What are the end goal(s) of this quest?

  • Retake the Iron Throne.

    Votes: 36 14.0%
  • Destroy the White Walkers.

    Votes: 44 17.1%
  • Rebuild fallen Valyria.

    Votes: 43 16.7%
  • Create a new empire, forget the past and forge your own destiny.

    Votes: 74 28.7%
  • Survive. Who needs a crown?

    Votes: 24 9.3%
  • Utter domination. You are the Dragon and will not rest until you rule over all!

    Votes: 29 11.2%
  • Become the wisest of the wise. A true Loremaster. Learn the magics of old and converse with Gods.

    Votes: 40 15.5%
  • Forbidden Power - Why speak with the Gods when you can BECOME one of them?

    Votes: 64 24.8%
  • Immortality - The problem with Aegon the Conqueror is that he died. You will not.

    Votes: 79 30.6%

  • Total voters
    258
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Voting Tutorial
Voting Tutorial
Condensed and Updated
Please Read & Follow
#StickiedForAReason
Votes that do not follow the template will not be counted!

At this time I am using a counter system, listing the number of days votes take to be put into action. However for write-in votes you don't know how many days an action may take. For this we will use the old system of Major/Minor Decisions, and I will tell you how many days/weeks/months the plan will take. Remember that every month has 28 days, and that there are 13 months in the year with New Years as a special day alone outside the months. There is no leap year, as their calendar is not accurate to that degree.

Major decisions are any new endeavors. Finding new investments. Finding new allies (specify what type, where you're looking if possible, what you want from them, etc) finding new trainers, starting new training even if it is with people you already know... Anything new.

No mixing something that would qualify as a minor decision or free action into your major votes! If you have a question about your votes, ask me.

Talking with specific people about specific subjects. You can generally only talk with one person at a time with this. There are simple logical exceptions, Husband & Wife combos can be put together as one conversation, brother & sister, stuff like that. I'll clarify if a combo is unacceptable when I see the vote. This is also for continuing any long term action. Any major decision that you have already voted to start (not just mused about in-story) can be a minor action the next time around. Continuing training that you have already begun for example. Continuing a long-term investigation or plot. Stuff like this.

Making small talk with characters. You will not learn anything special really, but it gives you more insight into their backgrounds and history, can raise/lower their loyalty or other relationship points with you, etc. Raising/lowering and how much depends on rolls.

These can interrupt any current action(s) and will take precedence over the current plan. A way to change things on the fly as you discover new information or alternate ways to potentially enhance your plan, or change it completely if needed.

Remember for all votes if you take a guard or other individual with you, you will need to write-in which guard/person you take with you (just saying take a guard or ally will leave the decision of which one up to me) and also whether Daenerys tries to use any future knowledge on the decision as well if it is one of hers or she is present. (She still may decide to try and use her future knowledge without your consent if she thinks it necessary.) These details are sub-votes.

[] [Plan] X (Current Month, Short Term, Long Term, Immediate Actions, Purchases, etc.)
-[] Major Decisions: Character name here
--[] Major Decision 1
---[] Sub-conditions of Major Decision 1
---[] Sub-conditions of Major Decision 1
--[] Major Decision 2
---[] Sub-conditions of Major Decision 2
---[] Sub-conditions of Major Decision 2
-[] Minor Decisions: Character name here
--[] Minor Decision 1
---[] Sub-conditions of Minor Decision 1
---[] Sub-conditions of Minor Decision 1
--[] Minor Decision 2
-[] Free Actions: Character name here
--[] Free Action 1
---[] Sub-conditions
--[] Free Action 2
---[] Sub-conditions

You get the jist of this.

However, under the plan vote, you will then put a "Priority" Vote.

[] Aegon Priority: 1. Major Decision 1, 2. Free Action 2, 3. Minor Decision 1, 4. Major Decision 2, etc.
[] Daenerys Priority: 1. Free Action 2, 2. Major Decision 3, 3. Minor Decision 1, etc.

This way we can vote on the general plan, then I can separate the order of events in said plan.

Don't put V1, V2, or any other such revision information into your plan. Just leave it like I have it. Nothing extra. The tally system will update to your newest post. No need to make version markers. It just makes things harder for me.

If an action in a plan is not one for a specific character, more a general idea of what needs to be done, it will still need to go into the priority matrix.

At the end of all your votes, put your reasons explaining your vote choice. As I've said before, a plan with reasons will get more weight than one without. Because reasons matter. I care about reasons more than numbers. I need reasons to help build the characters. Get used to putting reasons into your plans, as eventually reasons will become a requirement rather than a suggestion. This post will change when that occurs.

