even if you say they use electroplating or mechanical gilding.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 151):

Historically, it was used as poison.

In reply to Gold (msg # 148):

It can be slow acting. Not aiming to hamper us too much.

Oh, there is likely no directly written use listed. But the Citadel does engage in alchemy and it could be used for that. It has also been linked to scrying mirrors if you are interested in a mystical connection.

Basically, it is just a bit of homebrew world building.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:58, Wed 10 June 2020.

Yes they are bunch of metals that are never mentioned in the books but that's hardly the reason to assume they aren't present. It's just that books don't go into details on mineralogy and metallurgy.

Obviously, I only mentioned that I found no connection.

And to me, the Citadel of our time seems more like a storehouse of knowledge than inventors and experimenters looking to increase the Citadel's knowledge base. But that may very well be the biased view of two individuals, one of whom was expelled by the Order. And the other never becoming a Maester.

Like I said: knowledge of Mercury might not be an innovative idea or invention. We know that gilding is known in Westeros. If you have problems with it for unknown reasons, then I'll drop it. I just thought it might give more uniqueness and flavor to the House than silver, gold or iron.

And I am flexible. Just trying to help fit the pieces together.

I can't say that I know much, or anything, about gilding. But from what I read on Wikipedia, there are other methods they could have used in the setting.

I have nothing against it per se, I was only making comments based on the lack of use in the setting based on my quick search.

Having said that, if there is use in the setting, then it has to come from somewhere.

What I know is that the etching and gilding that uses mercury amalgams were a common ways of decorating weapons and armor. Also historical uses of Mercury that are viable in Westeros:

1. Poisons
2.Mirrors
3.Makeup (key ingredient in Ancient Rome and Egypt, noble ladies and mummers are mentioned as using makeup.
4. Mercurium sulfide was the source of red pigment in antiquity, combined with silver swift someone proposed it might make our colors dark red and silver.

My exception to mercury was only practical. Is there a need of it? But at least one of the players opposed the notion and everyone hasn't had the chance to voice an opiinion or even think about it yet.

In the rules, they say that mirrors are made of beaten silver, so unless mercury is used in the process to make beaten silver, it seems it isn't needed there.

But it is poisonous and is/was used in contemporary makeup too.

I am just saying that your reasoning to shutting down my idea is based on the fact that there is no explicit mention of mercury online. In this case are we also assuming that nothing mentioned in online sources doesn't exist in our game as well? Where I am coming from there is little reason to shut it down, because I fail to see how our House being suppliers of pigment and obscure alchemist or metallurgical component breaks the game or abuses the rules. And there is one player disagreeing on that, but I operate under assumption that we won't veto each other's ideas arbitrarily :). That being said, if we cannot agree on the mine, maybe investing in some other resource would be the best way to go.

Or we could simply assign one aspect of resource allocation to every player to be sure everyone has a say in defining some House characteristic.

In reply to Purple (msg # 150):

Hmm, prolonged exposure to Mercury causes madness. What if he got STD due to his lasciviousness and tried to heal it by inhaling mercury fumes as Ivan the Terrible allegedly tried  to cure Syphilis during the middle ages? Against better judgement, of course...

https://tinyurl.com/ya8nbdcj

In reply to Purple (msg # 166):

Looks awesome!

I'm not sure if you read my previous post before making this one.

There I said "My exception to mercury was only practical." (Bold added). As in I don't have an exception any more. We are discussing things here and this is a learning experience for many if not all of us. I am not an omniscient expert. It was a quick search. I pointed out that it was a quick search for the very purpose that there very well may be information missing. And in case there wasn't informatmion missing, I said no because there wouldn't have been any need for it. But as we have discussed, there is need for it.

And just as some players have one idea, other players may have other ideas. This is a collaborative effort in creating your House. Resources are limited. Some ideas will stick others will not. And the group has to come to some sort of consensus on that.

I've read it in passing and missed the tense, glad that we cleared this up and can hopefully move on.

That looks nice Purple. Perhaps a little more colorful than one might expect in most of Westeros, but it's an artist's impression.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 170):

Show tends to be bleaker in aesthetics than descriptions in books. Not saying that's necessarily bad, I kinda like both personally.

There seems to be two general styles of castle concept art : beautiful and impractical or impregnable and ugly as a mud brick. Just a little something to add to the aesthetic.

Lots of conversation across two threads. Please let me know if I owe anyone anything and if so if anything's off the table yet in terms of resources. Thanks!

What's policy on sheets? Are we allowed to share them with each other or not.

Of those that have commented on magic in the campaign, which might be about half of you. Most have been positive, while one person wants to keep it to a minimum. Of those that haven't commented, do you have an opinion?

If not, we're going with the magic supplement too.

Not planning on playing magical characters, but if anyone wants to do it, I have no objections.

Blue, please roll 1d6 for the other thread. And fill out the Reason for Roll field with something like Resource modifier. Then post it in that thread.

