ASoIaF: The Pen-and-Paper RPG

[Night Ninja]

[quote]Are there any other similar RPGs (preferably d20) that are based around politics or large scale tactics I can play until October?[/quote]

You could always track down the older Guardians of Order ASOIAF RPG. It's available in d20 and their own Tri-Stat format.

Last I checked, there are a lot of sellers on Amazon and eBay, if you want a hard copy. PDFs are available via less legal avenues (no endorsement is intended).

[Anatole Kuragin]

Thanks Sansa, Jae and NN, I'll probably wait for GR's ASOIAF before making any purchases.

[Ran]

Hey, folks, the PDF is now available. Go [url="http://greenronin.com/c/link.php?id=7"]here[/url] to get it. Has some black-and-white art in there, at least one example of which is reprinted from FFG, but much of the rest looks original. Quality seems quite nice, but I can't say too much about the _accuracy_ of it. And there's some odd quirks in the adventure, to be frank, which makes me wish they had some actual theme-knowedgable people on hand to help them with it. ;)

[Werthead]

[quote name='Ran' post='1421705' date='Jun 30 2008, 21.26']Hey, folks, the PDF is now available. Go [url="http://greenronin.com/c/link.php?id=7"]here[/url] to get it. Has some black-and-white art in there, at least one example of which is reprinted from FFG, but much of the rest looks original. Quality seems quite nice, but I can't say too much about the _accuracy_ of it. And there's some odd quirks in the adventure, to be frank, which makes me wish they had some actual theme-knowedgable people on hand to help them with it. ;)[/quote]

I have mixed feelings about d6-based rules, so will be treating this one with caution. I'm hoping it's really good as we're going to be getting expansions and new rules for it as opposed to the GoO version.

All of that said, the description of Westeros as an 'island continent' did make me think. Has GRRM ever said if Westeros is actually connected to the north polar landmass? Or could Westeros technically be seperate from it with the frozen sea to the north (like say Greenland). Or is Westeros simply too big to be classified as an 'island' regardless (it's certainy bigger than Australia, and Australia is so big it's borderline it's an island at all)? Hmm.

[Night Ninja]

Westeros might be linked to a larger landmass via it's northern bit, but we can't be sure as there has been no concrete descriptions in the books.

At worst, if GR's version sucks, we still have GoO's excellent d20 adaptation to fall back on.

[Jaehaerys]

[quote name='Ran' post='1421705' date='Jun 30 2008, 13.26']...but I can't say too much about the _accuracy_ of it. And there's some odd quirks in the adventure, to be frank, which makes me wish they had some actual theme-knowedgable people on hand to help them with it. ;)[/quote]
My thoughts exactly, Ran. I hear Green Ronin did the same for the Wheel of Time RPG some time ago also. Do you know if GR are consulting anyone who has a good grasp of the details of the books like many here who were a part of the GOO version?

[Jakob Lightbringer]

The rules look very similar to AEG's Legend of the Five Rings and Seventh Sea "Dice plus Adds" system. Only using d6 instead of d10. There are more abilities (which give you base "dice") in this system than in L5R or 7thSea, and presumably fewer "skills"/"specialties" (which give you "adds"/"bonus dice"). The Destiny Points are the same thing as AEG's "drama dice".
The combat system is more deadly here -- it looks like unarmored combat will be relatively short -- which is appropriate -- the injuries/wounds system is not exactly like AEG, but is very similar. Hopefully the "full" rules will include more options and special abilities for bypassing armor. It isn't terribly difficult to get past armor by the current rules (use piercing or shattering weapons), but there are some pretty obvious strategies that aren't even discussed -- such as called shots or random hit location.

[Ran]

Jaehaerys,

I am sure their design team has attempted to read the novels closely for information, and I know Jesse Scoble is a fan of the series and is involved in some facets (but not all -- in particular, the adventure in the Quickstart is not his work) of the production.

I imagine that GRRM will review it for publication and will doubtless point out what mistakes he notices. If they'll consult anyone else outside of GR, I can't say. We've certainly offered to help, but haven't heard anything as of yet.