[] [Plan] X

You may (but are not required to) put additional reasons to agree with that plan beneath your vote if there are reasons for it that the original vote creator didn't put in that you thought of. The more/better the reasoning inside explaining a vote, the greater the chance it will be added into the story.

Votes are typically closed after either 12 or 24 hours unless real life interferes. Ties will be either decided by me, or by whoever is in the forum or the Discord that has not voted already at the time. I will @ whoever is currently in the forum or Discord that I choose to be the tiebreaker.

Plans have specific timelines. Immediate Actions are obviously immediate. Current Month is similarly self-explanatory. Short Term is something that can conceivably be done within 1-3 months, and Long Term is 3-6 months.
 
Last edited:
[X] Face them. You brought your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions. - 15 SD
 
So, for the last time: Don't meta-game. Don't use your canon knowledge, because it won't help you one single bit. And if I see it used for votes, as said before, I will punish it. Votes are made with IC knowledge. OOC desires, but IC knowledge. Not your own knowledge. Last time I'm going to say it.
GM this is after all your game and ultimately your rules but I will say I think you're being remarkably unfair. Players have commented earlier in the game when we were introducing ourselves to the Iron Bank about how we may not want to introduce ourselves as "Blackfyre" because we are concerned about the fact that the Blackfyre heir existed in Canon but you never commented once how that was against the rules and instead simply happily told us that yes a Blackfyre heir existed in your game but may not in fact be 'Aegon' due to setting changes.

I had no intention of breaking any rules nor did I see any rule banning this on the OP pg and if you made a new one on pg 23 or something I'm afraid I didn't see it either. Especially since you didn't seem to comment about all the earlier discussions. I think you're a wonderful writer and I'm sure many will enjoy this quest as it continues but I feel this was a remarkably unfair action to just assume that players who enjoy your story posts and make an effort to read your first pg will be able to read every response you have without being tagged especially when your own "rule pg" was never updated.

Thank you for the quest while it lasted for me.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the quest while it lasted for me.
You're leaving after a minor disagreement?

[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD

Edit: Swayed by the Witch-King.
 
Last edited:
[X] Face them. You brought your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions. - 15 SD
 
It's a waste to directly jump into combat without trying diplomacy first. We need to know who wants us dead and who knows that we're in Braavos. If that fails, we'll have to fight anyway, let's at least attempt to get some information about their employer first. Besides, with our current level of training, I don't think we can take them on. They are hired killers, and there's three of them. Our fighting style favours DEX, and our HP is determined by CON: both our weakest stats. If it doesn't take into account our STR, we'll get a -1 for DEX and +1 for two-sword style, so a net +0 modifier, whereas we get a +4 for diplomacy rolls.

[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.

-[] If you have to fight, try to keep one alive for interrogation purposes.
I wanted to add this, but felt it would just increase our DC and might cause us to fail.
 
Not only are you meta-gaming, (something I've already said is against the rules) you're reading much into the quote that you want to see while ignoring what you don't want to see... consider the parts I am putting in bold.

The king's mouth twisted in a bitter grimace. "Some pox-ridden Pentoshi cheesemonger had her brother and her walled up on his estate with pointy-hatted eunuchs all around them, and now he's handed them over to the Dothraki. I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him."

Walled up in his estate. Not easy to assassinate people while they are guarded.

He listened to Jon Arryn. I am rolling for everything. I have said it before, and will say it again this one time only. You don't know what is happening in the world.

For all you know Jon Arryn is already dead, no longer staying Robert's hand against you. You all know absolutely nothing about Westeros. It was the same at the start of the campaign, but that was months ago already.

So, for the last time: Don't meta-game. Don't use your canon knowledge, because it won't help you one single bit. And if I see it used for votes, as said before, I will punish it. Votes are made with IC knowledge. OOC desires, but IC knowledge. Not your own knowledge. Last time I'm going to say it.

GM this is after all your game and ultimately your rules but I will say I think you're being remarkably unfair. Players have commented earlier in the game when we were introducing ourselves to the Iron Bank about how we may not want to introduce ourselves as "Blackfyre" because we are concerned about the fact that the Blackfyre heir existed in Canon but you never commented once how that was against the rules and instead simply happily told us that yes a Blackfyre heir existed in your game but may not in fact be 'Aegon' due to setting changes.

I had no intention of breaking any rules nor did I see any rule banning this on the OP pg and if you made a new one on pg 23 or something I'm afraid I didn't see it either. Especially since you didn't seem to comment about all the earlier discussions. I think you're a wonderful writer and I'm sure many will enjoy this quest as it continues but I feel this was a remarkably unfair action to just assume that players who enjoy your story posts and make an effort to read your first pg will be able to read every response you have without being tagged especially when your own "rule pg" was never updated.