If you want to share your character sheet, feel free. If you don't, you don't have to.

I'm not sure exactly what you want to know.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 179):

Let him know what he needs to roll and which areas are open for him to place his roll.

There is a bit more detailed expansion of ideas I had. I was going from memory so I might have made some mistakes, but it's more of a draft than anything. Wanna hear everyone's feedback:

Dornish “knight”

Oryanna Santagar
Age: Middle aged
Status: 3
Role: Schemer/Fighter
Events: Tournament, Significant dead, Kidnapping
Goal: Revenge
Motivation: Hate
Virtue: Just
Flaw: Wrathful

Status: 3(10)
Agility: 3 (10)
Athletics: 3 (10)
Marksmanship 4 (40)
Animal Handling 4 (40) (Ride: 2B)
Fighting 5 (70) (Spears 2B)
Awareness: 4 (40)
Persuasion: 4 (40) (Charm 4B), Intimidate (2B)
Endurance: 3 (10)
Will: 4 (40)
Thievery: 1 (+50)
Healing: 1   (+50)

ID: 9
Composure: 12

Combat Defense: 10
Health: 9

Benefits: Attractive, Spear Fighter, Courteus

Destiny points: 2

Flaws: Agility, Honor Bound

Maester

Maester Kase

Age: Middle Aged
Role:Expert/Schemer
Events: tournament, famous individual, significant deed
Goal: Power
Motivation: Curiosity
Virtue: Wise
Vice: Ambitious

Knowledge: 5 (70), Education 3B, Research 3B
Cunning: 5 (70) Logic 2B
Awareness: 5 (70)
Status 4 (40) Reputation 1B
Healing: 4 (40)
Language: Old Valyrian (10)
Deception 4 (40) Bluff 1B
Animal Handling 3 (10)
Will 3 (10)
Stealth: 1 (+50)
Survival: 1 (+50)

Benefits: Knowledge Focus (Alchemy), Knowledge Focus ( history) Maester, Sinister, Master of Ravens
Destiny points (1)

Drawbacks: Flaw: Agility, Ignoble, Haughty

ID: 14
Composure: 9

CD: 9
Health: 6

Heiress

Gyllen Silverswift
Role: Schemer
Age: Young
Events: Traveled over Narrow sea, Kidnapped and Ransomed
Goal: Security
Motivation: Stability
Virtue: Courageous
Vice: Foolish

Status: 4 (40) Breeding 2
Will: 6 (100)
Persuasion 6 (100) Intimidate 2, Persuade 2
Awareness 3 (10) Empathy 2
Deception   3 (10)
Knowledge 3 (10)
Language: 3 (Braavosi) (70)
Animal Handling: 3
Agility:3
Stealth: 1 (+50)
Marksmanship: 1 (+50)
Warfare: 1 (+50)

Benefits: Heir, Charismatic (Persuade), Dutiful

Destiny points: 5

Drawbacks: Disturbing Habit, Haunted, Nemesis

ID: 9
Composure: 18

CD: 8
Health: 6

BLue rolled and posted in the other thread, so we're talking about that there. Thanks White.

In reply to Orange (msg # 181):

Interesting.  I am not the GM so I am just talking and not ruling, but, most games I've seen do not allow players to take that many 1's in character creation.  If he does, great.  I mean, you are taking a huge chance that some of those rolls might come up and bite you!  :-)

In reply to White (msg # 183):

Ah, those are just expanded concepts. I'll change anything around, if needed.

I have completed step 2 in my character description (click on “Brown” as a link for my “name” on the left to view my character description).
I would like to use the magic in the sorcery supplemental book if no one has objections to it. However, being a greenseer would not ruin the concept and that is in the base book.

In reply to Brown (msg # 185):

Seen it, your character seems interesting.

Better name, Vandrose or Vanthor?

In reply to Purple (msg # 187):

Vandrose

Agreed.

  So, I suppose since ideas are being tossed around, here are a couple loose concepts I am considering at this point:

- A knight, either a hedge knight who was taken in by the House or possibly a brother to the Lord of the House. Could act as a master-at-arms in the latter case if someone else isn't sold on the idea.
- A maester, but perhaps with something of Qyburn spin in that he acts as a sort of spymaster as well.


Those are really about it at the moment. But I am still brainstorming and open to input as we further flesh out the House.

Oh yes, a spymaster, please.

The new discussion thread is closed

I think it is just intended to keep people appraised of topics and their progression

Some players have commented on the difficulty of knowing what is happenening when they get back to the game because so many posts have been made since they were here last. The new thread is a list of things that is happening right now without the clutter.

Please let me know if something is missing from the new thread.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 194):

Could we get a locked thread\post with the current stats and standing of the House? Like, just the stuff we have locked in so far so we don't have to go scrolling back through a bunch of posts?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:51, Wed 10 June 2020.

Done.

No holdings have been decided yet, though White has made some suggestions.

