Game of Thrones / Song Ice & Fire RPG

Zaruthustran

The tingling means it’s working!
Longtime reader re-inspired by the HBO series, so I picked up A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying from Green Ronin. It's a hardcover, and a quick read (and search of GR's forums) revealed tons of errors/errata. The system is intriguing, though, and I'd like to give it a shake.

So, what's the consensus on this system? Worth slogging through the errata? Is it well-supported with fan-made / unofficial 3rd-party adventures and such? I see GR has one adventure (and one minimodule) available. Any hope of additional official support, or something like a multi-part Adventure Path?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm having fun as a player in it, but that's more the campaign than the rules.

Combat and social combat are both subject to heavy min-maxing (I've done the latter), and the former is particularly severe because of how slow healing is. (We have a DM who won't change that.)

The DM occasionally "flubs" rules because they're hard to make out. So if you're running it, familiarize yourself with it first. Unfortunately, that takes some time.
 

Cor Azer

First Post
Longtime reader re-inspired by the HBO series, so I picked up A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying from Green Ronin. It's a hardcover, and a quick read (and search of GR's forums) revealed tons of errors/errata. The system is intriguing, though, and I'd like to give it a shake.

So, what's the consensus on this system? Worth slogging through the errata? Is it well-supported with fan-made / unofficial 3rd-party adventures and such? I see GR has one adventure (and one minimodule) available. Any hope of additional official support, or something like a multi-part Adventure Path?

Additional support is slow because, as a licensed product, there are a ton of people who need to approve everything. And unfortunately, several of them are quite busy with other things that are more important to them.

I think the system works quite well, and most of the errata, in my opinion, is typo correction or clarifications - it still works right out of the book, and it's not too much of a problem if a war lance is longer than a tourney lance by accident.

It is definitely min-max prone though; and a lot of people have trouble with the idea that you could theoretically have your starting character be the best swordsman in Westeros.

Barring just talking your players out of overdoing it, if you are running them game, the best approach is to make sure the player's face well rounded challenges so that they're encouraged to be well-rounded characters.

Game play does have a strong player-lead narrative ability in the wound, frustration and Destiny Point systems, so be sure you've got engaged players.
 

Jan van Leyden

Adventurer
Has anyone tried SoIaF with a troupe-style flavour, like that from Ars Magica?

I don't like the idea that with a mixed group of characters some of them will be next to useless in any one scene.
 

Zaruthustran

The tingling means it’s working!
That'd be my concern, Jan. Based on the min-maxability, it seems the smart play would be to have each character super-specialize. A party composed of Gregor Clegane, Littlefinger, and Melisandre. Characters that bury the needle on their particular "thing".

Hm. Actually, that sounds pretty fun. And the whole "deep specialization" thing worked well for Caramon and Raistlin.

Bummer that the approval process is apparently hobbling product support.
 

TheYeti1775

Adventurer
I'm in the middle of book 2 of the series, have the RPG book and have been watching the HBO series as well.
One of the best things is how close to the books each holds to.

The RPG can be played in any system you like, even if you add a normal D&D template to it. The world is rather richly laid out for you for the fluff.
 

Cor Azer

First Post
That'd be my concern, Jan. Based on the min-maxability, it seems the smart play would be to have each character super-specialize. A party composed of Gregor Clegane, Littlefinger, and Melisandre. Characters that bury the needle on their particular "thing".

Hm. Actually, that sounds pretty fun. And the whole "deep specialization" thing worked well for Caramon and Raistlin.

Bummer that the approval process is apparently hobbling product support.

I don't know about super-specialization. Yes, it's certainly possible - and the temptation is there - but it's also really easy to take down a character whose not prepared for either combat or intrigue. If you're Gregor Clegane, it wouldn't take much for even Bronn to outsmart you, and all though Littlefinger can talk circles around Timett son of Timett, all the Burned Men would drag him to a nasty, bloodied end.

Specialized can work, but you really need enough ability in other areas to at least get yourself out of the situation, if not actually win.
 