Jakob,

From a developer's remarks on RPG.net, I'd guess it's safe to assume there are more qualities and abilities that will give combat more flavor and do things like make armor less useful in certain circumstances.

[Sansa's Dad]

[quote name='Jaehaerys' post='1423737' date='Jul 1 2008, 18.33']My thoughts exactly, Ran. I hear Green Ronin did the same for the Wheel of Time RPG some time ago also. Do you know if GR are consulting anyone who has a good grasp of the details of the books like many here who were a part of the GOO version?[/quote]

Actually, it was Wizards of the Coast who put out the WoT RPG. The guy who wrote the rules for the ASoIaF RPG is Rob Schwalb, who was also worked on GR's adaptations of Thieves' World and The Black Company. Don't know if that raises or lowers your expectations... :)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that, in addition to being a part-time lurker here on the boards, I'm also one of the people who contributed to the campaign guide. It's tough to prove precisely how good my grasp of the novels is ( ;), but I would certainly be personally disappointed (both as a writer and a fan of the books) if what I turned didn't capture the details (and nuances) accurately.

Plus, George does have to approve it. :D

[Night Ninja]

I've just read through the Quickstart, and I found it a decent intro, even if there were some things that didn't make sense. The intrigue rules were interesting, but a tad oversimplified IMO.

The thing that cheeses me off most is that there's no flail/morningstar or one-handed warhammer in the weapon description.

Plus, the two-handed warhammer is listed as bulky. Since when? I don't see a two-handed warhammer being significantly heavier than a poleaxe, and trained men are more than capable of moving easily while carrying one. Speaking of poleaxes, where are the halberds, the billhooks, the longaxes and the poleaxes?

Armour is also an issue for me, I find the penalties to be unrealistically heavy. However, they do extend life expectancy by a fair bit, so I guess we'll have to live with it.

[Dunhallym]

Have quickly read the quickstart as well, not yet read all in details, and there are both things that I like and things that I don't like that much.

Regarding the weapons, I'm not bothered by the list because I think they probably didn't include all in the quickstart, indeed there are quite a few lacking. I also hope there will be ways to bypass armour. I think the adventure was more designed for players to test the rules/have a feeling of it than anything other and I'll probably wait to see the campaign before doing anything. I'm not shocked by the idea of a warhammer having a bulk: I think the problem is not only the weight but also the "space" it takes (sorry, don't have the proper word in English).
The main problem I have is the "Conflict test "rule.
If I take it correctly, taking the examples given in the quickstart:
"Consider, for example, a character hiding from a guard. To determine who rolls the test, consider who is the active opponent. If the guard is actively searching for the character whose simply standing in the shadows or in a wardrobe, it falls to the guard to roll the test. On the other hand, if a character attempts to sneak past an unobservant guard, the player rolls the Stealth test against the guard’s passive Awareness."
So, say the guard has awareness 2; if the guard is passive, and the character tries to sneak past him, he has to beat a difficulty 8. If the guard is actively searching for the character, the difficulty can drop to 2 (and granted increase to 12 at most). I don't find it logical. A guard who is especially looking for something should have more chances to find it that a guard simply standing watch, and here the score of the guard "unaware" is higher than the average the guard "actively looking" can hope for (7 with 2 dice).
I think I would go for opposite tests in both cases (both roll dices), adjusting it with bonuses or maluses depending on the circumstances. If the guard is bored and not paying much attention, -2, if he's on watch normally, no bonus, if he's actively looking, +2.
I'm far from a confirmed GM (or even a GM, only mastered twice in my life), so if you find that GR's rule is more logical, please explain it to me.

Another thing that surprised me: Squire Jonah doesn't have additional ranks in "Deception", yet from the rules, depetion is used for disguise. I think she should have at least 3, rather than 3 in thievery.

Finally, I hope that the campaign can be played in different time frames. It's not explicitely said how long after Robert's rebellion it is set, but I'd rather run a campaign that doesn't clash with the books at first, because people who have read the books would know the events (most of my potential players), and people who have not read them would get spoilers. And I'm not yet confident enough to write my own scenarios.