It looks there are four of us who are interested to playing the actual family members?

I recall the son and daughter, and I mentioned playing an uncle potentially. Who was the fourth?

In reply to Gray (msg # 199):

Head of House? :)

Orange (female), Purple (male), Green (female), Gold (male). Gold's first concept is being the firstborn son. And it seems that it is Purple's first choice too.

Black mentioned creating a son if he needed to, but it seems he's going with his prefered bastard instead.

Adding Gray as an uncle. Does that mean an uncle to the Head of House or a brother to the Head of House?

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 201):

If I am voted out as heir, I'll go with my other concept. So it will probably be less.

In reply to Orange (msg # 200):

Are you saying you wanted to be the head of the house, or just pointing out that the fourth could be that? The Head of House could easily be an NPC as well if no one wants to play the role.

I dimly remember somebody saying they want to play head of house, but cannot remember who.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:34, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 202):

Sorry, uncle to the kids, so yeah, brother to the Lord or Lady of the House.

Intersting point Gray. Being a brother of the Lady of the House would mean that you are not a member of the House by blood. Which you would be if you were the Lord's brother.

Another point about living in the Vale, both the King and the Warden of the North were fostered in the Vale.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 207):

Yeah, I am open to either. Technically the Head of House can be the lady if, say, the Lord died recently and the heir is not of age to offer leadership yet. I like the idea of family without necessarily being tied up in the politics. (not to say I am opposed the politics, that is a huge part of the setting, haha)

Is the position of leadership that of heir, head of house, or either? Because I believe there are two different benefits available depending on the distinction.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:54, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to Purple (msg # 210):

You can have both in game.  The Head of House is the current leader, the Heir is who takes over when we kill off the current leader...uhm, when the current leader dies. :)

Head of House replaces Heir, so you cannot actually have both.

In reply to Gray (msg # 212):

You can have 2 people who each have one.  The Lord and his son/daughter.  One player cannot have both.

As we have two players who both want to be the firstborn son, I don't think we will find ourself in a position where the House is led by the Lady of the House. But we'll talk about those details, in detail, later in the process.

 Random query: do bastards of Westeros take the sur name based on the region they were born in, or where their father was from?

In reply to Gray (msg # 215):

From memory, without looking up anything, I believe it is from the region they are born in.

From what I understand, the region in which they are born. Generally speaking. But I guess that can depend on who is raising them.

It is determined by their respective region.

Now let us say we have a head of house we could have firstborn twins for the heir etc maybe brother and sister or twin brothers.

I don't think twins can both take heir, since one of them had to have been born frst.

If they are male and female male is still the heir. If they are both male, the one who is born first, even if it was by minutes is heir. I'd play second child who is female, but in these games everyone's just trying to marry you off to advance some agenda if that's the case and that gets boring soon.

In reply to Orange (msg # 221):

You could get married to a lord and go help run a house.

In reply to White (msg # 222):

Yes, some other House. I have my own pet peeves and one of them is that unless woman is a sole heir like Brienne of Tarth or Dornish her opinion does not count in the matters of running the house because she is a woman. I know setting is sexist but this kinda makes daughters with brothers a less cool choice.

Arya never sat around waiting to be married off. Just saying...

I understand.

In reply to Gray (msg # 224):

Considering the type of campaign we are playing (making our own House) I don't thing those who wander off will get much chance to play.

Which might also mean that those who are married off might not see much play time either.

Yes. Sucks.

 We are also a high influence house, we can shirk societal norms all we want. Sometimes we just have to be subtle about it. Maybe the uncle trains her with a sword behind his brother/sister's back, maybe she disguises her gender like many in history have in order to pursue what they are passionate about. You don't have to play the maiden in waiting as the only way to play a girl appropriately in this setting.

I agree with Gray, my post about being married away was an indication that the likelyhood of that happening being extremely small. In my opinion.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:48, Wed 10 June 2020.

As far as wandering off, this game is not meant to be played as a party of adventurers, the cast doesn't have to be in every scene together. GM willing, they should be able to go off and have their own scenes as appropriate. Look at the cast of the A Song of Ice and Fire, books or TV series, how often were they all in the same place focusing on the same thing?

Agreed again. It's easier if the group is together, but that may not be the case.

In reply to Gray (msg # 229):

Idea is someone who desperately wants to get into leadership position through soft power. Maybe if there is a heir who is less interested in politics or not of age she might play big sister who knows better. Or she might poison the heir secretly, hahahahaha.

Point is, whether I wait or not wait, if Head of House wants that alliance with Arryns, she'll have no way of opposing him. Except to run away or kill him. And you can say that this is less likely, but daughters are political bargaining chips in the books. It would be foolish not to marry capable daughter to someone from other House, given the chance.

I am playing the sister in law the the Lord. Not of the blood. She was married to the lord’s brother who is now deceased (I like the freedom of being the widow of someone connected). They were childless unless someone else in the game (PC) would like to play their son/daughter.

