Brightflame
Lord of the Dance
- Location
- Inkopolis
There isn't a sole monarch to keep the various regions in check, making Westeros more of a hotbed for conflict against various kings. I also have a liking for "warlord eras" per say.
-
For all readers and writers
After much ado, our new tagging system is here and being rolled out to the userbase. Read more here!
There isn't a sole monarch to keep the various regions in check, making Westeros more of a hotbed for conflict against various kings. I also have a liking for "warlord eras" per say.
While this will definately add conflict, and thus drama, it bears mentioning that this would make the game even more competitive, and the problems from not having player vassals or NPC family members would turn entire kingdoms into effective hive-minds, and the game into Total War.
At least, as long as players insist on having the traditional Seven Kingdoms or having Westeros be the size of South America but with barely the political and religious divisions of Northern Ireland.
Making an AU aiming for a useable version of this is possible, however.
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
But you again seem to be focussing on making the game unplayable rather than fixing anything. Yes vassals tend to be side lined rather than courted in our games but that's because why waste time on an NPC when the mod will take a day or two to give a one line response when you could be talking to a player in control of a kingdom.
But if the issue is to much concentrated power the solution is obvious, just focus on one region like Dorne or the North and let everyone control one single house. Because the continent of Westeros is too big to care about detail in any one part of it. We know that Kings and Lords can gather tens of thousands of men without much issue with a handful at best of Lords holding back. Its not a real issue in canon and it adds nothing to the game except more wasted time bugging the Mod.
And it is wasted time because we know how it goes in canon.
1.
A: Send me men, we're going to war.
B: No.
A: Send me men please.
B: Okay...if you give me this.
A: Sure.
2.
A: Send me men, we're going to war.
B: No.
A: Send me men please.
B: I said no.
A: "You are welcome to do so Lord X and when we are done with Y we will march back Z and root you out of your keep and hang you for an oath breaker."
Vassals are obliged to obey their Lords, especially in wartime. If they just refuse then their Lords can punish them. They can undercommit if they dare but that has costs too. Westeros saw centuries of warfare before the Targaryens showed up. Its kings never really had to deal with their vassals half so much as their foreign foes.
Last edited:
Conflict does not have to be either civil war or Westeros realising that it is an empire that can easily take over the world. And you don't need to split Westeros into different kingdoms to get more internal wars.
What you want is basically to avoid the end of conflict, where the Blackfyres were defeated, the Ironborn destroyed, and the Dornish subjugated, and everyone returns home to wait for another major war to kick off. But that is only because the games lack any other conflict, they are missing any action aside of massive wars that involve everyone.
What a game system needs is to have other methods of generating interest aside of wars. Which can easily be achieved. Life is not just war rolls that end wars in one year turns, or meaningless jousts that have a handfull of knights from a few families and maybe a couple of NPCs just to see who has more luck with the dice. Games should not be just who we are at war with today, or you end up with a king who wants to go murder some wildlings and conquer a village because he was bored.
Playing a region solves nothing, you just took down a zero from the figures. You don't send armies of tens of thousands, you send an army of thousands. But each lords has lordlings under him, and a lord paramount above him, and you end up with the exact same issues as before.
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
Then offer something else.
So far it just seems to be a list of how to make things even harder or more tedious than they already are when half the players don't post and the other half just argue with each other and mods quit after a week or two.
ChaosTheVoid
Beyond the Outer Gates
I apologize for being one of those aforementioned players. I start out hot and exited and rapidly cool down and lose interest. If i keep my interest due to being emotionally invested, i feel I'm going to have a heart attack for every report.
Seems the big thing is mod activeness though. You lose interest when the mod doesn't respond quick enough. I'm pretty sure we managed to get Sid's Star Wars game to go so far was due to him actively writing multiple reports almost everyday. Placed alot pressure on him but still...
Seems the big thing is mod activeness though. You lose interest when the mod doesn't respond quick enough. I'm pretty sure we managed to get Sid's Star Wars game to go so far was due to him actively writing multiple reports almost everyday. Placed alot pressure on him but still...