I don't know about super-specialization. Yes, it's certainly possible - and the temptation is there - but it's also really easy to take down a character whose not prepared for either combat or intrigue. If you're Gregor Clegane, it wouldn't take much for even Bronn to outsmart you, and all though Littlefinger can talk circles around Timett son of Timett, all the Burned Men would drag him to a nasty, bloodied end.

Specialized can work, but you really need enough ability in other areas to at least get yourself out of the situation, if not actually win.

That's why you form parties. We've discovered we only need one PC to be good at something, eg in battle our one knight can take on a whole field of bad guys who have above-average combat stats (say, much better than my character's).

Our GM has an odd way of dealing with this. In the last two sessions, we encountered named NPCs with high-levels in intrigue and combat skills. But of course, they had to split points between them.

In the first case, no direct combat of either type occurred, as murdering this guy in front of his knights was a bad idea -- our knight was wounded from being shot with many arrows -- and my social character was dismantling his scheme from away.

In the second, my character (a bluff-meister) had to go off by himself and deal with a bandit chieftain (who had lots of Intimidate and fighting ability). Since I'd cleverly infiltrated his camp, he didn't immediately start the beat down. Instead, he tried to intimidate my PC into giving up tactical information (he knew I'd been hanging out with the army previously) while I was trying to convince him that ghosts were real (yes, it made sense in context). He did pretty well, but still lost, and the GM admitted later that he only did so well due to good dice-rolling. (And then ghosts convinced his own men to kill him. That took several in-game days to set up.)

Unless you're unlucky (or pick your battles poorly), specialization gives more benefits than negatives, and even picking battles poorly doesn't seem to mean much if the whole party is together.

(A note on my character: he's a nobleman, but he's really good at disguise, and frequently pretends to be a mercenary, bandit, or whatever else is required to avoid attention or get information. He basically gave up his horse and armor because you can't carry those around in a bag! That's why he's so often away from the other PCs. I doubt that's common in most groups.)
 

Cor Azer

First Post
That's why you form parties. We've discovered we only need one PC to be good at something, eg in battle our one knight can take on a whole field of bad guys who have above-average combat stats (say, much better than my character's).

Our GM has an odd way of dealing with this. In the last two sessions, we encountered named NPCs with high-levels in intrigue and combat skills. But of course, they had to split points between them.

In the first case, no direct combat of either type occurred, as murdering this guy in front of his knights was a bad idea -- our knight was wounded from being shot with many arrows -- and my social character was dismantling his scheme from away.

In the second, my character (a bluff-meister) had to go off by himself and deal with a bandit chieftain (who had lots of Intimidate and fighting ability). Since I'd cleverly infiltrated his camp, he didn't immediately start the beat down. Instead, he tried to intimidate my PC into giving up tactical information (he knew I'd been hanging out with the army previously) while I was trying to convince him that ghosts were real (yes, it made sense in context). He did pretty well, but still lost, and the GM admitted later that he only did so well due to good dice-rolling. (And then ghosts convinced his own men to kill him. That took several in-game days to set up.)

Unless you're unlucky (or pick your battles poorly), specialization gives more benefits than negatives, and even picking battles poorly doesn't seem to mean much if the whole party is together.

(A note on my character: he's a nobleman, but he's really good at disguise, and frequently pretends to be a mercenary, bandit, or whatever else is required to avoid attention or get information. He basically gave up his horse and armor because you can't carry those around in a bag! That's why he's so often away from the other PCs. I doubt that's common in most groups.)

Huh... interesting. Perhaps I haven't seen that level of specialization take over, or maybe my players haven't been as good at it, or maybe I just run a slightly different game than your narrator. I am kind of curious to see how I handle that sort of super-specialization, because in my games, it's tended to be more hindrance than benefit.
 

ArghMark

First Post
We never actually played the game, but as we are big on Ars we decided if we did we'd troupe style it. People make their main characters as normal, and everyone has a servant or attendant for things that they themselves aren't good at, at a lower social status from either the same house or a banner house. I.E. Bodyguard for noble lady, Bastard son to intrigue as required for noble knight or what not.
 

Remove ads

Top