Daughters were a bargaining chip, that is true. But there is enough Influence points to invest in additional daughters.

It was discussed in the other thread if the last historic event, which was glorious, took place during Robert's Rebellion. And if that is the case, that means that the Head of House likely is the one that brought Glory to the House. The second most wonderful person in the House's history since the Founder himself!

Considering that, there may be an increase in marriage proposals for all the children.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:01, Wed 10 June 2020.

 kind of taking agency away from whoever is playing Head of House, aren't you Orange? They might play such a leader as to care more for their daughter's happiness than some diplomatic arrangement.

Agreed again. I feel like i'm doing thumbs up to everything Gray is saying right now.

True. We don't know what kind of Head of the House players will play yet. Although most of those represented in books/novels are not known to take happiness of their children into account, they might be different. But then again, if they want to play someone who wants to make marriage alliances it would be kinda uncool to limit their choices. That would mean taking their agency away from them for OOC reasons.

LOL, well I appreciate the vote of confidence. I hope I am not overstepping any bounds here. I just... it seems like it kinda ignores the complexity of the setting and the people in it.

Gray, not at all.

Orange, and that's why we have enough Influence to invest in more daughters. NPC daughters.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 235):

And so many of the heirs and sons are still unmarried at the start of the books.

Yes and the boys don't always have a say in whom they marry either.

Ironically if you look at the source material:

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Little Bear Lady Mormont; Cersei; Asha; Chella daughter of cheyk; Daenerys; Sansa
Plenty of women in charge, in times of war the men go dying

---

In reply to Orange (msg # 238):

A daughter being offered for a political wedding but refusing to heed the lord's will would make for an interesting storyline and I'd be curious how it would pan out. Plenty of drama, intrigue and great opportunities to RP.

 Does the lord threaten the alliance by caring more for his daughter's needs? Does she run away, seeking aid from others in the house or beyond to hide until the arrangement is abandoned? Does she go through with it, and use the clout of being high in another house's hierarchy as a means of helping both houses prosper (or even just her blood family's)?  If banner houses can be a thing for PCs to be a part of, why not an NPC house they are married into?

This system seems very much driven by player initiative and goals, we are all writing this story together.

In reply to Orange (msg # 238):

A daughter being offered for a political wedding but refusing to heed the lord's will would make for an interesting storyline and I'd be curious how it would pan out. Plenty of drama, intrigue and great opportunities to RP.

 Does the lord threaten the alliance by caring more for his daughter's needs? Does she run away, seeking aid from others in the house or beyond to hide until the arrangement is abandoned? Does she go through with it, and use the clout of being high in another house's hierarchy as a means of helping both houses prosper (or even just her blood family's)?  If banner houses can be a thing for PCs to be a part of, why not an NPC house they are married into?

This system seems very much driven by player initiative and goals, we are all writing this story together.

Poison can solve so many problems...:)

Wildfire too....

Haha, both absolutely true.

Purple, I have seen you post both that you want to be Head of House and that you want to be a son. Are those two different concepts or did you start with one and change your mind?
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:21, Wed 10 June 2020.

Orange, you could always join the mountain clan. Women have a lot more leeway...see the aforementioned Chella

 Hey Dragondog, since it looks like many people are starting on characters already, how many 1's in skills (if any) are you okay with PCs having? The book says "you can reduce an ability to 1 and gainan extra 50 Experience points", which could just be nitpicking wording, but sounds like a single ability can be reduced to 1. But I've known GM's who preferred otherwise.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:31, Wed 10 June 2020.

In reply to White (msg # 249):

Heheh, I have another character, female Dornish sworn sword, that might fit better in your clan. Too early to tell which way I am going, I believe I am ditching the maester concept since there seems to be no wish to invest resources towards him. Leaning strongly towards the daughter.

We haven't really discussed all the details regarding Wealth holdings.

I imagine you can play a maester even if we don't pay for the mechanical benefits of a maester.

Gray, unfortunately that is not possible.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 254):

Most big Houses have Maesters and Septons.

In reply to Gray (msg # 250):

Putting too many 1's should be discouraged because it makes boring one trick ponies.

In reply to Gray (msg # 250):

I know a couple of GM's with specific rulings on 1's.

A) only 1 may be taken
B) If you ever wish to raise that attribute, you have to first burn a Destiny.

That second ruling was to keep people from getting a net profit of experience by lowering it to 1 and then raising it to 2 later at a lower cost.

In reply to White (msg # 257):

I like B, that should be enforced, hahaha.

Gray, the way I read that is not as a limitation on how many abilities you can reduce, but what you get when you reduce one.

I haven't played before, how many do you guys think is suitable?

Orange, indeed. And they have to invest Wealth points for the privilege of havin a Maester or a Septon.