Didn't read the intrigue rules in details yet, so I won't comment on them.

[Sansa's Dad]

[quote name='Dunhallym' post='1424163' date='Jul 2 2008, 04.31']The main problem I have is the "Conflict test "rule.
If I take it correctly, taking the examples given in the quickstart:

"Consider, for example, a character hiding from a guard. To determine who rolls the test, consider who is the active opponent. If the guard is actively searching for the character whose simply standing in the shadows or in a wardrobe, it falls to the guard to roll the test. On the other hand, if a character attempts to sneak past an unobservant guard, the player rolls the Stealth test against the guard’s passive Awareness."

So, say the guard has awareness 2; if the guard is passive, and the character tries to sneak past him, he has to beat a difficulty 8. If the guard is actively searching for the character, the difficulty can drop to 2 (and granted increase to 12 at most). I don't find it logical.[/quote]
Let me see if I can assist...

If the guard is actively searching for a character that's standing still, the guard would most likely have to beat the character's passive Stealth. So if the character had a Stealth 2, the guard would need to roll at least an 8.

If you wanted to add more variables to the result, you could have the character who's going to hide make an active Stealth roll (which would result in a range of 2 to 12), then have the guard make an active Awareness roll (with the same range).

[quote name='Dunhallym']A guard who is especially looking for something should have more chances to find it that a guard simply standing watch, and here the score of the guard "unaware" is higher than the average the guard "actively looking" can hope for (7 with 2 dice).[/quote]
But if the guard is actively looking, the guard makes the roll; if the character is actively being sneaky, the character rolls. And the guard's passive score might be better than their active one...assuming the character and the guard have the same ability score. If a character has a Stealth of 3, they're going to not only have a much better chance of sneaking past an unaware guard (Difficulty 8) but the guard is going to have a much harder time finding the character, since the character's passive Stealth would be 12.

[quote name='Dunhallym']I think I would go for opposite tests in both cases (both roll dices), adjusting it with bonuses or maluses depending on the circumstances. If the guard is bored and not paying much attention, -2, if he's on watch normally, no bonus, if he's actively looking, +2.[/quote]
That's what you'd call "Narrator Fiat." ;) But I'd say if the guard is actively [b]not[/b] paying attention, then the difficulty should be set by the narrator based on the difficulty scale (probably 0 or 3) and not based on that guard's passive Awareness score. If he's actively looking, then he should test Awareness as per normal. If he's particularly adept at finding trespassers, then he should have a Notice 1 specialty so he'll have a bonus die to roll and increases his chances.

Hope that helps.

[Dunhallym]

Thanks for your answer, but it doesn't really adress my point. It seems like my question wasn't well formulated, so I'll try again.
My problem is that with the current rule, a passive guard has a better chance to find a character trying to sneak by than a guard who is actively searching for said character.

If the guard is passive, the sneaking character has to beat difficulty 8.
If the guard is active, the sneaking character has to beat a difficulty ranging between 2 and 12, with an average of 7 (<8).
So on average, it's better for the guard to be passive than actively searching, which seems rather counter-intuitive.

ETA:Rereading your answer, it's true that when the character's probability to make a score <8 becomes very low, the chances of the guard to find him if he's searching are higher than the chances of a passive guard. But since I expect an experiencedguard to have some ranking in awareness as well... I'm just not good enough in probabilities to make calculations, but it seems to me that the active guard should have more chances to find something than the passive one, whatever the ranks of the character and of the guard.

[Sansa's Dad]

[quote name='Dunhallym' post='1424503' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.21']Thanks for your answer, but it doesn't really adress my point. It seems like my question wasn't well formulated, so I'll try again.
My problem is that with the current rule, a passive guard has a better chance to find a character trying to sneak by than a guard who is actively searching for said character.[/quote]
Remember, these scenarios are only true if the character and the guard's relevant abilities are [b]exactly the same[/b]. Certainly possible, but it's much more likely that the two scores are going to be different.