That is not true. We know of several conflicts in which the Lord Paramounts had little ability to muster up their forces: During the Dance of Dragons, Lords Tully and Tyrell were hardly relevant in which of their lords marched to war and on which side. During Robert's Rebellion, the Riverlands, Vale and Stormlands had lords declare for both sides, and lords Lannister and Greyjoy sat out the war until the last moments.. During the First Blackfyre Rebellion, no Lord Paramount declared for Daemon, and his support came entirely from lesser lords and knights and was sufficient to nearly win the throne.
The problem with players playing as kings under a single superking is that it leads to very few competitive positions and a very competitive setting, with everyone wanting to win a more powerful position and trying to find interesting things to do.
Playing as lords in a single region would depend on the context. Is Westeros still united, or is this pre-Conquest? Having the players all need to unite for a change against a greater NPC threat would be a breath of fresh air, as currently Westeros has no real outside threat that can unify every lord, and any time the lords unite they just go smash up Essos.
The question is, what do you want to get from such a game? Because if players just get into the same dynamic of being super competitive and just waiting for some civil war and trying to take over the region and lord it over the others, its going to run into the same problems as playing LPs. We need a change in the focus of these games as more than just waiting for a civil war so the winners can change the balance in their favor in a kind of winner-takes-all attitude that leaves no negotiating room or interest for players to play as weaker parties.
Half the players don't post mostly because of a lack of interest, which is why we are having this discussion on how to increase interest. The other half just argue with each other due to bad blood from having these same issues come up time and time again without good answer, and mods quit after a week or two because they enter games with no clear idea of what to do other than run yet another game with the same flawed system.
Here is my offer: have a clear goal for the game which players need to work towards or against, rather than sit and wait for something to happen so their characters can be relevant.
For example, a game set after the last dragon died, where the players need to work towards a new status quo for Westeros: figuring out a way for the king, be it Targaryen or someone else, to remain a strong and absolute monarch without their superweapons (without the canon author fiat protection where for the next century and a half no Great House said "fuck you, you're only king because we allow it, and we have more swords than you"), breaking into independant kingdoms or work towards permanently weakening the Iron Throne and move Westeros a bit further in its history by demanding more rights and protections for lords ala the Magna Carta and forming a more permanent Great Council that acts as a de facto Parliament, and have players fall into either camp to see which approach wins. This serves as a meta narrative for the game that allows players to do something other than wait for some reason to wage war and see who wins the Iron Throne this time.
Right now, the games have no clear goal other than being in an "interesting time": a looming civil war to see which House gets the Throne, and then a period of peace until the next war. No greater conflict or narrative. Players are left to figure out what to do, resulting in games dying as the result seems to usually be "I have no idea what I want or even can do here to keep myself interested".
ByzantineCaesar
Tribune of the Plebs
- Location
- São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Which is why I think post-Ninepenny Kings is the perfect setting due to the mix of canon characters and OCs and the larger Southron Ambitions narrative.
Also an option, with a rather clear divide of those who think Targaryen rule should continue as is and those who think its time, now that the outside Blackfyre threats are over, to finally make some changes to how things are going around here.
Making a game based around that premise would be interesting, as the conflict does not begin nor end after a war, but rather does not even necessarily have a war as a requirement. Its entirely possible to politically and economically maneuver the Iron Throne into giving the STAB alliance what they want, and the proponents of either approach are not even tied to House Targaryen specifically (a different House can rule as absolute monarchs as well, and thus the meta conflict can continue even after a civil war that ends with, say, Robert on the throne).
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
Tully being an old man on his deathbed as his own sons backed the opposite side and then united most of the Riverlands for the Blacks with the Riverlands being the most divided Kingdom in Westeros.
Lord Tyrell was a baby. His mother was friendly with the Hightowers but in the end declared neutrality. (The Tyrells would repeat this trick under Leo Longthorn who intentionally let his vassals go their own way so he could beat on the losing side)
All this aside, I'm not seeing anything on offer. We've tried limited scenarios or scenarios with an aim or gimmick before and they do even worse than just the usual competition.