White, I'm of the opinion that if you get 50 points for lowering it to 1, you need to pay 50 points to return it to 2.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 248):

Whoever is to be our continuing lead for game purposes. I don’t want be the old man who gets bumped off. Or the brat who hangs on waiting years for his chance, lol.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 259):

I usually limit that to a maximum of three and make people pay 50 points if the want to raise it. Bear in mind that having 1 means you are extremely inept in something. Hodor's Cunning is one, in example.

In reply to Purple (msg # 260):

So you might be the one who'll try to marry me off. :D

And you might be the one to poison me off.

If we go with Glory during Robert's Rebellion and the current Head of House is the second most glorious person in the House, ever. That person should not be A PC.

Typically expect that the former HoH has recently passed, or is soon to pass to allow the heir to move up at the games beginning. But you may have different ideas.

That is a distinct possibility. And it would make things easier. But you are not the only one who wants to be the firstborn.

In reply to Orange (msg # 261):

I'd prefer one. Three produces a very powerful character.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 266):

And how is this resolved?

That is a good question.

We compromise. Former Head of House might have died during the rebellion as well. His glory stemming from his heroic death. That might give heir (present head of house) the pressure to fill their shoes and provide some RP opportunities.

I prefer only 1 attribute lowered. I won't complain if you let more...but I probably won't utilize more than 1. :-)

I think 3 lowered at max if someone is willing to pay the cost of limiting thier character that much ,  I also  like the 50 cost to raise it  back to rank 2.

  Wait, what's the debate? Whether we should have a PC HoH?

No. GM only stressed that if PC was Head of house it should not be the same one who did heroic deed during Roberts rebellion and contributed to Glory.

Indeed. PC head of house or not will officially be discussed later in the process. But that doesn't stop individual discussions.

I mean, GoT starts... what... 10 years after the war ended? I don't see why a HoH couldn't have been the person who achieved something great during the rebellion. I also don't see why it would have to be the HoH as clearly not all lords are warriors. It was just someone tied to the House whose actions brought glory.

That's not at all what we're are talking about Gray.  What are are talking about is that the glorious one isn't a PC.

By "glorious one" you mean the person who did something noteworthy during the rebellion? Why not?

In reply to Gray (msg # 278):

Valid question. That's what benefits like "Famous" and "Respected" are for. Although, I'd never choose it. It's kinda meh to be the one who did their most significant deeds off screen.

Yes. He is the second most noteworthy member of the House ever. If a PC starts there,  he has nowhere to grow. I might as well kill him.

Why are they automatically the second most noteworthy member of the house? The glory belongs to our house, if the person is to be so noteworthy wouldn't they take qualities for Fame and such?

A Glory event it's the result of the actions of one person.

Yes, but our house is what benefits from it.

That has happened twice in the House's history.  The first founded the House! Who in the House would be greater than those?
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:30, Wed 10 June 2020.

Do all achievements of greatness have to be of the same calibur for them to be considered great? Personal glory and the glory of one's house are not the same thing.

As has been posted in the other thread, the Glory historical event is something you get because the actions of one person. It is something so great that it changes the house! How can anything else compare?

We could also keep discussion in this thread instead of clustering the "House Building" thread to keep things tidy.
The DM would then only have to look through the "House Building" thread to check our results.

Out of Strife:

I agree with the DM here, while I like the ideas I'm not too fond of the changes.
I'd say we keep it as it is but can discuss to use some of their ideas (Using Core rules but we could add the "animal husbandry" which perhaps could net us +1 to House fortune rolls)


Copy this and add your opinion:

Out of Strife:
Yay:
Nay: (gold)

Out of Strife is all or nothing. Either we use all of it. Or we don't use anything.

I was trying to refer to this quote from the core book:



Meaning that we could get ideas from "Out of Strife" but using the Core rules.

Though my vote is still Nay to "Out of Strife" if we're just going with the 8 examples in the core book.

Copy this and add your opinion:

Out of Strife:
Yay: (white)
Nay: (gold)

As I mentioned earlier, one of my core concepts is based off one of the holdings in the book.

Out of Strife:
Yay:White
Nay:gold
Undecided: orange
This message was last edited by the player at 00:39, Thu 11 June 2020.

Ah. I misunderstood. That might be possible.

Out of Strife:
Yay: White
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange

Out of Strife:
Yay: White, Red
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange

Gray, in regards to the Glory historical event. It seems that you and I were talking about different things. You were talking about game mechanics and I was talking about in setting effects.

Out of Strife:
Yay: White, Red, black
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange

Can the idea White likes be incorporated, in some fashion, by the core book alone?
This message was last edited by the player at 04:06, Thu 11 June 2020.