Thank you for the quest while it lasted for me.

Meta-gaming or not Lunasmeow, you might have been a bit harsh. I get that you don't like repeating yourself, but I think Lucienz has a point about updating your rule sheet. You might even consider consolidating that with your cheating sheet.

Before we go much further you may want to go back and make everything clear in a main threadmarked post. That will stop these sorts of things from happening again.

Heck pin a General Rules of Conduct post on the Thread itself. That way it's always the first thing you see on every page.

All just suggestions of course. :) Feel free to set your own priorities.
 
GM this is after all your game and ultimately your rules but I will say I think you're being remarkably unfair. Players have commented earlier in the game when we were introducing ourselves to the Iron Bank about how we may not want to introduce ourselves as "Blackfyre" because we are concerned about the fact that the Blackfyre heir existed in Canon but you never commented once how that was against the rules and instead simply happily told us that yes a Blackfyre heir existed in your game but may not in fact be 'Aegon' due to setting changes.
Choosing options for OOC reasons is fine. We still discuss ways of dealing with wildlings and shit on discord. Just need IC reasons to justify it. And can't give OOC reasons while arguing for a vote, which I think was the problem here.
Voting decisions are made IC. OOC desires choose the vote, but IC explanations explain the vote. No using knowledge the character does not have to support a choice.
That being said, I hope you consider continuing the quest. Just seems too good to avoid over something minor like this. :)
 
Last edited:
It's a waste to directly jump into combat without trying diplomacy first. We need to know who wants us dead and who knows that we're in Braavos. If that fails, we'll have to fight anyway, let's at least attempt to get some information about their employer first. Besides, with our current level of training, I don't think we can take them on. They are hired killers, and there's three of them. Our fighting style favours DEX, and our HP is determined by CON: both our weakest stats. If it doesn't take into account our STR, we'll get a -1 for DEX and +1 for two-sword style, so a net +0 modifier, whereas we get a +4 for diplomacy rolls.

[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.

-[] If you have to fight, try to keep one alive for interrogation purposes.
I wanted to add this, but felt it would just increase our DC and might cause us to fail.

I agree that fighting should be second to diplomacy. But one already pulled a knife, we should respond in kind. Wait for them to make the first strike but be ready to counter.

Also don't assume they're looking for Aegon Targaryen. All he said was "Wait, that's him!" This could just mean 'there's that rich looking guy!'

The impression I got from these fine gentlemen is that they see us as a target of opportunity. The mention of the scorpion ring could be a red herring just as much as anything else. So pick your words carefully.

Also this is the place specifically noted as having a low guard presence right?

Edit: in the event that these are the extortionists, then bribing them might work, but they'd still want to make an example of you.
 
Last edited:
I agree that fighting should be second to diplomacy. But one already pulled a knife, we should respond in kind. Wait for them to make the first strike but be ready to counter.

Also don't assume they're looking for Aegon Targaryen. All he said was "Wait, that's him!" This could just mean 'there's that rich looking guy!'

The impression I got from these fine gentlemen is that they see us as a target of opportunity. The mention of the scorpion ring could be a red herring just as much as anything else. So pick your words carefully.

Also this is the place specifically noted as having a low guard presence right?

Edit: in the event that these are the extortionists, then bribing them might work, but they'd still want to make an example of you.
We should nonetheless err on the side of caution. If they weren't sent by anyone and don't know who we are, bribing is even more likely to work, since all they get if they attack us now is what we have on us, and accepting our bribe doesn't mean betraying someone else.

And drawing our swords just exacerbates the situation. While it might give them more initiative if they choose to attack, I'm willing to take that risk if it makes diplomacy easier.
 
[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.

Sounds good to me. I would also be in favour of trying to keep one alive but I think we're going to struggle with 3 of them regardless, so it's worth just making sure we get out safe and sound.
 
[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.
 
[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.
 
[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.
 
If Lucienz was a new player, or someone who I didn't know was active in the thread and not just using reader mode to keep up with chapters, I wouldn't have brought the rule down on him without warning. I hate repeating myself but I do make distinctions between repeating myself overall, and repeating myself to the same people. He wasn't new and he was active in the thread, so the "it wasn't on the rules page" excuse doesn't work for him like it would for a newcomer or someone who didn't read posts regularly.

That said, I'm going to update the rules page. That'll definitely help for newcomers for whom that excuse would actually work. It was why I put those into the chapter here, but I'm gonna put it there too.