The only thing I can think of is having a game during the Dragon era and either dividing the Royal family down the middle or having them be NPC. Because otherwise Westeorsi fight and tbh I'm not interested in a game where that's not allowed. In the current (apparently now dead) game I've posted multiple internal events, sent envoys and courtiers to the King, embarked on diplomacy and power plays, built relationships with characters...
...and what happens? Everything just stops stone dead. Its getting harder and harder to give a shit. I can fight wars or I can do family shit or whatever but if nobody else steps up or does more than bitch and moan and stall or ghost their way through a game its not going to matter. And exactly none of that would be helped by these suggestions of losing control of the whole family. That's literally all that keeps me going most of the time these days.
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
Funny... I recall we had a game set after the Ninepenny Kings...
- Location
- Brazil
The Seven Kingdoms RPG
The sudden and unexpected death of Aegon Targaryen on Dragonstone in the tenth year of his rule plunged Westeros into a year of chaos and uncertainty. His sister-wife Rhaenys had died three years previous (7 A.C.) in childbirth, and it was the death of his remaining queen Visenya in Dorne that was said to have caused the apoplexy which undid the great Conqueror. His feeble three year old son Aenys succeeded to the Iron Throne of Westeros as Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, with the effective authority of government in the hands of his uncle, Orys One-Hand. In a bid to shore up support for the child Orys convoked all of the Lords Paramount to share in his authority, as members of a regency council of equals.
Alas for the child-King, the Lord Commander Corlys Velaryon attempted to tame the now rider-less Balerion, who rejected and tore him to shreds. Over-ruling and imprisoning Orys, the Regency Council commanded the death of House Targaryen's dragon and those hatchlings that were to be found on Dragonstone: and while their quarrels and tricks could not fell the Black Dread, he was sufficiently wounded to fall prey to the ravenous appetite of the Cannibal, who was likewise mortally injured by Balerion in his final death throes.
With no dragons to back him up, Orys was saved only by the outbreak of rebellions throughout the realm: Hightowers and Florents in the Reach, Ironborn scions in the Riverlands, the Boltons in the North, unprecedented wildling raids in the Vale and short-lived independent kingdoms of the Darklyns and Velaryons in the Crownlands. The Lannisters took the opportunity to invade the north of the Reach, the Ironborn reaving their shores in turn, and all seemed at an end when the four year old King Aenys expired.
It was only Orys' foresight that saved the realm from immediately splintering. In a bid to foster camaraderie and friendship among the Regents, Orys had claimed the eldest sons and daughters of each of the Regents to serve as the cupbearers and squires of the other regents in the Red Keep - beloved heirs who were thus conveniently in King's Landing and under his power when their fathers would most certainly have desired to declare independence. By the Regent's Council of 12 A.C. Orys was invested by the other Paramounts as Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and King of the Andals, of the Rhoynar and the First Men, with the understanding that the crown would not devolve after his death to his eldest son, but to whomever the Paramounts should so elect to sit the Iron Throne.
Factions:
King Orys Baratheon, "Orys One-Hand", ruler of the Stormlands and Crownlands, with an army of 60,000
Torrhen Stark, "the King Who Knelt", ruler of the North, with an army of 40,000
Edmyn Tully, ruler of the Riverlands, with an army of 30,000
Loren Lannister, "Loren the Last", ruler of the Westerlands, with an army of 50,000
Ronnel Arryn, "the King Who Flew", ruler of the Vale, with an army of 40,000
Harlen Tyrell, "the Upjumped", ruler of the Reach, with an army of 80,000
Vickon Greyjoy, ruler of the Ironborn, with a fleet of 25,000
Princess Meria Martell, the Princess of Dorne, with an army of 30,000
------------
I have zero interest in modding this but thought the idea had some merit. An elective Iron Throne, dragons extinct or struggling, etc.