Testing

A Song of Ice and Fire RPG Character Sheet
Name	Trevon Stone				Player
Gender	Male		Age	18	House	Silverswift
Goal	Justice	Motivation	Duty	Virtue	Devoted	Vice	Prejudiced
Abilities
Rating	Ability	Specialties		Rating	Ability	Specialties
2	Agility			2	Knowledge
2	Animal Handling			2	Marksmanship
2	Athletics			2	Persuasion
2	Awareness			2	Status
2	Cunning			2	Stealth
2	Deception			2	Survival
2	Endurance			2	Thievery
2	Fighting			2	Warfare
2	Healing			2	Will
2	Language
Qualities						Intrigue	Combat
						Intrigue Defence #	Combat Defence #
						Composure #	Health #
						Intrigue Damage	Combat Damage
						0	0
						Injuries	Wounds
						0	0
Weapons						Destiny Points	#
Weapon	Quality	Test	Weapon Qualities	Dmg	Bulk	Armor
						Armour Rating
						Armour Penalty
						Bulk
						Move / Sprint
						# Base #
						# Armoured #
						# Fully Laden #
Wounds				Appearance
				Height		Eye Colour
				Weight		Hair Colour
				Mannerisms
Equipment
				Distinguishing Features
				Motto
				Retainers
Gold Dragons			#
Silver Stags			#
Copper Pennies			#
Allies			Enemies			Oaths
Personal History

Out of Strife:
Yay: White, Red, black
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange
Meh: Silver

I don’t have that book, but I can try grab it if needed.

I had a question. I own a physical book and I download the core (game of thrones edition) there were minor differences between them. Which one is everyone using.

In reply to Silver (msg # 299):

Out of Strife:
Yay: White, Red, black
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange, Silver


Fixed it for you...

I'm using the pdf, I didn't even know there are differences

The only reason spotted the difference is I was looking the rules for being a Ward. One book has it as a flaw and the other as a benefit.

I am using the game of thrones edition as well.

In reply to Orange (msg # 245):

Even if a betrothal for a PC happens, the marriage will most likely not happen until after the fighting is over (if he even survives)... take a look at the

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
betrothal Catlyn made for Rob to one of Lord Frey’s daughters. Troops were sent in good faith that the wedding would take place later... and we know where that ended up (as the rains of castemere plays in the background).

---

So there is a president. (From a father who didn’t care much for his children in general.)

In reply to Silver (msg # 299):

I'm using the digital version

GoT edition is the updated edition. I have been using it.

Me too.

I'm also using the GoT version.

I will look into if there's a way to implement White's idea with only the core rules.

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 288):

Out of Strife:
Yay: White, Red, black, brown
Nay: Gold, Gray
Undecided: Orange, Silver

Chronicles of Sorcery:
Yay: Brown,
Nay:
No strong feelings either way:
This message was last edited by the player at 13:33, Thu 11 June 2020.

Seconded.

I'm using GoT: Song of Ice and Fire rules. I don't own Out of Strife or Chronicles of Sorcery. If we can play without having access to those rules and they just provide supplementary data for those who want to use them, I'm fine with both.

I haven't read Chronicles of Sorcery, so I cannot say what it does or doesn't do.

But Out of Strife changes the rules. I made an example out of Port earlier so let me repeat that.

In the core rules a Port can only be built on a coastline and it has synergy effects with the Marketplace.

In Out of Strife, you can build a Port on a coastline or river, but it has to be in a Small Town or larger. And the Marketplace has synergy effects with other holdings, but not with the Port.

If we go by realism, rule in Out of Strife makes slightly more sense. But I am fine with either.

 I'm not sure if I am misreading, but in the GoT edition of the rules, the markeplace still requires a small town or larger as well. So that seems the same between both books it sounds.

The Marketplace does require a Small Town in GoT, but the Port doesn't. In Strife, Port also requires a Small Town.

Oh... yes. Forgive my misreading that.  ^_^;

No worries, Gray.

In reply to Brown (msg # 9, Land Resources):

What house rules have been required so far that you feel we are forcing Dragondog to implement?

The comment was about the alcohol. There are not rules for that in core, but, apparently, there are in the supplement.

Without the supplement, the gm would have to improvise.

Or go as Gray suggest and have it as flavor only.

 Yeah, much of this system is about abstraction. I don't need mechanical expressions to make every aspect of the story possible.

Someone pointed out that depending on edition, Ward was either a Benefit or a Drawback. In the Errata for GoT edition, they change if from a Benefit to a Drawback.

It also states that a Land Holding only may have two Wealth Holdings.

If you're interested in reading what else is there, you can find it at https://freeronin.com/gr_files...esEdition_Errata.pdf where it was found by White.

Oooh, interesting update to wealth holdings.

In reply to Gray (msg # 317):

None as of right now that I can see. I like being able to look up codified rules in a book rather than putting pressure on a GM to weigh in with a decision for something that is house ruled (especially if a text already exists that has been play-tested for balance and also especially in a play-by-post format).
When I run a game, it is much easier to refer players to a page number in a book and make a ruling on the interpretation of the text rather than making decisions that could upset several players (and in a play-by-post campaign, waiting for other players to weigh in on the discussion instead of just being able to read the rules). Like our GM, I also am an all or nothing sort of person when it comes to using a book. (That does not mean that anyone needs to go out and purchase anything else. It was the second link on google when you search for the pdf.)
All of this could just be me projecting from the way I run games with large numbers of players (usually in 5e or Monster of the Week).