Also, no matter what the tie had to be broken somehow. 18 is the most votes we've ever gotten on any one thing iirc, so I wasn't going to hope that another voter broke it. I could either break it by my personal decision, or by a rule. I chose the rule. If there hadn't been a tie I'd have just warned him one more time, then put the rule into effect after, but a tie made a perfect opportunity to start using the rules right away instead of waiting.

Judgments on whether a rule has actually been broken are questionable. I'm human, and can make a faulty judgement. But since he apparently chose to leave over one singular issue instead of talking with me about it (when I have already conceded to him before on things, so he knows that he could potentially get me to concede again) well, that's up to him.

Frankly, I liked the guy. He had several good insights (that I marked on his posts) and provided reasoning for his votes. But if he cares more about one of his votes being denied to break a tie than the fact that it led to a better result for the character... then it seems like he puts his pride above the character anyway, and for a group activity that isn't good. If my vote was going to cause problems for a character and it got blocked for some reason, I'd be glad it got blocked that one time, and just clarify with the QM as to how to avoid it getting blocked later, not quit the entire quest. And I say that with confidence because it has happened before, so it isn't a hypothetical situation. But that's up to him.

If he decides to keep playing, he's welcome. Rules can always be explained in more detail if there are questions. I keep saying ask me things. If no one asks, I assume that I am understood. If people ask, I can clarify. I'm fully willing to help, to clarify, etc... but if people don't ask questions I can only assume that I am understood.
 
Last edited:
[] Face them, but only attack them if they attack first. If you can take them alive, do it (prioritize whoever seems to be the leader). You brought your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions. - 15 SD

It only makes sense that he's got basic equipment.

The guy pulled a knife. The sensible thing is to prepare for battle. That being said our style supposedly favors deflection and countering. We can try to talk our way out, but be ready for combat.

Ok. I will admit that the wraith has some good points :). That being said I still think we should fight if all else fails. So Revision!

[X] Strife!
- [X] You brought your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions. - 15 SD
- [X] Create some distance between yourself and your opponents. Try to position yourself in a way that will allow you to make a tactical retreat.
- [X] Talk to your assailants. Ask what you can do for them this fine day. If they are willing to talk, try to get information on their motives.
- [X] If you think it is possible to convince them to leave you be, attempt to defuse the situation. If they insist you do something that you are unwilling to do (die), pull your weapons and fight.
- [X] If the fight seems to be going well, try to take one alive. If it goes badly, retreat to a safe location.
 
Nah, talk about it. People are more likely to get their questions out now if you do. If anyone is confused about what may or may not be meta-gaming, let me know so that I can try and clear it up with you all.

Okay. TBH I did find it weird that you found it to be meta gaming.

I mean afaik he didn't do any meta gaming in his actual vote, he just discussed about OOC info in the thread.

It's not like he made a write in that was full of OOC meta gaming stuff. He was just explaining his reasoning for his vote, which will inevitably contain OOC information.

So yeah, I did find your response to be a bit harsh.
 
[X] Try to bribe them. Someone is looking for you, and you want to know who.
-[X] But keep your hand on your short sword, and a longsword that you bought during your stay here for your practice sessions and be ready for any attacks. - 15 SD
-[X] If the bribe fails, yell for help. There may be guards around.
 
Okay. TBH I did find it weird that you found it to be meta gaming.

I mean afaik he didn't do any meta gaming in his actual vote, he just discussed about OOC info in the thread.

It's not like he made a write in that was full of OOC meta gaming stuff. He was just explaining his reasoning for his vote, which will inevitably contain OOC information.

So yeah, I did find your response to be a bit harsh.
So here's where I found the meta:

Night Stalker says: "And declaring that we're basically the one guy Robby wants to them is a better idea HOW?"

This is a question that IC makes sense, because IC, you "know" that Robert is after you, (spies have been mentioned before in-story as having been following you) and you know about the deaths of not just Rhaegar, but also his children. Dragon-spawn must die, etc, etc, etc.

And Lucienz replies with a quote from the book, not to justify a position someone took, (as in, "X person would never do that!" "Well actually they did once already...") but to justify why blurting out our real name isn't a problem.

Let me try and give an example to clarify....

If for example, someone said "The Wildlings would never make an alliance with the kneelers!" you could point to canon as an example that they indeed have, even if it wasn't a good alliance, or one that lasted long... But you couldn't use that as reasoning for why the character thought it was possible. The character could try it for their own reasons, and you could point out canon to back up that it was possible, but canon couldn't be the reason why the character would try it because the character doesn't know canon.