ByzantineCaesar
Tribune of the Plebs
- Location
- São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Yeah, but many didn't focus on it because of Steel & Powder and, let's face it, it was beginning to pick up now.
With all due respect, the Brewing Storm game was dead before it started, which is why I left early. The lack of activity did not kill it, it was a symptom of its condition. The other players were also in the position of not caring much, and the lack of any overall meta narrative other than it being an "interesting time" led to no major developments other than Aerys going north of the Wall to murder some Wildlings out of boredom and threaten to execute some Northern lords for not going along with what was clearly both IC and OOC an attempt to allevate boredom.
This is not an argument against my suggestions, its an indictement against the current system and the funk the player base got into due to the current system's many failings.
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
Just as it died which in total honesty I think would not have happened if people had decided to play days ago. Not even real life stuff was holding it back but people arguing and slowing things down rather than just playing. And those were the ones we were sure actually...you know...were still playing.
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
With all due respect your suggestions aren't actually helpful at all...
In short you want to fuck with the only part of the game not broken that would only impact the like three people who actually use their families for more than breeding whilst also forcing our mods who already barely go a week before retiring to do more whilst also trying to railroad in scenarios which require players to actually be active and commit which is painfully lacking.
If we had active mods and players not in a funk then we wouldn't be talking about problems with the system. The system could easily work, its us that are fucking it up.
JBO
The prettiest Lucha
- Location
- Making my way to Australia
- Pronouns
- She/They
I had recently had an idea for an ASOIAF game set after a longer reign of Baelor I, who leaves his throne to the High Septon. Civil war ensues between Faith Militant and allies, lead by Aemon the Dragon Knight and young Aegon IV.
Sarissa
OwO
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
If many players consistently fuck it up, then that sort of means the system is broken. The whole point of systems is to prevent people from fucking things up. If it's not doing the one thing it's designed to do, it's, by definition, broken.
But I do understand the reluctance to overcomplicate a system that already doesn't have much activity. Mort, why do you think that players keep dropping out and not playing much when they are there. What's the main problem? How would you propose fixing it?
I think we all want the same thing, but we just don't realize it.
Last edited:
Mortis Nuntius
Theon Killjoy
- Location
- United Kingdom
Two things really.
1. Diversification. There are always a few people playing as the Night's Watch or the Free cities (though I get the appeal of the latter) which strips active players from Westeros and spreads mods too thin.
2. Players taking up a faction and never touching it.
The solution to the first I think is simple though controversial. Cut Essos out of the game all together. Now we can always run an alternate system so that every second game either has an Essos focus so the people who like Essos get a say.
The second I can only think that automatic kicks after two days without meaningful activity. Turnposts do not count, if you're not in from the start then don't show up. If I was to be going mad with power I'd say we start penalising dropping out of games early only to join the next one a week later and do the same. If real life interferes allowances can be made but I think some basic investment is required.
Every other problem I think can be fixed by an active and intelligent mod. The above is more wishful thinking than anything I'd actually enforce if I was modding btw. Because I don't see people tolerating it.
- Location
- Brazil
Personally I'd advise permanent NPCing useless factions like the Night's Watch, wildlings, Faith, Citadel, Free Companies, even Dothraki khalasars who simply aren't real players in the Game of Thrones. Leave major Westerosi houses and Free Cities playable, and place a greater focus on consistent Modding. Obviously absent and distracted Mods are a major issue, but assuming you have a Mod that is actually around, you desperately need him/her to be consistent. The God Mod is basically our GRMM, s/he delineates the parameters of the entire universe, and even in the queerest or most hybrid scenarios inconsistency on the part of the Mod is, in my book, far more toxic than anything new being put into play (magic, tech, beasts, whatever). What we often get are Mods who flip-flop from adhering to canon, adhering to fan Tumblrs, implementing their own head canon, implementing their friends' head canon, enforcing rule of cool, conceding to player demands, drawing from bloody Crusader Kings mod, and so on and so forth, with the end result that the parameters and expectations are all over the place, making it harder to invest and easier to resent/anger/feel cheated. In the various Mod convos I've participated there's been a real resistance to setting down parameters and guidelines for the Mods to act within themselves, which makes no sense to me and really harms the game.