[quote name='Dunhallym']If the guard is passive, the sneaking character has to beat difficulty 8.
If the guard is active, the sneaking character has to beat a difficulty ranging between 2 and 12, with an average of 7 (<8).
So on average, it's better for the guard to be passive than actively searching, which seems rather counter-intuitive.[/quote]
Actually, there are three scenarios:
If the guard is passive and the character is active, the sneaking character has to beat difficulty 8.
If the guard is active and the character is passive, the [b]guard[/b] has to beat difficulty 8.
If both are active, the guard and the character both roll and the highest result wins.

In the first instance, the guard's only function is to set the difficulty. He doesn't have a chance to find the character, the character has a chance to give themselves away. So, the chances that an active character will sneak past a passive guard are [b]the same[/b] as an active guard searching for a passive character, assuming their relevant abilities are the same. You'd expect this, since their scores are the same.

Once both are active participants, the result is entirely up to chance.

[quote name='Dunhallym']ETA:Rereading your answer, it's true that when the character's probability to make a score <8 becomes very low, the chances of the guard to find him if he's searching are higher than the chances of a passive guard. But since I expect an experienced guard to have some ranking in awareness as well... I'm just not good enough in probabilities to make calculations, but it seems to me that the active guard should have more chances to find something than the passive one, whatever the ranks of the character and of the guard.[/quote]
But we're not dealing with an experienced guard in this instance, we're talking strictly about one with an average (2) Awareness. If the guard has Awareness 3 and the character Stealth 2, the character will have a harder time actively sneaking by and the guard will have an easier time finding the passive character. The key difference here is that the guard will also have the advantage if both participants are active, since he'll be rolling three dice and the character only two.

[Dunhallym]

I was only discussing the case where the character is active.

But I think I see the other way now, which is maybe not what the rules were aiming at but what makes the most sense to me in this particular case.
You are right, the guard's presence sets the difficulty, the character has to beat it. And I think he has to beat it whether the guard is active or not. If the player bypasses this difficulty (i-e scores more than 8), and the guard is active, then the guard gets a roll to try and beat the difficulty. If the player gets less than 8, whether the guard is active or not, he fails.

[Sansa's Dad]

[quote name='Dunhallym' post='1424937' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.12']I was only discussing the case where the character is active.

But I think I see the other way now, which is maybe not what the rules were aiming at but what makes the most sense to me in this particular case.
You are right, the guard's presence sets the difficulty, the character has to beat it. And I think he has to beat it whether the guard is active or not. If the player bypasses this difficulty (i-e scores more than 8), and the guard is active, then the guard gets a roll to try and beat the difficulty. If the player gets less than 8, whether the guard is active or not, he fails.[/quote]

You can certainly play it that way, but an active guard should probably roll regardless. This ensures that even if the player rolls under an 8, they may still succeed if the guard rolls an even lower number. It's entirely possible that an active guard will have a worse result than if he weren't paying attention, but the roll represents the element of chance in the scenario and shouldn't be discarded unless you want to tilt the odds in one way or another.

Plus, if your players know the rules, they're probably going to insist upon it. ;)

[Juba]

Why in seven hells would a septa be armed with a mace, shield and crossbow? Septas are not clerics and Westeros is not the Forgotten Realms.....It is known.

There are no references to "small swords" in Westeros-short sword would suffice.

The map of the Inn at the Crossroads is wrong as well.


Those are only the mistakes I saw after a quick glance. After I have a chance to print it out and read it thoroughly, there are sure to be many and more.

They should have hired me, I would have edited that PDF for nothing......

[Jaehaerys]

Off topic, but here is the Harn adventure I wrote that I mentioned early in this thread:
[url="http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?currency=USD&it=1&products_id=56717&affiliate_id=180334"]http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info...liate_id=180334[/url]

[Ser Bryon]

Is anyone else still waiting with bated breath for this RPG to drop? After going through the GoO edition, I am still waiting for a good ASOIAF RPG to play. I sincerely hope the Green Ronin edition does not disappoint.

[Ran]

I'm certainly interested in seeing, but I admit some small concern still remains concerning the Quickstart adventure with its mace-wielding septa... Hopefully they'll heed the notes about that problem and get it sorted out.