Night asked why we should reveal our name. Lucienz didn't say anything about how that would be obviously useful, and that maybe Robert would never hear about it anytime soon, being so far away and with so few members. He immediately responded with why Robert wouldn't care even if he did hear about it, which is not something the character should know.

The difference is in the nuance there.
 
Last edited:
What I'll say is this, if you are unsure whether something you want to use for your IC argument is meta-gaming, post it, but @ me somewhere in there asking if it is or not. I'll give the yea or nay.
 
Night asked why we should reveal our name. Lucienz didn't say anything about how that would be obviously useful, and that maybe Robert would never hear about it anytime soon, being so far away and with so few members. He immediately responded with why Robert wouldn't care even if he did hear about it, which is not something the character should know.
First off, when quoting people, especially if you are already directly quoting them (i.e. w/ Night), a link would be appreciated. If you do not wish to alert the person thus quoted to the fact that you quoted them, you can always delete the part of the quote function's metatext that indicates the user quoted. Doing so is a courtesy to those like myself who are too lazy to go back and skim through presumably multiple pages of discussion to find the appropriate quotes to ensure that your interpretation/paraphrase is correct.

Assuming that your interpretation of Lucienz's response is correct, I agree that he offered a reason why the character would act in a certain way that exists within the scope of the presumed knowledge and arguably reasoning of that character. (Or rather, he offered a reason for why he wouldn't be averse to acting in such a way.) I would argue, however, that such a conclusion from IC reasoning would be quite possible and that, were the quote from the book to be framed as an example of how the character might reason the situation would go, such a statement would be valid and not metagaming. Based upon your interpretation, however, this envelope of IC scope was not given and the statement is thus metagaming.

P.S. My apologies if the above was stilted or otherwise difficult to understand. I'm not saying it as a challenge to things as they occurred, merely offering an example of how the actions undertaken might be done in a different way that may be within bounds.
P.P.S. Please do make sure to update the front page with the rules as they develop. Few people, even highly active participants, are so involved as to be consistently aware of all developments that occur outside of the threadmarks.
P.P.P.S. That sounds like a good arrangement.
 
Last edited:
First off, when quoting people, especially if you are already directly quoting them (i.e. w/ Night), a link would be appreciated. If you do not wish to alert the person thus quoted to the fact that you quoted them, you can always delete the part of the quote function's metatext that indicates the user quoted. Doing so is a courtesy to those like myself who are too lazy to go back and skim through presumably multiple pages of discussion to find the appropriate quotes to ensure that your interpretation/paraphrase is correct.

Assuming that your interpretation of Lucienz's response is correct, I agree that he offered a reason why the character would act in a certain way that exists within the scope of the presumed knowledge and arguably reasoning of that character. (Or rather, he offered a reason for why he wouldn't be averse to acting in such a way.) I would argue, however, that such a conclusion from IC reasoning would be quite possible and that, were the quote from the book to be framed as an example of how the character might reason the situation would go, such a statement would be valid and not metagaming. Based upon your interpretation, however, this envelope of IC scope was not given and the statement is thus metagaming.

P.S. My apologies if the above was stilted or otherwise difficult to understand. I'm not saying it as a challenge to things as they occurred, merely offering an example of how the actions undertaken might be done in a different way that may be within bounds.
P.P.S. Please do make sure to update the front page with the rules as they develop. Few people, even highly active participants, are so involved as to be consistently aware of all developments that occur outside of the threadmarks.
P.P.P.S. That sounds like a good arrangement.
You're good, it was understandable.

Didn't take it as arguing, and anyway arguing is fine too, long as people don't get crazy about it and start disrespecting each other. Debate/argument is really just whether emotion gets in or not as far as I'm concerned. Nothing inherently bad about an argument. People argue. That's life. Mature people can argue and still be friends.

Rules page is updated.

I assume the last P.S. is about the "post it but @ me so I can let you know". I figure that would be the easiest way to avoid issues in the future.
 
And Lucienz replies with a quote from the book, not to justify a position someone took, (as in, "X person would never do that!" "Well actually they did once already...")

I get what you are saying but we could have just avoided the whole issue if you had just said "That's meta. Don't do it."

I get that you don't like repeating stuff but some warning would be nice in an ambiguous situation such as this.

It's not a huge deal, but even simple rules can look arbitrary if they aren't clearly defined.
 
I get what you are saying but we could have just avoided the whole issue if you had just said "That's meta. Don't do it."

I get that you don't like repeating stuff but some warning would be nice in an ambiguous situation such as this.

It's not a huge deal, but even simple rules can look arbitrary if they aren't clearly defined.
Fair point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top