If you want a more narrative RPG experience, there are other systems that lend themselves to that (Monster of the Week, or Powered by the Apocalypse) that are not setting specific, so with a little imagination, you could run it in Westeros. This system is more codified than 5e and less codified than Anima. Because of that, I like having “rules as written” rulings by the GM rather than having house rules that could break the balance of a play-tested system.

Green and Purple, could you please go into the Wealth Resource thread and vote on the rule set we are using. Basically the new rules add more wealth holdings, but they also change the rules on the old ones.

If you have no opinion on the matter, that is fine too. It would be good to know what direction we are going.

Which areas need attention at this time?

In reply to Purple (msg # 325):

I think we have near-consensus on land and most people have voted on the castle. Troops and wealth holding seem to be the big ones.

Out of Strife, Prosperity adds the concept of types of wealth holdings.
Estate Holdings - 1 per domain


Lifestyle Holdings - many have additional costs such as defense or power


Personage Holdings- No limit


Settlement Holdings - limit based on community or defensive structure size in the domain



Also adds the concept of resource reduction protection - if a house fortune roll says you lose a the resource you lose less of it. Many of the holdings have improvements such as added the smelting equipment and expertise to a mine.

So we need to invade the coast and a nice patch of farm land. In the name of justice and goodness, of course.

Don’t go all quiet now, we are just getting to the good parts.

Do we roll for money once we've settled on our character sheets?

Yes, that is part of step seven of character creation.

I've a question, I read up on cavalry and found this:



Does it mean we have to give the cavalry a unit to be considered a fighting force or can we just take "cavalry" and we got some people on horses with a stick?

In reply to Gold (msg # 332):

You just take cavalry. It's not necessary to combine types.

In reply to Green (msg # 333):

So if we want special cavalry (Mounted archers) we'd have to combine cavalry with archers but if we just want men on horses then we just get cavalry.

Couldn't we just equip horsemen with some bows and turn them into horse archers?


(Not that I want horse archers, I just take them as an example)

Units get gear based on their unit type. I think outfitting and training riders to also fire bows accurately from horseback is involved enough to fall a Power investment to give them the additional unit type.

Mmh.. okay. Thanks for your explanations

Quoting the book: "Most units have just one type, but it’s possible to build units with
two or more types provided you invest the total Power to meet the cost for each unit type." (p. 110)

So it seems that we can get Mounted Archers for a +8 Power Cost with +0 Discipline Modifier and Agility, Animal Handling, Awareness, Fighting, and Marksmanship. But they wouldn't get any more experience than anyone else, but they'd have 5 instead of 3 Key Abilities to spend them on.

Also the ability to move twice as far as normal infantry (80 yards as opposed to 40) while still having long range marksmanship attacks (200 yards!)

Hey Dragondog, once we get characters figured out, are you renaming our current profiles or just creating a new character profile for us to post under?

I was planning on renaming them.

Qustion regarding books vs show: in show some of the characters were aged in order for producers to employ adult actors, because show was full of explicit scenes that we are hopefully avoiding. Are we going by book ages of characters, since they make more sense?

That is a very good question.

Do you have a specific character or characters in mind and we can compare the available information.

For my Dramatis Personae thread, I used the information in one of the wikis, which turned out being a wiki for the novels not the show, as the basis for giving them an age. Many characters are not given an age and I made it up. And some characters were given an approximate age and I made it up within the limits of the information I had.

Daenerys: 13 in novels, 17 in show

Jon Snow:Book 14, Show 16 (which also enabled them to establish L+R=J theory as a go to theory.

Eddard: Book: early thirties, show 41

Same with Cat Tully

Tyrion: 25 books, 32 show

Arya: 9-14 books, I guess she starts off in her teens in show?

Brienne: 17-20 books, thirty something in the show

Those are examples I know.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:32, Fri 26 June 2020.

I mean questions of discrepancy might never come up, but A Wiki of Ice and Fire is a good resource to clear up any conflicting lore. I saw both show and am avid fan of books. Most stuff in early seasons is the same, only character ages are changed and some characters have been cut. One important difference in novels that might concern us is presence of Blackfish Tully in the Vale, which goes unmentioned in the Show (if I remember it right)

I would definitely not, under any circumstances, make Daenerys 13 years old when she is married to Drogo. I would say 16 would be the youngest I could work with. Based on this alone, I don't agree with you that book ages make more sense.

And having established her age, I would also go with Jon being born in 282 AC too. I would set the age of the other Stark children as Robb 17, Sansa 13, Arya 11, Bran 10 (as explicitly stated on the show), and Rickon 6 when the story starts.