Part of the problem with 1 is that not enough diversity is "allowed" in the setting that actually has it. Westeros as a whole and even individual regions alone offer up a variaty of options, if the system was in place to allow meaningful gameplay for it. Due to the current nature of the games, you only get to play as a faction that could meaningfully compete, I.E. a Lord Paramount or at least a lord like Hightower or Redwyne, or an entire Free City. The lack of divesity of faction types leads to people wanting to take something other than yet another lordly house, which leaves the Night's Watch or stuff in Essos. Rarely, the Faith might be an option, but it suffers from a severe lack of development from GRRM, and is no where near as established even in-universe as the actual Catholic Church that is its main inspiration. The lack of cities not ruled by lords prevents any playstyle of something like a Free City in Westeros, and this is before I mention the chronic lack of cities and major towns in the first place.
Now, two options exist:
1. As Velasco said above me, cut it out entirely. Make it clear this is a feudal-based game, for major lords only.
2. Develop other options in Westeros and break up the Lord Paramounts. Make an AU to have the major cities be like Free Imperial Cities from the HRE run by elected councilors and merchant princes. Give the Faith lands they can rule and draw income and soldiers from so they stop simply being there without any explanation of how the Faith can loan the IT a million dragons other than "lots of donations?". Establish active Guilds in-universe other than the Pyromancers and Maesters. Introduce a more active sellsword scene (by taking Westeros to the 14th century and stop with the concept of the levy and move to professional soldiers), with mechanics for playing as sellsword companies and lots of minor conflicts for them to go to.
The first option is the easiest but offers only the current gameplay. The second offers new and novel gameplay but requires work to implement.
Last edited:
Good GM Idea for moi = purely selfish threadmarking :P
- Location
- Brazil
Small addendum:
To make a shitty analogy, Mods are like parents. Good parenting is predicated on establishing clear and verifiable guidelines the kid can depend on and trust. Obviously new and unexpected situations arise, but by and large a parent should be "accountable" or hold himself to rules - rules which he himself has established and communicated clearly to the child in his care, but rules that bring stability and direction nonetheless.
A GM or Mod team needs to decide what they want to do, be like, and have in a game before launching one...and then let the rest of us know. Is this game dark and brutal like the books? Lighter and happier? CK2-based? Tech-forward? Magic-heavy? Be clear. Let me know. (Let the player know, not just me Velasco, although I do love a bit of insider info). And then I'll know what I'm getting into and investing my time and effort in beforehand. It's much nicer and far more efficient for all involved. Not every scenario and set-up is for everyone and that's OK.
To make a shitty analogy, Mods are like parents. Good parenting is predicated on establishing clear and verifiable guidelines the kid can depend on and trust. Obviously new and unexpected situations arise, but by and large a parent should be "accountable" or hold himself to rules - rules which he himself has established and communicated clearly to the child in his care, but rules that bring stability and direction nonetheless.
A GM or Mod team needs to decide what they want to do, be like, and have in a game before launching one...and then let the rest of us know. Is this game dark and brutal like the books? Lighter and happier? CK2-based? Tech-forward? Magic-heavy? Be clear. Let me know. (Let the player know, not just me Velasco
, although I do love a bit of insider info). And then I'll know what I'm getting into and investing my time and effort in beforehand. It's much nicer and far more efficient for all involved. Not every scenario and set-up is for everyone and that's OK.
- Location
- Brazil
Not something anyone can particularly enforce, but moving forward it might be smart for us as a community to cap the number of ASOIAF games if we want any of them to have a real chance at success, even forming a queue if there are more than two scenarios people are interested in Modding/playing. Three games at a time (at one recent point we had four, I think?) is way too much, even if one or two are in their death throes.