I couldn't find any explicit age for Eddard or Catelyn in the show, but would go with him 36 and her 35.

I would go with Tyrion being 32.

I found no explicit age for Brienne in the show either and I don't have any quick tidbits to go by to establish her age in the way I had with Ned and Cat.


Generally speaking, I haven't checked historical events and how they fit with these numbers.

And you are right, questions of discrepancy may never come up. That wiki is one of the sources I have been looking at.

Why I said younger age makes more sense: because rash/unwise actions of some of the characters result from them being virtually children. Marriage with Drogo is not an argument for her being 16: it might seem sick, but initially, she had no say in that marriage. Only makes her beggining more tragic.

But feel free to claim show ages. It is your game after all. That being said, I will imagine stuff as I read them in the books, because I consider GRRM's world pretty much ruined in HBO's oversexed fantasy. :)

Since you were unaware of the age difference, I have to remind you that if you're going to use Canon characters as old as they are in the show, you'll have to adjust their stats in Campaign guide book to reflect this, because it takes booknages. For instance, Dany is adolescent there, while she should be young adult if we go by the show, Tyrion and Jaime are adults and they are middle age in the show, and so on... Just in case you decide to use those characters in game ever, of course.

I definitely agree with you that the show was oversexed and that it would have been better with less. And yes, the characters can be rash and unwise.

And the reason why 13 doesn't work for me is because I couldn't submit someone that young to marriage, even if she had no say. And even if I think 16 also is too young for marriage, it is legally possible with parental or judicial consent in many jurisdictions. So I could work with that.

And I am more familiar with the show than the novels.

As I recall from the game books, they take place a few years before A Game of Thrones begins. I couldn't find the exact year. But based on that, some characters would have aged out of their age group anyway.

The closest I could find to describe the exact date in the ASOIAF books is "fifteen years after War of the usurper", setting it in the year 298. Which is the year in which the show starts. The difference in timeline is the fact that in the show Robert's rebellion happened in 281 not 282-283 (in books/game it was 15 years ago, in show it was seventeen years ago) The reasoning for this was basically "we want some character's to be older in order to be able to have more sex scenes".

In reply to Dragondog (msg # 348):

Yes, you and me couldn't submit someone 13 years old to marriage. But Illyrio Mopatis and Viserys are horrible people, even by standards of ASOIAF. That's what bugs me with how it is played in the show. In books it is done as tragic and creepy stuff, the way Dany was sold. In the show, tragedy came with disgusting level of smut.

Edit: in Westeros there is no legal lower age limit for marriage. Like I said earlier, it is a horrible world for women and girls, but that's the world in which we chose to play.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:55, Fri 26 June 2020.

You are correct, it is year 298 in the gamebooks, your quote helped me find the explicit statement in the campaign guide. So I was misremembering that. Thank you.

The show may have had their reasons for aging the characters. Their reasons are not mine.

That places me in a position where the gamebooks and the show are in disagreement. Which I had not expected. Which I have to solve somehow.

But I haven't read the books, so those are not part of my frame of reference.

Whether there is no legal age limit for marriage in Westeros doesn't matter. This is not the game where 13 year old girls get married.

I say take whatever license you determine is best for the game. It is impossible to be canon anyway.

I share your unease with featuring this stuff in your game, I honestly do. But, on the other hand there is no firm reason not to go with books for the sake of simplicity. I read the books and seen the show and there's little possibility of you being blindsided by anything (at the very start, when we are playing situation is the same in books and show) . And looking at the players we have here, I think everyone agreed not to do horrible stuff to children anyway, so we will just consider Viserys and Illyrio awful and abusive men and never discuss it anymore in game.

We are not going with a novel based timeline!

I have not read the novels. I am not familiar with them.

I kindly ask you to stop shouting at me. Thanks.

I'm not shouting at you.

Exclamation points speak differently,and gives the impression of hostile tone, but that's open to interpretation. It's fine. I will no longer take part in OOC discussions on timeline or anything else. It is your game.

I used the exclamation point for emphasis not for shouting nor for a hostile tone.

I couldn't find saddles on the equipment list. Does anyone know where they are and how much they cost?

Probably just assumed you have it if you've purchased a horse. It doesn't list the rest of the kit you'd normally want to ride a horse either.

I noticed that and that was my thinking too. I wanted to check with those that know the rules better than I do if there was something I was missing.

Should we roll for our wealth now?

That is part of your character creation, so please roll, and include that and your gear in that PM.

You have to spend at least half of your starting wealth on starting equipment.

For those that are members of the main house, please remember that the House covers most things that don't cost more than 1 gold dragon. That's all of you except Orange and White.

As no one seems to be of a different opinion, I'm ruling that an appropriate saddle, bit and bridle, and stirrups will be included in the price of the mount.

I’m going away for a few days with the family. I will be able to check in on my phone but posting will be difficult.

Thanks for letting us know.